the euro mormon blog
United Brethren is currently on blog sabbatical.
| Regarding the Evangelical preacher who was harrassing Mormons in England: "Mr. Justice Beatson imposed an exclusion order on Andrew Price, a minister in the Church of England, after ruling that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints had established its case in nuisance and harassment." |
| Before LDSWorld.com ceased existence, they had a really interesting section on urban legends and myths in the church. A lot of these can now be found on the Shields website. One I always enjoyed (mostly because I'm not a massive fan of the painting) is that the Del Parson painting of the Saviour is the "most accurate" portrait of Jesus: "A message tells of LDS artist Del Parson who was commissioned by the Church to do a painting of the Savior. He submitted several drafts of the portrait to the General Authorities who returned it with suggestions on how to make it more "accurate." Finally, the picture was accepted as the closest possible approximation to the Savior's actual appearance. (The final picture is the familiar "red robe" portrait that has been used in many Church magazines, manuals, etc.) Some dramatic additions to the story tell of a girl who recognized in the portrait the man who had held her and protected her after her parents were killed in a car accident, or who comforted her when she was locked in a closet by abusive parents. "According to Bro. Parson, the painting was indeed commissioned by the Church, but he worked with the curriculum department to create a painting suitable for their needs. There were several revisions in the process to develop a picture suitable for their needs; there was never an indication that the revisions were to make the portrait "more accurate." And there is no record of such a dramatic "recognition" by a little girl." Why is it that members of the church seem to need to believe in these 'feel good' stories and spread them like wildfire? I'm all for feeling good, but doing so through a lie isn't a great idea. Or is it? |
| Some of my Yorkshire ancestors were Quakers, Baltimore is full of Quaker meeting-houses, William Penn was a Quaker, a friend of mine growing up was a Quaker, and I like Quaker harvest oats. But who are the Quakers (the Religious Society of Friends)? I'm interested because I did a survey on Belief.net that tries to guess your religious affiliation. It seems I'm more of a Quaker than I am a Mormon (although I did blur the questions that were obviously going to make me LDS just for the sake of interest!) Quakerism was founded in England by George Fox (1624-1691). At 23, he heard a voice saying "there is one, even Christ Jesus, who can speak to thy condition". Fox promoted the concept of the Inward Light, or Inner Voice--"the seed of Christ"--that is innate to everyone and gives everyone the right to express opinions on spiritual matters (see John 1:9--"the true Light, that lighteth every man that cometh into the world", aka the Mormon "Light of Christ".) Fox taught his followers to worship in silence. At their meetings, people only spoke when they felt moved by the Holy Spirit (testimony meeting?) They thought of themselves as "friends of Jesus" and referred to themselves as "Friends of Truth" (from John 15:15). Later, they became known simply as "Friends". Because of their non-comformist views the movement came into conflict with the English government. Once, when Fox was hauled into court, he suggested that the judge "tremble at the word of the Lord". The judge sarcastically referred to Fox as a "Quaker", hence "Quakers". American Quakers found sanctuary in the Rhode Island colony. William Penn (1644-1718) and other Quakers played a major role in the creation of the colonies of West Jersey (1675) and Pennsylvania (1682). Quakers took the first public stand against slavery and played a major role in organizing and running the "Underground Railroad". Quaker beliefs are famously diverse and range from Evangelical (conservative) to liberal. The largest Quaker body, the Friends United Meeting includes the following beliefs: true religion as a personal encounter with God, rather than ritual and ceremony; individual worth before God; worship as an act of seeking; the virtues of moral purity, integrity, honesty, simplicity and humility; Christian love and goodness; concern for the suffering and unfortunate; continuing revelation through the Holy Spirit. Many Quakers do not regard the Bible as the only source of belief and conduct. They rely upon their "Inner Light" to resolve what they perceive as the Bible's many contradictions. They sound awfully nice, don't they? Seeking the Spirit as one's guide is a common Mormon theme nowadays (see the recent Heber J. Grant lesson on this topic). It's ironic then that Joseph Smith denounced Quakerism for this very thing: "The Shaker will whirl around on his heel, impelled by a supernatural agency or spirit, and think that he is governed by the Spirit of God; and the Jumper will jump and enter into all kinds of extravagances. A Primitive Methodist will shout under the influence of that spirit, until he will rend the heavens with his cries; while the Quakers (or Friends) moved as they think, by the Spirit of God, will sit still and say nothing. Is God the author of all this? If not all of it, which does He recognize? Surely, such a heterogeneous mass of confusion never can enter into the kingdom of heaven.