MJ and Intimations of Mortality

I heard the news of Michael Jackson's death amid the screaming of fans -- but not the type to which he was accustomed. I was one of a group of parents, all about MJ's age, cheering for our teens and tweenies at a swim meet. Michael's death took the breath out of us, reminding us of our own mortality as well as the angst of growing older.

As a childhood pop sensation, Michael and his siblings were especially attractive to Mormon families. Michael was the seventh of nine children. The entire family –- including older siblings, Rebbie, Jackie, Tito, Jermaine, LaToya and Marlon, and younger siblings Randy and Janet -– lived together in a tiny two-bedroom house in Gary, Indiana. Father Joseph Jackson earned a meager living working in a steel mill. Their mother, Katherine, raised the children as Jehovah's Witnesses and they all practiced door-to-door evangelism. The Jacksons were very similar to another family musical act which was popular in the early '70's -- the Osmonds.

While still a preteen I collected Jackson Five singles. I had a little record player on which I played my 45's -- I'll Be There, Never Can Say Goodbye, and Rockin' Robin. I watched the Saturday morning cartoon of the Jackson 5. Michael had an ethereal little-boy voice even when he got to be 13 and 14 and most of us were experiencing the changes of puberty. In 1972, the song Ben (theme of a 1972 film "Willard") spent one week at the top of the U.S. charts. The movie was a disturbing horror flick about rats. But the song was included later on the album of the same name, "Ben." It won a Golden Globe for Best Song and was even nominated for an Academy Award for Best Original Song. It was a haunting melody of loneliness and searching for true friends that played right to the aching adolescent heart. I listened to that song over and over again, hoping for a true friend like the one in Michael's song.

Before we knew it, we were growing up, going off to college, and finding eternal mates. The Jacksons continued to record and perform in concert into the 1980's, but some of the brothers were getting married too, and the band had completely disbanded by 1990. The whole time, though, Michael was staying young. His 1982 album, Thriller, produced seven top-ten hit singles, broke sales records, and became the best selling album in music history. The video was the first by a black artist to be aired on MTV. The seven-minute "Thriller" music video / short film became the world's best selling home video at the time and is considered by many music industry critics to be one of the greatest music videos of all time and a large step forward in artistic quality for music videos. The album's third major single, "Beat It", was another #1 pop hit in the U.S. On May 16, 1983, Jackson publicly performed his moonwalk dance for the first time. That was the year I got married. When I was having children, Michael was raising money for impoverished families in Africa with his single "We Are the World", which he co-wrote with former Motown labelmate, Lionel Richie.

Amazingly, Michael Jackson retained his name recognition as my children grew to be teenagers themselves. He bridged the generations with "Bad" and "Dangerous," and as we were settling into middle age, Michael seemed to still be going through his adolescence. Grabbing his crotch, performing in concerts, setting his hair alight in Pepsi commercials, and changing his appearance with bizarre surgeries, Michael became the "Most Famous Person in the World." Really. In 1997, a world wide survey calculated that 99% of the planet knew who he was and/or something about him. He was even nominated in 1998 for the Nobel Peace Prize. This might sound odd, but he did raise millions for charity for many diverse causes such as third-world countries, the New York 9-11 tragedy, and Hurricane Katrina victims. Michael reminded me to reach out to others even through personal upheaval.

These past few years, I've been having difficulty coming to terms with growing older. You've seen it on my blog, on my facebook. But no one can hold a candle to Michael Jackson in this regard. If anyone had a Peter Pan complex, he did. He even constructed a mini-Disneyland, which he named "Neverland" as his residence, a place to live out the childhood he claimed he never had. Michael's high tenor voice contributed to the illusion of youth. His natural vocal range, before he breaks off into falsetto, goes from two E's below middle C, to two B's above middle C, or 44 notes. Essentially, Michael is able to reach octaves that other tenors cannot attain with their natural voice.

Though he briefly married and had children, Michael never really reached adulthood. While he was still performing, singing in his angelic tenor voice, moonwalking around the world stage, one couldn't quite believe that someone his age was "old." But we are all subject to mortality, as MJ's death has now reminded us. And it's hard to see him go, because he never grew up, never seemed to reach peace, and he makes all of us of his generation wonder, Have I? Have I?

Dear John

The table where I grew up
eating breakfast and lunch and Thanksgiving dinner
was always large enough
for one more.
We put the babies on laps
and bumped elbows--
no "kids' table" allowed.
If you came late and there wasn't space,
we'd pull up another table,
flush against the other,
Added upon.

We held hands and sang our prayers
and everyone took a deep
breath before the final "Amen,"
So we could hold out the harmony
forever and ever
floating it up to the skies
where I imagined the angels joined in.
I pictured tables like ours
in the celestial spheres--
always another to pull up,
winding around in a serpentine chain,
crooked and caddy-wompus with mismatched tablecloths.

So when my Church said
there was no room at the table
for you--
You! The one who always
washed his hands and set the silverware and
shared the very last piece of pie,

I stopped what I was doing,

And clinked my glass
until I was joined by
a large number of other unruly noisemakers
and raised my glass
in a salute
and a toast to your honor:

Let angels and these witnesses
join us at the Heavenly Table
where, somehow
God sits next to each one of us.

Black, White, and Gray; and D&C 76

This week I had an interesting conversation with my RS President on Black and White and shades of Grayness in Mormonism. She describes herself as a person who sees the world in terms of Black and White, Right and Wrong; with very few gray areas to navigate. I, with my blessing and cursing to see every paradigm, encounter gray just about everywhere I look.

I've been worrying over this concept a bit--especially in light of last week's SS Lesson on D&C 76 and the three degrees of glory. Those who inherit the Celestial Glory (the one as bright as the sun), are those who are valiant, who have received the ordinances, and who have kept the commandments. They have been purified, and they are as white as can be, and it seems that if there is any shadow of grayness left in anyone, that they drop right down to the next level, which is the Telestial.

Is it possible to navigate the grayness of a mortal world without sacrificing the sanctification that must take place within one who desires to one day dwell with Deity? A Catholic theologian, Father James V. Schall, regrets the tendency today's people have to divide the world into two extreme ways of looking at things. He says, for example, that our propensity to describe ourselves as liberal or conservative on every topic from politics to our taste in cuisine, clothes, or automobiles is one of the really restricting developments that has ever happened to us.

If we are not what is considered popularly a "liberal," then we must, by some convoluted logic, be a "conservative," or vice versa. No third or fourth option is available as is usually the case in the real world. It has to be, we are told, either this way or that.

Such a view makes things very simple, I suppose. But it also reduces our minds to utter fuzziness. We are required to define everything as either liberal or conservative even when the two allowable terms of definition are not adequate to explain the reality that they are intended to describe. (Fr. James V. Schall, S.J., On Being Neither Liberal nor Conservative)

Black and white thinking makes choices easier, and it tends to keep one on the "strait and narrow" path. But the danger is that it can reduce one to seeing the world only in terms of extremes. Black and white thinkers must be sure not to decide that if they aren't brilliant, they are stupid, if something isn't fascinating, it must be boring. In many everyday situations, it helps to see things in shades of gray.

In the recent murder of abortion provider George Tiller, we see some of these shades. If abortion is murder, is the bravest and most efficient thing to prevent such murders to kill George Tiller? Or is his murder a crime and a sin no matter what he has done? If abortion is acceptable in the case of rape or the endangered health of the mother, then just how late can such abortions be performed? Was Tiller a principled and brave doctor to provide late abortions in such cases when more squeamish doctors refused? Oh yes, there are many shades of gray in this case, no matter what side of the abortion debate you see.

I, for one, might attempt to access the Holy Ghost to help me see the truth of all things, to keep me from being blinded in the way that "honorable men of the earth" who inherit the terrestrial kingdom are. I might attempt to access the cleansing blood of Christ to cleanse me from sin. But so often I'm still not sure how successful I've been. I believe that pure Truth exists, but that it is multi-sided and that one person, with his or her earthly lens of nurture, life experience and baggage, cannot always see it clearly. Thinking persons of faith must attempt to have a richer, more thoughtful conversation on the political, moral, and religious issues that divide us.

Why We Need a Sotomayor in the General Relief Society Presidency

United States citizens have lately been regaled with the tale of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, a Latina from the South Bronx who got diabetes at age 8, lost her father at 9, and fought her way to Princeton with the encouragement of her strong-willed mother. Her future influence on the Supreme Court remains to be seen. But President Obama believes that Sotomayor's qualities and qualifications will add empathy to the judicial philosophy of the nation's highest court. She has "a common touch and a sense of compassion, an understanding of how the world works and how ordinary people live," he said.

In a 2001 speech at UC Berkeley, Sotomayor expounded her belief that her gender and ethnic identity affect her ability to make fair decisions in the courtroom:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

This statement may rankle some few of those in the higher echelons of authority in the LDS Church. The Presidency of the Church and the Council of the Twelve continue to be dominated by older white males from privileged backgrounds who consider themselves capable of making decisions addressing the needs of a worldwide ethnic Church. Though I do not wish to quibble with the current established order of succession in Church leadership, I strongly believe that an underprivileged woman of color has the potential for making a quantifiable positive difference in decisions coming from the highest councils of the Church.

Since such a situation is moot, however, let us look at the effect of the inclusion of such women at the highest levels of women's service in the Church. The first champion for diversity in the Relief Society General Presidency of whom I am aware was Chieko Okazaki. Just prior to this time, efforts had been focused upon unity, uniformity and correlation, beginning with the presidencies of Belle S. Spafford and Barbara B. Smith. (Sister Smith spearheaded opposition by LDS women to the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment in the early 1980's.)

