The registration table will open at 5:00 pm Friday, and the Wallace B. Smith Lecture will begin at 7:00 pm. Saturday sessions begin at 8:00 am.

The 2011 Wallace B. Smith Lecture will be “A Woman’s Place”, presented by Gail E. Mengel, retired Community of Christ apostle and former president of Church Women United.

This year’s other presenters and panelists include:

R. Jean Addams
Russell Arben Fox
Newell G. Bringhurst
Craig L. Foster
Kristine Haglund
John Hamer
Christian Harrison
Gwendolyn Hawks-Blue
Chris Henrichsen
Jon Hetherington
Keith Hirsche
Barbara Howard
Richard Howard
Danny Jorgensen
Daniel M. Kelty
Kimberly Korol-Evans
Mark A. Korol-Evans
Barbara Lee Collins
Rita Lester
Dale E. Luffman
Tracy McKay
Stacy Mengel Keenan
Sherry Mesle-Morain
Jeanne Murphey
Mary Ellen Robertson
Emily Rose
William D. Russell
Kinsey Wellington

You can view the complete program here.

Walk-ins are very welcome — try to arrive by 6:30 Friday in order to ensure enough time to register. You can also register as a walk-in on Saturday. Hope to see you there!

Because of its deliberate ambiguity, D&C 164, as written, could be open to all sorts of wide-ranging interpretations — and I agree that a reader will have few clues to favor the interpretation I’ve presented (in my own commentary that John-Charles cites) over and above many other, much less positive interpretations. I’m confident in my interpretation because I’m working from the context of the goals of the leadership and membership. The document was necessary for several reasons of process, but its text deliberately fails to speak to the underlying goals of that process. In regards to the explicit topic underlying the process it addresses, the text of the document is essentially marginal.

There’s fairly good precedent in the RLDS tradition for history-making revelations concerning inclusiveness to be doughty, unpoetic, administrative, and mixed in their tone. I had hoped last year for the twenty-fifth anniversary of Section 156 to quote language that might continue to inspire today. Instead, after a bunch of administrative actions, the section eventually says, “do not wonder that some women of the church are being called to priesthood responsibilities” — which reads almost like the idea is being snuck in. Likewise, as wonderful as it is that the revelation which confirmed priesthood ordination for blacks (Section 116) was received 113 years before LDS Official Declaration #2, its text today is horribly disappointing. While it affirms “it is expedient in me that you ordain priests unto me of every race,” it nevertheless cautions: “be not hasty in ordaining men of the negro race.” (Gee, thanks!) So, yes, I anticipate that in the year 2123 (113 years from today) when the LDS Church finally turns its back on discrimination against gay people, the text of Official Declaration #5 will be much more poetic than D&C 164 is today.

The ambiguity of the text allows for an interpretation of moral relativism that is not actually present in the intent behind the text. (Again, I agree that you can read it that way if you’re just looking at the text, but the actual thrust behind the text makes that reading completely unsupportable.) Yes, there are a list of practices in the preambles and elsewhere, but the only thing that these practices have in common is that they have all provoked “controversy” around the world. They are not listed because they are potentially morally neutral — either good or bad, based on our relative values. Rather, some of these practices are good and some of them are evil. Genital mutilation, child prides, and exploitation of widows are evil. Marriage equality is good and full inclusion of gay members in the life of the church is good. (Yes, the text doesn’t say what is good and what is evil, but that doesn’t change the fact that some things are good and some are evil.) The discernment process whereby God reveals truth in the heart of each member and then each congregation, mission center, nation, and ultimately the whole church, isn’t an exercise in moral relativism. It’s an understanding that people from different cultures, in different places, of different generations, with different backgrounds and education levels, need more or less time to discern that some things that are good are good and that some things that are evil are evil.

