CrossTalk Attacks

[The following post was written back in December 2007. I decided not to publish it at that time since I didn't want to mix too much religion and politics. Now that Romney is out of the running, I thought this would be a good time to put it out there since the main point transcends any political race.]

Using Mitt Romney as a launching point, the radio show CrossTalk (a religious program) decided to "explain" the teachings of the Mormon church to their listeners. The thing that astonished me about the program wasn't the anti-Mormonism. That is pretty standard stuff for a lot of "christian" ministries. The amusing thing was how self-destructive their arguments against Mormonism are.

By self-destructive, I mean that most of the arguments they employee against the Church to make it look silly or evil apply just as well to Christianity as a whole. An atheist could talk the transcript of the program, replace "Mormon" with "Christian" and be ready to publish their own anti-Christian rant.

Ironically, I found that their attack on Mormonism served to illustrate how well the Mormon faith fits into the larger Christian tradition. Let me give you a few examples of what I mean. All quotes are from Rocky Hulse, the guest being interviewed on the show.

"Mormonism is so all inclusive that a lot of people, once they are -- they are so indoctrinated. They are so embedded in the Mormon doctrine and its teachings--that it is the only true church on the earth. Period."

For Christianity to be meaningful, it must permeate every aspect of our lives and inform all our decisions. Any loving parent is going to attempt to inculcate values into their children that they believe will lead to happiness. Evangelical Christians and Mormon Christians both do this. Anything else would be neglect. All Christians I know believe that Christ is "the way, the truth, and the life." This is, by definition, exclusive of any other path. Naturally, then, Mormons join all other Christians in echoing the ancient apostles that there is only one faith, one Lord, one baptism.

"...found out the foundations, origins, teachings, doctrines of Mormonism have been altered, deleted, falsified, all those things"

Hulse thinks Mormons will be horrified to learn that every detail of Mormon history isn't presented in Sunday School. Do you think that any other church presents every known detail of Christian history to the parishioners? Would that even be possible, let alone beneficial?

If you are a non-Mormon Christian and you don't have Sunday School lessons about the frailties of early leaders of your denomination, perhaps you should confront your preacher and angrily ask why the church is hiding things from you. For example, I'm certain that there were never any Baptist leaders involved in lychings in the South, right? Right? For the Mormon-haters, the expectation seems to be that Mormons are supposed to have been perfect all along while everyone else is given plenty of latitude.

Hulse goes on to drive at his primary thesis: Mormons can't be trusted in public office because they have sworn an allegiance to the church. The argument boils down to this: Mormons can't be public servants because they will always do what they think God wants.

Isn't this a kind of obvious point for a religious person, Mormon or otherwise? What is the point of faith if it doesn't inform your actions? Should non-Mormon Christian politicians renounce their allegiance to God before they are permitted to swear allegiance to the Constitution?

Mysteriously Important Bodies

There's something very important about having bodies that I don't fully comprehend, but a couple of items recently have given me reason to consider anew the importance of physical bodies in Mormon theology.

First, a quote from Joseph Smith.

So plain was the vision, that I actually saw men, before they had ascended from the tomb, as though they were getting up slowly. They took each other by the hand and said to each other, ‘My father, my son, my mother, my daughter, my brother, my sister.’ And when the voice calls for the dead to arise, suppose I am laid by the side of my father, what would be the first joy of my heart? To meet my father, my mother, my brother, my sister; and when they are by my side, I embrace them and they me.

The "first joy" is to "meet my father" and other relatives? We believe that the the spirit world has a similar social structure to this world. If that is the case, we will have just come from being with our righteous fathers and sons and mothers and daughters. Why then would the resurrection be a time of singular rejoicing? I can only imagine that the thrill of an embrace--a physical embrace--will be something we've been longing for since the separation of our bodies and spirits.

The second point of emphasis for bodies is the work we do in temples for the dead. Let's take baptism for the dead as our example. Baptism is a time to make a covenant. God has specified a particular ritual we must go through to enter into a covenant with Him. We must have an authorized priesthood holder immerse us in water.

I suppose that God could have easily chosen any other act to consummate this covenant. He might have insisted that we all speak a particular phrase, or that we wave our hands in the air, or that we lie on our backs very still for several minutes. For a number of good reasons, he chose the symbol-rich ordinance of baptism.

