No Really, I Bought Her a Ring

So I was hoping to get a "c'mon Lars stop joking around" reaction like Richard Feynman and the stolen door, but I guess that's not going to happen. Now I'm supposed to write down "the story" while the details are all fresh on my mind. It's actually a little different than Sarah's version of the story, so hopefully she'll write her version down too and you all can get the whole picture.

The Conspiracy

After my previous visit to Omaha (Thanksgiving) it occurred to me that the time was right and I'd better do a little homework on diamond shopping in preparation. We had already talked a little about jewelry-- Sarah doesn't remember having this particular conversation, but she told me a while ago that she liked princess cut diamonds and platinum settings. OK, that's something I could start with. I checked a few places online and tried to learn a thing or two about color and clarity etc. But online pictures only go so far, so I decided to visit a jeweler in Champaign. She showed me some example diamonds, with and without visible flaws, and showed some color differences and how they look against platinum. She also showed me some palladium rings, which some of the nerds amongst you will recognize as a reductor in biochemical reactions, and the other nerds will recognize it as one of the ingredients of the tabletop fusion experiment at the U. Apparently palladium has a use in jewelry too. It looks a lot like platinum but is less expensive and is a harder metal so it doesn't scratch as easily.

At this point the thought came into my mind: I could go ahead and buy something. If she hates it we could exchange it. Then the counter-thought: no, no way, you are in over your head here, what if she hates palladium? But I couldn't shake the idea. When I went home I slept on it (which isn't really true, I tossed and turned) and in the morning decided to recruit some help. I called my married brother Joseph. (Sorry everyone else, I had to pick someone, and he's married to a non-Olson female!) He and Lacey suggested among other things that if I'm not going on any input from her, I should at least get input from one of her married sisters. I feel very sly about this part. :) I hadn't ever called or e-mailed any of them before so I didn't know how to contact them. Luckily, Sarah had conveniently provided addresses for me at her Picasa site. I picked Mary. (Again, sorry everyone else, I had to pick someone.)

Mary was very excited to be let in on the conspiracy. She had a look at the pictures I sent on, but also suggested I have a look at Blue Nile, where their other sister Becca's husband had purchased her diamond. Mary ruled out the solitaires pretty quickly, and pointed out some other designs that she liked. They had good prices, so although I couldn't actually inspect it beforehand, I decided to go ahead and buy something in their make-your-own-ring section. After receiving some excellent suggestions, I ended up picking out a completely different setting. Well, not completely different, it was similar to one that Mary had pointed out, but this one struck me as being a little more sparkly, and you know how girls like sparklies!! And it was platinum. (So much for the whole palladium idea, but at least it served its purpose in helping me make the decision.) As for the stone, oh man... this one was clearly the one. Good size, color, clarity, and price, it was a no-brainer.

The Wait

Now to keep my cool as the ring was being assembled and shipped. The scariest part was that my work in Champaign was finished and I had no reason to stay, except to wait for the ring. Again luck played into my hands. Sarah told me she didn't want to know when I was coming back to Omaha, so I didn't tell her, thus avoiding having to explain why. :) And somehow she didn't chew me out when we talked on the phone and all I could say about my day was that I went Christmas shopping, or whatever I was doing that clearly didn't need to be done in Champaign. (I'm sure she wanted to chew me out, though!)

I also needed to figure out how I was going to make the grand presentation. I may be a little inept at some things, but I knew that I had to do more than just hand it over. No, I had to prepare her special day. In the meantime, my roommate Alex proposed to Gretchen. That got everyone in the ward talking about engagement, including a couple of key conversations (neither of whom knew anything about Sarah's ring or my devious plans). Giles said that his ideal proposal location would be someplace symbolic to both of them. Hmmm... symbolic... in Omaha... and indoors, because it's cold outside. I really couldn't think of anything except the desert exhibit at the zoo-- where last time we went, a mouse was on the loose and scared Sarah (thus symbolizing how scary it would be to marry me)-- or the temple. The temple seemed like the best idea I could come up with, and I just hoped it wouldn't come out cheesy. The second key conversation was an idea from my other roommate Bobert who came up with this brilliant idea of how to present the ring. More on this later.