To address John-Charles’s “dramatic addendum” and overall concern: in no way whatsoever is there a pact that “if Africans won’t make a fuss about liberal Americans wanting to perform homosexual weddings, the liberal Americans won’t make a fuss about Africans wanting to cut their daughters’ genitals or marry them off as children.” The actual pact is that members in the developed world understand that it will take time for some members in certain places whose cultures have not yet prepared them to understand homosexuality to discern what is good in regards to the issue, i.e., that the full inclusion of gay people in the life of the church is good. Likewise, in societies where evil practices (female genital mutilation, underage marriages, exploitation of widows) are, in fact, fairly normative, members in those places need to begin now to discern these practices for what they are — which, is to say, they need to recognize that they these practices are evil and need to be abolished.

Of course it would be nice to have a poetic statement taking a bold stance for good and a bold stance against evil. However, as you know, imposing a just law does not necessarily maximize or sustain actual justice. D&C 156 ended with a split in the Community of Christ which continues to this day. The people who left (now called “Restorationists”) clearly were not ready to accept what was right (full participation for women) back in 1984. How many of them might have been ready by 1990? How many by today? I’m not suggesting that there should have been more delay back then because I don’t have detailed enough information to second guess the process. However, the problem now is that having taken their stand on this issue, Restorationists are frozen. They can’t do what’s right today because their very identity is based on the fact that they chose what was wrong twenty-five years ago.

I put it to you that attitudes toward gay people around the world are in such rapid flux, and are trending so positively, that the last thing we need is to freeze an entire segment of people by creating a schism where their basic identity is formed around wanting to cling to discrimination against gay people.

In other words, unlike the previous revelation (D&C 163,) which was both inspiring and poetic, I agree that the text of D&C 164 is neither. Rather, it returns to the old RLDS practice of finding compromise through revelations that deal with the process. The two essential effects of the revelation are process effects: (1) a compromise which creates a multi-track system, that will effectively be two-tiered, which will allow full participation of gay members in some areas rapidly and others more slowly, while (2) attempting to win the hearts and minds of as many members as possible in the slow areas, and, in so doing preventing the church from splitting and consequently preventing people who are currently wrong from permanently hardening their hearts against that which is right.

Theologian Walter Wink put it this way in his much-lauded essay, “Homosexuality and the Bible.”

“He [Paul] seemed to assume that those whom he condemned were heterosexuals who were acting contrary to nature, ‘leaving,’ ‘giving up,’ or ‘exchanging’ their regular sexual orientation for that which was foreign to them. Paul knew nothing of the modern psychosexual understanding of homosexuals as persons whose orientation is fixed early in life, or perhaps even genetically in some cases. For such persons, having heterosexual relations would be acting contrary to nature, ‘leaving,’ ‘giving up,’ or ‘exchanging’ their natural sexual orientation for one that was unnatural to them. In other words, Paul really thought that those whose behavior he condemned were ‘straight,’ and that they were behaving in ways that were unnatural to them. Paul believed that everyone was straight. He had no concept of homosexual orientation. The idea was not available in his world.”

Wink goes on to say that the relationships Paul describes are “heavy with lust; they are not relationships between consenting adults who are committed to each other as faithfully and with as much integrity as any heterosexual couple. That was something Paul simply could not envision.” The crux of the matter, Wink explains, is simply this:

“…the Bible has no sexual ethic. There is no biblical sex ethic. Instead, it exhibits a variety of sexual mores, some of which changed over the thousand year span of biblical history. Mores are unreflective customs accepted by a given community. Many of the practices that the Bible prohibits, we allow, and many that it allows, we prohibit. The Bible knows only a love ethic, which is constantly being brought to bear on whatever sexual mores are dominant in any given country, or culture, or period.”

The ancient worldview of all Bible writers and editors precluded any distinction between sexual orientation and sexual behavior, which many of us in the 21st century take for granted. Unfortunately, that worldview is still around and undergirds much of the often-heated opposition to full rights for the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) community.

