Mark Koltko-Rivera on Masonic Central--Tonight!--Discussing His Dan Brown Book

Mark Koltko-Rivera will be on the Masonic Central podcast this evening, Sunday, December 13, at 9:00 p.m. Eastern time. (You can link to the podcast here.) Mark will be discussing his book, Discovering The Lost Symbol: Freemasons, Magic, Mystery Religions, Noetic Science, and the Idea that We Can Become Gods.


This topic may be of interest to readers of this blog because Mark will be discussing where it is that Dan Brown may have gotten his idea of "apotheosis" (humanity becoming gods), which features so prominently in Brown's new novel, The Lost Symbol. That source, of course, is the LDS doctrine of exaltation. Time allowing, Mark may also discuss the relationship of Freemasonry and the Latter-day Saints. (Any time left over, and he'll take a crack at global warming, too.)

Last Chance! "Hunting The Lost Symbol" on Discovery Channel, Today

The documentary "Hunting The Lost Symbol" will be broadcast today, Sunday, November 1, on Discovery Channel, from 4 pm to 6 pm (Eastern time; check your local listings).


Of course, this documentary focuses on Dan Brown's new novel, The Lost Symbol. There are prominent segments about George Washington, the missing cornerstone to the U.S. Capitol building, Freemasonry, noetic science, Aleister Crowley (mentioned in the novel as an inspiration for the villain), and other topics related to the novel. I myself am one of several experts who are interviewed for the documentary.

The issue of particular interest to Latter-day Saints involves a segment where I discuss Dan Brown's concept of apotheosis--humans becoming gods--and relate that to the LDS doctrine of exaltation. (I was disappointed that the editor cut out my identifying myself as a Latter-day Saint, but such is life.) Dan Brown's novel puts this concept in front of tens of millions of people; this documentary is putting it in front of a few millions more. Enjoy.

Don't Try Drinking Your Way to Health Just Yet

If you're like me, you get a bit of sass now and again from people who mock the LDS Word of Wisdom. In recent years, one favorite thing for this crowd to bring up are the supposed health benefits to be found in moderate drinking. You know what I mean: research shows cardiovascular health benefits from a glass of wine a day, so on and so forth.

I've always been suspicious of this research. (This comes of years teaching statistics and research design.) Nobody seemed to be asking two questions: (1) but what is the downside of moderate drinking? and, (2) could you get those benefits some other way?

Well, now someone has been asking those question, and the answers aren't too favorable for the moderate drinking crowd. In an article featured today on Yahoo!, dating from a Sunday feature on HealthDay, we read that there are some nasty little problems with moderate drinking:

Drinking any alcohol at all is known to increase your risk for contracting a number of types of cancer, said Susan Gapstur, vice president of epidemiology for the American Cancer Society. These include cancers of the mouth, pharynx, larynx, esophagus, liver, colon/rectum and breast. ... [emphasis added]

There also are other health risks from moderate drinking, including liver damage and accidents caused by impaired reflexes, said Dr. Jennifer Mieres, director of nuclear cardiology at the New York University School of Medicine and an American Heart Association spokeswoman.

In addition, indeed there are other ways to get those touted benefits:

The health benefits from drinking generally are related to the antioxidants and anti-inflammatories found in red wines and dark beers, Mieres said, but those substances can be found in a number of different fruits and vegetables.

"When it comes to disease prevention, you're better off changing your diet to include fruits and vegetables and get your antioxidants and anti-inflammatories from natural sources," she said.

For example, people can get resveratrol -- the antioxidant found in red wine that's believed to provide most of the drink's health benefits -- from drinking grape juice just as well as from drinking wine, Mieres said.

The bottom line for these researchers is simple: don't drink alcohol.

"For people that don't drink, not drinking is important," Mieres said. "You can get the same benefits of drinking from leading a heart-healthy lifestyle. To me, it's not worth the risk to start drinking. ..." ...

"I think the take-home message is, if you don't drink, don't start to help protect yourself from coronary heart disease because there are so many other things you can do," Gapstur said. "If you already drink, you might want to limit your consumption."

Though the studies touting the positive health effects of alcohol are scientifically accurate, they also appear to play into people's desires for quick fixes to complex problems, Mieres said.

I heartily recommend looking at the entire on-line article, perhaps even printing it and filing it away (carefully noting the full URL).

When it comes down to it, every passing year shows more evidence of the real wisdom of the World of Wisdom (Doctrine and Covenants, Section 89).

So what's up with me, when it comes to this topic?

I saw alcohol do a good job of destroying lives in my family. My earliest memory of my father recalls him breaking every stick of our living room furniture in a drunken rage. After years of heavy drinking, at the age of 57, he had a brain tumor said to be the size of a grapefruit. (It was probably a disk with the diameter of a grapefruit, I would guess.) He died on the operating room table. My late mother seemed to me to be slipping slowly into the upper reaches of alcoholism herself, when her brain tumor at the age of 53 put her on an anti-seizure medication that prohibited her from ever drinking alcohol again--possibly extending her life.

Is my experience so very extreme? It certainly isn't the stuff of those wonderful magazine or television ads, promising the drinker fellowship, suavidad, and sex appeal. But the conversations I've had with friends, colleagues, acquaintances, and others over the years suggest to me that alcohol, one or our last legal psychoactive but medically useless drugs, has effects such as I saw quite frequently.

Don't be taken in by the 'moderate drinking' crowd. You know a better way.

Salt Lake Tribune Article on The Lost Symbol Discusses the LDS and Freemasonry

Two articles by Ms. Peggy Fletcher Stack in the Friday, October 16, 2009 issue of The Salt Lake Tribune discuss Dan Brown’s new novel The Lost Symbol, and along the way highlight some of the controversial history that connects Freemasonry with the Nauvoo period of LDS history.

In one article, “Psst! Let’s Talk About Masons,” Ms. Stack writes about Freemasonry as it is depicted in The Lost Symbol, and describes aspects of her visit to the Salt Lake Masonic Temple. She quotes John C. Liley (Senior Grand Warden of the Grand Lodge of Utah), Dan Burstein (editor of the forthcoming Secrets of The Lost Symbol), and myself. (I describe my reaction to this article as a Freemason in a post on another blog.)

The LDS connection shows up in another article in this issue, “Mormons Off the Hook in Brown’s Book.” (I am quoted in this article, as well.) Ms. Stack notes that a major theme of The Lost Symbol, apotheosis, or the potential for human beings to become gods, is an echo of the LDS doctrine of exaltation. (I consider this matter in some detail in an earlier post on this blog.) Then she turns to the topic of Masons and Mormons.

Ms. Stack touches briefly on the complicated history of relations between the Latter-day Saints and the Masonic Grand Lodge of Illinois in the early 1840s. She mentions one of the great hairy issues still unresolved from the period, the matter of the relationship between the Masonic rituals of initiation and the Latter-day Saint temple endowment ceremony.

Perhaps it’s just me—I’m sensitized to both sides of the issue, being a Latter-day Saint Freemason, or a Masonic Mormon, take your pick—but I think I’ve seen the profile of this issue slowly rising over the last decade or so. The Latter-day Saints have seen about a 50% increase in membership during this period. The overall number of Masons in the USA and worldwide has dropped during this period (as it unavoidably must, with the passing of the WWII generation of Masons); however, the last six years or so (roughly since the publication of The Da Vinci Code, where Dan Brown mentioned Freemasonry, and since the release of the first National Treasure movie, where Masons are prominently featured), Masonic Lodges around the country have seen an increase in the number of applications. Perhaps the growth of new members in both organizations is why a variety of people—anti-Mormons, anti-Masons, Masons and Saints, and the curious John Q. Public—have shown more interest in the whole Mormon-Mason thing.

