I MAKE THE WORST APOSTATE

Tonight I went out with my friends. I went to a strip club, had a few drinks. Okay, I had more than a few drinks. It was really the shots of vodka that got me ... relaxed. I went out with money in my wallet but I think I left most of it in the thong of a topless woman. 


I drove home drunk. I stumbled into the door when my wife opened it for me after pounding on it incessantly. I then threw up on the carpet. My wife started cleaning up my vomit and so I kicked her in the butt and made her fall over. I laughed as I stumbled down the hall to my bed where I passed out.

Actually, none of that's true. I didn't go out with friends and I most certainly didn't go to a strip club. I didn't drink, I didn't bang on the door or even throw up. I didn't hit my wife or pass out on the bed.

Can I tell you what I really did?

I started the evening off with my youngest child, who was tired and ready for bed. I took my youngest into his room, put his pajamas on, rocked him till his eyes struggled to stay open, then gently placed him in his crib, all the while singing 'Amazing Grace.'

After wishing my youngest a peaceful night's sleep, I spent the early part of the evening with my three oldest children at the high school soccer field. We ran back and forth on the field, kicking the ball in the net and watching each other do cartwheels. We cheered for each other when we scored a goal or made a descent cartwheel. Even I joined in the fun, showing off my amazing cartwheeling talent (Ha!). There happened to be a baseball game in progress next door to the soccer fields. So after our intense soccer match and some competitive cartwheeling, I bought the kids slushies from the concession stand and we watched a little bit of America's past time.

When we got back from the soccer field the kids put on their pajamas and went to bed while I took a shower, changed my clothes and headed out to the bookstore. I took with me my history books, a note pad and a pen. For roughly two hours I read in the coffee shop at the bookstore. I will admit, the aroma and ambiance of the coffee shop worked its magic on me and I couldn't resist buying myself a little sinful treat for the ride home ... yep, a frozen hot chocolate. It sounds like a contradiction, but it is so yummy.

On my ride home I thought about the upcoming weekend. I am manning a booth to promote a tobacco free lifestyle at a PFLAG conference on Saturday. It dawned on me though that the community kitchen that serves the homeless recently finished remodeling their kitchen. This means that my two oldest children and I can return to serving lunch on Saturdays. My mind began to work out a strategy to squeeze in just one hour away from the conference to take my kids to the newly remodeled kitchen and help serve lunch. It's going to be tough but my oldest won't stop talking about it. She will be so excited.

I'm home now. I'll go to bed soon. I may read a little bit more or just go to sleep. I've left my Bible open to Isaiah, so maybe I'll step in my study to continue reading about the suffering servant.

I always thought that a life away from the church would be a little bit more ... dangerous ... risky ... maybe even a little bit more evil. There were so many testimony meetings where I would hear people say things like, "If it wasn't for the church, I would be a horrible person." I'm just not finding that to be the case.

I guess I just stink at this apostate stuff. I tried coffee before and I don't like it. In April I went to New Orleans for a conference and tried a beer and sampled a few drinks. It's nasty and all alcohol is overrated on both sides of the aisle. I'm too poor for a strip club and I have no desire to go in one anyway. My wife is too amazing a person to ever hit, nor do I have a desire to hit another human being. I always imagined that apostates were mean, violent and behaved like the selfish criminals of the nightly news. Could I be wrong?

I guess I make the worst apostate.

Search Ponder Pray Repeat

FASCINATION TO EXCESS AND THE SONS OF PERDITION

The departure from Mormonism includes a roller coaster of emotions. Leaving is a long process of grief, anger, confusion and all the emotions in between. Just to make it even more exciting, one does not simply progress from one stage to the next as if in a set sequence. No, it truly is a mixture of painful sensations. There are points when you are so sure that it is time to walk away, but then, in a moment of doubt, you second guess yourself and keep trying to make it - the church, it's teachings, its history - work.  You throw in the towel on occasions to only then pick it up and try again. You try and make yourself live in the tension of your personal beliefs and recent insights to LDS history, and the teachings of the church, hoping that through endurance the dissonance will find resolution.

I remember so many times saying to myself, "I can make this work. It's not that bad, just don't think about it." The "it" being my personal disagreement with LDS theology, the white-washed history, and the feeling of being horribly alone. But, you try to endure and make it work. This period of trying to make it work is best described with an analogy. Imagine listening to two violins play the same piece of music at the same time. One of the violins is tuned just a hair flat and the other, a hair sharp. The dissonance never resolves. The entire tune is characterized by the tension between the two violins in disharmony. So goes the struggle to find a way to make it work when faced with the historical and theological conundrums of the LDS church. There is nothing more than constant dissonance. The human being was never meant to live in such tension. It brings depression and utter madness. We  are creatures of harmony, therefore the dissonance must resolve. Leaving, over time, brings harmony.

As time has created a sense of distance, I have now entered a new phase of my ex-mormonism/post-mormonism/apostate-ness. I am in this place of utter fascination with Mormonism. LDS history is absolutely amazing. The Journal of Discourse, for example, is jaw dropping. It is absolutely fascinating. It all just goes on and on: the alterations of the Temple ceremony, the second anointing, blood atonement, the Council of Fifty, the Anointed Quorum, etc. It's all just so fascinating. Even the Book of Mormon has come full circle in a way; it was once treasured scripture for me, then I loathed it, and now it is absolutely fascinating. I study it now with more focus and rigor than I did as an active member.

Do you notice that I use the word 'fascinating' to excess? Yeah, its the word that just falls out of my mouth as I read church history. It's that word always ready to leave my lips as I learn something new they didn't tell me in Sunday School.

Please note, the more I read and learn about Mormonism the more at peace I am with moving on. I have an immense sensation of calmness in knowing I don't have to ignore or defend those parts of LDS history intentionally left out of church manuals. Instead, it's there waiting for exploration. I'm not associated with the icky parts of LDS history. The history is no longer automatically 'anti,' and therefore discarded. Instead, it's nothing more than history without a personal ideology to create a predisposition to throw it away when it makes me feel uncomfortable.  I don't have to defend it or claim it as my own. There is a healthy space now between me with my personal beliefs, and the history and contemporary practices of the LDS church. I can look on in curiosity.

For example, when I first learned that Joseph Smith repeatedly committed polyandry, I was flabbergasted, hurt, and enraged. The man I loved and called my prophet did what? I would have called it anti-Mormon lies, but then it turns out to be true. When learning this I was so entirely crushed. It was at a time when I was searching Mormonism with such intentionality for something to hold on to and something that would help me stay in. As you can imagine (and evidenced by a previous post) it didn't work out that way.

Now, I am hungry to learn more. I am no longer filled with a sense of disgust and betrayal. I am now reading with eyes wide open and find it all so wonderfully ... fascinating. I will admit that there are moments of frustration. There are moments when I sit in disbelief that the institution claiming such a God-inspired history/theology doesn't feel comfortable sharing all of that history/theology with its members. Then I remind myself that it's no longer my institution, I smile, and I keep reading. I return to a place of harmony within myself where there is space between me, my identity and the LDS church.

It turns out, I'm not the only one who has struggled with their Mormon heritage.

I recently discovered an awe-inspiring group of people that struggle with finding harmony as they emerge from  the confines of a different bread of Mormonism. Jennilyn Merten and Tyler Measom recently released The Sons Of Perdition. This documentary follows the journey of a few young men who have either left the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints or who were kicked out. I've decided that I want to bring this documentary to Oklahoma for a viewing, so I'll post again when I can make that happen. I figure, I can't be the only one fascinated.

www.sonsofperditionthemovie.com

I would highly recommend listening to the interview of Merten and Measom concerning the documentary. Their insight on the struggles these boys face as they leave Mormonism draws the listener into a foreign world that sits right on the boarder of Arizona and Utah. It gives some perspective on the struggle of leaving the Fundamentalist LDS faith. It also makes me excited to see the film and yet brings me to tears to hear of these boys' struggles to find identity, meaning and place.

Interview of Merten and Measom

Here's another book for the wish list: Bhattacharya's Secrets and Wives: The Hidden World of Mormon Polygamy. In addition, Bhattacharya produced a documentary in 2006 focused on the hunt for Warren Jeff, the leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Bhattacharya's Documentary: The Man with 80 Wives

Interview of Bhattacharya

Search Ponder Pray Repeat

THE MORMON CANDIDATE

I recently learned of a BBC special focused on Mitt Romney and Mormonism which aired in March 2012. John Sweeney investigates the front runner for the GOP, focusing on the public perception of Romney's Mormonism and its possible negative effects on his pursuit for the presidency.

