Exaggeration: A Gospel Necessity

A strange title? Yes. An exaggerated one? Perhaps. By the time you're done reading this post, hopefully, I'll have triggered a minature chain reaction in how you understand the purposes of exaggeration...and hence, more sympathy when you see it at home, at church, and for you readers of modern history, even when you read scholarly monographs (though it sickens me to think that I could ever have sympathy for the chattering class).

The gospel we believe is, in its purest form, a gospel of balance. It defies hysterics, insists on coolness, and dodges the doctrinal fire-and-brimstone of traditional Catholicism and Protestantism. At once firm and fragile, the system of principles we accept as truth constitute a delicately-balanced structure of weights and counterweights. Mercy and justice, joy and pain, "there is opposition in all things" (2 Ne. 2:11) (I'll sidestep the question of how evil fits into the plan...for now ;). As Elder Maxwell once noted in his fine work, That Ye May Believe, truth is not homogenous, but rather, competes within itself for the attention of its adherents. Within this context, we must see the gospel not as a monolithic entity but as a system of moving parts...a system that is only oiled by the blessings of the Atonement...

So what is the significance here? I would suggest to you that by understanding this model of gospel interrelatedness, we can better understand some of the teachings we hear. Perhaps, on numerous occasions, you've heard individuals say various principles are the "key" or the "most important" principles for living righteously or receiving God's blessings. I conducted a search on lds.org of the terms "most important" and "principle"; I found that numerous principles have been referred to as the "most important." Here is a small sampling: self-examination,
obedience , and love,

Now obviously, there is a great deal of overlap here; however, if words mean anything at all to us (and they do...otherwise He wouldn't have gone to the trouble of having his prophet translate hundreds of pages into published form), then we must address how all three of these principles (and doubtless others as heard in talks, lessons, etc.) can be the most important at once.

It's a matter of discourse practicality and a little tinge of public relations. If, when asked to speak, all we droned about every time is that the gospel was a system of doctrinal checks and balances, it would become quite tiresome indeed. However, if you examine the teaching methods of the prophets and apostles, both ancient and modern, they are generally quite free-wheeling, even sprawling...touching on this doctrine or that precept without as much regard for transition statements segues as we think of them. Granted the scriptures are not a bunch of random statements, but we seldom see an ideas devopment over the course of a few verses, instead giving a snippet and leaving the reader to sort it out for him/herself. Why is that?

I would suggest that these teachings are meant to be sprawling b/c the gospel in its purest form cannot be viewed in the context of one of its parts. Yet, in order for the idea to become readily accessible to us, we must compartmentalize the teachings. And while this compartmentalization can sometimes have unpleasant side effects (the "laundry list" gospel wherein we, unaware of our inconsistencies, pleasantly go about holding self-contradictory views that are reversible on a dime: "Do what you feel is right" vs. "Keep your promises"--both are correct teachings in given circumstances, but neither are absolute), if we engage the compartmentalization with a knowledge of its side effects, then we can preserve the benefits while discarding the unpleasantries.

So with this in mind, I try not to be confused at the numerous talks that describe some gospel platitude as being the keystone principle (as an example, I've heard that "gospel is there to comfort the irritable and irritate the comfortable"). While we can still isolate principles for individualized analysis, we must still be on guard lest our speech become sloppy...such sloppiness tends to confuse and define faith all at once. And such a tendency is perilous business when a soul is at stake.

