It’s not like we didn’t already know this was the case, even though the religious right made excuses for it and supporting the immoral acts throughout the Bush Presidency.  Too bad we don’t investigate them here in the USA but at least the UK isn’t shying away from their immoral acts.  We have too many Christians in our country (USA) for them to admit to the immoral acts they made possible and the leader they re-elected to torture.  All in the name of God and “on a mission from God”.

Last Tuesday, the United Kingdom began “the most thorough investigation yet into the decisions that led up to the war and governed Britain’s involvement” including key war supporter and Bush ally ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair.

A number of explosive facts have been unveil which demonstrate the level of chicanery practiced by the Blair government in taking the country to war over the opposition of the vast majority of British citizens:

– Blair was told prior to the war by his intelligence services that Iraq did not have access to weapons of mass destruction. Sir William Ehrman, the director-general of defense and intelligence at the Foreign Office at the time, told the inquiry that British intelligence services had concluded ten days prior to the beginning of the war that Saddam Hussein did not have access to weapons of mass destruction and that he also likely lacked warheads capable of delivering such weapons. The Blair government ignored the advice of their intelligence services and supported the war anyway. [11/25/09]

– The Blair government had decided to support the US-led war up to a year before the invasion. Sir Christopher Meyer, the ambassador to Washington at the time, told the inquiry that the Blair government had decided that it was “a complete waste of time” to resist Bush’s efforts to go to war and had instead opted to offer advice about how to invade. Meyer also told the inquiry that former US national security adviser Condoleeza Rice had called the Meyer on the day of the 9/11 attacks and told him, “We are just looking to see whether there could possibly be a connection with Saddam Hussein.” Meyer also reiterated that both the American and British government were constantly looking for a “smoking gun” to justify the upcoming war. [11/26/09,11/26/09]

– Blair was told the Iraq War would be illegal under international law by his attorney general. In a July 2002 letter, former British attorney general Lord Goldsmith warned Blair that the UN charter only permits military intervention “on the basis of self-defence” or for “humanitarian intervention” and that neither case applied to Iraq. Blair responded by banning Goldsmith from future cabinet meetings and ignoring his verdict on the legality of the war. [11/29/09]

The Iraq war Inquiry will continue through 2010 and is expected to release its conclusions in a formal report at the end of that year. Although few expect there to ever be prosecutions as a result of the deception or illegality of the invasion of Iraq — despite the fact, as one of the last surviving judges of the Nuremburg Tribunal has said, the leaders who launched the invasion should be held accountable.   Unfortunately, religious types don’t like to be held accountable and it seems they are able to just about any immoral act and escape any accountability.  But hey, at least that got that Bill Clinton for getting a blow job.  Even though it didn’t result in the death of thousands of Americans and 10’s of thousands of Iraqi’s.

Christians are happy to hold people accountable as long as it is those they hate.  But they don’t want to hold fellow Christians accountable for the lies that lead to the death of innocent Americans and the murder of thousands of humans.

I enjoy this guy.

In your Ward, does the organist play a couple of lines of the Sacrament Hymn while the deacons are going back to their seats? If so, do you remember when the practice (re)started in your Ward?

 If the Christian Scheme is a fable, who invented the idea of an Incarnation? For to Jewish minds at any rate such an idea was foreign, being forbidden by their strong monotheism. Who put together the picture of Jesus as it appears in the Gospels? Who conceived the notion of making it that of a sinless man, and doing it so successfully that all subsequent generations of beholders, with a few exceptions at most, have regarded Him as sinless? Yet a sinless man had never been seen before nor has ever been beheld since His appearance. Who supplied this Jesus with the superhuman power that performed works only possible to God, and with the superhuman wisdom that fell from His lips, if such wisdom was never spoken but only imagined? It is universally allowed that the power and wisdom of Jesus have never been surpassed or even equalled. Whose was the daring genius that struck out the notion not merely of making atonement for Sin, but of doing this by Christ’s giving His life a ransom for many and demonstrating its reality through His rising from the dead? These conceptions were so incredible to His followers at the first and have been so unacceptable to natural man since that it is hard to believe any fable-monger would have selected them for his work, even though they had occurred to him. And who suggested the doctrine of a general resurrection at the end of time?—a doctrine to which unaided human science or philosophy has never been able to attain.

The impartial reasoner must perceive that in all these themes we are dealing not with purely human thoughts but with thoughts that are divine and that it is idle to talk of them as fabulous or untrue. “God is not a man that He should lie.” He is neither a tyrant that He should seek to oppress men, nor a false priest that He should want to cheat men, nor a novel writer that He should study to amuse men, but a Father whose dearest interest is to save men, who is Light and in Him is no darkness at all, and whose words are like Himself, the same yesterday, today and forever.

—R.A. Torrey

The first time I woke up Sunday morning, I was thinking maybe I should not drive. I went back to sleep and woke up at 8AM.  Usually night sweats happen early in the night. This time I soaked me and the bed in the morning. I took a shower and was soooooo weak and out of breath, but figured I should go to church.

I had a heck of a time getting in the van. I think it got a foot taller! I made it to Lake Placid and was VERY surprised to see that’s what happened to our snow….they got it. Not a speck of snow here in Bloomingdale. The van is not working well. All that money and it’s in worse shape! The transmission is screwed up. I have to rev the engine to get it to shift up. I am not happy with the mechanic

As soon as I got out of the van I felt worse than I had while driving. This time my dizziness and weakness went right to the pit of my stomach. I spent the whole time there desperately trying not to barf. My face and tongue were doing the fasciculation thing….twitching like crazy and forming a sea of lumps and bumps on my tongue. That feels really weird! My muscles don’t work right when that is going on. My eyes almost shut and this time my mouth and eyes were watering. Oh, sooooo queasy

Just like last time I went to church, it was all I could do to make it to the end of Sacrament Meeting. I burped and hiccuped ALL the way home. Made myself a sausage patty and pancake and slept a few hours. Before I fell asleep, I gave in and turned on my baseboard heater for the first time this season.

Woke up weak and confused. What’s with the confusion now days? It happens more often than not that I can’t remember what day it is or where I am. Creepy.

I can’t remember if I have mentioned my arms. My upper arms have gained a lot of weight in a couple of weeks. They also hurt A LOT. Most nights the pain from my arms and legs makes it hard to sleep. I hope this is all stuff related to myasthenia gravis that will improve with IVIg. To try to describe it, it’s as if my muscles do not have enough strength to do what I ask of them and when I keep trying anyway, it’s as if my muscles are tearing like cheap cheesecloth. Fun, huh?

Geeze! Too hot in here! I wonder what I am used to? With the thermostat on 60 I’m burning up. So…I put it on 50. MG makes me turn into jello when it’s “hot”. With the little ceramic heater I was only warming my feet. At the moment, the whole apartment is warm from just the bedroom baseboard heater.

I decided after church today that I would go for a walk through the Sacred Grove.  With Elizabethe in California, it seemed like a suitable thing to do.

Prior to taking my walk, I enjoyed a delightful morning at church.  The kids in Primary were wound-up and wrestless.   Although it must have been tough for their teachers, for singing time they really belted out the songs.

We had a long choir practice followed by a quartet practice at Mark’s house.  It is less than one week away for our first performance.  (For those in Palmyra, it is on December 5th at 7pm at the L.D.S. Church on Temple Road which is south on Stafford Road and runs between Stafford and Rt. 21.)

After finishing dinner and baking a dessert for tomorrow’s Family Home Evening, I drove to the Welcom Center and prepared to head out on my walk.  I had no sooner entered the grove when a familiar face came towards me.  It was Paul O’Donnell.  (Paul, it was nice seeing you today.)  We talked for a while and he continued his way and I began my walk.  I pointed out a hornet nest high in the trees not far from where we talked.

Hornet Nest

I’m glad I took my walk when I did.  First, it was a treat running in to my good friend Paul.  Second, it was quiet and peaceful and gave me a well deserved break.

Alone in the Grove

I never really feel alone in the grove.  No, I don’t feel paranoid either.  But, being in the Sacred Grove when nobody else is around is a special treat.  I always feel my Heavenly Father’s love in the grove and I feel his spirit near.  It is one of those places where you can sit, ponder, read, pray and listen.  In this world today, there are few places you can do that.

Dusk and Moonrise - Sacred Grove

I sat there until I knew I best head back to the parking lot so the site missionaries aren’t sending out a search party for me.  The moon was out and the scattered clouds behind the trees made this duo-toned scene that I did the best to capture with my camera. 

Moonlit Creek - Smith Farm, Palmyra

I hope I never take for granted that I live this close to the Sacred Grove, or the Palmyra Temple, for that matter.  It is nice to be a 5 minute drive from both of them.  It was also neat to come out of the grove on a trail that faced the temple.  The temple was lit up and it was like coming through the woods towards a glowing campfire. 

Milkweed Pods

The plants took on a different hue with the dusk’s light.  The milkweed and dried reeds along the creek almost had a glow about them.  I probably could have stayed a bit longer, but the light was fading quickly and so I grabbed one last shot before heading back to the car.

I am exited to explore in depth the doctrine of Charity, which is the pure love of Christ or the way Christ loves us.

1 Corinthians 13:1-13

Verses 1-3 tell me how important Charity (Love) is. If we spoke with the tongue of angels or had the gift of prophecy or understood all mysteries, if we don’t have charity then we are as nothing. We need to have charity more than all knowledge or all faith. We can give away everything we have to feed the poor or sacrifice our bodies to be burned but if we don’t live with charity then it is for nothing. If we have all kinds of great gifts bestowed upon us or do any number of great things we are “nothing without charity”. We can’t base our salvation on just one or two things we have to include Charity or it is all in vain.

What is charity? Charity in verse four is broken down in specific attributes so that we may fully understand what charity is.4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, 5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; 6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; 7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

Verses 8-13 further illustrate how important Charity is in our lives by comparing it to other important aspects of the gospel of Jesus Christ8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. 9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. 11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. 13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

Moroni 10:46-47

46 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, if ye have not charity, ye are nothing, for charity never faileth. Wherefore, cleave unto charity, which is the greatest of all, for all things must fail — 47 But charity is the pure love of Christ, and it endureth forever; and whoso is found possessed of it at the last day, it shall be well with him. 48 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, pray unto the Father with all the energy of heart, that ye may be filled with this love, which he hath bestowed upon all who are true followers of his Son, Jesus Christ; that ye may become the sons of God; that when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is; that we may have this hope; that we may be purified even as he is pure. Amen.This additional Christian Scripture passage adds to the importance of charity and teaches us more about Charity. All things must fail but Charity will never fail. This would indicate to me that we should invest much effort and prayer into obtaining the gift of charity so that it fills our sould and heart to overflowing. Verse 47 tells us that we must pray with all the energy of hear to be filled with this love.

This passage also teaches us that Charity is the pure love of Christ and when He comes again the second time if we are filled with Charity we shall be like Him. Charity is a purifying force as well.

So what exactly is Charity that it is so important? Charity is the “Pure Love Of Christ”. So when you read the word “Charity” substitute the phrase “pure love of Christ”.

Suffereth Long
The “pure love of Christ” suffereth long.

What does “Suffereth long” mean? In short “suffereth long” means patience. Consider the verse 1 Peter 3:20 In part that verse says “when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah…” We also know that mankind was extraordinarily wicked in the days of Noah. God was very patient having Noah call them to repentance before the destruction of the flood. One of the online dictionaries defines “long-suffering” as: “patiently enduring lasting offense or hardship”. There again is the word “patience”. Part of the pure love of Christ (Charity) is patience.

This means that we need to have patience. Patience toward who? We are told to have Charity like Christ does and Christ is patient towards all mankind so that implies that we should also have patience towards all mankind and especially those close to us in our own life like our spouse and children and those people we interact with on a daily basis but not to exclude all others.

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9) The Lord exerts all the patience He can toward us so that we may have as much time possible to repent and turn to Him.

Is Kind

“The pure love of Christ” is kind.

