Mormon From Manhattan:Viewpoints of a Latter-Day Saint New Yorker

The LDS Faith on Trial in 2012

2012-01-22T20:36:00.004-05:00

I had hoped it would not come to this.

However naïve I was, my hope was that the number of people who would attack the LDS Church itself during the 2012 U.S. presidential campaign would be relatively small. However, I see now that this hope was utterly in vain.

Despite statements by religio-political group officials that Mitt Romney’s Mormonism was not a factor in the South Carolina primary, people interviewed by The Daily Caller spontaneously brought up Romney’s faith as the reason they were leery about voting for him. On Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, the interviewer also pointed out that being Mormon hurt Romney in South Carolina.

Heading into the Florida primary, it is noteworthy that at Rick Santorum’s speech in Coral Gables today, the Los Angeles Times reported that “people sat in front of giant posters warning voters that Mormons worship false gods.” The Times reporter interviewed a Santorum supporter holding a poster saying, “Americans, Beware. Mitt Romney is a lifelong Mormon.”

The person who introduced Santorum at his speech today was Rev. O’Neal Dozier, whom the Palm Beach Post reported as saying that “The American people will not vote for a Mormon to be a president of the United States.” This is the same man who told the SunSentinal last October that “Mormonism is a cult … Once people really understand Mormonism, they will begin to lose faith in Mitt Romney.”

Examples could be multiplied. The overall conclusion seems inescapable: in this presidential election cycle, at least through the Republican convention in August and quite possibly through the election itself in early November, the LDS Church and the Mormon faith will be on public trial.

I have long known that anti-Mormon authors, predominantly evangelicals, have spread misconceptions and misinterpretations about the Church. What is apparent from these articles, and from the comments I received in response to my recent online article on why evangelicals are opposed to the LDS faith, is that huge numbers of people actually believe this anti-Mormon trash-talk. They really believe that:

Mormonism is an unchristian cult.
Mormons teach that Jesus is not even divine.
Mormons teach that Jesus and Satan are somehow equal or in cahoots because “they are spirit brothers.”
Evil things happen in LDS temples.
Mormons forcibly convert people posthumously.

and a ton of other things that are equally false.

Please understand—for me, this is not about the presidential election. (My own political stance is in a different direction.)

My concern is about spreading the truth about the Church and the Gospel. On the one hand, anti-Mormon lies and misrepresentations are getting unprecedented play in the media. On the other hand, this “Mormon moment” is an opportunity, largely still unrecognized, to spread the truth about the Church and the Gospel.

So what is to be done?

Let me tell you what I am doing, and what it is that you might do to be a part of it.

Three years ago I started a blog, LDS 101: The Latter-day Saint / ‘Mormon’ Faith, to answer basic questions about the faith. I didn’t know much about blogging then, and was not able to generate sufficient interest in the blog to keep it going. Now, however, I know a lot more about promoting a blog, and so I have reactivated it. (My first substantive entry: “Do Mormons Teach that Jesus and Satan Were Spirit Brothers?”)

My plan is to use that blog to answer specific anti-Mormon claims, something that is outside the mission of the Church web site most of the time.

There are two ways that you, readers of this blog post, can be a part of this (and I know that that includes a lot more people than the official “followers” of the blog):

When you come upon people who bring up specific distortions or falsehoods about the Church or its doctrine, please refer them to LDS 101. I may very well have addressed that specific distortion or falsehood. If I have not done so yet, the readers are welcome to bring up their own questions or issues for future posts.

Drop in yourself. Critique what I have to say so that I can make it better. Suggest questions or issues for me to address.

These are things that anyone can do. If we all contribute, we can stand up for truth together and further that cause. I hope you will take me up on this invitation.

[Readers are welcome to become official “followers” of this blog through the box in the upper-right-hand corner.]

[The image of the Nauvoo Temple ruins was obtained from Steven D. Cornell’s utah-rchitecture blog, and is in the public domain.]

New on "LDS 101":Do Mormons Teach that Jesus and Satan Were Spirit Brothers?

2012-01-21T20:17:00.000-05:00

This post on the LDS 101 blog deals with something that anti-Mormons often throw against the Saints: the idea that 'the Mormons teach that Jesus and Satan were spirit brothers!' (cue creepy music crescendo). Enjoy.

Rebooting the "LDS 101" Blog

2012-01-21T19:06:00.000-05:00

It has become clear to me, from the comments I've been getting to my recent online article on why some evangelicals oppose Mormonism, that there is not only a great deal of misinformation about the Church--but tons of people actually believe the misinformation. So, to avoid this blog being completely overwhelmed with responses to the trash that people believe about the LDS Gospel, I am reactivating my blog, "LDS 101: The Latter-day Saint / 'Mormon' Faith." Drop on by.

Do Rational People Believe in Mormonism?

2012-01-21T03:51:00.000-05:00

It has long been observed that Latter-day Saint theology and scriptures include many distinctive beliefs, beliefs that are quite different from those of majority Christianity. But in the minds of a lot of people, unfortunately, "different" means "strange," even "weird." The cheap shotgun overview of LDS theology that The Book of Mormon musical springs onto people without context or explanation lends itself to this sort of interpretation; I am sure that I am not the only Saint who has had a long-time friend say, after viewing a number from the musical, that "You believe some weird" things.

The current U.S. presidential campaign is going to bring much more public attention to distinctive LDS beliefs, such as our beliefs about the origin of the Book of Mormon (the real-life scripture, not the musical); Joseph Smith's visionary experiences; the doctrine of exaltation; the premortal existence; the three postmortal degrees of glory, and so forth -- hey, these days even the practice of tithing is getting scrutiny in the media. I could go into the historical and theological foundations for belief in each of these items of doctrine, and perhaps in future posts I shall. For now, however, I'd like to consider something a bit more emotional, the sort of knee-jerk reaction that I'm hearing more of lately: "How the heck can rational people even believe stuff like this?"

