Archive for January, 2007

A “Middle Way” for Believing LDS Folk Regarding Their Homosexual Loved Ones

This podcast is literally one of the best I’ve ever heard. It reviews a new documentary (discussed below), and works very hard to say, “You can keep your faith and belief in scripture/revelation, and still embrace your homosexual loved ones .” A true middle way for spiritual folk caught in the crossfire between organized religion and homosexuality. And the interview is set in Utah, so it stands within the Mormon context. Please listen if you can.

SALT LAKE CITY, UT (2007-01-24) If you’ve listened to a debate about homosexuality, chances are you’ve heard the word “abomination” quoted from the Bible. It’s in Leviticus Chapter 20, right after Moses teaches that it’s an abomination to eat shrimp or a rabbit. In the Sundance documentary For the Bible Tells Me So, director Daniel Karslake follows five very normal, very Christian American families who all had to reconcile their religion with learning they had a gay child. Doug talks to Karslake about homosexuality, biology and scripture through the prism of the family.

  • You can see Sundance screenings of For the Bible Tells Me So Thursday, January 25th at 2:30 p.m. at the Library Center Theatre or Friday, January 26th at 11:30 p.m. at the Holiday Village Cinema II. For information on tickets, call 435-776-7878 or click here
  • For more information on Mary Lou Wallner’s work, visit Teach-Ministries.org

Rocky Mountain High

An announcement for Mormon “women of good will” who’d like to spend a weekend in the Colorado Rockies, eating, talking and meeting others.

15 years ago, a group of LDS women in the Denver area started a group that came to be called the DAM Women. The name has nothing to do with the current DAMU community. It stands for Denver Area Mormon Women. It is a group of friends, who, in those pre-internet days, used to get together to discuss various church issues. ( Yeah, I know the internet existed 14 years ago, but most of us weren’t cool enough to have modems.) We also decided that we needed to have our own retreat, like unto the Exponent II retreat, and the Midwestern Pilgrimage. So, we started one. This year will be our fourteenth year. And, if you’re a mormon female, you’re invited:

Rocky Mountain Retreat

Snow Mountain Ranch, YMCA of the Rockies

Granby, Colorado (near Winter Park, on US 40)

June 1-3 2007 (afternoon on Friday to morning on Sunday)

Cost, about $120, but I’m not sure it’s set in stone yet

Featured guest, fMhLisa of feministmormonhousewives.org

A little background about the retreat– While it’s similar to the Exponent II retreat, Continue reading ‘Rocky Mountain High’

mormonblogs.org

I’ve been sitting on this domain for over a year now, and thanks to the help of a really swell new pal, I have decided to create a new portal/aggregator for Mormon-themed blogs called http://www.mormonblogs.org.

I know there are already a few aggregators out there, and they are cool cats. I guess that this one is a tad bit different in that we are categorizing blogs (at least for now) based on the conservative, moderate, and liberal labels (if you can think of better categories, let me know). Also, we’re gonna work to be as inclusive as we can. If you’ve been feeling a little bit “left out of the party” in the ‘nacle, maybe you will feel a bit more welcome here.

Anyway, if any of you are interested in signing up:

Cheers, and happy Mormon blogging!

Adult Session*

This week was stake conference, and it was one of those “Church on TV” stake conferences, so I didn’t attend today. I don’t do church on TV. I did go last night, though, and I’m really glad I did.

One speaker, an older man, was asked to speak about why he’s still a member of the church. He shared his conversion story. He shared his excitement and his enthusiasm for the church when it was new to him. Gosh, it took me back. It was like living that wonderful time all over again - the excitement and the commitment and the outpouring of love from all directions, from humans and from God; the sense of belonging, of being a part of something bigger than myself. He brought it all back by sharing his version of the story, in vivid detail. His story was different from mine, and yet not so different at all.

Then the stake presidency took turns speaking. One of the counselors has had a terrible, “Law and Order” type personal tragedy in his family in the last month. He talked about how no matter how much we plan, we never really know what’s going to happen to us. He talked about the atonement, and how he gains strength and hope from his faith even through this terrible time.

When the stake president spoke, he talked about Jesus and being converted and the light that comes on when we become partakers of the holy gift.

