The LDS Left

Separation of Church and State II: Necessary for the Protection of Both - by Derek Staffanson

2009-12-15T01:08:00.000-08:00

Religious conservatives contemporary to Jefferson and Madison assaulted the newborn Constitution as Godless, and persistently accused the two politicians of being atheists throughout their careers. To these religious conservatives a “wall of separation” between the Church and State was nothing less than a scheme to undermine religion. They could hardly have been more wrong. While not conventionally religious, the letters and works of the two men reveal them to be profoundly spiritual people. Like modern religious conservatives who level similar charges against entities such as the ACLU, People for the American Way, and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, those religious conservatives manifested a remarkable inability to grasp the difference between advocating liberty in religious matters and attempting to extinguish religion. And like their modern counterparts, they failed to understand that strict separation between state and religion is actually essential for keeping the flames of religion burning.

Within the text of Jefferson’s Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom and Madison’s Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, these thinkers were very insistent upon that point. They would have been rather skeptical of Mitt Romney’s claim that “Freedom requires religion.” They were well aware that for hundreds of years people have been imprisoned, tortured, and slaughtered in the name of religion. Religion has been a force in shackling men at least as often as liberating them, particularly when associated with the state. Under those conditions, it seeks to use the force of government to cement its temporal power, stifling new ideas while neglecting the persuasion which is the root of any effectual religion. At the same time, government when united with religion seeks to appropriate the moral authority of its partner, manipulating the modes of religion to promote its own agenda, as we experienced with the Bush administration in their Office of Faith-Based Initiatives.

Hardly trying to purge God from the nation, these founding fathers (and their modern separationist counterparts) were trying to create an environment in which religion could flourish. A level playing field allows any moral sentiment the opportunity to make its case, to rise or fall on its own merits. They sought a society in which organizations would be forced to rely on exhortation rather than coercion to promote and defend their beliefs; in which dogma could be challenged and, if found lacking, cast aside. They hoped for a society in which new ideas and new systems of belief—such as the LDS faith—could be explored and, if they drew people through their fruit, take root and blossom. When government either tries to play a role in favoring religious beliefs and practices, or neglects its duty to protect the freedom of conscience which is the root of religious freedom, government hinders that process. Religion as a result becomes superficial and hollow, a matter of compulsion rather than faith. A purely secular, areligious government, one entirely indifferent to religion, best enables religion to achieve its full spiritual potency.

Of all people we in the LDS faith should understand the importance of freedom of conscience. We are taught that the Lord raised up this nation as a land of liberty in order to restore his Gospel where it might not be smothered by the oppression of contemporary religious orthodoxy. The Church suffered great hardship and persecution because the freedom of conscience which Jefferson and Madison favored was so imperfectly protected.

This principle is part of the Church canon, in the Eleventh Article of Faith:

“We claim the privilege of worshiping Almight God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”

D&C 134:4-5 & 9-10 makes the Gospel’s position even more clear on the subject:

“We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience…

…We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship (emphasis added).”

In seeking to instill in government a systematic predisposition towards religion, religious conservatives typically point to the such patriots as George Washington, who spoke emphatically of the importance of religion for the nation in such works as his farewell address. These conservatives balk at the idea of a secular state, protesting that such a state betrays Washington’s vision by favoring atheism. They are wrong. A firm separation of Church and State does not encourage or aid atheism over any other belief. It merely allows atheists the same freedom to follow the dictates of their conscience as anyone else. It grants atheism the same opportunity to make its case as any theology. And atheists should unquestionably have that right. Freedom of conscience is a lie, the lie of toleration, if it is proffered only to theistic beliefs. Do we as Christians so lack confidence in the persuasive power of the doctrines of Christ as to require atheism repressed by the government, indirectly or otherwise?
Meaningful religion needs no government sanction or support to sustain itself. In Jefferson’s notes for the debate on Virginia’s disestablishment, he outlined such an argument:

“Christianity flourished three-hundred years without establishments. Soon as established, decline from purity. Betrays want of confidence in doctrines of church to suspect that reason or intrinsic excellence insufficient without secular prop (The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Julian Boyd editor, vol. 1 p.538-539).”

Yes, Washington and other prominent founders expected the United States of America to be a religious nation. But that brings us to the second sense of the phrase “Religious (or Christian) Nation,” one in which the people of the nation upholds Christian virtue by free choice, as dictated by one’s conscience. Jefferson and Madison expected true religion to flourish in the U.S.—a religion which conventional Christians then and now would hardly endorse, but a religion nonetheless—by virtue of its power to touch the hearts of those who freely experiment upon its claims, and the persuasion of those who have experienced its goodness in their lives. They expected religion to be refined and improved through the process of free inquiry and exploration. A Christian (or religious) nation in the first sense of the word—in which government takes a hand in promoting religion, is directly antithetical to that desire. By increasingly seeking to intermingle the two, pursuing government favor for their own religious beliefs, religious conservatives are impeding the very goals they supposedly hope to accomplish. If they would follow Madison and Jefferson in strengthening the wall between the two, they could better ensure that this nation protected the religious and personal liberties we celebrate today.
In the next issue: Separation of Church and State III: Making a State Incognizant of Religion

The Persistence Of Racialized Discourse In Mormonism - by Darron Smith

2009-12-15T01:07:00.000-08:00

(Originally published in 2003)
Twenty-five Years after the Revelation—Where Are We Now?

JUNE 2003 WILL MARK THE TWENTY-FIFTH Anniversary of the announcement by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that all worthy male members, regardless of race, are eligible for priesthood ordination. The 1978 declaration created a moment of great hope and optimism within the Church, and many assumed this revelation would usher in a new era of success in proselytizing among African Americans. However, the promise of a quarter-century ago has only partially been realized. This is because the Church has not done enough to remake its racist past and present in such a way as to coincide with its mission to teach, preach, fellowship, and retain African Americans.

Projects designed to fully embrace African-American saints will meet with difficulties, I believe, until each of us recognize just how persistent and pervasive racism in U.S. society is. It is present in virtually every facet of life, including the workings of religious organizations. So, even though the priesthood ban was repealed in 1978, the discourse that constructs what blackness means is still very much intact today. Under the direction of President Spencer W. Kimball, the First Presidency and the Twelve removed the policy that denied blacks the priesthood but did very little to disrupt the multiple discourses that had fostered the policy in the first place. Hence there are Church members today who continue to summon and teach at every level of Church education the racial discourse that blacks are descendants of Cain, that they merited lesser earthly privilege because they were “fence-sitters” in the War in Heaven, and that, science and climatic factors aside, there is a link between skin color and righteousness. A complete disruption of these discourses will require a rearticulation of Church history and an understanding of how that past interrelates with secular racial history. Further, a greater number of black voices will need to be heard in leadership and scholarly settings, where, with sensitivity and without the threat of censorship or sanction, they can communicate ways the now-defunct ban continues even today to create for African-Americans a position of “less-than” in Church spaces.

RACISM is articulated in multiple and complex ways. The popular perception of racism is that, either by word or deed, racists commit acts of aggression against someone of another race. The problem with this definition is that it assumes only individuals are implicated in racist practices whereas institutions are not—or, if they are, it is usually in isolated incidents. This notion that racism is a function of the individual keeps us from understanding the larger reality of racism as discourse in which social actors perform racial scripts in numerous ways.

For instance, many of us are familiar with slavery, sharecropping, Jim Crowism, segregation, and more subtle enactments of institutionalized racist practices. These are historical events that, thankfully, have been repudiated in the present-day United States, yet the racial perceptions about the “other” that underwrote each of these practices have yet to disappear. So instead of overt racism, most of today’s racial discourse operates in the way individuals, groups, and organizations interact with each other. In other words, how we see ourselves is, to a greater or lesser extent, through the prism of race. Race is not limited only to bodies and skin color, but extends to ideas, values, and beliefs that are held as “normative.” The primary locus of racism at this level is found in the privileging of one group over another. Typically in the United States, whiteness emerges as the preferred prism through which people come to appreciate history, art, literature, and popular culture, and which underwrites much that takes place in the justice system, as well as in business, education, housing, and health care.

In my graduate work in the field of cultural studies, I have found the dichotomy of blackness/whiteness to be helpful in unveiling how racialized discourse influences notions of power and privilege. Blackness and whiteness can be thought of as classifications that have been historically determined through social relations based on oppression, repression, and, to some extent, “progress.” So the construction of blackness as “other” in the Church was not an anomaly, especially given the overlapping secular racist discourses that were endemic in U.S. society—the way in which blackness was named by whiteness. For example, just as today whiteness constructs the idea of black urban spaces as dangerous, sexual, and drug-infested, whiteness in the Church also defined blackness as cursed. Until very recently, black people have not been able to name themselves (which may explain the seeming fixation of the black community to continually represent itself). Since their earliest contact with Africans, Europeans have represented blackness in a number of ways ranging from criminality and fear to myths about hypersexuality and about exceptional abilities in music and athletics.

The seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries produced many ideas about the black body through a regime of pseudoscientific truth.(1) During the eighteenth century, for example, black slaves in North America were construed as threefifths a person—chattel property without souls. Such a notion about blackness provided a basis for many whites to justify the inhumane treatment of black slaves. The power of language also enabled academic disciplines to embrace assumptions about black peoples’ so-called inferior values, mores, and behaviors. And whiteness, as the fortunate opposite of blackness and its negative attributes, became firmly established as “normative.”(2)

Not surprisingly, early LDS leaders were influenced by many of those ideas about blackness. Pseudo-scientific literature regarding the inherent status of blacks was abundantly available and even found its way into Church publications such as the Millennial Star, Times and Seasons, and Juvenile Instructor.(3) But, unfortunately, some leaders went further in portraying blackness in explicitly negative terms by adding a theological layer that implied these inferior characteristics and status were Godgranted or, at least, God-approved. The key element in this theological mix was the adoption of the idea (prevalent during the time it was appropriated) that God “marked” Cain with blackness and “cursed” him so that he would forever be persecuted. Early leaders extended this to mean Cain and his descendants would never hold the priesthood and taught that this mark and curse continued even after the flood through Canaan, Ham’s son through his wife Egyptus, whose descendants were believed to be the negroid races.(4) Further anchoring the early LDS appropriation of negative notions concerning blackness are several Book of Mormon teachings that associate dark skin with that which is vile, filthy, and evil, and white skin with that which is delightsome, pure, and good. A metaphorical reading of darkness as representing that which is loathsome is harmful enough, but many leaders taught that this as a literal fact, that God could and sometimes would darken the skin of those who fell out of his favor, and vice versa.(5)

Although African-Americans are not usually imagined to be among those who are the descendants of the Book of Mormon Lamanites, it is instructive to look briefly at some of the discourse in just this past half-century concerning this literal interpretation of the skin-color/God’s-favor link. In our lifetime, it has not been uncommon to hear Church members speak about “rescuing” the Lamanite (meaning Native American) population from its own spiritual demise. Numerous scriptural references in the Book of Mormon articulate that the Gentile/white population is supposed to take the gospel to the Lamanite people (Morm.5:15; 7:8), and many members take as literal the Book of Mormon passages that hint that the skin of Lamanites will whiten as they accept the gospel (Jacob 3:8; 3 Ne. 2:15). Spencer W. Kimball, the Church president who received the revelation that repealed the ban on black men holding the priesthood, manifested great concern for Native Americans during his long tenure as an apostle. Speaking in the October 1960 General Conference, he made a statement that was seen as powerful advocacy for this dispossessed minority but which also illustrates how language can powerfully inscribe color consciousness: “I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today. . . . For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome as they were promised. . . . The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.”(6)

ONCE IDEAS, EVEN erroneous ones, become internalized to where they work as the lenses through which we unconsciously view the world, it takes a great deal of effort to make them conscious again. And, to some degree, black people in the Church agree or accept—at least partially—the traditional discourse on black spiritual demise; otherwise they would not join. I did not find out about the priesthood ban on blacks until after I joined the Church, and, sadly, I passed on much of the folklore while serving an LDS mission in Michigan. Looking back on that experience, I venture to say that had I known about such teachings in the Church, I might not have joined. I remain a member currently because of my faith in the Church’s basic doctrines and my hope that a more thorough change will occur to undo the traditional racial discourse on blacks still being perpetuated in many corners of the Church. It is not enough to change a social practice, policy or mandate without pushing through the arduous task of rearticulating the discourse that helped to create it.

Many Church members suppose that their leaders are inspired on virtually all matters, including race. But it is impossible for white people, even prophets, to really know blackness unless they develop relationships with blacks that move beyond mere acquaintance, peer, co-worker, or fellow ward member. Without many meaningful intimate relationships with the racialized “other,” how else can we move beyond the profound distortions brought on by the long-standing discourse and the warp of privilege? Even some of the LDS intellectuals who hail discourse on race and speak on those issues summon many of their notions from white sources and cultural spaces. Many seem to me to be cultural tourists, yet they are often called upon to give their “expert” analysis of blackness, just as most official discourse in the Church about the roles and divine nature of women is articulated by men. There is not nearly enough speaking from black spaces that can offer a different interpretation of reality.

Blackness as a discourse that embodies social practice must be reconfigured to provide a different construction of knowledge and truth. Blacks and whites must find new ways of creating mutual cooperation and unity in the Church, and blacks must be given more freedom to speak from the full range of their experience, not just from those experiences that fit comfortably within the predominant discourse. Otherwise, that discourse will never change. Blacks who do move toward Mormonism should not be made to feel that blackness is synonymous with curses, marks, or indifference. And this can be accomplished only by a formal repudiation, in no uncertain terms, of all teachings about Cain, the pre-mortal unworthiness of spirits born to black bodies, and any idea that skin color is connected to righteousness.

NOTES

1. Immanuel Kant, “On the Different Races of Man.” Found in This is Race: An Anthology Selected from the International Literature on the Races of Man (New York: Schuman, 1950); David Hume, Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1988); John Locke, Two Treatises on Government (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), chap. 1–6.

2. Some scholars have applied the term “regime of truth” to refer to this type of discourse. For example, much work done in anthropology, sociology, medicine, and law has created a way of talking about race that has inhibited access by many people of color to certain economic, housing, medical, and educational resources. For instance, even as legal scholars discuss the need for the law to be “colorblind,” they are actually acknowledging how “color conscious” it really is. And in popular culture, blacks have been represented as inclined toward criminal behavior, which, in turn, has had wide-reaching effects on criminal conviction rates. Biologists have argued that skin, bone, and hair are linked to all sorts of genetic characteristics, and such ideas have often been used to try to fix and secure human difference. The fallout from such constructions is that many members of racial groups “stay” within their own spaces because of the way these disciplines (law, anthropology, sociology, biology, and religion) have constructed and legitimized these differences. Thus the term “regime of truth” speaks to the fact that the concept of race is far more a social construction than a biological one, and that the term “race” is less a description than an instrument of power.

3. See Latter-day Saint Millennial Star 15 (1853):422, 20 (1858):278; Times & Seasons 4:375–76, 5:395, 6:857; Juvenile Instructor 3 (1868):142.

4. Interestingly, the Ku Klux Klan is one of the few “religious” groups who still teach that blacks descended from Ham. And although not actively perpetuating the doctrine through official channels, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints, unlike many world traditions, has not sufficiently distanced itself from this folklore nor the extension by certain LDS leaders that blacks descend not only from Ham but from Cain as well.

5. The primary scriptural basis for this teaching is 2 Ne. 5:21.

6. Spencer W. Kimball, Conference Reports (Oct. 1960): 32–34.

This Rolling Stone - by Cody McKay

2009-12-15T01:06:00.001-08:00

Recently I have been simultaneously reading two books. One is called The Sixties Chronicle, which is basically a pictorial history of the events of the decade from 1960-1969 and also includes first hand accounts and commentary on the events. The other book is a biography of President David O. McKay called David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism and which, although written by two Mormons, is a pretty truthful and fairly unbiased account of President McKay's tenure as Prophet of the LDS Church and isn't shy about tackling controversial issues such as the Church's opposition to the civil rights movement, for example. I'm really enjoying both books immensely, and I've decided that in spite of his faults, I really like David O. McKay. He seems to be a great proponent of free agency, free thinking, and seems (to me, at least) to be a "spirit of the law" kind of individual as opposed to a "letter of the law" individual. That being said, he did also err on the side of inaction at times.

With the recent endorsement of the LDS Church, an ordinance in Salt Lake City which bans employment and housing discrimination against gays, lesbians, and transgendered individuals was passed. Many gay rights activists were surprised by the Church's endorsement, and I admit I was surprised as well (but was very pleased by what I see as a positive step). The LDS Church is still adamant that it will not support gay marriage and will continue to fight for what it believes is right as far as that issue is concerned.

Some in the gay-rights community are skeptical, feeling that the LDS Church only did this to save face with those who have a less-than-favorable impression of the church and did it simply to boost their image. That may be true, although it seems to me the LDS Church usually does what it feels is right regardless of how popular those decisions make them.

Some in the gay community are also indignant, feeling that they owe the LDS Church no gratitude for this endorsement when the church is still actively working to deny their civil rights. This is an understandable feeling. I, for one, am grateful for any strides the LDS Church makes in regards to gay rights, just as I am thankful for strides that those in the gay-rights community make in creating an atmosphere of communication rather than antagonism. I think we all have a long way to go, but I am thankful for small steps even if it is "two steps forward, one step back" at times.

As I've been reading about the sixties, I am reminded of how volatile the issue of civil rights and desegregation could be, and although racism still exists today, it is fascinating to see how far the civil rights movement has come. It is interesting to look at the photos in The Sixties Chronicle and be reminded of a time not very long ago at all when black people couldn't sit at the same counter as white people or use the same restroom or drinking fountain; black people couldn't attend white schools and were denied employment because of the color of their skin; that a black person couldn't vote or marry a white person; that the whole "separate, but equal" idea was such a sham. One looks at these pictures and sees very plainly that whites were always given preferential treatment. They were given the better jobs, got to sit in the choicest seats, and weren't denied many of the normal things life didn't offer the African-American. And when blacks attempted to fight for their rights, they were assaulted, beaten, hosed, attacked by dogs, intimidated, threatened, and killed, often by the very people whose job it was to supposedly "serve and protect."

As I've read about these issues, it dawns on me that there were many segregationists who probably felt that the threat of civil rights for blacks was completely destroying the foundation of their very lives. They literally felt as if their world would fall apart if blacks were to obtain equal rights. I've seen pictures of a woman holding a picket sign that says, "Integration is a mortal sin." Another sign held by a young man says, "The only way to end niggers is exterminate." Another white man with a gun threatens a black man who is attempting to enter his store. Still another pours hydrochloric acid into a swimming pool where blacks are having a swim-in. Parents pull their white kids out of a school where a little black girl, attending first grade for the first time since desegregation has taken effect, has to be protected by federal marshalls. Police and local government leaders refuse to follow the policies the federal government has laid out concerning desegregation, and it is only through federal government protection that they publicly back down (although in private, they still commit some horrendous acts). A church is bombed and kills several black girls. Civil rights advocates are tortured and killed.

This was not so long ago. Even as I read this book about David O. Mckay, it is interesting to see where the LDS Church stood on civil rights issues. Realizing that church leaders and members were a product of their time, it is still amazing to me to see how blacks were treated by people who professed to belong to a church established by the Savior himself. Most church leaders were opposed to racial integration, including David O. McKay, and were suspicious of the civil rights movement. J. Reuben Clark, Henry D. Moyle, Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B. Lee, Ezra Taft Benson, and Mark E. Peterson all opposed civil rights and said things that would certainly be considered racist today, if not then. There was a great resistance to change and progression as far as this issue was concerned.
One man in the First Presidency, Hugh B. Brown, was more progressive in this area and said the following in the October, 1963 General Conference when members of the NAACP threatened to picket Temple Square after being rebuffed in their desire to meet with the First Presidency:

“During recent months both in Salt Lake City and across the nation considerable interest has been expressed in the position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the matter of civil rights. We would like it to be known that there is in this church no doctrine, belief, or practice that is intended to deny the enjoyment of full civil rights by any person regardless of race, color, or creed.

We again say, as we have said many times before, that we believe that all men are the children of the same God and that it is a moral evil for any person or group of persons to deny to any human being the right to gainful employment, to full educational opportunity, and to every privilege of citizenship, just as it is a moral evil to deny him the right to worship according to the dictates of his own conscience.

We have consistently and persistently upheld the Constitution of the United States, and as far as we are concerned that means upholding the constitutional rights of every citizen of the United States.

We call upon all men everywhere, both within and outside the Church, to commit themselves to the establishment of full civil equality for all of God's children. Anything less than this defeats our high ideal of the brotherhood of man."

While not sanctioned by the church at the time as an "official statement," it later was reluctantly elevated to "official" status two years later when NAACP leaders threatened to organize a series of marches in front of the Church Administration Building.

As I've read all these things and thought about today's current climate, I cannot help but see the parallels between the civil rights movement of the 60s, the women's rights movement, and the gay rights movement. Just as whites feared their world would come crashing down as blacks tried to gain equality; just as men thought their worlds was crashing down when women tried to gain equality; so I think many straight people feel the same way as gay people try to gain equality. It was not so very long ago, too, that you could be arrested for being gay or when homosexuality was considered a disease (and some people still feel that it is). Although I do think gay people have suffered discrimination and violence from hate-crimes, I do have to say that I think black people have been treated far more harshly in American history than gay people have (although I do think gay people have been treated very unfairly, too).

