Eliza R. Snow Believed in Santa Claus

Remember your time-honor'd laws,
Kind master of the merry glee:
Prepare your gifts, good Santa Claus,
And hang them on the Christmas tree.

And where no Christmas trees are found,
With liberal hand your gifts distill;
The bags and stockings hanging round,
Great Santa Claus, be sure to fill.

Untie your purse--enlarge your heart--
O, do not pass one single door;
And in your gen'rous walk impart
Your comforts to the sick and poor.

When eyes are watching for the morn,
In humble hut and cottage too;
How disappointed and forlorn,
If missed, dear Santa Claus, by you.

Go all the rounds of baby-hood,
And bless and cheer the hearts of all
The "little folks," and please be good
To those who're not so very small.

~Eliza R. Snow, Dec 1868

I'm taking this poem from my new book, "Eliza R. Snow, the Complete Poetry." It's 1290 pages. Whew!! I cannot believe how prolific she was. Dedicated to those who didn't get anything under the tree this year. :(

Poetry While Waiting in the Car

poetry while waiting in the car

and drumming your fingers on the steering wheel
because you are waiting for your son
or daughter
or you are afraid to go in to the hospital
or you are dropping off a friend

and there is nothing on the radio
it is all too loud
or too soft, or too religious, or too country
the best thing is definitely
poetry

because there is nothing like
Pied Beauty
for giving you comfort, and then there's
God Says Yes to Me
to make you laugh
and maybe nod

and
The Parable of the Old Man and the Young
to stir your pacifist emotions.
To His Coy Mistress
will make you feel like you are in love
for the first and only and forever, but
if you must weep, there is
Prayer to Persephone

then
The Chambered Nautilus
is a glimpse of eternity and
will make you forget you are in the car
waiting
and drumming your fingers, and fiddling
with the seatbelt--

that's why you should always
keep
a book of poetry
under the seat.

Implants and the SunMaid Raisin Girl

You all know I'm a live-and-let-live kind of person, so I surprise myself sometimes with my visceral reaction against breast implants, liposuction, facelifts, and other types of elective surgery. It's not only that I don't think they're safe, or that their cost could feed a small village for a year, or even the standard feminist argument against them. There might be a teeny bit of "you-didn't-earn-that-body-by-slaving-away-in-a-hot-gym" to it all.

I was dismayed to see that the Sun-Maid Raisin girl apparently had a body overhaul in her recent reconception. Here's what she looked like before, beautiful, natural and wholesome, as any good raisin should be:



And here's the new version. The new ad campaign has this techy over-animated girl cavorting through vineyards, doing yoga, shopping at the market -- and speaking several languages, since Sun-Maid has a large export business. Not to mention she plucks her eyebrows.



I don't like it. I hate that a woman can't have a wide marketing appeal without Barbie-sized breasts and an artificially tiny waist. I hate that the "in thing" for upscale Mormon suburbanites is elective surgery.

Isn't that weird? I'm just as apt to show my cleavage as the next garment-wearing woman. I'm not that into "modesty" as defined by the unofficial LDS police (no flashing of thighs, breasts, shoulders or armpits). But here I am cattily snarking the new Ms. Sun-Maid and Ms. Silicone Ridge, Utah. Am I just jealous? Am I afraid their sauciness will show me up as a frumpy, middle-aged matron?

Making A Little Scripture

I read this quote today, and it made me laugh, it was so Brigham Young-ish. But it also brought up some questions, as reading the words of early prophets tends to do.

Brigham Young, teaching of Adam/God:

I feel inclined to make a little scripture. (Were I under the necessity of making scripture extensively, I should get Brother Heber C. Kimball to make it, and then I would quote it. I have seen him do this when any of the Elders have been pressed by their opponents, and were a little at a loss; he would make a scripture for them to suit the case, that never was in the Bible, though none the less true, and make their opponents swallow it as the words of an Apostle, or one of the Prophets. The Elder would then say, "Please turn to that scripture, gentlemen, and read it for yourselves." No they could not turn to it, but they recollected it like the devil for fear of being caught.) I will venture to make a little scripture. This God [Adam] is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ precisely as He is our Father-varying from mortality to immortality, from corruptible to incorruptible, and that is all the difference. He is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, both body and spirit; and He is the Father of our spirits. You may add these words to it, or let it alone, it is all the same to me, that He is not only the Father of our spirits, but also of our flesh, He being the founder of that natural machinery through which we all have obtained our bodies. (Brigham Young, Oct. 8, 1854)

Is it OK for a prophet to "make a little scripture?" Isn't that what our scriptures are: efforts on the part of prophets to explain the workings of Deity to the best of their understanding? Is Brigham's attempt any wackier than some of the stuff we get in the OT?

Evening Speculations

Tonight I read Ty Mansfield's post at North Star about his hopes for more dialogue between Mormon leadership and the GLBT community. Although I agree with him that rhetoric has softened, I must say that I don't see much of a change at all in terms of doctrine. Some say that the Church has shifted from implying that homosexuality is a sin to saying that acting on same-sex attraction is the problem. I don't know that that is the case. The statements I have read dating from the 1950's all make the Church's position clear that homosexuality is a verb, not a noun; a choice, not an orientation. True, they are no longer using the words “illicit,” “diabolical,” “depraved,” and “perverse.” But in the past 4 years we've had several official statements postulating that since "gender" is eternal, gays will be "fixed" in the eternities. This addition to the theology of sexuality seems odd to me. Never before have General Authorities dared to speculate on what will happen to sexual orientation after death.

I don't presume to know, either. It's a very deep and tangled doctrinal subject. But I read posts like this, and I just feel sad.

"I have searched, I have wrestled, I have pleaded. I've wished for my life to end, and came close to ending it. I have argued with friends (and with people I wouldn't really call friends). I have studied, I've fasted, I've prayed. I've offered my heart and my relationship and everything I have and am on the altar of God. I have suffered, physically and spiritually. I have been in the dark, alone. And one day I came through the other side with a profound, unshakable sense that there is nothing wrong with me as regards my sexual orientation. There are things wrong with me; I have physical imperfections/handicaps/disabilities (the most obvious one is my asthma) that I anticipate being fixed in the life to come. But in my love for my husband, I experience only wholeness and goodness that continues to grow in perfection and beauty...Like Job's friends, my friends can only speculate about what is in my heart...We are not inferior."

Where The Wild Mormons Are

This was cross-posted over at Mormon Matters.

I took my 10-year-old and 2 friends to see the movie "Where the Wild Things Are," and I watched enthralled as they yawned, ate candy, threw popcorn, and cheered when it was finally over. Apparently the film didn't contain the action required to capture their attention. But I found much to ponder and enjoy.

"I have only one subject. The question I am obsessed with is: How do children survive?" --Maurice Sendak

Beside my admiration for Sendak and his storybook, which was read to each of my children at bedtime for over 15 years, I can relate to his question. For I, too, have an obsession: How do Mormons survive? My blog posts often deal with this theme, and I love to observe the many different ways my LDS brothers and sisters and I struggle to make sense of our place in and our relationship to the Church. As I watched the film adaptation of Sendak's book, I saw insights into the human psyche which are particularly noticeable in Mormon wards and stakes.

