I think most Mormons prepare for this question, because it's been asked them at least once. Of course it has variants (the difference between Mormons and Lutherans, Mormons and Baptists, etc).
Doctrinal or Belief Differences
May I begin by listing a few of the things that are the same?
Mormons believe in the God, and in the Bible as the Word of God. Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is the key to everything in the Gospel. Mormons believe in the importance of families to society, in prayer, and in taking care of the poor and needy. We believe in keeping the ten commandments and following the golden rule (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you).
Now, what you really want to know are the differences.
I think the departure point for Mormon belief from Catholic or Protestant belief lies in the doctrines of Priesthood and Revelation.
Revelation, to make it simple, is the idea that God still speaks to people, including Prophets, today. Just as he did in the Bible.
And we believe that authority (to baptize, and to marry people, for example) has to come through a specific order that was set in place by God, namely the order of the Priesthood. Priesthood is given by a blessing, with hands laid on the recipients head, and can only be given by someone who received from someone who actually had it. To make it simple, if you can't trace your priesthood ordination back to Jesus Christ, you don't have it. We believe that Jesus Christ gave the priesthood to prophets and it has come to us through an unbroken line of ordinations.
So Mormons generally believe that the authority to receive current, modern revelation, and the authority to baptize and perform other ordinances (what my Catholic friends would call 'sacraments') reside in the church.
There are several other doctrines that are unique (eternal marriage, baptism for the dead, etc). But they all stem from the two doctrines above.
Now, perhaps what you really want to know is this:
Worship Service Differences
What is the difference in worship services, or what would be different if I attended church at a Mormon church?
Let me begin by reassuring you that you would be comfortable and welcome visiting a Mormon church. We don't single people out, and the service is passive enough to not be awkward. I will share a few tips with you that will help you to be comfortable visiting.
The primary worship service is Sacrament Meeting. Its format is unique; a prayer and some hymns, the sacrament (like communion, only we use water instead of wine) is distributed, and a handful of talks (short sermons) are given by members of the congregation. If you have satellite, they record one on the BYU channel each Sunday morning so you can see what it's like without going. The only difference really is that the one on BYU TV is kind of quiet - the one's in a 'real' congregation are interrupted by children regularly.
The other services are classes; Sunday School for adults, Primary for Children, Relief Society for Women, Priesthood Meeting for men. They will be similar to the classes you have experienced in other churches. They start and end with a prayer, a teacher offers a lesson from a manual, and questions and discussion abound.
Now, to be comfortable showing up at a Sacrament meeting, there are two things that will make it easy on you.
1. Mostly everyone dresses up. Men wear a white shirt and a tie, women wear dresses. They will still welcome you if you show up in a t-shirt and shorts, but if you want to blend in, put on a white shirt and tie.
2. When the sacrament ('communion') is distributed, usually by young boys, you don't have to participate. No one will be offended whether you choose to or not. Since you aren't a baptized member of the church, the rite has no meaning for you anyway. So, when they come to your row, simply take the tray from whoever hands it to you and pass it to the next person in your row without taking any. Or, if you are alone (there is no one to pass it to), just wave the tray away and shake your head 'no' quietly. They'll move on to the next person.
By the way - on the first Sunday of each month, the Sacrament Meeting is called 'Fast and Testimony Meeting'. The members of the church fast for twenty-four hours to save food for the poor. Then they hold a sort of 'open mike' meeting where they share their feelings at the pulpit in short 'testimonies'. You are under no obligation to participate - just go and listen. You will hear heartfelt declarations of how certain teachings in the Gospel have blessed the lives of members.
You will also likely hear some wierd things. Don't stress- every congregation has at least one nut job. In my congregation, I suspect I am the nut job.
In that respect, we are entirely like the Catholics and the Lutherans.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Does DNA prove the Book of Mormon wrong?
No.
You can't prove scripture true or false with a genetic test. Or the bible would be out too.
The DNA argument seems to have been reignited recently, but it hasn't shaken any faith that I am aware of. Perhaps a few opponents have decided to rest their objections on it, but it is an inexact science that cannot 'prove' veracity of a prophetic text.
Yes, I've read the arguments. But I've also read the counterarguments. And there are plenty, and they are convincing.
I'm not a geneticist, so I won't take on the task of a detailed refutation. You can find that elsewhere. Suffice it to say I still accept the Book of Mormon to be exactly what it claims to be. Science's arguments have done little to dissuade Christianity in general from our belief in the flood or the creation as told in Genesis. And science's 'proofs' have failed before.
My question is, how do these scientists explain the things in the book that 'prove' my faith? Historical, linguistic, and so on? It can't possibly be the product of a boy's mind.
You can't prove scripture true or false with a genetic test. Or the bible would be out too.
The DNA argument seems to have been reignited recently, but it hasn't shaken any faith that I am aware of. Perhaps a few opponents have decided to rest their objections on it, but it is an inexact science that cannot 'prove' veracity of a prophetic text.
Yes, I've read the arguments. But I've also read the counterarguments. And there are plenty, and they are convincing.
