Utah Students to Hear President’s Message

In a surprise move, the Utah State Office of Education has announced that after reviewing the controversy surrounding President Barack Obama’s upcoming live address to the nation’s students, state leaders have arranged for a more acceptable alternative speaker: LDS Church President Thomas S. Monson.

“Over the last few days, we’ve received hundreds of calls and emails from parents worried that their children would be subjected to political propaganda from President Obama,” said Utah Superintendent of Public Instruction, L. Garth Groesbeck. “We didn’t want anyone to feel excluded or pressured, so we looked for someone who could serve as a positive role model for all students, regardless of political stripe.”

Groesbeck said that Monson was a “natural choice” to inspire the students. “Here is a man who has throughout his life reached out to others, especially widows, and who has consistently avoided political positions, except on crucial moral matters such as same-sex marriage rights and alcohol consumption laws. We feel strongly that by substituting President Monson for President Obama, we can give our children access to a more inclusive and inspiring speaker.”

LDS church officials indicated that the prophet would speak from the campus of Brigham Young University. “President Monson felt that, by speaking from the namesake university of one of the state’s founders, he would be able to share his message of faith and testimony without offending anyone’s political sensibilities.”

Monson’s theme will be “Strengthening Testimonies in the Latter Days.” Church spokesman Daniel Jenks explained that in these last days of trial and tribulation, “the most important knowledge one can accumulate is a testimony of our Savior. No other education can compare.”

Utah ACLU attorney Laurel Meyer said that she had been startled and outraged at first. “But then when I thought about it, I realized that all we would be seeing was a laundry list of platitudes and bad poetry. What’s the harm in that?”

Eagle Fortress president Gail Ruzkinsky applauded the state’s choice. “I have to tell you I was disgusted at the thought of our children being exposed to the virulent socialism of our so-called president, This choice leaves no doubt that, at least in Utah, we stand up for American ideals. We support God and country, not gays and socialized medicine.”

Church leaders indicated that the church would be happy to broadcast the prophet’s message to all fifty states, but so far, none of the governors contacted had accepted the offer.

No Laughing Matter

Yesterday I posted a little parody article about how Thomas Monson had decreed that all priesthood holders should wear button-down collars to prevent crooked and slovenly collars. I thought it was pretty obvious that it was a joke, and certainly I have a history of posting parodies.
 
But I was shocked at how many people thought it was legit. On RfM Richard Packham had to caution that it was a parody and not meant to be quoted. A close relative read it and was puzzled as to why I would quote a news article verbatim without comment. Needless to say, I am not that good of a parody writer. What this shows is that we, members and apostates alike, expect this kind of spiritual micromanagement from LDS church leaders. If it wasn’t out of line for Hinckley to specify exactly how many earrings one is allowed, it certainly raises no eyebrows if current leaders tell us what kind of shirts to wear.
 
This morning my parody hit the MADB board. Here are a few comments (made before the moderators closed the thread):
 
“I think the spirit of what President Monson is aksing for is completely correct. He recognizes that the purity of what is on the inside is most important. Yet, he is asking for a dress code for the outside that is consistent, respectful, and presentable. I will strive to honor that request. We should be happy to oblige our prophets when they make such small procedural requests.”
 
***
 
“Anyone who holds the priesthood should be ready, prepared and worthy to bless and pass the sacrament, give prayers or be called upon to give talks or to bear their testimony at a moment’s notice. They should reflect the Savior in their every act. Christ would never appear unclean, dirty, slovenly or unkempt in appearance if He was to bless or pass the sacrament, give a prayer or give a talk. He wouldn’t need to go home to change or tuck in a shirt or button His color or have someone lend him a tie. He would be dressed as best as He could and according to contemporary standards of decency and He would conduct Himself in such a way as to represent His Heavenly Father and to be about His work.

“Even those in the most humble of circumstances and who are without financial means dress their best when they seek the Lord and represent Him as Priesthood holders and Sisters. I only wish people wouldn’t think that this is a joke because it shouldn’t matter if it was written as a joke or a real talk given by the Prophet since it is true regardless. I’m not overly concerned about a requirement to wear a white shirt if you bless or pass the sacrament but I would hope that you would desire to do so and to look your best when exercising the Priesthood. I would whether have a clean shaven, well dressed Priesthood holder who was wearing a colored shirt pass and bless the sacrament then one who comes to Church wearing a white shirt but is unkempt in appearance because both show how they value themselves and their role as Priesthood holders.”
 
