Romney is no JFK

. . . and that might not be a bad thing for his intended constituency. For about six months the "anti-Mormon" diatribe has been mostly the creation of a liberal press out to give the impression of an epic battle that only exists in their imagination. After all, the only ones that have been posting scathing attacks on Mitt's faith have been the Media with quotes in the stories and some Liberals; hardly a place for Evangelical Christian voices. For that reason, the media have been the ones that have created the "Mormon question" out of thin cloth. The near silence of the Christian Right, despite the untrustworthy polls, on the Mormon faith of Romney seemed a relief.

That has slowly changed. The religious opposition to Mitt's Mormonism has gained some steam among Republican Religious Right advocates. That isn't to say there haven't been outspoken Evangelical Christians who have given support to the Presidential bid. However, there does seem to be a sharp split between those who think it should bar him and those who think it shouldn't. Despite the loud advice that Romney should give a similar rousing "JFK and the Catholic Question" speech, the party and the politics Romney finds himself in could actually make it a failure.

The most important difference is that the Republican Party is not the same as when JFK talked to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association. More importantly, JFK was a Democrat in a country relatively secure in the idea of a national religious commonality. Back then there was no Religious Right. Such a movement of conservative religious political activists was still underground from the time of the repeal of alcohol prohibition. That stunning national rebuke, according to some historians, caused the Evangelical movement to turn inwards and shun politics. It wasn't until the 60s when the social traditions of the United States were questioned and attacked that a Religious Right slowly gained political momentum. Now they are in full bloom and very potent.

Religion does matter to a large segment of the Republican party. It has yet to be proven how much of an inclusive or exclusive brand of religiosity is involved. What is known is that any presidential candidate in the primaries has to face issues of faith, or be rejected by a powerful group of voters. That is why Romney cannot act like JFK. Any attack on religious political participation to the degree that Kennedy expressed would alienate the core religious voters. For instance, Romney could never (and probably would never) say anything like:

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the President -- should he be Catholic -- how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference, and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him, or the people who might elect him.

or:

I believe in a President whose views on religion are his own private affair, neither imposed upon him by the nation, nor imposed by the nation upon him¹ as a condition to holding that office.

and:

I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition -- to judge me on the basis of 14 years in the Congress, on my declared stands against an Ambassador to the Vatican, against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools -- which I attended myself

Where JFK could get away with this then, as he was a Democrat and his true audience was outside the halls of his speech, those words are anathema to the Republican Religious Right at this time. For starters, many believe that the idea of Separation of Church and State is an un-Constitutional lie and discriminatory to people of faith. Second, related to the former, aid to parochial schools and boycotts against public schools are considered a fight for the rights of religious people to have a voice.

It is for this reason Romney must be very careful about what he says when distancing himself from religious issues. Unlike JFK, who many suspected was Catholic in name only and had a large general election Catholic support, Romney doesn't have the luxury or the political philosophy to draw a sharp line. That would cost him as much support in the primaries as it might save him in the general election. As explained elsewhere about the religious audience he would be talking with:

Romney and his advisers compare the speech he will give to John Kennedy's appearance before the Houston Ministerial Association in which he addressed concerns about his Catholicism by talking about "an America where the separation of church and state is absolute." Romney can't say exactly that, since many of the supporters he's courting think the doctrine of separation of church and state is not enshrined in the Constitution and has been used by liberals to take religion out of public life. Plus, he's not asking that his faith not be an issue. He wants it to be an issue. He's running on it, but he wants to be the one to draw the line marking where his faith ends.

The best intellectual argument Romney could use isn't available to him, which is that all religions have their odd traditions and beliefs that look highly quirky under close examination. Romney could use my Catholic Church as an example, but in doing so, he'd risk alienating another key constituency. Imagine what fun he could have had with the Charismatics, some of whom speak in tongues or drink snake venom.

And so Romney is stuck in the middle of a very delicate balance. He is trying to come off (and arguably with more success than compared to the other two legitimate contenders) as "The Conservative" choice, but not have to deal with the "cultic beliefs" that his natural constituents brand him as having. As things have picked up outside the print establishment, his chances are not looking good. At best he has some strong support among Evangelical leaders, but the ground forces are fidgety.

It would be best to take up the mantra of conservative commentator Hugh Hewett, "I'm not looking for a pastor. I'm looking for a President," if the Religious Right is going to have any power in '08 elections. There is still time for that to happen, but no speech is going to sooth souls when faith is more than a side issue. Certainly Giuliani and McCain haven't been friendly to the religiously motivated. It will have to be up to the people to decide if theology or public morality is the ideals driving the political wagon. Those who say you can't have one without the other might find themselves standing alone.

Humor and the Gospel

No longer available due to publishing issues.

Divine Motherhood

One of the unique doctrines of the LDS Church is the existence of a Mother in Heaven. It is more than a trivial speculative idea, but part of the foundational teachings associated with Exaltation. Although particulars are not available, the doctrine is enshrined in one of the most beloved hymns “Oh My Father” by Eliza R. Snow. It states, “in the heavens, are parents single?” and replies, “no . . . truth eternal tells me I’ve a mother there.” President Wilford Woodruff proclaimed the hymn a revelation. To add to that, it is impossible to fully comprehend the doctrines of eternal families without accepting the implications.

Yet, some are troubled by the lack of particulars. Usually those who would like women to have a greater role in the LDS Church, and especially would like Priesthood positions granted to them voice these concerns. The refrain to such requests is “the subject is too sacred,” or more forcefully, “God doesn’t want His wife mocked and ridiculed by the World as He lovers Her too much.” There is truth in this, but it doesn’t really answer the question of near silence. The Scriptures don’t even hint this. Prophets, if they have said anything at all, have not made that proclamation (although they have numerous times in relation to Temple ordinances) a central concern. There are some answers, but not ones that will either close off the discussion or be comforting to the critics of minimalism.

On Earth as In Heaven

What we know about our Heavenly Mother is perhaps more than realized. This is because most Mormons, both “progressive” and “traditional” are looking for things overly transcendent. The “Easy to understand” is seen as less worthy of respect then something that can be forever argued and dissected. Perhaps worse for some is that the conclusion of Her nature casts a shadow on certain aspirations.

The key to understanding Heavenly Mother is both in the name and a simple verse of the Doctrine and Covenants. It occurs in the famous “Civil War Prophecy” of D&C 130:

1 When the Savior shall appear we shall see him as he is. We shall see that he is a man like ourselves.

2 And that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy.

Although it has more to do with the nature of God and our relation to Him than gender issues, the idea expressed of “that same sociality” has repercussions. There is not a lot of differences between what we observe here on Earth and human nature in the Eternities. It is true that we are perhaps more prone to sin, misunderstanding, lies, and mistakes in mortality. Yet, it is clear that mothers are a very important part of the social fabric of humanity. To understand motherhood is to understand Heavenly Mother, just as Fatherhood brings its own lessons. The recent Proclamation on the Family emphasizes the Earthly relationships of gender to Eternal truth:

We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children . . .

. . . By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

Therefore, we know that Heavenly Mother is just that; a woman who takes care of children. There is no pretence as to how that can be achieved other than through the known doctrine of Faith, Hope, and Charity or more succinctly Love. Learn how to cultivate those characteristics and the more the nature of Heavenly Mother will become clear. For those who believe that raising children is a disgrace or beneath a fully spiritual identity, Jesus had some choice words:

10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.

11 For the Son of man is come to Save that which was lost.

-- Matt. 18: 10-11

Of course, not every woman has the opportunity to marry or raise children here on Earth. However, if Heaven is the ideal and families reflect Heaven, then Time only is of concern and not ultimate circumstances. There is much that we must, as religious people, hope for in the next life that cannot be attained in mortal probation. Marriage and children might be part of that anticipation for a better Eternal life. Creating a false Goddess figure only separates us from real Salvation through Jesus Christ.

Worship and Salvation

This possibility is not without precedent. Some scholars have seen within the Bible a fight for repressing a more female oriented worship. In other words, additional theology of a fertility Goddess that either goes with or usurps the male God that is accepted as the I AM that should have no other Gods before Him. Some would say the “go with” is not theologically unacceptable. However, Jesus warned:

17 But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth.

18 so be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? because ye say that I cast out devils through Beelzebub.