It is interesting to me that the LDS Church always seems to be in the rear and very slow on the uptake when it comes to equal rights. Church leaders in the 60s opposed civil rights legislation, and the state legislature consistently shot down bills that would give equal rights to blacks. The church also opposed the Equal Rights Amendment in the 70s. This quote is taken from a Utah history website:

"The attack against ERA seemed, at times, alarmist and hysterical. Equation of ERA with sexual permissiveness, abortion, child care, homosexuality, and unisexuality drew the debate away from the constitutional principal of equality to issues of 'traditional family values.' But the attack did reflect the fears of many about the changing roles of women and men and about the changing form of the family. There seemed to be danger in equality for the ideological/cultural concept of the father as head and provider, mother as nurturer and manager, and children as replicas into the next generation. Many feared the equality would make women more vulnerable and exposed, that men would feel freer to abandon family responsibilities.

Certainly it was these fears which prompted Mormon church leaders to eventually join their financial resources, their promotional skills and their far-flung network of members to the counterrevolution. Church leaders in 1976 described ERA as 'a moral issue with many disturbing ramifications for women and for the family as individual members as a whole.' President Spencer Kimball declared it 'would strike at the family, humankind's basic institution.'

Donations to support the anti-ERA effort were solicited by ward bishops; speeches against the amendment were deemed appropriate at all church meetings, and church buildings were used as an anti-ERA literature distribution points. Church sponsored anti-ERA organizations operated in Florida, Nevada, North and South Carolina, Missouri, Illinois and Arizona."

Likewise today, the Utah state legislature (which is predominantly Mormon) consistently shoots down bills that would protect the rights of gay citizens, and of course we are aware of the financial and grassroots backing that existed from the LDS Church in the fight for the passage of Proposition 8 in California. The parallels with both civil rights for blacks and equal rights for women seem very similar to the current gay-rights struggle vis-à-vis the LDS Church. But just as blacks and women have received more equality over the years (although there is still inequality, racism, and sexism that exists), I think it is inevitable that gay people will receive the rights they long for. I really do think it's a difficult, if not impossible task to stop "this rolling stone."

And just as I think it's hard to look back and read about the way the civil rights movement and battle against the Equal Rights Amendment (which people are still trying to pass) were handled by the LDS Church, I am reminded about the current battle that is happening with gay rights and wonder how history will view the LDS Church. I don't know what will happen or even necessarily what should happen, but I do think gay rights are going to be a reality, especially as the older generation dies and the newer generation, many of whom seem to support gay rights, comes to the forefront. There will be some lost battles, but I think the war will be won, and just as I know there were people who thought their worlds would collapse as blacks and women gained more equality, I think those people who oppose gay rights will be surprised at how little their worlds will really change for the worst. Heck, they might even discover that their worlds are better. Change can be a very good thing, even if some people don't believe it is progress.

Black And Mormon: A Review - by Kaylana Mars

2009-12-15T01:06:00.000-08:00

I first learned of this book (by Newell G. Bringhurst and Darron T. Smith) while listening to the podcasts of Mormon Stories by John Dehlin. He featured Darron T. Smith as one of his guests to talk about Blacks and the Mormon Church. Darron was just coming off being dismissed from BYU because of his work on this book (or at least a significant reason).

This whole podcast intrigued me and when he mentioned Black and Mormon I knew I wanted to get my hands on it. This intrigued me because one I am a white Mormon American woman and also from Utah, the main hub of the Church. I grew up in Utah County where we could count on one hand all the people of color in our schools, one Black, two Asian, and two Hispanic. Not a lot of diversity. So I go back to the question of why this should affect me, why should I be interested? Because I never was able to gain a view of that side of the world while growing up. My dad did a pretty good job on teaching us tolerance by his actions, which is so important. So I feel blessed by that. But by the time I came back off my mission, studying Spanish and Applied Linguistics in college I really wanted to gain various perspectives, struggles, cultural ideas and traditions into my own worldview. I had gotten so much of that on my mission and attending college outside of Utah.

I was fed the same folklore of Blacks being descended from Cain and thus the reason they were denied the priesthood and temple covenants for so long, it never sounded right to me, but I never questioned it either. I glossed over the details in the Book of Mormon on Nephites being good and thus white and the Lamanites being bad and thus the curse of darkness came upon them. So with this “white is better” culture and dogma I really began to wonder what other people felt about this. What is a person’s reaction when they find the joy and spirit of the gospel and then find out if they had joined a few decades earlier they would have been denied the most sacred promises of God?

The other reason I find it interesting, intriguing and important is because I feel marginalized as a woman in a male-centered Church. I feel these questions are important to look at and ask. And so I picked up Black and Mormon.

There are eight articles and each focus on various aspects of Blacks in the Mormon Church. I want to focus on the ones that really stood out for me.

“How Do Thing Look on the Ground?” The LDS African American Community in Atlanta, Georgia by Ken Driggs

I found this article so refreshing on how diversity in the United States and in a Mormon ward/branch can find what they are looking for in their worship. I feel too often that worshiping becomes a tradition, the way things have been, and therefore should always be. So to learn that this ward in Georgia can have a spiritual and meaningful sacrament meeting is so amazing! I really want to head down there to Georgia to live at least for one Sunday the wonder that is their ward! I feel that this is important since our Church is our Church meaning that it should incorporate traditions and cultures and backgrounds of those in the congregation.

Another topic it explores is how the racist policies of the Church’s past affect black members of the Church. It’s hard to fathom that the racist folklore is still being passed around in Church, that many missionaries will still use those false ideas to explain it all away when it only brings more hurt.

I have also found the stories in this article to be inspiring, because despite the racist policies and doctrines of the Church many still stay and find their own peace and answers from God.

Unpacking Whiteness in Zion: Some Personal Reflections and General Observations by Darron T. Smith

I really loved this article by Darron. He puts it all out there on the table for us white people and I find that refreshing and once I think about it, so true.

Darron explains:

"Whiteness is a cultural and social construction, a system of structural privileges that advantages whites in way the people of color do not experience. Whiteness is not only limited to bodies and skin color but also to ideas, knowledge production, values, and beliefs that are held as the norm…People of color are rarely seen in movies except as villains or as sidekicks to the white protagonists. Books, greeting cards, children’s toys, billboards, and popular magazines are overwhelmingly situated in whiteness…Whiteness as a protected and often guarded entitlement goes unnoticed and, because unnoticed, also unchallenged. As a result, white people are either unable or unwilling to recognize how their elite position enables them in numerous and significant ways." (p. 151)

I’ll never understand what it’s like to be looked at differently, treated differently because of my skin color, my traditions, and my background. So let’s talk about it, get it out there in the open.

Never in church do I recall anyone asking the questions about why blacks were denied the priesthood or any whys really. I was just recently talking to my dad about this and he finally admitted that ‘yes, mistakes were made.’ But even being a history major he fully believes that the Church has never been racist, that during the Civil War the North was not racist and the South was; two very big dichotomies that allow us to see things as either or, black or white, and nothing in between. Could Brigham Young still be considered an inspired prophet while holding racist theories and ideas? Well, yes. The Lord can only work with what He’s got so if that means he’s got lots of bigoted white folks I guess that’s what he’ll have to use. So old traditions are going to get in the way, thus we’ll continue to get older, white, and usually American, but now spreading to Western Europe general authorities.

I feel it’s extremely important to talk about race issues, women’s issues, culture, traditions, and well, all issues within the Church. Where is a better place to discuss it than in Church with our fellow worshipers?

To me this book brought to light the good, the bad, and the ugly within the Church. It’s important to recognize what needs to be talked about before we can actually talk about it. I’ve been so enlightened by reading this book, so much more aware how my actions or lack thereof can leave a permanent mark. Granted, I’m living in Utah County once again and find diversity lacking, but now when it does come up I have more enlightenment and knowledge to share with others. It’s my responsibility to destroy the awful folklore that I hear and see as well as be open to new ideas as diversity continues to grow and hopefully, in turn help others on this path as well.

The Book of Mormon: An Anti-War Document - by mormongandhi

2009-12-15T01:05:00.000-08:00

With prosperity come growing evils

Gordon B. Hinckley once said of the Book of Mormon that its “narrative is a chronicle of nations long since gone. But in its descriptions of the problems of today’s society, it is as current as the morning newspaper and much more definitive, inspired, and inspiring concerning the solutions of those problems. I know of no other writing, which sets forth with such clarity the tragic consequences to societies that follow courses contrary to the commandments of God. Its pages trace the stories of two distinct civilizations that flourished on the Western Hemisphere. Each began as a small nation, its people walking in the fear of the Lord.”

“But with prosperity came growing evils,” Hinckley continues. “The people succumbed to the wiles of ambitious and scheming leaders who oppressed them with burdensome taxes, who lulled them with hollow promises, who countenanced and even encouraged loose and lascivious living. These evil schemers led the people into terrible wars that resulted in the death of millions and the final and total extinction of two great civilizations in two different eras.” In this light, it makes sense to view the Book of Mormon as an anti-war, pro-kingdom scripture.

The people of Jesus does not smite again

Andrew Bolton points to the ‘golden age’ of the repentant and responsive Nephites in the 4th book of Nephi who, “in keeping the commandments of the resurrected Jesus, enjoyed peace, faithful marriages, and all things common for nigh on 200 years.” The fundamental reason to view the Book of Mormon as a document that advocates nonviolence is found in the following passage, according to Bolton:

“And it came to pass that there was no contention in the land, because of the love of God which dwelt in the hearts of people”. Later as the golden age began to decline the people hardened their hearts: “for they were led by many priests and false prophets to build up many churches, and to do all manner of iniquity. And they did smite the people of Jesus [...] and the people of Jesus did not smite again.” (4 Nephi 1:34)

Jesus explained to his disciples among the Nephites the root-causes of the wars and contentions that would destroy their people. After the third generation had passed of those who saw and heard Jesus, Jesus tells his disciples:

“…it sorroweth me because of the fourth generation from this generation, for they are led away captive by him even as was the son of perdition; for they will sell me for silver and for gold, and for that which moth doth corrupt and which thieves can break through and steal. And in that day will I visit them, even in turning their works upon their own heads. (3 Nephi 27:32)

I am grieved because of the destruction of all people

Also Nephi, the first writer in the Book of Mormon, was distraught by the vision of the future carnage that was to take place among his children:

“And now I, Nephi, was grieved ... because of the things which I had seen, and knew they must unavoidably come to pass because of the great wickedness of the children of men. And it came to pass that I was overcome because of my afflictions, for I considered that mine afflictions were great above all, because of the destruction of my people, for I had beheld their fall”. (1 Nephi 15:4-5)

In 1 Nephi 14, the great and marvelous work among the children of men – known to the LDS community as the coming forth of the Book of Mormon to restore the “plain and precious things” that were taken out of the Bible – will be either to the “convincing of them unto peace and life eternal”, or unto the “deliverance of them to the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds:”

"Therefore, wo be unto the Gentiles, if it so be that they harden their hearts against the Lamb of God. For the time cometh, saith the Lamb of God, that I will work a great and a marvelous work among the children of men; a work which shall be everlasting, either on the one hand or on the other— either to the convincing of them unto peace and life eternal, or unto the deliverance of them to the hardness of their hearts and the blindness of their minds unto their being brought down into captivity, and also into destruction, both temporally and spiritually, according to the captivity of the devil, of which I have spoken."

We are without Christ and God in the world

Mormon, the abridger of the history recorded in the Book of Mormon, demonstrates a vivid concern with regards to the historical consequences of war among the children of Father Lehi and of the wickedness that led his people to destruction. He is eager to show to the remnant of the house of Israel, the indigenous peoples of the Americas today, of the things that led to the utter destruction of their ancestors, and describes in this manner the devastating results of the infighting between the Nephites and the Lamanites, as well as among the Jaredites:

“And it is impossible for the tongue to describe, or for man to write a perfect description of the horrible scene of the blood and carnage which was among the people, both of the Nephites and of the Lamanites; and every heart was hardened, so that they delighted in the shedding of blood continually. And there never has been so great wickedness among all the children of Lehi, nor even among all the house of Israel as among this people” (Mormon 4:11)."

“And now behold, I, Mormon, do not desire to harrow up the souls of men in casting before them such an awful scene of blood and carnage as was laid before mine eyes; but I knowing that these things must surely be made known, and that all things which are hid must be revealed upon the house-tops [...] I write a small abridgment, daring not to give full account of the things which I have seen [...] that ye might not have too great sorrow because of the wickedness of this people.” (Mormon 5:8-9)

“For behold the Spirit of the Lord hath already ceased to strive with their fathers; and they are without Christ and God in the world; and they are driven about as chaff in the wind. They were once a delightsome people, and they had Christ for their shepherd; yea, they were led even by God the Father. But now, behold, they are led by Satan, even as chaff is driven before the wind, or as a vessel is tossed about upon the waves, without sail or anchor, or without anything wherewith to steer her; and even as she is, so are they." (Mormon 5:16-18)

Establish peace with the Book of Mormon and the Bible

Ezra Taft Benson once said:

“The Book of Mormon verifies and clarifies the Bible. It removes stumbling blocks; it restores many plain and precious things. We testify that when used together, the Bible and the Book of Mormon confound false doctrine, lay down contentions, and establish peace. The Book of Mormon is not on trial – the people of the world, including members of the Church, are on trial as to what they will do with [or rather how they will use (added by author)] this second witness of Christ." (A New Witness for Christ, 1984)

It is clear that the Book of Mormon is an anti-war document and that it has a role to play in the latter day movement as well as in the peace movement in our day, seeing Nephi’s reaction to the vision of the destruction of his people on the American continent and to what would befall the Gentiles - if they did not repent. Remember Hinckley said: “I know of no other writing, which sets forth with such clarity the tragic consequences to societies that follow courses contrary to the commandments of God”.

For that reason, Nephi hopes that through his writings he may be able to convince his children to believe in Christ and, if possible to avert the killings and slaughters that “must unavoidably come to pass”: “For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.” (2 Nephi 25:23)

I suppose the common mistake is to believe that the plain and precious things restored in the Book of Mormon are solely doctrinal: that small children are in no need of baptism, that baptism ought to be by immersion, that Jesus truly was resurrected and that he is the God of the whole world. But our Savior is concerned with more than just sacraments and ordinances. He envisions a world of social and political righteousness, with peace on earth and with justice to all. The Book of Mormon and the Bible remind us of the words he uttered to Pilate in response to a question of whether he was a King:

“My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence”. (John 18:36)

In this single verse, Jesus sets forth his methodology for social change: nonviolence.

Nonviolence was not a foreign concept to early Mormonism. The Prophet Joseph Smith did say, “I calculate to be one of the instruments of setting up the kingdom [foreseen by] Daniel, and I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. It will not be by sword or gun that this kingdom will roll on: the power of truth is such that all nations will be under the necessity of obeying the Gospel”.

Mormon nonviolence: a restoration of gospel principles

The main purpose of the Book, as explained by Mormon himself on the title page, is to restore knowledge of the covenants God made with the house of Israel. This restoration of covenants puts forward a premise that the promises God made to the fathers are dependent upon the righteousness, or in other words, the nonviolence of their children. That is why the blood of the prophets is crying from the dust – not for revenge, but to show us a better way to the Promised Land, so that we may in truth establish the Kingdom of God on Earth:

“And now behold, I would speak unto the remnant of this people who are spared, ...that they may know of the things of their fathers... : Know ye that ye are of the remnant of the house of Israel. Know ye that ye must come unto repentance, or ye cannot be saved. Know ye that ye must lay down your weapons of war, and delight no more in the shedding of blood, and take them not again - save it be that God shall command you. (Mormon 7:1-4)

“Therefore repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus, and lay hold upon the gospel of Christ which shall be set before you (1) not only in this record but also in the record that shall come unto the Gentiles from the Jews which record shall come from the Gentiles unto you.” (2) (Mormon 7:8)

If we were to do as Mormon says, and were to lay hold upon the words of Christ in his sermons of nonviolence and love, then these are the words of nonviolence that must be imprinted in our minds and in our hearts:

“Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. Blessed are they, which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you." (Matthew 5:9-12)

“And behold it is written also, that thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy; but behold I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you and pray for them who despitefully use you and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father who is in heaven; for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good. Therefore those things, which were of old time, which were under the law, in me are all fulfilled. Old things are done away, and all things have become new. Therefore I would that ye should be perfect even as I, or your Father who is in heaven is perfect." (3 Nephi 12:43-48 & Matthew 5:44-48).

mormongandhi is looking for alternative and more peaceful ways of thinking and living. He calls himself an advocate for nonviolence in the Restoration movement. He currently lives in Oslo, Norway and works for Norwegian Church Aid as an advisor for peace and reconciliation. He has a BA in peace and development studies from Bradford University in the UK, where he studied religious peacebuilding, as well as a master’s in peace operations from GMU in Washington D.C. For an alternative and nonviolent study of the Book of Mormon, mormongandhi is publishing a study chapter every week on mormon nonviolence (latter day satyagraha) at http://mormongandhi.com. Each chapter follows the set-up of the Institute Study Manual of the LDS Church (total 52 chapters). In addition, you can share your thoughts and insights on the nonviolent readings of the Book of Mormon with other “peaceable followers of Christ” (Moroni 7:3) at the discussion forum http://peaceablefollowers.wordpress.com, created in parallel to the “latter day satyagraha” site. You may contact mormongandhi directly by emailing him at mormongandhi@gmail.com

NOTES

1. See sermon to the Nephites after his resurrection: http://scriptures.lds.org/en/3_ne/12/
2. See sermon on the mount to the Jews: http://scriptures.lds.org/en/matt/5/

The Dawning Of A Brighter Day - by Boyd Petersen

2009-12-15T01:04:00.000-08:00

In 1982, Eugene England surveyed the history and current landscape of Mormon literary production in a seminal article published in BYU Studies entitled “The Dawning of a Brighter Day: Mormon Literature after 150 Years.” There England celebrated the flowering of Mormon “faithful realism”; the publication of Richard Cracroft and Neal Lambert’s anthology of Mormon literature A Believing People; the creation of a course on Mormon literature at Brigham Young University; and the foundation of the Association for Mormon Letters in 1976. He saw these as signs that Mormon culture was not only producing but beginning to recognize a unique literary heritage.

Nevertheless, England saw with clear vision that much of work remained to be done. He acknowledged that no scholarly bibliography of Mormon literature had been produced. He also recognized that a unique Mormon literature not only required writers but criticism, and he lamented that little had been done.

Twenty seven years later, we have much to celebrate: Print-on-demand technology and the blogosphere have allowed Mormon literature to develop in ways England could never imagine. Mormon literature is being taught and Mormon literature courses are being introduced to college campuses, public and private, across the nation as Mormon Studies becomes a recognized academic discipline. And the Association for Mormon Letters continues to champion Mormon literature and criticism with its yearly meeting, awards, and literary journal Irreantum.

Indeed, many of the deficits sorely felt by England in 1982 are today beginning to be met: the Mormon literature database has become a first-rate bibliography of Mormon literature, criticism, and film. Works of literature and criticism are being published not only by Mormon studies publications like BYU Studies, Dialogue, and AML’s own Irreantum, but by blogs, especially A Motley Vision and Segullah. England would have been thrilled to see the 2007 publication of Terryl Givens’ People of Paradox: A History of Mormon Culture by Oxford University Press. And he would have been an enthusiastic supporter of the wonderful flowering of Mormon cinema and the seminal publication of an issue of BYU Studies that recounted the lost history of Mormon cinema.

As we look forward to the bright future the twenty-first century promises for Mormon literature, we at AML also want to look back. Specifically we want to recreate some of the early conversations that led to the creation of AML and revisit some of the features that made AML a community for those interested in Mormon literature. One of the features of AML that first attracted my attention was the regular electronically published columns on a variety of literary topics. Two of those columns ultimately led to books: a look at the humor of Mormon culture by Ed Snow’s Of Curious Workmanship: Musings on Things Mormon and a literary analysis of the Book of Mormon by Richard Dilworth Rust’s Feasting on the Word: The Literary Testimony of the Book of Mormon.

In a world where blogs are ubiquitous and our attention is constantly divided by many good things, we know launching another blog may seem redundant. However, I trust you will find on the AML blog (http://mormonletters.org/) a conversation that will stimulate great discussion and, hopefully, inspire great Mormon literature and criticism (perhaps even a few books!). To commemorate the bright future we see for Mormon literature and simultaneously remind us of our roots, we have titled the new blog after Eugene England’s 1982 essay.

England’s essay suggests that for Mormon authors to create great literature, they will have a “special respect for language and form” while at the same time draw upon the theological and historical realities of our unique Mormon heritage. England stresses that the themes available to the Mormon artist do not come from our trivial peculiarities, but rather from our unique theology and history. As England states, “I don’t mean irrigation and polygamy and Lamanite warriors but rather a certain epic consciousness and mythic identification with ancient peoples and processes: the theme of exile and return, of the fruitful journey into the wilderness; the pilgrim traveling the dark and misty way to the tree of salvation; the lonely quest for selfhood that leads to conversion and then to the paradox of community; the desert as crucible in which to make saints, not gold; the sacramental life that persists in spiritual experience and guileless charity despite physical and cultural deprivation; the fortunate fall from innocence and comfort into a lone and dreary world where opposition and tragic struggle can produce virtue and salvation.” These themes, argues England, would “nurture” the artist’s imagination “with the most challenging and liberating set of metaphysical possibilities and paradoxes.” Great Mormon literature can only come from Mormon artists who know their Mormon literary heritage, know the forms of their genre, and simultaneously take their craft and their faith seriously.

England cautioned against the Scylla of “didactic, apologetic, or sentimental writing” (“pious trash” as Flannery O’Connor called much of Catholic literature), even as he warned against the Charybdis of “sexual explicitness or sophomoric skepticism as faddish, but phony, symbols of intellectual and moral sophistication and freedom.” The Association of Mormon Letters has consistently attempted to promote these two ideals. While we have, at times, drifted too far to one side or the other, we are firmly committed to this radical middle. This is why I am happy to associate with this organization and am equally excited about our launching the new blog. I hope you will all find yourselves at home there as we attempt, in the words of Eugene England, to “bring to full flower a culture commensurate with our great religious and historical roots.”

