Mormon Musings

Christian in Word or Deed?

2012-01-22T13:34:00.000-06:00

I went to Church today. Unfortunately, I didn't actually get to attend. Why? Church got cancelled. It's not like we knew this ahead of time. When my husband and I got to the meetinghouse we discovered the parking lot to be empty.

Since there had been some ice, we assumed that must be the reason. Disappointed, we headed back home. We only got a few yards before we slid down the top of the little hill on the street the Church is on. None of my husband's maneuverings helped. We don't have 4-wheel drive but we do have limited slip differential on our truck. No luck. We had to simply stop trying. We nearly hit a mailbox of one of the residents.

The residents in question came out to help but with their driveway a sheet of ice the only thing they could do was speak loudly from from their garage door.

My husband ordered me to not get out of the truck because of the ice. He punctuated this by slipping and falling down hard himself. Luckily, he doesn't seem to have sustained any permanent injury.

Only having resided in the area a little over six months we didn't know who or what to call. A lady, one of the local residents couldn't find the names of our Home Teachers, a local member or anyone else in the local phone directory. Finally, we asked her to call our Bishop's home. After doing so, she reported that they lived in the country and hadn't been able to get out themselves for two days and couldn't help us.

Not having cell phones and not having our Trak phone with us, we were helpless to call anyone ourselves. Just having someone recommend, or look up contact information, for a local towing truck would have been nice. The local resident did do that for us.

We asked her if she could call our Bishop back and ask if any local members could possibly help us or recommend someone, or something, that could. She reported back, and get this, the Bishop refused to come to the phone.

Meanwhile, a woman driving a 4-wheel drive SUV came over the hill, past us and into the Church parking lot. She obviously knew no more than we did about Church being cancelled. When she angled back, my husband flagged her down and stopped her. She turned out to be a relative of the Bishop. She promised to call some local members to come help us. She left and was able to make it over the hill we had slid down.

She eventually came back and reported that some local church members would be coming out to see what they could do for us and then left.

As we sat in our vehicle discussing options, we saw a Sheriff's department cruiser atop the hill. A deputy got out and carefully made his way down to us over all the ice. On his suggestions and assistance, and some salt from a local resident, we got unstuck and were able to make it over the hill. Before leaving, we stopped to convey our thanks to the officer.

When we got home, we called the Church people to report that we were home safe and to thank them for their willingness to help us. One of the women was astonished that no one from Church had called us to tell us about Church being cancelled. She reported that she and her husband had received "12-15 calls" themselves.

I've complained about being out of the information loop before. This experience has reinforced it.

One email could have alerted us that Church was cancelled and it could have been so effortless if done through the Church's web site/email network. I'm not suggesting that the phone tree should be replaced, just augmented. Obviously, it didn't work for us this time.

I keep screaming about people on the information fringe being ignored and/or overlooked. I have to wonder if anyone is listening.

Should we have known Church was cancelled? Should we have guessed?

How could we? We went shopping last night and drove all over Mooresville and Plainfield. We had no trouble driving. The streets were clear. We had no trouble driving to Church except for the street the Church is located on.

Since then, we've discovered some interesting things. The entrance to that street marks the end of city boundaries. That's why the road had not been salted or sanded. That is why it was so slippery.

Our ward just celebrated it's 50th year of being in existence. Many people have been in it for that length of time. If we had, or had at least spent a winter here, we may have known about the peculiarities of the street the Church resides on.

But we didn't. We're new.

Being new also prevents us from knowing a lot of names in the ward or knowing about tow truck services. This hampered our ability to help ourselves.

If we were old timers in the ward maybe we would have received 12-15 calls about church being cancelled. But, we didn't receive one. Not one.

We haven't received any calls or contact since we made it home after our harrowing morning either. Nothing.

This is horribly alienating and isolating.

During this election year, Evangelicals keep claiming that Mormons aren't Christian. Today, I'm a bit inclined to agree with them.

Antichrists in The Book of Mormon: Part 10: A New Theory of Sherem

2012-01-15T09:00:00.000-06:00

This is a new theory of Sherem.

I have carefully researched all references to Sherem in Church publications, gospel commentary, Conference addresses and more and, to my knowledge, this theory has never been proffered before.

Remember, I'm telling you this up front. It is new and it is a theory.

First, let's review the pertinent facts, all from Jacob, chapter 7. Sherem sought a conversation with Jacob who was presumably considered a prophet and/or a church leader (verses 3, 6). Sherem addressed Jacob as "Brother Jacob" (verse 6). Sherem believed in the Law of Moses just not the doctrine of Christ (verse 7). Sherem also claimed to believe in the scriptures (verse 10) but seemed to have his own peculiar interpretation of them. Sherem was afraid he had committed the "unpardonable sin" (verse 19).

I think Sherem was a member of the Church.

Is this why the story of Sherem was included in the Book of Mormon? Is it so that we can be alert to the antichrists that can be found within our own ranks?

Why else would Sherem address Jacob as "Brother"? Also, he wasn't trying to build his own Church like Nehor or shift people to secularism like Korihor. He professed to be a believer and a righteous one. He was ostensibly worried that false doctrine was being taught in the Church.

How could Sherem possibly know about the "unpardonable sin," or fear committing it, unless he was a member?

The Book of Mormon was written for our day. It contains instruction for us. The story of Sherem must have modern relevance or it wouldn't have been included in that sacred book.

Do we have antichrists in the Church now? If so, who are they and where are they?

We have to go back to the story of Sherem in order to find our answers.

Sherem does not appear to be trying to set up his own Church or overtly deflect people away from it. He was operating from inside it although he obviously wasn't a true believer or, more likely, had ceased to be one at some point.

He was teaching his own interpretation of the scriptures which did not coincide with scriptures, Church leaders or Church teachings. Sherem's teachings served to deflect people away from Christ and His gospel. He perverted the actual gospel by teaching his own views.

Put this way, I can think of a lot of modern day Sherem's. Can you?

Antichrists in The Book of Mormon: Part 9: Sherem and Jacob

2012-01-08T09:33:00.000-06:00

Sherem, the last antichrist I'll discuss, was actually the first one to appear in the Book of Mormon. I'll paraphrase from Jacob 7 where the story of Sherem is found. See the video above or at this link.

Sherem was highly learned and skilled in all aspects of language, speech and flattery. He taught that there was no Christ. He believed in the scriptures, or so he said, but insisted that the Law of Moses was the true gospel which had nothing to do with Christ. Teaching Christ was blasphemy.

He convinced a lot of people and worked very hard at countering what he though was incorrect doctrine.

Sherem had the misfortune to contend with the prophet Jacob who did him in. Jacob countered all of Sherem's teachings and refuted his desire for a sign, much the way Alma did later when Koriohor demanded one.

Sherem was struck dumb, repudiated his former teachings and died.

Next week, I'll present a new and novel theory about Sherem.

