project mayhem

"Please bless this food that it might nourish and strengthen...."

2009-12-21T23:50:00.000-08:00

In nearly every mealtime prayer, a Mormon asks God to "Bless this food that it might nourish and strengthen our bodies" (or some variation of this line).

Is this phrase unique to Mormons? Or do other Christians use it as well? If the former, who was the first to use it, and did they have any clue that it would be nearly on par with the Lord's Prayer (and more commonly used) in Mormonism?

And when Mormons use it, do any of you believe that the very chemical components of the food will change so that the food will go from un-nourishment and un-strengthening to nourishing and strengthening?

Mormons, Mormons, Mormons

2009-12-15T14:17:00.001-08:00

The fourth purpose of the Church - to care for the poor and needy.

2009-12-10T13:36:00.000-08:00

It's official. For the past few days, the bloggernacle has been rumoring that the LDS Church was changing it's three-fold mission of the Church to include caring for the poor and needy. Today, the Salt Lake Tribune's Peggy Fletcher Stack confirmed the rumor with Church spokesman Scott Trotter. In the upcoming revision of the Church's Handbook of Instructions, the former three-fold mission of the church is being replaced with the 'purposes' of the Church, which will now be:

Preaching the Gospel
Perfecting the Saints
Redeeming the Dead
Caring for the Poor and Needy

Words can hardly relate how elated I am about this. For those who know me or have been following my blog, this is something that I have felt passionately about and arguing for for years. While the Church, as an organization, has always seemed to have this emphasis to a certain extent, it is my experience--which is limited at best--that this has not always been an important purpose for the general membership. By placing the emphasis at the head of the Church's stated purposes, I hope that it's important will trickle down to the general membership.

While this has almost always been the subject of President Monsen's talks, it has clearly been the primary emphasis of his most recent General Conference talk and this week's Christmas devotional. This change, bears testimony to the role he believes the Gospel should have in taking care of those in need and his prophetic calling.

“Which Thing I Never Had Supposed” The Problem of Evil and the Problem of Man

2009-12-09T19:39:00.000-08:00

I realized last week that I hadn't submitted anything for next year's SMPT conference, and had to whip up something as fast as I could to meet the deadline. This is what I ended up with. It still needs a LOT of work. Hopefully it gets accepted so that I can present it in March.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Which Thing I Never Had Supposed”

The Problem of Evil and the Problem of Man

(Precis)

Loyd Ericson

Claremont Graduate University

SMPT 2010

The problem of evil, in its various forms, is almost always viewed as a problem for God’s existence. The question posed is simply of how is it be possible for there to exist an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving God in light of all of the evil and suffering we witness in the world. If God is all-powerful, then he would be capable of preventing evil; if all-knowing, then he would know of potential evil to be prevented; and if all-loving, then he would have the loving desire to prevent evil. Because evil is present, it is concluded that God (who is defined as being—among other things—all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving) does not then exist. While many believers have attempted—and perhaps successfully so—to respond to this problem and defend God’s existence, these attempts to dissolve the problem of God open and reveal another: what I will call the problem of man—the problem of justifying and understanding our individual existence in a world that may render us irrelevant.

Perhaps the most famous of responses to the problem of evil is Alvin Plantinga’s free-will defense. To summarize it quickly, Plantinga argues that it is possible that in order to create the best of possible worlds, God allows humans (and possibly other invisible creatures) to be free-willing agents which God does not prevent from committing evils. Another popular response to the problem of evil is John Hick’s soul-making theodicy, where it is argued that God allows, or even designs, evils so that free-willing agents can learn and grow from their experience with evil. Both of these have been adopted in some form or another by numerous Mormon philosophers and theologians.

While these responses may be rational and adequate intellectual defenses for the existence of God in light of the evidence of evil around us, their appeal to the best of possible worlds or a broader goal, can leave the individual person without a defense of their own existence or value. While suffering and evil may be defended as being necessary for God’s plan, it is unclear whether each of us individually is just as necessary for that plan. The problem of man asks: if while God may have a plan for humanity, does he have a plan for me? Or am I like the ant whose individual existence is negligible in comparison to the colony?

