A Model for Mormon Military Service

The news recently has brought up the idea that, despite the large number of Mormons that support the Iraq War, the members and LDS Church itself are skipping out on serving in the military. The implication is that Mormon are cowards, or worse. With so many of the recent commentaries on war and the military, the subject starts with Vietnam and ignores all other wars. To be fair, the history of Mormons and the military is a complicated subject that can’t, like so many other things, be examined in a sound bite. There are religious and cultural reasons for the diverse approach to military involvement.

Much of the attention on Mormonism these days comes from the media, hyped by Mitt Romney’s entrance into the presidential race. The subject of Mormons and the military is no different. The focus started with Mitt Romney who is often portrayed as a Vietnam draft dodger. This would be a simple political attack if it weren’t for the way Mormons have been used to create this image. He, like so many Mormons before and after him, passed on the draft for religious reasons. He served a mission in France and later drew a high number when he returned. Others have picked up on this and pointed to the whole idea of missions replacing military services as a way to get out of harms way.

It hasn’t ended with him, but has continued unabashedly by attacking his mission serving sons who they believe at least one of them should have gone to Iraq. Yes, that is the focal point like so many other discussions these days. The contention is that if you support Iraq than you or your children should join the military. That is, to the critics, the only recognized way to support the Iraq war. Despite the rather badly worded way Romney explained it, apparently by saying his children are supporting the war by participating in his presidential run, he has expanded support to include serving your country at home or another capacity abroad. Many, including some Conservatives, have rejected this idea believing that if you support the war you fight and you do something else if you don’t.

It appears that to a large degree Mormons reject the idea that you have to serve in the military to support war efforts. As one person put it:

I would like to make a few observations about Mitt Romney’s sons: (1)- They are married and have kids of their own. Should they just leave their families and go join the military? Is taking care of their wives and kids an important obligation? I think most of them if not all were married before this big deal with Iraq ever started. (2)- Each of Romney’s sons have served a mission for their Church ( two years).
I’m sure that Mitt Romney and his sons support our troops 100%. Let’s not be too quick to judge

In other words, to live a good life and serve in other less dangerous capacities is equal to serving in the military in times of war. Without going into philosophical discussions of how right or wrong that might be, it is interesting to see where that has come from. It isn’t a spur of the moment defense. There is precedence for such an attitude because of the ambiguous nature of Mormon beliefs about war.

The basic template is the Book of Mormon. It is an interesting exploration of both the necessity and the horrors of participating in war. The editor is said to be the military hero Mormon, where the book gets its name, who was trained as a young boy to battle the Lamanites out to destroy his people. It is natural that such a person would focus so much on the wars and contentions of history. However, there is an undercurrent that can be hard to miss if reading carefully that war is not a glorious heroic struggle. It can make heroes, but only at a high cost of human lives and even civilization. Usually the end result of war is destruction as the major theme throughout the Book of Mormon shows.

The greatest military hero is Moroni, who rent his coat and wrote on it, “In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children.” He fought against both Lamanite and unrighteous Nephite in defense of freedoms. What made him famous according to a reading of the Book of Mormon was not any particular battles, but his belief in pacifism in the face of war. He continually sought to end the conflict by ending a battle early and asking his enemies to go home. They rejected the offer every time and he fought them until they gave up. In the end he went off back to his land and retired in peace.

The idea that a Mission is equal to service in the military can also be found in the Book of Mormon when a small group decided peace was better achieved by missionary service than fighting:

1 Now it came to pass that after the sons of Mosiah had done all these things, they took a small number with them and returned to their father, the king, and desired of him that he would grant unto them that they might, with these whom they had selected, go up to the land of Nephi that they might preach the things which they had heard, and that they might impart the word of God to their brethren, the Lamanites—

2. That perhaps they might bring them to the knowledge of the Lord their God, and convince them of the iniquity of their fathers; and that perhaps they might cure them of their hatred towards the Nephites, that they might also be brought to rejoice in the Lord their God, that they might become friendly to one another, and that there should be no more contentions in all the land which the Lord their God had given them.

It is this example that more than anything explains the Mormon attitude that a mission is equal to military service when it comes to defending the country. To get to know others and preach the gospel is considered, regardless what those not of the faith believe, a better military strategy than the outright destruction of life and property.

The history of Mormon involvement in the military outside of Scripture is equally as varied in approach. Support since the founding of the LDS Church has been mixed. Joseph Smith created “The Nauvoo Legion,” a para-military organization similar to many of the time. It was perhaps larger than any the United States had during the 1840s. It was primarily to protect the Latter-day Saints, to the fear of outsiders, instead of any national interest. On the way to Utah after having been forced out of the United States, there was a futile show of patriotic support by answering the call of enlistment during the War with Mexico. The famous Mormon Battalion was formed to march to California. The group never saw actual combat, but was still praised:

The 339 survivors who at last struggled into San Diego that lovely midwinter day in January 1847 each bore a wild but strangely holy countenance. They had made it. They had come through for their country and for Zion. On the morning after their arrival, Colonel Cooke wrote: “The Lieutenant-Colonel commanding congratulates the Battalion on their safe arrival on the shore of the Pacific Ocean and the conclusion of their march of over two thousand miles. History may be searched in vain for an equal march of infantry.”6

World War I and II were perhaps the Mormon highlight of traditional ideals for serving the country in times of war. Even during these conflicts there were some leaders of the LDS Church who were skeptical of getting involved. Many Mormons returned from missions and were sent into combat. The most memorable stories of these conflicts are actually the complete opposite of the Son’s of Mosiah example. Those who were at first teaching people in the “enemy territory” were now fighting them. In other words, yet another example of the Mormon ideal that participating in battle does not make for a better support of war efforts.

It is during the Korean and Vietnam War era that missions and military service were in open conflict. The LDS Church wanted to increase its missionary service in order to follow the religious mandate to preach the Gospel to all the world. The United States government had other plans and often interfered in the number of missionaries that could be sent. It was the Vietnam War that caused a compromise where a certain number of men had to go to Vietnam from each Ward (Congregation), leaving a select few to go on missions. In some ways, the compromise has its continued relevance to more recent conflicts. On the other hand, there has always been an uneasy alliance between Mormon attitudes about serving in the military and religious devotion. Feelings about War can be highly patriotic and supportive, but at the same time it doesn’t always equate with serving in the military during those same conflicts. It is not something easy to explain, and can be seen by those not familiar with Mormon religion and history as hypocrisy. However, it is not a defensive attitude trying to stay safe at home. It is a worldview that others reject or don’t understand. Even Mormons probably are not aware of it because the ingrained cultural ideals go so far back. There is no positive term for a hometown warrior or peace soldier.

The "Mere Christianity" Reviews

One of the most quoted non-Mormons by LDS General Authorities is C.S. Lewis, the famous Christian apologist. Considering how much he is quoted by them, it seemed a good idea to compare his ideas to Mormon thought and beliefs. Reading his introduction to Christian faith "Mere Christianity" was frustrating. His theology was at best problematic and the arguments sometimes contradictory. Probably his strongest writing is when discussing morality. Much of what he says on that topic could be acceptable regardless of religious affiliation.

Book I: Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe

Book II: What Christians Believe

Book III: Christian Behaviour

Book IV: Beyond Personality: Or First Steps in the Doctrine of the Trinity

A Final "Mere Christianity" Note

Book IV: Beyond Personality: Or First Steps in the Doctrine of the Trinity

There will not be a full review of the final section of C.S. Lewis's classic because Mormons can get the least out of it. As the name "Beyond Personality: Or First Steps In the Doctrine of the Trinity" implies, it is a defense of Trinitarian beliefs. Although he might say one or two phrases that Mormons could recognize, the concepts are completely opposite of each other. It is for this reason that I will only touch on his main themes rather than a longer review. To do otherwise is to not say much good and therefore end up sounding more hostile than intended.

To start with, he should have taken up the advice of those who said, "the ordinary reader does not want theology," because he ends up alienating most people he intends to educate. He still holds Christianity as a supreme religion with flimsy proof. This is especially the case when he states, "We cannot compete, in simplicity, with people who are inventing religions. How could we? We are dealing with fact" (pg. 165). Such a bold statement is hard to believe considering most of his arguments are, by his own admission, philosophic theories. Not to mention there are very few simple religions without a degree of stereotyping creating that impression. Some religions are numerically larger and existed longer than the upstart Christianity he is so fond of defending.

