Do Mormons really ban playing cards from the home?

Originally published in 2010. I brought it back from WayBack Archive because I still find the issue fascinating. I wish I could locate Cal Grondahl's cartoon that went with it.

Tired of repeat Go Fish games, I was shamefacedly teaching my younger daughter how to play poker. I didn’t have much success; she kept giggling when I tried to explain what a “flush” is.

What’s interesting is my first instinct was to use Rook cards — the ones with a bird — to teach her a variation of poker. I couldn’t find any in the home although I’ve seen them around. Rook cards, you could once find a deck in every active Mormon’s home. I grew up with them and we played “gin rummy” with Rook cards on many family home evening nights. It got me wondering: Are playing cards still mostly banned in LDS homes? We have a deck; although rarely used, I finally used it for the poker game with the daughter … I stressed no gambling!

Growing up, conventional playing cards were banned in my home. We only used Rook. One only had to open up “Mormon Doctrine” to see why my parents banned the cards. It reads, “Members of the Church should not belong to bridge or other type of card clubs, and they should neither play cards nor have them in their homes. By cards is meant, of course, the spotted face cards used by gamblers. To the extent that church members play cards they are out of harmony with their inspired leaders. Innocent non-gambling games played with other types of cards, except for the waste of time in many instances, are not objectionable.”

Other LDS sources have been a bit more moderate on the issue, describing cards as “time-wasters” that can be dangerous since they can lead to gambling. In a New Era article from 1984, author Boyd R. Thomas explained that in the days prior to television, cards were considered a time-waster that could lead to addiction, and perhaps, a gambling obsession. The article includes this 1939 quote from then-President Joseph F. Smith, published in “Gospel Doctrine:” While a simple game of cards in itself may be harmless, it is a fact that by immoderate repetition it ends in an infatuation for chance schemes, in habits of excess, in waste of precious time, in dulling and stupor of the mind, and in the complete destruction of religious feeling. … There is the grave danger that lurks in persistent card playing, which begets the spirit of gambling, of speculation and that awakens the dangerous desire to get something for nothing.”

The LDS Church has long opposed gambling, and with its influence one can expect that the lottery will never come to Utah. In the November 1972 Ensign, Dallin H. Oaks, then president of BYU and today a church apostle, penned an article titled “The Evils of Gambling.” Referring to gambling, he wrote, “We therefore advise and urge all members of the Church to refrain from participation in any activity which is contrary to the view herein set forth.” That would presumably include playing with traditional playing cards.

It’s my guess that most active Mormons likely take a dim view of cards, even if they are not using them to gamble. There remains a strong traditional disapproval of traditional cards. In fact, Rook was invented by game companies for the express purpose of meeting the game-playing needs of fundamentalist protestants who objected to traditional cards. I’m sure that sales to Mormons were counted by Rook makers in the second half of the 20th century. According to pagat.com, there is also a similar set of cards, called the Kvitlech cards, used by certain Jews in Central Europe who are forbidden to use standard cards.

-- Doug Gibson

‘Good Man Jesus and Scoundrel Christ’ both spiritual and blasphemous

An element that mars most religious fiction is that good and evil is established bluntly and quickly. Sunstone editor Stephen R. Carter has made a similar observation about Mormon literature. Nuance is sacrificed for the emotional satisfaction the reader expects and gets at the end. In a Jack Weyland short story, for example, we know the guy who sluffs off church isn’t going to get the virginal, hot-looking Mormon girl. In the “Left Behind” series, old Scratch himself may dominate for several volumes, but when all’s said and done, he’s joining the false prophet for a dip in the lake of fire.

It’s economics that drive these “happy endings.” Most readers of such fiction desire a belief to be reinforced. Religious-themed novels that really explore belief, and all its contradictions and perspectives, tend to languish unsold on shelves. After all, they’re not “faith-promoting.”

