What I Believe About the Articles of Faith

Consider this a continuation of the "Big Ten" post from April. That was my explanation of the founding principles of Judaism and how I try to live them. This is my explanation of Mormonism's 13 Articles of Faith and what I believe about them.

The Articles of Faith were basically written as a Nicene Creed for the church. They were included in a letter to John Wentworth--owner of the Chicago Democrat--but were first published in the LDS newspaper Times and Seasons. They were based largely on a previous 10 Articles written by Oliver Cowdery, then edited, revised and expanded to 13.

The Articles basically lay out the fundamental beliefs of Mormonism. Nowadays, children in their Sunday School lessons are taught to memorize these so that at a moment's notice they can recite them to a friend or anyone who has a question. (I admit, I had to look up a few because I'd forgotten them.) That's not brainwashing. That's just good advertising.

I will not expound everything that I believe about each of them because some things are too sacred to be shared in a place where they could so easily be ridiculed. If you want to know more than what I've given here, ask me or another Mormon. Also, in my personal explanation I've tried to use the singular first person pronoun instead of the plural as often as is appropriate because not only does my church teach these things but one, I actually believe them and two, sometimes the church and God are vague on purpose to allow for individual beliefs in areas and issues that it's not necessary to believe all the same thing. For example, God hasn't said if Mormons are supposed to be Republican or Democrat because it's not that important and it's okay to be either or neither.

Just a note about the wording of the Articles: remember that they were written at a time long ago. Words were different, language was different, "normal" was different. If you have issue with any of the wording--like "mankind"--just replace it with something that doesn't change the meaning in your head--like "people." I would have edited them, but then I would have just gotten into a whole bunch of other sticky issues.

I. We Believe in God, the Eternal Father and in His son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

I believe that Heavenly Father is separate from Jesus. That's basically why this one was written, because a lot of Christian religions believe in the Trinity, which is an idea that we reject. A lot of people here would try and prove one philosophy over another but I'm not in to Bible-bashing.

I--and we--also have some other specific beliefs about the Godhead and the nature of God, but we're getting in to things too sacred for a public forum.

II. We Believe that men will be punished for their own sins and not for Adam's transgression.

This is why we don't baptize infants. I believe that Adam and Eve's transgression was necessary although against what God commanded them, and there's a whole confusing discussion about the Garden of Eden and nudity and snakes and trees. But basically the idea is this: you are not responsible for the things anyone else does.

We generally baptize children after their eighth birthday, though I have heard of some families not baptizing their children until they come to the parents and ask for it which I think is pretty neat. In general, the age eight is when children start making their own decisions and opinions, though obviously there are exceptions. I've known "adults" incapable of that and children younger than that with that ability.

III. We Believe that through the Atonement of Christ all mankind may be saved by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

This is one of the other areas that is largely too sacred to share here. But I can share this much. A lot of other religions talk about Grace and Works and Faith and we talk about those things too, but it gets too confusing when you start talking about how one is more important than another. Basically, I believe this: Do all you can to get to Heaven and let God figure out the rest. After all, that's all we can do.

IV. We Believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are, first, faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, second, repentance, third, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins and, fourth, laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

This is actually a pretty cool discussion about the definition of what "Gospel" means and so this is what I take from this Article. When Mormons use the word, we often mean a lot of different things. We might mean the church now or then or anything God has revealed or any number of related issues. But for this discussion this is the definition: the method of returning to live with Heavenly Father. We could discuss Creationism and Evolution and Cosmology and History and a whole lot of other really interesting things and they're all really important. But for right now, all we really have to know is the Gospel.

Imagine if an elementary science teacher began teaching the complexities of zero matter or plasma. Yes, that's important stuff if a kid wants to be a physicist. But it's not so important for everyone else in the classroom. All that's required of them is to know is to be careful around electricity. It's the same thing with the Gospel. We don't have to know the methods of creation and how the Atonement actually worked, although it might be fun to theorize and will be important to know someday after this life. But for right now, all we have to know is how to get to heaven.
 
Mosiah 18:20

Yea, even he commanded them that they should preach nothing save it were repentance and faith on the Lord, who had redeemed his people.

Faith is an interesting topic in itself. Definitions may vary, but the one that I use and has worked for me in the past is this: Faith is Hope with Action. For example--and here I use the stereotypical faith object lesson--if you plant a seed, you have hope that it's going to grow into something unless you like burying infertile seeds. You put it in good, rich soil with the hope that it'll grow. You water it with hope. You tend it and wait for the shoot with hope.