This was brought to mind by a reader's response to a piece I wrote recently for the Yahoo Contributor's Network regarding why evangelical Christians oppose the LDS faith. One reader responded:

Never mind talking about whether or nor they [i.e., the LDS] are Christians. Ask them about Jaredites, Nephites and Lamanites in North America between 1000 BC and 400 AD. It is the most bizarre histroriography imaginable. As the late columist Bob Novak once rhetorically asked "How can any rational person believe this?"

We'll return to the matter of Book of Mormon historiography on another occasion. As it happens, the late Robert Novak, political columnist, had not actually asked this question himself. In reference to the run-up to Mitt Romney's 2008 campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, Novak had mentioned that there was a big difference between the opposition to Romney the Mormon in 2008 and the opposition to John Kennedy the Roman Catholic in 1960, when a number of conservative Protestants voiced concerns that a Catholic President would take orders from the Vatican. As Novak put it:

Nobody is suggesting that Mitt Romney as president of the United States would be taking orders from the president of the Mormon Church in Salt Lake City. The Republican whispering campaign against Mormons is broader-based on ridicule of the church's doctrine. I have heard Republicans who have read the Book of Mormon express astonishment that any rational person could believe that fanciful stuff. [Emphasis added.]

Here is how I responded to my reader, and how I would like to have responded in 2006 to Novak's unnamed sources (edited, and links added):

Consider this. The fact is that many people, including many esteemed in their professions, believe LDS theology and claims about the Book of Mormon.

Let's consider just a few of my personal acquaintances. Here in New York, I've known four top biomedical researchers at the prestigious Rockefeller University who are faithful, believing, and practicing LDS -- two of whom served as my bishop, and the third of whom was in my stake presidency. My friend Rob Comstock, at the top of the game of the fashion industry, appears in one of the "I'm a Mormon" spots. Another friend of mine, Admiral Paul Yost (Ret.), commanded the U.S. Coast Guard. (For that matter, I myself am an elected Fellow of the American Psychological Association, a distinction of note.)

Beyond my own acquaintances, two of today's best-selling fiction authors, Stephenie Meyer of Twilight fame, and Orson Scott Card of the Ender books, are practicing Latter-day Saints, as is nonfiction business and lifestyle author Stephen "7 Habits" Covey. I could go on for pages mentioning physicians, medical researchers, creative arts professionals, university academics, attorneys, financial professionals, business leaders, and so forth, all practicing Latter-day Saints.

The point: You don't get to these sorts of positions by being irrational. The evidence clearly shows that huge numbers of rational people believe LDS theology. This does not prove it true, but it does prove that Novak's unnamed sources were foolish. People who would actually like to learn about the LDS faith held by some of our more scholarly Saints might find it beneficial to consult Susan Easton Black's edited book, Expressions of Faith: Testimonies of Latter-day Saint Scholars, or Henry Eyring's Faith of a Scientist.

Yes, rational people believe in Mormon doctrine. Latter-day Saints need to be aware of what is apparently a widespread prejudice regarding our rationality. Beyond that, as my late mother, brought up on the Lower East Side of Manhattan would have put it, "you need to straighten them out." Indeed.

Of course, all of this raises the question of how rational people came to believe in the Book of Mormon. But that is a topic for another post.

[If you like reading this, please consider becoming an official "follower" of this blog through the box in the upper-right corner of this page.]

[The reproduction above of Rodin's The Thinker was obtained through Wikipedia and is in the public domain.]

Announcing the 2012 Edition of theMormons for Obama Blog

2012-01-19T23:05:00.001-05:00

I will do my best to keep simple partisan politics off this blog. However, before I do so, I wanted to announce the reboot of the "Mormons for Obama" blog, 2012 edition. Enjoy.

Why Evangelicals Oppose Mormonism

2012-01-19T21:29:00.002-05:00

Never more than this presidential election season has the stark opposition of many evangelical Christians to the LDS faith received more attention in the national press. Yet, the reasons for that opposition are unclear to many people, and for that reason I suspect that many people in the public are confused about that most basic of questions about Mormonism: "Are Mormons Christian?"

In my latest piece on the Yahoo Contributor Network, I hope to bring some clarity to this issue. It is titled, "Why Evangelicals Oppose Mormons: Word Games and Fear." Them's strong words -- but, I dare say, accurate ones. And it's no picnic being called a cultist, either -- something that many evangelicals say every day, concerning up to one-quarter of the American population.

Do feel free to send this post around by e-mail, by means of the "envelope" icon below.

Mitt Romney's Tithing

2012-01-19T20:14:00.001-05:00

Readers who know me personally know that I will not be voting for Mitt Romney's party come November. (After all, I have just renovated the Mormons for Obama blog.)

But fair is fair. I for one have had enough with articles in the American press insinuating that there is something nefarious about Mitt Romney giving millions to the LDS Church in stock. I have so had enough that I have just published a piece through the Yahoo Contributor Network on this issue, titled, "Heart of Romney Furor: He's Just Being a Good Mormon." Read and enjoy.

Christmas Reflections, 2011

2011-12-24T18:03:00.000-05:00

"Adoration of the Wise Men," Murillo, 17th ct.

It’s Christmas Eve in midtown Manhattan. My wife has just returned from picking up some sundries at a local clothing store, where she was mistreated by staff, and actually held by the shoulders and repositioned out of the way, by one fellow on a quest for bargains. “New York is a rough place on Christmas Eve,” she told me on her return, and so it is.

There has certainly been a manic feel in the air over the last week or so. Yesterday I passed a fellow while crossing 57^th Street at 6^th Avenue. In that strange modern custom whereby people advertise the most intimate details of their lives to total strangers as they yell into their mobile phones, I heard this gentleman shouting, “It’s crazy! Out of control! I just spent $600 on gifts . . .” before he walked out of range.

Again, so it is, crazy and out of control. It is a commonplace observation to note that Christmas has become overly commercialized. But distortions always have something that they are distorted from, so we might well look to see what is the pure impulse that is at the heart of this holiday that has become so identified with heavy expenditure. And here we find something to ponder. For although buying is not at the real heart of the holiday, giving is.

