Fiddley Gomme - Mormonism

Everything I Needed To Know I Learned In Primary

Pete — Wed, 07 May 2008 22:38:55 -0400

Being brought up Mormon left me naive about important things like the difference between an americano and a latte. Or proper beer bong technique. But my upbringing on the fringes of American religion did teach me some valuable lessons.

For example; if the charismatic, bearded leader of your congregation on an isolated ranch in {fill in the name of a western state here} claims that he is the resurrected Jesus. Or even if he claims to get text messages from Jesus. There's a good chance he's trying to have sex with your under-age daughter.

But don't take my word for it. It happens all the time. Seriously. All the time. So much.

Because I Obviously Take These Things Very Seriously

Pete — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 23:00:45 -0500

Do you remember when I used to actually write about actual things instead of always writing about why I don't have any time or energy or whatever to write? Yeah, me too. OK, Pete, get on with it. Here's an actual post.

I was not surprised to hear that Gordon B. Hinckley, the leader of my former faith, had died. Especially given how matter-of-factly Donna told me, as though she were announcing the arrival of the mail. Also especially because he was a mere ninety-seven years old. At last check that's almost as old as John McCain.

There was a time when I would have been moved, emotionally by Hinckley's passing. A long while ago, that emotional cocktail would have been equal parts sadness, loss and introspection on my own mortality. A little less of a while ago, I may have been somewhere on the other side of the emotional gamut. I may have even been happy to hear the news. Though I'm not exactly sure why and that happiness would have been rude and misplaced.

But now, given some distance from my own Mormonism, the only sense of loss I felt was in a moment when I realized that I would have to put to rest the crown jewel in my vocal impersonation repertoire. Seriously. My actual, honest-to-the-polygamous-God-of-my-forefathers first thought was about how much work it would be to learn Thomas Monson's voice. And in an election year, no less.

You see, my next best voice is George W. Bush. And now, in one year, after so many years of perfecting both voices, I will now have to replace them both. I feel just like Larry Miller and Jerry Sloan must have that year that John Stockton retired and Karl Malone played for the Lakers.

Both Bush and Hinckley have (and had, respectively) particularly distinctive voices. Both, when done well and for the right audience, are instantly recognizable. It will be hard to get the kind of mileage I've gotten out of both voices from the next guys.

But I have a solution to my problem. Mitt Romney for President of The United States AND President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. It's a perfect solution for both of us, really. He gets to both tell the Mormons what to do AND have them tell him what to do. And me... well I get the most impersonatable candidate with loads of material to work with. Plus, he's not likely to die any time soon.

So whether you're voting on Super Tuesday or a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, do me a favor. Vote Mitt.

In The News: Double Entendres and Double Standards

Pete — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:54:14 -0500

When asked about newly-inaugurated Salt Lake City mayor Ralph Becker's proposed registry for domestic partners, State Senator Chris Buttars (R - West Jordan) replied, "I have great empathy for that kind of thing. I have no problem with people sharing insurance or their wills, estates, real estate or lives. I just have to be certain we're not coming in the back door of the Amendment 3 [ban on gay marriage and civil unions]."

I'm sorry... did he just say, coming in the back door of Amendment 3? I thought so. Poor choice of words, Senator Butthole. Personally, I hope the registry gives Amendment 3 a reach-around and a Dirty Sanchez.

In other news, the LDS Church is busy talking out both sides of its political mouth. With one side it is assuring the voting public that it would never dare influence a potential President Romney. With the other, it is issuing statements telling the Utah State Legislature how to vote when it comes to matters of legalized-adulthood. It seems to me that if the church and Attorney General Mark Shurtleff are truly concerned with protecting teens in Utah that grocery stores ought to be farther down the list than forced polygamous marriages, a matter both are quick to divorce themselves from at every opportunity.

Mitt Misses The Point. Or Does He?

Pete — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 18:09:55 -0500

In anticipation of Mitt Romney's clear-the-air-about-the-cult-err-church-I-belong-to speech I thought of the legitimate questions many Americans may have for Mitt. I don't mean the kind of questions that have no bearing on his potential presidency like, "How do you explain the recent shift in the LDS Church's position on the origins of the American Indians?"

Discussion like that is certainly of interest to me but is, in no way, relevant to Romney the candidate. No, instead I have two questions for Romney following yesterday's speech.

1) If your church membership were in jeopardy because of your public position on a national issue being in contrast to that of LDS church leadership, would you change your position to save your membership?