So, I apologize for not labeling this explicitly as a parody, but I am still shaking my head at how it was received.

Monson Calls for Modesty, Tab Collars

Rexburg, Idaho — Speaking to students at Brigham Young University, Idaho, LDS church president Thomas S. Monson emphasized the need for modesty and spiritual cleanliness, two virtues he said had nearly been lost in today’s so-called modern world.

Citing the poet A. Egbert Doggerel, Monson stated, “Truer words were never spoken than these:

“It matters not if I’m hale and keen
If my heart and soul remain unclean!”

The prophet spoke of his dismay at lax dress standards among some members of the church. “I am certain that our dear Heavenly Father looks down upon his children with perhaps a glint of tear in His eye, as He sees so many disregarding the prophetic counsel against slovenly and immodest dress.”

He reminded those in attendance of the inspired counsel of President Gordon B. Hinckley in pleading with the fair daughters of Zion to display only one earring on each ear. “Somwhere in the heavens, President Hinckley is smiling in the knowledge that so many have taken his words to heart.” But, President Monson intoned gravely, “There is much room for improvement, particularly among you priesthood holders. Are you living up to the Oath and Covenant of the priesthood? Are you conducting yourself with the modesty and dignity that befits someone with your holy calling?”

He then spoke of a troubling trend among the brethren of the church. “I have spent many nights on my knees, praying for guidance as to how I can help the brethren overcome a serious problem. I speak, of course, of the unkempt and often askew collars of our dress shirts. Many are the times when I’ve sat on the stand in a priesthood meeting and found my spirit troubled by crooked collars. Often the collar doesn’t even cover the tie wrapped around the neck. And, difficult as it may be to believe, some brethren cannot even be troubled to button the top button of their shirts. Surely the Spirit is grieved when the brethren of the Holy Priesthood take such a casual attitude toward their responsibilities.”

The prophet spoke of the great promise in the Book of Revelation: “He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels” (Rev. 3:5). “Brethren, do you imagine that you will be able to stand in the presence of the Lord with a crooked collar or slovenly tie?”

In His wisdom, the prophet said, the Lord has provided a way for His sons to reach their full potential: tab collars. “It is but a small thing the Lord requires: merely two buttons, one on each side of the collar. Keeping the tabs buttoned will ensure that you are neat and clean both inwardly and outwardly. My beloved brethren, I plead with all the force of a loving heart that you will return to your homes and make immediate and prayerful changes to your wardrobe.”

President Monson said that he had been inspired by a visit to a ward in McDermott, Nevada. “Here were the brethren arrayed as mighty warriors, all with tab collars, all neat and inspiring. Hearts were gladdened, spirits were lifted, and collars straightened.”

Student reaction was immediate. “I went home and threw out all my old, unworthy white shirts,” said Gareth Jensen, a junior from Tempe, Arizona. “I have decided to choose the right, and if that means buying tab collared shirts, I will not shirk.”

Tyler Roarke of Redding, California, expressed his desire to follow the prophet with “exactness”: “The prophet said we should get tabs on either side of the collar, but when I got my new shirts home, I noticed they had a third button in the back of the collar. I’m a little worried that I may be looking beyond the mark.”

Apostle David Bednar hailed the response of the students. “These young men and women know what is important in life, and they are a shining example to the world. One young woman I spoke with broke off her engagement because the young man said he didn’t know what the big deal was about tab collars. I’m sure she will be glad for the eternities that she saw the true measure of his faithfulness before she became unequally yoked with him.”

They Pay Money for This

If It’s On the Prophet’s Mind, It Matters

Apparently, this was one of the highlights of Education Week, a class about paying attention to what the prophet says. First we get this gem:

“I don’t know if you can prioritize the prophets, seers and revelators,” Knowlton said. “It’s very difficult. You have this group of 15 men that we sustain as prophets, seers and revelators, and all of them [speak] prophetic words. We know their warnings are all prophetic, we know what they would have to say is what the Lord would like us to hear.

“But when it comes right down to it, you have to say the president of the church and what he is saying has really got to make a difference and we’ve got to find a way to prioritize it.”

So, let me get this straight: “their warnings are all prophetic,” and what they tell us is “what the Lord would like us to hear.” Whatever happened to the idea that a prophet is only acting as a prophet when moved upon by the spirit? Heaven knows that excuse has worked for years as a way for apologists to shrug their shoulders and say, “He was only speaking as a man.”

But no, we’re suppose to believe that every word that comes over the pulpit, from Richard Scott’s whining pleas to Thomas Monson’s recitation of doggerel, is what Jesus wants us to hear right here and right now.