The late Gordon B. Hinckley, then the second counselor in the First Presidency of the LDS Church, had this to say about the meaning of Christmas:

Christmas means giving. The Father gave his Son, and the Son gave his life. Without giving there is no true Christmas, and without sacrifice there is no true worship. There is more to Christmas than neckties, earrings, toys, and all the tinseled stuff of which we make so much. (“‘What Shall I Do Then with Jesus Which Is Called Christ?’,” December 1983 Ensign, emphasis in original)

The traditional interpretation that Latter-day Saints make is that Jesus was actually born on the ancient equivalent of April 6, 1 bc, and that Jesus was crucified on the same date in 33 ad. So it is that the day of Jesus’ birth marks his Father’s gift to us, and the day of his death marks the gift to all humanity of the Atonement of Christ—and it is the same day.

The world knows little of this. For the world at large, the whole gift-giving-at-Christmas meme begins with the arrival of the Wise Men, the Magi, who came to adore the infant Jesus, and bestowed upon him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. This moment has been immortalized in uncounted works of art through the centuries, such as the 17^th century work by Murillo shown above.

So what does that all mean for us? What is it that we are to learn from all this collection of gift-giving, giving that is conducted even on a cosmic scale? Perhaps we can learn something from Murillo’s painting, above.

There is Jesus in a manger, attended by his mother Mary and Joseph. There are no supernatural elements in the painting, no nimbus of glory here that says This child is the Savior of the world. (Well, maybe there’s the tiniest hint of a nimbus about baby Jesus’ head. But I’m guessing that no one is really noticing this.)

To someone completely ignorant about Christianity, this looks like quite the curious visit: some extraordinarily well-dressed, well-to-do individuals, heavily guarded (see the pointy spears) and laden with some very serious bling (note the jewel-encrusted gold box at the foot of the manger), who have visited a very ordinary-looking family in the humblest of circumstances. (The place surrounding the manger has collapsed timbers and disordered stonework.)

Now, we who know the account in the New Testament know why these powerful individuals were visiting this family of seeming nobodies. The Wise Men possessed special knowledge that this was Someone Special. And that is what prompted everything: the long and arduous journey, the expensive gifts, the danger.

But let’s consider this. Latter-day Saints, too, possess special knowledge. We know that the people we pass by each day are not nobodies; each one of them is a literal Child of God, with a divine birthright that includes the potential of veritable exaltation to godhood. That’s everybody, including the people who live beneath bridges, or huddle in the cold in doorways and alleys just off the street.

So here’s my thought, my suggestion for acting out the spirit of giving in a Magi-like way: Bring some gift to the homeless tonight or tomorrow. Pizza works very nicely, take-out sandwiches, food of just about any kind, really. Orange juice or simply pure bottled water. In many cases, baby food. Yes, you may well be working outside of your comfort zone to do this. (On the other hand, I’m sure the whole journey-across-the-desert-sands thing was a bit uncomfortable for the original Magi, too.)

Twenty centuries ago, God gave us His Son as the ultimate Christmas present. That baby was honored by some of the greatest people of that generation, even though he was in a smelly stable, born to a poor family. (In a way, for that night at least, Jesus Himself was homeless.) It would be a particularly appropriate way of commemorating that birth to go bring gifts to those whom the world least honors, for each of them is also a Child of God.

As President Hinckley continued:

Christmas means giving—and “the gift without the giver is bare.” Giving of self; giving of substance; giving of heart and mind and strength in assisting those in need and in spreading the cause of His eternal truth—these are of the very essence of the true spirit of Christmas.

Merry Christmas.

[If you like what you read here, do think about becoming an official member or follower of this blog.]

[The image is a reproduction of the painting “Adoration of the Wise Men,” by Bartolomé Esteban Murillo (1617-1682). The image is in the public domain, and was obtained through Wikipedia.]

Mormons Aren't the Only Ones Whom the Evangelicals Call a Cult

2011-12-14T21:11:00.002-05:00

Not by a long shot, as you can see from my latest piece for Yahoo Voices.

Watch "Of Masons and Mormons: The Relationship Between Freemasonry's Rituals of Initiation and the Latter-Day Saint Temple Ceremonies"

2011-08-21T22:32:00.000-04:00

Of Mormons and Masons from WEOFM on Vimeo.

Freemasons and the LDS Temple Ceremonies

2011-08-18T03:48:00.000-04:00

For over 150 years, there has been contention about whether the LDS temple ceremonies were essentially stolen from the initiation rituals of Freemasonry. As it happens, I am a Freemason; of course, long-time readers of this blog are well-aware that I am a Latter-day Saint, as well. Being intimately familiar both with the LDS temple ceremonies and the Masonic initiation rituals, I have some thoughts on this matter. I shall be presenting those thoughts as a streaming video on the Worldwide Exemplification of Freemasonry website (http://www.weofm.org/) this Saturday, August 20, at 8 p.m. Eastern. Thereafter, the hourlong presentation will be available through the Video tab on the WEOFM website, at least through the end of 2015.

I have wanted to address the controversy on this issue in a productive way for many years. I am very grateful to the Worldwide Exemplification of Freemasonry, and its current master, Brother Albert McClelland, for giving me this opportunity to present my thoughts. My presentation is respectful to both traditions; this is not an expose of either. This is not a “talking head” show, either; I have included hundreds of photos and illustrations.

I am looking into publishing an expanded version of this presentation through an on-demand publisher. Watch this space for more details. In the meantime, enjoy the video presentation.

Early Christian Books on Metal Plates Discovered—Some Sealed, Like the Book of Mormon

2011-03-30T23:34:00.004-04:00

A post this morning on The Lookout, a Yahoo! news blog, reported that a team of British archaeologists was investigating a collection of seventy small books, or codices, made out of lead plates, possibly dating back to the first century of the Christian era, discovered in Jordan. (One such codex is pictured above.) The story was originally reported in the online edition of the Daily Mail (United Kingdom). Some of the codices were completely sealed (as pictured below), a fact which led the archaeologists to recall “the book ... sealed with seven seals” mentioned in the biblical Book of Revelation (New Testament, Revelation, chapters 5 and 6).

