omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent.
all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving.
today a child suffered and died of starvation.
families are left homeless after the storm.
a young girl is sold and raped.
did He not know?
was He unable?
does He care?
which do i keep?
which do i abandon?
which do i hope for?
does He listen?
can He answer?
does He care?
nine years ago today. i’m a day short of my nineteenth birthday, saying my goodbyes to my family, getting my hair length checked, and stepping into the provo missionary training center. three days earlier i was giving my farewell talk. i spoke on faith as an enabler of good works. i bore my testimony of god and the gospel. it came from my heart.
two years ago this week. i’m declaring myself an atheist. dunno where it came from. out of nowhere really. dunno where my faith went. into nowhere really.
a week ago today. i’m faithfully (with faith) taking the sacrament for the first time in a couple years. i wish i could say that some theophany or overwhelming experience occurred, but nothing dramatic happened. it was miraculous enough.
eight and half years ago. i’m sitting with my companion listening to mayrose pray for the first time in her life. no theophany. but another miracle.
six months ago. i want to rediscover that which i had lost. i’m on my knees praying. i hadn’t done it for months. i’m not sure if there was an answer.
four months ago. god answers my prayers. a theophany. an overwhelming feeling. a miracle.
eight years ago. we’re teaching alva, a seventy-five year old smoker about the word of wisdom. she had her first daughter when she was fifteen. her daughter had a daughter at fifteen. her granddaughter had a daughter at fifteen. that week, alva’s great-grandaughter gave birth to twins. alva still lives with her boyfriend of forty years. she’s unable to give up smoking.
three months ago. after having never had a drink in all my nearly twenty-eight years, i suddenly find myself wanting alcohol. dunno where it came from. out of nowhere really. some say that following a spiritual experience, satan works even harder. it happened to moses, jesus, and joseph smith. i don’t know what i think about this satan fellow, but i can’t help but feel he’s working on me. i win the battle.
two months ago. i lose the battle. i spend most of the next month drinking or getting high. and then i stop. dunno where it went. into nowhere really. though it comes back to haunt me occasionally. i’m determined not to lose again.
seven years ago. i’m finishing up two of the greatest years of my life with a trip to the laie temple. sitting in the celestial room, i can’t help but cry as i reflect on the experiences over the previous couple years. my testimony is stronger than ever.
four months ago. i’m sitting with my bishop in his office discussing my experiences over the last two years. i’ve got brand new garments in my room back home waiting to be worn. we set a goal to get me back into the temple in six months.
two months from now. it’s been a rough and difficult trip. it isn’t easy. bouncing back hasn’t been easy. but i’ve done it. i’m not sure how i feel. i’m not sure what i’m thinking. i only hope it’s been worth it.
i intend this to be the first of several posts where i am going to argue that mormons have largely failed to take their historical claims of the book of mormon seriously. they want to hold that the characters in the book of mormon are historical human beings, yet in reading them, mormons have a tendency to strip away their humanity making them into something more (or less) than human. in this post i hope to merely lay the groundwork for a different understanding of the book of mormon actors that restores their humanity and brings a vibrance and reality to the text that is usually left buried. in later posts, i will use this methodology to examine particular book of mormon prophets in an effort to see them as historical persons.
for most mormons, the book of mormon is an ancient historical text written by actual ancient historical person. the accounts within the book are narratives of actual historical events which really occurred. lehi, nephi, alma, mormon, and moroni were just as real as christopher columbus, george washington, joseph smith, brigham young, and tupac shakur. in fact, for many mormons, the narratives in the book of mormon are more historical than any historical biography or textbook. for many mormons, accepting the book of mormon as an authentic history is essential to participating in the faith. church-associated (sponsored?) organizations, such as f.a.r.m.s. spend a good deal of time and effort defending the historical claims of the book of mormon.
yet, despite all of the affirmations that the persons in the book of mormon are historical human beings, there exists at the same time a denial of a key aspect that enables these characters to be historical humans… their humanity.
humans aren’t perfect. humans are fallible. humans have opinions which they mistake as facts. humans have speculations which they mistake for revelation. humans have biases. humans are unaware of the social constructions moving them. humans have self-interests. humans have pride. humans can be awfully stupid at times.
in mormonism, we are usually happy to ascribe humanity to our latter-day leaders. we allow them to make mistakes. we allow them to be human. we let brigham young be wrong about his adam-god doctrine. those in the know are willing to let his racism slide. we laugh at j. golden kimball’s adventures in swearing. joseph fielding smith is able to get away with his fanatical anti-intellectualism. we’re cool with his 13,000 year old earth and his declaration that scientists (including his fellow apostle james e. talmage) were fools deceived by satan. we can chuckle about his teaching that man would never go to the moon. bruce r. mcconkie? his name associated with a teaching is grounds for suspicion in mormonism. for the most part, we are willing to accept that any of the latter-day prophets and apostles can be mistaken (besides joseph smith and the current president – a topic for a whole other post) – even from the pulpit.
