What do Oscar Hammerstein and Carl Bloch have in common?

I recently attended a fairly professional version of the iconic South Pacific by Rodgers and Hammerstein in the very Mormon town of Centerville, Utah. The sets were gorgeous, the singers were excellent and the actors did a great job of making me care about their characters. However, I had to pick my jaw up off the floor when the sailors sang "Bloody Mary is the girl I love, now ain't that too darn bad?" Darn? Really? How am I supposed to believe these are really sailors when they say "Darn" instead of "Damn"?! Then that gem was followed with Bloody Mary calling Lieutenant Cable a "Stingy Bugger" instead of a "Stingy Bastard" when he refused to marry Liat because of her color and heritage. Unfortunately, the substituted words in no way carried the same weight as the original text. Not to mention, a sailor that won't say "Damn" is hardly a sailor at all. (add to that their missionary like stance when they said "Be thankful for the things they've [dames] got!" I was left wondering..."What things?" Their special personality?)

When art is censored through the changing of words the meaning is also changed. Most Mormons I know can handle "Damn" and they even realize that non-mormons say "Damn" all the damn time! Obviously the theater feels it is necessary to Sunday School every little offensive word (while leaving in themes of murder, fornication, hate and racism) for their audience. The audience must be demanding these changes (or threatening to never come back) and there MUST be enough of these people to actually force the theater to make these changes. What would cause a vastly Mormon population to insist on this seemingly extreme censorship?

Perhaps it's due to the example that is being set by their leaders. The "avoid the very appearance of evil" sentiment. The "change anything that you can that doesn't fit into our view of the world" sentiment. The "everyone should be like us" teachings. The articles and lessons expressing these sentiments in talks in church, FHE, primary, homemaking, priesthood meetings, neighborhood lunches, and church magazines like the Ensign.

Which brings me to the danish painter Carl Bloch (May 23, 1834 – February 22, 1890) who painted the fairly well known work The Resurrection. In the December 2011 Ensign a version of this piece was printed with the accompanying article The Condescension of Jesus Christ (pg. 54) and used with permission by the National Historic Museum of Fredericksborg. However, the piece used was not the original work. If you compare the two versions by downloading the PDF of the article, you see that the angel's wings have been clipped, their shoulders covered up and any "nakedness" shown under the arms filled in. The piece has been censored to fit into the church's view of doctrine and modesty and in the process the meaning and original intent of the painting has been changed.

Censoring art and presenting it as the "original" work is misleading at best and outright lying at worst. Regimes of the past have used censorship of art to control people and the sharing of ideas. Fictional works have used the idea of changing words, art and other forms of expression as a way of controlling people and forcing them to think a certain way.

If a religion (or any person or organization) has a problem with a certain piece of art in whatever form, they have the option to simply not use it (or view it). Changing it to fit their needs does a disservice to the original artist and to those who view the work as well as stymies the sharing of ideas through artistic expression.

Finding Truth in Religion

I pulled the following from the blog, www.theamateurthinker.com. (All footnotes/sources can be found on the original blog). Can you determine which quote describes your religion?

A Short Experiment – Comparing Descriptions of Spiritual Feelings from Different Religions

It is interesting to read people’s personal descriptions of religious experience. People from very different religions often use similar words to describe their spiritual experiences.

I’ve collected a sample of people’s descriptions of religious conversion or spiritual revelation. The following twenty quotes are from practicing Atheists, Buddhists, Catholics, Hindus, Muslims, Mormons, New Agers, Protestants, and Universal Unitarians. Try to guess which quote comes from which religion (some religions are used more than once). I have standardized the language (changes indicated by brackets ), so that differences in terminology between religions will not tip you off (thus, mosque, temple and church are all become a [church]; the Bible and all other religious texts become a [text] or [sacred text]).

Try to match these 8 religions to the following 20 quotes. The answer key is below:

Atheist
Buddhist
Catholic
Hindu
Islam
Mormon
New Age
Protestant
Universal Unitarian

1. “I felt a burning in my heart, and a great burden seemed to have left me.”8

2. “But what can I say? How can I describe an experience so profound and so beautiful? Shall I say that it was the most blessed experience of my life? Shall I say that [God] touched my heart and gave me a feeling of peace I had not known before? Shall I describe the tears that flowed freely from my eyes, affirming my . . . faith, as I . . . beg[ed] [God's] blessings for myself and for those I love?”9

3. “The sense I had of divine things, would often of a sudden kindle up, as it were, a sweet burning in my heart; an ardor of soul, that I know not how to express.”10

4. “As I read these books in a . . . bookstore, . . . I felt a burning in my heart that I should come and investigate.”11

5. “[Even as a child], [w]ithout understanding much about the complex [doctrine] . . . he was attracted to [church]. There he often felt a strong feeling of peace flowing through his body.”12

6. “I was praying . . . when I felt a burning shaft of . . . love come through my head and into my heart.”13

7. “I truly [sic] wanted to know [the truth]. After a few weeks, I stumbled onto [texts] which . . . answered my questions in a way that I had not heard of before. I read everything . . .and I even tried the experiment of asking [God] for . . . his divine love. After about 6 weeks, I felt a burning in my chest and a sensation that was unlike anything I had ever felt. It was pure happiness and peace. I knew then that [God] had sent His love to me.”14

8. “A feeling of peace and certitude would tell me when I had found the answers and often after people would help me by pointing in the right direction.”15

9. “We gave up a lot of things. What did I get in return? I received a feeling of peace, hope and security. I no longer lay awake at night worrying. I stopped cussing. I became much more honest in all aspects of my life. [God] has changed my heart and my life. My husband’s heart is changing also. We pray all the time and really feel [God’s] presence in our marriage. My perspective has changed. My view of life has changed about what is truly important.”16

10. “Many women described a feeling of euphoria after they committed to following [God] . . . . One woman described a feeling of peace; she said: ‘It is like you are born again and you can start all over again, free from sin.’”17

11. “A feeling of peace seemed to flow into me with a sense of togetherness . . . . . I felt very peaceful from inside and also felt [warmth] . . . .”18

12. “I felt a burning sensation in my heart.”19

13. “That inner light, that we all have or had at some time in our existence, was nearly burnt out for me. But in the [church] . . . I found a feeling of peace, inner solitude and quietness that I’d also found in reading the [text] and pondering over its meaning and trying to practice what it tells us.”20

