I intended to publish some remarks on the comments section of the CNN webpage, but my verbosity got the better of me and my reply was too long. Thankfully I have another avenues in which I can express my thoughts. What follows are my thoughts as they were intended on being published on the CNN webpage, with minor changes in formatting.

–

I usually don’t comment on blogs or websites such as this, but I feel compelled to relate some of my thoughts regarding Ms. Erickson’s unfortunate remarks directed against Mormonism.

For full disclosure I am a faithful Latter-day Saint. I was born and raised in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and made a conscious commitment to my religion as a young teenager when I began to seriously investigate not only my faith but other religions. I recently returned from my LDS mission in New England, where happily most people are not as unpleasant towards my faith as Ms. Erickson is. I have participated in the ordinances of the temple repeatedly. I attend my Church services weekly. And I have extensively studied not only the history and doctrine of my faith from both Mormon and non-Mormon perspectives but also other religious traditions such as Judaism and Islam. I am a student at Brigham Young University and am majoring in Ancient Near Eastern Studies, with an emphasis in Hebrew and the Old Testament. I thought I would get all of this out of the way so that nobody wonders about my background.

First, despite her denial to the contrary, Ms. Erickson’s attitude towards Mormonism is thoroughly anti-Mormon. She is egregiously twisting many tenets of Mormon doctrine, most noticeably the Mormon doctrine of deification (which, incidentally, finds remarkable harmony with the early Christian doctrine of theosis) to suit her polemical agenda. Her description of the ordinances of the temple is not only disrespectful towards Mormons, who hold these ordinances in the highest sanctity, but also is saturated with lurid sensationalism that is only appropriate for yellow journalism or a trashy tabloid. As Professor Bushman noted in his response, Ms. Erickson has stripped the Mormon temple ceremony out of its sacred context and warped it into a frightful, but inaccurate, caricature.

Second, her citing of Ed Decker as an authority on Mormonism is quite astonishing. It is not an exaggeration to say that her citing Decker to explain Mormonism is just as misguided as going to a neo-Nazi to seek out reliable information on Judaism or a member of the KKK to get an objective portrayal of blacks. In fact, Ed Decker’s outrageous distortion of Mormonism is so repellent that nobody less than career anti-Mormons Jerald and Sandra Tanner of Utah Lighthouse Ministry (certainly no friends of the Mormon Church) condemned Decker for his irresponsibility and unfounded, repugnant, and salacious attacks against the LDS Church. Decker has zero credibility, and his pseudo-scholarly miasmal book “The God Makers” has been debunked by Mormon apologists. For Ms. Erickson to rely on Decker as an authority on Mormonism is shocking, not to mention unfortunate, and betrays her anti-Mormon tendencies.

Third, Ms. Erickson’s disdain for other American religious minorities, particularly Muslims, is rank with bigotry.

Fourth, her continual spewing of words such as “cult”, “indoctrinate”, “dogma”, and characterizing Mormonism as “a complete lie” compromises her objectivity and her qualification to be a commentator on religious matters.

Someone else here has drawn attention to Dr. Hugh Nibley’s wonderful essay “How to Write an Anti-Mormon Book (A Handbook for Beginners)”. Those curious to see whether Ms. Erickson’s denial of being an anti-Mormon is legitimate should compare her remarks here with what Dr. Nibley has written. You can read it online for free here:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=77&chapid=973

Finally, may I express a word to the editors of CNN? Please be more selective with whom you decide to give airtime on your otherwise wonderful and informative website. Ms. Erickson, I am afraid, has no real contribution to the discussion of the relationship between religion and politics in our modern society. Her polemical ranting is below CNN’s standards of journalism.

One of my favorite things to do when I visit New York or London is to see the shows. We get an occasional traveling production in Salt Lake City, but for sheer quantity, there are no places in the world like New York and London. However, there hasn’t been anything on Broadway that I’ve been very interested in for some time now. So recently, it has been with great interest that I’ve read reviews of the Book of Mormon musical. Of course, I have been interested not only because it has been called the “savior” of Broadway, or because of all the awards it has won. I have also been interested to see reports that a number of Mormons have seen and enjoyed the show. Some Mormons have been quoted as saying that that there is enough to be offended at, but that the message is “sweet.” This might lead one to believe that, despite its offensive presentation, the core message is a positive one. However, as I have heard the show described, it has not seemed to warrant the glowing admiration that it has been receiving. I have been willing to admit that it might have good music with funny jokes. But in my judgment, not only is the show shockingly profane, but the ultimate message of the show is less-than-redeeming.

Putting aside the sheer offensiveness of the lyrics, I found the music itself to be unimaginative and cliché. Some may say that its cliché feel is just part of the satire; that partly, the point of the show is to make fun of Broadway musicals. Fair enough. However, that’s been done before, and much more effectively, in Spamalot. In short, there was very little in the way of unique artistry that can be found here. I’ll admit that it has some catchy tunes. So does Lady GaGa. Both may be long remembered, not for their catchy tunes or even for their messages, but for the way in which they offended modern sensibilities, which is what I think Parker and Stone were going for.

What that leaves is the story. The main thrust of its claims about Mormonism is that Joseph Smith made it all up, and that his message does not apply to the modern world. It portrays Mormons as naïve and simplistic. Of course, Mormons are also a cheerful, polite, and well-meaning bunch, and as such, are basically harmless. But the only way for them to truly do good in the modern world is to change their story so it applies to current problems, which should be fine since their scriptures were made up in the first place. This is all very appealing to the audience and to theater critics. They are made to feel superior to the delusional Mormons, while at the same time, feel good about themselves for acknowledging that it is important to help relieve suffering in the world. They don’t have to feel bad about lampooning the Mormons since the show acknowledges that Mormons are nice people, and since it is just satire, after all.

Many Mormon reviews of the show tend to whitewash the truly disgusting aspects and try to find a positive spin, perhaps to demonstrate how open-minded and hip we Mormons are. Mormons who have given positive reviews argue that the show preaches a positive message of practical religion. However, putting aside the discussions of raping babies, raping frogs, and raping God himself (or herself?), the central theme of the musical is not about service to the poor and downtrodden. It is about how making up a wacky religion can be great so long as it accomplishes humanitarian ends, like reducing incidences of AIDS and female circumcision.

At the end of the show, it is not the Book of Mormon that is being preached and changing the lives of the Ugandans, it is the Book of Arnold, the new scripture made up by one of the show’s Mormon missionaries, Elder Arnold Cunningham. The new church members do not provide clean drinking water, vaccinations, and wheelchairs to Africans, as Mormons have done in real life. They do not testify of the eternal saving power of the atonement of Jesus Christ. Instead, they go door to door passing out the Book of Arnold. The practical advice that changes lives comes from a story about how Joseph Smith was about to rape a baby to cure his AIDS, when God appeared to him and told him to rape a frog instead. He later meets Brigham Young, who was cursed by God for circumcising his daughter. The curse was that his nose was turned into a clitoris. Joseph Smith heals Brigham by rubbing the frog on his nose. We are supposed to believe that this message is more crucial and more pertinent to the lives of the Ugandans than the messages that are actually in the Book of Mormon.

When you push past the vulgarity and lampooning of the sacred, the message is that even if you manufacture a religion, and even if that religion has preposterous foundational stories, so long as it addresses modern problems and motivates people to be nice to each other, religion is A-okay.  Stone and Parker obviously don’t believe that a fable about raping frogs really has the power to change lives, but what does? While they profess to like Mormons and think that Mormons are really nice people, what makes Mormons that way? Is the real Book of Mormon actually irrelevant to modern day problems?

It is true that the Book of Mormon says nothing about vaccinations, clean drinking water and wheelchairs. Yet, somehow Mormons feel motivated to give of their time, talents, money, and even risk their lives, to go to such places as Africa to serve people whom they have never met. What Stone and Parker apparently fail to grasp is that this motivation actually comes from what is in the Book of Mormon. There is no need for a modern-day revision. The primary reason that Mormons are the way they are is that they have accepted the central messages of the Book of Mormon, that Jesus Christ is our savior and that His church is on the Earth today. The atonement of Jesus Christ has the power to change people’s hearts. The Book of Mormon contains little, if any, practical advice on dealing with modern problems. Yet, as people accept the message of the Book of Mormon, they gain power that helps them to patiently and even cheerfully cope with the trials of life.

Matt Stone and Trey Parker make an effort, and rightly so, to highlight the power that comes from the fact that Mormons believe strongly in their religion. However, they seem oblivious to the fact that this power comes from strong beliefs in things that are true. And despite what the Book of Mormon Musical may lead people to believe, the messages that are actually in the Book of Mormon are a powerful source of good in the world today. That power comes from being based in timeless facts not timely fantasies.

“The bedrock moral issue for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is how we treat each other as children of God.”

I was reminded when I read this statement of a passage in the New Testament. In Luke 10, we read the parable of the Good Samaritan. Personally, I don’t believe it is a parable at all. It follows a pattern that I recognize elsewhere as a legal debate in which a question is asked, and then various examples are raised in which the question might occur – and those examples move from the most difficult and unusual to the most common and immediate [2]. Our narrative starts with this introduction:

And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? (vss. 25-26)

What is the purpose of this exchange? In such a setting the lawyer would approach Jesus and ask a question. The lawyer is challenging Jesus. He already has an answer to the question (it says he was there to tempt Jesus and not to learn), and the underlying supposition is that he will try to embarrass Jesus or show him up by getting a response and then giving a better one. So Jesus responds to the question with a question of his own (part of the normal tactics for these discussions) – Jesus asks, how do you understand the law? And so the lawyer responds:

And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbor? (vss. 27-29)

So the lawyer provides a very good answer (one in fact that Jesus himself uses in response to the priests and elders – Matt. 22:36-40). But, the lawyer wants further the discussion (he still has a trap in mind), so he asks Jesus who that neighbor is. Why is this question important? Much of the Law of Moses is dedicated to distinguishing between Israel and everyone else. Different rules applied when dealing with an Israelite than with strangers or foreigners. Again, we assume that the lawyer has some idea of how he would answer this question, but the question he is asking is where do we draw the line? This is a question about exclusion. Who does the Law of Moses apply to?