Perhaps this is what Moses experienced following his revelation recorded in the first chapter of the Book of Moses. After being shown “the world and the ends thereof, and all the children of men which are, and which were created,” Moses wakes up and says to himself: “Now, for this cause I know that man is nothing, which thing I never had supposed” (Moses 1:8, 10). After witnessing the seemingly endless numbers of children which God had placed on the earth, is it at all surprising that Moses would announce that his own life is nothing in comparison. Like the Monty Python Sketch, “Live Organ Transplants,” in which a woman is told in song about the almost unimaginable size of the universe, how can we not respond with her and Moses and say, “Makes you feel so, sort of, insignificant, doesn't it?”

God tells Moses that his creations are endless and that he is going to show Moses just one part of it. Moses then sees the world and every person on it. Like the woman, suddenly he is insignificant, he is nothing. He is merely a single grain in an eternal beach of sand. To make things even worse, the scriptures say that after having this vision, “the presence of God withdrew from Moses, that his glory was not upon Moses; and Moses was left unto himself.” Moses was suddenly small, insignificant, and alone.

To emphasize this sense of loss and insignificance felt by Moses, it seems then to be no coincidence that it is at this very moment that Satan appears to Moses – to attack him at his weakest. The scripture continues: “And it came to pass that when Moses had said these words, behold, Satan came tempting him, saying: Moses, son of man, worship me.”

Like Tyler Durden in the movie Fight Club, this realization can be telling us: “Listen up, maggots. You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You are the same decaying organic matter as everything else.”

A quick response by believers might be in an appeal to God’s knowledge of each of us individually. Like Jesus, they may respond, “Consider the lilies how they grow: they toil not, they spin not. . . . If God so clothe the grass, which is to day in the field, and to morrow is cast into the oven; how much more will he clothe you, O ye of little faith?” But what does this say to the Cambodian sex slave, the child suffering of bone-cancer, or even the lonely and forgotten widow?

In an effort to defend God’s existence against evil, has the individual’s own identity and valued existence been denied? Has the dependency on free-will for the greater good or a theodicy of soul-making for the whole rendered our own individual existence meaningless and irrelevant? If we believe that God is all-powerful and all-loving, is the intense and meaningless suffering of an individual indicative of the insignificance of the individual in God’s eyes—especially in a tradition where the miraculous interventions of God are affirmed? Or in other words, while God may love his children as a whole, can not the sufferer ask, “But does God love me?”

According to D.Z. Phillips, in his The Problem of Evil and The Problem of God, this realization of our own nothingness is essential to understanding our relationship to God and suffering. He writes:

[T]he chief use of suffering is to teach us that we are nothing. . . . To recognize that one is nothing, is to recognize that one is not the centre of the universe. The ‘I’ is not sacrosanct, immune from harm. The world can reach out and touch it at any moment. Nor is the ‘I’ the possessor of a cosmic right that will guarantee that things go in its favour. (183)

For Phillips, this nothingness should require the believer to realize that, regardless of what happens in our lives, our existence—that we live—is a gift of God. As Phillips puts it: “[T]here is a requirement to love the fact that God has given life with its contingencies to human beings. This love is gratitude for existence” (184).

It is in this same manner that Moses responds to Satan after being tempted to worship him in his moment of despair:

And it came to pass that Moses looked upon Satan and said: Who art thou? For behold, I am a son of God, in the similitude of his Only Begotten; and where is thy glory, that I should worship thee? . . .

Get thee hence, Satan; deceive me not; for God said unto me: Thou art after the similitude of mine Only Begotten. (Moses 1: 13,16)

In his response, Moses affirms his created status. Regardless of his nothingness in comparison to the whole of creation, that he is a son of God, and that he is in the similitude of Jesus—like all the rest of God’s children—is the source of Moses’ power and ability to throw off self doubt.

