Apostate or Not?

Since our founding, Mormons have had strong feelings about those who leave our faith. We are to love others throughout the world, of all faiths; yet, the Book of Mormon is full of stories of those who rejected the faith and descended into such evil that they were willing to murder their former friends and neighbors:

And thus we can plainly discern, that after a people have been once enlightened by the Spirit of God, and have had great knowledge of things pertaining to righteousness, and then have fallen away into sin and transgression, they become more hardened, and thus their state becomes worse than though they had never known these things.

Alma 24:30

These apostates had a tendency to emigrate to a neighboring nation, and persuade the people there to declare war on their homeland.

But this is not merely an ancient phenomenon: some of Joseph Smith, Jr.'s friends and companions deserted the Church and fought against it, giving false testimony against the Prophet in anger, pride, or fear. Some tried to kill him. Neal A. Maxwell wrote,

There are the dissenters who leave the Church, either formally or informally, but who cannot leave it alone. Usually anxious to please worldly galleries, they are critical or at least condescending towards the Brethren. They not only seek to steady the ark but also on occasion give it a hard shove! Often having been taught the same true doctrines as the faithful, they have nevertheless moved in the direction of dissent (see Alma 47:36). They have minds hardened by pride (see Daniel 5:20).

As cited in an LDS Book of Mormon Student Manual

In this mindset, perhaps, Brigham Young spoke harshly of Emma Hale Smith when she did not accompany the Church westward. Later, she participated in forming the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which held Joseph Smith, Jr.'s inspired translation and notes on the the Holy Bible. They published these as the Inspired Version of the Bible, but the larger Church in Utah did not use this version for many years, until one of our own scholars got to see the original manuscript for himself.

Turns out, the Reorganized Church had done a fine job. No apostate changing of scripture. No malicious, prideful, or evil intent. Today, differences from the Inspired Version (or "Joseph Smith Translation") are placed in the footnotes of LDS-published editions of the King James Version of the Bible, and routinely used in our Church curriculum.

So... if Emma Smith and company weren't evil apostates, what were they?

Robert Kirby (author of the "Five kinds of Mormons" and the "Five kinds of non-Mormons") offers a lighthearted take in his "Five kinds of ex-Mormons," placing those who leave the LDS Church on a spectrum from very hostile to not at all.

Many Latter-day Saints struggle with a series of dialectics: our Church is the One True Church, but the rest of the world can be saved, too. Satan wants us to leave the Church, but God loves his lost sheep. Those who leave can do so out of pride, guilt, or anger... or, they can do so out of sincerity, hurt feelings, or misunderstandings. One popular blog post on this issue, "The Alarming Truth behind Anti-Mormonism," illustrates what I would describe as a one-sided approach to these issues. And there are verses of scripture, as well as sermons from modern Church leaders, where the approach is similarly one-sided.

The gentler, more compassionate side is often represented in talks by Gordon B. Hinckley and Dieter F. Uchtdorf. Dallin H. Oaks has individual talks that are one sided, but his teachings as a whole touch on both sides of the dialectic. 

If you wish to read more about how different people leave Mormonism for different reasons, I suggest three talks. First, "Come Join with Us,"by Dieter F. Uchtdorf:

The search for truth has led millions of people to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. However, there are some who leave the Church they once loved.

One might ask, “If the gospel is so wonderful, why would anyone leave?”

Sometimes we assume it is because they have been offended or lazy or sinful. Actually, it is not that simple. In fact, there is not just one reason that applies to the variety of situations.

Some of our dear members struggle for years with the question whether they should separate themselves from the Church.

In this Church that honors personal agency so strongly, that was restored by a young man who asked questions and sought answers, we respect those who honestly search for truth. It may break our hearts when their journey takes them away from the Church we love and the truth we have found, but we honor their right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience, just as we claim that privilege for ourselves.

Second, I invite you to read "Nurturing the Less Active" by Carlos E. Asay:

The lost sheep spoken of by the Savior could represent the member of the fold who strays from the path, following rather passively the enticements of the world. He may not do so with planned or malicious intent; he simply follows the crowd and melds into the group that shows him the greater interest. Usually, a lost sheep will respond to overtures of genuine love, concern, and proper fellowship.