I'm not a geneticist, so I won't take on the task of a detailed refutation. You can find that elsewhere. Suffice it to say I still accept the Book of Mormon to be exactly what it claims to be. Science's arguments have done little to dissuade Christianity in general from our belief in the flood or the creation as told in Genesis. And science's 'proofs' have failed before.
My question is, how do these scientists explain the things in the book that 'prove' my faith? Historical, linguistic, and so on? It can't possibly be the product of a boy's mind.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
What's with the sign on the plaza in Salt Lake City?
A coworker e-mailed me a link to this news story this week - the church has put up a sign on the plaza next to Temple Square warning that we have the right to ask people to leave.
The action has a lot of people in a tizzy. It was taken after a male couple was asked to leave. According to the security people involved, the couple was drunk, loudly profane, and kissing on the property.
Of course, it's private property adjacent to a place of worship. But that hasn't stopped the activist mormon-hater community from firing off thousands of articles and web posts about the evil mormon church.
Many of them argue that since the church doesn't pay taxes, and the property is owned by the church, it's technically (or should be) public property. I'm not a lawyer, but this doesn't seem like an argument that would stand up in court.
The real reason for the outpouring of anger is tied to a bigger issue: The church has lent heavy support against pro-gay measures and for measures that protect the traditional family. And many people feel this is a 'political' issue, so the church should be banned from commenting on it.
The church has not endorsed a platform or candidate, but it has given its specific opinion with regards to laws and amendments being offered on the topic. The opinion is this: Marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage was instituted by God, not the Government.
The so-called 'separation of church and state', which I've not found yet explicitly stated in the constitution, is at least based in some constitutional ideas that are supposed to protect the people from the abuses of a state-sponsored religion. But it is not designed to muzzle speech rights, which actually do exist in the first amendment to the Constitution.
The debate is not going away any time soon. The church is not softening its stance - political pressure simply forces us to define it even more clearly and sharply.
Regarding our stance on the deeper issue:
Our intention is not to be hateful or fear-mongering; it is simply to advocate for the path that we believe (and experience has proven) will bring the most happiness to individuals and families.
People are being misled to believe that there are not consequences for their choices, especially those related to emotional and physical intimacy, and the use of the powers of procreation.
Much of the social misinformation is being propagated institutionally, lending it academic or even governmental credibility. And people are being trapped in behaviors and lifestyles because there is very little support for the other position.
Someone's got to be the champion for truth and values.
The action has a lot of people in a tizzy. It was taken after a male couple was asked to leave. According to the security people involved, the couple was drunk, loudly profane, and kissing on the property.
Of course, it's private property adjacent to a place of worship. But that hasn't stopped the activist mormon-hater community from firing off thousands of articles and web posts about the evil mormon church.
Many of them argue that since the church doesn't pay taxes, and the property is owned by the church, it's technically (or should be) public property. I'm not a lawyer, but this doesn't seem like an argument that would stand up in court.
The real reason for the outpouring of anger is tied to a bigger issue: The church has lent heavy support against pro-gay measures and for measures that protect the traditional family. And many people feel this is a 'political' issue, so the church should be banned from commenting on it.
The church has not endorsed a platform or candidate, but it has given its specific opinion with regards to laws and amendments being offered on the topic. The opinion is this: Marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage was instituted by God, not the Government.
The so-called 'separation of church and state', which I've not found yet explicitly stated in the constitution, is at least based in some constitutional ideas that are supposed to protect the people from the abuses of a state-sponsored religion. But it is not designed to muzzle speech rights, which actually do exist in the first amendment to the Constitution.
The debate is not going away any time soon. The church is not softening its stance - political pressure simply forces us to define it even more clearly and sharply.
Regarding our stance on the deeper issue:
Our intention is not to be hateful or fear-mongering; it is simply to advocate for the path that we believe (and experience has proven) will bring the most happiness to individuals and families.
People are being misled to believe that there are not consequences for their choices, especially those related to emotional and physical intimacy, and the use of the powers of procreation.
Much of the social misinformation is being propagated institutionally, lending it academic or even governmental credibility. And people are being trapped in behaviors and lifestyles because there is very little support for the other position.
Someone's got to be the champion for truth and values.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Do you wear funny underwear?
I've been asked about garments. The church has provided an answer in its newsroom that is succinct and complete, and I don't feel any need to expand it:
Like members of many religious faiths, Latter-day Saints wear religious clothing. But members of other faiths — typically those involved in permanent pastoral ministries or religious services — usually wear religious garments as outer ceremonial vestments or symbols of recognition. In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, garments are worn beneath street clothing as a personal and private reminder of commitments to God.
Garments are considered sacred by Church members and are not regarded as a topic for casual conversation.
Here is the source: http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=6b4daf3d29baf010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=3e0511154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD
Like members of many religious faiths, Latter-day Saints wear religious clothing. But members of other faiths — typically those involved in permanent pastoral ministries or religious services — usually wear religious garments as outer ceremonial vestments or symbols of recognition. In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, garments are worn beneath street clothing as a personal and private reminder of commitments to God.
