<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Tuesday, March 30, 2004

Homophobia as Self-Loathing 

by Aaron B
There is an idea in American culture – it pops up in all sorts of places – that extreme homophobia is often a sign of repressed homosexuality. The idea goes something like this: Certain men who have subscribed to cultural norms of hyper-masculinity discover, much to their chagrin, that they sometimes experience homoerotic feelings. This doesn’t fit into their carefully constructed self-image. It also conflicts with, say, their religious and societal upbringing, from which they learned that homosexuals are sissies or “not real men.” This discovery makes them angry. They have a personal crisis, colored by extreme self-loathing. How do they handle it? They lash out at those who appear to be overtly homosexual, or even just effeminate, as these people serve as reminders of what they “really are,” even though they don’t want to admit it. Thus, the reasoning goes, when you see a particularly virulent or nasty homophobe, it is fair to surmise that this person might really be a repressed homosexual.

The most obvious recent incarnation of this idea, in my mind, was the 1999 film "American Beauty." Chris Cooper plays a harsh, unforgiving military father who has a distant relationship with his wife and son, and who spends his time grumbling about “faggots” getting all in his face and watching old Ronald Reagan films. He begins to have paranoid suspicions (unfounded, as it turns out) that his neighbor, played by Kevin Spacey, is sexually involved with his teenage son, played by Wes Bentley. At the end of the film, just as you think Cooper is going to confront Spacey about this and become violent, he instead makes a homosexual pass at Spacey. Spacey politely rebuffs the advance, and Cooper becomes disoriented and confused. He then becomes enraged at what has happened, and in the last scene of the film, he returns to Spacey’s house, presumably consumed with self-hatred, and shoots Spacey in the back of the head.

(Other examples of this idea could be given. Think of the long-standing allegations of homosexuality and cross-dressing that plagued J. Edgar Hoover, as popularized by Oliver Stone’s film “JFK.”)

What I would like to know is … where does this idea come from? Furthermore, is there any truth to it? Off the top of my head, I have several theories:

(1) Maybe it’s really true. Maybe sexually-repressed homosexual homophobes are a real phenomenon. The theory, as I’ve laid it out above, doesn’t seem totally implausible. Certain gay friends I have known have articulated this idea to me, and hey, maybe they’re in a position to know.

(2) Then again, maybe it’s all bunk. Maybe it’s a tactic to scare homophobes into taking the sharp edges off their rhetoric. After all, if they don’t, maybe we’ll all start thinking they’re gay (gasp!).

(3) Maybe it’s just a story that homosexuals tell themselves to make themselves feel better, or to make sense of the irrational, over-the-top antipathy directed at them that they can’t otherwise understand. Only someone having a major sexual identity crisis, so the thinking would go, could possibly find the energy to loathe them so much.

I honestly have no firm position on this question. I have known some really homophobic Mormons in my life, and I have never understood where they find the energy to vent like they do, or why they give the gay issue such high priority in their hierarchy of complaints about the world. (By “really homophobic,” I mean REALLY, REALLY, REALLY homophobic. Nobody who has ever posted here or at T&S could possibly qualify). I’ll admit … sometimes it’s fun to imagine that they must be gay!

What do you all think?

Aaron B

P.S. If you don’t like this topic, feel free to turn this thread into an unfocused, gay-themed stream of consciousness outlet. Since I know there’s so much gay interest in the Mormon Blogosphere, and nowhere else to write about it ( :) ), BCC is here for you!

|

Liberty? Agency? You tell me 

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?
|

Monday, March 29, 2004

No hanging chads! 

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


|

Sunday, March 28, 2004

Come, let us haggle together 

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.)

|

Saturday, March 27, 2004

Ouch! 

by Kristine
Steve, the photo's a nice touch--don't take it down because of what I'm about to say. But I have to say it took my breath away--as much as I know that the church is run by a male hierarchy, as much as my entire life has involved getting used to that reality, as much as I believe that these are good and kindly-intentioned men, it is still painful EVERY TIME to be confronted with visual proof of the total absence of women in decision-making in the church.