How does Jesus respond? He provides a test case for the lawyer to consider:

And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and who wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. (vss. 30-31)

So, what is the nature of the question? A man traveling from Jerusalem could be just about anybody. The venue itself doesn’t suggest whether or not that man was an Israelite. He has no clothes (which presumably could function to help identify the man). But more than this, the one indicator that would indicate that he could be an Israelite is now in plain sight. Is he circumcised? If he wasn’t, the priest could leave him there and the stipulation in Leviticus 19:18 (to love your neighbor as yourself) wouldn’t apply. Even if he were circumcised, there wouldn’t necessarily be resolution. After all, the Samaritans were circumcised as well, and they certainly traveled the road between Jericho and Jerusalem. The man is half dead, (unconscious) so he cannot simply be asked if he is an Israelite.

As a priest, he might consider the implications of Leviticus 21:1-4 which makes it sinful for the priest to touch a corpse. There were other legal considerations, and of all the Israelites, the question in the case of the Priest would be the most difficult, since he would have the most rules to work his way through when weighing the different outcomes. Jesus has then posed his lawyer challenger with a difficult legal question to be figured out – is the priest justified in moving to the other side of the road and ignoring the man in the ditch? And the lawyer, who has, himself, come to challenge Jesus will see this as an appropriate challenge.

Jesus follows this up then with the next case to be considered. It is the same situation, but with a Levite, the cultic responsibilities are a bit less than that of the priest (and so a little less difficult to determine a resolution):

And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. (vs. 32)

The Levite has similar concerns to the priest (although the issues with Leviticus 21:1-4 could be removed from the equation although other similar restrictions like Numbers 19 would still apply). In fact, from the perspective of the lawyer, this is the distinction that Jesus seems to want to introduce, going from most complex to less complex, to simplest situation. So the implied question too here is, was the Levite also justified in ignoring the man (in not applying Lev. 19:18).

Finally, we get to a third test case. At this point, the lawyer is expecting the introduction of the Israelite with the least restriction – the common Israelite. After all, he still understands that we are asking the question – is the man in the ditch the neighbor to the priest, to the Levite and now, potentially to the common Israelite. And here, Jesus pulls the rug out from under the lawyer’s feet:

But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. (vss. 33-34)

Jesus has completely altered the discussion. Of course, it is completely natural that a Samaritan would walk down that road (we have already determined that it is this issue which in part forms the basis for discussion – was the half dead man at the side of the road an Israelite or a Samaritan?) And the Samaritan acts out of compassion (and not just a little compassion – the details lead us to understand that what he did was neither quick or cheap). Now we could suppose for a moment that Jesus could return to the original discussion that the lawyer has envisioned. He could ask, “If the Samaritan acts with compassion on the man, are the Priest and the Levite still justified in not treating the man as a neighbor?”, but instead he asks the lawyer:

Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise. (vss. 36-37)

So we start by asking who a neighbor is, and we end up by illustrating what a neighbor does. And in the process, Jesus has challenged the whole legalistic process of identifying a neighbor. And rather than contributing to a legalistic identification, he has made a neighbor into someone who helps those in need. In a sense, Jesus hasn’t embarrassed the lawyer by his questions, he has embarrassed the Law of Moses.

And this brings me back to the official position of the Church as presented in the statement released by the Public Affairs Office. I think that too many people in our society today are interested in being the lawyer. They want to have lines drawn. They want to know exactly where their obligation to love our neighbors as ourselves ends. They want to do this in the abstract – to walk by on the other side of the road so to speak so that they aren’t faced with the reality that their decisions are creating. As the statement notes:

“The history of mass expulsion or mistreatment of individuals or families is cause for concern especially where race, culture, or religion are involved.  This should give pause to any policy that contemplates targeting any one group, particularly if that group comes mostly from one heritage.”

We can focus on what might or might not be legal (and on occasion we may even find ourselves in positions to change or affect what might or might not be legal). We can engage in sophistry – we might suggest that because this statement hasn’t come from the First Presidency in General Conference that it isn’t something we need to thoughtfully consider when we become engaged in issues of immigration. In doing this, we, like the lawyer in Luke 10, are simply looking for ways to exclude. Rather than seeing a need for compassion and acting on it, we first wish to determine if our immigrants are worthy of our help. Like the followers of Mosaic Law, we wish to interpret and reinterpret in an ever more detailed fashion so that we can constantly narrow that which requires us to act.

No matter what side of the political spectrum we sit on, our responses to the issues of immigration that challenge us today should be dominated foremost by the issues that the leaders of the Church have raised and presented to us for our consideration: a respect for every member of the human family as children of God, compassion, a respect for family, and a commitment to law.

[1] http://newsroom.lds.org/article/immigration-church-issues-new-statement

[2] This interpretation is adapted from Philip F. Esler, “Jesus and the Reduction of Intergroup. Conflict: the Parable of the Good Samaritan in the light of. Social Identity Theory,” Biblical Interpretation 4 (2000)

William Schryver’s presentation on the Kirtland Egyptian Papers received some press before the conference, and did not disappoint. You can view it here. (A browser plug-in may be required.)

There have been articles about many of the presentations published in Mormon Times, Deseret News, and LDS Church News:

• FAIR conference: Same-sex marriage and the role of religion
• FAIR conference: Secret Mormon codes and Egyptian papers
• FAIR conference: LDS doctrine clear on divinity of one God
• FAIR conference: ‘Gender equality is the brick of Zion,’ speaker says
• FAIR conference: What if the U.S. president were a Mormon?
• FAIR conference: Joseph Smith’s discovery of ancient patterns
• FAIR Conference: Roper’s take on Book of Mormon geography
• Mormons need to work to increase favor
• FAIR conference: Defend the Book of Mormon by studying names, origins
• Nibley editor says scholar was bolstered by research
• ‘Be Ready’ to Defend Faith

Transcripts will be posted at http://www.fairlds.org when they are ready. MP3s and DVDs will be made available for purchase at the FAIR bookstore.

Terryl L. Givens

Dr. Terryl L. Givens sat down with host Blair Hodges during the Mormon Scholars Foundation Summer Seminar at Brigham Young University. Blair uses selections from Givens’s books as jumping off points for further discussion on a wide array of subjects, including: nineteenth-century anti-Mormon literature, the Book of Mormon, prisca theologia, the paradox of searching and certainty, recent developments in Mormon studies, Parley P. Pratt, the preexistence, globalization, thoughtful faith, and dealing with difficult historical and theological puzzles.

Questions about this episode and ideas for future episodes can be added to the comments section here, or emailed to podcast@fairlds.org.

Dr. Terrl L. Givens is Professor of Literature and Religion at the University of Richmond. He has authored several books, including The Viper on the Hearth: Mormons, Myths, and the Construction of Heresy (Oxford 1997); By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion (Oxford 2003); People of Paradox: A History of Mormon Culture (Oxford 2007); The Book of Mormon: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford 2009); and When Souls had Wings: Pre-Mortal Life in Western Thought (2010). His current projects include a biography of Parley P. Pratt (with Matt Grow, to be published by Oxford in 2011), a sourcebook of Mormonism in America (with Reid Neilson, to be published by Columbia in 2011), a history of Mormon theology (with Steven Harper), and a study of the idea of human perfectibility in the Western tradition. He lives in Montpelier, Virginia.

(Image and info from http://terrylgivens.com/)

Download:

To download, right click this link and select “Save link as…” or download in iTunes here.

Runtime:

55:26

Support FAIR:

FAIR relies on contributions from readers and listeners. To help support FAIR, make a donation today.

Working at a college myself, I recognize that some of the issue has nothing to do with Mormons but was a way to express displeasure with the College President who happens to be LDS. Nevertheless, the comments as represented in the press,  certainly pose some troubling questions. Is it a violation of state law to send recruiting material to students if those students belong to a religious organization? Did some faculty and students use this opportunity to vent their anti-Mormon feelings? Does this now create a hostile educational environment for LDS students at Northwest College? Is Northwest College showing intolerance toward the LDS?

Here is a letter that I sent to the college:

In reading the press accounts about the Mormon outreach letter, we are very concerned that Mormon (LDS) students are hearing they are not welcome at Northwest College. We are also concerned that, because of political repercussions, existing LDS students are going to be subject to a hostile educational environment.

Reaching out to various student groups is not new to colleges. The University of Michigan Law School recently sent out a letter to potential LDS students identifying LDS programs that would support their university experience. Students from differing backgrounds have concerns and questions about college life. I would think the college would be grateful to have a spokesperson who was able to personally reach out to this one group. I would also hope there are those on campus who can reach out to other groups who might have different cultural and religious sensitivities.

Contrary to some of the comments in the press, it is legal to talk with groups of people about what to expect when attending college, even if they belong to a church or faith group. Statements implying otherwise come across as being hurtful and discriminatory.

We at the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research hope that as you formulate future plans the administration and faculty will reach out to students of the LDS faith to make them once again feel welcome at the college. To do otherwise at this point makes it appear that the recent outrage was nothing more than an expression of anti-Mormon bigotry.

I did get one response expressing that the discussion had nothing to do with Mormons but was rather a question of separation of church and state issue. This was my (slightly edited here) response.

I work at a public college and I understand how feelings get stirred up about actions of the president. From what I read, this seemed to be a way to express displeasure of your president. I understand that and don’t want to defend him personally.

I read how some of your faculty painted this as a separation of church and state issue. However, the faculty and staff need to understand that they are treading on sensitive ground without legal support. Nothing that I read the college president did violated any separation of church and state issues. It is quite legal for a public institution to talk to members of religious groups, and even send them letters so long as you aren’t endorsing those groups. To say otherwise may be considered discriminatory.

At my college, we recently brought in some Islamic students. We provided a prayer room and  modified the toilets in their dorm room.  That is a religious accommodation and is legal.

