Archive for the ‘Blogs’ Category

Mormon baptism of non-Mormons: So what?

Wednesday, May 6th, 2009

From Beliefnet:

Big hoo-ha over whether or not the Latter-Day Saints ritually “baptized” Obama’s mother after her death (which is something Mormons do). I say, So what if they did? What is that to me? If the Mormons want to “baptize” me in this way without my consent, I suppose I wish they wouldn’t, but if they do, what’s it to me? No offense to my Mormon friends, but as a non-Mormon, I believe this to be a ritual without any objective spiritual significance (as distinct from, say, a validly ordained Orthodox priest being the vessel through which the Holy Spirit transforms wine and bread into the literal Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, which I firmly believe occurs even if nobody else does).

Anyway, insofar as it affects my eternal destiny or present spiritual condition not one whit, why should I care in the slightest if the Mormons wanted to hold a baptismal ceremony for me after I die? Why should you? Seriously.

An Open Letter to Time-Warner, HBO, and the Producers and Writers of “Big Love”

Friday, March 13th, 2009

From TheBettyFactor.com

AUTHOR’S NOTE: After several days of sitting by while watching the drama unfold surrounding the planned unveiling of a new segment of the HBO series “Big Love,” I was finally compelled to respond today based upon an Associated Press article published in yesterday’s edition of the Daily Variety.

What follows below is a slightly modified version of my response to said online article in the Daily Variety.

For the record, this Website is dedicated to identifying and applauding the best efforts of those trying to simplify and demystify complex and technical subjects. I publish my commentary about this “Big Love” brouhaha here as I know that the commingled subject of polygamy and religion are quite complex; unfortunately, it is also clear to me that the writers or producers of “Big Love” or the executives of HBO or Time-Warner have done a huge disservice to both Mormons and polygamists alike in distorting the truth.

David Politis

= = = = = = = = = =

Dear Variety and Variety Readers:

As a devout member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (”Mormon”) I am certainly not surprised that HBO is moving forward with its plans to air a segment of “Big Love” that purports to show scenes from what is arguably one of the most sacred portions of the LDS religion — the temple endowment ceremony.

Then again, I am disappointed in HBO as I would have hoped that HBO and its parent company, Time-Warner, would have been more respectful of the faith and a people who have experienced significant persecution during its 175-year history. Obviously, those were false hopes.

More importantly, it appears that in spite of communications to the LDS Church to the contrary, HBO and the producers and writers of “Big Love” seem intent on blurring the line between the LDS/Mormon Church and the failed and illegal practices of a few polygamists.

As a practicing polygamist, Jeanne Tripplehorn’s character, Barb, would not be allowed into a dedicated Mormon temple where sacred rites are performed and religious instructions are given. She would not pass muster in the two worthiness interviews required with two local leaders of her local & regional congregations before she could receive a “letter of recommendation” to provide her with access inside a temple.

In truth, anyone (Polygamist, Christian, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Jew, Gentile, Wiccan, Atheist, or whatever) can enter any Mormon meeting house around the world and attend any of our regularly scheduled meetings, and they can do so without being baptized and becoming converted to the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

That said, entrance into any LDS temple first requires baptism into the LDS Church and continued adherence to minimal standards for at least a year after baptism before one is eligible to seek a Temple Recommend.

Some of these Temple Recommend standards include

  • no smoking;
  • no drinking of alcohol, coffee or tea;
  • no use of illegal drugs;
  • no misuse of prescription drugs or medications;
  • no sexual activities outside of (or before) a legal and lawful marriage relationship;
  • paying of tithing (10 percent of annual income);
  • regular attendance at Church meetings;
  • volunteer service within the Church;
  • acceptance of the current President of the LDS Church as Prophet, Seer and Revelator;
  • belief in God the Eternal Father, Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Redeemer of the world, and the Holy Ghost as the 3rd member of the Godhead (and each of these beings as separate and distinct individuals);
  • and (though perhaps last in this list, not least for this commentary)
    agreement to follow and obey the laws of the land where you live.