Chieko Nishimura Okazaki served as a counselor in the General RS Presidency from 1990 to 1997. She was born and raised in Hawaii as a Buddhist, the daughter of a Hawaiian-born Japanese plantation laborer. At the age of fifteen she converted to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. She was the first non-Caucasian to serve on a general board of the Church. She came from a professional career as an elementary school teacher and principal. Throughout her service in the General RS Presidency she was an advocate for diversity among LDS women. She often told groups of women that cookie cutters are for cookies, not for human beings, and we should not try to live someone else's life. Her messages were much beloved by LDS women who felt a bit out of place, for they celebrated diversity:

"...look around the room you are in. Do you see women of different ages, races, or different backgrounds in the Church? Of different educational, marital, and professional experiences? Women with children? Women without children? Women of vigorous health and those who are limited by chronic illness or handicaps? Rejoice in the diversity of our sisterhood! It is the diversity of colors in a spectrum that makes a rainbow. It is the diversity in our circumstances that gives us compassionate hearts. It is the diversity of our spiritual gifts that benefits the Church." (Chieko N. Okazaki, “‘Rejoice in Every Good Thing’,” Ensign, Nov 1991, 88)

When Sister Okazaki was called into the Relief Society general presidency, President Hinckley counseled her that she represented an outreach across the world to members of the Church in many lands, who would see in her a representation of their oneness with the Church. He then gave her a blessing that her tongue might be loosed as she spoke to the people. When she received assignments to go among the sisters in lands where Korean, Spanish or Tongan was spoken, she spent hours working with the Church Translation Department and coaches who helped her to deliver addresses in those languages. She once gave the following example to show the difference between the doctrines of the Church and the cultural packaging:

"Here is a bottle of Utah peaches, prepared by a Utah homemaker to feed her family during a snowy season. Hawaiian homemakers don’t bottle fruit. They pick enough fruit for a few days and store it in baskets like this for their families. This basket contains a mango, bananas, a pineapple, and a papaya...they might have been picked by a Polynesian homemaker to feed her family in a climate where fruit ripens all year round.

The basket and the bottle are different containers, but the content is the same: fruit for a family. Is the bottle right and the basket wrong? No, they are both right. They are containers appropriate to the culture and the needs of the people. And they are both appropriate for the content they carry, which is the fruit." (Chieko N. Okazaki, “Baskets and Bottles,” Ensign, May 1996, 12)

Sister Okazaki, like Sonia Sotomayor, was someone whose gender and ethnic identity, as well as her personality, helped her to understand the world and the ordinary people who live therein. Because of this, she was able to contribute to Church policy accordingly.

Women who have missed the outspoken voice of Chieko Okasaki since her release 13 years ago were heartened to witness the calling of Silvia Henriquez Allred to the General RS Presidency in 2007. She is a native of El Salvador who served as a full-time missionary in the Central American Mission. She and her husband served as public affairs missionaries in Madrid, Spain. She also served with her husband when he presided over the Paraguay Asuncion Mission, and later over the Missionary Training Center in the Dominican Republic.

I am often discouraged by the lack of much of a public presence among our Relief Society Presidencies. What little public attention this new Presidency has been able to garner has centered around President Julie B. Beck's 2007 General Conference address "Mothers Who Know," which seemed to be a retrenchment in LDS thought concerning women. Recently I was mollified to hear of a fireside held in Utah for over 1500 Spanish-speaking women by Julie Beck and Silvia Allred. Both women delivered their talks in Spanish, Sister Allred speaking with native fluency, and Sister Beck aided by the fact that she learned as a child to speak Portuguese.

Surely Presidents Beck and Allred are doing much service among the women of the Church of which I am unaware. I simply wish that the few women who have higher echelon positions in the Mormon Church had more of a public voice. Just as Sonia Sotomayor is poised to make a difference in the judicial system of this country, our women leaders can potentially make a difference in the spiritual lives of LDS members. Instead, so many of the Relief Society General Presidents and their counselors fade into obscurity, and when they are released no one remembers their names or what their contributions were.

Welcome to the Controversy

Today I planned to introduce a new endeavor. But DH has already written about it, and so I'm taking the lazy way out, and just quoting him:

My wife and I decided to combine our two opposing viewpoints on a new blog called He Said/She Said. My wife is a feminist Mormon housewife and somewhat on the liberal side who writes the Hieing to Kolob blog. She suggested to me that a Mormon audience would be interested to see an opposing viewpoint blog where an ultraconservative Ezra Taft Benson Mormon like me who writes the Prepare Ye the Way of the Lord blog takes on a feminist like her on hot Mormon issues.

Sometimes we take a consistent side but often we might have alternating viewpoints. Most of us are more complex than labels make us. Many of my wife's Sunstone friends even suggested to her that I should come to their conference this year so they could have the conservative point of view. Unfortunately I don't have the extra money or time off at work so they will have to read my opinions on our new blog He Said/She Said.

We intend to cover several controversial topics including, for example, birth control, stay at home moms, abortion rights, evolution, should LDS members sign internet protests, should temple goers wear their garments all the time, should members stay in the church versus leaving it, breaking the Sabbath Day, the inclusion or exclusion of gays, when you know a person has broken an LDS principle should you turn them in, is there a stigma to being married many times, should women give blessings, should every LDS girl serve a mission, is the lottery really gambling, what constitutes an honest tithe, can men read their minds wives, is Isaiah boring, is masturbation a sin, oral sex, do you have to live polygamy in this life, will fundamentalists or other religious people be in the Church of the First Born, is the LDS Church the only true church on this earth, etc. Our topics will draw on current issues and other controversial issues, you can consider this a mainline Mormon taking on a representative of the Seventh East Press or Sunstone or Dialogue or fundamental Mormonism or even a bleeding heart liberal. Let the smack down begin. There is no telling what we might say.

If you know Bored in Vernal (BiV) or me Dr. B. there is certainly going to be some fireworks that lead to knock down drag out written fights on our blog. We will try to be respectful and let our viewpoints speak for themselves. Many people out there already think some of my conservative and moderate ideas are whacked out already or that Bored in Vernal is really out there with her feminist liberal perspective. Others see us as having fresh perspectives and being in harmony with what they believe. We want people from all perspectives to come and comment whether LDS or not. We will use pictures, polls, and other experimental techniques to jazz up our participation.

We really hope that this will help us be closer as a couple since we will get to know each others views in a neutral environment and come to a more moderate viewpoint by considering new ways of thinking about LDS issues when we try out our thoughts in an open public forum. It will require thick skins and mature minds. I hope after a year or two we are still married and that this will be a constructive way to air our difference and expand our way of seeing our religion and faith. We both feel that even diversely opinionated people can have a healthy relationship and that this new blog He Said/She Said will help us as well as others clarify what they believe. I think the minds of many members are not so uniform as others believe.

Check out our first few posts:
Women Giving Blessings in the LDS Church: He Said, She Said
Should We Always Accept Church Callings? He Said, She Said
The Abortion Debate: She Said, He Said
Throwing Out the Hamburger: He Said, She Said

Why I would like to have lunch with Amy Brown Lyman

Amy Brown Lyman has intrigued me for many years, and I would love to be able to talk to her over lunch and discover more about her mysterious and tragic life. She died less than a month after I was born, and it seems that many of her secrets died with her.

Amy Brown Lyman (February 7, 1872 – December 5, 1959) was born in Pleasant Grove, Utah Territory, the 23rd of 25 children born to her polygamist father. She became the eighth general president of the Relief Society and served from 1940 to 1945. In the spring of 1945 she was released at her request by President Heber J. Grant, due to a number of personal tragedies in her life. She spent the next fifteen years, until her death at age 87, serving in various social services organizations, and continuing the service that so marked her early life.

Amy Lyman founded and headed the LDS Church's social welfare department for 16 years. She also served a term as a member of the Utah House of Representatives. Prior to the Second World War, Amy accompanied her husband, Richard R. Lyman, to England where he presided over the European Mission of the church.

Amy Lyman's husband Richard became an apostle of the LDS Church in 1918. In 1921, Richard began counseling a woman who had been disfellowshipped for her earlier plural marriage to a man from whom she was now separated. Lyman arranged for her restoration to full Church membership in 1922. In 1925, he apparently entered into "a mutual covenant of plural marriage" with the woman. They exchanged marriage vows secretly. Theirs, it was said, was a marriage of love; they saw themselves as soul-mates. He was 55 years old, and she was 53.

In a fascinating tale of intrigue which remains shadowy and unclear to this day, Lyman attempted to live a celestial marriage in a day when the practice had been repudiated and forbidden. Plural marriages performed between 1890 and 1906 were allowed to continue to practice polygamy until those polygamists died off. But after the Reed Smoot hearings, Church leaders were careful not to sanction polygamy. Eighteen years after contracting his marriage, when the Apostle and his plural wife were in their 70's, the First Presidency became aware of the association. There is some question that politics were involved in the decision to investigate the matter. One commenter states:

"Elder Lyman was a reliable progressive ally of David O. McKay. Two younger conservative apostles, Joseph Fielding Smith and Harold B. Lee followed Elder Lyman around for a couple of weeks and collected the data needed to make a good case against him in a court of law. Then they cooperated with then Police Chief J. Bracken Lee, a sometimes friend and sometime enemy of the Mormons, in orchestrating Lyman’s arrest and the public stunt associated with it."

It is reported that Elder Lyman was arrested while in bed with this second wife. Supposedly he was dragged out of his house and off to jail wearing only his old woolly Pioneer style garments with his hair sticking in every direction. I've never seen it, but there is said to be a photograph of Lyman looking worse than Warren Jeffs in the morning papers for everyone to see. (Has anyone seen this photograph or newspaper account?)

Other notes from contemporary autobiographies indicate that on Nov 9 George Albert Smith found out about Lyman's affair, was shocked, prayed, and assigned the case to Joseph Fielding Smith and Harold B. Lee. When confronted, Lyman admitted the charges and made no defense. Richard seemed not to realize his wrong--he thought he would be reinstated in short order. Would it be possible for him to keep his office space and his secretary? Lyman was tried in the temple with 10 of the Apostles.