we do this because we accept they are human. we realize they can be wrong. and we’re fine with that. they can be wrong in general conference. they can be wrong in the letters they write. they can be wrong in their writings. in some ways it makes them admirable. we can look up to and revere them because they are humans, just like us. they are trying to do god’s will the best they can, despite their humanity.
yet why do we strip the authors of the book of mormon of their humanity? why do we not allow them to be wrong in what they say, do, or write? if the book of mormon is true, if it is a true history of historical persons, shouldn’t it reflect their beautiful humanity in its text – complete with their biases, mistaken revelations, self-interests, pride, and failings – many, if not mostly, unbeknownst to them? why do we force them into roles of perfection and infallibility and not accept them as one of us – human beings striving to do god’s will despite our humanity.
in later posts, i hope to be able to explore the book of mormon prophets with a healthy measure of suspicion, to look at them as humans and to ask what else may have played a role in their prophetic lives.
after all, they taught that the righteous would prosper in the land - and we have the text of those who were destroyed and wiped from it.
i’m feeling claustrophobic
surrounded by too many people
asking me questions
needing directions
venting frustrations
full of suggestions
a world of congestion
clouding my head
drowning out the silence
replacing tranquility with a megaphone held to my head advertising the beauty of materialism
selling me shit i don’t need
i want to be home
i want to be alone
but once i get there the solitude which i sought becomes a prison for my ideas
a cell holding my thoughts
bound and chained, they scream through the iron bars
they pound on the door
they echo off the cement walls
and tiled floor
they shout aloud wanting to be heard
to make a difference
to transform the sky
to touch someone
to entertain
to edify
and so i write out my mind
and slip the notes through the cracks
to the prisoner next to me
so that she might see that the cracks in the cement walls were intentionally created
to be a passage of ideas
a concrete network
of stories
of rebellion
of lessons
of poems
of dreams
hopes
and desires
today i set out once again to study at borders and perhaps find a collective of intellectual elitists with whom i can share my snobbish smarty ass ways. instead i apparently offended joe, a ninja-in-training who enjoys thinking of killing and torturing people.
according to joe there are 2,000 ways to kill a person with just your thumb. professionally trained acupuncturists know each of these.
the conversation with joe started rather simple. he asked what i was reading. night. by elie wiesel. his recollections of his experience in auschwitz as a young adolescent. joe is studying art and visual communications at uvsc. he missed most of the last semester due to an unidentifiable disease that left him unable to finish his classes. apparently the lack of symptoms made it difficult to identify. i'm guessing joe's physicians were equally baffled as to what a symptom-less and unidentifiable disease consisted of.
what does joe want to do with his degree? he wants to make anime. of course. but what he really wants to do is develop civilian space station security systems. systems simple enough to block the common thief, yet sophisticated enough to provide a sufficient defense in the upcoming interstellar war with china. also known as world war iii.
what followed was the longest (and only) argument i have ever had trying to convince a person that land on mars and the moon could not be purchased, and that there would never be sufficient utility in our lifetime to create and populate a civilian space station housing over 5,000 persons.
by this point, joe's world went from interesting to annoying. it would soon turn to disturbing.
according to joe, there are no ninja codes against causing a person to suffer before killing them. if he was mad enough, he would want to torture the person and watch him slowly die.
i conceded to myself that joe would never accept my arguments. he had read too many issues of popular mechanics and popular science. according to joe, his mind was too open to reject the possibilities. i wondered to myself if there was literally an opening in his head. if i looked what would i see? would i see anything? knowing it was an argument that could not be won, i decided to play with it. i told joe that his civilian space station security system should be strong enough and sophisticated enough to protect the civilian station station (and all its inhabitants) from space ninjas.
"please don't make fun of ninjas. i find that very offensive."
joe's preferred way of killing someone (if he were to kill someone) would be a short stab to the jugular with a short sword. i'm guessing he'd use a ninja sword.
i wasn't sure how to respond to joe. he seemed genuinely offended. how do you respond to someone who is genuinely offended by a remark about space ninjas? i told joe that i was sorry, but he didn't believe me. joe was right. i wasn't sorry.
joe went on to tell me about his extensive training in ninjitsu (that's ninja-talk for 'ninja'). joe was picked on when he was little because he was too nice. joe's niceness turned into anger. dark anger. very dark anger. through his training to be a ninja, joe's sensei (that's ninja-talk for teacher) helped him control his anger and thus control the raging beast within.
i'm not sure how good of a teacher his sensei was.
according to joe, most black-op governmental organizations utilize ninjas. i told joe this is why space ninjas were going to be a serious threat in the future.
