Singular Saints

A good friend of mine recorded the fireside Truman Madsen gave on July, 22, 2007 in the Union Fort 9th Branch in Provo Utah.  It was spontaneous and gave tremendous insight into why Latter-Day Saints are so committed to their faith and act with strength and courage when faced with adversity. If there is interest in the audio from this I’ll post it.

Over the past few weeks I’ve been watching the reaction to Big Love’s “Outer Darkness” episode and have come to the conclusion that ignorance is both blissful and dangerous.  I’m still at somewhat of a loss to understand why the producers felt it was necessary to include depictions of elements of the LDS Temple ceremonies.  Forgeries are worthless to all but the ignorant - and it seems so in this case.

The blog traffic by non Mormons seems split between sympathy for Barb’s torn feelings and dismissive of the importance of the ritual. What is utterly lacking is any objective, informed discussion of whether or not there might be any substance to the subject.  This is unfortunate, since there are qualified sources who have discussed the prevalence and history of signs, symbols and gestures in religious practice and fraternal organizations going back as far as the earliest civilizations; The Minoans’ (2700 to 1459 B.C) and Egyptians (3100 B.C. - 450 A.D.) both left evidence.  J.S.M. Ward’s “Secret Sign Languages” contains several examples of just how ancient some of the gestures are - far predating the foundation of the modern Masonic order.

More recently, there has been enough information published to allow anyone to become informed on the content and scope of many symbolic rites, including the LDS and Mason’s, and develop an informed opinion on the similarities and differences.  Further, the details of early LDS history are coming out in much greater depth, to the point where it’s possible to even pin down the date, time and place of events in the life of Joseph Smith which are related to the temple. In “The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith”, Scott Faulring noted that on March 15th and 16th, 1842  Joseph officiated at the installation of the Nauvoo Masonic Lodge and received the first three degrees of Masonry.  This was *after* his references to the the grand Key-words of the Holy Priesthood and the temple were prepared for publication in the March 15th edition (Volume III No. 10) of the Times and Seasons.  Clearly, Joseph knew about signs, tokens and key-words before his brief association with Masonry. Unfortunately he didn’t publically comment on Masonry, as far as we know. However, he openly emphasized how important it was for the Latter-Day Saints to obtain the knowledge available in the temple.

I note also that what was depicted in the Big Love episode bears no resemblance to any Masonic ritual which I am aware of.  (See Michael Bradley’s “The Secrets of the Freemasons”)

I’m reminded of a blonde football joke I heard recently:

A guy took his blonde girlfriend to her first football game. They had great seats right behind their team’s bench. After the game, he asked her how she liked the experience.

“Oh, I really liked it,” she replied, “especially the tight pants and all the big muscles, but I just couldn’t understand why they were killing each other over 25 cents.”

Dumbfounded, her date asked, “What do you mean?”

“Well, they flipped a coin, one team got it and then for the rest of the game, all they kept screaming was: ‘Get the quarterback! Get the quarterback!’  I’m like…Helloooooo? It’s only 25 cents!!!!”

There are times  when we think we know what someone else is doing, but we don’t have a clue why  they are doing it.  I suspect this is true of the situation regarding Sunday’s episode of Big Love.

Anyone who has ever seen a LDS temple - the Salt Lake temple in particular - has probably asked themselves; “What are they doing in there?”  Mormon’s reluctance to discuss the subject probably doesn’t help - although the answer is really very simple.

They are making promises and helping others who can’t help themselves.

The promises Mormons make inside the temple have a lot to do with the way they act outside the temple.  They are the reason that between between 1985 and 2008 LDS Humanitarian Services provided more than $1.11 billion in aid to needy individuals in 167 countries and recently shipped over 100,000 pounds of medical supplies to Myanmar.  The promises they make to keep the commandments are why Latter-Day Saints are known for their honesty and integrity.  The promises they make to be faithful to their spouses and children is why they have a reputation for strong families.  The promises they make are also the reason when a prominent Latter-Day Saint falls short of perfection, they can expect to be vilified in the press.

There is no doubt that what is done inside LDS temples is different than what happens outside.  Everything about the temple is intended to elevate your thoughts and actions towards becoming more Christlike. This may not be obvious to the casual observer and it’s highly unlikely that any depiciton on screen or stage can address that deeper question.  It’s about much more than getting the quarter back.  It’s about learning to be unselfish, keeping commitments, being honest, reliable and consistent - all the things we hope for in others and expect of God.