I have been writing a book on this issue for some time. Perhaps I need to blog about it as well. It’s a complicated issue, but one concerning which it would be wise for Latter-day Saints to educate themselves, given the certainly rising profiles of Freemasonry and the Latter-day Saints separately, and the possibly rising profile of their long-ago association. For the record, I’ll just throw out a few points:

• This is my reconstruction of events. Over the course of his life, the Prophet Joseph Smith on several occasions encountered some spiritual text, and then received a vision that represented a major development of LDS doctrine and/or practice. Thus, his reading of the letter of James in the New Testament preceded his cataclysmic First Vision of the Father and the Son; his study of a passage in the Gospels preceded his Vision of the Three Degrees of Glory; his viewing of some Egyptian papyri, as these were traveling the country as part of an exhibition, preceded his translation of the Book of Abraham. In my opinion, his exposure to Masonic rituals preceded a vision in which he received the LDS Temple endowment.

• The Masonic rituals of initiation and the LDS temple rituals differ in purpose, form, and mythic setting. What similarities there are, are minimal. Joseph Smith did not steal from the Lodge to give to the LDS Temple.

• The politics of Illinois during this period provoked all sorts of anti-LDS violence. There may well have been Masons in the crowd that assassinated Smith. However, overall, the Lodge is not inherently anti-Mormon, either.

In recent years, I have been disappointed to read some LDS authors repeat some long-held shibboleths regarding Joseph Smith’s involvement in Freemasonry, claiming that Smith was hardly exposed to Masonry, etc. etc. In fact, we know the following.

• In the late 1820s and early 1830s, the beginning of the Anti-Masonic period of American history, there were many public performances of Masonic ritual put on by anti-Masons, precisely in the upstate New York locales where Joseph Smith lived. (This is what the world was like before movies, radio, and television.)

• Joseph Smith’s entry into Masonry was a big public event. His involvement in the procedings was noted in the media, and was exceptionally prominent.

• The Nauvoo Lodge, in the founding of which Joseph Smith was involved, grew so quickly that its irregular procedures became the subject of Masonic investigation.

My own observation is that many Latter-day Saints get qwinky when the subject of Freemasonry comes up. Maybe this is because the modern LDS know so very little about Freemasonry. Maybe this is because, until the mid-1980s, there was a legacy of mutual distrust between the Masons of Utah and the Saints. Maybe this is because the anti-Mormon literature has always made hay out of the Mason-Mormon connection.

For whatever reason, the time has come to get past it all. Freemasonry is an honorable fraternal organization that spreads good values, a claim that I have made publicly in many places. (I write a blog for Freemasons here. Freemasonry is a frequent topic on my Dan Brown-related blog.) We Latter-day Saints have nothing to fear from an honest consideration of the relationship between Freemasonry and the Nauvoo Saints. What I have labeled above as ‘my reconstruction of events’ is a way to understand the relationship between Masonic ritual and LDS temple ceremonial in a way that fits the facts of history, promotes LDS faith, protects the sanctity of the LDS Temple, and maintains the dignity of both the Church and the Lodge.

(Copyright 2009 Mark E. Koltko-Rivera. All Rights Reserved.)

Can LDS Writers Incorporate LDS Ideas in Works for the Mainstream?

Many years ago, I attended an awards dinner in Salt Lake City, celebrating LDS writers. In the course of making dinnertime conversation, I voiced my opinion that it was a shame that more LDS writers were not writing for the mainstream population.

Well, I sure got put in my place.

My recollection is that more than one of my dinner companions responded forcefully that the mainstream culture had no appetite for LDS ideas, would not be interested in reading them, and certainly would not be interested in publishing them.

Perhaps that is why, in our day, Stephanie Meyer's Twilight series -- which features LDS ideas like exaltation and the eternal family unit, without labeling them as such, under the guise of a teenage vampire romance series -- has sold skatey-eight million copies. (The author has her own labeled sections at Barnes and Noble and Borders. That should tell us something.)

Perhaps this is why Orson Scott Card's Ender series -- which features LDS subtext through and through-- was the first occasion for a novel and its sequel to take the highest honors that science fiction writing gets. (Look for the forthcoming movie to be truly massively popular.)

Perhaps that is why, this week, Dan Brown -- the world's bestselling living author of adult fiction -- released a novel whose conclusion features his (somewhat distorted) version of the distinctive and controversial LDS doctrine of exaltation. (As the GB Shaw-inspired message runs in code on the back of the dust jacket: "All great ideas begin as blasphemies.")

Yeah, the people of the mainstream world can't stand to hear LDS ideas. Not at all.

Except when they can't get enough of them.

Let me state this plainly: The body of LDS doctrine -- concepts like atonement; the plan of salvation from pre-mortal existence to exaltation; the eternal family; apostasies, both societal and personal; repentance; consecration; covenant; our own versions of both angels and demons -- present two wonderful advantages for artists and writers:

• First, these concepts are distinctive and inspiring, and have the potential to move individuals and entire societies.
• Second, these concepts have the power to inspire wonderful art. Look at what Dante did with Catholic ideas in The Divine Comedy. Now consider that a good beginning.

My first of two suggestions to LDS writers: don't listen to my dinnertable companions of so long ago. Write your heart out. As artfully as you can, incorporate your vision of the Gospel into your writing. Don't worry about explicitly labeling your ideas as LDS in your writing; get your ideas out there, and people will come to know where your ideas come from. (The first thing that Stephanie Meyers states in her author notes is that "Stephenie Meyer graduated from Brigham Young University"; I don't think that a lot of people read that and miss the fact that she's LDS.)

Something in the world is turning. I don't know how to state it more elegantly, let alone explain it, but . . . something in the world is turning. People are becoming more receptive to at least hearing LDS ideas. Maybe it's the simple fact that there are more of us, over three times more Latter-day Saints in the world than there were when I was baptized during my sophomore year of college in 1975. There are certainly over 7 times the number of temples in the world as there were then. Maybe it's some unexpected manifestation of the Spirit of Elijah. Maybe it's a result of the world falling to pieces, this way and that.

For whatever reason, Latter-day Saints and their religion -- which were simply not on the cultural radar when I was first baptized -- are on the scope now.

Sure, there are negative portrayals of the Latter-day Saints (HBO's Big Love; the forthcoming off-Broadway revival of Angels in America). We also have our share of bizarre fringe elements who attract unfortunate attention in the news media (polygamist arrests in Texas; the kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart). And, frankly, we also have some LDS people in the media who do not put us in a good light.

But we also have a temple in Manhattan. (A temple in Manhattan! This is Galactic Central, as far as American media is concerned. A Manhattan temple would have been material for bad science fiction when I was baptized.) We have missionaries in places like Moscow. (I was ridiculed for the very idea that we would preach in Russia, back in the early Seventies.) In other words, we have a larger presence in the world than we have ever had before. As part of that presence, we have writers like Barbara Kingsolver, Orson Scott Card, Stephanie Meyer, and others who have found a place in the national cultural discourse. Thus, on balance, we have the opportunity to succeed, in working against the negative stereotypes of Latter-day Saints that exist in the media.

Why should we be timid here? Is the world less in need of Gospel-nourished insights than it was yesterday? Are we less creative than we were last week?

My second sugggestion to LDS writers: "Tie yourself to your chair."* Crank up Natasha Bedingfield's "Unwritten," and write every day. No excuses. No whining. Just do it, now, with a plan. (Apologies to Nike and the late LDS President Spencer W. Kimball for mashing their mottos.)

To paraphrase the Talmud: If not us -- who? If not now -- when?

- - - - -

Incidentally, I plan to contribute much more frequently to this blog than I have in recent months. Please feel free to comment. You are also welcome to become an official Follower of the blog. All blog posts are forwardable by e-mail (by clicking the envelope icon at the bottom of each post).

- - - - -

NOTES

My thanks to an anonymous reader who commented on my Dan Brown-related blog regarding Stephanie Meyer. That comment clicked with me, and resulted in this post.

Yes, I have mentioned that dinner before, back in the early '90s in an essay in the now-defunct and lamented Wasatch Review International.