(TPJS, Section Four 1839–42, p.204)" John Taylor similarly: "In examining the human mind you will find many correct feelings and instincts planted there, if men would be governed by them. I do not know but it is this the Prophet Job has reference to when he says, "there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding." (Job 32:8.) Another scripture says, "But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal." (1 Cor. 12:7.) But then, many men do not profit by it; and although they have this light, or intuition within themselves, they are not governed by it. There is a party of religionists called Quakers, so strongly impregnated with this idea, that they think this inward monitor is sufficient to guide men in all their acts in life. (John Taylor, The Gospel Kingdom, p.324) So which is it? Are we to be governed by our Inner Light, or by the authorities above us? Whom do we trust? Therein lies the contradiction between the Liahona and the Iron Rod. The challenge of the Latter-day Saints is to square the guidance of the Spirit with the principles we are taught. |
| Baptist Press reports that some Evangelicals are not happy with the conciliatory comments offered by Fuller Theological Seminary President Richard Mouw at the recent Tabernacle event. Most interesting is Mouw's defense. In clarifying his own beliefs, Mouw has subsequently written, "For the record: I do not believe Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God; I do not accept the Book of Mormon as a legitimate revelation; I do not believe that temple baptism saves; I do not believe that all people will be saved." He added, "[But] when my good friend [and Brigham Young University professor] Bob Millet says that his only plea when he gets to heaven is 'the mercy and merit of Jesus Christ,' I want to respond by saying with enthusiasm, 'Let's keep talking!'" |
| The Church has taken an Evangelical preacher to the English High Court and charged him with harassment. Wow. |
| NPR's Fresh Air interviewed John Dominic Crossan today. Crossan is one of the leading scholars of the "historical Jesus" and has a new book out about Paul. He has some interesting things to say; most provocative are his thoughts on the Second Coming. Does a Christian's belief in the Rapture reflect an admission that the peaceful Jesus is a failure? That for God to really "win" he has to destroy--violently--the wicked? Just as interesting are Crossan's thoughts on his own religious beliefs. |
| It was finding out that John Fowles was a teenage skate-punk and that his favourite band was Bad Religion that inspired this post. Clearly John's music tastes as a young man (definitely not For the Strength of Youth material) did no lasting damage (!) It got me thinking about Mormon teenage rebellion and what is kosher and what isn't. Over at Headlife I mentioned my own enjoyment of grunge as a younger kid. I totally embraced the alternative music scene in the early 90s--its music, its clothes, its politics-in every way but one: its morals. That is, I didn't smoke, do drugs, or have sex. So really I wasn't very punk at all. I was a good Mormon boy trying to be punk. But I had to have some act of rebellion in my life so as to not feel like a total nerd. I knew that the music I listened to was a little naughty--and I enjoyed it for precisely that fact--but I never felt like I was completely of the Dark Side. Does this ring true to anyone? I have met so many good Mormon kids who are really into "heavy" music, but would never dream of otherwise rebelling. Is music the kosher rebellion for Mormon youth? |
| Following on from the discussion about reverence and the length of meetings...Maybe it’s just me, but Sunday School is not my favourite part of church. It’s nothing to do with the teachers – the ones in our ward are good. Maybe I’m just a little bored of the same curriculum, and the lessons being pitched at a fairly low level. I know this is to accommodate all members, but I consider myself fairly intelligent, and it’s just not grabbing me. Personally, I could live without it all together – I’d rather attend an adult Institute, where the scriptures are approached a little more thought-provokingly. I want to be challenged, to be made to think about things, to hear about world history at the time etc. Give me context! I’ve taught Gospel Doctrine myself, and it was hard to try and make the same old material interesting and new to the class. Am I the only one who feels like this? |
