I guess I was a missionary who wasn’t pressured to baptize

(This piece was posted to the now-defunct StandardBlogs in July 2013).

Before I get into my subject, memo to Sunstone fans; the June 2013 issue is the best I have read. Every article — from letters to in-depth features, was a must-read. And filmmaker Richard Dutcher offers an excellent short story, “Expiation.” This week’s blog was partially inspired by (the now late)Tom Kimball, who once handled books at Signature. In a short, personal essay in which Kimball offers his sentiments on watching — as a former Mormon — LDS priesthood holders set apart his LDS son for a mission, he wonders what his son will be like after his mission.

This line stayed with me: “Will the numbers game that rules so many missions open his eyes to my unbelieving view of Mormonism?” The “numbers game.” I have heard accounts, by Mormons and former Mormons, of the salesmanship pressures of baptizing. The “numbers game” pressure is a fixture in contemporary Mormon-themed fiction sold outside Deseret Book. I don’t doubt there’s a “numbers game” but the concept is foreign to me because I , drum roll, never experienced it during my time as a missionary. Not from the president, the assistants, the zonies …

I served an 18-month mission (1983-1984) in the Peru Lima North mission. It was a high-baptizing mission. In the 16 months I was in the field, my companions and I averaged between 8 to 9 baptisms a month. I assume those numbers were about average in the mission. I was in Iquitos (by the Amazon River), Chiclayo, Lima and Chimbote, a city blessed with too many fish factories and seemingly no rules on pollution. In Chimbote, we were frequently assaulted with waves of fish smoke!

Note from today: (The picture above is of the Ayllon family, who myself and my senior companion, Elder Rodger Worthen, taught the Gospel to and baptized the couple. The family has remained active in the LDS. Their sweet son -- standing -- in the photo, Jorge, died a decade-plus later while on his mission. Others in the family have served missions. Rodger, God bless his soul, died in 2020.)

Of course, we were urged to gather prospects, urge a commitment to baptism during the first discussion, and baptize converts, but there was never the follow-up pressure and cheers for baptizers and scorn for non-baptizers. We knocked doors in the AM, studied for a couple of hours in the afternoon (siesta time) and in the late afternoon or evening went to appointments, or knocked doors. Knocking on doors was not a difficult thing to do. I can only recall two occasions when the door was shut in our face.

Recreation was treasured in my mission. We’d get up at 6 am on Mondays to make our Preparation Day as long as possible. My fondest memories are in in Lima, by the Tupac Amaru highway, climbing the hills, early in the morning, in the outskirts of Lima. Near Chiclayo we once visited, via truck, a place sacred to Catholics, called The Cross of Chalpon. There were dozens of these types of trips. They relieved the tension that accompanies 12-hour missionary days six days a week.

On Monday night, there was zone meeting. We reviewed the week, went over procedures, congratulated missionaries on baptisms. But again, no pressure. I wonder if my mission’s easygoing style was due to the numbers of baptisms already being logged? Or was it the strategy of my mission president, an easygoing Idaho farmer named Harvard Bitter. I never saw anything other than good humor from him, and that includes the rare personal visits.

In fact, the “worst” thing that ever happened on my mission was when I was robbed at the Chimbote taxi stop upon arrival there. The casualties were my scriptures, about $70 cash, some Peruvian money, a key chain collection, and the big loss, my mission diary which had logged 15 months of my mission. I hated losing that. I put an ad in the paper, with a reward promised for its return and no questions asked, but maybe the robbers didn’t read the daily paper. (In subsequent weeks I was bemused to see parts of my not inconsiderable key chain collection for sale by street vendors at various locations.)

Warning: Very long sentence follows — Although I realize that my mission diary likely decomposed long ago in a landfill — is it possible that destroyed mission diaries are resurrected in the hereafter? — I still harbor a hope that it’s sitting in some members’ house and that one day, through the magic of social media — which definitely did not exist back then … we weren’t even able to watch LDS conference — I will be reunited with my mission diary, thereby having an absolutely fantastic spiritual anecdote the next time I’m tapped to give a talk in sacrament meeting.

Well, I have digressed from my original topic of not being pressured to baptize. As mentioned, to the best of my memory, I never felt the pressure others describe (even now my Standard Works colleague Cal Grondahl is telling me he was pressured to baptize in his 1969 to 1971 New Zealand mission). The only time I felt harassed was due to an overenthusiastic assistant who was a stickler for rules and was hassling me one day. I exchanged a few sharp words with him, which probably ended my faint hopes of becoming a zone leader. I was a district leader the final eight months of my mission, and was always given responsibilities over sister missionaries. My leadership skills could be summed up as follows: Work hard, and don’t baptize kids unless there’s a member parent or member adult sibling. One overly enthusiastic sister missionary used to complain about my “standards” to President Bitter (I read news magazines and boxing magazines) but the prez just laughed them off. (To be fair, I also polished off the “Book of Mormon” a few times, “Jesus the Christ,” the “Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt,” the “Articles of Faith,” and “Orgullo y Prejucio” (“Pride and Prejudice”), which I picked up in a Chiclayo bookstore.)

This stream of consciousness piece is about over. There’s another article in the current Sunstone, by Scot Denhalter, who ironically was in my mission area several-plus years before I got there. In “The Persistent Impermanence of Memory,” Denhalter argues that our memories may not be what actually occurred. As Denhalter writes, “… as the mind retrieves the raw data of memory for the first time, details needed to establish the logical coherence of the memory’s retelling — details not originally stored or possibly never perceived — can be unconsciously added, while seemingly unnecessary details can be left out or likely lost forever.”

