Wednesday, April 28, 2004
Now if only they'd correct our false notions about socks with sandals...
by NA Been to lds.org lately? The newsroom has added a highly amusing section, called "Mistakes in the News", where the Church p.r. department provides rebuttals and corrections to news articles it considers erroneous. Some hot-button issues in there -- MMM, Utah Theocracy, DNA evidence of the Book of Mormon... makes for a fun read! The level of aggressiveness in some of the replies is surprising to those who associate the public persona of the Church with a demure and passive quality. Check out this reply to an article in that anchor of newsmaking, The Scotsman: "Another religious leader was charged with sedition and blasphemy and portrayed as a drunkard and troublemaker. His name was Jesus Christ. These assertions were no better founded than your accusations against Joseph Smith." Wowza.
Incidentally, does anybody know what the threshold popularity level is for generating this kind of response? I doubt they'd put up anything to correct the occasional heresy in the Bloggernacle.
|
Incidentally, does anybody know what the threshold popularity level is for generating this kind of response? I doubt they'd put up anything to correct the occasional heresy in the Bloggernacle.
|
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
Not just your garden-variety anti anymore (or, "A Conspirator Speaks")
by Kaimi I was just on CNN and the sidebar (the place that carries ads) was showing an ad for a book called "The Mormon Conspiracy." I'm always eager to learn what I've been conspiring about lately. So, I surfed over to the website, mormonconspiracy.com . And I have to say-- wow, where do these people come from?
Apparently, the church is part of a conspiracy to take over and "Mormonize" the United States. (So that's why we've been training with rocket-propelled grenades during Sunday School lately). Some of the scary bullet points on the web page:
"Over sixty thousand fully-trained, adequately financed and prepared Mormon missionaries are serving in all parts of the United States and in over 124 countries around the world." [Hah! This guy has clearly never met any actual misisonaries. I'm trying to think of anyone on my mission who I would call "fully-trained and prepared" . . . hmm, drawing a blank. Of course, it sounds lot less frightening to say, "They send out a legion of frightened nineteen-year-olds who have seven weeks of Spanish training and a vague idea that they're supposed to 'build relationships of trust.'"]
"Just as the United States Army has its military academy, and the United States Air Force has the Air Force academy, the Mormon Church has Brigham Young University for training its future leaders." [Dang it, I guess I'm excluded from being a future leader. I wonder if the future leaders include students who had beards or did the funky chicken.]
"There are at least 100,000 leadership positions for Mormon priesthood holders to assume, including bishops, stake presidents, mission, district and branch presidents and the General Authorities." [Yep, we've got Deacon's Quorum President -- "You guys want to go out for donuts after Sunday School?" -- Teacher's Quorum President -- "So, let's discuss who the cutest Mia Maids are" -- Priests Quorum President -- "I just got my license, guys, let's go spin out in the parking lot." Also, there's the Elders Quorum Presidency, which largely consists of entering zeros on home teaching reports.]
"Spirits waiting to enter mortal existence was another one of Joseph Smith’s creations arising from his remarkable imagination. The idea, no doubt, had the ulterior motive of increasing membership in his church by encouraging members to have large families." [No doubt. We suckered Wordsworth into it too -- all that "trailing clouds of glory" stuff. But I can't believe he forgot to mention the worst, most despicable indoctrination of all in this area -- Saturday's Warrior!].
Anyway, the list goes on, and on, and on. It makes for somewhat interesting reading, if you're willing to apply your own Mystery Science filter and have some fun. And hey, being accused of conspiracy puts us in good company -- Jews have been accused of such stuff for millenia.
|
Apparently, the church is part of a conspiracy to take over and "Mormonize" the United States. (So that's why we've been training with rocket-propelled grenades during Sunday School lately). Some of the scary bullet points on the web page:
"Over sixty thousand fully-trained, adequately financed and prepared Mormon missionaries are serving in all parts of the United States and in over 124 countries around the world." [Hah! This guy has clearly never met any actual misisonaries. I'm trying to think of anyone on my mission who I would call "fully-trained and prepared" . . . hmm, drawing a blank. Of course, it sounds lot less frightening to say, "They send out a legion of frightened nineteen-year-olds who have seven weeks of Spanish training and a vague idea that they're supposed to 'build relationships of trust.'"]
