The Waters of Mormon

At The Movies: Nobody Knows--The Untold Story of Black Mormons

The Baron — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:09:34 GMT

Nobody Knows: The Untold Story of Black Mormons

(Comments can be left in the article itself--other LDS film articles can be found here.)

Truth: A Mathematical Model

The Baron — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:33:51 GMT

“True” and “Truth” are two of the most commonly used words within the LDS lexicon. And yet, as with most all abstract terms, they are subject to differing interpretations.

The “One True Church” is a phrase is often used and just as often misunderstood.   (Previously--gratuitous link alert!--I wrote about how the important word in “one true church” is not "one" or "true", but “church”)

Making statements that the LDS Church is “true” inherently implies that all other churches are thus “not true”. Many members get caught in the bind between making what sound to be exclusionary and offensive statements to members of other churches, and minimizing (or denying) the fundamental foundation of what the restored church of Jesus Christ claims to be.

What’s the right framework from which to understand “true” and “not true” in this context? Let’s consider two mathematical problems:

x + 4 = 8, solve for x

x = y * y where y is an integer, and x < 50: find all values of x.

In the first problem, there are a number of possible values for ‘x’—an infinite number, in fact.   X could potentially be 1 or 4 or 17 or 18598.

Of course, math tells us that only one of these possible values for x is ‘true’ or ‘correct’. Only x = 4 solves the equation x + 4 = 8 correctly, not x = 6, or x = 17, or x = 129.

Are there varying degrees of ‘wrongness’ among the incorrect answers? In math, not really. Someone may posit that if someone sincerely believes that x = 6, even if that isn’t entirely correct they are still a lot closer to the ‘true’ answer than someone else who believes x = 129. However, within mathematics closeness doesn’t really mean much. 6 is still ‘not true’, just as much as 129 is ‘not true’—degrees of ‘wrongness’ are meaningless.

In the second problem, there are also an infinite number of possible values for x. There is also one correct set of answers {1,4,9,16,25,36,49}, and any number of wrong answers.

However, because we’re working with a set of answers, the definition of ‘wrong’ is a little different here. Someone who says the answer is {1,4,8,16,28,36,49} is not ‘correct’ in the absolute sense, but still has some correct elements within.

In this context, partial correctness matters, more so than the first problem. Individually, {1}, {4}, and {16} are entirely and inarguably correct “answers” and should be recognized as such, even if the full solution remains out of their grasp.

So which is the most appropriate comparison when discussing churches and religion—the “you’re either right or you’re wrong” single answer problem, or the “set” problem, where the ‘correct’ solution is composed of a large group of ‘correct’ components, each one of which can be judged individually?

It seems obvious that the second model is the better fit: religion is not composed of one single statement of fact, but rather a collection of individual doctrinal truths which can be considered separately.

Any religion, including Satanism, has “truth” in the sense that—from an LDS perspective—it contains “true” doctrine, even if it as simple as believing in a Supreme Being, and/or that life continues in some form after death.   Nothing in LDS doctrine teaches otherwise, although this does not stop many members from using the first model anyway—that since other churches are not “the true church” they are treated as if they have no truth or value at all.

Why be more exclusionary than you need to be? Recognizing that “truth” is a large set of individual “truths” allows even the most strident, gung-ho member to recognize and appreciate the truths in other religions without diminishing their own faith.

Now the other obvious principle here is that—according to LDS doctrine—Latter-Day Saints do not have a grasp of all truth anyway.

Compare to a different mathematical problem: looking for all values of x where x is a prime number. There are an infinite number of prime numbers, so the set of “true” answers is also infinite. Many primes are easy to find and understand, but once you get into primes that are over seven digits or higher (the largest known prime is 12 million digits long) they require some major math power to find.

Since Latter-Day Saints by their own admission are constantly striving (and struggling) to find “truths” themselves to add to their mathematical solution, and the advanced answers are far beyond their mental capacity to begin with, it makes even less sense to phrase statements about “truth” in an exclusionary manner in terms of dismissing everyone else.

Everyone’s really in the same boat: we're all trying to find truths about God and about ourselves to add to our personal data sets. Recognizing that "truth" is not black and white, and that everyone has at least part of the answer helps to find common ground and build good relationships.

Functional Omnipresence and Infinite Intelligences

Eric Nielson — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 12:17:55 GMT

I do not personally believe in literal omnipresence. I believe that God has a body of flesh and bones. I believe that the spirit and the body, inseparably connected, bring a fullness of joy. I believe that God is enthroned in yonder heavens. These things seem incompatible with literal omnipresence to me.

I am not opposed to God being functionally omnipresent. In a vague, general way I believe He is functionally omnipresent. But I have not given it much thought. How could an embodied God be functionally omnipresent?

That could be where an infinite number of intelligences/spirits come in. Joseph Smith taught that whatever it is that is ultimate to us - call it intelligence - was never created nor made, nor can be. This might suggest then that the number of intelligences is fixed (since God can't make more of them). But this number must be infinite, or there would come a time when God would run out of intelligences. But what do intelligences do with their eternal past?

Now, if we can imagine an infinite space, filled with infinite intelligences, we might conceive of a condition where every event in the universe could be directly observed by an intelligence. This observation could then be communicated to God. Thus an infinite number of intelligences could eternally be the 'eyes and ears' of God, and thus allow Him to be functionally omnipresent in spite of His flesh and bone embodiment.

Thus we would have a functionally omnipresent God, and a dynamic purpose and activity for infinite intelligences to engage in.

At the Movies: Shooting Star (Heber Holiday) (D+)

The Baron — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 14:19:59 GMT

Shooting Star (Heber Holiday) (D+)

(Comments can be left in the article itself--other LDS film articles can be found here.)

Block-Hour Smackdown: Sunday School vs. Auxiliary Hour

The Baron — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 19:58:01 GMT

Online rumors persist (probably just wishful thinking by some) that someday soon the Church is going to switch to a two-hour block instead of the current three.

Obviously in such a two hour arrangement the sacrament service will remain, but members seem to disagree as to whether the cut to the current three-hour block should be the Sunday School hour, or the Auxiliary Hour (Elders' Quorum/Relief Society/Young Men/Young Women/High Priests/etc...).

Let's look at the advantages and disadvantages of each:

Keeping Sunday School

Sunday School provides direct gospel instruction, in keeping with the purpose of church meetings and of the Sabbath in the first place. For many members, Sunday School represents the only time during the entire week they will open the scriptures and study the gospel.

And even for those members who do study the scriptures on their own, Sunday School provides an opportunity to hear what other people have to say in regards to gospel questions, including personal examples from others that can greatly enrich the learning environment. Effective Sunday School teachers can provide appropriate examples and teaching moments that can greatly augment individual gospel learning. There's no comparison to personal study of the gospel versus effective group discussions of the same principles--the latter provides a much richer and fuller gospel experience.

Dumping Sunday School

Of course, the key word here is "effective". Are there a lot of good, effective Sunday School teachers in the Church today? Or merely adequate ones, who teach marginally competent lessons that students immediately forget thirty seconds after the class ends?

Teacher quality differs greatly from ward to ward, of course, but generally speaking, the "upper echelon" of faithful members who are usually given high callings in the Church, tend to be centered around the EQ and RS presidencies. Not the Sunday School presidencies, which are usually regarded as "easy" callings. ("Just make sure there's a teacher teaching the class every week...") Teacher training has not seemed to be a high priority in most of the wards I've attended.

Sunday School lessons are great for gospel instruction in theory, but are they in practice? Certainly a lot more can be done to emphasize teaching and teacher training from ward to ward, but one can certainly ask the question whether this would be more effort than it is worth. If Sunday School is not really providing a solid gospel lesson from week to week, maybe it should be the casualty in a drop from three to two hours.

(Certainly, I believe anecdotal evidence suggests if Church members end up skipping one of the three block hours to hang out in the hall and chat, it is usually the Sunday School hour, not the auxiliary hour.)

Keeping Auxiliary Hour

In contrast, as Elder Oaks suggested this past conference, one of the key purposes of Church meetings in the first place is "service"--and most of that service takes place through the auxiliaries. Having separate EQ/RS meetings allows group discussion of service opportunities, tailored to that auxiliary's needs and skills.

Furthermore, since auxiliary time also includes gospel instruction, lessons can also be tailored to demographic needs, which each segregated group hearing a lesson that is more in tune with their stage in life.

Obviously, a lesson on "temples" will be prepared and phrased much differently between Primary, Young Men, Young Women, Elders Quorum, Relief Society, and High Priest groups, simply because the temple plays a different role in the lives of each of those different groups. Isn't gospel instruction more effective when it is more carefully designed for smaller groups of like individuals, instead of being very generic?

Dumping Auxiliary Hour

Auxilary Hour as "service", however, is another idea that sounds better in theory than in practice. How much "service" or even planning of service happens during auxiliary time? Taking Elder Oaks's words at face value, one could almost make the argument that skipping Sunday School and Auxiliary Hour and standing out in the halls talking with other members is *more* in keeping with the purpose of church meetings as "service", as one is then far more likely to hear about other members' life circumstances and opportunities for true service, instead of sitting quietly listening to a lesson.

And speaking of lessons, if we're going to complain about how teaching in Sunday School is less than ideal, we would be amiss in not mentioning how teaching quality in the auxiliary time period is often times even worse. As the film "The RM" successfully satired, teaching in Elder's Quorum is decidedly hit-and-miss. (As in the film, my ward has had any number of instances in the past year where the teacher didn't show up at all, and a EQ presidency member had to muddle through a reading of the Joseph Smith manual).

The fact of the matter is the amount of time it takes to make announcements and plans for each auxiliary in terms of service opportunities does not need a full hour. About the same utility could be accomplished through a ten minute meeting after church will all the appropriate people in attendance.

And, arguably, the gospel instruction portion of the hour is redundant with Sunday School covering more or less the exact same subjects from year to year anyway. For all the advantages segregating according to gender and age might potentially bring in terms of tailoring lessons to different life circumstances, one can also argue that one can learn more from hearing from people of different ages, genders, and life circumstances in a gospel discussion anyway. In that case, maybe the auxiliary hour should be the casualty in our hypothetical drop to two hours.

Visitors

A further aspect that deserves discussion is non-member visitors who attend the block meeting. It is likely that visitors, especially those from other churches, expect a type of Sunday School time, where direct gospel study is done. The Auxiliary Hour, to a non-member, may be too insular.

Visitors who attend as a family may be more unnerved and uncomfortable by having to separate from the people they know into segregated groups filled with strangers, especially when (for example, in YM/YW) much of the auxiliary group time is spent discussing the mutual night activity later that week, which the visitor will not be attending. Having Sunday School is an easier entrance to church activity--more in keeping with pure gospel instruction--without a lot of the Mormon Culture elements that invade auxiliary meetings and are often confusing and off-putting to a non-member visitor. This would be another factor that would seem to point to keeping Sunday School.

