MMS Friends

United Brethren is currently on blog sabbatical.

For whom would the Pope vote?

Catholics are even more vehemently anti-abortion than Mormons. You would think, then, that single-issue voting would dominate Catholic politics.

Not necessarily.

Back in the summer, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who heads the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued a memo that discussed whether Catholics should vote for pro-choice candidates. The answer was basically no, but with, perhaps, an important exception:

"When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons."

In other words, as long as a Catholic does not share the candidate's pro-choice view, he/she may vote for that candidate if there are "proportionate reasons".

I am no expert on Catholicism, and I know that this statement has been endlessly debated (and that Ratzinger is no Kerry fan) , but to me it seems that the advice is don't vote on a single issue.

Even Evangelicals are being urged to pursue a "biblically balanced agenda" (National Association of Evangelicals.) As Christianity Today puts it: "Abortion is a monstrous tragedy for the nation, but our Christian commitment to a culture of life does not permit us the luxury of abandoning other important issues."

So, Latter-day Saints, be sure to weigh all the issues carefully. Gay marriage and abortion are two, but what about war, justice, social policy, healthcare?

You are not voting for Zion, nor for a Prophet. That you have already. Instead you are voting for a balance of policies that will come closest to benefiting all of God's children, the unborn and the living, Mormon and non. It's a tough one.

The Banality of Grading

As stated earlier, I am teaching undergraduate courses in English and Ethics at state schools in Utah this semester. Generally it is a rewarding experience. However, I am currently caught in an ethical dilemma of sorts.

My English job is to help these kids learn how to write good research papers. It is my responsibility to facilitate their attempts at research and to help them form good arguments. Ideally, they will learn to produce convincing arguments thanks, in part, to what I have taught them.

I have a student is experiencing or who has just experienced an LDS crisis of faith. He has been on a mission and so forth, but now doubts the truth of many of Joseph Smith's claims about himself. Having given my students the opportunity to choose their own topics of research, he has chosen to write about the theories of Jon Krakauer regarding Joseph Smith and Mormonism.

I should point out that he is the type of rhetoritician who is easily convinced by his own arguments. I feel like he is using this paper as an opportunity to convince himself that abandoning his religion is the right thing for him to do. It is my responsibility to help him find the best way to present his arguments so that they will be persuasive. I have to make sure that his research is as thorough as possible and that his presentation is ultimately rational. But, if I do my job, I am contributing to his journey of "apostasy" (ie. falling away). Isn't that bad for me to do?

I cannot express my discomfort to him, because that could (and probably would) be perceived as an attempt to influence him religiously. Besides, it isn't my responsibility. There is, I am sure, a church support group somewhere in his life that is trying to convince him of the error of his ways. I have to do the job that I was hired to do. But, I feel that I may not be doing the morally correct thing here from an LDS perspective. I realize that his belief is ultimately a matter of his choice, but am I wrong for possibly facilitating this choice? Aren't I a lousy instructor if I don't facilitate his choice?

Obviously, there are legal and social mores that prevent me from telling this student that he is wrong to engage in this line of inquiry, if he is doing it to validate his choice. I just feel a bit like a spiritual Eichmann, giving him the rope necessary to hang himself.
What colour was Jesus?

I saw this interesting article on the BBC news web site. It discusses whether you can really tell what Jesus would have looked like. For example, was he white, olive-skinned, or black? I would guess olive-skinned. After all he was born in the Middle East to a Middle Eastern mother. And surely His Father is beyond race.

The standard depiction of him with long hair also could be inaccurate. Dr Goodacre from the University of Birmingham said:

"There's a reference in Paul which says it's disgraceful for a man to wear long hair, so it looks pretty sure that people of that period had to have reasonably short hair".

It seems obvious to me that artists have painted Jesus to their own ethnic background as a means of identifying with Him, but I'm often disappointed in Church art that shows him being white and having lush golden hair. Incidentally, there's a great BYU studies issue that deals with all of this. (I'll dig out the reference)

I have to ask myself though - does it really matter? No, it doesn't, but it is interesting to imagine.
The Force is with you...always

Just a quick opening blog to say hi.

I just wondered what movies people thought had cool spiritual undertones (but are not overtly religion-based). For me, of course, it's Star Wars. Yes, I know it's an obvious one, but I like a lot of its messages - Yoda's scolding of Luke Skywalker in The Empire Strikes Back is a classic - "Try not. Do, or do not. There is no try"! And I still get goosebumps when Ben Kenobi's voice from the "other side" says to Luke, "The force will be with you..always".