Of course, there’s also demand for polemics against religion. Atheism has its fervent believers, too. Philip Pullman, best known as the author of “His Dark Materials” series, has penned the slim, and quite spiritual, “The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ, Canongate U.S., 2010,” a re-telling of The New Testament Gospels. Pullman’s title is ironic. Jesus is certainly selfless, but he isn’t always that pleasant of a fellow. And Christ isn’t really a scoundrel; he’s weak and serves as a Boswell for Jesus, who he envies. In Pullman’s novel, Christ allows himself to be manipulated by an “angel” who describes himself as one of “legion.”

But I’ve gotten ahead of myself. In Pullman’s ‘Gospel,” Mary gave birth to twins. The strong one she named Jesus. The weaker twin is Christ. Mary, believing Christ is the Messiah, favors him over Jesus. As a youth, Christ uses this maternal advantage to appear to be more pious than his rougher brother. As adults, Jesus — a much stronger-willed and more disciplined man than Christ — assumes the spotlight and Christ shrinks into the background. 

In Pullman’s account of Jesus’ 40-day fast, Christ is re-cast as Satan the tempter. Jesus rebukes Christ as forcefully as he does Satan in the traditional New Testament, but Christ’s reasons to feed Jesus are based in practicality, rather than a dark desire to see Jesus fail. In an interesting twist, Jesus even scorns Christ’s awed claim that he, Jesus, is divine.

The “angel” exploits Christ’s need for sanction and approval from authority by teaching that religion is better utilized as something for lesser mortals; a larger than reality “Church of God” run by wise men. The “angel” asks Christ to secretly follow Jesus around and record his deeds. In fact, the angel suggests that Christ embellish and change some accounts, suggesting that spiritual “truth” is often more important than historical accuracy.

In the most controversial passages, Jesus, in the Garden of Gethsemane prays to a God he no longer seems to believe in. Christ plays the role of Judas in setting up Jesus to be crucified by the Romans. Afterwards, the “angel” supplies Christ as “Jesus resurrected,” and then spirits him off to a foreign land where he assumes a new life with a wife and family and watches as his brother becomes a religious icon. These experiences turn Christ, ironically, into a man as cynical as Jesus eventually became.

Midway in Pullman’s novel Christ gradually becomes a more sympathetic figure and Jesus a more cynical figure. Jesus’ lament in the garden underscores his growing disillusionment with prayer and a belief in an expected Messiah. Christ’s spirituality improves initially as the “angel” brings the order he craves, but that order he craved turns corrupt, even criminal, as Jesus is led to death.

Pullman sees Jesus as just one of many prophets of that period, whose death would have quickly extinguished his 20 minutes of fame. It takes an organized conspiracy to turn him into a “resurrected Messiah,” who conveniently then disappears. In a humorous denouement, Christ realizes the mysterious “angel” was probably just a cunning businessman.

Pullman is a talented writer and his prose is both spare and lyrical; it reminds me of Naguib Mahfouz’s Islamic novel “The Harafish.” Is it blasphemous to Christianity? Perhaps, but that shouldn’t draw believers away from “The Good Man Jesus and The Scoundrel Christ.” Critiques, even polemics, against our most cherished beliefs should not be feared by anyone who wants to improve their mind. There are excellent defenses of Christianity and organized religion — C.S. Lewis’ “Mere Christianity” comes to mind — that provide balance to Pullman’s writings.

Pullman’s novel has nuance, it makes us think, and there are truths in it that the honest reader will acknowledge.

-- Doug Gibson

-- Originally published at StandardNET

LDS Church prophet George Albert Smith overcame depression, other demons

 

Latter-day Saints often study the teachings of the 8th church president, George Albert Smith. George Albert was the first LDS prophet who was monogamous, ending the hierarchal tenure of polygamy. It can be argued that his time was a transition from “ancient” toward “modern” leaders of the LDS Church. (I’m 57, and was born during the tenure of George Albert's successor, President David O. McKay.) Mormons are taught that George Albert Smith was “sickly” at times, and that his health was improved, by his own acknowledgment, through the power of prayer. But his battle with severe depression, which incapacitated the apostle for more than two years, is not mentioned in its proper context, but only as physical ailments.