Conclusion

Of course, I'm biased. I'm a Sunday School teacher--have been for years--so I will always vote on the side of Sunday School. I think the pure gospel instruction with men and women together is far more rewarding that anything that takes place in the Auxiliary Hour. General consensus among other members, though, seems to be against Sunday School, which I think would regrettable if it actually happens.

Is there a compromise somewhere? Certainly splitting the second hour into two half-hour blocks would be difficult to pull off--there's little enough time as it is to get people settled and have an effective lesson without having to try to do all of that in twenty minutes instead of forty. Perhaps an unbalanced schedule would work, with a hour sacrament meeting (not the current hour+), forty minute Sunday School as at present, and a fifteen minute closing section where auxiliaries can meet to discuss activities, announcements, and future plans, without the gospel instruction component. In the end, though, I'm betting there's no clear answer and we'll be seeing the three-hour block for a while, still.

Discussion: Should the Church (a) keep the current schedule through the foreseeable future, (b) eliminate Sunday School, or (c) eliminate the Auxiliary Hour, and why?

Paradox on the Sabbath

Paradox — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 06:15:59 GMT

Allow me to rant about a topic for a minute. Please forgive me if I offend you (and Kevin, please forgive my moment of hypocrisy), but I feel this has to be said. This particular explosion is in light of the fact that because it’s the 5th Sunday of the month, common practice from a bishop is assign General Conference talks to the speakers as their topics, and many bloggers have decided that this practice is beneath them.

I’m sick of people that complain that Church doesn’t measure up to their oh-so-high standards—like it’s the Church’s fault that everything doesn't happen the way these people would do it.

Does the word "responsibility" mean ANYTHING to anyone anymore?

You want to hear about where I was today? Not in Church. Do you know why? Because I have second degree burns on my feet. I was doped up on enough Percocet to be capable of nothing but sleep. I tried to read my scriptures, tried to listen to talks on Mormon Channel, and I simply couldn’t do it because I couldn’t focus. I have a headache because my system is trying to metabolize not only the Percocet, but what’s left of the morphine they gave me last night.

I missed Church. I didn’t even miss Church when I had pneumonia! I didn’t get to go to Sacrament meeting and hear the personal anecdotes, the council from the general authorities, or the scriptures that were shared today. I didn’t get to fellowship with the Saints that men like Joseph Smith died serving. I didn’t get to go to Sunday school and talk about doctrine, or ask questions, or share my experiences in order to understand them better. I didn’t get to go to Relief Society and get my instructions for how I could do a better job of taking care of my family this week. I rely on ALL of that to keep myself together, and I now have to go a week without it.

Instead of feeling sorry for myself, I called the local branch president and asked him to bring me the Sacrament and give me a blessing. I texted my friend and asked her to tell my bishopric over at the single’s branch about my condition so they (the bishopric) could be aware of my needs, as well as the reason for my absence.

If you got to go to Church today, be grateful for what you received. If you’ve done that, I applaud you. You didn't just show up and expect a free show, and this message is in no way directed at you.

If you don’t feel like you received anything, it’s because you didn’t actively take something from the institution that Christ gave His life to create, and I don’t envy you. If I can manage to get something from Church when I can’t even get to the building, what excuse do you have? Perhaps you should take a long look at how you approach the Church and the responsibility you undertook at baptism, in your sustaining vote of your bishopric, and in any other covenants you made with the Lord—if not the one upon the bread and water you took today!

This isn’t a buffet people. This is eternal life we’re talking about. Would it kill us to take it just a little more seriously?

Free Money & Free Agency

The Baron — Wed, 27 May 2009 19:15:41 GMT

Meet "David", my imaginary neighbor...

"David" got laid off from work recently, and his family is struggling. In the spirit of benevolence and charity, I decide to give David $500 in cash to help take care of his family. David and I both understand that this is a one-time gift that won't be repeated by me, nor will need to be paid back by him.

Suppose David spends $100 of that money on food...and $400 towards a new TV for his living room. Should I care how David spends the money after it leaves my hands? I probably would, considering my gift was for the stated purpose of taking care of his family and a new TV would seem to stretch that definition just a little.

However, we might also consider that:

The money is gone from my budget regardless of how David used it--how it eventually got spent has no effect on my finances at all. I gave the money in the first place knowing that it would not be paid back, therefore arguably once it leaves my hands its ultimate fate does not matter...
Since I gave cash, with no restrictions attached (nor had I any means of enforcing any such restrictions had I given them), I knew from the beginning that there was no guarantee that David would spend it on things I felt "appropriate". The possibility of misuse (however I would define that) was inherent in the gift in the first place.

Basically, after the gift has been given David has complete stewardship over it . He can spend it on his family, or on alcohol or gambling. Sure, I might be annoyed at any such misuse, but under the terms of our transaction there was nothing blocking him from spending the money any way he wants. I can naturally make note of his choice and factor that into any future decision of mine when (or if) I help his family in the future, but as far as the original transaction goes, it is out of my control.

With one David, I could probably come up with a better plan to make sure his family needs were met while limiting the possibility of misuse--buying food directly and bringing it over, for example.

If there were 10,000 "Davids" I was trying to help, however, it's not so easy. Taking the time to analyze 10,000 different families' needs to provide assistance without direct cash payments may have the unfortunate side effect of delaying necessary aid simply to try to minimize "misuse". Cash is far more fast and efficient: the responsible families can buy what they need now, rather than waiting for me to analyze, purchase, and deliver aid myself. But, of course, irresponsible families then have the agency to spend it on 'inappropriate' things.

(This isn't a completely hypothetical example. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the government decided to hand out $2000 debit cards in an effort to help those in need. Predictably, many used them appropriately while others used the cash with no strings attached to buy alcohol, visits to strip clubs, and in one case a $800 handbag. This policy received much criticism, as you might expect, although the question remains: would a more careful policy designed to limit misuse also have just delayed access to necessary aid for many? Perhaps the inevitable misuse was simply a necessary evil for the opportunity to allow those who would use the money responsibly to get what they need more quickly and easily.)

The fundamental tenet of the plan of salvation is free agency: we've been given an earthly life by God, and we have complete stewardship over what direction it goes. With that stewardship, some are responsible, and some are not. God can lament the 'misuse', of course, but the plan by design allows for misuse. In fact, it's inevitable. Sometimes, achieving the right end does not involve putting in constraints to restrict or eliminate abuse--that may, in fact, be counter-productive. Sometimes the right answer may be to put the responsibility in each individual's hands and let them decide what they are going to do.

Why are people poor? The extreme-right answer says poverty is universally caused by poor choices--if you're poor, it's entirely because of some personal "sin" or character flaw. The extreme-left answer says poverty has no relationship to personal choice at all--if you're poor, it is entirely because heartless, oppressive people above you have stolen your rightful place in society and/or blocked your opportunity to succeed.

As in most things, the true answer lies somewhere in the middle...

Let's consider, though, a more radical solution to governmental aid as proposed in a book entitled "In Our Hands". In it, the author, libertarian Charles Murray, proposes a new social plan that would eliminate virtually all forms of government assistance including welfare, Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment benefits. In its place is a $10,000 check that every citizen 21 or over would receive every year from the government with no strings attached.

This would be completely unworkable in practice, obviously, but presents an interesting idea for consideration. Under such a plan, responsibility for assistance would be--as the book title suggests--put directly into the hands of those receiving it. What would happen if you gave the general public more agency and control over the aid and services they receive from the government? What would Joe and Jane down the street spend their $10,000 on every year? Would this reduce or increase poverty? (The answer, naturally, depends on what you think the cause of poverty really is...)

Such a plan would not "end poverty" as many of the Amazon comments about the book suggest, since as with the Katrina debit cards, some people will use and invest the money wisely, others will go on drug and gambling binges every year and end up worse than before.

What such a plan would do, though, is end many of the excuses for poverty, and demonstrate fairly conclusively where along the left-right axis the truth about poverty truly lies. Is the problem of poverty caused by the poor not having enough money? Or with a "culture of poverty" in which poor choices leads to poor consequences regardless of income? With such a plan we'd find out fairly quickly what the ratio between the two factors truly is.

The eternal question of free agency: do you give people the right to choose, knowing that many of them will choose poorly, or do you make their choices for them in an effort to protect people from themselves? While Murray's plan isn't workable in real life, in reality it has already more or less been implemented on an eternal scale. God has given all the gift of mortal life (the equivalent of the free $10,000 check) and waits to see what we do with it. Like Murray's plan, it won't eliminate poor choices (far from it), but does eliminate excuses for poor choices (like "the devil made me do it"). The plan of salvation is almost literally "In Our Hands", and it is up to us to decide how the stewardship we've been given will unfold.

Faith-Promoting Hoaxes

The Baron — Tue, 19 May 2009 18:06:46 GMT

No doubt everyone is familiar with the story in Church history about how Joseph Smith prophesied an upcoming assassination attempt on U.S. President Andrew Jackson in 1836, which was then foiled?

No? The reason you probably haven’t heard this story is because of the constant efforts of the enemies of the Church—and the anti-Mormon agenda of the media--who have conspired to keep the details of the story under wraps for decades in order to deny direct evidence of Joseph Smith’s prophetic calling and ability.

Well…okay, the real reason you probably haven’t heard this story before is because I made it up.

But it’s a good story, right? Especially if you believe that Joseph Smith really was a prophet. Then, of course, even if the details aren’t entirely, you know, “accurate”, it gives people a reason to believe—a push in the right direction, right? (“Ends justify the means”, you know…)

Most Church members know anti-Church stories and arguments can have a wide range of historical truth to them ranging from “lots” to “none”. What about pro-Church—“faith-promoting”—stories that run the same range?

A few years back, my stake president told a story about a visit with some full-time missionaries where one of them told him about a discussion technique he and his companion often used that involved ancient documents that provided direct evidence for the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. Being learned in this particular area, the stake president informed them that the 'facts' presented in this element of their discussion were almost certainly not true and had little to no factual basis at all.

"Well," the missionary responded, "the *point* is, it is still a very effective technique to bringing people to the gospel..."

There are many LDS “myths” and folklore that often get passed around that are both “faith-promoting”…and “false”. (One site here explores and debunks many of them)

It’s likely that the number of Church members who deliberately share stories and information they know to be false is fairly small—but those that do probably justify themselves by saying that if the Church is true, then the means (even factually problematic means) by which to convince others of its truthfulness is still okay.

(Naturally, of course, anti-Mormon individuals and groups can use this exact same logic—if the LDS Church is not ordained of God, then factually tenuous methods of convincing people of that falseness is justified by the end result in exactly the same way.)

Most people who pass along myth and folklore, though, probably do so inadvertently. They don’t know for a fact that those stories are false (and they usually stop sharing them when they do), but don’t put a whole lot of effort into finding out at the beginning whether it was true or not before they start sharing it with others.

Why? The most simple explanation is because they want to believe it is true. It fits and supports their existing beliefs, therefore they are more inclined to accept it at face value without questioning it too deeply. (Again, anti-Mormon stories are exactly the same way—there are many who accept them without skepticism because they inherently want to believe they are true.)

