Archive for February, 2007

Making Stuff Up

I was frustrated with last week’s Gospel Doctrine and Relief Society lessons. Gospel Doctrine went from zero to religious right political rant in less than ten minutes. I didn’t stick around. Relief Society wandered through strange and hostile discussions about pointless subjects; odd, considering that the lesson was supposed to be about Jesus. Both lessons were punctuated by folks indulging in one of my pet peeves: making stuff up.

A terrific post from earlier in the month over on Feast upon the Word gave examples of the ways this problem manifests itself. It didn’t address my personal bugbear, which is transferring the modern functions of TCoJCoLdS to the ancient church. It did cover several of the other forms this problem takes, such as misinterpretation, over dramatizing, and plain old speculation.

My husband thinks one reason for this phenomenon is that people want a reason for everything. I think it’s also partly because they think embellishing the accounts we have gives them more impact. In the case of transferring modern practices to ancient times, it’s because people take the idea of Restoration way too literally.

In Relief Society, with its multiple teachers, lessons are bound to be hit or miss even with the same teacher. I’m sure there’ll yet be some good stuff this year; there already has been. I’m not so optimistic about Gospel Doctrine, though, which is disappointing. This is the New Testament year. I thought I might be able to learn something and maybe even contribute. I’m finding it difficult, though, to get past the stories people tell to make the Gospels more dramatic or more parallel to modern life. The stuff that’s there is good stuff. I would really like to be able to focus on it.

What’s in a name?

A friend gave me permission to share part of an email with you. He is a former bishop who lives in a densely LDS area, and has gone from believer to disbeliever. He wrote,

I was watching a segment on the history channel last week called “Heaven
and Hell” and I perked up when they mentioned the historical common
practice of conquering kings giving the defeated kings new names to
diminish any influence or authority the defeated kings once had and to
establish the conquering kings dominance. I couldn’t help but think about
the new name they gave me in the temple and in addition, I had just
discussed with my wife that I didn’t really like all of my neighbors and
friends calling me Bishop all the time still. I’m sure they are just doing
this out of respect but I really would like to be called by my real name
as a unique individual and with my own rational and critical thoughts and
reasoning abilities. I am feeling more and more uncomfortable with any
symbolism that outwardly suggests I submit to Mormon perceived authority
or dominance in my life.

He recognizes that “Hello, Bishop Jones” is surely meant as a sign of respect, but now it grates on him. He would rather be known by his first name than by a title. The old saying that “Once a bishop, always a bishop” just doesn’t work well for him any more. I suggested that he reply, “Once a Gary, always a Gary” when asked why he doesn’t go by “Bishop” any longer.

What do you think: How significant is your name in the context of church? Do titles grate on you the way they do Gary? What role does your name, and the individuality it represents, carry in your spiritual journey?

PS - Of course, I’ve changed Gary’s name. If your former bishop is named Gary Jones, please don’t think that he sent me this email. On the other hand, if you have a former bishop who is named something other than Gary Jones, then maybe it was he who emailed me…. ;-)

Moderation — A “Middle Way” Moment From Hallmark Magazine

Click twice on the object for a close-up.

Moderation

Minding My Words

I have experienced a renewed enjoyment of cussing. This is one area of my life where I am very conscious of living a double life. I almost never swear in front of my husband. When I do, I’m usually quoting someone, or really, really upset. But when he’s not around, I am able, on occasion, to forcefully declare something “b***s***,” or to use the F word as an interjection to show excitement or emotion. I find it cathartic.

I don’t cuss a lot, because when you’re too free with your profanity, the words lose their impact. When I cuss, I’m going for impact. On the other hand, it’s possible that I swear more because I don’t swear in front of my husband. When he’s around, I may repress my speech in situations where I would sometimes cut loose, so the words squirt out the sides in situations where they really aren’t warranted.

I’m also very conscious of profanity (taking the name of God in vain) vs. vulgarity (plain old cussing). My attitudes about that are probably the opposite of society’s: I never use profanity, and I wince when I hear it. Meanwhile, NPR felt free to use “Oh, my G-d, I just couldn’t believe it” as a line in an advertisement for All Things Considered that played over and over and over.

Now that I’m old, I’m good about knowing and observing the contexts where cussing is OK (or not). I sometimes find the words running through my mind, though, even when I’m not saying them aloud. I don’t know if the mental cussing is a symptom of stress, or just a self-feeding behavior, i.e., the more I do it, the more I do it.

A funny story about Mormon cussing: DH overheard a conversation where a fellow was described as having “used the ‘C’ word.” He was at first appalled, thinking there’s no way said fellow would have used the “C” word. Then he realized what “C” word the fellow had used: “Crap.”

Mormon Stories # 051: Richard Bushman Part 5 — Final Thoughts (For now)

To keep this podcast alive, please consider donating to Mormon Stories by clicking on the “Make a Donation” button at the top right of this blog.

