(This is NOT an April Fool’s joke.)

Our Burning Bosom bloggers Andrew and Shawn now have a new home over at Mormon Matters.  Our three other bloggers are taking a sabbatical.  So what this means, folks, is that Burning Bosom is closing up shop.  But Andrew and Shawn would love you to come join the conversation with us over at Mormon Matters, which has been getting up to 2,000 unique visitors each day.

So inquiring minds may want to know: how did Burning Bosom do during its three-and-a-half month ride?  Better than we expected (then again, our expectations were low).  We thought that our hard core cult following (ha ha), or anyone else who’s curious might be interested in these “blog stats:

Blog Start Date: Dec. 18, 2007

Blog End Date: Apr. 1, 2008

Highest Traffic Day: 591 views on Mar. 19, 2008

Total Views (at time this was written): 12,713

Total Posts Written:  84 

Top Posts of All Time:

In Relief Society, “No means No!” (605 views)

Adventures In Apostasy (508 views)

Why I Am Not a Disaffected Mormon (377 views)

Reflections On My First Sunstone Symposium (373 views)

Rewriting My “Testimony Rules” (331 views)

Top Referrers:

timesandseasons.org

mormonblogs.org

asoftanswer.com

Thanks to everyone who ever bothered to stop by Burning Bosom to check out our two-cents on whatever random Mormon-related topics were  on our minds.

Hope to see you over at Mormon Matters!

Surely this is one of the strangest aftershocks of the so-called ”Mitt Moment.”   

Over the past several weeks and months, I’ve noticed an interesting trend:  news reports in which young starlets confess to being a former Mormon.  As a general rule, I have little to no interest in the rare intersection between our faith and celebrity.  I’ve never speculated about the religious affiliation of Lionel Ritchie or Steve Martin, I swear (but did you hear about Rick Schroeder . . .)   Apart from Brother Mitt, I cannot imagine why the long-since-abandoned faith of Hollywood movers and shakers is of general interest.  And when stars talk about Mormonism, it generally never rises above Roseanne’s snide comments that “[t]he Mormons are the most fundamental of all the fundamentalists on earth.. they put the MENTAL in fundamental…” (emphasis in original).  

This recent spate of stories, however, evidences a welcome change in tone. Perhaps the most widely-distributed stories deal with Katherine Heigl, star of TV’s “Grey’s Anatomy” and last summer’s comedy “Knocked Up.”  Ms. Heigl (pictured above) — who apparently now smokes like a chimney — and her family converted to the Church when she was 7 years old.   In a recent story, Ms. Heigl claimed she gave up activity in the Church because she “got really lazy.”  However, rather than dissing, demonizing or dismissing Mormonism as a relic of her youth, Ms. Heigl took the time to pay us a compliment:  “I still love the theology of the Mormon religion and I think it is a wonderful way to grow up.”  This isn’t only instance where she has spoken highly of the Church.  Here’s just one more example:  In an interview with Glamour magazine (which does not necessarily look kindly on those of faith, other the Kabalah), Ms. Heigl said:

“I am really supportive of the Mormon church and so profoundly grateful for the childhood I had. It’s hard work to grow and change and be honest with yourself about your mistakes, and I think the Mormons handle that beautifully. The faith I grew up with has influenced every decision I’ve made in my life — well, except for the bad ones! . . . . I’ve always thought I would raise [my kids] Mormon because I had such a wonderful childhood. In today’s world you look around and the decisions 14-year-olds are making about sex just horrify me: I wasn’t thinking about any of that as a kid. So I’d like to give my children the same sense of security and ease.”

Two other actresses who have outted themselves as Jack Mormons are Amy Adams and Eliza Dushku.  Ms. Adams, who received an Oscar nomination for her work in “Junebug” and who starred in last year’s “Enchanted,” grew up in a large Mormon family, but left the Church at age 11 when her parents divorced.   While Ms. Adams doesn’t speak much about her time in the Church, she did have this to say in a recent interview with Time Out Chicago: ”Well, we stopped practicing at some point, but before that it was just somewhere you went on Sunday. I didn’t think of it as different. But there are values and teachings I take with me: don’t lie, observe the Golden Rule. I can’t even yell at a New York taxi driver without feeling like I have to apologize for losing my temper. “

Ms. DusHku, known to geeks worldwide as Faith from “Buffy the Vampire Slayer,” is a bit more interesting.  To begin, she is the daughter of noted Mormon feminist and author Dr. Judith Dushku, a founder of Exponent II (see here for a profile in the Boston Globe).  Plus, Ms. Dushku once told a reporter she had been “kicked out of Mormon girls’ camp for talking about seeing two men kiss.”  In that same story, Ms. Dushku tells how her Mormon grandmother called Michael Ovitz to complain, “My 17-year-old granddaughter is naked on the television!”  You can see video of Ms. Dushku talking about her “Mormon Posse” at the most recent Sundance Film Festival here.