| Is there something about our meetinghouses that make Sunday services so irreverant (or maybe it's just the wards I've lived in)? I think it's a good part to do with the fact that LDS chapels are exactly that - "meetinghouses", not "churches". The fact that we have a great big sports hall into which our ward's sacrament meeting overflows hardly promotes a reverent atmosphere! Whenever I've visited old churches back in England it comes naturally to lower your voice and conduct yourself with a degree of respect, yet this is rarely the case when walking into our chapels (= multi-function, practical buildings). Down the road from where I live is the most beautiful little Lutheran church. I pass it frequently and wonder why our chapels can't look more attractive. The Lutheran church has more that one building - a chapel, solely for worship, a small building for offices and a community centre, which houses their equivilent of our cultural hall. This seems to me a much better idea - it allows the chapel building to be just a place of reverence and worship. It makes the worship more special, I think, to set aside a building for that sole use. I understand the want and need to be practical, but I also think this takes away from why we really go to church - to partake of the sacrament and worship our Saviour. I'd love to see a major overhaul of chapel building design, which might in turn produce a major overhaul of reverence in our meetings. |
| This just in...It appears that once again the church is untrue (for the next year or so). I assume you'll all be wearing black at Sacrament today. |
| I know that politics is overly discussed on Headlife, but something Ronan said in his previous post has gotten me thinking. Are my religious beliefs the single most important factor to me when I vote? I would like to think so. But then, looking at how I voted in the last election, I voted an almost complete Democratic ticket. Why? Frankly, because I think that the Republicans have too much power in Utah. But what has this to do with the way I approach my religion? I didn't stop to think about most of the candidates as people, just as names. I tend to vote for women and perceived ethnic minorities before I vote for the minority that I belong to (White Male). Most of the time, I do not know or care anything about candidates beyond that name. I have heard people making the argument that an uninformed vote is worse than a vote not cast. But who has the time or ability to check all the candidates to see if they are people of integrity as is recommended in the election year letter from the First Presidency read each November? So, once again, I will be ending my post with a question. I assume that we are all mature enough to respond to this one reasonably. In the interest of full disclosure, I will attempt to explain how my religious beliefs influenced my vote. I am curious as to how it influenced all of yours. For clarification, this is not meant to be an attempt to be persuasive, just descriptive. I am curious how religious belief ultimately played a factor in your votes; I am not curious to know how you think I should have allowed it to play a factor in mine (I guess I should say that you could comment on this, but you would be missing the point of my post). I tend to side with the Dems on most issues because I think that governments should stay out of most moral decision-making (war in heaven and all) and I think that there should be an attempt to make sure the underrepresented are insured a fair shake by the government (all the business with widows and orphans in the OT). That said, I did ultimately vote for the anti-gay marriage amendment in Utah (sorry, Becky's brother), in part because of what modern prophets may have been counselling on the subject and in part because I believe that the government has a vested interest in promoting heterosexual marriage and family over other options. To be honest, I am unsure I made the right choice there. I also think that we have stewardship duties over the Earth's resources that place me in the middle between environmentalists and corporate interests (but I tend to lean more to the environmentalist side). I think that war is occasionally necessary, but usually unjust (this war teeters between these two options for me). I feel like national standards on irreversible issues like abortion and capital punishment are too lax (i.e. it should be very hard to get either an abortion or an inmate killed and currently neither seems to be all that hard to acheive). I hope this is broad enough spectrum to give some idea of where I come from. So, I think a lot of this comes from my religious beliefs. How did your religious beliefs affect your vote? ps. I voted for Nader because neither of the other two candidates seemed to address enough of the "important to me" issues in ways that I liked and I figured that I might as well give a vote to 3rd parties. |
| The British are still crazy about Donny Osmond. He answers questions from The Independent here. My favourite question: "Considering that you have been in the music industry from such a young age, it was good to hear you say that you were a virgin when you married. Do you think virginity should be considered an asset rather than a liability for a man?" Donny: "Yes, absolutely. But that doesn't mean to say that anyone who isn't a virgin is less of a man. The Lord knew that we would make mistakes and that's why he suffered on the cross." |