It should be obvious that sharing stories that are known to be false even for the purpose of supporting something that is true, is fairly underhanded and dishonest. However, one can also ask the question whether a testimony founded on falsehoods is qualitatively different than one that is founded on truth.

Consider two active, faithful members, one of which says he believes Joseph Smith is a prophet because he’s prayed about it AND he’s read the Book of Mormon and doesn’t believe a 21 year old farmer with an 8th-grade education could have written it himself, especially under the circumstances given in the historical record. And the other of which says he believes Joseph Smith is a prophet because he’s prayed about it AND he’s heard the story about Joseph Smith saving Andrew Jackson from assassination and it convinced him that Joseph Smith had the spirit of prophesy with him.

The obvious difference is that, like the house built on rock versus the house built on sand, one foundation seems to be stronger than the other. When the second person finds out eventually that that story that he was basing his testimony on happens to be false, that might raise any number of questions about everything else he’s heard in the Church, even about stuff that does have a more of a factual foundation. Sharing a false story as a means of promoting faith creates in essence a ticking time bomb, that when it goes off there’s no telling how much damage it will do to the faith of the individual.

One problem, though: it’s not inevitable that such a ‘time bomb’ will ever go off at all. There’s no guarantee that any member who believes in a faith-promoting hoax will eventually encounter the real truth.

Suppose that person goes through their entire life without finding out that the story which formed the foundation of his/her conversion is false? In that case, how would you qualitatively compare their testimony to someone with a different foundation? Would there really be a difference at all, in practice (assuming they are both active and faithful in all outer gospel practice)? After all, the house built on the sand only fell down when the winds and the rains came. If due to luck and circumstance, the wind and the rain never actually come for certain locations, is there really a difference between the two houses in the end?

This isn’t to argue the end really does justify the means, only that you can see how the practice of sharing LDS folklore and myth for the purpose of encouraging Church practice and conversion can continue, without caring too much about fact and accuracy. ("If it's not 100% true, so what? It gets them to come to church regardless, after which they'll--hopefully--have a host of other spiritual experiences to bolster their testimony even if they find out later what I told them isn't entirely accurate...")

Are there more than a few members who could talk themselves into such practices with the above logic? I think so. But, of course, they would think it was morally reprehensible if the "anti-'s" did the exact same thing...

So the Star Trek I Used to Know....Never Existed?! (Spoilers)

Eric Nielson — Mon, 11 May 2009 02:09:41 GMT

So I saw the new Star Trek movie the other night. My wife is a Star Trek nut, and a bit of a 'purist', so I took her to the movie for Mother's Day Eve.

The basic plot of the movie is that a Romulon group travel back in time to destroy the planet Vulcan and gain revenge on Spock. In doing so, they change the destiny of the original Star Trek Heros. Many movies that do this make an effort to have things be 'fixed' so that the 'future' goes back to normal - or mostly normal.

It didn't happen in this movie. Nope the destiny of our heroes are permanently changed. So if I am understanding right, all those television episodes, all those movies, never happened. I have not broken out 'Wrath of Khan' to see if there is anything on the tape anymore.

Now, I know this is just a movie, but I think Star Trek purists like my wife should be pretty upset. This screws up everything.

I also am not on board with this kind of time travel for theological reasons. There is a point in the movie wher old Spock actually has a conversation with young Spock. This seems to violate conservation of mass and energy, and second law of thermodynamics. It also seems to violate my theology. What happened to Spocks spirit during this time? Is there eternally two 'Spock' spirits now?

The movie is certainly action packed, with great special effects. But it renders all other Star Trek stories null and void, and messes with my belief that time travel is not how God operates.

A Paradoxical Mother's Day

Paradox — Sun, 10 May 2009 23:24:01 GMT

(I gave the talk in the singles ward today. Normally I post my talks on my personal blog, but I decided to make an exception for today. Enjoy)

As an English teaching major, one of my favorite things in life is learning to appreciate and use the power of language. I view words and vocabulary as vessels that serve the purpose of literally holding spirit, whose exchange is powerful and sacred. I spend my life combining them, exploring their depths and precise shapes in order to understand the full and honest meaning of the oil they’re meant to hold, and it’s a talent with which I’m glad to be blessed.

I came to a discovery of two words recently that have long impressed me with their depth and complexity. Their ornate and masterful craftsmanship comes from their universal and eternal nature. Thousands of years, countless cultures and their history, have contributed unique and heartfelt loveliness to these two words. The best that mankind has ever had to offer can be summed up in both of these words. I felt impressed to talk about one of them as my topic, but found it to be inseparably married to the second word.

The first word is Family. The second word is Home.

My family isn’t exactly what you would call functional, and I grew up never knowing the safety and security, the peace and love that so many in this Church take for granted. What brought me into the church was the powerful love of God that, because of the spirit, exists wherever there is truth. At long last, I had found a place for my tired, broken, harrowed spirit—the closest thing to a home I had ever had.

Home…

Because I had the church, I had an opportunity to explore that word for the first time. I could bask in the warm glow of that one word’s oil for hours, eagerly awaiting the next opportunity to go to Church and feel it again. Three hour meetings weren’t long enough to feed the hunger of my soul, the desire for more oil to fill this new word of mine. Time passed, and the day came when I finally had enough oil to keep my life well-lit after years of knowing only darkness.

But when my light grew bright enough, I could also see a new word that brought me sorrow every time I looked at it. Family; a word just as large and essential as Home, but I had let it become a very sad and dirty word by how much I had neglected it. I would peer into its dry depths and think to myself, “How am I supposed to fill this and make this better all by myself? I can’t do this. How am I supposed to live with that disappointment?” And so my division between Home and Family was set into place.

Brothers and sisters, I tell you this story because this mistake can happen to ANYONE. I’ll even venture to say that it can happen to those of you in this room who least expect it, and my heart goes out to any of you that struggle to live by the light of one vessel where we were designed to have two. It’s a pain and grief unlike any other, and we have been warned to be watchful and prudent in all that we do to keep the bond between home and family strong enough to protect us from that pain.

In Moses, we read of the first mortal family of Adam and Eve—their respective, yet equally important responsibilities that required them to depend upon each other in order to start their family and create a home. In Moses 5, verses 1 and 2 we see the model of unity the Lord intends for his children. And it came to pass that after I, the Lord God, had driven them out, that Adam began to till the earth, and to have dominion over all the beasts of the field, and to eat his bread by the sweat of his brow, as I the Lord had commanded him. And Eve, also, his wife, did labor with him. And Adam knew his wife, and she bare unto him sons and daughters, and they began to multiply and to replenish the earth.

Let me emphasize; only by working together can families be established in righteousness, thereby creating a home that enjoys the fullest happiness Heavenly Father can bestow. Just as families do not exist with one person doing all the work, a home cannot be built through one person’s labors. Even the Lord does nothing alone.

I’ll admit now that I spent years feeling frustrated at the division of my situation because I was so focused on my own hurt, I fell for a division that never should have existed in the first place. Only after turning to the wisdom and council of the prophets did I understand my mistake. Elder Russell M. Nelson teaches that:
“In God’s eternal plan, salvation is an individual matter; exaltation is a family matter.” In my mind, this used to be a really depressing thought because I found it hard to imagine that my family would ever accept the gospel, even though I have every reason to believe in and hope for such a blessing. I tried to throw myself into the Church, telling myself that being surrounded by that Spirit and the people who brought it there would always be enough.

The only thing wrong with that idea is that it isn’t true. The First Presidency issued a letter in February of 1999 with a statement that read:
“The home is the basis of a righteous life, and no other instrumentality can take its place or fulfill its essential functions in carrying forward this God-given responsibility.”

From my experience, I testify that this includes the Church itself. The Church is not a hiding place from life and its problems—at least, not permanently. Especially when it comes to families, we have a responsibility to seek for the healing powers of the Spirit to deal with our challenges, then get back to work serving and building our family relationships—always having Home as our objective.

That can be hard to see when we’re in more of a position like Abraham’s—fleeing from evil, traveling, maybe even wandering, from place to place looking for somewhere to call home in the mean time. When you focus on the fact that his father tried to kill him, his situation sounds miserable. Consider also the fact that he had to face the commandment to kill his son Isaac, and this story looks about as unfair as it gets.

President John Taylor once counseled, “it is necessary that we pass through certain ordeals, and that we be tried. But why is it that we should be tried? There is just the same necessity for it now that there was in former times. I heard the Prophet Joseph say, in speaking to the Twelve on one occasion: ‘You will have all kinds of trials to pass through. And it is quite as necessary for you to be tried as it was for Abraham and other men of God, and (said he) God will feel after you, and He will take hold of you and wrench your very heart strings, and if you cannot stand it you will not be fit for an inheritance in the Celestial Kingdom of God.’ Some people have wondered why so many of the Twelve fell away. God tries people according to the position they occupy.”

So what is needed in times of adversity, especially when Satan’s target is our family, is a change of perspective. We see in John Taylor’s statement the idea that God will try the Priesthood according to the positions they occupy, but we are also tried according to the position within the family that we hold. Elder Nelson also teaches that:
“The final responsibility to prepare for salvation and exaltation rests upon each person, accountable for individual agency, acting in one’s own family, bearing another sacred title of mother, father, daughter, son, grandmother, or grandfather.” Until recently, I didn’t realize that my position as a daughter within my particular family was so important as to be considered sacred. When I look at it properly, it makes sense that Satan would make the building of a strong, united, loving family so difficult to do, especially when he has had control over them for so long.

And now that I’m in a position to see better, I not only see that Heavenly Father loves His children, but I know what that means, and I know what it looks like when He bestows His peace, His love, upon families and homes.

It looks like Abraham’s trust in taking what family he has left, fleeing from Haran, and believing that eternity would be their covering as they dwelled in the tents that became their homes until they reached the Promised Land.

It’s the image immediately after Christ’s ascension in Acts 1, where the apostles AND Christ’s mortal family are praying together—symbolically and literally united; just like Christ would have wanted.

The scriptures are full of what might be labeled today as non-traditional families, families that go through changes of all kinds, and I’m sure that there are those in this room who can appreciate that because they’ve seen their share. But it can be so crippling to allow yourself to feel alienated or inadequate if your family isn’t perfect. We can do nothing alone, and if our families have a lot to work on, it isn’t our fault, and we can’t fix it by ourselves. Heavenly Father will be displeased if you exhaust yourself physically and spiritually, to the point of near apostasy, if you try to go through these challenges alone.

Also understand that sometimes, part of our responsibility to our families and to the Lord will be to leave our families for a season. Even if you are the only source of spiritual strength to them, know that the Lord loves all of His children, and He will take care of them. As it says in Luke 9: And another also said, Lord, I will follow thee; but let me first go bid them farewell, which are at home at my house. And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.

If you endure the season of planting, always seeking the timetable and the will of the Lord in all things, your family will be gathered around you once again at the harvest. I’ve seen it in my own life, and I know that “the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.”

