We travel to California every two years, mostly to see family. However, when we had been there a few days, I realized that my parents were not doing as well as I had thought. They had kept elements of their health problems secret from me and my siblings, and it was only because I was living under their roof that I sorted a few things out.

It was a bizarre situation, asking them questions about their situation and then trying to figure out how much they weren’t telling me, or how much they were understating the truth. The irony was not lost on me: my parents had done the same thing with me as a teenager, listening to my explanations of what I was doing and why, trying to sort out what I was trying not to tell them. The most ironic moment came as I sat up waiting for my mother to return from the hospital after my father had had surgery, expecting her by 10 pm and waiting until midnight, anticipating the worst the whole time as I know my parents had done whenever I was late coming home.

Before my father went into the hospital for some routine surgery, he asked me for a blessing. We pulled a chair to the same spot where my father had given all of the kids blessings at the beginning of each school year, and I put my hands on my head, strangely terrified, trying to keep my mind blank. I don’t remember much of what I said, but I said a lot, and as we stood and we hugged, I realized he has become an inch or two shorter in the eight years I have been away. I felt an intense love and respect for him, but at the same time I had an unexpected desire to protect him.

Part of this is about me growing older, of my acquiescence that I am an adult and not just in my later youth. But I also felt in that moment what I hope an eternal family really is — an association of individuals with the hierarchies intact but redefined. I’m not sure if this is the kind of thing Malachi was talking about, but I certainly felt my heart and my father’s heart turn to each other.

To see the post I wrote on my last visit to California, it’s here. 90% of it is still true now.

Advice comes in two forms: rules to live by and personal narratives. As a recovering academic, I still see the appeal of rules. The acquisition, digestion, and reformation of the world around us grants power. Rules are created as a result of this process, rules derived from the manner in which we have broken down and rebuilt our worldview. Every rule is a law of gravity for our existence, created in our head but no less binding on us than thermodynamics or quantum mechanics. In point of fact, it seems our world is created in our head, a construct of the physical and the other that we bump into and our internal struggles to make sense of it all. So rule-making tends to be an act of control, a map of the known, a guide for traversing a world half obscured in darkness.

Halakhah is a Jewish notion. It names the great collection of legal material in and derived from the Bible. Rules of behavior offered as a means of salvation, a solace, an explanation for the good and bad in the world. Clarity and concision are the most important elements of the halakhic. If each rule can have only one application or one meaning, then the rule is well written. Ambiguity is the devil of little minds and rulemakers (no overlap necessarily implied).

For Halakhah, the tool of choice is a scalpel. Things that can be taken apart should be so that we can seek their beating heart and thereby gain understanding. We break down everything to its atoms; we make it as small as we can, perhaps so that we won’t be intimidated. Breaking something down to its one-word causes (patriarchy, racism, grace, compassion) gives the illusion of comprehension. Small ideas, though powerful, are manageable.

I am being too hard on the academic. The alternative is Aggadah, described by wikipedia (as good a source as any) as all non-legal material of Jewish or Biblical influence. It is a bit more than just that. Aggadah is intended to be just as binding on the average Jew as Halakhah, it just doesn’t consist of rules. It consists of stories. Aggadah is a vast collection of tales regarding Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, Akiva, Judah Ha-Levi, and a thousand other rabbis, scholars, peasants, prophets, and fools. It is a great grab bag of stuff; unruly, unruled, and uninterested in linear meaning.

The Halakhic impulse is to approach the Aggadah and derive rules from it. Certainly, that is what the rabbis often do. However, if the purpose of the Halakhah is to explain the world around us, it seems to me that the purpose of the Aggadah is to approximate it. Both approaches build worlds inside your head: Halakhah gives you schematics; Aggadah gives you impressionist vistas. Halakhah tells you why you love the painting, but Aggadah is the feeling that you get when you look at it and understand.

The academic impulse is to look at the Aggadah with disdain. Either it is incomplete (without a clear meaing) or it is incompetent (unable to explain itself). Nonetheless, I am deeply jealous of those with skill in Aggadah. President’s Monson’s Octopus trap did more to explain addiction to me than the thousands of morality talks I’ve heard before and since. Elder Holland’s Father in White, looking for his son, taught me more of the Father’s love for me, for us all, than any intense study of 1 Corinthians 13 has thus far. Christ taught in parables, why do I fail to give them the respect they are due?

