Beauty, Power, Corruption

A short, but hopefully, well-packaged thought from your friendly neighborhood, scholar-saint in pursuit of truth, wisdom, and a touch of the absurd (provided that it is truthfully wise, absurdly truthful, et al)

A syllogism...

Beauty is power, power corrupts, therefore, beauty corrupts...

Ladies, believe it or not, Doctrine and Covenants 121 applies to you too. You know the old reliable technique of replacing a scriptural individual's name with your own? Let's try it again, shall we?

Doctrine and Covenants 121: 36-37, 39, 41-42
36 That the rights of beauty are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved...
39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all (wo)men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.
41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of beauty, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
42 By kindness, and pure bknowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—

(Editorial Aside for quibblers--yes, I'm quite aware that I omitted passages that relate more directly to the priesthood functioning in the church. Surprise! The comparison is not flawless...but are you really telling me that you have a sound doctrinal reason to disagree with what was quoted?)

Thus in classic fashion, if you don't like this, it must be because you take the truth to be hard...And no, I'm not bitter (perhaps I protesteth too much?)...I'm just a watchdog seeking to keep his countrymen safe...

Obama and the Mormon Vote

OK, OK, we know that Obama supports civil unions and abortion...it's old news...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj1hCDjwG6M

But let's face it...if Obama keeps making speeches like this, he might effectively peel off a respectable chunk of the social conservative vote, especially those of us hardliners who are tired of hearing about the liberal elitists who think that life is all about the Tony Awards and the most recent brand of cheese. Frankly, McCain could never make a speech like this, if only because his choices prevent from doing so credibly. I'm not saying I'll vote for Obama, nor will one speech do the job. But if Obama can meet the social conservatives half-way, they will see that Obama can do/say for them what McCain simply cannot. Maybe those social conservatives will be simply victims of what critics call Obama's Jedi-like power to swoon and croon.

In any case, speeches like this might just be the spoonful of "sugar to help the liberal medicine/poison go down.

Russell Stevenson IS a cartoon character...

Friends and countrymen...I have just descended to the depths of poverty...and am selling my voice for filthy lucre...the shame, the shame...

Alas, I will be the voice for a cartoon character on a BYU independent study instructional DVD...next thing you know...I'll be selling weed...

Kirby Heybourne: Needy Father or Sell-out?

I will add my two e-bits to the pot and suggest that the recent controversy surround Kirby Heyborne's (you know...Mr. Mormon cinema...he was the RM and also played significant parts in Singles Ward, Saints and Soldiers, and The Best Two Years) cameo in a Miller Lite Beer commercial. Heyborne has recently defended his action as Heavenly Father's way of helping him "stay afloat for another year." See his full remarks here. From my conversations (largely within Happy Valley), however, Heyborne is universally seen as a sell-out. To these folks, however Heyborne wants to spin it, he is still profiting from a business that is not compatible with the LDS lifestyle.

Herein is a major fault-line in gospel thought. Yes, he who does not take care of his household is "worse than an infidel." And sometimes, the early Latter Day Saints were to become friends with the "mammon of unrighteousness." But how far can this approach be taken w/o leading us to simply becoming a part of a wicked bureaucracy where we can all distance ourselves from the fundamental evil of the company/institution? Could a faithful Latter Day Saint be a white collar desk clerk for Playboy? Could a faithful Latter Day Saint work as a product rep. for Coors? Awkward questions indeed.

Addendum

Upon further reflection and some prodding from a good friend of mine, I have thought some about Heyborne's predicament. It's true...new, less-than-well-known actors make approximately 1,000 dollars more than crap/year. And when you're in da biz, there's something to be said for taking care of one's family. From a strict public relations point-of-view, I still wish he hadn't done it, wish he had taken any other odd-job, but then again, there are many things that I wish my family/friends (including myself) wouldn't do. And yet I still care about them deeply...and these are people I know. I certainly wouldn't make a personal attack over the blogosphere. I don't even know Heyborne. If I had known him personally and had been on close terms, I might have even privately expressed what I did in this blog. For public consumption, however, I should have tempered my remarks to fit the requirements of the charity that befits Latter Day Saints, should have shown my concern without such a biting edge. In previous posts, I have confined my remarks to the criticism of ideas, trends, culture. Such things can be fixed on an individual level w/o anyone losing face. But in the temple we are instructed to speak kindly of others individually...that includes individuals in the public eye.