The one of the online dictionaries suggest that “Kind” means: Affectionate, loving. Of a sympathetic or helpful nature. Of a forbearing nature. Gentle. Arising from or characterized by sympathy or forbearance (a kind act). To give pleasure or relief.

A good or benevolent nature or disposition. A loving person. Having, showing or proceeding from benevolence. Considerate, helpful, humane, mild, gentle, loving or affectionate.

Forbearance means “To be tolerant or patient in the face of provocation.” An abstaining from the enforcement of a right. “A creditor’s giving of indulgence after the day originally fixed for payment.” This descriptions of the word “Kind” certainly sound Christ-like. This kind of kindess is what we should be striving for, even praying for.

Envieth Not

“The pure love of Christ” envieth not.

Envy means a painful or resentful awareness of something enjoyed by someone else as well as a desire to possess the same thing the other person has. So if Charity Envieth not then we should not be resentful toward others but rather we should be happy for the things others possess and share their joy. We cannot envy someone if we have the pure love of Christ in our hearts. We need to have joy in others successes and achievements. If everyone “envieth not” think of the drop in the crime rates.

Vaunteth Not Itself

“The pure love of Christ” vaunteth not itself.

“Vaunt” means to brag or to make a vain display of one self? We should not draw undue attention to ourselves. When we brag about ourselves we are setting ourselves up to appear to be better than others. God loves us all the same. He doesn’t love whatever sin or misdeed we may be involved in but He loves us all the same. We should not seek to make ourselves appear to be better than each other.

Is Not Puffed Up

“The pure love of Christ” is not puffed up.

Puffed up means to speak or act in a scornful, conceited, or exaggerated manner. We should just be ourselves or we should be the person we are trying to be as we seek for Charity in our lives. We need to be humble (teachable) and sincere. If we are locked into Charity as a way of life then we would have no insecurities and have no need to be conceited.

Doth Not Behave Itself Unseemly

“The pure love of Christ” doth not behave itself unseemly.

Unseemly means not according with established standards of good form or taste. In other words we should be vulgar or crude.

Seeketh Not Her Own

“The pure love of Christ” seeketh not her own.
To “seek not her own” means being selfish. Anyone who has Charity or seeking Charity is not selfish. We should repent for any selfish behavior and strive to not be selfish.

Is Not Easily Provoked

“The pure love of Christ” is not easily provoked.

Is not easily made mad or one who is slow to anger. Not resentful. If we considered the life of Christ he was very slow to wrath. The only time he showed wrath was when the money changers we disrespecting the Temple. Even when Christ was be unjustly tried for made up crimes he was not provoked. When He hung from the cross, rather than be mad he ask Heavenly Father to forgive the soldiers who were torturing Him.

Thinketh No Evil

“The pure love of Christ” thinketh no evil.

Evil is the opposite of righteousness. Charity does not think of things contrary to righteousness. Ask yourself what is evil and think the opposite. Think of virtuous thoughts. Ask yourself what would Jesus think about and think likewise.

Rejoiceth Not In Iniquity But Rejoiceth In The Truth

“The pure love of Christ” rejoiceth not in iniquity but rejoiceth in the truth.

Iniquity is both sin and behavior directly in opposition to righteousness. Charity finds happiness in the truth or rejoices in the truth. Thinketh no evil and Rejoiceth Not in iniquity go hand in hand or are companion virtues. Don’t think evil thoughts and do not rejoice in inquity. Do we watch movies or read books where we find ourselves rooting for the bad guy? Is that Charity?

Beareth All Things

“The pure love of Christ” beareth all things.

What does it mean to “Bear”? Looking up the word “bear” on several online dictionaries came to the following conclusions:

To make one’s way steadily especially against resistance. Continuing firm or resolute through trials and difficulties.

To put up with something trying or painful.

The terms Suffereth (Suffer) and Beareth (Bear) are synonyms in parts of their meanings but they also have some differences in their definitions. From what I can ascertain The phrase “Suffereth Long” is more to do with patience. The phrase “Beareth All Things” deals mainly with faithfully overcoming trials and adversity.

Believeth All Things

“The pure love of Christ” believeth all things

This phrase “believeth all things” has to do with faith. Charity, the pure love of Christ wouldn’t teach to believe all things regardless. For instance. Do we believe the God created the earth or do we believe in junk science that the earth was created from a big bang?

Do we believe God created Man in His own image or than man evolved from apes? We don’t believe all things spiritual and worldly but rather “believeth all things” is to have firm religious faith. To accept the gospel as true, genuine or real. Furthermore it means to have assurance or faith in righteousness. Trust in God. To have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something. If that thing doesn’t have goodness of efficacy then it is evil and not to be trifled with.

Other definitions of “Believeth all things”: To have confidence in the truth,

Mark 9:23 Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

2 Corinthians 6:15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

Hopeth All Things

“The pure love of Christ” hopeth all things.

To look forward to with desire and reasonable confidence. For instance, to look to Christ for ones salvation. To place trust in or rely in. We need to trust in Christ that He will do what He says he will do. To look to the Gospel of Jesus Christ with confidence.

Endureth All Things

“The pure love of Christ” endureth all things. Here is what some online dictionaries defined Endure as.

To undergo a hardship without giving in. To suffer or endure a great pain. To remain firm under suffering or misfortune without yielding. To bear without resistance or with patience.

To support adverse force or influence of any kind; suffer without yielding; suffer patiently. The life of Christ is a perfect example of enduring all things.

1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

During a recent conversation among LDS friends, I bemoaned a certain type of LDS churchmember that I find deeply “annoying.” I used this word in a very specific sense. I described as “annoying” certain right-wing Mormons who seem unable to conceptually distinguish between their own deeply-held political preferences and the doctrines of the LDS Church. I know you know the type I’m talking about.

One of my (conservative) LDS friends interrupted me, conceded that this Mormon personality type exists, but insisted that “left-wing LDS members are no less likely to be “annoying,” as they are equally prone to the same vice.”

I strongly disagreed with this statement. I admitted that the existence of “annoying” left-wing LDS members is possible, but insisted they don’t really exist much, if at all, in the real world. And by this, I didn’t just mean that annoying liberals are rarer than annoying conservatives in sheer number — this is too obvious to dispute, since LDS liberals of all sorts are much rarer than LDS conservatives of all sorts, whether annoying or not. No, I actually meant that given an equal number of LDS conservatives and LDS liberals, you are likely to find the annoying quality I abhor in the first group in much, much larger quantity than the second.

Am I right? Are right-wing Mormons more likely to be “annoying” in this way than left-wing Mormons? Is the political/doctrinal confusion I’m pointing to more prevalent on the Right than the Left, even when you control for numbers? You can argue this is a supremely uninteresting question, because to answer it is merely to identify oneself politically. Thus, LDS right-wingers will likely be sensitive to the claims of annoying left-wing Mormons and see more of them, while Mormon left-wingers will likely see only annoying LDS right-wingers, for the most part. On this view, to answer the question is merely to provide information about your own political preferences and biases. However, I disagree with this view. I believe one can answer this question definitively without resorting to a mere consultation of one’s own political allegiances.

Meet “Mormon Joe.” Joe is American, and he has certain strongly-held political views, located somewhere on the (U.S.) political spectrum, nevermind where. In order for Mormon Joe to be “annoying” in the particular sense I am describing, two conditions must obtain:

1. Mormon Joe must find himself in an environment where a large number of other Mormons share his political views.

2. Mormon Joe must have at least prima facie grounds for convincing himself that his political views are mandated by LDS doctrine.

With respect to (1), because Mormon political liberals are a relatively uncommon breed, it is much more difficult to find them anywhere in large numbers. Even in places like Seattle or Cambridge — both places I have lived — Mormon lefties may be more numerous and vocal, but they still don’t obviously outnumber their right-of-center brethren. So, Mormon liberals congregated in one place and numerically exceeding their political foes are relatively rare.

Why does this matter? After all, one doesn’t need ideological comrades to hold any particular political view! But remember, we’re talking about political views being confused with LDS doctrine. Congregating with like-minded souls is important (even if not absolutely essential) for this problem to fester because congregation lends itself to the sort of ideological groupthink that causes people to forget that not everyone thinks like they do, or that causes them to imagine their views are more representative of the larger LDS population than they really are. And if you’ve convinced yourself that everyone (or most everyone) in a class shares a particular trait, you’re more liable to conclude that the trait is an essential, defining attribute of the class. Thus, since politically liberal Mormons can’t as easily congregate in mass without considerable effort, they have less opportunity to engage in this sort of groupthink or delusion. Meanwhile, for LDS conservatives, opportunities abound.

With respect to (2), LDS conservatives can turn to a host of past General Authorities, Apostles and even Prophets who have made public statements that seem to jive with the political positions of U.S. conservatives. Thus, it is easy to interpret such statements as LDS “doctrinal” statements (and to do so wrongly, in many cases). Mormon liberals may be psychologically prone to the same errors (I suspect they are, as a class), all things being equal, but in the real world they have less opportunity to err, since the Mormon historical record gives them much less material with which to work. (And if a politically liberal Mormon does indulge this tendency anyway, he is likely to be quickly disabused of his notions by his many ideological foes at church).

In short, the conditions necessary to the festering of widespread right-wing Mormon “annoyance” are present, while the conditions conducive to the festering of left-wing Mormon annoyance are largely absent. Political/doctrinal conflation is asymmetrical within LDS culture. Even when we look at the two groups per capita, the conservatives are more “annoying”. And Mormons of all political persuasions should be able to agree on this. Even LDS conservatives.

Personally, I think this is all fairly obvious, but apparently not everyone does, so I thought it was worth spelling out.

Circa 1970. I’m a 12-year old seventh grader at Clinton Rosette Middle School. (We all hated that recent name change from the venerable North Junior High and insisted on using the old name.) For one section of P.E. we actually had a bowling class, for which we would walk quite a number of blocks to the downtown bowling alley, called “Rec.” We all felt so adult; they never would have let us do something like that in grammar school. And bowling for P.E.? How cool was that!

So we’re walking back to school after bowling class one day, and the first snow of the season is falling. The last few blocks of the trip I was nursing a snowball in my hands, which was slowly morphing into an ice ball. I was just steps from the school door, and didn’t want to just waste my creation.

About 30 or 40 yards behind me were three girls walking the same path I had just trod. Giving the matter essentially no thought at all, I heaved my iceball in the general direction of the girls. It didn’t occur to me that at that distance I might actually hit one of them. It was a shot across the bow; in my mind it was actually a bit of a flirtation. (No one said that young boys actually know how to flirt effectively with girls, but the impulse is still there, even if it manifests itself in ways that girls do not perceive as flirtatious at all.)

But, much to my horror, this was the most accurately thrown projectile I have ever hurled in my entire life. The snowball follows its geometric arc and then lands smack dab between the eyes of one of those girls. She was wearing glasses, which then snapped in two perfectly at the bridge of the nose between the lenses. Did you ever see that Billy Jack movie where at the end Billy Jack shoots the evil motorcycle gang guy right between the eyes and his sunglasses go flying in different directions? It was just like that.

Mortified, I trudged into math class awaiting my doom. And it came quickly. I was pulled out of class and sent to the principal’s office. I had never been sent to the principal’s office before, and I was in big trouble, as you might imagine.The girl was ok, apart from a red face from a lot of crying and the temporary mark left by the missile. But her glasses were toast. I too wore glasses, and I knew that there was no swifter wrath from one’s parents than breaking or losing your glasses. So doing that to someone else, I knew I was in hot water. My parents would have to buy the girl new glasses, and I knew they weren’t going to be at all happy by this whole turn of events. And indeed they weren’t.

But something else happened, something unexpected. I was (most of the time) a good little Mormon boy, and as such I had a reputation as a goody-two-shoes. But after that incident the kids looked at me differently, for awhile, at least. By getting in such trouble I mysteriously had gained a significant portion of what passes for street cred in junior high. Kids were looking at me as though I were a bad-ss, and to my surprise that seemed to be a good thing. I was and am anti-bully, but for a brief time I could almost understand the lure of being mean. It was like the dark side of the force calling to me.