So now consider those people who didn't have an opportunity to be baptized in mortality. What is so special about the physical-body part of the ordinance that God requires it for all people, even if it must be done by proxy? For the life of me, I can't image why he couldn't have them perform some similar body-free ordinance in the spirit world. But they apparently need water baptism just as mortals do. I don't understand it, but it seems to be saying something very important about bodies.

We Do Not Mourn As Those Without Hope

My friend, who uses the pseudonym Artemis online, lost her baby girl in a premature birth on Saturday. My tears flow freely for her grief.

Even though we know the plan of salvation, the death of one so innocent and helpless is wrenching to the core of our souls. Today in our priesthood meeting, the lesson from the words of the Prophet Joseph Smith was appropriately timed yet painful to hear.

“… The only difference between the old and young dying is, one lives longer in heaven and eternal light and glory than the other, and is freed a little sooner from this miserable, wicked world. Notwithstanding all this glory, we for a moment lose sight of it, and mourn the loss, but we do not mourn as those without hope.”

Even with our knowledge of the plan of salvation, we can't expect that the momentary pain of loss will be any less. Our solace comes in knowing that the sting of that death need not be eternal.

We pray for you, Artemis and family, and hope the hole in your heart will always be a little window back to heaven.

Obama Embraces a Heresy

Traditional Christians have been trapped in an uncomfortable box for quite some time. They insist that the only people who can be saved are those who have accepted Jesus in this life. According to this line of thinking, it doesn't matter how wonderful a life is lived; sins were still committed and without Jesus there will be eternal consignment to hell.

Think of all of the people who have lived and never heard the name of Jesus. Can you honestly believe they are all eternally damned? This, I believe, is a depressing lie based on an incomplete truth. Yes, Christ is the only way to salvation, but his grace is so much broader than the traditional Christians will admit.

God's plan, as taught by the Mormons, includes a provision for those who don't have an opportunity to accept Jesus in this life: They will have an opportunity to receive him in the next life. They will be judged for the life that they lived in relation to their understanding. This is a merciful theology. Mormons are accused of being non-Christian for exactly this sort of heretical belief.

Barack Obama, presidential candidate, has raised the eyebrows of some Christian leaders because he seems to believe the way I do on this issue. Here's how it was reported in Newsweek.

When Franklin Graham asked Obama recently how, as a Christian, he could reconcile New Testament claims that salvation was attainable only through Christ with a campaign that embraces pluralism and diversity, Obama tells NEWSWEEK he said: "It is a precept of my Christian faith that my redemption comes through Christ, but I am also a big believer in the Golden Rule, which I think is an essential pillar not only of my faith but of my values and my ideals and my experience here on Earth. I've said this before, and I know this raises questions in the minds of some evangelicals. I do not believe that my mother, who never formally embraced Christianity as far as I know … I do not believe she went to hell." Graham, he said, was very gracious in reply. Should Obama beat John McCain, he has history on his side. Presidents such as Lincoln and Jefferson were unorthodox Christians; and, according to a Pew Forum survey, 70 percent of Americans agree with the statement that "many religions can lead to eternal life." "My particular set of beliefs," Obama says, "may not be perfectly consistent with the beliefs of other Christians."

Welcome to the heretics club, senator.

God's Great Gifts

I set about this evening to write a post about the folly of the "Prosperity Gospel" that is preached in some chapels across the country. I was so bothered by the false God that is set up by those preachers and how they set people up for disappointment.

As I was looking for the articles I'd read on the subject of Dollar, Osteen, and Warren (three prominent preachers of the prosperity gospel) I got bored of the subject.

I started looking for an unrelated story that I remembered hearing at a recent BYU devotional. I couldn't find the story, but as I was browsing through the BYU Speeches site, I found two articles that really touched my heart. They turn out to be the positive version of the message I wanted to share in this post, rather than the negative cast I had started with.

First, I read Ardeth G. Kapp's talk from Women's Conference 2004. The title phrase, "Pray Not for Light Burdens but for Strong Backs," immediately evoked strong emotions for me. I've been pondering recently about the plight of so many poor people in the world, including those here in my own community.

Why does life have to be so hard for them?