My other favourite is Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. For me throughout the trilogy Sam Gamgee is the real hero, and his speech to Frodo in Minis Tirith telling him that there is still good in the world to fight for, accompanied by the stirring score by Howard Shore, never fails to move me.

What other cinematic offerings have moved you spiritually?
New "Brethren"

In inverted commas because we welcome our first lady - Rebecca - another Brit-in-America. Mother, housewife, optician, and lover of fine wines (whoops, I mean books).

John Fowles once toyed with being a German professor then got a real job. Academia is poorer without him, but his renowned blogging skills amply make up for it.
No Bishop, pleeeeaaasse!

Is there a calling that you would rather pay double tithing to avoid? Not to tempt fate, but here are mine:

1. Early morning Seminary teacher. Two reasons: One, like everyone in my family I have a genetic handicap that prevents me from rising cheerfully before 8 am. Two, trying to motivate half-asleep kids would be just awful.

2. Ward Activities Chair. I hate Ward activities. HATE, HATE, HATE. So for me to organise them would be the stuff of Dantean horror.


Small, clay, "portable" beehives from rural Israel. See Ether 2:3. (Article on Jaredite Apiculture to be published by Ronan James Head) Posted by Hello
Ethics and Values in Orem

In my never-ending quest to avoid bankruptcy (financial and spiritual), I am teaching a class for which I have no previous training. It is an ethics class in which I am to take a philosophical approach. Having never even taken Philosophy 101, I am somewhat surprised at the ease with which I have begun swallowing all the big words whole.
Why is this worth discussing on a Mormon issues blog? Well, remember how we are a world church? Recently, I gave the students an assignment in which they had to make a choice between going to war to defend their country against an impending invasion or staying home and taking care of their ailing mother (Sartre's ethical dilemma). The students could choose to answer as a Utilitarian or as a Deontologist (in other words, they could pretend to be Mill or Kant). Both philosophies explicitly demand that you consider everyone in the world when considering a problem. All my students but 2 (so, 22 students) failed to do this. As far as they were concerned, universal application of their actions ended at the nation's borders. So, they, in almost all cases, felt that these ethical systems would encourage them to go to war. After all, it is a matter of duty.
Should I have been surprised? No. The professor who gave me the idea told me that this is exactly what would happen. This is a "Republican" state in a war-time election year. Any attempt to think that our boys may be wasting their lives out there is not to be tolerated.
But here is the thing, we are supposed to be a world church with a world view. I have, as a representative of said church, flown to distant countries in order to bring people from all cultures into this church. The majority of the people I am teaching have served LDS missions or will serve them. So, why did I make the same mistake as all of my students when I first considered the ethical dilemma?
How much, as an American, can I get away from my own ethno-centrism, even in a Gospel context? As a member of a worldwide church, why am I inordinately proud that we finally have a European on the Twelve in my lifetime? It wasn't meant to be a symbolic gesture, but I found myself counting the days until Elders Helvecio Martins or Yoshihiko Kikuchi were called to the Twelve. Why do I care about this if I believe in the worldwide church? Because, in spite of my vast worldwide experience (remember, I travelled to Missouri over the summer), I still have my doubts. Why does the Big Guy care so much about this bit of land that he inserted a fairly detailed discussion of its colonization into a Standard Work and prophecied about at least a couple of political events within it (civil war, constitutional thread hanging)? I remember that, while I was in Russia, people told me it was great that Christ visited America, but what did that have to do with them? I guess that I sometimes wonder the same thing.
For the record, I am not questioning the relevance of the Church, gospel, etc. to all people, but rather I am asking how can we really consider ourselves to be a "world" church, when we seem more interested in the politics of one country than in others? Shouldn't the Brethren be addressing the social issues on the other sides of the Atlantic or the Pacific with equal interest as they are those of the Northern Western Hemisphere? I am NOT saying this as a criticism (I support the Brethren, they can write about whatever they want, far be it from me to give them counsel). Instead, I wonder how we deal with this aspect of worldwide gospel life? Speaking as an American member, all too often my universe ends at the border. I often have to remind myself that there really are people over there living lives that don't relate to mine at all and that I have just as much responsibility to them as I do the people who live within my circle of influence (whether I listen to Kant, Mill, or (I'm pretty sure) Christ).
I realize that this, by its nature, may not be the best blog on which to admit to having these issues. Most of those who read think of people in far -off countries more than I do, which is precisely the reason I bring it up. What might cause the inordinate gospel interest in the United States of America in scripture and revelation? Is it too obvious to say that it is because we are based here?