So, what is the spiritual and eternal significance of all of this?  Beats me.  Its just refreshing — in the midst of the beating we have been getting in the press as a result of the Romney campaign — to hear someone, even if jits just a couple of actresses, saying a kind word in our defense.  But sorry Sister Heigl, I still can’t bring myself to watch your show; I’m an “ER” man.

In the scriptures, specifically Section 4 of the Doctrine and Covenants, we read that “the field is ripe already to harvest…” However, the experience of my own mission to France was, to put it lightly, quite the opposite… at least that’s how I felt at the time. It took a while after the mission to come to the realization that the field may have been ripe, but all that didn’t matter if the farmers stopped believing there is a crop (or didn’t work in the field to try and make it grow).

The beginning of this realization came a little more than a year into my mission. My zone leader invited me to a bishopric council meeting which he attended monthly. As happened every time missionaries were in attendance the missionaries were asked if we had any investigators, and where they were in the discussions.

The last straw for me happened during Bishopric’s council. The zone leader at the time invited me to attend with him that week since I was in town for the meeting (I was in a separate town where we met in a small room for “independent Sunday School” with only about 10 members in the town). The bishop asked if we had any investigators coming to church that week. Before we could answer, the Relief Society President at the time sarcastically blurted out, “Ha, yeah elders, do you have anyone coming EVER?” She laughed as she said it, and it made me furious with to see her lack of faith in our ability to succeed.

After leaving the meeting I decided to do what any hard working missionary would do, prove her wrong! OK, so that’s not exactly a “righteous desire,” per se, but it did motivate me to do more. I’ll get back to what happened in this area and what we, as missionaries, did to bring about change.

It also taught me a greater lesson. One that I’ve carried with me since it happened. Personally, I believe their are people earnestly seeking the truth and to have Christ in their life throughout the globe. This is even in France, a country that many believe to be nearly devoid of any potential converts. So here is my perhaps controversial opinion: The Lord wants to bless His people, and he wants people to join His church. If I have you thinking “what’s so controversial about that?” just wait, there’s more.

I also believe that the Lord blesses us for our faith, and holds back blessings when we lack faith. In this same regard, it is my belief that when members do not believe missionaries will find people to teach and baptize, they won’t. Well, they may, but it definitely makes it a more arduous process for the missionaries. If the ward is not ripe with faith and all the good virtues the Lord asks of His disciples, then why would He bless them to harvest souls.

This is why I called this post “The Parable of the Faithless Soil.” How can a farmer reap what he’s sown, if he knows the soil is not fertile? At best, his harvest will only provide a couple good stalks. On that same note, why would the Lord want to plant those who are righteously seeking the truth in a field missing such a key and vital nutrient as faith. That was my experience in many of the areas I served in France. That members didn’t believe we would find anyone. Their lack of faith was holding them back.

So what did we do to change things in the ward in France? First, we had to start by drinking the religious Kool-Aid ourselves. We focused as a zone on increasing our faith that the Lord did want us to find those seeking the truth. We then went to work with the members to “prepare the soil.”

We were fortunate to have one sacrament meeting each month where we gave the talks and prepared special musical numbers. For a few months in a row we preached to the members that for us to succeed, they needed to believe we could AND that the Lord wanted to bless them with new members to help grow and strengthen their ward. We also took this message to their homes, and anytime we had any activity with them we made sure to speak positively about our efforts. It didn’t take long before we were seeing the fruits of our labors.

We didn’t experience a conversion similar to what Ammon did, but we did see five inactive members start coming back to church and had two baptisms in a span of three months. That was seven more members than the ward had seen in several months. What was more miraculous, the small group that met for “Independent Sunday School” in a small town on the Italian border, welcomed three new members in less than a year. The faith of those members was astounding.