With the increasing buzz over this coming Sunday’s episode of “Big Love”, which is supposed to feature elements of the LDS Temple Endowment, I found myself wondering if there wasn’t some sort of hidden agenda going on.  A quick search on the web turned up that Mark V. Olsen and WIll Scheffer, the executive producer and lead writer of the series, are in an openly gay relationship.

Maybe they’ll do an episode where the Henricksons visit the stock exchange and see the addresses and phone numbers of all the contributors to Prop 8 scrolling on the quote boards.  Better yet, they can use the names and addresses of all the Mormons who contributed to Prop 8 as the guest list for an upcoming episode featuring the largest polygamous wedding in history. But that wouldn’t be about Mormon’s either now, would it? 

It seems to me that the secret/hidden agenda in this is in Olsen and Scheffer’s script, not the Latter-Day Saints Temple ceremony and this not so subtle manouver is an attempt at blackmail of the lowest grade. On another blog I saw a comment which read; “Stay out of my bedroom and I’ll stay out of your temple.”

That is a very interesting comment as it contrasts what goes on in the bedroom of gay couples with what goes on in the temple. It is that association that illustrates the pettiness and deceit in the airing of what are sacred ceremonies.

I think the bigger question is whether it’s even possible to have a dialog on a higher level.  The Latter-Day Saints and homosexuals have a clear disagreement regarding what does and does not constitute appropriate expressions of human sexuality, marriage and family.   In terms of numbers; there are about 1.5 million Big Love viewers and 6 million Mormons in the U.S.  The CDC estimates that 2.3% of of the U.S. population is homosexual, so does that make the LDS a protected minority too?

At the same time, perhaps it’s time to become more familiar (and open) with what is in the scriptures regarding the temple and temple worship.  For example, here are Moses’ instructions regarding the clothing to be worn by the sons of Aaron who were to serve in the House of the Lord:
Exodus 28:40 “For Aaron’s sons you shall make tunics; you shall also make sashes for them, and you shall make caps for them, for glory and for beauty.

Exodus 28:42 “You shall make for them linen breeches to cover their bare flesh; they shall reach from the loins even to the thighs.

Leviticus 16:4 “He shall put on the holy linen tunic, and the linen undergarments shall be next to his body, and he shall be girded with the linen sash and attired with the linen turban (these are holy garments). Then he shall bathe his body in water and put them on.

Later, the Savior said: “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven…”

“Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known. What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops”

It is left to the reader to decide who in this story is revealing things that are done in darkness.

-df

I heard a rumor today that Friday’s episode of Law and Order featured garments, but from the blog traffic on this it would appear that the context was a story about some “fundamentalist” teenage boys from a polygamous faith who are involved in a murder investigation and have drawn on their personal underwear.  I haven’t seen the episode and probably won’t go out of my way to, but it seems to me that LDS reaction to this can make a big difference in avoiding amplifying any sense of persecution in the wake of Prop 8.

Latter Day Saints aren’t the only group that has distinguishing clothing. Policemen, Firemen, Soldiers, Sailors and able bodied Seamen all wear special clothing. So do Catholic, Lutheran and Presbyterian ministers, and Buddhist, Taoist and Shinto monks. The big difference is that they all wear their vestments on the outside while Latter-day Saints wear them under their clothes.

In both cases, the clothing is a reminder of the commitment and dedication the wearer has to their faith or their job.  The big difference between LDS deacons, teachers. priests and high priests is that there are many times more of them in a typical congregation than in a protestant or catholic congregation.  A Christian minister, someone who has totally committed themself to Christ, wears special clothing to manifest and remind that they are different, set apart from the rest of the congregation.  In the LDS Church, there may be dozens of men who have made that same commitment and they will be wearing a symbol of that just like the others do.  What is so surprising about Mormons being embarrassed to have their underwear exposed in public?  Try going up to someone at work and saying; “Hey!  Show me those Victoria’s Secrets!”  and see what happens.

For some comparisons here are some links to sites that explain Catholic , Syriac and other vestments. Legal justices wear them too.  We even wear robes when we get our diplomas in High School.  What’s all the fuss?

