Cumorah's Shadow

2009-06-20T09:15:00.000-07:00

Mormon Times runs many articles on Mormons who make it as contestants on reality shows. I'm not sure why members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have been over represented on shows such as American Idol, nor do I really care as I don't like reality television to begin with.

It could be considered a good thing to have Mormons on television, as it may overcome the image that shakes members of the faith as being slightly weird or odd, but my distaste of the genre makes me think there might be better ways of achieving the same goal.

It is hard to know what the general authorities think of this trend, although they tend to be supportive of people who cast the church in a positive light, which is understandable. Such celebrities can often get away with blatant violations of church rules such as working on the Sabbath if the church's treatment of Steve Young is any indication.

Ultimately, these shows don't matter. The contestants will be forgotten regardless of their religion, even if they win. Nor will I watch a show simply because it does or does not have a Mormon actor. At least they are doing more to promote the faith in a positive light than Glenn Beck often does. (Note: I find Glenn Beck amusing, but I personally find many flaws in his statements.)

Stephanie Meier's Twilight Series

2009-05-16T09:43:00.000-07:00

I am not a fan of vampires, so I did not plan to read the Twilight Series. In fact, Deseret Books pulled the books from the shelves because although the book is the work of a Mormon author, it has been described as soft porn for teenagers.

Now, I did not read a single book in the Twilight Series so my critique is not entirely fair. I only caught glimpses of the movie. Personally, I prefer my vampires staked or trying not to be vampires as happens in Terry Pratchett’s Discworld books, but it seems that there is a good reason for the church not to like parts of the movie Twilight, at least.

One of the scenes near the end of the movie shows the heroine asking her boyfriend to turn her into a vampire to be with her, forever. The hero, of course, turns the request down asking if a long life with him isn’t enough instead. While the church does not condone anyone making a deal with a supernatural entity other than God for immortal life, I am sure, it seems that the heroine should have suggested another opportunity for eternal marriage, if the author were interested in putting Mormonism into the books.

Because stories about vampires, unless of the vampire is a villain, are not my thing, it is difficult to give the book a fair review or watch the movie to please others with anything but resentment. Even worse, Borders clerks seem to go on about it even though there are much better fantasy books available that don’t involve these creatures the feed on human blood.

Food Storage: An Enviable LDS Beacon

2009-05-01T15:58:00.001-07:00

In retrospect, my friends thought most of my beliefs as a Mormon were somewhat quaint, but only one practice ever got me mocked. As a single person living in a small apartment I never had much room for a year's supply of food. I did keep a three-month supply of staples on hand all the time.

They made fun of it big time. I bet that not too many are laighing now. Now, as i work my garden, and prepare to put the surplus by, I can only wonder how much of that influence came from my grandparents memories of the derpession, and how much for the influence Mormonism had on me as I grew up.

One thing is certain, in these difficult economic times a lot of LDS members who did not attend to the advice of their leaders now wish they had. Non-members must now see this practice as the wise and prudent measure it is, and one that we all can learn from -- if we still have time.

My local unemployment office has opening for a few temporary employees, funded by federal grants. The "temporary" duration is two years. That means the federal government anticipates a slow labor market -- and hence an increased demands for its services -- for that long. When one is laid off how fortunate they must feel to have stored food, limited their debt, and prepared for harder times during times of prosperity.

This is one LDS practice that shines through the night of despair for so many -- in the general culture it is something from which we all can learn.

The FLDS Rumspringa

2009-04-23T07:07:00.000-07:00

People Magazine recently run a spread on the children of the FLDS one year after the raid on the Yearning for Zion ranch. The reporter treated the people fairly and with respect, which to his credit, was more than I would have done. They may be out of touch with the modern world, but there is one thing that struck me. If they did not practice plural marriage, their lifestyle would not be that much different than that of my Amish and Old Order Mennonite neighbors. (I often pass their buggies in annoyance one one of the many back roads of the Keystone State.*)

Rumspringa, technically, is just the word for adolescence in the Pennsylvania German dialect, according to Wikiepedia. The word has taken on a different meaning in popular culture to suggest a ceremony during which the Amish youth are allowed to go wild before deciding whether or not they wish to be baptized into the church. Whether or not the leaders of the FLDS intended their children to be exposed to the modern world, the fact is that it happened and these youth are now experiencing a Rumspringa of their own.

Most of the youth and the parents returned to the ranch, while others stayed behind. The time spent in the custody of the Texas Department of Child Protective Services was the first time many of the children had a chance to be children and not engaged in chores, which one sect spokesperson said children could be taught to enjoy. The schedule in the compound was not as demanding as the schedule prescribed by the leaders of the church, which can be found on the website truthwillprevail.org.

The damage has been done and the genie is out of the bottle. Now that the children and in some cases, the adults, have seen how most people really live, the lifestyle offered by the FLDS may no longer appeal to them. Every aspect of their lives is not controlled outside of the cult, and freedom, despite its inherent dangers is quite appealing to the people.

Even the children that have returned might not elect to stay with their families. As they get older, they will leave, and the number of Lost Boys and now the Lost Girls will continue to grow. They’ve had their Rumspringa, and now they must decide if they want to join the modern world, or try to live as the ancestors that they revered did in the days of ‘47.

*The author is of Pennsylvania Dutch extraction and not of the Pioneer Stock that many Mormons hold in high esteem, so this should not be taken as an insult.

Is Marital Sanctity Situational?

2009-03-18T21:07:00.000-07:00

Some cultural issues evade discussion without scrutinizing the doctrinal matters behind them. Culturally the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- both on local and national levels -- has significantly influenced the debate over same-sex marriage. In California, it may have done so decisively. I agree with the Church's position, and I do not intend to diminish opposition to it by what follows. However, both members and non-members of the Church should be fully informed in evaluating the integrity of the specifc arguments the Church uses.

When I served as a missionary in Brazil in 1982 and 1983 we occasionally baptized couples who were not married to each other, and one or both of whom were still legally married to others. This required approval of the mission president.

Divorce had not been legal for too long at that time. It required a five-year wait, or a three-year wait if someone filed a legal separation called a desquite. Many young people had wed impulsively years before. When these marriages failed the spouses moved apart and moved on into new and more serious relationships. In these partnerships they had children and became families, and years passed.

