by NA
And now the big news (or part of it)....

We've moved!

Please update your links accordingly. The new site URL is http://www.bycommonconsent.com. You can also get there by clicking the banner at the top of the page.

Do not bookmark this page. This site will no longer be updated, but it will remain open for browsing through our archives or for leaving snarky comments that no one will ever read.



|

by NA
The recent bait-and-switch at some other blog has caused us to consider the thirst of the average Bloggernacler for something new, something unique, something mildly blasphemous. We feel your pain, O ye unwashed masses. And so, on Wednesday, we will unveil some changes ourselves, BCC-style. Not the piddling, ho-hum changes you see elsewhere -- oh no! Ours will rattle your teeth like a ride on the Cyclone, shift your paradigm without a clutch and cause you to question the very meaning of life. Prepare yourselves.

And those of you who know what's going on, SHUT UP or I will e-break your kneecaps. The rest of you, feel free to speculate -- the best rumor-mongerer will win a shiny new Bronze Hornsman.
|

by Dave
On Saturday night, a car pulled up behind me just after I found a convenient parking spot on a narrow Pasadena street. A tall, confident-looking fellow emerged from the car, stuck out his hand, and said, "Hi, I'm Aaron Brown." Not one to miss a line, I replied, "Do you mean the Aaron Brown?" Suitably flattered, he confessed, and I introduced myself as his co-blogging partner in crime. And thus we convened an impromptu meeting of the California wing of Bcc, Inc. We're no vast left-wing conspiracy, but we get around.

The event was actually the monthly meeting of the Miller-Eccles group, whose mission (for those who choose to accept it) is "to encourage LDS gospel scholarship, enlightenment and understanding." The invited speaker this month was Ron Walker, a BYU history prof who is one of three authors of what promises to be the definitive book on the unfortunate occurrence at Mountain Meadows (forthcoming from Oxford Univ. Press in 2005). Prof. Walker's remarks made it clear there was simply an awful lot going on in Utah in 1857, and most of it is relevant to understanding how something like Mountain Meadows could have happened. Having visited the actual site earlier this year, I found the presentation to be especially interesting.

Incidentally, the host told us he was pleased to see some "younger" attendees (which he generously defined as "under 35") at the meeting, which seemed like the kind of discussion the average Bcc'er would find interesting. There is a $10 per person suggested donation to defray travel expenses of the presenters, but the discussion seemed well worth the investment. Check the MESG website for details on future meetings and speakers.
|

by NA
It's not often that we at BCC have brushes with greatness, but over the past week I've had some emails with an artist involved in the most original and interesting news the LDS arts community has seen in years. Michael Allred is one of the biggest names in modern comics and graphic novels, with titles under his belt like X-Statix and Red Rocket 7, and his most famous work, Madman, is being made into a film by the fantastic Robert Rodriguez. His style has been compared to such greats as Jack Kirby and others, and his wife, Laura, has been his amazing colorist for years. Unless you've been living under a rock, you've heard of Mike's latest project, The Golden Plates, a series of Book of Mormon narratives that takes LDS doctrine in a bold new direction. I asked him a few obsequious questions, and he's generously responded. And maybe, just maybe, he'll answer a question or two of yours if he's so inclined.

Question/Fawning Admiration #1: Tell us about your visual inspirations.

Well, Arnold Friberg (who originally did 12 paintings of the Book Of Mormon, most which appear in several editions) is the first artist I remember seeing. So, his depictions of BOM people are the definitive ones in my mind, and so I'm going from his interpretations.

Question/Fawning Admiration #2: How did you go about picking and choosing which narrative aspects to follow?

It's been surprisingly easy. I simply read the scriptures and break the events into separate moments that can be illustrated.

Question/Fawning Admiration #3: What were the challenges of putting doctrine into the graphic novel format?

I do approach it as sacred. And while there is certainly a large bias of the comic book/ sequential art /graphic novel format, I'm
approaching it in the most thoroughly definitive way I'm capable of. In other words, using Friberg as an example again, what if he'd done THOUSANDS of illustrations instead of just the original 12? Well, I'm attempting to draw every moment with the doctrine placed in sequential order where ever possible.

Question/Fawning Admiration #4: Do you think the Book of Mormon is a history to be taken literally?

I absolutely DO regard the Book Of Mormon as a literal historical record, inspired by God, and the key to the truth of ALL things. It supports the truthfulness of ALL scripture.

Question/Fawning Admiration #5: Do you view this graphic novel as a missionary tool?

It is my testimony. Drawing is what I do best and having committed to this I will never again be at a loss to share my testimony and what I know to be true. Already many people who've never even heard of The Book Of Mormon have now been exposed to the first 14 chapters of the book. My hope is a seed will be planted, they'll find the beauty of the record, seek out the actual scriptures and find their way to the gospel. And for someone like myself, a life-long member who originally struggled with the scriptures, this might help provide a visual doorway to understanding the events, context, and flow of the history, and embrace the scriptures. AND for those who already have a love and testimony of the book might simply enjoy seeing it fully illustrated.

Question/Fawning Admiration #5: I must say, incidentally, that I admire the artistic guts it takes to do a project like Golden Plates; you're really going in some new territory here, and I think it's fantastic.

Thank you very much!
At this point, I just hope enough people get behind it so that I can finish it. We're off to a great start. The word of mouth on the project, and the positive response is well beyond what I had hoped for. It's thrilling.

Thanks again Mike! We want to officially order all BCC readers to go out and order copies immediately, and spread the word about a great book by an amazing author. His official website is at www.aaapop.com, and you can order his books through www.onipress.com.

UPDATE: Some reviews of The Golden Plates are starting to come in, and it's interesting to see.
|

by NA
The fate of the bloggernacle is WAS in YOUR hands!

Poll's over, folks, and here are the results:

www.bycommonconsent.com 45.6% with 62 votes

www.rameumptom.com 30.9% with 42 votes

www.korihor.com 11% with 15 votes (due to T&S tampering)

www.zelph.org 10.3% with 14 votes

www.zeezrom.com 2.2% with 3 votes

total votes: 136

What will we do now? We shall gather in secret chambers to decide.

|

by NA
Over the last year or so, I decided to read some of the great 'masterworks' of literature in their entirety, instead of just the snippets from the Norton anthologies. Sumer also joined along, reading books alongside. As a result, we've now read Moby-Dick, the complete Sherlock Holmes, War and Peace, Anna Karenina, The Brothers Karamazov, A Passage to India, A Tale of Two Cities, Bleak House, The Three Musketeers, Portrait of a Lady, Leaves of Grass, Treasure Island, Don Quixote, The Corrections, and a couple of others.

I initially took this on as a kind of personal Mount Everest, to read them because they're there and they're big, honking books that nobody really ever reads, and yet are classed amongst the most wonderful books ever written. Let's face it, there's a great deal of unrighteous pride involved here, to be able to flaunt your current reading -- telling people you're reading Don Quixote is a heckova lot more satisfying than responding with Men are From Mars or The Da Vinci Code. But I've gathered a couple of impressions from reading these big, tough books, and thought I'd get your ideas as well:

First, they're not so tough. The big books take some patience, but they're not so challenging or unengaging so as make them unreadable. War and Peace, for example, is challenging for the most part because of its variety of locales and characters; keep track of those, and the book isn't half as daunting. Getting your mind around some of the ideas, such as in The Brothers Karamazov, is a different matter; I'm still trying to work them out in my mind. But then again, so is everyone else!