Antichrists in The Book of Mormon: Part 8: "Signs Enough"

2012-01-05T17:37:00.000-06:00

In Alma 30: 43-44 it says:

And now Korihor said unto Alma: If thou wilt show me a sign, that I may be convinced that there is a God, yea, show unto me that he hath power, and then will I be convinced of the truth of thy words.

But Alma said unto him: Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.

Alma does a wonderful job of countering Korihor's philosophy. Elder Gerald Lund explains it further:

Alma takes Korihor’s own philosophy and catches him in a trap of his own making. Korihor teaches that we can know only what we can see. (See Alma 30:15.) But when questioned, Korihor categorically denies that he believes there is a God. Alma then asks, “What evidence have ye that there is no God, or that Christ cometh not? I say unto you that ye have none, save it be your word only.” (Alma 30:40.)

It is an inspired insight on Alma’s part. Korihor is not consistent in his own thinking. If we truly can know only those things for which we have empirical evidence, then we cannot teach there is no God unless we have evidence for that belief. And Korihor has no evidence.

Korihor will consider only evidence that can be gathered through the senses. In such a system, it is much easier to prove there is a God than to prove there is not a God. To prove there is a God, all it takes is for one person to see, hear, or otherwise have an experience with God, and thereafter the existence of God cannot be disproved.

Anybody who seeks a sign is immediately suspect as Joseph Smith taught:

When I was preaching in Philadelphia, a Quaker called out for a sign. I told him to be still. After the sermon, he again asked for a sign. I told the congregation the man was an adulterer; that a wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and that the Lord had said to me in a revelation, that any man who wanted a sign was an adulterous person. “It is true,” cried one, “for I caught him in the very act,” which the man afterwards confessed when he was baptized. (Feb. 9, 1843.) DHC 5:268.

Signs have been present since the dawn of time. Numerous people had signs who never heeded them or ultimately rejected them. Cain, followers of Moses, followers of Christ, Signey Rigdon, Oliver Cowdery. Go ahead, add yourself to the list.

You've had signs. We've all had signs. We have all had "signs enough." We may choose to forget them or ignore them but we have all had them.

If you say you haven't, then you are a liar like Korihor.

Antichrists in The Book of Mormon: Part 7: Korihor and Secularism

2011-12-23T17:35:00.001-06:00

Korihor's philosophy outlined in the immediate prior post has a modern equivalent. It is called secularism. In all my academic experience, outside of BYU, secularism required no definition or justification. It was always assumed to underlie everything we were doing or discussing.

For this blog, I'll let some Church leaders define and explain it:

Elder James E. Faust:

Secularism is expanding in much of the world today. Secularism is defined as “indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations.” Secularism does not accept many things as absolutes. Its principal objectives are pleasure and self-interest.

From Elder Robert D. Hales:

As prophesied, we live in a time when the darkness of secularism is deepening around us. Belief in God is widely questioned and even attacked in the name of political, social, and even religious causes. Atheism, or the doctrine that there is no God, is fast spreading across the world.

The best topic discussion can be found in Elder Neal A. Maxwell's 1974 address, "Eternalism vs. Secularism." In it, Maxwell points out that embracing secularism leave you with no purpose in life but pleasure:

[S]ecularism simply seems to assign a higher value to leisure. Though we all need some leisure, secularism often finds itself trying to reduce the necessity for work without showing corresponding concern as to the purposes to which leisure time should be put—except more idleness or pleasure-seeking.

For Mormons, Korihor and his secular philosophy is easily dismissed, except for one aspect of it in verse 17:

[E]very man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime.

One of the things that so bothered me in my management training and beyond was how untrue this statement was. Numerous people either succeed or failed on the basis of sheer dumb luck.

People who should have succeeded, often didn't and people who had no right to succeed, often did.

We are not entirely in control of our own destinies. Forces outside of us, both good (Heavenly Father) and bad (Satan) can affect what happens to us.

But, eternalism will ultimately triumph over secularism.

(This post is late due to upheaval in my personal circumstances.)

Antichrists in The Book of Mormon: Part 6: Korihor

2011-12-19T19:08:00.002-06:00

Korihor is the second Antichrist in the Book of Mormon. See the video above and read Alma 30: 6-60.

In a nutshell, Korihor began teaching his particular philosophy that countered the true Gospel of Christ. He was able to persuade others to adopt it. Because the law only punished action, not belief, there wasn't much that could be done about him. The Ammonites wouldn't listen to him and had him ejected from their lands. Korihor went on to greener pastures. He contended with secular and church leaders demanding that he be given a sign from God. He was struck dumb. He asked for his punishment to be reversed insisting he was a changed man. He was refused. He took up life as a beggar and died in an accident.

What is interesting for our purposes is what Korihor was teaching. Many of his philosophies are present today:

There is no Christ.
No one can know the future.
So-called "prophecies" are just foolish traditions.
You can't know something unless you see it.
People who believe in religion are mentally deranged.
We control our lives here. There is no influence from any other power.
There isn't any "sin" per se. You can do what you want to do.
Religion isn't freeing. It's bondage.
Religious leaders are just trying to exert power and authority over you and keep you ignorant.
You can't know if something is true or not.
You can't know Christ will come.
Religious leaders are just trying to oppress people and get rich off of them.
Religious leaders just like directing people based on their own whims.
God doesn't exist now and never has.

I'll evaluate the modern relevance of Korihor's teachings and tactics in future posts.

Antichrists in The Book of Mormon: Part 5: Modern Priestcraft in Mormondom

2011-12-11T09:31:00.001-06:00

Modern day priestcraft is most easily identified amongst those who teach. Learners SHOULD emerge from a lesson NOT thinking that the teacher's wonderful, but that the gospel is.

Focusing on the needs of the students, a gospel teacher will never obscure their view of the Master by standing in the way or by shadowing the lesson with self-promotion or self-interest. This means that a gospel teacher must never indulge in priestcrafts, which are "that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world" (2 Ne. 26:29). A gospel teacher does not preach "to become popular" (Alma 1:3) or "for the sake of riches and honor" (Alma 1:16). He or she follows the marvelous Book of Mormon example in which "the preacher was no better than the hearer, neither was the teacher any better than the learner" (Alma 1:26). Both will always look to the Master. Dallin H. Oaks, "Gospel Teaching," Ensign, Nov. 1999, 78.

Elder Oaks set the stage for this caution much earlier in an address entitled, "Our Strengths Can Become Our Downfall," Ensign, Oct. 1994. This is from an address previously given at BYU.

Another illustration of a strength that can become our downfall concerns charismatic teachers. With a trained mind and a skillful manner of presentation, teachers can become unusually popular and effective in teaching. But Satan will try to use that strength to corrupt teachers by encouraging them to gather a following of disciples. . . .Teachers who are most popular, and therefore most effective, have a special susceptibility to priestcraft. If they are not careful, their strength can become their spiritual downfall. They can become like Almon Babbitt, with whom the Lord was not pleased, because “he aspireth to establish his counsel instead of the counsel which I have ordained, even that of the Presidency of my Church; and he setteth up a golden calf for the worship of my people” (D&C 124:84).