"Just as the United States Army has its military academy, and the United States Air Force has the Air Force academy, the Mormon Church has Brigham Young University for training its future leaders." [Dang it, I guess I'm excluded from being a future leader. I wonder if the future leaders include students who had beards or did the funky chicken.]
"There are at least 100,000 leadership positions for Mormon priesthood holders to assume, including bishops, stake presidents, mission, district and branch presidents and the General Authorities." [Yep, we've got Deacon's Quorum President -- "You guys want to go out for donuts after Sunday School?" -- Teacher's Quorum President -- "So, let's discuss who the cutest Mia Maids are" -- Priests Quorum President -- "I just got my license, guys, let's go spin out in the parking lot." Also, there's the Elders Quorum Presidency, which largely consists of entering zeros on home teaching reports.]
"Spirits waiting to enter mortal existence was another one of Joseph Smith’s creations arising from his remarkable imagination. The idea, no doubt, had the ulterior motive of increasing membership in his church by encouraging members to have large families." [No doubt. We suckered Wordsworth into it too -- all that "trailing clouds of glory" stuff. But I can't believe he forgot to mention the worst, most despicable indoctrination of all in this area -- Saturday's Warrior!].
Anyway, the list goes on, and on, and on. It makes for somewhat interesting reading, if you're willing to apply your own Mystery Science filter and have some fun. And hey, being accused of conspiracy puts us in good company -- Jews have been accused of such stuff for millenia.
|
Secular Arguments on Polygamy
by Dave Two recent weblog articles discuss polygamy from a purely secular scientific and legal perspective. First, Polygamy, the Naturalistic Fallacy, and Gay Marriage at jonrowe argues that even a cursory review of human cultures shows that polygamy is quite natural, but to argue that it is thereby established as good is an example of the naturalistic fallacy. He sees monogamy as socially preferable for reasons detailed in the post. He is interested, I think, in distinguishing secular arguments supporting polygamy from other secular arguments supporting gay marriage.
In response, Sex and Nature at Freespace argues that one shouldn't dismiss an argument from nature as a "naturalistic fallacy" without properly understanding what the term "nature" refers to in ethical discussions about human behavior. Given the roughly equal proportion of males and females in human populations, he sees "patriarchal polygamy" as an unlikely outcome if women are given a fair say in choosing forms of marriage, and everyone having a fair choice rather than being subject to coercion by the state or social institutions is his concept of "human nature." Briefly, he thinks most women would choose one husband over, say, 1/10th of a husband, so if women are unconstrained polygamy will not persist.
Since neither of those two weblogs offers comments, this seems like a nice forum for discussing the ideas they raised in these posts. And polygamy does come up here from time to time, doesn't it?
|
In response, Sex and Nature at Freespace argues that one shouldn't dismiss an argument from nature as a "naturalistic fallacy" without properly understanding what the term "nature" refers to in ethical discussions about human behavior. Given the roughly equal proportion of males and females in human populations, he sees "patriarchal polygamy" as an unlikely outcome if women are given a fair say in choosing forms of marriage, and everyone having a fair choice rather than being subject to coercion by the state or social institutions is his concept of "human nature." Briefly, he thinks most women would choose one husband over, say, 1/10th of a husband, so if women are unconstrained polygamy will not persist.
Since neither of those two weblogs offers comments, this seems like a nice forum for discussing the ideas they raised in these posts. And polygamy does come up here from time to time, doesn't it?
|
Saturday, April 24, 2004
When families aren't forever
by Anonymous Steve has asked me to guest blog for a bit. I think I'm supposed to be the voice of young single women in the church. I don't think I can speak for all of them, but I have a voice. By way of introduction, my name is Jennifer, I don't do anything special like run a magazine. I'm just trying to finish my graduate degree and I work in the primary presidency of my branch.
For my first post, I'd like to discuss the way we teach our children about families. There is an absence of material in the primary manuals for the many children who come from broken homes. This silence translates into insensitivity. My family had a lot of problems when I was growing up. My parents lived at opposite ends of the house and there was constant contention. I hated the primary song, "Families Can be Together Forever". Some Sundays it made me cry. I didn't want my family to be forever, not the way we were. I probably knew instinctually that our family would break up before we all died.
Almost twenty years have passed since my tenure in primary. I've worked in the primary of every ward I've attended for the past eight years. The lessons about families have not changed. The songs have not changed. At least now we have pictures of children and families that aren't white americans, finally. This year the primary theme is on eternal families. I looked for something in the materials that addresses our children who don't have two parents, or who live with extended family. There is nothing.
