Why the Law Does and Does Not Matter

An odd title, coming from me...considering that I see myself as a hardliner for evidence/legal reasoning. But frankly, Proposition 8, while a decidedly legal maneuver, actually has very little to do with "the law."

For us to believe that there is no connection between the societal values which we hold and the laws that we as a society pass is not sustainable by appeals to any sort of appeal to case studies. Yet homosexual activists, even the California Supreme Court, suggest that opening marital opportunities to homosexual just gives them more civil rights, that it has no effect on heterosexuals, that any opposition to these privileges must be born of good old-fashioned bigotry.

By sustaining the California Supreme Court decision, we are not just offering economic benefits to homosexual couples. I wish we were. However, just as a marriage license and a speeding ticket are not just pieces of paper but are cultural rudders, as it were, the legal definition of marriage as heterosexual is similarly a cultural rudder that would have not only legal implications but also fuzzier but more wide-reaching implications concerning our collective worldview. Legal decisions, alas, have consequences. I've discussed these consequences elsewhere...but how do they come about?

Discourse
The first is in our discourse...the "rectification of names." Bill Clinton famously refused to call the Rwandan massacres "genocide" because of the responsibility to act that naming would bring. To think that we can just words/metaphors loosely without it affecting our reasoning would be fallacious. In other words, words and ideas have consequences, as Richard Weaver has famously argued. There's a reason thinkers debated the number of angels dancing on the head of the pin was of tremendous importance to Middle Ages thinkers...because that question directly addressed how they saw the fundamental reality of the world...of time and space. That we discount it as nonsense simply shows that we no longer use ideas as our governing assumptions. The idea of heterosexuality, of homosexuality...it's all considered to be an artificial creation of our own minds which has, its heart, nothingness. And the idea that ideas aren't significant is itself a significant intellectual development for the modern world. We can no longer question the abstract utility of a movement, but only in terms of dollars and cents. Invoke the concept of morality and you'll be a right-wing demagogue (though I myself am averse to the term for merely tactical reasons).

State antagonism
Simply put, we can't trust that the state is our friend. While religions may not be required to perform gay marriages, taking the Court at its word, the state has now established itself to be directly at odds with the interests of various religious groups. And who has the greater power of dissemination when it comes to the spreading of ideology? As one scholar noted, the state holds the power of the Repressive State Apparatus (the public school system and the Courts), so while their precise ruling may give some wiggle room to churches to act as they will, the educational system will be mobilized as an ideological "means of production" (in Marxist theory) to assure the state's decision. We are wrong if we think the state to be a passive entity that simply follows our bidding at election time.

As my friend Ashly noted, we are essentially burning our conceptions of sexuality and gender at the altar of the government's god. Parents who oppose it cannot be notified of its teaching or even opt out of their children being taught it. The state has its interests. My opponents suggest that we are invoking fear...and yes, I am (fear is really the staple of all politics at some level...liberal or conservative). So suggesting that I use fear really sheds little light on the subject...they need to demonstrate to me that my fears cannot plausibly materialize. Given the track record, they will be hard-pressed to do so.

So let's not think that we're just offering civil rights to an oppressed group. That's a compelling narrative, but let's recognize that the forces against Prop. 8 are the same forces that will try to mold our next generation in the government's image.

Hate Crimes?

SO I'm not a fan of hate crime legislation...largely because I just hate crime in general. A white man's death is no less tragic when sparked by his religion than a black man's death is over the color of his skin. Both are terrible blemishes on the human condition.

That said, indulge me a little as I dabble in some Mormon "persecution complex." Read this story . A Brazilian man in Massachusetts killed his wife and stepson (quite brutally...with a hammer). Why? He states quite clearly that it was because of her activity in the Mormon church and her efforts to get him to join.

Where is the Anti-Defamation League right now? What are the hate crimes advocates?

