Da lesson wot I taught,orThe Relief Society: Insights for Priesthood Quorums

Howdy-do, friends. Sorry it's been a while. Here are some slightly expanded notes from a lesson I taught in Elder's Quorum yesterday.


1) Introduction
Morning, brethren. I have to confess that I accepted this assignment with no little sense of concern. First, when I am asked to teach, I immediately begin to think that something has gone terribly, terribly wrong. Why are we scraping the bottom of the barrel? Second, when I asked Drew (my roommate and a member of the EQP) what the subject of the lesson was, he replied (and I quote): "Oh... MWUHAHAHAHA! The Relief Society." Now, I'm not sure what was intended by the evil laugh, but as you sustained him last week, I thought you all ought to know. Finally, I was worried about how I could possibly make this subject really applicable to a priesthood quorum. What could I tell you? I once had an assignment in a RS lesson––there are no dark, esoteric secrets I can reveal to you. There was no animal sacrifice. (I can't say how disappointed that made me.)

However, as I did a little research on the subject matter, I started to see that there were some very interesting tidbits to be found.

2) Historical Background

Manual Reading 1: (p. 449)
In the spring of 1842, members of the Church in Nauvoo were busily occupied with the work of building the Nauvoo Temple. Two such members were Sarah Granger Kimball and her seamstress, Margaret A. Cook, who, while talking together one day, decided to combine their efforts in order to help the temple workmen. Sister Kimball said that she would provide fabric so that Sister Cook could make shirts for the men. The two women decided to invite other sisters to join them in forming a ladies’ society to further their benevolent efforts. Sarah Granger Kimball recalled: “The neighboring sisters met in my parlor and decided to organize. I was delegated to call on Sister Eliza R. Snow and ask her to write for us a Constitution and By-laws, and submit them to President Joseph Smith prior to our next Thursday’s meeting.”

After looking over the proposed constitution and bylaws, the Prophet pronounced them the best he had ever seen but then said: “‘This is not what you want. Tell the sisters their offering is accepted of the Lord, and he has something better for them than a written Constitution. I invite them all to meet with me and a few of the brethren … next Thursday afternoon.’”

Manual Reading 2: (p. 451)
Sarah Granger Kimball recalled that shortly before the Prophet Joseph Smith organized the Relief Society, he said: “I will organize the women under the priesthood after the pattern of the priesthood. … The Church was never perfectly organized until the women were thus organized.”

When I read these two comments, I was a bit intrigued. First, we should note that the organization was woman-initiated. They went to the prophet, not vice versa. Second, the Prophet's comment about the "pattern of the priesthood" seemed a very interesting thing to say. I did a little digging on the subject, and found that it got more interesting yet.

On 30 March 1842, in a RS meeting, Joseph taught “that the society must move according to the ancient priesthood,” and that he would “make of this society a kingdom of priests as in Enoch’s day––as in Paul’s day...”

On 28 April 1842, he recorded in his diary: “At two o'clock I met the members of the ‘Female Relief Society,’ and after presiding at the admission of many new members, [I] gave a lecture on the priesthood[, showing] how the sisters would come in possession of the privileges, blessings and gifts of the priesthood.”

Question: Why is this significant? Why this repeated focus on the priesthood? What does this mean? What does this mean, especially for us as priesthood holders? [Discussion ensued. Some of the thoughts shared: the priesthood represents an eternal pattern, godly in character; the organization is itself particularly suited to service; the organization is a sign of God's involvement, etc. Why is this important to us as Elders? At the very least, we might learn (by watching the RS) something about honoring our priesthood––about what our responsibilities are and how we ought to carry them out.]

3) The Great Naming Debate
The first reading mentioned writing a constitution for the organization, but that (though very good) it was not used.

Question: Why was it rejected? What replaced it?

On 17 March 1842, in a Relief Society meeting, the Prophet instructed: “Let this presidency serve as a constitution.”

Question: What does this mean? [Led by revelation. This is part of the priesthood pattern.]

And boy, did they ever lead––right from the start. There was actually a debate on the day of the organization of the RS about what it’s name would be. During the course of it, John Taylor actually recommended the organization change its name to the “Nauvoo Female Benevolent Society.” Having barely been made President, Emma started to argue against this suggestion pretty strongly. A number of objections were raised (even some by Jospeh). This discussion culminated in Eliza R. Snow, who (though in favor of “Relief") said that

“One objection to the word “Relief” is that the idea associated with it is that of some great calamity––that we intend appropriating on some extraordinary occasion instead of meeting the common occurrences.”

Emma had a brilliant reply:

Manual Reading 3: (p.450)
"We are going to do something extraordinary. … We expect extraordinary occasions and pressing calls."

Question: What is extraordinary about the RS? And what is this “extraordinary” need that they meet? [Extraordinary in scope; perhaps not huge individual projects, but meeting widespread and constant needs; the Society makes extraordinary women; extraordinary compassion. "Keep this question in mind. We'll be coming back to it."]

In any case, both the Prophet and Elder Taylor said that they could not "stand in the face" of Emma's logic, and that they were compelled to "concede the point." The name would be the Nauvoo Female Relief Society.

Well, enough history. The RS was organized, and has since made many, many centerpieces. (I would have said "resin grapes," but the class members are of the wrong generation.)

4) Prophetic Teachings & Theology
Let's bear in mind that some of JS’s comments in this section seem to be both prescriptive and descriptive. They address what the RS (and we) should do, and also what the RS does do.

Manual Reading 4: (p. 452)
“Said Jesus, ‘Ye shall do the work, which ye see me do.’ [See 2 Nephi 31:12.] These are the grand key-words for the society to act upon.”

Question: Have any of you seen Jesus recently? Maybe coming out of a Starbucks? (The minute I said "Starbucks" I knew I had stepped in it, due to the coffee association. Luckily, they laughed. I then suggested it might have been a better and less-caffeinated restaurant.) If not, then how do we see Christ? How do we see him in the RS? [We see him him in those that emulate him. We see him in the faces of those that serve. Also, let's not forget, "inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these..." We see the "suffering Christ" in the sick and the infirm, in the broken-hearted, in the despairing and hopeless, in those we ought to visit in prison. "Again, keep this question in mind. We'll be returning to it."]

Manual Reading 5: (p. 452)
“I attended by request, the Female Relief Society, whose object is the relief of the poor, the destitute, the widow and the orphan, and for the exercise of all benevolent purposes. … There was a very numerous attendance at the organization of the society, and also at the subsequent meetings, of some of our most intelligent, humane, philanthropic and respectable ladies; and we are well assured from a knowledge of those pure principles of benevolence that flow spontaneously from their humane and philanthropic bosoms, that with the resources they will have at command, they will fly to the relief of the stranger; they will pour in oil and wine to the wounded heart of the distressed; they will dry up the tears of the orphan and make the widow’s heart to rejoice."

Question: What words stand out here? [Eventually, we got to "stranger," "oil," and "wine."] Why these words? What is significant? [They are references to the parable of the Good Samaritan.]

5) The Hermeneutic of The Good Samaritan
What Joseph has given us here is an interpretive key––a lens through which we can understand the RS and their calling (and, consequently, our own).

A class member then summarized the parable (Luke 10:25-37), and we began to discuss its meaning.

Three Variations on a Theme by Jesus:
I) Historio-critical Reading––
-Jewish culture was deeply ordered by boundaries regarding one's duties. What were the limits of being a neighbor? To whom?
-The road was notoriously dangerous. 17 mi, descends 3,500 feet. Man traveling alone. What a moron. Even in the 4th century writers mentioned what a dangerous road this was and, how common it was to be robbed on it.
-Levite and Priest: Why did they pass by? Temple service? Ritual cleanliness (couldn't touch the dead)? Fear? Irony: they are ostensibly heading to temple to seek face of God, which they then miss in the face of their suffering fellow man.
-Samaritan: according to the storytelling "rule of three" (things go the same way for two iterations, and then change on the third; common in folklore and fairytales) the third character should have been a common Israelite male. (There is an interesting parallel here to the structure of the Jewish temple (Herod's): the Priests could approach the Holy of Holies most closely; the Levites could approach not quite as close; Israelite males could enter the next courtyard out; then women, then gentiles.) By making this character a Samaritan, Jesus is really exploding boundaries (as mentioned above). The Samaritan owes this man nothing, no allegiance whatsoever.
-Scholar and preacher, Ronald Knox, said:

"Is it for you, the beneficiary for all time of that unique act of charity (Christ's coming among us, to be our Good Samaritan) to haggle over obligations and to weigh out mercy on a scale? The world is your neighbor! Your enemy is your neighbor! The people who annoy you, bore you, rub you the wrong way, are your neighbors! Whoever needs your help, however unworthy, however ungrateful, however unwilling––that one is your neighbor!"

