Small Collection of Poems

Not a Love Poem

I've seen you once before
I'll see you yet again
All this time we've been just friends.
You looked so bueatiful to me
I had to know your name.
That was the start of my game;
The one I call "Break my Heart."

I keep on running into you
We continue to exchange hello.
So may words between are shown,
All too well conversation goes
laughing and crying sit together.
So different from one another
Yet every bit the same
When that wall of confidentiality
Really keeping us sane.

I hold out my destiny,
you hold me at a distance
And we get along so fine.
Let me remind my feelings
This is not my love poem.

I can only wish for a love poem
It can never be a love poem
It won't ever be a love poem.
They aren't written about me and her,
I saw that deep within her eyes.

A Line of Thoughts

Poetry without the prose
is nothing.
Words without some noise
is silence.
Dreams without any action
is fantasy.
Life without our love
is Death.

My Lord My God, Hear

My Lord my God
I cry for you.
Silence.

My Lord my God
I scream out to you!
Silence.

My Lord my God
I serve with you.
Silence.

My Lord my God
I followed you.
Silence.

My Lord my God
I am silent.
And then the Voice.

Struggle Within

The sharp dentures of our teeth
Nash at things that do not bleed.
Rushing wind at the gate,
How like a flying circus
We see our lofty fates.

Chimes the sound within our hair,
blowing sofly while others stare;
Moonbeams with Sunscapes near.

If they keep me from all I see,
Nice views of summer green;
Pushing out is my hate.
Outside of simple fussing,
I shall forgive my heart.

Copyright ©2007 Jettboy

Non-Mormons and PBS "The Mormons"

The much talked about PBS production The Mormons was supposed to be groundbreaking. Despite what the producer has said, it didn't have anything that would change anyone's views on Mormonism - in fact, reinforces some. That is the view of many LDS, including myself. Not that the documentary wasn't well made, because it did have a lot going for it. There was nothing horribly wrong with it other than an expected slant that could have been worse.

However, I had no idea what the average non-Mormon thought. Almost anyone who seems to have watched the show has been A) Reporters, B)Mormons and C)former or disgruntled Mormons. There is one thing I think has been missing everywhere I have gone on the Internet; non-Mormon reactions to the series. Now, I don’t mean pot-shots from “unredeemable anti-Mormon or anti-religionists,” but thoughtful people. After all, this show was supposed to be as much for non-Mormons as about Mormons.

If my lack of finding responses means anything, I don’t think very many non-Mormons actually watched the show. Believe me, I have looked everywhere and found little (other than very negative blog comments) where everyone is going. Even the PBS and Newsweek responses have been 90 percent Mormon defenders and 10 percent negative detractors. Did the “world” just watch it and shrug its collective shoulders? I searched the web to find out. As I said, it wasn't easy.

What I found was interesting, and not surprising. I made sure that (either the main entry or the blog comments) were from those who knew little about or interacted seldom, if at all, with the Mormon experience.

No matter how much we might want to try and change perceptions, the Scientology relationship was everywhere:

If Mormonism sometimes looks as bizarre as Scientology, it has also done a lot of people a lot of good. If Mormonism can seem as square as the Chamber of Commerce, it has also had to survive as much persecution as any radical group. If Mormonism looks as sci-fi and made-up as "Star Trek," well, how did other major religions look when they were only a little over a century old? It's a great story, thoroughly researched and quite decently told.

and the weirdness factor just gets bigger:

I was discussing this with the wife as we watched the series the other night, and made the same point you did that a lot of mainstream religions have some pretty wiggy beliefs too (transubstantiation, anyone?). She had watched more of the doc than I had, however, and thought that a lot of the Mormon mythology was on a whole different level of random nuttiness. That is, it seemed more rooted in one
particular guy's psychosis, as opposed, say, the more widespread yearning for immortality embodied in resurrection myths. It was the kind of stuff our 8-year-old would come up with in a particularly scattered fever dream.

What is perhaps the most talked about aspect of Mormonism, in connection with what they already knew and what they saw in the documentary, is Mormons as people. They are the nicest and most friendly people, but believe absolute unbelievable rubbish:

The Mormons I've known (as a population) have been remarkable for their politeness and stability. I don't think this is a sampling error, since I've heard the same from many other people. I also think the characteristic must have something to do with the religion, though that's more contentious, since it seems a significant deviation from the behavior of the rest of the population without other obvious cause . . .

I make no claim that Mormon society is without flaws nor that there are no evil Mormons. It's a big population. But it looks to me (as an outsider) to produce better results in practice than any number of more-mainstream churches.

A respondent states:

It's true that the practical-minded aspects of the religion -- self-reliance, preparedness, and community -- are nothing but laudable. There's a fascinating split between its nutty origins and mythology (and the polygamy) and the sensible, real-world, day-to-day social attitudes of its adherents.

Yet another blogger states in a more political/historical response related to the above viewpoint:

It is remarkable, the film says, that the Mormons did such an about-face and externally became part of the American capitalist mainstream, particularly from the 1950s on (having had to drop polygamy and then racism). But internally, the church seems like an authoritarian, communal or collectivist “cult” perhaps, but one which is enormously successful in providing for members who believe and practice its tenets. It does present a certain paradox.

The point seems to be that non-Mormon viewers don't see the relationship between Mormon theology and Mormon behavior; other than related to polygamy. Even with polygamy they don't understand the theology other than as an excuse. it is almost (unless they think in terms of "getting away with something") as if theology and ethics or morality are separate issues. Mormon people are great, but Mormon theology is horrible. Never mind how they might relate.

One non-Mormon blogger recognized the problem that the documentary had in explaining Mormonism. Something was missing to make a rounded understanding:

It was very interesting in many ways. I learned a lot about *what* happened in the between 1805 when Joseph Smith was born and 1896 when Utah joined the Union but am left with no sense of "why?"

