Mormons have a strange relationship with the cross.  We don’t like to show the cross. It is one of the reasons why many say that Mormons aren’t Christian.  When I attended the MHA meetings last year in Independence, I was surprised to see a cross on both the outside and inside of Independence Temple.  Most Mormons find displays of the cross to be distasteful.  On my mission, I remember being asked why Mormons don’t show the cross.  My standard response was that if Christ had been killed by a knife, gun, or electric chair, would we hang one of those weapons around our neck in remembrance.  The cross was a very gruesome, tortured way to die.

But the sign of the cross dates back thousands of years.  Constantine had a dream in which he saw a cross on the sun, and felt this was a sign that he should merge with Christianity.  He outfitted his army with the cross in a major battle, and won the empire.  Christianity became the official religion of the empire.  The cross is synonymous with traditional Christianity.  Mormons rejection of the cross causes other Christians to question our Christianity.

But since the atheists are attacking the cross, Mormons are coming down on the side of the cross.  LDS member and state Senator Carl Wimmer of Herriman, Utah plans to introduce a bill to allow the crosses to stay.  It should be noted that the Supreme Court seems to have had some conflicting opinions on whether crosses constitute a state-sponsored form of religious preference.

Quoting from the Deseret News article,

Past high court rulings on the issue have “confounded the lower courts and rendered the constitutionality of displays of religious imagery on government property anyone’s guess,” [Justice Clarence Thomas] wrote.

Thomas suggested the case would have been a good vehicle for a major review and revision of Establishment Clause jurisprudence. “It is hard to imagine an area of the law more in need of clarity,” he wrote. The court “should not now abdicate our responsibility to clean up our mess.”

[Utah Attorney General Mark] Shurtleff agrees.

“I’m upset at our Supreme Court for not taking the case,” he said. “They clearly need to resolve a question that differs depending on where you live in the country.”

The appeals court decision, he said, applies to the six states in the 10th circuit — Oklahoma, Kansas, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming and Utah — making crosses illegal in those states, but permissible in every other state.

But Barnard [attorney representing the atheist group] said the case is limited to Utah.

“There are no similar government approved displays or memorial programs for law enforcement officers in other states,” he said. No other states allow similar large crosses with state emblems in front of the state offices.”

I know that the Community of Christ has a cross on their temple, and I know most Mormons don’t like the cross on their temple, feeling they are too cozy with Protestantism.  I also wonder if representative Wimmer’s response is more against the atheists, than it is in support of the cross.  What’s your take?

Why do LDS leaders spend so much time looking at white shirts, beards, and short hair?

Apparently, General Authorities really care about how we look, even if some of the local leaders don’t want to make a fuss about it.  My former bishop told me a very interesting story about our stake president.  The stake president was called by Elder C of the Quorum of the Seventy.  Typically, the person that ordains a stake president never returns to the stake.  Well, apparently Elder C told our stake president that there were too many blue shirts and too much facial hair in our stake when he ordained our stake president.

A few years later, Elder C returned.  He reminded our stake president that he would be checking for beards, white shirts, and long hair.  Apparently, our stake president was quite nervous.  Now, if we are to emulate Jesus in all ways, why do the General Authorities care about facial hair?

Apparently, the stake president is following Elder C’s advice.  In my new ward, I’m the home teacher to a guy with really long hair and a goatee.  (I’ll call him Jeff.)  This guy is a great guy, got married in the Salt Lake Temple, comes to church every week, and honestly one of my best friends at church.  I learned that he was asked to be the Elder’s quorum secretary a few months ago.  When interviewed by the stake president, he accepted the calling.  Apparently the stake president told the bishop to tell Jeff to cut his hair.  Jeff refused, so they called someone else to be the Elder’s quorum secretary.  Now Jeff is the Sunday School 2nd counselor.  Apparently the bishop felt that Jeff’s long hair was not an impediment to serving.

As we discussed this, we talked about how stupid the grooming standards are.  Both Jeff and I have a goatee.  I previously served in the bishopric with my goatee (albeit I was merely Membership clerk), under this same stake president.  Then Jeff showed me a wedding photo of his outside the Salt Lake Temple with the former bishop.  The bishop had a moustache.

So, the Elder’s quorum president felt inspired to call Jeff.  The Stake President found Jeff worthy to serve.  Why is long hair a disqualifier?  I don’t understand why LDS leaders look at the shirt, while God looks at the heart, do you?