We often did not even learn that the couples were not married -- or more accurately, were married to others -- until it came time for a baptismal interview. We followed a policy that left keeping the family together a priority, and allowed baptism when the individuals had done everything they legally could toward repentance of their status. This meant they had to file a desquite. Once this was done they did not have to wait the full three years for a final divorce, plus whatever time it took to get married to each other, for baptism. We then only needed the mission president's approval to proceed with baptism.

I only experienced one exception to this policy. There was woman in one ward who had raised her son as a Mormon despite the fact that she could not join the Church herself. She had lived all this time with a man, as I recall the father of her son, who was legally married to someone else. After all these years, the son was now serving a mission elsewhere in Brazil.

The mother still sought LDS membership. The only reason she never married her partner was because he refused to divorce his wife of so many years, with whom he had little if any involvement. Following our mission president's instructions, my companion and I interviewed the man. When we obtained a solid statement of his refusal to divorce his wife, of his accepting responsibility for the state the woman lived in, we were permitted to baptize the woman.

This is a matter of my own experience. I've told it to Mormons who don't believe me, but it is nonetheless true. Others have thought that my mission president must not have been very good, but he went on to become a general authority -- and the general authority to whom he reported went on to join the Quorum of the Twelve. I can only interpret that to mean that this policy of prioritizing family unity above inviolable sanctity of marriage has approval in the Church's highest level. In fact this relativism remains consistent with the way The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had more than a century ago accepted the practice of polygamy despite the fact that The Book of Mormon, "the most correct of all books" unambiguously condemns the practice.

I do not intend this post as a criticism of the practice described. For one who himself did not remain fathful to the LDS moral laws (and never tried to hide it, however ashamed I felt) this would be hypocritical. Culturally, though, I must conclude that the Church has no foundation to argue against same-sex marriage by an appeal to the absolute sanctity of marriage.

The historic record, and my experience as well as the experiences of other missionaries, show that the Church treats marital sanctity as relative, not absolute. In its early years it did not consider plural marriage to be adultery. In 1982-1983 in Brazil it considered adultery an acceptable state for those with nothing but time and a divorce between themselves and marriage.

Personally I make no qualms stating that I oppose same-sex marriage simply because marriage has its roots as a religious practice, and in this country we do not legislate religion. If governments choose to institute laws, or corporations to establish policies, allowing civil and legal benefits to partnerships of other natures, they have those options. They can even choose to grant these relationships equal treatment to marriage under the law.

They do have the responsibility to distiguish between these relationships and the relationships that religions recognize as marriage to avoid potentially restricting religion's options for extending sacraments and cermonies that require specific marital states.

The Pointlessness of Arguing on the Internet

2009-01-23T12:50:00.001-08:00

Lee Gandeee, author of a hard-to-find book called Strange Experience gave the best advice when it came to arguing with someone who holds different religious views. Basically, his advice boils down to not bother. A popular and offensive poster that first appeared on the Something Awful forums read: “Arguing on the Internet is like participating in the Special Olympics: Even if you win, you’re still retarded.”

Even though I know these rules and should know better than to engage other people in such debates, I find it hard not to do so sometimes. When you debate with Mormons or any other religious type, you soon encounter a specific type of Mormon. A person whose view is so fundamentalist nature that he cannot possibly be wrong as long as he is spouting church leadership.

When even leading apologists have started to back away from this position, it means that something has been found to be lacking and that if the church wants to survive, the true or false litmus test that has been favored by the Mormon prophets must disappear to a more flexible belief system, one that is perhaps less focused on dogma and more focused on service to one’s fellow man than a series of arbitrary and (to an outsider) completely nonsensical rules.

But this kind of thinking shows the dangers of thinking only one religion is correct. History is remarkably free of wars fought over religion until someone came up with the dangerous idea that their nation’s God must be the only one. It was not until religion lost power in the Western world until this attitude started to change, and it took hundreds of years to reach even the tolerance the religion-mad United States (as the rest of the world views us) to come to even its current level of tolerance.

The Middle East, still stuck in the Middle Ages just before the Renaissance, has yet to come out of its dark period and is gripped by a faith as damaging as the Roman Catholic Church was during the Middle Ages. Now, there are positive aspects to it, but on the whole, no one wants to go back to living in that type of theocracy.

The point is, if I ever get around to making it, is I was being stupid for engaging in an argument with this type of person. There are some people who are interested in exchanging ideas, but this person wasn’t one of them. He wanted other people to come around to his preconceived n notions and once engaged with such a person, my goal will become to convince him of his error. This is one of the things that makes an honest discussion of Mormonism on an intellectual level difficult.

The Pointlessness of Arguing on the Internet

2009-01-23T12:50:00.000-08:00

Mormons Stole Our Rights Uses My Work Incorrectly

2008-12-29T08:07:00.000-08:00

I hope all three of this blog's readers will forgive me for the lack of updates, but my computer situation has been a little complicated. The screen on the Armada I had broke, the laptop that replaced it had a bad hard drive and I am hoping the Dell Latitude PC I have now will continue to hold out. I realize I could have used my desktop, but the desktop is saved for important things like playing games, unless of course, there is no laptop available.

As odd as the laptop situation might have been, that will not be the topic of this post. One of the nice things about writing for the web is seeing who links to your articles. Most of the time it is nice. Sometimes you wish the site in question would not reference you or link to you at all. Sometimes, a person links to one of your articles to make a point without paying attention to what the article actually says.

I wrote about Proposition 8 when it was in the news. At the same time, I also did a piece about a temple in Preston, England losing its tax-exempt status. The Mormons Stole Our Rights web site this linked to the article. The text that followed the link stated that Great Britain had taken preliminary steps to strip the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of its tax exempt status in the country. Now, I may have gotten the details wrong, but one temple losing its property tax exempt status does not constitute stripping the church of its protected status entirely.

Had the web master of the Mormons Stole Our Rights web site read my article or bothered to check the sources linked, they would have found the reasons for removing the temple's protected status in the decision of Gallagher versus the House of Lords. When contacted, they did not correct this statement, although they did add another link to the BYU Electroshock Aversion therapy, leaving the suggestion that BYU is still attempting to use electroshock treatments to cure homosexuality.

I understand that the people who did this web site were upset over the political activism of the Mormon church, but a certain level of honesty should be required from people engaging in their own political attempts to remove the tax exempt status of a church in this country.