--Luke 11: 17-18

It would be near impossible not to develop two theological worship systems that didn't diverge. Like manna, a choice between one and the other would be inevitable when both insist upon our devotion. As is clearly taught in the Scriptures, Jesus Christ has already been established as the only Way to Salvation; and he does not give room for another deity beyond Father as the focus of our Prayers. It is true that he acts with God, but ultimately he gives the glory to God. There is an example of prayer to enhance this point:

9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name.

10 Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

11 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

12 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.

13 For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.

-- 3 Ne. 13: 9-13

The nature of Heavenly Mother is clearly defined, as is her role. Scriptures do not mention Her because she is not part of the plan of salvation beyond what we already know of motherhood. The deity we worship continues to be Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as One, and They have been consistent on who and what we must do to be saved. If honesty is important, those who want to “graduate” the female half of Heavenly Parents must acknowledge there isn’t much known about Father in Heaven either. We know as much as we do about Him because Jesus is His representative. Ultimately it is through Jesus Christ that we get near the Father, and it is through the Father that the Mother can be percieved.

Acumen of Mormon Business

When the LDS Church was first founded, there wasn't any hint of a financial powerhouse in the making. If anything, the complete opposite seemed to be the case. Joseph Smith came from a farming family living on the edge of social, political, and capital existence. Although there were a few rich people who were converted, the majority of early members came from not much better than poverty. A hint of democracy and self-reliance was taught as theological probabilities, but the driving financial model was a form of communistic philanthropy. It failed whenever practiced and left tithing as the main economic structure.

For decades the financial situation was at best questionable. Most of the resources came from people's hard work more than money. Things came to a head during the "Great Polygamy Raids" that almost brought the LDS Church to ruins. It wasn't until soon after the 20th Century started that the Church and members alike were recognized as a financial success. Now, the rich business owner who started with almost nothing more than wits and an idea has become almost a cliche as well known as the so-called Jewish Banker. The web site Famous Mormons does seem to make this case when the list of Top Executive and Business names is the only one split alphabetically. It is not clear how accurate this is, or even if the stereotype identification is desirable.

At least one writer has decided to look closer at the business practices of a few successful top CEOs of some Mormon-run companies. What the author, Jeff Benedict, came up with in his book The Mormon Way of Doing Business was how religion played such a large part of how things were run. There is a book review of The Mormon Way at Dave's Mormon Inquiry that discusses the book's content. Although the ideas are refreshing, the relationship of business and faith is more questionable. The implication is that these people are model business executives because they follow the tenets of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is sort of a Calvanist work ethic writ large.

Some attention has been paid to this book, and the LDS business style, by a few non-Mormon publications. Two of them include Hall of Fame Magazine's article written by the book author and Arizona Daily Star's look at the book, with both as a positive for Mormon/Business mixing. Such a simple relationship of following God and finding financial success is probably not as simple as it sounds. This is especially the case theologically, where prosperity doesn't always mean righteousness and poverty can sometimes be a spiritual blessing.

Capitalism is not evil. Money is not evil. At worst they are tools that can be used for good or evil. The question is how accurate is it to say that Mormons have a business ethic that can bring financial success? From just the descriptions about the book and the articles above, it seems much is missing from an accurate portrayal of the moneymaking abilities of Mormons who follow their religion. For the handful of reliable and well to do CEO's, both made and hired, there are uncounted numbers of faithful who don't succeed at business. Many of them struggle to make a living. From the perspective of the book that following religious precepts is the Mormon ethic of business, it is hard to say what to make of the many examples of those Mormons who are unethical in their practices. Still uncounted, the many Mormons who (to be honest don't follow the precepts of the leadership to live only according to what they have) get into heavy debt and end up bankrupt. Those written about in the book are probably good examples of people living their religion while in the world, but it is unclear if they are examples of good business models. Motivational material is always surface specific. A more comprehensive study would have to be done.

The Worth of a Convert

My favorite interactions have been with those who had recently entered the waters of baptism for membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The conversations have been pure and unsullied by the life-long membership discussion of questionable doctrinal speculation. Not only that, but the faith they exhibit is often superior to many members- including my own. It is true that strong faith can also be easily shattered by things they might not have the experience dealing with. But, when they have become solid in what they believe, it is a joy to watch and listen to them in their lives. They are, after all, the backbone of the Church regardless of what life-long members might bring to the table.

It is with great sadness that I hear so often the lack of success in retaining them. There have been many reasons and excuses for this. Probably the one reason I find to be the most disturbing is the lack of fellowship - nay, lack of attention - given to those fine seedlings ready to bloom. There is no excuse for that, but too many converts (later in life) I have spoken with each have expressed disappointment at how they have been treated. It often is summed up as "second class citizens" looked on with suspicion. When asked suspicion of what, they often say it has to do with trusting their spiritual and theological capabilities. About this time my blood starts boiling! Sure they are just starting out. There is no question about that. But, that is the perfect time to learn from them, teach them in areas they need strengthening, and generally expressing appreciation for what they bring to the fellowship of Saints.

To honor them, I have collected some quotes that I hope will increase their faith and change life-long members' attitudes:

"I plead with you; … I ask of you, each of you, to become a part of this great effort. Every convert is precious. Every convert is a son or daughter of God. Every convert is a great and serious responsibility.

[Converts] come into the Church with enthusiasm for what they have found. We must immediately build on that enthusiasm. … Listen to them, guide them, answer their questions, and be there to help in all circumstances and in all conditions. … I invite every member to reach out in friendship and love for those who come into the Church as converts."
-- Gordon B. Hinckley, “Words of the Prophet: Reach Out,” New Era, Feb. 2003, 4

"With the increase of missionary work throughout the world, there must be a comparable increase in the effort to make every convert feel at home in his or her ward or branch. Enough people will come into the Church this year to constitute more than 100 new average-size stakes. Unfortunately, with this acceleration in conversions, we are neglecting some of these new members. I am hopeful that a great effort will go forward throughout the Church, throughout the world, to retain every convert who comes into the Church.

This is serious business. There is no point in doing missionary work unless we hold on to the fruits of that effort. The two must be inseparable."
-- Gordon B. Hinckley, “Some Thoughts on Temples, Retention of Converts, and Missionary Service,” Ensign, Nov. 1997, 49

"We have not yet significantly increased our effectiveness in fellowshipping new converts so that they invariably continue to grow in the gospel, to serve in the Church, and to receive the blessings of the temple.

Among those converts who fall away, the attrition is steepest in the two months after baptism. When a convert is baptized, there is no time to lose. Fellowshipping efforts must begin well before baptism and must increase in intensity in the months following baptism.

Our experience has shown that members can have a powerful influence in this process in three critically important ways:

1. Modeling gospel living by providing practical, persuasive examples of the joy we receive from living the gospel.

2. Teaching the gospel informally by explaining Latter-day Saint doctrines and practices, answering questions, and helping investigators and new members resolve concerns.

3. Helping investigators and converts become fully integrated into the community of Saints.

When members see themselves as gospel nurturers, as the prophet has invited us all to be, we will be well along toward our goal."
-- Dallin H. Oaks, “The Role of Members in Conversion,” Ensign, Mar. 2003, 52

"We then began to observe that in some wards we visited in the United States as well as in Latin America, if we had been investigators or new members, we would not have felt very welcome. The Apostle Paul taught the Ephesians, 'Ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God' (Eph. 2:19). And yet, on occasion we felt like 'strangers and foreigners' in the very Church of Jesus Christ to which we belonged.

These experiences helped us become aware of the discomfort that newcomers might occasionally feel in coming to our chapels, and these made us conscious of the need we all have to improve what we call our fellowshipping skills. We have occasionally observed wards in Latin America, Spain, and in the United States where humble new converts to the Church have not been received with open arms or warm abrazos, and so we have all seen a need to improve our retention of new converts . . .