| Dissident Voice claims that the "Democrats Commit Suicide" with the appointment of Harry Reid as SML. Basically, he's too conservative, a point that is linked again-and-again with his being Mormon. We're still a sideshow act, my friends. I don't remember Reid making anything of the fact that he's a Mormon, but for some it easily explains all that is wrong with the man. John Ashcroft is a good example of this media hostility towards religion. For me, Ashcroft was a scary, weird, unpleasant little man. For the media he was all of the above precisely because he was an Evangelical. How do they get away with this? Some faiths, it seems, are still allowed to be disparaged. Mormonism is one, Evangelical Christianity is another (although the latter, for their part, enjoy mocking the former so I don't have too much sympathy.) |
| There is a strange penchant in the Church for length. Start with our name: the Church...of...Jesus...Christ...of...(pant)...Latter-day...Saints. My recent favourite is the Brigham Young University Institute for the Study and Preservation of Ancient Religious Texts (a wonderful organisation by the way, says this grateful Nibley fellow!) Then there are our meetings (the longest in the religious world) and our conferences (10 hours of talks). It was always like this it seems: talks at the dedication of the Kirtland temple lasted, well, hours and hours. Now this is all good - why be short and puny? But there is one thing that irritates me no end: long public prayers. You know what I mean: it's 1.05, and the closing speaker went over. We just sang all 7 verses of A Poor Warfaring Man of Grief. It's now 1.10. You're hungry and the kids are wriggling. Up pops Brother Verbose to offer the benediction. He thanks the Lord for everything and everyone in the most flowery language possible and asks the Lord to bless the Bishop, his counsellors, the RS president, the missionaries (those in the Ward and those from the Ward), the Prophet, the Twelve, the Seventy, the Presiding Bishopric..... SHUT UP! Thankfully, I'm not the only one who finds this annoying. To quote Elder Bruce R. McConkie: "In the opening of meetings, such as conferences, the brother should at one thought and glance take in the situation and ask the Lord to bless us according to what the meeting is. In dismissing, we should ask the blessings of the Lord upon the congregation, and what has been said, and commit ourselves to the care of the Lord. It is not necessary to offer very long and tedious prayers, either at opening or closing. It is not only not pleasing to the Lord for us to use excess of words, but also it is not pleasing to the Latter-day Saints(!). Two minutes will open any kind of meeting, and a half minute will close it." You long-prayer givers: repent or be damned! |
| The Orlando Sentinel reports on the health of the nation. According to a survey, the blue states are the healthiest. Only one red state cracks the Top 5: Utah. "Mormons stress healthy diets and exercise, which must counteract whatever it is about being a Republican that kills you." |
| I've waited for the excitement to die down, but the recent American elections have made me very aware that a General Election will be called in England within the next year. Who would I vote for? I've thought about what issues would maybe be important to Jesus, and how as his follower I should act. Here in the US (where I'm currently living), when talking to some local ward members, it seems to be a "good Mormon" you vote Republican because they're anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage. To me it's not that clear cut. (Never mind the fact that the abortion rate went up under Bush). Jesus cared for the poor, the sick, the needy. Something the Democrats, in my opinion, seemed to have better views on. As a Mormon, the aforementioned "moral" policies are something to be taken into consideration when voting, however, but I realised I have no idea where the three main British political parties stand on them. So, I emailed them. I got a next day response from the Conservative Party, a few days later came the Labour Party response, and I'm still waiting, 2 weeks later for the Liberal Democrats to respond. When they do, I will report back. To be continued...... |
