Faith-Promoting Rumor

The site is dead! Long live the site!

2005-10-10T04:31:00.000-07:00

Due to my recent struggles with blogger and a desire to experiment with wordpress, Faith-Promoting Rumor is moving to a new site. That site is faithprorumor.weblogs.us. Please reset your radio function keys accordingly.

An open letter to the lds.org webmaster (or why out-of-context quotes are bad)

2005-09-30T07:51:00.000-07:00

"Happiness and spiritual progress lie in following the leaders of the Church."
—Elder Dallin H. Oaks
Ensign, May 1999, 37

I love the church, the gospel, and the prophets. I am a particularly big fan of Elder Oaks. But this quote, found without context on the lds.org page, is kinda creepy, huh.

Let's put it in context. It is from a talk about Martin Harris. In it, Elder Oaks describes Harris's life, emphasizing the good about him. He covers his alienation from and then reconciliation with the church. After covering the events of Harris's life and his unwavering testimony of the Book of Mormon, Elder Oaks draws the following conclusions.

What do we learn from this example? (1) Witnesses are important, and the testimony of the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon is impressive and reliable. (2) Happiness and spiritual progress lie in following the leaders of the Church. (3) There is hope for each of us, even if we have sinned and strayed from a favored position.

In this context, the quote is much less creepy. It is inspiring even. It's meaning is more fully informed. It is no longer a vaguely brainwashy message from on high, but rather an example of how the gospel ultimately blessed the life of a great man, an example we can learn from.

The church is in the habit of putting quotes up at its website, generally drawn from the General Conference talks of the quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency. In general, I think it is a good idea, but they should try to remember that context helps one to understand the intended meaning. It allows us to grasp the whole picture a little better. So, dear webmaster of the lds.org site, please stop using a random generator for the quotes we see there. Read them over carefully and decide if the acontextual message you send out is one that we really want to say. From your neighbor, the Mormon.

Um, Ow!

2005-09-23T11:19:00.000-07:00

"If you feel that Heavenly Father is not listening to your petitions, ask yourself if you are listening to the cries of the poor, the sick, the hungry, and the afflicted all around you."
—Elder Joseph B. Wirthlin
Ensign, May 2001, 74

Historical Mormon Smackdown! Evo-NDBF Edition

2005-09-19T08:19:00.000-07:00

Remember back when I posted a weekly poll...good times. Well, since the Bloggernacle Times has started up again, I've decided I can go back to the well, too.

When last we spoke, the Old Testament was making sure that the Pearl of Great Price hied back to Kolob (rim-shot). This week, a reason to really bicker:

Who has the most influence on faithful LDS scholarship?
President Joseph Fielding Smith or Elder B. H. Roberts

President Smith is the son of the son of the brother of Joseph. He was the President of the Church (although not while most of his controversial stuff was initially published). He has written several books for the edification of the priesthood quorums. President Smith refused to countenance the idea of organic evolution.

Elder Roberts was an orphan encouraged into the church by Joseph Smith. He was a clear, forthright, and honest thinker and theologian. Many of his books were written for courses for priesthood quorums. Elder Roberts created a theory of pre-Adamites to explain the scientific evidence as he understood it.

There you go, please vote. I should also say that the idea for this week's smackdown came from an "a random John" comment somewhere, but I can't remember where. If you know what I am thinking of, please let me know and I'll post the link.

Why do we fall?

2005-09-16T16:49:00.000-07:00

Assuming that the Fall of Humanity wasn't an unplanned for mistake, but a part of God's overall plan, why do we need to Fall?

Grace/Salvation/Atonement as a process or as an event

2005-09-14T10:28:00.000-07:00

Elsewhere, Clark Goble has publically agreed with Dr. Millet's assessment of salvation as a process. In a slightly different context, Mssrs Goble, Greenwood, and Johnston have all admitted that, while they think it is possible for people to hold the idea that humans are "instantly transformed" at judgment, they are uncertain as to why anyone would (see here and following comments). I am one of those who do believe in "instant transformation", but I object to that characterization and actually believe that the distinction between process and event is actually not all that helpful. These notions are tied together; please allow me to explain.