. . . Let us pay more attention to those who are new to our congregations. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus taught: 'For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? … And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others?' " (Matt. 5:46–47).
-- Carl B. Pratt, “Care for New Converts,” Ensign, Nov. 1997, 11

"The message is the same for us today. The Church will always be a church filled with converts. Whether the place be Salt Lake City, or Sao Paulo, Los Angeles or London, Tokyo or Turino, Italy, it is the Lord’s plan that there be converts among us, brothers and sisters newly brought into the fold of Christ through the efforts of their loving friends and neighbors. Let us fellowship and love each other in the true spirit of the gospel."
-- Spencer W. Kimball, “Always a Convert Church: Some Lessons to Learn and Apply This Year,” Ensign, Sept. 1975, 2

"If there were no converts, the Church would shrivel and die on the vine."
-- Spencer W. Kimball, “When the World Will Be Converted,” Ensign, Oct. 1974, 3

16 And now, my beloved brethren, I know by this that unless a man shall endure to the end, in following the example of the Son of the living God, he cannot be saved.

17 Wherefore, do the things which I have told you I have seen that your Lord and your Redeemer should do; for, for this cause have they been shown unto me, that ye might know the gate by which ye should enter. For the gate by which ye should enter is repentance and baptism by water; and then cometh a remission of your sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost.

18 And then are ye in this strait and narrow path which leads to eternal life; yea, ye have entered in by the gate; ye have done according to the commandments of the Father and the Son; and ye have received the Holy Ghost, which witnesses of the Father and the Son, unto the fulfilling of the promise which he hath made, that if ye entered in by the way ye should receive.

19 And now, my beloved brethren, after ye have gotten into this strait and narrow path, I would ask if all is done? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for ye have not come thus far save it were by the word of Christ with unshaken faith in him, relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to esave.

20 Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life
-- 2 Nephi 31:16-20

There are some things we members can do to help retain the converts and help them grow. My own thoughts include:

Not just fellowship, but become friends. Get to know those who walk through the doors and not just a handshake. A friendly smile is the start and not the finish of a lasting relationship. Even if friendship might not be possible, sometimes people are simply not compatible, at least be open to them and have "little" conversations. There is nothing greater than having someone know your name even when you don't spend much time with them.

Share the gospel with them in both directions. When talking about LDS theology or history, don't make them become a sounding board. Make sure you include them in the discussion, in and outside of the class, by asking them what they think. You will come away surprised, as I have many times by converts, how much knowledge can be gained from fresh perspectives. There is a great surge of spiritual awakening when a convert points out something that life-long members have been blinded by rote and tradition. On the other hand, the convert often gains that much more of a testimony as they learn of doctrine from those who have studied it for a while.

Share with them sources available to all members. That includes books and magazines of LDS interest, an understanding of how the Church organization works, and a helping hand. Aside from getting to know people, having a grasp of Church culture can be challenging. This is no different from any other instance when a major change has just occurred in life. Remember, they came from somewhere that was probably not like what they now find themselves. Lots of them are still in those places, physically and metaphorically, and need help either integrating or crossing the bridge. Once you know them better, help them find ways to stay the course of faith. They will help you do the same as they grow from a seedling to a tree of strength.

Thank you converts for continuing to remind me of how precious the Gospel of Jesus Christ is, and how far I still have to go in my own journey of faith.

Famous Writer in "Ensign"

My wife called me in the room where she was reading and pointed to an article in the Ensign where a byline was showing a familiar name. Sure enough there was "Stephenie Meyer" plastered on the page. I checked the spelling and found there wasn't any discrepancy. I even read "Hero at the Grocery Store" about a woman who helps an elderly lady pay for some groceries. It really is a touching article. None of the scant details proved it wasn't who the name implies.

For those who don't know, Stephenie Meyer is an author of Young Adult books. Her first printed and successful book is "Twilight," about a girl who falls in love with a vampire. She is also a Latter-day Saint who graduated from Brigham Young University. From her official website bio page:

She lives with her husband and three young sons in Phoenix, Arizona. After the publication of her first novel, Twilight, booksellers chose Stephenie Meyer as one of the "most promising new authors of 2005" (Publishers Weekly) . . .

. . . Right now, I'm deeply involved in the editing for book two (more about that in "Other Novels"), getting ready for my first book tour, dealing with five separate drop-off and pick-up times for my kids' schools, and working with a nice personal trainer named Steve in a doomed attempt to erase the evidence that my body has carried three large children to term.

My favorite authors/biggest influences are (in no particular order) Orson Scott Card, Jane Austen, William Shakespeare, Maeve Binchy, Charlotte Bronte, Daphne DuMaurier, L.M. Montgomery, Louisa May Alcott, Eva Ibbotson, William Goldman, Douglas Adams, Janet Evanovich... the list goes on, but I think I hit the highlights.

Her newest book is "New Moon," a sequal to her first vampire love story. She is also working on a novel "The Host" for an adult audience. It is about an alien invasion where the aliens have taken over human bodies. One of the humans doesn't completely go away, and the alien has to deal with all the thoughts and emotions of its host. Keeping with the author's theme of romance, the human in question clings to thoughts of a lover hiding somewhere from the invasion.

I am not going to review "Twilight" at this time, although I have read it. My local library has "New Moon" and I am waiting on a list of those who want to check it out. what I do want to say is that, for a YA and romance writer, she is among the best I have read in some time.

There was nothing on the LDS Church's website or her own to indicate if she wrote the Ensign article. I cannot be certain as she doesn't take e-mail questions. The name might only be a coincidence. Hopefully, out of curiosity, someone can clear this up.

The Real-istic Jospeh Smith Please Stand UP

This is a copy of a post I wrote for "Blogger of Jared."

Not too long ago Richard Dutcher planned on making a movie about Joseph Smith Jr. with rumors of Val Kilmer as the lead. It didn’t take long for those rumors to be unfounded. There was news that he rejected the part for other movie roles. It seems that Bro. Dutcher has also gone a different direction and made other films. His personal homepage doesn’t offer any new information that he still has a biopic in the works. Other films have, more or less, taken up the slack.

There is an abundance of Joseph Smith roles to look at if interested in how he has been portrayed, both in and outside of LDS Church circles. The first major inclusion of Joseph Smith Jr was the Brigham Young movie of 1940, with Vincent Price taking up the part. Of all the ones I have seen so far, he seemed to represent him the best. It was too bad he played such a small role in that one. On the other hand, the book it was partly based on, "Children of God" by Vardis Fisher, was not a flattering portrait. There was another movie called Brigham with Richard Moll (of Night Court fame) playing Joseph Smith when he was tarred and feathered. Not sure if there was a martyrdom scene. He was problematic because the acting was stiff and he wasn’t the "hunk" that the historical records indicate for the real person. At least one other semi-portrayal was in "Angels in America," originally a stage play, and negative. Films done by Latter-day Saints have not fared better.

The Roles We Play

This is a copy of a post I wrote for "Blogger of Jared."

There are many roles available for people to pick and choose to define themselves and others. Sometimes there is more than one role we are actively playing at a time. There are even circumstances when one role is in direct contradiction to others. It can often become confusing.

Despite all of the various ways to define a person, there is always the chance we could label with too broad a brush. The worst scenario is stereotyping; where expectations are imagined without considering all other possibilities. This can stifle any chance of getting to know a person beyond what has already been decided. Jesus was a master at looking at a person who already had a particular "reputation" and seeing if there was something more:

7 There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink.

8 (For his disciples were gone away unto the city to buy meat.)

9 Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.

Halloween for Good or Evil

One of my favorite holidays is "Halloween" when imagination is let loose with no shame. People young and old get to dress up in silly costumes and eat lots of sweet candy. For some, scary movies and haunted houses add to the celebration. Yet, what exactly are we celebrating? For most of us there isn't any significants other than the fun times.

The holiday goes back, like so many holiday traditons, to pagan celebrations:

Halloween's origins date back to the ancient Celtic festival of Samhain (pronounced sow-in).

