What’s Eating Jeffrey Holland?

February 18, 2015

A lot of people have been talking about Jeffrey Holland’s broadcast, “An Evening with a General Authority.” Much has been said about the content, but I am going to talk about the tone, which I found a little unsettling. I’m sure some would say, “The guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center” (1 Nephi 16:2). But that’s not really it.

I’ve always liked Jeffrey Holland since my time at Brigham Young University, when he was the university’s president. I met him once during that time when I was working in the Reading/Writing Center in the Jesse Knight Building. A water pipe had burst in the ceiling above the area in which I was assigned to work, so I was sitting there studying and keeping watch over a bank of computers that were drying in front of fans. He came in to inspect the damage, and I had a brief but cordial conversation with him, not just about the damage to the computers but also about my studies and plans for the future. I enjoyed what was casually referred to as “The Pat and Jeff Show,” a joint devotional he and his wife would give at the beginning of every semester. I recall Sister Holland’s horror when the off-campus paper, The Student Review, followed her at a supermarket and published the contents of her grocery cart, which included a pint of coffee ice cream. I liked both of them because they seemed down to earth and quite comfortable being human, and they clearly cared about the student body. He spoke at my commencement when I received my bachelor’s degree and then a few years later, he spoke as an apostle at the commencement when I received my master’s degree. Over the years I’ve enjoyed the conference talks he has given as an apostle, as he is clearly well-read and always came across as thoughtful and caring.

I was really taken aback in 2009 when he gave a talk called “Safety for the Soul,” in which his intent appeared to be to deliver a stirring testimony of the divinity of the Book of Mormon. Let me quote from his talk:

May I refer to a modern “last days” testimony? When Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum started for Carthage to face what they knew would be an imminent martyrdom, Hyrum read these words to comfort the heart of his brother:

“Thou hast been faithful; wherefore … thou shalt be made strong, even unto the sitting down in the place which I have prepared in the mansions of my Father.

“And now I, Moroni, bid farewell … until we shall meet before the judgment-seat of Christ.” 7

A few short verses from the 12th chapter of Ether in the Book of Mormon. Before closing the book, Hyrum turned down the corner of the page from which he had read, marking it as part of the everlasting testimony for which these two brothers were about to die. I hold in my hand that book, the very copy from which Hyrum read, the same corner of the page turned down, still visible. Later, when actually incarcerated in the jail, Joseph the Prophet turned to the guards who held him captive and bore a powerful testimony of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Shortly thereafter pistol and ball would take the lives of these two testators.

As one of a thousand elements of my own testimony of the divinity of the Book of Mormon, I submit this as yet one more evidence of its truthfulness. In this their greatest—and last—hour of need, I ask you: would these men blaspheme before God by continuing to fix their lives, their honor, and their own search for eternal salvation on a book (and by implication a church and a ministry) they had fictitiously created out of whole cloth?

The implication is clear and need not be stated: People who know they are at death’s door do not tend to reiterate their testimony of something they know is a fraud. Posing such a rhetorical question would have been clear and direct. Curiously, however, Elder Holland doesn’t leave the implication unsaid.

Never mind that their wives are about to be widows and their children fatherless. Never mind that their little band of followers will yet be “houseless, friendless and homeless” and that their children will leave footprints of blood across frozen rivers and an untamed prairie floor. Never mind that legions will die and other legions live declaring in the four quarters of this earth that they know the Book of Mormon and the Church which espouses it to be true. Disregard all of that, and tell me whether in this hour of death these two men would enter the presence of their Eternal Judge quoting from and finding solace in a book which, if not the very word of God, would brand them as imposters and charlatans until the end of time? They would not do that! They were willing to die rather than deny the divine origin and the eternal truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. (Emphasis in original)

It seems that he doesn’t trust his audience to understand his point. And to further underline, his voice rises in passion and what I can only describe as a mixture of anger, defensiveness, and contempt for critics:

For 179 years this book has been examined and attacked, denied and deconstructed, targeted and torn apart like perhaps no other book in modern religious history—perhaps like no other book in any religious history. And still it stands. Failed theories about its origins have been born and parroted and have died—from Ethan Smith to Solomon Spaulding to deranged paranoid to cunning genius. None of these frankly pathetic answers for this book has ever withstood examination because there is no other answer than the one Joseph gave as its young unlearned translator. In this I stand with my own great-grandfather, who said simply enough, “No wicked man could write such a book as this; and no good man would write it, unless it were true and he were commanded of God to do so.”

I testify that one cannot come to full faith in this latter-day work—and thereby find the fullest measure of peace and comfort in these, our times—until he or she embraces the divinity of the Book of Mormon and the Lord Jesus Christ, of whom it testifies. If anyone is foolish enough or misled enough to reject 531 pages of a heretofore unknown text teeming with literary and Semitic complexity without honestly attempting to account for the origin of those pages—especially without accounting for their powerful witness of Jesus Christ and the profound spiritual impact that witness has had on what is now tens of millions of readers—if that is the case, then such a person, elect or otherwise, has been deceived; and if he or she leaves this Church, it must be done by crawling over or under or around the Book of Mormon to make that exit. In that sense the book is what Christ Himself was said to be: “a stone of stumbling, … a rock of offence,” a barrier in the path of one who wishes not to believe in this work. Witnesses, even witnesses who were for a time hostile to Joseph, testified to their death that they had seen an angel and had handled the plates. “They have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man,” they declared. “Wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true.” (Emphasis in original)

I thought this was downright strange and still do. He has abandoned bearing a positive testimony and instead has turned an accusing and angry eye to those who would dare question the book’s divinity. It’s no longer the book he is defending, but instead he is directly berating “anyone [who] is foolish enough or misled to reject” the Book of Mormon. He almost taunts those who have left the church for “crawling over or under or around the Book of Mormon to make that exit,” as if they were snakes or lizards furtively slithering their way to the door of the church. He leaves no question in his listeners’ minds: there are no legitimate grounds for disbelieving the Book of Mormon. Those who disbelieve, he tells us, are pathetic, foolish, misled, incapable of recognizing the book’s “literary and Semitic complexity” (OK, that made me chuckle), offended, deceived, and worse even than those who were hostile to Joseph Smith in his lifetime.

I know a lot of people who found Elder Holland’s remarks offensive and divisive. For me, the words and the tone were mystifying. They came across not as forceful and determined, as I’m sure he intended, but rather defensive and more than a little angry and contemptuous. I really didn’t know what to make of it.

