The Waters of Mormon

Discrimination and Equal Rights

The Baron — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:01:47 GMT

Quick Quiz:

Do you believe polygamy should be legal?
Do you believe polygamists should be allowed to vote, own land, and hold a job?

And one last question:

3. Do you believe it is hypocritical and inconsistent to have different answers to (1) and (2)?

I would venture that the answers to (1) would be mostly 'no', and to (2) mostly 'yes'. And, per (3), that most of those people with differing answers won't think it is inconsistent or hypocritical to think so. Just because you don't support the legalization of certain lifestyle choices of polygamists (or marijuana smokers, for example) doesn't mean you support taking away basic rights from them such as voting and having a job.

Believing that polygamists are human, deserve basic human dignity and decency, and the same rights as everyone else doesn't mean polygamy needs to be legal. Believing faithful Christians are human, deserve basic human dignity and decency, and the same right as everyone else doesn't mean prayer in public schools needs to be legal.

And, obviously, there shouldn't be a contradiction between thinking that a man or woman shouldn't be fired from a job for being gay, but that gay marriage doesn't need to be legal.

The biggest issue with the "equal rights" mantra in regards to gay marriage is that it doesn't stand up to analysis. What right do individuals lose by identifying themselves as gay? Who is not equal to who, here?

Not being able to vote because you're black? A violation of equal rights, because you would be able to vote if you were white.

Fired from a job for being gay? A violation of equal rights, because if you were straight, you'd still have the job.

Not having the ability to enter into an officially recognized same-sex relationship? Well, who's not equal to who, here? Sorry, this is NOT a violation of equal rights, because there isn't a distinction being made between those who are gay and those who aren't.

Current federal statutes involving marriage allow each individual to marry one person of the opposite gender who is 18 or older (lower with parental permission), not directly related to you and not currently married to anyone else. And a person's 'rights' involving who they can marry and who they can't does not change based on sexual orientation--someone outs himself as gay tomorrow, and their marriage options remain exactly the same.

Arguing that gays should have the same rights as everyone else is not the same thing as arguing that same-sex relationships should be legally recognized. It's a perfectly legitimate position for someone to argue that federal law should recognize same-sex relationships to the exact same extent as opposite-sex relationships...just not on an 'equal rights' basis.

Relationships don't have "rights"--they are abstract entities that are arbitrarily defined. Only people have rights, and without a clear example of how a person's rights change when their declared sexual orientiation changes, the equal rights argument falls flat.

(An equal rights violation would be if I was gay and the state declared my current marriage to my wife to be voided--saying that gay men do not have the right to be married to a woman anyway, even if they want to, whereas a straight man could...)

The recent announcement by the Church that it supports an non-discrimination ordinance in regards to gays holding jobs and finding living arrangements is smart and proper on a number of levels.

First, it is the correct and moral decision. There is no reason--regardless of your opinion of homosexuality's sinfulness--that a gay man or woman should be fired from their job, or blocked from renting an apartment due to their sexual orientation. Most people, myself included, don't support discrimination based on sexual orientation at all. (For the record, I support gay adoptions, too--although that's an issue for another day...)

But, secondly, it makes the distinction between genuine equal rights issues involving gays, and 'fake' ones such as gay marriage. It (attempts to) make the case that they are different entities altogether, and that support for one without supporting the other is not an inherently inconsistent position.

Previously, attempts to suggest that gay marriage was not an equal rights issue fell on deaf ears because many gay marriage opponents did not support true equal rights for gays in non-marriage-related areas anyway. It would have been easy for the Church to oppose non-discrimination ordinances with the logic that a supportive position would simply be viewed as an implicit admission that its stand against gay marriage was wrong, and increase--rather than decrease--pressure to change. (Naturally, many gay marriage supporters have taken this interpretation already, insisting that it *is* an inconsistent position to support one and not the other...).

Personally, I think it's admirable that the Church took this position anyway--going against the arch-conservative view and admitting that gays are discriminated against in some areas of society now, and that in principle this is wrong.

Plus, while in the short term this will be viewed as a "victory" by the pro-gay-marriage side, and a sign of 'weakness' in the Church, in the long term I think this will be helpful in the gay marriage debate by eliminating an obvious cudgel for the pro-gay-marriage side to beat the anti-gay-marriage side with--that no longer will the pro- side be automatically able to conflate job discrimination and other equal rights issues with gay marriage since the Church has drawn a line between them and recognized that they are different. How this affects the gay marriage in the debate in the long run remains to be seen, but I support the fact that non-discrimination should be the norm and that the Church has taken a (small) stand in this matter.

"Did You Attend 'The Lord's University'?" -- A Look at BYU and Church Schools

The Baron — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:35:12 GMT

BYU (and its affiliated schools in Idaho and Hawaii) tend to get a lot of flak from Church members--some of it justified.

Many question the need and utility for Church-sponsored universities, especially considering how much is subsidized through tithing dollars. It’s a fair question to ask what purpose BYU serves and whether it is accomplishing that purpose or not.

As a BYU graduate (2001), let’s take a brief look at some of the good and bad with BYU and other Church universities.

Support of LDS living

Why does BYU exist? I would submit its basic purpose is to create a university environment that inherently supports LDS standards.

Naturally, there are plenty of faithful LDS students at other universities, and plenty of students who don’t live LDS standards at BYU. The difference is convenience.

Many students at other universities have shared stories about coming back to their dorm rooms or apartments and finding their roommates (a) watching porn, (b) doing drugs, (c) having sex, or (d) all of the above at the same time. Not a pleasant experience or environment for someone who is attempting to live a “higher law”, not to mention the awkward feeling of being compelled to stay out of one’s own apartment.

Students do drugs, watch porn, and have sex at BYU, of course, just not as openly. It’s easier for students who want to live LDS standards to do so in an environment where LDS standards are supported as the default (and enforced). It’s the other people that feel the pressure to live their desired lifestyle in secret somewhere on the outside.

No one wants to be marginalized, naturally, and there are clear advantages if your school environment is set up to support your lifestyle, rather than fight against it.

"Whited Sepulchres"

The other side of the issue, of course, is that driving non-LDS-standard behavior underground has the potential to create—borrowing the Savior’s phrase from Matthew 23--“whited sepulchres”: people who act pure and righteous on the outside (because they need to due to the environment they’re in), while keeping bad habits hidden away.

Open problematic behavior from an LDS standard perspective may present certain obstacles and temptations to faithful LDS students, but at least they know what that person is about. Open behavior is fundamentally more honest than hidden behavior, and in many cases (particularly when dating) students may have been better off knowing more about their potential partner's habits and standards through open behavior rather than forcing them to closet it away to meet an outside ideal, where they find out after it's too late.

Dating and Socializing

As a corollary, being surrounded by other LDS students creates more opportunities for dating and socializing. For those students who value dating and marrying within the faith, having a larger pool to choose from is a great advantage.

Outside BYU, LDS students may be forced to choose from a very small pool of Church members, and hope their personalities and interests happen to match up. Whereas at a Church school, with Church membership being almost a given, one can start from the hobbies and interests side and meet Church members who share those interests. Art, drama, or music majors can find other art, drama, or music majors that share religious beliefs and interests--in theory, creating more productive and fulfilling relationships.

Emphasis on Marriage

An environment that emphasizes marriage, however, may also be a disadvantage. As most people can attest, there is a two-tiered class system at BYU: those that are married and those that aren't. The pressure to marry leads to an environment that can be stressful and rewarding at the same time--for many, more the former than the latter.

At BYU, there's an unwritten "Two Date Limbo Zone" that once you've dated someone twice, there's the assumption that your relationship is progressing towards marriage. If you're not thinking of marriage (with that person, or with anyone), it's usually socially awkward to continue dating. (DTR -- "Define The Relationship" -- talks are frequent occurances in that limbo zone, where one or both partners make sure that the other partner has the same end in mind for their relationship)

The "meat market" effect brings social pressures that secular universities don't. Whether that's an advantage or a disadvantage over other schools, where dating pressures often consist of "how quickly can I get this person into bed with me" will depend on the person.

Cultural Homogeny

Having most of the people around you be Church members is useful in situations where that's advantageous (such as dating), but perhaps not so much from a general 'life experience' perspective. BYU has a large population of students from other countries, although oftentimes they are LDS the same as everyone else. There's something revealing and inherently educational from having classes or social opportunities with an Orthodox Jew, a Muslim, and a Buddhist. Part of life is getting to know people different than you, which can be problematic if you've deliberately chosen a university where people are generally...not all that different from you from the beginning.

