Utah Mormons

Check out the thread entitled "Utah Mormons" on www.timesandseasons.org. It's quite the heated argument.

Finish reading post.

And now for something completely different

My wife Janelle is not a baseball fan. Sure, we've been to a few games, but she's never followed the sport with any consistancy and usually can care less about what happens. But this last weekend, she has become a passionate Yankee-hater (and a de facto Red Sox fan). Though I'm not a sports fan in the ESPN or Sports Talk Radio sense of the word, I at least try to keep track of what's going on-and given Janelle's recent conversion I've paid a bit more attention than usual.

Which brings me to my comment/question: how can anyone like the New York Yankees? Their payroll is 183 million dollars. The next highest, the Red Sox, are at 125 million. To put this in perspective, there are 14 teams (almost half the league) that have a payroll less than 58 million dollars, the difference between the Yankees and the rest of baseball. How can people enjoy rooting for a team that, due to their unfathomable pockets, can buy any player they want and that is at least assured a playoff spot every year? Luckily, there's enough chance in baseball that they aren't assured a World Series ring. (I've read that given the luck involved in baseball, the worst team in the league has at least a 15% chance of beating the best team in a 7 game series) But come on, somebody find me a salary cap somewhere.

Finish reading post.

Napoleon Dynamite

Napoleon Dynamite is the funniest film I have seen in a long time.  I wouldn't just recommend it because it's made by an LDS filmmaker.  I, for one, am tired of movies that can only survive off of inside jokes taken from LDS culture.  I think they isolate us from the rest of the world.  The closest LDS reference this film makes is the appearance of a Ricks College t-shirt.  This filmmaker's restraint to not capitalize on his membership in the church is enough cause to see this one.  But mostly, I'd recommend it because it's hilarious.  Be prepared to laugh at the bizarreness of others (A little Schadenfreude is okay every now and then).

Finish reading post.

But who do you say that I am?

I start this thread with a disclaimer/apology.  I realize that some of you are not mormons and may not enjoy discussions where themes center around mormon issues.   For me, at least, these are the issues that I think about the most in my life, they are the things that grab my attention the most.  Don't misunderstand, I like discussing about a lot of things that aren't religious - but the sacred sits at the top of my list.  So, in an effort not to make anyone feel too marginalized or uncomfortable, I invite anyone so inclined to post on anything of interest, especially non-religious issues.  Also, Jason and I have been talking about ways to encourage more discussion and we thought that maybe the initial posts are too long, too much of a time investment, so we'll try to keep them shorter.  We also thought that people might be worried about having to write profound observations on deep issues.  Don't.  Say what you think, and we'll talk about it - the good thing about a blog is that you can keep amending your threads.  As a good friend of mine said "Dobbiamo dialogare per non morire"  (We have to have dialogue, so we don't die!!).  This long prelude is merely to say that if you are uninspired by the stuff we bring up, ignore it, and write something yourself. 
 
I recently heard some comments from Jaroslav Pelikan a Yale theologian/historian.  He recently wrote a book about the history and influence of creeds in Christianity.  Pelikan believes that  "A creed is used to test the authority of what one is saying...[it is] a flag, an identity by which we are known by those who aren't a part of our community, but want to know what you are."  He sees creeds also as a uniting factor in space and time through which believers across centuries and separated by oceans can connect and relate.  On the other hand, Pelikan also sees creeds as stifiling and sometimes misguided. 
I have two questions, one general, one specific.  First, why has Christianity given itself so completely to the importance of creeds when the other two  monotheistic religions Judiasm and Islam have stayed away from them? (except maybe for the one basic creed "there is no god but Allah...")  Second,  given Pelikans definition of a creed as a flag, or a test for authority/authenticity how does mormonism's lack of formal creeds fit with that?  Do we have informal creeds that fulfill the same purpose?  Or is it that for mormons, like for jews and muslims, what we do is the important thing, not what we believe? 

Finish reading post.

Inferior?

Today at lunch a friend of mine told me that she had just been informed that Mormon women are bred to consider themselves inferior to their husbands.  Appalled, I asked her to explain.  She went on to tell me about a secretary she knows who works for the only Mormon partner at our firm.  As with most secretaries, this secretary is very aware of the personal matters of her employer.  Basically, she hasn't liked what she has found---particularly the fact that the wife is unable/not allowed to make even the smallest decision without consulting her husband.  In most cases this kind of behavior would probably be chalked up to "co-dependence" or one of those other terms we use to describe unhealthy relationships, but, in this case, his being Mormon provides the secretary with an alternative explanation.  "Mormon women are just bred that way," she tells people.

I have to admit, when I first heard this, I was very tempted to sit down and right a scathing email to this partner about the example he was setting and the detrimental effect it was having on the missionary work that I was trying to do.  But the more I thought about it the more I become concerned that, maybe, this is a real problem.  Now I need to point out that I do not think that the Church advocates or approves of this type of behavior in any way, shape, or form.  In fact, the do quite the opposite.  Instead, my question is whether, as a culture, we promote this philsophy.