Fortunately my dalliance with the dark side didn’t last long. I knew I wasn’t really a bad-ss, and I hadn’t really intended to be mean, even if it looked that way to others. My bad boy rep was short-lived, and quickly enough I went back to being a preternaturally nice guy. (And of course I apologized profusely to that poor girl I had beaned.)

As I reflect back on that, I can still hazily remember my little boy thought processes, and it’s shocking to me how far my perceptions were from reality. For some of us maturity is a long, hard road that doesn’t come easily.

Guest post by Seth, an active member of the LDS church
———————————————————————————————————-

There is no telling the amount of damage that has been done in the world in the name of a good argument. Argument and debate are a natural part of the process of understanding other people and this is as true of inter-faith dialogue as any other aspect of our society. But we do have to be careful in how we argue. Argument can be very damaging – not just to our opponents, but to ourselves as well.

One way this manifests itself, is when we push an argument that turns out to be just as damaging to our own position as the opposing position. A quick example might show what I mean.

Some time ago, I came across a blog run by an avowed ex-Mormon who had, however, remained “Christian” in affiliation. She was voicing various concerns about her former faith and explaining why she had rejected it. One of the reasons she gave for leaving the LDS faith was the supposed lack of empirical evidence for the Book of Mormon and it’s historical claims. She noted that while the Bible had some hard evidence showing some of its content to be historically-bases, the Book of Mormon completely lacked such evidence, and was therefore not a credible document to her.

Now, I’ve been around the block a few times on the interfaith dialogue circuit, and this argument always annoys me to no end. It just seems to show a lack of awareness of one’s own position and what really provides the foundation for faith. The truth, as I see it, is that while the Bible may have some of it’s historical incidentals corroborated by the undisputed weight of historical and archeological evidence (like the existence of an actual city of Jerusalem, and the fact of a man named Jesus Christ living), it’s faith claims completely lack any such evidence or proof.

Since both the Bible and Book of Mormon claim to be primarily religious texts, it seems apparent to me that – in ways that matter – the texts are equally unproven by empirical evidence (I realize some Evangelicals like to point to eyewitness testimony of the resurrection – but until these people are willing to give equal weight and credibility to the witnesses of the Book of Mormon, I’m not inclined to take these arguments too seriously). It has always been apparent to me that belief in either book is first and foremost a matter of faith in that which is not seen. Evidence is just the icing on the cake for people who already believe. It is not an adequate basis for faith.

Furthermore, I have been arguing over matters of faith long enough to realize that whatever “hard evidence” you think you have, there is always someone out there knowledgeable enough to call it into question. I also have realized that hard evidence has a disturbing habit of becoming outmoded, outdated, and discredited by new discovery. It always seemed like a foundation of sand to me.

So, full of irritation, I waded into the comments section to show this deluded soul what’s-what, and defend my own faith “for the umpteenth time” against this silly and misguided attack.

Well, I made my points, had a bit of back and forth arguing about them, and left feeling like I had defended my position, and my faith well. Just another day’s work in the defense of the true faith. What a hero!

Well, a week or two later, I was browsing the latest new content at the blog of an atheist ex-Mormon whose measured and respectful opinion I have always respected and valued. And he had a new post up – and I was mentioned by name! We bloggers can’t help but feel pleased when other people online are talking about us. Well, what’s this about?

I’m afraid it wasn’t all that flattering. He pointed out my response as an example of how a Mormon SHOULD NOT witness to other Christians. He noted that Mormons supposedly believe in Jesus too, and we are hardly well-served by undermining what basis for faith in Jesus other people may have. His paraphrasing of my argument basically boiled down to:

“Well, my faith might be ridiculous, but yours is just as stupid.”

Which, he noted, is really only a good method for creating a brand-new atheist. Reeling a bit with the irony of being reprimanded by an atheist for undermining someone else’s faith in God, went back to the Christian ex-Mormon’s blog and offered a sheepish apology along with a statement of my belief in the Bible. The apology was graciously accepted, and via continued interaction I was reassured that my opponent’s faith in the Bible had not been irredeemably damaged.

But I was still a bit shaken by the implications of what might have been. Those of us who debate regularly on the internet tend to get a bit thick-skinned and callous, due to the repeated experience of having our treasured beliefs and opinions challenged, and even ridiculed. We also get used to debating people who are just as jaded as we are. After a while, we tend to assume everyone out there is like that – a hardened ideologue who is likely immune to most of the arguments you can make. We start to assume that – if you are on the Internet, that must mean you “came to play hardball.” And the gloves come off.

But I don’t think that was true at all of this particular blogger. She turned out to be much more sincere than I gave her credit for, and my words really did seem like they might shaken her faith a bit. I of course, expecting a hardened ideologue, did not expect this. But the whole experience was a reminder not to forget the people we are arguing against. There is a real person there behind the screen. We cannot lose sight of that as we “prep for battle.”

This makes interfaith dialogue something of a delicate operation – which is unfortunate for me, because I’m not always a “delicate touch.” You never know how much that “false doctrine” you are arguing against is intertwined with something vital in their overall faith life. Like a barbed arrowhead that has lodged close to some vital arteries. You can’t just rip the cursed thing out. You might kill the patient.

There’s probably more that could be said on this subject, but for now, it might be a good idea for us to step back and realize that, while we are at each other’s throats on occasion, we also are all in this thing called “faith” together. And we probably ought to be supportive of each other.

Fellowship in Christ.

Based on a talk given by Elder Richard G. Scott at the October, 2009 General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Click on Mormonmom to see my other Teachings for our Times (TFOT) lessons.

Opening Hymn: Guide Us O Thou Great Jehovah

Elder Richard G. Scott’s talk on Acquiring Spiritual Guidance, was inspiring, uplifting and filled with instructions that each of us can apply in our daily lives.  Earlier this year, the General Relief Society Presidency directed each of us to seek our own personal revelation as we strengthen our ward and stake Relief Societies, I felt this was timely information coming now from Elder Scott.

One of the key doctrines that drew me into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is that of personal inspiration/revelation.  We have the Spirit as our guide for ANY concern we have in this life.  That is a great comfort, but, like many of the blessings given to us from our Heavenly Father, it must be honed, practiced, and used regularly.

Joseph Smith said, “Follow the influence of that Spirit, and it will lead you into all truth, until by and by, it will BECOME in you a principle of revelation.”  In other words, second nature to you.  Elder Scott testifies that this is the true source of peace and happiness.

Learning how to be led by the Spirit takes a strengthening of faith in our Father and in Jesus Christ.  It is not a casual expectation, but a purposeful period of growth. Let me take a minute to talk about “The Spirit”. As far as I’ve been able to learn there are three ways to understand the term ‘The Spirit”:

1. The Light of Christ
Everyone is given the light of Christ as a Child of God.

2. The Holy Ghost
Many religions reference the Holy Ghost.

3. The Gift of the Holy Ghost
Reserved for those who receive the ordinance of baptism by those having authority to confer the gift. This gift isn’t enjoyed in its fullness until fire and the Holy Ghost baptize the recipient.

Back to Elder Scott’s talk. After noting that in times past if one sought guidance they would turn to mentors or advisors, the information overload that is a characteristic of our time, means turning to others for advice can be a very risky proposition. As a digital marketing executive, I often use the analogy ‘it’s like drinking from a firehose’ to describe this phenomenon. Think about it – so much information, but none of it is filtered or curated. Who do we trust?

Rather than bemoaning the plight of the times we live in, we should welcome the excuse to turn our eyes upward for inspiration. Elder Scott seems to be saying that humans as trust agents will always be inadequate and that we will be better served by seeking to commune with the Lord directly through appealing to the Holy Ghost.

Think about this for a minute – our Father has created a condition where we, of necessity, are more dependent upon the Spirit to guide us through the vicissitudes of life. Therefore, we are led to seek personal inspiration in life’s important decisions.I loved this thought! Personally, it has been a year of uphill trials. I do not know where I would be without specific guidance that I have received through the relationship I have personally developed with my Heavenly Father that allows me the blessing of personal answers and spiritual guidance.

Discussion:

• What can you do to enhance your capacity to be led to correct decisions in your life?
• What are the principles upon which spiritual communication depends?
• What are the potential barriers to such communication that you need to avoid?

Elder Scott admits that learning to consistently recognize the promptings of the Holy Spirit, distinguish them from one’s own impulses and desires, and act courageously to fulfill them are accomplishments that we would be lucky to achieve in a lifetime. However, Elder Scott clearly believes that developing these skills is necessary. And perhaps most importantly, in these times of information overload, his recommendation  sounds achievable through the examples he offers us.

He notes the Prophet Joseph Smith’s instruction to John Taylor to begin each day with prayer – being grateful for another day our Father has granted us.

President John Taylor wrote: “Joseph Smith, upwards of forty years ago, said to me: ‘Brother Taylor, you have received the Holy Ghost. Now follow the influence of that Spirit, and it will lead you into all truth, until by and by, it will become in you a principle of revelation.’ Then he told me never to arise in the morning without bowing before the Lord, and dedicating myself to him during that day.”

Which is, in these hectic latter days, counsel that many of us can overlook in the daily haste to satisfy the necessities of temporal life. For example, if I’m woken up by my 3 y.o. doing the potty dance, after I escort her to do her necessary business, she’s hungry, so I start breakfast. Then, like mothers (and fathers) around the world every morning, we are joined by 2 more sleepy towheaded children and somewhere in the blur of showering, breakfast being eaten, teeth being brushed, hair being combed, clothes being put on, lunches being prepared, and busses arriving – it is all to easy to forget that morning prayer of thanksgiving. What I’ve learned to do is have the scriptures in the kitchen, so that a verse or two can be read during the “Waltz of Chaos” in the morning to ensure we all have the right start to the day.

Elder Scott uses two lessons as examples to illustrate his message. In the first, a humble Priesthood leader taught a lesson from his heart. The content of the lesson was less memorable than the impression the leader gave that promote spiritual guidance:  humility, intense desire to communicate truths, pure love of the Savior, as well as those who are taught, sincerity, pure intent, love, and spiritual strength. The spirit was present and powerful as this man struggled to express himself within the church.

In the second example, Elder Scott attended a Sunday School class where the teacher was using the fruits of his education and study to share insights into the lesson, less from a desire to inspire his pupils and more from what Elder Scott interpreted as pride — of a desire to impress his fellow congregants with his knowledge.

By keeping his lesson simple and focusing on his testimony of his ministry, the priesthood leader impressed Elder Scott with his sincerity and emotional depth. By contrast, the intellectual approach of the Sunday School teacher left Elder Scott irritated and bored. I was intrigued by the difference here between the emotional and the intellectual – this contrast exists in our brains (right-vs-left), between our ‘brains’ and our ‘souls’ between men and women. It plays out every week at church, every month of our life.

There isn’t any particular resolution to it – it’s just the way we are. As a teacher, I am always striving to embrace the humbleness of the Priesthood Leader’s approach. I try to be both emotionally fulfilling and intellectually enlightening in my approach. But I’m also cognizant of the fact that many of you have forgotten more about the gospel, church doctrine, lessons of our Presidents, General Conference talks and the like than I will EVER KNOW, even if I focused my studies on these topics for the rest of my life. So I try to infuse my lessons with whatever material I can bring from my experience and knowledgebase to further enlighten each of you (and me) and bring relevance to my ability to teach for our times.

And yet, the more important message here from Elder Scott seems to be that either course can invite the Spirit.

In the case of both lessons, Elder Scott felt the promptings of the Spirit. He stopped paying attention to his immediate surroundings and started listening to and interacting with the voice of God. Whether interested or biding his time, Elder Scott felt the Spirit in both examples and chose to listen to it instead – to be taught by the Holy Ghost – instead of from the content of the lesson being provided to him.

