The Deseret News has a short piece reporting remarks at the just-concluded Mormon History Association conference by two LDS historians commenting on Jon Krakauer’s recent book, Under the Banner of Heaven.
Read the rest of this entry »
- Aaron B.
- Aaron R.
- About BCC:
- Amri Brown
- BCC Papers
- BCC’s General Conference Portal
- BHodges
- Brad
- Cynthia L.
- Info & Contact
- J. Nelson-Seawright
- J. Stapley
- Jacob
- John C.
- John F.
- John Hamer
- Karen H.
- Kathryn Lynard Soper
- Kevin Barney
- Kristine
- Kyle M
- M Miles
- M. Norbert Kilmer
- Margaret Blair Young
- Mark Brown
- Matt Page
- Natalie B.
- Rebecca J.
- RJH
- Russell Arben Fox
- Sam MB
- Scott B.
- Steve Evans
- Steve P.
- Sunny Smart
- The Emeriti
- Tracy M.
- W. V. Smith
About
Sideblog- Contribute to the crowdsourcing project: Addressing the Temple “Issue”, Period.
- Old Skool Pokemon
- 100% pure Mariolatry
- Book Giveaway for Steve P.'s excellent A Short Stay In Hell
- I'm thinking this isn't really the Official Cat Fancy Twitter Feed.
- Best dog photos ever?
- God bless FMH.
- smb on FOX news radio
- While everyone's been obsessing over Prop8, the Sup Ct has issued ANOTHER miscarriage of justice!
- Romney Rage! (ht: Sarah T)
Historians Debate Krakauer
May 27, 2004 — dmiwlogPoll: Cleaning up the Movies
May 27, 2004 — KaimiMovie editing is all the rage these days, as various companies (operating in a nebulous world of copyright) create “clean” versions of movies for the demanding (and paying) LDS customer. (For one article on the subject, see here). And what a job description — “the person who looks for sex and nudity in movies in order to filter it out later.” I’ll bet they don’t have difficulty filling the position of the guy who looks for the sex. (Hey, I wonder if they’re hiring?)
Read the rest of this entry »
Another chance to show off your erudition!
May 25, 2004 — Kaimi(I know, I’m using the term icon loosely — it’s not like I had a lot of material to work with here).
The People Have Spoken
May 25, 2004 — Steve EvansAfter tabulating the results of our poll (see below), most people think I should either be in the Primary, corrupting the youth, or a Ward Mission Leader, fighting a hopeless struggle.
And the winner is…. Ward Mission Leader! Ta-da! Heaven help us all. Aaron Brown, I’ll be relying on your expertise to help with the rough initial transition to this calling. Wish me luck!
It’s a small world afterall, if you’re LDS
May 24, 2004 — bccjlThe mormon world is very small. We’ve all had experiences of re-meeting someone from an old ward or someone who knows people in your family or who used to know your best friend, etc. Read the rest of this entry »
THE Existential Question
May 24, 2004 — bccchristinatkThat’s right, I want to address the big one: from an LDS doctrinal perspective, what is the purpose of earthly life in the context of the doctrine of immortality? Just what we likely are all pondering on a Monday . . . Here is my understanding of the setup and why I think it is circular. Read the rest of this entry »
New Poll!
May 24, 2004 — Steve EvansTheological Triage
May 21, 2004 — dmiwlogIn a weblog editorial over at Crosswalk.com, Albert Mohler argues the need for Christians to practice theological triage by identifying essential Christian doctrines that need defending from the ongoing onslaught of secularism and from internal Christian doctrinal bickering. Read the rest of this entry »
The Good Old Days, Live on PBS
May 20, 2004 — dmiwlogThink of it as reality TV for the discriminating viewer: Colonial House, an 8-episode televised adventure of a small colony of people living as if it were 1628. From the intro page, here’s the setup: “Indentured servitude. No baths or showers. Public punishments. Welcome to daily life in the year 1628!” Read the rest of this entry »
Are We Deliberately Inefficient?