As Albert Camus, writes in The Rebel:

One envies what one does not have, while the rebel's aim is to defend what he is. He does not merely claim some good that he does not possess or of which he was deprived. His aim is to claim recognition for something which he has and which has already been recognized by him, in almost every case, as more important than anything of which he could be envious.... He is fighting for the integrity of one part of his being. He does not try, primarily, to conquer, but simply to impose.

This affirmation of one’s own worth because of one’s created status is not limited to the self however. If our life has value because of its creation, then all life shares such a value. As Phillips puts it:

[W]e should now be able to see why belief in creation, seeing oneself as the recipient of grace, cannot lead to quietism, since it involves fighting against everything in the world, and in oneself, that regards other people, and that world, as creatures to be exploited, possessed and used for one’s own selfish purposes. This use of others . . . constitute[s] a refusal to see the other as a child of God. (185)

Ironically, the problem of man—the believer’s individual nothingness in comparison to the whole—is at the same time a source for empowerment and understanding. That we are born into a world and life with its contingencies of meaningless suffering and unnecessary evils shows that the believer that life itself—with all its struggles—is a gift from God.

My Song in the Night

2009-12-06T11:29:00.000-08:00

I gotta admit that I'm a bit of a sap and this made me tear up.

Zombie Reagan Raised From Grave To Lead GOP

2009-12-01T12:12:00.001-08:00

h/t Jacob.

Zombie Reagan Raised From Grave To Lead GOP

The Cost of Dying

2009-11-23T08:18:00.000-08:00

60 minutes last night had an excellent segment on the tendency of our culture to prolong the lives of the sick and dying who instead of taking their natural course of life.

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Hearken O Ye People: The Historical Setting for Joseph Smith's Ohio Revelations

2009-11-20T06:56:00.000-08:00

After several months of editing and numerous delays, Mark Staker's Hearken O Ye People: The Historical Setting for Joseph Smith's Ohio Revelations is almost finished. I've had the privilege of typesetting this book, and though I haven't been able to do any in depth reading of it yet, I can assure you that it is a worthwhile project that will set the standard of and make us rethink the way we see and understand the Kirtland era of early Mormonism.

Here are a few early reviews of Staker's book:

I am not aware of a more deeply researched and richly contextualized study of any period of Mormon church history than Mark Staker’s study of Mormons in Ohio. We learn about everything from the details of Alexander Campbell’s views on priesthood authority to the road conditions and weather on the four Lamanite missionaries’ journey from New York to Ohio. All the Ohio revelations and even the First Vision are made to pulse with new meaning. This book sets a new standard of in-depth research in Latter-day Saint history.

Richard Bushman
Howard W. Hunter Visiting Professor of Mormon Studies, Claremont Graduate University
Author, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling
General Editor, Joseph Smith Papers

An uncommonly thorough and illuminating look at one of the most overlooked periods in Latter Day Saint history. One closes the book with a deepened understanding of not only the Saints and their struggles, but also the contextual and colorful world they encountered everyday. Staker's bold and refreshing new approach to our shared history breathes life into the courage and conflict of Kirtland's past.

Barbara B. Walden
President John Whitmer Historical Association (2007-2008)
Author with Lachlan Mackay, House of the Lord: the Story of the Kirtland Temple

I am impressed by the scope, detail and quality of Mark Staker’s work on the Mormon period in Ohio. I am confident that it will set the standard and be the definitive work on this fascinating and complicated period in Mormon history for many years to come. His knowledge of and access to important but scarcely used documents can only be admired and envied by any of us who have worked in that period. Just when we begin to wonder how much more there is to say about the Kirtland Safety Society (Bank), Mark gives us not just facts, but important detail on participants, relationships, sequence of events and consequences that go beyond anything that has been done before.

Larry T. Wimmer
Professor (Emeritus) Brigham Young University
Author, The Kirtland Economy Revisited: A Market Critique of Sectarian Economics

Mark Staker has set up a short blog about the book here. I'll post more about it when we finally have a release date set.

