- Jonathan Green on A Review: After Happiness: Living with Faith in a Time of Crisis: “I would not so quickly dismiss the faith and spiritual lives of multiple generations of church members so quickly as uncomplicated enjoyment of prosperity. I promise you, your parents and grandparents also experienced trials, you can just ask them. You may even have seen some of them. It’s quite possible to raise a family primarily on one income even today, although you may not enjoy some of the sacrifices that entails, and I completely understand if you make different choices; just be aware that it’s a choice, not something that has been forced on you or taken from you. The Proclamation on the Family is probably more relevant today than when it was first published. People fail to understand it because they are looking for a series of simple thou shalt/thou shalt not commandments, when it instead presents a positive target that anyone, whatever their situation, can work towards.” Jul 21, 13:28
- on A Review: After Happiness: Living with Faith in a Time of Crisis: “Jack, but isn’t the traditional family a recent social construct? By traditional family, don’t we mean the common pattern of middle class America in the 1950s, where the man worked and provided all the money and the woman stayed home, the family was a unit of consumption instead of a unit of production, and teenagers enjoyed a fun adolescence? I haven’t read the book, but I do believe that times change, people change, and societies and economies change. And however much we might want to pretend otherwise, the church of which we’re a part has also changed. I am okay with the proclamation, and I understand why it was written, but since so many people continually point to it, may I ask for specific, tangible, and concrete actions you would like to see in others to perform to be true to the proclamation? Should we mandate marriage by a certain age? Should we proscribe divorce? Should we expect a certain number of children before calling a man to a high church office? Joseph F. Smith, while the prophet and at general conference, railed against women wearing make-up — that is specific and actionable. Heber J. Grant, while the prophet and at general conference, railed against Social Security and against electing Democrats to national office — that is specific and actionable. Of course, no one pays attention to those prophetic calls anymore. But for the proclamation, what specific and actionable actions or results are you asking for? I believe the church needs to serve people, and it needs to serve them where they are. I still see Latter-day Saints getting married, albeit at generally later ages and lower rates than the 1950s. I still see Latter-day Saints having children, albeit at generally later ages and lower rates than the 1950s. Yes, I do see Latter-day Saint women in the workplace, much more than in the 1950s, but I understand that our economy no longer allows women to stay home like it did in the 1950s — so I do not think negatively of Latter-day Saint women for working. Indeed, have you noticed that almost all (maybe even all) of the women called to the general Relief Society, Young Women, and Primary presidencies in recent years are all working women? Doesn’t that mean that none of them heeded Ezra Taft Benson’s prophetic calls for them to stay at home and raise children? Maybe the book and the OP have a valid point, that theological frameworks must evolve and that there may be strength in having the “psychological flexibility” to go “off script” — I think it is a valid thought. But yes, I do believe that the church exists to serve people, rather than people existing to serve the church.” Jul 21, 12:40
- on Spiritually Inspirational Art by Not-So-Inspirational Artists: “I’m not sure all this philosophizing helps me appreciate McNaughton’s LDS artwork any more, or look past what feels like the symbolic wink and nod, the subtle dog whistle, of continuing to promote and endorse his otherwise uncontroversial works.” Jul 21, 10:12
- on A Review: After Happiness: Living with Faith in a Time of Crisis: “I think we have to remember that the proclamation was not only a warning about the future–it also came on the heels of the most socially disruptive era in U.S. history. The American family was literally shredded during the 70s and 80s–and the apostles were concerned with the ills caused by rampant fatherlessness. That said, while there’s no question that West has changed in significant ways, it is keeping the family intact that will do the most good vis-a-vis grounding and establishing the rising generation both temporally and spiritually regardless of those changes. I haven’t read the book–so maybe I’m overreacting–but I don’t know why some folks utilize the argument that traditional family is really no more than the latest cultural construct–because of our polygamous past–as if that some how delegitimizes the core doctrines that are found right at the beginning of the scriptures.” Jul 21, 09:23
- on Spiritually Inspirational Art by Not-So-Inspirational Artists: “A quick clarification: I’m not saying we need to decide what part of someone’s work is inspired and what is not. We just need to decide what’s good and what’s not, and we do that all the time. If you don’t like Thomas Jefferson’s writings, Van Gogh’s art, or Van Wagenen’s endowment film, fine. If you do, I’m suggesting you can go ahead and enjoy/learn from/be inspired by them, knowing God will judge their creators for everything else they did in their lives–and has forbidden you from doing so. (In Van Gogh’s case, I trust his mental illness will make that judgment merciful.) I’ll grant this is less complex when the flawed artist is safely dead.” Jul 20, 09:32
- on A Preposterously Complimentary Review of the Book of Abraham: “Totally beside the point here, but I just wanted to say that I absolutely think about F=ma when I get close the edge of a cliff. Also, f=µN and v[f]=v[i]+at, and J=F?t and mgh=1/2mv^2. A physics degree and a mild discomfort with heights will do that to you.” Jul 20, 09:11
- on Spiritually Inspirational Art by Not-So-Inspirational Artists: “My point is: it’s seriously bizarre to try and decide which parts of a flawed artist’s life is inspired and what part should be ignored. So we Mormons want to believe that Christopher Columbus was inspired to “discover” the Americas. From the point of view of Native Americans who suffered extreme genicide had their civilizations destroyed, this act was hardly inspired. Many creative people suffer from mental illness. How do you decide what part of their work is inspired and want part is a function of their unique neurology? An excellent example of this is Vincent Van Gogh. Are we going to argue that God somehow inspired his mental illness? I suspect a disproportionately high number of creative individuals are gay. Think ballet. Are we going to argue that God creates gays so that certain artistic endeavors can be progress and thrive. I prefer to think that God is not stirring pots. Randomly inspiring certain individuals. Each individual has it within themselves to be exceptionally creative. An individual’s accomplishments are his own. Think free agency.” Jul 19, 10:13
- on Spiritually Inspirational Art by Not-So-Inspirational Artists: “@rogerdhansen: Yes, that’s all true. That’s why I think it probably took divine intervention for such a man to write such true and inspiring words about equality that they became part of our national creed, but that’s a minor point. The real question is, what are we to do with those words? If we discard them because the man who wrote them also did horrible things, we dismiss all the good they have done–including Frederick Douglas and Martin Luther King using them to call our nation to repentance–and can yet do. At a time when our President and Vice President have both advocated for abandoning the classical liberalism of the founders, we can’t afford that. And yet we mustn’t whitewash the sins of the founders either, lest we ignore the ongoing consequences of those sins. That’s why I land on “judge not, that ye be not judged.” We don’t need to judge Thomas Jefferson, the man. We can judge his actions individually, keep the good, and reject the bad. And to bring it back to the topic of the post, I think we can do the same with art created by flawed artists.” Jul 19, 06:12
- on A Preposterously Complimentary Review of the Book of Abraham: “Kendall, I wrote up my thoughts a few years ago. Part 9 sums things up pretty well.” Jul 18, 15:53
- on A Preposterously Complimentary Review of the Book of Abraham: “Kendell, I don’t know what Jonathan had in mind about the BofA, but I agree about it being interesting and important. The Book of Mormon is important because it exists. It’s actual message is mostly fairly standard Christian. Our unique doctrinal beliefs mostly come from the books of Abraham and Moses.” Jul 18, 14:27
