4874 items (3613 unread) in 60 feeds
a new eric
(490 unread)
Adventures in Mediocrity
(25 unread)
Agnostic Mom
(36 unread)
Anchor to my Soul
(18 unread)
Beyond Ourselves
(25 unread)
Blog Happens
(34 unread)
blog.mormonanswers.com
(4 unread)
Cr@ig In The Middle
(43 unread)
CV Rick
(281 unread)
Degenerate Elite
(88 unread)
Easy to be Entreated
(80 unread)
emerging from the ashes
(54 unread)
Equality Time
(53 unread)
Every Wrong Move
(33 unread)
Exposing Mormonism
(33 unread)
Floating in the Milk
(31 unread)
Heart of Darqueness
Hello Waffles
(67 unread)
In the name of religion
(14 unread)
Ishmael, the Wild Ass
(12 unread)
Jer Illuminated
(64 unread)
Kipona
Kokaubeam voices
(7 unread)
La's Self-Discovery Blog
(48 unread)
Lair of the Demon
(30 unread)
Lair of the Sinister Porpoise
(31 unread)
Letters from a broad...
(328 unread)
Life in the Fast Lane
(89 unread)
Liminal Blather
(28 unread)
MagicCicero's Odyssey
(25 unread)
Molly The Mormon
(18 unread)
Mormon 2 Catholic
(25 unread)
Mormon 2 Catholic
(10 unread)
My Faith No More
Notamormon
(74 unread)
On Religion
(30 unread)
One Dude's Mormon Studies
(15 unread)
Quaker Eclipse
(2 unread)
Ramblings of a SAHM
(32 unread)
Rebecca...and all that entails
(26 unread)
salubrious malcontent
Scottish Brain
(12 unread)
Shallow Thoughts, by Trixie Granny
(28 unread)
Sideon's Sanctuary
(24 unread)
Sons of Perdition
(118 unread)
Talking to God
(54 unread)
The Fork in the Road
(50 unread)
The Freeway Overpass
(10 unread)
The Peep Stone
(25 unread)
this, that, and the other
(191 unread)
Thought Spot
Thoughts by Sister Mary Lisa
(83 unread)
Todd's Hammer
(69 unread)
Trapped by the Mormons
(172 unread)
Winning by the Rules
(20 unread)
Within the Bubble
I am not your trophy,
Do not display me,
Do not report about me,
Be my friend.
When you reduce me
To a number,
I am less than human,
And so are you.
If you want me
To change my life
You better tell me
What you know.
When you go home,
I will be paying
For the choices
Pushed by you.
You want the best
For both of us,
If you respect me,
We will be fine.
I am not your trophy,
Do not display me,
Do not report about me,
Be my friend.
Inspired by a new news article about land development by the LDS Church in Hawaii, I did a little more property searching. Unfortunately, Honolulu County doesn’t allow searching by name, so finding all the property of Hawaii Reserves, Inc. and Property Reserve, Inc. (two of the holding companies of the LDS Church) in Hawaii is virtually impossible. But I did find this shopping center owned by Property Reserve Inc. – valued at $9 million (go here and use parce ID#: 550140010000). It is also the headquarters for Hawaii Reserve, Inc., which also owns the water and waste water treatment plants in Laie, HI.
I wasn’t always a fan of church, but I always went. But apparently this boy really didn’t like church. It doesn’t say if he was avoiding a Mormon church or some other service, but it was in Utah. Still pretty funny! 
Actually, it looks like the less-believing didn’t post anything at all about Pioneer Day, except for one tiny, belated greeting. Instead they celebrated the 40th anniversary of the Apollo moon landing and they posted some interesting photos of entirely different places and events. We also have some interesting thoughts on philosophy and religion:
Andrew S. quotes Seth R. calling for a new prophet! (See for yourself, in case I’m misrepresenting this.) Lilly De Nalish is contemplating death (and is disturbed about it for some of the same reasons I wrote about earlier). And Saganist refuses to reach a conclusion as to whether the LDS gospel is “true” or “false”.
