1. Please review the account of Korihor in Alma 30.

2. True or false: Korihor was a religious freedom advocate battling an oppressive central government.

3. What does your answer in #2 say about these areas? Pick a few, and elaborate:

-The role of religion in public life
-The place of religious freedom claims
-Free speech and its potential limitations
-Popular conceptions about the proper role of government in 1830 (or in 2011)
-Democracy, theocracy, and Zion
-Any related topics of interest

Welcome to the group, Rachel!

Starting immediately and until further notice, all Priesthood leadership in the United States at the ward, stake, and general level will be drawn solely from African-American church members. This will provide additional incentive for members of this group to attend church. It is not a disproportionate advantage for African-Americans (nor a disadvantage for white church members) because of course all church leadership callings are simply opportunities for service. We are happy to provide our African-American members with this opportunity for service, and are confident that they will serve well in leadership callings. Other church members may continue to serve in non-leadership roles, including Scout callings and the activities committee.”

Discuss.

Rachel got her bachelor’s in geology (and a husband) at BYU. She lived in San Diego and on the North Shore of Long Island before returning to Provo. Now that her husband teaches at BYU, she gets to take all the classes that she wanted to take as an undergrad, but couldn’t fit into her schedule. (So far, that’s been mostly philosophy and anthropology courses, because what could be more fun than spending a semester reading David Hume?)

She has been a stay at home mom for a decade, and she notes that “I’ve found time to explore a variety of crafts that I would never had time to consider had I continued working full time. I’ve learned to sew, weave, knit, design clothes and costumes, and reupholster furniture. I’ve learned to cook real food from scratch, bake bread, and garden. I’ve been a yoga teacher, preschool assistant, and public school volunteer, but most expertise I have, I’ve gained through the day to day work of hearth and home.”

Rachel recently began blogging at the excellent LDS Earth Stewardship blog (just trying to change how we interact with the earth, one lowly blog post at a time), where her posts cover a variety of green Mormonism topics, and her bio notes that she has not used a can of “cream of whatever” soup in over a decade.

We’re looking forward to her posts. Welcome, Rachel!

Church views have changed substantially regarding causes of homosexuality. In 1969, then-apostle and future prophet Spencer W. Kimball published The Miracle of Forgiveness, in which he stated that homosexuality was caused by masturbation.[2] This book, which echoed his 1964 talk “Love versus Lust,” received widespread circulation among the LDS population.[3] The idea of masturbation as a cause of homosexuality was mentioned again in the 1992 church pamphlet Understanding and Helping Those Who Have Homosexual Problems: Suggestions for Ecclesiastical Leaders, which makes the more limited statement that masturbation “intensifies sexual urges, making it difficult for the person to overcome homosexual problems.”[3] The church appears to have abandoned that claim. The idea does not appear anywhere in the church’s latest official statement, “God Loveth His Children.”[4]

Similarly, the past fifty years show significant change in the areas of naturalness, disease, and curability. The 1970s were filled with a variety of statements about homosexuality as disease, as curable, and as definitely not natural. In 1970, the church published Hope for Transgressors, a pamphlet which explicitly endorsed “therapy” programs designed to “cure” people of homosexuality.[5] In 1971, the church published New Horizons for Homosexuals, a pamphlet which stated that the idea that homosexual individuals were “born that way” was “a base lie.” It repeatedly referred to homosexuality as a disease, but also stated that homosexuality “is curable.”[6]

Elder Boyd K. Packer gave the most extensive attack on the idea that homosexuality might be innate in his 1978 talk “To the One,” [7] where he stated,

There appears to be a consensus in the world that it is natural, to one degree or another, for a percentage of the population. Therefore, we must accept it as all right. However, when you put a moral instrument on it, the needle immediately flips to the side labeled “wrong.” It may even register “dangerous.” If there has been heavy indulgence, it registers clear over to “spiritually destructive.”

The answer: It is not all right. It is wrong! It is not desirable; it is unnatural; it is abnormal; it is an affliction. When practiced, it is immoral. It is a transgression. . . . Do not be misled by those who whisper that it is part of your nature and therefore right for you. That is false doctrine!

