Jesus and Joseph Smith

(From notes of a talk given in Sacrament Meeting)

This year we celebrate Christmas, but there is another birth that is important to Mormons. That is the Prophet Joseph Smith who founded The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He would be happy that the birth of Jesus Christ was recognized over his own, adding his testimony of the Savior.

Born Dec. 23, 1805 to Lucy Mack and Joseph Smith Jr. in Sharon Vermont, he came from a religious family. They didn't always go to the same church, but they were taught the Bible and about faith. Joseph Smith's father taught school in the winter and farmed during the summer, sometimes taking odd jobs to support his large family.

When I was young, I had access to a family library that included Mormon related books. Among the books I read was "Teachings of he Prophet Joseph Smith" edited by Joseph Fielding Smith and "Joseph Smith: American Prophet" by John Henry Evans. I became fascinated by his life and ideas, but didn't at first have a conviction of him as a prophet.

It wasn't until I read the Book of Mormon that my testimony of Joseph Smith as a Prophet came in full harmony with him as a great man and religious teacher. This was because of the nature of that Scripture as a testimony of Jesus Christ through the witness of the spirit. The Title Page sums this up:

Written by way of commandment, and also by the spirit of prophecy and of revelation—Written and sealed up, and hid up unto the Lord, that they might not be destroyed—To come forth by the gift and power of God unto the interpretation thereof—Sealed by the hand of Moroni, and hid up unto the Lord, to come forth in due time by way of the Gentile—The interpretation thereof by the gift of God. . .

. . . Which is to show unto the remnant of the House of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations

Also I found it true that the Book of Mormon does well in accomplishing its mission, "And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins." Having gained a testimony of the book, I gained a testimony of Joseph Smith as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator.

Besides sharing a month in commemoration of their births, There are similarities that Joseph and Jesus share:

Both were born of working class families. Joseph of Jesus was a carpenter who probably did many odd jobs. Joseph Smith Sr. was a farmer, and as mentioned also a laborer.

Jesus had a religious upbringing, getting blessed as a baby and taken to the Temple as a young boy. Joseph Smith was taught religion from the time he was young along with the rest of his family.

They were both to have no official standing among the religious leaders, but claimed authority from Heaven. The towns they grew up in rejected them. A book was written against Joseph Smith using negative memories of some towns people. He often left to other places for safety. Jesus came back and taught in a synagogue only be questioned about his ancestory. Surely it is true, ". . . A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house."

Both never stayed in one place for very long. Jesus was an itinerant preacher and Joseph was pushed out of states along with his people while preaching along the way.

They were called liars and possessed of the devil. At the same time they had loyal followers in difficulties who believed their testimonies.

In death, both were betrayed by former believers and brought before the law for treason. One was crucified by the government and another by a mob. The Gov. of Illinois at the time, Thomas Ford, stated he feared becoming associated with Pilot as he recognized and tried to reject that role.

They died young: Joseph Smith at 38 and Jesus at 33. To this day both are controversial men of faith. Believers honor them and doubters persist in questioning every detail about them.

The true relationship between the two began while Joseph Smith sought to answer his religious questions. Besides the official version of the First Vision, an earlier diary entry by Joseph Smith states:

Therefore I cried unto the Lord for mercy for there was none else to whom I could go and obtain mercy. The Lord herd me cry in the wilderness and while in the attitude of calling upon the Lord . . . a pillar of light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me. I was filled with the Spirit of Go and the Lord opened the Heavens upon me and I saw the Lord.
He spake unto me saying, "Joseph my Son, thy sins are forgiven thee. Go thy way, walk in my statutes and keep my commandments. Behold I am the Lord of Glory. I was crucified for the world that all those who believe on my name may have eternal life.

He continued with the familiar message about the world's sinful condition. After describing the vision, he wrote:

My soul was filled with love and for many days I could rejoice with great Joy and the Lord was with me.

Of course, after that Joseph Smith would become the Lord's Prophet. He would testify of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He said, "Salvation could not come to the world without the mediation of Jesus Christ."

We hold the third of 13 Articles of Faith, as written by Joseph Smith, "We believe that through the aAtonement of Christ, all bmankind may be csaved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel." Every revelation and doctrine taught by Joseph Smith points to faith in the Lord and his salvation:

The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it. But in connection with these, we believe in the gift of the Holy Ghost, the power of faith, the enjoyment of the spiritual gifts according to the will of God, the restoration of the house of Israel, and the final triumph of truth.

Like in the grove of trees where he first prayed and received an answer, Joseph continued to give supplication. He trusted the Lord Jesus Christ would forgive him of his human weaknesses and sin. In a letter to his wife Emma Smith, he wrote:

I have visited a grove which is just back of the town almost every day, where I can be secluded from the eyes of any mortal and there give vent to all the feelings of my heart in meditation and prayer. I have called to mind all the past moments of my life and am left to mourn and shed tears of sorrow for my folly in suffering the adversary of my soul to have so much power over me as he has had in times past. But God is merciful and has forgiven my sins, and I rejoice that he sendeth forth the Comforter unto as many as believe and humble themselves before him.

I will try to be contented with my lot, knowing that God is my friend. In him I shall find comfort. I have given my life into his hands. I am prepared to go at his call. I desire to be with Christ. I count not my life dear to me [except] to do his will

In a revelation at the organization of the LDS Church, the Lord tetified of Joseph Smith, "Behold, there shall be a record kept among you; and in it thou shalt be called a seer, a translator, a prophet, an apostle of Jesus Christ, an elder of the church through the will of God the Father, and the grace of your Lord Jesus Christ, Being inspired of the Holy Ghost to lay the foundation thereof, and to build it up unto the most holy faith." The Lord continued, "For thus saith the Lord God: Him have I inspired to move the cause of Zion in mighty power for good, and his diligence I know, and his prayers I have heard."

President Gordon B. Hinkley said of Joseph Smith and his testimony of Jesus Christ:

To a world plagued with doubt over the actuality of the Resurrection, Joseph Smith testified unequivocally of the risen, living Christ. That testimony was spoken in many ways and under many circumstances.

Pres. Hinkley went on to say:

Joseph Smith testified of the risen Lord when by the power of his prophetic office he spoke these remarkable words:

“And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!

“For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father—

“That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God” (D&C 76:22–24).

Finally, he sealed that testimony with his life’s blood, dying a martyr to the truths of which he had spoken concerning the Redeemer of the world, in whose name he had carried on his ministry.

The Prophet Joseph Smith was a preeminent witness of the living Christ.

This Christmas, let us celebrate the birth of our Savior in humility. Remember the gift of the Restoration of the Gospel as given through the Prophet Joseph Smith. Amen.

Word of Wisdom Vindicated . . . Again

Part of the Word of Wisdom dealing with alcohol consumption was supposed to have been put into question by studies. Every few months, it seemed, a new study would come out stating that moderate drinking of wine or dark beer helped with this or that health concern. Not so fast, says another study, because there can be more harm than good:

Experts with the American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association say that though these studies do show some benefits to moderate drinking, the health risks from alcohol consumption far outweigh the potential rewards.

The reason for the warning is that it may prevent some kinds of cancers and heart problems, but it can cause other cancers:

Drinking any alcohol at all is known to increase your risk for contracting a number of types of cancer, said Susan Gapstur, vice president of epidemiology for the American Cancer Society. These include cancers of the mouth, pharynx, larynx, esophagus, liver, colon/rectum and breast.

It also causes, as has been known, liver damage. However, all the benefits that do exist can be had by fresh fruits and vegetables:

For example, people can get resveratrol -- the antioxidant found in red wine that's believed to provide most of the drink's health benefits -- from drinking grape juice just as well as from drinking wine, Mieres said.

Those who have produced the study seem to be trying to have it both ways, extolling drinking in moderation even when they claim that is harmful. As for the moderation, having one drink or two drinks a day is the recommended. Known patterns of drinking don't follow that very well. Other studies have shown that binge drinking, especially for the young, or having more than the above recommended glasses a day is far more likely.

Caution is still recommended with this study. Reports on doctors' and scientists' findings have a habit of discovering competing studies. For the moment, the health prescription from the Lord seems safe enough to continue following.

About Mormon Tears

Many times, usually during testimony meeting, a member of the LDS Church will cry while talking about life and the gospel. The message is clear; they are experiencing a spiritual moment. What is not as clear is if the tears are genuine. Most of the time they are, but sometimes its hard to tell. Sincerity isn't the issue, but there can be a question of necessity.

