Why Angela and I have decided to live a celestial marriage

Why Angela and I have decided to live a celestial marriage

Prophetic sports commentary

During tonight's Jazz game against the Knicks, the ever-annoying Steve Brown did a short interview with President Monson from his box suite. It was kind of cool to see the prophet talking about sports as simply a fan.

Monson looked a little uninterested in being interviewed. I can't tell though if it's because he didn't care to be interviewed at a Jazz game, or if it was because the ever-annoying Steve Brown was distracting him from the game. I like to think it was the latter.

Here is a short recording of it. Sorry the quality is bad. We were watching the game with my roommate on Slingbox and we couldn't figure out how to make a direct recording.

To sell my priesthood for a plate of nachos

I have a lie that I have been living the last few days that I need to come clean with. I presented my paper on Friday pretending that I was some sort of liberal thinker who was advocating for a more egalitarian Mormonism that would liberate Mormon women from our rather patriarchal and potentially oppressing theological practice.

That my friends was all a deliberate and deceiving guise. I'm a fake, a deception.

To be honest, I'm not pushing for a more egalitarian Mormonism for the sake of my sisters in (and out of) the Church. I'm doing it for purely selfish reasons. I'm doing it for me, myself, and I.

I'm doing it because I get hungry.

You see, each Sunday after our meetings the men (a.k.a., the priesthood) are expected to go to the Relief Society room to fold up the soft padded chairs for all of the able-bodied and capable women in my ward. I often do this joking with others that we ought not to be doing this because doing so is a way to enforce and maintain our male-centered system of power in the Church. By giving women padded chairs and then folding up the chairs afterward for the women, we are able to coddle the women and let them feel that they are too special and fragile to ever have any real positions of authority. Even if given a male-only priesthood, by treating women like delicate flowers (and continually letting them know how delicate they really are), we are able to maintain control of other non-Priesthood callings in the Church - such as Sunday School presidents, ward clerks, and ward mission leaders.

But yes, that is all a guise as well. For the most part, I'm just lazy at times and would rather not be folding up chairs. Sometimes I would like a nice padded chair to situate my butt on for an hour on Sundays. Others retort saying that it is an opportunity to serve. I'm fine with that... So when are the women going to come and put away our chairs for us men?

The worst of this comes on fast sundays where my singles' ward follows the three hour block with a monthly "Break-the-Fast." After putting away the soft padded chairs while the women mingle and chitter-chatter, the men then need to move into the gym to start setting up tables and chairs, while the women continue to mingle and chitter-chatter. After it is all set up, an announcement is made that the women get to serve themselves food first while us men have to wait until they have all made it through the line.

I know it's just another way for us men to maintain our power and authority in the Church, another way for us to let all the women know that they are too special and delicate to have any real positions of power. But by this point in the late afternoon of a Fast Sunday, I don't care anymore. I'm hungry and could care less about power. I want an egalitarian Mormonism so I can eat.

I can understand why Esau would sell his birthright to Jacob for a mess of pottage. When I'm hungry I'm ready to sell my priesthood for a plate of nachos (and not just any plate, this has chips, beef, chicken, beans, cheese, lettuce, guacamole, salsa, olives, green onions, chives, and sour cream).

Well perhaps not yet. Maybe I do like holding onto this power...

Doug Fabrizio on the Big Love endowment scene

Doug Fabrizio's Utah Now had a well done and very balanced episode discussing Big Love's use of the LDS endowment. Brian Birch from UVU was one of the main interviewees for the show.

This Friday - Mormonism through the Eyes of Women

For any of those in the Claremont/Southern California area, it is not too late to decide to attend this Friday's conference, "Mormonism through the Eyes of Women: Envisioning New Spaces for Theology and Practice." This is an all-day event going from 9am to 5pm and includes speakers such as Claudia Bushman, Margaret Toscano, Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, and yours truly.

I will be speaking on "Mary Daly, Mormonism, and the Silent(ced) Mother":

In her Beyond God the Father, Mary Daly argues for the death of the concept of God as male. Because the traditional Christian view God is that of an unembodied being, God (who has no parts) cannot properly be understood as male. Using masculine language to describe God enforces an unequal and oppressive distinction between genders. As Daly puts it, "if God is a male, then the male is God." At an initial level Mormon theology seems to avoid this criticism with its beliefs in an embodied God with a female counterpart. However, looking deeper shows that Daly's criticism of a masculine deity imply an even stronger criticism of Mormon theology as it is practiced today.