In politics, we have more on health care: Kitten wonders where Americans are getting their ideas about socialized medicine from, and Djinn explains about the U.S. health insurance industry rationing health care.
Is the whole “family values” question politics or lifestyles? Whichever it is, G takes on the “family values” of the LDS church and Rachel Maddow takes on Pat Buchanan. In actual lifestyles, Ben explains why a new car may be a better value than a used car (for the moment anyway). His advice sounds pretty reasonable, and I like the car he picked out for me.
That’s it for this week. I’m very sorry that I’ve been MIA from the Internet lately, but on the bright side my project is going well, and my blogging efforts will kick back into high gear soon as I prepare for Sunstone!
When you single out one minority and legislate that they can’t have the same rights as everyone else, you’d think they’d just meekly say “OK” and go home and that would be the end of the story. Or, y’know, some organized religions might think that, but the folks of Outer Blogness disagree:
To explain the situation, Chino posts an interesting Utah Now panel program on the fallout of proposition 8 (see also Steve M.’s feud with the Daily Universe). As a solution, General J. C. Christian recommends that Presidents Beck and Monson use Main Street Plaza for the running of the gays. Regarding the official LDS statement on the incident on Main Street Plaza, Holly Noelle doesn’t buy it, and MoHoHawaii advises taking it with a big grain of salt.
That’s politics though. When it comes to personal relationships affected by this feud, Tom says “Sometimes walking away is the kindest gift of all.”
Unrelated but also noteworthy: Chris Tolworthy provides a clever new ending for a rather ridiculous inspirational story, Djinn provides a short, straight-forward explanation of the money black hole in America’s existing health care system, Latter-day Sustainablility talks about the high cost of cheap goods, and the feminist Mormon housewives react to Jimmy Carter’s resignation from the Southern Baptists.
My brother-in-law came to visit last weekend. As science geeks, we tried to see a shuttle launch while he was here (the launch was canceled 11 minutes before liftoff because of weather – ugh!). On the way to watch the launch we stopped by Deseret Citrus and Cattle Ranch to see the Mormon Church’s ranching operations:
sign by main entrance
Alas, as former Mormons, we failed to consider that they wouldn’t offer tours on Sunday. But we stopped by the Visitor’s Center anyway and drove around a bit. Here’s the Visitor’s Center:
the Visitor's Center
I knew from the Deseret Ranches’ website and this wikipedia page that the ranch was big, but actually driving around the ranch made me wonder just how big it is. So, I spent a good 10 hours or so trying to see if I could map out just how big the ranch is. After all that time, I realized it was simply too big for me to easily map out by myself. But, the research I did do provided me with some fascinating information.
First off, thanks to a corporation registration website in Florida, I was able to track the name changes of the holding companies for the ranch over the years, eventually finding the current name. It used to be Deseret Properties of Florida, Inc., Deseret Farms, Inc., Deseret Farms Inc., Deseret Ranches of Florida, Inc., Deseret Livestock Company, Deseret Properties of Florida, Inc., Deseret Ranches of Florida, Inc. (1), Deseret Ranches of Florida, Inc. (2), but it is now called Farmland Reserve, Inc.. Once I finally found the current holding company, I was able to visit the property tax appraisers’ websites for the three main counties where the ranch is located: Osceola, Orange, and Brevard. On those sites I found all the property listings of Farmland Reserve, Inc. Here’s a summary of what I found after I added them all up:
| County | Acres | Value |
| Osceola | 182,685.50 | $763,252,812.00 |
| Orange | 64,843.57 | $208,286,252.00 |
| Brevard | 41,559.66 | $12,552,680.00 |
| Hillsborough-FRI | 3,952.94 | $30,145,012.00 |
| Total | 293,041.67 | $1,014,236,756.00 |
Yep, you’re eyes do not deceive you – LDS, Inc. has more than $1 billion in for-profit property in Florida. The acres convert to 457 square miles, or .7% of the State of Florida. I can’t say for certain, but my guess is that LDS, Inc. is the largest landholder in the state behind the government. For comparative purposes, Disney owns 25,000 acres (that’s all of their properties, not just Disney World), or about 1/12th of the land owned by the LDS, Inc. holding company.