Second, they're pretty good. Anna Karenina is now Sumer's favorite book (though its recent Oprah nod shook its reign). Don Quixote is now mine. They are considered the greatest books ever for good reason, but their size and reputations put them out of reach for most of us. I never would have appreciated them without reading them whole -- the fact of having read the entire book makes each aspect of the book seem more satisfying. Now the commandment in D&C 88:118 to seek wisdom in the best books makes a little more sense.

Do you get this same pleasure of working your way through a tough book?
What books are you reading now?
|

by Dave
The Bloggernacle did its part--just about every weblog posted at least once on the election. I link to some of the more interesting pre- and post-election posts below. Television made its first big impact on presidential politics in 1960 with the Nixon-Kennedy debate. Blogging made its first big impact in 2004 by shooting down Dan Rather's memo story. What role will blogging (or the next Web innovation) play in 2008? Ask me in four years!

POST-ELECTION: Clark, rarely a political blogger, posts a nifty color map showing vote by county, shaded from blue to red by percentage vote--Utah is as red as it gets. John Fowles notes negative European press on Bush's re-election, which he summarizes as "predictably negative, even arrogantly condescending." Chris at LYMA promotes "Jon Stewart in 2008" and thinks the incumbent's supporters need to come up with a better chant than "Four More Years." And Mormanity likens this election's left-wing diatribes to anti-Mormon rhetoric, which he illustrates with a lengthy excerpt that starts, "Ignorance and bloodlust have a long tradition in the United States, especially in the red states . . . ."

PRE-ELECTION: Greg at T&S points out that from 1932 to 1948, Utah voted solidly Democratic. And God didn't send down fire and brimstone! Although a rabid Republican might argue He did nuke St. George. Justin does a flashback to the election of 1912--Utah went for William Taft, but Woodrow Wilson Kerry won and kept the United States out of The Great War for the first three years. Larry the guest blogger at Our Thoughts talks about the lack of an opposition party in the province of Alberta, arguing that "[i]f we are to survive as a vibrant society in this province we need to allow for dissent and counter ideas." Look at Clark's map--not much dissent in the heartland of America either. Finally, Gordon's post on LDS Senator Harry Reid, possibly destined to be the Senate Minority Leader, features 74 comments giving many interesting details on this suddenly visible LDS politician.

NEXT WEEK: The theme for Potluck 8 will be LDS Sunday School, highlighting the Bloggernackers who have done regular lesson posts or commentary and running a few Google ranking contests. Anyone who does a "Three Things I Love/Hate About Sunday School" post is also at risk to be covered next week.
|

by NA
Many have written to me, to complain of how they weren't able to be at the Bloggernacle party last week. I'm sorry you couldn't make it, you non-NYC inferior nerds. For those of you who couldn't make it, I've made a little video of myself for the curious public. It's a bit long, but will fill in a lot of blanks for you all. Enjoy!
|

by Dave
Am I the only one who finds the Bloggernacle more interesting than television? In case you've spent too much time watching Scrubs, Lost, The O.C., and the other fare so elegantly showcased yesterday by Steve, here are a few Bloggernacle highlights since the last Potluck.

Justin gives short teasers on two new books by Terryl Givens that are in the works for next year. Yes, they are both on Mormonism. The one subtitled The Cultural History of the Mormon People looks quite promising. I wonder if blogging will make it into the last chapter? Givens, Jr. blogs (he was a regular commenter at T&S at one point) so there is a chance the Bloggernacle will at least get a footnote.

Rusty talks about the tough sell that early-morning seminary is for some Mormon teenagers. Y'all can chime in with your opinion, but I've never seen any official recognition of the fact that wake-up times for EMS students have morphed from early morning (7ish) to very early morning (6ish) to very, very early morning (5ish) as high schools have beefed up their curricula and schedules. Declining interest by some teenagers is a sign of their sanity. Failure to adjust by CES is a sign of rigid thinking, the kind of "make the people fit the program" approach that makes the Mormon Church such a wonderful place. Try holding Sacrament Meeting at 6:00 a.m. and see who shows up! My sympathy, of course, to instructors like Rusty who are caught in the middle.

John C. at new blog United Brethren is trolling for advice on what to say to a straying LDS student who is trying to deal with his initial foray into Mormon Studies via Jon Krakauer. I would tell him to tell the kid to start blogging, but the question probably deserves more serious treatment. Go drop in and share your unique BCC insights.

The best I could come up with over at the other blog was Matt's post on the how regularly he sees Mormons with left-leaning political convictions leave the Church while one rarely sees right-leaning Mormons take the long walk. Try to suppress your knee-jerk liberal reaction and read the post, which recognizes that this is a delicate subject and treats it as a question that deserves serious discussion. We form singles wards and Polynesian branches . . . how about a Democratic branch or two? I'd even settle for a few politically neutral congregations.
|

by NA
OK, you weak-minded fools, you love your T.V. You spend more time worshipping the boob tube than on your knees before your Maker. That's O.K. -- you are no different than the rest of America and the world. Better for you to be mesmerized by the phosphors than to be a total social outcast.

That being said, no amount of T.V.-watching will make you normal, unless you watch the right T.V. Being an fanboy of Antiques Roadshow and Charmed will get you neither into the Celestial Kingdom, nor the Great and Spacious Building. So, your friends at BCC have put together this friendly guide to the new Fall schedule, so that you may set your VCRs, program your TiVos and rearrange your Family Home Evenings as appropriate. This is a guide to prime time viewing on the major networks only -- mormons are too cheap for HBO (though we discuss the best of HBO below).

We've tried to present three options for each time slot.The first option in a timeslot is what you ought to watch, as a cool member of society; the second is what you could watch, if offended by cool content; the third is what you must never watch, for fear of contracting social leprosy. Links are provided to each show's homepage. Feel free to disagree with our picks to your hearts' content, you knobs.

Monday
8:00 p.m. SpongeBob SquarePants/F.H.E./7th Heaven. Not much to merit watching this hour of television, sadly. 7th Heaven is a dark, evil addiction which grips my family. You can justify watching it, however, by virtue of the rumor that Aaron Spelling originally planned to make it about mormons. Just have F.H.E., and get yourself right with the Lord before 9:00.
9:00 p.m. Everwood/CBS comedies/Girlfriends. Everwood is class A WB stuff. Truly enjoyable writing, fine cast, and it's filmed in Utah! The show is heartfelt, and deals with some interesting issues, at least occasionally. The other two options are horrible. Of course, come Jan. 10th, the truly awesome 24 begins in this timeslot, so 24 vs. Everwood should cause you to rush out and buy TiVo right now.
10:00 p.m. The Wire/local news/CSI Miami. Will David Caruso stop trying to seem like a Bad Dude? Come on, scrawny man! You're not fooling anyone, and your show is even worse than the original CSI, if that's possible. What a waste of Miami! At least Miami Vice involved Michael Mann and a Ferrari.
11:00 p.m., MONDAY-FRIDAY: The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, on Comedy Central. Really, this is the only 'must-see T.V.' that still exists. You could also stay up after and watch South Park, you perverts.