May 19, 2004 — Steve EvansSo, I got a call the other day from a stake representative who wants to meet with me on Sunday, 15 minutes before meetings start (8:45 a.m. — groan…. ). I said to him, “why don’t you just tell me what’s going on now, so that we don’t both have spend the time at this meeting?”
His reply was unsurprising, but disappointing: “I think we’re supposed to meet in person for this kind of thing.” I shrugged and agreed to meet him.
The Catholics are coming!! The Catholics are coming!!
May 18, 2004 — Aaron BWell, to be honest, the Catholic (singular) is coming. That’s right boys and girls … Father Hans has decided to guest-blog with us. For those who don’t know (or remember) who Father Hans is, refresh yourselves here by scrolling down to “Ecumenicalism run amok?”. I’m not going to bother providing additional biographical information for now, as I hope my prior post has given you sufficient taste of who Hans is. After his brief stint with us at BCC, the plan is that he will answer “12 Questions” over at Times and Seasons. Read the rest of this entry »
Abu Ghraib: the Least of the Least
May 18, 2004 — bccjeremy
Do not shame or humiliate a man in public. Shaming a man will cause him and his family to be anti-Coalition.
The most important qualifier for all shame is for a third party to witness the act. If you must do something likely to cause shame, remove the person from the view of others.
Shame is given by placing hoods over a detainee’s head. Avoid this practice.
Placing a detainee on the ground or putting a foot on him implies you are God. This is one of the worst things we can do.
(From a cultural sensitivity training pamphlet given to U.S. Marines last September as part of an effort to improve relations between soldiers and Iraqis; republished in the June 2004 issue of Harpers) Read the rest of this entry »
Temple sacredness as secrecy: Am I swine?
May 16, 2004 — bccjlThe Manhattan temple opens imminently and has brought many things to mind. I have yet to be endowed. Not because of worthiness issues, but lack of desire. I’m not married and did not serve a mission, so I was never in a position to ‘have to’ get endowed. Read the rest of this entry »
More on Marriage
May 16, 2004 — dmiwlogI think John’s prior post on “the spouse problem” deserves another go-round, since it raised more interesting issues than one thread could address. The unusually personal responses in the comments suggest that mixing faith and marriage, which looks easy on paper, is often something of a challenge in Mormon marriage. I’ll note as well that mixing faith and singleness in The Family Church has its own challenges, but that topic deserves a separate post. Read the rest of this entry »
When a Spouse Loses the Faith
May 12, 2004 — bccjohnhOne of Robert Kirby’s greatest newspaper articles tells the story of his friend Boone. Boone it seems, lost his faith–if only temporarily. At the very least, Boone was having some very serious doubts about the Church. His wife was, naturally, deeply troubled. She was so troubled in fact, that she was threatening divorce.
Mormonism complicates marriage because of our moral absolutes. For example, Glen Lambert, a marriage therapist, mentioned during a session of Sunstone that he’d met with a couple who was struggling. The husband had seen an R rated movie, and his wife was thoroughly appalled. He points out that because she was dealing and viewing the world with moral absolutes, there was no room for the compromise or negotiation that is so essential to marriage. What he had done was wrong, period. There could be no discussion, there could be no understanding — at least, no understanding beyond he had sinned.
How might couples navigate this tricky road, especially when faced with the loss of faith? If there’s one “moral absolute” in Mormonism, it’s that the Church is God’s kingdom and being a part of it is a pretty important step to the Celestial kingdom.
For my part, I see both sides of this issue. For the one who loses faith, or questions, it’s an impossible situation. As Kirby mentions, you can lie to your spouse or be honest with yourself. Believe me, as one who’s been there, no one wants to question their faith. It isn’t fun and it isn’t done deliberately, or to be an apostate. On top of such a difficult dilemma, the one person who is supposed to be supportive, is supposed to understand, is perhaps the one most troubled by this lack of faith.