I am rarely at a loss for words, but I don’t quite have the words to describe how I felt at that meeting. I am a “feeling” person; I trust my feelings, probably more than I should. The only word I can find to describe how I felt is “blessed.” Blessed to be reminded of how joyful I was when I joined the church; blessed to mourn with those who mourn; blessed to think about Jesus and his offering and to regard it as a treasure, rather than a cause for skepticism. Physically blessed, “as the dew from heaven distilling.”

Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, in her article “Lusterware,” writes about a young woman who complained, “I used to think the church was 100% divine. Now I think it’s maybe only 90%.” Ms. Ulrich added, “I wanted to tell her, if you can find anything that’s even 10% divine, embrace it with all your heart.” I know what she means. Last night was a gift. I embrace it.

*I love this term. It sounds like we’ll be watching X-rated movies or something.

Changes in Latitude, Changes in Attitude, Changes in Vocabulary

I joined the Church at age 19, and it took me no time to learn Mormon vocabulary. By the time I left on my mission, no one could tell I wasn’t born and raised in the Church. Recently, I’ve become interested in the reverse phenomenon. When a long-time member’s Church vocabulary slowly begins to change, what alterations in their lives does this portend? What does it mean when “I know that God lives” changes to “I deeply believe that the universe was created by a Divine Intelligence?” When “I know the Book of Mormon is true” changes to “I am convinced that living the principles taught in the Book of Mormon can lead to a fulfilling life?” When “I know the Church is true” changes to “I have found joy and happiness in participating in the Church organization?”

(Now, I haven’t read all of Fowler’s Stages, only a synopsis.) So some of you may enlighten me: Did Fowler include a change in vocabulary as signifying entry into a different stage of belief? I’m postulating that all those who examine their faith deeply will begin to express themselves rather differently than with the standard Mormon usage. This includes those who will deepen their faith in the principles of the restored gospel as well as those who will eventually leave or who will come to consider themselves NOM’s.

Mormon vocabulary is so distinctive it seems impossible to make much of a change without being noticed in the community. So I have some questions for the readers of this blog.

  1. As your beliefs shifted, did you struggle with your use of Mormon language?
  2. Did others notice a change in your vocabulary? Did this make you “suspect” in the eyes of traditional Mormons?
  3. Have you noticed other Mormons who have transformed their vocabulary away from “Mormonspeak?” Does this generally portend changes in their religious affiliation?
  4. What are some specific examples you’ve heard, read, or changed to? (For example, I no longer begin prayers with the phrase, “Dear Heavenly Father.”)

Royalty, Shmoyalty

Although I love watching people, I have never been very interested in royalty. Even if Prince Charles might secretly be seeing Princess Astrid of Belgium, it really wouldn’t pique my interest much. Call me strange, but Royal Intrigue just doesn’t usually intrigue me.

So when I read a story in the Salt Lake Tribune describing a book about Joseph Smith being a distant relative of Jesus, I was left wondering, “So what?” I mean, what might it matter if Smith was a 75th-generation grandson of Jesus? Would that make his claim to prophetic power any more legitimate?

One thing that I frankly like about LDS theology is that it places some responsibility on the individual, which might displace hero worship or adulation of royalty. At least, that’s how it works in theory. I know that there’s plenty of evidence indicating that church leaders have benefited from their family connections. J Golden Kimball admitted that he was selected to be an apostle because of his Kimball name, and Quinn’s “Mormon Hierarchy” books show this pattern repeatedly.

Still, I wonder if I am I missing something here? What would be the significance of Smith (and who knows how many other people) having descended from Jesus? Some might say that it demonstrates that there is something special about having Jesus Genes, so to speak, but if that’s the case, what about the Mormon idea that we all have the potential to become like God? And what about the negative things that Jesus’ descendents did? Joseph Smith wasn’t perfect, after all, and odds are that there were a few horse thieves or worse to have the same shared lineage. Or does people’s interest in this amount to people being intrigued by celebrity?

So, tell me, should we care that Joseph Smith might have been related to Jesus? Why? Why not?