*I am quoting Joshua Henkin from his piece in the September 2009 issue of Writer's Digest (p. 20).

[The images of the woman and the man above were obtained from Wikimedia Commons. The image of the woman, a photo by Produnis, appears under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. The image of the man, "The Writing Master" by Thomas Eakins (1882), is in the public domain.]

The Conclusion of Dan Brown's The Lost Symbol and the LDS Doctrine of Exaltation

[Spoiler Alert: In this blog post, I reveal the conclusion of The Lost Symbol. The major "thriller" plot is resolved before the conclusion, and so I do not reveal the main plot. I believe that the importance to Latter-day Saints of knowing this material outweighs considerations of 'spoiling' one's entertainment experience by reading what follows. However, the choice is yours: if you wish the experience of reading the novel's conclusion 'blind,' then do not read this post until after you have completed reading the novel.]

I must admit: I did not see this coming.

A book destined to become the year's best-selling novel around the world features a version of a central and controversial LDS doctrine. In this post, I describe the situation, and my ideas about what it is that Latter-day Saints might do in response, to further the interests of the Church and the cause of the Gospel. This is a long post; however, given what is potentially at stake for the Latter-day Saints, I think that it will be well worth your attention.

Background: Dan Brown's The Lost Symbol

For the last three months, I have been following the hoopla surrounding the release of Dan Brown's then-forthcoming novel, The Lost Symbol, the sequel to the monumentally successful book, The Da Vinci Code. In particular, I established a blog to analyze the clues that Brown's publisher, Doubleday, had been issuing concerning the contents of the then-forthcoming novel. (This blog is now titled "Discovering The Lost Symbol: The Blog"; it is found at http://lostsymboltweets.blogspot.com/.)

The book became available at some Manhattan locations as early as 12:01 a.m. on Tuesday, September 15. I purchased my copy at the Lincoln Center Barnes & Noble, literally across the street from the Manhattan New York Temple. Having a contract to write a chapter on the book, and hoping to obtain a deal to write my own book on the novel, I felt it important to skim the whole book immediately. Boy, was I in for a surprise.

The Lost Symbol is a thriller featuring Dan Brown's signature character, Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon (played by Tom Hanks in the movie adaptations of The Da Vinci Code and Angels & Demons). The new novel is noteworthy for being placed in Washington, DC, and involving the history and symbolism of Freemasonry, the world's oldest and largest fraternal organization. (Disclosure: I am a Freemason.) The Lost Symbol combines Masonic symbolism, a cutting-edge discipline known as 'noetic science,' and a lot of derring-do in a thriller that is more rescue mission than murder mystery.

Much of this was to be expected. It was also to be expected that some religious or spiritual theme would be addressed as a subtext or motif throughout the novel; this is also a signature characteristic of Brown's Langdon novels. In Angels & Demons, the issue was the relationship of science and religion. In The Da Vinci Code, the issue was the nature of Jesus. As it turns out, the issue in The Lost Symbol is the relationship between God and humankind -- and the way that Brown resolves this issue is both startling for the general reader and unexpectedly resonant for the LDS reader.

Humanity and God in The Lost Symbol

Early on in The Lost Symbol, Robert Langdon looks up from inside the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol building, and sees the 1865 painting by Constantino Brumidi, The Apotheosis of Washington (shown above; click on the image for a larger depiction). The ancient Greek word "apotheosis" has no common single-word equivalent in English; it indicates the event of a human being becoming a god. (See the last page of Chapter 20, and all of Chapter 21, in The Lost Symbol.)

Throughout the novel, one of the subplots is that the leading female character in this story, Dr. Katherine Solomon, is engaged in research involving a field called noetic science. In the novel, we learn that she has uncovered a variety of paranormal, even godlike capacities in the human mind -- capacities that can be developed even in this world.

Much later, at the conclusion of The Lost Symbol (Chapter 133 and the Epilogue), Robert Langdon is taught some fascinating philosophical, religious, and spiritual concepts by Dr. Solomon. One of these concepts is the idea that the destiny and birthright of human beings is to take on the role of divine Creators. We join these two in discussion in Chapter 133, with Dr. Solomon speaking:

"... We've been reading the Bible too literally. We learn that God created us in his image, but it's not our physical bodies that resemble God, it's our minds. ... [O]nce we realize that we are truly created in the Creator's image, we will start to understand that we, too, must be Creators. When we understand this fact, the doors will burst wide open for human potential.

... Langdon gazed up again at the image of The Apotheosis of Washington--the symbolic ascent of man to deity. The created . . . becoming the Creator. (Page 501 of the English language edition of The Lost Symbol)

Langdon then reflects on the Hebrew word Elohim:

"Elohim," he repeated. "The Hebrew word for God in the Old Testament! I've always wondered about it."

Katherine gave a knowing smile. "Yes. The word is plural." ...

"God is plural," Katherine whispered, "because the minds of man are plural." (Page 505)

In essence, Katherine Solomon is teaching Robert Langdon the ideas that (a) human beings have the potential within them to develop into gods, and (b) such a development would result in a plurality of gods. The "Lost Symbol" of the novel's title reflects the notion of God as a symbol for the highest potential of humankind.

The LDS Doctrine of Exaltation

Of course, all of this has a strong resonance to the LDS doctrine of exaltation. As the Latter-day Saints teach, those who make certain sacred covenants with God, and keep those covenants throughout their lives, then at some undefined time after death experience a change. As the LDS scriptures put it:

Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them. (The Doctrine and Covenants, Section 132, Verse 20)

Such individuals are permitted to maintain their family structure throughout the eternities, and go on to create and populate worlds for themselves. This is the highest blessing possible, and is the essence of eternal life, the kind of life that God has. (Some further basic information about the LDS doctrine of exaltation is available here.)

The LDS doctrine of exaltation does have certain differences from the concept that Dan Brown puts forth in The Lost Symbol. For Dan Brown's characters, the notion that humanity is made in the image of God is figurative ("it's our minds" that resemble God, as Dr. Solomon says); for the LDS, humans resemble God both mentally and physically (that is, God has a body in whose image humans are made).

Nonetheless, the idea of humans becoming exalted to godlike status -- long a doctrine held virtually uniquely by the LDS -- is now being reflected in a novel that is almost guaranteed to be a global best seller.

The Plurality of Gods in LDS Doctrine

Robert Langdon's insight about the plurality of Gods, of course, was anticipated over a century and a half ago by Joseph Smith, Jr., the first LDS prophet in modern times. As Joseph Smith put it in a sermon, just east of the Nauvoo Temple, on June 16, 1844 (that is, eleven days before he was martyred):

Paul says there are Gods many and Lords many; and that makes a plurality of Gods, in spite of the whims of all men. ... I have it from God, and get over it if you can. ... I will show from the Hebrew Bible that I am correct, and the first word shows a plurality of Gods .... An unlearned boy must give you a little Hebrew. Berosheit baurau Eloheim ait aushamayeen vehau auraits*, rendered by King James' translators, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." ... Eloheim is from the word Eloi, God, in the singular number; and by adding the word heim, it renders it Gods. It [that is, Genesis 1:1] read first, "In the beginning the head of the Gods brought forth the Gods," or, as others have translated it, "The head of the Gods called the Gods together." ...

In the very beginning the Bible shows there is a plurality of Gods beyond the power of refutation. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 371-372)

[*In modern transliteration of Hebrew, this would be given as Bereshit bara Elohim 'et ha-shamayim v'et ha-aretz.]

Some aspects of doctrine that Dan Brown misses involve the character and origin of God -- in essence, what sort of being God is, and how God came to be God. These are subjects concerning which Joseph Smith taught boldly and publicly in the last three months of his life. In the so-called King Follett Discourse (April 7, 1844), Joseph taught the following:

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible,--I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form--like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man ....

These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. ... God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-346, italics omitted. The first of these two paragraphs appears in the current manual of study for priesthood quorums and the Relief Society for 2008-2009: Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, Chapter 2, p. 40.)