But you could hope without taking action as well. You could hope that the seed will grow, but without you planting it and taking care of it, it won't do diddly squat but sit there and bake on the parched ground. Hope all you want. Faith is taking that hope to the next level and planting and nourishing that seed. Like in the third Indiana Jones movie: He had to take a leap of faith and hope that his foot would be safe resting on what looked like thin air. But if he weren't willing to actually put his foot there, then that hope would have been meaningless.

The way to show trust and faith in someone is to follow what they tell you. If you have faith in what your parents tell you, you take their advice. If you have faith in your God, you follow His commandments. You repent of anything that you've done wrong--and there's not a person alive that hasn't done something wrong--and you move on from there, trying to become a more perfect person.

There has been confusion about what it means to repent in the Mormon use of the word. Let's make this clear: there is no "A" for Hester. Repentance is a private matter between you and the Lord. You feel sorry, you right the wrong, you move on and you don't judge others for sinning differently than you. Going to the bishop is not for retribution or a form of punishment. It's looking for help. And I and my church--and Jesus for that matter--vehemently reject the philosophy of "visible saints" despite the accusations otherwise.

Matthew 9:10-12 By the way, this scripture makes so much more sense when you can imagine that Jesus had a sarcastic sense of humor. It also helps explain why the Pharisees and Saducees hated him so much.

And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples. And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, "Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?" But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, "They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick."

And yes, baptism is required for entrance into the church. Of course being dunked in the water doesn't actually cleanse you of sin. That should have been taken care of before baptism. But sometimes God asks us to do seemingly silly or simple things in order to show our faith. Remember the stories of Naaman or the snake on the stick in the Israelite camp? It sorts out the proud from those who are willing to do anything to be healed or forgiven.

The Gift of the Holy Ghost is either really simple or so complicated that nobody really understands it. Basically, I believe that everyone to some extent is guided by God, whether they realize it or not. If you find yourself saying "Fate would have it" or "The Universe dictated" or something else akin to that and ending up in a better position than you were before, then that was probably God directing you. The Gift of the Holy Ghost is basically just the constant companionship of God as long as we're worthy.

V. We Believe that a man must be called of God by prophecy and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.

Or woman, before somebody flips out about anti-feminism. Well, that'll be discussed in a bit.

Grammatically, this one can be taken three ways and all are true. You could take it that to preach the Gospel and administer in ordinances, a person has to be called of God. Or it could be understood that for a call to be relevant, it needs to be delivered through someone who has authority. And if you took the noun to be purposely gender-specific, then this outlines the calling to be a man. Notice the implications: a woman's womanhood is inherent, but a man's manhood has to be ordained of God.

A discussion of "gender roles"--dang, I hate that phrase because of the bad taste it leaves in the mouth--and the Gospel will come at some time. For right now, this article does a pretty good job explaining it from an LDS Feminist perspective.

VI. We Believe in the same organization that existed in the primitive church, namely apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists and so forth.

This is maybe the number one reason why non-Mormon Biblical scholars have joined the church in the past. We have the same organization that Jesus instated during His mortal ministry.

The rest of this section is taken from a conversation I had on facebook with a friend, Sarah.

The conversation began with her question, in essence "how are living prophets chosen and what do they do?" and "could a woman be a prophet?" My answer was very long. What's included here is slightly edited and rearranged to make more sense, but the essence remains. Sarah's questions are in their original form. I left it in the dialogue form because it's often easiest to discuss something and address questions when an ideology is presented as such. Plato did it. Also, it was easier than trying to edit through and make everything make sense.

We believe that god has sent prophets--men and women--to earth to guide groups of people and to help them live better lives, like Moses and Abraham. Anna and Deborah were two examples from the Bible of prophetesses.

The LDS Church is not unique in that we believe this. We're just unique in that we believe that God still sends prophets to guide us. All they do is warn us of things that we're doing bad--"we" as in the whole world, not just the church because we believe the prophets are sent to be prophets to the world, not just to Mormons--and give us guidance of what they feel we need to hear.

That's cool. Have any of the current ones been women? What distinguishes someone as a prophet exactly?