Perhaps the Savior used the parable of the lost coin to demonstrate that a valuable soul, like a piece of silver, may be lost through neglect. At times, leaders and teachers become neglectful, even offensive, and allow others to slip away. If this happens, and it can happen very easily, the responsible party should light the candle, sweep the floor, and do all within his power to recover the coin before it becomes encrusted with dust and is lost forever.

The prodigal son may represent those who openly rebel against heaven and home. The prodigal is often one who feels he might know more than his elders, who wants to try his own wings in uncertain areas, or who stumbles and falls while walking the slippery path of youth. Those close by may not understand the exact reason for the rebellion. However, the prodigal’s soul is of great worth and he should never be abandoned. Prayers, pleadings, persistent love, and the welcome mat at the door often win him back.

"Rescuing the Lost Sheep," by Roy Bean, takes a similar approach to Elder Asay's, focusing on how the effort of Church members and ministers may be different in those three situations. On the issue of Emma Smith, the Prophet's wife, I once heard a mission president say, "I think it was more a case of the Church leaving her, than her leaving the Church."

I hope this illustrates how Church members can accept their Church as the "only true and living Church upon the face of the whole earth," without assuming that those who leave have apostatized from everything they know to be true, good, and holy. In doing so, I hope that we will be an example to cultures that have little to no tolerance for a change of faith.

A conservative argument for universal healthcare

I am naturally conservative in many ways. I value in-group loyalty and moral purity. I respect hard work and independence.

Therefore, I believe we need universal healthcare.

Think about it. Entrepreneurs, job creators, are one of the great archetypes of conservative ideology. But the single greatest obstacle to entrepreneurship may be dependence on health insurance: why would I give up my stable job, with my access to health insurance, to try something that may or may not pay enough to let my kids go to the doctor? I wouldn't.

Barack Obama's progressive compassion is commendable, but the Affordable Care Act didn't solve this problem. Instead, it increased the burden on job creators, by putting much of the burden of paying for health care on employers' backs. Everyone needs health care, but should it really be employers' responsibility to cover that?

My libertarian and Constitutionalist readers will be quick to note that it shouldn't be the government's job, either. The Constitution does not give the federal government power to administer universal healthcare. The Affordable Care Act tried to get around that, awkwardly.

But what if the state governments were responsible for healthcare?

State and local governments' involvement in education and healthcare is not new. They have been since America's founding. The Founders reserved that power for the states and the people, and did not give it to the federal government. On the state and local level, I believe that a conservative system for universal healthcare would focus on conservative principles: family, entrepreneurship, competition.

First, universal healthcare should focus on families. Providing generous prenatal and postnatal care would likely reduce the number of abortions nationwide. Work requirements for government aid should recognize that parenting young children is hard work, and providing healthcare for parents and young children can make one of the most challenging phases of life a little less stressful. Likewise, we should continue to provide aid for the elderly.

Entrepreneurship is another core value of conservativism: what if we started by extending Medicaid to entrepreneurs and their families? How many more people would experiment with creating jobs and services? What would happen to our economic growth? I'd also like to note that good health is a prerequisite to hard work: if we provide universal mental health services, in particular, we can increase the proportion of the population that is capable of self-reliance.

As a conservative, I believe that single-payer healthcare is unnecessary for universal healthcare (one of Hillary Clinton's criticisms of Bernie Sanders), and removes the power of competition. Instead, we simply need minimal legislation to oversee fair competition: price transparency, anti-monopoly measures, and so on. Our current system allows for monopolistic health insurance companies, and it hides the prices for medical procedures. We have a strange for-profit bureaucracy, not a capitalist or socialist system. By making the health insurance system truly capitalist--transparent and competitive--we could promote efficiency and entrepreneurship in that field.

Bernie Sanders means well, but we don't need to jump to single-payer in order to have universal healthcare. Switzerland and Hong Kong provide universal healthcare in ways that, I believe, would greatly appeal to American conservatives.