How does it feel to be a child who hears how wonderful heaven is because we'll have our families, but she has never met her father? Or, what must it be like for the child whose parents aren't members so they don't have a temple marriage? We teach them that they don't have an eternal family. They lose their families when they die. How many children have divorced parents? What about the children with one excommunicated parent? What do we teach them about their families? Nothing. Not one word. My parents finally divorced and I still don't know where that leaves me in terms of my eternal family. They broke their temple seal, so does that mean I'm not sealed to either of them? And what about my grandparents? Am I sealed to them? I can't answer their questions about non-traditional families because I don't know the answers. It shouldn't be this hard.
When it's my turn to do sharing time I try to be sensitive to the feelings of those from non-traditional-nuclear homes. But, I wish I had some help from the primary leaders in Salt Lake. I still find it hard to teach these "happy-happy-joy-joy" eternal family lessons. When will the church education catch up to the reality of what 'family' means to more and more children the whole world over?
I'm not sure what that would entail. At least we should have answers to questions about non-eternal families and what qualifies as such. I'm not suggesting the church stop teaching family principles. I just wish we could recognize that some lessons are insensitive. We should include something for the other children, those without eternal families. I still remember how sad those family lessons made me feel. I don't want to do the same thing to another child.
|
For my first post, I'd like to discuss the way we teach our children about families. There is an absence of material in the primary manuals for the many children who come from broken homes. This silence translates into insensitivity. My family had a lot of problems when I was growing up. My parents lived at opposite ends of the house and there was constant contention. I hated the primary song, "Families Can be Together Forever". Some Sundays it made me cry. I didn't want my family to be forever, not the way we were. I probably knew instinctually that our family would break up before we all died.
Almost twenty years have passed since my tenure in primary. I've worked in the primary of every ward I've attended for the past eight years. The lessons about families have not changed. The songs have not changed. At least now we have pictures of children and families that aren't white americans, finally. This year the primary theme is on eternal families. I looked for something in the materials that addresses our children who don't have two parents, or who live with extended family. There is nothing.
How does it feel to be a child who hears how wonderful heaven is because we'll have our families, but she has never met her father? Or, what must it be like for the child whose parents aren't members so they don't have a temple marriage? We teach them that they don't have an eternal family. They lose their families when they die. How many children have divorced parents? What about the children with one excommunicated parent? What do we teach them about their families? Nothing. Not one word. My parents finally divorced and I still don't know where that leaves me in terms of my eternal family. They broke their temple seal, so does that mean I'm not sealed to either of them? And what about my grandparents? Am I sealed to them? I can't answer their questions about non-traditional families because I don't know the answers. It shouldn't be this hard.
When it's my turn to do sharing time I try to be sensitive to the feelings of those from non-traditional-nuclear homes. But, I wish I had some help from the primary leaders in Salt Lake. I still find it hard to teach these "happy-happy-joy-joy" eternal family lessons. When will the church education catch up to the reality of what 'family' means to more and more children the whole world over?
I'm not sure what that would entail. At least we should have answers to questions about non-eternal families and what qualifies as such. I'm not suggesting the church stop teaching family principles. I just wish we could recognize that some lessons are insensitive. We should include something for the other children, those without eternal families. I still remember how sad those family lessons made me feel. I don't want to do the same thing to another child.
|
Thursday, April 22, 2004
A Christian View of Gender Formation
by Dave A recent Albert Mohler editorial gives a straightforward summary of the conservative Christian view of gender formation. He aims to "tell the truth about what God has revealed concerning human sexuality, gender, and marriage," which any LDS commentator would follow with a quote from the Proclamation. Instead, Mohler derives his equally conservative view from God's intention as expressed in Creation. He cites Genesis 1:27 ("male and female created he them") showing that God's "intention was clearly to create and establish two distinct but complementary genders or sexes." Heterosexuality is part of the created scheme, he continues, so homosexuality is a transgression against God's will (expressed in Creation).
By contrast, the LDS view is that "[g]ender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." So our earthly gender is "natural" in the sense that it existed before our spirits were incarnated sometime between conception and birth. God's will is expressed in the matter only insofar as He matches spirits to bodies. The "matching spirits to bodies" process is problematic whether God makes the assignment or not, as was noted here recently. The Christian view avoids the problem by avoiding Preexistence; spirits are created somewhere between conception and birth.