Joseph Smith comes across as charismatic, ego-centric man of little or no spiritual or moral depth. Why would the first and second generation of believers follow him, sacrifice their homes and lives, swallow repugnant new revelations, etc? They endured incredible suffering to do so - surely "why?" is a critical part of the story. But there was almost no glimpse of Mormonism's inner life.

Perhaps that will be explained in the second half - what is the spiritual core of the Mormon faith?

There is no answer if the viewer found that "why" question answered in the second half. It is good that the non-Mormon didn't just take at face value whatever was talked about on the program as the final word. What is upsetting is that this was the only time a person was interested in looking deeper. They still considered Mormon theology "repugnant new revelations" without reservation.

Perhaps the strangest reaction was in trying so hard to have it both ways. For some there was a sympathetic and then horrified feeling about aspects of LDS history and doctrine. The results can be, as expressed here and here, very Schizophrenic. The first sounds almost friendly while still negative:

and don’t just head toward the prurient polygamy bits. I was more interested in why the Mormons are so all-fired interested in genealogy. Thanks to the documentary, I now know why, and am sufficiently unnerved by that knowledge.

This other one wants to have the cake and eat it too. They try so hard to take "potshots" without seeming to do that:

At one point during the film I found myself bristling at one researchers attempt to contexturalize the mountain meadows massacre, by doing so it was an attempt to oh-so-slightly minimalize the horror of the murder of 120 women, men and children. Also, if you are of the Mormon faith and happen to be a historian or theologian that wants to discuss more controversial issues regarding the LDS church you can find yourself excommunicated. So I can see why such measured positions were taken at times . . .


The Mormon experience and exodus is an interesting narrative in the history of the United States. It is also a monumental testament to the power of faith, and or delusion if you so desire . . . According to the historians they had an extermination order leveled against them at one point, not to mention harrasment by the federal government until statehood was established in the late 1900's. (States rights anyone?)

And all that talk of not labeling anyone interviewed "Mormon" or "non-Mormon" that so many were complaining about? Well, at least one person was completely confused in an almost hilarious way:

I watched the show tonight (there is another episode tomorrow which will talk more about contemporary mormons) and I have not learned whether Mitt paid for the show. But one thing was rather clear: almost all the interviewed were mormons. I guess that makes sense, mormons do know most about mormonism :) I don't really understand why America is worried about mormons. They aren't any more dangerous/different than/from any other average religion subscriber.

Although I tried to stay away from Christian perspectives where someone obviously at least knew Mormonism(or more specifically thought they did), one bloggersaw something biased about the program against the Mormons. To be fair, he saw it biased against any hard faith:

"Rather than dispelling “stereotypes” (if by that we mean “negative impressions”), the special had quite the opposite effect, it confirmed a number of negative impressions and added several more.

The indelible impression left on most people who encounter them is that they are very nice wackos, not an enviable reputation by any means.

If there is a flanking attack going on, then, it is probably less against Christianity than against the Republicans, with the Mormons seen as yet another radical religious minority (albeit a “highly wealthy and influential one”) that would attack the “fundamental rights” of the sexually liberated. In other words, for
many of the politically irresponsible, the Mormons would seem to fulfill the role that the Jews played in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Not surprising is the amount of those who don't hold any faith, and usually atheists, who see in Mormonism something of all religions. That isn't high praise. One blogger who made connections without much judging said:

As I watched I thought there were some interesting parallels between Mormonism and Christianity. 1) They both started from the margins of society and ultimately (and relatively quickly) became accepted into mainstream culture. 2. They both have historicity issues that create stumbling blocks to their legitimacy. 3. They both have a missionary fervor to spread their message on a global level. 4. They both have had to painfully and awkwardly deal with racism. 5) They both struggle with the issue of women and their roles within the family, society, and church leadership. 6) They have a haunting violent past. 7) They both come close to an idolatrous emphasis upon the “nuclear family.” 8) They both are struggling to communicate and translate their faith in a postmodernity context.

The more common reaction is comparing absurdity between faiths:

"Among the . . . fascinating things about Mormons is just how recent the whole enterprise is. The other so-called major religions and cloak their more (how does one say in polite society?) unusual traditions in the mists of time, as it were . . . Can’t fall back on that when everything points to an upstate New York farm in the mid-19th century.

A less "polite" response was to the point:

I watched part of the PBS special on The Mormons last night. The show is well done, as you would expect. It's very informative. But I find, as an atheist, the whole thing kind of silly. Particularly when they have on disciples of other religions who are basically laughing at the Mormons for their beliefs, as if their own beliefs are any more rooted in fact. You have one guy saying, "My sky god gave me a gold book with his writings on it". Then another guy say, "Well, that's crazy, the real sky god gives rock tablets!" Riiight.

With such a lack of response by non-Mormons this show was partly made for, it seems the audience tuned out. It took me several hours just to find these blog posts. My feeling is that a similar lack of interest mixed with curiosity is far more likely than watching the show:

I admit that I've always been intellectually lazy when it comes to the Mormons. I know they're out there, and I know they're interesting, but I've never taken the time to read up on them. I am counting on this show to fill in my knowledge gaps. I would blog live during the show, but that's too stressful.

Instead, there was more than one time when South Park Mormonism was considered all that was needed:

I really wish I knew how to link videos, because there is a GREAT South Park video on the same topic.

But... in lieu...www.pbs.org/mormons

If the PBS "The Mormons" reaction says anything, it is that people don't want their views to be changed. They like them just the way they are. Mormon theology is demonstrably false and weird "dum, dum, dum," but they are mostly nice people. End of story.