The Drive

Sarah's patience held out long enough for me to get the ring, which looked... nice, I guess. But having it in my hands sure made me second-guess myself. She's going to hate it, she's going to think it's hideous, she's going to think the rock is too small, it's not going to fit her finger, she's going to be upset that we didn't shop for it together... My one consolation in all this was that we could exchange it, although that wouldn't have been quite ideal. I was beginning to think the opportunity for "ideal" may have gone out the window.

And I must admit the experience felt a little surreal, either like this wasn't really going to happen, or like it was just happening to someone else and I was simply a casual observer. Which is not to say I wasn't nervous. I had sent Sarah a text message the day I purchased the ring, and then sent her an e-mail when the ring arrived, not to spill the beans of course but just to tell her that I was thinking about her. I also called home a few times-- never to talk about the ring itself, mostly to talk about frustrations with school and such, but with the unspoken message that I was nervous and needed to steady myself.

As I was driving to Omaha, Sarah gave me a call during lunch break. During our conversation, she was teasing me (as she is wont to do) about how she's gotten more jewelry from my dad than from me. I kept my cool and teased back about how I already gave her a ring with an enormous C₁₂H₂₂O₁₁ stone. She replied that she wanted one made of just carbon. At that point I knew everything would be OK.

Unfortunately, there was a possible hitch in the plan. Two, actually. One was that she was feeling a little under the weather. She was getting better, but it's hard to plan something around someone feeling well. The second was that Saturday was really the best day before Christmas to plan for, and she was on call Friday, meaning she'd be sleeping all afternoon Saturday and would still be exhausted during the big event.

The Proposal

Luckily, she was indeed feeling much better on Friday. As for being exhausted, well, I told her I wanted to have a nice dress-up date night, and if she felt too tired we could do it some other night. She asked me if it was OK if she dozed off during the temple trip. I told her that would be fine. So she went to sleep as we listened to Christmas music on the classical station on the radio, and in the meantime I finished up a letter I had been preparing for her explaining why I think she's extraordinary and wanted her to marry me. I also still hadn't figured out where to have dinner, but I remembered an Italian restaurant downtown that we passed by but decided was a little too expensive. By the time Sarah woke up I had a pretty good plan in mind. All plans need a little flexibility, though.

Sarah changed into a dark brown and green skirt with a white blouse and a bright green sweater. How she knew that my olive-green suit was the only one I had brought with me, I don't know. She just has an instinct for things like that. Anyway, we went back to the Schroeders' so I could change my clothes, and she realized... she forgot her temple clothes back at her apartment. And I realized... I didn't have as much of a cushion for time as I thought I had.

After picking up her clothes, I did a quick calculation and it looked like we were going to miss the temple. So a quick decision-- if I had to choose between dinner and the temple, I didn't think I could propose in a crowded restaurant so I asked if we could go to the temple first and then if it's not too late, we could get some dinner. Sarah said that would be OK. Just then, inspiration struck: there was a little crepe restaurant, "Dario's Brasserie," just a couple of blocks from Sarah's house that we had wanted to check out. No driving across town necessary, which just might leave enough time after all. She liked the idea, so we split an order of potato croquettes and a salmon-and-spinach crepe, with a nutella-and-banana dessert crepe to go. (We were still a little pressed for time, after all.)

We made it to the temple on time, but I was hardly able to pay attention. The full import of what I was about to do was starting to kick in, and I knew Sarah was needing to get some sleep soon. Sure enough, as soon as it was over, Sarah asked if we could go home now. I told her sure, but that first I wanted to have a little talk with her. She said OK, so I told her to change out of her white clothes and then we'd talk.

As she went back into the dressing room, I went to find a temple worker to see if it would be appropriate to do this in the temple. He got the shift supervisor, who said he didn't see any reason why it wouldn't be OK, and I asked if there were a room where we could have a little privacy. Realize, now, the Winter Quarters temple is very small, so there aren't exactly spare rooms just not being used, but luckily, this being near the end of the day he showed me a little waiting room off to the side where temple workers ordinarily sit and rest. So I went back to change my clothes and get ready.

I hurried, but Sarah of course still beat me there. I led her to the waiting room and asked her to sit down. I told her I had a lot to say but didn't think I'd be able to say it correctly, so instead I wrote her a letter. I handed it to her, and she (blissfully unaware of what was going on) asked if I wanted her to read it now. Um, yes please. She zipped through each page like it was a Dr. Seuss book, and I was thinking "aaugh, no fair speed-reading! I'm not ready yet!" She finished the letter and thanked me. My mind went blank. What was supposed to be next? Oh yes. "I'd better get down on my knee for this part," I said, and asked her if she would marry me. Without any noticeable hesitation, she said "Yes." I was expecting more of a delay, perhaps even an answer of "I'll think about it." My mind went blank again. Oh yes, ring...