It is important to note that Sweeney does not attempt to present an expose of Mormon history, theology, and culture. His intent, as I understand it, is to try and explain why certain people question Mitt Romney as a viable candidate for the presidency based on his religious beliefs. The film investigates some of the concerns people have of Mormonism in general and the prospect of having a Mormon president. So, please don't expect a presentation that focuses solely on the more uplifting aspects of Mormonism. His intent is focused on trying to explain why many Americans are weary of a Mormon president, so the content of the film centers on the ex-Mormons and outsiders' perspective. And while some may feel that the skeptic nervousness that some have about a Mormon president is unfair and unfounded, I invite those who feel this way to listen with an empathetic heart to the words spoken and topics discussed. I think you will find many hurt people who left Mormonism  and who really need ministry more than rebuttal.

At one point in the documentary Sweeney discusses the American culture's unspoken rule - No open discussion of a candidates religion. I am grateful to live in a nation that does not require a religious test for presidency, yet I am also grateful for a country that encourages open dialogue. I hope we can break the unspoken rule and I post this link, not as an attack on Mormonism, but as a window into the hearts and minds of people who have left the LDS Church; a window into the souls of the Mormon lost sheep. What an incredible opportunity for active LDS people to learn about those they are to shepherd.

The Mormon Candidate.

Search Ponder Pray Repeat

ON A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT NOTE

In 'The Mormon Candidate,' Sweeney makes mention of his investigation of Scientology. His investigative report on Scientology is absolutely fascinating, so I include a link to this report for those that are curious. Absolutely. Fascinating.

Panorama: The Secrets of Scientology

ON THE CARE AND FEEDING OF ENEMIES

I would like to offer a video of a good friend of mine from seminary who challenged me to think deeply on the Sermon on the Mount. It was brave of you, Matt, to speak prophetically. Thank you.

http://desposyni.blogspot.com/2012/05/on-care-and-feeding-of-enemies-sermon.html.

WHY MORMONS DON'T HAVE CROSSES ON THEIR BUILDINGS

A few days ago, someone posted a link to ldswhy.com, explaining why Mormons do not have crosses on their buildings. In the paragraph explanation Gordon B. Hinckley, former president and prophet of the LDS church, states, "But for us [members of the LDS Church], the cross is the symbol of the dying Christ, while our message is a declaration of the living Christ."

I don't agree with Hinckley's assessment that the cross is a symbol of the 'dying Christ.' I write this not in any way as an attack or to advocate that Mormons begin the practice of displaying crosses on their buildings. It really doesn't matter to me. What is more important to me is that Mormons, while completely capable of deciding what adorns their meeting halls and sanctuaries for themselves, learn what the cross means for other Christians. At least, what it means for this one and the many with whom he associates. I admit that I also write because I grew up in the LDS Church with a taught aversion to the cross, unaware of its importance in the early church and in Christian theology. My hope is to explain why the cross symbolizes the very same hope of life and resurrection that characterizes the salvific hope of Mormonism.

The Cross and Paul

Paul writes the Galatians partly to rebuke the Judaizers who dare to undermine the good news that Paul preached and to remind his audience of the means of salvation already provided through Jesus Christ. The Judaizers impose the requirement of circumcision (and other Jewish laws) on the Gentile converts. Paul writes forcefully to remind the Galatians that it is not the Mosaic law by which they are justified, but by the salvation in and only through Jesus Christ. Paul writes, "I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification [being made righteous before God] comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing (Gal. 2:21; see also 3:15-18; 5:1).

I'll cut to the chase by jumping to the end of Galatians, which is kind of comical to me: "See what large letters I make when I am writing in my own hand" (6:11)! Paul takes over as scribe and must write in all caps, so to speak, to really emphasize this last point. We can imagine then that Paul continues in his BIG letters to write the following:

It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh that try to compel you to be circumcised - only that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. Even the circumcised do not themselves obey the law, but they want you to be circumcised so that they may boast about your flesh. May I never boast of anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world." (Gal. 6:12-14, emphasis mine).

It is Paul, the apostle of Jesus Christ who reminds his Galatian audience that the cross is something of which to boast. The relationship that Paul once had with the world no longer lives. This old relationship with the world died, and inherit to Paul's boasting of the cross is gratitude for the new relationship he (Paul) now has with the world. Something has changed dramatically because of Christ crucified on the cross in the mind and world paradigm of the apostle Paul.

As Christians (and I include Mormons in that category), this should give us a moment of contemplation on the importance of the cross in Christian theology.

The Cross: A Reversal of Power

But doesn't Paul know that the cross is a Roman tool of death? Yes, he knows better than we do that the cross is a form of Roman torture, death and power. Doesn't he know it is the tool used by the Romans to kill Jesus? Yes, he is aware of not only the purpose of the cross, but is also aware of how the Romans use the cross to maintain the Roman Empire's power. But for Paul, it is because of Christ's sacrifice on the cross that this symbol of Roman power no longer holds its fear-inducing control. There is a dramatic reversal of power in the cross of which Paul boasts, brought about because of the crucifixion of Christ. The cross no longer holds the power of fear which the Roman Empire used to manipulate and control the masses. For Paul to boast in the cross is to strip away the threat of death from the greatest Empire of the world and declare that it, the Roman Empire, was powerless. The Empire is usurped by God. God performed a reversal of power, bestowing on the weak the ability to overcome its oppressor; That which was deemed powerful (the Roman Empire) is humbled, and that which is humble (Jesus Christ) is exalted. In the case of the cross, that which is used by your enemies to inflict pain and to make you weak, to make you scared, to make you submissive to the power of the Empire, God uses to overcome and exalt. The cross becomes, at a very early stage in Christian history, a symbol of God's overpowerment of the powers of social and political control, not to mention God's overpowerment of sin and death.

Reversal of Power in the Old Testament

Here is one example in the Old Testament that illustrates this concept of reversal of power. Joseph was left in a pit by his own brothers to only be found and sold into slavery. From slavery he is wrongly accused and thrown in prison, only to later become a key advisor to none other than the Pharaoh. When his brothers discover that the one who they discarded so long ago is now alive and incredibly blessed, they fall at his feet and worship him as their master. Joseph replies, "'Do not be afraid! Am I in the place of God? Even though you intended to do harm to me, God intended it for good, in order to preserve a numerous people, as he is doing today'" (Gen. 50:20, emphasis mine). Joseph, the once discarded brother, is exalted by the mercy of God. What is considered weak is made to overcome the most despairing of odds. While Joseph's brothers intended the pit to cause harm, God intended it for good. Can you see a parallel in the cross?

Reversal of Power in the Teachings of Jesus

I make a giant leap now to Jesus who taught emphatically of this reversal of power. The Beatitudes, for example, are not spoken to middle class Americans. They are spoken to Jewish peasants - people riddled with plagues, malnutrition, short lifespans, a career of hard labor, and alienation from the rich and honorable. Yet, it is the peasant who are the blessed (Matt. 5:1-12). The blessed of God are not the upper class full of honor and prestige, financially successful and political power. In an act of reversal of power, Jesus declares the weak as blessed, the cursed as beloved.

One well known parable also illustrates this concept of the reversal of power. Known as 'The Good Samaritan' (Luke 10:29-37), Jesus responds to the inquiry of a lawyer asking, "Who is my neighbor?" Jesus responds with the beloved parable: A man is beaten, robbed and left to die on the side of the road; a priest passes by and does not help the man; a Levite passes by and does not help the man; a Samaritan passes by and helps generously. "Which one of these three," asks Jesus, "do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?" The audience is forced to say the unspeakable; it was the Samaritan who treated the half-dead man as a neighbor. Samaritans were half breeds and outcasts among the Jewish people. But now it is a Samaritan that sets the example in this parable of Jesus while the priests and Levites fail. In order for modern readers to understand the truly uncomfortable position the crowd is placed in when they must respond 'the Samaritan' we must imagine that we are a priest or a Levite listening to the words of Christ. We fail and those we despise act out the love of God. Can you see a parallel in the cross?

The Cross as Symbol of Life 

Hinckley is quoted as presenting the cross as a symbol of the dying Christ. It is not a symbol of death unless one believes that Jesus was not resurrected. The cross symbolizes not the mere death of one more Messiah-want-a-be, but instead symbolizes the raising up of one that no other but God could raise. It is the triumph of God over what others thought to be the unconquerable. It is in his death that God overcomes the greatest ruler over the lives of all humanity - death and sin. Thus, the cross, known as the symbol of Roman strength and tool of death is used by God to exalt and bring life. The cross, in the hands of God, is a tool of restoration and resurrection.

It is a symbol of the living Christ.

While the LDS people may not feel like the cross should adorn their buildings, it is my hope that they can develop a personal testimony of its immense importance as a Christian symbol of the early church and its meaning for today. Yes, all denominations of Christianity proclaim Christ is risen, so please do not think that the cross represents the death of Christ alone. Symbols have multiple meanings, as garment-wearing Latter-Day Saints can attest. If you don't want a cross on your chapels, no big deal. I truly hope that the cross will nonetheless play an important part in understanding the wisdom of God as you seek to follow Christ. After all, you are Christians.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God...For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For God's foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God's weakness is stronger than human strength (1 Cor. 1:15,22-25).