One of the most famous "crying Mormon" is Glenn Beck, the controversial Conservative pundit. He is known to shed a tear either about his testimony or topics about the U.S. Constitution. Next to him in recognition of tear soaked words is Elder Richard G. Scott Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. He is often like Pa in Little House on the Prairie; each time you hear him there is going to be tears by the end.

There is much that could be said about the article on Glenn Beck, but there is one paragraph that seems wrong:

Beck’s oft-ridiculed penchant for punctuating his tirades with tears is the hallmark of a distinctly Mormon mode of masculinity. As sociologist David Knowlton has written, “Mormonism praises the man who is able to shed tears as a manifestation of spirituality.” Crying and choking up are understood by Mormons as manifestations of the Holy Spirit. For men at every rank of Mormon culture and visibility, appropriately-timed displays of tender emotion are displays of power.

This sounds more like feminist self-indulgence not based on everyday facts. Besides Elder Scott as mentioned above, very few leaders of the Church cry often. The Mormons who are most likely to cry and choke up are the Women, particularly younger ones. Worst offenders are those who get up on the podium and shed tears the moment they start talking. Once you get to know a congregation it isn't hard to predict who will tear up every time they reach the podium. Personally, instead of sharing in their spiritual experience it can be annoying. My own encounters with the Spirit can make me smile.

It isn't to say that crying when you feel spiritual, or what is known as "the gift of tears" in other traditions, is to be avoided. The most famous shedding of tears was when Jesus wept (John 11:35) at the grave of Lazarus because of the sadness of his friends. More tears were shed by him as the Christ looking over the Nephites and Lamanites. However, there should be judicious use and careful examination of the sincerity involved. Powerful moments of spiritual expression can be made less by overdone presentations. Don't cry if you don't feel it.

Dan Brown and Mormonism

Author Dan Brown has confused and scandalized Christians with some of his work. His most ferocious attacks have been against the Roman Catholic Church, with special emphasis on the exploits of the little known Opus Dia order. Critics describe his writings as clumsy, filled with poor grammar and overused cliches, and lacking historical accuracy. Despite all this, his books are best sellers and two were made into Hollywood movies. Another side of the success is that what scandalizes Christians resonates with Mormon fans.

Brigham Young University is going to release a seven-part documentary about the life of Jesus Christ. "Messiah: Behold the Lamb of God" was produced in response to a PBS documentary that explored the "historical" Jesus. It may not have any ties to Dan Brown, but BYU professor of church history and doctrine Richard Holzapfel said in the 15 minute preview that interest in Mormon views about Christ increased after the author's publications became popular. Before that, he said, revealing you were a Mormon would shut down any discussions.

The reason for this change in attitudes and Mormon interest in Dan Brown's writings is the ideas he presents. When his first book "The Da Vinci Code" came out, it talked about how Jesus was married and had children. For a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints this wasn't unheard of. One of the most outspoken early leaders of the LDS Church, Apostle Orson Hyde, insisted, "Now there was actually a marriage; and if Jesus was not the bridegroom on that occasion, please tell who was. If any man can show this, and prove that it was not the Savior of the world, then I will acknowledge I am in error." Elder Hyde said at another time, "Before the Savior died, he looked upon his own natural children, as we look upon ours; he saw his seed, and immediately afterwards he was cut off from the earth; but who shall declare his generation? They had no father to hold them in honorable remembrance; they passed into the shades of obscurity, never to be exposed to mortal eye as the seed of the blessed one." Other early LDS leaders known to have expressed these beliefs include Pres. Joseph F. Smith, Apostle Heber C. Kimball, Apostle Jedediah M. Grant, and Apostle Orson Pratt.

The highly regarded book "Jesus the Christ" by Apostle James E. Talmage and other LDS Apostles since have not made these conclusions. Following generations have almost forgotten the teachings of a few in earlier days. The marriage and family of Jesus has become Mormon folklore doctrines.

At first Mormons were worried that Dan Brown's latest book would feature the LDS Church in a bad light, much like he did the Roman Catholic Church. Mostly this was because he visited Salt Lake City and was going to write about Free Masonry. LDS history and temple ritual have ties to Free Masonry that some critics find worthy of contempt. There was relief when "The Lost Symbol" turned out to hardly mention Mormonism other than in a few minor paragraphs.

More intriguing was once again Dan Brown had touched on subject matters closer to Mormonism than traditional Christianity. Bryce Haymond of the blog "Temple Study" wrote about the different subjects in the book that Mormons could relate to as part of their own beliefs. These include spirits as "intelligence," spirit matter, ancient mystery initiations, and the plurality of God. The central theme of the book is theosis, or the potential of men to become god-like. The painting The Apotheosis of Washington is used as a point of reference. Haymond states, "Theosis, or deification, has always been a sticking point with critics of the LDS Church. To these seemingly erudite scholars, a belief in theosis is likely the most heretical and blasphemous doctrine Mormonism could have possibly come up with – the idea that fallen and sinful man could rise to the stature of our God in heaven."

A few Mormons have questioned if he got some of his ideas while in Salt Lake City. How closely "The Lost Symbol" touches on Mormon theology could make for an intellectual conspiracy theory. Blog respondent Clark, in a post at Mormon Mentality said, "It does make one wonder what he was researching in the Church archives if Mormonism is so minor." Maybe it is time for Mormonism to once again focus on its unique characteristics; all courtesy of a second rate writer with a popular following.

Book of Mormon Reading Breakdown Pt. 2

The Book of Helaman
1-2 (Murder of the Chief Judge and rise of Gadianton)
3-6(Righteousness of the Nephites and the rapid decline into wickedness)
5-9(Preaching and Prophecy of a later Nephi)
10-11 (Miracles of Nephi, repentance of people, and disturbance of Gadianton)
12 (Mormon's commentary about the "Pride Cycle")
13-16 (Samuel the Lamanite prophecies about the First Coming of Christ)

Third Nephi: The Book of Nephi, The Son of Nephi, Who was the Son of Helaman
1-4 (Signs of the mortal coming of Christ, war with the Gadianton Robbers)
5-7 (Righteousness and wicked decent into Tribalism)
8-10 (Destruction, three days of darkness, and the Voice of the Lord)
11-16 (Glorified Jesus comes down, organizes the Church, preaches His message)
17-20 (Institution of Communion, calling of Disciples, prophecy)
21-25 (Jesus prophecies of the Last Days)
26-28 (Unity of the Church and instructions to the Disciples)
29-30 (Mormon's warning to the Gentiles of their unbelief)

Fourth Nephi: The Book of Nephi, Who is the Son of Nephi- One of the Disciples of Jesus Christ
1 (Two Centuries of righteousness dissolving into absolute wickedness)

The Book of Mormon
1-7 (Mormon given the records, leads Nephite armies, and laments about their wickedness and destruction)
8-9 (Moroni, son of Mormon, finishes the record. He warns the Gentiles to learn from the Nephites and repent)

The Book of Ether
1-3 (Tower of Babel; brother of Jared sees pre-mortal Christ)
4-5 (Sealing the records until the Last Days)
6-11 (Jaredites arrive at the Promised Land, but wickedness spreads and prophets warn of destruction)
12 (Moroni comments about faith and miracles)
13-15 (Prophet Ether teaches of the New Jerusalem and the Jaredite destruction. The Jaredites lose faith and destroy themselves)

The Book of Moroni
1-6 (organization and practices of the Church)
7 (Sermon on Faith, Hope, and Charity)
8 (Epistle of Mormon on the wickedness of infant baptism)
9 (Second epistle of Mormon on the wickedness of the Nephites and Lamanites)
10 (Mormon testifies of his record and how to gain a testimony of its words and Christ)

Book of Mormon Reading Breakdown

John G. Turner at Religion in American History blog said he was having problems reading The Book of Mormon. He expressed the same frustrations that even believers often have with its dry narrative. He found it easier to digest short chunks given to him as suggested readings. With his invitation to help finish the book, I replied it would probably be best to break it down into major stories and sermons.

When I first came up with the idea it was going to be a loose collection of readings. However, I soon found it hard for me to find what might be skipped without serious lack of literary context. My final decision was to take the entire book and break it down into parts for complete consumption. Because I didn't want to overburden the post with my complete work I decided to publish the work on my blog. As I continue from 1 Nephi to Moroni there will be additions.

All books and chapters broken down from the LDS 1981 publication copies.