Femininity, Attractiveness, and the Cult of Pious Beauty

So in my time, I sometimes listen to occasional piece by Jack the Johnson. One is called "Posters." Some telling lines speaking of many typical girls:

"Looking at herself but wishing she was someone else
Because the body of the doll it don't look like hers at all

So she straps it on, she sucks it in, she throws it up, and gives a grin
Laughing at herself because she knows she ain't that at all

It was said by a University of Minnesota Professor that Brigham Young University is a campus that is "sexually charged." What makes for a campus of this brand? Is it obsession over body image, over dates, over hairstyles? What makes the romantic soul of BYU tick? Do LDS compare favorably with other college age students in terms of how they view themselves...do they have heatlhy attitudes about romance? I do not have answers to these question; however, they do present a begged question: "What does the gospel and the prophets have to say about body image?" Indeed, it is a real issue, and it is hard to simply brush off with a "Well, you just need to know that you're just fine" or that "Boys aren't THAT concerned with your waistline." Unfortunately, few believe such advice, and in the case of the latter, the woeful truth is that some actually are concerned. However, as Elder Packer noted, doctrine understood changes behavior best. Let's plumb the depts...see what we can find on this current social problem.

President Faust has declared that "femininity is not just lipstick, stylish hairdos, and trendy clothes. It is the divine adornment of humanity." President Faust continued, decrying the presence of women boxers and wrestlers in the sports arena. Therefore, to President Faust, femininity seems to rest on making distinctions between the sexes. Is there anything inherently wrong, immoral about women boxing or wrestling? I would suggest that its wrongness comes not in its substance but more as a symbol that walls between the genders are breaking down...the practical outcome of which means that gender roles are blurred.

But I digress...the reality is that females are encouraged on the grassroots level to enhance femininity. While we constantly hear about the need to avoid vanity, there coexists with that teaching a similar drive to get married...indeed, even President David O. McKay noted: "It is not my purpose to discourage efforts to enhance physical beauty. When given by birth, it should be nurtured in childhood, cherished in girlhood, and protected in womanhood. When not inherited, it should be developed and sought after in every legitimate and healthful manner."

Therefore, where is the "golden mean" between the doctrines against vanity and for pious beauty? And more importantly, how can these pro-beauty sentiments be kept in check, lest they spiral into the harmful influences of self-centeredness, elitism and outright brattiness? Some of my female viewers may question whether it is so bad that beautiful people tend to cluster together...after all, should not we associate with those who resemble most our values? We don't actually have to be friendswith those poor souls who are plagued by less-than-attractive features, do we? Of course, you act pleasant enough around them, but we all know that deep in your gut, you're looking around you thinking: "If a cute guy/girl walked in here, I could outflirt any guy/girl in the room..." You know that when another guy/girl might talk about how a guy/girl was flirting with her, you're thinking that the other guy/girl must've been 1) desperate, 2) charitable, or 3) of that school called the "recreational" school of flirting...

Maybe we justify these tendencies by dropping some tripe about how we know our own talents and magnify them. Yeah...just like Washington lobbyists "magnify" their talent for persuasion and Mafia hitmen magnify their talents of marksmanship...

Their must be an element of pious beauty...and one that does not deny the realities of our physical beauty and our gospel. Brethren and sistren, please do opine...President Kimball (and in some ways, the Proclamation) suggests that learning about what it means to be a man/woman is a key element of our lifetime in mortality. Maybe we could have some light shed on it via scriptures, quotes, and especially personal experience.

Confidence: The Delusion of Champions

Proceeding onward and upward...

Before doing so though, a word about "discourses." We need to recognize that there is not a Mormon rhetoric--there are Mormon rhetorics. They swirl around us through a sacrament meeting w/o our knowing it. There is a discourse of obedience ("Follow the Brethren"), a discourse of sacrifice ("Come Come Ye Saints"--this fits under other rubrics too, but I would argue sacrifice is the overarching theme when we discuss this hymn), a discourse of dating, of individualism ("Read it for yourself"), a discourse of Atonement and so forth. And not all of these discourses fully blend with each other well, nor do they fully represent the gospel...we must cut through the discourses to see what kind of subterranean gospel currents are at work. We must not get bogged down in the lapping waves on the surface--though such movements are essential for negotiating our way through the Church in real-time. So why doesn't the Lord just give it to us plain? 1) We're humans; we are incapable of such daring-do and 2) it would miss the point entirely. It would be like giving food to a lion as we're trying to train it in hunting...let's begin.