Most of his theory in this section breaks down into two parts. He calls the first Bios, or the physical and the second Zoe or the eternal spiritual. Like Greek philosophy the physical is seen as simply a false "statue" of the super-reality living spiritual world. He breaks the difference between humans and Jesus Christ as "making" and "Begetting". Something is made that is not oneself and another thing is begotten that is born near identical. He completely rejects the Mormon teaching that humans had a spirit born of God before mortality even as there was a physical creation. To C.S. Lewis, humans are compared to slugs or crabs.

As was said, his main defense is the doctrine of what he calls "The Three-Personal God" of Trinitarians. To help his readers understand the concept he compares it to a Two Dimensional person trying to understand a Three Dimensional world. From a limited perspective a cube looks like a square (pg. 162). The Trinity is compared to a group of people that form a corporate behavior, yet rejects any individuality in the relationship. Jesus existed eternally with God so that God could have someone to Love (a very important attribute to His nature), and yet Jesus is part of God. It ends up sounding like a shallow self Love of a split personality. He concludes his description of the Trinity by saying God could be considered in front of you noticed, Jesus as beside you helping, and the Holy Ghost within or behind you. Although he talks of them as super-personalities, they are far from actual people. For Christians, compared to all other religions, "God is not a static thing - not even a person - but a dynamic, pulsating activity, a life, almost a kind of drama" (pg. 175). It is that old oxymoron of God as more real that reality, but yet more of a concept than a thing. It is at this point that a full review becomes difficult. If Mormonism is compared to "Science-Fiction" than it is only right to compare most other religions as "Fantasy" with the convoluted explanations.

Once again C.S. Lewis rejects an idea from other religions that he co-ops in a different disguise for his Christian beliefs. He says:

Again, some people think that after this life, or perhaps after several lives, human souls will be "absorbed" into God. But, when they try to explain what they mean, they seem to be thinking of our being absorbed into God as one material thing is absorbed into another. They say it is like a drop of water slipping into the sea. But of course that is the end of the drop. If that happens to us, then being absorbed is the same as ceasing to exist . . .

With some irony that he doesn't acknowledge, he states, "It is only the Christians who have any idea of how human souls can be taken into the life of God and yet remain themselves - in fact, be very much more themselves than they were before" (pg. 161). He doesn't reject the concept, but only the details. Here is where his belief in Trinitarianism is coupled with the rest of what he has said before. He had hinted that the Atonement brings humans to a higher spiritual level, and now he will say what is important about that level. At first his idea that "if we share in this kind of life we also shall be sons of God" and "Every Christian is to become a little Christ" (pg. 171) could be acceptable to Mormons. However, his meaning is very different. As more than implied above, the reason for Christ's atonement is to help humans be "absorbed" into God. In effect, ultimately those who are saved will become more than like God, but become a part of God. The logical conclusion that it is hard to know if he recognizes is that "The Three-Personal God" with adding humans becomes "The Billion-Personal God" once salvation is reached. How this works with his belief in the Resurrection of the body is never explained. There are just too many holes that will be put at arms length.

Probably the most helpful chapter for Mormons is the one that describes God as outside of time (pg. 166-171). The best way to describe it is that Time is always in front of God, with Him living in the eternal Now. His theories are similar to what some Mormons have speculated on the subject. It is worth reading if all other chapters are skipped.

Reading all the other sections of "Mere Christianity" gave some new perspectives that enhanced Mormon religious views, even with objections. The final section was frustrating. It seemed to undo all the good that had been done with the rest of the book. With a large grain of salt, it might cause someone who is looking at Christianity seriously for the first time to be persuaded to become atheist. Like it or not, C.S. Lewis seemed to be preaching to the Choir. The rest were at times denegrated.

Review of "Mere Christianity" Part III

Book III: Christian Behaviour

The section on Christian morality reflects C.S. Lewis at his best. He is not a very good theologian, but he is credible as a social critic and moral apologist. A person of any faith can accept what he says about behavior. Not that he ignores the underlying theological framework he set up earlier and will continue exploring. Instead, there are arguments about moral actions that don’t have to have those pre-conceived religious notions to have a powerful impact. They work independently from the Christian life.

His biggest problem is the bias against particular forms of religious observance that even some of his co-religionists would disagree with. This bias goes beyond simple formality and extends to stereotyping and possible blatant bigotry. It also has political implications that may or may not be properly termed as Christian based. He believes that Christians should not force through law or any other means the morality they hold as important. In fact, he says, “One of the marks of a certain type of bad man is that he cannot give up a thing himself without wanting everyone else to give it up” (pg. 78). Despite what C.S. Lewis says, It can just as easily be argued that the whole point of laws is to decide what kind of moral and ethical behavior should shape society.

What make his argument more than a simple political position that could be acceptable is the borderline bigotry based on his non-interference theory. He says that Islam rather than Christianity is a “tee-totaller” religion. In other words, a religion that expects abstaining from certain things for its followers. For him, a Christian is someone who can eat, drink, and otherwise do whatever they want in moderation and moral judgement. Why he singled out Islam is unclear. He could easily have included Jews, Hindus, and probably Mormons without hesitation.

Continuing on, he discusses three levels of moral choices. There is the way we feel about the inner self. There is how we interact with others. Finally, and most important to him, there is for what purpose the other two exist. He compares them all to a fleet of ships. A ship alone might not do any damage, but it doesnt' do much good. A fleet of ships can encourage, strengthen and help each other, but they might still always remain at sea. Only ships that have someowhere they are going can truely realize their full potential. Of course, it is religion that gives purpose to life. He does acknowledge that the third moral way causes the most disagreement, and he chooses Christianity as the destination.

Seven "virtues" are listed in his explanation of Christian morality. Four are called "Cardinal" and three are called "Theological" virtues. The first set can be accepted by non-Christians as applicable, and the second set are representative of religious devotion. He lists the Cardinal virtues as Prudence, Temperance, Justice, and Fortitude. The three Theological virtues are Faith, Hope, and Charity. Although he lists these as the main subject of Christian moral principles, he also discusses Chasitity and Fidelity, and Forgiveness.

The discussion about Chastity and Marriage are perhaps among the best defenses of the subject. Continuing on with his idea that no standards should be forced on people, he argues that sexual activity should be kept in moderation rather than the abandonment of the current generation:

They tell you sex has become a mess because it was hushed up . . . If hushing up had been the cause of the trouble, ventilation would have set it right. But it has not. I think that it is the other way round. I think the human race originally hushed it up because it had become such a mess. (pg. 98).

He argues that Christianity has a positive outlook on the human body, with God taking one born to Mary and the promise of the resurrection. The problem is that modern society has gone from accepting sex as a healthy natural expression to an obsession. He compares this to bad eating habits that make the body fat and unhealthy. This makes something that could be positive a complete negative. For people who think that only those who give into sin really understand life's challenges, he states, "those who are seriously attempting chastity are more conscious, and soon know a great deal more about their own sexuality than anyone else" (pg. 102). You come to know your desires by the resistance of them like a warrior understands the enemy they battle.

The message about marrige for a Christian is simple. Those who take a vow of marriage must do everything they can to stay together. If they do not, then they are nothing more than liars and decievers; at worst imposters. It is for that reason marriage should be for love of the whole person and not just romantic feelings. Making promises as Christians is serious business, "A promise must be about things that I can do, about actions; no one can promise to go on feeling in a certain way" (pg. 107). Reasons for staying married after falling out of love, besides keeping a promise, includes a deep respect for the person you married. In other words, a higher love than romantic attraction.

Of the virtues mentioned, perhaps the most interesting is his discussion of Faith. He sees Faith as a stronger form of Hope. This is based on experience as much as spiritual emotion. Faith is keeping hold of things you once held as true despite your changing moods. In connection with this, he rejects the idea in Mormon doctrine that this mortal life is a type of test. Instead, the point of mortality is to gain humility and accept that God is in control rather than yourself. Regardless of agreeing or disagreeing with this, his ideas on "works vs. faith" are worth careful reading. He states:

You see, we are now trying to understand, and to seperate into water-tight compartments, what exactly God does and what man does when God and man are working together . . . He is inside you as well as outside: even if we could understand who did what, I do not think human language could properly express it. In the attempt to express it different Churches say different things. But you will find that even those who insist most strongy on the importance of good actions tell you you need Faith; and even those who insist most strongly on Faith tell you to do good actions.

It is a fallacy to seperate the two in importance. Ultimately, it is God who saves and gives Christians the spirit of goodness. Those who pick one over the other, if they follow the logical conclusions, will either not follow God or follow without true devotion.