Yes, this is straight-up tribalism...but I also think that I've seen horrific crimes like this get enormous play on the media. Not that I ever thought the televised media was a fair portrayer of reality...

Just Leave Joe Alone

Everyone, for some bizarre, now knows the name of a small-businessman in Toledo, OH. I won't even mention his name here...if you want to read about it, just read something, anything about the debates.

All the man did was ask Senator Obama a question. He never wanted to be a mascot. He just wanted to have an opinion--and even if that opinion is wrong, he has a right to be wrong in peace. Conspiracy theorists have attempted to tie him to Charles Keating of the old days from McCain's Keating five scandal with scanty connections that at best tell us that this small businessman might be *gasp* pro-business. This fellow was just being an interested citizen, and now the media is looking to make him look like the dark underside of the American Everyman.

Yes, he might be incorrect about some of Obama's positions...yes, he might not have jumped through all the bureaucratic hoops of his profession (he's a plumber, but he's not licensed as such). No, he hasn't paid some back taxes. But guess what? How many of us can honestly say that we understand the tax proposals of the candidates, esp. when we get our news from a diet of television soundbytes? How many bother to read factcheck.org to get news faster than the speed of spin, as it were?

Finally, heaven knows how many richer individuals there are who carry out far greater misdeeds under the radar yet slip by without detection--just because they have the weight to throw around. Meanwhile, if Joe slips a little in the proposed earnings for the 3rd quarter of a possible business venture, he's dismissed as a Republican hack.

Let Joe be a single father in peace.

Righteous Gentiles Part I

So, in honor of the broad-mindedness that is, well, me (insert pretentious laugh here), I would like to suggest a list of the top ten “Righteous Gentiles.” In orthodox Judaism, these are known as gerim toshavim, “resident aliens.” These are Gentiles who either formally or informally have associated themselves with the people of the Jews by agreeing to abide by the mitzvot or Noachian laws.

What great men/women among our people have demonstrated similar affinity for our cause, while they themselves remain outside the fray of the Mormon center?

My criteria...

A. They must be well-regarded on either the folk or elite level, and their contributions must be perceived as distinctively Mormon (even if they are not).

B. They aren’t necessary “righteous” by our standards, but their names must have currency among our people as a sympathizer (whether they were actually sympathizers or not is irrelevant)

The List--10th through 5th

10. G.K. Chesterton

A British author and Christian apologist well-renowned for his series of novels, The Father Brown Mysteries as well as his vigorous critiques of secularism and modernity, Chesterton has reached wide audiences amongst all Christians of essentially any Christian faith. Even though he was vehemently opposed to any deviation from Catholic orthodoxy and even levelled a mild critique against Mormons, I rank him #10. Chesterton has been quoted often enough by general authorities and leaders to be comparable with C.S. Lewis. Bruce C. Hafen devoted an entire talk (one of those typically well-worn talks on balancing faith and reason and so-on) to a single quotation by Chesterton. While most of his renown has come from Elder Maxwell’s extensive usage of him, Maxwell alone has made Chesterton’s name worth noting.

9. Richard Muow and co.

The president of Fuller Theological Seminary, Muosw is less known as a person and more known as a symbol. In 2004, Muow declared, at the Mormon Tabernacle, to thousands of LDS that evangelicals “have sinned against you.” He proceeded to provide a mea culpa on behalf of the Evangelical community, stating that they have spread lies and untruths about Mormons and their beliefs. His remarks set off a firestorm within the Intermountain evangelical outreach center, some suggesting that his remarks were only going to empower Mormons more in their wrong-headed beliefs that they were mainstream Christians. This, of course, only increased Muow’s cachet amongst the Utah circles as an evangelical who was finally willing to tell the truth against the roar of the masses. Such things carry tremendous pathos to the Mormons as a people.