Mindful of a string of recent frauds involving supposed archaeological artifacts, some specialists are urging caution and careful authentication before claims are made on the basis of these codices. All that is as it should be. For the sake of discussion, let us assume that the codices are ultimately found to be authentic.

For Latter-day Saints (LDS), there are all sorts of interesting things to talk about here. First of all, there is the matter of sacred writings on metal plates, in relation to the Book of Mormon. Then there is the matter of some of the codices being sealed, also in relation to the Book of Mormon. Finally, there is the matter of LDS prophecies concerning the coming forth of “other books” than the Bible and Book of Mormon.

Books on Metal Plates

It has often been noted that the validity of the LDS faith stands or falls on the validity of the Book of Mormon, a uniquely LDS scripture. Joseph Smith wrote that an angel had been sent by God to tell Smith about an ancient book written on golden plates, and that he, Smith, later obtained the book, and translated it as the Book of Mormon that we have today. (A brief LDS description of the Book of Mormon and its production may be found here.)

The mainstream Christian world has long condemned the Book of Mormon as anathema: there are no valid prophets, let alone valid written prophecy, after the New Testament, they say. Many have then gone on to criticize the Book of Mormon on its formal characteristics, including its seemingly exotic format: a book, supposedly written on metal plates, bound by rings of metal, with some of the plates actually sealed because Joseph Smith was not permitted to read them. Who had ever heard of such a thing?

Well, pretty much no one, in 1830, when Joseph Smith first published the Book of Mormon. However, as noted in a 2007 article by William J. Hamblin, in the years since the publication of the Book of Mormon, a number of archaeological finds have been made involving sacred writing on metal plates in the area of the Mediterranean.

Up until the 1950s, one could criticize all of that research on the grounds that no such metal books had emerged from the context of ancient Judaism, which supposedly formed the matrix from which the Book of Mormon emerged. The 1952 discovery of the Copper Scroll among the Dead Sea Scrolls put that criticism to rest; the Copper Scroll is written, of course, on metal. (See the Hamblin article’s link above for other examples of ancient Jewish writing on metal plates.)

Yet, the criticism could still be made that there were no examples of Christian literature on metal plates. If found to be authentic, the lead plates described in today’s news articles changes that situation altogether: it is clear that someone in at least one ancient Christian community created Christian books written on metal plates, and quite a few books at that.

Sealed Plates

Another ground of criticism of the Book of Mormon is the matter of the supposedly sealed part of the plates. Joseph Smith stated that about one-third of the plates of the Book of Mormon were sealed, and that he had been instructed to leave those plates sealed, and not to attempt to read them or translate them. He also stated that he had been required to deliver the plates back to the angel after Smith had translated the unsealed section of plates; presumably this was, in part, to ensure the security of the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon.

The critics’ judgment is that this is awfully convenient. They say that Smith invented an excuse so that he would not have to produce the plates of the Book of Mormon for the public. The idea that some of the plates were sealed, they say, is merely a contrivance stolen from the story of the book sealed with seven seals, mentioned in the biblical Book of Revelation (as noted above).

If found to be authentic, the lead plates described in today’s news articles changes that situation altogether, as well: it is clear that someone deliberately sealed some of the codices, as illustrated above. This was therefore not necessarily some practice invented by Joseph Smith, or stolen from the Book of Revelation, but rather represents a continuation of a heretofore little-known practice concerning, perhaps, especially sacred literature.

The Coming Forth of “Other Books”

The Latter-day Saints have long been told that there are still sacred records to come forth, records that will be of worth to us in the latter days. In the Book of Mormon, the ancient prophet Nephi is shown a vision of what was, to him, the far future. As he described the vision, he say that after the publication of the Book of Mormon itself, in our day, “other books”—presumably ancient books long lost—would come forth to provide evidence of both the Bible and the Book of Mormon (Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 13:39).

Even if found to be authentic, the recently discovered lead plates may not be the prophesied “other books.” However, their mere existence and discovery serve to remind all the Saints that the prophecies are still valid, even though yet to be fulfilled. If anything, this should inspire the Saints to study carefully the sacred records that we have now; only then will we be eligible to receive more.

Copyright 2011 Mark E. Koltko-Rivera. All Rights Reserved.

Readers are invited to become “followers” of this blog through the box in the upper-left-hand corner of this webpage, just under the title of the blog. Readers are also welcome to comment--civilly--below.

[The images of the codices were taken by David Elkington for Rex Features. The images can be found on the website of the Daily Mail, a newspaper in the United Kingdom.]

Immigrant Rights Advocate Tries to Suspend LDS Missionary Visas to Mexico

2011-02-14T19:21:00.001-05:00

“The Lookout,” a Yahoo!News blog, reported today in a story by Liz Goodwin that “an immigrant rights advocate in Utah is trying to provoke the Mormon Church into taking a firmer stand against state-level immigration crackdowns by petitioning the Mexican government to suspend all Mormon missionary visas.” The report states that the advocate, Raul Lopez-Vargas, is circulating a petition, “which accuses the church of not caring about Mexican immigrants because they are mostly Catholic and won't convert to Mormonism.” Lopez-Vargas reportedly wants the Church to sign the Utah Compact, which states that immigration policy is the domain of federal, not state, authorities. Tony Yapias is quoted as saying that “he suspects the delay in visas for missionaries in Brazil ... may be related to the Mormon church’s silence on illegal immigration crackdowns in the United States.”

The people behind the petition do not understand the LDS Church’s position at all. They also are either ignorant of historical facts involving the Church, or misconstrue those facts.

To say that the LDS Chuch is "not caring about Mexican immigrants because they are mostly Catholic and won't convert to Mormonism" is utterly ludicrous. For one thing, Mexican Catholics convert to the LDS Church in great numbers—hence the great force of very busy LDS missionaries in Mexico. LDS missionaries have been baptizing great numbers of Mexican Catholics since at least as far back as the mid-1970s, when I began following such issues. There is nothing about either Mexican culture or a Catholic background that keeps people from converting to the LDS faith. (Although not a Mexican, I am a member of two ethnic groups that are historically Roman Catholic—the Polish and the Puerto Rican—and I converted from Catholicism to the LDS faith, in which I remain quite active; many US converts are former Catholics.)

