The Baron of Deseret

October 2006 General Conference Report: Concluding Thoughts

Final thoughts on October 2006 LDS General Conference:

1.  Working theory from last conference is that the talks on Sunday are deliberately written to be simpler and more basic than Saturday's talks under the idea that more new members and non-members will probably be listening to Sunday sessions than Saturday.  No real evidence to support that this weekend, as the most basic set of talks (in terms of fundamental principles that would be useful for new members but dull to long-time members) was Saturday afternoon, followed by Sunday morning.  Should we expect the basic 'Gospel Principles'-style conference talks to continue in place of 'Sunday School Gospel Doctrine" talks since, as quoted this weekend, a larger percentage of members are new converts than ever before?

2.  I'm wondering: would Elder Holland's talk on the virtues of General Conference have been more appropriate as the very first talk of General Conference, rather than the last?  Do they assign speaking positions first before talks are written, or after?

3.  Still can't get over that ironing story...  Reminds me of a joke where a young son tells his mother: "Mom, it's your birthday, so you don't have to do the dishes today!  Just leave those dishes in the sink!"  After a pause, he continues pleasantly, "You can do them tomorrow!"

4.  Organization with the best PR moment during General Conference:  BYU-Idaho.

5.  Organization with the worst PR moment during General Conference:  Kinko's

6. Good talk by Elder Edwards about "80/20" Mormons--those that think being 80% righteous, or good 80% of the time, is good 'enough'.  I sometimes refer to them as C+ Mormons, or (gratuitous link alert) "sideline Mormons".

7.  It's been a common theme in both conferences this year about telling men not to be lazy, get a good education, not dressing in a "slouchy" manner (whatever that means), and support their family.  I'm still waiting for someone to explain why a woman being a housewife at home while her husband works is supposedly demeaning to her, while a man who stays at home and does nothing compelling his wife to work outside the home to support the family is...also demeaning to her?

8.  Finally, I like General Conference, mind you, but I know I'm not the only one who breathed a sigh of relief that President Hinckley wasn't serious about arranging General Conference so that "every General Authority would have a chance to speak"...

October 2006 General Conference Report: Day One

Random notes and comments from Day One of October 2006 LDS General Conference

1.  Yes, it's still September...

2.  Phrase of the day:  "gateway virtue"

3.  Pres. Hinckley:  "We might wish for more baptisms in the US and Canada, but..."  I'd be interested in some of the statistics behind that off-hand remark.

4.  I'm STILL waiting for a General Authority, ANY General Authority to address 'online RPG addiction' by name in a conference talk, instead of lumping it in behind pornography and drugs in an "and other addictive behaviors" clause.

5.  Having said that, it may be significant (and a baby step) that President Faust, in his list of bad media influences, listed "computer games" second...even before 'TV' and 'movies'.  Probably referring to Grand Theft Auto-style games, but it's a start...

6.  Oddest story of the day  (from priesthood session...repeated here for those non-priesthood-session-attending readers):  Speaker tells story of his mom undergoing shoulder surgery when he was young which made it difficult to use her arms in an upright position. Ironing is particularly difficult, especially with five boys.  Dad takes mom to a store one day and shows her a new machine that accepts clothes on a conveyor belt and irons them automatically.  He says he's going to buy it.  Mom says they don't have enough money.  Dad says he's been skipping lunches for the last year to save up enough money to buy the machine, since he knows ironing has been very painful for Mom, frequently leaving her running to the other room in tears until the pain goes away.  Speaker:  My dad is a real Man for caring and sacrificing so much for his wife.

Now having read/heard this story, what's your first reaction?  (Be honest...)

My first thought (and I know I can't be the only one who thought this):  If Dad is such a 'Man' and loves his wife SO much, why don't he and the boys IRON THEIR OWN SHIRTS?  Then, no need to sacrifice lunches and spend money on a machine no one needs...and Mom doesn't have to suffer for a year continuing to iron while the fund is built up.

The gospel according to The Baron:  Guys--Be a Man: IRON YOUR OWN SHIRT!

7.  Not mentioned specifically in the talk on patience, but the best example in my mind of patience and long-suffering is Joseph (son of Jacob) from Genesis.  Joseph, you'll recall, was propositioned by Pharoah's wife, refused her, was accused by her anyway out of spite, and was thrown in jail for years before being delivered.  And this because he did the right thing.  This would have been an excellent opportunity for Joseph to curse God for his misfortune, but in the end Joseph's destiny allowed many great things to follow.

8.  Also from priesthood session:  Elder Nash of the Seventy shared an experience fishing and compared the fish grabbing the bait to youth grabbing at attractive (but immoral) items or behaviors that are dangled in front of them allowing them to be caught by the devil. But...since Elder Nash was the one who put the bait on the hook and stood there enticing the fish to bite, that would make him the devil based on his example, right?

9. Elder Winkel's talk referenced challenging his kids to memorize the Articles of Faith.  I know that's fairly common, but I've never been a fan of 'memorization'.  Understanding the doctrine behind them, sure--being able to recite them word for word in the right order, not important.  If I were a bishop, I wouldn't care if primary kids could recite the 9th article of faith from memory--I'd ask them: "Explain to me the doctrine behind the 9th article of faith"  I wonder how many of them could...   

10.  Best talks:  Elder Oakes and Elder Ballard--two practical talks on key issues facing Church members.  Elder Oakes, in keeping with his earlier public affairs interview on same-sex attraction, addresses SSA in a straight-forward manner with many keys points about the cause of SSA being immaterial to one's eternal destiny.  Elder Ballard discussed not getting caught up in Church programs to the extent that more valuable and important elements of one's life gets neglected.  I heard a talk years and years ago that stated that priorities in life should be (1) God (2) Family (3) Church--with the key being wise enough to recognize the difference between (1) and (3).

11.  This probably was not his intent, but in his list of 'heavy burdens' Elder Oakes did seem to suggest (by association) that "being single" is a tragedy on par with death, divorce, SSA, drug addiction, and severe physical and mental illnesses.  Single members put enough pressure on themselves as it is without having to think their marital status is functionally equivalent to being a crack addict or being in a wheelchair...

Answers to Difficult Questions II

[An occasional series containing my personal response to a 'difficult' question about religion--LDS or otherwise.  Questions are taken from actual questions people have asked me, actual questions asked publicly by other websites, or imaginary questions made up by me merely as a rhetorical technique...]

Question: “Why doesn’t the Church just come clean and admit they were wrong about polygamy, blacks and the priesthood, etc. Then a lot of these hot button issues could be finally put to rest…”

(*chortle* By definition, ‘hot button’ issues are *never* put to rest…)

There’s a problem:  To expect someone to admit they were wrong, they first have to actually BE wrong…

Anyone remember an ‘official’ apology for Joshua commanding Achan and his family be killed for Achan’s transgression? (That doesn’t seem right…must be a mistake. Where’s the official apology from or on behalf of Joshua?)

Or an ‘official’ apology for Abraham having more than one wife? (Polygamy is NEVER right…right?)

Or an apology for the faithful descendants of Dan being blocked from performing priesthood ordinances for the Israelites? (In fact, I hear many of the Levites liked to whisper amongst themselves about how obviously the Danites just weren’t valiant enough…)

Hmmm…it’s different than how we do things today, and how I think things ought to have been done. Must be wrong.  Apologize!

The problem facing all hindsight judgments is the unseen void of alternative history—what would have happened if the supposed ‘right’ choice had been made? Is it clear everyone would have been better off in both the short and long term?

Was it ‘wrong’ for the framers of the US Constitution to not expressly forbid slavery? (Would the South have accepted it? How long might slavery have lasted without a unified country?)