Tuesday
8:00 p.m. Gilmore Girls/scripture study/NOVA. GG is a great show: snappy writing, a weird, funny world, and involving characters. It has the fastest pace of dialogue of any show on television, and I've grown to really enjoy it. Don't like the WB? Get over it. Watch PBS, you nerd.
9:00 p.m. Veronica Mars/Scrubs/Frontline. VM is the new, better written BtVS. What an amazing, soon-to-be-cancelled show, with a strong, smart woman and a thoughful writing style. It's about the nosy daughter of a P.I., but it's really much more interesting than its premise. Plus a really cool intro song -- this is the best show ever on UPN, including when they stole Buffy. Scrubs will do in a pinch for dumb comedy. Not in the mood for great TV or mildly interesting comedy? Watch PBS again, you nerd.
10:00 p.m. local news/whichever Law & Order show is on, and ready yourself for Wednesday.

Wednesday
8:00 p.m. Lost/60 Minutes/Smallville. Lost is another JJ Abrams masterpiece, kind of an Alias meets Cast Away meets Land of the Lost. The premise? Crawl out from under your rock -- people are lost on an island somewhere weird. Interesting, suspenseful, well-executed T.V., that ranks up there with Veronica Mars for best new show. 60 Minutes is always fun to watch, but try to avoid Smallville, which takes a great superhero franchise and reduces it to creature-of-the-week T.V. Awful, made more so by its potential.
9:00 p.m. Another FHE/Spike TV/West Wing. Not much on at 9:00 p.m. Wednesdays, and don't give me West Wing, 'cause this season sucks rocks compared to years past. It'll be gone next year, I guarantee. I put in Spike TV because tonight they're showing Dog Day Afternoon, which puts them up a couple of notches in my book.
10:00 p.m. See Tuesday.

Thursday
8:00 p.m. The O.C./Joey/Journal writing. Mock if you must, but The O.C. is great, pulpy T.V. at its best. It has soap opera-y storylines, to be sure, but it's snappy & fun, great to look at, and gets you hooked pretty quickly. It has some good James Dean moments, believe it or not. And that Adam Brody is dreamy! Joey is there for you if you really miss Friends, I suppose, but it's fairly forgettable.
9:00 p.m. CSI/The Apprentice/Organizing food storage. This is a good hour to just keep the T.V. off. CSI is awful stuff, the worst ham-fisted writing in the world. But it's Bruckheimer-produced, so if you liked Bad Boys then this may keep you drooling. The Apprentice is included so that you can keep up with the water-cooler talk the next day, but Trump is a moron.
10:00 p.m. Late night temple session?

Friday
8:00 p.m. Complete Savages/Joan of Arcadia/Dateline NBC. Complete Savages is a sitcom produced by Mel Gibson, that has a real Chuck Jones-style comedy angle. It's fairly dumb, but has moments of hilarity, and is the best on-screen depiction of an all-male household I've ever seen. Joan of Arcadia is basically a smarter teen version of Touched by an Angel, but it still sucks, despite its emmy nods. Dateline NBC represents the worst of "news" journalism.
9:00 p.m. PPIs/Reba/JAG. This is the time of night you regret having a T.V. If you have an Xbox, Gamecube, or Atari, break it out. Otherwise you'll face the worst cheese of middle America. Sumer really likes Reba, because she hails from Texas and "it's not ridiculous." You be the judge. Reba is a single mom, working hard to keep her family together. *yawn* As for JAG, Catherine Bell ceased to be a sex symbol years ago, and Bellisario (the producer) hasn't made an interesting show since Airwolf's 2nd season.
10:00 p.m. Get a life! Get out of the house, potato! Go clubbing!

Saturday (are you really watching T.V. on a Saturday night? Loser!)
Not much of note comes on Saturday night. But I must divulge one of my many secret pleasures, Cops. Man alive, there's something deeply satisfying about seeing the darker side of humanity.

Sunday
Sunday has a host of funny and intersting shows. Here are the highlights, but you may as well just program your T.V. to swap automatically between ABC and FOX. Otherwise, feel free to watch American Dreams, Cold Case or British House of Commons on C-SPAN to your heart's content -- just don't expect anyone to want to hang out with you, ever.

7:00 p.m. America's Funniest Home Videos. Sure, it's a bit of a guilty pleasure. But you never get tired of someone taking a golf ball to the crotch, people! To me, AFV is a microcosm of America itself; it shows our vices, our pleasures, our failures. Well, more accurately, yours (O Canada...)
8:00 p.m. The Simpsons. The best animated series on television, and arguably the best ever, depending upon how many Futurama fanboys you talk to. Those who think The Simpsons are in poor taste obviously haven't seen a lot of South Park (must be the same people who think T&S is a liberal blog *snicker*).
8:30 p.m. Arrested Development. AD is by a mile the best comedy on T.V., and certainly the best show Jason Bateman's ever been a part of. Produced by Ron Howard, and starring some of the best comedic talent available (including Mr. Show's David Cross), AD is the ultimate tongue-in-cheek family sitcom. If you haven't watched it, you owe it to yourself to upgrade from the shlock that normally passes for comedy, such as Everybody Loves Raymond.
9:00 p.m. Desperate Housewives or Alias (starting in January)/Law & Order - Criminal Intent/Masterpiece Theatre. Desperate Housewives is listed as a shout-out to Gigi Parke, who is addicted to the show (as a mirror of her own life, perhaps?). But it's highly regarded and has an interesting ongoing series of plots. My only objection is that it's a little too racy than it needs to be, and is sometimes a little obvious with its themes. The same could be said for the other show ABC slots at this time, Alias. But somehow, Jennifer Garner kicking butt as a super-spy seems more harmless. Last season's Alias was terrible compared to its spectacular first season, but rumor has it that JJ Abrams is back on track -- if Lost is any indication. I've included L&O - CI as an option here because Vincent D'Onofrio is really good at being a creepy detective, but there's not too much else that distinguishes it. Again, you want class? Watch PBS, nerd.
10:00 p.m. Go to bed!/News/Boston Legal. Can you really consider watching Boston Legal? Just because William Shatner and James Spader star doesn't make it worthwhile -- cast isn't everything (tell that BTW to the dorks behind Dr. Vegas!).

Soon to come: cable shows, HBO and others. Please feel free to snark away should you disagree. We will cruelly mock you. For those who deeply care about T.V. (and you all should), behold an invaluable resource: Television Without Pity. This is the internet's best recapping and review site, where the reviews are often better than the shows themselves (esp. for 7th Heaven).

Go forth and watch, my children!
|

by NA
No, not that Pedro.

I live in a smallish building on the Upper West Side -- five families, 6 floors and a basement. Each of us lives on a separate floor, but we all share some common areas in the building, like any other condo. We have a small garden out front. We take turns taking the trash to the curb; we take turns shoveling the walk. We all pitch in to tend the garden and clean up common areas. 'Tis a harmony of the highest order, 4th Nephi-style.