Obsessing over agency w/o its mother reality of Christ's atonement might well be seen as the highest form of adolescent rebellion. From the scriptures, we learn that agency is in actuality a product of the Atonement: "And because they are redeemed from the fall, they are free forever" (2 Nephi 2:26). Yet, I fear, in our efforts to distinguish ourselves from our evangelical brothers/sisters, we emphasize free agency and its enforcement at the expense of agency's source. All too often, self-esteem is blended and sometimes, wrongfully (though often rightfully) w/this emphasis on free agency: "Good choices lead to good self-esteem."

But certainly we are to have self-esteem; as Elder Packer once pronounced: when he hears us struggle with problems aimlessly, he wants to thunder that we're children of God and have the powers of divinity within us. Additionally, for a God who is willing to weep over the wickedness of his children, it is hard for me to see a God nodding with approval as his child is sitting in the corner telling themselves repeatedly that are simply not making the cut. The NT provides us some creative tension on this point (the OT is similarly ambiguous on self-esteem; the Hebrew word for pride is remarkably ambiguous, as it is used to describe God's greatness as well...we'll discuss the NT just b/c it's more easily palatable for those who aren't ready to grapple with the commands to destroy the inhabitants of Canaan). Interestingly, the Greek word for "pride" in the NT essentially means "to shine more than"--again, remarkably ambiguous. Additionally, we are told "let our light so shine." It's obvious that we all have varied talents, and these talents will, of necessity, stand out above the rest.

And yet, and yet, the discourse of personal righteousness MUST be contextualized within the Atonement. Many of us do not seem adequately equipped for such a contextualization, certainly not with our discourse tools readily available. Part of that is obviously due to the transcendence of the event..."no tongue can describe." Yet I also think that this intimidating reality has the unintended side effect of scaring us into not even approaching the reality of the Atonement head on...its implications for everything we do. It's much easier to tell somebody to pay 10%, to give food to the missionaries, even to be chaste, then to teach them how to get know a man whom we call resurrected. And with that, we can easily call him righteous. There are good reasons why the first question of the temple recommend interview has nothing to do with individual activities and everything to do with Christ. This pseudo-gospel of checklist Mormonism is really just Calvinism warmed-over--a stable social order of shared values and goals as everyone anxiously hopes that their good works is a sign that that they're saved. It makes for a good social order, but whither the belief in Christ? As good ole' Chet noted: Calvinism (and its illegitimate descendant, Latter-Day Calvinism), was a "highly credible mistake."

Yet Mormonism is audacious enough to claim that it can be done. Self-esteem means, to us, that we find the vital center of time and all eternity--the garden of Gethsemane. Once the center of eternity is found, the center of our lives will be found as well. Without the center in place, Chet's quip becomes disturbingly correct: Shall I tell you where the men are who believe most in themselves? For I can tell you. I know of men who believe in themselves more colossally than Napoleon or Caesar. I know where flames the fixed star of certainty and success. I can guide you to the thrones of the Supermen. The men who really believe in themselves are all in lunatic asylums…" (even if they're in asylums that bring home six-figures).

Confidence--the Winner's Delusions?...Part I

Self-esteem is a particularly awkward gospel principle. First, some conceptual background/baggage/problematization/contextualization--take your pick...

Whereas our faith's culture tends to create this aura of mystique around "drawing the line," "making a stand," not all gospel principles function this way (though a great many do). Because of this emphasis on definitive gospel action, we run the risk of applying this model to the entirety our lives. And if we all we do is draw lines, we will most certainly create a picture of faith; the question is whether that picture is something that belongs in an art museum, on a fridge, or, worse still, in the first-grade classroom. By defining our faith by a metaphor, we must accept the consequences/limitations of that metaphor. Therefore, if faith merely becomes an act of defiance, a decision, an execution...well, such a model, I would suggest, fails to address the process leading up to the decisionary moment. And the faithful listener is left wondering if there is anything more to life than a conglommerate of decisions.