Was it ‘wrong’ for the US to have dropped atomic bombs on Japan in 1945? (Thousands of people died…obviously this must be a mistake.) This, of course, wasn’t Belgium we're talking about... The US was already involved in a long-term, costly war with Japan. In this non-nuclear alternative history, how else would the war have ended? How many Japanese civilians do you think would have died in a land invasion?

The same void of alternative history comes into play in the scriptures and Church history as well. Why didn’t the Lord ‘force’ the Israelites to live the higher “New Testament” law from the beginning, instead of the strict (and brutal) Law of Moses? Why weren’t the early Saints constrained into living the law of consecration longer? I don’t hear many liberal Saints proclaiming the law of tithing is therefore ‘wrong’—a mistaken path where flawed leaders led the Church away from the ‘true’ law of God. (Clearly, someone needs to apologize…)

When someone argues that ‘clearly’ there is no God because of all the suffering in the world, the easy response is: you’re not thinking hard enough if you can’t come up with any rational explanation where God and suffering would coexist in the same universe. Likewise, everyone seems to think ‘clearly’ polygamy and the black priesthood ban were a mistake without thinking hard enough about the alternative history. Is it ‘clear’ that early (white) Church members would have gladly accepted counsel or laying on of hands from a black bishop, or even bread broken and passed by black hands? Not to me… (What do you think would have happened to those black members if the majority did not accept them?)

Is it ‘clear’ that no woman in recorded history EVER benefited temporally or spiritually from a plural marriage over no marriage at all (or to whatever single men were available to them at the time)? Not to me…

This is not a defense of either—only that to my eyes the evidence is far from clear the unknown path of alternate history would have been far brighter for the Church and its members had neither of these two ‘black-eyes’ existed. The fact that many Church members became lifted up with pride at their large families, and/or used the priesthood ban as an enabler for their own racist interpretations of the worth of souls is irrelevant…the question is whether the ostensibly ‘right’ path would have been better or worse than what actually happened. It does no good to wish for a world (or a Church) with complete racial harmony unless you can make a case that this circumstance could have existed in the 19th century if only Church leaders had done X or Y. 

Without a logical theory of events without guesswork, there will be no admission of wrong, nor is there a need. Without a greater knowledge of all things, I don’t believe we can come to any other conclusion other than the ‘jury is still out’…

The Divine Secrets of the Melchizedek Brotherhood

The Priesthood class during Sunday block meetings consists of:  (read A if you are a woman, B if you are a man)

(A) A gathering of men where they discuss Church doctrines and deep secrets SO mysterious and shocking that for their own protection, non-Melchizedek-Priesthood-holding sisters must be shielded and protected from becoming enveloped and overwhelmed by their mystery...

(B) An occasionally slow 40-minute meeting where the EQ presidency encourages the brethren to do their home teaching, then presents a lesson taken from the Presidents of the Church manual... 

Recently, the ranks of our priesthood meeting were 'infiltrated' by a sister.  As the new teaching improvement coordinator, this sister was asked to rotate between classes and sit in on all lessons being taught around the ward--including Elder's Quorum.

So...did this Relief Society 'spy' come away with any deep, dark secrets of the mysterious "men only" priesthood meeting?

Her report to my wife after church:  "Wow...that was THE most BORING lesson I've ever heard in my entire life!"

Hmmm, maybe she did...

Conference Aftermath: Racism and Revisionist History

Suppose (and, yes, I'm plagarizing myself, again) you have three US History textbooks:

1. Says the U.S. was involved in a bloody civil war in the 19th century, which the North won.
2. Says the U.S. was involved in a bloody civil war in the 19th century, which the South won.
3. Says the U.S. was never involved in a civil war in the 19th century, and the practice of enslaving blacks never happened.

Which textbook should US History classes be using?  The answer should be obvious--but wait...what if reading about slavery and the Civil War embarrasses and/or hurts the self-esteem of whites and/or blacks?  Wouldn't (3) be better, then?  Why not have students read a history book that makes people of all races feel better about themselves?

Well...there's the thorny problem of it not being true, for one.  What self-respecting history teacher would avoid teaching something that's clearly based in fact just because it makes people feel bad or uncomfortable? Sometimes the truth hurts...and the trick is to deal with it, not ignore it or pretend it never happened.

Likewise, suppose we have two accounts of LDS Church history--one which says blacks were denied the priesthood before 1978, and one which says all black members have always been priesthood holders since 1830. One might make a lot of people feel better, but only one is true... Again, you can't just hide or ignore the truth, you have to deal with it.

(Note: I know of no serious movement within the Church that tries to pretend the black priesthood ban never happened...this is a hypothetical situation only)

President Hinckley's recent remarks on race have led to an increased amount of discussion inside and outside the Church on the subject.  This is good...although it has led some of the same people who would have been the first to condemn a 'pretend-it-never-happened' attitude in the two hypothetical situations above, to commit exactly the same sin in regards to the scriptural record.

There is no scriptural evidence that blacks as a whole are/were inherently inferior to whites either now or in the pre-existence in any area.  Many in the blogosphere are pretending, though, that skin color has never at any time been tied to righteousness, and that's not as defensible.

There is much scriptural evidence that sometimes God has used skin color as a mark or a curse to separate the righteous from the wicked, and likewise sometimes God has lightened the skin color of those who were once wicked and repented.

This fact (if true) shouldn't matter: the 2nd article of faith says pretty clearly that men of all races are judged according to their own sins, even if they happened to inherit the same skin color which might have been placed on their ancestors because of their wicked behavior.  There is no reason to think that all dark-skinned humans are descended from 'wicked' ancestors--neither is there reason to think that having dark skin means you're not righteous enough, or else God would have already blessed you with lighter skin.  Skin color has no direct measure today towards being worthy or unworthy to be a full member of good standing, but pretending that skin color has NEVER, EVER been such a measure at any time in human history requires an extremely figurative interpretation of many passages in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, which is quite a stretch.

The commandment 'Thou shalt not kill' applies today in full force...yet there is much scriptural evidence in 1st Nephi and the Old Testament that sometimes God has commanded His people to kill others.  That's a fact that has to be dealt with...  By admitting so, you might naturally be afraid of someone using 1st Nephi 4:12 ("Slay him, for the Lord has delivered him into thy hands...") as a casual justification for running over someone they don't like with their car when they see them crossing the street in front of them, but that fear is no excuse to try to maintain that EVERY instance of a righteous person killing someone in the scriptures must be either a mistranslation or must be interpreted very figuratively...

Nephi killed Laban at the Lord's command--that's a fact that must be dealt with.  Likewise, it is clear that skin color and righteousness have occasionally intersected in the past, and that fact must be dealt with, also.  This does not excuse any kind of modern-day racism, but it is improper to completely ignore elements of the past simply because they are uncomfortable or difficult to accept...

April 2006 General Conference--Closing Thoughts

1.  There's been a noticable increase in multimedia elements within conference talks in recent years.  What was once just a person speaking, is now often a person speaking amongst related images, scriptural quotes, and even staged dramatic scenes, all aimed at emphasizing the content of the talk.  Conference talks are fast becoming not just 'talks' but full-fledged multi-media presentations.  At some point, this will only encourage church members to stay at home and 'experience' conference on their TVs instead of attending in person.  But, then again, this is the 21st century and it is only proper that the modern Church takes advantage of modern technology.  I wonder what 19th century Church members would think if they could see General Conference today...

2.  My interpretation of Pres. Hinckley's remarks:  "Don't start shovelling dirt on me just yet...but, you know, it might be wise to keep the dirt close by, just in case..."