"Wild Things" portrays a young boy, Max, who takes a trip in his imagination to an island upon which dwell several larger-than-life characters. Each wild thing represents traits which children (and adults!) must face within themselves. I found it particularly fascinating to compare these wild things to Mormon stereotypes.

Within a Church environment, there are unconscious needs, frustrations, and fears found in ourselves and others. When Max arrives at his island, he finds the creatures in need of a king. Although Max feels powerless, he fashions himself their ruler, imbued with magical powers which he promises to use to help his subjects. A crown is given him, taken from the bones of others. In my mind I compared this with the Bishop of a ward. Ward members are often anxious to create a bishop with extraordinary spiritual powers that can aid them in their struggles. The bishop steps up to the expectations as Max did, although he may have inner doubts or inadequacies. I saw some interesting parallels when I compared the wild things to stereotypical LDS types:

Carol, a male with a decidedly female name, has destructive impulses and is insecure. He needs and wants certainty in his life, and this is why he searches for and welcomes a king. The other wild things note that they like Carol better when there is a king. Many of our Church members find it easier to have strong leaders and clearly defined commandments to follow. It is simpler, for example, to remove a second earring than to explore and implement the meaning of a "modest" pair.

Alexander is never listened to. He has an opinion, but it is overlooked and unheard by others. He corresponds to the Church member who sits on the back pew, the one who is always called to the Nursery and never serves in the callings to which he secretly aspires. But indeed, there are parts of all Church members which are discounted. There is a tension between wanting to be heard and wanting to be obedient.

Judith is defensive and judgmental. Her voice was particularly familiar to me in Church settings. Fault-finders are found in every ward. Sometimes this is never voiced but manifests as an inner frustration. Many members are critical of leaders or those who work alongside with them in callings. To curb this tendency, we admonish ourselves and others not to speak evil of the Lord's anointed.

Ira is a sad, mournful fellow with a large, red nose. This Church member longs for comfort. He or she finds great solace in doctrines of the Church which promise an eternal reward and an eternal family, but tends to shy away from the more unsettling, contradictory aspects of our faith. On the other hand, they are often involved in LDS humanitarian causes and personal service to their fellow Saints. This is a good example of how our inner demons can have "wild," out-of-control, or overwhelming characteristics and can be used in positive and negative ways.

K.W. is the soothing female type. She is the one who is fulfilling her womanly role, and ward members look to her for help and support. She is found in the female callings, mothering the Primary children, encouraging the youth, befriending the sisters. K.W. is unhappy when the significant people in her life are not getting along. She longs for recognition and appreciation for the efforts that she makes for the kingdom.

"The Bull" is a dark, iconic figure. In the film he never speaks. To me he represents the rarely seen less-active members of the ward. Every stake has a great number of them. Though they are unknown and faceless to us, they are very large and present as we conduct meetings and programs to discuss and serve them.

Douglas was one of the most intriguing characters for me to watch. He is the enabler, the supporter. At the ward level, we have seen those individuals who don't describe themselves as leaders, but insist that what is needed are more "Indians." They are the followers, the lifeblood of the Church, yet in the end Douglas has his arm ripped off. It can seem that the more we try to serve and obey, the more we are taken advantage of.

Watching "Where the Wild Things Are" with a Mormon perspective was comforting to me. Although Max can represent the Bishop of a ward or a Church leader in his relationship with the creatures, he also teaches us something about ourselves. We all experience conflict in a Church setting. We deal with many emotions and personality types, within ourselves and rubbing shoulders with our fellow Saints. The temptation is to pretend that we know what we are doing, that we have magical powers, that we are in control. But we are not. We find ourselves in danger of being eaten by giant emotional forces. We must come to terms with our tendencies to be critical, to disappear in the back row, to take over, to go inactive. As we confront and befriend these shadow sides of ourselves, we realize that the human psyche is complex and beautiful. I like to see members move toward becoming more accepting of the wild things in themselves and others.

In Jungian terms the shadow represents the repressed in our life. At midlife, psychologist Murray Stein says the shadow or repressed, "...returns and needs to be dealt with in a new way, because the seeds of psychological renewal and of possible future directions for life lie hidden within it... When the unconscious erupts at midlife, what first comes most strongly to the fore are rejected pieces of personality that were left undeveloped and cast aside sometime in the past, for one reason or another, in the rapid movement forward of personal history. Life still clings strongly to them. And actually the seeds of the future lie in these neglected figures, which now return and call for restoration and attention." Robert Johnson says that there is "gold" in the shadow. This gold needs to be mined and brought to the surface. There is much positive that can be gained from the shadow, but there is much resistance.

Latter-day Saints seem to resist acceptance of the wild things within them more than most. In our quest to become perfect, we are afraid of those things inside of us which may rage out of control if we give them any recognition. Johnson reminds us that "to own one’s shadow is whole making." He also tells us, "No one can be anything but a partial being, ravaged by doubt and loneliness, unless he has close contact with his shadow. The shadow consists of those aspects of your character that belong to you but that have not been given any conscious place in your life. ... Assimilating one’s shadow is the art of catching up on those facets of life that have not been lived out adequately."

As committed Latter-day Saints, there is so much work to be done to discover our spiritual heritage and our relationship with Deity. There are many moments of bliss and joy, but there is also pain, sorrow, and struggle. As in one of the film's most touching moments, sometimes there are no words for the emotions which well up inside of us. At those times, we can only howl, and it helps if we have someone to howl with us.

Ma'aleh

The prisoners shall go free--
I take their names
And pin them to my wrist.

I serve as a savior
on Mount Zion for shadows.
They pass me on their way through the veil.

The prisoners shall go free--
But not me.

I am locked
In a Torah of commandments
that tell me how to
pray and what to wear, and
when I must not touch a man.

My Messiah
would know if I grasped his robe
and so I
clasp my hands behind my back.
He is a warlike God.
He protects me with
Jots and tittles and hedges.

I read and I understand and I err.
Each misstep is noticed,
But when I cry, I sob alone.
Unheard
and unredeemed
in a cloud of witnesses.

Shlomo: A Key to Peace

This post was cross-posted at Mormon Matters.

In today's economy, you have to be really sharp to stand out over all those other applicants competing for the job you want. For example, I've heard that the following was a question used as part of a job application, designed to test good judgment:

“You’re driving down a winding, rain-slicked road on a dangerous, stormy night. You pass a bus stop where three people are waiting for the bus. One is an elderly woman who appears to be very ill. The second is someone you recognize as a friend who once saved your life. The third is someone who you, in hindsight, recognize you should have married years before. (They later revealed that given the opportunity, they would be now open to your entreaties.) You have room in your sports car for only one other person. Which one would you offer a ride?”

Before clicking through, think about how you would answer this question.

In your answer, you could justifiably pick up the elderly lady since her condition is the most precarious. Or you could pay back the friend who saved your life. Or you could pick up your mate and live happily ever after. Each of these decisions might tell the interviewer something about your priorities.

The successful candidate, out of 200 who applied, indicated that you should give the car keys to the old friend and let him or her take the sick woman to the hospital, while you sit with the love of your life awaiting the bus. I loved that answer! It showed compassion, trust, and ardor, as well as a great deal of creativity. I believe that creativity is extremely important in exercising judgment.