I'll be honest, I'm a bit nervous about my paper. Not only is this going to be, by far, the most attended paper I have presented, but I am also the lone male presenter at the conference. Plus, it's a fairly critical look at current Mormon theology - which adds an extra level of nervousness.

For more information, check out the website here.

I am a big fan of Big Love - Part 2: That endowment scene...

I've got a much longer post planned about the use of ritual in Big Love that provides a broader context for its depiction of a portion of the temple endowment. Before I do that though, here are a couple of quotes from (different) responses I found from non-Mormon fans of the show:

From the New York Times:

I unexpectedly choked up many times — . . . when Bill prayed for some sign that their family’s path was righteous, and when they all gathered together by the bridge over the river; when Kathy Marquardt walked away to gather flowers for Wanda’s hair; when Barb participated in the religious ceremony at the temple — these are moments that raised great emotion in me and will stay with me for a long time. . . .
For any Mormons reading this — if you are among the ones who felt dismay at the depiction of the temple ceremony, I’d like to encourage you to not fear the revelation of such things. I found the words beautiful and I appreciated understanding something of what goes on in the hearts & minds of people in your religion. The scene seemed to be done with great respect and it enhanced our understanding of Barb’s tremendous grief at being cast into outer darkness.

From the Huffington Post:

I can imagine how a practicing member of the church must feel. . . . Of course the depiction of corrupt church officials seems more volatile to me than the fictionalized portrayal of a ceremony that I don't believe in. I can relate to the negative ramifications of corruption more easily than the revelation of the endowment ceremony. But for a practicing member of the LDS church, I can absolutely understand why pulling back the curtain on something sacred would mean more than dissing some guy behind a fancy oak table. The Mormon leaders are merely human, so a stain on them is a stain on one person. The ceremony is holy, so a stain on it is like a stain on God.
Thinking about it this way, I feel sullied by what was shown. It's the same way I felt when I saw a performance of a Native American tribal ritual as a teenager. Everyone is demeaned when something so powerful is put on display as entertainment. Or at least they are when the ritual is designed to be private. I don't think it demeans Christianity, for instance, to show fictional Baptist preachers on television, because the ethos of Christianity is so often about creating public declarations of faith... of not keeping the "good news" to one's self.
But from my understanding, that's not how Mormons work. They're not public worshippers, and so by forcing them to become public in this scene, Big Love may have crossed a line. . . . I'm not sure there is any aesthetic achievement that can be worth so much hurt.

Feminist Mormon Thieves? *UPDATED*

Steve pointed out a blog post over at Feminist Mormon Housewives that showed up today that seems very much like the post I wrote last night, and even uses the same video. Coincidence?

You be the judge.

*UPDATE*
Rebecca claims that this was just pure coincidence. Oh well.

I am a big fan of Big Love - Part 1: The opening credits

In case you haven't figured it out yet, I am a big fan of HBO's Big Love. Last night's finale of season 3 was perhaps one of the best television shows I have seen in a long time.

For those of you who don't know anything of the show (besides gross mis-caricatures made by protesting Mormons or the LDS Newsroom), Big Love is about a fictional drama about a suburban polygamous family living in Sandy, Utah. The husband and father, Bill Hendrickson, is a former "lost boy" from a fictional fundamentalist Mormon group in central Utah known as the United Effort Brethren (UEB). In his late teens Bill (who was the son of the UEB's former prophet) was kicked out of the compound by their current leader Roman Grant. After leaving the compound, Bill was taken up by a Mormon family in Salt Lake, was baptized, served a mission, and had a temple marriage with his first wife Barb. Several years later Barb was struck with cancer and during this time Bill felt that God wanted him to live the 'principle' (polygamy). Bill (and reluctantly Barb) marry one of Roman's daughters, Nikki - who helps nurse Barb back to health. A few years later Bill, Barb, and Nikki add a third wife, Marge, to their family. Bill runs a successful hardware department chain and the family lives in three side-by-side houses (with a shared backyard) in a suburban neighborhood.