3.  I've wondered for a time why, after every conference, when looking at which talks I liked the best, they come almost exclusively from Saturday's sessions.  I hadn't come up with any good explanations for the consistent first day superiority except for (a) conference fatigue, having already sat through six hours before Sunday's sessions start, or (b) coincidence.  Now I may have an idea for possibility (c):  Look at Pres. Faust's and Elder Tingey's talks from Sunday morning.   Both of their talks are about as basic a gospel discussion as you can get about the apostasy, restoration, and the atonement.  These are talks that a newer member would find very valuable and instructive, but there's really nothing new for older members.  Generally speaking, Sunday's talks dealt with more basic topics than Saturday, and I'm wondering now if the talks are arranged or planned beforehand deliberately in this fashion, because Sunday is the day where more new members (and non-members) are likely to tune in.  Whereas mostly long-time members are the ones who will tune in on Saturday, thus the talks are arranged with this in mind.  A theory that bears some study...

4.  Another thought from Elder Nelson's talk on Saturday: when he made a statement about pornography "corrupting marital intimacy" I don't know if he was consciously referring to this practice or not, but the first thing I thought of when I heard it were a few couples that we know who use pornography together as an, um, 'marital aid'.  I doubt this habit would meet with anyone's approval (whether this was E.Nelson's point or not...), but I also know that having the wife's approval (and participation) seemingly lessens many of the major complaints against pornography (being a form of adultery).  Of course, having the wife's approval for actual adultery wouldn't excuse it either in the absolute sense, but this seems like a situation where the use of pornography would have to be judged differently than most standard uses...

5.  Links to other bloggernacle discussions of conference:
Millennial Star
Bloggernacle Times
Times & Seasons (1 of 5)

Notes From April 2006 General Conference--Day One

Random notes from Day One:

1. Still no predominant theme, but generally strong talks across the board.  Of course, there's nothing new in any of the talks, but that's just how the gospel is...  When everyone gets the basic principles right, then we'll hear something else.  And considering the people who most need to hear conference talks are the least likely to listen to them, it will be a while...

2.  Despite Pres. Monson's best efforts, I don't think "makafeki" is going to be entering the colloquial LDS lexicon any time soon...

3.  That said, there's another element of the metaphor that (if I'm remembering correctly) Pres. Monson didn't mention:  Grabbing the bait given to you doesn't immediately lead to being captured.  If you grab it, you have a small period of time where you can let go again (repent) and still be okay.  AFTER the window has passed, though--if you've continued to stubbornly hold on to sin for too long--the time will come where repentance is not possible, that the consequences of sin will become permanent.  One of the problems is that many people know that the makafeki is a trap, but figure they'll just hang on for a little while and then let go before the consequences arrive.  Some of them make it, but others find letting go is more difficult than they previously thought and never come back...

4.  I was surprised to hear that there actually was an LDS high school.  I had no idea the Church ran any kind of non-university level school, although it makes sense that if there was one, it would be in Tonga...

5.  I do find it interesting that whenever we see pictures or other accounts of humanitarian aid given by the Church to needy locations, it usually has the Church's name in big letters all over it.  I've seen many groups of volunteer workers helping after natural disasters, all wearing matching T-shirts with "Mormon Helper" on it in big letters.  You can easily argue for or against the appropriateness of this kind of 'advertising', but the key is that the help was being provided, even if we make sure everyone knows who is providing it...

6.  One related mission story:  while picking up trash as part of our weekly service, a local Taiwanese couple stopped and said they were moved by two foreigners taking the time to clean up a country that wasn't their's.  After noting our nametags (there's that 'advertising' again...) they said they wanted to take our picture and send it to a local paper.  I said no, (right? wrong?) but that part of missionary service was service and we were happy to help out.  (I wasn't lying either: picking up trash was a pleasant activity to spend an hour or two a week doing.  Clears the head...)  This did not lead to them meeting with missionaries or getting baptized (they were Catholic), but you never know what the impression we gave them will lead to in the future...

7.  To the sister in the back of the BYU combined choir who thought she could get away with not singing without anyone noticing:  You were noticed. (The camera eye sees all!)

8.  Elder Nelson's mention of a man engrossed in a video game was merely just for a quick laugh, but I predict sometime soon we'll hear a conference talk specifically aimed at the genuine problem of video game addiction.  There are a great many people who play games (especially online RPGs such as World of Warcraft and Everquest) to such a serious extent that they neglect family, work, and sleep, too...  (The makers of online RPGs encourage this to an extent, simply because the games are designed that you have to play a LONG, LONG time in order to build up your character to a point where he/she can actually do anything...)  Sooner or later, one of the "World of Warcraft widows" will write a letter to Pres. Hinckley or someone and get this on their radar screens such that it gets mentioned specifically, instead of being lumped together (as in Pres. Faust's talk) in "other compulsive disorders".

9.  I didn't know what to expect when Pres. Hinckley's son (called to the Seventy last year) was called to speak.  He turns out to be remarkably well-spoken.  And he has his father's ears.  I look forward to hearing from him again.

10.  It's weird, but everyone seems to be (in a kind sense) shovelling the dirt on Pres. Hinckley's grave before he's even dead.  Yes, it's very possible that his time has come, but if so, it wasn't obvious from hearing him speak personally during the priesthood session, where he looked and sounded like he had ten more years left.  The fact that speaker after speaker during the daytime sessions seemed to be memorializing Pres. Hinckley in subtle ways, when he's not even a memory yet, seems odd.  Or maybe everyone's just being prescient...

11.  Speaking of Pres. Hinckley's talk, he mentioned (for those not in attendance at the priesthood session) a story of a woman who married a man who, after marriage, was unemployed and refused to work for years, leaving his wife to support the family financially on her own.  Gee, according to many in the neo-feminist movement, this should be a dream-come-true for a woman, shouldn't it?  She gets to work outside the home and feel 'important' while her husband is confined to an empty 'prison' at home.  Somehow, I don't think the woman in question looks at it this way...  (See--gratuitous link alert!--my article on "Stay-away dads" for my discussion of how defined gender roles cut both ways...)

12. Many in the bloggernacle are always looking out for bold and interesting things to come out of conference that can be analyzed and discussed endlessly in the weeks following.  They are usually disappointed (see #1 above), but if there's anything that can provide discussion material from the first day of conference, perhaps it is both Elder Nelson and Pres. Hinckley making statements that (a) reaffirmed the Church's current position on polygamy and blacks and the priesthood (respectively), but--more significantly--(b) seemed to simultaneously be suggesting that the former positions were never God's will to begin with (rather than, say, something that had its own divine purpose at the time, but does not apply now...).   Making guesses based on prophets' and apostles' word choice is a dangerous game, of course, but I'd be surprised if the bloggernacle doesn't pick up on some of the deeper questions raised by both of these talks this next week...

13.  Finally, I still miss Elder Maxwell, but Elder Eyring did a good job 'channelling' him for a period during his talk, with both intricate word play and discussion of E.Maxwell's favorite topic: becoming a true disciple of Christ by subjugating your will completely to God.

General Conference Speculation

It's LDS General Conference time again--join with M* in speculating on what's going to happen this weekend.

I, for one, have absolutely no idea what are going to be the primary themes of this General Conference.  Last conference was relatively easy to predict, with Joseph Smith's birthday, reading the Book of Mormon, and the recent natural disasters fairly obvious picks.  This year, nothing notable has happened that would generate common trends among conference speakers... 

I'll be posting my conference analysis threads over the weekend as usual...  Links to previous conference articles are below:
April 2004 | Part Two
October 2004 | Part Two
April 2005 | Part Two
October 2005 | Part Two

Scripture as Literature

A couple of recent links:

Volokh discusses a recent law allowing study of the Bible in a non-religious context in Georgia high schools.
A Motley Vision discusses the issue of reading LDS scripture as literature.

