Be Careful What You Wish For

Election Day is just 9 days away and it looks like California’s Proposition 8 limiting marriage to a man and a woman will pass.  On Intrade the odds are approaching 3 to 2.  I give a lot of weight to Intrade because participants bet on outcomes with real money rather than hyperbole.  The LA Times is also out with a new poll provided by the Public Policy Institute of California.  The poll is not tied into either side of the debate and is considered reliable.  It shows Prop 8 favored 52% to 44%. 

Of course the LDS church has been deeply involved in efforts to get the measure passed.  The church’s efforts have been organized, well funded and effective.  These actions have not gone unnoticed.  In fact, the church seems to be emerging as the most visible party in the fight and the entity that will be given the most credit for its passage.  The Wall Street Journal last week credited the LDS church with drumming up nearly 40% of all money raised to support the proposition  – more than any other group.  Andrew Sullivan at the Atlantic Monthly credits the Church contributions with “bankrolling” the pro 8 advertising campaign.

I know it ain’t over ‘til it’s over, but for the sake of argument, let’s say these numbers hold and Prop 8 passes. What does this get the Church?  Will the Church become the poster child (justified or not) for stifling gay rights?  Sure, the Church has the right and apparently the power to fight gay marriage, but it seems to me that it runs a high risk of being singled out for special recognition by gay rights groups as being intolerant and homophobic.  Mind you, I am not commenting on the propriety of such labeling, I just think it is a likely outcome. 

Now there may be some people who think that Church’s success here will play to its strengths.  That the kind of people who will look down upon the Church for this are the kind of people the Church will never win over anyway.  And that there will be many people who are pro-family (in the Mormon sense) who will respond favorably to the Church’s reputation as the entity that beat back gay rights in favor of traditional marriage.  Perhaps they are right.  But is it worth the backlash?

My personal hunch on this is that the Church is in for some stormy weather.  I think gay rights are the new civil rights and it is only a matter of time before gays are afforded the same rights as everyone else.   And much like it was during the civil rights movement, the Church is way behind the curve.  The gay rights train has left the station and the LDS Church cannot turn it back, although it clearly has to ability to hinder its progress.

Do you think this will help or hurt the Church – or both?

Sarah Palin – A Sister’s Sister

Sarah Palin, if elected, could change the landscape for Mormon women more than any politician has for a very long time. From what I can tell, she is a huge hit with the LDS ladies. Mitt Romney of course resonated big time with Mormons, but he was just another man who happened to be a Mormon and longed to be the big dog in Washington. Had he won, Mormons undoubtedly would have had more exposure, but the victory wouldn’t have changed the status quo between Mormon men and women.

Sarah Palin is different. She is a Christian conservative mother. And guess what? She’s a woman. You can argue with her politics but not with her gender. In Palin, Mormon women have a sister who is similar to them who could ascend to the highest office any woman can hold. Of course, I don’t mean the Presidency of the Relief Society; I mean the Presidency of the United States.

There has been so much focus on Palin’s conservative credentials that her potential impact upon the average Mormon woman has been overlooked. Sure, Palin, isn’t going to appeal to the NRA-hating, pro-choice leaning, meat-distaining segment of Mormon women (how many can there be?), but she seems to strongly resonate with the other 99 percent of active Mormon women. Hillary Clinton sure as Hades isn’t going to be a role model for the majority of Mormon women any time soon. Mormon women mostly despise her and think of her as a kind of She Devil. Mormon women will experience Hillary-driven change only as passive or antagonistic beneficiaries.

But Sarah Palin, she’s a different story. She is almost one of them. If you can get past her evangelical strain of Christianity, she could be a member in the ward who happens to be successful in politics. Mormon women see that Palin is not that different from them. They relate to her. They can even get over the pregnancy of her 17-year-old daughter because we all know someone with a kid who’s made a mistake. Mormon women can embrace Palin and join her in her ride to the top. Mormon women can fancy themselves her partner in the journey. Mormon women can cheer her on her quest to reign supreme over a male-dominated society.

Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin represent the ends of a range within which the bulk of American women fall, politically and socially. Hillary Clinton anchors the liberal end and Sarah Palin the conservative. If a person gets much in front of Clinton they become politically marginalized. If you are more conservative than Palin, you are marginalized as well. But the range itself has shifted left. Palin may be a conservative, but she is not saying that women need to stay home with their babies. She’s saying they can run the country. Palin’s conservative end of the spectrum is to the left of most Mormons and I believe that Mormon women will find themselves shifting to the center in order to keep up with Palin.

Change comes not only from those who lead the pack, but also those who follow. If Hillary Clinton shows how far ahead of the pack a women can tread, Sarah Palin shows the limit of how far behind a woman can fall. But either way, the range has been moved dramatically forward. And for Mormon women, the more important marker just may be Palin, because she is a figure that most can identify with.

Here is what Palin shows a woman can do.

1 – She can work full time

2 – She can be a mother and work full time

3 – She can be a mother of five and work full time

4 – She can be a mother of five, including a Down syndrome child, and work full time

5 – Not only can she do these things, she can be a chief executive and preside over men.

6 – She can be a conservative Christian and do all of the above

This is not small potatoes for Mormons. I think it is not yet well accepted in the Church that a mother can work full time. Yes, it happens more and more, but I think generally it is still frowned upon in action if not in word. A woman cannot hold a position in the Church where she has authority over men. Palin does that as a Governor now, and if she were to become the President, she would be the ultimate authority over both men and women. Mormon women would have a role model who, in Mormon speak, would preside rather than just give counsel. I think if Mormon women got used to having female civil leaders that they relate to, they not be able to stop themselves from wondering why their religion does not allow women the same opportunities as their country.

So, am I voting for Palin? Not by a long shot, because I disagree with her on too many issues. But that doesn’t mean I am blind to the change she represents and the benefits that could come from her rise to power. In a Mormon context, Sarah Palin has the potential to be very empowering to the sisters.

Tipping Point or Tripping Point

I feel like I have just spent a week in liberal Mormon heaven. Last Saturday I attended Sunstone. It was full of interesting people with interesting ideas. Sunday my Gospel Principals class had a very engaging discussion about how to serve others. Sunday night I heard Richard Bushman speak at a fireside, and yesterday I attended a book signing and address by the authors of the just-released Massacre at Mountain Meadows. For a Mormonism junkie dweeb it doesn’t get much better.

Meeting and listening to Richard Bushman was probably the highlight of the lot. I have read Rough Stone Rolling (RSR) and a few other Bushman books, and think highly of his work. I am aware of his credentials and talent, but I was taken aback by how good he is from the pulpit. It was not so much his presentation – he is no fire-eating orator. It’s more his understanding of his audience, where they are now, and where he can take them.

I think he knows very well going into these types of events whom he is addressing and what he hopes to achieve. I have been reading On the Road with Joseph Smith, Bushman’s account of the rollout of RSR, in which he details his feelings and approach to addressing many such forums. As such, I was very keen to see how he would “work” the crowd.

The setting was my sister’s stake in Sandy, Utah. Not exactly a hotbed of liberal Mormon thought. One of the first things Bushman did was announce that after making his prepared remarks, he would take questions and that nothing was off limits. Anybody could ask anything they liked. To some that may not seems like a big deal, but when was the last time you heard someone say that to a Mormon congregation from the pulpit?

Bushman was super smooth in how he introduced the congregation to tricky historical problems without seeming to do so. He was very respectful and deferential. He even used an Elder Packer quote about Emma Smith. He seems a master of working change from within. He matter of factly discusses topics that are traditionally more fit for Sunstone than a meeting house. Maybe I am reading more into this than is warranted but I think he cleverly builds credibility with the congregation by saying the right things and quoting the right people before he casually mentions something like Joseph marrying a 14-year-old.