Despite the false claims by some that the show is purportedly "blurring the lines" between traditional LDS Mormons and fundamentalist Mormons, anybody who watches the show will know that the show does quite the opposite. One of the key storylines throughout the series has depended on the idea that the Hendricksons are no longer practicing LDSaints and have to keep their situation secret from their neighbors who are almost all active LDS Mormons and assume Bill and Barb are simply inactive Mormons who have befriended and look after their two single-mother neighbors. The show is VERY clear that the current LDS Church does not endorse polygamy and in the third season Barb faces a church court and is excommunicated when the local leaders discover she is in a polygamous relationship.

Why is this show so great? Let's start with the opening credits...

I didn't notice (until Angela pointed it out to me last week) that the opening credits depict a short little 'plan of salvation' timeline. It begins with Bill in the premortal life coming to earth, he finds and is sealed to Barb, Nikki, and Marge (with a backdrop of the salt flats, desert, and mountains of Salt Lake valley), they are separated at death, they go through the veil, and finally are reunited on a celestial planet (with a terrestrial and a telestial planet in the background).

Thoughts on the LDS Newsroom commentary on Big Love

I'm supposed to be working on a presentation for Liberation Theology class tomorrow, but before I get to it I need to let out a few thoughts about Monday's LDS Newsroom commentary.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*"Internet references to Big Love indicate that more and more Mormon themes are now being woven into the show..."

Internet references to Big Love? The show is available on DVD and the internet. The Church is a big organization and there are numerous LDS viewers of the show that they could have consulted with, but instead the Newsroom chooses to almost invalidate their so-called "commentary" by practically admitting that they have not seen the show, but instead are appealing to anonymous "Internet references."

As Latter-day Saints who are often widely misportrayed on the web, for the LDS Newsroom to base their commentary on "internet references" boggles the mind and shows that the Newsroom is not there to provide informed commentary.

*"the [Mormon] characters are often unsympathetic figures who come across as narrow and self-righteous."

The show also depicts many sympathetic and Christ-like Mormons as well. I can't help but feel that the "narrow and self-righteous" Mormons in the show were modeled after the "narrow and self-righteous" Mormons who started a campaign to fight the show before it even aired.

*"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as an institution does not call for boycotts. Such a step would simply generate the kind of controversy that the media loves and in the end would increase audiences for the series."

This is exactly what happened. This wasn't national news until HBO felt they had to respond to the hundreds of angry calls and e-mails they received. Until then, it was only covered in the Utah news. Now it is in the AP, Reuters, and nearly every national news outlet.

*"As someone recently said, “This isn’t 1830, and there aren’t just six of us anymore.”"

Who said it? Just someone.

*"In other words, with a global membership of thirteen and a half million there is no need to feel defensive when the Church is moving forward so rapidly. The Church’s strength is in its faithful members in 170-plus countries, and there is no evidence that extreme misrepresentations in the media that appeal only to a narrow audience have any long-term negative effect on the Church."

I agree with this here... sort of. The Church is big and this isn't going to make much of a dent (rather I think it will do the opposite). As Latter-day Saints we have to realize that we aren't a small minority along the wayside that can only be referenced in faith-promoting or demeaning ways. Mormonism is now part of the public discourse. We have to deal with it.

This statement, however, also implies that Big Love is an example of "extreme misrepresentations in the media." I can't help but see this as a rhetorical ploy made by someone who (as I pointed out) has not actually seen the show.

*"When the comedy writers for South Park produced a gross portrayal of Church history..."

See my previous post.

*"When an independent film company produced a grossly distorted version of the Mountain Meadows Massacre two years ago, the Church ignored it. Perhaps partly as a result of that refusal to engender the controversy that the producers hoped for, the movie flopped at the box office and lost millions."

Actually it was probably because the movie was poorly written, directed, and acted. Rotten Tomatoes has it scored at 13%. I find it interesting though that the Newsroom didn't mention the film by name - September Dawn.

*"The Church has refused to be goaded into a Mormons versus gays battle..."

That's right. Instead the Church chose to preemptively fire the first shots.

*"[The Church] has simply stated its position [on gay marriage] in tones that are reasonable and respectful."