Many college textbooks analyze passages from the Bible from both historical and literary standpoints without involving religious debate.  How come we don't see more discussion of the Book of Mormon from a secular perspective in the same way?  Whether you believe it to be the literal word of God or not, there's no denying that the Book of Mormon, along with the Bible and the Qu'ran, is a book of great significance in human society--certainly just as worthy of study as any other religious text.  Is there a reason we don't see more discussion of the Book of Mormon from a non-religious standpoint?  (I would think Jacob 6 in particular would be of great passage to discuss in a college class...) 

Perhaps the answer is that the Book of Mormon is inherently more difficult to discuss from purely a secular perspective due to its origin.  How could you discuss the Book of Mormon--or even selections from it--from a historical or literary perspective without discussing also where it came from?  Any analysis of the text in a college setting would eventually have to encounter some pressing questions: "Who wrote it?"  "Joseph Smith did, in 1829"  "Who's Joseph Smith?"  "A 23 year old farmer with an 8th grade education who lived in rural New York."   

Even if you don't get into Moroni or the golden-plates at all in class, from that point on, you would still have to be wondering in the back of your mind: "A 23-year-old uneducated farmer wrote this?  Really?"  How could you avoid continually associating the text with the author as you discussed it?  The Book of Mormon's supposed divine origin more or less mandates that it be included in the discussion, because they are inseparable.   I'm not sure, then, you can successfully discuss the Book of Mormon as literature without religion intruding...

And I suspect this was on purpose.  Some archaelogist somewhere who dug up some ancient records and had them translated by college professors of ancient languages would be of historical interest, but very few people would take them seriously as 'scripture', even if they told of religious principles, or of Jesus Christ himself visiting America.  The divine origin more or less prevents the secularization of the Book of Mormon text, and I suspect most professors of literature, who likely have at least heard of the Book (and the story behind it) would be reluctant to use it as a source of discussion because they wouldn't know how to approach it from a secular perspective.  The Book of Mormon by its very existence demands to be discussed from a religious perspective, and only from that perspective.  And, in that case, it's probably not surprising that most would then choose not to discuss it at all...

Too bad, because if it was discussed more in college or high school classrooms, I suspect that it would become even more of a missionary tool than it is now...

The Blessing of 'Good' Girlfriends...

On my mission, during a break after a completed district meeting, I had occasion to lead a discussion with some of the other elders on the subject of 'good girlfriends' versus 'bad girlfriends'.  (I was not attractive lucky enough to have a girlfriend myself back home, so I was able to serve as an outside observer)

It is important to note that this was not a discussion of good-looking girlfriends nor of righteous girlfriends but something a little more abstract.  The discussion centered around a number of other elders in the mission who had previously shared with me (a girlfriend-less elder) some of the letters their girlfriends had written.  From these, a couple of examples stood out.  One elder received letters that read more or less like this:

"I miss you so much...I can't wait to see you again...I wish you were at my side right now...I cry at night sometimes knowing that we're apart...I can't stand being away from you...When will I see you again?...I WISH you were here with me right now..."

And another elder received letters that read more or less like this:

"I miss you...but I am SO happy you're serving a mission.  I hope you can work hard and bring happiness to yourself and others in serving the Lord.  I'll see you when you get back!"

What happened afterwards was interesting...  The first elder ended up serving for a few months but then went home early, because he couldn't bear being away from his girlfriend any longer.  They were married a couple of months later.  And, the second elder soon received another letter from his girlfriend which started out with the common refrain: "Honestly, I didn't plan for this to happen, but I've met someone and [yada...yada...yada] we're getting married on..."

Thus the discussion question was: Knowing how the two relationships turn out in the end, which girlfriend is 'better'?

The difference in attitudes was subtle but significant, and most of us decided that--despite the 'betrayal'--girlfriend B was the 'good' one--the one we'd rather have ourselves.  Someone who is supportive and respectful of missionary service (and church service in general) without implicitly (or explicitly) sounding like a mission is a great big inconvenience that keeps her guy away from the really important things in life (herself).  Elder A may very well have decided to go home early regardless, no matter what her letters contained, but it seems obvious that his girlfriend was hurting rather than helping his desire to be a good missionary...

This same lesson became evident my first few years at BYU after returning home.  *Still* being girlfriend-less (have I mentioned that for most of my life girls pretty much avoided me completely?), I had occasion to closely observe the dynamics between my roommates and their girlfriends.

One of my roommates almost never made it up to our 9 AM priesthood meeting on Sundays.  Part of the problem was he was out with his girlfriend until about 2-3 AM every Saturday night...  Having failed working with my roommate individually (and knowing who wore the pants in their relationship) I asked her directly one day if she would consider encouraging them to end their Saturday evening activities earlier so he could actually attend his church meetings the next morning...assuming that was important to her.  ("Of course it is," came the reply, "No problem".  Next Saturday...3 AM again)  As with the elder above, my roommate is still personally responsible for his own church activity (or lack of)  regardless of the situation, but it is also obvious that his girlfriend was not helping...

By contrast, my other roommate that year had a girlfriend who specifically avoided being an excuse not to do important things. Saturday dates ended early, and if there was a priesthood meeting, home teaching appointment, or anything else (such as a big test which needed more concentrated study) she purposely left him alone and made other plans so that he would not have any easy excuses not to do it.  She was a 'good' girlfriend by any definition...

[Yes, of course, there are 'good' and 'bad' boyfriends in exactly the same way.  So sue me if I'm a guy, and as such lived and served with other guys, and tend to phrase things from a guy's perspective....  Female readers are free to share 'good' and 'bad' boyfriend experiences in the comments below.]

The Sunday school lesson last week centered around Abraham and his sons, and their search for suitable wives.  It is obvious from the scriptural text that not just any ol' Canaanite girl would do for Abraham's sons and grandsons.  They took much effort (and travelled great distances) to find a wife 'in the faith' who believed in Abraham's God, Jehovah.  In our modern day, much emphasis is also made in marrying within the faith, but mostly stops just at the fact that marrying a faithful member allows an eternal sealing within the temple.  Since temple marriages didn't exist (?) in Abraham's time, there are obviously other reasons why careful choice of marriage partners is important as well which deserve discussion.  Using the parable from last year's Dating and Marriage series, if marriage is a cross-country skiing race where you and your spouse have one ski tied together as you move, then the benefits of having a partner that is supportive towards reaching personal and family goals in this context should be obvious:  neither of you is going anywhere if you can't agree on which direction to travel.

There are numerous ways in which boyfriends and girlfriends (husbands and wives) support each other.  I can watch my kids while "The Baroness" (former RS now Primary president) attends meetings and serves others.  She can do the same while I do home teaching or attend priesthood meetings.  Having the same faith allows the two of us to encourage and foster each other's activity, instead of acting as roadblocks to the same.  How easily can a faithful LDS wife continue to attend Church regularly--and teach that principle to her kids--if her non-member husband stays home every Sunday morning and subtlely encourages them to do the same?  She is, in the end, still responsible for her own activity and her standing before God, but it's certainly not nearly as easy as if she had a husband who actively encouraged and supported the activity of herself and her kids.

I don't know what Elder A and his wife above will tell their kids about missionary work.  Can they encourage their sons to serve two-year missions without facing some awkward questions about dad's own missionary service?  Don't know...  I do know that I am thankful for "The Baroness" and all the other 'good' girlfriends and wives out there (and their male counterparts) who demonstrate in little ways every day the fundamental advantages that dating and marrying faithful, supportive members who love the Lord can bring to a family...

A few interesting things...