All of this raises two questions: how did Dan Brown happen to incorporate (as it seems he did) LDS doctrine into his novel? And, what implications does this have for the Latter-day Saints? I address each of these issues below.

Dan Brown Visits Temple Square

Dan Brown visited Temple Square in 2004 and 2006, as reported by KSL-TV in Salt Lake City. During his 2004 visit, as his host noted, Brown was specifically interested in what seemed to him the Masonic-like symbols on the Salt Lake LDS Temple: "He was ... very interested in the symbology on the Mormon temple ... the pentacles and the suns and the moons and the stars and all that. So, I gather his primary interest was to ... see the Mormon embellishment of Masonry as it exists, in his mind ...." (Of course, the LDS Temple is deeply associated with the LDS doctrine of exaltation.) In 2006, as reported on TV, Brown was granted access to certain LDS historical archives.

Thus, for whatever reason and in whatever way, Dan Brown has had a certain interest in the Latter-day Saints and our most important and distinctive spiritual practices and doctrines. I think that he saw fit to adapt the LDS doctrine of exaltation for literary purposes in The Lost Symbol.

So what does this all mean to us, as Latter-day Saints?

The Implications of The Lost Symbol for the Latter-day Saints

The doctrine of exaltation has been a sticking point for the Latter-day Saints as they have tried to share the Gospel for over a century and a half, from the time that this doctrine was revealed during the Nauvoo period until this very day. Despite a great deal of evidence that this doctrine was known and taught in the earliest days of Christianity by the ancient apostles and their associates in the Old World**, it is clear that this was one of the many pure and precious doctrines of the Gospel that were dropped as early Christianity fell into the centuries known among the LDS as the Great Apostasy.

Consequently, the majority of Christian churches are shocked by the very idea of the doctrine of exaltation. The LDS have been condemned as unchristian heretics by several major Christian denominations and many of their authors. To some extent, this has gotten in the way of our missionary work for many years.

Now, however, we have an interesting and unexpected opportunity.

The publication of Dan Brown's The Lost Symbol opens an opportunity for the Latter-day Saint doctrine of exaltation to enter the public discourse in a way other than through partisan, sectarian condemnation. Individual Latter-day Saints could usefully make efforts to bring this doctrine to the attention of news media. In addition, this opens opportunities to share the Gospel on an individual basis.

Let me explain what I mean.

What The Da Vinci Code Demonstrated

Some readers may remember the big fuss that Brown's earlier novel, The Da Vinci Code, caused. The back story in The Da Vinci Code was the idea that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and had descendants.

Having researched the issue, I can testify that this idea caused a sensation in certain sectors of the Christian community. Many books and other media were developed specifically to refute what Dan Brown's characters were claiming about Jesus (and other aspects of early Christianity portrayed in the novel). And why was this such an issue? The unspoken subtext here is that it was somehow unbecoming for a divine Person to be involved in the procreation of children.

Of course, this is no problem whatsoever for the Latter-day Saints.

And, what happened with all this fuss and bother? An interesting thing, actually.

There remained many people, of course, who were unmoved by Dan Brown's concepts. However--and I admit that this is an impression, not something based on hard data--it seems to me that a substantial number of his readers arrived at an attitude like the following: "Jesus married? Hmm. Well, why not? Sounds okay to me."

These days, a lot of people are open to believing different things than the doctrines of the historically dominant Christian churches. They do need to be exposed to different ideas, but when they are, a fair number of people find these different ideas acceptable. It is just that simple. And this fact can work to the benefit of propagating the LDS approach to the Gospel.

The debate and fuss that followed the publication of The Da Vinci Code (2003) and the release of the movie version (2006) demonstrated that the 21st century public was receptive to ideas that might have gotten Dan Brown burned alive at the stake--or at least run out of town--in an earlier era. So, how do we use this receptivity?

What Latter-Day Saints Can Do

I suggest that Latter-day Saints do the following four things:

1. Become more familiar with the doctrine of exaltation.
2. Become familiar with Dan Brown's not-quite-enough approach to exaltation in The Lost Symbol.
3. Alert news media to the resonances between Dan Brown's novel's conclusion and this important LDS doctrine.
4. Use the novel as an opportunity to bring up this central aspect of the Gospel with their non-LDS friends, neighbors, co-workers, and other associates.

I expand on each of these suggestions below.

1. Get to know the doctrine of exaltation.

Before one can share a doctrine, one should be sure to understand it. Fortunately, there are many easy-to-access resources available for this purpose, several of them online. These include the following:

• The Standard Works. (It always starts here, doesn't it?) In particular, D&C Section 132: 19-24 is central to this topic, as is D&C Section 131.
• The LDS manual, Gospel Principles, Chapter 47, "Exaltation," is particularly useful in understanding the basics of this doctrine.
• The Encyclopedia of Mormonism has a brief but useful article on exaltation.
• Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, particularly pp. 345-346, 370-373, states these doctrines in powerful and straightforward fashion. (See also Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, Chapter 2, p. 40.)
• For 'extra credit,' as it were, read the wiki page published by the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR, a pro-LDS group) regarding the "Deification of Man"; see it here.
• Further 'extra credit': read the evidence published by the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) that this doctrine was taught in ancient Christianity.**

2. Familiarize yourself with The Lost Symbol

On a practical level, it is hard to engage people in conversation regarding a book one has not read. The Lost Symbol is a pretty quick read. Yes, the real punchline, from our perspective, is in Chapter 133 and the Epilogue -- but, if you're going to talk about a book, you should really read the whole thing.

3. Contact your local news media.

Yes, you. If we're going to raise the profile of the Gospel and this doctrine, we have to engage the media.

It's not so hard. These days, many newspapers, radio, and television stations have e-mail addresses listed on their websites for specific reporters. Almost every media outlet in sight has published some kind of story on The Lost Symbol, on or about September 14-15. Simply contact some reporter who had a story on this novel (or the editor of the paper or station itself) and tell them that there is a side of this story that has not been told yet.

If you want talking points, take a look at the blog post that I wrote on my Dan Brown-related blog, regarding this issue:

http://lostsymboltweets.blogspot.com/2009/09/secret-behind-final-secret-of-lost.html

You may even find it handy to forward that link to the news people. (I suggest you send the link from that blog, rather than this blog that you are reading, because that blog is written for the general reader of Dan Brown, rather than the LDS public.)

4. Engage your non-LDS associates in conversation about exaltation.

You're going to see a lot of people reading this novel. How many? Consider this:

• The Da Vinci Code sold 81 million copies, about 45 million of those in the United States. About 1 American adult in every 5 read The Da Vinci Code. The Lost Symbol may be even bigger than The Da Vinci Code.
• Doubleday published 6.5 million copies of The Lost Symbol in English, just as a first printing. (Keep in mind that 30,000 copies is considered an "okay" first printing!)

Thus, you will likely have many opportunities to do something like the following:

• Ask people how they liked the novel.
• Ask them what they thought about the end of the novel, regarding the idea that the potential destiny of human beings was to become gods.
• Ask them whether they knew that Latter-day Saints teach a very similar idea.
• Ask them if they'd like to know more. If so, invite them to church.

Bring pass-along cards with you. If you follow the plan above, I would guess that you'll go through quite a few.

Conclusion

We have the opportunity here to use this likely bestselling novel to raise the profile of the Church in a good way. This novel is introducing a version of one of our central but controversial doctrines in a positive manner, to millions upon millions of people around the world. Let us use this opportunity to help introduce the Gospel to people with whom we might not otherwise have such an easy point of connection.

**See point #5 ("Do Latter-day Saints believe that men and women can become gods?", pp. 25-29) in Robert L. Millet and Noel B. Reynolds (Editors), Latter-Day Christianity: 10 Basic Issues (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, BYU, 1998; ISBN 0-934893-32-2).