So Kirby...you'll never read this. But let it be the known that anyone who keeps their temple worthiness up deserves my silence and everyone--temple-worthy or otherwise--deserves my charity. As Augustine noted: "In the essentials, unity, in the non-essentials, liberty, and in all things, charity."

Feedback on my proposed article

This is an article I am looking to send to the Ensign...tell me what you all think. Snide remarks welcome, as long as they are restricted to comments on my age, weight, physical appearance, or intelligence...

Article

“We sure got those Mormons at Waco!” a fellow student snarled in my graduate course.

“You know they aren’t members of our faith–at all?” I pressed.

“Well...”

“No, you know that, right?” my face almost certainly flushing with indignation. Nice work, Stevenson. The missionaries will have a fun time when they meet him. Gathering my books, I wearily prepared to discuss some matters with my professor. Another student stopped me.

“So Russ, do you really believe everything your Church teaches?” Dave asked, almost certainly believing that I must be a “cultural Mormon.” Batting a thousand!

“Yes, you might say I’m a card-carrying member...” Silence. But over the following lunch, we engaged in a friendly, intellectually respectable, and challenging discussion about the truth of the Book of Mormon and my convictions as a follower of Christ.

The world of the Latter Day Saint graduate student is a world fraught with intellectual adventure, danger, and even a touch of humor. During my time as a graduate student, I have talked about ideas with a broad array of scholars, all of whom espouse competing philosophies. As I sit in seminars with these distinguished thinkers, we toss around and turn inside out theories about government, freedom, culture, and even gender. While one might honestly debate the value of such discussions, such activities raise larger, even more significant questions for any Latter Day Saint seeking to judge the value of secular scholarship within our faith that is dependent upon a world which most have not seen or heard. While those outside of the academic profession might find such questions to be esoteric or even irrelevant, I have learned the more immediate urgency to Elder Neal A. Maxwell’s and Elder Dallin H. Oaks’ counsel to become bilingual in the thinking of men and the ways of God, to speak unto men in their own language “without losing the mother tongue of faith.” Even more significantly, I have learned that those of our faith have a unique contribution to make for those who pursue the “life of the mind.”


Homo Academicus

As I attended graduate school, I saw a culture that seemed at pains to define itself. On more than a few occasions, I have heard professors refer with a revealing light-heartedness that the academic profession was “all an act” and “delusional.” Even more, as I sat in the seminars of big, messy ideas, I could not help but wondering about these ideas’ capacity to transform a soul. They could answer the “whys” without addressing—even touching—the bigger question of “Why?” Concepts of gender, family, and social systems were discussed as though they were merely pieces of clay to be molded according to the whim of the scholar. To paraphrase one professor, when you’re a scholar, you write the definitions. Such an approach has often left me wondering what the value of such study is. I struggled with this problem—after all, the fundamentals of our faith, as Elder Bruce C. Hafen has suggested, are “potent, clear, and unambiguous.” Are we not simply encouraging an undue emphasis on the wisdom of man? Why, then, should time be spent even discussing the slippery secular doctrines has to share in the “unambiguous” gospel context?

In such circumstances, Elder Hafen notes, we to do with apparent paradoxes wherein Christ tells to “let [our] light so shine before men, that they may see your good works” while still warning us: “Do not your alms before men, to be seen of them.” Yet Elder Hafen insists that we should not merely avert our eyes from the awkwardness in such ambiguity; we should face it.

I have seen that the gospel actually provides the most robust ground for discussion and for the exchange of ideas. To paraphrase G.K. Chesterton, the gospel fundamentals “may be walls but they are the walls of a playground.” But as with most playgrounds, even they can be dangerous places if they are not used in the ways they were intended.