First Book of Nephi
1-7 (The calling of Lehi’s family to the wilderness)
8-9 (dream of Lehi and Nephi’s plates)
10-15 (encapsulated Lehi prophecy and Nephi’s Christian gospel history vision)
16-18 (continued travel and building of ship. Emphasis on Exodus)
19 (Purpose of writings to chronicle destiny of Israel. Note: the Book of Mormon doesn’t see a marked difference between Israel and Christianity. They are one and the same.)
20-22 (Nephi reads Isaiah to explain Israel’s destiny)

The Second Book of Nephi
1-4 (Lehi blesses his sons and grandsons, and the servant Zoram. Promises and warnings about the Promised Land)
5 (The split between Nephi and his brothers. Formation of Nephites and Lamanites)
6-10 (The sermon of Jacob concerning the scattering and gathering of Israel. Christ is center of salvation)
11-24 (Nephi quotes chapters of Isaiah as illustration of Jacob’s teachings)
25-26 (The salvation of Christ in history)
27-31 (The Book of Mormon as a final warning to repent before Christ comes in Power)
31-32 (How to become a Christian by Christ’s example)
33 (Nephi’s testimony of his writings)

The Book of Jacob: The Brother of Nephi
1 (Passing of the plates, death of Nephi and continued legacy)
2-3 (Jacob's sermon on pride and whoredoms)
4 (Foundation of the Lord)
5 (Allegory of the Olive Tree as a likeness to scattering and gathering)
7-8 (warning to not deny Christ. Sherem challenges Jacob)

Enos (His prayer struggle in the wilderness)
Jarom (Growth of the Nephites and Lamanites)
Omni (Discovery of Zarahemla)
Words of Mormon (Introduction of the editor and continued history)

The Book of Mosiah
1-6 (King Benjamin's address calling for a Christian covenant people)
7-8 (Rediscovery of Lehi-Nephi, the 24 plates)
9-11 (The founding of Lehi-Nephi and rising wickedness)
12-17 (Trial of Abinadi, his defense of faith in Christ the reason for Law of Moses)
18 (Alma and the Waters of Mormon)
19-21 (Bondage of Lehi-Nephi by Lamanites up to its rediscovery)
22 (Escape to Zarahemla)
23-24 (Alma, founding of Helam, bondage and escape to Zarahemla)
25-26 (The rise of the Church in Zarahemla and persecutions)
27 (Conversion of Alma and the Sons of Mosiah because of Angelic message)
28-29 (Mission of sons of Mosiah, change from Kingship to Judges after divine interpretation of 24 plates)

The Book of Alma: The Son of Alma
1-4 (The Nehor Priestcraft, war against Amlicites and Lamanites)
5-6 (Alma preaches and organizes the church in Zarahemla)
7 (Alma preaches in Gideon)
8-9 (Alma preaches, gets rejected, returns to Ammonihah)
10-11 (Amulek preaches to people of Ammonihah)
12-13 (Alma preaches righteousness and the priesthood to Zeezrom)
14-16 (Alma and Amulek see believers martyred, escape imprisonment, convert Zeezrom, and return to Zarahemla. Ammonihah destroyed by Lamanites)
17-20 (Ammon preaches to Lamanite King Lamoni)
21-25 (Mission to Lamanites, faith of the Anti-Nephi-Lehies)
26 (Ammon glories in Lamanite conversions)
27-28 (Anti-Nephi-Lehies called people of Ammon, Lamanite attack)
29 (Alma's desire to preach like an Angel)
30 (Korihor the Anti-Christ)
31-35 (Missionary work to the self-righteous Zoramites and poor outcasts)
36-42 (Commandments of Alma to his missionary sons)
43-44 (Captain Moroni leads the Nephites defenses against Lamanites)
45-49 (Amalickiah the Nephite joins the Lamanites. Moroni raises the Title of Liberty)
50-51 (Divisions among the Nephites; Freeman and Kingman factions)
52-55 (Moroni continues to lead the Nephites in defense against Lamanites and dissenters)
56-58 (War letter of Helaman to Moroni, including story of two thousand sons of Anti-Nephi-Lehies)
59-61 (Letters between Moroni and Pahoran)
62-63 (Major war ends, Moroni dies, Nephites expand)

Why "Twilight" is Poor Mormon Analogy

There has been some speculation recently, particularly among non-Mormons, of the Mormonism that can be found in the "Twilight" vampire series. The recent conjectures of John Mark Reynolds and a writer at the blog Forks High School Professor adds to the discussion. At best these comparisons of the series and Mormonism are problematic. Like the original Battlestar Galactica series, the background is far too often treated like the actual story. Understanding the relationship between story and theology cannot be done without vigorous oversimplifications and outright unwarranted conclusions. To put it another way; to see the Mormon analogies in the books ends up distorting both.

Probably the most troubling idea that these analysis make is that Stephanie Meyer has consciously preached Mormonism in the series. This has been a subject of criticism toward Orson Scott Card as well, although he states openly that it isn't preaching more than using his culture. There is no reason why either of them should apologize for doing this, because all authors write what they know. Even if S. Meyer did use Mormonism, I don't think she has demonstrated enough sophistication in her writings to make any lasting impressions. The books are mostly romances with vampires made for young adults. Arguments with any real merit made against the books can be related to any number of literature from the same traditions. The fact that another writer can issue a lawsuit for what has been described as "Mormon" elements should make critics reconsider their conclusions. Mormonism is either more universal or the books are less Mormon than has been supposed.

Even if there is Mormonism in the "Twilight" series, it is so hidden that there isn't much of a practical value. Like the "Harry Potter" criticism, what is said reveals more about the critics than the author or writings. Calling out the evils of witchcraft in its pages (much like the Mormon labels) end up sounding like unreasonable conspiracy theories put out as facts. No one is going to actually become sorcerers or even learn about real magic from the books. Similarly, the idea that readers will become a member of or really learn about Mormonism by reading "Twilight" is highly unlikely. Context of fantasy has supplanted any viable discussion of real beliefs outside of speculative literary interpretation. The average reader could care less without pre-conceived notions of what they want to find. That goes for Mormon and non-Mormon readers involved with subjecting the series to religious examination. Again, the worthwhile criticisms have been what can be used in examining any literary production.

An analogy can be so hidden or convoluted that it becomes very hard for casual readers, in isolation from other sources, to get anything out of them. The highly praised "Lord of the Rings" and "Narnia" series are examples of this that the "Twilight" series shares with them. It is hard for casual readers to understand how wizards, goblins, faeries, soldiers, and talking animals have anything to do with the theology of Anglicanism or Catholicism, much less vampires for Mormons without troubling biases. Books and papers might explicate the themes, but the original writer might as well have written straight forward papers to get the points across. Doubly so for audiences that are no longer steeped in the cultures that define the analogies meant by the authors.

A real Christian or Mormon literature wouldn't need images and characters to hide behind for mass consumption. The last real Christian stories for the masses since Shakespeare might have been the "Left Behind" series by Tim LaHaye that didn't use mere analogies for the stories. Milton, Dante, Shakespeare, and even the writer of Beowulf were not playing Johnathan Swift like games in their literary achievements. The exception might be "Pilgrim's Progress" by Bunyan, but that is borderline. At any rate, they had specific theological and moral messages and images not stunted behind hidden stories and characters. Heaven, Hell, Satan, Creation, Angels, Devils, and much more were not disguised as something else that had to be guessed at in papers and explications. Even the nearly allegorical Beowulf didn't need much work determining what the Grendel and mother Monsters or the Dragon stood for in relation to the hero.

Playing the analogy game with the "Twilight" series doesn't work very well. There are too many assumptions that have to be made about Mormonism, Stephanie Meyer, and the purpose of the books. Sources that are obscure to every day Mormons often have to be trotted out to make a case that is speculative at best. What is brought into the discussion by the critics is at least as important as what the series brings up. In the end the proof is manufactured because the reality cannot be proven without a direct quote from the author accepting or denying the connections. It can be fun, but unprofitable. In the end, the books have to speak for themselves and the readers decide.

Rise of the Mormon Singers

When Mormons are asked to name famous Mormons in music, Gladys Knight and The Mormon Tabernacle Choir might be the first that come to mind. Recently another name might be the pop sensation David Archuleta, the American Idol second place winner. There is a growing diversity of Mormon musicians who are, if not proud, at least not shy about their Mormon faith. It isn't the lip service recognition of Mormon roots such as the Hollywood actors who mention upbringing as an afterthought. They express that they are still practitioners, even if imperfect.