The Celts, who lived 2,000 years ago in the area that is now Ireland, the United Kingdom, and northern France, celebrated their new year on November 1. This day marked the end of summer and the harvest and the beginning of the dark, cold winter, a time of year that was often associated with human death. Celts believed that on the night before the new year, the boundary between the worlds of the living and the dead became blurred. On the night of October 31, they celebrated Samhain, when it was believed that the ghosts of the dead returned to earth. In addition to causing trouble and damaging crops, Celts thought that the presence of the otherworldly spirits made it easier for the Druids, or Celtic priests, to make predictions about the future. For a people entirely dependent on the volatile natural world, these prophecies were an important source of comfort and direction during the long, dark winter.

To commemorate the event, Druids built huge sacred bonfires, where the people gathered to burn crops and animals as sacrifices to the Celtic deities.

Like Christmas, the Catholics tried to incorporate non-Christian practices into a religiously respectable form. They decided to use the celebrations as a time to remember Saints and martyrs instead of pagan gods:

By the 800s, the influence of Christianity had spread into Celtic lands. In the seventh century, Pope Boniface IV designated November 1 All Saints' Day, a time to honor saints and martyrs. It is widely believed today that the pope was attempting to replace the Celtic festival of the dead with a related, but church-sanctioned holiday. The celebration was also called All-hallows or All-hallowmas (from Middle English Alholowmesse meaning All Saints' Day) and the night before it, the night of Samhain, began to be called All-hallows Eve and, eventually, Halloween. Even later, in A.D. 1000, the church would make November 2 All Souls' Day, a day to honor the dead. It was celebrated similarly to Samhain, with big bonfires, parades, and dressing up in costumes as saints, angels, and devils. Together, the three celebrations, the eve of All Saints', All Saints', and All Souls', were called Hallowmas. (See The History Channel:The History of Halloween )

Not everyone likes the idea of Halloween, and some refuse to participate. Those who are most concerned are traditionalist Protestant Christians who see the holiday as incompatable to their beliefs. Some even condemn it as a Satanic conspiracy, Harry Potter like, to recruit followers of the occult:

Many . . . Christians . . . consider Halloween as incompatible and even conflicting with the Christian faith, due to its preoccupation with the occult in symbols, masks and costumes, its origin as pagan festival of the dead, and its celebration by satanists. They argue that Halloween is also a prime recruiting season for satanists and therefore poses a considerable harm to children. Others are concerned about vandalism and destructive behavior after a church had become a victim of destructive "shock rituals" by satanists leading to targeted monitoring of these gatherings by the police. Another argument brought forward is that according to occult Wicca practices “Halloween is one of the four major Sabbats celebrated by the modern Witch, and it is by far the most popular and important of the eight that are observed. . . Witches regard Halloween as their New Year’s Eve, celebrating it with sacred rituals. . . (Dunwich, Gerina. The Pagan Book of Halloween, p. 120). The opinion which rejects Halloween because it trivialises the realities of 'evil' and 'the occult’ is shared by some Christians across all denominations. Some Evangelical and Protestant Churches, and some Jews and Muslims, strongly object to the tradition and refuse to allow their children to participate, pointing out to its pagan origins as well as what they consider its satanic imagery.(see Halloween from Wikipedia )

For the most part, Mormons haven't had any opinions of it as a group. There are, however, differences of approach. For many Latter-day Saints the season continues to be about having fun with their children. They get them dressed up and go visit family and neighbors who give them candy and otherwise enjoy themselves. Over the years there has been a development that, although not unique, does seem to have caught hold almost as a Church wide tradition. Trunk or Treat might not have been started by Mormons, but it has definantly been adopted by Latter-day Saints as their own special tradition. Considering the breakdown of neighborhood safety and the strong beliefs about community in the faith, it shouldn't be surprising. It is a way to have both safety and still retain the sense of community. In some ways Halloween has become a sweet tooth communion of family and friends.

Other Latter-day Saints, perhaps a small minority or silent majority, are more critical of the seasons implications. The more vocal individuals condemn it for much the same reasons as others who are not of the same faith. The biggest reason is not fear of pagan influence or satanic recruitment. It is more about allowing evil and wickedness a time to be celebrated. The less vocal Latter-day Saints who object to the holiday simply don't like the blood, fear, and lack of a spiritual enlightenment. They see no reason to have it, and a few reasons to reject it.

That brings it back to myself. You might say that my house is split on the subject. I love to get dressed up, watch spooky (not bloody) shows, and generally eat lots of candy. My wife, on the other hand, simply doesn't want to get involved. She has no problem passing out and eating candy. It's the rest of it she doesn't like. I imagine this isn't an unusual situtation.

Announcement: Book of Mormon Blog Symposium

I would like to announce a blog symposium here with the Book of Mormon as the subject matter. This would include more than simple Sunday School lessons or testimonials. What I am intending is some short analysis of one of the 15 books, main and unique message of one of the prophets, or a topic that is not usually discussed. The intention is based on my belief that the Book of Mormon has been read by millions, but understood by few in its scope. Discussion will include:

- New essays written by me about the purpose of the Book of Mormon and what we can learn from its words.

- A variety of guest posts presenting different veiwpoints for a more in-depth look at this ancient scripture for modern readers.

- Discussions about blog articles from around the bloggernacle that touch on Book of Mormon teachings.

If you would like to participate by including your own essays, e-mail a request to "melanath@yahoo.com" to join the symposium. Include a short (2 to 3 sentence) description of what you would like to write. The short essay will be posted at my "Straight and Narrow Blog" with your byline and site link if you have one.


The Book of Mormon Blog Symposium will go from Sunday, Sept. 17 to Wednesday Oct. 25, with a new article published each Sunday and Wednesday. Come over to read and make your own comments during this project.

Apologetics: Vacuous Study of Minutiae

Looking through other blogs, I am always on the lookout for any place to add to my roster. As stated a few times, my interests are in the more conservative and orthodox writers. There are some that I visit nearly on a regular basis, but have not listed. This isn't from any lack of agreeable positions. While questioning why I don't link to them, my thoughts drift to an opinion I have had for some time. Apologetics (of the "Mormon" kind) has been very interesting and useful. My personal library contains a few of my favorites. Ultimately, however, they seem to be lacking in spiritual benefits.

Some examples of sites that I go to and sometimes enjoy, but don't link include Mormanity, SHIELDS, and FARMS where apologetics are the main subject. Another example that doesn't seem to fit my interest is No Death Before the Fall as a one note discussion even if more conservative in orthodoxy (I am not sure if I agree with it's position). All of these touch more or less on the idea of refuting the critics and doubters of the LDS faith. Yet, I don't feel an overwhelming need to read them beyond an occasional peek.

With some soul searching I have concluded that much of what they say does not touch me at a root level. Sure, FARMS has been a lifelong obsession with me. What it doesn't do is make me want to live my life any better or closer to God than before I read most of the material. The reason for this is hard to put down on paper. My guess is that they don't study the actual teachings of the Scriptures or provide guidance for those looking for meaning behind doctrines and teachings.

There are some instances where apologetics goes beyond the mere esoteric, theoretical, and intellectual. Half of Hugh Nibley's writings for me have more than the mere mosaic of evidence, and say things about humanity and our spiritual relation to God. His predecessors often don't have that same grasp of the importance of what they are trying to defend. At least not in their writings. They list this discovery and talk about that similarity with the detached excitement of spectators.

Improving the dialogue in apologetics is a tricky proposition. On the one hand, they don't exist to deliver sermons or moral lessons. It is a blunt instrument meant to block the blows of other blunt weapons against faith. In some ways the subject matter is determined by "the enemies" goals and arguments. Yet, they are dealing with faith and religion where morality and theology are what make the fight important. That should at least make those engaged in the business think of things better to say than what kind of swords people carried. Many people might be able to recognize instances of parallelism, but how many can explain the meaning of the teachings between the lines? It can be a vacuous study of minutiae.

Such poor conditions of an otherwise robust and professional endeavor have given me pause. They are an important part of my faith development, but do not contribute much to the enlargement of my soul. I wish those in the apologetics business success and I will continue to read them whenever they catch my interest. They have my deepest respect and gratitude. I would just like it to become more inspirational.

