Wednesday, November 16, 2005

Joseph Smith and Sudoku



A relatively obscure but fascinating fact about Joseph Smith is that he allegedly often carried what is known as a Jupiter medallion in his pocket. This medallion was supposedly discovered on his person after he was assassinated in Carthage Jail. A Jupiter medallion or talisman contains several several interesting inscriptions, including the astrological symbol for Jupiter and various Latin and Hebrew phrases. It also contains a "Magic Square," a box where the digits add up to the same number (in this case 34) horizontally, vertically, and diagonally. The Magic Square on Joseph's purported medallion uses Hebrew characters to represent these numbers, which in total add up to 136, yet another symbol of Jupiter.



I can't help noticing that the Magic Square is simply another variation on the principle behind the newly popular Sudoku puzzles. For those (poor souls) who are unfamiliar with Sudoku, it is a number puzzle where you fill in a 9 by 9 grid so that each row, column, and 3x3 box have the digits 1-9 in them. There is no math involved, just logic, and it really is quite addictive. I have been enjoying Sudoku ever since the Washington Post introduced them earlier this year.



Now, admittedly Joseph did not use his Magic Square like I use the Sudoku puzzles, but I think both forms hint at the same transcendence of numbers. It is a satisfying feeling when all the pieces fall into perfect place against all odds, just as it is satisfying to see all the numbers in a magic square add up perfectly and improbably.

Though I may not be in church on Sunday morning, I will be filling out my Sudoku and occasionally thinking of Joseph.

[Edited to reflect that Joseph may or may not have actually owned a Jupiter talisman.]

Tuesday, November 08, 2005

My conversation with my converts...

First of all, I want to thank everyone who commented on my last post. It really helps to have an outside perspective on these things. Anyway, I promised to report how it went, so here goes.

I called without having a chance to brush up on my Spanish, so it was quite a shock when they started talking to me. This family speaks fast, very fast. The connection wasn't great, either, so I had some difficulty understanding them at first. I spoke with the mother first. We had been talking for about 30 seconds before she got to the question I had been dreading.

The Mom: So, are you still strong in the Church? What calling do you have?
NF: Um, well actually, I moved recently.
TM: Oh, so what calling did you have previously? What callings have you had since the mission?
NF: Er, I actually haven't had any callings since the mission.
TM: [speaking to someone in the room] He must not understand me, he says he hasn't had a calling since the mission. [resumes talking to me] Are you sure you haven't had a calling?
NF: Nope, no calling. I'm not always there, so...
TM: It seems to me you have been lazy with regards to the Church.
NF: Uh, well, yeah, I guess.

At this point someone else grabbed the phone. I had great conversations with everyone, including one son who recently returned from his mission. We talked a little bit about my church activity but not too much. He said he was mostly around Americans in his mission. He didn't say anything outright, but I am guessing that this was a tough experience for him. I imagine that the culture shock of the mission is just as great (if not greater) coming from living in a single apartment with nine family members.

I got to talk to the mom again at the end of the call, and we had a more positive conversation. I tried to communicate to her that it was really her family that was great, not the influence of the church on her family. I also tried to say that her family probably would have converted even without us (her sister was a member before she met us), but she definitely didn't buy that.

I could tell she was disappointed with my inactivity but I am still glad I told the truth. Maybe this will help her be more open-minded if her kids fall away from the Church. Maybe not. But life is too short to go around pretending you are something you're not. Thanks for the advice.

Monday, October 31, 2005

I need advice, I need advice...

A hypothetical situation presented to you, my devoted readers.

Let's say that you are a returned missionary with a somewhat shaky testimony (some days it has stopped shaking and completely fallen down). You haven't seriously attended church in years and probably won't ever be a General Authority, a Seventy of any Quorum, or even the guy asked to bring bread for the sacrament.

Let us further posit that you have recently regained contact with a family you baptized during your mission. The family has now been sealed in the temple, both parents have stake callings and one of the kids has served a mission. What do you tell them about your activity in the Church?

If you say that you don't go anymore, might not their testimony be shaken? On the other hand, shouldn't you always be open and honest with life-long friends like this? Which is worse, lying or hurting them spiritually?

Should we feign testimony to help those who have yet to struggle with theirs? This is a very uncomfortable situation; any counsel would be greatly appreciated.

Friday, October 28, 2005

Worst Halloween Costume Ever

Wow, it turns out that I got sick of the whole you-know-what discussion a lot faster than I thought. I'm over it; let us never speak of it again!

Moving on, I wanted to complain about the previous owners of my house. I hate them with the fire of a thousand suns. Besides painting tacky amateurish murals on the walls and jury-rigging all the window treatments with push- and straight pins, they also left everything they didn't feel like taking with them. I mean everything. We had to have a special trash pick-up ($35) just to get rid of most of the stuff. We filled an 8 ft. x 8 ft. x 4 ft. cube with all of their trash.

The only amusement I get is sorting through all of their ridiculous catalogues that now come to us. Please know that I am only exaggerating slightly when I say they get every catalogue printed. Catalogues full of dog costumes? Check! Catalogues full of gaudy Victorian furniture? Check! Yesterday I got their catalogue for Christian Book Distributors.

It contains the worst Halloween costume ever: BIBLEMAN! Yes, that's the real name. Just for your information, the light saber thingy he's holding is called the "Sword of the Spirit." For perhaps obvious reasons, they don't actually call it a Halloween costume.

Only slightly lower on the child abuse scale is this doozy: the Faithgirlz Bible Backpack. I mean, wow. Note that the front pocket has a clear window so everyone can see you are carrying around the Bible. That's how the Phariseez roll, yo!

I'll stop. I could go through the whole catalogue. I think I became a little more Mormon just reading this thing.

Thursday, October 27, 2005

Ned's Ultimate Banner of Heaven thread...

We'll all soon be sick to death of the Banner of Heaven talk (and many already are, I'm sure), so I thought I'd get my licks in now.

I think what bothers me most is that my sense of community has been violated. By Common Consent, Kulturblog, and Banner of Heaven were some of my favorite places to hang out. I was looking forward to meeting my fellow bloggers at Steve Evans' Thanksgiving party. Suddenly, I don't feel like doing any of these things, Steve's half-hearted apologies aside. I'm the idiot because I actually thought I had a connection with these people.

Do I want an apology? No, I'd prefer not to get one. If someone apologizes, you have to forgive them or else you're the jerk, no matter what they did.

Steve Evans-- for someone who has spent so much time helping form this bloggernacle community, it is odd, to say the least, that you are so blase about crapping all over it. That's all.

I'll get over it soon enough; it's not that big of deal. But are these people going to be my friends? No, and that's what sucks the most.

Friday, October 21, 2005

Ex-Mormons are people too...

The second-most famous couplet in the church, and possibly the only one which we still believe in is, "people can leave the church, but they can't leave the church alone." I used to think the same way. Now, I'm not so sure.

A recent thread on M* about the Church's efforts to track down members with no known address (like yours truly) elicited the usual comments about how if people don't want to be tracked down and visited, then they should just get their names removed from the rolls of the Church. Notice how they never use the word "excommunicated"; no, getting exed from the Church is apparently just like getting an unlisted number. You do it one weekend and then you never think about it again. (Please note: some people do just that, but this post isn't about them.)

Some believers (and I used to be one of them) just can't understand how anyone could be conflicted; there are only two options. Either the Church is true, and you should give it your all, or it's all a sham and you should immediately stop talking about, thinking about, or being interested in the Church that dominated a good chunk of your life. What strikes me is this almost neurotic desire to always be in control about what people are thinking about the Church. You should either think good things, or not bother thinking about it at all. This is more than a little unfair to those who suddenly find themselves unmoored by disbelief.

All I'm asking for is a little compassion. You can't possibly know what kind of familial and social pressures people are dealing with. Aggressively suggesting that inactives remove their names from the rolls is thinly disguised ideological bullying: you don't believe the exact same things as I do, so you must renounce Mormondom, cut all your ties, and stop discussing us. No matter how much tithing you've paid, how many hours you've spent in meetings, or how many years you served a mission, none of this can be part of your life story if you're not one of us.

I'm sorry, but I am one of you. No, I don't keep my name on the rolls to have something to complain about, I do it for my family. Heck, maybe I am trying to hedge my bets come Judgment Day, but I doubt whether my name is in an outdated computer system under a granite mountain will make much of a difference to Jesus. As I remember, he didn't much like bullies either.

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

Will blog for food

As you can probably tell just from the sheer number of comments I've been leaving around the Bloggernacle, I am not exactly working at the moment (to borrow a phrase from George Costanza). I wasn't too concerned about a getting a new job after we moved, but now I have been unemployed almost two months. This should be the most enjoyable time in my life, but it's not. Sure, I can sleep till noon, but I always feel guilty when I wake up. I can lounge around the house, but all I can see is all the cleaning and organizing I need to do. I feel cheated: instead of living it up, all I can think about is the growing blank spot in my resume.

The only thing I can do is get a job. Unfortunately, there simply aren't as many companies or openings around here as I am used to. I had a hard enough time finding a job in D.C.; how am I going to find one in Stars Hollow? I think the solution is to start spending at least as much time on job-hunting websites as I do in the bloggernacle.

So, if you see me leaving too many comments or comments at weird hours of the night, just say, "Ned, knock it off and get a job!"