I cannot speak for others, but I live in stories. I have stories about my childhood, my schooling, my family, my wife. Each story is actually about me, my understanding, my worldview. Every story takes place in my head, much more than it ever took place in the world. And each story is a guess, an attempt to approximate what actually happened, to offer the world through my eyes. I envy Margaret, Tracy M, and Rebecca J their ability to recreate their world for others. I seek to cultivate it in myself. In the meantime, I struggle in my Halakhah, using it to make up for my lack of Aggadah, until such time as I, like my Father in Heaven before me, am capable of creating worlds without end.

Sometimes in Gospel Doctrine class, the scriptural text we’re reading raises more questions, concerns, or downright silliness in my mind than it can rightfully be expected to resolve.  I think of these as back-row questions, because they’re the sort of thing that Sunday School teachers dread when back-row class members raise their hands to contribute to the general discussion.  This week’s lesson materials raised several such thoughts in my mind; rather than impose them on a Gospel Doctrine class or whisper them to Taryn, I thought I’d just post them here.  What follows may well add up to nothing.

D&C Section 101 starts right out with an attempted answer to the problem of evil: Mormons in Jackson County, Missouri, were subjected to religious and/or ethnic persecution and explusion “in consequence of their transgressions.”  This is a classic answer to the problem of why God allows evil in the world; Bart Ehrman, in his book God’s Problem, calls this the “prophetic solution” to the problem of evil, because it’s the answer offered by many of the prophetic books of the Old Testament (other Bible books offer different solutions).

I often worry about this explanation for two reasons: it usually involves disproportionality between the crime and the punishment, as well as a collective mode of punishment that affects innocents as well as the guilty.  On the subject of disproportionality, consider the list of sins that are supposed to account for the Missouri Saints’ sufferings:

…there were jarrings, and contentions, and envyings, and strifes, and lustful and covetous desires among them… (D&C 101: 6)

An impressive list, to be sure.  (I bet that some of their children also lied about who ate the leftovers.)  Are we meant to see God’s justice in responding to these petty and ubiquitous human weaknesses with violence and total dispossession?  This image of God makes me think of a parent who punishes a child who doesn’t do her homework before playing by taking away her bed.

Speaking of children…  Surely not all of the Missouri Saints were equally guilty of envy, gossip, and whatnot.  Yet the suffering affected all of them — innocent and guilty alike.  Indeed, some categories of the innocent, very young children in particular, arguably may have suffered more than the guilty.  Once again, this is a vision of God that just bugs me.

There’s arguably a second justification for the Saints’ suffering in verse 4:

…they must needs be chastened and tried, even as Abraham, who was commanded to offer up his only son.

Which one is it, chastened or tried?  These are very different things, and the analogy to Abraham seems muddled by the equivocation.  Abraham was tried — he was told by God to murder his son, and the trial involved his response to that instruction.  No chastening was involved, really, although arguably Abraham deserved some for his willingness to do an evil deed just because someone told him to.  Unlike Abraham, the Missouri Saints didn’t really have a choice to make, just imposed suffering to live through.  The comparison seems a bit weak.

While the first part of this section offers what strike me as unpersuasive and even morally dubious explanations for why the Missouri Saints were dispossessed, the next part pursues what I see as a far preferable approach: a version of what Ehrman identifies as the “apocalyptic” solution to the problem of suffering.  In essence, this kind of narrative says: yes, there is unjust suffering in the world during the present age, but all will be set right by miraculous reversal in the age to come.  (See D&C 101:10-19, 22-66).  This is an idea that helps one cope with present inequities, and it often leads to beautiful text — as, indeed, it does in this instance.

Verses 20-21 seem to pose a problem.  In them, God tells us that there is no other place, besides Jackson County, for the gathering of the Saints — and there never will be, until Jackson County is full.  I guess we’re being metaphorical, then, when we talk about the gathering, since it evidently hasn’t even started yet.

A funny theme arises in verses 76-80, in which God recommends the pursuit of legal and political recourse regarding the Jackson County expulsion.  In this context, God explains why he established the U.S. Constitution: because

…it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.

Of course, the Constitution in question is one that provides a legal context for slavery.  Ah, well.