| I'm hoping for the arrival of StepfordMormonHousewives, or MollyMormonHousewives in the Bloggernacle (I'm trademarking those names, by the way). Until then, Mormon housewife blogs (other than you know what) are further represented by the arrival of Notes from the Nest and Beckynews. They both seem to have an obsession with food. Beckynews is beginning a series on English Christmas traditions, so if you want to know your Boxing Days from your Christmas crackers go have a look. Both of these fine lady bloggers also happen to be United Wives, but that has nothing to do with the plug. Speaking of plugs, may I also introduce UB readers to our non-Mormon political/life/sport blog, Headlife (also known as the Red One). We are Oxford and Johns Hopkins alums and focus on British/European-American politics (etc.). Things get angry at times, but then I try to introduce something benign....like cricket. As a lover of comic books (recent fave being Marvel's 1602), I enjoyed BCC's interview with artist Michael Allred of Madman fame who is creating a Book of Mormon series. As my son loves comics way more than he does the scriptures (OK, he's only four), I shall definitely be getting hold of this. And the Mormon Wasp has a nice collection of links about Mormons and race. |
| Mormon music is, by and large, rubbish. I'm afraid that includes the Songs of Zion too. I would love one day to be Ward Music Director so I can ban forever the singing of such stinkers as "Put Your Shoulder To The Wheel", "I Stand All Amazed", and "We Are All Enlisted". Let me say that I have nothing against the sentiment of these hymns, it's just that they are really horrible to sing. There are some good hymns: "Come, Come, Ye Saints", "Thy Spirit Lord", and anything by Vaughn Williams (English, you see). Mormon "pop" is awful. Jingly, jangly junk. And don't get me started about the CES Seminary tapes... A friend of mine wrote about Mormon music in Dialogue (Warrick Kear: LDS Sound World and Global Mormonism) and complained that Mormon music (think JKP) was wholly "feminine" and had nothing to stir the boys. I'm not sure he was calling for Mormon Rock, although there are some practioners like Mark Hansen of Mo'Boy blog. Now, if we had lots of good LDS guitar-music would I set aside my Pearl Jam Cd's? No, but, Oh Ye Mormon Musicians, please give us something with an edge. |
| VOANews.com has a transcript plus audio files for their American history segment on the James Buchanan era. The link here tells the Mormon story. It's history lite, but that's to be expected as VOA broadcasts to the Auslaender. The narrators also speak...very...slowly... |
| An age-long tradition in Britain is the wearing of a red poppy on the Sunday closest to the 11th November. On this day we have services to remember those who died in times of war. Wreaths are laid at war memorials on a local and national level. The Queen and Prime Minister pay their respects too. The entire nation observes 2 minutes silence at 11am. It's always a day that makes me proud of my heritage and proud to be British. Both of my grandfathers fought in WWII. One - John F. McLaverty in the Royal Navy serving on active duty from 1939 until 1946 on the Arctic convoys. This is an excerpt about one of the ships he served on: "On 28 May (1942) convoy QP11 (thirteen ships) left Murmansk for Iceland, escorted by four destroyers, four corvettes, and an anti-submarine trawler. Close escort was provided by the cruiser Edinburgh and two destroyers, Foresight and Forester (my grandfather's ship). On 29 May the Germans made contact with the convoy and Edinburgh was struck by two torpedoes from U456. Three German destroyers sent to intercept the convoy were repeatedly driven off by the convoy escort, but managed to sink one freighter, a straggler. The destroyers then found and attacked the cruiser Edinburgh, which returned fire and severely damaged the Hermann Schoemann, which later sank. During the action the destroyers Forester and Foresight were badly damaged by gunfire, while Edinburgh was again struck by a torpedo from one of the German destroyers, subsequently having to be scuttled by a torpedo from Foresight. The defense of QP11 had proved to be so determined that never again did the German destroyers venture out to attack a convoy on their own, only sailing as escort to larger ships." He won't talk about his war experiences mostly because he says he saw too many of his friends die. My other grandfather - Ralph S. Smith was an infantryman in the Royal Army and a bagpipe player in the King's Own Scottish Borderers. He was wounded in the leg on the beaches of Dunkirk, rescued by a small fishing boat and then had to retire from active duty. It was a wound that bothered him the rest of his life, until his death in 1983. I was only 7 when he died and didn't have the opportunity to hear about his war experiences either. As a granddaughter and a resident of a free country, I'm grateful for the sacrifices that were made, and hope we can all spare a moment to appreciate the gift that has been given us. In Flanders Fields In Flanders fields the poppies blow Between the crosses, row on row That mark our place; and in the sky The larks, still bravely singing, fly Scarce heard amid the guns below. We are the Dead. Short days ago We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow, Loved and were loved, and now we lie In Flanders fields. Take up our quarrel with the foe: To you from failing hands we throw The torch; be yours to hold it high. If ye break faith with us who die We shall not sleep, though poppies grow In Flanders fields. (John McCrae, 1872 - 1918) |