Last time I checked it is illegal to be in a polygamous relationship in the U.S. It is also grounds for removal from the Mormon Church if a Latter-day Saint is found to be practicing polygamy and will not give it up. Practicing polygamy will also prevent one from

  1. being baptized into the LDS Church and
  2. from receiving a Temple Recommend allowing one to enter an LDS Temple.

I am ABSOLUTELY CONFIDENT that the “Big Love” writers and producers know these facts. I am ABSOLUTELY CONFIDENT that the management of HBO and Time-Warner know these facts.

Unfortunately, I am also ABSOLUTELY CONFIDENT that the segment of “Big Love” scheduled to premiere this weekend will air as scheduled.

By doing so, the HBO and all affiliated with “Big Love” will do all Latter-Day Saints and the public at large a huge disservice by blatantly depicting not only something that is held as being supremely sacred by Mormons around the world, but also by depicting and promulgating a lie that a practicing polygamist (like the character “Barb”) would ever be allowed into an LDS Temple. Then again, I have a hard time believing that any practicing polygamist would even want to go through a Mormon Temple ceremony; but hey, who am I to judge?

At the end of the day, I agree with the premise that HBO has the constitutional right to produce and air “Big Love” as well as this forthcoming segment.

I also have the right to NOT watch “Big Love” and to point out the the world and to HBO what I believe to be HBO’s patently misleading, hurtful, salacious and disrespectful approach to all members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Sincerely,

David Politis

A P.S. for Long-time Readers of TheBettyFactor.com: HBO and Time-Warner both land “Sad Betty Awards” for their handling of this mess. How disappointing!

Mormon Bloggernacle is No Choir

Wednesday, March 4th, 2009

From ReligionDispatches.org:

In an era of unprecedented scrutiny of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Mormon “mommy bloggers,” and other women with personal blogs, say they’re at the helm of a lucrative industry that allows them to shape how the rest of the world views the church.

“This is a big, big deal,” said Heather Oman, who posts at Mormon Mommy Wars. “This is a huge, multi-billion dollar industry with mommy bloggers.”

So why aren’t some academic Mormon bloggers welcoming them with open arms into the Bloggernacle, the term many academic bloggers use to describe themselves?

The unruly gathering

When a Feb. 24th Religion Dispatches story used the term “Bloggernacle” to describe non-academic Mormon blogs, the reaction was swift and sharp. Academics, defending Times and Seasons, By Common Consent and other doctrine-focused blogs, complained that the Bloggernacle had been co-opted, while Mormon mommy bloggers (women who write primarily about home life and children) and lifestyle bloggers retorted that they are marginalized by the academics, despite having blogs that rank among the most popular on the Web.

It was a bloggergate.

“I get so irritated by the dismissive, uninformed male bloggers dismissing the mommy bloggers who are KICKING THEIR TRASH,” one woman wrote in the comments section of the RD story.

“I’d be willing to bet that [Times and Seasons and By Common Consent] receive exponentially more hits per day than all of the blogs mentioned in this article combined receive in a month,” commented another.

“I’ve been surprised, frankly, by the amount of ink and emotion spilled over the last couple of days over who does and doesn’t get to claim the label,” said Kristine Haglund, who blogs for By Comment Consent, which hosted much of the recent debate.

Part of the problem may be that the LDS church has grown so large, and its online presence so unwieldy, that old church standards of organization and hierarchy can’t be applied.

“This is essentially an electronic gathering,” said Jan Shipps, a non-Mormon historian who has written widely about modern Mormon history.

The LDS church for decades was firmly rooted in the conviction that living apart from the rest of the world, both figuratively and literally, would preserve their faith. When people from Europe and throughout the US converted, they were urged to gather with other Mormons.

