LDS Church's WTF Response to Court's Prop 8 Ruling

This past week the LDS church issued this response to California's ruling on Prop 8:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regrets today's decision. California voters have twice determined in a general election that marriage should be recognized as only between a man and a woman. We have always had that view. Courts should not alter that definition, especially when the people of California have spoken so clearly on the subject.

Millions of voters in California sent a message that traditional marriage is crucial to society. They expressed their desire, through the democratic process, to keep traditional marriage as the bedrock of society, as it has been for generations.

We recognize that this decision represents a continuation of what has been a vigorous public debate over the rights of the people to define and protect the fundamental institution of marriage. There is no doubt that today's ruling will intensify the debate in this country. We urge people on all sides of this issue to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility toward those with a different opinion.

Boy is that a disappointing response. Setting aside the fact that many people consider the Prop 8 election to have been bought by special interest groups — like the church — this statement contants a blatant falsehood:

We have always had that view.

What? Actually the church has never held that view.

The church historically practiced polygamy and continues to include polygamy as a part of its doctrine. (I know many LDS men who are "sealed" — or religiously married — to multiple women who have either died or divorced them, meaning they believe that after they die they will have multiple wives.)

We can quibble over whether the word "recognize" makes the statement technically true about the church's current stance — I can already anticipate someone pointing out that the church doesn't currently ask the government to "recognize" polygamous temple marriages — but in the past the church absolutely wanted to have open, real-world polygamous marriages that were recognized. So from a historical perspective this statement is nothing short of a lie.

And I'd disagree with the counter argument over the word "recognize" and say it's pretty close to a lie about the church's current postion; after all the church itself "recognizes" polygamous marriages, even if the government doesn't.

I'm all for rigorous debate on this topic. I understand and respect the fact that many gay marriage proponents and Mormons (and people who are both, such as myself) have varying views on this topic.

But I'm nothing short of appalled when an official statement includes something that is so obviously misleading.

Why Keep Debating (Things Like the Provo Tabernacle)?

In the time since my last post and piece in the newspaper, I've had some great conversations with people both who disagree and agree with me. But one response that I've encountered repeatedly — and it's a response that really bugs me — is the one that seeks to end the conversation.

More specifically, I'm talking about people who say "whatever our feelings on the issue, the decision is made so let's move on and talk about other things." I've seen this response again and again with respect to the tabernacle/temple issue, and I've encountered it generally in discussions about a wide array of questions.

I have some basic and fundamental issues with this argument. Most basically, I enjoy debate and think it's healthy for the mind; people who can't rhetorically defend their positions should grow up and learn to assert themselves.

More generally, I also think that cutting off debate once authority figures make a decision sets a dangerous precedent. Leaders — political, religious, civic, etc. — sometimes make mistakes and confronting them with hard questions is an important check. Modern movements like the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street protests operate under this principle, as did most revolutionaries of the past.

But I have an even bigger problem with this argument when it comes to something like the Provo Tabernacle. To begin with, there was never a public debate about the building despite it's clear function as a public (if privately owned) resource. Even if the LDS church had a right to do with the building as they pleased, the public has the right to weigh the pros and cons of the final decision. (This was something I basically didn't see anyone do. Even if the outcome was a net gain for Provo, every decision has pros and cons. Yet as far as I'm aware, I was the only person who — in my small way — publicly expressed the possibility that turning the building into a temple would have negative repercussions as well as positive ones. I know other people had this opinion, but I didn't see it printed anywhere.)

I think it's also important to have a debate because that debate can influence future decisions. For example, years ago Provo demolished two iconic buildings — the Hotel Roberts and a local catholic church. Some people were outraged and publicly expressed that anger via debate, and I think in the time since the city has gradually become more sensitive to its historic structures.

In other words, debating past decisions influenced the future. I think that if the debate about those past buildings had been even more robust we might have had a more balanced discussion about the fate of the Provo Tabernacle, even if the outcome was the same.

In addition, one specific reason that a debate about the Tabernacle is important is because the church constantly is altering its historic structures, and may revamp the existing Provo Temple in the very near future. It is important that we, as a community, discuss now what we want to do with our architectural heritage in the future. Even if the decision about the Tabernacle is over, the decisions about the Provo temple are not. The church is unlikely to change the facade of the building if the community opposes it, for example, and the elected city officials obviously have a say in what gets approved. (I have heard from reliable sources that the church did, in fact, weigh people's reactions in its decision to turn the Tabernacle into a temple.)