...heard in fast & testimony meeting today when we visited a different ward:

(little boy) "I'd...liketobearmytestimonyiknowthischurchistrue, and I...(pause)...um...(pause)...know there's...a lot of churches in the world, and...in the name of Jesus Christ, amen!"

(man) "I didn't really want to bear my testimony today, and I don't really feel the Spirit...but I felt I needed to be a good example for my kids, so here I am..."

(little girl) "idliketobearmytestimonyiknowthischurchistrue, 'cause my dad said he'd give me some candy after church if I bore my testimony, in the name of Jesus Christ, amen!"

(sister) "Whether this Church is true or not, I think it's still the BEST thing out there!"

Never a dull moment in fast & testimony meeting!

Oct 2005 General Conference Closing Thoughts

(1) Quick statistical rundown:
What was Oct 2005 General Conference about?
Talks that referenced hurricanes and/or other natural disasters: 7
Talks that referenced the Book of Mormon challenge: 6
Talks that referenced the 200th anniversary of Joseph Smith's birth: 8
(Elder Scott's talk mentioned all three of these!)

What was Oct 2005 General Conference not about?
Pornography (only four mentions, none in depth)
Gambling (no mentions at all that I can remember)

(2) The structure of General Conference is generally the same from year to year, but I was surprised to find (looking through my notes from April) that October Conference followed exactly the same pattern as April did (at least the Saturday sessions):
Saturday Morning:
President Hinckley's Opening
Apostle
Member of Presiding Bishopric
Sister
Apostle
Counselor in First Presidency

Saturday Afternoon:
Apostle
Apostle
Seventy
Seventy
Seventy
Apostle
Apostle

Priesthood:
Apostle
Seventy
Seventy
Seventy
Pres. Faust
Pres. Monson
Pres. Hinckley

I checked the 2004 conference lineups and they were similar (as they always are--espectially Priesthood session), but never exactly the same as conferences this year have been...  We'll see if this continues into 2006

(3) I found it interesting that Elder Hales, in his discussion of the history of scriptures, seemed to go out of his way to not mention the Catholic Church by name.  (using instead, "the Church of His day", etc...)  Probably wants to avoid any "Catholic = the great and abominable Church" controversies.

(4) A friend of mine, when she was a student at BYU a few years back, shared an experience when she was on campus one evening and stepped onto a building elevator.  There was an older gentleman in the elevator who greeted her warmly and asked what her name was.  She said, "I'm <name withheld>" and immediately followed up herself with, "What's your name?"  Slight pause before the man replied, pleasantly: "I'm Merrill!"  "Nice to meet you, Merrill" came her reply.  Soon, they got off the elevator and went their separate ways.  It wasn't until later that she found out to her chagrin that she had been talking to Elder Merrill J. Bateman, then-president of BYU.

This story has nothing to do with Elder Bateman's talk on Sunday, but it came to mind as I watched him...

(5) Regarding Elder Bateman's talk specifically:  There were a couple of times he referred to a "Hispanic woman" and a "Japanese friend" within the talk, in contexts where the actual race of the person had no particular bearing.  I've had discussions with some people about this--this common habit really annoys people who view the gratuitous racial qualifiers as subconscious racism, where you have your 'friends' and then your 'black (Hispanic/Asian) friends' whom you view separately in some way.  On the other hand, if you just hear the word 'friend' or 'woman' from a speaker (especially a white Church member) you're almost certain to assume he/she is white in your mind, and the racial qualifier is simply to give you a more accurate mental picture of who it was the speaker was talking about, even though the race didn't affect the actual story.   It all depends on what point-of-view you hear it in, I guess.  (I, myself, use 'white' occassionally to qualify descriptions of people...simply because most of my friends are Chinese)

(6) Yes, 10 hours is still a long time...

Oct 2005 General Conference Comments--Day One

[Previous General Conference Reports:  April 2005 Day One | Two
October 2004 Day One | Two
April 2004 Day One | Two]

Random Comments from Day One:

(1) As expected: lots of references both to recent natural disasters, and to the Book of Mormon challenge. (Interesting how that has become a 'command' according to Elder Eyring instead of a 'challenge' now...)

(2) Not quite as expected: major emphasis on women's issues, with four talks by my count talking to them directly.  Hard to argue with the one-two punch of Elders Oakes and Holland back-to-back.  (Call them the Ruth-Gehrig of conference speakers...)

(3) Did anyone but me have a sudden "Star Wars" flashback when President Hinckley mentioned the "Empire of Christ the Lord", complete with "Imperial March" music running through my head.  Fortunately, Pres.Hinckley qualified it soon after by saying it was an Empire of 'peaceful persuasion'.

(4) Pres. Hinckley also reported on 32 million temple ordinances being performed.  Impressive...yet sobering when you think of how little that really is compared with the Earth's past and present population.

(5) I miss Elder Maxwell...

(6) Elder Oakes comment on not using anything with electricity again if you've been shocked once brought to mind a quote from Mark Twain:

We should be careful to get out of an experience all the wisdom that is in it -- not like the cat that sits on a hot stove lid. She will never sit down on a hot lid again -- and that is well; but also she will never sit down on a cold one anymore.

An example of this principle:  Growing up I knew a member family that had not one, but TWO teenage daughters get pregnant in high school, both fathers were guys they had met at Church activities.  The parents' response: banning their children from attending any Church activity ever again.  (?)

(7) I understand how gay marriage prevents them (gays) from continuing their eternal progression, but I still don't understand how gay marriage 'sabotages families' as Elder Ballard implied.  Are there really millions of husbands and wives who would leave their families in an instant if gay marriage became legal?  Talking about homosexual behavior in this context is one thing--but giving gays a piece of paper with their name on it?  Doesn't affect my marriage, or my kids...

(8) Good example from Elder Wirthlin (the story of Jeroboam) giving another instance arguing against predeterminism (where God knows our exact futures and our destinies are set in stone).  Virtually everything in the gospel comes with a great big IF statement ("These many blessings are yours...IF you remain faithful")  Jeroboam received the promise but didn't fill his end of the bargain.  If man doesn't have true free agency to choose their own fate (ALL men, including Judas Iscariot, Cain, and others...) then why would God phrase so many statements with the IF clause if there wasn't really multiple options?

(9) Talk of the day:  Could go with the modern day "Murderer's Row" as mentioned above, but let's go with Bishop McMullin, with the most quotable talk from today:  "holding back the tempest with our puny arms" and "don't be a Saint on Sunday, and a slacker the rest of the week..."

On to Sunday...

Random General Conference Predictions

• Major emphasis on the life and prophetic calling of Joseph Smith (I believe Pres. Hinckley will address this topic himself)
• At least one talk on reading the Book of Mormon
• A couple of talks about (or referencing directly) being prepared in case of natural disasters
• At least twenty mentions of the word 'pornography'
• One talk on gambling, referencing Pres. Hinckley's talk from April

Spiritual Fiction?

One of my favorite books from the last decade is the "Masters of Rome" series by Colleen McCullough. (See Amazon listing for the first book in the series here).   Like all good fiction, this six book series contains a compelling, action-packed narrative, exciting plot twists, and much personal and political intrigue involving a large cast of interesting characters.

Oh, wait...did I mention it's not actually fiction?

Based on the history of the Roman Republic from the late 2nd century B.C., continuing through the life and death of Julius Caesar, and ending with the defeat of Brutus and Cassius at the hands of the soon-to-be emperor Octavius (the nominal ending point of the Roman Republic and the beginning of the Empire), the "Masters of Rome" series covers virtually every major historical event in ancient Roman history over a period of almost a hundred years.  While McCullough has added dialogue and other narrative elements for flow, she didn't have to create from scratch the characters, events, or plot points of the book--look up an encyclopedia article on any of the main figures in Roman history, and it could very easily double as the back cover synopsis for any of the books in the series (with major spoilers, even...)