If it wasn’t for all that I’ve been through with my family, for the sake of one day having a home with them, I never would have had the love and appreciation that I do for them right now. Knowing that, I’d willing do it a thousand times over because for the first time, there is oil in both of my lamps. Seeing the happiness that those drops have brought, I promise you that no other investment can provide such great returns.

Fill your vessels drop by loyal, obedient drop, and I testify that you will have the light of home and family to be with you once again. This Mother’s Day, I pray we all will remember what is most important in life. Our mothers have created families that can last forever. May we always support them with our every effort, no matter what our circumstances—always using what we’ve learned because of those circumstances to do so. In the name of Jesus Christ, AMEN.

Paradoxes in the Church

The Baron — Wed, 06 May 2009 14:19:28 GMT

No, not "Paradox", our young and brilliant contributor, but actual paradoxes—where two contradictory ideas are entwined together within LDS policy and culture.

It’s okay to be single, except it’s better to be married.

At least once a year the Ensign publishes an article about how being single still means you are a quality person and a loved child of God. That’s all true, of course, but why would there be a need for such articles in the first place?

Well, duh—church teachings are based on and aimed toward married families. The doctrine about the destiny of eternal families is fairly clear and specific, and singles aren’t included (not without the hope of being part of a married family in the future). Being single in this context means you’re incomplete within the Church, and it’s not a surprise that being single leads many members to feelings of isolation, depression and low self-esteem.   The focus of Church doctrine, policy, and teachings has been and always will be based on the married with children ideal, because that’s the foundation of the plan of salvation.

So, how do you emphasize the importance of families without alienating those without families? Well…you can’t. That’s the paradox.

It’s a no win situation—you can't maintain being married is "better" without simultaneously saying that being single is therefore "worse".    You can’t abandon single Saints who have great worth and value in the Church, and have a lot to offer. But you can’t pretend that being single is ‘just as good’ as being married when everyone can see in doctrine and practice that it’s not true. You can’t say that being married is an important step in spiritual progression in God’s plan and then hope that singles don’t notice that you just said that they’re…lacking in important spiritual progression.

Balancing the need to be inclusive when there are fundamental differences between being single and married is one of the difficult paradoxes to navigate in the Church.

Sins can be forgiven, but don’t commit them anyway.

Another classic paradox, and another no-win situation. Do you try to keep people away from sin using harsh rhetoric such as “an abomination in God’s sight”, or “becoming a captive of the devil”?   For some, that will encourage (read: scare) people into staying on the true and narrow…but at the same time, those who have sinned will feel unworthy of God’s love and be discouraged from the saving doctrines of repentance and the atonement.

But…if you emphasize mercy, forgiveness, repentance and the cleansing power of the Atonement, those ‘prodigal sons’ will be encouraged to return, but at the same time for others it will create a casual, shrug-your-shoulders, ‘eh, I can just repent later’ attitude about sinning in the first place.

How do you balance the seriousness of sin with the availability of repentance and forgiveness? Emphasizing one seems to diminish the other—each way pushes a certain class of people in the church towards an undesirable extreme.

We should not be judgmental, while still keeping firm standards and encouraging personal responsibility.

As Kent has recently noted, there is a trend in the Church about charity implying that:

“the target of compassion must deserve the compassion somehow. We see floods of compassion for the victims of natural disasters, for those who become ill with diseases that strike at random, and we willingly dig into our pockets to help, believing that they deserve help.

But in cases where the person suffering brought the problem on themselves, or shares some responsibility for what happened to them, too often the response is far from compassionate, and many people even launch vicious criticisms because of the perceived sins of those that suffer.

But, of course, on the other hand…

It is also true that we need to promote personal responsibility, even if the only wrong is what was done to the person who committed the wrong. Justice demands that everyone suffer the consequences of their actions. And there are consequences, even for sins in which “no one is hurt.”

So…since many circumstances that require compassion and service involve some extent of personal culpability with the person requiring the service, how do you withhold judgment and show compassion without encouraging like behavior and discouraging personal responsibility at the same time?

Good question! These are another pair of ideas that push in completely opposite directions.

Compassion and service can provide a reverse-incentive to change. But the responsibility for compassion and service in the first place is not predicated on change. But…without change, there’s likely just going to be the need for *more* compassion and service in the future as the problems continue, leading to a never-ending cycle. So what do you do?

Virtually all faithful Latter-Day Saints will encounter this problem some time in their personal dealings—how do you love the sinner without at the same time excusing the sin even in small ways? How do you find the balance between justice and mercy—compassion and accountability?

Husbands and wives are equal partners in their marriage…but men still “preside”.

So...both halves of a married couple are equal, but one half is more equal than the other?

While the other paradoxes involve finding the tricky middle ground between two extremes that pull in opposite directions, this one may just be a straight-forward contradiction.

At a recent stake conference, a member of our stake presidency raised this exact question, and then attempted to explain this paradox by showing from the scriptures how man is divinely determined to “rule” (in a benevolent, righteous fashion, of course) over his family. If that lesson sounds like it didn’t exactly answer the question of how wives are equal partners in their marriage despite the husband being the ‘ruler’…you’re right.

If men are called to “lead”, “rule” and/or “preside” over the family, then by definition the relationship is not equal. And if they truly are not equal, then why not just say so, without trying to cloud the issue through grafted-on, nice-sounding rhetoric about equal partners.

Or, on the other hand, if husbands and wives really are equal partners, then why introduce the abstract concept of "presiding" in the first place?

Actually, maybe we’d better stick with the other three paradoxes, because this one may be the most unsolvable of them all…

At The Movies: The X-Men Series As Allegory

The Baron — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 19:44:24 GMT

[Previous looks at comic-book movies from a gospel perspective: Superman | Batman]

When X-Men reached theaters in 2000—followed by sequels in 2003 and 2006—it was unique among the other recent modern comic-book movie adaptations for a number of reasons:

1) X-Men was the first true ensemble comic book to make it to movie screens (assuming you don’t count Batman AND Robin) with a variety of different characters instead of one primary ‘hero’.

2) X-Men's unique approach to ‘realism’.

Now, ‘realism’ within the X-Men universe is certainly not in terms of mutant powers themselves, virtually all of which require the usual comic book suspension of disbelief. Certain mutations such as super-fast healing (Wolverine) and hardened skin (Colossus) may have some theoretical possibility in real life, but a genetic mutation that allows someone to…control the weather? I don’t think so. (Not to mention some mutant powers--Cyclops and Mystique in particular--casually violate the laws of physics regarding the creation of matter and energy)

Rather, X-Men’s ‘realism’ comes from incorporating real-world issues into the environment in which the battles between good mutants, bad mutants, and humans take place—that is, it asks the question *IF* mutants really existed in modern human society, what would happen? How would society accept them?

The X-Men movies suggest the answer to this last question is: not very well. Contrary to the public acceptance that Superman and Spiderman have generally been shown to receive, the mutants of the X-Men universe have a much more difficult time attaining public acceptance of their right to exist. (One important difference is that Superman and Spiderman have secret identities—reaction of the neighbors might be different if they lived openly with their special powers…)

In allegory form, society’s struggle to accept the existence of mutants in the X-Men universe can be legitimately compared to the plight of any real-world isolated and oppressed minority throughout history: blacks, Jews, gays, communists, even Mormons.

While the X-Men movies contain many direct references to anti-communist ideology from the McCarthy era of US history, the focus of X-Men allegory has been deliberately designed to evoke gays as the primary comparison to mutants, due in no small part to the influence of director Bryan Singer, and star Ian McKellan (Magneto).

As homosexuality and gay rights continue to be hot topics (and with the new X-Men: Wolverine movie about to be released) let’s analyze how the X-Men series of movies deals with the subject, and what we can learn.

“Homophobia” vs. “Mutant-phobia”

As noted previously, the word “homophobia” is an over-used cliché, utilized to demean and dismiss anyone who does not support any aspect of the gay agenda, including questioning the need for legalized gay marriage. And yet, this does not mean that true ‘homophobia’ (as in the literal ‘fear of gays’) does not exist. The use of mutants in X-Men as an allegory for gays plays into that fear, and shows by way of comparison that regardless of one’s stance on gay marriage or other policy issues, true ‘homophobia’ is fairly ridiculous.

By their very existence, mutants in the X-Men series present legitimate reasons to be afraid. If you knew there were mutants that could read (or control) your mind (Dr. X), teleport into your house regardless of locks or security (Nightcrawler), or pretend to be you or someone close to you to such an exact extent that the fingerprints matched (Mystique), these present situations that would be genuinely and understandably feared by a lot of people.

If you lived next door to Nightcrawler, for example, it wouldn’t matter if you believed he was the type of person who *would* sneak into your house uninvited, you could still be unsettled by the fact that he *could* at any time—and you would have absolutely no way of protecting yourself. Thus the literal fear of mutants, and such fear would be difficult to dispel without extreme means.

“Here's a girl in Illinois who can walk through walls,” says Senator Kelly in the first movie, urging for more legal action against mutants, “Now what's to stop her from walking into a bank vault, or the White House, or [people’s] houses? … I think the American people deserve the right to decide if they want their children to be in school with mutants. To be taught by mutants! … We must know who they are, and above all, what they can do!”

With the reality of mutant abilities, and the genuine risk to personal privacy and security they present, it’s easy to see why “mutant registration” laws would be a popular idea—no different in principle than modern laws for sex offender registration. The average person may not truly care if mutants live around them, but they would still at least want to know if there were, right?

In contrast to people who could genuine violate your home and security at a moment’s notice, though, gays are people who…are attracted to people of the same gender. Oooh…scary! Compared to the alternate class of humanity represented by mutants, true ‘homophobia’—literally fearing being around or being exposed to gays--seems pretty silly by comparison.

Humans vs. Mutants

The X-Men movies present a strict dichotomy between “humans” and “mutants”: there are only two groups, and (despite the obvious diversity of genetic abilities from one mutant to another) each person is either one or the other.

Furthermore, mutants seemingly are mutants from the time they are born, without any apparent origin stories similar to Spiderman, for example, where mutations occur due to exposure to radiation or other catalysts after birth. Even in cases where mutant powers take years to manifest themselves, they are presented in X-Men as being genetically destined from birth for all those affected, without possibility of change.

While the human/mutant dichotomy is thus presented as black-and-white, one-or-the-other, no such easily definable division exists in the real world for sexual orientation. While there are still many that hold to the “hard-wired” theory of sexuality—that sexual orientation is binary, and set in stone from the time one is born without ever changing—and some evidence from the films that we are meant to take the inference through parable that sexual orientation is the same “are you, or aren’t you?” issue as mutations, virtually all evidence about human sexuality suggests the truth is much more complex. This seems to be one area where the ‘mutants = gays’ paradigm is a weak fit.

In the 40’s, scientist Alfred Kinsey through his research into human sexuality, devised a scale from 0 to 6 showing the various levels of sexual orientation of men (and women) from opposite-sex-only to same-sex-only with every mixed preference in between. He stated himself that:

Males [and females] do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories... The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects.