The church has also moved away from that language. In 1995, Elder Dallin H. Oaks stated that “Some kinds of feelings seem to be inborn. Others are traceable to mortal experiences. Still other feelings seem to be acquired from a complex interaction of “nature and nurture.” All of us have some feelings we did not choose, but the gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us that we still have the power to resist and reform our feelings (as needed) and to assure that they do not lead us to entertain inappropriate thoughts or to engage in sinful behavior.”[8] Elder Packer gave a talk in 2010 suggesting that God would not let individuals be born gay, but the print version retracted that claim.[9]

Meanwhile, attitudes about homosexual thoughts, as well as “therapy” to cure gayness, are also notable. As Joanna Brooks has discussed in her post about the church handbook, homosexual thoughts are no longer considered sinful. Also, references to “cure” therapy have been removed.[10]

Another area of significant change is the idea that gay and lesbian individuals are created by bad parenting. As Connell O’Donovan notes, this was an extremely common theme in past decades. In 1974, Elder N. Eldon Tanner blamed homosexuality on “poor example set by leaders in homes and communities.”[11] This was repeated in 1975 in an Ensign article by BYU instructor Victor Brown, which stated that “parents need to know that lack of proper affection in the home can result in unnatural behavior in their children such as homosexuality or inability to be an effective parent when the time comes.”[12] Also in 1975, church apostle and future prophet Gordon B. Hinckley wrote in the Ensign about counseling a gay man, “We talked of the influences that had put him where he is, of the home from which he came, of associations with other young men, of books and magazines read, of shows seen.”[13] J. Richard Clarke of the Presiding Bishopric articulated the view most strongly in 1977 in the Ensign: “It should go without saying that many of these problems would be alleviated if parents would spend more time teaching and rearing their children. Related to the story that I gave at the beginning of my talk is evidence of a clinical researcher who, after studying 850 individual cases, stated: “Homosexuality would not occur where there is a normal, loving father-and-son relationship.” Any of our people living in righteousness would normally avoid being involved in these problems.”[14] And apostle and future prophet Ezra Taft Benson wrote in 1982 in the Ensign that “Today we are aware of great problems in our society. The most obvious are sexual promiscuity, homosexuality, drug abuse, alcoholism, vandalism, pornography, and violence. These grave problems are symptoms of failure in the home—the disregarding of principles and practices established by God in the very beginning.”[15]

This idea began to wane around 1990. In particular, the church’s 1992 pamphlet stated directly that gay children were not the fault of bad parenting: “Be careful not to blame family members for choices made by a person with homosexual problems. Parents are especially inclined to blame themselves for the problems of a son or daughter.”[16]

Elder Packer’s 1978 talk also attacked gays and lesbians as selfish, and said that selfishness is the cause of homosexuality.[17] This claim also appears to have been abandoned.

The past few decades also show major changes in ideas about how to interact with gay and lesbian individuals. For instance, the New Horizons pamphlet repeatedly endorsed criminal laws against homosexual acts. And it asserted that gay men would abandon their partners once they were no longer young and attractive.[18]

Also, in 1976, apostle Boyd K. Packer gave a talk which [EDIT] contained an ambiguous anecdote endorsing violent reactions under some (unclear) circumstances.[19] The talk was reprinted as a pamphlet and was distributed widely.

The church has absolutely moved away from that stance. In 2005, Elder Oaks explicitly stated that physical attacks on LGBT individuals were wrong.[20] Recent statements from President Hinckley[21] and the church’s 2007 pamphlet[22] also make clear that the church certainly does not condone anti-gay violence. The church also appears to no longer endorse the criminalization of homosexual behavior. And the claims that gay men will abandon their elderly partners have also been abandoned.