Yes, we have women prophets today. That's distinguishing "prophet" from "president of the church." The president of the Mormon church has always been a man, but that's another discussion entirely. "Prophet" just means someone called of God to guide God's children and receive inspiration directly from God.

And that's basically what general conference is right? The prophets delivering these messages?

Yeah, exactly.

So how do you choose them? Or maybe the more correct thing to say would be figure our who they are?

How much do you know about the Joseph Smith story?

Probably a Cliffnotes kind of version.

So you know about the First Vision and how he saw God and Jesus and they spoke to him in person and asked him to restore God's church?

Yeah.

That's how the ball got rolling. We believe Joseph Smith was the first prophet of this dispensation, which is Mormon lexicon for time period in which God dispenses truth. There was the Israelite dispensation and the Noah dispensation, etc.

So is your religion largely based on prophets?

Yes, entirely. So much that we believe that--although the scriptures are usually absolutely necessary for gaining a personal relationship with God--General Conference and the words that the prophets--and God--are saying now are more important to us in our day and age than the words that say Moses said. For instance, the prophets now are saying stuff like avoid pornography. But when Joshua was the prophet right after Moses, he was commanded to lead basically a genocide against the Amelikites in Caanan. We weren't in that time, but looking at Biblical history and what we believe about the second coming of Jesus, we can see how that was important at the time, but it doesn't apply to us now. Just like Joseph Smith was commanded to do polygamy, but now we're not required to. Thank goodness!

That is something I really like about the LDS religion. I don't really get why people would believe there were prophets thousands of years ago but not anymore today. I also don't believe in basing your facts and beliefs entirely on antiquated data. It can be good context but It can't fit perfectly into modern society.

How prophets are chosen in the church: this is something I think most LDS people--at least the ones at Mountain View High School--didn't really understand. To understand it, you have to know three things about us first. First, we believe that God has a hand in every person's life and will use that person--if they're willing--to be a force for good in the world and that He will give them experiences or allow things to happen--both good and bad--so that they become the person He wants them to become so that they can return to live with Him and help others to get there as well. Second, we believe the revelation and the will of God can come by vision, inspiration in the form of words, miracles, etc. However, we believe that most often--like 99% of the time--revelation comes by feelings and promptings in various degrees of strength, depending on the importance of the situation. For example, I felt very strongly that I needed to come to Boise State and felt very, very good about it and so I believe that God wants me here. Third, we believe that one purpose of prophets is to find more prophets to replace them by revelation.

The Church split early on when Joseph Smith was murdered because neither he nor God had made clear who was to lead the church after he had gone. The church fell into the de facto "rule" of the Quorum of the 12 Aapostles--whom we "sustain" (which is a bit like voting but not democratic at all but more about showing individual acceptance) as "prophets, seers and revelators"--but none of them really could agree on who was supposed to lead the Church, so there was a bit of campaigning. Emma Smith--Joseph's first wife and scribe for a part of the translation of the Book of Mormon--thought that Joseph's only surviving son ought to lead the church--they had a lot of sad stories with childbirth and rearing and he never had children with any of his other wives--and so there were a lot of people stayed in Nauvoo with her and Joseph Smith III (the prophet was "Jr"). They became the Reformed LDS church, though now they're called the Community of Christ. Then Sidney Rigdon claimed that there could be no other prophet besides Joseph or something like that and that he should be the "guardian" of the Church to lead as Joseph would have. Some people followed him and they became the "Rigdonite church," but almost everyone followed Brigham Young. During one of the campaign speeches, a lot of people thought Brigham Young miraculously looked like and/or sounded like Joseph. Young--stocky and maybe a little short--normally looked nothing like Joseph--who was a head taller than most men--and sounded nothing like him either--Joseph had a famous lisp/whistle because his front tooth got chipped one time when being tarred and feathered. So most of the people took that as a sign that Young was meant to lead the Church. But that's just the history of how it started.

There was some more very interesting history after that, but basically after that whole ordeal the church leaders realized the need for a secure succession, much like Congress realized the need to have an order of succession to the President of the United States. Except the president is elected, the President of the Church is ordained of God. By the way, the President of the Church is often called "The Prophet," although that didn't come into common practice until the 1950s, "The Prophet" having referred to Joseph Smith until that point, much like Muslims refer to Muhammad as "The Prophet."