Sister Kapp quotes Elder Maxwell,

We can say: “I know that [God] loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things” (1 Nephi 11:17.)

There have been and will be times in each of our lives when such faith must be the bottom line: We don’t know what is happening to us or around us, but we know that God loves us, and knowing that, for the moment, is enough. [Not My Will, But Thine (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1988), 119]

After reading Sister Kapp's beautiful talk, I read a talk from Elder Featherstone (given before I was born.) His sermons have always touched me when I've read them in a reverent mood. He shared the story of a stuttering boy who overcame his obstacle, of a woman who overcame great trials and then lost and regained her faith in God, and of his own very difficult boyhood where he dealt with poverty and a difficult father.

What I am saying is that if the Lord will take a scroungy little kid like that, who had to wear nurses' shoes to church and had to go and beg for groceries, and if he will make him a high councilor or a stake president or the second counselor in the Presiding Bishopric, can you believe what he would do for you? Many of you are covenant children. Your parents were married in the temple, and so you are born in the covenant. The rest of you are going to this great institution, BYU, where the greatest learning process in the world can take place. God bless each one of you that you'll feel your sense of worth, that you'll understand who you really are. You are a royal generation. You have a great deal to offer. I don't care what the handicaps are that you think are so severe; you can overcome them. God bless each one of you, I pray from the depths of my soul as I ask a blessing upon you, in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

The final conclusion for me? God does want us to prosper. He does want wonderful things for us. He won't always give them to us immediately (the pitfall of the proponents of the prosperity gospel), but he will give them; and the rewards will be greater than we can presently comprehend. God is great. I invite you to share my journey by reading the two talks I've linked above when you have a quiet moment.

Oxygen Tank Moments

Brother L. is one of the members in our ward who must wheel an oxygen tank with him to sacrament meeting. A few weeks ago, right in the middle of a young speaker's talk, his oxygen tank malfunctioned and started emitting a loud hissing noise.

It took Brother L. a good 30 seconds to get the tank shut off to stop the loud noise. (It seemed a lot longer.) All the while, the speaker continued to speak, as though nothing was occurring.

Weeks later, we joked about this in Elders Quorum where I mentioned the Oxygen Tank Principle. "If you're giving a talk and an oxygen tank goes off, don't bother continuing to talk because no one is hearing a word you're saying." We all had a good-natured chuckle.

Moments later, I volunteered to read a quote from the manual as part of our quorum lesson. When I was about two sentences from the end of the quote, my little boy (17 months) started making a loud moaning noise and squirmed like crazy in my lap. I soldiered on and finished reading the quote. It then immediately struck me that I'd just violated the oxygen tank principle. I'd read something when everyone in the room was busy being entertained by my rambunctious kid. Then we all had another good-natured chuckle at my expense.

As I ponder back over this principle, I wonder if it is correct. Should a sacrament meeting speaker really stop speaking if something occurs in the room that naturally draws everyone's attention? Would that only embarrass the unwilling disturber? How long do you wait before you continue in the face of a continuing disturbance?

Oaks on Ethics

I caught a program on television titled, "Ethics in America." I noticed that Elder Dallin H. Oaks was participating in the panel discussion about personal ethics. The program posed some really tough issues! It was an hour well spent to consider the situations and then discuss them with my wife afterwards. You can watch the whole program online (after an easy registration). I've included a little tidbit below to give you the flavor. I've highlighted a couple of Elder Oaks' responses.

Joyful Sabbath--Is it even possible with three small children?

The recent worldwide leadership training meeting on February 9 on the topic of "Building up a righteous posterity" gave me a lot of food for thought. (You can listen, watch, or read transcripts now from the Church's website.) One part in particular made an impression on both my husband and me:

Elder Holland: Could I make a plea to our group and to the larger Church that we do everything possible to reclaim the joy of the Sabbath. I don’t know that we could do more to enhance family unity in the Church than to enjoy Sunday fully. And we do enjoy it. I enjoy it. As busy as I am, I live for Sunday. But the early scriptural declarations, I’m thinking particularly clear back into the Old Testament, up to and including our own Doctrine and Covenants pronouncements, have been about the joy of the Sabbath, the joy of worship, and the delight of the Sabbath. Surely we can do better at having a Sabbath together.