There are many other things talked about in the section that are of interest to Mormons. This includes a chapter devoted to "The Great Sin" Pride that LDS Pres. Ezra Taft Benson has become famous for speaking out against. It is a sin that is not easy to overcome, because it blinds the person to their spiritual weaknesses. They put themselves before God and think they are capable of salvation without help. It is, to C.S. Lewis, what brought Satan and all the fallen angels to the bitterest of damnations. Unlike Pres. Benson, he explains what the sin of Pride is not (pg. 125-128). It doesn't include acceptance of other people's congratulations of well earned respect (until you delight in it and seek it out). It doesn't include a warm hearted admiration for family, friends, and others. It doesn't mean disliking yourself or telling others you are a humble nobody. The sin of Pride is self-importance.

Finally, even though he doesn't by implication like the idea of making laws in accordance with morality, he does explain what he sees as a society built on Christian principles. It would have no one who doesn't work or want, and it would have nothing made or done for economic frivolity. On the other hand, it would be full of obedience (defined as outward respect) to government, parents, wives and husbands. He says the outcome would be:

We should feel that its economic life was very socialistic and, in that sense, "advanced", but that its family life and its code of manners were rather old-fashioned - perhaps even ceremonious and aristocratic. Each of us would like some bits of it, but I am afraid very few of us would like the whole thing. (pg. 84).

It would seem early Mormon history has proven this all too well. What Joseph Smith and Brigham Young tried to do was finally put aside as curious novelties. Part of this was because of strong outside pressures, but other reasons include the difficulties of living such high ideals as a group. Believing in theology is the easy part. Living the Christian virtues takes Faith enough to let go of ourselves and accepting God as our Savior. Again, C.S. Lewis has taught despite some religious issues that Mormons have some spiritual growing up to do.

*Next time some final thoughts*

Review of "Mere Christianity" Part II

Book II: What Christians Believe

This second section is really the heart of his writing, although there is so much more to go. He gets right to the point of what sets a Christian apart from other religions. In many ways it is the closest a Mormon could agree with his theological musings. This is only natural since Mormons are Christians in many of the ways that C.S. Lewis perceives of what makes the religion important. There is, of course, points where he both goes against or merely anticipates Mormon doctrine or fails logical conclusions.

His idea of Christian theology hinges on the familiar Mormon concept of free will. The whole point of Salvation for a Christian is that humanity is free to choose faith in God and Christ. Although the subject of the end times when Christ will return is at the end of the section, it represents most of what he is saying. With all the evil in the world there is an objection of why God simply doesn't "invade" earth to make things better. If God were to do that, there wouldn't be a point to living. All the hard choices that lead to freely accepting or rejecting God would be over. It might end the horror in the world, but it would also end personal and human progress:

When the author walks on to the stage the play is over. God is going to invade, all right: but what is the good of saying you are on His side then, when you see the whole natural universe melting away like a dream and something else - something it never entered your head to conceive - comes crashing in; something so beautiful to some of us and so terrible to others that none of us will have any choice left? (pg. 65).

Of course, this begs the question of what the free will is choosing. The answer is simple; good and evil. C.S. Lewis had already touched on what good and evil is in the first section. He will go into more detail in the third section when he talks about Christian morality.

His first argument is that those who don't believe in good and evil, but everything depends on your point of view, are wrong. He especially doesn't believe the idea that everything is good because God made everything. This is ironic, considering later on he states that, "All the things which enable a bad man to be effectively bad are in themselves good things - resolution, cleverness, good looks, existence itself" (pg. 45). He gets around what he had previously disregarded by saying how one uses the good is what makes things bad. God did create everything good, but it was perverted and twisted to a point where it became bad.

All of this is based on assumptions he never explains in detail. It is as if he is counting on the first section when he says there is "The Law of Human Nature" and humans must recognize what those are. For instance, he states, "But existence, intelligence and will are in themselves good" (pg. 45). This is a statement that Mormons would completely agree with theologically, adding that they are also eternal. Logically, however, there is no explanation of why they are good. It goes back to a circular logic that was earlier rejected; it is good because it came from God.

What he does say, that Mormons recognize as important to the theology of choice, is that there must be two different moral forces. To know that there is bad, you had to know there was good, "if there were no light . . . we should never know it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning (pg. 39). He puts Lehi's opposition on its head. Just as Lehi said you can't know the good unless you know the bad, C.S. Lewis says you can't know the bad unless you know the good.

The reason for this difference is his conflating God with good. There is no separating the two. The context of this is in his rejection of Dualism; where one god is good and another is bad. He doesn't believe such a thing is possible because they would both believe they were good. The idea that bad actions would be chosen for the sake of "badness" is impossible for him to believe. He states:

But since the two powers are judged by this standard [conformity to rule of good], then this standard, or the Being who made this standard, is farther back and higher up than either of them, and He will be the real God. In fact, what we meant by calling them good and bad turns out to be that one of them is in a right relationship to the real ultimate God and the other in a wrong relation to Him." (pg. 43)

In some ways it intersects with the Mormon concept that God can be called God because He conforms to certain standards. Beyond that, the idea would be completely rejected that the standards are in any way a separate existence. God either makes the standards or is the standards of goodness. What C.S. Lewis seems to be saying is that there is no such thing as good and evil, only good and mistaken.

This is where Christ comes in. The great sin of Satan and the Fall of Adam and Eve is not because they had gone against goodness - something impossible to do. It is that they had set themselves as individuals outside of and apart from God as their own creation. Although the underlying assumptions are not the same, Mormonism does agree with this concept. Sin sets us apart from God and it is only through Christ's atonement that we can be forgiven, or set right again. In some ways, C.S. Lewis answers the question of how wickedness never was happiness that confuses so many people. It turns out to be a theological rather than emotional statement. The happiness based on human energy and actions is temporary and unfulfilling. Only by turning to God, the source, can true Love and Happiness be obtained.

What he teaches about Christ's Atonement can easily agree with Mormon beliefs. In fact, much of what he says echoes Abinadi's words to King Noah who didn't belief in Christ's first coming. Because humans had fallen, they were not perfect and therefore could not save themselves. We basically lost our ability to save ourselves by separating from the God of power and goodness. The only one who can save humanity was God because He had not gotten into trouble. He states, "Only a bad person needs to repent: only a good person can repent perfectly. The worse you are the more you need it and the less you can do it. The only person who could do it perfectly would be a perfect person - and he would not need it" (pg. 57). There is still a huge gulf that would need to be crossed. Humanity doesn't have the power to save and God doesn't have the nature to surrender, suffer, submit, and die that is crucial to repentance.

Then God comes down as Jesus Christ in the form of a man, although perfect in all other respects. Similar to Abinadi, he says, "The perfect surrender and humiliation were undergone by Christ: perfect because He was God, surrender and humiliation because He was man" (pg. 60). With the suffering and death of God who didn't need any saving, He pays a debt to get humanity out of a bind. In the process Christ does more than bring humanity out of a bad spot, but changes them into a new creation. The Atonement makes it possible to have the Christ-life within. Some might call it "born again" and Abinadi would say we become "the seed of Christ" because of what happened. The "Christ-life" is spread by baptism, belief, and Holy Communion/Mass/the Lords Supper/Sacrament. There is nothing in this description of Christ's Atonement that is against Mormon doctrine on the subject. He does wonder if there might be more or less than the above to spread the Christ-like nature, and Mormons would say the Temple ordinances are part of the process to a full spiritual development.

There are some minor problems with this section, but they don't fit in with the overall arguments he makes. For instance, He states that the idea of a person claiming to be God in the full sense of the word was shocking and never heard of before. Absolutely not true. It might be they never fully believed it themselves, but many ancient rulers said they were a Son of God much like Jesus Christ is represented. This idea can be traced from Egypt to the latter half of the Roman Empire. He even said in the previous paragraph that there were ancient stories about gods that died and came back to life to change humanity (pg. 50-51). Perhaps the shock would come from the claim by an ordinary Jew. Even then he shows a lack of imagination by arguing what Jesus said proves he is "the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse" (pg. 52). He ignores critics that say the writers of the Gospels were adding those words to Jesus in order to bolster religious ideology. Of course, other Christian apologists have argued against them.

If there is one thing that Mormons should learn from C.S. Lewis, it would be not to take our own goodness as giving us Salvation. To quote a very important point:

They hope, by being good, to please God if there is one . . . But the Christian thinks any good he does comes from the Christ-life inside him. He does not think God will love us because we are good, but that God will make us good because He loves us; just as the roof of a greenhouse does not attract the sun because it is bright, but becomes bright because the sun shines on it (pg. 63).

This is, perhaps, related to "faith unto repentance" described often in the Book of Mormon. Recently the idea of "Grace" has had a comeback among Mormons - not a new addition. It is something that other Christians have used as a criticism for some time, but really is a straw man. Mormons perpetuate a lack of proper perspective on the role of good works without understanding their own Atonement theology. That should no longer be the case.