Richard Lyman was excommunicated on November 12, 1943 at age 73. The only official statement from the Church was a one-sentence announcement provided by the Quorum of the Twelve, stating that the ground for excommunication was violation of the Law of Chastity, which any new marriage post-second manifesto constituted.

Richard Lyman and his plural wife continued their nearly 30 year association until 2 years before Lyman was again baptized into the LDS Church, on October 27, 1954. For a time it was feared that Lyman would join the Fundamentalist movement. David O. McKay was instrumental in working with Lyman to bring him back to the Church. When Lyman was restored to fellowship, he did not come back as an Apostle. He served as a deacon. He humbly passed the sacrament in this capacity. His Melchizedek priesthood privileges were never restored. Lyman died in 1963 in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Official Church channels might wish that we members remain circumspect and refrain from speculation about this unfortunate incident in the lives of these public figures. But Church history just happens to fascinate me. I'm especially curious when the lives of these historical figures coincide with matters of controversial Church doctrine and practice. How much, for example, did Richard Lyman's affair have to do with his belief in the principle of Celestial marriage? Richard was known as an outgoing, exhuberant man. He had a strong preoccupation with sex, and talked about it over the pulpit and in public. Some said he was embarrassing. Members who heard him speak in a student ward called him "inappropriate." He had a flirtatious manner and was faced with temptations while in the East that led President Grant to consider recalling him as Mission President. Was he only a weak man, or did he really have a higher motivation? Did he believe, as many Fundamentalists, that plural marriage was necessary for exaltation? Was Lyman's plural marriage unofficially sanctioned by the Church? There are rumors that some of the members of the Twelve continued to perform plural marriages even after the Reed Smoot trials in 1904-06. Is there any basis behind the claims that President Heber J. Grant performed the sealing of Lyman and his plural wife in the Logan Temple in 1925?

If I were friends with Amy, I'd certainly be nosy and want to know many things about how she felt about her husband's behavior. Some accounts present Richard as an unhappily married man whose first wife failed to provide for his needs. They suggest that Amy was a strong-willed, forceful, serious, reserved woman, whose duties kept her absent from the home. But I suspect there was more to it than that. What were the tensions that kept the two apart? And what kept them together following the excommunication and Richard's continuing association with his second wife? In Amy's autobiography she mentions Richard only twice--once as "my husband," and once as "Dr. Lyman."

There are so many questions surrounding this tragedy that I am curious about. I have not been able to find out the name of Lyman's paramour or any further information. Was the second wife excommunicated along with Lyman when they were discovered in bed together? Why didn't Amy seek a divorce following the excommunication? Family members have claimed that Amy Lyman was aware of the marriage and that the two families had Sunday dinner together once a month. What were Amy's sentiments concerning plural marriage? Under what circumstances did Lyman and his second wife finally separate in 1952? Why do we have so little information about the circumstances of the Lyman excommunication?

Amy Lyman seems to have been an woman who valued her privacy and was traumatized by the events that occurred in her family life. I'm sure she would be less than forthcoming with anyone who dared to probe into these circumstances in her life. But she was a fascinating woman with a tragic story. For many reasons, I'd love to have lunch with Amy Brown Lyman.

Taking "Crazy Ned Tullidge" Seriously

In a Winter 2000 Dialogue article, Claudia Bushman sings the praises of Mormon historian and writer Edward W. Tullidge, calling him mercurial, quixotic, self-destructive, emotionally and mentally unstable; but noting his writing accomplishments despite his difficulties. Such a description could be calculated to capture my attention! "I want to take him seriously," Claudia avers, explaining:

"Tullidge wore his heart on his sleeve, serving his current grand ideal, whatever it was. He had troubled relationships with the LDS Church, the RLDS Church, and the Godbeite movement. He yearned to be a devoted follower and to promote the virtues of an institution, but could not stick...Diligent and optimistic, he was a victim of his broad aspirations, falling short of what he might have done. Able, hard-working, and articulate, he was also a heavy drinker given to emotional outbursts." (Claudia Bushman, Edward W. Tullidge and The Women of Mormondom, Dialogue Journal 33:4, p. 15.)

Having recently read Tullidge's book Women of Mormondom, I have become fascinated by and enamored of his writing style. As a fairly young man in the 1860's, Tullidge became the first Mormon writer to successfully bridge the gap between inside and outside views of the Church, writing for several impartial Eastern periodicals. This accomplishment is all the more surprising to those acquainted with his Women of Mormondom, with its impassioned defense of Mormon origins and doctrines. The book was written after his flirtation with the Brigham-disillusioned and reform-oriented Godbeites and his subsequent reconciliation with the LDS Church.

Tullidge's purpose in writing this book seems to be to take the traditional male-centric story of Mormonism and retell it with a more female perspective, bringing out the parallel experiences of women. In doing this, he had a great deal of assistance from Eliza R. Snow, who placed her considerable prestige behind the project. As well as garnering financial support, she urged the sisters under her influence to contribute their stories to the project. As a result, the book contains monograph histories which are to be had nowhere else.

Leonard J. Arrington says that Tullidge stands alone as a Mormon feminist historian in his day, despite his wild eccentricity of style. There are several ways in which he demonstrated his feminism. Though by today's third wave feminist standards they fall short of the mark, they were progressive for the mid-nineteenth century.

1. He elevates women as being more attuned, mystical, and receptive to the Spirit than men.
   

   "She has a divine mission always, both to manifest spiritual gifts and to perpetuate spiritual dispensations. Woman is child of faith. Indeed she is faith. Man is reason. His mood is skepticism. Left alone to his apostleship, spiritual missions die, though revealed by a cohort of archangels. Men are too apt to lock again the heavens which the angels have opened, and convert priesthood into priestcraft. It is woman who is the chief architect of a spiritual church." (Tullidge, The Women of Mormondom, p. 20.)



2. He accentuates the women's world of family and sisterhood, romance and sensitivity over the historical and authoritarian position of men.
   

   "The women...comprehended...the significance of the name of Israel...Indeed perhaps they have best understood it. Their very experience quickened their comprehension...The Mormon women have borne the cross and worn the crown of thorns for a full lifetime; not in their religion, but in their experience." (Tullidge, The Women of Mormondom, pp. 68-69.)



3. He creates a female theology through which to view the Mormon connection to Hebraic origins.
   

   "He names a 'holy female Trinity,' of Eve, Sarah, and Zion--mothers in Israel at different times of history. Motherhood is the Mormon woman's everlasting theme. Eve is the Mother of a world, Sarah the mother of the covenant, and Zion (a group name for polygamous wives) the mother of celestial sons and daughters." (Claudia Bushman, Edward W. Tullidge and The Women of Mormondom, Dialogue Journal 33:4, p. 25.)



4. He promotes women's suffrage as necessary to ensure the right of women to decide what types of marriage shall be permissible under law.
   

   "Woman is chief in the consents of marriage. It is her right, under God her father, and God her mother, to say to society what shall be the relations between man and woman--hers in plain fact, to decide the marriage question. The women of Mormondom have thus far decided on the marriage order of the patriarchs of Israel..." (Tullidge, The Women of Mormondom, p. 549.)

Having read Tullidge's impassioned defense of Mormon feminism as well as plural marriage, I find it incomprehensible that he was soon (within 2 years of publication of the book) to convert his allegiance to the Reorganized Church, which holds the position that polygamy was never taught by Joseph Smith. I haven't been able to find any more information on why Tullidge took this rather drastic step, but it certainly fits his mercurial personality.

If "Crazy Ned Tullidge" has captured your interest, check out my further post on his writings: The Apostolic Authority of the Nineteenth Century Mormon Woman at the Juvenile Instructor.

Emma Smith's Blessing to Herself

You may have heard the story of Emma Smith desiring a blessing from the hands of her husband Joseph shortly before he was taken to jail at Carthage. Because time and opportunity did not permit, Joseph suggested that Emma write the best blessing that she could, and that he would sign it on his return. Joseph was killed on June 27, 1844, and never signed Emma's blessing. But still extant are the words of the blessing Emma wrote.

“First of all that I would crave as the richest of heaven’s blessings would be wisdom from my Heavenly Father bestowed daily, so that whatever I might do or say, I could not look back at the close of the day with regret, nor neglect the performance of any act that would bring a blessing. I desire the Spirit of God to know and understand myself, that I desire a fruitful, active mind, that I may be able to comprehend the designs of God, when revealed through his servants without doubting. I desire a spirit of discernment, which is one of the promised blessings of the Holy Ghost.

“I particularly desire wisdom to bring up all the children that are, or may be committed to my charge, in such a manner that they will be useful ornaments in the Kingdom of God, and in a coming day arise up and call me blessed.

“I desire prudence that I may not through ambition abuse my body and cause it to become prematurely old and care-worn, but that I may wear a cheerful countenance, live to perform all the work that I covenanted to perform in the spirit-world and be a blessing to all who may in any wise need aught at my hands.

“I desire with all my heart to honor and respect my husband as my head, ever to live in his confidence and by acting in unison with him retain the place which God has given me by his side, and I ask my Heavenly Father that through humility, I may be enabled to overcome that curse which was pronounced upon the daughters of Eve. I desire to see that I may rejoice with them in the blessings which God has in store for all who are willing to be obedient to his requirements. Finally, I desire that whatever may be my lot through life I may be enabled to acknowledge the hand of God in all things.”

Because of some recent circumstances in my life and a separation from my husband for the past week and a half, it was suggested to me that I write myself a blessing. DH was amenable to this suggestion. So I have been thinking about this possibility and considering the words of Emma Smith.