Witness to Alpha and Omega (a poem)

Witness to Alpha and Omega

Among the Stars a brilliance did abide
proclaiming to save despite our pride;
The God of Love did arise.
He went to minister to the World
With Power and Glory in his words.
Chosen apart with Truths divine,
Away with many devils he did drive.
Taken by the people he wanted prepared,
fullfilled in blood and water promises.
Lifted high on timber and left alone,
The dove and whale become like one
Saving masses and losing none.

A leader of men killed by murder
when in pain he fell down madly
through a window he did meander.
Hands of law had reached beyond crime
And grasped a prophet, no tears cried.
Seeing visions of Gold and Angels
He witnessed the greatness of another.
Words were taught from open Heavens
Helping to escape the walls of Hell.
Sent to organize on this world endless
Promises of Priesthood eternal
from the God of Love to all everything.

Mystery (a poem)

Starting this week, and continuing throughout the next month, I will be going a little creative. Some poems and a serialized short story will be featured in the coming weeks. At the end will be an examination of the theory of what can make "good" Mormon creative writing.



Mystery

I

The Stars Shone bright,
With purity and prudence covering patient lips
Of people moving softly against quiet halls of salient comfort.
They enter shimmered rooms that shone green high trees,
A promise of glory making greatness the treasure proscribed.
Houses are built for masses who start mirroring a master's heart
Among frames facing upright.
We must do and see, like Son for Father.
We will do and see, like Brother for Siblings.
We have seen and done, in turn back to Father.

II

The dreaded darkness vanished
And the ground does grow as against large skies
Forming brown dust against blue for a better day.
The bright sun emerges, stopped sudden by the moon.
Flapping wings arise with other world creatures new,
And their kind and God's kind were kept together.
With rest reastablished the sacred.
A task was given for two groveling folks
(Who were tricked by the half truth of a trouble maker)
Sent forth from the garden to fulfill a promise.
How great is our fortune,
What delight now I see.
Not before, but now shall we be
Like a seed makes us He.

III

The Moon makes them all
Come a little closer along the climbing latter
With a name in their hearts another never hears.
Those having washed hands shall wear white robes
Signaling the gratitude of glorious people grasped firm
In the love of the laborer who leads the thrones.
Those believing bow to promise.
Innumerable Kings and Queens unite strong as a tree.
With Holy Heaven approaching,
The annointed are two of the heart, humbled knee and hungered soul;
Having the past and present bound together to promise the future.
In circles do the courtly try to conduct peacefully
As they pray for those tired who see problems of life
Ever growing carefully gaurded by a garden of thorns.
All holy houses stand forward.

IV

The gracious hands make a final stand,
As the silk that stops the sojourn is passed;
And only one can judge this our play
To decide those who come and those to stray.
So remember to be kind to nieghbors
And give all your best for the kingdom,
For anticipation of the feast of crowns.

The Stillbirth of Mormon Art

For many years now artists who are Mormon have tried to bring a different sense of the creative within the Church. The most recent incarnation of reaching beyond the "Deseret Book" and "Ensign Cover" material has been movies. Recently, the self-proclaimed creator of Mormon cinema announced he no longer is part of the Church, having gone a different direction. This is not surprising considering some of the things he has said for the past couple of years. What it has done is put once more into question if there can be anything called Mormon art.

To be honest, that question is silly. Of course there is Mormon art. It just doesn't reach to a level that some would like to see compared to masterpiece standards. More importantly, what is popular isn't going to be what is accepted by those looking for something worthy of historical grandeur. That is a fact that Mormon art triumphalists must face.

Keith Merrill in the "Daily Herald" on Sunday, April 14, said it best in response to Dutcher's parting words:

Even though, according to Dutcher, our movies at the Legacy Theater -- "Legacy" and "The Testaments" -- "squandered their chance to be powerful" and didn't leave viewers "weak in the knees, their minds reeling, their spirits soaring" when compared to his own unprecedented brilliance and talent, I will press on in good faith and endure the "limitations" of LDS virtues, values and sensibilities.

I am proud to say that every project in development at a new venture, Audience Alliance Motion Picture Studios, embraces traditional standards and tells the truth.

Here is the truth. More people have been inspired by "Mr. Krueger's Christmas," moved to tears during "Legacy" and walked out of "The Testament" with spirits soaring than the total number of people who have ever bothered to go to Richard Dutcher's movies combined. Your arrogance makes me bite my tongue to keep from turning a somber "goodbye" into a cheerful "good riddance."

From the standpoint of successful art, if there is no willing audience then there is only a hobby. Those who insist they must be enjoyed and respected while the group it tries to reach doesn’t feel that way are tipping at windmills. They will either break into acceptance or it will break them. For the record, no amount of preaching and chest thumping is going make anyone like the work any more or less.

As an artist, it is sad to not see your work reach an approving audience when you have spent so much work in finishing a project. As an artist, it can be satisfying (if you let it) to just be able to work on a project for the thrill of personal inspiration. That last part, I think, is what is missing in those who want Mormon art to be so much more. If you aren't enjoying it, if you are trying too hard, if you just want to make a buck or a name, then sometimes the intended audience can tell. They don’t like the condescension of a self-proclaimed elite.

What passes as Mormon visual art is something I have long been unimpressed with. There is very little LDS art in my house because I find the popular images to be repetitive and uninspiring. Did they all learn from the same school? Art that I put up is either from my own grandfather (a landscape artist) or masterpieces from history. I was happy to see someone put the name "Sunset in Arcadia" on the art done by the most popular LDS artists. It perfectly describes the sun drenched, nicely dressed, untouched landscape sold at LDS Bookstores and put on LDS walls.

Recently I have decided as someone who thinks that Mormon art is good in technique, but bad in aesthetics, to re-interpret the meaning of art in the Church. This reaches into paintings, novels, movies, etc. Why is the "Sunset in Arcadia" so popular among so many? Perhaps it is that "Art" itself is not a Mormon aesthetic or fit into its mission. The message of the enjoyed art is the message of the Restoration: Strive for Perfection having Faith in God (who is Love and Light). Mormons want the ideal because they are taught to reach for the Eternal. Anything that deviates from that represents going back and not forward.