(I take it as a proof of God's sense of humor that I was created both so uppity and so thoroughly Mormon.)
|

Friday, March 26, 2004

Missionary Pamphlets 

by steve cannon
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?
|

Mormon Networking 

by Mathew
Mormons like to consider themselves a social people--and among themselves I think that is indisputably the case. Most of the people I know in NYC outside of work are Mormon. It seems it is now impossible for me to go anywhere in the world without running into someone I know at church. Last summer I visited Taipei and ran into someone I knew from Vienna.

Since most of my contacts come from within the church, it seems natural to look to church as not only a source of spiritual nourishment, but a place of professional advancement. You do business, after all, with the people you know. Yet there is something disagreeable for me (and I think for most people) thinking about your fellow church/ward members as a business network. Most of us like our religion pure and that means commerce free. We accept the fact that the church needs money to operate as a necessary evil, but don't believe in exploiting the church for material gain. Perhaps this is why so many people object to Mormon-themed businesses (another a topic for another post).

Most of our networking, like most networking in general, is done naturally. We probably all know of cases where someone moved into a ward specifically with the goal of landing clients or hobnobbing with the rich and powerful--but that is undoubtedly the exception.

There have been some steps taken to formalize what has always gone on informally. One of the primary purposes of professional organizations such as the J Reuben Clarke Society is networking.

Yesterday Dave argued that the church should stay out of politics--my question is whether commerce should stay out of church. Or should we take advantage of the opportunity to do business with one another--even overtly favor one another--rather than do business with "gentiles"? And is it wrong to seek out friendships with ward members based on a desire to increase a professional network?

I've thought some about this--and I'll post my thoughts after hearing what other people think.
|

Wednesday, March 24, 2004

God and Public Policy 

by Aaron B
We who are LDS believe that the President of the Church is God’s official spokesman on the Earth. It is widely assumed that the Prophet may, at least on occasion, speak directly with God, face-to-face. There are, of course, 1001 arguments as to what the prophetic mantle really entails. We could spend countless hours debating de facto prophetic “infallibility,” whether and in what ways the prophet could ever “lead us astray,” the parameters for prophets having their own “opinions,” in what contexts prophets are or are not “acting as such,” etc. etc. etc. We could discuss the Proclamation and debate its “doctrinal” status with respect to gender and marriage, or Pres. Hinckley’s apparent endorsement of the Iraq War, and debate whether he was speaking only for himself, or for God Almighty. But wherever you all come down on these specific issues, one thing seems undeniable: There is a presumption in Mormonism that, at least some of the time, the Prophet is giving us insight into how God Himself feels about certain pressing issues. And I see no reason to reject the presumption just because the issue being addressed is arguably “political.”

Assuming this is correct, here is my question:
"To what extent does the Prophet’s involvement or LACK of involvement in a public policy dispute tell us something about GOD's interest in the outcome of that dispute?"

One possible answer is: “It doesn't. To the extent that the Church opposes legalizing same-sex marriage (for example), we need not conclude that God doesn't want gays and lesbians to have the legal right to marry. The Church's involvement is nothing more than an instantiation of the Prophet implementing his public policy “opinions” through the vehicle of the Church.”

However appealing to certain “Liberal Mormons” this answer might be, my guess is that most members of the Church won’t find it satisfactory. Rather, most believe that we DO learn something about God's will concerning the outcome of public policy disputes when the Prophet and/or Church get involved. We learn that God DOESN'T want gays to have the legal right to marry (once again, for example) and he probably wants us Saints to stand up and be counted among those who would defend the sanctity of traditional marriage.

If anything like this is correct, then it seems to me that we can infer quite a bit about God's political preferences by studying Mormon history. One of the first things we could note is that the Church doesn’t get directly involved in public policy disputes very often. Thus, we can conclude that an issue must meet some really high standard to merit God’s active involvement (via the Church). By looking at instances when the Church and/or Prophet have attempted to influence political outcomes (and taking note of instances where it/he has not) we can draw some pretty firm conclusions about God's priorities in the political arena.