The first thing I have wanted to consider in possibly giving myself a blessing is the priesthood authority which would be used in such an action. Recently on the Mormon Heretic blog was a post discussing Women and the Melchizedek Priesthood which spoke of the priesthood which an endowed woman receives in the temple in concert with her husband. I have often wondered what constitutes this priesthood which is independent of ordination or hierarchical office. Does it include, as Mormon Heretic suggests, "the power to act in the name of God?" Does it make a difference that my husband has approved the action? Would he have to sign the blessing for it to be effective?

Next, can one give oneself a blessing? Can even an authorized priesthood holder write a blessing for himself, or is part of the very nature of a blessing contingent upon giving it to someone else?

Impossible to ignore is the wording which is used in Emma's blessing. Rather than giving the promises with authority, she instead "desires" and "craves" the blessings, couching them in the form of requests. Contrast her words with an example of an 1844 patriarchal blessing given to Mary Elizabeth Knight by Joseph Knight, Sr.:

"If you will obey your parents in all things you shall live to return to Missouri and you shall see the foundation of the Temple laid and you shall inherit plenty of the riches of the Earth inasmuch as you are faithful."

As Carol Cornwall Madsen has observed, Emma's words are longings, perhaps even a "penitent's recovenant with God." Even in the modern-day Church, most members would be more comfortable with a woman writing a blessing in the form of requesting blessings from God rather than as a pronouncement in Joseph Knight's style and in the style used by male priesthood holders today. I am not sure I would even consider a writing done in the style of Emma Smith to be an actual blessing.

What do you think? Is it appropriate for an endowed woman to give herself a blessing? Should she request the blessings, or confer them? Must it be signed or approved by her husband (with whom she shares this priesthood authority) to be effective? Can blessings be given in other, non-traditional ways, such as through an email or over the phone?

I would like to request any of you who might hold these views to give me a blessing, whether through the traditional Mormon priesthood or not. This is a time in my life when I particularly need comfort and guidance. You can put it on comments here, or send it to my email, clbruno at hotmail. If you would like, I'd be particularly interested if you state the authority by which you are giving the blessing. Thank you, friends.

In Honor of the 400th Anniversary of Shakespeare's Sonnets

On April 20, 1609, a publisher called Thomas Thorpe entered in the Stationers' Register his right to publish “a booke called Shakespeares sonnettes”. The Shakespearean sonnet is one of my favorite forms of poetry with its rhyme scheme of abab cdcd efef gg. In honor of the day I am sharing one of my original sonnets with you. It's inspired by my sojourn in Saudi Arabia and my impending 50th birthday! I invite you to write a sonnet of your own or share one of your favorites below in the comments!

Behind the Veil

Behind the cloak and veil that drapes the hair
Oft peers the gaze of vivid, volant eyes;
A glimpse of scarlet shoes, and ankles bare,
Reveals the soaring soul which in her lies.

Behind the lowly bow and humble mien,
Voluminous and billowing black robes
Conceal a figure which, though rarely seen
Embodies sensuality in repose.

Now, 'neath obdurate lines that mar my skin,
Beyond senescent change that time hath wrought,
A sharper eye perceives what lies within--
A lesson which the veil hath gladly taught:

Inside my soul, though age upon me creep,
A merry youthful imp doth dance and leap.

Like Wheat Arising Green

Now the green blade rises from the buried grain,
Wheat that in dark earth many days has lain;
Love lives again, that with the dead has been;
Love is come again like wheat arising green.

In the grave they laid him, love by hatred slain,
Thinking that he would never wake again,
Laid in the earth like grain that sleeps unseen;
Love is come again like wheat arising green.

Forth he came at Easter, like the risen grain,
Thinking that he would never wake again,
Raised from the dead my risen Lord is seen;
Love is come again like wheat arising green.

When our hearts are wintry, grieving, or in pain,
Your touch can call us back to life again,
Fields of our hearts that dead and bare have been;
Love is come again like wheat arising green.

Jesus is our Temple Recommend

In my opinion, the best pithy quotation from Conference weekend came from Aaron Shafovaloff over at Mormon Coffee on his Liveblogging General Conference. In a conversation during Elder Eyring's talk, Aaron pointed out that introducing prerequisite merit and worthiness into the question of how to receive eternal life and forgiveness and sanctifying help removes a vital layer of grace. He then declared,

"Jesus himself is our temple recommend, received by faith as a free and immediate gift."

Because of the LDS Church's unprecedented efforts in this new millennium to place themselves within the spectrum of views that are generally accepted as Christian, the necessity of "grace" has been emphasized in a different way than it was in nineteenth and twentieth-century Mormon teachings. Stephen L. Robinson has been in the vanguard of this redefinition, most notably in his book Believing Christ, and his atonement model The Parable of the Bicycle. Robinson claims that Mormons believe in salvation by grace and not by works. He teaches:

"We participate in our salvation as we attempt to keep the commandments of God, but we can never earn it ourselves or bring it to pass on our own merits, no matter how well we may think we are doing."

This view is subtly different than traditional Mormon teachings, as exemplified by this quote by Bruce R. McConkie:

"…one of the untrue doctrines found in modern Christendom is the concept that man can gain salvation (meaning in the kingdom of God) by grace alone and without obedience. This soul-destroying doctrine has the obvious effect of lessening the determination of an individual to conform to all of the laws and ordinances of the gospel, such conformity being essential if the sought for reward is in reality to be gained. Immortality is a free gift and comes without works or righteousness of any sort; all men will come forth in the resurrection because of the atoning sacrifice of Christ. (I Corin 15:22) In and of itself the resurrection is a form of salvation meaning that men are thereby saved from death, hell, the devil, and endless torment. (2 Ne. 9:17-27)… Salvation in the celestial kingdom of God, however, is not salvation by grace alone. Rather, it is salvation by grace coupled with obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel." (see also LDS Bible Dictionary, "Grace.")

Whereas the word "salvation" as an unmerited gift through Jesus' atonement previously referred simply to resurrection, the new Mormon evangelists are now including exaltation in their definition of salvation by grace. That Robinson is extending salvation by grace to include exaltation is made very clear at the conclusion of his parable:

"The truth is, there’s something we all want, and we want it more than any child ever wanted any bicycle. We want the kingdom of God. We want to go home to our Father in Heaven worthy and clean. At some point in that spiritual voyage, we recognize the full price of admission into that kingdom, and we also realize we cannot pay it. We’ll never have enough - - never. The tremendous price of perfect performance is hopelessly beyond our means."

In today's Mormon atonement model, we are asked to give all that we can give and that Jesus will make up the shortfall. I am wondering if this doctrinal shift is showing up in temple recommend interviews and will one day transform into a more Shafovaloff-type standard.

"Bishop, I have abstained from smoking, but I just can't seem to give up that glass of wine at dinner. But I've done all that I can do, now let the Savior make up the difference."

Or, "I just can't stop viewing porn, or sleeping with my neighbor's wife. But I am trying to repent and put all the effort I can into being a good husband and father. Jesus is my temple recommend."


_________________________________________________

Further reading:

Death, Embodiment, and Grace, by Clark at Mormon Metaphysics

The Problem of 2 Nephi 25:23, by J. Nelson-Seawright at By Common Consent

Why the Parable of the Bicycle is Wrong by Geoff J. at New Cool Thang

How are we Saved by Grace? by Jeff Lindsay at LDS FAQ

New and Everlasting Covenant: Elder Christofferson

General Conference, Saturday morning. In a talk by Elder D. Todd Christofferson the everlasting covenant was mentioned, and I wondered what you all thought about this topic.

Elder Christofferson equated the everlasting covenant with John 3:16--"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." It seems to me that this is a much more evangelical Christian definition of the everlasting covenant than has been given before by the LDS. Do you think this is a reconstruction or a redefinition of Mormon doctrine? Do you think such a definition is a profound and deeper way of thinking of the new and everlasting covenant, or is it moving away from the original doctrinal concept?

Joseph Fielding Smith taught:

“The new and everlasting covenant is the fulness of the gospel. It is composed of ‘All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations’ that are sealed upon members of the Church by the Holy Spirit of promise, or the Holy Ghost, by the authority of the President of the Church who holds the keys. . . Marriage for eternity is a new and everlasting covenant. Baptism is also a new and everlasting covenant, and likewise ordination to the priesthood, and every other covenant is everlasting and a part of the new and everlasting covenant which embraces all things.” (Answers to Gospel Questions, 1:65)

Do you think that boiling the everlasting covenant down to the atonement is an oversimplification of all of the contracts, vows, performances, etc. that have traditionally been required in Mormon theology, and moving closer to the evangelical view of grace without the necessity of works or ordinances? If the everlasting covenant is synonymous with John 3:16, then what constitutes the "fulness of the gospel" which had to be restored?

I will be interested to go back and read this talk when it is published, and I'm sure I will have more to say about the subject when I have Elder Christofferson's words in front of me. What were your initial impressions, readers?

The Effect of Love

Why? "Because with all of the s*** in the world today we are curious to see whether Love can still conquer all."

To my blog friends: I love you. I really do love you. I love that you spend the time to read my sometimes psychotic thoughts. I love that you comment on what I say and I love when we can make a connection. I don't know if love can conquer all, but I hope it can. I would like to believe it can. My patriarchal blessing told me that charity was a dominating factor and a redeeming quality for me, and I think it is because most of the mistakes I have made in my life have been out of love, or too much longing for it.

Love Will Conquer

There is no difficulty that enough love will not conquer;
no disease that enough love will not heal;
no door that enough love will not open;
no gulf that enough love will not bridge;
no wall that enough love will not throw down;
no sin that enough love will not redeem . . .

It makes no difference how deeply seated may be the trouble;
how hopeless the outlook;
how muddled the tangle;
how great the mistake.
A sufficient realization of love will dissolve it all.
If only you could love enough you would be the happiest and most powerful being in the world . . .