One biblical illustration of this ability is the story of Solomon, when judging in his role as king. Two women came before him claiming the same child was theirs. After deliberating, he decreed that the infant be divided in two with a sword, with half given to one woman and half to the other. One of the women relented, and was willing to give up the baby so he would not be killed. By this Solomon knew that she was the true mother. Solomon's wisdom and creativity in solving this and many other challenges became legendary. He became a powerful national ruler. Not only was he the administrator who oversaw the building of the First Temple in Jerusalem, he was also a noted lover and poet. King Solomon had 700 wives (and 300 concubines) and is the attributed author of "The Song of Songs." It is the only book of the Bible that deals openly with sexual love, and which reputedly takes as its subject matter his intense affair with the Queen of Sheba. In apocryphal traditions, Solomon could communicate with both animals and demons. He is well known in the occultist field as one who could control spiritual forces, as attested by the Medival grimoires that bear his name as author, "The Key of Solomon" and "The Lesser Key of Solomon." By all accounts, he was an intelligent, passionate, many-faceted and creative leader.

Interestingly, Solomon is a Biblical character who was given two names by God. When Solomon was born, the prophet Nathan received word from the Lord that this child is loved by God. Hence he named him Jedidiah (2 Sam 12:25), although this name is never again used. Instead we know him by Solomon, an name given to him by his father, David. David explains that the word of the Lord came unto him, saying "Behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about: for his name shall be Solomon (Shlomo), and I will give peace and quietness unto Israel in his days." (1 Chron 22:9) The Hebrew name Shlomo is taken from the same root as the word "shalom." It means peace, or completeness.

The Savior showed the same qualities of creativity in judgment in several instances. When asked the hard questions, he often turned things around, as he did with the woman taken in adultery. Instead of either supporting the law of punishing an adulterer, or overturning that law, he asked the stone-throwers to look inside themselves and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." (John 8:1-11)

I think that one of the ways to achieve peace and completeness in our world and in our LDS wards is to cultivate creative judgment such as Solomon, Jesus, and our anonymous job applicant showed. In the 1970's conflict resolution by win-win strategy became extremely popular. There was a proliferation of group-dynamic games emphasizing the importance of cooperation, fun, sharing, caring and overall group success in contrast to domination, egoistic behavior and personal gain. In these games all players are treated as equally important and valuable. The "I'm OK, You're OK" model of transactional analysis helped thousands of people use creative ways of judgment which did not posit a loser and a winner. I would love to see some of these strategies brought back and used in the LDS "court of love" system. Too often, the accused member is brought before the tribunal in a "not OK" paradigm and either retained as a penitent or cut off without consideration of paths to peace and completeness for all concerned.

Creativity, empathy and the ability to envision different solutions are qualities that I value highly. In fact, because of his humor and out-of-the-box thinking, I might even give credence to the prospect who suggested this on his application:

"The driver should run over the elderly woman, put her out of her misery, fulfill any unrequited desires with the love of his life, and then drive off with the friend who saved his life for some strawberry margaritas at Pancho’s on the Strand!"

I enjoy watching people in Church, family, and work environments employ unusual win-win and I'm OK -- You're OK strategies for themselves and others to create peaceful and healing solutions to challenges they face.

Ardi and the Rise of Mormon Symbology

This post was cross-posted at Mormon Matters.


With the advance of science and the study of more and more artifacts such as Ardipithecus ramidus, believing Mormons are faced with a challenge which becomes stronger with each discovery. Although the Church has never taken a firm doctrinal stance on the mechanics of evolution, there has been an authoritative definition on the nature and origin of man. In 1909 a First Presidency statement was issued entitled "The Origin of Man." This statement defines the Church's position that

1. God created Adam, the origin of the human family and the primal parent of our race, in his express image.


2. Creation was first spiritual and then physical.


3. Humans do not result from a development of lower orders of the animal creation.


4. The whole animal creation will be perfected and perpetuated in the Hereafter, but they were not made in God's image, nor endowed with godlike reason and intelligence.

Faced with the difficulty of reconciling human origins based on an evolutionary model and a very real Adam who was created from the dust of the earth, Latter-day Saints have responded in a number of ways. Recent generations of Mormons have become increasingly willing to embrace symbology as a viable alternative of interpreting the scriptural record. Instead of viewing Adam or Noah as literal human beings, their stories are seen to embody spiritual truths from which we can learn helpful principles. The scriptural record is seen as archetypal and may be based on events which are more limited than they aver. Writings about Noah and the flood which accept this approach can be seen here and here. Adam is more problematic, because of the role he plays in LDS eschatology as a literal priesthood leader who will return in his physical body to preside at Adam-Ondi-Ahman.

There are at least three options that believing Latter-day Saints have in considering the Adam and Eve scriptures. First, we can accept them as historical persons. This necessitates either rejecting the scientific evidence as incomplete or incorrect; or compartmentalizing our beliefs so that they don't need to be reconciled. If you find yourself within this category of belief, how do you deal with discoveries such as "Ardi?" Are you more likely to "put it on the shelf," or do you turn to creationist apologetics?

Another choice is to see our First Parents as purely symbolic figures -- fictional characters in a fictional story that intends to teach theological truths about God and humanity. This can be a deeply satisfying endeavor, and is even supported by instructions in the Temple that we are to see our First Parents as "simply figurative." If we subscribe to this option, however, we must revise our eschatology and relegate the Adam of the Last Days to symbolic status as well. If you are in this camp, are you ready to give up the Adam who will physically return to the American Zion holding the keys to his dispensation? And what do you do with the many authoritative statements describing this event?

Lastly, we may view Adam and Eve as representative figures -- a pair of hominids who God miraculously modified into the first homo sapiens about 150 thousand years ago. This theory has promise because it works with modern science, the scriptural account, and last days theology. It certainly has a great appeal to the modern Mormon armchair theologian. However, it does not jibe with the First Presidency statements on the origin of man, which pointedly specify that human beings did not evolve from lower orders of the animal creation. There is no precedent for this train of thought, and adherents must weave a new hypothesis ex nihilo.

Nuclear Disarmament Meets Mormon Patriotism

Lately more and more Church members have begun to wonder why the Church is so supportive of the United States military. We've experienced a long tradition of this, beginning with the Mormon Battalion in 1846. When the U.S. Army requested 500 men to join the service in the conflict with Mexico, Brigham Young responded positively despite the fact that our people were in the middle of a forced exodus from the country. This story is proudly retold in our Church lessons and manuals, making it a seminal moment in the formation of our military philosophy. Isolation in the West kept members physically separated from the conflict of the Civil War. But by the time of World War I, Mormons had become involved in the military machine.

Shortly before the Second World War, the United States instituted the draft system. With the deemphasis on the doctrine of gathering to Utah, and the advent of World War II, the Church had to face some tough issues. For the first time we were confronted with the problem of having significant numbers of faithful Latter-day Saints on both sides of a military conflict. In the April Conference of 1942, an official statement was made by the First Presidency that although the gospel of Christ is a gospel of love, every citizen has an obligation to come to the defense of their country when a call to arms is made.