Too often for me Sunday is not a joyful day. All our schedules are messed up--missed naps (thank goodness for 9am church this year!), cranky children, long meetings, extra responsibilities, etc, etc, etc. I rarely get anything out of sacrament meeting (three children under five), and although I adore my calling, I don't get any gospel instruction time. Usually I can't wait to put the kids in bed (is 6pm too early?), and veg in front of my computer for the rest of the evening. I go to my meetings, I do my visiting teaching, and I try not to let the kids watch TV or play outside with friends. But a joyful Sabbath it is not.

After the leadership training meeting, my husband and I vowed to do better. Naturally the next week he was called as the Elders' Quorum President. But, interestingly enough, even though he has more meetings on Sunday, we have had a series of marvelous Sabbath days. We've had Grandma and Grandpa over for dinner (they're going on a mission soon), we've played games, written letters, told gospel and non-gospel stories, had a "picnic" dinner in the living room, taken naps (a personal favorite). It's been a joy to spend so much fun time with my family.

Don't get me wrong. Sacrament meeting is still a struggle (last week was mortifying--my children were so loud multiple people turned around to give me sympathetic looks; we have an understanding ward!), the kids still don't like to nap, and we're still barred from going on walks by the weather. But I've enjoyed the last three Sundays more than any for the last year, at least. I hope we can keep it up--it certainly does prepare me for the coming week.

New First Presidency

The 16th prophet of the Church has been announced--it is, of course, President Thomas S. Monson. We love you President Monson, and we're praying for you!

President Monson has chosen President Eyring to be his first counselor, and Elder (now President) Uchtdorf to be his second counselor.

I think it's awesome. I love to listen to Elder Uchtdorf talk, and now we will get many opportunities to do so. Yay!

President Hinckley

President Hinckley died tonight, January 27, 2008, at 7 pm, of causes incident to age.

He was president of the church for all of my adult life thus far, becoming the prophet around the same time I graduated from high school. What a wonderful man! I'm so grateful he was able to lead our church for as long as he did. I'm grateful he was so active and healthy during his tenure. And as much as I am going to miss him (it's hard to even imagine General Conference without him!), I'm grateful he is with his precious wife again. I know he missed her so much.

Of all the many memories I have of President Hinckley--waving his cane at audiences, telling the story of the walnut tree and the new podium, talking about the new Conference Center, announcing the rebuilding of the Nauvoo Temple--the one I want to share happened not at Conference, not at a regional meeting, not even at a devotional. It was during the groundbreaking ceremony of the new wing of the Harold B. Lee Library at BYU on September 30, 1996. As the ceremony ended, and all the dignitaries dug the shovels into the earth, I happened to be in just the right position to be very close to where the prophet stood. As I stood there, twenty feet away, I felt the Spirit bear the most powerful witness that this man was the Lord's annointed. It was just an amazing, unexpected moment, standing there in the sun, straining to hear what was being said as they laughed while turning over the dirt. My soul just knew that President Hinckley has was chosen of God for that time to lead the Church.

And now it is time for another worthy, righteous man to lead the church. I am praying for President Monson, and his family, and I am thrilled to see where the Lord leads our church in the next months and years. But for tonight and tomorrow, I am just going to miss President Hinckley.

Spiritual Crowds

In the adult session of Stake Conference last night, one of the speakers spoke about a time when, in a large group of unrelated, mostly unacquainted men, the Spirit was present so strongly that the entire room was utterly silent. The event was the April 2007 Priesthood Session of General Conference . The BYU Men's Chorus provided the music, and sang for the closing song "I Love the Lord", set to the tune "Finlandia" (better known to most as "Be Still My Soul"). (You can listen to it here.) It was a breathtaking arrangement of Nephi's Psalm (2 Nephi 4:16-35). My husband attended the priesthood session in a different stake center, and he came home amazed at the effect it had on the men in the room. Usually there is a fair amount of rustling and movement during the music at the priesthood session, he reported, but everyone was unusually silent, and there was strong spirit of quietness in the room. This lasted through the song, the closing prayer, and even a little afterward.