I do not think there is much I can do about this, but the site that linked to it and ignored the context of the articles can be found here. I'm sure other sites have been just as annoyed at me in the past.

Where have I been?

2008-12-18T08:51:00.000-08:00

I do not know what Peter John has been up to, but I have been busy planning for the Holiday Season and starting a new writing job with Examiner.com. Unfortunately, this also means I am not currently writing for Suite 101 right now. The good news is it will allow more time to write more posts relating to Mormonism.

I had several good ones planned, but several computer problems prevented me from getting them online. If I can find them again, I shall return and attempt weekly postings on issues involving the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

My work at Examiner.com will focus on North Central Pennsylvania and the Susquehanna Valley -- the area that I live in. You are welcome to check these out, but from now on I will be commenting about Mormon events and issues here on Cumorah's Shadow.

Proposition 8 -- Coming Soon to a California Ballot Box Near You

2008-11-02T11:34:00.000-08:00

I apologize that my desire to write has not been great lately. It is discouraging when all you are receiving from publishers are rejection letters. While I have made some money writing for online places, this is simply not a way to make a living as a writer. I apologize for bringing my troubles to this, but I have not been keeping up on current events within the Mormon church.

Many Cumorah's Shadow readers probably oppose efforts to make same-sex marriage legal, but that does not excuse the Mormon church's involvement in campaigning for this proposed amendment to the California State Constitution. Clergy, when they are speaking as an individual, are free to express their views on moral issues. A priest, bishop, or pastor may offer guidance when their clergy asks, but campaigning from the pulpit enters into a dangerous grey area. The Mormon church has been willing to campaign on issues that did not make it look god when public opinion changes throughout its history. The brethren should be admired for taking a moral stand, even if I personally disagree with the position they are promoting, but what should not be admired is how they have suggested church members in California take political action.

The early history of the state is one where the leaders often struggled against the federal government in order to maintain their way of life and keep most importantly, the practice of polygamy legal. The opposition to same-sex marriage in Utah stems in part from the fact that the state's constitution defines marriage as being between one man and one woman. Recent politicians from the state stress the man and woman definition of the constitution, they miss the historical context of the definition.

The operative word is one. What sexes were involved in matrimony were not the concern of the people writing the constitution for the state. The amendment to the Utah constitution defining marriage as being between one man and one woman was passed to in the 1880s. This legislation was considered a thinly veiled and not at all sincere attempt to show that the ethics of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints aligned more or less with the rest of the country. (Indeed, not all of the Mormons in this period practiced polygamy and some residents of the territory privately held an unfavorable opinion of the practice.)

It seems that there are times when the church and many other organizations that are religious in nature cannot help but speak out on political issues, regardless of whether or not it will be in their best interest to do so. Now speaking out on moral issues is what a church is expected to do, but what churches are not expected to do is urge nearly to the point of forcing, its members to get involved in the political process.

The church's efforts to get Proposition 8 as to pass as an amendment to the California state constitution are likely to fail, although similar amendments may pass in other states. Although courts should not pass legislation, churches should not be encouraging their members to vote in a certain way that borders on the point of commandment. Let us hope the church's efforts here are just an interesting historical addendum, like their efforts opposing the Equal Rights Amendment.

The political efforts of the Evangelical Christians and the Mormons makes me glad I live in a state that has sensible laws against things like singing in the bathtub or catching a fish by any part of the body except the mouth.

The Problem With How the Church Teaches History

2008-10-04T08:15:00.000-07:00

The history of the Mormon church is as fascinating as it is bizarre, but sadly, the church does not encourage the real history of the church being taught. Like any other organization, the church was created and run by men. It cannot be perfect, it can merely try to do good by living up it to its principles.

When we come to the historical truth, we find an interesting double standard applied. Members are expected to be honest and upright, but the church has not obligation to return the favor to its members. Instead, Mormons are offered a version of history that the church believes to be faith promoting. Boyd K. Packer himself came out in favor of telling the history correctly, which is in his view, as a faith promoting tool.

The Internet has made information more freely available than did the invention of the printing press. Unfortunately, religious organizations can no longer hid the less desirable aspects of their history. Mormon apologists are still trying the same tactics before, writing these people off as anti-Mormons who are lying to prevent the truth from being told.

The free flow of information has made this tactic less effective before and the church has been slowly shrinking in size where ready access to the information super highway is available. The leadership does not likely see the damage their reactions have caused, but they do the church more harm by hiding the truth from its members than letting the truth out there. People are not perfect. Joseph Smith made mistakes. Brigham Young said some stupid things and committed some outright evil acts, but one started a church with millions of members and the other held it together.

If the church wants people not to be surprised when they discover the real Mormon history, they should teach it, as it actually happened. The fact that they have not done so up to this point is causing the current crisis among members in the first world countries and helps keep the growth to a minimum in places where the church does not already have a strong population. If Mormons learned the truth from the church, the feelings of betrayal would not be as strong as they are among many people who leave the organization.

The church's history will continue to be a problem until the leaders find a way to deal with it that understand the particular problems of the information age. The truth will not change, although the interpretation of it might. Instead of trying to state that all of Joseph Smith's arrests or false or that he did undergo trial for gold digging in 1826, it is time to remove the near deity status of the early Mormon leaders and show that they were people, just like everybody else.

Do Mormon Leaders Need Lessons in Basic Biology?

2008-08-26T11:43:00.000-07:00

Although I don't have a strong opinion on the same-sex marriage issues, the stance of the church makes me wonder about the state of biology education in Utah. Ezra Taft Benson may have said that the prophet does not need to be trained in worldly affairs to speak about them, as the prophet has direct communication from God, who we assume knows everything, but something about the argument seems either God does not know the biology he created, or the more reasonable assumption, that church leaders do not know basic facts about reproduction of any species.

As tempting as it would be, I should refrain from creating a pamphlet called “Basic Biology for Mormon leaders,” such a pamphlet would rightly be seen as an attempt to speak ill of people who view themselves as the Lord's anointed, but if they are the Lord's anointed, they could save the person they save considerable embarrassment by cracking open a science textbook and learning the problems with their arguments regarding same-sex marriage and children.