Can anyone else sense the irony here? The Newsroom is defending its rights to belittle what is sacred to others (same-sex marriages) in "tones that are reasonable and respectful" while at the same time preemptively and ignorantly criticizing HBO for affirming the value of what is sacred to us (our temple rites) in a manner which HBO believes is "reasonable and respectful."

*"Meanwhile, missionary work and Church members in California remain as robust and vibrant as ever, and support for the Church has come from many unexpected quarters — including some former critics and other churches."

Our enemy's enemy is our friend? This is starting to sound a lot like neo-conservative foreign policy (let's not forget the preemptive attacks and responses based on anonymous and suspicious sources).

*"Now comes another series of Big Love, and despite earlier assurances from HBO it once again blurs the distinctions between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the show’s fictional non-Mormon characters and their practices."

I'm guessing this is based on their supposed "internet references." Anybody who has followed this show would know that this statement is blatantly false. Rather than blurring the lines between mainstream Mormons and fundamentalist Mormons, the show has rather strongly pointed out that line and made that line a very key aspect of much of its storyline. You cannot watch Big Love and not know that a fundamentalist Mormons are different from mainstream Mormons are that the two are often very opposed to each other.

This is further proof that the LDS Newsroom here is ignorantly commenting on something they know little about.

*"...the show’s fictional non-Mormon characters..."

Referring to fundamentalist Mormons as "non-Mormon" goes along with the Newsroom's hypocritical attempt to monopolize on the term 'Mormon' See more about that here.

*"Such things say much more about the insensitivities of writers, producers and TV executives than they say about Latter-day Saints."

Such commentaries say much more about the LDS Newsroom and the Church's public affairs department than it says about Big Love.

HBO releases statements about upcoming Big Love episode

 HBO released two statements about the upcoming episode which will re-enact parts of the LDS temple endowment, as reported here.

From creators Mark Olsen and Will Scheffer:

"In approaching the dramatization of the endowment ceremony, we knew we had a responsibility to be completely accurate and to show the ceremony in the proper context and with respect. We therefore took great pains to depict the ceremony with the dignity and reverence it is due. This approach is entirely evident in the scene portrayed in this episode and certainly reflected in Jeanne Tripplehorn's beautiful and moving performance as she faces losing the Church she loved so much. In order to assure the accuracy of the ceremony, it was thoroughly vetted by an adviser who is familiar with temple practices and rituals. This consultant was actually on the set throughout the filming of the scenes to make sure every detail was correct."

From HBO:

"We know that the writers/executive producers of the series have gone to great lengths to be respectful and accurate in portraying the endowment ceremony. That ceremony is an important part of this year's storyline. Obviously, it was not our intention to do anything disrespectful to the church. To those who may be offended, we offer our sincere apology. It should also be noted that throughout the series' three-year run, the writer/executive producers have made abundantly clear the distinction between the LDS church and those extreme fringe groups who practice polygamy."

A gross portrayal of Church history?

I have major issues with the LDS Church's (largely anonymous) Newsroom commentaries. In response to the upcoming Big Love episode they released a commentary which can be read here:

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-publicity-dilemma

While I agree with some of the content of the commentary, I find some of it laughable. For example, they refer to South Park's "All About the Mormons" episode as "a gross portrayal of Church history." Oh really?

Here is something from a blog post I wrote a while back.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I want to begin with a short quiz.

image a:



image b:




Question 1: Which of these images comes from a South Park episode and begins with the disclaimer that "all characters and events in this show - even those based on real people - are entirely fictional"?
Question 2: Which of these images comes from the LDS Church-produced film, "Joseph Smith: Prophet of the Restoration" and was touted as being "historically accurate"?
Question 3: Which of these images portrays the method with which Joseph Smith used to translate the golden plates?
Question 4: Which of these images portrays a "gross portrayal of Church history"?

the answers - 1:a 2:b 3:a 4:b

----------------------


Compare the following images from the Church's official website about Joseph Smith with historical statements by Joseph's friends and family who witnessed the translation process.

"I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine." - David Whitmer, in "an address to all believers in christ."

"In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us." - Emma Smith, "Last testimony of Sister Emma", in RLDS Church History vol 3 ch 18 page 356. The LDS Church's website actually quotes from this interview with Emma about the Book of Mormon, but does not mention her reference to the use of a hat.