I've never done this before and don't know the etiquette. Is it wrong to end a post with a question?
I Ching

I thought of cheating on this post and waiting until what it describes actually came true. But that would be no fun.

I teach a class in Comparative Religion. Last night we were wrapping up our study of China, and to demonstrate Chinese divination we had a go with the I Ching. Now, "had a go" should be underlined. I am neither a Chinese sage nor soothsayer. I am not even Chinese.

The I Ching or Book of Changes is a method of divination which draws sticks to make six yin or yang lines, thus creating a hexagram. There are 64 possible hexagrams and your future can be divined by interpreting the particular hexagram that you draw. The idea is to penetrate the flow of the Dao and to judge one's own place in it.

The mystique of the I Ching has even captured the Western imagination: books that I have recently read that feature the I Ching are Philip K. Dick's The Man in the High Castle, and Philip Pullman's The Amber Spyglass.

I asked my class to come up with a future scenario that the I Ching might be able to predict. The outcome of the current baseball games was the favoured choice. This is misusing the I Ching slightly as it is supposed to offer personal advice, and there isn't much influence we can have over a baseball game. Nevertheless...

We asked if the Red Sox would win. The resulting hexagram suggested success. Strike One!

We asked if the Astros would win. Here's where it gets tricky. Because the hexagram we drew was full of "old lines" (that is, lines that will soon "die" and be "reborn" as their opposite), we had to read another. The result was that yes, they would win, but not immediately. Tonight's Game 7 will prove this either way. (I was only going to post if Houston do in fact win).

Of course most of my class was skeptical about all of this, but wouldn't it be nice if we could make all our decisions this way. I hate making decisions, and even if I use prayer, I still agonise over things. So should we draw sticks or flip coins instead?

Lest anyone find the idea too attractive, the I Ching is also very difficult to interpret. The Third Yin of Hexagram 7, for example:

"The Army will perhaps use carriages to transport corpses, and this would be misfortune".

Huh?

Ana John, shulum!

I needed someone smarter and funnier than me to co-blog on United Brethren, so welcome John! Where can I start in praise of this guy? Quite apart from the fact that he lent me his house when I first moved to Baltimore, John is a hero of biblical proportions. Is there no end to his brilliance? Is there an ancient language he cannot read? John may blog in Ugaritic, so be warned.
Mormons and Gay Marriage Redux

[Conflation of two posts for the sake of clarity]

LDS.org has posted a statement from the First Presidency, which "favors measures that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman and that do not confer legal status on any other sexual relationship."

This statement casts new light on the blog I set out to write. Allow me to put forward my opinions on this subject, then respond to what the First Presidency have said.

[Original post]

Should Mormons oppose gay marriage? Should Mormons in America back a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage? Far be it for me to suggest what Mormons should do, so I approach this question personally: should I, a Briton, a liberal, a father, and a Mormon, oppose gay marriage? My answer, for those who won't read any further, is....no!

First, let me share an observation with all those who suggest that marriage should be "Bible based". As Ronald Hendel has pointed out in Bible Review, not even the most conservative Christians would want "biblical" marriage. If we did we would have to:

1. Allow polygamy (oh the irony!)
2. Put adulterers to death (those who have sex with married women), or force them to marry their lover (in the case of unmarried women)
3. Ban divorce

I don't support a return to "biblical" marriage. But what about gay marriage?

Opponents of gay marriage say that a) it's immoral, and b) it would undermine good old-fashioned heterosexual marriage. Now, as I see it from the perspective of Mormon belief all sexual relationships outside of heterosexual marriage are "immoral", that is, they are not in keeping with God's commandments. But would we propose banning cohabitation of unmarried heterosexual couples? You might think it immoral, but only fanatics and lunatics would propose such a thing. The assumption behind this particular fear of gay marriage must be that somehow homosexual behaviour is more sinful than heterosexual behaviour outside of marriage. I see no justification for this view in the official doctrines of the Church.

As for the danger homosexual marriage would pose the "traditional family".... Well, I am not convinced that traditional marriage is in good shape anyway and that isn't the fault of gays. People seem to marry reluctantly now, or at least years after living together. They aren't doing this because of gay marriage.