I would suggest that Latter Day Saints need to be open to a variety of models in their self-conceptualization of righteousness. A common formulation of righteousness often comes in the idea of using agency wisely, properly. Yet what are the consequences of using this model? Our righteousness becomes compartmentalized, a list of good things. While this model is effective in that it allows anyone who does A,B, and C to call themselves good people, it also threatens (though seldom actualizes) the threat of having "the form of godliness" while "denying the power thereof."

Part II--Applying this discrepancy to a real world gospel question...

"This is No Crackpot Church"

Another winner from the Nice Guy...

He might be right...BUT, you know a candidate is having to prove to his constituents that he does not have leanings towards crackpotism...

Hope in a Jar

Interesting title, eh? Well, ladies, it's the name of a fascinating book being used in one of the graduate seminars. And it's about? Makeup...that bain of every woman's existence. But yet it might be called "hope"--the ramifications are tremendous...

We need not go into the books arguments here, but I do have this question ladies...why do you wear makeup? What does it say about ourselves, our society? In sum, do you think that this title is basically correct or off the mark? Why or why not?

Talk to me.

Tactical Morality

My friends...

I have stumbled across a bit of wisdom that I find fascinating...please do give me your thoughts on it...

Elder Neal A. Maxwell gave a talk at the Behavioral Sciences Symposium at BYU back in 1976. In this talk, he drops a tantalizingly revolutionary method of examining the commandments by which we live. He suggests that not only fundamental, eternal principles play a role in our salvation, but also that mundane, largely symbolic standards can save us as well. How so?

Elder Maxwell maintains that in order for us to be of any assistance at all in the salvation of others, we must be able "preserve our identity in the way that is most helpful to us and to our fellowmen." The preservation of this identity involves a real element of "tactical morality"--morality that is focused on not "unintentionally [assuming] the appearance of evil in its various cultural customs and dispensational dimensions." Cultural norms, therefore, become significant not because there is a law written in the heavens that, for example, we must not drink coffee or that women must only wear one pair of earrings. They are significant if only to prove that we are different from the rest. He cites Paul in 1 Cor. chpt. 7 where he instructs the sisters to keep their heads covered during prayer. Why? Was there anything inherently wrong with having the head uncovered? At the time, the cultural norm was that only women of loose morals went around with their heads uncovered. Additionally, the cultural norm had been that only men went without a head covering. Given Paul's otherwise progressive doctrines about women's roles ("All are one in Christ"), some sisters, so I've read, almost certainly began believing that they should not have to conform to the cultural standard. After all, were not all equal and should not both genders be treated similarly? Paul responded that they were missing the point: 1) removing the head covering would make them look as the adulteress if they removed their head-covering, and 2) it would constitute a symbolic blending of gender roles. This cultural norm served an important function, even if it had a limited relationship to gospel teachings.

Elder Maxwell's provides a neat answer to a number of questions as to why we keep some of the standards we do. Why do temple recommend interviews prohibit coffee while allowing numerous soda drinks to pass by? Is there something magical about the 16th birthday where suddenly the teenager becomes prepared for dating? Why not the 17th birthday? Why is it that the standards of modesty are indeed quite different from the standards of modesty in the early 19th-century? After all, if our ancestors were to see the standards of the vast majority of Latter Day Saint girls, they would bemoan the state of Zion. And yet the Church has never encouraged wearing dresses or bonnets. In fact, to ask such questions, Elder Maxwell maintains, is to miss the point in the same way the New Testament sisters did. Cultural norms DO play a role in our moral standards.

So those who wonder about why keep the standards we do...in some ways, you don't have to wonder because no one has claimed that there is anything inherent to them. It's about "preserving our identity," about being different for its own sake. I like it...it has a radical edge to it...we get all the benefits of being a straight-out non-conformist ("So why don't you party it up?" "Just trying to express myself") AND it sends a more powerful message than most other forms of non-conformity (which are far more common than what we do). Someone who's straight-out Goth might get a "well, he's just doing his own thing." But a Latter Day Saint who turns down a drink? That raises eyebrows...