Then I saw him later in an interview with the BBC in 2012, when at first he was pretty evasive when asked about the obvious mistranslation of the Egyptian papyri and Joseph Smith’s criminal record. His answers were about what I expected. As far as the Book of Abraham, he said, “All I’m saying is that what got translated, got translated into the word of God. The vehicle for that I do not understand and don’t claim to know and know no Egyptian.” That’s pretty much the only honest response that can be made, given the obvious mistranslations. When asked about Smith’s conviction for fraud (“juggling” and “glass-looking”), he said, “I have no idea. … There’s a good deal of difficulty in the early frontier life in America, but that’s an incidental matter to the character and integrity of the man.” This is just weird: He says he doesn’t know anything about such a conviction (somehow I doubt that) and then in the same breath says a conviction for fraud is a trivial matter and doesn’t have anything to do with Smith’s character. Really?

After my friend Jeff Ricks explained to the interviewer about the nature of the penalties involved in the temple endowment before 1990, the interviewer asked Holland a really blunt question:

As a Mormon, in the temple, I’ve been told [Mitt Romney] would have sworn an oath to say that he would not pass on what happens in the temple, lest he slit his throat. Is that true?

The truthful answer to this is, “Yes.” Mitt Romney received his endowment in the 1960s and would have repeated the ceremony many times, each time miming the slitting of his throat and saying, “I covenant that I will never reveal” the signs and tokens of the temple. “Rather than do so, I would suffer my life to be taken.” I did this countless times myself. Knowing this, I wondered how Holland would reply. Would he simply acknowledge it and move on, or would he say something about how Mormons don’t talk about sacred matters in public? What he said was startling.

That’s not true. That’s not true. We do not have penalties in the temple.

I wasn’t expecting that. The first two sentences are simply false, full stop. The third sentence is true in a Clintonesque (define the word “is”) sense, but is a misleading answer to the question posed. The look on Holland’s face tells me he has suddenly realized that he’s dealing with someone who knows a little more than the average reporter about the Mormon church. The interviewer is prepared enough to know Holland is not telling the truth.

You used to [have penalties in the temple].

Holland finally gives up:

We used to.

He goes on to say that this was more a matter of a member like Mitt Romney not telling anyone about “his personal pledge to God” than it is about keeping the temple ceremony secret, even though the endowment itself refers to these pledges as “obligation[s] of secrecy.” Holland continues by saying that the Strengthening the Church Membership Committee is designed to “protect predatory practices of polygamist groups … principally.” I’m fairly certain he knows the committee does much more than that. To be fair, when asked the same question, church PR spokesperson Michael Purdy flatly denied knowing anything about the committee before finally owning up to it.

But what struck me the most was Holland’s response when the interviewer said that some former members describe the church as a cult, like Scientology, only smarter.

We’re not a cult. I’m not an idiot. You know, I’ve read a couple of books and I’ve been to a pretty good school, and I have chosen to be in this church because of the faith that I feel and the inspiration that comes. … We are 14 million and growing, and I’d like to think that your respect for me would be enough to know that this man doesn’t seem like a dodo.

At that moment the earlier anger and defensiveness about the Book of Mormon made sense. These words do not sound like the words of someone who is confident in his faith. Rather, they sound like something you would say if it was vitally important for you to defend something, but, somewhere deep inside, you have doubts about the thing you’re defending. It reminds of me a conversation I had several years ago with my wife’s sister, who is a heavy smoker. We were watching an old movie starring Judy Holliday. My sister-in-law wondered what had become of Ms. Holliday. I mentioned that Ms. Holliday, a comedic actress in the 1950s, had died from lung cancer at an early age. My sister-in-law said, “How could she have gotten lung cancer?” Without thinking, I said, “Well, she was a pretty heavy smoker.”

My sister-in-law had the same expression on her face and tone of voice as Holland’s as she angrily said, “There’s no proof that smoking causes lung cancer! Whoever says so is lying!” Her rant went on for a couple of minutes, and it was eerily similar to Holland’s “defense” of the spiritual truths of Mormonism.

When people talk like that, it makes me think that, somewhere deep inside, they are afraid they are dead wrong, so they make up for it with emotion and forcefulness. I am not suggesting that Jeffrey Holland is going through a crisis of faith. What I am saying is that the effect of his words and tone is quite different than what I think he intends.

He is trying to look firm and steadfast and impassioned. But it comes across as weak and pathetic to me, but I’m sure some people out there found it a stirring apologia.

Do Not Ever Slap or Poke an Elder

October 31, 2012

While I was doing a little homework on the article preceding this one, I found a delightful article from the Ensign (the LDS church’s official magazine) from 1972. At the end of the article is this list of suggestions for young women who are serving missions. I can’t decide if we’ve come very far from that or not.


Suggestions to Sister Missionaries


Exercise for a few minutes every morning; then eat a good breakfast and do not piece before lunch unless you want to put on weight.

In some places you can save a lot of time by eating your hot meal in an inexpensive restaurant or boarding house.

Make weekly menus and shop for as long a period as possible. This saves time and money and you will not buy as many high-calorie treats.

When cooking, make enough at one time for at least two meals.

Do not have a food fad where you eat the same things every day.

Eat at least one hot meal per day.

If you are one pound overweight, it is too much. Take it off!

Instead of stopping at a bakery for a quick lunch, stop at the store and buy a yogurt, some cottage cheese, or some such prepared, healthy food. Carry an apple or raw vegetable to tide you over until dinner. (We always carried a spoon in our handbags for meals away from the apartment.)

When invited to dinner you do not have to say you are on a diet; just take small helpings, no seconds, and cut down the next day. This way you do not offend the host, and you can still accept invitations to dinner.

Never, never eat late at night! When you come home late after a discussion and you have not had time for dinner, eat a little salad or fruit and then go straight to bed and think how much skinnier you will be by not eating a large meal until morning.

Chew gum only in the privacy of your apartment.


Elders’ most frequent complaints are about sisters’ hair. Have a neat and easy style—not too short or it will look like the elders’, and long enough so that it can be curled on Sunday and for special occasions.

Sleep on a satin pillowcase; this preserves hair style and also femininity.

Do not feel that because you are a missionary you cannot wear makeup. Do wear a minimum, but do not go completely without it.


Buy clothes that are easy to care for.