"The state is responsible for the civil control of its citizens or subjects, for their political welfare, and for the carrying forward of political policies, domestic and foreign, of the body politic. For these policies, their success or failure, the state is alone responsible, and it must carry their burdens. All these matters involve and directly affect Church members because they are part of the body politic, and members must give allegiance to their sovereign and render it loyal service when called thereto. But the Church itself, as such, has no responsibility for these policies, as to which it has no means of doing more than urging its members fully to render that loyalty to their country and to free institutions which the loftiest patriotism calls for." (First Presidency Message, Conference Report, April 1942, pp. 88-97)

This statement is included in full on the Church's website as representative of our public policy. Perhaps the preeminence in the Book of Mormon on war in the defense of one's freedom influenced the decision to support government in waging war. Other Christian religions, notably the Jehovah's Witnesses, encountered the same quandary and formulated quite different policies. At the time of World War I, it was recommended that Witnesses serve in the army only if compelled, and then to request positions in a non-combative role such as medical service. However, by the time of the Second World War, they refused to assist the war effort in any way, to salute the flag, and even to vote.

Since the 1942 CR statement was made, there has been a general reluctance to speak against any military action taken by countries wherein dwell large numbers of Latter-day Saints, especially the United States. During the Vietnam War, Mormons were urged not to be conscientious objectors, but to enter the military and serve their country. Church statements at the time emphasized the propriety of war in defense of our families, religion and country. In the several wars which have ensued, LDS members in the military are urged to see themselves as defending not just their own nation but also the freedom of religion that it ensures for the Church. I don't know if it is just my personal experience, but I rarely hear talks or prayers in the Church urging peaceful solutions to national conflict. Instead I hear prayers from the ward level to temple prayer circles where the Lord is asked to bless our members who are serving in the military. There is a subtle acceptance of military action inherent in these types of prayers which grates on me.

I think it will be very interesting if Mormon rhetoric concerning participation in military efforts will begin to soften now that the President of the United States is more committed to exploring greater options toward pacifism than past administrations have done. Lately President Obama has been involved in a global nonproliferation regime concerning nuclear weaponry. As part of his vision for a world without nuclear weapons, he drafted a proposal which was unanimously accepted at a U.N. Security Council meeting on September 24.


This was cross-posted on Mormon Matters.


This is a complicated issue, which may involve even more conflict, given that Iran may resist the resolution. However, I have great hopes for the way this is heading. I also see many younger Latter-day Saints who are committed to the issue of pacifism. Since military service is currently voluntary, young men and women do not feel undue pressure from the Church to serve their country in this manner, as they have in the past. Thus, an LDS generation is growing up with more of an opportunity to formulate their own responses to a call to military service amid a political climate which is more conducive to pacifism than ever before.

Will we soon see the cessation of hawkish patriotism in Sunday School lessons and Church talks and prayers? Will more LDS leaders arise in the traditon of J. Reuben Clark, who affirmed: "Moral force is far more potent than physical force in international relations. I believe that America should again turn to the promotion of peaceful adjustment of international disputes?" Or will civil and religious duties continue to be cited as justification for participation in military conflict?

LDS Grass-Roots Interpretations of the Eve Archetype

This was cross-posted at Mormon Matters.

Since Eve is one of the most powerful archetypes for women, it's not surprising that this story is at the root of many discussions of womanhood. Feminists have generally been dissatisfied with how the biblical Eve story has affected values and attitudes toward women over the centuries. Early exegesis of the creation story became the rationale for rules and regulations guiding women's behavior. Because Eve was regarded as a source of sin, there was a perceived need to harness the dangerous energy represented by woman. LDS theology has attempted to redefine the symbolic Eve by picturing her as a free agent who recognized the need for a Fall and purposely "transgressed" the law in order to usher the human race into the mortal sphere. This is an attempt to connect the name of the first woman with life (Eve=Havvah=life) instead of forbidden knowledge, lust, temptation, sin, and death. Joseph Fielding Smith said:

One of these days, if I ever get to where I can speak to Mother Eve, I want to thank her for tempting Adam to partake of the fruit. He accepted the temptation, with the result that children came into this world. … If she hadn’t had that influence over Adam, and if Adam had done according to the commandment first given to him, they would still be in the Garden of Eden and we would not be here at all. We wouldn’t have come into this world. So the commentators made a great mistake when they put in the Bible … “man’s shameful fall.”

However, the archetype has not proven easy to overcome. Even the LDS continue to draw upon the Eve myth for the defining of cultural roles and for the justification of women's status in the Church hierarchy. In the temple ritual, Eve, after having partaken of the fruit, is portrayed as an adjunct to the man Adam. She promises to listen to his counsel while he is given access to the Lord. She stands by passively while he is addressed and taught by spiritual guides. It is interesting to see how this portrayal has subtly softened and shifted over the years. In the Church, as well as in other settings, the Eve archetype is slowly being reinterpreted. I have been excited to see how this has been happening at the grass roots level of Mormon experience. Lately there have been a few examples which I would like to highlight.

Brooke, at the Exponent 2 blog has written an original poem which contains an exploration of the Eve myth and its meaning to women:

Things I Tell Myself When I Eat Apples

I do not believe in the necessity
of breaking teeth to eat an apple,
only in the necessity of breaking skin.

There also cannot be one true way
to eat the apple. Or to share it.
But I'll say it again, the skin must break
(even if the skin itself is not eaten).
But there is no need to scrape your gums on it,
or break your jaw. And if you are peeling
or slicing it, be careful with that knife.

Do you hear me? You don't have to hurt yourself
to eat the apple. you don't have to eat the skin
or seeds
or stem
or bruises.
God,
you don't even have to eat
this apple.

Follow the link above to read a fascinating discussion of the shades of meaning in this poem. Here Brooke allows Woman to escape the paradigm -- to decide for herself what parts of the apple she will consume, what effect it will have, or even if she will eat the apple at all. After reading the poem, it becomes evident that we ourselves make choices about how we will experience our religion and how we will read and interpret our archetypal stories.

An LDS artist recently displayed online a work she has created depicting Eve about to bite into an apple. This apple has teeth -- menacing teeth which are bared in opposition to her determination. Galen, the illustrator, has linked her drawing to other sketches: one of Eve slaying the angel, and a study of Alexander Louis Leloir's Jacob wrestling the angel. Taken together, these efforts betray an interest in a re-interpretation of the Eve myth, one in which Eve wrestles with Deity's intent for her. In these pictures, Eve takes strong and purposeful control over he destiny. This coincides with LDS rhetoric on Eve, perhaps even more than the woman we encounter in the Temple, or even in the Proclamation on the Family.




I first saw this image on facebook, and I immediately wrote a response to it, a poetic little quotation which I posted as my status: "The knowledge Heaven gives us hath torrid teeth. And, as Eve, we must meet it with our own determined bite, and welcome the crimson pain, and swallow the iron tang." But as I pondered these words that came out of my subconscious I realized that my take on the Eve story is a bit different than Brooke's, or Galen's. I look at the knowledge offered Eve as painful, and necessary, and difficult. I see the universal condition of women to be something which takes courage and perhaps even violence to face and to swallow. So, as much as I admire the new visions of the Eve story that I see coming to the fore through Mormon women as well as modern feminists, I can glimpse a bit of the medieval mindset in my own psyche. I'm excited about the opportunity that these two works have given me to consider the messages I've taken in, and find new ways to retell and experience them.