II) Patristic/Allegorical Reading––
-Man = Adam. He has left the garden (Jerusalem, the holy city), and fallen among thieves.
-Priest and Levite = the Law and the Prophets, which cannot save him.
-Samaritan = Jesus Christ.
-Inn = the Church.

III) A Modern Retelling––
[The following is taken from an essay published in Dialogue (Winter 1991), by Neal Chandler. It is called Book of Mormon Stories that my Teacher Kept from Me.]

When Jesus of Nazareth was asked [some important question], he did not quote from Mormon Doctrine nor from Answers to Gospel Questions. Instead, he told a story. And we, who have never very well understood why he did this, have ourselves long since lost the skill of storytelling. Jesus' stories to his first audiences were unheard of, striking, disquieting, unorthodox. To us, however, they ... have become the very soul of orthodoxy; we know the central ones by heart, and because we know them so well, we hardly know them at all. They are, to borrow a simile from Nietzsche, like coins so long in use they have lost their imprimatur and circulate among us as smooth blank metal. We know they are a unit of value, but no longer remember clearly what that value is.

[I]n order to be faithful to a story, sometimes it is necessary to be not quite so faithful to the text. I am not a Jew in ancient Israel. I am a [twenty-first century] Mormon, [so let us], for instance, speculate [the following]:

[The rest was read by various class members. It is presented here lightly edited. In the lesson, it was more heavily edited, both for time and not to cause trouble (i.e.: the bits about the High Priest and General Authority). I have retained those portions here, because you aren't bound to read this blog like my quorum members were bound to attend that meeting, and because I think it better preserves the really shocking character of Jesus' story.]

There was once a certain man, [living in Cleveland, Ohio,] who on a Saturday evening went into a part of the city into which respectable men normally do not go. Why he went there has not been determined, though this is a matter of concern to many among us who think his reason makes all the difference in the world. Still, whatever the reason, his trip ended in misfortune. He was attacked by thugs who took his money and credit cards, his dark blue blazer, and his late model car with the Bush bumper sticker. They left him beaten and filthy and unconscious in the gutter.

And then by chance a certain high priest drove by, (a former Mormon bishop and member of the stake high council), who was taking a short cut through that part of town because he was late for the priesthood session of stake conference. And when he saw the man lying in the gutter, he shook his head and said to himself with not a little disgust, Look at that, would you. Just look at that. The things people do to themselves. And because there were other men, black men, standing on the sidewalk staring at him, he pulled into the center lane and ran a yellow light at the next intersection.

Not long after, there also came that way a General Authority, traveling from the airport. He was a well-known official from a well-known family, and when he saw the man in the gutter, he too was troubled, though in a different sort of way, and asked, “Shouldn't we stop to help?” But the security man who was driving, and who was an experienced man who knew his business said, “That's not a good idea. This is a bad part of town. Anything could happen here, and besides, he's probably just sleeping it off. If you want to pick up this one, sir, what about the one on the next corner, and the next? You'd need a semi to pick up all of them.” So the General Authority sat quietly back while his driver moved into the center lane and got up speed to get him to conference on time, where he told the assembled brethren he'd been impressed by an experience he'd had that very evening to set aside his prepared text and speak instead about the importance of the Word of Wisdom in the last days.

At about this time, a certain aging hippie drove the very way the General Authority and the high priest had just come. He was a kind of middle-aged adolescent with a pony tail and an earring, who played lead guitar in a local rock 'n' roll band and drove a rusting VW van covered with bumper stickers promoting abortion rights, gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, and the making of love not war. And when he saw the man in the gutter, he put down his joint and stopped the van. And when he could not revive the unconscious victim, he dragged and lifted him inside the van and drove several miles to an emergency treatment center in the suburbs where the pretty girl behind the desk asked if he and the injured man were related. “No,” he said. And she frowned and asked what the patient's insurance carrier was. “Who knows?” he said. “I found him in the street. Maybe he doesn't have one.” To which she replied, while filing her fingernails, that in that case, unfortunately, they couldn't take him in, not without insurance. She was sorry, but it was policy, and there were no exceptions.

But the lead guitarist with the earring and pony tail lost his patience, and he yelled at the girl behind the desk, and at the physician on call, and at an administrator on the telephone until they became mute and embarrassed and agreed to do what they could if he would just quiet down and go away.

So he left, leaving his van in the parking lot and his wrist watch and van keys on the desk as a kind of unsolicited guarantee, and he promised to come back Sunday night right after his gig was finished and pay what he could of the charges. He took off down the street walking and whistling and smoking a cigarette and balancing his electric guitar on his shoulder like a ghetto blaster.

It was almost Sunday, and the Sunday School question which hovered in the air (and always has), though it's not often asked very well nor answered very carefully, is just this: who in that story was neighbor to the man who strayed into a bad part of Cleveland?

[The full essay (and the story in its unedited form) may be found here. Caveat lector: it may be a bit bitter for some of your tastes, though I found it interesting and periodically insightful nevertheless.]

Question: Why would this author (not to mention Jesus!) choose such a shocking character to be the wounded man's savior? What purpose could this have? [Also, let's remember that while the man in the story could only have been made more repugnant to LDS members had he been a registered Democrat, he still was not as shocking as a the Samaritan was to the original audience. The Samaritans had abandoned the covenant; they carried out apostate temple ceremonies on Mount Gerizim; they were both religious and political enemies; even during Christ's lifetime (ca. 6 - 9 AD), during the Passover itself they entered the Jerusalem temple and strewed its courtyards with the bones of the dead––the most terrible violation imaginable. However annoyed and angry we might be about unnamed demographics protesting outside LDS temples, we should reflect that they only use signs and shouts, and that they stand outside the fence. They have not forced entry, nor perpetrated gross desecration within the sacred precincts.]

6) Application
Ah, the hard part. This story constitutes a brilliant pincer attack on the comfortable, demanding a perfect balance (unattainable without grace). We are called to be Samaritans, little christs, for one another––to save both our own tribe and the stranger; also, we must be prepared to find Christ in “the other,” to have salvation reach out toward us from directions we do not expect, to see the Lord watching us even through the eyes of our enemy.

Question: How on earth do we do this? How can we meet this daunting call? [There are no silver bullets for this, only hard work; greater observance is required, we must strive (guided by the Comforter) to learn to look on the heart, to see what is needed; we need to show greater compassion and abundant charity. Taking a cue from "wine" and "oil," we have a particular responsibility to ensure that blessings and ordinances are made available.]

7) Conclusion
We have covered a lot of territory, and now return to our two guiding questions:

"What is this 'extraordinary' need for which the RS exists?"
And, "How do we find the face of Christ?"

We are led to the answers by another question: How did people know the resurrected Christ? What did he look like? Was he [cue Scottish accent] 7 feet tall, and apt to consume the English with lightning from his eyes? How did they know it was not Braveheart, but Jesus Christ?

In the New Testament, and (particularly) in the Book of Mormon account, we find that the disciples knew him when they touched his wounds.

So: The extraordinary need is simply our neighbor. It is every one of us. We are all fallen among thieves, all wounded. The scars are deep, and often unseen and unseeable. It’s mortality: nobody gets out alive! For some reason that I do not understand, there is violence and pain written deep in the fabric of our universe. Christ himself did not escape this brutality. Because of this, as Elder Holland has taught, SALVATION IS NOT CHEAP.

It comes only at the dearest price, and it answers our second question, because we only gain it when we find the face of the Lord.

We will see Christ as we serve like him. We see find him in the faces of those we serve, and those with whom we serve. And, one day, we will see him as he is... and on that day we will know that he knows us. We will know that he understands the terrible pain and the depth of our unseen wounds, because––in his hands, and in his side, and in his feet––he wears our scars for us. He wears them in token of promises he has kept, and promises he will yet keep.

Until that day then, let us watch the Relief Society. I hope that we will be observant, that we will strive to emulate, and that we will be grateful. Doing that, we cannot fail to remember the instruction the Prophet’s mother gave at one of their earliest meetings:

“We must cherish one another, watch over one another, [and] comfort one another ... that we may all sit down in heaven together" (Manual, p. 450).

___________________________


I hope you find some of this at least interesting. If not, feel free to print it out and use it to start fires.

Note: I am (as usual) particularly indebted to Fr. Peter for sharing some of his insights (and the Ronald Knox quote) regarding the meaning of The Good Samaritan. He sent me that info way back in 2007, and I am pleased to be able to pass some of it along!

Inimitable Ineptitudeor:I know why the caged bird PR rep sings weeps

(UPDATED! See below.)

The Church has got a gift.


Truly.


It's just uncanny.



How can they take any situation, consider all possible courses of action, and then––nine times out of ten––choose precisely the one that seems perfectly calculated to make the rest of the population hate and fear the Church? Now, to be fair, "the Church" is not a precise term. It rarely refers to "the Brethren" or "the Leadership"; it's not as though we can put all of this insanity on the shoulders of some individual or group of general authorities. However, the fact remains that a black eye for one is a black eye for all. Every member's action, fair or not, tends to reflect on all members.