In other words, if we want the LDS church to preserve history (or, I suppose, if we want the church to discard history, as I feel it often does), we need to debate that topic and formulate our opinions now. This principle holds true for most policy decisions that have public ramifications. No single event or decision is completely isolated, and an honest (and spirited) debate will only ever enrich our views, and our community.

Provo Tabernacle

Today (Wednesday) the paper ran this article, in which I argue that turning the Provo Tabernacle into an LDS temple is going to leave a (cultural or spiritual) gap in the city.

But because I want to alienate every last person I know, I thought I'd expand on that article here. Just kidding! Actually, I was limited to 325 words but I had a lot more to say.

In the time since the announcement that the destroyed Tabernacle would be converted to a temple, I've debated the pros and cons of the change numerous times with many different people. And I have to admit, I find the economic arguments in favor of a temple compelling. Many people have tried to convince me that having a temple will increase foot traffic and activity in downtown Provo, thereby bolstering business.

Downtown Provo is struggling, and I'm in favor of anything that boosts the area economically. If having an LDS temple in the area accomplishes that, I'm happy.

My only issue with this argument is that I haven't been able to come up with a single historical precedent to support it. Most LDS temples are in quiet residential areas. Those that are located in commercial areas (and a there are several) generally were built after those areas were thriving. In other words, in all the debates I've had no one has been able to think of a single instance where a temple revitalized a commercial area. Whatever goes into downtown Provo needs to be an engine for economic growth, and I'm unable to think of an example where that happened before.

But there is a first time for everything, and I'm hopeful.

At the same time, I'm still fairly saddened by the decision to change the Tabernacle into a temple. In my article in the paper, I point to post-war Europe as an example of rebuilding after tragedy. My point is that buildings don't have to be particularly old to be true to their historic nature. In other words, a historic building can be one that serves a historic function, or one that symbolizes a historic moment in a community, even if it isn't technically old any more.

I have to admit that my feelings are influenced by a growing resentment of the way I've seen historic structures treated in Utah and by my own church (LDS). In Provo, the beautiful Hotel Roberts was secretly demolished in the middle of the night. Not long after, St. Francis Church was torn down.

Similarly, the LDS Church is currently r̶u̶i̶n̶i̶n̶g̶ remodeling the Ogden Utah Temple, changing it from a relatively unique architectural gem to a bland, suburban, cookie cutter building. There are pervasive and reliable rumors that Provo's temple is next on the chopping block. (And don't get me started on the travesty that is BYU's architecture.)

The point is that there seems to be precious little regard for history in this state and church. As I mention in the newspaper, the church would certainly not have scraped the idea of a tabernacle if the one in Salt Lake had burned. But in Provo, the wishes of the church — which could have been satisfied in any number of other ways, such as building another temple and keeping the tabernacle — were put above the needs of the community.

And I'd argue that the community really does need a tabernacle. To compare Provo to Salt Lake again, imagine if the only buildings on Temple Square were closed to the public. Imagine if there were two temples, or the current tabernacle just let in Mormons. How much of a draw would Temple Square be? Certainly less of one than it currently is.

The point is that a community benefits from a gathering place, especially one that is tied to the community's history but open to everyone. Americans love to visit European cities for precisely that reason. Interestingly, urban planning has increasingly validated the ideas put into place by Utah's early settlers: a logical street grid, trees, walkability, etc. (Visit The Atlantic Cities to generally read more about these ideas).

The Tabernacle was part of that vision. It was a centrally located gathering point, and it encapsulated the values on which the community was built. And as it gets brushed aside for something new, I can't help but wonder if the cohesion, vibrancy, and diversity of the community will go with it.

Mormons and Evangelicals

I just read this post, by LDS church spokesperson and Washington Post blogger Michael Otterson. Though I think Otterson is overly idealistic/unrealistic about how politically neutral and diverse the church is, I really loved the tone and attitude of the piece. Finally, a Mormon officially pointing out how idiotic people are. Finally, something that is aggressive, combative. Usually you only see that sort of attitude when Mormon leaders are criticizing "the world" and it's moral decline. The only thing that could have been better is a(n unedited) post simply saying "F*** You, moronic evangelical bloggers."

To Each Her/His Own (Movies)

So my last post might need a little explanation. As a Mormon, I frequently encounter the belief that people should not watch movies filled with sex, violence, swearing, etc. Many, many Mormons also believe that people should not watch movies that are rated R by the MPAA.

