PonderIt

Oaks on Ethics

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Ross) — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 04:09:00 +0000

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?

noreply@blogger.com (Keryn) — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 00:56:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Keryn) — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 18:11:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Keryn) — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 05:50:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Keryn) — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 01:55:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Ross) — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 17:20:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Keryn) — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 07:23:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Keryn) — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 20:06:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Ross) — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 19:31:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Ross) — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 01:12:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Keryn) — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 04:50:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Ross) — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 07:28:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Ross) — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 21:28:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Ross) — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 03:27:00 +0000

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.

In Defense Of Motherhood

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Ross) — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 02:00:00 +0000

I'm surprised to read comments like this on Mormon blogs.

My husband’s comment about Sis Beck’s talk was that basically, mothers are expected to raise others for greatness, but what about the woman’s ability to achieve greatness outside of her children? Basically, raise good sons to change the world and raise good girls so they can raise more sons to change the world. It’s a depressing cycle, personally, when I think about it, and I wish that female church leaders would allow us to have (and actually enjoy) power outside of children.

If I'm reading "VirtualM" correctly, she believes there is something greater to be accomplished than raising children. Not knowing the woman, I surely can't speak to her particularly, but I'd like to speak to the sentiment I think I detect.

The work of Motherhood (and Fatherhood) is directly analogous, perhaps even parallel to, the work of Godhood. The whole purpose of being on this planet is to gain experience and mold our souls so that we can become like God.

The work of governments, businesses, clubs, communities, and even churches is mere scaffolding to serve the real work done in the homes of people trying to help their children, families, and friends find the path to exaltation through the Savior.

There is quite literally nothing more important that could be accomplished than for a mother and father to raise up their children in righteousness. No service in the church, no duty to the country, no work in humanitarian relief will ever mean more than saving the souls of your brothers and sisters. When those spiritual brothers and sisters are placed in your home as your earthly children, your responsibility is enormous.

It is perfectly natural to crave the attention of the world and the sense of satisfaction and fulfillment that comes from working in the spotlight. But ultimately such accomplishments are fleeting, and all that will remain in the eternities is the work that we did with each other, most particularly in our own families where we have the greatest influence. The scaffolding is important, even vital, but count your blessings for every moment you get to spend working on the eternal stuff rather than on maintaining the scaffolding.

In the long view—the only view that really matters—the work that rests so heavily on the shoulders of mothers is the most important work in the universe.

Musings on President Beck's Talk

noreply@blogger.com (Keryn) — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 05:23:00 +0000

It's been just about eleven hours since President Julie Beck's General Conference talk. She touched on some very sensitive topics, and she did it in a fairly blunt manner. Anyone familiar with the Mormon blogosphere knew that this would set off a lot of passionate comments and posts, and already there is much to read in the bloggernacle about her listeners' reactions. Many are feeling hurt, condemned to drudgery, belittled, and frustrated.

I actually had the opposite reaction. I was thrilled.

Please don't get me wrong--I am not the type that loves to clean and rejoices in nothing more than staying home and scrubbing my kitchen floor (which, frankly, could do with a good scrubbing). And staying home to raise my children has been an adjustment for me, and even after four years I sometimes wonder how I am going to stay sane for the next twenty.

Perhaps this is why President Beck's talk was so heartening. She really made motherhood, homemaking, and child-rearing sound like a professional job--these are your tasks, these are your responsibilities, these are your goals. Every part of what you do relates to every other part.

I had a professional job once--besides the part-time jobs I held in high school and college. I was an adjunct professor of geology at the local state college. I adored this job--it was so stimulating, so rewarding, so fun it felt scandalous to get paid for doing it. Of course there were boring, tedious, and just plain unpleasant tasks, as with any job. But I plowed my way through them, recognizing the unpleasant parts were just as important, in their own way, as the exciting, fun parts. I tried to make them more enjoyable, tried not to procrastinate, and learned short-cuts and techniques for faster completion.

During President Beck's talk, it occurred to me that I had never applied this mind-set to my current job as a mother/homemaker. Keeping up with my children is hard. Watching them make a mess of a just-previously-cleaned room is depressing. Washing the dishes, making good healthy meals, finding ways to make ends meet while still having fun--those tasks just don't come easily to me. But instead acting like an intelligent professional--studying out how to accomplish them, asking and reading and learning and experimenting--most of the time I just muddle around, complaining and wasting effort. Definitely not professional. Perhaps because women are called to be mothers and, in our gospel culture today, asked to stay home and be homemakers, I figured that by virtue of being a woman, I must automatically have those skills.