On the other side of the coin, the believing spouse is thoroughly convinced that their husband/wife is jeopardizing their families eternal togetherness. They married this person in the temple, made very serious promises and covenants with them, and now they’re backing out. Friends might not know how to act around you if your spouse left the Church. Your spouse might start drinking alcohol; they might stop wearing garments. Soon enough, the person you’re living with doesn’t resemble the person you married.
Is divorce too extreme in such a scenario? Should spouses be understanding of another’s doubts and perhaps even a total loss of faith? Is there anyway to compromise or negotiate what seems like opposite ends of the spectrum?
Two polls in one day – Yowza!
May 11, 2004 — KaimiYour chance to sound off about the demigod of Mormon authors:
“You are of the tribe of Ephraim”
May 11, 2004 — Aaron BLast Sunday, I taught my Gospel Essentials class on “Priesthood Organization.” One of the sub-themes of the lesson was the role of the “Patriarch.” The Bishop plugged “patriarchal blessings” for the new members, and listed the duties of the patriarch, including that of “assigning lineage.” A recent African-American convert approached me after the lesson, informed me that she had recently received her own patriarchal blessing, and asked: “Brother Brown, what exactly does it mean to “assign lineage”?”
What should I tell her?
New Poll!
May 11, 2004 — Steve Evansenjoy!
[NOTE: This was a poll related to suggestions for formatting and functionality suggestions/changes.]
The e-Ward
May 11, 2004 — Steve EvansI love the way this piece about telecommuting opens: “Work is no longer a place but an activity.” For most of the work I do, there is little reason for me to be in the office; only the occasional human interaction (i.e., a call to my boss’ office) necessitates my presence. I find that I can communicate as meaningfully, and effectively, over electronic media as I can in person. Read the rest of this entry »
The Lingering Legacy of Post-Manifesto Polygamy
May 10, 2004 — bccjohnhFor the few that might not be familiar with post-Manifesto polygamy, a very brief overview might be in order. Today members of the Church look at the 1890 Manifesto as the revelation that ended polygamy. However, Wilford Woodruff and those around him, although they may have believed the Manifesto (or at least the idea of issuing the Manifesto) to be inspired, they definitely saw it as a political document meant to save the Church in the short-term. It was not issued to declare the conclusive end to polygamy. And in fact, polygamy continued to be sanctioned and practiced at the highest levels of the Church until at least 1904. Apostles such as George Teasdale, Abraham Cannon, John W. Taylor, and Matthias Cowley took additional wives during this period, while they and other apostles continued to seal men and women in plural unions.
I’ll only briefly say that this history of new plural marriages might at first look ominous, and as evidence of lies and deceit on the part of Church leaders. It is true leaders were not always as forthright, candid, or perhaps as honest as they could have been when it came to the subject of post-Manifesto polygamy. However, I believe a more sensitive, albeit complex, view is in order. The many facets of this view cannot be enumerated here, but suffice it to say, I believe it is possible to judge Church leaders as righteous, honest men, despite the dilemma of post-1890 plural marriages.
So with that all-too lengthy introduction, I come to the lingering legacy of post-Manifesto polygamy. I’ve only begun now to appreciate the huge, in fact, enormous impact these marriages have had on Mormonism and how we are today.
First and foremost, post-Manifesto polygamy forced an answer to the “Mormon problem” as it was called. It came in the form of the Smoot hearings — perhaps the most important recognition given to the Church that they could be considered a part of American culture and society. In fact, I would argue that the outcome of the Smoot hearings was more important than granting Utah statehood. Kathleen Flake, in her new book and in her dissertation, has argued quite convincingly that the Smoot hearings created the compromise between the Church and the government that allowed the Church to continue. As testimony in the trial quickly indicated, polygamy was still very much alive in Utah, much to the dismay of the rest of the country. The Church finally gave up polygamy, and even sacrificed two of its own, John W. Taylor and Matthias Cowley, as evidence of their willingness to obey the law. This, I believe, is the beginning of the respect and admiration the Church has grown to have in the 21st century.
