Friday, July 5, 2013

HOW LONG?

How Long?

How long before they make me a devil?
How long before you won't let me hold you?
How long before love is conditional?
How long before my worth drops out of view?

Now, in love and peace I rock you to sleep.
How long before you think me unworthy?
Now, my baby I hold, sweet dream so deep.
How long before I must earn your mercy?

But I know our love, greater than they say.
A pure bond joins us, unchained, free of claim.
We'll strive together for this love to stay.
Oh please, sweet child, hold me free of this pain.

Born free of judgement, faith brings other to life.
How long before faith makes me other, your strife?

Search, Ponder, Pray and Repeat

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

THE WIVES OF JOSEPH SMITH: EMMA HALE SMITH

This is the beginning of a series of posts recording the author's exploration into the wives of Joseph Smith. These are summaries of the information the author has compiled and is in no way exhaustive. The author has enjoyed the opportunity to learn more about his faith heritage and hopes this will be as enjoyable a read for you as it was for the author to research and write. More detailed resources about these women can be found under the 'LDS Resources' page. 
 
 

Her father, Isaac Hale, allowed Joseph Smith to board at his home while Smith worked for a nearby farmer, Josiah Stowell. Joseph Smith had a simple task as a hired hand: search for, locate, and dig up the hidden treasures buried in the land. Specifically, this team of treasure hunters searched for a silver mine, rumored to be protected and hidden by the spirits of those who first inhabited the land. It was this magic world view, a world paradigm that included a strong belief in the reality of demons, spirits, and hidden treasures, that initiated Joseph Smith's travels to Harmony, Pennsylvania. Without a sincere belief in hidden treasures to be unearthed through hard work, peep stones and even special magical incantations, Joseph Smith would likely never have met his first wife, Emma Hale.  

It was 1825 when Emma first met the itinerant treasure-hunter living in her home. Emma was 21 years old; Joseph Smith was 20 years old. I can't help but interject my internal question: What did Isaac Hale think would happen?

No treasure was found, and Joseph would return to his home near Palmyra, New York. He did not forget Emma Hale, and would frequently return to the farm in Harmony, Pennsylvania to court the fair skinned young woman. She was to become his wife, but not without opposition. Isaac Hale oppposed the budding love between his daughter and the prospect-less treasure hunter. It was a hapless career path, and as a protective father, Isaac Hale wished only the best for his daughter. Twice Smith would ask Hale for his daughter in marriage, each time met with a refusal. Isaac Hale's opposition to marriage met with explicit defiance on January 17, 1827, when the poor farm boy and his damsel rode away on horseback. They would elope in South Bainbridge, New York the next day. They went to live at the home of Joseph Smith's parents near Palmyra, New York.

The fallout between Joseph and his in-laws was inevitable. He had stolen away their daughter, defying the multiple refusals of Isaac Hale to allow the marriage to take place. The newly weds returned to Harmony to retrieve Emma's things and attempt a reconciliation with her parents. It was then that Joseph Smith swore off the profession of treasure hunting.

THE BOOK OF MORMON AND THE PAIN OF LOSS

That same year on September 22, Emma accompanied her husband to a hill near Palmyra. She stayed with the cart and horses while Smith ascended the hill. When he returned to the cart, he carried something wrapped in his coat, something that Emma would only later be able to touch, never to actually see with her own eyes - the gold plates. These were Ancient writings of the inhabitants of America, written on gold leafs, bound like a three ring binder, and protected by the power of God. Enscribed on the gold plates were the history, theology, and revelations of the original inhabitants of America. Joseph was to be the translator of this record and Emma his scribe.

The translation process did not begin until December 1827 after Joseph and Emma moved to Harmony, Pennsylvania. Emma's parents helped the young couple by purchasing a home in the area. In their new home, Joseph began to translate the gold plates utilizing a special form of vision and inspiration. Emma later described the translation process as such: "In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us." Joseph utilized seer stones, the same ones he used for treasure hunting, placed in a hat over which he would place his face to block out any light. With his face in his hat, the words of this sacred text - the golden plates - would appear on the stones in plain English. While Joseph read vocally what he saw in the stones, Emma would write down his words. The golden plates would lie on the table, closed and covered by a cloth during this process, or would not be within proximity.

The frailty of life was inescapable for the Smith family despite this time of divine inspiration. Emma gave birth to the Smith's first son, Alvin, on June 15, 1828. It was over a year since the couple eloped, but their first child would only live for a few hours.

In May 1829, Joseph and Emma moved to live with David Whitmer in Fayette, New York. The Book of Mormon was finished and published in March 1830.

1830-1839: FAITH, HOMELESSNESS AND EXPULSION

Emma was baptized on June 28, 1830 as a member of the newly formed Church of Christ in Colesville, New York. It was only three months previous that Joseph Smith founded the Church of Christ, and it was just a few weeks after her baptism that Joseph would be tried for 'glass looking' under South Bainridge laws which prohibited the practice. He was exonerated from the charges. Emma would soon after receive a revelation from the Lord through her husband, wherein she was forgiven of her sins and called an 'elect lady.' She was commissioned to compile a collection of hymns for the newly formed Church.