Cultural opportunities, particularly regarding entertainment, have the same problem. Official BYU policy affects cultural and artistic opportunities on campus, and only a small subset of artistic experiences that meet Church standards are approved. BYU "censorship" is a legitimate concern, although it should be obvious to even the most bitter critic that when difficult decisions arise, BYU will *always* be better off leaning towards the "conservative" side of any debate. (The people who would complain about BYU being "too conservative" on an issue are not nearly as influential as those who would complain about BYU "relaxing" (or "betraying") their standards.)

Still, as a BYU student, I found BYU "censorship" to be way overstated. If you know where to look, there are plenty of cultural and entertainment opportunities that stretch "Church standards". BYU International Cinema, for one, and many of the plays put on by the drama department regularly go into what would be "PG-13" material--stuff that I bet the average BYU student would be shocked to hear was actually performed and displayed on campus given BYU's reputation. Okay, sure, nothing like UC Berkeley's "pornography studies" class, but still more of a "liberal" artistic environment than outside observers might think.

Honor Code

90% of the time when people reference the BYU “Honor Code”—usually in a derogatory manner—they’re not referring to the BYU Honor Code at all, but BYU’s Dress and Grooming Standards.

Virtually all universities have an “Honor Code” which exists more or less to say “don’t cheat”. They are non-controversial. BYU goes a little further than other universities by including some specific “LDS standards” such as alcohol use and premarital sex which apply even to the non-LDS students. For most LDS members, this isn’t very controversial either--most people don't have a problem with non-LDS students obeying LDS standards, especially when they do so of their own free will by attending a Church school (where their tuition is also partially subsidized by LDS tithing).

Statements from people about “I hate the BYU Honor Code” don’t usually mean they wish BYU students could cheat on tests or drink alcohol—this is usually proxy for complaints about strict rules about facial hair and dress. About how BYU students are taught to judge by appearance rather than character.

I can sympathize. As it happens, I, my wife, and just about every girl I knew at the time, admit that I look better with a beard than without. I stopped shaving the day I graduated. Still, when I was a student I did shave every day--that was part of being a BYU student in the first place. In one aspect, many girls may prefer more 'variety' in facial hair to see what they like and what they don't, but in the end, it was really not a major issue for me, nor for most students. Lots of people like me shaved at BYU (and on their missions) because that's the standard and we accepted it. Then we graduated, and made our own decisions.

(One important note: it is *really* easy to get a ‘beard card’ at BYU. One roommate tried it to see just how easy it was, and telling a doctor he had ‘sensitive skin’ was all it took. Ironically, he tried to grow a beard now that he was ‘legal’ but found he couldn’t, beyond some longer ‘lambchop' sideburns. The point being, beard standards are not that big a deal in practice on campus.)

There are legitimate "Honor Code" complaints, although mostly about how things work in practice rather than the Honor Code itself in theory. Most BYU students know that if your roommate is about to report you to the Honor Code office the best way to get away with it is to report them for something instead, even if you have to make something up. The Honor Code office has traditionally been poor at finding out the truth, rather than reacting to whoever gets their ear first.

And friends of mine have stories about being called to account for (and pay fines for) really stupid things that even the most conservative General Authorities would admit is a little over-the-top. There's plenty of room for improvement, even if the principle behind it is sound.

Conclusion:

In high school (in Idaho), I was good friends with a girl who said that even though she was accepted, she'd never attend BYU. "I'm a fifth generation member," she explained, "My family are all members. My extended family are all members. All my friends are members. All my neighbors are members. I need to go somewhere else, where I can find out for myself what I believe and how I want to live without being constantly surrounded by Church members."

Ironically, as a convert and the only member in my family, I specifically chose BYU for the purpose of (for once) being "constantly surrounded by Church members". That just shows the process for me "finding myself" was different than my friend's, as you might expect.

Basically, Church schools are what they are. There's nothing really secret about the environment they present. I enjoyed my time at BYU immensely, as have many others. Many complaints about BYU's "culture" (oftentimes just an extension of LDS "culture") are fair, but BYU is what it is and prospective students should take that into account.

I believe all of the above advantages and disadvantages should be evident to anyone who's researching it and considering where to go--thus everyone should be able to decide whether going to a Church school is a good fit for them or not.

Local Testimony Meeting Controversy

Eric Nielson — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 01:38:10 GMT

Last month we had a typical testimony meeting, but for some reason the bishopric decided to do some enforcement on 'improper' testimonies.

A young couple was brought into the bishop's office and told that their daughter should not bear her testimony unless she could say it without any help from parents. A single older man was told not to tell such long stories in his testimony. Those involved were hurt by the instruction. The older man declared that he would not bear any more testimonies - at least for a while. And the younger couple said they were not going to change their practice - but did not show up at all this week, which is very unusual for them.

In between these two testimony meetings, the Deacon's quorum advisor instructed the Deacons regarding what a proper testimony consists of, and challenged each deacon to bear their testimony.

This month, much of the meeting consisted of several Deacons repeating basically the same testimony. It was nearly word-for-word identical. My #2 son could not wait to get back to his seat to check off the testimony requirement in his Duty to God pamphlet. Seriously, he literally checked off bearing his testimony!

This was a difficult meeting for me to sit through, because I knew what was going on with all parties. I can see both sides on this. I don't want to listen to long non-testimonies, but I don't want to listen to people repeating the same basic testimony over and over again. And in this case, a few people got their feelings hurt in a way that I felt was so unnecessary.

Where should lines be drawn about censoring testimony?

What is the risk/reward involved with criticizing a testimony?

How do you balance encouraging people to bear testimony, yet controling what they say?

This little controversy seems so unnecessary, in that I do not think it was worse than any other testimony meetings I have attended.

At The Movies: One Good Man (B-)

The Baron — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:40:54 GMT

One Good Man

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

A Sign The Current Rhetoric on Pornography Isn't Working

The Baron — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 19:24:40 GMT

...came from my wife, after listening to Elder Richard D. Scott's talk on Saturday.

From Elder Scott's remarks (emphasis mine):

The onslaught of pornography in all of its vicious, corroding, destructive forms has caused great grief, suffering, heartache, and destroyed marriages. It is one of the most damning influences on earth. Whether it be through the printed page, movies, television, obscene lyrics, vulgarities on the telephone, or flickering personal computer screen, pornography is overpoweringly addictive and severely damaging. This potent tool of Lucifer degrades the mind, and the heart, and the soul of any who use it. All who are caught in its seductive, tantalizing web and remain so will become addicted to its immoral, destructive influence....Participation in pornography in any of its lurid forms is a manifestation of unbridled selfishness. How can a man, particularly a priesthood bearer, not think of the emotional and spiritual damage caused to women, especially his wife, by such abhorrent activity

My wife's response (I hadn't said a thing...): "Really? That seems like an exaggeration. It makes it sound like looking at pornography is the worst possible thing you could do to our marriage. Even worse than adultery or abuse..."

Now, my wife--a convert of ten years--has been a mature, righteous, orthodox Church member for a long time. And if *she* is becoming skeptical of the tone of official Church rhetoric regarding pornography, then something is wrong.

This should not be interpreted as a defense of pornography, mind you--my wife was hardly giving me a green light--however it's a fair question whether the current rhetoric is suitable to the issue itself, and whether it's helping or hurting.

Let's look at some of the key issues in the 'war on pornography':

(1) "Pornography" is too broad a term to be useful

What counts as "pornography"? Elder Scott listed a wide variety of media forms that are included. Within the context of other Church talks, BYU coeds wearing single-strap backpacks across their chest and teen girls wearing a prom dress that exposes their shoulders can be considered "pornography". Is the annual Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue "pornography"? Is an R-rated movie that has nudity in it considered "pornography"? What about erotic romance novels?

A defensible response to any of these questions is that, "if it isn't, it's close enough not to really matter. It's all part of 'sexual sin'" But the large scope of what could be considered "pornography" (i.e. sexually enticing material including degrees of immodest dress) doesn't lend itself to making broad judgments across one end of the spectrum to the other, especially with serious words such as "one of the most damning influences on Earth".