Section 103 offers much of the same.  The first verses reiterate that God allowed the Jackson County events because the Saints were not “altogether” perfect in their obedience to God’s commandments and revelations.  They also add that the expulsion was allowed so that God’s enemies “might fill up the measure of their iniquities” (D&C 103:3).  Good!  I’d hate to think that God’s enemies were shorted…

The last part of Section 103 is cagey, seeming to promise participants in Zion’s Camp that they will be successful in regaining Jackson County lands without actually guaranteeing anything.

Section 105 seems to offer a slightly different explanation for the Jackson County expulsions, and also suggests a reason for the (abject and total) failure of Zion’s Camp to meet its stated goal of restoring the Saints to their land.  The Mormons were kicked out of Jackson County, according to Section 105, not because of gossip and thinking dirty thoughts, as I read Section 101 to propose, but rather because they were insufficiently egalitarian and communitarian.  This explanation emphasizes themes that I see as central to the gospel, but it still seems too harsh.  Most everybody ever has always had these sins, and God doesn’t always allow/provide semi-genocidal retribution.

Verse 24 offers some very sound advice, telling the Saints:

Talk not of judgments, neither boast of faith nor of mighty works, but carefully gather together, as much in one region as can be, consistently with the feelings of the people…

If the Mormons’ post-Jackson County settlement patterns and relationships with outsiders had better followed this humble and low-key model, I wonder how many lives might have been saved?  Of course, the revelation leaves it ambiguous whether this advice was meant to last for the long term or only during the course of appeals regarding the Jackson County expulsion.  Whatever the original intent, taking this verse seriously in a broader sense could have saved a lot of 19th-century grief…

This section is of two minds on the smiting question.  Several verses predict future moments when the armies of Israel will demolish their enemies and generally carry out a good, old-fashioned, Joshua-style smiting.  Yet the section also advises,

And again I say unto you, sue for peace, not only to the people that have smitten you, but also to all people; and lift up an ensign of peace, and make a proclamation of peace unto the ends of the earth; and make proposals for peace unto those who have smitten you, according to the voice of the Spirit which is in you, and all things shall work together for your good. (D&C 105:38-40)

Given the relatively positive tone regarding military scattering, throwing down, avenging, laying waste, etc., earlier on, how are we to understand these instructions?  Are the Saints supposed to sincerely sue for peace, proving themselves to be morally superior to the Lord’s offer of vengeance?  Or are the proposals for peace to be seen as strategic and insincere, a way to buy time to let “my army become very great” (v. 31)?

These sections are a fascinating window into the way that the same questions and the same answers come up generation after generation, and even millennium after millennium.  Why do God’s people suffer?  Why do God’s promises of victory not always come true?  Perhaps because God’s people have sinned, or perhaps because the wicked need to meet some kind of evilness quota to justify their punishment in the coming age.  The questions are so much more emotionally and practically compelling than the available answers that there is every reason to expect this conversation to continue as long as God has a people.

We’ve talked about this before, and yes it’s not a serious or researched topic, but –

The Bloggernacle is a little community. We’re not an e-ward (yet!), but certainly we have a sense of each others’ personalities and proclivities. So if you’re setting up a Bloggernacle ward, who gets what calling?

Preliminary note: if you’re not mentioned it’s probably because I wrote this quickly and forgot you. It’s not a snub (except for those of you — and you know who you are — who are my sworn enemies).

Bishop: obviously the most interesting pick. The problem is that most people who would be great at the task also don’t have time for it. They are too busy out there helping people in the real world. I nominate a couple of people, and they can do rochambeau (loser is bishop): Jim F., Mark Brown or Guy Murray. Just kidding, Guy – I only picked you to force you to shave that beard.

RS president: Margaret Young. Easy pick. She rounds out her presidency with Rosalynde Welch and Tracy M.

HP group leader: Ray. He seems the type.

EQ President: David Brosnahan of LDS Doctrine. He seems tireless.

I’m EQ instructor.

HP instructor: Kevin Barney.

Temple Prep: Bryce Haymond. That should make him happy.

Rusty makes the programs. Plus it keeps him from doing any real damage.

High council speaker: Raymond Takeshi Swenson.

YW president: Rebecca J., together with Susan M. and Jeans from Beginnings New.

YM President: DKL, together with Matt Evans and Ben Pratt. Gotta keep those youth CONSERVATIVE.

