My Random Thoughts

One Great Whole

2012-10-17T12:30:00.006-07:00

This was a 'talk' I gave at the Convocation of the Latter-day Saint Community at Stanford University on October 16th 2012 in the Memorial Church.

Standing in front of you here is an awe inspiring view. A group of people of faith in the middle of one of the top ranked universities. This is thanks in part to Jane Stanford, who insisted that this church be the centerpiece of campus while the architect wanted it to be a library.¹ This likely seems strange to many who believe that faith and reason are antithetical, as seems to be the current Western Zeitgeist. Some may say that we must pick a side: faith or reason. Even if they are right, even if faith and reason are in fact antithetical, even if there is a deep and impassible chasm between them, how different is this from the chasm between our human condition and our concept of God? We see this chasm bridged through the atonement or at-one-ment of Christ. Can such an at-one-ment also work in the dilemma of faith and reason?

I love how Mormonism approaches atonement. Not only is atonement something which the Son of God wrought, but it is a process in which we are invited to participate. We do so in many ways. Our sealing ordinances are a form of atonement, as individuals are sealed or welded together. We have a strong concept of ‘gathering’ which is another form of atonement, as a people once scattered are brought together again as one people. I also see Mormonism as very effectively working an at-one-ment with faith and reason.

The Doctrine and Covenants teaches many things regarding this. We learn that we should seek diligently from the best books of wisdom, by study and faith.² We learn that whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life will rise with us in the resurrection and will be an advantage to us there.³ We learn that in fact, the Glory of God is intelligence.⁴

The last year of his life, Joseph Smith gave two principles which he called “the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism."⁵ The first was truth. He said “One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from where it may."⁶ This then as a fundamental principle frees us to accept truths that may even seem to contradict our faith. This says that we don't choose the side of faith or the side of reason, but rather we must choose the side of truth as manifested in faith and reason. Joseph said: “Have the Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists any truth? Embrace it. Get all the good in the world, and you will come out a pure Mormon."⁷

We need not fear truths gained from reason, but rather we must embrace them in order to be, as Joseph said, 'pure Mormons.' How do we know what of faith and reason are truth? Joseph said: “we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth... when that truth is clearly demonstrated to our minds, and we have the highest degree of evidence of the same."⁸ So with the 13th article of faith we follow of the admonition of Paul by seeking all truths and gathering or sealing them into one great whole.⁹

Now, I'm going to venture a guess that few if any here are guilty of not seeking out intellectual truths. If anything I'm guilty of over-focusing and interpreting even inconsequential information with a scientific approach. At times I even see things in equations. For example, when I read section 93 of the Doctrine and Covenants with phrases like "intelligence, or in other words light and truth" my brain sees: intelligence= light + truth. But if you do that to the whole section it is virtually impossible to make all the equations work as a set. Yet recently I had the following impression: what if most of the variables here are actually synonyms? What if truth = intelligence = the essence of our very being. Then "the glory of God is intelligence” can also read “the glory of God is humans/us/his children."¹⁰

Using B. H. Roberts tripartite model of the soul, we see that our bodies are shells, vehicles, or temples for our spirits, and our spirits are the same type of vessels for our “intelligence."¹¹ Intelligence is the core of our very being, of our very selves. We read in Section 93 that intelligence is light and truth.¹² We further read that “All truth [and intelligence] is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself"¹³ which is the same way Lehi speaks of people and agency in 2nd Nephi, when he says that man is independent, or an agent, placed on earth to act for himself.¹⁴ What if the most important truths we are to seek out, to gather or seal into one great whole, are our fellow human beings?

This fits very well with the other "grand fundamental principle of Mormonism:” friendship. Joseph placed the virtue of friendship, or love, above other virtues: “[I] don’t care what a [man’s] character is if he’s my friend.—a friend a true friend . . . I will be a friend to him[.] Friendship is the grand fundamental principle of Mormonism. It will revolutionize and civilize the world."¹⁵

If we accept this exegesis, this Mormon metaphysics, then the most important truths for us to embrace in our lives are the light and truth of every human soul. This is not a simple task. We instinctively divide into groups and assert our group boundaries by drawing lines of exclusion. As groups we fight against each other and we ‘truths’ separate ourselves rather than bringing each other “at-one.” We create and maintain these differences rather than seeking to bridge them. The political left versus the right, people of faith versus atheists, people of faith versus ‘apostates’ who have left their fold; all are chasms that we are to strive to bridge as Mormons through friendship, and in keeping with our ideals to gather, seal, and create an at-one-ment to bring humanity into one great whole.

So as we continue our efforts to seek for further light and knowledge, to seek for greater intelligence, let us remember that the most important intelligence that we seek to gain and gather are our fellow human beings, especially when a chasm separates us. As we strive to live the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism, let us seek all truth and intelligence and seal them into one great whole. I say these things in the name of the author of the at-one-ment, Jesus Christ, Amen.

1 http://janestanford.stanford.edu/values.html ^↩
2 Doctrine and Covenants 88:118 and Doctrine and Covenants 109:7 ^↩
3 Doctrine and Covenants 130:18-19 ^↩
4 Doctrine and Covenants 93:36 ^↩
5 I've only found two instances of Joseph calling something a "grand fundamental principle of Mormonism"^↩
6 Sermon delivered at the Nauvoo temple grounds on Sunday July 9, 1843 ^↩
7 Sermon delivered at Nauvoo, Ill. on July 23, 1843 ^↩
8 Joseph Smith to Isaac Galland, March 22, 1839 ^↩
9 See 1st Corinthians 13:7, Ephesians 1:10, and the 13th article of faith.^↩
10 Doctrine and Covenants 93:36 ^↩
11 "Spirit and Mind" post at ByCommonConsent written by Jonathan Stapley ^↩
12 See Doctrine and Covenants 93 verses 29 and 36.^↩
13 Doctrine and Covenants 93:29-30 ^↩
14 For the same phrases see verses 16 and 26 of 2nd Nephi Chapter 2. For the whole section alluded to see verses 11-27.^↩
15 Sermon delivered at Nauvoo, Ill. on July 23, 1843 ^↩

Russell Hancock on testimony and the church

2012-08-03T00:39:00.001-07:00

This is a transcript of unprepared remarks by Russell Hancock
1st Counselor, Menlo Park Stake Presidency

to the Valparaiso Ward Elders Quorum
6 May 2012

I’m grateful for the invitation to speak to your quorum.

My objective today is to tell you about my faith journey and offer up some conclusions and observations. I’m going to speak the only way I know how: honestly and with complete candor, nothing withheld. It means making myself vulnerable in front of group I don’t know well (yet), but we think you have a right to know your new stake presidency. If you sustain me as your leader then you need to know exactly what it is you are sustaining.

So here, for what it’s worth, is my story.

But first: it would appear that there are two types of Mormons, or at least two paths to conversion.

One set of members base their testimony on some sort of sensory encounter which they describe as a burning in the bosom, a witness of the spirit, or some sort of infallible encounter with the Holy Ghost. They might hear a voice, or have a tingling, or find themselves in tears, or some other such sensory experience. Many people that I trust and admire describe their witness in these terms, and I believe them. I absolutely believe them. If I’m being completely truthful I will also tell you there are others who speak of this, and I wonder if they are confusing the Holy Ghost with something else, something emotional or intentional or overwrought. But I have decided never to judge, to accept their claims at face value, and I do not doubt the possibility of such experiences.

The scriptures of course describe this. The most famous instance of it is the promise at the end of Moroni where we’re told to test the gospel and seek a manifestation of the spirit. We’re also taught that the manifestation of the spirit will be the Holy Ghost revealing truth to us.

So that’s one way of ascertaining truth.

Now here’s the true confession: I’ve never had it. This has never come to me. That’s not how I’ve obtained my truth.

Now, for most of my life, especially while praying, this is something that led to the sense that I was alone, and led me to feel like I was a second class Mormon--second rate because I couldn’t accomplish this sensory, infallible encounter with the Holy Ghost. I thought that there was something wrong with me.

It came to a head for me when I was in high school and began asking the big question that looms over the life of a young Mormon male: am I going to serve a mission? And by the way, I was born in the church, “born of goodly parents,” and raised to have faith. And I loved the church--loved everything about it. So as that crucial milestone came in my life where I had to decide whether to go on a mission, I wanted more than anything to serve! I wanted to do this, and yet when I was honest with myself I had to confess I didn’t actually know for myself that the Church was true. I was following my parents’ religion and way of life, and the testimony of family, friends, and ward members.

Here is the next confession that I need to make: I did something I’m not proud of. I began to speak more loudly and in a voice that was more shrill, and I would actually testify. I would stand up in church meetings and say things that I had no right to say, that I didn’t yet know for my own self. But I thought that in the act of saying them--and saying them more loudly--the testimony would come. So there’s another confession for you.

Well, my public speaking notwithstanding, I did what Moroni challenged me to do. I think I was very sincere. I worked very hard to pray and I approached my Heavenly Father in that prescribed way and I asked for a manifestation of the Holy Spirit. And brethren, it didn’t come, I knew that if I was being honest with myself I had to admit I wasn’t feeling any palpable sense of the Holy Spirit.

So what am I to do? Well brethren, here’s the next confession: I served a mission. You could say I caved. But I wanted to serve, and I think I had righteous reasons, but I should also tell you I felt like it was an important rite of passage. I felt all of the pressure that you feel to serve a mission, knew the opportunities I would be foreclosing if I didn’t, so I submitted my papers and received a call.

So I get into the mission field, where it started to trouble me that I was saying things to investigators I thought were true but didn’t know were true. That troubled me. So I thought it was crucial to continue this effort, to find out for myself if the church is in fact everything we’re taught. In fact, I would wait for my companion to fall asleep every night, and when I heard his heavy rhythmic breathing I would get up again and spend the night trying to induce this thing.

Well, it didn’t happen. That manifestation that was promised in Moroni eluded me. So this was a crisis point for me and I actually felt like if I was going to be true and have integrity then I should probably confess these things to my leadership, to my mission president, and also to my parents. So I actually wrote a letter home to my parents saying that I felt I was a fraud: I loved the church, but that I didn’t know it was true through this encounter with the Holy Ghost.

Instantly, back comes a letter from my mother. You have to know my mother to fully appreciate this. She doesn’t suffer fools. She can be very stern. So back comes her letter, and she says “Rusty, enough of this nonsense. This is pure foolishness. Stop this at once. Stop praying with your knees, start praying with your feet.” And that was a sweet relief for me. It was complete and total liberation. I took her advice and decided “I’m going to stop doing this thing. I’m going to stop holding a gun to the Lord’s head and insisting on a sign. I’m just going to live my life as if the gospel is true.”

So you must understand: what I did upon reading that letter, was that I made a wager. I decided to bet my entire life that the gospel was true. I decided I would wager my life that the church is everything it claims it is and live out my life accordingly. So that is what I’ve done and what I continue to do.

Now, there’s more I need to tell you on the subject because of course, the story doesn’t just end there. The kicker is that in the course of serving and fulfilling priesthood duty, knowledge does in fact come. But for me it has come in ways that were unbidden. Knowledge for me has not arrived because it was beckoned, or because I said ‘give me a revelation.’ For me it has come in ways I can barely describe, and never on command, and I’m not even sure that they’re sensory or palpable. But I can tell you brethren and sisters that I somehow crossed a threshold into an area that I think we can call something more approaching knowledge. When I speak with conviction about our church it’s not merely with hope and with faith but with something that is approaching knowledge. That I can tell you. But it’s never come on my terms and never come to me on my timetable.

Now here’s what’s striking. Every time I share these experiences I am assailed by people who tell me “that’s my feeling, that’s my experience too.” So I’m starting to draw conclusions that there really do seem to be two sets of Latter-day Saints. The two sets are people for whom these are experiences are forthcoming and those for whom they’re not. That’s a curious outcome, but there it is. I think we can observe it empirically throughout the church.

Now there is a section in the Doctrine and Covenants that speaks to this, and for some reason it doesn’t get the press it deserves, certainly not as much press as Moroni. It’s section 46, and it says:

13 To some it is given by the aHoly Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God... 14 To others it is given to abelieve on their words

That’s me, okay? That’s definitely me. And yet believing on the words of another is described as a spiritual gift--a legitimate spiritual gift. One that we might even seek, to believe on their words. This is me. And today I don’t think that makes me less of a Latter-day Saint, or less of a disciple. Actually I think I can stand before you and make the case that this makes me a gifted Latter-day Saint, and that gift I have is to believe on their words.

Furthermore, long years later, many years later, I encountered the writings and the talks given by a number of general authorities in the church, and if I could only have known this at the time of my mission and when I was very young, it would have saved me so much consternation, self-doubt, and recrimination.

I want to share with you the story of President David O. McKay, which I had never heard! But he stood up in the 1968 General Conference and told a story that turns out to be just like mine. I had never heard this from a church leader. Let me share it with you. This is President McKay:

I am going to tell you what happened to me as a boy upon the hillside near my home in Huntsville. I was yearning, just as you boys are yearning, to know that the vision given to the Prophet Joseph Smith was true, and that this Church was really founded by revelation, as he claimed. I thought that the only way a person could get to know the truth was by having a revelation or experiencing some miraculous event ... So one day I was hunting cattle. While climbing a steep hill, I stopped to let my horse rest, and there, once again, an intense desire came over me to receive a manifestation of the truth of the restored gospel. I dismounted, threw my reins over my horse's head, and there, under a bush, I prayed that God would declare to me the truth of his revelation to Joseph Smith. I am sure that I prayed fervently and sincerely and with as much faith as a young boy could muster.

At the conclusion of the prayer, I arose from my knees, threw the reins over my faithful pony's head, and got into the saddle. As I started along the trail again, I remember saying to myself: "No spiritual manifestation has come to me. If I am true to myself, I must say I am just the same boy that I was before I prayed." I prayed again when I crossed Spring Creek, near Huntsville, and again in the evening to milk our cows.

The Lord did not see fit to give me an answer on that occasion, it wasn’t until I had been appointed president of the Scottish Mission, that the spiritual manifestation for which I had prayed as a boy came. And it simply came as a natural sequence to the performance of duty.

So that is President McKay. That’s interesting! And I want to read to you this quote from Elder Oaks, which was interesting:

I have met persons who told me they have never had a witness from the Holy Ghost because they have never felt their bosom “burn within” them. What does a “burning in the bosom” mean? Does it need to be a feeling of caloric heat, like the burning produced by combustion? If that is the meaning, then I have never had a burning in the bosom.

That was Elder Oaks. Interesting, right? Now here’s Elder Packer:

Some have been misled by expecting revelations too frequently. I have learned that strong, impressive spiritual experiences do not come to us very frequently. Revelations from God—the teachings and directions of the Spirit—are not constant. We believe in continuing revelation, not continuous revelation. We are often left to work out problems without the dictation or specific direction of the Spirit. That is part of the experience we must have in mortality. The people I have found most confused in this Church are those who seek personal revelations on everything.

Let me read you another one, this from Elder McConkie:

Some people postpone acknowledging their testimony until they have experienced a miraculous event. They fail to realize that with most people—especially those raised in the Church—gaining a testimony is not an event but a process. Being born again is a gradual thing, except in a few isolated instances that are so miraculous that they get written up in the scriptures. As far as the generality of the members of the Church are concerned, conversion is a process; and it goes step by step, degree by degree, level by level, from a lower state to a higher, from grace to grace, until the time that the individual is wholly turned to the cause of righteousness.

Boy, that’s me! That describes my experience precisely. I wanted to share that for what it’s worth.

Now, I also want to point out that the Book of Mormon actually proposes actually two different models for obtaining faith and testimony. This is very important. The one model we’ve covered and everybody knows because it gets all the press, and that model is Moroni 10:4: Ask and have a witness be delivered unto you. That’s a legitimate model; it’s scriptural, I believe that it’s true and that it can take place exactly as described. And yet there’s another model laid out very clearly in the same book, which we must also take as scripture and therefore literal and therefore equally valid. It describes an entirely different path to faith and testimony and it is found in Alma 32, where the gospel is likened unto a seed. It uses an agricultural metaphor.. That one really resonates with me. It describes my own life experience. Here we’re not asked to have this dramatic confrontation with Deity, to seek out something bordering on mystical and to have it delivered on the spot. Instead, we’re asked to do something altogether different, which is to cultivate a seed, to nurture it through our actions. It’s the horticultural approach, where a testimony is a thing to be carefully planted, cultivated, watered, tested. And what do you test? You test the fruits, right? To me the fruits of the gospel are delicious. They pass my taste test.

I find that a curiosity why missionaries don’t actually lead with that. I would lead with that if I had it to do over again. This is what I would be asking my investigators to do. I would say “just plant the seed, test it. Try it. You might have to try it over a lifetime, but take a look at this seed and then make your own decision on the merits, whether it is good or not. That’s been my experience. To me the fruits are so beautiful and so good that I’ve been willing to bet my entire life upon it.

So there’s my story, and we your stake presidency feel that you have a right to know us in this way. You have a right to understand our spiritual journeys, how we come by the things that we say. And I will make you a promise right here, that you will never hear me say anything over the pulpit or in a church setting that is beyond my knowledge. If you listen carefully you will hear me choosing words like “believe” as in “I believe this is true” or “I trust this is true” or “I have accumulated enough evidence to persuade me this is the better path.” I’ll be using words very carefully.