I thought I'd offer our women readers here at Mormon Matters an opportunity to explore their reactions to the Eve archetype. I wanted to ask if they are comfortable with the social roles women have inherited with this myth, or if they would like to reinterpret it, to tell the story another way, to picture the meaning differently. But then I realized that perhaps men aren't all that comfortable with what they've gotten from their progenitor, Adam, either. I know some men who don't want to perpetuate the myth of the male provider figure in their lives. To some of you it might be stifling or burdensome to feel you must always bear the weight of this responsibility. Others might feel uncomfortable in a leadership role, with a wife covenanted to hearken to you. What would it mean to be able to reconstruct your societal and spiritual role? Would you like to do it, and if so, how would you go about it?

Finally, since Church doctrine on the subject of men's and women's roles as relating to Adam and Eve is fairly vague and malleable, do you feel empowered to interpret the Eve (or Adam) myth in new and creative ways, as early Church leaders did? Do you feel comfortable playing with the sacred narrative, as these artists have? If you would like to share a poem or a drawing with our readers, even better! Give us a link in the comments.

The Sesame Street Approach to Primary

originally posted at Mormon Matters

The children's television series Sesame Street premiered November 10, 1969. I was just turning 10 years old, so I didn't watch it very much as a child. But in the mid-1980's, with several preschoolers, the show became a staple in our home. Wikipedia describes the program as follows:

Sesame Street uses combinations of animation, puppets, and live actors to stimulate young children's minds, improve their letter and word recognition, basic arithmetic, geometric forms, classification, simple problem solving, and socialization by showing children or people in their everyday lives. Since the show's inception, other instructional goals have been basic life skills, such as how to cross the street safely, proper hygiene, healthy eating habits, and social skills; in addition, real-world situations are taught, such as death, divorce, pregnancy and birth, adoption, and even all of the human emotions such as happiness, love, anger and hatred.

Sesame Street just fascinated me. Although it was geared to teaching and entertaining my young children, I couldn't get over how much of the show was aimed at the parents. There were often references to historical figures, rock stars, and cultural allusions, and even innuendo that only adults would recognize. The humor written into the show allowed parents and children to enjoy it together. There were guest celebrities like Ralph Nader, Maya Angelou, Barbara Bush, Johnny Cash, Mel Gibson, Yo Yo Ma, and Barbara Walters, to name only a few. I especially loved "Monsterpiece Theater," presided over by Alistair Cookie. For example, watch "The Taming of the Shoe" and notice how enjoyable this sketch is for both children and adults:



The reason I mention Sesame Street in connection with Primary is because I have heard a lot of complaining about how difficult it is for adults who have Primary callings to spend the majority of their Church instructional time with the little children. Primary workers often feel a void in their spiritual and social needs, and a Sesame Street approach could help. As a young mother working in the Primary, I recall a Primary President who used this very method. She was a very intellectual woman, who naturally related well to adults but not to children. Being extremely motivated, she worked hard on developing interest segments including songs, games, and activities that would appeal to young children. But as she taught, she would comment and make little asides that would reference the adult Sunday School lesson, conference talks, politics, or even ward gossip. I found myself looking forward to the stimulation I received from the Primary sharing time given by this woman.

Sesame Street was a pioneer in contemporary educational television. Many hours were put into research, production and curriculum planning to discover what would be the most effective ways of reaching and teaching both children and adults. It seems to me that with the amount of time both children and adults in the Mormon Church spend in Primary, a greater effort could be spent to improve this time. The Church Educational System (CES) has been in place to support teaching of teenagers and adults, but has little to do with religious education of members under the age of 12 on the stake and ward levels. Besides the development and printing of class manuals, there doesn't seem to be much energy allocated to this age group.

Each year the General Primary Presidency develops a themed program for the Primary. Though the theme varies year to year, it always includes monthly emphasis on such topics as Baptism, Obedience, God the Father, Jesus Christ, the Plan of Salvation, Prophets, the Temple, and the family. Outside of these guidelines, local units are left to decide how they will implement the Primary program within their units. Primary often struggles with getting competent and reliable teachers and personnel to run an adequate program. I've been wondering how the Primary fares in areas other than my own. Do you feel that the Primary provides sufficient religious instruction for children in your area? How do we compare to programs like Sesame Street? Is there an emphasis on a well-staffed Primary in your locale? How supported and trained are the adults who administer the Primary in your ward?

The Isle of Misfit Toys

Every year when I go to the Sunstone Symposium, I feel like I am going to the Isle of Misfit Toys.

Remember that place in the Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer Christmas special? The place where you could find a train with square wheels, a fish who flew, a polka-dotted elephant? You can find all those types of people at Sunstone. The ones that just don't quite fit in, in your typical ward. They're feminist, or pacifist, gay, polygamist, mystic, or they have quite a LOT of food storage. Or they might just talk a little too much, or think too much, or know more than the average Mormon about Church history.

I don't want to paint the Sunstone crowd as too outlandish. After all, what's really the matter with a jack-in-the-box named Charlie? But I am really, really, happy to be able to go to a place where there are so many fascinating, interesting, dancing-to-a-different-drummer folks. It's going to be fun to hear them play their one note on the keyboard, to listen to their research and their frustrations, to have lunch and to greet old friends and to sing along with Ardean! I'm excited to meet my blogging friends and my internet friends and some others I only see once a year, at this event. It's a place I feel right at home.

I'm leaving in a few hours for Utah. Hope to see you there!

Why I Took the Facebook "What Kind of Boobs Do You Have?" Quiz

Originally posted at Feminist Mormon Housewives.

On Sunday I was checking my facebook and noticed that a friend had taken the "What Kind of Boobs Do You Have?" quiz. Her result was: "your boobs are juicylicious, any guy would love to burst open your Hawian punch." Now you may wonder why, self-proclaimed feminist that I am, I didn't immediately dismiss such immature and patently mysogynist (not to mention misspelled) drivel and turn my attention to the health care crisis, or even read an article an article in Newsweek or a biography of Eleanor Roosevelt.

Oh no! Instead, I started to wonder what kind of boobs I had. I suppose it would have made sense to glance down at the girls and make my own assessment of all their 36C splendor. But I didn't trust my own judgment. I took the facebook quiz. You may have done it yourself, you Mormon Feminist Housewives! Here were the questions [sic]:

#1
What foods or drinks do you eat/drink more often?

• fruit punch


• potatoes


• yogurt

#2
do you do any activities?

• somtimes


• all the time


• never

#3
DO you have sex alot?

• somtimes


• all the time


• never

#4
have you even been pregnant?

• had an abortion


• have 8 or less kids


• never

#5
What kind of bra do you wear?

• no bra


• push up


• none padded

I chose: yogurt, sometimes, sometimes, 8 or less, and push-up.
To my horror, this was my result:

saggy sack
Now for this one, you have baseballs yes baseballs... but inside of knee high socks. this probably means you are to old to be on facebook.