It is said that 'truth is stranger than fiction' and even though our average everyday lives are usually not as interesting as the fictional plots thought up by writers, looking at the entire scope of human history, there are stories and events from any era of civilization that are just as interesting as any screenplay.  Colleen McCullough did not need to imagine up a world full of action, romance, and intrigue--the history of the Roman Republic provided it for her...and all she had to do was organize history onto the printed page.

Now, this isn't meant to be a book review for "Masters of Rome", but rather a discussion of a larger principle using this series as a example:

The Book of Mormon is meant to be an ancient record of people living somewhere in the American continent.  Many believers accept it as truth, and many others--citing the absence of conclusive scientific evidence to the contrary--insist otherwise that the book has no divine origin.

While small, there is another group of people outside of the first two who have developed a 'have your cake and eat it too' philosophy for the Book of Mormon:  it does have a divine origin, but is essentially 'spiritual fiction'--nice stories made up by God to teach us gospel principles, but which have no factual basis.  President Hinckley, among others, has said such an attitude is unreasonable--you have to pick one side or the other--but this attitude persists nonetheless.

Here's the problem: saying the Book of Mormon has been divinely inspired by God--yet the stories contained therein have no basis in fact--implies that God had no such true stories to draw from to create such scriptures in the first place.  Everyone knows true stories have more impact than made-up stories (hearing about real people living gospel principles will always be more influential than reading made-up stories about people doing the same thing.)   God resorting to fiction to demonstrate gospel principles implies that at no time and in no era of human history were there actual, true stories that demonstrated those same principles.  God would only make up the story of Nephi if there were no real 'Nephis' to draw from--throughout all ages of human history which He had 'access' to.

Given the scope of human history, this is very unlikely.  Using "The Masters of Rome" series as an example--there's no need to 'make up' stories either to educate or entertain.  Viewing the whole of human history already provides numerous examples of great love stories, great action movies, great character studies of intrigue and betrayal...and spiritual stories as well.  Should we believe there was not a single example of righteous individuals or societies who believed and lived the gospel in ways that could inspire us today, such that God needed to make some up in order to get His point across?  That seems highly unlikely...

So, in the end, we're left with just the two extremes again.  Either the Book of Mormon is a record of actual people who lived the gospel centuries ago, or it is a fraud and has no divine origin at all.   Trying to have it both ways--keeping one foot in the Church and one foot in the secular world without committing to either--is just not a viable foundation to stand on in the end...

LDS Activity Crisis Links

Finishing up the links to the last two sections of the LDS Activity Crisis series--it will be added to the Essay section eventually...

Part 9: The Baron's Fundamental Paradigm for Becoming--And Staying--Active

Activity and Retention Discussion Roundtable

The LDS Activity Crisis: Part 5

Inactivity Factors

The LDS Activity Crisis: Part 4

The Investigator-To-Member Transition

The LDS Activity Crisis: Part 3

The Investigator's Side of the Coin

The LDS Activity Crisis: Part 2

Adventures in Missionary Work

The LDS Activity Crisis: Part 1

A new multi-part series about conversion and retention...which I decided to post at M* instead of here.  Sorry!

Part 1: Series Introduction and Overview

Conversion and Activity: How are we doing?

If you haven't done so yet, check out this discussion about LDS Church growth at M*, and also this linked article (actually a manuscript for a book) from Cumorah.com

Rather than add my comments to the M* thread, I felt compelled to do some writing on my own...

I mentioned back in April the recent decline in missionary baptisms, and the Cumorah article provides quantification for something which I had sensed, but didn't have the numbers to back it up: that current LDS Church growth and activity are, frankly, not very good.

Growth numbers are relative, of course--the LDS Church is still one of the better 'large' churches (1 million members+) in terms of growth rate, but not nearly as much as our large missionary force should indicate.  Add in the fact that only 30% or less of those baptisms actually become active, and you have a pretty pessimistic outlook for the future growth of the Church...  Other churches (specifically the Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses--compared directly in the "Law of the Harvest" article) have a better growth rate, a better activity rate, with (in the SDA's case, at least) much less emphasis on missionary work.  The LDS Church seems to be losing the race to convert the world...

There are significant problems with current LDS methods of conversion and retention which are mentioned in the article, and will be discussed by me in detail in a future essay.  (Basically, the problems stem from (1) letting 19-year-olds be in charge of missionary work and (2) we--the general membership of the Church, not doing what it takes to find, convert, and retain new members...)

In essence the Church (members) should be doing much, much better than we are...and the "Law of the Harvest" articles is one of the best I've read at discussing what's wrong...  I'll address those issues in the future, as well, but here are some initial (and slightly more optimistic) thoughts:

The key to understanding member activity comes from not only defining what constitutes an 'active' member, but what constitutes a 'member' in the first place.  From an LDS standpoint, membership is defined as having been baptized, confirmed a member of the Church by the laying on of hands, and having your name on the Church membership roles.

This definition of 'member' is easily defensible, coming directly from scriptures in the Book of Mormon and D&C, not to mention being specifically mentioned as part of the confirmation ordinance done immediately after baptism.

And yet, as the article mentions, that definition of 'member' is inaccurate in a lot of ways.  The problem is that many, many members get baptized (and confirmed) and then become inactive (or hostile) to the Church without ever (a) getting excommunicated (rare), or (b) requesting their names be removed from the Church membership (rarer)...

Thus, using only the baptismal count for church membership, you're left with millions and millions of people who have been baptized but have no personal contact or 'activity' with any LDS congregation at all.  (The article mentions specifically the Address Unknown File which contains hundreds upon thousands of members who were baptized, but no one knows where they are...if they're even alive.)

The SDAs and JWs take a more pragmatic approach to defining membership--in a sense, almost defining 'activity' as membership, thus when the numbers are calculated those two churches have a very high activity rate, and even without counting any set of 'inactives', they have significantly high membership growth rates as well.  Is the LDS Church becoming an obsolete VW Beetle, gradually moving slower and slower, while the BMWs and Porsches of other churches pass us by?

Here's my gut feeling:  human nature being what it is--no individual church is inherently better or worse at fellowshipping new members than others.  In every congregation, you'll find friendly people and cold people--caring people and selfish people.  And yet the numbers don't lie:  by any measure, more people are remaining active Seventh-Day Adventists and JWs than are remaining active Mormons.  All things being equal, you would have to assume that those two churches are just inherently better at retaining members.

Trouble is...all things are not equal.

The problem with comparing activity rates in different churches is that the definition of 'active' will differ, just as doctrine and policy will differ between the churches.  An 'active' Latter-Day Saint, for example, could be defined as someone who:

• Does not partake of alcohol, tobacco, or illegal drugs
• Has no sexual relations before marriage
• Pays 10% of his/her income as tithing
• Serves mandatory two year missionary service (for men)
• Attends church services weekly AND serves faithfully in a Church calling, often outside of the Sabbath...

To these we could add in some 'optional' characteristics, such as modest clothing, no gambling, geneology work, and regular temple attendance, and so on...

Now, compare this to an active Jehovah's Witness who has comparable church attendance and missionary work, but no alcohol or tobacco restriction, no tithing, no (to my knowledge) comparable system of Church callings (outside of missionary work), and less of an emphasis on strict adherence to the Law of Chastity.  In other words, a person who might be considered 'active' as a JW, might not be considered 'active' as a Latter-Day Saint--the requirements for 'activity' are higher from an LDS perspective.