Gospel Doctrine teacher: Julie Smith, naturally, and Kevin or Jim F. (whichever isn’t bishop).

Ward Mission Leader: Bookslinger

Gospel Essentials Instructor: John Crawford

Music Director: Kristine Haglund

Organist: D. Fletcher

Tithing clerk: Frank McIntyre

Membership clerks: Scott Bosworth + Ziff from ZD.

Strengthening the Members Committee Informant: Adam Greenwood.

Exec. secretary: Brad Kramer. He knows all.

Ward Historian: Ardis P.

Ward Librarian: J. Stapley.

Public Affairs: Emily Jensen.

Activities Committee chairman: Mike Peterson

Road show director: J. Max Wilson.

Emergency prep coordinator: Connor Boyack

Nursery leader: Artemis.

Welfare coordinator: Devyn S.

That’s all I had time to come up with, but there are lots of other callings out there. Note that I didn’t put anybody up for stake callings (except RTS).

Additions?

Mormon History Association
2010 Independence Missouri Conference
Call for Papers
The Home and the Homeland: Families in Diverse Mormon Traditions

The forty-fifth annual conference of the Mormon History Association will be held May 27-30, 2010, at the Kansas City Sports Complex Hotel in Kansas City, MO. It has been twenty-five years since the last MHA conference was held in Missouri. The 2010 theme, “The Home and the Homeland: Families in Diverse Mormon Traditions” recognizes the family as a central social and religious institution within Mormon traditions. Tanner Lecturer Catherine Brekus of the University of Chicago will address the topic of “Women in Early Mormonism.” Mormon traditions (also called Restoration traditions) have historically recognized the family and home as the spatial, social, and emotional place where men, women, and children become religious and moral people. Fatherhood and motherhood have been interpreted as religious, as well as biological and social roles. Papers and panels on all aspects of the history and practice of family life in all Restoration traditions are welcomed. Since Independence, Missouri, serves as the “homeland” to dozens of Restoration traditions, we especially encourage papers that examine or compare lesser studied groups. Of special note, 2010 marks the sesquicentennial of Joseph Smith III’s ordination as leader of the Community of Christ and the twenty-fifth anniversary of its first priesthood ordinations of women. Both events sparked controversy and caused the reexamination of how family roles shaped religious practices. Presenters could explore religious interpretation of the family, gender roles within the family, the Mormon religious experience within families, children and childhood, Mormon domestic architecture, or Mormon material culture.

MHA invites and actively seeks proposals for complete sessions, panels, and other presentations. While we encourage presentations related to the theme, we also welcome other proposals. While the Program Committee will give preference to complete two or three paper session proposals, individual paper proposals will be considered. Please send an abstract of the paper (no more than 300 words) that outlines your argument and the sources that will be used plus a short CV (no longer than two pages) for each speaker. Previously published papers will not be considered.

The deadline for proposals is October 1, 2009. Proposals should be sent by email to: mhameeting2010@gmail.com. Hard copies of proposals can also be sent to: Susanna Morrill, Lewis & Clark College, MSC 45, 0615 SW Palatine Hill Rd., Portland, OR 97219 or David Howlett, 222 E. Market St. Apt. 32, Iowa City, IA 52245. Notification for acceptance or rejection will be made by January 1, 2010. Additional instructions will be available on the MHA website at http://mhahome.org.

Last Sunday, I had the lesson that spoke about Thomas Marsh and his apostasy. Being an informed reader of BCC, when the subject came up I whipped out my iphone, reviewed John Hamer’s excellent post on Thomas Marsh, and then proceeded to explain to the class that the story told in the manual was in fact incorrect. The moment the words came out of my mouth, I regretted them. I had put the teacher in a bad spot.  But, still, I KNEW the manual was dead wrong, and I felt I would be an accomplice in perpetuating slander if I didn’t speak up.

That day’s dilemma has remained on my mind.  Now that the Internet and the Bloggernacle have made available a wealth of new, unauthorized, but often very faithful and good materials, I find myself in the new position of both often knowing more about church history than the lesson manuals state and, thanks to the iphone, always having the ability to look “facts” up when I don’t know them.  I also find myself in the uncomfortable position of not always knowing how to use this new information, especially in official church contexts.