The manner in which Elder Scott recorded his personal inspiration is interesting, perhaps mostly because it follows the pattern that Joseph Smith seemed to follow with his revelations. Once written, the revelation was examined to see if it conformed to the mind and will of God and changes could be made. It speaks to the imperfection of human intermediaries and the humility needed to keep at revelation until one is certain they have gotten it right.

And, much like Joseph Smith, Elder Scott teaches that:

A person may profit by noticing the first intimation of the spirit of revelation; for instance, when you feel pure intelligence flowing into you, it may give you sudden strokes of ideas, so that by noticing it, you may find it fulfilled the same day or soon; (i.e.) those things that were presented unto your minds by the Spirit of God, will come to pass; and thus by learning the Spirit of God and understanding it, you may grow into the principle of revelation, until you become perfect in Christ Jesus [TPJS, p. 151]

Paying attention to the first promptings is valuable not for the promptings, but because it indicates an openness to the process of revelation. Just as it is important for the teacher to be prepared spiritually to guide, the students to be open spiritually in order to receive guidance.  He gives us ten things we should do as listeners:

1. Attend class prepared, with a readiness to learn
2. Be aware of impressions that may come
3. Write them down as soon as possible
4. Ponder what you have written
5. Study the meaning
6. Pray to the Lord, and review what was taught, and what was learned
7. Wait for a feeling of peace and confirmation
8. Thank Heavenly Father for the guidance
9. Ask: “Is there more to learn?” You probably will have additional impressions, but it takes courage to ask.
10. Repeat the process from beginning to end as many times as is necessary.  Elder Scott says, “Had I not responded to the first impressions and recorded them, I would not have received the last, most precious guidance.”

Here is an important warning.  “Satan is extremely good at blocking spiritual communication.” We have all been sidetracked by the destroyer.  “The Lord will not force you to learn.  You must exercise your agency to authorize the Spirit to teach you.”

As church members we’re taught that acquiring the gift of the Holy Ghost is the most important thing we can do. Everything else is subservient.

Elder Scott encourages us to practice, have patience, and be aware.  Inspiration comes to us in different ways.  By following the above ten steps, realize the unique way Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit communicate with you.

Elder Scott then launches into a critique of pornography, highlighting in particular the potentially corrosive effects of pornography on family relations. Perhaps more importantly, he discuss its effect on the soul. He notes that the adversary is at pains to induce “individuals, through temptation, to violate the laws upon which spiritual communication is founded.”

The notion is that Satan achieves his goal if “he is able to convince them that they are not able to receive such guidance from the Lord.” The presence or absence of revelation in the life of the individual is presented, in this talk, as the surest means of judging one’s current standing with the Lord.

Returning to those two lessons, the point appears to be that whether or not you are someone who prefers the intellectual or the emotional, putting yourself in the right place at the right time indicates a willingness to receive revelation. The ongoing debate regarding the superiority of one or the other approach to faith, to scripture or to life is shown to be entirely beside the point. Whether you are interested or bored by the lessons offered, your involvement in the process seems to be considered sufficient sacrifice for God to honor it with those first intimations of revelation, if such is appropriate.

What you do with that appears to be far more important than learning the signs of the times or historical facts. Not that either of those is bad, but they seem to be goals secondary to our involvement in the church.

Finally, it is worth noting that, for those ensnared in pornography or other damaging, compulsive behaviors, Elder Scott’s first advice is to re-establish communication with God. I believe this concept of exercising our agency to authorize the Spirit to take part in our lives is a huge part of prayer. God won’t interfere in our lives without our consent, he is that mindful of our agency. We must pray and ask for his influence and hand in our life.

Elder Scott counsels us: The inspiring influence of the Holy Spirit can be overcome or masked by strong emotions, such as anger, hate, passion, fear, or pride. When such influences are present, it is like trying to savor the delicate flavor of a grape while eating a jalapeño pepper. Both flavors are present, but one completely overpowers the other. In like manner, strong emotions overcome the delicate promptings of the Holy Spirit.

Remember the Jalapeno & grape analogy — be more aware of what you surround yourself with and how any negative emotions can block out the positive and good all around you.

Without the Holy Ghost we cannot receive the necessary experiences to have a relationship with Christ. We can study the scriptures, listen to the words of the living prophets, and thereby intellectually learn of Christ, but we won’t be able to experience Christ until we qualify for the Holy Ghost.  The challenge we have as followers of Christ is to diligently seek for the Holy Ghost. It’s not easy to acquire and maintain this gift, but the Lord is merciful to those who work at it.

Intellectual conversion to Christ is fragile, Spiritual conversion to Christ will ground and root us. And offer us the foundation for personal revelation, which is, the most important lesson of all.

Discussion

(Time permitting — we ran out of time due to the discussion questions raised earlier in the lesson. If we had the time, I would have divided the class into thirds, selected a spokesperson for each group and handed them a quote and question for them to discuss and present back to the Relief Society):

1. However, it is my judgment that there are many members of this Church who have been baptized for the remission of their sins, who have had hands laid upon their heads for the gift of the Holy Ghost, who have never received that gift, that is, the manifestations of it. Why? Because they have never put themselves in order to receive these manifestations. They have never humbled themselves. They have never taken the steps that would prepare them for the companionship of the Holy Ghost. Therefore they go through life without that knowledge, and they have not the understanding. Joseph Fielding Smith, Conference Report, October 1958, p.21 – p.22

Question: “How do we draw a balance between spiritual self-reliance and relying on the Spirit?”

2. D&C Section 84: 45-46 says: For the word of the Lord is truth, and whatsoever is truth is light, and whatsoever is light is Spir, even the Spirit of Jesus Christ.
And the Spirit giveth light to every man that cometh into the world; and the Spirit enlighteneth every man through the world, that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit.

Questions: What the difference is between being “guided by the Holy Ghost” (for those who have been told to “receive the Holy Ghost” by the laying on of hands) and being “guided by the Light of Christ”?

How can one discern whether an answer has come through the Light of Christ or the Holy Ghost?  What difference does it make?

3. “I tell you these things because of your prayers; wherefore, treasure up wisdom in your bosoms, lest the wickedness of men reveal these things unto you by their wickedness, in a manner which shall speak in your ears with a voice louder than that which shall shake the earth; but if ye are prepared ye shall not fear. ” D&C 38:30

Questions: What does it mean to be self-reliant in spiritual things?

Why is it important to be spiritually self-reliant?

In closing, God very much wants to help us but we must show our sincerity by being faithful to the knowledge he gives us. His plan is amazing. It helps us navigate the temporal reality but it also builds our soul for eternity. I never want to lose my sense of awe over the workings of God in my life and in the world at large.

I leave this lesson with you in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

Don’t believe enough to be an orthodox, true-blue Mormon…

…but you still have some compelling reason to stay…you don’t want to abandon your Mormonism…

Is there such a thing as a Middle Way?

Many people think so. Madam Curie wrote a great blog post assessing if Middle Way Mormonism is actually possible for the Mormon church. Since I’m very interested in this kind of topic, I wrote an excessively lengthy comment back…but I wanted to address the issue here too. I wanted to address the subject from a perspective of personal integrity or authenticity.

I think of authenticity as an awareness — and an effort to seek — whatever one truly is. Authenticity is highly subjective, of course. It depends on one’s attitudes, feelings, emotions, and a load of other things that are highly personal. But the mission is to try to scrape away all the junk…all the noise…all of the inauthenticities we bring upon ourselves (or which is brought upon us) by the roles we play with others.

Being authentic doesn’t necessarily mean you’ve discovered objective reality or truth. We would like to think this, but…history hasn’t been on our side. However, the good thing is that authenticity doesn’t necessarily really care about the final reality…or maybe the final reality doesn’t care about authenticity.

How do we know when we are being authentic or not? Authenticity, I think, brings harmony, peace, joy, and these other “good” things. It is knowing you’re on the right track. It’s not just about happiness…because you can be sad or under stress and still have be on the right track. Rather, it’s about something deeper…something more subtle, but more fulfilling.

At the same time, inauthenticity is the opposite of these things. It’s not simple sadness, but it is something that reaches to our core…it is as if we are killing ourselves. We are annihilating ourselves. We are forsaking ourselves. Because we are denying and lying about ourselves and we are the only ones who can even possibly tell our story, if we won’t or don’t tell it, it dies.

Being Mormon (or anything else…being a teacher…being a son…being a husband…) involves playing certain roles with respect to others in the environment. It creates expectations on the relationship with family, friends, priesthood leadership, and even God.

It would be ideal if these expectations resonated with the way we viewed ourselves and the way we felt. Whenever this is the case, we can say that being Mormon (or a teacher…or whatever) does not break our authenticity. I believe that for many true blue Mormons, Mormonism is authentic for them. It is what they truly are (whether permanently or at that stage of time.) So, they find joy from Mormonism. And some interpret this as the truthfulness of the church.

However, this isn’t the case for all members…for some…something within or about the church drills deeply and painfully. It doesn’t feel right to us, and continuing to pretend that it does feel like we are killing ourselves.

When this is the case, what do we do?

While there are many solutions, one such solution is Middle Way Mormonism…and this is where the controversy comes in. Because while the doubting member acknowledges that something about the church drills into their very livelihood…they also recognize that to eliminate Mormonism itself from their lives would drill into them another way. So…why can’t they reach a happy medium? Why can’t they have family, community, the beliefs that resonate with them…without the guilt, frustration, troublesome beliefs? Why can’t they be a Middle Way Mormon?

I think the concept is great…but I have reservations. I don’t understand it…I don’t get the appeal.

Because for one…Mormonism has an institution. Its institution sets guidelines, rules, and expectations. When one decides to disassociate from these expectations and create their own, one risks the chance of incurring the wrath of the institution. Why should someone do this?

So, let’s take a temple recommend interview, for example. A good, faithful Mormon has a role expectation to be a faithful, worthy, temple recommend holder. How does the middle-way Mormon get around these expectations while maintaining appearances of being a good, faithful Mormon? John Dehlin has an article (which I’ve gone over in detail) called “How to stay in the LDS Church after a Major Challenge to Your Faith” that suggests some solutions. Control+F for his section “temple recommend.”

There you will see some ways he suggests to reassess the worthiness interview and its questions.

And here comes some of my biggest issues with the middle way. These reassessments, these new answers and new ways of looking at the questions…strike me deeply as inauthentic. The assumptions that John lists at the beginning of the section don’t seem ad hoc to me…rather, they seem to be reasonable assumptions made based on years of living within the church about what people would believe are operational definitions of terms. So, I couldn’t simply disregard them without feeling in the back of my mind that I’m changing the rules on my bishop or stake president. If I did, I feel I would be purposefully answering questions in a way that I believe they would interpret my “yes” answers in a different way than I do. And this strikes me as a self-annihilating act.

So, middle way Mormonism loses its allure for me. It makes more sense to admit that I am not a faithful Mormon. From there, I believe that ex-Mormonism, which doesn’t have an “institution” with tight expectations, allows me to freely and authentically define my ex-Mormonism.

But…I have to recognize that others’ mileages may vary…I must imagine that when John answers these questions, he does not feel deceptive or coy in the slightest. He must not feel any internal conflict, much less a metaphysical annihilation of personal integrity. So for him and many others, the middle way path may yet be authentic. Who am I to take that away from them?

Being Good Citizens

Church leaders have encouraged us to be good citizens and to strengthen our communities and nations. There are many ways to be good citizens. These include participating in government or political processes, obeying the law, and serving in our communities. This lesson discusses the Lord’s teachings regarding government and good citizenship.

OVERVIEW:

Reading assignment: Doctrine and Covenants 58:21–22, 26–28; 98:4–10; 134; Articles of Faith 1:12; Our Heritage,pages 133–34.