Do I believe France will ever produce the amount of converts that any country in Latin America does? No. Do I believe the Lord has people He would like missionaries and members to find, even in France? Absolutely. Is it because the members and missionaries lack the faith to find them? Partly. I’d be lying if I didn’t think pride also played a role. But I do think the lack of faith is a major contribution to the missionary cause being so slow.

So what say you? Is it faith? Bad missionaries? Pride? France in general? I stand by my comments, but look forward to hearing your thoughts.

It’s that age-old question: are Mormons Christians? It seems like every time I read an LDS news website or happen across a Christian blog, one of the topics that always boils to the top is whether the Christian world considers Mormons as sitting inside or outside the revival tent.

This question usually comes down to how each individual party defines the word Christian. Some say it is defined as a disciple of the biblical Christ, others as a member of a protestant church, others define it as a person who has “accepted Christ as their personal Savior” (which I, as a Mormon, have done), while others say that unless you have a cross on your church you cannot be considered a Christian.

What do I say? I don’t care if they think we are Christians.

A prominent evangelical Christian recently “apologized” for his group’s un-acceptance of Mormons as Christians. Even so, I often stand all amazed at the attempts of some of my fellow Mormons who argue, quarrel, and squabble over the point that we are Christians. The rest of the Christian world has their own specific definition of “Christian”, and sometimes we try and either (1) force them to change their definition to make it wide enough to accept Mormons or (2) come up with our own definition of Christian so that we feel included. Does it really matter that much? I guess I don’t see the point in spending exhorbitant energy and time trying convince the Christian world that they should let us into their tent.

We can still be friends with them. We can work together on social issues (which we nearly fall into direct agreement with). We can go out to dinner together. We can invite them over to barbeques and birthday parties. We can even agree on and discuss many of the same doctrines of Christ that we each hold: His life, His ministry, His divinity, etc. In the end, I don’t care if they think I am a “Christian” by their definition or not….I simply want my actions to convince them that I am a disciple of Christ….call that whatever they want.

I personally like the positions that Pres. Hinckley[1] and Elder Ballard[2] have demonstrated: they tell it like it is, what we believe in, who we believe Christ is, the focus that we have on him, etc. If the rest of Christendom doesn’t accept it, then fine. But I will still invite them to play golf on Saturday.

Am I wrong on this? Should this be a focus? Should we be concerned and spend lots of time and energy trying to convince them that we too should be included in their group?

…

[1] “Are we Christians? Of course we are Christians. We believe in Christ. We worship Christ. We take upon ourselves in solemn covenant His holy name. The Church to which we belong carries His name. He is our Lord, our Savior, our Redeemer through whom came the great Atonement with salvation and eternal life.” 

Gordon B. Hinckley, “What Are People Asking about Us?,” Ensign, Nov 1998, 70

…
[2] “I bear solemn witness that we are true and full believers in the Lord Jesus Christ and in His revealed word through the Holy Bible. We not only believe the Bible—we strive to follow its precepts and to teach its message. The message of our missionaries is Christ and His gospel and His Atonement, and the scriptures are the text of that message. We say to all people, ‘We extend our love to you and invite you to come. Let us share all that God has revealed.’” 

M. Russell Ballard, “The Miracle of the Holy Bible,” Ensign, May 2007, 80–82

A recent news article cites a study that portrays Utah as the most depressed state in the U.S. The article suggests Mormon culture is at least partly to blame for Utahns’ depression, and features photos of a pill bottle and a depressed-looking woman superimposed over the Salt Lake temple.

A post by Kaimi Wenger at T&S touched off a flurry of debate and speculation about whether Utahns are, in fact, more depressed than their fellow Americans and, if so, whether Mormon culture is at least partly to blame. The most common theories and conclusions were:

Conclusion #1: Utahns are not significantly more depressed than anyone else. The main theories advanced to support this conclusion are:
a. Utahns are simply more honest in reporting their depression.
b. Utahns report more depression than non-Utahns because they are not self-medicating with alcohol to mask their depression from themselves.
c. The high amount of anti-depressant prescriptions in Utah exists, not because Utahns are more depressed than anyone else, but because Utah has an excellent mental health care system that provides treatment to those who need it.

Conclusion #2: Utahns are significantly more depressed than others, but Mormon culture has nothing to do with it. The main theories advanced to support this opinion are:
a. Lower education levels correlate with higher depression levels, and Utahns have comparatively lower education levels.
b. Utahns have less available mental health care facilities and professionals.
c. Utahns cannot afford to use the mental health care that is available to them, perhaps because of a lack of health insurance coverage.
d. Utah has a smaller gene pool than other states, which can result in higher depression rates.