The Smiths were homeless. They returned to Harmony to live with Emma's parents, but the inner-family tension lead them to an itinerant lifestyle living with members of the church. They moved back to the Whitmer's home in Fayette, then to the Whitney's home in Kirtland, Ohio, then to a cabin owned by Isaac Morley. Slightly a year after the Church of Christ was formed, and practically homeless and reliant on the goodwill of members of the Church, Emma gave birth to twins, Thaddeus and Louisa on April 30, 1831. They both died only a few hours after birth. In the span of three years, Emma saw three of her children die, all three passing away only hours after they entered the world.

The same day that Emma lost the twins in childbirth, Julia Clapp Murdock also died, she passing away while giving birth to twins. The widowed father, John Murdock gave the twins, Joseph and Julia, to Emma and Joseph Smith. The Smiths with their two adopted children moved to John Johnson's home on September 2, 1831. The adopted son, Joseph would die of pneumonia in March of 1832. By the time the adopted Joseph dies, Emma has lost four children - three biological and one adopted - in the span of four years. At this point, only Louisa is left as the surviving child of the Smith family. She would greet the coming of a younger brother, Joseph Smith III on November 6, 1832. Young Joseph, as he was called, was born in the Whitney's home in Kirtland, Ohio. He would live to adulthood, the first of Emma's biological children to do so. Emma would also bring into the world Frederick Granger William Smith on June 29, 1836.

Emma would play a role in the further development of church teachings and practices. Emma completed the first hymnal of the church published in 1836. It was while in Kirtland during the early 1830's that Emma voiced her annoyance of the men's use of tobacco and excessive drinking. She reqested that Joseph pray to God and ask for instruction on the proper dietary guidelines that the members of the Church of Christ were to follow. What came as response would come to be known as the Word of Wisdom, a guideline for all the saints to follow as wise dietary council with the promise of blessings from heaven.

It was in the early 1830's that rumors of polygamy began to spread concerning the Mormons. By 1832 Mormon missionaries converted members of the Cochranite movement, the founder, Jacob Cochran having gone into hiding for his illegal polygamist practices. Those that converted from the Cochranite movement to become Mormons made their way to Kirtland, Ohio. The inclusion of Cochranite converts, along with rumors concerning Joseph Smith's marriage to Fanny Alger, led to quick rebuttal by the prophet and the Church. A revelation in 1835 was published in the Church's Doctrine and Covenants:

Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.

The rumors of Joseph Smith's involvement in polygamy squarley faced Emma's disdain for the practice. Emma would spend the rest of her married life to Joseph battling with the "new and everlasting covenant" that would be made official, yet still secret from the public, in 1843. Even then, when Joseph showed Emma the revelation in print (D&C 132), she did not believe it.

It is important to note that Emma's prophet-husband, Joseph, not only dealt with the sustainment of a fledgling church in Kirtland, Ohio, but also managed to support another major location of saints in Jackson County, Missouri. Between 1830-1838, Joseph spent much of his time traveling back and forth between the two settlements, often leaving Emma to care for the children by herself, all the while dependent on the family she was living with for food, shelter and aid. Even while revelation poured in to the prophet and seer Joseph Smith, the saints in Kirtland were to suffer major financial loss. Joseph Smith made the bold move of starting a banking venture which failed, resulting in many of the saints losing much of their savings and assets. On January 12, 1838 Joseph fled Kirtland to avoid facing charges of fraud and illegal banking. His wife Emma, and her three children, Louisa, young Joseph and Frederick, followed him to the frontier settlement of Far West, Missouri.

It was in Far West, Missouri where Emma gave birth to Alexander Hale Smith on June 2, 1838. They had left Kirtland and hoped for a stable home in Far West, but the 1838 Mormon War - a bloody series of skirmishes between the Mormon settlers in Missouri and their 'gentile,' non-mormon and hostile neighors - left Joseph Smith in prison. Emma, her children and the rest of the Mormon settlers were forced to cross the icy Mississippi River in February 1839 to find a new home in Illinois. Missouri's governor Boggs made clear through an extermination order that Mormons were not welcome in Missouri.

1839-1844: A BEAUTIFUL CITY

Non-mormons John and Sarah Cleveland provided shelter and aid to Emma and her four children in Quincy, Illinois. Emma stayed with the Clevelands until Joseph Smith escaped custody from Missouri officials. Joseph returned to Emma and took his family to a new settlement he named Nauvoo. On May 9, 1839 they moved into a homestead, the first place Emma could call her own home since being married. In 1842, the Smiths would move across the street to live in the Mansion House, which also functioned as a hotel. The Mormon settlement of Nauvoo, Illinois would welcome many visitors and become a beautful city along the Mississippi River.