More surprising is up and coming Mormon singers are coming from a traditionally hedonist genre; the Rock band. The most famous of them is Brandon Flowers of "The Killers" who has been mentioned before. At least two articles about almost famous bands have interviews were his name comes up almost as a comparison to them. Alan Sparhawk of The Low said, "There are a few of us [Mormons] here and there. It would be fascinating to meet him," when Independent.IE seemed to bring up the subject of any relationships. More directly, 411mania.com reported that Neon Trees has been touring with The Killers after the drummer spotted them and enjoyed what he heard.

The juxtaposition of Mormonism and the Rock Band lifestyle is a constant theme in the interviews. As Sparkhawk stated, "He [Flowers] is an odd one. He's not at all perfect. There are plenty of instances where he's shown his ... ah weaknesses." Yet, Brandon has acknowledged those weaknesses, but also expressed his Mormonism is part of his life. More surprising is that Mormons in both The Low and Neon Trees declare that they are reserved in their behavior. In a business where drinking, drugs, and sexual promiscuity are considered part of the life, for some reason they haven't fallen victim. It is true that Tyler of Neon Trees said, "we all kind of dabbled in our teenage years . . ," but they are apparently no longer involved with the more party element of the work.

What makes it easier for members of a Rock band to be practicing Mormons where Hollywood actors fail? Perhaps its because singers have more of a hand in creating their roles. They aren't stuck with the script handed them, but often are the ones writing the lyrics and making the music. If they don't want to do something, there isn't as much pressure from a director, writer, and producer telling them they must for the integrity of the production. There is also a niche called "straight edge" that rebelled against the hedonistic lifestyle if not the music. A similar movement is unheard of in the cloistered Hollywood movie hills. In fact, the Bishop in the Hollywood area said, ""The honest truth is when people call me, I attempt to persuade them to go elsewhere . . . This is an extremely tough, tough town." As he stated, they have to compromise and make the career their lives.

Maybe it is just a coincidence that the music business has more admittedly practicing Mormons in the spotlight. Whatever the reason, there is something to be learned. Art doesn't have to get in the way of Religion. They just have to be placed in proper perspective.

There are still some holes to fill. None of the work done by the mentioned artists (other than Gladys Knight and obviously the Mormon Tabernacle Choir) seems to have any Mormon influence. Secondly, on politics they also lean toward the Left; such as supporting Obama or attacking George W. Bush. It is still unbecoming to be Republican and Conservative, even if Mormonism isn't a problem.

Are Mormons Depressed or Not?

Right when the idea of Mormon depression (using Utah statistics) was a given, another study has been done that challenge that impression. According to a Gallup poll on U.S. state "happiness", Utah ranks the highest with 62.9 points. There were 350,000 interviews taken about job satisfaction to health issues. The poll was conducted by Gallup in conjunction with Healthways and America's Health Insurance Plans.

Lets not get carried away. There are some cautions that those using the depression poll need to be careful of before making assumptions. Since Mormonism will most likely come up, it needs to be remembered that Utah residents are not all Mormons and not all Mormons are active members. There is also a curious fact about the numbers, as reported:

The survey, which takes about 15 minutes, involved 42 core questions. Those taking the survey could get a score of up to 100. The actual difference between states wasn't great: The average score for the highest-ranking state, Utah, was 69.2 points, while the average for the lowest-ranking state, West Virginia, was 61.2 points.

In other words, Utah is neither more depressed or more happy than anyone else in the United States. That means that, in all likelihood, Mormons aren't any mentally worse off than other people. It is hard to see how this relates to the other study that found, according to an ABC News article on the subject:

According to MHA, some 10.14 percent of adults in Utah "experienced a depressive episode in the past year and 14.15 percent experienced serious psychological distress. ... Individuals in Utah reported having on average 3.27 poor mental health days in the past 30 days."

Both studies, like all studies of this nature, are probably flawed in their own ways. Reporters have an even worse tendency to conclude causation where nothing concrete exists. In the meantime, I am going to remain happy that it appears (if past "logic" holds) Mormons are at least as happy as everyone else.

Infestation of Mormon Leadership

When something unusual happens it can be considered a coincidence. When it happens more than once a trend might be starting. In this case, Mormons are getting elected to leadership positions by other religious groups. That isn't to say that they are called to ecclesiastical positions any more than Mormons would grant a non-baptized person the Bishopric. Just like in the business world, however, top spots for finance and organization have Mormons picked as the leaders.

In one fascinating case there is Mark Paredes hired by The Los Angeles office of the Zionist Organization of America as an executive director. The duties of the office include promoting the State of Israel and fighting anti-Semitism. In the Q & A, Paredes explained:

Jewish Journal: At least two people have held your position since late 2006. What will be your formula for turning ZOA around?

Mark Paredes: I plan to bring together Jews, both religious and secular, who are proud to be Zionists, who are willing to defend Israel and the Jewish people, who want Israel to negotiate peace only with partners who have already renounced terror and incitement and recognize Israel, and who believe that Jews have the right to live in the Land of Israel, including Judea and Samaria. Belief in these principles transcends movements and the religious-secular divide, and it’s my job to organize events that will inspire our supporters and attract other defenders of Israel to the ZOA banner.

He doesn't leave any details as to how he is going to accomplish his goals, saying only he has "many weeks and months of hard work." It shouldn't take long to see if he is more successful than his predecessors. Recent leaders lasted only a few months. There is no available information in the article to determine why the others lasted such a short time. It is interesting that as a Mormon he was picked at all, although not extraordinary.

The second leadership position of interest is in Utah. Rev. Monsignor Terrence Fitzgerald, a friend of LDS Pres. Monson, has hired Mormon Brad Drake as executive director of Utah's Catholic Community Services. As reported in the Salt Lake Tribune:

"Our mission is not to proselytize or to make people Catholic, but to serve all those in need in any way we can," Fitzgerald said.

In addition to a good grasp of its mission, Drake brought something else to CCS: a lifetime of business experience capped by service in the nonprofit world.

He has "the ability and skills to manage a complex agency in difficult times," Fitzgerald said.

Why Mormons are getting picked in organizations controlled by other religions or if this is really a trend is hard to say. What this holds for future relationships is just as much a mystery. That this is happening during a time when Mormons are less liked than since the start of the 20th Century is heartening. At the least it represents discussions of "how wide the divide" should be scrapped for real working together.

The Mormonism and Evolution Debate

According to a recent Pew research poll about Evolution and Religion, Mormons are among the least likely to believe in Evolution as the best explanation for the origins of human life on Earth. Just like any poll, there are serious problems. How the question is asked doesn't leave much room for alternatives and the elusive nuances to the answers. The word "best" automatically contradicts core Mormon theology about human origins. It doesn't give the respondents a way to explain themselves. As a self-described "Theo-Evolutionist" I can think of other better explanations without denying the huge discoveries of the fossil record. Another problem pointed out was, "The dotted line puts the US population at 48%, yet only five groups, which make up perhaps a third of the US population, are shown below 48%. Some piece of the puzzle is missing." The "science" of poll taking has always been suspicious. Who is giving, who is responding, and how to interpret can be troubling no matter how careful the research. Mormons who are anti-Evolutionists do exist in large numbers, but that doesn't have to be and probably is shrinking.

Probably the biggest hurdle for Evolution is the position held by leadership of the LDS Church who are more likely to be negative. The LDS Church might have “no official” position on Evolution, but the more I study the issue the more ambiguous such a statement comes across. What does it mean to have “no official” position in the LDS Church? That isn’t to say I disagree with that fact, but it is a very slim non-position. It is true that there have been LDS leaders, like Pres. David O. McKay and Stephen L. Richards, who spoke positively in public. In General Conference where it does count theologically and officially, statements about Evolution have been overwhelmingly negative. That translates to members who believe what is spoken there is scripture into an official position; and rightly so for the significant value of General Conference talks. Only slight room for disagreement remains.

There is a reason anti-Evolution remains in Mormonism even if Creationism is seen as unattainable. Despite all the witnesses (evidence) to Evolution, many Mormons hold on to anti-Evolution positions because there isn’t anything to fill the void. The unsaid argument for Mormon Creationists is “if there is no position on Evolution, than what exactly are modern Prophets and Scriptures saying?” I have my own answers to that, but there has been little discussion on the theological implications. Keeping the questions of Evolution vs. The Creation on “a shelf to ask when I am dead” might be a good personal approach, but it will fail to convince other LDS members. And that means more than dismissing McConkie, Smith, Benson, et el. as wrong. It means the very difficult, but I believe possible, work of explaining how they are correct in their own message (such as explaining what they are really going against is the atheist use of the theory). Then, moving past that, explaining how Evolution fits into Mormon theology and Scriptures.