When Moral Issues Become Political Issues - by Ray DeGraw

2009-12-15T01:03:00.000-08:00

Editor’s Note: The author is an active, believing member who has served and continues to serve in many callings in the Church. His political opinions and religious views are “all over the map, depending on the issue,” as he puts it, and he does not wish to be indentified as an LDS Lefty or be classified with any particular label that would imply things to others. In his own words, he says, “I'm not a classification; I'm an individual who supports the Brethren fully while trying to obtain and follow personal revelation.” With his permission, we are pleased to feature this brief essay that we think so eloquently outlines how to examine moral issues that enter the political arena.

Once a moral issue enters the political arena, it no longer is just a moral issue. It becomes a political issue, subject to different forces and obligations and stresses and interpretations ad infinitum than when it was “just” a moral issue. This is not the thread for it, but abortion is a perfect example of this. How I feel about it as a strictly “personal moral issue” varies radically from how I feel about it as a political, legal issue. That’s the core reason why the Church can and should comment on moral issues while not attempting to dictate political action.

This essay fleshes out that foundational claim – that once a moral issue enters the political arena, it is OK for Mormons to vote differently than they might preach.

My moral stance on abortion is, unsurprisingly, that of the Church: Abortion is not murder, and it is not inherently a sin in all cases, but it is a serious action that should be undertaken only in specific situations – like rape or incest, when the mother’s life is in danger, or when the fetus cannot survive birth. Furthermore, it should not be automatic even in these situations.(1)

When abortion enters the political arena, however, my stance changes radically. The same statement in the Church’s website Newsroom also includes a concluding statement, which rarely is quoted in these discussions:

“The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion.”

Why not? As a political issue, there are three options:

1. Always prohibit abortions – not consistent with the Church’s moral stance;

2. Always allow abortions – not consistent with the Church’s moral stance;

3. Allow some and prohibit other abortions – can be consistent with the Church’s moral stance.

It would appear that I should support #3 as the basis for legislation. I don’t. I support #2 (even practices like partial-birth abortion, which I find simply revolting and barbaric in theory, but absolutely necessary in strictly limited instances) instead of #3, for the following reasons:

1. Exceptions must be decided through compromise among differing beliefs. Most who accept exceptions would support abortion in situations where the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother, but many don’t. I think most would support exceptions for cases of rape and incest, but many don’t. Fewer support a doctor’s determination that the fetus won’t survive birth, since there is an element of subjectivity in some cases. Compromise that does not include the exceptions the Church allows would be in direct violation of my own moral code – forcing birth in situations where I believe the parents (including my wife and I) should be able to choose abortion, if necessary in their situation. I can’t support that.

2. It would be fairly easy for a doctor who is committed to abortion as an option for all to over-estimate the danger to the mother’s life if an abortion was desired. In order to address this potential conflict, the courts would be required to assign a second doctor to verify the initial diagnosis, but this doctor would be just as likely to be opposed to abortion as an option. If so, the verification might be withheld for many women whose decisions I would support otherwise. I can’t support that.

3. The most tricky situation legally is in cases of rape. Here’s what’s tricky about it:

• For abortions in these cases to be allowed, there would have to be a charge made of rape.

• Any charge would necessitate an investigation.

• An investigation would require the possibility of a trial.

• Typical investigations and trials cannot be undertaken and completed in nine months – especially in cases that might boil down to “she said/he said”. In reality, these cases actually would have a “prosecutorial window” of only about 4-6 months – since the pregnancy might not be known until the second month and would need to be terminated prior to the third trimester in order to avoid late-term abortions that would never receive legal support.

• In these situations, to be a viable option, an abortion would have to be possible before the completion of any legal action to determine the validity of the claim.

• Rape cases are difficult to prove, but under this “exception” construct, abortions should not be allowed for spurious accusations.

• Therefore, these cases would need to be expedited to reach a conviction that would justify the abortion occurring.

• The cases that should not be rushed, ever, are explicitly those that are the most difficult to prove. Such a focus makes it less likely that the charge will be substantiated, meaning that legitimate cases have a greatly reduced chance of being proven – meaning that the perpetrator has a greatly enhanced chance of being acquitted.

• If abortions are granted on the basis of the accusation, in order to address the nearly impossible task of convicting within 3-4 months of the charge being made, the courts would need to be willing to punish women who make spurious claims in order to have that abortion. Otherwise, a charge of rape would become the automatic action of any woman desiring an abortion, effectively legislating the allowance of abortion in any situation.

• The near impossibility of determining guilt in some cases, even when the accusation is valid, would mean that many women would be punished for having to make the case in a shortened time frame – for making a claim that is difficult to prove in an expedited time frame.

• The possibility of being prosecuted for making a valid but unprovable accusation would have the practical effect of scaring many women away from making such an accusation, thus effectively legislating option #1 for many in the guise of #3. I can’t support that.

Given that I can’t support outlawing all abortions, and that I can’t support outlawing all abortions with the exceptions of rape, health of the mother and viability of the baby, all that is left for me is to leave the decision in the hands of the individual mother (and father, where applicable) and let them deal with the moral consequences of their decisions.

Morally, I am opposed to abortion, but I allow for exceptions; politically, I oppose legislation that restricts abortion in any way that would not address the issues I articulated here. I have yet to see a proposal which I can support.

Abortion is just one example of this conundrum. Morality dictates our individual choices, but as has been said elsewhere: “You can’t legislate morality.” That statement is usually taken to mean that you cannot force people to behave morally. This example illustrates why it is also impractical.

NOTES

1. http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/abortion

A Child Is Born In Bukavu : a Christmas message - by mormongandhi

2009-12-15T01:02:00.000-08:00

A child is born in Bukavu, and sadness fills his mother’s heart... Bukavu is not the city of David. It is a town in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo. War has been ravaging the country for years. Ever since Kabila invaded the former Zaire with military support from the US. It is a war that no one speaks of – but it has cost the lives of millions of people and caused unimaginable suffering.

The child’s mother is a young girl, a daughter of the area. This young girl is named Maria. Maria was a girl like most any other girl in her town. She walked miles for water, she helped her mother with the cooking and she also tilled the land. She learnt how to read in primary school, but ever since the war her parents no longer could afford to pay her school fees. Maria was a believer in the Christian gospel – and went like all other young girls her age to church on Sunday.

Church was a mud hut with a roof made out of straw. There on Sundays, the kids would gather to learn about God. The preacher, an older man with glasses and graying hair, would always talk about God’s love for humanity – and that God once, long time ago, had come to the world as a male child to save humanity. In church, she had also learned some words of English. She knew that when you greeted someone, you had to say: “Good morning, class."

The morning breaks

That was then. Prior to the attacks... One day, as the morning broke and shadows gathered, foreign soldiers drove into town. The houses were set on fire. The adults were gathered on the square and the older men were executed one by one. This is how Maria lost her father – and she and her mother witnessed it. The soldiers held their heads for them to watch. Maria was afraid. After having seen the murder of her father, they also separated her from her mother. She was chosen from among the young girls to follow a group of soldiers. One of them stripped her of her clothes and forced himself on her – he, subject to the commanders’ orders.

Now she held this young child in her arms. Her heart was filled with sadness, and she knew that her firstborn child would have given her joy under other circumstances. Some months after the soldiers left, Maria was chased away. The villagers who were left behind were ashamed of her and of the other girls who had become pregnant. These girls were a constant reminder of the day when the men in the village had been powerless – confronted with the threat and the fear of a gun. “Do not ever come back”, were the last words she heard as she was running for her life into the deep woods.

Maria sings to her little child a song she learned many years ago: “Lullaby, lullaby, my little one. Lullaby, my child so dear. Thy precious life has just begun. Thy mother holds thee near”. And yet, she knows the words do not ring true. True, all life is precious. But not one soul will ever value the life of this child. Born of a violent union, unwanted by his mother, into a world where people willingly march to the sound of guns. What future can she promise him? What life can this child possibly hope to have? Even though she loves him, he is a constant reminder of what happened to her, and like the villagers who once chased her away she cannot find peace when she looks into his eyes.

Its ranks are filled with soldiers, united, bold and strong...

Victory, victory... The guys were singing and shouting, drunken by their thirst for blood and proud of their conquest. Bukavu had been encircled, trapped, taken, raped and ravaged. The soldiers executed the orders of their commander and had in turn executed the elders of Bukavu – one by one. Herodes was the commander’s name. His boys feared him.

They were now men. They had proven it – to themselves and to him who had led them into victory. Joseph, one of the soldiers, the one who raped Maria, was nonetheless feeling some unease. In following orders, Joseph had forced himself upon this young girl. The others had told him that having sex with a virgin was going to save him from the disease that was making him weak, this pandemic they called AIDS. But more importantly, the others respected him now. He had become one of them: their partner in crime.

You are the man! We saw you, Joseph. You did it. You made her cry – you and your gun. You made her scream. The words were both making him feel proud and good about himself, but for one reason, unknown to him, they were also haunting him. Could he look at a woman again without thinking of the pain he had caused to this young girl – whose name he would never know? In order to survive – either you dominate or you are dominated, Herodes used to say. To rule, you have to systematically brake down the bonds that bind communities together. They need to fear you or fear will overtake you...

I am trying to be like Jesus

War does not bring out the best in us – it brings out the worst in us. True, some acts are acts of courage – but aren’t those heroic acts always associated with saving lives, and not with taking them? Fear begets fear. It is the opposite of love. Misery begets misery. It is the opposite of joy. Violence begets violence. It is the opposite of peace.

The nativity story told the world of a little baby boy, born to Mary, a girl chosen among other girls to be the mother of a Savior, rejected by men and yet, many are they who believe he is their safe ticket to heaven. The story from Bukavu is the story of a little baby boy, born to Maria, a girl chosen among other girls to be the victim of a soldier, so he could gain accept in the eyes of his comrades, so he could become a man, taking by force what he believed was a safe ticket to health.

Jesus taught us that he was not Herodes. “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence”. Jesus was nonviolent. Not exactly what you would associate with being a King. He was God. He was love, both long-suffering and kind. That is why he came to earth as a man and not as a woman: not because God favors men, but because the concept of what it means to be a Man on earth is so contrary to what it means to being God in heaven – who Mormons believe is male. Be kind, as a child, he said to them, and loving as a hen gathers her chickens:

“O ye people of these great cities which have fallen, who are descendants of Jacob, yea, who are of the house of Israel, how oft have I gathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and have nourished you. Yea, how oft would I have gathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens, and ye would not. O ye house of Israel, whom I have spared, how oft will I gather you as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, if ye will repent and return unto me with full purpose of heart.”

Love one another

It was necessary for Jesus to come to earth in the form and shape of a male – to represent God as his firstborn son, the first among all great men, a king of kings. “Little children, a new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.”

The divine irony is the fact that Jesus exhibits throughout his life traits that we call feminine: peaceful, loving, kind, sharing, meek, forgiving, gentle, and caring. He helped the poor and he healed the sick. We crucified him, because he was a threat to men everywhere. He challenged the very idea of what it means to be a man: strong, violent, forceful, greedy, noisy, arrogant and proud. He challenged the way we think about achieving peace, not by dominating others before they dominate us, but by showing us a better way to freedom – paved with love and with sacrifice.

In short, this was the message Jesus gave to the modern House of Israel, to the modern sons of Jacob: “What manner of men ought ye to be? Verily I say unto you, even as I am”. He showed all men an alternative masculinity - that of the nonviolent male who sides with the poor and the downtrodden. Come, follow me, the Savior said.

Gaining A Testimony - by Jonathan Scott Griffin

2009-12-15T01:01:00.000-08:00

"Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my funderstanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.

Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.

But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.”

(Alma 32: 28-30)

I have more liberal leanings than most members of the Church. Sometimes this causes conflict with the conservatives in the Church. However, I also have a testimony of the Gospel. But this testimony didn’t come immediately. I hope that my words, as a member of the Church who leans more to the left, will persuade and help those in the left to remain active in the Church, despite how other members of the Church may view them. I believe that those on the left side of the spectrum, such as myself, and others, can remain in the Church and be active in the Gospel, no matter what others may say.

My story starts out when I was a missionary stationed in Nauvoo. I was sent there on a year long service mission, not with preaching involved, but just service. The Church said it was because of my high-functioning autism. But I, to this day, feel the real reason the Lord sent me there was because of my struggles with the Church. I didn't have the firmest testimony. In Nauvoo I was exposed to the ghosts of the past, or rather, in simpler terms, to a plethora of Church history, some of it long forgotten. It was from the Journal of Discourses I learned about the many wives of Joseph Smith, blood atonement, Adam-God doctrine, the racist statements against blacks from General Authorities, and so forth. These things even further shook up my already fragile faith. I began to lash out on my companions, to cry in my bed, and just be overall pugnacious. I wanted the truth exposed. I didn't want to destroy the Church, but rather only for the Church to admit mistakes had been made. I knew I couldn't afford the Journal of Discourses, so I did something else. I bought a book, which took snippets from what general authorities said. However, now that I look back, I realize this was an anti-Mormon book. It took snippets from what they said, but failed to put things into context as to why they said them. Eventually my mission companion took the book to my mission president. I received a call from him. I was surprised to hear no condemnation in his voice, but rather concern and love. I was called to his office the next day. Instead of chastising me, he told me how proud he was of me, for researching, delving into issues, and told me the Lord blessed me with a great mind. He bore testimony to me that I would learn the truth, and rather than stop researching, told me to keep reading. The more I read, from what is the new Mormon history, rather than the anti, or just faith promoting, truth sunk into my mind. Sure, I had some breakdowns, but the mission president never sent me home, always loved me, and tried to answer my questions to the best of his ability. A miracle happened. The Lord filled me with the light of truth, and now I don't have any doubt in my mind that the Gospel is true. This is Christ's Church.

In regards to reading different history of the Church, how has that helped me? When I come across people who are antagonistic towards the Church, or are just generally well-meaning but, like I did, have concerns, I pray to Heavenly Father for guidance. Dipping into that knowledge that I have gained, from the honest history which tells warts and all, I am able to use that knowledge, fused with the Spirit, to try and alleviate their fears. I talk to them, in their language, about Old Testament prophets, and New Testament prophets, and I point out parts in the Bible where they didn't act accordingly, and tell them that our living prophets, are God's mouthpiece, but like the imperfect prophets of the Old and New Testament, they make mistakes as well.

As for D. Michael Quinn, yes he is excommunicated, but he still believes in the Church. He is not a bitter anti-Mormon. In fact a couple years ago, about 2006 or 2007, he wrote a favorable article about Joseph Smith's First Vision and the evidence surrounding it. He gave much evidence to corroborate his claims, and even dismissed some anti-Mormons in the process. When I talked to him on the phone, he gave a very powerful testimony on the truthfulness of the Gospel and the Church. It was beautiful. I find his books Mormon Hierarchy, and Early Mormonism and the Magic World View to be outstanding pieces of scholarship.

I know the Church is true. I know that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, and that this is Christ's Church. I also know that we have living prophets and apostles. I also know that we shouldn't fear questioning, and, like Hugh B. Brown said, there is room for doubt when it helps us grow. I know that reading from the history of the Church, and studying controversial issues, helps us increase in knowledge and wisdom. I know that we can admit the prophets don't always act accordingly, and sometimes make mistakes, but that we can still sustain and follow them. I know that instead of distancing ourselves from those pondering leaving the Church, and having doubt about the Church's validity, we need to reach out and love them just as Christ would. President Hinckley once said that we should continue to love people, even if they never join the Church, and to be their real friends. I think the same applies to those who are thinking of leaving the Church; always be their friend. It may be difficult to stay in a Church which seems so conservative at times, but I believe the Gospel is for everyone, even those with different political views.

Pray for strength and guidance, that we may always see the truth within the Church, and within the Gospel, so that we may remain strong, like a fortress, all the while reaching out to those, in love, not judgment, who are struggling. May the Spirit and the love of Christ and Heavenly Father help us in our endeavors.

Finding Faith In Christ And In The Members - by David Baker

2009-12-15T01:00:00.000-08:00

Membership: What does this word mean to you? What do you think of when you hear it? Church membership? Membership in the Democratic Party? Membership in the NRA? Recently I have heard the terminology used and described as being a “card carrying” member. Does a recommend, a credit card, a checkbook, a Masonic ring really make you a member? It seems that more and more if you are a member of this group or that, then you are defined solely by that membership. The concept is that you are a homogeneous member of the basic guidelines of the group, that you are one solid core or thought.

Even if this isn’t the actual case, the manner in which we act would lead us to believe that this is so. How often in church do we see other members as “fitting the mold?” When you meet a Mormon from Utah County do you not think of one key type, a member of a particular set of homogeneous guidelines?

I ruminate upon this because a while back I discovered that the word “member” as used in the ancient Greek by Paul, means an “organ;” an essential part of the whole. Today we see membership as belonging to a “unit” like membership as a storm trooper or of a member of the Borg. We see membership and each member as one replaceable cog in the collective machine.

I feel that this is how members on a ward, stake and worldwide level see “membership” in the Church. How uninspiring is it to be a replaceable cog in the machine of the Church when Paul produced such beautiful imagery to describe how we are all organs in the body of Christ, and in the body of the Church. We each have our own vital role that is no less important than any other organ’s job. We might be a tiny nephron, filtering out waste, or a neuron transmitting essential commands of higher thought. Regardless of our role in the body of His Church, we are vastly important to Christ.

How sad is it that in our modern world of machinery we grow up learning that to question is wrong; that those whose opinions within the Church were wavering or off from our own were succinctly bad or evil. This happens all around us. If you doubt it just bring a Sunstone magazine to Sunday School or speak up in priesthood with a viewpoint that is different from the status quo.

If we looked and saw someone doing something different from us, we would assume that our model, our way, is right, that it is the best way to do it. If a neuron saw a nephron filtering waste, wouldn’t it wonder and think (after living only with other neurons) that that nephron was a foreign entity, that it was wrong, or evil and that it was not doing things correctly? And yet, when looked at from a distance, with an all-encompassing view, are they not both equally important and necessary for maintaining the body? If we are all members in the organization of the Church then should there not be the diversity of thought and opinion and of people as seen by Paul?

As a gay Mormon I now know and feel that there is a place for me in Christ’s love and I while I know that there is a position for me in membership of his Church organization, I hope that others begin to notice it and realize that even though I might be a nose hair follicle, a stem cell, or a pituitary gland, it doesn’t matter. Each individual cell has a place; each organ is essential and each member essential to the Body of the Church. I know that the Lord sees me, as he made me, as an integral part of the overall body of the Gospel.

Regardless of what others say, I believe that “MoHo’s” (Mormon homosexuals) have a place in the organization of the church. Whether our place is to cleanse the system of the waste of prejudice and inequality, to help the church grow out of stagnancy, or to serve as a line of defense against the outside world, we have a place. I do not know what or where it is, but I have faith in the Lord, the Master that he is. He has placed us precisely in the position where we need to be and at the end of the day he will tell us, “well done my good and faithful servant.”

Food For Thought - Winter 2009

2009-12-15T00:56:00.000-08:00

How should we deal with the undertone of politically conservative comments at church? Should we speak up or should we avoid confrontation? If we invite liberal friends to church, should we apologize for comments that can come across as offensive?

A Call For Submissions

2009-09-30T01:18:00.000-07:00

Just a reminder, now that we've entered the fall season and winter is just around the corner, to start thinking about the winter issue. Below is the call for submissions that was featured in the fall issue, but as always, we're interested in anything that you'd like to send our way.

Questions and submissions can be sent to theldsleft@gmail.com, or you can post them here. If you've somehow missed our first two issues, you can request them by sending an e-mail to that address.

Married To A Non-Member: The Blessings You Never Hear About

Compassion And Understanding: What We Can Learn From Our Gay Brothers And Sisters

Dealing With Femiphobia In Relief Society

How To Get Along With Conservatives And Still Stay True To Our Leftist Values

Deadline for submissions for Winter 2009 issue: December 1, 2009.

Separation Of Church And State, Part I: A Founding Principle - by Derek Staffanson

2009-09-09T03:21:00.000-07:00

Is the U.S. a Christian nation? On the campaign, John McCain asserted that it is. Barack Obama has insisted we are not. But what does the phrase mean?

There are two concepts to which the phrase “Christian nation” can be applied. The first concept is one in which the government itself directly upholds the cause of Christianity. Many Christian groups, most associated with conservatism, have endorsed that interpretation. For example, the Family Research Council has claimed that “Our founders expected that Christianity—and no other religion—would receive support from the government as long as that support did not violate peoples’ consciences and their right to worship.” Dozens of conservative books and websites proclaim that the concept of a wall of separation between Church and State is a myth. Many conservative Christian leaders and organizations, based on that premise, have actively promoted a greater integration of Church and State, seeking to use government power to advance their agendas. Even such supposedly libertarian conservatives as Ron Paul have argued against the separation and in favor of a Christian connection to our government.

Like the FRC, Paul and others who subscribe to that first concept of a Christian nation invoke the Founding Fathers. According to these religious conservatives, these Founding Fathers, fellow pious Christians, wanted this nation to be explicitly Christian in character, and would be shocked at the secularization of the government.

While there are some few nuggets of truth in their claims, one must pan out a whole lot of silt to find them. The colonies were indeed largely established as explicitly religious communities—most of them one particular denomination (Pennsylvania being the exception). Deviation from that denomination’s religion was legally restricted, as Jews, Catholics, Quakers, Baptists, and other minority faiths sadly discovered. Many in the U.S. are inaccurately taught in school that the original European immigrants came seeking religious freedom. In truth, these immigrants typically came to establish their own religious dominions. The pilgrims were so fanatical in their religious oppression, The crown in England sent a letter to Massachusetts demanding that local authorities stop executing his subjects for heresy.