For the people who produced this argument, let me cover basic biology. Sexual reproduction involves the combining of egg and sperm. Check it out, it was definitely in my Life Science text book in seventh grade, although this information was not likely to be found in my Book of Mormon. Same-sex couples generally can only produce one half of this equation, and assume if the natural processes are used, two people of the same sex will not produce children. There is not, as of yet, any evidence that it is worse for a child to be raised by two women or two men, than it is for them to be raised by one man and one woman. I will, of course, withhold final judgment until I see research from a reputable source that states otherwise.

This is not to say same-sex couples do not adopt or that a surrogate mother or father is sometimes used if someone wants to have children badly enough, but in the case of adoption, Bill O'Reilly, a conservative opposed to same-sex marriage, says that it is better to have children raised in a loving home by two parents of the same gender than two abusive straight parents.

The church's argument, when it comes down to it, does not make sense as it stands and the Mormons and social conservatives who espouse similar logic can only make those who paid attention in their science classes wonder if the state of science education in this country is really so bad that this argument can be accepted by people educated by our public school system.

The War Over Who Has the Right to be Called Mormons

2008-08-16T08:17:00.000-07:00

There is a war brewing over who has the right to be called Mormon. It is a silly argument considering how long the Mormons have fought to be considered Christians, but the war itself is understandable.

The Associated Press Style book, both the present edition and the older copy of the AP style book from 1984 that I possess state that the term Mormon should only be applied to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Now, the AP style book only applies to people working for the Associated Press or another agency that uses its style book. The church may not like the term Fundamentalist Mormon, but many of the polygamist sects consider themselves the true Mormons, holding fast to the legacy started by the early Mormon prophets. They revere Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and John Taylor just as the LDS do, but the polygamist break off sects revile Wilford Woodruff.

The fact is following the AP style book that closely may win you points with the Mormons, but it does not clarify what you mean. Anyone who believes in the Book of Mormon, is in the public lexicon, a Mormon. This includes the abusive sects the church, understandably, wants nothing to do with its polygamist cousins.

If we are going to bow so as not to offend one group, we should bow not to offend the other, or at least, try to keep our meaning clear. Because the LDS and its younger polygamist offspring share history, doctrine, and scriptures, they are Mormons in the mind of the general public. While the correct turn for the Religious movement Joseph Smith started is Restorationist Christianity, the term Restorationist means little outside of people familiar with the Mormon faith. Instead, we must find terms that the public will understand and clarify the difference between the Salt Lake based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the groups that still openly practice polygamy.

It would be easier if the full names for both groups were not so unwieldy to use repeatedly. If I use Mormon, I am almost always referring to a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If I use the term Fundamentalist Mormon, I referring to a polygamist sect that shares the doctrine. Until better guidelines come along, this method will have to suffice.

Now, as far as the battle over who has the right to the term goes. Groups have the right to self-identify. The church cannot define who a Mormon is, anymore than Orthodox Jews can get people to consider Reform Jews as not being Jewish in the eyes of Christians, although the Orthodox Jews may believe that Reform Congregations cannot rightly claim the name of the religion for themselves.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints cannot define who and who is not a Mormon. It can simply decide who and who is not a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Groups such as the FLDS are an embarrassment and perhaps not in keeping with modern ideals of Mormonism, but they have more in common with the Salt Lake based church than the church would like to admit.

Why Will the Church Not Help People Escaping Polygamist Communities?

2008-07-29T09:18:00.000-07:00

Under the Banner of Heaven deal with the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or fundamentalist Mormons. The pages detail the welfare fraud often committed by polygamous communities and justify it as bleeding the beast. If there is one thing the average person knows about Mormonism in general, it is that Mormons practice polygamy. (The fact that they no longer allow it in a physical sense escapes many people.)

This may not be entirely fair, because for the polygamy was only practiced for early in the religion, even if the institution endured for nearly seventy years, but when the church issued the manifesto of 1890, it declared that it would no longer practice temporal polygamy. It eventually started to enforce this edict to. As a result of the anti-polygamy manifesto, which failed to overturn the commandment given in Section 132, break-off sects were created that would occasionally creep up and embarrass the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

When news of the raid on the Yearning for Zion ranch broke, the church was quick to issue press statements disavowing any connection between the two groups. Such statements are true in an organizational sense, but are misleading because both groups share a history and many of the same doctrines. Some of the rhetoric that fundamentalists produce follows the style of Brigham Young and Joseph Smith's writing rather closely.

It is understandable that the mainstream Mormon church does not want to be associated with the fundamentalists, their abuse of women and children, and their defrauding of the public welfare system, but why is the church itself unwilling to help these people who escape the situations that abandoning the practice of polygamy created? It is one thing to say (whether or not it is true) that polygamy under Brigham Young was kinder. The evidence for this is limited, but perhaps most telling of the Mormon attitude is a quote from Shannon Price, founder of Smiles for Diversity in Saint George, Utah. "We get no help from local churches."

Smiles for Diversity runs a half-way house that helps people who have left or who have been kicked out of the FLDS and other polygamist sects. Because the education of these young men is often lacking, it seeks to help them complete their education and bring it up to a High School level. There may be valid reasons for the organization not to get help from local churches, these boys, were after all, badly mistreated by their religious leaders.

To offer no help, perhaps in the terms of funding or donations seems foreign to my mind. Is the presence of the Smiles for Diversity half-way house an uncomfortable reminder of the Mormon church's often ignored historical dark side? It is to speculate about the cause, but without proof, it would be dangerous to make any assumptions. Perhaps someone from Saint George can weigh in on the situation. I hastily did not think to ask Shannon Price because I had to try, as much as was humanly possible, to try to produce an unbiased article when writing about here organization.

Whether or not the reasons are valid, the Mormon church needs to start taking some responsibility to help the people who try to escape from abusive groups the it inadvertently spawned so long ago.

If you would like to help the people who have escaped from polygamist backgrounds, Smiles for Diversity helps the Lost Boys, and the Child Protection Project helps women who have escaped polygamist communities.

The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People: Mormonism in the Corporate Boardroom

2008-07-19T13:24:00.000-07:00

Finding evidence of Mormonism on the culture is harder than many Mormons would like to believe. No one who is not Mormon cares who the Three Nephites are, nor do they care if the Sermon on the Mount is the same as Jesus address to the American people. The latter might be used as an example of plagiarism, if it is an example of anything at allat all.