As blogger J Stapley points out in the bycommonconsent Mormon-themed blog, that’s not all the facts. (Read) To opine that George Albert Smith might have suffered from mental disorder is not unfair to him, nor is it an insult to the late LDS prophet.

Ultimately, it’s a story of triumph for George Albert, who was able to resume his life and work after his breakdown, that included depression and anxiety, and continue working for almost 40 years.

Rather than being downplayed, George Albert’s successful battle with depression, anxiety, and health-related issues should be a teaching tool to help members today who suffer from the same maladies. These are unique problems; just look at Utah’s statistics regrading depression, pain killers and tranquilizer use.

George Albert Smith biographer, Mary Jane Woodger, a BYU professor of LDS church history and doctrine, penned a detailed look at the breakdown in the Fall 2008 edition of the Journal of Mormon History. “Cheat the Asylum of a Victim:” George Albert Smith’s 1909-12 Breakdown” refers to advice the 40-year-old George Albert, “down from nervous frustration,” received from his uncle, Dr. Heber J. Sears, who pleaded with George Albert to “dump your responsibility for a while before the hearse dumps your bones.”

As Woodger relates, physical and emotional health issues plagued George Albert all of his life. His eyesight was damaged early in his life while working as a surveyor. When he was called to be an apostle at age 33 in 1903, his father, apostle John Henry Smith, said, “He’s not healthy. He won’t last long,” relates Woodger.

It’s true that 100-plus years ago apostles had very rigorous jobs. They were not insulated from the public like today’s LDS leaders. They often traveled long stretches over tough routes in wagons, trains and early auto vehicles. It was the custom for traveling apostles to stay in the homes of local church members, rather than paid lodgings. For George Albert, who suffered from bowel discomforts, the rich food often served caused great discomfort. According to Woodger, the young apostle “averaged 30,000 miles a year as a young apostle.” Experiences included riding on top of a crowded boxcar on a hot day and a cold, rainy night in a wagon that leaked. Dysentery, perhaps enhanced due to stress, also plagued George Albert often.

The strenuous work schedule also affected his wife, Lucy Emily. She often worried about her husband’s health, fretted over his frequent absence from the family, and frequently bemoaned how his absence affected her.

As Woodger writes, “… mental or emotional instability was seldom given much attention except for outright insanity in the early 20th century.” However, three of his grandchildren cite terms such as “depression,” problems associated with his mental health,” “tremendous stress,” and “being overwhelmed” as attributes of their grandfather. According to Woodger, George Albert often over-exerted himself in his work. He would also over-invest himself emotionally in the work of others, and end up emotionally overwrought at their failures. It’s worth noting that psychiatry as an accepted treatment in Utah was virtually non-existent for the first third of the 20th century.

After George Albert became too exhausted to work, LDS Church leaders — who were compassionate, encouraging and caring during his convalescence — moved him to Ocean Park, Calif., to recuperate. Away from his wife, Lucy, who stayed in Salt Lake City, George Albert did not improve and returned to Salt Lake City in August 1909. To try to improve his health, he lived in a tent outdoors, but mostly he remained ill, weak and bedridden. According to Woodger’s research, “George Albert’s father (apostle John Henry Smith) even took the unusual step of sending him ‘a dozen bottles of Basses Pale Ale,’ a British beer, assuring him that he had Joseph F. Smith’s ‘endorsement’ to drink it in the hopes that it would ‘tone up your stomach and put you in a condition to receive and assimilate food.’”

According to an anecdote that has been repeated many times in Mormon churches, during his convalescence, George Albert visited his deceased grandfather, George A. Smith, who asked him, “I would like to know what you have done with my name?” After George Albert answered that he had never shamed him, the pair hugged. Woodger writes, “This dream reassured him (George Albert) that he was free from transgression and acknowledged his worth.”