In one hand, I had been holding a little Disney Princess ring that I had bought at Wal-Mart. I said "I know we haven't been ring shopping yet, so would you accept this ring until we can find a more suitable one?" She looked at the ring, giggled a bit, and said "no." OK, ha-ha, very funny Sarah. I could tell she was playing with me so I waited. She continued, "Just kidding. Here, give me that." And as she took it out of my hand, she saw the pink ribbon I had tied to it. As she kept pulling, I finally opened my hand to show a very elegant diamond ring at the other end of the ribbon.



She looked at it with a blank expression. Finally she said "What is this?" I untied the ribbon and nervously slipped it on her finger. It fit! Whew! Well, maybe a slightly smaller ring size might have been a little better, but it looked pretty good. Sarah's reaction? "Wow... I don't know what to say." Still with a blank expression. Oh no, she thinks it's hideous but doesn't want to say anything negative! Nuts! She giggled some more as she gave me a hug-- I thought it was to express appreciation for the cute effort and to soften the blow of telling me that we can go pick a different ring together. But then I felt her turn her left hand off my back ever so slightly, and I could tell she was looking at the ring again. Then she started to cry. I remembered that I had wrapped the two rings in a handkerchief to keep them from scratching each other. In a fit of sanity, I pulled the handkerchief from my pocket and handed it to her. Finally she found some words: "It's beautiful." And then: "Can I still keep the other ring?"

The icing on the cake: on the drive home, she asked me how I knew what to shop for. I started by reminding her of our conversation about princess-cut diamonds and platinum rings. "*gasp!* This is platinum?!? It is platinum!" (Good sign #1: the center stone is so sparkly that she doesn't even notice the platinum band.) "Lars, you have to get this exchanged, this is too much." (Good sign #2: she asks for a less expensive ring.)



The Reactions

As she started coming back down to earth, Sarah asked if I had talked with her parents yet. I had not. She said she can't give me an official "yes" until I did. She insisted I call them immediately, even though I thought they would already be in bed. I called before we got home. Sis. Peterson answered and I apologized for calling so late and asked if I could speak with her and her husband. Bro. Peterson was actually out that night, watching BYU's football game in the Las Vegas bowl. I had forgotten that was going on. Fortunately, the Lord allowed BYU to win so that Bro. Peterson would be in a good mood. (Just kidding! Lighten up, people!) Anyway, Sis. Peterson asked if it was an emergency and if I needed to talk tonight. I assured her there was no emergency, but that I would indeed like to talk tonight.

They called back 11:30pm while poor Sarah was nearly spent. I got right to the point-- I figured it was late enough that what everyone really wanted was to go to bed. They were pleased and readily gave their permission. I asked if they had any concerns or advice, and they said no concerns, and just keep our covenants and we'd be fine.

After we finished, I thought we ought to go to bed. Sarah, however, wasn't quite ready, she wanted me to call my parents. (Mom, I think you owe her thanks for this one.) When I called, I asked Mom if Dad was there. She handed the phone over to him. I said "No, I meant I need to talk with both of you." Mom grabbed the other phone, and I said "I've kinda been working in the dark for the last couple of weeks." Mom thought I was talking about my thesis exam. I said "No, I'm talking about something you don't know about yet. I bought Sarah a ring two weeks ago." "Does she know about this yet?" "She's sitting right next to me." Squeal. "Let me talk to her!" I handed the phone over to Sarah. Sarah told me afterwards that when she told Mom I had proposed, Mom asked "and you said Yes?" (Thanks Mom.) Everyone else that was home wanted to talk to Sarah too (not much interest in talking to me), but eventually we were able to pull away and finally get to sleep.

As we went to church the next morning, a few people noticed a sparkle coming from Sarah's hand, so we figured we'd better tell the Schroeders before they hear it from someone else. Sis. Schroeder teaches Primary, so we pulled her out of her room just as she was beginning her lesson. Sarah said "We need to tell you something." Sis. Schroeder got a concerned look on her face and said "What? What did I do?" We laughed and Sarah said "No, nothing like that. Lars, why don't you tell her?" I stammered "Ummm..." as Sis. Schroeder's eyes got big and drifted down to Sarah's hand. I didn't need to say anything else.