“A Depiction of Post Religious Adjustment in Popular Contemporary Animation” or “Lisa the NOM”

In a recent effort to avoid some pressing task, I settled in to watching an entire disk from the 7th Season Simpsons Collection. My attention was caught by (what I later looked up on the internet and learned to be) the episode called “Lisa the Iconoclast” (Season 7 Episode 13). Here’s the TV Guide blurb for it:

Donald Sutherland is the voice of the curator of the Springfield Historical Society, where Lisa’s research on patriarch Jebediah Springfield turns up some unknown — and unpopular — facts. Other Voices: Yeardley Smith, Harry Shearer, Phil Hartman

In an attempt to learn more about the founder of her beloved Springfield, Lisa digs deep into history in order to find out more evidence about the mysterious yet charismatic leader. She discovers facts about him that run contrary to everything she has been taught and to what everyone around her believes. First she confronts the historian about the discrepancy. Having dedicated his whole life to the subject, he is understandably eager to dismiss these findings as lies and slander.

Hurlbut: I think, Lisa, that you’ve been taken in by an obvious
forgery. Unfortunately, historical research is plagued by
this sort of hoax — the so-called confession. It’s just
as fake as the Howard Hughes will, the Hitler Diaries, or the
Emancipation Retraction.

Lisa: But it explains why there’s no record of Jebediah Springfield
before 1796. He was Hans Sprungfeld until then.

Hurlbut: That’s preposterous. Get out! You’re banned from this
historical society! You, and your children, and your
children’s children — for three months.

Lisa then turns to the general populace trying to pull back the curtain for those who still have a deep and passionate faith concerning the leader. The other believers are not swayed and in fact are furious with Lisa for casting doubt onto their beloved leader. Her insistence on talking about her findings eventually alienates her from friends and family. Even her father, her sole supporter, is fired from his job as Town Crier (a role he was born to play) just for standing by his daughter.

Homer: Hear ye, hear ye. My daughter has something to say about
Jebediah Springfield.

Moe: Aw, look. That cutie wants to say something cute.
[barflies murmur]
Shut up, you bums, shut up!
Go ahead, angel.

Lisa: Ahem. Jebediah Springfield was nothing more than a murderous
pirate who hated this town!
[barflies and Moe's jaws drop]

Moe: Good God! Homer, I support, you know, any prejudice you can
name, but this hero-phobia sickens me. All right, you and your
daughter ain’t welcome here no more. Barney, show them the
exit.

Barney: There’s an exit?!

Lisa wants to let the matter go but her consciousness plagues her. Can she really live in a world where everyone around her believes something she KNOWS not to be true? She searches for a way to prove to everyone that the man they worship was a fraud.

Lisa: Jebediah Springfield was really a vicious pirate named Hans
Sprungfeld. His tongue was bitten off by a Turk in a grog house
fight.

Homer: No tongue, eh? How did he talk and eat [melodramatically] and
laugh and love?

Lisa: He had it replaced with a prosthetic tongue made out of silver.

Homer: Yes, that’ll do.

In an effort to clear her name and bring truth forward, Lisa leads a small group of concerned citizens to the former leader’s grave. The group exhumes the body of the dead leader searching for the evidence to validate Lisa’s claims. It’s not there.

Wiggum: Well, that settles it. There is no silver tongue… is there,
bonesy?

[takes Jebediah's skull and uses it as a dummy]
[as skull] Oh, I wish chief. With that kind of dough, I could
buy me some eyeballs! [laughs]

That’s the spirit, bonesy. Why don’t you sing a song for
the nice people?

[as skull] Okay! Camptown ladies sing this song, doo-dah
doo-dah, Camptown races five miles long…

Lisa eventually discovers the historian that was so reluctant to believe her claims had covered up the truth by removing the evidence before the group could see it. Lisa has her proof; the beloved leader was a charlatan and a liar.

Lisa decides to reveal her findings to the whole town during the parade celebrating the beloved leader. As she stands in front of the happy throngs of people who have looked to this man as a symbol of good and truth and righteousness, a man who they have based so much of their collective and personal histories on, she can’t bring herself to reveal her findings and instead gives her support to the parade. And what about Homer and his town crier role?

Ned: Well, hey, it’s Homer. Good to see you, neigh–

[Homer pushes him and takes his bell]
Homer: Get lost!
[rings the bell]
Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye!

Helen: He is not the official town crier! Police, do something!

Wiggum: Well, I’d like to, ma’am, but he’s too damn good!
Let him march, boys. Let the man march!

I left the details a little vague in an effort to hammer the similarity a little harder, but this episode seems to very accurately portray the path of a NOM. You replace “beloved leader” with “beloved prophet” and “exhumed his body” with “counted how many wives he had” and you pretty much have my story exactly.