The perceived threat to church unity and even its survival (whether denominational or congregational) related to this issue in some cases is as great today as the issue of slavery was in the nineteenth-century church. Interestingly, slavery proponents had far more biblical passages supporting their viewpoint than opponents of LGBT rights do today.

It’s almost impossible today to understand the difficult and immense journey taken by our nineteenth-century counterparts. For us, slavery is simply wrong and contrary to the values of a just society and a loving God. The issue was not so clear-cut 200 years ago. Ultimately, what mattered in the church’s debate over slavery was not so much scriptural exegesis by itself but the role of experience, especially personal testimony, in the realization that slaves were people not property.

At one extreme in the modern debate over sexuality are those who read their English-language Bibles literally and, along with centuries of Christian tradition, use them to condemn all same-sex acts and relationships. Of course, the Bible wasn’t originally written in English, and translating ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek to modern vernacular is a challenging and imprecise task.

At another extreme of the conversation are those who simply reject the Bible as a reliable sourcebook and church tradition as having any value whatsoever. They rely only on personal experience, which sadly can easily become an excuse for doing whatever they feel like doing.

Eight Bible passages are most frequently used in this debate. They have come to be known as the clobber passages:
● Genesis 19:1–29
● Judges 19:1–30
● Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13
● Romans 1:24–32;
● 1 Corinthians 6:9–10
● 1 Timothy 1:8–11
● Jude 1–25

My focus here is on Paul, so I’ll just note that a great many scholars agree that the “sin of Sodom” (referenced in the Hebrew Bible passages) had nothing to do with homosexuality but with inhospitality. That may sound odd if not absurd today, but ancient cultures valued hospitality to a degree we probably can’t comprehend. (I recommend Walter Wink’s essay for its extended look at the Clobber Passages.)

Let’s look at two New Testament passages (one from the undisputed letters of Paul and the other from the Pastorals, which was more likely written after Paul by his disciples):

“Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9–10).

“Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it legitimately. This means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me” (1 Timothy 1:8–11).

There are two main issues here: (1) challenges associated with translation from ancient Greek; and (2) the common sexual practices of Hellenistic society at the time.

Even a quick comparison of these passages in various translations shows confusion over how to translate two Greek words: arsenokoitai and malakoi.

Arsenokoitai is rendered in various translations and versions as “homosexuals,” “sodomites,” “child molesters,” or “perverts.” Malakoi is rendered in those same Bible translations and versions as “catamites,” “the effeminate,” or “boy prostitutes.” Within the context of these two passages, however, these two Greek words are difficult to translate.

Malakoi is a common term and means “soft.” It can refer to clothing (see Matthew 11:8 as an example) or moral and ethical matters, where the meaning is “undisciplined.” Arsenokoitai is a rarely used word in the ancient Greek language. Its two parts are derived from arseno, which means “man,” and koitai, which can mean “bed,” “lying,” or “having sex with.” One possible meaning derived from joining these two words together is “male prostitutes,” which were common in Gentile (pagan) religions of the time.

These passages from 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians have specific meanings when placed in the context of Greek culture of Paul’s time. Keep in mind that the definition of sexuality in the ancient Mediterranean world was based on (1) unequal social status of the individuals involved and (2) that one had to be dominant and the other submissive [put more crudely, there had to be a penetrator and one being penetrated].

For sexual relations to be considered proper they must satisfy both categories. This was true whether you were talking about male/female relationships or a male/male relationship. Interestingly, because females had no social standing to speak of in the ancient world, hardly anybody (including Bible writers) cared much about female/female relationships.

Chapter 1 of Paul’s Letter to the Romans includes what is probably the single, most-cited passage in his letters condemning same-sex activity (Romans 1:25–27). Although Paul was clearly not approving of that, it’s important first to put that statement in its proper context. Being the good, devout Jew that he was, Paul was most upset with the Gentile’s tendency to commit idolatry.