I think the most poignant comment comes from Elder David A. Bednar in an address originally given to Seminary and Institute instructors:

[W]e must be careful to remember in our service that we are conduits and channels; we are not the light. “For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you” (Matthew 10:20). It is never about me and it is never about you. In fact, anything you or I do as an instructor that knowingly and intentionally draws attention to self—in the messages we present, in the methods we use, or in our personal demeanor—is a form of priestcraft that inhibits the teaching effectiveness of the Holy Ghost. “Doth he preach it by the Spirit of truth or some other way? And if it be by some other way it is not of God” (D&C 50:17–18). David A. Bednar, "Seek Learning by Faith," February 3, 2006, Address to CES Religious Educators, Jordan Institute of Religion.

Elder Bednar's instruction tells us how we can avoid priestcraft in any of our church callings. We should never inject ourselves into what we are doing. This simply distracts from the Spirit and focuses attention on where it shouldn't be -- ourselves. Keep that in mind the next time you are tempted to inject a comment into someone's lesson or dialog, especially if the comment is about yourself.

I've done some video and slide show presentations for some gatherings and conferences. With the above quotes and instruction in mind, I deliberately did not put my name on any of these projects. No one viewing them would know I had anything to do with them.

It's not my universe. It's not my world. It's not my gospel. It's not my church. It's not my program. Why should I seek the glory for it? Doesn't the glory rest with Heavenly Father? We should never seek any glory no matter what our calling in the church is.

If the Spirit touches people because of you, you are merely a temporary conduit. Heavenly Father is working through you. You should never seek any glory because of it because you deserve no such glory.

This is a sobering subject. You should intentionally keep your profile as low as you can to avoid the sin of priestcraft.

Remember what President Gordon B. Hinckley said on the subject:

It is so very important that you do not let praise and adulation go to your head. Adulation is poison. You better never lose sight of the fact that the Lord put you where you are according to His design, which you don't understand. Acknowledge the Lord for whatever good you can accomplish and give Him the credit and the glory and (do) not worry about that coming to yourself. If you can do that, you'll get along all right and will go forward with a love for the people and a great respect for them and try to accomplish what your office demands of you.

Antichrists in The Book of Mormon: Part 4: Priestcraft, Cashing in on Mormondom

2011-12-04T11:37:00.001-06:00

Most management scholars are ticked off at Dr. Stephen R. Covey. Why? It is very simple really. They feel he took some basic gospel principles, knowable to everyone, packaged them neatly and made a fortune from doing so. And, they're ticked off they didn't think of it first. . .

In priestcraft, people set themselves up as a light to the world, seek popularity, financial gain, power and influence, etc.

Many people have, and are, cashing in on Mormondom.

Mormondom is rife with people writing books, holding conferences, traveling the lecture circuit, making recordings, videos and multiple other efforts. Very little of it actually builds the Kingdom. Most of it goes into the heads, egos and pocketbooks of a few select people. They are simply Mormon celebrities.

How many Christmas gifts will you receive or give that fit into this category?

Isn't it awfully arrogant to assume the gospel of Christ needs to be subsidized by us and our efforts?

Isn't most of the religious kitsch available in Mormondom basically purposeless? Do we really need all those pictures, doilies, widget's and thing-a-ma-jigs?

Granted, some of it has a purpose. I have a wheat grinder, mixer and some other tools to preserve my memories for posterity, for example. But, what are the real motives of most of the people and entities that hawk this stuff? What were the real motives of the money-changers that Jesus cast out of the temple?

If your primary market is Mormondom then maybe your activities are suspect.

Products like herbs and supplements capitalize on the Word of Wisdom. Is it strange that Utah is the heart of this industry? Hardly. Would crafts be so popular if Relief Society didn't exist? The food storage and emergency preparedness industry also ties it's popularity to Mormon beliefs.

What would happen to certain Book of Mormon tours and other services if we really knew where the city of Zarahemla was actually located? Is it good for your entire occupation to be tied to one theory of geography? Could you let go of your livelihood it your efforts were proven wrong? Would it harm your testimony?

How much of all this is just simply greed?

It's not just religious activities. Many people use their church positions to influence worldly ventures. Affinity fraud is probably the best example. People cash in on the Church in many different ways.

People use the Church to sell the "eliteness" or "specialness" of their own product or service. And boy do Mormons buy it and buy it and buy it.

We should be praying in Church, not preying on it.

So, take a good look at what you, yourself buy and do. Maybe it is time for some personal course correction.

Antichrists in The Book of Mormon: Part 3: Nehor and Priestcraft

2011-11-22T18:28:00.001-06:00

2 Nephi 26:29 gives us a definition of priestcraft:

He commandeth that there shall be no priestcrafts; for, behold, priestcrafts are that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion.

The secular definition of priestcraft is a bit different.

Nehor is famous for priestcraft. I notice that Alma certainly knew about it and had a term for it. Usually, new phenomena require new terms. Alma did acknowledge this was the first time it had occurred amongst the Nephites, though.

We like to vilify the people who have instituted priestcraft, but surely they couldn't exist if people didn't believe them and support them. I think their audience is just as culpable as they are.

Priesthood is the antithesis of priestcraft. in Alma, chapter one we learn:

Nehor taught that church leaders should be popular and financially supported by the members and that everyone is saved regardless of how they behave in this life.

Nehor's success led him to to live high by wearing expensive clothing and to be proud of himself. He established his own church based on his teachings.

In the true priesthood, church leaders support themselves financially through their own labors. They do not sport expensive clothing but try and be neat an tidy. In the true gospel, leaders are no better than others and do not consider themselves so.

Repentance is crucial in the true gospel as is making right choices. In Nehor's view, none of that mattered. Nehor did not seem to acknowledge that sin existed.

There are plenty of modern day Nehors. The most obvious ones are the people that "call" themselves to the ministry, establish their own church and ask for money. A simple glance at all the televangelists will confirm this.

We'd be pretty blind if we couldn't identify these type of Nehors. However, I do think we might be taken in by the more subtle ones.

When I began this blog, I allowed advertising to be placed on it by Google. I was hoping that I would attract sufficient traffic to earn something from it. But, after careful thought and reflection, I removed it. I didn't want money to be my motivation. There were a host of other implications as well.

I decided it was unethical to make money off the Church, even if this was a personal blog. I didn't want my attempts at missionary service to hinge on money either.

The connection between making money off my religious blog and what Nehor did was just too close for my comfort.

Next week, I will discuss how other activities could be classified as priestcraft. The week after that, I'll discuss how we should avoid priestcraft in performing our church callings.

Antichrists in The Book of Mormon: Part 2: Nehor, the Man

2011-11-20T09:00:00.000-06:00

If you are unfamiliar with the story of Nehor, please view the video above and read Alma 1:2-15.