Garments are considered sacred by Church members and are not regarded as a topic for casual conversation.
Here is the source: http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=6b4daf3d29baf010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=3e0511154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD
Friday, August 7, 2009
I have a Mormon friend who…
Yes. Don’t we all. I can fill in the blank as easily as anyone. This week the conversation came up in a business dinner. One of my business partners noted that I was not drinking wine and, recalling that I am Mormon, told me he has another Mormon associate that will ‘test’ a sip of the wine at dinner but not drink a glass of it.
Other iterations are ‘lived with his girlfriend before they got married’, ‘buys lottery tickets when the jackpot gets really big', ‘drinks Coke’ or ‘watches Rated-R movies’.
Some of the instructions that we have been given leave room for personal interpretation. For example, plenty of Mormons drink Coke. It doesn’t affect their standing in the church. I don’t drink Coke. I expect my children to refrain from it as well. But I don’t have a problem with those members who do.
By the way, just because specific behaviors are left to personal interpretation, it doesn't mean I have to explore its boundaries. Much of the purpose of the gospel lies in refining ourselves without written, specific obligations.
Now, other instructions do not leave room for personal interpretation. ‘Lived with his girlfriend before they married’ is cohabitation and prohibited by prophetic instruction. Even if they ‘aren’t having sex’ (yeah right).
None of us is perfect. In some of these cases these indiscretions were just that, and if the member chooses to repent, the Lord forgives them and they can enjoy all of the blessings of church membership without hesitation. In some other cases, the members seek to justify their behavior to other members and demonstrate that ‘you can still be a good person even though’… In the case of someone who breaks a commandment (I consider all prophetic instruction to be commandments) and then tries to demonstrate they are ‘faithful to the church even though’, they are not doing themselves or the church any good. And they still need to repent.
But we still love them. And we still stand by our principles. Yes, it is possible to do both. Just because I refuse to participate in the same behavior does not mean that I don’t love you and want the best for you. And just because I try to teach a better way – a way that I have found brings happiness – doesn’t mean that I am bigoted, intolerant, or arrogant.
By the way, if his Bishop knows about it, your friend that ‘tests’ the wine probably doesn’t hold a temple recommend any more, and won’t be considered a ‘member in good standing’ until he repents and changes, although that would not be public knowledge.
Other iterations are ‘lived with his girlfriend before they got married’, ‘buys lottery tickets when the jackpot gets really big', ‘drinks Coke’ or ‘watches Rated-R movies’.
Some of the instructions that we have been given leave room for personal interpretation. For example, plenty of Mormons drink Coke. It doesn’t affect their standing in the church. I don’t drink Coke. I expect my children to refrain from it as well. But I don’t have a problem with those members who do.
By the way, just because specific behaviors are left to personal interpretation, it doesn't mean I have to explore its boundaries. Much of the purpose of the gospel lies in refining ourselves without written, specific obligations.
Now, other instructions do not leave room for personal interpretation. ‘Lived with his girlfriend before they married’ is cohabitation and prohibited by prophetic instruction. Even if they ‘aren’t having sex’ (yeah right).
None of us is perfect. In some of these cases these indiscretions were just that, and if the member chooses to repent, the Lord forgives them and they can enjoy all of the blessings of church membership without hesitation. In some other cases, the members seek to justify their behavior to other members and demonstrate that ‘you can still be a good person even though’… In the case of someone who breaks a commandment (I consider all prophetic instruction to be commandments) and then tries to demonstrate they are ‘faithful to the church even though’, they are not doing themselves or the church any good. And they still need to repent.
But we still love them. And we still stand by our principles. Yes, it is possible to do both. Just because I refuse to participate in the same behavior does not mean that I don’t love you and want the best for you. And just because I try to teach a better way – a way that I have found brings happiness – doesn’t mean that I am bigoted, intolerant, or arrogant.
By the way, if his Bishop knows about it, your friend that ‘tests’ the wine probably doesn’t hold a temple recommend any more, and won’t be considered a ‘member in good standing’ until he repents and changes, although that would not be public knowledge.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Don’t you guys harass people with your religion?
We’re not supposed to. But we’re human, and sometimes (especially with youthful enthusiasm) we push too hard. We teach love, not pushiness, and we teach boldness, but not rudeness. The line between the two is crossed on occasion.
Of course, more often we’re unfairly accused of crossing the lines. Some people are sensitive to any invitation or contact, and take it as harassment. Some people confuse us with other groups that really are pushy.
You can and should expect respectful dialog from representatives of our church. We want to bless your life, not stress it.
The invitation to preach the Gospel came from the Savior himself, and is plainly printed in the New Testament. That other churches take the less controversial approach and choose not to evangelize is, in my view, at odds with the key doctrines of Christianity. So yes, I’m going to tell you about my religion. If you’re not interested, just say so and I won’t be hurt (much) and we will still be friends.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
What's with the two kids in white shirts and black nametags?