America is tied for the best healthcare in the world--but among the world's top countries, our healthcare is the most expensive and least efficient. We use Canada as an excuse for avoiding universal healthcare, but among developed countries, Canada is unusual in having such long waiting times. We can build our own system, using the best of the world's wisdom as an inspiration, just as James Madison did when he draft our Constitution.

What Amazon Prime benefits cannot be shared with your household?

As I write this, most Amazon Prime benefits can be shared with a spouse or significant other, as long as you feel comfortable sharing a credit card with them. However, several things cannot be shared:

• Access to the Prime Music library
• Amazon Music purchases
• Amazon Video purchases

It's possible that they're restricting music and video in an effort to keep prices low. I imagine buying a "family license" would cost more than buying a "personal license." Why that doesn't apply to ebooks and audiobooks, I can only guess.

Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, Pro-Mother

I'd like to present a moderate, comprehensive approach to abortion, based on three overall principles, which I see as equally essential:

1. Mothers have the right to choose when and if they have children.
2. Unborn fetuses have a right to life, which is secondary to the mother's right to life.
3. Sex, parenthood, and childbearing are sacred, and worthy of the highest protections our society can offer.

Most of the debate around abortion surrounds the competition that can arise between the first two principles: does a rape victim have a right to an abortion? Does consensual, unprotected sex constitute consent to the possibility of pregnancy? What about consensual, protected sex? Is abortion a valid back-up option for birth control?

The questions are challenging, and different people prioritize life and choice differently. My purpose here is not to claim that life is more important than choice, or that choice is more important than life. My purpose is to show how we can protect them both, simultaneously.

Similarly, sex education debates about birth control vs. abstinence are really about a false dichotomy between sexual agency and sexual sanctity; in reality, teenagers do make choices about sex, and sex is sacred, and the data I've seen shows pretty consistently that teaching about birth control, or even providing free birth control, does not make teens more promiscuous. In other words, whether they happen to have birth control handy is not usually the deciding factor when teens decide when to become sexually active.

A comprehensive approach to sexual agency, the sanctity of unborn life, and the sacredness of sex and parenthood involves at least four major policies:

1. Public and private recognition of the dignity of the unpaid work of caring for children
2. Support for parents who are struggling to provide for their children
3. A culture that encourages teen fathers to be involved in their child's life and support
4. A culture that celebrates both abstinence and birth control

Allow me to explain.

I loved Mitt Romney as a presidential candidate. I really did. But to me, his most offensive comment was not about the 47% who would vote for a Democrat no matter what because they benefit from government programs (which he apologized for)--I already knew he didn't really understand poverty, without him saying something unkind and memorable on the subject. No, what bothered me most was when he said that young mothers on government aid should be required to have a job outside the home so they could learn "the dignity of work."

How often we use the word work in that way--as if paid work, outside the home, was all that counted?

"Oh, your wife has kids. Does she work?"

"Your baby is 2 years old now. Are you planning to go back to work?"

"When are you going to put that degree of yours to work?"

Of course she works! Stay-at-home parents are some of the hardest workers in this economy. By failing to recognize their unpaid work, we put a huge amount of pressure on new parents, especially women. We could resolve this by using the word "work" differently, by recognizing that having a kid under 5 is a full-time job in our SNAP and TANF and other government aid requirements, and perhaps even by having a national database that tracks the amount of unpaid work being done in our civilization.

This leads into my second point: as a culture, we need to support young parents. Imagine how many more women would choose not to have an abortion if they knew their families, their churches, their governments, their employers, or other organizations would help them every step of the way? (Being unable to afford a child is consistently the top reason for getting an abortion, followed by fear that the new child would disrupt their career or education plans.) Imagine if we had decent maternity leave, paternity leave, and other programs to care for new parents!

Some people criticize those who have children because they know that they will have substantial help from parents or government programs. But having a child is an enormous sacrifice, a sacrifice that should be honored. Unless both the financial care and the caregiving labor are primarily given by someone else, by the parent's own choice, the parent deserves to be respected as such.

Getting fathers involved would add to that support system, financial and emotional. I'm not an expert on this, so here's a list of facts on teen dads. Educate yourself. Fatherhood is sacred and powerful and worthy of respect, no matter the age. Most teen fathers do want to be involved, even though they may not be of much support financially.