First off, Nehor was "a man who was large, and was noted for his much strength."

Strength and stature have always appealed to people. If you examine any culture across the world and throughout time, you will see that no culture values wimps. But, we know that God judges differently. From 1 Samuel 16: 7.

But the Lord said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.

How much of Nehor's appeal was due to his physical appearance is hard to say. Nonetheless, it had an impact, or you can bet that the phrases would never have made it into the Book of Mormon.

Our modern culture celebrates physical appearance. Book of Mormon prophets are suggesting to us that we should not put undue value on it. Nehor slew Gideon who was an old man. Vanquishing a foe who is not your physical equal hardly evokes admiration, more likely contempt.

Besides, Gideon used words to contend with Nehor. Nehor resorted to physical attack instead of words. Nehor probably coud not have won a war of words with Gideon or anyone else. That is undoubtedly why he used other means. He did not fare well against Alma in a war of words.

There is a right and wrong way to respond to persecution. In Alma 1:22 we read

Nevertheless, there were many among them who began to be proud, and began to contend warmly with their adversaries, even unto blows; yea, they would smite one another with their fists.

No one should react to persecution, especially religious persecution, with physical force. If you do, then you are following Nehor's example.

Nehor's physical appearance should not have made his words appealing. His words should have been evaluated on their merit.

Ask yourself if you may judge others at church based on physical appearance.

Would you listen to an ugly Bishop as much as you would an attractive one? Do you tend to discount church guidance from individuals you find physically unappealing? If you do, unfortunately, you are not alone, however much you should be.

Remember Nehor's example the next time you dismiss someone because they are physically repugnant to you. Remember Nehor's example the next time you are swayed by physical strength or stature.

Antichrists in The Book of Mormon: Part 1: Introduction

2011-11-11T18:00:00.001-06:00

In 1 John 2:22 we read:

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

This series will examine the three antichrists in The Book of Mormon: Nehor, Korihor and Sherem.

We know that The Book of Mormon is an abridgment of more lengthy writings geared toward teaching us what we need to know for our day. It was written for us and our problems. In addition, since engraving was difficult, and no duplication was necessary for an abridgment, we have to conclude two important things.

First, the three antichrist's in The Book of Mormon are separate and distinct types of antichrists. Second, they may share the label of Anti-Christs but there are probably distinct lessons from all three. Otherwise Mormon wouldn't have included them all in his abridgment.

From the Bible Dictionary:

In a broader sense it is anyone or anything that counterfeits the true gospel or plan of salvation and that openly or secretly is set up in opposition to Christ. The great antichrist is Lucifer, but he has many assistants both as spirit beings and as mortals.

We normally think of antichrists as openly in opposition to Christ. However, it is possible to be secretly against Christ. I think one of The Book of Mormon antichrist's fits this definition as I will make plain in later posts.

Until next week . . .

Good Grief, I'm Un-Marriageable?!

2011-11-07T19:22:00.000-06:00

People like to tell me I'm different, not the "typical" Mormon, whatever that is. I was typical, up until the time that most women were married and I wasn't. I think it was about age 24.

Until then, I fit all the stereotypes and I didn't stand out much. When I didn't marry young, I continued in school. Now, that made me different. And, it continues to make me different. I've got more formal schooling that anybody really needs. This is hard to admit, given how much money I've paid for it all.

Anyway, this posting isn't about all that though. It is simply a gripe. I thought I was doing exactly what Heavenly Father wanted me to but it ended up making me un-marriageable. By increasing my knowledge, skills and abilities I was less attractive to men.

I was above average in looks, so my un-marriageability cannot be blamed on physical attractiveness.

Most men don't want a highly educated, intelligent female. Well, at least they don't want that the first time around. The second time around General Authorities generally choose exactly that. But, we won't go there right now. Back to my own experience.

I think Church leaders had a responsibility to tell me that if I did all these things, I would become un-marriageable. It was my choice to do them, certainly.

I figure I deserved a warning, that's all.

In the Church, I don't think we do a good enough job of encouraging the young men to value what we are telling the young women to become.

I found my man, though. And, he LIKES strong, competent women, always has. He is proud of me, my education, and everything I know and do. But, he's a rare bird. Most women cannot bank on finding such a gem.

I'm glad I did though.

Note: I was 35 years old when I did get married.

Update: Okay, I can't resist. Apparently, I am the topic of conversation on Zionlist. It is pretty amusing to read all the comments and speculation about ME and not about the point I was trying to make.

My main point is: I don't think we do a good enough job of encouraging the young men to value what we are telling the young women to become.

I would suggest that the people discussing my post on Zionlist or elsewhere stop speculating about me and simply examine my statement for truth or falsehood.

The comment can stand on it's own. Examining who said it isn't really relevant to whether or not the statement itself is accurate.

But, in the interests of full disclosure I will reveal a little bit more about myself and where I'm coming from by telling a small story.

I graduated in August with my B.A. from BYU. Three weeks later I started graduate school and became a "graduate student." I was astonished at the effect this had upon men. All of a sudden I was getting very different reactions from them socially and the difference in me was only three weeks. This and other experiences have reinforced the statement I made.

Formal education was always Plan B for me. No one that knew me as single ever thought I was intentionally postponing marriage. This assumption only surfaced in people after I got married.

My hubby didn't serve a mission on the moon. He's a convert. He would never pose for underwear ads. I think he is smarter than me although I have more formal schooling.

He valued smart, competent women before he ever became Mormon. He intentionally dated them when he was young and after he got divorced.

Official Church Halloween Policy: Moral Decision Making in Mormondom #8

2011-10-31T20:12:00.002-05:00

(This is an occasional series that discusses normative questions. Too often we do not consider the inferences and implications of what we do. In short, we fail to realize when a moral decision is necessary. This occasional series will do so. Readers are encouraged to pose their own questions and views in the comment forum.)

The newswires are abuzz with the latest outrage supposedly perpetrated by Mormons. The following story, eloquently stated in The Salt Lake Tribune, was also distributed by numerous papers and wire services including the Associated Press. From the Tribune:

Any little girl who wanted to dress up as Harry Potter or boy who chose to be Lady Liberty would not have been welcome at a recent Mormon Halloween party in Sandy.

The invitation, circulated in the neighborhood, specifically barred "cross-gender" costumes.

The local Bishop of the offending congregation explained the flyer thus:

LDS Bishop Dennis Toone — leader of the Crescent 16th Ward, which hosted the party — did not write the flier, but he defended the prohibition against cross-gender costumes, saying "it’s church policy."

It isn't Church policy:

"The flier," LDS Church spokesman Scott Trotter said Friday, "does not represent church policy."

The local Bishop justified the action with:

"we thought it was a church policy,"

I consider this whole cross-gender dressing issue secondary to the more important question: WHY DIDN'T ANYBODY CHECK CHURCH POLICY?