They're missionaries. I've gotten a lot of questions about missionaries - it is difficult to not be curious about such a lifestyle. Missionaries serve 18-24 months, sometimes are sent to live in a foreign country and learn a foreign language, and live by a stringent set of rules including not dating, dressing formally, and keeping a demanding schedule of study and work.
Some people find proselityzing missionaries annoying. That is understandable - they sometimes bear the same stigma as a door-to-door salesman, with the added negative of the fact that they are 'selling' religion, an unpopular product. From time to time one earns that reputation as well - if they are overly pushy or insensitive. We do, after all, send them out pretty young. But for the most part, our missionaries are what they claim to be: emissaries of Jesus Christ with a message. If you don't like it, don't talk to them.
These young men get up at 6:30 in the morning, study and pray for several hours, and then knock on doors and visit with people and extend invitations to them to improve their lives and their families. Their teachings range from explaining the nature of God to the Plan of Salvation and Jesus Christ's role, to principals of happiness, such as how to pray, how to get a long in a family, and how to shed unwanted habits such as smoking and drinking. They provide community service every week; where I live, they volunteer in a nursing home that is run by a local protestant church. In other places they teach English or literacy, or work at a food shelf. They pay for this experience themselves - through savings and contributions from family and friends.
Some people think we have no business proselityzing in Christian areas. I think a quick glance over what we believe about practicing Christianity (chaste living, sabbath day observance, and other forms of self-restraint) should make it clear that we believe we have something to offer above and beyond 'mainstream' Christianity. That is not meant as an offense to our Catholic and Protestant brothers and sisters, it is simply a fact of life. If we thought what we had was the same as what they offer, we'd just join them - it would be much easier. And if it makes you feel any better, we send Missionaries to Utah too, the geographic center of our own religion.
In addition to the benefit that these young men provide to their communities and the people they teach, the mission is a great benefit to them and the church in terms of the character it builds in the missionary himself. Missionary work produces the best fathers, husbands, and leaders possible. In a world where leaving home means experimenting with the evils that are out there to offer whether in the nightlife of a college campus or exposure to all that is in the working world, the only two programs I have seen make decent men out of boys are the military and the Mormon Mission. And the military comes complete with its own morally risky activities at times, so choices are even more limited.
I would not be half the man I am without my mission. I am proud to be associated with the boys in the white shirts and the nametags.
Some people find proselityzing missionaries annoying. That is understandable - they sometimes bear the same stigma as a door-to-door salesman, with the added negative of the fact that they are 'selling' religion, an unpopular product. From time to time one earns that reputation as well - if they are overly pushy or insensitive. We do, after all, send them out pretty young. But for the most part, our missionaries are what they claim to be: emissaries of Jesus Christ with a message. If you don't like it, don't talk to them.
These young men get up at 6:30 in the morning, study and pray for several hours, and then knock on doors and visit with people and extend invitations to them to improve their lives and their families. Their teachings range from explaining the nature of God to the Plan of Salvation and Jesus Christ's role, to principals of happiness, such as how to pray, how to get a long in a family, and how to shed unwanted habits such as smoking and drinking. They provide community service every week; where I live, they volunteer in a nursing home that is run by a local protestant church. In other places they teach English or literacy, or work at a food shelf. They pay for this experience themselves - through savings and contributions from family and friends.
Some people think we have no business proselityzing in Christian areas. I think a quick glance over what we believe about practicing Christianity (chaste living, sabbath day observance, and other forms of self-restraint) should make it clear that we believe we have something to offer above and beyond 'mainstream' Christianity. That is not meant as an offense to our Catholic and Protestant brothers and sisters, it is simply a fact of life. If we thought what we had was the same as what they offer, we'd just join them - it would be much easier. And if it makes you feel any better, we send Missionaries to Utah too, the geographic center of our own religion.
In addition to the benefit that these young men provide to their communities and the people they teach, the mission is a great benefit to them and the church in terms of the character it builds in the missionary himself. Missionary work produces the best fathers, husbands, and leaders possible. In a world where leaving home means experimenting with the evils that are out there to offer whether in the nightlife of a college campus or exposure to all that is in the working world, the only two programs I have seen make decent men out of boys are the military and the Mormon Mission. And the military comes complete with its own morally risky activities at times, so choices are even more limited.
I would not be half the man I am without my mission. I am proud to be associated with the boys in the white shirts and the nametags.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Do you guys have something like a Pope?
We have a Prophet.
A Prophet? You mean like... Old Testament, talks to God, has power to perform miracles, that kind of Prophet?
Yes.
Do you understand what that means?
Yes.
And you accept it? Really?
Yes.
Prophets have a bad name these days. The world has seen its fair share of nut jobs proclaiming themselves to be a Prophet. In too many minds the term Prophet is equated with secretive cults, illegal activities, and mass suicide. Whether it is Waco, Texas, or the so-called 'fundamentalist LDS' church, or the various cults of a generation past, the word Prophet conjures up images of compounds, weapons caches, female oppression, and sedition against the government.
That would not be us.
It should come as no surprise that the devil would want to paint prophets with a nice, broad, ugly brush. After all, Prophets are what saved Israel over and over again. And Prophets are what brought us the Bible. And Prophets talk to God. All things that the devil would prefer did not happen.