Together, in some of the largest wagon trains to ever cross American soil, Mormons followed the church leaders as they hopped about the Midwest, finally landing in what would later be called Utah, where they established a permanent home. It was Zion, they said.

Today, the LDS church is so large that no state could contain it. Mormons, in a blessed union of tradition and technology, began to gather virtually instead, through blogging.

“Almost like the relief societies or the priesthood in the church, this is a way of connecting,” Shipps said.

The difference is that with blogging, as with all things internet, maintaining order is a challenge, even for Mormons who are historical experts at keeping track of things.

“It seems to me that it would be virtually impossible to organize Mormon blogging,” Haglund said. “The nature of the medium overcomes even Mormons’ well-known tendency to defer to authority. There simply isn’t any central body that could exert control.”

Tight knit or mutually disinterested?

Thing started out calmly enough. Nathan Oman, a lawyer who lives in Virginia, started a blog called Times and Seasons with a few friends in 2003. They asked their readers one day for suggestions for a name to call the collection of blogs that had spun from theirs.

On March 23, 2004 someone suggested “Bloggernacle,” a riff on the Mormon Tabernacle. Those who were there (virtually, of course) remember the discussion clearly; those bloggers continued as they had been—writing blogs, reading them, and generally immersed in Mormon doctrine.

It’s not clear whether those bloggers realized that other Mormons were blogging, too. Among them were moms, grandparents, college students, newlyweds—all nurturing an online presence that, for some, has since eclipsed the academic bloggers in popularity among non-Mormons.

These days the term “Bloggernacle” seems to function as a descriptor for practically any blog that mentions or links to the LDS church. At Bloggernacle Back Bench—a blog about Mormon blogs at the Mormon Times—even blogs like “Modestly Chic,” a fashion journal, warrant a mention.

The academic bloggers who coined the term aren’t sure they want to let anyone else claim it.

“There are people who get wedded to this notion that all Mormon blogging began with the rise of Times and Seasons,” said Nathan Oman, an original blogger at Times and Seasons and husband to Heather Oman of Mormon Mommy Wars. “They get invested in that because they’re at a big blog, and somehow that’s important.”

Nathan Oman said he’s comfortable with the Bloggernacle being made up of a self-selecting group, but the priniciple bloggers in the ‘nacle are “largely a bunch of people who have just got a bunch of stuff they want to talk about,” he said. “Then some journalist calls, and suddenly it’s, ‘Oh my gosh, people are watching,’” he said.

The Bloggernacle is a tight-knit club, said Courtney Kendrick, whose C Jane Enjoy It blog is ranked among the top 800 blogs on Technorati.

By comparison, Times and Seasons is ranked at about 31,000, and By Common Consent is ranked at about 25,000. Mormon Mommy Wars is ranked at about 40,000.

Kendrick has blogged in the past for Segullah, a blog that is included on the list at the Mormon Archipelago, an online portal that aggregates blogs in the Bloggernacle, but she now prefers to write primarily for her own site, where she can be herself.

“I felt when I blogged for the Bloggernacle that there were guidelines, you had to be a bit edgy, a bit sacrilegious,” she said.

If Shipps’ theory that blogging is the new Mormon gathering is correct, Kendrick is disheartened by the fact that bloggers aren’t more connected across thematic lines.

“What I want to hear is, ‘We openly accept you into our Bloggernacle and we’re grateful that you’re doing this work,” Kendrick said.

Instead, she said, the academic bloggers tend to lump her in with the Mormon mommy bloggers, even though Kendrick didn’t even have a child when she started her blog.

“I’m baffled by the claim from mommy bloggers that they’re somehow disrespected by other blogs,” said Haglund, of By Common Consent. “Mostly I think that bloggers on By Common Consent and Times and Seasons and the Mormon Archipelago blogs are just having a different conversation, and the relationship has been one of mutual disinterest.”