Or so it should be. Some of us are more lazy than others, which means every once in a while, the snow doesn't get shovelled or the trash builds up. When there are only a few families, and we all take turns, a particular family's failure to contribute becomes extremely obvious. We all come from very different backgrounds, so some of us have never performed this type of manual labor before, while others had several crappy jobs through high school that their mother got for them that made them do all kinds of junk like this for the worst pay imaginable and you had to work with total coke fiends.

Anyhoo... enter Pedro. One of the families knows a super from down the street, named Pedro. For $150 a month, Pedro has offered to shovel our walks, take out the trash and periodically clean up our sidewalks. Pedro does a very fine job at his other building, and has enough spare time to work on ours, too. $150/month, $30 per family, seems a reasonable amount. But I have a weird aversion to hiring Pedro to do these tasks for me. I'm worried that it will fragment the culture of our building, making us rely on others to do work which is rightly our own, while causing each of us to participate a little less towards the common good. This all seems to cut against the grain of my pioneer blood and the spirit of the mormon work ethic. Isn't it good for me, in some way, to get out there and shovel my own walk? What are the effects of hiring people to do our work?

Pedro would be a good President. We have a contract with Pedro to perform services, and he fulfills these tasks gladly as promised. We have him work for the collective good, and in exchange we each work a little less. Pedro is the central government executive branch, performing our work in exchange for our money. We all participate a little less, and pay a little more, but the tasks get done more efficiently and we live worry-free. Pedro is Big Government. Vote for Pedro!
|

by Dave
I'm continuing a feature started on my other blog, highlighting interesting posts around the Bloggernacle since the last Potluck, ones that deserve another go-round and additional comment from the BCC community. This should be especially useful for group bloggers who frequent BCC and T&S but don't get out much (to other Bloggernacle sites). For previous installments, go here.

Justin at Mormon Wasp talked about Wallace Stegner and gave a link to an interview he did with Sunstone in 1980. Stegner wrote about Salt Lake City as a unique Western city rather than as a Mormon city, and was the first person to make me actually like the place a little bit. He deserves more attention.

Bret at Nine Moons posted The Manipulation Pattern: A Mormon's Favorite Tool (ouch!). He wonders out loud about the difference between the manipulation pattern and the commitment pattern, and how we can "avoid falling into the trap of using manipulation." He has a nice discussion, but I really hope the practice is not as easy to fall into as Bret makes it sound. Perhaps we should be teaching missionaries the Golden Rule instead of the commitment pattern?

Ryan at Intellecxhibitionist contrasts living ordinances with apostate sacraments, also giving a link to a nice talk on The Great Apostasy ("TGA") delivered recently by Noel Reynolds at BYU Idaho (the new training ground for LDS apostles) from which he borrowed the idea. You don't hear much about TGA these days, which is a good thing because most of what we used to hear about it was wrong. That seems to be what Reynolds is getting at, although he doesn't come right out and say it. He lists three myths about TGA, which amount to three ways Mormons have misunderstood it in the past.

Finally, if you have a soft spot in your heart for caffeine but feel a little guilty about it, go read this and you'll feel better. Thanks to Nate the good humor man for a new vision of hot drinks.
|

by NA
The title for this post comes from an old mission field chestnut; a talk given by Spencer W. Kimball, warning missionaries against falling in love in the mission field. You can read the text of it here -- apparently its validity is in dispute. I had little trouble keeping my heart locked during my mission in France; no one really ever tried to bust in, frankly. I can't say that my companions were so lucky however, with sometimes hilarious, sometimes tragic results (mostly hilarious).

A recent comment at the unmentionable blog relating a Dear John incident has inspired me to blog about my own Dear John experiences, and to solicit yours, Dear Reader. First, a couple of gems from the Book of Steve: I'd dated Tracy a few times before going into the MTC, she was a fine, strapping lass from Calgary. As things are wont to do, my image of Tracy became more lustrous the longer I was in the MTC, and by the time I was in France, Tracy was quite the catch. I wrote to lovely Tracy, asking for a small picture of her, perhaps to adorn my dumpy apartment in Sartrouville. Tracy was all too happy to comply, and in a few weeks I had my picture -- her engagement photo. Thanks, Tracy *rrrrrip*.

Another from the many, many disappointments: I'd dated Aisha during freshman year in Deseret Towers, and I thought we had a bright and make-out rich future ahead of us. We wrote each other frequently, sharing thoughts, feelings, and experiences. *sigh*. About 8 months into the mission, the letters stopped -- no explanation, no notes. I was crushed. Was she all right? Had the lamanites taken over her city, Pahoran-style? A few months later, the letters started again. However, amongst the thoughts and feelings being shared were thoughts and feelings about some other guy. Trevor? Mark? Who cares. Thanks for sharing, Aisha *burns letters furiously*.

These are tame experiences, compared to some of the absolute heart-crushers I've witnessed with my companions. I've seen elders get completely immobilized for days, sobbing uncontrollably. Remember this, O ye who are about to embark on missions -- lock your hearts, dear friends. Lock your hearts.
|

by NA
One last time, folks...


|

by NA
Dave, BCC'er and mastermind of Dave's Mormon Inquiry, has a tremendous post up about fiscal transparency in the Church. Some very strong arguments all over this issue, and raises some fun questions about Church fiscal policy and our relative wealth. I wonder if the Church engages in derivatives, swaps and hedges in complicated structures, Enron-style, or whether it is all about straight-up asset valuation in the Warren Buffett tradition. Clearly, the consecrated funds view is a solid argument for conservative transactions -- but at the same time, the parable of the talents rewarded the highest gains! If Warren Buffett used his middle initial more prominently (it's "E", for Edward) he could almost be a G.A. -- his annual letters could be slapped into the Ensign, they're that fun to read.

P.S. hot presidential debate tonight, supposibly focusing on the economy. Stay tuned for a poll!
|

by NA


|

by NA
A friend of mine asked me why I hadn't blogged about General Conference, in particular wondering if I had any spectacular thoughts on Pres. Hinckley's words regarding women. My initial, glib response to him was that I hadn't posted because I was underwhelmed, but upon reflection, I remain underwhelmed. With a couple of (major) exceptions, GC just didn't do it for me, and I was a little disappointed. The choir was wonderful as ever, the themes were similar to those of Conferences past -- so what's wrong with me?

Boo Hoo, you say. Don't you know it's the responsibility of the listener to glean from Conference, and you must not have had the Spirit, and we have a lay clergy, and I thought it was fantastic? Well, yes. I know all that -- in fact, the last Priesthood lesson I had was all about how only evil/stupid people get nothing from boring Sacrament talks. The lesson established two lines of thinking that I've seen a lot in the Church, even though I'm not certain that either is necessarily correct:

1. Not only should our leaders not be criticized, no one should be criticized for what they say in the course of lessons or talks.

2. The onus is (pretty much) always on the listener to get something out of talks, even bad ones, and as a baseline, no General Conference talk is a bad one.