I tend to view salvation/justification/sanctification as a process consisting of a series of saving events, each of which should be termed as a gift or a grace. I, therefore, dislike Dr. Millet's distinction because it seems to separate out two ideas that I find are intertwined. We are "instantly transformed" in a thousand, thousand small ways as part of the life-long process of repentance. All good things (including faith, grace, love, hope, patience, intelligence, light, and so forth) are gifts from God and, as such, are not earned. There is no way for us to earn them. They are given in God's own time and in His own wisdom. Even if we make the central covenants of the gospel, there is no gaurantee of the instant receipt of those gifts, just the promise that, as we abide in the covenant, we will receive...eventually.

Now some may argue that abiding in the covenant constitutes "work." I disagree, because those qualities that we use to abide in the covenant are themselves inherently gifts from God. It is a bit recursive, admittedly, but the idea that we can do anything of ourselves is, I believe, contrary to one of the central messages of the gospel: our need for complete submission to the will of God.

In fact, this is the central trial that Christ faced on earth. There is real pain, suffering, and work behind his concession in Gethsemene that God's will be done. My argument is that, fundamentally, this is what God is asking each of us to do. None of us will be as good at it as Christ, which is why the atonement is in place, but if we do what we are able (which, by the way, ain't much), then God considers us in fulfillment of this covenant in the same way His Son was (which is why we can be joint-heirs).

So, ultimately, all God asks of us is to submit to his will. He makes up for our lacks by a process of instantaneous transformations that slowly make us better. However, with that as an understanding of the atonement, I find no reason to object to the idea that transformations can be more overarching at the time of the judgement. I do believe that God can and will make us Celestial (so long as that is what we want), by means of instantaneous transformation (if that is what it takes).

The good fight

2005-09-13T12:06:00.000-07:00

First of all, I have been very busy lately with a variety of silly issues developing with my beginning a new semester. These are starting to smooth out and therefore I should be more able to post and comment in the future. This is a fundamental difference between me and Ronan; he posts more during the semester and I less.

Geoff J has a post over at his blog asking why people don't discuss doctrinal issues more. I should post a comment there, and will, but I fall along those who don't feel like they have done enough research to explain my take adequately (read: convincingly). I don't know enough Mormonalia (pithy mission statements aside) to really feel like I can comment on what Heber C. Kimball or Joseph Smith may have said as an aside in a discussion written down in someone's journal some years later. Or the journal of discourses.

For that matter, I am reluctant to dismiss arguments regarding other people's positions if I haven't had time to really consider them. For instance, there are several things in Jeffrey Gilliam's development of Mormon theology that I find objectionable, but having only taken the time to read about have his posts on the subject, I am consumed with the fear that he has answered my concerns elsewhere. Moreso, I think that I will find more of the same in his other posts and still be left with only a vague uneasiness defining my skepticism.

That said, there have been a rash of posts recently that deal with issues that are central to me and my understanding of the doctrine. I am certain that I fundamentally differ with J. about the meaning of the atonement. I know that I disagree with Jeffrey G. about the usefulness of evolution as a model for spiritual development, the importance of the inspiration/revelation distinction, and the pervasiveness of Adam-God. I think the parable of the mortgage vastly overestimates the importance of works and underestimates the power of grace. I respect all of these men, don't think that they are apostate, appreciate that they are good thinkers, and, nonetheless, believe that they are all wrong. Just plain wrong.

In part, this is because I am a fairly orthodox guy. I actually believe that the "common" understanding of the scriptures is, in many cases, the best one. This, in turn, makes it hard for me to defend my position because it makes it hard for state clearly what it is. As Davis Bell has commented elsewhere, the "common" understanding of the gospel is a witch's brew of innuendo, speculation, offhand remarks from general authorities, and occasional scripture. I have commented on this before.

