by Anonymous
Mormons are neither Catholic nor Protestant, so what happens to a convert in Northern Ireland, when their class, their identity, their traditions and their politics are tied to one of these two religions? It's not easy for them as you can imagine. I went to church at the branch in Londonderry, Northern Ireland. Asking around I found out most of the converts were protestants who lived in Waterside, the protestant side of the river. They told me there were a few Catholics in the branch and most of them were on the dole and having too many babies. (Yikes!) So even after conversion, the LDS here identify themselves with one side or the other. They are all converts and have to face great pressure from their families, neighbors, and friends. When they get baptized they are denying centuries of their heritage. The religious distinction is more about loyalties to the crown or a native Ireland. It's been that way since the 17th century when the British in power tried to convert the natives and started bringing over protestant English settlers to fill their plantations. One history book I've been reading said, "To be a protestant or catholic in 18th century Ireland indicated more than mere religious allegiance:it represented opposing political cultures, and conflicting views of history." (Foster, The Oxford History of Ireland) That distinction continues today.

One woman told me that in the 80s she went to the branch in Omagh where the members were evenly divided among Catholics and protestants. She said they sat on opposite sides of the church and didn't talk to each other. But now they mingle and don't divide themselves that way. She told me she doesn't know how they did it, how they overcame the prejudice. But I think after 20 years of going to church with people it'd be natural to get over it, I hope so anyway.

Maybe mormonism is the solution to the 'Troubles' of northern Ireland. It would take another century at least, but imagine if there were no longer Catholics nor protestants in the country. First, I suppose the wards have to learn to integrate themselves too. I didn't notice any separation, and I couldn't pick out the few Catholics there. But in conversation with the members I could see that they can't so easily slough off their political and cultural identities with baptism.
|

by Dave
What an odd piece of advice to hear over the pulpit, but hear it we did earlier this month, as explained (for late arrivers or early snoozers who missed the announcement) in this Salt Lake Trib article. And the Trib article gives "the rest of the story": the blunt advice appears to be a response to notes (apparently accurate) made of an apostle's Stake Conference remarks, subsequently circulated via email to various members, including (according to the article) CES employees. They can hardly put out a letter criticizing an apostle for what he said, so they put out a letter criticizing those who repeat what he said.

Okay--So what are the new ground rules for how to relate to a visiting GA's Stake Conference remarks? Don't make recordings. Don't take notes. It's probably best to simply forget what is said immediately at the conclusion of the talk, but if you do happen to remember what is said, do not repeat it to anyone. To really be on the safe side, consider just skipping out on Stake Conference entirely. A visit to your local cinema or sporting event would put you safely out of harm's way, as well as providing the whole family with alternate weekend conversation material.

If there's really anything important said, it would appear that an official written transcript of the remarks will be released. At least that seems to be the import of the announcement, according to what I recall. The memo was careful to distinguish reliable "official" sources from everything else. You would think they would at least post the memo in the Press Releases section at LDS.org, but no. Ironically, if you missed the announcement over the pulpit you have to get the news either via word of mouth, from the media, or right here.

[UPDATE: Here's the actual statement, also from the SL Trib--link from Frank's post on the same subject over at T&S.]
|

by Dave
Surfing for something to kick around the blog, I noticed Christianity Today's review of Michael Moore's latest film/documentary/satire/comedy (real name: Fahrenheit 9/11, whatever that is supposed to mean). CT calls it "heavily sarcastic, rather entertaining, and somewhat incoherent." The title he borrows from Ray Bradbury, and the poster borrows a picture of George Bush (putting just Moore on the poster would be . . . unappealing?).

I liked some of Moore's early stuff (such as Roger and Me) but he's kind of flying out of orbit lately. Why should we care? Because seeing is believing for most people. Americans increasingly get their news from what might be charitably termed "the alternative media," sources like talk radio, Drudge, and hyped books like the recent slew of "I hate Bush" books all being examples. These are all outlets on the fringes of journalism that hype controversy and are largely insulated from editorial review. Moore's success on the big screen seems to open a new niche for this alternative media. Ironically, the 9/11 Commission has released a bunch of good, accurate information lately (such as "Overview of the Enemy"), not by any means slanted in favor of the President, but with good facts, historical context, and reasoned analysis. I'm afraid people will watch Moore's movie and skip the Commission reports.