14. “For the first time I not only felt accountable for my past sins but I had to fight back tears. I knew that I had let down [God] [and] my family . . . . However, I also knew I was forgiven! [It] gave me a feeling of peace that I have never felt it in my whole life. I felt like I had a huge weight lifted off of me and that I was finally home and free . . . . I felt like a new person.”21

15. “Every time I am there [at the church building], a feeling of peace overcomes me.”22

16. “Every time I was with the [church members], I felt this warm feeling, a feeling of peace and for the first time in my life since my church-going days, I wanted to follow [God] . . . .”23

17. “About 10 years ago, when Jenny and I decided to start a family, we began looking for a spiritual community for our kids. During my first service at [the church]. . . I was hooked. I recall the feeling of peace that I felt when I was attending [services].”24

18. “The power of [God] came into me then. I had this warm and overwhelming feeling of peace and security. It’s hard to explain. I had to . . . stop myself from falling backward.”25

19. “[The religious leader] looked into my eyes deeply for a moment, and I experienced a feeling of peace and love unlike anything I had ever experienced before.”26

20. “[After praying,] [i]mmediately I was flooded with a deep feeling of peace, comfort, and hope.”27

21. “I recently spent an afternoon on the northwestern shore of the Sea of Galilee, atop the mount where Jesus is believed to have preached his most famous sermon. . . . As I sat and gazed upon the surrounding hills gently sloping to an inland sea, a feeling of peace came over me. It soon grew to a blissful stillness that silenced my thoughts. In an instant, the sense of being a separate self—an “I” or a “me”—vanished. . . . The experience lasted just a few moments, but returned many times as I gazed out over the land where Jesus is believed to have walked, gathered his apostles, and worked many of his miracles.”28

The answers are in the next paragraph. My point here is not to say that any of these people’s experiences are invalid or that they are not valuable, or that religion is bad (I am an active church-goer myself). Nor am I trying to say that this proves any certain religion to be true or false – just that spiritual experiences are a universal human emotion, and that, just like any emotional experience, they are not enough by themselves to be reliable indicators of absolute truth. This is easy to demonstrate using religious experiences, since the claims of most of these religions are contradictory. Thus, if one of the above religions were true in the absolute sense, many or most of the others would be false. Many or most of the above people’s religious experiences, therefore, could not have been reliable indicators of the truth.

Answers: 1. Protestant; 2. Islam; 3. Protestant; 4. Catholic; 5. Hindu; 6. Catholic; 7. New Age; 8. Islam; 9. Protestant; 10. Islam; 11. Hindu; 12. Protestant; 13. Islam; 14. Catholic; 15. Buddhist; 16. Mormon; 17. Universal Unitarian; 18. Catholic; 19. Hindu; 20. Protestant; 21. Atheist

Complex Animosities

This afternoon I was able to visit the site of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. I was quite familiar with the events of that fateful day after reading "Massacre at Mountain Meadows" by Ronald W. Walker, Richard E. Turley, and Glen M. Leonard. Upon completion of the book, I blogged about it here.

Being familiar with the suffering endured by the Baker/Fancher party, visiting the monument was an emotional experience for me. It was heartbreaking to read the names of ages of the adults and children who were murdered on that Sept 11th day. Children as young as 7 were killed in hopes that the youngest children (those under 7) would not remember the events of that day and would not be able to place blame on the Mormon settlers who were responsible for this horrendous act. In 1999 the LDS church erected the monument below to remember the settlers that perished on that day.


As I stood in the peaceful valley I couldn't help but think of their party and how they must have felt safe and protected there. The cruel turn of events was almost unimaginable and yet, the monument is there, reminding all visitors of what can happen when "complex animosities and political issues intertwine with religious beliefs". (a quote from the overlook plaque displayed below)



As we drove away from the monument, we couldn't help but begin to draw parallels to present day "complex animosities and political issues intertwined with religious beliefs". We reflected on the hurt and damage inflicted on many of our dear friends due to Boyd K Packer's recent conference talk in which he said

“Some suppose that they were pre-set and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember he is our father.” (The censored printed text reads: “Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn temptations toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Remember, God is our Heavenly Father.”)

Due to these kinds of statements, our homosexual friends are made to feel as if they are sinners, evil, weak and wrong. Many members of the church take such statements and use them as fodder to perpetuate the animosity towards our LGBT friends...Saying that they love them on one hand, but refusing to allow them love in this life on the other.

Instead of nurturing the animosity between "us" and "them" we need to put our differences aside and truly love one another, not just in name but, more importantly, in practice. Love that allows everyone the same rights and privileges and recognizes the value that loving relationships (no matter how they are constructed) can give to our society as a whole. Instead of following leaders who tell us how we should think an feel, we need to instead follow what our own hearts & souls are telling us. Only then can we all put the "complex animosities" aside and truly say we have learned from the horrible mistakes of the past.

God is Great?

So, after milling around the San Diego seaside bookstore, we found this little gem. Both books placed side by side. Both New York Times Bestsellers...although, interesting to note which one is the #1 bestseller.

The Passion of Sister Dottie S. Dixion

After hearing on the radio an advertisement for this show, something along the lines of "Sister Dottie S. Dixon, bridging the gap between the LDS and gay communities one casserole at a time", I knew this was a show I could not miss! I promptly got tickets and enjoyed "The Passion" today, along with a healthy dose of poorly played primary songs, hymns and patriotic tunes, thanks to Dottie's friend Dartsey FoxMoreland.

This show is a one woman (er...man?) show with Dottie played by Charles Lynn Frost. It depicts her journey growing up as a 10th generation Mormon, marrying in the LDS temple, raising their child Donny (who comes out to his parents at age 16), and ultimately dealing with her deep alliances to and love of both her gay son and the LDS church. She believes she has received a calling from the Lord to bring together the LDS and gay communities by the year 2012 and promptly begins in the only way she knows how (by cooking a casserole for each of the Apostles and the First Presidency of course!). The show was equal parts humerous, sincere and serious with one of my favorite moments being her depiction of driving to Nevada to play the nickle slots with her friend Dartsey only to have the car breakdown on the way there. Of course they knelt down and prayed for help, first asking for forgiveness (although they hadn't really sinned yet and they were, after all, only going to play nickels) and then asking for the Lord to start their car so she could complete her newly found calling.

In the end the message of the show really was that every person's journey to God is a deeply personal one and that no one can follow the same path as another. You could tell that most of the audience members connected to the show on a very personal level and could easily relate to the experiences of this mother. The show gave each person there the recipe to living an authentic life with the key ingredients being to be true to themselves, stand up for what they believe is right, be courageous in the fight and finally to add in a can of Cream of Mushroom soup!