Of course, the Christian view raises a different problem: if God does the creating, He seems to bear some responsibility for the plight of those who are physically or mentally disabled (also discussed here recently). And a liberal Christian might argue that if He created genders, He also created the psychological makeup that sometimes develops into homosexual attraction so it isn't necessarily against God's will. So the Christian view, rooted in creation, encounters difficult questions as quickly as the LDS view rooted in the gendered preexistence of spirits. But isn't it interesting to see conservative Christians, starting from an entirely different theological view of spirits and Creation, nevertheless end up with the same doctrinal view of homosexuality?
|
By contrast, the LDS view is that "[g]ender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." So our earthly gender is "natural" in the sense that it existed before our spirits were incarnated sometime between conception and birth. God's will is expressed in the matter only insofar as He matches spirits to bodies. The "matching spirits to bodies" process is problematic whether God makes the assignment or not, as was noted here recently. The Christian view avoids the problem by avoiding Preexistence; spirits are created somewhere between conception and birth.
Of course, the Christian view raises a different problem: if God does the creating, He seems to bear some responsibility for the plight of those who are physically or mentally disabled (also discussed here recently). And a liberal Christian might argue that if He created genders, He also created the psychological makeup that sometimes develops into homosexual attraction so it isn't necessarily against God's will. So the Christian view, rooted in creation, encounters difficult questions as quickly as the LDS view rooted in the gendered preexistence of spirits. But isn't it interesting to see conservative Christians, starting from an entirely different theological view of spirits and Creation, nevertheless end up with the same doctrinal view of homosexuality?
|
By What Name Ye Shall Be Called
by NA When I married Sumer Thurston, she shifted her last name to her empty middle name slot, and took my last name as her last name. Or so I (and the Social Security Administration) thought. A couple of years after we were married, she put "Sumer Thurston Evans" on her business cards; soon she started answering the phone at work, "Sumer Thurston Evans speaking." Finally, about a year ago, she made one little typographical shift: "Sumer Thurston-Evans." I can only imagine what the future of Sumer's nomenclature may be, but it doesn't look good for the Evanses.
A recent article in Slate encapsulated as a trend what I'd already experienced personally: the ever-changing maiden name. Mormons, being about 20 years behind the times, now keep maiden names and hyphenate last names like the rest of America. Even more interesting, mormon women have discovered the idea of different names for different social contexts: for example, Sumer Evans at Church (for simplicity's sake), Sumer Thurston-Evans at work, and Sumer Thurston at singles bars.
Some in our ward have taken things a step further: the husband takes the wife's name as his new last name. An avant-garde trend, but interesting. Why not take this approach? Let me advance to you a reason, albeit flimsy: think of what this does to genealogists! How can you trace family trees? What family are you then a part of? How important is it to "carry on the family name," and what does that really mean?
To all you enlightened people who see this as a non-issue, where the couple should feel free to take whatever name they choose, let me ask what to do if one spouse has a historically or politically important name -- would that sway you? I think if my last name were Brahe, Schrödinger, or Eyring, maybe Thurston wouldn't figure so strongly. I'm coming off a bit flippant here, and I apologize for the tone. I guess I have never felt (until recently) the pressure that women must feel on this issue. A part of me is just trying to figure out the best road for establishing a family identity, and I'm welcome to all suggestions.
|
A recent article in Slate encapsulated as a trend what I'd already experienced personally: the ever-changing maiden name. Mormons, being about 20 years behind the times, now keep maiden names and hyphenate last names like the rest of America. Even more interesting, mormon women have discovered the idea of different names for different social contexts: for example, Sumer Evans at Church (for simplicity's sake), Sumer Thurston-Evans at work, and Sumer Thurston at singles bars.
Some in our ward have taken things a step further: the husband takes the wife's name as his new last name. An avant-garde trend, but interesting. Why not take this approach? Let me advance to you a reason, albeit flimsy: think of what this does to genealogists! How can you trace family trees? What family are you then a part of? How important is it to "carry on the family name," and what does that really mean?