The still-bedridden George Albert was moved to St. George to recuperate. While there, again according to Mormon lore, his long recovery began when he requested that the Lord take him if his earthly work was done but keep him if he still had work to do. Although it’s hard to believe the apostle had not made that prayerful request earlier in his convalescence, of such tales are legends made, and George Albert returned to Salt Lake City and a slow recovery.

His recovery, whether through prayer, extended rest, or both, is a triumphant account, and the compassion and patience exercised by his colleagues in the church hierarchy also must have played a role in his recovery.

-- Doug Gibson

-- Originally published at StandardBlogs

First John D. Lee trial waged in the court of public opinion

----

In the Winter 2013 “Journal of Mormon History,” there’s an interesting article from Robert H. Briggs, a lawyer and historian from California. “A Seething Cauldron of Controversy: The First Trial of John D. Lee, 1875,” reminds us that lawyer’s spin and arguments designed more to convince the public than the jury box are not recent inventions; such practices were popular 138 years ago in cases argued in locations as obscure as Beaver, Utah.

Lee, an “adopted”child of the Mormon prophet Brigham Young, was the only person on trial for the Mountain Meadows Massacre, which occurred in 1857. The crime was horrific; women, children and families slaughtered by men who had promised the victims safety. Other than the practice of polygamy, it was the main source of national hatred and disgust for the latter 19th century Mormons of Utah.

Yet, as the first trial approached, the prosecution was well aware that a conviction of Lee was going to be impossible to obtain. The majority of the jurors would be Utah Mormons, and they would acquit Lee, who still enjoyed Young’s support and was consequently seen by most Utah Mormons as a symbol of the federal government’s persecution of their faith.

As Briggs relates in his article, “Knowing the power of the federal onslaught that was to descend upon Mormon Utah in the 1880s, it is surprising to consider just how weak, frustrated, and marginalized the Liberals (anti-Mormons) felt in the mid-1870s.” The only success so far for the anti-Mormons had been preventing Utah from becoming a state. In terms of amending the territory’s leadership, state capitol, state constitution, state boundaries, taking away Mormons’ property, and so on, most had been failures. As Briggs relates, some reasons were overzealous crusading officials, including a judge, who were recalled by federal officials, and a split between the Utah Liberals themselves over how to combat polygamy.

With that track record, it was no surprise that so much time had passed before a trial for the Mountain Meadows Massacre, or that the one scapegoat to be tried, Lee, was unlikely to be convicted. As Briggs notes, the one insider prosecution witness was former LDS Bishop Philip Klingensmith, once of Cedar City. While he had insider knowledge of the massacre, he had long been hounded out of the Mormon Church, and was considered a traitor by Utah Mormons.

Instead of winning a conviction being the prosecution’s chief objective, Briggs notes that the architects of the Lee prosecution, William C. Carey, U.S. Attorney in Utah Territory, and his assistant prosecutor, Robert N. Baskin, de-emphasized the usual focus of a trial — “the guilt or innocence of the accused” — for a broader initiative that focused on the actions of militia commands stretching throughout Utah. The initial target, opines Briggs, was George A. Smith, a counselor in the church’s First Presidency as well as an apostle. As Briggs notes, “If they could implicate Smith, it would be but a short step to implicate Brigham Young himself.”

History records that neither Smith nor Young ever paid a legal price for the Mountain Meadows Massacre, but it wasn’t for lack of effort by Carey and Baskin, two fervent “Liberal” anti-Mormons of that period. Both prosecutors were fully aware of the national interest in the Lee trial, and they argued their case with an eye toward the press coverage that accusations would garner. Baskin even had the good fortune to be lodging with Frederic Lockley, editor of the Mormon-hostile Salt Lake Tribune, who covered the trial.

As Briggs writes, “They (Carey and Baskin) foresaw the political capital they would gain if the evidence revealed the horrors of the massacre, even if the jury failed to convict Lee. The proceeding, as they conceived of it, would be a political show trial. The prosecutors’ specific strategy was to make the Lee trial into a referendum on the tyranny and corruption of the Mormon hierarchy and the fanaticism of its deluded followers.”