Other reactions: Bobert was pleased that his idea worked so well. Adam Richardson said "I'm trying to think as to whether I would call you 'lucky' or 'blessed'" and "it's about time." (A sentiment echoed by my entire family.) Alex Valencic said "You've given me everything I need" and hung up. Adam Braun immediately remembered being very impressed with Sarah when she had given a talk in Illinois. My brother Sam gave me some sort of traditional Klingon greeting "Chook-bohk hab-nida!" (Dear Sam: Nuq daq yuj da'pol!) Feel free to add your reactions by commenting on this excessively lengthy blog entry.

The official song list

Everyone has a song. They may not yet know what it is, and even I may not yet know what it is, but it's out there, waiting to find you. So many of my friends (and some arch-rivals) have been chosen that it's difficult to keep track of them all. Herein is the official song list:

• Clarkstreet Boys (me, Adam B, Adam R, Paul S, Ryan S): "Larger Than Life" by Backstreet Boys or "The Hardest Part of Breaking Up" by 2Gether


• Adam Braun: "Shimmer" by Fuel or "Summertime" by Fresh Prince


• Holli Burgon: "Better Now" by Collective Soul


• Tom Butler: "China Girl" by David Bowie


• Tiffany Carter: "You Give Love a Bad Name" by Bon Jovi


• Laurie Climer: "Say You'll Be There" by Spice Girls


• J. Brady Gibson: "Every Breath You Take" by The Police


• R.K. Giles: "I Can't Drive 55" by Sammy Hagar


• Ryan "Bobert" Hubscher: "Short Skirt, Long Jacket" by Cake


• Tina Marie Laughlin: "What Kind of Man Would I Be" by Chicago (or possibly "Tina" by Frank Sinatra? Can't seem to find the song.)


• T.J. Peper: "Loser" by Beck


• Sarah Peterson: "Popular" by Stephen Schwartz or "I'm a Believer" by Smash Mouth


• Adam Richardson: "Word Up" by Cameo or "Canned Heat" by Jamiroquai


• Paul Simonson: "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun" by Cyndi Lauper


• Alexay Tamas: "Tearin' Up My Heart" by NSync


• Matt Thorum: "Don't Stand So Close to Me" by the Police (and no, that doesn't mean you're a stalker, Matt)


• Alex Valencic: "Geek in the Pink" by Jason Mraz


• Dan Whitaker: "White and Nerdy" by Weird Al Yankovic

The most correct book...

I don't know why I keep writing such heavy topics all the time. Perhaps my morbid curiosity at seeing venom spewed from people who see themselves as enlightened.

The latest is that the introduction page to the Book of Mormon has recently been updated. Note that this is the introduction, not the text. (Granted, some changes in the text have occurred, but that's another topic that has been adequately addressed elsewhere.)

I posted a comment in the readers' section that I rather liked. The anonymity may have made me a little feisty. I can't imagine anyone being very happy about being called "blind sheep," but especially to have the epithet turned back on them! Here is the text:

"...because a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book. Correct doctrinally. That has always been the claim.

"And no, just because you heard something from numerous talks and lessons from a lay ministry, no matter how long perpetuated, does not make it a doctrine that is suddenly being refuted. I've heard a lot of weird things from talks and lessons too, but we all have recourse to God to separate the wheat from the chaff. Seems to me that those who never took advantage of that are the "blind sheep" that they are so fond of accusing the rest of us as."

I would go further and argue that there was no real danger in Sis. Jones telling her 14-year-olds in Sunday school class that she preached to the Lamanites in South America on her mission. We always work with abstractions in the world, because it's too complex to squeeze all possible truth in there. There's still no danger. I'm Swedish. Is that a lie just because I have more English ancestry than Swedish? (Heck, there even seems to be a little Lamanite blood in there too.)

"Neither marry, nor are given in marriage"

The Sadducees once tried trapping Jesus by posing a scenario in which a woman was widowed before having any children. In the law of Moses, the man's brother is supposed to marry the widow and "raise up seed unto his brother." Suppose, they said, that the brother dies childless too, and the next brother takes his place, and so forth. In the resurrection, which brother will the wife stay with? Jesus answered by saying that "in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."