His remarks focused on the humanness of Joseph Smith, the esteem in which he holds Emma Smith, and the practice of polygamy. When he was done the audience took him at his word and peppered him with the type of question that doesn’t usually get asked in Sunday School. Someone wanted to know why Joseph married women who were already betrothed. Bushman said it was Joseph’s way of linking his eternal family to others. Another wanted to know his feelings about the FLDS church in light of the Joseph polygamous experience. Bushman said that while he in no way condoned any type of abuse or pedophilia, he felt we should be very sympathetic to the FLDS. He said that their troubles gave us a glimpse of the troubles early Mormons faced. I asked him why Emma let her boys believe that their father had not practiced polygamy? Hadn’t she done a great disservice in allowing them to proclaim wrongly in public that their father never practiced polygamy? He said that Emma was ashamed of the practice of polygamy and that if you read her words carefully, you’ll notice they are carefully worded to leave herself some wiggle room.

When he was done taking questions, the meeting ended and several people lined up to shake his hand and have books signed. When my turn came, I asked him if he thought that RSR had gotten too far out in front of where Mormons are willing to see their prophet. He said that he had written that book according to how he saw things and that although some members did not want this information, many did. He said that he thought the Church was at a tipping point in term of a candid appraisal and discussion of its history. I was struck by this. A tipping point to me suggests that we may soon experience a much more open approach to church history. Not just a gradual change but a wide and thorough change that will become the rule rather than the exception.

The presentation by the authors of Massacre at Mountain Meadows was very interesting. I sat about 4 feet from the authors (a small room at Benchmark Books with a lot of people). They seemed to have very different personalities and they emphasized very different things in their presentations (they each spoke about 10 minutes). Richard Turley talked a lot about the research process and methodology. Ron Walker focused more on the narrative and Glen Leonard zeroed in on how the event might have been avoided had a few individuals stood their ground when their priesthood and militia leaders pushed for their acquiescence. When they were done speaking, Curt Bench, the bookstore proprietor, talked about how extraordinary and unprecedented the book was and the openness with which the church facilitated the project. He strongly expressed his feeling that we are entering a new phase of openness and candor. He said he had never seen anything like this before. Curt has been dealing books and Mormon document since before Mark Hoffman and has spent his career following Church goings-on. I don’t think he is one given to hyperbole.

Perhaps I am reading too much into these experiences, or maybe I just heard what I wanted to hear. But it seems that two very keen observers of Mormonism see a shift to and perhaps a widening of candor and openness in the Church. Are they up in the night? I hope not.

Quibbling about the Holy Ghost and Walking on the Moon

On the way home from Church last Sunday my ten year old daughter and I had the following exchange:

Me: What happened in Sunday school today?

Ruby: We had a lesson about the Holy Ghost.

Me: Do you believe in the Holy Ghost?

Ruby: Yes.

Me: So how do you know the Holy Ghost is real?

Ruby: Well, kind of like how I know that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. I haven’t met him but I know he was a real person who walked on the moon. Or it’s like how I know Mars exists, I can’t see it but I know it’s there.

Me: I don’t think a person knows those things in the same way they know about the Holy Ghost. Neil Armstrong’s walk on the Moon and the existence of Mars are scientifically provable, but when you know there is a Holy Ghost, you know it in a different way – in a way that is not provable.

Ruby: Daddy, this isn’t very interesting, can you turn on the radio?

Upon reflection, I wonder if I handled this in the right way. I wonder about the following:

Is it a mistake to question how a child comes to know a spiritual truth? Is the assertion of spiritual knowledge good enough in and of itself, especially in a ten year old?

Did I do the right thing in attempting to help her understand the difference between spiritual and scientific knowledge as I see it?

Is it even accurate of me to say that spiritual and scientific knowledge are different? Are they close enough that is not worth quibbling over? Am I just splitting hairs?

Am I doing her a favor by preparing her for a later time when, I assume, she will compare empirical knowledge with spiritual knowledge? And as a result of my conditioning she will be less likely to be disillusioned and reject spiritual beliefs? Or am I simply prepping my daughter to become a secular humanist?

What do you think?

Guess What, Brigham Didn't Do It

The Deseret News and the Salt Lake Tribune (via the Associated Press) carried stories this weekend about a presentation made by Richard Turley to the Mormon History Association. For those of you who don’t know, the MHA is made up of professional and amateur historians interested in exploring a variety of Mormon topics at conferences and in publications. It includes members of the LDS Church, Community of Christ (RLDS) and other denominations that trace their roots to Joseph Smith.