Emmet Fox

Feel free to spread your love out into the social media today. And leave me a comment. I crave them.

FLDS Keeping Sweet a Year Later

In commemoration of the first anniversary of the raid on the YFZ Ranch, FLDS members invited friends and supporters to attend a gathering at Fort Concho in San Angelo, Texas earlier today. They rented the fort for the afternoon as a remembrance of the difficulties they experienced last year when the children were forcibly removed. One of the first places the mothers and children were taken was Fort Concho, a National Historic Landmark and museum, spreading over about forty acres and including seventeen restored buildings. FLDS members described the buildings as "stables," and said they felt like they were in a concentration camp setting there.

Much has been said back and forth about whether Texas CPS was justified in removing the children from their homes. But I would like to focus on the reactions of the FLDS community to the difficulties they faced. They admit that many of the experiences to which the families were subjected tested to the core their ability to follow the teachings they had been given by their religious leaders to love and forgive even those who mistreated them. In a journal entry, Marie Musser expresses her efforts to forgive:

This heaven-sent love is first a self-discipline in righteous living. But it empowers us to forgive the wrongs of others and leave judgment to God. Keeping sweet is the conquering of oneself, setting oneself aside and taking on a greater power, a more noble nature—the character of God…. It is reachable—this becoming like God. The meekness and the humility increase; and then the thoughts, inspired of heaven, awaken in your mind, guiding you how to love others more. You remember the good in them, and you express it in a prayer of gratitude to God, thanking the Lord for each other. You even gain the power through the vision of heaven to look beyond each others' weaknesses, looking upon what they can become because you seek perfection for yourself and also for others.

In this snippet, Marie mentions a phrase originating with one of their prophets, John Y. Barlow, and often used by Rulon Jeffs and his son Warren Jeffs, the succeeding FLDS leaders. "Keeping Sweet" is a maxim that has fascinated and intrigued me since I first heard it used. In talks given in Sandy, Utah in 1991 and 1994 Rulon Jeffs explained what he meant by keeping sweet:

"I want you all to understand the continual use of the two words 'keep sweet' means keep the Holy Spirit of the Lord, until you are full of it. Only those who have it will survive the judgments of God which are about to be poured out."
"Keeping sweet no matter what is a matter of life or death as we approach the day of the great judgments that are to go over the earth. . . Let us get it and keep it. You don't turn it off and on. It must be a permanent thing in our very nature, and a part of our character."

The very walls in Rulon Jeffs' home in Sandy reflected his philosophy, sporting wallpaper that proclaimed "Keep Sweet No Matter What." Members keep the injunction in remembrance in many ways. In the late 1990s, the FLDS published a newsletter for the members and the masthead included, "With Every Breath, Keep Sweet, No Matter What." At the Bountiful community in Canada, "Keep Sweet" is spelled out in white stones at the entrance of the school. Wall plaques can be found in homes emblazoned with "Keep Sweet, No Matter What." In the YFZ Ranch in Texas were seen signs that stated, "Keep Sweet Forevermore."

Warren Jeffs has taken this phase a step further, making it into a commandment, a mantra to keep your feelings under control.

“If you are keeping sweet no matter what, you are a person ready to give up your own will and just obey the priesthood over you. In order to Keep Sweet, it requires the sacrifice of our feelings.” (WSJ 11/2/95) "To be loyal to Heavenly Father, to truly love Him and obey Him, you must keep sweet no matter what. If your feelings can be disturbed and you simply need more of the spirit of God to have and earn more of that sweet spirit, you must pay the price. The price is sacrifice. Set aside any feeling or thought that disturbs the spirit of God." (WSJ 1/28/2003) “Keeping sweet means saying your prayers and obeying the priesthood over you.” (WSJ 3/6/96)

Now I have read a lot about the FLDS motto of Keeping Sweet and how it contributes to oppression, suppression, and repression of women. But as I watch and listen to the videos of their lovely quiet voices, their efforts to forgive and move on with their lives, their peaceful and productive community, I think that their mantra has helped them come closer to attaining their ultimate goal.

"...we are here to become like God so that we can stand in His presence. We must be full of the same Spirit that our Father in heaven has, and that governs and directs all of the Gods. The Holy Spirit of God has all the attributes of God. If we have it sufficiently, we are like God, and we will love Him with all of our heart, might, mind, and strength, and our neighbor as ourselves. I pray that we may all have sufficient of that Holy Spirit of God that we may be caught up when the judgments go forth upon the land and the whole earth. Keep sweet! That is the bottom line." (RTJ 1/26/96)

Mormonism and Personal Construct Theory

German philosopher Hans Vaihinger developed a system of thought which has had a profound effect upon me lately. He explained that our thoughts and constructions about God and the universe are best viewed as useful hypotheses rather than representations of objective reality.

This is a strange and frightening concept for Mormons. Latter-day Saints are highly invested in a "one True Religion" and in one way of seeing the truth. Mormons have difficulty seeing that Joseph Smith and nineteenth-century members might have held different world-views than ourselves. We even embarrass ourselves by, for example, superimposing our own unique temple practices upon Old Testament traditions.

In contrast, Vaihinger developed the philosophy of "as if," in which people try out different constructions of events in order to see what might happen when they act "as if" these constructions are so. Here's how it works:

• Imagine that there are an infinite number of ways to construe the world.


• To gain a fresh and potentially transforming perspective, purposefully loosen your construction and entertain novel possibilities for understanding it another way.


• Test out these new possibilities by acting "as if" these new constructions are true.


• If the constructions adopted fail to prove useful (or even if they do and one wishes to simply experiment with even more alternatives just to see what might result), formulate further alternative constructions of the same events and act "as if" these apply instead.

Personal Construct theory has been explained by George Kelly as a "playful" way to explore the world, an experiment in behavior that that people can use in testing their personally constructed hypotheses. It can be used as a tool in psychotherapy; for instance someone who is shy could act out the role of a "gregarious" person for a few weeks; living "as if" he or she were more outgoing in order to experiment with new ways of behaving and anticipating life. The construct system is an instrument, an ongoing creation of an active person for more easily finding our way in the world.

It scares me to death.

I've always been especially skilled in seeing and entering into others' paradigms and world views. But I've tried to hold on to a notion of One Truth of which Mormons were cognizant. It has been an anchor in my life to know that there is a divine purpose to life, that my trials are given to strengthen me, that there is a God who loves and created me, and a Jesus whose atonement covers my sins and shortcomings. Increasingly, as I've opened myself up to different paradigms, I realize that this is only one world view.

What happens when a Mormon opens her/himself up to this possibility? Do you believe the Kantian assertion that the human mind tortures itself with insoluble problems, searching for truth where no possibility of achieving the truth exists? Can one really know that there is a God, or is faith simply another fictional explanation of observed phenomena (and not always even the best one)?

In the strange and eerie faithless landscape one inhabits as varying models are entertained, can the "as if" theory be of assistance? Does acting "as if" God is there satisfy the human longing for truth and meaning when we find that there are other paradigms that work quite as well in explaining truth? What could happen if we loosen our construction of God and entertain other possibilities? Does this excite you or depress you?

Unconditional

While the romantic in me longs to be loved unconditionally by those in my life, both family and friends, I realize that it is almost impossible for humans to reach this ideal. They may aspire to love this way, but when their loved one lies to them, or hurts them, or when there are physical changes, or any one of a myriad of other circumstances occurs, love can weaken or vanish.

At times like this it would be nice to be able to cling to the promised unconditional love I am told that the Savior has for us. And it bothers me to hear quotes such as the following:

"Divine love is also conditional. While divine love can be called perfect, infinite, enduring, and universal, it cannot correctly be characterized as unconditional. The word does not appear in the scriptures. On the other hand, many verses affirm that the higher levels of love the Father and the Son feel for each of us-and certain divine blessings stemming from that love-are conditional."

"Understanding that divine love and blessings are not truly 'unconditional' can defend us against common fallacies such as these: 'Since God's love is unconditional, He will love me regardless …'; or 'Since 'God is love,' He will love me unconditionally, regardless …' These arguments are used by anti-Christs to woo people with deception."

"The full flower of divine love and our greatest blessings from that love are conditional-predicated upon our obedience to eternal law. I pray that we may qualify for those blessings and rejoice forever."
- Russell M. Nelson, "Divine Love," Ensign, Feb. 2003, page 20

It is true that we are taught in the Church that we must be obedient in order to merit Heavenly Father's blessings, especially that supreme goal of being able to return one day to his presence. This sends an emotional message that Christ's love could easily turn to rejection. Because of these teachings, I have tried to be very careful not to disappoint God, I've tried hard to become what I am supposed to be, and often I have pretended to be better than I actually am. These feelings and actions show that I am not so sure, after all, that my Savior loves me. Better than anyone, I see how unworthy I am of his love, and I am aware that I have NOT done my best at following his commandments, or even at repenting of the sins with which I struggle.

I have to admit it--I go through times of feeling ecstatic when I am doing well and seem to be succeeding. Yet soon I experience times of despair when I can't seem to stay in control of my sinful tendencies. I become frustrated, and above all, I fear he is not going to be there for me when I need Him the most. In the end, I suspect that he will write me off forever.

I understand that my angst is most likely due to flaws in the way I understand Divine Love. Neal A. Maxwell has addressed this issue as follows:

"It is because God loves us, however, that He seeks with such vigor and long-suffering to separate us from our sins, which He hates. He continues to care for us even when He cannot approve of us. Yet ultimately we cannot go where He is unless He fully approves of us. This outcome, however, reflects the consequences of divine justice, not His love for us, which persists."

"...the hard, cold fact is that how we use our moral agency does not result in a withdrawal of God's love but does determine the ways and the degrees to which a loving God can express His love of us. Only the most righteous will receive His praise, His approval, and enjoy His presence."
- Neal A. Maxwell, _If Thou Endure it Well_, p. 34

That DOES seem hard and cold to me, right now.