Here's our newest example in a nutshell:

-Gay couple begins to stroll across Main Street Plaza.
-At one point during the crossing, one man kisses the other on the cheek.
-Church security tells the men to leave.
-Gay couple is offended and challenges that request.
-Church security handcuffs them both and calls police.
-Police charge men with trespassing, and then release them.

So, a kiss on the cheek leads to an arrest. This is problematic on a number of levels.

1. It was a kiss on the cheek, not public sodomy.
2. The men were crossing the plaza; had security done nothing, they would have finished crossing and left Church property.
3. The Church had guaranteed "public access" on the plaza, even though there is currently no public easement.
4. It was JUST A KISS ON THE CHEEK!!! (See 1.)

Church spokesperson, Kim Farah, commented with the following little gem: "Two individuals came on church property and were politely asked to stop engaging in inappropriate behavior––just as any other couple would have been." Having lived on a farm for some years, I know bull when I smell it, and Sister Farah is redolent. Either she is lying (that is, she knows that couples frequently kiss in the plaza––many in the context of wedding photos), or she is an idiot. Perhaps the reality is a mixture of the two.

Of course we must remember, the property is owned by the Church. They were acting within their legal rights. They are allowed to limit behavior on their own property. Aspects of the trespassing charge are unclear in this case; in Utah, trespassing is defined as "substantially interfering with the owner's use of the property," and I am not convinced that this situation qualifies. Perhaps time will offer legal clarification, but for the moment, let us assume that the Church was 100% within the law.

Being within the law, however, is not the only important consideration. Hypothetically assume, for a moment, that because of some strange confluence of circumstances, you can legally beat a nun to death with a tire iron. THAT STILL DOES NOT MAKE IT A GOOD IDEA!!! If the membership (and the employees) of the Church could but internalize this idea, I suspect the Church would have to spend less money paying to treat the ulcers of the PR firms in their employ.

For more information see here and here.

UPDATE:
Just take a look at the reader comments on this Deseret News story. It's really amazing to see the unfounded vitriol and poor reading comprehension skills. It's true that the Salt Lake Tribune can often be a forum for anti-Mormon trolls, but––even at their worst!––they do not come close to the willful ignorance, bigotry, and general bastardry of Deseret News trolls. The irony inherent in their stunning blend of persecution complex and smug self-righteousness is comical in a "Please-God-give-me-cancer-now!" kind of way. I cannot possibly find words that would do justice to my reaction to all this; suffice it to say, I would rather have Ed Decker and the dessicated corpse of Gerald Tanner installed as the exclusive representatives of the Church. They would do less damage then even the most garden-variety example of DesNews troglodyte.

It's true, folks: we DO worship different Jesuses. Theirs must be a real jerk.

The more things change...

...the more they stay the same.

This is really fascinating stuff--particularly so, because in the 1930s there was a survey taken of the student bodies on theological issues. They repeated the survey in the late 1960s-70s. Interestingly, the later survey reflected a much more "fundamentalist" mindset in relation to LDS doctrine. (This might play into my theory that at the time of Joseph Smith the Church was incredibly radical, and we have just been getting more stodgy as the years roll on.)

A Mule Named Science (UPDATE!)

See here.

Pentecost

Here's a Whitsunday miscellany:


1) Insights from Pope Benedict XVI's homily:Jesus said in Luke 12, "I came to cast fire upon the earth; and would that it were already kindled!" (From the RSV, because the KJV translates this poorly). Thus, Pentecost is an actualization of the mission of Christ. This gift of "fire" shows Christ as the true Prometheus—reversing the myth, because Jesus' fiery love can only be ours because he broke free from bondage! He gave a token of this "mighty wind" when he breathed on his apostles.

The scriptural account begins while the disciples are gathered together in an upper room (hearkening back to the Lord's supper). (A) They are probably frightened; all this is new and their responsibilities are daunting. (B) They are gathered together in unity, and, significantly, (C) Mary is in their midst. So now, in Acts, we witness the arrival of Love Himself. (A') This Love casts out all their fear and the Apostles begin their work with boldness, (B') their previous (spatial) unity is rewarded, and they remain in (spiritual) unity throughout their work, and (C') Mary's presence reminds us that the Annunciation to the Virgin was a kind of "little Pentecost": the fire of Love came to her from heaven, and she was moved to speak (with fearless faith!) the ecstatic, holy hymn, the Magnificat. So the birth of Christ comes again; this time, it is the nativity of His mystical body, the Church.

As mentioned, the two important images of Pentecost are "the tempest" (or wind), and "the fire." These images draw the mind to Sinai; this is dangerous stuff. Wind = breath = life: it is only the Spirit that can give life to the church. Fire = a powerful element, and (as in Prometheus) a godly gift: separated from God, it cannot be used safely. (The Prodigal can only fail when separated from his Father.)

The Wind (which bloweth where it listeth) drives us, and the Fire lights our way. In Pentecost the Church is renewed and moved.
2) Thoughts from Father Peter:In yesterday evening's Vigil of Pentecost, the first reading is the account of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1–9). Babel prepares for the Acts reading of the Day Mass: the Spirit does not create unity by restoring pre-Babel uniformity. Rather, Pentecost’s Spirit creates unity-in-diversity: people of many languages hear the one message of God’s salvation in Christ, but each in his/her own tongue! Exodus (19:3–8a, 16–20b) foreshadows Acts’ wind and fire. Ezekiel (37:1–14) comforts those distressed by the gulf between the Spirit’s promise and the community’s reality. Joel (3:1–5) heralds an evangelization transforming the world, but beginning with a “remnant” of spent energies and failed visions.

Paul (Romans 8:22–27), echoing Ezekiel, reassures all who wrestle with the gap—in the Church and ourselves—between promise and fulfillment, the boundless potential envisioned by the prophets and Jesus and the disappointing reality of our communities and personal lives.

Traditionally the “Birthday of the Church,” Pentecost mirrors nature as the Church’s spring, refocusing our faith on birth, not death; on the womb (image of the baptismal font), not the tomb. In the Easter Vigil Gospel, a young man in white greeted the women at the tomb and commissioned them: “Go, tell” (Mark 16:6–7). Instead, they “fled, seized with trembling and bewilderment. They said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid” (16:8). Today, “the last and greatest day of the feast” (John 7:37), Jesus reassures us: he will satisfy our thirst, lead us beyond fear, strengthen us to live our baptismal mission.

In this morning's Solemnity of Pentecost, in Acts (2:1–11), the Spirit seems, at first, to reverse Babel’s confusion of tongues. But the Spirit’s unity is not uniformity, but unity-in-diversity. The gospel is one, but its manifestation diverse: “we hear them speaking in our own tongues” (Acts 2:11). Contrasting different/same (three times in three lines) and many/one (twice in two lines), Paul challenges the Corinthians (1 Cor. 12:3b–7), and us, not merely to tolerate but to celebrate the Spirit’s manifold gifts in our unity of faith.

The Sequence, Veni, Sancte Spiritus, a gem of Catholic tradition, deserves to be heard in its original Gregorian beauty, the melody dubbed by medievals “the Golden Sequence,” in Latin or an English translation fitting that melody. Where the Spirit breathes, the arid, rigid and frigid are transformed, the sordid cleansed, the wayward restored.

Veni, Sancte Spiritus, et emitte caelitus lucis tuae radium. Veni, pater pauperum, veni, dator munerum veni, lumen cordium. Consolator optime, dulcis hospes animae, dulce refrigerium. In labore requies, in aestu temperies in fletu solatium. O lux beatissima, reple cordis intima tuorum fidelium. Sine tuo numine, nihil est in homine, nihil est innoxium. Lava quod est sordidum, riga quod est aridum, sana quod est saucium. Flecte quod est rigidum, fove quod est frigidum, rege quod est devium. Da tuis fidelibus, in te confidentibus, sacrum septenarium. Da virtutis meritum, da salutis exitum, da perenne gaudium, Amen, Alleluia.

Come, Holy Spirit, send forth the heavenly radiance of your light. Come, father of the poor, come giver of gifts, come, light of the heart. Greatest comforter, sweet guest of the soul, sweet consolation. In labor, rest, in heat, temperance, in tears, solace. O most blessed light, fill the inmost heart of your faithful. Without your divine will, there is nothing in man, nothing is harmless. Wash that which is unclean, water that which is dry, heal that which is wounded. Bend that which is inflexible, warm that which is chilled, make right that which is wrong. Give to your faithful, who rely on you, the sevenfold gifts. Give reward to virtue, give salvation at our passing on, give eternal joy. Amen. Alleluia.