The University of Michigan Law School sent out a recruiting letter to Mormon students this year telling what an LDS member could expect at their college, where to find the church and the LDS Institute of Religion. That was appropriate and legal and apparently the same as what your college did.

If your college president had been asked to speak to a group of prospective students and their parents about coming to your college, would that be legal? If that talk was taking place in a religious building such as a church or synagogue, but was still only about the benefits of attending your college, would that still be legal?  If a Jewish student at that religious building then asked if there were synagogues nearby where he or she might worship when attending your school, would it be legal to answer? If the school gave that group of students a piece of paper with the synagogue’s address and contact information, would that be legal? Of course it would. There is no endorsement of the group. There is only information and accommodation.

Now, how would it look if your president refused to speak to those students because they were practicing Jews, or practicing Muslims? Do you think that might make your college look bad? Do you think the press might even be interested? This situation is no different. Mormon students have things in their culture that may be concerns while attending Northwest College. Giving information to them to alleviate those concerns is perfectly appropriate and legal. Claiming that you can’t do so is insensitive to that group. You are simply trying to let the students know that attending your college is a viable option without barriers.

I know you don’t want to get into a debate, but I wanted you to know why we were concerned.

Additionally, any time a group is singled out, thoughtless comments are made that can be hurtful and lead to a hostile educational environment where the students don’t feel comfortable with the faculty and fellow students.

I look forward to Northwest College tackling this issue head on and continue to send recruiting and information letters out to various groups, including religious ones. But, I also think something needs to be done to let the Mormon students know they are still welcome on your campus.

I would appreciate your thoughts on this incident in Wyoming.

John W. Welch, the issue’s editor, can hardly contain his enthusiasm:

Imagine!…having the BCR is something akin to uncovering a discarded draft of the Declaration of Independence or some of the missing records used by Luke in preparing his gospel (p. 5).

This issue of BYU Studies includes four enjoyable papers on BCR that were presented in a plenary session of the 2009 Mormon History Association meeting in May 2009. These articles, written by members of the Joseph Smith Papers editorial team, provide details not included in the Revelations and Translations volume itself.

Robert J. Woodford, “Introducing A Book of Commandments and Revelations, A Major New Documentary ‘Discovery,’” (pp. 7-17).

Woodford gives a brief overview BCR and its provenance, and identifies those (including himself) who worked on its publication preparation. He describes how researchers identified the way BCR was referenced for publishing the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. He concludes with some suggestions for future research based on BCR. For example, analyzing alterations in the revelations raises historical and theological implications. The so-called Book of Mormon copyright revelation and a piece on the “pure language” are of interest. The dates revelations were received and the historical setting can be reevaluated. “Each researcher will find his own area of particular interest” now that the BCR has been published and made available (p. 16).

Robin Scott Jensen, “From Manuscript to Printed Page: An Analysis of the History of the Book of Commandments and Revelations,” (pp. 19-52).

In this highly technical article Jensen more fully traces the provenance, context, and content of the BCR. He meticulously describes the physical makeup of the book as well as its significance to scholars. “When scholars approach newly discovered documents, several important questions arise. When and why was it created? Who created it? What was it used for?” (p. 21). For Jensen, reading the words on the page alone only yields half an answer to these questions. Only by studying the internal and external evidence, the manuscript words as well as the history of Mormonism and the nature of archival record keeping, can we fully appreciate the document in question. Jensen explains how “forensic paleography” helps researchers find out when a document was created, how it was used, and what it might have meant to the people involved in its creation. In other words, Jensen is asking questions about what the BCR can teach us about the very process of revelation itself.

Steven C. Harper, “Historical Headnotes and the Index of Contents in the Book of Commandments and Revelations,” (pp. 53- 66).

John Whitmer, the principle scribe for the BCR, included interesting date and header information for many of the revelations, allowing researchers to reassess the date and context of many early revelations. Clues will help reassess timing of aspects of the Book of Mormon translation, the location of the organization of the Church, the date when section 20 was revealed (calling into question speculation about Christ’s birthday being the 6th of April), the timing of the “parchment of John” revelation, the identity of James Covill, the circumstances surrounding a meeting where men were asked to testify to the truthfulness of Joseph Smith’s revelations, and how early members understood the imperfect revelations from a 24-year-old ploughboy prophet. Harper notes his essay does not finish much historical reassessment, but is meant to encourage it by describing how the BCR’s index of contents and historical headnotes can be examined by scholars.

Grant Underwood, “Revelation, Text, and Revision: Insight From the Book of Commandments and Revelations,” (pp. 67-84).

Underwood explores how textual revisions shed “important light on the process by which Joseph Smith received, recorded, and published his revelations” (p. 67). What is revelation? A direct word-for-word message from God, or the human articulation of the message? Something in between? Tracking some changes between the BCR and later published versions of the revelations allows us to see how Joseph Smith and his contemporaries understood the process. For the most part Underwood says pre-July 1833 revisions were mostly grammatical and stylistic, or clarified meaning. After that point in preparation for publishing the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants changes were made to update, amplify, and incorporate newly revealed polity or doctrine (p. 68). He tracks who made most of the corrections, surprisingly few in the hand of Joseph Smith himself, who was the one called to make such changes. Underwood explains a “latitudinarian” view of the revelations, where Joseph trusted associates to make changes so long as the general sense was not adjusted. Thus, divine communication has a human component which needs to be taken into account, or as Jeffrey R. Holland stated: “The scriptures are not the ultimate source of knowledge for Latter-day Saints. They are manifestations of the ultimate source. The ultimate source of knowledge and authority for a Latter-day Saint is the living God” (p. 81). Underwood deftly utilizes scholarship on revelation from several different faith traditions and non-LDS scholars to help readers better understand revelation and the written word.

Ronald E. Romig provides a brief response to these papers and a short historical overview from the perspective of the Community of Christ (pp. 85-91). In the Book Review section Thomas Coens, an associate editor of the Papers of Andrew Jackson series gives a non-Mormon scholar’s perspective on the landmark inaugural installment of the Joseph Smith Papers. He tips his cap to the rigorous scholarship involved in the Journals volume and provides a few personal thoughts on the volume. James B. Allen also reviews the Journals volume.

In addition to these special articles, the issue includes a piece on Eliza R. Snow’s poetry, LDS athletic tournaments from 1950-1971, and book reviews of the Twighlight series, Bushman’s Very Short Introduction to Mormonism and a few other selections. A paperback copy of this issue is available for $9.95, or a digital copy can be downloaded for $7.00. See byustudies.byu.edu for more. This is a highly recommended issue.

For instance, did you know that the LDS Church, in America, has more racial diversity than several other religious traditions who routinely criticize us for our “racism.” Mormons are 86% white, compared with other predominantly white faiths, such as “Jews (95% white), members of mainline Protestant churches (91% white) and Orthodox Christians (87% white).” The diversity among Mormons is growing, as well, as only 72% of converts are white—a statistic that would have been unthinkable only a generation ago.

Perhaps one of the most interesting items to me, however, was an examination of how Mormons compare to other religious traditions when it comes to living our religion. This graph, from the Pew data, sums it up:

Note that Mormons are at the high end of the spectrum, beyond any other religious tradition. In short, we practice what we preach. In the words of the report, “Mormon exceptionalism in religious commitment is evident when several measures of religious belief and practice are combined.”

The results of the study put the lie to many old canards about the Church and its members. It will be interesting to see if such data changes perceptions.

-Allen

That may make some independents wary of voting for a Mormon candidate, he says, and stoke more fears of how much power the church has over its faithful members.

The statement, referencing a statement by University of Iowa communications professor Bruce Gronbeck, raises the specter of “too much control.” Conversely, over at the Boston Globe, writers are almost gleeful over the Church having too little control:

The church’s outspoken support for Proposition 8 exposed an unusual level of disagreement in the ordinarily harmonious Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as the Internet facilitated grass-roots organizing by the minority of Mormons who support same-sex marriage.

Too much control? Too little control? Seems people can’t really decide—in or out of the Church.

Ya gotta love it.

-Allen

During the election, there was even an anti-Mormon commercial that shows Mormon Missionaries invading a home and pawing through women’s underwear to find a marriage certificate to tear up.

Some have commented that the ex-Mormon community has used the cover of the election to strike some blows against the Church.

On the positive side, Church Leaders in other faiths have come out in our defense.

I thought one of the more interesting ant-Mormon rants came from actress-comedian Rosanne Barr.

I thought I would post a portion of it here as some of you might have thoughts on this, as well as thoughts on where this all might lead.

They have crossed the line between church and state and it will be the issue of gay marriage which they so fiercely oppose (as they oppose women’s rights and the rights of child sex abuse victims with their fake pro-family bullcrap legislations) that will reclassify this “church” as the political action committee that it is, and therefore make it ineligible for tax exempt status! they intend the complete overthrow of the us government. they intend to destroy civil liberties and institute taliban like polygamy and child marriage. They hate our country, and want to destroy it’s constitution. This they do while paying not one cent for the firemen the police the teachers the roads the parks, the hospitals. they build their own infrastructure with your tax money.
The old women are encouraged to be self righteous haters of young women, and to demand forced pregnancies as a tactic of control for young girls who are traded like cattle and increasingly these days, not even given birth certificates! Listen up liars thieves whores and satan worshipping anti-christ- you are going to burn in hellfire and damnation unless you repent of your evil sins and choose ye this day to harken unto TRUTH!!! the truth is the truth and there is no higher truth than truth! this is the truth…

On one hand, I had to laugh about what was written. On the other hand, I had to wonder if the ignorance was real or contrived. Anytime that such bigoted language is used, it gives me pause and makes me wonder where we are going in our society.

The Church issued the following statement today:

It is disturbing that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is being singled out for speaking up as part of its democratic right in a free election.

Members of the Church in California and millions of others from every faith, ethnicity and political affiliation who voted for Proposition 8 exercised the most sacrosanct and individual rights in the United States — that of free expression and voting.