From the Seventh Day Adventist perspective, the SDAs do have directly comparable doctrines to the Word of Wisdom, Tithing, and the Law of Chastity, and they usually follow them.  If a distinction can be made between the LDS and SDA sides, it is in the area of enforcement rather than doctrine.  Through the withholding of temple recommends (and other minor things such as not speaking in Church, performing priesthood ordinances, or holding a calling), the LDS Church has leverage (if you will) to enforce obedience of its key doctrines.  I know of no comparable equivalent on the SDA or JW side, meaning the disobedience rate for all three churches may be the same (I have no idea), but disobedience plays a more significant role on the LDS side, because the Church has a means of 'separating' those who follow key doctrines and those who do not.

Why is this significant?  Because having higher standards will inherently drive down activity rates.  There will always be people who want to be spiritually minded, but have alcohol or tobacco habits they can't let go of.  Or people who want to love and serve their fellow man, but balk at actually donating a large part of their salary to their church.  Those people can still be 'active' JW's without any problems, but wouldn't be able to be 'active' Latter-Day Saints.  From an SDA perspective, many of the doctrines are the same but the enforcement is not--those two people can still participate in the SDA experience, without having parts of it limited by their disobedience to key principles.  The LDS method of, in essence, dividing Church members into 'first-class' (temple recommend holding) and 'second-class' members undoubtedly has the dual effect of (1) giving incentive to some in the second group to 'clean up their act' and join the first group, and (2) giving incentive to others in the second group to give up on 'activity' altogether and leave the Church.

Put all this together and we conclude that (in my opinion) it's inherently more difficult to be an active Mormon, than it is to be an active SDA, or JW--and the differing activity rates reflect that.   This is not the only factor (there are cultural and organization factors--not to mention member incompetence--that come into play when discussing LDS activity...discussed in a future article), but a significant one, which shows that comparing activity rates of different churches with different doctrines is an 'apples-and-oranges' problem.

There's no doubt in my mind that if the LDS Church repealed the Word of Wisdom, and/or the Law of Tithing, activity rates around the world would universally go up.  (And likewise, if tithing increased to, say, 15%, or went to all-out Law of Consecration again, activity would immediately go down...)  The LDS Church holds its members to higher standards...and I think that's right.  Low activity rates are never 'good', but if it results in stronger, more faithful members (albeit fewer of them...) then the somewhat depressing statistics won't mean quite as much...

Tales from the Mission Journal, Part 3

While serving in the mission office, we played host to a missionary from the Singapore mission, who was serving in Malaysia.  Missionaries there have to leave the country every thirty days to reapply for their visa, and so he was staying with us for a day before heading back.  Normally, missionaries go to a closer country than Taiwan when they have to leave the country, but this was a special circumstance--this elder was accompanying a native missionary from Taiwan who was essentially being sent home early.

Missionary work in Malaysia, as in a number of 'unconventional' missions around the world, is a very different experience from Taiwan and most regular missions.  Open proselyting is forbidden, and missionaries don't wear suits or nametags.  (This elder was in a T-shirt and jeans--normal wear for his daily work.)  When talking to someone, the contacted person has to open the door for a conversation about religion themselves--no direct questions from the missionaries.  Conversations about religion can take place after they've asked...but only after you've found out their occupation and religion (checking for government officials and extremist Muslims...)  This elder, a sober and mature fellow, admitted all they were doing was planting seeds and that it was tough to be patient.

The elder who was being sent home was for essentially being too bold in his missionary efforts--being too direct and not discrimatory enough about who he talked to.  While it may seem odd for a missionary to be sent home for doing 'too much' missionary work, the rules for proselyting in Malaysia are there for a purpose--being too direct and too indiscriminatory in who you talk to can literally be a matter of life and death if you talk to the wrong set of people.

The brief time talking with this elder brought to mind how situations and rules change depending on time and place.  What's legal (and expected) for missionaries in one mission may be forbidden in another--the Church needs to (and does) adjust for different environments, and part of being a missionary is respecting the missionary guidelines of the situation you're in, even if it's different than other missions you know about (or from what you hoped your mission would be...)

Some policies and principles will change because of time, place, or other personal circumstances.  Others will not.  While many complain about how things in the Church now are different here than there, or now versus the past, I wonder:  what makes that a negative?  Shouldn't we be happy to be in a living Church that adapts to new situations without trying to put "new wine in old bottles"?  Likewise, other people complain the Church doesn't change or adapt enough...you can't satisfy everyone, can you?  There are times to adjust and there are times to be firm...and wisdom is knowing the difference between the two.

Conference Aftermath IV: Money Matters...

If there's a church out there that has spent more time and effort in discussing financial matters with its membership than the LDS Church does, I'd like to see it.  Rarely will a General Conference go by without a mention of proper financial management, not to mention the recent emphasis on gambling on top of that.

I remember a stake fireside where the entire focus from start to finish was managing money.  I don't think the name of Jesus Christ was referenced once in any of the talks, other than in closing.  Some people might think the emphasis on purely secular matters of financial management is weird for a church that 'should' be more concerned with spiritual things.  And yet, from D&C we can read:

Wherefore, verily I say unto you that all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal... Behold, I gave unto him that he should be an agent unto himself; and I gave unto him commandment, but no temporal commandment gave I unto him, for my commandments are spiritual, they are not natural nor temporal...  (D&C 29:34-35)

If you wonder if financial topics are really spiritual topics, just consider that over 70% of divorces are linked to money problems in some way.  So, if learning a particular principle gave your marriage a 70% greater chance of staying together, would that be a spiritual topic?

All things considered, Latter-Day Saints should be the world leaders in handling money properly.  Church leaders discuss it all the time (J. Reuben Clark's remarks about interest--quoted again by Pres. Monson in his conference talk--has got to be one of the most widely quoted statements by any GA in Church history...), and Church members have all studied the principle of seeking first the kingdom of God before you seek for riches (see Jacob 2:18)

And yet, reality is a little different.  Bankruptcy is high in Utah, many members struggle with money matters, and--worse than that--seem oddly preoccupied with money, to the extent that there's a lot of borrowing, and chasing after 'get-rich-quick' schemes, more than you would think for being a 'spiritual' people.  'Quick cash' locations seem to pop up everyday here in Utah Valley, and various pseudo-pyramid schemes have taken root throughout the valley as well.  (Not technically 'scams'--but certainly not 'on the level' ethically-speaking, and not a wise investment.)

There are a few possible reasons for this:

(1) World influence:  Probably the simplest explanation.  Church members aren't made of stone.  They live in the real world just like everyone else--getting caught up in the secular luxuries that society pushes upon us: new flatscreen plasma TVs, nicer cars, etc.  And when you get two to three new credit card applications in the mail every week, it's hard not to be tempted to splurge a little and get some nice things for around the house. 

(2) Young families:  This is more of a strictly LDS issue.  The secular world (middle class and above, anyway) rarely starts a family before the college degree is in hand and a 'real' job is in place.  In LDS culture, on the other hand, you'll find 21-year-old freshly returned missionaries getting married and having their first kid before they are even a sophomore in college--years away from that first 'real' job ...and 'real' income.

As a single guy, I never worried about financial difficulties that much--I could sleep in a tent if I had to, and I'd be okay.  Under no circumstances would I be letting my wife and baby sleep in a tent, though--and that's really the kicker.  Guys with families have much greater financial responsibilities...and worries, and it's understandable that they would feel much greater pressure to get money as fast as they can.  No one wants to struggle day after day with a $7.50 an hour college student job for years and years, while going to school at the same time, and having a wife and kids to feed.  It's natural, then, that they would be more susceptable to those 'special offers', which claim you can earn four to five figures a month with only a little work...after you pay the entry fee, of course.