Quite ironically, we are almost the exact opposite of what we were 100 years ago. Then we were fighting against a constitutional amendment defining marriage, now we support such an amendment. Then we were arguing for a broader approach to marriage, now we are perhaps the most representative group of the nuclear family. Then, we were separate, despised, and looked upon as a threat. Today, we are respected, and are seen as an important ally to those wanting to preserve the status quo. Then, we were hardly patriotic; we reviled the government and looked upon their treatment of us as injustice of the worst kind. Today, we are counted among the most patriotic; our Boy Scout troops proudly place flags on the lawns of Church members every holiday. We stand as one of the very few Churches to support war in Iraq, even as most others spoke out against it. I would argue the change began with the death of post-Manifesto polygamy.
Second, post-Manifesto polygamy single-handedly contributed to the many fundamentalist schisms that exist today and that still force the Church to confront its polygamous heritage. Polygamy after 1890 was practiced among knowing winks and nods, among double-speak and an environment where one thing was said to outsiders, another to insiders, and still another to those in leadership positions. Because of this environment, fundamentalists today still argue that the Church never intended to abandon polygamy, but that some leaders were simply not strong enough to resist the pressures of the world. The legacy of post-Manifesto polygamy gives them tremendous ammunition in their fight to convince us of the legitimacy of their claims.
These fundamentalists continue to be a thorn in the Church’s side to this day, causing embarrassment and reminding the world that Latter-day Saints practiced polygamy. They’ve forced us into a very uncomfortable position — one in which we have to say polygamy was inspired (otherwise there are some very unpleasant implications for Joseph Smith), yet we also have to confess our own lack of desire to practice it, and we are ambiguous about its future in the Church.
Third, although the practice of saying one thing to outsiders and another to insiders had been practiced in the Church before, it reached its height during the years following the Manifesto. Today, the Church continues to exhibit such a practice. President Hinckley has gone on national television and conducted interviews with high profile magazines, announcing to the world that the Latter-day Saints don’t believe in some of the doctrines that make us most unique. Then he returns and while speaking in General Conference, with a smile and while getting a big laugh, announces that he knows the doctrine of the Church just as well as anybody. From my perspective the message was clear: We’re going to tell them certain things to move the work of the Lord forward, but don’t you all worry about it.
Finally, I believe post-Manifesto polygamy has helped contribute to an environment of shared secrecy and of circling the wagons. Many, many Church members descend from such marriages. Yet they normally keep it quiet. For a Church that prides itself on ancestry and our rich past, those whose grandparents and great-grandparents and great-great-grandparents were part of post-Manifesto unions are normally silent. We keep our secrets in the Mormon Church — we don’t let the skeleton out of the closet. Post-Manifesto polygamy, ironically, is one of those great secrets.
A Question for Jeremy or D. Fletcher, or anyone
May 10, 2004 — KristineLast night I played in a really fun concert–the Cambridge Institute Choir put together a pickup orchestra, borrowed itself a space with no rugs on the floor or burlap on the walls and a REAL organ and put on a concert of Mack Wilberg’s hymn arrangements. The choir was very good, as were most of the musicians (there was that one 2nd violin who sounded like she hadn’t really practiced since her first child was born 7 years ago :)). Read the rest of this entry »
Reformed Mormonism
May 7, 2004 — dmiwlogNot a term you hear too often. The idea of “reform” of the Church is utterly alien to the orthodox LDS perspective, as if a “restored” church couldn’t possibly ever be in need of reform. I just finished The Catholic Church: A Short History (Modern Library, 2001), by Hans Kung, the noted Catholic theologian. Read the rest of this entry »
Oh, The Fabulous Irony
May 6, 2004 — Karen H.Have you all been following this story in the SL Trib?
http://www.sltrib.com/2004/May/05062004/utah/163696.asp
Apparently Warren Jeffs, prophet of the FLDS church has purchased a large ranch in West Texas, hoping to create an isolated compound for him and his closest followers. Read the rest of this entry »
Articles of Faith: Commandments or Admonitions?