[The image of Brumidi's "The Apotheosis of Washington" is from pictures taken by Raul654 in 2005. The image was obtained from Wikimedia Commons and is shown here under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 license.]

Our Friends the Atheists

This morning's New York Times has a front-page article by Laurie Goodstein regarding the resurgence of atheism in the United States. The Secular Humanists of the Lowcountry, an atheist organization in South Carolina, has been overwhelmed by the positive response to its billboard campaign. "The Secular Student Alliance now has 146 chapters" at colleges and universities, "up from 42 in 2003," as Ms. Goodstein reports.

There are those who would be disturbed or even offended by such news. As I was reading this article, however, it occurred to me that the resurgence of atheism actually presents a great opportunity for Latter-day Saints to share the gospel. This is because the reasons that many people become atheists is quite similar to the reasons that some people become Latter-day Saints. The outcomes of their searches are miles apart, but the questions and issues are actually rather similar.

Does that sound surprising to you? I have no survey data, but I have known more than a few atheists during my life, and of course I have known many LDS converts, as well. Consider the following:

• Many people are disillusioned with the Bible as the fundamental source of religious truth. As Ms. Goodstein notes in describing a meeting of college student atheists in South Carolina, "many of the ... students at the meeting were highly literate in the Bible and religious history." However, there are many different and conflicting ways to interpret the Bible, some of which have been used to justify horrific behaviors, such as sexism, racism, slavery, and genocide. Within most of mainstream Christianity, what is used to justify belief in the Bible itself is often some variety or another of tradition--and tradition simply isn't a sufficient basis to direct one's life; different peoples have different traditions, which often conflict. As far as "having faith" is concerned--well, the people of Jonestown had a lot of faith, too. Disillusionment with the Bible as the sole source of doctrine is a factor in some LDS conversions, as well, by my experience.
• Many people are disgusted with the anti-reason / anti-science bias of many Christians. The persecution of Galileo is often cited in the atheism literature as an example of how religion treats science that seems to conflict with the Bible. The recent disputes regarding the teaching of evolution in schools have convinced many people that committed Christians simply are not open to the evidence of science--an untenable position in the twenty-first century. For some LDS converts, as well, the aspect of the Gospel that embraces learning and knowledge is a factor in their attraction to the LDS Church.
• Many people are disgusted with Christian attempts to violate the separation of Church and State. In ways large and small, attempts are made every year to give Christian beliefs some special status under the law. This is offensive to the many people who understand the American Constitution to state that no such special status is legal--which is indeed part of the point of the First Amendment. For some LDS converts, as well, it is a relief to associate with a church that embraces the Constitution as a revealed document (see D&C 101:77, 80).

To people with concerns like these, the LDS faith and its understanding of the Christian gospel can have special appeal:

• Latter-day Saints base their belief primarily upon personal revelation, not primarily upon the Bible or other written scriptures. Oh, sure, we have more written scriptures than any other Christian church; indeed, although I am not sure of this, I suspect that, when it comes to what are considered central scriptures, the LDS have more than any other religion of any flavor. And, yes, we stress knowing the scriptures. However, all of this is secondary, in terms of what our faith is actually based on. The ultimate basis of an individual's faith, for the LDS, should not be confidence in the scriptures, or in allegiance to tradition, but rather on personal revelation directly from God to the individual. This is the most radical and distinctive approach to justifying religious claims about truth in the history of religious thought. We LDS should embrace our distinctiveness, and make this the centerpiece of our discussion with our atheist friends (and others, for that matter).
• The Latter-day Saints embrace modern science. In particular, I think of the example in chemistry of Henry Eyring, the late father of Elder Henry B. Eyring, a current member of the Quorum of the Twelve. (See Henry J. Eyring's book, Mormon Scientist: The Life and Faith of Henry Eyring, published by Desert Book in 2008.) Although individual General Authorities have had opinions on the issue--sometimes conflicting with each other--there is no official position of the Church specifically regarding evolution. To my way of thinking, the closest description of an official position is that mentioned in the brief article on "Evolution" in the LDS Church-sponsored Encyclopedia of Mormonism: "The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again (D&C 101:32-33)" (Evenson, 1992). One way of looking at it is that the LDS assume that there cannot really be a conflict between science and religion: we expect that many things are yet to be revealed to us. Here again, ongoing revelation, this time as a communal event, is a revolutionary position within the history of religious thought, especially within Christianity. And, here again, we should embrace our uniqueness, and make this a centerpiece for discussion with our atheist friends. It is worth pointing out that it is a scriptural tenet with us that "The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth" (D&C 93:36, emphasis added).
• The Latter-day Saint faith embraces the separation of Church and State. It is literally an article of faith with us--our Eleventh Article of Faith, to be precise--that we embrace the separation of Church and State: "We claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

Yes, I am well aware--painfully aware--that not all Latter-day Saints live up to these ideals. However, we must distinguish between our core principles, and the imperfect ways in which the Saints live those core principles. Those core principles are what some of our atheist friends will find attractive. They, and our personal testimonies, should inform the discussions (illustrated) that we have with our atheist friends, acquaintances, and family members.

Overall, with regards to our friends the atheists, we need to keep in mind the principles taught in D&C 123, particularly verse 12:

For there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it--

Let us be the ones who show these people where to find the truth.

References

Evenson, W. E. (1992). Evolution. Encyclopedia of Mormonism, p. 478.

Laurie Goodstein. (2009, April 27). More atheists are shouting it from rooftops. The New York Times, pp. A1, A13.


(The photo--"KJ, Delphine, and THD discussing Wikimania at warm up party," by Cary Bass, dated 30 July 2007--was obtained from Wikimedia Commons under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 license.)

Announcing a New Blog: "LDS 101: The Latter-Day Saint / 'Mormon' Faith"

I was touched in my heart by the very direct remarks made by Elder L. Tom Perry in the Sunday afternoon session of General Conference on April 5th, regarding our need to open our mouths and inform people about the Gospel. Consequently, I have opened a blog describing the basic beliefs and practices of the Church for non-members: "LDS 101: The Latter-Day Saint / 'Mormon' Faith." I invite you to visit that blog, and to send a link to that blog to your non-LDS family members, friends, and acquaintances as a way to help inform people about the Gospel.

Why did I do this? Because spreading the Gospel is important.

Why did I do this? Because I believe a blog like this can be an effective way to share the Gospel in a low-pressure way.

Why did I do this? Because I think I have some small ability in the blogging department. In addition: I thought I could do some good by following Elder Perry's counsel regarding the first three topics to discuss when we open our mouths about the Gospel: the Savior and his Atonement; the First Vision of Joseph Smith; and, the Book of Mormon. Also, I thought there was some value to my personal perspective.

Didn't I think some else could/should do this? Of course I do. Let a thousand flowers bloom.

Your comments and suggestions would be much appreciated.

Reflections on Sunday Afternoon Session, and Conference Overall

Some purely personal reflections on what stood out for me in the Sunday afternoon session of General Conference, followed by some thoughts on April 2009 General Conference overall.

We Must Not Walk as Others Do

Elder Oaks, in describing how it is necessary for Latter-day Saints to follow the Savior rather than the fashions of the world, quoted from an April 1940 General Conference address by Elder John A. Widtsoe, an address I somehow have missed in the past. Elder Widtsoe said, in part:

We cannot walk as other men, or talk as other men, or do as other men for we have a different destiny, obligation, and responsibility placed upon us, and we must fit ourselves for that great destiny and obligation.

Over the years, I have met a number of Latter-day Saints who have not understood this basic distinction. They have tried to fit into the world. That is just the opposite from what should happen: we are here to transform the world.

We Must Do More to Get the Word Out About the Gospel

Elder Perry pointed out that half the population of North America knows nothing of our beliefs. (This, after close to two centuries of missionary work, and tons of public messages of one type or another.) He challenged us to do more as members to get the word out about the Gospel.

Very well, Elder Perry. Readers, expect to hear more about a new blog for non-members--I'm thinking about calling it "LDS 101"--which I plan to start soon. It's one thing I can do.