Elder Hafen has argued that folks “use” these playgrounds in three ways: 1) we either filter out the problems, preferring instead the cure of a “firm handshake, an enthusiastic greeting, and a smiley button” or we become zealots, clinging to often unrealistic ideals with a white-knuckle grip; 2) we begin to idolize ambiguity as we are constantly looking for “somebody’s bubble…so that [we] can pop it with our shiny [intellectual] pin, and 3) we recognize the ambiguity without giving up our commitment to the principles and values we hold precious. As Elder Haften notes, “We not only view things with our eyes wide open but with our hearts wide open as well.” I have struggled to answer the problems of “Why” in the academic discipline through using academic methods; I soon learned that just as with any other gospel principle, ambiguity is best tempered by the Christ-like virtues of faith, charity, and fellowship. The engine of academic study performs its function well, but only when well-oiled with mercy and friendship

Academic Bilingualism

Yet, for much of my life, I often ignored such ambiguities in favor of the easier voice in insisting on drawing a hard-line in the sand—or more accurately, on carrying a chip on my shoulder. With a decisive flourish of the hand and a stiffened jaw, I found it easy to disagree with those who had differing–though equally valuable–perspectives of gospel principles. As might be imagined, such an approach—in both form and content—did not help me to win over many individuals to the offerings of the Restoration in nourishing both mind and spirit. President Hugh B. Brown quoted an ancient prayer: “From the cowardice that shrinks from new truths, from the laziness that is content with half-truths, from the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth, Oh God of Truth, deliver us.” As I have pursued the study of church history, I have found that we really have nothing to fear, that as President Brown continued, “only error need fear the freedom of thought.”

Furthermore, I saw the examples of Joseph Smith during the School of the Prophets as they sought diligently to learn languages, history, politics, and other disciplines. I have seen that “speaking to men after the manner of their own language” does not simply entail using the vocabulary of a farmer but also the pithiness of the professor. Graduate education has helped me to develop a rock-solid insistence on documentation, context, and frankness in letting the evidence I examine inform the testimony I share. I have seen that we enjoy all the benefits of both individual reasoning and individual revelation. As Elder Maxwell has noted, while we speak of the disciple-scholar, we are, after all, without these hyphens in the kingdom for we are just disciples, “men and women of Christ.” Scholarship, it seems, can merely be another facet of one’s discipleship.

Conclusion

While academia can easily overcome a person’s mindset, neither do we need to cast it off as though it were a leech on the spirit. As Elder Maxwell has said, the gospel sheds light on all of the human landscape, so a good Latter Day Saint does not need to hide from truth or become overwhelmed by it. Graduate education in the liberal arts has provided me an ideal opportunity to learn how to intergrate spiritual truth along with the scholarly process. This experience has taught me that when secularly-minded individuals pose questions, they are not always seeking to destroy faith; they often do want to understand. And they can have some understanding provided that we learn some of their language "without losing the mother tongue of faith."

A Survey...

Gentle readers,

I ask you all a question. This last week, I was speaking with a fellow member of the Church when he said something I found borderline outrageous and at the very least, suspicious. I would like to see if others have seen similar comments.

I was explaining that a friend of mine had been in a physically abusive relationship. Often, the response is that the conversations becomes more grave (and rightfully so). The fellow member, however, responded: "Was it closed-hand? Because if so, I want to kill him." I respond that I saw no moral difference between the two. Meanwhile, I'm thinking: "So if it was open-hand, then what would you do?"

Have you all seen this response among fellow members of the Church? This was not my first time, though it certainly is not common. I just wonder though how often the male members of our faith absorb such assumptions. What have you all heard? Do share. Maybe this guy was an exception, but maybe not. We have too many blessings to let such a silly distinction reak havoc in our homes.

Just when we thought we were free...

Nope...some smart aleck Mormon artist decides to put another stain on the gospel arts by creating a sequel to Saturday's Warrior. That's right, Doug Stewart, the self-annointed founding father of pop Mormon cinema, has deemed that it is not enough for our parents to watch Jimmy Flanders anguish over whether the world should shed itself of its population ("zero population is the answer my friends"--what a lovely way of caricaturizing "the world"). As it's been said, "An author is a fool who, not content with boring those he lives with, insists on boring future generations." Saturday's Warrior had begun its descent into history...as it should. It had its time and its audience...can we please keep the "Land Before Time" syndrome away from our backyard?

Friends...why must we insist on schlock and schmaltz in our artistic productions? And if we must endure it (schlock and schmaltz often serve other key services for a community), can't we at least have it be true to mainstream doctrine? (though, even I must admit that Saturday's Warrior has more founding in certain, isolated teachings than we give it credit for).

Katherine Gee...SAVE US!!