*next time Book III: Christian Behaviour*

Review of "Mere Christianity" Part I

One of the most quoted non-Mormons by LDS General Authorities is C.S. Lewis, the famous Christian apologist. Considering how much he is quoted by them, it seemed a good idea to compare his ideas to Mormon thought and beliefs. Reading his introduction to Christian faith "Mere Christianity" was frustrating. His theology was at best problematic and the arguments sometimes contradictory. There ended up very little common ground.

Book I: Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe

The first book (or section) starts out discussing the introduction of sin into the world. From the start any mention of the Bible is a few quick quotes and a lot of allusions. It wasn't hard to understand he was talking about the Fall of Adam and Eve, and therefore humanity.

The key to understanding Christianity, he insists, is to understand ourselves. Science is the study of what can be sensed with our own natural bodies. Because God is outside of nature as a spiritual force, there is no way to study God unless humanity is like God in moral attributes:

We want to know whether the Universe simply happens to be what it is for no reason or whether there is power behind it that makes it what it is. Since that power, if it exists, would be not one of the observed facts but a reality which makes them, no mere observation of the facts can find it. There is only one case in which we can know whether there is anything more, namely our own case. (pg 24).

What he finds is called "Law of Nature," although he doesn't mean what it does in science. Instead, he is talking about a kind of rules of behavior that anyone can know. A person will know, for instance, that you shouldn't lie or kill. That doesn't mean they won't do either one of them, as most people will at least tell a lie to another. What it means is, regardless of what people do, they know they should be unselfish, courageous, honest, and fair.

In many ways his ideas about the "Law of Human Nature," to expand the term, is similar to the Mormon belief in the "Spirit of Christ" where everyone can know right from wrong. As Moroni states in Moroni 7:16, "For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God."

The similarity breaks down when looking at the source of the law. Like most orthodox Christians, he feels there is no substantial difference between God and morality, as they are one and the same. He states humans were created by God, "in order to produce creatures like itself - I mean, like itself to the extent of having minds" (22). He would never agree with Mormons that righeousness was an outside set of laws that God must have, but was seperate from divinity. He also, in the same sentence, rejects any physical similarities between us and God.

Of course, he is trying to convince a non-Christian audience that his faith is the true one. His idea that the Universe and humans are the two evidences of God is hard to believe. If he had stuck with the idea they can help us understand God there would be no problem. He doesn't do that, but instists that because everyone understands the "Law of Nature" it follows they should realize the existance of God by looking at themselves. This isn't brought up to compare his ideas to Mormonism, but to show the kind of circular logic that he uses throughout.

The results of this kind of circular reasoning is that some ideas are never fleshed out, but assumed:

Christianity tells people to repent and promises them forgiveness. It therefore has nothing (as far as I know) to say to people who do not know they have done anything to repent of and who do not feel that they need any forgiveness . . . when you know you are sick, you will listen to the doctor. (pg. 32).

The implications are mostly ignored. Because Christianity is a call for everyone to repent and we all know the "Laws of Human Nature" even when not paying attention, then there isn't anyone who doesn't know they have sinned. It seems his point is more about those who don't know anything about Christianity and its saving power. Of course, Mormons believe Christ's atonement has something to say about that, as it covers innocent guilt. He does explain later in the book that the salvation for those never hearing of Christ is (although he says it differently) more missionary work in this life (pg. 64). That will be covered in the next section.

Perhaps his best summation of the necessity of the atonement is his statement, "They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the Universe we live in" (pg. 8). It is also the two facts that bring into focus the faith in Jesus Christ as Savior shared by Mormons and himself.

*next time Book II: What Christians Believe*

The Place of Apologia in Mormon Faith

This is my response to a question about What Mormons Believe when defending the Book of Mormon, or any other part of the religion. I have already stated in Apologetics: Vacuous Study of Minutiae how they seem to be lacking in spiritual benefits. The reason for my response is to try and place Mormonism in the proper context of the question it asks.

Starting with a quote:

on the other hand, if you are a mormon who believes that the BoM captures a genuine revolution the priors change. if you presuppose the the genuine core of mormon belief one could construct a scenario where such a contact could occur so that the extant remains would be difficult to discern. . . so depending on the parameters you can make a plausible case in the light of your priors.

I think this needs to be stated more than once. The answer to why Mormons believe as they do can be traced to what Tim Bulter said, "When I read the Book of Mormon, I feel a palpable glow. I believe it's the word of God." This is a unsophisticated description of the spiritual witness, but a good example of the Mormon priority of religious understanding over apologetics. For Mormons, their experience with God is the ultimate proof they have of Mormon claims. It is a personal and not an academic exercise. To quote Richard L. Bushman, the current go to person:

Mormonism has always been an embarrassment to Christianity. It goes back to the 1830s when, on their own left, Christians had to face the Deists, who said the Christian miracles were ridiculous. To defend themselves, Christians had to find some kind of rational support. William Paley, of course, is the archetypical character, but there were scores of books written trying to mobilize evidence that you could believe the resurrection, that those witnesses were authentic.

While they were fighting that battle, the Mormons on the right came up with these ridiculous stories of angels and gold plates and claimed the same right to believe in miracles, mobilizing the same kind of evidence that Christians used for the resurrection. This required Christians to repel Mormons to prevent the Deists from grouping them with the lunatic fringe.

Christian groups have been as forceful as any in trying to put down the Mormons, I think, partly to protect their position as respectable philosophically. I once in a meeting asked a group of evangelical Christians – a small group; Mark Noll was there, Richard Mouw, various other distinguished people – why don't we join forces in making a case that there are grounds for believing in the existence of God simply because the spiritual life confirms it? People believe there is a God because it's manifest to them spiritually.

They really didn't want any of that. They wanted to maintain their philosophical, rational claims, defending their miracles on sort of a quasi-scientific basis. They did not want to get in bed with the Mormons and their strictly subjective view of things. So there is kind of a gap intellectually. Mormonism has never embraced philosophy; it is not particularly interested in philosophy. I would say our most natural ally among the philosophers, frankly, is William James whose view of God is very close to the Mormon view of God. . . Because the emphasis is on experience and belief in a God.

This isn't to say there isn't any "comprehensive defense/explanation" of Mormonism. There is a surprising amount of such if you will actually take the time to look. And these are not just from amateur (although there is that) writers trying to be persuasive, but Phd's in fields from Law to Anthropology. Almost none of the articles they write will ever be in peer reviewed journals, but that is the nature of any religious apologist work. What is sad is that there is such a large volume of relatively good quality apologia that is virtually ignored. Even those who should engage it don't as if it doesn't exist.

And here is where Ross Douthat and others miss the boat entirely. They seem to argue against Mormonism without having at least a cursory understanding of Mormonism and its contemporary defenders. What is amazing is all this talk about Mormons as "literalists" is only partly true.

Unlike the most hardened Bible believers, Mormon theology about Prophets, Scriptures, History, and etc. is extremly flexable and nuanced. For instance, the whole talk above about how "The Pearl of Great Price" doesn't match with the current "Book of the Dead" we clearly have is not very troubling to Mormons who understand their own theology. It brings uncomfortable questions, but ultimately doesn't put "The Pearl of Great Price" into question so much as the process and meaning of Revelation itself. Too many people (even LDS members themselves) try to shoehorn Mormonism into the same category as Scriptural Inerrantists, when that is actually not the case. This is one example of too many where outside perceptions of the way Mormons think and believe are thrust upon them out of caricature rather than reality.

That is the real tragedy here. Arguments against Mormonism from the Right and the Left have been, from the point of view of Mormons, mostly strawmen bolstered by centuries of tradition that Mormons half-heartedly care about participating in because of fashion.

Animals in Mormon Theology

There is an essay at the web site Journal "First Things" that talks about defending human exceptionalism, arguing take that away and there is no such thing as human rights. After listing a series of what is considered attacks to the specialness of humans, they add to it the newest weapon; animals having souls. A story in "The New York Times" discusses the idea that cognition between humans and animals are not very different. Nancey Murphy, a philosopher at Fuller Theological Seminary, argues that all processes attributed to the mind or souls are now studied in animals. The conclusion is that there is no special creation.

The counter argument of the "First Things" writer is, "the existence or nonexistence of the soul isn’t a matter that science can measure, test, or duplicate (as a believing scientist asserts at the end of Dean’s piece)." Although this is true to a point, many of the studies that Nancey Murphy is using as a test for the soul were for centuries attributed to the the actions of the soul. This includes the ability to think; as thought was considered (and to many still is) the theological equivalant of the soul's manifestation. Pure thought (or the Word/Logos) was often considered beyond materialism, and therefore Spirit. In fact, it was God.