Some Overall Reflections on April 2009 General Conference

Focus on the Temple

The Big Love episode, 'Outer Darkness,' which depicted the producer's version of the last minutes of the temple endowment, was not explicitly mentioned by any of the conference speakers. However, the Big Love issue was clearly on the minds of several speakers, several of whom mentioned that public controversy about the temple is nothing new, and that such controversy is, in part, a reaction to the Church's standing up for unpopular moral standards.

Perhaps one outcome of all this will be an increased focus on the meaning of the temple ceremonies. Elder Bednar's discourse on Sunday afternoon was particularly powerful in this respect.

I first experienced the endowment in August, 1978 at the Washington, DC temple (above). Over the years, I have found that there is wide variation among the Latter-day Saints in the degree to which they 'get' the inner spiritual meaning of the endowment, and the other ceremonies of the temple. The LDS temple ceremonies have a greater power to transform the individual's inner life, in several ways, then the power available (based on available information) in the initiatic ceremonies of the mystery religions and other organizations of the world; I include in that list the Eleusinian and Orphic mysteries of the ancient world, the various rites of the ancient gnostic communities, and much more besides. However, this transformation is not automatic: one must seek to have that transformation occur; one must internalize the temple ceremonies, as well as their associated doctrines--all of them public, scriptural doctrines, I might add--for this transformation to take effect.

As far as I am concerned, the more we focus on this transformative, 'inner' perspective regarding the temple, the better--and the higher temple attendance shall be, to boot, I strongly suspect.

(Thank you for the temple picture, Photobucket contributor.)

Focus on Grimmer Circumstances Than the Current Day

This General Conference stood out for the grim nature of so many of the stories and examples that were related to the audience:

• President Monson's talk in the Sunday morning session described at length the extraordinary trial faced by a WWII-era sister in Prussia, who, newly widowed, was forced to walk a thousand miles to German territory and lost her 3 children to starvation and freezing along the way.
• I have mentioned President Uchtdorf's description in the priesthood session of a terrible airplane disaster.
• In that same priesthood session, as I've mentioned, President Eyring described the ultimate sacrifices of the soldiers who sought to save injured comrades in the 'Black Hawk down' incident.
• In the Sunday morning session, even Elder Snow's description of the trials of his pioneer ancester, Robert Gardner, Jr., was noteworthy for how so much went wrong for this man (the stream to his mill runs dry; he loses all his crops), and for the sacrifices he made to fulfill mission calls--twice.

If there is a common thread here, it is that, even in the midst of this Mother of All Recessions (dare I say it? this New Depression), we can be be inspired, by those who have suffered much more than us, to keep to the path, to not give up, to hold to the faith, and even in the worst of our circumstances to lengthen our stride.

Video of the General Conference talks are already available on the Church website. Transcripts of these discourses are scheduled be available in the same place as of Thursday, April 9. Enjoy.

Previous Posts on April 2009 General Conference

• Saturday morning session
• Saturday afternoon session
• Priesthood session
• Sunday morning session

Reflections on Sunday Morning Session

Some purely personal reflections on what stood out for me in the Sunday morning session of General Conference.

Hour of Prayer

The first thing to stand out for me was--and this is unusual for me--the opening hymn, sung by the Tabernacle Choir! The hymn was "Sweet Hour of Prayer." Yes, I know that the word 'hour' here is used lyrically, to indicate something like 'an appointed time.' However, what struck me was the idea of taking it literally. I wondered: "When's the last time that I spent an hour in prayer?" It's happened, but not for a long time. Perhaps it's time to return to that practice, at least once in a while.

We Are Never Alone

In this session, this was the discourse that made me cry: Elder Holland's discourse, directed to those who are or feel alone, or abandoned.

These last nine months or so have been very rough on me. July: I discover that my mother's condition has deteriorated, and I move from the vicinity of Orlando back to New York City. October: My mother dies (multiple infections and lung cancer). October through March: I clear out my mother's apartment and house, encountering many artifacts from her life, which evokes a great deal of emotion; in addition, a great deal of conflict comes up between me and some of the surviving family. I very much appreciate the support of mi esposa Kathleen throughout this process, but overall I've felt pretty hammered: the phrase 'alone and abandoned' goes a long way towards describing my inner life of late.

In this context, it meant a lot to me to hear Elder Holland discussing how the Savior walked alone, the loneliest journey of all--the working out of the Atonement--and walked it in faith, for love of us--even for love of me. It reminded me of a poster from The New Era, originally published in 1994, captioned: "You are never alone" (above). All that ever I have felt, the Savior has felt, and suffered my pain. For this, and for His ongoing concern, I am profoundly grateful.

Previous Posts on April 2009 General Conference

• Saturday morning session
• Saturday afternoon session
• Priesthood session

Reflections on Priesthood Session

As is so often the case, priesthood session seemed especially concentrated with powerful discourses. Again, I offer a few purely personal reactions, which I will focus on the last three talks, given by the members of the First Presidency.

Do Not Be Distracted by the Inessential

President Uchtdorf used the example of an horrific airplane disaster, the Eastern Airlines Flight 401 crash of 1972. In this incident, the crew became so obsessed with one flight indicator--basically, a single light bulb, which had burned out--that they did not pay attention to the larger issue: they were flying lower and lower, ultimately headed directly into the Everglades. Pres. Uchtdorf used this as a metaphor for the need for us not to be distracted from what matters most, as we approach our priesthood responsibilities. I was particularly moved by his call to action, which my notes record thus: "Think what could happen in our personal lives, our professional lives, our families, and our wards and branches, if we rose up, committed to building the Kingdom of God without distraction."

Society would focus us on the inessential: that's where the money is, for advertisers. I found Pres. Uchtdorf's remarks to be very timely and a propos. (Incidentally, I did not consider his remark about blogging as implying that all blogging is inessential, but rather to imply that blogging certainly can be a distraction.)

"No Man Left Behind"

Pres. Eyring related the real-life 'Black Hawk down' incident in Somalia as a metaphor for the devotion that priesthood holders should have for such work as home teaching. As my notes put it: "When you accepted the priesthood, you accepted the responsibility for whatever you did or failed to do for the salvation of others."

Since my baptism as a convert, I have been deeply moved by the devotion that many priesthood holders have shown to their priesthood duty. On the other hand, I have always been stunned by the casual way in which some priesthood holders approach these same duties. I found Pres. Eyring's remarks to be moving and important, and personally relevant. Family responsibilities have called me out of town for most of the last three months; I look forward to doing my fair share and more in terms of my priesthood responsibilities.

A Three-Fold Formula for Life

President Kimball's statement of the three-fold mission of the Church has been quoted now for something like 30 years; it is a succinct formula that continues to serve us well. President Monson delivered a discourse in which he mentioned a three-fold set of suggestions to help Church members deal with temptation and gain spiritual strength, suggestions that deserve to be as widely quoted as President Kimball's statement, in regard to the topic that President Monson took up. His suggestions:

1. Study diligently.
2. Pray fervently.
3. Live righteously.

Amen.

Previous Posts on April 2009 General Conference

• Saturday morning session
• Saturday afternoon session

Reflections on Saturday Afternoon Conference

Just a brief entry here. There is much I could focus upon regarding the talks given in this session. However, there is one overwhelming theme, perhaps not intended by any of the speakers, that has touched me: Cherish your sweethearts while you are fortunate enough to have them with you.

Elder Pino talking about losing his child; Elder Scott talking about losing his children, and his wife, all to death. Life is fragile; life is short, under the best of circumstances. And, too often, we do not have the best of circumstances.

Kiss your spouse and your children and call your parents to tell them you love them. Call the people you've been meaning to call.

Me, I'm going to go pick up my wife from the bus stop. It's a dangerous world out there.