I can see how we might want to avoid criticism as a way of solidifying our bonds of love to each other in the Church. But I don't think that the spirit of Christ excludes all criticism. You'd better show those outpourings of love afterwards, but our scripture clearly identifies ways for us to correct each other, at least in doctrinal matters. Can we also consider this to be a basis for social correction as well?

Here is what I really want to say, but I'm just not getting around to it very well: can we legitimately criticize Conference talks for being garbagey rhetoric, without such criticisms constituting "speaking evil"? I like folksy stories as much as the next person, for example, but can I say that I am sick of Pres. Monson's tripartite phrasings and passive voice(without going to hell)? Talks were written; speeches were delivered; congregations were bored.

It's not like I have some boatload of critiques that I've been aching to unload on the Brethren. I am mostly interested in the proper realm of criticism and correction in the Church, generally speaking. In light of the restrictions on evil speaking, what then are the boundaries on criticism and correction? Is Church a proper forum to give (or receive) correction and advice on social issues? I think that there is clearly some minimal level that we could all accept -- the Gospel doesn't seem to exclude all critiquing. So where are the margins?

|

by NA
oh yeah!



|

by Grimshizzle
[Cross-posted at OT]

The topic of Same-Sex Marriage has bounced around the bloggernacle so much it has taken on a universally-recognized acronym. The topic of gay adoption has received much less attention, and, as far as I know, has elicited little (or no?) specific ecclesiastical counsel (unless one counts Sheri Dew’s controversial speech, which was delivered after her tenure in the Relief Society General Presidency – and which, incidentally, was recently removed from the Meridian website.) I don’t have any eloquent doctrinal arguments or child-welfare statistics to posit, but I do have a story to share, one that I think speaks for itself.

Two little girls, whom I will call Tuyen and Xuan, were both taken into an orphanage in Vietnam shortly after birth. The staff cared for them as best they could, given their limited resources, hygiene was substandard and the babies often slept side-by-side, several to a crib. Around the time of the girls’ first birthday an adoption agency brought a group of several prospective parents to the orphanage. It was a diverse bunch: a single, middle-aged woman, first-time adopters, couples wishing to expand their families. Also included in the group were a devout young Mormon couple (whom I know personally, and who allowed me to post this) and a gay couple. Tuyen went with the Mormon couple, and was later sealed to them in the D.C. temple; Xuan left the orphanage with her two new dads.

Before heading back to the states, however, it took the parents a couple of weeks to submit the health and governmental forms and receive all the bureaucratic approvals required to complete the adoption, so while they waited for forms to be processed the adoptive parents and their new children did lots of sightseeing. Tuyen’s mom and Xuan’s dads turned out to be naturally inclined towards group organization, and took charge of the sightseeing itinerary and shopping trips (it’s a terrible stereotype, I know, the shopaholic woman and the gay guys telling each other how fabulous their purchases are, etc., but that’s how it happened). The Mormons and the gay men became fast friends during the trip, and the friendship continued after they returned to their respective homes. Even though they live several hours apart, the two families still visit each other on occasion to celebrate their girls’ birthdays, their adoption anniversary, and American and Vietnamese holidays.

While I find that friendship in and of itself quite heartwarming (and believe me, I get a lot of mileage out of it when friends or associates categorically accuse Mormons of homophobia), other circumstances lend this story even more poignancy. Shortly after Xuan and Tuyen left Vietnam for America with their new parents, the U.S. government discontinued allowing adoptions from Vietnam. This prohibition remains in place today, largely because of bureaucratic inertia on both sides, and there are no signs of progress. This has created a grave situation for orphanages in Vietnam, as their meager operating budgets relied on adoption fees; the orphanage where Xuan and Tuyen lived has fallen into disrepair and is in desperate need of financial aid. More somber still is the future that the little girls in the orphanage face today if the adoption ban continues as they become children and eventually adolescents; if you follow the news, you probably have an idea of the bleak prospects for an orphaned teenaged girl in Vietnam. I shudder to think, but these are the questions that this situation begs: what if the gay couple hadn’t gone to Vietnam and adopted? What if Tuyen had gone home with the Mormon couple but her friend Xuan had been left behind in the orphanage as the adoption ban had taken effect, and had stayed there as she approached adolescence? Regardless of what you might think about gay adoption as a political issue –and I’m talking about an actual situation and an actual person, so it’s not really a political issue anyway–are there any grounds on which to argue that this happy, healthy little girl would have been better off if her dads hadn’t been able to adopt her?

|

by Anonymous
There I said it. I finally admitted it. It has been 6 weeks or so since I've been to church. I'm in a new ward somewhere. So I don't have a calling and dread going to a brand new ward where I don't know anyone. The questions alone: 'And who are you?' "Are you married?" "Where are you from?" "where did you serve a mission?" "And what brought you to New York?"

It's not just going to a new ward, I've always hated going to church. When I was a little kid it was 5 hours of torture (we lived and hour away), of course children find it boring. But I didn't grow out of that, as an adult I also find myself counting the minutes until I can escape the crowded rooms with fluorescent flashing lights, screaming kids, the smiling and shaking hands. My favorite part of church is singing the hymns. I've been an adult now for 10 years, I use the term 'adult' loosely, meaning I was no longer a minor. But whenever I don't have a calling that forces me to be at church I always stop going. I set the alarm every Saturday night but turn it off Sunday morning, promising to go next week.

I never think of myself as an 'inactive' but I've ended up on that list a few times. The first happened in college when the missionaries started coming to visit me. Just to hang out. It took awhile before I figured out they were trying to re-activate me, actually it was the day they took me out for ice cream and paid. I knew it should have happened the other way around. Then last year the branch president paid me a home visit and asked what it would take to get me back to church. I told him I needed a calling, so he gave me one.

When I begin gliding into an inactive phase, my spirituality drops. If I start swearing then I know I've been away too long. And everything in my life feels more difficult during these periods and my mood drops. Without fail, whenever I find myself thinking that everything is going wrong, I remember I haven't been to church in a few weeks or months. So I drag myself back and once my attendance resumes, life gets easier and happier. I've now hit the point where I'm swearing and everything is falling apart. Time to go back to church. Yuck.

I love the gospel of Jesus Christ. I have a strong testimony. I keep most of the commandments. But the most difficult one for me is gathering together oft at meetings. Why is that? That seems very wrong. Is it just me or does going to church stink? I know I need it, but does it have to be so painful? And so early in the morning? I do have agoraphobia and extreme difficulty waking up in the mornings which adds to my abhorrance, but that's not the whole of it. I know I should suck it up, stop complaining and get my rear-end back to church. But does anyone else out there feel the same way I do? Is there something we can do to make church less painful? There must be something I could do to make it better for myself at least, any suggestions?

Jen J

|

by NA
There's an excellent article over at McSweeney's, addressing errors in one person's Bible. I have similar errors in my own Bible.

Hey, while I'm thinking of errors, what does it mean to say that a book is the "word of God"? Do mormons have a consistent approach to defining that catchphrase? Just curious, because it seems to mean a lot more to some religions (i.e., Islam, So. Baptists) than to ours...

|

by Dave
"The LDS Church is nearly 1,000 couple missionaries short despite the church's efforts to recruit more volunteers." So states a BYU NewsNet article, summarizing a recent report they say was posted at LDS.org, although I couldn't find it there. The article says there are "2,110 senior couples" presently serving, with a need for "3,093 couples" at the present time. Well, if they are short nearly 1,000 couples, they are actually short nearly 2,000 couple missionaries, but let's ignore BYU NewsNet's mistake and focus on the problem here: What's the problem with the senior couples? Is retirement getting a little too cozy these days?