It’s hard not to think that this isn’t the result of the BLTG agenda in LA taking another swipe at Mormons for Prop 8.  As for me, I’m neither ashamed of my underwear or my commitment to my faith, just modest about them.

In “A Review of General Semantics“, David E.  Wright observes that words, by themselves, do not have meanings.  The ‘meanings’ of words we read in a dictionary were assigned by lexicographers.  Lexicographers depend on the meanings given to these words by other humans. ‘Meaning’ involves the intentions of speakers and writers. The words they use represent their intentions; our interpretation of those words; and our responses (conscious and non-conscious, verbal and non-verbal) is based on our interpretation of those words.

“Words do not mean … Humans give meanings. We are usually unaware that we do–but if we are very attentive, we can catch ourselves in the process.”

This is the foundation of my objection to redefining marriage as being something other than between a man and a woman; it involves changing the meaning of the word to something other than it has historically meant.

I’m wondering if there isn’t some middle ground that can be reached which addresses the needs and concerns of both sides of the “gay marriage” issue. Having said that, I should probably frame what I see as the issue:

Both same-sex and heterosexual couples occasionally find themselves in a situation where they want to make a long term commitment to being together and sharing the benefits and responsibilities of that. For a heterosexual couple who are still of child bearing age, that probably includes sex and possibly children. For older heterosexual couples and same sex couples the possibility of pregnancy and child raising is not an issue, unless they choose to adopt. In any case the *traditional* definition of marriage and family was built around that core idea; Man + Woman = Marriage => Children = Family. Most religions also bring God into the picture.

As medical science and the law has expanded the definitions of man, woman, child and family to things like transgendered men and women with an artificially inseminated or surrogate womb, (I chose the most extreme form for the example) what used to be fairly broadly understood relationships and consequences (marriage and family) has become blurred. As a result, we find ourselves arguing over semantics without realizing that is what we are doing. For example; Take the words “gay” and “marriage”. Gay use to simply mean “happy”. Now it means homosexual. Marriage used to mean a man and a woman in a mutually committed relationship that included sharing everything including sex and dealing with the consequences of sex. Now it is coming to mean two people of any sexual preference in some sort of committed relationship sharing various forms of sexual expression.

So, the problem, as I see it, is; With a large portion of the world being heterosexual and having a widely held definition of marriage, for the non-heterosexual community to use the word marriage to describe the form of relationship they want to have, automatically creates conflict for the majority. It’s much more than “I say potatoe you say potato… it’s potentially changing the definition of the words “marriage” and “family” for billions of people.  In that case it is a matter of a minority attempting to enforce their will upon the majority.  That is not democracy, or any other form of equitable government.

Maybe what is needed here is another word. Could we call it Garriage or something?

I don’t want to violate anyone’s human rights, just be clear about our meanings.

One of the drawbacks of our modern economic system is that it insulates us from our actual financial condition. We go online and look at squiggles on a screen or get reports in the mail which tell us how much “money” we have, rather than having cash or goods at hand.

While searching for Brigham Young’s comment about not being able to eat gold, I came across an article by David Andrews called “You Can’t Eat Gold” which was pretty interesting.  It reminded me that the only thing that really has any potential value is time and what we do with it - work.  Every day we get 24 hours to do things.  If we create more value than we consume, we end up with a “gain” on the day (”be fruitful…”).  If we produce less value than we consume, we have a loss. If I were a farmer or craftsman I’d have actual goods as a result of my efforts. Expertise - knowing how to do something well - is the most “marketable” skill.

When I came home yesterday my house looked the same as it did when I left for work.  My car had an additional couple of dozen miles on the odometer.  My investment portfolio’s value had changed.  While I wasn’t looking, other people decided that the future value of other people’s efforts wasn’t worth as much.  In order for that to happen, credit and risk had to creep into the value equation.  Once we buy into the idea that we have to borrow money, rather than working and saving for something until we can can pay cash, the rest follows naturally.

In this case, it looks like we’re all going to get to contribute about $6000 per household to make up the difference.

I’ve been tying to understand the magnitude of the current financial mess and came across some data from the US census which helped;  In 2006 there were 116 million households in the United States and the median income was about $50,000. Spreading the “bailout” evenly over that comes to $6000 per household.  It also means that in 2006 Americans made $5.8 Trillion in wages. I’m reminded of Gordon B. Hinckley’s advice a few years back about getting out of debt.