Note: I was introduced to this concept of 'reversal of power' by reading Dominic Crossan's In Parables. It has proven to be a formidable text in shaping my understanding of Jesus' parables and I believe it extends to the Christian symbol of the cross.

Other Online resource: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/57551-byu-easter-conference-2012-reclaiming-the-cross/page__hl__cross__fromsearch__1.



Search Ponder Pray Repeat

THE FUTURE IS THE PAST

"No age has been decisively left behind, and in some sense all earlier ages walk with us. The past provides us with imaginative alternatives to the present, and that which to one age seems dead and decisively left behind appears to another age as something only left in storage, which retrieved, again seems beautiful."

-Glenn W. Olsen in Beginning At Jerusalem: Five Reflections On The History of the Church. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004.

This quote has left me pondering on the numerous assumptions and presuppositions that I inherited based on the context of my personal history. I like to think that I am an original. However, history shapes me.

Functioning outside the LDS Church I recognize how the LDS world view is still very much a part of me. I write that statement without malice for my heritage, but simply to say that I accept my past and look forward with an awareness that the future is not at all unaffected by where I've been.

Yet the future seems like a white canvass. Could it be an allusion that the future is a white canvass? It seems that the future is not free from the affects of the past, even a past that reaches beyond my control and engulfs me and you in a world of great transition. The world itself enters the future in a constant flux of change and, most importantly, the past does not simply dissipate with time. Like tentacles it reaches into the black abyss of the future to shape it in ways that make it approachable, comprehendable and a reality that we can anticipate with hope. Without the past to inform our future, the future becomes something to be feared, incomprehendible, and hopeless. Of course, if one were to evolve from a hopeless past, the future too would seem hopeless.

I ramble.

Let me rap up this rambling with this thought. The LDS Church was not formed in a vacuum. It emerged as a part of a larger restoration movement on the American frontier of the 19th century. The early converts, even Joseph Smith, entered into this emerging world we call Mormonism with presuppositions that would affect the formatino of the LDS Church. So I begin to wonder what carried over with the early LDS Saints into the emerging LDS movement? What philosophy and was most predominant in the early LDS church? Where did that philosophy come from? What did they, the early LDS Saints, see left in storage, viewed as worthless by others, but to them, held deep meaning and beauty?     

Search Ponder Pray Repeat 

IS SLAVERY IN THE AIR?

I opened the hospital door this morning for an African American man. We happened to be going in at the same time, me for work, and he to visit a loved one. The hospital has a policy that its employees are to be curtious to visitors, but I don't need that policy. Most people don't. I would have opened the door regardless.

Isn't it interesting to think my polite gesture, which I did almost subconsciously, would not have been so natural as early as 1950 in many parts of our country. In some parts of our country it is still not natural to be kind to someone of differing skin color. I, a white man, opening the door for a black man. Unheard of in some parts and in some times.

But it's so natural to me to open the door for anyone: black, white, female, male, fat, skinny, tall, short. It doesn't matter. I just do it. So why? Why do I act this way? When did I first learn that appropriate interaction with others includes opening the door for them, no matter their color of skin or gender?

Answer: I can't remember when I first learned this behavior. It has always been this way. If it wasn't for a recent article, I wouldn't have thought about it.

The Article: Slave Master Becomes an Abolistionist

Mauritania is a nation on the western coast of Africa that, before I read this article, I knew nothing about. I read about Mauritania's long and recent history of slavery. Yes, there are still places struggling with slavery. According to the article the United Nations estimates that 10-20% of the population in Mauritania is enslaved.

The article revolves around the story of a former slave owner, Abdel, and his slave, Yebawa. What interested me in this article was not only the revelation of slavery still in the world, but of the descriptions made by both men concerning their experiences and how natural both men understood the reality of slavery.

First, a snippet of Abdel the former slave owner describing the act of picking his slave when only seven years old.

"It was as if I were picking out a toy," Abdel, now 47, said of choosing Yebawa as his slave. "For me, it was as if he were a thing -- a thing that pleased me. This idea came to me because there were all these stories about him which made me laugh -- that he talked in his sleep, that he was a bit chubby and a bit clumsy, that he was always losing the animals he was supposed to be watching over and was then always getting punished for this. So for me, he was an interesting and comic figure."

"It's normal that I chose him."

What do you know at seven years old but what is before you? At seven years old there is no sense of social justice outside the given definitions of such concepts delivered by parents and culture. So Abdel can only understand Yebawa according to the social construct given him by his environment. Yebawa is a piece of property, even comical property, nothing more than a thing in the inherited paradigm of young Abdel. With Western eyes I can't understand an ethic of human property, but then I remember that at seven years old I understood people through the lens given me by my parents and environment. I am the product of a middle-class family growing up in conservative Oklahoma. My past, like that of Abdel, is the conglomeration of paradigms I inherited from my environment. At seven, we are receptors of a world that barely extends beyond the walls of our homes. In Mauritania the young Abdel, likewise, has inherited a paradigm that sees those of darker skin color like toys - like property.

But what of the slave, Yebawa? What is the paradigm of a slave? Again, another snippet from the article.

Sadder still, Yebawa didn't consider himself human either -- at least not in the way Abdel was. Mauritania's slaves are very often brainwashed by their masters into thinking they are less than human and that their place is at the bottom of a rigid and still-enforced caste system that allows them only to serve their masters without pay or free will.

Because of their darker skin and lowest-caste status, slaves are treated as inferior.

Abdel's family never beat its slaves, he said, but did regard them as subhuman.

What does it mean to be brainwashed? I think this is the perception of the article's Westernized author.Yebawa has no idea of 'brainwashing'. He simply inherits a culture of slavery wherein his social category is 'slave'. His self-perception has been shaped and molded not by an individualistic capitalistic society, but by a caste system that has him at the bottom - as subhuman. He, like Abdel, like us, inherit a world-view that influences how we perceive others and how we perceive ourselves. In the Western world children are looked on by their parents as destined for greatness. What if your parents only see you as future property of a slave owner? And what if society reinforces that sad expectation by casting you on the lowest level of a system that does not allow for upward movement? Abdel summarizes the point well:

"One must really have in mind that when one is born into a certain environment, it is considered the right one -- just and fair."

So we grow up assuming our environment is just and fair. For Abdel, it was when he left Mauriania and studied in France that he learned how slavery was not socially acceptable for the rest of the world. His paradigm of humanity changed slowly, eventually leading him to become an abolitionist. He came to see the injustice; he saw the difference between what was morally right to the rest of the world and what wasn't right in his.

They [Abdel and other abolistionists] denounced the Mauritanian government's inaction on slavery, lobbying for legislation that would criminalize the practice. The law passed unanimously in 2007, making it a crime to own another person and force him or her to work.

The slave master-turned-abolitionist made that journey from ignorance to enlightenment. And his organization, born under the stars of the Sahara, continues its work into its second decade.

It's easy for me to applaud Abdel's change. It's easy because he changed from a practice I believe to be wrong to advocating for a practice I sustain. But this morning I did something without thinking about it, just as innocently as Abdel in choosing his slave at seven years old. I opened the door for a man. For our culture, that's good behavior. Abdel chose a slave when only seven years old. For his culture, that was good behavior. I did the right thing because I have a culture and paradigm that tells me it is right.

There are factors outside my control (more than I can admit) that shape me and mold me to believe that my actions are morally good. But what if my culture is wrong? What if someone comes to me and tries to tell me the way I interact and perceive a group of people is actually inappropriate. If that person is sustained by the majority, I imagine I would be quick to adapt to the new paradigm under social pressure. However, if the individual is alone in the assertion concerning my ethical behavior to a certain group of people, than I am more likely to reject the alteration and continue in my comfortable yet possibly abhorrent behavior. In short, if slavery is in the air, I will breathe it.

Conclusion

I don't know the groups in my culture that I view as subhuman. I want to say that I don't view anyone or any group of people as subhuman. That's comfortable. It makes me feel like a good person. However, I have to admit to myself that because I don't have the pleasure of stepping outside my culture and personal paradigm I can't see what group I naturally perceive as subhuman. Abdel went to France and experienced his paradigm in a different environment, leading to a deep change. I really can't afford a trip to France. Instead, I offer two groups of people that I guess I may perceive incorrectly. I don't see them as subhuman (I think), but I do lack personal interaction with these groups that would inform my paradigm and produce a more accurate understanding of who they really are: 1) American Muslims; and 2) Homosexuals. I've grown up in an extremely conservative environment and I think I may have many incorrect perceptions of both American Muslims and Homosexuals. I could be wrong, but I won't know until I go talk to them, eat with them, smile with them. Again, I don't view these groups of people as subhuman, but I do think my perception needs to be balanced by genuine conversation with - not about - two minority groups in Oklahoma. Maybe I'll breathe something different when I am around them. I'll let you know how it goes.