I've heard a few explanations of this in the context of eternal marriage, none of which seem very satisfying. One is that "we don't even know if any of the brothers are going to the celestial kingdom, which is the only place where marriages can continue." The problem with this is that it's a hypothetical scenario, we might as well hypothesize a little further and say all the brothers end up in the celestial kingdom. What's the answer then? Another explanation is that "marriages must take place in mortality. After the resurrection, they neither marry nor are given in marriage." But this is no good, all of the brothers married the woman in mortality. Most non-Mormons believe this means there's no such thing as eternal marriage, especially when coupled with Paul's teachings about celibacy. But Paul also says "neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord." (1 Cor 11:11) As well as other scriptures about marriage, such as Genesis 2:18 and Matthew 19:6.

The context of this scripture is that Jesus tells them they don't know the scriptures. What scriptures? Clearly it must be something from Old Testament times, probably from the law of Moses. But wait, the part of the law of Moses talking about marrying your brother's widow only seems to be in Deuteronomy 25:5, and it says nothing about "raising up seed unto his brother" or about the resurrection. Is it this scripture they don't understand? I don't think so, it seems like they have that one down pretty clearly-- if a man dies, his brother should marry the widow. So... what don't they know?

I did a scripture search on the "neither marry, nor are given in marriage" phrase. I only found it in 6 places, 3 of which were Matthew's, Mark's, and Luke's versions of this one story. Another was in Luke, talking about the people of Noah's time before the flood (the context of which suggests this was just a "life as usual" activity for people not expecting a natural disaster). Another was in 4 Nephi, and the other in DC 132, clearly neither of which was being referring to. Although, DC 132 gives us a clue. This phrase specifically describes those who are married "in the world," i.e. not a temple marriage. Perhaps, then, Jesus was referring to a (now missing) scripture describing celestial marriage, along the lines of: "You know that scripture about neither marrying nor giving in marriage? That's what applies here." So, maybe the law of Moses prescribes for a man to marry his brother's widow, it is a for-time-only marriage. (Or perhaps there were no temple marriages at all under the law of Moses, we do know that the higher priesthood ordinances were taken from the Israelites after the whole mess with the golden calf.) (What's the reference on that? Somewhere in DC...)

Take Howard W. Hunter, for example. His first wife died, and he later ended up marrying another woman who was a widow. This was a "temple marriage," but as I understand, it was for time only. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this is exactly how marriages to widows took place, and this is what Jesus was referring to.

Unfortunately, the version of this story in Luke 20 does not support this interpretation, and the JST in the footnote is unhelpful. Also, I wonder why the Sadducees thought that whether they had children made some kind of difference.

Thoughts on Harry Potter (or, I Think Too Much)

I finally finished the last Harry Potter this week. I must say the consistency throughout the 7 books has been impressive. Some of my thoughts:

I could see that Rowling was driving at keeping us guessing about Snape and Dumbledore, and I was a little uncomfortable with the idea that Dumbledore asked Snape to kill him because he had to die for Harry to finish the job, or for Snape to be in Voldemort's good graces-- sort of an "end justifies the means," or an omniscient Dumbledore (which he never claimed to be). Having it turn out as a mercy killing still makes me wonder, but at least it's a little more comfortable.

I really liked how she treated Rita Skeeter's biography, it reminds me a little of other famous admired people that become the target of sensationalism-- Joseph Smith and Thomas Jefferson immediately come to mind. And (gasp) it turns out that Dumbledore did indeed make some errors in judgment! But it was still OK for Harry to admire him.

Someday I'll have to re-read the series to see what little points I missed, but I do recall that in Order of the Phoenix, they weren't sure whether Harry or Neville was "destined" to be Voldemort's foil, and of course it turned out to be Harry... But don't overlook Neville here, he produced the sword of Gryffindor and destroyed the horcrux/snake.

Speaking of horcruxes, halfway through the book I remember trying to count them. The diary, the ring, the locket, the cup, the diadem, the snake, and... um, wait, weren't there supposed to be seven? (From there, though, I went in the wrong direction and thought maybe it was just six plus Voldemort himself. Or, maybe some possession of Gryffindor's, since each of the other founders was represented.)

The little epilogue "Nineteen years later" was a bit cheesy. Harry marries Ginny, Ron marries Hermione, everyone lives happily ever after. Meh, after such a complex story, a "life-is-simple" ending like that is a bit of a let-down. But I did like the (partial) redemption of the Malfoys, the idea that Slytherin house wasn't branded as traitorous (note also that Horace Slughorn, the new head of Slytherin house, was in the battle against Voldemort), and the idea that Harry finally made peace with Snape and even learned to respect him.