2) Would your statement about the oath of office being your "highest promise to God" trump any promises you made in the Mormon temple?

i think these are the real, legitimate issues of concern with any voter who may have a concern. Anybody who has spent any time following Utah politics is aware of the LDS Church's active, visible and deliberate influence in politics. But Romney failed to even acknowledge those concerns and thereby completely failed to address them.

That's because Romney is politically savvy. He knows that getting even a tiny bit specific about his church's off-center doctrine and policies would be political suicide. Let alone if he were to address some of the really-way-out-there stuff. And he also knows that, at least at this point in the campaign, he doesn't need to. His audience yesterday was not the average American voter.

In fact, I'm not certain the average American voter has any concerns about his Mormonism except that most find the whole thing a bit strange. Come to think of it, the only time I ever hear Romney's faith come up is when he himself brings it up. It is as if he holds it up as the single issue he is able to successfully address time after time. A straw man, of sorts.

So who was his audience? The evangelical right. His own party. Those who want a Christian crusader to pick up the baton from George W. and whose influence virtually assures the opportunity to hand-pick the Republican nominee. They want to hear Romney say that he stands for the same things they do.

And he did say that. Or at least he put himself in a position to be immune from criticism about the issue. He did this by doing what he does best... by restating the concern to something slightly different that he can then answer to everyone's satisfaction. He plays offense and makes it look like defense.

It's like this...

Someone asks, "How will your faith influence your policy as a potential president?"

He says, "So, you're asking me if I am a person of faith... let me assure you, I am."

Well played, my friend... well, played.

I Make A Record Of My Proceedings In My Days

Pete — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 19:00:58 -0500

Back when I was but a wee Mormon boy, I learned all the Primary Songs. I Am A Child Of God, The Chapel Doors, Book of Mormon Stories.

Ah, Book of Mormon Stories. Remember the hand actions to that one? Where you pound your fist in the palm of your hand to the beat of imaginary war drums then put two fingers behind your head like a couple of eagle feathers? Everything about that song, from the rhythm of the bass line to the lyrics and pantomime Indian stereotypes reinforced a single, simple message. That the people talked about in the book, the Lamanites who defeated the Nephites in an epic battle Cecil DeMille would be proud of, are today's American Indians.

That message was echoed in the introduction to the copy of Book of Mormon that my Branch President gave me the day I was baptized. "After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians."

That message has become increasingly difficult for the LDS church to stand behind in recent years given the ludicrous amounts of scientific evidence mounted against such a claim. Everything from DNA testing showing actual origins of Native Americans to an archeological picture of the Americas painting an increasingly disparate picture to that painted by the Book of Mormon. So difficult has this claim become that the LDS church has now changed that introductory paragraph to the book to read, "After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians."

Now the Lamanites are not the principal ancestors but merely among the ancestors of today's Native Americans. Hmm.

Apologists will claim that the introduction is not scripture per se but simply an interpretation of this otherwise-inspired work. A fine sentiment were it not for nearly two centuries of insistence on that claim by every single church prophet to date. I, and every other Mormon, was taught that the Lamanites were the sole survivors of a great pre-Columbian battle in the Americas and that today's Indians, Pacific Islanders and other indigenous peoples are the remnants of those tribes. The book itself, introduction aside, is exceedingly clear on this point in particular.

As is another canon of Mormon scripture, the Doctrine and Covenants. In sections 28, 32 and 54, the local and regional native people are repeatedly referred to with the blanket term "Lamanite". No argument can be made claiming that these verses are not considered the literal word of God by the church.

So what does this all mean?

It means the LDS church is well on its way to not only claiming that they don't believe that which they once preached but that they will likely claim they never actually taught it in the first place. Just as many Mormon leaders will tell you that Brigham Young never taught that Adam was God and that temple-goers were never subjected to pantomiming their own disembowelment and having their private parts washed by strangers.

It also means that the LDS church has, in part, fessed up to what I've and others have been trying to say for several years, that, in fact, the Book of Mormon is not an accurate historical record at all.

Conference Weekend

Pete — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 18:48:18 -0400

Around our house, LDS General Conference has become and excuse for Donna to hole up in her craft room and scrapbook with a friend. For them, the weekend is meant to be free of spouses and children. An orgy of die-cuts and heart-shaped punches, not to be interrupted by the trivial goings-on of the rest of us.

I, for one, am happy to oblige. The girls and I sit around burping and farting in our pajamas with our hair uncombed and bodies unwashed. We eat anything that can be microwaved or eaten raw. After all, we wouldn't want to leave any dirty laundry or dishes for Donna to deal with once the post-Conference hangover hits on Monday.