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth….. Claiming to be wise, they became fools; and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever!” (Romans 1:18, 22-25)

It is obvious that the great sin Paul is speaking of here is idolatry. And how, Paul appears to ask almost incidentally, is that being expressed? Certainly one example is their degrading sexual passions:

“For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done” (vs. 26-28)

Paul doesn’t stop here, however, because his main argument is about idolatry, not just the single (albeit terrible) example of degrading passions:

“They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. They know God’s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die—yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them” (vs. 29-32)

This passage in Romans deals with promiscuity among pagan Gentiles and has nothing to do with faithful relationships among Christian believers. Of course, some of those who use this scripture text today to condemn homosexuals claim homosexuality is really only about sexual promiscuity. But that claim stands up poorly in light of the lives of actual people in the LGBT community. Curiously, some of those who contend that gay marriage is an enormous threat to the sanctity of (heterosexual) marriage have little to say about heterosexuals who practice serial promiscuity, adultery, and spousal abuse.

As Walter Wink noted,
“… the Bible has no sexual ethic…. The Bible knows only a love ethic, which is constantly being brought to bear on whatever sexual mores are dominant in any given country, or culture, or period.”

When we approach this entire issue from the perspective of love rather than law it transforms from “What is permitted?” to “What does it mean to love my neighbor who happens to be gay [or lesbian, bisexual, or transgender]?” Furthermore, when approached from the perspective of spirit rather than the letter of the law it is no longer, “What does scripture command?” In its place is the question, “What is the Word that the Spirit speaks to the churches now, in the light of scripture, tradition, theology, psychology, genetics, anthropology, and biology?”

Community of Christ finds itself in a variety of cultures worldwide, representing numerous worldviews and within nations holding contradictory attitudes and legal codes. There can be no “one size fits all,” but neither can its members and leaders continue to hide behind complexity, whether that be legal, moral, social, psychological, philosophical, or theological.



Among other things, Steve discusses his experiences in bringing the Words of Counsel to the church.  He relates some of the revelatory process as he experienced it and personal insights into the decisions surrounding the document.

I was fortunate enough to be in the Independence area during the last weekend in January, two weeks after the document was presented to the church.  At a last minute decision, I went with my wife and brother-in-law to attend the January 31st Temple Event.  I had no clue what to expect as we went, but it was a very enjoyable and beneficial afternoon.  At the close of the event, the First Presidency held a short worship service to wrap the activities up and send us on our way.  My brother-in-law is quite a bit younger than both my wife and I and had never really been in the Temple before, though a life-long Independence resident.  As we sat in the closing worship service, he was very inquisitive about exactly what was going on and who different people were.  We tried to explain to him about the First Presidency and what they do, and who Steve Veazey was.  He really struggled with these concepts, but ultimately came away with a conclusion along the lines that Steve talks to God on behalf of the Church.  The question asked: “What is a prophet?” really got me thinking and scrambling to try and find a way to answer satisfactorily–but also quietly while the service continued.

After the service was over, the First Presidency vanished quickly as they often do through back doors and the like.  The three of us, after cleaning up spilled trail-mix from the sanctuary floor (not sure who’s idea it was to distribute that right before the worship), headed out into the lobby en route to the parking lot.  Exiting the worshipper’s path in reverse from its typical direction we popped out into the foyer and I noticed Steve, Dave and Becky (the First Presidency) were standing around chatting with people.  I’d met them each before, some more than others, but the thought crossed my mind that my brother-in-law should.  I asked him if he wanted to meet Steve, since he mainly asking questions about Steve.  He blurted out an immediate ‘No’ and tried to take off for the doors.  I grabbed him and did my best to convince him he should atleast shake Steve’s hand, which he really didn’t want to do.  I suspected he was just nervous and/or really shy about strangers in general.  We took him over to Steve, and had to stand in line for a short while waiting our turn.  Every time it seemed we got next in line, the line somehow randomly shifted another way as somebody jumped in on the other side…funny how that seems to happen a lot.