Frankly, I would have thought there was a surplus of senior missionaries out there. It seems like everyone I know has parents or grandparents serving or just returning from a mission of one sort or another. Perhaps some of those seemingly faithful senior couples who claim to be serving a mission on Temple Square three nights a week are actually just sneaking over to Wendover for a little action. Or maybe some Mormons are simply embarrassed to admit their parents or grandparents are kicking back and enjoying retirement like gentile hedonists instead of signing up for the best 18 months of their life, so they pretend their parents are faithfully serving a mission somewhere.

I've seen the blue sheet they post on the bulletin board at church and many of the missionary positions offered to seniors (they get to choose their call!!) actually sound fairly interesting. So seriously, what's the problem? Here are a few tentative ideas: (1) Seniors are just worn out from years of church and temple service. (2) After 50 or 60 years, seniors have learned to resist peer pressure and manipulation by guilt and just say "no" (or "we'll think about it") when their Bishop floats the idea. (3) Civil and political unrest around the world makes prudent seniors hesitant to travel abroad. Would you want to live in Khazakstan or Rwanda for the next two years? (4) Big screen TVs, along with 100-channel cable. (5) Too many temples (yes, we overbuilt) are depleting the pool of available seniors by diverting them to never-ending rounds of temple service.

If you have a better explanation, please share it. Or, if you want to have a little fun with Grandpa, call him up, direct him and his browser to Bcc, and have him leave his own comment about his experience or lack thereof as a senior missionary. And just in case anyone should actually do this, I'll quickly extend a warm Bloggernacle welcome to any pioneering Senior Bloggers who come here to visit. Just click on the underlined orange "Comment" link below and start typing.
|

by Dave
Late August is when freshmen at semester schools move to campus and start learning what campus life is all about. At BYU, a fair percentage of campus life seems to be centered around the Honor Code these days, as reflected in this Deseret News story about Honor Code skits performed during Orientation Week. My recollection of how the system worked a few years ago was that if you didn't drink beer or coffee, sleep with your girl friend, steal from the Bookstore, or get caught cheating, you were more or less safe. Seems like rules have proliferated.

This strikes me as odd, since the increasing size of the applicant pool and more stringent admission screening (seminary attendance, a searching Bishop's interview, etc.) arguably delivers an increasingly well-behaved and religiously dedicated group of LDS students to BYU each Fall. So what exactly is behind the increasing emphasis on the Honor Code? Is it the looming presence of a GA as BYU President? Is it that more religiously dedicated students means an increased demand for detailed rules? I'm curious to know what motivates the ever-increasing emphasis on the Honor Code and how it is perceived by the average BYU student (off the record, as opposed to as quoted in the Daily Universe).
|

by Anonymous
It's frightening. Walking around Manhattan has become scary. There are groups of police on every corner in Midtown. Subway entrances are blocked (hope there aren't any fires), some streets are closed off so pedestrians can't even cross them. People are afraid and confused. Look at the view here.

Most Americans probably aren't getting the 'real' news about what is happening so I want to share some links and info. More than 900 protestors were arrested on Tuesday. Check out Union Square arrest photos here. Metro buses have been turned into police vans to cart people away. Police are photographing ALL the protestors. Isn't that illegal? I believe the ACLU is working on it but of course it'll all be over by the time anything happens in the courts. Photos of police arrests and civil rights monitors at the library here. Can you spot the undercover biker cops here? (Hint: scroll down a few photos.) Read about this photo-blogger's illegal arrest here. Another blogger tells her story of escaping arrest after 3 hours detention on the street here. She is more sympathetic with the police and blames the big guns for the arrests.

The blogosphere has a lot of eyewitness stories and photos of events both in and out of the RNC. For a good list of links check out The Gothamist.

Our president's sole claim to success is his protection of our nation from terror, so why is he generating so much terror here? I imagine Osama laughing at the arrests of protesting, patriotic American citizens.

Jen J
|

by NA
Confession time: I am a vain, vain man. At the same time, I take terrible care of myself and am not a particularly sharp dresser. So, you can imagine how deep my dissatisfaction runs. But all that is about to change: I am going to have cosmetic surgery. No, really -- next week, Sumer and I are flying to Vancouver, where we will both have Lasik eye surgery, following which, we will be spectacle-free. Hurrah! Napoleon Dynamite becomes Dirk Benedict.

There are some practical benefits to having this type of procedure -- no more glasses means that my vision, most likely, will be better than with lenses, including my peripheral vision; I'll be able to see underwater; to run without the bouncing of the frames; to make out with hot girls (such as Sumer) without the annoying clunk sound of glasses-hitting-girl, or worse yet, the horrible clank of glasses-on-glasses. But at the heart of it all, it's a vanity issue -- no more four-eyes, which I've been since 4th grade (I remember it to this day, dancing to Disco Duck, woefully aware of my lot in life). I've been sensitive about my glasses for a long time, and so has Sumer.

My religion offers me little advice regarding the advisability of cosmetic surgery, whether it's with or without any practical benefits. Is this surgery making my body more perfect? Will the incisions in my cornea be raised with me in the Resurrection? Alma has as good a description as anyone's: "the spirit and the body shall be reunited again in its perfect form; both limb and joint shall be restored to its proper frame, even as we now are at this time..." But this doesn't really tell us much about the nature of our resurrected forms. What is the "proper frame" for our bodies? We believe that our bodies will be made perfect -- does that mean we all get that 20/20 vision we long for? Will we no longer be lactose-intolerant? Will we be taller, stronger or (as my title suggests) more well-proportioned? In other words, does the resurrection serve to correct things perceived subjectively as imperfections, or does the resurrection work to some external standard of perfection?

This issue isn't as peripheral as it might sound, because our notions of a physical resurrection, together with LDS belief in a corporeal God, make our notions of heaven and perfection a little different than the average Christian's. Can we conceive of a God that can't eat spicy nachos or that is a little on the short side? Even worse, do our concepts of God's perfection require him to be anglo and bearded -- and if so, does our definition of perfection require us to be anglo? (and bearded -- better get that Beard Card, ye BYU-ites!) Perhaps we need to be a little more disciplined in LDS culture in how we conceive of perfection, and steel ourselves for the possibility that perfection may not mean the absolute resolution of self-conceived imperfections. That's the problem when someone else makes you perfect -- you don't get to decide when you've reached perfection! In the meantime, I'll be doing a little weight training so that I can fill out those heavenly robes a little better.

|

by NA
A recent column by Ms. Buttinsky herself threatens the very core of LDS dating relationships! Now I have the "Will I Wait For You" bit from Saturday's Warrior stuck in my head. At least she encouraged young Johnny to go on his mission...

|

by Anonymous
A few weeks ago, while traveling, I met an American woman with whom I had a lengthy conversation. She was in her late 50s or early 60s. She wanted to know about my work so we discussed philosophy for awhile among other things. I quite enjoyed talking to her. But later that evening I mentioned that I had met people at church who let me stay in their homes for free. She immediately asked me what church I attend. When I told her I am Mormon she was quite shocked. She asked me how I could be so educated and part of such a sexist church, thus allowing myself to be repressed. I said, "Women are encouraged to get as much education as they can and I'm not repressed." She told me that yes, I am repressed. When I asked her how I am repressed she just said, "Well, you have to admit that you belong to a sexist church." I said, "the church is patriarchal, yes. But that doesn't make me repressed. How am I repressed?" Our exchange continued in this way as she got increasingly more distressed and insistent. She never explained to me in what ways I am repressed. She simply insisted that patriarchy and conservative religion necessitate my repression.

