by NA
Logan asked me, in response to some offhand comments on T&S, to talk more about "laws not getting in the way of agency." I responded (maybe a little too quickly) that "we can distinguish between the capacity to make choices (agency) and the extent to which laws punish our choices (liberty). I'd agree with you that laws can limit our liberty, but I probably wouldn't say the same for agency."

I wish I'd spoken a little more carefully, because the distinction here is important. Many LDS people speak of government intervention in various domains as "infringing on our free agency" or worse, as if it's similar to what Satan's plan would have been like. I wonder if this tendency could stem from an inability to distinguish between agency and liberty. Clearly, if we identify regulation or legislation with something that affects the subject matter of the War in Heaven, that would lead us to bristle at the thought of it. But God legislates and regulates our lives all the time -- commandments and laws are all over the place, including divine taxation, and yet we say we have our agency. So anyway, I think it's careless to interchange liberty and agency. Could the commingling of the concepts be a source of LDS predispositions for/against certain political parties?
|

by NA
Our first ever BCC: Poll. Cast your votes now!


|

by Grimshizzle
Okay, imagine this scenario: the lesson is on the word of wisdom, and the teacher begins by reading the pertinent scriptures, then taking comments from the gallery. "I have a strong testimony of the Word of Wisdom," says one member, "but a beer or two in the evening really helps me unwind." A sister chimes in: "And red wine is actually good for your heart; I don't see the harm in having a glass with dinner." A general consensus emerges among the class that there are numerous circumstances in which it is okay--laudable, in fact--to break the Word of Wisdom. Curiously, the entire class seems to be completely oblivious to the fact that they have more or less rejected outright the entire point of the lesson.

Of course, this would be inconceivable in any ward I've ever lived in. But a few members of our current ward, bless their hearts, seems prone to this sort of thing, though not regarding anything so clearly yes-I-do/no-I-don't as the Word of Wisdom. Rather, this tendency emerges any time the subjects of service and charity come up. My wife came out of Relief Society absolutely fuming today, after a lesson on service surreptitiously became a lesson on self-service. The teacher started with the question "Why do we serve others?" Many answers that followed betrayed a kind of "market" approach to the gospel, one that boiled down every action to a transaction. The members who offered these ideas did not seem to notice how centered on self their answers were (because they didn't have me conveniently adding italics in the pertinent places): We serve because we get blessings, we serve because it helps us grow, etc. Finally, my deep-thinking but normally soft-spoken wife piped up and pointed out the obvious but overlooked: "I think God asks us serve because there are lots of his other children that he loves just as much as he loves us, and they need our help, and he wants them to get it." Nonetheless, as the class progressed, the comments continually seemed to emphasize the many things that legitimately limit the time and effort we spend helping others: family, work, keeping ones life "in order," etc., and hardly touched upon the merits of extending our service beyond the realm of the convenient. The same thing happened not long ago in a class I was in, when a discussion of King Benjamin's admonitions to give to the poor circumscribed a trajectory exactly opposite of that stated in the scriptural passages supposedly under consideration: the general consensus of the class, it seemed, was that one takes care of one's own, that charity takes a low position in one's budget, and that alms-giving encourages sloth.

This is particularly bothersome considering the fact that, regardless of the sharp downward pull my family's meager income exerts on the curve, our ward is, by and large, extremely well-off. Nonetheless, when the First Presidency extended a challenge to our stake a few years ago to raise funds for a special project, our ward came up shamefully short of its share, and many members even complained publicly to the Stake President (whose reputation as a bleeding heart liberal democrat perhaps lent the whole affair a "tax and spend" aura in their minds) for his audacity in asking them to donate. Sisters organizing a humanitarian service project, in which members were asked to purchase items for newborn kits for around $6, met similar resistance from some members.

I can't help but draw a connection between this mentality and dominant political attitudes. It's like the old joke (which I mentioned in a comment to something somewhere on another blog, so apologies for the repeat): When a democrat sees a half -glass of water, s/he says "That glass is half full." When a republican sees a half-glass of water, s/he says "Who the hell drank half my water?!" Some members ask me outright, as they might well ask you, how one can be LDS and be in the same political party as "the abortionists" and "the gays," etc. I have a much harder time reconciling the theme of selflessness that permeates the scriptures (ancient and modern) with the general sense of entitlement that characterizes the republican mentality.