Sunday, October 02, 2005

Various Stages of Mormondom

I just wanted to announce that the good people at Various Stages of Mormondom have invited me to post on Saturdays (or, in the case of this week, very, very early on Sunday). I have already ordered my Mayor Quimby-esque "Saturday" sash to wear around the house. You can check out my first post, on Mormon myths, here.

I've always enjoyed VSoM, and I am honored to be a part of it. JLS is irreplaceable, so hopefully we haven't seen the last of him around these parts.

P.S. I have been getting an enormous amount of comment spam recently, so I have turned on "word verification" for the comments. You just have to type the word displayed there, so it knows you're not a spammer. Please email me (VivaNedFlanders -at- gmail.com) if you have any problems leaving comments. Thanks!

Saturday, October 01, 2005

Snarkernackle!

No one else seems to have mentioned it, but there is a great new site in the bloggernacle: Snarkernackle! Very amusing, even if it can't decide how to spell itself. Snark on that, Snarkernackle!

Friday, September 30, 2005

I've decided not to raise my children Mormon...

...and I swear it's only partially because of this post on Times & Seasons. For those of you who don't want to read hundreds of comments (and who can blame you), I'll summarize. A T&S perma-blogger believes that, absent massive personal revelation, it is better to stay single forever than marry outside the temple. The rationale given is that mixed-religion marriages can "hamper... their children's spiritual growth" because kids will figure out that one of their parents don't believe. Even worse, they'll figure out that religion is not more important than marriage. I present the following quotation verbatim:
"The problem is that SOME [exposure to the gospel] may be worse than NONE. I've been around people from part-member families (and while I know not all are like this), ones that I have known have had no trouble taking the sacrament and then going out to lunch and ordering (gasp!) an iced tea. Not that that is evil incarnate, but it suggests that this person, at least, has fully learned the lesson of her youth: the church is nice, and it works for some, but it wasn't crucial to me (as your mother) that you be raised by someone who believes in it. She would have perhaps been better off raised without the gospel and then encountering it wholeheartedly instead of learning that 'the half-way covenant' is good enough."
I think this is the problem; this person believes the Church should trump all relationships, especially marriage. You shouldn't even consider marrying an outsider. Why would you? They aren't part of the Church, and the Church is the most important thing in life.

I don't want my kids exposed to these kinds of clannish, suffocating ideas, at least not until they are old enough to judge for themselves. I think it is a toxic mindset. And I don't think it's only Mormons that are afflicted with this; most churches (I'm looking at you Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Judaism, etc.) strongly discourage marrying outside of your religion. I whole-heartedly reject all this foolishness.

Which is more important, my wife or church? You shouldn't even have to think about it.
My wife will always take precedence over church. My family will always take precedence over church. Guess what? I hope my children do learn that the church is nice and okay for some people, but it's not the most important thing and it's not for everyone. It certainly shouldn't determine who you marry and it definitely shouldn't make you feel bad about yourself.

And that brings me to the second reason I won't raise my (theoretical) children Mormon: the church can't deal with sexuality. If I was scarred by the repressiveness of the church teachings growing up as a straight male, I can only imagine the hell it must be to grow up gay and Mormon. If my kids are gay, I don't want them them to be made miserable by constantly hearing about how bad of sinners they are, just for being themselves. There is a lot of ugly, unnecessary guilt imposed by the church that we could do without.

The number one lesson that will be taught in the Flanders' home is that being a good person and good to others are the only essential things. Everything else, including church, is fungible.

Wednesday, September 28, 2005

New online forum for believing spouses

I came across this new site during my daily scouring of the internet: a forum for believing Mormon spouses of inactives or non-members called Faces East. This community is just getting started, so if you fit the profile, or know someone who does, check it out.

Monday, September 26, 2005

Rough Stone Rolling release party?

With the release of the highly anticipated Rough Stone Rolling just minutes away, I have to ask, where is the excitement? To my knowledge, Deseret Book doesn't have any midnight release parties, and no members of the bloggernacle are headed off to the bookstore in their best Porter Rockwell costume. This is our Harry Potter, people! Supposedly, my copy left the warehouse today. We'll see if Amazon delivers it as timely as it did my wife's copy of the Half-Blood Prince.

I can't make any promises about staying up and reading all 768 pages straight through, though.

Friday, September 16, 2005

A delicate topic

Mormonism and its relationship with homosexuality seems to be the hot topic. If Steve would ever bother to restart his Bloggernacle Zeitgeist column, it would certainly be this week's winner.

If you haven't checked out Silus Grok's guest stint over at Nine Moons, I highly recommend that you do. Frankly, it's tough to read about someone willing to sacrifice so much to stay Mormon; I have to admit I'm a little ambivalent about it. I think the Church is richer with people like Silus in it, and I think his openness can only help tolerance and understanding develop in Mormon culture. On the other hand, I can't help thinking that he might be happier in a church that didn't brand his most basic desires as irredeemably sinful.

For those of us not in Silus's situation, the question of the Church's policy towards homosexuality can be troubling. The way I look at it, there are a couple possibilities:

1. God approves of the way the Church is handling the "gay question" and...
(a) will never change.
(b) will eventually include all sexual orientations. The time is just not right now.

2. God disapproves of the Church's policy towards gay members, but...
(a) chooses not to intervene. He lets the prophets make their own decisions.
(b) not so much that it warrants a new revelation.
(c) he can't get anyone on the line.

3. God isn't Mormon/doesn't exist/doesn't involve himself in human affairs.


I don't know that any of these are really attractive options for me. This is a tough and sensitive subject. I truly believe that God wants all of us to be happy, or as close as possible; I guess whether this includes the Church or not depends on the individual.

Regular readers will know that I am a huge Morrissey fan. On his latest album, he had a song that seems very relevant to this discussion (especially considering Morrissey's ambiguous sexuality and proclaimed celibacy), called "I Have Forgiven Jesus." Some of the lyrics are as follows:

"I have forgiven Jesus
for all of the love
he placed in me
when there’s no one I can turn to with this love...
why did you give me
so much desire?
when there is nowhere I can go
to offload this desire?
and why did you give me so much love
in a loveless world?
when there is no one I can turn to
to unlock all this love
and why did you stick me in
self-deprecating bones and skin
Jesus-do you hate me?"

I can't really add anything to that.

Friday, September 09, 2005

BYU is the fittest school?

The magazine Men's Fitness has apparently named BYU as the fittest college campus. I don't know if requiring a phys-ed class to graduate necessarily makes a campus fit, but I was surprised at the large percentage of students that participated in intramural sports. I wish my alma mater had more stuff like that.

Thursday, September 08, 2005

Fondue with the Tanners

It always depresses me when the bloggernacle stoops to petty (and seemingly interminable) back-and-forths like this recent M* thread. But at least Kaimi's links finally revealed to me the origin of the fondue story: this comment. I'm sure everyone already knew this, but I've been wondering about the origin for months. I finally get to be in on the joke!

Wednesday, September 07, 2005

Movie Review: Transporter 2

Transporter 2 was number one at the box office last week, thanks in part to Maude and me. We both enjoyed the goofy fun of the first Transporter, which has two of the best fight scenes ever (one involves a doorbell and the other bicycle pedals). We were also looking forward to seeing Jason Statham in action once again, as he is a criminally under-used actor.

As we left the theater after watching Transporter 2, I said to Maude, "Quick, let's get out of here before anyone realizes that we paid money to see that."

The first Transporter was fun and stupid; this one is just stupid. I don't go to action movies looking for plausibility, but don't insult my intelligence. I can't help feeling insulted when the Transporter flips his car 360 degrees in the air and clips a crane to knock a bomb off his car. I sense nothing but contempt from the filmmaker who has a plane crash full speed into the ocean with minimal damages.

I don't understand what is so hard about making a movie like this. Your audience has very limited demands: cool fight scenes and action sequences. Period. They couldn't care less about glowing purple orbs of vaccines, Russian biochemists, and Columbian drug cartels. (And Columbian drug cartels? Seriously, Luc Besson? Is it 1986?) The problem with Transporter 2 is that it doesn't even deliver this. The fight scenes are so heavily edited that you can't really tell who is punching whom, and the action sequences are too cartoonish to be any fun.

Despite this being a terrible movie, I have to say that I'm glad it made 20 million last weekend. Maybe now Jason Statham will finally start getting the roles he deserves. Let's just hope it's not Transporter 3.

Tuesday, August 30, 2005

The Maginot Line

I almost didn't go to church again this weekend. The Episcopal church meets at the same time and Maude wanted to go. I told her we could alternate Sundays (since we only have one vehicle) and that she could take the first one. When it actually came time to wake up, she was too sleepy and told me to go ahead.

I didn't know what to expect, but this being the Northeast, I figured the Mormon ward house would be small and possibly located in a converted IHOP restaurant. Boy, was I wrong. I pulled up to a brand-new building, fresh out of the church-approved architectural oven. Is it just me, or are the Church buildings getting better-looking? I think this is a positive development for missionary work; it's hard to get people excited about worshipping God in what looks like an old bank branch.

The chapel itself was actually pretty small. Who has ever heard of a chapel with only six rows of pews? I guess this is a mini-ward house, kind of like the newer mini-temples. They had the overflow open so that it was about the size of a regular chapel, only with half of the seats being located in the cultural hall.