Now having shared my story, I want to make five observations for all of us here in the Menlo Park Stake, each on our own faith journeys. Indulge me in five observations. Here they are;

First, and I want to say this very clearly: if you happen to be somebody who wonders; if you happen to be somebody who is experiencing doubt about the church or about the gospel or any of the great existential questions, if you happen to be a person who wonders I say: Marvelous! How marvelous that is! This is your home. You belong here with us, and you are badly wanted. I want to be very clear about this, the Stake Presidency wants to have a community of saints who are probing, who are discovering, who are testing, who are faith testing, and who are making serious, critical investigation. We’re not trying to cultivate a stake of passive believers, mouthing platitudes. We are trying to cultivate active seekers. This is the kind of stake that we seek to lead. So that’s the first thing I want to make clear, that if you are finding doubts or asking questions, this is a safe and appropriate place to do that. And I can say that because my own Hosanna have passed through the crucible of doubt.

The scriptures make it perfectly clear that there is a place for doubt and for skepticism and that this is part of the journey. Remember in the book of Mark when the man seizes upon the Savior and says “Lord I believe, help thou mine unbelief,” and how the Savior looked especially kindly upon him. Count me as one of those.

Observation number two is to issue a challenge to those who are feeling comfortable, or those who are feeling complacent in the faith. We want to root out complacency. We don’t think there’s a place for that in the church. Forgive me, but I think there are a few too many Mormons who have decided that because the church is true, we therefore have all the answers to all of the questions, all of the theological questions that have plagued scholars and theologians for centuries. Disciples have been breaking their heads open over these questions for centuries, but because we have the gospel, we know every answer and there’s nothing left for us to do but to be perfunctory Mormons. We don’t think this stake should be a place where people can be smug. Nobody is excused from this lifelong journey of probing and questioning. An unexamined faith is not worth having.

Not only that, there is yet so much truth that need to be revealed, that needs to be discovered. Remember we believe in continuing revelation. So there is a great deal more for us to do. I fear that many of us confuse faith with depth, and this we must never do. So the second observation I wanted to make is that all of us have a duty to examine our faith, and to be breaking open our heads all over the great questions that our theology poses. It’s breathtaking if you allow yourself to participate in that kind of an exercise.

Here’s the third observation that I would like to make. The church is a dynamic organization. By dynamic I mean it changes. The gospel is timeless but the Church is not. I have lived long enough to witness the Church make many great and significant changes in my lifetime. Significant things, things like doctrines, teachings, or practices about women, about priesthood, about the garments we wear, among others. So this is significant. We should all understand that the church is a dynamic thing, and one that will grow and change and mature, and we will witness it in our lifetimes.

Here’s my fourth observation. I want to suggest that we have a role to play in that evolution. We should be agents in helping discover truth, agents in helping the church grow and increase and improve as an institution. Now we make distinctions of course between the gospel and the church right? There was a great talk in this past conference about that, the difference between the church and the gospel. Read that and apply it to our stake as well. Over the 9 years of our stake presidency I’m sure you’ll see many things come and go, changes made. We want you to be enlisted in the change. We want you to feel like you are agents in this. We want you to be innovative with us, and entrepreneurial and creative. We want you to bring your best thinking and we want you to help us.

Here’s the last observation I’d like to make. It’s an invitation to the members of our stake. We hope that you’ll pray with your knees and also pray with your feet. We want you to pray on your knees, we rejoice in those prayers. We seek those prayers, but we also want the stake full of people who are caught up in the work. It’s a work of compassion. It’s a work of saving, one person at a time. It’s a work of sweat and equity in this place where we’re trying to build a portion of the kingdom. And it’s our experience (it’s certainly my experience) that in the act of service, in the act of fulfilling our duty, this is where the greater knowledge comes, the greater light and knowledge. So we want encourage that among all of us.

Well, we’re living in an exciting time, when the church (I think) is asking more and more, asking more of us, asking us to be more like Ammon who served the king, who was willing to serve all his days. The church is asking us to be more like Ammon. The church is asking us to be less like Samuel the Lamanite: declarative, standing on the wall, shouting the truth. There’s a place and time for that, of course, and in stake conference I’m going to speak on this subject. But the church here locally is trying to be a bit more like Ammon, praying with our feet, ministering to the people around us. It’s really exciting, to be a part of this. Our mission, for example, has stopped all tracting, on a pilot basis. Right now we’re not tracting! We’re working with members, and seeking out service opportunities for our missionaries. We’re going to take that very seriously, and it’s a way that we’ll be doing that praying with our feet. So that’s the invitation that we want to make to all of our members.

Thanks again for inviting me. I would love to answer questions and make this a dialogue now, instead of a monologue.

Martha Hughes Cannon

2012-06-03T20:50:00.000-07:00

I've wanted to highlight the life of this amazing and trailblazing woman for some time now, but it's taken months to get to this point. As a result I'm just posting this as is and apologize if it is choppy and full of grammatical errors. I should note that much of this post is made up of direct quotes from this book. I would recommend it because I would like people to know more about this woman. She was part of the first wave of women to attain higher education (getting her MD in 1880 at University of Michigan, and a BS in Pharmacy in 1882 from the University of Pennsylvania, in addition to a degree in Chemistry and a diploma from the National School of Elocution and Oratory), she was the first ever woman to be a state senator, she was the first woman to be on the ballot for a US senate race, she was a mother to 3 kids, and she was a mormon. What follows is a summary of her life:

Martha Maria Hughes (Mattie) was born in July 1st 1857 in Wales. Her family converted to the mormon church not long after she was born and just before age 3 her family moved to live in the Rocky Mountains with the church. Both her sister and father died on the trek, and her mother was left a widow at age 28 with two young daughters. Her mother remarried a year later and her step-father was kind and encouraging.

By age 14 she was studying at the University of Deseret and was working as a schoolteacher. She then became a typesetter for the Women's Exponent. She became so skilled with this typesetting that in addition to doing this for the Exponent, she did typesetting for the Deseret News and was able to set type for Church publications in Scandinavian languages (even though she didn't speak or understand them). While typesetting for the Exponent, she became aware of women's issues, especially event occurring at both the national and international levels. This experience helped her to seriously consider continuing her studies beyond the completion of her degree in chemistry. It also allowed her to meet several prominent and powerful women in the church, including both Emmeline Wells and the "Matriarch of Mormonism" Eliza Snow. Even though Eliza was quite elderly when she met Mattie, she recognized Mattie's intelligence and became a mentor to her. Mattie had a strong desire to help educate the Saints on the importance of public health, so with the support of Eliza Snow, Emmeline Wells, and her stepfather James Paul she continued her studies and prepared to go east to pursue an MD. In 1878 she graduated with a degree in chemistry and was accepted at the University of Michigan's medical school.

Mattie had come close to marrying someone with whom she had become deeply involved. Several in the community expected that she would marry (she was already 21-years-old). However her desire to pursue her education won out and she broke off the engagement to go east and pursue her MD. Others in the community weren't so shocked as Mattie had already shown her non-conformist nature. She was so busy working and studying that caring for her long hair seemed too much bother. She cut it short (a shocking transgression, along with her boots, of the Victorian image of female beauty and propriety).

Mattie wasn't the first woman in Utah to get a medical education. One woman, Ellen Ferguson, arrived in Utah in the late 1870's. Ellen started a practice in Utah and in 1878 organized classes for women in obstetrics and the diseases of women and children. Having been given an extensive private education by her father, a Cambridge professor, she also taught classes in French, Latin, German, drawing, elocution, drama, and music. In addition to these varied talents, she was an avid feminist, and she became the first woman deputy sheriff in the United States.

Mattie was one of three women in the 1870's who were called to study medicine by the church leaders. The first woman to receive the call was a woman named Romania Bunnell Pratt. She was 34 and a mother of five. She left her kids with her mother, sold her home and piano and went east to study medicine. She studied at Bellevue College (and was the first woman to attend the college) but by the 2nd year she couldn't afford to continue her studies and returned home. However, with the Relief Society's help, Romania returned East, this time to the Woman's Medical College of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. Established in 1850, the college was the second orthodox medical school for women in the United States. Romania earned her MD in 1877, specializing in ear and eye surgery.

The second woman who was called to study medicine was Ellis Shipp, a plural wife of Milford Shipp. In 1875 she left her children with her sister-wife Margaret and joined Romania at the Woman's College in Philadelphia. At the end of the second year, she gave birth to her fourth child but continued her studies while a landlady took care of the baby. After Ellis completed her degree, her sister-wife Margaret went east and got her MD, then their husband also went east to get his MD. As often happens when one member of a marriage is off studying for some years, the marriage, even a polygamous marriage, cannot survive the separation. Romania's marriage to Parley Pratt Jr. and Margaret's marriage to Milford Shipp ended in divorce not long after the two women returned to Salt Lake City.

Mattie and these other pioneering women had unique challenges in their pursuit of a medical degree. In the nineteenth century women were not welcome in most regular medical schools, even if officially allowed entrance. When the University of Michigan decided in 1870 to admit women-an experiment considered of "doubtful utility" by some of the faculty-it was agreed that men and women could not be taught in the same classroom. Mattie and her fellow female colleagues had to sit in a separate room where the male students couldn't see them.' There was a gynecological theory current that intellectual activity was injurious to the female reproductive organs. Some of this was the belief that women were just too frail and delicate to withstand the assaults on their modesty, inevitable in the study of anatomy. Had women been admitted to medical school a decade or more earlier, these struggles would have ended much faster. Back then one only needed to spend a year in a doctor's office and take 2 winder courses (4 months each) at medical school. Thus the education these women received were far superior to the recent past.

Martha in 1880

Among Mattie's female classmates were other progressive feminists. One friend, Bethenia Owens-Adair received her MD degree the same year as Mattie and went on to become the first woman doctor in Oregon, and, as Mattie would later become, an avid suffragist. Mattie decided to do more than the necessary coursework and took extra courses at night in pharmacology and did additional work in electro-therapeutics and bacteriology (which was a cutting-edge field at the time). Mattie received her MD on her 23rd birthday in 1880.

Mattie then practiced medicine in Michigan for a year and then in the fall of 1881, Mattie decided to continue her studies in Philadelphia. Margaret Shipp was still at the Woman's Medical College there, but instead of joining Margaret, Mattie entered the Auxiliary Medical Department of the University of Pennsylvania for postgraduate training. She wrote her thesis on the study of "Mountain Fever" which was a serious medical issue for people in the Rocky Mountains. She got her degree in Pharmacology in 1882. The graduation program shows that law and medical degrees were given to several male students, but Martha P. Hughes, MD, was the only woman to receive the BS degree.

Although Mattie planned to open her own practice upon returning to Utah, she had not lost sight of her goal to teach her community the importance of public health. To this end she enrolled in the National School of Elocution and Oratory, a leading institute of public speaking, concurrently with her science studies at the university. Apparently she had quite a flair for dramatics, since her instructors thought she should concentrate on becoming an actress. She received a Bachelor of Oratory in June of 1882.

As attractive and intelligent a young woman as Mattie would be bound to leave some broken hearts in her wake as she pursued her ambitions. In addition to the young man she broke with after she left Utah for Michigan, a couple more along the way lost hope of her hand. One of these, a beau from Philadelphia, went so far as to convert to Mormonism and follow her back to Salt Lake. For Mattie the chemistry just wasn't there and she continued pursuing her own goals in opening her medical practice.

While Mattie was still developing her private practice, she received the call from the Church authorities to be the resident physician for the Deseret Hospital. She would be replacing Dr. Ferguson, who was leaving to continue her private practice. The Deseret Hospital was established by a group of activist women, under the leadership of Eliza Snow, while Mattie was still in Philadelphia. They built the funding model on the model of the mining companies. A premium payment of a dollar a year would be solicited from every member of every ward and stake in Utah Mormondom. If a family was too poor to pay, produce or work could be accepted. In addition to the individual annual dollars, every Relief Society and other Church organizations would be required to contribute a dollar a month to establish ward credit accounts. Those who were capable of paying for their care would be required to do so; those who could not would be covered by the communal funds.

The hospital was headed by a board of directors, one of whom was Angus Munn Cannon. He was the stake president of the Salt Lake Stake and brother of George Q Cannon of the Quorum of the 12. There is a story that one day Mattie rather peremptorily told Elder Angus Munn Cannon to leave the room so that she could get on with her work. The nurse assistants were appalled that a woman would have the audacity to speak in such a manner to a member of the Church hierarchy. Apparently such feistiness appealed to Elder Cannon. Within the year Mattie secretly became his fourth polygamous wife.

Her biographer thought that it was difficult to understand why an intelligent, ambitious young woman, having just finished an extensive education and rising in her career, would secretly sneak off to the Endowment House to be sealed for eternity to a man old enough to be her father-a man who was already married to three women, had seventeen children of his own plus four step-children, and who was Suspect Number One on the federal agents' "most wanted" list. She also gave the answer: That she was desperately in love is clear from the letters she wrote to Angus, which he kept and which are now in the LDS archives.

This was during the time period in which the US was passing many laws banning polygamy, and disenfranchising entities (or to be honest, the LDS church) which practiced it. This was why Angus was wanted, why the marriage was secret, and why her subsequent pregnancy had to be hidden. Not only did she hide because her pregnancy would give away the proof of her polygamous marriage, but also, because she was a doctor, she was wanted as a witness at the trials of other accused polygamists. She had assisted at many births of children of polygamous marriages, and the federal agents were after her to testify against the fathers. There was a $200 bond on her head to force her to appear as a witness. As she said in a letter to her friend Barbara: "To me it is a serious matter to be the cause of sending to jail a father upon whom a lot of little children are dependent, whether those children were begotten by the same or different mothers-the fact remains they all have little mouths that must be fed."

Mattie, 1887

The Utah territory was the first major region in the entire United States to allow women their right to vote in 1870. Utah also had the easiest divorce laws; women could opt for divorce for no reason. These were rights which women were fighting for in the east and being repeatedly denied. However, passage of the Edmunds-Tucker Act in 1887 took away the women's right to vote, and it gave prosecutors more ammunition by repealing the right of a wife or husband to refuse to testify against a spouse.

Mattie lived back where she'd attended medical school, as well as England and even Switzerland to avoid prosecution. During this time she wrote many letters to her husband. She once told Angus that he was too much of a polygamist or "is progressing finely, that way, while I am playing the ass over here, am wondering what the Lord thinks of the mess of us." On another occasion she wrote, "I often wonder why I have been subjected to the life I have led for the past three and a half years. It is certainly one of three things. Earning a `big' reward, atoning for past delinquencies, or else because I am a damned fool." After two years of exile she finally returned to Salt Lake City.

Mattie, 1892

Before her exile abroad, Mattie had had the opportunity to visit New York and Boston to observe the nursing schools in those cities and to purchase textbooks. Her ambition at the time was to start a nursing school in Salt Lake. Of course this plan was disrupted by her exile, but she took advantage of her time in Europe to look into such organizations there as well.

Upon her return, she found that her husband had taken two more wives. He was the President of a Stake in Utah (similar to a diocese, but unpaid) and was also responsible for six wives and a great number of children. Hence Angus didn't have much money with which to help Mattie. He did what he could, but she was largely on her own to earn her living as a physician. But if he were locked up in jail on another polygamy charge, he'd not be able to provide support to any of them, so it was up to Mattie to take on the consequences of the situation. Thus Mattie had to provide for herself while also working as the resident physician at the newly formed Deseret Hospital (which was formed and operated by the church women's organization, the Relief Society).

This was very hard on Mattie. In a letter to her husband, she said "How do you think I feel when I meet you driving another plural wife about in a glittering carriage in broad daylight? I am entirely out of money, borrowing to pay some old standing debts. I want our affairs speedily and absolutely adjusted-after all my sacrifice and loss you treat me like a dog-and parade others before my eyes-I will not stand it."

Mattie continued on living essentially as a single mother, resident physician at the hospital, and running a private practice. As if that weren't enough, she channeled additional energy to another of her passions: women's suffrage. As a mormon woman, she was not only fighting for women's suffrage, but simultaneously fighting to defend her religion. She and others protested against the popular image of the Mormon woman as a slave and pointed out that she was free to divorce at any time with rights of support. Mattie quickly became a leader in the Utah Woman's Suffrage Association, giving talks to groups throughout Utah and participating in suffrage conferences in the East along with Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. At the 1893 Columbia Exposition in Chicago, Mattie was a featured speaker at the Woman's Congress. She traveled to Chicago with a group of Utah women leaders.

1895. Susan B Anthony (seated in center, wearing glasses) and the Reverend Anna
Howard Shaw (standing at the left with her hand on a chair) met with a group of Utah
woman suffrage leaders, including Dr. Martha Hughes Cannon (standing farthest left)

Mattie went on from Chicago to appear before a congressional committee in Washington, D.C., to give a status report on the women's suffrage work in Utah. The Chicago Record noted that "Mrs. Dr. Martha Hughes Cannon ... is considered one of the brightest exponents of the women's cause in the United States."

