As it is used now in the church, we don’t use the word “modest” to mean “modest” or the word “immodest” to mean its opposite. [Read more...]
Consider the following statement and whether you, and other Mormons, believe it.
Give your answers below. If you have more than one, we understand.
Bonus Poll: I was told that I got the first poll slightly wrong. Here is another, related, possibly corrected poll. [Read more...]
This can apply to all sorts of reality-ish contests, but I want to focus on Vocal Point for two reasons. [Read more...]
Casual listeners* to general conference may have come away with the impression that the Church, as represented by Elder Neil L. Andersen, really wants us to have more babies. There is plenty of reason for this, but I’m going to suggest that Elder Andersen was making a subtler and more nuanced point. The target of the post was not childlessness; it was selfishness. [Read more...]
Welcome to By Common Consent’s live coverage of the Saturday afternoon session of the 181st Semi-Annual General Conference! Don’t forget to check out our minute-by-minute coverage on Twitter in addition to coverage on the blog. We also encourage you to (if you’re not already doing so) watch Conference live, streaming from LDS.org.
We ate (lousy) teriyaki for lunch. What about you? [Read more...]
The U.S. Armed Forces have a problem. Particularly since the advent of the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the incidence of sexual assault within the armed forces is high. Perhaps more disturbing, the majority of these assaults are perpetrated by fellow soldiers. As this link indicates, in the middle 00s 6 of 10 women in the military were victims of sexual assault or harassment. [Read more...]
A week or so ago, a friend directed me to this link. It discusses the notion of rape culture and, in particular, how bystanders may often be complicit in rape, even if it is never something they’d do themselves. The blog begins by linking to a video, which I’m going to summarize because most folks will find it very offensive (and as the link notes, it may be a trigger to victims of sexual assault (If you want to watch it, here is a link; the relevant portion is from 37:36-47:22)). [Read more...]
I just wanted to share with you the best thing I read about 9/11 in its aftermath. It is from the Onion. As you may know, the Onion often features language people around here find offensive. So I’m going to post a link to the original article, and the 9/11 edition, but I’m also going to post the text of the article (which contains no offensive language) here. I can’t attribute it, unfortunately, because I don’t know who wrote it. Please don’t sue me.
Not Knowing What Else To Do, Woman Bakes American-Flag Cake
SEPTEMBER 26, 2001 | ISSUE 37•34
TOPEKA, KS—Feeling helpless in the wake of the horrible Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that killed thousands, Christine Pearson baked a cake and decorated it like an American flag Monday. [Read more...]
When I was serving my mission in Russia, almost no-one I met had heard of the Mormons, but those who had had learned of us from a particular source. Leo Tolstoy? President Benson? or Premier Kruschev? No. Our mediator, it turned out, was Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
A Study in Scarlet is the first Sherlock Holmes novel and most of the Russians I met were avid Holmes fans. Upon hearing our Mormon connection, they almost always cheered up. We were twice exotic, once for simply being Americans living amongst Russian, twice for belonging to a secretive, woman-kidnapping, polygamous cult. They were rarely interested in learning about the gospel, of course, but the Russian mindset is attracted to the grotesque and they hoped talking to us would provide an ample supply. Sadly, we more often than not disappointed them. [Read more...]
Today’s poll is a sort of repeat of the second of these ever posted. However, those poll results are lost to the ether and I don’t remember what I said and I don’t feel like reconstructing it from the comments. So, we have this instead. Enjoy.
Justify your vote below. We shall judge your intelligence(s)!
This week, as promised, a poll about Heavenly Mother, the most famous God about whom we know nothing. The question is, in the absence of any information to speak of, whom do we think Heavenly Mother is.
Often, when we talk about the Celestial Kingdom, we discuss it as if it is a very exclusive club. We all aspire to it, but many of us assume that we aren’t good enough to get in. That’s not a helpful or joyous approach, I think. Instead, I’m going to argue for the democratization of God’s realm. [Read more...]
[Note one: This week I'm going to be putting up a short series of posts about things I believe that (I think) are outside the norm for Mormonism and why I believe them. YMMV (and I hope it does because otherwise this will be a boring series). Please understand that I am not actually interested in creating a new doctrine/church/calling-for-myself. I (obviously) think these ideas are interesting and therefore seek to foist them upon you. Believe at your own risk]
[Note two: I am totally stealing this from an aborted series by Ronan and I may abort it for the same reason. We'll see.]