Muow’s admission was the culmination for a golden age of Evangelical-Mormon dialogue, starting with Stephen Robinson’s collaborative work with Craig Blomberg, a Protestant scholar of the New Testament at the Denver Seminary in Colorado: How Wide the Divide?: An Evangelical and a Mormon in Conversation. In essence, Muow, Robinson, and Blomberg represented the actualization of many Mormons’ hopes—albeit fleeting— that evangelical leaders might finally acknowledge that we do share some core beliefs and that we are *gasp* indeed Christians.

8. Alexander Doniphan

Doniphan should be noted in his own right for his contributions as a military commander during the Mexican War. Indeed, he has been so noted, as the litany of schools in Missouri have been named after him. But Mormons, of course, have other reasons for the soft spot for ole’ Al in their collective conscience.

Doniphan was an attorney living in Missouri at the time of the Saints’ expulsion from Jackson county in 1833. Doniphan provided legal representation for Joseph Smith during the bazillion legal hearings he had to trudge through in the Missouri era. He refused to execute Joseph when General Lucas commanded him to do so—at risk of court martial and perhaps execution himself. As a member of the Missouri state legislature, he worked to create Caldwell County as a settlement for the Saints in the wake of the expulsion from Jackson county. While he never particularly liked Joseph Smith or his religion, Doniphan will be, for the time being, remembered as a lover of liberty and justice to the Mormon mind.

7. Klaus Baer

The Egyptologist extraordinaire who made made himself famous as the great middle-way on matters concerning the Abraham papyri. Baer instructed Hugh Nibley in Egyptian in 1959 and became attached to the Joseph Smith papyri from that point on. When some of the original papyri were discovered in 1966, Baer, as commissioned by Dialogue, provided a highly agnostic translation of the documents. While devoutly agnostic, Baer refused to jump on board with the critics in declaring Joseph Smith to be a fraud. Indeed, in one letter to the Tanners, he instructed them that similar translation difficulties can be found in the New Testament and that these difficulties cannot be used to delegitimize faith. While Baer does not quite constitute a hero for Mormon thought, he demonstrates the cool-headed scholarship that refuses to point fingers—a tendency most Mormon intellectuals appreciate even if they do not agree with.

6. Margaret Barker

A scholar of Old Testament studies who studied at University of Cambridge, Barker has written widely on monotheism amongst the Canaanites. What has made her a Blessed Gentile? Her scholarship has touched all of Mormon gurus’ soft spots: Enoch, temple theology, and questions re: the plurality of gods. Her most famous work within Mormon circles, The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God wherein she argues that “the Lord” was indeed seen as a Son of God in early Israelite theology. While her work is certainly unusual in her field, that she is a Cambridge-trained scholar of Old Testament studies has helped Latter-day Saints feel an added sense of legitimacy in their intellectual claims.

5. Jan Shipps

Called “the beloved Gentile” by higher-ups within the Church and the “Jane Goodall of Mormon studies” by others, Jan Shipps almost single-handedly made the study of Mormonism into a mainstream fashion rather than just the niche studies of academics. Before Jan Shipp, few credible scholars indeed commented with any degree of favorability to the Church. Jan Shipps has provided a dominant wherein scholars can understand Mormonism without judging its veracity. It was Shipps who proposed that we stop seeking to determine whether Joseph’s visions were correct or not, but rather, she suggested we look to determine what kind of collective meaning these visions had to the people who experienced them. While Bushman has taken a similar approach, his orthodoxy in the Church has been an obstacle (albeit, one that could be overcome). Shipps has demonstrated that one can study Joseph Smith’s story and still be a sympathetic non-believer.

And if she’s really the Jane Gooddall of Mormons, maybe the Mormon creationists should re-think their position…

Why Mormons are Terrible Politicians...and Why I Love It

Perhaps you've heard the news? In case you haven't, the crusades are on, boys!