Many religious leaders in the east claimed that women were too "pure" for politics; women would just vote however their husbands or their religious leaders told them to; women were too impulsive, too sympathetic, too delicate to bear the stress; and so on. These arguments were easily dismissed in the west in a world of hardy independent pioneer women, especially women who had already had the vote and then had it taken away from them. Mattie said in a speech she gave in 1894: "One of the principal reasons why women should vote is that all men and women are created free and equal. No privileged class either of sex, wealth, or descent should be allowed to arise or exist. All persons should have the legal right to be the equal of every other."

During this time period the church dissolved the People's Party, which had essentially been the church's political party, and asked members to join one of the two major national parties. Mattie became an ardent democrat while her husband became an active republican. Mattie and her sisters in the suffrage movement pushed hard for Utah to be an equal rights state as the state formed its constitution.

About 20 percent of the men voted against adoption of the constitution, but women's suffrage was a reality for the new state, and Susan B. Anthony and the Reverend Anna Shaw came to Salt Lake to celebrate the words so hard won:
Article IV, Section 1: The rights of citizens of the State of Utah to vote and hold office shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex. Both male and female citizens of this state shall enjoy equally all civil, political, and religious rights and privileges.

Between Mattie's growing political involvement and her continued practice as a doctor, her concern with public health issues continued to grow. There were many such issues plaguing the people of the Great Basin. Typhoid spread easily in the urban area where most of the population drew water from open ditches and wells, the wells often situated too close to privies. The public fountains each had a single tin cup that everyone used. Tuberculosis was rampant in the crowded miners' quarters.

Perhaps the city's worst problem was air pollution. The air was full of toxins spewed from the smelters processing ore in the canyons, and the effects could be seen on the damaged foliage in the parks and residence gardens. Wind and rain blew particulates onto cropland. Additionally a general ignorance of the importance of sanitation and a resistance to the need for quarantine fed the epidemics that coursed through the city, as through many cities of the West.

In 1896 Mattie decided that she would run for State Senate as one of five democrats. Running for the same position was her friend and fellow suffragist Emmeline B. Wells and Mattie's husband Angus, each among the five republicans. The press enjoyed the prospect of a husband and wife running against each other in different political parties. When the results were in, Martha Hughes Cannon became the first woman elected to a State Senate in US history. In addition to Mattie's senate win, two non-Mormon women Democrats, Eurithe LaBarthe and Sarah Anderson, were elected to the lower house, and eleven women were elected throughout the state to county offices.

Mattie got right to work on pursuing public health legislation. In the first month she had successfully introduced three bills: an Act Providing for Compulsory Education of Deaf, Dumb, and Blind Children; an Act to Protect the Health of Women and Girl Employees; and, undoubtedly the most important to her, an Act Creating a State Board of Health and Defining Its Duties.

She also sponsored the state's first pure food law, and she beat back a consortium of lobbyists intent on abolishing the State Board of Public Examiners. The Board of Public Examiners certified the qualifications of doctors and midwives, thereby preventing incompetents or "quacks" from practicing medicine.

Although Mattie's bill to establish a State Board of Health had passed, there had been opposition. In her second senate term, Mattie introduced a public health bill that provided for regulations regarding contagious diseases. Her effort was to restrict teachers with contagious diseases such as tuberculosis from teaching in public classrooms. At this time the issue of whether tubercular teachers should be employed in the schools was controversial. Even the medical association was divided as to whether TB was a contagious disease.'

Mattie was unable to get a bill passed in the legislature that would have required children not vaccinated against smallpox to be kept out of school in case of an epidemic. Requiring vaccination seemed impossible. The smallpox epidemic of 1898-99 closed an entire town in San-pete County. People evaded the quarantine and concealed the disease. The Board of Health sent vaccines, but an editor at the Deseret News spread the erroneous information that the vaccine wasn't safe. Although the News is a Church organ, some of the Church leaders did not agree with this editor, and George Q. Cannon wrote an article praising the vaccination effort-to no avail. The disease spread throughout the state. Not all doctors reported their cases, and families hid their sick. Some eleven hundred cases were reported, but the board members believed another thousand were not reported. Apostle Brigham Young Jr., who believed that God alone could heal the contagious diseases and calamities coming upon the people, wrote in the Deseret News that vaccination of schoolchildren was an example of "Gentile doctors trying to force Babylon into the people and some of them are willing to disease the blood of our children if they can do so, and they think they are doing God's service."' Utah was exceptional in the country in opposing vaccination to such an extent, and the board members feared that their opposition would try to repeal their powers. The board passed a compulsory smallpox vaccination ordinance; the legislature promptly repealed it, offering a diatribe on the board's uselessness and incompetence. In fact over the years Secretary of the Board survived more than one attempt by the opposition to fire him.

Mattie's work began to pay off. In 1896 a large gravity sewer that drained most of the populated areas of the city was installed, thereby eliminating most of the privies and hence the flies that were responsible for spreading disease. The Board of Health managed to get rid of the tin cups by the public water fountains-a single cup by each fountain, used by everyone. These municipal improvements helped to lower the rate of infantile diarrhea, the leading cause of infant death from polluted milk, and kept down the spread of typhoid, except for that spread by human carriers.

Throughout the 1890s, as Mattie became involved in politics, and the years that she served in the senate and on the Board of Health, she continued her private practice. Because of the demands of raising her children and her legislative duties, her office was only open on weekdays between 2:00 and 4:00 p.m. Often her patients couldn't pay her, or couldn't pay her immediately, and money was very tight. Her letters to Angus during these years are full of requests for financial help, and they display a growing sense of bitterness that she and her children are not being treated fairly, or equally, with his other children and wives.

Even with those struggles, Mattie continued her work in the women's suffrage movement. She eventually spoke on suffrage to the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary. Mattie gave a long and elegant address describing the positive effects of women's franchise in her state. She was invited to a reception at the White House, and she commented in a letter to Emmeline Wells, editor of the Woman's Exponent, that she found President McKinley to be a great man, "notwithstanding he is not a Democrat."

Mattie and Gwendolyn, 1899

Mattie may have had a chance at attaining national public office, but given the brouhaha in 1898 over seating B. H. Roberts in the U.S. House, the fact that she was a polygamous wife may have led her to determine that there would be no political advancement for her outside the state of Utah.

Around this time, Mattie became pregnant with her daughter Gwendolyn. This was a big deal, as the terms Congress set for Utah statehood had required the agreement by Church officials that there would be no further polygamous marriages and no further polygamous cohabitation. The return of the federally escheated property, as well as the presidential amnesty, was based on that agreement. This was written into the state constitution and into Utah state law. The birth of Gwendolyn was a blatant example of the fact that members of the Church hierarchy were violating their agreement.

Angus had to be asked by Mattie in a letter to stop by 6 days after the birth of their child. Eventually word got out and Angus was arrested on the charge of unlawful cohabitation. He was eventually released.

Dr. Cannon 1917

Her husband Angus died in 1915. At this point Mattie moved with her children to the Los Angeles area where she continued practicing medicine. After the first World War she became involved in fund-raising for war orphans abroad. At the end of the Turkish war of independence in 1922, Atattirk, leader of modern Turkey, pillaged and burned the three-thousand-year-old city of Smyrna, slaughtering thousands of Greeks and Armenians, creating 160,000 homeless refugees. Mattie raised funds for the American Women's Hospitals, founded by a group of women doctors committed to working overseas. With Mattie's help, $500,000 was raised in support of medical relief.

She worked for several years at the Selwyn Emmett Graves Memorial Dispensary, which, in addition to being a clinic for the poor, also served as a teaching facility for students at the University of California, and was part of the UCLA medical program. According to her daughter Lizzie's manuscript, she became interested in narcotics and drug problems, although she apparently did not publish on this subject.'

Mattie passed on in 1932 at the age of 75. She left a powerful legacy. Her life was at least partially shaped by the mormon teachings of her time. President Brigham Young said: "We believe women are useful, not just to sweep houses, wash dishes, make beds, and raise babies, but that they should stand behind the counter, study law or physic ... all this to enlarge their usefulness for the benefit of society.... In following these things they are but answering the design of their creation." Joseph F. Smith stated in a long and passionate speech to the general conference of the Relief Societies: "Why shall one be admitted to all the avenues of mental and physical progress and the other prohibited and prescribed within certain narrow limits, to her material abridgment and detriment? ... [S]hall a man be paid higher wages than is paid to a woman for doing no better than she does the very same work? ... By what process of reasoning can it be shown that a woman standing at the head of a family, with all the responsibility resting upon her to provide for them, should be deprived of the avenues and ways or means that a man in like circumstances may enjoy to provide for them? ... If the women have equal rights, they must bear equal burdens with men...They do this already, except that their burdens are made unequal in that they are deprived of the enjoyment of equal rights."

Statue of Dr. Cannon at the
Utah Capitol Rotunda

Mattie once said in a newspaper interview when asked how a working woman could be a good mother, replied: "Somehow I know that women who stay home all the time have the most unpleasant homes there are. You give me a woman who thinks about something besides cook stoves and wash tubs and baby flannels, and I'll show you, nine times out of ten, a successful mother."

Martha Hughes Cannon is a woman all mormons should know and be proud of. She made national history. She played an important role in pursuing equal rights. She vastly improved the health and lives of thousands. She struggled to support herself and her children financially. She is an example to everyone and her story should be better known.

Mormonism and Science

2012-05-01T13:11:00.000-07:00

I found this article totally by chance and found it very satisfying. If we take Joseph Smith's statement:

One the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth; let it come from where it may... Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, etc., any truth? Yes. They all have a little truth mixed with error. We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true "Mormons."

along with the contents of the follow article by Talmage, it is not a stretch to say that "true" mormonism is synonymous with science.

THE METHODS AND MOTIVES OF SCIENCE.

BY DR. JAMES E. TALMAGE, PROFESSOR OP GEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH. (This address was delivered in the Logan Temple about 12 years before he became an apostle)

It is possible that a question may arise in the minds of some as to the propriety of this choice of subject for treatment within these sacred precincts. The thought, if it occur at all, is probably dependent upon the very prevalent idea that science is a man-made system, of earth earthy; and that its study is attended with possible if not certain dangers to the faith which man should foster within his soul toward the source of superior knowledge and true wisdom. Indeed, there are many who openly declare that a man cannot be both scientific and religious in his views and practices. Yet there is probably little justification for this conception of supposed antagonism between the healthful operation of man's reason in his effort to comprehend the language of God as declared in the divine works, and the yearnings of the human heart for the beauties of the truth that is revealed by more direct communication between the heavens and the earth. It is not my purpose on this occasion to deal with the trite topic of religion versus science, but rather to speak of the motives that impel the scientific man in his labor, and the fundamental principles of his methods. Such an inquiry, if prosecuted in the spirit of scientific research, cannot be out of place even here; and, if the effort be strengthened by our instinct of reverence for truth and its divine source, it will be found to be friendly to faith and akin to worship.

The word "science" with its many derivatives, and such combinations as "scientific habits" and "scientific spirit" are of common usage today. In spite of the vague and indefinite way in which these and other expressions are used by those who are habitually inaccurate in their sayings and doings, the terms have come to have a meaning specific and definite. Science is not merely knowledge; a simple accumulation of facts, of however valuable a kind, would not constitute a science, any more than a collection of brick and stone, wood, iron and glass, sand, lime, and all the other necessary materials of construction, would constitute a house. The parts must be placed in proper relative position, and only as this true relationship is established and maintained, will the structure approach completeness, or even the condition of convenient service. Science is collated knowledge; its materials are arranged in orderly manner, its facts are so classified and placed as to afford for one another the advantage of mutual support, as the walls bear the roof, and the foundations the walls.

Our rational conclusions regarding the propriety of any occurrence or cause of action are based on two distinct mental processes: — (1) observation and apprehension of facts, and (2) the shaping of opinions and judgments in accordance with those facts. Concerning such Winchell has said, "Aptness, readiness, and spontaneity in the execution of those processes constitute what we mean by the scientific habit. Eagerness to act on determinations reached by such processes is the scientific spirit. The scientific habit of mind is therefore the precise habit required for most just judgments within the sphere of all activities possessing an ethical character. * * * This spirit, first of all, loves the truth supremely. It feels that the passive acceptance of error is an affront to truth and intelligence. It therefore seeks earnestly to arrive at truth and to avoid error either in conception or conclusion. It therefore maintains a habit of watchfulness and scrutiny. It seeks to be accurate in its observation of facts, in its collocation of them, and in the inferences drawn from them. It is cautious; it pauses and reflects; it repeats its observations; it accumulates many facts to enlarge the basis of its generalizations. It enounces inferences tentatively and verifies them at every opportunity. It refuses to swerve from the teachings of the evidence. Interest, prejudice, friendships, advantage, all must be pushed aside. An attitude of absolute indifference toward collateral ends must be maintained. It knows no motives but one, that is the exact truth. This is true judicial attitude. It is an ideal attainment. Probably under human conditions it is never reached; but the scientific spirit approaches it as the asymptote approaches the curve."

This spirit is that of the just judge who is above all human temptation toward bias or prejudice, and in this degree well may we call it an ideal attainment. Man is a creature of bias, a bundle of prejudices, some of them good, many of them assuredly bad. The world teems with dread examples of this prejudice; we scarcely know where to look for unbiased decision. This spirit sits in judgment, but not as the dumb jury in the box, sworn to decide upon such evidence and that only, as sharp-witted lawyers are able to bring forward, or such as a biased judge may see fit to allow; compelled to ignore every fact, the admission of which has been ruled out through some technical victory of the interested pleader; not sworn to render a verdict according to the law as construed by the court, who may or may not be true and worthy; but sworn to try every issue by the most crucial tests, to search for evidence in every nook and corner of the world; to count no costs of court in securing testimony, to search not for evidence on one side alone, but for evidence though it prove or disprove, to construe the law in the spirit of the law-maker and according to equity, to strive not for triumph but for truth, to know no victory but the discomfiture of error and the vindication of right. This spirit will impel him upon whom it rests to a condition at least approaching absolute unselfishness; he must sink himself with all his desires and preconceived opinions, into oblivion. As he works, he is a machine finely constructed, nicely adjusted; responding to every manifestation of force, recording every movement, calm, deliberate, unemotional. Not as the magnetic needle, which is held by the attractive force of that greater magnet, the earth, so that it cannot move in response to another force, unless this latter be strong enough to overcome the earth's directive power; but like the astatic needle, the pronounced tendency of which to swing North and South is overcome, so that it is rendered free to recognize and obey the outer force.

With such purpose and motive the scientific man strives to develop his power of accurate observation, and to train his reason in the forming of judgments on the facts supplied through observation. Every teacher knows how deficient is the ordinary student in the performance of these processes. Observations incomplete, and in other ways unreliable as a basis for opinion and judgment, are in the usual order. It is difficult to bring the mind into a condition of neutrality; we persist in thinking that we see things as we believe they ought to be, or perhaps as we would like to have them, rather than as they are. Lack of skill in observation, aided by active and untrained fancy, is capable of working miracles on a scale otherwise unknown. It is said that the veteran microscopist, Dr. Carpenter, once had his attention directed to the work of a young student, who offered for inspection a marvelous collection of drawings representing alleged revelations of the microscope; there were animals never seen before or since by others; and all of these he had discovered, so Dr. Carpenter was told by an enthusiastic acquaintance, in spite of his inexperience and the imperfections of his instrument. The master's reply was: "Say not in spite of but because of those disadvantages."

May I offer another illustration? A tyro in the use of the microscope found a dead cat lying in a pool of water; the water was stagnant and filthy; he placed a drop under his glass, and saw to his amazement numerous living creatures darting through that liquid drop, which to them was a world, chasing, tearing, rending, devouring one another. Those creatures he declared, though infinitesimally small, had all of them the general appearance of cats; the departed spirits of all the cat tribe were there congregated. Confident of the result of a further observation, he put the carcass of a dog in another pool, and when decay had reached a convenient stage he examined that water and demonstrated to his own satisfaction that the liquid was swarming with canine ghosts. Tis a pity he did not mix a drop of water from each of the pools; he might have heard the savage barks and have seen the fur fly. He confidently communicated to a friend that he had found the land, or rather the water, of departed spirits. The friend proceeded to test his conclusions, and fully demonstrated their falsity. Wherein lay the error? Was it in the glass? No, the second observer used the same instrument; it rested with the man. One was in a fit condition to consider evidence and to give judgment, the other was prejudiced; one was sober, the other was drunken with the wine of his own bias; one was sane, the other mad. Even in the seemingly simple operation of sketching, but few are able to show a thing as it is; some features are sure to be exaggerated, others suppressed; characteristics not appearing in the original are introduced, and essentials are entirely omitted. I speak not of the ideal representations in the work of the artist, his purpose is not so much to copy nature as to portray the beauties, which, while appealing to his trained eye, may be beyond the perception of others.

But even the highest development of skill in observation does not insure correctness of judgment. We may err in interpreting the simplest facts, and the same fact may impress different people in many ways. A well-trained ear might be able to analyze the ticks of a telegraphic receiver, but a knowledge of the code is essential to a proper interpretation of the sounds. We blame the barometer as an untrustworthy instrument, if a rise be not followed by fine weather, or a fall by rain; forgetting that it revealed a change of atmospheric pressure only, and that the definite prophecy of fair or other conditions was not made by the barometer but by ourselves, as a judgment which was perhaps poorly supported.

