|
|
|
******************** BY COMMON CONSENT ******************** Volume 11, No. 3 July 2005
A STUDY IN ANGER Presented at the Counterpoint Conference, University of Utah, November 6, 2004
Paul James Toscano
Anger rivals lust as the most politically and socially incorrect of emotions. Undisplayed, it is considered a weakness. Uncorked, it disturbs or frightens, even those who are not its object. At best, it is a sin; at worst, a crime—the outward sign of inward depravity and lack of restraint associated with meanness, hatred, cruelty, immorality, and evil (picture Hitler ranting from his Nuremberg podium). Anger is a negative to be shunned by good people, nice people, loving people, and faithful people (picture Church leaders arrayed for Sunday services or the Teletubbies). When people ask me if I’m angry, I tell them yes. When they ask me why, I tell them to go to hell. I mean this literally, not metaphorically. For it is in hell that we can find all the good reasons for being angry. Come with me to the infernal regions, past the gates of Avernus where Beatrice is busy feeding Viagra to Virgil and a crapulent three-headed Cerberus guards the elevator to underworld. (The way down has been post-modernized.) I hit the "down" button. Ping. Level 1: The Fools--people too self-absorbed to see themselves as they are seen or to read in a single utterance the multiple meanings that might be hidden there. Ping. Level 2: The narcissists--those characterized by relentless self-promotion and self-interest. Ping. Level 3: The passive aggressive, who as Hamlet said, "may smile, and smile, and be a villain." Ping. Level 4: The crème de la crème: The self-anointed intellectual elite and the morally superior. Ping. Level 5: The naïve positivists who hide biases in value neutral rhetoric. Ping. Level 6: Religious fundamentalists who wish to impose on others their failure of imagination. Ping. Level 7: The spin-doctors who claim to work cures, but end up infecting others with the dirty white lies of their propaganda. Ping. Level 8: The hypocrites, so plenteous among the self-righteous. Picture those Utah Republicans who denounced Democratic candidate Scott Mattheson for supporting the very prescription drug law proposed by President Bush. Ping. Level 9: The often nameless bureaucrats, inaccessible judges, or entrenched political incumbents--those who hold the public trust but are barely accountable to its beneficiaries. Ping. Level 10: The "archs"--monarchs, oligarchs, matriarchs, patriarchs--that damnable set so abhorred in Henry Fielding’s Tom Jones by the character Mr. Western, who declared, "I hate all lords and Hanoverians." Ping. Level 11: The God squad: Popes, prelates, lamas, mullas, ayatollahs, rabbis, gurus, vicars, reverends, false prophets, self-appointed apostles, pastors, preachers, and teachers—those whom my daughter Mary refers to as the "ignorant but decisive, ready to rule over the ignorant but indecisive" and to fool the Fools back on Level 1. Eleven levels of hell--four new ones added since Dante’s time; and according to Rumor, who is an actual personage down here, three more levels are soon to be added: Level 12 for terrorists, Level 13 for war profiteers, and Level 14 for members of ruling dynasties such as the Windsors, the Hapsburgs, the Bushes, the Kennedys, and the likes of Gayle Ruzicka. If you have been listening to my recitation of this list, you will have heard the anger in my voice. If you are not incensed by this list, it may be that you recognize yourself somewhere on it. Of course, we are all of us sometimes on the list. Hopefully, though, we are usually not. Chains of commonality bind the various miscreants I’ve relegated to these levels of hell: authoritarianism, class, power imbalance, inequality, unfairness—all of these. But these commonalities themselves are manifestations of a single hellish element: Each claims for itself some privilege it will not accord to others; each wishes to exempt itself from a burden it is willing to lay on others. Your blood should boil at this self-serving failing. Recognize it in yourself whenever you can, and extract it like a rotten tooth. There’s not much you can do when you find it in others. When I think of elitism, I think of Lorenzo Snow’s couplet:
Whether true or false, this sentiment is not a recipe for humility is it? Here’s my countervailing couplet, which in my view sums up the gospel of Jesus Christ:
Don’t think by that comment that I have faith in God. My faith has shrunk to the size of a mustard seed. No, my couplet is not a sign of my faith; it is a sign only of my ability to read King James English. The gospel is not about pain avoidance. It is not about denying loss. It is about God showing us how to face them. It is not about laying our crosses on others, but taking them up as he did. It is not about judgment and condemnation; it is about repentance and forgiveness. It is about embracing the cross that is our fate. Anger oozes like sap from the tree of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. It arises upon our pain and loss and even more intensely upon our fear of pain and loss. Anger is the outward sign of our inward fear—the fear of injustice, of ignorance, of cruelty, of greed, and that most fundamental fear of all--the fear of death, which is rooted in the more fundamental terror of being alone—of being strangers and pilgrims and aliens in a hostile universe. Such fear is real. It informs the psyches and societies of humanity. It stems from our blindness. We have eyes, but we do not see. Noses, but we do not smell. Ears, but we do not hear. We are blinded by consciousness. Our minds are opaque. Our hearts are egocentric. Our point of view is singular. Our imaginations are inadequate. Dust we are and unto dust shall we return. It pisses me off--it really does--to have eyes that do not see and ears that do not hear. What kind of equipment is this? To stare into the starry sky and see directly into eternity, into the pith of the mystery, and see nothing. My dog Zoë thinks I’m an idiot. I can’t smell or hear or see anything from her point of view, and I can sit for hours gawking blankly into a flashing screen that emits strange noises. She at least can see ghosts, apparently—for what else could she be barking at when no one else is there? No, the equipment is no good. It never was. And frankly it’s deteriorating. Meanwhile, the Hubble telescope is improving and showing us that in nearly every little rectangle of the sky, a rectangle you can measure with one eye open and cover with a playing card held at arm’s length--in that small area, way out in space, there are hundreds of millions of galaxies. That pisses me off, too. What is God up to? There’s too much stuff. Nobody can keep track of all this. Omnipotence and omnipresence were easier to believe in back when there were only a few galaxies and some gas. Billions and billions and billions of galaxies? That idea, I think, finally killed the astro-poet Carl Sagan. The Pearl of Great Price recounts the story of Enoch, an antediluvian prophet. His preaching resulted in, first, the creation of the city of Zion, and then the city's being taken out of the wicked world. But the rest of the story is that, in a vision, Enoch saw the vast expanse of eternity, and it shattered his belief. He was undone. He couldn’t believe that its Creator could care about the microbial humans who inhabited this small speck of earth. He couldn’t believe it, even when he was talking to that Creator face to face: Let me read this most fascinating account:
Well, there it is. Hot, scary anger erupting from the highest source of truth and ultimate mystery. Full of threats to kill. And not idle threats either. The Heavenly Father and the Heavenly Mother are out to kill us. Surely you’ve noticed this. Some of our friends are missing. No doubt God has reasons for anger, but so do we. Of course, Jesus did not counsel anger, although he occasionally got angry himself. No, he recommended love. He said love casts out fear. He said" "Fear not! In the world you shall have tribulations, but I have overcome the world." He said he would somehow find all the missing and bring them back again. I’m not telling you what I believe--only what I have read. Jesus said love casts out fear. He didn’t say love casts out anger. Perhaps sometimes love kindles anger. Perhaps sometimes fear and anger and love overlap in complex and confusing ways that make us uncomfortable—like those billions and billions of galaxies that swirl in the far reaches of time and space, like those infinitesimal photons, nutrinos, and quarks that shimmer in an incomprehensible quantum reality unbounded by space and time. Perhaps mortals are meant to live short lives without closure, without a unified field theory. And in this short breath of life, perhaps our faith must embrace our doubt; our hope, our despair; our love, our fear. Perhaps mortals are meant to suffer the mystery that is God, the mystery that is humanity, and the mystery that is the universe, even as you with polite patience have here suffered the ramblings of an angry, aging man.