| deseretnews.com: Doubleday Book of Mormon is on the way Very, very cool. Gotta feel bad for Grant Hardy though. |
| One advantage of having a mother-in-law who works for Church PR is that I get a daily email digest of news relating to the Church. I will sift through the dross and post links up on the sidebar. Rather refreshingly, the digest puts out both "good" and "bad" news. |
 I met on Sunday night with the fledgling Washington DC chapter of Mormons for Equality and Social Justice (MESJ). To quote from their website, "Mormons for Equality and Social Justice is a grassroots organization of Latter-day Saint individuals who are “anxiously engaged” (D&C 58:27) in working for the gospel values of peace, equality, justice, and wise stewardship of the earth in a spirit of Christ-like charity and concern."Their statement of principles goes as follows: We work to end poverty in our communities and around the world. Plead the cause of the poor and the needy. (D&C 124:75) We seek justice and dignity for workers. I will be a swift witness against those that oppress the hireling. (3 Nephi 24:5) We seek equality for all, regardless of race, nationality, or creed. There should be an equality among all. (Mosiah 27:3) We defend human rights for all people. Laws should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh. (D&C 101:77) We stand for participatory democracy. Do your business by the voice of the people. (Mosiah 29:26) We stand against racism, gender inequity, and other forms of discrimination. Black and white, bond and free, male and female; all are alike unto God. (2 Nephi 26:33) We work for peace and an end to violence. Sue for peace to all people. (D&C 105:38) We seek wise stewardship of the earth’s resources. All things which come of the earth are to be used with judgment. (D&C 59:18, 20) Worthy causes, methinks. United Brethren will post on MESJ DC's activities. |
The Oxford English Dictionary defines ecumenical as follows:Belonging to or representing the whole (Christian) world, or the universal church; general, universal, catholic; spec. applied to the general councils of the early church, and (in mod. use) of the Roman Catholic Church (and hence occas. to a general assembly of some other ecclesiastical body); also assumed as a title by the Patriarch of Constantinople; formerly sometimes applied to the Pope of Rome. Many open-minded people, including Latter-day Saints, see e.g. here and here, are enamored with the idea of ecumenicalism, a movement in which various denominations of the modern splintered Christianity attempt to reach over schism and accept each other back into this "whole (Christian) world, or the universal church" as defined by the OED. But this universal church is not the Catholic Church; rather, it is an invisible, far-reaching Christian church united by the lowest common denominators of Christian faith, i.e. authority from God is necessarily side-lined in the interest of unity or redefined to include anyone who has accepted Christ. Is this an appropriate endeavor for Latter-day Saints? What makes Latter-day Saints "a peculiar people"? Does a rejection of ecumenicalism per se, as advocated by ecumenical enthusiasts and some Latter-day Saints, contain any implications for a commitment to religious pluralism, choice, and acceptance (i.e. maintaining all of those but rejecting ecumenicalism as currently pursued)? Personally, I am of the opinion that ecumenicalism is not something that Latter-day Saints can participate in: LDS claims to authority and prophetic guidance are mutually exclusive to the ecumenical platform of erasing schism. That does not, in my opinion, lessen Latter-day Saints' obligation to treat everyone in a Christ-like manner and love their neighbors. It just means that Latter-day Saints don't need to make themselves any less peculiar in the interest of good feelings with other denominations. At any rate, Latter-day Saints have a little known duty that works against ecumenicalism as currently known. The Doctrine and Covenants speaks of this duty in no uncertain terms in Section 123, verse 7: It is an imperative duty that we owe to God, to angels, with whom we shall be brought to stand, and also to ourselves, to our wives and children, who have been made to bow down with grief, sorrow, and care, under the most damning hand of murder, tyranny, and oppression, supported and urged on and upheld by the influence of that spirit which hath so strongly riveted the creeds of the fathers, who have inherited lies, upon the hearts of the children, and filled the world with confusion, and has been growing stronger and stronger, and is now the very mainspring of all corruption, and the whole earth groans under the weight of its iniquity. (emphasis added) So what is this duty that the D&C speaks of so forcefully? It is a duty to keep a record of the abuses suffered by the saints at the hands of adherents of these other Christian denominations. Section 123 explains in the first six verses: 1 AND again, we would suggest for