Is it fair for me to extend this observation beyond matters of monetary resources? It seems to me that it is this same what's-in-it-for-me mentality that pervades spiritual discussions as well: good deeds are legal tender for blessings; people in need are a kind of divine commodity, an opportunity for furthering one's own progress; obedience means a contractual obligation on the part of Deity to return the favor. The concept of giving without the thought of something in return seems to go neglected by many members. God's own recursive formula for joy, in which his happiness depends on ours, and ours depends on passing it along, gets short shrift.


(I should mention that, thankfully, the cases above are counterbalanced by a number of ward members who give of their time and resources to a fault. There are certain members--and I wish I could say that I'm one of them--who show up at every move, take dinner after every baby born, volunteer first to step in someone's absence, send a load of newborn kits or school kits to Humanitarian Services every month, and generally give til it hurts. Service disrupts their lives, to the point that it is enmeshed with it--which, I suspect, is probably the point at which it registers with the heavens.)

|

by Anonymous
I have been thinking a lot about missionary work this past year. I truly believe that it would be good if I did more. The church is such a positive influence on my life even though my belief in the doctrines is often weak. I'd love for some of my good friends to try it. Trouble is, I find our typical missionary approaches to be less than interesting to my friends. They are certainly of no interest to me. I've often wondered what it would be like if we had the following missionary pamphlets:

1. The Finite God: He's your age and has to keep in line like you do
2. Heavenly Mother: The goddess is not wicca
3. Your Own World: Why it's not just for space colonists

I worry that we spend too much time trying to be acceptable to born-again Christians. From my limited contact with those folks, I just don't think they are going to like us no matter how we typeset our logo. What missionary pamphlets would you like to see?
|

by NA
Recently I’ve been reading and re-reading the piece of 2nd Nephi that people call Nephi’s Prayer or Nephi’s Psalm (2 Ne. 4:15-35). I began reading it as a part of regular scripture study, but I’ve been looking at it more closely as a personal narrative (Steve Cannon would appreciate it), and as a pattern to me of development and inner change. Nephi sorrows in his sins, then he remembers the Lord and his soul awakens, as he remembers “in whom [he has] trusted.” Nephi later says, “O Lord, I have trusted in thee, and I will trust in thee forever. I will not put my trust in the arm of flesh; for I know that cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh. Yea, cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm.”

The way Nephi repeats “arm of flesh,” and the way his internal process of change is linked to properly placing his trust in the Lord, makes me think carefully about what the Arm of Flesh represents.

You probably all know the common interpretations: the Arm of Flesh is the world, the security of armies or the comfort of western civilization. I’ve also heard that the Arm of Flesh can mean over-reliance on physical evidence, science or logical reasoning in matters of faith. We can view Arm of Flesh as a common trope for anything that seems to protect or comfort, but that has fundamental roots in the finite, limited world we live in. I like to think of things like our government infrastructure, our wealth or our university-acquired knowledge as forms of the Arm of Flesh.

Two lines of questions remain for me about where we should put our trust. First, how can mormons reduce reliance on the Arm of Flesh (esp. if it really refers to things like infrastructure, wealth or university-acquired knowledge)? Does “not trusting in the Arm of Flesh” mean not enjoying it while it lasts? Does the current Church emphasis on financial independence, secondary education and civic participation lessen, or enhance our reliance on the Arm of Flesh? Are we melding the Arm of Flesh into our worship?

The second line of questions is whether we can apply the idea of Arm of Flesh to cultural institutions within the Church. For example, I know a family who has refused to take jobs, etc. to support themselves, saying “the Lord will provide”. Or, often I value church because of my friends and the fun I have; is it trusting in the Arm of Flesh to value those relationships more than, say, taking the sacrament? Can over-relying on LDS pseudo-doctrine be the Arm of Flesh (like the infamous “tannic acid” justifications for the Word of Wisdom)?

