Why I am a liberal Mormon part two

Why I am a liberal Mormon Part two

In part one of this post I began by talking about the values Mormons place on the acquisition of knowledge and why that is fundamentally a liberal value for me. I will now continue by talking about how this relates to my commitment to free speech and my decision to intern at FIRE ( Foundation For Individual Rights In Education) a group that defends and advocates for student speech of all sorts including deeply unpopular views and beliefs.

Of course, I might as well begin this post with the most obvious objections to my position. Firstly, the LDS church has a somewhat ambiguous relationship with free speech and expression rights. I will talk about the positive aspects later, but I might as well begin by talking about the violations. Firstly, Joseph Smith was arrested for the destruction of a critical local press, which ultimately resulted in the jailing that culminated in his murder 1. Secondly, the Salt Lake City council a few years back attempted an outrageous and disturbing policy of banning any form of free speech on formerly public city space. 2. Thirdly, church owned Brigham Young University does have a history of being unfavorable to critical academic freedom and the church has even gone so far as to excommunicate members that have voiced critical comments even on such controversial issues as proposition eight 3.

This, there is a lot of ground to be critical of past actions on free speech grounds and yet, when one looks at the fundamental scriptures of the church or other actions of the early church one sees scripture that fully recognizes the need for robust speech and for a society that allows for unpopular opinion ( in this regard the church was actually often more progressive than comparable 19th century norms)

Freedom of religious expression was radically defended in the society chronicled in The Book of Mormon

Alma Chapter 30

7 Now there was no law against a man’s belief; for it was strictly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on to unequal grounds.
8 For thus saith the scripture: Choose ye this day, whom ye will serve.
9 Now if a man desired to serve God, it was his privilege; or rather, if he believed in God it was his privilege to serve him; but if he did not believe in him there was no law to punish him.
10 But if he murdered he was punished unto death; and if he robbed he was also punished; and if he stole he was also punished; and if he committed adultery he was also punished; yea, for all this wickedness they were punished.
11 For there was a law that men should be judged according to their crimes. Nevertheless, there was no law against a man’s belief; therefore, a man was punished only for the crimes which he had done; therefore all men were on equal grounds.

Notice explicitly that non belief or doubt in god is protected! This was a pretty radical position even in the most recent Bush administration.

Modern day revelation is no different

D&C 134 states

2 We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.
3 We believe that all governments necessarily require civil officers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people if a republic, or the will of the sovereign.
4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

7 We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of their religious belief; but we do not believe that they have a right in justice to deprive citizens of this privilege, or proscribe them in their opinions, so long as a regard and reverence are shown to the laws and such religious opinions do not justify sedition nor conspiracy.

9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.
10 We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.

Thus, the church views the right of members to express their religious views to be invaluable and fundamental.

Thus, the church views the right to excommunicate and deal with disobedience on the part of its members to be a free speech matter, which gives it the right as a private institution to deal with member conduct. This is a position I tend to agree with on a constitutional and legal basis.

Many other states and territories at the time of Joseph Smith had laws that featured legal discrimination against Muslims and Jews and yet according to prominent LDS historian Richard Bushman

“But by the time he got to Nauvoo, Joseph Smith saw the city as more open. One of the first ordinances passed by the Nauvoo council was a toleration act specifying that all faiths were welcome in the city and listing a number of them: Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, Latter-day Saints, Catholics, Jews and “Mohammedans,” as Muslims were called. There was probably not a Mohammedan within a thousand miles, but it was a gesture of openness to every religion4.
Nauvoo, then, was to be a diverse city, indicating that Joseph Smith’s civic idealism went beyond his own people to envision a much more cosmopolitan society. Nauvoo didn’t develop that way; it came to an end too soon, but that is what he projected.”

Thus, Joseph Smith

I will not go into any long detail in this post regarding the church’s history with polygamy and its legal challenges to laws banning the institution which culminated in ultimate legal failure in the decision of Reynolds v. United States5, except to point out that this is a position that is now held by the ACLU and other fairly liberal/libertarian bodies6. The church thus advanced an uncompromising stance of religious expression rights from its inception.

In More recent days, Elder M. Nelson of the Council of the Twelve Apostles gave a masterful talk on the values of free speech and expression in the growth of the spiritual kingdom

“Major religions proclaim the existence of a Creator-God-whose power and will are superior to any human construct, including the laws of man. Adherents of faith groups can feel secure in their right to follow divine direction only if a nation’s laws allow freedom of religious expression. Those same laws also protect the rights of others to believe, or not to believe, as they choose.
Some nations may acknowledge these rights only to obtain accreditation in world organizations, which demand such laws as a condition of membership. Others of nobler purpose extend these rights out of concern for their citizens who are believers, or out of respect for God, from whom these rights are derived.
Fundamental religious rights include: the right to believe or disbelieve; the right to worship, either alone or with others; the right to assemble for religious purposes; the right to own or occupy property for the purpose of worship; the right to perform religious ceremonies; the right to possess and distribute religious media; and the right to establish rules for fellowship in a religious society.4”

In the same talk, Elder Nelson makes a strong statement for absolute religious neutrality in regard to government.