The founding of the United States of America was altogether different. Before I explain, I should point out a historical misconception. In political debate, we frequently try to present the Founding Fathers as some harmonious body. But these generalizations are far from accurate. The founding generation was as factious and fractious a bunch as any. The debates were intense, their relationships frequently bitter. Those who present a particular political point of view as that of “The Founders” are incorrectly ascribing some unanimity to this diverse bunch.

Some of the founding generation were certainly conventional and deeply devout Christians who wanted the nation to be expressly and innately Christian. Like Mike Huckabee, those men wanted to mold the nation’s governing charter to “God’s standard.” Many of these men were outraged when—and here is a key point—the Constitution did not once address God. Virtually all prior government codes and charters in the Western tradition had very unequivocally prevailed upon and recognized God. Yet in the final bargain the Constitution conspicuously declined any such invocation. There is nothing within the founding document which supports the conservative claims.

Christian conservatives like to take selected words of the critical founders out of context to give the impression that they share with today’s Christians a similar faith. Given the way founders are described in LDS circles, one might even believe them some sort of pre-Restoration LDS quorum. But research on the wider scope of their lives reveals that none of the men most prominent in the founding of the U.S. can accurately be associated with conventional Christianity. Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and James Madison all scoffed at the idea of the divinity of Christ and other core theological principles of Christianity. Each was highly skeptical of the organizations which had risen up around those beliefs. Institutionalized religion was frequently a target of Franklin’s wit. Jefferson believed that it was religion—the hierarchical structures and the orthodoxy they enforce—which had perverted the simple and beautiful doctrines of Jesus by building up the superstitions of his divinity. Even Adams, more tolerant of religion as a necessary evil than the other two, caustically erupted numerous times over one religion or another in his private correspondence. George Washington was much more circumspect on religion than the others. He served on the vestry of his local Episcopal congregation, as men of his status in Virginia were expected to do. He frequently made reference to a higher power in his discourse, both civic and private—the private references often in the form of thundering expletives. But he rarely chose Christian phrases for God in public, preferring instead masonic or deist epithets. While he often attended services, it is well attested that he never took communion. Rarely did he make mention of Christ, let alone discuss Jesus as his Savior, despite the persistent urging of the Christian leaders of his era. Some call the faith of these men Theistic Rationalism. Whatever we may believe about their postmortal religious beliefs and affiliations (Journal of Discourses, vol. 19, p. 229), during their earthly probation their beliefs can hardly be considered akin to the religious right—whether conventional Christian or conservative LDS.

The extent to which these men believed government should be interwoven with religion varied. Washington and Adams were agreeable to a general collaboration between Church and State. Washington felt religious institutions useful partners to government in establishing order in society, though he was indifferent to the doctrine of those institutions. Adams, despite his personal theological heterodoxy, believed Christian organizations and their doctrines should be supported by the government for their role in restraining the less savory aspects of our humanity (the cantankerous Adams derided most religion, but he was even more dubious about the prospects for humanity without it). Under these Presidents, the ones who made “so help me God” an unofficial addition to the Presidential oath of office, federally sponsored days of fasting and prayer were not uncommon, and the wall between Church and State was fairly permeable. Even so, Adams signed an official treaty which noted that “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion… (Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary, 1796, article 11).”

Things were decidedly different with the next two presidents, Jefferson and Madison. Unlike their predecessors, these two outraged the religious establishment by refusing to call for national days of fasting and prayer during their administrations, seeing such declarations as unconstitutional (see “Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Rev. Samuel Millar,” 01.23.1808). Jefferson was indeed very insistent that there be the “wall of separation” between Church and State. The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, for which Jefferson had been the foremost architect, was to him such a crowning achievement that it was one of the three accomplishments he selected to list in his epitaph. As he put it:

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg (Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 17,1782).”

Even more adamant about the necessity to separate Church and State, Madison’s original proposal for what became the First Amendment was stunning in its scope before being watered down in congressional compromise.

“The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner or on any pretext infringed (Amendments Offered in Congress by James Madison June 8, 1789).”

Madison was not content to prevent government collusion with religion on a national level. States-rights proponents who list Jefferson and Madison as unqualified advocates of states supremacy over the federal government might be surprised to read the fifth amendment Madison submitted in his draft of amendments.

“No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases (ibid, emphasis added).”

(Those same “states rights” absolutists should also note that Madison’s original “Virginia Plan” which he presented to the Constitutional Convention maintained that the federal government needed a “negative” power—essentially a federal veto—over state legislatures; see “Letter from James Madison to Thomas Jefferson,” 24.10.1787).

During his administration, Madison opposed the common practice of government chaplains, whether for the military, state-funded universities, or Congress. If individuals or groups wished spiritual guidance, he determined that they should seek it out on their own and if necessary, with their own funds. He fought the government practice of incorporating church properties. When Christian groups petitioned to have the U.S. postal service closed on Sundays in observance of the Sabbath, Madison actively opposed their efforts. He resisted any government involvement with private charities connected with religion.

Madison’s stated belief is most stark in defense of religious freedom and a separation of Church and State.

“We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man’s right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society [ie, government] and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance (Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments; emphasis added).”

Exempt from its cognizance. Often when describing issues touching upon the relationship between Church and State, the phrase “religious tolerance” is used. But Madison’s vision is not one of a Christian-based government practicing kindly tolerance of other faiths. He well knew “tolerance” was arbitrary and “a source itself of discord and animosity, (”Letter from Madison to Edward Everett,” 03.19.1823).” Madison proposed a government completely blind to religion, one which does not even recognize the existence of religion.

These two men most closely associated with our founding documents, these icons of the early American Republicanism which conservatives invoke, strongly favored a disassociate between Church and State. In claiming that there is no historical foundation for this separation, conservatives show a profound ignorance and lack of understanding about the founding of our nation, the men who were instrumental in that founding, and the document which governs the nation.

In the next issue: Separation of Church and State II: Protecting both Church and State

The Morality of Politics: The Challenges of Mormon Tribalism - by Boyd Petersen

2009-09-09T03:12:00.000-07:00

Last year, I did something no sane person would do. I ran for the state legislature. In Utah county. As a Democrat. I knew going into the campaign that only five percent of the district was registered Democrat, and that Utah county is often referred to as one of the reddest counties of one of the reddest states in the union. In 2004 Bush won Utah county 86% to Kerry's 12%; statewide, Utah gave Bush his largest margin of victory, and Utah County gave Bush the largest percentage of any county its size. The fact that I knew all this going into the campaign and still proceeded proves, I suppose, just how mentally unstable I was. But I also knew that within my district, a larger percentage of voters were registered as “unaffiliated” than Republican, 49% to 43%, so I thought it might be possible to win over these voters. And I was running as a socially conservative Democrat; my most radical position is supporting public schools and the PTA. We had seen a referendum on vouchers go down to defeat the year before, in my district vouchers failed by a strong majority, and I was running as an anti-voucher candidate. I was hoping the voters would consider the election Vouchers Part II: Revenge of the Voters.

I discovered, however, that in politics things are just not that simple. First, I found that most of these unaffiliated voters self identified as Republicans, or at least saw the Republican “brand” as more appealing. They liked to claim independence of thought, but most were every bit as committed to the Republican Party as the affiliated Republicans. I found that even the registered Republicans liked to think of themselves as fair-minded people who study the issues and vote for the best candidate. But what they think they do and what they actually do is not the same. For example, my wife was helping out with polling one night and she reported speaking to one self-identified Republican voter, reading the prepared questions:

“On what do you base your voting decisions?”

“Issues,” responded the voter.

My wife continued, “If someone shared your views and was running as a member of the opposing party, in your case a Democrat, would you vote for him or her?”

The response, “absolutely.”

“Do you plan to vote for Becky Lockhart, or Boyd Petersen for state legislature?”

“Which one is the Republican?” the voter asked.

Some voters, however, didn’t seem to know they could vote for individuals rather than a straight party ticket. I spoke with one Hispanic gentleman who had very strong feelings about immigration reform but also had very strong conservative moral values. He said he was going to vote a straight Republican ticket. It took twenty to thirty minutes to explain to him that if he did this he would end up voting against his interests about half the time. I finally ended up getting a sign in his yard and probably got his vote, but I realized that every vote above my 5% was going to require a long conversation.

Nevertheless, if some votes came hard, some came surprisingly easy. I found that the people who knew me, people in my neighborhood and ward—most of them strong Republicans, enthusiastically supported me. If they knew me, they tended to support me, and my position on issues didn’t really seem to matter to these people. In fact, my home teacher and I had just engaged in a very lively debate about vouchers a few months before I announced I was running. He was solidly pro-vouchers and I was solidly anti-vouchers. Nevertheless, when I announced my candidacy, he was one of the first people in the neighborhood to request a sign and offer to help with the campaign. But I also found that some votes, even from people who agreed with my platform, were impossible to get. Some people who should have supported me ideologically but didn’t know me often would adamantly not support me. Several public school teachers and officials told me flat out that they could not support a Democrat. On election day, I got a phone call from a sister in my ward who reported “Today, I did something I have never done before: I voted for someone who was not a Republican!” She had voted for me, but still couldn’t say the “D-word.” My positions really didn’t matter to most people. It was about whether I had a relationship of trust with them. Was I one of them? It all came down to tribe.
Now that the election is over, I have been reading up on the subject of how voters make decisions, and I have found that the anomalies I encountered as a candidate can all be explained by current research on the brain. According to that research, positions don’t much matter in politics. It’s all about emotion. Emotions about party, candidates, and, finally, issues.

In study after study, researchers have found that it is not so much what voters think than it is about what voters feel. “In politics,” states Drew Westen, “when reason and emotion collide, emotion invariably wins” (35). Contrary to Enlightenment models of thought, emotion works hand in hand with reason. Summarizing the conclusions of cognitive and brain scientists, George Lakoff notes that idea that reason is “conscious, literal, logical, universal, unemotional, disembodied, and serves self-interest” is completely false (2). In fact, 98% of our thought takes place unconsciously and emotion and reason cannot be separated. It’s not so much that we are duped by emotion, but that emotion guides reason. Westen compares emotion to a “compass” that, in conjunction with reason, helps us to avoid adverse stimuli and seek out rewarding stimuli (88).

In sum, Westen states, “although the marketplace of ideas is a great place to shop for policies, what matters most in American politics is the marketplace of emotions” (35-36). And three sets of emotions, in this order, are primary in determining how people vote: their feelings toward the parties and the party’s principles, their feelings toward the candidates, and, if they haven't decided by then, their feelings toward the candidates’ policy positions. Voters get their feelings toward the parties largely by internalizing the values of their parents. “The single best predictor of party affiliation—and of broader value systems associated with it—is in fact the party affiliation of our parents” (Westen 82). So party loyalty is largely determined before one has really thought about the issues, despite what we might consciously want to believe. Most of us determine what tribe we belong to long before we know what that tribe stands for.

In a study I found particularly interesting, Drew Westen and several of his colleagues at Emory University did brain scans on fifteen committed Republicans and fifteen committed Democrats during the 2004 election. The psychologists discovered that when subjects saw images of their own party’s candidates, a part of the frontal lobe called the “frontal pole” was activated. It is an area that other studies have shown is particularly active when a subject thinks about something related to him- or herself. In short, the very sight of an image of our party’s candidate involuntarily activates brain synapses that foster identification with that candidate; whereas seeing images of the other party’s candidates activated areas of the brain where negative emotional reactions take place (52-53). We perceive candidates from our own party as “like us,” as part of our tribe. These responses are as involuntary as our breathing.

In another part of their study, Westen took brain scans as subjects read a series of statements attributed to the Republican and Democratic candidates, statements that any dispassionate observer would find conflicting. What Westen and his colleagues found is that people had no problem seeing the contradictions in the opposition’s candidate, but found their candidate’s position much less contradictory.

The brain scans showed that when confronted with the initial conflict in the person of their candidate, neural circuits associated with negative emotional states turned on, but as the individuals reasoned, falsely, toward a rationalization for their own candidate, neural circuits associated with positive emotions turned on. The partisan brain actually rewarded the individuals for biased reasoning. The circuits activated overlap significantly with those activated when a drug addict takes a hit, “giving new meaning,” as Westen puts it, “to the term political junkie” (xiv). Again a tribal instinct kicks in: our brains suppress conflicts with those who are part of our tribe.

I discovered when running a campaign that what voters really wanted to know was what tribe I belonged to. Was I one of them? My positions mattered very little. Voters were focused on their emotions about the political party I was affiliated with first and foremost. If they already knew and trusted me, their feelings toward me overshadowed their feelings about my party. But if they didn’t have any feelings for me, they focused on party and often voted, I believe, against their own interests.

So how did Mormon voters as a group come to have such positive feelings for the Republican party? How did Mormons come to see themselves as part of the Republican tribe? (My wife suggests it comes from Joseph’s Inspired Version translation of James 1:5: “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men conservatively….”)

Thomas Alexander has outlined five distinct periods of Church involvement in Utah politics. During the first period, spanning from 1847-1891, the church “essentially dominated the Utah scene” (36) with its own party, sponsoring candidates and opposing gentile political involvement. As the Church moved into the 20th century, it was forced to confront the dominant American culture head on. We can think of this as a process of assimilation, as Armand Mauss has called it; as a process of reconstructing memory, as Kathleen Flake has called it; or as a process of colonization of the Mormon mind, as Richard Bushman has called it; but we know that this process involved both accommodation of American values and a reinvention of what it means to be Mormon.

In order to achieve statehood, Mormon leaders disbanded the Mormon People’s Party, and urged members to become Republicans in order to achieve the political balance necessary for Utah to be granted statehood. Mormons were asked to switch their tribal loyalty from the Democrats (who had not had a party platform against the “twin evils of slavery and polygamy,” as the Republicans had), to the Republicans, in the name of political expediency. The administration of Heber J. Grant inaugurated a less partisan period of Church influence; however, Grant’s concerns about the New Deal and J. Reuben Clark’s increasing influence in the First Presidency led to a more partisan approach. From the late 1950s to the present, despite many individual Church leaders’ avowing Republican leanings, the Church as an institution has taken a more neutral part in political affairs, only entering the political fray, as Alexander put it, “to support or oppose measures they considered moral issues” (36). Significantly, this is the very period in which Utah Mormons became more closely allied with the Republican Party.

Looking back, it is hard to believe that Utah (and its predominately Mormon electorate) once voted enthusiastically for Democratic presidential candidates. From William Jennings Bryan, and Woodrow Wilson (second term), through all four terms of FDR (despite President Heber J. Grant’s advice to vote against him), to Truman and LBJ, Mormon Utah supported Democrats. Certainly, it also supported Republicans, but it was once considered a swing state, one that both parties courted and wooed. However, since 1964, every Republican presidential candidate has won Utah, and in all but two cases by over 60% of the vote. Utahns have not elected a Democrat to the Senate since Frank Moss left in 1977, nor to the governor’s mansion since Matheson left in 1985. The shift in Utah politics took place over the very period that Alexander says the Church leadership became less overtly and publicly partisan. It is curious that this tribal identification of Mormons with the GOP took place at a time when the Church leaders were less directly involved in politics.

Certainly the issues coming to the fore during the decades of the 50s through the 70s—communism, civil rights, welfare reform, abortion, the ERA—were galvanizing. Furthermore, the impact of Ezra Taft Benson’s outspoken conservatism during these years must also be considered. However, I believe there was another factor, one more subtle but more profound: Republican discourse frames began to overlap with the frames of Mormon discourse in subtle ways that remapped the Mormon mind.
Linguists have known since the mid-70s that the brain organizes words by semantic fields, or what Lakoff calls “conceptual frames” (22). We are mostly familiar with this concept in the idea of professional jargons. For example, for an actor, the words “play,” “direction,” “score,” and “run” have specific meanings in the semantic field of her profession. The exact same words used by an athlete, in the semantic field of sports competition, mean something else entirely, and the framing is what makes the difference.

Such frames, in turn, create conceptual metaphors that organize our thinking. We think metaphorically and, at the same time, metaphors shape how we think. Political issues, like everything else, are always framed, and political language is never neutral. Take, for example, the issue of immigration reform. If we use the phrase “illegal immigrant” we are already, by framing it with that adjective, making a judgment about the issue that is very different from the alternate frame available in the term “undocumented immigrant.” We are usually not aware that we are using such frames when we think about issues, but by talking about these issues in these ways, repeating the framing metaphors over and over again, our brains are changed.

George Lakoff argues that there are two primary frames that shape the way people think about political issues: both see governance through metaphors of the family. One is an obedience-oriented frame that Lakoff calls the “strict father” metaphor. It sees a family structure where “children” (i.e., the citizens) need to be disciplined by a strong “father” (i.e., the government) in order that they can be made into responsible “adults.” Once the “children” reach adulthood, however, the “father” should no longer interfere with their lives: the government should not interfere with the business of those in society who have proved their responsibility.

The other frame is an empathy-oriented approach that he calls the “nurturing parent” metaphor. This metaphor sees both “mothers” and “fathers” working to help the essentially good “children” develop and keeping them away from “corrupting influences” like pollution, social injustice, and poverty. Most people are what Lakoff calls “biconceptional,” employing both models in different spheres of their lives. But when one frame is activated, the other turns off. The difference between conservatives and progressives, Lakoff argues, stems from the fact that they subscribe with different strengths to one or the other of these orienting metaphors. Conservatives follow more closely the “strict father” metaphor and thus find themselves in the Republican tribe, while progressives follow the “nurturing parent” model and find themselves in the Democratic tribe. However, Republicans, both Lakoff and Westen concur, have been much better at crafting frames for their arguments, moving politics from the world of ideas to the world of emotion-laden values.

At the same time Republicans have been mastering the world of metaphorical framing, Mormons leaders have, likely unconsciously, employed metaphorical frames from the same network. For example, Gordon and Gary Shepherd have shown how the rhetoric of General Conference shifted between 1890 and 1950, as uniquely Mormon themes like Zion, kingdom-building, eschatology, missionary work, apostasy, etc. declined and more American themes like patriotism and good citizenship increased. Particularly important has been an increased emphasis, especially since the 1950s, on obedience, keeping the commandments, and the importance of obeying priesthood leaders. Academics like Richard Poll, Eugene England, and most recently Terryl Givens have noted the tension within Mormon thought between obedience and individuality, community and freedom, the “Iron Rod” and “Liahona” perspectives. However, within the general Mormon populace the emphasis has shifted so far toward “obedience” that most members don’t often perceive much tension.

For example, when I read to my High Priests Group the 1945 ward teaching message that “when our leaders speak, the thinking has been done,” all of them nodded in agreement, assuming the statement was gospel. When I told them that the statement had been repudiated by President George Albert Smith, they were astonished, but seemed, ironically, eager to follow their priesthood leader’s orders to stop blindly following orders. Combine this discourse of obedience with the patriarchal structure of Mormon hierarchy, and contemporary Mormon cultural framework maps astonishingly well onto Lakoff’s metaphor of the “strict father.” In fact, Lakoff even cites as an example of the strict father “politics of authority” a quote by President James E. Faust: “Obedience leads to true freedom. The more we obey revealed truth, the more we become liberated” (61).

Another significant shift in Mormon rhetoric has been noted by Armand Mauss in an essay published in the recent festschrift for Eugene England. Mauss sees a change in Mormon discourse from the analytical to the affective, from an emphasis on doctrine to an emphasis on feelings. He astutely observes that while speakers in Mormon chapels once “reached under the lectern in search of the books of scripture,” today they reach for that “dependable box of Kleenex tissues” (23). This change in discourse, Mauss argues, “symbolizes the triumph of feeling over understanding” in contemporary Mormonism. It is indicative of:

“a softer worship over a harder one; perhaps of an evangelical—or even Pentecostal—homiletic over an analytical style; of personalized adaptations of scripture over appreciation of historical context. It represents the triumph of the heart over the head in popular Latter-day Saint religious expression.” (24)

I certainly do not wish to characterize conservative thought as less intellectual or less rational, but many on both sides of the political divide have acknowledged that Republicans have done a better job of framing their agenda in emotional terms. Democrats have too often grounded their campaigns on Enlightenment theories of rationality, ignoring the ways emotion and reason work together in the decision making process. So the Church’s move toward more emotive discourse would also help solidify an unconscious tribal connection between Republicanism and Mormonism.

Many Mormon Democrats share with me a sense of frustration that we are not fully accepted within Mormon culture, that our tribe has been voted off the island. We believe, as we must seeing the world as we do through our framing metaphors, that what we see as our core moral values—caring for the poor, providing strong education, protecting the environment—are fully compatible, in fact, central to Mormonism. Yet many of our fellow Church members see us as apostates. For example, in Tuesday’s Deseret News, an op-ed written by an adjunct history professor at Weber State cried out for tolerance among Mormon congregations for differences of ideology, stating that Mormon Democrats “have faced increasingly vicious verbal attacks in [our] wards and in [our] neighborhoods.” Many of the comments from readers of the online version of the article drove her point home with unconsciously and self-righteously vicious irony. They compare progressive ideology to “Satan’s plan,” state that tolerating Democrats’ views would necessarily “dilute the true doctrines of the Church,” and call the author of the column “morally week,” “unstable,” and “a nutcase.” Utah Mormons still ask the question, “Can a good Mormon be a Democrat?” But no one is asking “Can a good Mormon be a Republican?” despite the fact that many of us see, as we cannot help but see, through our progressive Mormon frame, serious problems reconciling some of the values of the Republican party with Mormon values. At times we progressive Mormons feel like we are not just a different tribe, but like we are living on a different planet from politically conservative Mormons, and I’m sure that conservative Mormons can only look upon progressive Mormons with disbelief. While we may not be living on separate planets, we are seeing our world through different frames and that gap that divides us into separate tribes can seem unfathomable.