From the pages of Twilight

2009-11-16T18:22:00.000-08:00

Okay. This is actually from the third volume Eclipse, which Angela is having me read with her. God-willing, more similar posts will follow.

"Making the most of my last seconds, I crushed myself closer, molding myself to the shape of him. The tip of my tongue traced the curve of his ________; it was flawlessly smooth as if it had been polished, and the taste --
"He pulled my face away, . . . breaking my hold with ease -- he probably didn't realize that I was using all of my strength." (p. 44)

Sean Hannity admits that his show misrepresents reality

2009-11-13T08:25:00.000-08:00

After Jon Stewart pointed out Hannity's blatant misuse of protest footage to falsify the size of the recent DC protest and make it appear that the protest was more significant that it really was, Hannity issued an apology of sorts on his program:

Inadvertent mistake???? How does a mistake like that happen. Even if Hannity was unaware that this was done, which I doubt, it should be abundantly clear that his producers were involved in falsifying the footage to give a false sense of the size of the protest--the very thing that Hannity and Bachman were gloating about.

Of course, Jon Stewart had yet another brilliant response to Hannity's 'apology.'

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Sean Hannity Apologizes to Jon

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

Perhaps the LDS Church ought to find new allies

2009-11-12T16:53:00.000-08:00

From the Provo Daily Herald:

At the same time, the church's position has angered some of its conservative allies on social issues, has prompted questions about whether public relations is its real motivation, and put the church on the spot over how far it will go on similar legislation on the state and federal level.

. . .

Some of the church's conservative allies in the gay marriage battles, however, call it a setback. The two new ordinances make it illegal to fire or evict someone for being gay, bisexual or transgender.

Such legislation robs employers and landlords of their rights and gives legal ammunition to judges sympathetic to gay marriage, said Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the conservative Family Research Council.

"It's disappointing, and I'm fearful that it reflects in part a reaction to the attacks they came under after Proposition 8 -- an effort to bend over backwards to exhibit tolerance toward homosexuals in some way," Sprigg said.

And from the Salt Lake Tribune:

Still, conservative stalwarts the Sutherland Institute and the Eagle Forum have vowed to fight any statewide anti-discrimination measures.

On Wednesday, Gayle Ruzicka, leader of the Eagle Forum, said Salt Lake City's new ordinances are "very discriminatory."

"We expected the church not to have a problem because they've been carved out of it. The rest of us have not been carved out of it," she said. The ordinances "discriminate against people who have personal religious beliefs."

Fox and Sean Hannity blatantly used footage from a previous protest to lie about the recent tea-bagging protest in DC

2009-11-11T08:05:00.000-08:00

Fox and Sean Hannity blatantly used footage from a previous protest to lie about the recent tea-bagging protest in DC. And Jon Stewart is there to show them for what they are.

And people wonder why Fox News is criticized for not being a legitimate news source?

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Sean Hannity Uses Glenn Beck's Protest Footage

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

LDS Church Supports Nondiscrimination Ordinances

2009-11-10T23:01:00.000-08:00

I just found the following release from the LDS Newsroom on my google reader, though the actually link is missing from the Church's website:

Church Supports Nondiscrimination Ordinances

SALT LAKE CITY | 10 Nov 2009 | The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has declared its support of nondiscrimination regulations that would extend protection in matters of housing and employment in Salt Lake City to those with same-sex attraction.

I'm guessing it will reappear tomorrow. Interesting nonetheless.

**UPDATE**

It looks like I am well behind everyone else. Here is a DesNews article about it. And here is a larger SLTrib article about it.

And here is the full text of the Church's statement:

Good evening.

My name is Michael Otterson, and I am here tonight officially representing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The non-discrimination ordinance being reviewed by the City Council concerns important questions for the thoughtful people of this community.

Like most of America, our community in Salt Lake City is comprised of citizens of different faiths and values, different races and cultures, different political views and divergent demographics. Across America and around the world, diverse communities such as ours are wrestling with complex social and moral questions. People often feel strongly about such issues. Sometimes they feel so strongly that the ways in which they relate to one another seem to strain the fabric of our society, especially where the interests of one group seem to collide with the interests of another.

