White Horse ... or Night Mare?

Romney still holds the office of High Priest in the LDS church.  Could the LDS church attempt to influence him?

In an article at MormonThink, I wrote how the the history of LDS politics predicts what it may try to do if Romney becomes President Mitt.

From the article:

As much as many Mormons may want Romney to be the White Horse, there is a missing nail in his shoe that could throw the whole race.  Mitt Romney refuses to disclose financial information buried in his tax returns... Mitt has said, “Our church doesn’t publish how much people have given... One of the downsides of releasing one’s financial information is that this is now all public, but we had never intended our contributions to be known.”  This underscores a pattern of secrecy that he likely learned as a member of the LDS church.  Not only does it keep the wording, mimed actions and penalties for revealing its temple ceremonies secret, it has also refused to disclose its financial information—charitable and corporate—since before the 1960s.  Why would exalted prophets refuse to disclose business profits? Perhaps it’s because the LDS church recently invested well over two billion dollars (exact amount still secret) into a high-scale mall at the Salt Lake City Creek Center—a mall that includes Tiffany & Co., Porsche Design, Tuma, Pandora, Rolex and more to cater to the wealthy of Utah.  Hiding financials is a lesson Mitt may have learned early in life as a young Mormon.

The article covers:

• Joseph Smith running for President of the United States
• Church leader approval required for holding political office
• Members pressured by church authorities to join political parties
• Excommunication of members opposing the Nazi Party
• LDS record on civil rights and race issues
• Campainging by LDS church against the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)
• LDS involvement in California’s Proposition 8
• Members excommunicated for political and/or contrary speech
• Mitt and the White Horse Prophecy
• LDS official statement on politics

My bucket-o-facts overfloweth

Last night I emailed Pat (my gender neutral pseudonym for the questioning wardmember).  Pat’s question had been: why did I leave the church in the first place?  I hacked on the keyboard, generating three or four screens of bulleted reasons.  My list had collected really esoteric tidbits about Fanny Alger, Elkenah, Zelph, Kinderhook, Psalters, Haplogroup X2a, Chakras, and the more common ones some members have heard about. It’s a protracted list that’s taken me over five general conference cycles to accumulate.  I was about to paste the mega-clipboard into an email for Pat, but stopped myself.  Pat’s email was short and to the point. I should be too.

    me:     I couldn't keep having faith in fundamental claims that have clearly contrary evidence and facts.

That is all I sent.  That was late last night.  Then I received another one-line reply from Pat just a moment ago:

    Pat:     What facts and evidence have you found?

Now here is where I am torn.  I could go back and paste that bucket-o-facts to know before you die, or I could simply send the link MormonThink to Pat.  Most of my list items have links to MormonThink already.  However... There’s a problem...

I don’t want anyone I meet in person to know I’m associated with, let alone managing editor at, MormonThink.  I don't even want Pat to find it serendipitously -- It could get me in a sort of pickle and cut short my church activity.

What to do, what to do.   Suggestions?

Roots go deep if branches reach up.

(Oahu, HI, 2008)

Secrets breed lies

 I think the US public deserves a right to know to whom (the corporation) Mitt Romney has sworn allegiance.   No, not Bain or other Wall Street junkies.  There's a corporation that keeps under the radar to which Romney made a secret oath to protect and give all of himself to when called upon.  You may think I am a conspiracy whack-job.  Don't.  I have first hand knowledge of this.

The US military curtails the speech & association rights of its soldiers, service personnel, and even contractors with clearances.  I encourage Romney to voluntarily give up a small part of his religious freedom and tell us finally to whom he gives his allegiance and what oaths specifically he has sworn over his life. Yes, he has, and I know this because I have done this too.

What do I mean?  Be patient with me while I explain.

Romney is a temple worthy LDS member and as such, he's made promises and keeps secrets that could affect the rest of the world. LDS members who go to the temple for their first time to receive their washing & anointing and their endowment are not told what exactly they promise to give.  It’s expected that before they get to the temple, they already have incredible devotion and incredible support to the LDS faith. Once a member enters the temple ceremonies, doors are closed, lights are dimmed and the theater like seats are packed with attendees.  Somewhere around 40 minutes into the ceremony, you are then told that you are about to take on severe obligations and covenants, and now is your chance to leave.  The pressure of family, friends and so many people sitting around you—all donning purest sheep white & uniform temple dress, expected to follow the flock—builds a level of peer pressure not seen in most high-schools.  Conformity is all-but mandated.