While we waited, my brother-in-law kept leaning back into me, away from Steve.  I held him to keep from sprinting off, but he was lightly pulling away.  Finally when we got up to Steve, I introduced them to each other and Steve held out his hand which he took lightly, gave a brief shake–but remained silent as a tomb.  After a few brief words, just a few seconds, Steve thanked us all for coming and we went on our way.

On the way to the car, he was very, very concerned about what had just happened.  He met Steve Veazey, but now he was really worried.  “He read my mind,” we were informed.  “He’s a mindreader and now he’s going to know I don’t pay attention in church and he’ll tell me to go more.”  Now we understood his hesitancy.  Somehow from our conversation, he believed Steve Veazey – The Prophet – could read minds and that was why he had that position.  It took a while to convince him that wasn’t one of Steve’s “powers,” something I suspect he still wonders if I’m lying to him about to keep him relaxed.  It brings up a couple questions, particularly relevant as we consider a possible new D&C Section revolving around (among other things) the question of revelation and prophets.

What is a prophet?  What is entailed by being the Prophet?  Does the Community of Christ need a prophet, or is it a relic of our past we’re unwilling to trash?  Is Steve Veazey a prophet, by your definition?  How does one become prophet, or how does one (Wally B./Grant) continue living but stop functioning as such?  What defines a “true” prophet vs. a “false” prophet?

In the midst of the lasers and fireballs and dueling electric violins, I was struck by a verse from Ecclesiastes.  While The Preacher might not have intended it to be used this way, it was nonetheless compelling:

What has been is what will be,
and what has been done is what will be done;
there is nothing new under the sun.
Is there a thing of which it is said,
“See, this is new”?
It has already been,
in the ages before us.
Eccl. 1:9-11 (NRSV, emphasis mine)

While there is nothing new under the sun, many try to disguise the ways in which their creations are indebted to another.  Genealogies abound, and ex nihilo is almost always nowhere to be found (at least among humans).  I’m a big fan of hybridity, being a product of and participant in it’s chorus and at times cacophony.  With these loyalties, I am always questioning authenticity, especially when one people claim that their X is pure, essential, original, and best when compared with the less authentic X of an other.

These are the sorts of odd thoughts I have during the liminal periods between semesters.

TSO truly has something unique–an incredible creation in an age when heavy metal and classical music aren’t usually among the popular choices.  They were once described as “Phantom of the Opera meets The Who with Pink Floyd’s light show [and] a little bit of classical [music] thrown in.”  In a word, they are fusion, and unabashedly so.

What on earth does this have to do with Community of Christ?, I imagine my few readers who have continued this far groaning.  Let me tell you (but don’t expect the answer right away): TSO, while not necessarily Christian Rock, might be called Christmasian Rock.  During what was the best concert I’ve ever attended, I was overwhelmed by all of the moving parts that fused together–musically, religiously, and pyrotechnically–to produce their renunciation against war and proclamation of the Prince of Peace.  The show’s message was that the spirit of peace ought to prevail, not just at Christmas, but everyday.

Further, I was struck that, while I was engaged in a sort of worshipful experience during a rock concert, many more traditional persons of the Restoration might cry “foul,” that such worship was inauthentic.  But I was happy to report otherwise, that all of these elements had come together in an amazing way, and had moved me closer to Christ.

Many forget that the Restoration is a fusion, a mash-up, although its creativity is often labeled as inauthentic Christianity by those outside of it.  Yet nothing is new under the sun.  Christianity itself involves the radical (re)creation of other religious, cultural, and ideological elements, until those with the most power determine that the recipe is complete.  In so doing, they deem other ingredients as inauthentic, and those who cook with them as heretical, as having distorted the essential and missing the boat of salvation.

I’ll admit that Christ is the essential, and that it’s very possible to distort Christ, but submit that encountering Christ takes on many forms, for God is interested in reaching many different persons.