While those who disagree with our position on Proposition 8 have the right to make their feelings known, it is wrong to target the Church and its sacred places of worship for being part of the democratic process.

Once again, we call on those involved in the debate over same-sex marriage to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility towards each other. No one on either side of the question should be vilified, harassed or subject to erroneous information.

The Church has taken quite a bit of heat in some quarters regarding its stance relative to Proposition 8 in California. I know and support the call from the Church for members to help pass the proposition. I also know several faithful members who take exception to the Church making such a call. (Of course, a few other faithful members may take exception to characterizing those exception-taking members as “faithful.” So be it; that’s a nit I am not willing or worthy to pick.)

What I take exception with is the troublesome efforts of one Nadine Hansen, an attorney from Cedar City, Utah, who created the website Mormonsfor8.com. The domain registration for Mormonsfor8 is “private,” meaning that Hansen has sought to protect her identity through the registration. She has, however, allowed her responsibility for the website to be spotlighted in dozens of newspaper articles, such as this one.

Even though the website and Hansen profess “neutrality” in the struggles for and against Proposition 8, it is somewhat telling that the she operates no balancing website called “Catholicsfor8″ or “Mormonsagainst8.” The only demographic and position targeted by the site is Mormons, and only if they have donated to the campaign for a proposition with which she disagrees.

Hardly seems neutral to me.

Hansen is no stranger to this topic, however. She long ago took a position in this area. She recounts some of her efforts in her 2008 Sunstone Symposium presentation.

So what do I find troubling about the Mormonsfor8 website? Simply that it targets individuals and invites others to identify individuals’ religious affiliation. What does such an affiliation have to do with the efforts around Proposition 8? Should it matter of a proponent of the proposition was Baptist? Should it matter if an opponent was tall? Or a lawyer? Or a journalist? Would there be an outcry if someone created a website called “Blacksfor8″ or “Gaysagainst8″? If there would be, why is there no outcry over a site designed to identify all the donors in favor of Proposition 8 who are Mormon?

Apparently the effort is appreciated for exactly what it is by some people, however. In a recent post on The Daily Kos one correspondent provided a link to Mormonsfor8 and suggested that people “gather dirt” on all the Mormon donors so that it could be used against those people and against the Proposition 8 proponents. There is at least anecdotal evidence that has been coming in to FAIR that some people are doing just that—using the information on Mormonsfor8 to identify the donors, contact them, and intimidate or threaten them. Even some death threats have been proffered.

If Hansen had any real concern for individuals, she should take down her site, and do it right away, before the election and before some idiot uses her information to actually harm those who don’t agree with Hansen’s moral stance.

I should also note that I find it interesting that an attorney—an officer of the court—would initiate and operate a website which can only have, as its implicit purpose, the targeting of a specific religious group and the suppression of donations by potential future donors from that group. I’m not a lawyer, but it would seem to me that religious affiliation is a private matter and “outting” that affiliation may have legal consequences.

Anyway, the next 8 days should be interesting, to say the least.

-Allen

Though bandaged and bruised, Elder Ferguson (middle) and Elder Collinsworth (left) survived a knife attack. Photo courtesy of President and Sister Scruggs (10-18-'08)

In a letter distributed to the families of the missionaries of the Australia Sydney North mission President Scruggs recounts the events of Tuesday, October 14:

At about 8:45 PM, Elders Collinsworth (out about 6 months from Mapleton, UT; BYU basketball player, 6’9″, 220 lbs) and Elder Ferguson (out about 18 months from Great Falls, Montana; BYU major in Ancient Near Eastern Studies, 6’1″ — very slender), were walking on the sidewalk about 1/2 a block from their apartment. The area, Auburn, is our most urban. The missionaries refer to it as “all manner of ‘ese: Chinese, Sudanese, Lebanese, etc.” The Elders saw two Lebanese men, over six feet tall with mullets, walking towards them. As they approached, the Elders stepped off the sidewalk to let them pass. As soon as the men were in striking distance, they struck. Elder Collinsworth grabbed his attacker and threw him down into the street and held him to the ground. Elder Ferguson exchanged punches with his attacker with enough ferocity that the coward fled. By this time a third attacker jumped on Elder Collinsworth pulling his shirt over his head. He was knocked to the ground and kicked. He said the last thing he saw as he hit the street was Elder Ferguson running towards him. Elder Ferguson knocked the third attacker off of Elder Collinsworth. The second attacker who had run away earlier returned to join the attack.

At this time a passing Sudanese motorist stopped and honked his horn, flashed his lights and yelled. The three attackers ran away. The motorist got out and checked on the Elders — now both on the street — and then went to get a nearby policeman. At this point the Elders realized they had both been stabbed. Elder Collinsworth, once in the back; Elder Ferguson, thrice — in the thigh, the upper left arm, and the left wrist. Blood was especially pouring out of the wrist wound, so Elder Collinsworth took off his tie and bound the wound. An ambulance quickly arrived and transported them to Westmead which is a very good hospital.

President Scruggs provided a witness of tender mercies experienced throughout the ordeal, which continued as the missionaries were attended to at the hospital. Upon the elders’ recovery, an impromptu, spiritually uplifting meeting was held at ground zero (see pictures above and below). To parents of all the missionaries in his care, he provided warm assurance that every precaution is and will be taken to look after their safety. Some perspective was added that bicycle accidents occur much more frequently to missionaries than physical attacks, which set up this gem from Elder Collinsworth: “When you get home and tell people you got hurt in a bike wreck, they think you’re a dork; but when you tell them you got jumped and stabbed, we’ll get some respect.”

Elder Ferguson (via his mother) gave me some details not found local news coverage:

I have 9 stitches in my hand, and about as many in my leg. My leg has an ugly L shaped cut. I think I passed out for a second when my head hit the ground and that is when one of the men stabbed me in the leg and jerked the knife. When I came to, I kicked the man in the shin, jumped up to my feet, and then tackled the other guy. I imagine I wouldn’t have done that if I knew I had been stabbed.

What the papers don’t tell you about the fight is that I was confronting the guy with the knife before he ran off. He had a scared look on his face and in reflection, it seems he was just about as surprised to be in the fight as we were. The third guy, we believe, was not connected to them and just wanted to join the fight.

Elder Collinsworth and I were doing exactly what we were supposed to do. We pushed back the exchange a day because my regular companion was sick. We made the exchange at the only available time for the family which I wanted to visit. After meeting with the family, we took the most direct route home walking quickly, and we would have arrived home exactly at the right time to finish the night.

Missionaries in the Australia Sydney North Mission at attack site. Photo courtesy President and Sister Scruggs (10-18-'08)

On Wednesday the story of the missionary attack was reported by Deseret News and other local media (for example KSL and the Daily Herald). The interest created by the sports angle ensured that media outlets throughout the nation picked the story up. As a former member of FAIR, Elder David Ferguson may very well be to our apologetic network and reader audience what Elder Chris Collinsworth is to the BYU basketball team and fans. The initial reaction of FAIR volunteers to the news was perhaps best typified by Don Neighbor’s admission that he was “utterly speechless,” which is significant coming from one never at a loss for words as he eviscerates anti-Mormon arguments. While what follows below is FAIR’s tribute to Elder Ferguson, we recognize he and Elder Collinsworth are but fine examples of missionaries everywhere who sacrifice their time, talents, and sometimes health and safety to further the Lord’s work.

Several of us from FAIR contacted Margaret Ferguson to express condolences and let her know her son was in our prayers. I asked her how she found out about the attack and if there was any discussion of him coming home. She responded: “He called us from the hospital with his Mission President a few hours after the attack. He said, ‘I was in a bit of a scrap and I am in the hospital but I am O.K.’ Of course I started to cry and he told me to STOP crying. Now this sobered me up because I knew that he must not only be O.K. but back to his usual ‘not a big deal self.’ Then his Mission President got on the phone and described a little of what had happened. So we never felt like he needed to come home.”

Sister Ferguson has been most helpful in providing information for this post including answering questions about Elder Ferguson’s hobbies and interests prior to his mission:

David was raised with 2 older brothers and 2 older sisters and was 8 years younger than his youngest sister. He became an Eagle Scout with an Eagle project of making 200+ wooden cars for the Humanitarian Agency of the Church. He did a lot of hiking and camping with the scouts and his family throughout Glacier National Park, the Bob Marshall Wilderness, and southern Utah. He sang in an a cappella sextet called Deep Six during his Junior and Senior years of high school. He played a lot of Xbox with his friends until he joined FAIR and then he spent most of his free time reading and then discussing some of what he learned from FAIR with us. At age 18 he became a counselor in the Sunday School presidency which meant a lot of substituting for absent teachers. Of course he graduated from seminary. He entered BYU in the fall of 2006. He declared his major as Ancient Near Eastern Studies of which I blame FAIR. Ha! We will work on a change from that program to one that can feed a family.

David Ferguson’s participation on message boards led to him to becoming a member of FAIR at age 16 in July of 2004. FAIR’s Chairman, John Lynch, recently linked the character Ferguson displayed through apologetics to recent events: “He is very intelligent and can keep up with the best LDS scholars. I am not surprised he rushed to the aid of his companion and suffered serious injury, as I have never known him to fear for himself. Rather, it is his nature to run to the defense of others.” Scholar Kevin Barney summarized an exchange with Ferguson that impressed him: “David had asked me for materials to study Biblical Hebrew on his own. Below [in an email not included here] he has acquired the program I recommended and started using it and asks me a question about it. A pre-mission kid taking the initiative to study Biblical Hebrew strikes me as having some apologetic street cred.”

As my own FAIR membership overlapped his only by six months before he left on a mission on February 28, 2007, some of the long term volunteers enthusiastically pointed out past correspondence that gave me more insight on Elder Ferguson.

• He saw one of his roles with FAIR as communicating “with any teenagers who email FAIR and make things a little more comfortable for them.” Such a skill seems to be increasingly in demand given the rise of anti-Mormon groups that have no qualms against targeting teens and using popular media like youtube to do so. If a fireside by Kevin Barney is any indication, teens have a set of issues that require specialized and in-touch attention.