So when I say I accept the idea of a modern prophet, I am not suggesting that I have plans to move to a compound in the central US and stockpile tear gas.
One stark difference between the Prophet and the nut jobs in the cults is that the nut jobs have serious control issues - the last thing they would preach is individual, personal revelation. The Mormon church is the opposite - the Prophet encourages the members to learn to receive revelation and live by the Spirit. If everything is working the way God says it should (and I find that it does), the Spirit confirms individually what the Prophet teaches generally.
So, would you like to see what today's Prophet is saying? His name is Thomas S. Monson. He travels a lot and speaks in various meetings and conferences around the world, but twice a year he presides over a worldwide conference of the church, broadcast by satellite to nearly all of its buildings. It happens usually in April and October. The full text and the audio, and the video, if you'd like to hear his voice or see what he looks like are available on LDS.Org. Look for 'General Conference'. In fact, the proceedings of the conference are also streamed live on the internet, and available on KBYU on consumer satellite services. Put it on your DVR or Tivo, or print off a copy of a talk, or download the audio to your iPod sometime, and see what you think.
A Prophet? You mean like... Old Testament, talks to God, has power to perform miracles, that kind of Prophet?
Yes.
Do you understand what that means?
Yes.
And you accept it? Really?
Yes.
Prophets have a bad name these days. The world has seen its fair share of nut jobs proclaiming themselves to be a Prophet. In too many minds the term Prophet is equated with secretive cults, illegal activities, and mass suicide. Whether it is Waco, Texas, or the so-called 'fundamentalist LDS' church, or the various cults of a generation past, the word Prophet conjures up images of compounds, weapons caches, female oppression, and sedition against the government.
That would not be us.
It should come as no surprise that the devil would want to paint prophets with a nice, broad, ugly brush. After all, Prophets are what saved Israel over and over again. And Prophets are what brought us the Bible. And Prophets talk to God. All things that the devil would prefer did not happen.
So when I say I accept the idea of a modern prophet, I am not suggesting that I have plans to move to a compound in the central US and stockpile tear gas.
One stark difference between the Prophet and the nut jobs in the cults is that the nut jobs have serious control issues - the last thing they would preach is individual, personal revelation. The Mormon church is the opposite - the Prophet encourages the members to learn to receive revelation and live by the Spirit. If everything is working the way God says it should (and I find that it does), the Spirit confirms individually what the Prophet teaches generally.
So, would you like to see what today's Prophet is saying? His name is Thomas S. Monson. He travels a lot and speaks in various meetings and conferences around the world, but twice a year he presides over a worldwide conference of the church, broadcast by satellite to nearly all of its buildings. It happens usually in April and October. The full text and the audio, and the video, if you'd like to hear his voice or see what he looks like are available on LDS.Org. Look for 'General Conference'. In fact, the proceedings of the conference are also streamed live on the internet, and available on KBYU on consumer satellite services. Put it on your DVR or Tivo, or print off a copy of a talk, or download the audio to your iPod sometime, and see what you think.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Can Mormons use birth control?
Yes. As long as we're talking about pregnancy prevention, and not pregnancy termination.
Do they?
Sometimes it seems like we don't. When someone has learned how many children I have, their first question is often one of three: Are you Catholic? Are you a Pastor? Are you Mormon? Usually the people that ask these questions have a certain tone of admiration or respect, and I am flattered by it. Catholicism and some of the more fundamental forms of the protestant tradition are known for a long-standing prohibition on contraceptives, and many people associate Mormons with the older or more conservative side of Christian Culture. I think we should be pleased by that association.
Children are an heritage of the Lord. That's pretty much all the Bible has to say on the subject. The LDS Church doesn't publish much more than that, other than to recommend that decisions regarding 'family planning' be made prayerfully, involve husband and wife, and where difficulties arise, that they consult with their ecclesiastical leader (usually a Bishop or a Stake President) on the matter.
Quite basically, contraception is not to be used selfishly. There is an expectation that if you have the ability to bring children in to the world and raise them, you ought to do that. We encourage our members to obtain good education, good jobs, and self-sufficiency, as a means to that end. At the same time, we discourage our members from waiting until the 'perfect time' to have children. There is no perfect time. Children always mean sacrifice. But the church does not dictate a schedule, a quota, or otherwise interfere in a husband and wife's decisions.
The medical advances that permit things like contraception are, in my opinion, a blessing from God, not to be used selfishly, but to be used in prolonging life and improving its quality. So when a woman's mental/emotional/physical health is stressed, using those blessings under guidance from the spirit is entirely appropriate.
My wife and family are the highest priority in my life, after God. They come before my church callings, before my work, before even the worthiest of my hobbies.
Every now and then I have to check and make sure that the amount of time I am dedicating to those other things are appropriately balanced against family, and that my family is benefiting from my service in those areas. My service in the church has afforded me the double benefit of training in being a father. And I think if I didn't have a family, I wouldn't need a job, and I'd probably have quit my job a long time ago and gone and lived in the woods.