Please correct me if I’m wrong (and the comments box is a great place to do it) but I think that we ought to recognize the human creativity involved in the earthly (and thus limited, flawed, and developing) manifestations that are the churches.  Sure, there’s a kingdom of God that’s perfect and eternal, but I have still to meet any human who lives in or represents it.

Any and all of us insist too much if we say that only our way of approaching Christ, thinking about Christ, or organizing Christ’s church is the authentic way, the right way.  I’m not saying that churches shouldn’t guard their message, but that they ought to be careful of drawing lines in the sand over things that are opinions, arbitrary, and flawed; they ought to be careful in claiming too much as the only correct and authentic way, when dealing with those both inside and out of their particular brand of Christianity.

Genuine human encounters with the Divine are creations in time, and as such are always flawed.  We can confirm the Divine reality and truth in Christ, but often fail when needing words to go further–and should we use words, (which we must do or else remain silent), those words are but our flawed efforts.  One need only consider the multiple and seemingly contradictory accounts of the First Vision to realize this, yet each was a true representation, at different points in time, for Joseph Smith.  They were all true, yet all subjective for the Eternal had entered the human realm, and humans are never quite sure what to do with God no matter how confident they might act.  This is one gig that should be up!

Most often the points of contention experienced in the church have very little if anything to do with the concerns that Jesus shared during His mortal ministry.  Something much deeper ought to unite us even when we disagree over particulars—and I submit that that something is Christ, even if we can’t always agree on the particulars of carrying forth his message of peace.

This realization ought to result in celebration of God working in and through some many different persons and ways.  Christians of all types, and certainly those within a particular denomination, ought to have reason to come together even and especially when they disagree–unless, of course, they can’t see the human fusion and creativity involved when humans of all kinds are touched by and respond to God.

I’ll conclude where I started: Paul O’Neill, TSO’s founder, has said:

There’s only one God and he made everybody. When we die, I think he’s really going to care about how we treated our neighbor. There are always people out there who need help. I’ve been asked if I think Christmas is hypocritical in that people treat others so badly for the other 364 days of the year. But the problem is not Christmas. The problem lies in how we treat people the remainder of the year. There’s just something inspiring about Christmas. For one day a year, people just seem to “get it.”

While perhaps not everyone needs to go to a rock concert to catch this vision of treating each other as Jesus would have us treat them, the time has come to “get it” for the rest of the year. In the church, we ought to be most patient with each other, and willing to surrender our assumptions for the good of the body and to the will of God who values all and reaches out to all in different ways and times. This vision of God’s kingdom and Christ’s message of peace we of all people ought to get.

For those of you who want to both get it and rock on, I salute you with the following:

Merry Christmas, and Happy New Year!

INFANT DISCOVERED IN BARN, CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES LAUNCH PROBE
Nazareth Carpenter Being Held On Charges Involving Underage Mother

Bethlehem, Judea – Authorities were today alerted by a concerned citizen who noticed a family living in a barn. Upon arrival, Family Protective Service personnel, accompanied by police, took into protective care an infant child named Jesus, who had been wrapped in strips of cloth and placed in a feeding trough by his 14-year old mother, Mary of Nazareth.

During the confrontation, a man identified as Joseph, also of Nazareth, attempted to stop the social workers. Joseph, aided by several local shepherds and some unidentified foreigners, tried to forestall efforts to take the child, but were restrained by the police.

Also being held for questioning are three foreigners who allege to be wise men from an eastern country. The INS and Homeland Security officials are seeking information about these who may be in the country illegally. A source with the INS states that they had no passports, but were in possession of gold and other possibly illegal substances. They resisted arrest saying that they had been warned by God to avoid officials in Jerusalem and to return quickly to their own country. The chemical substances in their possession will be tested.

The owner of the barn is also being held for questioning. The manager of Bethlehem Inn faces possible revocation of his license for violating health and safety regulations by allowing people to stay in the stable. Civil authorities are also investigating the zoning violations involved in maintaining livestock in a commercially-zoned district.