If anything, Kinsey’s research and techniques have come under scrutiny and criticism in the decades since for being TOO simplistic in their categorization, with the common belief among modern researchers that human sexuality is even more complex and varied than even Kinsey suggested.

Past and present research--and current observational evidence--points toward human sexuality neither being ‘one or the other’ nor being constant either, as people’s sexual preferences change over time and can be affected by a variety of factors such as genetic predisposition, environmental influence, psychological factors including past and present relationships, as well as personal curiosity and experimentation.

There’s no equivalent for “bisexuality” (or “bi-curiousness”) in the X-Men universe, for example. You’re either a mutant or you’re not. And it is in this context that the comparison of mutants vs. gays begins to break down. (What is “bi-curiousness”, if not a direct admission that curiosity plays a part in shaping human sexuality?)

Part of the difficulty is the lack of a basic definition in the first place: what does it mean to be ‘gay’? Is it just those 6’s on the Kinsey scale? Or anything higher than 3? Or is it “if you say you are, then you are”?

It’s virtually impossible to compose a sentence that is true for all people currently identified as gay and false for all people who are not. Just having a same-gender sexual experience during your life doesn’t mean you are, and just having an opposite-gender experience during your life doesn’t mean you’re not.

In X2, there is a ‘coming out ‘ moment as Bobby (Iceman) comes home to visit his family. “Have you tried…not being a mutant?” his mom asks.

The question is deliberately designed to sound awkward, echoing the idea that sexual orientation, like mutation, is static and fixed—no nuance or complexity involved.

However, even within the context of the film, Bobby’s mom is asking the wrong question. What if she had asked, “Have you tried…not using your mutant powers?” That’s no longer an awkward question, and one more on point.

Bobby, in comparison with many of the other mutants, both appears ‘normal’ and seems to have the ability to control the use of his powers at any time. Given that the possibility is there for him to ‘fit in’ into normal human society if he wanted to, asking the question whether he can (or will) is directly relevant.

Using mutations as an analog to homosexuality depends entirely on the definition of ‘homosexuality’ in the first place. Is it based on ‘identity’ or ‘action’? There’s a big difference between asking someone whether they can stop being attracted to same-gender people, and whether they can choose not to participate in sexual encounters with same-gender people.

There’s still an easy argument that Bobby shouldn’t have to hide his power from humanity, even if he could. Elsewhere in the film, Nightcrawler asks essentially the same question to Mystique—who, like Iceman, could fit in into normal society any time she wanted to. So, why doesn’t she, then?

“Because I shouldn’t *have* to” is her direct--and logical--response. X2 would have been braver (and more effective) if it had approached the scene between Bobby and his family in a similarly direct manner, without casually dismissing the important questions with awkward dialogue that has many easy rebuttals.

Mutant “Cures”

The third X-Men movie “X3” adds a new twist to the mutants/gays paradigm—the idea of a “mutant cure” that allows mutants to become normal humans. (Given the wide variety of mutations, it’s not likely one cure would ever work on all mutants…but whatever. Dramatic license.)

The idea of a purely biological cause of same-sex attraction is a two-edged sword. Gays primarily embrace solely biological explanations for SSA as a shield against assertions that homosexual attraction and behavior is a choice and can be controlled. However, accepting a purely biological cause opens the door for a biological solution—what if homosexuality could be ‘cured’, as with mutations in the third X-Men movie?

If it were possible to identify specific genes, hormonal imbalances, or some other specific biological cause of same-sex attraction, wouldn’t a biological solution to changing that same-sex attraction be not only possible, but inevitable? And if one existed, would it be proper and ethical to provide and partake of that solution? Would it be appropriate, say, to screen for ‘gay genes’ before birth, and have them modified?

The answer to these questions may largely depend on the person—whether one views SSA as a ‘bug’ or a ‘feature’.

Faithful Latter-Day Saints who currently struggle with SSA would likely be among the first to at least consider a ‘cure’ for homosexuality similar to X3’s mutant cure, if one existed. Why not, if it allows them to fully pursue their eternal goals within the Plan of Salvation without a significant roadblock in their path?

X3 presents a direct analogy to this situation in the case of Rogue, who throughout the series is shown to be one of the most disadvantaged of the mutants. She has no control over her power which activates any time physical contact occurs, effectively blocking her off from all human contact forever. Unlike many of the other mutants, she can list many obvious ways in which her power prevents her from achieving happiness and contentment in her life. If a ‘cure’ was truly available, why wouldn’t she consider being first in line?

On the other hand, it is certain many within the gay community would find the idea of ‘curing’ SSA an affront, as with some in the deaf community who frown upon those who use modern technology to augment their hearing in lieu of appreciating their body’s unique ‘feature’.

Given the wide variety of factors that influence an individual’s sexual orientation, it’s not likely that a ‘cure’ for homosexuality will be found any time soon. But if there is, it will certainly raise a wide range of moral and ethical questions related to its application, much like X3’s mutant cure. Some would undoubtedly be first in line, like Rogue, and others would find curing something that is an inherent part of their identity personally offensive.

Conclusion

As with all allegories, there isn’t a perfect fit between gays and mutants as portrayed in the X-Men series of movies, but it is close enough to spark discussion. Even if the details don’t quite line up, the movies still present an easy case for tolerance and judging by the individual not the group. Saying “all mutants are evil” is just as much an incorrect and unhelpful stereotype as saying “all gay men are child molesters”. The ultimate cause of the varying levels of same-sex attraction across humanity may always be unclear, but since--like mutants--gays exist and are a part of human society, the rest of humanity will eventually have to come to terms and decide for themselves how they are going to react.

Why Men Don't Want Polygamy

The Baron — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:04:15 GMT

When discussions of polygamy arise, most people seem to be clear on two things:

Polygamy oppresses women
Polygamy is men’s wildest dream come true.

Allow me to anoint myself the representative for all mankind (literally, ‘man’-kind), and tell you something that may shock and surprise you: men don’t want polygamy.

Let’s imagine two hypothetical men, whom we’ll label the “Good” man and the “Bad” man.

The Good man is just that: good, decent, and righteous. He treats women, especially his wife, with love and respect. He takes seriously his marital covenants and responsibilities. He makes sure he always treats his wife well, and that her physical and emotional needs are met.   The Good man knows that successful marriages require compromise and that happy family life will often require him to sacrifice personal needs and desires for the sake of his wife and children. Marriage can be a struggle sometimes, but the Good man is willing to put in his time and effort to make sure the entire family is content, year after year.

Why would the Good man want polygamy? If having one wife means a lot of work, responsibility, and sacrifice for him, doesn’t having two wives mean having just about twice as much of the same? Sure, marriage brings with it the joy of companionship...but he already has that with one wife. Having two (or more) wives means he’s now responsible for handling potentially tricky communication issues with two (or more) people rather than one. Since he cares about his marital responsibilities, he now has to make sure his time is adequately split, such that neither wife feels neglected or distanced.

And (presuming each wife would naturally want her own biological children), the number of children he must be a good and proper father for, also increases. Since the Good man would never divorce or abandon his wives, this commitment and responsibility will be there for him for decades. What’s the attraction of polygamy, again?

On the other hand, the Bad man has only one use for women in general—and that use starts with ‘s’ and ends with ‘x’. Women exist purely to satisfy his physical needs, and he has no desire for anything that involves the word ‘commitment’. Marriage is a yoke that binds him to responsibilities that take away from his freedom. Sure, marriage can bring sex…but he can get that without marriage, too—where he has all of the blessings and none of the responsibilities.

The Bad man knows that between pornography, prostitution, strip clubs, and any number of other women who seem willing to provide sexual companionship without any commitment in return, there are no shortage of women who are available in some medium or another to satiate his lusts.   And all it usually takes is a few bucks, with no long-term commitment required. Certainly, he’s not required to bind himself to any one particular woman for decades. If, after a period of time, the current object of his affection ages and her attractiveness dims, he can just go on to the next younger model, like trading in an old car. Due to the nature of their ‘transaction’, he has no responsibility for any of those women in his past—they served their purpose, and he has now moved on.

So, why would the Bad man want polygamy? Why would he want to be responsible for taking care of multiple women for many years, when every single attraction to the ‘natural man’ that polygamy supposedly provides can be obtained without binding himself with responsibilities at all?

For all the recent controversy about the HBO polygamy show “Big Love” involving temple covenants, the more interesting issue is how polygamy is portrayed itself.   In its original review, USA Today found "Big Love" to be “dull and unengaging”:

From what I can tell, the goal of Love is to prove that life can be just as mundane, colorless and boring with three spouses as it can with one or none. Mission accomplished.

A more pointed analysis from Slate magazine (emphasis mine):

The really surprising thing about the series is not how steamy and illicit the populous Hendrickson ménage is but how little heat it gives off—how downright tedious it manages to make polygamy seem. [Bill] Paxton's amiable and hardworking Bill Hendrickson is permanently put-upon; when he's not overseeing his thriving home-improvement business (note the line of work he's in), he is at the beck and call of his demanding spouses.
...
The show's setup has the strange effect of inverting the terms of the unreconstructed patriarchal paradigm that the sexual politics of polygamy plays to. In Big Love's hands, the harem fantasy so beloved of hot-blooded males turns out to be one long harem nightmare; what might have been a thrilling exposé of the excessive and the aberrant turns out to be a familiar tale of the domestic fatigue that has assailed the lives of couples ever since Adam hooked up with Eve (whose turn it is to do the dishes/buy the groceries/have sex tonight), times three.
...
The result is that polygamy never looked worse than it does here, suggesting not an end to the humdrum rhythms of marital life but an alarming extension of them.

Well. Gee. Hmmm. Did it occur to either of these writers that this is exactly what real-life polygamy would be like? What’s the attraction for men of any stripe, here?

The ugly truth is that society already has de facto polygamy—has for years. No one blinks an eye when a man in popular society is found to have cheated on his wife with another woman, let alone more ‘minor’ forms of adultery involving pornography. There doesn’t seem to be any shortage of women who are content to be the mistress to a married man without any commitment, and we’re supposed to believe that adding a marriage covenant to the picture—where the man does his part to provide a formal bond of support and security even after the initial sexual attraction has faded—somehow makes that woman’s position worse?

Men don’t want polygamy. The ‘good’ men don’t want the extra responsibilities, especially when the benefit to them is fairly small. The ‘bad’ men don’t want the extra commitments, especially when they can get what they are looking for easily enough without them.

(Both of the above reviews note--without exploring the irony--that "Big Love" was originally paired with the now-ended "Sopranos" series on HBO. If you're a man, which situation would you rather be in: Bill Paxton with three wives, or Tony Soprano with one wife and a series of interchangeable--and disposable--mistresses? If you're a woman, which situation would *you* rather be in?)