The church’s views on Domestic Partner rights have also changed significantly.[23] Early statements opposed these rights. in a 2006 interview between the LDS Newsroom and Elders Dallin H. Oaks and Lance B. Wickman which was explicitly intended to”help clarify the Church’s stand”, Elder Wickman vocally opposed domestic partner rights for same-sex couples, stating that “If you have some legally sanctioned relationship with the bundle of legal rights traditionally belonging to marriage and governing authority has slapped a label on it, whether it is civil union or domestic partnership or whatever label it’s given, it is nonetheless tantamount to marriage. That is something to which our doctrine simply requires us to speak out and say, ‘That is not right. That’s not appropriate.’”[24] However, the church reversed its position in the August 2008 Divine Institution of Marriage press release, stating that “The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.”[25] Since then, the church has even endorsed Salt Lake City’s law protecting same-sex couples.[26]

Finally, the past few decades have seen a major shift in church attitudes, as numerous publications have emphasized God’s love for LGBT people. President Gordon B. Hinckley was a key in this shift, as he repeatedly stated that God loves LGBT people.[27] Similar statements are found in statements like Elder Holland’s 2007 Ensign article, Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction.[28] Recent comments by Elder Uchtdorf follow the same theme.[29]

The recent church-issued pamphlet God Loveth His Children may be the most high-profile statement along these lines.[30] The publication of the pamphlet led to an Oakland Tribune article in 2007, titled “Mormon Church Changes Stance on Homosexuality.”[31] In that article, religion reporter Rebecca Rosen Lum wrote that:

The Mormon church has quietly moved further from defining homosexuality as evil and the result of faulty parenting. An unheralded new church publication, “God Loveth His Children,” says gay feelings are neither learned nor chosen, and it counsels against rejecting a gay child. Seemingly aimed at young people, the statement gently counsels individuals who feel attraction to and love for same-gender people to trust in God’s plan and not act upon the transitory desires of mortal life — a period of “probation during which we face a variety of temptations and challenges.” It repeatedly warns against feelings of guilt: “Attractions alone do not make you unworthy. If you avoid immoral thoughts and actions, you have not transgressed even if you feel such an attraction.” It also says: “The Lord’s command to ‘forgive all men’ includes the requirement to forgive yourself.”

Spokesmen for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would not say what led the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and the First Presidency — the two highest governing bodies of the Church — to publish the pamphlet at the end of July. “I dont know either,” said Jan Shipps, a scholar and historian specializing in Mormons. But its placement on the church’s Web site makes clear “that it would have to have been approved by the general authorities of the LDS Church.”

Those close to the Mormon Church say the publication is neither the result of a religious revelation nor a policy change. “This represents a continuation of a direction they began going in several years ago,” said Terry [sic] Givens, the author of four books on Mormonism and a religion professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia. A 1974 church pamphlet excoriated homosexuality as evil and castigated parents of gays for having raised their children poorly. By 1992, a new teaching suggested that biological factors could be at work.

It is clear that we are seeing evolving LDS views on homosexuality. Over the course of the past three decades, the church’s stance has evolved from virulently anti-gay and homophobic, to its current soft-heterosexist approach of “love the gays, hate the gayness.” It is a limited sort of shift, as the changes have largely involved rhetoric and attitude, while many of the underlying church doctrines have remained relatively constant. There have been some recent setbacks in rhetoric regarding Proposition 8, but even the most charged official statements about Proposition 8 focused on perceived legal or political consequences, not on more personal claims such as bad parenting of gay individuals or predictions that gay people would be abandoned in old age.[32]

As gay LDS blogger Ty Mansfield told the Salt Lake Tribune, “We’re going to be hearing more and more statements like [Elder Uchtdorf's], calling church members to a greater expression of compassion and kindness. Doctrine will remain the same, but we’ll see a pretty radical shift in the culture of the church in how we relate both to the issue of same-sex attraction and to those who experience homosexual feelings. We’ve made some significant strides over the last few years, and I think this is only the beginning.”[33]

–

[Note: I moved a few cites, and my supras all went to hell. I'm just going to post as is. It's not that hard to locate the supra notes.]