joe continued to tell me that his real goal in life was to be an assassin. he whispered as he told me this. that's how ninja's keep things on the down-low. they whisper. when a ninja is wearing a mask and whispering, you wouldn't even know he was talking. unless you were the fellow ninja being whispered to. joe hasn't killed anyone yet, but he has put several victims in body casts.
according to joe, most ninjas are quiet and keep to themselves. it's difficult to be social when you've done so much killing.
joe told me that he likes to secretly think about killing people. he also likes to secretly think about torturing people. joe especially likes to think about torturing people and then killing them.
that's when i decided i didn't want to talk to joe anymore.
cast your bait into the sky
reel in the clouds
reel in the stars
the sun
the moon
reel in your dreams
your nightmares
lightnings
tornadoes
swim with the wind,
collecting your hopes and desires
ride the dust
surf the leaves
wade in the smoke
the whispers in the air
keep your secrets
and tell no one
breathe from the mountains navel
return to the womb of your sunrise\
to the moment of conception
where the trees and rivers meet
intertwined
enwrapped
where sunlight
bites the shadow’s neck
rest your head along the horizon
lay in the grave of eternity
where the sun meet the stars
the clouds meet the smoke
where hopes and desires collide
where dreams and nightmares become one
and tornadoes shred whats left.
the knife with which she stabbed me in my back became the flower in her hair.
he taught me to forgive.
he taught me to pray for those who have hurt me.
he taught me to love.
he taught me the easy things.
i close my eyes and try to remember the pain.
i can only remember the healing.
the darkest moments replaced by the brightest days.
the bullet to the head becomes the whisper in the ear.
distance coalesces to intimacy.
fear turns to hope.
blood turns to wine.
frowns turn to smiles.
tears dry up.
angers subside.
teach me to remember and resent.
teach me to curse those who have left me bleeding.
teach me to hate.
teach me what's most difficult.
i am enigma even to myself.
i am uncomfortably content with the uncertainty and contradictions with which i live.
i am a rebel for the sake of dissent.
i am a wannabe revolutionary without a gun.
i am a peacemaker sowing seeds of contention.
i am a pseudo-intellectual in search of wisdom.
i am unaware of my ignorance.
i am a believer who questions his surroundings.
i am a skeptic who doubts with his faith.
i am the author of my future.
i am the editor of my past.
i am a disciple of the sun.
i am a wanderer of the night.
i am my worst enemy.
i am my best ally.
i am reader.
i am a writer.
i am my subjective will.
i am your objective judge.
i am i.
am i?
after a year a procrastination, i have finally finished my paper for my independent study on mormonism and war that i took over a year ago. it's more of a history/research paper than my normal argumentative philosophical paper. enjoy(?)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The events of September 11th and the ensuing war in
September 11th
In the hours, days, and weeks following the worst terrorist attack to hit the United States, LDS Church President and Prophet, Gordon B. Hinckley and other LDS leaders responded through statements, memorial services, and other means to answer to the devastating event. Like the thoughts and feelings of many during that time, the messages given by the LDS leaders reflected a deep sense of patriotic American loyalty, repeatedly referred to the
Two days following the attack,
The next day later on September 14th,
We are profoundly grateful for this good
That same evening,
I thought it was beautiful. I thought it was very expressive. I think the President has done the right thing. I think that his words will bring reassurance to the people of
Finally, a few weeks later during the October 2001 Semi-Annual General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
Great are the promises concerning this
A year later, the LDS church issued a statement and held a memorial service in remembrance of the attack. Once again, they invoked American patriotic language and sentiments. The brief statement begins with dismay at the “infamy of those cowardly attacks,” offers condolences and sorrow for those who died as victims or sacrificed their lives to save others, and praises the “greater sense of unity and purpose in ridding the earth of evil and providing for the freedom and security of all people.” The statement closes with a brief prayer for comfort for the victims and guidance for “the leaders of nations in the quest for justice and liberty.”[10] That same day a brief
The response to the events of September 11th from the smaller Community of Christ in
[W]e must recognize that our affirmation of community moves us to be a global family. National pride is very high in the
While Grant also supported retributive justice, he did not offer any clear support of the Bush administration, nor their policies. Rather he urged restraint and Christian love in responding to the attacks.
This is a time when people of faith must be among those voices which are measured and restrained, and speak of acts of love. Clearly, justice demands finding those responsible, punishing them for their deeds, and doing everything possible to insure that such things never happen again. But, as hard as it may be at a time like this, we must remember that for the Christian justice is an act of love, not vengeance. It would be so easy for us to respond to these despicable acts by behaving in a manner not unlike those who perpetrated them. If our response to the death of thousands of innocent persons in this land is to bring death to thousands of innocent persons in another land, we will have been destroyed by the very hate that attacked the human family. As Christians, our voices must be reasoned, compassionate, forgiving, and unfailingly loving.