• Participating in government
• Obeying the laws of the land
• Strengthening the community

Here is the handout for this week’s lesson: D&C-Church History Lesson 44.

pax vobiscum

My notes (in between tweets) from the 179th Semi-Annual General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Saturday Morning Session

President Henry B. Eyring conducted the Saturday morning session, with President Thomas S. Monson providing general commentary followed by talks from Elder Scott, Sister Matsumori, Elder Clayton, Brother Osguthorpe, Elder Bednar, and President Uchtdorf.  Here are the key points made by each speaker (with direct quotes noted as such):

President Thomas S. Monson:

• 83% of members live within 200 miles of a temple
• There are 130 operating temples
• 16 have been announced or are under construction
• 5 new temples announced
  
  • Brigham City, Utah
  • Concepción, Chile
  • Fortaleza, Brazil
  • Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
  • Sapporo, Japan

Mormon Tabernacle Choir sang “Choose the Right”

Elder Richard G. Scott of the Twelve:

• Inspiration to know what to do | being guided by the spirit
• Power, to be able to do it
• Sometimes truth is revealed when you are not actively seeking it
• Pornography is one of the most damning influences on earth, and is overpoweringly addictive
• Commit to overcome it now
• If you pray with all your heart, you can learn to be consistent with the guidance of the Holy Spirit
• Parable: a humble priesthood leader in Mexico teaching a lesson inspired Elder Scott, while a well-educated Sunday School teacher in the States, using obscure examples, did not edify or inspire because it came from a desire to impress (pride).

Sister Vicki F. Matsumori, Second Counselor in the Primary General Presidency:

• Being touched by the Spirit is like being wrapped in a blanket.
• Help others understand
• The Spirit will not dwell in unholy temples
• We should find ways to feel the Spirit every day and weekly at Church
• “Be still and know that I am God”

Elder L. Whitney Clayton of the Presidency of the Seventy:

• Generally burdens come from 3 sources
  1. Natural product of the conditions of the world
  2. Imposed on us by the misconduct of others
  3. Imposed on us by our own mistakes and shortcomings
• Burdens provide opportunities to practice virtues — blessings in disguise
• “People struggle everyday under burdens that tax their souls.”

The choir sang “We Thank Thee, O God, for a Prophet”

Russell T. Osguthorpe, General President of the Sunday School:

• “We are all teaching future leaders of the Church.”
• A good teacher can help save lives
• Teaching involves sharing the key doctrine, an invitation to action, and then the promised blessings
• “Learning and teaching are not optional activities in the Kingdom of God.”
• Teachers can inspire their students to change, to do better, to set sights higher

Elder David A. Bednar of the Twelve:

• “More diligent and concerned at home”
• Express love and show it. When was the last time you told your spouse, your child, your parents you love them?
• Testimonies that express love might be appropriate, but the public statement shouldn’t be the only time they hear it
• Feeling the constancy of love is a rich blessing
• Bear testimony and live it. When was the last time you bore your testimony to your spouse, your children, or your parents
• We need to bear it, we need to mean it, and most importantly, we need to live it
• Be consistent. Results don’t come each time
• The consistency of our intent and work is the great lesson
• A single paint brush stroke is not critical, but all of the strokes together create a beautiful painting

The choir sang “My Heavenly Father Loves Me”

The choir sang “Oh, May My Soul Commune with Thee”

President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, on showing love as a disciple of Christ and the unconditional love of God for us:

• Of all the things we are known for, are there things we should seek to be known for?
• How do we become true disciples of Jesus Christ? Love God. If ye love me, keep my commandments.  Love should be the center of our life in:
  1. family
  2. callings
  3. livelihood
• “Love should be our walk and our talk.”
• Keep trying. Try to believe, learn of God, study the scriptures, follow the prophets, listen to the Father, do the things He asks of us
  • How can we hear the Father’s voice?
  • Why is love the great commandment?

The choir sang “Come, Come, Ye Saints”

Saturday Afternoon Session

President Eyring conducted the Saturday afternoon session, featuring talks by Elder Oaks, Elder Hales, Elder Zeballos, Elder Callister, Elder Watson, Elder Anderson, and President Packer. Direct quotations (based on my notes) are given in quotes; phrases without quotes are my summary of the remarks given.

The choir sang “Let Zion in Her Beauty Rise”.

The choir sang “Know This, That Every Soul Is Free”

Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Twelve, on God’s love and law:

• God’s love and God’s commandments
• The love of God does not supersede his commandments.  His commandments do not diminish the love of God
• Despite mortal confusion over the relationship between love and law, love does not supercede or render inapplicable law or God’s commandments. Mercy cannot rob justice.
• Counsels a balanced response — every parent knows you can love a child and be angry and disappointed
• The love of God is so universal, even those who are rebellious benefit
• Where do parents draw the line with children that are not following the commandments? Don’t go to extremes.
• Real love does not support self-destructive behavior

Elder Robert D. Hales of the Twelve, against secularism and atheism:

• We live in a time where secularism is deepening.  “Atheism … is spreading across the world.”
• We declare We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in his son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost
• Why is belief in God so important?“Without God, … our mortal experiences would have no purpose.”
• Cultivate a diligent desire to know God lives. He does.

Elder Jorge F. Zeballos of the Seventy, on the Atonement:

• The command to become perfect may seem impossible, but it encourages us to achieve the best of ourselves
• “God will not require more than the best that we can give.”
• Let us with enthusiasm do all that is within our reach
• It is possible to achieve the impossible. We can receive eternal life. We can be happy now.

The choir sang “Come, Ye Children of the Lord”

Elder Tad R. Callister of the Seventy, on the Restoration:

• Joseph was the Lord’s anointed servant. He restored knowledge of four fundamental truths not recognized by contemporary Christianity:
  1. God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ are two separate, distinct beings
  2. The Father and Son have glorified bodies of flesh and bones
  3. God still speaks to man today; the heavens are not closed
     Does God love us as much today as before?
     Does God have the same power today as then?
     Do we need him as much today as then?
  4. The full and complete Church of Jesus Christ was not on the earth
• Were there not angels before? Mary, Joseph, Peter, James, John, Cornelius, Paul, Stephen all saw angels
• Some people get sidetracked and lose their faith over minor issues: “There will always be some intellectual crisis looming on the horizon.” At some point, one must trust in God.

Elder Kent D. Watson of the Seventy, on temperance:

• Temperance = avoiding anger and pride.
• Peace of mind and security and happiness does not come from buying things we can’t afford. It comes through self-control and faith in Jesus Christ.
• Happiness comes from being diligent in keeping covenants
• Like tempered glass or tempered steel, a tempered soul is one that has gained increased spiritual strength.

Elder Neil L. Anderson of the Twelve, on repentance:

• Testifies of the Savior’s overpowering love for a repentant soul.  Spiritual arms of mercy, safety, love
• We rejoice in repenting and the joy of forgiveness
• Apart from the rare unforgiveable sin against the Holy Ghost, “there is no sin that cannot be forgiven.
• “Will ye not now return unto me… that I may heal you?”
• Repentance is more of a journey than an event
• “You can’t feel what I have felt”  One who does understand. He does. He has felt your pain.
• I promise you, relief will come
• Do not procrastinate the day of your repentance

President Boyd K. Packer of the Twelve, on hearing the guidance of the Spirit:

• “We are given our agency; we must use it wisely.”
• We must use our agency wisely
• Pure intelligence can be spoken into the mind  — the Spirit can protect you
• Keep your mind clean and free from the clutter of the world
• “One of the adversary’s sharpest tools is convincing us that we are no longer worthy to pray.” No matter who you are and what you may have done, you can always pray
• Learn to pray. Pray often. Pray in your mind, in your heart. Pray on your knees.
• Prayer is your personal key to heaven and the lock is on your side of the veil.
• “Thy will be done”

The choir sang “I Know That My Redeemer Lives”.

The Republican Party, and their agents in this territory, the Liberal Party are the party of the Devil.

See, historical references jest ain’t like the scriptures. They have these things called ‘Context’ and ‘Historical Milieu’ that have to be respected. Linkin’ such nasty terms to the Demoncrats juest don’ work since ol Tricky Dick debuted the ‘Southern Strategy in the 70’s to siphon off the racist element to the Republican Party.

(oh, and the raging puppy above is wildly anachronistic. The Peoples Party didn’t show up until the 1870’s in Utah politics.)

Okay somebody tell me. Explain it to me. Tell me why Twilight is such a phenomenon. Tell me why a story about a girl who cannot do anything for herself, who doesn’t mind that her boyfriend kidnaps her and locks her in his room for a few days, is so wildly popular. Tell me why Edward, a man who in real life would be a manipulative and abusive person, is someone girls aspire to have as a boyfriend. It makes me sick. It makes me sad.

Not only is this book bad for young girls – why? Because it teaches them to be dependent, to believe their role is subservient, that they cannot take care of themselves, that they need a man to live, and so on- but it has become so widespread, with these very same young girls’ mothers reading the novels, and loving them.

With the release of New Moon, the story in which the sparkly Edward goes to Italy, hoping to be killed by the Volturi because he is so gosh darn depressed, I am aware of this now more than ever. Also having learned that 10% of everything Stephanie Meyer makes is tithed to the Mormon Church, thus helping fund campaigns like Prop 8, I am more disgusted than I have ever been.

I am terrified for the young girls all over the world who don’t see how detrimental this story is to their romantic health, and apparently also the future of equality in the United States. Ugh.

It’s been an interesting week.

Not too long ago, my husband and I made a trip across the river from Buenos Aires, Argentina to Colonia, Uruguay.  We’ve made this trip many times before, usually just for the day (and to renew our visas).  But this time, we spent a week or so doing research for a book I want to write.

We stayed with local expats–people from Canada, the UK, France, and the US.  These individuals were choosing to live in Uruguay part-time or full-time.  Some had discovered Uruguay through online resources and discussions with those who had visited.  Others had stumbled upon it on a trip to Buenos Aires and fallen in love with it.  Some had felt compelled to move to Uruguay without ever having visited it.

Although there are all kinds of ways to live in Uruguay–and most countries–we were particularly intrigued by those who had moved to Uruguay in order to purchase property and live closer to the land.  One couple we stayed with has spent the last 20 years in Manhattan, but bought 50 acres and a 100-year-old farmhouse in Uruguay, where they are happily settling into country life.  Keep in mind that these people had never lived on a farm before and knew nothing about gardening or raising animals.  They are learning–and loving the process of discovering what it’s like to be so in tune with the seasons, the soil and the sounds of the country.

Despite my city-girl persona of the past three years since moving to Buenos Aires, I felt a remarkable pull toward the countryside.  I was raised on a ten-acre piece of land three miles down a gravel road from a small agricultural town in Oregon with a population of 360.  I grew up working in fields of all kinds, and my family had a massive garden.  My mother was raised Mormon and still followed the two-year-supply-of-food rule, so we had a room in our home dedicated to the storage and display of beautiful glass jars of the fruits and vegetables she canned.  But she went way beyond the usual strawberry jam and preserved peaches:  she made her own pickles, pickle relish, ketchup, tomato sauce, and sauerkraut.  We had a food dryer and always had containers full of dried apples and prunes.  We made our own granola and muesli.  My grandmother made her own yogurt–back in the sixties!

So, despite becoming a more “modern” American woman these past 30 years–one who shops at supermarkets and turns her yard into a perennial garden and maybe a few herbs, but no vegetables in sight–I’ve been pulled back to the idea of having enough land to grow my own food.  Potatoes, onions, carrots, beans, tomatoes, corn.  All kinds of herbs. Loads of fruit trees. And yes, some herbs and flowers.

I found a piece of property in Uruguay, about 20 kilometers from the coast.  It’s about five miles outside a small town. It has just under five acres–and 18 different fruit trees.  It also has a lovely new 3-bedroom farmhouse.  And a well.

Having recently moved into a studio apartment in Buenos Aires–after selling our 3-bedroom place once the kids moved out–I have been enjoying the simplicity of one-room living.  We have just what fits, just what we need, just what we really love, and nothing else.  I like the sense of security that comes from knowing I have just this one room, and that I can lock the door and leave and not worry about it while I am away.