While I think of myself as a pretty good mother--I enjoy spending lots of time with my kids, and I like to come up with new games and activities and songs--I have really been falling down on the homemaker tasks. Although home-tending isn't the most important part of the job, it is conducive to comfort, good health, and the continuous presence of the Spirit. If I had taken this attitude to my teaching job, it would be like being a good lecturer, going on fun field trips, and answering questions, but never writing tests, grading papers, or working with people who just don't get it. Somehow I don't think I would have keep my job for very long.

President Beck's talk really opened my eyes, and challenged me. I'm excited about finding ways to truly learn new skills, to try to manage my home, to polish my talents. To truly grow in this important job, and to become the best mother/homemaker/wife ever. Why should I spend the next twenty-plus years doing anything less?

Planned Prodigalism

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Ross) — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 01:26:00 +0000

The term "planned prodigalism" is pretty descriptive, isn't it? I heard the term first from Harvey Gardner, a Regional Representative (when we had them) from my hometown of Page, AZ. There is certainly a problem with sin. But there is a whole other level of problem when we plan to sin and then repent.

Can a prodigal repent? Yes, but it must be much more difficult to repent if we took the atonement of Jesus Christ so casually as to treat it like a sugar daddy's checking account.

What do you think? Is it more wicked to pre-plan your sin? If it is harder to repent, as I assert, why?

Napoleon Dzombe: Hero of Malawi

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Ross) — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 15:41:00 +0000

I just watched a very brief documentary about Napoleon Dzombe. He is saving lives and lifting the nation of Malawi, Africa. If you read this post within two weeks of publication, do yourself a favor and spend the 20 minutes to learn about this man and his work.

Watch it here.

On Forgiving Leaders Who Sin

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Ross) — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 02:46:00 +0000

I remember an unexpected spiritual experience in a grocery store. I saw a small shelf of books for sale and noticed among their number a book by Hyrum Smith, of Franklin Day Planner fame. As a young man, Hyrum Smith had come to our stake to do a fireside and workshop for the youth and had given us all Franklin Day Planners and taught us how to use them.

At that event, I felt uncomfortable with Smith for some reason, though I was very excited about the principles of prioritization and time management he was teaching. We heard about what a great church leader he was and his many positions in the church and business. Something about him seemed hard to me, though.

A few years later, I found out about his excommunication from the Church. According to rumor, the roots of his excommunication stretched further back than the time I met him. I wondered if my spiritual "radar" about him had been right all along. I felt, I'm ashamed to admit, a certain smug superiority over this man.

Years go by, and I find myself in the grocery store staring at a book by this same man. "Why are they still carrying books by this guy?" I pick it up and notice a relatively recent publication date. I start reading eagerly.

He talks about the pain of sin and the difficulty of repentance and the road back to the fold, culminating in his rebaptism and restoration of blessings. The shame is hotter now as I read of how God had forgiven this man. I knew it was true and that I hadn't been a very good Christian while I had been judging his heart.

I was reminded of that incident when I read the following[1] story, told by Boyd Packer, in the expanded version of the recent biography of President Kimball.

A few years ago, it was my sad privilege to accompany President Kimball, then President of the Twelve, to a distant stake to replace a stake leader who had been excommunicated for a transgression. Our hearts went out to this good man who had done such an unworthy thing. His sorrow and anguish and suffering brought to my mind the phrase “gall of bitterness.”

Thereafter, on intermittent occasions, I would receive a call from President Kimball: “Have you heard from this brother? How is he doing? Have you been in touch with him?” After Brother Kimball became President of the Church, the calls did not cease. They increased in frequency.

One day I received a call from the President, “I have been thinking of this brother. Do you think it is too soon to have him baptized?” (Always a question, never a command.) I responded with my feelings, and he said, “Why don’t you see if he could come here to see you? If you feel good about it after an interview, we could proceed.”

A short time later, I arrived very early at the office. As I left my car I saw President Kimball enter his. He was going to the airport on his way to Europe. He rolled down the window to greet me, and I told him I had good news about our brother. “He was baptized last night,” I said.

He motioned for me to get into the car and sit beside him and asked me to tell him all about it. I told him of the interview and that I had concluded by telling our brother very plainly that his baptism must not be a signal that his priesthood blessings would be restored in the foreseeable future. I told him that it would be a long, long time before that would happen.