I think what happened is what’s happening in government today, as I see it now, thirty years later.  For example, the Supreme Court is supposed to determine the constitutionality of a law, but very gradually, the Supreme Court starts to make the law.  That’s what is happening to correlation.  Correlation creates nothing.  That’s the process.  It has no authority to make a statement that creates a position or direction.  That’s totally out of harmony with what President McKay set up.  Brother Lee understood that, and carried it out.  Since the 1970s, I’ve seen the drift, where correlation is now telling me, if I write something to get through correlation, “You can’t say that.”  And I write back and say, “Why?”  And they say, “Well, because we think this is the interpretation.”  And I write back and say, “You’re not the interpreter.”…And that’s where we got lost.  Today, I see correlation, like the Supreme Court, becoming more and more the originator of the thought, rather than the coordinator of the thought….So, while I think correlation is good, I think it’s gone past its original commission.

I think one of the reasons why the church has decided to focus on “the basics” is because it is the “safe” thing to do.  Correlation doesn’t want to deal with controversial theology.  It seems to me that Correlation is all about “dumbing down” the curriculum, because it is easier to deal with.  It is much harder to deal with controversial comments from previous leaders.  So, in order to be safe, correlation removes such hard to explain topics.  (I mean, who can really argue about the need to pray more, read the scriptures, do service, etc?)  Hence, spiritual growth isn’t nearly as vibrant as it used to be.  Only milk is served, without meat, causing spiritual malnutrition.

So, what do you make of Correlation?  Do Paul Dunn’s comments bother you?  Is Correlation too much of a good thing?  Do you think Correlation can ever be restrained, or reversed?

A few weeks ago on KSL, Carole Mikita interviewed a Muslim leader here in Utah.  She asked him what he thought of this idea to build a mosque near Ground Zero.  He said he thought it was a terrible idea.  He said they can build a mosque in many places, and thought it was quite insensitive for these Muslims to incite a controversy there.

As a Mormon, we have had plenty of problems with protests about churches or temples being built.  The Boston Temple was prohibited from building a steeple for quite some time because the steeple was considered too tall.  (It was eventually constructed, but the church was forced to reduce the size of the steeple.)  Many groups have protested the buildings of new temples for a variety of reasons.  My sister lives in Colorado, and 2 Mormon churches sit side by side because the owner of a subdivision refused to allow any churches to be zoned in a particularly large subdivision.  (As I recall, the owner was either a tobacco or alcohol owner that wanted to make sure no Mormon churches were built in the subdivision–so he excluded all churches.  How is this legal?)

I appreciate this Muslim leader’s pragmatism.  I too wonder why Muslims in New York aren’t more sensitive to the issue.  On the other hand, I don’t understand how any Mormon can support a ban on religious construction, given that we have had so many problems with constructing churches or temples.  As a matter of principle, I can’t see how it is constitutional to support a ban on a Muslim mosque anywhere.  What are your thoughts?

Edit on 10/3/2010

I thought it would be interesting to show photos of 2 Muslim women supporting this project.  Daisy Khan and her husband are trying to build at the controversial site.  Azar Nafisi escaped Iran’s regime, and wrote a controversial book.

I know looks can be deceiving, but I think these are the kinds of Muslims we should support.  From their speech, I could tell they want the same principles I want.  I think it is a mistake to characterize all Muslims as violent.    They were articulate Americans, and deserve the same rights you and I have.  I am more in favor of the mosque than I was earlier.  If we turn these moderate Muslims down, we further antagonize the Jihadists.  These are the people we should support.  If we can’t support these people, we hurt ourselves.

LDS president Thomas S. Monson and his two counselors permitted Standing Together, an alliance of 90 Utah evangelical churches, to use the historic Salt Lake City Tabernacle for a September 13 revival meeting. Throngs of evangelicals and Mormons enjoyed gospel songs and prayed together.

This is pretty remarkable.  While I know that church leaders allowed non-Mormon leaders to preach in the Tabernacle in the 1800′s, it has been quite a while since that has ever happened.

Vujicic’s appearance was preceded in 2004 by LDS officialdom’s remarkable go-ahead for an address in the Tabernacle by well-known apologist Ravi Zacharias. His theologically orthodox presentation of Christianity, which some Mormons attended, was overshadowed by Mouw’s introduction. He declared that “we evangelicals have often seriously misrepresented” Mormon beliefs and practices. “We have sinned against you,” he said.

Wow.  Of course other evangelicals disagreed.  Even still, that quote deserves a big WOW.

Here is an interesting poll.  (I’ve changed formatting.)

Are Mormons Christian? How Christian groups answer the question?

All Americans

Yes 52%
Don’t know 17%
No 31%

Mainline Protestants

Yes 62%
Don’t know 15%
No 23%

Catholics

Yes 52%
Don’t know 19%
No 29%

Black Protestants

Yes 43%
Don’t know 27%
No 30%

Evangelical Protestants

No 45%
Yes 40%
Don’t know 15%

Hmmm, there certainly is a divide between Mormons and Evangelicals.  Does any of this surprise you?

Here are some other articles concerning Mormons at Christianity Today.  What do you think specifically about this article about Richard Dutcher’s movie, “States of Grace“?