Richard Turley, who is the LDS Assistant Church Historian, along with retired BYU history professor Ronald Walker and Glen Leonard, former Director of the LDS Museum of Church History and Art, are the authors of the upcoming book, Massacre at Mountain Meadows. They were hired by the LDS Church to write the book, and it appears they are laying groundwork in advance of its release. While the book purports to be an objective synthesis of their findings and conclusions, it seems as though it is seen by non-Mormons as a conduit for the LDS Church’s side of the story. How fair that perception is, I don’t know.

The big news Turley announced at this year’s MHA conference is that Brigham didn’t order the massacre. Deseret News religion editor Carrie Moore reported Turley as saying:

“There is insufficient evidence to say former LDS Church President Brigham Young ordered the Mountain Meadows Massacre and ample evidence that says he did not.”

Turley’s announcement was no surprise. After all, the book was commissioned and paid for by the Church. But that doesn’t mean Turley is wrong -- just that he concluded what was expected. Of course, the book will be expected to produce compelling analysis and argument, if not concrete evidence, to back up his assertion.

I have tried to educated myself about this horrible incident, first by reading Juanita Brooke’s Mountain Meadows Massacre, then Will Bagley’s Blood of the Prophets and lastly, Under the Banner of Heaven by Jon Krakauer. Along the way I have seen a lot of debate and commentary about who is the most biased, who is the best historian, and who has the biggest chip on his or her shoulder. What appears to be consistent is that there is no reliable smoking gun showing Brigham Young ordered the deed. There is a lot of discussion about culpability before -- and cover up after -- the event, but nothing that concretely shows Young saying, “DO IT.”

Massacre at Mountain Meadows is set for release this summer or fall. My hunch is that it will not settle the debate as to what really happened. And I suspect that given the Church’s sponsorship, it probably won’t be seen as a reliable and unbiased account of the event by those outside the Church. Even I have a hard time believing the authors would produce a volume that was seriously damaging to the Church. Turley said that he would go where the evidence led him, but I find it hard to believe that the authors can produce a book and not be mindful of who is paying the bills. Turley's response to this, Carrie Moore reports:

"Some might wonder whether I would have had my hand slapped if I learned Brigham Young ordered the massacre." As an employee of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Turley said he made senior church leaders "aware of my intent to follow the evidence to its conclusion. They supported it and, to a man, were willing to accept it and follow the truth."

Well, in spite of my skepticism, I will read the book and see if it feels believable and fair. Two of the other three books I read certainly didn’t seem evenhanded to me. I found the Bagley book unpersuasive because I felt he had an agenda and stacked his evidence and conclusions in such a manner as to back up his thesis irrespective of the support. I suppose that’s what an author is supposed to do when making an argument, but I didn’t trust his judgment. And the Krakauer book seems even more sensationalistic and agenda-driven. I felt Krakauer completely missed the boat when he left the impression that the LDS and fundamentalist Mormons are essentially the same. That certainly has not been my experience and I thought he muddily lumped us together. So that leaves me with Juanita Brooks, and I am OK with that. I found her book compelling and plenty damning of the Church, if that’s what one seeks. It certainly didn’t whitewash anything. I thought she placed plenty of blame without going beyond what she could reasonably conclude about the event.

And while I note my default position of skepticism about the upcoming book’s impartiality, I hope to be open-minded enough not to dismiss it if it is compelling. And the book has one very good thing going for it – Ronald Walker. I admire him as a historian and have been impressed with his career and ability to produce quality and, I believe, trustworthy work. And it doesn't hurt that he was the Bishop that saw me off on my mission.

So my question is this, is there anything that could come out in this book that could change your mind about the event? Do people’s feelings about the culpability of Brigham Young and the LDS Church hierarchy rest upon whether they believe in the Church or not? And does a person simply pick the historical exposition that best fits what they already think, or can people be convinced to think otherwise despite preconceived notions?