So the easy answer to your question is that to be chosen to be a prophet, a person just needs to be in a leadership position and be worthy and willing to listen to the promptings of God. Leadership position could be President of the Church, President of the Relief Society, bishop, mother or father of a family, anything. But this long answer is how the prophets--as in the church leaders or people who have the authority to speak for the whole church--are chosen.

The Quorum of the 12 Apostles--designed after the Quorum of Apostles Jesus ordained after His resurrection--decided (with God's help) to set this system up (and this is simplified to how I understand it): when the President, "The Prophet," dies, the First Presidency (the President and his two counselors) is dissolved so briefly we have a quorum of 14 apostles (the 12 plus the 2 counselors). Everybody knows that the most senior apostle--the one who has been there the longest, not the one who is the oldest--is going to be the next President of the Church, but they pray and fast about it anyways. Then I guess they kind of vote, but as far as I know it's always been unanimous. Each of these men--yes these are all men, but I promise it's not sexist, but that's another discussion entirely--are raised from their childhood to be able to lead the Church and the world in spiritual matters. So they do the vote thing, then they wait for a confirmation--a very strong feeling of peace that anybody can feel when asking for something from God--that the decision is right. then they ordain him as Prophet of the World and President of the Church. Then they find someone--with lots of prayer and fasting--to replace the open spot in the Quorum of the 12 Apostles and the President calls or asks--again with lots of thinking, prayer, fasting and meditation--two of them to serve as his counselors.

So it's kind of like everybody is a little bit of a prophet in that they have promptings and guidance from god but 'the prophets' are people who make it their jobs to listen?

Yes, exactly!

Is there always the same number of prophets?

We only have one person who is called to be the Prophet of the World at one time. But we have many people we sustain as prophets, and there is no fixed amount of those. All the world-wide church leadership--or "general authorities"--and local leaders as well. I believe my bishop is a prophet, called to lead my ward.

But this hasn't always been the case. Historically, there have been many instances of prophets being prophets simultaneously. Jeremiah of the Bible and Lehi of the Book of Mormon were contemporaries, though Lehi left when God brought him and his family out of Jerusalem and Jeremiah stayed. But now we live in a globalized world, so it's not necessary to have multiple. That way there won't be discrepancies in doctrine.

Yes, we believe that prophets are called of God to be a voice for Him, but we also [know] that they are human and will have their own opinions and may at times preach them from the pulpit. However, if an apostle says anything directly contrary to the essential doctrines of the Church, they are excommunicated or at least reprimanded and asked to retract their words. This has happened multiple times, even in recent church history. There was one apostle in Brigham Young's time who was preaching that Jesus wasn't the Christ, and so he got excommunicated. More recently, Elder--that's an apostle's title--Ezra Taft Benson--who was later the President of the Church--spoke out vehemently against the civil rights movement and socialism. At the same time, another of the apostles was a socialist, and the church very much is not doctrinally against civil rights.

I am seeing this religion in an entirely different way now. It just struck me when I heard people talking about general conference that your religion was unique in its view of prophets. However, I had no idea it was such a large part of each individuals life. Basically what I am picturing is each person having a deep connection with god, but the prophets maybe being better at interpreting it or more in touch, and people learn from them.

You are absolutely right in your perception of what we believe: every person is supposed to have a personal relationship with God and basically be a prophet for themselves and for those they've been asked to look over, such as their children. And a "prophet" is someone asked to guide a group of people, themselves being better at or more experienced or more willing or whatever to listen and feel the word of God.

Are we crazy? Maybe. But I doubt it. Read what the prophets have been saying now and tell me if you think otherwise that we are indeed "bat-poop" crazy.

VII. We Believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, interpretation of tongues and so forth.

There's a long discussion about Gifts of the Spirit, but I like to look at this one in a more general light. I believe in Talent.

We--each of us--have been given talents. Music, poetry, art, a natural coordination for sports, an ability to crunch numbers, to blow spit bubbles off your tongue...the list of possible natural abilities is as endless as the amount of people living in the world. God gives us talents with the intent that we will share them, develop them and use them to make the world a better place, even if they seem obscure. Well, maybe blowing spit bubbles won't make the world better. But it doesn't hurt to try.

Gandhi was given the ability to lead. Joan of Arc and Buddha had a talent for approaching God. Teancum had a knack for strategy and assassination and overall ninja-ness. Obama has a talent for public speaking. And while their beneficence to society and general skill and artistry are still debated, The Beatles had a talent for music that helped bring about cultural change and helped make the world a more open place. If you don't think you have talent, you do. I promise. Find it and make the world better.