A Short Guide to Mormons and Masons

There is no question that I have been interested in the Temple and its meaning and purpose. Almost a full month was devoted to the question of what to get out of the experience and how to get it. Almost always when you talk of the LDS Temple, most likely someone will bring up Freemasonry and the supposed relations between the two. No doubt they are related, as Greg Kearney explains in Masonry and Mormonism -- An interview with Greg Kearney, The Message and the Messenger: Latter-day Saints and Freemasonry, and How Does One Explain Similarities between Masonic and Temple Ritual? where he tackles the associations. He is a Mason and a Mormon in good standing with both.

I asked him a few other questions from what he talked about above, and he was kind enough to provide some short answers. The first question is actually from "nitasmile" at
The Nauvoo Forum in the message Freemasonry and Current mormons where the subject first came to my attention for discussion. The other questions are my own:

Do any of you know of similarities between the shape of the CTR ring/shield and a simalarly shaped ring that Masons wear? Awhile ago, I worked w/a gentleman who wore a ring that had a shield w/a "G" in the middle. I asked him about it and he told me he was a Mason and that the G stood for God.

GK: As far as I know there is no relation between the CTR ring and the rings worn by some Masons which generally have the Masonic square and compasses with the letter G in the center. That motif is masonry's most visable symbol found on logdes and in a host of masonic jewelry and other related items.

Where do you think that the Mason rituals and brotherhood came from, since it didn't come from Solomon's time?

GK: Historians today, and I agree with them, say that Freemasonry
originated with medieval trade stone masons as an early form of trade union. The rituals are likely a form of passion play centered around the story of the building of Solomon's temple as recorded in scripture along with the Hiram Abiff story.

The Temple is "secret" because it is considered too sacred, but why do you think the Masons held and still hold to the secretive nature?

GK: Today, of course, the secretive nature of Freemasonry is simply a
tradition. Every aspect of the ritual and teachings of masonry have
been widely published even by masonic publishers. Originally it did
serve a purpose of protecting "trade secrets" of operative masons by
insuring that those hired to work as such were properly trained in the
craft.

How do the Masons use the Scriptures? Do they read them in the lodges, study them, or are they more placed on the alter as symbolic gesture? Do you know of any lodges that also include the Koran or other Holy Books?

GK: We use scripture in all the ways you sight above. My lodge here in Wyoming uses the Koran when raising a brother who is Muslim. Of course, lodges in Islamic nations use the Koran. In Israel the Torah is used. When I was raised, the standard works of the LDS Church were employed. The 21st Landmark of Freemasonry states as follows:

It is a Landmark, that a "Book of the Law" shall constitute an
indispensable part of the furniture of every Lodge. I say advisedly, a Book of the Law, because it is not absolutely required that everywhere the Old and New Testaments shall be used. The "Book of the Law" is that volume which, by the religion of the country, is believed to contain the revealed will of the Grand Architect of the universe. Hence, in all Lodges in Christian countries, the Book of the Law is composed of the Old and New Testaments; in a country where Judaism was
the prevailing faith, the Old Testament alone would be sufficient; and in Mohammedan countries, and among Mohammedan Masons the Koran might be substituted. Masonry does not attempt to interfere with the peculiar religious faith of its disciples, except so far as relates to the belief in the existence of God, and what necessarily results from that belief." The Book of the Law is to the speculative Mason his spiritual Trestleboard; without this he cannot labor; whatever he believes to be the revealed will of the Grand Architect constitutes for him this spiritual Trestleboard, and must ever be before him in his hours of speculative labor, to be the rule and guide of his conduct The Landmark, therefore, requires that a Book of the Law, a religious code of some kind, purporting to be an exemplar of the revealed will of God, shall form in essential part of the furniture of every Lodge.

How can a Latter-day Saint, without actually joining the group, learn more about Masonry?

GK: Any good library will have a host of books on the subject. I would
suggest A Pilgrim's Path: Freemasonry and the Religious Right, A Pilgrim's Path: One Man's Road to the Masonic Temple by Robinson and Duncan's Ritual of Freemasonry by Malcolm C. Duncan as starting points.

(Jettboy note: I added both Robinson books just to be sure of the correct one)

Why do you think that teaching by ritual is so shocking to Latter-day Saints?

GK: Unlike in Joseph Smith's day we no longer live in a world steeped in ritualistic teaching. The Saints of Nauvoo, many of whom were Masons, knew well this form of teaching. We are also not a ritual based faith unlike our Catholic brothers and sisters. So, when we are presented with worship in the ritual form, be it the endowment ritual or the Catholic mass, it seems alien to us.

(Jettboy note: I knew at least one Catholic, and have heard of others, that actually weren't as bothered by the LDS Temple rituals. In fact, I remember going to a Mass on my mission and recognizing minor similarities.)


The "Grips" in both Mormonism and Masonry are rather easy to interpret. The "Signs" are a little harder to interpret. Without giving out anything "secret" about both, how can we better understand the hand gestures? What is there purpose?

GK: In masonry the signs allude to the way the hands are placed on the volume of scripture when your obligations are taken with the various degrees. They are used to show that you were raised in a proper lodge. Originally they served as a means of identifying a fellow mason seeking work.

What you ask as rhetoric, would be nice to be answered. What is the purpose of having penalties? Obviously they aren't usually taken literally.

GK: The penalties, both masonic and LDS, were what you would rather have done to you rather than violate you commitments. They were never intended as a licence to commit murder.

(Jettboy note: i.e. I would say it would probably be something like, "cross my fingers and hope to die. Stick a thousand needles in my eye.")

There were some anti-masonic Mormons at the time of Joseph Smith, what happened to them? How did they generally react to the Temple experience?

GK: As far as can be ascertained; nothing. Perhaps the best known anti-mason in Nauvoo was Lucinda Morgan, Widow of James Morgan who's death sparked the anti masonic movement in the opening decades of the 19th century. She would become a plural wife of Joseph Smith. There is no record of what her impressions were of the temple endowment.

Can you expand on the idea of the "endowment" and the "Ritual" as seperate and related?

GK: The central idea of my thesis is that the ritual is used to teach the endowment. The ritual is the presentation of the endowment. It is not the endowment itself. The ritual has and will change to meet modern needs. The endowment, however, teaches eternal ideas and commitments.

You answered the question for yourself personally, but I would like to know generally speaking why you think a Mormon would want to become a Mason?

GK: I think there is a tendency for a Mormon to center their entire lives around the Church and other church members. They are never developing any kind of association with the wider community. This is to some degree understandable; we do not wish to be put into social situations which involve activities not in keeping with our standards.

Freemasonry does not force us to make such a choice. I have been able to make association with men I might never have otherwise done so in a institution which respects and supports my standards.

Reasons for 1830 Restoration Date

There are two ways to approach the problem of why it took more than a thousand years to restore the gospel to the earth. Since we are dealing with a specific date some have taken the way of Millerites and other millenialists. Looking at Bible text history they have extrapolated the prophetic meaning of 1830 the way others have done so for the return of Christ. Mathematically and textually such mapping of history is not possible beyond recognition of stated events. Even the events mentioned as necessary for signs are sometimes unclear. The other way is to recognized some political or religious events we know of and decide they are necessary prelude to the establishment of the Church. They usually mention only two major circumstances; the Christian Reformation and the U.S. Revolutionary War.

I agree in theory to the second alternative, and have never believed in the first one as reliable. The usual list of prelude ends up short and incomplete. History has a way of compounding itself, sometimes backtracking when it had moved forward. It should be no surprise that I have come up with a more detailed explanation of why it took so long for the Restoration.

The Great Apostasy: We can’t get to the end without starting from the beginning. It is not my intention to talk about how this happened, or when it was complete. Needless to say, the Apostasy is the reason the Restoration was needed. I would even guess that Constantine is the apex of the final demise of the ancient church and the start of the restoration.

Paganism ends and Christianity Spreads: Sadly, it is no surprise that “Mormonism” has been most successful in its short history among those who have already embraced Christianity. It is amazing that the ancient church was spread among a pagan world, but it seems that also brought it to ruin. At any rate, once Christianity became the official religion of the Western World it became both powerful and large. The old enemies were banished from the realm, and only Muslims and barbarians checked the spread of Christianity. A vast field for harvest was formed.