Conclusion #3: Utah is significantly more depressed than other states, and Mormon culture is at least partly to blame. The overall theory behind this conclusion is that Mormons, who comprise 70% of Utah’s population, have a Church culture that is demanding, emphasizes perfection, obedience and conformity, and creates an undercurrent of competition that leads to feelings of inadequacy, depression, and suicide.

Over the past week or so, I’ve been able to digest the study and its underlying data, and to compare it against the theories outlined above. I was quite surprised by what I learned, and thought you might be interested to hear about it. But first, I should make an important disclaimer: I have absolutely no formal training whatsoever in psychology, statistics, or any other discipline that would qualify me to write this post. However, to be fair to myself, I should mention that I am a Doctor of Metaphysics, as well as a Certified Jedi Knight, so that ought to more than make up for it.

The Key Findings

The key findings reported by the Mental Health America study are as follows:

• Utah has the highest percentage of adults reporting a major depressive episode from 2004-05. (10.14%)
• Utah has the 3rd-highest percentage of adults reporting serious psychological distress from 2004-05 (14.58%)
• Utah has the 4th-highest percentage of adolescents reporting a major depressive episode from 2004-05. (10.14%)
• Utah has the 7th-highest suicide rate in the nation.

When these factors are combined and compared to others states, Utah comes out as the most depressed state in the U.S.

Some Interesting Correlations on a National Level

The study states that depression and suicide rates are generally influenced by three factors: biology, environment, and access to mental health care. When it comes to access to mental health care, some interesting correlations on a national level were noted:

• On average, the higher the number of psychologists, psychiatrists, and social workers per capita in a state, the lower the state’s suicide rate.
• The lower the percentage of a state’s population reporting they could not obtain mental health care because of cost, the lower the depression and suicide rates.
• The lower the percentage of a state’s population reporting unmet mental health care needs, the lower the depression rates.
• The higher the number of anti-depressant prescriptions per capita in a state, the lower the suicide rate.
• The higher the percentage of population covered by health insurance, the lower the suicide rate.
• The more educated a state’s population is, the lower the depression and suicide rates.

Utah: A Peculiar State

Based on the documented correlations listed above, one would expect Utah’s high depression and suicide rates to be easily explained by low numbers of mental health care professionals, low anti-depressant prescriptions, low education levels, low health insurance coverage levels, and high numbers of people reporting unmet health care needs and an inability to obtain mental health care due to cost. But Utah is not the worst when it comes to any of those factors.

Here is how Utah ranks in comparison to other states when it comes to the availability of mental health care (including the District of Columbia, so all the ranks below are out of 51):

• State mental health authority expenditures per capita: 26th
• No. of specialty mental health organizations providing 24 hr. treatment: 38th
• No. of specialty mental health organizations providing less than 24 hr. treatment: 45th
• No. psychiatrists per 100,000 population: 44th
• No. psychologists per 100,000 population: 24th
• No. socialworkers per 100,000 population: 23rd

As you can see, Utah has mid-to-low rankings when it comes to the availability of mental health care, but it is by no means the worst. As an example, Texas ranks even lower than Utah in all but one of the categories above, and yet still manages to be in the top 10 least-depressed states. So the availability of mental health care doesn’t seem to be what’s driving Utah’s depression numbers.

When it comes to the affordability of mental health care, Utah ranks mid-to-low again:

• Percent of population reporting could not get health care because of cost: 23rd
• Percent of population with health insurance: 35th

But Utah is by no means the worst in these categories either. Again, by way of comparison, Texas ranks even lower than Utah on both these factors, but still falls within the top 10 least-depressed states.

And despite any shortcomings in the availability and affordability of mental health care in Utah, Utah has the 4th highest percentage of population receiving mental health care treatment (17.4%). And Utah ranks above-average (18th) in anti-depressants prescribed per-capita, which one would expect to correlate with lower suicide rates in Utah, but for some reason does not.

What is more perplexing is that even though Utah ranks 4th-highest in percentage of population receiving mental health care treatment, somehow Utah also has the highest percentage of population reporting unmet needs for mental health care treatment in the past year (8.2%). One would expect a state with high percentage of population receiving treatment (like Utah) to have a correspondingly low amount of unmet treatment needs. But not in Utah. This gives you an idea of how great the demand is for mental health care treatment in Utah.