That said, I am deeply interested in the Atonement. Many times I am impressed with the level of speculation that takes place here in the 'Naccle. But I feel like, in some ways, J., Geoff, and Jeff are creating issues out of thin air; creating confusion where the doctrine was fairly clear. I believe all three men (and others like them) to be sincere. So the confusion must be genuine. But it fails to make sense to me because I have a hard time understanding why the non-sense of previous theories needs rectification. The Atonement is inherently irrational. There is no need to create a theological foundation for it (and it is possibly backward to do so).

Nonetheless, with the discussion thusfar, and with my conscience growing guiltier every time I fail to comment on one of their interesting posts, I have decided to put forward what I mean by the "common" understanding of the gospel. I know that I am idiosyncratic (I let far more people into the Celestial Kingdom than might normally be considered doctrinally possible), but I feel like, in general, it is sound doctrine (I may even cite scripture to make my point).

First of all, the reason that we are sent here is to submit our will entirely to God in a manner whereby we do it rationally, devotionally, and willingly. God cannot make us do this, but he is not above engineering things so that this is the most likely outcome. We are sent to the mortal realm to experience failure, sin, pain, sorrow and a whole host of other things that are simply impossible for us to experience unless we are separated from God, which can only happen if we choose it and we have a mortal, fallible body. At least in part, we undergo this to develop compassion for our eventual wayward children. Additionally, we do this so that we can develop the faith necessary to take upon ourselves the name of Christ and, thereby, become joint-heirs with him.

The role of Christ is that of the Redeemer. Though necessarily sinless in order to undergo the atonement, it was necessary for even him to experience and take upon himself our sins. He had to be separated from God as part of his mortal experience. His role is that of the Father to us. I am not saying that He is the Father, because The Father plays a different role and is a different being. What I am saying is that Christ is divinely endowed with the power and, to a degree, the presence of the Father in his role as Savior, Redeemer, Judge, and God of this world. Christ is the Father of our covenants; the Gospel makes us His Children. The role of the Father (meaning God, the Father) in this is mysterious. We are already His Children. However, I can say that, however we interact with the Father, it is through the mediation of His Son. As much as He may like to, God cannot save his Children without the Atonement of His Son.

We are saved when, during or after this life, we are divinely invested with the attributes of the Father through the mediation of the Son. As Christ became the Father through divine investiture, so too can we. To do so, we must do as Christ did and submit our will wholely to God, allowing Divine Grace to perfect us. All good things are gifts from God and salvation is no exception. The reason that this is accomplishable in this life is because, ultimately, God isn't demanding some arbitrary level of righteousness or obedience for us to advance to the next level. Salvation is not earned; it is given by a loving Father through the conduit of His Son. What we are asked to do is to humble ourselves sufficient to rely on God and His Grace; He really will take care of the rest. So, that's what I think. You?

Mama, I've got those Fantasy Football blues...

2005-09-13T09:23:00.000-07:00

Well, the season has begun, and I have bested the forces of darkness yet again. Yes, John C. took a nosedive yesterday, as his team was left panting on the sidelines after a thorough drubbing by yours truly.

As large sweaty men pummel each other on the gridiron each Sunday, yet another of my neuroses surfaces. The commandment to keep the Sabbath holy is being battered to pieces by the aforementioned helmeted warriors, a small but significant portion of which are LDS. With a few notable exceptions, most of these seem not to mind.

So, what are your thoughts on professional sports and the Sabbath, particularly on LDS athletes/coaches, etc.? Are they truly accomplishing missionary work by being the public figures that they are, or is this just an excuse for them to ignore one of the Ten Commandments in the pursuit of the almighty dollar? Am I breaking the commandment if I watch sports on Sunday? What if I just check the fantasy stats on the internet?

What would Sean Diener do?

2005-08-30T14:01:00.000-07:00

PETA Campaign Coordinator Sean Diener, a devout Latter-Day Saint who grew up in Salt Lake City says,“Anyone who thinks that Jesus would approve of the way that these animals are raised and killed completely misses the gospel’s greatest message: compassion.”

Do you think that the gospel's greatest message is compassion?

Historical Mormon Smackdown: Standard Works Edition!

2005-08-29T14:05:00.000-07:00

Well, the last time we did this, the Book of Mormon hero wupped up on the Biblical one. It got me thinking about this, a subject destined to become this week's smackdown!