Nauvoo became the location of many of Joseph's most extreme theological explorations, including the formation of the Anointed Quorum, a select group of men and women who would gather to pray. Emma was a member of the Anointed Quorum. She also became the first president of the Ladies's Relief Society on March 24, 1842. She would lead this group of women to inspire charitable work among the members of the church. The Relief Society also  publicly defended the church, denying and openly speaking against the rumors that polygamy was practiced by top leaders, including her husband. In the summer of 1842 Emma signed a petition that included the signatures of some 1,000 women in the church who swore that Joseph Smith Jr. was not involved in polygamy. In October 1842 Emma authorized the publication of a certificate that denounced the practice of polygamy and stated that Joseph Smith was not the creator or participant of such a practice. By October of 1842, Joseph Smith had married 17 additional women, nine of which were married to other men of the church at the time.

In June of 1844 the Nauvoo Expositor attempted to expose Joseph Smith's polygamist practices, but the printing press was destroyed under order of the town council of which Joseph Smith was a part. Smith was arrested, along with his brother, Hyrum and two other leaders of the church. While waiting trial in Carthage, 200 men stormed the jail  and killed the prophet and his brother. On June 27, 1844, Emma lost her husband.

1844-1879: THE CHURCH AND POST-JOSEPH LIFE


Emma Smith gave birth to David Hyrum Smith on November 17, 1844. Her husband had been killed some four months prior. She had lost four children and now she lost her husband and prophet. Not only was Joseph the president of the church, but he was also the trustee-in-trust, meaning that all of the Smith's property and personal debt were intermingled with the property and debts of the church. Unraveling personal debt and property from church debt and property proved to be a long and financially costly process for Emma.

There was no clear leader of the church, and while Emma favored William Marks to ascend to the role of president and prophet of the church, the general membership favored the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. The favor of the membership of the Quorum made Brigham Young the head of the church. Over time the relationship deteriorated between Emma and Young, and when Young lead the saints West out of Nauvoo in 1846, Emma stayed with her children.

On her deathbed, Emma denied that her husband ever practiced polygamy. She was quoted to have said, "No such thing as polygamy, or spiritual wifery, was taught, publicly or privately, before my husband's death, that I have now, or ever had any knowledge of...He had no other wife but me; nor did he to my knowledge ever have."

Emma remarried in 1847. Her second husband, Major Lewis C. Bidamon, lived in the Mansion House in Nauvoo. He became a stepfather to Emma's five children. There were many Latter-Day Saints who believed Joseph Smith III would ascend to become the rightful prophet. He became the head of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints ('Reorganized' was added to the beginning of the name of the church in 1872, which was later changed to its current name, Community of Christ) on April 6, 1860. Emma became a member of this branch of the Latter-Day Saint movement that her husband originated. She created a hymnal for the new church headed by her son, just as she had done for her husband.

Emma would pass away in Nauvoo, Illinois on April 30, 1879. Her son had the following to say about his mother:

My mother was one of the best poised women I ever met. Of the purest and noblest intentions herself, she never submitted to be made a party to anything low, wrong, or evil, was absolutely fearless where the right was concerned; and was a just and generous mother. Her heart never changed toward her children, and her fidelity to them never wavered. It’s needless to say that we loved her.”

- Joseph Smith III, January 17, 1893

CHILDREN OF EMMA HALE SMITH

Alvin Smith: June 15, 1828 – June 15, 1828

Thaddeus Smith: April 30, 1831 – April 30, 1831

Louisa Smith: April 30, 1831 – April 30, 1831

Joseph Smith Murdock (adopted): April 30, 1831 – March 29, 1832 (10 months)

Julia Murdock Smith (adopted): April 30, 1831 – September 12, 1880(1880-09-12) (age 49)

Joseph Smith III: November 6, 1832 – December 10, 1914(1914-12-10) (age 82)

Frederick Granger William Smith: June 20, 1836 – April 13, 1862(1862-04-13) (age 25)

Alexander Hale Smith: June 2, 1838 – August 12, 1909(1909-08-12) (age 71)

Don Carlos Smith: June 13, 1840 – August 15, 1841 (age 14 months)

Male Child: December 26, 1842 (stillborn)

David Hyrum Smith: November 17, 1844 – August 29, 1904(1904-08-29) (age 59)

TIMELINE OF EMMA HALE SMITH

July 10 1804: Born to Isaac Hale and Elizabeth Lewis Hale in Harmony, Pennsylvania.

1825: First meets Joseph Smith

January 17 1827: Joseph and Emma elope in Bainbridge, New York, move near Palmyra, NY.

September 22 1827: Emma waits with the horses and cart while Joseph ascends the Hill Cumorah and returns with the golden plates.

December 1827: Joseph and Emma move to Harmony, Pennsylvania. Emma becomes a scribe to Joseph Smith during the translation of the Book of Mormon.

June 15 1828: Alvin is born and dies within a few hours.

May 1829: Joseph and Emma travel to Fayette, NY to live with David Whitmer.

March 1830: The Book of Mormon is published.

