Scylla and Charybdis, Mingled with Scripture

According to ancient Greek myth, Scylla was a creature who was rooted to one spot in the ocean, and regularly ate sailors who passed by too closely. Her appearance has varied in classical literature; she was described by Homer in The Odyssey as having six heads perched on long necks along with twelve feet, while in Ovid's Metamorphoses, she was depicted as having the upper body of a nymph, with her mid section composed of dog's heads. Across a narrow strait from this fearsome nymph dwelt Charybdis, the daughter of Poseidon and Gaia. She was depicted with a single gaping mouth that sucked in huge quantities of water, and belched them out three times a day, creating whirlpools.

Click here to read the rest!

Everything You Need is in the Manual

A Church News article published this weekend instructs Church teachers to stick to official sources in preparing their lessons. "Everything you need — and more — is in your manual," it proclaims. This type of emphasis concerns me greatly.

Click here to read the rest!

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.

Click here to read the rest!

Jesus is our Temple Recommend

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

Click here to read the rest!

Playing the Devil's Advocate with Kevin Barney's Article on Heavenly Mother

By now, those in the know have clicked on the link at the Dialogue journal website to read the free preview of Kevin Barney's article, "How to Worship our Heavenly Mother (Without Getting Excommunicated)." For quite a while I have been hearing about and greatly anticipating the appearance of this scholarly comparison of the Mormon Mother in Heaven with the female deity Asherah. And my readers will know of the great admiration I have for Kevin Barney's research, writing, and opinions. So it is with some regret that I feel compelled to point out some dangers and flaws in this piece.

Click here to read the rest!

The Dream Mine Today

A man named Delynn "Doc" Hansen is perhaps one of the best current sources of information on the Dream Mine on the internet. He describes himself as follows:

I became interested in Bishop Koyle and his Dream Mine starting back in the 1950's as a child. I was drawn to it like a magnet. When I was 28 and fresh out of college in practice, the Spirit told me to call the Relief Mine office. I didn't think they would have a phone as the project seemed dead. I phoned and talked to the president of the board, Quayle Dixon. The Spirit also told me to take $300. which was every last cent I had. My wife and I went up to the mine and talked to Bro. Dixon for 3 hours. The Spirit testified to both of us throughout the 3 hours. At the end...he said that Koyle recommended that a family have 100 shares of stock to see them through the hard time ahead. At $3. a share...it came to $300...so we bought our first stock.

Click here to read the rest!

BYU Idaho Anti-Porn Employment Letter

Your comments?

White Shirts: The Best Look in the World

Jamie Lee Curtis has said that there is nothing sexier than a man in a white shirt, and I am going to have to agree with her statement. MoJo says it's one of the top ten fashion essentials for men (make sure it's crisp, white cotton). A fitted, white shirt was the look of the month on the men's fashion blog iluwfashion in May (check the link to read about the holy aura it has, and for tips to keep your shirt whiter than cocaine). Yes, there's a reason James Bond wears a white shirt.



On a spiritual note, my mission president in the MTC said that seeing all the missionaries dressed in white shirts reminded him symbolically of the white stones the Jaredites kept in their barges, giving light to steer by. In 1996 Elder Holland called the white shirt worn while passing the sacrament "ceremonial clothing." And in our recent General Conference Elder Oaks used white shirts to connect the ordinances of baptism, the sacrament, and temple covenants. So really, what man wouldn't want to avail himself of the privilege of wearing a white shirt on Sundays?

Who wouldn't want to arrive at Church looking like Orlando Bloom at Loews Lincoln Square NYC?



And you can always ditch the tie after passing the sacrament for the Johnny Depp look:



But if the above tips aren't individual enough for you, take some hints from SNL on making the white shirt the "best look in the world!"