Why would Utah’s demand for mental health care treatment be so high? It is unclear. But we can also probably rule out economic and educational factors, because Utah has the 8th-highest median household income in the nation, and 24th-highest percentage of population with a college degree.

So What Is Behind Utah’s Depression?

The data above suggest there is something strange going on in Utah. When it comes to depression and suicide, Utah just doesn’t “act like” other states. It defies most of the correlations that exist on a national level. Which leads to the obvious question: if Utah’s depression numbers don’t seem to be driven by the “normal” factors, what is behind Utah’s depression and suicide numbers? What makes Utah so peculiar?

In my next post, I will address two peculiar theories about Utah’s depression and suicide numbers: the “Shrunken Gene Pool” theory, the “Lack of Alcoholic Self-Medication” theory, as well as the 2,000 pound elephant in the room: Mormon culture.

(P.S. For any readers who actually are qualified to analyze these matters, please feel free to completely rip my amateur analysis to shreds.)

As a Christian, does this comic offend you?  Does it cross the oh-so-fine line between humor and sacrilege?  For the staff at BYU’s Daily Universe, the answer to both questions was a very definite “yes.” 

The March 10-14, 2008 Dilbert strips dealt with the exploits of a new cubicle dweller named Jesus, pronounced “Hay-Soos.”  (You can find all of the strips here.)  Over the short course of his career, Jesus gains a following among the staff and proclaims himself the “saver of databases.”  Eventually, management (after being tipped off by Dilbert in exchange for 40 shares of company stock) fires Jesus out of fear that he is bucking for the CEO’s job, only to find that he has returned several days later. 

Both generally and in these specific strips, Dilbert does not aspire to especially high-brow or edgy humor.  Nevertheless, the Universe Editorial Staff found the cartoons so offensive that they switched them out for old, presumably less-charged, strips (I bet they all had something to do with that weird talking dog thing that works in the office).  As is the case with virtually every decision made at BYU, student reaction — as reflected in the subsequent Letters to the Editor — was mixed, with supporters thanking the Universe for being a watchman on the tower against sacrilege, and detractors calling the paper “a biased, pro-censorship media outlet.”

Days later, in a rather terse editorial entitled “No Apologies For Replacing Offending Dilbert Cartoons, the Universe staff stood its ground, justifying their stance with the following analysis:

“While it may seem blasphemous to some modernists, the unrestrained flow of information (even with something as non-consequential as a cartoon) is not our highest aim at The Daily Universe, nor is it at any reputable news organization. Journalists have a responsibility to their community - not only to provide it with the best possible information that informs and engages its readership, but also to think of the overall good of itself and of the community. News organizations must constantly calculate what is to be gained and lost with what is sent to the press. In this case, the decision was an easy one.”

Given the context, I find their use of the word “blasphemous” to be a bit confrontational.  Moreover, I recognize Dilbert is not high art, but I’m not sure cartoons are so “non-consequential” that they may be dismissed out of hand as a somehow lesser form of journalism.  (Don’t think cartoons can convey a powerful message?  Try telling that to Benjamin Franklin, Richard Nixon or even Mitt Romney.) 

The bigger issues raised, however, are (i) the role of the Universe as the arbiter of information at BYU, and (ii) the appropriate use of religious imagery.  As to the first point, I certainly agree (and so will any other former Zoobie) that “the unrestrained flow of information” is not the “highest aim at The Daily Universe.”  I also agree that journalists “have a responsibility”; I just happen to believe that that responsibility requires an honest and open exchange of ideas.   Regardless of their spin, the Editorial Staff did not act here to censor a objectively-identifiable obscenity or falsehood.  Rather, they used a narrow, lowest-common-denominator approach to Christianity, denying their readers an opportunity to make up their own minds as to the appropriateness of the cartoon at issue.  That, my friends, is censorship.   I can’t see how the “overall good” of the BYU community was served by this knee-jerk decision.  As to the second point, if this cartoon is considered too offensive to print, can there ever be a printable discussion of Christ or sacred Mormon issues in a context outside worship?  Humor definitely can go too far, but are we so thin-skinned that we can’t handle a comic strip like this?  What’s next?  Should we look askance at the Family Circus the next time Jeffy cracks wise about Christmas?  