Church policy is not obscure, complicated or obtuse. In fact, it is available and clear. It IS online for heaven's sake -- exactly, for heaven's sake.

Not all are critical however. Homosexuals are coming to our defense:

The Mormon party organizers likely did not intend to hurt any nonconforming or transgender kids, said Jude McNeil, who directs research and training at Salt Lake City’s Pride Center. They were just unaware of the potential consequences of such guidelines.

"[U]naware of the potential consequences of such guidelines." Moral decision making requires taking into consideration the potential consequences of any action, that's what makes it moral decision making.

Cavalier references to Church policy are unworthy of ANY Mormon! Toone should have approved that flyer before it went out. The person(s) responsible for the activity should have submitted it to Toone and other leaders before it went out. Everybody involved should have checked Church policy.

Instead, we have a major public relations disaster compliments of local leaders not paying attention to their responsibilities.

Great, just what we don't need . . .

Muscles, Meals and More . . .

2011-10-24T17:14:00.002-05:00

Mormons are big on service, or at least they say they are. We've got a pretty good track record of helping people move in and move out. Generally, we have a whole squad of people show up and help. If you need muscles, meals or cleaning done, Mormons don't bat an eye. They get right to it.

My husband and I have moved a number of times. We appreciated all the help we've ever received. We're pretty good at moving by now. But, I realized that what we truly needed was a little outside the normal spectrum.

Finally, I got the courage up to tell people what we REALLY needed help with when we move -- bathe our dogs. Okay, everybody was incredulous even after I explained myself. But, I wasn't making it up. That was truly what we needed. It wasn't what people were used to hearing though.

It's very simply. My husband is allergic to dogs, which includes our dogs. When we moved, we had to have them in the truck cabs with us. My husband could handle them a lot better if they were clean. They didn't affect his allergies as much. Also, if we had to stay overnight anywhere along the road, the doggies had to be in the room with us. Again, my husband could handle them a lot better if they were clean.

Bathing them myself was an enormous task anyway. It was even worse if we were trying to move. For example, I had to bathe them in the tub with the spray nozzle. If we were moving then often the spray nozzle had to be packed, as well as the tub mat, any towels, the shower curtain etc. Cleaning the doggies meant I had to deep clean the bathroom after I was finished. This was enormously difficult if all my rags were packed, if all the cleaning supplies were packed, etc. In addition, the washing machine and dryer had to be unhooked for moving as well. This all made cleaning the little characters extremely difficult as well as cleaning up after the task was done.

Take the little critters away, bring them back clean. It was that simple. Okay, at about 100 lbs. each it wasn't THAT simple but it was straightforward.

Only one congregation ever took us up on this challenge. They arranged for a lady who did dog grooming in her home to bathe them for us. She was largely inactive. I'm hoping that this contact with the Church did something for her that was lasting. It sure helped us.

Often, people are embarrassed to ask for what they truly need and we have trouble identifying it ourselves in order to serve them.

Let's start observing more and thinking more. Let's start PRAYING more and solicit Heavenly Father's help in truly helping people with what they need and not just what we are used to doing for them.

We'd all be a lot better off!

Relief Society is Raucous

2011-10-16T15:07:00.002-05:00

I've been observing a particular phenomenon for some years now. I've observed it across the country in Utah, Kansas, Indiana, Virginia, Michigan and every other place I've lived or visited.

Relief Society is raucous.

Raucous is a terrific word. Essentially it means disorderly and rowdy to the point where it is harsh or grating. I hate to attach such a label to a Church meeting, but I think it applies.

Relief Society ceased to be reverent a long time ago. I first noticed it when we had guest presenters at weekly meetings and such. I was embarrassed that women kept chatting amongst themselves and making comments to near neighbors about a variety of things instead of giving the presenter the courtesy of their attention. I try not to encourage these conversations, but I'm often the unwilling object of them.

I may have noticed it on those occasions because I was more concerned about treating non-Mormon guests appropriately and what impression they would have of us and our meetings. Anyway, raucousness is pretty widespread now, so much so that no Sunday Relief Society teacher can depend on being able to command attention during a lesson.

I leave Relief Society meetings feeling jangled and on edge because of the constant chatter going on. I have some theories as to why this condition currently exists in Mormondom. I don't think the fact that it DOES exist is in dispute.

Here are my theories, not necessarily in order:

- Leadership is disorganized and/or unprepared. All leadership guidance suggests opening exercises should be well-organized and brief. Usually, it is neither. This sets a tone of raucousness.

- Teachers are often disorganized and/or unprepared. This also sets a tone where raucousness thrives. If other people make comments, then the teacher doesn't have to present as much. It is easy for the teacher to hand control of the meeting over to commenters. This aura of inclusiveness and participation is only that, an aura. The participation is usually pretty off-topic and irrelevant.

- People are selfish and self-absorbed. Most of their comments are simply telling others how the discussion relates to them or trying to be funny or entertaining. Few examine their comments within the framework of "Will this be a valuable comment that can help others understand or apply the concepts being taught?" Having taught as a career I can often tell if something could derail a discussion, despite the best of my intentions. I've kept silent on occasion in Relief Society, and other meetings, because I know my comment won't be taken in the proper light or it will spur tangents that may be detrimental. Very little self-disciple of this sort is evident in raucous Relief Society meetings.

- Humor and entertainment are being inordinately emphasized. Why does no one seem to wonder if something qualifies as excess laughter or lightmindedness? There is certainly nothing wrong with appropriate humor, but I think raucous Relief Society crosses the line. Entertainment pervades our society. It is pervasive at church as well.

If Satan were to try and short-circuit or disrupt Relief Society, raucousness would probably be the tool of choice. Any other tool people would probably reject.

Mormons and Honesty: Part 6: Conclusion

2011-10-09T16:28:00.002-05:00

It is difficult to admit we might be a liar, cheat and/or thief. But, do we deserve the label? Probably. We deserve it for most of the reasons I've discussed in this series. We ought to admit we are liars at the very least.

To repent, we must admit to ourselves that we have sinned. If we do not admit this, we cannot repent.

I always wondered why wicked people had to be TOLD they were wicked. Didn't they know? Didn't they guess? How can people NOT know they are sinning? From the scriptures we have to conclude that either they didn't know or they resisted the information.

. . . I perceive that it cuts you to your hearts because I tell you the truth concerning your iniquities.

So often it is simply the classic reaction: Shoot the messenger! or burn him or her to death or whatever. I wonder what fate is in store for me? I can only guess.

Many years ago I heard the best rationale for why people absolve themselves of their sins while condemning others. This is supported by research. The answer is simple. We judge others by their actions. We judge ourselves by our intentions.

I don't think Heavenly Father looks kindly on this tactic:

Do not endeavor to excuse yourself in the least point because of your sins,

One of the best talks on this subject is by D. Todd Christofferson entitled, "As Many as I Love, I Rebuke" from April 2011 Conference. I'll extract some of my favorite quotes:

Though it is often difficult to endure, truly we ought to rejoice that God considers us worth the time and trouble to correct.