I came in about two minutes before the meeting started and landed a primo spot in the back row, just like old times. In my old ward in Virginia, I never exchanged more than two words with anyone during the eight or nine times I went, probably because there were 200-250 people there every week. This week, however, as soon as I had sat down, the guy next to me had introduced himself, his wife and his kids. I was right; it's going to be a lot harder keeping a low profile in small ward. He had gotten my name and half my life story out of me just during the prelude music. I tried going with the whole "I'm just visiting" shtick, but that never works. I wasn't planning on revealing too much about myself, but he came right out and asked me, "So, is your wife a member?" There's really no way around that question. I was only hesitant to answer because I saw two sets of typical over-eager Elders sitting in the chapel. I think they can smell part-member families, just like dogs can smell fear.

Finally, the meeting started and during it I met the guy sitting on the other side of me. He seemed like a kindred spirit, and possibly a new convert. He didn't take the sacrament either, which I find helps ease some of the stigma. As I prepared to bolt at the end of the meeting (to avoid having to meet the Bishop), this guy says, "See you next week." I don't think he was planning on sticking around for Sunday School either.

I am glad that everyone I've met so far has been so nice; I think I could enjoy my time here. However, I am a little apprehensive about the Elders getting ideas about Maude. She hasn't shown any interest in attending, but if she ever does come, I don't think she'd respond well to the missionaries. It was easy to have boundaries in a large ward; I have a feeling it will take a lot more energy now to defend them.

Monday, August 22, 2005

Sheep in sheep's clothing

Fortunately, I was in the midst of a move and missed most of the M*/BCC/Dialogue nonsense that flared up last week. (If you missed it too, and have a healthy dose of masochism, feel free to read it here.)

The fallout from this is that over at M*, Jonathan Max Wilson informs us that he can no longer in good faith participate in the bloggernacle. It seems to me that every six months or so, certain bloggers get fed up with the bloggernacle, insinuate those left behind are on the road to apostasy, and bow out. (In fact, I made a similar post almost exactly five months ago, and J. Max Wilson even left a comment.) That's fine. Maybe they are right, maybe they are wrong; what irritates me is the suggestion that they know my intentions better than I do.

I think the bloggernacle would be a much nicer place if everyone just took a deep breath, relaxed, and ascribed the best intentions to everyone in it. The idea that there are wolves in sheep's clothing, or Bloggernacle stalwarts who are secretly anti-Mormons posing as faithful questioners, is patently ridiculous.

Heterodox Mormons are not in league with Satan, and Orthodox Mormons aren't (all--ha!) Pharisees bent on driving the rest of us from the church. We are all working out our own salvation here, trying to resolve our feelings about often difficult and murky topics. I am not trying to lead anyone astray; I couldn't even if I tried. I am trying to figure out what parts of Mormonism work for me and which ones don't, and whether those that don't preclude me from returning to full activity. If discussing hard topics offends some people, then they shouldn't participate; life is too short to be constantly offended.

If the open and freewheeling nature of bloggernacle discussion offends you, fine, but don't pretend to know my motives. We are all sheep, still looking for the right shepherd.

Thursday, August 18, 2005

He who is transplanted, still sustains...

Phwew! It's been a rough few weeks, but somehow Maude, me, and the majority of our stuff made it to our new home. As you may have noticed from my updated profile there on the right, I have left the Washington D.C. metro area forever and am now a curmudgeonly New Englander. I've already practiced saying, "you cahn't get there from heeahr." I am certain my neighbors will just love me.

It's a big transition moving from an apartment to a home. Suddenly, I am responsible for maintaining more than twice the usual amount of space and three times as many bathrooms. Frankly, we weren't all that good about keeping three rooms clean; how are we going to fare with a whole house? I think maintaining this place and the yard could be my full-time job, which is convenient, because I still haven't found one. Without work, I've totally lost track of what day it is but I am pretty sure tomorrow is garbage day. Maybe this Sunday I can finally check out the new church.

I do miss my old work internet connection; I have about two and a half weeks of bloggernacle postings to catch up on.

Monday, August 01, 2005

NY Times article on Mormon cinema

I haven't seen anything in the bloggernacle about the New York Times Sunday Magazine article about Mormon cinema so I thought I would link to it (registration required, lamentably).

I'm not a fan of most Mormon-themed movies, but a comedy about church basketball sounds hilarious. It's too bad the title "Murderball" was already taken. On one hand, "Church Ball" will star Fred Willard. This can only be good news. One the other, it will also feature Gary Coleman. It could be a wash.

Thursday, July 28, 2005

Too much personal revelation...

I think the concept of "personal revelation" is quickly wearing out its welcome in the Flanders' home. Everywhere I go in the bloggernacle, all I hear about is personal revelation. Apparently, if I want to drink a Coke or watch Schindler's List or jay-walk, I have to receive personal revelation that it's alright.

If I want to deviate from the Proclamation of the Family and stay at home with the kids or have my wife wear pants, we'd better start praying to secure our exemption from this draconian document.

I for one say, NO MORE! No more personal revelation about cooking with wine! No more asking about career choices. Do it or don't. Stop bothering God! He doesn't care! I just don't understand the compulsion to clear every single decision we make in this life with the Almighty. We've been taught correct principles (hopefully), now let's govern ourselves, people! Seriously.

It probably won't shock anyone that I'm not a huge Bruce R. McConkie fan. The excerpts I've read from Mormon Doctrine sometimes make my blood boil. That's why I was surprised to read about the following talk Bruce gave once at BYU:

...[E]xamples of what [McConkie] called "extremism" among both students and ecclesiastical leaders which he counseled avoiding: giving excessively burdensome callings...; prohibiting students from studying on Sunday; allowing students to seek "special blessings" ("These tend to... encourage undue reliance upon divine intervention in mundane matters"); praying on dates; choosing a marriage partner (he encouraged using "personal judgment, not requiring a heavenly revelation"); making no long-term goals in the mistaken belief that the second coming of Christ is imminent; lacking discretion in ecclesiastical interviews...; and avoiding "a witchhunting attitude when discussing which sins should be confessed to a bishop." (source)


What's this? A talk by Bruce R. that feels like a breath of fresh air? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

If something as important as choosing a marriage partner should be decided using "personal judgment, not requiring a heavenly revelation" then why are we pestering the Lord about things much less momentous?

Dear Prudence...

I don't know who is behind Prudence McPrude, but let me just say in true Bloggernacle fashion, I *heart* Prudie.

Monday, July 25, 2005

Calling all lawyers...

After three grueling years in law school, my beloved wife Maude is taking the bar in less than twenty-four hours. Since attorneys make up roughly 85% of the bloggernacle, I was hoping to solicit any last-minute advice you could give her.

Please note that any advice given becomes property of Ned Flanders, Inc., and donors will not be monetarily compensated.

So, counselors, how did you pass the bar?

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Protecting our Sister Missionaries

If I ever have children, I am not letting them out of the house. It's just too dangerous out there. I guess I'll eventually let them go to school and so forth (I'll probably be sick of being cooped up in the house with them for five years by that point) but even that's a maybe.

One thing I'd never let my daughters do is serve a mission. If they insist, I will carefully screen where they go. New York City South? Next. Colombia Baranquilla? Surely you jest. France Bordeaux? I'll think about it.

It is quite amazing that sister missionaries still serve. It is a dangerous world out there and missionaries are particularly vulnerable. They are out late (till 9:30) in unfamiliar neighborhoods and often without any particular destination in mind. Being North American (in the majority of cases) can also draw unwanted attention, depending on the area.

The sisters in my mission didn't complain about harassment, but if you walked anywhere with them, you couldn't help noticing the catcalls and unwanted attention. It was a private joke among them that you were considered a greenie sister missionary until someone had flashed you.

Am I over-reacting, or do we need to do more to protect the sister missionaries? Are there certain countries they should not be called to? Am I sexist because I don't have similar concerns about Elders?

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

Proof that the bloggernacle is evil

Tess, in a comment on Is Church Embarrassing?, asks why I have started going back to church. I'm not really sure that I know the answer to that. It may be that the explanations I tell myself are wishful thinking; the reasons seem to change as I try to figure them out.

I had been attending the Episcopal church with my wife occasionally and I liked the feeling of going to a church, any church. I found the bloggernacle in December, left my first comment in January, and started blogging in March. I don't think it was a coincidence that four weeks later, I attended church for the first time since 1998. Would I have attended church without the bloggernacle? Probably not.

I used to think of the church as a monolith: I imagined scads of members with highly correlated testimonies. It's tempting to fall into the either/or mindset as a Mormon. Either the church is true or it isn't. Either you have a testimony or you don't. You are a faithful member or you aren't. When everything is in black-and-white, it's hard to see where you fit in. This virtual community of bloggers reminded me that there is incredible variety within the church. Some people with views very near my own are active, faithful members. This threw me for a loop; maybe I wasn't as far outside the mainstream as I had imagined.

Back when I was lurking on Times & Seasons, I saw a comment that said, "I pretty much disregard everything that some people, like Boyd K. Packer, say." I was shocked to see my own feelings reflected in a Bloggernacle stalwart, but pleasantly surprised that a believing Mormon could think this. I found the commentator's own blog, a website called Nine Moons (you may have heard of it), and this was the first blog I visited regularly besides T&S. So, in a way, you could say that Rusty's personal apostasy contributed to my partial reactivation.