Last weekend a friend was telling me her vision of eternity--that after her death, a group of celestial beings would meet with her and review her life work and choices in an unconditionally loving atmosphere. They would smile over her successes AND her failures, ask questions about why she did what she did, and ask her what she had learned. This vision was sweet to me--no condemnation, no punishment, much love. That's also why the Christian born-again, "saved by grace alone" concept is so appealing. But in the end, not something I feel free to embrace. Not quite scriptural, is it? If this was all there was, why does God's Word even mention eternal fire, gnashing of teeth, punishment, separation?

I hope I can get some help with the conundrum I am facing over this issue. I am quite sure that I should be able to trust in my Savior's eternal love--in the times when I am struggling as well as when I am being obedient and worthy. Right now, though, it all seems so impossible. At times I wrestle with sin that I feel powerless to overcome. I do NOT "qualify" for those greater blessings Elder Nelson speaks of--I never can qualify--and I thirst for hope that is more reliable than my own will-power and endurance.

I want unconditional love.

Blogging and The Transformative Power of the Written Word

An article in the Biblical Archaeology Review recently touted the power of the written word in ancient times, citing blessing and cursing inscriptions which became infused with divine energy, giving "material reality to one’s innermost thoughts and even the soul itself."

Many early inscriptions were used in religious rituals, reflecting the belief in the magical power of writing. For example:

• The well-known Gezer Calendar, a series of notes about planting and harvesting that dates to the 10th century B.C., was probably written on soft limestone so that the writing could be scraped off in such a ritual, with the written words literally becoming a kind of magic fertilizer blessing the agricultural year.


• A woman accused of adultery was made to consume “the water of bitterness,” a cloudy concoction infused with the washed-off ink from the words of a written curse. If the woman was innocent, the curse would have no effect; if she was guilty, the curse would cause her thighs to waste away and her belly to swell. (Num 5:11-28)


• The role of the written word is particularly reflected in the Book of Deuteronomy, which commands the masses to write down the words of God, to read it and treasure it in their hearts, and to post the written word on the entrance to their homes.


• When Ezekiel accepted his prophetic mission from God during a dreamlike trance, he ate a scroll inscribed with the words of the divine message (Ezekiel 2:9-3:11). Having ingested the words, Ezekiel and God’s message become one. Similar experiences were had by Jeremiah, Isaiah, and John.

Ancient Mesopotamian scribes pictured their gods as literate, and viewed language as a powerful tool to approach deity. Scott Noegel's book Nocturnal Ciphers, explains how language can unlock the meaning of symbolic dreams in the Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Canaanite, Israelite, Grecian, and the Rabbinic traditions. Noegel discusses the importance of complex, writing based, puns as ancient hermeneutical tools with magical properties both in Hebrew and the rest of the Near East. A book review by Robert Knuse explains:

"...the key to understanding the value and meaning of enigmatic dreams for the ancients is to realize that the interpretation of dream images was accomplished by wordplays and punning. Both dream reports and their interpretive meanings were recorded with puns in the literary texts. The same is true for the dream books, which were tools for interpretation. Hence, the meaning of any visual dream image was connected to a similar sounding word or expression, which forecast the future for the dreamer. Punning not only unfolded the meaning of dreams, but it gave the interpreter power over them and turned the interpretive experience into a magical performative ritual (thus negating the power or impurity caused by the enigmatic dream)... [Noegel] suggests that a truly deeper understanding of dreams in the ancient word can be provided by the appreciation of this phenomenon of mantic punning."

In our modern society, we use the written word indiscriminately. It is all over milk cartons, cereal boxes, and doodle pads by the phone. We are less able than the ancients to see the transformative power of writing. Still, the written word can have a powerful effect in our lives.

I like the idea of using written words in an almost magical sense. Psychologists have recognized, for example, the therapeutic effect of symbolic acts such as the rituals mentioned above. Sometimes it is suggested that one write his or her frustrations or impotent rage against an abuser, and burn the words, or bury them. We can also send up prayers, hopes or dreams on slips of paper tied to a balloon. And, as popularized on the silver screen, we can send our longings out into the world in words written in a message in a bottle and cast into the sea.
Participating in such actions gives material reality to our innermost thoughts so that we can deal with them physically.

Putting my chaotic sentiments down as words in a story or a poem, or even a blog post seems to purge my emotions and brings order to my disordered life. An article in Scientific American, Blogging, It's Good For You, backs this up. Because of the therapeutic and stress relieving benefits of writing, the article says, blogging might be seen as self-medication. Drives located in the limbic system may explain why some people blog compulsively. Blogging may also trigger dopamine release.

I know I have used my blogging as a way to transform my tumultuous thoughts into a tangible form. Blogging is a way to give form to difficult emotions and send them off, figuratively tied to a balloon or as a message in a bottle. I post my otherwise obscure dreams and the words that are divinely revealed to me on the doorframe of my home site. This is where I attempt to reconstruct myself as a thinking, reasoning being, rather than simply a mass of emotional trauma. I will scrape these words off the screen and fling them on their way as a magic fertilizer that I hope will bless and consecrate my meager and human desires.

Human Love and Sexuality in Stephenie Meyer's "The Host"

My regular readers will certainly not be surprised that the theme that most interested me in Stephenie Meyer's novel "The Host" was its treatment of human love.

The story begins when the alien life form "Wanderer" is placed into the body of human female Melanie Stryder. Melanie continues to maintain her human awareness while Wanderer controls the body (and narrates the tale). Wanderer can feel the physical attraction that Melanie's body maintains for Jared, Mel's partner. At the same time, another human male, Ian, falls in love with Wanderer, the alien being inside Melanie's body.

When I gave a presentation at the Mormon Women's Forum's Counterpoint Conference in 2006, I discussed my feelings about the bonding that takes place between couples who are sealed in the Temple. I opined that a sealing ordinance is merely a spiritual symbol of a phenomenon that takes place when two souls develop bonds that are so strong that they cannot be broken even after death. I was reminded of this when I read Meyer's description of the bonds which still existed between humans even after their bodies had been taken over by the alien intelligences. For example, read this passage, where one of the aliens explains why she chose to remain with the husband of her host, Kathy, even after Kathy's sentience had been replaced:

"And Curt...You chose to stay with your host's spouse? After it was over?"

This question was more pointed, and Kathy grasped that at once. She shifted in her seat, pulling her legs up and folding them under her. She gazed thoughtfully at a spot just over my head as she answered.

"Yes, I chose Curt -- and he chose me. At first, of course, it was random chance, an assignment. We bonded, naturally, from spending so much time together, sharing the danger of our mission...We lived every day with the knowledge that we could meet a final end at any moment. There was constant excitement and frequent fear. All very good reasons why Curt and I might have formed an attachment and decided to stay together when secrecy was no longer necessary. And I could like to you, assuage your fears, by telling you that these were the reasons. But..."

She shook her head and then seemed to settle deeper into her chair, her eyes boring into me.

"In so many millennia, the humans never did figure love out. How much is physical, how much in the mind? How much accident and how much fate? Why did perfect matches crumble and impossible couples thrive? I don't know the answers any better than they did. Love is simply where it is. My host loved Curt's host, and that love did not die when the ownership of the minds changed."

I was quite taken with Stephenie Meyer's description of Wanderer's similar attraction to Jared. As in the above example, there were several facets to this attraction. The first was simply the physical attraction which the body continued to manifest -- a purely corporeal response of Melanie's body to Jared's physical presence. Then there were emotional responses that the alien Wanderer began to feel. The following excerpt is a conversation Wanderer has with Melanie's consciousness in her head, after seeing Jared for the first time after the possession.

She [Melanie] hesitated for a long moment, and then the rest of the words came out in a rush. I thought it was all me -- the way we feel about him. I thought I was . . . in control of that.

The thoughts behind her words were clearer than the words themselves.

You thought you were able to bring me here because you wanted it so much. That you were controlling me instead of the other way around. I tried not to be annoyed. You thought you were manipulating me.

Yes. The chagrin in her tone was not because I was upset, but because she did not like being wrong. But...

I waited.

It came in a rush once more. You're in love with him, too, separately from me. It feels different from the way I feel. Other. I didn't see that until he was there with us, until you saw him for the first time. How did that happen? How does a three-inch-long worm fall in love with a human being?

Worm?

Sorry. I guess you sort of have . . . limbs.

Not really. They're more like antennae. And I'm quite a bit longer than three inches when they're extended.

My point is, he's not your species.

My body is human, I told her. While I'm attached to it, I'm human, too. And the way you see Jared in your memories . . . Well, it's all your fault.

She considered that for a moment. She didn't like it much.

So if you had gone to Tucson and gotten a new body, you wouldn't love him anymore now?

I really, really hope that's true.

Since, as Latter-day Saints, we believe that the human soul consists of both a spirit and a body, I am not sure what fascinates me so much about the notion of a purely spiritual connection, divorced from physical ties. We've all heard about or experienced physical attraction which lacks the spiritual/emotional component, but there isn't much discussion about a love which lacks the physical element. This is the relationship which Wanderer begins to develop with Ian. Although her body's physical responses are still linked to Jared, her emotions are engaged by Ian.

I realized, when he smiled then, that I wanted him to like me. The rest -- the hand on my face, the fingers on my arm -- I still wasn't sure at all about those. But I wanted him to like me, and to think kind thoughts about me. Which is why it was hard to tell him the truth.

"You don't really feel that way about me, you know," I whispered. "It's this body . . . She's pretty, isn't she?"

He nodded. "She is. Melanie is a very pretty girl. Even beautiful." His hand moved to touch my bad cheek, to stroke the rough, scarring skin with gentle fingers. "In spite of what I've done to her face...But, pretty as she is, she's a stranger to me. She's not the one I care about."