I guess it’s possible my memories are skewed. Maybe I was pressured to baptize. But I doubt it.

-- Doug Gibson

Is it DeMille, Spielberg or Jackson who wants to direct a movie on Alma?

(Originally published in 2010 on StandardBlogs)

A lifetime of activity in the LDS Church provides more than just an average acquaintance with “The Pearl of Great Price.” You become very well versed in the urban legends of Mormonism. One of the favorite urban legends I heard growing up in Southern California LDS wards was that the late, great director Cecil B. DeMille (“The 10 Commandments”) wanted to make a movie about the Book of Alma in “The Book of Mormon.”

If you’ve never heard of Cecil B. DeMille, that’s OK. In the last couple generation or so, I’ve heard a variation on the DeMille/Alma story. It’s actually the great, living director Steven Spielberg who wants to make a movie based on the book of Alma. If you haven’t heard of Spielberg, maybe in 10 years it will be director Peter Jackson who wants to Alma on the big screen?

The only big-screen film version of “The Book of Mormon” I’ve seen is the low-budget, really bad “Book of Mormon Movie Part I,” which should have been subtitled “Beach Blanket Lehi” for all its depth. True confession: I own that film, and have watched it a few times. The dialogue is so bad that I have a hard time believing that my church would have wanted the production company to make the film. I guess that means perhaps that “The Book of Mormon” is in the public domain, like other classics such as Mary Shelly’s “Frankenstein” or George A. Romero’s film “Night of the Living Dead.” That must be the reason so many cheap cartoonish versions of Alma are available through Living Scriptures, Liken the Scriptures or the LDS Church Distribution Center.

Back to Mormon urban legends: There used to be a fun website that tried to decipher all the Mormon legends out there. The site no longer exists so I won't mention its name. It did not get them all, since there was no listing for DeMille, Spielberg, Alma, etc., but the site claimed an answer to the big “is Alice Cooper a Mormon” debate. I’ve been hearing this one since I was old enough to know who Alice Cooper was. The answer, according to the site was  … a sort of yes. You see Cooper, whose real name is Vincent Furnier, has a dad named Ether Moroni. With a name like that, right … RIGHT. The Furniers belong to an obscure Mormon castoff sect called The Bickertonite Church, also known as The Church of Christ. The church claims The Book of Mormon as its own scripture.

There’s very few members of this “Mormon” church, and I doubt Cooper attends, but dad Ether Moroni was alleged to be an elder in the Bickertonites and, get this, the defunct site said Cooper’s grandad was an apostle in The Bickertonite Church. Now that’s a religious pedigree to be proud of!

There were more questions answered on the site. You "found out" if Elvis read “The Book of Mormon” or if the late LDS Church President Spencer W. Kimball was the model for “Star Wars’” Yoda.

-- Doug Gibson

All those Mormons who think R-rated films are taboo are wrong

 

Originally posted in 2009 at StandardBlogs

A couple of years ago my oldest daughter’s accelerated fifth-grade class viewed a film version of the well-regarded novel, “The Devil’s Arithmetic,” which involves a contemporary girl being thrust back in time into the horror of the Holocaust. I was thrilled she had a teacher motivated enough to teach her and others about the Holocaust. Unfortunately, some parents of other students in the class protested and initiated a crusade against the teacher, who was more or less suspended for several days. The parents were enabled by milquetoast district administrators who in my opinion mostly took their embarrassing side. What’s most interesting is that a key argument against the teacher was that she had shown an “R” rated movie. She hadn’t, of course. “The Devil’s Arithmetic” is a TV movie. When I informed an involved party that the film was not R-rated, he seemed very surprised. It was clear the non-existent “R” rating was a big deal.

OK, had an R-rated film been shown to fifth-graders, that would have been a big deal. The irony, though, is among much of the Mormon culture, an R-rated film about the Holocaust would not be tolerated for any ages — are we thinking “Schindler’s List” here? What about the crucifixion? “The Passion of the Christ” is a powerful, well-acted, deeply moving film. Trust me, it’s a much better, more spiritual, more faith-promoting film than the good-hearted “The Testaments.” But I know of an LDS ecclesiastical leader who told his congregation to not see the movie because it was R-rated. I have tried to convince friends who are, like myself, faithful members of the LDS church to see “The Passion of the Christ.” Some have looked at me like I’m the devil trying to tempt Christ to break his fast.

There are many R-rating spurners who are sincere, and avoid all films that cross a moral and personal line that they have set for themselves. I respect that. However, just about every week there are released into theaters PG or PG-13 rated comedy or light drama films with characters and events that are specifically sexual in nature and cast fornication or adultery in a positive light. Many of these films — “The Devil Wears Prada,” “Broadcast News,” “Mamma Mia” — are well-acted, well-produced films. I certainly won’t condemn anyone who enjoys spending two hours escaping real-life watching the films. Those three films, in fact, are among my favorites. My point is that 99 percent of my LDS friends who object to “The Passion of the Christ” don’t object to the PG-13 film at the cineplex; in fact, most have probably watched it.

Look, life is R-rated, and while I admit there’s little of R-rated life I’d want to see on the screen there are subjects, historical, religious or personal, that need an R rating to be effectively told. I know they covered deep subjects well in tame films generations ago, but we were a tamer society then. We laud old films such as “The Good Earth” and “Elmer Gantry” as classics but don’t realize until we read the novels that all the R-rated parts were taken out. A high priest in a former ward once scoffed at my respect for “The Godfather” films. “Edward G. Robinson did it better than Al Pacino, and you can take the family to see the film,” was what he more or less said. Well, I’m a big admirer of Robinson’s sneer, but “The Godfather” is a superb parable of capitalism run amok. It may be the greatest epic tale told on the screen. I’m glad I was able to introduce the trilogy to my wife, who loved the films.