This gulf between the tribes is not healthy for Mormon religious devotion. I have personally known many students who have left the Church because they have felt excluded or ridiculed for their progressive beliefs. However, I believe, one-party dominance is a problem for the Church itself. As others have noted, nationally both parties tend to ignore the Mormon vote; Republicans know they have it in the bag and Democrats know they don’t have a chance. Candidates for national office don’t bother with Utah. But one-party rule also leads to ethical lapses. When I lived in Washington, DC, I experienced first-hand the problem with single-party Democratic party rule, and I believe similar problems plague Utah. The problem also affects the image of the Church as we become a world religion. It becomes difficult to bridge cultural divides when we have a dominant “strict father” political frame and Mormonism is so closely tied to the Republican agenda. However, the bigger problem can result when our culture’s “strict father” obedience frame overwhelms and even denigrates the “nurturant parent” frame. I reported elsewhere how the Church received some extremely unfavorable media attention these past few years as it was revealed that Mormons had been involved in creating, implementing, and defending interrogation techniques that many felt crossed the line into torture. This was not just a crisis of bad publicity; it took a human toll. The press also reported how one Mormon Army interrogator committed suicide after she was forced to implement these techniques. The “strict father” model certainly is a valid frame from which to view the world, but without the mitigating influence of the “nurturing parent” model, it can lead to abuses.

So how might progressives create a space within Mormon culture for their tribe? The answer is to do exactly what conservative Mormons have done: employ frames both within political discourse and within Church discourse that remap the brain. Mormon theology fully supports an empathy-based frame, perhaps more so than any other Christian denomination. Mormons believe in a Heavenly Mother as well as a Heavenly Father, who are literal parents of each of us. We believe in serving each other and the community. We believe in building communities where people live with one heart, one mind, dwell in righteousness, and eliminate poverty among us—and not just by building gated communities in which the poor are unwelcome. We believe in an earth that is created spiritually, and we can understand environmental responsibility as an act of stewardship. And in a moving example of a completely nurturant parent, Mormon scripture tells us that God himself looks down from heaven and weeps for his suffering children. In short, Mormon theology supports a metaphorical frame of empathy.

Finally, I believe that as both sides come to understand the workings of language and the mind, we will be able to foster more tolerance. As we discover that each individual’s moral vision is necessarily framed by an organizing primary metaphor, one that necessarily shuts off competing frames, we can better relate to one another. . We will, we can hope, stop assuming that political difference is simply a matter of sinfulness, insanity or not having all the facts. To paraphrase the Apostle Paul, “For now we see through a frame darkly.” We must remember that each of us has a point of view. “I have a point of view,” says Madeline L’Engle, “you have a point of view—God has view.”

Works Cited

Alexander, Thomas G. Mormonism in Transition: A History of the Latter-day Saints, i890-1930. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 1986.

Bushman, Richard Lyman. “The Colonization of the Mormon Mind.” Annual Meeting of the Association for Mormon Letters (2000): 14-23.

Flake, Kathleen. “Re-placing Memory: Latter-day Saint Use of Historical Monuments and Narrative in the Early Twentieth Century.” Religion and American Culture 13 (2003): 69-109.

Gottlieb, Robert, and Peter Wiley. America’s Saints: The Rise of Mormon Power. New York: Putnam, 1984.

Heinerman, John, and Anson Shupe. The Mormon Corporate Empire. Boston: Beacon, 1985.

Lakoff, George. The Political Mind: Why You Can’t Understand 21st-Century American Politics with an 18th-Century Brain. New York: Viking, 2008.

L’Engle, Madeline. Walking on Water: Reflections on Faith and Art. New York: Shaw, 1980.

Mauss, Armand L. “Assimilation and Ambivalence: The Mormon Reaction to Americanization.” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 22.1 (1989): 30-67.

---. “Feelings, Faith, and Folkways.” “Proving Contraries”: A Collection of Writings in Honor of Eugene England. Ed. Robert A. Rees. Salt Lake: Signature, 2005.

Ostling, Richard N., and Joan K. Ostling. Mormon America: The Power and the Promise. New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999.

Prince, Gregory A., and William Robert Wright. David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism. Salt Lake: U of Utah P, 2005.

Quinn, D. Michael. Elder Statesman: A Biography of J. Reuben Clark. Salt Lake: Signature, 2005.

---. The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power. Salt Lake: Signature, 1997.
Shepherd, Gordon, and Gary Shepherd. A Kingdom Transformed: Themes in the Development of Mormonism. Salt Lake: U of Utah P, 1984.

Westen, Drew. The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation. New York: Public Affairs, 2007.

*Editor’s Note: Learn more about why Boyd is a Mormon Democrat here.

Dominion - by Delina Macmichael

2009-09-09T03:09:00.000-07:00

“And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” (Genesis 1:28)

As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I have often found myself frustrated at the apparent disregard with which many members of our church treat the world we’ve been entrusted with. The general attitude seems to be twofold: “I am too busy being about the Lord’s work to be inconvenienced with caring for the earth.” Or, “Why should I spend my time on that? When the Saviour comes again, He’ll fix everything. There’s simply no point.”

Indeed, many of us are so consumed with keeping the Ten Commandments, keeping our end of the covenants we’ve made, and trying to exemplify Jesus Christ in everything we do that we neglect to remember the first charge ever given to man after his creation. In the Garden of Eden, Adam was given “dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” (Genesis 1:26, emphasis added.)

Let’s examine the word “dominion” for a brief moment. Those among us who hold the priesthood are no doubt familiar with the phrase “unrighteous dominion.” We are cautioned to exercise the priesthood with righteousness and love, with gentleness and caring. We are charged with providing a righteous dominion over our families. Unrighteous dominion includes emotional, physical, or sexual abuse, or neglect of our family’s basic needs. If God has also given all men dominion over the earth, should we not exercise a righteous dominion? “There is a forgotten teaching of the early Jews and Christians that the dominion that God gave to Adam in Eden over His other creatures was nothing less than the holy priesthood, the power to act in God’s stead.” (Hugh Nibley, To the Glory of God pg. 21)
My objective in writing this article is not to point out the same ten little things we’ve heard countless times that we can do to change our ecological footprint. Fixing the problems we’ve created will require more than a mere band-aid. We are now past the point where reusing our plastic bags and water bottles, and doing nothing else, will make a real difference. Rather, a shift in our attitudes is necessary in order to take the great leap from a dying world to a living, breathing world, a world of hope. My goal with this article is to outline the various duties that we have as members of this church, in possession of the whole gospel of Jesus Christ, to take care of the earth on which we stand and rely on for everything that we have.

Our first duty, as mentioned in the Doctrine and Covenants, is to “seek ye diligently, and teach one another words of wisdom, yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.” (D&C 88:118) In this scripture we are advised not to stay in a state of ignorance, but to continually learn and grow, to expand our knowledge. The first thing we must do as Latter-day Saints is to reject ignorance and look for knowledge. In this age of technology, knowledge is so easy to obtain. The internet and various other forms of media can assist us in our research. We must consecrate some of our time and energy to learning about global issues, and discovering actions we can take in order to preserve nature. To quote Joseph F. Smith, “Nature helps us to see and understand God . . . Love of nature is akin to the love of God; the two are inseparable.”

We have been told throughout our lives to have faith. Faith is an admirable quality that one possesses. Yet, is it enough alone to have faith? As mentioned earlier, many members of our church feel that it is a waste of time to care for the earth; they have faith that Jesus Christ will return and “the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.” (Articles of Faith, verse 10) Having faith is good, but as members of this church we know and understand that “faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.” (The Epistle of James 2:17) Therefore, our second duty to the earth we’ve been given is to act.

Our third duty is to leave future generations with a world worthy of their presence. Too many of the earth’s inhabitants are concerned only with the immediate consequences of their actions. But what of the long-term? To say that “now” is the only thing that matters is probably the most selfish attitude one can possess. “We owe something to future generations and those that declare ‘plenty more where that came from’ are recklessly indifferent to the gravest responsibilities… The Latter-day Saints ought not to be governed by purely selfish motives in the use of their landed inheritances… It is a duty which we owe to ourselves and to those who have the right to rely upon us to give this matter our earnest consideration.” (Joseph F. Smith, The Juvenile Instructor, 38:466-467, Aug. 1, 1903) President Ezra Taft Benson has declared that “we are morally obligated to turn this land over to those who succeed us – not drained of its fertility, but improved in quality, in productivity, and in usefulness for future generations.” (The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, pg. 645)

If we are to shun ignorance and seek wisdom, if we are to act and not just believe, and if we are to leave our children with a clean and beautiful world, we must be willing to perform the fourth duty, which is to be adaptable and willing to succumb to the prospect of change.

Change is so hard for so many. We grow comfortable in our little ruts and hate the idea of leaving them. As human beings we are creatures of habit, and to abandon our traditions and rituals is one of the most difficult things we could ever do. It is no small task to change the way we dress or what kinds of furniture we buy, what foods we eat, the way we speak, our methods of transportation, the way we dispose of refuse and trash, or how we spend our time, money and energy. When I think of the word “change” I think of humility, the willingness to admit that we are not perfect, and to be teachable. The two terms go hand-in-hand. We have been commanded to be humble, and therefore, have been commanded to change.

“Let him that is ignorant learn wisdom by humbling himself and calling upon the Lord his God, that his eyes may be opened that he may see, and his ears opened that he may hear.” (D&C 136:32) If we reject ignorance, seek wisdom, and stumble across the truth, our minds will fill with knowledge and we will be compelled to humble ourselves, to change our lives and improve the world we live in.
We are all aware that the world is in a state of ecological peril, but do we know why? Do we know what actions have led us to this point, and what we can do to stop it, to reverse the damage we’ve done? The simple answer is this: Do some research, take action, and as your knowledge changes, you need to be willing to change yourself.

Mormon Scientist: The Life and Faith of Henry Eyring by Henry J. Eyring, A Synopsis and Review - by Lewis Steven Campbell

2009-09-09T02:56:00.000-07:00

I remember listening to Elder Henry B. Eyring during General Conference years ago. During the talk he spoke of how his father, a career scientist, showed him through example that there is no conflict between science and religion. I remember being overwhelmed on that day with the feeling that this man, despite his status as the most junior apostle at that time, would one day be President of the Church.

Now, of course, President Eyring is First Councilor to the President. Long since the day I heard him speak I have wanted to find out more about the father whom he alluded to. So when Mormon Scientist was published, I hastened to get myself a copy.

Mormon Scientist is about, as the subtitle says, the life and faith of Henry Eyring, President Eyring’s father. It’s not a typical biography; it doesn’t cover his life from beginning to end in chronological order.

On one level, Mormon Scientist is about the issue of science and faith, and whether they conflict or mesh an issue that was at the core of Brother Eyring’s life. But Mormon Scientist on a deeper level is about the life of a progressive Latter-day Saint. In many ways, Henry Eyring was a pioneer who, in his day, chose a very spiritually progressive path, but a path that clashed with the general mood and consensus of the majority of people in the Church. The wonderful thing about his story, however, is that it shows that such a man - a man who even tangled with one of the apostles of the Church – could still remain solidly faithful.

The key was that Henry Eyring stood firm on what he knew to be the truth, but did so with such grace and with such a foundation of pure and absolute strong faith, that not only did he avoid repercussions from the brethren of the church, but in fact enjoyed their wholehearted support. To me, that is a testimony that the Church really is true and that the Brethren that lead the church really do put aside their own personal feelings and their own personal opinions of these things, and really do follow the voice of God.

Of course, Henry’s most famous progressive stance was on the issue of organic evolution. But, as the book exposes, he had some very interesting views on other things as well, from the appropriateness of sharing the more unflattering aspects of Joseph Smith’s life to dangers of an overly literal interpretation of scripture. We’ll cover some of these in this synopsis.

Organic Evolution

Being a scientist in the middle part of the 1900s, Henry was naturally asked very often about evolution, both from people who supported evolution as a science and wanted to pressure him into arguing against religion, and people who wanted him to argue against evolution. The interesting thing about Henry Eyring was that he could do neither. He knew deeply in his heard that the Church was true yet he also believed that evolution offered the best scientific explanation of the origin of man and he didn’t see that as a conflict.

He once said, when replying to a letter:

“We are not told who Adam's father was. To me the important thing is that Adam is the spirit child of God. He came into this world when he received a mortal body. The Fall consisted of becoming subject to death, and everyone born into the world is subject to death and so partakes of this fallen state with Adam. Finally, through the atonement we will all receive a resurrected body.”

“Whether Adam's father lived on this earth or somewhere else would seem of secondary importance to me. Adam was the one whom God recognized as presiding over the first dispensation and as such, with Eve his wife, became our first parents. …if God did or did not use organic evolution to prepare the bodies to house his spirit children I remain unconcerned. I think the scientific evidence on organic evolution like anything else should stand or fall on its merits. Being trained as a geologist it answers many otherwise difficult problems for me, and I find no conflict with it and the gospel.”

The book also contains an interesting quote from someone surprising to me – President Brigham Young:

“…our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular. You may take geology, for instance, and it is a true science; not that I would say for a moment that all the conclusions and deductions of its professors are true, but its leading principles are; they are facts-they are eternal; and to assert that the Lord made this earth out of nothing is preposterous and impossible. God never made something out of nothing; it is not in the economy or law by which the worlds were, are, or will exist. There is an eternity before us, and it is full of matter; and if we but understand enough of the Lord and his ways, we would say that he took of this matter and organized this earth from it. How long it has been organized it is not for me to say, and I do not care anything about it. As for the Bible account of the creation we may say that the Lord gave it to Moses, or rather Moses obtained the history and traditions of the fathers, and from these picked out what he considered necessary, and that account has been handed down from age to age, and we have got it, no matter whether it is correct or not, and whether the Lord found the earth empty and void, whether he made it out of nothing or out of the rude elements; or whether he made it in six days or in as many millions of years, is and will remain a matter of speculation in the minds of men unless he give revelation on the subject. If we understood the process of creation there would be no mystery about it, it would be all reasonable and plain, for there is no mystery except to the ignorant.”

Henry’s life was based on this idea of chasing after the truth; that the church is ultimately interested in the truth, and because of that there is no conflict between science and religion. Henry’s attitude about truth started when he was a young man, when his father told him:

“…in this church you don’t have to believe anything that isn’t true. You go over to the University of Arizona and learn everything you can, and whatever is true is part of the gospel. The Lord is actually running this universe. … If you go to the university and are not profane, if you live in such a way that you’ll feel comfortable in the company of good people, and if you go to church and do the other things we’ve always done, I don’t worry about your getting away from the Lord.”

According to Henry himself, that was the jumping point that launched him on his lifelong quest and belief in the truth.

Exemplifying this, Henry once said “We learned from the Prophet Joseph Smith that man lived before he was born; that life is a school where man is sent to learn the things the Lord intends; and that he continues on into life after death. Death is not the end; it is but one more step in a great forward march made possible by the redemption wrought by the Savior. This is the spirit of true science— constant and eternal seeking.” When he talked about the church he said:

“I am happy to represent a people who throughout their history have encouraged learning and scholarship in all fields of honorable endeavor, a people who have among their scriptural teachings such lofty concepts as these: ’The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth.’ ’A man cannot be saved in ignorance.’ ’Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection.’”

He also said:

“I am now going to venture to say that science has rendered a service to religion. The scientific spirit is a spirit of inquiry, a spirit of reaching out for truth. In the final analysis, this spirit is likewise of the essence of religion. The Savior said: ‘Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.’ The scientist has in effect reaffirmed this great fundamental laid down by the Master, and in doing so has given a new impetus to religion.”

Henry Eyring was expected and asked by the Brethren of the church multiple times to serve as the spokesman for the church on matters of science and religion. At one time, Brother Eyring was asked to respond to a supposedly Biblically-based chronology dating the Earth at about 4000 years old. Brother Eyring said this:

“Accurate dating of events by radioactive elements decaying in the rocks and in textile fibers and elsewhere makes possible an accuracy in chronology which was undreamed of a generation ago. In effect, clocks are set going whenever these materials are laid down. These clocks can often be read with great accuracy. Such data, with many kinds of cross- checks, leads to an antiquity for life on this earth of at least some six hundred million years and an age of the Earth of upwards of two billion years. These conclusions are well known and will surprise no one.”

Because he had these beliefs and opinions, it is a mistake to believe that he thought that evolution was definitely the truth. What he believed was that we have the right to pursue science and find truth in all its forms. What he believed was that the gospel is about finding truth. What he believed was that it was wrong to discount something that seemed to be a strong argument for many of the things discovered in science.

But when people tried to nail him down to actually saying that Adam was created through evolution or something similar, he wouldn’t go there. It was like trying to nail Jell-O to a tree.

One his friends once wrote, “When I was in Salt Lake one time, I was discussing some problems of early man with you in your office. I then asked ‘how do you believe it was?’ You replied, ‘I believe whichever way it turns out to have actually been.’”

He saw the God as being a pure intelligence that understood everything. And he saw our intelligence and our abilities as miniscule in comparison. We don’t know everything yet, and God does, so how can we be so arrogant as to assume that what we know is right, when we don’t know the full scope? He believed that all these truths would eventually be revealed to us at some point if we are faithful.

Literal Truth of the Scriptures

Henry always argued for a synthesis between science and religion, and didn’t understand people who couldn’t do that. It led him to a belief in scripture that was definitely more metaphorical than literal. But, as with everything else, he struck a balance:

“To be understood, the Lord must reveal Himself in a language His Children can understand. Of necessity, many things not necessary for their immediate progress are omitted, to be revealed later, and to be discovered by man’s own enterprise. There are some people who throw away the scriptures and restrict themselves to science and related fields. Others use the scriptures to the exclusion of other truth. Both are wrong. Latter-day Saints should seek after truth by all avenues with earnest humility. There is, of course, no conflict in the gospel since it embraces all truth. Undoubtedly, however, science is continually challenging us to think through again our conceptions of the gospel. This should work both ways, of course.”

One of the most well known things about Henry Eyring was his perceived conflict with Elder Joseph Fielding Smith. In 1954 Elder Smith published a book called Man, His Origin and Destiny. This was a direct challenge to Charles Darwin’s book of a similar name. In the book, Elder Smith reiterated the position that scripture should be read literally as it pertained to the creation. Henry didn’t exactly agree with this, but he was a faithful member of the church and believed in kindness, mutual respect, and the value of coming to consensus.

In one exchange with Elder Smith, he said:

“I am convinced that if the Lord required that His children understand His works before they could be saved that no one would be saved. It seems to me that to struggle for agreement on scientific matters in view of the disparity in background which the members of the Church have is to put emphasis on the wrong place. In my judgment there is room in the Church for people who think that the periods of creation were (a) 24 hours, (b) 1000 years, or (c) millions of years. I think it is fine to discuss these questions and for each individual to try to convert the other to what he thinks is right, but in matters where apparently equally reliable authorities disagree, I prefer to make haste slowly.”

Now I’d like to pause for a minute and think about that quote in relation to current conflicts; in relation to political disagreements, in relation to some of the questions we discuss today about politics and religion, about the left and the right and the in between in relation to the church. If this wasn’t evolution we were talking about, if we substituted some words, for instance: “I’m convinced that if the Lord required that his children be [liberal or conservative] before they could be saved, no one would be saved. It seems to me that to struggle for agreement on [political] matters in view of the disparity in background which the members of the Church have is to put emphasis on the wrong place. In my judgment there is room in the Church for people who think that the [Lord guides us towards equanimity in economics as well as people who emphasize the concept of individual responsibility.] I think it is fine to discuss these questions and for each individual to try to convert the other to what he thinks is right, but in matters where apparently equally reliable authorities disagree, I prefer to make haste slowly.” (Words in brackets are mine.)

Now, to be sure, I don’t want to insert words into Brother Eyring’s mouth. It’s clear from the record that, politically, he was a product of the Cold War era – he passionately opposed communism and everything associated with it, and was most likely of a flavor that we would call conservative today. But his stance on science and religion makes him at the very least a distant cousin, philosophically, to those of us in the small but growing minority of faithful LDS people who do not agree with the current politically conservative LDS majority.

Humanity of Leaders

In another example of kinship with many modern LDS progressives, Henry Eyring says some refreshing things about the practice of emphasizing the positive and negative traits of Church leaders:

“I like a little bit of a mess, and I am glad when one of the brethren says something that I think is a little bit foolish, because I think if the Lord can stand him, maybe He can stand me. So that’s it, and I think that maybe there’s a certain stumbling block that some of us have: we expect other people to be a kind of perfection that we don’t even attempt to approach ourselves. We expect the Lord to just open and shut their mouths, but He doesn’t do that – they are human beings; but they’re wonderful, and they do better than they would if it weren’t for the Lord helping them. … So that’s my answer to this remark – somebody says that a student is down here at BYU and he’s a member of the Church, but he’s a mess. And I say, ‘Yes, I agree. But you ought to see what the fellow would be like if it weren’t for the Church.‘ And that’s what the gospel does. It takes all of us with our faults and makes us better.”

Interesting, isn’t it? But what is more interesting is that his son, President Eyring, First Counselor in the Church, appears to share his views. This quote is from a half-hour BYU documentary about Mormon Scientist (with the same title):

“Dad had the most interesting view of the prophet Joseph. You could bring – and I’m thinking of it – when you read the journals – I mean, what a tumultuous life , I mean, just incredible and most folks would want to just dress it up and – you know – because that wouldn’t be ‘faith promoting.’ Dad loved it when people would talk about the humanity of Joseph. He said it just makes me feel so terrific to know the Lord could do what he did through a person that wasn’t perfect. It gives me hope.”