Religious Evolutionists must confront theological concerns to make any lasting headway. To simply say that science and religion ask and answer two different questions is the real “God in the gaps.” Exactly what questions do they ask and what kind of answers are to be found? Scientists should understand there has to be interpretive frameworks to make sense of desperate evidence. The “don’t take it literally” is still NOT an answer or even a discussion. There has to be interpretive discussion of even non-literal meanings. You don’t read a book if you can’t understand the words.

I have my own tentative theory of the relationship between Evolution and the Garden of Eden, the sticking point. Many questions remain such as the idea of pre-Adam-ites and no death before the fall. Still, it is better than leaving it alone or dismissing one or the other. Even Elder McConkie didn’t believe in the Young Earth theory. That is a starting point.

I believe Mormonism is a "literalist" religion. After all, there were angels, miracles, gold plates and visions that are at the center of its founding. Joseph Smith did more than talk about Biblical events, but proclaimed that he conversed with many of the participants - including Adam. There just isn’t room enough in Mormon doctrine (if you take its divine founding and founder seriously) to make the scriptural stories just metaphor or symbolic. Yet, there is plenty of room for a re-interpretation of the scriptural stories. Because Mormons believe in the Scriptures as spiritually inspired, but human produced, the written word isn’t set in perfection. Just as Mormon acted as editor and Joseph Smith made editorial changes to the Book of Mormon, other writers wrote from their prospective. That means that the Scriptures are malleable to both new revelations and new understandings. I think the idea that we have to believe all the stories as written or none of them is spiritually harmful. The Scriptures, like history, are multi-faceted and full of missing pieces or even hyperbole.

Joseph Smith said that by two contraries we come to the truth. When it comes to Evolution and the Creation that has been my guiding principle. Puzzles can be fun. Puzzles can be frustrating. Some can fall apart, but that doesn't mean we should not try to put them together and see if we can see a bigger picture.

The Mormon Nature of Symbols

Recently over at "Mormon Matters" there has been some discussion about Mormon usage of symbols, particularly about Jesus Christ. Most recently it has been about images of Christ and the lack of realism. This seems to tie into an earlier discussion about the lack of cross use by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I have discussed the cross topic before and would like to add some thoughts on symbols in general.

From my other entry I said:

I believe, from my research, that the absents of a Cross is an "accident" of history. Not that I don't think there were deliberate reasons - as the LDS Church has been using other symbols since almost the start. The Angel Moroni seemed to have replaced the Cross as a symbol because it represented many of the key teachings of the Church. It carries the Book of Mormon in one hand and a trumpet in another. This represents Restoration of the Gospel, calling of the Elect, Resurrection and Judgment, and etc. The Cross did not get added to the plethora of other symbols available for iconography.

To continue, what is missing is a discussion on the nature of “symbols” in Mormonism. When a symbol is used, what symbol and what kind? Mormons might not use the cross out of historical accidents and might make excuses to keep from starting, but why? I think it has to do with the sacred nature of symbol in Mormonism that is seen in few religions.

How has the Mormon use of symbols started? More often then not any significant symbol is associated with the Temple. There are only two “official” symbols used by the Church that are not tied to the Temple in a direct way and that is the Sacrament and the CTR ring. The Sacrament has a very specific purpose used at a very specific time. It is an extension of our baptismal oaths and covenants. One could argue that makes it partly Temple related. As for the CTR ring, it really started more as a primary gimmick that seems to have slipped from official usage and became consumerist. Paintings commissioned or displayed by the Church are actually rather generic and serving the purpose mostly of garnishing. There are still very few chapels that have any art (symbols) of any kind displayed - not even in the way of Islamic geometric patterns.

The reason Mormonism has not “taken up the cross” is because it already has a symbol that the cross fills in for; and that would be the Temple. Pictures of the Temple in homes are often placed where other religions would put their own symbols. When a prophet says that the symbol of Christ should be our own lives rather than a cross, that means something more than a cute expression of examples to others. That is precisely what the Temple is commanding us to do as members. Not saying that is what the prophets mean by that, but who knows? I have come to the conclusion that crosses are not bad (I prefer and keep, but don’t actually wear, an Ankh), but they are superfluous for Mormon tradition. I might even go so far as to say that Mormons who have gone to the Temple should put it aside. There might be several reasons a Mormon wants to wear a cross, but the only ones I feel that have a legitimate reason are converts and out of friendly gestures.

What I am about to say will have to suffice so that I don't step over sacred boundaries. When a person goes to the Temple they take on themselves more than the name of Christ, but make promises that they will become symbolically Christ in their lives. The life, death, and resurrection narratives are now part of our own narratives. Ultimately, Mormon usage of symbols is more than for memorial, but for transformation. Nothing in Mormonism is more important in that transformation than Temples where salvation is solidified by symbolic actions. The one piece of physical symbol taken out is not even to be shown. It is for this reason that I feel the cross and any other "Christ symbol" will remain outside of Mormon religious culture. There is no official need. If it was ever to be included it would be for political purposes.

Reasons Mormons Stand Alone

There has been talk that 2008 was a bad year for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its image. To many it was a self-inflicted image because of the political stands it took and history. True as that may be, Mormonism has almost never had good press coverage or widespread respect. Perhaps the closet to a good reputation was during the era between 1950 and the first years of the 1960s when the forced Americanization of Mormonism coincided with wide spread U.S. patriotism and conservative spirit. That window of time was short lived and perhaps illusory. Radical social and political liberalization quickly took over. What remained was the LDS Church standing in the crosshairs of a culture war. It was left again where it started in the 18th Century. The conservative religious considered Mormonism a blasphemy and secularists an affront to human progress and logic.

The conservative antagonists to Mormonism are often religious theocrats who see anyone with different beliefs than themselves as doomed to eternal punishment. Christians are not alone in this view. To deviate from dogma is a worse sin than moral failings. Mormons are seen as the enemy because no matter how good a person is, the differences are too much for any respect. For many Christians, Mormonism's questioning of dogmatism and focus on works as an important aspect of spirituality is despicable. Faith in the correct beliefs are of the utmost importance. To believe anything more or less than exact dogma is to be evil.

Having a belief in Priesthood that governs and leads, rather than simply informs is another thorn in many Christian's sides. Similar to secularists, Protestants question authority and reject it except as a loose influence. Interesting enough, for years Catholics were kept out of the political process by Protestant gatekeepers for many of the same reasons. An overwhelming number of Catholics have forced a grudging respect on the Republican conservative Protestant base. It remains an uneasy reliance. Regardless of what chances Romney might have lost because of a dislike for Mormons, it is just as unlikely a Catholic could become a Republican U.S. Presidential contender. Nevertheless, the numbers and a respectable balance of traditional Christian dogma that Protestants inherited gives them an equal amount of room to ostracize Mormons.

Liberals are no less problematic for Mormons because they hold different metaphysical views about G-d and religion. Strict secularists hold even less similarities. Morals are seen as universals based on human relations rather than any set of doctrinal justifications. There is no right and wrong other than treating others with respect and social justices as they define the terms. Since there is no authority (other than a tolerant G-d by the liberal religious) then science and logic become the ultimate determiners of Truth. For the secularist liberal what cannot be proven in physical life must be rejected. Mormonism posits that truth and moral ism is more than what can be proved, but is centered on faith and Church authority. Often the only difference between the conservative religious criticisms of Mormonism and the secularists is tradition and a Holy book.

Strangely, since both conservative religious and Western liberalism both believe morals and authority are of secondary considerations, both view Mormonism as "cultic." It is an anti-papist sentiment shared by Christian and Secularist alike aimed at anyone who proclaims they have divine authority. This is exacerbated by the Mormon history of continual revelation, visions, miracles, new Scripture and Prophets. All of these have been rationally rejected as a sign of delusion. The religious say G-d no longer speaks words openly and the secularist that there never was a divine voice. To paraphrase one secularist, Mormonism doesn't allow for easy metaphorical re-interpretation. The foundational doctrinal history and Scriptures are too grounded in literalism. A culture built around the idea "G-d is dead" or at least silent is scandalized by one that continues to insist prophets exist that can declare "That He lives."

Books on Mormonism to Start the Year

A while ago I had written a review at Amazon.com about a book on Mormonism that I still find relevant. The book is by a non-Mormon who seems to get it right where others go wrong, even Jan Shipps who is more of an historian. Its price is the most problematic at $30 new and hard to find in any stores or libraries. The other book I am including is a great companion to the first and by a wonderful Mormon scholar. Neither of these are new, but are great reads for those who are interested in learning more about the religion.



An Introduction to Mormonism by Douglas J. Davies.