Some conclusions:

1. God doesn't want the State to sanction gay and lesbian marriages.

2. God has a real problem with gambling casinos.

3. God didn't want the Equal Rights Amendment enacted into law.

4. God didn't particularly care one way or the other whether or not the slaves were freed in the 19th Century – at least not according to what he was saying (or not saying) to Brigham Young.

5. God certainly didn't think the Civil Rights movement in this country was important enough to lend any moral support to.

Other conclusions could probably be listed.

The Bottom Line: When I see the Church get involved in a public policy dispute, whether it be same-sex marriage or any other, I always ask the question: "Gee, why is this issue important enough to merit God’s interest and involvement, while these other issues were not." And though I concede that my own political interests and priorities may not be the same as God’s, I find it difficult to see how an issue like state recognition of same-sex marriage has such important "Gospel" implications, while the abolition of slavery or the support for equal treatment of all God’s children under the law did not.

Anyone care to enlighten me?

Aaron B

|

Tuesday, March 23, 2004

The Arm of Flesh 

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.
|

Please No, Not Utah 

by Karen
I was surfing on one of my favorite websites a couple of days ago, a snarky television commentary called www.televisionwithoutpity.com, and noticed a poll on the sidebar. Apparently filming of MTV's reality show "Real World" has recently shut down in Philadelphia due to union issues, and they are contemplating moving to a different city. The folks at TWoP were polling their readers to see which city readers thought should host the next Real World. One of several choices was Salt Lake City. I naturally voted for Salt Lake, because hey, I'm from Salt Lake, and I have hometown loyalty. Once I voted, I could see the results, and Salt Lake was far and away the leader. Twenty-one per cent at that point. I thought it was funny and moved on. I just went back and saw that Salt Lake is still ahead with twenty per cent of the votes. My reaction? Amusement combined with a gnawing feeling of dread. I've made a decision to post a public service announcement.

To all MTV big-wigs who read By Common Consent: Please don't pay attention to that poll on TWoP. It's very un-scientific. Very unreliable. Utah is boring. Please go away. Thank you.

To all other people who read By Common Consent: Whew. That was close. See, the second time I saw that poll the reality of a Salt Lake "Real World" hit me. I caught the vision. My hometown, object of both my love and annoyance, would be the butt of one great big joke. Hey look, the Real World kids can't get a drink anywhere. Hey look, the Real World kids are trying to have sex with Mormons, and it's not working. (Or worse yet, it is.) Hey, what's that smell? It's the lake?

I have complicated feelings about Salt Lake. I'm a Utah Gollum if you will, only with more hair and integrity. I'm annoyed by the politics; I'm annoyed by the insularity; I'm annoyed by the driving; I'm annoyed at the lack of ethnic food; at times I'm annoyed that it's peopled with blond Scandinavians who have been in-breeding for 150 years. But, I love that place. I love the mountains; I love the creepy old irrigation canals; I love that every kid takes piano lessons; I love the neighborhood games of kick-the-can in the summer; I love that people smile and say hi, even when they have no idea who you are (besides the possibility that you're a seventh cousin). I'm afraid the charms are too subtle for the outside world, who would stop at the "hey, this beer tastes watery" and miss the rest.

As one who feels a certain amount of kinship to those guerillas who kept Johnston's army at bay, I say to you MTV people, for both our sakes, please stay away--this is not your kind of town.
|

Chain of Command 

by Mathew
Yesterday's Wall Street Journal carried an article on its front page reporting on the confusion surrounding who ordered the nation's military on defcon 3 after the 9/11 attacks. A four star general says that he did it, but the Bush administration says that the president gave the order. Rather, they say something like no improper action was taken--although Bush has said in two speeches, both in backwater locations, that he gave the order. Reading between the lines of that carefully worded language and the places chosen for Bush to make the case that he gave the order; it seems likely that the general gave the order first. If this turns out to be the case, no doubt defenders of the president will argue that this was an exceptional case and no time for government boondoggle.