I loved this quote that she continually referred to as well:

"Well behaved women seldom make history."

I also about died when she was wondering how her son could be gay, after all he had grown up doing all the right LDS things and singing all the LDS songs, including "I'm a Mormon, yes I am".

In honor of this fantastic show and my childhood memories growing up LDS, here's a link to all those great songs on the "I'm a Mormon" record by Janeen Brady! Go ahead, sing along...I won't tell! =)

Belief-o-Matic

I tried this out and found the results interesting and somewhat entertaining. I wasn't surprised my beliefs most closely fit with the Unitarian Universalists but what exactly is a "Liberal Quaker?" Isn't that an oxymoron? Anyway, if you try it out, post a comment with your "scores"!

1. Unitarian Universalism (100%)
2. Liberal Quakers (98%)
3. Reform Judaism (96%)
7. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (79%)
8. Mahayana Buddhism (75%)
9. Secular Humanism (70%)
14. Scientology (62%)
18. Islam (58%)
19. Hinduism (49%)
23. Seventh Day Adventist (31%)
24. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (28%)
26. Roman Catholic (20%)
27. Jehovah's Witness (13%)

I Read History Books

There, I said it. Not only do I read them, I get excited about reading them...I can't wait until the end of the day when I can take 45 minutes to an hour and dive into all those delicious facts and dates, places and well, people. All this coming from a person who didn't even try taking the AP History test in high school because she just couldn't seem to remember all those dates and places and names! And honestly, not much has changed...I still find myself getting lost in the numerous dates and names but it is the stories...the stories of the people who lived through all these different times and places, those who lived through both the tragic and the mundane that so intrigue me. At at risk of sounding cliche, I will say it anyway...there is so much to learn from what has happened in the past!

I started reading "Massacre at Mountain Meadows" a few months ago but just couldn't get past the first chapter. Too many dates, names and places and not enough story. So early this week, I somewhat guiltily decided, "Hey this is my book, if I want to skip the first 100 pages, that is my right!" and quickly proceeded to the more captivating middle chapters. I have had my nose stuck in that book in every spare moment ever since.

It's a book about a tragic event that happened in Southern Utah in the late nineteenth century. It's tragic on so many levels...tragic for the poor folks that were so wrongfully deceived and ultimately massacred, tragic for the Indians who were put in the middle of the conflict and, later, fully blamed for the outcome and tragic for many of the those who did the deceiving and killing all in the name of following the orders of their religious and civic leaders.

To elaborate on the last point, the citizens of southern utah blindly followed their leaders without question to personal morals and what they may have personally thought was good and right. In the investigation following the massacre "one man after another said he had gone to the Meadows because of military orders". A military that was led by the religious leaders of the area. Nephi Johnson, an Indian interpreter, said that "A good many [men] objected, but they didn't dare say anything". They were told it was the right thing to do, and despite their misgivings, followed their leaders into "battle". The women left behind were instructed by Sister Haight (wife of Issac Haight who was a chief leader in the planning and execution of the massacre)

"the necessity of being obedient to their husbands" and not to be fearful in these "troublesome" and "squally" times". "We ought to attend to secret prayer in behalf of our husbands, sons, fathers, & brothers" and teach their children "the principles of righteousness, and to implant a desire in their hearts to avenge the blood of the prophets".

They were told it was the right thing to do, and in the name of obedience, the Mormons in the area followed the counsel of their leaders.

Additionally, this singular event in Utah history so clearly demonstrates the dangers of the us vs. them mentality. When a group of people separate themselves so fully from another group that they honestly believe they are better and more privileged, it is a recipe for disaster. As I think about it, I am reminded of a class I had in college. The teacher had everyone stand in a line as she listed off the many things that we judge people by (and by doing so, separate ourselves from them) and for each thing (sexual preferences, religious preferences, etc. etc.) the students in the class that fit the descriptions stepped across the room, becoming the "them". It was a truly eye opening experience as I realized that people I had put in the "them" category before, were really friends, acquaintances and classmates - people who up until that point I had considered to be just like me. How could the tragic events of the massacre have turned out differently if the Mormons in the southern Utah community had attempted to get to know the families in the Arkansas train headed for California instead of considering them "their common enemies"? Surely they would have realized how similar they really were and would never have felt "justified in distroying them."

Although this event occurred over century ago the key ideas that led to this disastrous event are still prevalent today. As a society and responsible citizens we must always listen to our conscience and fight for what we believe is right, even if it is unpopular. We must embrace and celebrate our differences, instead of condemning those that are not like us.

Who Determines What is Moral?

Today in the Deseret News there was an article about Vermont's Legislature overriding the Governor's veto to legalize gay marriage. That makes four states now with legalized gay marriage. Hooray for progress! However, in reading some of the comments in the article this one really struck me...

The economic downturn is troubling but nothing compared to the immoral practices this country is starting to embrace. Legalizing gay marriage is just plain dangerous and destructive. Our society becoming immoral will destroy us. I hope for our countries sake that this trend does not continue. It amazes me how blind people have become.

As I read that it sounded eerily familiar to things I have been reading in the book "Reading Lolita in Tehran". In this book, the author describes the many freedoms that were slowly taken away from the Iranian people all in the name of morality. If you replace the words "Legalizing gay marriage" in the comment above with any number of other freedoms that were withheld from the Iranian people all in the name of morality you start to see the problem with this line of reasoning. Freedoms such as:

"Allowing people to read fiction from American authors"
"Allowing women to go outdoors uncovered"
"Allowing freedom of speech"
"Allowing religious freedom"
Etc. Etc.

So my question is: Who gets to determine what is moral and what is not? Just because the majority believes something is immoral, does that make it so? Every right that was taken away from the Iranian people (women especially) was similarly explained away as being "immoral" and destructive to society as a whole. Now, these same arguments are being used in the United States to justify the restriction of rights of a minority or, rather, the rights of our friends and neighbors.

As has been proved by history, what is considered "moral" will vary greatly depending on religious and political influences. Maybe instead we need to focus on love. If we love our neighbors, wouldn't we want them to be happy? Wouldn't we want them to have the same freedoms we have? Its time for those who think gay marriage is immoral to examine a little more closely that other Christian value... "Love thy neighbor as thyself".

Why People Leave Podcast

I recently listened to the podcast titled "Why People Leave the LDS Church and what [you] can do about it".

If you are like me and have left the LDS church, I think you will enjoy this podcast simply because it's refreshing to hear an active member of the LDS church recognize and validate the concerns of so many post/ex mormons. If you are an active LDS member, then this podcast may give you a better understanding of why so many people leave the church.