I remember writing a short paper in college (not at an LDS school) about the history and hope of Mormon literature. My teacher read it and enjoyed what she learned. However, when we got into how to make good religious literature she said there has to be some kind of doubt, or challenge, or lack of an easy answer. Looking back, I now see the purpose of art, self-exploration or rebellion, is not consistent with Mormon theology. Within the faith we already know who we are, why we are here, and even where we are going. Allegiance to God is the highest priority, with a rebellious Satan as the example of Evil. Therefore, most Mormons are moved by art that either shows someone reaching for the perfect or having already arrived.

My hope is that there will finally be Mormon artists who branch out and explore other ways to do art. However, they must also be aware of the reason a particular style in LDS art is popular. Perhaps instead of completely breaking with "tradition," these artists-to-be should see how to incorporate what is already enjoyed into new expressions. Already in the LDS Museum Art Contests there are vistas to be expanded in the more world regional "folk art" works. Writers still seem to not have learned anything from the success and talent of Orson Scott Card, who reaches both within and beyond Mormonism at the same time. There can be hope for a better artistic future. It is just going to take more than trying to break the hand that you hope will feed you.

Literary Suggestions for Mormon Reading

With spring comes the chance for relaxation in the summer months. People often decide to pick some books to pass the time or enjoy a sunny day on vacation. Below are a few books with themes that might be of interest to Mormons. At the least, Mormon readers should be aware of them. The list is, of course, far from complete and hopefully others can add their own suggestions. Included is the name of the author (if known), name of the book, and a brief description of why they are spiritually or religiously of importance.

1. Epic of Gilgamesh by Unknown Author.

As anyone familiar with the Bible can recognize, there are some stories that are very much related to the Creation and Flood narratives. It is an interesting collection that any Christian or Jewish reader needs to become familiar with. Some say it puts doubt on the Biblical events, but it can just as easily enhance our understanding of them.

2. Antigone by Sophocles.

As one person put it, "This is a powerful story about familial duty, social customs, gender roles, and the relationship between the individual and governmental authority." Of most importance to religious readers is the struggle between religious duty, unrighteous dominion, and the intersection between faith and secular rules.

3. Beowulf by Unknown Author, Seamus Heaney (Editor).

Not all of it is of the same religious importance, often reading like a blockbuster adventure story. However, there are themes that witness to the uneven line between the pagan and Christian era of the West. It is really about the passing of a time soon to be long forgotten, mixed with ideas about the Fall and Salvation.

4. Divine Comedy by Dante Alighieri.

One of the most impressive religious writers in history. He looks at the best and worst of humanity. Outside of the Mormon conception of Heaven and Hell, there is no other Christian with such a large vision of the eternities.

5. Paradise Lost by John Milton.

The Epic story of the Fall. It is among the few times that it is looked at almost as a fortunate event that shaped the better half of humanity. No words can describe it beyond its own telling.

6. Shakespeare.

The greatest playwrite of the English language. His stories may not be unique and beyond criticism, but his writing is astonishing. Themes touch on love, hate, damnation, salvation, family, country, right, wrong, spirituality, intellectualism, and other human conditions. He is the inventor of the Western literary human.

7. The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne.

A classic story of sin and redemption. It looks at taking punishment to such an extreme that there is no room for repentance. Ultimately, judgement is left to God and the individual. The end might not be satisfying to some who want to see the protagonist be more penitent.

8. Poetry of William Blake.

Most people are familiar with a few of his shorter works, particularly from his sketchbook publications. However, the depth and breadth of the poetry (and even prose) is an amazing collection. There are also many areas, particularly his fascination with the spiritual America and the ancient source of truth, that Mormons will recognize as part of their own yearnings. It is not easy reading, but well worth the effort.

9. My First Summer in the Sierra by John Muir.

It doesn't take an environmentalist to enjoy the sublime narrative of this book. The prose is as much poetry as any other writing. Vivid descriptions of nature and scenery place the reader in an Eden on Earth. Athough the only non-fiction in the short list, the spiritual power behind the words make it worth mentioning. Become enchanted with God's Creation, from the lowly ant to the mighty mountains, in ways that will enliven the Soul.

10. The Chosen by Chaim Potok.

Exploring the different aspects of religious faith, friendship, and family when coming from the same background. This is the only one I haven't read, but it comes highly recommended. Mormon writers have used this author, if not this book, as an example of what a good religious story can be when well written.

King Follet and Fundamentals of the Gospel

When a friend died in an accident while building a well, it gave Joseph Smith the opportunity to preach about what he learned from all the years of study and revelation. He gave a concise presentation of Salvation and the ultimate possibilities of the faithful. Most readers focus on the deeper points of his presentation, while sometimes ignoring the basics of the gospel spread throughout. Despite the complicated theology he expounded, it was at its core a testimony of the life, death, atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ. What might cause someone to ingore this part of the sermon is the focus on the nature of God the Father in expounding the Salvation of humanity.

At the center of this exploritory testimony is the words of John who said, "This is life eternal that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." (John 17:3) Some might at first think this refers to learning the theology of God and Jesus Christ by the study of the Scriptures. It is only the start of knowledge, Joseph Smith says, but ultimately the idea goes farther than that. To really know God and Jesus Christ is to have revelations about them and only by that can a person have eternal life. He implied that to know God is to have received a witness of Him. Those who don't, no matter what they preach and teach, can't be any different from what they call Joseph Smith: false prophet (Scriptural Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Ed. by Joseph F. Smith and Annot. by Richard C. Galbraith, pg. 388 -389).