April 06 1830: Joseph and five other men establish the Church of Christ

June 28 1830: Emma is baptized by Olilver Cowdery

July 1830: Joseph Smith receives revelation (D&C 25) directed to Emma. She is called an elect lady, told to comfort her husband, and to make a collection of hymns for the church.

April 30 1831: Emma gives birth to Thaddeus and Louisa, who die shortly after birth.

May 09 1831: Emma and Joseph adopt Joseph and Julia Murdock.

September 02 1831: The Smith family move to John Johnson's house  in Hiram, Ohio.

March 29 1832: Joseph Smith Murdock dies of pneumonia.

November 06 1832: Emma gives birth to Joseph Smith III in Kirtland while living with the Whitney family.

1833: Joseph Smith prays and receives the 'Word of Wisdom'.

1836: The first publication of A Collection of Sacred Hymns, for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, containing 90 hymns compiled by Emma.

June 20 1836: Emma gives birth to Frederick Granger William Smith.

January 12 1838: Emma and her children flee Kirtland after Joseph's banking venture fails. They travel to Far West, Missouri.

June 02 1838: Emma gives birth to Alexander Hale Smith in Far West, Missouri.

February 1839: Emma and her family cross the frozen Mississippi River to Quincy, Illinois.

May 09 1839: The Smith family move into the Homestead, a two story cabin in Nauvoo, Illinois.

June 13 1840: Emma gives birth to Don Carlos Smith

1841: Emma compiles a second edition of A Collection of Sacred Hymns, for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, this time including over 300 hymns compiled by Emma.

August 15 1841: At 14 months Don Carlos dies.

1842: The Smith family move across the street to the Manion House.

May 24 1842: The Ladies's Relief Society is organized with Emma as the president.

Summer 1842: Emma signs a petition stating that polygamy is not practiced among leaders of the church, including her husband Joseph Smith.

October 1842: Emma signs a certificate denouncing polygamy and denying her husband as a participant and originator.

December 26 1842: Emma gives birth to a male child (stillborn).

July 12 1843: Emma is counseled to be true and faithful in a revelation given to Joseph Smith concerning plural marriage (D&C 132).

March 1844: Emma publishes a statement against John C. Bennett's spiritual wife system.

June 27 1844: Joseph Smith is killed in Carthage Jail.

Novemeber 17 1844: Emma gives birth to David Hyrum Smith

Early 1846: Most of the members of the church follow Brigham Young to the western territory.

December 23 1847: Emma marries Major Lewis C. Bidamon.

April 06 1860: Joseph Smith III is sustaing president of the (Reoganized) Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

1861: Emma compiles and has published Latter Day Saints' Selection of Hymns, collection of hymns for the (Reorganized) Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

April 13 1862: Frederick William Granger Smith dies at age 25. (1862-04-13)

April 30 1879: Emma dies in Nauvoo, Illinois.

Search, Ponder, Pray and Repeat

Thursday, June 13, 2013

HEAVEN: THE ETERNAL CASTE SYSTEM

What’s heaven for you?

Heaven or Hell seems to be our options in orthodox Christianity. You either end up in heaven with God or you end up in Hell with the devil. The Catholics provided us with some additional places, like limbo and purgatory, cause hell wasn’t enough (They got rid of limbo. Can you believe the audacity of changing their doctrine?!). Heaven is reserved for those who have accepted Christ and who are deemed worthy through his self-giving sacrifice to enter the kingdom of God. In the end it is God’s grace that saves you, not your works or good behavior. Catholics still insist you need the sacraments of the church in addition to Jesus, and the Protestants rely wholly on the grace of God, usually taking a more symbolic interpretation of the sacraments. Sacraments and good behavior are your way of living in gratitude for the giving of Jesus who died and suffered for you. Well, there you have it - Christian soteriology in one paragraph. My seminary friends are reeling in agony.

Mormonism offers a variation of this idea of traditional heaven and hell. There is no actual hell (‘cause that’s just absurd). Hell is a state of mind; it is an internal torment of regret and self-pity caused by one’s inaction (inability?) to live up to God’s commandments. There is a heaven in Mormon theology (Hey, they have to keep something, might as well be the good parts). It is a real place you go after you die and are resurrected. Jesus did his part to open up the door to heaven for everyone; Yep, everyone. Everyone gets in. Except for a few who are so obstinate that they refuse to walk in the door opened by Jesus – feminists, homosexuals and intellectuals. Glad to see Weber State naming one of their buildings after Boyd K. Packer, by the way. It’s important to acknowledge the man who helped clarify those destined for outer darkness. Can’t pay too much homage to a man who advised against interracial marriage and is a homophobic bigot. I digress. In Mormonism most everyone gets into heaven.  

So what’s the Mormon heaven like? So Jesus opened the door to let everyone in (Be nice and say thank you). The party place called heaven has three levels of fun, and guess what? There is a time of judgment before you get into the doors. You are judged by God on the actions/inactions of your life. Your judgement determines which level of heaven you get to enjoy. That’s right! Heaven is a three story building with God and his buddies on the top floor and everyone else dispersed on two lower levels. Each level is a party, but of varying quality. Jesus and Joseph Smith are at the door checking ID’s. Let’s see where everyone gets to go.