Search Ponder Pray Repeat        

HB2988: WHAT WOULD THE AMISH DO?

HB2988

In Oklahoma, HB2988 has passed out of committee and is on its way to the House floor. HB2988 will add places of worship to Oklahoma's Castle Doctrine. This means that parishioners will be protected from legal ramifications if they use deadly force against someone that may attempt to commit an act of violence at a place of worship. 

Here is a link to a news article concerning the bill.

Here is a link to the introduction of the Bill along with some excerpts:

The Legislature hereby recognizes that the citizens of the State of Oklahoma have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes or, places of business, or places of worship.

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter the dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle of another person, or a place of business, or a place of worship is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

A person who uses force, as permitted pursuant to the provisions of subsections B and D of this section, is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force.  As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes charging or prosecuting the defendant.

Theological Reflection:

I like peace. I like peace so much that I never want to perpetrate an act of violence. I love peace so much that I follow the example of a man I describe as the Prince of Peace. A man who taught us to love our enemies and turn the other cheek, not to walk away, but as an offering. This man taught in word and deed, going to the cross willingly, never crying out for justice or defense. I don't believe that violence solves problems, but I do believe in the solutions that come about through peace. 

Of course, I am reminded of when Jesus tore through the temple with a whip, turning over tables and driving out the money changers and animals. It doesn't say if he threatened any one's life, but I don't think Jesus would last long with that type of behavior in an Oklahoma church after HB2988. 

And what would the headline read if a gun-man was killed by a parishioner in self-defense? 'Church Parishioner Kills Mentally Ill Man Under The Cross.' That's a contradiction. At least, it should be.

We are not called to defend ourselves, but to follow a man who healed even those that threatened his life. We are a light to the world, not simply people pointing to a light, but people being a light. It's sad to think that this light may become deadly.

The Amish:

In 2007, the LDS leader, James E. Faust gave a talk that I will always remember. It came before I had made a commitment to non-violence, but I think it was a message that moved me towards that commitment. The talk was titled, "The Healing Power of Forgiveness." In this talk Faust describes the tragedy that occurred in an Amish community when a man stormed into an Amish school, took 10 girls hostage, and shot them before taking his own life. Faust goes on to describe the Amish people's reaction:

This shocking violence caused great anguish among the Amish but no anger. There was hurt but no hate. Their forgiveness was immediate. Collectively they began to reach out to the milkman's suffering family. As the milkman's family gathered in his home the day after the shootings, an Amish neighbor cam over, wrapped his arms around the father of the dead gunman, and said, "We will forgive you." Amish leaders visited the milkman's wife and children to extend their sympathy, their forgiveness, their help, and their love. About half of the mourners at the milkman's funeral were Amish. In turn, the Amish invited the milkman's family to attend the funeral services of the girls who had been killed. A remarkable peace settled on the Amish as their faith sustained them during this crisis.

This form of tragedy has happened all too often. I remember the news of a California LDS Bishop who was shot in his church office. The threat is real. There are a lot of hurt, angry, sick people that somehow justify this butchery to themselves. Tragically, some have invaded defenseless churches, temples, synagogues and mosques to only commit violence and create pain. In a nation that values religious freedom, a culture of religious diversity struggles against the threat of blood shed.

So I wonder what the Amish have done? They experienced a tragedy, so do they now have a security guard at the school? No. I believe the source of the forgiveness that came from the Amish is fueled not by a mere resolve to forgive, but I think it is the product of a deep commitment, even covenant, to walk as Jesus taught us to walk. Loving our enemies, even those that would hurt us. The Amish have  a commitment to non-violence. Did they retaliate? Did they demand justice? No. They grieved with the family of the perpetrator. They sought out for healing through peace. They rebuilt.

I think the Amish have taught us about forgiveness in an incredibly powerful way. Maybe they have something else to teach us about our commitment to peace; our commitment to walk the path of Jesus; our commitment to non-violence. HB2988 may pass, but for Christianity, it has no need. At least, it shouldn't.

Search Ponder Pray Repeat    

SAY HELLO, AND WAVE GOODBYE

Dear people I like, love and care for,

I started this blog as a reaction. I was accused of being two-faced for having questions, maybe not even believing like I once did. Since I wasn't letting people in on my personal struggles, I was accused of being deceitful, posing as a certain kind of Mormon, but really not being that person. That accusation hurt, so I reacted to it, went to the other side of the spectrum, and decided to be as open about myself as possible by starting this blog. I had no desire to be deceitful. My questions were personal, but in this world where people post every aspect of their life on Facebook, being personal is equated with lying. How sad.

My wife asked me an important question before I began posting on the blog. She asked me if I was trying to write in order to hurt the faith of others, or if I was writing to really be honest and present myself. I appreciate that question because I was in a painful place when I first started writing and I could have taken this blog in a different direction. I have tried to stay true to my original resolve that I am writing to express my questions and personal struggle with the intent to listen and interact with readers. Sometimes I fail. I apologize if I have. Of course, failure is a part of me, so even that is truthful.

Thus far on this blog I have described what others call my 'faith crisis'. This was something I described as a 'place without a name'. I've written about the pivotal theological struggle that brought me to my major doubt concerning LDS theology - the life of Eli and what our vicarious works say about God. The discussion that followed was a wonderful experience, but it made me see that I was not in a place to confirm the conservative LDS position represented by the comments of faithful LDS people. Nonetheless, I decided to continue to present, be honest, and explain my strife. So I kept writing: Mormons as Christians, Book of Mormon, Violence, Marriage, Polygamy, and The Book of Abraham. In each discussion I find myself on the other side of the aisle in respects to the LDS position.

Additionally, I started to become so distracted by these discussions that I lost track of studying and reading what really makes me happy. The posts with the most traffic and discussion are those focused on LDS issues, while what I really love - Jesus' parables - get little to no foot traffic. That's okay because I know that people are probably not that interested in reading notes on Dominic Crossan's insights to the parables of Jesus. But that's what I love. In short, I'm done with presenting the issues that brought me to my faith crisis and I want to get back to what I love.

I have a few drafts lined up for future posts revolving around LDS subjects: The First Vision, The Three Degrees of Glory, the Temples and Masons, and Trinitarian vs. LDS versions of the Godhead. But these topics have become more of a labor than an enjoyment. This blog is about opening myself up so that people can see what I struggle with in LDS theology and history. I've done that sufficiently. I'm ready to move on.

Say hello, and wave goodbye.

I wave goodbye to spending so much time on LDS issues that quite frankly, just make me angry and are draining. I wave goodbye to a church that helped me grow into who I am, and for that I am thankful. I wave goodbye to a church that thinks the world for 1800 years of history was void of God's authority to come unto Christ, despite the pleads of the people and the promise of God (Matt. 7:7-11; 16:18). I wave goodbye to the social pressure and cultural expectation of declaring 'I know' about everything to do with church, God, and scripture. I am no longer enchanted by the doctored history and theology presented at church, nor am I convinced that the LDS Church is a more accurate representation of the early Church or the teachings of Jesus than the rest of Christendom. I do not say this with the spirit of degrading Mormonism, simply to say, it’s time for me to move on. So, thank you for a good thirty years, fun youth dances, spiritual upliftment, direction, and wonderful people. Goodbye.

I'm saying hello to the parables, Church history and theology, Greek, unrestrained reading, acceptance of women as my equals in ministry, homosexuals as worthy children of God, and trained church leadership. I'm saying hello to an extremely challenging world that needs more bridges of acceptance than walls of doctrine, dogma, and worries over 'worthiness'. I even say hello to evolution. I am saying hello to a God I don't know, who is mysterious to my imperfect mind and I can admit that and think that's okay. I am saying hello to a faith greater than when I started, wherein the grace of God is more powerful than what I can ever do or not do. I'm saying hello to a Jewish peasant, who taught the Mosaic Law, proclaimed the kingdom, and died on the cross. I say hello to a hope, yes, a hope, that through that man we all can hope in the resurrection and the redemption of creation. Hello.

What do I do now? I continue to search, ponder and pray. I will continue to write on the blog. Sometimes the topic may be something to do with the LDS Church, but certainly not as frequently. I reiterate, I am not mad at the LDS Church. I thank it for the many positive aspects of its influence on my life. But this blog is about being honest and open. So here I am, and it's time for me to look forward in a new direction.

Say hello, and wave goodbye.

Search Ponder Pray Repeat

1978: IT'S NEVER TOO LATE TO APOLOGIZE

I remember quite well the time I chose to apologize to a man on my mission. This man had served as the Branch President for well over the typical five years, built the membership and literally built the chapel. The day the branch turned into a ward, he was released. No one told him he was going to be released. It just happened and no one said thank you.

The man was crushed. His branch-now-ward turned over; his baby; his life. I remember he cried telling me this story. It all happened some 15 years before I arrived to listen to the tale in his home. He loved the church, but felt as if he had been kicked to the curb for no reason. He had devoted so much and wasn't even given a thank you. He had been inactive since the day he was released as Branch President.