It's not the politics that's the issue, it's the genre. My concern is that Moore's approach can make any person or cause look foolish, stupid, or evil. What's his next target: The Boy Scouts? Religion? Mormons? Baseball? Apple pie? Lawyers? And will satirical documentaries displace Hollywood action flicks the way reality TV has displaced sitcoms and dramas?
|

by NA
HOFRS is one of the greatest acronyms the Church has ever come up with: Helping Others Feel and Recognize the Spirit, a great way to systematize something that is utterly unsystematic.

In any event, for purposes of my post I'm tweaking HOFRS, because I'm curious about Helping Ourselves Feel and Recognize the Spirit. As to helping ourselves feel the Spirit: Christ says in John, "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." How can we force the wind to blow our way? Admittedly, Sunday School Answers spring to mind, but I'm not sure that reading the Scriptures, or any other activity, is going to always do the trick for us as some sort of totemic invocation. What works for me is seizing random opportunities -- I have the idea that by praying, or reading scriptures, etc. whenever I get the chance, I have as much likelihood of feeling the Spirit as I would at any other time. Unfortunately, this leads me to believe that on some level, getting a piece of the Spirit seems a matter of happenstance. Can this be right?

As to helping ourselves recognize the Spirit: this one is a mess. I don't think we do a fantastic job in this Church of helping people realize when they've felt the Spirit, or helping them distinguish between the Spirit and "good feelings," or for that matter helping people understand exactly what "the Spirit" is. For example, take the doctrinal notions of "Light of Christ," "Gift of the Holy Ghost", and "feeling inspired." No one can explain what these mean, at least not in any definitive sense -- and to be sure, all of our doctrinal explanations will overlap and at times conflict. Don't get me going about the H.G. during Christ's earthly ministry!

In my mind however, a doctrinal definition of roles for the Holy Ghost/Spirit isn't as immediately important as trying to discern when you are feeling the Spirit, compared to when you've just watched "Beaches" or "Saving Private Ryan" and feel a catharsis brought on by good drama or melodrama. Can we feel the Spirit when it is artificially invoked through drama or film (that certainly seems the premise of LDS films)? How can we tell exactly what's going on? It would seem to be an important distinction since everyday emotions don't have the power to lead us to salvation the way the Spirit is supposed to. Equally difficult is the notion that the Spirit speaks through our own thoughts and emotions, thereby completely obscuring its nature as an external influence.

So, to sum up:
1. I don't know how, exactly, to get myself feeling the Spirit; and
2. I wouldn't really know it, exactly, if I were feeling the Spirit.

This can't be as hopeless a scenario as it sounds -- thousands feel the Spirit, and bear testimony to that effect. But I'd like to hear it from some of you.
|

by NA
Some of you may remember last week's Contest for the best blog ideas. After some long and arduous deliberations, we're pleased to announce our winners!

Winner, best blog post idea:
Ryan Bell, with his "Super Size Me" idea:

"First, the two inspirations for the idea. You may have heard of the movie "Supersize Me." For those that haven't, it's a documentary in which a man eats every meal, three times a day, at McDonalds, for an entire month. It documents his health and the changes his body makes throughout the month, as a sort of longitudinal experiment on what McDonald's food does in high doses, to the human body.

Second inspiration: Gary Cooper's post at Doctrinal:net on studying the scriptures intensely. Specifically, Gary writes that on his mission he was able (I do not know how) to read the scriptures for four to six hours a day, which resulted in an extremely heightened spirituality, including the receipt of many revelations.

So here's the idea: I'm going to mix the two. I'm going to go on a diet of pure Book of Mormon, allowing no other optional inputs in my life. Meaning: outside of work and encounters with actual people, I will not have anything put into my brain besides the Book of Mormon. For a month I won't watch TV, won't read anything else, won't do movies, music (except background sacred), or internet (besides blogs). Every spare moment when I don't need to be doing something else will be spent reading from the Book of Mormon. It will be a month of pure Book of Mormon.

During and after the diet, I will report on the experience."

And Winner, best blog tech update idea:
Dave Underhill, who submitted many great ideas, the best of which was:

"Consider giving each poster their own short link list, i.e. "Steve's Links" or "John's Links" where each can put their own favorite sites about absolutely anything. Encourages diversity, creates links, gives posters something to blog about."