I thought that Mr. Dehlin did a pretty good job of covering many of the issues people have with the church but I found myself disagreeing with several of his summary statements at the end.

One of his main summarizing points was that LDS people struggling with their faith can still find a way to be Mormon on their own terms by not worrying about the stuff they disagree with or find offensive. However, this goes against some of the rather recent teachings of the LDS church. In the April 2003 Priesthood session, Gordon B. Hinkley said "Each of us has to face the matter—either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing."

Mr. Dehlin counters by saying to forget about "true" and replace it with "good". He says that if the LDS church brings you joy then to not worry about all the discrepancies and just enjoy being part of the good. Unfortunately he does not address the possibility that the church does not always bring happiness and joy to everyone. It is hard for me to see the church's stance on Women's roles as good, or their racist history concerning blacks in the priesthood as good or even their current standing on Proposition 8 in California and their soliciting of funds to support this political issue as good. Certainly there are many parts of the LDS faith that are, indeed, very good, but for me they do not outweigh the many problems of the LDS Church that make it not only untrue, but also, not so good.

He also mentions that no church or organization is perfect and that if we based every relationship or affiliation on its "perfectness" that we wouldn't be part of anything. This wouldn't be so hard for me to accept if the LDS church did not claim to be "the true Church, the only true Church".
Further the LDS people are promised that "The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray" and that the prophets words should be considered scripture. A church that makes these kinds of promises and claims makes it difficult to accept the many flaws and problems with prophets like Brigham Young and Joseph Smith and the current stances of the LDS church and presidency.

Anyway, for all you Mormon's and ex/post mormons out there, I hope you will find this podcast at the very least interesting and hopefully useful. Dehlin's main points of loving those that have left the church and understanding and accepting their new beliefs promotes a Christ-like love that is sometimes hard to find for many post Mormons in their LDS communities.

Why I Left

I had a friend recently ask me my reasons for leaving the LDS church and since that is an entry I have been meaning to write anyway, I have included my reasons below (in no particular order).

Women’s Roles – This has always been a sticking point for me. From the time I first entered the Young Women’s program I was annoyed with the things we did for activities and were told were important. We spent many activity days making cookies or doing crafts or some other kind of homemaking activity. I was never really interested in those things. I wanted to be doing the things the boys were doing in Scouts. Things like hiking, camping, sleeping in snow caves, etc. It seemed that the Scouts got to attend several camp outs a year and the young women were limited to one camping trip that usually involved irritating activities like decorating your tent or your camp t-shirt. The reasoning given for the Scouts seemingly endless activities was that they were not really affiliated with the church and were a separate entity that the church simply endorsed. However, callings were (and continue to be) given by the LDS Bishops to leadership positions within the church as well as fund raisers sponsored by the church etc.

So that’s where I came from. As I grew up I found myself disagreeing more and more with the LDS church’s stance on women’s roles. I put myself through college, got a degree in Computer Science, started a career and excelled in the business world. I got married and continued to work. Neither one of us were ready for children and so we have put that off as well. I do not work because we need the money and can not figure out another way to get by. I work because I enjoy it, because I feel I have something special I can give to the world and because I need to feel a certain amount of independence. My feelings on what a women could (and possibly should) be constantly conflicted with what I was learning every week at Church. I did not agree with statements like the following from the “Proclamation to the World”.

By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children.

I felt (and still do) that it is the Mother and Father's combined responsibility to care for the family and to provide for the household. Each couple should be left to determine the best way to divide those responsibilities between each other. Members of the church may counter that current prophets have encouraged just this, however, lessons are still being taught in church every week as doctrine, such as the following from Spencer W. Kimball as taught in the current manual for the Marriage and Family Relations Course.

Some of them are quite willing to help earn that lavish living by continuing employment after marriage. They consequently leave the home, where their duty lies, to pursue professional or business pursuits, thus establishing an economy that becomes stabilized so that it becomes very difficult to yield toward the normal family life. Through both spouses’ working, competition rather than cooperation enters the family. Two weary workers return home with taut nerves, individual pride, increased independence, and then misunderstandings arise. Little frictions pyramid into monumental ones.

I was absolutely blown away by this. So now, not only was I not to work when we had children, I shouldn’t work after marriage either? I just could not agree that a woman's duty lies in the home. Further, if the argument is made that this is not the the official position of the church, then WHY is it still included in the current lesson materials?!

Also, as I consider the possibility of one day raising children, I have to ask myself if I want my girls to be taught the same things I had learned as a young woman regarding women's roles. The answer is a very simple, "No".

Stance on Homosexuality - I do not believe that marriage can or should only be between one man and one woman. I believe that everyone should have the same right to the pursuit of happiness as I do as a heterosexual. I am constantly frustrated by the church saying on one hand that they do not get involved in politics only to contradict themselves by encouraging members to vote for or against certain laws that will limit the basic rights of the homosexual community. If I am following Jesus’s example to “Love one another” than how could I possibly say that a homosexual person should not find love and happiness in their own lives in whatever way they can? Their choices do not hurt me, or my family or the LDS church. About a year ago we had dinner with a couple in our neighborhood and the topic of discussion turned to this. They asked how I could reconcile my membership in the church with my beliefs on marriage and homosexuality. The only answer I could give them is that I could not.

The Temple - Okay, I have to be careful on this one, I really don’t want to offend any faithful Mormons out there by addressing this topic, but since it is one of the reasons I left the church, I feel I must address it. For me, the Temple experience felt like signing my life away before I was allowed to read the fine print. No one will really tell you what ordinances you will be making in the Temple before you go, and it is considered wrong to attempt to research it outside of official church sources. A few minutes into the ceremony they ask if anyone would like to leave to raise your hand and they will escort you out. However, at this point you still have no idea what you are getting yourself into so how can you possibly know to raise your hand?

My first experience in the Temple was only a couple weeks before my pending Temple marriage. The invitations were sent and this was one of the last steps I needed to take before the big day. I was nervous about it and didn’t really feel ready, but I had to go in order to be married in the Temple and I HAD to be married in the Temple. That is just how it is done. When I came home after that experience I just cried. I was so frustrated. I hated wearing the garments and I felt completely overwhelmed by the whole experience. I didn’t feel any of the feelings I was supposed to feel, like peace or happiness or anything. I just felt bleh. Needless to say, I can count on my hands how many times I went back. Now that I have been out of the church for a while and have had time to research the Temple ceremony, I have found other problems with it which I will not go into. If you would like to know more, simply google "LDS Temple Ceremony" to research some of the issues on your own.