Church Handbook of Instructions, Disciplinary Councils, and Prop 8

It has come to my attention that a member of the Church may soon face a disciplinary council for his opposition to Prop 8 in California. I thought it would be interesting to review what the Church Handbook of Instructions has to say about disciplinary councils:

Disciplinary Councils

Because formal Church discipline is ecclesiastical, not civil or criminal, court procedures of the state or nation do not apply. However, procedures in a Church disciplinary council must be fair and considerate of the feelings of all who participate.

When a Disciplinary Council Is Mandatory

A disciplinary council must be held when evidence suggests that a member may have committed any of the following transgressions.

Murder

As used here, murder refers to the deliberate and unjustified taking of human life. It requires excommunication. Abortion is not defined as murder for this purpose. If death was caused by carelessness or by defense of self or others, or if mitigating circumstances prevail (such as deficient mental capacity or wartime conditions), the taking of a human life might not be defined as murder. Bishops refer questions on specific cases to the stake president. He may direct questions to the Office of the First Presidency if necessary

Incest

As used here, incest refers to sexual relations between a parent and a natural, adopted, or foster child or stepchild. A grandparent is considered the same as a parent. Incest also refers to sexual relations between brothers and sisters. It almost always requires excommunication. Bishops refer questions on specific cases to the stake president. He may direct questions to the Office of the First Presidency if necessary.

Child Abuse

As used here, child abuse refers to a sexual offense against or serious physical abuse of a child. If priesthood leaders learn of or suspect child abuse, they should follow the instructions on pages 157-58.

Apostasy
As used here, apostasy refers to members who:

1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.

2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishops or higher authority

3. Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or higher authority.

In such cases, excommunication may be necessary if repentance is not evident after counseling and encouragement.

Priesthood leaders must take disciplinary action against apostates to protect Church members. The Savior taught the Nephites that they should continue to minister to a transgressor, but "if he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people, that he may not destroy my people" (3 Nephi 18:31; see also Mosiah 26:36).

Total inactivity in the Church or attending or holding membership in another church does not constitute apostasy.

Serious Transgression While Holding a Prominent Church Position

A disciplinary council must be held for a member who commits a serious transgression while holding a prominent Church position, such as Area Authority Seventy; temple, mission, or stake president; patriarch; or bishop. As used here, serious transgression is defined as a deliberate and major offense against morality. It includes (but is not limited to) attempted murder, rape, forcible sexual abuse, spouse abuse, intentional serious physical injury of others, adultery, fornication, homosexual relations, deliberate abandonment of family responsibilities, robbery, burglary, theft, embezzlement, sale of illegal drugs, fraud, perjury, and false swearing.

Transgressor Who Is a Predator

A disciplinary council must be held for a member who commits a serious transgression that shows him to be a predator with tendencies that present any kind of serious threat to other persons.

Pattern of Serious Transgressions

A disciplinary council must be held for a member who demonstrates a pattern of serious transgressions, especially if prior transgressions have resulted in Church discipline.

Serious Transgression That Is Widely Known

A disciplinary council must be held for a member who commits a serious transgression (as defined under "Serious Transgression While Holding a Prominent Church Position" on this page) that is widely known.

When a Disciplinary Council May Be Necessary

Serious Transgression

Formal Church discipline may be necessary for any member who commits a serious transgression as defined under "Serious Transgression While Holding a Prominent Church Position" on this page.

Abortion

Presiding officers review carefully the circumstances of members involved in abortions. Formal Church discipline may be necessary for members who submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for abortions. However, Church discipline should not be considered for members who were involved in an abortion before they were baptized or because (1) the pregnancy resulted from forcible rape or incest, (2) the life or health of the mother was in jeopardy, or (3) the fetus was known to have severe defects that would not allow the baby to survive beyond birth (see page 157). Bishops refer questions on specific cases to the stake president. He may direct questions to the Office of the First Presidency if necessary.

Transsexual Operation

Church leaders counsel against elective transsexual operations. If a member is contemplating such an operation, a presiding officer should inform him of this counsel and advise him that the operation may be cause for formal Church discipline. Bishops refer questions on specific cases to the stake president. He may direct questions to the Office of the First Presidency if necessary.