Divine chastening has at least three purposes: (1) to persuade us to repent, (2) to refine and sanctify us, and (3) at times to redirect our course in life to what God knows is a better path.

If we are open to it, needed correction will come in many forms and from many sources.

Even when we encounter mean-spirited criticism from persons who have little regard or love for us, it can be helpful to exercise enough meekness to weigh it and sift out anything that might benefit us.

Remember that if we resist correction, others may discontinue offering it altogether, despite their love for us. If we repeatedly fail to act on the chastening of a loving God, then He too will desist.

In one of my classes at BYU, my professor suggested the concept of "measured honesty." What he meant by that is that we don't use honesty as an excuse to destroy people and relationships.

People who pride themselves on being brutally frank generally get more satisfaction out of their brutality than their honesty.

Think about the times Jesus was silent. Think about the times where He could have said much more than He did. Think about the times where He obviously avoided being cutting or harsh.

Jesus was honest, but he wasn't unkind. It was just how people reacted to his honesty. Some were chastened and repented. Others, well, they didn't react so well . . .

But, their reactions didn't change what He said they were.

Mormons and Honesty: Part 1: Introduction

Mormons and Honesty: Part 2: Honesty and the Church

Mormons and Honesty: Part 3: Honesty and Society

Mormons and Honesty: Part 4: Honesty and Others

Mormons and Honesty: Part 5: Honesty and Ourselves

Mormons and Honesty: Part 6: Conclusion

Mormons and Honesty: Part 5: Honesty and Ourselves

2011-10-02T12:00:00.003-05:00

We know Satan tries to get us to lie to others. It makes sense that he also tries to get us to lie to ourselves as well. It don't think this point gets enough attention.

When I've heard people express lies, I've often observed them closely. It is evident to me that sometimes they believe their own lies. How is this possible? How does this happen? I can only guess.

Self-deception often takes the shape of rationalization. Somehow we have reasoned things out to the point where we convince ourselves that we haven't done anything wrong.

I had a friend who worked as a prosecutor. He was telling me about a child molester he was prosecuting who had been operating unhindered for over thirty years. They found dozens, perhaps hundreds of pictures, videos, materials etc. in his home. They were able to locate about 100 victims, over 30 of which were willing to testify against him.

I had two questions for my friend: After all this time how did he get caught and second, how did he justify his behavior? To the first question, my friend told me that finally a little boy reported him to his parents because they had taught him that no one should touch certain parts of his body, even if they were a grown up.

To the second question, he told me the man said, concerning all his victims, "I was just sharing my love with them!"

Molestation, abuse, damage, exploitation and everything else was just sharing his love with them? Surely this man could lie to himself quite well.

I once heard a woman justify abortion with the rationale: "If I give the baby back to Heavenly Father, it will be so much better off."

What lies are you telling yourself? Perhaps one of the following . . .

I'm a good Church member despite the fact that I rarely attend Church, read the scriptures or do anything for anyone other than myself.

I'm a good Christian despite the fact that I yell at my employees and otherwise verbally mistreat them.

I'm honest despite the fact that I don't pay all my taxes and lie about my kid's age so that I can get a better price at the movie theater.

I'm a nice person although I'm constantly stabbing other people in the back.

I'm a good worker even though I waste my employers time and trust in playing video games on my office computer and visiting my Facebook page.

I'm a law abiding citizen although I exceed the speed limit, lie to cops about why I was speeding and try and get the judge to reduce or dismiss my ticket.

The examples I've given so far are pretty large and obvious. What about the small self-deceptions we engage in every day?

Tomorrow I will make it to work on time.

I'll make up for punching in on time today when I really wasn't.

I won't use work materials for personal use.

I won't phone that friend on company time.

I won't do my child's homework for him next time.

I won't tell someone they look nice when I don't think they do.

I won't act interested in my friend's conversation when I'm really not.

Clearly, few of us could survive socially if we were truly honest. But, can we survive in the hereafter if we aren't?

If you truly want to be honest in this life then you are going to have to work on your character. If you want to just appear honest, then work at being a good actor. There are many examples around you.

If you truly want to be honest, you will have to be like Christ.

Mormons and Honesty: Part 1: Introduction

Mormons and Honesty: Part 2: Honesty and the Church

Mormons and Honesty: Part 3: Honesty and Society

Mormons and Honesty: Part 4: Honesty and Others

Mormons and Honesty: Part 5: Honesty and Ourselves

Mormons and Honesty: Part 6: Conclusion

Mormons and Honesty: Part 4: Honesty and Others

2011-09-25T14:20:00.001-05:00

Most people are too stupid to lie convincingly. There is always going to be some sort of inconsistency in any lie. Someone, somewhere is going to pick up on the inconsistency and detect the lie. Lying simply isn't worth it, on a moral or rational level.

Most deceit is small, often called "white lies" because they are seen as harmless. But lies are never harmless. If the truth has somehow been skewed then there will be consequences.

Some of Christ's strongest condemnations were directed at hypocrites. Hypocrisy is intentional deception. You obviously know what is right and you want to make people believe you do what is right even though you know you don't.

The first time I encountered hypocrisy was memorable. It was in Primary. We were supposed to find a non-Mormon schoolmate and bring them to Primary. I asked a friend to come with me. She consented.However, it turns out she was a member after all, just inactive. Quite distressed, I explained to the teacher, during class, that I'd found out on the way to Primary that my guest was Mormon. I told her, "Everybody I know is Mormon except the blacks and the Mexicans." She responded with, "Well, for Heaven's sake, leave them alone."

My explanation was no more politically correct than hers but at least I was a kid. I was silenced thinking, "But everyone is a Child of God, that includes the blacks and the Mexicans. We should value them equally, shouldn't we?" I was perplexed because her remark contradicted what I had been taught about the gospel. Later on in the class period she directed her remarks to me once more and said she was sorry for her remark and that everyone was equally a Child of God.

I didn't know what to make of her. I remember thinking to myself, "She's towing the party line now but I think her first comment was the honest one."

Overt hypocrisy is unmistakable. Society often rewards it because society values niceness more than honesty. This is a nice move on Satan's part. Elevating niceness over honesty sells much better than many of the alternatives.

My honesty has lost me dates, relationships and a myriad of other things. Instead of taking what I said at face value people seem to decide there is a hidden message. They assume my meaning from what their meaning would be if they said the same thing. I'll give you an example. I've told guys that I'm too tired to continue with a date and that I need to go home so I can sleep. They thought I was blowing them off. Instead, I was entirely truthful. Many times, I said something like, "Oh, can we postpone doing that when we would have more time to enjoy it?" I meant what I said. But, they assumed something else because honesty is so rare.

Going down the scale from hypocrisy is rationalization. And here is where most of us trip up. We try and rationalize our mistakes or behavior to others so they will think better of us. It is simply weakness on our part because people always think better of us when we admit mistakes rather than try and escape them.