Avoiding Alternate Voices Lavina Fielding Anderson Reading through the proceedings of the October 2004 general conference published in the November issue of the Ensign, it struck me what a limited circle of resources the speakers drew upon. All of them quoted voluminously from the scriptures, which is certainly appropriate for religious addresses, but I began noticing who else they quoted. Such an exercise becomes meaningful in identifying trends only as a comparative work, but the statistics below may serve as a benchmark. There are 97 General Authorities in the First Presidency, Quorum of the Twelve, Presidency of the Seventy, First and Second Quorums of the Seventy, and Presiding Bishopric, plus nine women constituting the general Relief Society, Young Women, and Primary presidencies. This is a pool of 106 potentially eligible speakers. Twenty-nine individuals spoke in the four general conference sessions, the priesthood session, and the general Relief Society meeting. Traditionally, the First Presidency and entire Quorum of the Twelve speak. At the October 2004 conference, that pattern was followed. For the past several years, two members of auxiliary presidencies have spoken per conference. In this conference, they were Bonnie D. Parkin, Relief Society general President, and Elaine S. Dalton, second counselor in the Young Women general presidency. Only one member of the seven-man presidency of the Seventy spoke (John H. Groberg), and one member of the three-man Presiding Bishopric (H. David Burton). Of the 38 members of the First Quorum of the Seventy, two spoke (Richard J. Maynes and Carl B. Pratt). Of the 34 members of the Second Quorum of the Seventy, five spoke (Ronald T. Halverson, Dale E. Miller, H. Bryan Richards, Ned B. Roueché, and Donald L. Staheli). Four speakers gave more than one talk: Gordon B. Hinckley (4), Thomas S. Monson (3), James E. Faust (2), and Bonnie H. Parkin (2). The three members of the First Presidency traditionally address both the priesthood session and one of the general sessions, while Church presidents since Spencer W. Kimball have usually given opening and closing remarks as well. Monson and Parkin spoke in both general sessions and at the Relief Society gen meeting. I excluded quotations from the scriptures, including passages from the Doctrine and Covenants consisting of letters or other instructions that were clearly from Joseph Smith, not revelations, and quotations from Joseph F. Smith’s revelation, now D&C 132. I also excluded the occasion-specific references to deceased apostles Neal A. Maxwell and David B. Haight and welcomes to the two new apostles, David A. Bednar and Deiter F. Uchtdorf. I included stories about named individuals even if they were not actually quoted. Four speakers did not quote sources other than the scriptures: Gordon B. Hinckley (opening remarks), Dallin H. Oaks, David A. Bednar, and Ned B. Rouché. By a wide margin, when General Authorities quote named individuals, they quote each other; and their most popular person to quote is President Gordon B. Hinckley himself. He was quoted 14 times by other speakers and alluded to (e.g., testimonies that he is a prophet) 13 times. My sense is that both quotations from and allusions to President Hinckley have dropped off since the earlier years of his presidency, but it would require checking other conferences to determine whether there is a trend. Among living General Authorities, except for President Hinckley, few were quoted. Only Boyd K. Packer was quoted more than once (3 times). President Faust was quoted twice, and President Monson, Elder Holland, and John B. Dickson were each quoted once. Here is the ranking for quotations from former Church presidents. Brigham Young (8 times), Joseph F. Smith (6), Joseph Smith (5), Spencer W. Kimball and David O. McKay (4 times each), Wilford Woodruff, Heber J. Grant (3 times each), Harold B. Lee (2), and John Taylor and Howard W. Hunter (1). Brigham Young and Joseph F. Smith have both supplied priesthood/Relief Society curriculum recently; it will be interesting to see if quotations from both Joseph Smith (2005 is the sesquicentennial of his birth) and David O. McKay (the current curriculum) will see increased citations at April and October 2005 conferences. The ranking for deceased General Authorities is: Neal A. Maxwell (4), Marion G. Romney and Heber C. Kimball (3), J. Reuben Clark and Bruce R. McConkie (2), and one apiece for Hyrum Smith, B. H. Roberts, Rudger Clawson, Stephen L Richards, and George Q. Cannon. A large category was stories about/quotations from "ordinary" members of the Church (or "ordinary" nonmembers)--those, in other words, whom the Church at large would not be expected to know their names. I categorized these examples as anonymous ("a wife," "my friend," "one young man") and partially identified individuals ("a single mother named Gloria," "my friend Jan") vs. named individuals (or individuals who are identifiable because of their relationship ("my father," "my wife Susan"), and also looked for gender patterns. These patterns formed a distinct criss-cross. Fifteen anonymous males were quoted vs. six anonymous females. Eight named males and fifteen females were quoted. Seven couples were quoted. Seven speakers quoted hymns (sometimes more