Adventures in Mormonism

In a ruling that likely surprises no one except for the Texas department of Child Protective Services, the Texas Supreme Court has ordered that all 440 children removed from the FLDS Yearning for Zion compound be returned to their parents:

The Texas Supreme Court has ruled that the children taken from a polygamist sect’s ranch should be returned to their parents, saying child welfare officials overstepped their authority.

The high court on Thursday affirmed a decision by the appellate court last week, saying Child Protective Services failed to show an immediate danger to the children.

The ruling directs a lower-court judge to reverse her decision putting the children into foster case. The appeals court ordered the judge to return the children to the parents soon but it is unclear exactly when that will happen.

While I don’t agree with FLDS doctrine or culture, I do think that it’s pretty clear that TCPS seriously overstepped its authority and profoundly botched this whole issue.

Here’s the actual Texas Supreme Court decision (PDF; hat tip to The Volokh Conspiracy).  ..bruce..

I posted the following editorial cartoon over at one of my other blogs:

While some will I’m sure object to the quote in the cartoon above, I will argue that the quote itself is reflected in much of the Book of Mormon, as well as in LDS history, though not always in the way one would think.

FIrst, the easy part. The message that “death is not the worst of evils” pervades the Book of Mormon. A long series of prophets, starting with Lehi, risk their lives in order to deliver God’s word; some, such as Abinadi, die unpleasant deaths as a result. Likewise, believers risk — and in some cases lose — their lives for their beliefs. The women and children converted by Alma₂ and Amulek in Ammonihah are thrown alive into a pit of fire; Alma₂ notes that “the Lord receiveth them up unto himself, in glory.” (Alma 14:8-14). The people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi allows themselves to be killed rather than take up weapons or renounce their faith; “and we know that they are blessed, for they have gone to dwell with their God. . . . Therefore, we have no reason to doubt but they were saved.” (Alma 24:20-26). The Book of Mormon also notes the tragedy of those who die unprepared to meet God (Alma 48:23), and several of the prophetic discourses in the Book of Mormon (notably Jacob and Alma₂ ) stress the importance of being prepared to meet God (via death) at all times.

Likewise, LDS history and doctrine — particularly up through the end of the 19th century — strongly emphasizes that what matters is not death but our state at death: “And it shall come to pass that those that die in me shall not taste of death, for it shall be sweet unto them; and they that die not in me, wo unto them, for their death is bitter.” (D&C 42:46-47) We honor our pioneers, particularly those who died during persecutions and the long trek out to the Salt Lake Valley, and we seek to express our own willingness for such sacrifice when we sing

And should we die before our journey’s through,
Happy day! All is well!
We then are free from toil and sorrow, too;
With the just we shall dwell!

– “Come, Come Ye Saints” by William Clayton

Second, I would argue that the sentiment “Live free or die” is reflected through much of the Book of Mormon as well, as well as in LDS history, though with perhaps at times with a different meaning than usually suggested by that phrase.

The classic interpretation in and of itself is quite clear in the Book of Mormon. The attempt by Amalickiah to reinstate a kingship by force (with support of the lower judges — so much for ‘democracy‘) over the Nephites leads Moroni₁ to raise his famous title of liberty (cf. Alma 46). Amalickiah flees over to the land of Nephi, where his coup in turn against the Lamanite king is successful, and he stirs up the Lamanite nation against the Nephites, leading to this observation by Mormon (who also brings up the ‘unprepared for death’ theme again):

But, as I have said, in the latter end of the nineteenth year, yea, notwithstanding their peace amongst themselves, they were compelled reluctantly to contend with their brethren, the Lamanites. Yea, and in fine, their wars never did cease for the space of many years with the Lamanites, notwithstanding their much reluctance. Now, they were sorry to take up arms against the Lamanites, because they did not delight in the shedding of blood; yea, and this was not all—they were sorry to be the means of sending so many of their brethren out of this world into an eternal world, unprepared to meet their God.

Nevertheless, they could not suffer to lay down their lives, that their wives and their children should be massacred by the barbarous cruelty of those who were once their brethren, yea, and had dissented from their church, and had left them and had gone to destroy them by joining the Lamanites. Yea, they could not bear that their brethren should rejoice over the blood of the Nephites, so long as there were any who should keep the commandments of God, for the promise of the Lord was, if they should keep his commandments they should prosper in the land. (Alma 48:21-25)

Still, this same book of Alma tells of the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi, who were perhaps the most righteous people in all of Book of Mormon history — who willingly died rather than take up their swords against their fellow Lamanites. This they did rather than violate their covenant with God that they would never take up weapons of war again, because of their previous “sins and many murders”, swearing that “rather than shed the blood of their brethren they would give up their own lives” and that they “would suffer unto death rather than commit sin.” (Alma 24:6-19).