In the past 20-plus years, a myth has grown within the LDS church that members are not supposed to watch any R-rated movies. It’s nonsense. It stems from a speech given by the late prophet Ezra Taft Benson, who advised LDS teenagers to avoid R-rated films. Writer Orson Scott Card, while defending “The Passion of the Christ” in a column, recounted what President Benson actually said: “We counsel you, young men, not to pollute your minds with such degrading matter, for the mind through which this filth passes is never the same afterwards. Don’t see R-rated movies or vulgar videos or participate in any entertainment that is immoral, suggestive, or pornographic. Don’t listen to music that is degrading.” (Ensign, May 1986, p 43)

That makes perfect sense for the youth of the LDS church. They should avoid films such as “Porky’s.” And most R-rated films are not meant for children. But, as Card points out, there is nothing about “The Passion of the Christ” that fits what Benson was warning youth about. Clearly, “immoral, suggestive, or pornographic” entertainment is what we are warned against, not R-rated films.

I don’t expect the myth of R-rated films to ever really go away. I know a family member who promised Heavenly Father a long time ago that she would stop watching R-rated movies. I’m sure He appreciates the gesture, although He’s probably a fan of “Braveheart.”

-- Doug Gibson

More Cal Grondahl Standard Works cartoons

Here's another sample of Cal Grondahl's Standard Works cartoons, done over a several-year period, roughly about 2009 to early 2014. A website change ended the site (except for Wayback), but these were saved at Flickr and Facebook. We use them on the Culture of Mormonism blog. Enjoy! 

100-plus years ago, Charles W. Penrose also explained why he is a Mormon

 

(Editor's note: this blog was published 10 years ago at StandardNet. I rescued it from Wayback. My faith has moved away from calling itself "Mormons." Leaders prefer we use the full-term, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I'm a Mormon site ended in 2018. Of course it was never a dating site; it just seemed like one. I still like Elder Penrose's far earlier effort at telling us about why he's a Latter-day Saint.)

At the I'm a Mormon website, this beautiful 30-something strawberry reddish/blonde named Rochelle is smiling at me … for a few seconds. A click on her profile indicates she’s a married Mormon mom from Texas. I imagine that Rochelle is soon ignored by the scores of thousands of single men, mostly Mormon, who peruse the social media chat site “I’m a Mormon” — as do the many single women who likely pass on 25-34 married man, Todd.

A social media site to connect Mormons across the globe is an obvious cybercentury tool. But it’s not being cynical to also see “I’m a Mormon” as a dating site trove for lonely church members. It’s designed to look like one. Users can peruse any gender preference. I type in Female, African-American, 25-34 and find Lydia, Jewel, Laney and dozens more just waiting for a click. There’s a lot of information shared but the dating site analogy only goes so far. There’s no body measurements or described “turn-ons.”

I’ve had enough of “I’m a Mormon.” I’d have a tough time explaining my interest if my wife caught me perusing the site. Besides, I really belong on the 35 to 49-age webpages. (Today I'm 58, and still happily married).

However, “I-am-a-Mormon” efforts are not without precedence in the LDS Church. They’ve just been more staid in the past. I’m perusing a very yellowed, torn 110-year-old pamphlet, “Why I Am a Mormon,” written by President Charles W. Penrose. Published by the missions (all 10) located in North America, begins with the same fussing about calling LDS members “Mormons” that was heard recently at General Conference. Penrose writes, “To call them ‘Mormons,’ therefore, is as nonsensical as it would be to call them Jeremiahs or Daniels. Peters or Paul.” Penrose adds that he regards as “Mormonism” as “vulgarly” used by his faith’s opponents.

There’s a good bet that was true in 1901, and Penrose is a good sport to tell the gentile world why he’s a Mormon. I have a great deal of affection for this tract — given to me as a family heirloom by a woman who died shortly after I received it. It’s an unapologetic, no evasions tolerated defense of the Gospel. It can be bought — old or new editions — at amazon and elsewhere.

Penrose’s main argument is that Mormonism “is the only religious system that professes to have been established by direct divine authority.” He’s blunt about the divine failures of other religions, including Catholicism, Episcopalism, or those of the Protestant Reformation. He writes, “They are the works of men. It matters not whether their founders were good or bad. God had no direct hand in their establishment for the men who made them did not believe in present revelation. To their minds, Deity was dumb to the world.”

Penrose uses the old-fashioned term, “Romish” church to draw a geneaogy of all then-current U.S. churches, drawing a comparison with his claim that the Mormon Church was a restored version of the New Testament gospel.

Midway into the pamphlet, Penrose delves into sharp theological differences that the LDS Church has with other religions, describing the distinctions as a positive that solves the dilemma of human existence. In sometimes confusing parlance, the LDS doctrines of pre-existence, eternal intelligences, and the potential for Godhood are hinted at.

He writes, “Man is capable of advancement into higher spheres until the divinity within him by birth is developed into the fullness of the Godhead, and he becomes one with the Father and Son.”