“Therefore, care must be exercised to assure that government remains truly neutral in matters of religion, not only in lip-service and constitutional guarantees, but also in impartial application of the law.14 Individuals and institutions are naturally inclined to seek preference over others, but the state must not yield to those inclinations. To discriminate in favor of one religion, using non-religious labels such as “culture” or “history,” is to discriminate against others. If the state allows dominance of any one religious institution over another, discrimination results, allowing unequal treatment and regrettable restriction of other religious societies.5”

Elder Nelson also draws the corollary to the right of religious control over membership which is equally vital.

“Religious freedom allows the right of individual followers of a faith to exit from that faith.6”

This idea is deeply rooted in the LDS conception of a theo-democracy in which members sustain each other through common consent and in which each individual member is encouraged to confirm the church’s truth for his or her self.

Most importantly, Nelson talks about inter-religious tolerence, ever so vital and precarious a topic

“Every religious group, while perhaps a majority somewhere, is also inevitably a minority somewhere else. Thus, religious organizations should and do show tolerance toward members of other religious denominations.7”

As a church, we therefore have a huge tradition of supporting religious freedom, we hold as our foundational cornerstone a scripture which shows a society that ideally contains no laws proscribing religious freedom or lack of belief, and Joseph Smith advanced a society in which non-members could live freely among members. The church history is not free of warts, but on the whole shows a remarkable intellectual and ideological compatibility with the first amendment.

1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauvoo_Expositor
2 http://www.rickross.com/reference/mormon/mormon91.html
3 http://www.abc4.com/mostpopular/story/Man-faces-possible-excommunication-from-LDS/6Cvu_py9FEOIv-LmCuK8pA.cspx; or http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/article_a2ab9b4a-efea-5e24-8da9-4807a6de6ea7.html or http://www.lds-mormon.com/sepsix.shtml
4 http://pewforum.org/events/?EventID=148
5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._United_States
6 http://www.acluutah.org/bigamystatute.htm
7 http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/45645/Elder-Russell-M-Nelson-Freedom-to-Do-and-to-Be.html
8 Ibid
9 Ibid
10 Ibid

Why I am a Liberal Mormon Part One

Why I am a liberal mormon

This post is going to be rather ambitious and therefore probably quite lengthy. I am attempting to answer the question of why/how I can be a Liberal Mormon from two directions. Firstly, I hope to answer my Latter Day Saint friend’s that are believe that a true LDS member can not identify his/her self as Liberal. I hope that not too many of those that I hold dear hold this view, but I know that it is a prevalent view and that I have heard variations of it voiced. Secondly, I hope to respond to my non-LDS or secular friends who look on to me with shock and wonder how I can so betray my liberal views and values by joining a church that they view as reactionary, backwards and unjust in so many areas. I know that this view is commonly held by even some of my closest friends and so I hope that I can address some of their wonder and disbelief at my choice. I hope to show that the LDS tradition is fundamentally a liberal one at its core that more so than even the standard Christian tradition embraces the acquisition of knowledge, freedom of expression, pacifism, peace and the need for a more just and equal society. As such, I am very proud to identify as part of this tradition and to place myself politically on the most consistent position on the political spectrum.

I will be quoting extensively from the LDS scriptures including the Book of Mormon, D +C, and the Books of Moses and Abraham as well as likely from the Old and New Testaments. For my non LDS readers, I use these not in an attempt to convince through scripture but to show my textual and scriptural basis for my beliefs

This post will be broken up into at least a few posts. The first will deal with the matter of a tradition of intellectualism and seeking knowledge, which is present in LDS tradition

I am shocked by how often LDS members received a poor reputation from being closed or narrow minded and unwilling to take other perspectives into account. While there are undoubtedly members that fit this categorization, the LDS tradition more than any other religious tradition is one based on finding and discerning truth.  The thirteenth article of the LDS faith follows the words of the Apostle Paul and states. “ We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.¹” Thus, we have an exhortation and an obligation to search out the good in all various ideas of the world and to build our understanding on the basis of collected and experienced truth.

¹ Articles of Faith

One of those views of our church that separate us completely from many other Christian movements is our lack of belief in the infallibility and sole authority of any one set of scriptures. Our belief in continuing revelations is fundamentally a progressive one is that we believe that human knowledge is constantly expanding. The building of God’s kingdom on this earth is a work in progress that will require greater and more full understanding.

Our attitude towards the scriptures of other faiths and those that we do not consider cannon exemplified this attitude. Section 91 of the D+C is a revelation that answered the question of how we should view the Apocrypha or non-cannon works from the biblical period. It is only a few short lines so I will paste it whole

“1 VERILY, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the Apocrypha—There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly;

2 There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men.

3 Verily, I say unto you, that it is not needful that the Apocrypha should be translated.

4 Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth;

5 And whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom;

6 And whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefited. Therefore it is not needful that it should be translated. Amen.”

This perspective extends to non-Christian sources as well. Professor of History and Religion and Brigham Young University, Hugh Nibley, wrote ““in fact, early Mormon leaders saw no reason why Mohammed should not be considered a true prophet, for there have been many prophets, great and small, in the past whose words are not in the Bible.“

Islam and Mormonism

Indeed, so fundamental is our belief in the importance of truth and knowledge, that we believe that our fundamental goal in this world is to acquire light and knowledge.

Moreover, we ascribe the greatness of God to more than his power or omnipotence or any other show of strength. We hold that

“  D+C 93:36 The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth.”