What about the influence on children who live in a society that allows gay marriage? I discussed this with Becky last night and we imagined the following scenario:

Let's say we have three neighbours. One is a married couple who bicker and fight. The other is a girlfriend and boyfriend who live together. The last is a married gay couple. Who offers the greatest threat to my children's sense of marriage and family? No clear candidate came to mind so I realised that gay marriage is no greater or lesser a threat than society's attitude to marriage in general. And my children's perception of marriage is going to be most influenced by my own.

The fact is that gay people are going to fall in love and will want to live with their lovers just as we all do. The Church asks them instead to live lives of chastity and disciplines those of its members who fail to do so. That is the Church's prerogative, but as I asked above, can we legislate such a thing for the rest of society? I don't think that we can. Nor should we.

And what is the "extra" harm done by gay couples who want to increase their commitment to each other. If Mormons view homosexual sex as sinful in any situation, how is that made worse if it occurs within a marriage relationship? Committed couples, of whatever sexual orientation, are surely a good thing, or at least a better thing.

So, as a Mormon with my own personal moral views, I have yet to be persuaded that we should consider the "fight" against gay marriage as actually something worth expending massive amounts of energy "fighting" for (and I think that Sheri Dew's comparison with the struggle against Hitler was inappropriate in the extreme). Let's solve world hunger and achieve world peace first before we force people to conform to our morals. And let's put our marriages in order, lest our children be put led astray by us. Heaven forbid! It's always those evil people out there who cause all the problems in this world.

[Now back to the First Presidency statement]

If as Mormons we cannot sustain the First Presidency then we have a serious problem as our whole religion rests on the claim of continuing revelation. I have wrestled with this issue and the above is my honest attempt to explain to myself why it is I personally don't feel particularly energised against gay marriage. Am I really that liberal?

I don't think so. The statement reads to me as follows: the First Presidency have stated for the record (and like it or not it is an issue that needs comment) that they "favour" a constitutional amendment. I see nothing in this statement that requires the membership of the Church to now go out and "fight" for such. It is a statement of principle, not (yet) a call for arms. I sustain them in their leadership and it is their job to do what they see fit.

But what about me? As I have tried to articulate, gay marriage is one of many moral issues that exist in the world. I can only rally my energy to those things that really cause my juices to flow. This just ain't one of them. Sorry. Maybe it's because I know gay people, including Mormons. They aren't the enemy to society that they are painted to be among some on the Right.

Of course, this will surely make American Mormons more likely to vote Bush (who favours the amendment). But which is more important, defining marriage, or ensuring a President is elected who can seek social justice in areas such as healthcare, and will not, through war, cause the deaths of thousands of people. It's my political centre that causes me to gravitate to the latter, but let everyone choose for themselves. This is not a vote between Good and Bad, but between the Goods and Bads which mean more to us personally.

Oh gosh, I just thought who I remind myself of: Dick Cheney. Because of his daughter he doesn't support the ban, but he "doesn't make policy for the President" (yeah, right!).

Jerusalem, holy?

Jerusalem is one of the unholiest cities on earth. Perhaps it is a problem of definition, as did not God (surely the holiest of all) call himself a God of War?. If holy is a synonym for "peaceful" then Jerusalem is deepest, darkest Sheol. All three religions that call this place home have a sorry tale to tell. For the Christian, Jerusalem celebrates (if that is the right word) the awful treatment handed out to Jesus. Pilgrims tread the Via Dolorosa, imagining where Jesus was flogged, where he fell, where he was crucified. For Jews the Wailing Wall is a memorial to a Temple destroyed by foreign conquerors. Muslims do not come out unscathed either - the Dome of the Rock reminds all of Islamic conquest and Christian crusade. On the beautiful yellow rock of Jerusalem has stood the red blood of countless martyrs, each seeking their eternal place in the Holy City.

A coffee shop in the Muslim Quarter that we often frequent stands beneath a house which Ariel Sharon bought, not because he wanted to live there, but because he believed that a Jew ought to be able to own a house anywhere in Israel. A huge Israeli flag hangs from it. In the streets below, Arab vendors sell maps of the Middle East that simply deny the existence of Israel, with what we know as Israel and the Occupied Territories labelled "Palestine". It is wishful thinking and more than a little pathetic. What is most sad is that the Intifada has created losers on all sides. Speak to enough Jews and you will meet someone who knows someone who has been blown up by suicide bombers. All of us who live here have to put up with security checks in shops and cafes and a constant worry that the bus you see driving down the road might explode. Many Arabs here live in squalor, and the Security Fence (which you can see in the distance) is going to cause more hardship. Added to all of this, there are no tourist dollars to soften the blow.