Let me make clear here: I have had many children because I love my children. Every one of them has increased the amount of joy that I have. When I was younger, my plans were not to have many. I only learned after having children how fulfilling it is. The church did not 'make me' have this many children. It was my choice, and I stand by it.
Now here's the fun part:
The other questions I get about my familial head count are often less flattering: Don't you understand how this happened? What are you putting your poor wife through? How is the world going to feed all of these children? Don't you worry about the environment/overpopulation/college costs/etc?
To those people I say (when I feel polite), my children are bright and well-raised and smart and caring, and are part of the solution to the world's problems, not part of the problem. I have some less-polite answers that call their own qualifications as parents in to question, but some (unwanted) maturity and wisdom I am picking up as I age are limiting that sort of conversation. My siblings (who are similarly prolific, but I am still winning in sheer numbers) have cute answers to these questions too.
Having children has a funny way of wiping the window through which you view the world. So let me air one final point: Your opinion on when to have children, how many to have, and so on, applies to just one person: You. And it barely even counts there.
Your right to weigh in on anyone else's life choices, whether to the extreme of too many or too few children, is limited by the fact that such a right does not exist.
Of course, you are free to moan and groan about the costs others may or may not impose on you through welfare or social costs. But, dear older-sister-whomever-you-are in the Relief Society of the Utah 457th Ward, if you think the newly married couple in your ward should have started having children already, you may (kindly) shut up and keep your opinions to yourself. And, captain-sierra-club-thomas-malthus-crusader, if you think I/we/someothercouple have too many kids and we're burdening the world, well, you may also (kindly) kiss off and find someone else to whine at. And, on a closing note, to the unmarried / no children yet intellectual who has figured out all the answers... good luck with that.
Do they?
Sometimes it seems like we don't. When someone has learned how many children I have, their first question is often one of three: Are you Catholic? Are you a Pastor? Are you Mormon? Usually the people that ask these questions have a certain tone of admiration or respect, and I am flattered by it. Catholicism and some of the more fundamental forms of the protestant tradition are known for a long-standing prohibition on contraceptives, and many people associate Mormons with the older or more conservative side of Christian Culture. I think we should be pleased by that association.
Children are an heritage of the Lord. That's pretty much all the Bible has to say on the subject. The LDS Church doesn't publish much more than that, other than to recommend that decisions regarding 'family planning' be made prayerfully, involve husband and wife, and where difficulties arise, that they consult with their ecclesiastical leader (usually a Bishop or a Stake President) on the matter.
Quite basically, contraception is not to be used selfishly. There is an expectation that if you have the ability to bring children in to the world and raise them, you ought to do that. We encourage our members to obtain good education, good jobs, and self-sufficiency, as a means to that end. At the same time, we discourage our members from waiting until the 'perfect time' to have children. There is no perfect time. Children always mean sacrifice. But the church does not dictate a schedule, a quota, or otherwise interfere in a husband and wife's decisions.
The medical advances that permit things like contraception are, in my opinion, a blessing from God, not to be used selfishly, but to be used in prolonging life and improving its quality. So when a woman's mental/emotional/physical health is stressed, using those blessings under guidance from the spirit is entirely appropriate.
My wife and family are the highest priority in my life, after God. They come before my church callings, before my work, before even the worthiest of my hobbies.
Every now and then I have to check and make sure that the amount of time I am dedicating to those other things are appropriately balanced against family, and that my family is benefiting from my service in those areas. My service in the church has afforded me the double benefit of training in being a father. And I think if I didn't have a family, I wouldn't need a job, and I'd probably have quit my job a long time ago and gone and lived in the woods.
Let me make clear here: I have had many children because I love my children. Every one of them has increased the amount of joy that I have. When I was younger, my plans were not to have many. I only learned after having children how fulfilling it is. The church did not 'make me' have this many children. It was my choice, and I stand by it.
Now here's the fun part:
The other questions I get about my familial head count are often less flattering: Don't you understand how this happened? What are you putting your poor wife through? How is the world going to feed all of these children? Don't you worry about the environment/overpopulation/college costs/etc?
To those people I say (when I feel polite), my children are bright and well-raised and smart and caring, and are part of the solution to the world's problems, not part of the problem. I have some less-polite answers that call their own qualifications as parents in to question, but some (unwanted) maturity and wisdom I am picking up as I age are limiting that sort of conversation. My siblings (who are similarly prolific, but I am still winning in sheer numbers) have cute answers to these questions too.
Having children has a funny way of wiping the window through which you view the world. So let me air one final point: Your opinion on when to have children, how many to have, and so on, applies to just one person: You. And it barely even counts there.
Your right to weigh in on anyone else's life choices, whether to the extreme of too many or too few children, is limited by the fact that such a right does not exist.