I immediately deleted, and took the quiz again, changing my answers to questions # 2 and 3.

Same result.

In order to get even an ACCEPTABLE result, I had to take the quiz FIVE TIMES and lie on EVERY QUESTION. Here it was, finally:

the result is Firm and plump.
Your boobs are very firm, and could even make it in the porn star field.

I wasn't all that satisfied with this one, either, having no real desire to "make it" in the porn star field. But, oh the shame, I admit--I posted it to my wall.

Now, here's why I'm writing this post. I sincerely doubt I'm alone in this. How many of you have taken this quiz? How many of you, EVEN AFTER you have seen the banality of the questions, will go and take that cursed facebook quiz? We don't trust ourselves to assess our own bodies. We need confirmation that we are "juicylicious." We will lie to get this confirmation. (Witness: the sales of padded and push-up bras.)

Let's do an experiment. Let's assume all of us have spectacular and lovely breasts. They were made by our Creator, and are diverse and exciting. Let's do something transformational: let's write our OWN "result." There's only one caveat--it has to be POSITIVE! (Whether you post it on your facebook page is up to you.) Here's an example for you, then it's your turn.

BiV's result: My breasts are smooth, creamy, and rose-tipped. They hang ripely with the joy of nourishing children. They don't like being confined.

Ready, Set, GO!

FLDS Leader Explains UEP Trust Issues

Please, please listen to this link. KRCL Radio allows Willie Jessop and attorney Rod Parker to tell their side of the story of the FLDS UEP Trust. Learn how the Trust was started, who has contributed, the FLDS position on the Lost Boys.

RadioActive! July 30 FLDS

Why has Bruce Wisan been portrayed by mainstream media as "trying to help" the FLDS?

Why is the UEP trust in debt? How has the debt been incurred? Is there a way to settle the debt?

Are the legal actions being taken unfair and biased against the FLDS religion?

Do these actions have any implications for other religious groups who may receive donations from their members?

An Outsider's Look at the United Effort Plan

This was originally posted at Mormon Matters.

What is happening to the financial affairs of the FLDS right now seems completely inexplicable, but I need to try to understand what is going on. And it seems to me to behoove every citizen of the United States to do the same.

This is going to be a vastly simplified version of events, as I understand them:

The FLDS are a group of people with Mormon restorationist roots who believe in principles espoused early in the history of our movement, such as plural marriage and consecration. They formed a community with its base in Colorado City, on the Utah/Arizona border in the 1930s. Their desire to live the Law of Consecration resulted in what became known as the United Effort Plan (UEP), which started as a subsidiary organization of the FLDS church. Properties and businesses were owned by the UEP and members received trusts to live on and develop.

In 2005, The Attorney General of Utah filed a lawsuit and seized the holdings of the UEP in the FLDS communities of Hildale, Utah; Colorado City, Ariz.; and Bountiful, British Columbia in Canada. It was alleged that Warren Jeffs and other FLDS leaders had mismanaged it, including defaulting on a series of civil lawsuits. An accountant, Bruce Wisan, was appointed to act as special fiduciary of the trust, with its estimated $100 million in assets.

First of all, I don't understand the legal process that could seize control of this arrangement when the majority of its members wish to continue their involvement in the United Order. Judge Denise P. Lindberg has stated in a recent ruling that because the trust is being used illegally, "to promote polygamy," that distributing the land to the FLDS church is invalid and violates basic trust law. Fundamentalist supporters make this argument:

"If a trust is declared invalid, shouldn't it simply be dissolved and the assets revert back to original ownership (or as close to it as possible)? Does the state or any court have the power to absorb private trust assets or give them to other people, based on the fact that the state and/or court do not approve of the beliefs and or practices of the organizers or beneficiaries of said trust?"

Second, Wisan appears very hostile to the aims of the UEP. Why would this Mormon Stake President be given control over how to manage the assets of several entire communities of people? It's been very, very disturbing to read reports of how the trust has been handled since he has become involved. Perhaps I'm missing something, but of their own free will these people have legally signed their property over to their church. Now, measures such as the sale of property set aside for a temple, and reforms designed to violate the rights of the FLDS to live their religion are being enacted. Little notice is being taken of the desires of those who have entered into the trust and whose financial, emotional, and spiritual interests are at stake.

In Lindberg's ruling, FLDS members and church representatives Willie Jessop, Dan Johnson, Merlin Jessop, Lyle Jeffs and James Oler were prevented from any input in the case involving the United Effort Plan (UEP) Trust.

"It is black letter law that potential beneficiaries of charitable trusts have no right to make claims upon such trusts," she wrote. "Because the UEP Trust is a charitable trust, the only individuals with legally cognizable interests are the Utah and Arizona Attorneys General as representatives of the community, and the court-designated special fiduciary."



In this country, we don't take away an individual's legal rights because he has had a consensual sexual relationship with a person other than his wife. If this person prefers to call his relationship a marriage, and connects it with his religious practice, why is there suddenly a concerted effort to deprive him of his rights?

"Principle Voices," a support group for those involved in fundamentalist Mormon lifestyles, has voiced their opposition to

1) any ruling that deprives polygamists of the right to organize or manage a trust with their own assets.

2) any ruling that declares a trust formed by polygamists as "promoting illegal activities", "invalid", un-Constitutional, or "illegal", simply because the organizers embrace plural marriage.

3) any ruling that deprives the FLDS (or any other polygamists) of the right to access their own assets or their right to self-governance. (By extension, substitute the name of any other group such as the Kingstons or the AUB, etc., in place of FLDS; we oppose any ruling or government action that would deprive any of those communities of their rights.)

4) any ruling or government action that establishes an inequity in the law that distinguishes, and diminishes, the rights of polygamists from the rights of other American citizens.

A group of people sympathetic to these points has gathered to stage a peaceful protest today (Wednesday, July 29), outside the Matheson courthouse in support of these concerns. Here the court is considering the sale of the several hundred acres of land known as Berry Knoll which has been prophesied as the future site of their temple. Do you disagree with their points? Do you feel that the rulings being contemplated in the case of the UEP constitute an inequity in the law? Do you believe, as I do, that Mormons and other citizens should have an interest in the outcome of these proceedings?

Some Must Push, and Some Must Pull

Since I didn't get my Pioneer Day fix in Sacrament Meeting this year, you'll have to indulge me as I commemorate the violently beautiful journey taken by a misunderstood and tragic people in 1847 through the 1870's. I tend to internalize the lessons that Pioneer Day teaches in a way that is truly amazing. The Mormon Pioneers are deeply symbolic to me and their stories resonate with some longing deep inside my soul. Here's a new one for me, told by Lydia Ann Lake Nelson. She crossed the plains with her family in 1850, when she was 18 years old:

In the summer of 1850 we went forth again in the time to join a company of saints moving to the Valley. My father [James Lake] was chosen captain of fifty. Our company was well supplied with provisions of food and clothing. Father had one large wagon with three yoke of oxen and a smaller one with two. Our family then consisted of father and mother [Philomena Smith Lake], my two brothers, Bailey and George, and my sister, Samantha and myself. Along with our company were my three married sisters, Sabre Dixon, Clara Taylor, and Jane Ordway and my married brother, Barney [Barnabus], who had just returned from the Mexican War. While on our way Barney’s wife [Fanny Electra Snyder Lake] was buried on the plains.