Enlightenment: The dark ages had to end before new light could begin to spread. People in the West started to question everything. Science and philosophy spread new ideas and opened up the way for major changes in history. It challenged the establishments that had ultimate power and checked progress. Eventually, there would be rebellion against the old ways. This new life of the West would not be an easy birth.

Printing Press: It is perhaps this event that had the most influence since the time of the Apostasy itself toward the conditions needed for the Restoration. Before that time the teachings of the Bible were open to a select few. Those few sometimes manipulated both the text and the teachings contained in them. This happened from the very start of the spread of the Christian message as soon as letters could be written. Once the printing press was developed, many more people could read the message for themselves. They started to see things differently from how they were originally taught by the official representatives. Beyond that, scripture and revelation could be shared with many. There would be minimal tampering of the message. The words of a book might as well be set in stone.

Reformation: The message might still be imperfect and dependant on the false teachings of a fallen church, but at least there were options. People no longer had to look for the answers from one source. They could decide for themselves what and who to believe. This set up the conditions for new churches.

The United States: This, and the Reformation, is usually where all other event related reasons start. Even these are incomplete. The United States is important for more than the Constitution. It is the place that the Nephites had lived and where the Book of Mormon was hidden. It is a place where ideas from the Enlightenment and Reformation coagulated to form a relatively free society. The open land offered a way for beleaguered Saints to get away from enemies and live in the desert, much like the faithful has done since Enoch. Most importantly, it is a land especially blessed by God for His people to live – along with the land of Israel.

Choice Spirit: Finally, the Restoration had to wait for a boy named Joseph Smith Jr. to be born. Perhaps God could have chosen anyone of similar qualities. God certainly warned he could be replaced. At any rate, he came at a time when historical events had climaxed. A New World with new ideas was born and ready to flourish. He wasn’t the only one to claim visions, revelations, and a new message related to the old teachings. Then again, Jesus was not the only one declaring a messianic hope for Israel during his times. If anything, such an abundance of competing prophets is its own sign of the times of extraordinary divine history. The Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ had come.

This is simply a sketch of the reasons for such a late date of the restoration. History had to have time for developing the right conditions. There is no way to say if an earlier date would have brought a miscarriage for the Restoration. Ultimately, but incomplete as it always is, the real answer to the question of why 1830 is because it was God’s will. Time for Him is inconsequential.

An Underrated Joseph

This is the third and last in a series of discussions on biographies of Joseph Smith. It is a look at the best and worst of important works dealing with his life. Each criticism is broken down into three sections: positive aspects, negative aspects, and implications.

Joseph Smith: The First Mormon by Donna Hill

Positive: This biography manages to do something that others have not reached. It treats Joseph Smith and his friends and enemies as people. She does more than talk about what people say and do, but how they felt during their experiences. The way this is accomplished is to allow sources to tell the story, often revealing what those involved felt about events. It becomes much more personal than other biographies have been written. Her extensive use of a variety of sources also helps the reader feel they are making discoveries right along with her. Whenever she narrates the story, she allows a quote or two to fill in the details.

No matter how controversial the subject, she remains as neutral as possible. As an “orthodox believer” none of what she talked about was troubling. Her approach was never like correlation or trying to be revisionist. It seemed like good story telling with the inclusion of pertinent information. There was nothing new and groundbreaking, but the book did seem to fill in the details. As great as the biography was, it is still strange that it remains to this day in the background.

Negative: The start of her problems might be the title of the book. The saying goes that you should never judge a book by its cover, but in this instance it becomes hard to ignore such a boring name. I have tried to think of a more interesting title appropriate to her writing without success. It would have to be a quote from one of Joseph Smith’s Nauvoo sermons to follow precedent.

Another weakness occurs right after Liberty Jail about the time Nauvoo was to be established. She decides to write some essays about such topics as polygamy and the priesthood ban. As important as these subjects are, they detract from her otherwise wonderful linear narration. She loses focus and never gets it back. Perhaps I should give the Nauvoo section another read, but it seems the personal nature of her writing never recovers from the tangents. What could have been my personal definitive biography of Joseph Smith flounders.

Implications: It seems that biographies on Joseph Smith can either be about the history or the personality and never completely both. Some may believe that they are dealing with both by focusing on one, but it is never that easy. Donna Hill comes close to achieving that combination, but misses the mark. It would be great if there was an author that could combine the talents of both Bushman and Hill as they compliment each other. Luckily, we can read what they wrote and compare the two.

Rough Synthesis of Smith

This is the second in a series of discussions on biographies of Joseph Smith. It is a look at the best and worst of important works dealing with his life. Each criticism is broken down into three sections: positive aspects, negative aspects, and implications.

Rough Stone Rolling by Richard L. Bushman

Positive: Most of what makes this particular book good was done in Joseph Smith and the Beginning of Mormonism by the same author. There is a lot of information crammed together in a seamless narrative. It takes careful concentration to not miss a source or worth while insight, either of Joseph Smith or history of the LDS Church. Personally, I don't think his complete biography is as "can't put down" engaging as his shorter work. Still, part of that is his commitment to telling the whole story of a singular individual. It probably would have been much better to try and write two volumes. Then again, that could just be wishful thinking on my part with how much I enjoyed the book.

What he does proves how good of an author and historian he can be at his best. Instead of going simply from one incident to another as most biographies by nature do, he treats each chapter as an essay on several topics. This wouldn't work well with a lesser writer (as I will explain on my third installment), but it seems to fit the intentions of Bushman. Again, I can't help but be reminded of B.H. Roberts who seems even more to be a architype of Mormon history writing than ever. This time, instead of the bibliography it is the theology that comes to mind. Bushman returns Joseph Smith to his rightful place; a theologian and community building prophet. The book tries to look at Joseph Smith on his own terms, rather than define those terms for him. True, that is something that a believing Mormon might do who agrees with him more than disagrees. The brilliancy is that for the most part this isn't an apologetic as much as a study of religious ideas expressed and developed. For once Joseph Smith's theology and organizational building are focused on as much as his history and trials or motivations. For that alone the book should be commended. You come away from this book understanding Joseph Smith, because you understand his religious ideas. Without that foundation the man cannot be fathomed.

What marks this book as "definitive" where others lack is Bushman's synthesis of decades long studies. He doesn't seem to ignore major works simply because he disagrees with them. In fact, he uses them to get a clearer picture. He has his favorites to be sure, but not at the quick rejection of others. It might not be the most comprehensive book about Joseph Smith, but it is for studies about him. I had waited about ten years for the release of this book after reading his first major biographical treatment. Such a passing of time ended up crucial to the end result. This is a must read for Mormon history enthusiasts and others.

Negative: His strength is also his weakness. There is not a lot, if anything, new in the book. The main problem with the book might be my own. There is really very few new things or insights that haven't been expressed elsewhere. Perhaps that just says something about the state of Joseph Smith history research. There was nothing substantially new to be said. All of it was written somewhere by someone in this book or that symposium. However, he has only claimed to be an historian and not an investigator. His genious and that of this book is that he can take desperate elements and create a life rather than an argument or test subject.

Still, Joseph Smith sometimes did get lost in the shuffle of his essay approach. He could have used more personal sources, such as journals and letters, for a more intimate treatment of the people involved. That includes Joseph Smith where personality becomes essay subject a few times. Perhaps a look at the inner individual was not the main concern of the book. It was labeled "A Cultural Biography" on the cover. With that in mind, Bushman did well exploring Joseph Smith's influence from and creation of culture. There is another book that has a better personal approach, although often overlooked and underrated. That will be talked about later.

Implications: I have already said some things above that would go here. Two main points I would like to reiterate. First, in order to understand Joseph Smith the biographer has to take his religion seriously - even if they don't believe it. Otherwise it becomes expose and not biography. You can't seperate the man from what he considered his mission. Second, after ten years the amount of new information seems to have hit a brick wall. The Joseph Smith papers project might change that, but we have yet to see. Finally, even with no new info, there is plenty that exists to evaluate a complex religious personality in several ways.

Next Installment: Joseph Smith the First Mormon by Donna Hill

Still Not a Real History

This is the first in a series of discussions on biographies of Joseph Smith. It is a look at the best and worst of important works dealing with his life. Each criticism is broken down into three sections: positive aspects, negative aspects, and implications.