I have completed my course work for a Masters in Military History from Norwich University and I am looking for employment as a Professor of History. I have presented papers on Napoleonic warfare and published papers about Asian and Book of Mormon Warfare. My research interests include the above topics, the American Civil War, the application of military theory, ancient warfare, and medieval warfare.

Morgan recently sent a scholarly paper to the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, but it was not accepted.  Well their loss is our gain!  Morgan asked if I might be willing to talk about it, so you can download it here! (It’s 11 pages.) I always love to read interesting perspectives, and Morgan has an interesting perspective on Alma 56:28.

And also there were sent two thousand men unto us from the land of Zarahemla. And thus we were prepared with ten thousand men, and provisions for them, and also for their wives and their children.

Morgan states, “it seems strange that soldiers would travel with their families into a war zone, and begs the question of why Helaman included that detail in his letter.”  I won’t spoil the answer for you–you need to download the paper to find out why.  So, after reading the paper, what do you think of Morgan’s analysis?  Personally, I found it fascinating, and I also want to highly recommend his blog.  It is evident that he really puts a lot of thought into his work.  I expect Morgan will drop by, so if you can give some input here, I’m sure it will be well appreciated.

This blog came about because I wanted to ask provocative questions that I didn’t feel safe to do in church.  So, anonymity has helped me be more truthful than I otherwise would be inclined to be in public.  I will also admit that on occasion, my temper has gotten the best of me, and perhaps I have left some comments on other blogs that could have been phrased in a more polite manner.

I came across this article at MSNBC which talks about Anonymous behavior, both the good and bad (although it concentrates more on the bad.)  So, is anonymity a good thing, a bad thing, or both?

It’s always refreshing to me when I discover similar attitudes in other religions.  This article on MSNBC:  Does God care who wins the Super Bowl? even references the Holy War…  Here are some quotes from the article I found particularly interesting.

Does God care that Kurt Warner, the quarterback of the Arizona Cardinals, is more likely to be spotted carrying his bible than his playbook? Does God care that Ben Roethlisberger, Warner’s counterpart in Super Bowl XLIII this Sunday, used to adorn his armbands with the letters “PFJ”, an acronym for “Playing For Jesus” ….?

Last month, Oklahoma quarterback Sam Bradford became only the second sophomore to win the Heisman Trophy. Less than 10 seconds after taking the podium, Bradford, speaking before a national television audience, declared, “First, I need to thank God. He’s given me so many blessings. … Without him I’d be nowhere. We’d all be nowhere.”

What if a player thanked another deity?

what if some Cardinal or Steeler were to be named Most Valuable Player come Sunday and lead off his interview in front of the entire world, by saying, “I’d just like to thank L. Ron Hubbard and the church of Scientology?” Or, “I’d just like to express gratitude to my dark lord Beelzebub?”

Would such a sentiment be blasphemous? To whom? To proponents of Christianity, perhaps, but certainly not to proponents of the First Amendment.

Before Jesus there was the Old Testament, and before sport there was war. Did not the Israelite youth David slay the Philistine giant Goliath invoking God’s name?

Was David sport’s first trash-talker? It ain’t braggin’ if you can back it up.

This Sunday, hundreds of millions of people worldwide will tune in, with great interest and fervor, to watch a game with an outcome that has no direct bearing on their lives (unless they took Arizona plus the points). People will hug, they will cry, they will cheer, they will wreak unconscionable havoc on automobiles, based solely on the outcome of this game.

And religion is the opiate of the masses? Or is sport the new religion?

Two seasons ago, Brigham Young trailed archrival Utah — in a game denizens refer to as the “Holy War” — by a score of 10-9 with just over a minute remaining. At stake was the Mountain West Conference title. Facing fourth-and-18, Cougars quarterback Max Hall connected with wideout Austin Collie for a 49-yard completion.

BYU won 17-10, and afterward, Collie, a devout Mormon, told a radio reporter, “When you’re doing what’s right on and off the field, I think the Lord steps in and plays a part. Magic happens.”

Collie was widely excoriated in print for his comment, but did not back down. “I believe the Lord has truly blessed me,” Collie said. “It’s the reason why I’m playing football, and if you don’t believe that, the next time you receive an award, then don’t say you want to thank God first for your success. That is the same exact thing. For people to make an issue out of saying that the Lord helps me out is ludicrous.”

This past season Collie led the nation in receiving yards per game.

There’s a common thread that links Warner and Roethlisberger and Bradford and McCoy and Tebow and even Collie. Besides their football success, that is. All of them play glamour positions, playing relatively non-violent roles in a highly violent game.

What if Pittsburgh Steelers safety Ryan Clark, who laid out Baltimore Ravens running back Willis McGahee with a vicious fourth quarter hit in the AFC Championship Game, had pointed heavenward after delivering that blow? McGahee lay motionless on the field, but then again, Clark had caused a Super Bowl-clinching fumble.