The average LDS wife may disapprove of her husband flipping through the SI swimsuit issue at a friend's house one weekend, but would the average LDS wife refer to it using the words "grief", "suffering", "heartache", and "emotional and spiritual damage"? Probably not.

The word "pornography" is just too broad. There's too wide a range between "woman showing a little cleavage", "woman wearing a bikini", "woman wearing nothing at all", and "woman wearing nothing at all while participating in sexual acts with other people" for the average member to react to both the first and last categories with the same level of offense.

(2) Casual usage does not equal addiction

There's no question that, like alcohol and gambling, pornography can be addicting to certain people. However, like alcohol and gambling, there are also a lot of "casual users" who dabble here and there without falling into addictive behavior, especially given the wide scope of "pornography" as discussed above.

It's not that casual usage is "okay" and can't still be wrong on a fundamental level, but the common person is not going to look at casual users with the same eye as someone who's actually addicted. And rhetoric that makes it sound like casual usage is equivalent to addiction (or automatically leads to it), lends itself to "seriousness fatigue"--where the response to further talks on the subject with the same strong wording leads to rolling eyes and shrugged shoulders.

"World of Warcraft", for example, can also lend itself to addiction. An LDS wife with a husband who plays World of Warcraft eight hours a day while neglecting his other responsibilities has a legitimate complaint that her husband's actions are sabotaging their marriage and their family, causing emotional and spiritual damage. (And maybe someday we will hear this referenced directly in a conference talk). An LDS wife who hears that her husband tried WOW for five minutes at a friend's house two months ago in a moment of weakness is probably not going to feel the same level of passion.

Saying that any pornography usage--casual or otherwise--will "destroy marriages" has the problem of treating everyone with the same brush stroke. To the average member, it does not *seem* like casual usage under the broad definition mentioned above--watching R-rated movies with nudity, for example--is going to lead to a complete destruction of marital intimacy.

(3) Other marital issues

Just in the last year, my wife and I have met LDS women who (1) have been in abusive relationships, (2) had a husband who cheated on them with another woman, or (3) had husbands who left them and their kids for 'greener pastures'--LDS women who could only *wish* that their primary complaint about their husband was that he looked at porn on occasion.

Obviously, neither Elder Scott nor any other Church leader would ever condone abuse, adultery, or neglect. But these are all serious problems that still face a lot of LDS marriages today--how often do we hear strong condemnations of these issues using the same rhetoric as pornography?

Simply from Church talks it's easy to get the impression--like my wife did on Saturday--that pornography is considered as serious as (or worse than) any of the other things husbands could inflict on their families. My wife's response is natural--there are many other things she could think of that I could be doing that would cause her more emotional and spiritual pain than looking at porn. That's not an excuse for porn, only a recognition that the perspective of porn usage compared to other serious problems facing LDS couples today may have been lost.

(4) Law of Diminishing Returns

As discussed here, there is a law of diminishing returns when it comes to warnings against certain behaviors. Doubling the amount of conference talks that discuss pornography will not automatically cut pornography usage in half.

Church leaders can defensibly say, "We'll stop talking about it when the problem no longer exists". But that presumes that strongly-worded talks about pornography from the pulpit are the solution to the problem in the first place. At some point, talking about a subject more--especially with increasingly strong rhetoric--has limited to no effect on the listeners who heard the message the first time. Sometimes, in extreme cases, it will create a backlash against it.

Currently, there's nowhere for pornography rhetoric to go, but down. And when it does, after however many years or decades, won't that create even more of a temptation for "casual" usage than if pornography had been approached from a more balanced, realistic perspective from the beginning?

Conclusion:

We know a couple where the wife has admitted that her husband can't have sex with her at all unless he watches a porn movie first...and when he does, it's quick, brutal, and she hates it. We also know a couple who watches erotic movies together on occasion as a 'marital aid', where both of them enjoy it.

No one would ever minimize or condone the situation in the first marriage. But, in the second...well, what *should* our response be? Shouldn't we treat the second situation as fundamentally different than the first, on a different level of severity? Treating complex issues as complex issues with nuance doesn't need to be an 'excuse' for anything--only an acceptance of reality. It's possible that Elder Scott was referring specifically to pornography *addiction*--circumstances where porn use has led directly to unfortunate consequences and destructive behavior. However, by mentioning specifically obscene lyrics and vulgar language, to the average member's ears all pornography use under all definitions is considered equivalent. It's not realistic to assume the average member is going to consider a sexually suggestive song to be equivalent to an X-rated movie.

Again, the problem isn't that pornography is "good", only that there seems to be a disconnect between how serious pornography use seems to the common member, especially casual usage, and how serious it seems based on current rhetoric.

Elder Scott or other Church leaders may say that in itself is part of the problem--that the average member *doesn't* understand how serious a problem it is. However, if my wife is not convinced by current rhetoric, then something needs to change--we need to either acknowledge that the scope of what's termed "pornography" is very broad, that different manifestations of it can be treated differently, and that casual usage is fundamentally a different animal than addiction.

Or, barring that, explain in more clearer terms why the problems from addiction apply equally to non-addictive behavior as well--that all areas related to sexual attraction and immodesty should be treated as seriously as addiction to X-rated movies. Because if it is, the common member--myself included--isn't seeing it.

Two Arguments That Shouldn't Be Used in Religious Discussions

The Baron — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 19:39:37 GMT

Two arguments that shouldn’t be used when discussing religion and policy…

(1) “Jesus never said anything against ______ in the Bible (or Book of Mormon).”

Problem: A person can read all the recorded words of Jesus Christ within the scriptures in a hour or two…and yet Jesus himself would talk for a hour or two in a single sitting. The idea that the words recorded in the scriptures represent anything more than a minute fraction of the words Jesus actually spoke is ridiculous.

It’s not only a logical conclusion but a near certainty that Christ taught many things that aren’t written in existing scripture (and, of course, has ‘opinions’ on many other things that he may not have taught in the flesh). There’s a vast difference between ‘if it’s written in the Bible/Book of Mormon, it’s true’, and ‘if it’s NOT in the Bible/Book of Mormon, therefore it must NOT be true’.

Statements of the form “if Jesus really thought _____ (homosexuality, for example) was a sin he would have said something more strongly about it in the Bible” are inherently suspect, given the limited scope of scripture. That doesn’t mean the statement is automatically incorrect, of course, but that lack of scriptural support means very little in terms of ‘evidence’.

(Corollary: Naturally, even when scripture does make a direct statement for or against something, differing interpretations will abound…)

(2) “I know that God accepts and supports my decision to (do/believe) _____ and has blessed me for it.”

Problem: 99% of the world believes that God is perfectly happy with them doing exactly what they are doing. But…since the choices and beliefs in question are all different, don’t we have a contradiction?

People will say they know “it’s God’s will” for them that they oppose gay marriage…or support gay marriage, or attempt to overcome their same-sex attraction at a counseling clinic, or leave their spouse for a same-sex lover, or treat gay individuals with love and charity, or throw their son/daughter with same-sex attraction out of the house as a form of “tough love”, or “cure” gays by beating them up.

People will say they know “it’s God’s will” for them that they join the Church, leave the Church, open an understanding dialogue with people with different beliefs, or persecute (sometimes murder) people with different beliefs.

People will say they know that "if Jesus were on the Earth today he'd be voting Democrat (or Republican)"--by an astonishing coincidence, the party or platform they think Jesus would support also happens to be the one *they* support!

Mankind has a remarkable ability to ascribe to God things that they themselves believe and follow, and that God is perfectly happy and supportive of whatever choices they’ve made. (How often do you hear someone say, “I know that God *isn’t* happy with this decision, but I’m going to press forward anyway”?) *Everyone* thinks God agrees with them.

Now, let’s be clear here: if *you* believe God supports your beliefs and decisions, that’s great. An essential part of life is discerning God’s will for us on a personal level.

However, when used as a *persuasive argument* (on a blog comment, for example) implying that other people should be more tolerant and accepting of your beliefs or decisions because God obviously does, it falls well short of anything meaningful. Of course you think the things you do or believe are God’s will for you—everyone does!