"Now the way he translated was he put the urim and thummim into his hat and Darkned his Eyes then he would take a sentance and it would apper in Brite Roman Letters. Then he would tell the writer and he would write it. . . Thus was the hol [whole] translated." - Joseph Knight (loyal friend of Joseph Smith), quoted in Dean Jesse's "Joseph Knight's Recollection of Early Mormon History."

"The manner in which this was done was by looking into the Urim and Thummim, which was placed in a hat to exclude the light, (the plates lying near by covered up), and reading off the translation, which appeared in the stone by the power of God." - William Smith (Joseph Smith's brother) in "William Smith on Mormonism," page 11.

Before you all get your garments up in a bunch (again) over HBO's Big Love... *UPDATED* and *AGAIN*

Apparently next week's episode of Big Love is going to depict the LDS endowment ceremony, and of course a bunch of Mormons are already up in arms, crying "persecution," sending out stupid e-mails, and making pointless Facebook groups in an effort to stop the show.

As an active and temple-worthy LDS, and fan of Big Love, I must say this.

-Don't be getting your garments all up in a bunch over this.

-For those of you who have been endowed, the LDS endowment is VERY explicit about what THOSE WHO ARE ENDOWED are not supposed to discuss outside of the temple. I have strong doubts that any of these few things will be portrayed.

-There are many Fundamentalist and other restoration groups that have endowments similar to ours.

-In essence, what goes on in the temple is no different than any of our other sacraments (such as baby blessings, baptisms, confirmations, blessings, sacrament, etc). There is nothing wrong with depicting them.

-Even if the very few things of the endowment which initiates promise not to discuss outside the temple are portrayed... who freakin cares. All of this is widely available on the internet. The sacredness of the rituals and their secrecy are what we are committed to, not what we commit the uninitiated to.

-Much of the endowment was copied from Freemasonry by Joseph Smith and "likened" and reinterpreted for our endowments. Are you going to try to stop them too?

-While you're at it, why not try to stop the Order of the Arrow.

-As I mentioned before, initiated Latter-day Saints make covenants to keep a few select items undisclosed from the uninitated. If you have been endowed and don't know what I'm talking about, go again and pay attention this time instead of sleeping through it. There is no restrictions on anything else. This includes the clothing, washings, anointings, the creation drama, the garden drama, and everything else. There is no reason why these cannot, nor should not, be portrayed outside of the temple.

-A century ago, Latter-day Saints were much more open to discuss the temple and it's goings on than we are today. I think this is largely because what goes on in the temple is drastically different than the rites of contemporary Christianity (though it it much more similar to many Catholic sacraments); and we Latter-day Saints are overly concerned about our perception and 'fitting in' with traditional Christianity.

-I think this is a good thing over all. For those of you who haven't seen Big Love, I can tell you that the show will most likely depict it in a meaningful and respectful way that we would expect of any production depicting sacred rites and symbols (such as baptisms, communions, prayers, mecca, etc), much in the same manner that garments and their importance were depicted in Angels in America.

-If anything, perhaps this will help us as Latter-day Saints appreciate and be open and honest about our temple worship, instead of being so quiet and secretive about it.

**UPDATED**

Let me add a few more points

-Brigham Young and many early saints believed that Masonry was a corrupted form of the endowment, and yet they continued to practice Masonry and participate in its rites. One of the first buildings made in Utah was a Masonic lodge.

-During the Reed Smoot senatorial hearings, the contents of the endowment were transcribed for the Library of Congress and made public to show that it did not contain anything that could be construed as sedition.

-I once asked my Muslim friend Najib if he would be offended if I drew a picture of Muhammed (by perhaps sketching a person and saying that it was the Prophet). He said he would not because I was not a Muslim and had never made that commitment. I asked if he would be offended I was a Muslim and did it. He said he wouldn't be and would just feel sorry for me. He said he would only be offended if he had drawn it, as it would have been he who went against his own religious convictions. I think we can learn much from him.

*ANOTHER UPDATE*

The LDS newsroom (which I have major issues with) released a statement that can be read here:

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-publicity-dilemma

What I don't like about the newsroom report is that it seems to cast a judgment on the episode before it has even aired. I think it would have been better served for them to say that because it has not aired, nor is the content of the episode known, they can only comment on a very limited basis.