Whatever your wardrobe or climate, put on clean underclothes every day (even if it means taking five minutes the night before to rinse them out).

Do not carry one of those suitcase handbags that sister missionaries are so notorious for. Carry only the essentials in a medium-sized one, and put pamphlets or books in a separate plastic or leather case. (They will not get dog-eared this way.)

Carry a combination rain-wind bonnet, some tissues, and a couple of disposable, scented towels in your handbag. (The towels are nice for freshening up during a day away from your flat.)

Spark up those drab colors with scarves and bows.


Learn how to make those quick, no-bake chocolate cookies for branch picnics.

Do not ever slap or poke an elder.

Expect and then allow elders to open doors, help into cars, put on wraps, and start your motor bikes. Do not ignore their efforts, but do not be obnoxious if they should forget sometimes.

Have a BNTE Week (Be Nice to Elders Week) where you either cook something good or do something nice for your district. If you do this, remember that this week especially you must work like a whirlwind so no one can say that you borrowed the Lord’s time. Make it a top week in service and in work also.

Always participate with the elders on preparation day. If it is something you cannot do, then at least be there to watch or cheer. This does wonders for mutual respect between elders and sisters.

If you get depressed, set aside a little time that day to do whatever raises your spirits. For example, spend extra time on your hair, take a long shower, schedule a time for meditation, and then pray earnestly for help from the Lord. Lose yourself in the Spirit and work very, very hard.

NPR Heralds the Missionary-Age Change

October 31, 2012

I’m not sure why I haven’t commented on the change to Mormon missionary-age requirements, but hearing NPR’s take on it got me thinking about it, and as anyone who has read my blog knows, I rarely pass up an opportunity to express my opinion. (National Public Radio is the public radio service of the United States.)

Since 1960 young LDS men have been eligible to serve missions at age 19, while women had to wait until they were 21. As of the recent LDS general conference, the age requirement has been changed to 18 for young men and 19 for young women, so long as they have graduated from high school or its equivalent. This is a pretty big change for a number of reasons.

First the obvious difference is that young men can enter missionary service directly after high school, avoiding that strange sort of limbo between graduation and a mission, when you know you are supposed to be getting on with your life, but you can’t really do that until you know where and when you will serve your mission. As I mentioned in my book, Heaven Up Here, I graduated from high school when I was 17, so I had more than a year before I could leave on my mission. During that year, I worked two summers and attended three semesters of college, but I felt like I was just biding my time before my mission. My heart really wasn’t in school–and it showed in my grades–and I worked mostly to save money for my mission.

So in this respect, it’s a good thing for young men who are planning on serving missions. It will still disrupt education and work, but perhaps less so. On the other hand it will probably make it more difficult for some young men to save enough money to serve missions (they go at their own expense, with the church picking up the tab only for training and travel to and from the assigned mission), so less-affluent missionaries may have to delay their missionary service until they have the financial means to serve.

But NPR’s focus was on the lowering of the age at which female missionaries can serve to 19. In my view this is a much more momentous change, particularly because I know how Mormon culture has traditionally looked on “sister missionaries.”

When I was a college student and missionary back in the early 1980s, relatively few women served missions, as the church did not encourage them to serve, and most definitely did not create the expectation that boys had growing up that they would serve missions. The President of the Church in my youth, Spencer W. Kimball–whom we considered a prophet–made it clear that serving a mission was a commandment for young Mormon men:

“The question is frequently asked: Should every young man fill a mission? And the answer has been given by the Lord. It is ‘Yes.’ Every young man should fill a mission. …

“… Every man should also pay his tithing. Every man should observe the Sabbath. Every man should attend his meetings. Every man should marry in the temple” (“When the World Will Be Converted,” Ensign, Oct. 1974, p. 8).

Reading through President Kimball’s talk, I notice that there is not a single mention of women being involved in converting the world. That wouldn’t have crossed his mind, I would think, as it probably wouldn’t have occurred to me, either. In those days there were very few sister missionaries, and in my mission in Bolivia, most were serving nonproselytizing welfare missions.

The attitude a lot of people had then was that women served missions if they were 21 and had no prospects of marriage, for marriage was supposed to be the focus of young women, not missionary service. As the NPR reporter put it

At age 21, a woman is nearly finished with college, and historically there’s been pressure to marry rather than set out on an 18-month mission, which is optional for both men and women.

Sister missionaries were considered almost like old maids at 21. I know a sister missionary who despaired at 22 that she would probably never get married because it was getting too late. When I was in the Missionary Training Center, a sister missionary announced in our “culture class” that she was serving because she thought it would help her find a husband.

Over the last 30 years or so, it has become more socially acceptable for women to serve mission. No longer were sister missionaries considered spinsters-in-training at 21, but rather as a valuable part of the missionary force. Consequently, more young women had begun to plan on serving missions, and it became common to hear teenage girls talking about their plans to serve a mission when they were old enough. The shift in age requirements may reflect the church’s acknowledgment of this cultural trend.

National Public Radio (the public radio service of the United States) covered the story and rightly concluded that it signaled a big shift in attitudes towards women serving missions. It’s pretty clear to me that the church has decided that having more missionaries is at least as important, if not more, than marrying women young, and that is an unprecedented change.

In LDS theology, marriage between a man and woman is essential to exaltation in the highest level of the celestial kingdom (the Mormon expression for “heaven”). Indeed God is God because He is married. He is literally our Heavenly Father, who is married to a Heavenly Mother–together they are God and have spiritually begotten all human beings. For the leaders to  encourage young women to delay marriage in favor of missionary service thus has theological implications.

NPR interviewed a young woman, Hannon Young, who is a freshman at church-owned Brigham Young University (my alma mater), who was understandably emotional about the change.

“I wanted to go on a mission since I was 16,” she says. “And the thought of waiting two more years was really difficult for me. So, it was such exciting news.”

She is one of the rising generation that not only sees missionary service as a positive thing, but also has been planning on serving.  Her mother, Jane, opined

“I do think what it allows is for women — Mormon women — to have it all,” she says.

That may be a bit of an overstatement, but clearly the church’s view of the role women play in the church has changed.

Jane says the new policy represents a philosophical shift in how Mormon women are viewed by the church — and by themselves.

“I think women will see themselves differently,” she says.

Hannon agrees.

“I think I do, because it’s empowering to think that they want more women serving,” she says. “It feels like a call to really join the ranks.”