Previous Post on April 2009 General Conference

• Saturday morning session

Reflections on Saturday Morning Conference

We break from our series on the doctrine of deification for a couple of days, to focus on General Conference this weekend. (I electronically "attended" the first general session by watching the live feed from the Church website, http://www.lds.org/ .) Different messages will resonate with different people Thus, I offer a few highlights that are purely personal in nature. I suspend the usual 800-word limit for posts reflecting on General Conference.

The Lord Is the Way Out of Behavioral Addictions

Elder Robert D. Hales of the Quorum of the Twelve spoke, in part, on behavioral addictions (shopping, pornography, expressions of anger), pointing out that the only way out of them is through devotion to the Father, and through receiving His power. He noted that addictions come out of the natural man, and that the hungers of the natural man are insatiable.

How often I've known people to want to give up all their sins--except that one, or that little piece of that one (whatever that be for the individual involved). However, nothing but total devotion is acceptable; the Lord has not the least tolerance for our sins. One of the deep truths of our religion is that the Gospel really does call for a total transformation away from the natural man; the world, which is devoted to trying to fill the gaping maw of the hungers of the natural man, the world which celebrates the failings of the natural man, does not understand this. I found it good to be reminded of the Gospel call for total transformation.

Minor point: Has anyone ever pointed out the connection between the LDS take on the insatiable hungers of the natural man, and the Buddhist take on essentially the same thing?

Respect for Other Faiths, Lifestyles, and Political Positions

I report with shame that, given that my youngest offspring turns 21 this month, these days I don't usually pay especially close attention to speakers from the presidencies of the youth organizations at General Conference. However, I was stopped in my tracks by some things mentioned by Sr. Margaret S. Lifferth, first counselor in the General Primary Presidency, who spoke on increasing reverence and appropriate respect among the youth. Quite rightly, she noted that one way to increase these qualities among youth was to increase it among their parents and adult leaders. She said, as I recall:

Ask yourself: "Do I show respect for others who differ from me in terms of religion, lifestyle, or politics?"

Tolerance of different points of view is important to me. (Growing up a bi-ethnic kid in Greenwich Village had something to do with that, I'm sure--as well as being an LDS convert in the Northeast, where the LDS are often ridiculed.) However, among the Saints, I have encountered now and again a real lack of toleration for other points of view. It is by no means the norm, but 35 years in eleven different wards in five of the United States have given me some exposure to the occasional show of intolerance.

I have heard ridicule directed at those who hold other religious beliefs, at those who have made different lifestyle choices, and at those who hold political positions other than those of the (often far-) right wing. Being myself a convert from another church, from a neighborhood renowned for its social experimentation, and being someone whose political positions generally fall within the left wing, I myself have sometimes been on the receiving end of those comments, without those making the comments being aware of this--they have assumed that the white shirt, conservative tie and jacket that I wear to church mean that I think just as they do. So, when they ridicule some religious belief I once held, when they make disparaging remarks about "hippies," "liberals," and "tree huggers," I've found this quite offensive.

Over the years, I've known investigators and new members to be turned off to the Church because of some stupid remark like this. It is not what the Savior would do. I hope that Sr. Lifferth's remarks are taken to heart throughout the Church.

Covenants and Divine Power

Elder D. Todd Christofferson of the Twelve spoke, in part, about how covenants lead to a bestowal of divine power, including the gifts of the Holy Ghost. These days, when the Saints have endured some hits from the media regarding the temple ceremonies in the wake of the "Big Love" hoo-hah, it was good to be reminded that the temple's purpose is such a bestowal of power.

Adversity

This was the talk that made me cry.

President Henry B. Eyring, 1st counselor in the First Presidency, spoke about the role of adversity in our lives. He taught very clearly that the purpose of mortality was to prepare us for eternal life--not mere immortality, but the kind of life that God has, along with the power to have offspring forever. Part of that preparation involves us becoming the kind of people who can be trusted with that kind of power. The only way to do that is to expose us to adversity, hard challenges, the kinds of tests that shake one to one's foundations.

Pres. Eyring described several types of adversity. When he came to the last, age and sickness, my composure fell apart. Having just lived through my mother's final illness and death, I could not help but think of the the difference between how she faced her challenges and the way she could have faced them, had she had the perspective of the Gospel that she had so frequently and vigorously rejected.

These days there is plenty of adversity to go around, plenty of storms (hence my illustration), and your correspondent is not exempt. It was very helpful to me to have Pres. Eyring remind me of the useful perspective that the Gospel supplies regarding our troubles, and how to transcend them. Note that I did not say 'avoid' them, or even 'solve' them. Not every challenge yields a direct solution. Some things are, and will continue to be, outside my control. However, I can control my response. Choosing the Gospel will get us through.

(Minor point, perhaps, evoked by what Pres. Eyring had to say on the purposes of mortality and adversity: that series on the doctrine of exaltation is looking more timely every day.)

The Doctrine of Exaltation, Part 2: Why This Doctrine Will Come Up in Future Public Discussion

(For the preceding post in this series, see link at end of this post.)

This series, "The Doctrine of Exaltation," concerns the distinctly LDS doctrine that, under the right circumstances, in the next life, righteous men and women may become gods. As I promised at the end of Part 1, today I shall consider why I think the doctrine of exaltation will come up with increasing frequency in future public discussions of the LDS faith. This has important practical implications: Latter-day Saints need to thoughtfully consider how they shall discuss this doctrine with their neighbors (a matter that I shall consider further in a future post).

As I see it, there are several reasons why the doctrine of exaltation will likely come up more frequently in public and private discussions of the LDS faith in the future:

• the growth of the LDS Church


• the growth of opposition to the LDS Church


• the rise of the Internet
  

I consider each of these below.

The Growth of the LDS Church

The growth of the LDS Church has been nothing short of phenomenal. When I was baptized as a college sophomore in the Fall of 1975, the Church had about 4 million members worldwide--a smaller population than my home town (NYC), by a large margin--and I was regularly mocked about our ambitions to grow throughout the world. Today, the Church has over 13.5 million members, and is rapidly growing. With this growth, it is only natural that more people would know someone who is LDS, and that they would be curious about LDS beliefs.

One can estimate the degree of interest in and curiosity about the LDS Church, in a rough and indirect way, by looking at the degree to which there are depictions of Latter-day Saints in popular culture. I do not recall a single mention of the LDS church on the television comedies and dramas that I watched, the movies that I viewed, or the plays that I saw on Broadway, during the years when I was growing up in New York City during the 1960s and 1970s. However, during the 1990s and subsequently, Latter-day Saints and their faith were portrayed--albeit in a highly distorted, often insulting manner--on such television shows as Frasier (in the episode "The Zoo Story"), South Park (in the episodes "Probably" and "All About the Mormons?", the latter pictured above), the series House (where an LDS character is a regular), and of course the series Big Love (which I have discussed in a previous post), as well as on the stage in Angels in America (Parts I and II). The public does not get us, yet, but they do know that we exist, in a way that they did not, only a generation ago--and they are curious about us.

With a net LDS growth rate of about 5% or more annually, more and more people are going to know some Latter-day Saint, and hence more people will be curious about our beliefs. When people have questions about us, they want to know what makes us different, and few things are more distinctive about us than the doctrine of exaltation.

The Growth in Opposition to the LDS Church

Perhaps because of the growth of the LDS Church, which draws converts from the membership of other Christian churches, the opposition to the LDS Church has grown as well. Anti-Mormonism is a complex phenomenon that I hope to treat in detail in later posts on this blog. However, one aspect worth mentioning here is that one strategy of anti-Mormonism is to focus on distinctive aspects of the LDS faith in the hope of making these aspects seem "strange." The doctrine of exaltation has received a lot of attention from anti-Mormon authors over the years, and as the volume of anti-Mormon voices rises, we shall certainly hear more about this doctrine from the anti-Mormon perspective.