Some critics (if one can refer to people who leave comments on message boards as “critics”) have expressed distaste with this particular episode on the basis of Lisa’s decision to suppress the truth in favor of a positive role model for her fellow Springfieldians. The decision of one character can never equal the moral of the entire show, but Lisa has very often been the ethicist of The Simpsons. If she decides it is wrong to steal cable, then it BECOMES wrong to steal cable (Homer vs. Lisa and the 8th Commandment Season 2 Episode 13). Her actions alone cause Homer to give up the thing he wants most in the world (for that episode, for like the rest of us, Homer’s desires will not be tethered) even though people like Marge and Reverend Lovejoy support him. In this way we can see that if Lisa had really put her mind to it, really exercised her place in the community, she could have eventually convinced a good amount of Springfield that the character upon which they had built their whole moral foundation was nothing but a silver tongued pirate.

Lisa always tries to act in a moral manner. Her actions are rarely selfish. Even in season 3 Episode 8 “Lisa’s Pony” she gives up the one thing she wants most because it requires too much sacrifice from a dad who hasn’t always sacrificed enough for hs daughter. And from time to time her decisions are decidedly misinformed and end up doing more harm than good like in the 1st Tree-house of Horror from Season 2 when the family is kidnapped by Aliens and Lisa unveils the Aliens’ plot to eat them (the Simpsons) based on the evidence of a cookbook that looks to be titled “How to prepare humans” but through a series of dust removals is later revealed to be titled “How to prepare for 50 humans”. Her accusations cost the Simpsons a life of fulfillment on a paradisiacal planet. So that was bad.

But Lisa very rarely considers the consequences of her actions. Te reason “Lisa the Iconoclast” is such a powerful episode for her character is the whole episode finds her temed up with (instead of pitted against) Homer. In the begining of the episode he says “You always end up being right about these things. this time I want to get in at the ground floor.” Lisa is happyto have the support, but her actions end up hurting and not helping the person who loves her most. Homer’s trust and accfeptance of his daughter puts agreater responsibility on her.

The question remains, did Lisa make the correct decision? Is it better to leave people in what you consider to be a blissful state of ignorance, or is it better to pull them kicking and screaming out of the cave and force them to look directly at the sun? Lisa’s tragic flaw is her hubris. As some book of scripture says somewhere, “Once men know a little something they think they are wise, but they’re not that wise.”

Lisa the IconoclastLisa’s desire to know the truth and the ability to see where it should and shouldn’t be enforced make her a perfect representative of what a New Order Mormon should be. But most of all she should be admired for her love of her family and her desire to see them happy and fulfilled, be it as a well informed lover of truth or as the best daned town crier Springfield has ever seen.

Blink and the Holy Ghost

I just read Blink, a book by Malcolm Gladwell, author of The Tipping Point.

This is a fun, fascinating book. The central thesis- our minds can reach accurate conclusions about many things in a matter of seconds (most of the time). Making snap judgments is not a bad thing- we should rely on initial impressions and intuition more often.

Many of the impressions described in the book parallel testimony meeting experiences with the Holy Ghost.

Summarized from the intro chapter in Blink:
“The Getty museum was considering buying an ancient Greek sculpture. After 13 months of evaluation and testing by scientists and lawyers, they felt confident in their purchase of it for $10 million. Then they started bringing in Greek art/history experts. Each expert had a different feeling, such as repulsion or nausea when they looked at it. They knew it was a fake, literally within a second or two of looking at it. Additional clues were discovered that proved it was a forgery.”

Continue reading ‘Blink and the Holy Ghost’

The Circle

James Fowler’s Stages of Faith have been a very helpful framework for me over the years. Having said that, I think that Fowler’s model could be even stronger if it seemed less linear (and therefore less individualistic or private).
Plato describes the soul as a circle. Joseph Campbell talks about the circle as the most powerful symbol in religion and mythology—and of course our religion has plenty of examples.
So, in keeping with the theme of this blog, I thought I would share a quick story that does a pretty good job of articulating one of the reasons I remain interested in the Mormon experience: Continue reading ‘The Circle’

Not Saying Everything We Think

My DH, older son and I once had a conversation about the role of Jesus in the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I made a witty, insightful - ok, snotty - comment about my observations on the subject at hand. My DH, probably anxious to protect our son’s faith, replied, “Well, that’s what you choose to see.” Continue reading ‘Not Saying Everything We Think’