The location of the minor child will not be released, and the prospect for a quick resolution to this case is doubtful. Asked about when Jesus would be returned to his mother, a Child Protective Service spokesperson said, “The father is middle-aged and the mother definitely underage. We are checking with officials in Nazareth to determine what their legal relationship is.

Joseph has admitted taking Mary from her home in Nazareth because of a census requirement. However, because she was obviously pregnant when they left, investigators are looking into other reasons for their departure. Joseph is being held without bond on charges of molestation, kidnapping, child endangerment, and statutory rape.

Mary was taken to the Bethlehem General Hospital where she is being examined by doctors. Charges may also be filed against her for endangerment. She will also undergo psychiatric evaluation because of her claim that she is a virgin and that the child is from God.

The director of the psychiatric wing said, “I don’t profess to have the right to tell people what to believe, but when their beliefs adversely affect the safety and well-being of others – in this case her child – we must consider her a danger to others. The unidentified drugs at the scene didn’t help her case, but I’m confidant that with the proper therapy regiment we can get her back on her feet.”

A spokesperson for the governor’s office said, “Who knows what was going through their heads? But regardless, their treatment of the child was inexcusable, and the involvement of these others frightening. There is much we don’t know about this case, but for the sake of the child and the public, you can be assured that we will pursue this matter to the end.”

Some aspects of the above story you probably don’t agree with, whether historically or in the retelling, but regardless I thought it an entertaining read.  Enjoy this holiday season however you may be celebrating.

Merry Christmas!

Driving back on 1-70 across the seemingly never-ending fields of Kansas gave me plenty of time to reflect on my whirlwind week of experiences there. We were within walking distance of the epicenter of Mormonism, Temple Square, but the conversations and sessions at Sunstone were anything but mainstream Mormon topics.

I can’t claim to be an expert on Sunstone (for that, you’d have to ask Bill Russell, who has been attending faithfully for thirty years or so) but I came away from the symposium impressed by the openness and camaraderie of the participants and their willingness to unashamedly examine tough issues.

Although attended by many ex-Mormons and others with non-traditional views, Sunstone is not a place to simply bash all things Mormon. Session titles included “Why We Stay” and “Pillars of My Faith,” both examining the significant role the LDS church plays in various people’s lives. Sunstone is, though, a place to confront questions some may be uncomfortable asking.  Nothing’s safe. Homosexuality, women’s issues, perspectives on history—all of these are questioned, prodded, discussed. It’s an open forum, and the participants visibly thrive on it.

I was stunned at some of the heart-wrenching stories I heard there. I listened to stories of separation from a beloved church home (some forced, some voluntary), stories of hurt and genuine belief juxtaposed in one individual. Their courage to share impressed me.

A few months ago, when asked to participate in a session commemorating 25 years since Community of Christ extended priesthood to women by reflecting on my experiences as a young woman in the church, I realized that I didn’t have much to say. I had never seriously thought about these things because the possibility of priesthood has been a reality for me my entire lifetime. My mother is in the priesthood, and so many of the women I knew and respected growing up are also priesthood members. It was normal for me, taken for granted. It was not even an issue. I had been given the luxury to sit back and relax, and I enjoyed it.

I was swept away by a “pacifism” of a different sort—“passivism.”

I am lucky to be part of a church that meets dissent with dialogue instead of silence, where the worth of all persons is upheld. I find a profound comfort in this. But when considering issues that don’t seem to affect me directly, it’s all too easy to let the church’s promises of acceptance and justice speak for me instead of wrestling with hard questions myself. The church’s open approach may shield its members from direct confrontations, but this does not mean our members are immune to pain.