This is a wonderful book if you are into understanding the more difficult basics of LDS doctrine. Because of its complicated interpretive structure, I have a hard time calling it an introduction. He writes as a University Professor and it shows. Certainly it is the best book on the subject written by a non-Mormon, without clinging to esoterica and other people's misconceptions that usually hurt even the best books on the subject. Even the most celebrated non-Mormon authority Jan Shipps can be too skeptical and careless rather than understanding. This author, however, stays mostly with the authoritative works first, and the others second when needing clarification.

The touch tone of any treatment of Mormonism is how they approach the LDS Temple. I was very surprised and excited that the author rejected sensationalism and expose. He actually talked about the meaning behind the Temple and other related subjects. It is a far cry better than any other similar studies outside the LDS Church. I would recommend reading By the Hand of Mormon by Terryl L. Givens with this book. Both are a compliment to each other.

I would like to mention what I see as a weaknesses in his study. One of the reasons I recommended Givens is that Davies misunderstands the Book of Mormon. Perhaps that is going too far as he does have a pretty good sense of its general message. Rather, Davies doesn't understand the deeper teachings within the Book of Mormon, much less the anticipatory sections that touch on things that will show up later in the Doctrine and Covenants. He reads the Book of Mormon, sadly much like LDS members themselves, from a purely surface reading. That causes him to miss the many subtle and complicated issues it brings up, and dilutes the connections between it and later LDS Scripture. For instance, Davies doesn't sense the deeply ritualistic and priesthood oriented teachings of the Book of Mormon that continually shows up. Examples would be talking about the importance of mysteries, discussions on Melchezidek, mentioning of Priests and Teachers and Twelve Disciples, setting up Churches. Most importantly he misses the discussion of "turning the hearts of the children to the parents" in Third Nephi that Davies makes a big connection with ritual in other chapters of his study. There are other minor quibbles, but they are far less worrisome than what other authors even of the same caliber usually have.

The other book is by an author just mentioned. He doesn't delve into the deep waters of theological exegesis or complicated matters, but what he covers is a worthwhile overview. Again, the main concern is that the purchase prices is too high and a library copy should be sufficient.



The Latter-day Saint Experience in America by Terryl L. Givens.

There isn't as much to say about this book because it doesn't seek to explore any particular arguments. It starts out as a clear narrative of LDS history that covers some controversial events from the Mormon point of view. Yet, it doesn't act as a apologetic so much as clearly trying to present the Mormon understanding of themselves. The history sections alone would be informative to both Mormons and non-Mormons in ways that general writings of one or the other seem to come short.

The second section is more theological and covers the main beliefs. Again, there isn't any deep discussions and yet the information is full of enlightening insights. He sometimes explains misunderstandings that boarder on apologetic, but only when he feels outsiders have misinterpreted key doctrines. His harshest criticism is for those who perpetuate the idea that Mormons hold Christ's Salvation and Grace as of secondary importance. It is clear he holds orthodox beliefs about the LDS Church and its doctrines. That might turn off those who insist on holding their own ideas about Mormons in a negative light. For those honestly wanting to understand the religion, this book is a good start. It is succinct, leaning unbiased for most audiences, and covers a wide range of topics and controversies.

Have a Killers Christmas

Here is a small collection of seasonal songs from a band I discovered this year and really like.

The first song is from The Killers about Santa Clause when you are on the naughty list.

Then there is a song about presents and a sled:




A different kind of Christmas song from The Killers and Elton John.


Finally, "Tranquillize" just because it is such a cool song:



MERRY CHRISTMAS

Scriptural References to the Family Proclamation

Here are some scriptural references to "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" that I have gathered in study of the document. This is in no way comprehensive considering the possible inclusions and interpretations. I have tried to find the most relevant passages and avoid repetitions. The full text can be found by clicking on the post title.

. . . The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints . . .

Article of Faith (AofF) 6, Eph. 2:19-22

. . . marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God . . .

Mark 10:6-9

. . . image of God.

Gen. 1:27

. . . each has a divine nature and destiny.

Romans 8:15-17

. . . heir of eternal life.

Abraham 3:24-26

. . . families to be united eternally.

Malachi 4:5-6, Doc.& Cov. 110:16; 128:9-11; 132:19

. . . replenish the Earth remains in force.

Gen. 1:28, 1 Nephi 17:36

. . . lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

Ex. 20:14, Heb. 13:4, Doc & Cov. 132:18-19

We affirm the sanctity of life . . . in God's eternal plan.

Ex. 20:13, Doc.&Cov. 42:18, Matt. 5:21-24

Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness . . .

Duet. 4:9-10, Doc.&Cov. 83:4-5, Prov. 22:6, 1 Tim. 5:8

. . . mothers and fathers - will be held accountable . . .

Mark 10:13-16, Doc.&Cov. 68:25-28

Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan.

Gen. 2:24-25, Matt. 19:4-6, Doc.&Cov. 49:15-17; 130:1-2

Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved . . .

Psalms 127:3-5, 2 Nephi 2:22-25; 25:26

Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on the principles of faith, prayer . . .

Gal. 5:22-23, AofF 4, 13

. . . fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.

Gen. 3:16-20, Prov. 29:15, Col. 3:21, Alma 56:47-48, 1 Tim. 3:4-5, 1 Peter 3:7, Eph. 5:22-33

Extended families should lend support . . .

John 19: 26-27, Doc.&Cov. 75:24

We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity . . .

Jacob 2:28-29, Matt. 18:6,10

. . . disintegration of the family will bring . . . calamities foretold . . .

Doc.&Cov. 1:12-18, 2 Tim. 3:1-9

We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere . . .

1 Tim 2:1-2, Doc.&Cov. 98:9-10; 134:1

. . . strengthen the family as the fundimental unit of society.

Abraham 1:2-3, Acts 17:28-29

If anyone has other scriptures that clarify and support the proclamation, of course add to the comments. This is the most important revelation since the granting of the Priesthood to all worthy males. It might even be of a class worthy of comparison to Joseph F. Smith's Doc.&Cov. 138 of Christ's visit to the spirits of the dead.

Boycott Mormon Utah . . . Please!

Now that Prop 8 has passed, those who are against it have started to show their true colors. With such radical protests aimed at the LDS Church, there is unintended consiquences that will help and not hurt Mormons. I hope they continue to attack Mormons (politically and not physically) because they are doing themselves some real harm in the long-run. As someone who is against "gay-marriage" that isn't a bad thing.

Probably the least effective is the boycott of Utah. I would hope that they go through with the boycott because it will help the conservative culture living there. What they plan on boycotting is not exactly liked by Mormons anyway. From an Associated Press article:

He is calling for skiers to choose any state but Utah and for Hollywood actors and directors to pull out of the Sundance Film Festival. Other bloggers and readers have responded to his call.

"There's a movement afoot and large donors are involved who are very interested in organizing a campaign, because I do not believe in frivolous boycotts," said Aravosis, who has helped organize boycotts against "Dr. Laura" Schlessinger's television show, Microsoft and Ford over gay rights issues.

"The main focus is going to be going after the Utah brand," he said. "At this point, honestly, we're going to destroy the Utah brand. It is a hate state."

Probably one of the best things to happen is if Hollywood actors and directors pull out of the Sundance Film Festival. It was instituted partly to antagonize the nearby conservative Mormon population. Seeing the festival go away or at least dramatically decrease would be a cultural sigh of relief. The secondary place that would be effected is Park City, another culturally isolated town. Conservative Mormons might think it is a nice place to visit, but they wouldn't want to buy a house. Salt Lake City is still considered Mormon, but that distinction is become less true. Large as it is, the City has continued to become distinct from the rest of the state. Only its size and history has kept it tied to the surrounding culture.

Calls to find other places to ski might be the most problematic, but even that is not going to destroy much of Utah economy. There are so many locals and fellow Mormons from other states that like to ski that a dramatic shift in visitors will be negligable. After all, not everyone is from California and not everyone who is not Mormon agrees with the "gay-marriage" protestors. The positives are that fewer "gay-marriage" supporters and Californians will visit, to the pleasure of the conservatives and many locals.

The most lasting economic campaign would be to boycott developing or moving businesses to Utah. A few places might get hit, but Salt Lake City would take the brunt of the actions. Not that conservative Mormons would mind much. It is the influx of so many non-Mormons because of big business that have brought Salt Lake City into conflict with the State's cultural majority. Gutting the economy of the capital city would go a long way to bringing it more in line politically.