When was the last time you heard a LDS leader talk like this? Perhaps I've been blessed by a spate of reasonable leaders and Saints, but it's been a while for me. While pastors are spouting off high-flung rhetoric, our leaders are really doing a terrible job of being politicians. They aren't creating an "other," they aren't using the language of militancy. They don't even use variation in the tone of their voice. How woefully boring. Just logistics and oft-cited remarks, delivered with an almost a statistical enthusiasm. As though they were going over numbers from the quarterly report.

I would never trust them as political consultants...and thank heavens!

How Postmodernism Finally Infected the Evangelical Right

As I said, I'm not a biologist. I don't know about the bones of Piltdown man (though I certainly should) or the wingspan of sundry fowls. But I do believe that thinking is inspired of God.

As a now KY resident (I paid my taxes last year), I must shake my head in shame at the dichotomy that our Christian cousins draw between science and God. Case in point? This in-your-face affront to the God-given intellect...

The Creation Museum...a tribute to the idea that being a Christian doesn't fix stupid (as a favored columnist of mine noted). A tribute to the idea that provincial familiarity is often preferred to grand reality. And given the cultural identification some are ascribing to visiting, a tribute to how postmodernism has even affected the Christian right. Somehow, subverting the scientific process and truth-seeking becomes acceptable because they're preserving their identity as a "peculiar people."

Can everyone do me a favor and work hard to avoid flirting with the Christian Right by adopting their rhetoric? We as Latter-day Saints can and must do better. Unfortunately, many of the scientific overtures towards religion are being made by highly sympathetic, but also agnostic scientists like Brian Greene. Mind you, I have deep respect for Dr. Greene because of his willingness to avoid the hate that lurks over the likes of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. And even Dawkins is willing to grant that there are well-regarded scientists who believe--even if their belief absolutely baffle him.

Will we make similar overtures to the contributions of biological science? It is not enough for us to merely passively place science on the shelf...that smacks of intentional ignorance, which is something that those outside (and many within) the religious tradition find abhorrent. We must actively give credence to scientific contributions while being prepared with our own, genuine (as opposed to folk) orthodoxy.

Why Feminists Should Vote for Prop. 8

would make a terrible politician. I have my opinions, but I hate holding hands politically with folks whom I find abhorrent in their argumentation. Heaven help me if I had to "pal around with" bigots (as Sarah Palin would say). I prefer to cut my own path...and be lonely in the process if necessary. Indeed, my approach makes me few friends...I have to fight back the opposition while fending off folks who are trying to "help" me.

So some may wonder why I talk so much about this topic. One reason, of course, is because it's more than a little controversial. And I would be lying if I said I didn't dig that. I like getting into hot water; it keeps me clean, as one wise philosopher once noted. The other reason is pragmatic. I would write as vociferously about the Iraq war, but there are plenty of others who do that and far more eloquently. I would write about global warming, but other than cutting back on my gas guzzling, write a few letters, and appear in a few rallies, there's not much that I can contribute that can't be done better by someone else. Plus I am not a scientist so will probably not be able to form the kind of opinion I need to feel passionately about it. I fear that if I were to start reading up on it, I would not be able to tell up from down. But I digress...

Feminism has been the ideology d'jour to promote the rights of homosexual couples. It is understandable that they would. After all, it was Adrienne Rich, the famed literary critic a la feminism (that's a shout out to Ashley Sanders...hi Ash!) who argued that women by their very natures lesbians and had only been coerced or had sold themselves for the economic securities of heterosexuality. Elaine Showalter, while more moderate in her remarks, has argued that women should stop both protesting and imitating, as both demonstrate their dependence on men. Touche, Sister Showalter ONe might look to others such as Nancy Chowderow or Nancy Jones for more solid feminist analysis.

I recognize that in citing feminists in opposition to homosexual marriage, I am severely bucking academic orthodoxy. But last I checked, academics liked doing that, so they should be willing to indulge me a little as I do the same.

But must I accept their conclusions if I accept their reasoning? If I accept that women have been oppressed, must we conclude that they should just stay to themselves? As the prominent feminist historian, Joan Scott noted, such a practice would equate ghettoization of the worst order. Typically we speak of ghettoization in literature...now they're speaking of lives!