They do make a good point however that members of the Church have to realize that they are no longer a small minority and that this is just further evidence that Mormonism is beginning to be more of a part of the public discourse.

I found it a bit ironic that they called South Park's "All About the Mormons" episode "a gross portrayal of Church history" when it actually depicted LDS history more accurately than LDS-produced movies do (as I pointed out here)

Should we forgive Vanilla Ice?

Put more "artists" on trial - http://rightmusicwrongs.org

My half-year assessment of CGU Mormon Studies

I was asked to give a short report tomorrow to the CGU LDS Council and several donors on my experience and views of this last year while doing Mormon Studies at Claremont Graduate University. Here is a little draft I put together:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

After having studied and heavily participated in Mormon and Religious Studies at Utah Valley University (with Brian Birch , Boyd Petersen, Dennis Potter, and others), I was really looking forward to taking the discussions to a higher graduate level here at CGU.

Because of CGU's excellent philosophy of religion program, I had long ago decided that CGU was where I wanted to begin my graduate studies. Talk of a Mormon Studies program at this school increased this desire, and I watched the development closely with almost weekly updates about the progress and eventual selection of Richard Bushman as the new Howard W. Hunter Chair of Mormon Studies. I had been a fan of both Claudia and Richard after discovering their writings during my mission nearly a decade ago and looked forward to studying with them here. In my view, there was nobody better to begin and head the academic study of Mormonism at this university.

After a semester and half at CGU, I would say that my experience of Mormon Studies here has been a combination of gratification, excitement, disappointment, and worry.

First.... what I'll call the good news. The Mormon Studies program and the Claremont Mormon Studies Student Association have brought together several students and professors that are very intuitive into the various issues of Mormonism and understand well the academic study of religion. Because of them, in our classes, discussions, and informal lunches, I have peers who I can expect to both teach and challenge me. As a wannabe Mormon scholar, I am very gratified to have a community with the peers and resources to expand my studies. Non-LDS faculty here at CGU have also been very informative and willing to engage Mormon Studies from their different disciplines.

Furthermore, the Mormon Studies courses, lectures, meetings, and discussions here have almost all been a gem and delight for me. Our monthly lectures, and especially the afternoon semi-informal discussions with the invited speakers and other grad students have been a highlight of my experience here so far. I have found them edifying both intellectually and spiritually.

So now what I call the bad news. While I came here with a lot of excitement and hope to move from an undergraduate to a graduate level study of Mormonism, I have left too many classes and discussions very disappointed. In fact, I remember leaving some of my first Mormon studies classes a bit bewildered at the experience. Rather than something that I thought I would find in a graduate course, I felt like I was often sitting in something I would expect from an institute or Sunday school class. In many instances it has felt like academic rigor had been replaced with (or almost completely smothered by) testimony bearing or absolutist faith claims. This, I believe, has been mainly due to LDS students who do not understand the academic study of religion (or do not have a desire to study Mormonism in a scholarly way), and instead see these courses here as a sort-of elevated institute class taught by a prestigious name. I feel there has also been a failure at times by instructors to reign in the course to ensure that it is an academic discussion and not a devotional one. Having spent and gone thousands of dollars in debt to have in depth and rigorous discussions at this graduate university, it was frustrating to feel like those discussions were sometimes impossible because of certain students who had to be coddled and protected.

This is not to say that religious beliefs and claims should not be made in the discussions. (It would be ludicrous to study religion without them). Rather, in order to have a proper discussion, they must be given and discussed as a religious belief, and not the religious belief—and certainly not as the truth or the fact of reality. If someone says that an argument or claim is false because it goes against their personal beliefs, or if someone wants to say that a particular claim is absolute and unquestionable truth, then further discussion is impossible.

This leads to worries that I have about Mormon Studies at CGU. In my view, the success and survival of Mormon Studies here depends on three things: Support (whether implicit or explicit) of the LDS Church and LDS community; financial support of donors; and finally, the meeting of academic standards and rigor. While these are all important, for me the last of these is of the utmost importance. If Mormon Studies here cannot be a truly academic exercise, then it is essentially bankrupt and, in my view, not worth pursuing. While I believe that apologetics and polemics can (and perhaps ought to be pursued) in order for Mormon Studies here to be a viable academic exercise, the truthfulness of Mormon theological, historical, and faith claims cannot be a priori judgments. In other words, we cannot begin Mormon studies with the claim that the LDS Church is the true church or that LDS beliefs are true beliefs. LDS beliefs, claims about what are LDS beliefs, and criticism of LDS beliefs must all be open for criticism and discussion—this includes potential criticisms of actions and pronouncements by LDS leaders.