Along these lines, Grant writes in his letter that he signed and supported a statement by the National Council of Churches of Christ in the
War in
In the months preceding and following the beginnings of the United States’ military effort in Iraq, leaders from both the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Community of Christ commented and responded to the divisive war, both in sermons, letters, and various media outlets. However, unlike the responses to September 11th, the Community of Christ promoted much more discussion concerning the issue, while
In the October 2002 Semi-Annual General Conference of the
Wherever it is found and however it is expressed, the Golden Rule encompasses the moral code of the
This concept of treating others as one would like to be treated is easy to understand. And it acknowledges the precious nature of each of God’s sons and daughters. Scripture asks parents to teach children not to “fight and quarrel one with another, and serve the devil, who is the master of sin.” Instead, we “teach them to love one another, and to serve one another.”[16]
Though Nelson briefly mentions that at times war may seem necessary to defend families and freedoms, he still affirms that “Peace is possible.” Because of the common goal for peace ultimately held by the human family, he believes we “can learn to love our fellow human beings throughout the world.” However it is not easy. “Resolution of present political problems will require much patience and negotiation.”
Looking forward to the prophesied days of peace, Nelson sees the true patriots as those who use Christian love to avoid aggression and create peace.
These prophecies of hope could materialize if leaders and citizens of nations would apply the teachings of Jesus Christ. Ours could then be an age of unparalleled peace and progress. Barbarism of the past would be buried. War with its horrors would be relegated to the realm of maudlin memory. Aims of nations would be mutually supportive. Peacemakers could lead in the art of arbitration, give relief to the needy, and bring hope to those who fear. Of such patriots, future generations would shout praises, and our Eternal God would pass judgments of glory.[17]
Nelson finishes with what appeared to be an official pacifist stance for the church, “Now, as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, what does the Lord expect of us? As a Church, we must ‘renounce war and proclaim peace.’”[18]
That evening several news outlets reported on Nelson’s talk, referring to it as an anti-war statement. For example CNN reported that “The Mormon church issued a strong anti-war message at its semiannual General Conference, clearly referring to current hostilities in the
In response to this and other reports, the
Six months later, a few weeks after the Iraqi invasion had begun, LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley offered what appeared to be a very different position on the war in
Though Hinckley still affirms Nelson’s claim that Latter-day Saints should denounce war and proclaim peace, Hinckley who is sustained as a prophet of God for the LDS Church, in answering the question, “Where does the Church stand in all of this?” answers:
But as citizens we are all under the direction of our respective national leaders. They have access to greater political and military intelligence than do the people generally. . . . One of our Articles of Faith, which represent an expression of our doctrine, states, "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."[23]
In the fall of 2002, as the Bush administration was preparing to invade
Members of the Community of Christ have sincere but different convictions about the use of military force. Unlike the Quakers, the Mennonites, and other historic peace churches, the Community of Christ has not had a single and united ethic about war. Nevertheless, because we are an international church dedicated to the pursuit of peace, reconciliation, and healing of the spirit, we must seek the most ethical ways to bring this about.[25]
The letter then follows with five various theories concerning war, each of which is provided with historical background, scriptures that are typically used to back up such positions, and implications of the theory when applied to the war in
Furthermore, dialogue and discussion outside and inside the church was encouraged by the Community leadership with information on how to contact governmental and church leaders with opinions and thought on the imminent war.[27] A few letters that had been written by local congregations had also been circulated by the Community of Christ leadership. Each of the letters advocated support for non-violent measures and plead for the
That until clear evidence exists that Saddam Hussein has the capability and intent of using weapons of mass destruction, the BC District encourage its members to support efforts (a) that oppose any non-UN backed war on Iraq, and (b) that present viable alternatives to such a war and that will hopefully free the Iraqi people from such tyrannical rule.[28]
The British Isles Region added,
In terms of Christian teachings on war, those of us who are pacifists and feel commanded by Jesus to always love our enemies, and those of us who hold to the Just War tradition, are together united against British support for or involvement in a pre-emptive attack against Iraq. . . . In terms of last resort we are not satisfied that all diplomatic attempts have been exhausted.[29]
A couple days after the
While acknowledging that Saddam Hussein was a tyrannical threat to his own people, it is their “belief that peaceful means were still available to resolve the conflict.” It is their hope in Christ that leads them to believe that peaceful resolutions are possible.