Finding The Middle Ground In Gay Marriage Policy

The Baron — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:31:08 GMT

[Yes, another post on gay marriage…if your eyes glaze over at the very mention of the subject, you’ve been fairly warned…]

MormonMatters asked in a post last month what would happen if the Church ever “allowed” gay marriage. This answer largely depends on how we define “allow”. Like most issues, gay marriage policy within the Church does not have to be an ‘all-or-nothing’ proposition—let’s look at some potential ‘middle ground’…

For Latter-Day Saints with same-sex attraction today, options are limited.   Many simply leave the Church to find their own path, others enter into opposite-sex marriages and hope for the best, and some remain as active as they can, single and celibate, holding firm in a hope that their beliefs and their desires for companionship can be somehow reconciled *within* the Church without having to choose one or the other.

For many, the ultimate hope is for same-sex temple sealings—the hope that they can eventually have all the blessings of an eternal family with the companion of their choice, regardless of gender.

An understandable hope, certainly, although surely those Saints would have to see the difficulty in reconciling this hope with current doctrine. Virtually all doctrinal statements on the matter indicate that gender is a fundamental characteristic of not only physical bodies, but eternal bodies--that God has a ‘gender’, God’s spirit children also have ‘gender’, and resurrected bodies will continue to have ‘gender’ as well--implying that we’re not all going to turn into androgynous beings who look exactly the same under our white, glorious robes.

Furthermore, existing doctrine directly implies that an eternal marriage and eternal increase is dependent upon having a male and female participant—that fundamentally, there is eternal potential that cannot be realized unless a gendered spirit/resurrected body is paired with someone of the opposite gender, to complete them.   Eternal potential that—reading things at face value—just may not be possible with two spirits of the same gender, no matter how close an emotional attachment.

Certainly, as with all doctrine, one can disagree whether this is actually true or just speculation, but this interpretation seems to be the most straight-forward reading of both the “Proclamation on the Family” and virtually all other statements on the matter within the Church.

Gay Church members are therefore hoping that (contrary to these statements) same-gender couples do, in reality, have exactly the same eternal potential as opposite-gender couples, or perhaps that gender does not exist in the eternities at all. Basically, that everything the Church has previously said about how gender is (from the Proclamation) “an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose” turns out to be false. But at the same time…that everything those exact same Church leaders have taught about the plan of salvation and the potential for eternal families continuing on together after death in the first place happens to be entirely true.

That’s an awfully fine line to draw--where Church leaders are completely wrong on half of eternal doctrine…but exactly right on the other half. Is there really a basis for a hope that gay couples have a place in the plan of salvation eternally (presuming one accepts the basics of the plan of salvation as revealed in the latter days at all) considering the source of that knowledge is exactly the same?

Pinning hopes on the existence of same-sex eternal marriages seems comparable to betting on a flip of a coin…where those gay Saints aren’t picking ‘heads’ or ‘tails’, but that the coin will somehow land sideways on its edge without falling over. How likely is that?

However, there’s some middle ground in terms of “allowing” gay marriage. Consider how non-temple marriages are handled currently. A (heterosexual) couple who is legally married, but not in the temple, can still hold callings and temple recommends.   Their relationship isn’t inherently considered to be a violation of the “law of chastity”. Missionaries who tract out a married couple are free to baptize them without adjustments. While the Church clearly teaches that non-temple marriages are inferior to temple marriages in any number of ways, non-temple marriages are still accepted within the Church without major objection.

Suppose in the future, gay marriages are treated within the Church in the same way. That is, individuals are required to be completely chaste before marriage, and completely faithful after, but sexual activity with their legally married spouse is not considered to be a violation of the law of chastity. Missionaries who tract out a married gay couple can baptize them if they fulfill all the other requirements. (And if they’re not married, they have to get married first, same as other couples)    Baptized gay members in legal same-sex marriages who are faithful to all of their other covenants can still qualify for church callings and a temple recommend…even if their relationship (like a non-temple marriage now) has no ‘eternal’ standing.

Basically, the Church would be saying to gay couples: “We still maintain that your relationship has no eternal potential and is contrary to the path prepared by God for eternal increase (compared to proper temple marriages), however your temporal marriage and continuing fidelity is enough to allow you to be a member in good standing and fellowship in terms of callings, temple recommends, etc…”

Would this arrangement work, or be one of those compromises that pleases no one? My impression is that faithful members with SSA right now would be perfectly happy with such an arrangement. The common lay member may be split depending on how they feel about homosexuality in general.

Is this likely to happen? Probably not. Here are the two obvious counter-arguments:

1.    Non-temple marriages are “allowed” (read: tolerated) because they can be turned into eternal marriages at any time with a simple trip to the temple later (even after death). If gay pairings genuinely have no eternal potential (as current doctrine implies) then they don’t have this advantage—they can’t be changed into something eternal through a simple ordinance. Thus there’s no reason to treat one as the equivalent of the other.

2.    Homosexual behavior is fundamentally a sin and having a legal document with two people’s names on it doesn’t change anything.

As Elder Wickman states in an Evergreen interview (along with Elder Oakes): “Homosexual behavior is and will always remain before the Lord an abominable sin. Calling it something else by virtue of some political definition does not change that reality.”

…with many other similar quotes from past and present leaders which present another doctrinal obstacle. Why allow gay marriage even in a secondary capacity if same-sex behavior is inherently sinful? Accepting gay relationships within the church essentially means officially condoning gay sexual conduct in at least a narrow scope. That is a big step to take from current policy.

What *might* happen is that over time, local wards and branches may start to treat faithful members in same-sex relationships differently. Many will be strict on the matter, but likely some will start to be ‘liberal’ in accepting relationships within the church that have been legally recognized by local laws, especially if gay marriage laws become entrenched over time. Many church members will object to this when it happens, but others will find they will be okay with it. The ratio of the first group to the second group will be the interesting question, and will also differ largely by locale.

Deciding how gays are to be treated in the Church is still the biggest gap to bridge, in my opinion, and one of the biggest policy issues in the next decade. It’s a fair question to speculate on how culture might change in the next few decades and what that could mean for faithful Saints with same-sex attraction and their place in the Church. Is it likely the Church will "allow" gay marriages in some capacity fifty years from now? If so, what will that mean?

At The Movies: One Man's Treasure (B-)

The Baron — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 18:35:14 GMT

One Man's Treasure

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

In Defense of Johnny Lingo and Subversive Radicals

The Baron — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:49:00 GMT

At the recently concluded Sunstone conference, writer Holly Welker criticized the popular LDS short “Johnny Lingo” (not strictly speaking an LDS film as it has no true LDS content, but was produced by BYU in 1969)

(This post will assume readers are somewhat familiar with the content of the Johnny Lingo short—featuring Johnny, his future wife Mahana, and eight cows. Summaries of the plot can be found in the linked article above… The 2003 movie about Johnny Lingo is similar in details but not quite the same story—this article focuses on the original 1969 short)

The contention is that the film is fundamentally sexist, displaying a culture where brides are essentially 'bought' with cows, and a woman’s self-worth is determined by how high a price her husband paid for her. From the article:

Mahana has no say in the marriage. She cannot refuse the husband who has bought her, even if she doesn't like him or believes that his price is too low. The bridal bargain is a contest of wills between two men: Mahana's father and her future husband. "Johnny Lingo" is about its active and powerful hero, not the passive heroine....Indeed, Mahana's transformation is "not because someone loves her, or because she loves someone, or because she is treated with respect and kindness, but because she knows she is the most expensive commodity on the island

Attacking the culture of “Johnny Lingo” as "sexist" seems like a straw man. Of course, it’s sexist. But…that’s the *setting* of the film, not the *point*. I didn't attend the Sunstone session, but let me attempt to analyze and defend the *content* of Johnny Lingo separate from the context or setting.

I’m not aware if "Johnny Lingo" was based on any actual Polynesian culture where brides were, in fact, paid for by cows, but there are numerous examples throughout history where brides were obtained through ‘contract negotiations’ with the bride’s father, with the bride herself having no say. (Sometimes the husband pays for the bride, sometimes the bride’s family pays the husband …)

Even if it didn’t have a historical basis, though, portraying a tradition or culture that’s sexist doesn’t automatically make the movie itself sexist.    Is “To Kill a Mockingbird” a ‘racist’ movie (or book) because it portrays a (historically accurate) racist society? (More on this later…)

Johnny Lingo (the person) didn’t create the culture of buying-a-wife-through-cows, in fact there’s little evidence that he agrees with it at all. However, that’s the society he lives in and has to deal with. Before we can condemn the film’s content as “sexist”, let’s look beyond the setting through the eyes of the main character.