Personally, I’ve never liked Dilbert, so I find these strips just as offensive as every other Dilbert on the sole ground that they’re just not funny.  But I recognize that reasonable minds may differ.  Let’s hear what you have to say.

After a year off, the Easter Bunny is scheduled to make a return visit to our home this weekend.  My wife and I, parents of three young daughters, have been mulling over this decision for the past few weeks and, quite honestly, it may change in the next 48 hours.   Last year, we decided we were giving up the Easter Bunny altogether on the notion that it unnecessarily drew attention away from the more sacred aspects of the holiday.  Not a bad idea in principle, right?  Well . . .

Looking back, we went a bit overboard — no egg hunt at our house (we participated in the neighborhood egg hunt the day before), no baskets or gifts, and only a bit of candy.  The problem was, we neglected to discuss this change in approach with our children in advance. 

So, on Easter morning, my oldest came downstairs and looked all over for her Easter basket.  After a few frustrating minutes, she came to me and asked whether the Easter Bunny had come.  I broke the news to her — the Easter Bunny is not real, I told her in the gentlest way I could.  The news did not come as too much of a surprise because, as she explained, she never quite figured out why a rabbit would be passing out eggs (not to mention the mystery of how the EB would have come into the possession of that many eggs in the first place).  We had a nice chat about Easter, and she seemed to get it.  However, she ended our conversation by asking, “But Santa is real, right.”  Coward that I am, my answer was, “Of course.”

For this year, my wife and I (to be honest, mostly my wife) had planned a short Easter program, which involved scripture reading and hymn singing.  Given other, more pressing concerns (illness, piano lessons, soccer games, etc.), we never found time to focus on putting the program together.  So, we have decided to scale it down a bit.  Plus, after much nagging from our girls, we have decided to relent and give Easter baskets again.   Welcoming the Easter Bunny back into our lives certainly will detract a bit from the sacred tone of our day, but let me tell you,  what these baskets will lack in spirituality, they will more than make up for in pure peace of mind.  

So, as you head into the weekend, how do your and family plan to celebrate Easter?  How do you reconcile the spiritual with the secular (or do you even care)? 

Last month, the Church released a statement regarding Peter Danzig’s (a member of the Church’s Orchestra at Temple Square in SLC) public disagreement surrounding same-gender marriage.[1] It appears that Peter and his wife were very active members of the Church, serving and attending in their local ward. But they disagreed with a 1st Presidency letter sent to local leaders back in 2006 “urging members to ‘express themselves’ on a forthcoming vote in the United States Senate relating to the definition of marriage.”[2]

Peter then sent a letter to the SL Tribune, saying that he “…was troubled that my church requested I violate my own conscience to write in support of an amendment I feel is contrary to the constitution and to the gospel of Christ.” It sounds like he also encouraged other members of the Church to oppose Church leaders on the issue. After 18 months of counseling with local leaders, Peter voluntarily withdrew his membership in the Church by his own formal written request. The Church stated that he was “not officially disciplined by the Church”.

The story is quite interesting. But what I find even more interesting is what else the Church’s statement mentioned:

“Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are encouraged to study, learn and ask questions in their quest for knowledge.  Gordon B. Hinckley, 15th president of the Church said:  ‘This Church came about as a result of intellectual curiosity. We believe in education … we expect them (Church members) to think. We expect them to investigate. We expect them to use their minds and dig deeply for knowledge in all fields.’”

This is an incredible statement. I love it. I love that Pres. Hinckley said it. For some odd reason, those who search after truth, who dig, who investigate, are often shunned in the church as weirdos or apostates. Even though we are commanded to individually search after knowledge and truth (many references, for one see here).

The statement continues:

“However, it is not acceptable when their digging and questioning leads to public opposition against doctrine Church leaders are obliged to uphold.  That doesn’t mean that Church leaders don’t listen and consider opposing views.  Quite the contrary.  Local bishops and stake presidents love and are concerned about all members of the flock.  This is the purpose of counseling provided by local Church leaders who know and care for each individual in their congregations.  Honest disagreements are not the same as public advocacy of positions contrary to those of the Church. When disagreements arise, the principle of the Church is that local leaders discuss these matters with members with love and concern.”

Again, what a fascinating statement. Honest disagreements, when acted on appropriately, are perfectly fine. There is a designated channel for members with honest disagreements to counsel with and even question local leaders. The statement makes it very clear that “appropriate” means in counsel with local leaders, not in public opposition.  Also, it says that church leaders do listen and do consider opposing views.