Thus, as we grow in knowledge in accordance to truth, we become like our heavenly father and our mind is illuminated and expanded.

The place where we part ways with secular individuals is in our belief that knowledge of the world in terms of facts or statistics lack use and grounding without a spiritual understanding.

One of our  Church President’s Spencer W. Kimball commented:

“Spiritual learning takes precedence. The secular without the foundation of the spiritual is … like the foam upon the milk, the fleeting shadow. … One need not choose between the two … for there is opportunity to get both simultaneously” (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, ed. Edward L. Kimball, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1982, p. 390).”

It is not through mere empirical knowledge of the world, but through experiential knowledge acquired through faith and prayer that much

As such, we adhere closely to the words of Paul when he exhorts

“The things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. …

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:11, 14).”

We do not discover divine truths through research or even merely philosophical inquiry,  but through the conscious choice of obedience and faith

“  D+C 93:28 He that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light, until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things.”

“The role of obedience in gaining spiritual knowledge is crucial, as this comment of President Joseph Fielding Smith confirms:

“Now the Lord would give us gifts. He will quicken our minds. He will give us … a knowledge that will be so deeply rooted in our souls that [it] … can never be rooted out, if we will just seek for the light … and the understanding which is promised to us, and which we can receive if we will only be true and faithful to every covenant and obligation pertaining to the gospel of Jesus Christ” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1958, p. 22).”

We view this sort of knowledge as ingrained in the nature of humanity shared by our common sense of morals and a universal consciousness. This is a sort of knowledge that is not based on an individuals level of intellect, but on something that is accessible to individuals of all ages and persuasion if they but open themselves to communication with their heavenly father. Thus, we view a wider knowledge source that is neither biased nor merely available to certain individuals but open ended and free.

What does this all mean in terms of being a liberal Mormon? I tend to be extremely open to reading all sorts of literature, watching all sorts of films, attending religious services of every different faith, engaging in interfaith dialogue and discussions with those of all other beliefs and persuasions etc. I view these as tools in the acquisition of my own knowledge and my own personal growth. Yet, these things in order to truly benefit me must be based on a foundation of what I know to be true and a commitment to obey those commandments that I have covenanted to observe. Without this foundation, all knowledge is ephemeral and fleeting greatness that does not expand my light or intellect.

I think that it is this emphasis on the potential for truth in all things that leads me to be such a strong advocate for free speech, a tradition that is expressed both in the Book of Mormon society and the early church, this will be the topic of my next post.

Premortal existance

What does life without premortal existence resemble: A parable

There once was a mighty king with wealth untold. He went out into his kingdom one day and found the poorest and most destitute individual that seemed to subsist but hardly exist at all. He went up to this individual and handed him a million golden coins. The king told the man that he had no choice but to take the golden coins because if he attempted to return them he would be viewed as ungrateful and that the penalty for this would be death. The king then proceeded to tell the man that he had recently passed an extensive set of 613 very complicated laws regarding to individuals to whom the king had granted presents, and that the penalty for the violation of even the smallest of these would be death. He told the man that he expected that he govern perfectly and in command of the law even without perfect legal training. He told him that his son was an especially good lawyer and that he could get the man out of any sentence pro bono so long as the man called upon the song and told him that he had been recommended by his father. The man was warned that one day he would be brought before the king and judged. If he did not properly utilize the money, he would be killed. 

Premortal existance: A parable

There once was a mighty king whom had three sons. The youngest son grew up for a while in the close presence of his father and grew and developed. One day, the father decided that the young son could no longer learn anything new in the perfectly controlled court environment. The father spoke to his son and they agreed that the son should venture far out into the world. If the son remained too close to home, the father knew that the son could never fully and totally grow. Thus, the father gave the son a million gold coins as a grant and sent him into the far reaches of the world. Yet, the father knew the son could get into trouble and thus they agreed that wherever the son would be, he could call on his older brother whom would be sent to bail him out of any trouble. After a while, the father brought his son back and judged him based on his deeds and stewardship. If the son showed himself a worthy stewart, then he would be given his own kingdom and be appointed a viceroy by the most high king. If he did not show this type of responsibility he would inherit a lower station and that the worst negligence of all could merit banishment 

Which of these visions of the King seems more just? It seems to me at least that the king in the first version is not a figure that the man should admire or respect although he should certainly fear. In the first, the man was given no choice and no opportunity to deny the present. Thus, a whole set of criterion and laws were pushed onto him without his consent. The king is not completely capricious because he does offer his son as a way to redeem ones failures. Still, all of risks are pushed onto the man without an option and thus the very scenario this man finds himself in is crafted by the king. Even if the king has the mans ultimate interest in mind and is truly altruistic, this king is still a despot and certainly not a being that the man should love.

The second king in contrast deserves the sons love and admiration. He has worked in concert with the son to develop a plan that he feels will best develop the sons potential. Moreover, he has given the son the choice and shown him the consequences of success or failure. Thus, this king has not imposed coercive rules with their consequent punishments but the son has instead voluntarily entered into a covenant with the father.