Here’s Johnny’s problem: there’s a girl he wants to marry—someone who, as it happens, is not particularly valued by others on the island as a wife--and the cultural tradition of the society in which he lives says to order to marry her he has to ‘buy’ that right from her father.

Now, if you were Johnny Lingo—even with the benefit of 21st century “enlightenment”—what would *you* do in this situation?

Option #1: Refuse to participate in the cultural tradition he finds offensive. Insist that he should be able to marry Mahana (or any woman) if she is willing to marry him, without having to pay her father anything. Actively protest this ‘sexist’ cultural tradition whenever appropriate.

Likely End Result: Johnny almost certainly ends up without a wife (whether Mahana or anyone). Mahana ends up being married to whichever other guy on the island is willing to pay the one cow or half a cow price to her father. (Will *this* help her self-esteem?) Johnny gets dismissed by virtually everyone on the island as merely “cheap”. Little significant cultural change occurs. Johnny becomes a martyr for a lost cause.

Option #2: Johnny pays the expected one cow (or parts of a cow) to Mahana’s father to marry her—basically conforming to the expected market price of a public commodity, according to the cultural economy of the island. Being her husband, he can then spend whatever private time and effort he needs to persuade Mahana behind the scenes that her worth is not determined by the price paid.

Likely End Result: Since the predominant cultural tradition says that her worth *is* determined by the price her husband paid—and Johnny has inherently supported this culture by participating in it--his efforts have a handicap right from the beginning. Also, since Johnny conformed completely to cultural expectations, no cultural shift in tradition will be forthcoming.

Option #3: Johnny pays an ‘above market’ price for Mahana, say three or four cows—a price that’s higher than expected by the outside observers, but still ‘normal’ (i.e. within the market bounds defined by cultural tradition).

Likely End Result: Going above expected market price, even above Mahana’s father’s own asking price, makes a small statement, and Mahana probably feels more valued than in option #1 or #2. However, since he’s still conformed to the general market system, no cultural change will be forthcoming. After all, Johnny has still essentially reinforced the notion that a woman’s value is measured in cows, even if Mahana herself is worth more cows than previously thought.

Option #4: Johnny pays an exaggerated and ridiculous price for Mahana—eight cows—shocking everyone.

Likely End Result:    Since this is what happens in the movie, we already know what happens to Mahana. (*Why*, is still a question—we’ll look at that below).   What happens to the bride market on the island, though? Well, essentially Johnny has sabotaged it in a subversive manner, by doing something that both conforms to and undercuts the system at the same time.

What are the likely consequences of paying eight cows? Let’s do a thought experiment:

Johnny (and Mahana) become household names that everyone talks about for years.
The previous families who used to be at the top of the bridal social class (the five cow families) are now jealous due to their sudden loss of status.
Many of those "five cow" women will not automatically consider Mahana their ‘superior’. They will resent the fact that her status has changed from social outcast to “island queen” due solely to the price Johnny paid, and complain that her status (and their own status) hasn’t really changed from before she got married. (i.e. they are still ‘higher class’ women than Mahana in any number of respects despite the fact that her price was higher. Subconsciously, of course, their complaints show the divorce of personal worth and price paid in cows has already started to take form in their minds…)
Other single men become jealous of Johnny’s sudden notoriety. One of those single men (likely from one of those same upper-class families) will eventually decide to ‘1-up’ Johnny by paying ten cows for his wife in order to reap the same renown. This will be quickly followed by someone else paying 12, then 15, then 20, and so on…
Dads of prospective brides who feel their daughters are the equivalent (or better) to Mahana starting asking for outrageous prices themselves from the beginning as part of their own quest for status. (Why settle for five when people are now willing to pay 20? Standard supply and demand.)
The bridal market soon becomes a ‘bubble’ which eventually reaches ridiculous proportions as rich grooms now start paying 50 to 100 cows for a wife.
As with all bubbles, this eventually becomes unsustainable and collapses. Why does it collapse? First, obviously not every family will be able to afford the inflated price and will be “locked out” of the bridal market. Those ‘middle-class’ families still need to find wives for their single sons, however, so a secondary market will need be created. Most likely, one not based on cows at all. And the larger the ‘middle class’ becomes and that secondary market starts to grow, the more cultural traditions will start to shift.
Culturally, as the price increases exponentially, the exaggerated price paid for a wife starts to become to everyone a symbol of the prospective husband’s wealth rather than the woman’s worth. Paying 100 cows for a wife becomes simply a sign that the husband was rich enough to have 100 cows to begin with, not that the woman is that much better than all the other women bought in previous generations. Conceptually, the idea of a worth of a woman correlating with the price paid for her continues to decay.
The women who used to be ‘top of the line’ a decade ago now start hearing other people ask them, “Your husband only paid five cows for you? Mine paid 200!” Those women aren’t stupid—it occurs to them at this point that they are still the same person now that they were back when they got married. They inherently realize it isn’t possible to create a qualitative “195 cow” difference between themselves and these younger women. It’s obvious to everyone at this point that the current inflated price for brides really has no relationship to a woman’s self-worth or identity. The fallacy of equated cows to self-worth has now been fully exposed. The transition has begun.

The end result is that Johnny Lingo has quite cleverly acted as a subversive radical—he worked within the system (and got the bride he wanted) while helping to bring that system down at the same time.

Is this a far-fetched reading of the film? I don’t think so. I think it's easy to infer that Johnny knows exactly what he is doing by bidding eight cows instead of, say, five.

Why does Mahana have self-worth at the end of the film? Winters suggests it is merely because the price paid is higher than the other girls--that she thinks of herself only as a commodity, albeit a high priced one.

If Johnny had paid five cows for her this may be correct. However, eight cows is so completely out of line with how society had previously valued her—or how society had valued *anyone* up to that point--that surely the fallacy of equating cows to self-worth becomes evident to her even before the above “bubble” starts to run its course. Does Mahana really believe she’s “three cows” better (at least) than every other woman on the island? What does that even mean?

Johnny may think of her as an ‘eight cow woman’—after all, that’s what he paid—and that’s certainly flattering, but that’s just one man’s opinion. If some other man was only willing to pay half a cow for her under the same circumstances, or another three cows only, which one is most relevant to her true worth? Isn't it obvious that people’s opinion of a person’s worth in cow terms are just that: opinions—relative and arbitrary. And the catalyst for this is the fact Johnny paid eight cows, not just four or five…

Admittedly, Mahana doesn’t have a lot of dialogue so we don’t know her mindset one way or the other. However, I think it’s pure speculation to think that her self-worth is based only on “she knows she is the most expensive commodity on the island.”

Again, the "sexist" culture is the *setting* for the film. So what? If you were Johnny what would you have done differently?    What better ‘liberal, progressive’ solution existed than the one he happened to choose?

Subversive Radicals

There’s a larger issue here—what does it mean to be a subversive radical? Let’s look at “To Kill a Mockingbird”, for example. Is the setting of “TKAM” racist? Sure. Is the character of Atticus Finch a part of that racist culture? Well, we don’t see him arguing passionately about giving blacks the right to vote, or holding up signs protesting segregation or anything, do we? He seems to enjoy all the benefits of being white and privileged that everyone else does.

But, he is still arguably at heart a subversive radical. He does things that undercut the racist society in which he lives…and he does so from *within* that society. He is fully-functioning, respected member of white society in that time period. *And* he treats blacks with respect and dignity at the same time. He does everything he can from within the system to give blacks justice , and everyone (white or black) can see it.

Today, there are many people who insist that the LDS Church can be changed from without.   They are offended by problems they encounter with people or doctrine. They leave the Church in a huff, and then complain on blogs and other public forums about everything they hate about it, and insist that they won’t come back unless there’s “change”.

And…they’re deceiving themselves if they think that true change is ever accomplished from without. Throughout history, change happens in the Church because of people on the inside—faithful, active members who underwent a change of attitude from the past and sought to alter past traditions and policies.

Racist policies and cultures in US history didn't end because blacks wanted them to change, they did so because enough *white* people wanted them to change.   Likewise, policies and traditions that people have found offensive in Church history only changed because people on the inside wanted them to change.

No one probably thinks of Bloggernacle contributor Margaret Blair Young as a "subversive radical", yet in a way, that characterization fits. She's a faithful, active member who through films such as "The Untold Story of Black Mormons" seeks to change past folklore and misunderstanding among other active members. And she does so from *within*.