And the newspapers rewarded the prosecution for its effort. Here are some news articles accounts from the trial: “Mountain Meadows — The Sickening Story Coming Out … Hints as to the Real Criminal,” Decatur (Ill.) Daily Republican; “If those Mormon witnesses keep telling the truth about the Mountain Meadows Massacre, old Brigham Young may have occasion to wish he had died naturally, when he was sick last winter,” Steubenville (Ohio) Daily Herald; The Morning Oregonian, of Portland, Ore., had banner coverage of Klingensmith’s testimony. The trial gained media steam as it continued.

Baskin’s summary argument for the prosecution was a masterpiece of rhetoric. He ignored the shaky evidence that while Lee was certainly at the massacre, it was by no means proven he was the leader, and instead attacked every male member of the Mormon Church as lacking the manhood to stand up and do what was right. Baskin was arguing that Mormon men were not free agents and would do whatever their church leaders told them to do.

As Briggs recounts, “Later Baskin asked rhetorically why none of the militiamen involved in the massacre had prevented or even protested the killings. Answering his own question, Baskin argued that it was because ‘when they became a member of the (Mormon) Church … they laid down their manhood; they laid down their individuality.”

He was right, of course, but how could the eight Mormon men on the jury accept that rebuke? By voting to acquit, of course.

But an acquittal had been neutralized by the prosecution’s successful media strategy. The winner of John D. Lee’s first trial was the prosecution, with its attack on the Mormon hierarchy in which the massacre had occurred.

It can be argued that the first trial not only sealed Lee’s fate, it paved the way for the taming of the Mormon polygamous empire in Utah by the federal government. A year later, Lee was executed. Abandoned by Brigham Young, without the implied protection of Utah’s leaders, he was quickly convicted and condemned. Not long afterward, Brigham Young died. His successor, John Taylor, spent much of his tenure as Mormon prophet hiding from law enforcement. In little more than 15 years, the LDS Church, facing financial ruin, would make its first renunciation of polygamy with The Manifesto, signed by then-prophet Wilford W. Woodruff.

There were of course many other reasons for the Utah Mormon Church’s slow subjection to the federal government during the last half of the 19th century, but Briggs’ interesting account of the first Lee trial provides evidence that a significant media salvo on the Mormon leaders was accomplished in a Beaver courthouse during July and August of 1875. In the court of public opinion, the Mormons were the big losers.

-- Doug Gibson

-- Originally published at StandardBlogs

In 1845, William Smith, Mormon apostles waged war in the LDS press

 

Originally published in 2013 at StandardBlogs

There’s an interesting article in the summer 2013 issue of the “Journal of Mormon History.” Christine Elyse Blythe has contributed a long article on the tenure of William Smith as church patriarch. William is generally considered in LDS history as a kind of “bad boy” of the Smiths, a “legacy apostle” who survived in the church while elder brother Joseph Smith was alive but was eventually kicked out of the church after he died.

There’s a lot of history in the article, “William Smith’s Patriarchal Blessings and Contested Authority in the Post-Martyrdom Church,” but what caught my interest was an intramural newspaper feud over who was best to lead the church a year after Joseph Smith had been murdered. William Smith, despite already shaky relationships with Brigham Young and the Quorum of the 12 Apostles, was named Presiding Patriarch of the LDS Church. It was a lucrative gig for Smith. Besides the high authority of being the church patriarch, William earned a buck per patriarchal blessing, according to Blythe. That doesn’t sound like much, but after 300 blessings over six months, William had earned roughly what a full-time laborer of that era would earn over half a year.

(I digress here to tell readers that receiving a patriarchal blessing is a rite of passage for faithful Latter-day Saints. Those born into an active LDS family usually receive a blessing, from a local patriarch, at the age of 15 or 16. The blessings are considered revelation from God. Indeed, many blessings are described as part of blessings one received in the pre-existence prior to birth. The blessings also provide a relationship to the recipient of their place in the House of Israel.)