President Kimball patted me on the knee in a gentle gesture of correction and said, “Well, maybe not so long. . . .” Soon thereafter the intermittent phone calls began again.

[1] Lengthen Your Stride: The Presidency of Spencer W. Kimball (Working Draft) by Edward L. Kimball, chapter 4 page 5. This version of the book is available on the CD that accompanies the printed version of the book and was also distributed to BYU Studies subscribers.

CoC on Joseph Smith and Plural Marriage

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Ross) — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 01:03:00 +0000

I really liked the following statement on the Community of Christ (formerly RLDS) website. I think it is an excellent articulation of how any religious person should approach religious history.

What position does Community of Christ take on Joseph Smith Jr.’s alleged involvement in polygamy?

Our faith is grounded in the gospel of Jesus Christ and not in the actions of any particular person. The Community of Christ affirms its long history of vigorous opposition to polygamy as a doctrine or practice, regardless of what historical research may ultimately conclude about its origins in the early Latter Day Saint movement. The church has consistently taught monogamy as the basic principle of Christian marriage (Doctrine and Covenants, Sections 111 and 150).

As a policy, the Community of Christ does not legislate or mandate positions on issues of history. We place confidence in sound historical methodology as it relates to our church story. We believe that historians and other researchers should be free to come to whatever conclusions they feel are appropriate after careful consideration of documents and artifacts to which they have access. We benefit greatly from the significant contributions of the historical discipline.

This is part of a much longer answer to the question which you might find interesting. They acknowledge their historical denial of Joseph's polygamy and say that even if he practiced it, it was wrong.

FAIR: Friday Afternoon

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Ross) — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 02:30:00 +0000

With four presentations on Friday afternoon, it was a packed ending to a great conference. Blake Ostler spoke about spiritual experiences. He noted that logic and reason must take a back seat to revelation when there is a controversy. He derided the argument that spiritual experiences are the result of a "frenzied mind" and asserted that spiritual experiences are the best form of evidence that we have. He asserts that if he could make a logical argument for the primacy of spiritual revelations, that would be a concession that these is a more fundamental form of information and persuasion than revelation--namely logic.

Ostler recounted some really striking personal experience from his own youth where he learned to listen to the Spirit, in one instance saving a girl's life. He joked that as a lawyer he knows how "rational" arguments can be twisted and manipulated because the foundational assumptions of any argument must ultimately be taken on faith. This would be a sweet talk for anyone to read when the transcript becomes available. Blake is a great speaker.

John Hall's presentation was more of a mixed bag for me. I really disliked the first half of his presentation and then I really enjoyed the second half. In the first half, he was engaging in the lamest sort of one-sided debate where he marshalled his best arguments against his opponents' worst arguments. He was talking about how much better attested the New Testament is than any of the other great ancient works. This is all well and good, but it left some really important pieces of the counter-argument out that were blaring obviously, even to a lay person like me. I know I'm not being very specific, partly as a function of the fact that I failed to take good notes during this section, instead spending my time being annoyed.

After a while, though, Hall turned to actual examples of places where better translations of specific passages were available. A complete address could have been made of those points while skipping over the earlier stuff and it would have been a much more satisfactory presentation. There is a forthcoming 15-volume New Testament commentary being produced at BYU with significant direction from Hall. It will be interesting to see what that looks like given the wide variety of opinions held by the faculty that will probably be involved in creating such a commentary.

William Hamblin and David Seely teamed up to give a sales pitch for their just-published book of Solomon's temple. The lecture was packed with great pictures and I'm certainly going to be buying the book when I get an opportunity. Seely got extra credit in his presentation for giving a light-hearted jab at Hugh Nibley while still obviously loving him. Hamblin got extra credit for starting his part of the address with a jab at Daniel Peterson. A conference like this is so much more fun to watch when you get to see the sense of community that undergirds the scholarship. We must be able to laugh at ourselves without degrading ourselves and these two do it well.

The photos were an integral part of the talk, and I doubt I could provide a very good summary, so I'll just make a point or two. I was very interested to see how much the concept of "temple" has remained a powerful thread in Christianity. In art, the temple has taken on a variety of forms to suit the sensibilities of the artist, without regard to the actual historical appearance of the temple. Thus, we see temples that look like chapels or cathedrals or even the Dome of the Rock.