Yet the church has been careful to remind sisters that they do not have the same obligation to serve missions as the young men do. Current church president Thomas Monson said recently

A word to you young sisters: while you do not have the same priesthood responsibility as do the young men to serve as full-time missionaries, you also make a valuable contribution as missionaries, and we welcome your service.

The policy change suggests to me that the church is beginning to encourage young women to serve, rather than merely “welcoming” their service. But this does not signal a sudden movement toward equal status and treatment for LDS women. Only men are ordained to the priesthood, and women in the church are called and serve under the direction of priesthood leaders. That’s not going to change.

But what is the reason for the new policy? Perhaps some statistics will help explain. At the end of 1980, there were 29,953 full-time missionaries. By 1990, there were 43,651, an increase of 45%. By 2000, the ranks had grown to 60,784, or nearly 40% over the previous decade. However, in 2010, there were 52,225, a decrease of 14% in ten years.

But not only the number of missionaries has declined, but also the number of baptisms per missionary, which has dropped by half from a high of 8 per missionary in 1989 to between 4 and 5 in the last few years. Together, these two statistics show that missionary work in the LDS church has not kept up with membership growth as a whole. (Church membership increased from 7,760,000 in 1990 to 14,131,467, or nearly 100%.)

What has caused the decline in missionary numbers? I don’t have any idea. My guess is that a lot of young men have been dropping out of the church in that year between 18 and 19, which would make sense because it’s the first time most of them will have been on their own, either going to college or making money. Perhaps two years of unpaid missionary service seems less attractive. I honestly don’t know. Whatever the reason, the numbers are down, and I am assuming the church did some internal pilot programs to see if sending missionaries out at 18 decreased the number of young men opting out.

Given the decrease in baptisms per missionary, it seems logical that the church would try to increase the number of missionaries serving, which is where the young women come in. Most LDS young women will not get married before age 19 (the average is somewhere above 22 for women), so the pool of potential missionaries has increased significantly, and indeed, the article notes:

Some 4,000 young women applied in the two weeks since the announcement. Overall, applications have quintupled — and fully half of them are women. Until now, only about 20 percent of missionaries have been female.

Given the total number serving in 2011, there were 11,000 young women serving as missionaries, or 20%.  Assuming that the number of young men stays the same, and I would bet it will increase, if young women constitute 50% of missionaries, that would add some 33,000 missionaries, for a total of around 88,000, or a 60% increase.

In the end, the new policy doesn’t so much reflect a change in status for women but simply indicates a need the church has for more missionaries. And who knows? Maybe young women make more effective missionaries than do their male counterparts, so we may see an increase in converts per missionary.

I’m happy for those young women who wish to serve as missionaries. My daughter is thrilled, though I have reminded her that this means she has less time to save up for her mission. Unlike the stake president the article quotes, I don’t envision a big increase in mission “romances.” Of course, I married a sister missionary, so who am I to talk?

Obama’s Plan Revealed

October 22, 2012

Not to be overshadowed by the recent unveiling of Mitt Romney’s first-term plans, the Obama campaign released their own outline for a second-term agenda. Obama spokesperson Stephanie Axelrod-Plouffe explained the campaign’s thinking: “We have decided that releasing our position papers through E.J. Dionne isn’t getting our message out as broadly as we had hoped, so we’re spelling it all out. Voters can decide for themselves which is the better plan.”

1. Unemployment: When President Obama took office in 2009, unemployment was a dismal 7.8%. After four years of focus on job creation, the rate is now at an encouraging 7.8%, indicating that remaining unemployment is a result of Bush-era policies. Going forward, we intend to highlight the damaging effects of these misguided policies on employment. The president doesn’t believe it is prudent to offer a details jobs plan, as that would only deflect attention from blaming Bush.

2. Deficit: This administration inherited a terrible deficit of $1.5 trillion from the Bush Administration, which forced us to continue trillion-dollar-plus deficits for the next three fiscal years. The president has a one-point plan to continue these deficits indefinitely: invest in America. The Romney campaign, on the other hand, would continue to run deep deficits and leave onerous debt to our children and grandchildren. We just can’t afford that.

3. Education: A second Obama administration would invest in education through expanded grant and student-loan programs, research grants, and tax credits. We hope that a majority of Americans will be able to attend college and be prepared for the lack of jobs that awaits them. At least we can keep them busy for the next four years or so.

4. Welfare: As part of our educational assistance, we will increase the amount of unemployment insurance, food stamps, and other welfare programs to ensure that college graduates will not starve because they are unemployable. Governor Romney would bankrupt the country by giving breaks to businesses, who add far less to the economy than do the unemployed. Given the number of young adults who are returning to live with their parents, we will institute a new program called Aid to Families with Dependent Adult Children, which will make it easier on families saddled with debt and unemployed children.

5. Same-Sex Marriage: President Obama has been consistent in his approach to same-sex marriage. In 1996, he said he would “fight” for same-sex marriage rights; in 2004 and again in 2008, he said he believed that marriage is between a man and a woman, based on his religious beliefs. He reaffirmed his unchanging beliefs in May 2012, when he publicly announced his support for same-sex marriage. Governor Romney, on the other hand, has changed his position so often that it’s hard to pin him down.

6. Taxes: President Obama is concerned that too many Americans are not paying their fair share of the tax burden. Nearly 98% of federal income taxes are paid by the top 50% of income earners, while the bottom 50% pays slightly more than 2% of the total. This grievous inequity, besides being inherently unfair, has led to a situation in which inordinate power is vested in the wealthiest Americans. The best way to remedy this situation is to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, which, although having a minimal effect on federal revenue, will at least make it seem a little fairer. Of course, we would not be in this situation if George W. Bush had not single-handedly decreed a massive tax cut in 2001 that the Congress has been powerless to resist or repeal.

7. Abortion: President Obama opposes imposing one person’s values on other people. For this reason, he is against forcing people to have babies they do not want and is in favor of forcing religious institutions to provide insurance for procedures that violate the institutions’ religious beliefs.

8. Foreign Policy: President Obama supports reaching out to our nation’s enemies, such as Iran, to help resolve the issues between our countries, which are largely products of our own belligerence. The administration favors punishing those who attack our country, unless it is a government that attempts to plant a bomb in Washington, DC., but with whom we are trying to overcome years of mutual resentment. We face great foreign-policy challenges, but these are left over from George W. Bush’s administration. Oh, and we killed Osama bin Laden, effectively ending any threat from al-Qaeda.