Mormonism can not be said to have any affect on the culture at all if you are coming from a religious standpoint, but there is one Mormon author who has succeeded in bringing aspects of Mormon spirituality into the corporate boardroom.

I do not think this would be the case if people were aware that much of what Stephen R. Covey is teaching is cultural Mormonism. I am not criticizing this entirely, there are elements of the 7 Habits of Highly Effective People that would work if at least habits 2-5 were thrown out and replaced with things that actually made people effective.

If memory serves, it is habits two through six. Now, to be fair, I read the book thinking it would be bad and would justify my opinion that the man is one of the most evil men alive today for allowing the corporate grayness of Mormon culture to find its way into real corporations.

The truth is that corporations were headed in this direction already and the time was right for a management book that used the principles Stephen R. Covey had learned growing up in Provo, Utah. Unfortunately, the book continues with the one method for everybody mentality and degenerates into Covey's own opinions about what a highly effective person should do.

The Seven Habits of Highly Effective people may have been a highly praised management book when it first appeared on the scene, but no one thought to compare it to the elements of Mormonism that simply do not work, mostly because no one thought of it as a book bringing Mormonism into the corporate culture.

I do not think Stephen R. Covey's goal with the Seven Habits of Highly Effective People was to produce more Mormon converts. He sincerely believes that this is the right way to go, but with usual human blindness, he ignores the problems that stem from following his advice, most notably the lack of independent thinking.

I do not discourage anyone from reading The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, I just think people should read books like this with caution, as you would any self-help book. Take away the parts that are good, discard the parts that are bad. Stephen R. Covey is just the current management flavor. When corporations start moving away from the model that has been adopted by the Mormon church, he will no longer be considered a guru, and his book's importance will never be equal to the importance of Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People.

Introducing New Authorized Blog Author

2008-07-11T16:03:00.000-07:00

by Shawn Landis

I must admit I was skeptical when Peter approached me to ask him if I would write for his blog. I misread his e-mail and thought a fundamentalist Christian was asking me to try to disprove Mormonism. While I would be honored if I had gotten such a request from the Utah Lighthouse Ministry or other such organization, I would turn it down. I do not feel claims of doctrine can be proven. Religious beliefs are subjective.

My name is Shawn Landis. I am a freelance writer and a regular contributor to the online magazine Suite 101. If a reader was hoping that I was the Hollywood cameraman, I am sorry to disappoint them. The cameraman and I have the same first and last name and are both Pennsylvania Dutch, but I believe that these are the only things that we have in common. The regular readers of the Cumorah's Shadow blog are wondering why Peter John Stone isn't writing this entry.

Peter's first e-mail to me connected to a Myspace page that did not load correctly on my computer. Time went by until I received another e-mail from him telling me he started his own blog. Now, if you are wondering how Peter got a hold of me, he read my articles on Mormonism on Suite 101. Some of what I have written there has been objective, while other pieces stated my opinion, especially when news of the FLDS raid was getting constant media coverage in the national press and Mormon interest publications, such as the church-owned Deseret News, were running non-stop coverage.

The environments we find ourselves in during childhood shapes each one of us. Because I was a member of the church since birth, I believe some things that the church teaches have value. Goal setting, journal writing (in a modified format), constantly trying to improve, and the moral values are good things that can be gained from the Mormon church, but these can also be obtained from any church. The bad things were the judgmental attitude, constant fear of not being good enough, and in my guess an unhealthy attitude towards all forms of human sexuality. The readers of this blog do not need to know the details of the last sentence.

My religious viewpoints since I left the church are hard to describe. I've described it in one place as an Ex-Mormon Agnostic Deist who follows bits of philosophical Taoism. If this is too much to remember, just put me in the undecided category when it comes to religion. We are all seeking our own relationship with the Divine, and some people do well in a Mormon setting, but it did not work well for me. My final break with the church came when I learned about the real history of the church. Like many people who study Mormon history after being one of the faithful, the truth is often not what you expect it to be, but getting to the truth is difficult as Mormon and non-Mormon sources lie about what happened and try to obfuscate the issue.

The readers of this blog should know my overall religious position before reading later posts. I believe the church has legitimate problems that it refuses to address. If I can control my passion and not stray too far about the things that irritate me, the readers can discuss them on this blog and others like it. I look forward to writing future entries from the perspective of someone who left his own faith and has been working out what he personally believes for many years. I suppose ultimately, we are in the same boat. We all pick and choose what we personally believe.

September Dawn Historic Value Undiminished by Malice, Deletions

2008-06-26T14:44:00.001-07:00

REVIEW
America’s other September 11 went nearly unnoticed. It was September 11, 1857 when 120 pioneers from Arkansas and Missouri, bound for California, were massacred passing through Utah. The question of whether or not Brigham Young actually ordered the massacre remains, objectively, an unanswered question in history.

The film September Dawn accurately portrays the massacre itself, but barely alludes to numerous background circumstances which triggered it. These deletions, along with the details chosen as substitutions for them, and other material, can only be explained one way. September Dawn was produced as little more than a malicious assault on the current and historic institution of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Despite this fact, the film still deserves viewing for its essentially valid presentation of the immediate circumstances surrounding the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and its reenactment of the Mountain Meadows Massacre itself. In this incident Mormon settlers colluded with Indians, and later disguised themselves as Indians, in the mass murder of men, women, and children. This has never been so done in film.

In addition September Dawn includes powerful performances from all actors. Terence Stamp presents a very convincing performance of a seldom seen side of Brigham Young’s personality. Jon Voight represents, a worthy amalgam of some of the more extremist attitudes among Mormon pioneers in the Mountain Meadows region. Dean Cain, in a brief cameo, offers a fair portrayal of Mornomism’s founding prophet Joseph Smith, Jr.

Jon Gries, however, as the genuine historic figure John D. Lee, puts forth the most noteworthy performance of any in the film. Lee was Brigham Young’s adopted son, and the only man punished – 20 years later – for the events at Mountain Meadows. Gries portrays with every glance a thoroughly three-dimensional character who moves from vindictive hatred to internal torment between his conscience and his perceived duty to God.

This script element, most fully exemplified in Gries’ performance, is the film’s saving grace. Through additional characters and a contrived romantic plot structure, writer/director Christopher Cain and writer Carole Whang Schutter take great pains to demonstrate the personal cost of the massacre on those ordered to carry it out.