The most vivid event of the journey occurred at Green River, Wyoming. In crossing the river the wagon box floated off a wagon box and began drifting downstream. In the box were a young woman named Snyder and a little girl about nine years old. All was excitement for a few minutes. The only man in the company who dared to swim the stream and effect a rescue was a youth named Price W. Nelson, a young man who at the time I had paid no attention to. He was of quiet nature and I knew nothing of him except that he drove his aunt’s team. After this we two became better acquainted which resulted in our marriage after arriving in Salt Lake City. We were married on the last day of the year of 1850 in the old fort at Ogden. The ceremony was performed by Elder Lorin Farr. Of the many things said at the time, the prophetic utterance of Father has proved most true. He said, "Price is a good man, but will never be contented anywhere." (Nelson, Lydia Ann Lake, [Trail excerpt], in Roberta Flake Clayton, comp., Pioneer Women of Arizona, 432)

Price and Lydia lived for a year in Ogden, where their first child was born. The next year they started by team to California and while enroute fell into company with an apostate named Chapman, and five other men who were driving stock. Price went into the sawmill business and they made their home in San Bernadino. In 1857 Brigham Young issued a call to the California Saints to return to Utah. Heeding the call, they came back.

In the following years the family helped to settle Payson; Franklin, Idaho; Logan; Glendale; Lee's Ferry; Pine Creek; Cave Valley, Mexico; and Oaxaca in Sonora, Mexico. After her husband's death, Lydia lived in Tombstone, Arizona; Hubbard, Arizona; Morales, Sonora, Mexico; and Colonia Juarez, Mexico.

Price and Lydia's story captures me because they were willing to push out into the unknown without guarantees of safety or prosperity. That kind of thing scares me. I've moved 12 times in my married life, and it's always a fearful endeavor, even in these days when I know there will be a comfortable place to live when I get there! The Nelsons made mistakes, they fell in with apostates, they wandered off the trail. But when they were called, they came back. I hope I'm willing to do that in the times when I go too far astray. This pioneer family was always on the edge of the frontier with the pioneering spirit to make something out of nothing.

I have a heart to push the boundaries, to make discoveries, and to make something of my life. I want the things I do during my few years on this earth to have meaning beyond my own selfish interests, and that is why every year I celebrate Mormon pioneers.

Harry Potter, The Supernatural, and Modern Mormonism

I've got a bunch of excited kids around tonight, wearing their homemade stenciled "HP" shirts and getting ready to go to the midnight showing of Harry Potter. And it's got me thinking about the role of fantasy and the magic world view in the lives of Mormons.

Now, most Mormons are a bit different than the brand of evangelical Christian who doesn't bother reading speculative fiction and sometimes even forbids the reading of fantasy stories, especially those containing elements of magic. I personally view fantasy literature as conducive to the building of a strong imagination. How will we learn to create worlds if we don't use our minds to imagine? Fantasy also contains strong themes of good and evil, death, humanity, heroism, and friendship. Fiction is a way of exploring the real issues of our lives in a non-threatening way.

But one of the reasons I think that Mormons do not feel threatened by fantasy and literature with magical themes is that they draw a strong delineation between this type of fiction and real life. And in this I see a giant step away from our nineteenth century religious origins.

In early Mormonism there was a strong magic world view. Everyday life was a place where buried treasure in the earth slipped away just when one was about to grasp it. It was a place where angels offered their palms for a handshake. Because the supernatural was possible, God himself could come down and reveal himself to a 14-year-old seeker. In this newly restored Church, a handkerchief or a cane could heal the sick and dying. The gift of tongues was an outpouring of glossolalia, and tongues of spiritual fire leapt from the windows of dedicated temples.

The Mormons of our century are in a strange place. With our minds steeped in the scientific method, we need to presuppose a rational explanation behind each seemingly supernatural occurrence. The gift of tongues is converted to an enhanced ability to speak and understand foreign languages. Healing is "according to the Lord's will" and assisted by modern medicine. Slippery treasure becomes a metaphor for a weakening economy. Though we hesitate to claim supernatural abilities for ourselves, we are constrained to believe the mystical experiences of our forebears. We speak and teach of the metaphysical in our lessons and testimonies of Joseph Smith and the early Mormons, but hold back from experiencing such esoteric episodes.

No, the magic of Harry Potter doesn't threaten the modern Mormon. We are too far removed from it. Not ours, the fear of the fanatical Christian who worries that reading about sorcery or the occult will give a tangible devil a foothold in the human soul. We tend to read our fantasy literature from one step away. Is that how we are reading our Church history?

Church Doctrine is Like the Bloggernacle

Bloggernacle aficionados have been trying to define our little corner of the internet for years now. Everyone has a vague idea of what the term encompasses, and some stand ready to provide a concise definition, but it somehow resists pinning down. In this way, the bloggernacle is quite like Mormon doctrine* itself.

In a serious attempt to provide a working definition of the Bloggernacle, DMIDave wrote:

A Working Definition of "the Bloggernacle"

Blog•ger•nac•le \'blä-gur-na-kul\ noun [shortened from Bloggernacle Choir] (2004) 1:The set of all personal weblogs that host discussions of Mormon-related topics from a relatively faithful perspective.

In this definition Dave excluded, among others, blogs by institutions which seek to further their institutional mission or agenda, and blogs that do not have a "relatively faithful perspective." This definition, while helpful, leaves plenty of room for argument among Mormon bloggers.

In the past year, we have seen the arrival of many Mormon "Mommy bloggers" on the internet. Some of these blogs are limited to chatty accounts of daily activities and pictures of sunny, smiling children. They are considered outside the pale of the Bloggernacle because they deal with personal subjects which do not apply to all participants. But some of the Mommy blogs include discussion of Mormon topics. And some of the Mommy bloggers have close connections (spouses) to important Bloggernacle personalities. Therefore some people include them as part of their personal Bloggernacle definition, and some do not.

Mormon doctrines which are similar to the Mommy blogs might be teachings such as:

Male Priesthood holders should wear white shirts to Church, and especially when passing the sacrament.

To some this instruction may seem to be simply a practice which is not mandatory or applicable to all situations. But to others, this is a part of their "Bloggernacle." Both Jeffrey R. Holland and Dallin H. Oaks have equated this to the wearing of white clothing during sacred rites such as baptism or temple ordinances. Since apostolic authorities have taught this practice within the formal purlieu of General Conference, it is included within many members' body of doctrine.

Other blogs which are often excluded from the Bloggernacle are professional blogs. But there is a great deal of overlap from these blogs, too, making their inclusion in our genre debatable. When Dave's post was written, he specifically excluded blogs such as Sunstone blog from his personal conception of the Bloggernacle because of its corporate connection. But this calls into question blogs such as Segullah, which is also affiliated with a professional journal, yet is firmly ensconsed within the hearts of many of the Mormon bloggers. Closely related are "commercial" blogs--those which allow advertising on their sites. Should these types of blogs be included in a set of personal weblogs? I think the controversy here lies in how the blogging is implemented. Closely related in terms of Mormon doctrine are issues such as:

How shall tithing, fast offerings, home teaching, temple attendance be executed?