The issue before you tonight is the right of people to have a roof over their heads and the right to work without being discriminated against. But, importantly, the ordinance also attempts to balance vital issues of religious freedom. In essence, the Church agrees with the approach which Mayor Becker is taking on this matter.

In drafting this ordinance, the city has granted common-sense rights that should be available to everyone, while safeguarding the crucial rights of religious organizations, for example, in their hiring of people whose lives are in harmony with their tenets, or when providing housing for their university students and others that preserve religious requirements.

The Church supports this ordinance because it is fair and reasonable and does not do violence to the institution of marriage. It is also entirely consistent with the Church's prior position on these matters. The Church remains unequivocally committed to defending the bedrock foundation of marriage between a man and a woman.

I represent a church that believes in human dignity, in treating others with respect even when we disagree – in fact, especially when we disagree. The Church's past statements are on the public record for all to see. In these comments and in our actions, we try to follow what Jesus Christ taught. Our language will always be respectful and acknowledge those who differ, but will also be clear on matters that we feel are of great consequence to our society.

Thank you.

Jon Stewart's 11/3 Project

2009-11-06T16:50:00.001-08:00

Pure brilliance.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

The 11/3 Project

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

Colbert on the Main Street Plaza gay kiss arrest

2009-11-04T19:08:00.000-08:00

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Nailed 'Em - Mormon Church Trespassing

www.colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Political Humor

U.S. Speedskating

New trailer for The Road

2009-10-31T08:13:00.000-07:00

This one seems to capture the feel of the book better than the first trailer.

November 25th. I'm excited.

"I believe you're born thinking gays don't have the right to get married"

2009-10-27T07:01:00.000-07:00

This is for you Carson.

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

The Word - Don't Ask Don't Tell

www.colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Political Humor

Michael Moore

Being pushed to the edge.

2009-10-23T21:06:00.000-07:00

As many of you who either know me personally or have followed this blog know, the whole Prop 8 fiasco was a trying moment for me and a challenge to my faith that I had once lost and had worked hard to regain. Last November I thought it was all over, but time after time I found the Church bringing it back into the foray with their disingenuous complaints of victimhood and mythological claims of persecution. When most everyone else is ready to move on, Elder Oaks, the LDS Newsroom and the marching sheep who unquestioningly buy into their every word drudge up their nonsensical persecution complex and dream themselves up in the their pretended guises of false heroes. In their view they are compared to the civil rights movements of the past who were violently persecuted for enabling rights for others. In reality they are the barely slighted persecutors who fought and disabled the rights of the minorities.

After Oaks took his much deserved beating, I thought and hoped things would die away...

...But no, the LDS Newsroom blog decides today to post a link to an article from the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation in attempt to support the Church's latest pathetic cries of persecution. I'm not going to go into the post, which I'm sure others will do more fully. I just wanted to give one sentence from the opening paragraph which exemplifies the utter stupidity, naivete, and falsity of their claims... and the utter stupidity and naivete and disingenuity of the LDS Newsroom and anyone who wants to take them seriously now.

Quote:

"Arguments for same-sex marriage are based fundamentally on the idea that limiting marriage to the union of husband and wife is a form of bigotry, irrational prejudice, and even hatred against homosexual persons."

Seriously???

Here is the real fundamental basis behind arguments for same-sex marriage: Homosexuals are persons and deserve the rights of their heterosexual counterparts.

That is it. It's a positive argument.

Now I'm sure that some people may feel the way that it was phrased by the Heritage Foundation, but to say that is what the arguments is based on is utterly stupid. I, like many people, realize that the denial of SSM by many is not done out of bigotry, irrational prejudice, and hatred, but is rather done for religious reasons that don't harbor the negative connotations of hate (though I agree that hate does play a role for some as well).To claim that supporters of SSM are basing their argument against a negative role of hate are simply making a rhetorical play to avoid the real positive argument of equality and civil rights that actual proponents of SSM have been making. They of course don't want to recognize that this is the actual argument because they don't want to recognize the SSM argument for what it truly is: a positive push for equality.