The latter portions of the tract explains — to the uninitiated — the outlines of eternal marriage and the importance of The Book of Mormon as latter-day Scripture. Penrose is both blunt, “A woman cannot enter into the fullness of celestial glory in a single state, neither can a man” (thus the interest in today’s mormon.org, perhaps?) and a bit of an early feminist, writing, “She (woman) is an independent member of the Church, with a vote equal to a man’s on all public questions.” (the world “public” is significant, however). The Book of Mormon, besides being lauded as being “in perfect accord with the Bible,” is used as a challenge for investigators who may be squeamish about other aspects of the LDS Church. Penrose writes, “If the Book of Mormon is true, ‘Mormonism’ is true. It is a question I heard growing up and still hear often in church meetings.

The final two sections are testimonies of the Prophet Joseph Smith and a personal testimony of how Mormonism satisfies Penrose’s “every human need.”

Whether a believer in the LDS Church or not, Penrose’s pamphlet is compelling reading. It’s persuasive religious propaganda, direct, to-the-point and delivers answers to eternal questions that dwell within most persons’ hearts. Works such as “Why I Am a Mormon,” as well as many other efforts, are the reason the LDS Church grew from strange, very unpopular cultish sect into a global religion with more than 10 million members.

Although the banal, virtually non-doctrinal, attractive faces/social media “I’m a Mormon” campaign may have its place in a digital world, I can’t help thinking that it would appall Penrose — who died 96 years ago — if he rose from the dead and witnessed it today.

-- Doug Gibson

Interview with authors of Parley P. Pratt: The Apostle Paul of Mormonism

This interview was conducted in August of 2011, soon after the publication of the biography, Parley P. Pratt: The Apostle Paul of Mormonism, (reviewed by me here.) For various factors, it ended up in Wayback purgatory. It is now available at the Culture of Mormonism blog. I appreciate the input from authors Terryl Givens and Matthew J. Grow. Below is the 2011 post:

As Political Surf readers know, I mentioned the new biography of early Mormon leader Parley P. Pratt, “Parley P. Pratt: The Apostle Paul of Mormonism,” Oxford University Press, 2011, by Terryl L. Givens and Matthew J. Grow, in a previous blog that dealt with Pratt’s death (read). I will be reviewing the biography soon in the print edition of The Standard-Examiner. However, I had the opportunity to ask the authors, Givens and Grow, some questions about Pratt, his contemporaries, and the biography. The results are below:

Q: Did Pratt view his calling in life as an apostle to be as the apostles in the Book of Acts, such as as receiving visions, being persecuted or martyred, as Stephen, performing miracles, debating disbelievers, gathering and counseling members, and preaching without recompense and living in poverty?

A:  There is no doubt that Pratt saw his calling as an apostle as consistent with the New Testament pattern of apostleship. He was a fervent restorationist, was convinced that Joseph Smith had received the authority and keys necessary to restore the kingdom of God, and personally experienced those spiritual gifts such as healing that he believed were sure evidence of an authentic restoration. His willingness to leave his family behind time and again to preach the gospel at  home and in foreign lands, and suffer persecution and imprisonment for the gospel’s sake, was in part a consequence of the office he held and the biblical precedent of apostolic sacrifice and martyrdom.

Q: As a premillennialist, did Pratt have any theories as to a particular time Christ was going to return. Would he have been amazed that Christ had not returned by 2011?

A: Pratt’s millennial expectations preceded his conversion to Mormonism, but found particular focus and support from two events. First was his exposure to the Book of Mormon itself-Isaiah’s “ensign to the nations.”  Second was its reinforcement of his personal interest in the spiritual destiny of the American Indians. In light of Book of Mormon prophecies, he read the Indian Removal Act of 1830 as a providential episode that heralded the gathering of that segment of Israel, and was convinced the Second Coming was accordingly imminent. Smith’s announcement of the city of Zion to be built further confirmed him in his sense that he was living on the cusp of millennial events. The failure to realize the promise of Zion in Missouri was devastating to Pratt, as it was to thousands of his co-religionists.

Q: Pratt’s books and pamphlets, although rarely discussed today, are so much a part of Mormonism’s deepest beliefs. Did these emulate mostly from his private talks with Joseph Smith or from his personal study? And did he ever run into conflict on his published doctrine with Brigham Young, as his brother Orson often did?

A: Because so little is recorded of Smith’s Kirtland teachings and personal interactions with other leaders, it is impossible to know how much of Pratt’s writing was directly derivative of Smith’s ideas, and how much was Pratt’s own extrapolation and elaboration of seeds he garnered from Smith and his revelations. Most likely, it was both. Smith did on one occasion complain that Pratt and other “great big elders” were passing off his ideas as their own. Some later editions of Pratt’s writings had portions edited out, but we found no evidence of Young criticizing any particular ideas of his.  Rather, Young recommended Pratt’s writings to others.

Q: Did Brigham Young like Parley P. Pratt? An earlier biography of Pratt (Stanley) claimed the prophet disliked him and kept him away via constant missions?

A: In general, Young and Pratt seem to have had a good relationship, though there were moments of tension and conflict.  For instance, during the trek west, Young rebuked Pratt over several issues related to authority and organization of the trek west.  In general, though, Young respected Pratt for his preaching and literary talents, as well as his willingness and ability to take on difficult tasks like the Southern Utah Expedition, and Pratt accepted Young as his quorum president (and later Church president) and looked to him for guidance and advice.

Q: Regarding Pratt’s murder, do you think he wished to be a martyr or had resigned himself to dying when he left the Van Buren jail?

A: The last years of Pratt’s life were marked by disappointment in the millennium deferred, and in the failure of the Saints to attain the high standards expected of them. (Their unwillingness to generously support his missionary endeavors was one factor in that perception). He missed his family terribly during his missions, and was worn out emotionally and physically. In his final days, he refused to take precautions to defend himself against the man thirsting for his blood, and certainly met his death with uncommon equanimity.