Our church has dedicated itself to the pursuit of peace. That is not a statement of political philosophy or even social conscience. It is a divine call to us as a people, inspiring us to erect a temple as a symbol of our commitment to peace. Our voices must be those of a people who see in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ the call to love one another and to discover pathways of understanding among all of God’s children. . . . It is our faith that God is the creator of all people and loves each person and each nation without qualification. May we see the face of Jesus Christ in all of God’s children, including those defined as enemies.[31]
Some time after the war began, both the
Let Not Your Heart Be Troubled, released over two years into the war, is a DVD geared directly and solely for Latter-day Saints serving in the military, specifically those serving in
The bulk of the DVD consists of LDS Seventies Robert C. Oaks and Elder Lance B. Wickman speaking to the LDS military persons, both of whom served in the military during the Vietnam War. In his presentation, Oaks makes no distinction between the war in
Though Wickman begins his portion by claiming that he will make no judgments on the validity of the policies of the
Military Service, Pacifism, and Discipleship: a diversity of callings? is a ninety page workbook published by the Community of Christ in the fall of 2003. Written for those both inside and outside of the military, it is in many ways an expansion of the First Presidency letter issued earlier that year. Like the letter, it looks at issues concerning the war from multiple perspectives, while making no concrete claims and leaving judgment up to the reader.
The Community of Christ’s First Presidency, in the preface to the book, writes, “We cannot neglect thinking through this question [of war and violence] if we are to be serious about being a worldwide movement dedicated to the pursuit of peace, reconciliation, and healing of the spirit.”[35] After giving a very brief history of the church’s experiences with war, they close the preface with a hope that the members will use the contents of the book to open further discussion and awareness of the issues.
We recommend this text to members and friends of the church to foster continuing discussion in good fellowship of the issues of discipleship and the use of violent force. . . . We are on a journey with the Prince of Peace. The challenge to look “beyond the horizon” beckons us to be open to new possibilities and yet calls us to be gentle with each other as we travel.[36]
The first chapter of the book contains eight different testimonies from members of the Community of Christ sharing their perspectives of being Christians in a war-laden world. These testimonies range from Scott Jobe, a captain in the United States Air Force who believes that sometimes Christian love requires us “to hurt or kill offenders or combatants through the legitimate use of force to protect the innocent;”[37] to Ron Romig, the Community of Christ’s archivist who shares his story about his conversion to passivism and decision to be a conscientious objector. Through each of these testimonies, a wide spectrum of responses to violence and war are given, each from a perspective of Christian love.
The rest of the book expands on the various Christian views of war given by the leaders of the Community of Christ prior to the war in
Conclusion
In conclusion, while both the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Community of Christ responded to the events of September 11th and the Iraq War in some similar fashions, there were some substantial differences as well. While the Community of Christ was tentative on making any strong claims supporting the
Much could be said concerning the reasons behind this difference of emphasis and should be the topic of another paper. The
[1] Gordon B.
[2] “President Gordon B. Hinckley's Visit to the White House,” Meridian Magazine,
[3] Gordon B.
[4] “
[5] Gordon B.
[6] Ibid.,
[7] Ibid.,
[8] Ibid.,
[9] Ibid.,
[10] LDS Newsroom, “President Hinckley September 11 Remembre
[11] LDS Newsroom, “‘In God We Trust’ Church Leader Emphasizes on Sept.11,” retrieved from lds.org at
[12] W. Grant McMurray, “Faith Overcoming Fear: Pastoral Reflections on the Events of September 11,” retrieved from http://www.faithandvalues.com/tx/00/00/03/37/3733/index.html on
[13] “Deny Them Their Victory: A Religious Response to Terrorism,” retrieved from SojoNet, the online Sojourners magazine at http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=news.display_archives&mode=current_opinion&article=CO_091201 on
[14] However, as will be seen. For the most part, official comments and messages from the LDS church tended to highly favor the military effort.
[15] Russell M. Nelson, “Blessed are the Peacemakers,” Ensign, Oct 2002, 39.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ibid.
[19] CNN.com, “Mormon church makes anti-war statement,” retrieved from the CNN.com website at http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/West/10/06/mormon.conference.ap/ on
[20] “Message of Peace Misinterpreted,” retrieved from the official LDS website at http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/West/10/06/mormon.conference.ap/ on
[21] Gordon B. Hinckley, “War and Peace,” Ensign, April 2003, 78.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Ibid.
[24] “Going to War Against Iraq,” retrieved from the Community of Christ website at http://www.cofchrist.org/iraq/Class_materials.asp on
[25] Ibid.
[26] Ibid.
[27] “What Can You Do?” retrieved from the Community of Christ website at http://www.cofchrist.org/iraq/What_You_Can_Do.asp on
[28] “From
[29] “Letter to Tony Blair,” Ibid.
[30] W. Grant McMurray, “Proclaiming Peace in a Time of War,” retrieved from the Community of Christ website at http://www.cofchrist.org/iraq/default.asp on April 28, 2007.
[31] Ibid.
[32] Boyd K. Packer, Let Not Your Heart Be Troubled-a Message of Peace for Latter-day Saints in Military Service, DVD, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2005.