No Conviction of Joseph Smith - I never had a strong testimony of Joseph Smith or felt convinced that he had really seen what he claimed or that he had really translated the Book of Mormon. I did try and gain my own testimony of this. I had learned my entire life that if I just kept doing all the "right things" and believing and praying that I would eventually gain that testimony that everyone else seemed to have. In temple interviews I would say, "yes I believe that" because I did believe it. But I never felt I had that strong feeling about Joseph Smith that I have heard so many others express in their testimonies, but I wanted it to be true and I really tried to believe that it was. I never felt I could say "I Know" this is true about anything in the LDS church. However, when I left the church I told those closest to me that it really didn’t matter to me if Joseph Smith did those things or not, because I felt that the LDS church of today was not true. At the very least, not true for me.

Open Discussion Not Tolerated - This drives me CRAZY! Issues would come up that I wanted to talk to my friends or family about and everyone would treat me as if I was evil for wanting to know or questioning a certain position of the church. A church that claims it is the only true church should be able to stand up to the most careful scrutiny. But as soon as you ask questions or disagree with something stated as truth by the :LDS Prophets, you are labeled “evil”. A fine example of this comes from a Mormon Times article I recently read.

Evil speaking of the Lord's anointed is in a class by itself. It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true.

The Only True Church – I have never been able to reconcile that the LDS church believes it is the only true church on this Earth. It always made more sense to me that there are multiple ways to God and that everyone needs to find their own way to be spiritually connected, whether that be through Jesus, Allah, Buddha or ??? I was always frustrated by the focus of “Every Member a Missionary” when I felt that if my neighbor was not Mormon and was happy, then who was I to interfere? If they were happy with their current path, why should I try and convert them to Mormonism?

Book of Abraham - Several parts of the original Book of Abraham have been found and translated by present day Egyptologists. Their translation does not match Joseph Smith’s. Being a scientifically minded person, this is a problem for me. If he didn’t correctly translate the Book of Abraham then how can I believe he actually translated the Book of Mormon? For more information on this, Wikipedia provides a decent look at both sides of this issue (or just google, "Book of Abraham" for other sources).

African Americans and the Priesthood - This never made sense to me. Why would African Americans not be able to have the priesthood in the church and then in 1978, God suddenly changes his mind about the matter and decides it is OK after all? Especially for something that very obviously should have been OK throughout the church's history, a church that preaches "love thy neighbor" and encourages its members to follow Christ's example. It always seemed to me that the church's stance prior to 1978 was just simply racist motivated by the fears and prejudices of the times. I could not reconcile that it had anything to do with God or revelation. The United States had changed and the LDS church had to change too or risk losing its members and the respect of the community. However, the prophets and apostles continue to stick by the "revelation" story when they really should just come out and apologize for making the same mistakes so many others made at the same time. Mistakes made by men, not by God.

Honest With Myself - When it came right down to it, I had to be honest with myself. There was just too much of the LDS doctrine, history and scripture that I did not agree with. I could no longer align myself with this organization and feel good about it. I had to leave in order to maintain my personal integrity.

Trouble in River City

Since I don't have anytime at the moment to write anything meaningful, I pulled in a cool piece I read on a friends blog. This is a topic I have wanted to write about for some time, but honestly I'm not sure I could have said it any better than my friend does in his piece. Also, since I am a musical theater junkie, he won me over with his Music Man reference...so, so fitting...

I remember the first time I heard someone politically engage the issue of gay marriage from the pulpit in church. It caught my attention and woke me up because it wasn’t the typical grace vs. works, or love thy neighbor kind of rhetoric that I was used to napping through. I won’t name names (because I couldn’t if I wanted to), but he was sort of a high-up bigwig, a 70 if you know what I mean. The short-of-the-long was that he asked us to go home and write our senators and state representatives to support the Federal Marriage Amendment of 2006, which in a sweeping motion would forever etch the status of marriage in the law books as a [sacred] union between one man and one woman. He read an official letter that a lot of you probably heard as well, but this gentleman went off the cuff with a slippery-slope argument about how we don’t want America to become like Canada, where school children are required to learn about gay couples in Kindergarten using scandalous books such as One Dad Two Dads, Brown Dad Blue Dads (which is listed on Amazon, used, with a going price of $253.94 as a result of the ordeal in Canada surrounding it). He really stirred the congregation up; there was trouble in River City on that day. I could almost hear the mantra of “trouble… trouble… trouble…” as the postlude was played and the folks shuffled out the chapel doors.

I remember our apartment managers posted the address of our Senators on the cork-board by the elevator in our building as a friendly reminder for all of us to do our homework and put our letters in the mail. They really drew a line in the sand, one which I was compelled to cross and stand on the unpopular side. Honestly, I felt pretty bothered by the whole thing, partially because I had a lot of friends, family and coworkers who are… well… gay! I did write my senator (if only for my sake, because I’m sure it fell on deaf ears) and I argued that ratifying a lock-out amendment on marriage wouldn’t make gay people or gay couples disappear. You can’t wear blinders, stick your fingers in your ears and go “La la la!” forever to ignore them or pretend that they don’t exist- or worse- that they shouldn’t exist. I argued on empirical grounds that most of them are functional, contributing, and respectable members of society, and that I believe they are entitled to some or all of the civil benefits, protection and recognition that other marriages and families enjoy.

There are aspects of a civil partnership that don’t necessarily have anything to do with God, religion, right or wrong, or sex, but have everything to do with relationship and commitment as it is legally recognized by the government. Consider this: the Oregon Family Fairness Act accords civil partnerships the same status as marriage concerning their ability to file jointly on insurance forms, their hospital visitation rights, and their rights concerning a deceased partner, among other things. If two consenting adults have a serious close relationship of any sort, and wish to share their entire lives, I see granting them a legal status to honor that relationship as a pragmatic courtesy. One may argue that they merely attain a second-class status in a civil partnership, which is exactly why California decided to go all the way with gay marriage, but my point is that it is at least a progressive improvement from the past. It is like going from slavery to segregation in the eyes of some, not an ideal state, but a step up from the status quo nonetheless.