The church's chain of command goes all the way to God, and we are one of the few religions I know which claims modern prophetic direction. I have been taught, and believe, that God could appear to the prophet and have a chat with him if needed. The prophet-God link in the chain of command is one of the strongest sources of authority in the church--when major policy changes are enacted, it is always supposed by many members, that God must have spoken to the prophet about it directly. Joseph Smith was les than clear about who should take over after he was gone with the result that the church didn't have a head for 2 years after he was martyred. There were other attempts at usurping the top job after Brigham Young and John Taylor's deaths. My understanding is that the current means of succession wasn't definitely decided until well into the twentieth century.

The chain of command gets progressively weaker and less persuasive the lower you go. It's easier for most of us to accept the prophet's directives than our bishop's for a few reasons: First, we know our bishop personally and we don't think that a policy change in our ward is driven by a chat with God--although our doctrine teaches that we are all entitled to revelation regarding our stewardship and that must include heavenly visitations if needed. Second, it is easier for the prophets directives to be interpreted broadly, or, if that won't work, recognize that he is speaking broadly and put ourselves in the "exception" category. My question is whether there is a tendency among certain groups--say liberals and moderates, to usurp the chain of command. No doubt, everyone tends to think that they know best, but since moderates and liberals are a distinct minority in the church, policy and perhaps doctrine runs counter to what we think. Put another way, do we commandeer teachings about--oh, I don't know--gender and homosexuality. Is running in the van guard just a means of taking the church where we believe it needs to go--and is this the same of not only usurping local leadership, but prophetic leadership?

|

Monday, March 22, 2004

Pink Floyd meets Dorothy, and her little dog too!! 

by Aaron B
At a recent ward activity, I somehow got into a conversation with a member of my Elders’ Quorum, and his wife, about the alleged connection between “Dark Side of the Moon” and the “The Wizard of Oz.” For those of you unfamiliar with the juicy details, let me tantalize you…

Apparently, there is a bizarre synchronicity between the Pink Floyd song and the MGM classic film. If you play “The Wizard of Oz” with the volume turned down and start the Floyd song right after the third roar of the MGM lion, and you then sit back and observe what happens, you will notice all sorts of bizarre coincidences and connections between Dorothy’s shenanigans on-screen, and the pot-banging blaring out of your stereo (Nope – I’m not a Floyd fan). I won’t get into the details. (Go to www.rareexception.com/Garden/Floyd/Floyd.php if you’re interested in learning more).

Well, after explaining to me how this works (for this was news to me), the couple then related their own initiation into the dark underworld of Judy Garland movies. Apparently, they were first exposed to the awful phenomenon at a party a few years back when somebody popped the movie into the VCR and turned on the CD player. They immediately noticed the uncanny connection like a blow to the head. What’s worse, they then experienced a deep, dark, diabolical feeling of foreboding and dread, which I can only compare to Joseph Smith’s experience in the Sacred Grove, minus any heavenly interlopers. The conversation drew to a close with their fervent testimony that this was the creepiest, most demonic experience of their lives, and an admonition that I should NEVER try this at home!

Now, I’m not one to usually make fun of others’ spiritual (or unspiritual) experiences. (O.K., maybe I am, but not unless they’re told in testimony meeting! J ). But PUH- LEEEEZ!! I and another brother looked at each other knowingly, and we might as well have been telepaths: “We are DEFINITELY going to try this for ourselves before week’s end,” the brother thought to me. “Yes, I’ll go rent the video,” I responded with my eyes.

Friday night rolled around, and we had everything set up. I was waiting and hoping to be blown away. We started the film, and then the CD. (Drum roll please ……. )

How can I put this?… I was, shall we say, rather UNDERWHELMED. Not only were there no evil spirits, but I couldn’t even see the alleged coincidences. Yes, Toto does utter a bark, just as some other dog is doing likewise on the soundtrack. Big deal. It probably would have worked with "101 Dalmations," too. I paid $4.10 at Blockbuster Video for this??? I want a refund! (I have a theory as to what’s really going on with this alleged “synchronicity,” but that’s a story for another day…)