9. Media: President Obama supports a free and open media that works hand in hand with the administration to promote its goals, policies, and public image. The media must be kept balanced and unbiased, which is why the president supports reinstating the “fairness doctrine” and abolishing talk radio and Fox News.

Romney’s Plan Revealed

October 18, 2012

A source in the Romney campaign today leaked an internal memo, entitled “Solutions Statement” designed to outline in broad terms a Romney administration’s approach to the nation’s problems. The source, who wished to remain anonymous, stated that voters do not yet understand Romney’s exciting vision for the future, but he hoped this document would help.

1. Unemployment: Each week we see more applications for unemployment benefits, and this cannot continue. A Romney administration would eliminate all unemployment benefits effective January 20, 2013, which would have the dual benefit of reducing dependency on the government and allow us to save the money previously spent tracking and paying for unemployment.

2. Deficit: We are spending too much money, and though the sequestration agreed upon in Congress is a step in the right direction, it comes at too high a price in decreased national security; currently, the sequestration would require cuts of $109 billion a year, divided evenly between defense and entitlements. A Romney administration would not accept such a drastic cut to our military, which would place all Americans in danger. Rather, we propose making 100% of the cuts to entitlements. We cannot allow our fiscal, economic, and military security to be held hostage by the greed and selfishness of people who feel they are “entitled” to other people’s money.

3. Education: Each year the federal government gives billions in grants and guaranteed loans to help families pay for college. The average student today graduates with more than $26,000 in debt, but 50% of graduates cannot find work, and many more are underemployed. This calamitous situation must be remedied. The Romney Student-Debt Elimination and Job Recovery Act would immediately cease all grant and loan programs, which would at a stroke reduce wasteful government spending and keep millions of young Americans out of the bondage of debt. Rather than working jobs they are overqualified for, young people would be better prepared to move into today’s job market. College graduates shouldn’t have to work minimum-wage jobs, so this program will reduce the number of graduates, reducing the unemployment rate for graduates.

4. Food Stamps: This misnamed program essentially puts a free gift card in the hands of people who haven’t earned it, so they can buy extravagant meals of caviar and Kobe beef. Ending this program immediately would encourage millions of Americans to take responsibility for themselves and learn to live on a budget within their means, just like everyone else. Lest food-stamp recipients feel unfairly singled out, the WIC program will also be phased out.

5. Same-Sex Marriage: Marriage is a sacred institution that has been unchanged in thousands of years of human history; it has always been between a man and a woman. except when it has been between a man and more than one woman. Governor Romney strongly believes that we do not need new laws about marriage, but that we need to enforce existing laws against sodomy and cohabitation.

6. Taxes: Governor Romney is concerned that too many Americans are not paying their fair share of the tax burden. Nearly 98% of federal income taxes are paid by the top 50% of income earners, while the bottom 50% pays slightly more than 2% of the total. This grievous inequity, besides being inherently unfair, has led to a situation in which half of Americans do not feel invested in their government and are more likely to shirk their responsibilities as voters and citizens to participate in our republican democracy. A Romney administration would broaden the tax burden by adjusting the tax code so that the bottom 50% pays a fair share: 50% of the total. This can be accomplished by reducing marginal rates above the $250,000 income level and eliminating deductions such as education and mortgage deductions, as well as eliminating the Earned Income Credit and the Child Tax Credit.

7. Abortion: Governor Romney opposes abortion, except in cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the mother’s life. With that in mind, he is proposing a new sub-cabinet-level board that will meet quarterly to approve applications for abortions. Congressman Todd Akin has agreed to head a task force to determine the makeup of the board, as well as its procedures, in order to ensure that requests are processed in a way that safeguards the lives of the unborn.

8. Foreign Policy: Around the world, millions are caught up in violent conflicts, from Colombia to Syria to Somalia. Governor Romney believes that the United States cannot be the world’s “policeman,” but should focus on protecting and defending our own states. With that in mind, Governor Romney proposes sending peace delegations to these regional hot spots to invite these countries to apply for statehood. These delegations will be accompanied by a sufficient armed force to protect them, which will of course require securing peace and law and order in each prospective state.

9. Media: Governor Romney believes in a free and unfettered media, which is why he will implement “fairness and standards” boards. These panels will seek to expand the boundaries of free speech by defining those boundaries strictly. A Romney administration will discourage pornography, inflammatory political speech, and violence in the media. By contrast, the administration will encourage the portrayal of wholesome values in the media, as well as promoting satire, such as this list.

Circling the Wagons

October 15, 2012

Over the weekend I had a conversation with a friend who has served on several committees for the LDS church putting together instructional manuals for priesthood and auxiliary manuals. We talked about how the Joseph Smith presented by the church has always been like George Washington, Superman, and Jesus rolled into one. He agreed with me that the portrayals of Joseph Smith have been far too slanted and unrealistic.

We discussed how a lot of people are shocked when they discover that the real Joseph Smith bears little resemblance to the correlated Joseph, and a number of people end up leaving the church because of the disconnect. He said that he’d worked with “probably more than a hundred people” who had come to him for help, but he gave them the same answer he gave me: Joseph Smith was who he was, but the church he founded is good and benefits the world.

I suppose that’s the only answer an honest person can give because Joseph Smith wasn’t a particularly truthful or moral man. When I said I thought the church should at least acknowledge Joseph’s humanity and make him less of a figure to be spoken of in awe, my friend said he had tried many times in his committee assignments to make that same point and get the church to open up a little about who Joseph Smith was. But he said that he got absolutely nowhere with the church or the committees.

So, for the time being, the church appears to be taking the Boyd Packer approach: “Some things that are true are not very useful.” In my view, this is a mistake, but then I don’t imagine the church cares what I think. At some point, more than a few Mormons will be confronted with their church’s real history, and a lot will be shaken in their faith, perhaps enough to leave the church.

To me, this circling of the wagons suggests that church leaders do not yet understand just how completely they have lost control of their message. Several leaders mentioned “exaggerated or invented” information on the Internet, presumably as a warning to members not to believe what they read (this is the Chico Marx defense: “Well, who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?”). Of course, the problem is that a great deal of information is neither exaggerated nor invented; worse yet, I can imagine that more than a few people who heard those talks will be thinking, “Hmmm, I wonder what he’s talking about,” and venture out into the demonic recesses of the Internet.