Personally I disagree with these beliefs. I believe films have to portray difficult, sometimes graphic content in order to make positive points. (Think of a film like Schindler's List, for example.) Not watching these movies, or editing out part's that the filmmaker obviously thought were important, isolates viewers and impedes intellectual and spiritual growth, in my opinion. Also, like many people, I believe the MPAA is a wildly corrupt institution.

But, in the end I don't really care what people do. There's a limited amount of time and some people like me chose to watch a lot of films, and other people chose to other things. To each her/his own.

But what annoys me is when people try to tell me A) I should not watch movies that I consider uplifting because they contain "bad parts," B) That it's better to watch edited versions of movies, C) It's bad to have graphic content in movies, D) that they love movies but don't watch R rated movies.

A) To each her/his own. Somewhat paradoxically, I know, I expect people to reciprocate that attitude. At least when it comes to things like movies.

B) Edited movies are still technically rated R, or whatever the MPAA assigned them. In other countries there is no "R" rating. A movie is the vision of a group of artists and to cut it up is disrespectful. It disrupts the movie. Blah, blah, blah. There are a million reasons that watching edited movies is bad. If you want to watch edited movies, I suppose that's you're right, but don't tell me to do the same. And don't tell other people to do the same without giving the other side of the argument a chance to voice their views.

C) Brigham Young, a once-prominent Mormon, once pointed out that the arts have to portray evil to show good. Fast forward to today, when a church leader recently said media should not "portray" anything AT ALL that is bad. Yikes. Obviously, that would mean ending all media production. I don't know what this leader was going for, but I wish people would consider what they're saying when the constantly quote stuff like this.

D) And finally, if you are a film buff, you have to watch the classics. Things like "The Godfather," and "Raging Bull." The best picture-winning "Midnight Cowboy," which is also on AFI's list of all-time greatest films, was even rated X! I don't care if people watch these films or not, but don't go around pretending to be into films and then say you're unwilling to watch these masterpieces.

It's probably worth mentioning that this post stems from an incident that occurred at a church meeting recently. Like usual, people were talking about the supposed decline in civilized values and how evil the media apparently is. I was playing angry birds.

But then, this guy started rambling on about how he saw the PG-13 version of "The King's Speech" and how great it was. The movie is good, but the PG-13 version cuts out some important stuff. The swearing in that movie has a purpose and is vital to the story, unlike so many movies (rated everything from G to PG-13) where the swearing is just put in for laughs, or to make the movie more "hard core." Cutting out those parts or editing over them (which the filmmakers expressly condemned in this case) dilutes the point (which is, of all things, charity). (Note, there is more cut out of the PG-13 version than some people realize.)

Anyway, this guy at church was annoying and, ultimately, talking moronically about things I love, study, and work hard to understand. It was frustrating and I just wanted to yell that we should all just be able to do whatever we think is best. But of course, as always, I didn't.

Asking the Right Questions

A few days ago I had an article in Rhombus about gay rights and Mormons.  I'm just going to put a link here in case anyone isn't on facebook (and therefore didn't see my link there) or simply hasn't seen it.  I usually plan on having different content for my blog and the stuff I submit to Rhombus (and elsewhere), but this is a topic that I think warrants discussion.

So, you can read that article here.  

Also, a number of people left comments on the Rhombus website.  Some are intelligent, a number are less so, but it'd take forever if I tried to respond to all of them in one sitting on the Rhombus website.  Therefore, I will occasionally try to respond to them here, on this blog.  

Staying Home… For a Gender Fantasy?

Every once in a awhile my church’s magazine, The Ensign, will include something alarming and objectionable.  Unfortunately, the upcoming August issue includes just such an article.  Covering a short three pages, “Staying Home…Again” (by “name withheld”) relays the story of a mother’s struggle to balance child-rearing and work.  While the subject matter is timely, the point of the story—that women have an inherent responsibility to stay at home and take care of kids and accordingly should sacrifice careers to do so—isn’t simply wrong, it’s offensive. 

 

The article begins innocently enough by describing how the anonymous author was essentially forced back to work because of the economy.  While her husband ran one business she had to assume the responsibilities of a second one when they were unable to successfully sell it.  Eventually, she began to enjoy work more than being home and struggled with how to raise her children. 