[1] Some of the points I note here were mentioned in an earlier blog post at Doves and Serpents. In addition, many of these and other statements have been collected by Connell O’Donovan in his article The Etiology of Homosexuality from Authoritative Latter-day Saint Perspectives, 1879-2006.
[2] Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness 77-78 (1969).
[3] Spencer W. Kimball, Love vs Lust, January 1965. (1975 reprint available here.)
[4] See God Loveth His Children (2007). I believe that masturbation-origin claims were last made in 1980 (in Spencer W. Kimball, “President Kimball Speaks out on Morality.”)
[5] See “Hope for Transgressors,” copy available here.
[6] See “New Horizons for Homosexuals,” copy available here.
[7] Boyd K. Packer, “To the One,” 1978.
[8] Dallin H. Oaks, “Same-Gender Attraction,” 1995.
[9] See discussion of Elder Packer’s talk at http://mormonsformarriage.com/?p=299 . The official church position is that the changes were clarifications.
[10] See Joanna Brooks, Homosexual Thoughts and Feelings Not a Sin, Says New LDS Handbook.
[11] N. Eldon Tanner, “Why Is My Boy Wandering Tonight?”, Ensign, Nov. 1974, p. 84. This paragraph is drawn from O’Donovan, supra note 1.
[12] Victor L. Brown, “Two Views of Sexuality”, Ensign, July 1975, p. 50.
[13] Gordon B. Hinckley, “Opposing Evil”, Ensign, November 1975, p. 38
[14] J. Richard Clarke, “Ministering to Needs through LDS Social Services”, Ensign, May 1977, p. 85
[15] Ezra Taft Benson, “Fundamentals of Enduring Family Relationships”, Ensign November 1982, p. 59. This talk was reprinted in 1992 as well.
[16] See “Understanding and Helping Those who have Homosexual Problems” (1992). The 1992 pamphlet also moved away from prior advice that gay men should cure their gayness by marrying. It stated: “Marriage should not be viewed as a way to resolve homosexual problems. The lives of others should not be damaged by entering a marriage where such concerns exist.”
[17] Packer, To the One, supra note **
[18] New Horizons, supra note **
[19] Boyd K. Packer, To Young Men Only, 1978. As I have discussed previously on blog, the meaning of the talk is controversial, and there are other potential interpretations. The permission to beat up a gay man is clear. What Packer leaves unclear is the circumstances in which this kind of behavior would be permissible.
[20] Oaks, supra note **. Elder Oaks stated that “our doctrines obviously condemn those who engage in so-called “gay bashing”–physical or verbal attacks on persons thought to be involved in homosexual or lesbian behavior.”
[21] Hinckley, supra note **
[22] See God Loveth His Children, supra note **
[23] I discussed this in a prior blog post.
[24] LDS Newsroom, “Same-Gender Attraction,” 2006.
[25] LDS Newsroom, “The Divine Institution of Marriage,” August 13, 2008.
[26] See Jennifer Dobner, “Salt Lake City Oks Gay Rights Laws with Mormon Backing,” Huffington Post, November 11, 2009.
[27] See, e.g., Gordon B. Hinckley, Stand Strong Against the Wiles of the World, Ensign, November 1995. President Hinckley stated that “Our hearts reach out to those who struggle with feelings of affinity for the same gender. We remember you before the Lord, we sympathize with you, we regard you as our brothers and our sisters. However, we cannot condone immoral practices on your part any more than we can condone immoral practices on the part of others.”
[28] Jeffrey R. Holland, Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction, Ensign October 2007.
[29] Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf, comments at the 24 October, 2010 Tooele/West Salt Lake Regional Conference. See discussion at Peggy Fletcher Stack, “High-ranking LDS leader weighs in on same-sex attraction,” Salt Lake Tribune, October 29, 2010.
[30] See God Loveth His Children, supra note **
[31] Rebecca Rosen Lum, “Mormon Church Changes Stance on Homosexuality,” Oakland Tribune, __ 2007. A variety of other news reporters have similarly noted and discussed the change, including Peggy Fletcher Stack of the Salt Lake Tribune. http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=6486440&itype=NGPSID&keyword=&qtype=
[32] The full extent of LDS statements on Prop 8 is beyond the scope of this post. A summary can be found in Kaimipono D. Wenger, The Church’s Use of Secular Arguments, in Six Voices on Proposition 8: A Roundtable, 42 Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 99 (2009).
[33] See Stack, supra note ** (citing Mansfield).

In LDS communities, where lay congregational leaders have positions analogous to those of priests, pastors, and rabbis, news of Mayne’s calling is having an impact, revealing continuing divisions among Mormons and questions about evolving Mormon views on homosexuality.