No Man Knows My History by Fawn M. Brody

Positive: It is hard for me to pick out much good out of her book, as its whole purpose is to attack and destroy the reputation of Joseph Smith and those who believe him to be a prophet. Yet, to be completely fair I am going to try. It is clear that she is an engaging writer with a smooth writing style. Dealing with as complicated a subject as she is, the text remains easy to read and directly to the point. There is no awkwardness to the flow as readers are able to follow the arguments effortlessly.

She is the first to really look closely at a number of original newspapers and documents. Most other biographies used The History of the Church practically as the only document. It was because of her that the real discussion of things could get off the ground and be discussed. However, how much "original" information and sources were new to her work is arguable. You cannot look at her bibliographical notes without a reminder of B.H. Roberts' historical works. She used far less unknown material than what it at first seems. Most of her "discoveries" come from examinations of long neglected newspaper articles of Joseph Smith's day. Still, she started the New Mormon History; both for good and bad.

Negative: The books biggest problem starts nearly from the first page. As was said, it is too full of bias and expose narrative to be of much historical use. That the vast majority of historians and lay people use this as the definitive biography shows an ignorance and lack of charity toward him and his followers. The facts are slanted and evidence pieced together by innuendo. For a more in-depth study of the vast flaws of the book, it is best to read "No Mame, That's Not History" by Hugh Nibley.

She uses two bait and switch tactics to redirect the evidence more toward her liking. The first is to say something happened, or didn't happen, by emphasising something totally different. An example of that is the classic accusation that Joseph Smith didn't beat his wife at a particular moment, as if he had done so at other times without any evidence that he ever did. Second and more troublesome for her use of sources is expressing reservations about the writings, but using them anyway as the main information. That goes as much for anti-Mormon as for pro-Mormon sources. Those parts that don't fit her preconcieved ideas are tossed aside while those that do are branded as indespensable. Yet, they often come from the same documents without justifying the choice with at times anything more than an out of context throw away statement from somewhere else.

I would suggest ignoring this work if it wasn't so important as a history making book on its own. She pretty much invented the Liberal, Atheistic, Expose driven history of Mormonism seen today. Still, she did write it at a time when "Historical Jesus" studies were slowly gaining momentum in the United States. It much more resembles them than a general biography. Both have at the center a disdain for faith and the divine.

Implications: Her book has never fully been looked at for the number of flaws and false evidence. There was a whole book dedicated to looking at "The God Makers" and refuting its lies. The same could easily be done with this book for anyone who is interested in such a task. It would be time consuming to be sure. There is a lot of information available for use. Still, it wouldn't be impossible and already there has been many chinks in the armor from years of studies. It would be the ultimate attack on the Sunstone and Signiture Books group as this is their sacred scripture.

Luckily for those like myself who love and have faith in LDS Church history and doctrine, hers is not the last word. There are two other books that I feel do a more admirable job of understanding Joseph Smith. They don't have as much of an underlying axe to grind. At least one of them is a bonefide and well respected historian. His book will be looked at next time.

Next Installment: Rough Stone Rolling by Richard L. Bushman

Ethics of "Mormon" Art

A comment in an Interview of Mormon playwrite Eric Samuelsen brought to mind some ethical and moral implication of religious writing. He said:

The public relations people for the Church have their job to do. Our job as artists is to tell real stories about real people, and not worry about ideology . . .

In Stake Conference, one speaker talked about seeing a movie with her husband, and she said something like 'we started watching the movie, and heard some bad language, and
immediately we knew we needed to leave the theater, and so we did, and it didn't even matter if we got our money back--we'd kept our thoughts pure.' We've all heard variations on that talk a thousand times. And I can't judge--maybe the Spirit was whispering to her, and maybe that movie, for her, would have been spiritually damaging. But just once before I die, I'd like to hear someone say 'I went to this movie, and I heard some bad language, and my initial impulse was to leave, but I stayed, and I had a life-changing positive experience.'
I hear all this rhetoric about 'worldly art,' and I never have any idea what they're talking about. I don't think 'worldly art' even exists. I don't think it's a meaningful distinction, between 'worldly' and 'unworldly' (or, I don't know, transcendent). I think art is a testimony, and I think it's pretty much always morally good. I do think that there's such a thing as poorly executed art.

I found his comments to be very disturbing as a religious believer. I now know I will never knowingly read, watch, or contribute to anything he ever does. A person who cannot be offended by small evils can never be saved from grosser evils.

What I mean is exactly what I said. When we give in to saying "this isn't bad because it only has one bad thing" or "this isn't bad because the rest is good," or worst of all,"this isn't bad compared to THAT thing," then it becomes harder and harder to recognize and stay away from those things that truely are bad. Too many people become sensitive to serious things by not avoiding the little things in life. Before you know it, your faith and morals are lost. Not that you think they are lost, and that is the worst part. You lose sense of right and wrong because nothing is wrong compared to THAT thing - whatever new "thing" you find worse than the other things.

I agree with OSC in his essays "The problem of Evil in Fiction" and "On Art, Morals, and Morality" in his book "A Storyteller in Zion," that we must accept that evil or wrong must be portrayed to make a story interesting and meaningful. What I don't agree with is that we must engage in evil and wrong in our stories (such as swearing) that can be described or even implied rather than used. It is a great bit of critical work on writing and religious audience. However, I don't think OSC ever said (and in fact he has said the opposite) that art was without ideology (or neutral). Anyone who uses that argument for anything is not on my list of people to support as artists.

Art is power. Those who hold power must recognize the need for judgement from every angle. Wanting the responsibility or not, artists are fundimentally PR people. If they didn't want to say something or make some kind of point about themelves or the world - no matter how trivial -they wouldn't be making art. Those who read Asher Lev might not be judging Judaism (who is to say they aren't?), but they are definantly judging the author in relation to Judaism. If you read any interviews or critism of the books, the relationship of Judaism and the author almost always comes up. I would imagine the same would happen with Mormon stories if they ever got known beyond the Wasatch Front. It certainly comes up with Neil LaBute.

Why I wouldn't want to contribute to Eric Samuelsen from his interview is that his views on art conflict too much with mine. As such, I can already tell, including the venue of where his work has been printed (a whole diff discussion), that I would be offended by his work. Even if not offended, at least uncomfortable and not in a thoughtful way. The power of any message would be soured by his approach.

I don't believe art should be institutional propaganda; outside of the institution. That is one of the reasons I think LDS art is still too conventional and boring. However, I do think there are "standards" that are tied to the institution as believers. And, tandentially, that translates into art as at least tentative institutional support.

Mormon Spirituality

Many years ago I had wondered what constituted a Mormon spiritual life. The question was brought about by critical comments that the LDS religion was mostly materialistic with its emphasis of an Earthly Kingdom of God and rejection of spirit/body dualism. Usually this criticism comes from those who either believe in "faith only" salvation or believe spiritual matters should mostly be separate from secular concerns. Research on the subject has brought me to a conclusion that might sound too much like a truism than a profound discovery. Mormonism teaches that true spirituality comes from self-sacrifice in the service toward others.

Almost from the start, the concept of self-sacrifice as spiritual power has been a central Mormon teaching. What can be considered the first Priesthood manual stated:

Let us here observe that a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation. For from the first existence of man, the faith necessary unto the enjoyment of life and salvation never could be obtained without the sacrifice of all earthly things. It is through this sacrifice, and this only, that God has ordained that men should enjoy eternal life. And it is through the medium of the sacrifice of all earthly things that men do actually know that they are doing the things that are well pleasing in the sight of God.

- Lectures on Faith, N.B. Lundwall Ed., pg 58.

The question is, to what end do we sacrifice? Christianity in general, and Jesus Christ in particular, has stated that giving of ourselves for others is the greatest form of worship. Letting go of our own wants, needs, and desires leads us closer to God and Salvation. Matthew Ch. 25: 40, 45 states:

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

These are statements of action. The fate and fortunes of Eternity rests on what each of us do to others. We can be kind, generous, helpful, forgiving, and other positive things or we can do the opposite. Service becomes more than just an action of faith, but the very process of faith. King Benjamin in the Book of Mormon was perhaps even more blunt in connecting service with worship in his famous sermon to his people:

16 Behold, I say unto you that because I said unto you that I had spent my days in your service, I do not desire to boast, for I have only been in the service of God.