Still, Haglund said, most blogs written by Mormons, academic or otherwise, serve the same purpose: to gather like-minded people together: “The content of the discussions [may] differ,” she said, “but the underlying impulse toward community is identical.”

Best of the Blogs: Mormon Times

Wednesday, June 18th, 2008

Discovering chiasmus in the Book of Mormon 41 years ago changed John W. Welch’s life. It also changed the way many people look at the scripture sacred to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Chiasmus is poetry, not of rhyme, but of structure. Its presence in the Book of Mormon, if recognized, can help readers understand with greater clarity not only the meaning of the text, but its origin.

Welch’s belief in the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon came before his discovery of chiasmus within its pages. On his 16th birthday, his parents gave him a small leather set of scriptures that included the Book of Mormon. He read it and, following the advice of his seminary teacher, prayed about it.

“I gained a firm assurance that the Book of Mormon was the Lord’s true guide to eternal life,” Welch said.

He recognizes the Lord’s hand in prompting and guiding him in finding chiasmus.

In the vol. 10 no. 2, 2007 issue of Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Welch gave a first-person account of how he found the distinctive patterns of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon.

Welch gives Hugh Nibley, a professor of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University, much of the credit for creating an intellectual atmosphere where discoveries like this could be made. He took Nibley’s Honors Book of Mormon class in 1964 as a freshman at BYU. Nibley encouraged his students to read the Book of Mormon as an ancient text.

Welch left for an LDS mission to Germany in 1966.

He found that religion is always a controversial subject to open with the German people.

One scholarly German Welch would meet later was Father Paul Gaechter. Gaechter was a Catholic priest who had written a book titled, “The Literary Art in the Gospel of Matthew.”

The priest acknowledged in his book that the presence of chiasmus structure indicated that a narrative was Hebraic or of Hebrew origins. (cont.)

Entire article here

Best of the Blogs: Mormon Times

Thursday, June 12th, 2008

PROVO — The only way Joseph Smith, founder of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, could have written the Book of Mormon is the way he said he did, Daniel C. Peterson said in a lecture at the Olivewood book store Thursday.

To have created it any other way would have required scholarly instincts and experience the young, uneducated farm boy did not have, Peterson said.

Yet critics claim the church’s first prophet may have copied another manuscript or memorized passages to appear he was translating as he dictated to a series of scribes, including his wife, Emma. To do so, he would have had to memorize some 5,000 words daily, day after day, an impossible feat, Peterson said.

Making up the book “on the fly” would have also been impossible for the unlearned young man, Peterson said.

The Brigham Young University professor of Islamic studies and Arabic also sought to dispel some of the myths surrounding the Prophet’s translation of the scripture.

Peterson said the Book of Mormon was revealed to Smith through a seer stone. Smith never went through the golden pages of the ancient record, but instead put the seer stone in a hat, then buried his head in the hat to shut out ambient light. The stone lit up a line of text, about 30 words at a time, which Smith then dictated to his scribe. Once the text was transcribed correctly, the line disappeared and a new line came into focus, Peterson said, quoting eye witnesses who were 19th Century farmers associated with Smith.  (cont.)

 Entire article here

‘We’ll Call in our Solumn Assemblies’

Thursday, April 3rd, 2008

By Elder Marlin K Jensen in Mormon Times:

Thirteen years ago, on April 1, 1995, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints met in solemn assembly in the Salt Lake Tabernacle and sustained a new president of the church.

Thomas S. Monson handled the business of the meeting. He reminded those assembled in the Tabernacle and those participating at other church locations via worldwide satellite broadcast:

“This is an occasion of great significance for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints throughout the world. We shall vote by quorums and groups. Wherever you are, you are invited to stand when requested and express by your uplifted hand whether you choose to sustain those whose names will be presented.”

The assembly sustained Gordon Bitner Hinckley as prophet, seer, revelator and president of the LDS Church, with Thomas Spencer Monson as first counselor and James Esdras Faust as second counselor in the First Presidency. The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles was sustained with new member Henry Bennion Eyring. The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles were sustained as prophets, seers and revelators.