The lowest level is for the assholes of the world. It’s a party but really lame. It’s better than burning in a literal hell, so you better enjoy an eternity of poorly cooked BBQ weenies and 80’s big-hair rock band music (Isn’t that hell?). The middle level is for people that were nice, but not super-upperdy -duper nice (a.k.a. Baptists). They get a party too, and it’s better than the lower level party, but still kind of lame, mostly because you can hear the really kickin’ party above you. Because you weren’t super-upperdy-good during your fallibly enriched life, you’re stuck on the second level of heaven. You’re still going to have a great time, but you didn’t make it into the top party, so that’s a bummer. The top level party - the best most kickass party - is for the Mormons (I know what you’re thinking.  Mormons throwing a kickass party? Something supernatural must be going on). That’s where God hangs out. He won’t go down to the lower level parties. God hangs out only in his exclusive penthouse at the top of heaven. But unless you think God to be an exclusive twat, He does let other people into his penthouse that aren’t currently Mormons. Other people can get into the kickass party on the third floor after they adopt Mormonism and flash the secret handshakes (You don’t know about the secret handshakes? It’s like what the baseball players do after a homerun, just without the chest bump. They took that part out). It’s kind of like knowing the special code word for getting into a speakeasy during prohibition, except there isn’t any liquor on the other side of the door … ‘cause the place is full of Mormons.  You know, the more I use this party analogy the more I think God’s penthouse party is going to be pretty lame. Maybe Jesus turned the water into wine on level two?

So my irreverence may upset you, but it actually helps illustrate something I admire about the Mormon outlook on heaven. Heaven is a three tiered system in which everyone receives a just recompense for the way they lived and to the degree that they accept “the gospel” or Mormonism. Didn’t get to hear about Mormonism? No problem. You can accept it after you die when you’re a spirit or after you get your body back in the resurrection. Either way, you’ll hear about Jesus, learn about Mormonism, and then when you accept it all, you can come to one of the parties in heaven. You still won’t make it into the top party where God hangs out. It’s a tough place to get in. Something about the path is narrow and you have to cleave to an iron rod (Sounds like pole dancing to me). The really neat thing, and I mean this in all seriousness, is that everyone, at least the vast majority of people get to go to heaven and they‘re  going to be happy. Mormons, I really do like this about your theology. The only people that don’t get to go to heaven are the idiots that won’t even step through the front door. Hey, they didn’t want to come in. Everyone else is welcome and will be happy forever.

Why is this system of heaven considered by some very devout members of the LDS church to be better than the Christian dichotomy of heaven and hell? Answer: God isn’t as big a prick! He’s not sending a bunch of people to the eternal fires of hell for living an imperfect life or for not knowing about Jesus (“Created sick and then commanded to be well.” – Benjamin Franklin). Instead, for the most part, everyone is saved and gets to continue their existence for eternity in a level or degree of happiness. Sounds like a great alternative; at least, it’s an alternative. I for one have acquired too much sympathy for those who suffer to think that my state of happiness in heaven will be justified while I allow others to suffer in the eternal pit of hell. What actions in a mortal lifetime would validate eternal torment? Kill millions of Jews? Drop an atomic bomb on another country? Maybe you voted for Bush? Is there really anything you can do that would justify an eternity of hell? Call me soft, but I don’t think so.

There’s a catch though in Mormon theology. You see, only the Mormons at the top tier of heaven get to enjoy eternity with their families. One of the requirements to get into God’s penthouse party is that you go through a Mormon temple and participate in certain ceremonies and rituals (That's where you learn the handshakes you need to get into the penthouse). Without those specific ceremonies you can’t enjoy eternity with your family. So, you’ll get into heaven, but your family relations somehow disintegrate unless you get into the top level, God’s penthouse. You will continue to exist in one of the lower levels and somehow you’re happy, but the love of your life is no longer yours, and your children somehow stop knowing you as a father or mother. Even the unique bond developed between grandparents and grandchildren vaporizes for those who don’t make it into God’s penthouse. So let’s say your wife gets into God’s penthouse, but you get stuck with BBQ weenies and 80’s rock music. You won’t see her again, at least by your own volition. There’s no party hopping unless you are privy to God’s penthouse, then you can have special privileges to go down to the parties on level one and two. But why would you want to? Even if your earthly husband is in the lowest level, he’s no longer your husband in heaven. What relationship drives you to behave uniquely for a guy who can’t even hold a candle to you in God’s penthouse? There is none. That’s like an incredibly beautiful woman who drives a smoking red Camaro going to the projects to look for a dude who rides an old Schwinn and smokes pot all day. She may go for the pot, but she’s not going for the guy or the Schwinn.   

Don’t worry. You’ll be happy.