The cultivation of the scientific spirit has been objected to for many reasons. We are told that it is opposed to the poetic impulse and tends to quench the emotional fire which is essential to the growth of man's perfect nature; and that it is therefore bad. Such a conclusion is hastily drawn; it is contrary to fact. There is no truer poet than the man of science, he must needs indulge his imagination as much as does the singer who deals with sweet sounds, the one who pours out his soul in verse, or he who finds expression for his ideal in beauteous forms in stone, or in colors in canvas. But the scientific man knows that when he sings, the demands of melody and the requirements of harmony may lead him to exaggeration; he remembers that when he makes verses his ardor to secure rhythm and rhyme may intoxicate him; that in the use of chisel and brush he aims rather to please than to teach.

As already stated, the purpose of art is not simply to imitate nature; else photography would be in higher esteem than painting; for it is an evident fact that the good photograph is a likeness representing the subject as it is, while the painted portrait is often an attempt to show forth the artist's ideal. Art strives to recognize and portray this ideal in nature. The mission of poetry, which is but one manifestation of the spirit of art, is to please, incidentally it may teach, but its prime purpose is not didactic. The poet's effort is to find and show forth beauty. And yet the scientist is poetically inclined; he is a lover of beauty in its highest, purest phases. He stands side by side with his brother the poet, in the presence of the simplest manifestations of beauty, admiring the colors of the flower, entranced with the sweet song of the bird and the murmuring of the wind. But he goes farther than his brother, analyzes the color and the sound, and strives to trace these effects back to their causes.

There are other and higher manifestations of beauty than those which appeal only to eye and ear, harmony of color and sound. There is the beauty of adaptation, the fitting of purpose to end, the existence and operation of law. To this, the highest type of beauty, the scientist is passionately devoted. He is a lover of beauty for its own sake; not because it pleases his eye or ear, but because it appeals to his reason and judgment; he loves it for its intrinsic worth. Novelty sways him but lightly; truths to others old and gray, are yet youthful and rosy to him; his affection knows no cooling as the charms of fresh acquaintance disappear; he cares less for the face and the figure than for the heart and its prompting. Tell me, which is the true lover and which the admirer only, he who is charmed by complexion and bust, or he who is attracted by the spirit, though it be encased in a body that is feeble and scarred? Let the poetic feeling be indulged; its indulgence oft-times marks the higher moments of our existence; but in these exalted states we do not work methodically and systematically; as Winchell has said, were the Creator to unveil his face to us, our power of work would be gone, we could do naught but worship.

Again, I hear some say that this scientific tendency is of doubtful propriety, for being cold, calculating, discerning, judging, its devotee being cautious and at times even skeptical, he has no place in his soul for trusting, all-abiding faith; in other words, that the scientific spirit being in contrast with the poetic, is opposed to faith. The conclusion upon which such a statement rests is plain, that he who makes it classes faith as a poetic impulse, an emanation of the art spirit. As if faith were a mere emotion, its purpose solely to please; as if it had its foundation in the sweet but yet light bubblings of poesy. It has a deeper seat, a firmer anchorage. Liken it to a tree, then its roots penetrate to the profoundest recesses of the soil. The scientific spirit is the fruit of that tree. None sees more clearly than does the scientist the necessity of all-abiding trust, none recognizes more readily than he the existence of laws which he has scarcely begun to comprehend, the results of which are nevertheless exalting. Faith is not blind submission, passive obedience with no effort at thought or reason. Faith, if worthy of its name, rests upon truth; and truth is the foundation of science.

The scientific worker pursues his investigation step by step, inviting inspection and criticism at every stage. He makes as plain a trail as he can, blazes the trees of his path through the forest, cuts his footprints in the rocks that others may more readily follow to test his results. He welcomes every new worker in the field, for the work of others will diminish the chances of error going undetected in his own. The scientific man welcomes the stimulant of competition, but he has no room within his soul for feelings of rivalry.

In this day competition is severe, even fierce indeed; but the scientific spirit would make it friendly and ennobling. Its possessor acknowledges freely and gladly the aid he has gained from others. I see about me men who are ungrateful in the extreme, knowing only their own achievements, and having but a blind eye for all that was done before, and which made their work possible. They seek to blot out from the canvas on which they are permitted to work, the whole background of the picture, failing to see how they spoil their own foreground by so doing. I have little sympathy for the man who boasts that nothing was done in the field till he came in at the gate. And so of the bricklayer who thinks that he and he alone has reared the house, while but for the stonemason he would have had no foundation on which to build. The man who comes into position and immediately sets about demolishing the work of his predecessor, or, if he cannot dispense with it, who hides it, or disguises it, that it might appear as his own, has none of the scientific spirit, which is the spirit of manhood and of honor. Shame upon him who speaks slightingly of those who pioneered the way and made the path along which he travels with comparative ease! Double shame on the boy who sneers at the old-fashioned ways of father and mother; perhaps they were more typical representatives of the spirit of true propriety in their early days than is he in his.

As with individuals so with institutions. There are some that seek to grow upon the ruins of others. The promoters of such see no good outside their own plans. They detest competition, and feel that they have a patent to the field. They advertise by denouncing others. Modesty has not a seat within their walls, manhood resides far from them. Look at the business advertisements of the day: every manufacturer, merchant, or huckster warns you against all others of his trade. He is a paragon of perfection, and the only one of his kind.

The scientific spirit acknowledges without reserve the laws of God, but discriminates between such and the rules made by man. It abhors bigotry, denounces the extravagances of the blind zealot, religious or otherwise, and seeks to perfect the faith of its possessor as a purified, sanctified power, pleasing alike mind and heart, reason and soul. In the charges that have been preferred by the theologians against science, and the counter accusations by the scientists against theology, it is evident that in each case the accuser is not fully informed as to what he is attacking. Irrational zeal is not to be commended; and the substitution of theory for fact, though often declared to be the prevailing weakness of the scientist, is wholly unscientific.

But it is easy to denounce; so to do is a favorite pastime of ignorance. That scientific theories have been and are being discarded as unworthy because untrue is well known; but no one is more ready to so renounce than the scientist himself. To him a theory is but a scaffolding whereon he stands while placing the facts which are his building blocks; and from these he rears the tower from which a wider horizon of truth is opened to his eye. When the structure is made, the scaffold,- unsightly, shaky, and unsafe, as it is likely to be, is removed. Tis not always possible to judge of the building from the rough poles and planks which serve the temporary purpose of him who builds. Yet how often may we hear from our pulpits, usually however when they are occupied by the little-great men, scathing denunciations of science, which is represented as a bundle of vagaries, and of scientific men, who are but Will-o-the-wisps enticing the traveler into quagmires of spiritual ruin. Would it not be better for those who so inveigh to acquaint themselves with at least the first principles of the doctrines of science? So general has this practice become amongst us, that the most inexperienced speaker feels justified in thus indulging himself, and in the minds of many the conclusion is reached, none the less pernicious in its present effects because unfounded, that the higher development of the intellect is not a part of the Gospel of Christ. I speak not against the true inspiration which as a manifestation of the spirit of prophecy has in many instances clearly indicated the errors of human beliefs. Were I to deny the existence of such a power and the potency of revelation I would be false to my love of science and its work, a betrayer of the testimony within my own soul.

I place the prophet before the philosopher; of the two I have seen the former go less frequently astray; he is guided by a "more sure word," he is a privileged pupil of the greatest Master. Yet revelation is not given to save man from self effort; if he want knowledge let him ask of God, and prove himself worthy of the desired gift by his own faithful search. Such are the teachings of our Church. The leaders amongst us, those who are acknowledged as prophets and revelators to the people, are not heard in authoritative denunciation of the teachings of science. Yet under the freedom allowed by our liberal Church organization the lay speaker is prone to indulge in unguarded criticism, and the undiscriminating hearer is apt to regard such as the teachings of the Church. The scientist in his self-denying earnest labors is a true child of God; as he is strengthened spiritually will his work be the better. The scientific spirit is divine.

Massive Iron Gate

2012-02-22T11:54:00.000-08:00

"if we stop asking questions, stop thinking, stop pondering, we can thwart the revelations of the Spirit. Remember, it was the questions young Joseph asked that opened the door for the restoration of all things. We can block the growth and knowledge our Heavenly Father intends for us. How often has the Holy Spirit tried to tell us something we needed to know but couldn’t get past the massive iron gate of what we thought we already knew?"
- Dieter F Uchtdorf 2012 Leadership Training

David Ransom: At present women are not allowed to be priests in your Church...Is it possible that the rules could change in the future..?

Gordon B. Hinckley: He could change them yes...But there's no agitation for that. We don't find it.
-Interview 11/9/1997

"I am fearful they [mormons] settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way."
- Brigham Young 1862 General Conference (quoted again in General Conference by Ezra Taft Benson in 1963 and James E Faust in 1989)

So Prophets have told us that if we blindly trust them to guide us that we'll weaken the influence we could give them. They've told us that God could decide to grant priesthood to women, but they see no agitation for it, that we don't want it. We've also been told that if we don't ask the questions, God can't reveal the answers. Does anyone have any questions?

Talk on the 2 Great Commandments

2012-01-15T12:42:00.000-08:00

Good morning brothers and sisters, and Happy Old New Years! Today for former Soviet countries it is Old New Years! They used to use the Julian calendar so their holidays were 2 weeks after ours. This month is often known as Drunkuary because they remain drunk for New Years, Christmas (for them on Jan 7th), and Old New Years. As missionaries we had very few ‘productive’ missionary lessons in January.

As I think of my mission in Ukraine, in this month of Drunkuary, I’m reminded of one of the most spiritually powerful moments on my mission. It was when I was able to help Jesus directly and personally. Jesus had fallen over, had vomit on his coat, and was incapable of getting up; he was so old and so drunk that he couldn’t stand and walk upstairs to his place. Christ cried out to my companion and I with slurred speech for help. As we helped him up the stairs, into his apartment, and onto his bed he shed repeated tears of gratitude. If we hadn’t walked by, Jesus would likely have frozen to death in the cold as many Russian men do. I hadn’t realized it was Jesus until, during his 15th tearful and slurred ‘thank you,’ the verse came to mind “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”

I must also note that more often than instances like that story, I have left Jesus hungry, begging for change as I question his motives. I don’t believe anyone falls purely into the “good” camp or the “bad,” but we’re all striving to do and be more good (which, incidentally, is what Joseph once said was the translation of Mormon. Mormon = ‘more good’).

Brothers and sisters, I was asked to give some historic context to the 2 great commandments, but as I do so, I’d like us all to keep in mind the power and importance of Love as the previous talks have so beautifully discussed.

First, some rhetorical questions: Why does it matter which commandment is greater? Why are we asking these questions? Why did the people in the scriptures ask these questions of Jesus?

Let’s start by noting that these questions were all posed by Jews. They were “God’s chosen people.” So the question for them (and for us) is how do we please God? How do we live up to the covenant/chosen status? How do we become holy? At the time of Jesus there were two major schools of thought, roughly speaking, those of the Sadducees and the Pharisees.

The Sadducees believed we become holy and please God through the temple and the Priests/Levites. They believed that the people support them with donations and the Priests and Levites perform ordinances vicariously to keep the nation collectively holy.

Now the Pharisees felt differently. They have a bad reputation in the church. Their motives and movement was actually one that I think most Christians can admire. They felt that the ability to come close to God and be holy was not a monopoly held by Levites and Priests, but that ALL can be holy and have God intimately involved in their lives. They thought someone can be holy by following the scriptures and prophetic commentary on the scriptures with exactness. Thus everyone can attain a level of holiness and please God, even in their mundane daily activities. For them religion, purity, and scriptures were for everyman, not only the priests.

So these are the main schools of thought in the time of Jesus. So let’s see what Jesus thought by jumping into the examples from the New Testament about the 2 great commandments. When we look at them, what do we learn from each of these accounts AFTER Christ lists to two great commandments? (We’ll go through them in the chronological order in which the gospels were written) so we start with Mark.

In Mark we read the story of the 2 great commandments in the final week of his life, after Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem and after he had cleansed the temple. The Pharisees had already approached Jesus trying to trick him with the question about taxation, and Jesus had answered unscathed. After this, the Sadducees saw their opportunity to trap Jesus (because obviously the Pharisees wouldn’t because they had the ‘wrong’ interpretation). So they attempted to trick Jesus with a question about marriage and resurrection. Jesus again answered unscathed. Then a scribe, having heard all this, approaches Jesus saying that Jesus had answered with great wisdom. Then he honestly seeks to know Jesus’ opinion on what the most important commandment is. Jesus answers, listing the 2 great commandments, and the scribe agrees, adding:

Mark 12:32-34
And to love God with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, IS MORE than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question.

This follow-up repudiates the idea the Sadducees had, in that the religious ordinances are less important than loving each other. The ordinances are inferior to love.

Matthew was written next, and the account reads differently. In this instance after the Pharisees and Sadducees made their attempts and were rebuffed, the Pharisees decided to try again. A lawyer/Pharisee asked Jesus what the great commandment of the law (or Torah, or scriptures) was. Jesus gave the famous answer about the two great commandments, after which he said:
Matthew 22:40
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

While in Mark the addendum to the two commandments repudiated the Sadducees, in this record Jesus repudiates the Pharisees. First let’s briefly mention the structure of the Jewish scriptures. We start with the first 5 books being the Torah, or the law. Next we have the Neviim or Prophets, and mixed in with the prophets in our Old Testament we have the “writings.” The writings are the psalms, proverbs, and short stories. So here Jesus is saying that the scriptures and prophetic comments on them hang on the commands to Love God and each other. In this context the word κρέμαται, or ‘hang’ is the same as hanging a picture, or hanging something on a nail. If you were rock climbing would you rather have a grip on something hanging or resting on a nail, or would you prefer to grip the two nails in a sure place? So now Jesus shows that the basis of the Pharisees’ idea of holiness, or pleasing God, which again was observance of their standard works and prophetic commentary, is inferior to Love.

A brief recap is that in Mark and Matthew we read that Love is greater than religious ordinances and greater than scriptures and prophetic commentary respectively.

Luke was the next gospel written. In it, the discussion of the great commandments occurs prior to Jesus’ entry to Jerusalem and without the context of the Pharisees and Sadducees. In Luke, Jesus is in the process of travelling from Galilee to Jerusalem and intended to travel through Samaria.

It’s worth giving some more info here on the Samaritans. If you ask Samaritans their history, they’ll tell you that the Samaritans were part of the Kingdom of Israel who remained in the holy land even during the Assyrian capture of Israel and remained during the Babylonian exile of the Jews. When the Jews returned from Babylon, the Samaritans and Jews had theological differences and each believed the other to be apostate. As a result the two groups hated each other. Here they have so very much in common, and yet because of differing beliefs they persecute each other.

Back to the account in Luke, Jesus sent people to make lodging arrangements in a Samaritan village for their travel to Jerusalem to observe Passover, and the Samaritans refused them because they were going to Jerusalem for passover (which they viewed as blasphemy). When James and John heard this, they suggested calling down fire from heaven to destroy the village. (They didn’t get the nickname the sons of thunder for no reason!) Jesus then set apart his 70 and instructs them. Immediately after this a lawyer stands up and asks Jesus what he must do to have eternal life. Jesus says “what do you think? How do you understand the scriptures?” The lawyer answers with the 2 great commandments and Jesus tells him he’s right. The lawyer then asks “but who is my neighbor?”

Luke 10:28-37
Jesus then gives the parable of the Good Samaritan. Everyone is quite familiar with the tale. Yet in context we see perhaps a bit more meaning. The priest and the Levite who passed by the wounded man were by Jewish standards very holy, respectable, and high ranking people. The scriptures forbade them from touching or being near anything ‘unclean’ which includes dead people. If they violate this rule, they must go through a long cleansing period and would be unable to perform any ordinances for others. Their interpretation of their scriptures and rules blinded them from living the greatest commandments. Jesus’ use of the Samaritan being the one who is holy is also salient given the recent event of being refused lodging by Samaritans.

Do we show love and serve those who hold apostate views in our mind? Do we reach out to those who are ‘sinners’ or are ‘lost’ rather than avoiding them because of our interpretation of the scriptures? Could we reach out to help the ‘other’ in our lives, be it a religious ‘other’, a political ‘other’ or a personal ‘other?’ Do we, like the priest or Levite, even let our pursuit of our own personal righteousness or holiness prevent us from helping and serving those whom we disagree with? Are we more concerned with our own personal salvation or with helping others achieve the same? The irony is that if we pursue our own salvation to the point of neglecting others we fail. When we seek to help and aid others, we find that we too are saved and exalted. Truly if we lose our lives in service we find it.

I remember the first time I noticed the slight differences in wording and the importance of personal pronouns in the account of the 12 disciples in the Book of Mormon. If we remember the account in 3rd Nephi 28, Jesus asks the 12 disciples what they desire of him. 9 of them wish for personal salvation and life with Christ (an unarguably good desire I might add), while 3 wish to serve and help others as long as possible. Notice the differences in Jesus’ words. To the 9 Jesus says: "Blessed are ye" But to the 3 he says “more blessed are ye." To the 9 he says “ye shall come unto me in MY kingdom," but to the 3 he says "ye shall be blessed in the kingdom of MY FATHER.” To the 9 he says "ye shall find rest," but to the 3 he says "ye shall have a fulness of joy; and ye shall sit down in the kingdom of my Father; yea, your joy shall be full, even as the Father hath given me fulness of joy; and ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father; and the Father and I are one."