than one). They were "We Thank Thee, O God, for a Prophet" (Holland); "How Great Thou Art" and "There Is a Green Hill" (Groberg); "Know This, That Every Soul Is Free" (Ronald T. Halvorsen), "Let Zion in Her Beauty Rise" (Kathleen T. Hughes), "The Morning Breaks," and "The Lord is My Light" (Anne C. Pingree), "I Stand All Amazed" and "How Great Thou Art" (Cecil O. Samuelson), and "Choose the Right" (Monson). Poetry that was not hymns was barely represented, however, except for President Monson’s quotation of "The Reading Mother" by Strickland Gillilan and "Lycidas" by John Milton; and Parkin’s quoting Roger Hoffman’s "Consider the Lilies." President Monson and President Hinckley were the only speakers to draw on popular culture: Fiddler on the Roof and Irving Caesar (author of a song popular in 1924: "I want to be happy/ but I won’t be happy / till I make you happy, too"). Monson also effortlessly swept the field in sheer number of quotations in a single talk--14 in his address at the Relief Society general meeting. His quotations showed a broad range: Wilford Woodruff, Brigham Young , Harold B. Lee, Lewis Carroll, J. Reuben Clark, David O. McKay (twice), Heber J. Grant, Washington Irving, and three stories about named women: Judith Loudon, Olive Davies, and Helen Lee Goates. Runner-up was Bonnie D. Parkin in the Relief Society meeting with eleven: Joseph F. Smith (twice), Gordon B. Hinckley, Brigham Young, Boyd K. Packer, two named women, one unnamed woman, and a personal story. In third place was Elder Holland with eight: Gloria Clements, Cotton Mather, Roger Williams, Jonathan Edwards, Ralph Waldo Emerson, John Taylor, Richard L. Bushman, and a hymn. Other categories were: 1. Eleven personal stories. 2. Eight pioneer stories. 3. Authoritative LDS sources: the Bible Dictionary (twice), "Guide to the Scriptures"), For the Strength of Youth, and the 1980 "Proclamation" of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. 4. Seven sources who are national literary/historic figures: Cotton Mather, Roger Williams, Jonathan Edwards, Ralph Waldo Emerson, C. S. Lewis, Lewis Carroll, and Washington Irving. 5. Mormons who fit comfortably into mainstream LDS culture: historian Richard L. Bushman (he was quoted, but not by name in the text; his name was given in the note), an LDS version of a popular national series, Sunshine for the Latter-day Saint Soul, and Daniel H. Ludlow, A Companion to Your Study of the Doctrine and Covenants, 5. The only author who did not fit one of these above categories was a what appeared to be a general inspirational/self-help work by "Dr. Rachel Remen," author of My Grandfather’s Blessings. Conclusions? While conference speakers are unquestionably setting a sterling example for Church members in quoting the scriptures and while familiarity with past and present leaders is an important part of cultural cohesiveness, does "the world" really have so little to offer in terms of inspiration, noble thoughts, inspiration to ethical action, and spiritual stimulation? At what point may quotations from each other become mere echoes? And, it goes without saying, that this endless recycling of each others’ thoughts heightens the already high level of authoritarianism in the Church. Furthermore, the trickle-down effect is also disheartening. Although the "teachings for our times" at Relief Society and priesthood meetings has been confined for three or four years to conference talks, for about the last six months in my own ward, sacrament meeting speakers have been instructed to draw their remarks from conference talks. The constant rehash of already well-worn (and presumably listened-to, then read) themes is dismaying. Creativity is stifled. Engagement with ideas is nonexistent. The pallid parroting of authoritative discourse reduces the already narrow margins of individual expressions about the challenges and blessings of living the gospel.
A Proposal: Abandon Intercollege Athletics Garth N. Jones
There are some advantages to an order and command system. With little fanfare, Church authorities transformed Ricks College from a two-year to four-year Brigham Young University--Idaho. Its highly acclaimed intercollegiate athletic program, particularly its perennial championship football teams, was summarily discarded. I consider this decision nothing short of inspired, permitting university leadership to concentrate on establishing a quality academic institution. Among its advantages? An end to disgracefully low standards for prima donna athletes with low academic interests and ability. An end to recruiting Gentile mercenaries with little or no intent to respect their Honor Code pledge. An end to federal intrusions about equal gender opportunities in athletics. Money now available for a physical education program with students as participants, rather than spectators. And there’s more! An end to the master-slave relationship with high salaries paid to coaches and small stipends given to the players. An end to the corrupting influence of commercialism. An end to worries about Sunday games and beer commercials. The Church need not compromise its religious character by covering up poor academic performance and moral violations to keep the athletic program going. Now, I have no documented proof that any of