Furthermore, legitimzing lesbian unions seems to be the ultimate DELEGITMIZATION of women's contribution to our society. By legitimizing them, we are suggesting that woman ultimately have nothing to offer a child that a man can't offer. No singularity. No special perks. They would become simply homo sapiens in skirts. Men would begin having easier access to adoptive services on the basis of financial well-being (all other things being equal of course). And worse, they're concluding that anything a female mother can do, a man can do just as well. Before women know it, they've been cut out of the pie in their efforts to protest against men.

Legitimizing homosexual unions is concluding that one's female identity is nothing more than a genetic quirk that has nothing to do with parenting. Femininity is a construct...something that man can give and man can take away. Look at a bit of Foucault's work History of Sexuality --such tenets are accepted within the academy and out on the street. One's gender is fluid and can be played with at will. Within religious circles, they're not doing much better on this question...all they've got is "God made me this way"...and even then, that gender is only life-long, not to have much relevance in the life hereafter.

But, Russ, what a caricature you draw! Not really. If men can come to dominate the power structures, then homosexual men would do the same. The best way to preserve women's claim to power in the parenting structure is to support Prop. 8 if only for adoption purposes. As Showalter noted, stop trying to imitate men and start exercising your own power by keeping the men from taking away the parental rights that are properly yours.


But don't listen to me...I'm just a man. You know how important your role as a woman is to society. Fight for it. Drink it up. Live it.

Stopping Time: On Why Some Remain Unconverted

I have a friend who identifies himself as one. Unfortunately, methinks that the term becomes yet another auspice under which one can volley criticisms at the Church..."I'm just being open and transparent." For me, being an "open Mormon" is something quite different.

I had an interesting conversation with a woman today. Missionaries (being as overly-sensitive as they are to any kind of vigorous discussion) would call it a bash. I disagree heartily...I called it posing and answering meaningful questions...and frankly, it prompted her to listen more than she would have. So you can doubt my strategy if you like, but I saw it work (ah the great paradox...I just used the "just bear your testimony" technique to demonstrate how one can do more than "just bear your testimony").

Her stance, while very respectful, was almost tautological in its approach. She had determined that Joseph Smith was a fraud...and therefore could funnel (at least in her own mind) all new information through that lens. I wondered...why? I had a very difficult time believing that she was that closed to the Spirit that she would be unwilling to entertain the possibility. Perhaps it was the "false traditions of her fathers," yet so many overcome such limitations. Why not her? Her agency? Well, that's not very comforting...I'm still left believing that she ultimately chose to fight the spirit of revelation. There must be a different explanation.

Orson F. Whitney portrayed it perfectly:

Perhaps the Lord needs such men on the outside of his Church, to help it along. They are among its auxiliaries, and can do more good for the cause where the Lord has placed them, than anywhere else… Hence, some are drawn into the fold and receive a testimony of Truth, while others remain unconverted…the beauties and glories of the gospel being veiled temporarily from their view, for wise purpose. The Lord will open their eyes in his own due time…God is using more than one people for the accomplishment of his great and marvelous work. The Latter Day Saints cannot do it all. It is too vast, too arduous for any one people…We have no quarrel with the Gentiles. They are our partners in a certain sense.

One might compare these perceptions to a person's reaction to Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity concerning the speed of light and time perception (not a physicist, so if I'm dead wrong, you can correct me--but if I'm right, then you can say: "What a well-rounded person he is"). Basically, if one travels at the speed of light, then the perception of time slows down until time essentially ceases to exist to those outside one's frame of reference. One's length decreases. Poppycock, a simple-minded critic would say. They'll take their regular old 24-hour days, thank you very much.