An abundance of unofficial Mormon sources on the web seems to present both pitfalls and opportunities for the church as an organization.  On the one hand, the church’s own embrace of online technology has allowed it to find new ways of presenting its messages and even new audiences.  I have non-LDS neighbors who read church magazines online.  But at the same time, the presence of many unofficial sources turning up on search engines means that the church also loses some control over its central message as search engines reward those who speak the loudest.  Everyday Mormons are increasingly influential in defining what Mormonsim means as they share their lives online, and people become far more able to tell if something in the correlated materials is not quite right. But, these unofficial sources are open to errors of their own (just like the manual!), and since I only read the best sources (like BCC) I’d never be aware if my worldview was wrong.

Since I see it as more or less inevitable that Mormons will get more of their information about the church from unofficial online sites, my hope is that we will be able to pool these resources to create Mormons who can be simultaneously informed and faithful.  Ideally, this abundance of information will lead to more rigorously researched official lesson materials for D&C (maybe the lessons can be fact-checked through a wiki just as geneaology is now screened by New Family Search), or, if the Interent presents too many “facts,” at least to an outpouring of inspired, creative thinking.   Perhaps, it will help us become more comfortable engaging with our past and to admitting our occasional errors without losing our faith.  Maybe, this environment will result in a church less interesting in controlling the contents of its brand or message and more transparency about where the authority of words comes from.  Or, maybe we could start giving official ratings to sites, deciding centrally which are “orthodox” and which are “not,” and thus using the Internt to further control the brand.  Unlikely, but possible.

These developments might have positive or negative consequences.  In the meantime, however, I still have to figure out what I should do in church when I know the lesson manual is wrong.  Maybe, I should just email the teacher a link to BCC.  Or hand my iphone to the teacher so that he can read the facts to the class on the spot.  Seriously, what’s an informed Mormon to do (twitter with the other people in class she sees reading the same information on their iphones)?

Next post:  How has my experience of Sunday School changed since I started hearing online about how the lesson I am having next week already went for people who had it the week before…

Just back from running errands, I kicked my shoes into the basket by the door, and dropped my keys on the piano. Hollering a greeting to David, I ran upstairs to my bathroom, grabbed some clean folded clothes from the basket on the bed, and turned on the hot water. After my scalding shower, the kids came to greet me and we played before a phone call pulled me away.

Heading downstairs, I kissed my husband on the cheek and asked how his day was going- standing at the kitchen sink with suds on his muscular forearms, he frowned, “Abby’s pooped three times. Did you notice the bathroom?”

The phone rang again- holding up my finger and whispering that I loved him, I nodded and took the call. I was late for a meeting with a cabinet maker I’m doing some freelance murals for, and I hated to shower and run, but I was going to be late. I grabbed my purse, blew kisses, headed towards the garage and hit the opener “What time will you be back? Don’t forget family night tonight…” I waved through the windshield, shouting over the engine that I would be back on time- and that my phone was on if he needed me. Wiping his hands on the dishtowel, he stood in the doorway, watching me back out of the driveway…

This is not a thought experiment. This is an actual accounting of an incredible experiment we are living in our own home. Since David was laid-off 18 months ago, we’ve tried a lot of things. We’ve had our ups and a whole lot of downs. As hard as this year and a half has been, there have been some very good dividends for our family.

In the last few months, on his own, David decided he would serve our family more fully in the way he currently could- he took up a lot of new chores around the house- chores that had historically been mine. He’s always been an involved parent with our kids, but I was the stay-at-home parent, and thus much of the domestic work fell on me. It was OK; I didn’t bridle under that yoke- I chose it.

But…

It has been interesting to see the changes since he picked up my mantle- and I, for a small time, have picked up his.

David now cleans the kitchen, does the dishes and mops all the floors. Cooking diner is still my job, but I am free from any clean up task. David does the laundry. We share folding. David does all vacuuming and general pick-up- a constant in a house with three little kids home for the summer. He cleans the bathroom, and takes the lion’s share of tending the kids. I still do baths. He changes diapers. He does the garbage and the lawn. I do the grocery shopping. He does scripture study with the boys each night before he gets to the kitchen, and once the kids are in bed, I’m free. To read- to paint- to hang out with him while he cleans- whatever I want.