these abuses have occurred at BYU-I, but there’s plenty of evidence that similar problems are more or less endemic at most universities. And what is the next step? I think it’s time to reassess the corrupting and exploitive competitive sports programs at BYU-Provo--in other words, honestly determine the extent of the abuse. This moment is particularly timely. Maintaining a winning football team is falling afoul of the organizational conflicts in its jungle environment. (See "Y Study Targets Athetic Red Ink," Deseret News, January 12, 2004, A-1, A-8). Athetic administrators have unceremoniously fired athletic directors and affiliated staff, which is not an unusual personnel practice at BYU. Their need for winning teams is clear, but why is that need so desperate? I think they are simply being realistic. The intercollegiate sports program is driven by rabid alumni whose egos need identification with bread-and-circus events. They enjoy seeing gladiatorial contests, even when the gladiators are imported mercenaries. (For one study, see J. Douglas Toma’s Football U.: Spectator Sports in the Life of the American University (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2003), which makes a strong case that a sports program can be a defensible and important part of a university in spite of the high price tag, violence, and possibility of corruption.) Here’s my proposal: A more sensible approach is to begin with academics. Let’s posit a scenario in which a school recruits its athletes from among whoever matriculates. The scholarships are awarded solely on the basis of academic merit, not physical ability. In other words, athletes are recruited from students who come to the university for an education. I also propose some new values that should receive emphasis: 1. Winning is not everything. How the game is played is more important. 2. BYU’s Honor Code should be paramount in its academic culture. No individual should be admitted unless he/she understands the implications of this code and is willing to accept it. 3. Academics, not athletics, should be rewarded. Athletic trophies should be stored in back rooms, while a Wall of Honor should record high intellectual achievements. As much energy should go into winning Nobel Prizes and Rhodes Scholarships as now goes into conference sports. 4. Athletics should be for the many, not for the few, so that all can play, improve their skills, learn the give and take of teamwork, achieve their very best, and learn the type of honor that we call sportsmanship. BYU-Idaho should be watched with keen interest. Relieved of the burden of intercollegiate athletics, it should make enormous academic strides. Church leaders should be commended for this sensible and courageous act.
Fundamentalism and the Self Growth of the self occurs only if the interaction is an enjoyable one, that is, if it offers nontrivial opportunities for action and requires a constant perfection of skills. It is also possible to lose oneself in systems of action that demand nothing but faith and allegiance. Fundamentalist religions, mass movements, and extremist political parties also offer opportunities for self-transcendence that millions are eager to accept. They also provide a welcome extension of the boundaries of the self, a feeling that one is involved in something great and powerful. The true believer also becomes part of the system in concrete terms, because his psychic energy will be focused and shaped by the goals and rules of his belief. But the true believer is not really interacting with the belief system; he usually lets his psychic energy be absorbed by it. from this submission nothing new can come; consciousness may attain a welcome order, but it will be an order imposed rather than achieved. At best the self of the true believer resembles a crystal: strong and beautifully symmetrical, but very slow to grow. -- Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience (New York: HarperPerennial, 1990), 65.
A STUDY IN ANGER Presented at the Counterpoint Conference, University of Utah November 6, 2004
Paul James Toscano
Anger rivals lust as the most politically and socially incorrect of emotions. Undisplayed, it is considered a weakness. Uncorked, it disturbs or frightens, even those who are not its object. At best, it is a sin; at worst, a crime—the outward sign of inward depravity and lack of restraint associated with meanness, hatred, cruelty, immorality, and evil (picture Hitler ranting from his Nuremberg podium). Anger is a negative to be shunned by good people, nice people, loving people, and faithful people (picture church leaders arrayed for Sunday services or the teletubbies). When people ask me if I’m angry, I tell them yes. When they ask me why, I tell them to go to hell. I mean this literally not metaphorically. For it is in hell that we can find all the good reasons for being angry. Come with me to the infernal regions, past the gates of Avernus where Beatrice is busy feeding Viagra to Virgil and a crapulent three-headed Kerberus guards the elevator to underworld. (The way down has been post-modernized.) I hit the "down" button. Ping. Level 1: The Fools—people too self-absorbed to see themselves as they are seen or to read in a single utterance the multiple meanings that might be hidden