That made me feel better. Which was even more confusing.

"Ian, you don't . . . Nobody here separates us the way they should. Not you, not Jamie, not Jeb." The truth came out in a rush, more heated than I'd meant it to be. "You couldn't care about me. If you could hold me in your hand, me, you would be disgusted. You would throw me to the ground and grind me under your foot."

His pale forehead creased as his black brows pulled together. "I . . . not if I knew it was you."

I laughed without humor. "How would you know? You couldn't tell us apart."

His mouth turned down.

"It's just the body," I repeated.

"That's not true at all," he disagreed. "It's not the face, but the expressions on it. It's not the voice, but what you say. It's not how you look in that body, but the things you do with it. You are beautiful."

He moved forward as he spoke, kneeling beside the bed where I lay and taking my hand again in both of his.

"I've never known anyone like you."

I sighed. "Ian, what if I'd come here in Magnolia's body?"

He grimaced and then laughed. "Okay. That's a good question. I don't know."

"Or Wes's?"

"But you're female -- you yourself are."

"And I always request whatever a planet's equivalent is. It seems more . . . right. But I could be put into a man and I would function just fine."

"But you're not in a man's body."

"See? That's my point. Body and soul. Two different things, in my case."

"I wouldn't want it without you."

"You wouldn't want me without it."

Tell me, readers, do you long to have someone love you like that? Where it wouldn't matter to them if you were a 3-inch long alien? Does it interest you to dissect the different bonds which attract us as humans? Is it important for you to know if your partner loves you spiritually as well as physically? Do you think you would love your partner as well if they were in a different body?

You'll have to read this book to take a look at some the other themes that Meyer covers. Another motif in The Host is conflict and pacifism. I may explore that one later, too, if I get around to it.

Turning 50 with Barbie

(BiV's contribution to International Women's Day)

Today I realized for the first time that I would be turning 50 this year with Mattel's Barbie, who was launched March 9th at the 1959 New York Toy Fair. I haven't yet embraced this milestone (I have until November to come to terms with it), but then, neither has she.

Barbie's creator, Polish immigrant Ruth Handler, had noticed that despite the fact that dolls of the 1950's were mainly helpless infants to be cuddled, her daughter, Barbara, preferred to play with paper cut-out dolls. Ruth realized that a more grown-up doll would allow girls such as her daughter to enact imaginary adult situations and allow them to project fantasies of independence and glamour.

While traveling in Switzerland Ruth came across a German doll which had the physical characteristics she had envisaged – long legs, a tiny waist, a bust. The doll, "Bild Lilli," had gone on sale in 1955 and was based on a prostitute from a German adult cartoon. It was marketed not to children but to men in bars and tobacco shops as a novelty, though Ruth was unaware of this at the time. When she returned to the States, she used Lilli as a proto­type for her new doll, overcoming the resistance of engineers and other skeptics who insisted the doll was too expensive to produce and would not sell well.

Now that Barbie is turning 50, she has experienced a few changes in her figure, just as I have! In 1997 Barbie's body mold was redesigned and given a wider waist. It's odd how my life parallels this--I had the last of my eight children in 1998, and I definitely noticed a bit of waist thickening by then!



Other than that, it seems Barbie hasn't aged at all. She's still wearing swim suits, glamour gowns, and driving around in her pink DreamCar. I think that women of my generation have a lot more in common with Barbie than we do with our own grandmothers. And there's some good and bad in that. Yes, we emphasize materialism a lot more than those thrifty denizens of the Depression and World War II. Some 50-year-olds have fought aging tooth and nail, with nips and tucks and permanent eyeliner. It's true that we place WAY too much importance on a 19-inch waist. But on the other hand, we've stayed fit all these years. We aren't hiding behind an apron and a saggy sweater, but we are out windsurfing and jogging. We are in the House and in the Senate, and we're competing in triathlons.

Here's Barbie at 50:



Here's my Grandmother in 1958, a pre-Barbie generation. At 50 years old, she is already wearing the gray, tightly curled grandma haircut and baggy sweater. It would be another year before I made her a grandmother for the first time, but she already looks like one.



Now, my mom in 1987 at 50. She has just won the 5K race for her age group. At this point in her life, she has 4 grandchildren, and only her hairdresser knows for sure.



Here's me--I'll be 50 this year. And this is my facebook profile pic. (Can you tell I am just dying to have you comment and tell me I look more like Barbie than my grandma at 50???)



So, despite her unrealistic proportions which may influence girls to place undue importance on physical beauty, and her many accessories which promote a consumer culture, I wasn't completely ruined by my Barbie dolls. Through role playing, she taught me how to talk to boys (Ken). She taught me class and confidence and that it was normal to develop breasts. She showed me that girls could be anything from a doctor, teacher, or astronaut while still playing tennis with her friends. And wearing pink designer sunglasses.

I admit I played with Barbie, and I admit that we had them in the house when my 7 daughters (and one son) were growing up. (Though he tended to rip off their heads and use their dismembered bodies as guns.) I even admit that I have purchased Barbies as birthday gifts for little friends' parties. Tell me, what was your Barbie experience? And were you scarred for life?

Imaginary Friends

I'm always wondering--are online friends real or imaginary? My children are always telling me to get some REAL friends. The kind you can go out to lunch with, or see every Sunday, the kind that will pick up your kids for you when you are stuck at the doctor, or who can tell you if you ACTUALLY look fat in those jeans. I guess there is an advantage in having those types of friends.

But these days, I really prefer my online friends. For one thing, they are more convenient. You can "drop in" on them any time--it's not necessary to comb your hair or change out of your sweats. You can read their blog posts and make comments any time, even three in the morning. I love that my online friendships are based on interests and have no constraints such as age or gender. I know it would seem odd in my ward if I, the middle-aged mother of eight, had a dear friend who was a 21-year-old male graduate student. But online it is no big deal.

Does meeting my online friends make them any more real? I have met up with some of them at Sunstone and other places. This month I have plans for a weekend with 4 of the women I have met online and otherwise don't know at all!! And it's a bit scary. Some of the people I've met I really connect with. But often, the relationship changes a bit, in subtle ways. I have an online persona which is completely blown when they see me in person. So I'm not always sure I even WANT to meet my imaginary friends.

But I really want to thank them for being out there, for being willing to talk, and share, and be my friend. Thanks for sharing your stories, for visiting my blog, for putting a little bit of your life out there for me to read and enjoy.

I need you now more than ever.

Bounding out of the Wilderness

My mind has been captured by a phrase attributed to Joseph Smith in at least two of his sermons--that of John the Baptist "bounding out of the wilderness" to preach the gospel of repentance.

On the 23rd of July 1843, in Nauvoo, a sermon was delivered by Joseph Smith to the assembled Saints. At least 5 different men mentioned or took notes on this talk. In the James Burgess Notebook we have this description of John the Baptist:

And when the set time was come John came forth and when he took up his preisthood, he came bounding out of the wilderness saying repent ye for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. he having received the holy anointing was the only lawful administrator and the jews all knew it for the law and the prophets was untill John since then the kingdom of heaven is preached and all men press into it!

I love the excitement that the Burgess Notebook preserves of this discourse. The exclamation marks, and the word "bounding" calls forth such buoyancy and enthusiasm for this preparatory event.

On another occasion, on the 10th of March 1844, Brother Joseph preached a sermon on Elijah and Elias at the Nauvoo Temple. Several listeners took notes on this talk as well. Again, the James Burgess Notebook records the same phrase regarding the spirit and power of Elias:

this is the power which John the baptist was clothed with when he came bounding out of the wilderness saying repent ye for the kingdom of heaven is come unto you or is at hand...

I don't know where James Burgess picked up this phrase. None of the other accounts of Joseph Smith's sermons mention the word "bounding." I have googled the phrase to see if it was perhaps used in one of the Biblical translations of the day. But as far as I can find, it was used only one other time in connection with John the Baptist--in a sermon given by J. Golden Kimball and recorded by a missionary in South Carolina in 1891:

The speaker [Kimball] wished to speak for a few moments on the Kingdom of God, and referred to John the Baptist as he came bounding out of the wilderness with a doctrine strange and new. John didn’t give it to them sugared over, either.

I have mentioned in several of my posts the great power that words have to stir my soul. In this case, the image of John the Baptist excitedly leaping forth out of a barren wilderness to prepare the way for the coming Messiah and the light of the gospel is heartening. To a heart which has languished in wilderness for far too long, it is an enticing call.

As I searched for images of John the Baptist, I found only a few which expressed the energy that fit the new picture I have in my head of this wild man of the wilderness. The first is an oil painting by Jack Baumgartner which communicates the excitement of the moment in the positioning of the Baptist's hands, the expression in his face, and the lines of his hair and the water which surrounds him:



Another is by Anton Raphael Mengs, showing John preaching quite fervently, with upraised arms and fervent countenance.



All of the other images I found of John the Baptist seemed quite sedate in comparison. The dearth of art depicting the Baptist "bounding" out of the wilderness, over a period of several centuries, has convinced me that this is not a typical picture we have of this particular prophet. I'm quite taken with it. It seems particularly a propos for an announcement of Christ's ministry to come, and it is a vision that draws me from emotional darkness into brightness and clarity.

Walking Forward in that Light

When I am depressed I tend to invest every little thing that I encounter with an exaggerated, symbolic meaning relating to myself. You know how this works, any of you? Trees, with their scant winter limbs reaching out to the sky represent your bare naked soul thrust up to the iron-gray heaven of an unresponsive God. Or you will be eating almonds and, holding one in your salty fingers, you contemplate the hardness and brittleness you have been manifesting to your children.