She asked me how I could be politically liberal and belong to a conservative religion. I told her there were many liberal mormons, that one could be socially and politically liberal while being religious. This is the point at which she lost control of herself. She said "How can you be so educated and a philosopher and believe in such superstitions? Yours is a superstitious religion. Are you a true believer? Do you really believe that God spoke to Joseph Smith and all of that?" I responded, "Yes, I do believe it. I've questioned the doctrine and studied it and don't find it contrary to reason. So there is no conflict between my religion and my academic work." Her face got red and she screamed, "That's scary. I find that truly scary!" Then she stormed out of the hostel kitchen.

This whole exchange lasted about 30 minutes. Every time I challenged one of her assumptions she changed the subject instead of answering my questions. By the time she left, I found myself extremely angry and insulted. Though I kept my cool with her the whole time. I sat down at the table to finish my meal and smiled at the smirking German. Then the woman came crashing back into the kitchen saying, "The sad thing is that they are truly beautiful people, the mormons. So are most fundamentalist Christians." I smiled at her and then walked out.

In order to resolve my anger I had to recognize that she had issues with herself, not with me. Even though I felt insulted, she really fought against her own fears. My faith threatened and scared her. At one point she mentioned that she grew up in the Church of Christ and knows what it's like for fundamentalist women to be repressed. So at some time in her life she turned her back on her family's traditions. The fact that an intelligent, educated, liberal woman could believe in a religion like mormonism, which she obviously equated with all fundamental Christianity, rocked her worldview. She must hold a fundamental belief that religion is only for the ignorant women. Once I realized this, my anger turned to sadness for her.

There are at least two issues for discussion here. Are Mormon women repressed? And if so, then in what ways? I don't feel repressed but maybe, as the woman insisted, I am repressed and just don't realize it. I'm also single and childless so maybe I have escaped the repression that comes with having a family. Wives and mothers, are you repressed by your families?

The other issue is the perceived conflict with intellectualism and faith/religion. This woman could not accept the existence of a religious and educated woman. She obviously absorbed the Enlightenment ideals of rationalism over 'superstition' or faith. Our popular culture is similarly steeped in such ideals. So, lets explain away this false conflict or justify it as a real problem or rant about it or whatever else your hearts desire.

Jennifer J
|

by Dave
This Sunday, my ward offered the usual cast of stock characters for an LDS testimony meeting: the returning wayward member who confessed to a variety of heinous but unspecified sins; a couple of grandmotherly types who discussed their ailments or those of other family members; a couple of auxiliary leaders sharing the good things happening with this or that person or group; a dynamic Polynesian sharing an aggressive but touching testimony; and of course a dutiful high priest or two expounding on the temple as a metaphor for life. Why do we do this once a month?

Wearing my critical hat, I might offer that it is a simple meeting to plan--no planning at all, in fact. Insecure leaders obsessed with apostasy are no doubt thrilled with a monthly meeting where we all get together to remind ourselves how true the Church is and how wonderful and inspired our leaders are. And the willingness of leaders to support a meeting with no agenda and no programmed message is symptomatic of the stunningly low quality of Mormon sacrament meetings overall. Meetings can be dull or boring but leaders simply can't grasp the idea that a meeting can be "too dull" or "too boring." That would imply a need to change something.

Wearing my faithful hat (I still have one), I would offer that it's at least a departure from the normal routine of dreary talks. These days, real people and their joys or problems seem rather more interesting that the ad hoc doctrines that infest Church manuals and high council talks. And from time to time there are moments of high drama that just don't happen anywhere else. It's not quite Jerry Springer, but then it's not phony either.

While it may be an easy meeting with no agenda, it's also true that allowing any member of the congregation to come share their thoughts from the pulpit is an unusual vote of confidence in the general membership. I suspect there are Evangelical churches where members of the congregation are invited to come share their conviction that Jesus is love and the Bible is true, but in many denominations the average member would have to climb past a pack of deacons, noviates, and lay ministers, then wrestle the microphone from the iron grip of an aging minister to address their message to the congregation from the pulpit. Could the Mormon tradition of an open mic on fast Sunday actually be a vote of confidence in the average Mormon sitting in the pews?
|

by NA
Because you were looking for something fun to do on a Friday afternoon.



|

by NA
An increasing portion of our traffic here at BCC has been via Google searches that include the term "rumspringa."  For example, a search for "rumspringa amish biography" shows BCC solidly in fifth place.  I would like to extend a special greeting to those seeking further knowledge of our Amish teenage friends, running free in their early adulthood.  This is doubtlessly the result of the upcoming UPN reality show, "Amish in the City."  Perhaps you have come seeking a tie to your own personal rumspringa days.  Perhaps you have come seeking photos of amish girls gone wild.  No matter: we welcome you!  Take this opportunity to learn more about liberal mormons while you're here, and ask all the questions you like.  Perhaps you'd be interested in reading the mormon equivalent of Amish in the City.

p.s. a special thanks to Aaron B. and to Jeremy for spearheading BCC's rumspringa-thon.  I promise this wasn't an intentional googlebombing attempt, unlike others I've seen.



|

by Grimshizzle
I read in the Rochester and Democrat and Chronicle this afternoon that prominent businessman and devout Mormon Kay Whitmore passed away last night after a struggle with leukemia. It's only by chance that I read it in the paper before I heard it over the phone; he happened to be a member of my ward.

I can't say I knew him very well. When we moved here he and his wife were serving in a singles ward in the next stake over, and they subsequently only attended our ward for a short time before they got restless and left on a mission (their second; previously they had overseen a mission in England) to southern California. They were simply too busy doing good things for me to run into him very often.

I did see him about a month ago, however, around the time of his diagnosis, and the circumstances of the meeting speak concisely to his character as citizen and saint: this former CEO of Kodak--the board of which, incidentally, forced him into retirement in 1993 because they wanted to trim more employees from the company than he was willing to fire--was sweeping up the gym floor after the boy scout pancake breakfast.