17 And behold, I tell you these things that ye may learn wisdom; that ye may learn that when ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God.

18 Behold, ye have called me your king; and if I, whom ye call your king, do labor to serve you, then ought not ye to labor to serve one another?

19 And behold also, if I, whom ye call your king, who has spent his days in your service, and yet has been in the service of God, do merit any thanks from you, O how you ought to thank your heavenly King!

Both Jesus' statements and King Benjamin's statements about service seem to suggest a royal duty for the subjects to serve others. We are, more or less, doing the will of God as Lord and King. Any less than this is actually a type of ingratitude or, in Jesus' example, disloyalty and spiritual treason. This is, in effect, a point that Abinadi was making to the Priests of King Noah. They had flaunted their positions and completely rejected the true reasons for having Priesthood authority. Instead, they try to make Abinadi into a fool by quoting Isa. 52:7 with its declaration that prophets will have positive messages. In return, Abinadi argues ( see Mosiah Ch. 15 ) only those who serve God and follow his Commandments are worthy of giving positive messages. And the only way to follow God's Commandments is by having Faith in Christ, the Son of God and Father of Prophets, who the Priests of Noah have rejected.

Faith in Christ through Service to others is the central tenent of Mormon spirituality. As LDS President Hinkley stated:

Without sacrifice there is no true worship of God. I become increasingly convinced of that every day. "The Father gave his Son, and the Son gave his life," and we do not worship unless we give-give of our substance, give of our time, give of our strength, give of our talent, give of our faith, give of our testimonies.

-Elder Gordon B. Hinkley, BYU Speaches of the Year, Oct 16, 1962.

It is time to adjust more than just our priorities. We should, as Latter-day Saints, adjust our attitude toward building the Kingdom of God. This includes doing our duties, whatever our callings, with happiness and a sense of worship. Preaching the Gospel, Perfecting the Saints, and Redeeming the Dead are acts of Faith that lead to our own Salvation. We draw closer to God by doing more for others. Service is the definition of Mormon spirituality that the theology ultimately points.

No More Boring Sacraments

Christian A. Johnson in his "Seven Deadly Sins of Sacrament Meeting Talks" makes the following list:

1) The Sin of Unpreparedness.
2) The Sin of Time Enroachment
3) The Sin of Out-and-Out Time Theft
4) The Sin of Repeating Urban Legends
5) The Sin of Drawing Upon Inappropriate Material
6) The Sin of "Too Much Information"
7) The Sin of Casting Blame on Others for Your Speaking Assignment

To the above list I would like to add:

8) The Sin of Not Using the Scriptures. I don't know how many talks I have heard that pretty much contain Sin Six and Sin Four with almost no mention of the Scriptures. We should be teaching each other the Gospel, and it is in the Scriptures that the gospel truths are most readily available. Reading long excerpts from stories out of the Church magazines or any other material goes in one ear and out the other for me. It would be great to get people's insights into what they have learned or thought about as they Feast Upon the Word, rather than regurgitate another's creative tale spinning.

9) The Sin of Political Speaches. Believe it or not, even Conservative statements over the pulpit make me nervous. We should make sure what we say is backed up by recent prophets and plenty of scriptures. Quoting a politician, pundit, or pop culture is probably not a good idea. Small doses might be fine if carefully used.

I would like to elevate the Seventh Sin to the First slot. I love giving talks. Many years of my life have been devoted to the study of the gospel, so it is a thrill to get up and share what I have learned. Of course, it helps that I love getting in front of audiences as long as I have a reason. But to get up and say from the first "when the Biship called I hoped it wasn't about giving a talk" is a complete turn-off. It is the same for me as saying "I didn't want to do this and therefore I don't know why you should listen." This practice of voicing your disfavor for talking has got to stop!

Maybe I should set an example (I already completely skip out on saying anything about the act of speaking when giving a Sacrament talk) and just give a positive statement every time I get up. It would go something like this: It is so nice to get up in front of this ward and express my heartfelt gratitude for the gospel. When the Bishop asked me to give a talk on . . . add subject . . . it gave me the opportunity to revisit my favorite scripture . . . add scripture.

No matter what the probems might be that hamper the effectiveness of Sacrament meeting talks, lets all work together to improve our experiences. We all know how boring a group of lay speakers are. Something must be done to benefit the soul more fully during a time when we should be strengthening each other. Certainly its not about having a professional clergy. Rather, its about wishing for the voice of an angel and then reaching for the closeness of the Spirit in our communications. Its time to start a new crusade to rid the Sacrament Meetings of horrible talks. Especially when most people can do better when they put their hearts and minds into a project of personal importance. And the gospel is important.

Now lets all say together in our most enthusiastic voices: I am glad to be giving this talk today.

Narnia, E.T., and Mormon Story Telling

Recently I was able to see the Narnia film and was thrilled by its faithfullness to the book. Aside from that, it was a beautiful movie filled with great visual moments. The acting could have been better, but children have not been known for outstanding performances. Aslan was one of the best mostly CGI creatures, aside from Golum, every created. He had a natural grace and movement to him that might only be matched by King Kong if the reports I am hearing of that movie are correct. Sadly, the great awe felt for Aslan in the books could not be translated easily. It was hard to see the connection the Children developed for Aslan, and made his death of lesser emotional power than the books delivered. Sometimes well written words speak a thousand pictures.

What was more evident than the books was the Christian symbolism, as it wasn't hidden behind descriptions and lengthy dialogue. For some who saw the movie, particularly Christians of zeal and critical of Hollywood and modern culture, that was the most important function of the movie. Aside from some who see magic and fantasy of any kind as satanic, this was a chance to preach and teach the message of Jesus' suffering and saving. It was a missionary moment for the moment. That is where the problem starts for this movie and Mormon fiction.

In the early 80s an even bigger film, E.T., hit theaters. The movie was touted as family friendly and emotionally touching. What it wasn't, from any information available, was seen as a Christian missionary moment. That can easily be understood. The main characters were from a divorced family, it had slight profanity, good and evil were hardly mentioned, and it was written and directed by a social Jew. Yet, the story itself had many of classic elements of Christian symbolism and some of it subtle. Most of the symbols came from the main character and alien E.T. He was not of this earth, he had healing powers, he took upon himself at least Elliot's experiences, He suffered in a natural setting, died and was placed in a tomblike encasing, came back alive from his own power, and left into the sky by spaceship with a careful expression of faith in him to remain behind. Even the movie poster had religiously symbolic power, with the finger of Elliot and E.T. touching like The Creation painting in the Sistine Chapel.

That brings Narnia back to square one as a Christian film. What makes it Christian? The story isn't unique. The hype is as much theater as the film. It talks of good and evil, but doesn't really explain the concepts as a teaching tool. The characters are no more Christian than any other children in Disney films and the work "Christian" isn't mentioned once. In the end, the talk of a "Christian film" is vague and unfulfilled even if the recent efforts have been enjoyable.

Of course, this is directly related to Mormon fiction as the same problems arise. Is Mormon fiction defined by subject matter, cultural markers, sermonesque studies, character identity, or promotional hype? Or, like the difference between E.T.and Narnia for general Christianity, is it more about who writes and produces the material? Perhaps it is a combonation of all of these and a wider net can be cast. In casting the net wider the whole argument about "Mormon fiction" might become pendantic and self-serving. It might be more important for Mormons to write than that they write Mormonism. Taking Orson scott Card's example as a wide net caster, he has impressed many non-Mormons with the positive qualities of Mormonism with very few Mormon characters and blatant symbolism. His book "Lost Boys" is one of the most realistically realized Mormon families in all literature. Yet, their faith is only part of the story while in some instances the story itself speaks more about family relationships, good and evil, and afterlife theology. Mormon fiction will only succeed outside its own world once it becomes second nature rather than front row seat.