Know what? No you won’t. I don’t know any Mormon that is pissing their pants in anticipation to live in India. In India they have a system similar to the Mormon heaven. You have the Brahmins, the most elite, wealthy and educated of society. Top tier folks who can go anywhere, but they typically stick to their Brahmin-hoods. Then there’s the Kshatriya on level two and the Vaishya on level three. On the bottom of the food chain in India are the Shudra. Guess how you become a Brahmin? A deity of Hinduism has placed you through birth into this tier because of the karma you produced in a previous life. Same goes for the other tiers of this system of society. You are born a Brahmin and your privilege is based on superstitious beliefs inherited through a superstitious society. Sound familiar? The point I would like to make is this: I know of no Mormon jumping for joy at the idea of participating at any level in the caste system of India, yet Mormons somehow think desirable the eternal caste system of Mormon soteriology. Thank you for getting rid of eternal hell-fire, but replacing it with an eternal caste system?
 
This is not just a caste system where at the very least you have your family. Oh no, this eternal caste system includes the certain demise of the world’s families so that only the penthouse Brahmins can have families. Sorry guys, but If you got rid of hell to replace it with a caste system you don’t solve the problem of presenting God’s judgment as just. You mean to tell me that because the family next door to you doesn’t know the secret handshakes of the Mormon temple their family relationships will disintegrate for eternity? Does that really seem like a just judgment of their life? They spend a lifetime together in deep relationship and genuine love, overcoming the harsh world that tries to tear them asunder, and God is going to surprise them with the eternal gift of eternal separation? Some of these families spend their life in collective devotion to Jesus, but God needs the Mormon fist-bump to let them stay together as a family in heaven? For me, the lasting love of our relationships is not contingent on a set of mystical rituals that involve special phrases or special handshakes. God is not going to let you in to his party, not because you were a jerk to your kids, cheated on your wife, killed and raped dozens of women and voted for Bush, but because you didn't know the handshakes. Does that really seem just? Not to mention merciful, full of grace, good, loving, the act of a father whose best attribute is steadfast love? Not to mention, reasonable, sane, even desirable as a system of an eternal society? I’ll answer that one for you, since you may be trying to justify God’s assholism. No.

India has become and will continue to become more democratic, with the lines of Brahmins and Shudra blurring more and more. Why would they want democracy and equality? Why would they want their caste system overturned? Because the human creature can only truly love in complete freedom. Freedom is the fundamental prerequisite to love, and a soul cooped up in the lowest or middle levels of heaven is nothing more than enslaved, caught in a system that limits their ability to express love to other souls and express love to even their God. Most important for the Mormon-Brahmins to consider is that by supporting a system that petrifies others in a state of eternal limitation, you compromise your own ability to live in freedom and therefore love.  Interlaced in love, freedom empowers us to look on the other as simply an extension of ourselves; a creature worth lifting up out of the trappings of a societal system that encourages apathy. Happiness is nothing more than the reinforcing and constant presence of unfettered love. Happiness is knowing that you are loved and that you can love freely, genuinely, and without restriction. When you think of heaven, do you really think of a societal system  in which your place and the place of everyone else is determined for eternity solely based on an incredibly unfair, fallible, made-to-screw-up-from-day-one mortal existence? Do you really desire that level of impermanence for you and your brothers and sisters of humanity? I can just imagine that monologue from the bouncer standing at the door of God’s penthouse:

Sorry Billy, you can only roam around level two for eternity. I know, I know. You’re bored as hell and would really like to continue in your eternal existence with some actual purpose and ability to progress. And I know you have some loved ones in the penthouse that you would love to see. They gave your life meaning and you cared for them with copious amounts of devotion. Hell, you even worked your ass off just so they could have a roof over their head and food on the table, all for them. You know better than I that you didn’t work that job for your personal development. You can’t see them. You can't see them for eternity. You can’t even leave the level two party room. Isn’t heaven great?!

The idea that an eternal caste system is somehow equated to heaven is erroneous. Even Mormons know this. Ask any of them if they want to go to the parties on levels one and two, and they’ll tell you no. Why? Because they know as well as anyone that the only real heaven is with your loved ones. Anything less is hell. And to think you’re going to be happy in the penthouse while a loved one is cursed to spend the rest of eternity in some lower degree is absurd. If you have any sympathy in your bones, or any love of freedom, there’s no way you will be content - no matter how sweet the penthouse - knowing all the while your loved one spends eternity in a 'heaven' of restrictions and seperation from you. Look at me! I enjoy complete freedom in God’s penthouse while my loved one is stuck in a societal system that stifles his eternal progression! And not only do I benefit from this system, I applaud it! There is no justice in damning people to lower levels of heaven for the conduct of their mortal existence, unless they voted for Bush. Well, okay, even they should be given mercy, lots and lots of it. In Mormonism, God still comes off as a jerk, but this time he’s selling slurpees to Bart Simpson. 

What’s heaven for you?