Obviously, I am not a believer in this hooey. But here is my question…. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that there really is a bizarre relationship between Pink Floyd and Dorothy. So what? Why is this “evil”? If my fellow churchgoers’ interpretation of their experience were unique or anomalous, this wouldn’t be an interesting question. But I don’t think it was unique or anomalous; I can think back to all sorts of events or conversations in my life in which Satan, or the Devil, or the Adversary is blamed for incidents or goings-on that have no discernable “satanic” quality to them. If you think you’ve been personally possessed by Beelzebub, fine. I’m not here to disparage all run-ins with the supernatural. I just want to understand why every feeling of eebie-jeebies is met with the default explanation that Lucifer is somehow behind it all. Did we all get spooked by Bruce R. McConkie’s _Mormon Doctrine_ entry on “Ouija Boards” one too many times as children, and now we’re oversensitive? I don’t know.

Maybe some will feel that I’m making too much out of an isolated incident. But I don’t think it’s isolated, and I really am interested in understanding why Satan gets invoked when and where he does by so many LDS people. (I should note that the LDS couple I mentioned above are both young, intelligent, articulate professionals). Is there a systematic way of thinking about this question? Any thoughts?

Aaron B

P.S. Also feel free to share your own experiences with the alleged Pink Floyd/Wizard of Oz connection, if you have any. If you don’t, go try this at home, and tell me if it works for you! (Maybe I just didn’t have eyes to see…. )

|

Sunday, March 21, 2004

(a) belonging to the emperor (b) embalmed (c) tame (d) sucking pigs (e) sirens (f) fabulous (g) stray dogs... 

by steve cannon
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.

|

Saturday, March 20, 2004

Zeezrom & the Kori-Whores 

by Aaron B
I know I’ll probably be disinvited to blog here shortly, given my propensity for beating this dead horse, but I want to advocate a change of blog name. More specifically, I want to cast my vote for “Zeezrom & Friends,” “Zeezrom & Co.,” or, best of all, the delicious little title that heads this post.

My sense is that Steve and Kaimi believe that any “Zeezrom” derivative would be “too limiting.” In other words, “Zeezrom” suggests a narrow legal focus for the blog that will prove inaccurate, given that “liberal Mormonness,” whatever that may prove to mean, will encompass a much broader range of issues and concerns.

I think this concern is misplaced. If anything, “Zeezrom” could signal to a potential reader nothing more than that the bloggers who dwell here are lawyers. (And with the exception of Kristine, I believe we ARE all lawyers). Further, it signals that the bloggers in question are Mormon, and that writings controversial or “against the grain” are likely to be found here (and from the perspective of your typical conservative LDS member, that’s probably true). In short, I think the blog name would succinctly and cleverly capture several aspects of this blog’s personality and focus simultaneously.

But there are other reasons for my suggestion… Imagine the following scenario:

Molly Mormon has somehow discovered T&S. She likes what she sees, and scrolls down the right side of the screen one day to see the “Mormon Blogosphere” links.

“Golly, this looks fun!” she exclaims. “I think I’ll go exploring. But look how many there are! I couldn’t possibly visit all these sites! I only have time to visit a couple. Which ones should I choose?”

10 bucks says Molly doesn’t choose “By Common Consent.” It’s just not catchy enough. But just imagine if “Zeezrom & the Kori-Whors” is among her options. There’s no way she’s going to miss that one! (The fact that it starts with a “Z” and so appears dead last in the list is also helpful).

“Oh my heck!” she says to herself. “Zeezrom? Isn’t he an apostate character in the Book of Mormon? Is T&S linking to anti-Mormon websites? Could it be true? The suspense is killing me! I MUST find out for myself!”

And right then and there, my dear fellow bloggers, you’ve enticed another visitor to the site! Good marketing. Fame and fortune will rain down upon us all that much more quickly!

Finally, I must note that “Zeezrom & the Kori-Whors” has a very nifty 80’s rockband sound to it. Think “Josie & the Pussycats” or “Joan Jett & the Blackhearts” or “Katrina & the Waves.” Wouldn’t that just be rad? If this blogging stint doesn’t work out, we could start a band and tour the Stake Dance circuit. Cool!