I have had one such experience in my life. On April 6, 2000, the Palmyra New York Temple was dedicated. Because of the importance of this temple dedication, the First Presidency chose to (closed-circuit) broadcast it to 3000 locations, so that as many who wanted could attend. I was a BYU graduate student at the time, and our location was the Marriott Center on campus--the huge multi-purpose arena that can seat 22700, where both basketball games and devotionals are held. In my journal entry of that day, I wrote:

"I was struck by how many were up, so early [6:30am], to go; there were probably 10,000 people in the Marriott Center. I was also struck by the reverence of everyone--we are so accustomed to laughing and talking before CES firesides, devotionals, etc; afterwards hurrying out, greeting friends. There was a very low murmur of conversation before the dedication began, none during, and most impressive to me, NONE during the quiet emptying of the Center. Everyone was happy-somber, and the Spirit was not chased away as soon as the closing prayer was said. It was amazing."

Large crowds--even large crowds of exclusively adults--aren't usually conducive to amazing spiritual experiences. We love to talk too much, we aren't always in the same place mentally or spiritually, we are busy and distracted and worried about life. But I think that my experience at the Palmyra Temple Dedication was enhanced by the presence of so many others. I well remember the strong outpouring of the Spirit that I felt on that day. I was overwhelmed during the Hosannah Shout and Anthem, with the thousands of white handkerchiefs waving in the air, all at once. To sing "The Spirit of God", my all-time favorite hymn of the Restoration, with so many other voices was unforgettable.

If you were there in the Marriott Center that day, thank you. Thank you for allowing the Spirit to flow so abundantly. Thank you for being part of an experience that has stayed with me so vividly, even after eight years.

The Moral Challenge of Pacifism

I'm bothered to see Christians who appear to take a "pacifism at all costs" approach to foreign affairs. In the Parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus told us about a man who crossed boundaries of tribe and soil to help another man who had been abused. The purpose of the parable is to broaden our perspective and help us to realize that ALL people are our neighbors. Implicit in the story is a condemnation of those "righteous" ones who passed by the man in need for their own reasons.

Now a hypothetical: You hear screams from the sidewalk in front of your home. A woman is being assaulted. Do you intervene in some way? Is there a moral imperative to help?

I argue that there is a moral imperative to assist the woman. There may be other circumstances to consider, such as your ability to improve the outcome of her situation. If, for example, you believe that directly intervening would cause more harm than good (perhaps causing the woman to be killed) then you have another moral path open to you. You might also consider the possibility of harm coming to you or to your family as a result of your intervention. Some people fail to report crimes because they fear retaliation from gangs or organized crime.

Any of those things and many more are, in my view, appropriate variables in a calculation to intervene. The one argument that I find unconvincing in the light of the Parable previously cited would be an argument for pacifism. To argue, as some do, that war is always wrong strikes me as naive. Of course we should seek to settle our differences with other nations amicably. But when wicked men are unwilling to negotiate, violent conflict may be inevitable.

A purely pacifist stance, it seems, would argue that we must allow the woman on the sidewalk to be attacked without consideration of any other variables. A purely pacifist observer couldn't even call the police, because to do so would also be to risk inciting another violent confrontation in addition to the first one already in progress.

Is it really expected that we let the Lord fight all our battles? This is the only possible moral outlet I can see for the pacifist position. And frankly, I am not convinced this is a valid position.

This post is related to a comment I made over at Mormon Stories if you're interested.

Brotherly (and Sisterly) Love

Early one morning, a conversation between Ezra (aged 4) and Mercy (aged 2.5):

Mercy: (waking up, obviously on the wrong side of the bed) No, no, want Ezra, want Ezra!

Ezra: (groggily, just waking up to her cries) It's okay, Mercy, it's okay. I have room for you. (He rolls over in his little nest of blankets, and pats the pillow next to his head.) Come here.

(Mercy crawls out of her bed, stumbles over to her brother, lays beside him.)

Ezra: Here you go, Mercy. (Covers her up with blankets, snuggles next to her.)

Mercy: (softly, falling back asleep) I love you, Ezra.

Ezra: (equally softly) I love you too, Mercy.