VIII. We Believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. We also Believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

Here is where a lot of other well-meaning--or not-so-well-meaning--Christians claim that Mormonism is wrong and maybe of the devil. They usually pull out verses from Deuteronomy, Proverbs and Revelation claiming that the Bible cannot be added onto, that it is Perfect and Infallible. I'm not going to argue that it isn't the Word of God because I very much believe the Bible is at a basic level.

When looking at the Bible with an LDS perspective, it's important to remember four things. First, that what we call the "Bible" isn't even a "real thing." Second, nobody seems to agree which Bible is the correct Bible. Third, everything was written in context and ought to be read in context. Fourth, why would God only give direction to one group of people if He loves all His children?

The "Bible" isn't a "thing" because nobody wrote it. Nobody sat down and decided that they were going to write it. What we call "The Bible" is a conglomeration of largely Semitic letters, books, journals, poems, discourses, proverbs and family histories that some group of European monks compiled in a dusty room. The books that are included in the Bible are somewhat arbitrary. For instance, why on earth was The Song of Solomon--which is a long, boring poem that sometimes borders on pornography--included and not the Gospel of Thomas which has a whole lot more to do with God and things spiritual? To those who claim that the Bible is complete, I argue the obvious counterargument: "No it's not." If you want to keep claiming that it is, that's fine. I'll keep claiming that it's not. "It" was written by people--mostly men--who are inherently imperfect and who often distort truth--even imperceptibly--to fit their own prejudices or get carried away in their sensationalization and often forget or "forget" to include something. Very infrequently does God come down and say "write this" although I do believe that He does at times. So maybe not everything in there is strictly the Word of God. Am I blaspheming? Maybe. But so was Jesus.

There's this sticky issue of linguistics. It would be awesome if we Christians could all be fluent in all the different languages that all the books and stories were originally written in so that we could understand the original connotations and verbal textures that the original writers intended and we wouldn't need to have these convoluted versions that we have now. Language is a system of abstract sounds and symbols combined together in this abstract and subjective thing we call syntax and grammar to describe real, abstract and concrete things. When anything is carried down through oral tradition like a millenia-long game of telephone, there's bound to be distortions, let alone such a complex work of literature as the Bible. Add into that the issues of strong personal biases on issues like sex and race throughout the ages and personal senses of humor and personal interpretations of what's literal and figurative. On top of that, no two languages can translate directly--as anyone who has studied another language knows--especially when they cross language-family lines, such as from a Semitic language like Aramaic to a Romantic language like Latin. Even translating Australian English to American English can be dicey, though it's cleared up considerably thanks to an increasingly globalized version of English. How can you tell me that the "Bible"--which went through multiple stages of Hebrew, at least one dialect of Aramaic, Ancient Greek and two versions of Latin--Christian and Vulgar (or "Common")--as well as unknown amounts of pre-Semite languages that Enoch and Noah and all them spoke, all the while being written and translated and handed down orally by imperfect people before it finally ended up in the King James's Version and so we're going to ignore the fact that there are multiple versions in English and that there are as many translations in each language spoken by people as there are different religions--is the Perfect and Complete Word of God? We're lucky Moses didn't have blue hair or that Jesus was a Holy Carrot. (The "Holy Carrot" is a reference to something my dad said while on his mission in Japan.) You only kid yourself when you say that your version that you have on your shelf at home that is probably one of the Protestant versions in English is superior to the Ethiopian Orthodox version in Arabic or even the Roman Catholic version in Korean without going out and trying to study more versions than your own.


By the way, I don't know if this is officially Church Doctrine, but supposedly Joseph Smith declared that the most correct version available now is the Martin Luther translation of the German Bible. Too bad I don't speak German.

All of that ignored, if you're going to use Bible verses to disprove the validity of the Book of Mormon, you have to look at the context. You should look at the context anyway. The verses in question all say something to the effect of "The Bible cannot be added onto." Deuteronomy was written long before most of the Bible. That doesn't mean that everything written after--or "added onto"-- Deuteronomy is not the Word of God. Revelation, or Apocalypse--although the last book--was written before a lot of the rest of the New Testament. But again, that doesn't illegitimize everything written after it. The typical LDS argument is that when John was referring to "this book," he meant the Book of Revelation, not the Bible. Remember, the Bible wasn't even a thing yet, just like Christianity wasn't even a thing. It was a sect of Judaism, not a whole new category.