May 6, 2004 — bccjlMy mother lectured me on the phone recently. It might’ve been cute in a nostalgic way if it hadn’t annoyed me so much. What prompted this trip down childhood lane? I told her that I have no intention of ever paying my parking tickets. I now owe the city more than my car is worth. I’m basically waiting for the city to tow it so I don’t have to move it for alternate side street parking anymore. My mother found this appalling. Read the rest of this entry »
Oh, Utah! How do I hate thee? Let me count the ways.
May 5, 2004 — Aaron BMy wife and I are about to celebrate our 5th Wedding Anniversary. We wanted to go out of town to celebrate, but we’ve been invited to a wedding in Salt Lake City the weekend before the big day. Thus, we’ve decided to attend the wedding and celebrate our anniversary during the same weekend, effectively killing two birds with one stone. But what this means is we’ll be celebrating our anniversary …. in Utah! Ugh! We don’t really have any immediate family there, so it isn’t an obvious destination for us. We haven’t been back in years (O.K., we drove through once two years ago). We pride ourselves on not ever setting foot in that “cultural wasteland.” Our sense of identity and self-worth is largely a product of our being able to make snide remarks about that place. How will we answer the question “What did you do for your 5-year Anniversary?” without hanging our heads in shame?
Read the rest of this entry »
Efficient Blogging
May 5, 2004 — dmiwlogOur Fearless Leader recently encouraged The Twelve Bloggers of Bcc to step up and blog a bit more. So I’ll pitch in by sharing my patented “3 Paragraph System” for pasting together a friendly blog post in ten minutes or less. Read the rest of this entry »
A Visit to Mountain Meadows
May 4, 2004 — dmiwlogLast month, I took the family on a mountain biking trip to Southern Utah, and took in a few Church History sites along the way (chatty first installments in this series here and here). To round out the Church History tour, on Friday afternoon DW and I pointed the SUV northwest and drove the thirty miles to the Mountain Meadows site. Read the rest of this entry »
Consecrating Your Eyeballs
May 3, 2004 — bccjeremyGordon’s recent thread at Times and Seasons on corporate social responsibility and institutional philanthropy got me thinking about a charity for which I feel a strange combination of enthusiasm and suspicion: the Hunger Site. In case you’ve not familiar with the site, here’s how it works. Read the rest of this entry »
Knocking Doors in the Afterlife
May 3, 2004 — Steve EvansI’ve been thinking about this passage from D&C 137: “All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God.” Read the rest of this entry »
- LDS Headlines
- Grammys 2012: Backstage with 'Book of Mormon' winner Trey Parker - Los Angeles Times
- STAGE TUBE: Trey Parker, Robert Lopez, Stephen Oremus Accept BOOK OF MORMON ... - Broadway World
- The Book of Mormon, Tony Bennett, Rinde Eckert, Alan Menken Win Grammy Awards - TheaterMania.com
- LDS influence? Not on Capitol Hill - Salt Lake Tribune
- The Tsantorum Tsurge and anti-Mormon Prejudice - History News Network
- Mormon Church Representative to Address Affinity Fraud - KCSG
- 405 Bases and It's Not Over Yet - CounterPunch
- Mitt Romney Already Has Problems & If He Isn't Careful That Could Include His ... - The Moderate Voice
- Humanitarian efforts part of Mormon life - Albany Times Union
- The Mormon Moment - Huffington Post (blog)
- Authors Elsewhere
- Floating to the Surface Tracy M
- Contention! “You might as well argue with the wind.” WVS
- Gratitude Tracy M
- Some new stuff on Wednesday madhousewife
- And She’s Down… No, wait… Maybe not…Holy Crap Tracy M
- Jonathan Edwards, Freedom, Henry Tappan, Joseph Smith and Foreknowledge WVS
- Random Crap: Getting Better Tracy M
- Eating and reading, though not simultaneously madhousewife
The BCC Zeitcast
Subscribe in iTunes
Meta