Request for Name Removal

If a member requests that his name be removed from the records of the Church, a disciplinary council may still be necessary if he has committed a serious transgression. Name removal should not be used as a substitute for or alternative to Church discipline. For instructions in these circumstances, see page 130.

When a Disciplinary Council Is Not Necessary

A disciplinary council normally is not necessary in the following instances.

Failure to Comply with Some Church Standards

A disciplinary council should not be held to discipline or threaten members who do not comply with the Word of Wisdom or whose transgressions consist of omissions, such as failure to pay tithing, inactivity in the Church, or inattention to Church duties.

Business Failures or Nonpayment of Debts

Leaders or members should not use the threat of Church discipline as a form of harassment or as a device to settle business controversies. Business failures and nonpayment of debts are not reasons for convening a disciplinary council. However, a disciplinary council may be held for deceptive practices, false representations, or other forms of fraud or dishonesty in business transactions.

Civil Disputes

Disciplinary councils should not attempt to resolve disputes over property rights or other civil controversies. However, if such a dispute involves accusations that a member has committed acts that would justify Church discipline, the accusations should be treated like any other accusations of transgression.

IF Church leaders are asked to help settle civil disputes, they should act as unofficial, private advisers and should not involve the Church.

Passage of Time

If a member voluntarily confesses a serious transgression that was committed long ago and his faithfulness and service in the intervening years have demonstrated full reformation and repentance, a disciplinary council often is unnecessary.

From your reading of the above instructions, do you feel that local Church leaders are justified in convening a Church court in cases of opposition to Prop 8 in California? For the purposes of our discussion, let us assume that the member has been quite active in his dissent, writing letters to Stake Presidents and Bishops expressing his disagreement with the Church's stance on this issue, and also being involved in collecting signatures online. Let us also assume that the member has been inactive in the Church for some time but has no other issues or transgressions which need to be addressed. Why do you think the Church should or should not hold a Disciplinary Council against such a person?

The Church Handbook gives three purposes of such discipline:
(1) to save the souls of transgressors
(2) to protect the innocent
(3) to safeguard the purity, integrity, and good name of the Church.

Do you think that holding a Church court in this instance would accomplish any of the above purposes?

Please DON'T Follow Along in Your Own Scriptures...

cross-posted at FMH, see comments there.

Some of you have already heard about the recent direction to LDS sacrament meeting speakers not to ask their listeners to follow along with their scriptural citations. In many wards, a letter has already been read over the pulpit, stating in part:

"In order to maintain an atmosphere of reverent worship in our sacrament and stake conference meetings, when speakers use scriptures as part of their talks they should not ask the congregation to open their own books to the scriptural reference. Also, members should not use visual aids and their sacrament meeting or stake conference talks. Such teaching methods are more effective in classroom settings and leadership meetings. We believe these adjustments will enhance the spirit of our worship services.”

When I first heard these directions I was puzzled. Why would turning to the scriptures detract from the spirit of meetings? I wondered about these things, but wasn't unduly bothered.

UNTIL today when I heard a more detailed explanation. I am visiting in Utah, and attended my daughter's BYU ward today. After two short talks on the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood, the Bishop stood up to speak. He first addressed his remarks to those who might have been worried that women could not participate in the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood. He said that having the responsibility for the ordinances compared to his being the wage-earner for the family. "I go to the bank and put in the money," he said, "and my wife uses the account and spends it all. She has all the blessings and I have the responsibilities."

Next he turned his attention to those who might have been bothered by the recent instructions about Sacrament Meetings. He mentioned that he had been invited to a special leadership meeting to explain the rationale behind this. He told the congregation that whoever is presiding in a meeting is the authority and should not allow his power to be lost. This power would be taken away if a speaker said, "will the audience please do such-and-such." In the same way, he continued, a chorister should not ask the audience to stand, but should instead turn to the Bishop and ask his permission for such an action to be performed.