There is, in fact, no consensus Mormon view on homosexuality. While most Mormons view homosexual sexual activity as a sin, Church leaders have expressed divergent perspectives on LGBT issues, ranging from condemnatory and derisive to ameliorative and compassionate.

In response, non-LDS blogger Terry Mattingly at Get Religion wrote a snarky and condescending post accusing Brooks of bad journalism:

You know that whole asking-questions thing that journalists are supposed to do as part of their work?

You know, that thing where the journalist tries to ask the obvious, logical questions and then prints what people — especially people whose training and experience yield on-the-record, authoritative information — have to say that is relevant to the story?

This process is especially important when dealing with issues that push people’s buttons and cause conflict in large, symbolic, even controversial groups. When these conflicts exist, it’s especially crucial to talk to people on both sides — on the record.

Religion Dispatches ran a story last weekend that demonstrates what happens when this process breaks down or, worse, is ignored.

Mattingly went on to attack Brooks’ statement about evolving views on homosexuality, and compared her unfavorably with Peggy Fletcher Stack. Of course, veteran reporter Peggy Fletcher Stack makes lots of us look bad in comparison. And Mattingly’s piece made some good points (citation and clarity are always helpful); however, it did so with over-the-top and condescending language.

Then Mattingly’s post was cited favorably, first by Lyman Kirkland at the LDS Newsroom and then by Joseph Walker at the Deseret News. (The LDS links were somewhat surprising, given the provocative photograph Mattingly used to illustrate his post.) In the DesNews article, Brooks was described as “a writer,” with no mention of her name or the fact that she is a lifelong church member. The LDS Newsroom article didn’t mention Brooks at all, referring simply to “a blog post in a publication called Religion Dispatches.” (The Newsroom also linked to Mattingly’s post only, not to Brooks’).

Should the LDS Newsroom be endorsing a snarky attack on Joanna Brooks for her claim that LDS views on homosexuality are evolving? I don’t believe it should. As I document extensively in a companion post, it is absolutely true that the past several decades have seen major changes in LDS statements on homosexuality. In fact, these changes have led other reporters to similar conclusions. As the companion post notes, religion reporter Rebecca Rosen Lum wrote an Oakland Tribune article in 2007, titled “Mormon Church Changes Stance on Homosexuality,” focusing on recent changes:

The Mormon church has quietly moved further from defining homosexuality as evil and the result of faulty parenting. An unheralded new church publication, “God Loveth His Children,” says gay feelings are neither learned nor chosen, and it counsels against rejecting a gay child. Seemingly aimed at young people, the statement gently counsels individuals who feel attraction to and love for same-gender people to trust in God’s plan and not act upon the transitory desires of mortal life — a period of “probation during which we face a variety of temptations and challenges.” It repeatedly warns against feelings of guilt: “Attractions alone do not make you unworthy. If you avoid immoral thoughts and actions, you have not transgressed even if you feel such an attraction.” It also says: “The Lord’s command to ‘forgive all men’ includes the requirement to forgive yourself.”

Spokesmen for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would not say what led the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and the First Presidency — the two highest governing bodies of the Church — to publish the pamphlet at the end of July. “I dont know either,” said Jan Shipps, a scholar and historian specializing in Mormons. But its placement on the church’s Web site makes clear “that it would have to have been approved by the general authorities of the LDS Church.”

Those close to the Mormon Church say the publication is neither the result of a religious revelation nor a policy change. “This represents a continuation of a direction they began going in several years ago,” said Terry [sic] Givens, the author of four books on Mormonism and a religion professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia. A 1974 church pamphlet excoriated homosexuality as evil and castigated parents of gays for having raised their children poorly. By 1992, a new teaching suggested that biological factors could be at work.

Now, I do have some disagreements with Brooks’ particular use of language in her post. In particular, I believe that she uses imprecise language in a way that conflates rhetorical shift with doctrinal shift. I don’t think that she was sufficiently clear that church leaders have not changed on the basic doctrinal stance that homosexual acts are considered a sin. However, religion is not doctrine alone; it is the lived experience of church members. And it’s clear that the lived experience of LGBT people in the church has changed significantly as official church language has mellowed.