But in all seriousness, the only potential negatives I see are these:

(1) Although I like it, “Zeezrom & the Kori-Whors” may be too campy/obnoxious to fit some bloggers’ personalities. It may also be inordinately silly for a blog that will probably be dedicated to many non-silly discussions. However, any other “Zeezrom” title I mentioned would tone this down sufficiently, I think.

(2) Many LDS people don’t have sophisticated senses of humor… i.e. they may not get the joke. Obviously, we don’t see ourselves as real, modern day Zeezroms, but others might take it too literally. Those inclined to dismiss Mormon liberals as apostate, heathen or backsliding may see the blog name as proof of the charges. (To HECK with them, I say).

In any event, these are my thoughts. I invite yours. (But I will tolerate neither dissent nor stupidity.) :)

Aaron B

|

Friday, March 19, 2004

Thanks to Viewers Like You! 

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.
|

Thursday, March 18, 2004

The Revolution will be cross-stitched 

by Kristine
Mat's suggestion of hanging the Manifesto on his wall instead of the Proclamation on the family reminded me of a favorite discussion topic of mine: obnoxious feminist sayings I would like to put in a counted cross-stitch sampler. Examples: "A clean house is a sign of a wasted life," "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people," or my favorite, from Franklin S. Richards on woman suffrage in Utah: "If the price of statehood is the disfranchisement of one half of the people...I am content to share with them the disabilities of territorial vassalage till the time shall come, as it will come in the providence of God, when all can stand side by side on the broad platform of human equality, of equal rights, and equal capacity." The reason for cross-stitching them, of course, would be to see how many months it would take one's visiting teacher to notice the horrific sentiments thus displayed.

There's a serious point beneath the humor (there always is with me; can't help it--I'm descended from a long line of depressive Swedish preachers), that we often form judgments of what is appropriately Mormon based on issues of style. One of the things I loved most about the summer seminar on women's history at BYU last year was how Claudia Bushman would come to gatherings with her needlepoint in hand. From time to time she would look up, smile, say something jaw-droppingly radical like, "maybe someday they'll have special wards just for single sisters," or "Mormon feminism is dead," and then go back to stitching. Half the time people, even quite conservative people, would just nod and go on with the discussion. When Aileen Clyde visited, we all noticed how she, every inch the picture of East Bench gentility could say things in her perfectly modulated church lady voice that NOBODY could possibly get away with saying. I could say things about why it's good for women to work outside the home that nobody else could say, because I am (for now, and for as long as I can stand it) a dumpy stay-at-home mom with three cute blond children.

So here are my questions for you self-proclaimed liberals: how much do you self-censor or adapt yourself to the prevailing styles of expression in order to fit in with your congregations? (especially those outside of Cambridge or Manhattan) Is this bad, or is it a useful way to check your prejudices and knock the sharp edges off of your opinions? What happens if you don't do it, or if you're not good at it?
|

LDS Temple Collector's Items 

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.
|

Wednesday, March 17, 2004

Women and the church: Reactionary, or simply reflective? 

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?)
|

Tuesday, March 16, 2004

Responses to de facto Gender Discrimination 

by Karen
Let me start this post by acknowledging that my assertions are anecdotal, but also note that I know a lot of women in the church. I talk to a lot of women. I've lived in several wards of differing personality, and one commonality I've found is that most women do not consider themselves discriminated against by the church. They're at peace with the Priesthood issues, and are too busy worrying about their own spiritual progress to get caught up in gender angst. Like most of my friends, I'm bemused by outsiders who bemoan the role of women in the church. We choose to be members, and understand our decision. So, I'm not making an argument of any official gender discrimination, I personally don't think that is the relevant inquiry.

What I am concerned about are the numerous instances of de facto gender discrimination that I see in private relationships between members. This becomes more disturbing when one party presumes to insinuate that their position and opinions are "official." Let me illustrate with a third hand story.