The LDS church is NOT opposing civil union in Illinois

This story of a mass e-mail written by a private member of a single LDS ward in Illinois urging fellow members to make calls to the legislature in opposition to (Nauvoo, Illinois 3rd ward) ( Incidentally the most conservative of wards because of its high mixture of members from Utah) has been circulating for a few days now, but with a front page story on The Advocate’s website, and an ABC news story it seems to have finally broken. Yet, it is important for us to differentiate fact from fiction and to realize that this is not the same as the official church policy taken in regard to proposition 8 and not an example of the church rearing up its propaganda campaign or anything of the sort suggested by others posting here.

Examples: LDS now wants to shut down civil unions in IL
The Mormon Church is at it again!

symphonyofdissent’s diary :: ::
Both of those posts contain many inaccuracies and outright lies about the scope or intention in this instance. The Advocate ( a publication I usually rely upon for solid journalism) is equally shoddy in its coverage.

Mormons Set Sights on Killing Civil Unions in Illinois

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recently sent a private e-mail to its Illinois members urging them to contact state legislators and voice opposition to civil union legislation the state is currently considering. According to the Human Rights Campaign, the e-mail was sent to at least one LDS ward in Illinois and was authorized by a bishop named Chris Church.

The diaries on this site and this Advocate article make it sound like there is an official church policy disseminating these e-mails. Instead, the e-mail in question was written by a private member on the Ward webspace that is available to members and sent to all members of only that specific ward. It is true, that a Bishop has to approve of all messages that are sent not merely between a few members but to the whole ward, but this does not imply that support of this message is official ward policy. Ward e-mails tend to contain information about events or causes that may be of interest to the members of the ward and there is usually not a high level of top down control.

Moreover, it might be useful to point out exactly what a Bishop is in the LDS church. A bishop is merely a person called to a leadership position in a specific ward. He is not a paid individual or full time worker for the church. Instead, he is typically an individual who is also involved in the professional world. Bishops are individuals and just like anyone partake in political activity in their private lives; The bishop in my ward in Boston was actually involved in the Mitt Romney campaign, for instance. Thus, LDS bishops are private citizens and their actions have no say on the top down policy coming from Salt Lake City or anywhere else.

The bishop soon after allowing the e-mail to be sent out, put out another e-mail commenting on the fact that this e-mail was not meant to suggest any compulsion or official policy on the part of the church.

From: Chris Church
Date: March 4, 2009 1:58:47 PM CST
Subject: Church Position on Legislation

Members of the Church may take any action they wish concerning legislation but the Church does not take any position in relation to these issues.

Bishop Church

Update On That Mormon Email: LDS Backs Away

Moreover, a statement was issued today by LDS public affairs ( an official church source) that made it clear that the LDS church has taken no position on the Illinois legislation and that this e-mail was not a sign of official policy.

As is widely known, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of traditional marriage. The Church has not taken a position on any legislation currently being considered by the Illinois State Legislature. The Church did not send an e-mail to its members in regards to House Bill 2234, although a false report to the contrary has been circulated. An e-mail was sent from a local Illinois Church leader to his congregation – one of 129 congregations in the state — who was free to express his own views.

No LDS campaign in Illinois

Because of all of this, the rhetoric of even illustrious and renowned organizations such as Human Rights Watch has been rather disturbing.

“It is irrefutably clear that the LDS Church is fighting an antigay crusade throughout the nation, targeting any form of equality for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community,” said Bruce Bastian, a member of HRC’s board of directors and a former member of the LDS Church. “Church leaders want nothing more than to do their hateful work in secrecy, but the time has come to shine a light on their insidious efforts. If the LDS Church won’t tell the truth, we will.”

(quoted from the advocate article cited earlier)

Truly, an organization like HRC should know better than to throw around words such as an antigay “crusade.” In this case, such language is completely out of proportion and based on a distorted understanding of the position of a bishop as well as the perceived official nature of this e-mail.

If a well known group with a great reputation such as Human Rights Watch overreacted so strongly, some of the commons on blog posts were utterly disgusting and offensive. Some of the comments attempted to suggest that the church should be kicked out of the state of illinois once again. For a member or anyone who knows the history of the Mormon church, nothing but slaughter and oppression, this suggestion is akin to suggesting to a Jew that maybe he should be kicked out of spain or forced out of their communities by pogroms . It is absolutely inappropriate and we should be better than that.

Sure, some members of the church are bigoted and oppose civil union legislation in Illinois. Yet, this does not equal official policy and such messaging is not supported by the leadership of the church. I am reminded of the attempts by conservatives to smear democrats and Obama because of the DailyKos diaries that unrelated members posted. This kind of thinking is absurd no matter what the cause or issue involved. There is no Mormon conspiracy against civil union in illinois or anything else of the sort. Those fighting for rights should get the facts straight before they become needlessly bigoted in response.

_______________________

For Reference here’s the full text of the e-mail that was sent out

From: Kristy Combs
Date: March 3, 2009 12:27:59 PM CST
Subject: Civil Union bill scheduled for a hearing Thursday – calls needed

This message has been authorized for sending by Bishop Church.
The Civil Union Bill (HB 2234) has been scheduled for a hearing in the Youth and Family Committee this week on Thursday, March 5, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. in Springfield. If the bill is voted out of committee, it becomes eligible for a vote before the full Illinois House of Representatives. This bill will legalize civil unions in the state of Illinois, and will treat such civil unions with the same legal obligations, responsibilities, protections and benefits as are afforded within marriage. In other words, civil unions will be different in name only from marriage. As has already been seen in Massachusetts, this will empower the public schools to begin teaching this lifestyle to our young children regardless of parental requests otherwise. It will also create grounds for rewriting all social mores; the current push in Massachusetts is to recognize and legalize all transgender rights (An individual in Massachusetts can now change their drivers license to the gender they believe themselves to be, regardless of actual gender, which means that confused men and women are now legally entering one another’s bathrooms and locker rooms. What kind of a safety issue is this for our children?). Furthermore, while the bill legalizes civil unions, it will be used in the courts to show discrimination and will ultimately lead to court mandated same-sex marriages.