For another thing, the LDS Church spends about US$ 80-100 million annually in sending aid to the needy, including many people who are not LDS and who live in countries where LDS missionaries are not even allowed to preach. This includes a great deal of disaster relief activities. The LDS Church cares a great deal about the welfare of people of whatever faith they might be; this is why the LDS Church expressed support for the principles of the Utah Compact mentioned in the article, although the Church has not signed that Compact.

What it comes down to is that the LDS Church is reticent to take a position here simply because immigration is largely a political and law enforcement issue. For many years, the LDS Church has stepped back from taking positions on almost any political issue that is not what it perceives to be also a moral issue.

This is another instance in which the LDS Church cannot get an even break from some of its critics. If the LDS Church takes a stance on an issue, then people say it's interfering in politics; if it maintains a neutral stance, as in this case, then people say it ought to be forced to take a stance, especially one that suits the critics.

Incidentally, as far as the delay of Brazilian visas for LDS missionaries is concerned, this goes way back. When I was an LDS missionary myself (Japan Okayama Mission), LDS missionaries headed to Brazil commonly had their visas delayed for months--and this was in 1978.

Advocates for immigrants and various immigration policies—and political policies generally—would do well to focus on reasoned debate, rather than attempt to get their way with power politics.

(Readers are encouraged to comment below, and to become “followers” of this blog above so as to be informed about future posts.)

Copyright 2011 Mark E. Koltko-Rivera. All Rights Reserved.

[The image of the Salt Lake City LDS Temple was taken by Diliff in September 2004 and retouched by Entheta in August 2008. The image was obtained from Wikimedia Commons, which is a freely licensed media file repository.]

{Technorati confirmation code: 6SU6TK7WCS2J .}

LDS 14-year-old invents top iPhone app

2011-01-16T18:29:00.000-05:00

You know the drill. Somebody LDS (or reputedly LDS) does something bad, and the world is told in banner headlines, "Mormon Does Something Bad." We rarely get credit when one of our people does something good.

Well, here's something bucking that trend.

ABC News reports that 14-year-old Robert Nay of Spanish Fork, Utah, invented Bubble Ball, a free iPhone app that is now the number one downloaded game, surpassing Angry Birds. His technical resources? A book out of the Spanish Fork Public Library. Young Robert plans to go to BYU, and given that and his hometown, it's a pretty sure bet that he is LDS.

The Execution of Ronnie Lee Gardner, and Blood Atonement

2010-05-25T12:58:00.000-04:00

Recently, an article by Peggy Fletcher Stack of The Salt Lake Tribune was picked up by The Huffington Post. Stack’s article concerns the forthcoming execution of Ronnie Lee Gardner, who has been convicted of the murder of a man during a failed prison escape, 25 years ago. Gardner is petitioning to be executed by firing squad, citing his “Mormon heritage,” and Stack’s article connects Gardner’s request to the 19th century LDS doctrine of blood atonement.

Judging from the comments left by HuffPost readers, the whole matter of blood atonement seems quite strange to modern American ears. Some Latter-day Saints may have some pointed questions directed their way regarding this matter by their non-LDS friends and acquaintances. Below, I mention a few points of fact that may help to clarify this matter.

Since the time I was baptized a Latter-day Saint (LDS) in 1975 at college in Pennsylvania, I have never once heard blood atonement taught in an LDS Church class or preached from an LDS pulpit. Teachings about blood atonement are much more alive in anti-Mormon literature than they are in the LDS Church today.
At its heart, the doctrine of blood atonement states that some offenses against humanity (especially murder) are so heinous that the offender’s death is required to atone for it. One may disagree with the idea of capital punishment, but it is not inherently outrageous.
The shedding of the murderer’s blood seems to be meant to parallel the atonement of Jesus Christ, where Jesus’ blood was shed. The doctrine that Christ’s blood was shed to atone for the sins of the world has been a central aspect of traditional Christian theology for twenty centuries, and is clearly stated in the New Testament.
The LDS doctrine of blood atonement was taught by Brigham Young at a time when many of the Latter-Day Saints had recently been murdered by anti-Mormons (particularly in Missouri). LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith is mentioned in the Stack article as having once authored a pamphlet on blood atonement; President Smith’s grandfather and granduncle (the Patriarch Hyrum and the Prophet Joseph) had both been shot by an anti-Mormon mob of assassins. In that context, murder and its consequences, quite understandably, were on the minds of many of the Saints who lived in the latter half of the 19th century. In later years, these concerns have faded.
The punishment of blood atonement was never inflicted by LDS authorities as a punishment for apostasy or any such.

The modern LDS Church does not focus on blood atonement because it is not a central part of the LDS Christian Gospel message. It is simply not important enough to teach. However, these points above may help to put the whole matter in some context.

(This post expands on a comment of mine on a news item in The Huffington Post. The original news article is available here. An archive of all my comments on The Huffington Post is available here. Readers of this blog are welcome to become “fans” of mine on The Huffington Post.)

Copyright 2010 Mark E. Koltko-Rivera. All Rights Reserved.

Environmentalism, the Latter-Day Saints, and Glenn Beck

2010-05-24T19:48:00.000-04:00

Back in March, I wrote a post on this blog regarding Glenn Beck’s comments to the effect that religious teachings on social justice amounted to Nazism and Communism. Mr. Beck has continued in this vein; a few days ago, he objected to the recommendation of a government panel that the government should help faith-based and other not-for-profit organizations obtain loans to encourage green building projects. For Mr. Beck, this amounts to “merging” the churches of America with the Environmental Protection Agency, into a superfaith that teaches “the Gospel of Gaia” and “the religion of environmental and social justice.”

In a new post to “On the Mark: Social Commentary from a Reflective Perspective,” another blog of mine, I address the misunderstandings that Mr. Beck has regarding the real meaning of the separation of Church and State. However, on “Mormon from Manhattan,” I would like to focus on another aspect of Mr. Beck’s thought: his misunderstanding regarding, yet again, the theology of his own church.