Probably the most important development to all this protesting is a more positive acceptance by the conservative religious. They are starting to open their eyes to what is happening to Mormons, and starting to come to a defense:

Pastor Chris Clark of the East Claremont Baptist Church in California said, "Unfortunately, I know in the wake of the Prop. 8 passage, the Mormon Church has been targeted, unfairly so."

Clark says the coalition includes Roman Catholic bishops, Evangelical Christians and secular groups such as the National Organization for Marriage and the Liberty Council.

There are those who will hate Mormons no matter what, but that can change for some. At least two Catholic Bishops have expressed outrage at the treatment of Mormons. A few prominant Protestants involved with Prop 8 have also shown support and thankfulness. Even Mike Huckubee stated on Fox his belief that Mormons had every right to participate. Coming from him that is praise.

In the end the idea that this has been a PR disaster for the LDS Church depends on what you mean by disaster. Mormons have gained respect from the conservative community that they otherwise would not have had. Those they have angered never really liked Mormons and have now found an excuse to voice what they have only hinted at before. The more they yell, then the more sympathy will be generated toward those more disposed to conservative and traditional marriage. The U.S. membership might not go up, and in fact shrink because of the increased secularization of the nation, but the LDS Church gained influence in circles that were previously closed. The negatives for liberal leaning might seem huge, but the positives for conservative leaning is worth the fight.

Dealing With "Hidden" Mormonism

Mormons who say they have just "discovered" Mormon history and doctrine after years of membership just don't make any sense. Perhaps a couple decades ago that might have been a possibility, but even then not likely. Some say that the LDS Church hides its history and doctrines, but that is innacurate. At worst it chooses what it presents like any religion or organization seeking to have a voice. That doesn't mean things are hidden; just slanted or emphasized.

There are some approaches to LDS history and doctrine at Dave's Mormon Inquiry that absolutely represents my own faith and knowledge journey. He lists those as:

The "what's the rest of the story?" approach. Most accounts are either abbreviated, selective, or influenced by a writer's personal agenda. Before freaking out, do more reading from a variety of authors.

The "adjust my opinions and convictions" approach. Yes, new facts are a fine basis for updating your inherited stock of opinions about life and all that. What better way to expand your understanding of human nature and institutions than reading history? A scaled-down-to-reality sense of what human institutions, including the LDS Church, can actually achieve is one of the benefits of reading history.

The "I'm a little bit smarter now" approach. I'm puzzled at why so many people who first read up on LDS history (at 20 or 25) leap to the conclusion that they've been lied to all these years. Right, try teaching history to LDS teenagers. Or adults. In a world filled with books and websites, you can start learning all you want to know about LDS history the day you get interested. If you do, give yourself a pat on the back and keep reading.

Each of these I subscribe to in my own reading throughout the years. The polygamy issue has perhaps been the most problematic, but hardly missing. There were repsonses to the RLDS (now Community of Christ) that dealt specifically with Joseph Smith having plural wives. The Doctrine and Covenants still contains a section that directly relates to Joseph Smith's revelation on the subject, as critics continue to point out. I love the quote from Kirk Douglas at the same blog above:

"I grew up, went to college, but my Judaism stayed stuck in a 14-year-old boy's Hebrew school book. It has been pointed out to me that no rational adult would make a business decision based on what they knew when they were 14. You wouldn't decide who to marry based on what you knew about love and relationships when you were 14. But lots of us seem satisfied to dismiss religion based on what we learned at 14, and I was one of those that stupid."

That is exactly what happened to me with polygamy, to continue the example. I first learned of the practice and doctrine around the age of 13 from a non-member friend. I didn't believe it. However, when I did discover the truth during my readings of "orthodox" books I wasn't shocked. It was there in black and white. To this day hearing grown men and women say they just discovered the same information just doesn't make any sense to me. When I was a child I thought as a child, but I didn't have to grow up to find the information.

I must say that I am amused by the idea of "hidden" things. I knew a lot about those things before I went on my mission just from reading LDS Church produced material. Other readings were either different (mostly antagonistic) opinions on the same history and doctrines, or the filling in of details.

Maybe it has to do with the hunger effect. when a person is seriously malnourished it can kill them to eat a feast. From what I understand most who lose their faith over what they read all of a sudden discover all these "hidden" teachings and historical information. Those who have continually read the scriptures and other material starting out young stay strong, or lose the faith in a different way.

Another curiosity is that for all the "hidden" information, it is interesting that the bulk of the knowledge comes from LDS produced writings. For example, other than a few original newspaper sources, Brodie's "No Man Knows My History" mostly uses The Joseph Smith History and Journal of Discourses. Aside from that, much of what she talks about can be found in B.H. Robert's Comprehensive History of the Church from a different perspective. Now, if you go to blatant anti-LDS works, they are a compendium of quotes (badly edited and way out of context) from LDS sources. To paraphrase Scully from the X-Files, "the [information] is there. You just have to know where to look."

Here are my own "must read" books to read before going on a mission. Warning: these are not easy to digest in one sitting lesson manuals. It might take a year or more with one grouping. This list also contains some books that came out later that if existed before my mission I would have read:

The Book of Mormon, New Testament, Pearl of Great Price, selected Old Testament, and selected Doctrine and Covenants.

Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, edited by Joseph Fielding Smith

Discourses of Brigham Young, edited by John A. Widtsoe.

Jesus the Christ, by James E. Talmage.

Articles of Faith, by James E. Talmage.

Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, by Richard L. Bushman.

Brigham Young: American Moses, by Leonard J. Arrington.

Answers to Gospel Questions: The Classic Collection in One Volume
by Joseph Fielding Smith.

Selections, particularly the prophets and well known persons and sermons, from Journal of Discourses, edited by George Watt.

Comprehensive History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, by B.H. Roberts.

By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion, by Terryl L. Givens.

The Latter-day Saint Experience In America, by Terryl L. Givens.

Massacre at Mountain Meadows, by Ronald W. Walker, Richard E. Turley, Glen M. Leonard.

Just about anything by Hugh Nibley (probably more of a personal taste). I admit he, more than any other author, shaped my approach to Mormonism.

Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass: The Art of Telling Tales About Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, by Hugh Nibley and David J. Whittaker.

Temple and Cosmos: Beyond This Ignorant Present, by Hugh Nibley, edited by Don E. Norton.

An Approach to the Book of Mormon, by Hugh Nibley.

Mormonism and Early Christianity, by Hugh Nibley.

Why Mormon/Evangelical Dialogue is Problematic

The idea that Mormons can have a constructive dialogue with Evangelical Christians doesn't seem practical. Both hold so strongly to what they believe and are so serious about getting others to believe it that a bloodless catfight is the best that can be hoped. However, I think that Evangelical Christians must change ten times more than Mormons in order to have a real discussion. That isn't to say it is impossible, but it is improbable.

Probably the most important change that must take place is mutual respect. It is true that both consider the other as wrong, but there is an added problem that E.C. considers Mormons as contemptible. Despite a few instances where E.C. and Mormons get along, those most able to influence the wider population are spiteful. As one self described former E.C. Anti-Mormon put it:

People who support the counter-cult ministry would probably interject at this point that their intention has never been to culture that kind of behavior. I would reply that their intentions mean very little, it’s their results that matter, and I was one of their results whether they like it or not. I’ve heard the talk that goes on when evangelical anti-Mormons think Latter-day Saints aren’t in the room, the sneering and the condescension. You cannot spend major parts of your life thinking and preaching that the followers of a competing religion are deceived, blind and going to hell without looking down on them in some form, and condescension easily breeds hate and ridicule.

I do think that Mormon's should take to heart her comment:

For example, when one of the missionaries was explaining why I needed to be baptized in their church, I objected, “But I’ve already been baptized. Why should I do it again?” His flippant response: “You didn’t get baptized, you went swimming.” It did not sit well with me to have someone belittle what I considered sacred, but even more unsettling was the logic behind that statement. When all is said and done, the LDS church teaches that evangelical Christianity is inadequate, evangelicals do not have the Holy Spirit, and evangelical baptisms are worthless no matter how sincere the intentions behind them.

On the other hand, the E.C. needs to realize that, yes Mormons do believe differently than they do about authority and salvation. That is something that Mormons understand all too well or should if they don't. Many Catholics and Protestants are no different in this matter among each other. That is what defines religions, even very closely related faiths. The answer to that is breathing room by actual discussions about the very nature of authority and salvation. To attack is to stop the discussion dead.