In Smith’s time, the presiding patriarch of the LDS Church was considered an elite leader, comparable in rank to an apostle or prophet. Hyrum Smith had preceded William Smith as patriarch. As Blythe recounts, a careful reading of many of William Smith’s patriarchal blessings include words from Smith that assigned him as the LDS leader with the highest authority. As Blythe writes, “… in a blessing given to William A. Beebe, the patriarch concluded: ‘by the highest authority in the church of God I seal thee up to eternal life ...’ This phrase, ‘highest authority in the church’ appeared six times in William’s patriarchal blessings in just over one month.”

Patriarchal blessings, while recorded, are considered personal, and — as Blythe notes — it’s possible the subtle hints in William Smith’s blessings did not get much notice. However, William Smith made his intentions public with an essay in the LDS Church newspaper “Times and Seasons.” In the essay, “Patriarchal,” Blythe notes that William Smith cast himself as “a living martyr,” worthy of continuing in the same high, prophetic place in the post-martyrdom church as his slain brothers, Joseph and Hyrum.

William Smith’s essay was boosted by a testimonial to his claims by W.W. Phelps, an assistant editor at “Times and Seasons.” Phelps, who eventually followed Brigham Young to Utah, wrote that William is “governed by the spirit of the living God.” As Blythe notes, that phrase suggested an autonomy for Smith as patriarch. That was not a trial balloon that the LDS church’s leadership wanted out there.

So, as Blythe notes, Apostle John Taylor penned a rebuttal in the very next issue in the “Times and Seasons.” What Taylor focused on was the debate over whether William Smith was the “patriarch over the church” or “patriarch to the church.” Taylor was direct and to the point in letting church members know the answer. He wrote: “We have been asked, ‘Does not patriarch over the whole church’ place Brother William Smith at the head of the whole church as president? Ans. No. Brother William is not patriarch over the whole church; but patriarch TO the church, and as such he was ordained. The expression ‘over the whole church,’ is a mistake made by W.W. Phelps.”

Taylor, who of course was speaking for Brigham Young and the rest of the Quorum, made it clear what pecking order William Smith had to follow to remain in the Mormon faith. Nevertheless, William Smith remained in the church a while longer. Blythe notes that he gave nine “second blessings” as patriarch, an indicator that the publicity in “Times and Seasons” had boosted his claim.

But it was a matter of time before William Smith and the LDS Church, under Young and the Apostles, would have a divorce. Blythe relates that later in 1845, William Smith trumpeted a claim from Lucy Mack Smith, his mother, that she had had a revelation, with God saying “Thy son William he shall have power over the Churches …” and “… The presidency of the Church belongs to William ...” Soon afterward, Lucy Mack Smith clarified the “revelation,” saying it was just for her family. Around that time, William Smith threatened to leave the Mormons and take all the Smiths with him, adds Blythe. Smith later retracted that threat as well. By August, as Blythe notes, William Smith was complaining that “There seems to be a severe influence working against me and the Smith family in this place.”

Smith left the Mormons, was excommunicated and, like many other Mormon leaders who didn’t go to Utah, hopscotched among different branches of Mormonism. He tried a position with the James J. Strang “Strangites,” and later started his own church for a while, and had an alliance with the Lyman Wight branch in Texas. All that ended and improbably, William Smith was rebaptized as a Mormon in 1860. That failed to last as well. Eventually, Smith became a member of the Reorganized LDS church. Although the uncle tried to persuade his nephew, church leader Joseph Smith III to make him an apostle or presiding patriarch, he was unsuccessful. William Smith died in 1893.