To help defeat this bill, please call your state representative and state senator and ask that they support traditional marriage and vote against the civil unions bill. If you are unsure who your legislators are, please see the link at the end of this email.

Also, please take a moment and call the following members of the Youth and Family Committee to encourage them to vote no on this bill. We need 4 votes to keep it from passing out of the committee. And – as always, please pass this on to all who believe in protecting our families and our children. If you are interested in attending the hearing, it will be held on Thursday, March 5th at 9:00 a.m. in Springfield in Room 122B of the Capitol Building (I can give you directions to the Capitol Building if needed).

Members of the Youth and Family Committee:
Rep. Greg Harris (D-Chicago) (Greg Harris is also the sponsor of this bill, but he needs to hear your opposition to this bill)
Chairperson
217-782-3835

Rep. LaShawn K. Ford (D-Chicago)
Vice-Chairperson
217-782-5962

Rep. Mike Fortner (R-West Chicago)
Republican Spokesperson
217-782-1653

Rep. William D. Burns (D-Chicago)
217-782-2023

Rep. Michael P. McAuliffe (R-Chicago)
217-782-8182

Rep. Al Riley (D-Matteson)
217-558-1007

Rep. Dave Winters (R-Rockford)
217-782-0455

Directions for identifying your legislators:
You can use the following link to identify your state legislators and their contact information: http://www.elections.il.gov/ DistrictLocator/ SelectSearchType.aspx? NavLink=1 (and enter your 9 digit zip code). If this link doesn’t work, you can use the general link www.ilga.gov and then click on ” legislator lookup” near the bottom of the page, then click on “by zip+4″. Type in your zip code, and you’ll see a list of your legislators. You want your state senator and state representative as they will be the ones voting on the bill.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sister Combs.

LDS and civil unions

I am going to write a brief post on this topic because I am fuming right now and absolutely need to do so. I will follow up with a full post on gay marriage and proposition 8, but I was just irked on to write this immediately by this latest news story hitting the net and now front page on The Advocate’s website.

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid74341.asp

Lets look at the headline

Mormons Set Sights on Killing Civil Unions in Illinois

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recently sent a private e-mail to its Illinois members urging them to contact state legislators and voice opposition to civil union legislation the state is currently considering. 

This is of course inaccurate on many levels. ABC has a much more balanced take on this story and The Advocate article does later put in place all of the necessary caveats

Now, the true story is that a single e-mail was sent to a single ward. The e-mail was written by a private member and only voiced her opinion. The e-mail was approved for sending by the ward Bishop. Yet, I have a feeling the bishop will approve anything for this kind of mass e-mail unless it is pornographic, or against the church message in some clear way. This was an e-mail that could be of valid interest to many member and there was not effort to declare it official ward policy.

The bishop and a church spokesperson have quickly backed off from the e-mail with the church spokesperson stating

As is widely known, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of traditional marriage. The Church has not taken a position on any legislation currently being considered by the Illinois State Legislature. The Church did not send an e-mail to its members in regards to House Bill 2234, although a false report to the contrary has been circulated. An e-mail was sent from a local Illinois Church leader to his congregation – one of 129 congregations in the state — who was free to express his own views.”

-Scott Trotter, Church spokesman

Still, this e-mail exploding on the same day as the proposition 8 backlash is clearly bad timing of the worst sort and sure to taint the church.

“It is irrefutably clear that the LDS Church is fighting an antigay crusade throughout the nation, targeting any form of equality for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community,” said Bruce Bastian, a member of HRC’s board of directors and a former member of the LDS Church. “Church leaders want nothing more than to do their hateful work in secrecy, but the time has come to shine a light on their insidious efforts. If the LDS Church won’t tell the truth, we will.”

This is the opposite of the message we should be working on sending and yet we have totally lost control of the message over proposition 8. How can a church that is so brilliant at rallying its members to support proposition 8 in the first place and be so efficient at missionary work and so many other endeavors be utterly unable to control a media narrative?

It is my personal view, that the day after proposition 8 passed, the church should have begun to truly make an effort to live up to its words when it stated that its actions were pro-marriage and not anti-gay. The church should have taken up Equality Utah’s Common Ground proposal instead of leaving it unanswered for well over 100 days and allowing the basic rights bills to die an ignominious death in the Utah legislature

http://www.equalityutah.org/action/common.html

The church should be fighting to make it clear that it is a loving institution and should fight for the hearts and souls of those who will now be instead hardened and stiffened against the church because of its lack of compassion. 

This is a true disappointment.

Epiphany on the walk from St. Paul to South Kensington

 

Today was a really interesting day. I got up and was planning on going to Chinatown to see the new years celebration. This despite the fact that it was a fast Sunday and so I would not be able to eat anything I saw at all. On the way on the tube, as I took the central line I spontaneously decided to get off at the St. Paul stop and to go to a service in the cathedral. The massive building is of course visually impressive, even more so on the inside, but the feeling I got inside can hardly be described.