there. Ping. Level 2: The narcissists--those characterized my relentless self-promotion and self-interest. Ping. Level 3: The passive aggressive, who as Hamlet said, "can smile, and smile, and smile and be a villain." Ping. Level 4: The crème de la crème: The self-anointed intellectual elite and the morally superior. Ping. Level 5: The naïve positivists who hide biases in value neutral rhetoric. Ping. Level 6: Religious fundamentalists who wish to impose on others their failure of imagination. Ping. Level 7: The spin-doctors who claim to work cures, but end up infecting others with the dirty white lies of their propaganda. Ping. Level 8: The hypocrites, so plenteous among the self-righteous (picture those Utah Republicans who denounced Democratic candidate Scott Mattheson for supporting the very prescription drug law proposed by President Bush). Ping. Level 9: The unaccountable – often nameless bureaucrats, or inaccessible judges, or entrenched political incumbents--those who hold the public trust but are hardly accountable to its beneficiaries. Ping. Level 10: The "archs"--monarchs, oligarchs, matriarchs, patriarchs--that damnable set so abhorred in Henry Fielding’s Tom Jones by the character Mr. Western, who declared, "I hate all lords and Hannoverians." Ping. Level 11: The God squad: Popes, prelates, lamas, mullas, ayatollahs, rabbis, gurus, vicars, reverends, false prophets, self-appointed apostles, pastors, preachers, and teachers—those whom my daughter Mary refers to as the "ignorant but decisive, ready to rule over the ignorant but indecisive" and to fool the Fools back on Level 1. Eleven levels of hell--four new ones added since Dante’s time; and according to Rumor, who is an actual personage down here, three more levels are soon to be added: Level 12 for terrorists, Level 13 for war profiteers, and Level 14 for members of ruling dynasties such as the Windsors, the Hapsburgs, the Bushes, the Kennedys, and the likes of Gale Ruzika. If you have been listening to my recitation of this list, you will have heard the anger in my voice. If you are not incensed by this list, it may be that you recognize yourself somewhere on it. Of course, we are all of us sometimes on the list. Hopefully, though, we are usually not. Chains of commonality bind the various miscreants I’ve relegated to these levels of hell: authoritarianism, class, power imbalance, inequality, unfairness—all of these. But these commonalities themselves are manifestations of a single hellish element: Each claims for itself some privilege it will not accord to others; each wishes to exempt itself from a burden it is willing to lay on others. Your blood should boil at this self-serving failing. Recognize it in yourself whenever you can and extract it like a rotten tooth. There’s not much you can do when you find it in others. When I think of elitism, I think of Lorenzo Snow’s couplet:
Whether true or false, this sentiment is not a recipe for humility is it? Here’s my countervailing couplet, which in my view sums up the gospel of Jesus Christ:
Don’t think by that comment that I have faith in God. My faith has shrunk to the size of a mustard seed. No my couplet is not a sign of my faith; it is a sign only of my ability to read King James English. The Gospel is not about pain avoidance. It is not about denying loss. It is about God showing us how to face them. It is not about laying our crosses on others, but taking them up as he did. It is not about judgment and condemnation; it is about repentance and forgiveness. It is about embracing the cross that is our fate. Anger oozes like sap from the tree of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. It arises upon our pain and loss and even more intensely upon our fear of pain and loss. Anger is the outward sign of our inward fear—the fear of injustice, of ignorance, of cruelty, of greed, and that most fundamental fear of all – the fear death, which is rooted in the more fundamental terror of being alone—of being strangers and pilgrims and aliens in a hostile world, in a hostile universe. Such fear is real. It informs the psyches and societies of humanity. It stems from our blindness. We have eyes, but we do not see. Noses, but we do not smell. Ears, but we do not hear. We are blinded by consciousness. Our minds are opaque. Our hearts are egocentric. Our point view is singular. Our imaginations are inadequate. Dust we are and unto dust shall we return. It pisses me off. It really does --to have eyes that do not see and ears that do not hear. What kind of equipment is this? To stare into the starry sky and see directly into eternity, into the pith of the mystery, and see nothing. My dog Zoë thinks I’m an idiot. I can’t smell or hear or see anything from her point of view, and I can sit for hours gawking blankly into a flashing screen that emits strange noises. She at least can see ghosts, apparently—for what else could she be barking at when no one else is there? No, the equipment is no good. It never was. And frankly it’s deteriorating. Meanwhile, the Hubble telescope is improving and showing us that in nearly every little rectangle of the sky, a rectangle you can measure with one eye open and cover with a playing card held at arm’s length--in that small area, way out in space, there are hundreds