To tally all of this information, I actually built a spreadsheet that you’re welcome to download and peruse. I also started drawing the land parcels in Google Earth, but once I realized just how many there were, I decided I just didn’t have the time. I did complete all the land in Orange County and started on the land in Osceola County. If you want to see the maps or, better yet, if you’d like to improve/complete the maps, you can download them here: Orange County, Osceola County. If you do download them and improve them, please send me a copy of the updated versions as I’d like to have them.
As I was searching through these listings, on a whim I decided to see if Farmland Reserve, Inc. owned any property in my county, Hillsborough, FL, which is all the way across the state from Osceola and Brevard Counties. Turns out they do (see above table). That’s in addition to the $12 million owned by “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Corporation”, which is the company that holds the churches. This makes me wonder just how much property Farmland Reserve Inc. owns. I checked a couple additional counties in Florida but didn’t find any more property.
One of the reasons I wanted to visit the ranch is because my aunt and uncle recently completed a mission there (I should have gone while they were there, but never made it). The amazing thing about the fact that they served a mission there is that they did zero proselytizing and they paid to serve their mission. So, what did they do? My uncle was a high school shop teacher. He knows how to build and repair homes. So, they put him to work building homes on the ranch. He’s round 70 years old and was working 12 hour days 6 days a week for 18 months. His wife ran some of the tours and did other odd jobs around the ranch. When I found out that my aunt and uncle were paying for the opportunity to work for Farmland Reserve, Inc., a billion dollar for profit company, I was not very happy. Not only did the LDS Church use tithing money to buy the ranch (I’m assuming, maybe it was profit from some other business venture), but now it makes people pay for the opportunity to make one of their subsidiaries money. How is that at all ethical?
To wit, the obvious question is: How does the billion dollar ranching operation of the LDS Church further its religious aims? Why does a religion need a billion dollar ranch? Anyone?
Finally, all this searching around for property owned by LDS, Inc. led me to realize that we, the MSP community, could probably put together a pretty good estimate of the property holdings of LDS, Inc. (in the US at least) fairly easily if we distributed the work among us. If each person looked up the holdings of LDS, Inc. in their county and put them in a spreadsheet, we could aggregate them and keep a running total of known property value of the LDS religion. It would make a cool little widget for MSP to display. Thoughts?
Dan Savage devoted this week’s column to gay people with religious issues. So, as with cheating and partner-letting-self-go, let’s decide whether Dan got it right! Here’s an excerpt from the question:
Religion has been for me a source of strength in my times of weakness, a rock in the times of storm, and above all a home to return to when I have lost my path. In the teachings of my particular religion, to indulge the particular desires I am experiencing will condemn me to fates too grotesque to mention. I am rational enough to realize that there is no way that I can “pray away” these desires. My question is this: How does one prepare for a life of celibacy and solitude (as that is what is required of me to remain a member of this particular faith)?
Actually, it leaves me wondering what he means by “fates too grotesque to mention.” Excommunication? Airport restroom lovin’?
Dan says:
Find yourself a brand-new religion or sect, or jettison the bits of your current faith that don’t work for you. If you know anything about the history of Christianity—and it sounds like you don’t—then you know that the revisions began before the body was cold. No reason to stop now.
On the one hand, Dan sounds like an atheist who doesn’t grok the religious mindset. To him, they’re all basically equivalent and interchangeable, to a believer perhaps not so much.
On the other hand, a lot of gay people of faith seem to be able to do just as Dan suggests. After all, the beliefs “God is just and loving” seems to conflict with the belief that “God created me gay and wants to torture me for it” — so you basically have to jettison one or the other. Or both.
Thoughts?
I was saddened last week to see this story about a New Zealand man who hit his daughter in the head with a lump of concrete when she refused to go to the mormon church with him.