============================

In the 5th and final part of this multi-part interview with Dr. Richard Bushman, the world’s foremost scholar on Joseph Smith and early Mormonism and author of Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, John Dehlin offers some final thoughts on his time with Brother Bushman, and Dr. Bushman himself provides some final musings on the challenges of dealing with tough Mormon issues. He then concludes with his testimony of Joseph Smith.

To access this interview, subscribe via iTunes, or click here to listen to the audio directly.

To provide direct feedback to me or to Dr. Bushman about this episode, please either email me directly at mormonstories@gmail.com, comment below.

For a discussion of this podcast, please visit one of the following sites:

  • For a somewhat liberal, multi-sided (yet still faithful) conversation about the series overall, please comment here.
  • To discuss Dr. Bushman’s comments about Sunstone, and the role it plays in dealing with tough historical and cultural issues within Mormonism, check out SunstoneBlog.com
  • For a “Robust but Thoughtful, Open to All Viewpoints, Raucous but Respectful, Virtually Uncensored” conversation, Including all types of Mormons (from apologists to ex-Mormons)–check out Equality Time.
  • For a somewhat conservative, faithful, mainstream conversation from the traditional Bloggernacle, check back here if/when one presents itself.

Self-image and belief

About a year ago, I blogged over at “Viva Ned Flanders” about an experience I had at church. I received a pretty clear impression that if I wanted to, I could believe again.

It’s been a long year, and I’ve come a long way in my attitude toward faith since then. A number of events, ideas and notices have aligned in the last few months that have really pushed this idea home to me. So I’ve been thinking: Do I want to believe again?

Continue reading ‘Self-image and belief’

BYU Blondes

My daughter went off for her first semester at BYU and called me a week later, very upset. She couldn’t really articulate the cause of her agitation. The only explanation she had was that “all the girls here are blonde.”
“Surely,” I replied, “not all the girls are blonde.” Even when I was at BYU years ago there were different ethnicities represented at BYU.
“Yes,” she insisted, “everyone is blonde.”

I later learned that my daughter was reacting to the homogeneity of thought that one often encounters among large Mormon populations. This daughter had attended a very large high school with very few Mormon students. She had developed her own ideas, politics, and moral code while remaining true to LDS standards. When she went to BYU she discovered that it is difficult to be perceived as righteous if you are not wearing the “right” style of clothing, for example. Or if you don’t belong to the “right” political party. (pun intended)

These things that I believe are completely non-essential to being a believing Latter-Day Saint are emphasized to a greater or lesser extent within the stakes and wards of the Church. While still in a student ward, I had two children ages 1 and 2 and one on the way. I was perceived as being a thoroughly faithful TBM while others who were pursuing graduate degrees and had postponed their families were suspect. (little did they know I was clandestinely studying early Mormon history and post-Manifesto polygamy!)

For a while I believed this situation was improving in the Church. The word “diversity” was beginning to be mentioned in many Relief Society settings in a positive way. In a 1991 General RS meeting, for example, Chieko Okasaki, herself one of the few examples of racial diversity in the governing bodies of the Church said: look around the room you are in. Do you see women of different ages, races, or different backgrounds in the Church? Of different educational, marital, and professional experiences? Women with children? Women without children? Women of vigorous health and those who are limited by chronic illness or handicaps? Rejoice in the diversity of our sisterhood! At the time, my daughter was 6 years old. In the late 1980’s and early 1990’s there were several strong voices celebrating diversity in the Church.

But there soon came a retrenchment in thought regarding diversity. In 1996 in a news article announcing that more than half of Church members now lived outside the United States, Dallin H. Oaks was quoted as saying that that the growing diversity among the members is simply a condition, not a Church goal. The real goal is unity, not diversity, he wrote.
Boyd K. Packer said in 2003: If they throw the word diversity at you, grab hold of it and say, “I am already diverse, and I intend to stay diverse.” If the word is tolerance, grab that one, too. After the turn of the century (2000), one is hard pressed to find a positive mention of the word diversity in talks by Church leaders. The sole example I could find (in an admittedly quick search) was by Gordon B. Hinckley in CR May 2006 where he emphasizes the need for greater kindness in “accommodating” diversity and specifically mentions racial diversity. However, in almost the same breath, he lambastes men who will not go to work and force their wives to have a career to support the family.

By the time my child went off to BYU, there was perhaps greater actual racial diversity than I encountered there in the early ‘80’s, but less tolerance for other areas of diversity. Thus her perception of all the BYU coeds as being blonde.

I appreciate the efforts of John Dehlin and the “NOM movement” to legitimize those who diverge in a wide range of areas. There are those who believe that diversity can strengthen the Church, and those who fear it, especially when it manifests itself in religious thought. I have come to no certain conclusions about the matter. I only hope that I and my daughter have a place in this Church, for we are both brunettes.