Of course, you are free to moan and groan about the costs others may or may not impose on you through welfare or social costs. But, dear older-sister-whomever-you-are in the Relief Society of the Utah 457th Ward, if you think the newly married couple in your ward should have started having children already, you may (kindly) shut up and keep your opinions to yourself. And, captain-sierra-club-thomas-malthus-crusader, if you think I/we/someothercouple have too many kids and we're burdening the world, well, you may also (kindly) kiss off and find someone else to whine at. And, on a closing note, to the unmarried / no children yet intellectual who has figured out all the answers... good luck with that.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Do Mormons really hoard food?
Yes, we store food. Not hoard. Store. Every definition I know of for hoarding implies some sort of a guarded or secret stash. Mine is in my basement. No secret, no security guard.
Food storage is not a new idea. Joseph helped Egypt put away food for the seven years of famine that would follow their seven years of plenty. That ultimately allowed Joseph to help his brothers when the table was empty.
We encourage our members to have a years' supply of their needs - food, fuel, clothing - and some monetary reserves as well. That makes us a practical religion, don't you think? I finally got my food storage up to par in late 2007 and early 2008. Until then I'd been making rather weak attempts, but the Prophet was teaching the idea with renewed emphasis, so I decided to get my act together. How's 2009 looking to you right now?
The storage principle is not limited to economic recessions - it is emphasized that we cannot predict the source of adversity (job loss, disability, natural disaster, and so on), so we prepare rather broadly.
In fact, it is not limited to temporal issues. By building an ongoing habit of frugality and preparation you can be ready to withstand all kinds of problems. Think about it - the person whose character has been tempered to avoid excess, strengthen reserves, and live in moderation, is ultimately the kind of person that you probably want for a spouse, an employer, a neighbor.
One of the tenets of the Mormon faith is that no commandment is given that is temporal alone - they all have a spiritual angle. You do not have to be financially strong to endure an economically strong period. By the same token, a spiritually weak person can do just fine when their social condition is strong. But what about when people around you start acting like, well, people? How are you going to handle that emotionally? How are you going to handle situations that are imposed on you - that are outside your control? Death? Illness? Betrayal? Insult? Injury? Deceit? Abuse? If you have built an emotional reserve (and this is done through careful use of your time every day - reading, studying, meditating - fasting, worshipping) - you will be just fine. You can hold up under all sorts of adversity if you do the right things ahead of time. And you can even be a great benefit to your neighbor, just as Joseph was to his brothers.
Food storage is not a new idea. Joseph helped Egypt put away food for the seven years of famine that would follow their seven years of plenty. That ultimately allowed Joseph to help his brothers when the table was empty.
We encourage our members to have a years' supply of their needs - food, fuel, clothing - and some monetary reserves as well. That makes us a practical religion, don't you think? I finally got my food storage up to par in late 2007 and early 2008. Until then I'd been making rather weak attempts, but the Prophet was teaching the idea with renewed emphasis, so I decided to get my act together. How's 2009 looking to you right now?
The storage principle is not limited to economic recessions - it is emphasized that we cannot predict the source of adversity (job loss, disability, natural disaster, and so on), so we prepare rather broadly.
In fact, it is not limited to temporal issues. By building an ongoing habit of frugality and preparation you can be ready to withstand all kinds of problems. Think about it - the person whose character has been tempered to avoid excess, strengthen reserves, and live in moderation, is ultimately the kind of person that you probably want for a spouse, an employer, a neighbor.
One of the tenets of the Mormon faith is that no commandment is given that is temporal alone - they all have a spiritual angle. You do not have to be financially strong to endure an economically strong period. By the same token, a spiritually weak person can do just fine when their social condition is strong. But what about when people around you start acting like, well, people? How are you going to handle that emotionally? How are you going to handle situations that are imposed on you - that are outside your control? Death? Illness? Betrayal? Insult? Injury? Deceit? Abuse? If you have built an emotional reserve (and this is done through careful use of your time every day - reading, studying, meditating - fasting, worshipping) - you will be just fine. You can hold up under all sorts of adversity if you do the right things ahead of time. And you can even be a great benefit to your neighbor, just as Joseph was to his brothers.
Monday, January 12, 2009
How many wives do you have?
Everyone's favorite mormon question - the practice of plural marriage, commonly (and mistakenly, I'm told) referred to as polygamy.
There is no shortage of internet information on polygamy. Let me summarize what you will find out there briefly:
It is fairly easy to find members and defenders of the church explaining why the practice existed in the early church. You will also find opponents of the practice denouncing it and accusing the church of a perverse history. Outside the mainstream, you will find various 'splinter groups' that continue to engage and promote in the practice.
Too many people have taken on this topic for me to make a valuable contribution, other than to point out a few things by way of summary:
1. The church did, in fact, practice plural marriage.
2. The church doesn't practice plural marriage today. Anyone who teaches it or practices it or sympathizes with the 'splinter groups' who do faces church discipline including, potentially, excommunication.
3. Plural marriage has its historical roots in Israel and the Old Testament. But it is difficult to understand in a culture that has not embraced it. I don't understand it myself.
4. Undoubtedly there were some abuses of the practice. Mormons aren't perfect. But most of the historic 'proof' of rampant abuse by leadership that is offered up by the church's opponents is questionable at best. The church has an enormous amount of documentation (letters, journals, etc) of the early leadership of the church indicates that relatively few members practiced it, and the practice was taught very carefully.