Today's Gospel (John 20:19–23) repeats the Gospel prescribed annually for the Second Sunday of Easter, thus “closing” Eastertime’s circle. Jesus breathes his recreating Spirit on the disciples, shows them his wounds, vulnera, from which derives vulnerability, true love’s most poignant quality, then sends them, and us, forth to love as he loved, to forgive, to reconcile. He adds, “whose sins you shall retain, they are retained” (20:23). But, like the disciples, forgiven our own sins of denial, desertion, and cowardice, what sins would we dare not forgive?

3) A lovely meditation on fruits of the Spirit:
My Gifts, by Russell Arben Fox.

4) A timely criticism of a growing practice:
Assigning GC Talks to Sacrament Speakers, by Kevin Barney.

My comment on this awful stuff:

The “regurgi-talk” phenomenon is loathsome and abhorrent. It finds traction within the leadership style you see sometimes in the Church that tries to suggest that banal = virtuous. (As though the Lord desires suicidally boring Elder’s Quorum lessons, because it is His way of testing the faithful.) Give me interesting false doctrine any day; at least there would be something to discuss after church.

Three Thoughts: Familial Blessings of the Temple

The following are some thoughts I scribbled down after my mother asked me, in preparation for her talk, how I felt my family had been blessed by the temple.

He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

1) Anciently, and even in the earlier part of this dispensation, temples were oriented spatially along the cardinal directions. (For instance, the first cornerstone laid was often at the South East corner, because this was the point of greatest light.) We can learn from archaeology that many early temples in pagan systems were actually elaborate heavenly observatories, oriented according the movements of the sun and the stars. In short, temples were a point where it was possible to get one's bearings within the universe to a high degree of precision. They represented a point of sacred space in which all of space could be brought into order.

The same is true for us today. The temple is the only place I know of where what is inside is larger than everything outside. It is a microcosm of the universe and of the plan of salvation which shows us where we truly are, and where we need to go. By entering the temple, we step –– in a way –– out of space and time. As we keep our covenants when we leave the temple, we carry with us both physical and mental reminders. These, if we are valiant, can make all space and time sacred for us.

2) In the temple, we are given a foretaste of things to come. Just as the emblems of the sacrament are in some ways a promise and a preparation for partaking of the fruit of the tree of life, the temple can offer hope in the future blessings the Lord has for us. At the same time, we begin to feel within holy walls a bittersweet kind of homesickness. Passing into the Celestial Room, amid all the beauty, the sweet peace of the Spirit, and the loving faces of family members, we must recognize that our Father is not present in His fullness. We yearn more deeply for our real Home, and we seek more truly for those we love to come with us. Just as the temple can show us the arrangement and order of the universe, this ache and longing we feel can draw us to True North.

3) The Atonement of Jesus Christ is available for us within the House of the Lord. There, the wells of living water are deep. We are taught, as Paul instructs us in Hebrews, that He opened a way for us through His rent flesh (Hebrews 10:20). Thus, we may only approach the Father through Christ and His sacrifice. Sacred vestments, the veil, even the sealing power exercised at holy altars –– these are all facets of the Atonement we seek to make us whole.

We often underestimate the true scope of Christ's healing power, and what He intends for us. In the Temple, we may have clearer glimpses of what this all means. Too sacred to speak of in anything but generalities, we may say that the ultimate expression of the Atonement possible in mortality is had only within those dedicated precincts. As the prodigal could only know how well he was loved by returning home –– embraced, blessed, and clothed by his father in an act of immeasurable mercy –– so we can only know our Father truly as we come running to Him on the road Home: that road always passes through the temple, where we will feel His arms about us, we will be nourished by the Lamb slain for our sake, and we will hear Him whisper of a love stretched "wide as eternity" (Moses 7:41).

An American Classic, Revisited

The other day, I again read William Carlos Williams' famous poem, The Red Wheelbarrow. It is an interesting piece of work:

so much depends
upon

a red wheel
barrow

glazed with rain
water

beside the white
chickens.

However, upon reading it, I found that it was not strictly true. Thus, I have decided to edit it as follows. I hope you will find my new, critical edition helpful.

[not] so much depends
upon

a red wheel
barrow

glazed with rain
water

beside the white
chickens

[apart from
hauling poo].

In all seriousness, I do quite like this poem, but I think that some of the interpretations of it ("whoa, that's heavy, dude") dig way too deep.

I Vote for Marlin K! (UPDATE!)

UPDATE: As Loyd reminded me, gently, in the comments below, the quote in this post was filched unashamedly from his excellent and insightful blog, Project Mayhem. Check it out. (Family, he is somewhat left-leaning, but check it out anyway! It'll be good for you.)

Here's an interesting quote I read on a blog post about Big Love (the quote is only tangentially related to the main post):

A few months ago I asked Church Historian Elder Marlin K. Jensen about the lack of historical accuracy in Church productions and manuals. He replied that in the last couple decades there has been virtually no communication between the Church’s curriculum and film departments with the historical department, and that rather than going to historians they have rather depended on historical myths that the culture of the Church has developed over the years.

As an example, he pointed out that the makers of the new Joseph Smith movie did not communicate with the Church History department until nearly all of the filming had been completed. When they saw a rough cut of the film, it was “full of bad history.” He said that, unfortunately at that point, too much money had been spent and that significant changes could not be made to the film.

One of his primary goals as the new Church Historian is to develop a level of communication between the curriculum, media, and PR departments with the history department to try to get so many of our historical myths corrected.

Quick, someone make this man an apostle! Please, oh please, won't someone shake up the correlation department––I will pray a novena to St Cleon of Skousen if necessary! Seriously, how could you not want this man making policy?

Variation and Evolution in Latter-day Family Doctrine

Here is a paper I have just written for my School of Family Life Class. What a pain, but it was fun doing the research.
____________________

The LDS document, The Family: A Proclamation to the World, states that “the family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother...” However, it would be incorrect to conclude that this doctrine’s [1] eternal nature means that it cannot accommodate variation. The history of the Church demonstrates that the Mormon doctrine of family has undergone an evolution impressive in its breadth. The idea of family, both in doctrine and praxis, has been applied in such varied forms that outliers at either end of the spectrum are scarcely reconcilable as belonging to the same religion.


The Family as Central to Mormonism

As a Utah sociologist commented over half a century ago, “Society in both the Book of Mormon and Old Testament is conceived as an extended kinship group. All members thought of themselves as descended from a common ancestor.” [2] This view has deep resonance within the belief and practice of Latter-day Saints. From focus on genealogy and temple sealings to the commandment to hold Family Home Evenings, LDS members are steeped in a culture of family.

It is no surprise, then, that the ward is considered an extended family unit; the Bishop is often referred to as the “Father of the ward.” So too, the priesthood is thought of as inherently “Patriarchal,” and in rituals that offer Mormons a lens through which to view the world and all of life, they are powerfully reminded of the charge given to Adam and Eve to “multiply and replenish the earth.” However, the family, as currently understood, was not the initial model adopted by Latter-day Saints in the turbulent beginnings of the Nineteenth Century.


An Early Focus

The world in which the Church was restored was an unsettled one. The industrial revolution was beginning to force drastic change in society. Commenting on the predicament of the early Saints, sociologist O. Kendall White states:

The instability in their personal, family, and social lives was reflected in their fear that changes in the agrarian extended family portended extensive social disintegration. [They] failed to recognize the rise of the nuclear family as a form of kinship more compatible with [...] market forces, separation of work from the household, and the necessity of geographic mobility. [3]

Indeed, contrary to modern LDS family custom, the nascent Mormon ideology allowed the early Saints to resist the “trend toward the nuclear family,” presented as the model for Saints today.

The early Saints instead participated in a working theology that attempted to bring about the city of God, or Zion––a society that bridged the gaps between any individual families, and, more radically, between the living and the dead. In a sometimes violently changing world, nothing gave them “more [permanence] than the family.” [4]


Kirtland

It is during the Church’s Ohio period that one can observe the first major departure from the familial/marital norms of the day. It is likely that Joseph Smith’s first polygamist relationship took place sometime between 1831 and 1835, when he became involved with a young woman called Fanny Alger. (She would have been between 14 and 19 in this period.) It is difficult to ascertain the facts precisely, due to “conflicting accounts.” [5]

Todd Compton suggests that Joseph began to practice polygamy (in this case, with Fanny) about 1833, ten years before the revelation on polygamy was written and promulgated. Their relationship was short-lived; in 1836 Alger left for Indiana, where she remarried and bore her new husband nine children. [6]

Evidently, this relationship was shocking to contemporary sensibilities. Oliver Cowdery referred to it as a “dirty, nasty, filthy affair.” It was for this comment and others on the subject that he was excommunicated. Joseph Smith was very careful before the excommunication proceedings that Cowdery should clarify that Joseph had never “termed the Alger affair adulterous,” though he did not deny that he had a relationship with the girl. [7]

In the mid-1870’s, Martin Harris gave an interview, during the course of which he said that he,

[...] supposing that Joe was innocent [of the rumors about the Alger relationship], told him to take no notice of the girl, that she was full of the devil [...] but Joe Smith acknowledged that there was more truth than poetry in what the girl said. Harris then said he would have nothing to do in the matter, Smith could get out of the trouble the best way he knew how. [8]

Harris went on to explain that he believed that “God had rejected” the church, though he did feel “Mormonism was the pure gospel of Christ when it was first revealed.” The extent to which he thought the Alger affair entered into God’s rejection of the Saints remains unclear.