STATEMENTS OUT OF CONTEXT DECEPTIVE, BUT GENERALLY JUSTIFIED
However, in their zeal to indict Mormonism itself, the writers err by taking numerous statements of Brigham Young out of context. It creates the impression that these hateful sounding statements were spoken specifically regarding the pioneers in Mountain Meadows. In fact many were spoken with regards to the United States Army, which President Buchanan had ordered to occupy the territory, and Young’s reaction to that order.

In addition, certain statements were general expositions on a fringe Mormon doctrine called “blood atonement”. This doctrine basically declares that shedding of blood at death bears on eternal absolution of sins, and is the reason why Utah still allows the firing squad as an option for capital punishment. It does not compose a central doctrine of the religion, but is more of an expository doctrinal conclusion which was over-emphasized during pioneer days of Mormon history.

Should an audience believe that Young spoke all of these things specifically regarding the Mountain Meadows, they have an incorrect perception of what really happened. In addition, through decades as a literal emperor of America’s central Rocky Mountains, with the perceived weight of God in his words, Young spoke volumes, many of which narrow the interpretation of the statements used in this script.

This method at least demonstrates some ideas which the Massacre perpetrators gained from the Church. It shows how many local leaders understanding these things, whether or not specifically intended to apply there, would have felt doctrinally justified in their actions. Thus the Church accurately becomes ideologically responsible for the events, if directly responsible by distinct mandate.

MISREPRESENTED HISTORIC BACK STORY UNJUSTIFIED
While that does not constitute malice, the historic deletions of the reasons the Mormons had – which do not justify it, but make it more understandable – almost certainly does.

The film reenacts two historic incidents. The destruction of an anti-Mormon publication’s printing press in Nauvoo, Ill. In 1843, which led to Smith’s final arrest, is one. The other is Smith’s own murder – which in itself leaves much lacking. First, it doe not make it clear that Smith was in a jail when this happened. Second, it creates the impression that Voight’s character was present, which he was not.

The film makes it look like the only reason the Mormon settlers sought revenge on the pioneers from Missouri was that “Missouri Wildcats” had a role in killing Smith. The truth is much worse.

A decade before Smith’s murder the Mormons had been settled in Missouri. Their communities prospered because of their hard work and insular economy. Other settlers looked on them suspiciously from their arrival. They became perceived as abolitionists in this slave state.

Coke Newell summarizes what happened next most concisely in his book Latter Days (St. Martin’s Press, May 2000). “Then, Missouri’s governor-elect Lilburn Boggs issued his famous decree: ‘exterminate [the Mormons] or drive them from the state.’ So through the winter of 1838-39, and across three hundred miles of frozen mid-western back country, ten thousand Latter-day Saints dragged all that hadn’t been burned, abandoned or killed three hundred miles to refuge in Illinois.”

The Mountain Meadows Massacre is connected inseparably with the specific persecutions the Mormons suffered in Missouri. A fair treatment of it has to include it. September Dawn mentions it in passing.

It says nothing of the mob’s destruction of the Mormon’s own printing press there, considering their paper an abolitionist publication. It says nothing of the imprisonment and intended execution of their leaders. It says nothing of a massacre at Haun’s Mill, where mobbers shot children at point-blank range, and where the fleeing survivors had to leave 17 bodies in a well as a mass grave. It says nothing of the property that was taken from these 10,000 people which was never returned, or of the extermination order making their murders legal – which stayed on the books until 1973.

It also says nothing of the attempts Mormon leaders made to get reparations from the federal government. President Martin Van Buren himself refused to help because he “would lose the vote of Missouri.” For Mormons this, and the prior involvement of troops in the persecutions, amounted to federal enforcement of the mobs’ actions.

In September 1857, with a Presidential order sending troops to occupy Utah just two months behind, these were the things the Mormon settlers saw when a group they had been told were from the same part of Missouri came through their land. The army was coming, as it had before, some believed to enforce forfeiture of their land – and the same people, in their perception, who had taken it before had just landed in their lower latitudes.

It doesn’t make it right, but it makes any consideration of what followed malicious if it’s left out. The other indication of malice is in the overt portrayal of part a Mormon temple ceremony.

RELIGIOUS DISRESPECT UNJUSTIFIED
Most good Christians wouldn’t infringe on a Native American burial ground, deface a Buddha, burn a Koran, or even spray paint a statue of the virgin Mary – however much they disagree with it. The privacy of temple ceremonies is the single most sacred thing to Mormon life. The presentation of a temple ceremony in the manner it was done here is inexcusable religious intolerance.

If the words used are historically accurate, they also do not represent the specific wording used in temple ceremonies now. In my experience at The Salt Lake Temple, where the ceremony is supposed to follow the historic pattern, one did not agree to have one’s life taken for violating the covenants, as portrayed in the film, but agreed that “it would be better” for one’s life to be taken than to break the promises.

I will not rule out that the authors may have had access to historical material contradicting my experience, but lacking this the wording was strictly malicious. Any intent to suggest it represents the ordinances as performed today is also malicious. The temple clothing it demonstrates is accurate, and the specific setting of the ceremony lacks a bit.

ISLAM COMPARISON JUSTIFIED, BUT DISRESPECT UNNECESSARY
The scene seems included and calculated to increase a sense of comparison to Islam. This comparison is totally valid. Mormonism – as an institution – has more in common with Islam than with the rest of general Christianity. Such disrespect of what Mormons hold sacred is not necessary to establish this.

Islam teaches that Jesus was not able to complete his work as a prophet, so God (Allah) called Muhammed to finish it. Mormonism’s founding principle is that Jesus Christ, Creator and Son of God, did not produce work that could self-perpetuate, during his mortal mission while on Earth. Therefore, He called Joseph Smith, Jr. to completely replace a corrupt Christianity that had replaced his own work. The later Mormon teachings on Blood Atonement beg the same comparison, so the temple ordinance scenes that Mormons would find a particular infringement sanctity are not needed.

All else aside, the film is a worthy achievement and a good story. But for some apparent media bias against valid scrutiny of Mormonism, this film would have taken its rightful place as a historic film classic. The team put in the work the topic deserved, they just let their agenda interfere a bit too much.