Personally, sexual orientation has always been a non-issue for me, at least since I have actually talked with friends who are gay about how they feel about it and observed their relationships. I’m ok, and they’re ok. Their liberty and future is at stake in this matter, not mine. As long as the State where I reside is willing to recognize my marriage as legitimate, I don’t really have a problem with same gender marriage. I don’t want my marriage to be gay, so I support “the family” in that aspect, and I’m 99.9% positive that issue is settled since I feel that way and I made that choice to begin with, but I wouldn’t infringe my personal choice or preference on anyone else who isn't infringing on another's liberty. I can’t vouch for the future or sanctity of the nuclear family (which is relatively new), but I hope that people will continue to form familial bonds and children will be reared with loving care however we choose to form our family groups. I have faith that heterosexuals would continue to marry, thrive, and- god willing- coexist in a future world where same-sex couples are free to do the same. We should all hope so, because it is the only hope for those who would seek to quash the prospective rights and liberties of the gay community. Turnabout is fair play; if the majority were to vote my rights out of circulation, I could only pray that their vote would be overturned on constitutional grounds by conscientious judges committed to upholding liberty by not discriminating by gender, sexual orientation, religion, or any other currently protected status.

Under the Banner of Heaven

I just completed reading this book by Jon Krakauer. After hearing about all the controversy it stirred up, I expected it to be a really interesting read. However, it was kind of just, blah. It didn't really shed any new information for me on Polygamy (other than that there are many different groups of people out there living some sort of Mormon based polygamy) or on the history of the Mormons. The brief chapter on the Mountain Meadows Massacre definately made me want to read more on that so I just got the new book "Massacre at Mountain Meadows" (I will post a review when I finish it). Also, the book opened my eyes a bit to what an extreme leader Brigham Young was, really to the point of fanaticism, IMO. But other than that, nothing really new to me.

It did make me think about one thing, though. It was eye opening to read about how many people in history have claimed to have seen or talked with God and how they all claim He told them to do something or be something different from all the others. Growing up in the LDS church, I kind of thought, well Joseph Smith's vision and revelations must be true because I couldn't believe that such a fantastic story could be made up. However, in Under the Banner of Heaven, Krakauer shows just how many people in history have claimed similar occurrances and to be seers/revelators/prophets of some kind. They cannot all be correct because they have claimed/preached vastly different things. Why would they all be wrong but Joseph Smith is right? It just doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps all these people truely believed that they had seen a vision and/or talked with God but how can you possibly sort out if any of them really did?

Peace, Love & Understanding

So as promised, here is my update on my experience at the Unitarian Universalist church that I attended yesterday.

From what I could gather from the songs, ceremonies, etc. it seems that this church really is all about peace, love and understanding. You can believe in nothing or in everything. Everyone is welcome and loved and it seems the church really just provides a gathering place for like minded individuals. A place where everyone is accepted. It was nice. I think this church may be about as close as I am ready to get to religion right now. They had a "Religous Transition" group that sounded interesting and meets after the services on Sunday. I may check that out on another day.

From what I could gather, the church service is a little different in the summer months since the pastor takes a sabbatical of sorts during this time. Instead of a message by the pastor the church invites guest speakers to come in and give the sermons/message.

Sunday, the guest speaker was Takashi Hiraoka who had been a mayor of Hiroshima, Japan after the United States dropped the nuclear bomb on the city on August 6th, 1995. On that day everything within a 4-5 mile radius was quite literally disintegrated. The article from the link says that "official Japanese figures at the time put the death toll at 118,661 civilians. But later estimates suggest the final toll was about 140,000, of Hiroshima's 350,000 population, including military personnel and those who died later from radiation."

Here is a small section from the Mayor's message:

A reflection on world peace poses the following question: Is world security derived from nuclear weapons or from the abolition of nuclear weapons? Many world leaders hold that the existence of nuclear weapons deters their use and therefore justifies the possession of such weapons. This nuclear deterrence policy, however, fuels nuclear proliferation and, I believe, makes the world less secure. The elimination of nuclear weapons is the only measure that will absolutely prevent their use.

Following the presentation we were able to look at many posters that gave more information and showed pictures of the total devastation of the city after the bomb was dropped. As I contemplated the horror that these people experienced on that dark day in history I couldn't help but get teary eyed. Hopefully the remembering will help us to make sure this never happens again. Mr. Hiraoka encouraged us and all nations to put humanity above money, politics and personal gain as we strive for a more peaceful, more loving and more understanding world.

Note: If you would like to participate in a commemoration of this event, a formal program followed by a candlelight vigil will be held at the Salt Lake City library in the Main Auditorium on Wednesday, August 6th, from 7:30 - 9:00 pm.

I Don't Know

My 8 year old nephew chose to get baptized this weekend and become an official member of the LDS church. As a gift, my family put together a book of remembrance of sorts in which everyone wrote a short message bearing their testimony about the church and congratulating him on making this choice.

The book sat for day or so on my kitchen counter, while I considered what I could possibly write to him. I thought that something to the effect of "Always follow your heart. Love, Me" might be appropriate...but I wasn't sure what kind of reception that would get. Anyway, as I thought about what I might say, I flipped through the book which had already been filled out by those in my family. The interesting thing to me was that nearly all the adults said "I know this church is true" or "I know you are joining the true church". All this "knowing" left me wondering how everyone around me could "know" one thing and I could feel something exactly opposite.

The LDS church teaches that there is one true church and that everyone should be a member. You are supposed to get this knowledge through the Holy Ghost which is usually a feeling or "burning in the bosom" as it is often referred to. Apparently everyone in my entire family has had this experience. However, I have never had any kinds of strong feelings in regards to the truthfulness of the LDS church specifically. When I "dug right down to the bottom of my soul" (sorry, musical theater lyrics, I can't help it!) I found the exact opposite. My soul, my spirit and all the feelings that go along with that, told me that the church is not the place for me. And if it isn't right for me, how can it be the one true church for everyone?

It's a tricky thing to sort out...especially when your family firmly believes the LDS curch is the one and only "true church" on the earth today. By them saying saying "I know the church is true" they are also saying that they know I am wrong for choosing to not be a part of it.

Growing up in the LDS church, once I was old enough to understand what it meant to bear my testimony in church, I pretty much stopped doing it. Once I realized that I couldn't say "I know this church is true" and be honest about it, there was no point. Sometimes I would get up the courage to simply say, "I believe it is true", because for most of my life, I did believe it. I believed it was true and that someday, if I just kept doing everything right, I would gain that knowledge that everyone else seemed to already have. For years, I never allowed the thought to cross my mind that maybe, just maybe, it wasn't true. Or even that it wasn't true for me. When things didn't make sense I put them on that back shelf of my mind with the firm belief that some day I would understand them. Eventually that shelf became crowded and the other shelf, the "I know" shelf, stood barren and empty. The square teachings of the LDS church just never could fit into the rounded view I have of the world and of what is good and right. So, at this point I had to ask myself, "Do I keep pretending to be part of something when so much of what I am learning at church seems wrong to me, or, do I leave the LDS church and experience life on my own terms?"