We’ll get thru this.

The creation vs. evolution argument, in it’s traditional form, is essentially an attempt to explain how we got here.  The problem is that both sides place some mutually incompatible conditions on their premises. The scientists insist on a God who is comprehensible to the human mind and the theists say god is unknown and unknowable.  Biblical literalists insist on the inerrancy of scripture and the time line which that enforces.

Dawkins claims that given enough time and stuff to work with it’s possible to create the earth and humanity without the need of outside intervention from a god.  Having taken the argument that far, he declares victory, for without the need of a god to explain the existence of the earth there is no further need of god, particularly a god who is scientifically irrational.

One of Dawkins’ points against the theists is that the creation argument just moves the stakes; if god did it, where did god come from?  He is particularly impressed with how powerful the anthropic principle is; our existence proves that conditions were right to produce us.

What Dawkins doesn’t do is consider the broader implications - that it could just as likely lead to the existence of God - particularly the god of the Latter-day Saints, who according to Joseph Smith, “… is a man like unto one of yourselves” but in a supremely intelligent and eternal state.

One of humanity’s greatest desires is to overcome death.  While it has taken us thosands of years to do so, we have finally begun to learn the fundamantal genetic principles of how to overcome the effects of disease and decay.  Given a few hundred more years, will we have also learned how to sustain ourselves as long as the sun shines and there is space in the universe to exist?  Once we have learned all there is to know and overcome death who will we be like and what will we do next?

I recently began reading Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion” and have been very pleasantly surprised by it.  I was expecting a rant against God, after all  Dawkins is the self proclaimed militant atheist, what I wasn’t expecting was one of most intelligent and thoughtful arguments in support of the Latter-Day Saint concept of God and eternal progression that I have ever read.

Before I get into the details, I’d like to offer a little background.  Over the years, Latter-Day Saints have been strongly criticized by other faiths for statements made by Joseph Smith in the King Follett Discourse and later by Lorenzo Snow (both of whom testified that they personally saw God):

“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible,—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with him, as one man talks and communes with another… It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible.” - Joseph Smith

In 1840, Lorenzo Snow summarized Joseph Smith’s statement with: “As man is, God once was; As God is, man can become.”

Dawkin’s book is intended to show the fallacy of the idea of God and he does a remarkably effective job of dismantling the traditional view of deity. That is precisely why I liked his book so much.  The traditional view of God IS irrational.  It proposes a being who is incomprehensible, unknowable and resides an infinite distance away. Dawkins spends the first hundred pages of the book explaining why this traditional view is anathema to a thinking mind. He also proposes that the only rational explanation for the existance of the universe is Darwin’s theory of natural selection.  Along the way he points out the logical flaws and falacies of the intelligent design vs. natural selection argument and even takes a swipe at the virgin birth by asking what would happen if DNA evidence was uncovered that Jesus lacked a biological father.

If he had stopped there the book would have already been worth the cover price, but it goes further.  The clarity of his discussion of the implications of natural selection was very refreshing.

Now, before you think I’ll be burning my temple recommend in the parking lot of the church this weekend, let me bring a few other witnesses to the stand.

In the “The Life and Teaching of Jesus and His Apostles”, the Church Educational System manual for the Religion 211 and 212 college institute course it states this concerning Jesus Christ:

“He was the birthright son, and he retained that birthright by his strict obedience.
Through the aeons and ages of premortality, he advanced and progressed until,
as Abraham described it, he stood as one “ like unto God ” [ Abr. 3:24 ]”

That phrase “aeons and ages” caught my attention.  It’s implications are stunning in the light of Dawkin’s argument that given enough time even long odds can pay off when it comes to the creation of life by the process of “natural selection”.  What makes it even more interesting is our understanding of eternal progression. Bowen wrote; “One must progress or retrograde. One cannot stand still. Activity is the law of growth, and growth, progress, is the law of life.”  Brigham Young taught; “…there is no such thing as principle, power, wisdom, knowledge, life, position, or anything that can be imagined, that remains stationary—they must increase or decrease” (Young, JD 1:350). There is an organizing force in the universe. By definition life sustains and reproduces itself.  Given sufficient time, “aeons and ages” of improvement, the “natural” process would produce a supremely intelligent, eternal being, namely; a god.  Eternal progression and natural selection both tend towards either godliness or disorganization.