I was horrified that this was the reasoning behind the recent change. Do we think we are going a bit overboard on the power trip?????

When The Constitution Hangs By A Thread--Part Three

(Please note that this post is informed by views expressed in Part One and Part Two of the series.)

In Part 3 of this exploration, I would like to examine not the morality of Gay marriage, but the Constitutionality. At the heart of this issue lies the intention of the Constitution of the United States to "...secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." (Preamble) The Church teaches that same-sex marriage is immoral and therefore should not be allowed. This religious argument is contrary to the First Amendment, which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…" The framers thus sought to protect all Americans from the religious zealotry of a few. Some religious groups do not allow same-gender marriages, and others now recognize those marriages, even allowing clergy in local areas to perform same-gender marriage ceremonies. Should Americans be made to honor a conception of the Creator they don’t agree with? Of course not! This is why we have separation of Church and State.

The LDS Church has thrown a lot of time and money into supporting amendments to the federal and to state Constitutions which would preserve "traditional" marriage. An amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not feasible, as such decisions are clearly left up to the states to decide (Tenth Amendment). Besides, the blatant discrimination would violate Amendment Fourteen, which states: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Such an Amendment is as laughable as the first proposed Constitutional Amendment on the subject of marriage (1912):

Congressional Record, 62nd Cong., 3rd sess., Dec. 11, 1912. Vol 49, p. 502

Mr. RODDENBERY. ( ... ) The resolution to which I make reference is one already introduced by me, providing for an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, with the usual resolving clause, and the article is as follows:

That intermarriage between negroes or persons of color and Caucasians or any other character of persons within the United States or any territory under their jurisdiction, is forever prohibited; and the term "negro or person of color," as here employed, shall be held to mean any and all persons of African descent or having any trace of African or negro blood.

This proposed amendment was unconstitutional because it denied one group of people the equal protection of law (Article Four, Amendment Nine and Fourteen).

The Federal Marriage Amendment, which is supported by the Church treads upon the same shaky ground. It's been very confusing to me to see how the Church feels free to step in to this "moral issue," even though it is one which threatens the Constitutional rights of a large group of people. Perhaps what bothers me the most is the wording of the proposed amendments to both Federal and various state Constitutions, which would define marriage in the United States as a union of one man and one woman. By supporting this, is the Church burning all of its bridges and more or less making a declaration that it will never again practice or support polygamy? It feels like a repudiation and denial of our past.

Though I don't believe the Church as an institution should directly interfere in these matters, it seems to me that if they were to support a course of action to reinforce the moral stand they have taken, they should look at how the issue was handled in Vermont. This state allows same-sex couples to enter into civil unions or domestic partnerships that provide some of the rights and responsibilities of marriage under state law. This protects the unique institution of conjugal marriage and does not force any religious group to change its theology or traditions, as well as preserving Constitutional rights.

Readers, do you think the Church's involvement in the proposed marriage amendments is supportive of the Constitution (our Heavenly Banner)? Do you think that by supporting marriage for one man and one woman the Church is repudiating plural marriage as an eternal principle?

My brethren and sisters, I hope that we will go home from this conference determined as a great body of people, to stand for law, order, righteousness, justice and peace on earth and good will among all men. I believe as the Prophet Joseph has written, that the day would come when there would be so much of disorder, of secret combinations taking the law into their own hands, tramping upon Constitutional rights and the liberties of the people, that the Constitution would hang as by a thread. Yes, but it will still hang, and there will be enough of good people, many who may not belong to our Church at all, people who have respect for law and for order, and for Constitutional rights, who will rally around with us and save the Constitution. I have never read that that thread would be cut. It will hang; the Constitution will abide and this civilization, that the Lord has caused to be built up, will stand fortified through the power of God, by putting from our hearts all that is evil, or that is wrong in the sight of God, by our living as we should live, acceptable to him. (Charles W. Nibley, Conference Report, October 1922, p. 40.)