And just what is the message the Savior has for us?

Not to fear, as Brother Knowlton has identified some important themes: “Every Conference I always think to myself, ‘When is he going to say this four-letter word we call duty?’ He loves it.” Then he quotes some passages from Monson’s conference talks, all of which are striking mostly for their high-level generalization and banality. These can be summarized as follows:

1. Heavenly Father needs us to do His work on earth.
2. We need to figure out what is important in this life (hint: it’s the church).
3. Remember how blessed you are to be a Mormon.
4. Stay away from the dark side of the Interwebs.

What more can be said than Brother Knowlton’s conclusion: “I am grateful for this prophet of ours. What a blessing to live in his day; what a blessing to know of such a man.”

In essence, then, people shelled out money to hear a lecture that could be summed up in a Primary song: “Follow the prophet, follow the prophet, follow the prophet, he knows the way!”

The Double-Whammy

I’ve been mulling over these ideas for a number of years and have finally written them down. What do you think?

Several years ago I attended the dedication of the Mount Timpanogos Temple. Being at that time the executive secretary in our ward, I got tickets to sit in the celestial room during that session of the dedication. My wife and I ended up sitting in the third row, maybe six feet away from the podium at which stood the prophet, Gordon B. Hinckley. I will never forget what he said as he rose to speak to all of us. “Your being here at this temple tells me that you are the best people in the world.” He paused and added, “If you were honest in your recommend interviews.”

That statement encapsulates to me one way the church manages to keep its members committed and dedicated. Like a fish hook embedded in the mouth of a cutthroat trout, the church uses two seemingly contradictory premises to keep its members on the line:

1. You are better than “the world.”

2. You are not good enough.

Let’s look at these two beliefs. We’ve all heard people bear their testimonies of how much the church has blessed their lives and made them happier and more successful than they otherwise would have been. “I can’t imagine what my life would be if I didn’t have the church,” they say. And they describe those outside of the church as benighted and unhappy. Here’s Glenn Pace: “Compare the blessings of living the Word of Wisdom to those available to you if you choose to party with those in the great and spacious building. Compare the joy of intelligent humor and wit to drunken, silly, crude, loud laughter. Compare our faithful young women who still have a blush in their cheeks with those who, having long lost their blush, try to persuade you to join them in their loss. Compare lifting people up to putting people down. Compare the ability to receive personal revelation and direction in your life to being tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine. Compare holding the priesthood of God with anything you see going on in that great and spacious building” (Ensign, Nov 1987).

No, we were better than that. We had the truth, and the truth made us free and happy and safe. Gordon B. Hinckley said in 1996, “The greatest safety you have in your lives, my dear young friends, is your membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Cling to the Church and live its principles and I do not hesitate to promise you that your lives will be happy, that your accomplishments will be significant, and that you will have reason to get on your knees and thank the Lord for all He has done for you in giving to you the marvelous and wonderful opportunities that you have” (youth fireside, Vista, California, 23 Mar. 1996).

With such promises behind us, we were told, we could not help to be “a peculiar people,” a shining example to the world of the blessings God had given us. Donald Staheli of the Seventy said, “As you dare to be different, your exemplary conduct will not go unnoticed. Although you will be tried and tested, your faithful adherence to the Lord’s standards will be seen as a beacon in the night to those around you. Have the courage to be different when it is required of you to be true to the standards of the Church. You will be respected for it. And if occasionally you are not respected, you need not worry, because that is not the kind of association you will want or need in your future” (Ensign, Feb. 2009).

So we lived our lives desperately trying to live up to the standards set forth, to truly be examples of the believers so that we could help other people find the happiness we had. And that happiness depended on our church membership. In short, we needed the church to be happy, to be better than the world.

With this belief that we had the truth and that the truth made us happy, we felt a keen need to share our happiness with others. We knew, after all, that those outside our faith could not possibly find the same joy and happiness that we had found in the gospel.

As L. Tom Perry put it, “We are blessed with a great and noble heritage that offers a pathway to truth that veers dramatically from the so-called ways of the world. We need to remind ourselves about the value of our heritage so we do not underestimate its worth. I challenge the many Saints who are hiding in the corners to stand tall and proclaim loudly the treasured teachings of our common heritage, not with a spirit of pride or boasting but with a spirit of confidence and conviction” (Ensign, May 2001).

