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.

Huh?

I had to create a blog in order to post comments on my sister's blog, http://thegreatwordsmith.blogspot.com/. Weird. So before anyone asks... It's late at night and I couldn't think of a clever name for my blog. Larzipan is the only nickname I've ever had that has "stuck" for an extended period of time. Well, I guess there was "Thor" back in the old Butte II Ward, but that wasn't ever really a nickname, it was more of a funny thing to say, as in: "Thorrrrrr!!!!" I guess you had to be there. I still have no idea how that got started.

Anyway, I know someone's going to ask, so the answer is: I suspect "Larzipan" is derived from a character on Homestar Runner. And only a couple of people really even call me that. There you have it. Be excellent to each other.