Obviously, you know what my final choice was. I don't know what is true. I'm not sure anyone can really know what is true when it comes to spiritual things. All we can do in life is follow our own hearts/spirits/souls and, using those feelings as a guide, choose the path that feels right and good to us. If it's true that God gave me my life, my mind and my soul, then how could he possibly fault me for using those gifts to seek what is right for me?

So, today, I am standing to say that I don't know. I don't know and that is okay. But I will use what God has given me to try and make the world a better place and to live the best life I can while still being true to myself. I will continue to seek truth everywhere and to love everyone in the best way I know how. Hopefully, by doing this, I can still be a positive example to my cute 8 year old nephew (and all my nieces and nephews) as he grows up and continues to make his own choices.

Somewhere to go on Sundays

When I first left the LDS church I immediately tried a different non-LDS Christian church in my area. The people were all very nice and the services were fun and exciting. However, after attending on multiple occasions I determined that the new church was in many ways the same as the LDS church that I had just left. They were right and everyone else was wrong. They had the "truth" about Jesus and it was their job to let the whole world know about it and get everyone to accept Him as their Savior. In my last meeting there, I left after the Pastor told of an experience of meeting someone in a mall and helping them to get saved after a 10 minute conversation with this complete stranger. I'm sure people can turn their lives around and have a change of heart in 10 minutes, but it all left me wondering if it was truly necessary. It made sense to me that perhaps some people find spirituality through believing in Jesus, but maybe others find it in Buddha or Alla or ??. Not to mention, I could never reconcile the "we're right, and you're wrong" mentality of the major Christian religions. I wondered why everyone couldn't just find the way to God or their spiritual self in whatever way made sense to them? Needless to say, since I left that day (and was followed out to my car by a very well meaning man who wanted to tell me that "God loved me and was there for me") I have been enjoying my Sundays on my own. Thinking, reading, relaxing and taking care of whatever needed doing.

Fast forward to today. The story of the attack on the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church has been in the news all weekend. My friends and acquaintances have been saddened by the intolerance shown by this brutal attack. Discussions on websites I visit opened into further discussion of what Unitarian Universalist's believe. I was surprised to find that my views on religion are very closely aligned with Universalism's views. So, I quickly googled for the nearest church and found a congregation that I think I will try out on Sunday. I don't necessarily think I need to go to church every week to be spiritual, but I think it would be nice to be around people once a week where I would kind of "fit in" belief-wise. As it is now, I feel like the black sheep of the neighborhood, cruising past the church and all the LDS members in my tank top and shorts to go shopping on Sunday.

Here are some of the basic tenants of the church. Cool stuff.

You are good. From our Unitarian ancestors we have inherited a belief that healthy minds, hearts, reason, and intuition can be trusted. We encourage people to think and come to their own conclusions about religion, science, politics, and all areas of life. There are no experts that know what you should believe. You are the expert of your own heart and our job is to encourage you to keep learning, growing, and searching for what you can believe.

You are loved. From our Universalist ancestors we have learned that there is a Love that will not let us go. Some of us call this God, others bring names from diverse traditions, and still others are content to leave this mystery unnamed. However we encounter it, we aspire to live in ways that help grow compassion, equity, and justice in our own lives and the communities around us. We welcome all people of goodwill because we deeply believe that every person is valuable and worthy of love.

You can make a difference. For centuries, Unitarians, Universalists, and Unitarian Universalists have acted on their beliefs. We know that people are powerful and that we can change the world, even if it’s just a little at a time. We also celebrate that we do not have to do it alone! We support and help each other as we learn to “walk our talk” and let our values show in the way we live our lives. Unitarian Universalism is a faith we live, not just something we believe.

You are not alone. There are many people in this world looking to deepen their experience of life and live in spiritually healthy ways. We seek to support and encourage one another as we explore our own faith journeys. There is no reason to "go it alone" in life and, in fact, many reasons to gather companions around to share both the joys and the sorrows that life brings.

So Sunday, I will try something new. I will let you know how it goes!

The Devil's in the Water

So, today, in a ultimate act of LDS defiance, I went swimming on Sunday. I know, WOW! But, I am happy to report, I have lived to tell the tale.

In all seriousness though, this is one of the things that as I was growing up was always taboo. Before I was born, my Mom had a scary experience involving my oldest brother and Sunday swimming. As I understand it, they were boating on a Sunday and my brother wanted to try water skiing (or something to that effect). My Mom had a bad feeling about it (call it mother's intuition, the Spirit or whichever label you would like) but finally relented and let him do it anyway. Something bad happened and my brother nearly drowned, saved only by my Mom's watchful eye. My Mom felt that her feeling that day was a testament to the fact that we, as a family, should not swim on Sundays. She would always tell us "The Devil's in the water on Sundays" and I never questioned it. Being prone to worry as a kid, I accepted this statement as absolute truth and was always afraid that if I even stepped foot into a swimming pool on Sunday, the Devil would certainly drag me under and it would be all over for me. If we ever did end up in the water on Sunday, I can assure you that her words were never far from my mind and I was always extra cautious. Looking at the situation now, I'm sure the entire experience with my brother could have just as easily occurred on a Tuesday or a Friday or any other day. I do not question the validity of my Mom's experience. I hear of mothers having this same kind of intuition regarding their children's safety all the time, both LDS and otherwise. But at this point in my life, I am forced to question her conclusion.

As a member of the LDS church there were so many things I did out of fear of what would happen if I didn't. I went to church, paid my tithing, attended the temple, wore the temple garment (even though I never felt comfortable in them and always felt unattractive wearing them) and didn't swim (or do much of anything else) on Sundays.

Going swimming today was proof once again that the consequences I feared by not doing those things were and are completely unfounded. By swimming today I was able to get exercise and feel better about myself. By not paying my tithing I have been able to support other causes that I truly feel passionate about and be happy that I can make a difference in someone else's life. By taking off the temple garment I am able to feel attractive and sexy again and actually be comfortable in the summer! By taking back my Sundays I have been able to read more, write more and get a few more things done so that I can be more relaxed going into the week.