I cried with him. I felt so ashamed that my church, the true church of Jesus, of love, of brotherhood and genuine friendship, would do such a thing to its own.

So I said sorry.

On behalf of the Church I apologized to this man for how he was treated. I said I was sorry for the wretched custom within our culture to not even express heart-felt gratitude beyond raising our arm to the square. And how much more should gratitude be given for a man that did so much? I thanked him for the very chapel that he helped raise funds for and build with his own hands. The building in which I then sat in to take the body and blood of Christ. I thanked him for his dedication and love. But of most importance, I said sorry.

Two weeks later, he came back to church.

It's never too late to apologize.

I'm tired. In so many ways I am tired. So, with so much to say but no strength to say it, I leave you with some links. You can explore the issue and ask yourself if the Church should apologize for the ban.

Would Jesus really do this to people? Should the Church apologize?

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-genesis-of-a-churchs-stand-on-race/2012/02/22/gIQAQZXyfR_story.html.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/joannabrooks/5748/racist_remarks_by_popular_byu_religion_professor_spark_controversy/.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/joannabrooks/5752/lds_church_acknowledges_past_racism%2C_repudiates_racist_remarks/.

http://stevebloor.wordpress.com/2012/03/05/apology-to-blacks/#comments.

Search, Ponder, Pray, Repeat

ABRAHAM IS A HOR?

On my mission I taught people that the Book of Abraham was a translation by Joseph Smith (JS) of an ancient text. I showed people the Facsimiles in the Pearl of Great Price, teaching them that they were picture depictions of Abraham’s life and teachings. I bore testimony that it was scripture.

Of course, I did all of these things in complete trust that what I learned in LDS seminary and in the mission manuals were historically accurate truth. I believed whole-heartedly the prophetic calling of JS and that these writings – Book of Mormon, Book of Moses, Book of Abraham – were testimony of his prophetic calling. "In an 1830 revelation, Joseph was called 'a seer, a translator, a prophet, an apostle of Jesus Christ, an elder of the church.' The series of titles implied that prophethood was connected to translation" (Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, 130). I learned about the issues with the Book of Abraham (BoA) well after my mission.

On July 3, 1835, Michael H. Chandler visited Kirtland to offer JS four mummies and some rolls of papyri. JS bought the pieces, claiming that the papyri contained the writings of Abraham of Ur and Joseph of Egypt. From the papyri JS produced the BoA that we enjoy today in the Pearl of Great Price. JS seemed pretty proud of his possession, accepting visitors to view the papyri and to listen to his explanation of them up to his death (Bushman, 286).

Bushman points out that JS had his own use of the word ‘translation’. “Joseph did not translate in the sense of learning the language and consulting dictionaries. He received the words by 'revelation,' whether or not a text lay before him" (Bushman, 132). Bushman goes on: “As Joseph saw it, he was working by inspiration – that had been clear from the beginning. When he ‘translated’ the Book of Mormon, he did not read from the gold plates; he looked into the crystals of the Urim and Thummim or gazed at the seerstone. The words came by inspiration, not by reading the characters on the plates. By analogy, it seemed likely that the papyri had been an occasion for receiving a revelation rather than a word-for-word interpretation of the hieroglyphs as in ordinary translations. Joseph translated Abraham as he had the characters on the gold plates, by knowing the meaning without actually knowing the plates’ language” (Bushman, 292).

So I understand Bushman to say that the papyri were a spark that lit the fire of God’s revelation. The papyri serve only as the release valve for the flood of ancient information that makes up the BoA. Joseph simply referred to the revelation as a ‘translation’ as a way to reference respectfully back to the catalyst of the whole event - the papyri. We should not think, according to my reading of Bushman, that by ‘translation’ JS meant a word-for-word rendering of a narrative in one language into another language through linguistic means, but we should think of the papyri as an item that simply induced God’s revealing of Himself and of great spiritual knowledge to JS.   

There’s one explanation, but what do you do with the clear interest in JS et al. in understanding the Egyptian language? Bushman points out that in the fall of 1835 Cowdery, William W. Phelps, Warren Parrish, and Frederick G. Williams were given the chance to translate the papyri themselves. From this exercise of futility the group pulled together a “Grammar & Alphabet of the Egyptian Language” (Bushman, 120-121). It seems clear that JS was interested in the Egyptian language beyond its function as a catalyst for ‘translation’-as-revelation. He and his crew were interested in looking at the papyri and sincerely deducing its written message. So why would JS be interested in the original language of the papyri when the divine message was so clearly provided by God through revelation? No language, no matter. God will provide.

Of course, the general LDS populous is not privy to JS’s special use of ‘translation’, and ignorant missionaries like myself go and tell people a story that suggests JS sat down and translated the hieroglyphics of the papyri like any translator would.

“In 1967, that view of translation [the view that JS translated the Book of Abraham word-for-word] suffered a blow when eleven scraps of the Abraham papyri, long since lost and believed to have been burned, were discovered in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City and given to Latter-day Saint leaders in Salt Lake City. Color pictures were soon printed and scholars went to work. The texts were thought to be the Abraham papyri because Joseph had published facsimiles from the papyri with his translation, and the same pictures appeared on the museum fragments. Moreover, some of the characters from the Egyptian grammar appeared on the fragments. The translation of these texts by expert Egyptologists would finally prove or disprove Joseph’s claims to miraculous translating powers. Would any of the language correspond to the text in his Book of Abraham? Some Mormons were crushed when the fragments turned out to be rather conventional funerary texts placed with mummified bodies, in this case Hor, to assure continuing life as an immortal god. According to the Egyptologists, nothing on the fragments resembled Joseph’s account of Abraham” (Bushman, 291).

But this was not the first time Egyptologists had critiqued JS’s translation with its original papyri. In 1856, five years after the publication of the Pearl of Great Price, M. Theodule Deveria, an Egyptologist of the time, commented on Facsimile No. 3:

“The deceased led by Ma into the presence of Osiris. His name is Horus, as may be seen in the prayer which is at the bottom of the picture, and which is addressed to the divinities of the four cardinal points” (Quote taken from this link. Larson, By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus, 25)

A similar event occurs in 1912.

Others Egyptologists confirm.

So here we have the remains of what is clearly the source of JS’s ‘translation’ of the BoA, and it has nothing to do with Abraham. It has everything to do with someone named Hor, or Horus. Additionally, Abraham would have lived sometime in the proximity of 2000 B.C. and the papyri was written during the first century B.C. Clearly, Abraham could not have written something in the first century B.C. while living in 2000 B.C., nor do I think he would been interested in Hor’s burial (No disrespect intended to Hor’s family or friends; Palmer, An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins, 15-16).  

So why would I think as a missionary that the BoA was indeed a word-for-word translation of a text written by the hand of Abraham?  I quote for you the beginning title and introduction to the BoA:

THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM

TRANSLATED FROM THE PAPYRUS, BY JOSEPH SMITH

A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.” (See History of the Church, 2:235–36, 348–51.)

It seems pretty clear from the get go that: 1) This is a translation from the papyrus by JS (remember, I, along with most LDS people, are not privy to JS’s special use of the word, ‘translation.’); 2) it is written by Abraham’s own hand. Pretty cut and dry presentation. I really shouldn’t have to go look for some special explanation of what this all means. It seems clear what JS meant for his audience to understand and for us ignorant missionaries to teach.

Here is a brief summary of some defense offered for the BoA:

1)      Not actually authored by Abraham, but penned by a Jewish redactor who was passing along a tradition going back to Abraham.

My response: Then why didn’t JS say so? He’s a prophet, I think he could have known that bit without leading us on to think it came directly from the hand of Abraham.

2)      The ‘translation’ is a revelation from God and not a word-for-word translation.

My response: Then stop calling it a translation! This is misleading language and inappropriate. If you can admit it really wasn’t an actual translation then don’t put this as the beginning introduction to the Book of Abraham. Of course, the LDS church has been defending it as a literal translation for so long that it will look bad if it backs out now.

3)      There are other messages and meanings embedded in the text along with the Egyptologist's translations that are unknown to us, and could be where Joseph Smith found his message and interpretation (Wikipedia).

Response: Why would a funeral rite for someone named Hor contain anything about Abraham, let alone the narrative we have in Abraham 1-2:18? This is an argument of silence, meaning that since we don’t know every little nook and cranny we should just continue believing the way we have been, despite all of the evidence to the contrary. I don’t think I should hold my breath on this one in hopes that Kolob is going to appear in Hor’s funeral rites.

4)      What if the papyri we have in the museum aren’t actually the papyri JS had purchased and used for his ‘translation’?

Response: From Wikipedia: “There is broad agreement that the recovered papyri are portions of the originals, partly based on the fact that they were pasted onto paper which had ‘drawings of a temple and maps of the Kirtland, Ohio area’ on the back and an accompanying affidavit by Emma Smith, stating that they had been in the possession of Joseph Smith.”