To all you enlightened people who see this as a non-issue, where the couple should feel free to take whatever name they choose, let me ask what to do if one spouse has a historically or politically important name -- would that sway you? I think if my last name were Brahe, Schrödinger, or Eyring, maybe Thurston wouldn't figure so strongly. I'm coming off a bit flippant here, and I apologize for the tone. I guess I have never felt (until recently) the pressure that women must feel on this issue. A part of me is just trying to figure out the best road for establishing a family identity, and I'm welcome to all suggestions.
|
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
One Thing I Like
by Dave Hi gang. I'm delighted to accept Steve's invitation to come blog with Bcc's talented crew. I think I'm the only West Coast blogger on board, so for those of you sitting in the Eastern time zone I'll be the late night PJ (post jockey), spinning out Top 40 posts after midnight. When I first started blogging (here's my first post way back in August 2003) it was fun just to publish something Mormonish to the web and the world, but with the emergence of the Mo-Blog I have really enjoyed trading comments and ideas with fellow bloggers. And if I ever said anything too blunt or even a little ugly to any of you in times past, I swear it was my evil twin.
To get started on a pleasant note, I'd like to take up Richard Bushman's recent challenge "to name one concrete, personal thing [I] like about the church." I have noticed that Church members extend full fellowship and friendship to those individuals who are physically or developmentally disabled. In classes, in choirs, in sacrament meetings, if these folks don't quite fit right in, adjustments are made rather seamlessly and no one bats an eye. It's not even a case of "making special arrangements," which can take on a condescending tone sometimes, it's more like just recognizing them as equal members of the group.
By contrast, I was sitting in a Berkeley bookstore one evening a few years ago as one of the 20th century's finer philosophers was starting to share some selections from his latest book with a few dozen assembled fans before a book signing. A young man with Down Syndrome was browsing at an adjoining bookshelf and began calling loudly across the bookstore to an attendant, asking a question three or four times, oblivious to the fact that he was distracting the group. The philosopher, not quite sure how to handle the interruption, directed a couple of comments at the young man. Not mean, but not kind either, kind of "hey, can't you see we're busy here?" I recall feeling troubled, more than just uncomfortable. Not to judge, but I think this was a "kindness and decency" test that the speaker failed on that day (perhaps he did better on other days). Funny, I can't think of ever hearing similar remarks in an LDS setting, even for one who was rather distracting or who missed all the notes or even who missed easy grounders or layups. On this score, at least, Mormon culture hits all the right notes.
|
To get started on a pleasant note, I'd like to take up Richard Bushman's recent challenge "to name one concrete, personal thing [I] like about the church." I have noticed that Church members extend full fellowship and friendship to those individuals who are physically or developmentally disabled. In classes, in choirs, in sacrament meetings, if these folks don't quite fit right in, adjustments are made rather seamlessly and no one bats an eye. It's not even a case of "making special arrangements," which can take on a condescending tone sometimes, it's more like just recognizing them as equal members of the group.
By contrast, I was sitting in a Berkeley bookstore one evening a few years ago as one of the 20th century's finer philosophers was starting to share some selections from his latest book with a few dozen assembled fans before a book signing. A young man with Down Syndrome was browsing at an adjoining bookshelf and began calling loudly across the bookstore to an attendant, asking a question three or four times, oblivious to the fact that he was distracting the group. The philosopher, not quite sure how to handle the interruption, directed a couple of comments at the young man. Not mean, but not kind either, kind of "hey, can't you see we're busy here?" I recall feeling troubled, more than just uncomfortable. Not to judge, but I think this was a "kindness and decency" test that the speaker failed on that day (perhaps he did better on other days). Funny, I can't think of ever hearing similar remarks in an LDS setting, even for one who was rather distracting or who missed all the notes or even who missed easy grounders or layups. On this score, at least, Mormon culture hits all the right notes.
|
Monday, April 19, 2004
New webpoll!
by NA This one goes out to all my iron-rodder homies out there.
Update: I've since heard complaints that my options aren't any good, that the poll doesn't describe reality, etc., etc. All I can say is, if you want a job done right...
|
Update: I've since heard complaints that my options aren't any good, that the poll doesn't describe reality, etc., etc. All I can say is, if you want a job done right...
|
Friday, April 16, 2004
Bin Laden's "Truce" and the Book of Mormon
by NA The latest tape from the Al Queda leader brought to my mind (strangely enough) the Book of Mormon communications between the leader of the Gadianton band and the Nephites, in 3 Nephi 3. Bin Laden shares Giddianhi's boldness and his rhetorical strategies. Compare:
Giddianhi: "I hope that ye will deliver up your lands and your possessions, without the shedding of blood, that this my people may recover their rights and government, who have dissented away from you because of your wickedness in retaining from them their rights of government, and except ye do this, I will avenge their wrongs."