Even though I consider myself an orthodox Mormon who agreeably supports his local leaders and their local mandates, for some reason I find these statements quite refreshing.

…

[1] LDS Newsroom - Danzig

[2] LDS Newsroom - 2006 Letter

Other Note: SL Tribune article

This weekend, I (along with my co-blogger, Andrew) attended my first Sunstone Symposium this past weekend in Claremont, California.  You’ll note from its title that this post does not aspire to be a comprehensive report of the weekend’s events.   But, in hopes of disabusing people of the same sorts of prejudices I held for so long (as explained below), let me share with you a few thoughts about my experience.   

To begin, a bit of background.  In my house growing up, Sunstone was a “hiss and a byword,” spoken of only with disdain (if it was ever spoken of at all).  As far as I understood the world, Sunstone was a rogue publication authored and consumed exclusively “liberal Mormons,” all of whom were on the high road to apostasy with their prayers to Heavenly Mother and revisionist views of Book of Mormon historicity (not to mention their peepstone fetishism).   Put another way, I saw reading Sunstone as a direct poke in the eye to the Church.  I went on my mission and then came back to BYU in the early 1990’s with these notions firmly in place.  The concurrent rash of BYU firings and excommunications only served to cement my prejudices.

Over the past few years, as I have become enraptured with Mormon Studies, I have had rethink my Sunstone position.  I have subscribed to Dialogue for some time now, but Sunstone, for some unexplainable reason. still carried a bit of a stigma.  It wasn’t until this past year, when Sunstone digitized much their archives and I began actually reading the articles (what a novel concept!), that I shook off my old beliefs and have come to see the good in Sunstone. While I certainly don’t agree with everything I read, I value its contribution to the larger discussion.       

So, with that in mind, here are three of things that stick out most in my mind as I look back upon my weekend experiences at Sunstone:

First, I was blown away by the new documentary, “Nobody Knows: The Untold Story of Black Mormons,” produced by Darius Gray and Margaret Young.  Bro. Gray, who converted to the Church as young man in the 1960’s, is a founding member of the Genesis Group, a support group for African-American LDS.  For those who haven’t seen her many posts and comments, Sis. Young, a long-time and frequent contributor to the Bloggernacle, is on the BYU faculty.   This film, very obviously, is a labor of love.  What struck me about it was not the history, but the overall tone.  Unlike so many other versions of these facts, the film does not stoop to Brigham-bashing or finger-pointing.  Rather, the focus is on the very positive contributions that Black members — from Elijah Abel to the young families appearing in the film – have made, and continue to make, to the Church.  Healing old wounds and starting fresh, not placing blame, seems to have been the filmmakers’ driving purpose.  In this, they have succeeded.   Bro. Gray was on hand to share his thoughts about making the documentary.  His strength of will and testimony shone through his words.  I had the chance to chat with him briefly after the presentation.  A handshake didn’t seem big enough to express my emotion, so I hugged him (thankfully, for my dignity, he didn’t refuse me).  As far as I am concerned, any discussion of “pioneers” is incomplete without a nod to people like Bro. Gray who stayed faithful, and soldiered on, through spiritual adversity on the level of any physical trial faced by those who pulled a handcart.  (See a preview of the film and make a tax-deductible donation towards its distribution here).

Second, just as I am when I enter going into any new, unfamiliar environment, I was a bit of nervous about how would be received.  Yes, it may sound irrational, but it definitely was on my mind.   Would I be seen as an outsider, an interloper?   As it turns out, my concerns were wholly unnecessary.  In fact, the Symposium attendees treated me exactly the way we ask and hope our ward members will treat an investigator.  In almost every session, a stranger took the chair to me, introduced themselves with a warm handshake, then asked questions to get to know a bit about me.  On those occasions when I took the lead and introduced myself to someone (both presenter and fellow attendee), my inquiries were well-received and reciprocated with kindness.  I truly was made feel like one the tribe. 

Third, and perhaps most importantly, it was a spiritually uplifting, rather than faith-dampening, event.  For me, I feel more “in tune” with the Spirit when I am intellectually engaged.  Faith promoting rumors and “warm and fuzzy” stories do nothing for me.   The presentations definitely scratched that itch.  My surprise favorite in this regard was a presentation by Robert Rees, entitled ”Mormons and the Cross,” which explored the reasons why Mormons did not accept the Christan cross as unifying symbol, and thoughts on why we could benefit from  its adoption.  Furthermore, presenters were not afraid to interject their own faith into their presentations.  My favorite example of this came during the “Why We Stay” session, which is a staple of every symposium.  One of the participants began by saying:  ”I brought of papers here with me.  But my 2 children and 2 grandchildren are here.  That’s the real reason I stay.”  It was a touching moment for sure. 