Now, I think this man is an abuser, and would be an abuser no matter which religion he were in. This quote is particularly telling:
He had been ejected from an anger management course because of his views and had an inability to understand “whacking someone on the head is unacceptable”.
It’s just a sad story all around. My sympathy lies with his daughter, and I hope that he gets the help he needs. It does not appear that he is on that path. I also hope that his local ward deals with this type of behavior appropriately, although I think the argument can be made that abuse is not always handled in the best manner.
But as I was discussing this on FLAK with other board members, it was surprising to find out just how common it is for teenagers to experience anger and rage from their parents when they refuse to attend church. And it is typically the counsel from leaders that the “youth” are better off in church, where they can feel the spirit, regardless of whether or not they are still believers. Some LDS tend to focus on absolutes, absolute church attendance (and all church activities) with their teenager, assuming that will lead somewhere good (because they are told it will lead somewhere good).
So for some families, the battleground becomes mormonism and church attendance, where it probably shouldn’t be. Because mormonism is supposed to be a volunteer religion, with voluntary activity. Church should be treated differently than something like school; where if you don’t graduate, it can create future problems.
While the “eternal salvation” of one’s teenager is very important to many parents, forcing the teenager to attend church, seminary, EFY, etc. is probably not going to breed anything positive except resentment on all sides.
In other words, I believe it’s okay for parents to have expectations for their teenagers who live in their home, but the parents really need to figure out what those expectations are and if they are appropriate/valid for the individual relationship ASIDE from whatever guidance has been given from the LDS leadership.
Maybe some LDS parents have learned this and are backing off. That’s my hope. But from my own experience, using church attendance as a battleground is a profound FAIL. It has taken me years to rebuild my relationship with my parents, for many reasons. But arguing over voluntary religious belief certainly didn’t help the relationship.
The big news this week is on freedom and private vs. public space: Apparently Salt Lake City sold part of Main Street to the CoJCoL-dS, and now we’re learning what that means. A a gay couple was detained by security and handcuffed for a kiss on the cheek on church property. The story is told from the horse’s mouth (hat tip MoHoHawaii), and was covered in the paper here. As a follow-up, we have a partial transcript of the diversity training workshop at the COB and Dissenting in Part admits to kissing on temple square and claims to have photographic evidence of it.
(Of course this incident is nothing compared to the many ways that political correctness is keeping the white Christian man down!)
Then we have a couple of ghost stories. Brent compares the Holy Ghost to Scooby Doo, while Markus insists the Holy Ghost is more like Casper. You decide! And speaking of the dead, Sideon is taking bets on how long it will be before Michael Jackson is baptized — and if you think that would be disrespectful, keep in mind that he’s already being carved in butter.
On to lifestyles. John gives us the top ten reasons to go vegetarian — can you think of any others? On a related note, Kerfuffler gives a graphic picture of our consumption habits. Flygirl tells us how much more fabulous the adult singles dating scene is now that she’s left the church. Aerin contemplates dealing with cultural expectations of how you’re supposed to feel. Andrew has a spirited discussion on whether being a part of Mormon culture stamps a person for life. And Sabayon asks: What would you tell a couple that’s giving up their baby for adoption by a Mormon couple?
Then there’s the Sunstone Symposium!!! I hope you will all be there! You’ll get to see some folks you may recognize: Holly will be presenting on Johnny Lingo, Twilight, and the concept of divine malfeasance; I’ll be on a panel (about bridging stereotypes through blogging) with Biv, Jana, fMh Lisa, and mfranti; and Chris C. Smith will be presenting on the Mormon themes in the work of Orson Scott Card!
And — last but certainly not least — Hellmut’s pledge drive to help a boy recover from burn wounds was successful! Thanks to all who contributed!!!