In the concluding talk of the conference, Daniel Peterson eviscerated Christopher Hitchens' best-selling book on why religion is bad. Hitchens spends a few pages in his book picking on the Mormons and gets a whole bunch of trivial facts wrong. If someone can't get the small things right (Nephi, son of Lephi) (a revelation giving the priesthood to blacks conveniently coincides with the 1965 Civil Rights Act), you naturally question any larger points he makes as well.

After shredding the portion of the book that talked about Mormons, Peterson turned his attention to bogus claims about religions throughout the world, most especially Islam. Peterson, as you may know, is no slouch on that subject. Sounds like Peterson's book-length critique (which he co-wrote with Hamblin) of Hitchens' book might be fun to flip through on the bus sometime.

And with that, the conference was over. Thanks to everyone at FAIR for putting on a great show. Perhaps I'll see you all again next year.

FAIR: Friday Morning

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Ross) — Tue, 07 Aug 2007 14:06:00 +0000

Friday started off again with another hot topic: the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Richard Turley, who is working on a book on the subject, spent his time with us talking mostly about the psychology of mass killings. He drew heavily on the research of of someone named Staub(sp?) on mass killings and then applied those principles to Mountain Meadows.

Monolithic societies, like frontier Utah, are much more prone to this sort of problem. (That really gives interesting legs to popular political arguments for "diversity" in our own day.) The Mormons had exaggerated fears about a lot of stuff that was going on at the time. When the wagon train showed up, it provided a tangible entity upon with to pin all their fears. One fear led to another and suddenly people were willing to do something they would never consider under normal circumstances. This doesn't excuse in any way what was done, but it helps us to understand how it could happen.

Turley argues that Brigham Young was not responsible for the massacre. He makes the point about "proximate causes" to note that the local leaders are the only ones that can really bear the ultimate responsibility for what was done. We can't blame Haun's Mill, or fiery sermons, or anything else.

I'm betting that Turley's forthcoming book will be quite a read.

Craig Foster and Steve Mayfield put together a highly entertaining presentation filled with photos of protesters throughout the years at General Conference and other venues. The most recent photos were the most entertaining and I hope they put up a lot of the photos with the transcript of their talk. The crowd really cracked up seeing the signs held by the people protesting against the protesters. One guy came up to General Conference dressed as the devil and held up a big sign that said, "Hi, my name is Satan, and these street preachers are my missionaries."

Oddly enough, the street preachers became so cartoonish in their protests (with correspondingly silly counter-protests) that they became their own worst enemy because nobody took them seriously--including the city leaders. The preachers wanted so badly to have the right to protest on the Main Street Plaza, for example, but when they started screaming at brides through the fence, everyone lost sympathy for the preachers. Now I think they are banned from that area.

Just before lunch we heard from David Bokovoy. He shared some interesting research and ideas about Isaiah in the Book of Mormon. Bokovoy believes the prevailing scholarly opinion of multiple authors for the book of Isaiah. Latter-day Saints have traditionally rejected this notion because the Book of Mormon quotes liberally from all over the place in Isaiah. If Lehi left Jerusalem in 600 B.C., he would have left before the later Isaiahs has written.

Bokovoy postulates that Joseph may have been inspired to insert additional chapters of Isaiah into the Book of Mormon than those which were actually engraved on the plates. This is an interesting theory and I'll be interested to see how it plays out with other Mormon scholars.

We also get a glimpse of some of the words that Nephi liked to use which were also commonly used throughout the book of Isaiah. David used the word "delight" as an example. Nephi repeatedly claims that he delights in the words of Isaiah. It turns out the the root word of delight appears 7.7 times for every 100 verses of Isaiah--second only in frequency to the book of Psalms.

FAIR: Thursday Afternoon

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Ross) — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 03:34:00 +0000

I've heard of Darius Gray several times over the years. I learned that I'd been mispronouncing his name. It is duh-RIE-us rather than DARE-e-us as I had previously guessed. He has played an important role in helping African Americans integrate into the modern church. We watched an "extended trailer" of the upcoming documentary on the experience on present day black Mormons. Afterwards, we heard some comments from Gray and from Margaret Young who is working on it with him.

For the most part, I liked what I saw of the documentary. I think I got a better sense in the few short minutes we saw, of the genuine cultural challenges that existed in welcoming black members into full fellowship in the church. I realize that there are a few different black cultures in the United States and I felt a greater appreciation for the goodness of some of that culture.