It seems unlikely that the truth of Joseph’s relationship with Alger was widely known within the body of the Saints, though they were doubtless aware of rumors (which concerned not only the Prophet, but the entire community). Perhaps in an attempt to quell such gossip, the body of the church canonized a “Chapter of Rules for Marriage Among the Saints”:

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

This section was appended to the end of the Doctrine and Covenants, though it is no longer found in the standard works, having become “obsolete” when the Church, in 1852, declared that it “had been practicing plural marriage [officially] for nearly a decade.” [9]

In any case, this relationship, sensational though it may seem to the modern reader, presaged more transgressions of Victorian social mores, as the Saints continued to build a culture steeped in their unique view of the scriptures.


Nauvoo

Polygamy continued during the years the Saints spent in Nauvoo. In a period of two and a half years, “Joseph married about thirty additional women, ten [10] of them already married to other men[!]” [11] (There are eight further wives who are disputed, and only one of these was unquestionably married to another man at the time.) What can explain or justify this strange, and––to the the 21st Century mind––highly objectionable practice of polyandry? [12] Several arguments have been posited:

Some have suggested that the current husbands were either non-Mormon or had apostatized. Historical evidence, however, shows that only three husbands were not Latter-day saints, and only one was a disaffected Mormon. “All other husbands were in good standing in the church at the time Joseph married their wives.” Others have opined that these ten (or eleven) women were in unhappy marriages. Actually, most of these women “stayed with their ‘first husbands’ until death.” Still others have theorized that these were marriages-in-name-only, never consummated. [13] Sylvia Sessions Lyon, however, one of the polyandrous wives, claimed that Joseph was the father of her child, Josephine Lyon Fisher. There is, of course, clear evidence that Joseph’s relationships with his other wives were in fact sexual. Further, a non-sexual marriage flies in the face of the rationale of polygamy, as will be explained. [14]

It was during this Nauvoo period that “the focus of Mormon [...] discourse shifted from the concept of salvation to that of exaltation. [...] including the imperative to achieve godhood.” [15] This notion is key to understanding these mysterious marriage arrangements. Joseph’s revelations tied the concept of godhood to progeny. If a person does not abide God’s “law, [...] they cannot be enlarged [that is, bear children in the eternities], but remain separately and singly, without exaltation [...] to all eternity.” Contrarily, those who are sealed and so marry by God’s “law” and are “sealed [...] by the Holy Spirit of promise,” will become gods, and will receive “exaltation and glory in all things [...] and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.” [16]

Even more significantly, Joseph promised to those already-married women that agreeing to marry the Prophet would “ensure [their] eternal salvation & exaltation and that of your father’s household. & all your kindred.” To the fathers of these women he promised that the union would “be crowned upon your heads with honor and immortality and eternal life to all your house both old and young.” [17]

This, more than any other consideration, is the material point. Joseph thought of himself and his calling in terms of kingship. In 1844, in a meeting of the Council of Fifty, Joseph was declared “King and Ruler over Israel,” and, indeed, over the whole earth. Ultimately, then, the Prophet’s marriages were dynastic in nature; he was creating a monarchical kinship structure. “Joseph’s kingdom grew with the size of his family, and those bonded to that family would be exalted with him,” including, ostensibly, his wives’ first husbands. [18]

Realizing this may begin to explain why, often, the first husbands of such a match approved. That is not to say that these marriages were without struggle. Emma Hale Smith, understandably, had a difficult time accepting plural marriage. Likely, she was able to cope by telling herself, and others, that her husband’s “plural wives were ‘celestial’ only, that he had no earthly marital relations with them.” [19] When faced with evidence to the contrary, she reacted. In an oral tradition of the Snow family, LeRoi C. Snow recounts:

...the Prophet and Emma [came] out of a room upstairs and [walked] together toward the stairway [...] Almost at the same time, [...] Eliza R. Snow [who was pregnant] came out and walked toward the [...] stairway. Joseph [...] kissed Emma goodbye, and [then] walked on to the stairway, where he tenderly kissed Eliza, and then came down the stairs [...] [A]s he reached the bottom step, there was a commotion on the stairway, and [...] Eliza came tumbling down the stairs. Emma had pushed her, in a fit of rage and jealousy; she stood at the top of the stairs, glowering, her countenance a picture of hell. [...] “Her hip was injured and [...] she always favored that leg,” said Charles C. Rich. “She lost the unborn babe.” [20]

Further Developments

After the martyrdom of Joseph Smith, the Church, under the direction of Brigham Young, continued to pursue a course regarding marriage and family that was deeply at odds with the prevailing culture. “For example, after Joseph Smith’s death, some women, who were originally sealed to him, married Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball for time. [...] [T]heir offspring [would] belong to Smith in the hereafter. Thus, Young and Kimball would contribute to Smith’s eternal progression.” [21]

It was also apparent that President Young would safeguard Brother Joseph’s familial interests in other ways. Joseph had married a woman named Zina Huntington, who, a few months earlier, had been wed to Henry Jacobs, a faithful member of the Church serving in the office of Seventy. Zina had continued to live with Jacobs, and would do so throughout the Prophet’s life. She would eventually bear Jacobs two sons. After Joseph’s death, however, she was approached by Brigham Young who told her that “‘if she would marry him she would be in a higher glory.’ [...] Zina was already sealed to Joseph Smith, so it is not clear how being sealed to Brigham for time would improve her chances for eternal salvation.” Nevertheless, she married Young for time in September 1844. As had been the practice with all of Joseph’s polyandrous wives, she continued cohabiting with her first husband, Henry, who had stood as a witness to both of Zina’s other sealings. [22]

They traveled west with the Saints, living together as husband and wife, but when the company reached Mt. Pisgah in Iowa, Brigham Young

“announced that ‘it was time for men who were walking in other men’s shoes to step out of them. Brother Jacobs, the woman you claim for a wife does not belong to you. She is the spiritual wife of Brother Joseph, sealed up to him. I am his proxy, and she, in this behalf, with her children, are my property. You can go where you please, and get another, but be sure to get one of your own kindred spirit.’” [23]

This announcement surely devastated Henry, who was then called by President Young on a mission to England, where he served faithfully. He later settled in California, where he wrote to Zina, now living as a plural wife of Brigham Young, “O how happy I should be if I only could see you and the little children, bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh. [...] I am unhappy, [...] there is no peace for poor me. [...] O Zina, can I ever, will I ever get you again[?]”

In a Valentine (undated) he added later:

Zina my mind never will change from Worlds without Ends, no never, the same affection is there and never can be moved[.] I do not murmur nor complain of the handlings of God no verily, no but I feel alone and no one to speak to, to call my own. I feel like a lamb without a mother [...] May the Lord our Father bless Brother Brigham and all purtains unto him forever. Tell him for me I have no feelings against him nor never had [...]

Though Henry and Zina’s story was unusual in detail, even for the time and culture within the Church, they demonstrate––painfully––the level of sacrifice and dedication required for membership in this new kingdom and culture.