Being part of the bloggernacle made me want to check out church, just to see what I was missing. So why do I keep going (well, not next week; it's ward conference)? I don't know. I don't take the sacrament, I don't get a lot out of the talks, and I don't actually talk to anyone. I don't think God cares whether I go or not. I guess I go to remind myself that there might be something else out there, something that is very imperfectly reflected in the noisy congregation of saints gathered each week.

Could I get the same feeling at another church? Probably. But I guess I'll stick with this one until they start bothering me at home.


Cross-posted at Nine Moons. Please comment there.

Friday, July 08, 2005

A moment for ward business...

As you have probably noticed, Rusty was kind enough to invite me over to Nine Moons to do a few guest-posts. Blogging on someone else's turf is a lot more stressful than I imagined. The night-sweats, the compulsive hand-wringing, and the dizzy spells are bad enough; I also have to come up with decent posts. Well, it's not really that bad, but I definitely feel the pressure.

In less momentous news, I have added a few blogs to the blogroll. I have to admit that I was very skeptical of the Mormon Open Forum, but it already has some interesting stuff posted on it. It's certainly an interesting experiment in open content. Who would have thought that the odd couple of Steve FSF and Kurt could come together and manage a blog? I tend to think only good things can come from more open conversation in the bloggernacle. Let's hope it lasts.

Missionary Philistinism

Nineteen-year-old males aren't paragons of learning and wisdom. Sequestering them with other nineteen-year-olds probably isn't a recipe for much improvement. Despite these serious handicaps, they are the primary representatives of our church. (I am setting aside the sister missionaries for a moment, since they are much more mature, educated, and scarce.)

Unfortunately, we but ill-prepare these boys for their service. Sure, we shovel a lot of language and scripture-sharing into them, but we don't provide any cultural background for the place they'll be living for two years. The sum total of the Argentine culture I was exposed to in the MTC was a three-page fact sheet about exports and demographics and one "culture night." During culture night, returned missionaries showed us slides of their mission, passed around a soccer jersey, and taught us a supposedly Argentine song. (We all learned it fastidiously, and then never heard it again.) That's it.

We hit Argentina knowing the name of the President, and that we should never, under any circumstances, bring up the Falkland Islands in conversation. Is it any surprise then that many Elders don't learn much more than that during their mission? I had to wait until I was back at the university to read any Spanish-language literature or learn about Argentine history. When I was finally exposed to these things, I realized that I had been missing out on whole levels of understanding. It felt like I had squandered a chance to fully experience the Argentine culture.

Why can't the church assign one short work of the native culture as a reading assignment? It would help missionaries' language skills immensely to read something NOT translated directly from the English Correlated Mormonese. It would provide insights into the culture that they will soon be immersed in and would give them a common reference point to draw on when interacting with people. Half the fun would be deciding what story or novella to assign for each country.

As it stands now, I lived in Argentina for two years, and returned without ever having read anything by Borges. That just doesn't make sense. And I can't even remember how many old men we met who wanted to talk to us about the gaucho classic Martin Fierro.

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with well-rounded missionaries.


Cross-posted at Nine Moons. Please comment there.

Wednesday, July 06, 2005

Is Church Embarrassing?

I continued my unprecedented streak of church attendance Sunday, making it three weeks in a row. If anyone had actually noticed me showing up, I would count as a "re-activated male." I don't know if they still do that statistic, but during my mission we had to report every week how many men were reactivated (sorry, ladies, I guess you don't count). To count, these men had to attend for three straight weeks, so I assume three straight weeks of non-attendance would officially make one inactive. I could keep coming three weeks on and three weeks off to help the local missionaries bolster their stats.

I am happy to report that one of the sister missionaries gave the opening prayer in Sacrament Meeting. I think the First Presidency should send out a letter instructing bishops to have women do the invocations for a couple of weeks, just so everyone can get over that silly tradition.

Anyway, as I was sitting all the way in the back during Sacrament Meeting (feeling a little silly because the cultural hall was nearly empty), I realized that each week I've been analyzing the meeting to see how my wife would react. Maude and I occasionally attend the Episcopalian Church together but she has never been to a Mormon meeting. She thinks she'll be stared at for not conforming to the dress code, even though I assured her we could hide out in the back pew. I don't really care if she goes or not, but I'd like her to come at least once so she can see that we're not really that crazy.

Each meeting I've been trying to notice the things she'd notice and analyze if she'd be offended or not. I was glad I didn't take her to April's Fast Sunday, which featured a paean to the greatness of John Paul II (she's not a fan). The Father's Day meeting was fine but had a really terrible High Council talk. It sounded like he was winging it, and it featured a long, rambling explanation about how elephant herds fall apart without bull elephants. Yeah, great stuff.

This Sunday's meeting was almost ideal: there was a confirmation of a convert baptism, highly visible minority priesthood-holders, and a nice (if overly long) musical number (classical music, not a cheesy Michael McLean number). Other churches don't have the same problem that we do with widely varying Sunday meetings. They might change the reading from the scriptures, but it's still the same priests giving the sermons. They have the entire Mass scripted; after the sacrament, ours is more of a potluck.

I think my best bet is to take her on a Fast Sunday. It's risky, I know, but the testimonies in this ward have been pretty safe in the past. I think the open format would be much more interesting than last week's three dull talks on the Fifth Article of Faith (it can barely sustain one talk, let alone three).

Am I setting myself up here for the wackiest testimony meeting ever? Do you ever envy the consistent, traditional masses of other churches? Am I over-thinking this whole thing?


Cross-posted at Nine Moons. Please comment there.

Thursday, June 30, 2005

Living in sin

As I mentioned in passing on the Millennial Star marriage statistic thread, my wife and I lived together for four years before we got married. This was one reason I didn't bother going to church during my seven-year dry spell. Not because I felt particularly guilty, but because I knew I was pretty much a persona non grata until I got married.

If I ever go back to church seriously, I suppose I'd have to clear this up with the Bishop. The only problem is that I don't think I did anything horribly wrong. I don't want to be TMI guy here, so let's just say that my wife is and was the only woman for me. Ever. And now we're married, so what's the big deal? The only difference between us and a Temple-attending celestial couple is the date the marriage ceremony was performed.

Don't get me wrong, I don't advocate sex before marriage, but I find it hard to condemn if it occurs in a serious, long-term relationship (with proper precautions). Mormons generally can't have serious, long-term relationships that aren't marriages. I honestly can't say if this is a good thing or a bad thing.

It just seems a little silly to me that unlimited NCMOs are a-ok, but my wife and I are guilty of the 3rd worst sin possible.

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Playing with fire

I'm moving out of state soon (see you in hell, Virginia) and so I've felt emboldened to attend church for the past two weeks. Why emboldened? Because church is often like a barracuda; once they have you in their jaws, it's not easy to escape.

I like moving around a lot because my records inevitably get lost. I don't mind showing up for the occasional hour of church, but I don't want them bothering me at home. My wife thinks it's absolutely bizarre to track people down and invite them to church; the whole concept is very alien to her, and I think, off-putting.

My records for a long time were in my parents' ward, but somehow they tracked me down here. I have my suspicions how they got my address (my father, most likely) but thank goodness they don't have my phone number. I once got a visit from a man who said he was my home-teaching companion. He was very nice, but I still don't understand how I'm supposed to go home-teaching when I don't even go to church. One of the biggest mistakes the Church makes is trying to reactivate people by giving them callings. Sure, it might guilt them into attending for a while, but it ensures that they won't come back after they miss a few weeks.

So I am attending now, safe in the knowledge that if anyone does corner me and find out my name (hasn't happened yet, thankfully), they can't bother me for too long before I move. I am storing church up for the winter, since I am moving to New England, and it is my impression that it will be a lot harder to fly under the radar in a small ward.

I am almost tempted to reactivate just for the Elders' quorum help in moving, but even I have my scruples.

Thursday, June 23, 2005

Calling all missionary stories

A lot of people don't like mission stories. Members have heard too many already and non-members don't really understand them. This is frustrating to returned missionaries because all our best stories are from the mission. Also, not a day goes by that something doesn't remind you of something that happened on the mission.

My wife Maude is long-suffering. She'll never say anything but I can actually see her eyes glaze over as soon as I utter the words, "this one time, in Argentina..." She probably has a pretty skewed view of Mormons, since most of stories she's heard about them are terrible.

Mission stories generally fall into three categories.
1) Stupid things that missionaries do. I'd wager this is probably the largest category (you can draw your own conclusions as to why).
2) Crazy/weird people encountered in the mission field.
3) Spiritual experiences. This is probably the smallest group.

Well, I am here to provide a safe haven for all your pent-up tales. I love mission stories. Even those in category 3. Maybe because I am "less active" (happy, Steve FSF?) I haven't heard very many. Maybe this will count as your virtual Home Teaching visit.

Wednesday, June 22, 2005

I wear black on the outside...

Sometimes, when I feel depressed, I simultaneously feel guilty because I have nothing to be depressed about. I have a higher standard of living than 99% of the world, no major medical problems, and no immediate financial worries. In fact, I disgust me.