Toward a True International Church

It is no secret that the LDS Church now has more members outside of the United States than inside. For a Church that believes it will cover the whole earth, this is good news. This does not mean that it has reached "World Religion" status by a long shot. Although I disagree with his tone, I do agree with Davis that calling Mormonism a World Religion at this point is dubious. Nor do I believe it ever will be until the Millenium (but that is a topic for later). With, if memory serves, 5 Billion people in the world, 12 million doesn't cut it as anything beyond a deeply humbling statistic.

Despite that, I think the LDS Church is taking strides toward a true International Church. Frankly, too many people are getting confused between the designation of "World Religion" with numbers, power, and influence and "International Church" where a sizeable membership lives in different countries. It is in latter designation that progress has shown such promise that some predictions can be made with reasonable thought.

At another blog it has been noted that a diverse crop of leaders have been called in the lower ranks of higher positions. Not one has been from Utah or the United States, a good sign for the international future. That is because those in lower positions can be called to the highest positions. And it is in South America that the highest number of new leaders are emerging. This will lead to one of my strongest predictions.

However, first there is another related prediction by someone who is/was a leader in the Church. Emeritus general authority Elder John K. Carmack believes that General Conferencecan be held outside Utah and even the United States:

"I'm not a prophet, seer or revelator, but I believe this will happen."
"I can envision general conference being held in Sao Paolo or Mexico City or Manila." . . .

The Perpetual Education Fund was created in 2001 to help church members ages 18-30 in select countries obtain education or skills training they otherwise couldn't afford and thereby get jobs that would help them "rise out of poverty and gain self-reliance," Carmack said.

The goal, he added, was to "raise up a generation of leaders with the time, energy and resources to build the church. They would marry, raise families and support them and in time, their tithing and resources would make these areas of the church self-sufficient."
Now, six years later, Carmack said, "We can see the dim outlines of the benefits that surely will come to the international church. Already, a not insignificant number of our leaders in areas with the program are coming from the ranks of PEF recipients."

My own non-authoritative prediction is that in a few years the General Conference might be outside the United States, but if not the language will change. We will see speakers give talks in their own languages. English and Spanish will be the two main languages over the pulpit, with others included as the leadership desires. Of course, that means that English speakers will have to get used to reading or listening to interpreters as a large portion of LDS membership already does.

This is an exciting development. It is a tremendous opportunity. As Elder Carmack said, we are close to, "where it is time to trim the parts that are peculiar to the United States and not relevant to the international church." That means asking what are the basics of the Church in a world of multicultural and political geography.

Separate From the World

For the past few years President Hinkley has tried to make people of the world, particularly the United States, more familiar with Mormons. He has gone on television many times and talked about his faith and the Church in general. It is hard to say how successful that has been in changing perceptions. His main message has been that Latter-day Saints are different, but not weird. Although "weird" is a matter of opinion, the gospel demands that we be different from the world. Those who wish to "be in the world, but not of it," often are not sure where to draw the line.

Missionary Work and non-Christians

When Joseph Smith had his First Vision, or presented the Book of Mormon as his first public sermon, the message was clearly for the Christians of his day. Ever since then most missionary work has been geared toward those who recognize "The Gospel" as a set of particular theology. They might not agree on the specifics of the theology, but they would not misunderstand the message. As a group that would like to become a "World" rather than a "Regional" religion, Mormonism's success among non-Christian society has been far from promising. To the chagrin of many Christian denominations it seems that Mormons are destined to follow the coat tails of other sects missionaries. That might be so, even by God's design.

Still, it would be nice to think what could possibly be an approach that opens up more missionary work among Taoists, Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims, etc. Is the message of the Restoration simply that? The Creedal Christians teach of Jesus Christ, and Mormons teach of a return to the original Christian authority. Looking at European Christians' recent response to Mormon missionary work and the "among the fastest growing" doesn't sound very possible to sustain. Ironically, it is in Africa that the growth has been most noticeable aside from the Western Hemisphere. Even then, it is mostly among those who have been taught Christianity and already have faith in Jesus Christ as Savior. Most of the rest of those who follow other religions are deaf to Mormon missionaries or don't have a chance to hear them teach.

The future of the LDS Church, as trends seem to indicate, is not among the Westernized Christians who are losing their faith and morals as the years progress. It is to be found among the non-Christians who are not afraid to declare God in public and base their lives off of their own prophets and Scripture. What can Mormon missionaries learn from other denomination Christian missionaries? Should we learn from them? It is beyond my personal observations and any kinds of expertise to even start answering those questions.

Ammon can be the start of a template in reconciling these difficulties. His first missionary activity was not to preach the word, but to live it in service:

22 And the king inquired of Ammon if it were his desire to dwell in the land among the Lamanites, or among his people.

23 And Ammon said unto him: Yea, I desire to dwell among this people for a time; yea, and perhaps until the day I die.

24 And it came to pass that king Lamoni was much pleased with Ammon, and caused that his bands should be loosed; and he would that Ammon should take one of his daughters to wife.

25 But Ammon said unto him: Nay, but I will be thy servant. Therefore Ammon became a aservant to king Lamoni. And it came to pass that he was set among other servants to watch the flocks of Lamoni, according to the custom of the Lamanites.
-- Alma 17:22-25

It is often said that Mormon missionaries are seen as simply uber-Americans for good and bad. There is plenty of truth in this. Now, according to LDS Scripture this is also what God intended. However, there is also warning that flagrant disregard for the reason God chose America as center of the Restoration would be disastrous. It might be prudent, God willing, that an Apostle actually live and work full time in an Asian or African country. Better yet, that a person from those places who are strong in the faith and yet come from a completely foreign background are called as Mormon missionary ambassadors. This would be for both directions - teaching the Gospel to one group, and customs, belief, and etc. to the Saints.