Yes, Glenn Beck is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. However, his understanding of the LDS Gospel in reference to environmentalism appears to be profoundly deficient, as was his understanding of the Gospel with reference to social justice.

The subject of LDS doctrine on environmentalism is not without its own controversies; the subject is worth a detailed doctrinal and historical treatment. Here, I shall just focus on two things: the commission given to Adam and Eve concerning the Earth, and the vision given to Enoch of the Earth as a living being.
Adam, Eve, and the Earth

In the first chapter of the Bible, the Lord states the following:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Genesis 1: 27-28)

The language of the King James Version, given above, might lead one to the impression that human beings are justified in basically doing whatever they wish to the world and its living beings. However, the underlying Hebrew text clarifies the meaning of the scriptures in a very different way.

The word translated as “subdue,” the Hebrew kivshuah from the root kavash, does indeed indicate the idea of putting something under submission. It is a forceful word, carrying the idea of Adam and Eve making the Earth do their will. This is appropriate for people who, quite soon, will be making their living from hard work in agriculture and herding. The world does not support us easily.

The word translated as “and have dominion,” the Hebrew urdu from the root radah, does indeed mean “to have dominion over, to rule.” However, the word means to rule in the way a king rules. One prominent theme in the Jewish scriptures is that when the king rules wisely, the people prosper, but when the king rules poorly or selfishly, the people suffer greatly.

Overall, this passage is not a license for humanity to do whatever it likes with the world. Rather, it is a commission to rule wisely over the world. It can easily be argued that we have not done so well in that department.
Enoch and the Earth

The LDS scriptures contain within them an account of a vision given to the prophet Enoch, a vision that features the world as a living being:

And it came to pass that Enoch looked upon the earth; and he heard a voice from the bowels thereof, saying: Wo, wo is me, the mother of men; I am pained, I am weary, because of the wickedness of my children. When shall I rest, and be cleansed from the filthiness which is gone forth out of me? When will my Creator sanctify me, that I may rest, and righteousness for a season abide upon my face? (Pearl of Great Price, Moses 7:48)

This is an astonishing confirmation of a concept that is found in several religious and spiritual traditions throughout history (including, yes, the Gaia Hypothesis): the Earth is indeed a living being. Moreover, it is a living being over whom we have stewardship.

Conclusion

It is important for Latter-day Saints to understand that, implicit in the LDS Gospel, we are taught to take care of the planet, as wise rulers of the living Earth. This is something that Glenn Beck seems not to understand.

(This post expands on a comment of mine on an opinion piece in The Huffington Post. The original opinion piece is available here. An archive of all my comments on The Huffington Post is available here. Readers of this blog are welcome to become “fans” of mine on HuffPost.)

Copyright 2010 Mark E. Koltko-Rivera. All Rights Reserved.

[The image of the Earth as seen from Apollo 17 is in the public domain, and was obtained through Wikipedia.]

Sorry to Be Gone for So Long

2010-05-24T18:01:00.001-04:00

I am sorry to say that a combination of unfortunate health and family circumstances have kept me off my blogs for a long time. I am happy to say that my health is much improved, and so I look forward to returning to my blogging with renewed vigor.

Social Justice, the Latter-Day Saints, and Glenn Beck

2010-03-14T00:36:00.004-05:00

An article by Laurie Goodstein in The New York Times of Friday, March 12, 2010, informs us of the following:

Last week, the conservative broadcaster Glenn Beck called on Christians to leave their churches if they hear preaching about social or economic justice, saying they were code words for Communism and Nazism. …

Mr. Beck said on his radio show on March 2, “I beg you, look for the words ‘social justice’ or ‘economic justice’ on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words.” …

“If you have a priest that is pushing social justice, go find another parish.”

Despite the fact that Glenn Beck is a Latter-day Saint, what he has to say on this subject is entirely his own opinion, and does not reflect Latter-day Saint teaching. I am writing this blog post to inform the world at large of two simple facts:

1. Latter-day Saint (LDS) teaching, doctrine, and scriptures clearly demonstrate an LDS commitment to social justice.
2. The reason that the term “social justice” is not a prominent part of LDS teaching is due to an accident of history.

What Is Social Justice?

At its heart, the term social justice means that individuals and governments should support the idea that all people should be treated equally before the law; that the rights of all people should be protected regardless of considerations like race, religious affiliation, and so forth; and, that everyone deserves equality of opportunity within society.

Social justice is a general concept that allows for varying interpretations and methods of implementation, some of them quite heinous. In the 1940s, the Roman Catholic priest, Father Charles Coughlin used the term in his radio programs, in which he issued antisemitic commentaries and defended the policies of Adolf Hitler and Mussolini. At the opposite end of the political spectrum, Communist policies of forced property redistribution have been justified on the grounds of social justice. However, neither of these extremes are inherent in the concept of social justice itself. We must not judge concepts on the basis of their worst implementations—a principle which has general application. For example, the destructive teachings of self-proclaimed ‘prophets’ like the late David Koresh must not be used to sully the legitimate concepts of prophecy and revelation; however, many militant atheists do just that, to make a case against revealed religion.

For some readers, the ideal of social justice will seem to be a given. However, the reality is that social justice is the exception in the world, not the rule. In many places, different social classes get preferential treatment under the law, and special opportunities for education and economic advancement. There are such forms of prejudice as classism, racism, sexism, faithism, and other forms of discrimination. Special forms of privilege are afforded to members of certain political parties, or religious or ethnic groups—while members of other parties or groups are discriminated against.

No, social justice is not the global norm at all. It is, however, an important aspect of the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ (shown above, preaching the Sermon on the Mount), to which I now turn.

The LDS Gospel is Highly Focused on Social Justice

LDS teaching, doctrine, scripture, and many aspects of LDS practice are highly focused on social justice. Below are a few examples, focusing especially on material from the LDS canonized scriptures or Standard Works, which include—in addition to the Bible—the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.