We have far too many heavens in Mormonism. [Read more...]
I come today to bury Mormon intellectualism, not to praise it. [Read more...]
Recently, I engaged in a brief facebook tiff regarding Representative Ron Paul (R*-Texas). I said that he was a demagogue (even though I didn’t know how to spell it). A couple of folks came to his defense arguing that he couldn’t be a demagogue, because a) the issues he cares about are issues that nobody knows about and b) he doesn’t have sufficient influence to be truly demagogic. Of course, both of these dudes (along with 80% of the online conservatives I know) promote Ron Paul endlessly, so perhaps they want him to become a demagogue? I’m uncertain.
What I can tell you is that their criticism inspired me to go out and read a Ron Paul book. I had a vague understanding of Ron Paul’s positions prior to reading his latest (Liberty Defined: 50 essential issues that affect our freedom). Unfortunately, after having read the book, my understanding continues to be vague. This isn’t entirely my fault [Read more...]
I grew up in Northern Florida, which is effectively Southern Georgia. In other words, I am Southern in the cultural sense, not just the geographical one. It is not the easiest thing to be Mormon in the South. [Read more...]
Folks, is your enjoyment of the bloggernacle at a bit of a low? Are you sick of rehashing all the same old topics over and over again? At BCC, we are striving to make your Mormon blogging experience more pleasurable by admitting that we are really very sick of these topics, too. If only there were some means (aside from self-discipline) to make us stop talking about things that we are tired of discussing.
Luckily, there is. [Read more...]
We all back? Good. Brooks is right that most of the folks in Africa (and elsewhere) who join religious movements join because of the creeds promoted, not in spite of them. Sullivan, on the other hand, is correct that we apply our human reason to any particular set of creeds, using that act to determine if they are appropriate for our belief (There is a reason folks go church shopping). So, while I believe that they are both right, I also believe that they are both wrong. They are setting up a false choice between rational and miraculous belief. As a Mormon, I get to believe in both types. We believe that God tells us the truth via our hearts and our minds. So, while both Brooks and Sullivan appear to believe that casual dismissal of Mormonism is de rigueur, Mormonism actually resolves the false dilemma their two approaches create.
Why on Easter? Because we, as Mormons, actually believe that Christ did something rationally impossible. He rose from the dead on the third day, ascended to His Father, and created the means for our return. That doesn’t make us unique (plenty of Christians believe the same), but it does mean that our faith derives from some miraculous moment (in our own experience and in historical experience). At the same time, we derive further meaning from that moment (and many like it) to determine how to live on earth. The derivation of law from experience is the very heart of rationalism. There is no contradiction, really, between the two, or rather, they exist in apparent contradiction, but aren’t, really. We have a Moebius strip of a religion, folks. That’s what gives it power and that is what allows it to appeal to the rational, the irrational, the conservative, the liberal, the fundamentalist, and the revisionist. Christ’s message is to all people; He died & He is Risen.
On the internet, identity is an obsession. Because we are primarily only acquainted with one another through words, there is an opportunity (and, perhaps, a tendency) to mislead others about ourselves. Our facebook pictures are from the most flattering angles; our political and religious tendencies more firm. Knowing this about ourselves, we tend to also be suspicious of others. Praise and sarcasm are easily distinguished in real life; online you never really know. Therefore, we try to establish a context for what is written online by establishing a relationship with other participants or, failing that, by trying to discern where they are coming from. Are they Libertarian, Progressive, Indie Rock, Country Strong, Molly Mormon, or Andy Anti? Establishing these identities can allow us to create the body language, tone of voice, and other non-verbal aspects of language that are absent in online communication, allowing us to create a context for interpreting comments.
This is dangerous. [Read more...]
So last week, I started listening to a new podcast. Slate’s Hang Up and Listen podcast features three sports reporters and their topic last week was, amongst other things, the Brandon Davies situation (already much discussed elsewhere at BCC). I’d like you to follow the link and listen to the Davis segment before continuing onward; don’t worry, I’m patient. [Read more...]