It was Joseph Smith who has been quoted as having said that the time would come when the Constitution would hang as by a thread and at that time when it was thus in jeopardy, the elders of this Church would step forth and save it from destruction.
Why the elders of this Church? Would it be sacrilegious to paraphrase the words of the Apostle Peter, and say that the Constitution of the United States could be saved by the elders of this Church because this Church and this Church alone has the words of eternal life? We alone know by revelation as to how the Constitution came into being, and we, alone, know by revelation the destiny of this nation. The preservation of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” can be guaranteed upon no other basis than upon a sincere faith and testimony of the divinity of these teachings. (Harold B. Lee, Conference Report, October 1952, p. 18.)

When The Constitution Hangs By A Thread--Part Two

Let us very quickly review two of the Constitutional Amendments which apply to the FLDS situation in Texas:

• First Amendment: addresses the rights of freedom of religion (prohibiting Congressional establishment of a religion over another religion through Law and protecting the right to free exercise of religion), freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of petition.


• Fourth Amendment: guards against searches, arrests, and seizures of property without a specific warrant or a "probable cause" to believe a crime has been committed. Some rights to privacy have been inferred from this amendment and others by the Supreme Court.

And here are two other Amendments which may very likely come into play before the trial has run its course:

• Fifth Amendment: among other things, forbids punishment without due process of law; and prohibits government from taking private property without just compensation.


• Sixth Amendment: guarantees a speedy public trial for criminal offenses. It requires trial by a jury, guarantees the right to legal counsel for the accused, and guarantees that the accused may require witnesses to attend the trial and testify in the presence of the accused. It also guarantees the accused a right to know the charges against him.

These form part of the Bill of Rights, which consists of the first ten Amendments to the Constitution. In addition, I would like to provide a definition of statutory rape:

The criminal offense of statutory rape is committed when an adult sexually penetrates a person who, under the law, is incapable of consenting to sex. Overt force or threat need not be present. The age of consent and other differentials are to be determined by the state. In Texas, for instance, the age of consent is 17 and the minimum age of child is 14 with an age differential of 3 years; thus, individuals who are at least 14 years of age can legally engage in sexual activities if the defendant is less than 3 years older than the accuser. In addition, Texas stipulates an exception to their statutory rape laws if the adult and child are legally married during the time of commission of sexual conduct.

I must point out that the state has yet to uncover a single case of statutory rape. They are unable to show that any law has been broken. They rely on rumor, bigotry, and the assumption that all the FLDS are equally guilty. Perhaps there will be a few cases which could better, more cheaply, and with less psychological damage be investigated by observing the few girls between the ages of 14 and 17 in their own environment, with the men removed from the situation. On the other hand, those who have been following recent news reports are aware that

1. Texas CPS is violating the First Amendment by their disregard for the religious practices of the FLDS. Parents have said their children's copies of the Book of Mormon were removed because photographs of Jeffs were taped inside. Caseworkers also have said collections of sermons by Jeffs and other FLDS prophets need review before they are given to the children. There's a slight problem with this line of reasoning. Under the Constitution, parents can teach their children ANYTHING, with no exceptions. Even parents' teaching children to revere a convicted criminal is NOT grounds for terminating parental rights. Jesus was a convicted criminal in the eyes of the law. We don't terminate the parental rights of Christians.


2. Texas CPS was aware of the fraudulent nature of the phone call reporting abuse before entering the YFZ ranch and seizing children and evidence and desecrating their temple; violating the Fourth Amendment..


3. Texas officials have been directed to investigate the possibility of using the assets of the ranch to pay for the costs of the debacle (Fifth Amendment).


4. The Texas court system is punishing innocent parties who have no connection to statutory rape by considering the entire community of over 700 people as one household (Fifth and Sixth Amendments).

There are many, many other problems happening in this case. One wonders what the specific individual charges against each family could be that would keep them from their children until next April; and why issues such as homeschooling, location of residence, educational and vocational training and religious affiliation should be addressed in the plans for their reunification. The families were legally schooling their children, and all were self-supporting. None were found to be on government assistance.