The Book of Mormon and Social Justice

That quintessential LDS document, the Book of Mormon, has as one of its central themes the matter of social justice. As quoted in Ms. Goodstein’s article, Philip Barlow, a history professor at Utah State University, put it well: “One way to read the Book of Mormon is that it’s a vast tract on social justice.” Some instances of the Book of Mormon’s focus on social justice include the following:

The Book of Mormon constantly condemns the tendency of the Nephites to divide into social classes defined by wealth and luxury goods, with ‘higher’ classes withholding wealth from ‘lower’ classes. The prophet Helaman blamed a whole war on this tendency: “And it was because of the pride of their hearts, because of their exceeding riches, yea, it was because of their oppression to the poor, withholding their food from the hungry, withholding their clothing from the naked …” (Helaman 4:12).
The Book of Mormon commands people not to withhold their substance from those in need: “… ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish. … For behold, are we not all beggars?” (Mosiah 4:16, 19; see Mosiah 4: 16-26 in its entirety).

LDS Economics: Consecration, The United Order, Tithing, Fast Offerings

The LDS ideal standard is expressed in the Law of Consecration, which has been expressed in different ways at different times. In the 19th century, under the United Order, Church members voluntarily consecrated all of their properties to the Church, which then deeded to each member what they needed according to their circumstances. At the present time, the United Order is suspended, but faithful members voluntarily pay 10% of their increase, or a tithe, to the Church, to support its programs, many of which benefit the poor. Members also fast for two meals monthly, and contribute an amount of money at least equal to the purchase of those meals, explicitly for the support of the poor.

Part of the point of all of these programs has been to further spiritual purposes by means of economic principles. An important aspect of this is the elimination of poverty, and power distinctions by economic class. Latter-day Saints believe that the Lord revealed this to the LDS prophet Joseph Smith in 1832: “For if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things” (D&C 78:6). In LDS scripture, an ancient city and people who embodied these principles are described in these terms: “And the Lord called his people ZION, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them” (Moses 7:18). All of this expresses the heart of a social justice perspective.

LDS Aid to People in Need, in the Church, and in Developing Nations

For many years, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (hereafter “LDS Church”) has worked to improve the lot of its own poor, not just by giving a dole, but by helping people be self-sufficient. Back in the days of the Great Depression of the 1930s and 1940s, this effort became institutionalized in the Church Welfare Program. For several years, another aspect of this effort, the Perpetual Education Fund, has served to provide funds for education of Latter-day Saints in the Developing World, to help them to find economic self-sufficiency and career advancement; recently, this program reached the milestone of helping 40,000 people with their education.

However, LDS aid is by no means confined to helping Latter-day Saints alone. For several decades, the LDS Church has made it a priority to help to provide humanitarian outreach services on an ongoing basis to the developing world, through nonproselytizing service missionaries who work to improve literacy, sanitation, health, and nutrition—the vast majority of this aid going to those who are not Latter-day Saints. Much of this is supported by Latter-day Saint Charities, an official effort based at LDS Church headquarters.

These efforts of the LDS Church—efforts that have been conducted, in one way or another, for almost two centuries—are so important that, recently, the official statement of the purpose of the Church was altered so as to emphasize that one central aspect of the purpose of the Church is to “care for the poor and the needy.” This, too, is part of the essence of social justice.

LDS Stance on Basic Human Rights
The leadership of the LDS Church recently made a public statement supporting a proposed Salt Lake City ordinance supporting nondiscrimination in housing and employment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. This is also an aspect of social justice.

It was in this public statement that an LDS Church spokesperson made a statement on which I would like to conclude this section:

I represent a church that believes in human dignity, in treating others with respect even when we disagree – in fact, especially when we disagree. (Statement made through Michael Otterson)

If there is a better statement of the essence of social justice, I am not aware of it.

Why Don’t We Hear the Term “Social Justice” Preached from LDS Pulpits?

The question may be raised, why don’t we hear the term “social justice” from the LDS pulpit? As it happens, this is due to an accident of history.

The term “social justice” was apparently coined by the Italian Jesuit scholar Luigi Taparelli sometime in the 1840s. During this decade, the Latter-day Saints were heavily persecuted; indeed, the LDS prophet Joseph Smith himself was assassinated by an anti-Mormon mob in 1844. Subsequently, the Latter-day Saints were driven from their city of Nauvoo, Illinois, out to the valley of the Great Salt Lake. Throughout the remainder of the 19th century, the Saints were preoccupied with various threats to their physical and political survival (such as the imposition of Johnson’s Army). (The interested reader may find it helpful to consider this webpage about LDS Church history.)

By the time LDS survival in the Intermountain West was assured, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Latter-day Saints had already developed their own distinctive religious and theological vocabulary. In the same way that other Christian churches do not use the term “exaltation” in the way that the Latter-day Saints do, so the Latter-day Saints use different terms and phrases to reflect the concept of social justice, such as “there shall be no poor among you,” “consecration,” “United Order,” “charity,” “humanitarian aid,” “respect,” and so forth.

Conclusion

The Latter-day Saint Gospel—what the LDS believe is the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ—is strongly focused on social justice. LDS doctrine and scripture focus on the obligations, not only to relieve the plight of the poor, but to eliminate poverty altogether. Various LDS programs focus on the improvement of the lives of the poor around the world.

Like any concept, social justice can be implemented in a variety of ways, some of which would be abhorrent to Latter-day Saints. However, the heart of social justice is highly consistent with the heart of the LDS Gospel.

Reference

Goodstein, L. (2010, March 12). Outraged by Glenn Beck’s salvo, Christians fire back. The New York Times [late edition], p. A12.

[The image of the painting, “Sermon on the Mount,” by Carl Heinrich Bloch (d. 1890), is in the public domain, and was obtained from Wikipedia.]

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

2009-12-13T05:09:00.000-05:00

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

2009-11-01T05:50:00.000-05:00

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

2009-10-20T06:55:00.003-04:00

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

2009-10-17T02:51:00.002-04:00

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?