Ultimately, it comes down to what would interest a non-Christian to be interested in a blatantly Christian (regardless of sectarian creedal arguments) religion. Right now there are too many political, aside from religious or cultural, boundaries to make the question of immediate concern. Most of Asia and the Middle East are off limits to any Christian. Even the inroads that have been made between Muslims and Mormons are seriously compromised by equal amounts of zealous claims of theological truth. India is a country that, although still volatile, has the most promise for ripe missionary work.

The person that comes to mind most with these issues is the "Apostle to the Gentiles" Paul who seemed to arguably navigate between the Jewish world and the Roman one. His success, like what was pointed out as a suggestion above, seemed to be his dual citizenship in Israel and Rome. Better yet, his familiarity with both cultures. Perhaps what continues to make the idea of a greater non-Christian missionary effort so enticing is his proclamation:

14 I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise.

15 So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

And it could be added; to the Asian, Euro-Indian, African, as well as the European. If Western civilization is slowly dying (as I believe it is from its own peculiar social isolationism) the question of missionary work among non-Christians is becoming more relevant. The LDS Church has a chance to greatly expand its numbers in an honest world-religion status. Such a situation can only happen when the Saints step back from its tiny larger shell of a shell and consider the greater picture. Having an expanded vision and different approaches (whatever they might be) could make "are Mormons Christians?" seem trivial and banal inter-sectarian fighting. Having success outside of "Westernized culture" could make for a greater diversity of faith and an expanded definition of Zion.

Personal Responsibility is Dying

For the past few years I have had a job where I hear lots of excuses for not fulfilling commitments. Many think that they can just yell a little louder, cry a little longer, and generally give the biggest fish story and everything will just go away. Considering that the business has to make money, and these people are using the product, it is amazing how forgiving the company already is - and in some instances by law. Yet, many of these people act as if it is the company's fault they can't pay. It is as if America for them has become a Communist State where everything is free. I don't work for a credit card company, but I have seen the same thing with them as well. The slogan has become "buy this NOW and pay LATER," with many adding their own, ". . . if at all and no consequences." This is nothing new, but the idea of personal responsibility is approaching a lost virtue.

The trouble is that personal responsibility is absolutely essential to a healthy civilization. When no one accepts mistakes there cannot be a corrective. Worse, what is replacing this is not a lack of concern, but blaming others. When no one takes responsibility, but everyone thinks its the other person's fault, it shouldn't come as a surprise that society is seriously fractured. At a personal level, recognizing mistakes is the first step toward repentance and true happiness:

When faced with the consequences of transgression, rather than looking to ourselves as the source of the discomfort which always accompanies sin, many of us tend to blame someone else. Rather than getting out of a vicious and senseless circle, we fault our neighbor for our pain and try to pass it on. But to repent we must leave the circle.

The first step in the repentance process has always been simply to recognize that we have done wrong. If we are so hedged about by pride, rationalization, machismo, or a misdirected sense of self-esteem as to prevent us from ever admitting that we are part of the problem, we are in trouble. We then may not even know of our need to repent. We will have no idea whether the Lord is pleased with us or not and may become “past feeling.” (1 Ne. 17:45.) But all men, everywhere, must repent. (See 3 Ne. 11:32.) To fail to do so is to perish. (See Luke 13:3; Hel. 7:28.)

To excuse misconduct by blaming others is presumptuous at best and is fatally flawed with regard to spiritual things, for “we believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.” (A of F 1:2.) This not only means that we will not be punished for what Adam did in the Garden, but also that we cannot excuse our own behavior by pointing a finger to Adam or anyone else. The real danger in failing to accept responsibility for our own actions is that unless we do, we may never even enter on the strait and narrow path. Misconduct that does not require repentance may be pleasant at first, but it will not be for long. And it will never lead us to eternal life.
-- F. Burton Howard, “Repentance,” Ensign, May 1991, 12

My experiences have made me more hesitant to help other people. I know this goes against the teaching that we should help without question when others are in need. The problem is, just giving to people no matter what might be putting them - and society - in a worse situation. They become beholden to handouts and start living off others. Instead of trying to find solutions and change for the better, they act as if everyone and everything is conspiring against them. Eventually, all avenues are exhausted and the only thing they are left with is poverty and anger. Seeing people like that (and there are many) makes others less likely to show compassion when another truly in need comes along.

Perhaps it isn't about not giving, but trying to give more wisely. Next time someone comes along asking for help, the first thing I will do is ask what have you done or thought of doing to get yourself out of the situation? Most likely that won't help for those I meet haphazard on the street. Then again, there I go blaming others and not taking responsibility for those in need. It is a spiral that is drowning us all.

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.

Supremacy of Revelation

One of the more interesting ideas in By the Hand of Mormon by Terryl L. Givens is the idea that the Book of Mormon introduces a form of revelation that is rejected by most Western religions. He states that almost all Christians have described the word “Revelation” as a metaphorical transmission of God’s revealing Himself. There is no actual concrete information that is given to a person who contacts the Divine entity. The argument seems to be that to claim a direct communication of actual words is to 1) ascribe anthropomorphism to God who is not human and 2) be open to fanaticism and heresy. However, the Book of Mormon explicitly introduces “dialogic revelation” as a true sign of faith and spiritual development. It should be part of the lives of everyone:

The Book of Mormon here becomes a study in contrast. Through chiastic form, thematic structure, numerous textual examples, and a final concluding instance of readerly invitation, the scripture hammers home the insistent message that revelation is the province of everyman. As a consequence, in the world of the Book of Mormon, concepts like revelation, prayer, inspiration, mystery find powerful and substantive redefinition. That may well be the Book of Mormon’s most significant and revolutionary – as well as controversial – contribution to religious thinking. The particularity and specificity, the vividness, the concreteness, and the accessibility of revelatory experience – those realities both underlie and overshadow the narrated history and doctrine that constitute the record. The “knowability” of all truth, the openness of mystery, the reality of personal revelation find vivid illustration within the record and invite reenactment outside it. (Givens, pg. 221)