Please help me work through these ideas. It seems like an important concept.
|

by Anonymous
Today's Priesthood lesson promoted genealogy and vicarious ordinance work. The topic only provides two interesting topics for discussion (that I could think of). First, the mystical vicarious ordinances, which are powerful theological concepts and really only yield to purely religious reasoning; Second the creation and consumption of family history for its own sake, which yields to more secular analysis.

I. Vicarious work

First, vicarious work. I spent some time wondering what is the mechanism by which vicarious ordinances work. It turns out that Heber J. Grant correctly reduced that problem to just an extension of another big theological question -- the mechanism of the atonement. He says,

"The world asks, how can that be, that one can be baptized for another? But if we believe in the vicarious work of Christ, we must believe that one can do work for another, and that we also may become 'saviors upon Mount Zion.'"

True enough. That's a convincing argument. Once you've accepted the atonement, our own vicarious work seems very reasonable. That is particularly true given our view that humans can progress to be Gods. That still leaves the mystery of the mechanism of Christ's atonement. I'm never able to make much progress understanding how it works. Skousen's "A Personal Search for the Meaning of the Atonement" has the benefit of acknowledging the problem, but his solution no redeeming qualities. (I'm a bit embarrassed to admit I've read his boneheaded writing, but we all have our skeletons.) I find it useful to make it explicit that we have no idea why either kind of vicarious work is necessary or effective.

II. History

Part two is the real implications of "turning the hearts of the children to the fathers." To me, family history is the real modern heir of history in the sense of Michel Foucault's The Order of Things. That book, inspired by the classification of animals of my title (which Borges quotes from a fictional Chinese encyclopedia) explains the transition from the logical classifications of the eighteenth century to the functional classification of the nineteenth century. He treats three examples. 1. Language: general grammar to phonetics and syntax. 2. Natural History: classification of species to biology 3. Money: Analysis of wealth to economics. It's classic structuralism and postmodernism and social theory of the Continental kind.

I'm not a postmodernist because I believe that many things are not subjective -- particulary physics, biology and chemistry. But postmodernism certainly scores some direct hits when it comes to history, sociology, and economics. The history of wars and great men and a historical narrative thread (postmodernists call it meta-narrative) is unconvincing. First, it's difficult to create a theory of history that is useful, meaning it successfully predicts. For a dramatic example see the predictive failure of Hegel/Marx. And even if one of these predictive theories turns out to work, which one. Second, ignoring the experience of the average person leads to unethical rhetorical uses of history. For example, consider the historical justification for the recent Russian economic shock therapy and the state in which it's left Russians.

If family history were given value starting today, in a few hundred years we'd have a much better history. We'd focus on individuals. So in my mind family history is the new history. The great men and wars or history of ideas is just fuzzy background. It seems to me the church's focus on dates and heredity naturally expands to include stories and narrative and that that in turn changes the way we think about history for the better.

|

by NA
A generous benefactor, who wishes to remain nameless, has contributed funds to our little community. As a result, our comment limit has TRIPLED to a whopping 3,000 characters. That may still not be enough space for some (cough*Aaron*cough), but it's an unexpected surprise. The change should take place shortly.

Let me also just say how truly impressed I've been with the warmth and genuine insight from our bloggers and commenters. Kudos to all!

And now for all, a moment of zen: the 30-second version of The Exorcist, as performed by bunnies.
|

by NA
A word of advice to you with white scriptures: hang on to them! Mormon Ebayers may someday pay a fortune for them now that the Church doesn't make them anymore. Now, when I was a young'un, I recall that with the temple, everything had to be white. I remember thinking that the food would be white, if they could've made it that way.

Is this a change in attitude towards the temple? A recent discussion over at The Other Board has made me think that the decision to not have white scriptures anymore is the result of temple culture being more widely disseminated, while temple blessings are more wide-spread. My theory is that people are realizing that white scriptures aren't inherently more sacred than standard brown. I don't mean to say that mormons are treating the temple less seriously -- it's still the most sacred place on earth. But we don't have the same overall respect of sacred places we had a hundred years ago. We're not approaching temple-related cultural trappings like when Manti was the latest thing. Attitudes towards, say, garments (not to mention their stylings), towards discussing temple blessings, and towards temple symbolism are all changing. No more white scriptures -- is the temple so common now that its raw uniqueness is fading? How do we preserve the sacredness of the temple even while we discard some of the vestigial cultural elements?