Much of our deceit comes from trying to be funny. Stories are embellished and exaggerated to get more laughs. Have you ever tried to be honest and funny at the same time? It isn't easy. I don't change my stories but I sure get a lot of mileage out of them. If you move a lot, you've got a whole batch of new people to try them on.

A good chunk of what we are guilty of is unintentional deception. Verbal communication is imperfect. Non-verbal is even worse. People are going to interpret our miscues and misfires inappropriately. It says more about them than it does about us.

I assume people are honest unless I have reason to believe otherwise. Yes, it gets me into trouble. Once I detect a deception, I hone in on it and am extra vigilant with that person.

Why are we so unwilling to let others know we detect their deceit? There goes the "niceness" again. If you do let them know then the mask comes off and they are their true self. I prefer it. At least I know what I'm dealing with -- an enemy for life.

Let people know they are too stupid to lie convincingly. Nice.

Mormons and Honesty: Part 1: Introduction

Mormons and Honesty: Part 2: Honesty and the Church

Mormons and Honesty: Part 3: Honesty and Society

Mormons and Honesty: Part 4: Honesty and Others

Mormons and Honesty: Part 5: Honesty and Ourselves

Mormons and Honesty: Part 6: Conclusion

Mormons and Honesty: Part 3: Honesty and Society

2011-09-18T09:00:00.000-05:00

Occasionally I see a coin on the ground, a penny for example. I might be walking into the grocery store, a restaurant or just in any store.

Most people would pick up the coin.

I don't know who the coin actually belongs to. I don't know how it got lost. I can be pretty sure whoever it belongs to won't come back for it or even find it if they did. Others are very likely to pick it up whether it is theirs or not. There is only one thing I can be sure of.

It isn't mine. . .

Most people can be bought. It is just a question of price.

Would you sleep with someone for a million dollars? Would you sleep with someone for one dollar? If you do the deed based on the amount of money it is just a question of price. If you do the deed at all then it is established what you are.

If keeping your anonymity can determine whether you engage in a particular act then you are not honest. Honesty is based on whether you do the deed at all.

If your behavior changes based on who you are with, where you are, the time of day, or whether you think you will be caught, then you are not honest.

Daily deceptions in society usually aren't particularly overt. We live in houses that we can't afford. We drive vehicles we can't afford. We wear clothes we can't afford. Few will ever know of our deceptions.

We tell people they look nice. We tell people we are glad to see them. We tell people to have a nice day. We tell people a lot of things we don't really mean.

Have you ever considered how many deceptions, socially acceptable deceptions, you engage in in one day alone? Isn't the cumulative effect horrendous?

Our society is becoming more and more tolerant of dishonesty. Are we becoming more dishonest with it?

Honesty won't make us popular.

Is popularity more important to us than honesty?

If we live in a home we can truly afford, drive a car that is paid for and wear clothes that are plain and of our own make what is wrong with that?

Simple. It won't get us where we want to be in society, or impress who we want to impress, even if it is only ourselves. See my prior posting on The Counterfeit Self.

How honest are you with society? Maybe it is time to really think about it and make some course corrections.

Clean up your language so you aren't making a lot of statements you don't mean. Clean up your behavior so you aren't doing a lot of things you should regret.

Start living honestly and commit to living honestly in the future.

Mormons and Honesty: Part 1: Introduction

Mormons and Honesty: Part 2: Honesty and the Church

Mormons and Honesty: Part 3: Honesty and Society

Mormons and Honesty: Part 4: Honesty and Others

Mormons and Honesty: Part 5: Honesty and Ourselves

Mormons and Honesty: Part 6: Conclusion

Mormons and Honesty: Part 2: Honesty and the Church

2011-09-11T09:00:00.000-05:00

Suggesting that Mormons may not be honest regarding Church is not going to make me popular. However, I'm suggesting just that. And, I've suggested it before. See my blog posting that was part of my series on Local Church Leaders and Corruption.

We like to think that our local congregations (called wards) are doing well and achieving good statistics on things like attendance, contributions, etc. although this may not actually be the case. If we misrepresent our numbers this is statistical lying. As I've pointed out before, misrepresenting the numbers is usually easy to spot because our statistics will lack internal consistency.

For example, if we claim to have a lot of people interested in our Church by reporting high numbers of people getting missionary lessons, but we have no resulting baptisms, then something is wrong.

Another example, if we report high numbers of Church attendance but the numbers of temple-worthy members is going down then something is wrong.

If we claim we have certain numbers then certain measurable achievements should be evident.

Most members have some sort of "calling" or Church job. If we aren't doing our job, or doing it properly, then this is dishonest. If we glory in our title and power and neglect our calling we are much to close to Lucifer's model.

Lying to make ourselves look good in the Church is just as bad as lying to make others in the Church look bad. I'm not going to go into this right now. It is a another soap box for another day.

One of the things I do to keep others honest is blind copy. It amazes me how many people don't know how to do that. Anyway, I blind copy others on correspondence, especially Church correspondence, so that no one can misrepresent what I say or do.

However, this will only work if you are honest yourself. It works for me.

For example, if a conversation starts to get heated, I back off and try and give myself time to reduce my ideas to just logic and reason. I strip the emotion out of it.

I blind copy Church leaders, sometimes local and stake, on the correspondence. This way they read exactly what I said. No one can misrepresent me.

I will admit that I get a certain amount of satisfaction out of this. People are in for a rude awakening if they think they can lie about me.

I wish I didn't have to do it, but, unfortunately, I do.

Mormons and Honesty: Part 1: Introduction

Mormons and Honesty: Part 2: Honesty and the Church

Mormons and Honesty: Part 3: Honesty and Society

Mormons and Honesty: Part 4: Honesty and Others

Mormons and Honesty: Part 5: Honesty and Ourselves

Mormons and Honesty: Part 6: Conclusion

Mormons and Honesty: Part 1: Introduction

2011-09-04T06:00:00.000-05:00

In Chapter 3 of Gospel Principles we read:

Complete honesty is necessary for our salvation. President Brigham Young said, “If we accept salvation on the terms it is offered to us, we have got to be honest in every thought, in our reflections, in our meditations, in our private circles, in our deals, in our declarations, and in every act of our lives” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young [1997], 293).

It also poses the question, "What would society be like if everyone were perfectly honest?" The answer is that society would be very different. We spend a great deal of time and money trying to keep people honest.

As Mormons, how do we measure up? Not well, I think. Why? That will be the subject of this new series that I anticipate having at least six parts.

When I was in Seminary in 9th grade, my instructor told us a story. I'll try and relate it as best as I can. The Church was making a movie. The movie was supposed to open with the President of our Church writing on some paper and then looking up and speaking to the camera. Before it was filmed, the President, who I think was Joseph Fielding Smith, at the time, signed the papers because he realized they were official and needed his signature. When it came time to film he told them he had already signed the papers. They told him, "Okay, then act like you are signing them and we will film that." He protested, "I cannot deceive anyone." They quickly found him some more papers to sign.