My worry is that in an effort to please the LDS community and financial donors, the academic integrity of Mormon Studies might be jeopardized. While I believe that donors should have a say in how their money is used, their input should be limited from prohibiting (either directly or indirectly) any particular topic for, or type of, discussion. If any important or desired topic is made taboo or avoided in fear of losing organizational or financial support, then the credibility of calling Mormon Studies at CGU a truly academic program should be seriously questioned.

I believe I just shat myself

Having NIN playing in the background makes it all the awesomer.

Today I wished Joseph Smith was a southern black man

The three hymns in today's fast and testimony meeting consisted of three very sloooow and nearly monotone songs that triggered a series of yawns that I am still fighting off eight hours later. I wish this were an anomaly, but given the limited resources of our required hymnals, it is essentially the rule.

Enduring through sacrament meetings awake (and alive) is hard enough when they usually consist of poorly prepared talks by lay members who begin by announcing to the congregation that they don't want to be up there speaking. Our short opportunities to liven things up with some upbeat hymns are usually wasted away on organ-leading drones of puritanical music.

Yes. I blame the Puritans on our funeral-sounding meetings.

Because Mormonism sprouted up from the Puritanical heritage of New England, we have unfortunately adopted their musical culture as the standard by which the 'spirituality' of our songs (and services) are measured. And like so many things in Mormonism, the predominate cultural norms suddenly became the definitive universal eternal doctrinal Gospel truth. Mormons began to think that a songs had inherent characteristics based on a type of style that made the song spiritual or not. Along with this, certain instruments were deemed spiritual instruments (organs, pianos, and sometimes string or wind instruments) and other instruments have been classified as being a threat to spiritual settings (such as guitars, percussion, brass). This belief that only certain types of music and instruments can be spiritual is strengthened by our mostly white Mormon-bred oligarchy that has very little multi-cultural understand and experience.

There are a few exceptions. Thanks to Phelps and Snow, some of our hymns show a departure from the Puritanical model by incorporating Scottish and northern European melodies into the mix, also some children's songs that have made their way into the hymnal usually are not so dead and slow (or else they would have never survived as childrens songs). These however seem to be the exceptions, rather than the rule. Most newer hymns in the Church hymnal - especially those written by general authorities - share the Puritanical sentiments of being really slow and worthy of funeral processions.

And of course, we try our best to Puritanize those view anomalous hymns that we do have - Snow's "The Spirit of God" says "we'll sing and we'll shout!" and we practically whisper that exclamation marked phrase.

That we measure the spirituality of our hymns by Puritanical standards is especially evident when looking at hymns used to precede the Sacrament, as they universally bear the death-mark and are sung at nothing faster than fifteen beats per minutes.

This doesn't have to be the case though. The Puritanical view of spirituality is only one of hundreds of views of spirituality that exist throughout the many cultures of the world (of which many the Church has begun to infiltrate). We could easily tap these and utilize them to offer a multi-cultural and expansive variety of spirituality into our services.

But of course, instead of doing this we instead force our Puritanical standards on other cultures the Church has begun to evangelize and develop in. Instead of utilizing and adopting their views of spirituality, we enforce ours. We tell them how to dress spiritually, how to sing spiritually, and how to dress spiritually. A former mission president to Africa expressed to a friend of mine that retention in Africa would be so much stronger if we would just allow drums into our services. That is how they views and expressed spirituality in their culture. But instead, we force them to learn to play the piano and force them to change their conception of spirituality. These new converts decide that they would rather go to a meeting in another church where they can feel closer to God in the way that feels right to them.

So this is why today I wished that Joseph Smith was a black man from the south. Had he come from the south, the Church would have developed with a different concept of what spiritual music sounded like. Rather than Puritanical drones, we would be worshiping to songs of joy, clapping, dancing, and praise.

And I wouldn't be so tired and bored in church.