What’s really interesting when you watch the interview is the disdain in President Eyring’s voice when he talks about how some people believe sharing the unflattering points of the Prophet’s life would not be “faith promoting.” It give me hope that we might just see a reversal in recent trends to “clean up” Church materials and other facets of Church life as President Eyring becomes more and more of an influence in the Church.

Intellectual Honesty

Something particularly admirable was Henry Eyring’s recognition that people who feign intellectual prowess with poor arguments or with a background that’s not complete enough to put together a good argument actually do a disservice to the thing they are trying to defend – even if that thing is the true Church.

“There are few ways in which good people do more harm to those who take them seriously than to defend the gospel with arguments that won't hold water,” he says. “Many of the difficulties encountered by young people going to college would be avoided if parents and teachers were more careful to distinguish between what they know to be true and what they think may be true. Impetuous youth, upon finding the authority it trusts crumbling, even on unimportant details, is apt to lump everything together and throw the baby out with the bath.”

The quote is certainly applicable today. I am heartened by President Eyring’s apparent agreement with his father on such matters. Like his father, he appears to be a man who absolutely does believe that the truth shall set you free and isn’t afraid to put that in front of people and have them make their own decisions. And I think that’s what his father says in this quote, that that’s what we have to do, that we have to not be afraid of the truth, and we have to not be afraid to grasp it.

Another thing that Henry Eyring does in here that’s so beautiful to me is that he explains with such clarity and such good examples why it is important to embrace the truth. And he does that by using scientific history as a backdrop and a context:

“With each new discovery, the skeptic finds less need for God, while the devout Latter-day Saint sees in it one more evidence of His overruling hand. It was ever so. The Bible speaks of the four corners of the earth. In the time of Columbus, there were those who thought a flat earth was a religious necessity. When it turned out to be round, Christ’s teachings were found to be just as consistent with the new view as with the old. Later, when Galileo verified the theories of Copernicus and said the earth moved about the sun and so could no longer be considered the center of creation, there were bigots ready to burn him at the stake. When the smoke of battle cleared away and men looked at matters calmly, it became apparent that nothing essential had been lost. A lot of human philosophy disappeared, but it turned out to be unnecessary.”

A Complete Life

There are many other things this book covers that are interesting about this man that can’t be covered in detail here. He was the son of a polygamist father, a man who was married to two women who both happened to be sisters. In fact, Henry was known to have said that it took him “until the age of sixteen to realize that a man is not well advised to marry two sisters.” He was an acquaintance of Albert Einstein, whom he spoke to on several occasions about the Church (although, to Henry’s discouragement, Mr. Einstein never gained an interest). He started a crazy tradition of running annual footraces with his graduate students at the University of Utah, footraces that eventually culminated with national news coverage by none other than Charles Kuralt, who astutely observed, “Everyone’s here to watch Henry Eyring – the favorite. Not the favorite to win, just the favorite.”

Perhaps it would be fitting to end this synopsis with the scripture on the back of the dust jacket and the book itself:

“Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection. And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come.” (D&C 130:18-19)

That, more than anything, is a brilliant summary of the life of this great man.

A Screwtape Letter On Mormon Politics - by John Matos

2009-09-09T02:43:00.000-07:00

Dear Wormwood,

After so many years of moving the Church to the right of the political spectrum, Church members are beginning to discover the distinctly left of center teachings, history, and scriptures of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. What are we conservatives to do? Some may point to influential right-wing leaders among the LDS community like Mitt Romney, Orrin Hatch, or even to our hero of the far-right, Glenn Beck, and say “The Church is firmly conservative and will remain so, so why worry?” To this I can only respond, “Open your eyes!” Mormons are beginning, little by little, to realize their own radical history, their own history of egalitarianism, their past leader’s exhortations for economic equality, and worst of all, the revealed scriptures that warn against materialism, individualism, war, and inequality. Why, in just a few short years, such groups as the LDS Left have seen their numbers grow and grow, even establishing a quarterly newsletter disseminating this information to those who may have gone so long unaware of it!

Now that I have hopefully scared conservatives into realizing the precarious condition our ideology is facing among the LDS population, let me reassure you that we have ways of preventing further enlightenment concerning LDS radical history, teachings and revelations. I would like to propose some solutions that will once and for all rid us of the pesky problem of a growing left leaning membership and firmly establish the wavering right-wing, conservative, and reactionary elements of LDS culture.
First we must consider what the dangers are that right-wing ideology faces among LDS membership. We must identify them so that we may confront them and eliminate them, beginning with the least dangerous and working our way to the most dangerous. The tricky part is that attacking them directly may bring attention to them. After decades of explaining away, dismissing, and then ignoring these elements of Mormonism, we have created a climate in which most members are not even aware of their own liberal and leftist roots. The challenge we face is preventing the rollback of this absence of self-awareness while making absolutely sure that in the process we do not reveal them to others who remain in blissful ignorance.

The least dangerous to our dominance in LDS political life is LDS history. This isn’t because LDS history is free of liberal, leftist and radical moments however. To the contrary, early LDS history is chuck full of such moments. Joseph Smith himself ran for President of the United States with a platform that included such liberal elements as peace through diplomatic efforts rather than war, prison reform and the elimination of the death penalty in all but the most extreme cases. Even worse, his platform included the establishment of a national bank.(1) As you may be realizing, how could we call prison reform “weak on crime” and denounce the nationalizing of the banking system as “Communist” or “socialist” without simultaneously slapping the founder of the LDS Church with the same labels? Now you see the danger, but do not fear. Over the years, we have dismissed these aspects of Joseph Smith’s ideology by simply not mentioning it, and over time the result has been that few people even know where to find this information.

Another example of successfully hidden history is the story of Nauvoo. Many LDS conservatives have been successful in not only covering up the liberal aspects of the city of Nauvoo, but have emphasized the market economy aspect of that period in LDS history so much, that many believe Nauvoo to be the prime example of LDS capitalism. Little do they know that large tracts of land were set aside by the city of Nauvoo and collectivized. The poor and the needy were then able to tend these large tracts of land to support themselves and their families.(2) To us, this smacks too much of land reform, one of the key features of socialism… found in LDS history no less! What is even more sickening is that it was successful! How disgusting to think of the poor and needy being allowed the dignity and opportunity to work and use land that should have been the private property of a more deserving capitalist!

The same is true of other aspects of LDS history. For instance, many have heard about the Law of Consecration, but what they know is so mixed up with conservative culture that they completely misunderstand it. Why, ask almost any member of the Church about it and you will often get the response that God himself withdrew the commandment, wisely replacing it with the Law of Tithing instead. It almost makes you laugh, such nonsense, but hold your laughter if you can, you do not want to inadvertently reveal that this is false. Of course, we know that the commandment still stands, and that blessings will be (and are being) withheld for not adhering to it. But who needs blessings when you are rich and powerful? With our right-wing agenda in full swing, we can create our own blessings and everyone else can fend for themselves.

We also know that even after the Church failed to live up to the Law of Consecration, the Church attempted other steps towards a more egalitarian society. Funny thing is that this also has become very convoluted as generations have passed. In fact, most members think that the Law of Consecration, the United Order and the LDS cooperative movement are all one and the same, not even aware that they were not attempts at the Law of Consecration, but were attempts to establish communities based on economic equality rather than individualism and competition. For the most part, members are unaware that each one was in reality a separate attempt to establish economic equality and to form an alternative to the capitalism that LDS leaders saw developing in the eastern United States and were warning the members against.(3) By letting them believe that all three attempts are the same thing however, and with the idea firmly established in LDS culture that the Law of Consecration is something that has been given up on until the millennium, Saints are left believing they have no responsibility to look for more egalitarian social systems.

As I have said, these aspects of LDS history have become so obscure that there is little danger of them becoming widely known and therefore influential on a large number of LDS members. However, we must not let our guard down. We must continue to pretend these moments never existed, and if we must discuss those periods in LDS history, we must continue to emphasize the spirituality of the early Saints, the persecution they faced, etc. and completely ignore the very temporal efforts and teachings of that time that motivated them in their spirituality and often was the cause of that persecution. While on the subject of persecution, I should also add that we must always keep the pressure on left leaning members of the Church. This is easily accomplished by perpetuating the stigma that has arisen in LDS culture that anything liberal, and especially anything socialistic, is “Satan’s plan”. All it takes is for members to feel that they cannot possibly be “real” or “true” Mormons unless their political views are conservative and right-wing. It probably would help to even make it seem that even centrist opinions are “out of line” with the Church.

Another, more dangerous aspect of Mormonism that threatens right-wing ideology among the membership is the teachings of past LDS leaders. These too have been suppressed and therefore have become more and more obscure, but because the Saints have a tendency to take an interest in their Prophets and Apostles, it is a more serious concern for us. As we speak, members have been discovering a document that has been forgotten for over a century but which has found it’s way to the internet. It matters not that it has been erroneously called the “Proclamation On The Economy”, for the quotes are real quotes. Even more frightening, the endorsement from the entire First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, including such names as Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, John Taylor, Lorenzo Snow, George Q. Cannon and George A. Smith, is very real. This document conveys such dangerous and radical messages as the following:

“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.”(4)

It goes on even further to inform the Saints that American liberties are in danger due to the power that wealth gives to individuals and corporations who accumulate it.

Now, obviously, it becomes very difficult to convince Saints who have read such words that redistribution of wealth, and preventing the amassing of enormous fortunes in private hands is “socialist” and contrary to God’s will. For the more studious and curious among the LDS population, it is not hard to find other such dangerous talk. Take the following:

“To serve the classes that are living on them, the poor, laboring men and women are toiling, working their lives out to earn that which will keep a little life within them. Is this equality? No! What is going to be done? The Latter-day Saints will never accomplish their mission until this inequality shall cease on the earth.”(5)

That one was Brigham Young, sometimes referred to as the American Moses. Just think of the danger of members discovering that this revered and respected leader despised inequality so! Here is another from Apostle Orson Pratt:

"An inequality of property is the root and foundation of innumerable evils; it tends to derision, and to keep asunder the social feelings that should exist among the people of God…It is inequality in riches that is a great curse."

Once again, I advise that those of us that wish to maintain our hold on the LDS community as a reliable source of right-wing support be aware. We must be vigilant and do all we can to prevent the discovery of these teachings. If members do discover the large amount of teachings regarding economic equality, I advise flooding them with early Ezra Taft Benson talks. Since he was a Prophet fairly recently, his name carries much weight, and with it, so do his personal political views. Be careful, however, and do not let on that his Church leaders often chastised him for giving such talks. It also helps to refer to these talks, given before Benson was President of the Church, as being talks given by “the Prophet” or “a Prophet of God” even though this is not really accurate, as the prophetic mantle had not been passed to Benson yet.

Now I must come to the most dangerous challenge to right-wing ideology among Mormons. That is, the scriptures themselves. I know that this seems strange, considering that we often pick through the scriptures to denounce this or that, or to make it appear God is a partisan and takes our side on every issue, but let me hammer this one in…The scriptures are DANGEROUS! Oh sure, we can refer to the Old Testament and find passages to support militarism, war, territorial expansion, capital punishment, even slavery and exploitation, but don’t be fooled! A deeper reading and understanding of even the Old Testament will guide one to many dangerous ideas. For example, early on we find Joseph being praised for increasing taxes to prevent suffering among the Egyptians.(6) Taxes used as a way to help the general population of a nation? Of course, we know that taxes should only be used to subsidize the rich, and that the working classes should be the ones burdened by taxes - not the wealthy, who deserve to be privileged. In the Old Testament, we also read of the world being flooded to rid it of its violent inhabitants.(7) As you must see, it becomes difficult for us to advocate war, the most violent interaction between men, if people realize God is so opposed to violence. We read of Moses’ establishment of worker safety laws in the famous Mosaic Law.(8) We even read of God, through Moses, commanding the Israelites to allow the poor to glean the fields rather than sucking out every profit possible from a harvest, which would be appropriate, as any capitalist realizes.(9)

Even prized scriptures for us conservatives, such as the story of Sodom and Gomorrah - which we use to denounce homosexuality - is in jeopardy if one were to read on in the Old Testament. Several books into the Old Testament, in a book called Ezekiel, the Prophet Ezekiel informs us that Sodom was destroyed because it lived in abundance but chose luxury and idleness, refusing to help the poor and the needy with their wealth.(10) Because of such a passage, many Saints have come to think that perhaps the intended rape of God’s servants that we previously read about in the story of Sodom’s destruction was more about violence than sexuality.(11) From this they may even come to believe that God loves all His children… even the gay ones! Now that is a dangerous idea that challenges our position if I’ve ever heard one! They may even come to believe that perhaps God does not require the brutal destruction of homosexuals, but rather the destruction of those that increase the suffering of his less fortunate children. Dangerous ideas I tell you, and they must be prevented!

If we were to go on into the New Testament, we discover Christ to be a peaceful man, averse to violence, loving all God’s children, even denouncing businessmen just using the free-market principles of supply and demand to earn money in the temple.(12) We read of Him teaching that it is difficult for the wealthy to enter heaven - even more difficult than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle.(13) We find him teaching a young man to give all his possessions to the poor,(14) but worst of all… we find him providing free healthcare while he travels!(15) Oh the horror!

If one were to read on further in the New Testament, they would come across the accounts of the early Christians living a communal life, sharing their wealth no less!(16) We even find Paul advising the Saints to withdraw from those that would have us believe that earning more and more wealth is godly. Not only does he teach this (which stabs right into the heart of our conservative way of thinking) but he even goes on to teach that money is the root of all evil!(17) This man, holding such an important position as Apostle of the Lord, teaches such heresies as economic equality, claiming that the abundance of the wealthy should be used to supply the wants of the poor.(18)

The most dangerous of all, however, is latter-day scripture. Today, many Saints are oblivious to the economic nature of the scriptures right before their faces, but because it is right in front of them, our ideology is that much closer to the dangers I speak of. To emphasize this point, let me quote from one of the LDS Church’s own historians, Leonard J. Arrington:

“A considerable part, if not the bulk, of the revealed scripture of the Mormons dealt with temporalities. Of the one hundred and twelve revelations announced by Joseph Smith, eighty-eight dealt partly or entirely with matters that were economic in nature. Out of 9,614 printed lines in Smith’s revelations, 2,618 lines, by actual count, treated “definitely and directly of economic matters.”(19)

Of course, that would be fine and dandy if we were talking about free-market, capitalist economics, but we are not. All throughout the Book of Mormon we read of how God punishes societies that do not use their wealth to help the poor and the needy. We find scriptures that advise whole civilizations to use their riches to help others rather than prudently advising that riches be used to create more riches for the investing class. Rather than learning about the “freedom” that a free-market creates, we learn about how the accumulation of wealth leads to corruption, the stripping away of democratic society, and eventual destruction. On the other hand we learn that when these societies established social relief for the less fortunate, not only did they not turn into Communist tyrannies, but the people lived in freedom and happiness! Not only is this ridiculous, but dangerous I tell you!

In the Doctrine and Covenants, what has been specifically referred to as revelation directly for this dispensation, it gets even more specific. We learn the specifics about establishing egalitarian law under revelations about the Law of Consecration.(20) God Himself speaks as very radically on the subject in the Doctrine and Covenants! Listen to this exact quote, not from some Church leader or historical account, but an actual revelation from God Himself: “It is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin."(21)

How can we possibly have our fellow members reading such words, and words from the Lord no less! We must act quickly before LDS members start to become aware of just what this means!

We also come across commandments from God concerning war that are very contrary to our ideology. Not only do we find passages where we are told that we should not go to war unless God reveals that we should, but we even read that in reality we should renounce war altogether!(22) Luckily, few people have realized that renounce means to literally turn away from it and never come back.(23) On this we have lucked out and can still rely on American Saints to “rally around the flag” as we prefer to call it. Of course, it’s not really rallying around the flag and the principles it stands for that we are asking, but to rally around the bombing of this or that nation for this or that reason, and thereby feed the military industry and the pockets of the wealthy.

As one reads on, even the Pearl of Great Price speaks of Enoch’s people living in economic equality, with “no poor among them.”(24) So, as you can see, the danger is right on the surface. All it takes is for a few people here and there to start questioning the right-wing culture we have tried so hard to establish, and it could all fall to pieces for us. That is why I am advising that we take the drastic measures necessary to prevent this gradual political education of the LDS population. What drastic measures, you ask? Well, we must continue to prevent members from learning about their own liberal, leftist, and radical history. We must prevent them from discovering the large amount of teachings concerning equality and the devastation of war and militarism. But that is not all.

What else are we to do? We must get members to pick their way through the scriptures, never actually reading them in full, just reading a passage here, an individual scripture or chapter there, but never from cover to cover. If we do not do this, I’m afraid we will be left to the same methods the early Christian apostates resorted to. We would be forced to edit out the undesirable knowledge that the scriptures possess. Having done this, we can rest assured that wars will continue, that our undeserving poor and needy brothers and sisters will continue to be a source of great wealth without us having to feed them, educate them, care for their elderly, provide them with healthcare or transportation, and otherwise alleviate their suffering in any way. Remember though, we must act fast, and whatever happens… we must not allow those LDS members who are already leaning to the left of the political spectrum to discover that we are concerned! Lastly, keep pushing the idea that what really determines whether or not an individual is a “true” Mormon or not, is whether or not they hold conservative political opinions.

Signed,

Screwtape

References:

1. Joseph Smith’s Presidential platform can be found in his campaign pamphlet, “Joseph Smith’s Views”
2. “Great Basin Kingdom: Economic History of the Latter-day Saints 1830-1900” by Leonard J. Arrington, page 17.
3. “Building the City of God:Community and Cooperation Among the Latter-day Saints” by Arrington, Fox and May, pg. 7
4. Pamphlet from the First Presidency, 1875, can be found in Volume 2 of “The Messages of the First Presidency”
5. “Discourses of Brigham Young” 19:46
6. Story of Joseph’s plan to tax yearly harvests as an insurance against draught begins in Genesis 41.
7. Genesis 6:11-13
8. This includes laws requiring railing to be built upon structures to prevent people from falling, as found in Deuteronomy 22:8 for example. Further correlations between the Law of Moses and contemporary worker conditions are mentioned in Hugh Nibley’s “Work We Must, But the Lunch is Free”.
9. Deuteronomy 22:19-21
10. Ezekiel 16:49-50
11. Genesis 19:4-9
12. Matthew 21:12-13, Mark 11:15-17, John 2:13-16
13. Matthew 19:23-24, Mark 10:24-25, Luke 18:24-25
14. Matthew 19:21, Luke 18:22
15. Examples of Christ healing the sick at no charge are too numerous to list; from healing the blind, the leprous, a woman with an issue of blood, and even raising the dead…all without proof of insurance and at no charge!
16. Acts 4:32
17. 1 Timothy 6:5-11
18. 2 Corinthians 8:13-15
19. “Great Basin Kingdom: An Economic History of the Latter-day Saints” by Leonard J. Arrington, pg. 5-6
20. D&C 42 & 51.
21. D&C 49:20
22. Section 98 of the Doctrine & Covenants give very specifics about when it is appropriate to resort to war explained in D&C 98:32-48. The passage where God commands us to renounce war altogether is found in D&C 98:16.
23. Definitions of the word “renounce” are as follows 1: to announce one’s abandonment or giving up of a right or interest. 2: to refuse to follow, obey, or recognize any further.
24. Moses 7:18

God's Love - by Cody McKay

2009-09-09T02:41:00.001-07:00

There is one thing I feel I have learned over the course of years (and am probably still learning), and that is that God’s love really is all-reaching and limitless. There is no one living or dead, past, present, or future that this love does not apply to. Often, as human beings, we are so quick to judge others or ourselves, and there are times when we think God couldn’t possibly love us because of the things we’ve done in our lives. Perhaps there are certain people we think God couldn’t (or even shouldn’t) love. God’s love is hard to understand with our limited human perception, but I feel sure he loves everyone, even the people that are harder to love.

I remember a particular church meeting I went to. In Sunday School the lesson was about Samuel the Lamanite, and as I was listening, it struck me that Samuel, righteous as he was, was actually an outsider preaching to members of the Church who had become prideful and wicked. I assume Samuel was considered a member of the Church, too, since he was a prophet and living his life in righteousness. But my point is that it struck me as ironic that these high and mighty Nephites, who probably felt Samuel was beneath them, were being preached to and called to repentance by he who was actually more righteous in his life than they were. I just thought it was interesting.

What really lifted me up spiritually that day was that the Special Needs Mutual came to our ward to sing and speak. I didn't even know that such a group existed. What was interesting to me was that during the sacrament, one of the special needs women started commentating on the proceedings at full voice. She was pretty much shouting stuff like "Here comes the bread!" and "Oh, he's passing by us now," etc. She wasn't doing it to be rude. In fact, she was quite joyful in doing it. It's just the way she was. As I sat there, I thought about how social rules have taught us all our life to be "normal," whatever that means, and that one of those rules is that we're supposed to be quiet and reverent during the sacrament, and I thought, "I'll bet there are people in the congregation who are uncomfortable or bothered by this woman,” and I asked myself a question I have asked myself often: "Why are we so afraid of people that are different from us?" I myself was not bothered by her behavior; in fact, I found it sweet in a way. And I always am interested in things that "rock the boat" a bit. In my mind I thought, "This woman is who she is. She can't help behaving that way nor does she view it as being wrong or abnormal." As I thought about this, I equated it to my own situation of being a homosexual, something I feel I just am even if it means I don't always fit in the "Mormon box."

What really moved me was that this special needs group sang a song that I know very well from having sang it in high school many years ago. Perhaps you are familiar with it as well. It is called "In This Very Room," and these are the lyrics:

"In this very room there's quite enough love for one like me,
And in this very room there's quite enough joy for one like me,
And there's quite enough hope and quite enough power to chase away any gloom,
For Jesus, Lord Jesus ... is in this very room.
And in this very room there's quite enough love for all of us,
And in this very room there's quite enough joy for all of us,
And there's quite enough hope and quite enough power to chase away any gloom,
For Jesus, Lord Jesus ... is in this very room.