If/when attitudes change in the Church about race (or same-sex attraction or anything), it will be because of people on the inside who care about the Church and its members and work to change attitudes from within, not the DAMU-types who cast stones from the outside and pretend people on the inside listen to or care about what they think.

The point and context of "Johnny Lingo" may be subject to personal interpretation, but I view it as a clever way for one man to make a difference in the society he lives, and get the girl he loves at the same time.

Geoff J. and a Giraffe walk into a bar: Religigagging the Bloggernacle

Téa — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 22:21:20 GMT

Thomas Cathcart & Daniel Klein examine philosophy through jokes in their book “Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar”. They call it ‘philogagging’. My exploration of the ‘nacle using humor could be called religigagging.*

Geoff J. is known for his strong beliefs regarding God’s omniscience and free will (scroll through his comments on Eric’s recent post & browse the foreknowledge category at New Cool Thang).

When I read the following joke, I immediately thought of him.

~~~

Alvin is working in his store when he hears a booming voice from above that says, "Alvin sell your business!" He ignores it. The voice goes on for days saying, "Alvin, sell your business for three million dollars!" After weeks of this, he relents and sells his store.

The voice says, "Alvin, go to Las Vegas!"

Alvin asks why.

"Alvin, just take the three million dollars and go to Las Vegas."

Alvin obeys, goes to Las Vegas, and visits a casino.

The voice says, "Alvin, go to the blackjack table and put it all down on one hand!"

Alvin hesitates but gives in. He's dealt an eighteen. The dealer has a six showing.

"Alvin, take a card!"

"What? The dealer has..."

"Take a card!"

Alvin tells the dealer to hit him and gets and ace. Nineteen. He breathes easy.

"Alvin, take another card."

"What?"

"TAKE ANOTHER CARD!"

Alvin asks for another card. It's another ace. He has twenty.

"Alvin take another card!" the voice commands.

"I have twenty!" Alvin shouts.

"TAKE ANOTHER CARD!" booms the voice.

"Hit me!" Alvin says. He gets another ace. Twenty-one!

And the booming voice says, "Un-[frakking]-believable!"

~~~

What do you say, Geoff? Is there “something appealing about a God who can surprise Himself”?

*Would the shorter religagging work better?

"Mormons are like artichokes"

Paradox — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 06:38:29 GMT

" ...At first encounter you either like them or you don’t."

So yeah. I was digging through old copies of the Deseret News, and I found that. Having never eaten artichokes before, but having seen them on the Food Network recently and wondered "My heavens, who would EAT that?" I think it's a fair analogy. I personally have never tried eating a Mormon, but with a little ketchup, who knows?

Well, all candor aside now. It's time for this artichoke to blow off some steam.

Now that I've been released from my Relief Society teaching calling, I hit the Bloggernacle in hopes of finding out what the new lesson manual was going to be since the Joseph Smith manual is coming to its end, more or less.

It appears that what we'll actually be studying from is a new edition of the Gospel Principles book.

In the spectrum of milk and meat, the Gospel Principles book is 1% milk. I didn't even like it when I WAS a new member (for whom the book and its corresponding class is usually used) because I felt like my foundation was coming along too slowly. I had larger-than-life questions and I sat in on one Gospel Principles class before I headed back to regular Sunday school.

So the fact that the manual is to be the forefront of our attention for an entire year says A LOT to me.

Can you say "sudden influx of new members is coming"?

Now, that's just my theory--and maybe even an unrealistic hope. But it makes sense all across the board as a theory

If you think about our growth as an international church, most of our attention is focused on Central and South America, to the extent that more of our proselyting resources are being relocated from other places. Missions in Europe and Africa are closing and scaling back, and larger influxes of missionaries are being sent to address the problems south of the border. One of the problems that is pretty well known from this area is that conversions are many, but retention is pretty dismal.

Having the Gospel Principles book, as simple as it is, makes sense for large amounts of growth in short periods of time. And the benefit to not doing more church history (as much as I like it) is that the historical connection to the rest of the world, I won't lie, is pretty loose. Sure, the stories are inspiring and amazing, but I can see why "the white man's history" wouldn't appeal to the people that are hearing it in other places.

The more patchwork approach of studying individual principles doesn't require new members to keep a hold on all of church's history right from the start, and allows them to focus on themselves and the building of their testimonies--hence why they usually keep this manual for new members.

My temptation on this one is to drag my feet in mild compliance because, in all honesty, I'd rather have the Lorenzo Snow manual. I don't like being bored at church, and it's something that rarely ever happens because so much of it is still new to me. And I just found this from the Deseret News as well, so my interest is peaked in President Snow.

Gospel Principles? The lessons themselves are a step backwards for anyone who has read the Book of Mormon and believes what it says. And I'm tempted to grumble... but I don't condone my attitude at all, so I decided to think about the possibilities.

If there are less missionaries being called to the states, the members here are going to automatically inherit the responsibility that we've actually had for some time now, but I didn't find that out until recently. Apparently, it's OUR responsibility to go find interested investigators for the missionaries to teach. The ideal situation, according to what the missionaries are taught, is their not having to knock on people's doors. And that makes sense. This isn't 1830 and there aren't just 6 of us anymore. Introducing people to the gospel is the responsibility of friends and family in the US, NOT the missionaries.

And now there's a tool in the works that would invite us to get back to the basics. Could it be because we're expected to start bringing in more people and doing our share of the work?

Seeing as General Conference is coming up and I'm already beginning to salivate in anticipation of what they're going to tell us, I'm beginning to wonder how much of all this is actually true.

What kind of council do you think is coming? What are you doing to prepare? Thoughts on The Gospel Principles manual? Do you think it'll be an effective change? Will it help us become less of an artichoke people and something a little easier on the palate?

The Wrong Way To Do The Right Thing

The Baron — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:42:35 GMT

MormonMatters has a post about "Doing Right For the Wrong Reason". As a corollary, I'd like to discuss a related topic--doing the right thing for the right reason...but in the wrong way.

[One obvious problem: people disagree on what the 'right' thing is in the first place, but for today let's take the decisions made at face value...]

Example #1:

In 2004, an LDS golfer enters a tournament, makes the final—held on Sunday—and then announces (on Saturday night) he won’t play in the final because it’s the Sabbath. The tournament is then forced to declare a winner a day early and the final day is cancelled.

Let's assume, again, that not playing competitive golf on Sundays is the 'right' decision--should the timing of the decision be held under scrutiny? Should he have told someone before Saturday night that he wasn’t going to play on Sunday? Or should he have entered the tournament at all, since the Sunday final was known to everyone long beforehand?

The quotes from the linked article are telling—and demonstrate that at the time not everyone was ‘impressed’ with his standing up for the Sabbath:

“Although I fully respect a person and his religious convictions, it's a matter of what process that kind of religious conviction should have shown itself. There's lots of considerations a person has to make besides his own personal religious convictions before he enters into an activity. Volunteers . . . , golf courses . . . , contestants who have put in their time and effort. . . . It should have been handled sooner.”

A change was made to tournament policy following this incident—NOT moving the final to Monday (as may have been this golfer's hope), but a requirement that players tell the organizers ahead of time whether they intend to play.   Did the method of withdrawing end up undercutting the example he was trying to set for others about standards? Arguably so... Did this incident end up increasing or decreasing respect for LDS athletes with Sabbath standards in general?

Example #2:

In January 2005, the Jordan River Commons theater, owned by the late Utah Jazz owner (and Church member) Larry Miller decided at the last minute—after ads had run and some tickets had been sold—not to show “Brokeback Mountain”, Ang Lee’s Oscar-winning ‘gay cowboy movie’.   (Reportedly, because Miller himself made a last minute decision after hearing about the content of the movie)

Larry Miller's theaters (as with any movie theater) have the right to show any movie they want to, of course.   There are still, however, issues with:

(1)    the ill feeling left by the ‘last-minute-ness’ of the decision, when many had already bought tickets after the theater had already publicly committed to showing the film on its schedule.
(2)    the easily supported accusations of bigotry and hypocrisy since other movies with highly ‘objectionable’ content—even other movies with *gay* content—played at the theater before, during, and since that incident.

(Larry Miller did later apologize for the incident, admitting it was handled poorly...)