 

I was utterly drained of my spiritual energy. I could feel that my heavenly father was so far away from me as I sat in on the service. I took communion ( I ended up having a tiny sip of the communion wine before I realized it was wine—I am so used to sacrament water which was a further shame as a minor violation of the word of wisdom—I think  will survive) and it just felt like a hollow vessel taking away from my faith and devotion. The hymns were almost unbearable to listen to. I’d been to protestant services before that were not this excruciating. It seems, that only Catholic and Anglican (And by extension likely Greek or Russian orthodox though that deserves some investigation) manage to so thoroughly distort the feeling of church. I left feeling utterly sick to my stomach and as I went outside I had to struggle to reconnect to the lord by listening to some Mormon tabernacle devotional music. That only managed to stabalize me and I decided, having a lot of time before church, that I should keep walking down the Strand. On the way, out of curiosity, I stopped at every open church (about 4 or 5) all of which happened to be Anglican as well just to get a feeling of the vibe inside. None of them were quite as bad as at St. Pauls but none of them made me feel any level of spiritual devotion or connection. One had intense incense which brought back joyful memories of china, but that was not a replacement for the lack of feeling. I ended up walking all the way through Chinatown and through Green Park all the way to where my church is ( A walk of about 4 miles) and got there only right before services started. Today being a fast Sunday, by the time I got to church I was truly exhausted and drained. Yet, as soon as I walked near the church and stepped inside I was filled with so much solace. It was such a true and total relief. The hymns were so much better than usual even. I usually sort of tune them out somewhat, but today they filled me with so much joy

 

Today was a testimony sacrament and I got to bare a testimony that has been building within me for the past two weeks and was a combination of today’s experience and the temple visit. I spoke about what I had experienced and just how much this church means to me. It gives me so much strength and the knowledge that it is true is overpowering at times. I have never felt such spiritual joy in any other place on earth. I’ve been to holy sites across the world from every major faith and never felt the calm and elegant beauty of the temple. I imagine myself fortunate enough to experience similar things to what they ancient Israelites experienced at the Holy Temple. I am so fortunate for this opportunity to be in a church that feels so true and right and fulfills all of my spiritual needs.

 

I made a really great decision today that I think will bless me spiritually. I had originally bought tickets to a concert in the evening that I was going to attend even though I knew it was not a very edifying show ( one of the bands names is Hate Eternal). I stopped for Chinese food and decided that going to a concert would be a big mistake. I came back to my dorm and have been relaxing and watching the snow fights outside my window with great bemusement. I also saw the rest of Waltz With Bashir which is incredible and I really recommend that anyone with even a modicum of interest in the First Lebanese War, Human rights, Israel or the conflict watch it. Catching up with blogging and relaxing has been a much better use of my time than a concert that I know I would have in some ways suffered through. 

House of the Lord

I have fallen so far behind on my blogging that it’s a little ridiculous. I am going to be playing a bit of catch up though I will be condensing a lot of content into a few posts.

 

I am going to go in terms of priority rather than chronology though I will list the topics I hope to address here: Temple visit; Darwin, Evolution and LDS; Windsor visit; Tate Modern + Britain + Oliver! + Concerts and a whole grabbag of other things: Intrepid readers, buckle down, because this post in particular should be quite long.

 

Last Saturday ( 24/1/09) I ended up going to see the London temple for the first time with Victoria, Heath and a few others from church (They were the two I traveled with on the train directly). I only found out about the temple trip at around midnight the night before and I had to wake up insanely early in order to go but it was worth it. The train ride into the countryside was a great change of pace and truly gave  me a chance to appreciate how different life must be  even not all that far from a major metropolis. It was just 40 or so minutes by train but a world apart. It had been raining the night before and so the roads were flooded and ice crags formed. I a was shocked how far away the temple was from the train station ( we had to take a taxi) and even more surprised that the church was not running at least hourly or so shuttles to get there. I was so glad I went with others rather than made a trip by myself. I love temples, and this one is no exception at all. The grounds were magnificent and I have some great pictures on face book. The temple is undergoing construction on its scaffolding to insert an Angel Moroni on top, and so it was somewhat obscured. However, that really didn’t hinder the spiritual and powerful feeling it gave me. I just felt so uplifted at the temple. It really gave me this feeling of calmness and serenity. I think the temple is one of the strongest cornerstones of my faith and one of the deepest sources of my testimony.