Humans were supposed to be made in the moral image of God, with Animals as simply food or helping to make the world beautiful. To bridge that gap between animals and humans is to put the special creation into question. Although the article opened up the possibility that the existance of the soul "whether uniquely human or present in all life" wasn't a problem, the argument mostly stands on the idea that only humans can have souls. They insist a danger in accepting animal souls.

Contrasted to this is the Mormon view that all life, especially animals, have souls of one kind or another. This is because in Mormon theology each creation is a special one, with human kind as the most special of all. From Moses 3, the spiritual creation is described:

7 And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created and made according to my word.

8 And I, the Lord God, planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there I put the man whom I had formed.

9 And out of the ground made I, the Lord God, to grow every tree, naturally, that is pleasant to the sight of man; and man could behold it. And it became also a living soul. For it was spiritual in the day that I created it; for it remaineth in the sphere in which I, God, created it, yea, even all things which I prepared for the use of man; and man saw that it was good for food. And I, the Lord God, planted the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and also the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Even though this mentions the spiritual soul of humans, plants, and animals, there is still a seperate "sphere" for each of them. Therefore, what makes humans exceptional is God's classification:

He made the tadpole and the ape, the lion and the elephant but He did not make them in His own image, nor endow them with Godlike reason and intelligence. Nevertheless, the whole animal creation will be perfected and perpetuated in the Hereafter, each class in its 'distinct order or sphere,' and will enjoy 'eternal felicity.' That fact has been made plain in this dispensation (D&C 77:3). - Church First Presidency Message, Christmas greetings, Dec. 18, 1909

For God, humans are special because we are His children. The other creations, although worthy of salvation, are not given the same exalted promises. They will give Him glory as His creations, but not to the extent that humans will by giving Him a kind of posterity. There is a gulf between humans and animals that has been divinely set. No amount of philosophy can challenge that against revelations demanding it as fact.

The idea of animals having souls is continually referenced by Joseph Smith, both in revelations and sermons. The importance of this might not be very well understood, but it shows up in many places. In one sermon Joseph Smith finds the concept of animals not having souls as a minor rejection of the glory of God by limiting His ability to save:

I suppose John saw beings there of a thousand forms, that had been saved from ten thousand times ten thousand earths like this, - strange beastes of which we have no conception: all might be seen in heaven. The grand secret was to show John what there was in heaven. John learned that God glorified Himself by saving all that His hands had made, whether beasts, fowls, fishes or rament; and He will glorify Himself with them.

Says one, "I cannot believe in the salvation of beasts." Any man who would tell you that this could not be, would tell you that the revelations are not true. John heard the words of the beasts giving glory to God, and understood them. God who made the beasts could understand every language spoken by them. The four beasts were four of the most noble animals that had filled the measure of their creation, and had been saved from other worlds, because they were perfect: they were like angels in their sphere. We are not told where they came from, and I do not know; but they were seen and heard by John praising and glorifying God.
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 291

This is not to say that Mormons believe equating humans to animals is perfectly acceptable. Often times human depravity is compared to the natural lawlessness of the animal kingdom. Humans are special because they have been given a higher law to follow, and greater capacity to understand the moral implications of their thoughts and actions. To act like animals is still a sign of great sin:

Little do we realize what we have brought upon ourselves when we have allowed our children to be taught that man is only an advanced animal. We have compounded the mistake by neglecting to teach moral and spiritual values. Moral laws do not apply to animals for they have no agency. Where there is agency, where there is choice, moral laws must apply. We cannot, absolutely cannot, have it both ways.

When our youth are taught that they are but animals, they feel free, even compelled, to respond to every urge and impulse. We should not be so puzzled at what is happening to society. We have sown the wind, and now we inherit the whirlwind. The chickens, so the saying goes, are now coming home to roost.
Boyd K. Packer, “Covenants,” Ensign, Nov 1990, 84

Perhaps one of the implications to come out of the idea of animals having souls is how we are to treat them. It is well known in the revelation called "The Word of Wisdom" that meat should be eaten only in times of winter or famine. Some have speculated this was meant at the time as protection against food going bad to keep the body healthy. True as that might be, there is a companion revelation in D&C 49: 19-21 that warns against taking life and flesh wantonly. Killing of animals should not be taken lightly without spiritual condemnation.

Many prophets of the LDS Church, from Joseph Smith on, have spoken out against both cruelty to animals and over hunting. Every year the generations of warning have gone unheaded. Thousands of Latter-day Saints go into the hills and mountains to kill for sport. This isn't to say hunting is evil and should be avoided. Rather, most of the time these hunters don't take the time to respect what they kill. They don't try to protect animals from over harvest or preserve the habitat. It comes off as gluttony and violence against God's creation.

Perhaps this is the great irony of a religion that believes in both the soul of Animals and the Exalted sphere of humans. When humans don't use their higher moral capacities, all creation suffers. What seperates humans from animals is conscious choice between right and wrong. Thinking doesn't make it so, but actions do.

A Mormon Guide for Journalists

Considering all of the attention the media is giving to Mormonism, a quick guide would be handy. Obviously, these are just suggestions and probably no journalist will actually take notice. It contains must read interviews, comments on repeated statements, clarifications, style usages, and etc. There is really no reason a reporter should be ignorant of at least some basics with as much information and sources available.

Start with must read interviews. The following should be read by every news reporter before they start a story. Many answers to questions can be found in these insightful interviews. Keep in mind these are qualified individuals, but not official statements:

Mormonism and Democratic Politics: Are They Compatible?, with Richard Bushman and the Pew Forum. Best to start here than anywhere.

This can be followed up with Elder D. Todd Christofferson, a member of the Presidency of the Seventy, a church leadership body.

Another good Pew Forum interview is with the church's general counsel Lance B. Wickman and Elder Russell M. Nelson of the church's Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Many of the same questions should be covered like the above, so there is no reason not to have answers available.

A good mix, actually better than the show itself, is the PBS Interviews, including the President of the LDS Church, Gordon B. Hinkley. For better reference of context read Who's Who on "The Mormons" for each person represented on the PBS show and the extended online interviews.

Technically, this isn't an interview. However, it might be helpful to read Ken Jenings' advise to would be writers on the Mormon topic.

There is no secret doctrines in Mormonism, only lazy research. As Richard Bushman stated in the Interview above, "There are things that go on in the temple that are not talked about outside the temple, but they are not really doctrine; it is really a set of rituals that are practiced in the temple that are not discussed." In other words, whatever Mormons teach might be confusing, unusual, and unfamiliar, but they are not hard to find. All it takes is a little "heavy" reading material.

Here are some official sources:

Start with the Scriptures that Mormons use for doctrine. This includes the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price.

Go to Gospel Topics section for quick reference guide to individual subjects.

Even more information can be found in the LDS Church Ensign magazine. There you can find a treasure of statements about doctrine from general members to LDS Church leadership. It is best to pay attention to the Semi-annual General Conference talks. That is where most of the official business takes place.

Don't forget to visit the official LDS Newsroom for more help.

Of course, all of this can be found at The LDS Church web site. Any place can be visited, but these are good starting points.

For a cornicopia of information outside of "official channels" there is always the diverse Mormon Archipelago filled with any number of Mormon viewpoints. Like any group of people, opinions are as varied as the individuals.

Just remember, as quoted from an article at the LDS Newsroom about doctrine, not everything is of equal stature:

Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.

Be aware of Style and Definitions. Although the general readership might not know the difference, every journalist has been taught bad style, spelling, and word usage can be unprofessional.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is the official name of the Church. It is best to include the full name at first mention. Although the official Church would like it to be refered to as "The Church of Jesus Christ" after the first full mention, that might not be politically acceptable. However, calling it the "Mormon Church" is equally unacceptable. It should be called the "LDS Church" after the first mention.

Mormon or Mormonism. The name "Mormon" can refer to individual members, although "Latter-day Saint" is probably a better designation. The word itself comes from "The Book of Mormon" that Mormons hold as Scripture just as they do the Bible. Mormon is the name of the person said to have anciently edited and compiled "The Book of Mormon" and is considered a prophet from long ago. Any reference to doctrine and practices can be called "Mormonism" without problem.