Speaking of the importance of personal pronouns, let’s move on to the last written gospel, John. The Gospel of John makes no mention of a story explicitly discussing ‘two great commandments,’ but it does discuss them in a unique way. If one follows the personal pronouns Jesus uses throughout the New Testament, but especially in John, something interesting emerges. Jesus refers many times in John to “my commandment” or “my commandments.” One of these examples is when Jesus says the famous verse all mormon seminary students learn: “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” Here Jesus is giving us the key for how it is that we love God, or in other words, how we keep the first commandment. In following every instance that Jesus refers to “my commandment” we learn what it is: “love one another.” (John 13:34, 15:12, In reading the New Testament we find that Jesus gave a commandment many times, (John 14:15, 14:21, 15:10) and those commandments he gave were that we love each other as he loves us. By loving each other, we love God. As Jesus said in the Gospel of John: “If ye love me, keep my commandments,” and since all his commandments in that gospel (and the New Testament) were to “love one another” we can also read this as “If ye love me, love one another.”

We see this fusion of the two great commandments in the Book of Mormon as well. As King Benjamin so eloquently taught his people “And behold, I tell you these things that ye may learn wisdom; that ye may learn that when ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God.” This fusion is also known as charity. Nephi tells us that without charity we are nothing. Moroni and Paul also say the same. Paul is quite eloquent on this point. He tells us that even if he could speak with the tongue of angels, even if he was a prophet who could prophesy all things and know all the mysteries of God, without this love for others, he is nothing. This is because these other holy things which he mentions me might have are only hanging or sagging on the sure nail of love. Without love, our scriptures and ordinances fall flat and cease to be efficacious.

Do we believe this? Do we believe Paul in the bible and Moroni in the Book of Mormon that charity is what will matter in the judgment? “except ye have charity ye can in nowise be saved in the kingdom of God.”

In Matthew 25 we read about the judgement and who is saved. What does Jesus say in describing the judgment? He shows us that both those who are damned and those who are saved are each surprised by the outcome. He tells those damned that they saw him hungry, thirsty, an immigrant, naked, sick, and a prisoner, and didn’t show him love or charity. Because of their lack of love for their neighbor, we learn that it directly translates to lack of love for their God. Those who are saved did just the opposite. By feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, housing to the homeless, clothing to the needy, caring for the sick and visiting the prisoners, they showed their love for God. They love God by loving their fellow man.

Now we saw earlier that Jesus said love, or charity, was greater than the ordinances. This is quite easily harmonized when we realize how the ordinances are there to help us towards charity. They are powerful symbols which lead the participant towards love and serving others. In baptism, the natural man (who is an enemy to God, and by translation his fellow-man, he’s very self-centered) is buried in the water, and the initiate rises from the water reborn a child of Christ. This ordinance is a token of the promise we make to “mourn with those that mourn and comfort those who stand in need of comfort.” We renew this commitment as we symbolically eat and drink the body and blood of Christ.

The saying goes “you are what you eat” and we hope this to be the case as we symbolically incorporate the body and blood of Christ into ours. We collectively as a congregation become the body of Christ and each individually strive to allow ourselves to be Saviors on Mount Zion, giving service and love vicariously for Christ. This sacrament, the Lord’s supper, also serves to remind us that just as we see the body and blood of Christ in those around us, we must also look to see Christ in the faces of those in need of our help, service, and love out in the world. For truly as we serve and love one another, we serve and love our God.

Brothers and sisters, it is my prayer that we can all see Christ in the faces of others and act accordingly. As we strive to develop more charity we will help everyone come closer to Christ. The prophetess Eliza R Snow recorded the prophet Joseph saying “I do not dwell upon your faults, and you shall not upon mine. Charity, which is love, covereth a multitude of sins [see 1 Peter 4:8], and I have often covered up all the faults among you … The nearer we get to our heavenly Father, the more we are disposed to look with compassion on perishing souls; we feel that we want to take them upon our shoulders, and cast their sins behind our backs. ” It is my prayer that we too can be the pure love of Christ in our actions with all people, and in so doing remove sin. I say these things in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

Hit and chat with BART police, then run

2011-11-03T00:24:00.000-07:00

BART Police questioned the driver and then let him go; no arrests were made. Not sure how someone doing this gets to drive away.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported,

The incident happened when the driver was heading south on 11th and was blocked by streams of marchers walking along Broadway, witnesses said. He had a green light, but could not get through. The driver “got frustrated and hit the gas,” said Nick Lucas, 25, of Berkeley. “He was getting pissed.”

The San Jose Mercury News reported,

The man who is on the ground now hit the car, and then the driver pushed on the gas,” said Ayzia Robinson of Benicia.

The car was then surrounded by a mob of demonstrators as medics arrived on the scene. The guy who got hit by the car hit the hood of the car, and then the driver hit the gas,” said a witness who gave her name as Kareena. “This is a situation where you have two people with bad decision making skills.”

Here are some photos from the Bay Area News Group:

Mormon Halloween

2011-10-31T11:54:00.000-07:00

So who am I kidding? This blog has become a mormon blog. As such, here are some quotes from past Mormon General Conferences on a Halloween theme. From funny to scary, from serious to fairy-tale, here are a few samples:

Apparently quite serious:

Some people do not believe that there are any devils. There are thousands of evil spirits that are just as ugly as evil can make them. The wicked die, and their spirits remain not far from where their tabernacles are. When I was in England, twenty-eight years ago next June, I saw more devils than there are persons here to-day; they came upon me with an intention to destroy me; they are the spirits of wicked men who, while in the flesh, were opposed to God and his purposes. I saw them with what we call the spiritual eyes

-Heber C Kimball 1865

This one also serious and referring to rappers in the 19th century:

Let the Rappers go ahead, then, for it is not possible for them to deceive the elect of God; and let the witch of Endor, and all other witches and wizards, with the prince and power of the air at their head, do their best, if we keep the commandments of God we shall continually soar far above their power and influence.

-Jebediah M Grant 1854

A home-teaching joke:

I remember a question someone once asked at a stake conference. A man said, " Brother Howard, do you know why we can never get more than 83 percent home teaching in the Church? " I said, " No, why? " He said, " Because no one wants to go on Halloween and New Year's Eve. "

-F Burton Howard 1996

Seemingly harsh and real story:

In the bishops' meeting last evening in this hall, Bishop M. O. Ashton told two stories that deeply impressed me. Each story was about a bishop and some boys. In the first one, a group of boys engaged in some Halloween pranks of a rather serious, provocative nature. The bishop secured the names of the boys and charged them to come to the sacrament meeting and publicly ask forgiveness for engaging in the pranks committed, on pain of excommunication for failure to do so. In consequence there are in that community today a number of families that grew up outside of the Church.

-Joseph F Merill 1945

Scary that this was said straight faced in general conference:

To look upon a man who is deformed or maimed for life, -- a dislocated jaw, a broken nose or an eye knocked out -- is naturally revolting. How unsightly and ugly!

-Rulon S Wells 1929*

Scary cautionary tales:

We ourselves are the creators, in a large measure, of our troubles. Once, so the old story goes, a medical student determined to build a monster out of the cemetery and dissecting rooms. He did so, and the thing assumed life. This horrible monster killed the student's bride and strangled his best friend. Is there a lesson in this for us?

-Charles A Callis 1935

Robert Louis Stevenson captured this constant struggle between good and evil in the classic novel about Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. The story tells us that in the beginning " Dr. Jekyll is a highly respected London physician, a good and kindly man, who in his youth had showed inclinations toward evil which, however, he succeeded in suppressing. Interested in drugs, the doctor now chances upon one which enables him to change his external form to that of a repulsive dwarf, the very embodiment of evil, whom he calls Mr. Hyde. A similar dose permits him to return to the form and personality of the benevolent doctor. Many times the doctor becomes Mr. Hyde, thereby giving this side of his nature more and more power. Jekyll finds it increasingly difficult to regain his virtuous entity and also finds himself occasionally becoming Hyde without the use of the drug... "

-James E Faust 2000

And finally, a calming tale on Halloween:

I want to tell you a story. I call it " Night and Shadows. " " Once upon a time, a little girl wandered through a dense forest on her way home. It was very dark. She was frightened and began to cry. The tears rolled down her face, as she timidly crept along. Suddenly an elf appeared before her.' Are you frightened' asked the elf.' Yes, I'm scared,' answered the little girl, glad to show her fear,' Ain't you?' "' Not a bit,' answered the elf. "' Well then you don't see the ghosts and goblins running around the trees, and the funny looking eyes up there in the branches, and the bats and ugly things flying through the air, and the scary noises, can't you hear them?' " And the elf said:' I don't blame you for being scared, I'd be scared too if I saw all those ugly things. You see that when little girls have tears in their eyes, they can't see things as they really are.' "' Just let the tears dry in your eyes, and then we shall take a good look at these ghosts and goblins, and ugly things. See those terrible eyes in the branches of the trees? Why they are just the stars trying to light up your pathway so that you can find your way home; and the big moon is trying to help them. And those big things aren't ghosts, they are just the shadows of the trees. And what you thought were ugly bats and ugly things are just the leaves falling on your pathway, making the path soft for your tired feet. And the noises. Why, that's the wind blowing through the branches, and the trees are trying to sing a song to make you happy as you go along'.

-Levi Edgar Young 1932

Happy Halloween!

* Here's the quote in context (not that it helps):

But says one: I have no faith in God and no hope in a future life. How unnatural! How such a one must have resisted every natural impulse of the heart to have fallen into such an abnormal state of mind! No faith, no hope. Spiritual deformities. To look upon a man who is deformed or maimed for life, -- a dislocated jaw, a broken nose or an eye knocked out -- is naturally revolting. How unsightly and ugly! But not half so hideous or so repulsive is he who is thus physically deformed as he who is spiritually deformed, wanting in these Christian qualities so inherent and natural to all mankind. No faith: he does not ask and hence does not receive; he does not seek and hence he does not find; he does not knock an therefore the door is not opened unto him. No hope. How unnatural! -Rulon S Wells 1929

Mormons #OccupyWallStreet. #occupy

2011-10-18T12:38:00.000-07:00

"THE EXPERIENCE OF MANKIND has shown that the
people of communities and nations among whom wealth
is the most equally distributed, enjoy the largest degree
of liberty, are the least exposed to tyranny and oppression
and suﬀer the least from luxurious habits which beget vice... One of the great evils with which our own nation is menaced at the present time is the wonderful growth of wealth in the hands of a comparatively few individuals. The very liberties for which our fathers contended so steadfastly and courageously, and which they bequeathed to us as a priceless legacy, are endangered by the monstrous power which this accumulation of wealth gives to a few individuals and a few powerful corporations. By its seductive inﬂuence results are accomplished which, were it equally distributed, would be impossible under our form of government. It threatens to give shape to the legislation, both state and national, of the entire country. If this evil should not be checked, and measures not taken to prevent the continued enormous growth of riches among the class already rich, and the painful increase of destitution and want among the poor, the nation is likely to be overtaken by disaster; for, according to history, such a tendency among nations once powerful was the sure precursor of ruin." -Brigham Young, the First Presidency of the Church, and the Quorum of the 12 Apostles, July 1875 (click here for a fun compilation of quotes from this circular)

Although that quote from an apostolic circular in 1875 was talking about the vital importance of the mormons' participation in ZCMI, the statement rings just as true today. In the past few decades we've seen much of this statement occur before our very eyes. I chose this to start a series of posts on #OccupyWallStreet, with particular focus on what Mormonism has to say about the concepts and ideas behind the movement.

Maybe it's just me and my ADD, but it seems to me that the ideal format of a blogpost is short and sweet. I plan on addressing several things later on in this series:

What is and isn't #OccupyWallStreet all about?
What virtues does the left see in the movement, and what virtues does the right see? (Can both sides come together?)
What aspects of Mormonism back the views of the Left and the Right in this movement?
Could the venom between the Left and Right blind us to greater problems?

PS: As fate would have it, as I was looking for a nice picture to use for this post, I found this excellent post at the Mormon Worker, which addresses several of these items and had some awesome graphics, one of which I'm using above.

Digital Humanities and Mormon Studies

2011-10-11T22:16:00.000-07:00

Well, researchers at Tel Aviv University have developed an algorithm to detect differences in writing style to detect different authorship, specifically in the Torah. I'm sure many of you have heard of the documentary hypothesis. In summary it is a theory that based on content and word choice, one can see four distinct "authors" or earlier sources which were compiled into the Torah. These have been sorted almost exclusively by content. This digital humanities approach will look at grammar sorted by the algorithm. From the press release:

[T]he software searches for and compares details that human scholars might have difficulty detecting, such as the frequency of the use of "function" words and synonyms. Such details have little bearing on the meaning of the text itself, but each author or source often has his own style. This could be as innocuous as an author's preference for using the word "said" versus "spoke."
To test the validity of their method, the researchers randomly mixed passages from the two Hebrew books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and asked the computer to separate them. By searching for and categorizing chapters by synonym preference, and then looking at usage of common words, the computer program was able to separate the passages with 99 percent accuracy. The software was also able to distinguish between "priestly" materials -- those dealing with issues such as religious ritual -- and "non-priestly" material in the Torah, a categorization that is widely used by Bible scholars.
While the algorithm is not yet advanced enough to give the researchers a precise number of probable authors involved in the writing of the individual books of the Bible, Prof. Dershowitz says that it can help to identify transition points within the text where a source changes, potentially shedding new light on age-old debates.

I'm extremely excited to see what comes from the research. I'm also intrigued by the idea of applying such an algorithm on the Book of Mormon. It would also be quite interesting. The Book of Mormon itself claims that it was compiled by one editor from several sources. It would be interesting to see the similarities and differences, particularly to see how closely it matches the content/author changes. Is anyone in any Mormon Studies programs pursuing a digital humanities approach to Book of Mormon analysis?

Hope

2011-10-08T14:42:00.000-07:00

There has been a wide array of opinions within Mormon thought on the size/extent of people who will be saved/exalted. I find myself more and more on the universalist end of the spectrum. In that vein, here is a portion of a talk from President Lorenzo Snow given in General Conference, the morning of October 6th, 1893.

God has fulfilled His promises to us, and our prospects are grand and glorious. Yes, in the next life we will have our wives, and our sons and daughters. If we do not get them all at once, we will have them some time, for every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus is the Christ. You that are mourning about your children straying away will have your sons and your daughters. If you succeed in passing through these trials and afflictions and receive a resurrection, you will, by the power of the Priesthood, work and labor, as the Son of God has, until you get all your sons and daughters in the path of exaltation and glory. This is just as sure as that the sun rose this morning over yonder mountains. Therefore, mourn not because all your sons and daughters do not follow in the path that you have marked out to them, or give heed to your counsels. Inasmuch as we succeed in securing eternal glory, and stand as saviors, and as kings and priests to our God, we will save our posterity. When Jesus went through that terrible torture on the cross, He saw what would be accomplished by it; He saw that His brethren and sisters -- the sons and daughters of God -- would be gathered in, with but few exceptions -- those who committed the unpardonable sin. That sacrifice of the divine Being was effectual to destroy the powers of Satan. I believe that every man and woman who comes into this life and passes through it, that life will be a success in the end. It may not be in this life. It was not with the antedeluvians. They passed through troubles and afflictions; 2,500 years after that, when Jesus went to preach to them, the dead heard the voice of the Son of God and they lived. They found after all that it was a very good thing that they had conformed to the will of God in leaving the spiritual life and passing through this world. God will have His own way in His own time, and He will accomplish His purposes in the salvation of His sons and daughters.

So to those of you who feel you're not doing enough, you're not good enough, or you're losing hope, I'll close with the words of William Clayton:

Gird up your loins; fresh courage take.
Our God will never us forsake;
And soon well have this tale to tell-
All is well! All is well!

Chosen Generation

2011-09-24T22:24:00.000-07:00

After my post on the "true and living church" I had a close friend mention that it would be interesting to see how the use of the phrase "chosen generation" had changed in general conference over the years. He remembered hearing it a lot growing up, but not as often now. So I started by simply looking at the number of times that phrase was used. It quickly became apparent that different people interpreted 1st Peter 2:9 in different ways. So first I went through each reference in all the talks which said "chosen generation" and tried to put them in categories. I ended up these categories:

1. Merit - This was a category for those who felt that this phrase was a special distinction for those who followed Christ's teachings sufficiently to be considered part of a "chosen generation." For example, Joseph Fielding Smith said the following in 1971:

If we will walk in paths of virtue and holiness, the Lord will pour out his blessings upon us to a degree we have never supposed possible. We shall be in very deed, as Peter expressed it, " a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people."

2. Membership - Many used this phrase and scripture in 1st Peter to refer to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. One example is from Russel M Nelson in 1995:

When we embrace the gospel and are baptized, we are born again and take upon ourselves the sacred name of Jesus Christ. We are adopted as his sons and daughters and are known as brothers and sisters. He is the Father of our new life. We become joint heirs to promises given by the Lord to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their posterity. Peter used uplifting terms in a prophecy regarding our day. He identified members of the Church as "a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people."