The practice of polygamy was defended by various arguments on the part of Brigham Young and his fellows. One of the champions of plural marriage, George Q. Cannon, belittled the practice of monogamy saying,

[...] I wonder how man, standing up in the face of heaven, dare look at woman and talk about being her protector. Read the history of the sex and of the frightful evils which have been brought upon our sisters [...] If it were to be told to another people differently situated to us, with different traditions to us, they could not believe that intelligent man would entertain for one moment, or that women themselves, in view of what their sex has suffered, would cherish and cling to the wretched traditions [that is, monogamy] that have prevailed in Christendom [...] [24]

This rhetoric is a far cry from more current teachings about marriage, but it was not unusual for its time. In fact, a resolution approved by an assembly of Mormon women declared that polygamy was, “the only reliable safeguard of female virtue and innocence [...]” [25]

It is also interesting to note Brigham Young’s encouragement of women to pursue employment outside the home. This is another indication that the industrial-era concept of the nuclear family had not yet been assimilated by the Church. He taught that:

We have women here who [...] would make just as good mathematicians or accountants as any man; [...] We believe that women [...] should stand behind the counter, study law or physics, or become good bookkeepers and be able to do the business in any counting house [...] [26]

The Law of Adoption

One of the fascinating outgrowths of Joseph Smith’s promises regarding polyandry, was a practice that came to be known as The Law of Adoption. In Joseph’s day, the marriage of a daughter or a sister to the Prophet could guarantee one’s own salvation; it was helpful in the final reckoning to be well connected. Similarly, early Saints felt that it would be beneficial to be related to other notable priesthood leaders. As the solemnization of polyandrous marriages began to wane, this was accomplished by the practice of

adopting individuals into one’s spiritual family. Although not a literal process by which fatherless children were taken into other families, in a symbolic and religious sense that is exactly what happened. In order to complete the chain of family connections back to God the Father, grown men were spiritually adopted in a special ordinance to prominent church leaders. If the adopted man was a head of a family of wife and children, the entire family was considered linked to the earthly-spiritual father, usually an apostle [...] [A]dopted sons and families considered themselves under the dominion and protection of their surrogate father [...] often [assuming] the surname of their new father as their own, even though they themselves were grown men with children. [27]

This practice was ended by President Wilford Woodruff in April 1894. When he encouraged the Church members to begin researching their genealogy and doing temple ordinances for the ancestors in their family line. This preserved the practice of sealing, but did so within a new context, reaching across the boundary of death. [28] Here we see another shift in the Mormon understanding of family––this time, moving nearer to embracing the concept of the nuclear family. Being sealed to prominent members of the Church took a back seat to being sealed to one’s own biological ancestors. This practice reemphasizes the idea that the Saints cannot “without [their] dead[,] be made perfect.” [29] Thus salvation for Mormons is tied to relatives who may not have even been members of the Church during their lives.


The Manifesto and Aftermath

In 1890 Wilford Woodruff promulgated a document now known as The First Manifesto. This “signaled the official end of polygamy” within the Church. [30] It was a difficult issue for the Saints to face. On the one hand, “the principle” had been taught as absolutely necessary to exaltation; [31] on the other, now the major barrier preventing Utah’s gaining statehood had been hurdled. What were the members currently practicing plural marriage to do? Abraham H. Cannon recorded in his journal that President Woodruff “expected polygamists to continue to support their wives [...] this support included cohabitation.” [32]

In 1891, President Woodruff stated publicly that “the Manifesto was intended to apply to the Church [...] everywhere in every nation and country,” and that the Church was “giving no liberty to enter into polygamous relations anywhere.” Cannon noted in his journal that Wilford Woodruff had explained his statement, saying that “he was placed in a position on the witness stand [and] could not answer other than he did.” [33]

Though ended officially, the Church solemnized some few polygamous marriages for several years. This began when George Q. Cannon suggested to President Woodruff that such marriages might be performed in Mexico and Canada (ostensibly because they were legal in those countries, though, in fact, this was not the case). Joseph F. Smith later reported to Reed Smooth that the President agreed, “letting Cannon direct the new polygamy so that he [Woodruff] would not participate directly as Church President.” In 1897, the last of Woodruff’s presidency, there was a dramatic increase in these quietly authorized marriages, perhaps because Utah’s new statehood would minimize “federal interference.” [34]

During Presidency of Lorenzo Snow, there was a general reaffirmation of the Manifesto. As a result, new polygamous marriages nearly ceased. However, during the tenure of Joseph F. Smith, the practice experienced a resurgence, with his approval. Admittedly, the President had to walk a fine line. In 1904, during the Smoot hearings, he said that from the time the manifesto was introduced “there never [had] been, to [his] knowledge, a plural marriage performed with the understanding [...] or permission of the presiding authorities of the church [...]” However, in 1911, in a telegram to the then-Senator Smoot he wrote: “If the president inquires about the new polygamy tell him the truth [...] the men occupying presiding positions who became polygamists [in Mexico and Canada] since the manifesto did it in good faith.” [35]

This change in the Church’s official attitude signaled another decisive shift in the direction of the nuclear family. (Though it is appropriate that plural marriage, a practice begun in secrecy, should end that way.) By the end of Joseph F. Smith’s presidency, polygamous marriages had ceased being solemnized with the sanction of the Church, and Mormonism was moving in a direction that would win it widespread approbation.


The Modern Era and Beyond

As the Church continued to move into the 20th Century, public opinion began to look brighter. Jan Shipps has written that a new “positive trend in the Mormon image” began in the 1930’s and eventually began to replace the backward, negative impression that had characterized most “gentile” press until that point. The “scattering of the gathering” also helped non-members to see that Latter-day Saints were not a threatening element to society, as Mormons moved away from Utah and rubbed shoulders with their non-Mormon neighbors. [36]

This tendency also likely had an effect on the culture of the Church. Now, as the Saints dispersed, stakes gave way to districts, and wards to branches. The number of fellow religionists an LDS person could call on shrunk. As a result, Mormons had to rely on the structure of the immediate family to a greater degree.

By the 50’s, the Saints were seen as “neat, modest, virtuous” and, above all, “family-loving.” Part of this positive image was likely aided by the contrast between Mormons and the burgeoning hippie culture. [37]

So modern Mormonism’s family doctrine had undergone a further shift. Where the Saints were once mistrustful of the government, they became its model citizens––reflections of exactly the family model that their culture and doctrine had initially resisted. New understandings had to be reached––storing the old wine in new bottles––but in the process preserving all that could be saved. Family was still central, but perhaps at the cost of some sense of community. Polygamy was still doctrinal, but for most Latter-day Saints, plural spouses are only for the life to come. 19th Century rhetoric about God and His “wives” gave way to other, now more familiar words: “Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother.”

It is impossible to know what permutations the Church, and the Church’s notion of family may take in the future. Again, the Saints find themselves in a position increasingly opposed to modern sentiment. We are preserving a model that today’s culture finds outmoded and backward. In any case, whatever accommodations we make for the future, we can be sure that family will remain central, no matter how we reinvent it.

____________________

[1] It is notoriously difficult to pin down exactly what is meant in LDS discourse by the word “doctrine,” to say nothing of deciding what “the doctrines” of the Church actually are. For the purposes of this paper, “doctrine” is considered any teaching that, coming from a sufficiently high authority, carried enough force to be brought into practice by the Saints. Thus, “doctrine” will be seen to change throughout the history of the Church.

[2] From Herbert Ray Larsen, “Familism in Mormon Social Structure,” Ph.D. diss., University of Utah, 1954, 156. Quoted in Quinn, 163.

[3] White, 290, emphasis added.

[4] Ibid., 290-93.

[5] Bushman, 323.

[6] Bushman, 326-27. Also see Compton, 4-5.

[7] Ibid., 324.

[8] Martin Harris Interview with Anthony Metcalf, circa 1873-74, Vogel, 348.

[9] Van Wagoner, 69-70.

[10] By Compton's count, eleven of the wives were already married. See Compton, 15.

[11] Bushman, 437, emphasis added. Indeed, as Compton explains, chronologically, of the "first twelve wives, nine were polyandrous." In this period, "polyandry was the norm, not the anomaly" p. 15.

[12] This is not precisely “polyandry” as the sociologists would define it. However, the term has been used frequently in the literature on the Nauvoo period, so it will suffice for the purposes of this paper.

[13] Bushman, 439.

[14] Compton, 12-16.

[15] Ibid., 4-9. White, 292.

[16] Doctrine and Covenants 132:17, 19.

[17] Quoted in Bushman, 439.

[18] Ibid., 439, 523.

[19] Compton, 12.

[20] Newell and Avery, 135.

[21] White, 295.

[22] Compton, 20, 80-84, “There were no divorces as a result of [Joseph’s] polyandrous marriages.”

[23] Van Wagoner, 79.

[24] Journal of Discourses, Vol. 20, 198-199.

[25] Quoted in White, 298.

[26] Ibid., 299.

[27] Quinn, 174.

[28] White, 301.

[29] Doctrine and Covenants 128:15.

[30] Cannon, 28.

[31] “‘What will become of those individuals who have this law taught unto them in plainness, if they reject it?’ asked Orson Pratt at the official announcement of plural marriage as a doctrine and practice of the LDS church in 1852 [...] ‘I will tell you: they will be damned, saith the Lord God Almighty’ [...]” See Quinn, 181.

[32] Cannon, 28.

[33] Ibid., 28.

[34] Ibid., 28.

[35] Ibid., 28-31.

[36] Shipps, 58.

[37] Ibid., 59.

____________________

Works Cited

Bushman, Richard Lyman. Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling. Knopf: New York, NY 2005.

Cannon, Kenneth L., II. “After the Manifesto: Mormon Polygamy 1890 - 1906.” Sunstone. January-March, 1983.

Compton, Todd. In Sacred Lonliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith. Signature Books: Salt Lake City, UT, 1997.

Newell, Linda King, and Valleen Tippetts Avery. Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith.
University of Illinois Press: Champaign, IL, 1994

Quinn, D. Michael. The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power. Signature Books: Salt Lake City, UT, 1997.