Finally, we need a culture that celebrates abstinence and birth control. It is my understanding that teaching abstinence in schools is marginally effective for kids who haven't started having sex yet, but kids who choose to wait are almost always doing so because of their religion or their family. On the other hand, birth control education in schools, as well as providing free birth control, are very effective for teens who have chosen to be sexually active.

Sexual agency--the right to choose when and with whom to have sex and children--is a sacred part of our free will. It is so central to our sense of self that being raped can cause PTSD, just like almost dying can. Birth control enhances our sexual agency, and if used consistently with one's conscience and religious convictions, it takes away nothing from the sacredness of sex and parenthood. It makes it easier to protect the mother's health by spacing out children; it allows a sexually active couple to go to God and ask how many children they should have, and when.

In summary, we can simultaneously keep sex sacred, protect unborn children, and uphold the woman's right to choose, by providing a culture and support system that upholds parenthood. If we have laws against abortion, this would give these laws a context that prevents dangerous illegal abortions and protects mothers' well-being. If we legalize abortion, then this system would minimize the number of abortions.

I hope that this perspective offers a common vocabulary and set of goals that helps conservatives and liberals to be Pro-Mother, together.

My D&D Profile (according to an online quiz)

I Am A: Lawful Good Human Wizard/Cleric (2nd/2nd Level)

Ability Scores:
Strength-14
Dexterity-14
Constitution-12
Intelligence-19
Wisdom-14
Charisma-14

Alignment:
Lawful Good A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. He combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. He tells the truth, keeps his word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion. However, lawful good can be a dangerous alignment when it restricts freedom and criminalizes self-interest.

Race:
Humans are the most adaptable of the common races. Short generations and a penchant for migration and conquest have made them physically diverse as well. Humans are often unorthodox in their dress, sporting unusual hairstyles, fanciful clothes, tattoos, and the like.

Primary Class:
Wizards are arcane spellcasters who depend on intensive study to create their magic. To wizards, magic is not a talent but a difficult, rewarding art. When they are prepared for battle, wizards can use their spells to devastating effect. When caught by surprise, they are vulnerable. The wizard's strength is her spells, everything else is secondary. She learns new spells as she experiments and grows in experience, and she can also learn them from other wizards. In addition, over time a wizard learns to manipulate her spells so they go farther, work better, or are improved in some other way. A wizard can call a familiar- a small, magical, animal companion that serves her. With a high Intelligence, wizards are capable of casting very high levels of spells.

Secondary Class:
Clerics act as intermediaries between the earthly and the divine (or infernal) worlds. A good cleric helps those in need, while an evil cleric seeks to spread his patron's vision of evil across the world. All clerics can heal wounds and bring people back from the brink of death, and powerful clerics can even raise the dead. Likewise, all clerics have authority over undead creatures, and they can turn away or even destroy these creatures. Clerics are trained in the use of simple weapons, and can use all forms of armor and shields without penalty, since armor does not interfere with the casting of divine spells. In addition to his normal complement of spells, every cleric chooses to focus on two of his deity's domains. These domains grants the cleric special powers, and give him access to spells that he might otherwise never learn. A cleric's Wisdom score should be high, since this determines the maximum spell level that he can cast.

Find out What Kind of Dungeons and Dragons Character Would You Be?, courtesy of Easydamus (e-mail)

My Uneducated Thoughts on Transgender Issues

Mostly for myself, I'd like to use this blog post to outline what I do and don't know about transgender issues.

First, it bothers me that part of the definition of gender identity disorder is that a person prefers stereotypical activities, friendships, and clothes of their "true gender" rather than their physical sex. As a man who usually prefers female friends, who loves cooking and reading and writing, who relates better to women in most ways, and also as a psychology grad who is highly skeptical of stereotypes, I think we need something better to go on.

Second, contrary to common LDS opinion to the contrary, I can find no canon, doctrine, or consistent Apostolic teaching that it is impossible for a male spirit to be born to a female body, or a female spirit to be born into a male body. I see no doctrinal explanation for hermaphrodites. On this matter, I can only say, "[I] believe that God will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God" (Article of Faith #9).