I certainly hope that by writing this post I do not get any well-meaning advice like "You need to get up and do something for someone else." If so, I will file it in my head with the admonitions of my own ego telling me, "You must send that package off today, you have to make dinner at least once this week, you should at least take a shower."

Though I may not be able to make myself do a load of laundry today, I can read the poem that was written by Elizabeth Alexander for Barack Obama's presidential inauguration and do my thing: make inconsequential comparisons to my own feelings. I see the noise and bramble that she speaks of, all about me. I see the attempts to repair all the things that are falling apart. Then I notice the efforts to try to make music, to speak and connect with others. I resonate that there are those who NEED to know "what is on the other side."

I begin, in a small way, to rejoice in struggle, as I read these words, to praise figuring-out, and love, and light.

And perhaps I will be able to walk forward into that light once again. Soon.

Praise Song for the Day

Each day we go about our business,
walking past each other, catching each other's
eyes or not, about to speak or speaking.

All about us is noise. All about us is
noise and bramble, thorn and din, each
one of our ancestors on our tongues.

Someone is stitching up a hem, darning
a hole in a uniform, patching a tire,
repairing the things in need of repair.

Someone is trying to make music somewhere,
with a pair of wooden spoons on an oil drum,
with cello, boom box, harmonica, voice.

A woman and her son wait for the bus.
A farmer considers the changing sky.
A teacher says, Take out your pencils. Begin.

We encounter each other in words, words
spiny or smooth, whispered or declaimed,
words to consider, reconsider.

We cross dirt roads and highways that mark
the will of some one and then others, who said
I need to see what's on the other side.

I know there's something better down the road.
We need to find a place where we are safe.
We walk into that which we cannot yet see.

Say it plain: that many have died for this day.
Sing the names of the dead who brought us here,
who laid the train tracks, raised the bridges,

picked the cotton and the lettuce, built
brick by brick the glittering edifices
they would then keep clean and work inside of.


Praise song for struggle, praise song for the day.
Praise song for every hand-lettered sign,
the figuring-it-out at kitchen tables.

Some live by love thy neighbor as thyself,
others by first do no harm or take no more
than you need. What if the mightiest word is love?

Love beyond marital, filial, national,
love that casts a widening pool of light,
love with no need to pre-empt grievance.

In today's sharp sparkle, this winter air,
any thing can be made, any sentence begun.
On the brink, on the brim, on the cusp,

praise song for walking forward in that light.

Counsel vs. Council: A Guide for Latter-Day Saints

My latest journey around the Bloggernacle has convinced me that my fellow Saints need some more counsel from the Vocabulary Police. Please, for your own edification, study the following terms.

Counsel: advice; opinion or instruction given in directing the judgment or conduct of another.

Council: an assembly of persons summoned or convened for consultation, deliberation, or advice.

Notice that the Bishop or Church leader gives you COUNSEL, but you attend a COUNCIL meeting. On Wednesday nights you might need to go do some COUNSELING at your COUNCIL meeting. Many of us formed part of the COUNCIL in heaven. Our Apostles form the COUNCIL of the Twelve. They give COUNSEL to the members of the Church. Most of the acronyms use COUNCIL.

PEC=Priesthood Executive Council
BYC=Bishop/Youth Council
HC=High Council

Now it gets a little bit tricky. Please pay close attention.

High councilors--spelled this way because they are members of a COUNCIL.

First and Second counselors in presidencies--spelled this way because they give COUNSEL to the president or bishop.

Finally, both counsel and council may take an extra "l" before the suffix, especially if you are British (as in counselled, counselling, councillors). Believe me, if you are going to blog about these subjects, you will appear much more knowledgeable if you can spell and use the terms correctly.

And Saints and Angels Sing! Trivial Changes in Mormon Hymns

You know how those anti's are constantly publishing comparisons of different editions of the Book of Mormon and the temple ceremony and lamenting over the wording changes? Well, I'd like to highlight some changes in those old familiar hymns and ponder on their meanings. My consternation over these alterations commenced as a brand-new, three-month-old convert. At a Sacrament meeting around Christmas-time I was very embarrassed while singing a familiar carol to be looking up from my hymnal right when the words changed to

And Saints and angels sing

and I was caught singing

And heaven and nature sing!

I'm still pondering why W.W. Phelps felt this was a needed change. In the Isaac Watts version, "heaven" denotes the angelic hosts singing while "nature" clearly points to earthly beings joining in. Wouldn't that be the same as "saints and angels," only in a different order? Or do you see a subtle message here that out of all earthly praisers, only members of the Church ("saints") can join the heavenly beings in song?

Talk about embarrassing. But you don't have to be a convert to experience the pain of singing the wrong words when you thought you knew the song by heart. Some of us "oldies" took a while to remember to sing

"who unto the Savior"

instead of

"you who unto Jesus for refuge have fled"

in the first verse of How Firm A Foundation when it was changed in 1985. I imagine that this change might have been made to avoid the too frequent use of the Lord's name. But if this is the case, we might better teach our children and youth to say "in the name of the Savior" at the end of prayers, instead of "nameajesuschristamen."

This is not the only hymn where we notice incomprehensible changes. When "How Great Thou Art" was added to the 1985 hymnal it was familiar to me from my pre-Mormon days. But I wondered why, in the first verse, the words "works" and "mighty" were changed to

...consider all the *worlds thy hands have made,
I see the stars, I hear the *rolling thunder...

I can't even think of a possible reason for this revision, and, although the change is noted, an author or perpetrator is not.

In the case of Hymn #68, I wonder if the music committee simply couldn't let the words of that great Protestant reformer, Martin Luther, rest unchallenged. Luther's words were "adapted" as follows: (scroll down)

A mighty fortress is our God,	A mighty fortress is our God,
a bulwark never failing;	A tower of strength ne'er failing.
our helper he amid the flood	A helper mighty is our God
of mortal ills prevaling.	O'er ills of life prevailing.
For still our ancient foe	He overcometh all.
doth seek to work us woe;	He saveth from the Fall.
his craft and power are great,	His might and power are great.
and armed with cruel hate,	He all things did create.
on earth is not his equal.	And he shall reign forever more.

Now, there are some changes which, though small or trivial, can be well understood. Before 1985 LDS congregations on the last week of December used to sing The Wint'ry Day, Descending to its Close with these words:

...where roamed at will the savage Indian band, the templed cities of the Saints now stand.

The word "savage" has now been changed to "fearless." I'm actually surprised that some sixteenth notes weren't added, along with the words "the fearless Native American band!"

For more info on word changes in hymns, go here!

Why I Would Totally Have Slept With Joseph Smith

My Dear and beloved companion of my bosom, in tribulation, and affliction,...I have a great anxiety about you, and my lovely children...If I do not meet you again in this life, may God grant that we may meet in heaven. I cannot express my feelings. My heart is full...oh my kind and affectionate Emma, I am yours forever your husband and true friend. Joseph Smith, Jr.

Sure, Joseph wrote love notes like these to his wife Emma. But to convince Miss Nancy Rigdon to join him in plural marriage he also wrote such doctrinal gems as this:

"Happiness is the object and design of our existence; and will be the end thereof, if we pursue the path that leads to it; and this path is virtue, uprightness, faithfulness, holiness, and keeping all the commandments of God. But we cannot keep all the commandments without first knowing them, and we cannot expect to know all, or more than we now know unless we comply with or keep those we have already received. That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another." (Joseph Smith to Miss Nancy Rigdon, 11 April 1842)

I'm a sucker for a guy who can expound spiritual truths. If you want to make my knees weak, quote me some scripture. And Joseph was the fount of personal, original scripture. I admire his desire to draw near to Deity, from the time he was a young boy until the end of his life.

Joseph was also a passionate and virile man. He had a romantic nature that was drawn to metaphysical ideas such as Swedenborg's theories on the premortal existence of spirits. Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner stated:
"Joseph said I was his before I came here and he said all the Devils in Hell should never get me from him."
Elsewhere she wrote that Smith told her he had been commanded to marry her, "or Suffer condemnation—for I [Mary] was created for him before the foundation of the Earth was laid" (Compton, p. 19, quoting Mary Elizabeth Lightner, Autobiography). A woman can't help but be affected by statements like that!

Joseph the man appealed to everyone. Those who met him were often profoundly affected. Wrote Wilford Woodruff:

“Before I saw Joseph I did not care how old he was, or how young he was. I did not care how he looked—whether his hair was long or short; the man that advanced that revelation was a prophet of God. I knew it for myself. I first met Joseph Smith in the streets of Kirtland. He had on an old hat, and a pistol in his hand. Said he, ‘Brother Woodruff, I’ve been out shooting at a mark, and I wanted to see if I could hit anything.’ And, said he, ‘Have you any objection to it?’

‘Not at all,’ said I. ‘There is no law against a man shooting at a mark, that I know of.’

He invited me to his house. He had a wolf skin, which he wanted me to help him to tan; he wanted it to sit on while driving his wagon team. Now, many might have said, ‘You are a pretty prophet; shooting a pistol and tanning a wolf skin.’ Well, he tanned it, and used it while making a journey of a thousand miles. This was my first acquaintance with the Prophet Joseph. And from that day until the present, with all the apostasies we have had, and with all the difficulties and afflictions we have been called to pass through, I never saw a moment when I had any doubt with regard to this work. I have had no trial about this. While the people were apostatizing on the right hand and on the left, … it was no temptation to me to doubt this work or to doubt that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.” (Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, ed. G. Homer Durham, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1946, pp. 29–30.)

Though I've never met him, I've been profoundly affected by the energetic and enigmatic Joseph Smith. I'll close with the sentiments of Brigham Young, which would have been mine had I been alive with the Prophet Joseph:

"I feel like shouting hallelujah all the time, when I think that I ever knew Joseph Smith, the Prophet..." (Discourses of Brigham Young, 458.)

***more of my musings on Joseph Smith over at Mormon Matters today!