 

I met James’s friend Cheryl who is an investigator and I thought it was really nice to get to talk to her about her struggle to look into the church. She feels intellectually torn and find logical challenges with a lot of things. I feel so fortunate that somehow pure feeling was able to, for the first time in my life, overcome by rational façade in some significant way enabling me to truly believe and have faith. It took a shattering and a rebuilding of my reason around the church rather than a match up of the church to my predefined sense of reason. Prior, I had always wanted a church to fit my needs and desires rather than truly let myself to towards truth. Because of this, I drifted towards poorly formed religion better called merely faith. It had foundation in what I wanted and then it was easy to move god out of the equation and attribute it all to my own reason. I know, that this church would have been the last I could have reasonably chosen. It is far too top down for what I would have ‘liked.’ At times, members can be too close-minded and not nearly as progressive as the ‘ideal’ faith I imagined. Yet, it comes down to the fact that it is simply true. Those criticisms don’t vanish. They have to be dealt with constantly, but they can be dealt with in confidence that, by following the wisdom of the church as a guideline to your own intelligence and vision, this is the source for the truth I have been seeking. It is that knowledge, that I CAN through this find everything I have wanted for myself more than what I already know a priori that drives me and keeps me going. Moreover, I think Humility is so fundamental for me here. I am so quick to think that I must reason better because I think more. Yet, it is very true that as Christ said, sometimes the simple mind of the child is much better than hundreds of sophistries. I really hope that Cheryl finds the strength to overcome her biases because there is so much to be gained from this church and so much good it can do for our souls. I have heard from the Missionaries that she is making great progress in terms of moving to be baptized and this makes me pretty excited.

 

I watched the Joseph Smith movie at the visitor center of the temple. I truly feel like this sanitized history may be feel good and nice but its truly dangerous for the church. I think that most missionaries even don’t have a good enough grasp of the faults of Joseph Smith. He was an unlikely prophet and I think that leads to some of his charm. Yet, he was obviously also an incredible paradox in terms of convictions but also real world ambition. His run for president in 1844 for instance belies a sense of real world ambition beyond what a normal religious figure would hold. I truly believe he was a prophet of God, but that does not at all mean I have to view him as heroic all of the time. I can still wonder about the origin of the law of celestial marriage/polygamy and whether it was used by Joseph Smith as a way to coerce women into marriage with him ( To name some of the more extreme accusations). I don’t have to doubt that there was divine inspiration or guidance to think that as an individual he might have used his inspiration in ways of self-profit. I can believe that something was divinely inspired without holding that it was perfectly executed. He is a controversial figure and church members are often blinded from the controversy and then have it overwhelm their testimony.

 

Met with the missionaries on Wed. because they had just found out I was not yet a member. I think I overwhelmed them because they didn’t realize quite how many times I have already met with missionaries or quite the amount of compulsive research I do. I can’t help but feeling missionary sickness in the sense of missing the missionaries that were my first. I really enjoyed my meetings with Elders Ames and Patton ( Later Kabbuto) and hope they are doing well. I am not sure if any of these missionaries are particularly effective, though. I am not sure if they ever really made me feel the spirit of their testimony in any meaningful way. I feel like I did most of the work myself internally and grew around them. I wonder if most people feel that way or if most cases are more shaped by the light of testimony. I feel like a lot of people go through the motions when they bear their testimony. I wish I could find more power and sincerity in what a lot of people are saying. I always make every effort in every public utterance I make to try to feel for the spirit and I wonder if that shows. I know that my fast and testimony testimonies always feel at least from the heart and I think that for me that is what counts. I love to speak and teach because I think it helps me grow. I hate that as a non-member I am not asked to give sacrament talks yet. I wish I could be, because I’d truly enjoy it.

 

Non-Member Tithing

Since I’ve been a non-member but no longer an investigator ( Perhaps I will begin to use the pop culturally savy term Dry Mormon ) I have been increasingly faced with the difficult moral question about whether or not I should be giving tithing. This is especially relevant for me since for the 2009 year while abroad I am not going to be working at all. This means that once I am baptized I will have no income for tithing. I also want to be careful to ensure that not a bit of my fathers money is spent on any church related activity because to do so would be to violate his desires and dictates. Thus, it has been an issue on my mind for a while. After much prayer and though, I felt very strongly that I should be giving tithing but did not do so despite the promptings of the spirit quite clearly in favor of it. I kept latching onto rumors in anti-LDS websites that church tithing rolls were used as leverage to try to extract the maximum donations from California members in support of Proposition 8 ( I will certainly have to make many posts about my feelings on this matter). I brought this up with my Bishop and he denied such rumors very strongly, but I still demurred and did not give any tithing. Over winter break, I had an experience where I had contributed to the breaking of something in a friends apartment ( I’d rather spare the details) for which she had to pay the landlord 50 percent of the repairs. I am sure you can guess that the amount these repairs cost was almost exactly the amount that I should have tithed! (Shows you that I don’t make very much with my 7 hour a week job.) I was pretty shocked by this reminder that our heavenly father is just and that he always demands the best from us. Instead of having my money go to the church where it would be truly helpful, it ended up contributing to some repair company in South Florida. Today at church, I found out the Britannia ward is still doing tithing settlements for the 2008 year. I spoke to the bishop to get his feeling on the matter and he suggested I put the money aside to give once baptized. I decided that this was not quite as good of any idea as what I had originally considered which was giving to one of the charitable wings of the church. I chose the Clean Water foundation because a good friend of mine is really involved in water issues and spending the summer in China occasionally in rural areas I realized how big of a concern safe water truly is. Plus, I like to think that if more far east countries had clear water they would not necessarily serve tea with every meal as the only safe option thus removing an enduring problem of missionaries in the region . I actually accidentally entered in a much larger amount then my tithing amount onto the web site and so I ended up contributing more than I had planned. I feel really great about that actually, and I felt a wave of relief as soon as I saw the receipt in my inbox. Giving is just so rewarding and I know I will be blessed for having done so. In Judaism, giving tzcedackah/charity is the only action for which a human being is allowed to ask for a direct named blessing from God. For all other actions, one can request God’s blessing but not directly name a specific goal or desire. When one gives charity however, one can literally say…” For this act of giving I want X.” Of course, Jews believe as do all people of faith that God answers in his own way and time but the request is permitted wheras usually it is viewed as negative or presumptious.