[33] Robert C. Oaks, ibid.
[34] Lance B. Wickman, ibid.
[35] The First Presidency of the Community of Christ, “Preface,” in Military Service, Pacifism, and Discipleship: a diversity of callings? ed. David Anderson and Andrew Bolton (
[36] Ibid.
[37] Scott Jobe, “What Does It Mean to Pursue Peace in a World of Violence?” in ibid.
a year ago i was banned from the website provopulse.com. although my posts and comments generated more activity than any other writer, a few persons didn't like what i had to say and petitioned to have me blocked from the site. while the official reason for my ban were a few insults i had thrown back at some who personally attacked me, i was pretty certain that the real reason was because of some of my so-called 'unorthodox' ideas. it didn't bother me too much then. i thought it was kind of funny. plus, at this time in my life i was quite uncertain where i even stood religiously. i was still wrestling with my (then) atheism/agnosticism and wasn't sure how much i wanted to participate in mormon discussions.
well things have certainly changed for me over the last year. i've rediscovered that testimony i had once lost and have become largely active in the church again.
recently, ownership of provopulse.com was changed and i thought perhaps the ban might also be lifted so i could participate in a discussion about the rocky-hannity debate. i sent an e-mail to the new owner to see if i could once again use my login name and participate. i received the following e-mail back:
(i stole the first half of the title from a southpark episode).
originally, this post was going to be titled 'rocky! rocky! rocky! rocky!' however, i decided that the title would not have been fitting. last night's debate between rocky anderson and sean hannity did not resemble the epic battles of rocky balboa, our beloved itallian stallion. while rocky anderson threw some fantastic punches, sean hannity was no formidable opponent. he was no apollo creed or ivan drago. rather, hannity resembled the snotty loud-mouthed fat kid who sat in the back of my 5th grade classroom spewing insults, somehow believing that his name-calling made him tough and intelligent.
in case you missed the debate, here is a short synopsis:
for thirty minutes, rocky gave a well organized argument, providing evidence that george w. bush intentionally (or extremely stupidly) deceived the american people in building his case to attack iraq.
for thiry minutes, hannity gave a strawman argument, providing 15 ad hominem fallacies, 6 uses of the term 'liberal' in a derogatory manner, and 5 unsubstatiated claims that american servicemen and service women were fighting in iraq "for us."
then, for fiften minutes rocky took way too long trying to formulate questions for hannity, while hannity took just as long avoiding the questions.
then for fifteen minutes, hannity continued personally attacking rocky occasionally asking questions which anderson intelligently answered.
finally, for 10 minutes rocky answered questions asked by the audience, while hannity talked about stuff in response to questions.
i know. it sounds really exciting.
enough about the debate. this post is directed to all of the cliche dissenting republicans who have been so hannitized (apparently a sexually transmitted disease) that they managed to somehow leave the debate actually believing that hannity won the debate.
-------------------------------------------------
dear cliche dissenting republicans,
you, like me, are a member of the human race. we are intelligent beings. we do intelligent things that no other animal does (besides maybe apes, chimpanzees, dolphins, and crows). we drive cars. we use utinsils to eat. we utilize fire, electricity, chemical reactions, refrigeration, the internet, and the wheel. we do all of these relatively smart things. yet, even though you have these amazing capabilities, you can seem so... what's the word... stupid at the same time.
but i believe in you nonetheless. because you have the ability to write using pencils, pens, crayons, and scented markers i believe you are smarter than this. because you have been successfully potty-trained (included the ability to use toilet paper), i believe that you have the mental capacity to rise above your cliche dissenting ways.
i really don't believe your're that stupid. however, to think that intelligent people like you still hold these crazy ideas hurts my head, leaving me disoriented with a bit of vertigo.
instead i like to believe that you are just really ignorant. and hey, it's not all your fault. many of you have been hannitized against your will. it's ok. you're not alone.
and lucky for you, there is a cure. it's called 'information.'
and to get you started on your recovery, here is some of that information.
*there are no weapons of mass destruction in iraq. some of you still have this naive view that wmds (like the easter bunny) will be discovered buried somewhere in iraq. i know bush told you they were there. he was wrong. he admitted he was wrong. that's right, even your beloved bush has admitted that the intelligence was flawed and that those wmds just plain don't exist. again, there are no wmds in iraq. none.
*saddam hussein and osama bin laden were not working together. again, your own beloved bush has admitted it. there was no connection between hussein and 9/11. in fact, they hated each other. bin laden thought that hussein was just another capitalist spawn of satan.
*iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. the only connection that exists between 9/11 and iraq was bush's appeal to and abuse of the emotions of 9/11 to stir up support for his pre-9/11 plans to attack iraq.