That media bias against scrutiny of Mormonism is the greater issue. Let’s hope it’s just the pendulum swinging the other way following a century of subjective criticism. Perhaps soon the media will recognize the importance of balanced consideration. Perhaps these same filmmakers might be motivated to applying the same painstaking detail to recreating the Missouri persecutions as they applied to the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

What Makes Obama's Beliefs so Important After Romney's Free Ride?

2008-06-26T14:36:00.000-07:00

In exercising freedom of the press, the media have pressured Barack Obama into suspending his freedom of religion. We may conclude that his decision not to formally join another congregation until January – when he may well be taking office – directly related to the controversy.

This stands without precedent in history, especially when a candidate with very controversial beliefs got a free pass during the primary. Gov. Mitt Romney's religious beliefs seemed completely off-limits. Even though – unbeknownst to most voters – he is not just a member of his church, but a high priest in it.

It is unfair calling Obama to task for what his church teaches even when he is not around, while treating as irrelevant controversial beliefs at the root of Mormonism which Romney has not only himself taught, but has taught others how to teach. Let's hope that this hands-off approach comes to an end if Gov. Romney runs for VP.

Various members of my family, and other associates, may disagree with the interpretation of some of these Mormon beliefs as represented here. The fact remains that I present valid objective and secular interpretations of these teachings and practices. If asked to answer yes or no regarding these beliefs, most critical of how I present them would have to answer yes, but would try to explain – and I include some of these explanations. I intend no malice against Gov. Romney or his faith. I merely seek to illustrate what a free-pass he received running for office.

WHAT BELIEFS ARE OF CONCERN?
Just being baptized into Mormonism requires declaring that "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true and living Church" on the face of the earth. If you are not Mormon, Romney does not believe your church is either true or living. He would believe, as Mormonism clearly teaches, that all churches have some part of the truth, but that only the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has it all in one place.

This foundation supports teachings which -- though not so described within Mormon semantics – specifically teach individual godhood, racial elitism (specifically a form of Zionism), and the same cultural heritage that created the Fundamental LDS church, and many other polygamous sects.

Having mentioned Mormon semantics, readers should know that within Mormonism many common terms of Christianity and religions in general have different meanings to Latter-day Saints. When Gov. Romney declared to the cameras that he believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of the world, it meant a very different thing to him and to other Mormons than it means to most Christians who heard it.

EXCLUSIVITY OF AUTHORITY AND COMPLETE TRUTH
This is the founding concept of Mormonism. Mormons consider one of Joseph Smith, Jr.'s accounts of his "First Vision" as scripture. In this 1820 experience Smith, whom Mormon's believe the first genuine prophet of God since the last of the apostles, prayed about which church he should join. He claimed God answered the prayer with a personal appearance, along with Jesus Christ, who did most of the talking.

According to this LDS scripture, Jesus personally told Joseph Smith to join none of the churches. He also said that all churches' creeds were abominations, that their leaders were corrupt, and "teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof." Mormons consider this scripture, (see verses 17-19 of this reference, Joseph Smith's own account of his "First Vision" as considered scripture by Mormons (Joseph Smith's First Vision).

If you are not Mormon, Mitt Romney believes that your church is an abomination in the eyes of God, or he couldn't be a Mormon. He does not believe this about you, or whatever personal relationship with Christ for which you personally strive. He does consider it scripture that the Church you attend is an apostate remnant of true Christianity, that its leaders are corrupt, that your baptism is not valid, and that your church does not even have a valid concept of the nature of God. To believe otherwise he would have to reject Joseph Smith's First Vision.

If a pastor got up and made such a declaration in Obama's church, even in his absence, it would be all over the media, the blogs, and in sloughs of those junk e-mails. Romney has believed this his whole life, taught it to others, and supervised its teaching within his community, and never had to answer to the media for it.

HUMAN GODHOOD

As Smith's account suggests, Mormons totally reject the concept of Trinity. In fact, pursuant to other teachings of Joseph Smith, they reject any teaching that God is of a nature beyond human understanding. Joseph Smith, and every leader since, specifically taught that we have to understand God, because God is a glorified man, and worthy humans are destined to be gods.

Perhaps no current LDS teaching gets a classic dodge as much as this. The standard diversion is to simply relegate it to something people in the church might believe, but it is not spelled out in scripture.

This lack of specific scriptural reference does not keep the concept from being formally taught. It is the Church's central doctrine of man's relationship to God. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches with no ambiguity that human beings are Gods in embryo. Manuals and classes throughout my life clearly explained it. The following URL goes to just one example.( Manual Statement )

Joseph Smith, Jr. himself declared the doctrine in the funeral discourse for a man named King Follett (known as the King Follett Discourse). He clearly states that God is a glorified man, and Godhead is man's divine birthright.

The more common expression used for this teaching was put into words by a later Mormon president, Lorenzo Snow, to state, "As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be." The Church's own formal periodical Ensign in Feb. 1982 published this statement from Gerald N. Lund, now an even more prominent LDS leader, "It is clear that the teaching of President Lorenzo Snow is both acceptable and accepted doctrine in the Church today." Check out the context in this link. Gerald N. Lund's Statement

If someone got up and taught this in Barack Obama's church, wouldn't it be plastered all over the place now? The history of this teaching in Mormonism, and its continued teaching today remain inseparable from any knowledgeable lifelong Mormon's world view. This theology is an anchor of Romney's core values, not just something taught in his church. It is important in a presidential election because history establishes that leaders of world powers believing themselves destined for godhood invariably tend to act like one already.

RACIAL ELITISM
Mormons believe, from what they consider the most dependable of all scripture, that Native Americans have dark skin as a punishment from God. Additional teachings extend this concept to all blacks of African descent, to the point that such black people were not permitted to hold the priesthood until 1978.

They do not believe that this is a racist doctrine. They do not make pre-judgments regarding an individual's personal character based on skin color, so Mormons will honestly state that they believe racism wrong.

This doctrine is set forth unambiguously in the Book of Mormon as it was originally published. Mormons consider The Book of Mormon, in Smith's own words, "The most correct of all books, and the keystone of our religion." A 1980 revision of the Book of Mormon eliminated numerous arguably racist references. One example is a prophecy that the Lamanites, the Book of Mormon term for Native Americans, would convert to Christianity and become "a white and delightsome people." The 1980 revision changed it to read "a pure and delightsome people."