your consideration the propriety of all the saints gathering up a knowledge of all the facts, and sufferings and abuses put upon them by the people of this State; Verses 7-11 reinforce the notion that this is "an imperative duty" and not a mere suggestion. These verses necessarily highlight the emnity between the other Christian denominations and the Latter-day Saints. Verse 12 further works against the spirit of modern ecumenicalism: For there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it— To my mind, particularly this verse seriously contradicts the mission of ecumenicalism. Implicit in this verse is (1) a necessarily exclusive claim to Truth (though it neither says that others might not have portions of the Truth nor that the Latter-day Saints already have the "whole Truth"), and (2) an indictment on the rise and subsequent corruption of the multidude of teachings that has resulted in the myriad contending sects and denominations. These two implicit premises are incompatible with ecumenicalism. To pursue ecumenicalism together with other Christian denominations would require a rejection of the language in this section of the Doctrine and Covenants. That is not a problem for some Latter-day Saints, I am sure. The problem for me, however, is that I believe that this is scripture and not so easily dismissed. |
| The youth of the Church are often told they have it much more difficult than previous generations. President Hinckley said: “Our times are fraught with peril. We hear frequently quoted the words of Paul to Timothy: 'This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come' (2 Tim 3:1). He then goes on to describe the conditions that will prevail. I think it is plainly evident that these latter days are indeed perilous times that fit the conditions that Paul described (see 2 Tim 3:2-7)” – General Conference April 2004 As a mother of two (soon to be three) this is worrying for me, because if this is the case, then my 4 and 1 year old have a bad (and worsening) world to look forward to. But is it really the case? Are there really more social challenges today than in the past? And if so, what is it about our day that is substantially worse? Three areas are often suggested as potential stumbling blocks for the youth today – drugs, alcohol and sexual immorality. Drugs: Recreational drugs are not new. The use of cannabis goes back to the 5th century BC (the Scythians). Nicotine has been used in Asia and in the Americas for centuries. Charles Whitebread, a professor of Law at USC Law School has commented on drug use at the turn of the 20th century: “In 1900 there were far more people addicted to drugs [particularly morphine] in this country (USA) than there are today… there were between two and five percent of the entire adult population of the United States addicted to drugs in 1900.” Alcohol: Beer and wine are as old as human civilization. Egyptian texts refer to the social problems associated with public drunkenness. The Babylonians had laws regulating drinking houses. 1930s Prohibition reminds us that social concern over alcohol is not new. Sexual Immorality: Prostitution is, as the saying goes, "the oldest profession in the world". So-called sacred prostitution was supposedly practiced by the Sumerians (about 2000 B.C.). In Ancient Greece same-sex relationships were a societal norm, valued for their pedagogic benefits and as a means of population control. It is known that the sex lives of historical figures such as Alexander the Great, Plato, and Leonard da Vinci, included or were centred upon relationships with people of their own gender. Pornography has a long history too. Nude pictures constitute the world’s first art and anyone who has seen Victorian pornography will know that it was particularly salacious. In short, people have been experiencing sex out of marriage for as long as people have been experiencing sex. So we see that the same old problems and temptations have been around for centuries. President Hinckley in the same talk said: “Perilous times? Yes. These are perilous times. But the human race has lived in peril from the time before the earth was created.” So my question is whether there is something unique or different about the 21st century that makes it particularly perilous for our children? Is mankind more prone to sin today, or do times never really change? Is evil more accessible today? Is the end nigh? How worried should I be? |
| Jeremy at Orson's Telescope throws a lifeline to Mormon Democrats. It seems that Harry Reid of Nevada (a Mormon and a Democrat) is going to be Senate Minority Leader. I have a post over at Headlife on my reaction to the US election. Dave's Mormon Inquiry has inducted United Brethren into the Quorum of the Twelve Blogs. We're honoured, but I wonder if it's a bit of an Uchtdorfian move: token Europeans? (Ronan and Rebecca are British). |
| Posted at Meridian Magazine, an article by Ronan about the LDS Church in Israel. The story is specifically about two members - Sahar, a Palestinian, and Joshua, an Israeli. |