Q: What are some unanswered questions about Parley P. Pratt that are still left to be discovered by historians?

A: One important question relates to your question 3. How much of a role did Pratt have as a catalyst to Joseph Smith’s own expansion of his ideas, especially in regard to human theosis, which Pratt discussed in print long before the King Follett discourse? Another question might be the enduring theological legacy of Pratt’s works. How did Pratt’s books, especially Voice of Warning and Key to the Science of Theology, shape Mormon thought throughout the nineteenth century and the twentieth (and indeed to the present)?

-- Interview by Doug Gibson

The Home Teachers -- Mormonism's best bad movie

 

The competition’s tough, but “The Home Teachers” is Mormonism’s Best Worst Movie!

After watching “Best Worst Movie,” the film homage to the deliriously bad “Troll 2,” I got to thinking: What is the best worst LDS movie — the one so bad that it makes you squirm but you still like enough to put in the DVD player a couple of times a year?

The battle’s fierce. Among the contenders are:

• “Book of Mormon Movie,” where the actors’ age with salt n pepper hair but no facial lines.

• “Charly” where viewers wish star Heather Beers would reject all the dreary men in her life.

• “Beauty and the Beast,” where bad acting is mixed with cinematography and sets more often used in soft-core porn.

• And “The RM,” where love occurs in a montage with bad music.

But “The Home Teachers” gets my vote for the best of the worst. Directed by Kurt Hale, the 2004 Halestorm film takes a subject that could have been softly parodied for a few chuckles and instead turns it into a road movie featuring a poor imitation of a Chris Farley, David Spade buddy film.

The Farley character is family man/football fanatic Greg Blazer (Michael Birkeland), who just wants to get home from church and watch NFL football. Unfortunately, he’s corralled by the Spade character, Nelson Parker (Jeff Birk), his anal retentive home teaching companion, who insists they get all their families visited even if it requires a three-hour drive across the state.

Birkeland is the better actor, but he’s no Chris Farley. He whines instead of creating pathos and his voice is a monotone. His one talent, physical comedy, makes the film watchable. My children howl with laughter during an otherwise appalling home teaching scene where Birkeland’s Blazer destroys the home of a down on their luck family. There is another, funnier Farleyesque scene where Birkeland ends up doing the “tango” with a corpse during a funeral viewing. And my kids scream with laugher when Birkeland, with a deer head over his head, runs frantically away from stupid hunters.

Birk’s obsessive compulsive “Nelson Parker” is very bizarre. He looks more like Ben Stiller than David Spade and he acts nothing like Spade. Although intended to inspire comedy, Parker is very creepy with his steely grin and troubled eyes. There were times I thought Parker might physically attack his home teaching companion. When, near the end of the film, Parker admits that his unseen wife has left him, I was relieved; I’d been worried he’d killed her for unfaithfulness.

With Birkeland’s comedy, Birk’s creepiness and jazzed-up LDS songs, the film remains very bad, save for a too-small performance by the always-talented LDS actress Tayva Patch as a criminal’s moll. (Patch died in 2015). There are cameos by celebrity Jimmy Chunga and baseball player Wally Joyner. The film has the usual let’s-wrap-it-up-with-a-spiritual-experience scene accompanied by familiar montage music and all ends well — even creepy Nelson wins his wife back!

After the credits, there’s a bizarre scene where the home teacher visits Fred Lampropoulos. He talks a mile a minute to them amidst a home decorated with his campaign signs. It’s a weird time capsule — Lampropolous failed in a Utah gubernatorial bid in 2004. It seems way out of place in this already goofy film until you notice that one of the film’s associate producers (investors?) is another Lampropoulos.

-- Doug Gibson

-- Originally published in 2009 at StandardBlogs.

LDS author Douglas Thayer's novel of teen’s fight to survive avalanche

The late Douglas Thayer, a BYU English professor who died in 2017 at 88, penned some pretty good books, including a memoir of his boyhood in Provo, “Hooligan,” and the novel, “The Treehouse,” a well-written but bleak-to-a-fault novel of a Mormon youth’s teen years, mission to Germany, a horrific stint in the Korean War, and his post-war life.

Thayer is a top-tier Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints novelist out there. His final novel, “Will Wonders Ever Cease: A Hopeful Novel for Mormon Mothers and Their Teenage Sons” (Zarahemla Books, 2014), is a good read that mixes an adventure with the protagonist’s stream-of-consciousness thinking as he works to avoid peril and death.

The plot involves Kyle Hooper, 15-year-old Mormon boy in Colorado who takes off in a Suburban to go skiing without his parents’ permission. Almost abruptly, Kyle’s knocked unconscious and his vehicle carried away by a massive snow avalanche.

He comes to several hours later alive thanks to the strength of the Suburban, fortified years earlier by his late grandfather. Kyle is deeply buried in snow, but lucky enough to have landed close to a stream under the avalanche. That allows him to have oxygen. Without a cell phone — it’s smashed — but a car with battery power and some food and drink, he struggles through several days trying desperately to survive and dig himself out.

Kyle is a well-developed character of Thayer’s and the reader will enjoy following along with his ingenious and courageous efforts to save himself from what looks like a long, prolonged and certain death. Mixed in with the survival efforts in this slim novel are this typical but charismatic teen’s thoughts, which run the gamut from girls, church, testimony, his very religious mother, his remote father, his less religious but very talented grandfather, a brother, Trace, who died recently, family, his best friends, and musings about how friends and family are taking his ordeal.