The very short intramural newspaper battle between Smith, a sort of populist threat to the church led by Young and the apostles, and the rebuttal by John Taylor, which more or less ended Smith’s effort to become a Mormon leader, is fascinating to me as a journalist. Try to imagine today’s prominent Latter-day Saints waging a public relations battle — against each other — in “The Mormon Times,” “Church News,” or “The Ensign.”

It would never happen, of course. But it did 168 years ago, and it must have made for eager reading by Latter-day Saints.

Another excellent source for William Smith’s short tenure as LDS church patriarch is the summer 1983 issue of “Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought.”

-- Doug Gibson

Jimmy Stewart’s other Christmas film -- 40 years of Mr. Krueger's Christmas

    Most of the world associates the actor Jimmy Stewart and Christmas with the marvelous Frank Capra film, “It’s a Wonderful Life.”  And that is a classic tale, with everyman George Bailey learning, at his most depressed hour, how much a town needs him.

     But there is another Jimmy Stewart Christmas movie, “Mr. Krueger’s Christmas,” made by the Mormon Church in 1980. (Watch the film here) It used to be a fixture on TV stations across the nation during the holidays.  It is not an advertisement for the Mormon Church.  Rather, it’s a story of an elderly widower’s optimism and faith that carries him through life, particularly during times such as Christmas, when loneliness can be heightened.

     Stewart, who gives a great performance, plays Willie Krueger, an elderly widower who lives alone with a cat in the basement of an apartment house where he serves as janitor.  We don’t know anything about Mr. Krueger’s past, other than he is a widower and alone this Christmas Eve.  Mr. Krueger is a bit of a Walter Mitty character.  He likes to daydream.  His daydreams are mostly childlike.  He listens to the Mormon Tabernacle Choir on an LP and imagines conducting it.  He peers through a glass shop window at a fancy suit and imagines himself wearing it at a fancy function.  I’m sure most of us have similar daydreams.

    Just as Mr. Krueger is settling in for a lonely Christmas night, he hears carolers outside.  Pleasantly surprised, he shouts from the basement for them to join him for a cup of hot chocolate.  The carolers, who appear well off, are leery of Mr. Krueger, not in a mean way as much as a condescending “this is an odd, old guy” way.  Mr. Krueger excitedly prepares for their visit but they merely stand at his door, sing a song and leave.  All except for a little girl, Clarissa, who wanders into the small home and leaves her mittens.  This paves the way for a second encounter between Mr. Krueger and the carolers.

     I won’t give away the ending except to say that before the reunion there is a deeply moving daydream where Mr. Krueger, looking at a baby Jesus nativity piece, imagines he is at the birth of Christ.  He kneels before the baby Jesus and thanks his Savior for always loving him, no matter if he deserved it or not.  He thanks Jesus for being with him when his wife died and for reminding him to be compassionate to a lonely, cantankerous neighbor.

     This is a powerful scene that establishes Christ’s love – and its power to raise our spirits no matter what – as the main theme of Mr. Krueger’s Christmas.  In fact, it makes the final scene with the carolers seem almost an afterthought.  Mr. Krueger, we learn, can maintain his optimism, his childlike charity and love, no matter what life throws at him.

     Again, there is no proselytizing for the Mormon Church in this film.  That broadens its appeal and certainly helped more people see it.  It’s very popular on the Internet Movie Database, with an 8.0 rating out of a 10 high score.

     The 26-minute film has mostly disappeared from television.  Some people say it is hard to find.  In Utah, a quick trip to Seagulls or Deseret Book will find it easily. (That may not be so easy anymore. Deseret Book does not appear to sell the film today. Ebay has a lot of copies for sale.)  In 2005, it was re-released on DVD with a remastered musical score and sent to Ensign magazine subscribers.  My copy of it comes with three other LDS-filmed shorts, including the moving four-minute short, “The Nativity,” that recounts Christ’s birth.

     If you haven’t seen this film in more than a few years, hunt it down.  It’s worth another viewing.  In a press conference when the film was released, Stewart, succinct and to the point, summed up why he did the film:

     “I liked the script.  I liked the message.  I thought it was time we needed something like this.”