*saddam hussein and iraq were not a threat to america. no wmds. no ties to terrorist attacks against america. no real power due to the u.n. and other watchdogs monitoring hussein's every action.
*american soldiers in iraq are not fighting "for us." they are not fighting for american freedoms and liberties. they are not fighting for your family, for your religion, or for anything else you hold dear (except maybe the gas in your suv). i know it sounds terriblt and un-american to you cliche dissenting republicans to say this, but it's true. the war in iraq is not protecting these things for us in any way, simply from the fact that they were not threatened in the first place. the war in iraq is defending your freedoms just as much as clipping my toenails is protecting the midwest from a massive zombie attack.
*america is not safer because of the war in iraq. in fact, quite the opposite is true. united states intelligence has shown that america is under a greater threat to terrorist attacks because of the war in iraq. middle-eastern hostility against the united states has sharply risen because of our occupation. iraq has become a vast breeding ground for terrorists. our neglect of afghanistan has allowed the taliban to regain strength and further support al qaida.
*informed and valid alternatives to bush's 'stay the course' plan have been offered. i am so sick and tired of hearing some of you cliche dissenting republicans ignorantly crying that 'liberals' and democrats are only criticizing bush and not offering up alternatives to bush's plan. several alternatives have been provided. in fact, one of the best and most developed plans was developed by a group headed by james baker (bush sr's secretary of state). it's called the iraq study group report. it is by far the most comprehensive plan made to deal with iraq, developed largely by conservative republicans. yet, your beloved bush has largely ignored the guidance offered by the plan. again, the iraq study group was headed by your beloved bush's daddy's secretary of state. please read it and quit your bitching.
*acknowledging that the war in iraq cannot be won is not defeatism - it is realism. the war in iraq cannot be won because it is a not a kind of war that can be won. there is no enemy to be defeated in iraq because there is no defined enemy. this isn't like world war two with america fighting the nazis or the japanese. the real war in iraq isn't america verses anyone. its a civil war between the shias and sunnis. its a civil war almost 1,400 years old. we cannot win the war in iraq militarily, because it's not our war to be won. we are merely there pointing our pistols telling people to stop fighting. the truth of it is, they don't care about our pistols. they are going to kep fighting until they decide they want to stop. our pistols only increase their aggression against eachother and us. to say that our military cannot win the war in iraq is not a claim against american soldiers and american military strength. it's a realist claim about the situation in iraq.
*iraq is not a better place because of america's invasion and occupation. i am not denying that some good things have happened in iraq. however, they are minimal compared to the atrocities and continual suffering occuring in iraq. saddam's regime of tyranny has been replaced with a government full of corruption. yes, we are building schools and hospitals, but those are only a fraction of the schools and hospitals we have destroyed, and much of what we build isn't lasting very long. stable infrastructure is practically non-existant in much of iraq. millions of iraqis have gone without stable water and electricity since we started bombing them - something they were easily able to count on before our invasion.
so my dear cliche dissenting republicans. please take this information. take it daily. take it hourly. take it any moment you can. take it with a meal, or take it on an empty stomache. but don't stop with this. there is so much more for you to take in. and don't just take it from me. seek a second, third, and fourth opinion. take this information in wherever you find it. take it in and then use that wonderful intelligent that you have. apply those things that make you different from tadpoles, sea lions, and tree stumps.
'certain persons' is a nice way of not offending.
for some reason i want to blame this on kurt vonnegut. this morning i finished reading slaughterhouse-five. in case you haven't read it, it's his novel about the bombing of dresden in the second world war. in case you really haven't read it, it has little do with the bombing of dresden. either way, it has even less to do with mormonism.
the bombings of dresden killed 30,000 to 60,000 people. nazi propaganda claimed 300,000. vonnegut cites 135,000. whatever it is, a lot of people died. so it goes.
this may be because of the recent spike in spirituality i've been feeling the last couple weeks.
it may be because of the recent protests against dick cheney at byu,
it may be because of the recent documentary on pbs.
it may be because of the recent claim by utah county conservatives that satan is behind illegal immigration and "that illegal immigrants 'hate American people' and 'are determined to destroy this country, and there is nothing they won't do.'" or that "'If the Democrats take over the country, we will be dead, and we will have abortion and partial-birth abortion.'" or that the illegal immigrants were communists in disguise or that their fantasy world was "not extemism" but "fact."