I’ve also been free to take on some jobs. Getting paid for my art is tremendously validating- it’s been seven years since I had a paying job, and while what I’m doing is commission work, not steady, it IS income, and I feel great. I see the kids, I don’t have to be the bad guy all the time, and I get to leave the house fairly often with neither a diaper bag nor a kid on my hip.

A few interesting observations:

My guilt has quickly evaporated. At first I felt terrible about how much he was doing- but he maintained he wanted it. When someone else is making the way smooth, it’s easy not to notice the work they put in- housework really is invisible work- Even for someone who’s done it for 8 years. You quickly forget, and just enjoy the clean towels, the clean bathroom, the folded clothes- and not the work it takes. I like my kids better when I don’t have to deal with every squabble, every diaper, every mess. I like my husband. Sometimes I wish he would give me the chance to complete some of the things on my honey-do list before he complains.

David asks me if I’ve noticed he’s lost some weight, if I liked the new laundry detergent on the clean towels, if I approved of his new shaving cream, if I noticed he scrubbed the grout on the kitchen floor. The he smacks himself in the forehead, shrugs his shoulders and mumbles something about turning into a woman. We both laugh.

He is still looking for full-time work. We are still planning and trying everything we can to find gainful employment- but in the meantime, we have learned some priceless lessons. I know how easy it is not to notice the little things; he knows how important it is to notice. I know how nice it is to have a clean orderly home; he knows how much work a clean and orderly home takes. I know the self-esteem and boost to pride of getting paid for work; he knows the frustration and humility of doing “house work”. I know the joy of coming home to my kids and a husband I love; he knows the relief and happiness when I walk in that it’s no longer all him.

For the future, it remains open how this will all play out. The only thing I can say for certain is neither of us will likely ever be the same. That, and I sure do like having a wife.

And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul: So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them. (Acts 19:11-12)

Early Mormons were consciously biblical in their world-view. Healing rituals in particular followed the precedents explicitly exemplified in the Bible. Perhaps not surprisingly, though rare compared to other forms of ritual healing, the Twelve and then Joseph Smith passed along handkerchiefs which they had blessed to the sick to heal them. Stories of such activities still remain in popular thought; the New Testament Seminary manual recounts the famous healings at Montrose in which Joseph gave Wilford Woodruff one such handkerchief that remained “a league between” the men. [1]

Some have pointed to healing handkerchiefs as a manifestation of the culture of magic that ostensibly saturated the world of early Mormonism. While I think that magic is a useful framework to understand several aspects our history, early Mormons do not appear to have used healing handkerchiefs as a reflection of Catholic healing relics, royal cramp rings or gifts associated with “the king’s touch.”[2] Instead the use of these bits of clothe appear to be a conscious recapitulation of New Testament example. In discussing this dynamic in our forthcoming paper, Kris and I include the following in a footnote:

…The use of healing by coffin canes and the cherished handkerchiefs kept by Mormons from the Nauvoo era do [however] appear by the Utah era to have taken on a character very similar to Catholic relics. Heber C. Kimball, March 15, 1857, Journal of Discourses, 4:294. For an introduction to the healing canes fashioned from Joseph and Hyrum Smith’s coffins, see Steven G. Barnett, “Canes of the Restoration,” in James B. Allen, ed., “The Historian’s Corner,” BYU Studies 21, no. 2 (1981): 205–11. Such cases are rare; we have found only one individual who healed by using a cane besides those practitioners described in Barnett’s article, namely, John Albiston, Letter, April 30, 1848, Ashton-under-Lyne, England, Millennial Star 10 (May 15, 1848): 158.

Willard Richards with his coffin cane.

Unfortunately, the next issue of JMH should soon be mailed and it is far too late to add unto the text. I recently read a diary entry that would have been a helpful addition. In Winter Quarters before the Vanguard Company left for the great Basin in 1847, one man suffered with violent fever and vomiting. Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, Willard Richards and Levi Stewart came to his residence in the Tabernacle city and Young “laid on my breast a cane built from one of the branches of the Tree of Life that stood in the garden in the Temple.” [3] The sick man described that “this as a matter to be expected, collected my thoughts and centered them on sacred and solemn things.” Stewart and Woodruff then anointed and blessed him.

The image of the Saints cast out from their Sacred Garden, suffering in the lonely, bitter world, and yet clinging to the scraps that remained is poignant to me. Here is a key to one of the grand mysteries of Mormonism: we are all Adam and we are all Eve. And were I able, I would reach up and take for my self a bit of the Garden.