Shipps, Jan. “Surveying the Mormon Image Since 1960.” Sunstone. April, 2001.

Van Wagoner, Richard S. “Mormon Polyandry in Nauvoo.” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought. Fall, 1985.

Vogel, Dan. Early Mormon Documents: Vol. 2. Signature Books: Salt Lake City, UT, 1999.

White, O. Kendall. “Ideology of the Family in Nineteenth Century Mormonism.” Sociological Spectrum. June, 1986.

What's Wrong With the BYU Honor Code, Part II

These were printed on March 23 in the Daily Universe:

‘Sinboards’

Several people have written letters arguing for skateboards to be permitted on campus. These sly serpents make fairly convincing arguments equating “boarding” to biking and saying that any property damage caused would be minimal. While these arguments may be true, they stray away from the main reason to have this rule implemented in the first place: Skateboarders are bad people! People who ride on these things are most certainly associated with things such as baggy pants, sweating and cannabis. These street urchins do not fit into the middle-upper-class BYU image, and will become a problem if not harshly dealt with.

It is not enough to kick skateboarders out of every part of campus (as well as any other reputable establishment in Provo). This is the treatment is common everywhere and boarders have gotten used to it. To assure success in this fight, we must expel all skateboarders on first violation.

I hope all non-boarding students understand that these people are not like you and me. Anyone who rides one of these sinboards could not possibly have enough honesty to keep the Honor Code, intellect to graduate without cheating or faith to be a believing member of the Church. Perhaps even more important is the fact that instead of listening to Country and Broadway musicals, many of these dunces will bring the devil on to our campus through the hip-hop music in their iPods. This plague of false preaching must stop, as we weed all of the skaters out of campus.

John VanDenBerghe

Salt Lake City


Considerate clothing

To the women who think it’s acceptable to wear tank tops and short shorts out to tan in Helaman Quad, I submit the following:

“And young women, please understand that if you dress immodestly, you are magnifying this problem by becoming pornography to some of the men who see you.” Dallin H. Oaks, General Conference, April 2005.

It is hard enough for the young men of the Church to keep a clean mind and a pure heart without you lying around half-naked right outside our dorms. Please be more considerate of not only the BYU Honor Code, but also of the spiritual well being of the men you date. We are doing our best to be worthy to enter the temple and serve the Lord as missionaries. Could you help us out by wearing modest clothing?

Sam Speer

Ogden

And these on the 25th:

Grossly misinformed

As a BYU freshman who enjoys skateboarding regularly, I am writing in response to the March 23 letter “Sinboards.” The ridiculous presumptions made by the author are astounding. Paralleling the devil to hip-hop? Saying all skaters are bad people? Claiming that skaters are incapable students, and even worse, church members? That letter was not only preposterous and grossly misinformed, but false as well.

I can name 10 people off the top of my head who attend BYU, who have received or are soon receiving their mission calls, who I skate regularly with. All are terrific examples to me. Outlawing skateboarding is unnecessary. Skateboarding is a creative outlet that has brought a great deal of joy into my life as well as countless other adolescents to young adults.

I keep the honor code. I don’t smoke weed. I don’t cheat in class. I’m submitting my mission papers soon. And I skate all the time and love it! This contradicts the author’s statements completely. The skaters aren’t the problem — it’s ignorance that needs to stop. Skaters don’t need to be weeded out, which is the wish of the author.

As 3 Nephi 18:30 reads, “ye shall not cast him out from among you, but ye shall minister unto him and shall pray for him.” Let the Lord judge who can have enough “faith to be a believing member of the church.” The “Sinboards” author and anyone else worried that skating is tainting BYU’s middle-upper-class image can keep their close-minded, dogmatic opinions to themselves.

Alex Willden

Milwaukee


Skateboarder and still worthy

My name is Lin Skinner my wife and I were recently married in the Provo temple, but after reading that article I realize that I wasn’t worthy of a temple marriage because I was a sly serpent, a bad person, not honest enough to sign the Honor Code or intelligent enough to graduate without cheating, and that I have been committing a multitude of sins for the last 14 years of my life. According to the author of “Sinboards,” skateboarding is a sin.

I skateboard with many different people; some are students at BYU, but you are right, they are not like you. They are open-minded and intelligent individuals with many different personality traits. One could not classify them simply as skateboarders. You have a very ignorant and biased point of view of skateboarding. I wish for you to actually know something about skateboarding and those that participate in it before you run your mouth in such a way that is very insulting to my wife and I and many others attending the fine university of Brigham Young.

I remember the first skateboard I got; my mother got it for me. I loved it and it kept me out of trouble. It was the only thing that could help me relax. I can’t count the times I have prayed while kneeling on my skateboard. I just want you to know that your article has inspired me not to quit but to continue skateboarding for all eternity.

Lin Skinner

Springville


Saints and skaters

To the author of the March 23 letter, “Sinboards,” how can you be so shallow and narrow-minded? Your lack of perspective is not only embarrassing, but even frightening — what if someone believes you are an accurate representation of BYU students and faculty?

You have apparently had a less than positive experience with those who choose to skateboard, but, regardless, who is to say that everyone is the same? Who has met every skater? Is it to be said that everyone who rides horses thus loves country music, owns a pair of cowboy boots and enjoys branding livestock? Does anyone who drives an electric car consequently enjoy ethereal music, follow a vegan diet and smoke marijuana? It isn’t fair to categorize. It isn’t just to presume. It isn’t Christlike to discriminate. God loves us all.

My hope is that your eyes will be opened as you venture out of your shell and learn to see the beauty in all people, find their virtues and see what some of us “non-boarding students” have seen. Every one of us has flaws and “all (of us) have sinned, and come short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23).” Don’t let yourself down because you choose not to see the good in others: “skater” and “saint” are not mutually exclusive.

(Wasn’t the debate about longboards anyway?)

Randal Graham

Mapleton

In response to this insanity, I penned and submitted the following:

Two birds, one stone

It was simultaneously hilarious and painful to read the recent letters "Grossly misinformed," "Skateboarder and still worthy," and "Saints and skaters.” All of these authors, bless them, seemed to take a previous letter, "Sinboards," at face value. I am not the author of that letter, but it seems obvious to me that his tirade against skateboarding was tongue-in-cheek. You see, Alex, Lin, and Randal, he wasn't being serious. Indeed, he was humorously arguing against his real position––thus lampooning those who disagree with you!

Allow me to demonstrate. Mr Sam Speer wrote a recent letter ("Considerate clothing") criticizing women who were sunbathing near Helaman Halls wearing shorts and tank-tops. If I were to respond satirically to his letter, it might sound like this:

I agree wholly with Mr Speer! Do these scandalously-clad ladies have no sense of propriety? No care for the young men nearby? As we all know, males are simply time-bombs of immorality waiting to go off. Who among such could bear the sight of bare shoulders (not to mention knees!) without immediately engaging in mortal sin? Knees and shoulders are pornographic! Furthermore, as a scarcely-in-control male myself, I believe the Honor Code doesn’t go far enough. Let the school mandate burqas as standard female attire; if they cannot swim in one, ban female swimming entirely. This is a small price to pay for the purity of the stronger sex! Sisters, no more fetching hair styles and absolutely no makeup. Also, don't make eye contact with the brethren: confidence in women is too attractive. We are hardly accountable for our actions as it is, but with so many sirens running about campus, it's miraculous that we males haven't all been excommunicated. If you cannot take responsibility for our thoughts and actions, Ladies, BYU ought to become a male-only university!

Nicholas Sherwood
Granby, Missouri

The Honor Code is fine, I guess. It's the people who are crazy (read: stupid). I hope that they publish this one!

Ooh! a new one...

So here is another W.A. Bouguereau of Mary and Christ, which would make a lovely pair with the other one.

I Love You, Kara Thrace

I don't know if it's because she can fly a raptor like no one else can, or because of her ability to make witty cynicisms in the heat of battle, but Starbuck is easily my favorite character on BSG. So here's to you, you beautiful - violent - psychotic - alcoholic - adulteress, you.

In Opposition toTestimony as Rhetorical Bludgeon

Testimony is a unique aspect of LDS doctrine and praxis. It is similar in some ways to the protestant phenomenon of "being saved," or "getting convicted" of the truth. It is made more unusual by our somewhat ritualistic practice of "bearing testimony": the once-a-month program of telling fellow church members what we already know, expressed in commonly accepted phrases. It is at least a fascinating cultural marker, and means by which members bind themselves to the community.

However, testimony, like almost any aspect of religion, has its proper time and place. Unfortunately, much has been made of the idea that "no one can argue with a testimony!" (This statement is, of course, patently false.) Because of this, bearing testimony is seen as a kind of trump card, to be thrown down defiantly in the midst of debate to silence all opposition! This practice is, in its way, more pernicious than the usual biblical proof-texting/bashing that goes on in marathon apologetics matches. This is so for a number of reasons.