(We know a 'struggling student' couple where the husband just joined a local sales organization where you have to pay $1000 up front and $100 a month for the 'privilege' of selling their products.  And, no--surprise, surprise--he hasn't been able to sell enough to make up his expenses every month...  Why offers like this don't send great big red warning lights flashing above the heads of more people is a real mystery...  Seriously, is there a big difference between this and gambling away $100 a month on slot machines, hoping for that big score?)

(3) Entitlement:  This one is harder to quantify, but on a psychological level I think this is a real factor in the lives of many Saints.  A guy will think: I've served a mission, I got married in the temple, I pay my tithing, my wife stays at home and takes care of the kids like she's 'supposed' to, I'm doing everything right.  I should not be struggling financially.  The Lord owes me.

You see, this person has read the scriptures saying money isn't that important...but he's also read the scripture in Malachi that says the windows of heaven will be opened such that you won't have room to receive it all.  And he's read the passage immediately after Jacob says 'before ye seek for riches, seek ye for the kingdom of God' which says: "after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them;" (Jacob 2:19)

It's easy for righteous men and women to think that they should be entitled to some measure of financial success--not necessarily to buy boats and gold-encrusted watches, but so their families can have some financial security.   It's easy to see how, when those aforementioned 'get rich quick' schemes come along, they might think, "This is the Lord blessing me with an opportunity for wealth as a reward for my righteousness.  There's can't be anything wrong...after all, the people giving me this offer are all Church members!'

I'm 'lucky' in a way that I didn't get married until after my graduation.  (Due more to the fact that--before "The Baroness" showed up--no girl could stand to be with me for any length of time, rather than a conscious decision to wait on my part...)  We avoided many of the struggles of our student friends due to that...but also due to being somewhat conservative with our finances.   We wait until things are on sale to buy them, we mooch used things off of people we know who are moving instead of buying new ones, and we don't pay much attention to the numerous people who have approached us with 'great money-making and investment opportunities'.  Money management is hard to learn--requiring as it does both discipline and patience.  Yet, the pitfalls of not learning it are obvious...and increasingly dangerous.  So, expect more talks on gambling, avoiding debt, and money matters in general.  Like all gospel topics, they'll keep saying it until we start to listen...

Conference Aftermath III: Mormons and Catholics

It was probably bad 'timing' for the Pope's death to happen during General Conference weekend, since Utah is the one place where the news from Italy would have stiff competition for headline space.  The media treatment of Pope John Paul II has been almost entirely positive (perhaps surprisingly), demonstrating the axiom that (Hitler excluded), people will tend to emphasize only positive things after someone dies--even from people who rarely mentioned positive things when they were alive... 

The relationship between Mormons and Catholics is a complicated one--hopefully, we've passed the point where Catholics are all part of the 'great and abominable Church' in Mormon eyes.  President Hinckley's tribute to the Pope should put that notion to rest, if it hasn't already... 

In reality, the Catholic Church is probably the closest to the LDS Church in many aspects.  Those churches are really the only two that have a claim to direct authority from Jesus Christ.  (Most Protestant churches don't bother even pretending...)  Both churches have fairly established hierarchies and internal organizations--with all the advantages and disadvantages that brings.

Over the last few years, it is the sexual abuse scandals that have largely defined the Catholic Church--meaning that is the first thing that comes to mind for non-Catholics when the Church is mentioned.  While on a far lesser scale, sexual abuse scandals have also hit the LDS Church, with similar complaints of local leaders trying to ignore or cover up the problem.  Many people have argued that Pope John Paul (and President Hinckley, too) are 'responsible' for the abuses committed by church leaders by (a) creating the system that causes the abuse, and/or (b) failing to prevent the abuse from happening.  Is this fair?

Neither man 'created' the system they serve(d) in, of course--the church organizations had both been in place for years and years before those two individuals attained the top leadership position of the faith.  I don't believe either system could be considered to have 'caused' the problem, either--only that the perpetrators have found a place to exist within the system.  I'm not at all clear what the detractors of either faith expected either man to be able to do, to stop any and all abuse from happening...

On the Catholic side, having priests be able to marry might be a partial solution--but LDS bishops, of course, have always been able to marry--and yet, abuse can still occur...  Neither Pres. Hinckley nor whomever becomes the new pope will be able to eliminate such abuse, because neither man has the power to do so.  Once free agency has been given to man, there really isn't any way for anyone to stop them from using it for harm.

Which leads into the next point...the people who demand an end to the abuse are essentially asking--and blaming--the wrong person.  They should be looking toward the real leader of the LDS and Catholic Churches--that is, Jesus Christ himself.  Presumably, the Lord has the power to either (a) dynamically reveal all current and potential abusers among priests and bishops to the pope and/or the prophet, or perhaps (b) simply stretch forth His hand and prevent the abuse from happening directly.  He does not, of course, which demonstrates that free agency must and will be respected from on high, no matter what.  It's the Lord's system we live in, and if He has decreed that we'll be agents unto ourselves, for good and bad, then that's the way it is--and no amount of effort from the part of Church leaders is going to eliminate it.

In an interesting way, the state of the Catholic Church today can be paralleled to what the LDS Church may become in the future--or, alternately, what it already has become on a smaller scale in areas of Utah and Idaho.  Catholicism is not just a religion in many parts of the world--it is also the predominant culture of many communities (and countries, even).  Catholic principles and customs have become so common among people in certain areas that they are taken for granted, and much of the spiritual aspect is lost.  These 'secular Catholics' are involved with the cultural aspects of Catholicism, including Church attendance (or at least on Easter and Christmas), but pay the spiritual and eternal concepts of the Church little mind--enough that being Catholic probably doesn't register as a 'religion' in their minds at all...

(Two of my friends in high school were Catholic--one fairly devout and the other as 'secular' as they come.  The two of them argued more about religion between themselves than either of them did with any of the Mormons.  Not too different than the discussions between conservative and liberal Mormons in the Bloggernacle today...)

While on a smaller scale, you can see the same thing in the LDS areas of Utah and Idaho today.  Many Saints are enveloped in the cultural aspects of LDS life in Utah, and have often lost sight of the true spirit behind the Church.  While it's harder to be a 'secular Mormon' due to a more pronounced spiritual emphasis behind most Church functions (and the inherent difficulty in being a member), you can see the trend starting.  The larger the Church population, the larger the divide between the devout members who really 'get it', and those on the other end who exist within the Church culture without attaining nor desiring spiritual growth.

While, of course, the LDS Church would love to have as many members as the Catholics do, having that many Church members will inevitably bring many of the same difficulties.  I've always been amazed at how many Catholics openly disregard--and often actively oppose--the teachings of the pope...yet still consider themselves 'active' Catholics.  When the scope of membership includes that many people, it's perhaps unavoidable.  You can see today the slow but steady rise of 'active' Mormons who openly view the teachings of the LDS Church with disdain--something you'd probably never see in Brigham Young's time.  I think that's more to do with the increased size of the Church, than a specific change in attitudes from one century to the next.  Today, you can find a large group of 'core' members, who are as faithful and steadfast as the early LDS pioneers...but also a larger number of 'fringe' members who were (a) born in a fifth-generation LDS family and never caught the spirit, or (b) joined the Church because they wanted to fit in to the popular culture here in Utah, without any particular interest in spiritual things.  (Utah is the one place where you're more likely to gain friends than lose friends by converting.  And, for better or worse, that is an unmistakable factor in some people choosing to be baptized...)

Will the LDS Church become tomorrow what the Catholic Church is today?  Only time will tell...but I think it's obvious that the two Churches share a lot in common, and the parallels between the two will be interesting to monitor...