Please join me in congratulating our winners and their fantastic ideas! I will contact them each today regarding their hard-won Gmail accounts, and implementing their ideas.
|

by Anonymous
For those of you experienced with budget travelling, the hostel culture should be familiar. Most dorm rooms have 4 + beds and the polite and friendly thing to do is introduce yourself to nearby bunk-mates. Introductions include obligatory answers to the following: where are you from, where have you been, where are you going, how long have you been here... and when things are really friendly bunkmates will often share tales of the things they've seen in town or good tours they went on.

My first night staying in an hostel last week, (I'm travelling) three boisterous dyed blond college girls checked themselves into my room. Usually I find these girls annoying. They tend to talk to much and be too loud in their vacuous blatherings. These girls did fit that stereotype and had a long discusssion on Britney Spears new boyfriend. BUT, they were sweet. When they told me they were all from Nevada, Reno or Las Vegas and then I looked at them with their sweet smiling blond selves, I thought, 'they could be mormon.' So I asked, 'You guys aren't mormon are you?' They laughed and said 'no', but told me they know lots of mormons.

Then, and this was my fault for asking the question in a negative way, one of the girls said "Hey, we could've really freaked her out by telling her yes!" Ha ha ha. That's when I knew it was time to share, so I said, "Oh, I am mormon, that's why I know there are so many in Nevada." They got quiet for 2 seconds then were over it. I felt the urge to say, 'don't worry, I'm not like the rest.' But I restrained myself, I'm glad I did. But why did I feel like saying that? I wondered what it is about us that makes girls like this think we are freaky, and that made me apologetic and almost shameful of my own kind? The whole episode disturbed me. I'm ashamed that I had that reaction. What is it about us that makes us so freaky? How sad. Here we were, on the other side of the Atlantic, and we both brought this negative view of mormons with us. Discuss.

(P.S. I'm having a fabulous time, it wasn't disturbing enough to tarnish my trip.)
Jennifer J
|

by NA
At long last, our first contest. It was only a matter of time before we gathered enough intellectual and spiritual capital to unveil such a rich opportunity.

Without further ado, here is the contest!

The Prize: A Google Email account, courtesy of yours truly. Think of it: 1 GB of free email, cutting-edge technology and 10 MB max attachment size. Never empty your inbox again! See here for more information on how Gmail could change your life forever.

The Challenge: Come up with a good idea for BCC, whether a suggestion for a post, an idea for added functionality, or a different and new approach to LDS blogging. Post your ideas below.

The Rules: Anyone can apply, including BCC staff members, random people from the bloggernacle, even visitors from T&S. Suggestions for posts should be at least somewhat LDS-related, and the person winning with a post suggestion must write the post and reply to comments. Suggestions for added functionality must be Blogger-compatible, and the person suggesting the functionality must show us how to do it (unless it's something lame like, "uh, the sidebar doesn't show up in Netscape"). Judgments will be made by a group of BCC posters after we've received some good ideas (which, based on the number of comments lately, could take awhile).

That's it! Put your faculties to work, brethren and sisters, and win the sweetest email account around. These email accounts have been going for crazy prices on Ebay, but it's yours for the taking. Email me with any questions.
|

by NA
Browsing through Google News for bits on mormons has taught me that you never know what crazy stuff is going on out there. This morning, I came across this little tidbit about a renegade plot to raise up assassins to kill the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. Perhaps the plotters were frustrated with the institutional framework for overthrow that Nate Oman discusses elsewhere.

The thing that struck me about these poor creatures is the way they've been interrogated by the government and put on the stand to testify against their prophet. Their responses show the shattered mind of people that have been reprogrammed. At the same time, I wonder how mormons would have testified on the stand during the days of polygamy prosecutions -- or for that matter, how would we testify on the stand about the church we currently belong to? Think of this interchange, from the article:

[plot witness Dawn] Godman said that, long after her arrest, she believed that Glenn Taylor Helzer, "working with the angels," would free her to continue God's work.

"My breaking away from Taylor Helzer has been a continuous process for the last four years," she said. "It's gone back and forth. It's been a struggle."

Prosecutor Harold Jewett asked Godman if she still thought Glenn Taylor Helzer was a prophet.

"You're still not sure, are you?" he said.

She responded, "At times, no."