As most of these issues do, I feel like this issue will simply come down to a question of belief. Do I believe in the theology presented in the Book of Abraham? Do I believe it is the word of God revealed to JS? For most LDS people these issues of translation and history are not informative to faith. What matters is the confirmation of the Spirit. So here I write, praying for answers, with a mountain of evidence before me. I go before God now better informed and ask God’s help in understanding what to do with this new information. Am I really meant to ignore it? Can’t I integrate it into my faith with a healthy and uplifting end? What’s the point of prayer if I can’t? What’s the point of having and using a brain if I can’t?

I wonder how Hor feels about us using his funeral rites like this?

Sorry, Hor.

Search, Ponder, Pray, Repeat  

NOT MY DAUGHTERS: JOSEPH SMITH, POLYGAMY AND POLYANDRY

I went on a mission not knowing hardly anything about Joseph Smith's plural wives. I can admit that fact knowing that most LDS missionaries are in the same boat. I knew that polygamy was practiced among early LDS church members, but I didn't understand why it was practiced, if Joseph Smith (JS) practiced it, how many wives JS had, and if he had any offspring from his multiple wives. Again, I know my ignorance is not rare among LDS missionaries, which is why I don't mind sharing it. So when I was first asked if JS practiced polygamy I didn't know what to say to myself or to other people. It was an issue I hoped people would not bring up. "If they do bring it up, just tell them polygamy was practiced for economic stability on behalf of the widows." That's what I was told, so that's what I said.

I can't blame anyone for my ignorance, but polygamy is a taboo topic in LDS Church meetings. If we talk about polygamy, say in Sunday School, it is glossed over, typically ending with the conclusion stated above - economic reasons. I really don't feel like I missed some huge lesson in seminary about the ins and outs of polygamy (LDS seminary = early morning bible study during high school). I went to Sunday School. And what seminary teacher is taught and given materials to approach the topic of LDS early practice of polygamy in detail? None to my knowledge.

I was lucky to serve my mission in Chile. I say I was lucky because I think more people in the States are aware of early Mormon polygamy practices than the general populous in Chile, so I could avoid the topic. It was easy to avoid since it wasn't part of the discussions I was told to teach. I never ran into someone that wanted more of an explanation than the economic statement made above. I didn't start learning more about LDS polygamy until I returned from my mission and started fielding questions from classmates in college. Kind of embarrasing, really, to come home from a mission but know practically nothing about a practice that plays such a big role in LDS Church history and JS's theology.

So I explored.

In reading some materials I quickly learned that JS married multiple women, not for economic support, but for obedience to God's command. I had a conceptualization of JS that did not include the feature of polygamy, but suddenly, the realization that JS did practice polygamy causes one's mental image of JS to either remain vacant of this historical reality (self-deception) or allow this new knowledge to shape one's mental picture of JS.

JS had multiple wives. He practiced polygamy.

I'm okay with that.
I think most Mormons are.
JS had some 30 wives.
That's cool.
No problem.

A few years pass by and I learn that not only did JS have multiple wives:

1.  JS married teenagers. He married a girl, Nancy Winchester, for example, who was either fourteen or fifteen years old when married to JS. There were others: Helen Mar Kimball (14), Fanny Alger (16), Flora Ann Woodworth (16). There are other young women that JS married that I would consider underage.
2. JS married women that were married to other men still alive. Let that sink in: JS married the wives of men that were still alive. This is called polyandry. This is a new word I had to allow into my vocabulary. But it's not like learning a new word for the joy of learning, this is about learning a new word because your hero is practicing the act of marrying a woman who is already married. They never told me that in seminary.
3. JS married a woman (married) and her daughter (also married). In 1842 JS married Sylvia Sessions Lyon. Later that year JS married Patty Bartlett Sessions. Patty is the mother of Sylvia.

So what do I do with this information? This isn't just a man marrying consenting, unmarried and cognitively mature women. This is a man sealing himself to young girls, women - some still married to another man - and sealing himself to a daughter and her mother. This isn't economic security for poor and starving widows. What is this?

What if it was okay back in the 19th century for men to marry young women as young as 14/15 yrs. old? Social scientists estimate that the average age of marriage for women in 1840 was 21-22 years of age. Marrying a 14 year old is an outlier. Not normal. Not okay.

I really don't think I need to ask the question if polyandry was okay.

So here I am wondering what to do with a prophet that at one point in my life was possibly connected to polygamy, but is now married to single women, some women still married and some teenagers. This is kind of a punch in the face. What? My JS married a 14yr old?

JS had multiple wives. He practiced polygamy. He practiced polyandry. He married teenagers.

I'm okay with that?
I think most Mormons are?
JS had some 30 wives?
That's cool?
No problem?

You know what? I'm not okay with this. I'm not okay with anyone who wants to marry, seal or commit any marriage-like ceremony with a 14 year old. Not O.K. I've got daughters and I don't care if you're a prophet, president of the United States or whatever high and mighty title you claim, no one is touching my girls, or any other teenager for that matter and claiming them as sealed/married. In fact, I'm going to teach my girls to kick anyone's ass if they try something like this. I'd apologize for the crued language but maybe it can wake some of us up from the idea that a prophet has special permission from God to do these things. He doesn't. No one does. This is wrong.

And I'm not okay with any man marrying another man's wife. I really don't feel like I need to say much on this point. It's standard now and it was standard then. Married = off limits. I would like to think that most people, especially a prophet, can respect that.

Issue #1: What do I do with JS? Do I continue to hold him up as a prophet of God, able to communicate with the divine, when in fact this divine communication brought about, what I consider, a revolting practice (Again, not just polygamy, but polyandry and marrying teenagers)? Maybe I can turn a blind eye to this reality and look upon the edited history taught to me at Sunday School as all I need. But my brain just can't filter out what actually happened so that I can shape history the way I want it. This happened and it is wrong.

Issue #2: Why wasn't I told? Why wasn't this taught to me before going out on a mission? Shouldn't missionaries teaching people about the restoration and the prophetic calling of JS be made aware of a major piece of his teachings and practices? Shouldn't the people converting to Mormonism also be made aware of this significant feature of the prophet of the restoration? This seems like deception, in my opinion.

Yeah, I know I am a bit emotional about this, but I really feel deceived. Not telling the whole truth is the same as lying, in my opinion. And I highly doubt you would allow your 14yr old daughter to marry a grown man. At least, I hope you wouldn't. We would call such a man a perve, pedophile, etc. Why do we make an exception for JS?

I haven't done any research to find out if there is any evidence to suggest that JS had sexual relations or children with the additional women with whom he married. I don't know if I can handle that right now.

Search Ponder Pray Repeat





 














        

PARABLES OF ACTION: NOTES FROM CROSSAN'S IN PARABLES (Chapter Four)

Parables of Action

• The tendency in the tradition of parable interpretation is to look down upon the allegorizing of parables (i.e. Augustine's treatment of the Good Samaritan), but there is a general acceptance of moralizing the parables (i.e J. Jeremias).

Parables and Ethics

• There was a profound clash between Jesus and the Pharisees, but later Christian hostility has distorted the actual nature of this confrontation. The Pharisees are erroneously described as hypocrites (you must do what we won't) or uncaring legalists. In fact, the Pharisees were great moral teachers and guides, "But there precisely lay the problem which Jesus and Paul saw so clearly."

"When Christianity is no longer aware of what Jesus and Paul were fighting against in Pharisaic Judaism, it can hardly be conscious of a similar presence within itself. The debate did not concern good law as over against bad law or even internal and sincere law as over against external and hypocritical law. The challenge of Jesus and of Paul was this: obedience does not lead to God, but God leads one to obedience. The question is not God or law, covenant or commandment, faith or works, but, granting both, in which direction does the arrow fly from one to the other? It must be emphasized that this is not a debate between Judaism and Christianity but a conflict within them both, and a conflict ever ancient and ever new. So, according to Jesus and Paul, it was the gift of God's presence that made a good life possible, not a good life that made the reward of God's presence inevitable."

"The righteousness of God does not presuppose our obedience; it creates it." - Earnst Kasemann.

• The parables of Jesus seek to draw us into the Kingdom of God and to act by the gift received therein.
• Ethics seeks to form a logic mode of acting out the best possible way of Being. But parables subvert ethics. Parables leave us wondering what to do. They are not a clear program or list of instructions. We enter the Holy of Holies to find it empty.

The parables overthrow ethics, just as Matt. 5:39 overthrows the typical response to violence: "if any one strikes you on the right cheek turn to him the other also." "It intends us to experience how the logic of ethics is undermined by the mystery of God and that, if one can but accept it, is the most crucial moral experience of all.... Can we walk and act in utter serenity and in utter insecurity, in total concern and in total incertitude?"