Is it true that once you have all your survival needs met, that you automatically have to look for something wrong to dwell on? Is there an evolutionary disadvantage to being content? I don't think I've ever been really happy. Looking back, all the happiest times of my life seem to coincide with periods of great stress.

I think I've given up on being happy or content or whatever that means. I just don't think I'm wired that way. I think that this might be why I have a hard time finding my place in the Church. We're supposed to be so ecstatic from our knowledge of the truth, that we can't help being filled with joy. Am I unhappy because I don't know the truth, or do I not know the truth because I'm unhappy?

In the end, I think I'm just scared. Scared that I am just fooling myself, and that there is nothing after death. Or scared to find out that I missed my one chance for salvation. The way I look at it, there's no good way for this to end.

Tuesday, June 21, 2005

Herman Melville on doubt

As I posted what seems like an eternity ago, I am making my way (albeit very slowly) through Moby-Dick. The whole book is great, but the following passage seemed to jump out at me:

"...rainbows do not visit the clear air; they only irradiate vapor. And so, through all the thick mists of the dim doubts in my mind, divine intuitions now and then shoot, enkindling my fog with a heavenly ray. And for this I thank God; for all have doubts; many deny; but doubts or denials, few along with them, have intuitions. Doubts of all things earthly, and intuitions of some things heavenly; this combination makes neither believer nor infidel, but makes a man who regards them both with equal eye." --Moby-Dick, Chapter 88.

I think I forget sometimes that doubt is a natural, even positive, emotion. If we never inquire we'll never find out.

Monday, June 20, 2005

19 gigs and counting...

My parents bought me this mp3 player in 2001. It was definitely one of the best gifts I've ever gotten and it's still going strong. Although it is a bit bulkier than today's iPods, it was one of the first 20 gig mp3 players on the market. Finally, after almost 4 years of filling it up, I am nearly out of space (just 500 mb left). In the vein of Kulturblog's recent craze of ranking the best music of the last five years, I thought I would post this list. These are the artists with most songs on my mp3 player. I don't have a high-speed connection, so I have these all on CD too.

1. Morrissey/The Smiths - 375 songs
2. The Cure - 351 songs
3. Blur - 207 songs
4. Nine Inch Nails - 159 songs
5. Joy Division/New Order - 159 songs
6. Beastie Boys - 147 songs
7. The Clash - 129 songs
8. Pulp - 128 songs
9. Radiohead - 126 songs
10. Depeche Mode - 98 songs
11. Outkast - 80 songs
12. Los Fabulosos Cadillacs - 77 songs
13. Giacomo Puccini - 69 songs
14. Belle & Sebastian - 66 songs
15. Sleater-Kinney - 63 songs

Looking through my list, I think it is a fairly accurate representation of who my favorite bands are. Thanks to the benevolent influence of my older sister, I have musical taste about 10 years older than I actually am.

Saturday, June 18, 2005

24th day of the mission

Over at Times & Seasons, Rosalynde has bravely posted her journal entry from the 24th day of her mission. As I publicly called for a contest for the worst entry (before having a chance to peruse my journal), and as Rusty has already bounded into the lead with his classic entry, I guess I'll have to reluctantly add my own.

I should mention that my mission journal was written down in much the same way as the Book of Mormon. No, not through inspiration, but rather without any punctuation or capitalization. I have attempted to divide the entry into sentences to make it slightly less annoying for the reader. But if the entry sounds rambling, you should keep in mind that it is all one stream of words on the page.

Rusty’s entry may have crying in it, but it can’t compete with mine for whiny teenage angst.

Friday 13 Sep 96

Rained briefly today but was only a harbinger of nothingness. [I should point out that “nothing” was, besides its literal meaning, also my code word for not receiving any letters from a certain female.] Felt weak in shower like I had been fasting all day. I liked the feeling, especially since I didn’t have to starve myself to feel it. [It is an odd coincidence that I just mentioned this on my blog the other day.] The Coke I got from [Elder N] yesterday seems to reinforce my soul. [I don’t know what that means. Elder N procured some caffeinated Coke Classic for me, as I was coming to grips with a 2 liter a day addiction to it.] I am afraid I will have to go through withdrawal syndrome this time since I didn’t have any symptoms when I came into this place. And I’m afraid the caffeine-free Coke will never taste the same again but the real stuff tastes great for now…

I seem to have found a kindred spirit in [Elder N] since he doesn’t seem as sold on the whole mission thing as everyone else (but more than me at times). He is a rollercoaster of spirituality and he takes a lot of things personally and he hates the “politics” of this place but he takes it a lot more personally [wait, does he take things personally?] because I really don’t care at all. As I always say, apathy is my only virtue, like a foot in the pearly gates. I don’t even know if that has a scriptural reference. I might never see them [the pearly gates] for that express reason.

Will I wait forever? Rain, rain never tells me anything anymore. It used to be my only oracle. Don’t you know my weakness is my only talent, my only pleasure now? Will I always have to wait in vain? [too much Bob Marley here?] And horrible coldness that burns my bowels and melts my brain, waves over me in a revolting sweep of separation. [Ooookay…..] Will Isaiah 52:8 mean nothing forever? [I looked up this scripture, and I have to say, I have no idea why I mentioned it.] My new theme word, my new life is nothing, nothing, nothing.

Thumbing through my mission journal, I realize it could have been worse (but not much!). Fortunately, the stuff I write about gets more interesting and less navel-gazy once I finally get to South America. I was a ridiculously prolific journal keeper; I have five college-ruled notebooks packed with entries (most of them, hopefully, better than this one). After my first week in the MTC, I didn't miss a single day until I got home, and I often wrote over a page a day. I think it was only the journal that kept me sane through those two years. Sadly, I haven't made a journal entry since, probably because nothing since has seemed quite as interesting.

Tuesday, June 14, 2005

Rotting holy oil

Consecrated oil is suddenly a hot topic in the bloggernacle. I have a metal vial of oil on my keychain that I never bothered to take off after my mission. Most of the time, I forget it's even there. It's probably weird to carry around oil that I'm not even worthy to use; do I think that if I'm in a jam and need to give a blessing, God won't care that I'm not active? If God can overlook that, then surely he can overlook the absence of oil.
Maybe I never took it off my keychain because that would be the sign that I wasn't coming back, that I was giving up on the priesthood permanently. Maybe I need a tactile reminder that I am a Mormon (however inactive).

Unfortunately, it's been seven years since I opened the vial (we gave lots of blessings on my mission). At this point I am too scared to open it to see if the oil has completely rotted. I'll leave it to the bloggernacle's literary critics to draw comparisons between the oil and my soul.

Monday, June 13, 2005

Father's Day gift advice needed

I am running out of time to get my dad a Father's Day gift. He lives on the other side of the country so I need to get it fairly soon.

My problem? I've tried nothing and I'm all out of ideas.

I figure, why not hit up the bloggernacle for ideas? My dad is a Millennial Star-type guy and doesn't have a lot of time to read things besides Dan Brown (and he already has all of those books). He travels a couple times a month for his job.

I need help, people. Christian over at the Spinozist suggested this classy ring. I'll put that in the maybe pile.

Tuesday, June 07, 2005

Nowhere fasting

While we're on the subject of fasting, I have my own confession: I never much cared for it.

I am prone to what I assume are low-blood-sugar headaches, so growing up, fasting always had the association of blinding pain and nausea for me. As a teenager, I grew to like the buzz you could get from fasting; your knees shake a little and your arm trembles involuntarily. You feel wonderfully light-headed and dizzy (Mormons will do anything to get around the Word of Wisdom, won't they?). At any rate, while it was enjoyable and gave me the sense of inner physical strength, I can't say it was an overtly religious experience.

Then came my mission. On my first fast Sunday in the MTC, an Elder passed out in the food line and we had to carry him out. Diagnosis? Dehydration.

Fasting is all very well and so forth, but making missionaries fast is stupid. And making missionaries fast in warm climates is downright dangerous. Under a beating sun, walking and tracting while wearing a tie is not conducive to hydration. At least my mission in Argentina was not tropical; I don't know what the Elders in the Philippines and Central America do.

On my mission, I finally developed a system that worked for me. After returning to the apartment on Saturday night with my companion, I would drink a two-liter bottle of Coke. I was so full, I didn't even want to eat or drink anything in the next 24 hours. It wasn't quite the spirit of the law, I know, but it got me through the Sunday.

Friday, June 03, 2005

Baptism for the remission of sins

A very interesting post at Millennial Star about the accountability of seven-year-olds brought to mind the following question (already raised by Grasshopper at M*): if we baptize for the remission of sins, why do we baptize eight-year-olds? They might have a couple sins, but with one or two exceptions, they probably don't have many major ones.

I have already argued that we should raise the baptismal age to eighteen.
My view is that we're wasting a very important ordinance on the very young and sinless. We get a kind of consolation in that we can do proxy work as adults and be baptized for others, but for me this just reminds me how much more powerful my own baptism could have been. Baptism is the most physical of all the ordinances, and thus makes a much larger impression than, say, the laying on of hands.

Thinking about my resistance to Jonathan Stone's bright line distinction between 7- and 8-year-olds, I am starting to wonder if I agree with any absolutes in the Gospel. Do we really believe that every sin is washed away in baptism? What if the person secretly doesn't feel bad about it or even think it is a sin? Is mild dishonesty in a baptismal interview enough to render the cleansing part of baptism invalid? Or is God bound by his promise to wash us clean?