Bin Laden: "Security is a need for all humans, and we could not let you have a monopoly on it for yourselves. People who are aware would not let their politicians jeopardize their security... By describing us and our actions as terrorism, you are necessarily describing yourself and your actions. ... Our actions are reactions to your actions that destroy and kill our people in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine."
Should we react like the Nephites did, by getting the hell out of the Middle East and fortifying ourselves? Remember that an interventionist option was brought before the Nephites, and rejected: "Now the people said... Pray unto the Lord, and let us go up upon the mountains and into the wilderness, that we may fall upon the robbers and destroy them in their own lands. But Gidgiddoni saith unto them: The Lord forbid; for if we should go up against them the Lord would deliver us into their hands."
The Book of Mormon is an inconsistent text if we want to look to it to justify pacifism. However, on the point of extraterritorial intervention, it seems much more clear. Are we being delivered into the hands of these robbers, by foolishly rushing into lands not our own? Can our scriptures tell us anything about current U.S. military action?
*Update: Sure, this is a specious argument. But please tell me why. This is the blog equivalent of a dunk tank. I will tell commenters when they have successfully dunked me.
|
Giddianhi: "I hope that ye will deliver up your lands and your possessions, without the shedding of blood, that this my people may recover their rights and government, who have dissented away from you because of your wickedness in retaining from them their rights of government, and except ye do this, I will avenge their wrongs."
Bin Laden: "Security is a need for all humans, and we could not let you have a monopoly on it for yourselves. People who are aware would not let their politicians jeopardize their security... By describing us and our actions as terrorism, you are necessarily describing yourself and your actions. ... Our actions are reactions to your actions that destroy and kill our people in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine."
Should we react like the Nephites did, by getting the hell out of the Middle East and fortifying ourselves? Remember that an interventionist option was brought before the Nephites, and rejected: "Now the people said... Pray unto the Lord, and let us go up upon the mountains and into the wilderness, that we may fall upon the robbers and destroy them in their own lands. But Gidgiddoni saith unto them: The Lord forbid; for if we should go up against them the Lord would deliver us into their hands."
The Book of Mormon is an inconsistent text if we want to look to it to justify pacifism. However, on the point of extraterritorial intervention, it seems much more clear. Are we being delivered into the hands of these robbers, by foolishly rushing into lands not our own? Can our scriptures tell us anything about current U.S. military action?
*Update: Sure, this is a specious argument. But please tell me why. This is the blog equivalent of a dunk tank. I will tell commenters when they have successfully dunked me.
|
Tuesday, April 13, 2004
Polygamy, Courtship, and Dating
by Kaimi Every once in a while, my wife Mardell and I get into a discussion of polygamy. We occasionally speculate about what would happen if the church officially began to practice polygamy again. (This assumes a lot of things, like anti-polygamy laws being struck down). Mardell has consistently stated that she would not like polygamy, but that if it had to be done, she thinks that she would be able to tolerate it. On reflection, I think that I could probably tolerate it as well. (It would certainly be really, really weird). But I also think that, despite that attitude of potential reluctant acceptance (which is, I think, widespread among members), reinstituting polygamy would never work. Here's why:
As noted, my hunch is that if I had to marry a sister-wife, we could find some sort of marital equilibrium. (Probably both women ganging up against me and making me do the dishes . . .). But what would be the strangest -- something I doubt that I could pull off -- would be the courting.
Modern marriage conventions are different from what folk did a hundred years ago. Even if I wanted another wife, I couldn't just go up to a brother in the ward and ask for his daughter's hand in marriage. Nowadays it requires dating and courtship -- going to dinner, holding hands, going to the movies, calling each other to chat, making out in the parking lot.
And that's the part that would be (1) incredibly weird and uncomfortable for me, and (2) almost certainly intolerable for Mardell. As much as she thinks she could tolerate having another wife, I am certain that she could not tolerate the idea of her husband out on the dating market, flirting with random single members, asking for their phone numbers, and potentially, eventually, marrying them.