The Scera Theater in Orem, Utah didn't show "Brokeback Mountain" either at that time, causing no controversy whatsoever. Scera rarely shows anything above a PG, and their standards are well-known and consistent, such that movie-goers have a pretty good idea what will and what won't be shown on Scera's screens.    They seem to be a good example of the right way to do the right thing--have standards that other people can respect without causing undue inconvenience and hard feelings for others.

There are undoubtedly other examples which can represent the same point: there's an art to standing up for your beliefs without stepping on the toes of others. Basically, respecting yourself and others at the same time. Doing the right thing the wrong way can end up being counter-productive in the end--causing undue resentment and annoyance when the goal was to make a positive statement about faith and standards in the first place.

The Truth Behind Faith and Doubt

The Baron — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 22:52:07 GMT

According to experts, the only reliable way to choose the gender of a not-yet-conceived baby is to use invitro fertilization, analyze the resulting embryos for gender, then implant the proper embryos back into the uterus. Such procedures can cost upwards of $20,000.

You can always hear folk wisdom from all cultures, though, about choosing baby gender: foods to eat, proper days of the month to conceive, positions in bed, even directions to point the bed according to Chinese Feng Shui, etc--all of which are reported to allow control of baby gender,   There are even products that claim to be upwards of 96% effective at choosing the gender of an upcoming baby, not for $20,000, but for the low price of $199.95!

One is entitled to be skeptical, of course. Can such high claims of effectiveness be accurate? Or are they just scams, as many others attest?

If choosing-gender-on-the-cheap kits are scams and folk wisdom just...folk wisdom, as seems likely, let’s look at how such scams and traditions can come about.

In reality it’s very simple—given the natural circumstances of child-birth, even if the aforementioned product does absolutely nothing, 50% of the customers are still going to get exactly what they want. That automatically creates a lot of “satisfied” customers and potential testimonials right off the bat. (Naturally, companies that sell those products can enthusiastically offer a “100% Money Back Guarantee!”, because they know there still going to get at least 50% of the money in the end…)

And those who don't get the right gender…well, obviously, they were just part of that 4% minority. After all, no product can be 100% effective for everyone, right? Maybe they just didn’t use it correctly, or follow the steps carefully enough. There will always be exceptions to every rule.

Suppose there was a true, effective over-the-counter product for choosing gender? How would we know? After all, no product can be 100% effective for everyone, right? There will always be some circumstances or another in which the product isn’t used correctly, or unique biological circumstances in this person or that prevent it from functioning properly.

We now have a situation where the effectiveness of a product is essentially impossible to determine on an individual level. Getting what you want doesn’t prove it worked. Not getting what you want doesn’t prove it doesn’t work.

There’s an obvious parallel here: there are many people in the world who have testimonials of the power of prayer. To an agnostic or cynic, there is an easy explanation: a great many of those people would have gotten what they wanted without prayer, or divine help.

And that’s certainly true: when people pray for, say, a family member to get healthy, or to find a job, or to be protected as they travel, in many of those cases those wishes are going to come to pass without needing divine help. Many diseases and injuries will naturally be overcome, jobs will naturally be found, and people will naturally travel safely without harm. Whether divine help assisted in the process is subject to personal interpretation.

And the opposite is also true: regardless of faith and sincerity, some people are not going to get what they pray for. To a believer, this can be explained because perhaps God had other plans, and that’s just how it works sometimes. To an unbeliever, naturally, this shows how random life circumstances are, and demonstrates the folly of depending on prayer in the first place.

Again, we have a situation where the efficacy of prayer is functionally impossible to prove in either direction based on any kind of statistical analysis. If the agnostic position is correct—God doesn’t exist and prayer is useless—some percentage of people are still going to have “answered” prayers due to simple probabilities. If the believer’s position is correct—God does exist and does answer prayers with direct divine guidance—there’s still going to be unanswered prayers, as virtually no one believes prayers work on a 100% reliability rate, anyway.

In both cases, the problem is unsolvable individually. With gender kits, though, one can still verify the 96% figure based on aggregates. One can survey large numbers of people who use the same product and check what percentage got what they wanted. Something in the ballpark of 96% and you seem to have an effective product, even if there are still some percentage of unsatisfied individual customers. Closer to 50% and you have some basic evidence that the product is no better than random chance.

Unfortunately, there’s no posted “X% Effective!” sticker on prayer to do the same kind of statistical analysis. Anecdotally, one will always be able to find success and failure stories regardless of which position you believe in--it's the ratio between them that is in question, and who knows what to expect the success rate of prayer to be in the first place?

That is really the truth behind faith and doubt—there never will be a 'silver bullet' of evidence in either direction that removes all doubt. Nothing exists that will prove God's existence to those who doubt because there will always be an alternate explanation that can explain the same results. (And vice versa)   Neither side will ever be entirely sure they are correct, because there will always be space for doubt. Doubt about whether it does work and they were just in that unlucky 4%, or whether it doesn't work at all and they're just wasting their time and relying on random chance like everyone else, anyway.

That's what faith is, though--not having a perfect knowledge.   It's making your best guess and hoping the odds work in your favor.

Free Agency and the Phenomenon of Choice

Eric Nielson — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:50:34 GMT

I have been participating on LDS blogs for about four years now, and over that time I have changed my mind about a few things. One of those things is the compatibility of free will and God's absolute foreknowledge. I now view them as incompatible, and there is probably no turning back.

I have tried to share my new opinions with a few people - most notably my wife and my father - without having much success. In fact, it has been quite frustrating. Not only do they resist agreeing with me, they seem to fail to understand what the issue even is.

This has caused me to ponder why it is so difficult for typical Mormons (like me) to understand this issue. And I think I have found a partial answer to this. I believe it is because typical Mormons and amateur philosophers look at free will in completely different ways. For purposes of this post I will label the typical Mormon view as 'free agency' and the amateur philosopher view as 'the phenomenon of choice'.

Free Agency

Most Mormons probably do not give the idea of free will much thought. When they do, it is likely to be based on the story of the war in heaven. During this war in heaven, God presented the plan of salvation. Satan then presented an alternate plan in which he claimed that not one soul would be lost. The only thing we are really told about this plan is that he sought to take away our agency. Most Mormons assume that what he meant to do is to force us to obey all the commandments with exactness. Satan's plan was rejected, and thus we have free agency. With this view, many Mormons feel that a lack of coercion by God or Satan is equivalent to having free will. The claims of determinists do not even enter into the discussion.

The Phenomenon of Choice

Philosophers have debated over free will for a long time, often without getting anywhere. God and Satan, with their possible coercion do not even enter the picture. What philosophers discuss is what our choices are really based on. Determinists would claim that given things like our exact physiology and our exact circumstances we would always behave the same way. Thus our 'choices' must be based entirely on prior causes, and our sensation of freedom is ignorance of these prior causes.

An Example

To give an example of what I am getting at - imagine two philosophers debating over the phenomenon of choice. In the middle of the discussion an angel of God appears to them. This angel instructs them to stop arguing and to listen. The angel then tells them many things about the nature of God. Among these things, the angel says that God is omnitemporal, and that God is outside of time. Thus, the past, present, and future are all the same to God since he resides in an 'eternal now'. And then the angel leaves.

The philosophers discuss the experience, and agree that it was a real event. They then shake hands and agree to never discuss the phenomenon of choice again, because it is pointless. If the future exists in a fixed, knowable, inhabitable form, and God (or anyone) resides there, then there is no free will anyway. The coercion of God or Satan have nothing to do with this. It only has to do with the phenomenon of choice, and whether there is such a thing.

I hope this expresses where I am (now) coming from. I welcome your comments.

At The Movies: Out of Step (B-)

The Baron — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 22:33:07 GMT

Out of Step

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

Apostasy: Then & Now

The Baron — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:06:07 GMT

When Jesuit missionaries first introduced Christianity to Japan in the 16th century, they found a surprisingly fertile harvest among the Japanese people, with rapid growth.

A little too much growth, perhaps, as the ruling shogunate soon became concerned about the increasing number of converted Japanese Christians (and the European leaders to whom they paid religious allegiance), which concern eventually turned to hostility and violence.

Foreign Christians were ‘encouraged’ to leave the country. Native Christians were ‘encouraged’ to apostatize, through threats of torture, jail, and death.

The most common method of “apostasy” at the time involved a fumie—a wood or bronze icon imprinted with the image of Mary or Jesus.   Christians were forced to step on the fumie as a renunciation of their beliefs. Many did and were no longer considered Christian. Many did not and were killed.