In one emotional scene, Kyle turns on the Suburban’s radio and learns he’s been given up for dead, and retrieval efforts won’t resume until spring.

Within these thoughts, three characters are well-formed by Thayer, an author in his 80s. Kyle’s mother, Lucille, who is originally perceived as a Mormon scold but is revealed to be refreshingly progressive on issues such as homosexuality and premarital pregnancy, and possessed of a strong will, his Grandpa Hooper, whose legacy of common sense and handyman’s know-how is used to great advantage by Kyle, and his late brother, Trace, whose last months alive Kyle recalls as he endures his own struggle to survive.

About the only thing I don’t like about this novel is the bland title, which seems more suitable for self-help or inspirational genres. But it’s a good read, compelling and thought-provoking and readers — drawn into Kyle’s plight — won’t be able to put the book down in the final pages.

-- Doug Gibson

-- Originally published at StandardNET in 2014.

Another kid baptized amidst a day of chaos

This is another Culture of Mormonism blog post rescued from the Wayback Machine. It was written on Aug. 7, 2009. It's a kind of whimsically portrayed -- but accurate -- account of our daughter Sophie Gibson's baptism. I am happy it contains a mention of my now-deceased father, Ray, blessing Sophie. He blessed all our children after their baptisms. It ialso ncludes a great cartoon from Cal Grondahl. It was originally published at the now-defunct StandardBlogs.

We baptized our middle child this past Saturday. Little Sophie Gibson’s bouts of occasional naughtiness will now be logged in the heavens, I was quick to assure her the night before, when she didn’t want to practice the LDS baptismal ritual. Nevertheless, I managed to get her to hold my right hand as my left was raised and we simulated the baptism … I know what some of you are thinking, and yes, it did lead to repercussions in the font.

When I was baptized almost 38 years ago, I don’t recall much fuss about it. It was my birthday, which may be somewhat unique. But I was hustled into the car, driven to the stake center and dunked by my father. Then we went home and waited until Sunday for the confirmation.

It’s different now. Little cards were mailed to friends for Sophie’s baptism — and older daughter Mary’s a few years back — and a couple of cakes and lots of soda pop was purchased. There was a family and friends get-together at the home a couple of hours before the big event. Like these events always are, the older attendees grabbed the comfortable chairs in the living room while younger parents chatted in the kitchen while their kids scarfed cake, ice cream and soda. Occasionally a toddler would wander into the living room to be oohed and aahed at by the seniors.

The next step is heading to the chapel for the service. It’s a relief because other than Sophie’s rather timid interview with the bishop, we have nothing to do with its preparation. The songs, talks and prayers are all handled by the efficient bureaucracy that is the LDS faith. There were only two eight-year-olds to be baptized so things moved quickly.

We moved to the baptismal room. Sophie and I were first. I raised my left hand and uttered what I thought was a pretty good prayer. As I raised a dripping Sophie out of the font, though, I noticed a batch of gray and white heads hovering over the younger toddlers who usually grab the front-row seat at these events.

“You forgot the word of,” said one white head.

No problem. I baptized Sophie again and all seemed well.

The second baptism followed and both of us were in the dressing room. I was halfway into my clean clothes when a man in authority came in looking grave.

“Which hand did you raise during the baptism?” he asked.

Uh oh. I knew I’d goofed.

“The left,” I answered.

The other baptizer with me admitted he also had baptized his granddaughter with the left hand up.

“You’ll both have to do the baptism again,” we were told.

So, I hustled out of my dry clothes and started to get into the wet clothes. I told the other baptizer he could go first this time.

A few minutes later there was another visitor.

“Because you went first originally you’ll have to go first again. How soon can you be ready?”

I told him just a minute.

This was all my fault. I was giving my daughter quite an introduction to baptism. When we went into the font for a third time, I noticed a dead earwig. I wondered if this would scare Sophie, since she screams when she sees an earwig in the house, but she just pointed and said, “Look dad, an earwig.”

With my right hand up, I aced Sophie’s third baptism attempt.

Later, my father managed Sophie’s confirmation in only one take.

After the baptism, with all guests gone and Little Caesar pizza in our mouths, there was peace.

I caught Sophie eagerly telling everyone about her three baptisms.

“If you tell your grandchildren that you were baptized three times, make sure you mention it was dad’s fault,” I advised Sophie.

Mary baptized. Sophie baptized. In three-plus years it’ll be Joe’s turn — the final baptism day.

-- Doug Gibson

The White Horse Prophecy apocrypha still gets talked up from time to time

I wrote this column a while back in late 2010. I thought it's interesting enough to post on blog. Perennial candidate Rex Rammell is still running for political office as late as 2018. ... After a few recent conversations with some older members of the LDS Faith, I know the White Horse Prophecy still fascinates some.

Most of us Mormons, if we are long-timers in the church, have heard that the “Constitution will hang by a thread” in the last days and that the LDS prophet, or church leadership, will save the United States from destruction.

This all comes from the “White Horse prophecy,” a bit of Mormon lore, where two devout followers, Edwin Rushton and Theodore Turley, apparently had a conversation with the prophet Joseph Smith. A “transcript” of Smith’s part of the conversation, 10-plus years later, ended up in Paradise, Utah’s John J. Robert’s private journal.

I have to admit, growing up, I thought the White Horse prophecy was Mormon doctrine. Many of the LDS adults I listened to spoke of it as if it were church doctrine. As I grew older, and couldn’t find it propagated in any priesthood or Sunday School texts, I realized it was apocrypha. It’s not impossible that Smith actually said that, it’s just that it doesn’t mean it’s a revelation by LDS Church standards.