The Action Parables: The Parable of the Treasure (Serves as a paradigmatic parable for Crossan; Matt. 13:44)

1. The Advent - The Finding of the Treasure
2. The Reversal - He Goes (altering his original plan)
3. The Action - The purchase of the field

• Gos of Thom 98:31-99:3: 1) No mention of the buyer selling everything he had to purchase the field. The treasure was found after he purchased the field and was found after plowing the field (It takes hard work for one to find their true Gnostic self); 2) It tells us what the buyer did with the treasure after he found it, "to lend money to whomever he wished."

"Jesus' parables challenge one to life and action within the Kingdom but they leave that life and that action as absolute in its call as it is unspecified in its detail."

Situations Depicted in Parables of Action

1. The Decision is Made - Friend at Midnight (Luke 11:5-8); The Unjust Judge (Luke 18:2-5)
2. The Decision is Not Made - Rich Fool (Luke 12:16-20; Gos. Thom. 92:3-10); The Man Who Lack a Wedding Garment (Matt. 22:11-14). The Bridesmaids depicts both #1 and #2 (Matt. 25:1-13).

The Servant Parables (Crossan discusses nine servant parables and groups them. This grouping is important for his conclusion, so I provide one example of each group).

Group A: The Parable of the Talents

      Matt. 25:14-30

• Matt. 25:16-18 does not appear in Luke, suggesting this portion came to Matthew through his source and supports originality. This passage functions as a way to draw listeners immediately into the world of the parable.
• Matt. 25:30 is not original because of its "allegorical character, explicit eschatological application, and Matthean vocabulary." The original ending is most likely in Matt. 25:28 because it functions to recall Matt. 25:20.

      Luke 19:12-27

• Note the common phrases between Matt. 18:24-29 and Luke 19:20-26.
• Luke 19:27 can be omitted since it is a part of the Throne Claimant and originally has nothing to do with the Parable of the Talents.
• Luke 19:24 matches Matt. 25:28 supporting this as the original ending of the parable.

"The main story is quiet clear as is its use of the standard folkloric threesome. Two servants are rewarded for their work and a third is punished for his prudent if useless inactivity."

Group B: The Vineyard Workers

      Matt. 20:1-13

• There is a consensus that 20:16 is the original ending. "So the last will be first, and the first last," is not original being a repeated phrase from 19:30, and 19:30 coming from Mark 10:31. Most scholars accept 1:1-15 as the basic original story. Crossan argues that the ending of this parable is the rhetorical question of vs. 13.

"The owner does not pay the first the least and the last the most. In that story the hearer would have to wonder at the clear 'injustice' of such an action. Jesus must create a story which is quite possible and which does not raise irrelevant moral considerations. It is reversal of expectation which is central: 'they thought' in 20:10."

"What comes across most forcibly within our present purpose is that this parable shatters utterly the normalcy of Group A and brings to a climax the drive of Group B and the Servant Parables."

Structure and Oral Tradition

People who live in a writing culture, the phrase 'ipsissma verba' means exactly that, 'the very words.' In contrast, in a culture that operates on a more oral tradition, 'ipsissma verba' addresses more of the structure of a story, and less the exact repetition of words. Thus, Jesus probably shared his teachings on multiple occasions, staying true to a general structure and not exact verbage. It is more accurate to speak of tradition than original parable.

Crossan agrees to a point, but states, "In so far as we can legitimately generalize from the case of the servant parables, then, it would seem that the parabolic creativity of Jesus consisted in variations of structure within the same theme and in variations of content within the same structure but not in variations of detail within the same content."

Interpretation of the Structure

While parables alone function as a way to present the Kingdom, Crossan argues that the very structure of the Servant Parables does the same. "Here it is not a short proverb or even a long parable which is in question. It is an entire parabolic theme which is developed in one set of parables (Group A) and then reversed and overthrown in another (Group B)." The block of parables of Group A set up the latter reversal performed by Group B.

"Like a wise and prudent servant calculating what he must do in the critical reckoning to which his master summons him, one must be ready and willing to respond in life and action to the eschatological advent of God. But, unfortunately, the eschatological advent of God will always be precisely that for which wise and prudent readiness is impossible because it shatters also our wisdom and our prudence."

Search Ponder Pray Repeat

PARABLES OF REVERSAL: NOTES FROM CROSSAN'S IN PARABLES (Chapter Three)

The Good Samaritan (GS; Luke 10:30-37)

"The example of the despised half-breed was intended to teach him that no human being was beyond the range of charity. The law of love called him to be ready at any time to give his life for another's need." - J. Jeremias

"The story certainly leaves no doubt that what really matters is to act as the Samaritan did ... in the same simplicity ... governed completely by the need of the man who confronts us." - E. Linnemann

"The parable is not a pleasant tale about the Traveller Who Did His Good Deed: it is a damning indictment of social, racial, and religious superiority." - G.V. Jones

(1) The Meaning for Luke:

• Scholarly consensus has the GS as an 'example parable' (sets a good example for the audience). This is based on the parable's overture of Lk. 10:25-29 and the admonition in vs. 37, "'Go, and do likewise.'"
• Crossan's Thesis: The present context of the GS in 10:25-29 and 10:37 is not original and cannot be used in interpreting the meaning of the parable.
• Evidence of Thesis (summary): 1) The presence of the context but not the parable in Mark; 2) the divergent uses of the term 'neighbor' in context and parable in Luke.
• Four Units to the GS:

1. The Question Concerning Eternal Life (10:25-28): The question concerning eternal life is similar to the question of the greatest commandment in Mark 12:28-31 and Matt. 23:34-40, indicating that a citation of Deut 6:5 and Lev. 19:18 (the two great commandments) was present in both Q and Mark. Matthew conflates Q and Mark, while Luke prefers Q over Mark (compare synoptic passages already cited).   
2. The Question Regarding One's Neighbor (10:29): In 10:25-28 the neighbor is still the one who receive the help; the recipient, not the helper. "And who is my neighbor?" 10:29 does not exist in Mark or Matthew. "Mark does not know this second question and Matthew does not accept it from Q."   
3. The Parable of the GS (10:30-35): Logical inconsistency between the meaning of 'neighbor' in 10:27,29 and in 10:36. The parable is pulled in two directions. In 27,29 the neighbor is the recipient of the helper (the man on the roadside). In 36 the neighbor is the helper who provides assistant to the recipient (the samaritan). Indicates inauthenticity of the dialogue between Jesus and the questioner. Crossan proposes that 10:25-28(29) and 10:30-36(37) were two seperate units combined by Luke because of their common theme of 'neighbor'. The disharmony of these two units is a remnant of their once separateness.     
4. The Conclusion with Question and Final Admonition (10:36-37): The question of 10:36 serves as an excellent rhetorical question to end the parable. "the change from this unanswered rhetorical question in 10:36 to the question-and-answer format in 10:36-37a is an obvious change as soon as the questioner became identified as an individual lawyer or scribe. This would argue that the original ending was 10:36." The final answer of 10:37 serves as a nice ending to the question of the lawyer in 10:25.

• Summary: "This is not an authentic dialogue between a lawyer and Jesus in 10:30-37; neither is it two original controversy dialogues in 10:25-28 and 10:29-37 word-linked by 'neighbor.'" The single controversy of 10:25-28 has been expanded to include the parable of 10:30-37. The parable of the GS was originally independent of its present context.   

(2) The Meaning for Jesus:

• What does GS mean without the surrounding context? What if it's just 10:30-36?
• First climax comes in the reaction of the priest and Levite/saw/passed by on the other side, juxtaposed with the Samaritan/saw/had compassion. The Second climax is in the final rhetorical question, "Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor ...?"
• At the second climax the details of the Samaritan's actions come into importance. "When the hearer is confronted with the rhetorical question in 10:36 he might negate the entire process by simply denying that any Samaritan would so act. So, before the question can be put, the hearer must see, feel, and hear the goodness of the Samaritan for himself."  
• The Importance of 'Samaritan': "Most importantly, if he [Jesus] wanted to inculcate love of one's enemies, it would have been radical enough to have a Jewish person stop and assist a wounded Samaritan. But when the story is read as one told by the Jewish Jesus to a Jewish audience, and presumably in a Jerusalem setting, this original historical context demands that the 'Samaritan' be intended and heard as the socio-religious outcast which he was... The whole thrust of the story demands that one say what cannot be said, what is a contradiction in terms: Good + Samaritan... But when good (clerics) and bad (Samaritan) become, respectively, bad and good, a world is being challenged and we are faced with polar reversal" (emphasis mine).
• From Parable to Example: "The literal point confronted the hearers with the necessity of saying the impossible and having their world turned upside down and radically questioned in its presuppositions. The metaphorical point is that just so does the Kingdom of God break abruptly into human consciousness and demand the overturn of prior values, closed options, set judgments, and established conclusions... The hearer struggling with the contradictory dualism of Good/Samaritan is actually experiencing in and through this the inbreaking of the Kingdom."