Now I know that the LDS Newroom Blog is not an official voice of the Church (and they explicitly state that they aren't), but the LDS Newsroom IS the official voice of the Church and by extension their blog reflects the opinions of the Church--and by extension, the opinions of the Church leaders.

I am sick and tired of Prop 8. I am sick and tired of the Church drumming up false cries of persecution based on Prop 8.

For some reason, this last straw pushed me to the edge and I'm not sure how I want to react. I haven't felt my faith in the Church threatened like this in a while.

Ugh.

Glenn Beck slams Mormon Prophet for asking us to serve and volunteer

2009-10-20T11:01:00.000-07:00

Two weeks ago at the semi-annual LDS General Conference, Mormon Prophet, Thomas S. Monson, asked Latter-day Saints to volunteer their time and efforts to serve others.

While this may seem to be a gracious and prophetic call for all of us serve those around us, Glenn Beck, in all his brilliance, sees past this and shows us what it really is: President Monson is merely a pawn supporting Obama's plan for a communist takeover.

The logic is fairly clear and simple. Obama took office just 9 months ago and immediately set off his plan to turn the United States into a communist dictatorship. Part of this plan is by encouraging people to serve and volunteer to help out others--obviously an evil form of Maoist communism. President Monson just happened to give a talk encouraging Mormons to do the same thing nine months after Obama became president!. Coincidence? We think not.

Don't believe me? Watch for yourself:

Recent mountain biking photos.

2009-10-12T23:27:00.001-07:00

Quote of the week

2009-10-10T07:38:00.000-07:00

adam: "The Nobel Peace Prize has lost all credibility!! Seriously, Obama winning shows that it is no longer a prestigious award!!!!"

me: "To all the Nobel naysayers I ask: When did you ever care about the Nobel Peace Prize? Who, besides Mandela, the Dalai Lama, Mother Teresea, and MLK Jr do you even know who have been awarded it? What do you even know about Mandela and the Dalai Lama? Can you name any accomplishments they made to 'deserve' the award?"

adam's friend: "...The Dalai Lama got Britain to give India back to the Indian people without having to start a war. Pretty impressive considering what the US had to do to get rid of the British...."

LOL.

My thoughts on the Obama Nobel Prize

2009-10-09T08:19:00.001-07:00

(Like my last few posts, this is a response I had written for comments on Facebook)

I agree that Obama hasn't done anything in particular to garner the award. I think the Norwegians gave him the award to show that they encourage and praise the steps forward he has made toward preventing nuclear proliferation, finally giving those in Guantanamo the legal rights they deserve, enacting more peaceful policies in Iraq, and enormously repairing the US foreign relations that were nearly destroyed by the previous administration.

If the goals of the Norwegian Peace Committee were to promote peace and award "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses," then it seems they have every right to give it to Obama. Who else has a more powerful voice for the potential engendering of peace today.

While he may not have deserved it yet, shouldn't we as American's be proud to be seen as making progressive steps in promoting peace?

Though, I think Bill Clinton should have gotten it this year.

**UPDATE**

Obama said that he didn't deserve the award and sees it as a call to action for him and other governments to push for peace and nuclear non-proliferation. Can we just move on now.

Another extended comment

2009-10-08T22:29:00.000-07:00

(This was written in response to my friend Cody, here. I post it here as I think it provides some background to my last blog post and ensuing comments.)

Perhaps I'm just disenchanted by the many professed Mormons and Christians who spend their days affirming over and over again how strongly they believe in the BofM, how much they know so-and-so is a prophet, how they know 'the Church is true," how much they know that Jesus is the Christ, etc, etc, etc... and they continue to live in self-righteousness, ignore those in need, and live a life concerned only for their own supposed spiritual salvation.

I'm disenchanted by Mormons who think the best way to help the hungry and homeless is to give them a BofM and share their testimony.