Likewise, with rare (and usually unproductive) exceptions, the Latter-day Saints chose to move along — from New York to Ohio to Missouri to Illinois to the Rocky Mountains, with resultant hardship and death — so that they might live free to practice their religion. While the Doctrine & Covenants does contain the “Lord’s law of battle” — which justifies battle only after three efforts at peaceful settlement have been rejected (cf. D&C 98:34-38) — the few instances of armed resistance by Latter-day Saints usually just made things worse.

Still, it is the children of the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi — those who become Helaman’s two thousand “stripling warriors” — who turn out to be the most effective fighters in all the Book of Mormon. And their motivation? Here’s what Helaman₁ writes to Moroni₁ about leading them into battle for the first time:

Therefore what say ye, my sons, will ye go against them to battle?

And now I say unto you, my beloved brother Moroni, that never had I seen so great courage, nay, not amongst all the Nephites.

For as I had ever called them my sons (for they were all of them very young) even so they said unto me: Father, behold our God is with us, and he will not suffer that we should fall; then let us go forth; we would not slay our brethren if they would let us alone; therefore let us go, lest they should overpower the army of Antipus.

Now they never had fought, yet they did not fear death; and they did think more upon the liberty of their fathers than they did upon their lives; yea, they had been taught by their mothers, that if they did not doubt, God would deliver them. And they rehearsed unto me the words of their mothers, saying: We do not doubt our mothers knew it. (Alma 56:44-48)

Still, the Book of Mormon’s major theme hearkens more back to the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi: spiritual freedom (even if it leads to death) is better than life (if it leads to spiritual death). “Live free or die” gets a new meaning in the light of passages such as these:

Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself. (2 Nephi 2:27)

“Live free or die” is literally the choice before us, while “Death is not the worst of evils” is a reminder of what really matters in our mortal — and eternal — lives. There are causes worth dying for, and there are outcomes to our choices that are worse than death. Both things worth keeping in mind.  ..bruce..

I wrote several posts a few months back about the opportunity that Barack Obama had to gain support among American Latter-day Saints, particularly in the western US. In brief, I felt that Mormons were so upset about the anti-Mormon slurs being used against Mitt Romney that I felt there was a real opportunity for Obama to pick up significant LDS support in the general election.

Well, I now believe that such an opportunity is dwindling away, due to three main developments.

First, Mike Huckabee now appears to have lost his influence in the GOP campaign. Since his campaign and he himself were the worst offenders in anti-LDS slurs, that will go a long ways towards letting the anger that many Mormons felt towards such appalling tactics die down.

Second, John McCain appears to have buried the hatchet with Mitt Romney — they’ve done fund-raising events together, something McCain desperately needs help with — and there is serious talk about Romney as VP. (Personally, I’d rather see Condi Rice as VP, but I think she may carry too much baggage from the Bush Administration to be seriously considered.) Anyway, the McCain-Romney reconciliation likewise goes a long ways towards smoothing over some of the anti-Mormon jabs that came out of the McCain campaign in the primaries. Note, however, that there are still “social conservatives” (read: Evangelicals) who are apoplectic at the thought of Romney as VP. If this is seen as having torpedoed Romney’s selection as VP, McCain support could dwindle again.

I love the government and the Constitution of this land, but I do not love the damned rascals that administer the government. — Brigham Young

Third, and the real kicker, the whole flap over various sermons by Rev. Jeremiah Wright — and Obama’s only half-hearted attempts to distance himself from Wright’s more inflammatory remarks — has likely diminished most of the support that Obama might have gained among Latter-day Saints. In particular, the clip of Rev. Wright saying, “G** d*** America!” — which was repeatedly shown on the various news channels — would likely be very offensive and disturbing to most Americans Mormons. In spite of our own history of religious persecution and having to flee the United States for what was then Mexico (and is now Utah — which gives me a great idea for a new Absolut Vodka ad showing the kingdom of Deseret), American Mormons are profoundly patriotic and believe very much in American exceptionalism, even as we decry some of the idiocies of the past and present. And while we still wince over comments made by a few past Church leaders, in most such cases said leaders have been dead for decades or over a century, rather than being alive and now building a $1.6 million home in a mostly-white, affluent neighborhood (which raises questions about many of Rev. Wright’s comments and sermons).

Things could change again. McCain could do something profoundly stupid, such as choosing Mike Huckabee as VP, though I consider that highly unlikely. On the other hand, Obama’s most recent comments — about small-town people in Pennsylvania being “bitter” and “clinging to guns or religion” — aren’t going to play very well with Mormons living in the intermountain West.