Sunday morning I woke up and wondered what it would be like to die. This wasn’t a thought into what it would be like to go to heaven or meet God. That experience would be something like, “Damn, sorry about denying your existence. My bad. Coffee?” No, it was the thought of experiencing death; consciousness slipping into the cold of a sleep-like darkness never to wake. How strange a paradox: I wake up fully alive in the morning only to contemplate the act of dying, slipping into never-ending night.

Guess what I did? I decided I wanted pancakes. I decided I wanted to go to IHOP with my children and eat pancakes with them. Normally on a Sunday I would throw aside this sinful desire to spend money on the Sabbath, but freedom when fully embraced simply embraces you back, reminding you that it is there, always, even when feared. It was just me and the kids, and like the barrage of noise and excitement that we are, we stepped into IHOP. We came, we ate, we made a mess, we laughed (yeah, even the high strung author laughed). There is something so beautiful about a syrupy smile from your three year old daughter with a dash of whip cream on her nose.

I asked my oldest what she thought heaven would be like. She gave me a look of curiosity, probably never having thought of the question. In the syrup-coated chaos of breakfast I volleyed my question to her: What’s heaven for you? She didn’t have a reply. I told her, I was already there.

We did a special high five, followed by a low five, a fist bump, with a super explosion of our hands. It’s our secret handshake and the only one that matters.
 
Search, Ponder, Pray and Repeat    

Saturday, February 16, 2013

DOXOLOGY (1890)

Doxology (1890)

Great God accept our gratitude,
For the great gifts on us bestowed -
For Raiment, shelter and for food.

Great God, our gratitude we bring,
Accept our humble offering,
For all the gifts on us bestowed,
Thy name be evermore adored.

James Melvin Washington, Conversations with God: Two Centuries of Prayers by African Americans, (New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers), 1994.

Saturday, February 9, 2013

A BENEDICTION FOR A PEACEFUL SOUL (1889)

A Benediction for a Peaceful Soul (1889)

May the Lord save you from any painful regrets when the reaping time shall come. But may you all have so lived, that no arrow from God's quiver of justice can pierce your soul, nor mountain of guilt sink you down.

But may you all find your portion, with the redeemed and sanctified out of every nation, tongue and people, around the burnished throne of God, with everlasting shouts of joy and praise upon your lips. Amen.

 James Melvin Washington, Conversations with God: Two Centuries of Prayers by African Americans, (New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers), 1994.

Wednesday, February 6, 2013

A PRAYER FOR THE MOURNER'S BENCH (1867)

A Prayer for the Mourner's Bench (1867)
An Anonymous "Colored" Woman
 
 
O Father Almighty, O sweet Jesus, most glorified King, will you be so pleased to come dis way and put you eye on dese poor mourners? O sweet Jesus, ain't you the Daniel God? Didn't you deliber de tree [three] chillun from the fiery furnis? Didn't you heah [hear] Jonah cry in de belly ub de whale? O, if dere be one seekin' mourner her dis afternoon, if dere be one sinkin' Peter, if dere be one weepin' Mary, if dere be one doubtin' Thomas, won't you be pleased to come and deliber 'em? Won't you mount your Gosepl hoss, an' ride roun' de souls of dese yere mourners, and say, "Go in peace and sin no moah?" Don't you be so pleased to come wid de love in one han' and de fan in de odder han', to fan away doubts? Won't you be so pleased to shake dese here souls over hell, an' not let 'em fall in! [Amen.]

- James Melvin Washington, Conversations with God: Two Centuries of Prayers by African Americans, (New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers), 1994.
 


Sunday, February 3, 2013

A PROPHET'S PLEA TO GOD (1829)

A PROPHET'S PLEA TO GOD (1829)
O! save us, we pray thee, thou God of Heaven and of earth, from the devouring hands of the white Christians!!!
Oh! thou Alpha and Omega!
The Beginning and the end,
Enthron'd thou art, in Heaven above,
Surrounded by Angels there.
From whence thou seest the miseries
To which we are subject;
The whites have murder'd us, O God!
And kept us ignorant of thee.
Not satisfied with this, my Lord!
They throw us in the seas:
Be pleas'd, we pray, for Jesus' sake,
To save us from their grasp.
We believe that, for thy glory's sake,
Thou wilt deliver us;
But that thou may'st effect these things,
Thy glory must be sought.
James Melvin Washington, Conversations with God: Two Centuries of Prayers by African Americans, (New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers), 1994.



Friday, February 1, 2013

A SLAVE WOMAN'S PRAYER (1816)

A SLAVE WOMAN'S PRAYER (1816)
{Stephen Hays}

O Lord, bless my master. When he calls upon thee to damn his soul, do not hear him, do not hear him, but hear me - save him - make him know he is wicked, and he will pray to thee.

I am afraid, O Lord, I have wished him bad wishes in my heart - keep me from wishing him bad - though he whips me and beats me sore, tell me of my sins, and make me pray more to thee - make me more glad for what thou hast done for me, a poor [N]egro.