Finally, the Jesus stated that there was more people that He had to visit ("other sheep I have"). Why wouldn't those people write that visit down? Oh wait, they did. That's why we have the Book of Mormon. Why is it blasphemy then to believe that there's is the Word of God as well as the Bible? I'm not going to try to "prove" here that the Book or Mormon is true and I ask that any comments don't try to "prove" that it's false. If it's true, it's true. If it's not, it's not. There's no sense in arguing and while Mormon Apologetics are fun and very interesting, they don't really amount to anything. Learning about poetic similarities between Alma and Isaiah is cool, but it doesn't really do anything to improve your relationship with God. Only reading it and praying about it can do that.

We also believe that there's a whole lot more out there than just what's in the published version of the Book of Mormon which is also just a bunch of letters and histories and books compiled by a guy named Mormon, hence the name of the book. At the Second Coming, Jesus is going to bring to light a whole lot more books that were lost and provide better translations for the ones we have. And I believe, for one, that the Quran will be included in that. That's not overstepping my church. That's right in line with what we believe.

IX. We Believe all the God has revealed, all that He does now reveal and we Believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

Just look at VI and VIII and add that God's not done revealing stuff because people aren't perfect yet.

X. We Believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes, that Zion--the New Jerusalem--will be built upon the American continent, that Christ will reign personally upon the Earth and that the Earth will be renewed and receive its paradisaical glory.

What I'm not going to do in this section is give a pro-Israel spiel nor am I going to give a lecture over Israelitish history, despite the temptation. For full context, google it.

Basically, what happened was this. The Israelites were living in the land of Caanan--or Palestine--and were becoming more wicked and so God told them that He wasn't going to protect them anymore and they said basically that they didn't need his help anyway. So the Persians came and razed Jerusalem to the ground and carried off most of the people captive to Persia, which is where we get such great stories as Esther and Daniel and the three stooges, Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego. Somewhere along the lines the Kingdom of Israel split and became the Kingdom of Israel--the Samaritans--which was made up of the Ten Tribes of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah--the Jews--which was made up of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin.

The thing about empires is it works best if people get rearranged to create a more homogenous populace. That's what the Mongols did, it's what the Romans did, it's what Hitler did, it's what the Persians did, even America did it. Just remember that next time someone calls Obama "empirical." He has never, ever ordered the forceful removal of peoples to a new homeland. Anyway, it promotes trade and discourages sectionalism. The Jews and the Samaritans got spread out over the Persian Empire and nobody's entirely sure where all the non-Jewish Israelites got deposited. Many of the Jewish expatriates ended up in Eastern Europe or the Mediterranean or even back in Egypt and Southern Arabia. We believe that the formation of the nation Israel was a fulfillment of prophecy. That does not mean that I believe that everything the Israelites are doing is sanctioned by God, just like I believe the Gentiles--here meaning Europeans--were led to America. I don't believe everything we've done here has been worth doing. Yes, God put us here and the Jews there for the opportunity to do good. That doesn't mean that we as imperfect humans aren't going to make a complete mess of everything while or before the good starts happening.

Actually, that's one of the purposes of serving a mission: to go and help find members of Lost Israel. It does sound a bit like a fantasy novel.

By the way, yes, we do believe that people can be "adopted" into the House of Israel and yes, that comes by way of a Patriarchal Blessing. That is not something that I'm going to share about here freely. Please direct any questions to a Mormon, not to Google.

One of the names I was considering for this blog was "A Liberal in Zion" and one of the cons about that name was it hinted that Mormons are Zionists which usually means violence and radicalism, both very not-supported by the doctrines of peace and mediation. Yes, there was a Mormon War in Missouri. But remember, the Book of Mormon talks a lot about defending your homes and your religious freedom as justifiable reasons to go to war, both of which were under immediate threat because of Governor Boggs' extermination order. As a side note, there was also political stress that caused the war to happen: the Mormons were just too damn liberal. Figure that one.