If there ever is to be a serious discussion about polygamy in this country it needs to focus on the reality of polygamy, not the 'theory'. Most men don’t want polygamy. Some women *might* want polygamy, if only because from a pure self-interest standpoint they’d be significantly better off than what many willingly accept for themselves now in their one-sided relationships with men.

The Prophetic Burden

The Baron — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 21:35:52 GMT

It seems obvious it would be very difficult to be a prophet...so much so that I doubt anyone who thinks seriously about it would ever aspire to be one.

The burden of example is a big one right at the beginning. The prophetic mantle comes with the expectation of personal perfection...without the benefit of actually BEING perfect. A prophet is expected to be a perfect example of Christ-like behavior in every way, and he knows that every word and action will be reported and analyzed by those inside and outside of the Church. Any mistake or imperfection has to potential to create “crises of faith” for believers, and fodder for anti-Church types possibly for generations. Every word he speaks must be carefully thought out beforehand, for he knows that, again, many inside and outside the Church treat each sentence as prophetic inspiration from God (whether it is or not) to be either followed or attacked.

Reading the words of ancient and modern prophets, one can often notice how straight-forward, blunt, and black-and-white many statements seem, often to the point of sounding harsh and unforgiving. Many pronouncements of doctrine from the writings of Joseph F. Smith, Harold B. Lee, or Spencer W. Kimball (just to name a few) will contain clear, bold statements of what is 'right' and 'wrong', seemingly without any gray area in between.

Of course, people love to find gray areas, and amateur philosophers have been outlining "But, what about...?" situations for years based on various Church statements. Yet, in many cases, official statements and doctrinal pronouncements seem to ignore any such gray area, often leading to criticism of said Church leaders for being too black-and-white, and 'out of touch' with the complex situations we might find ourselves in.

My thought is: what choice do they have?

Prophets are not naive or stupid. On the contrary, they have, in modern times, a large wealth of life experiences (read: they're old...) and while they might not keep track of popular culture as well as modern teens might, I don't buy the 'out of touch' argument. I believe they have enough experience, and pay enough attention to modern society, to understand on most levels the complex situations that men and women face today.

Yet, here's the problem, exemplified by Mormon's complaint in Moroni 9:

“Behold, I am laboring with them continually; and when I speak the word of God with sharpness they tremble and anger against me; and when I use no sharpness they harden their hearts against it.”

Under the 'give-an-inch-and-they'll-take-a-mile' philosophy, prophets undoubtedly know that a softer, more nuanced approach to proclaiming gospel principles would be appreciated by some, certainly, but would also result in more people taking those principles lightly since they aren't being emphasized as clearly and directly as before.

Prophets are in a bind, essentially: Emphasize the doctrines plainly and harshly with no gray, and you’ll offend people…or, discuss the doctrines ‘grayly’ and softly and people will tune it out and be less likely to follow.

Take Alma explaining the significance of the law of chastity to his son Corianton, for example (Alma 39: 5-9):

Know ye not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?
…
And now, my son, I would to God that ye had not been guilty of so great a crime. I would not dwell upon your crimes, to harrow up your soul, if it were not for your good.
But behold, ye cannot hide your crimes from God; and except ye repent they will stand as a testimony against you at the last day.
Now my son, I would that ye should repent and forsake your sins, and go no more after the lusts of your eyes, but cross yourself in all these things; for except ye do this ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God. Oh, remember, and take it upon you, and cross yourself in these things.

Pretty strong words, you say? Perhaps, a little too harsh? Suppose, though, Alma had phrased it more gently and forgivingly (“Well…that probably wasn’t the best thing to have done, although I know how tough sexual temptation can be. Try to do better next time…”) would Corianton (and those who read this passage in the future) be more or less likely to commit similar sins in the future? Sometimes, ‘much sharpness’ may be required in order for the listener to take you seriously...

I'd bet that if you were to talk with any past or present prophet privately, one-on-one and "off-the-record", about a specific issue, you'd hear more about the complexities of many circumstances and how black-and-white things aren't. However, it is arguable that public statements, especially from prophets, are held to a different standard and thus will almost always be different in tone and content than private statements.

It’s quite possible, in fact, that the ‘public persona’ of any prophet or apostle today to be different than their private persona. Perhaps, due to their position, Church leaders will always err on the side of caution—overstating and oversimplifying things rather than sound muddled and ambivalent. Perhaps, having people think you’re a mean, strict old man while still being compelled to be obedient for the most part may be preferable to people thinking you’re "a nice guy" while rampantly breaking the commandments thinking 'it's not that big a deal'…

Should Churches Advertise More?

The Baron — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 04:38:20 GMT

Whenever our family listens to General Conference, the instant the "Amen" finishes on the closing prayer of a session, I run up and turn off the radio or TV.

Why? A simple reason--to avoid hearing the rush of Church-centric commercials that immediately follow conference session broadcasts.

Yes, that's one of my pet peeves--I *hate* Church-flavored advertising. Regular ads are fairly honest and straight-forward about just wanting your money. The tone of LDS-centric ads, on the other hand, carry with them the implication that righteous, faithful members *should* be using this product...while still, fundamentally, just wanting your money. ("Strong, loving families use...AMSCO windows!").

Advertising church-oriented products can be a tricky business. What about churches advertising themselves?

In the past, ‘advertising’ in regards to churches meant simply doing missionary work—door to door and/or street corner stuff--which only a few churches (including the LDS) still do today to any significant degree. Without missionary work, though, the majority of other churches are faced with the question of how to attract new members.

Here is one article from 2004 that outlines how other non-LDS churches have started to utilize modern technology--and modern advertising agencies--to take the place of missionary work. (A necessity, since, as the article itself notes, a church that depends solely on the children of previous members to refill its ranks is not likely to survive.)

How does modern advertising fit in with the purpose and mission of a church, though? Are the use of modern advertising techniques generally helpful or harmful for a church as compared to a business?

Some denominations are ‘distinctive’ enough that they stand out from the hundreds upon hundreds of Christian churches around the world (Mormons, obviously, as well as Catholics and Jehovah’s Witnesses), but the majority of the Protestant churches have to work hard to create any individuality for themselves. (Quick: name five doctrinal and/or policy differences between Presbyterians, Methodists, and Baptists…)

Advertising can help alleviate that problem by giving churches a public image; something that can be remembered easily. Yet, as the article mentions, delving too far into “Christian consumerism”—relying on “glitz” and “glamour” can have negative side effects. Someone who’s attracted to a church because they've promised to put on the biggest, most entertaining show every week, will soon leave once he/she finds someone else who puts on a bigger show—whereas an ideal believer should be into a church for the content, not the package. Switching churches because the other pastor is ‘more interesting’ or ‘entertaining’ shows that the foundation for church attendance in the first place may be less than solid.

(Note: This is one of the main reason why LDS policy says you can’t attend a ward other than your local one. Can you imagine the chaos if you allowed people to switch wards as they please in search of more interesting sacrament talks, or more entertaining bishops?)

Many churches say (as a Methodist minister does in the article) that the purpose of church advertising is not to ‘steal’ other churches’ members, but rather bring in the heretofore church-less people. This is a valuable distinction, as it plays down the emphasis on competition and more on raw growth. (Although, of course, it could also be a tacit admission that there really is no difference between Methodists, Baptists, and Presbyterians, and it doesn’t really matter in the end which church you join…)

The traditional view of ‘Church-goers’ from the secular world are of backwards, uneducated, repressed people who “can’t” do a large number of things. Appropriate advertising allows churches to reach out and promote a more positive view of church attendance, focusing on the personal and social benefits. Presenting religion as an attractive alternative to secular life will undoubtedly cause a number of traditionally agnostic people who know very little about what church attendance actually entails to consider spiritual matters more carefully and deeply.

This is not a small issue: many who grow up in modern society become involved with sex, drugs, and alcohol because it just seems like that's ‘what everyone does’, without ever seriously considering NOT doing it. Church influence, including advertising, can present the idea of ‘righteous’ behavior for consideration which for certain people may be all it takes for a seed to take hold. I can attest to this personally--before I was baptized (at age 16) I knew instinctively what was right but didn't really know why. Religion provides the why--the reasons and benefits for obeying the commandments...which is all some people need. And in lieu of direct missionary work, advertising can get the message of "why" out there.

There are a number of pitfalls that come from ‘church marketing’, however, not the least of which is the relaxation and/or abandonment of commandments and standards—“opening the doors larger than doctrine will allow” as the article puts it.

Like a salesman who makes so many concessions on the sale price to entice a reluctant buyer that he ends up losing money on the deal, liberalizing doctrines and loosening standards in order to attract more people may end up minimizing any gain from having them ‘find religion’ in the first place.

There’s no question the LDS church conversion rates would increase if the Word of Wisdom or Law of Chastity were revoked, for example, but casually abandoning principles because a certain number of people find it a ‘stumbling block’ shows a lack of faith in the reason for those principles existing to begin with. Strict obedience to commandments should be based not on “Do it because I said so and you need to learn to be obedient” reasoning, but because strict obedience brings certain blessings and benefits that casual (or no) obedience does not. (One does not need to be religious at all to see potential benefits from abstaining from sex and drugs, including alcohol, as well as staying out of debt.)

The desire to be ‘tolerant’ and ‘inclusive’ to the extent of overlooking problematic behavior implies that such behavior is not significant from an eternal perspective. As an example, check out this quote from the article, describing the Methodist Church campaign for ‘openness’ and ‘inclusivity’ with the tag line “Open minds, open hearts, open doors”: "It says a lot about who we are theologically that we're not so dogmatic that we'll tell you what to believe."

Uh…okay. How nice to hear that some churches don’t get hung up on issues like ‘doctrine’ and ‘beliefs’ in attracting new converts. Rephrasing: “Come to our church: We don’t really have any strict beliefs or doctrines, so come believe and do anything you want--we don't care!”

Can you imagine a history teacher saying, “Come to my class! I won’t tell you what to believe about historical events…you can believe anything you want!” Passing exams would be a breeze—just explain what YOU think the answers are. I mean, who wouldn’t want to attend such a laid-back, pressure-free class?

And yet, is the purpose of a church (or a history class) just to make you feel good about yourself, or is it to help you learn and progress--and achieve your full spiritual potential?

The issue of ‘tolerance’ is another key principle that can be misused in modern society. Continuing from the article:

The United Church of Christ also has a TV spot. This one shows a gay couple…being barred from a handsome old church building. "Jesus didn't turn people away. Neither do we," the ad says.

That sounds great—except that in real life, gays are almost never physically prevented from attending LDS or other church services. They can *attend* just about any church they want to (and many gay Latter-Day Saints do just that, today).

The issue of gay 'tolerance' as implied by such an ad comes from teachings and doctrine--namely, whether this church says that homosexual behavior is a sin in God's eyes or not. Saying “We welcome gay persons/couples” in this context seems to be saying in essence “We don’t teach that homosexual behavior is against any law of God". Which if that genuinely is a doctrine of the church is perfectly fine, but relaxing standards or ignoring doctrinal interpretations for the sake of attracting and welcoming people on the outside is a morally dubious proposition.