(i was going to write a post about this last gem, but i'm still recovering from a headache and vertigo from initially reading about it).
it may be because i'm bored.
yet, for some reason i want to blame it on vonnegut. in case you hadn't heard, vonnegut is dead. it's easier to blame things on the dead. so it goes.
whatever it is, i have this renewed hope for the future of mormonism. a future some of you may not like. a future that is not driven by the leadership, but a future inspired by the ground up. a future led by the upcoming generation. we're constantly told that we were the generals and leaders of the war in heaven. isn't it about time that we took up our swords and led the revolution?
a year or so ago, i was talking with dan wotherspoon of sunstone about the demographics of sunstone. in case you've never attended, most of them are old. really old. they're progressive versions of my grandparents. we talked about how in a few years when they are all dead, sunstone might die with it. so it goes.
yet i have hope. like tyler durden looking across his bloodied and bruised brothers, i see a rising generation of mormons who are going to take mormonism to the future. i see mormonism as having a potential it hasn't seen since its birth and adolesence in the midwest.
what's beautiful about mormonism is its belief in continuing revelation. it's a belief in something new and different. its the belief that there is more to the gospel than there is currently now. its a belief in progression and change.
unfortunately, much of the church today doesn't want change. it enjoys staying stagnant, growing moss and harboring nymphs while a rushing river of progressive revelation lies within its grasps. hiding behind its myths of absolutism and unchanging foundations, it seeks to be mainstreamed instead of peculiar. it seeks to be accepted rather than stand out. like the early church that fell into apostacy, it seeks to be a part of the world rather than condemn the heart of it.
you may say i'm a dreamer, but i'm not the only one.
john lennon was right. the more i talk, the more i listen, the more i rant, and the more i write, i come to find that there are a growing number who want to see change. some may desire more, some desire much less. i see it among my peers more than i see it anywhere else.
so what do i want to see change? a lot.
first and foremost i want to see a mormonism that believes in the book of mormon. i'm not talking about the historicity of it. leave that to f.a.r.m.s.. i could care less. i want to see a mormonism that embraces the teachings of the book of mormon. i want to see a mormonism that sees the disparity between the rich and poor as the foremost evil of the world. the book of mormon repeatedly condemns the rich. the book of mormon repeatedly pleads with us to take care of the poor. over and over again.
over and over again.
and again.
yet how often are the rich condemned in mormonism today? how often does the prophet clothe himself in the camel hair mantle of a prophet and condemn luxury cars, over-sized homes, diamond rings, expensive clothing, and jewelry?
how often does the prophet clothe himself in the mantle of mr. mac and condemn those who don't dress according to his standard of decency?
i see a future of mormonism unconcerned with gay-marriage (or as the public-relations intensive church calls same-gender marriage). i see a future of mormonism that realizes that 'sex' and 'gender' are not co-extensive terms.
i see a future of mormonism that realizes that the true enemy of the family is our economic system that leaves children with absent fathers and mothers.
i see a future of mormonism that once again re-envisions its priesthood to include women, either as seperate holders, or as co-equal holders within marriage.
i see a future of mormonism that realizes that women are just as amazing, smart, and able as men. i see a future of mormonism that gives control and power of the relief society back to its women.
i see a future of mormonism less concerned with hierarchial control and more concerned with individual inspiration and will.
i see a future of mormonism that is willing to say that its ban on blacks was a mistake.
i see a future of mormonism that is willing to admit that its leaders make mistakes.
i see a future of mormonism that is willing to once again condemn the government. a mormonism that embraces the gospel of peace and condemns war. a mormonism that has the balls to stand up for what is right, despite what others may think. a mormonism that realizes that the anti-nephi-lehites did far more for the gospel and freedom than the war-hungry moroni.
mormon claimed that the devil would be shaking in his boots if everyone were like moroni. mormon was such a military man.
the anti-nephi-lehites bow are pacifists and thousands join the gospel. moroni kick's lamanite ass and the lamanites just get pissed off and return the favor.
i see a future of mormonism concerned with truth and honesty and less concerned with public image. i see a future of mormonism that embraces its scholars rather than kick them to the wayside.
overall i see a future of mormonism that is truly the church of jesus christ. a mormonism which embraces jesus's teachings. a mormonism willing to tell other christians what it is truly like to be a christian, instead with today's mormonism pleading with the rest of christianity to be accepted as one of them.
in vonnegut's slaughterhouse-five, billy pilgrim, with the help of the extra-terrestrial tralfamadorians, is able to experperience the future.
i haven't been abducted... at least not that i know of.
with that said, i love the church. i love president hinckley, even though i am perhaps ready for him to go. i know that sounds wrong, but its true. just trying to be honest. some of you have thought it to. so it goes.
i love the church with all its beauty and its failings. its beauty reveals its truth, its failings reveal its potential for change, progress, and growth.
isn't that what the gospel is supposed to be about? isn't that the plan? isn't it about progression? eternal progression? so why must we feel that the church needs to stand still and not grow with the rest of us.
as marx ended his manifesto, so do i. it's time for the rising generation to unite. its time for the pre-mortal generals and leaders to fight for the beauty and truth that the gospel demands. its time for change and progress. its time to build the kingdom of god that christ established and joseph smith sought to restore.