Furthermore, I was not intending to condemn Holland's talk. I was only intending to say that it wasn't anything to get excited over. I've heard dozens of pastors share their testimonies of Jesus, the Bible, homophobia, anti-Mormonism with the same gusto and triumph as Holland.

If I thought that Holland's talk would make a better world and make Mormons act like actual Christians (and not like our self-righteous evangelical counter-parts), I'd be all over it. But my own experience says that won't be the case.

All the BofM testimony sharing on the first Sunday each month just doesn't do near the amount of what Christ asked of us as does one person reaching out to another in need.

Furthermore Cody, you really ought to avoid accusing me of things I have not said. You claim I said that "the only useful talk would be one urging us to "feed starving children." That simply isn't true. You asked, "Ummmm, what better way than to bear testimony of Christs very words and teachings?" I said a testimony shared by feeding starving children would be better, not only. Big difference there.

Here are some more responses to your claims:

"I really think it's sad when members of the church try to secularize the gospel of Jesus Christ, water it down..."

I agree with the watering down part. And I believe that the watering down occurs when we ignore Jesus' commands to build communities and take care of those in need, and replace it with a conservative individualistic soteriology.

Not quite sure what you mean by the secularizing of it though. If you want to call Joseph' communitarianism 'secularization', then have fun. If you want to call Brigham's cooperative economic system 'secularization,' then have go at it. If you want to call Jesus' radical criticisms of Jewish legalism, Roman oppression, and economic disparity 'secularization,' then I guess we just have a different Gospel.

"If all we did as a church was teach service and kindness to neighbors (yes its the second great law of the gospel and we need to apply it more) we would fail to return to our Father in Heaven and would be no different than any of the hundreds of other religions in the world today."

Jesus taught that we love God by loving our neighbor. He taught we serve God, by serving those in need. Jesus himself said that those who return to the Father are those who care for the sick, feed the hungry, visit the prisoners, clothe the naked, and take in the immigrants. Those were his criteria. If you want to water down his teachings and impose the very Pharisaical legality on him, then have a great day. Throughout the scriptures, baptism is not used as a simple ritual which magically removes metaphysical sin-stains, but is an initiation into a community of believers (aka, the body of Christ, the Kingdom of God, etc) who covenant to take care of those in need. I choose to believe in a loving God who places the needs of others above his own pride and desire to be praised. If I die and discover that God was more concerned with his own praise than the alleviation of his children's suffering, I'd gladly go to hell.

"We need the saving ordinances of baptism and the temple by way of the proper priesthood in order to obtain salvation."

Well we obviously have a different conception of what sin is, and thus a very different conception of what salvation is. While you seem to see sin as a metaphysical stain on your soul that requires the metaphysical powers of a prescribed ritual, I see sin as the breaking of relationship--with others and with God. With this view, baptism (and the temple ordinances) isn't about literally washing away sin-stains, but is about creating community symbolically washing away the individualism and self-interest that caused divisions in our relationships. While I am admittedly more of a pluraist and universalist, I nonetheless see baptism (if done in the manner seen in the scriptures) as the best means for this. As my experience as a missionary, it was obvious that for the converts I taught the most valuable part of their baptism was their inclusion into a new community and family. Unfortunately most of the members didn't realize this and didn't embrace them as they should have and allowed them to slip back into their past of severed relationships with others.

"As hard as we try and as much as we might want, even the perfect lifestyle full of service is not going to unite humanity."

The perfect lifestyle full of service is the uniting of humanity. By serving others we create the Kingdom of God. We build the relationships that continue into the next life. Joseph Smith was quite clear that heaven wasn't a place we go, but a place we create. Heaven isn't the gathering of strangers, but the continuation of the relationships and community we develop here.

"Christ himself didn't even come to unite the entire earth during his mortal ministry. He created some extremely large divisions in society by declaring with boldness of the truthfulness of his gospel."