Which is the Breakaway Group?

I've been following the Jeffs trial in the Deseret News. Since they started allowing anonymous comments to be posted on stories, there have (predictably) been some pretty nasty things said. Internet trolls will be internet trolls. At the risk of feeding the trolls, I had some thoughts on what one of them said, something along the lines of "the FLDS church follows the religion founded by Joseph Smith more closely than the LDS church does." No justification given.

OK, I'll just have to read his mind. The FLDS church is most famous for its practice of polygamy, so I can only assume that's what he's talking about. LDS: clearly not practicing it any more. LDS 0, FLDS 1. But wait, the idea of polygamy wasn't even introduced until 1831, the religion "as founded by Joseph Smith" did not include polygamy. But hey, I'm feeling generous, let's leave the score as it is.

Now, Joseph Smith clearly taught that everyone had their own agency, especially including those entering into polygamous marriages. FLDS practices arranged marriages, and when a girl like the witness in the Jeffs trial asks not to be a part of it, she is told to give herself to her arranged husband. Agency? I'm afraid I'm going to have to dock a point. LDS 0, FLDS 0.

Joseph Smith did not break up marriages as a punishment for apostasy, so far as I know. Many ex-FLDS have testified that their wives were given to other men when they left. Without hearing what the wives have to say, I hesitate to change the score based on this one.

Enough about polygamy. What was the religion "as founded by Joseph Smith" really based on? The Book of Mormon is a pretty key part. I don't know how much the FLDS uses the Book of Mormon, but I'll be generous again. LDS 1, FLDS 1. Continuing revelation? LDS 2, FLDS 2. Ahh, but who has the authority to receive revelation for the church? The current prophet, including (in 1890) (drum roll...) Wilford Woodruff. FLDS believes that Wilford Woodruff led us astray when he abandoned polygamy. LDS 3, FLDS 2. Joseph Smith taught that a man cannot take authority upon himself, that he "must be called of God by prophecy..." I don't know where the Jeffs family gets their authority, but it wasn't given by Wilford Woodruff. LDS 4, FLDS 2. Another important teaching was the gathering of Israel, aka missionary work. Does FLDS have missionaries? LDS 5, FLDS 2.

Perhaps all I've succeeded in doing is criticized FLDS in the same way that our critics attack us. Or shown my own ignorance about FLDS. Or fed the Internet trolls. (Good thing I haven't publicized this blog, huh?)

Good Bashing Scriptures

I don't really know how better to categorize this, and I'm not really all that interested in bashing. But I thought these were cool.

First, a "doctrinal change" in the New Testament. Maybe that's a stretch, but still. Examine Luke 22:35-37. The apostles were originally commanded to go preaching without purse or scrip. Now all of a sudden this command was revoked. Judging from verse 37, it might have something to do with the political or religious climate, and the persecution they were going to go through. We might compare this to the revoked command to build a temple in Missouri, or to practice polygamy.

Second, did the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon have any indication that the Father and Son are separate beings? Yes. I may need to accumulate some examples, but I have found at least Alma 11:26-35. Granted, it gets more ambiguous in v. 38-39, but it seems a reasonable argument that if Joseph believed they were the same, the phrase "Who is he that shall come? Is it the Son of God?" is very uncharacteristic. Another separation can be found in Alma 30:39. Then there's the classic 3 Ne. 11:7-11, and so much more in 3 Nephi. The phrase "Son of God" also appears in Alma 7:9-13.

Salvation by grace or by good works? Or by ordinances? Let's ask none other than the grace expert himself, Paul. 1 Cor. 11:2 and Gal. 3:27 both talk about ordinances. Gal. 5:6 talks about faith working by love. 1 Cor. 3:8 talks about receiving our own rewards according to our labor.

Jesus is our brother. This point may not be so much in dispute but it has some far-reaching consequences, including pre-mortal existence and the divine potential of man. Haven't found much so far, just John 20:17 and Hebrews 2:10-18.

Now Stop This Constant Bickering!

I've been thinking that Protestants and Mormons keep getting into arguments over grace versus works, when really both sides are setting up straw men to do battle with, and both sides are probably closer to each other than they think.