• Seeking perspective on the youthful ages of some plural wives, David spent some time in the Harold B. Lee Library researching marital ages in the 19th century and reported his findings back to FAIR. It was personally gratisfying for me to discover that I was following in his pioneering footsteps in helping Greg Smith research the same topic.

• I found a quote from David on a message board which might help explain how he could bounce back so well from his recent setback (though somewhat removed from its original context): “Not to sound like a TBM or anything, but that is how God works. He refines us through antagonists.”

• Louis Midgley recollects “when David announced his mission call to the West Island (aka Oz), I seem to have had no idea how young he was.” He praised some of David’s writings that he had saved as being ”truly remarkable.”

President Scruggs observes that “Elder Ferguson never plays the ‘scholar’ card in Gospel conversations. … He sticks to Preach My Gospel and does not draw attention to himself.” In a humble manner, Elder Ferguson has put his apologetics experience to appropriate use as illustrated by an incident he wrote home about:

We tracted into a man named Steven and gave him our message on his doorstep. He was fully ready to bash with us, but we replied to every attempt of his by testifying as we were guided by the Spirit. He said that we weren’t Christian. My companion had to fight back anger, but because of my apologetics background, I remained composed. Steven said that he knew more about theology than we did but I just listened. Eventually he said “but you view Jesus Christ as only an apostle.” I interrupted him with the words, “my Savior.” Those two words expressed my testimony. I opened up my heart to this man and he saw it was good and we ended our conversation a little later with him saying that he respected our efforts and that we were all going to the same place, but on a different boat.

Since embarking on his mission, his mother writes: “He has baptized people from Sudan, mainland China, Laos, Burundi and even a couple of Aussies. He plans to see the family from Burundi go through the temple in February. He has told us that he loves this Church, the Prophet who receives direct and modern revelation, and most of all the Savior who has changed his life more than he ever could himself.” Elder Ferguson learned valuable lessons about the atonement and grace while helping an excommunicated member change for the better: “But when exhaustion overtakes the disciples who know that they are too weak to break free, they cry for Father to save them. And He sends His Son with strength to loose the chains and allow the disciples to crawl free. He picks them up with strength beyond their own and brings them home. The disciple’s willingness to struggle, not how far they have wiggled free, is what sets them apart from every one else. … ‘For it is by grace we are saved after all we can do.’”

I suspect, but cannot say for sure, that the piece was authored by Simon Southerton, of Losing a Lost Tribe fame, who of late has been trying to polarize apologists and others who promote various theories about the Book of Mormon. (The only link in the article to any publication offered by Signature Books is a link to Mr. Southerton’s book. This, despite the fact that the “news” being reported has nothing whatsoever to do with his book.) Such news stories are consistent with Mr. Southerton’s avocation these days.

The news story appears to have been hastily prepared and posted, as it includes several interesting errors that even a cursory reading should have corrected.

• The article refers to “Rod Meldrum and his traveling show called DNA Evidence for the Book of Mormon.” While a series of firesides could, indeed, be derogatorily referred to as a “traveling show,” the news writer demonstrates his or her lack of attention to detail in the name given to Mr. Meldrum’s publication. It is not entitled “DNA Evidence for the Book of Mormon,” but “DNA Evidence for Book of Mormon Geography.”
   
• We learn in the news story that there is an emeritus general authority named “Harman Rector Jr.” I know of no general authority—living, dead, current, or emeritus—by this name. Of course, the article could be referring to Hartman Rector, Jr., who the author says “accompanies Meldrum around the country to stage symposia on the topic.” This is, undoubtedly, a case of intentional hyperbole as there have, to my knowledge, been only a few out of the dozens of Mr. Meldrum’s firesides that have been attended by Elder Rector. (He certainly wasn’t at the one I attended.)
   
• Interestingly, Mr. Meldrum apparently “responded by accussing FAIR.” I looked high and low in Mr. Meldrum’s responses to my blog post, and I didn’t see any cussing at all. Perhaps the news writer at Signature Books is aware of some extant cursing of which FAIR should be apprised.

Beyond these easy-to-catch errors (perhaps the regular editors or proofreaders at Signature Books were on vacation?) there are other errors that belie the thinking of either the author or various people at Signature Books.

• The article starts off with a bold declaration, without evidence, that “Traditionally, LDS faithful have assumed that all or most Native Americans are descendants of Lehi and Mulek.” While there are numerous quotes that could be trotted out to evidence such a narrow reading of history, there are also many quotes that could be trotted out to show that such a narrow reading is not warranted. Apparently the news writer has voted for narrowness in his choice of approach without taking the full breadth of LDS thought into account.
   
• An equally interesting assertion, again without evidence, is that “Meldrum has the backing…of Mormon bishops who send mass e-mails to their congregations trumpeting Meldrum’s claims.” While such e-mails may exist, it would be interesting to see if there was actual “trumpeting” going on. But, perhaps such statements are to be understood, again, as unwarranted hyperbole on the part of the news writer.
   
• One comment I found personally interesting was that “Allen Wyatt from FAIR ridiculed Meldrum in a formal statement.” I, of course, did no such thing; I simply reported that there are problems with Mr. Meldrum’s presentation, provided a cursory overview of those problems, and directed readers to where they could find more information. There was no ridicule made or intended on my part.
   
• The comment that Orson Scott Card has penned “his own screed to end all screeds” is amusing. Mr. Card will no doubt be pleased to hear that his writing has achieved the ultimate among screeds. (Do they give awards for such writing excellence?) No doubt there will be, in the future, additional writings that rise to the synonymous level of screeds: essays, discourses, diatribes, etc. What, then, of Mr. Card’s writing? Will it be relegated to simply a “screed to almost end all screeds?” Perhaps a future Signature Books news story will fill us in.

Hyperbole aside, what passes for news at Signature Books—edited or not—seems little more than caricature of a reality that the news writer wishes existed.

-Allen

Update: It appears that the editors and/or proofreaders are back from vacation at Signature Books—the three easy-to-find errors I mention above have been corrected as of 6:45 am on July 11. The more substantial errors remain.

Even more recently, a voter petition to amend the California constitution was approved in California and will be on the ballot this fall. If approved, the constitution will be amended to state that marriage in California is between a man and woman. It would effectively override the ruling of the California Supreme Court.

The LDS Church has issued a letter to the Saints in California, seeking their active participation in getting the amendment approved by the voters. The letter represents a real threat to supporters of same sex marriage in California because, as was the case a few years back when a similar voter initiative was on the ballot, LDS members in California are numerous, organized, and have to the potential to swing the vote in favor of the amendment.

Enter Mr. Jeffrey S. Nielsen. I do not know Mr. Nielson except that he was a professor of some sort at BYU a year or two ago. I know that he published some remarks in the local paper which essentially took LDS leadership to task for their stance on the issue of gay marriage. He then feigned shock and surprise when his superiors at BYU informed him that his services were no longer needed or desired.

Now, Mr. Nielsen has returned, issuing an “Open Letter to California Mormons” which he hopes will be published in California papers on the same Sunday the letter from the First Presidency is scheduled to be read. Quite frankly, the sum of his letter doesn’t really interest me. It represents nothing more than familiar, emotion-based arguments that I’ve seen many times before. Long on feelings, short on facts. However, as I read the letter, one sentence caught my eye. Mr. Nielsen states: “If anyone could give me a single reasonable argument against marriage equality in our civil society, which doesn’t make fallacious appeals to tradition, misplaced appeals to religious authority, or make some ridiculous claim about nonhuman animals, then I would like to hear it. So far, no one has been able to present me with even a single justifiable reason.”

I find this assertion highly interesting on several levels. First, it seems to me to exhibit an exceptional arrogance, as if the arguments which he espouses are unassailable. I am lawyer by profession, and I learned early on that few, if any, positions are unassailable. Second, I am concerned at the way Mr. Nielsen simply rejects certain argumentative foundations out of hand. “Fallacious appeals to tradition?” I’m not sure what that means. Certainly, an argument cannot be won on the basis of an appeal to tradition. However, it should be recognized that traditions usually become ensconced as “traditions” because they have passed the test of time and we humans, by trial and error, have learned that certain traditions serve a valuable protective role for society.

Be that as it may, I will indulge Mr. Nielsen and refrain from such appeals.

Before I begin, it is probably best that I state my personal stance on the issue of same sex marriage. I am a “TBM,” and as such I obviously have several deeply held moral objections to homosexual conduct. That being said, I do not believe that homosexuality represents a “choice,” rather, I believe that homosexuality is caused by a complex interaction of genes and environment which we, at this point, do not understand. I do not favor same sex marriage. However, it is my stated belief that if the citizens of a certain state feel that they wish to extend the benefits and privileges to same sex partners, that is their legal right, and while I think it makes for poor public policy, the right to enact bad public policy rests with us all. I do, however, vehemently object to imposition of same sex marriage on a populace via judicial fiat.

On to the argument then. The fundamental question, as I see it, is this: Does a state have the right to favor one type of relationship over another? I believe the answer is unequivocally “yes” and I shall explain why. I believe that there does exist a valid and legally defensible argument that refusing to grant public/governmental sanction to same-sex marriages is in the public interest. My argument is based on principles of law and sound public policy and makes no reference to “morals,” “tradition” or “religious authority.”

The argument essentially goes like this:

There is no question that the state (meaning a democratically elected government) has the right to try to encourage behaviors that are beneficial to the state while simultaneously trying to discourage behaviors that are not. This fact is so ingrained into our governmental fabric that no one even notices it any longer. However, some concrete examples are called for.

It is an established fact that home ownership is good for the community. It has been shown that home ownership (versus renting) provides benefits to the family, children and the community, such as increased education for children, lower teen pregnancy rates, a higher lifetime annual income for children, lower crime rates, etc. [See several studies located at http://www.realtor.org/library/library/fg302. Also see William M. Rohe, Shannon Van Zandt and George McCarthy, The Social Benefits and Costs of Homeownership: A Critical Assessment of the Research, Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, October 2001 (stating that "Strong and consistent evidence indicates that homeowners are more likely to: a) be satisfied with their homes and neighborhoods; participate in voluntary and political activities; and c) stay in their homes longer, contributing to neighborhood stability).]