The quorums and groups voting were the First Presidency; Quorum of the Twelve Apostles; the Seventy and Presiding Bishopric; patriarchs, high priests and elders; priests, teachers and deacons; Relief Society sisters; Young Women; and, finally, the entire congregation. The congregation as a whole then sustained the other general authorities and general officers of the church. (cont.)

Entire article here

Best of the Blogs: The Problem of Evil

Tuesday, February 19th, 2008

From Mormon Metaphysics:

Someone asked at LDS-Phil about the problem of evil. This is my (swiftly written) answer. My apologies for any grammatical errors or typoes. I don’t have a lot of time to write at the moment. But some might find this interesting.

I think you have to separate out the problem of evil into two parts. One is the logical problem of evil. Then there is a different question with different names but which I tend to call the evidentiary problem of evil.

For the former the LDS notion rejection of creation ex nihlo allows a Mormon to respond that God is limited (since things exist independent of him, and he may even have limited power over them). If God is limited one can respond that evil must logically exist simply because God can’t do anything to totally eliminate it. Often LDS theodicities take different tracks explaining why. The typical, although not universal, approach is to say that intelligences are (in some sense) free and that God can’t totally take away their free will. Thus they can always choose evil and God can’t do anything about this. This ends up following to a degree one popular response to the problem of evil by mainstream Christian philosophers but with the added strength of LDS finitism. (Roughly the idea that intelligences are uncreated and free)

The evidentiary problem of evil is different since it asks not why there is any evil at all but rather why there are these evils. Thus one could ask why God allows child abuse, destructive hurricanes and so forth. I personally find most responses to this question much more problematic and weak. But I think that overall the LDS position still ends up being stronger than most theistic answers.

One popular view (probably best formalized by Nate Oman as I recall) is the issue of contract. That is since each of us chose to come to this planet knowing all the possibilities we can’t blame God for the evils we do experience since we freely chose to experience them. Thus the LDS plan of salvation and council in heaven resolves the problem - to a point.

Entire post here

Best of the Blogs: A Strudel for Lawrence O’Donnell

Saturday, February 9th, 2008

From a post by Kaimipono D. Wegner in Concurring Opinions:

He can’t say he wasn’t warned about the strudel, either.So, Lawrence O’Donnell seems to have an interesting set of beliefs about Mormons and Romney. His discussion is a little disjointed, but as far as I can tell from his interview, his Hewitt interview, and his Huffington Post column, his beliefs can basically be distilled into some major ideas. For example:

1. Early Mormon leaders said some strange things.
2. All of those strange things play an important role in Mormonism today.
3. There are no moderate Mormons. All Mormons fervently believe everything that any prior church leader has ever said, and they accord those statements a very high priority.
3a. Mitt Romney is not a moderate Mormon. (This follows naturally from “there are no moderate Mormons”).
4. Therefore, Mitt Romney’s worldview is closely linked to any strange thing Brigham Young may have said 150 years ago.
5. Romney’s refusal to state this (and to discuss Mormon theology and/or history in detail) makes him a liar.

Let’s look at a few of these ideas.
First, O’Donnell points out that early church leaders said some problematic things. And of course, he’s right. For instance, Brigham Young spoke publicly on a few occasions against interracial marriage. O’Donnell cites to one of these, a sermon where Brigham Young states, “Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot.” Yep, that’s a pretty awful thing to say.

Of course, it’s not really that surprising of a statement, coming from a mid-19th-century white person. Unfortunately, these kinds of views were rather mainstream at the time. Most contemporaneous whites believed that interracial marriage was wrong. Really! Quick quiz: Which 19th-century figure said this about interracial marriage?

I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

That would be Abraham Lincoln.