Third, Latter-day Saints have a unanimous Apostolic statement that gender is eternal, applying to spirit and body alike. Therefore, the gender of the spirit is of paramount importance.

Fourth, I don't know what it is like to believe that your true gender and physical sex are at odds. I don't know what sort of support, therapy, or counseling such people would need. But I know that the Savior knows, because if he experienced every sorrow, temptation, and imperfection of humanity on the cross, then he experienced the sensation of gender identity disorder.

Fifth, even if spirits can be born into opposite-gender bodies, it seems likely to me that there are people who believe that they have a spirit-body gender clash, but who really just don't relate to gender stereotypes. People like me: I have a male body, a male spirit, and strong feminine tendencies. If I am right, and there are people like this, then a sex change operation is not what they need. They need to see how foolish stereotypes are, and to embrace being a "feminine" man or a "masculine" woman: we have women of strength, determination, intelligence, and boldness, and we need them; we have men who are gentle, nurturing, relationship-oriented, and wise, and we need them.

Sixth, the Lord has to be the ultimate judge. He knows the gender of each spirit, the needs of every soul. He alone can care for us as we truly need to be cared for.

Why the Jedi and Sith need the Book of Mormon

Many Latter-day Saints have written about the unique impact the Book of Mormon has on our theology--how it clarifies and simplifies core Biblical principles like faith, repentance, and baptism, and how it resolves many of Christianity's sectarian feuds. I would like to write about how another conflict could be resolved by the book--the endless war between the Jedi and the Sith.

The light and dark Force-users of the Star Wars galaxy are locked in apparently endless conflict. On one hand, the Jedi believe in setting aside their emotions, perfect self-control, and service to society; on the other, the Sith believe in embracing human passion, seeking power, and putting the self above all others.

Likewise, the Book of Mormon contains conflict between good and evil: Nephites versus Lamanites, believers versus unbelievers, freedom fighters versus tyrants. The basic narrative would resonate deeply with any Jedi and many Sith. But more importantly, there are three basic doctrines that have the power to enlighten the Jedi and redeem the Sith. First, evil weakens personal freedom. Second, we are held accountable to a higher power for our choices. Third, passions should be bridled, not rejected or followed blindly.

The entire Sith philosophy is that unbridled passion is freedom:

Peace is a lie, there is only passion.

Through passion, I gain strength.

Through strength, I gain power.

Through power, I gain victory.

Through victory, my chains are broken.

The Force shall free me.

The Book of Mormon explains why this is not the case: 

And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive... down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell.

Alma 12:11

In other words, there are mysteries that belong only to those whose hearts are softened, and it is these mysteries that lead to freedom. The dark side, in contrast, leads to the "chains of hell," since the dark side of the Force is more addictive than spice. It is very difficult to stop using the dark side. It takes away your freedom.

It is commonly understood by Force-users that those who die become "one with the Force." They do not speak of this in terms of the common Christian concept of judgment, yet the fact remains that all will be held accountable upon their death.

It was appointed unto men that they must die; and after death, they must come to judgment.

Alma 12:27

This piece of knowledge could be invaluable for Jedi persuading people not to turn to the Dark Side. Indeed, in Alma chapter 30, we have a sample of Alma doing exactly that, persuading the followers of Korihor (who did not believe in judgment after death) to turn back to the way of goodness.

Finally, the Book of Mormon resolves the ages-old debate over passion. Many Jedi object to the Order's teaching that passion is forbidden, that marriage is outlawed, but the only philosophical alternative appears to be the Sith teaching that passion should be embraced completely, without hesitation or self-control. The Book of Mormon provides a vocabulary for a middle ground, rooted firmly in the Light:

See that ye bridle all your passions, that ye may be filled with love.

Alma 38:12

Imagine how much more powerful (and emotionally healthy) the Jedi would be if they understood this one concept! They would raise families--resulting in greater numbers of Jedi--and they would have humanity's most powerful emotion to strengthen their use of the Force. Their love for each other and for the world at large would become legendary, and they would be known for their sincere goodness, instead of their pride. In short, the Book of Mormon would completely transform their culture, and prevent many from falling to the Dark Side because they wanted to have passion, but did not know how to bridle it.