There were a couple of things about the trailer that bothered me, but they may turn out to be non-issues in the real film. First, Gray and Young both made a big deal out of the appearance of "Pastor Chip" in the film. He is an L.A. pastor whom they claim is as prominent in his sphere as President Hinckley is in ours. I accept that this may be accurate, but he seemed to receive an inordinate amount of screen time in a documentary that is ostensibly about Latter-day Saints. He had some very nice things to say about the church, but toward the end of the trailer, they showed a clip where he said something negative about the priesthood ban. The camera then cuts to a video of President Hinckley at the pulpit, mute, in between thoughts, starting to mouth something. It was almost like slow motion footage and seemed calculated to convey the message that President Hinckley just didn't have any good response to what the pastor had just said. It really rubbed me the wrong way. But that is a small complaint in what looked like a great trailer. I am looking forward to the film.

Gray, during the question and answer period, implied strongly that the Brethren have a consensus opinion on the "why" of the priesthood ban. He claims they do not publish it, but have authorized him to share it. Frankly, that claim was downright bothersome. I wasn't bothered by the actual explanation that he provided, only with his claim to behind-the-scenes approval from the Brethren. They seem perfectly capable of speaking for themselves and I don't like people claiming to speak on their behalf. [UPDATE: see Margaret Young's response in the comments below for more information on this point.]

The explanation boiled down to saying that it was a test for black people, much like the test of being born blind. We can be mad at God because he allows such things to happen, or we can thrive anyway. God, according to this theory, didn't order the priesthood ban, but allowed it to happen. I suspect there is a lot of truth to this explanation, but I can't help but wonder why God didn't call it off the first time a prophet prayed about it if it was only an evil he was allowing to occur as long as we didn't correct it. Obviously, it is a difficult issue and I'm grateful that serious people like Gray and Young are tackling it.

Next, we heard from Larry Morris about the various controversies that have surround Oliver Cowdery over the years. This was an interesting talk, but I don't have much reaction to it other than to note that Morris isn't totally convinced that Oliver actually practiced polygamy; he tells us that other scholars are more convinced but he's just not sure.

Jeff Walker took us on a fun tour of the legal issues surrounding Joseph's imprisonment in Liberty jail in Missouri. He pointed out many of the absurd things that were allowed to happen in the "justice" system, including a grand jury which included three men who had participated in the Haun's Mill Massacre. There's more than I have space to include here, but I do want to share the most surprising tidbit that Walker revealed for us.

There has been a question about whether the sheriff released the Mormons after they finally secured a change in venue, or whether they escaped. A promissory note was discovered which was payment from the Mormons to one of the guards for the two horses they rode off on. I guess the guards realized what a raw deals the Mormons were getting and couldn't continue to be a party to it. Joseph later casually records in his history the day in Nauvoo where this same guard paid him a visit. Joseph didn't elaborate, but Joseph III clues us in that this was to collect on the promissory note. I assume Joseph paid him.

I pretty much tuned out Wendy Ulrich's talk because she started her presentation with a handout that invited us to think of 6-7 things that were wrong in our homes growing up, and 6-7 thing about our parents that annoyed us, and our greatest frustrations. Who wants to spend time trying to dredge up that kind of stuff if you're not in serious need of emotional repair? Not me. I had a fairly wonderful childhood and I consider myself very blessed on that account.

The day concluded with John Sorenson's remarks. I don't have anything to add here than what has already been published on other blogs. I really admire that man.

FAIR: Thursday Morning

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Ross) — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 02:08:00 +0000

I'm not actually a member or participant in FAIR, but I thought the lineup of speakers for their annual conference was good enough that I didn't want to miss it. I wasn't disappointed. I'd like to share my impressions of the conference with you. These are my perceptions of what was said rather than objective transcripts. You'll have to wait for FAIR to publish those transcripts if you want to follow exactly what was said.

We started the morning with Steven Olsen who helpfully explained that the Church Archives are something of a mixture between a private collection and a public library. Most of the material in the archives is available to all comers with exceptions for material that is sacred (such as the temple ceremonies), private (such as medical information on living persons), or confidential (such as material donated with the agreement that it not be made generally available).

Interestingly, there is no ideological test to get into the archives. If you can get into the Church Office Building, you can visit the archives. Of course, if you've made threats against people at the church and the church security guys recognize you, you won't get in. But beyond that obvious stuff, all comers are welcome. It wasn't so in the past. Steven showed us the sign that is now humorous that was once hung outside the archives saying something like, "Library: No Admittance." I'm glad we've entered a more open time.

Olsen claims that the First Presidency Vault doesn't actually contain the fabled items such as the Sword of Laban or the Liahona. My question is whether or not he's actually rummaged around inside. :) I didn't think so.