When I went to the temple, back in the mid 1980s, I was troubled deeply that I had to promise my own death if I dared discuss or revealed the ongoing of the temple.  I was a month away from entering full-time missionary service to Guatemala.  By the end of the endowment, I was determined to call off the mission and get out of the church.  My parents felt my shock and cancelled their plans for the next several days to take me on a trip to Bear Lake and isolate me so that they could convince me that all would be well.  By the end of that weekend, I was consoled that I would in fact be okay and that the temple may, on the surface, seem ritualistic, but was much deeper than I understood at the time. 

After my mission, I served as a veil worker in the Idaho Falls temple and attended weekly sessions for over a year.  I was inoculated and had memorized every word of the ceremonies in the temple.  Years later, after entering a career in science, I would investigate where the rituals, the oaths, the signs and the penalties had originated through Joseph Smith.  That newly discovered information once again threatened to put my testimony and membership in a tail spin.

Richard Packham published an article about the secrecy surrounding the temple, in which he says:

The biggest secrets involve the special lengthy rituals (the Mormons call them "ordinances") that take place outside of public view in the Mormon temples. The most important of these rituals is called the "endowment" - lasting several hours and taking the Mormon through symbolic washings and anointings (in my day they were actual washings and anointings on the entire naked body), then clothing the Mormon in special clothing and robes (including the notorious "magic underwear," which Mormons call "the garment"). The Mormon then watches and participates in long dramatizations of key events in the coming of the gospel, beginning with the creation of the world, showing Adam's fall, the coming of the Christian gospel (but not the crucifixion and resurrection), and ultimately the Mormon's being admitted into heaven, represented by "passing through the veil (of the temple)." When Romney and I first went through this ceremony, it was a ritualized dramatization with live temple personnel. Nowadays it's a movie. 

I'm beginning to have serious concerns about Romney's commitment to the oaths, covenants and promised secrecy of what he did in the temple.   Mitt Romney, as a faithful LDS member, has solemnly covenanted in the Mormon temple that he wholly-devotes himself, his time and his talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed him to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

One promise Romney made, called The Law of Consecration is made in the temple with these words: You and each of you covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar, that you do accept the Law of Consecration as contained in the Doctrine and Covenants, in that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion.

Another promise Romney made is called The Law of Sacrifice.  The words in the temple are: as Jesus Christ has laid down his life for the redemption of mankind, so we should covenant to sacrifice all that we possess, even our own lives if necessary, in sustaining and defending the Kingdom of God.

These are secrets in the temple.  Effectively, Romney made an oath, under penalty of death, that he would give anything, his life, his talents, his time and blessings (including the office of the president?) to the LDS prophet, if asked.  That is, if Monson were to ask him, Romney, perhaps after protesting, would still be required to submit to Thomas S Monson, the President of the Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I don't believe this is likely to happen.  But I can't know for sure.  I think examining the history of what the Latter-day Saints have been asked to do in the name of politics is important.  I'll write about that later...

"Leave" is such a strong but not a four-letter word.

On Sunday, I was approached by a member who’d heard my short introduction when I attended for the first time in years. We were leaving the Gospel Doctrine class, and this person, after a brief first-name only intro, requested my email address. I won’t identify him/her by gender or other characteristics for what, I suspect, may eventually be valid reasons.  It’s just... I get asked for my email often enough because of the publishing and art shows I’ve done, so I didn’t think much of it.  This afternoon, I got an email asking me a single question:

     “Why did you leave the church in the first place?”

My first thought was, how did this person know I had left in the first place?  I’d mention being inactive and returning, but the word “leave” wrinkled my brow.  Most people who go inactive in the Mormon church don’t leave it. They just let their church-interest sit and grow weeds. It fades as they fill Sunday with boating, sports and drinking ice tea. Sometimes they even hide behind the door or window curtains when a “friend” from the Mormon ward visits, plate of cookies in hand. They forget, avoid and even hide from church. But they don’t completely leave it.  What's the difference?  Forgetting, avoiding and hiding are mostly passive.  Leaving it is active; a near final act of determined purpose. Disregarding your strong childhood conditioning and leaving resolutely is to rebel against the church or its leaders and give God the spiritual middle finger (assuming our spirit body also evolved an odd number of fingers). 