Why act ethically if not out of (self-interested) thoughts of your own eternal reward? According to the LDS-Freemen (hat tip TBBB), you wouldn’t:
Is it okay for me to admit that the reason I have faith and hope in an afterlife is because I am interested in myself? Is that selfish? I don’t think it’s selfish; I think it’s logical and true. Self-interest is behind everything we do, even altruistic things like serving our neighbor. I also believe it’s behind everything God and Jesus Christ do.
It’s probably not fair to suggest that the LDS Freemen represent the typical believer. However, their post opens up some intriguing questions:
Some of you might have noticed on Facebook that Jana Bouck Remy from Pilgrim Steps has raised money for HandReach, which is an excellent charity that helps Chinese children to recover from burn injuries. Jana and her friends raised enough money to pay for a girl’s prosthetic.
The Main Street Plaza crew decided to follow Jana’s example and raise a little bit of money to help a boy who needs a groin operation to recover from a burn wound. He was scalded a couple of years ago. Ever since then, a burn scar attaches his penis to his thigh.
The good news is that, if all goes well, a single operation can heal the boy. It costs $900.
None of us have that kind of money but when people come together, small contributions can amount to a lot.
HandReach is a charity founded by Brecken Swartz. Brecken is also the soul behind the LDS Safe Space Coalition, the Mormon gay and straight alliance. She donates all her time and travel to HandReach so that your money goes 100% to medical treatment.
Two days ago, Brecken was approached by a peasant who had traveled many hours with his grandson to see her. He had heard that she was helping burn victims.
As a well managed organization, HandReach’s has a budget that carefully plans its expenditures. Since it would have been too sad to send the grandfather and the boy home, Brecken appealed to her friends and HandReach supporters to raise the money for the operation.
I know that times are tough. Many of us have to count every penny. If you can afford $10 or more, you will help a little boy to regain his childhood. No boy should have to enter puberty like that.
We appreciate your help. But that is nothing compared to the relief of Brecken and, most of all, a little boy in China and his loved ones.
PS: I apologize to my co-bloggers for associating the fund appeal with my Facebook account. May be, we should set up Main Street Plaza Facebook page for the future.
It’s time for the annual “Bloggernacle Niblet Awards” — and this time some of our regulars here at Main Street Plaza have been nominated!! So please go vote! 
Andrew S. (of Irrestible (Dis)Grace, among other blogs), is up for a number of them — including competing for the only Niblet I’m in the running for: “Nicest Evil Villain”. So (not to try to unduly influence you or anything, but) you might consider voting for me on that one, and then voting for Andrew on some of the others. Or maybe vote for our friend Christopher Smith as “Nicest Evil Villain”. I’m hoping there won’t be too much competition from the three Evangelical candidates unless people ignore the “nice” part (no offense, Jack, but I get the impression that “nice” isn’t exactly what you’re shooting for ).
And it wouldn’t hurt to vote for my brother (John Hamer) for the various Niblets he’s been nominated for either, not to mention Jana’s belly button.
I hope those of you who are American had a lovely holiday yesterday. My kids and I had fun joining in the pyrotechnic celebration with the rest of the family, as you can see from the photos my sister posted. And — true to blogging form — the other folks of Outer Blogness had plenty to say about America this week! Let’s see:
Jana enjoys a picnic with friends, but is less enthusiastic about the fireworks, and here’s why. Then, of course, there was the Governor Mark Sanford scandal. Normally I’m not that interested in political sex scandals (owing to my French side), but the commentary on this scandal is too hilarious to ignore!!! The prize goes to UTI for Um, Governor? Dude, shut-up, but Gen. J. C. Christian’s helpful 10 non-sexual acts for Gov. Sanford’s favorite ladies is right up there, as is VJack’s observation that Mark Sanford has given us a fabulous new euphemism for cheating! Sarah Palin’s resignation also sparked a bit of commentary, but wasn’t nearly as funny as Sanford’s (no offense to those of you who chose to write about that scandal instead). And Kerfuffler reports on an Oklahoma legislature resolution that might be funny if it weren’t real…
In religion news, Christopher Smith wraps up his interviews with three prominent and articulate evangelicals about their approaches to the Mormon community with some thoughts on Mormon-Evangelical dialogue. Living with Mormons reports on a highly uncomfortable visit back to church. Marcus tells his deconversion story — with themes that echo Andrew’s post here — about how his Mormon-inspired values sparked his “first mental break from the doublespeak and controls presented by the Church.” And Evolutionary Middleman proposes a debate question:
Any factual claim unsupported by empirical evidence can justly be treated as a product of the imagination.