So, if you ever have a chance to visit a galaxy far, far away, take a few copies of the Book of Mormon with you.

Addendum: I didn't mention how the Book of Mormon's central message--the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ--would affect the Jedi, because I wanted this post to be more silly than sacred. Obviously, accepting Jesus would transform the Jedi and redeem the Sith more powerfully than any of the particular doctrines above.

An LDS Psychology Student's Thoughts on Perfectionism

As a Latter-day Saint who has struggled with anxiety (I've been in therapy and tried medication for it, and I stressed myself out enough on my mission that I only served 10 1/2 months before my body started to give out), and as a Psychology student (I'm not a licensed therapist, but I have gone to graduate school in psychology-related fields), I'd like to share my personal study of perfectionism. I'll begin with three talks and one book that really helped me, and then I'll introduce my own thoughts.

First, Cecil O. Samuelson presented a difference between "doing your best" and "perfectionism." If you're really struggling with this issue, his article is indispensable. I still remember discovering his comparison list at the bottom of the above link, and being floored at how precisely I fit his definition of perfectionism. It was quite a dramatic thing for me. (This isn't terribly important, but there is one inaccurate statement in his article: there's no consensus in the psychological community that perfectionism is a "medical condition." You can't be diagnosed with perfectionism, according to accepted criteria. You can be diagnosed with anxiety, which may center around your fears of failure or imperfection.)

In his article "Perfection Pending," Elder Russell M. Nelson explained the difference between mortal perfection and eternal perfection. We can become perfect at some things in this life, but even Jesus never described himself as "perfect" until after his resurrection. This article is also an essential read. A favorite quote: "When comparing one’s personal performance with the supreme standard of the Lord’s expectation, the reality of imperfection can at times be depressing. My heart goes out to conscientious Saints who, because of their shortcomings, allow feelings of depression to rob them of happiness in life. We all need to remember: men are that they might have joy—not guilt trips!"

The next article, Elder Dallin H. Oaks's "Good, Better, Best," is especially close to my heart, since he gave it while I was a missionary. It's an important principle that I apply to many facets of my life, and it can help tone down perfectionistic anxiety. Just realizing that you didn't make the best choice, but you still made a good choice, can lessen your panic. I wrote a more detailed article about my personal experiences with this a few months after I came home.

A prominent LDS psychotherapist named Wendy Ulrich wrote a book called Weakness Is Not Sin, which explains something very profound. Sin is disobeying God. All other failures are less important to him, and may even be success in his eyes. You didn't get your project done on time? You disappointed a friend? You forgot about one of your goals? That's too bad, but it's not necessarily a sin. Somehow... I made it into adulthood without realizing this. Now, it's a big part of how I deal with failures. First, I ask myself, did I fail God? Or not? Do I need to repent, or just try to do better next time? She did a wonderful job with this book. It's a short read, too.

After reading Elder Nelson's Perfection Pending, and hearing him repeat those insights at a mission fireside, I still felt something missing. I thought and prayed about it, and I came to the following conclusion: there is a difference between perfect obedience and true perfection. I believe that we should never go to the opposite extreme from perfectionism and justify our sins to any degree by saying, "Well, nobody's perfect." (That phrase is a fairly healthy way to respond to weakness, but not to sin.) Instead, we should immediately ask for forgiveness, because perfect obedience is possible in this life. In fact, there are special promises in the Book of Mormon of peace and prosperity to those who "keep the commandments of God." I suspect that those scriptures aren't talking about being mostly obedient, but being 100% obedient, and developing perfectly obedient habits is the work of a lifetime. Find me a scripture that says otherwise. 1 Nephi 3:7 actually confirms that perfect obedience is possible, because of...