1. As testimony is tied to spiritual insight/intuition and worthiness, to use testimony against an intellectual opponent is to call into question their worthiness. (This is not unusual; for some practitioners, step-one of Mormon apologetics is "Character Assassination.") It also uncharitably forces one's opponent into the uncomfortable position of questioning one's own worthiness.

2. Since testimony springs from interaction with the Holy Ghost, using it in debate may sully or demean the character of a member of the Godhead. Thus the debate becomes a sort of "my deity can beat up your deity" argument.

3. To so use one's testimony totally refuses to take into account the fact that good, wise, spiritually sensitive people can disagree on spiritual topics and never reach (in this life) agreement. Take, for instance, the issue of organic evolution as considered by the Twelve Apostles. The Church attempted to formulate some kind of official position. Various members of the Twelve researched the topic, prayed, and presented their differing opinions. On one side stood B.H. Roberts, James E. Talmage, John A. Widtsoe; among the opposition was Joseph Fielding Smith. In spite of much study and prayer they never reached any agreement!

4. It is possible for promptings/revelations to (seemingly) contradict each other. Of course, of two mutually exclusive propositions, both may not be true. However, with time, we may learn that the propositions are not, in fact, exclusive. Or perhaps we may find that the Spirit was bearing testimony to what we could understand, but giving us a rather simplified picture which will one day become clearer, more nuanced.

In any case, we ought to resist––adamantly!––this abuse of testimony. To so beat a heavenly plow, given to sow truth in our souls, into a sword of hubris is inexcusable. If there is to be debate, let us use appropriate rules of engagement, not character assassination, veiled in the aspartame of tearful saccharine. A knife coated with honey is no less a knife. It is against this practice that I offer the following few lines:

How blithely we declare "I know,"
But saying doesn't make it so.
Turn on the quivering voice and tears,
(The nose runs when the Spirit's near)!
Go on, parade for all to see
This strange epistemology––
Stand with the weeping, certain crowd:
"It's true for being said aloud!"
Marshalled in lachrymosal ranks,
We roll out our rhetorical tanks––
But will we find, once we've attacked,
We're routed by a single FACT?

Madonna of the Roses

This is my new favorite painting. Ever. Now, take a moment and listen to the song below while enjoying this image. (You can open a larger version by clicking on it.) It'll be the best eight minutes of your day.



Here are the lyrics (adapted from a devotion called the Angelus):

The Angel of the Lord declared to Mary:
And she conceived of the Holy Spirit.

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

Behold the handmaid of the Lord: Be it done unto me according to Thy word.

Hail Mary . . .

And the Word was made Flesh: And dwelt among us.

Hail Mary . . .

Amen, amen, amen.

And that, folks, is why we need more Catholics in the world.

Ba'al wants to remind you...

...to come to the temple this month.

I have a message to declare to thee,

A matter I would recount.

A word of wood,

And a whisper of stone,

The murmur of the Heavens to the Earth,

Of the Deep to the Stars.

I understand lightning not known to the Heavens,

A matter men do not know,

Nor understood by the earthly multitudes.

Come, pray, and I shall reveal it,

In the midst of my mountain,

In the holy place,

The mountain of my inheritance,

The pleasant place,

The hill of my victory.

--From the Ugaritic Ba'al Cycle

P.S. The formatting here was tricky, so appreciate the clear parallelisms.

Cool Logo

I love this!

Parable: A Mule Named Science (UPDATE!)

(UPDATE!) Check this out!

Once upon a time there was a farmer who owned a mule. The mule's name was Science. He was a very good mule who worked very hard hauling all kinds of loads up to the top of Truth Hill. In the past, he had hauled Electric Lights, Antibiotics, The Theory of Relativity, Nuclear Power, Vaccination, and many other items to the summit. (Once, he hauled up Newtonian Physics, but it had since been knocked some way down the hill.)

One bright sunny morning, the farmer wanted to haul another load to the top. It was a different load than ever before. In fact, it was enormous! It was a boulder the size of a mule atop a Ford Gremlin atop an elephant. The boulder was called Atheism. Science the mule eyed the load warily, but the farmer didn't pay him any mind. After all, Science was so very useful at hauling other things, why wouldn't he be able to handle this load?, thought the very stupid farmer.

The farmer got out his ropes and chains and soon enough Science found himself tied to the side of the massive boulder. He slipped amid the ropes until his feet didn't even touch the ground anymore. So Science dangled. The farmer began to be disappointed and then became angry.

A few minutes later, some of the farmer's neighbors came along. They had never really trusted the mule, although they loved to take advantage of all the wonderful items he had hauled to Truth Hill. When they saw what the farmer had tied to the mule, they were upset. You see, ever since it had been first discovered and named, the neighbors had hated that boulder. Atheism, they liked to say, was an eyesore. It had no place atop Truth Hill. On the other hand, there was a boulder that they loved. It sat nearby, and looked very pretty. Full of interesting striations of different colors and possessing a pleasing shape, the neighbors called it Intelligent Design. If the farmer was allowed to have his boulder on the hill, they ought to be able to have theirs.

Soon they came up with a rather clever idea. They spoke to the farmer and told him that they understood his predicament. You see, they said, the mule's load was unbalanced. He would never be able to carry the boulder tied to his side like that. They then suggested a solution: Why not tie a similar load to Science, but on the other side. That way the load would be balanced. The farmer didn't like their idea, but the neighbors outnumbered him, so he finally conceded.

The neighbors got a bulldozer* and lifted up Intelligent Design. They brought it near to the other side of Science and secured it to him with their own ropes and chains. But when they pulled the bulldozer away––alas!––Intelligent Design fell against the mule and crushed him. Poor Science could only writhe while his internal organs hemorrhaged and great streams of blood poured from his every orifice. A few moments later, with eyes bulging, swollen tongue lolling, and entrails dangling, he died.

Their was a great outcry, because after all, it was... like... EEEW! Hearing all the commotion, the Wise Man from the village hobbled up the path with his walking stick. When he saw what had happened he was dismayed. He had liked Science and had thought of him as a very useful animal. "What have you done!" he asked the crowed. They explained to him what had taken place amid much buck-passing and many excuses and justifications.

Quoth the Wise Man: "Dammit. You guys are so frigging retarded." He explained to them their folly. "Couldn't you see the real issue here?" he asked, rhetorically. "It is true the load was unbalanced, but this wasn't the kind of load Science could have carried to begin with! When you tried to balance it, you just doubled the problem." He sighed. "Geez, you guys."

With a heavy heart, he decided what he must do. He stood straighter and taller than the farmer or his neighbors had ever seen. In the midst of his neighbors he raised his walking stick, which was really a magical staff. With a resonant voice he chanted the magic words "Tubulous Ligatinous et Vasectimous Immedious!" and sterilized the lot of them.

The Wise Man lived a long and happy life, and when he died, it was with the satisfaction of knowing that none of those morons in the village would be passing on their clearly deficient genetic material.

*I know what you're thinking. Why not just use the bulldozer to carry the boulder up the hill? Well, for your information, the hill was too steep and the path too narrow to admit heavy moving equipment. So there.

Ann Lewinson is a twit.*

A so-called film review used merely as a springboard for anti-mormon vitriol. She should lose her job. Look here to contact the paper and demand the following three changes:

1) The paper must publish an article censuring Ann Lewinson for her article.

2) The film review in question must be immediately pulled.

3) Ann herself must publish an apology.




*This was a difficult post to name. Other candidates were: "Ain't no cure for Crazy B*tch," and "As useless as a lesbian in the kitchen on Thanksgiving." I finally settled on a title, but had to change it for the sake of propriety. Let's just say "twit" was originally different by exactly one letter.

BAAAAAAAAAAARRRRFFF!!!

Sometimes there just isn't enough vomit in the world to do a thing justice. Steady your gorge and grab a basin, folks. It's gonna be a rough one.



Well, now that I'm sure you've all purged... I can only say that I would rather perform gay marriages myself than watch that monstrosity again. Note the alarmist tone behind the saccharine; do they mean to say that the big, scary homos are out to destroy their families? Really? Do they even know any gay people?

Here's my point. If you have thoughtful religious reason(s) for voting a certain way ("I believe x is wrong," "The prophet/bible says x is wrong," "The meatball on last night's spaghetti appeared to me in a vision and told me that the government is trying to steal my kidneys... oh, and also that x is wrong,") then to abandon those religious reasons and replace them with specious and alarmist secular reasons says something important. It suggests what value you place on the religious thought behind your political action: not much.

And so to you, Janice Kapp Perry, I say: grow a pair, be upfront, state your reasons––the rational ones... and, oh, PLEASE don't put it to music. My tender stomach thanks you in advance.