________________

1. Wilford Woodruff, Leaves from My Journal, Book 3 of THE FAITH-PROMOTING SERIES, (Salt Lake City: Juvenile Instructor Office, 1881), 75–79
2. See Shaw Miracles in Enlightenment England, 64–75; Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic, 227–35. An unrelated but delicious antecedent is Oliver Cowdery’s sprig “sprout of nature” as described in the forthcoming Joseph Smith Papers volume (I think it is sprig – I’m going from memory of the MHA presentation; someone correct me if I am mistaken) [thanks Robin].
3. In previous generations the dramatic ritual known as the “Endowment” was played out in several rooms, as James Talmage described in his House of the Lord: the Creation Room, the Garden Room, the Terrestrial Room, the Telestial Room and the Celestial Room. Living plants were a regular feature of the Garden Room into the 1920s and the Salt Lake Temple had a greenhouse adjoining it for the purpose of maintaining the greenery.

John C. and Scott B. collaborate to bring us another installment of BCC Labs.

Dear Sisters of the Church,

While we here at BCC Labs are deeply concerned with the ongoing conversations found in the Daily Universe, we are also multitasking. This is thanks to our development of a robot named Millie, who does most of the cleaning, and to a system for connecting computers together by giving them unique addresses and encouraging them to connect to new computers (for a small piece of the action) that we are tentatively calling the “NuSkinternet.” We were just getting ready to leave for a very important series of experiments to be completed in Tahiti when Millie brought to our attention an item of interest, one that could radically affect the growth of the Church and the raising of the bar for missionaries. We speak, of course, of lingerie.

In the August 1971 issue of the Ensign, Millie found this article regarding creation of lingerie. The article states at the outset that,

“It is exciting and rewarding to create. The creative sense, dormant within many of us, when once awakened may lead us in many directions: to painting, poetry, music, design, sculpture, or to more practical arts related to homemaking, such as cooking and sewing. The making of lovely lingerie can be a delightful new experience. Here creativity has few bounds.”

The making and wearing of lingerie is one of the talents that our Heavenly Father has given to women, like painting, playing the piano, bringing home the bacon and frying it up in a pan. O, Ye Sisters in Zion, it is imperative that you make and wear lingerie, as the article suggests, so that you cannot be accused of burying or covering your talents (by which we do not imply any sort of double entendre) and then be thrust down to hell. One of the most important commandments addressed by the article is the doctrine of self-sufficiency. For the sisters to enter into the devil’s playground and purchase lingerie from profane providers fails to demonstrate their unique talents as daughters of God. That lingerie is holiest which is hand-sewn, white and delightsome, and virtuous. And by virtuous, we mean modest. And by modest, we mean ankle-length night gowns with long sleeves in place of some unruly maid outfit.

Naturally, you may be concerned about the change in response that may potentially come from replacing your slinky negligee with a flannel smock. However, this is because, in your own fallen and lustful state, you have entirely misunderstood the simplicity of healthy, intimate arousal in men. Recent studies conducted in the sacred confines of BCC Labs have shown that for Mormon men (as well as those non-Mormon guys you’re hoping to convert), modesty is way smokin’ hot. For example, 8 out of 10 males in the bloggernacle prefer hand-woven muumuu’s that cover in excess of 87% of the female body over that naughty little number you only pull out of the drawer on Labor Day. “It’s a fundamental law of economics and the gospel that more is preferred to less,” says Frank, an economist and expert on gender issues in the bloggernacle. “That law applies to food, movies, and keeping the commandments found within the Ensign.” Naturally, Frank asserts, this would include skin coverage in lingerie. “Unless the lingerie is made of flaxen cord, of course,” he warns with a knowing look. “Best to avoid that, because eventually those cords become chains.”

Homemade Lingerie: Longer Sleeves, Please!

One of the nicest nuggets of truth nestled in the article is that, because modern women “have taken to the idea of making their own, or their daughters’ lingerie,” creating your unmentionables can now be an inter-generational family activity. Is there a more wholesome and edifying sight in all of Zion than a mother and daughter, seated around a sewing table, preparing lingerie together? We can all imagine the joy and peace felt when, perhaps on her wedding night, a daughter first puts on the lingerie that she and her mother made together. These are the things that will bind our families together for generations.