Gentiles. This is a name that Mormons have not used in at least two generations, if it ever was much at all. It can designate those who are not Mormon, but is more a religious term rather than practical one. Instead, Mormons use "member/Mormon" and "non-member/Mormon" for those in and outside of the LDS Church. Anyone who might be a member of record who doesn't or rarely follows the faith is often called "less-active" in some situations. Jews are not considered "Gentiles" by any Mormon who understands the religious implications. Therefore, any Jews who might say they are only "Gentiles" while in Utah or among Mormons is technically incorrect. They are considered of the House of Israel.

Houses of Worship. There are two kinds of houses of worship in Mormonism. The first is a "Ward house," "Church," or "Chapel." These are for weekly Sunday church services where members have Communion, give sermons/talks, and have Sunday School. Other social functions with more or less religious purposes can happen throughout the week. A "Stake house" is a Church that is designated the center of a small geographic area with other churches.

A "Temple" is a special place where Mormons go for sacred rituals. Only Mormons who have been found to have faith in the basics of the teachings and of moral character are allowed to attend. It is open Mon.-Sat., with Sunday set aside for regular worship. Non-members are not allowed inside unless through an open house before it is designated for religous activity.

Baptism for the Dead. This is the reason for so much genealogy work among Mormons. Although members of the LDS Church don't often use the clarification themselves, it is best to call it "proxy baptisms for the dead" rather than leaving out the first word. What that means is that in the Temple where special rituals are performed, a worthy member is baptised in behalf of a person who has died without a Mormon baptism. Those who have the proxy work done for them are considered free to accept or reject the religious performance. Ideally this work is only done for relatives only, but that isn't always the case.

President. This designation can come before Pres. Hinkley, the Prophet and leader of the LDS Church and his two councelors. It can also be the designation for the leader of a Stake who oversees a small group of congregations.

Elder. Most of the higher and general leadership of the Church can have this designation before their names. This includes members of the Quorum of the Twelve and the Quorum of Seventy. It also can be the desination for male missionaries who have been sent out to preach the Gospel, although females are called Sisters in this capacity.

Some corrections on repeated statements about Mormonism. There are some things that seem to get repeated often, but not with complete accuracy. Obviously, only a limited amount of space is available with an article. A complicated theological lesson is not realistic. Regardless, some minor corrections need to be made in fairness toward the subject. For a great list of the most basic teachings, read The Thirteen Articles of Faith for starters.

From an evangelical who with an open mind writes for Article VI Blog, another must read:

The larger issue is this idea in the e-mail that states, "The LDS Jesus is not the same Jesus of the Christian faith.

The banality of that assertion is astonishing. Jesus is an historical figure - a person who existed. There were not two guys that ran around Israel, under Rome, preached the Sermon on the Mount, that were crucified and resurrected, by the name of "Jesus." The same person in history is venerated by Mormons and creedals alike. What is different is how those two relgions interpret the nature and ministry of that historical figure. In other words Mormons and creedals have different theology.

Mormons view God and Jesus as separate beings, both of flesh and blood.

This is both true and false. First, Jesus only had "flesh and blood" when he was a mortal before his death and resurrection. The more accurate statement would be, "Mormons view God and Jesus as having a Glorified body of Flesh and Bone, quickened by the Spirit."

the Book of Mormon describes dark skin as a divine mark of disfavor.

Again, this is only part of the story. A good description would be, "In the past, church leadership tried to understand the reason for the priesthood ban for blacks. Many saw the black skin, although there were those who disagreed, as a curse of Cain similar to the reasoning of pro-slavery Christians. The "Book of Mormon" describes a similar curse of blackening of the skin for ancient Native Americans, but not as a priesthood damnation. It often warned against treating others badly because of that same skin color change."

In other words, to compare the priesthood ban and the rampant theologizing of the reasoning with what happens in the "Book of Mormon" is to compare apples to oranges; at best both are fruit.

Women cannot get to heaven without men.

A better description would be, "Mormons believe in the absolute necessity of marriage in the afterlife. A man and woman must be married in order to make it to the Mormon's belief in the highest degree of Heaven. No man or woman can reach that without the other."

A person will be excommunicated for not following the Prophet in Salt Lake City.

This has been answered since the early 1900s when a little known Mormon politician named Reed Smoot was elected. The book The Politics of American Religious Identity: The Seating of Senator Reed Smoot, Mormon Apostle by Kathleen Flake is a must read on the topic. As John at Article VI Blog states, "The vision of the CJCLDS presented by this book and the events it describes is one quite typical of a democratic organization. Strife, conflict, discussion and resolution are all at play here. Hardly the stuff of a prophet driven cult." And Richard L Bushman adds that there is a difference between what happens because of theology and church government and what happens because of politics.

In case your wondering, the answer is "No."

Mormons believe they can become Gods and own their own planets

This is the interpretation of Mormon doctrine from those who are not believers. There is no such doctrine in existance. It is true that this can be speculated from some other doctrines, but it is not an article of faith. The best that can be said is,"Eventually, Mormons believe, it is possible to become like God. What that means is up to debate within the religion, but at the least it means becoming fathers and mothers in Heaven."

The Constitution of the United States has been prophecied to "hang by a thread," and Mormon Elders/a Elder will save it.

As has been reported, this is part of a larger "prophecy" that has been denounced by LDS Church leaders for over a generation. There is a belief that the U.S. Constitution will hang by a thread, but not that the Mormons will take over or destroy it. Rather, that Mormons (I am not aware of a "single" Mormon) will step in and SAVE the U.S. Constitution from destruction. By the way, that means every part of it, including the freedom of religion.

LDS Missionaries can be a political force.

The role of a Missionary is purely spiritual. It is true that once or twice in the past they have been used for spreading a political message, but that was when the very existance of the church because of politics was in jeopardy. Today and for the past few generations the only role is to spread the Gospel as taught in Mormonism. As should be well known, to do otherwise has serious political and economic consiquences. The repeated statements of nuetrality of the LDS Church in personal and party politics (outside of what it sees as moral reasons) would be shattered.

Just remember, as John wrote,"Mormons are like anyone else; they have a wide range of political and religious views– including interpretations of their own beliefs." Because of that, the last great advice to journalists is don't simplify Mormons or Mormonism if you are going for fairness and accuracy. Actually talk to some.

Clowns to the Left and Jokers to the Right

As a conservative Mormon I have been having an existential dilemma. The religion is stuck between two places that are making it very uncomfortable to find a seat in at least the American landscape. Nothing new there. It has always been that way, but only recently has it become possible to fit better in one or the other. There are Mormons infused (by average if not numbers) in all corners of society; many active religiously. However, it is still too tight to fit more than a toe into any pre-fab social hole.

The question was asked in an interview with Richard L. Bushman about Mormons and politics:

. . . who would be some intellectual allies that Mormons and others who might be the butt of the same charge [of irrationality] might find outside their own faith tradition? In other words, where are their intellectual allies for responding to this conception of rationality?

It could be added both intellectual and moral allies. Richard Bushman responds:

Well, their natural allies, which are all conservative Christians, refuse to accept them as allies, and that makes it very difficult.

Indeed, and that is what is so infuriating. There is no secret that Creedal Christians have serious reservations about the Christianity of Mormons. Without any hesitation a large portion of them label Mormons more than non-Christian, but often "cult" as if that means anything beyond the emotional rhetoric of hatred. They dance around vague definitions as if that excuses them from putting a scary mark on a large group of mostly respectable citizens. Never mind that the LDS Church holds very similar ethical and moral positions that has kept the vast majority of members voting Republican and Conservative.

Some few have thrown out the possibility that Mormons should jump ship and cross over to the Democratic side. They could take up the more liberal ideas of fighting poverty, protecting the environment, and social justice. As a Mormon conservative, even I can see how such things can fit in with the historical and theological Mormon philosophy. Tempting as that sounds, it is fraught with an equal amount of hostility that doesn't bode well for tipping the scales.

Harry Reid is a perfect example. Mormons are, by nature of its teachings, a very religious group that is uncomfortable with compartmentalizing. We are to be witnesses of God and Jesus Christ everywhere and in everything; at least by personal behavior. When Harry Reid, that very visible Mormon in Washington, was picked as a leader things looked good. He was, apparently, pro-life and against gay marriage among other conservative positions. At last there was hope he would be a beacon of moderation in a very left Democratic Party.

Sadly, it turned out with Harry Reid very horrible. Moderation went out the door and in its place a shrill puppet of the extreme liberal Democrat movement. Every time he opens his mouth it is to attack Bush, the War, Republicans, and Conservatives. Not once has he said anything about how awful abortion is or anything positive about the institution of marriage between a man and woman. In fact, I don't believe he has said anything at all about God or Religion. Many use him to say that good Mormons can be Democrats. The best that can be said about that is, sure if they shut their mouths and don't talk about it except in the cloistered halls of home and chapel.