In this very room there's quite enough love for all the world,
And in this very room there's quite enough joy for all the world,
And there's quite enough hope and quite enough power to chase away any gloom,
For Jesus, Lord Jesus ... is in this very room."

What was interesting was their configuration as they sang it. Unlike a "normal" choir that would be in some proper formation, one guy with Down’s syndrome came to the front of the group all by himself, and yet another sang the song from the aisle near the congregation (still a part of the group, but completely on his own at the same time). Their voices were varied. Some sang just fine, others couldn't sing well at all, and that one woman just commented while everybody was singing until she was the last voice heard muttering various things long after the song itself had ended. It was one of the most beautiful things I'd ever seen or heard in church, and I was crying throughout, especially because the words seemed so poignant to their situation as well as my own. Sometimes one doesn't fit the conventional definition of "normalcy," at least by the world's standards or the church's standards or society's standards or what-have-you. But what really hit me was that it doesn't matter so much because God's love is so far-reaching, so eternal, so abundant, so boundless, that there is a place for everyone at his table. No one is beyond the reach of his love. No one is excluded. Sometimes religion can seem like a very exclusive thing, and it is interesting that the irony is that God is completely inclusive.

I was reminded of a song from an Off-Broadway show, Altar Boyz, called "Everybody Fits." It goes like this:

“Some days you just can't begin.
You feel outside looking in.
It's like you're the odd man out.
Let me help you end your doubt.

It doesn't matter if you're different and out of place.
It doesn't matter if there's acne upon your face.
It doesn't matter.
Take my hand and then you will see
Everybody fits in God's great family.

Strangers seem to stop and stare,
Wonderin' why you're even there,
Feeling so left out and wrong.
I'll show you that you belong.

It doesn't matter if you have a gigantic nose.
It doesn't matter if you're born with eleven toes.
It doesn't matter.
You can trust and believe in me.
Everybody fits in God's great family.

In the family of God you'll learn
That there is no such thing as others.
All the woman and men on Earth
Can be your sisters and your brothers.

It doesn't matter if you're wrinkled and old and gray.
It doesn't matter if you face Mecca when you pray.
It doesn't matter.
Won't you listen and hear my plea?
Everybody fits.
It doesn't matter if you're yellow or white or red.
It doesn't matter if you're pregnant and you're unwed.
It doesn't matter
'Cause the truth, it can set you free,
Everybody fits!
Everybody fits!

It doesn't matter .
Every murderer on death row
It doesn't matter
Every prostitute that you know
It doesn't matter
Welcome to the fraternity.
Everybody fits in God's great family,
You and me,
We fit into the family.”

I really believe in an all-loving God. I think sometimes people and religion make us think we lose his love if we sin or that if we're not living our lives perfectly according to society's norms that we're somehow unworthy of that love. I wish I could convince everyone that this isn't true. My heart powerfully received the message on that Sunday (as it has many times before) that there is a place for all at God's table regardless of your situation. I don't care if you're a murderer, an adulterer, an atheist, gay, mentally-challenged, mentally-deranged, suicidal, a woman, a man, if you've lost all faith or have plenty, whether you're a prophet, or the biggest sinner in the world. God loves you and me in terms that are inexplicable to our finite human minds, and nothing we ever do will cause him to stop loving us. I become more and more convinced of that as I continue on my life's journey. It's good to know.

A Leftist Mormon In France - by Laurent Lechifflart

2009-09-09T02:38:00.000-07:00

What does it mean to be "mormon de gauche" (leftist mormon) in France?

First you must keep in mind that the political spectrum is much wider in France, from neo-trotskyist far left to monarchist far right. And it is also wider among French Saints than among their US church fellows – even though extremists of both sides are quite rare in the Church.

Another major difference is that the "moderate" left and right in France are more left than their US counterparts. Many positions considered "leftist" in the US are here quite consensual across the French political chessboard. Socialized medical insurance, legal abortion, civil union for gays, right of strike, separation of church and state (among many others) are accepted by the moderate rightist parties. This is why the moral issues (abortion, gay rights) are not considered by French Saints as politically deciding.

Another point to consider, in spite of a largely accepted separation of churches and state, is the strong, traditional ties between the French conservative parties and the Catholic Church, which represents about 85% of the population. This makes many Saints uncomfortable when dealing with the conservative parties. For instance, they are shocked when president Sarközy (a conservative) addresses the pope in public as "très saint père" (most holy father).

All those reasons explain why a bigger proportion of Mormons in France vote for leftist parties or are involved in workers unions than in the US.

This said, it is hard to find which proportion of French Saints are leftists. The first reason is that two subjects in France are not usually brought up in conversation, including by church members: money and politics. When two French people speak together, they most likely talk about cooking!

Another reason is that the Church is perceived by the French Saints as "conservative". Even though the Church remains strictly neutral on political issues, the overwhelming strength of the Republican vote among US saints is well known here. The problem is that many Mormons here consider their brothers from across the ocean as models. This is why some might feel "out of standard" - if not "guilty" - for leaning to the left, and keep quiet about it.

Once two or more "mormons de gauche" have identified each other as such, they talk more freely of political issues. From such conversations I've had so far, it seems that there is not much difference between them and other French leftists. All those I know (including myself) strongly supported Chirac (even though he was a conservative) in his adamant opposition against the war in Iraq. They opposed the recent return of France into NATO military commandment. They consider Sarközy as a dangerous sorcerer's apprentice who is endangering the "French social model" which has existed since the end of World War II. They would like the government more involved in the economy, especially to restrain the immorality of wild capitalism. They support the European Union as an instrument of peace but reject its dogma of unrestrained economical competition. They want strong public services (education, electricity, railways, etc.) and don't want them to be dismantled and sold to private operators. They want a better protection of environment. And last but not least, they are saddened by the "war of the chiefs" that weakens the Socialist Party (second party in the country and main party of the moderate left).

Personal and Public Opinion: Outed by the Controversy - by Melanie Carbine

2009-09-09T02:35:00.000-07:00

Prior to the November 2008 elections, I ended up in the middle of two very different but related arguments. I was running a new word by a recently (but selectively) out mission friend: “heteronormative.” I wanted to find the most appropriate adjective for my sexuality, without any comment on my friend's own homosexual relationship (which I supported from the beginning). However, I didn’t mean to imply that homosexuality was abnormal. On the other hand, another mission friend (one with whom I had an on-again-off-again relationship) was threatening to unfriend me on Facebook if I continued to comment on (or rather question) his notes supporting the Yes on 8 campaign in California.

Either way, I was being silenced and I was once again in the margins of both arguments. What hurt the most was that this person, whom I loved, was comparing me to Lot's wife. He said that if I had lived in Sodom and Gomorrah I would have been a pillar of salt - to which of course, I asked if that made him Lot. I demanded to know why it was okay for him and not me to sleep with girls. He told me I was against the Church and that I should think about that the next time I had a temple recommend interview. Not only did I have one, but I was a temple worker. Where was his recommend?

It wasn't a pretty fight, and I was really hurt that he was unwilling to understand or recognize either my personal choices, sacrifice, or position. I would have been marrying my (liberal) non-LDS boyfriend that month if we hadn't broken it off during my mission. The pressure from my family and friends had been too much, and I had started to really want a temple marriage. Either way, it had been hard to walk away from that and not look back.

Besides that, I live in Ann Arbor, Michigan (the San Francisco of the mid-west, if you will). I had opportunities to date amazing women; attraction is attraction. Yet, I decided that since I have a choice (unlike many others) I would only date men. I really believe that I am doing the best I can to live God's commandments as he has revealed them. I do not think that voting for gay rights legislation puts me on the outs with God. I trust that He knows the love in my heart for Him and His children. I think my actions, on both counts, reflect that.

Almost a year later, D.C. - following the trend of five other states (obviously not California) – recognized same-sex marriages. At this time, I was visiting a woman named Nell in D.C. whom I had taught on my mission in the Marshall Islands. I had made a point to follow the white handbook as best I could, even after the mission. So long as I taught someone as a missionary, I refrained from talking about politics. (Besides, so far, every "liberal Mormon" I have met has almost always actually been a moderate.)

Nell married a wonderful man who happens to be a "liberal liberal” as she put it. She commented on the "liberal backlash" or attitude towards any non-liberal viewpoint, by whatever degree. She cited Carrie Prejean as an example. She insisted that it was Ms Prejean's "personal opinion" on same sex marriage and therefore unfairly received a liberal uproar (Prejean had modeled lingerie a few years previously).

Ms Prejean said that she felt God was testing her and that she felt she had to stand true to what she believed. Whatever Ms Prejean's motivation during or after the Miss U.S.A. contest in April 2009, she became the face of a conservative agenda when she was featured in an ad against gay marriage (NY Times- April 30 2009-Ad Against Gay Marriage Features Miss California). And, it has happened before. Miss America runner-up Anita Bryant and her pretty face got a Human Rights Ordinance repealed in California in 1977. The fact was so notable that the American Association for Retired Persons included it in an online Gay History Timeline (1958-2009) posted to honor the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riots.

What could I say to Nell? Specifically, what would I say in response to the question of why Ms Prejean got such a hard time for her personal opinion? Even though she wasn't particularly well spoken, she's pretty and people paid attention to her. Besides, lots of people get a hard time for their personal opinions, myself included. When my personal opinion becomes my public and political opinion (even if just a vote), other people are affected and I must consider that first. Maybe I'm a bad ally because I date heteronormatively (my personal choice), and maybe I'm a bad Mormon because I questioned my friends' support of Prop 8 (my public vote).

Ideally, I'd support state civil unions of any two people and optional marriage by religious and secular organizations of any two people as defined by those organizations. We already have our own "marriage" separate from the state institution with different requirements: temple sealings. I decided that's what I wanted even if it seems finding a Mormon man willing to convert to the left is about as unlikely as finding a liberal willing to convert to Mormonism. I'm still going to support other kinds of families (and marriages), and I definitely support access to health care, green cards and adoption rights. Close friends on both sides of the issue tell me it's not enough. Would I be a pillar of salt if I had lived in Sodom and Gomorrah?

I think God knows the content of my heart better than that.

Food For Thought - Fall 2009

2009-09-09T02:27:00.000-07:00

In "The Family: A Proclamation To The World," the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles state:

"All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

Question: What does this mean to you when you consider people who are intersex, transgender, or those who find that their physical genitalia and internal sense of gender do not match up? How do you define one’s “eternal gender?”

Leave your comments here and they may be included in the next newsletter publication, or send them in an e-mail to theldsleft@gmail.com.

Food For Thought - Summer 2009

2009-09-01T11:59:00.000-07:00

In debates about gay marriage, some Mormons are quick to point out that the Church doesn’t discriminate between heterosexual and homosexual members because it requires all unmarried members to live the Law of Chastity. Some heterosexual members of the Church remain single – and therefore celibate – throughout their entire lives and so it is not unreasonable to require the same of homosexual members, it is argued. However, where dating and companionship are concerned, it seems that Church policy differs, depending on whether one is straight or gay.

Straight members, for instance, may remain single and chaste their entire lives, but they are free to date and engage is non-sexual behavior such as:

• Hand holding
• Innocent kissing
• Hugging and caressing

Unmarried couples can sit in church or attend school at BYU and engage in such non-sexual courting behavior without facing discipline. A chaste homosexual couple, on the other hand, would likely encounter trouble from their bishop or authorities at BYU for an open display of affection. It seems, therefore, that gay members are required not only to be celibate, but alone.

Question: Do you think heterosexual and homosexual members alike be permitted to engage in non-sexual displays of affection deemed acceptable outside of marriage without being subject to discipline from the Church? Why or why not?

Leave your comments here and they may be included in the next newsletter publication, or send them in an e-mail to theldsleft@gmail.com.

Ezra Taft Benson: The End Of All Political Debate? - by John Matos

2009-09-01T11:32:00.000-07:00

The LDS Church and its leadership counsel members to participate in the political process according to the dictates of their own conscience. Because of this, members of the Church the world over belong to a wide range of political parties and adhere to a wide range of political ideologies. Even left-wing movements, such as socialist and labor parties, can claim Latter-day Saint supporters in many of the nations of the world. However, in the United States, Mormon culture has developed a noticeably right wing and anti-socialist position, using societal pressure to limit, denounce, or suppress the expression of leftist viewpoints within the community.

This can partly be attributed to the fact that leftist political opinions, parties, and movements have often been suppressed in our nation’s history. Because of this, most Americans today lack basic knowledge of socialism and its many forms, branches, and political philosophies. To the average American, the word “socialism” conjures images of Soviet Russia, China, and North Korea. The majority of Americans would be surprised to learn that first world nations such as Canada, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Norway, Spain and France could be labeled socialist to some extent, yet often surpass the U.S. in standard of living and democratic participation.

For the large majority of Latter-day Saints in the U.S. however, no form of success under socialism can ever do away with the words of a Prophet, and there is one Prophet in particular whose words are drawn upon to denounce socialism. That Prophet was President Ezra Taft Benson. In the Church, it is almost impossible to discuss such topics as universal healthcare, welfare services for low-income citizens and their families, government housing, Social Security, or regulation of the markets without be challenged by someone quoting President Benson and his political opinions.

The most troubling thing to a member of the Church who leans to the left politically, is that President Benson’s political opinions and a large number of those who accept them as the words of God, convey the message that anyone who disagrees is either being duped by Satan himself, is on the road to apostasy, or has already apostatized and is not to be considered a “true” saint. Often, it is so troubling and such a point of contention, that members feel isolated among their own people and eventually leave the Church. Ironically, the polarizing effect of President Benson’s political rhetoric has been a dividing force among Latter-day Saints since it came forth from his mouth.

I should stop here to note that from here on out I will no longer refer to President Benson as President Benson in this article, except when I am referring to him during the time when he was in fact President. You see, the overwhelming majority of Benson’s polarizing political comments, talks and teachings were given long before he ever became President of the Church. In other words, they were given when he was Elder Benson, before the mantel of the First Presidency rested upon his shoulders.

Despite the fact that Church members vehemently devoted to sanctifying right-wing political philosophies endlessly quote Benson, being sure to add that they are “the words of a Prophet of God,” Benson was not in fact the Prophet of God at the time. However, my point is not that Benson was Elder Benson and not President Benson at the time he gave such talks as “The Proper Role of Government.” My point is that Benson’s political views and rhetoric never had the unanimous support of Church leadership. In fact, more often than not, they upset Church leaders, caused division among the membership, brought embarrassment to the Church, and resulted in Benson being chastised.

In 1974, for example, Benson famously told an interviewer who was interviewing him as a prominent Republican and political figure, that it would be difficult for a member of the Church to be a Democrat if they knew and understood the gospel. Of course, at the time this was said, a Democrat by the name of Marion G. Romney was Second Counselor in the First Presidency. Just 4 years earlier, Democrat Hugh B. Brown was First Counselor in the First Presidency, having filled the position previously held by Democrat J. Reuben Clark. This caused a major uproar within the Church, not only because it hinted that First Presidency members did not know and understand the gospel, but a large portion of Church members were Democrats at the time, this being years before Benson’s political opinions soaked into Mormon culture and put a damper on the progressive spirit among the membership.

Elder Benson was also chastised on several occasions by Church leadership for having inappropriately used Church buildings, Church meetings, and his callings as Stake President and later Apostle, to promote his political views. For instance, in 1962, Elder Benson gave permission for a stake center in Los Angeles to be used by the Republican Party and its candidate for California State Governor, Richard Nixon. Once President David O. McKay learned of it, he was forced to also give permission to the Democratic candidate, Pat Brown, in order for the Church to remain politically neutral. In a letter sent to all stakes shortly after the incident, President McKay noted that the Church was opposed to the idea of a chapel used for the sacrament and religious meetings to also be used for political gain, also noting that those attempts to do so did the Church a disservice.

Unfortunately, Benson continued to ignore counsel, chastisement, and disciplinary action from Church leadership. When he was called to serve in Europe as a Mission President, many looked at the call as the Church’s way of dealing with the problem. This view gains credibility when we consider what Church leaders at the time had to say about Benson, his political rhetoric, and his misuse of his calling to give his opinions the appearance of Church authority. For example, on the day his father met with Benson to tell him he was being sent to Europe, President McKay’s son sent a letter to Congressman Ralph Harding. In the letter he said, “We shall all be relieved when Elder Benson ceases to resist counsel and returns to a concentration on those affairs befitting his office.”

Such statements and frustration with Benson’s political rhetoric and his involvement with the conservative and anti-socialist Birch Society also appear in the private correspondence of Church leaders. Two weeks after McKay’s son wrote Congressman Harding, Joseph Fielding Smith, who was President of the Quorum of the Twelve at the time, also sent a letter to Harding; “I think it is time Brother Benson forgot all about politics and settled down to his duties as a member of the Council of the Twelve…It would be better for him and for the Church and all concerned, if he would settle down to his present duties and let all political matters take their course. He is going to take a mission to Europe in the near future and by the time he returns I hope he will get all the political notions out of his system.” In the letter, President Smith also expressed distaste for the Birch Society and Benson’s involvement with it, adding “I am glad to report that it will be some time before we hear anything from Brother Benson, who is now on his way to Great Britain where I suppose he will be, at least for the next two years.”

Distaste for Benson’s political rhetoric seems to have been strongly felt by First Counselor to President McKay, Hugh B. Brown. After Elder Benson was sent to Europe, Brown received a letter from U.S. Under-Secretary of State W. Averill Harriman asking how long Ezra Taft Benson would be outside the United States. President Brown’s response was a short but telling one, “If I had my way, he’ll never come back!”

By bringing these things to light, it is not my intention to soil President Benson’s image. He was in a fact a great man, a great Prophet, and was intensely devoted to the Church throughout his life. To the dismay of many Church leaders, Benson continued to insert his personal political views into his calling and talks even after his return from Europe, but when he later became President of the Church, he took the calling very seriously and seldom mentioned politics in Church settings again. Unfortunately for American Mormon culture however, Benson’s views have become commonplace among members in the United States. Benson’s McCarthy era anti-socialist opinions have been drawn upon widely to give the impression that the Church and God himself are opposed not only to communism, but any form of socialism, progressivism, and pretty much anything that is not firmly on the right of the political spectrum. Right-wing bloggers, and even right-wing Fox News host Glenn Beck have drawn upon the words of Benson in an attempt to move the nation further to the right.

When President Benson passed away, Gordon B. Hinckley gave a talk called "Farewell to a Prophet" to commemorate President Benson. In the talk, Hinckley made this comment:

"I am confident that it was out of what he saw of the bitter fruit of dictatorship that he developed his strong feelings, almost hatred, for communism and socialism. That distaste grew through the years as he witnessed the heavy-handed oppression and suffering of the peoples of Eastern Europe under what he repeatedly described as godless communism."

To me, Hinckley seems to be making it clear that Benson's distaste for socialism and communism was his own personal opinion, and also that this grew out of Benson's experiences specifically with Soviet style communism and its interpretation of socialism in Eastern Europe, not socialism as it appears in democratic countries like it is found in the industrialized European nations and Canada.

Unlike Benson’s less popular views, his outdated cold-war era political rhetoric seems to have stuck. Perhaps it’s because much of Benson’s political rhetoric was taught from the pulpit. We as members should ask ourselves, does that sanctify them? Is it the location that matters? After all, erroneous teachings such as those regarding blacks and the priesthood, the use of face cards, and the use of birth control were all being taught from the pulpit at the time Benson’s political views were being disseminated. Is it the person who speaks that matters? After all, Benson was a Church Elder and later became a Prophet. While giving due weight to the words of wise men, we should never forget that it is not the opinions and philosophies of a man that we revere, it is the Spirit speaking through that man.

Throughout our Church’s history, Prophets have reminded us that a Prophet is a man like any other. He is subject to limited understanding, personal opinion, and to error. Were it not so, we would also have to accept Benson’s less popular opinions; that Martin Luther King Jr. was a communist and that the civil rights movement a communist conspiracy, for instance.

We should never forget that it is not the opinions and philosophies of a man that we revere, it is the Spirit speaking through that man. Prophets are not robots; God has still blessed them with the qualities and experiences of human life. This means that as long as men are called to fulfill such callings as Prophet, we can expect them to be subject to limited understanding, personal opinion, and erroneous beliefs. Recognizing when that man speaks by the power of the Holy Ghost and when he does not, that is what we should be focusing on, not that man’s position.

Personally, I believe that the ongoing controversy that Ezra Taft Benson's political opinions have created within the Church also illustrates the wisdom of the Church's position regarding Church leaders simultaneously holding political office. In the late 1800's, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve decided that no member in a high-ranking Church leadership position could run for political office without the consent of the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency. This Church policy still stands today, Benson himself having had to request consent from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve before accepting his post as Secretary of Agriculture under President Eisenhower. This Church policy is best known for nearly causing B.H. Roberts to leave the Church, he feeling that it was not the Church's business whether he ran for political office or not. However, I think the wisdom behind the First Presidency and the Twelve's decision becomes clear when we see what happens to the political opinions of someone who is a political figure and a Church leader simultaneously. As in the case of Ezra Taft Benson, a Church leader who is also a political figure can potentially mislead the membership into believing that personal political opinions are sanctioned and endorsed by the Church itself. The Church seems to have learned this lesson with all the contention, disunity and controversy caused by Benson's mixing his political calling and his civil service, and it is very likely this is the reason prominent LDS political figures, such as Mitt Romney and Harry Reid, are not called to hold high level Church leadership positions while serving in a political capacity.