I believe quite firmly that Gordon B. Hinckley is a prophet; were I to bear my testimony, I'd say that I know he is a prophet. But what would I say were I not bearing testimony, but giving it in court? Objective standards of witnessing and proof seem inapplicable to a church-based 'testimony.' What would you say on the stand?
|

by Dave
Sounds vaguely scriptural (see maybe Matt. 21:16 or 3 Nephi 26:16), but I'm actually thinking of my Elder's Quorum meeting on Sunday, where an 18-year-old, newly-minted, recently graduated (I think he graduated) elder taught the lesson. The disorientating effect was heightened for me because I can recall when he was ordained a deacon, and have observed this young man on scout hikes/campouts and at various other activities for the last six years. He would not have received my "most likely to teach Elder's Quorum" vote. Simply surviving childhood was probably an accomplishment (although maybe one could say this about most teenagers).

So here's the miracle: he actually taught an okay lesson. It was on having good gospel books around the home. Sure, he got lots of supportive comments from the class (I noted how nice it is to have Deseret Book bookstores in many cities outside Utah these days, and my nose didn't grow so I must believe it). Sure, I might offer a few pointers here or there about the lesson or his style. But he wasn't nervous. He did a quite adequate job, even a fine job for his first lesson. I've seen worse, much worse.

Somehow, the Church teaches its youth to be passable teachers and to be comfortable teaching a class. Not just the natural teachers or the outgoing loves-a-crowd future salespersons--even the lower-half-of-the-curve types are able to manage it. Even an 18-year-old to a room full of adults all of whom are older and probably better informed about the lesson material. I confess I'm a little stumped as to how it happens. What's the secret?
|

by Kaimi
We've all seen it: The family you've just met introduces you to their sons Moroni, Mosiah, and Brigham. Not only are they goofy names, they're names that scream out "look at my Mormon-ness!" And kids with uber-Mormon names almost always end up being the abnormal ones -- either rebellious, socially maladjusted, or just plain clueless.

So here's the poll: What is the worst uber-Mormon children's name? Which name is the most deadly kiss of death? Which name do you hear your cousin say "I just named my child ___" and you say to yourself, "wow, that kid is just not going to be normal"?


|

by Grimshizzle
It probably wasn’t a good time for me to encounter this review, in the most recent Atlantic Monthly, of Oxford University Press’s recent reissue of the original Boy Scout Handbook from 1911. While Baden-Powell’s original ink drawings are charming, and many of his instructions and observations have a distinctive timelessness, certain aspects of the original book are quite alarming. Baden-Powell, for example, disgusted with the indiscipline and general “softness” of British boys, reportedly spoke admiringly of the youth-indoctrination programs sponsored by the governments of Japan, Italy, and Germany in the 1930s. (He died too early to early to witness the whole of WWII and/or retract his endorsement.) And how about this disturbing aside in the section on beekeeping: "[Beehives] are quite a model community, for they respect their queen and kill their unemployed." Pink Floyd’s brick in “The Wall” even apparently derived from one of the Scout Handbook’s distasteful metaphors about social order: "Some bricks may be high up and others low down in the wall; but all must make the best of it and play in their place for the good of the whole."

Of course, we’ve come a long way since 1911, and aside from the occasional John Bircher who might end up scoutmaster, I don’t think the uglier parts of Baden-Powell’s character live on in scouting, while many of the more valorous elements of his legacy live on. Still, the article stirred up certain misgivings I’ve been having about scouting lately.

I was never much of a scout. I liked going to camp, and a few merit badges left an impression on me. I have trouble remembering the details of CPR, for example, but for some reason I recall exactly what to do if I happen upon an abdominal wound victim with slightly protruded entrails; also, I feel I watch Olympic archery with a bit more appreciation and insight than most people. And, for what it's worth, I still occasionally accessorize with kerchiefs. Beyond that, though, there wasn’t enough interest to nudge me past the rank of Star Scout. Besides, my parents involved me early on in activities more befitting a child of my pastey constitution and small stature: I took piano, participated in band, and played a Winthrop Paroo in the local college’s production of Music Man that made little Ronny Howard look like a friggin’ amateur.

(Reading over the previous paragraph, I feel compelled at this point to assert my staunch record of heterosexuality. Former drama geek, to be sure, but I was kidding about the kerchiefs, for hellsakes!)