And we were confident, most of the time. We gladly served missions, invited our friends to church meetings, and looked for “missionary opportunities” in our everday lives. As President Hinckley put it, we conformed, and we thought we found happiness in that conformity. In short, we knew we needed the church to make us happy, to turn us into the “best people in the world.”

But something nagged at us. We knew we had the truth, the gospel that could bring us true joy, but we never quite felt good enough. Even at our most successful moments in life, we always felt like we should have done even more. We felt this way because, coupled with the idea that church membership brings happiness above and beyond what the world can give was the teaching that we could always do better.

Most of us, I would imagine, have been subjected to withering criticism from our church leaders for poor statistical performance or other perceived failures. I’ve written about the excitement I felt at learning that we would be hearing from a General Authority when I was on my mission, the only time during those two years that I would be in the presence of one of the Lord’s representatives. The man who spoke to us literally yelled at us for almost an hour, berating our poor performance, lack of commitment, and general laziness. My companion and I were crushed, but later we convinced ourselves that he was right: it didn’t matter how hard we were working; it wasn’t enough.

And so it is beyond missionary work. Since the days of President Kimball’s call to “lengthen your stride,” we have been told that we need to be better, to do better. The Lord is not satisfied with subpar numbers, and neither should we. Back in 1998, Russell Ballard held up President Hinckley as a model of hard work and dedication: “President Hinckley is doing all that he can do to accelerate the work. He is traveling the world to an unprecedented degree to strengthen and edify the Saints and to urge them upward and onward. … Our President is dynamically out in front, showing the way. The question we must all ask ourselves is, ‘Are we keeping pace with him?’ Each one of us must be prepared to answer that question. I can assure you that it is a subject of considerable discussion among the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. I hope the same is true of every council in every ward and stake in the Church. This is not the time to relax or to coast in our callings. Every council of the Church should be working together on ways to be more effective in preparing our members to be worthy to enjoy all the blessings of the Church and especially the blessings of the temple” (Ensign, Nov 1998).

Of course we all knew that our meager efforts could not compare to those of the prophet; we knew we did not measure up. So we felt guilty and inadequate.

Guilt in LDS terms is almost always spoken of as a positive, motivating emotion that will help us to repent and improve ourselves. In 1983, the Ensign published some guidelines for church members in choosing a mental-health counselor or therapist. One item stands out: “Does he or she feel that appropriate guilt or sorrow for wrongdoing can help someone make positive changes? (A therapist who feels that guilt itself is the problem may focus inappropriately on changing your feelings rather than on helping you change the behavior that causes the guilty feelings.)” (Ensign, Jan 1983). Notice that the idea that “guilt itself is the problem” is rejected out of hand in favor of “therapy” that focuses on repentance. With the idea of “appropriate guilt” in mind, we begin to understand the idea of guilt as a tool in getting church members to lengthen their strides.

It’s not surprising, then, that in Mormonism, repentance isn’t just a turning away from sins as in some other religions, it’s a painful, soul-wrenching experience. Russell Ballard put it this way: “Sin will always, always, result in suffering. It may come sooner, or it may come later, but it will come. The scriptures state that you will ’stand with shame and awful guilt before the bar of God’ (Jacob 6:9) and that you will experience ‘a lively sense of … guilt, and pain, and anguish.’ (Mosiah 2:38.) A related misconception is that repentance is easy. President Kimball said that ‘one has not begun to repent until he has suffered intensely for his sins. … If a person hasn’t suffered, he hasn’t repented.’ (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1982, pp. 88, 99.) You need only talk to a person who has truly repented of serious sin to understand that the momentary pleasure of an immoral act is simply not worth the pain that always follows” (Ensign, Nov 1990). For whatever reason, when we’re dealing with the Jesus of Mormonism, His yoke is not particularly easy, and his burden is quite heavy.

We were so busy in the church, and we had so much “potential” to live up to, and yet we never felt good enough. We felt guilty for not putting everything we had into our callings. We felt responsible for everything from the failure of a ward social to an occasional “impure thought.” We were even counseled to assess our part of the blame even when we were victimized by someone else. Richard Scott said, “At some point in time, however, the Lord may prompt a victim to recognize a degree of responsibility for abuse. Your priesthood leader will help assess your responsibility so that, if needed, it can be addressed. Otherwise the seeds of guilt will remain and sprout into bitter fruit” (Ensign, May 1992).

So here we were with this unsolvable conundrum: how can we not be good enough or happy enough when we have the tools to make us both happier and better people?