I know that many reading this may have already experienced cultural pressure and feelings of not fitting in due to the sometimes overpowering conservative sentiment among the membership in the United States. Perhaps someone has used the words of Ezra Taft Benson as a weapon to make you feel as though you are not a “true” saint. If you feel this way, or if you sometimes feel this way, remember, if agreeing with Benson’s political views was a requirement for true sainthood, as some would have us believe, than the list of “phony” saints would include such prominent Church figures as Joseph Fielding Smith, David O. McKay and Hugh B. Brown, among many others. However, I do not believe God is a partisan. I also believe that learning about the world around us, studying and evaluating what works and what does not in improving the lives of our brothers and sisters here on Earth is a worthy venture, no matter what political ideology it may hail from.

A Response to Pro-Lifers: Pro-Death? - by Rick Thomas

2009-09-01T11:26:00.000-07:00

There is an unsettling preference by quite a few in the Church and the on-line community in particular, to call the morality and decency of the left-view point into question. This is unfortunate. For this reason, I have decided, at least for the extent of this article, to claim the title of "Pro-death" - since I find myself in a contrary position to that normally taken by those who refer to themselves as “Pro-life” on just about every issue.

I am Pro-death. On one level, this means that I am not anti-abortion. Sure, I disagree with people's reasons for abortion most of the time, but I feel that it is their choice to make (I don't believe that human life starts at fertilization). I can't see an unproblematic, fool-proof way of proving rape and incest — especially in the case of those who are victimized and unable to produce DNA evidence before it’s too late — and therefore can’t understand how one could legislate abortion on more than a superficial level. Therefore, I don't think it is a reasonable or helpful legislation to society as a whole. For this reason, I am generally in favor of not legislating abortion — though I think there should be some sort of parental consent, doctor's consent, etc. So, I am Pro-death on the issue of abortion.

But, is that all?

Am I also Pro-death on the issue of animal rights? I would never choose to define myself that way - I do it, because it seems that my point of view is against the stand taken by Pro-lifers. I feel that human kind's gross misuse of animal products and its blatant disregard for animal life is detestable. I am not a member of PETA and disagree with their occasionally violent approach, but I do think that legislation against over-consumption is a good idea — even if that meant putting some industrialized beef farmers out of business. I could only imagine how the families of the poor unemployed beef farmer might suffer when Dad's current livelihood is brought to a halt. I do consider myself an animal rights activist. There is a prevalent stereotype that animal rights activists have no problem potentially killing or maiming children to try and stop animal research. I could argue that, but won’t bother at this point. I am already claiming to be pro-death, after all.

I am also pro-death because I see some amount of value in stem-cell research (as I see some amount of value in animal research — if done humanely and respectfully — for important reasons, and not cosmetics and other useless products). I don't consider embryonic stem-cells to be in the same class as a live human. Pro-death, all the way.

I am also Pro-death when it comes to the human population. My wife and I have decided to have only 1 or 2 children by means of natural birth, and to adopt another 1 or 2 from suffering countries. We feel honestly that increasing the population of the earth at this stage is irresponsible, particularly when there are so many children that are not receiving the basic needs of human life and are dying in third-world countries.

I further feel that trying to "reduce our carbon footprint," besides being very in vogue right now (green is the new black), is a seriously important commitment for people of faith to make. We are the stewards of this planet and have a responsibility to it. There comes a certain point where we cease being responsible and instead, become addicted or obsessed to a certain way of life that has been engrained in us by generations of Christian breeding mixed with the supreme quality in neo-natal and pediatric health care. The earth has been replenished. It doesn't need to be destroyed by us — God's crowning creations. In fact, I'm so Pro-death that I'd encourage others who are in a position to seriously ponder making a similar choice, as I sincerely feel it to be right — at least for me and my family.

Following my 1-2 children, I plan on procuring some change to ensure that I don't have more. Indeed, I will intentionally do things to stop a pregnancy from occurring. I will interfere with the natural processes of human sexuality and reproduction and, "play god" to some extent to ensure that my wife and I don't have a pregnancy that we're not prepared for. I see very little difference between unfertilized reproductive cells, and fertilized ones. If this makes me pro-death, then so be it. However, I am positive that most people, in and out of the church, make a similar choice all of the time.

Indeed, Scripture states:

“For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves.” (D&C 104: 17)

Remember that this was revealed in the early 1830's, when the population of planet earth had just reached 1 billion — as opposed to the 7 Billion that it will reach in 2012 — about 200 years later. There definitely was enough to spare in 1830. Now, the tables have been turned -- thanks to our gross over consumption. I believe it is "moral" to place the earth and its needs above the desire to have continually larger and larger families. Is this really Pro-death?

I am also Pro-death when it comes to dying. I sincerely believe that when a person is in constant pain, suffering, sorrow, and physical anguish — when it will NOT get better over the course of his or her natural lifespan — that it is only charitable and loving to allow that person to gracefully exit this life. I’ve read what the official church's stance is. That has no bearing on what I sincerely feel in my heart of hearts to be the most charitable and loving approach. Pro-death, one more time.

Because of my stance on these issues, does that make me a champion for human death? I recognize that my opinions will often differ from many of yours — maybe even all of you. I do not, however, truly feel myself to be Pro-death. I simply feel that I view things from a different perspective. Extremes on both sides (blowing up a research lab to blowing up an abortion clinic) are wrong. Avoiding those extremes, let’s work to garner a healthy respect for BOTH points of view, rather than make one the champion of life and the other the champion of... death.

Veganism And The Gospel - by Candice Mattson McDaniel

2009-09-01T07:40:00.000-07:00

Deciding to become vegetarian and eventually vegan was not easy. I had only met a few other vegetarians throughout my life, one of whom was a girlfriend of my brother's. I was little at the time, but I remember my bewildered family wondered what to give her for dinner. Growing up, I was sheltered when it came to other ways of eating and I never questioned what I ate on a daily basis.

But as I learned more about how animals are treated in this world, I couldn't go back to living that way again. Knowing I had to change my habits was an uncomfortable feeling. I couldn't keep going down the same path, because it would cause inner turmoil. At first, I went the route of vegetarian by cutting meat out of my diet. After a few months, I decided to become vegan, making the transition to remove all animal products from my daily meals. This transition was stressful because I felt disloyal and that I would somehow be alienated from my family and friends. Growing up in rural Idaho, veganism rubbed off on me as being taboo.

This was probably because my family's traditions are deeply rooted around animals. My mother grew up on a dairy farm and my father raises beef cattle. It is custom in my family to hunt and fish and most of our vacations are centered around fishing. Because I was raised this way, meat was a staple food in my house. It was something readily available.

While I was making this change and told people about my lifestyle choice, one argument I constantly heard was, "The purpose of animals is for our use, Candice." I have always questioned this statement. I do not believe a certain animal was created only to give us their meat or milk. Yet, I had always learned that we had dominion over the animals and they were here for us "to use" because it supposedly says so in the scriptures. So if I don’t believe animals were only created for me to use, does that not make me a Christian? This question was eating away at me, so I started searching.

It was in my online searches for someone — anyone —who thought like I did that I found Christopher Foster, a philosophy instructor at BYU. Foster, a vegetarian, has compiled a PowerPoint lecture titled "Mormonism and Animal Rights — Harmony or Contradiction?" He has presented this at various locations across Utah, including Salt Lake Community College and Brigham Young University. His lecture is packed with quotations and scriptures stressing the need to end useless killing of animals. Foster believes we should "only eat them if we have need." He also states that it is against the basic ethical principle to cause suffering when the benefits do not outweigh the misery caused. "The suffering caused by factory farming (where the vast majority of American meat comes from) is so extreme that the need required in order to balance that out must also be extreme — it would have to be necessary for our lives," says Foster.

The Word of Wisdom seems to agree with this. In Doctrine and Covenants chapter 89, we read in verse 12:

"Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have
ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used
sparingly."

Verse 13 expands on the word sparingly by stating:

"And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of
winter, or of cold, or famine."

Even though the Word of Wisdom states to eat it sparingly in times of winter or famine, do we really need to eat meat at all? Doctrine and Covenants 49:21 states:

"And wo be unto man that sheddeth blood or that wasteth flesh and hath no need."

Industrialization has provided many ways for us to obtain different varieties of foods, including a wide array of fruits and vegetables. As Foster points out in his presentation, "Today, we have ample vegetarian food available year round." There are plenty of alternative protein sources, such as beans, nuts, and seeds. We are blessed to have such an abundant food supply, especially in this country. We definitely don't live in a country of famine.

According to a January 2008 article in The New York Times titled, "Rethinking the Meat Guzzler" by Mark Bittman, Americans, on average, consume nearly double the average of meat than the rest of the world. This is vital when taken into account that, according to the same piece, nearly 800 million people worldwide suffer from hunger or malnutrition. The majority of the world’s corn and soy are fed to chickens, pigs and cattle. In her book “Diet for a Small World," Frances Moore Lappe says, "For every 16 pounds of grain and soy fed to beef cattle in the United States we only get 1 pound back in meat on our plates." She then points out, "If we exclude dairy cows, the average ratio of all U.S. livestock is 7 pounds of grain and soy to produce 1 pound of edible food." A similar number was found on the Environmental Health Perspectives website. A Research Review explains that it takes seven pounds and about 2,400 gallons of water to produce one pound of feedlot beef. When this feed is given to animals instead of people, it is taking away land, food and water that could have been helped to prevent starvation of these suffering people. For me, these statistics raise serious questions about whether we are optimizing what we have been given to better the lives of our fellow beings. Is our exploitation of these resources really justifiable? Do we really consider the damage we are doing to these creatures?"

Animals are like children in a sense that they are innocent and under our dominion," Foster said. "Everyone knows deep down that kindness to animals is necessary." He believes kindness to animals is spiritually, environmentally and ethically essential. "There are literally billions raised and killed in the most brutal ways for our appetite preferences and their suffering is as real as ours. We are hypocrites for ignoring them and thereby causing their misery," he says. We are clearly not showing compassion for animals by killing them when it isn’t necessary.

Many church leaders have expressed their feelings on this topic, basing their beliefs on the scriptures. One slide in Foster’s presentation includes this quote from Joseph Fielding Smith:

"There is no inference in the scriptures that it is the privilege of men to
slay birds or beasts or to catch fish wantonly. The Lord gave life to every
creature… Therefore to take the life of these creatures wantonly is a sin before
the Lord."

It is a fundamental belief in Christianity that God gave man dominion over animals. In Genesis chapter one, we read that God created the earth and the creatures upon it, and more specifically in verse 28, we hear:

"…God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,
and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of
the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

But what is the extent of our dominion?"

Adam’s dominion was a charge to see to it that all went well with God’s creatures; it was not a license to exterminate them," Hugh Nibley said in the book "Kindness to Animals and Caring for the Earth" by Richard D. Stratton. This quotation, along with others, seems to suggest there is righteous and unrighteous dominion that can be practiced over the earth.

One slide on Foster’s presentation discusses unrighteous dominion by using a quote from the February 1912 edition of the Juvenile Instructor. In this citation, Joseph F. Smith points out, "The dominion the Lord gave man over the brute creation has been, to a very large extent, used selfishly, thoughtlessly, cruelly." Foster also adds: "We are utterly indifferent to the suffering we cause to so many beings. This is about as unrighteous as dominion gets."

In my research it was surprising to find that Joseph Smith was an advocate of kindness and respect to animals. Gerald E. Jones includes a story about Joseph Smith in his article "The Gospel and Animals" in the August 1972 edition of the Ensign. During the Zion’s Camp expedition in summer 1834, Joseph Smith tells the story of how they found three rattlesnakes in their tent. Some brethren were about to kill them but Joseph Smith said, "Let them alone — don’t hurt them!" and instructed the brethren to take them across the creek. He also explicitly told them not to kill another creature unless it was absolutely required to prevent them from starving to death.

Another prophet, Spencer W. Kimball, expressed his beliefs on the unnecessary killing of animals in the October 1978 LDS Conference by stating:

"And not less with reference to the killing of innocent birds is the
wildlife of our country that live upon vermin that are indeed enemies to the
farmer and mankind. It is not only wicked to destroy them, it is a shame, in my
opinion. I think that this principle should extend not only to the bird life but
to the life of all animals."

I had believed this all my life, but never quite made the connection between the animals that died and the food I ate. The turning point was one weekend when I went home to visit my parents. I went with my nieces to see the newborn calves in my father’s pasture. One calf, full of curiosity, cautiously came up and stood in front of my nieces and me. He stood there for a few moments, staring and sniffing. My eyes welled up with tears because I knew this calf, innocent and pure, was only born to die.

Although it’s easy to only blame the meat industry for what happens to livestock, it is important to know unnecessary killing and abuse of animals exists in every animal industry. For example, the veal industry is directly tied to the dairy industry. A USDA Fact Sheet entitled "Veal from Farm to Table" states, "Male dairy calves are used in the veal industry. Dairy cows must give birth to continue producing milk, but male dairy calves are of little or no value to the dairy farmer." The calf is taken away from its mother so the cow can be milked. Continuous pregnancies play a heavy role on the health of the cow and if its production levels drop below profit, the cow is slaughtered.

The main reason why milk is consumed is to get the calcium our body needs. However, milk is not the best and only way to get that calcium. According to an article entitled "Calcium and Milk: What’s Best for Your Bones?" published by the Harvard School of Public Health: "Milk is actually one of many sources of calcium — dark leafy green vegetables and some types of legumes are among other sources…" To me, it makes sense to get calcium from plant sources, where the cows get theirs.

The same goes for egg-laying chickens. Little regard is taken for the lives of birds in this industry. A fact sheet on the American Egg Board's website states: "As the hen ages, egg quality declines and, at about 18 to 20 months of age, molting occurs and egg production ceases. While some flocks are sold for slaughter at this point, replacement is costly. A fairly common practice is to place the flock into a controlled molt." Controlled or induced molting is the artificial practice of the industry to force chickens to lose feathers and weight in hopes of producing more eggs. An article entitled "Induced Molting of Commercial Layers" by the North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service gives very specific outlines for this practice. The article states: "To cause the birds to stop laying abruptly, they should be 'conditioned' by exposing them to constant light (24 hours per day) for seven days before withdrawing feed." In order to lose weight, feed is taken away for up to two weeks. In addition to this, most chickens are confined to small areas and cages. These artificial practices are very stressful and damaging to the birds. Since they are being used as production plants, we should always be mindful of their health and well-being.

We have always been taught that we, as members of the LDS church, need to take care of the beautiful earth we have been given. Stratton's book includes one of my favorite thoughts by Ezra Taft Benson on this subject. Benson says: "Whatever mortal reasons there are to be concerned about [the] environment, there are eternal reasons, too, for us to be thoughtful stewards.” President Brigham Young said: 'Not one particle of all that comprises this vast creation of God is our own. Everything we have has been bestowed upon us for our action, to see what we would do with it — whether we would use it for eternal life and exaltation, or for eternal death and degradation.'" Kindness to animals and taking care of our earth are one in the same; damage one and you damage the other.

Going back to the article by Bittman, referring to large animal production plants, it states: "These assembly-line meat factories consume enormous amounts of energy, pollute water supplies, generate significant greenhouse gases and require ever-increasing amounts of corn, soy and other grains, a dependency that has led to the destruction of vast swaths of the world's tropical rain forests."

Senior UN Food and Agriculture Organization official Henning Steinfeld confirms this in an article entitled "Livestock a Major Threat to Environment" released by the United Nations. Steinfeld states: "'Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today's most serious environmental problems."

Harvesting livestock is not the only practice that damages the environment. Overfishing is a serious threat to the ecosystems of the world's oceans. According to the United Nations article "Overfishing: a threat to marine diversity," one in five people are dependent on fish as their primary source of protein. UN agencies state this is damaging because aquaculture, the stocking and farming of aquatic organisms, is increasing more swiftly than other food producing sectors. “According to a Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimate, over 70% of the world's fish species are either fully exploited or depleted," the article states.

On an individual level, we might not harm the environment much by eating animal products. However, collectively, we are doing serious harm. Foster offers a quotation by Brigham Young that says, "If we maltreat our animals, or each other, the spirit within us, our traditions, and the Bible, all agree in declaring it is wrong." As children of our Heavenly Father, we know it is our sacred stewardship to protect what He has so abundantly blessed us with. We should not be selfish; but I believe we should be grateful for everything that He gives us. I see veganism as a means to be thankful for these blessings and to make sure that others can do the same.

Ovid the poet, in the book "Metamorphoses," once rhymed:

"Take not away the life you cannot give, for all things have an equal right to
live.

"I couldn’t agree more.

John's Story - by Lewis Campbell

2009-09-01T07:06:00.000-07:00

Quite some time ago, I moved into a ward where I turned out to be the only temple-recommend holder Elder. The Elder's Quorum was led by a high-priest. Of course, it took about a week before I was in the Stake President's office and found myself as the new EQ President.

There was a gentleman I'll never forget. I'll call him John to protect the innocent. My ward is on the Dineh (Navajo) Nation. John was a quiet Navajo man who was really faithful. He attended all the service projects and really cared about helping others. We ended up calling him as the EQ Secretary.

Not long after, he stopped coming to church. Eventually, one of the other members came to me, angrily demanding that I release him immediately. Apparently, he showed up drunk some place where this other member was. Two more people came to me with the same complaint. We ultimately had to release John.

I visited John and he broke down and told me all about his lifetime struggle with alcoholism. I asked him to please come back to church, because I really felt he needed love and support. He lived by himself and we were really the only people he knew who didn't drink. He told me he was afraid, because he knew everyone would look down at him and criticize him. I knew he was right, but I told him that no matter what happened, no matter what anyone said or did to him, he could sit by me and my family and I would be happy to see him there, and I would never look down on him. He started coming again for a while, but he was right. There were disapproving looks, and sometimes outright criticisms. He came less and less, and finally not at all.

One night, I had a dream. In my dream, I was presiding at a funeral in our ward, and John was the man in the casket. Within days of my dream, John's brother died in an alcohol related accident. At the funeral, I took John aside and told him about my dream, and begged him to come to church. I told him I was afraid that the dream would come to pass if he didn't. He agreed, and started coming to church, but after a while, the same thing happened. The disapproving looks. The general malaise. He eventually stopped coming.

Then, one day, he went on a drinking binge and ended up in the hospital for alcohol poisoning. For some reason I'll never understand, the hospital released him at 1AM without anyone of us, his friends or family there to help him. He walked out onto the highway straight into the path of an oncoming semi. A few days later, my dream came true, and I attended John's funeral.

Ever since then, whenever I get the opportunity, I rail against judgmentalism and the kinds of attitudes that we sometimes have that are inconsistent with Christ-like love and patience. I try to remind people that, unless your name has “Bishop” in front of it, you are not called to be a “judge in Zion” for anyone but yourself. Our call is to be diligent in avoiding sin, yes, but to be focused on our own sin, not so much the sins of others. I remind people that although the chapel is sacred, it is not the temple. There is no recommend required to enter. “Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out of your synagogues, or your places of worship, for unto such shall ye continue to minister; for ye know not but what they will return and repent, and come unto me with full purpose of heart, and I shall heal them; and ye shall be the means of bringing salvation unto them.” (3 Ne 18:32) Chapels are the emergency rooms of the church, and the Savior is the chief physician. “And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick.” (Luke 5:31). Even today, every time I think about John, it breaks my heart.

Flash back to many, many years before this incident, and many years before we moved into this ward. A long, long time ago I left the church for similar reasons as some others. I am a pretty opinionated liberal or progressive or whatever you want to call it. I'm a card-carrying member of the green party. And a few years after being baptized, I came to the conclusion that I couldn't deal with the pushing, the absolutist attitude, the guilt trips, and all that. And, more importantly, I couldn't make my progressive ideals mesh with what I thought was an overwhelmingly conservative church.

I'm not telling this story to make people think they're wrong to leave the church or to be skeptical. On the contrary, I'm telling it to say that I truly understand what some people go through because I've been there. Like many LDS spouses, my wife has always been very straight-up conservative LDS, and she almost divorced me when I left the church. To make it worse, her family was furious with me, and I was under a lot of pressure.

But for me the path was different. As I said before, a few years later we moved to New Mexico and I took a job where I was surrounded by active LDS people. But they were different — less judgmental, more Christ-like. And I learned, slowly, that all the stuff that drove me crazy was culture, not doctrine. More importantly, though, I learned for myself that the core of my individual faith was following the Savior's statement of the two greatest commandments: To love the Lord thy God with all your heart, mind and soul, and to love your neighbor as yourself. If you think about it, progressive values are Christ-like values. They are the embodiment of "loving your neighbor as yourself."

Fast-forward to today, I'm still vocal and opinionated. People around me now know that I'm going to open up a can of smack-down on them if they try to get away with some snide comment like, "We'd better get ready for the second coming now that Obama's in office." (Actually, I try to be kind but firm, but you get the point.) But everyone from my bishop to my stake president supports my right to believe what I believe, even though they disagree with me, because this truly is a partisan neutral church, and they truly do believe in President Hinckley's admonition to "disagree without being disagreeable." So far, I haven't been released.

Also, I’m happy to say that John’s death, in my opinion, was not in vain. It changed me. I repeat that story to my counselors often, and we have learned how to help people like John understand that they are wanted and loved in our ward so that they can have the emotional support that comes from being in such a community. I really feel like, for every John whose life ended in tragedy, we have five others who were able to overcome. Of course, battling addiction is a never-ending thing. John is one of the battles we lost. But largely because of John, we are winning the war.

I don't know why all this cultural nonsense is so prevalent in the church. But I have to say, that for me, it's all irrelevant. I'm truly happy being both LDS and progressive. And I when I left the church and came back to it, I left all the guilt behind. Mostly now, I just take joy in helping all these men and their families who are trying to eek out their way in this life, and seeing them grown and change. In my opinion, that's what an Elder's Quorum President, or any church member, should be doing. That's what Christ did. That's what he wants us to do. The rest of it is just details.