So, anyway, fast forward 18 years, and here I am in the Young Men’s organization, having a great time working with a great set of kids, but finding it difficult to maintain my (and foster their) enthusiasm for certain aspects of the Scouting program. Attending a court of honor recently, for the first time since my own lackluster scouting days, I found the clumsy ceremoniousness even harder to take seriously (and also a bit unsettling, as it seemed to demand of me a solemnity toward ritual that I normally reserve for priesthood and temple ordinances).

What’s more, the valuable life skills that scouting seeks to teach kids seem to be covered quite comprehensively in the church’s new Duty to God program, for which I have a great deal of enthusiasm. It includes lots of scout-ish stuff—-camping, wilderness survival, first aid, etc.—-but integrates it more fully with personal, family, and spiritual matters. And it presents all of these as straightforward values and goals with real, inherent, and immediate value, uncluttered by all the patches and pomp. It frustrates me that some parents lose countless nights of sleep over whether or not their kid will get his Eagle, when they often don’t even know about the revised Duty to God program. To be sure, the Duty to God pamphlets stress that the program is to be pursued in tandem with Scouts, but it seems to me that it renders the most important aspects of scouting redundant. (And there’s ubiquitous speculation that the new program was designed in part to be able to replace Scouts as the official Young Men’s program if necessary, had recent lawsuits forced the scouting program to change its policies towards homosexuality). Also, I find the Duty to God program more appealing in that it falls into obvious parallel with the Young Womanhood Recognition program.

Is there something to the ceremoniality and ritual of scouts that I just don’t appreciate? Are there crucial things boys will miss out on if they pursue the Duty to God award but neglect scouting? Will my own three little boys be worse off if, when they’re of that age, they do all the Scouty things—hiking, camping, rendering service, setting goals, developing skills—without all the Scouty accoutrements?

(I tell you this much: no boy a mine gonna' wear no friggin' kerchief.)
|

by Dave
I here report the results of an experiment performed Sunday in a soft, comfy chair in the pleasantly air-conditioned foyer of a chapel in the great state of Southern California. The materials used were a copy of the current Heber J. Grant lesson manual and a ball point pen (blue ink, fine point Papermate Flexi-grip model).

Methods. I reviewed the 24 lessons printed in the lesson manual's table of contents and classified each under one of the following three categories: Organizational Maintenance, Self-Improvement, and Gospel of Jesus Christ. Close calls were resolved by consulting my inner voice and making my best guess after flipping through the pages of that lesson. I was investigating the hypothesis that the majority of lessons in the lesson manual preach the gospel of health, wealth, and education rather than the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Results. About 42% (10 of 24) of the lessons were directed at Organizational Maintenance (e.g., member recruitment through missionary work, obeying organizational leaders, improving the public image of the Church by being loyal and patriotic citizens, supporting temple and geneaological work). Exactly 25% (6 of 24) of the lessons concerned Self-Improvement (e.g., persistence, being a good example, attaining financial security, maintaining good health by observing Mormon dietary laws). About 33% (8 of 24) concerned the Gospel of Jesus Christ as one might hear it preached by missionaries (e.g., the straight and narrow path, priesthood, forgiving others, prayer, Jesus Christ). The example topics given with each category are adapted from the titles of lessons in the sample assigned to that category. I believe the results are robust and will be observed in other curriculum materials.

Discussion. The results confirm my a priori expectations based on earlier, informal inquiries along the same lines in earlier editions of similar lesson manuals. The rule of thumb is one-third for each category. I suspect Sacrament Meeting talks follow a similar distribution, although with youth speakers added in it probably pushes the percentage more in favor of true gospel topics. On the other hand, if high council speakers are included the other two categories would almost certainly get a boost.

Conclusions. Early to bed, early to rise, makes a person healthy, wealthy, wise, and a good Mormon. Punctuality is optional but cleanliness is highly encouraged.
|

by NA
Many of you have already seen this article from the NY Times Magazine (registration required, etc., etc.) this weekend. Having spent the last few days in North Carolina, I hadn't read it until this morning. I was amazed at the casual promiscuity and lack of coherent social structure by the teenagers in the article. Am I just getting old, and this is typical curmudgeon behavior towards rabble-rousing youths? Or have things really changed since my day?

More to the point, what hope is there for Church youths in a modern world of sexuality? Can a "Strength of Youth" pamphlet have the impact it needs to protect teens? The Church's sexual education program is lackluster to say the least, passing the responsibility over to parents without giving them enough information on how to proceed. What can/should we be doing for our youth that we're not doing already?
|