(Cross-posted at OT)



|

by NA
As you may know, I'm a lawyer, and draft contracts and other arrangements for a living.  Another way of looking at this is to say that I'm a bottom-feeder, and my job would not exist if people were honest with each other.  Either way, lawyers spin no cloth and till no fields.  My work, as with most modern office work, is heavily decontextualized, and I find myself far removed from any actual product or fruit of labor.  This didn't bother me very much -- when I was younger my office jobs and grunt-work were frequently detached from the real world.  This is a complaint of most modern office workers.  But lately, I've been working long hours, slaving over documents that few people will ever read, and otherwise questioning my chosen profession.  A part of this questioning has involved thoughts about being closer to people, working in a more hands-on way, and creating a more direct link between my efforts and an end product in the hands of the public.  This may not be possible for a lawyer, or for anyone else raised and trapped in an "Office Space" world.  I find myself wistfully thinking of becoming a tradesperson, such as a plumber or contractor, if only to witness the work of my own hands (this is, of course, total delusion -- I have no skills for working with my hands and my home improvements thus far have been met with limited success).

Is this a typically Mormon thought process, or an American one, for that matter?  I'm tempted to trace this kind of thinking back to puritan ethics and agrarian work culture, both of which are a part of LDS traditions.   Lesson manuals are filled with missives about "The Value of Work" and how noble it is to truly earn your money (pay close attention, investment bankers and arbitrageurs!).  These discussions seem inescapably tied to notions of a day's work for a day's pay and other concepts of work that somehow fall short of describing most modern professions.  As a result of this (perceived?) inadequacy I'd like to try and establish a framework for evaluating work in God's Plan to see if there are any rules or notions we can isolate as cultural relics, while identifying those divine gems that remain.  Not an easy task, but here are some initial thoughts:

• Work is meant to be difficult.  That is, we shouldn't get something from nothing.  The lot of the idler in scripture is fairly grim.

• We are meant to work in order to get by.  The concept of an idle aristocracy or of people taking jobs as a mere diversion is repugnant, as a violation of the principle that life is to be about survival and progression, not comfort and stagnancy.

• Our jobs really do matter.  I used to fall into the camp that asserts that within a certain range (i.e., legal) of activity, God doesn't care what we do to earn our money.  I now believe this to be false -- or rather that the boundary of the defined range isn't legality, but morality, as evaluated within the larger context of the purpose of work.  p.s. I should also point out, on a slightly unrelated matter,  that my wife Sumer thinks it's OK that Marriott hotels sell in-room pr0n and alcohol, and if she owned a convenience store would have no problem in selling such things herself.  I just wanted to get that out there.

I'm not sure where that leaves me, or what these ideas say about working in the modern world.  Even worse, these principles lead me to perform value judgments on professions in ways I'm not comfortable with (i.e., most modern office jobs are bad for us).  I also find myself unable to come to conclusions about the separation between workers and end-products (which seems to be the essence of work in modern society).  Is there something I'm missing here?  Let me know where I need to go from here, and I'll continue in future posts.

|

by Kaimi
is available here.  Not a bad tune, either.

|

by NA
As noted on the LDS.org site, Elder Maxwell passed away last night.  I will miss him, as one of the most thoughtful and well-spoken apostles in recent memory.  His thoughts on the meaning of discipleship, the hallmark of his tenure as apostle, were of personal importance to me and to many others.  Our thoughts are with wife and children.

|

by Dave
I stumbled across an interesting set of directives to Catholic voters entitled A Brief Catechism for Catholic Voters. It's written by a Catholic clergyman with a PhD and it's posted on a website that looks pretty darned Catholic, so I'll take it as a fair expression of conservative Catholic thinking on this tricky issue of church and state. Mormons, too, like to mix religion with their politics, but sometimes we see our own difficulties more clearly by viewing someone else's. So here are some highlights (quotes in italics, my comments afterwards) from the fourteen numbered paragraphs in the article.

3. If a political candidate supported abortion, or any other moral evil, such as assisted suicide and euthanasia, for that matter, it would not be morally permissible for you to vote for that person. This is because, in voting for such a person, you would become an accomplice in the moral evil at issue. No, voting for a pro-abortion candidate is not morally equivalent to choosing or assisting with an abortion. If it were, then so would a lot of things be too: fixing the car of a pro-abortion person, selling a house to a pro-abortion person, coaching their kids in Little League, even just saying "Good morning" as opposed to "One day you will burn in hell" or some similar benediction could be "assisting." Making abortion a controlling litmus test for voting debases voting and undermines the polity.

7. A candidate for office who says that he is personally opposed to abortion but actually votes in favor of it is either fooling himself or trying to fool you. . . . If you vote for such a candidate, you would be an accomplice in advancing the moral evil of abortion. Therefore, it is not morally permissible to vote for such a candidate for office. This attempts to deny Catholic politicians the possibility of separating their political sense of duty from their personal sense of religious obligation. Didn't Catholics figure this out with Kennedy in 1960? He said (in no uncertain terms) that as President he wouldn't take orders from the Vatican--would he have been elected if he had said the contrary? We expect politicians to represent all voters and act with an eye to the diverse views of their constituents and the public good, not simply enact their own personal moral agenda.

In paragraph 10, the author opines that if the choice is between two (or several) candidates who are all pro-abortion, one need not withhold one's vote, but should instead vote for the candidate who "would do the least moral harm." That seems like a better and more general principle to follow in every case: vote for the guy who will do the least (moral) harm. In paragraph 14, the author holds out that knowingly voting for a pro-abortion candidate is a mortal sin (in Catholic theology, a sin which kills the spiritual life of the soul and deprives a person of salvation, unless he repents). All this Catholic angst over voting is a reminder of how authoritarian and how thoroughly opposed to political liberalism was Catholicism in the 19th century. Echoes persist.

So are there any pitfalls here that LDS leaders and voters can avoid? I'll note that LDS leaders have consistently worked hard to avoid endorsing specific candidates or getting embroiled in political disputes. Yet, it feels like the Church is becoming more politicized recently. The times they are a-changing. What think ye?
|

by NA
You've probably read about this elsewhere, but the U.S. Air Force pilot who killed four and wounded at least eight Canadians in Afghanistan has been fined $5,672. This article provides a fairly good summary of the decision. Personally, I'm disgusted that criminal charges against him were dropped, and that all he gets is the 'maximum' administrative penalty of about a month's pay, along with a reprimand. The behavior of this pilot was outrageous, but even more troubling is the idea of a military institution capable of generating such self-justifying attitudes in the face of acts that are clearly wrong... One more reason I'm beginning to believe that all war is bad.

Ranting aside, this news has made me question LDS theories of atonement and "paying for our sins." We speak of restitution and atonement as though we have two separate processes working contemporaneously: you repent of your sins, and you also give back the apple you stole or fix the fence you drove through. This seems to me to be erroneous, at least if we're concerned exclusively with personal forgiveness. What payment would've been enough for this pilot? If we reject the notion of an eye for an eye, why do we require payment at all? Is the idea of payment generated out of the needs of the individual, or out of the demands of the community at large? For example, if God decides that an administrative reprimand is enough temporal suffering for this pilot to endure in order to be forgiven, does the community have any right to demand payment beyond that reprimand?

UPDATE: You can read the full text of the reprimand here.

UPDATE #2: ABC News has an older but still interesting article on how the U.S. military engages in relative soul valuation. You can view the article here.
|

by Kaimi
Don't worry, we won't tell your old AP what your reply was . . .


|

by NA
OK, let's settle this once and for all.


|

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?
|