Primary Chorister

For the last year, I have the best calling in the world--I am the Primary Chorister. The benefits are many:
I get to know all the Primary kids, without having to deal with any one class for the entire year.
I get to play with the Nursery children.
I get to sing.
I get to devise, create, color, cut out, and improvise props to teach our songs.
I'm pretty autonomous--sure, the presidency has oversight, but they pretty much let me do my own things.
I get to buy handbells for our Primary this year.
I get to stand up, move around, fall on the ground, and generally act silly, especially during Junior Primary and Nursery.
All the Primary kids seem to like me, so I get hugs and waves throughout sacrament meetings and ward activities.
I don't have to worry about staffing teachers or finding last-minute substitutes (I used to be in Primary presidency).

Now, I know that being the chorister isn't for everyone. You have to feel comfortable with music and kids, and "performing" weekly. And there are downsides--my four-year-old son, for example, struggles with sitting with his own class, and not always being picked, during music time. I sometimes only get seven minutes for music time (the presidency is doing a lot better at letting me get my full 20 minutes). And my Senior Primary is almost all boys--I'm still struggling to find the best way to engage them while staying reverent.

I have learned a few things in my first year in this calling. Don't underestimate the children--they are capable of doing more than the (relatively) simple arrangements in the Children's Songbook. It takes more time and work, but they can pull of a few more complicated songs during the year. Do explain the dynamics and structure of the song, if you have time and want to. (My Junior Primary was fascinated that the "Tall, tall, tall" notes of "Once There Was a Snowman" go up, and the "Small, small, small" notes go down.) Do learn the songs yourself, and be enthusiastic about them. Don't just stick with showing pictures to help them learn the words--use props, drawings on the board (that you then erase), individual children to represent different lines, etc. Get the children up and moving, especially during wiggle songs (have them march around you, if you can). I'm excited to see what the next year will teach me--and if anyone reading this has ideas, feel free to add them!

The rewards of this calling are intangible but real, such as during the ward choir's Christmas sacrament program, when the children sang Sally DeFord's He is Born, The Child Divine. We'd only been practicing for barely a month, and yet they knew every word of both verses and sang so sweetly and clearly that everyone was in tears--especially me. To hear those marvelous children sing such beautiful words "Come good people, to the stable...", with the piano accompaniment and organ chime embellishments...It was beautiful and holy.

"Jesus the Christ" Audiobook Podcast Available

I'm making a new podcast available. I'm reading James E. Talmage's Jesus the Christ and putting the audio files into a podcast. The Church has actually made audio recordings of the book available which you can download for free from lds.org, but I decided it would be fun to put the book into my own voice.

There are three main differences between the audio files available from the Church and the files you'll find in my new podcast. First, my podcast excludes the chapter endnotes. That trims quite a bit of text. Since the endnotes can really stand alone, I may put them in a few separate episodes when I'm done with the main text of the book.

Second, my podcast doesn't include the scriptural references when scriptures are cited. It broke up the flow of the text too much to be constantly reading citations as they do in the Church's version of the audio book. Instead, I link back to the text of the book at Project Gutenberg so that you can peruse Elder Talmage's footnotes at your leisure.

Third, my podcast is done in my house, so there are bound to be random bits of background household noise (and altogether too much lip smacking) inherent in my low budget setup. Nevertheless, I think the audio quality should be good enough for most listeners. For all the rest, you still have the Church version.

Hopefully you enjoy the book. I thought it was appropriate given all the discussion of Mormon beliefs in Jesus Christ incident to the Mitt Romney campaign. Even after the campaign is a memory, the audio book will continue to be permanently archived at archive.org. I know that some of the scholarship in the book is a bit dated, but it stands as a lasting testimony from Elder Talmage and we're truly blessed to have it.

Christmas Blessings

About one year ago, our 3rd child was born. I've had a few people who read this blog ask for an update. His name is Gideon and he was born with spina bifida. The short version is that he's doing better than we ever could have hoped. We've been truly blessed.

He underwent surgery shortly after he was born to close up his back. Spina bifida literally means open spine. There was a little bubble on his back, just above his bum, where a bit of his spinal cord had poked out of the protective surrounding of the spine. The expert doctors closed up his back and put the spinal cord back in place.

As you might imagine, having your spinal cord outside your body isn't the safest place. Lots of kids with spina bifida have trouble related to a damaged spinal cord. Gideon is no exception. He can't move his feet, though he does have some degree of feeling in them. He can move his knees and hips and that is a remarkable blessing.