Is homosexual behavior (or heterosexual behavior outside of marriage) a ‘sin’ in God’s eyes or not? For any church, the question becomes: what *is* the doctrine, and what method(s) do you use to answer important doctrinal questions like this?

Furthermore, if you know X number of people aren’t likely to join your church unless you give them the answers they want to hear, does this at all influence how doctrine is preached? If ‘yes’, what does that say about a church that’s more concerned about increasing the membership total through ‘acceptance’ of what people want than of teaching correct principles?

It is true that Jesus didn’t (and still doesn’t) turn people away, but neither did He excuse problematic behavior. The key phrase in Jesus's gospel is “Come Unto Me” (accepting His doctrine and principles) not “Wait until someone creates an altered form of the gospel whose standards are broad enough that it 'Comes Unto You'…”

As noted earlier, LDS Church members certainly have a ways to go in treating individuals with same-sex attraction with respect and charity according to the Christ-like principles in which we believe. However, doctrinal questions remain: is homosexual behavior against the Lord's Law of Chastity or not? Do gay couples have a place in the plan of salvation equal to heterosexual couples in all respects, or not? If the answers are 'yes' and 'no', respectively, then there will inevitably be limits to how much a church (LDS or otherwise) can promote "tolerance" at the expense of doctrine.

Should the LDS Church advertise more? Arguably, the current missionary program is still the only form of ‘advertising’ the Church needs in terms of keeping up a steady stream of new members, although I do remember a memorable series of TV ads in the '80s that introduced basic principles in a non-intrusive way. Modern advertising brings with it some trade-offs: how far will one go in smoothing over doctrines and beliefs in an attempt to capture the attention of the fickle non-church-going public? Perhaps it is better just to stay away--after all, what is there to gain by finally getting more people who were ‘out’ to be ‘in’ when by doing so you’ve removed any distinction or benefit from being ‘in’ in the first place…?

Cigarettes, Piracy + Other Social Policy Odds and Ends

The Baron — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 19:41:19 GMT

Creating effective social policy is always tricky, even when working from a basis of fundamental principles one believes in. Some recent news items of interest show the difficulty of figuring out what "correct" social policy or response should be in complicated situations.

Cigarette Tax

The new cigarette tax, active in the US as of this month, provides a substantial hike in cigarette prices, up to $9 a pack in some states. "Sin" taxes have usually been politically viable on both the left and the right, as smoking is one of those things that most people (LDS or not) believe most people shouldn't be doing in the first place. If a new social policy encourages better behavior and raises more funds, then that's 'win-win', right?

If I'm not a smoker, what's my incentive to oppose an increased tax on smoking? After all, I'm not gong to pay it, and it encourages behavior that goes right in line with my personal beliefs, anyway.   (This same principle can apply to increased taxes on alcohol, gas, meat, or any such lifestyle or habit that many people disapprove--if you inherently believe people should be eating/drinking/using less of any of the above for various reasons, AND you knew that you wouldn't have to pay more due to the lifestyle decisions you've already made, why wouldn't you support such a tax?)

One possible answer is that you might recognize that a cigarette tax (and other such taxes) is VERY regressive--that is, that such a tax is going to come out of the pockets of the poor rather than the rich in a very disproportionate fashion. Flat (non-percentage) taxes affect the poor more closely because adding a dollar or two per pack takes a greater percentage of a poor smoker's income than a rich smoker, since they both spend the same amount per pack.

Add in the fact that poor people are far more likely to smoke than rich people in the first place, and--just like lottery tickets--we have a social policy that is clearly regressive. (Which arguably is a 'feature' rather than a 'bug' if the purpose is to encourage changes in behavior. If you don't believe that poor people should be spending their meager incomes on smoking in the first place, maybe you should give them a direct incentive to quit...)

For an LDS voter, is support of 'sin taxes' a given?   Or, for example, restrictions on business licenses to serve alcohol? For a voter in Utah who doesn't drink and doesn't care how convenient it is for people who do drink to find alcohol in Utah, would there even be a discussion? Is regressiveness enough of an objection to temper enthusiasm for sin taxes, especially from demographics that will largely avoid those taxes in the future?

(UPDATE: Kent Larsen at T&S asks a lot of these same questions...)

Movie Piracy and Publicity

Another major news item that came out recently is the admission that the new X-Men: Wolverine movie has been leaked in its entirely (albeit with unfinished FX and editing), more than a month before its release date.

The interesting part is the amount of publicity the leak has gotten, given that a lot of people (myself included) wouldn't have known about the leak in the first place if it weren't for the publicity.    I found out myself from a site that is encouraging people NOT to watch the pirated version, but (ironically) was responsible for informing me (and undoubtedly many others) that there was a pirated copy out there in the first place.

The tricky part in dealing with any controversy is the fact that responding to and reporting on the controversy only persists it. A site such as ICV2 (from the original link) can say, "Well, obviously we don't support piracy and don't want to tell more potential pirates about the leak through our news article...but it's *news*, so we have to report on it. Other sites are going to be reporting on it regardless of whether we do or not, anyway, and we have to keep up."

Maybe, maybe not. If I didn't know about the leak before I read the ICv2 article, they just told me about it. And if I did know about it already (from other media sources) then there's no reason for me to be reading their article in the first place, because it doesn't say anything new that I wouldn't have known about from any other source.   Thus, was there really a point about reporting on it at all from their perspective?

This was a similar situation to the recent "Big Love" controversy regarding temple ceremonies. Reporting on the controversy--including even the Church commenting on the controversy--only increases knowledge of the controversy, and the existence of such an upcoming TV show in the first place.   (I haven't seen any numbers, but I would bet it's easy to assume that episode garnered the highest ratings of any "Big Love" episode ever...)   There seems to be a point where protests and objections are counter-productive, when they simply call attention to what one was objecting to in the first place.

It seems to be true that 'no publicity is bad publicity', and perhaps there are definite situations where silence is the best response to controversy and offensive content, rather than feeding the beast...

The Biggest Gap Left To Bridge In The Church

The Baron — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 19:36:36 GMT

Last year, I discussed the idea of “reconciliation”, particularly reconciling different (and potentially contradictory) ideas. Reconciliation happens when you have (or appear to see) a gap between two ideas that you want to form a bridge between, because you feel they are both correct and valuable, and don’t want to be forced to choose one or the other.

One major gap that many other Christian churches have struggled to bridge is evolution vs. creation. Many individuals feel they are forced by their beliefs to choose one or the other—that if you believe in evolution, you *have* to abandon your faith in God and the Bible completely. Or if you believe in God, Jesus Christ, and the Bible, you have to reject science and evolution completely. That they are incompatible ideas--you can’t accept both.

Many struggle with finding some sort of middle ground where they can keep a foot in both camps without getting split down the middle by two opposing forces that pull them in (seemingly) opposite directions. And many who struggle at this ultimately fail, and end up jumping to one side while abandoning faith in the other.

With LDS Church members, though, I genuinely haven’t seen that we struggle as much with bridging the gap between evolution and creationism as some of our evangelical brethren. While Church members have differing opinions on evolution, of course, there doesn’t seem to be as major a push against evolution in schools in Utah versus other states.

BYU biology classes teach evolution without much controversy, and I haven’t seen that faithful Church members feel compelled or pressured that they must oppose and cast scorn at evolution in order to continue to be faithful members, nor that those Church members who do accept evolution feel they are no longer capable of being a worthy Church member by doing so. Church members in comparison to other religions seem to have largely found that middle ground—even if it is just ‘not thinking about it that much’—where they are not compelled to have to choose one or the other.

If not evolution then, what *is* the biggest ideological gap left to bridge in the Church today? Where Church members in large part have yet to find some middle ground to stand on between two seemingly contradictory poles. Where they feel compelled to have to choose one side or the other, without any compromise or reconciliation.

I submit it is this, exemplified by this recent comment at BCC:

“I used to believe in God. Then I stopped. My morals and behaviors haven’t changed much during any of these points, but…I now have more charity towards homosexuals than I did when I believed in a typical Mormon God.”

In my opinion, the greatest gap left to bridge in the Church is in regards to homosexuality. Not just treatment of gays by Church members, but the general attitude and philosophy as well. There are far too many Church members who believe something similar to what the commenter above suggests: that you can’t be a faithful Church member *and* have “charity” (however we define that) towards gays. You have to choose one or the other.

On my mission I had an experience in my first area where an admitted gay man hung around the chapel we were serving in and, in one bold instance, sexually propositioned my companion in fairly direct terms. My companion asked him to leave, then brushed it off and didn’t dwell on it. Some of the other elders, though, were not as polite—openly talking about dragging the guy outside and “beating him up”.

Really? I mean, really? Someone is actually suggesting “beating [someone] up” as an appropriate response for a self-avowed Christian towards another human being?

And this is the problem. No Church member would ever suggest “beating them up” is the appropriate response to a guy in their ward who, say, watches pornographic movies. Or swears regularly. Or has a drug habit. Or cheats on his wife. (etc) And yet, there are still a (small, but not insignificant) number of Church members whose natural reaction to anything even resembling homosexuality is rejection and sometimes violence.

“Homophobia” is a too-oft-used buzzword casually thrown out by the pro-gay-rights side to demean anyone who disagrees with their policy positions, such as legalized gay marriage. (Liberals have for years gotten great mileage out of the hate-mongering straw man—if you oppose gay marriage you’re an intolerant bigot who hates gays. If you oppose abortion, you’re an intolerant bigot who hates women. If you oppose affirmative action or illegal immigration you’re an intolerant bigot who hates minorities, and so on…)

Nevertheless, “homophobia”--as in the literal ‘fear of gays’--is still a reality in many areas of the LDS world. There are Church members who would feel more comfortable knowing that the two men living next door to them were drug dealers than a gay couple. There are Church members who feel that having a gay friend or family member--and remaining close to them--is tantamount to personally betraying Christ for thirty pieces of silver, and their only hope of remaining ‘untainted’ is to shun that person, and banish them from their life.

And that’s the irony: I genuinely get the sense that in many instances where gay individuals are rejected and shunned by Church members, it is not because of genuine 'hate', but because those Church members believe they don’t really have a choice in the matter. They feel they *have* to openly reject gay individuals because otherwise they are not faithful saints. Just like with science and religion, many members feel compelled to choose one or the other: abandon charity for the sake of “not tolerating sin”, or abandon their faith for being “too sympathetic” to the challenges gay individuals face.

And just like with science and religion, I believe that is a false choice. Latter-Day Saints should never have to choose between their faith and being charitable to anyone. Faithful saints need to know that they can associate closely with gay individuals (and couples) and treat them with love and respect as human beings and fellow children of God without needing to either give up their temple recommend and church activity by doing so *or* abandon doctrine and beliefs regarding chastity and the plan of salvation.