In the long run, the LDS church has no choice but to open up if it wants to survive as a belief system and not just an institution. For the time being, however, it seems to have chosen to circle the wagons and pretend that the official, squeaky-clean version of itself is the correct one.

Fearless Predictions for LDS General Conference

October 3, 2012

10. Richard G. Scott will stare soulfully into the camera and plead with you to do (or stop doing) something.

9. During choir numbers, the cameras will focus on minority choir members in an attempt to show diversity.

8. Someone will refer to the podium being made out of Gordon B. Hinckley’s walnut tree.

7. Boyd K. Packer will say something bizarre about sexuality.

6. Henry Eyring will get choked up with emotion at least once.

5. A female speaker will express her gratitude for a religion that reveres and exalts women.

4. A general authority’s relative will be sustained as a new general authority.

3. There will be at least one talk about the church’s political neutrality, and it will not be given by Craig Zwick.

2. Dieter Uchtdorf’s face will be the brightest object in the conference center.

1. Thomas Monson will use a passive triplet, mention a widow (bonus points for including canaries), talk about a funeral or a visit to a hospital, and tell a story from his childhood about a model train or a dead sailor.

Damn It, Sucked Right In Again

September 25, 2012

I feel kind of stupid for letting myself get sucked back into the pointless bickering between apologists and critics of the LDS church. I’m not going to do that again.

Back when I was an “apologist” on the old alt.religion.mormon page and the FAIR/MAD board, I learned some valuable lessons. First and foremost is that there are good, honest, intelligent people on both sides of the divide, and I made friends among serious apologists and hardcore apostates alike. The second thing I learned is that, despite the rhetoric, it’s not an important battle over the souls of men. It’s just a bunch of opinionated people arguing over a message board.

The odd thing is that I’m usually not involved in these disputes anymore. I just don’t care enough. I have never contributed to MormonThink, and I rarely read anything from the FAIR/FARMS/MI crowd. It’s just not an important part of my life anymore. And yet I let myself get worked up over a silly essay from someone I already knew was a bit of a crank, and I instinctively sided with the apostate in a dispute with the church. In all honesty, I don’t really know if David Twede was trying to get people out of the church. I take his word for it, but I’m so far removed from the issue I can’t say anything definitive.

I don’t know Lou Midgley (though I saw him once in the lobby of the Maxwell Institute), nor do I know Scott Gordon. But I said a few unkind things because I was upset about things that happened. I stand by my analysis of Midgley’s attack on C.L. Hanson, but I think she handled it with far more grace than I did by just making light of it. I hope David Twede can work things out to his satisfaction. I don’t know his motivations, but I do know that the information he has provided on MormonThink is accurate and honest.

As for our visitors from FAIR, this is the first time I’ve had any interaction with Allen Wyatt, and I didn’t think his comments were “mean” or anything like that; I’ve known Steve Smoot for several years, and though I rarely agree with him, I’ve never had any hostile or unpleasant interactions with him. I hope that my responses did not come across as heated or angry, as they were not.

In the end, arguing over Mormonism is all “sound and fury, signifying nothing.” There’s no point.

Top Ten Reasons for David Twede’s Church Discipline

September 24, 2012

10. “MormonThink”? The name alone sounds subversive and evil.

9. Since the Brigham City Temple was dedicated, Boyd K. Packer has a lot of time on his hands.

8. Anything to take people’s attention away from Mitt Romney’s imploding campaign.

7. Scott Gordon was worried that his reputation as an underhanded douchebag was slipping.

6.  Having solved the masturbation problems in his stake, President Pratt figured he’d start working on the apostates.

5. The church had determined that the site was doubleplustrue.

4.  John Lynch thought that drawing attention to a website with accurate information would make the church look even better than its already stellar image.

3. The voices in Thomas Monson’s head told him to ex Brother Twede.

2. President Pratt mistakenly thought that getting rid of MormonThink would stop those pornographic pop-ups from showing up on his computer.

1. Twede sent a doubting member to the most faith-destroying web site of them all: FAIRLDS.org.

Lou Midgley Gives Two Tens for a Five

September 21, 2012

Lou Costello was a genius, in my book. Here, for example, Costello explains how 7X13=28. The logic is brilliant, even if it doesn’t work without some serious fudging. But Costello also had routines in which he was flustered by his inability to outsmart his straight man, Bud Abbott, such as in the “Two Tens for a Five” bit.

Mormon apologetics is a lot like an Abbott and Costello routine. The usual fare on the FAIR site and others involves some strained attempt to make a connection between Mormon truth claims and real history. Most of the time it sort of makes sense until you examine the logic and the evidence–then it’s almost always found wanting. At other times, some apologists seem to realize that they’ve been outsmarted, and they get flustered and lash out at the church’s critics. This latter approach, which I’ll call “Two Tens for a Five” is exemplified by an essay by another Lou (Midgley) on the newly minted “Mormon Interpreter” apologetics site.

I won’t go into detail about the history of the new site. Suffice it to say that after the recent shake-up at BYU’s Maxwell Institute, some of the exiled have started an independent apologetic site. The first article, by David Bokovoy, seemed to signal that the Interpreter would focus on scholarly approaches to Mormon beliefs, rather than on snarky and mean-spirited attacks on critics. Unfortunately, Midgley’s September 7, 2012, post proves that my initial impression was wrong.

Ostensibly, Midgley is responding to a series of seven essays on Mormonism in the November 2011 issue of  Free Inquiry, a journal discussing secular humanism. You may be wondering why Midgley is responding nearly a year after the issue’s publication. Until July or so, Midgley was a regular contributor and major figure in the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship at Brigham Young University. The Maxwell Institute, formerly known as the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon, or FARMS), had as its mission:

By furthering religious scholarship through the study of scripture and other texts, Brigham Young University’s Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship seeks to deepen understanding and nurture discipleship among Latter-day Saints while promoting mutual respect and goodwill among people of all faiths.

As part of this mission they published apologetic books about Mormon topics and a journal called the FARMS Review, which over the years gained a reputation for polemical and mean-spirited attacks on those who questioned or criticized Mormonism. For example, one issue (volume 15, issue 2) contained 5 “reviews” of Grant Palmer’s An Insider’s View of Mormon Originsmost of which focus on Palmer’s character, or lack thereof, with various authors labeling him as one who has “lived a life of deceit for many years” (258) and who “still clings tenaciously, if irrationally, to a thread of faith in revelation” (301), with Louis Midgley adding the final insult to Palmer’s Christian faith: “Palmer appears to have filled the empty space generated by his cynicism with sentimentality about Jesus” (397).