I don’t really agree — I think it can often be treated as a working hypothesis (if not disproven by empirical evidence) — but you can go see the discussion for yourself.
Now for culture: Chino provides a thought-provoking review of “Nobody Knows: The Untold Story of Interracial Mormon Marriages”, and Andee posts a book from the 70’s that is so jaw-droppingly sexist that you have to read it to believe it! Lastly, Emily Pearson provides some great girls’-camp nostalgia with a real-life Mormon girls’ camp song about eternal marriage and the virtues of the holy priesthood of God — to the tune of Baby Got Back!
My Mormon mother-in-law is staying with us for a week to help with newborn care. My wife, mother-in-law, and I decided to watch Angels and Demons last night while the baby slept. After it was over, my wife said, “I don’t understand why Catholics revere the Pope so much.”
I responded, perhaps stupidly, with, “Well, it’s not all that different from how Mormons view the prophet.” (I, of course, was thinking like a sociologist and had “institutionalized charisma” on the tip of my tongue…)
My Mormon mother-in-law then chimed in, “I don’t think about the prophet the way Catholics think about the Pope.”
My inner sociologist then took over, “Really? How do you think he is seen as different by Mormons?”
Her first response was to say that people weep when they meet the Pope but not when they meet the prophet; she had met a prophet and didn’t weep. (I didn’t note that she was generalizing from a sample of one…) I asked her if she would like to meet the prophet and/or shake his hand. She said, “No. That wouldn’t really matter to me.”
(An aside is appropriate here… During one visit to Utah my wife and I found ourselves in downtown SLC walking through one of the big shopping centers right next to Temple Square with her parents. Russell Nelson walked by and they stopped and stared as though they had just seen an angel. So, I’m not inclined to believe that she wouldn’t be thrilled to shake the prophet’s hand.)
I probably should have left this conversation alone as I don’t generally talk religion with my in-laws (not because I don’t want to but because they so readily take offense to anything and everything I say and family comes first). I pointed out that Gordon Hinckley had visited my mission in Costa Rica in the 1990s and the missionaries clamored over him like he was a supernatural being himself. We bragged about getting to shake his hand (I shook his hand and was quite proud of that fact). We were giddy about the fact that he was visiting at all. So, perhaps my mother-in-law is unique in this regard.
She did admit during this very brief discussion that she probably couldn’t do a very good job distinguishing between the two because she doesn’t know much about the Pope. She said she’d need to know more about the Pope to distinguish the two.
She didn’t respond to my description of events in Costa Rica, but I kept at it trying to see how Mormons consider the prophet different from the Pope. Her next difference: Mormons don’t cheer for the prophet. I again recounted my experience in Costa Rica. After speaking with the missionaries he spoke to a large gathering of Mormons in Costa Rica in a stadium and they cheered for him. The members were also told to bring white handkerchiefs to wave to him as he left (it seemed artificial to me even back then). She responded by saying that people watching the 24th of July parade in SLC don’t cheer when the prophet drives by, they just wave and he waves back. I’ve only been to that parade one time, and that was when I was in it when I was like 6, so I don’t remember it at all. So, I can’t refute this claim, but NOT CHEERING at a parade? Really? Who just waves at a parade? Maybe I’m used to the bacchanalian Gasparilla festival here in Tampa where people are cheering like lunatics, but it seems like people cheer at parades. (Maybe if the prophet threw out beads to women who flashed him he’d get cheers? Sorry, that’s probably inappropriate, but a funny image in my mind…).
When she reiterated that she didn’t know much about the Pope, I gave a brief description then said, “Well why not just tell me how you think about the prophet.”