While the Japanese Christians who died for their beliefs were hailed as martyrs, the ones who did end up “apostatizing”—either willingly or after having broken down under torture--have largely been forgotten by history. Japanese author Shusaku Endo—himself a Christian—frequently pondered those forgotten souls, writing a number of popular novels such as “Silence” and “The Samurai” on the subject.

A key question involves this ancient definition of “apostasy”: who decided that stepping on a fumie equaled “apostasy” for believing Christians? What does it mean to “apostatize” in the first place?

“Apostasy” by definition means deserting or departing from one’s religious beliefs—with the key word being “beliefs”. Can true apostasy occur if there has not been a change in beliefs?

Case Study #1: In mainland China today, the government largely bans religious gatherings and activities for Chinese citizens. This does not mean a Christian living in China is “apostate”—Chinese Christians are still free to believe anything they want—only that religious practice and observance is restricted.

Case Study #2: In Mosiah 24, Amulon puts guards over Alma and his small group of believers to prevent them from praying openly. We read that this does not equal “apostasy” either for those early believers, as they simply “did not raise their voices to the Lord their God, but did pour out their hearts to him; and he did know the thoughts of their hearts.”

Case Study #3: In the 1984 movie “Amadeus” we see Antonio Salieri take a wooden token of Christ on the cross hanging on his wall and burn it. This action does represent “apostasy” in the movie…because Salieri means it to. It was symbolic of an actual change in his personal beliefs.   Had someone broken into his house and forced him to burn that cross at gunpoint, for example, it’s certainly not a given that this would be considered “apostasy” in the same way.

In terms of those Japanese “apostates” we can argue in the same way that the accepted definition of apostasy is flawed. Being forced to step on an image of Christ doesn’t automatically equal “apostasy”—especially when forced to do so by threats of violence—because beliefs haven’t changed. Presumably, those Christians still believe Jesus to be the Son of God, and everything that belief entails. A piece of wood with Christ’s picture on it is still just a piece of wood.

However, our definition isn't really relevant, though. What matters is that at the time those Christians did consider it to be apostasy--those that succumbed and stepped on the fumie no longer considered themselves to be Christian. Not because they didn’t *want* to be Christians any longer, but because they genuinely believed they no longer had a choice. That by stepping on Christ’s image, they had essentially committed an “unforgivable” sin and were forever locked out of heavenly blessings no matter what they did afterwards.

What’s the basic problem here? I see it as a lack of understanding of God’s mercy. The implied idea behind this ancient concept of apostasy is that God is fundamentally stingy. He’ll grant salvation when the letter of the law is fulfilled…reluctantly, but is constantly looking for excuses, however small, to cast people away. Any breach of protocol, such as disrespect for a holy image, and God immediately pulls their “ticket to heaven” and turns His back.

I think reality, though, shows God is the other way around—He wants to provide all possible blessings to His children, and is only forced to lock people out when circumstances dictate it. Even if we grant that stepping on a holy picture of Christ is a sin in God’s eyes in the first place (questionable), the idea that a merciful God would (1) completely ignore the fact that such “apostasy” was coerced through torture and violence when passing judgment, or (2) that would be an unforgivable sin in the first place such that no amount of later repentance or faithfulness could overcome, seems ridiculous.

We have a case study in this regard as well: Peter, the senior apostle, denies Christ three times, not under torture or duress, but from casual questions by a woman off the street. His denial wasn’t a bright spot in his missionary career, naturally (unless you believe the idea that he was reluctantly denying Christ after Christ ordered him to, as some have argued), but no one believes that by doing so he had “apostatized” and his salvation was gone forever in an instant, no matter what else he did. It was (possibly) a mistake, which he then overcame through his later ministry.

In the present day, Church members tend to use the word “apostasy” fairly casually—anything from not supporting Prop 8, advocating women receiving the priesthood, writing an blog post critical of a Church policy, having a beard, or not keeping a year of food storage.    I've heard on occasion the folklore from Church members that anyone who commits suicide is automatically destined for the telestial kingdom—not that dissimilar from saying that stepping on Christ’s picture automatically sends one to hell. (*Everyone* who commits suicide? Really? No possible extenuating circumstances such as depression, old age, or mental illness that might cause God to judge individual cases individually?)

Opinions about what constitutes "apostasy" will differ from person to person, of course, but the more important point is that regardless of the definition, apostasy should certainly not be considered an unforgivable 'once-and-you're-done' sin. "Apostates" have the right to repentance and God's mercy through the atonement just like anyone else.

Today, Christianity in Japan is only a very small percentage of the population. The tragedy is not only government persecution in centuries past which stamped out church growth before it could really get started, but that those "apostate" Christians felt compelled to abandon their beliefs out of a false understanding of God's view of justice and mercy.

The Underdog Complex

The Baron — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:52:41 GMT

Is it possible that Prop 8 passing was the worst thing that could have happened to the Church?

Individuals and organizations don’t always lose by being part of a losing cause, of course. Sports teams gain great motivation from being viewed as the “underdog”, often going out of their way to play the “disrespect” card before their opponents can. (“Nobody believed in us. No one believed we could do it…”)

Throughout its history, the LDS Church has traditionally been the "underdog".   Persecution from outside forces—including other churches—dogged Joseph Smith and the early Church from the beginning, leading to trials and suffering, naturally, but also allowing early Church members to be “martyrs” for a cause (often literally).

The “Us vs. Them” mentality—either “Us vs. The World”, or even “Us vs. Other Churches, All of Whom Hate Us”—reinforced by innumerable historical incidents of outside opposition, allowed the early church to strengthen internal bonds—an important and underrated component helping the Church survive in the first place.

Church members then and now were proud to be a part of the “underdog” organization: the bright light in the wilderness that's hopelessly outnumbered by the evil and wickedness in the secular world that persecutes them, but fights on valiantly anyway. While tragic, few can deny that Joseph Smith being killed by enemies of the Church (instead of, say, dying peacefully in his old age) has served as a positive influence in Church progression, simply for this same reason: it gave Church members more “martyr/underdog” credentials, showing how everyone was against them.

On most societal issues, the LDS views on alcohol and chastity are still in the minority, and many Church talks have emphasized that fact to Church members using the this same kind of rhetoric: it’s “Us against Them, and we are the underdogs against the wicked tides of society”.   Most members seem to sense that moral initiatives in the political arena are bound to fail. And that’s almost part of the purpose: not that they inherently don't want the campaign to succeed, but the (seemingly inevitable) failure can still shows one's effort for a cause...and provide more evidence that the Church is still the underdog against the world.

Likewise, when the California Supreme Court created gay marriage out of the air in 2008, and Prop 8 was first conceived, I figured (like many) the campaign was probably going to fail. After all, most legal challenges to judicially established gay marriage--especially those where the opposition is primarily religious based--end up failing.   (Certainly the anti-Prop 8 side didn’t seriously think it had a chance of passing, considering how inept and unorganized their campaign was…)

Since California already had officially recognized domestic partnerships since 2005 (a fact that both sides of the gay marriage debate conveniently ignore), it was a reasonable assumption to think the Church was going to be supporting a losing cause on principle, and then we'd hear about it in the next General Conference in talks lamenting the destruction of the family and how “society’s ways are not God’s ways”.

A strange thing happened, though. Prop 8 did pass, and (accurate or not) the LDS Church has now become the public face for that victory. Now the question is: is the Church still the "underdog"?

Certainly not in terms of gay rights. Just look at recent events, where the big stories of late have been a gay couple harassed, handcuffed (and reportedly abused) by Temple Square security for kissing on Church property.   Which predictably led to a "kiss-in" on Sunday by a variety of protesters.

Who seems to be the oppressed underdog and who seems to be the 800-lb gorilla now?

No one believes Pres. Monson personally ordered Temple Square security to abuse anyone who seems to be gay, obviously. Yet, roles seem to have reversed, and the “Us vs. Them” mentality doesn’t quite have the same ring to it when it appears the majority of the (non-LDS) voting public in California agrees with them, and gay couples are now the "martyrs".

So, officially, the Church and Prop 8 were victorious in California. Traditional marriage was 'defended'.   Will that 'victory' have any practical effects in California or elsewhere in terms of Church progression?   Or will the backlash from member and non-member alike prove to be a curse rather than a blessing?

Perhaps one day the Church finds it would have been better off if it was still the persecuted underdog, instead of the reverse.

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.