But I digress. Sometime over the summer, the old guard at the Maxwell Institute was relieved of its duties, and the new leadership renamed the Review to the Mormon Studies Review and suspended publication until they can determine how “to better position the new Mormon Studies Review within its academic discipline” (“A New Beginning …“). Some former Review contributors have reported that issues had been delayed or canceled because they continued in that aggressive stance, notably a purported “hit piece” on John Dehlin that was quashed. Presumably, then, Midgley’s article-length post was intended for publication in the Review but was delayed or rejected. No longer constrained by the Maxwell Institute, Midgley has published it on the Interpreter.

I’ve read Midgley’s entire article, and it’s a stem-winder, but I am particularly interested in his discussion of my friend C.L. Hanson’s essay, “Building on a Religious Background.” Ms. Hanson has been a good friend of mine for several years. We first encountered each other when I first started blogging in 2005 or so. I became a fan of her Letters from a Broad blog, which discussed her life as a Java programmer, mother, and former Mormon. She also runs Main Street Plaza, which is mostly an aggregate of several LDS-related bloggers; her contribution is mostly limited to “Sunday in Outer Blogness,” a roundup of the week’s LDS-related blogging, pro and con. She is a delightful person who has helped me a great deal by encouraging my writing, reviewing and publicizing my book, and inviting me to participate in a panel and book-signing at this year’s Sunstone conference. I am honored that she is my friend, so it is a little difficult to write objectively about Midgley’s response to her essay.

The essay in question encourages former believers to build bridges with the faith communities they grew up with. She writes:

Atheists who were raised in other religions can form the same sorts of bridges with their own communities. I encourage them to do so. It makes sense that — within the atheist community — secular Jews should take the lead when discussing Israel, and people raised Muslim should take the lead in discussions about problems in Muslim countries, for example. They have added perspective on the subject, plus they can be trusted not to be biased by racism against their group nor by believing that their group is doing God’s will. Being raised in religion isn’t better or worse than being raised without it. But I believe that those of us who were raised in religious communities have a special role to play, and we should step up and play it.

This is hardly controversial, but it is nice for someone to be arguing that we do have a role to play in healing wounds and discussing problems within our former religions and communities. But here’s how Midgley sees it:

Ms. Hanson proclaims that she is an atheist but “grew up Mormon” (p. 40). She can presumably “translate between [the] two communities” (p. 40). Why? Her once having been LDS makes her, she imagines, sort of “bilingual.” She is ready and willing, she claims, to correct “those who believe the usual stereotypes about atheists” because she knows that they are not really “amoral nihilists, or whatever.” She can, she claims, also correct mistakes that atheists make about the faith of Latter-day Saints. She does these things “sometimes on the Bloggernacle (network of faithful-Mormon blogs).”

She pictures herself as “a mild mannered mom” who posts up a storm on the Internet promoting what she calls “the middle ground where ‘nice,’ tactful atheism can occur” (p. 41). Her blogs—Main Street Plaza and Letters from a Broad—strike me as a bit raunchy and as lacking intellectual content. Hanson needs a sense of solidarity with Latter-day Saints, even though her own nice “atheist community” (p. 41) should take care of her emotional needs by providing her with friends, a sense of [Page 135] meaning, and an identity. She believes that “atheists who were raised in other religions can form the same sort of bridges with their own communities” (p. 41).

The fact is, however, that both substance and civility are in rather short supply on lists, boards, and blogs, where the most violent and uninformed are free to opine up a storm. And this goes, unfortunately, for both Latter-day Saints as well as their critics.

Some of Hanson’s remarks, however, actually almost seem to address Tom Flynn’s desires for an answer to the question of how atheists and Latter-day Saints can have something “to say to one another” (p. 21), presumably in addition to bashing each other on blogs. Unfortunately, she does not address the two questions—“Why did Mormonism grow?” and “Why does it endure?”—that constitute the subtitle of Tom Flynn’s introduction. This fact highlights a problem with the seven items in Free Inquiry.

Where to begin with this diatribe? Why not the beginning? The first paragraph discusses Ms. Hanson’s call for people like her (and me) to build bridges between believers and nonbelievers because, in some ways, we are “bilingual” because we understand what it’s like to believe and not believe. Midgley seems to think she is being both arrogant and disingenuous, as she “claims” she can help correct misunderstandings and stereotypes believers and nonbelievers have about each other (I have seen her do this many times). Why is this a suspect claim for Lou? Because she sometimes posts on the Bloggernacle, an aggregate blog of mostly believing Mormons. What does Midgley have against the bloggernacle?

The second paragraph is so silly and presumptuous that I need to unpack it a little at a time.

She pictures herself as “a mild mannered mom” who posts up a storm on the Internet promoting what she calls “the middle ground where ‘nice,’ tactful atheism can occur” (p. 41).

First, she is a “mild mannered mom,” as anyone who reads her blogs can see and as those of us who have spent time with her know. But she doesn’t “post up a storm on the Internet”; she’s busy, and as I mentioned, her contributions include the Sunday news roundup and an occasional article. Her personal blog is, well, a personal blog. I do wonder why Midgley is hostile to niceness and tact; I suppose atheists should be more genuine about their evil intentions. In some ways I understand Midgley’s fear of the nice and tactful; I’ve been told I’m one of the worst types of anti-Mormons because I try to be kind and fair. Apparently, my behavior is a ruse to ensnare the unwitting in the devil’s clutches. Perhaps Midgley disdains her efforts at promoting civility precisely because he has no need for it himself.

Her blogs—Main Street Plaza and Letters from a Broad—strike me as a bit raunchy and as lacking intellectual content.

As I mentioned, MSP is simply a collecting point for a number of blogs and bloggers, and LFAB is a personal blog (here’s a representative post). By “raunchy” Midgley apparently means that she speaks more frankly about sexuality than he deems proper (here’s her Vagina Testimony, for example). In a footnote, he expands his scolding of her wanton crudeness by pointing to footnotes to a post from 2006(!):

For example, it really is ludicrous for Hanson to describe her teenage efforts to seduce boys or to describe what she claims to have managed in the library at BYU. See http://lfab-uvm.blogspot.com/2006/07/my-deconversion-part-3-tipping-point.html, including the comments for one of many similar examples of childish rubbish.