Scriptural Mormon Smackdown: Standard Works Edition!
Not that one is, but if one was, which of these Standard Works is the most important: The Pearl of Great Price or The Old Testament?

The Pearl of Great Price is the source of all of our knowledge regarding Kolob and most of our knowledge regarding Enoch.

The Old Testament has Isaiah, Genesis, and several other LDS proof-texts.

Please vote and then comment below.

PETA billboards and Word of Wisdom

2005-08-29T06:06:00.000-07:00

At this posting, Judah holds a very slight lead with 3 votes. Personally, I think that's a case of the squeaky wheel getting the grease... at any rate, on to today's topic of contenti...er discussion.

Anyone see those LDS-oriented PETA billboards a year or so ago in Utah? The ones quoting D&C 89 about eating "...meat sparingly, only in times of cold or famine"? Those actually got me thinking. We (Americans) eat meat a lot, all year long. No recent famines to my knowledge. And yet we (Mormons) seem to just completely skip over this advice in the Word of Wisdom. I've asked people about this, and I can barely get the question out of my mouth when they start hollering at me "D&C says vegetarianism is not from God!" Well, no, that's not what the Lord says. He says PREACHING vegetarianism as a commandment is not from God. But in the WoW he also says it is pleasing unto him that meat not be used, only in times of cold or famine. Why doesn't anyone (except PETA) holler about that verse? Anyway, being as it's neither cold now nor faminous (I love inventing words) I opted for vegetarianism for the summer at least, with only minor villification from friends and church members.

So... whaddya think? Is a veggie lifestyle Satan's secret plan to destroy us? Or do we consume way more hamburger than was ever intended?

They're not lost, I just don't remember where I put them...

2005-08-25T11:29:00.000-07:00

So, moving on from Bigfoot.... I want to know, where have those Lost Ten Tribes got to? Center of the Earth? The Moon? Russia? right here among us, disguised as ordinary citizens? C'mon, let's have it... let's hear all those wild and wooly theories.

And by the way, exactly which tribes ARE lost, anyway? Ephraim was originally one of the Ten, but now we're back; Levi didn't originally count as one of the twelve, but he is technically lost. I think we know where Judah, Benjamin and the two Joseph tribes are, right? And what about Dan? why doesn't Dan count as part of the 144,000? Is Dan lost or not, and do we want to find him? If there's 13 tribes and only 12 apostles, does somebody get to skip the judgment? Tell me more....

Perhaps we should have a poll/smackdown:
Which tribe is most historically significant, and would win on MTV Celebrity Deathmatch?

Sasquatch and Melchizedek

2005-08-23T12:14:00.000-07:00

Ok, since this place is dedicated to "oddments and marginalia" and other weird Mormon Legends, I have two that I'd like to hear more about:

1) I remember reading somewhere that there was a theory that Shem, son of Noah, was the same person as Melchizedek. And then I remember reading somewhere else, Mormon Doctrine possibly, that the theory was nonsense. But if I remember right, the first person was quoting Joseph Smith. Anyone else ever heard of this controversy, and could provide better sources than my rotten memory?

2) In an old copy of the Lectures on Faith, I remember seeing a quote from somebody's journal about how they were riding on a horse, and a big 8 ft tall naked hair-covered man came up beside them, and then later on the Prophet told them they had seen Cain, son of Adam. Anyone know anything about this one? Makes no sense to me... first of all, how come Adam dies of old age, but Cain gets to hang out? And why does he look like Bigfoot? And how'd he make it through the flood?

Addendum: Ok, our intrepid commentators have informed me that I had it all backwards, the Cain story was in Miracle of Forgiveness and the Shem/Melchizedek story was in Lectures on Faith.

God v. Mammon, 2005

2005-08-20T12:29:00.000-07:00

Didn't Brigham Young say something to the effect that he knew the Saints could withstand mobbings and lynchings, but he was worried about the effects prosperity would have on [us]?