There is a measure of peace to be found here, though. There is an undeniable power to some of the sites, holy or not. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre is a gaudy mess and the home of petty squabbles between Catholics, Greeks and Armenians. But to touch the slab of Christ's burial is to repeat an act that pilgrims have done for centuries and the sense of history and humanity is palpable. Nevermind whether it is the real tomb. That is hardly important. If Jerusalem does have holy sites for the visiting Christian, it is perhaps those places unencumbered by churches. The Garden Tomb and the Garden of Gethsemane, both open to the air, are beautiful and (dare I say it) holy. So, contrary to what I said at the beginning, there is holiness here but it is difficult to find, making Jerusalem a striking microcosm of human existence.
Hezekiah's Tunnel



Hezekiah's Tunnel Certainly one of Jerusalem's most interesting attractions, Hezekiah's tunnel represents the Judean king's project to bring the waters of the Gihon spring securely into the city. II Chronicles 32:30 - "And Hezekiah blocked up the source of the Gihon to a reservoir within the city walls". It's about 550m long and takes 45 minutes to walk. We did it yesterday with two Jewish gentlemen who sang Hebrew songs along the way. The tunnel is pitch black so you need torches. It's also very narrow and you have to crouch most of the way. The water goes as far as your knees. An inscription was found at the half-way point: "The tunneling was completed... While the hewers wielded the ax, each man toward his fellow... there was heard a man's voice calling to his fellow... the hewers hacked each toward the other, ax against ax, and the water flowed from the spring to the pool, a distance of 1,200 cubits..."
Gadfield Elm

Originally published at Meridian Magazine.

I grew up in the Victorian town of Malvern in central England. Malvern claims a certain amount of fame for being the home of Malvern spring water, and the famous English composer Sir Edward Elgar, and the classic Morgan motor car. It is a beautiful place: on a good day, from the top of the hills that rise steeply over the town, hikers are greeted by a view of the Severn River plain to the east, and the mountains of Wales in the west. Malvern exudes a sense of all that is quintessentially English, at least in a Wind in the Willows kind of way. Lest it be said that I am waxing only lyrical, Malvern’s beauty has also been given prophetic approval. Said Brigham Young, "On the road we passed through the town of Malvern, at the base of the Malvern Hills, the most beautiful range of hills in England, being among the highest and affording the most splendid prospect of the surrounding country for 30 miles."

Brigham Young’s visit to Malvern belonged to that period of Mormon history famous for its spectacularly successful missionary work – the Mission of the Twelve to the British Isles in the late 1830s and 1840s. Between 1837 and 1847 some twelve thousand people joined the church in Britain. Almost all emigrated to America, providing much-needed support to the Church at a critical time. The missions also galvanized the Twelve as a quorum, thus ensuring the survival of the Church after the death of Joseph Smith. In Britain, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, despite its rich heritage, two temples and 170,000 strong membership, is largely considered to be an American church. It is unfortunate that the British roots of the Church are not more widely known. Yet Britain has played a central role in the history of Mormonism.

Stating that “something new must be done for the salvation of the Church”, Joseph Smith first sent missionaries to England in 1837. During the next two years, Heber C. Kimball and Orson Hyde established a mission in the north of the country around Preston. In 1839 a second apostolic mission was dispatched, called to build on the work of the first. This was a difficult time for the Church - dissension and apostasy had arisen among the leading brethren. Thomas B. Marsh, President of the Quorum of the Twelve, had apostatized and several others also defected. On July 8, 1838 the Prophet Joseph had received a revelation that required the Twelve Apostles to leave Far West on a mission "over the great waters" (D&C 118:4). This was a bold and surprising move; with the very existence of Mormonism threatened, Joseph Smith sent some of his most trusted colleagues thousands of miles away leaving the Prophet virtually alone to face his enemies. The apostles met as a quorum on April 14, 1840, in Preston and sustained Brigham Young as "standing president". A few days later they separated to various labors with Brigham Young and Willard Richards traveling south to assist Wilford Woodruff who had begun to have success near Malvern.