James Melvin Washington, Conversations with God: Two Centuries of Prayers by African Americans, (New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers), 1994.

Monday, January 28, 2013

A PRAYER FOR THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY

A PRAYER FOR THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY (1813)
George Lawrence

And, O! thou father of the universe and disposer of events, thou that called from a dark and formless mass this fair system of nature, and created thy sons and daughters to bask in the golden streams and rivulets contained therein; this day we have convened under thy divine auspices, it's not to celebrate a political festivity, or the achievement of arms by which the blood of thousands were spilt, contaminating thy pure fields with human gore! but to commemorate a period brought to light by thy wise counsel, who stayed the hand of merciless power; and with hearts expanded with gratitude for thy providences, inundated in the sea of thy mercies, we farther crave thy fostering care. O! wilt thou crush that power that still holds thousands of our brethren in bondage, and let the sea of thy wisdom wash its very dust from off the face of the earth; let Liberty unfurl her banners, Freedom and Justice reign triumphant in the world, universally.



James Melvin Washington, Conversations with God: Two Centuries of Prayers by African Americans, (New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers), 1994.

Sunday, January 20, 2013

Jane Manning: Your Humble and Eternal Servant

Jane Elizabeth Manning James was born September 22, 1822 in Fairfield County, Conneticut. She was born a free woman, certainly a precious status to anyone that could already see the precursors of civil war. She became a member of the LDS church in 1841, and  in 1843 traveled with her family to the meeting place of the saints, Nauvoo, Illinois. In describing her journey to Nauvoo, Jane said, "Our feet cracked open and bled until you could see the whole prints of our feet with blood on the ground." How sweet it must have felt to also record this precious memory: "Brother Joseph sat down by me and said, 'God bless you. You are among friends.'" Both lines are a testament to Jane's faith and will to endure, characteristics she shared with fellow LDS pioneers. No doubt, she felt honored to live in the same home as the Smith family.

Joseph Smith was killed on June 27, 1844, giving Jane approximately one year to enjoy the presence of the prophet of the restoration. Soon, Jane was back on the trail headed west, becoming the first recorded African-American woman to enter the Utah territory in 1847. She had eight children with her husband, Isaac James, who eventually left her in 1869. Maybe it was the departure of her husband that reminded Jane of the finitude of life and  the terminality of our familial relationships. All around her fellow members of the church entered into sacred covenants to ensure that in the next life they would be together as a family forever. She, a faithful Mormon, who traversed the plains and left her fair share of blood on the rocky soil, wanted what her fellow saints had - the surety that she would be with her children in the next life.

Jane petitioned the church leaders to allow her, a black woman, receive the sacred endowment and be sealed to a worthy man. Jane approached Walker Lewis, a black man who was ordained an Elder under the leadership of Joseph Smith. Jane hoped that Lewis, being an Elder, would be considered worthy to go through the temple, and that she and her children could be sealed to Lewis, ensuring their survival as a family for the rest of eternity. Her requests were repeatedly denied.

Jane's first husband died in 1891, breaking open a once forgotten avenue for her family's eternal unity. She remembered Emma Smith, the wife of the prophet, who told her that she could be sealed to the Smith family as one of their children. Through adoption Jane could connect herself to a priesthood holder, the prophet, and ensure her eternal welfare. Jane sought to take advantage of the invitation for eternal adoption into the Smith family. Her request was denied.

Instead, the First Presidency of the LDS church devised a unique alternative to adoption. Jane could be sealed to Joseph Smith as his servant.The church would create a special ceremony for just that purpose. This special ceremony that bound Jane to the prophet for time and all eternity took place on May 18, 1894. Joseph F. Smith represented Joseph Smith as his proxy during the ceremony. Bathsheba W. Smith stood in place for Jane. Jane was not allowed to participate in her own, specially made, sacred ceremony because of the color of her skin and the associated LDS teachings of the time. Even alive, Jane would only know of the sweetness of the sealing power of the temple through proxy.

Jane was dissatisfied with the ceremony, but further petitions fell on deaf ears. Jane lived the rest of her life in Salt Lake City, UT. She was eventually let in the temple to perform baptisms for the dead. Near the end of her life Jane wrote, "And I want to say right here that my faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ of Latter‑day Saints is as strong today–nay it is if possible stronger–than it was the day I was first baptized. I pay my tithes and offerings, keep the Word of Wisdom. I go to bed early and arise early. I try in my feeble way to set a good example to all."

Jane died April 16, 1908.

On-Line Source Material

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Elizabeth_Manning_James.

http://mormonthink.com/blackweb.htm#servant.

http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech10a.htm.

http://www.blacklds.org/manning.

http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=438. (On-line book, Neither White Nor Black) 

Thursday, June 28, 2012

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

Saturday, June 16, 2012

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

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

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

Friday, May 11, 2012

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.

Tuesday, May 1, 2012

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

Sunday, April 1, 2012

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 

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

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        

Friday, March 16, 2012

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