This presents for Mormons a very strong challenge. It is not enough to simply feel good about spiritual experiences and consider us enlightened. Receiving revelation must take a step beyond the metaphorical and become literal. As Joseph Smith explained, “A person may profit by noticing the first intimation of the spirit of revelation; for instance, when you feel pure intelligence flowing into you, it may give you sudden strokes of ideas, so that by noticing it, you may find it fulfilled the same day or soon.” (TJS, pg 151). Ultimately, the purpose of “dialogic revelation” is to bring Salvation by bringing us into the very presence of God with the knowledge gained. Again, as Joseph Smith has said, no one can be saved in ignorance. This is more than a prescription to book learning, but direct instruction to search out Heavenly communication for our own eternal welfare. Indeed, it is the key to that most forgotten subject of much speculation; the Second Comforter.

It is often stated by Latter-day Saints that the return of Revelation and Prophets is the central originality of Mormonism. What is perhaps less acknowledged is that personal revelation is as important a theological teaching as any corporate claim of authoritative pronouncements. Of course, it has been taught almost from the beginning that no revelation is accepted outside of a person’s authoritative jurisdiction. That still leaves room for the equally necessary individual communication with the Divine. Despite what Givens says about the Bible having almost no discussion of personal revelation, Mormons often quote Numbers 11: 24-29 as instructive:

24 And Moses went out, and told the people the words of the LORD, and gathered the seventy men of the elders of the people, and set them round about the tabernacle.

25 And the LORD came down in a cloud, and spake unto him, and took of the spirit that was upon him, and gave it unto the seventy elders: and it came to pass, that, when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, and did not cease.

26 But there remained two of the men in the camp, the name of the one was Eldad, and the name of the other Medad: and the spirit rested upon them; and they were of them that were written, but went not out unto the tabernacle: and they prophesied in the camp.

27 And there ran a young man, and told Moses, and said, Eldad and Medad do prophesy in the camp.

28 And Joshua the son of Nun ,the servant of Moses, one of his young men, answered and said, My lord Moses, forbid them.

29 And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the LORD’s people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his spirit upon them!

With so much emphasis on Revelation, there is still less practical applications observable in the lives of Latter-day Saints. This is not to say that many don’t hold the concept in high esteem as theory. Yet, when asked what was the last revelation a person remembers having, many if not most Mormons would probably point to the time they gained a testimony or a missionary story. Two possibilities are that revelation is not recognized when received or it is not easy to obtain. Considering the importance placed on communicating with God, it might be time to practice recognizing the intimations of the Spirit in a more "enthusiastic" tradition. Not a simple task, but essential to Salvation.

Humor and the Gospel

No longer available due to publishing issues.

Theory of Mormon Theology

There was a discussion about the value of theology that questioned why Latter-day Saints have such a hard time accepting the study of theology. It got me thinking of my own interest in the subject. Surely Mormons dabble in the study of theology more than credit has been given. They just don't know it. Discussing the personal opinions about the Last Days and what the Afterlife will be like can generate a lot of theological debate. The confusing might be on how casual it all can sound. There is a disjointedness that is hard to say creates a formal approach to doctrinal exigesis.

Mormons probably don’t like (systematic) theology because of the attitudes of the early leaders, particularly Joseph Smith. Theology is often interpreted as dogma, and “dogma” is considered even worse than theology because of the inherent rejection of new revelation. The word “doctrine” is far more accepted a term because it isn’t seen as related to a closed set of rules and beliefs. Thus, why Bruce R. McConkie's book was named “Mormon Doctrine” rather than “Mormon Theology” when published.

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.

Operations of the Spirit

Sometimes when watching a movie that has a very emotional scene, it might move us to tears. There is a glowing feeling, for instance, in a romantic movie when the guy finally tells the girl how much he loves her. For the most part men are less emotional in those instances. Yet, there are probably many times that the same kinds of feelings can be evoked even from them. There is something about human nature that brings out hope, goodwill, and what we might call spiritual stirrings.

This can beg the question of what is the difference between these partly artificial feelings and the workings of the Spirit. Many times both are described as similar. Perhaps it is simply the Spirit touching us with any instance of "virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy." Some find this troubling because individually not everyone agrees what those should be. What moves one person, even among Mormons who believe so strongly in spiritual manifestations, draws a blank for others.

Perhaps this is because of a one dimensional understanding of the way the Spirit operates. There is a lot more to the Witness of the Holy Ghost then the "burning in the bosom" that is often made light of by believers and unbelievers alike.

We must understand that the Holy Ghost, through the Light of Christ, can touch anyone. As states in Moroni 7: 16-17 when talking about recognizing good things:

16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.

17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.

It is in this way that Missionaries can bring investigators to repentance. They recognize the first intimations of the Spirit and, if they act upon those feelings, can come to the truth of the Gospel.

We must be careful to not confuse the Witness of the Spirit with the Power of the Spirit. This is where many lose faith because they see signs of the Spirit everywhere and start questioning if the LDS Church is the only one with God's authority. Joseph Smith explained:

"There is a difference between the Holy Ghost and the gift of the Holy Ghost. Cornelius received the Holy Ghost before he was baptised, which was the convincing power of God unto him of the truth of the Gospel, but he could not receive the gift of the Holy Ghost until after he was baptised. Had he not taken this sign or ordinance upon him, the Holy Ghost which convinced him of the truth of God, would have left him." (History of Church 4:555)

With a proper understanding of the operations of the Spirit, we can grow in faith and increase the productivity of our lives. The key to this is in the Gifts of the Spirit available to those who have been properly baptized and confirmed as members of the Church. It is not in the "feelings born of testimony" that the Power of the Holy Ghost is a greatest blessing. That is only the beginning of wisdom. The real focus of our Spiritual enlightenment should be in obtaining the Gifts of the Spirit. As listed in D&C 46: 13-28, among other places, there are many gifts available.