Growing up I saw no sign of it in my home.  There weren't girl chores and boy chores.  There was no descrepincy in the encouragment each child recieved to pursue an education to the highest degree possible or to go on a mission.  But, when I step out of my immediate family, I have to admit I do see some signs of it.  My aunt, for instance, is shocked that I'm planning on going back for my Masters (often making comments such as, wow, you're family really does emphasize education), yet she thinks its perfectly normal that her son, my cousin, plans on getting his MBA.

I have also seen traces of this philosphy at BYU where, each year, a number of girls quit just short of finishing their degree in order to have children.  How do we explain this behavior?  Certainly, having children is the higher calling, but can't it wait a year?  Does it make you less righteous or more selfish if you educate yourself first?  What makes me question this even further is that, though I know many women who have made this decision, I don't know one man who has.  In fact, I think it would be fairly frowned upon by the community at large if a man came forward and said, "I want to have babies so I'm going to quit school now, okay?"

Any thoughts?

 

Finish reading post.

Elder Maxwell...

I'm sure that most of you in Utah are aware of Brother Maxwell's passing, but for those who aren't, here's the Church's press release:
"Elder Neal A. Maxwell, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, died last night after a lengthy battle with leukemia. He was 78 years of age. " (For the full thing, here's the link: http://www.lds.org/newsroom/showrelease/0,15503,3881-1-19712,00.html).

My words won't do justice to who he was, mostly because I only know him through his sermons; but from what I understand of his personal life Elder Maxwell was a true Christian.  He lived his own words masterfully, but more important, he honestly tried to live by the word of the Lord.  His deep love for the gospel together with a love for knowledge in general has been influential on both my spiritual and intellectual development.  He taught that we shouldn't compartmentalize, that the spiritual and intellectual are bound.  Along those lines, Elder Maxwell, as an astute political observer and one-time Political Science professor, taught that the world's problems will never be solved with the world's solutions--only the gospel can give lasting responses to the policy issues we debate. 

Well, that's my modest tribute to a great (shouldn't there be a better word) man.  If any of you have remembrances, comments, or tributes,  please write them.

Finish reading post.

Problem

I just realized I'm the only woman on this blog. We've got to do something about that, fellas, or we're going to having some very one-sided conversations. Anyone know an opinionated female or two who might be interested?

Finish reading post.

The Whole Gay Marriage Thing

Jason’s post has brought up a number of issues which I believe deserve more attention. But since I can only take on one topic at time, I thought I’d start with what I like to call “the whole gay marriage thing.”
Growing up in the church, I have had the principles of tolerance and love for my fellow man drilled into me by countless Sunday school teachers and youth leaders. To abandon this when faced with the issue of gay marriage is, needless to say, difficult. Now I know you’re probably itching to use that old Mormon anthem, “hate the sin, but love the sinner”—an anthem that, though cliché, I agree with. But here’s the problem. We also believe that people are only held accountable when they sin with knowledge—i.e., when they know something is wrong, but they do it anyway. Assuming that the knowledge that being gay (and by that, I mean acting on homosexual tendencies, not just having them) is wrong is not innate, then most gay people are not sinning. With this in mind, it’s hard for me to support making life harder on people who are just living the best they know how, and who desire to enter into committed, socially accountable relationships.
I know the answer is, of course, that if we let this happen we are opening the doors to the disintegration of the family. That if we allow this to happen, the alternative lifestyle will be presented in tomorrow’s textbooks as just that—an acceptable alternative. I also know that this will make adoption by gay couples easier, bringing children into single gender homes and affecting them in a way we can’t predict (or maybe we can predict it by looking at single parent homes).
But, I also know that the gay lifestyle is already fairly acceptable. That gay people already adopt kids. And that the gay family is quickly becoming the alternative to the traditional American family. So my concern is that if we, as churches and religious people, fight against them and try to deny them the rights that they feel they deserve, we will alienate them. We will squash the faith out of the many that have it, and they in turn will squash the faith of the children they adopt, leading again, to the disintegration of the family.
I work for a gay man. He’s a fantastic person. He works hard, is faithful to his boyfriend, and is kind to those around him. His boyfriend is a full-time volunteer. He participates in Big Brother and a number of other wonderful organizations. He does more service than I do by far. How do I look this man in the eyes and tell him that I don’t want him to have the same security, the same rights and privileges, the same public recognition of his relationship that Chris and I enjoy?
Despite all these thoughts, I still feel like the Lord, who knows a lot more than me, does not approve of gay marriage. I support that. I guess I just wrote this to encourage us all to be more thoughtful on this issue, to treat those involved more tenderly and respectfully. And to acknowledge that, dang it, this is hard stuff.

Finish reading post.