However, the state cannot force people to buy homes rather than rent. Therefore, in order to encourage this type of behavior, the state has granted to home owners a whole series of financial “benefits” designed to encourage people to buy and own homes. For example, there is the mortgage write-off on your taxes and there is also the fact that the sale of your first home is exempt from capital gains taxes up to half a million dollars.

Of course, this raises the question: is this fair? I did not own a home for the first 13 years of my marriage. I was unable to claim to the same tax and financial benefits as others who owned homes. This was due mostly to my financial situation: I was simply unable to claim those benefits. Nevertheless, there is no question that the state had every right to encourage home ownership in the form that they did, despite the fact that it appears to discriminate against large section of the society.

Another example: Military service. The state long ago learned that conscripted military service is simply not very efficient and the soldiers it creates are not nearly as reliable or dedicated as those whose service is gained via voluntary sign ups. So, in order to encourage voluntary enlistment, the state began to offer a whole series of benefits to those willing to join. Thus, veterans get free life-time health care at VA hospitals, access to low-rate loans for college, subsidized housing, vehicles, etc.

None of this is available to the public at large. In fact, in my case, even if I wanted to access it, I could not since my poor eyesight alone would disqualify me from military service. Thus, the government is again granting benefits to a certain segment of the population which are not available to the vast majority.

So, the question is, does the government have a vested interest in “promoting” heterosexual marriage over “same sex” marriage. The answer is, clearly, yes.

Why? What does heterosexual marriage provide the state that same-sex marriage does not? Well, that question is easy to answer. In fact, heterosexual marriage provides a full range of primary and secondary benefits to the state that same sex marriage does not.

The most obvious benefit is that heterosexual marriages provide the state with a steady supply of new citizens. This may sound odd, but it is not. In fact, recently commentators have noted that several European countries are now facing severe societal problems due to the fact that their citizens simply aren’t reproducing at sustainable rates. (See Robert Samuelson, “The End of Europe,” The Washington Post, Wednesday, June 15, 2005; Page A25.)

This fact alone would justify the state in favoring heterosexual marriages over same-sex marriages. Not because same sex marriages are inherently “bad” or “evil” but simply because same sex marriages do not provide the same benefit to society and the community that heterosexual marriages do.

The obvious objection is that some heterosexuals who cannot reproduce are still allowed to marry (young couples who chose not to have children, infertile couples, post-menopausal women, etc). My response is that in the case of a couple who simply choose not to have children, they can (and almost invariably do) change their minds. In the case of infertility, science is advancing so rapidly in this area that women who only 5 or 10 years ago couldn’t dream of bearing children now have a very realistic hope of doing so. Science is also pushing back the age of menopause, making it possible for women to bear children well into their 40′s, and in some cases even into their fifties and sixties. (See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13801920/).

Furthermore, the “exceptions” to the general procreational rule cited above represent what in legal parlance is termed an “argument from the margins.” Such an argument occurs when a general rule is stated (the state sanctions marriage because it wants people to procreate). Those who oppose this view then seek to find any “exceptions” to this general rule (infertile couples, post-menopausal women, etc.) and then claim that since such people are also allowed to “marry” the general rule is invalid. However, this “argument from the margins” assumes a sort of argumentational purity and consistency which are simply foreign to public policy arguments and which are not required by Equal Protection jurisprudence. In short, the “exceptions” do not swallow the rule.

Second, this objection doesn’t recognize that heterosexual marriage itself, apart from its procreational aspects, offers other benefits to the state which same-sex marriages, especially male/male marriages, do not. It has long been recognized that “marriage” has a domesticating effect on heterosexual men that makes them less “wild” (for lack of a better word, perhaps “undisciplined” would be better) and more responsible. Men are, by nature, programmed toward promiscuity. Heterosexual marriage tends to greatly lessen the tendency (and it is only a tendency) for promiscuity in heterosexual men, a great benefit to the state. However, same-sex marriage (especially male/male relationships) do not receive this same benefit. As has already been noted, male homosexuals are known, as a general rule, to be highly promiscuous. [See, for example, H. Meyer-Balburg et. al., "Sexual Risk Behavior, Sexual Functioning and HIV-Disease Progression in Gay Men," Journal of Sex Research 28, 1 (1991): 3-27; G. Rotello, Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men (New York: Dutton, 1997).]

Moreover, the data from countries where gay marriage has been sanctioned for some time shows that marriage has no appreciable effect on this. A recent study from the Netherlands (where gay-marriage has been the norm for several years now) showed that in the first year of “marriage” alone, both partners had, as an average, eight extramarital “affairs.” Indeed, many gay-activists groups have freely admitted that promiscuity is simply part and parcel of the “gay” lifestyle. [See Maria Xiridou, et. al. "The Contribution of Steady
and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection Among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam," AIDS 17, 7 (2003): 1029-1038; David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1984).]

Of course, part of the argument in favor of same sex marriage is constitutional, i.e., that the state is required to give gays access to marriage under both the “Equal Protection” clause and also under the “Due Process” clause. These arguments are highly flawed, however. Legally, the state is under no obligation whatsoever to offer sanctioned marriages to anyone. In other words, if the state decided tomorrow that state-sanctioned marriage had simply become too much of a burden and was draining too many resources, it could, theoretically, discontinue ALL civil marriages and simply state that, “The state will no longer sanction marriages of any sort. Period.”

The state could do this, and some states (notably Wyoming) have even toyed with the idea of doing so.

What prior federal court cases (notably the Loving decision) have stated is that If the State is going to offer sanctioned marriages, it cannot deny that privilege on the basis of color since such a demarcation is irrational.

This is exactly analogous to current welfare programs. The state is not required in any way to offer such “safety net” programs as food stamps, WIC, and Welfare, and, if they wished, they could completely dismantle the whole system tomorrow. However, the courts have held that, if the state is going to offer such programs, then they cannot discriminate on who benefits from them on the basis of irrational criteria (such as race). This does not mean, however, that the state is not allowed to “discriminate” in other ways. For example, in order to receive food stamps there is usually a requirement that the person be working at least 20 hours a week. Thus, someone working 15 hours a week, or someone not working at all, are discriminated against. Nevertheless, it is allowed because the line drawn is rationally related to the goals of the program.

The rationale for discriminating between a same-sex couple and heterosexual couple is based on the potential for procreation, which is not irrational in any sense. Thus, the limiting of the “program” to only heterosexual couples is a rational distinction that the state is allowed to draw. The lynch pin of equal protection jurisprudence is the notion that the two parties must be “similarly situated.” In the case of same sex couples vs. heterosexual couples, they are not similarly situated because one can procreate and the other cannot. In Loving, the mixed race couple was indeed “similarly situated” to the same-race couples because they could still procreate just as the others could, thus the limiting of marriage on a racial distinciton was irrational. That is not the case here, therefore drawing the line on marriage at that point is “rational” and thus not a violation of Equal Protection.

The due process (substantive due process) argument is even weaker. There are essentially two tests which the Supreme Court has laid out to determine if a newly claimed “right” is actually a right protected under the constitution. The first, is the newly claimed right “implicit to the concept of ordered liberty?” The second, is the newly claimed right “deeply embedded in our nation’s history and traditions?”

Is same-sex marriage “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty?” The answer is an obvious no. We’ve had ordered liberty for well over two hundred years now and same-sex unions have played absolutely no role in it. Heterosexual marriages, on the other hand, have played a pivotal role, providing new citizens to the republic and providing a stable environment for the rearing of those children. It has also played a significant factor in stabilizing and creating responsible men to govern that republic. Same-sex marriage has not and, indeed, cannot provide any of these.

Next, is same-sex marriage deeply embedded in our history and traditions? No, it is not. In fact, its rejection is deeply embedded in our history and traditions. On the other hand, heterosexual marriage has been a part of our history and tradition since the dawn of civilization.

Thus, a brief due process analysis to determine whether or not same-sex marriage is a “right” shows that it obviously is not. For a much longer treatment of this subject see the decision in Standhardt v. Arizona here: http://www.cofad1.state.az.us/opinionfiles/SA/SA030150.pdf.

Mr. Nielsen’s premise is plainly false. Whether you agree or not, the fact remains that rational reasons exist for limiting marriage to men and women. If the state chooses to ignore those reasons and extend marriage to same sex couples, the state has that right, but it is simply wrong to assert that same sex marriage is a “right” and to have it foisted upon us by judicial fiat as occurred in California.

Check it out:

http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2008/05/hilarious-anti-mormon-attack-from.html

A simple polygamous example involves 6 people:
one man has 3 wives
two men have none

In this model, one man’s gain is another man’s loss. I would like to explore, through some preliminary statistical analysis, why this isn’t an adequate model for 19th century Mormonism, but it may be relevant to contemporary FLDS. I say “may” because I do not have enough data about the FLDS to make a judgment. I can, however, address whether the criticisms lobbied at them apply to 19th century Mormonism.

I can identify a number of modern sensibilities and assumptions underlying the above scenario.

1. A husband and wife marry close to the same age. On average, a husband is 2.3 years older than his wife.
2. If you form an age demographic pyramid by stacking blocks each with a length proportional to the population in each age range, then the US pyramid currently looks more like a column (see Table A-1).
3. Assuming that 1. and 2. persist for some time, it follows that the marriage pool has the same number of men as women, therefore one man’s gain is another’s loss.

We could find a solution to this dilemma using modern statistical numbers. Here is an example that models the current US marriage market that involves 100 men and 100 women selected at random between ages 40 through 44. In that sample you can expect to find 18 men and 13 women that have never married. Now suppose you had a time machine and the ability to arrange consensual plural marriages. You could arrange 7 two-wife arrangements and 3 three-wife arrangements before creating more “lost boys” than the 18 created without your interference. While this example is somewhat contrived, it illustrates a couple of points. First more men choose not to ever marry than do women in their age group. Second, the modern marriage market operates at nowhere near 100% efficiency for marrying off all its females.