And I think that this feeling is universal, or close to it. Many members are descendants of polygamists, and they may say to themselves "My great-grandma Edna did it, I could do it too." But it's not just marriage that would be involved -- it would necessitate dating, flirting, and courtship. And I just don't think many LDS women would go along with that. Plural marriage may look like what great-grandma Edna did, but married men hitting on cute singles looks like a run-of-the-mill tawdry affair.
And it seems to me that it is this shift in marriage and dating conventions that truly ensures that polygamy can never be reinstituted.
|
As noted, my hunch is that if I had to marry a sister-wife, we could find some sort of marital equilibrium. (Probably both women ganging up against me and making me do the dishes . . .). But what would be the strangest -- something I doubt that I could pull off -- would be the courting.
Modern marriage conventions are different from what folk did a hundred years ago. Even if I wanted another wife, I couldn't just go up to a brother in the ward and ask for his daughter's hand in marriage. Nowadays it requires dating and courtship -- going to dinner, holding hands, going to the movies, calling each other to chat, making out in the parking lot.
And that's the part that would be (1) incredibly weird and uncomfortable for me, and (2) almost certainly intolerable for Mardell. As much as she thinks she could tolerate having another wife, I am certain that she could not tolerate the idea of her husband out on the dating market, flirting with random single members, asking for their phone numbers, and potentially, eventually, marrying them.
And I think that this feeling is universal, or close to it. Many members are descendants of polygamists, and they may say to themselves "My great-grandma Edna did it, I could do it too." But it's not just marriage that would be involved -- it would necessitate dating, flirting, and courtship. And I just don't think many LDS women would go along with that. Plural marriage may look like what great-grandma Edna did, but married men hitting on cute singles looks like a run-of-the-mill tawdry affair.
And it seems to me that it is this shift in marriage and dating conventions that truly ensures that polygamy can never be reinstituted.
|
Monday, April 12, 2004
Push My Buttons
by NA In a recent thread on T&S, Kaimi discussed the War on Pr0n. I immediately became very emotionally involved in the ideas, and found myself getting angry at people that disagreed with my rants. Our own Aaron Brown was surprised at my vitriol, and Wendy wisely realized that I could not be reasoned with. Soon I made a fool of myself, chasing after blog-trolls. What happened? Someone figured out how to push my buttons -- for strange, personal reasons, this topic gets me riled up beyond belief. It's very disconcerting, because I like to think that I'm detached and non-committal in most debates.
It's my theory that we all have our different hot button issues. In this church, you don't have to dig very deep to find someone's sore spot and press on it. Let me name a few old-time favorites: polygamy, male church hierarchy, "liberal mormons", and equating women with motherhood. What sore spot topics get your blood boiling? How do you keep a level head when someone brings them up? Please, disclose them all here for us to share!
|
It's my theory that we all have our different hot button issues. In this church, you don't have to dig very deep to find someone's sore spot and press on it. Let me name a few old-time favorites: polygamy, male church hierarchy, "liberal mormons", and equating women with motherhood. What sore spot topics get your blood boiling? How do you keep a level head when someone brings them up? Please, disclose them all here for us to share!
|
Wednesday, April 07, 2004
Passing of Sister Hinckley
by NA As Times & Seasons has noted, the wife of Pres. Gordon B. Hinckley passed away yesterday afternoon. We add our condolences to the others already given across the bloggernacle, as well as our prayers for the Prophet.
|
|
Tuesday, April 06, 2004
Word of Wisdom Vindicated! Again!
by NA This article in the NY Times (registration required, etc., etc.) discusses the dangers of caffeine intoxication, once again permitting us to rub the world's collective nose into our healthy, healthy lifestyle. I've tried not to rely on external scientfic data as an apologetic for the WoW: for every anti-tobacco study there's some science in favor of drinking alcoholic beverages. What's more, it sets up a dangerous pattern of obeying God's commandments only when the outcomes are laid bare for us, which in my mind negates the role of faith.