The term "Zion" can refer to a lot of things. It often refers to members of the Church or the organization of the Church--which are two different things--which is where we get things like our hymn "As Sisters in Zion" or terms like "Stakes of Zion"--which is an organizational nuance, sort of like a parish and bigger than a ward--but here it refers to a Utopian city, named after Enoch's Zion. Yes, we do believe that Zion--as a literal society--will be built in Missouri. We also believe that those that live in Zion will follow something called "The United Order" which is a social order that the early Christians practiced and that the Mormon Church practiced early on with very little success. Basically, it's capitalistic communism. Everybody works hard and makes money, but they give everything to the bishop who then distributes the money to the different families in the ward according to their need. Often there's cooperative businesses involved as well. It's going to definitely be a culture change for many in the Church and I bet there's going to be a lot of people that leave because they more strongly believe that socialism is inherently evil than that maybe it's what God intended for us all along.

And by "Utopian city" I do not mean a Dystopian society where everyone is the same, education is one-sided, the language is limited and a mono-partisan ruling class controls a brain-washed populace. Rather the opposite. Zion--in my mind--and people that live there will have educational opportunities the same as anywhere. There will be people of all different races and backgrounds and the language there will reflect the ethnicities of the people living there. In other words, Ga and Spanish and Portuguese and Swahili and Russian and Mandarin Chinese will grossly outweigh English and along with all that, I there's going to be access to all the literatures and all the cultures that come with that. Sciences and mathematics will likewise be expanded. And of course there will be political parties. They may all be variants of socialism but there definitely will be more than just one, probably split along lines of progressivism vs. traditionalism and isolationism vs. open relations with the world around us. In other words, Zion won't be an Amish-age Pharisaic community like it sometimes comes off as being (for the record, I have the highest respect for the Amish and Mennonites and Shakers and all them). It will be a modern, progressively-thinking society.

Yes, we do believe Christ is going to come again and rule over the Earth from the capital of Zion. That doesn't make me American Nationalist anymore than I would be Antarctican Nationalist if we believed He was going to reign from the South Pole. Remember, Zion will be its own independent state.

And finally, my plug for liberal environmentalism. "The Earth will be renewed" meaning cleaned-up. I think we can all agree that humans have done a pretty good job of making a mess of our planet. That does not mean that when Jesus comes again that He'll snap His fingers and suddenly the oceans will be garbage-free and all the fish-killing dams will disappear and the smokestacks will vanish. I imagine He's going to hand out a lot of garbage bags and jackhammers and shovels and say "Get to work." This clean-up is not going to be easy. Nothing worth doing ever is. And "paradisaical glory" doesn't mean the world is going to turn into a tropical paradise. That would be ridiculous and unfair to those of us that prefer deserts and snow-covered mountains and temperate rainforests. All the ecosystems will remain intact. They'll just be prettier and more "glorious" than they are now.

XI. We claim the privilege of worshiping almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience and allow all men the same privilege. Let them worship how, where or what they may.

Does that mean that Mormons are sometimes stubborn and unwilling to listen to other points of view and even trample them under our own dogma juggernaut? No. We Mormons are human and very fallible, just like everybody else. But the doctrine is to respect others' beliefs or at least avoid them if confrontation is inevitable.

This was reiterated by our current Prophet, President Thomas S. Monson in the last General Conference, who--might I add--is pretty much somewhere between a rock star and Gandhi in the Mormon world.

I admonish you to be good citizens of the nations in which you live and good neighbors in your communities, reaching out to those of other faiths as well as to our own. May we be tolerant of, as well as kind and loving to, those who do not share our beliefs and our standards. The Savior brought to this earth a message of love and goodwill to all men and women. May we ever follow His example.

If you google "April 2013 General Conference, 'Tolerance'" it pulls up a lot about Elder Packer and his "tolerance trap" talk. Remember before criticizing what I've already said in this post. First, anything said in Conference--even if tagged with "thus saith the Lord"--is still the stated opinion of a single person, not necessarily the opinion of the Church. Second, everything must be taken in context. Third, anything President Monson says trumps anything anybody else says.

There's been a lot of debate about prayer in public schools lately. I don't actually have a problem with it as long as it's not said over the intercom and students aren't bullied for not participating. For those that claim that we ought to have Christian prayer said over the intercom in our public schools, what about when a Wiccan or a Hindu or a Jew or--heaven forbid!--a Muslim wants to say the prayer?

XII. We Believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers and magistrates and obeying, honoring and sustaining the law.

If Mormons believe in "sustaining--or supporting and acting according to--the law," then where is there room for transcendentalism? What if we're "being subject" to a government that oppresses us? Can a Mormon legitimately take a stance in Civil Disobedience?