Academia, Mormons, and the Ivory Tower

So I just returned from an oh-so-lovely jaunt with my fellow academics. Graduate school has a way of clearing up one's view of world, much in the same way a 2x4 clears up the thinking of a donkey. And that's no compliment...

Tonight, I think I saw the academic community for what it is: a cloistered, slightly delusional, crew of self-congratulating elitists. Harsh words for some of my own people? Perhaps, but it is only because I feel that academics have betrayed academia--and traitors have no illustrious legacy in my world.

Tonight, I listened as a professor decried the evils of the religious right all the while seriouslyclaiming that he could not fill out an NCAA bracket; his wife was a psychic and had not informed him of the eventual outcome. I watched as professors chatted with professors about theorists, obscure books, and arcane theories, most of which your work-a-day hoi polloi would dismiss as, at best, irrelevant, and at worst, a near-criminal use of their tax dollars. Bush-bashing is considered a given, almost a religious rite necessary for purification from the sins of common society.

Yet I cannot distance myself from the academic process, a process that has done so much for me. Rather, I am disappointed that the process I found so noble in adolescence is so crudely political. While this comes as no surprise to most, I really believed that academics, so intent on the pursuit of truth, would have at least some freedom from the taint of schoolyard alliances.

These feelings run hot, paradoxically, because I might not be as passionate as I could be about the issues and get upset at anyone who is; perhaps I am not really a democrat (note the small "d"). Why? I trace it to my Latter Day Saint faith--a seemingly odd source until we consider the real political dynamic. Aside from a couple social issues, the politics and culture of the Latter Day Saints really makes for the American wild card. Our cultural roots produces enough ambiguity that we might, if we chose, march to our own political drum. Harold Bloom has accused us of blending too neatly into the American right; perhaps on the grassroots level he is right. Once Latter Day Saints recognize this, Utah--indeed, the whole of the intermountain West might be in play again. Democrats would be more than happy to overlook our stances on abortion and same-sex marriage--such things happen all the time (see Joe Lieberman's endorsement of McCain).

We do not recognize our own potential. Maybe I'll write a book someday about Mormons, the Wild Card in America, about how we have sold our political birthright for a mess of political porridge (namely Republican support for our same-sex marriage and pro-life stances). We do not need the Republican party or any party for these views to be legitimized. We can support constitutional amendments on same-sex marriage; you know that the instant we begin making overtures to the Democrats on other issues, they would be more than happy to take over a key Republican stronghold for the small price of softening their rhetoric on abortion and not demonizing for supporting a marriage amendment.

Latter Day Saints...recognize your power. As a Latter Day Saint first, a conservative second, and an academic third, I hope that Utah Latter Day Saints can show the political world that they're not easily manipulable...unlike the constituencies of the Huckster.

The Hero With A Thousand Faces

You all know it...you just don't know that you know it. So Joseph Campbell writes this book called (guess what?) The Hero With a Thousand Faces. He argues that all hero myths derive from a single typology, a single archetype.

So now we get into the fun stuff...Campbell argues that "the hero" leaves his home of comfort, goes in search of a token or prize, and in doing so, begins to question his relationship to reality. Ultimately, s/he realizes a previously unrecognized potential , comes to terms with him/herself, and ultimately saves the society from whence he came.

Here's the scoop...look at the specifics of Campbell's "hero cycle" (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hero_with_a_Thousand_Faces). Any comparisons to made with how we ourselves as heroes in mortality in light of the plan of salvation? Similarities? Differences? Most importantly, what can we learn from Campbell? Search ye therefore out of the best books, no? (and to my uberly-orthodox friends, yes, there are more "best books" than the standard works...at least Joseph Smith thought so).

I Am Legend

A profound movie...even if much of it is traditional save-mankind-from-the-aliens hackney. But there is meaning here, my friends...you might even use it as a (gasp) gospel object lesson...

But before I share my two bits...I'll give an e-drink to the man/woman who comes up with the best gospel application...GO!