You *can* be a faithful church member and be charitable towards gays, despite how some people make it sound. And--equally important--you *can* be charitable towards gays without needing to support legalized gay marriage, despite how other people make it sound. (There are legitimate arguments that don't involve "hating gays")

There is middle ground here to stand on, and one of the major challenges that the Church will face this decade will be how quickly Church members find it. Latter-Day Saints know they can have close relationships with friends and family members with porn and drug habits without needing to either reject those acquaintances on a personal level, or needing to support or condone those behaviors themselves. The challenge will be for Church members to realize that individuals with same-sex attraction are the same way.

Future Technology And The Gospel

The Baron — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 18:49:10 GMT

Here in the 21st century, it is interesting to note how the ever-present march of advancing modern technology has influenced the Church. In comparison to the 19th century--or even 20 years ago--technological advances have provided a wealth of changes to the Church experience.

LDS.org alone provides the ability to type in a word or phrase and instantly view and search through the entire scriptural canon, as well as decades’ worth of conference talks and Ensigns. Preparing talks and lessons has never been easier! Training broadcasts can be done over satellite, reaching countries where face-to-face contact with Church leaders would have been extremely rare in other eras. General Conference talks can be heard online, as well as complete transcripts available within a few days—a big change from the past where persisting conference talks required audience members to transcribe them in their personal journals.

Modern technology has affected how traditional principles and standards can be interpreted as well. As an example, take the maxim that good Church members should not buy things on Sundays as part of keeping the Sabbath holy.   Ostensibly, the purpose behind this counsel is that buying things on Sunday requires someone else to have to work on Sundays to serve your needs, preventing them from keeping the Sabbath.

Today, though, technology has muddled the line between “buying things” automatically equaling another person having to work. Vending machines, for example, can accept money for newspapers or candy on Sundays, without an actual person having to do anything. Modern gas stations almost universally have credit card slots, allowing patrons to swipe their card and pay for gas without a clerk needing to be present.

Internet retailers are another example where computers do the heavy lifting. On eBay, for example, someone can list an item on Thursday which ends on Sunday, for which I place a bid on Saturday and which the seller mails to me on Monday.   Technically, I bought the item on Sunday, even though neither I nor the seller nor anyone at eBay had to actually do any Sunday “work” in order to complete the transaction.   “Don’t shop on Sundays” is one principle where advances in technology can lead to a fundamental re-evaluation.

Looking forward, it may be interesting to speculate about further developments in future technology and the possible effect they may have on how current moral and ethical standards of today are viewed. Some examples:

Cybernetic Implants

Very few people oppose those who have lost a hand or leg due to accident or birth defect replacing their lost appendage with an artificial equivalent. With advanced in modern technology, though, we may soon reach a stage where artificial hands, legs, eyes, or other forms of cybernetic augmentation provide abilities that exceed their natural equivalents, leading some to choose to have parts of their body replaced or augmented without having a previous need.

Considering the Church’s opposition to tattoos and extreme body piercing, one can visualize some potential future discomfort with a societal trend towards willingly putting artificial mechanisms in the body for less than necessary reasons. Will future cybernetic technologies provide new questions about what “your body is a temple” means? Quite possible…

Abortion

Abortion is one contentious issue where no compromise between the two sides seems possible. Suppose, however, technology steps in, say in the development of “artificial wombs”—which allow human fetuses to develop through the full cycle of pregnancy artificially, without needing a live female uterus.

Such a development might present a potential compromise in values, where women may still be accepted to have the “right” not to be pregnant, but at the same time the fetus still has a “right to life” which an artificial womb can provide.

If abortion is re-defined as “terminating a pregnancy” but *not* simultaneously “terminating a life” due to a technological solution, then that presents the potential for a fundamental reshaping of the conservative position regarding abortion—and a solution that both sides might be able to accept.

Pornography

The two basic arguments against pornography are its pandering to men’s baser instincts (read: lust) to the detriment of real relationships with the opposite sex, and its exploitation of women, many of whom are compelled to sacrifice their bodies and dignity to the demands of a multi-billion dollar industry.

Imagine a future time, though, where pornography does not require real people—where developments in advanced graphics technology allow magazines and videos to be created featuring photo-realistic women…but who are actually artificially created by a computer, such that viewers can no longer tell the difference.

Imagine further, a future time where virtual reality and robotics technology fundamentally alters the prostitution industry, which may then consist of synthetic androids who serve the same purpose. (This idea has been explored in some science fiction books and movies, such as A.I. from 2001).

If the exploitation of human women in the sex trade was replaced by robots and computer pixels, this would eliminate one of the two primary objections. Conservative opposition to pornography would not necessarily change since other primary objections remain, but it would certainly fundamentally change the terms of the debate.

Other

Any kind of advanced human cloning technology would bring with it a host of doctrinal issues.   Would clones of an existing human have a “soul”? (i.e. would they have a place in the plan of salvation, needing baptism and the like?) In a way, scientific cloning would be no different than identical twins, which have been around throughout all human history.

However, should cloning mechanisms exist to clone both the body (DNA) and the mind (memory and experiences), that would complicate the issue even further. Would making a clone of your husband or wife, and having that clone possess the same memories and experiences the original did, present any interesting questions regarding polygamy, adultery, and the like?

Okay, that’s probably a little too far out there. In any case, though, just like the Internet brought fundamental changes to the Church in terms of policy and practice, future technologies will undoubtedly do the same, and it will be interesting to see how things develop.

(Any other ideas about how modern and future technology may affect morality and practice? Share below…)

Growing Pains

Paradox — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 21:43:39 GMT

“But if ye will nourish the word, yea, nourish the tree as it beginneth to grow, by your faith with great diligence, and with patience, looking forward to the fruit thereof, it shall take root; and behold it shall be a tree springing up unto everlasting life.” Alma 32: 41

What does it mean to be God?

If I were a wiser person, I would read chapter 32 of Alma every day of my life because of what it teaches me about the answer to that question. The chapter connects so beautifully with the Tree of Knowledge from Lehi’s vision, something I did not realize until I thought about chapter 32 in the same terms as Christ—what He was, is, and will be—and I realized that this chapter teaches me about what I was, who I am, and what I will ultimately become if I will continue to be nourished by His living water.

In comparison to everything that Heavenly Father is, I am just a tiny seed in the ground of His kingdom. I thought about that yesterday as I was thinking about my past, and in my frustration wandered around campus until I finally found myself laying supine underneath of a tree by the Carillon Tower. Staring up through the branches and boughs to the tiniest, reaching twigs at the top of the tree, I thought about how long that tree must have taken to grow.

I thought about Abraham and how his posterity divides and splits like the limbs of a tree, how inconceivable is the collective number and strength of those who came before me, who support me and feed me from the roots from which all who seek the truth gather strength.

I thought about those delicate twigs reaching for the same heaven as I am, with fingers that have taken generations to reach their height. I remembered where I started, feeling the swellings of a seed in my breast before I ever knew it had been planted, trying to put what I was feeling into words and failing at it most of the time. I remembered the pain of growing quickly—not that I would have had it any other way. I remembered my delight as I saw the seed beginning to sprout, and the changes that came to my life that told me this seed was not only good, but so was the heart’s ground in which it was planted—something that had never occurred to me before, and still barely registers to me now.

I pondered the kind of tree I would be someday, the thought stretching beyond the furthest reaches of my understanding—into heaven and out of sight. I wondered about what awaits me, how to become like the kind of trees I have sat beneath throughout my life—their spines bending around unseen opposition so they do not break, opening their arms to the sky to embrace rain and snow and whatever else comes their way with their weakest limbs forward.

Exposed in winter to a coal gray sky full of uncertainty and meaning in these days—I see in the trees all around me the kind of person I want to be until I can reach for something greater.

One of my favorite verses in Alma 32 is verse 35 where it asks a question that I have asked people about the way I see the world and the God I adore: “O then, is not this real?” It is a question I have been asking for a long time, and I have learned from the frustration that has followed so many times that I should only trust the spirit to speak to my confusion. People tell me they struggle with the idea of religion and God sometimes because it all just seems so irrational to them, and they tell me that everything about God is so complicated because it relies upon things you cannot see. At some point I lost the ability to relate to that kind of thinking because the Lord is the only thing I understand anymore, and I see His hand everywhere. Granted, I have to be a little bizarre sometimes to get my eyes to see; wandering around on and off campus until I find myself in some place I have never been before, staring up into a tree just before I was going to give up the search for truth that day—only to be rescued from myself moments before I would have told myself “all is lost.” But like a waiting parent, He was there—always first comes the gentle reminder to be patient, that He does hear me, that He will speak only when I am listening, but also that I am His child and He would never leave me alone to face this world—not for long, anyway.

He has made it perfectly clear, through the softest peace of trees—not to mention the beautiful truth in all of His creations—that being God means never being the one who walks away.

He will come, in all of the glorious radiance of the sun—and more!—and those who walked away from His extended hand will certainly wish they had not.

Bridging the Gap? Why Should We?!

Eric Nielson — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 20:21:31 GMT

There seems to me to be an effort going on within the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to bridge the 'gap' between Mormonism and Evangelical Christianity. I believe that these efforts are mostly motivated by love, and are very well intentioned. But what should be the purpose of such a bridge?

For me, the only long term purpose for such a bridge should be for Evangelical Christians to cross it in order to become members of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. For those that are members of the restored gospel, if they use this bridge, they should use it to go and grab their Evangelical friends by the hand and lead them over to the proper side. I do not believe that the proper purpose of such a bridge should be to meet these Evangelical friends at some doctrinal midway point and ... linger.

But I feel that this very thing is happening within the church. I mentioned in a comment on a previous post that even though I have not read relevant books by people like Stephen Robinson and Robert Millet, I suspected that their books were blurring the line between Mormonism and Evangelical Christianity. I based this on how people use and quote from their books. I have since found that I am not alone in this.

Eugene England has written an essay in element called 'The Weeping God of Mormonism', where he makes this very point. He quoted Millet regarding this:

Robert L. Millett, later to become the head of the religion department at BYU, sounded in 1989 a note of defiance in the face of the claims of White and Alexander, when he wrote, "[The movement they describe] is a movement toward a more thoroughly redemptive base to our theology, . . . one that may be long overdue. These recent developments [neo-orthodox emphasis on an absolute God, human depravity, and salvation by grace] may represent more of a retrenchment and a refinement than a reversion [to primitive Mormonism]." (paragraph 19)

England then goes on to categorize Robinson thus:

The bad news is that Robinson ends up, I believe, sounding more Evangelical than Mormon on crucial issues like the inerrancy and sufficiency of the Biblical canon, salvation by grace alone, the substitutionary Atonement, and most importantly the nature of God. (paragraph 20)

I also am concerned when I see efforts on the part of members of the church to stray from the straight-forward Mormon doctrines of the Godhead, the combination of faith and works, the omni's of God, etc., in order to bridge the gap between Mormonism and Evangelical Christianity. It makes me feel that they are meeting on a doctrinal middle ground.

Now, I am not suggesting that we know all of the details of these topics. But is there not a danger in making attempts to bridge such gaps? Do we not lose some of the most important restored gospel truths in such a process?