The commenter cited above concludes her simple example with “I don’t want to live in a society where 2/3 of the men are unmarried and not invested in community life.” This is ironic because she already lives in a society that is 2/3 of the way there already with 44% of males aged 20-45 being menaces to society.

Of course 19th century Mormonism operated and the FLDS operates at much closer to that 100% efficiency. According to Kathryn Daynes in More Wives than One (p. 93-94), 99% of Manti Mormon women born mid 19th century eventually married while only 89 to 93% of their US peers did. Missionary work brought in a steady supply of converts and emigrants. Daynes showed that spikes in new marriages closely followed incoming waves of newly arriving emigrants. That is one advantage 19th century Mormons had over the FLDS who do not actively proselyte. The 19th century practice seemed to regulate itself after a rough, overzealous start during the Mormon Reformation in 1857. The percentage of polygamists declined with time to meet long term sustainable levels.

There were two other 19th century monogamous strategies (besides increasing efficiency) that were available to alleviate the zero-sum, simplistic example above. The first was to increase the age difference between husbands and wives from 2 to 5 years on average. That doesn’t help by itself; but if each mother raises an average of, say, 8 children (typical for 19th century) instead of less than 2 like they do now days, then the age demographic pyramid will truly be a pyramid instead of a column (or worse considering the baby boom retirees coming up). Let us see how this worked in Utah for marriage market broken down by age from the 1880 census from Ancestry.com.

Some valuable information can be extracted from this table. For one, it helps bust the myth that polygamy was needed to compensate for Utah having a higher women population than men. Men had higher life expectancies than women, especially on the frontier, and especially considering that many women died in child birth before the advent of modern medicine. Clearly men are not being invited to leave Utah to ease tension in the marriage market, outside of serving temporary missions, of course. The table also helps visualize what happens to unmarried pool for men who married on average 5 years younger than themselves. The most active age ranges for marrying off is the 15-19 range for women who had first pick of men moving into the age where they could comfortably support a wife between.the 20-24 age range for men.

According to L. L. Bean and G. P. Mineau in The Polygyny-Fertility Hypothesis: a Re-evaluation, the polygamists of the birth cohort (1840-1859) most relevant to the 1880 census married a second wife that was, on average.one year younger than a monogamist Mormon’s first wife. This suggest that single men had an advantage in the marriage market over their already married peers. Furthermore, the widening age difference between a polygamist male and his subsequent wives moved reality even further away from the zero-sum example above.

Now I am sure that some of those numbers add fuel to the fire of critics who decry the youth of some of these brides. I have also compared the 1880 census results for Utah and the rest of the nation. The national percentage for married 13-14 year old females was 3-4 times higher than it was for Utah. For age 15 the trend reversed as the nation’s 1.3% compared to Utah’s 2.0% For age 16, Utah was within 50% of the national rate and at age 17 Utah was still less than double the nation. Before anyone makes a big deal of this, the nation’s 1850 teenage marriage rates are higher (at least preliminarily) than Utah’s 1880 rates. Like Seth said (paraphrase), we will apologize for our ancestor’s polygamy when the critics apologize for their ancestor’s monogamy.

So where did the 19th century lost boys go? Perhaps they went to Neverland, as my research has failed to find any evidence of them. For males aged 20-35 leaving Mormonism would have made their prospects for marriage substantially worse.

[Mitt Romney's] faith was founded in 1830 by Joseph Smith Jr., an itinerant treasure-seeker from upstate New York who used a set of magic glasses to translate a lost scripture from God. His personality was infectious, the religion very approachable.

It would have been just another Christian faith had not Smith let his libido lead him into trouble. Before he died at the hands of a mob, he married at least 33 women and girls; the youngest was 14, and was told she had to become Smith’s bedmate or risk eternal damnation.

Smith was fortunate to find a religious cover for his desire. His polygamy “revelation” was put into The Doctrine and Covenants, one of three sacred texts of Mormonism. It’s still there – the word of God. And that’s why, to the people in the compound at Eldorado, [Texas,] the real heretics are in Salt Lake City.

As his biographer, Fawn Brodie, wrote, Joseph Smith “could not rest until he had redefined the nature of sin and erected a stupendous theological edifice to support his new theories on marriage.”

It is hard for me to imagine more factual errors and loaded language that could be squeezed into four short paragraphs.

It’s clear that Mr. Egan has done little research to prepare himself to opine on Latter-day Saint history. His two sources of information, by his own admission, are Fawn Brodie’s 1945 psychobiography of Joseph Smith and Jon Krakauer’s 2003 examination of the religious murders committed by the Lafferty brothers. As one observant commenter noted:

Having read Brodie and Krakauer [Mr. Egan] believes he knows what there is to know about Mormonism. If he had cited Mark Twain’s line about the Book of Mormon being “chloroform in print,” the piece would have then qualified as carbon copy to 10 or 12 others that have run during the last year.

Nothing seems to indicate that Mr. Egan is aware of scholarship that questions Brodie and Krakauer’s methodology and conclusions (for example, here and here). It’s also quite clear that Egan isn’t aware of the differences between the 19th-century LDS practice of polygamy and the 21st-century FLDS practice of polygamy. (To say nothing of the differences between the FLDS practice today and just 50 years ago.)

Mr. Egan’s use of Fawn Brodie to understand Joseph Smith speaks volumes. Ms. Brodie’s book, despite its enduring popularity, is seriously dated. An enormous amount of research into Joseph Smith’s life has been done in the last 62 years, and her book has long been superseded, especially by the recent biography by Richard Bushman.

But what I believe attracts Mr. Egan to Brodie is not so much her research, but her conclusions. Brodie, the thoroughgoing naturalist, simply dismissed any statements made by contemporary believers, chalking them up to delusions or Joseph Smith’s powers of hypnotism. Having eliminated faithful witnesses, she was able to substitute her own theory for the existence of Mormonism — lust, greed, and accidental chance. It is no wonder that Brodie remains so popular among sectarian and secular critics of Mormonism, for it provides the only possible explanation for the miracle of Joseph Smith, no matter how ham-handed. (I’m still trying to understand Mosiah 3, Alma 36, and D&C 88 as the products of mind solely fixated on bedding young girls.)

Unfortunately many otherwise intelligent readers will be exposed to Joseph Smith only through the eyes of Timothy Egan, and that is a tragedy.

Along with the pornography, the Internet and other media are often used to spread falsehoods, Elder Ballard said.

“Every month there are 60 billion searches for information on the Internet,” he said. “Many are seeking information about the church; and while some are finding the truth, others find anti-Mormon sites that mislead them and defame the church.”

Elder Ballard urged graduates to use their knowledge and testimony of the gospel to influence seekers of truth. He suggested that graduates join in conversations on the Internet to share the gospel and explain the message of the Restoration in simple, clear terms.

I welcome this invitation as it reinforces my own participation in FAIR’s volunteer organization. For me this is a way to consecrate my talents to help build up the Kingdom. On my mission to Oklahoma, I became concerned about members losing their testimonies due to literature critical of the Church of Jesus Christ. A partial reason for low retention rates is that the simple message of the Gospel shared in missionary discussions can leave a new member under-prepared for the sheer weight of all the misinformation available on the internet. And it isn’t just misinformation that is the problem, there are tough and complicated aspects about Mormonism that are difficult to navigate through.

I do worry about turning college grads loose on the internet. Until Mormon Apologetics 101 is taught as an institute class, I think that some percentage of them will be ill equipped to handle the rough and tumble of the various discussion forums. I see a lot of bad apologetics being employed, for example, in comments about articles posted at Deseret News and the Salt Lake Tribune. I advise more discernment about whether it is worthwhile entering an online debate. Remember Bill Hamblin’s three rules of apologetics:

1. Never argue with a moron.
2. Never argue with someone who is smarter than you.
3. Make sure obeying rules 1 and 2 doesn’t amount to the same thing.

So until Mormon Apologetics 101 is offered, I suggest that members who want to respond to Elder Ballard’s call engage in a vigorous self study program. Read the Bloggernacle regularly for insight on contemporary issues that are more likely to surface elsewhere on the internet and in your real life conversations. Occasionally read FAIR articles and FARMS reviews, but not too much all at once, because constantly dealing with criticism against the church you love can be depressing. Read back issues of BYU Studies and the Journal of Mormon History to round out your knowledge. Dialog on the internet can be a great motivation to pursue knowledge. Use Hamblin’s rules to pick your battles, and consider using an internet search on the subject you are addressing to see if you know your stuff as well as you think you do. I apologize if I am coming across as condescending here.

What would you guys advise for enthusiastic novices to internet discussions about Mormonism?

Let me leave you all with a final thought that was the highlight of the last General Conference for me. I am the most long winded blogger in the ‘nacle, so I can’t resist. Elder Oaks said:

We live in a time when some misrepresent the beliefs of those they call Mormons and even revile us because of them. When we encounter such misrepresentations, we have a duty to speak out to clarify our doctrine and what we believe. We should be the ones to state our beliefs rather than allowing others the final word in misrepresenting them. This calls for testimony, which can be expressed privately to an acquaintance or publicly in a small or large meeting. As we testify of the truth we know, we should faithfully follow the caution to speak “in mildness and in meekness” (D&C 38:41). We should never be overbearing, shrill, or reviling. As the Apostle Paul taught, we should speak the truth in love (see Ephesians 4:15). Anyone can disagree with our personal testimony, but no one can refute it.

This recommendation came after Bishop Arthur Tafoya of the Pueblo diocese issued an Easter letter on Tuesday asking Catholics to forgive.

What a moving example of the pure love of Christ, one well worthy of emulation by all people who profess Jesus as their Lord.