This can greatly differ from ward to ward, individual to individual.

There are blogs whose authors do not participate elsewhere in the Bloggernacle. Thus, they are overlooked though their blogs may fit the definition above stated. Conversely, there are blogs which may be included only because their author is a well-known commenter on the big blogs. I will compare this to doctrines which have been taught in the past and have now fallen out of favor, such as:

The planet Kolob is a planet close to the actual location of the residence of God.

or the prohibition against birth control. Or things which are now taught that never were in the past such as not having multiple piercings. These types of things find varying degrees of favor among active Mormons.

There are many doctrinal issues which are nebulous in the LDS Church. They range from the inconsequential, like whether members should use the cross as a religious symbol, to the deeply theological. Does it disturb you that there is great disagreement among members on such issues as the following:

• The possibility of movement between kingdoms in the hereafter


• Whether polygamy is practiced in the celestial kingdom


• Whether sin can be completely forgiven, as it it had never happened, or if it leaves a mark


• God is living in or out of time


• How to reconcile teachings of past prophets and present prophets


• The nature of the Fall


• The nature of the Atonement


• Whether ethnic groups such as Polynesians or Native Americans have Lamanite blood

Observing the degree of disagreement and the intense emotional reactions which occurred during our recent Niblet thread makes me wonder what it might take to set off a similar reaction in the Church concerning doctrine. Exactly how unified are our current set of Church authorities on the above issues? Is it to our benefit or detriment that these doctrines are left undefined and nebulous?
_______________________________________________________________


*For the purposes of this post I define "doctrine" as a body of teachings, principles or policies taught or advocated by a religion. Think: the many topics which merit inclusion in Bruce R. McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine."

Symonds Rider and a Crisis of Faith

On Wednesday, John Hamer at BCC put up a post about the Thomas B. Marsh strippings of milk story. This is one with which most members of the Church are familiar, as it is often used to illustrate the folly of apostatizing from the Church over a trifle. John cautions:

"Thus, while the moral the Thomas B. Marsh fable, i.e., that faith can be shattered over something inconsequential, is true enough, it would probably make sense to tell a different, more appropriate fable to illustrate that moral."

There is a different fable oft told in the Church to illustrate that moral--but I would like to show that its use is just as inappropriate, and perhaps the moral itself should be reexamined.

Symonds Ryder was a convert to the Church from the same Disciples of Christ congregation in Mantua, Ohio as Sidney Rigdon, Ezra Booth, and Eliza R. Snow and her family. He was made an Elder and called to serve a mission in a revelation that is now D&C 52. However, in the revelation, his name was spelled wrong. The misspelling of his name is often the only reason cited as the cause of his decision to then leave the church. (see B. H. Roberts in HC 1:260–61; Fawn M. Brodie in No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith the Mormon Prophet, 118; Donna Hill in Joseph Smith: The First Mormon, 143; Cannon and Cook in Far West Record, 286; Dean C. Jessee in Papers of Joseph Smith, Volume 1: Autobiographical and Historical Writings, 511.) Probably the origin of this story is his funeral sermon preached in Hiram, Ohio, August 3, 1870, by B.A. Hinsdale.

"Ryder was informed, that by special revelation he had been appointed and commissioned an elder of the Mormon church. His commission came, and he found his name misspelled. Was the Holy Spirit so fallible as to fail even in orthography? Beginning with this challenge, his strong, incisive mind and honest heart were brought to the task of re-examining the ground on which he stood. His friend Booth had been passing through a similar experience, on his pilgrimage to Missouri, and, when they met about the 1st of September, 1831, the first question which sprang from the lips of each was--"How is your faith?" and the first look into each other's faces, gave answer that the spell of enchantment was broken, and the delusion was ended. They turned from the dreams they had followed for a few months, and found more than ever before, that the religion of the New Testament was "the shadow of a great rock in a weary land." (A. S. Hayden, Early History of the Disciples (1875), p. 251.)

Perhaps the misspelling was a bother to Ryder, but this one incident was hardly the sole reason for Ryder's departure. For one thing, spelling was more fluid in the 19th century and earlier. An attempt at standardized spelling in the U.S. did not begin until the appearance of Webster's “American Dictionary of the English Language” in 1828, and for at least a half century many words continued to be vociferously debated. American census-takers varied quite a bit in their reporting of people's names, showing that they were not asking people "How is that spelled?" but rather writing the name as they thought it should appear. Ryder's name appears as following in the U.S. census:

1830 census Hiram, Portage, OH: Simonds Rider
1840 census Hiram, Portage, OH: Symonds Rider
1850 census Hiram, Portage, OH: Simonds Rider, wife Mahitabel
1860 census Hiram, Portage, OH: Symonds Rider, wife Mehitable
1870 census Hiram, Portage, OH: Symands Rider, wife Mahitable

Ryder's commission with the misspelling of his name took place in June 1831 and may account for his not going to Missouri, but as noted he did not leave the church until Ezra Booth's return in September. In the meantime, Ryder became concerned about other developments. In a letter to A.S. Hayden he wrote:

"But when they [Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon] went to Missouri to lay the foundation of the splendid city of Zion, and also of the temple, they left their papers behind. This gave their new converts an opportunity to become acquainted with the internal arrangement of their church, which revealed to them the horrid fact that a plot was laid to take their property from them and place it under the control of Joseph Smith the prophet. This was too much for the Hiramites, and they left the Mormonites faster than they had ever joined them, and by fall the Mormon church in Hiram was a very lean concern." (Symonds Ryder, "Letter to A. S. Hayden," February 1, 1868, cited in Hayden, op. cit., pp. 220, 221.)

It seems that the coming threat of enforced consecration might have been more of a problem for Ryder than the misspelling of his name. The influence of his disaffected friend Ezra Booth must have also had an effect upon Symonds.

The Religion 341 Church History manual states:

"From the outset the Church had an unpopular public image that was added to by apostates and nurtured by the circulation of negative stories and articles in the press. People gave many reasons for apostatizing. For example, Norman Brown left the Church because his horse died on the trip to Zion. Joseph Wakefield withdrew after he saw Joseph Smith playing with children upon coming down from his translating room. Symonds Ryder lost faith in Joseph’s inspiration when Ryder’s name was misspelled in his commission to preach. Others left the Church because they experienced economic difficulties."

Such a view boils the disaffection of these individuals down to a single, easily dismissed anecdote rather than acknowledging the difficult and complex issues they faced. This practice encourages members today to dismiss the very real concerns confronted by members who question aspects of the Church. "If you have questions, you must be sinning," the party line goes. In reality, there are multiple tangled and tortuous reasons why someone may develop a crisis of faith. Not only should we look deeper into the available documents to discover the motivations of historical figures, we should listen, and listen, and listen some more to come to a greater understanding of our friends and associates who question.

UPDATE: I've added this picture of Ryder's gravestone, with the name of the "Desciples" church spelled wrong!

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