Get Religion’s overall project is to correct errors made by ignorant journalists. This is certainly a worthy goal. There are many ill-informed journalists who mischaracterize religious views out of ignorance or bias.

However, Joanna Brooks is not one of them. She is a lifelong Mormon, a BYU graduate, a scholar academic whose academic work examines religion in public life. She writes two different weekly columns on Mormon issues and also contributes to a popular podcast on Mormonism. She has broken important news stories (such as recent Handbook changes on LGBT issues). She speaks at multiple conferences each year on Mormon topics, and sits on the Board of a major Mormon studies publication. Her work on Mormonism and politics has appeared in the Washington Post; Politico just named her one of “50 politicos to watch” based on her columns about Mormonism and politics. And ironically (given Mattingly’s unflattering comparison), Brooks is regularly cited by Peggy Fletcher Stack as an expert on Mormon issues.

Joanna Brooks is not an ignorant or misguided reporter. She is a scholar with real expertise in Mormon topics. The imprecision in her post was unfortunate. However, that imprecision merited a nudge or a gentle correction. Instead, Mattingly greeted her with unwarranted mockery and sarcasm. And then, oddly, the church appeared to endorse the mocking tone of Mattingly’s post. I hope that this was simply an oversight.

Take a look at the post, it’s fascinating. (I’ve confirmed this with multiple sources, too. It is not an urban legend. Brother Mayne just spoke about his calling in Sacrament.)

This seems like a big step, and a potentially positive development. It also seems somewhat precarious, and raises some questions. Is this move fully sanctioned by the institutional church? Is this calling the product of an exact combination of specific events and people, or is it a sign of broader potential institutional change? And for that matter, will conservative members refuse to sustain Brother Mayne?

I’ll be very interested to see how it all works out. In the mean while, congratulations — and prayers of support — to Brother Mayne in his new calling.

UPDATE: The folks at Medium Gray have reported that Brother Mayne is in fact an Executive Secretary, which is technically not part of the Bishopric. (As a variety of commenters at Medium Gray BCC have noted, this understanding is not universally held, and there are a number of Executive Secretaries who have been told and who believe that they are part of the Bishopric; however, I have been assured that the Handbook — in the sealed 116 pages which we aren’t permitted to read — states otherwise.)

[poll id="4"]

Erickson’s arguments are predictably bad. She repeats the old evangelical anti-Mormon reasoning that Mormons are all basically automatons, and suggests that any Mormon politician would have a secret church-promoting agenda. It’s an argument straight out of The Manchurian Candidate (and reminiscent of the anti-Catholic arguments raised against JFK). Her argument, such as it is, is sufficiently silly and hyperbolic that it is essentially self-refuting. But what are the implications of the article’s prominent publication today — what does it say about the current political and religious discourse?

I found it interesting for a couple of reasons. First, it surprised me that CNN would run this sort of thing. The article was a silly, self-serving (buy my book!) hack job. Erickson isn’t particularly accurate in her discussions of the church or church members. She also quotes lines from the temple, which CNN should know will bother church members. The decision to run this anyway suggests that there is still an audience for this kind of thing, which is unfortunate. Her article is interesting not for its content but as an illustration of attitudes which still exist. (Check the comments at CNN, if you dare. Yikes.)

On the flip side, CNN also asked Richard Bushman to weigh in, and he did. In his response, included after her interview, he reasonably points out that Erickson has not given any actual evidence that Romney or any other LDS politician would be a puppet. CNN also asked CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) to weigh in, probably because Erickson’s interview was full of random potshots at Muslims. CAIR spokesmen also responded, and the statements from the CAIR folks defended Mitt Romney and Mormons. It was a good showing from CAIR, and from Richard Bushman. (And it serves as an illustration that, as MikeInWeHo has suggested, a “Mormon ADL” could serve a useful role, providing organizations like CNN with responses to this kind of thing when needed.)