Whether true or not, this story deeply touched me. This is a high standard of honesty. In True to the Faith we read:

The thirteenth article of faith states, "We believe in being honest." To be honest means to be sincere, truthful, and without deceit at all times.

As Mormons, we are subject to the same follies and foibles as other people. We constantly lapse into dishonesty without really thinking about it, for many reasons. Society rewards dishonesty in many ways. Little white lies, as they are called, seem more acceptable to us than actually telling the truth.

This dishonesty pervades more of our lives than we realize. It is time to reform ourselves and be completely honest, with the Church, with society, with others and with ourselves.

Mormons and Honesty: Part 1: Introduction

Mormons and Honesty: Part 2: Honesty and the Church

Mormons and Honesty: Part 3: Honesty and Society

Mormons and Honesty: Part 4: Honesty and Others

Mormons and Honesty: Part 5: Honesty and Ourselves

Mormons and Honesty: Part 6: Conclusion

Heavenly Father is FOR the Internet!

2011-08-29T06:00:00.000-05:00

If our technology does not improve the lives of others and help bring them home to [the Lord], we have missed the mark.

President Henry B. Eyring made the above comment when he dedicated a new technology building on BYU-Idaho's campus.

In the midst of all the video games and other things people do online, let's not forget the power of technology to bring people to Heavenly Father.

I'm sure it is Heavenly Father's primary purpose in giving these technological advances to us.

The Church and Higher Education: Part 7: The Perpetual Education Fund and Other Experiments

2011-08-21T06:00:00.000-05:00

I've written about the Perpetual Education Fund or PEF before but in a different context. This week's posting has to do with it's educational merits and the philosophy behind it.

From the web site:

The Perpetual Education Fund (PEF) has been established to provide worthy young adults of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with the support and resources necessary to improve their lives through education and better employment to better serve their family, the Church, and their community.

Not available in the U. S. yet, the PEF continues to expand borders. It pays for "technical, vocational, or professional education that leads to a viable job in the local area." Two years is the ideal time period. The program is funded entirely with contributions and all loans are paid back with interest ensuring the fund is self-sustaining. The program is administered through the Institute program and many volunteers are involved.

Given that the federal student aid program is broken as are most other programs I'm glad the Church is stepping up to the plate.

They are stepping up in ways you may not be aware of. Here they are:

1. The Wilkinson Loan Fund: This program has existed for years and is administered through the PEF program. You can read more about it on BYU's International Services pages. Like the PEF, it is only available to students outside the United States and Canada.

2. The Yount Program for Educational Advancement: This program is also administered through the PEF and the Church although it is funded with private money. See it's separate web site for details. It seems to emphasize life long learning and adapting to our world's changing educational needs.

From the web site:

"Today the world is competitive, more than it`s ever been. I believe men and women need to get a type of education which will enable them to meet the exigencies of life ... Men and women need to be prepared for a vastly broader scope than we have ever had before." Thomas S. Monson

The purpose of the program is four-fold:

1. Promote and support educational advancement.2. Help equalize educational opportunity.3. Promote learning by faith and by study including education as a spiritual endeavor.4. Develop educational self-reliance and its use in support of other areas of self-reliance.

Currently, the program exists in only three areas: Southern California, Four Corners Native American Area and for Hispanic members in the inner city of Salt Lake City, Utah.

It will take donations and volunteers to make all these programs a success. So, let's all commit to get involved in these and other worthy educational endeavors.

The Church and Higher Education: Part 6: Western Governors University And Others Like It

2011-08-14T08:00:00.002-05:00

Western Governors University doesn't really have anything to do with the Church although it's headquarters are in Salt Lake City and Phoenix. These two cities have extensive Mormon populations. Mike Leavitt, a Mormon, was governor of Utah when this school got put together. I've kept my eye on it ever since. I'm now a big fan.

What I like about WGU is the driving philosophy behind it.The Church seems to embrace it as I will show in future posts.

WGU is a non-profit school set up to exploit online learning opportunities. Tuition is a flat fee for six months and the programs are self-paced. Explore it yourself to understand what it offers and how it is different.

Having worked as a professor, and having been in academia a long time, it had instant appeal to me although I realized it threatened what I had worked toward all my life. As a professor I had many responsibilities such as teaching, publishing, designing coursework, grading, advising, community service, service to my department, service to my school, administrative responsibilities, etc. WGU doesn't place all these responsibilities in one position. IT breaks them up and assigns them out. The faculty positions at WGU emphasize only one of these responsibilities. It is a much more efficient set-up than the traditional university or college. WGU is more efficient and, I believe, more effective.

If I redid my life I would go to WGU or perhaps a community college. It has long been an established fact in academia that community colleges are better alternatives than state universities and colleges. You get more bang for your buck. Some states have set up their own agreements with WGU like Indiana, Texas and now Washington.

The Church has emphasized technical and vocational opportunities close to home in its educational initiatives. In the United States, that means community colleges, vocational schools and online opportunities. Certainly WGU qualifies.

New week I'll cover the Church's educational financial program and it's other pilot programs I'll bet you don't know about.

Until next week. . .

The Church and Higher Education: Part 5: BYU-Idaho vs. BYU in Provo, Utah

2011-08-07T15:10:00.004-05:00

When I lived in Kansas I noticed a BYU-Idaho college student from our small local congregation attending church in late January. Thinking this was unusual given that she should be in school, I approached her afterwards and asked her why she was home. She gave me an interesting answer.

She told me that all the students in her program attended school for three semesters and then had a semester break. This instantly struck me as a good idea. With college costs skyrocketing and student debt piling up it makes no sense to delay schooling. You need a break from it occasionally though. Three semesters and then a semester break makes more sense to me than two semesters and one semester break. Most school schedules are an historical relic of the agricultural age and make no sense.

I keep seeing innovation come out of BYU-Idaho, but not from BYU. It isn't hard to guess why. BYU-Idaho was formally a two-year junior college named Ricks College. BYU is an established school firmly entrenched in the Harvard model.

When Kim Clark was named President of BYU-Idaho and it started to expand, change could happen. One of the obvious changes is that it eliminated competitive intercollegiate sports. Obviously, this is close to my heart because I loath competitive sports. I found BYU's devotion to it offensive, no pun intended.(I was attending BYU in 1984.)

The latest development at BYU-Idaho to impress me is the Pathway Program. It combines the goals of lifelong learning and online education. It makes sense.

BYU is stuck in the Harvard model. Perhaps there is no hope for it. However, BYU-Idaho has little entrenched faculty, bureaucracy and buildings. It seems well-positioned to take advantage of online learning opportunities.

Hats off to BYU-Idaho and Henry Eyring (the son, not the apostle). As a Vice President under Kim Clark, he and BYU-Idaho are positioned for great things.