Let us look at but one example. Louisa Barlow Jessop is age 22. She is one of the three girls who were found to be pregnant at the time of the seizure. CPS would not initially accept her legal documentation as proof of her age, but tried to classify her as a minor. She and her husband Dan are not polygamists. They have two children ages 2 and 3; and she gave birth to another on May 12. The couple is subject to the same plans as the other families, meaning the earliest they might hope to regain custody of their children is next April. Judge Thomas Gossett said a "wide loop" had been thrown around the FLDS community that might not fit all parents. If those allegations prove unfounded, "I'll be the first to apologize to you if it turns out you're not a person who has abused your child," the judge told Dan Jessop, who was in the courtroom. "There is no proof of abuse in your case. That gives you a leg up." I'm sure this apology appeases a family who has been separated for over 6 weeks already, and has no hope of being together or back in their home for at least a year. Reading case after case of similar stories breaks my heart.

Because this case is so very similar to the violations perpetrated against the Latter-day Saints in the nineteenth century, I find it incomprehensible that the Mormon Church has done nothing but distance themselves from the case. For a people who considers themselves the defenders of the Constitution, even the very ones who will save it when it is dangling by a thread, I cannot understand this position.

LDS attachment to the Constitution has been encouraged by an important oral tradition deriving from a statement attributed to Joseph Smith, according to which the Constitution would “hang by a thread” and be rescued, if at all, only with the help of the Saints. Church President John Taylor seemed to go further when he prophesied, “When the people shall have torn to shreds the Constitution of the United States the Elders of Israel will be found holding it up to the nations of the earth and proclaiming liberty and equal rights to all men” (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol. 1, CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.)

The Prophet Joseph told us that he saw the day when even the Constitution of the United States would be torn and hang as by a thread. But, thank the Lord, the thread did not break. He saw the day when this people would be a balance of power to come to its defense. (Melvin J. Ballard, Conference Report, October 1928, p. 108)

I have two questions for my readers.

Do you agree that the way this case has been handled weakens the Constitution?

Do you feel that Joseph Smith's prophecy compels us to respond? If not, why? And if so, what can we do as an institution and/or individuals?

When The Constitution Hangs By A Thread--Part One

In a 1991 address, BYU President Rex E. Lee noted that compared to any other kind of law--including statutory, regulatory, or judge-made common law--constitutional law is very difficult to make or change.

"The central feature of the American Constitution is that with only one exception [the Thirteenth Amendment, prohibits slavery], its provisions are confined to limiting the powers of government... The Constitution contains some fairly obvious, though not always specific, prohibitions concerning what government--federal, state, or local--can do to its citizens. Some of the most prominent are protections for the criminally accused, such as the privilege against self-incrimination, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to counsel, and jury trial."

Lee goes on to discuss how spreading the powers of government among several separate entities and by making each a competitor with the others makes it less likely that these entities can gain the power to become oppressive. Without the Constitution and the rights that were guaranteed to us, the Mormons would not have survived as a people. This was the only nation and the only set of laws under which the Lord could have restored his Church.

Despite its strength, Latter-day Saints have been warned that one day the Constitution would be found in danger. The Prophet Joseph Smith thus prophesied in his famous "hanging by a thread" speech; and more than half of his successors repeated the admonition. I am well aware that Joseph's declaration has been quoted every time a tax increase comes along, or a failure to collect the garbage on time, or during a boundary dispute with a neighbor, as Lee so humorously puts it.

But today we have before us two Constitutional issues which deeply concern the Latter-day Saints. The first is the actions of the Texas legal system against the FLDS at the Yearning for Zion ranch. The second is the ruling of the California Supreme Court that a ban on gay marriage violates its constitution.

These two issues are of extreme importance to Mormons as they strike to the heart of the Proclamation on the Family. In the coming week I plan to discuss each issue, examine the Constitutional issues at stake, and probe the responsibilities of Mormons to engage these topics. I find it interesting that despite their relevance, the Church hierarchy has seen fit to combat one, while doing everything possible to distance themselves from the other.