While the Church explains these as corrections of typos perpetuated through re-printing, a study of the addresses of significant Church leaders, and LDS tradition in literature and curriculum, indicates that Mormon leaders always supported the first version as accurate. Most notably, LDS President Spencer W. Kimball, who led the Church when the change was made, addressed the matter in a book called "Faith Precedes the Miracle" (if I recall correctly).

Having done much work with the LDS missions to Native Americans – including large scale assimilation programs – Kimball described having witnessed the literal fulfillment of this prophecy. He saw it through darker skinned Indian children adopted into Caucasian Mormon families who became lighter skinned as their lives went on. He cited the specific Book of Mormon reference recalling this.

Romney grew-up, served his mission, and went through about nine years after college before that revision. The original wording and the teaching around it composed a significant part of his formative thought regarding religion. The references to skin color being a punishment from God to the entire line of an individual's descent (specifically to prevent intermarriage) remains in the Book of Mormon. It continues forming part of the doctrinal basis for the Mormon world view. Romney has taught these things to other people, and can't sever himself from association with these beliefs and remain a Mormon in good standing. Rejecting it would mean invalidating the whole Book of Mormon, so central it is to the book.

Voters deserve the right to hear one aspiring to office answer for such beliefs. This is particularly important when it involves beliefs about the Middle East. While consistent with many Christian denominations, Mormon beliefs in Jews as God's chosen people extend into a clear bias favoring the State of Israel. This bias could be of concern for one seated in the Oval Office in any capacity. Early in the Church's history (the 1840s I believe), Smith dispatched Orson Hyde to dedicate Israel for the return of the Jews. Unlike most dispensationalists who waited for the formation of the State of Israel as a sign of the end days, Mormon heritage includes a perception of having proactively helped to bring it about.

Furthermore, Mormons believe themselves part of the scattered tribes of Israel being gathered together in the last days, and that being part of this chosen people enables converts to accept Mormonism. The more of the blood of Jacob one has, the more readily one will accept the testimony of the Holy Ghost. This concept is key in all instruction to missionaries, and to normal members serving in a missionary calling. While it may not be specifically Jews or the nation of Israel, it is a form of Zionism. The United Nations has declared unequivocally that Zionism is a form of racism. The public has a right to question any candidate for office about Zionistic beliefs, but during his candidacy the media held Romney surprisingly unaccountable.

PLURAL MARRIAGE: HERITAGE, TEACHING, CULTURE, AND PRACTICE
When Joseph Smith, Jr. died in 1843, the individual designated by revelation to replace him as Church leader was his Brother, Hyrum Smith. Unfortunately, Hyrum Smith took his own bullets just moments before Smith himself, and was probably dead first. This threw the Church into a schism over leadership. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints now based in Salt Lake, and the only church rightfully called "Mormon", is just one of many churches that sprung from Smith's ministry.

The acceptance or rejection of the practice of polygamy, which some at that time considered Brigham Young promoted rather than Smith (Smith did, in fact practice it), became one basis of dissent and forming new denominations. These sects exercised a sort of Mormon Fundamentalism of the day. Leaning on Book of Mormon supremacy, they correctly maintained that "the most correct book" condemns polygamy without question. These groups did not accept the later "revelations" affirming that polygamy was acceptable if God so commanded (this commandment could come through the living prophet). They were right. The Book of Mormon alone left no room for questioning the prohibition of polygamy.

The teachings of the currently controversial Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (FLDS) have their roots in the identical teachings as the more dominant Salt Lake organization. Both trace their roots back to the period of Mormon heritage when polygamy was practiced as a formal religious rite in Mormonism. Congress passed laws specifically targeted at stopping the Mormons from practicing it. Brigham Young passed on leadership to John Taylor, and he to Wilford Woodruff, until exhausting all appeals against such laws, and falling under a U.S. Supreme Court decision against them. Then, in 1890, the order to end the practice was issued.

Fundamentalism suddenly meant something different than it had nearly 50 years before. By 1890 many members of the Church now somehow considered the revelations enabling polygamy more fundamental to the religion than they did the "most correct book" itself. Some polygamous dissidents remained so tied with LDS society that the dispute continued in some Mormon communities for decades. Just one of many splinter groups over this issue, the FLDS church did not emerge until nearly 50 years later during the 1930s.

Here's the thing – all the teachings and heritage that the FLDS church uses to justify its polygamous practice remain in regular Mormon doctrine and history to this day. They still affect the Mormon perception of the nature of marriage and the role of husbands and wives. With all of its teaching monogamy for more than a hundred years now, remnants remain within the church expecting the future re-establishment of the practice. Mormonism teaches that plural marriage is an option in marriage subject to the will of God as declared through a living prophet, and that monogamy is not irrevocably mandated by scripture. There is no question that Romney believes this. It is inherent with contemporary Mormonism.

FLDS leaders believe it for the same reason, but accept as well another line of leadership to their own current prophet, who says God commands polygamy now. The very misinterpretation (in my opinion) of Mormon Doctrine that allows the FLDS practice to go where it has still dominates among individual Mormon members' beliefs, despite being inconsistent with the rest of LDS doctrine and heritage. These parties believe that God commands polygamy as a rule, not an exception. The only way any Mormon can fully reconcile the "practice by command" doctrine with the Book of Mormon is to consider the practice of plural marriage – by Mormonism's most basic tenets – the exception, and monogamy the rule.

That teaching alone is valid doctrine. Perhaps church leaders took it too much for granted as I was growing up, so they never spelled it out. I never heard it expressed that way in any church meetings, though I did hear the contrary fallacy expressed often, with the current rule of monogamy considered by many a temporary command, into the current century. Individual Mormons can believe either way and still be good members of the church as long as they teach that polygamy is wrong now, and to not practice it now.

Only Gov. Romney knows to which school of Mormon thought he belongs. Should he support the belief that polygamy is God's intended rule, not the exception, this is important for voters to know. The very emerging laws now permitting marriage among those attracted to their own gender might be turned to again legalize the practice of polygamy, lacking a constitutional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. In this environment voters should know if they are electing a president who looks forward to the restoration of the practice of polygamy.

Does he believe this, or does he believe that God wanted his religious forebears to practice plural marriage as a necessary exception for survival? If nobody ever asks, he won't have to tell.

(originally published on MySpace, June 3, 2008, Copyright Peter John Stone, 2008)