Thursday, May 26, 2005

Real World Julie and Bad Advertising

The stock-ticker of my testimony shot up on Monday night with the elimination of Julie from the Real World/Road Rules Challenge. She was eliminated while wearing a T-shirt reading, "Jesus is Real." (Earlier in the episode she chanted, "The path to God is straight and narrow, the path to God is straight and narrow," just seconds before careening on a motorcycle into a lake.)

Why do people feel compelled to advertise Jesus with their clothing and with their cars? Fortunately, most Mormons don't seem to have this problem (RW Julie excepted). Has anyone ever had a spiritual experience while trapped behind a Jesus bumper sticker? It doesn't seem like a very effective method of sharing the gospel, and probably puts off more people than it interests. For some reason, however, I am less put off by Spanish bumper stickers. Is this my cultural snobbery showing through?

On a related note, my parents were visiting from out of town last week, and we were cut off in traffic by a Jeep with a Brigham Young University sticker in the back window. Obviously, stuff like this happens all the time in Utah, but when you are out in the world, shouldn't you try to drive a little better when you are advertising your religion on your car?

Monday, May 23, 2005

The Hofmann Forgeries and Occam's Razor

Every once in a while, an event will come along and remind us how limited our understanding of the past is. The Hofmann forgeries fascinate me, mostly because of how close we came to completely misunderstanding the restoration and Joseph Smith. Even more remarkably, the man responsible was not a contemporary of Joseph Smith, but a returned missionary living 150 years afterwards. We have enough trouble reconciling stuff Joseph said (see Zelph); what would we do if we had to defend white salamanders too?

My question is, considering the relative ease with which Hofmann fabricated Mormon history (and he could have succeeded too, had he not been greedy), does this undermine your confidence in other sources for early Mormon history? Are we under misapprehensions about troubling aspects of Church history or do we pretty much have the right idea? Are falsifications like Hofmann's likely to get found out, simply because people are terrible at keeping secrets?

Tuesday, May 10, 2005

The Anti-Mormon at the La-Z-Boy Gallery

I love La-Z-Boy recliners. I love that feeling when the chair tilts back even further than you thought possible. I love just lying there and feeling, well, lazy.

I was a very deprived child; my parents never owned a La-Z-Boy and I always coveted the chairs I encountered at other people's houses. Once I finally got a decent job and a bigger apartment (about a year and a half ago), I decided that the time had finally come to purchase my very own La-Z-Boy recliner.

Now, I can spend all day at the La-Z-Boy Gallery, just trying out all the different chairs. My wife, for some reason, thinks this is stupid, so she didn't accompany me when I went to the store. Once there, I quickly discovered that all but the discontinued lines were out of my price range. The salesman was very nice (even though he could see that his commission would be miniscule) and helped me locate a discontinued chair that wasn't a floor model. I headed over to the delivery desk to set up when my chair would arrive. As I waited (testing out more chairs near the desk) I couldn't help but overhear the woman in charge of deliveries talking to another salesman. Basically, what she said was this:

"The Mormons are trying to legalize polygamy because they want to have a whole bunch of wives. It's disgusting. Men can't handle more than one woman anyway. If anything, it should be a whole bunch of men for one woman."

As a totally irrelevant aside here, I would like to point out that this woman was about 60 and looked every bit her age. Now, at this point in my life, I hadn't been to church in years and hadn't even heard of the bloggernacle. For some reason, I think this lack of all contact made me more sensitive to statements such as this. It offended me that someone could spout off such nonsense at her place of business, and not even care that a customer was sitting right there. It offended me that she thought Mormons were so beneath her, that she couldn't possibly get into trouble by saying bad things about them.

I composed a thousand indignant replies in my head. I mentally drafted several angry letters to the store manager explaining how they had lost a paying (though just barely) customer. I didn't know what I should do. Should I tell her off, and risk my chair arriving smelling funky? Should I make an arch comment about how you shouldn't say bigoted things because you never know who is listening?

I sat and stewed, and genuinely considered walking out. I would like to say that the lack of another La-Z-Boy Gallery in the area did not enter into my deliberations, but it did. I considered going through with the purchase and then sending a nasty letter to the store afterward. In the end, I did the predictable thing: I said nothing, and got my chair.
If something similar happened to me today, I'd like to think I would react differently. Maybe laugh it off and tell her that she was all wrong in a friendly manner. But I don't know that I would.

So there the chair sits in my office, a big, comfy reminder of either my cowardice or my restraint, depending on my mood. What should I have done? What would you have done in this situation?


P.S. I am going on vacation shortly, so that is why posting will be light over the next week or so.

Monday, May 09, 2005

Polygamy and Masonry: Mormon paradoxes

Reading through this fascinating thread over at T&S, I learned that some Mormon scholars think that the Gadianton robber passages of the Book of Mormon were influenced by the anti-Masonic feeling in the early 19th century (and transmitted into the Book of Mormon through Joseph's translation). I don't know how comfortable I am with the expansion theory (nor am I convinced it is absolutely necessary to explain away the problems of the BoM) but it brings up a really interesting point. Two things that the Book of Mormon is very clear in condemning are secret societies and polygamy. And yet, in many ways, the church came to embody those two things it had expressly condemned.

It is well-known that Joseph became a Mason and started a Masonic lodge in Nauvoo. It is also clear that the temple ceremony has many Masonic elements. This is why it is jarring to read Helaman 6:22 in this context:

"And it came to pass that they did have their signs, yea, their secret signs, and their secret words; and this that they might distinguish a brother who had entered into the covenant, that whatsoever wickedness his brother should do he should not be injured by his brother, nor by those who did belong to his band, who had taken this covenant."

It seems odd that the church would come to utilize very similar means to draw closer to God, but I suppose it could be argued that Satan merely apes heavenly forms in corrupted ways. Modern polygamy, however, it much harder to reconcile with the text of the Book of Mormon.
The Book of Jacob unequivocally condemns polygamy and also Solomon and David for practicing it:

"Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord...
"Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
"For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts."

What changed between 1830 (the publication of the Book of Mormon) and 1831 (which, from the very circumspect allusion in the introduction of D&C 132, I take to be the date of Joseph's first plural marriage)? How did Mormonism change so quickly into the very things it condemned in the Book of Mormon?

Friday, May 06, 2005

The New Missionary Discussions

I've missed a lot of Church News over the past six years or so. I hadn't heard about the Palmyra or Nauvoo temples until fairly recently, and I got to tour the New York Manhattan Temple almost by accident. One of the major changes I've heard references to in the Bloggernacle is the revamping of the missionary discussions. Although I've looked online, I can't find a summary of the changes or what the discussions are like now. Can anyone enlighten me?

Are there still specific points where the commitments to observe the Sabbath/obey the Word of Wisdom/etc. are made? Is there still a memorized text?

I certainly won't mourn the passing of the sixth discussion (the most pointless of all discussions) but I would be interested how the church is organizing the missionary presentation nowadays and if people think it is better or worse than before.

Wednesday, May 04, 2005

Faith and the elevator button

The up button for the elevator at work has burnt out. I hit it, nothing lit up, so I hit it again. Even though the logical part of my brain knew that the signal had been activated, I was still unsettled. I doubted whether or not the elevator would come, and debated taking the stairs instead. After a nervous minute, the bell dinged and the elevator doors opened. Was the button really working, or was this merely a coincidence?

In life, I tend to write off prayers being answered as coincidences (the Angry Mormon also has a recent post about this). Are they, or is the elevator button just burnt out?
Sometimes it really is just a coincidence. Other times you wait so long that you are certain the elevator is not even moving.
Sometimes I am ashamed I don't have the same faith in God as I do in the elevator.

Tuesday, May 03, 2005

Are you embarrassed by LDS advertising?

A couple of Sundays ago, Maude and I were enduring the "Pre-Show Entertainment" at a local movie theater, waiting for a 4:20 screening of Sin City to start (Flanders' patented two word review: thumbs down).
This particular movie theater plays local ads before the previews (which now also include advertising). These local spots usually have pretty lousy production values and are typically for real estate agents or local car dealerships.

The final ad before the trailers began was for a local protestant church. It showed people enjoying themselves outside, having a barbeque, laughing with neighbors. At no point did it actually show the church building or the services. My wife whispered to me sarcastically, "Wow, church is like a picnic everyday."
I whispered back, "I don't think people seeing Sin City on a Sunday are really their target market."

Are these ads with their low production values any better than the ads our church puts on TV? Our ads don't actually show the church or services; usually, they are some kind of Hallmark moment with the patented, "brought to you by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" following soon after.
The advertisements that focus on the Book of Mormon are a little better. They seem like they could interest people enough to call the 1-800 number, but they remind me a little too much of Dianetics-by-L-Ron-Hubbard ads. Also, I think it might be misleading to send the missionaries out to people's houses when all they probably want is a free book in the mail.

I am conflicted about these ads. My wife always needles me when they come on, and rightly so. I think we could do better. We need to get the message out, but I'm not sure this is the right way to do it.