Her response, “He’s a man of God.”
I asked, “What does that mean?”
It was at this point that she said, “I don’t think I should have this conversation with you.”
So much for an academic discussion of religion with family (I should know better by now)…
So, I figured I’d ask on here: How do Mormons contrast the prophet with the pope?
I have thought of my “exit” story as boring. Boring, but different. Rather than a narrative of the Once-Happy-TBM who unwittingly came across a troublesome theological or historical issue and lamented as it gobbled a once easy faith, my story has from early on featured something amiss…but what I’ve thought to be amiss was something about me.
And so, my story was not finding some troubling history or troubling scripture. Even when younger, I looked at odd parts of history or scripture with incredulity. Instead, my story was discovering that I didn’t have to beat myself up for my doubting nature. And until I looked carefully, I had failed to realize that it was the church that had given me values that enabled me to take a step away.
How could I come to realize the church’s goodness and truth? Years ago, I began to feel the source of my faithlessness was complacency. It was complacency since I had lived a good life with good parents. Since I was one of the 13 million individuals on the face of the earth who was born with knowledge of the gospel.
So, I needed to be humbled. If only the Lord would provide reformative adversity.
I needed a trial of faith. Ether 12: 6 clarified.
6 And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that afaith is things which are bhoped for and cnot seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no dwitness until after the etrial of your faith.
I could receive no witness until after the trial of my faith…and so, it was obvious why I lacked amazing spiritual experiences: no trials of faith.
Feeling defective, I welcomed subjugation to the worst trials in life. From the experience of the worst things in life, I would either perish to weakness or become renewed through faith.
I became obsessed with such a concept…in the back of my mind, I planned to postpone university and go to some third-world country. I’d beckon the world to come at me. If I were mugged or killed…so be it. But I could hope that God would never give me a trial I could not handle.
On Easter a few years back (I don’t remember the year, but it certainly was Easter Sunday), I had a conversation with my father about this. He was in the Young Men’s Presidency, so he taught my third-hour class (for Priests, I believe)…none of the other young men were there that day (which wasn’t surprising…these guys were often truant), so it was just my father and I.
I shared my ideas and plans with him about how I should be struck down that I may experience the worst things in life in a trial of faith.
I thought my father would be proud of my maturity…but he denounced my ideas as destructive and silly. He told me something that pacified me for a time: “If you know that evil exists…and it is obvious, then do you need to experience it to learn good exists? Good is the opposite of evil, so if evil is obvious, good is subtle.” So what if I couldn’t find reason to believe in God? God did not operate like the adversary and give reasons.
I saw some of the older guys (once as unrepentant as my quorum) repent and serve missions. When they came back home…they were reformed.
So my gears began to turn…missions were the trial of faith that I should’ve focused on! My father had denounced my plans for good cause — I had been like Naaman, still proud and desirous of a great task to complete despite desperation.
I didn’t tell my father (I wanted it to be a surprise), but I prayed…I came to the conclusion that while I was on this spiritual high, I should speak with the Bishop, insisting that when it came time, he should make me fill out the mission papers no matter what. I had to do it now before I developed doubts.
…yet…I never made the contract. I asked others — was a mission a good place to develop faith?
I thought the others would be proud of my maturity…but they denounced my ideas as destructive and selfish. And they told me, “A mission is not for the missionary. It is for someone truly converted to the Gospel who wants to place God before himself.”
I was crushed. I realized I couldn’t, in good faith, go on a mission. Sure, I could pass every technical question of worthiness better than most of my peers did, but they could just repent and become fit to serve. I could not even believe.
I went off to university and put things aside. I remembered things I had read about agency and choice, and began to see things, especially Helaman 14:30 and words from Joseph B. Wirthlin, in different contexts.
You are free to choose (see 2 Ne. 2:27) and are permitted to act (see 2 Ne. 10:23; Hel. 14:30), but you are not free to choose the consequences. With absolute certainty, choices of good and right lead to happiness and peace, while choices of sin and evil eventually lead to unhappiness, sorrow, and misery.