Well here is my question: Since leaving school and working for a few years, I've been able to put a little money away and now am beginning to invest it. How aware do I need to be of who gets my money? Certainly I'm not going to go out and invest in shares of Phillip Morris or Anheiser Busch or Bally's Casinos... But what about Coca-Cola? What about companies that SELL tobacco and alcohol, like restaurants & convenience stores, What about studios that make good movies, but also make R-rated ones? What about Marriott, for Pete's sake, which has porn available as pay-per-view in all its hotel rooms? If I invest in these companies, am I not also profitting from the vices they promote and exploit?

To take it a step further, what if I don't bother to invest in individual stocks at all, but stick to mutual funds? Am I responsible to monitor each individual company the fund invests in? If I don't, then in theory, my money could be used to do things I would never dream of doing in person, right?

Perhaps I'm neurotic. After all, Phillip Morris also owns "Kraft", I could tell myself that I was investing in Velveeta instead of Marlboro. I can go to the casino just for the buffet, right, and tell myself i'm not helping finance people's addiction to gambling. If I subscribe to HBO, but only watch the PG13 stuff, never mind that i'm also helping produce The Sopranos, right? right?

What's a gospel-conscious investor/consumer to do?

[For the record, when I mentioned this dilemma to a member of my stake presidency, he told me not to worry about it, because you don't have enough time to investigate all the uses your money is put to, and because ANY company might be doing something immoral you don't even know about. I'm not sure I'm satisfied with that answer....]

---------------------------------

Philip Morris is a tobacco company that has successfully diversified, and is now a producer of well-known brands of food and beer. (Its 2000 Annual Report noted that "Fifteen of our brands generated $1 billion or more in revenues last year: Marlboro, Kraft, Basic, Miller Lite, Virginia Slims, Parliament, L&M, Oscar Mayer, Post, Philip Morris, Maxwell House, Jacobs, Philadelphia, Merit and our newest addition, the Nabisco trademark.")

-(http://www.virginiaplaces.org/econ/philipmorris.html)

Please Welcome Rob

2005-08-19T11:50:00.000-07:00

FPR is pleased to announce the appointment of my brother Robert to perma-blogger status. Please feel free to welcome him to the blog.

Robert is a board-certified MD in rural Missouri with too much spare time. Although his online persona thusfar may make him seem like "House," he is really much more like "Marcus Welby" (by which, I mean, old).

In the interest of keeping all posts from becoming bitter flame wars inspired by sibling rivalry, please feel free to keep commenting (additionally, please feel free to point out that I am right).

Bloggernacle Fantasy Football

2005-08-16T09:04:00.000-07:00

Sure, the bloggernacle is a place to discuss obscure points of doctrine and the true meaning of Zelph. It is a place where you can scratch your itch for intellectual approaches to the Gospel and fluffy testimonials. But where can you get the violence, the splendor, the glory, the gory of NFL football in the 'nacle?

Well, right here, assuming that I get 6-10 interested nackers.

Announcing the Bloggernacle Fantasy Football league! Knock heads with Kaimi*! Drill Steve Evans* into the dirt! Watch Ryan Bell* juke Kristine Harris*! Catch a Hail Mary from Rosalynde Welch*! Get sacked by Danithew*!

Let me know if you are interested.

*actual participation by said Bloggernacle luminaries is dependent on their actually wanting to participate. Also, all afore-mentioned violence was and will remain purely metaphorical. Thank you.

Do we believe in a "timeless" church?

2005-08-16T08:58:00.000-07:00

This post was prompted by a comment made by my brother over here. I understand that the way of God is one eternal round and that he is the same yesterday, today, and forever. But I don't think those things mean what they seem to mean at face value. For two reasons:

1) If God is static, whence eternal progression?
2) If the Gospel is static, whence the need for continuing revelation?

Discuss.

Historical Mormon Smackdown: Scriptural Bloodletter Edition!

2005-08-15T10:11:00.000-07:00

First, may I say that if our entirely scientific poll is any indication, then Mitt Romney will do more presidential damage than Hatch did. Mitt, the comeback kid, came from 8 votes back to win by 6.

This week's competition is the result of a special request. As you know, here at FPR, the customer is king.