The Rise of the Internet

The Internet also has a role in making more frequent discussion of the doctrine of deification almost inevitable. Pre-1993 or so, those who wished to cast aspersions on the LDS Church had certain inherent limitations on the extent to which their views could be spread. Anti-Mormonism was a really narrow niche market, with narrow channels of propagation. Anti-Mormon writings were done up on typewriters and photocopied, or were published otherwise with relatively low production values, distributed through certain Christian bookstores. With these limitations, the distorted claims of the anti-Mormon community regarding the doctrine of exaltation would only reach so many people.

Enter the Internet. Now, any claim--no matter how distorted or inaccurate--can reach a large proportion of humankind, in the garb of a nicely designed website. The Internet has made it easy to propagate anti-Mormon views, and anti-Mormonism focuses on the doctrine of exaltation as a distinctly LDS doctrine.

Next: The basis for stating that the doctrine of exaltation is authentic LDS doctrine.

Previous Post in This Series

"The Doctrine of Exaltation, Part 1: Its Content and Controversy"

The Doctrine of Exaltation, Part 1: Its Content and Controversy

In an earlier post, I mentioned that, now that the producers of Big Love have shown a small snippet of their version of the endowment in the episode "Outer Darkness," it seemed likely that we would see other depictions of the LDS temple ceremonies; I suggested that it would be worthwhile for Latter-day Saints to be prepared for discussions of the temple ceremonies as these would inevitably arise with their non-LDS acquaintances. However, this is not the only controversial area that the Saints will need to be prepared to discuss, in this post-"Outer Darkness"-era. Another issue that is likely to arise in the future involves an important LDS doctrine underlying the temple ceremonies: the doctrine that, under certain circumstances, after this life, human beings can become divine--that is, the doctrine that men and women may become gods. This is the doctrine of exaltation

Today, I open a series of posts on the doctrine of exaltation. Over the course of the series, I shall consider the following:

• the content of this doctrine


• the reason that this doctrine is considered controversial in the majority Christian world


• why I think that this doctrine will arise with increasing frequency in future public discussions of the LDS faith


• the basis for stating that this is authentic LDS doctrine


• the basis for stating that this doctrine is authentically Christian


• how to discuss this doctrine with members of the general public
  

The Doctrine of Exaltation: What It Says

Underlying the doctrine of exaltation is the idea that, as the literal children of God, we are meant to obtain the same status as our Heavenly Father. Thus, if we prove ourselves worthy, we are to 'inherit all that the Father has,' including all the divine capacities. Those who attain godhood shall still be subordinate to the Father, but they shall be empowered to have spiritual children and create and populate worlds, as the Father has done.

Why the Doctrine of Exaltation is Controversial

The doctrine of exaltation is controversial because it highlights a fundamental difference between the LDS and other ways of understanding the relationship between God and humanity. The majority Christian understanding of God is deeply influenced by certain currents in ancient Greek philosophy (particularly neo-Platonism). In these forms of Greek philosophy, there is a deep conceptual divide between the realm of the divine (which is entirely spiritual) and the realm of the human (which is basically material). The notion of human beings becoming gods is inconceivable in this kind of philosophy.

The majority Christian churches do not understand the LDS doctrine of exaltation. (For example, they do not understand that only the pure become gods, and that the pure do so only after a lifetime of obedience in this world, followed by a process of training and growth in the next world.) Lacking this understanding, the majority Christian world lumps together the LDS doctrine of deification with the type of polytheistic beliefs seen in the ancient world, such as the traditional popular Greek religion, with its Pantheon of gods. (The popular Greek religion thus had a notion of the divine that was very different from the ideas of the neo-Platonic Greek philosophers.) The gods and goddesses of the ancient Greek Pantheon were basically like regular people given immense power, with all the major human failings--pettiness, jealousy, hunger for control, murderous rage, immorality--writ very large.

Because the majority Christian churches falsely equate the LDS doctrine of exaltation with the ancient Greek notion of polytheism, the majority Christian world is scandalized by the LDS doctrine of exaltation, perhaps more so than by any other LDS doctrine or practice. Sensing this negative reaction, it seems that many Latter-day Saints have responded by simply avoiding this doctrine altogether, in discussion with non-LDS people.

There are several problems with this approach. First, it appears duplicitous to others; it looks as if we preach one set of doctrines to the world outside the Church, and another set within the Church. Second, it leaves the Saints unprepared to discuss the doctrine when it comes up in discussion with non-LDS people. These problems become especially important when we realize that discussions of this doctrine have now become inevitable, and will become a part of our interchanges with the non-LDS world with increasing frequency.

In Part II: Why discussions of this doctrine will become increasingly frequent in the future.

Lessons to Learn from the "Big Love" Fracas: Preparing for Future Temple Depictions

On March 15, HBO's Big Love broadcast its episode 'Outer Darkness,' which depicted less than two minutes of the producers' version of the conclusion of the LDS temple endowment ceremony. In my general-audience blog, "On the Mark," I described the issues this broadcast raised for Latter-day Saints, in one post; I described what the actual broadcast revealed about its producers in another post. Here, I consider what Latter-day Saints might learn from this whole affair. Since the temple doors have been breached, as it were, it is increasingly likely that there shall be other depictions of the temple ceremonies, on television or in general-release movies. How shall we deal with that? Several points come to mind.

Expect the World to Show No Respect for the Temple

In advance of the broadcast, HBO issued an 'apology' to Latter-day Saints who found it offensive--and then broadcast it anyway. Significantly, the producers did not even issue an apology. They claimed to depict the endowment with "sensitivity," somehow missing the point that what the Saints found insensitive was the very depiction of sacred temple ritual.

For many years, the entertainment industry has found it profitable and stylish to offend and ridicule the LDS community. There is no reason for this to change now. We need to develop thick skins about this, although we certainly should respond, as I explain below.

The LDS Response Should Not Take the Form of Economic Sanction

Before the broadcast, some Saints called for boycotts of HBO. The LDS Church authorities took no such position. This latter approach was wise for at least two reasons:

1. It would have been ineffective. The six to seven million American Saints are simply too few to have any significant effect on a network or its advertisers. Unless your target is a convenience store in Toelle, an LDS boycott is not going to count for much.


2. Boycotts would make us look like the kind of right-wing Christians who are seen as irrational by the general society--and who would be the first to send each Saint to the stake for 'heresy' if they could. These people are not our friends. They are seen as extreme in American society. We should not do things that make us look like them.
   

The LDS Response Should Take the Form of Education

Several media critics, viewing advance screenings of 'Outer Darkness,' wondered what all the fuss was about, stating that they did not see what there was in the Temple ceremonies that was worth keeping secret. Essentially, they--and the general audience--did not get it. This works in our favor, by creating an opportunity for the Saints to educate our non-LDS neighbors in several ways:

• First, we can explain the meaning of the temple ceremonies, in general terms, as the promise of eternal life, and the preservation of the family unit in the eternities. These are new concepts for most people; it may make sense to them that such blessings--unprecedented in their own experience--should involve ceremonies that are extraordinarily sacred, too sacred for casual depiction.


• Second, we can explain, again in general terms, the spiritual significance of aspects of the temple that may strike the public as unusual. Temple clothing is akin to the clothing worn by the clergy of the world on special occasions (as many Christian clergy wear special Easter vestments); we reserve our special vestments for the temple, a special place, rather than for a special time on the calendar.


• Similarly, if the matter arises, we can explain in general terms that we do not have 'secret handshakes' of identification such as are found in various fraternal organizations. Rather, we do have symbols of the covenants mentioned above, in which we pledge ourselves to the highest standards of behavior. We keep these symbols confidential because they are sacred, not because we have scary secrets to keep from the world.


• Third, continuing in this vein, we can explain that the temple ceremonies do not contain "secrets" as the public understands this term. We have no special knowledge to keep from the world, nothing about the location of Atlantis or the Holy Grail. Rather, we reserve our ceremonies for those who are spiritually ready to participate in them, to accentuate the sanctity of the occasion.

Let's be ready, the next time around.