The Gifts are given to those who seek them. Everyone has different gifts, but they cannot get them without at least seeking out the Spiritual blessings. Those who have been given the Holy Ghost are not simply handed them. As Verses 7-10 states:

7 But ye are commanded in all things to ask of God, who giveth liberally; and that which the Spirit testifies unto you even so I would that ye should do in all holiness of heart, walking uprightly before me, cconsidering the end of your salvation, doing all things with prayer and thanksgiving, that ye may not be seduced by evil spirits, or doctrines of devils, or the commandments of men; for some are of men, and others of devils.

8 Wherefore, beware lest ye are deceived; and that ye may not be deceived seek ye earnestly the best gifts, always remembering for what they are given;

9 For verily I say unto you, they are given for the benefit of those who love me and keep all my commandments, and him that seeketh so to do; that all may be benefited that seek or that ask of me, that ask and not for a sign that they may consume it upon their lusts.

10 And again, verily I say unto you, I would that ye should always remember, and always retain in your minds what those gifts are, that are given unto the church.

Living in the World can make it difficult to have the Holy Ghost in our lives. It will not always strive with us, especially when we give into the enticing of the flesh and sin. It is sadly far too common for a person to lose faith because they lose the Spirit. Often this is because the cares of the World and Sin enter into the heart and the Holy Ghost cannot dwell in unclean things.

The person loses the Holy Ghost, and recognizing something is missing they lose the faith. They seek to fill the void with something else, and find a replacement with negativity, more sin, or false spirituality. It is sad they more often think something becomes wrong with God or the Church then with themselves. Paul warned in Gal 5: 17-25 about the difference between living by the flesh and living by the Spirit:

17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

24 And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

We must learn to recognize Spiritual operations vs. the Natural inclinations. The former is eternal and the latter is fleeting. That is the first and greatest key to coming to truth, gaining faith, and becoming more like Christ. King Benjamin in Mosiah 4: 9-10 summed it up when he said:

9 Believe in God; believe that he is, and that he created all things, both in heaven and in earth; believe that he has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth; believe that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend.

10 And again, believe that ye must repent of your sins and forsake them, and humble yourselves before God; and ask in sincerity of heart that he would forgive you; and now, if you believe all these things see that ye do them.

Sitting around thinking, watching, reading, and generally observing does not get us anywhere. The Holy Ghost becomes a neutral in our lives and then "gets bored" and leaves. Faith is an action word and only living by the Word of God can the operations of the Spirit become fully capable of changing lives. Don't rest faith on emotionalism alone; but be an active participant in Church, Community, and family. Those who distance themselves from these things because they are not closer to the Holy Ghost then they should be are the most likely to lose faith altogether. Living the Gospel is how we find God and have the Holy Ghost with us.

The Bloggernacle Dilemma

There was a time when the blog group known as "Bloggernacle," that is a play on Tabernacle if anyone doesn't already know, was a very busy place. It didn't take long for comments to be piled up on each other. This was especially the case with big group blogs and those that started the trend. Even now they get a good sized participation, but not nearly as much as in the past. Many of the single blogs have dropped down to one or two comments when an article is posted. Still other blogs have simply dimmed away and have not been replaced. All this could be chalked up to the season, but it has been going on for several months.

Several questions could be asked about this, although no actual study has been done. It could very well be subjective observation. It’s not as if this blog ever generated much of a buzz. Yet, there are several "regular" reads that are not producing much work, if any at all.

Possibly those who participate have become bored by the community chat. Sometimes it does seem that topics are picked over time and again. What could be said by most has probably already been said. This is not to say new and interesting posts have not been written, but they have become rare. Then again, that is another subjective observation that can easily be rejected. The more controversial topics become a feeding frenzy that quickly dies down filled with the usual suspects.

Another probability is the "circle the wagon" syndrome, where readers latch on to particular blogs and don't explore others. This is reasonable considering the number of blogs out there to be read. Having to read every one of them in a list and commenting on them, especially with something to say, could be a full time job. It could also be a fun challenge for at least a week. Considering the seeming downshift of the Bloggernacle, perhaps it wouldn't be so hard at this time. There is the idea that "diversification" of single writer blogs have inundated the reader and siphoned off simple commentors. This doesn't seem to be the answer as, again, there aren’t a lot of new faces.

It isn't that any of this is of importance to the real world. There have been a few who, for various reasons, see the Bloggernacle as a kind of support group. What is at issue is all the predictions made early on about the promise of the whole venture. No longer would a person be stuck only with a set of real world people who probably don't have the same interests or needs. Particularly with Latter-day Saints, a more open and talkative "Ward" would develop that gets past simple Sunday School discussions. The blog is especially suited for the "create your own systematic theology" that Mormonism often exhibits. Of course the danger is sometimes not telling apart the orthodox from the speculative and worse. That is partly why the "Straight and Narrow Blog" was created; to offer a more controlled discussion and topic check. It evolved to have a less defensive posture, but still remains faithful to the LDS Church and its teachings. It seems "The Blogger of Jared morphed into the intentions of this blog.

Where does the Bloggernacle go from here? That depends on the reality of the observation. It could move to another place. Writers could spread out and try to make a niche for themselves. Only the strongest and most popular could survive - with a few determined stragglers. Like Web Pages before it, the blog could be replaced by a new Internet communication structure. Yet, it could be the slowing down is just a short trend that will pick back up with time. As the saying goes, only the future can tell.

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.