Another positive for Mormons joining the liberal Democrat Party, some would say, is they are more tolerant toward minorities. It has been proven by the Article VI Blog how wrong that presumption can be with religion. They have been arguing (and with evidence from Op-eds and news reports to the man on the street who won't even shake a Mormon's hand while making it clear why) that the liberals have been far more disdainful than conservatives. Of course the left has been attacking religion in general, unless you can treat it as a moral myth that is secondary to the liberal agenda. The argument of the blog is not completely persuasive, thus the reason for bringing the issue up.

That leaves Mormons with few options if they want to have some say in at least American life:

They could stick with the Republicans. There isn't anything indicating this will change any time soon. Most Mormons still feel strongly the conservative movement is their movement, and that is in the Republican side of the political system. Nothing has happened yet to push things over the edge. It is ironic that the Religious Right is worried about Mormon power, and yet many comments from them indicate they are the ones who want to create a theocratic "Christian" nation.

They could become Democrats in protest to the Religious Right's theological purity standards. The only way that could happen is if Mormons were given a sense of empowerment. The Democratic Party would have to tone down its heavily liberal stances and become open to religious views. As Harry Reid has shown, at least in the minds of the Republican voting Mormons, that isn't a possibility in the near future. Currently, even more than the Religious Right dominated Republican Party where Mormons can at least tap a shoulder, the Democrats would be telling Mormons to sit in the back of the bus.

Go it alone. It happened at the end of the 19th Century, but with no positive outcome. This could only be if most Mormons felt satisfied to hold on as a regional power. In the worst case, maybe influence Utah and Idaho. Of course, if this happened then accusation of "theocracy" would be intensified. On the other hand, playing the cards correctly could be tangentially influential. The Mormons could start a party that promises inclusion of ANY conservative religious organization that the present Religious Right of the Republican Party shuts out. Certainly this could include Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. who might otherwise be on the political periphery. Of course, even that depends on how inclusive exclusive religions can become when sharing common goals.

All that can really be said is that, if trends hold, something has gotta' give in the Mormon political landscape.

The Francher Party and Forgiveness/Repentance

While reading articles online, I came across a review of September Dawn about the Mountain Meadows Massacre. What struck me wasn't the review itself, but a few of the comment exchanges. Particulary interesting was one poster who claims to be a relative of members of the Francher Party that were killed. The vindictive against Mormons sounded absolutely over the top. No doubt the writer would claim it is nothing of the sort. Of course, a Mormon responded by the usual explanation that to understand the context is part of understanding the actions. Not surprising the self-identified Francher relative completely went unhinged at the idea that context means anything. Considering this person basically called Mormons murderers, its past and current leaders as unholy bigots, and compared us to child abusers, I found one of the comments rather ironic:

The hubris is the same stunning stuff that made for the trouble in the early states. What continues to mystify me is how so many church members can look to this institution for spiritual leadership when it is unable, in the space of 150 years, to find an open measure of humility and humanity to demonstrate repentance, as an example to its people of how to take responsibility and offer sincere apology when wrong.

with such vindictive on the side of the poster I can't help questioning if they understand what "humility" and "forgiveness" means. Reading the rest of it doesn't get any better or consilitory for either side. Thoughts kept going through my mind that century long bloody wars have started with these kinds of back and forth accusations.

Now, I don't bring this up to fight about who is to blame or what exactly happened. In fact, I will be watching very carefully the comments made (if any) and probably even close down the comments section. My reason for bring this painful subject up is to discuss exactly what is forgiveness and repentance in a situation like this? Should the offended get everything they want to show contrition? Yes would seem like the right answer, but history (particularly WWI) proves doing that can make things worse. It is an institutional problem or an individual one? Who should be in charge of officially repenting? Who should be in charge of accepting that repentance and forgiving? What if one side doesn't believe they are fully to blame, but still acknowledges the actions? On the other hand, what if the other side won't forgive?

The exchange in the review sounded completely personal on both sides in a way I had never encountered. Usually, the arguments have been at least academic and level headed even when sensational. It is also possible to see when it is an anti-Mormon religious hit piece (and I am still not sure that isn't what this is) because other unrelated "beliefs" are trotted out for scorn. The down and dirty side of the responses (invoking 911 and those "evil" Muslims for goodness sake!) came as a shock. Mostly the surprise comes because I really don't know if Francher Party relatives are actually as angry and out for justice as much as this person seems to insist. At any rate, loving your enemies and doing good to those who hate you is probably the hardest thing to do, especially when it is claimed the criticism is out of love.

The Gateway to Mormon Artistry

It has been said that someday there will be Shakespeare and Miltons in the Mormon artistic community. Such a promise has been both inspirational for its greatness and discouraging for its lack of fruition. One of the most famous statements comes from a recent Prophet of the LDS Church who said:

Our writers, our motion picture specialists, with the inspiration of heaven, should tomorrow be able to produce a masterpiece which would live forever. Our own talent, obsessed with dynamism from a CAUSE, could put into such a story life and heartbeats and emotions and love and pathos, drama, suffering, fear, courage; and they could put into it the great leader, the mighty modern Moses who led a people farther than from Egypt to Jericho, who knew miracles as great as the stream from the rock at Horeb, manna in the desert, giant grapes, rain when needed, battles won against great odds.

"Take a Nicodemus and put Joseph Smith’s spirit in him, and what do you have? Take a da Vinci or a Michelangelo or a Shakespeare and give him a total knowledge of the plan of salvation of God and personal revelation and cleanse him, and then take a look at the statues he will carve and the murals he will paint and the masterpieces he will produce. Take a Handel with his purposeful effort, his superb talent, his earnest desire to properly depict the story, and give him inward vision of the whole true story and revelation, and what a master you have!"

Spencer W. Kimball, “The Gospel Vision of the Arts,” Ensign, Jul 1977, 3

There are some important considerations for why such promises might not be applicable for the modern art establishment. One of the most important reasons this grand vision will have to wait is the condition of the Western world. Look at any number of best sellers and even award winners and it shouldn't take much to discover the disconnect. We are living in a highly secular world where any mention of religion is derogatory if it is included at all. The artists mentioned above lived in times and places where religion was as important as commerce and trade. They could easily incorporate direct theological and moral themes into the work because everyone shared at least some spiritual connections.

Even if they were great artists, the work still had to be recognized and produced. Often there was a select group of patrons willing to give financial support. This often meant that, like any craftsman and worker in other fields, talent didn't spring from nowhere. Work was often discovered after years of labor and training when a person with money decided they liked a particular style. For the most lucky of artists they came from a background where the money was easy to come by and education was never neglected. Above all, and completely different from today's focus on specialization, these artists also learned many other trades that helped contribute to the over all production of their work.

As it stands, competition and the very purpose of art has changed significantly. What used to be a way to encourage beauty, practicality, learning, and even high-class propaganda has become mere entertainment. This atmosphere cannot be helpful in crafting masterpieces when the bulk of what people want is less than serious. Add to that a lack of diversification among individual artists, and it becomes probable that "Mormon Miltons and Shakespeares" will have to wait for another time. Because of the hostile religious climate things could be even harder.

But, there is hope. The answer to that is by going a different route. One that has been proven to work. Skip trying to focus on Mormons and Mormonism, at least directly. This has proven highly successful for a handful of bestsellers. Even Deseret Book is starting to get into the act with a set of popular books.

Sticking with the theme of writers, a small list of accomplished people include Richard Paul Evans, Tracy Hickman, Sherry Ann Miller, Anne Perry, Brandon Sanderson, Dave Wolverton, Orson Scott Card, and most recently Stephenie Meyer that has caught the attention of both young and adult readers. Only Orson Scott Card has done directly Mormon themes that have reached a wide audience beyond LDS readers. But, he had at first become known for and succesful at writing secular stories.

Regardless of the secular appeal of these writings, many of them still have Mormon themes that are part of the stories. As I had said aboutone of Stephanie Meyer's books:

. . . The reader is constantly, and with well-crafted scenes, reminded of how close death is from love.

. . . It is not hard to see the book is about keeping our desires in check. Giving in could bring about consequences beyond our control, even death. Falling in love, especially as a teenager, is a constant battle between what we want to do and what we ought to do. Those most worthy of love are the ones who recognize the danger and work hard to control themselves. It will be interesting to see if the next book continues this theme.

There might not be any recognizable Mormon theology, but bringing our emotions into check is a constant theme expressed by leaders of the Church. At least one of her intended books about an alien posessing the body of a human and having to live with that is similar to spirits having to live in the less than ideal physical world. Orson Scott Card has actually written a few books with Mormons as main characters that have become best sellers. Even the books without Mormons have included repentance, salvation, family, community, and etc. It is the reaching beyond our own faith that seems to set the simply good artists apart from the great artists.