We have a very large Spanish speaking ward in our stake. It is tradition that every stake conference begins or ends with a prayer in Spanish. (This, in addition to the translation services provided.) I personally love this tradition, and find it admirably inclusive. However, at a recent stake conference, some younger men in my ward became really upset at this, finding it totally inappropriate. (For what I assume were conservative "English only in America" reasons....another topic for another day....) A woman, also in my ward, who was sitting near-by challenged them and a heated discussion ensued. One of the men ended it by basically telling her that he was going to the bishop to complain, and that he had the authority to do so. (Insinuating that as a priesthood holder he could, and she couldn't.)

Okay, laugh at this story if you must. You wouldn't be the first. My concern is the insinuation that women are powerless to affect change in the church. I simply don't think that is true, and that we have every obligation to use our time, talents, and means to improve and build the church. Think these situations are isolated? How much attention is payed to the scouts vs. the young women in your ward? Think about the jokes about the frivolousness of Relief Society. I think the relevant question is how do we respond to the numerous cuts, insinuations, and "bone-headed" remarks that we are sooner or later exposed to.

I think we have four options. 1) Over time we start to believe the message that women's experiences in the church are less valuable than men's. (Sadly, a common reaction.) 2) We "turn the other cheek" recognizing the ridiculousness of the situation, but not reacting. (My usual M.O.--often accompanied by a dramatic eye roll...) 3) We confront the speaker and point out the problem. (Maybe the most healthy response, but come one....I think our strongest cultural trait is being passive aggressive, so how often does this happen?) or 4) We attribute the motives of the individual actor to the church as a whole and slowly become embittered. (Leading, eventually, to some level of apostasy.)

My questions. What is the appropriate response by women? What responsibilities do men (and women...)have to evaluate their own behavior? What responsibilities do ward leaders (of both genders) have to evaluate the gender discrimination issues in their wards and address them?





|

Monday, March 15, 2004

Wonder Twin Powers 

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.
|

Sunday, March 14, 2004

Becoming Socialized 

by Mathew
My sister and I had a long conversation yesterday about becoming socialized as a result of my answer to one of the questions on the political compass test Steve linked to. The question asked how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statement: “Making peace with the establishment is an important aspect of maturity”. I clicked “agree”.

I’m sure that years ago I would have thought giving the establishment the bird was a good thing. When common sense fails, however, experience often steps in and teaches the same lesson differently. My siblings and I have always had a strong bent towards individualistic behavior which has been a blessing and a curse. Among ourselves we are famously fractious despite dozens of family home evenings about unity. Not having much regard for what other people think about you, and not thinking too much about other people causes problems in other spheres as well–some of us are over-educated and underemployed at least in part because academia tolerates a higher standard of deviation from social niceties more than the professions.

Most people never wage war against the establishment anyway, but are rather simply intransigent in the face of it. I suppose it is a form of disobedience that most youths pass through–although my own youth lasted well into my twenties. Of course the so-called establishment is not some monolithic thing that seeks to crush youthful ideals–in my life it came in various distinct forms familiar to most people–schools, church, the work place. The common thread seems to be a discomfort with authority. My wife informs me that I haven’t exorcized this demon yet–but my more rational self tells me that great governments, churches and corporations work because people find ways to voluntarily repress at least some of their individual wants and engage in a communitarian enterprises. Having a stake in the system, as writers on Middle-East politics constantly remind us, also helps. Where you find your stake is still individual. I went to law school because the job I had before that didn’t give me the kind of stake I wanted–more prestige and money. I liked the job itself well enough–I taught high school.
|

Saturday, March 13, 2004

A Name and a blessing 

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.
|

Friday, March 12, 2004

Those Who Are About To Blog Salute You 

by Mathew
What can we expect from this little blog? It will likely not bring us money, fame or praise--it may make us objects of the world's derision and alienate our family and friends. We may be denied all of the good things that this abundant earth has to offer us because we set out our convictions in an attempt to sharpen the blade of truth. We test our ideas against others, selling our thoughts in that grandest of marketplaces, in an attempt to persuade--while remaining open to persuasion. If you will not accept our ideas, accept our blog. Our mission is to harvest the wheat and separate the chaff--because we are men and because men must blog.
|

So what's a liberal Mormon, anyways? 

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
|

Test 

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

Welcome all! 

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.
|

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?