3. Priesthood - Several used this phrase and passage to refer specifically to the priesthood. Thomas S Monson (who has only ever used this phrase when referring to priesthood) said in 1996 Priesthood session:

What a vast audience is attending this general priesthood meeting this evening. The Apostle Peter aptly described you: "Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light."

4. Inherent - Starting particularly in 1970, and becoming a more frequently used interpretation, the phrase was used to refer to the youth of the church and the fact that they were strong spirits, reserved through the eternities to come forth in this particular day and age. Frequently this usage of the phrase abandons a direct reference to the passage in 1st Peter. Joseph Fielding Smith in 1970:

Our young people are among the most blessed and favored of our Father's children. They are the nobility of heaven, a choice and chosen generation who have a divine destiny. Their spirits have been reserved to come forth in this day when the gospel is on earth, and when the Lord needs valiant servants to carry on his great latter-day work."

Those four categories seemed sufficient for categorizing most of the uses in general conference. There were several however which could fit equally in two of the categories. One example of this is seen in the graph above, where a quote could be seen as meaning either that one must live in a way that qualifies them to be worthy of the term, while also implying that it is tied to membership, one such example is the following from Rufus K Hardy in 1939:

Let me read to you what the Apostle Peter said, because I believe we can apply it to ourselves: But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. I think we are doing that as best we can, but I believe we can do better if we try just a little harder.

It should also be acknowledged that this categorization is a subjective process and others likely could have categorized things differently. However, I believe that while this is the case, the general trends shown and described here would hold true regardless.

While reading the various texts from general conference talks, I noticed that occasionally a similar phrase would be used to describe the same concept as the "chosen generation." So I started looking for other phrases referring to the same concept. They were:
Royal Generation
Finest Generation
Greatest Generation
Best Generation
Finer Generation
Strongest Generation
Capable Generation
Marked Generation

One can see how including these affects the graph:

Again, if one wants to find problems with this, it is easy to do so. I didn't include every instance of the word "generation" in this list. There are references to a "wicked generation," "rising generation" and many others. However because my focus is on the rhetoric of the "chosen generation" of youth who were reserved to come forth at this time because they were "noble spirits," I was primarily looking for general conference talks which either perpetuated that idea, or which showed historic use of the phrase "chosen generation."

As is evident in the graphs, the phrase "chosen generation" has been used in several ways over time. The most interesting thing to note is the sudden and dramatic rise in the use of the phrase to refer to the youth as special spirits of a superlative nature. Based on my readings of all the general conference talks with the phrase "chosen generation" it seems that this new use began in 1970 by Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith.

Our young people are among the most blessed and favored of our Father's children. They are the nobility of heaven, a choice and chosen generation who have a divine destiny. Their spirits have been reserved to come forth in this day when the gospel is on earth, and when the Lord needs valiant servants to carry on his great latter-day work.

The next year Theodore M. Burton used the phrase "chosen generation" in a similar way, which implied that the youth at that time were inherently special and unique. Two years after that, David B. Haight used it in this same manner. However there were members of the quorum of the Twelve and First Presidency who were less likely to make statements without some qualifiers. Theodore M. Burton prefaced quoting from 1st Peter by saying "I feel." The year before President Smith's comment, President Hugh B Brown said the following after quoting from 1st Peter:

Whether or not all will agree that these characterizations are applicable to the Saints of this day, I am sure most will at least agree that we are a peculiar people -- not in any unkind way, but perhaps most would say we are a different people.

I find such phrasing (the acknowledgment of a variety of interpretations) very refreshing. I'm going to continue a bit of this detour to note several of the interesting uses I found for the phrase "chosen generation." In the 1940's Oscar A Kirkham used the phrase "greatest generation" in referring to the youth and (as Burton and Brown above) couched the phrase with "I feel in my heart" and "In my humble opinion." In 1947 Milton R. Hunter used the term "chosen generation" to refer to the early mormon pioneers who crossed the oceans and plains. In 1999 President Hinkley used the passage in 1st Peter to refer to all the members of the church in this last dispensation. In 2006 Paul B Pieper gave a specific interpretation of the phrase "chosen generation" to refer to the first generation of a family to join the church; that first member to join becomes the chosen generation through which past and future generations are blessed.

In any case, as can be seen from the above graphs, the frequency of this "chosen generation" = 'the current youth are royal/special' continues. This has reached epic proportions too because mormonism makes for an incredible game of telephone. Most don't bother looking up or citing sources. As a result, when I was in seminary I put a piece of paper in my scriptures which had a fake quote on it. Times and Seasons had a post which talked all about it (comment #36 is particularly applicable to this current post). People took this idea and went crazy with it. Here is a site which considers most of the quotes to be gospel truth, but noted the mistaken quote. This is the only site I've found which hunted down the origin of the quote. The false quote was popularized by Brad Wilcox (famed EFY speaker) but apparently originated with Jack Marshall (an institute director in Pasadena, CA).

As many of the comments on the Times and Seasons post noted, this is likely a harmless faith-promoting story to help encourage the youth. On the other hand, I've had individuals point out that simply giving praise to someone (especially children/teens) for their inherent abilities as opposed to abilities which they work to develop can be detrimental. Just check out this psychology study. If you look up the original paper, there were two groups of students. Each was given a simple test and all the students performed well. One group was praised for their innate ability (you're so smart), while the other was praised for their work (you worked so hard at it). The students were then given a very difficult test. None of the students performed well. A third test was administered which was moderately difficult and the group praised for their efforts vastly outperformed the group praised for their innate ability. The conclusion drawn was that when the students had the very difficult test those who had been told they were inherently smart began to question that fact and felt that they must not be smart. However, the other group (which had been told they had worked hard for the previous test) simply assumed that they must not have worked hard enough for the difficult test and exerted even more effort in studying for the 3rd.

How much can/does this apply to the topic of the "chosen generation?" I see many parallels. I see all of these comments as an effort to encourage, help, and strengthen the rising generation. I see nothing but the best of intentions with all of them. Perhaps if we can focus more on the effort the youth exert in being good and overcoming obstacles we can better empower them for future struggles. Many quotes did just this. When discussing this topic with some, one person seemed irritated that President Smith ever said the original quote after seeing the life the idea gained from it. I pointed out to him that President Smith didn't ever beat on that point repeatedly. In fact, the very next year after his original quote, he said this (emphasis added):

If we will walk in paths of virtue and holiness, the Lord will pour out his blessings upon us to a degree we have never supposed possible. We shall be in very deed, as Peter expressed it, " a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people. " (1 Pet. 2:9.)

It doesn't appear at all that President Smith was confined to one interpretation of the phrase or passage.

As an interesting afterthought, it is fun to see who used the phrase "chosen generation" in a consistant manner. To do this, I first only selected those who used the phrase multiple times within multiple conference talks. Then based on each use of the phrase within each talk I placed each onto a spectrum:

You'll notice I place President Smith outside of the chart. He was the first I could find to indicate that our youth are an inherently chosen generation, yet he also used it as a status we merit through our choices, as well as referring to the general membership. He truly spanned the spectrum in how he used the phrase. President Hinkley really loved expressing his love for the youth and how much respect he had for them. As a result many of his statements reflected the "inherently chosen" variety. In fact, most living people on the chart are noticeably on the far right in the "inherently chosen" or a mixture of that and 'chosen = membership.' The notable exception is President Monson. It appears that he's only ever mentioned this phrase in the context of quoting 1st Peter and always in Priesthood session. Below is the number of talks in which each person used the phrase "chosen generation":

Unfortunately I don't do well at getting things organized so this post is jumps around quite a bit, but rather than delay it another 3 months awaiting time to work on it, I'm just posting it. So what are your thoughts? How did you understand the use of "chosen generation" before? What trends did you notice? Did I get anything wrong? Why do you think this idea of an inherently chosen generation took off so quickly?

Am I my brother's keeper?

2011-09-13T14:06:00.000-07:00

If the link isn't working: click here.

As much as I hate Ron Paul's delusional Randian pipe-dream, the cries from the audience are what really delivered a severe blow to my faith in humanity. Have we so lost touch with our interconnected nature as humans? Regardless of the view you want to take, isn't it generally accepted that helping each other out is vital to our collective survival?

From an evolutionary biologist's perspective, our drive to empathize with others and work for the good of the community is what has allowed us as a species to have such vast success.

From a biblical perspective, the injunction to care for others is much more explicit. Certainly one of the messages received in the story of Cain and Abel is that we should be our "brother's keeper." The Hebrew word which the King James Version translates as "keeper" is שָׁמַר (shamar), which is most frequently used in the Old Testament when discussing the importance/need/command to "keep" the commandments/covenants. That in Genesis, God would have us care for each other and use the same word as with being a "commandment keeper" is fitting given that Jesus later pointed out that there is no greater commandment.

Often the assumption is made (thanks to years of tradition) that Sodom and Gomorra were so evil that they deserved to be destroyed because they were gay. However, if one bothers reading more of the old testament than simply the Torah, we read the prophet Ezekiel's explanation (which Elder Burton calls their "even greater evil"). They were prideful and they refused to share their abundant food with the poor. Elder Maxwell once used this same reference in Ezekiel to describe Sodom's lack of care for the poor when he said:

There are too many scriptures condemning members in all dispensations for ignoring the poor to require repetition here. I do turn to an example that summarizes some of the errors of the culture in Sodom. [Ezekial 16:49] Add to this observation the powerful verse 20 in the 49th section of the Doctrine and Covenants, and we see that there is a clear connection between economic disparity and sin.

If one trusts the pseudoepigraphic "Book of Jasher" (which many early mormon leaders did) you can read more graphic accounts of the people of Sodom and Gomorra abusing immigrants for their money (or labor) and allowing people to die in the streets.

This is (as Elder Maxwell pointed out) a significant theme throughout the Old Testament. Prophets calling the political leadership to repentance for "grinding the face" of the poor.

Now I'm sure that some feel justified in condemning this hypothetical 30-year-old to death because of his own foolish decisions. Perhaps some can live with such rationalization, but mormons have virtually no wiggle room on this point:

And also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish.

Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just—

But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God.

For behold, are we not all beggars? Do we not all depend upon the same Being, even God, for all the substance which we have, for both food and raiment, and for gold, and for silver, and for all the riches which we have of every kind?
[Mosiah 4:16-19]

I understand that many have the view that Ron Paul voiced, namely that churches should be the ones to care for the poor. I have some issues with this approach as I see it being incredibly ineffective, incoherent, and insufficient at dealing with the systemic problems in our society. (FWIW I see the government approach to the problem to be moderately ineffective, incoherent, and insufficient at dealing with the systemic problems in our society; I feel that regardless of the macro-level approach individuals need to each seek out those in need) But at least a view such as Ron Paul's does not extinguish the imperative to care for those in need. At least such a view doesn't scream "YEAH! Let him die!"

Rebuilding our 'soul' as a people

2011-09-08T12:28:00.000-07:00

President Thomas S. Monson wrote a piece in the Washington Post as part of a series in which religious leaders were asked:

What have we learned about religion in the past 10 years?
What was the spiritual impact of 9/11?

I loved his response. He indicated that the tragedy caused most to "rediscover God" and there was a renewed sense of spirituality. He noted how this has waned in the years since.

I loved this passage:

Our Father’s commitment to us, His children, is unwavering. Indeed He softens the winters of our lives, but He also brightens our summers. Whether it is the best of times or the worst, He is with us. He has promised us that this will never change.

But we are less faithful than He is. By nature we are vain, frail, and foolish. We sometimes neglect God. Sometimes we fail to keep the commandments that He gives us to make us happy. Sometimes we fail to commune with Him in prayer. Sometimes we forget to succor the poor and the downtrodden who are also His children. And our forgetfulness is very much to our detriment.

I love his usual Monsonesque poetic phrasing. The most important commandments given of course are to love God and love our neighbor, which he notes "will make us happy." I also love that he specifically highlighted the newest "purpose of the church" which is caring for the poor and needy. I can't express how grateful I am that my church is putting greater focus on pure religion.

The other passage which really resonated with me was this passage:

The way to be with God in every season is to strive to be near Him every week and each day. We truly “need Him every hour,” not just in hours of devastation. We must speak to Him, listen to Him, and serve Him. If we wish to serve Him, we should serve our fellow men. We will mourn the lives we lose, but we should also fix the lives that can be mended and heal the hearts that may yet be healed.

The concept of expressing gratitude to the divine, seeking a greater sense of awareness of how to help those around you, following those promptings, learning to seek out those who are in need, and helping others is what it's all about.

Mormon: Who owns the word?

2011-08-10T16:46:00.000-07:00

The LDS news room just released the following:

"We have also seen some confusion over use of the term “Mormon.” The fact is, when people hear the word “Mormon,” they think of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, Mormon pioneers, and Mormon missionaries—all associated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. To identify polygamist groups or individuals like Jeffs as “Mormon” confuses people and leaves the impression that there is a connection between these small groups and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We hope this distinction will always be made clear."

This brings up a paradox, at least in my mind.

If we want to say that the FLDS and the dozens and dozens of other Mormon splinter groups can't be called "Mormon" because of doctrinal differences (even though they use the Book of Mormon) or because we're the largest Mormon church (as was implied in the release), does that mean that we're ok with not being allowed to be called Christians because of our doctrinal differences and being smaller than the "Christian" churches?

"To identify polygamist groups or individuals like Jeffs as “Mormon” confuses people and leaves the impression that there is a connection between these small groups and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

There is a connection. It's a shared history and an extremely large percentage of shared doctrines.

I am all for journalists noting that these "fundamentalist mormons" are a separate and unique groups distinct from the more commonly known Mormon church (Brighamite mormons, or SLC mormons), but discouraging using the word 'Mormon' to describe any other church which believes in and uses the Book of Mormon seems ironic when we want to be called Christians by those who would exclude us for our doctrinal differences.

Am I wrong?

UPDATE: Some in response to the blog are saying that this is different because everyone perceives "Mormon" to refer to just one church while it's generally accepted that Christian refers to many different churches. Here's how I'd respond:

We should absolutely distinguish the various "sects" of Mormonism, but I don't think we get to say that they can't be called Mormon. In a different country (say India or China) people might equate "Christian" with "Catholic." Does that mean that the Catholic church should discourage media in those countries from calling any other Christian church "Christian?"

Immigration and Mormons

2011-06-10T12:06:00.000-07:00

A few months ago, Bishop Burton of the LDS church spoke out in favor of Utah's Immigration bill which set up a guest worker program (or the dirty word "amnesty"). Many conservatives took issue with Burton's presence. Arturo Morales-LLan, head of Legal Immigrants for Immigration Law Enforcement said “David Burton has a right to be present or to be involved in any affairs concerning the faith, but he does not speak for the First Presidency.” He added that he won’t believe that the church supports these reform efforts until he sees an official statement from the LDS First Presidency itself. (see here)

Well, today the church released an official statement on immigration (see here) which included passages such as these:

The history of mass expulsion or mistreatment of individuals or families is cause for concern especially where race, culture, or religion are involved. This should give pause to any policy that contemplates targeting any one group, particularly if that group comes mostly from one heritage.

this issue is one that must ultimately be resolved by the federal government

The Church supports an approach where undocumented immigrants are allowed to square themselves with the law and continue to work without this necessarily leading to citizenship.

In summary: the church acknowledged and denounced the racial component to the immigration debate, the church noted that immigration is not some 10th amendment item (aka states rights) but is a federal issue, and the church came out in support of amnesty (ie. no deportation). It sounds like the church supports allowing illegals to join a guest worker program or to be on a path to Legal Permanent Resident status, and are open to the idea of a path to citizenship (just not necessarily to citizenship).

I'd love to hear from mormons who feel this is at odds with your beliefs. I'd like to hear your thoughts and how you're dealing with this.

(Only?) True and Living Church

2011-06-06T01:41:00.000-07:00

The [only] true and living church... (losing the only)

I recently had a discussion online in which a Mormon guy over-reacted to a comment from an evangelical girl. She used the phrase "false prophets" when discussing how people misunderstand the Bible. He automatically assumed she was attacking him when she repeated Jesus' warning. She wasn't even aware that he was Mormon. His long tirade was condescending and I asked him if he intended to convey that tone rather than President Hinckley's "bring all the good that you have and see if we can add to it" attitude. He responded by saying

One time Pres Hinckley was asked if all other churches were not the true church and if only the mormon church was true. He said that the mormon church was the only true church on the face of the earth. The interviewer then said "doesn't that seem prideful?" He said, "I am just quoting Jesus." That wasn't word for word, but it is the point of the message. And nothing about saying that is contrary to "bring us all the good you have and see if we can add to it." I have also heard him quoted as saying we don't simply tear down people's houses, we tear down their house and build a castle in its stead. Sometimes we need to tell people that there is more out there than they can see.

Now while one might argue that the 'bring your good, see if we can add to it' isn't substantially different from the supposed Hinckley quotes he gave, certainly everyone can agree there is a big difference in tone. Well, I decided to find his 'quotes' from President Hinckley. Big surprise, I couldn't find them.