 

If the first page or so paints a refreshingly complex picture of the challenges facing modern parents, the rest of the article clings to painfully outmoded gender stereotypes.  Once the author realized that she was enjoying work more than home life, she felt guilty and, more disturbingly, described herself as having “veered” from the “path.”  Things only get worse from there: she decided to pray for forgiveness for “straying so far from my divine role” and asked God to help her to want to fulfill that role and provide her with a way to do so. 

 

Throughout the article I was astounded at how little was mentioned about the husband/father.  Why wasn’t he helping raise the children?  Why was it only the woman’s job to fix dinners and attend to household duties?  Why didn’t he feel guilt about not being at home enough?  Maybe he did feel these things, but what stands out is the fact that the author never indicates her husband was shirking his responsibilities.  Instead she insinuates that her “divine role” is to be completely domestic, while his is to gallivant through the professional world having a good time.  Not surprisingly, the article ends with a return to gender stasis: the mother stays home raising the kids and the father continues to be a semi-absent figure.   

 

The problem with this article isn’t that a woman stayed home to raise kids while a man worked (both valid choices, of course, if people find fulfillment through them), but rather that the author claimed that God required her to behave in ways that were mentally and emotionally damaging. What a person (male or female) does professionally and domestically is a private decision and shouldn’t be determined by wrongheaded social proclamations on gender roles.  In this case, the author didn’t just give up work, she also sacrificed her psychological health (and, I’d argue, her spiritual health) in favor of an absurd and unsustainable fantasy about motherhood.  In the end, I can only imagine that if this story ever had a sequel, it would resemble “The Yellow Wallpaper” more than the hollow “faith promoting” rubbish that it aspires to right now.

 

Ultimately, if The Ensign’s usual emphasis on simple hagiography is understandable, its inclusion of marginalizing gender propaganda is not.  Forcing people into roles that leave them unfulfilled will not increase anyone’s well being, nor will it bring them closer to God.  (The editors also apparently missed the irony of including in the same issue articles on computer addiction and postpartum depression.)  As a practicing Mormon myself these aren’t the values that I believe in and it saddens me when a publication that has so much potential to help people instead stoops to misguided didacticism.  

Boy Scouts of Where?

The Daily Universe (my college newspaper) recently published a front-page article discussing the relevancy of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA).  As an Eagle Scout myself, the article got me thinking about my own involvement with BSA, as well as some of the things that I’ve subsequently come to see as objectionable about the organization.   

One of the most common criticisms leveled at the Boy Scouts is that the organization is outdated.  This seems painfully obvious to me.  Of course ideas like honesty or hard work that scouting tries to instill may always be relevant.   However, scouting’s method for teaching these ideas is simply absurd.  Things like merit badges and the recitation of pledges, oaths, and slogans are completely foreign to most people’s experience.  I’d also argue that they’re useless.  One of the people the Daily Universe quoted made a good point: why do we need an orienteering merit badge if we all have access to a GPS?  Taking this argument one step further, even if our iPhones are missing or out of battery power, are we really going to pull out a compass and map?  For that matter, how many times will we find ourselves lost in a place that has no people, signs, or even roads?  I don’t think I’ve ever been in that situation, and I can’t imagine why I would be. 

Other aspects of scouting seem even more ridiculous.  For example, the uniforms.  I genuinely have no idea why BSA has stuck to what looks like something little boys would use to play army in the 19^th century, unless it’s to humiliate the scouts.  Seriously, what’s with the neckerchief?  And (short) shorts with tall green and red socks?  Is this really the best they can do? 

Of course, while there are a bunch of silly outdated aspects of scouting, the real problem is much more insidious.  At best, BSA sees a very narrow, homogenous version of the United States.  That vision doesn’t include, for example, atheists, agnostics, or homosexuals.  At worst, however, BSA combines this flagrant discrimination with hyper-conservative jingoism that uses faux-military structures to indoctrinate young children.  Pledges and oaths aren’t just outdated in a pedagogical sense, but actually require children to submit unthinkingly to powers they likely don’t understand.  When these activities are combined with religion (as is the case in the LDS church, among others), the results amount to coerced spirituality.

 

While I’m obviously no fan of the Boy Scouts of America, I am also in the paradoxical position of having to admit that sometimes I also had a lot of fun as a scout.  Going to scout camps I had the chance to canoe, shoot rifles and bows and arrows, go climbing, and visit a number of places I wouldn’t otherwise have seen.  When I was a teenager my parents sent me to the National Boy Scout Jamboree, which was fun and educational (during that trip we also visited Washington D.C. and other nearby cities).  Our weekly activities were also memorable.  For example, one time we went to the hospital, where our leader let us touch a human brain. 