Historical Mormon Smackdown: Scriptural Bloodletter Edition
Who is the less problematic scriptural holy warrior is the LDS Canon: Capt. Moroni or Joshua, son of Nun?

Capt. Moroni: Nephite war-leader; fought invaders and internal traitors; forced said internal traitors to fight or be killed; made them hoist copies of a torn coat from their towers (how gauche!); and, finally, really, really didn't enjoy himself in all of this.

Joshua, son of Nun: hung out with Moses and, apparently, God; enacted God's haram, resulting in genocide in several Canaanite cities (according to the Book of Joshua, at least); and wasn't much into the whole "shade of grey" morality viewpoint. Unfortunately, we don't know how he felt about what he did.

So there you go, two heroes of a previous generation (okay, several generations) whom we might consider monsters nowadays. Express your defense or disgust below and vote away.

False Proxies

2005-08-03T09:29:00.000-07:00

I promised that I would talk somewhat about temple work and the work for the dead from time to time. Today is such a time. This is less about work for the dead, so you know.

The Adversary is at his most effective when he can get us to do the right thing for the wrong reason. If our outward appearance and action seem righteous, then we are less likely to question our inner beliefs and attitudes. In our church, there is sometimes such an emphasis on certain outward shows of faith (eg. church and temple attendance) that ministry toward people making these shows is never initiated until something drastic occurs. We need a way to help the despairing, lonely, confused, and wayward before it becomes physically apparent that they need help. More on that another time...

What I want to talk about today is the way that the Adversary has taken some of the most sacred things that we do in the temple and has altered them. Not in the outward appearance, but in the inner meaning.

Take for instance the relationship between a man and a wife. In the temple, God has something to say on the subject (although his remarks avoid a single interpretation). Outside of the temple, many other people have something to say on the topic. In the temple, the most important aspect is that God is to be involved in decision-making. Outside of the temple, however we care to structure our families is fine, so long as the parents agree with it. God is removed from the structure of family life, even though he was the one to initially ordain it. We now have an understanding of family structure without God. Some might argue that it is better this way, but I disagree. By substituting human understanding for Godly instruction, we create a situation where our inadequate social skills and our lacking wisdom is all might keep a family from self-destructing. We need God to keep our families going. Attempts to structure the family with anything else in God's place are doomed to fail.

The same can be said for the Gospel. There are several different Gospels out there, depending on how you want it interpreted. The vital truth of The Gospel is that it's interpreter is Christ himself (and, from Him, the Light of Christ). When we choose a Gospel other than Christ's, we are substituting someone or something else in His place. I had a friend who was investigating the church tell me that when it came down to it, he had to choose between what the Bible told him and what Mormonism told him. He choose the Bible. He made the choice he did because of how he understood the Bible and how he understood the way God works through it. I agreed that if we kept ourselves strictly to what the Bible (as it is translated) says, that the Book of Mormon does say and do things differently (it even contradicts the Bible on occasion). So if we want to put our understanding of the Bible above what God might tell us, we are again substituting something for God. If we prefer the interpretations of John Wesley, Martin Luther, or Eld. McConkie to what we are being told today by God, we are putting someone else in God's place. Churches or doctrines that are not founded in God are doomed to fail.

Similar things can be said regarding the bloody recitation of the suffering of the saints and the ascetic sacrifice of monks or even in the Horatio Alger stories of self-sacrifice and success, the replacement of marriage as being between a man and a wife with something much broader, or the communitarian ideal of communism. In all these cases, God is taken out of the equation, replaced with some human's idea of what is right or even some human. This is the Adversary at his subtlest. The outcome appears the same (strong families, stable societies) but the Adeversary's outcomes are only temporary. The substitution of mortal for immortal always works that way.

The appeal of all of this is to our pride. We believe that we are capable of these great moral heights without divine intervention. But we are not. We are a jealous, short-sighted, stumbling bunch of sinners. There is no lasting institution on Earth that isn't inspired and maintained by God. Although we may see in these developments things that make us better, without God, they have no effective force on us. Reason, education, reeducation, suffering, and strife have no edifying value of themselves. It is God to whom we must turn to be lifted above ourselves. All other sources are pale shadows and poor substitutes of the real thing.