However in looking for them I discovered that not only did President Hinckley never say "only true church" or "only true and living church" in an interview (that I could find), he also never said them in general conference (GC). I thought it a little strange and then found that he had said "the true and living church" a few times in GC. That made me curious to see how others used the term "true and living church" (specifically with or without 'only')

The graph shows the number of times the phrase "true and living church" was used in GC in each decade (per one million words, since some decades GC speakers were more verbose). The blue component represents the number of times "only" immediately preceded the phrase. The other words which preceded the phrase included:
"the" 22 times
"His" 3 times
"Lord's" 2 times
"a" 2 times
"this" 1 time
"restored" 1 time.

You can see that the number of times "ONLY true and living church" has been used in GC over the last 2 decades is lower than it's been since before 1950.

So what does this mean? Well, I'll first say what it is not. It is not an attempt to change the intended meaning of the message. It would be hard to someone to argue this. Especially given quotes like this one from President Hinckley in Oct 1998:

We respect those of other churches. We desire their friendship and hope to render meaningful service with them. We know they all do good, but we unabashedly state--and this frequently brings criticism upon us--that this is the true and living Church of our Father in Heaven and His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.

But certainly this shows a shift in tone. Websters defines "only" as: "unquestionably the best" This use of language certainly contributes to the perception that Mormons feel they "have a monopoly on religious truth" which is likely why Mormons are the 3rd most hated religious group in America. Simply by dropping the word 'only' the tone of the message is softened.

I also wanted to see how it broke down by person. Were people changing their use of the phrase over time or were some people always using "only" while others never used it? It turned out to be primarily the latter. Because the lists of individuals was long, I only included those who said the phrase "true and living church" more than twice in GC. The number preceding their name is the number of times they have used the phrase in GC.

When the full list is included there is a fifth category, but it only includes two individuals who each said the phrase twice, once with "only" and once without. Every other person either falls in the far left and far right categories of consistently using "only" or never using it. Again, this seems to me that those not using "only" are consciously doing so to soften the tone.

So why little to no mention of "true and living church" in the early church days? My guess is that it is the same reasons why the First Vision isn't much mentioned until the late 19th century.

(The correlation between the two phrases is 0.897, here's the scatterplot)

The large jump in mentions of the First Vision in the 1920's is likely due to 1920 being the Centennial of the First Vision itself. Also by that point in the church, the use of the First Vision to establish a list of gospel principles was well established. By 1938 J. Reuben Clark Jr. told religious educators that the second of two essentials to which Mormon teachers must "give full faith" was "that the Father and the Son actually and in truth and very deed appeared to the Prophet Joseph in a vision in the woods." It has been suggested that the First Vision replaced polygamy as one of the defining elements of Mormonism "and the source of the faith's perception of persecution by outsiders." (see Emergence of a Fundamental: The Expanding Role of Joseph Smith's First Vision in Mormon Religious Thought on page 47 for more info on this shift)

If I had to guess why the major increase in use of "true and living church" didn't happen until the 1940's, I'd say it was likely that by the 1940's many knew about the Short Creek Community and the church needed to emphasize that it was the "only true and living church." While the fundamentalists shared the same founding doctrines and events like the First Vision, the LDS could then label them as perhaps a true but dead church while themselves remaining the "only true and living church." That said, the increase doesn't look too significant and is possibly unrelated to the growth of the fundamentalists.

I hope we can see this "softening" trend continue. Just 3 GC's after the earlier quote from President Hinckley about "unabashedly stat[ing]," he said the following:

Let us as Latter-day Saints reach out to others not of our faith. Let us never act in a spirit of arrogance or with a holier-than-thou attitude. Rather, may we show love and respect and helpfulness toward them. We are greatly misunderstood, and I fear that much of it is of our own making. We can be more tolerant, more neighborly, more friendly, more of an example than we have been in the past. Let us teach our children to treat others with friendship, respect, love, and admiration. That will yield a far better result than will an attitude of egotism and arrogance.

Amen.

Freestyle Rowing - New Olympic Sport?

2011-05-28T12:04:00.000-07:00

Just imagine it. I want to see couples rowing, where each couple is in their own canoe.

ROFL

Russian Profanity Part 1

2011-05-27T00:46:00.000-07:00

I had a few people tell me how much they love the story of the missionary trying to say "Job" and inadvertently dropping the F-Bomb in a discussion. It reminded me of a certain lesson I taught for the language lesson in district meetings at the end of my mission. It was a lesson on profanity. I knew so many missionaries who had accidentally profaned on several occasions that it seemed a lesson dedicated to it would be useful. It pretty much amounted to me telling these stories.

A young missionary was trying to teach about prophets. He said: "God speaks to prophets and He says: 'Blah blah blah blah blah' and then the prophets say that to the people." He said this all in Russian except the "blah's." Everyone's eyes got really large. Turns out that blah sounds almost identical to profanity that is analogous to using the F-word as an interjection.

Another missionary friend was trying to say that we baptize people in water. In Russian water is 'voda' but to say 'in water' you say 'vo vodye.' The end of the word changes depending on the case and preposition. The missionary in attempting to say this added the incorrect ending and said 'vodu' or 'v adu' which means "in hell." Yes, he said 'we baptize people in hell.' (I guess as Mormons it's not too far off)

Often in Russian before people leave to go somewhere they say "we went." This once led to inadvertent profanity. In Russian there's no real syntax. Every word is "declined" much like verbs are conjugated. As a result, syntax is largely unnecessary. This means that you can speak like Yoda all the time and it's totally normal. If someone is leaving you might say "you went" to them. In russian that's ты пошел. If you decide to mix it up, it's still technically correct, but turns out that in russian that means F@$% you. Google translate actually does this translation correctly. Once when I gave this story in the profanity lesson one of the female missionaries got this shocked and offended look and said "That's what that guy said!" Apparently she'd been wondering why the guy slamming the door in her face told her that she'd left.

In Ukraine I picked up one of the Harry Potter books to read in Russian. In Russian he's known as "Garry Potter." This is because Harry is a bad word. It's an adjective form of a swear word for the male anatomy. It was always funny hearing new missionaries screw this one up.

Once after some people showed us some of their favorite cartoons growing up, we mentioned some of our favorite cartoons from our childhood. One missionary mentioned the names of the lovable cartoon ducks Huey Duey and Louie. Saying those names with a Russian accent is a bad idea. I don't believe Louie means anything. Duey sounds like saying "blow," (specifically saying 'blow' in command form). Huey is profanity meaning part of the male anatomy, but it's offensiveness is on par with our F-bomb.

This isn't even half of such stories, more to come later...

Bill Maher on Christians

2011-05-25T20:39:00.000-07:00

Bill Maher recently had a rant on his show about Christians. While I take exception to a couple things he said, I think his main point is on the mark. I'd urge all Christians to listen to what he said, take it to heart, and consider how we're individually doing. Be warned for some strong language (I !$%#-ify the language, but I thought I'd give the warning anyway) :

....And finally, new rule: If you're a Christian who supports killing your enemies and torture, you have to come up with a new name for yourself.

Last week as I was explaining why I didn't feel at all guilty about Osama's targeted assassination I made some jokes about Christian hypocrisy and since then strangers have been coming up to me and forcing me to have the same conversation. So let me explain two things. One: I'm not Matthew McConaughey. He surfs a long board. And two: Capping thine enemy is not exactly what Jesus would do. It's what Suge Knight would do.

For almost 2000 years Christians have been lawyering the Bible to try and figure out how 'love thy neighbor' can mean 'hate thy neighbor' and how 'turn the other cheek' can mean 'Screw you. I'm buying space lasers.'

Martin Luther King gets to call himself a Christian because he actually practiced loving his enemies. And Gandhi was so !@#$ing Christian he was Hindu.

But if you rejoice in revenge, torture and war -- hey that's why they call it the weekend -- you cannot say you're a follower of the guy who explicitly said, 'Love your enemies.' ...and, 'Do good unto those who hate you.' The next line isn't, 'And if that doesn't work send a titanium-fanged dog to rip his nuts off.'

Jesus lays on that hippie stuff pretty thick. He has lines like, 'Do not repay evil with evil.' and, 'Do not take revenge on someone who wrongs you.' ...really. It's in that book you hold up when you scream at gay people.

And not to put too fine a point on it, but non-violence was kind of Jesus' trademark. ...kind of his big thing. To not follow that part of it is like joining Green Peace and hating whales.

I mean, there is interpreting and then there's just ignoring. It's just ignoring if you're for torture. ...as are more evangelicals than any other religion. You're supposed to look at that figure of Christ on the cross and think, 'How could a man suffer like that and forgive.' ...Not, 'Romans are @%ssy, he still has his eyes.'

If you go to a baptism and you hold the baby under until he starts talking, you're missing the message.

...like apparently our President who says he gets scripture on his blackberry first thing every morning, but who said on 60 Minutes that anyone who would questioned that Bin Laden deserved assassination should quote: 'Have their head examined.' Hey Fox News, you missed a big headline: 'Obama Thinks Jesus Is Nuts!' To which I say, "Hallelujah" because my favorite new government program is surprising violent religious zealots in the middle of the night and shooting them in the face.

Sorry, Head Start. You're number two now.

But you see I can say that because I am a non-Christian. ....just like most Christians.

Christians, I know. I'm sorry. I know you hate this and you want to square this circle but you can't. I'm not even judging you. I'm just saying logically, if you ignore every single thing Jesus commanded you to do you are not Christian. You're just auditing. You're not Christ's followers. You're just fans. And if you believe the Earth was given to you to kick @$$ on while gloating, you're not really a Christian. You're a Texan.

Why can't every Sunday be like this?

2011-05-23T00:09:00.000-07:00

I'm guilty of complaining about how church meetings go. Obviously I feel justified (at least at the time) for doing so. It's a little depressing when during 3 hours of church I only hear Jesus mentioned once in a hymn before the sacrament (in mormon lingo sacrament = "the Lord's Supper," Communion, or the eucharist). Granted that is more rare, but frequently we talk about concepts and fail to show how it's related to Christ and/or his mortal ministry. Today was great. Christ and his message of loving and serving on another permeated the meetings.

Some quotes from a talk (sermon) today:

When Christ appeared to his disciples sometime after he was resurrected, He gave them the injunction: "Feed my lambs. Feed my sheep. Feed my sheep." That's always struck me; of all the things he could have said, He just repeated the most important things over and over and over again: Feed my sheep. The scripture was already read about our baptismal covenants and I will not repeat them, but if you notice they weren't things like "if you are willing to pay your full 10%, and abstain from coffee and alcohol, and if you are willing to attend 3 hours of church meetings." It was about lifting one another up and bearing one another's burdens. It was about loving each other and taking care of each other.

These [home and visiting teaching] assignments should not feel like they're something to check off. It's not about giving a brief message once a month. It's about making sure that we're ministering to each other and watching out for each other.

We've been given the gift of the Holy Ghost and it's not just so we can sit there and get interesting tid-bits out of our scripture study. One of the most important things we can do with that gift of the Holy Ghost is to receive promptings for how we can best meet the needs of one another.

It was great.

Then our class was on Isaiah and Fasting. It's a message I've often felt needs to be given more in our church since we have monthly Fasts.

⁵ Is this the kind of fast I have chosen,
   only a day for people to humble themselves?
Is it only for bowing one’s head...
Is that what you call a fast,
   a day acceptable to the LORD?
⁶ “Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen:
to loose the chains of injustice
   and untie the cords of the yoke,
to set the oppressed free
   and break every yoke?
⁷ Is it not to share your food with the hungry
   and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter—
when you see the naked, to clothe them,
   and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?
(Isaiah 58:5-7, New International Version)

Is fasting to help us personally?... well, sure it does that, but that's not the main reason. Is fasting to help us humble ourselves and recognize our weaknesses and seek help? ... again, sure, but that's not the real point. The point of the fast is to remind us that others are suffering and then use that minor suffering of going without food to move us to help them. Fasting is to basically do exactly what Christ taught: serve those in need.

I left church today feeling moved to better serve those around me. I felt the desire to seek out those in need.

It was a great church service.

Junior and Senior companions (But mostly Senior)

2011-05-20T05:26:00.000-07:00

I heard this song recently and it brought back several memories from my mission. I thought I'd share the song and some funny mission stories.

You and Me (But Mostly Me)

Given that this song occurs before arriving in Uganda, the song shows Elder Kevin Price's hubris. I could forgive some of the hubris had he been in Uganda for over a year longer than his companion. While this level of hubris is rare among missionaries (it's at least 5% less ;) ), the dynamic between the two in the companionship struck a chord. Based on my experiences and observations from my mission, the relationship between the "junior" and "senior" companions could often use this song as a soundtrack.

Each mission president is given a decent amount of autonomy when it comes to mission rules and protocols for his jurisdiction. A mission president in my mission once said that "your mission doesn't really start until you're a senior companion." This was largely due to the difficulties in mastering the Russian language. In most missions every 6 weeks "transfers" take place and missionaries are moved to different areas and usually with new companions. In my mission these took place every 2 months. Basically you were a junior companion until about a year into your mission at which point on one of the transfers you became a senior companion. Most junior companions landed somewhere on the scale from not understanding anything in Russian to basic-low-level fluency. As a result, most of them could only "stand next you and watch," and "stay out of your way." There were exceptions to this: some junior companions were close to becoming senior companions and had a decent grasp on the language.

When the junior companion tried to contribute, it was at times a frustrating process and occasionally produced hilarious results. I'll share one of each.

If any of you have lived in a country where you only had a loose grasp on the language, you'll know that a large part of communication is visual. You can get away with limited vocabulary if you're expressive and good with gestures. My first senior companion wasn't known for his language skills and he used the phrase это самое (that thing) with some accompanying gesture more than everyone else I knew combined. The phone kills that large aid in communication. As fate would have it, I had a junior companion who really wanted to answer the phone. Usually he'd last about 30 seconds before handing the phone to me. One day the call lasted for quite a while and he just kept saying 'da' over and over without handing it to me. He got off the phone and said that a retired couple who were serving a humanitarian mission for the church were presenting some big donation to a university and they wanted to have "a missionary presence" there the next day. So we arranged to be there and upon arrival I was told "Good, you're finally here. You'll give your speech after the Dean."
Yeah, that's right. He didn't understand the call and turns out I needed to give a speech in front of the entire university. Let's just say I didn't let him answer the phone for a while.

I love this next story. This companionship was visiting a man they'd been teaching and he was going through a really rough time in his life. His pay had just been slashed, his parents had just gotten severely ill, and he was depressed. At very least that's what the junior companion had been able to piece together while sitting there for an hour listening to the conversation between the man and the senior companion. So the junior thought, 'hey, that's just like what happened to Job in the bible.' So in an attempt to contribute he thought he'd point out how similar this was to Job. Now he knew that the 'j' sound was pretty unique to English and he knew that in the bible Joseph was pronounced Yoseph, so he knew the 'j' would be a 'y' sound. He did not know (or at least remember) that often 'b's become 'v's (in Hebrew the difference between b and v is a dot). So out of nowhere he interjects saying simply "Yob." He was surprised with both the senior companion and the man stared at him in disbelief. After what seemed to him was an eternity the senior companion asked him, slowly, "What were you trying to say? Just tell me in English what you were trying to say." Why the confusion? Well, after sitting silently for almost an hour, the one word he decided to contribute was the F-bomb. In Russian there are several variations of the English F-word. The one the junior companion used was the F-bomb verb, and he'd used it in command form.

An additional memory this song evoked (specifically the line about God saying "you've done an awesome job Kevin!") was of a particular district meeting on my mission. A "district" in LDS mission vocabulary is a group of a few missionary companionships which live in the same general area. Districts meet weekly to discuss how they're doing, what help they need, instruction is given, and (at least in my mission) a language lesson is also given. This particular meeting the district leader was trying to motivate us. This is the highlight of his speech (as well as I can recall)

We really need to give it our all on our missions.
I mean, when we die we don't want it to be like:
"Hi Jesus, I'm ready to go to heaven."
"Sorry, you didn't make the cut"
"But.... but I served a mission!"
"Yeah, and you sucked at it."

Ah, the mission. I have a million memories.