The question, then, is if the many negative aspects are enough to outweigh the positive opportunities that the program affords.  This is a hard question to answer.  If I could go back I would not participate in what I see as an offensive institution.  Yet, I’d also be loath to surrender some of the experiences I had.  I also think that some of the activites we did actually accomplished good things.  My Eagle Scout project, for example, probably did benefit someone (even if I did it for all the wrong reasons).  I certainly wouldn’t want to undo that. 

The answer, I think, is that BSA is obsolete, but some of the activities it provides aren’t.  Consequently, those organizations that are currently affiliated with BSA should sever that affiliation and fill the resulting void with other youth programs.  In the LDS church participation in scouting is more or less obligatory, as I assume it is in other organizations.  All that energy that LDS members put into scouting could very easily be diverted into more productive and relevant activities.  If this doesn’t happen organizations like churches run the risk of having their policies and beliefs defined by outside parties.  For example, I’d hate to think that I’m required to believe in the BSA’s particular brand of intolerance, yet if I am all but forced to participate (as LDS young men are) that’s essentially what happens. 

 

Ultimately, I don’t think that scouting provides any opportunities that can’t be had from church and community involvement instead.  Things like the Eagle Scout award didn’t end up giving me great employment and educational opportunities (as I was led to believe), because most people in the U.S. seem to have written scouting off as an outdated eccentricity.  As I’ve moved beyond my teen years and experienced more of the world, I’ve realized that the narrow vision scouting projects isn’t very realistic or desirable.  Instead, the Boy Scouts don’t represent America, but rather a desperate clinging to objectionable parts of American’s history.  

Trek

One more post about being Mormon: Trek.  WTF. 

 

If you aren’t familiar with Trek, it’s where people dress up as pioneers and pull handcarts across comparatively long distances.  Usually this is an activity that is foisted on the teenagers of the Mormon church, though adults and children sometimes do it too.  When I was a teenager it wasn’t called Trek, but we still had to do it.  This week, my ward (congregation) took all their teenagers out to Wyoming for Trek, so I thought it would be a good time to revisit this topic. 

 

First, Trek is just about the stupidest activity I can think of.  Now, before you write me off, keep in mind that some people enjoy Trek and others don’t.  If you are one of the people who likes it, great.  You should keep doing it.  However, when it comes to the youth of the Church, generally everyone goes, regardless of their personal preference.  For the sake people who hate it (like myself), I believe that we should stop making it a required activity.  In other words, we should stop pretending that there is some inherent value in dressing up and making-believe that we are living in the most miserable moments of Mormon history.

 

The Mormon handcart pioneers truly had a really miserable time.  I appreciate their strength and perseverance, but I don’t think they became pioneers because they loved the lifestyle.  Their activities were a result of necessity and though those activities built character, it wasn’t anyone’s favorite thing to do.  Thus, I don’t think the original pioneers would have approved of people wasting their time reenacting their experiences.  Did the pioneers reenact the most horrific moments from the Revolutionary War?  Instead, I think that the pioneers would have wanted us to move forward.  We can use our time for all sorts of things (service, spreading the gospel, being with our families, etc.), but Trek is none of those things.  Instead, Trek focuses entirely on the self and personal growth (arguably a selfish use of time).  The self and personal growth are fine, of course, but isn’t the gospel of Christ about serving others?  Shouldn’t that be our primary focus and way we use most of our time? 

 

What’s more, some people don’t even really achieve any personal growth from Trek.  The problem is that not everyone has transcendent, spiritual experiences by being outside and pulling fake handcarts.  So while one person’s off hearing angels or whatever, someone else is just really pissed off about being covered in dirt and wearing fake old-timey clothes.  For those (youth) leaders who would say that the pissed-off people just have an attitude problem, ask yourself if you really think that everyone experiences religion and transcendence in the same way.  If your answer is yes, I suppose we have more to disagree about then Trek.  On the other hand, I think that most people would acknowledge that different individuals have different tastes and ways of understanding, which would necessitate different approaches to spirituality.

 

Ultimately, some people who love Trek appear to have somehow persuaded everyone else that we should all experience religion in exactly the same way.  Unfortunately, that way is, in my opinion, a waste of time and a simulacrum of true spirituality.