But now, I find myself fantasizing about living in the country.  Or rather, I dream about having this wonderful little studio in the city but also having a beautiful piece of land upon which to garden, grow things, and reconnect to the earth.  I envision a place that will evolve over the next decade or two to include a lush and beautiful garden, a guest house, an outdoor campfire area….and not much else.  Just land. Crickets.  Maybe some chickens, a few sheep to keep the grass short.  I want to buy my clothes at the feed store–tall galoshes, long underwear, overalls–and keep them there so that when I arrive, I can slip into my country clothes and head outside.  I want to drink mate in the morning with a view of the country, and get my hands into the soil every single day.

I never thought this would appeal to me.  As a teenager growing up in such a remote area, I swore I would never make my kids live out in the middle of nowhere.  Instead, we lived in a small town (a quick walk to Main Street where they could buy ice cream cones or read magazines–or visit their parents, as my husband and I had a small business in the downtown area).  Then we lived in the suburbs.  I hated the suburbs, but I am so grateful we had that experience.  If I hadn’t lived in a subdivision, I wouldn’t have felt compelled to leave the US, and then I would not have discovered what it is like to live in a beach town in Mexico or in a city of 13 million people in Argentina.  Or on a farm in Uruguay.

Things keep changing.  I keep changing.  I am trying to let go of my “nevers”  (I should have mastered this by now) and be open to where my heart pulls me–even if that means a piece of property in the middle of nowhere.

I’m not a teenager anymore.  My kids have never lived in the country, and they aren’t likely to live on a farm–ever.  But I love the idea of having this place for our family to congregate, to share holidays and watch grandchildren playing in the garden.  Studio apartment life in the city is exhilarating, but I am longing for a place that inspires more contemplation.  Living in the country won’t be simpler than living in a studio apartment–there is more to maintain–but it will provide a perfect balance.

I think.  Or, I might find it terribly boring.  Who knows?

All I can do is follow my heart.  And right now, it’s pulling me to this piece of property which I have not yet seen.

More soon.

Last night Jason and the missionaries stopped by. I asked for a blessing. Out of three priesthood holders, none of them had any consecrated oil. They consecrated some and left it in my freezer! To me, that is soooooooo cool!!!

During the blessing, Zeke put his head on my lap. I prayed that he would feel better, too.

Wow! We went to sleep and neither of us had gut distress ALL night long! When I woke up, I had to touch Zeke to make sure he was alive. Once I got up, he was very frisky During the night I had soaking night sweats. I feel much better

Also….yesterday we were under a winter weather advisory. We were supposed to get 3 to 7 inches of snow….more in the higher elevations. We usually qualify as “higher”. It did snow and it did start to pile up. When I woke up this morning there was no snow. Not what I expected!

My Nanowrimo project fell somewhat to the wayside when I decided to switch from fiction to non-fiction (Thus, Nanowrimo became National Non-fiction Writing Month). When you begin to write any kind of credible non-fiction, you suddenly find yourself researching – a lot. And for every minute you spend researching, you’re improving your work but adding nary a character to your word count. A real shame, really.

Thus, the goal is not a 50,000 page novel/book, but a series of articles on ideas I’ve been working on. The one I’m currently hammering out is called “The Parable of Evolution,” with an excerpt below (warning – this section hasn’t been heavily edited):

Unfortunately, many religious citizens of the world fail to consider the flip side of the coin – everything we know about biology in the past 100 years, everything we know about modern-day medicine and agriculture, we owe to the theory of evolution. Quite literally, the entire modern-day lifestyle, from vaccines and high yield crops to even our simple acknowledging of the existence of bacteria, relies on the concepts discussed in The Origin of Species. Since its first publishing, the vast majority of fossil records, experimentation with organisms, and the very use of animal husbandry and agriculture point to the fact that the theory of evolution holds firmly in explaining the history of life on Earth, as well as how we as humans function on this mortal coil. Ask any credible biologist, even the religious ones, and many will give their regards to The Origin of Species and Darwin’s theory of evolution. In short, the theory of evolution is here to stay and it’s not going anywhere for a very long time. To deny the theory of evolution would be to deny that the methodology in developing modern-day vaccines is filled with lies and falsity, along with the faithful family dog, who humans themselves bred with a latent understanding of basic evolutionary concepts from the dangerously wild wolf. This becomes distressing news for growing Christians who view the mounting evidence accursed science heaps upon the scriptures with, of course, deep disrespect. How do we reconcile the theory of evolution with Christian doctrines and teachings? How does this annoying little theory fit into the framework of Judeo-Christian religious thought?

Michael Otterson, directeur des affaires publiques pour l’église mormone, a déclaré Mercredi que les dirigeants de l’église ont été en mesure de soutenir l’ordonnance parce que il ne sculpte pas des droits spéciaux pour les gays. Soutien à “valeurs de base civile”, Otterson dit, ne compromet pas la croyance religieuse église que l’homosexualité est un péché et que de même sexe le mariage constitue une menace pour le mariage traditionnel. ”Il va se faire les défenseurs gais qui ne pense pas que nous sommes passés près de assez loin, et les gens très conservateurs qui pensent que nous sommes allés trop loin »,

Otterson dit. “La grande majorité des gens sont entre ces polaires extrêmes et nous pensons que ça va résonner avec des personnes sur la base du sens de l’équité ». Harry Knox, directeur de la religion et la foi au programme des droits des homosexuels - groupe Human Rights Campaign, a déclaré résister à l’église mormone sur le sel Lake ordonnances Ville pourrait aider à modifier le débat sur les droits des homosexuels. «L’église a le mérite, mais que le crédit est vraiment parce que les gens ont fait pression pour elle, “Knox said.” Ce n’est pas chose quelque chose qu’ils est arrivé à eux-mêmes et à la sortie de la bonté de leur cœur ».

L’action de l’Eglise est le dernier signe d’un ralentissement chez certains conservateurs chrétiens à l’égard offrant une certaine protection légale aux gays. Militants tentent d’obtenir l’appui des évangélistes aux sources fédérales anti-discrimination de l’emploi qui couvrirait les gays. Cependant, réaction religieuse a été largement négative à une loi fédérale sur les crimes haineux protège les homosexuels que le président Barack Obama a récemment signé en loi.

Plusieurs groupes chrétiens conservateurs ont fait valoir que la prédication contre l’homosexualité peut être considéré comme un crime haineux en vertu de la législation. L’église mormone n’a pas pris position sur une et l’autre fédérale
législation. Otterson, le porte-parole de l’église, dit que dans le cas du Lac Salé Ordonnances de la ville, les dirigeants de Mormon pesé parce qu’ils ne répondaient à une demande d’informations sur la législation spécifique. Interrogé pour savoir si l’Eglise serait prendre position sur l’état similaire ou fédéral législation, Otterson déclaré: «La direction de l’Église n’est pas enclin à offrent des conseils gratuits où il est pas demandée. “

Mormons are not Christians.

Let’s all get over that right now. Joseph Smith’s argument was that he was restoring the Church to the way it was supposed to have been all along. Joseph’s claim was that the Church was in total apostasy. Joseph Smith was claiming something unique in the two millennia of Church-State sponsored excommunicationing, confession-torturing, and public stake-burnings that was by then calling itself “Christianity.” Joseph Smith was claiming the whole tradition had departed from its founding principles. Mormons believe that the entire, combined history of today’s Christianity is doctrinally unsound and lacking in authority.

You wouldn’t think so by how hard Mormons now cling to the notion that they’re just another branch of the Christian religion. In their minds of course, they’re actually claiming to be the one, true Christian religion. But then, that’s what everyone else is claiming. We’re right and you guys are all wrong. We have authority and you don’t. I am the Rock, I am Peter. I was founded by Paul. I have 95 reasons why you’re all screwed up so I’m going to reform the Church. Divine Providence has guided us to just these right interpretations of just these right scriptures in just this right version of the Bible and led us to just this right land to prosper, and we’re the only ones who remained true to preserve the true faith.

The thing calling itself Christianity today is not the same as the thing being called Mormonism–even by Mormon standards. Serious problems arise when Mormons start teaching their version of the “gospel,” and lo and behold, the Christian investigator notices it departs wholesale from what they’ve been taught their whole life. Even without the predictable priming of the investigator by their professional Christian clergy or anti-Mormon propagandists, it is inevitable that anyone brought up to believe the conventional Christian storyline will conclude that Mormons are not Christians in the same way everyone else seems to be Christians–and that the Mormons are probably trying to pull a fast one on them. Or they surmise that Mormons are just stupid and don’t know the difference. Which is mostly true in either case.

Since Christians believe they all go to heaven and everyone else goes to hell, the schooled Christian will most of the time just stay safely on the historically Christian side of the debate. Why explore the “fullness” of the gospel, when the gospel you already have is sending you to heaven anyway? For this reason, the Mormon missionary program actually targets those without clear Christian or other religious backgrounds, gives a very broad, generic, rosy sales pitch, begs the hapless, ignorant, spiritually ambivalent investigator to pray about it, and while in some self-induced, emotional, cathartic, faux-religious conversion mode they are challenged, almost dared to jump immediately into the baptismal font. They are urged to just pick up the rest of what they’re going to have to believe after they’re already committed to being a Mormon in principle. It takes the discerning human being of any stripe about five minutes to figure out that this is a buy-now-pay-later religious special-of-the-week sort of marketing program. The investigator rabbits off to the safety of what they already know, or don’t know as the case may be. After all, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

The Mormons designing these recruitment drives and even all the instructional manuals, church magazines and those running the doctrinal curriculum of the Mormon church, don’t know a thing about Christianity, much less how a Christian thinks or feels. They don’t know much about how any normal human being feels, because they’re Mormons. Mormons aren’t only not Christians, they’re just not normal. They are a self-selecting, self-taught closed little sample of one particular (deliberately peculiar) type of human being they’ve self-defined to be God’s particular favorite type of human being. They’ve either been raised to be ignorant of the world at large, or are eagerly cultivated into their contrived peculiarity after being hand-picked by the Mormon recruiting system in which like begets like, ignorance cultures ignorance, and the cultureless beget a complete lack of culture. They become special because they are like everyone else in the club. They are unimpressive as individuals, but absolutely brilliant as herd animals.

Chairman Mao said that sooner or later every revolution goes conservative. He maintained that the communist revolution had to be constantly refreshed and purged of intellectuals and thinkers and anyone who might sit back on their laurels and start thinking about “What’s in if for me then?” Or worse yet, “Hey, isn’t this capitalist thing better than what we’ve got going here after all?” In the 1960’s Mao rallied all the communist youth to fink on their elders, raid and destroy anything not Chinese, anything not communist. Art, music, technology, philosophy, it was all burned if it wasn’t determined to be Chinese or communist enough. Anyone who had the brains or memory or experience to raise an intelligent argument in favor of preserving world knowledge and universal beauty, was sent to a re-education camp. All the intellectuals were sent to the rice paddies. The same sort of thing took place the moment all the bright and eargerly converted Mormon Swedes and Norwegians and English and Danish and Scottish pioneers entered the Salt Lake Valley. They stopped being Swedes and Norwegians and English and Danish or Scottish, Catholic, or Protestant, and Brigham Young re-educated them into becoming Mormons.

This is exactly what Lenin did to Marxism in the Soviet Union after the Russian Revolution. The movement began with the cream of the cream of the literati, the intellectuals, the academics, the artists and poets and was led by common, naturally chosen social visionaries. After the revolution however, these people with brains in their heads and ideas of their own just got in the way of the Party doing whatever it wanted to do. Which was take care of the Party. And after all, when you make Yuri the former nut-and-bolt fastener from the local tractor factory the new head of Central Planning Committee, he just doesn’t want to take a lot of crap from smart people and he doesn’t understand why they just don’t do what he says and shut up about it. Yuri got promoted simply because of his undying, if unintelligent loyalty to the Party. The same sort of process works the same way in the recruitment and selection of Mormon leadership as well as the membership in general. It’s not what you know, who you are, what you’re capable of, it’s all about loyalty to the Party. Consequently, anything not immediately relevant to rising in, or surviving under the Party has no place in the culture. All non-Mormon intelligence or ethnicity in Utah was effectively eradicated in one generation.