Gideon had to have a shunt placed in his head. The shunt is a small tube (spaghetti-sized) that runs from the center of his brain, out the top of his head, and then under the skin down his body and then back into his abdomen. This relieves the pressure of fluid buildup that is also common in kids with spina bifida. He can expect to have that tube, or a similar one for the rest of his life. Once he finally gets some hair, you shouldn't be able to notice that it is there.

He has physical therapists that come to our home once a week to work with him on basic baby mobility skills. In the past week he's actually been able to crawl! It is a little later than most kids crawl, but for Gideon it represents a significant achievement.

He has little feet and ankle braces that he can wear that will help him as he learns to stand. It looks like he'll probably be able to walk, at least while he is young. As kids with spinal cord injuries grow, it is hard to know what the future will hold since it isn't uncommon for the spinal cord to snag on scar tissue as they grow and become further damaged.

We continue to pray for his well being and future success. However, the most common comment we hear from people is about what a good natured baby he is. We can't argue. He is a little gem. His older brother (4) and sister (2) are wonderful to him and are growing up far faster than I ever could have imagined.

At Christmastime, especially as we celebrate the first birthday of our own son, we are so grateful for the many blessings that the Lord has so generously bestowed on us, the greatest of which is the life and sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Church shootings

I'm sure everyone has heard about the shootings at the Youth with a Mission missionary training center in Arvada, CO, and the New Life Church shootings in Colorado Springs, CO, just 12 hours later. I'm relieved that the shooter (for it seems to have been the same person in both events) was stopped, and kudos to Jeanne Assam, the volunteer security guard who stopped him.

My sister's ward building is very close to the New Life Church, and halfway through church on Sunday she noticed men from the ward standing "guard" in the halls and at the doors. She didn't understand until the trickle of information got to her during the third hour. As we were talking, and discussing how Jeanne Assam was a volunteer security guard--not unlike the brethren at her church, I said. She responded, "But they didn't have guns--or did they?"

I don't know the answer to that. I do know that if I had a concealed carry permit, and was asked to keep an eye on the building after an incident like yesterday's, I would have dashed home or to the car to get my (hypothetical) gun. But would that have been "okay"? What are the rules about guns, concealed or otherwise, in the ward buildings? Does it change depending on city/state rules? Or is there a rule in the Handbook? Anyone know?

NPR's "Talk of the Nation" on Mormon Beliefs

Since Mitt Romney has demurred on providing details about the beliefs and practices of the Mormon church, NPR's Talk of the Nation program stepped up to the plate. Reporter Howard Berkes (a non-Mormon based in Salt Lake City) did a pretty good job answering questions from callers about the church and its doctrines.

Questions included garments, having our own planets, the status of America in the faith, non-Mormon exclusion from temple weddings, the status of blacks, and more.

Berkes pointed people directly to the official church website for clarification on doctrinal matters and mentioned the "Mormon blogs" in addressing host Neal Conan's question about whether Mormon's welcomed this sort of scrutiny of their faith. The piece was about 16.5 minutes long.

Priesthood Ban: Revelation Needed Not Required

Perhaps the title of this post makes a distinction between two words where there isn't one, but they are the best I could find in trying to capture what I think I've learned about the priesthood restrictions placed on black Latter-day Saints before 1978. I'm continuing to read the biography of President Kimball that covers the years of his presidency. This change in priesthood eligibility was probably the most significant single event in 20th century Mormonism.

From the biography we read,

Most General Authorities tried to avoid public discussion of the topic. Hugh B. Brown, counselor to President McKay from 1961 to 1970, appears to have been the leader most open to change. He urged that the priesthood restriction could be dropped as a matter of Church administrative policy without requiring a specific revelation. He reasoned that if the restriction had not come by revelation, it could be vacated without revelation. But despite his strongly held views and powerful influence, President Brown’s position did not then prevail.

I'm inclined to agree with President Brown. A revelation was not "required" to change the policy. It strikes me that there are probably very few policies that actually require a revelation. I think of changes to priesthood quorums in the church, like the changing nature of the office of Seventy. Priesthood duties are specified in the scriptures, yet we don't see additional sections of the Doctrine and Covenants when we want to shift things around. I'm sure that the leaders of the church feel that the Lord approves of changes that they make, but I think it is the men and not the Lord who generally initiate such changes. Such is as it should be: We are expected to grow to become like God by making the sorts of decisions that He would make.