of millions of galaxies. That pisses me off, too. What is God up to? There’s too much stuff. Nobody can keep track of all this. Omnipotence and omnipresence were easier to believe in back when there were only a few galaxies and some gas. Billions and billions and billions of galaxies. The idea, I think, finally killed the astro-poet Carl Sagan. In the Pearl of Great Price I remember reading about Enoch. He was an antediluvian prophet. He preached the gospel before the time of the Biblical flood, preaching the resulted in the city of Zion being taken out of the wicked world. Then, in a vision, Enoch saw the vast expanse of eternity, and it shattered his belief. He was undone. He couldn’t believe that its Creator could care about the microbial humans that inhabited this small speck of earth. He couldn’t believe it, even when he was talking to that Creator face to face: Let me read this most fascinating account:
Well, there it is. Hot, scary anger erupting from the highest source of truth and ultimate mystery. Full of threats to kill. And not idle threats either. The Heavenly Father and the Heavenly Mother are out to kill us. Surely you’ve noticed this. Some of our friends are missing. No doubt God has reasons for anger, but so do we. Of course, Jesus did not counsel anger, though occasionally angry himself. No, he recommended love. He said love casts out fear. He said" "Fear not! In the world you shall have tribulations, but I have overcome the world." He said he would somehow find all the missing and bring them back again. I’m not telling you what I believe--only what I have read. Jesus said love casts out fear. He didn’t say love casts out anger. Perhaps sometimes love kindles anger. Perhaps sometimes fear and anger and love overlap in complex and confusing ways that make us uncomfortable—like those billions and billions of galaxies that swirl in the far reaches of time and space, like those infinitesimal photons, nutrinos, and quarks that shimmer in an incomprehensible quantum reality unbounded by space and time. Perhaps mortals are meant to live short lives without closure, without a unified field theory. And in this short breath of life, perhaps our faith must embrace our doubt; our hope, our despair; our love, our fear. Perhaps mortals are meant to suffer the mystery that is God, the mystery that is humanity, and the mystery that is the universe, even as you with polite patience have here suffered the ramblings of an angry, aging man. =================== Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 11:37:12 -0600 From: Doug Bowen <dr-drbowen@juno.com> Some observations on the last conference, as I won't be able to attend the critique meeting in SLC:
* Whats with all the red ties? Pres. Samuelson of BYU, in a Jan 13, 2004 devotional address, told his audience he had "securely retired" all his red ties upon taking office. Missionaries in my son's mission were not allowed to wear red ties. I figured they were forbidden for GA's as well, now they were all over the screen during conference. What is the story here?
* Robert J Whetten seems to be unaware that the archaic spelling "shew" is pronounced the same as the modern spelling "show." Also, the preferred pronunciation of "err" is not "air." I was embarrassed for him.
* Dallin Oakes gave one of the worst speeches of the conference. Could Boyd K have assigned him his topic as payback for the "grizzly bear" comment made a few years ago? Dallin perverted a great scripture denouncing the misuse of authority, using it to attack pornography. And where is the scientific study showing that the body can get rid of food poisoning, but the mind cannot overcome the effects of viewing obscenity? What about all the cops and prosecutors who look at pornography as part of their job? Are their minds irrevocably and forever ruined? His leaps of logic just aren't justified. I remember how church authorities condemned the movie "Dr. Zhivago" when it came out, presumably because of its supposedly sympathetic portrayal of adultery. I've seen the movie several times, and have _never_ thought it glamorized adultery, which was an unmitigated disaster for all who were touched by it. The real problem was that the topic was broached at all--church leaders used to like to pretend such problems don't exist in the real world, and were upset that it was depicted on the screen. They seem to be able to address uncomfortable topics now, but still have a hard time prioritizing problems. Pornography may be a problem in St George, but doesn't approach the severity of other issues, such as LDS City Council members allowing development in flood zones, just to enrich themselves and their cronies. If the Church were to give as much attention to financial crime as it does to sexual matters, a great contribution could be made in scores of communities round the country.
* The affectation "in the name of (the Redeemer, etc), _even_ Jesus Christ, Amen" cropped up again. I had hoped this silly phrase had been given up, as the meaningless "quote, unquote" had been earlier, after concerned lexicologists had expressed their concern. In an attempt to show deep sincerity, users of the above "even" inadvertently show _insincerity_ instead.
That's all for now, hope to see you in July at the symposium.