Before David O. McKay in 1952, the Mormon church was still essentially living out the prophet Joseph Smith’s original commission of bringing good Christians into the “fullness” of the gospel. They had lost any sense of what a Christian is or was by then, but they were still trying to relate to Christians as Mormons, not as fellow Christians. They at least knew the difference back then. Mormons actively sought Christians and started their various missionary efforts with what they already knew Christians found to be troublesome doctrines and principles. Back then Mormons spun off the missionary pitch not into a challenge to baptism, but into how modern revelation had fixed all those problems and restored the whole truth to Christianity. Baptism was a decision, not a bet.

In the early days of the LDS church, it was the primary perspective that every Christian had at one time wondered how it was that their third cousin Huckleberry back in Ohio was going to have to burn in hell when he never done nobody no harm and just never took no shine to the Holy Bible. Every good Christian wondered how the hell you could have a three-headed God that was one God but three different characters at the same time. Every Sunday School Christian had asked the preacher that one question or two that got the “It’s a mystery we accept on faith,” answer that really pissed them off and left them wondering their whole lives if this Christian thing wasn’t just a load of hooey. Well, Joseph Smith gave them better answers. Answers to questions they were already asking.

Today’s LDS recruitment program basically says you can just stuff your questions up your backside, get on your knees and ask in total ignorance if this or that is true. Is the Book of Mormon true? Was Joseph Smith a prophet of God? Don’t make us explain any of it and don’t deviate from the discussion we’ve charted out for you. Go for that burning bosom–avoid any pondering or reasoning. As soon as you’re willing to concede that it might be true, throw yourself straight into that “come to Joseph” moment and it will all explain itself later. (And they wonder why convert retention rates are plummeting…)

Mormons don’t even have any idea how big a leap they’re asking the Christian to take. Christianity is actually fairly compatible with Mormonism just by accident, superficially speaking, looking strictly from the Mormon side of it. Mormons don’t believe Christians are going to be burning in hell for openers. Not officially. It’s a similarly “wholesome” lifestyle. They believe in Jesus Christ. Christians don’t have the whole truth, but they’re mostly harmless and sometimes even good. But most of that would apply to any major world religion from the Mormon perspective. Mormons believe that just about anyone not shedding innocent blood or deliberately and knowingly denying the Holy Ghost is going to a paradise exactly like the “heaven” all little Christian kids are told they’re going to fly up to when they die.

Mormon salvation on that level is free. It’s as free as any salvation you’ll get in any good old Christian tent revival. It’s even freer. All you have to do is accept Christ as your savior, and you don’t even have to do it before you die. If all else fails you can have somebody get baptized for you while you’re up there in a heavenly holding cell, waiting for all the paperwork to get signed and the permits issued. You can die a complete heathen and still be a candidate, yes, even for that highest of high Mormon heavens, the Celestial Kingdom.

The dirty, really really annoying little secret is that Mormons can’t even guarantee that their years of Mormonizing is going to insure them a spot in the highest of high levels in heaven. In the Celestial Kingdom they taunt, the righteous will live an afterlife where they hang out with deity and learn how to make planets, create life and really fun stuff like that. The “gentile” as they call them, the non-Mormon of any faith, will not participate in this higher glory. But obfuscated in a lot of 60’s era cleanup and correlation, is a little caveat about God judging and knowing your heart. All those requirements, those commandments you kept, really don’t weigh much in the Final Judgment or at least aren’t the deal maker or breaker in your ultimate fate.

Celestial glory might also just be the end destination of millions or billions of other former mortals who never had to bother with the whole Mormon experience. There’s still a good chance that Joe Christian or even Joe Jew,  Joe Hindu or Joe Muslim will end up in the Celestial Kingdom along side of the most Mormony of Mormons, or above them, or even a kingdom or two above them. That’s pretty crappy doctrine for recruitment purposes, and certainly for maintaining that sense of superiority and high morale amongst the elect. You can see why historically, Christianity went another way with that.

The Mormon missionary program became a total victim of the Utah ethos in 1959 when president McKay, coming from a teaching background, quite correctly decided that all the reams of freelance apocrypha flying around the various LDS church organizations ought to be correlated into some sort of final orthodoxy. Prior to this movement, every scrap of lecture, every half-reliable journal entry, every rumored quote or sketchy teaching of every prophet, president or LDS leader of any import could ostensibly be preached as official “doctrine.” McKay first cleaned up the missionary training program into what he called a “systematic approach” to teaching the LDS gospel. Harold B. Lee who later also became president of the church was the central figure in this effort and initiated the “Correlation Committee” which since then has maintained absolute authority to sanction or censor any media or organizational program in the church. If it has come out of Correlation, it is “official” Mormon doctrine.

The result of Correlation has been mostly good from an internal standpoint. It purged a century and a half of gibberish and folklore from the burden of what had become an entirely undisciplined and unlimited canon that grew every time some General Authority belched and some other LDS scribbler wrote it down. Externally, it was not so helpful.

Correlation really constitutes the final usurpation of Joseph Smith’s restored Church of Jesus Christ by the “Utah Experience.” Correlation cleaned out everything that Utah didn’t think was relevant—which is all of Christianity for one. Correlation just ignored answering all those difficult early-Mormon and past-prophet-type questions–like blacks and the priesthood, polygamy, or any number of Brigham Young’s musings on Adam being God, or what Brother Brigham had to do with Mountain Meadows. Now, that’s sort of a good thing, because by relegating the bulk of early Mormon zaniness to the purely historical archives, President McKay was trying to sort out what was relevant to the 1950’s Latter-day Saint in a world that kept poking its nose into their happy little valley. At least, he thought, let’s all start singing off the same page instead of defending a pastiche of random thoughts gleaned from a myriad of church leaders over the last century-and-a half.

What Correlation didn’t do, is stop every Tom, Dick, and Bruce R. McConkie from continuing to publish their own versions of Mormonism outside the “official” stream. What Correlation didn’t do, is anything to harmonize, negate or explain 150 or more years of sometimes radically contradictory, and sometimes just radically odd statements and dissertations alleged to have been uttered by major church authorities it was now choosing to ignore. Correlation Movement proponents apparently believed the whole history of frontier Mormon weirdness would erase itself in a generation. Well, it did erase itself, but only from the “official” church structure. Generations of self-illuminated Mormons on the other hand, just kept reading and believing literally anything they latched onto with some Mormon bigwig’s name on it from any era of the church past or present.

Correlation left generations of young and now older Mormons officially ignorant of their own history except for all the happy, logical, inspiring stuff. Generations of Mormons are now entirely unprepared to deal with Christians and other normal human beings, who frankly, are only interested in getting some sort of answer to the juicy, weird stuff first. When an investigator hears that you claim to be a Mormon but you can’t spit something half-intelligent out about polygamy, they just don’t care to be “challenged” to baptism. They think you’re a sham, or an imbecile. Or, more pointedly, you’ve been brainwashed and kept from the “secret truths” of Mormonism. They don’t trust you and don’t care to listen to you any farther.

Correlation did to Mormon historical and doctrinal truth the same thing Prohibition did for alcohol; it just made all those “unofficial” sources all that much more appealing. When the good stuff right from the Maker dried up, even the faithful went rushing straight to the bootleg Mormon gospel writers, as those historically troubling Mormonological questions just kept rising to the surface generation by generation.

Correlation unfortunately also dragged the meaning of seeking “guidance by the Spirit” down to the level of merely reading something the Committee wrote in a manual somewhere and making you pray hard enough till you believe it’s true. The only input the Spirit gets in all this “guidance” is to swoop down at the end of the lesson and put His stamp of approval on the Correlation Committee’s work. That’s “official” Mormonism today. McKay’s systematic missionary program called it the “Commitment Pattern.” Read a blurb carefully crafted by ad men at church headquarters, challenge the investigator to pray and confirm, then elicit an immediate commitment to live it. The whole pondering and studying thing is obsolete. You want your prospect or “mark” to go with his gut impulse on first blush while he’s emotionally receptive. Never give a mark the option of thinking it over calmly. This tactic is not surprising, since Harold B. Lee was an advertising man and chaired the whole Correlation movement when all these new PR and educational programs were first developed.

The first version of Correlation’s missionary program used flip charts and a door-to-door marketing script along Madison Avenue lines. The present system, while claiming to be a reaction to people eventually getting wise to the canned, fake, hard-sell McKay/Lee era system, is actually just the old system without the locked script. The new missionary approach uses exactly the same formula, and only pretends to fulfill the “teaching by the Spirit” scriptural requirement of the LDS missionary commission. It breaks the discussions into particular concepts, drills the missionary till he can “ad-lib” a lesson that teaches exactly the concept charted out for him or her in his or her “own words.” Then you still dare them to get dunked. No variation, no answers to hard questions. If they’re ready, they’ll go into the font anyway, if not, move forward into the next pitch in the program till you close the sale.

From the Mormon perspective then, one Christian church is about as good as any other. It’s not worth studying.  They aren’t trying to convert . Conversion is a long-lost concept. Mormon missionary efforts are based entirely upon trying to hunt and coax out people who are already “prepared” to believe the Mormon narrative regardless of logic, reason, history, tradition or culture. They’ve got a program, a method. It works for them a lot of the time. It’s an almost entirely emotional appeal which you can choose to call “spiritual” if you want to. I suppose if the prospect stays in the church after baptism, it was spiritual. If they wake up a month later and can’t believe what they got themselves into, it was mostly emotional.

The Mormon missionary who tangles with an actual thinker might just as well hoof it to the next door. That chump had their chance. They’ll just have to make do with unimaginable glory, instead of really, really, really unimaginable glory. There is no inescapable suffering in Mormon theology when a missionary fails to score a baptism, not in the long run. (Except for the mission statistics and the missionary’s performance rating, which may be a pretty central issue to most missionaries and mission presidents.)

But Christians will never concede that Mormons are going anywhere but hell. Trying to steal the Christian label from them is going to be fighting words until Jesus returns to pick a side in the debate Himself. And even then they’re going to demand He prove with miracles and firey chariots that He’s really Jesus. The whole Christian belief system collapses if Mormons don’t burn in hell. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is two-thousand years too late to try to claim the Christian brand from them. They have it patented, registered, and trademarked and they will fiercely protect it. And every Christian tradition from the Holy Roman Empire to some little evangelical offshoot on your cable TV public access channel has a belief system that on one level or another, sends everyone, even other Christians, to hell or puts them in danger of hell because they’ve got it all wrong. Or even just this one little part of it wrong. Two thousand years of ecumenical conferences and attempts to nail down general agreements on who really is a true Christian or not, and they’ve only agreed to disagree. They do however agree unanimously that Mormons are not part of the debate. Mormons have crossed the line. And why not? That’s exactly what Joseph Smith said about them.

I even wonder sometimes why the Christian brand name is so worth fighting for. It’s just a passing title use once in one minor scripture. And what they’ve done with it over the last two-thousand years isn’t always a thing to praise and respect.

To be correct, I’d also have to say that a lot of Mormons aren’t really even Latter-day Saints. A lot of Mormons believe in UFOs. Some of them will insist it’s in the four standard works if you know where to look. By the book, their book, a lot of apocryphal, anecdotal, pioneer, journal-of-rumors nonsense should have long ago been cleanly parsed out of the main LDS devotional collection of half-baked fables. Because of their ongoing reluctance to rate or denounce one-another, LDS leaders have allowed so much prophetic political leeway that virtually anything said or written by anyone of any authority or position in the Mormon church over the last two hundred years could be credibly argued to be the word of the Lord. For the last fifty years or so all the really goofy Mormon doctrines may have been cleaned out of the official, Correlated belief system—yet they really haven’t been cleaned out of the chain of theoretical authority. These quacky old doctrines have yet to be justified or denied by current leadership. You can take it out of the Sunday School lesson in 1952, but Pastor Bob, the rabid Anti-Mormon of today still has a copy of it and your old Mormon granny still believes in it because that’s what she was taught in Sunday School in 1951. Granny and those zany old codgers in high priest groups down in Payson still pass it all on to their descendants as God’s own truth because the current prophet and the current prophet after that continue to fail to proclaim clearly and authoritatively what Mormon’s don’t believe in.