We must understand that we are asking investigators to do something similar...stop time. It's possible, but it's utterly fantastic, even absurd to the uninitiated. And what if taking such ideas seriously would cause them to lose faith in their families, in everything? I've seen what happens when individuals open themselves up fully to radically different after their worldview has fallen apart...the new paradigm consumes them. They lose balance in life. They become a creature of ideology.

Is it possible, as President Whitney said, that some are kept from the truth not only because they know where to find it but also because the Lord would rather have them elsewhere for the time being? If the Pope joined the Church, there would not likely be massive Mormon baptisms, but charges of scandal, of madness, of intrigue. If Mother Theresa had become a member, could she have retained her credibility? Could it not be the Pope, Mother Theresa and others are/were doing their parts in the vast work of temporal and spiritual salvation? While they might be introducing incorrect doctrines, isn't it possible that the Lord plans on getting that straightened out later...in the meantime, he needed Mother Theresa's humanitarianism, Martin Luther's defiance, and Isaac Newton's mind?

Why "Hotel California" Makes for Great Sacrament Meeting material

Yes, I know that the song, "Hotel California" is among those well-worn classics where everyone thinks they "know" what the song means...just like everyone knows the "lessons of Vietnam," the interpretation of "Bye, Bye, Miss American Pie," and what their respective gender is looking for a relationship.

However, if I didn't see that I had something to add, I would certainly refrain from the melee of interpretations. And I understand some of them are l(to seriously understate) less-than-edifying. And it's possible that this is not a new interpretation. But I like it, so if it isn't new...tough. And I won't take you threw the historiography of interpretation for the song...I have neither the time nor you have the patience (or even the desire, really...). That said...

Hotel Caliifornia, written, performed, and made legendary by The Eagles, tells the story of a desert traveler who happens across on an old mission in old California. A woman greets him, holding up a light in the doorway. Her hair "tiffany-twisted" (prob. meaning an obsession with Tiffany's, the jeweler), she receives him into a world of luxury, "pretty boys," and dancing. People eat to their hearts content, but still, as it were, "cannot kill the beast." "We are prisoners here," the women notes, "of our own device." Meanwhile, voices haunt the man, saying "Welcome to the Hotel California, such a lovely place, such a lovely face, such a lovely face/ They livin' it up at the hotel California/What a nice surprise, bring your alibis." Before long, the man finds himself going mad and tries to leave. The clerk stops him and says: "We are programmed to receive; you can checkout anytime you like, but you can never leave."

Now for the fun part...interpretation! In doing so, I must of necessity be slightly outrageous and assume that I know precisely what it means and that anyone who disagrees with me is a fool (reminds me of Voltaire who quipped: "'I always made one prayer to God, a very short one. Here it is: 'O Lord, make our enemies quite ridiculous!' God granted it.'). But I tend to think, given what the clerk says about how one can never leave, that the hotel is an imagined edifice. And what are they prisoners of? Whatever it is, they freely choose it...and it is a prison of luxury. Finally,it is prison that is considered to be a bit of an indulgence..."what a nice surprise, bring your alibis" For what are alibis needed if it is a place you would want to tell people about? And finally, notice the aroma surrounding the hotel...colitas (a marijuana bud). Whether these individuals are high or not, the imagery suggests that the joy they are having is an artificial one, wrapped in the haze of drug-induced happiness. Most significantly, one cannot leave this prison once it is indulged in. It becomes a mindset, not a location. A way of life.

I suggest that Hotel California can be usefully read as a critique of materialism. Elder Holland said this much when he spoke of materialism as a "great and spacious building in which the soap opera, Vain Imaginations is playing incessantly."

I'll write a note in honor of the next person to use "Hotel California" lyrics in a talk.

Girls' State Meets Legally Blonde

Aside from the expletive in the flow-chart (my apologies for that...but this was just too priceless to let pass), this flow-chart is highly apropo to Palin's debate style.

I believe she's a bright woman. She's better than all of this. But unfortunately, she's forcing me to take that position on faith. I like faith when we're talking about life's purpose. I don't like it when we're talking about politics.