We cannot be passive observers. The kind of dialogue present at Sunstone, while sometimes uncomfortable, is necessary—especially now. I’m a long way from being able to call myself an activist, and I am all too guilty of being the quiet one at the back of the congregation, but I take inspiration from the examples of the people I encountered at Sunstone. These people feel a calling to point out injustices. They share personal, painful experiences. They don’t hesitate to goodheartedly poke fun at their faith’s idiosyncrasies.

I’m sure there are conversations like these going on right now in the Community of Christ, but I’m not exactly sure where to look. Any suggestions?

Wherever they are, I’m looking forward to participating.

(By the way, Community of Christ enjoyed quite the presence at Sunstone this year. Two of our apostles attended, and there was a classy reception sponsored by the Community of Christ. Other members presented papers or sat in on sessions. Props to the church!)

Go here for more information on Sunstone.

MHA invites and actively seeks proposals for complete sessions, panels, and other presentations. While we encourage presentations related to the theme, we also welcome other proposals. While the Program Committee will give preference to complete two or three paper session proposals, individual paper proposals will be considered. Please send an abstract of the paper (no more than 300 words) that outlines your argument and the sources that will be used plus a short CV (no longer than two pages) for each speaker. Previously published papers will not be considered.

The deadline for proposals is October 1, 2009. Proposals should be sent by email to: mhameeting2010@gmail.com. Hard copies of proposals can also be sent to: Susanna Morrill, Lewis & Clark College, MSC 45, 0615 SW Palatine Hill Rd., Portland, OR 97219 or David Howlett, 222 E. Market St. Apt. 32, Iowa City, IA 52245. Notification for acceptance or rejection will be made by January 1, 2010. Additional instructions will be available on the MHA website at http://mhahome.org.

Our conversation then drifted into a discussion of who we would prefer to have in the car with us. Since we began the trip at the Mormon History Association annual conference in Casper, our conversation naturally began with “who in Mormon history (living or deceased) would you like riding shotgun with you on a six hour car ride along 1-80 through Nebraska?”

What would it be like to speak to Emma Smith for six hours, listening to her memories of the early founding events of the church. What did she think of polygamy, Brigham Young, William Law, and others?  What was life like in Nauvoo after the majority travelled west? What questions would you ask Zenas Gurley and William Marks? I think about Sidney Rigdon’s daughter, Nancy, and her Nauvoo experience, Joseph Smith III and his battle to save his father’s legacy, and Alice Smith Edwards. So many incredible people that could easily consume a long ride across the Nebraska plains.

Eventually, we came to the conclusion that one person was impossible to select. The only solution was to fill the back seat with those pillars in church history whom we revere.

I imagined I would be driving our trusty Honda Accord, a vehicle that seats up to five people – allowing four extra passengers for the long trip across Nebraska. Here are my top four traveling companions:

1. Emma Hale Smith Bidamon riding shotgun, of course.

2. Jason Briggs, early founder of the Reorganization

3. Elizabeth Cowdery, Oliver Cowdery’s wife and sister to John and David Whitmer.

4. Ron Romig, Community of Christ archivist. Not only is Ron a genius in the subject of Mormon history, he could easily fill the time with great questions that I would have forgotten to ask. Besides, who doesn’t love Ron Romig?

It’s a challenge to narrow the selection to only four. I would love to talk with Grant McMurray, William Law, James Strang, George Jones Adams, and David Hyrum Smith. I have always been curious about John C. Bennett, William Smith, and William McLellin, but I don’t think we would all make it out alive with those three in the back seat.

Of course, no thought has gone into if these riders would actually get along. My thoughts are purely selfish in nature. The car ride would be more like an interrogation of questions for my poor unsuspecting passengers.

Since that Wyoming road trip, the question has been on my mind for nearly four years. Each time we host a visiting historian or church leader at a staff gathering in Kirtland, I can’t resist asking the Nebraska road trip question during the Q & A period. I believe you can learn a lot about a person by who they choose to ride in their car.

Who in Mormon history (living or deceased) would you like riding shotgun with you on a six hour car ride along 1-80 through Nebraska?