Nutritional Brochures at Fast Food Joints=Absurd

So I was going to Taco Bell in hopes of scarfing down on my calorie-laced Baja Beef Chalupa. Suddenly, I was slapped upside the head with the realization that an obscenity was staring me right in the face. No...'twasn't any four letter word...it was a nutritional sign.

A question for my loyal viewers: does anyone with a brain not drenched in Mickey D's grease actually go to fast food joints wondering about their calorie intake? One might as well ask an embezzler for advice on how to do the taxes or a Republican on how to actually give a ---- about the hungry...

So let's face it...Taco Bell thinks we're idiots...gimme my Baja...

A Little Anxious? You Betcha...

So G.K. Chesterton, the artist par excellence of probing whimsy, argued that "man must have just enough faith in himself to have adventures, and just enough doubt of himself to enjoy them." So this next chapter in my life should be full of life, liberty, and rollicking good fun. Right?

Yet I find myself facing what appears to be an utter and complete tabula rasa of human experience. Of course, having grown up in the goodly Western country of Wyoming, the schoolboy in me was taught to see such a milieu as an adventure to be grasped, an opportunity to conquer. And then there's the tired old trope about how the word "crisis" in Chinese is a combination of "danger" and "opportunity" (incidentally, that's a load of malarkey: see here for explanation--http://www.pinyin.info/chinese/crisis.html). Yet the Eeyore in me sees something very different. He sees contingency, chance aka the chance for things to horrifically wrong. Eeyore is not a pessimist necessarily; he is content with the mediocre: "Thanks for noticin' me." Eeyore is all too comfortable with the ordinary, the mean. All too comfortable slipping into the masses unnoticed.

Confused yet? So am I. Basically, I'm 26 years old and I'm not wholly convinced on where I want to go from here. Things with Emily have not exactly worked out as planned, and plus, the University of Kentucky is pushing me to go to Wisconsin to learn Vietnamese. I'm not fully convinced I even want to be a history professor; then again, I'm not convinced about much else either. History professors are terribly aloof from reality; when profs. tell you that they're insane about their subject, believe them. I love the stuff, but do I want it to feed my family as a profession?.

So far, the feelings I've been getting have not exactly been comforting about the future...but the thoughts of changing course are too terrible to entertain. It would mean forfeiting much of my goodwill with the University of Kentucky and leaving me rudderless as far as a professional path. Academia remains the most solid choice, even if it leaves a bittersweet aftertaste in my mouth.

McCain's Overture to Huckabee's Crowd

Oh so pleasant...sounds like a fellow I would like to eat pizza with

An Old Reliable

So yeah...I had a riveting conversation about Mormon orthodoxy's (I use the term orthodoxy in the popular sense; see this post for my thoughts on what orthodoxy really means) old reliable chestnut--evolution...let the fire and brimstone come down.

OK...so I know all the good ole' mantras about how science and Mormonism is intertwined, about how God wants us to learn about the world around us, about how we should seek for truth in all places, about divine evolution, and about how the Church has taken no stance on evolution etc. etc. You go to BYU for a few years and you hear about this ad infinitum...I get it.

Now I have nothing fundamentally against evolution...but for you scientist-theologians out there, I have some questions.

Question 1):

As I understand it, evolutionary biology DOES NOT maintain we descended from primates, but that we share a common ancestor. Fair enough. At what point, then, did man's spirit enter the body? Were these spirits those of God's offspring or of some other species? At what point did these spirits become human spirits? Were there even individual spirits in these beings or were they animated by the general spirit of life (which might explain Adam being "asleep")

Question 2):

In light of evolution, what does it mean to be a child of God?

Again, those who know me know that I am no doctrinaire old timer when it comes to matters of theology. And I know that you biology buffs tend to have conniptions when Latter Day Saints ask such questions. Just humor me for a second and ignore the temptation to believe that a Latter Day Saint who questions evolution is just knuckle-dragging evidence that evolution is still in process...