Mormons will scoff at the idea that someone can be saved just by some meaningless superficial expression of faith, without a real change effected in a person's life. In fact, as I understand it (and I'm no expert on Protestant theology, so take this with a grain of salt), Protestants believe that good works are indeed a natural consequence of true conversion-- it's just that we aren't saved by them.

Protestants on the other hand look at all the ordinances Mormons believe in, and point at our answers that "we're doing the best we can" when asked if we have been saved, and claim that we don't truly believe in Jesus Christ. When in fact, strangely enough, we do indeed have such grace-centered teachings such as Mosiah 2:21-24. Let me propose two arguments that perhaps we can agree upon: first, if Jesus Christ commanded me to do something, can I truly say "well, I accept you, but I'm not doing that"? It's not that we are removing him from the focus, it's that we believe this is what he asks us to do. Second, is it possible for a person to feel "born again," and truly feel it, but then lose his focus and even his faith later in life? You might argue that in this case he wasn't truly "born again" in the first place, but you can only say that in retrospect. He wouldn't have known this would happen to him later, and certainly didn't intend for it.

So basically, we're all arguing about the wrong thing, and viewing each other's doctrines with the wrong perspective. The real argument is whether we are indeed commanded to be baptized, etc. and how we can stay strong afterwards.

An unexplored question in gender and politics

So many comments have been made about the possibility of a female president, now that Hillary is running. We've had female candidates before, of course, but this time all the analysts are going nuts because this is the first "serious" candidate. (Elizabeth Dole, how do you respond to that?)

Well, we may be "ready for" a female president (which is not to say we haven't been "ready" for quite some time), but are we ready for a male First Lady? Has anyone explored the implications? I think this question has been ignored for too long, and I for one do not look forward to having to explain such a complicated and confusing issue to innocent children.

"Daddy, how can a lady be a man?"

"Well, it's, uh... why don't you go ask your mother?"

"She told me I should ask you."

War Politics in Mosiah?

I was reading Mosiah 9:1-2 this morning and noted some interesting politics going on. Not that I claim to have any insight on how politics works (particularly Nephite politics), nor am I trying to take sides in any issue or imply any connection to war politics going on today...

So, Zeniff's company left Zarahemla to try to re-colonize the city of Nephi. He was not the leader of the company at this time, he was just a spy. (The leader wasn't mentioned by name. I shall call him Bob. ) Zeniff's job was, it appears, to figure out where the Lamanites' weaknesses were so that the company could come down and destroy them. Much is missing from this account that could be very interesting. Zeniff said he saw "good among them" and was "desirous that they should not be destroyed." A vague description. To put it in modern parlance, could he have felt that this would be "genocide"? Perhaps he had been caught up in the "propaganda" of the "evil empire" of the Lamanites, and discovered something shocking-- there was actually some "good among them."

He returned to report to Bob to argue for making a treaty with them. Bob, being "austere" and "blood-thirsty" didn't like his argument and ordered Zeniff's execution. A fight ensued, and apparently Zeniff wasn't executed, although "the greater number" of the army was killed in the internal conflict.

As Zeniff himself later confessed in verse 10, he was duped by the king of the Lamanites into thinking they could live peacefully together. So my question is, if Bob had won the internal conflict, how would he have written about it? "I, Bob, had to put down a rebellion among my army because of a traitor that was fraternizing with the enemy and actively trying to deliver us into the Lamanites' hands." The winner gets to write the history books, right? Not that I'm trying to make any judgments on either side. It is true that they were eventually put into captivity, and many people died, because Zeniff wanted to spare whatever good it was that he saw. An ethical dilemma, to be sure. (And before anyone goes yapping about "imperialism," and how they should have stayed in Zarahemla, I must point out... the Lamanites willingly allowed this colony to exist. Zeniff didn't realize he was being duped, he was probably very excited in this new development in Nephite-Lamanite relations. Hindsight is 20/20. Insert political spin and/or aphorisms here.)

The Tree of Life

Courtesy of President Lunt, in stake conference today:

In Lehi's vision of the tree of life, we tend to associate the fruit of the tree with eternal life, or some future reward. But wait, there were some who left after tasting the fruit (1 Ne 8:24), even though the fruit was "desirable above all other fruit" (1 Ne 8:12). How do we explain that?