Letter to Foyles about LDS books

To those in charge of ordering books for the Humanities section at Foyles

I went to your store today to browse your religious and philosophical selection and found it quite through and comprehensive in regard to most major world faiths. The shelves of Islam and Judaism related books were impressively stacked with interesting and worthwhile readings and great works of the faith. I could find five or six different translations of the Qu’ran, Mishnah torah and other major works. Your Christian theology section was even more impressive. Indeed, you even had substantial content and literature on Buddism, Hinduism, Gnosticism and New World Faiths. Yet, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints ( Mormons) were almost completely excluded.

The LDS church is fast emerging as the first Global Faith since the beginning of Islam with over 12 million members. Its global network and reach allow it to be involved with both missionary and Charity work throughout the world including prominently in Great Britain and the United Kingdom. Yet, what I found at your shop was clearly inadequate. All writing on the church was lumped under Christian theology and the selection that I found was inadequate for any looking for more about this faith. There were two translations of the Book of Mormon though both were jumbo sized readers editions out of the price range of most with fledgling interest. There were no copies of the church’s other essential scriptures ( Doctrine and Covenants or Pearl of Great Price). In fact, the only other books about the church were copies of Richard Bushman’s very wonderful introduction to Mormonism and one very critical and anti-Mormon book that is exceptionally outdated. It should be clear from my descriptions that this is not an adequate selection for such a major world religion.

I am a student studying at Queen Mary College in London and had planned to become a frequent shopper at Foyles ( I am here from the United States) as well as becoming a store member but I can no longer do so in good conscious. If and when your selection of LDS books increased, you can certainly expect my renewed patronage.

Thanks

Sincerely
Daniel Ortner
Queen Mary College
1/20/09

A president for Hindus and Non-believers as well!

 

The Inaugural speech was quite well done. Solidly constructed and very beautifully delivered if not quite transcendent. At times, it dropped into pedestrian terminology such as the cringe worthy mentions of GDP or data and statistics. At times, Obama’s speech felt lacking theme and direction. Yet, what emerged was something pretty moving and a great peon to America and its potential for greatness.

 

I want to look at a few of the remarkable segments of the speech that I found truly memorable

 

“For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus – and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.”

 

This piece is remarkable for the mere mention of Hindus and non-believers. As opposed to Rick Warrens clunky, and poorly conceived prayer which excluded such a large portion of the population by specific and repeat mention of Christ, Obama truly intellectually looked to include all in his speech. His mentions of God were much more of the traditional ceremonial deism sort, and even his citation from scripture was really a pretty secure and grounded portion. Yet, the mention of Hindu’s and of non-believers in particular was controversial. As a former member of the most despised and mistrusted group in America (That you be the Atheists though my current Mormon affiliation does not land me much higher up on the list), just the mere acknowledgement made me cheer with joy. My friend Lisa who was watching the speech with me is currently a non-believer and I could just see her elevated and brought into the joy of the moment by the mere mention. It is vital and so beautiful to have a president that realized that the right to believe must also include and protect the right not to believer. Of course, Obama included the “So help me God” in his oath of office and is in favor of greater use of faith based charity and outreach, but fundamentally Obama seems to understand that all are protected under the laws of this land and all deserve to be treated as dutiful citizens. For too long, we have allowed those without faith to be bullied, harassed and even threatened.

 

I contrast the use of this starkly with a speech on faith Mitt Romney made during the primary campaign. When pressed to explain his Mormonism, Romney went to great pains to explain his Christianity and religiosity and to emphasize that “reedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.” In other words, he tried to reconcile his identity within the conservative community by othering those of no faith. He basically said: My faith is different, but at least I am not an immoral non-believer who cannot possibly share in the freedom and liberty of this nation.

Obama’s speech in this point most embodies what makes it different from administrations and candidates past. It is clear that he is serious about the sort of change he speaks of.

 “To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect.”

The return to speak about the Muslim faith is especially gutsy. I have heard speculation that Obama will either make a major speech on Islam within his first months in office or attend a conference on the faith and its outgrowth. It is so important to have a president that can work with the moderates and strengthen rather than weaken their resolve. It is great to have a president that does not launch “ crusades” but instead realizes that we are dealing with a battle for the minds of individuals.

“This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed – why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.”

The return to the notion of every faith is beautiful and symbolic here. He is tying the concept of diversity of faith to our most basic feelings of racial justice. He is linking the two in a way that promotes plurality and true equality. By talking about racial struggles in the same breath as faith, he has made a powerful linkage.

 

“This is the source of our confidence – the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.”

 

This is the one God reference that perhaps unsettled me most at first. It seems to have that sort of American destiny vibe that Bush so fully imbibed. Yet, there this quote shows a refreshing amount of uncertainty and agency. Our destiny is ours to create. We have a calling from our Heavenly Father to achieve greatness. He has blessed us with opportunity and now it is our choices that reveal whether we live up to those high expectations of falter. Our destiny is in our hands and we will be judged more harshly for our failures because we had so much room for growth.