It’s stunning to me that someone can read a moving account of one’s loss of faith and focus only on a tongue-in-cheek paragraph that explains why she chose to fictionalize her conversation with a non-Mormon the way she did:

However, in real life I did have a few non-member boyfriends at the time that I was in the process of trying to hustle into the bedroom as quickly as I could, with varying degrees of success. So if you’d like to tell yourself that my epiphany was motivated by my ferocious teenage hormones that wanted an open field to “sin,” go ahead.

That’s one of the things I admire about C.L. Hanson’s writing, the casual tone and humor. I’m sorry Brother Midgley considers someone’s humorous personal blog “childish rubbish.” I wonder what he’d say if I reviewed his personal journal.

Next we read:

Hanson needs a sense of solidarity with Latter-day Saints, even though her own nice “atheist community” (p. 41) should take care of her emotional needs by providing her with friends, a sense of [Page 135] meaning, and an identity.

I have no idea where this is coming from, and C.L. is equally mystified, as she writes in a response to Midgley on her blog, “This is the bit that most makes me go ‘WTF?’” She continues:

Midgley seems to be implying that I’m some sort of lonely, emotionally-needy person who clings to the faithful Mormon community due to some inadequacy in the atheist community. Not only is that not true, but there’s really nothing in my article to suggest it. Allow me to explain that the point of the article was to convince atheists of the value of engaging in constructive dialog about religion.

The need to portray Ms. Hanson negatively is part of it, but there is a larger reason Midgley says this about atheism being a community that “should take care of her emotional needs by providing her with friends, a sense of meaning, and an identity.” Midgley’s essay is titled “Atheist Piety: A Religion of Dogmatic Dubiety.” His thesis is that all the essays in the Free Inquiry issue, including Ms. Hanson’s, are broadsides on Mormonism from the perspective of a dogmatic, militant atheism. After deriding some of the essays for their “nonscholarly” attacks on the church, he writes:

Others complain that the faith of the Saints tends to meet emotional needs or that their religious community has various ways of reinforcing their own moral demands. In no instance do these authors see their own deeply held ideology as serving similar personal and community-sustaining religious functions.

In short, Midgley tries the age-old tactic of insisting that atheism is actually a religion, and a dogmatic and intolerant religion at that. Of course, it won’t do when an author like Ms. Hanson calls for bridge-building and reconciliation; he needs her to have a “deeply held ideology” that gives her the same support as “religious functions.” Because she hasn’t actually said anything like this in her essay, Midgley simply asserts that she has. She’s clearly thrown the good professor for a loop because, no matter how many times he gives her two tens, she’s giving back a five; she won’t fit in his neat little apostate box because she wasn’t there in the first place.  So, lacking any justification, Dr. Midgley tells us she believes that the atheist community is supposed to take care of her. And just like that, a conciliatory essay is of a piece with the other essays, which he says

reflect a fashionable, dogmatic, naive, and deeply religious enmity toward the faith of Latter-day Saints. The essays are also shown to be instances of a modern militant atheism, which is contrasted with earlier and much less bold and aggressive doubts about divine things.

If nothing, Ms. Hanson writes about her religious upbringing with affection and sympathy, even though much of what she experienced was painful. But facts be damned, Midgley has a thesis to prove, so C.L. Hanson must be a militant atheist with nothing but enmity and contempt for Mormonism and Mormons.

In the next sentence, Midgley makes casual mention of Hanson’s main point:

She believes that “atheists who were raised in other religions can form the same sort of bridges with their own communities” (p. 41).

But he quickly dismisses this as mere posturing:

The fact is, however, that both substance and civility are in rather short supply on lists, boards, and blogs, where the most violent and uninformed are free to opine up a storm. And this goes, unfortunately, for both Latter-day Saints as well as their critics.

Well, no kidding. Anyone who has been around Mormon discussions anywhere on the Internet knows there is a lot of rancor on both sides. That’s why C.L. Hanson wrote the article. But Midgley doesn’t care about her thesis. He simply wants to lump her in with the “violent and uninformed.” Certainly, those Mormons who read Midgley’s piece without actually reading the essays he attacks–er, reviews–will come away uninformed and probably a little angry.

Then he makes a backhanded concession:

Some of Hanson’s remarks, however, actually almost seem to address Tom Flynn’s desires for an answer to the question of how atheists and Latter-day Saints can have something “to say to one another” (p. 21), presumably in addition to bashing each other on blogs.

That’s a neat trick, isn’t it? He takes her entire thesis and reduces it to just “some of [her] remarks,” as if her calls for conciliation were an intentional distraction from her true goal: “bashing each other on blogs.”

His final complaint is this:

Unfortunately, she does not address the two questions—“Why did Mormonism grow?” and “Why does it endure?”—that constitute the subtitle of Tom Flynn’s introduction.

That’s probably because neither question was pertinent to her subject. It’s quite ironic for someone who has systematically misrepresented another person’s article to then complain that she didn’t talk about what he wanted her to talk about.

Another footnote is instructive:

Hanson is an atheist housewife who blogs from Zurich, Switzerland (at Letters from a Broad andMain Street Plaza). She self-published in 2006 a novel entitled Ex Mormon.

He can’t even get her occupation right. She’s a Java programmer, which he should have figured out when he was scouring her personal blog for “raunchy” material.  (What kind of perv does that, anyway?)

Thus, having portrayed my friend as a committed–and depraved–atheist, just like the other essayists, he moves in for the kill:

This is not, of course, to say that what Paul called atheos—being “without God in the world”—is not common when people see no necessity for God since they have the welfare state to support themselves, electronic toys to entertain themselves, or drugs to pleasure themselves. All of these, and many more similar things, are commonly worshipped. Idolatry has not disappeared, even among militant atheists. The reason is that there are many whose “hearts are upon their treasures; wherefore, their treasure is their god” (2 Nephi 9:30).

There is another wonderful passage in our scriptures that describes atheos. In the preface to the Doctrine and Covenants, we learn that there are those who “seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol” (D&C 1:16).

So, now she’s a militant atheist idolater who worships drugs, electronic toys, and the welfare state(!). The sad part of all this is that she has offered the hand of friendship to people like Midgley, and he has slapped it away angrily. I applaud C.L. Hanson for attempting to build bridges, but I suspect she will have to look beyond people like Midgley, who are too busy planting dynamite around the footings to be bothered with kindness.