Frightening

Now those of you who know me well also know that I am a political connoisseur...and as such, have almost no political loyalty. Party, schmarty...we all know they're a bunch of bums away who can only be stomached for a few years anyway. I supported Romney b/c he was the least distasteful, and I'm supporting McCain provided that McCain's staff give me a blindfold on election so I don't have to see myself vote. So on that note...

It takes a great deal to get my emotions rolling on things political. If a person can truly frighten me w/a political story, then that is saying something. And wouldn't you know it, but Mr. Nice Guy, Barack Obama, has done it.

Pastor Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's pastor of nearly 20 years, is no ordinary bible-thumper. The following clips give us a glimpse into his Sunday service. Scary stuff. Now just b/c a fellow has a cup of joe with a radical obviously does not make him any less of a leader. I mean, really, I'm sure we've all heard a little false doctrine over the pulpit in our days, and I'm sure we all hope it's not held against us when we all run for president, senate, dog-catcher, or (cough) spouse (cough). However, we are not talking about casual acquaintance...Obama titled his book "The Audacity of Hope" based on one of Wright's sermons. Wright married Obama to Michelle and baptized his children. Wright was Obama's "spritual mentor."

Obama claims that he has never heard Wright say anything controversial over the past 20 years. Even with that, however, we must question Obama's judgment of people. If he can be so close to someone without recognizing their radical roots, how can we trust him to choose the proper individuals for public office? Watch Wright's sermon and decide for yourself...

Reverend Jeremiah Wright blames the U.S. for 9/11

LDS dating...and why everyone hates it

So I just spent the last week in the bountiful, the land of plenty, even called God's country in some quarters...Provo, Utah. In God's country, the wind does not beat you down; it simply massages the soul. I love Provo...and I miss it deeply. Goodness is in the air you breathe. But God's country has a vulnerable underbelly--dating...

Have you noticed, my fellow LDSers, that dating is almost never the subject of a testimony on fast Sunday? "I know that dating is a true principle...and if we abide by it, we shall find happiness in this life..." Unfortunately, we would laugh whoever said this to scorn faster than you can say DTR. The great irony? While dating is glossed over as a custom, marriage emphasized and re-emphasized as the key stone of eternity, world without end. Dating is laughable; marriage is a key to the eternities. Out here in Kentucky, any dating talk is accompanied by at least three groans and two snickers.

Why do we laugh about--and don't testify of--dating? Because laughing is easier than crying. The reason we don't testify of dating is simple: it is the hardest doctrine there is. Seer stones, Adam-God, blood atonement...all sugary glaze when compared to this reality: "you may never find a suitable spouse in this life." Thank heavens that a testimony of dating is not required for full fellowship; if it were, our religion would become a holding vessel for the dating elites en route to a life of marital bliss--and we all know who they are (bless their hearts). You know, those with the arresting smile ("good teeth," as some of our dear sisters describe it), the lively spirit, the future attorneys, and would-be Mitt Romneys. Meanwhile, the rest of the dating proletariat would toil away...oh sorry, I forgot...this is a no-Marxism zone. But seriously folks, we can thank our lucky stars that the Lord has not asked for dating to be on the temple recommend question list..."Do you have faith in and a testimony of dating as a means to attain exaltation?" The ramifications would be profound: the Provo temple would shut down. Arranged marriage would become remarkably en vogue, if only to help the poor sons/daughters of the faith to escape from their sinful, non-dating ways.

It's true...we're not for want of counsel concerning dating. Hardly a CES fireside goes by without it. But their expectations are remarkably different from other commandments...tithing, chastity, even faith and repentance--all of these are painted in eternal and unchanging terms. And dating? Only weeks ago, Elder Earl C. Tingey even intimated that losing weight and changing a hairdo would be necessary to date. Such counsel hardly resembles the eloquent rhapsodies one can read in Mosiah 26 or 2 Nephi 9 about the greatness of God or the laws of mercy and justice.

So to those of you in relationships...I salute you. And in your honor, I am going to go read a book about imperialism and feminism in the British empire. Any segue? Nah...segues are for wimps.