As each fear slowly disappears, I find myself enjoying life more as I do the things that are important to me. I am continually surprised, though, at how often one of these kinds of thoughts will come to mind. The, "If I do this, then what bad thing will happen to me?" thought. I suppose it will take awhile to deprogram 30 years of LDS upbringing. In the meantime, I am enjoying the process of discovering who I really am and what I truly value.

BOM Translation

After reading the first few chapters of "Rough Stone Rolling", I was left with several questions regarding how, exactly, the Book of Mormon was translated. In the book, author Richard Lyman Bushman makes a distinction between the Urim and Thummin that was used to translate the first 116 pages and Joseph's seer stone, that was used for the remainder of the translation after the 116 pages were lost. In reading an article from Russell M. Nelson, I found it interesting that Nelson leaves out the distinction between the Urim and Thummin and the seer stones. He quotes the following

“Also, that there were two stones in silver bows—and these stones, fastened to a breastplate, constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim—deposited with the plates; and the possession and use of these stones were what constituted ‘seers’ in ancient or former times; and that God had prepared them for the purpose of translating the book.” (JS—H 1:34–35.)

Then a few paragraphs later he relates the following account:

“Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.)

By putting this paragraph after the previous one, it makes it sound that the Urim and Thummin stones are the same ones that he put into the hat.

But I have found the following from an 1885 interview, where Zenas H. Gurley, then the editor of the RLDS Saints’ Herald, asked Whitmer if Joseph had used his "Peep stone" to do the translation in which his response was:

"... he used a stone called a "Seers stone," the "Interpreters" having been taken away from him because of transgression. The "Interpreters" were taken from Joseph after he allowed Martin Harris to carry away the 116 pages of Ms [manuscript] of the Book of Mormon as a punishment, but he was allowed to go on and translate by use of a "Seers stone" which he had, and which he placed in a hat into which he buried his face, stating to me and others that the original character appeared upon parchment and under it the translation in English."

Here Whitmer rather clearly states that the Urim and Thummin stones and the seer stones were really seperate stones used at different times. (ie. the Urim and Thummin stones for the 116 lost pages and the seer stones for the rest of the translation)

In searching LDS.org I was unable to find any distinction between the seer stones that Joseph had since he was a young teenager (used for treasure hunting) and the Urim and Thummin he claimed to have been given with the Book of Mormon.

I'm curious if there are any other places where it is documented that the Urim and Thummin (as they were called later) were taken away from Joseph after he lost the 116 pages and if the LDS church believes/knows/teaches this. I have read that Joseph himself claimed that the Urim and Thummin stones were taken away but other than Whitmer's interview I have not been able to find the supporting documentation I've been looking for.

If the church does profess that the Urim and Thummin was taken away and the seer stones were used for the rest of the translation, they have rather carefully hidden that fact in the scriptures, talks, etc. so that they all sound like the same thing. They use the terms interchangeably to, perhaps, purposely mislead the members into believing a more sanitized/sanctioned version of the translation process.

UPDATE 07/17/2008: Bruce R. McConkie presented the following information on pg 818 of "Mormon Doctrine". It doesn't address the issue of whether or not the Urim and Thummim were taken after the 116 pages but it does confirm the existence of both the Urim and Thummim and Joseph Smith's separate seer stone.

Joseph Smith received the same Urim and Thummim had by the Brother of Jared for it was the one expressly provided for the translation of the Jaredite and Nephite records. (D. & C. 10:1; 17:1; Ether 3:22-28.) It was separate and distinct from the one had by Abraham and the one had by the priests in Israel. The Prophet also had a seer stone which was separate and distinct from the Urim and Thummim, and which (speaking loosely) has been called by some a Urim and Thummim. (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3, pp. 222-226.)

President Joseph Fielding Smith, with reference to the seer stone and the Urim and Thummim, has written: "We have been taught since the days of the Prophet that the Urim and Thummim were returned with the plates to the angel. We have no record of the Prophet having the Urim and Thummim after the organization of the Church. Statements of translations by the Urim and Thummim after that date are evidently errors. The statement has been made that the Urim and Thummim was on the altar in the Manti Temple when that building was dedicated. The Urim and Thummim so spoken of, however, was the seer stone which was in the possession of the Prophet Joseph Smith in early days. This seer stone is now in the possession of the Church." (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3, p. 225.)

Are they really so different?

Recently the LDS church has gone out of their way to dissassociate themselves with the Mormon Fundamentalists and the religion they practice. They have created videos and a press releases attempting to convince anyone and everyone that the LDS church is in no way related to the FLDS sect.

This outpouring of information in the media came just as I was finishing up the book "Stolen Innocence" by Elissa Wall. The book tells of Elissa's harrowing experiences in the FLDS church and her forced marriage to her adult husband at the young age of 14. She had been raised to believe that her eternal salvation was dependent on getting married. She was expected to obey the prophet and marry the man that was chosen for her even though she had deep concerns regarding her pending marriage. Warren Jeffs (who spoke for his father, the prophet, at the time) told her that her marriage was a "revelation from God" and that by rejecting it, she was disobeying the prophet and God. Even her own Mother told her "This must be the will of God and the prophet." and to "just be strong. The Lord knows what he's doing".

I couldn't help but connect her story with another story * I have read about recently. Helen Mar Kimball was married to Joseph Smith in 1843 when she also, was only 14 years old. She wrote that her father

"asked me if I would be sealed to Joseph...[and] left me to reflect upon it for the next twenty-four hours...I was sceptical-one minute believed, then doubted. I thought of the love and tenderness that he felt for his only daughter, and I knew that he would not cast her off, and this was the only convincing proof that I had of its being right. I knew that he loved me too well to teach me anything that was not strictly pure, virtuous and exalting in its tendencies; and no one else could have influenced me at that time or brought me to accept of a doctrine so utterly repugnant and so contrary to all of our former ideas and traditions."

The next morning Joseph visited the Kimball home. "[He explained] the principle of Celestial marrage...After which he said to me, ‘If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation & exaltation and that of your father’s household & all of your kindred. This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward."

After the marriage she wrote that "like a wild bird I longed for the freedom that was denied me; and thought myself an abused child, and that it was pardonable if I did murmur.”

Similar to Elissa, Helen was told that the marriage would ensure her salvation and exhaltation in the next life even though she felt too young and unsure whether it was the right thing for her to do. She looked to the one person that was closest to her, her father, and trusting his judgement, married Joseph.

These stories seem so similiar to me that I can't help but wonder if the Mormon church of the 1840's was really so different from the FLDS church today? Perhaps there is more in common between the two than either church would like to admit?

*To see Helen's complete story, click here.