Poop: A Russian Fairy Tale

2011-05-18T10:36:00.000-07:00

We're working on potty training our 3-year-old. She has informed us that unlike people, animals and princesses don't poop. We thought the classic Everyone Poops could help. This reminded me of one of my favorite Russian Fairy tales. Pooping plays a very critical part in the plot. So today I'd like to share it with you. So take an intriguing gaze into the Russian psyche and enjoy the random craziness of a favorite:

King Bear

Once there lived a tsar and a tsarina who had no children. One day the tsar went out to hunt fur-bearing animals and migratory birds. It was hot and he wanted to drink some water. He saw a well off to one side, approached it, bent over it, and was about to drink when King Bear seized him by the beard. "Let me go," begged the tsar. "Not unless you give me the thing in your own home that you do not know is there." "What is there in my own home that I don't know is there?" thought the tsar. "I think I know everything. I'd rather give you a herd of cows," he said. "No, I do not want even two herds." "Well, take a herd of horses." "Not even two herds; but give me the thing that you do not know is there in your own home."
The tsar agreed, released his beard, and rode home. As he entered the palace he was informed that his wife had given birth to twins, Prince Ivan and Princess Maria; they were what he had not known was in his own home. The tsar wrung his hands and wept bitterly. "Why are you so distressed?" the tsarina asked him. "How can I help weeping? I have given my own children to King Bear." "How did that happen?" "In such and such a manner," answered the tsar. "But we won't give them away!" "Oh, there is no way out of it! In the end he would destroy the whole kingdom, and take them none the less."
They thought and thought about what they should do and at last hit upon a plan. They dug a very deep ditch, furnished it, adorned it like a palace, and stored it with supplies of every sort and sufficient food and drink for a long sojourn. Then they put their children into the ditch, built a ceiling on top of it, threw earth over it, and leveled off the ground around it very smoothly.
Soon afterward the tsar and tsarina died. Their children grew bigger and bigger. Finally King Bear came for them. He looked everywhere--but no one was there! The palace was deserted. He walked and walked, went all over the house, and thought to himself: "Who will tell me where the tsar's children are?" Lo and behold, there was a chisel stuck in the wall. "Chisel, chisel," said King Bear, "tell me, where are the tsar's children?" "Take me out into the yard and cast me on the ground; where I stick, do you dig." King Bear took the chisel, went out into the yard, and cast it on the ground; the chisel turned, whirled, and stuck fast right above the place where Prince Ivan and Princess Maria were hidden. The bear dug up the earth with his paws, broke the ceiling, and said: "Ah, Prince Ivan, ah, Princess Maria. So there you are! So you were hiding from me! Your father and mother tried to cheat me, and in revenge I will eat you!" "Ah, King Bear, do not eat us! Many chickens and geese and other goods and chattels were left to us by our father; there is enough to satisfy you." "Well, so be it! Sit upon me; I will take you to be my servants."
They sat upon him, and King Bear carried them to such steep and high mountains that they seemed to be going up to the very sky; the place was utterly deserted, no one lived there. "We are hungry and thirsty," said Prince Ivan and Princess Maria. "I will run and get you something to eat and drink," answered the bear. "Meanwhile, you stay here and rest." The bear ran off to get food and the prince and princess stood there and wept. Out of nowhere, a bright falcon appeared, shook hi wings, and said these words: "Ah, Prince Ivan and Princess Maria, what fate has brought you here?" They told him. "Why has the bear taken you?" "To serve him in various ways." "Do you want me to carry you away? Sit upon my wings." They seated themselves upon him; the bright falcon rose higher than standing trees, lower only than moving clouds, and set out for distant lands. At that moment King Bear came back, sighted the falcon in the skies, struck his head against the damp earth, and sent a flame straight to the falcon's wings. The falcon's wings were singed and he dropped the prince and princess on the ground. "Ah," said the bear, "so you wanted to flee from me; for that I will eat you up with all your little bones." Do not eat us, King Bear; we shall serve you faithfully." The bear forgave them and took them to his own kingdom; there the mountains were even higher and steeper.
Some time, a short time or a long time, went by. "Ah," said Prince Ivan, "I am hungry." "I too," said Princess Maria. King Bear went off to get food and told them sternly to stay where they were. They sat on the green grass and wept bitter tears. From nowhere an eagle appeared; he dropped from behind the clouds and asked them: "Ah, Prince Ivan and Princess Maria, what fate has brought you here?" The told him. "Do you want me to carry you away?" "Impossible! The bright falcon tried to carry us away, but he could not, and you can't either!" "The falcon is a small bird; I will fly higher than he. Sit upon my wings." The prince and princess seated themselves upon him; the eagle spread his wings and soared higher than the falcon. The bear came back, sighted the eagle int he skies, struck his head against the damp earth, and singed the eagle's wings with a flame. The eagle dropped Prince Ivan and Princess Maria to the ground. "Ah, so you again tried to run away!" said the bear. "Now I will really eat you." "Do not eat us, please; the eagle lured us with false promises. We shall serve you in faith and in truth." King Bear forgave them for the last time, gave them food and drink, and took them farther away.
Some time, a short time or a long time, went by. "Ah," said Prince Ivan, "I am hungry." "I too," said Princess Maria. King Bear went off to get them some food. They sat on the green grass and wept. Out of nowhere appeared a bullock who waved his head and asked: "Prince Ivan, Princess Maria, what fate has brought you here?" They told him. "Do you want me to carry you away?" "Impossible! The falcon and the eagle tried to carry us away but could not; you can do it even less than they." And they were so drowned in tears that they could hardly speak. "The birds couldn't carry you away, but I will! Sit on my back." They mounted the bullock and he ran off at a not very fast pace. The bear saw that the prince and princess were trying to get away from him and rushed to pursue them. "Ah, bullock, bullock," cried the tsar's children, "the bear is after us." "Is he far behind us?" "No, quite close."
The bear jumped close to them and was about to seize them, but the bullock strained, and pasted the bear's eyes shut with dung. The bear rushed to the blue sea to wash his eyes, while the bullock ran on and on. After the bear had washed himself he again pursued them. "Ah, bullock, bullock! The bear is after us." "Is he far behind us?" "Oh no, quite close!" The bear jumped close to them, and again the bullock strained, and pasted the bear's eyes with dung. While the bear ran to wash them, the bullock kept on and on. He plastered the bear's eyes for the third time, and then gave Prince Ivan a comb and a towel and said: "When the bear comes close to us again, the first time cast the comb behind you and the second time wave the towel."
The bullock ran on, farther and farther. Prince Ivan looked back and saw that King Bear was pursuing them and was about to catch them! He took the comb and cast it behind him, and suddenly such a thick forest sprang up that through it bird could not fly nor beast crawl nor man walk nor horse gallop. The bear gnawed and gnawed; with great effort he gnawed out a very narrow path for himself, got through the thick forest, and rushed on in pursuit of the tsar's children; but they were far, far off! Finally the bear began to overtake them. Ivan Tsarevich looked back, waved the towel behind him, and suddenly a lake of fire spread out, immensely wide! The waves surged from one end to the other King Bear stood some time on the shore, then turned back home. Soon the bullock and Prince Ivan and Princess Maria came to a glade.
In that glade stood a large and magnificent house. "Here is a house for you," said the bullock. "Live here without care. And now prepare a woodpile in the yard, slaughter me on it, and then burn me." "Ah," said the tsar's children, "why should we slaughter you? Rather, live with us; we will take care of you, feed you fresh grass, and bring you spring water to drink." "No, burn me and plant the ashed on three beds: from the first a horse will jump out, from the second a dog, and on the third an apple tree will grow. You, Prince Ivan, will ride on this horse, and with this dog go hunting." They did as he commanded.
One day Prince Ivan decided to go hunting; he said farewell to his sister, mounted his horse, and went to the woods. He killed a goose and a duck and caught a live wolf cub and brought it home. The young prince saw that he was lucky at hunting, so he went again, shot all kinds of game birds, and caught a live bear cub. The third time Prince Ivan went hunting, he forgot to take his dog with him. Meanwhile Princess Maria went to the lake to wash clothes. As she washed, a six-headed dragon came flying to the other shore of the lake of fire, changed into a handsome man, saw the princess, and said to her in a sweet voice: "Greetings, lovely maiden!" "Greetings, good youth!" "The old wives say that in former times this lake did not exist; if a high bridge spanned it, I would come to the other side and marry you." "Wait! A bridge will be here in a trice!" answered Princess Maria and waved her towel. In that instant the towel spread out in an arc and hung above the lake like a high and beautiful bridge. The dragon crossed it, changed into his former shape, put Prince Ivan's dog under lock and key, and cast the key into the lake; then he seized the princess and carried her off.
Prince Ivan came back from the hunt and found his sister gone, and the imprisoned dog howling; he saw the bridge across the lake and said: "A dragon must have carried Maria away!" He went to seek her. He walked and walked until, in an open field, he found a hut on chicken legs and dog's heels. "Little hut, little hut," he said, "turn your back to the woods and your front to me!" The hut turned around; Prince Ivan entered, and in it, stretched from corner to corner, lay Baba Yaga the Bony-legged, with her nose grown into the ceiling "Fie, fie!" she said. "Hitherto one never heard a Russian breath, and now a Russian breath has come into view and thrusts itself under one's very nose! Why have you come Prince Ivan?" "To ask your help in my misfortune." "And what is your misfortune?" The prince told her. "Well," she said, "go home. In your yard there is an apple tree. Break three green twigs from it, wave them together, and strike the lock where the dog is locked up; the lock will at once break into little pieces. Then go boldly forth to fight the dragon; he won't be able to resist you."
Prince Ivan returned home and freed his dog, who ran out in great anger. He also took the wold cub and bear cub with him and set out against the dragon. When they found the dragon, the beasts threw themselves upon him and tore him to shreds. And Prince Ivan took Princess Maria home and they began to live happily together and to prosper.

This story is an excerpt from:

Charity: Atheists can go to heaven?

2011-05-16T03:36:00.000-07:00

I recently was talking to someone about the 12-step recovery program. They mentioned that the Mormon church now offers a 12-step program specifically designed for its members. I'm glad for that. The 12-step program has adapted over time to try and accomodate people from a variety of backgrounds. While I'm glad it's so inclusive, sometimes it's better to get help within a setting which is better catered or customized to you. I mentioned that I had a good friend, Thom, who is an atheist who was seeking a good recovery program. The 12-step program doesn't work for an atheist given that the core idea is relying on God/gods/higher-power to aid you in your recovery. He has found a group (SMART) which offers such aid. It's a recovery program built on science-based, proven methods and is open to everyone (believers and non-believers). The person I was talking to about this then immediately proceeded to tell a stupid joke about atheists. It really annoyed me and reminded me of a lesson I recently taught in church about Charity and I thought I'd toss out some thoughts and insights I had while preparing for it. While the lesson was primarily drawing from the teachings of Christ, I hope that in sharing I can find areas which everyone from Mormons to Buddhists, Muslims to Evangelicals, Jews to Secular Humanists can find as common ground.

First in discussing the lesson I need to clarify what I mean by Charity. In Mormonism, we really almost speak a different language (to see a sample of what I mean, check out this site) and it holds true for Charity. For most English speakers Charity is: "The voluntary giving of help, typically money, to those in need." The King James version of the Bible translates αγαπε as love or charity. Because charity is now so associated with helping those in need, most modern translations simply use love. But Christianity often uses Charity as a word to denote a special kind of love. You'll notice on the google dictionary, the 6th definition is: "Love of humankind, typically in a Christian context." Mormons similarly use Charity to denote a special kind of love: "the pure love of Christ."

This idea of a pure love for all people was the main message of Christ. This is well illustrated in the account found in Matthew, Mark and Luke in which Jesus answered the question "which is the greatest commandment?" It is interesting to see what followed Christ's statement "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" in the 3 different accounts.

In Matthew, Jesus continues with "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." Meaning that without the 'golden rule' the law and prophets fall. Could this apply to individuals as well? If we do not show love to all people does the rest of our religious structure fail in its purpose? Paul speaks to this, which I'll discuss more later.

In Mark, the scribe who asked the question responds by indicating that loving God and all men is "more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices." 'All burnt offerings and sacrifices' is a way of saying all religious rituals. In Mormonism there are many rituals (in Mormon parlance we'd say ordinances) some of which are known as saving ordinances and are "a requirement for exaltation." What implications does this verse in Mark have for modern Mormonism?

In Luke, the lawyer who had asked the question, asks "and who is my neighbor?" Jesus then gives the parable of the Good Samaritan. To summarize, a man is mugged, beaten, and left for dead on a dangerous path. A priest and a Levite (2 very religious people) each see him and yet pass by without giving him aid. Then a Samaritan comes by. Samaritans and Jews hated each other. If Jesus were giving this parable today to liberals he might say a tea-partier came by, or if speaking to the tea-party he might say a socialist helped the man. Just think of someone in a group that you despise (perhaps some Christians might think of an atheist or vice versa). This Samaritan dresses the man's wounds, feeds him, takes him to an inn, stays and cares for him, pays for him and leaves extra money to cover any additional expenses. Jesus specifically chose to have 2 religious people who participate regularly in religious rituals be the ones to ignore their fellow man, and have someone hated by the religious group be the one to show kindness. Who will be saved: those who participate in religious ordinances/rituals or those who have charity? Perhaps the question could be better phrased given that those two categories are certainly not mutually exclusive: Which is of greater importance; participation in religious ordinances/rituals or having charity for all?

Jesus gave some other parables which give more insight into the role of charity and entering into heaven. Often in the New Testament, the authors of the gospels gathered parables into groups which were all riffing on a theme (for example Matthew 13 has 7 parables, 6 of which explicitly state they're about the kingdom of heaven). It's a great teaching technique. Any analogy has its strengths and weaknesses. Thus by giving several different analogies on the same topic, the message is more likely to come through and avoid the weakness of any one analogy. In Matthew 25 we get 3 parables about the kingdom of heaven. I'd say they're particularly about what one must do to be in the kingdom of heaven.

The first parable is about the 5 wise and 5 foolish virgins attending a wedding. If we assume the oil represents their charitable works and service, or love for others, it shows why the oil can't be given from one to another and the importance of constantly loving and serving others.

The second parable is about the servants who are given various amounts of money. If we assume that the money represents charity or love, the parable seems to make more sense and fit in well with the other 2 parables in this group. Just think of the children's song Love is Something if you Give it Away. (The cutest thing in the world is when my 3-year-old daughter sings this song).

The third parable drives the point home. It's about the judgement and is metaphorically like a shepherd dividing sheep from goats. Those going to heaven are going because they love and serve others (they fed the hungry, gave drink to the thirsty, gave shelter and clothes to the homeless, and visited those in prison). Those going to hell are going because they didn't help others.

I insinuated earlier that Paul mentioned the futility of religious fervor without charity or love for all. He says that even if he had the gift of tongues or prophecy and knew all things, it's pointless without charity. Even if he had all faith, without charity he's nothing. He even takes it further, he says even if he serves others and does good works, if he lacks that pure love for them then it does him no good. Here's Paul's definition of Charity:

Charity is patient, charity is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Charity does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Regardless of our individual beliefs and practices, surely we can look for the good in each other. I have atheist friends who live their lives much closer to the teachings of Jesus than many Christians. I have muslim friends who show greater patience and love to those who do and say hateful things to them than many in my own faith in similar situations. I hope we can all strive to cultivate charity and just be good to our fellow homo sapiens.

Who gives more?

2011-05-13T15:02:00.000-07:00

Last week I had a progressive friend bring up Arthur Brooks book Who Really Cares to show that conservatives actually give more than liberals. This work had a lot of coverage with people from the left and right sides of the aisle simply accepting Brooks implications that conservatives give more than liberals and that it's because of the inherent difference in ideologies. I wanted to see the details of his stats because I wasn't buying it at face value. A little digging brought up this important information:

Conservatives don't give more than Liberals

...well, at least that's not how it should be described. It's actually a divide between religious people and non-religious. Currently the right is comprised of more religious people than the left, so for that reason alone conservatives give more than liberals. Brooks came clean about this in a long article with Heritage Foundation. Brooks himself said:

Is that because of politics? The answer is no. I have found no evidence that conservatives are inherently more generous than liberals.

He probably should have told his publicist this.

Here are a few of the highlights from the Heritage article:

First, religious conservatives and religious liberals give the same amount. While secular liberals give less, secular conservatives give much less than secular liberals.

From My Random Thoughts

In the article Brooks said:

What you find is that the above-average-giving states largely are the conservative states in America today. As a matter of fact, of the 25 states that are above average in charitable giving, 24 supported Bush in 2004. There was one that supported Kerry which was also above average in charitable giving, and that’s Maryland.
Is that because of politics? The answer is no. I have found no evidence that conservatives are inherently more generous than liberals. Religious conservatives and religious liberals give at largely the same rates and the same amounts. However, there are more than three times as many religious conservatives than religious liberals in America today.
Furthermore, religious conservatives are proliferating; they are having more babies, and more people are joining their party. Religious liberals are shrinking as a group. That is to say, while there is no virtue gap between religious liberals and religious conservatives, there is a numbers gap between them. The lowest-giving groups are secular liberals and secular conservatives—as a matter of fact, secular conservatives are at the very bottom. (See Table 5.) Secular liberals are already the largest group of liberals out there, and there is evidence that liberals are secularizing even more. Conservatives are also becoming more religious. This increase in dynamics is driving the political differences in charity today."

Also interesting, among secular people, the frequency with which they attended church as a child had an effect on the amount of their charitable donations as an adult:

From My Random Thoughts

About this Brooks said:

I want to take a group of adults that is completely secular, which is to say they never attend religious services or have no religion at all. I am going to split them in half: Half of them went to church when they were kids, and half of them did not go to church when they were kids.
How much does that explain their giving? The answer is: a lot. The percentage of secularist adults who donate to charity was 47 percent if they went to church every week as kids, and it was 26 percent if they didn’t go as kids. What you find is, the more you go to church as a child, the more you give as an adult, notwithstanding your actual religious behaviors as an adult—which is evidence that people learn, that they get wired for charity when they practice religion as a child.

So if you ever hear this book cited as evidence about one political ideology being better than another, you can correct them and say it only shows the effect of religion on charitable donations.