How deeply should the Church be involved in these Texas and California legal battles? There are at least two perspectives. One view points out that the Church represents itself as non-partisan and should not throw its weight and the tithing money of its diverse membership into political issues. Another position is that the Church must take a stand on moral matters. The Joseph Smith prophecy is instructive in this regard:

"When the Constitution of the United States hangs, as it were, upon a single thread, they will have to call for the Mormon elders to save it from utter destruction; and they will step forth and do it." –Brigham Young, JD 2:182, February 18, 1855

"I believe that it is the destiny of the Latter-day Saints to support the Constitution of the United States. The Prophet Joseph Smith is alleged to have said—and I believe he did say it—that the day would come when the Constitution would hang as by a thread. But he saw that the thread did not break, thank the Lord, and that the Latter-day Saints would become a balance of power, with others, to preserve that Constitution. If there is—and there is one part of the Constitution hanging as by a thread today—where do the Latter-day Saints belong? Their place is to rally to the support of that Constitution, and maintain it and defend it and support it by their lives and by their vote. Let us not disappoint God nor his prophet. Our place is fixed." -Melvin J. Ballard, Conference Report, April 1933, p. 127.

What part will we have in the coming days and months, in supporting the Constitution of the United States? What form might this support take? Please comment with your opinion, and come back for Parts 2 and 3 of this discussion.

Should the Church Handbook of Instructions Be Made Available to Members? OR Can the Genie Be Put Back Into the Bottle?

By now, many of you are aware that a 1998 version of the Church Handbook of Instructions was briefly posted online by Wikinews. The Church submitted a copyright infringement claim against the Wikimedia foundation, but the material which has been disseminated is likely to remain freely available.

Traditionally, the material in the Church Handbook has been strictly confidential. Church leaders and members seem to be as secretive about the instructions in the Handbook as they are about Temple ordinances. As a member of various Auxiliary presidencies, I have seen portions of the Handbook. However, this is the first time I have read it in its entirety.

Much of the Handbook is information of which members are quite familiar. Indeed, I wonder why the whole thing is not placed on the Church website for all to peruse. There are certainly some sensitive passages, but I imagine that the members should be more aware of these restrictions if they are to align their personal lives with Church teachings. For example, here are some instructions I was not aware were official:

• Persons who are considering an elective transsexual operation should not be baptized. Persons who have already undergone an elective transsexual operation may be baptized if they are otherwise found worthy in an interview with the mission president or a priesthood leader he assigns. Such persons may not receive the priesthood or a temple recommend.



• Although the sacrament is for Church members, the bishopric should not announce that it will be passed to members only, and nothing should be done to prevent nonmembers from partaking of the sacrament.



• Local Church leaders should discourage adopted children and their adoptive parents from seeking to identify the children's natural parents.



• The Church uses the King James Version of the Bible for English-speaking members. The First Presidency has stated:
  "Many versions of the Bible are available today. ... The most reliable way to measure the accuracy of any biblical passage is not by comparing different texts, but by comparison with the Book of Mormon and modern-day revelations. While other Bible versions may be easier to read than the King James Version, in doctrinal matters latter-day revelation supports the King James Version in preference to other English translations" (First Presidency letter, 22 May 1992). Ideally, English-speaking members should use LDS edition of the King James Bible.



• Euthanasia is defined as deliberately putting to death a person who is suffering from an incurable condition or disease. A person who participates in euthanasia, including so-called assisted suicide, violates the commandments of God.

From these selected examples, do you think the Church Handbook should be generally available? Do you think it would help members to be aware of these types of instructions? How can we follow Church policy if we do not know what it is? Does any of this information in the Handbook come as a surprise to you?

As for me, I really see no advantage of making the Handbook available only to selected Church leaders, unless it is that if they do not agree with any of the official policies, they do not have to make them known among the membership in their area!