The Danzigs were both volunteer members of the Orchestra at Temple Square, a Church-operated orchestra that is the instrumental equivalent of the Tabernacle Choir. In June 2006 the Salt Lake Tribune published a letter from Peter Danzig opposing the Church’s effort to pass a federal Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman only. Danzig’s letter also expressed support for Jeffrey Nielsen, a BYU adjunct professor whose contract had not been renewed after he had publicly opposed the Church’s support for the amendment. In his letter Danzig accused Church leaders of exercising “intellectual tyranny” in the Nielsen case, and called Church efforts an “injustice.”

Following the publication of his letter, Peter Danzig was suspended from his position in the Orchestra at Temple Square, apparently at the behest of Church leaders. Mary Danzig later resigned; the Tribune article says she “felt unwelcome in the orchestra.” Over the next year and a half the situation apparently rose to the level of local Church discipline. Rather than face that, the Danzigs resigned their membership in December 2007.

In the wake of this tragic event, I’d like to make a few comments about Church discipline and how stories like these are portrayed in the media.

1. Media reports are always one-sided. As the Tribune article notes, all the Church leaders involved declined to give any comments or written statements on the Danzigs’ case. The Church considers ecclesiastical discipline to be confidential, and does not comment on it. Because of this, reports in the media contain only one side of the issue — that of the disciplined member. Yesterday’s Tribune article tells the story from the Danzigs’ point of view. I am not accusing them of exaggerating or lying; I’m simply saying that there is another side to this story that we’re not hearing.

2. There is a difference between private disagreement with the Church and public criticism of the Church. Peter Danzig contends that there is “[no] room for personal conscience” in the Church, but he is simply mistaken. There are many Church members who disagree with the federal marriage amendment, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a convert and active Latter-day Saint. Senator Reid made public statements against the proposed amendment on the floor of the Senate, and voted against it. The difference between Harry Reid and Peter Danzig is that Danzig didn’t just argue the merits of the bill; he accused the Church of “intellectual tyranny,” requesting him to “violate [his] own conscience,” and supporting “injustice.” This clearly indicates that Danzig doesn’t just disagree with the Church, he believes Church leaders are acting in bad faith.

For what it’s worth, I think the marriage amendment is a very bad idea on Constitutional grounds. It takes power from the states and puts it in the hands of a centralized government, something the writers of the Constitution opposed. It takes away rights from people rather than guaranteeing rights (the only other amendment to do that was the Eighteenth, which prohibited production and sale of alcohol; it’s not insignificant that this is the only amendment that’s been repealed). It could open a Pandora’s box of unintended consequences by making individual marriage cases the jurisdiction of federal courts. And it uses federal power to combat the supposed immorality of an unpopular minority group — exactly the same thing that was done to Mormons themselves in the late nineteenth century.

But make no mistake: My personal opposition to the federal marriage amendment does not include condemnation of Church leaders for supporting it. I support and sustain the leaders of the Church, and believe the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve acted in good faith in this matter. From my personal interactions with the Brethren, I know of their love for all men and women, and their honest desire to strengthen marriage and help those who struggle with homosexual feelings.

3. A single incidence of criticism almost never leads to Church discipline. The Church Handbook of Instructions defines apostasy as repeated, clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders. A single incident simply doesn’t bring down excommunication on an ordinary Church member — only acts continued after leaders have counseled with the member and asked him or her to refrain. The Salt Lake Tribune doesn’t go into what happened between the Danzigs and their local leaders during the year and a half after Peter’s letter was published, so we don’t know what interactions they had. But from my experience serving with three bishoprics, I know for a fact that a single letter to the editor doesn’t result in Church discipline.

4. There is a difference between being a member of the Church, and being an employee of the Church. Jeffrey Nielsen’s BYU contract was not renewed after he came out in opposition to the Church’s stance on the marriage amendment.* But as a Church employee, his actions are under greater scrutiny than the average Church member’s, and justifiably so.

I’m employed by a fairly large financial institution. I have at times disagreed with certain policies and practices of the organization, and have expressed disagreement at various meetings with its leaders. If I were to make one of my disagreements public in a letter to the local newspaper, my employers would be perfectly within their rights to fire me. But if a customer of our institution were to write a letter to a newspaper complaining or our products or policies, we would certainly not close their account.

There is a similar difference between Church employment and Church membership. Nielsen was an employee of the Church, and Danzig was a volunteer with a prominent organization within the Church. Both of them were under greater requirements to refrain from public criticism of the Church than they would have been as regular members.

The Danzigs’ experience is a tragic one — tragic for them as individuals and as a family, and tragic for the loss of their great talent that benefited the Church. But the Salt Lake Tribune article doesn’t tell us the whole story, and it’s doubtful that we’ll ever hear it.

#     #     #

* Note that the Tribune article says Nielsen “lost his job,” which is not technically accurate. He was adjunct faculty, whose contracts are renewed on term-by-term basis. His contract was not renewed, which is not the same thing as being fired or dismissed.

Update: In a comment on this post, Mike L. pointed out that the Church has issued a press release responding to the Tribune article. In it they give some details the Tribune article failed to mention or in which it was mistaken:

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/care-for-the-flock

**Update 2/26/’08: See Greg Smith’s comment below. My original wording is in error. Greg had already had most of his article independently conceived/written to respond to general art-based criticism levied much before being aware of the art blog in Wecker’s article.

The prime example that critics use to complain that the LDS Church’s art misrepresents historical facts are pictures that show Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon with the golden plates present, rather than placing his face in a hat to limit outside light from interfering with revelation received from a seer stone.

I suspect there are two main reasons for this. First, I do not think the artists were aware of the historical accounts that report the seer stone in a hat method, although those accounts have appeared in church publications. Second, the accounts show that the translation process did not always occur the same way. Joseph translated the Book of Mormon in two locations: first Harmony, PA and second Fayette, NY. Witnesses to the Fayette process all report the seer stone in the hat method, while most witnesses in Harmony report there being a curtain between Joseph Smith and his scribe, with the golden plates being present. One of Smith’s first scribes, Martin Harris, reported that Joseph switched processes, hence he would have likely done so before Oliver Cowdery took over as a scribe in Harmony. Since the translation pictures in church publications usually portray Joseph and Oliver together, they mix and match elements from different translation periods.

None of the historical accounts have Joseph Smith sitting on stairs while translating, so that blog is taking some artistic liberties.

Given that church historians were aware of the various accounts it is a puzzle that the art made it into church publications. However, an interview of one scholar, Robert J. Matthews, on a related topic shows how that might have happened:

“JBMS: Do you think there are things that artists could do in portraying the Book of Mormon?

RJM: Possibly. To me it would be particularly helpful if they could illustrate what scholars have done. When I was on the Correlation Committee [of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints], there were groups producing scripture films. They would send to us for approval the text of the words that were to be spoken. We would read the text and decide whether we liked it or not. They would never send us the artwork for clearance. But when you see the artwork, that makes all the difference in the world. It was always too late then. I decided at that point that it is so difficult to create a motion picture, or any illustration, and not convey more than should be conveyed. If you paint a man or woman, they have to have clothes on. And the minute you paint that clothing, you have said something either right or wrong. It would be a marvelous help if there were artists who could illustrate things that researchers and archaeologists had discovered.”

In a front-page article the Asia Times, a fairly significant voice in Far East news, their reporter reviews the history and doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The primary source material appears to be an article on the Catholic.com apologetic web site entitled “The Wacky World of Joseph Smith,” and the infamous South Park episode “All About Mormons.”

Yes, someone has clearly done their homework.

Here are some of the more amusing examples of what the reporter has discovered about us:

Voters may reject a candidate whose religious views are crazy, for example, someone who thinks he talks to God. [MP: Has the reporter ever heard of "prayer"?] Does Romney believe that he himself will become God, as Mormon doctrine teaches?

* * *

Just what is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, commonly called the Mormons? Joseph Smith Jr, the forger, treasure-hunter, magician, polygamist and self-styled priest-king of the American continent, invented an American version of Europe’s ethnically-founded idolatry. Each European tribe that rebelled against Christianity styled itself the Chosen People. Smith concocted a tale in which Americans actually were the Chosen People, and America was the Promised Land of the ancient Hebrews and Jesus Christ. In short, Smith took to the extremes of fantasy and forgery an impulse towards national self-worship that always lurks somewhere in American Christianity.

* * *

Belief in the Book of Mormon is one of the strangest collective delusions in history. The circumstances of its forgery are transparent and exhaustively documented. After supposedly finding golden tablets composed by the aptly-named Angel Moroni, Smith “translated” 16 pages of them using his treasure-hunting stones. A friend showed the manuscript to his suspicious wife, who hid or destroyed it. Smith could not exactly reproduce the “translation” which he had dictated free-style, and stood in danger of exposure were he to produce a different version. Instead he received a new revelation to translate not those golden tablets, but yet another set of tablets that no one else could see. [MP: Note that the reporter hopeless garbles the details of the early translation attempts. One would hope that getting the basic facts right would be the first step to writing a major article.]

Historians have demonstrated that a sizable chunk of the supposed Book of Mormon was copied from a novel by a certain Reverend Solomon Spalding, who concocted the notion of an ancient Hebrew migration to North America as an entertainment. [MP: For crying out loud, even Fawn Brodie and the Tanners reject the Spaulding theory!]

* * *

If the Austro-Hungarian Empire was a tyranny tempered by incompetence, as the old joke goes, the Mormon Church is a megalomania atrophied by age. Although the Latter Day Saints claim 13 million members, less than one-third are active. Unlike American Christian denominations, the Mormons have had small success in Africa and Asia, the centers of Christian evangelization. As punishment for their sins, the Mormons must live in their promised land in the Rockies. [MP: The reporter pulled the "one-third" figure out of nowhere. He ignores the success we've seen in Latin and South America, and in Asian countries like Mongolia. And he fails to note that more Mormons live outside the United States than inside it.]

And so forth.

For all the unintended humor that one can find in this article, it unfortunately gives us a glimpse of what the Latter-day Saint movement is up against in Asia and the world at large. Despite what we think of ourselves, there is still a great deal of misunderstanding driven by misinformation from the popular press.

We have a lot of work ahead of us.