I think yes. As long as it's peaceful.

Armed revolt never produces as good of results as peaceful disobedience to corrupt law. Real change has to come through a cultural shift which has to happen inside individual persons' minds and hearts. Fighting will never produce such a change unless it comes after the dust has settled. Remember the story of the Ammonites in the Book of Mormon: the other Lamanites started massacring them by the thousands because they refused to fight back, which--by the way--is an integral part of transcendentalism. But halfway through the massacres, some of the Lamanites decided that it wasn't worth it, that maybe these crazy Ammonites were honest in their convictions and many of them ended up joining the Ammonites. So many did that they more than replaced the amount that had been killed. As if anybody can truly be replaced. Anyway, it was not the fighting that brought on the change. It was the non-violence that the Ammonites stubbornly clung to that brought about the change.

This kind of non-violent gestures change cultures all over the world. Gandhi and the Satyagraha convinced British workers to demand the freedom of India and Gandhi became a super-star in the very country he was trying to separate from. Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights protests opened the world's eyes to the horrors of racism. The fighting in Palestine and Israel is bringing no change, only dead bodies. The peace talks and efforts of community members on both sides are.

Yes, you can cite that wars like The American Revolution can bring about good change. First, I would counter that no significant change actually happened. The same fat, white, rich, English-speaking gentlemen that were in charge before the Revolution were in charge after the Revolution as well. Second, the war shifted which flag was flown but that's about it and the loyalties of the people changed not because of the war but largely because of Thomas Paine's Common Sense and his promotion of the idea that a people ought not to have loyalty to a crown--especially to one on an island across an ocean--but to themselves, another facet of transcendentalism. In short, wars can make power and land shift hands, but only change in culture can bring about a real change.

But back to the original issue. Can a Mormon willfully disobey a government and remain a "good" Mormon? If it's mindless rebellion, no. But there is a difference between mindless rebellion and transcendentalism. Mindless rebellion is done to serve selfish desires. Civil Disobedience is done to serve a higher good, something Mormons are all for. Mindless rebels want something for themselves. Transcendentalists don't care if they die tomorrow as long as the cause is perpetuated.

Let me provide a few examples. Early Mormons broke the law by being Mormon for which the penalty was death. (Yes, we had the Mormon War in Missouri because of it. But no positive change actually happened because of that. People just died.) Mormon polygamists broke the law by being polygamist and many were thrown in prison or escaped to Canada and Mexico. Jesus broke the law by claiming to be the Christ and he was crucified. Early Christians broke the law by believing and were thrown into the Colosseum.

So yes, a Mormon--in my opinion--may break the law on purpose and still be a "good" Mormon as long as it's not done in mindless rebellion but in transcendentalism. Remember what Martin Luther King Jr. said about an unjust being no law at all.

On the other hand, I do believe in sustaining our leaders, no matter their political party or religion or anything else. That does not mean we need to agree with them or follow blindly. There are things that I disagree with Obama over. Neither does that mean that we ought to turn a blind eye to our leader's shortcomings. I don't know what's going on with Benghazi and the IRS scandals--partly because I haven't been paying too close attention to that sort of thing but mostly because all I hear is Fox News yelling bloody murder--but Obama and Hillary and everybody responsible should be punished for what they've done. But the defamation, witch-hunting, demonization, slandering and scape-goating a president or anyone else because of their political party or any other reason is bad and has no place in politics. Well, shouldn't anyway. I do not understand how a Mormon can believe that all people are children of God and then turn around and slam "the Muslim Socialist" and other "Libtards" for believing differently than them. To disagree is good. To slander is not.

XIII. We Believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent and in doing good to all men. Indeed you may say that we follow the Admonition of Paul. We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things. 

This one's pretty easy to understand and seems to be the "in case I forgot anything else" clause of the Articles.

This, by the way, is the Admonition of Paul that Joseph Smith was referring to: Philippians 4:8

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

 I'm not entirely sure what Joseph Smith meant by "we believe all things" because I can name some pretty specific things that I don't believe and some that he didn't believe. But I think he meant that we believe anything worth believing and that we hope in anything worth hoping in.

Conclusion

I was going to say something profound here but I gave up. I spent four weeks writing this post so I hope it makes sense. And for those of you that made it the whole way, congratulations!