Maybe this person didn't mean “leave” that way.  But I think I know Mormon lingo well enough to feel sure that, perhaps by how I dressed or a tone in my voice, this person sensed I had truly left in mind, spirit and in body. That they sensed it would mean they recognize where I am, but for some reason of their own are still attending. Why did I leave in the first place? The answer to that is complex.

I’ll take my time to think of a succinct and yet meaningful answer.

I'll keep you posted.  Until then, Happy Breezes from Florida.

Prozacville: Turning black-n-white minds into colorful paisley

Donning my gayest paisley shirt, I go to Sunday church with the Mormons.

The shirt is under a dark blue sports coat with brass buttons both worn over a solid black T-shirt and faded jeans. The T-shirt/jean pairing with paisley & coat is purposely meant to appear like something Dr. House, renowned TV atheist, would wear.  I’m told that I look like a younger version of him, though I’m six-and-a-half feet tall with a weight of Joe’s  golden plates (about 200lbs).  You may wonder why I wrote "gayest" just a moment before; it’s because that’s how a friend complimented the shirt once. Women just like it. It’s an over-flowering, intricate paisley, and I have a sneaky feeling that the members of my assigned Mormon ward (the congregation where I’m officially listed) will find my dress either alarming or intriguing, depending on whether they’re bigger fans of stripes.

I drive into the rainy parking lot and take in the LDS chapel building—brown-stone, white steeple, trimmed lawn, black asphalt.  It could’ve been airlifted, whole building and grass, from Anytown, Utah and plopped over a field dashed with a few Florida palms.  The palms alone make it different and on the verge of non-Mormon.  Inside, it is again distinctly Mormon—stiff carpeted halls just wide enough for two of us to pass, heavily papered walls and unnaturally pale white lights.  On the hall tables there are signups clamped to clipboards (clip-jobs, as I call them) advertising for youth activities and eagle-project collection drives. Missing are the sign-ups for feeding the homeless and volunteering at shelters. The halls are besieged with a diverse crowd, just entering meetings.  This distinction—not the pale white skin matching the lights, but a crowd of a few Blacks, many Hispanics, Polynesians and of course Whites—is unexpected.  The men of all races, however, do have the all-too common white shirt, dark tie/suit coat uniform.  You’ve probably seen it on the bike-riding missionaries of your local neighborhood, whom you’ve hid from when they come ringing.

Sacrament meeting starts first. All the members are there together, kids climbing on the seats having Cheerio wars with the ones behind them. I don’t fault the parents for letting the children spoil the chapel floor with bits o’ broken crayons and raisins. I’ve been a young parent at church and you do what you must to keep them content while feigning interest with a smile in the testimony bearing at the pulpit. It’s funny that the adults are the ones playing pretend at church and the children are being honest. I find myself sighing and eye-rolling at the phrase-tossing of "Book of Mormon" this and "Joseph Smith" that.  But I need to play stoic; switch on the poker face, so that, despite the flash of my cloth, I don’t stand out in character.  Not yet.

Still, the utterly monotone drivel about what I could never remember propels a hand to my coat pocket to retrieve my cell phone.  I text a friend who’s left Mormonism long ago and with whom I console myself when I need to dull my LDS-pain.  I tell Marla that I am at church. She immediately texts back, "Bullshit.  Really?"  I confirm it to her and let her know that I may be here for the long haul.  MormonThink, among its many unnamed true-believing Mormon contributors, has an active member as managing editor.  Attending is my cross to bear (one prior editor had to resign quietly when the church came for him, something I may find difficult to forestall in my case).  She tells me she is in her tank top, mowing her lawn, which in her Utah township, is almost across the street from the church (in UT most houses are across or up the street from an LDS chapel).

The Sacrament meeting ends without anything noteworthy. Dull dull.  This is hallmark.  I wait in the back, wondering who will notice me and introduce themselves with the clamping handshake and polyurethane welcome.  People see me, but no one approaches.  Finally, wondering where I will go to the next class—gospel doctrine—I turn to a couple sitting near.  They shrug when I ask where to go.  They’re new too.  We get chatting and find out they’re newlyweds and that we have a few Mormony things in common, but it is overly dull dull. Then we form a wholesome threesome and seek the next lesson together. 