In the end, there were no prayers offered to Heavenly Mother, no one referred sarcastically to General Authorities by their first name, and no one mentioned white salamanders.   My take-away from the event was just what I had been hoping to find.  I was challenged intellectually, but never spoken to condescendingly.  I rubbed shoulders with folks whose work I enjoy (Richard & Claudia Bushman; Newell Bringhurst; Robert Rees), and was introduced to new concepts from thinkers previously unknown to me.  Were there opinions with which I didn’t agree?  Of course, but that same thing happens nearly week in my Church meetings, as well.   

Well done, Sunstone — I’ll see you all next year!

Sorry to break from the norm, but I got this from my mom and thought this forum would enjoy it (and who doesn’t enjoy a laugh on Mondays!). Disclaimer, I don’t know if it’s a true story. It probably isn’t. It’s meant to put a smile on your face as you start your week. After you read the story, I’ve included some thoughts and pointers that help me get the most out of my Sunday worship at church.

Why go to church?

A church goer wrote a letter a letter to the editor of a newspaper and complained that it made no sense to go to church every Sunday.

“I’ve gone for 30 years,” he wrote, “and in that time I have heard something like 3,000 sermons. But for the life of me, I can’t remember a single one of them. So, I think I’m wasting my time and the pastors are waisting theirs by giving sermons at all.”

This started a real controversy in the “Letters to the Editor” column, much to the delight of the editor. It went on for several weeks until someone wrote this clincher:

“I’ve been married for 30 years now. In that time my wife has cooked some 32,000 meal. But, for the life of me, I cannot recall the entire menu for a single one of those meals. But I do know this, they all nourished me and gave me the strength I needed to do my work. If my wife had not given me these meals, I would be physically dead today. Likewise, if I had not gone to church for nourishment, I would be spiritually dead today.”

The message should be clear to everyone, but I think the first person’s thoughts are probably felt by a lot of LDS members from time to time, or even more often than that. Going through the motions is something almost everyone is guilty of from time to time, but here are my top five few suggestions to help keep you “nourished” from your weekly ritual of going to church:

1. Bring your scriptures, and use them.
   • Doing so helps you pay attention during talks (even the ones that make the Bishop fall asleep), as well as class. One reason we go to church aside from the most important reason, sacrament, is to be nourished by the good word to prep us for the week ahead. Chances are by following along you’ll find yourself either learning something new, receiving some form of inspiration or stumbling upon a scripture you hadn’t read in a while.
2. Arrive at least 10 minutes early.
   • Sure, arriving early with kids can be difficult (even if you’re church starts at 12:30 p.m. like ours does). And sometimes the extra minutes just give the kids more time to get restless. But arriving early and meditating (again, if possible), or at least getting set and ready for sacrament will help you effectively prepare to be nourished by the spirit. It also helps you prepare spiritually for the sacrament.
3. Prepare for the class you will attend during the week.
   • This applies to you even if you’re teaching a lesson. Don’t just leave it to the night before, although in case I seem all high-and-mighty, let me assure you I’m as guilty as the next person at preparing the night–or worse, the morning of my lesson. Early prep for the class will help you actively participate in the lesson and discussion. It also helps you remember to study your scriptures during the week, hence the byproduct is a good thing as well.
4. Live the gospel.
   • This goes without saying, but it doesn’t always happen. Remember, you are not just LDS on Sunday. It should be apparent in how you conduct yourself during the week. Rely on the lessons and testimonies you heard from the previous Sunday if needed.
5. Concentrate on Christ and the spirit of the sacrament while partaking of the sacrament.
   • Yes, once again this is easier said than done when you have little children crawling or jumping all over you. However, I’ve seen from watching my own son that my example I try to set for him during those few minutes of the meeting can be effective in demonstrating the importance of this sacred ritual. Something I’ve found that helps me keep the spirit of the ordinance while I’m partaking of the bread and the water is to read the words of the hymn we just sung before the bread and water was blessed and passed. In my opinion, this is by far the most important aspect of Sunday worship.