Monday, May 02, 2005

Swatting at Nats

Having gone to three Washington Nationals games in the last five days or so, I have several observations to offer:
  1. It's no fun cheering against the home team. Maude and I are big Mets fans, and, true to form, the Mets gave us little to cheer about over the weekend. It would be nice if there could be a section reserved for the opposing teams' fans, like in European soccer. At least we could have commiserated with fellow Mets fans instead of having it rubbed in by Nationals fans. It would make a lot of sense in a place like D.C., where most of the residents are from somewhere else. We saw lots of Mets and Phillies fans but they were scattered all around the ballpark.
  2. You might not think that there could be obnoxiously boisterous fans of a team that has existed for all of three weeks, but you'd be wrong.
  3. Alberto Gonzalez threw out the first pitch in Saturday's game and was booed. I felt bad for the guy; I mean, he's only been Attorney General for a couple months and people are already all over him. The lesson is: don't volunteer to throw out the first ball, unless you are certain you'll get a good reception.
  4. Screech is the worst mascot in baseball. Worse than the San Diego Chicken. There, I said it.
  5. Spend the extra $1.75 and get an Italian sausage instead of a hot dog. You'll thank me for it.
  6. Maude and I rode the Metro to two games and drove to the last one. Driving was (shockingly, for this area) much more convenient. The parking lot emptied out right on to the freeway and the traffic was not bad.
We had a good time, in spite of the Mets, Screech, the Nat Pack, the drunk guy screaming after every pitch and the abominable music snippets that are now a part of every major league game. But at least we didn't have to drive to Baltimore.

Friday, April 29, 2005

Happy (Real) Good Friday

No, there is nothing wrong with the dates on my blog; today is in fact Good Friday... for the Eastern Orthodox, anyway.
Orthodox Easter is usually later than Western Easter, though it coincides every couple of years (it was the same last year and will be again in 2007). My wife Maude (who is Eastern Orthodox) claims their dating method is superior as it ensures that Easter is always after Passover. I have to admit that it is a little silly to celebrate Easter three weeks before the Last Supper would have taken place.

The traditional greeting for Ortho-Easter is, "Christ has risen!" to which you respond, "Indeed, he has risen!" but usually in the native language of whichever church you are visiting. Arwyn had a post about this back on Fake Easter (as my wife calls it). I like this tradition, as it focuses our attention on the miracle of the resurrection.

So to all of you, Christ has risen!

Tuesday, April 26, 2005

Is serving a mission a right or a rite?

Over at Times & Seasons, the thread about "raising the bar" for mission worthiness has taken a nasty turn. It seems to me that people are a little to quick to condemn their fellow saints as unworthy for missionary service.

One commenter makes the point that serving a mission is not a right. Obviously, this is true. But given the social importance of missions in our tightly-knit religious community, I think we're fooling ourselves if we don't acknowledge the stigma attached to non-mission servers.

Lest it be thought that I do protest too much, let me say that I would have qualified under the new standards when I went on my mission. Which is, really, part of the problem. At certain times of my mission, I was probably the exact kind of elder these people want to purge, but I had no previous transgressions making me act that way.
Even though I have ambivalent feelings about my mission, I am still glad that I went, and I think that I did some good while I was there. I wasn't always convinced I was doing the right thing, but I think it would be a shame to deprive thousands of young men of this irreplaceable growth opportunity.

Dear Julie from the Real World (pt. 2)

I didn't want this to become an extended correspondence. I thought I had made my feelings clear earlier. But you just didn't listen, did you? I know, I know, I don't have to watch the Real World/Road Rules Challenge: Inferno II on MTV at 10/9 central. But I want to; so sue me.

Let's look at your performance from last night's episode (paraphrased, of course): when they hooked you up to the zip line, you said, "I like being up high, closer to God." I had to rewind my Tivo twice. Surely she didn't say that. But you did.
When you were attempting to pull yourself up the zip line, a strenuous task I'm sure, you started grunting, "Dear Lord, help me win the Ion Lifesaver. Dear Lord, help me win the Ion Lifesaver." Over and over again.

Julie, have you considered any of the other major religions? They’re all pretty much the same. We can really do without you.

Sincerely,
NFlanders

Monday, April 25, 2005

It's a complicated gray area

This couple attempts to destroy all stereotypes about kissing cousins. (Washington Post registration may or may not be required.)
Best lines of the article:

And don't ask her about eating groundhog.
"It smells like a pork chop frying. Tastes like chicken," he said, helpfully.
Six years ago, he proposed to her at the jewelry case in Wal-Mart after they spied a pair of wedding bands on sale.

Classic.

Sunday, April 24, 2005

The Double-Edged Sword of Mormon Anti-Intellectualism

During a recent exchange with Steve over at By Common Consent, it emerged that I was completely ignorant concerning a certain point in Mormon history. This incident revealed to me just how little I do know about church history, despite being raised in the church, attending four years of seminary and going on a mission. As Dave points out in an interesting post at Dave's Mormon Inquiry, the official church histories continue to shrink. This is, I think, indicative of the larger Mormon distrust of history and intellectualism in general.
Anti-intellectualism is ingrained into the Book of Mormon, especially 2nd Nephi:

"O the wise, and the learned, and the rich, that are puffed up in the pride of their hearts, and all those who preach false doctrines, and all those who commit whoredoms, and pervert the right way of the Lord, wo, wo, wo be unto them, saith the Lord God Almighty, for they shall be thrust down to hell!" 2 Nephi 28:15

There are numerous other scriptures with the same basic message: knowledge can be a very dangerous thing.

I think that this prevailing attitude has both positive and negative consequences. First of all, it does an incredible job of leveling the playing field between members. Having a (mostly) lay clergy means that few members are able to study the gospel as a full time job, and those that do usually don't have positions of local authority in the church. Thus it is difficult for a bishop, for example, to claim insights into the church that aren't available to other members. Generally, there is nothing to gain from trying to delve into the mysteries of the church. This makes the church a very democratic institution, which I feel is a good thing.
Secondly, favoring the spiritual over the intellectual stresses the simplicity and spirituality of the church. Epiphanies are to be spiritual in nature and result from prayer and fasting, not intellectual ones resulting from years of study. This can help the church focus on its core doctrines instead of straying too far into speculative theology.

The negative aspects are fairly obvious. We have a large percentage of members, almost certainly a majority, who are ignorant of most church history. This causes problems when they learn of some of the more troubling and ambiguous aspects of the lives of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. It also robs them of a better understanding that knowing these events would provide.
Not just history but even current church scholarship is stigmatized. In my home growing up, Sunstone was regarded as a basically anti-Mormon publication. Sanitized histories are available but not more frank ones. I have never seen or owned copies of The King Follet Sermon and the Journals of Discourses; they are often quoted but rarely read.

I think that these attitudes limit us a two-dimensional view of our church, when we could be enjoying a richer (if more unsettling) three-dimensional panorama.

Tuesday, April 19, 2005

Am I fundamentally unsuited for Mormonism?

As I was reading randomly around the bloggernacle, I came upon a very interesting post talking about the author holds a mini-devotional every morning with the whole family. Hymns are sung; prayers are offered.

This reminded me of something that has always bothered me: everyone else seems to like church and church-related things a whole lot more than me. As a kid, I never enjoyed going to church. I think this was supposed to change once I went on a mission, but in reality, it only exacerbated the problem. A mission is like two years of church every day; some companions demanded having a mini-devotional every morning. Now I find out that some people actually like this, and do it of their own free will.

This makes me think that I am constitutionally unsuited for Mormonism. I do not like hymns, I don't particularly like sitting in church or listening to General Conference. I find the history and the doctrine endlessly interesting but somehow not the practice. I would much rather read about a sermon than actually have to sit through it.

If I haven't ever enjoyed church, even when I was a faithful member, why should I believe I ever could?

Monday, April 18, 2005

Manifest Destiny

Pris, Mike, Arwyn and D-Train have a new group blog, Unofficial Manifesto. If their individual blogs are any indication, it promises to be good stuff.

Friday, April 15, 2005

Dyn-O-Mite!

Does the Idaho legislature really have this much free time?

Thursday, April 14, 2005

Orthodox blues

As I may have mentioned before, my wife (let's call her Maude) belongs to one of the Eastern Orthodox churches. For her, church is inextricably tied in with her ethnicity, which I suspect is the case for most people outside of America. This makes the whole idea of changing religions much more problematic. For her, I suspect it would be like losing a part of her identity.

This notwithstanding, she is shopping around for other denominations. Why? Because her church does not recognize our marriage. Even though we were married in an Orthodox church, it was done by an unorthodox priest (ironically) who didn't require me to get rebaptized. As far as the official church is concerned, we are living in sin, and all basically because they don't consider me a Christian.

I have no problem with them not recognizing my baptism as valid. We, after all, don't consider theirs to be valid either. But it boggles the mind that a Church would refuse to recognize a marriage solemnized in one of their sister churches. (To be fair, there are a million different permutations of Eastern Orthodoxy, and we were married in a different branch than that to which my wife belongs.)

It seems odd to me that they don't recognize any marriages except those between Mainstream Christians to be valid. As more and more people inter-marry outside their ethnicity, this seems like a good way to lose members fast.

Tuesday, April 12, 2005

How to comment pseudonymously on Blogger

I have no problem with people posting comments anonymously (indeed, I probably wouldn't get any comments otherwise), but things like this thread are getting out of control. You can post anonymously on Blogger by selecting "Other" and you can put any name you'd like. You do not, I repeat, DO NOT have to put an email address. If you'd just give yourself a letter or number or even a character, we could keep who is saying what straight.