How important are these studies, in your mind? Does it change the way you approach the WoW at all? Should we even think about using this kind of stuff as missionary tools? Will Mormons reduce their hot cocoa-swilling, chocolate-munching lifestyles accordingly?
|
How important are these studies, in your mind? Does it change the way you approach the WoW at all? Should we even think about using this kind of stuff as missionary tools? Will Mormons reduce their hot cocoa-swilling, chocolate-munching lifestyles accordingly?
|
Monday, April 05, 2004
Post-G.C. Poll #1
Paranoia will Destroy Ya'
by Anonymous I impressed myself. I listened to two and a half sessions of general conference. My favorite talk was by Pres. Hinkley He insisted that getting all paranoid about the current perils of the world is actually negative. Further, he explained that humans have always faced peril. Some of the other speakers must have been wishing they could revise the sections of their talks where they continued to refer to the downward spiral of the world. Applying Hinkley's advice will certainly improve your life. I've never seen a happy Mormon who obsessed about the evils of the world and I'd say fully a quarter of the Mormons I've known are in that paranoid group.
Of course, Mormonism does not have a lock on paranoid thought. The safety of religious thought attracts paranoids. And the General Authorities pretty agressively and consistently speak out against focusing on the end of the world. I only wish that message acted more effectively. It is depressing to continually hear that strident tone insisting itself in our church meetings and throughout the Mormon blogosphere. In addition, it's sad for those who fall victim to it. Mormon doctrine encourages optimism by insisting that we may become gods. The individual who insists on reminding us over and over that wickedness is increasing misses out on that.
I should be honest though. I don't really believe that there will be an apocalypse, so I'm not being brave by not being worried about it. I prefer the practical advice that helps lessen the force of our own private calamities. Overall, the financial advice in several talks stuck with me most. Two GAs spoke about staying out of debt and maintaining an adequate savings. One even mentioned keeping insurance. One mentioned the importance of saving up while you are doing well, since things don't always get better financially. Sounds like something I'd hear in an economics class. Something I can agree with whether God exists or not.
|
Of course, Mormonism does not have a lock on paranoid thought. The safety of religious thought attracts paranoids. And the General Authorities pretty agressively and consistently speak out against focusing on the end of the world. I only wish that message acted more effectively. It is depressing to continually hear that strident tone insisting itself in our church meetings and throughout the Mormon blogosphere. In addition, it's sad for those who fall victim to it. Mormon doctrine encourages optimism by insisting that we may become gods. The individual who insists on reminding us over and over that wickedness is increasing misses out on that.
I should be honest though. I don't really believe that there will be an apocalypse, so I'm not being brave by not being worried about it. I prefer the practical advice that helps lessen the force of our own private calamities. Overall, the financial advice in several talks stuck with me most. Two GAs spoke about staying out of debt and maintaining an adequate savings. One even mentioned keeping insurance. One mentioned the importance of saving up while you are doing well, since things don't always get better financially. Sounds like something I'd hear in an economics class. Something I can agree with whether God exists or not.
|
Saturday, April 03, 2004
G.C. play-by-play
by NA This thread is for comments or questions we may have as General Conference rolls on around us. Let me get the ball rolling: Elder Haight's comments, nostalgic and whimsical as they were, were still more interesting to me than Elder Oaks' Opus on the last days. Thoughts? Post 'em up!!
|
|
Friday, April 02, 2004
Let Sunshine Fill Your Soul
by NA This article in the NYTimes (registration required) details how Mormon women are less depressed than their gentile counterparts. Thanks to Sumer Thurston-Evans for finding it! The study, performed by a BYU sociologist, may indicate (in her words) "a reflection of the higher standards that are espoused'' by the Church. So all ye women-folk, are you less depressed because of your Church membership?
Oh, and yes, the study also found that Mormon women "do score lower on measures of self-esteem." I guess that's because we emphasize Faith, Knowledge, Choice and Accountability, Good Works and Integrity higher than Divine Nature and Individual Worth. My wife's remarks: "I'm feeling happy with my low self-esteem."
|
Oh, and yes, the study also found that Mormon women "do score lower on measures of self-esteem." I guess that's because we emphasize Faith, Knowledge, Choice and Accountability, Good Works and Integrity higher than Divine Nature and Individual Worth. My wife's remarks: "I'm feeling happy with my low self-esteem."
|
Thursday, April 01, 2004
Reasoning with your spouse
by NA Last night the wife and I got into a little tussle, as I tried patiently to explain to her the law of divine marriage. She was naturally a little upset that I'd already taken several spiritual wives, but I was shocked, and a little taken aback, that she was so unwilling to accept the restored gospel.
Anyone else out there have this problem? What do you do to preside righteously in your home in such a situation?
|
Anyone else out there have this problem? What do you do to preside righteously in your home in such a situation?
|