--

This review from long ago (10-plus years) did not even survive in Google Wayback. Glad we had a copy of the Standard Works page to transcribe and bring back Cal Grondahl's wonderful cartoon. (In the early Standard Works days, the cartoons were black and white.) Happy 40th anniversary for this iconic film. I last recall Mr. Krueger's Christmas being promoted at least 15 years ago. We were handed DVDs at church during a Christmas service. But today, I'm sure a healthy number of people watch the film during December.

--- Doug Gibson

--- Originally published at StandardBlogs

Review: Exploring Mormon Thought - God's Plan to Heal Evil

It's difficult to blend the "good news" of the Gospel of Christ with evil. Evil is the opposite of righteousness. Yet it will not discriminate the wicked from the faithful. Evil can cause us to doubt our creator's divinity, his powers and his consistency. Its residual effects can lead to permanent discouragement, bitterness, and apostasy. 

In contrast, others can use their faith to endure evil, and even strengthen their beliefs.

How can we explain evil? Or more so, how can we place evil in a plan of a benevolent God? Blake T. Ostler, author of the Exploring Mormon Thought series for Greg Kofford Books, has written the fourth volume, "God's Plan to Heal Evil," 2020, Salt Lake City. (Here are purchase links to Greg Kofford Books and Amazon.)

Examples of evil include the murder of a young child, senseless deaths due to accidents, and examples of disease causing lives to end prematurely. As a father who helplessly held his infant son as he died -- due to an imperfect heart -- soon after birth, I can understand this as evil. Evil moves from a theory to be discussed to a unique, deeply personal experience, when one suffers from it.

Ostler addresses this question: how powerful can God be if he allows evil? All of us have heard the phrase, "it's God's will." Or we have heard that "God respects natural law," so evil has to occur. These are well-meaning arguments that anyone who has experienced will hear. But are they are inconsistent statements, more platitudes than explanations? 

God's power may only be persuasive, and not definitive. If so, prayer is essential.

But how consistent is God if he allows countless innocents to suffer evil while sparing others the same fate through "miracles?" Some miracles are related in the Scriptures; others by well-meaning but insensitive individuals thanking God for providing a miracle that spared them death or other adversity. The question can develop: why are they favored, and not me or my family? Is that really God's plan?

Ostler's solution to these seeming inconsistencies -- which he does not regard as reasons to doubt God -- is to turn evil into love. As followers of the Gospel who are on a path to becoming like God, we must learn "the kind of love that commands us to love our enemies." We need to repay evil with love, the author asserts. It's part of our life-on-earth contract that we consent to suffer the consequences of evil and work to turn the adversity into love. 

Ostler writes: "... we must elicit love both for and from those who carry out such evils ..." He uses Christ's Sermon on the Mount as an example of this theology. "... Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; ..." 

God wants us to have a fulfilling and challenging life, Ostler writes. We are asked to progress spiritually through life. Turning evil into love is a challenge, but -- as the author notes -- we have divine assistance. Angels are on earth, ready to help us achieve the spiritual strength necessary to heal evil and turn it into a positive spiritual force.

This concept reminds me of C.S. Lewis' book, "The Great Divorce,' in which "The Teacher," guiding the narrator through his tour to the outskirts of heaven, says: "They say of some temporal suffering, 'No future bliss can make up for it,' not knowing that Heaven, once attained, will work backwards and turn even that agony into a glory."

Turning "agony into a glory" captures the theme of Ostler's "God's Plan to Heal Evil." Placing that theme in the context of Mormonism provides an opportunity for that to be accomplished on earth. Learning to love like God loves is part of our learning process toward divinity.

A final note: There is a lot of valuable information in "God's Plan to Heal Evil." I recommend it. But be patient with the writing. It is dense, thick writing, to a fault. I fear that may stifle readers. But persevere through the text; perhaps limit reading to 10, 20 pages a day. And buy a dictionary. It's worth the read.

--- Doug Gibson