In short, I just don’t think any significant shift to Obama is going to happen. ..bruce..

In the (out-of-print) anthology To The Glory of God (Deseret Book, 1974), Hugh Nibley had an entry entitled “Brigham Young on the Environment” (pp. 3-29). The entire article is worth reading, but I’ve always been intrigued by the following passage, which suggests that the Article of Faith that states that “the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory” is talking about work that we will have to do (Nibley’s citations are from the Journal of Discourses and indicate volumn:page:year):

If the earth still retained its paradisiacal glory, we would be justified in asking, “What do we do now?” But that glory has departed, and the first step in the rebuilding of Zion is to help bring it back. “Who placed the dark stain of sin upon this fair creation? Man. Who but man shall remove the foul blot and restore all things to their primeval purity and innocence? [That is a large order, an impossible assignment, and Brigham admits it.] But can he do this independent of heavenly aid? He cannot. To aid him in this work heavenly grace is here.” (10:301:64.) Fortunately it is God’s work, in which he allows us to participate. “The greatest acts of the mighty men,” said Joseph Smith, have been disastrous. “Before them the earth was a paradise, and behind them a desolate wilderness. . . . The designs of God, on the other hand” are that “the earth shall yield its increase, resume its paradisean glory, and become as the garden of the Lord.” It is a clear-cut and fundamental doctrine: “We believe . . . that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.” (Tenth Article of Faith.) that, however, according to the same Article of Faith, will be the last step of five in the rehabilitation of the earth, and according to Brigham Young, it was to be a long hard pull: “Not many generations will pass away before the days of man will again return. But it will take generations to entirely eradicate the influences of deleterious substances. This must be done before we can attain our paradaical [sic] state.” (8:64:60.)

Now, in fairness, I think that Nibley is misapplying that last quote a bit, though he may not have had the full paragraph on his note card (and appears to have a typo) — but the original, complete quote is in and of itself interesting and does indeed have environmental application and again is decades (if not a full century) ahead of its time:

If the days of man are to begin to return, we must cease all extravagant living. When men live to the age of a tree, their food will be fruit. Mothers, to produce offspring full of life and days, must cease drinking liquor, tea, and coffee, that their systems may be free from bad effects. If every woman in this Church will now cease drinking tea, coffee, liquor, and all other powerful stimulants, and live upon vegetables, &c., not many generations will pass away before the days of man will again return. But it will take generations to entirely eradicate the influences of deleterious substances. This must be done before we can attain our paradisaical state, for the Lord will bring again Zion to its paradisaical state.

May God grant that we may see and enjoy it. Amen. (JD 8:64)

Something to think about. ..bruce..

The issue of potential LDS support for Obama continues to bubble around the bloggernacle; see for example here and here for opposing views. I will note for the record that I haven’t on this blog stated that I would support Obama or that I thought other Latter-day Saints should. What I have stated, repeatedly, is that with the right pro-active outreach from Obama himself, he could well win over Utah against a McCain/Huckabee or even a McCain/not-Huckabee ticket.

Here’s the interesting part. I’m in Utah this week, visiting relatives (kids, grandkids, in-laws, etc.), but I made some time today to have lunch with an old friend/colleague whom I’ve known since I taught at BYU some 20+ years ago. We exchange e-mails a few times a year, but it’s probably been a decade since we’ve actually seen each other face to face.

Anyway, we’re sitting at lunch today, and out of the blue, my friend — I’ll call him Bill — starts to raise the issue of the upcoming election. I’ll note for the record that he has never read this blog and he hasn’t read my other blog for a few months. Also, this is the issue he chose to raise; I had said absolutely nothing about politics or the election. And yet he proceeds to explain his feelings regarding the Republican primary race, particularly regarding the anti-Mormon aspect to it, then tells me that he’s been reading Obama’s book (The Audacity of Hope), which he says is actually quite rational and even-handed (his words). The upshot: he tells me that he’s voted a straight Republican party ticket for 25+ years, but he’s seriously considering voting for Obama in the fall, particularly if Huckabee is on the Republican ticket, but even if it’s just McCain plus someone else.

As I said elsewhere, the plural of ‘anecdote’ is not ‘data’. But it was startling to have Bill bring this up out of the blue and — with no input or prompting from me, and as I said, never having read this blog — recite to me almost exactly the same decision-making process that I’ve been describing here and that others have described elsewhere.  This is a self-described staunch LDS conservative, well-educated (PhD) and established in his profession, with a large family at home. Yet he’s ready to vote for Obama for all the reasons that we’ve been kicking around.

For what it’s worth.  ..bruce..

P.S. If you are interested in my personal political thinking, see this post on my other blog.