He used Alma's sermon on faith to explain. Alma 32:42 does indeed label the fruit as eternal life, but Pres. Lunt tied it in with the "test on the seed." You can't just automatically enjoy and appreciate the fruit, you have to prepare for it. He gave an example of how he went to general conference once when he was young. He and his friend had a really hard time getting there, and once they got there, the benches were uncomfortable and the ushers crowded in so many people that it was unpleasant for him. His friend, on the other hand, could only talk about what a great experience it was. I'm reminded of Henry Eyring's father telling him how he's never heard a bad sacrament meeting talk. (Can't remember exactly what his father did, maybe I'll look it up later...) Anyway, to prepare for the fruit, you have to work on the seed and prepare it and nourish it, as Alma said. And remember that the fruit is symbolic of a process, not of an event. That was the gist of the talk. And once again, we see how Alma 32 is a great lesson on faith.

Finding Meaning in Mountain Meadows Massacre

I just heard about a movie being made in the setting of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Not surprisingly, they chose the more sensational route and based the events on allegations that the church leadership was behind it. If we can make it an exposé of how horrible those Mormons really are, we'll get more buzz, right? :-P

I don't intend to become an apologist, it looks like that work could be a full-time job just to fight off all the internet trolls, not to mention all the historical research needed to answer legitimate points. I just want to record my thoughts, some of which may very well be off-base.

There seem to be a lot of people who are brought up to hate the Mormons because of this incident. We perhaps do the same thing in demonizing those who persecuted our ancestors in (for example) Haun's Mill, but we certainly don't carry that hate over to today, Hatfield-and-McCoy-style, do we? I hope not...

Was the church responsible for the murders at Mountain Meadows? Why doesn't the church issue an apology?
Depends on what you mean by "the church." Clearly there were Mormons involved, including leaders. Does that mean "the church" was responsible? There were Muslims involved in the World Trade Center bombs, including leaders, but most people seem to be stepping over themselves to emphasize that the Muslim religion itself was not responsible for it. Brigham Young's orders were to let them pass. I don't see how people can say that he really did mean for them to execute everyone.

But wasn't Brigham Young's reaction a little unfeeling?
As I understand, he was violently ill when he found out. (Anyone have any documentation on this?) But I think most people are talking about the confiscation of wagon train's property and trying to charge their relatives for taking care of the surviving children. Um, well, maybe a little unfeeling, but that's a far cry from calling him an accessory to murder. (Besides, it is kinda expensive to raise children, and the church was still in a great deal of debt at this time. Perhaps the church should have swallowed the debt in this case, but he was faced with the dilemma of the commandment to get out of debt (DC 104:78-81).)

How can you say that such horrible actions were justified?
This usually comes after a well-meaning Mormon chimes in and says "you need to understand the mindset of the Mormons at this time," followed by some listing of the grievances and persecution they suffered. (Often this is followed by someone explaining that the Mormons deserved what they got for repeatedly breaking the law. This is completely beside the point, but it has been addressed elsewhere. Not to mention it flies in the face of the formal apologies issued over the last few years by the states of Illinois and Missouri.) If someone is listing the grievances, he is probably trying to counter the dehumanizing effect of such a chilling, one-sided story, not to justify their actions. This is probably little comfort to those who were personally affected by the incident. But by no means are such arguments meant to be attempts to justify their actions, only to explain them.

Again, to draw on the parallel that our enemies are so hasty to make with the World Trade Center attacks, we seem to trip over ourselves in an attempt to discover what motivated the terrorists and often coming to some conclusion about "American imperialism," but no reasonable person reads that as an exoneration of the terrorists' actions.

Why was only one person ever brought to justice?
Why indeed? I think it's a legitimate question, but it should be directed at the judicial system and not at the church. After all, everyone complains about how the church should keep its influence out of the government. Now everyone complains that the church should have done the government's duty? And no, the church was not manipulating the government. The massacre took place in 1857. The "Utah War" was taking place in 1857-1858, which in part seems to have been about unfair judges, who at the time were political appointees by Washington, not elected officials. The judges afterwards were also political appointees, some of which were clearly not pro-Mormon. You'd think one would think one of them would chomp at the bit to get his hands on a case like this. (Maybe I've got my timing off on this. In any case, there was clearly a great deal of misunderstanding about exactly what happened that continues to this day.) One comment I saw was "well, what about blood atonement?" That's a whole other subject that I know little about. I'll let the professionals handle that one.

FAIR also has a discussion about the attempts to bring the perpetrators to justice, including the idea that some judges were trying hard to tie the murders to the church, to no avail and effectively hindering the investigation.