Yep, it was the mid-19th Century, and most white people held ugly, racist views. Brigham Young was one of them. His 19th-century views on interracial marriage don’t stand up well today; neither do Lincoln’s, and neither do the ideas about race held by most 19th-century white elites.

So, why are we worried about what Brigham Young said in the 19th century? In linking this idea to Mitt Romney, or to Mormonism today, O’Donnell implies that these statements have some sort of salience today. That claim is just silly.

Entire post can be found here

Best of the Blogs: The Anatomy of Hope by Jerome Groopman, M.D.

Thursday, February 7th, 2008

By  Dwight Blood in The Curmudgeonly Professor:

Jerome Groopman’s book The Anatomy of Hope: How People Prevail in the Face of Illness is a wonderful essay on the relationship between hope and medicine. Anyone who has confronted a serious illness or who suffers from chronic pain and disability or who is a caregiver for someone with a serious illness will appreciate this book. For that matter, people who are healthy can also gain an inspiring perspective on the role of hope in their lives.

Dr. Groopman takes us on his personal quest that has lasted over thirty years in which he went on “. . . a journey of discovery from a point where hope was absent to a place where it could not be lost.” (p. xiii). As a hematologist and an oncologist, he was in constant contact with patients who faced discouragement and death. But through all of these years, he learned that “During the course of an illness, then, hope can be imagined to have a domino effect, a chain reaction in which each link makes improvement more likely. It changes us profoundly in spirit and in body.” As a result, he states that now “Every day I look for hope, for my patients, for my loved ones, and for myself.”

Recognizing that hope can be false hope, Groopman tells us about a patient who found a middle ground where both truth and hope could reside. In writing about the biology of hope, Groopman concludes that “Without hope, nothing could begin. . . Hope helps us overcome hurdles that we otherwise could not scale, and it moves us forward to a place where healing can occur.” (p. 177) And finally, the author concludes that “I see hope as the very heart of healing. For those who have hope, it may help some to live longer, and it will help all to live better.” (p. 212)

Entire post can be found here

Best of the Blogs: In Kristy’s Memory

Thursday, January 31st, 2008

From In Kristy’s Memory:

“I have set up this blog to post feelings and thoughts about Kristy, for whoever may want to participate. It helps to feel a part of a great body of people who miss her deeply. Kristy is a beautiful person, inside and out. She was a strong woman and I’m sure still continues to be. I’m grateful to have known her and benefit from her friendship so much, even now. She deserves all the happiness Heavenly Father can offer her.” — Sarah Smylie

Best of the Blogs: Should Mormons learn philosophy?

Sunday, January 27th, 2008

From MyMormonWorld.blogspot.com:


        Plato and Aristotle

I am in my mid-30s. I have been an LDS missionary, a graduate of LDS seminary and later of Brigham Young University. I am active and participatory in Church, including Sunday School. I seek learning out of the best books, as the Lord advised in revelation.

So what to make of the fact that, until 20 minutes ago, I did not know the definition of “ontological?” I had to lean on my dictionary.

It’s probably a basic word for a “traditional” Christian. Refers to being. As in the Trinitarian “ontological” unity of God. God is one in being.

I still don’t understand how this concept is understood. What is the traditional Christian concept of “being”?

We are told as Latter-day Saints that the early Christian Church stumbled when it stepped off the rock of revelation and attempted to engage its intellectual tormentors in their own philosophical language. Thus words like “homeostasis,” “essence,” and the aforementioned “ontological” came into play, to try to make primitive Christianity agree with the Hellenic notions of a passionless, bodiless Prime Mover.

The Church does not want to make that mistake again. So the learning bloc on Sunday is kept as simple as possible, bereft of such terms. Every official Church gathering that I know of, keeps to those same rules.

But shouldn’t the average Latter-day Saint at least be able to understand the terminology of his or her modern colleagues in Christianity? At least be able to say, “Here’s the LDS response to the doctrine of one divine essence”?

Entire post can be found here