I Think This Went Well But Who Knows

Well, I gave my talk today. I felt pretty good about how it went. People were polite and complementary but how do really know what people think. The comment which brought the biggest smile to my face was when my neighbor, a new convert, said "that was freaking fantastic." I told him that was one the best things anyone had every said to me. I owe a lot to my wife on this one -- she is a much better writer and message crafter than me. Of course, that's what she does for a living. She edited this for content and clarity several times for me. She may not be a Mormon but she gets us. So, here's a shout out to you helpmeet.

I have to admit I am jealous Elder O’Toole is spending the next two years in Ireland sharing the gospel full time. I fondly recall my time in the London South Mission. So much of my life and world view was shaped by my mission. It was an incredible time of clarity and focus, and I hope Elder O'Toole is blessed with as wonderful an experience as I had.

I get to talk today about member missionary work. But before I start, let me congratulate everyone here. We have been phenomenally successful missionaries. By almost any measure, Church growth is remarkable. From its humble beginnings as an upstart church one hundred and sixty-eight years ago, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints now has a presence in over 160 countries. It has more than 52,000 full-time missionaries and exceeds 13 million members. Membership has quadrupled in the last 40 years.

But I don’t have to tell you that our Church is not one to be content with doing well -- we perpetually seek to do better. We push ever onward and upward in our quest to spread the gospel. And a big part of that undertaking rests with people like you and me – the regular members of the church. If you haven’t repeatedly heard the call for member missionary work, then you have been napping in Church and watching something other than General Conference.

There are a lot of ways to be active member missionaries. For some, it is an easy matter to approach strangers and strike up a discussion about the Church. Some people comfortably and successfully distribute multiple copies of the Book of Mormon. These gifted advocates thrive on the challenges and rewards of overt proselytizing. But for many of us, the thought of spreading the word in such a bold and extroverted manner is frightening. Instead, we prefer to cautiously make friends, hoping that they will make it easy for us to share our faith. And then there are those of us who are so uncomfortable with the thought of discussing our beliefs that we simply do nothing, the result being that we perpetually feel bad about ourselves and question our commitment to the gospel.

Whatever your comfort level, there are some things, I believe, that all of us can do that will enhance our missionary efforts and will increase the receptiveness of potential converts. Simply put, we can live our lives in a positive way that draws the attention of others. With our example we can influence their feelings about the Church, and possibly lead some to enquire after our message and accept the gospel. We can be open to and pursue religious discussions, not in a preachy way, but in a manner where we share our beliefs and views while learning of those of others. This may sound like a comparatively passive way to spread the gospel, but I think it is actually an extremely effective method for promoting interest in and conversation about our beliefs.

Many, if not most of us, are lifelong members of the Church. Not having lived outside the Church, it is hard for us to understand that many people have wildly inaccurate and ill conceived ideas of who and what we are. It may be easy to dismiss their perceptions, but that doesn’t change what they think. You know the saying, perception is reality. And it’s hard to be an effective missionary if those who don’t know us believe us to be a dangerous and crazy cult. Whether we like it or not, we have a lot of work to do to let others know that we are not to be feared or mistrusted. We need to let others see who and what we are. But in order to enable others to see the real us, we need to understand how they see us now.

Dealing with the perceptions of the Church has been on the minds of several General Authorities lately. Last year, while serving as the head of the Church Missionary Committee, Elder Quentin L. Cook told a group of BYU students that some Latter-day Saints are frustrated because they see this as a difficult time to spread the gospel message. After all, Elder Cook said, according to a recent Gallup poll, 46 percent of Americans view Mormons unfavorably, 11 percent don’t know we are, and 18 percent think of polygamy when our name is mentioned.

Let me repeat that, 46 percent of Americans view us unfavorably. And only 42% view us favorably. That means there are more people that see us negatively than positively. I realize that we as a people are not running for office, but if we were, we probably couldn’t win with those numbers. I don’t know about you but I am quite surprised to find that level of discomfort with us. I know we have a long history of strained relations with the public at large, but I thought we had largely put those troubles behind us. After all, Church members have risen to tops of their fields in many areas of business, sports and public life. But in spite of this, people still hold a lot in incorrect ideas about us.