The church today continues to have the most conservative stance of any towards spousal or child abuse of any organization that I know of. That includes emotional, physical, sexual, verbal, and any other kind of abuse. We preach and teach constantly a standard and ideal of manhood that is far above anything that the world even hopes to attain to. Our lay ministry is trained in recognizing and combatting abuse. Our leadership provides counseling for both the victims and perpetrators of abuse. And my (extensive) reading of church history, journals, and discourses indicates that the leaders of the early church were similarly committed to teaching those family and individual ideals, that are at stark contrast to what they are accused of.
So what do I think personally of this practice?
I am descended from several plural marriages, on both sides of my family. My parents are monogamous. So am I. I have one wife. I have, in fact, had 'marital relations' with only one person in my entire life. No premarital relations, no extramarital relations. Ever.
Now there's an irony; the same Mormons that supposedly selfishly promote a lifestyle that permits men to have as many partners as they want... are the most chaste men that civilization has produced today. Even many of my most conservative associates of other faiths acknowledge premarital or extramarital lapses in their adherence to the law of chastity. Frankly, until some of these conservative faiths get their collective act together with their own youth, it would be wise to put down their proverbial stones.
What if I were asked to practice plural marriage by my church leaders?
I've been asked that question too - by people who want to probe how I 'really' feel. The good news is - it's a highly irrelevant question, as the church abides by the law of the land, which prohibits plural marriage.
But what if I were asked to practice plural marriage by my church leaders?
That would be a hard thing for me. I grew up in a society and culture that frowns on it - and I have the same cultural biases. But I'm also used to being different than the people around me, and to being obedient. So it's hard to say.
But what if I were asked to practice...?
I know, I haven't given a straight answer. The truth is, I don't know what I'd do. I'd start by looking for confirmation from God. That's the personal revelation thing kicking in again: Our church believes in a God that both answers prayers and guides prophets. So far in my life that has worked every time, and I trust it will again.
There is no shortage of internet information on polygamy. Let me summarize what you will find out there briefly:
It is fairly easy to find members and defenders of the church explaining why the practice existed in the early church. You will also find opponents of the practice denouncing it and accusing the church of a perverse history. Outside the mainstream, you will find various 'splinter groups' that continue to engage and promote in the practice.
Too many people have taken on this topic for me to make a valuable contribution, other than to point out a few things by way of summary:
1. The church did, in fact, practice plural marriage.
2. The church doesn't practice plural marriage today. Anyone who teaches it or practices it or sympathizes with the 'splinter groups' who do faces church discipline including, potentially, excommunication.
3. Plural marriage has its historical roots in Israel and the Old Testament. But it is difficult to understand in a culture that has not embraced it. I don't understand it myself.
4. Undoubtedly there were some abuses of the practice. Mormons aren't perfect. But most of the historic 'proof' of rampant abuse by leadership that is offered up by the church's opponents is questionable at best. The church has an enormous amount of documentation (letters, journals, etc) of the early leadership of the church indicates that relatively few members practiced it, and the practice was taught very carefully.
The church today continues to have the most conservative stance of any towards spousal or child abuse of any organization that I know of. That includes emotional, physical, sexual, verbal, and any other kind of abuse. We preach and teach constantly a standard and ideal of manhood that is far above anything that the world even hopes to attain to. Our lay ministry is trained in recognizing and combatting abuse. Our leadership provides counseling for both the victims and perpetrators of abuse. And my (extensive) reading of church history, journals, and discourses indicates that the leaders of the early church were similarly committed to teaching those family and individual ideals, that are at stark contrast to what they are accused of.
So what do I think personally of this practice?
I am descended from several plural marriages, on both sides of my family. My parents are monogamous. So am I. I have one wife. I have, in fact, had 'marital relations' with only one person in my entire life. No premarital relations, no extramarital relations. Ever.
Now there's an irony; the same Mormons that supposedly selfishly promote a lifestyle that permits men to have as many partners as they want... are the most chaste men that civilization has produced today. Even many of my most conservative associates of other faiths acknowledge premarital or extramarital lapses in their adherence to the law of chastity. Frankly, until some of these conservative faiths get their collective act together with their own youth, it would be wise to put down their proverbial stones.
What if I were asked to practice plural marriage by my church leaders?
I've been asked that question too - by people who want to probe how I 'really' feel. The good news is - it's a highly irrelevant question, as the church abides by the law of the land, which prohibits plural marriage.
But what if I were asked to practice plural marriage by my church leaders?
That would be a hard thing for me. I grew up in a society and culture that frowns on it - and I have the same cultural biases. But I'm also used to being different than the people around me, and to being obedient. So it's hard to say.
But what if I were asked to practice...?
I know, I haven't given a straight answer. The truth is, I don't know what I'd do. I'd start by looking for confirmation from God. That's the personal revelation thing kicking in again: Our church believes in a God that both answers prayers and guides prophets. So far in my life that has worked every time, and I trust it will again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)