The idea comes from a dizzying combination of numerology (looking for special hidden numbers which God has placed as clues) and eschatology (discussion of the end of the world). In recent years, these kinds of claims have come up every few years — for instance, prior movements claim to have found hidden numerical clues indicating that Jesus would return in 1988, or 1994. Of course, each of the earlier movements predated the projected event, but not by much. Indeed, these sorts of movements typically project a very short time horizon for the Second Coming.

This year’s specific account is based on complicated calculations using numbers pulled from Bible verses in a rather ad hoc manner. First, you add up the ages of the patriarchs in the Old Testament to arrive at a date for Noah’s flood: 4990 B.C. Then, you add 7000 to that number, because God will let the world exist for one week after the flood, and because one God Day = 1000 years. Then, you add 23 to that number, because that is Michael Jordan’s jersey number.

Okay, I made up that last part. You add 23, because that is the scriptural time period of tribulation. There is a lot of detail to the overall account, which divides history into periods of tribulation, a period for the church, and a lot more. (For one nifty chart, see here. For detailed math and scripture verses, see here.)

Seriously, the charts are pretty cool.

And don’t get things mixed up. The end of the world isn’t happening on Saturday, that’s just the Rapture, during which the righteous will be taken to Heaven. The rest of us get to hang out for another five months, until the real End of the World this October.

As Kevin Barney notes, this is a dangerous game to play. On the one hand, the very short time window has the effect of galvanizing followers — it’s important to act Right Now because Jesus is coming very soon. On the other hand, there is the inevitable letdown when the projected End of the World doesn’t pan out. These movements tend to be defined by repeated recalculation.

Mormons have their own history with this kind of discussion. As scholars have pointed out, early church members held very millenarian views. Those views helped shape the course of the early church; Milton Backman summarizing Grant Underwood writes that “the Saints’ belief in the imminence of the Second Coming and the peace that will follow helped them endure some of the trials they encountered in northeastern Ohio and western Missouri.”

Did early saints look toward a specific date? That depends on who you ask. As Kevin notes, a somewhat ambiguous-at-the-time answer is found in D&C 130:

I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following: ‘Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter.’ I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face. I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time.

This would give the early saints a loose target date of 1890; however Joseph Smith’s death in 1844 would mean that all bets were off.

The History of the Church contains a different prediction, without the escape clause. The minutes of the February 14, 1835 priesthood meeting (printed in History of the Church 2:182) state that:

President Smith then stated that the meeting had been called, because God had commanded it; and it was made known to him by vision and by the Holy Spirit. He then gave a relation of some of the circumstances attending while journeying to Zion—our trials, sufferings; and said God had not designed all this for nothing, but He had it in remembrance yet; and it was the will of God that those who went Zion, with a determination to lay down their lives, if necessary, should be ordained to the ministry, and go forth to prune the vineyard for the last time, or the coming of the Lord, which was nigh—even fifty-six years should wind up the scene.

(Apologists argue that this was a mistaken transcription.)

In any case, Mormons seem to have moved past their millenarian roots for the most part, but millenarianism still raises its head every few years: Bruce R. McConkie compiled a lengthy list of Signs of Second Coming in Mormon Doctrine; Cleon Skousen advanced his own arguments, some of them recently revived by Glenn Beck. And of course, there is always That Guy in Elders quorum, who makes vague predictions of doom.

There’s a reason why the church as a whole moved away from its millenarian roots, however. Doomsday movements are not particularly stable. And they can lead people to do irrational things. One NPR story discusses the behavior of folks in the current movement:

Joel says they’re spending the last of their savings. They don’t see a need for one more dollar. “You know, you think about retirement and stuff like that,” he says. “What’s the point of having some money just sitting there?” “We budgeted everything so that, on May 21, we won’t have anything left,” Adrienne adds.

This makes sense if the world is really about to end. You want your last check to bounce, right? But it’s also behavior with leaves adherents unprepared for a world which continues to exist after the cutoff date.

My bet is that this particular movement will prove illusory like the ones before it, and we’ll all still be here on the 22nd. But as I see it, it’s a win-win. If I’m wrong, then we get five months of blogging without any interference from the righteous. And if I’m right, then we can stop talking about the end of the world for a while — at least until the Mayan calendar turns over in 2012.