The answer to both was simple: we needed the church. We needed the church and its teaching and programs to keep us better and happier than the rest of the world. And we needed the church to make us better and happier than we currently were.

It was a kind of carrot-and-stick approach to life, as if we were strapped into a harness with the carrot of happiness and perfection ahead of us, always out of reach, but with the stick of worldliness behind us, threatening to bruise us and damage us.

In the end, we never got to the happiness, and we were left with the guilt and remorse of our failures. And that, ironically, is what kept us in the church.

Church Bail-Out in the Works?

Representatives of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints met with members of Congress in an effort to secure federal funding to shore up what they termed “weakness” in the religious market.

“Times are tough,” said Church spokesperson Dale Bulls. “The recession and credit crunch have hit our bottom line big time.” Given the success of the financial and auto industries in securing money from Congress, Bulls said, “We thought we should get in on the action.”

Sources within the church note that recent years have seen a flood of expensive development projects, such as the enormous Conference Center, an aggressive temple-building campaign, and the ambitious City Creek Center mall project in Salt Lake City.

“We’re bleeding badly here,” said one insider who wished to remain anonymous. “The Conference Center needs constant repair, and around the world we have temples that no one is using. And don’t get me started on the malls.”

The source went on to say that, despite bad financials, some in the church continue to push for wasteful spending. “A temple in Rome? What the hell could they be thinking?”

Wall Street analysts outlined the bind the church finds itself in. “It’s a ‘perfect storm’ situation,” said Lerner Brothers vice president Robert Stearns. “They invested heavily in real estate just as the market peaked, and a worldwide recession translates into less tithing. Something has to give.”

And that something appears to be the federal government.

“We have no choice in this matter,” said Utah Senator Orrin Hatch (R). “This country was founded on Christian principles and faith. If we allow our religious base to fail, we’re in big trouble. We must act, and we must act quickly, to save our country from religious ruin.”

Some in Congress remain skeptical. “If we bail them out, who’s to say they won’t go back to their old, wasteful ways?” asked Indiana Democratic Congressman Ed Warner. “I’m all for keeping this ‘one nation under God,’ but I don’t want to throw our money down a rat hole.”

Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) assured reluctant legislators that there would be strict oversight. “My bill provides for a federal ‘over-seer’ to ensure that funds are spent wisely and prudently.” He said he had received assurances that the church would provide full access to a seer stone and a hat to ensure total transparency. “If it was good enough for Martin Harris,” Reid said, “it’s good enough for me.”

Church leaders suggested that a partnership with the government was a natural and positive devlopment. “We all know that when the Savior comes, he will subdue all earthly government beneath his feet. This is just the first step,” said a smiling Boyd K. Packer.

“He said what?” said Alabama Congressman Buford Gustings. “It’ll be a cold day in hell before I give money to that cult.”

Repayment of the federal loans involves giving the government a percentage of church revenues over the next ten years. “We really didn’t want to give them a cut of tithing,” said apostle Quentin Cook, “but times being what they are, we had to agree.”

The government will also get a percentage of revenue from Beehive Clothing sales. “Everybody has to buy underwear at some point, don’t they?” said Cook. Federal negotiators declined the church’s offer of a ten-percent stake in the City Creek Center. “Yeah, like we’re going to take that on,” said newly appointed “over-seer” David Tanner. “We’re giving them money, but we’re not stupid.”

In other news, the church announced plans to build a temple in Uzbekistan. “No, we don’t have any members there at the moment,” said spokesperson Bulls. “But we’ve got a lot of money that needs to be spent.”

LDS conference weekend at my house

As most of you know, Saturday and Sunday were the LDS General Conference, marking the 188th time that viewers and participants were bored to tears by droning talks from their supposedly spiritual superiors. And to make it all the sweeter, yesterday was Jesus’ birthday.

When I was a believing member, I waited for conference every six months with great anticipation. What would the prophets have to say to us now? I wondered. On my mission, I wore out a set of tape recordings of the October 1984 conference, and I wept when I heard Bruce R. McConkie’s final testimony in April of 1985. But usually the conferences were disappointments; I struggled to stay awake through most of it, yet I always proclaimed how uplifting and wonderful it was, especially because they always seemed to be speaking directly to me, telling me the things I needed to hear.

Over the last 3 years, I’ve watched most of conference, probably out of curiosity more than anything else. Sure, there was always something slightly outrageous (such as Julie Becks’ deplorable denigration of women) and something ridiculous (David Bednar’s pickles discourse elicited giggles from my kids), but most of it was mind-numbingly boring. Gordon B. Hinckley sometimes got our attention with his homespun humor, but most of what we heard was either the same “counsel” we’d heard many times before, or it was a doctrinal recitation that only the truly righteous would appreciate.