Now, I have to admit I am a bit of a media junkie. I am fascinated by politics, religion and pop culture and how they intersect. And when it comes to Mormons and the media, this last year has been a veritable Chuck-O-Rama of plenty and indulgence.

There were our American Idol contestants, David Archuleta and Brooke White. When Brooke announced to Simon, Randy and Paula that she didn’t see R rated movies, I turned to my wife and proclaimed the obvious: “she’s a Mormon.” There was Mitt Romney’s run for President. It was fascinating, revealing and troubling to see how his religion impacted his undertaking. Then there was the storm of coverage that accompanied the raids on the FLDS community in Texas, and our Church’s rigorous efforts to ensure we were we not lumped in with the FLDS in the eyes of the world.

For better or worse, this last year could rightly be dubbed the year of the Mormons in the media because so much attention has been directed at the Church and its members.

This attention has been commented upon several times recently by Elder Russell M. Ballard, who serves on the Church Public Affairs Committee. Two months ago, when speaking to the BYU Management Society in Washington, D.C., he noted that the level of media attention toward the Church was higher in the last year than in the last century, largely because Mitt Romney sought the presidency. While stressing the political neutrality of the Church, he noted all the debate and discussion in news columns, on TV and talk shows, and on Internet blogs. But what really grabbed his attention was what the coverage and demonstrated about how others view’s of the Church.

He said

what is really interesting to me and our Public Affairs team was whether all of this had any affect on the way people perceive The Church

He further said,

I personally think interest in the Church over the past year and a half was a plus. I’d much rather have people talking about us than ignoring us. The biggest problem we face is apathy. Still, we have learned a lot. One thing we have concluded is that even after one hundred seventy eight years, there is more misinformation out there than we had imagined.

Elder Ballard indentified two main sources for this misinformation and ill will: One on the right and the other on the left.

If you have been following this as well, it will should no surprise that one of our main detractors are conservative Christians who don’t like our doctrine and translate that into public opposition. We have read, over and over again, Elder Ballard said, of accusations that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a cult and does not follow the tenets of mainstream Christianity.

The second source of opposition he identified comes from some on the left who target the Church over moral issues like abortion and same gender marriage.

While recognizing a wide spectrum of opinion, Elder Ballard said he was most interested in the perspective of those who fell between the two extremes, the great mass in the middle. Elder Ballard told his audience

What is of greatest interest to me is the perceptions of the great mass of American people who are in the middle of these two extremes

Many of these people are simply puzzled. If they know a Latter-day Saint, they may have a positive impression and consider Mormons model citizens. Still, they hear assertions or descriptions of our Christian doctrines that seem unfamiliar. They hear harsh — sometimes mean-spirited — criticisms or accusations. Many want answers, and the places they are most likely to seek those answers are either on the Internet or from their Mormon acquaintances.

Lately, there’s been one more factor influencing those caught between the two ideological extremes: the FLDS raid in Texas and the avalanche of news coverage and commentary that accompanied it. This single event drew international attention on our Church – and that attention for the most part wasn’t positive. And much of it has been downright wrong. To combat the misinformation, Church leaders and public relations officials have worked vigorously to provide accurate information.

Elder Ballard weighed in on this in his April address as well. He said

in the past two weeks we have seen a flood of publicity coming out of Texas where state authorities have removed women and children from the FLDS polygamous community. This religious group, of course, has nothing to do with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Most of the news media have attempted to make that clear. But a few—especially some in other countries—have confused their readers or viewers by suggesting that this group in Texas is somehow connected to us, and, of course, you know that they are not. This is currently a very difficult Public Affairs challenge.

Difficult indeed as many of you likely know. I imagine a lot of you have had conversations on an airplane or with a non-member about how the LDS and FLDS Church differ. It can be a challenge to articulate the differences in a manner that is meaningful and easily understood. But it is important that those discussions occur. And remember, we may know the differences, but many others don’t.