Ambiguity comes with the territory

2005-08-02T10:53:00.000-07:00

In a discussion with a BYU religion professor yesterday, he mentioned that he had been told by people at the Marriott School of Business that graduates from that institution are universally praised in all areas except one (I may be slightly exaggerating here). The one area in which the BYU grad is behind his fellow MBA's? Handling Ambiguity.

I wasn't terribly surprised by the revelation. I don't want to blame the "the brethren have spoken" mindset here, because I don't believe that provides sufficient explanation for this trend. The truth is that, in the church, we are conditioned to reject ambiguity. If there are no answers to our questions, we pray/study harder. If that doesn't work, we do it some more anyway. Problems are not problems, they're "tests" that we need to pass in order to resolve. Things do not just happen in the Mormon worldview. In spite of our insistance on free will, it turns out that God has carefully controlled everything in our lives so that we can learn the appropriate lessons from our challenges (if we choose to, of course).

Why do we fear the inexplicable, the contradictory, and the unmotivated? Perhaps a certain believe in a divine overseer removes fear when life becomes unpredictable and confusing. It seems hard for us to accept that some things are beyond our comprehension (perhaps because of our beliefs about intelligence and intelligences).

Perhaps I am only speaking for myself here.

In any case, it seems that we have lost our taste for mystery (in the Christian sense) in the church. We do not like to dwell on paradoxes in doctrine and faith, telling ourselves that there are no paradoxes and creating elaborate schemes to make our contradictions no longer contradict.

But the mind of God is not the mind of man and the ways of God differ from ours.

Joseph Smith once said:
"By proving contraries, the truth is made manifest"

To be honest, I have no idea what this means. It could mean that by showing that contradictions exist and that it is necessary to accept them, we approach God. Or it could mean that by examining apparent contradictions, God can help us unravel them and find the rational truth therein. I am not convinced that we have an either-or situation here. In any case, it seems that we need to pay close attention to the paradoxes in our belief. Contemplation thereof seems to be a manner of approaching God.

Historical Mormon Smackdown: Aspiring President edition!

2005-08-01T13:54:00.000-07:00

Now on a new day and time!

This week's contest is inspired by the news of late. Enjoy:
Which recent presidential aspirer has done more to impact the perception of the Church: Mitt Romney or Orrin Hatch?

Romney: "fixed" the Salt Lake Olympics, become a Republican governor in Mass, appears ambiguous on some key social issues, sure is purty

Hatch: has been a senator for a long, long time; constantly appears on "talking-heads" type shows; pro-stem cell research/anti-flag burning; those awful, awful songs.

That's it folks, get your political fix here. Vote to the right or below and discuss these almost-rans (or might-runs) here.

Historical Mormon Smackdown: Bomber edition

2005-07-21T10:27:00.000-07:00

Sorry for the sporadic posting of late. I've been busy. Also, I am still recovering from the results of the last poll. John Lee over Gary Gilmore? As other people have mentioned regarding other polls, I am beginning to suspect the tastes of our readership. Sure, Lee was pivotal in a minor event in Southern Utah a century or so ago. Gilmore only created a situation where W. could say, with a straight face, that he never executed an innocent man (also, Gilmore inspired the Cremaster cycle, for which he can never be forgiven in all the eternities). But I digress...

On to this week's competition:
Who is the more historically significant LDS bomber: Marc Hofmann or Gail S. Halvorsen?

Hofmann: forged a whole lot of "early Mormon documents", killed a couple of people to keep it quiet, inadvertantly got Michael Quinn's career going, inadvertantly got Jon Krakauer in touch with Dan Lafferty (Justin has a collection of articles about Hofmann up on his site).

Halvorsen: dropped candy out of his bomber for impoverished German children during the Berlin airlift. Read about it here and here.

So, what will it be? Vote below or to the right and defend your choice in the comments.

Historical Utah smackdown! Killer Edition

2005-07-08T05:52:00.000-07:00

I am sorry for not getting any posts out this week. I've been busy. According the the poll, it turns out that there isn't an unwritten order of things because Elder McConkie wrote it all down.