Unlike Mormonism, Christian sects have only ever had but a handful of convoluted little central doctrines to debate in total. They still killed and excommunicated each other over them for thousands of years, but compared to the volumes of half-thought-out Mormon doctrinal speculations available to the Mormon, Christians have a very simple gospel to bicker about. Mormonism has had to date, less than two centuries to narrow down what it’s going to be all about. It lost its defining prophet very early on in the process, got chased into the wilderness, and has spent most of its time struggling with inbred family feuding, caretaking and nation-building. The Mormon church is full of “authorities.” They all write, and they all have opinions on everything. Mormons simply haven’t had the time, insight or interest to go through the bulk of every little note ever scribbled down and attributed to some prophet or apostle or the other and clean out all the rubbish. It hasn’t been a problem in the Valley till now.

Mormons are extremely ignorant in religious matters overall. Even their own. Make that ignorant in most things cultural, religious, or intellectual. Have I driven that point home yet? Mormons are not chosen because they have unique talents and wisdom. They’re chosen because they agree to get baptized.

Mormons know Mormonism and that’s it. That’s it. That’s what Mormons do: be Mormons. All they know is that hiding out for two centuries in a dusty valley in Utah is the most important human experience in the history of mankind. They claim to have a “Style all our Own” as they were fond of boasting in brow-flogging lectures to their youth, haranguing long hair and beards in the late 60’s and 70’s. But it isn’t a style so much as a lack of style. Mormons have a lack of style all their own. They are overtly attempting to make themselves a peculiar people, but not always in a good way. The style-less, the boring, the intellectually and artistically complacent, the anti-intellectual, they all make great Mormons. They are good, honest, God-fearing folk. They’re just unremarkable as hell. And they have a way of taking a great, even inspired religion and boring it to death. Like begets like and in the closed Mormon system, the pig-ignorant are teaching the pig-ignorant how to find and sign up more of the pig-ignorant. Even if we concede that God provides the Mormon church president with a brilliant idea, the Correlation Movement for example, it’s still going to be executed by a bunch of uncommonly dull and unusually sheltered Utah Mormons.

In a famous interview with the New Yorker January 2002, church president Gordon B. Hinckley speaks to Lawrence Wright:

“I’m the third generation in this Church,” he told me. “My grandfather joined the Church in his late teens in Nauvoo.” Nauvoo, Illinois, was a refuge that the Mormons created in 1839, following an order by the governor of Missouri to run them out of the state. But Illinois soon proved to be worse than Missouri. In 1844, after an anti-Mormon mob murdered Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum, the Mormons headed west. Hinckley’s grandfather Ira was among them. Thousands died on the trek across the Great Plains, including Ira’s wife and his stepbrother, Joel, who both died of cholera on the same day in 1850.

Hinckley showed me a small bronze figure of a pioneer standing beside a grave. “Here’s a little statue somebody made of that event, portraying my grandfather’s burial of his wife in a coffin he made somewhere, we know not where. And afterward he picked up his eleven-month-old daughter and carried her to this valley.” Hinckley’s voice grew thick. “Now, that’s my background in this Church, and it’s real, and it’s pragmatic, and it’s Mormonism.”

In the Mormon scheme, every person is a potential divinity. The adage “As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be” expresses the Mormon belief that God was once a human being, with a wife and children. But Hinckley did not seem interested in discussing matters of theology. When I asked him to characterize God’s connubial relationship, he replied, “We don’t speculate on that a lot. Brigham Young said if you went to Heaven and saw God it would be Adam and Eve. I don’t know what he meant by that.” Pointing to a grim-faced portrait of the Lion of the Lord, as Young was called, he said, “There he is, right there. I’m not going to worry about what he said about those things.”

I asked whether Mormon theology was a form of polytheism.

”I don’t have the remotest idea what you mean,” he said impatiently.

”More than one god.”

”Yes, but that’s a very loose term,” he replied. “We believe in eternal progression.” By that he meant that human beings can evolve toward godhood by following the Mormon path. “You want to be a reporter always?” he said. “You want to be a scrub forever, through all eternity? We believe that life, eternal life, is real, that it’s purposeful, that it has meaning, that it can be realized. I wouldn’t describe us as polytheistic.”

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2002/01/21/020121fa_FACT1?currentPage=3#ixzz0Y2nzgJ07
- Hinckley Interview in “Lives of the Saint”, New Yorker, January 2002  

What’s telling about this interview, is that it was President Hinckley’s idea. It was one of the main showcases of Mormonism in his movement to bring the church out of the Wasatch Front and into the position of a respected, major world religion. His several interviews and media appearances were greeted by the faithful as warm and charming and wonderful for the church. Yes, he came off as a harmless, kindly old grandfather who would never slit your throat in your sleep and probably wasn’t a polygamist pedophile—a nice well-meaning old guy who apparently doesn’t really worship the devil after all. If that’s all the church was hoping for: mission accomplished—till the next outbreak of crazed polygamy in Texas.

At some point, certainly after that interview, somebody in the Mormon establishment might have thought to coach him on how to answer very basic questions he knew were going to keep coming up. The question of monotheism and polytheism relative to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost was fought out for the first three or four centuries of the Christian Church. It’s Christianity 101, a freshman question. It’s not an elite question to be asking a man who claims to be the sole representative of all three here on earth. The only two answers to basic questions like these that President Hinckley ever developed during the whole campaign were, “That was then, this is now,” and “We’re beyond that now.” What does that mean? Does that mean, yes, our prophets have been hoodwinking you up to now but it won’t happen again? Those are just lame non-answers a nice old duffer gets away with because nobody wants to be seen as beating him up.

Yeah, in Mormon church president Hinckley’s 2002 media blitz the world saw perhaps the church as a whole to be harmless and perfectly willing to forget all about troubling questions of the past. Even if the past was only 1978. But the world gave President Hinckley and his church a pass only in the context of chuckling along with a simple, provincial old Utah hick who knew nothing about Christianity and even less about the church he claimed to be the prophet, seer and revelator of.

Any Mormon prophet with millions of church members around the world believing him to have a direct pipeline to God could not at some point avoid asking for a bit of advice on the whole Adam-God issue from the Divine Creator he claims to be chief witness of. Yes or no. It’s a simple question. Was Brigham Young misquoted or wrong, or is Adam in fact God? Yes or no. To say it doesn’t matter is disingenuous. It matters to every member of the church what every prophet says. The Brethren keep telling them every prophet speaks in “modern scripture.” The whole point of modern prophecy is to get answers. The true nature of God matters. Joseph Smith wrote whole books on answers to questions just like that. So did Joseph F. Smith and Joseph Fielding Smith and others before the Correlation era.

Anyone  claiming to be spokesman for Jesus Christ ought to be able to say definitively whether or not he’s really speaking for Adam instead.  Couldn’t any LDS church president easily call a big council on the matter and finally come out and say, for instance, that no, we carefully studied the subject and decided that Adam is not God and we don’t care what Brigham Young may or may not have meant about it? It is oxymoronic for a prophet seer and revelator to say, “I don’t know” on any matter of church doctrine.

That’s his whole job—to get answers. That’s the whole Mormon church. Getting answers from God through a living prophet.

So either this prophet, seer and revelator thing today works rather differently than the way Mormons imagine it to work, or the whole thing’s a bluff. The Mormon prophet either sits down with Jesus every morning and can ask anything about anything and answer any question with absolute, perfect knowledge and authority, or if not, the Mormon prophet and church president at least most of the time, is subject to the normal standards of personal revelation like everyone else. The problem with answering this question officially, is that it would have to come from the very prophets, seers, and revelators it applies to. They would either be ranking previous prophets as errant, or admitting they aren’t inspired enough to know what the heck their predecessors were rambling on about. They would be self-diminishing their own omniscience and that of every LDS General Authority before them and forever after. An LDS prophet would become a far less infallible leader in the eyes of the faithful masses. It’s sort of like expecting Congress to vote for their own pay cut.

Does the Mormon prophet talk directly, regularly, face-to-face with Jesus Christ as it is widely held? The Brethren have coyly allowed this assumption to go unchallenged. Until recently it was quite popular for General Authorities to make frequent, vague, public allusions supporting this notion. Or does the reigning Mormon prophet have to make do for the most part with listening for quiet promptings from that still, small voice, after a lot of study, prayer, and pondering? Does it then really just come down to being informed, educated, and discerning enough to know what questions to ask–or at least know that questions need to be asked?

It’s one thing to say: I’m a simple representative of the third-generation of a young church and my entire world view, my entire religious experience is of my family and people getting kicked around and hiding in a dustbowl. Consequently, I see Mormonism as a very common, unsophisticated and pragmatic religion. But it’s stretching that excuse beyond all sense and reason to call yourself a “prophet” and then admit you really don’t know much about your own doctrines past or present when you’re the guy directly in charge of defining present doctrine and interpreting past doctrine.

For the highest Mormon leadership to dismiss early Christian history as unimportant is perhaps forgivable. It is myopic but perhaps it’s just laziness or a shortcut to getting their point across, which is, Christian history is all wrong anyway. For Mormon church leadership to pretend however that they can’t say for sure what present Mormonism is all about is just silly. If you’re the prophet, the president of the church, it’s about whatever you say it’s about.

Mormons are not Christians. But the sad truth is, today’s Mormons are also no longer Mormons in the same sense that Joseph Smith was a Mormon—or even in the same sense that the pioneers who followed Brigham Young to the Salt Lake Valley were Mormons. They are not led by prophets who function in the same capacity or at least to the forthcoming degree that Joseph Smith functioned as a prophet. Joseph Smith’s Mormonism was a young, innovative, radically liberal frontier rebellion from the well-understood world-Christian status quo. Contemporary Mormonism by contrast is a collection of committees populated with elderly Utahans who grew up isolated in a comfortably settled, exclusively Mormon paradise along the Wasatch Front courtesy of Brigham Young and company. The modern Mormon church is now apparently longing to simply fit back  into the world Christian tradition somehow. Lacking any major personal vision, bereft of any personal history of life-and-death physical and spiritual heroism, they have fallen into a worship of the ancestors who provided them with their comfortable little society through bygone years of work, study, hardship, suffering, and an undying faith in God. But they can only emulate them in a romanticised, revisionsist glory, because it is no longer within their realm of understanding to know what made them tick deep inside.

Joseph Smith brought Mormonism into the world kicking butt and taking names. Now Mormonism just wants to be accepted. Now Mormonism just wants a hug. Joseph Smith rejected all of orthodox Christianity almost two-hundred years ago as of this writing. His followers have been licking wounds, quarreling with the Christian dominated US government and chasing their own theological tails pointlessly around in circles in a big dirty rift out in Utah ever since he was murdered.

Today, Joseph Smith’s legacy just wants a comfy chair, some peace and quiet, and a nice long nap. They’re not looking for the best and the brightest. They’re not looking for an improved understanding of God and His wonderous universe. They don’t want pioneers or religious revolutionaries. They’re just looking for people who do what they’re told, don’t dress scruffily, don’t smoke, drink, take coffee or tea, play nicely with others, and won’t make trouble. That’s Mormonism to them now.

I guess Mao was right.

To the dismay of liberals everywhere, Beck made it extremely clear on his radio show that he will never run with Palin.  His reasoning was rooted in ignorant sexism, big surprise.  Beck made this clear by his statement that Palin would always be “yapping” and he would respond with “why am I hearing your voice? I’m not in the kitchen.”

I  would have loved to see these two crazy trains collide and ensure a democrat victory in 2012.