In gospel doctrine they ask us new members to introduce ourselves.  There are five of us, in a class of maybe twenty.  One is a man from Laie, Hawaii, wearing a pale Lavalava skirt and bright lei over the uniform (the dark suit coat, tie and white shirt).  If he had left out the suit coat, he would have one-upped me in flash. But I still stand out with my jeans and flowery shirt; they recognize my strangeness and I’m required to stand to tell them my name, and that I am a member who hasn’t attended in years returning to see what’s what in Mormonville.  I get through this introduction two more times by the end of the three-hour block and I keep it as short as I can. 

The gospel teacher starts his lesson by writing a string of numbers with a trend and asks us to predict the next few numbers.  It’s a rather easy Fibonacci series, but I am not volunteering any answers. My vocal interaction must be precise and purposeful.  Someone gets it fast and the teacher points out that there is another trend that is just as predictable and precise as the number set.  That trend?  It’s about how "rich people predictably fall into wickedness and then destruction", and how the Book of Mormon shows you how to predict it. Phrases like "increased commerce", "dressing ostentatiously" and "abounding prosperity" are put forth as the digits of his new number set.  Not a word about how Mitt Romney might be a large digit with his ostentatiously abounding commerce.  Another phrase kicked out: "The easiest way to get rich is to ... join secret pacts."  This gets a lot of bowing heads and a "yes" in unison. I'm imagining regimented rows of white-hatted men and veiled women who unquestioningly accept "secret pacts" as gospel.  Members often drag out the pet Mormon conspiracy theory, labeled among themselves as "Gadianton Robbers" (in other places, you would hear the word "illuminati" but the LDS branded culture prefers their unique decaf lexis).  In conclusion, the class is warned in the words of prophet Ezra Taft Benson, that "the two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich."  Something tells me that rich, smart and powerful Mitt Romney may get a pass from the current prophet, Thomas  Monson.

The meetings drag on, though between them in the hallways, I get a number of looks from women.  I know these looks and they have no place at church, unless you’re into that sort of thing in this kind of place.  I might be...  I’m led into the male-only priesthood meeting by the Bishop.  The Lavalava wearing man is there.  Good—we flashy dressers need to stay together.  The lesson kicks off with a quote that definitely wakes me up: "If you cross to the devil’s side of that line [between him and God] one inch you are in the tempter’s power and if he’s successful you will not be able to think or even reason properly…"  

(Photo capture of today's lesson material)

I have to open my mouth at this point.  I ask, "Does this mean that those who leave the church can’t think straight?"  The answer that comes back is that once you start on that path, it’s a slippery slope to bad judgment and that you’ll ultimately become a horrible sinner.  "But," I say, "I am one of those that left the church for a time, back for my first time in years today. I don’t believe that I lost my ability to reason."  In fact, I know I didn’t.  I increased it many fold.  The reply was a squishy one that eventually returned to black and white thinking.  I believe that the color-set is not just their mode of dress. It is definitely a trend of style in thinking too.

After the meeting let out, I was cornered by a few members.  The theological discussions were rather dull dull, even for me, and I contributed about half of the words.  Then there was one of those hallway moments that could convince me that I might be into that sort of thing.  She caught me as I was walking out.  She was flattering. She liked my shirt.  We continued walking and talking all the way to my drive, which is a convertible sports machine that another friend once told me is called a "baja panti" car.  I don’t think this woman would know the term, but she might get the meaning by the way she was eyeing both it and me.  

Oy vey.

Until next Sunday, when we meet again…

Not So Temple Worthy Bride.

(authors note: many accuse me of arrogance or of immoral behavior after reading this post.  Understand that it is written in literary form, with license toward play on metaphor and characterizations which the LDS reader will enjoy.  For example, the womanizing Joseph Smith who hunted for his prey at church. The contrast and compare of black-n-white and colorful diversity.  The play on children being honest brokers, and more. My fancy dress and cars are exaggerated for effect. The women mentioned in this are fictionalized for literary purposes, nothing more.  If you cannot see this, please retake a creative writing course at your local community college and get back.)