When an LDS prophet receives revelation from God, it is submitted to the church’s Council of the 12 Apostles and discussed — and I imagine debated — in detail before it passes muster as prophecy.

In other words, a secondhand, 10-year-old journal transcript of an alleged conversation a late prophet might have had doesn’t cut it for inclusion in LDS General Conference. In fact, as early as 1918, church leaders were discounting the White Horse prophecy. The church leader at the time, Joseph F. Smith, described it as “trash” and “false.”

There is an excellent article from the FAIR LDS site on the White Horse prophecy, that includes the entire journal account, at Read

So why does the White Horse prophecy have such an ability to hook more credulous members? I think it’s human nature. We all want to have a little of the Indiana Jones in us. We romanticize our church existence, fantasize that there is more to it than a two-year mission, counting members during sacrament meeting, home teaching, collecting fasts offerings and Gospel Doctrine lessons. We admire our faith and want its important to be inflated more in the world than it is. Also, let’s face it, the White Horse prophecy makes for great LDS conversation. But even Bruce R. McConkie, in his once-revered “Mormon Doctrine,” called it “false and deceptive.”

Other faiths are no different. Look at the rapture fantasies of fundamentalist Christians. Another example, that twists into hate and sin, is radical Muslims or — to a far lesser extent, radical Christians — killing infidels or abortionists.

In short, though, to the rest of the world, the White Horse prophecy can only embarrass the Mormon church on those occasions when it, for some reason or another, makes the media wires. And that has occurred with fringe Idaho gubernatorial candidate Rex Rammell, a Republican, calling for a Jan. 19 meeting — open only to 100 handpicked LDS priesthood holders — that will discuss the White Horse prophecy in detail. (Hat tip to Top of Utah Voices columnist Neal Humphrey) (Note: Rammell had a change of heart on making the meetings LDS Priesthood exclusive.)

Sigh.

“I am tired of people telling me that I can’t bring God and the Constitution into my campaign speeches. ... We are in America’s second Revolutionary War to save our freedom, which we paid for with blood. We need God’s help and I’m not ashamed to ask for it,” Rammell was quoted in 2010.

And, as Rammell explains in an Idaho Statesman article on his crusade, he is willing to discuss the issue with non-Mormons and expects them to join his efforts to defend constitutional principles. Read

Personally, I would like to see as many religions as possible involved any of these types of crusades that the Rammells of the world engage in. I believe in an equal distribution of outlandish theories.

As for his crusade, Rammell is probably a longshot toward bringing the White Horse prophecy into the Idaho statehouse. In 2008, he won only 5.4 percent of the vote in an independent candidacy for U.S. Senate. (Note: He didn't do too bad in 2010, gaining 26 percent of the vote but losing the GOP primary to then-incumbent Gov. Butch Otter.)

--- Doug Gibson

State violence is more prevalent than religious violence

 

---

In the Summer 2012 issue of The Journal of Mormon History, historian Patrick Q. Mason takes issue with this statement from Charles Kimball, in his widely read book, “When Religion Becomes Evil”: “It is somewhat trite, but nevertheless sadly true, to say that more wars have been waged, more people killed, and these days more evil perpetrated in the name of religion than by any other institutional force in human history.” Mason’s take on that view, shared by many of this era’s “New Atheists,” is that “Kimball’s assertion is, to use his own word, more trite than true.“

There is, of course, religious violence. As Mason notes, Sept. 11 is both the anniversary of the Twin Towers/Pentagon attacks and the Mountain Meadows Massacre, both committed by religious zealots. But, comparing state violence to religious violence leads Mason to conclude that Kimball’s quote should read “… more evil perpetuated in the name of (the state) than by any other institutional force in human history.”

Mason is the author of one of the best LDS-themed history books, “The Mormon Menace: Violence and Anti-Mormonism in the Postbellum South,” New York: Oxford University Press. In his short JMH essay, he cites research from political scientist R.J. Rummell, who counts the number of people killed in the 20th century by state-sponsored violence, which Russell calls “democide.” Rummell’s total: 262 million victims, or 297 million if one includes casualties of wars. The total encompass genocide, politicide and mass murder. Considering examples of genocide — the Ukraine famine, the Cultural Revolution in China, the Holocaust and the Killing Fields of Cambodia, the foolishness of assigning religion as the chief cause of evil is evident.

A source for the rise of “democide,” notes Mason, is the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, ostensibly designed to put an end to religious wars. Mason writes, “The treaty which concluded the Thirty Years War created a stable international system by ‘establishing the basic unit and symbol of modern international relations: the sovereign state.’ … Catholics and Protestants could agree that religion now constituted an invalid cause for international conflict.”

As Mason drily notes, Westphalia did not end war and violence, but it did create a new rationale for acceptable conflict. He writes, “In sum, Westphalia created our modern system of nation-states, defined not only by territorial sovereignty but also by their ability to corner the awful power of mass violence within their borders.”

The main purpose of this portion of Mason’s essay is to disprove the pop cultural idea that religion is primarily a source of evil, an idea espoused by the late Christopher Hitchens as well as popular New Atheists such as Richard Dawkins and even Bill Maher. Certainly, not every use of war or violence by a state is wrong. Most of us would regard the allied forces in both world wars of the 20th century as honorable causes. Others may disagree. As the current wars on terror go on, support of our objectives there have dropped considerably.