This week, somewhat inspired by recent events, is a little different in that I am not sure if one of the participants is LDS (and five minutes on the internet didn't help).

Historical Utah Smackdown: Killer edition!
Who is the more important executed Utah killer vaguely associated with Mormonism:
John Lee or Gary Gilmore?

John Lee: led the Mountain Meadows Massacre; claimed to have done it on orders from Brigham Young; the only person convicted for involvement (Justin, correct me if I am wrong).

Gary Gilmore: the first person executed after Furmand vs. Georgia had invalidated prior capital laws, captured by my stake's second counsellor, rumored to have sought death by firing squad because of things Brigham Young taught about "blood atonement."

Have at it, vote below or to the right.

Historical Mormon Smackdown: Hardliner edition

2005-06-30T16:21:00.000-07:00

So, last week we learned that, much as on the gridiron, it is the quarterback that has the influence, even though the running back does most of the work. But enough about that, on to this week's event:

Historical Mormon Smackdown: Hardliner edition
Who is the more influential hard-line interpreter of current LDS orthodoxy: Elder Boyd K. Packer or Elder Bruce R. McConkie?

Elder Packer has written and given several influential talks regarding what is and what ain't orthodoxy and firmly implying which side of the line the Lord would like you to be on.

Elder McConkie practically codified orthodoxy by writing Mormon Doctrine and has been known to take a firm position in a talk or two.

So, who is your pick? Who do you send in if you have a group of possible apostates in serious need of a spiritual beatdown (done with compassion, of course)? Vote below or to the right and comment on the proceedings.

An intentionally late Fathers' Day post

2005-06-28T10:51:00.000-07:00

My father has never been antagonistic to the church exactly. For all intents and purposes, he appears to have been indifferent. He never objected when we went, attended when something important happened, and generally refrained from criticizing the aspects of it to which he objected. He has reportedly even told neighbors that if he was to join any church, it would likely be ours.

We have had a whole slew of missionaries come through the house. Sometimes he has liked them; usually he hasn't. He'll generally tolerate them through a meal, sit and listen to their lesson, and then disappear into a back room until they leave. I don't think that he has ever taken a discussion; it is possible that he has never been interested.

During my mission, he started attending church with my Mom (it was really the first time she had had to go alone in a long time). Mom reported that he had started reading the Book of Mormon. In our eagerness for this development (long overdue in all our minds), we peppered Dad with so many questions (mine via mail) that we quickly overwhelmed his patience and he stopped reading to get us off his back. That period may have been the closest my father will ever come to joining the church and his family contributed to his turning away then.

We are told that there is no such thing as a death-bed confession. The spirit that inhabits the body in this life will be the same that in the next. We've also been told that this life is the time. My father is forty years older than me, has suffered pancreatitis and a heart attack. We are often told that there is hope for the parents of wayward children, what is there for the children of wayward parents?

I am not sure that my father will join the church before he dies. I used to be sure he would, but his mortality bears more and more upon me. He still isn't interested in the church after 40 some-odd years in close contact with it. I (and the other family members) often wonder if it is our fault. Was there something we could have done to be a better example? Have we failed to offer testimony when the moment was right? Did our reaction that one time (when I was on my mission) ruin his one chance? If he dies, will he get another?

The scriptures are sufficiently ambiguous on this point. The whole point of the work for the dead is to help those who couldn't help themselves. Does my father fall in this category? He has known about the church for a while; does his refusal to learn more constitute a rejection of knowledge or a simple ignorance of how important the gospel is? I know that he knows that we think the Gospel is important, but that's hearsay right?

If my father dies before he joins the church, we will have him baptized vicariously. He knows this. Does his refusal now mean that he will refuse then? If we do it, are we disrespecting his wishes? Or giving him an opportunity that he couldn't take advantage of in life?

This is a lot of mystery surrounding our beliefs about the work among the dead. I'll be posting on it on occasion for the next little while, if for no other reason than that I am worried about my dad. I love him and I wouldn't mind hanging out with him for an eternity or two.