Jesus came down as a person to try to affect change in the same we that we are to try... as humans. He wasn't just going about preaching about a book and a bunch of individual rituals. The Jews already had their devotion to books and rituals. That was their game, they would have loved Jesus if he were playing their game. The Romans would have been just as fine with that as well. Some guy preaching about a book and rituals was no threat. Jesus created divisions because he spoke out against the oppressive systems of his day. He didn't create divisions, but rather pointed out the divisions that already existed from these oppressive powers. He pointed out the divisions created by the Jewish focus on individual piety and ritual observance. He pointed out the division caused by Roman oppression--which got him killed. He pointed out the division caused by the ever-expanding disparity between the rich and the poor. Jesus recognized that peace and true community could not be achieved when oppressive powers existed severed God's children.

"By testifying with power and boldness of the Book of Mormon, Elder Holland is essentially inviting people to Christ. There is no other book in existence that can teach you more about Christ and being a good neighbor than the Book of Mormon."

I agree with the latter sentence, but unfortunately that is not how most Mormons I know read the text. Holland's talk focused on the truthfulness of the BofM's ancient origins. From my experience, most Mormons find the testimony of the Book's historicity more important than the Book's content. As I mentioned earlier, most Mormon would think that the better way to help the starving poor is to give them a testimony of a book than to give them some food. A testimony of the book is worthless unless it turns into change in the world. Similarly, a testimony of Christ is empty if it isn't shared with Christian living. I think Jesus said it best:

Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
-----
Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment.

Why I didn't care for Elder Holland's general conference talk, and why neither should you

2009-10-07T13:17:00.000-07:00

(This is essentially a comment I posted on my friend Blair's blog, Life on Gold Plates.)

Much ado has been made about Elder Holland's talk this last general conference. He certainly spoke with force. He definitely stated things clearly and powerfully. It was easily the most fiery sermon I have ever heard in general conference.

. . . . But really. . . . Who cares?

What value are those things if the world essentially remains the same as it is. Sure... because of Holland we might have more people getting up on the first Sunday of every month, and they might bear their testimonies with even more force... but so what?

Earlier that morning, President Monson's talk demanded action and change. It demanded that we start to actually be Christian rather than saying over and over again that we are Christian. Why care so much about the historicity of the BofM, when it's the message of the BofM that is important.

It doesn't matter how strong your testimony is in a book, a prophet, a church, a Christ, or a God... If we aren't loving our neighbours, if we are neglecting the poor, if we aren't caring for the needy and fighting for the oppressed, it is all for naught.

Based on Jesus' teachings in Matthew 25, an atheist who volunteers at the homeless shelter and prison will have a far better chance being in the Kingdom of God than the strongest of BofM believers who converts a hundred to sharing her testimony of the book, while neglecting the sick and immigrants.

Monson's talk was, IMHO, the greatest talk I've ever heard in General Conference. While not given with the rhetorical gusto of Holland, Monson plead for us to meet the fundamental requirement of our faith--to love our neighbour. This is one reason why I love him so much. He isn't caught up in the Pharisaical world of self-righteousness, obedience for obedience's sake, legality, and conformity. His talks have almost consistently dealt with the simple Christian duty of service....just like that Jesus guy we Mormons try to go out of our way to say follow.

The most successful missionary in recorded scriptural history didn't go out with Holland's force. He didn't share a powerful testimony of a book, leaders, or a church. He didn't try to win hearts with his rhetorical strength or power of words. In fact, he didn't even begin with a testimony of that sort. His mission began with "I desire to dwell among this people for a time; yea, and perhaps until the day I die. . . . I will be thy servant" (Alma 17 23-25). Through his love and service, not with his words, Ammon converted thousands. And he didn't convert them to a book, a leader, or a church; but rather he converted them to Christian love, caring, and service.

Simply the greatest destructo-p0rn ever.

2009-10-02T09:48:00.000-07:00

After destroying some of the world in Independence Day and most of the world in The Day after Tomorrow (which is Sunday BTW), Roland Emmerich has apparently decided to just flip off the whole world and destroy it all.

Wow. Looks like another @#$%-ty movie from this ever-@#$%-ty director.