The downside is the all-day inundation of hardline Mormon doctrine. The upside is, it's generally the same droned out nonsense we've been hearing for years from them so most of it goes largely ignored. It becomes background noise. Like Coldplay. Every song sounds the same.

Persecuted v. Prosecuted?

Pete — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:58:03 -0400

Throughout history, leaders of religious sects have found themselves in legal hot water. Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Tony Alamo and, most recently, Warren Jeffs.

After hearing the news of Jeffs' conviction of being the world-record holder as the creepiest living person, my instant thought was to wonder what his followers were doing to discount the conviction. How would they frame and retell their version of events such that even the very nature of the crimes he had been charged with would be lost in their official histories.

If one looks at the criminal cases against Jesus or Joseph Smith, for example, the official recounting by their followers, their true-believers, you notice that those accounts are suspiciously light on the details of the specific cases made against them. How many devout Christians know what charges Jesus was brought up on before Pontius Pilate? How many would go the extra-step in calling those charges erroneous, without even knowing exactly what they were?

The same holds true with Joseph Smith. How many Mormons can tell you why Smith was jailed in Carthage, IL at the time of his assassination? How many, if asked, would likely take the position that Smith had been wrongfully jailed? I sense that a prevailing opinion is that Smith was repeatedly persecuted and prosecuted for no good reason at all. That there were no grounds for his frequent arrests.

Objectivity in these cases, like the kind we have in the Jeffs case, would probably allow the observer to recognize little bias against the accused on the part of those prosecuting. Given a little objective perspective, one might be able to find that there had probably been more than just cause in all of those cases.

It would be most interesting to me to witness, first-hand, the immediate reaction by Jeffs' followers to news of his conviction. Mostly because most of them probably have not allowed themselves the kind of objectivity required to recognize the kind of common-place criminal he really is. Many, I'm sure, are comparing him to Joseph Smith.

I, for one, couldn't agree with them more. It's my sense that they are alike in more than a few ways.

An Email Exchange At Work

Pete — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 18:53:12 -0400

Pete,
I'm interested how this is done. Let me know when you can enlighten me on this.

You come seeking further light and knowledge?

I have been true and faithful.

Do you have the tokens?

I do.

I would ask if you can sell them to me but I already have a set I'm selling on Ebay.

You can buy anything in this world on Ebay.

I can understand this level of irreverence from a heathen apostate like me but this bloke was married in the Salt Lake Temple less than two weeks ago. I guess the standard for secrecy has probably declined since they stopped making people promise to disembowel themselves over it.

Blog Post For The Dead

Pete — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 20:10:24 -0400

A few months ago my grandfather commented that, while the Jordan River temple was active and busy, other temples worldwide sat relatively idle. Some are open only a few days a month and even then, I'm told, activity is pretty low.

I think they could really boost attendance by adding a few new ordinances.

Confession for the dead. Temple-goers would get a chance to sit in proxy for now-dead persons in a meeting with their bishop. Patrons would read from a list of all known sins committed by the person. Families would now have to include gathering of sins committed as part of their genealogy.

Matchmaking for the dead. Persons who died single would be computer matched based on their forty-nine love components and would then have their names submitted for sealing.

Honeymoon for the dead. Patrons would lay in proxy for those whose matchmakings and sealings had just been performed in their name.

What do you guys think? Did I miss any?

How Come Nobody Names Their Kids Esdras Anymore?

Pete — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:41:21 -0400

James E. Faust is dead. I feel almost obligated to comment but honestly, I have no strong feelings on the subject whatsoever. But it seems to be dominating the local news and has even permeated into the office banter today. Still though, LDS Church leaders have been dying for more than one hundred fifty years. And every time one does, another steps in his place.

Opponents of the church, and no, I don't consider myself in that camp, will no doubt raise a glass today to celebrate the man's passing. Devout Mormons around the world will weep and mourn his passing. I think both reactions are unfounded. As I said, another will come along to take his place so neither position is advanced or reduced by his death. The one position is downright rude. The other represents an unhealthy emotional attachment to a man whose passing, without the benefit of his title, would go unnoticed.

I've never met the man and his title bears no weight with me, neither for good or for ill. I have no personal connection to him in any way at all. I can't even think of a time when I remember him speaking. They could replace him with a cardboard cutout and I wouldn't notice any more or less of a personal impact. Those guys all look the same with their eyes closed on the stand at General Conference anyway.