So the question for me is this – what can be about this inaccurate information. Elder Ballard asked the same question of his audience. He put it this way

let me pose a question. What are you prepared to do about it? If you are a member of the Church, what is your responsibility during this period of unusual attention and debate? Interest has continued at a high level and probably will for some time. If a national conversation is going on about the Church, are you going to be an active participant or a silent observer?

While noting the responsibility of Church leaders to engage the media, he said that they can’t do it all, especially at the grass-roots, community level. He then called on us to take up the cause. And while acknowledging that our leaders speak authoritatively for the Church, they look to faithful members to engage personally with blogs, to write thoughtful, online letters to news organizations, and to act in other ways to correct the record with their own opinions.

Of course Elder Ballard doesn’t expect us to try and book a slot on Larry King Live or take out full page newspaper ads to get our message out. And we don’t have to militant about it. His call for action is much milder. He advised that our communications could take the form of a simple conversation. He said

I am talking about taking part in everyday conversations in an unforced way, where your values and your religious beliefs will arise naturally. No one likes to have religion thrust down their throats. Instead, allow people to see how your beliefs lift and shape your life for the better.

What I take from this is that we can and need to be part of the discussion our society is having about Mormonism. And if we do not participate, the discussion will take place without us. We need to explain and define ourselves. There is a notion in our society that it’s not polite to discuss religion. I don’t agree with that. Talking openly about religion in a spirit of exploration and understanding can bring together people with vastly different beliefs and approaches to life.

But we have to be prepared to have a discussion with people who have their own ideas and beliefs. And this can be challenging. I have a good friend who I have spent many a lively evening with jostling over the differences and culture of Mormons and Unitarians. She has not become a Mormon and I have not joined the Unitarians. But we both have learned of each other’s faith and the reasons for our association which our respective churches. It has been rewarding and thought provoking to discuss our religious differences and similarities.

But she tells me that I am one of the few Mormons that will discuss religions with her. She knows and works with scores of active members and loves to discuss religion, but she says she finds few takers. I wonder why this is. I have know her a long time, so maybe it’s a comfort thing, but I think many people are reluctant to have a real conversation with her. She won’t tolerate platitudes, she wants real ideas and real beliefs, but she loves to discuss the religious matters. Do we perhaps shy away from a discussion that requires us to move beyond a simple declaration of belief? I think a discussion requires that give more than just statements of belief. It requires an exchange of ideas and thoughts.

I personally find that deep down many people want to discuss their religious views. As we get to know each other, that quickly discover that I like discussing current events and politics and religion. I think they find it amusing and a little disconcerting but are also intrigued. I can usually get them to discuss these things with me but they want a discussion, not a sermon. They want to hear what I think and they also want to share their beliefs. So I make a strong effort to learn their views and idea while I share mine. In doing so we get to know each other.

Now many of those I talk to may find me unconventional and quirky. But they also know that I am a seeker of personal and religious understanding. And that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the foundation from which I conduct my exploration. And I believe that in my own little way I am sharing the gospel and getting information out there.

So Brothers and Sisters, I will ask the same question Elder Ballard asked – what are you prepared to do about it. I hope you will take up his challenge and join the discussion.

I say these things in the name of Jesus Christ Amen.

This Could Be Interesting

So I’ve got this little problem. I was asked today to speak in sacrament meeting next Sunday. Because the other speaker is a young man who is leaving on a mission, I have been asked to focus my comments on member missionary work. I guess it’s pretty clear that you don’t get assigned a sacrament talk based on qualifications. I am certainly not much of a missionary, unless discussing the similarities between the FLDS practice of polygamy and that of my great grandparents constitutes sharing the gospel. In fact, most of my sharing time is spent trying to understand my connection to the church rather than trying to connect others.

I have given a talk in sacrament meeting about 2 times in the last 15 years, but I have some strong notions about what makes a talk good. But I am having a tough time figuring out how to make this topic fit into my idea of a good talk.

I hope the talk to be

Interesting

Honest

Thoughtful

Thought provoking

Helpful to those listening

Because the topic of member missionary work is one that the average member has heard about 10 million times, I am trying hard to think of something that won’t put my listeners to sleep. Any ideas?