The democracy of the adjustable pulpit

One of the things that struck me in my recent visits to church is the oddness of the our pulpit. The bishop controls the height with a switch near his seat (at least in large American churches). I think this would be very strange to a visiting non-member.
I like how the pulpit in our church is not reserved for just the bishop, but is in fact open to anyone (once a month at least) in the congregation. The fact that it is adjustable means that we are not just accepting this, but actively encouraging full participation. This is one of the many democratic features of our church that I like (and I'm not just saying this to stave off Nate's criticism of whining in the bloggernacle).
However (you knew this was coming), I don't really think that primary children should be encouraged to bear their testimonies during fast & testimony meeting. Sure, it's cute, and they seem to enjoy it, but what's the point? Do they really have testimonies? Is repeating what your parent whispers in your ear faith-promoting? I find it a bit creepy.
But that's the price you pay when you live in an open society (so to speak). I guess all having free access to the pulpit is worth a few kids drooling on the mike.

Monday, April 11, 2005

Politics from the pulpit

The pile of laundry in my home is reaching Mt. Trashmore proportions, so I planned on spending my Sunday running up and down the stairs ferrying my clothes to the machines in the basement of our apartment building. Unfortunately, my wife took the laundry card with her so I was stuck with nothing to do. I decided on a whim to check out my ward this Sunday (as I had inadvertently attended a different ward two weeks ago).
After quickly showering and some VERY un-Christ-like driving, I reached the church with about 8 minutes to spare. As I got closer and closer to church, I thought I should stop honking and swerving around people just in case someone saw me pull into the church parking lot. Once there, I opened the program and saw mostly white space; I remembered with a sinking feeling that this week was testimony meeting because of General Conference. Well, at least it would probably be more interesting than a High Council talk.
The bishop, who seemed like a genuinely nice guy, ended up giving the only cringe-worthy testimony. He started out paying respects to the pope, and then told us how there are 110 million Catholics in the United States and how we are only a fraction of that. Thanks, bish! Now I'm depressed. (This didn't sound right to me, so I checked the Almanac when I got home; there are actually only 63 million Catholics in the U.S.) Then he started talking about how the Catholic and Mormon churches were the only ones standing up on issues like abortion and "marriage between a man and a woman" and women in the priesthood. I started fidgeting with my collar. He said he was watching a news program where a Catholic cardinal was being interviewed and he was asked if the Catholics could withstand social pressures to admit women to the priesthood. The cardinal apparently responded (according to the bishop's summary) that Christ taught the Golden rule and should we change that too? What? That makes no sense, and is more than a little offensive in my opinion.
The bishop also mentioned that the LDS scouts in Canada may have to end their affiliation with the Boy Scouts of Canada because of the homosexuality issue. Well, banning homosexuals didn't seem to help the American Boy Scouts with that creep who just plead guilty last week.

Maybe I'm out of touch, but I don't think politics should have a place at the pulpit, and especially not during fast and testimony meeting. The Bishop's testimony seemed to confirm something I suspected last week: some Mormons are enamored with John Paul II because of his extremely conservative political positions. As the bishop extolled the goodness of the pope's political views, I couldn't help thinking that condemning birth control was probably his most famous. Fortunately, our church don't share such a reactionary worldview, but it seemed like the bishop was trying to gloss over the differences between our churches.
Some people are so eager to embrace their political allies, that they overlook some disturbing facts. If you want to adopt reactionary Catholic political views, fine, but don't ask me to join you from the pulpit.

I managed to leave the meeting without speaking to anyone, and as I walked to my car, I noticed a Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker on a car in the parking lot. I strongly dislike both Kerry and Edwards, but somehow this bumper sticker gave me hope.

Thursday, April 07, 2005

Let's talk about... er, you know what

You can tell it's spring because the bloggernacle has turned to thoughts of, um, love. The General Conference thread at BCC has mutated into an referendum on Elder Oaks' infamous, infelicitous phrase. The discussion (242 comments and counting) has finally metastasized to the other copy-cat blogs (hey, Steve put me on the blogroll, I have to return the love).
As usual, I find myself outside the orthodox position on this issue. First of all, in an attempt to keep this discussion, as Seinfeld would say, sophisticated, I will employ various euphemisms. Many people seem to use the word "pr0n" but this always sounds like "prawn" to me; therefore, I will refer to the consumption of that particular media as "eating shrimp." And what goes hand-in-hand with this seafood? That's right, marination. Now that I've defined the terms, let's begin.
It seems weird to me that the General Authorities are always harping on shrimp consumption, but never seem to mention marination. Are they too embarrassed? I doubt it; they have been rather graphic at times. But they miss the main issue: the whole point of eating shrimp is the marination. No one eats shrimp because it's aesthetically pleasing. It's solely done to enhance the food preparation. So let's put the shrimp to the side for a moment, as it's ancillary to the real problem.
The real problem is that nearly every male in modern times marinates or has marinated at some time. For some people, that might be enough evidence to deem it natural or at least unavoidable. So what is the church's reaction to this omnipresent activity? It condemns it, of course, as part and parcel of the second-most serious sin possible. Innumerable local priesthood meetings are held to discuss it, innumerable man-hours are spent confessing to local leaders, and innumerable young men torment themselves over it. And all for what? For something that most people won't be able to control until marriage, if even then. In my opinion, this is just making people feel bad for no reason. I think you'll find a much healthier attitude outside of the church. It's something that is done and that's it; there's no need to dwell on it and let it consume our lives and destroy our marriages. As long as it's done in moderation, it doesn't seem to be a big problem.
However, when you make it strictly verboten, that's when even minor transgressions can flare up into addictions. Everyone is walking around all bottled up, like ticking time bombs. This is when the seafood comes into play. You catch the unmistakable scent of the ocean, and it's suddenly all you can think about. Since you are going to hell anyway for marinating, it's not that big of deal to add some shrimp on the barbie. You gorge yourself on shrimp since you know you are going to try never to eat it again after this meal. This is an unhealthy way to eat, and it's an unhealthy way to live. Young men get sucked into shame spirals that would not exist if they were only allowed to marinate like every other human on the planet. They would not want to gorge themselves on shrimp if they could simply eat a less pernicious form of seafood.
I think it is safe to say that soft shrimp (as defined by G.A.s, e.g. catalogues, certain Sports magazines, Maxim) hurts almost no one in its production, while hard shrimp hurts just about everyone. If we could only adjust our standards to be more realistic, we could go after some stuff that is truly ugly in this world. But as it is, we cast our nets too wide and they break with fish too small to fry.
This is just a plea for some understanding. Men will always have a taste for seafood. It's unavoidable. The church seems to think the best way to keep them from eating the poisonous fish is starving them. And then making them feel bad for being hungry. Isn't moderation in all things a healthier way to live?

Wednesday, April 06, 2005

Some marketing advice

Our church has a long name. One of the first things you notice in other countries is just how unwieldy it is. We have been hearing TheChurchofJesusChristofLatter-daySaints so often that the individual words don't really register anymore. I took a sign-language class during my college years (I was trying to expand my dating opportunities (don't ask)) and it taught me that you don't read by seeing each individual letter, you just recognize the shape of the word (this is how you can spell so fast in ASL and still be understood).
In foreign languages, you are back to struggling with individual words. And this is how I came to realize that we have a marketing problem with the name of our church in other languages. In Spanish, it is La Iglesia de Jesucristo de los Santos de los Ultimos Dias, or translated literally, The Church of Jesus Christ of the Saints of the Last Days. Sounds a little ominous, no? What if your friend told you he had just joined a great group called the Saints of the Last Days? You'd better start saving up for a de-programmer or at least start practicing what you'll say to CNN.
In English, "latter-day" means simply later days, or the present. So why do we translate this to "last days" in other languages? I agree that "Modern-day Saints" or "Present-day Saints" might sound a little weird but either is surely better than the doom and gloom of the "Last Days Saints." We might have more success attracting Spanish-speaking converts with a less apocalyptic name.

Monday, April 04, 2005

A Popish people

I have to admit that I am a bit mystified by the bloggernacle's reaction to the death of the Pope. Times & Seasons refers to him as a prophet, and a member of the Mormon Archipelago affectionately refers to him as "my Pope."
Don't get me wrong; it is nice to see such inter-faith amity. I like it a lot more than some of the anti-Catholic garbage I saw on my mission. But isn't there some middle ground?
It disturbs me how once someone dies, there can be no objective discussion of their life (see also, Ronald Reagan). The Pope certainly seemed like a nice guy, but it's not all butterflies and rainbows. He stood up against one of the evils of the 20th century, but seems to have been less vigilant against some of the subtler ones (see also, AIDS, priest scandals). By all means, let's celebrate his life, but can't we do it objectively, warts and all?
Mormons have the exact same problem; we want to celebrate Joseph Smith's birthday, but we want to remember our sanitized version of him, not the real man. I found American Prophet: The Story of Joseph Smith in a used bookstore and purchased it because it looked interesting. The book makes no mention at all of polygamy and (as I discovered later) is published by an imprint of Deseret Book.
I just wish we could have frank discussions about sensitive topics, instead of always trying to put the best face on things.