More than 20 years before the ban on priesthood was lifted, the issue was studied by a group of apostles.

In 1954 President McKay is said to have appointed a special committee of the Twelve to study the issue. They concluded that the priesthood ban had no clear basis in scripture but that Church members were not prepared for change.

For whatever reason, members of the church weren't prepared for blacks to have the priesthood. Perhaps this is similar to the situation with Moses and the children of Israel. God wanted to give them a higher law, but they weren't prepared to live it. So he had to give them a preparatory law and commandments fit for a people just emerging from centuries of bondage and servitude.

I think the minds of the Latter-day Saints were similarly clouded about issues of race. Some of them were able to see through the cultural fog on the issue, but for the majority of the Saints, a revelation from God was necessary to cut through the haze and light the way forward to a new era of equality and understanding. The revelation wasn't required, but the Saints still needed it.

I'm reminded of my own experience in seeking revelation on a mate. I prayed to God with all the sincerity I could muster whether I ought to marry this girl I was dating. Figuring this was an awfully important decision, I wanted a bit of help to avoid messing it up. Just a voice from heaven. Was that too much to ask? In spite of sustained prayer on the subject, I never felt like I received the sought for revelation. Figuring that silence meant "no," I broke up with the girl to seek other options.

Years passed. Through a blessed series of events, I found myself with a strong desire to date this girl again. I did so. Miraculously, after I'd broken her heart, she agreed to interact with me again--cautiously. Again I prayed with fervency to know whether I ought to marry this girl. I felt the Lord has pushed me in this direction, so I looked for His final signal that this was the "right thing." Nothing came.

Time was pressing. She was going to move across the country in less than a month. I needed an answer! I finally decided that if the Lord wasn't going to supply an answer, I would have to supply one on my own. I decided I wanted to marry her. Suddenly, in the face of my own decision on the subject, I was met with the most powerful confirmation I've ever received on any subject at any time. I had no doubt that this was the right thing. Why hadn't God bothered to tell me 6 or 4 or 2 years earlier?! He needed me to decide. Looking back, the decision seems so obviously right that my years-long hesitation is absurd.

I have no way of knowing, but I imagine in my heart that the process wasn't very different for the prophet on the subject of the priesthood ban. I think that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles had to decide that it was the right direction to allow blacks to have the priesthood. They had to become ready in their own hearts for the change. They had to believe that the church was ready for the change. And when they finally asked, with their definite proposal, the Lord smacked them all in the forehead saying, in effect, "Duh!"

I'm grateful for a revelatory process that doesn't merely spoon feed us, but forces us to stretch and grow.

I'm a Premortal Sinner

I believe that we sinned and repented in the premortal existence. I hadn't ever considered it until a college professor brought it up. It makes a lot of sense to me, so I believe it. This is one of those doctrines that probably can't make any difference in our mortal life, so feel free to disagree with me on this one. :)

Here's the case for premortal sin.

In Abraham we read about the noble and great ones. People can't become noble and great without making great choices. Great choices are only possible in a context where there are really bad choices. This is Lehi's law of opposites.

If there was a possibility to mess up, you can bet that I took advantage of it. And yet here I am as a mortal writing this blog. How could that have happened? The reason I was able to sin and then repent in the premortal realm was because the atonement of Jesus Christ stretches backwards in time. It certainly covers the people who lived before the birth of Jesus in the flesh. I believe it stretches further back still. I think that is the meaning of the "preparatory redemption" spoken of in Alma 13:3.

Was there sin in the premortal life? There was enough sin that 1/3 part of the hosts of heaven became perdition. That's a lot of sin. Could that sin have been just one giant mistake--a blemish on an otherwise perfect record? Possibly, but it doesn't seem likely to me. A fall of hundreds of feet is usually preceded by a slip of lots of inches. I think Lucifer's ultimate fall must have been preceded by eons of prideful thoughts and actions. Can one go instantly from submissive son to plotting usurper? I doubt it.

Others have blogged on this issue before. Check out J. Stapley and Kim Siever.