After each talk, we had a chance to stretch our legs for a couple of minutes. I noticed Kevin Barney running around, the only guy there in shorts. Just another reason I really like Kevin, even though I don't know him personally. He seems very comfortable in his own skin.

We heard next from Terryl Givens. My impression from the few times that I've heard Givens speak is that I think I prefer to read him rather than hear him. That said, Givens gave a great presentation. He joked about how quickly Latter-day Saints are to snatch up ancient items as proof of the authenticity of the restored church. Thus, Jesus's visit to Mary and Martha becomes the forerunner to the home teaching program and every hole in Mexico is an ancient baptismal font. That got a good chuckle from a crowd that is probably very susceptible to that tendency.

Givens topic was to trace the evidence for teachings about the preexistence through the Western world. He conceded that the Eastern world is also rich with this theological thread but that he didn't have time to examine it. Apparently, there have consistently been people popping up throughout the centuries that have championed the doctrine of the pre-mortal existence of the soul.

Givens told the memorable story about Edward Beecher (brother to Harriet Beecher Stowe) who was part of a famous preacher family. Edward knew that proclaiming a preexistence of the soul would be career suicide, but after a time he could resist no longer and published a 400 page manuscript that exposed his belief in the pre-mortal existence of our spirits. As you might have noticed, his beliefs never caught on in the wider Christian community.

When asked why the doctrine of preexistence didn't seem to gain any traction throughout the ages, Givens pointed out that the doctrine often appeared alongside heresies that the church wanted to stomp out. So, for example, the Gnostics believed in the preexistence, and so the baby got thrown out with the bathwater, in a sense, and preexistence was jettisoned along with the Gnostic heresies. Preexistence also showed up alongside reincarnation which the early church also emphatically denied.

Givens is publishing a book on this subject and it should be a worthy read when it comes out.

The third and final speaker of the morning was John Gee, who really displayed a fun sense of humor about the Book of Abraham and Joseph Smith Papyri. Obviously, studying this is a passion of his, but he readily admits that most church members don't worry about it much. He pointed out that there are only a couple of verses in Abraham that ever get referenced in General Conference or in Sunday School materials.

Gee pointed out that maybe 0.05% of the people in the church believe that the Book of Abraham was translated from the papyrus fragments currently in possession of the church, and yet this is belief that anti-Mormons ascribe to us to discredit the book. Gee has been trying to figure out where the Book of Abraham might have come from. He points out some contemporary descriptions of the various scrolls in Joseph's possession and showed some really fun math to figure out how long the various scrolls might have been based on the size and tightness of the wrapping that we can see.

The upshot of Gee's presentation is that we can't use the current information to verify or refute the Book of Abraham. People have criticized Joseph's interpretation of symbols in the facsimiles, but Gee pointed out that the meaning of symbols, even important ones like deities, changed throughout the different dynasties. Since the majority of the Joseph Smith Papyri burned in the Great Chicago Fire, we'll never know exactly what was on them and how close Joseph's translation comes to what other scholars of today would produce.

Polly Love

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Ross) — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 01:45:00 +0000

I love "Polly: A One Woman Musical." It is a delightful musical based on the life of Polly Matilda Merrill Colton, an ancestor of Stephen Kapp Perry who wrote the play and whose wife Johanne is the one-woman star of the show.

The show takes the form of a reminiscence of an old woman. She thinks back on her girlhood days, including milking the family cow and schoolgirl crushes and follows her through romance, childbearing, motherhood, and old age.

The musical is full of catchy tunes that I find myself singing around the house. Keryn has her own favorites, including songs that talk about the quirks of frontier Salt Lake City, longing for loved-ones lost, and the role of women in history.

I think the most powerful themes in the play are issues of Polly coming to grips with her role in the world. She want to "be one of the movers and shakers" and "history makers." She laments that women's work--food preparation and cleaning--is never done, but always used up immediately. She is portrayed as a bit of a frontier feminist who comes to peace with her role as daughter, wife, mother, and woman.

It is a perfect mix of fun, serious, and sentimental.

If you'd like the chance to watch the fabulous show, your two best bets are to purchase the DVD (which is an excellent recording of a live performance) or to catch it on BYU TV. For the next two weeks or so, you can watch it streaming from the BYU TV archives. They take the shows down after that, but it regularly replays, so you might be able to find it there if you don't read this post within the two-week window.

If you need the voice of another witness, here is a review from Eric Snider.