Quoting William Cavanaugh, the author of “The Myth of Religious Violence,” Mason shares an interesting empirical test to absolutism. Cavanaugh writes, “Now, let us ask the following two questions: What percentage of Americans who identify themselves as Christians would be willing to kill for their Christian faith? What percentage would be willing to kill for their country? … It seems clear that, at least among American Christians, the nation-state — Hobbes’s mortal god — is subject to far more absolutist fervor than religion. For most Americans Christians, even public evangelization is considered to be in poor taste, and yet most would take for granted the necessity of being willing to kill for their country, should circumstances dictate.“

We often like to describe our modern times as more peaceful and progressive than long ago, when religious conflicts often were the primary cause of death and misery. Mason’s arguments present an opportunity to ponder the idea that equitable, and perhaps even more, death and misery is still a part of our culture. It’s just linked to a cause more easy for most to link violence with than religion.

-- Doug Gibson

(Originally published in 2012 at StandardBlogs)

Review: Juanita Brooks: Mormon Woman Historian

Originally published at StandardBlogs/Currents

In his book, “Juanita Brooks: Mormon Woman Historian,” Levi S. Peterson describes a woman who lived two distinct lives. In one, she was the Bunkerville, Nev., native one or two generations away from early-Mormon pioneer life, bred to be a farmer’s wife and live a life similar to her mother and grandmother.

But there were life changes in store for Brooks (1898-1989), a remarkable individual who experienced most of the 20th century. Left a young widow with a baby, she entered academia. As middle age approached, she made another life change. She married a sheriff, Will Brooks, and quickly had four more babies. Had she stayed single, opines biographer Peterson, she likely would have had a distinguished academic career, editing and writing literary criticism.

Instead, her return to a domestic life signaled the career of Mormonism’s most tenacious historian. Brooks’ achievements brought much-needed candor to Utah and Mormon history. Her signature work, “The Mountain Meadows Massacre,” brought sunshine to events that, through their secrecy, had long infected lives and a church’s reputation.

Long before she recounted the massacre, Brooks was at the deathbed of patriarch Nephi Johnson, who had participated at Mountain Meadows. His last words were “blood, blood, blood!”

According to Peterson’s account, Brooks long regretted that she had ignored Peterson’s earlier requests to discuss what he called a matter of great importance with her.
Brooks wrote, published and edited hundreds of works. Besides “Mountain Meadows Massacre,” she wrote a biography of John D. Lee, the main scapegoat of the crime. She also wrote biographies of early Utah/Nevada pioneers, including Dudley Leavitt. She wrote an autobiography of her early years and even finished a fond tribute to her husband, Will.

She was a faithful member of the Mormon church. A persistent historian, she discovered and saved many journals and old accounts, some left in the rooms of the St. George temple, which she had access to as stake Relief Society president. Brooks would frequent old attics and basements to find early Southern Utah journals. One she discovered had been re-used as a scrapbook. Working with her family, she painstakingly pried glue off pages to access the diaries.

As her reputation as a historian grew, her correspondence with colleagues, including Fawn Brodie and Dale Morgan, makes for interesting reading. She would both fiercely defend her Latter-day-Saint faith to detractors, such as Morgan and Brodie, and just as fiercely debate the need for historical openness with the most powerful Mormon apostles.

She requested Mountain Meadows documents from President David O McKay, who wouldn’t even see her. Most apostles refused to read her book. Elder LeGrand Richards did read it, and later contended with her as to its importance. From Peterson’s book it doesn’t seem that Brooks was ever in danger of serious church discipline, although she certainly was ostracized for a time in Southern Utah after “Mountain Meadows Massacre” was published. If there was one time she came close to trouble it was her insistence that a second edition of her biography of John D. Lee include an afternote that the LDS had restored Lee’s membership posthumously.

According to Peterson, President McKay threatened to rescind Lee’s unexcommunication and both an apostle, Delbert L. Stapley, and the Lee family were recruited to argue with Brooks. But she kept to her word and won, as the next edition included the afternote and Lee’s renewed church status remained.

Peterson;s biography is maybe too thorough — parts are tedious. This may be due to Peterson’s style, which is chronological to a fault. But there are valuable nuggets of information that describe life as a woman historian. Her adventures took place in locating old histories. Brooks scoured temple rooms, dusty rural towns and old attics for decaying diaries and journals. While immersed in researching and writing, Brooks would keep a clothes iron hot. Housework, Peterson explains,  was a reason to get rid of unwanted visitors. Writing was not deemed as important — at least for a woman.

Although she gained fame by middle age, Brooks was not immune to rejection. Her books and articles were routinely rejected by publishers. In fact, “Mountain Meadows Massacre,” was rejected several times, was finally published by Stanford University Press after a guarantee that descendants of John D. Lee would purchase a significant block of copies. Some early career breaks for her were landing articles in prestigious magazine such as The Atlantic, and her relationship with the Henry Huntington Library in California.

A lifelong Democrat, Brooks became a bit of a mild LDS rebel as her career progressed. She would routinely downgrade information from The Deseret News and Brigham Young University, believing it was unduly influenced by LDS leaders. She deplored what she regarded as the church’s penchant for secrecy as a means of maintaining harmony. She believed that the accomplishments of the LDS Church since its inception could stand without hiding details that it could not control, such as the massacre.

The reader witnesses Brooks gain confidence gradually and become an advocate for issues such as granting blacks the priesthood. The trauma of her first husband’s death solidified her belief in God and an afterlife, but made her more skeptical of man’s promises. She had a early LDS folklore-like belief in the Gospel that includes personal manifestations and Three Nephites-like visits of mercy.

She was an honest, persistent, thorough historian who kept dogma away from a search for truth. Peterson’s book captures that unique and enviable personality.

--- Doug Gibson