I wondered. If I was racking myself to unhappiness and misery over lack of testimony, what if I stopped? I could keep my lifestyle but stop worrying about belief. I could recognize I do not believe. And if things soured, I’d have my trial. But if things turned for the better, then I’d know my choice was good and right, and I’d have happiness and peace.
And with that, I had courage to leave. At first, I was simply willing to accept whatever ill consequences that came (even eternal ones), but soon I realized that not even temporal ill consequences were forthcoming.
I caught this article in the MormonTimes today: Mormons don’t get depressed? It’s an MD saying that it’s okay to be depressed, be on medication, and be Mormon. While I don’t think this is a stunning reversal of any official Mormon positions, I have to wonder if this is kind of an informal means of spreading a new “quasi-official” position of the LDS Church: Have an authority (admittedly, a pediatrician isn’t an authority on depression, but close enough, I guess…) make the recommendation in the official Mormon online news source. Thoughts?
Our revulsion at the cruelty of the Supreme Leader’s henchmen is a powerful refutation of the postmodernist credo that anything goes. After the enlightenment discredited the authority of tradition and religion, the notion that reason or civilization could provide an ersatz God has also collapsed. The efforts of analytical philosophy could neither remove the ambiguity from language nor provide mathematics with a foundation.
While most people could not care less, much less understand, analytical philosophy and its implications for everyday life, even the most casual observers realize in the wake of the World Wars, the Holocaust, and the impotence of imperial powers that claims of western superiority have become unsustainable. Rather than rectifying liberal and nationalist abuses, Marxism has turned out to become rationalism’s most murderous effort.
During the 20th century, the idols have been knocked of their pedestal. The absence of an ultimate authority, however, does not imply that there are no standards. Only the most partisan among us will support violence against women and children. That taboo is an implication of our mammal nature, perhaps the most consequential property of our species.
No matter where on the globe we reside, what our ecological and cultural situation may be, as mammals our offspring requires adult support. Libertarian myths of self-reliant individuals better apply to precocious species such as reptiles, whose offspring is self-reliant after hatching. Children are not born self-reliant. As mammals, humans are an altricious species, which means that our offspring requires parental care.
Compared to other species, the amount of care that human parents invest into their children is extraordinary. In hunter and gatherer societies, it takes at least twelve years for a boy to contribute fully to his upkeep. In developed countries, completing law or medical training may approach three decades.
As mothers have to nurse mammal offspring, women bear a substantial competitive burden. To some degree, the burden of the pregnant, nursing, and nurturing mother has to be offset by the transfer of resources and establishment of privileges. Even though societies rarely compensate mothers entirely for their essential contributions to child rearing, violence against women is more strictly regulated than violence against men, and it is universally accepted that women require wealth transfers.
The primate anthropologist Frans de Waal shows in Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex Among Apes that alpha males will only be secure as long as they can protect women and children. Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, another primate anthropologist, argues that the requirements of mothering are the foundation of human cooperation.
Our mammal nature has far reaching implications for ethics and political economy. Previously, social scientists and philosophers have assumed that war is the ultimate manifestation of human cooperation. Libertarians have asserted that the best state is limited government that provides only for national defense and guarantees property rights.
These claims are no longer sustainable. Human beings are neither born as individuals nor as fighters. We are born in a state of dependence, which requires substantial investments into our offspring, which would not be possible without transfers to the nurturers.
When the powerful attack women, they become a threat to the survival of the species. That’s why the and her sisters have destroyed the legitimacy of the Iranian government. While those who want to cling to power are willing to violate taboos, they reap condemnation around the globe.
Postmodernist, libertarian, and realist philosophers and social scientists ignore humanity’s mammal nature. But the fact that a baby needs to nursed and nurtured for decades shapes the human condition in clear and obvious ways. There are many different ways to support mothers and children. But rulers or cultures that abuse mothers and children are bound to fail because their behavior threatens to extinct the group under their control.