What is more, no longer does grandma need to feel awkward at the sight of the sinful offerings that so frequently are found giftwrapped at bridal showers. Instead, that other oft-used bridal shower activity–quilting–can be replaced with lingerie sewing. Imagine the joy and sisterhood that results from multiple generations of righteous women chortling about fabric and color combinations (according to the article, “Combining two colors or a print and a plain fabric can be very effective“) in preparation for the wedding night!

Of course, the article is not solely focused on encouraging the development of new bodies for as yet unborn spirit children. For those fashion mavens amongst the faithful, the article wisely suggests that any leftover material could be used to create gowns and coats for outerwear. Just imagine the reaction when your husband sees you out in public wearing clothes made from the same cloth as those you wear in private. We are certain that this will lead to an increase in family togetherness, good will, and devotion. (Not to mention the fact that, if you choose a simple white nylon tricot, your friends, neighbors, and new converts can use your lingerie for Stake baptisms!)

For those sisters who are hesitant to keep this new commandment because it will increase the burden of the other grand female commandments–washing clothes, ironing, and cooking–let not your weary hearts be troubled. According to the article, homemade lingerie will “wash easily, dry quickly, and require little or no ironing. They are wrinkle resistant and tend to return to their original shape after laundering.” Thus, you’ll have plenty of time to finish the housework, make your lingerie, and still get dinner on the table before DH comes home.

Finally, because no BCC Labs analysis is complete without an out-of-context quote, we provide the following:

“Baste from the front side.“

————————————-

HT to BCC reader Jon for the original 1971 photo from the Ensign!

For the past few weeks I have been studying how a contentious local policy was conceived, passed by authorities, and eventually enforced.  Given that this policy was on a especially divisive topic with many people on both sides, the policy attracted large numbers of supporters and detractors before eventually passing.  However, what I have discovered is that the decision to pass the policy ultimately rested perhaps just as much on how the two camps made their cases (online mobilization v. traditional protests) as on the merits of their claims. 

The people who supported the policy focused their campaign primarily on using the Internet to send out mass emails, publicize the issues, and swamp authorities with emails from constituents.  Those opposed to the policy took a more visible route: they blanketed communities with fliers and staged public protests.  The supporters who waged the Internet campaign were ultimately far more successful in generating large numbers of supporters, including authorities who ultimately passed the policy.

Without going into the other factors that impacted the outcome of this case, I want to pause for a moment on what it means that a behind the scenes online campaign was ultimately more persuasive to authorities than more visible public protests, because I think that it offers lessons for how we think about organizing to promote that which we deem good.

Presumably, those who protested probably for the most part had stronger feelings and more willingness to labor for the cause than those who merely forwarded on what were typically form emails.  However, the online campaign was ultimately more successful, because it showed that if participation was made sufficiently convenient (only a click away), then many people with only weak impulses could be organized to have ultimately greater numerical effect and impact of the minds of decision makers.

Next,  when emails were sent to authorities, they flooded a specific person’s in-box and made that person somehow accountable for the contents of the email.   Although it is arguably worrisome that a decision maker who received mass emails would find her view of what her constituents wanted distorted by those most likely to write, email could establish a relationship with a decision maker that protests simply could not, because someone had to be accountable for answering and receiving them.  Moreover, cataloging such emails is presumably already part of  some body’s job—no one needed to interrupt her routine to respond.  Reading the emails was convenient.

Finally, form emails, while boring, speak with uniformity of purpose.  While protests can send mixed signals since they often contain slightly different voices, emails that repeat the same words must be counted as making the same request.  When decision makers look to the numbers to see what most people want, there is no question that those using form letters all asked for the same thing (at least on paper—I’ll ignore the question of what they intended).  By contrast, when people speak with one purpose but different words, what they say risks getting coded within a variety of categories, hence reducing the collective power of their statements.

This is all to say that sometimes we don’t need to work hard or to sacrifice in order to successfully encourage people to organize for a perceived good.  Sometimes, perhaps the best way to make a difference is simply to plan for and thrive on the fact that people are lazy.

P.S.  I suspect that this post has been influenced in part by books like Wisdom of Crowds, but that only goes to show that ideas spread if the tools to spread them (like blogs) are made sufficiently available and easy!