It doesn't help that E.C.s constantly accuse Mormons of lying about their history and beliefs, while Mormons consider the E.C. criticisms lies. There is some truth in both perspectives. The problem is that with Mormons it is usually about either difference of opinion about what the history and beliefs mean or ignorance. With E.C. it is often conscious dismissives that come off as real lies. While some Mormons might ignore their own history or doctrine (and that isn't much different from many religious people and organizations), E.C.s often ignore what Mormons think. Again, from that excellent blog post:

I began to notice something about the evangelical counter-cult ministry which bothered me immensely: the evangelicals were not responding to the LDS fiskings of their arguments, they just kept peddling the same material as if it was the final word on the subject and no one had refuted it.

In order for a good dialogue to happen, ground rules of each side must be understood. That is where the breaking point is reached in even well intentioned discussions. That is the problem that Gerald R. McDermott had at First Things, even if he did better than others have. He made assumptions about Mormonism and it's Scriptures by superficial readings and lack of looking beyond his own pre-conceptions. As I have said in another of my posts:

The first and most damaging fallacies are the lack of contextual and definitional examinations. Some of the logical problems are based on lack of explaining related subjects that help to answer some of the questions posed. Other logical problems are based on assumptions held by the presenter that Mormons don't hold themselves. Both of these are very common anti-Mormon tactics. Probably the most hypocritical is when a detractor states (with some truth I might add) that Mormons use Protestant and Catholic words and notions, yet mean something different. Then, they turn around and criticize Mormonism from the definitions that Mormons don't hold as if the first statement didn't exist. A very switch and bait tactic that is employed with such ease . . .

The most important thing to remember is dropping the "to hate is to love" rhetoric. It is hard to reconcile the idea that there is some kind of love and honesty in your heart when the only words out of your mouth are negatives. Start by dropping the "cult" accusation if you really want to talk with a Mormon on equal terms. When "How Wide the Divide" came out, the loudest and most numerous responses from the "other half" was condemnation and blaspheme. The very act of even trying to talk with Mormons was a sin. What is interesting is that while Mormons are trying to cozy up to them, they are becoming less liked because they are becoming less likeable and are proud of that.

Also, as Bruce D. Porter said, "To the title Christian a critic of Mormonism may add any modifiers he deems appropriate—unorthodox, heretical, non-Nicene, different—but blanket assertions that we are not Christian are a poor substitute for informed argument and dialogue." You can say Mormons believe in a different concept of Jesus as Christ, but to say they believe in a different Jesus is not only offensive, it is illogical. He lived unless you believe he didn't. Mormons may not be considered fellow or orthodox Christians, but they are still Christians.

I would like to have a discussion with Evangelicals as they hold important similarities, but it starts with both sides letting down a few defensive positions. More than anything I would like to be understood on my own terms and expect E.C.s want to be as well. Perhaps it starts with accepting each other as humans first and Mormons and Evangelicals second.

Another Evangelical/Mormon Dialogue Blunder

Evangelicals just can't get their arguments past preconceptions and horrible mis-readings. It doesn't matter how sincere they are in trying to defend positions while trying to be fair. It is one reason I don't believe dialogue is possible. They don't want to listen and learn, just argue. Mormons have the same problem, but most are too busy trying to explain themselves to attack others. I find that Gerald R. McDermott starts out well, recognizing both that Mormons believe in Grace and critical Christians believe in Works. From most arguments I have seen, this is one of the triad reasoning that some contend the "non-Christian" status of Mormons. He then continues by using the other two standard bearers of the Trinity concept and extra-Biblical exclusion to make the case. The problem is that the arguments are full of so many misrepresentations I think it brings his exegesis and research abilities into question.

Mormons do not believe Jesus was always God

I am not sure exactly what this means. Even if taken at face value for his meaning, the whole paragraph comes off incoherent. A better case would be to say that Mormons believe Jesus was always Divine, but never more than the Son of God. He has never been considered by Mormons as God the Highest. It can't be said Jesus has never been considered God the Father, as there are some instances in the Book of Mormon that he was given that status. In fact, later on in his argument McDermott brings up that idea as a way to prove Mormon inconsistencies or at least theological developments of the Godhead. As usual, perhaps because of his evangelical background, he simplifies what is a complication in order to score points.

Again, he has a great start with, "It is indeed, for it purports to give us another history of what Jesus said and did—not one to replace the Jesus of the gospels but to supplement that record." However, like the quote above, he becomes incoherent in the argument trying to shoehorn what he believes in with what Mormons believe and comes out sounding ignorant. If he would have left off with that sentence and then simply stated, but other Christians don't believe in the Book of Mormon, then the argument would at least make sense. Instead he goes off where such an argument has been weak for at least the last 150 years (from the start if you count Catholics). Other Christians in the first-century, even if you call them heretical, kept other writings as Scripture that Protestants have dismissed.

His main thesis is that the Bible is a collection of witnesses where the Book of Mormon has only a witness of itself. That is all fine for a simplistic interpretation of history and Biblical textualism. The problem is it too quickly dismisses the lengthy scholarly questions of authorship and authentic testimonials. Strangely enough, it is the multiplicity of testimonials mixed with inconsistencies in the texts that put the Bible to question for some. His idea that "the testimonies we have to the Palestinian Jesus date from the same century as [the Bible] Jesus," is not universally accepted. Even if taken as true, there is a huge question of what part of that century. No matter how much the testimonies of the New Testament matters, there is still no original texts in existence.

Besides, the Book of Mormon is considered a testimony of the Bible and Jesus Christ. It is to be a "Fourth Gospel" rather than a separate textual entity. To create a separation where one doesn't exist is to reject the purpose of its existence to bolster (and not take over) the Biblical testimony. Even if it purports to be ancient, it is considered a "Modern" Scripture for a reason; to warn us today that the prophets and prophecy of yesterday are still of relevance. There are, of course, other purposes of the Book of Mormon. All of them have been ignored and rejected by the simplistic world view of McDermott who can't see past his limited preconceptions enough to make an argument reaching beyond his own self-congratulatory audience.

Third, there are inconsistencies between the Palestinian Jesus and the American Jesus. For example, while the American Jesus promises the land of America to the new Israel as a “new Jerusalem” (3 Nephi 20:22, Ether 13:3), the Palestinian Jesus speaks only of a kingdom of God that is open to people of every land. His promise to the meek is that “they shall inherit the earth” (Matt. 5:5). His apostles write that Jesus’ followers still seek a country (Heb. 11:14) and “should be the heir of the world” (Rom. 4:13). People will bring into the New Jerusalem “the glory and honor” not of a single nation but of all the “nations” (Rev. 21:26). So the Palestinian Jesus seems to think of the coming Kingdom as a worldwide phenomenon not limited to one geographical part of the earth, while the American Jesus is fixated on America.

I quote the whole paragraph above because those who honestly understand the Book of Mormon and Mormonism quickly recognize the lack of research it had to take to come to that conclusion. If anything, the Book of Mormon is rather universalist in its declarations of worldwide salvation and Kingdom building. One only has to read the First Book of Nephi to see the interplay between the American Continent and the world. Just like Jerusalem for the Bible, America is a center place where the gospel spreads to other lands. Many times the Book of Mormon hints at or right out says that there are promised lands all over the place for different people. The heavy use of Isaiah quotes are to teach how widespread and important having promised lands are to making the whole Earth a Kingdom in the final days. Although not directly related to what is said in the Book of Mormon, he ignores Joseph Smith saying the Kingdom of God will fill North and South America, and indeed the Whole World. All of this is ironic considering the current argument of many Evangelical Christians that America is a Christian nation in much the same way that Palestine is a Jewish land.

His "other discrepancies" are that Jesus in the Book of Mormon praises the faith of the twelve in the America's, but criticizes the faith of the Twelve he chose in Palestine. Also, that he didn't allow anyone in Palestine to remain alive (I disagree with his interpretation of John 21:23. I take it to mean that Jesus didn’t say if John would not die, but that it is none of your business to know if he will live), but does that with three American disciples. I don't find these a discrepancy as much as a difference in time and place. In other words, because Jesus might have said or did something different in one place than in another, that makes the Book of Mormon a discrepancy. He simply dismisses the idea that those in the Americas were more faithful and righteous than those in Palestine and therefore more worthy of greater blessings. That is a discrepancy from McDermott’s early assertion that Jesus taught the universality of the Kingdom of God. Ironically it begs the question of Jesus the Christ as an historical figure. The idea is basically if it didn't happen in the Bible then it didn't happen.

I am going to leave the rest of the criticism to Summa Theologica that covers exactly what Mormons believe about Jesus and God. The comment section is also worth reading. The article is well enough done and in-depth that anything I would write would be a poor substitute.