Update: Some other random blog has noted that the issue of baptizing the Jewish dead has again resurfaced. I would add waning agressiveness towards baptism for the dead as another indicator of cultural temple shifts. We still baptize for the dead, of course, but we're not nearly as concerned as we used to be, it seems, with baptizing celebrities, politicians, etc.
|

by Kaimi
Karen's post addresses the de facto gender discrimination that occurs in the church. Let me ask a question about Karen's underlying assumptions: What is she expecting? Karen provides anecdotal evidence of women's viewpoints being marginalized in church settings. Many or all of us have seen the same thing happen.

But, the fact is that we live in a society where women's viewpoints are routinely marginalized. We have had no female presidents of the United States. Female representation in Congress is minimal. Women earn a quarter less than men do for equal work. Women have yet to become equal with men in business, politics, science, literature, and most other areas. And yes, they are typically not on equal footing in religion, either.

My question is whether the church's subtle discrimination is merely part and parcel of women's inferior status in society today. Perhaps we can argue that the church should be being progressive, and breaking down barriers. But if it is not being progressive, an important query is whether it is being reactionary, or simply passively reflecting societal discrimination. Based on the evidence Karen has shown, the answer may be that it is simply reflecting societal discrimination. And if that is the case, then perhaps the response should be to try to change society, not to try to change the church. (Do we want a church that tries to be progressive? Or do we want a church that reflects societal attitudes, warts and all?)
|

by NA
I just noticed that Orson's Telescope is basically the same as our blog, except even more snarky and random, but less politically-minded. I have never seen anyone as like-minded as Jeremy, who runs the show over there. Congrats! Once we have trained them sufficiently we shall make our blogs do battle! Jeremy-- Howard Jones is mormon, right? I mean, he wrote Everlasting Love.

A side note: why can't anyone cool ever turn out to be mormon (Neil LaBute excepted)? I mean, we're overdue for a Gordon Jump replacement about now, aren't we? Even more interesting in my mind is how oft-recurring this topic is in the mormon blogosphere. Why the effort to point out mormon celebrities? Are we trying to have Shakespeares of our own, or is this an apologist's tool, showing that our church can't be all bad if we have all these celebrities. Heaven knows it's worked for the Scientologists.
|

by NA
OK, this post is to solicit votes on a permanent blog name. Suggestions thus far include:
The Rameumptom (or some related variations)
Zeezrom, Esq. (though that limits our followers to lawyers)
Cureloms & Cumoms (who knows what those are)
Navajo Taco
Wagonloads of Plates
By the Regular Sign

any other culturally pregnant and semi-irreverent suggestions? Winner receives a gift certificate to Chuck-A-Rama*.


I guess if I had to throw in a Church topic, it's also to discuss the most uneasy and uncomfortable blessing in the Church, that of baby blessings. How are you supposed to do it, anyways -- are you talking to God or to the baby? How are you supposed to segue from the naming to the blessing part? It's such an awkward scene, too, because I think it's the only blessing in the Church that's public, except for confirmations. Does anyone know where the tradition came from for blessing infants? Is it something from the early days of the church, or more recent?


*winner may not actually receive anything.
|

by NA
I guess if we're going to be elitist and pride ourselves on being liberals, it might be helpful to set some parameters or definitions of some kind. Note that I won't impose any definitions, of course, because I'm not some kind of dictator.

I found The Political Compass to be a reasonably reliable indicator of political/social leanings; I have a feeling that Mormons are going to be a tighter grouping on the grid of politics than Times & Seasons would indicate. In other words, we're all pretty conservative - some of us just a little more so than others. Or perhaps the liberal/conservative distinction applies in terms of social politics but not in terms of economics? Anyways, I found the test to be interesting (I'll post my own results later), and thought it might be interesting to y'all.

Steve
|

by Kaimi
Hi, everyone. Is this thing on?
(Taps microphone)
(Tap . . tap . . Loud feedback)
|

by NA
So this is an auspicious beginning: a liberal mormon blog that harshly rejects conservative viewpoints. Are we hypocrites for making such a blog? Probably. So be it.
|