Elder Woodruff had been led to the Malvern area by a recent convert, William Benbow. William wished to share the Gospel with his family. His brother John entertained Elder Woodruff at his farm. Wrote Elder Woodruff:

"Mr. John Benbow kindly entertained me for the night, during which time I spent several hours in laying before him an account of the origin, rise, and progress of the Church of Jesus Christ, of Latter Day Saints, and like good old Cornelias the Spirit of God was upon him, and he received my testimony with all his heart, and opened his doors for preaching, and on the evening following, for the first time I preached the fullness of the gospel to a small congregation in that place, who manifested much interest in what they heard, and desired to inquire further into these things; on the evening following I met a still larger number at Mr. Benbow’s and preached unto them the first principles of the gospel, viz: faith in Christ, repentance and baptism for the remission of sins, and the gift of the holy ghost by the laying on of hands, after which I administered the ordinance of baptism unto six persons including Mr. and Mrs. Benbow, four of the six were preachers of an order called the United Brethren."

The United Brethren were a group of former Primitive Methodists who had organized themselves into small congregations surrounding the Malvern Hills. They were led by Thomas Kington, who allowed Wilford Woodruff to share the restored Gospel with the United Brethren congregations:

"This people universally felt willing to hear a matter before they condemned it, they opened their doors for me to preach, and searched the scripture daily to see if the things which I taught were true, and on finding that the word and spirit agreed and bore record of the truth of the fullness of the everlasting gospel, they embraced it with all their hearts, which has brought great joy to many souls in that region."

Brother Woodruff’s missionary success was spectacular, and much of it can be attributed to the readiness of this group of English believers to embrace the further light shared with them by the American missionaries. Woodruff summarized this amazing effort:

"The first thirty days after my arrival in Herefordshire, I had baptized forty-five preachers and one hundred and sixty members of the United Brethren….This opened a wide field for labor, and enabled me to bring into the Church, through the blessings of God, over eighteen hundred souls during eight months, including all of the six hundred United Brethren except one person. In this number there were also some two hundred preachers of various denominations."

Along with their proselytizing success, the Mormon Elders also experienced many miracles. Commenting on the “power of God” that rested upon them near Malvern, Elder Woodruff retold the story of Mary Pitt:

"Mary Pitt, who died later in Nauvoo, sister of William Pitt, who died years after in Salt Lake City, had not walked upon her feet for eleven years. We carried her into the water, and I baptized her. On the evening of the 18th of May, 1840, at Brother Kington's house in Dymock, Elders Brigham Young, Willard Richards, and I laid hands upon her head and confirmed her. Brigham Young being mouth, rebuked her lameness in the name of the Lord, and commanded her to arise and walk. The lameness left her, and she never afterwards used a staff or crutch. She walked through the town of Dymock next day, and created a stir among the people thereby."

The United Brethren donated to Elder Woodruff “one chapel and forty-five houses, which were licensed according to law to preach in.” The chapel was at the site of Gadfield Elm and at the time it was the only LDS-owned chapel anywhere in the world. It become a focal point for missionary work in the Malvern area, but was sold to help pay for the local members to gather to Zion. The chapel soon fell into disrepair, and for a century and a half was little more than a cattle shed.

In 1987 the Church celebrated its British sesquicentennial and set aside some money for site preservation. Elder Neal A Maxwell travelled to Gadfield Elm to talk to the owners about purchasing the chapel. The price set by the owners was too high, and so Benbow’s Pond (which had been used by Elder Woodruff for baptisms) was the only site purchased. In 1994, the chapel came up for auction. The Church had no plans to bid, so Wayne Gardner, the local LDS bishop, feeling he “just had to do something”, organised a group of Saints in the hope of raising enough money to acquire the chapel. They raised about £7,000 ($12,000) which was enough to win the bid and pay for urgent repairs to the walls. Over the next six years, the Gadfield Elm Trust raised a further £65,000 ($115,000) from members in the UK and the US, with a small donation from the Church.

On Sunday, 23 April 2000, the restored chapel was dedicated by Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the Quorum of the Twelve whose great-great-grandparents, Ellen Benbow of Hill Farm and William Carter of Ledbury, a few miles from Gadfield Elm, both emigrated to America. Today, the Gadfield Elm chapel serves as a memorial both for the faith of the United Brethren, and the pioneering efforts of early British Mormons to build the kingdom of God.