Doug
Conference Critique Highlights
Janice led the discussion on the following noteworthy subjects: * President Hinckley's remarks appreciating Pope John Paul II contributions and extending sympathy to his followers. * The announcement of the new Primary presidency, one of whom is trained in journalism. * The appointment of Marlin K. Jensen, a Seventy, as Church Recorder/Historian. (See "A Note on Church Historians.") A participant with Cache Valley roots said he had heard that Marlin had been a very rebellious teenager. He had also been appointed by the First Presidency to give an interview to the Salt Lake Tribune on the desirability of more political diversity (i.e., more Democrats) in the Church. * Richard Hinckley, son of President Hinckley, was appointed to the First Quorum of Seventy. President Hinckley announced that he was "extremely sensitive" about nepotism, had not proposed his son's name nor had he participated in the discussion of the appointment but was very pleased. He joked that Church members should recognize that Richard "had a great and wonderful mother" and that they shouldn't hold his father against him. Janice categorized the conference talks as 16 institutional (focused on institutional values and loyalty to the institution; the blessings and responsibilities of being a member of the Church), 6 Christian living the application of gospel principles), and 3 doctrinal (understanding gospel principles). She noted the President Hinckley's discourse on Joseph Smith 's First Vision and other doctrines, though lacking analysis or new insights into them, was probably as close as he was likely to get to a doctrinal talk. The group discussed President Hinckley's statement (a commonplace in the Church and probably related to the temple ceremony) that Joseph Smith had learned more about God in his vision than all of the scholars, specifically comparing it to the Nicean Creed. pres Hinckley also articulated the commonplace (though incorrect) idea that the Bible text was corrupt and had that its doctrines had been changed and omitted, thus making the Book of Mormon more "correct." Someone noted his statement that the writing of the books in the Bible and their much-later assembly and canonization made people wonder if it was really true. Is it possible, wondered this person, that President Hinckley had really been unaware of the problems that scholarly approaches pose for faith? And, correspondingly, was President Hinckley really this uninformed or was it a cultivated image? Janice also questioned his narrow (though common) definition of priesthood as the authority to act in g's name, noting that this definition is not supported by the scriptures. Another observer also pointed that he was mistaken in claiming that Mormonism is unique in denying the efficacy of infant baptism. Ironically, although he warned against relying solely on the intellect or physical evidence, yet he seemed to deal mostly with pragmatic topics rather than spiritual. Most strenuously discussed (and also a strong candidate for "worst talk") was Dallin H. Oaks's denunciation of pornography. Janice pointed out that he failed to define pornography in a way that distinguishes it from responsible ways of dealing with sexuality in literature and the media. Sexuality is an important part of human identify and experience; it is a legitimate subject for literature, art, and films. Oaks's emphasis on sin and guilt were not helpful, since they seldom motivate addicts to overcome their addiction. Discussants also challenged Oaks's statement that immodestly dressed girls "become pornography." It was widely seen as just another manifestation of assigning women the responsibility for controlling men's sexuality instead of making men responsible for it. Some participants wondered why President Hinckley had felt it necessary to warn against gambling in two of his talks, a topic that Dallin H. Oaks had also addressed in the previous conference. One knowledgeable observer reported that he had heard of a recent survey that showed a surprising number of priesthood leaders frequented gambling establishments in Las Vegas. Candidates for "best talk" were Jeffrey R. Holland's on missionary work, David Bednar's insightful and well-polished talk on "tender mercies," Joseph B. Wirthlin's memorable talk on kindness, and Kathleen Hughes's on friendship.
A Note on Church Historians Lavina Fielding Anderson The first general Church historian was John Whitmer, also the first general Church officer to be excommunicated. Leonard J. Arrington was the first professionally trained historian to hold the position of Church historian. Since his time, the managing director of the Historical Department (always a General Authority, beginning with G. Homer Durham) has also been the "Church Historian" but has never actually done history and has not been sustained in general conference. Here's a note from my diary: The First Presidency wrote Leonard J. Arrington a letter extending him an "honorable release" both as Church Historian and as director of the History Division. I don't know when Leonard actually received that letter. I was working in the History Division offices on Monday, February 7, 1982, and wrote in my diary that day: "Leonard came beaming and chuckling out of his office, waving a letter from the First Presidency--all four of them--informing him that he had been released as Church Historian and as director of the History Division, and no, they didn't want to meet with him, but he should feel free to take any questions he had to Elder Durham." Elder Durham was set apart as Church Historian privately the next day, Tuesday, 8 February 1982. Neither Leonard's release nor Elder Durham's appointment was announced at April 1982 conference, although President Hinckley made a casual de facto announcement by saying: "Elder G. Homer Durham, a member of the Presidency of the First Quorum of the Seventy and the Church Historian who, if I remember correctly, was born in Parowan, has now addressed us." |