Some people really enjoyed the trite, kindergarten-teacher homilies of Thomas Monson, whereas others lapped up the alliterative pseudopoetry of Neal Maxwell, but I didn’t enjoy either. But they were the exceptions. Mostly we got dry standard-issue talks from Howard W. Hunter or David B. Haight, neither of whom will ever be considered great speakers. And often the leaders recycled their talks. Monson in particular has routinely used the same talks verbatim or taken sections of them over and over. How else would I know the precise number of widows in Monson’s ward when he was bishop (87, you can look it up) or the color of the elderly widow’s canary Petey (yellow, with gray wings)?

This conference I didn’t pay much attention. I was busy running errands on Saturday, and all I caught was the end of the closing prayer of the morning session. I skipped the priesthood session because it was my son’s birthday (well, that and I didn’t want to go). Yesterday I slept in and read a book during the morning session and cooked during the afternoon session, though I did catch an extended guilt trip from David Bednar and the closing remarks from Monson.

But I finally feel like I know what the rest of the world feels like. Nobody cares what is said at the pulpit in Salt Lake. Heck, at least half the members of the church don’t really care, either. My dad told me about driving out to see the California poppies in bloom yesterday but somehow didn’t mention conference. And even those who watched conference don’t care all that much. Judging by past conferences, there wasn’t much said over the weekend that will stay in anyone’s mind for very long.

The reaction at my house was interesting. My 9 year old wiggled through the afternoon session and finally said, “Dad, when is this over? Do I have to watch it?” Owing to my wife’s rule that they sit through one session per day, I asked, “Did you watch the session this morning?” “Yep.” “Then you don’t have to watch this one.” With that he literally ran into his room to play.

After Monson’s closing remarks, my daughter turned to me and said, “Well, his talk was funny, but he didn’t really say anything, did he?”

No, sweetheart, he didn’t.

Widow Sues Monson for Harassment

A Salt Lake City woman filed a civil suit against LDS Church President Thomas S. Monson for harassment. Martha Anderson, 72, complained in papers filed in Municipal Court, that Monson has engaged in a pattern of stalking and harassment over the last two years.

“I had just moved into the neighborhood,” Anderson recounts, “and word must have gotten out that I’m a recent widow. One day a portly, elderly man appeared on my doorstep and told me he’d noticed my parakeets. Now, mind you, my parakeets are in a room facing the back yard, so immediately I wondered how this man knew about the parakeets? Had he been watching me? For how long?”

Monson, the suit alleges, offered to care for the parakeets upon Mrs. Anderson’s death. “I’ve been in the neighborhood two days, and he starts speaking ominously about my impending death. What was I supposed to make of that?” she said, shuddering slightly at the thought. “I told him to get off my property, or I’d call the police.”

Anderson thought that would be the end of it, but it was just the beginning. “I’d come home from work, and he’d be mowing my lawn or bringing me flowers. Once he brought about 25 kids over to paint the house. They didn’t ask, and they did a crappy job. And I hate blue.”

“Then I started getting phone calls from people who had heard Mr. Monson bragging about his service to me from the pulpit. He didn’t even get my name right: It’s Martha, not Marian.”

Eventually, a frustrated Mrs. Anderson phoned church headquarters to complain about the harassment. “The secretaries just gushed about his kindly service and said I should feel really blessed to have attracted his attention. No one took me seriously until I got a restraining order.”

Despite the restraining order, the harassment continued: “Cookies and casseroles kept coming. He replanted my flower beds three times. He even went after my grandson. Brandon was pretty shaken up by the experience. He said that this creepy man had jumped out from behind my apple tree and tried to shove a train set into his hands. He told me he thought he was being abducted.”

Salt Lake City police refused to enforce the restraining order. “Why would anyone refuse the personal ministry of a prophet of God?” asked an incredulous Sergeant Bob Jensen. “She should feel honored.”

Monson’s office issued a terse statement: “President Monson is widely known to have maintained a quiet personal ministry to the sick, the afflicted, and the widowed. We are saddened that anyone might take offense at his unselfish and Christlike service.”

As she filed the suit this morning, Mrs. Anderson was firm and unapologetic. “I had hoped it wouldn’t go this far, but someone has to put a stop to it. Think of all the defenseless widows who have suffered in silence from this insidious stalking. It’s time to break the cycle.”