This is the LDS heritage in the place of my birth. For the English Saints, these places are as sacred to us as the Hill Cumorah or Temple Square. The United Brethren converts were not our ancestors (most emigrated to the States) but they were our kinsmen and we call the same land home. When missionary work in England accelerated again in the 1960s and 1970s, the Church in Britain relied heavily on America for its leadership and religious culture, but a new generation of British Saints, of which I am a member, is learning that their religious landscape need not be in the Rockies. As a Primary child, then later as a Seminary student, I well remember touring sites such as Benbow’s Farm and Gadfield Elm chapel. As a Young Men’s leader, I fondly recall a camp we had in the grounds of Gadfield Elm. All of us, men and boys, were deeply touched to stand where Brigham Young and Wilford Woodruff stood and to contemplate our compatriots’ sacrifice as they left this place for America. We sang England’s national hymn, Jerusalem, which extols our “green and pleasant land”, then sang Come, Come, Ye Saints, remembering those who found Zion, “far away, in the West”.

Warrick Kear, a CES coordinator and former local Stake President told me of the significance of the Malvern sites to British Mormonism:

"When I was called as the new stake president of the new Cheltenham stake,the responsibility for the Church history sites in the stake was the most exciting aspect of my calling. It was a great privilege for me to take Apostles and General Authorities around the sites. They certainly are a spiritual part of LDS membership in [England]. Since the rebuilding and dedication of the Gadfield Elm Chapel, public awareness of the social and religious heritage of LDS people in the area has increased tremendously."

The Mission of the Twelve was to have many consequences, not only in numbers of converts (50,000 of which were eventually to emigrate), but also in converts who were intensely loyal to the Apostles and did not doubt the need to leave Nauvoo. Brother Kear believes that the missions also served to “train and forge a cohesive Quorum of Twelve with the future Prophet as leader”. Today the influence of Britons on the Church still resonates; Utah boasts the greatest concentration of British Americans in the US largely because of the British missions, and just as importantly, British Mormonism is becoming increasingly aware of its own spiritual heritage. Some local members are disappointed that the Church has never invested much money in the upkeep of these sites. The Gadfield Elm restoration was a private venture, and even though the Church owns Benbows Pond, its current state of repair is not very impressive. But a consequence of all this has been that British Saints have had to take ownership of their own history, a vital step in the Church’s British maturation. And for the Church to fully come of age outside of the US, it must be able to develop a sense of local heritage. This is perhaps why the Church passed on the Gadfield Elm project (Elder Packer suggested it be organised locally).

The Church’s biggest obstacle to growth internationally is the perception that it is an American church, a foreign religion that is simply another prong in an alleged American imperialism. In Britain, through hard work, an emphasis on our own history, and an effort to better engage our community, this need not be the perception, for Britain, like America, has its own Sacred Groves.
The Passion of the Christ

[Originally posted at Headlife]

I just came back from watching Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, and before the immediacy of the experience is gone, I wanted to write down some of my thoughts. For the believer, the Passion presents perhaps the most compelling dramatic representation of the atonement of Christ that you can imagine. For the interested agnostic, it will express, better than most of us can, the central belief of Christianity: why it is that Jesus died, and why it is that this is so important to Christians. Of course, you could just read the Bible, but as most of us don't do this as often as we might, allow this movie to ignite that desire. You've heard it's brutal, and it certainly is. As for the film's alleged anti-Semitism, well, it is true that the Jewish priests are depicted very negatively (an understatement), but so are the Roman soldiers, and the excellent casting and use of Aramaic will leave no doubt that Jesus, and those who loved him, were Jewish.

I liked some of the dramatic flourishes, particularly the depiction of Satan and the relationship between Jesus (Yeshua!) and his mother (Miryam!). I hope it makes tonnes of money, not least to prove to Hollywood that the silent majority is not embarrassed of religion. May this mark the beginning of further biblical movies that aren't encumbered by bad hair and blue-eyed Jesus's! I commend this film to anyone. One caveat however: as I said, it's violent. Perhaps overly so. I would have toned down one or two scenes.

For me, it has reminded me that whatever I do in life, it is simply moth and dust if it does not reflect those two truths which this film so beautifully expresses: that there is redemption in Jesus from all that is bad and horrible within us, and that if we are to follow him we should remember his "new commandment" - that we love each other as he loved us.

Of course, this film poses two challenges to Mormons: R-rated movies, and the physical nature of the atonement (Gethsemane vs. Calvary). Expect further posts on this subject.