Search Ponder Pray Repeat

MAWWAGE. MAWWAGE IS WHAT BWINGS US TOGETHAW TODAY

Mawwage. Mawwage is what bwings us togethaw today.... Have you the wing? - The Princess Bride

My wife and I watch a show on PBS called Downton Abbey. It’s a drama wherein the main characters live through a major event in history - WWI. Mary, the damsel in distress, is caught between two worlds. There is the old world - represented by her grandmother - where aristocratic women marry for heritage, power and position. Then there is the emerging world - represented by the younger sister and her undetermined relationship with the chauffeur - where social lines once dark and bold are now permeable and faded. The possibility of marrying for love regardless of social class presents itself into the old world while in the lower class marriage for duty emerges suddenly (Daisy the kitchen maid fulfilling the dying wish of William). Mary is caught in the change, trying to understand the balance between personal emotion and social responsibility in her world where everything is changing, including marriage.

Yes, the story is fictional, but it provides an entertaining example about one of the central qualities to the institution of marriage – it changes. Marriage is not a concrete form of relationship that has served only one purpose or comes in one package throughout the history of humanity. Marriage is subject to change and is moldable to have meaning and purpose for a variety of contexts. In one world people marry for power and position. In another, people marry for love. In another, people marry to have children. Thus, we should ever be mindful of the shifting plate on which marriage rests (Note: This does not scratch the surface of the diversity of marriage relationships that have existed in the world. For example, matriarchal societies. Also, the tribes of Israel emerge not from one man and one woman(Gen. 35:22-26), and polygamy in the early LDS Church).

Is there a constant? Is there a variable in marriage that is the same no matter what the context? Does this constant define the purpose of marriage?

Is Procreation the Constant?

Does the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth serve as the divine instruction to access the very ethos of marriage? Well, it is for many couples, but not all couples can procreate. I want to be sensitive to those that may have lived through this experience. I can only imagine the struggle of being denied children by uncontrollable factors. So if a couple cannot have children, does the marriage dissolve? Does the couple separate, accepting that the central tenet of marriage (procreation) is unachievable? Of course not (I hope not). The relationship is not determined by the ability to procreate. The love is based on something deeper than the ability to have children. In fact, the situation brings many couples closer. A stronger connection forms wherein love is clearly not determined by the ability to procreate. If the only reason you are with someone is because they can produce babies or because they have active sperm, that’s a pretty shallow relationship. That’s like telling your wife she’s nothing more than a baby maker, or telling your husband he’s a sperm bank. Human relationships are more personal than that. It doesn’t seem like procreation is the constant variable in marriage. If it were, then God is setting up many couples to never access it, and I don’t think God would set people up for failure (1 Nephi 3:7).

I’m not arguing that procreation is no longer important as a reason for marriage, or that God is ambivalent to this function in the marriage relationship. There is a valid expectation for a couple to have children. But I simply want to stress that procreation is not possible for all people, and thus serves as a possibility in many marriage relationships, but is not the constant. God gives marriage as something special for all of humanity, and in this special relationship there is meaning, companionship, and love. Children may or may not be part of the marriage. Either way, the marriage is to go on, uniting two people in a bond deeper than procreative ability.   

What is the constant variable in marriage if it’s not procreation? What is at the core of marriage that makes it an important part of life and existence? I turn to a sampling of scriptures that I hope will be helpful in answering these questions.

Genesis 2:18-25

While it’s true that Adam chose Eve, it’s also true that Adam chose Eve, meaning that he had options. In verse 18 God declares that it’s not good for man to be alone, and therefore God makes a helper. Verse 19 begins with “So ...” demonstrating that the proceeding versus are connected with this intent of God to create a helper for Adam. So does God create Eve? Eventually. First, he makes a bunch of animals, allowing Adam to name them, look at them, even judge them as possible helpers, “but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner.” (Note: ‘helper’ does not mean someone to make babies. Adam is looking for companionship. One can have companionship without making babies). At this point God pulls a rib from Adam and makes Eve. Adam chooses Eve as his helper: “This is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman, for out of Man this one was taken.” And this helps explain why men and women come together in the bonds of what we call matrimony (vss. 24-25). The point I would like to make is that Adam got to participate in this process of choosing his helper. God supplies Adam freedom to choose and options to choose from. I would like to stress also that the idea of helper does not automatically mean, ‘baby maker.’ The underlining concern is for Adam to have companionship - to not be alone in this world.

Hosea

Hosea is commanded by God to marry a prostitute (How’d you like the prophet gettin’ that revelation?). Well it functions as an analogy to describe the relationship of Israel and God. No, God’s not the prostitute. Israel has been ‘sleeping’ with idols, being unfaithful to its ‘husband’, God. But this is the part that strikes me. God remains faithful to Israel: “On that day, says the Lord, you [Israel] will call me, ‘My husband,’ and no longer will you call me, ‘My Baal’...; and I will make you lie down in safety. And I will take you for my wife forever; I will take you for my wife in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love, and in mercy. I will take you for my wife in faithfulness; and you shall know the Lord” (2:16-20). So in this relationship, God is not focused on Isreal’s ability to reproduce. What upsets God is Israel’s unfaithfulness. God will take the unfaithful Israel and make her his wife in righteousness, justice, steadfast love, mercy, and faithfulness (Ezekiel 16 conveys a similar message).

Hebrews 13:4-7

In this passage I find a similar theme of faithfulness in marriage and as a quality of God.

“Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral. Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, ‘Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you.’ So we say with confidence, ‘The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid. What can human beings do to me?’ Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.”

What I gather from this sampling of scriptures (not exhaustive, I know) are three things: 1) Marriage is not about choosing a sexual partner alone. It is about companionship; finding a helper in this difficult world; 2) God creates, endowing his creation with freedom to choose; 3) God is concerned with the faithfulness of his people and utilizes marriage as an appropriate metaphor to illustrate this neglected quality. God wants faithfulness both in our relationships with each other and with God.

Homosexuals and the Law of Chastity

According to the law of chastity (as I understand it), heterosexual people are not to engage in sexual activity until after marriage. Sexual activities are restricted to the monogamous relationship formed in and after the marriage ceremony. Homosexuals are held to the same standard. They too can only marry a person of the opposite sex and engage in sexual activities with that one person after the marriage ceremony. If a heterosexual or homosexual person cannot marry, they are to remain celibate for life. So if a homosexual finds the love of their life in someone of the same sex, too bad. Either remain celibate for life or marry as the heterosexual does.

Let’s reverse the roles. What if the law of chastity only allowed for sexual activity after marriage of exclusively homosexual couples? Heterosexual people are either to remain celibate or marry someone of the same gender in order to enter into a valid marriage covenant. If this scenario were true, I would break the law. I am a proud woman-lover and to deny that fact would be to deny my very biology, the very thing God made me to be. In this hypothetical I would be the one waving the rainbow flag, demanding for equality and the right to marry the woman I love. Straight pride!

When I reverse the roles and put myself in the shoes of homosexuals, I completely see the double standard that exists today: Heterosexual couples can marry for love, but homosexuals can’t. Why would God not want me, or anyone for that matter, to choose a companion in the freedom divinely bestowed on humanity since the Garden of Eden? If marriage was exclusively centered on procreation, then I could maybe see the ban placed on homosexual marriage. But then we would need to remain consistent and either not allow marriage between people that cannot procreate or dissolve the marriage when a couple discovers they cannot have children of their own. I'm not willing to do either. The love between two heterosexual people is real, even if they cannot have children. I would never destroy that. Likewise, I would never want to come between the love of two homosexual people just because they cannot have children of their own. Their love is just as real as the love I have for my wife.      

Conclusion

We are living in an interesting time of change. It is much like Downton Abbey, where dark bold lines are now permeable. At one point in our culture, interracial marriage was impossible, and now, thank God, most of us can see past skin color. So what else will cross the line? It seems gender is no longer a limiting factor that restricts the formation of deep meaningful and long lasting relationships. No longer does the color of skin stop the budding of love between two people, and we now wonder if marriage is possible for homosexuals.

Marriage is a covenantal relationship between two people and God; a relationship based on love, respect, mercy, forgiveness, and faithfulness. It is a relationship where God is steadfast and faithful in binding the couple together, walking with them in their lives as partners. Each person in the marriage personifies the love and faithfulness of God as best as humanly possible in service and honor to the other. We make God’s love and faithfulness palpable. Faithfulness, the quality of marriage that many heterosexual couples struggle to uphold, is the constant of marriage. Faithfulness defines the marriage relationship. Without it, the marriage crumbles. With it, the love is made real and manifest. Marriage through the ages has changed in so many ways, but there is the constant expectation in its many forms of faithfulness.

Forgive one another.
Respect one another.
Love one another.
Grow together.
Be faithful.

Will Mary embrace her love for Matthew?

Search Ponder Pray Repeat