2009-09-18T06:51:00.014-04:00

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

2009-09-17T14:39:00.017-04:00

[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:

Become more familiar with the doctrine of exaltation.
Become familiar with Dan Brown's not-quite-enough approach to exaltation in The Lost Symbol.
Alert news media to the resonances between Dan Brown's novel's conclusion and this important LDS doctrine.
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

2009-04-27T10:34:00.006-04:00

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"

2009-04-06T04:38:00.008-04:00

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

2009-04-06T00:17:00.010-04:00

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

Reflections on Sunday Morning Session

2009-04-05T23:49:00.009-04:00

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

Reflections on Priesthood Session

2009-04-05T11:04:00.003-04:00

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:

Study diligently.
Pray fervently.
Live righteously.

Amen.

Previous Posts on April 2009 General Conference

Reflections on Saturday Afternoon Conference

2009-04-04T18:02:00.005-04:00

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

2009-04-04T14:05:00.007-04:00

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

2009-04-03T21:02:00.011-04:00

(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

2009-04-01T19:13:00.006-04:00

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

2009-03-31T23:12:00.005-04:00

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:

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.

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.

Welcome to "Mormon From Manhattan: Viewpoints of a Latter-Day Saint New Yorker": An Introduction

2009-03-25T18:10:00.008-04:00

Welcome to “Mormon From Manhattan: Viewpoints of a Latter-Day Saint New Yorker.” In this post, I explain the topics I plan to address, how this blog is different from other blogs about the faith of the Latter-day Saints, how I am qualified to write about this, and aspects of my personal life. (I shall continue to address issues involving the interface of the LDS faith and some details of my personal background. Note: As of March 30, I adopted a policy of posting entries of a maximum 800 words (not including references and so forth); thus, posts on this blog are just a bit longer than an Op-Ed piece in a typical newspaper.

Topics Addressed in This Blog

I shall address general topics related to the faith of the Latter-day Saints, including: LDS beliefs and practices, philosophy, ethics, doctrine. Images of Mormonism in popular entertainment and the media. Responses to Anti-Mormonism. Items appearing in the LDS blogosphere and cyberspace. Mormons and Mormonism in the news. My experience being a Latter-day Saint. Here, I shall consider items that are of particular interest to Latter-day Saints. Issues involving the interface between the LDS faith and society at large I shall consider in my blog devoted to general social issues, “On the Mark: Social Commentary From a Reflective Perspective.”) I plan to send posts to this blog once or twice a week (excluding vacations and conference trips.)

How This Blog Is Different

There are a lot of blogs about the Saints, which is a wonderful thing. I bring to this one a knowledge of other faiths and spiritual traditions (including esoteric traditions) and scriptural languages; a point of view based geographically in the American Northeast; and, the perspective of a convert, raised in another faith, with family members from many other religious traditions.

How I Am Qualified to Write About the LDS Faith

First and foremost, of course, I am an observant Latter-day Saint. I conducted a private practice in psychotherapy, primarily with an LDS population, for 16 years (and published some of my early reflections on this work). Subsequently, I have been recognized for my work in the psychology of worldviews (the assumptions that people have about reality), the psychology of religion, and the psychology of self-transcendence. I have also published articles about the LDS faith in Sunstone and Dialogue.

My Personal Background
I understand that readers may be curious about what sorts of perspectives inform my opinions. Here are some items about my background:

Name: Mark Edward Koltko-Rivera.

Demographic characteristics: 52 years old; married, with four grown children from a former marriage.

LDS background: Convert. Returned missionary; served an honorable mission in the Japan Okayama Mission (1978-1980). Have served in two bishoprics and on a stake high council. Have served for much of the last 8 years as the teacher of the Gospel Doctrine class in Sunday School. Currently serve as a ward missionary.

Home town: The Lower East Side of Manhattan, New York City.

Where I’ve lived: New York City (Manhattan; Astoria, Queens; the Bronx). Florida (Winter Park, just north of Orlando). New Jersey (Newark). Pennsylvania (Haverford and Bryn Mawr). Connecticut (New Milford and West Hartford). Japan (Hiroshima, Okayama, Matsue, Matsuyama, Tokushima).

Ethnicity: Polish and Puerto Rican.

Education: Graduated from St. Stanislaus, B.M. School (now defunct), New York City, 1970. Graduated from Regis High School, New York City, 1974. Graduated from Haverford College with a BA degree, majoring in psychology, 1981 (affiliated with Class of 1978); many classes taken at Bryn Mawr College. Graduated from Fordham University’s Graduate School of Education with an MS in Ed degree, majoring in counseling, 1984. Graduated from New York University with a PhD degree, in counseling psychology, 2000.

Religion and Spirituality: My religion is the faith of the Latter-day Saints (LDS, known popularly as ‘the Mormons’). Within this faith, I have found it comfortable to situate myself within the Sunstone and Dialogue community (named for two independent LDS publications, in which I have published several articles; I have also presented at the Sunstone Symposia in Salt Lake City, Washington, DC, and Boston).

Other Affiliations: I am a member of Psi Chi, the national honor society in psychology. I am a Fellow of the American Psychological Association, where I have won significant awards from Divisions 1 (General Psychology), 32 (Humanistic Psychology), and 36 (Psychology of Religion). I am a Freemason, and, within Freemasonry, a member of the Scottish Rite and the York Rite.

Politics: Rational. Before the 2008 presidential election, I authored a “Mormons for Obama” blog.

Presence on the Internet: I write "On the Mark: Social Commentary From a Reflective Perspective" where I address social issues in general, my life and its lessons, and spirituality. I also write "Freemasonry: Reality, Myth, and Legend," where I address issues of interest to Freemasons. I shall address issues involving the interface between society in general and the LDS faith on "On the Mark"; I reserve issues of primary interest to Latter-day Saints on this blog, "For Latter-Day Saints: Topics in Mormonism." Anyone is welcome to read or comment on any of these blogs (subject to the rules, below).

Although directed at members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, anyone is welcome to read and comment upon these posts. The rules for those who leave comments: No personal attacks. No profanity. You are welcome to disagree with me, and quite vigorously at that, but infringements of the rules means I shall delete you and bar you from future commenting. Beyond that: Welcome.