Eventually there may yet be Mormon artists of great reputation and lasting impression. Before that can happen, those same artists must introduce themselves to a wider audience with mass appeal. Once that happens there is no reason why that same audience will not accept (as long as the quality remains good) a more directly Mormon subject.

Related Posts on Mormon Art

The Stillbirth of Mormon Art

Humor and the Gospel

Famous Writer in "Ensign"

Ethics of Mormon Art

Narnia, E.T., and Mormon Story Telling

Against Dutcher

Crash Statistic

A short story

It was only three days ago that his airplane had touched down after a short business trip. He had to fly for his work as a small business consultant every three months. He was not afraid of flying, but he hated takeoffs and landings. Most of the airplane accidents happened while near the runway. Each time the airplane lifted off or descended from the runway, Frank would grab hold of the seat armrests and try to breathe his cares away. His mind would race with thoughts of escape scenarios in case anything awful happened.

Sitting in the car in the middle of the day was a silly time to be thinking of crash landing on a strip of concrete. Yet, it was a way to get an idea of his current predicament. The world swirled around him with more force than gravity pressing hard against a pilot reaching for the ejection seats. The front of the car was indistinguishable from the vehicle in front of him. A perfectly sunny day had almost instantly become a disaster. At least he hadn’t fallen out of the sky, although he wasn’t sure it was a consolation.

A shallow voice broke the darkness that was slowly engulfing Frank in his seat, "are you alright?" It seemed to come from his own mind, but he knew it wasn’t his subconscious.

Frank focused on the voice hoping to keep from falling into the abyss of dangerous sleep. He wanted to answer sardonically that he wasn't alright or he would be walking, but words wouldn't come out of his cotton mouth. That same distant voice called out: “Does anyone have a cell phone? We need an ambulance." Knowing he could hear the voice coming from the real world beyond the wreckage, Frank realized he had not died. Simple thoughts were coming back to him. His wife was telling him to have a nice day at work. Children young enough to not be ashamed of affection scrambling to give him a goodbye hug. His boss always asking when he was going to come back from lunch to finish up business. Putting keys in the ignition.

Thoughts were followed by slowly recovered senses, seeing shapes and colors in the mist of groggy pain. At first Frank was thrilled that he would be getting out of the situation alive. Searing pain from movement took that hope away. His thoughts of recovering sufficiently to walk out on his own diminished. The first real words left his mouth, "what happened?" No one immediately answered. He repeated himself, feeling his voice getting stronger.
A large man in a blue collard shirt and jeans walked over to where Frank was sitting in his vehicle. The man leaned over, "I am afraid you have had a car accidents. Everything is going to be fine. The police and an ambulance are on the way."

That was not the answers to what Frank was asking. He already knew he had gotten in an accident. There was no question of that. “An ambulance?” he stammered. What he wanted was more information on the seriousness of the crash. It had happened so quickly he wasn't sure how the two cars collided.

Another sharp pain raced across his body. It started at his foot and cruised along the leg to the lower back. Fear took over as Frank wondered if he had broken his back. He wanted to test that horrific theory. Mustering total concentration, Frank tried to move his left foot. There was a shock of pain, but he could tell it moved. He tried his right foot, and the same terrible and gratifying pain assured him he would not be paralyzed. He tried moving his hands. His left hand moved with ease, but the right hand hurt.

Moving his head was a more serious experiment. He knew from countless movies and sensationalistic rescue documentaries that you shouldn't try to move the neck. The results could be disastrous and deadly. A possible broken neck could end up pinching a nerve and cause paralysis and death. He felt lucky at this point and didn't want to make the situation worse. Professionals could handle getting him out. Besides, he was getting tired with the effort.

Another indistinguishable voice yelled, "I have someone in the driver’s seat and looks bad. The other one is over on the lawn next to the fire hoses."

A large man standing over Frank said to someone else, "The third person is stuck in the back seat, but there is no telling if that is where she was at the time of the collision."

"My guess is that she was on the passenger side," the second voice said. “That makes, what, four people?”
In the distance the familiar sounds of sirens could be heard getting closer. Frank felt satisfied that he would be rescued. He had lived this long and was confident that it would stay that way. The ambulance and police car arrived a few minutes after first notice. The usual yellow, red, and blue lights pulsated outside of where Frank silently sat in pain and hopes. It wouldn’t be much longer.

Looking beyond his present condition, Frank said a prayer for his family. He asked that they would get along without him if he was in more danger than he thought. He asked more earnestly that he could live and void the need for the first supplication.

A scared woman's whimper caught Frank's attention. Muffled voices and clattering metal co-existed in a frustrating melody. The whimpering of the woman grew louder. A young male voice called, "Your going to be OK Susie. Everything is going to be fine. It was an accident. I am so sorry . . ." the voice trailed off and turned into crying. It must have been the one who was said to be near the fire hydrant.

Frank was paying too much attention to what was going on with the other victims to notice someone walk over to his vehicle. "Sir, we are going to get you out of here. My name is Officer Bradley. Can you respond to my voice?" The officer reached in and took Frank’s unhurt left hand.

"Yes, I can," Frank answered. He was still weak and his throat was dry. "I think my legs are broken. Maybe my arm.”
"He's conscious," Bradley yelled over the other noises of the accident. He turned back to Frank, "Do you remember what happened?"

“No,” was all Frank could answer. He didn't know what else to say.

"You got in a wreck.” Frank already knew that much and was prepared to make a sarcastic comment, but didn’t. It wouldn’t be good to antagonize your only salvation. The officer continued, “It appears you were hit by a drunk driver running a stop sign. What is your name?"

"Frank Hopkins." He felt himself losing energy again. His head was starting to hurt along with the rest of his body.

"Alright Frank, we are cutting you loose from the car," the officer said as a sickening crunch was heard near the other vehicle. "I'm going to move out of the way, but I am still going to be here."

For the next ten minutes Frank could hear loud mechanical whirring of saws and metal cutters working furiously to get him out. The loud noise drowned all other sounds. All Frank could think of was the terrible hissing of metal scraping and motors running full speed. With a last terrifying snap like an alligator biting down on a large piece of bone, Frank felt free and sick. He still didn't want to move; didn't know if he could move.

"Get that stretcher over here," officer Bradley said.

"Do you need any help?" said the voice recognized by Frank as the large man who had stood over him earlier.

Officer Bradley answered: "we have everything under control. Thanks for all the help."

The officer and three unidentified people stood over Frank. A bright light flashed into his eyes, and hands poked and prodded. He knew the other three had to be part of a medical emergency team. They put a bulky neck brace around the back of his head and slowly lifted him from the car. Pain pierced Frank in the process of moving and he blanked out. "We need—" was the last words he remembered.

Uncounted minutes later, Frank found himself staring up at a brightly-lit room with the same three emergency workers standing over him. He could hear the sound of an ambulance siren as if it followed them into the hospital. That meant he must still be in the ambulance on a stretcher.

"He's back," one of the men said as he looked into Frank’s hazy eyes. "Glad to see you awake. You’re on your way to Holy Mary Medical. The good news is that we detect a few broken bones and minor cuts, but nothing serious." The paramedic raised a large wooden stick, "Follow this with your eyes please." Frank tried as hard as he could to see the moving object. It seemed blurred. "Count to ten.”

"One . . . two . . . three . . . ," Frank went on slowly until he had finished the request. He didn't know if he had passed the required test.

"Good," the paramedic said to what seemed like no one in particular.
"Concussion seems controlled, blood pressure back to manageable, and heart rate up." He looked at a chart and then turned back to Frank, "what is your full name?"

"Frank Tinsdale Hopkins," he said with more exuberance than the counting.

"You’re a very lucky man," the paramedic said without changing his tone.

Frank agreed. “What about the others? Are they lucky?” He hoped everyone had made it out alive.

The paramedic checked Frank’s blood pressure while answering, “Don’t concern yourself with them right now. I am sure all of them will be just fine. At the moment I want you to relax and think positive. You still have a lot of recovery to go and wouldn’t want you to be more stressed than necessary.”

Despite the assurances of the paramedic, he wasn’t convinced. Someone would be as worried about the others as he imagined his family was going to be when they heard about the accident. He said a prayer that the girl in the back seat would survive. He said a prayer that the drunk driver would be alive and learn from the crash. Finally, he said a prayer for any others effected by the horrible mess. He was thankful to be alive. He was thankful to be a very lucky man.