If Clark had publicly thanked God for that moment, would that have been in any poorer taste than McCoy pointing skyward after tossing a touchdown pass?

I really think God has more important things to worry about than the winner of a football game.  Comments?

I’m a grad student working on some genetic studies (one of my many jobs).  As part of the genetic study we are doing, we have our study participants tell us their race.  In medical studies, different treatments can affect different races quite dramatically.

I’m designing a database to capture the information for the study.  Many people don’t identify as just one race.  Some are multi-racial, and even put percentages on their forms, such as 50% white, 25% hispanic, 25% black.  So, I was asking questions about how to properly capture the data.

I learned that there are 5 basic races:  White (Caucausian), Black, Asian, Native American, and Pacific Islander.  As I have discussed on this blog before, genetic studies show that Native Americans are related to Asian peoples.  Simon Southerton seems to have shown that peoples migrated across the Bering Strait, and settled the americas.  But according to one of the genetic specialists (I’ll call her Ann) in my office, there is still a big enough difference between Native Americans to separate them from Asians.  Same goes for Pacific Islanders.

It seems that many people often refer to the Jewish race, or the Arab race.  In some of our previous posts, we talked about the “Cohen” gene, which is a distinguishing gene among people of Jewish descent.  So I asked Ann what race Jews were, and she said “Caucasian.”  She said there is some interesting distinguishing characteristics of Jews, but not so much to call them a separate race.  I asked about Arabs?  “Caucasian.”  Ok, what about people from India?  “Caucasian.”  This one really surprised me (as if the others ones didn’t.)  I would have suspected India Indians to be Asian, but that is wrong.

Hispanic is the truly confusing one, because there are black hispanics, and white hispanics.  If a person is a black hispanic, genetically they are black.  Otherwise, they are Caucasian.

I was truly intrigued to learn all of this.  Then to top it off, I discovered Ann was from Iran.  (She told me it is pronounced ear-ron, not eye-ran, so I will endeavor to pronounce it properly from this point forward.)  Now, I just couldn’t resist asking more questions.

I told her that I had heard that Iranians are not Arabs, and that I never really understood that.  To me, it always seemed like anyone from the Middle East was an Arab.  If Iranians are not Arabs, what are they, and what distinguishes an Arab?

She told me that they refer to themselves as Persians.  I had a college professor who had told me he was Persian, and when I asked him where that was, he said “Iraq.”  So, I asked her if Iraqi’s were also Persians.  She was surprised to hear me tell her than an Iraqi claimed to be Persian, but then decided that it was possible, and then gave me a history lesson.

Persia was once much larger than it is now, and was centered in Iran.  Around 600 AD, the Arabs from Saudi Arabia expanded their kingdom and conquered Persia, converting everyone to Islam.  (Prior to that, the Persian religion was Zoroastrianism.)  Even though the Persians converted to Islam, they never liked the Arab rulers, and a few hundred years later, overthrew them and installed their own kings.

I asked about the differences between Sunni and Shiite (or Shia) muslims.  Shia muslims follow a direct lineage through to the prophet Muhammed.  Sunni’s believe that clerics do not have to be genetically related to Muhammed.  The Sunni line is larger than Shia.  Iran is really the only nation primarily Shia.  Iraq and Sadaam Hussein were ruled by the minority Sunni, but it appears that the Shiite majority is taking control of the government, so there could be a 2nd Shiite nation.  Most other Middle Eastern countries are Sunni.  Perhaps Persia is coming back into existence!

Anyway, Ann told me that Iranians hate to be referred to as Arabs, and identify much more with Europeans.  She told me that Afghanis feel the same way.  She said she knew Americans had a hard time telling the difference, but that people in that part of the world can easily tell the difference between a Persian and an Arab.

Ann has been in America for about a year.  Prior to that, she lived in France.  She said she really liked Utah, and culturally, felt that Utah was quite similar to Iran.  She said families are very important in Iran, and very important in Utah.  She said France was much more secular, and the people weren’t as nice.  (I’ve vacationed in France, and didn’t think they were very nice either.)

Anyway, it was a truly fascinating conversation!  I actually knew a little about Zoroastrianism.  For example,  the star at Jesus birth was discovered by the Wise Men from the East.  Some scholars believe that the Wise Men believed in Zoroastrianism.  (I plan a topic on this as we get closer to Christmas–it is a fascinating topic to me.)  Ann was surprised to hear this.  I also know that there is a mountain in Saudi Arabia called Jebel-Musa which means Mount of Moses.  Some muslim and christian scholars believe that this may be the true location of Mount Sinai, and I think there is some pretty intriguing evidence to support that claim.  (Ann didn’t know that either.)  Anyway, I plan some future posts on that topic as well.

So, did anyone know the difference between a Persian and an Arab?  Do you have any other interesting things to add?