The enabling power of grace! This is touched on in the famous works The Infinite Atonement by Tad Callister and The Continuous Atonement by Brad Wilcox, and the apostle Paul never seems to stop talking about it. My first real understanding that Jesus helps us keep the commandments at an internal, psychological level came through a book called Willpower Is Not Enough, and I now make praying for grace part of every self-improvement goal I set, and every repentance process I go through. Without grace, we are nothing. See also: the entire scriptures. For me, perfectionism includes the temptation to be so prideful as to wish that I weren't dependent on the Atonement of Jesus Christ. (Never gonna happen--even perfectly obedient people need the Atonement.)

However, while we take hold of that enabling power, we still have to deal with today's shortcomings somehow. King Benjamin spoke of "retaining a remission of your sins from day to day" (Mosiah 4:26), and the Lord told Alma the Elder, "Yea, and as often as my people repent will I forgive them their trespasses against me" (Mosiah 26:30). As long as we are moving forward, God's forgiveness can come today, not after we are perfected. We can have the peace of knowing we are on the right path. This is a sacred topic, and a personal one, yet it is reflected in the sacramental prayers: we covenant that we are willing to keep all the commandments, but we don't claim that we actually do. We do always remember our Savior; we repent when we sin, and we try to do better when we fail.

Various psychologists have divided perfectionism into several dimensions: good and bad, self-focused and other-focused. Good ("adaptive") perfectionism means high standards, challenging goals, and pushing yourself. Bad ("maladaptive") perfectionism means obsessing over failure, being dissatisfied with your performance no matter what, and unrealistic goals. (See also President Samuelson's article at the top of this post.) Self-oriented perfectionism is a strong concern with your own perfection; other-oriented perfectionism is a strong concern with others' perfection. Other-oriented perfectionism involves being judgy and unkind. If you do it, stop it.

As I have transitioned from bad perfectionism to very high (but realistic) expectations for myself, I have found something interesting: when I fail, I can't just fail. I have to take some time to mourn my lost goals. As a perfectionist, I give my heart to my goals, and failing at a big goal feels exactly like a bad breakup. Is something wrong with me? Or with my old goal? Will I ever succeed at anything? Do I still know who I am? Why did this happen? etc. And if I rebound onto a new goal too quickly, I can't really commit. I'm still living in my last failure. Sometime writing my feelings out helps; lots of psychologists recommend a feelings journal to work through things like this.

Anyway, good luck. May the Force Be With You. This is not a perfect ending to a blog post, and I accept that. *takes a deep, calming breath*

Joshua and his TARDIS

(Originally published on our private family blog.)

Since he was old enough to say, "Please," Joshua's been asking to watch Doctor Who. Over the past two weeks, he's taken to acting out the show with vaguely police-box-shaped objects. We've laughed at him pretending an empty Pop Tarts box or container of baby powder is the TARDIS. He likes to hold it up to our window AC unit--apparently the cold air is the time vortex--and make noises he associated with the show, like screaming, pretending the TARDIS is crashing, and saying, "Doctor, wait!"

Today, we reached new heights.

During a visit to Barnes and Noble, we saw a display of Doctor Who collectibles. T-Shirts, sonic screwdrivers, replicas of the TARDIS, the works. Joshua ran up to them, excited, and started saying "Doctor Who!" over and over. He found a soft, toddler-friendly TARDIS and played with it for a while, until we tried to distract him by taking him across the store to the children's book section. He turned around several times and asked for Doctor Who, but we persevered.

Finally, we got to the enormous selection of children's books, with bright colors, toys, and everything a toddler would want.

Joshua immediately booked it in the opposite direction, doing his best to retrace our steps back to the Doctor Who display. We tried to distract him with a book from another TV show he loves, Dinosaur Train; he even has its theme song memorized. But after about 13 seconds, he ran off again--"Doctor Who!" A globe managed to hold his attention for another 20 seconds.

He led us around the store for about ten minutes, searching desperately for the display, and we continued to hope he would forget about it. The depth of his feelings soon surpassed his vocabulary, so he pulled out a word I'd never heard him use before: favorite. "Where is Doctor Who? It's my favorite. Doctor Who? Where are you?"

Finally, he made it to his best guess of where the display should be, maybe twenty feet from where it really was. He ran around in circles for several minutes, calling out for Doctor Who and saying it was his favorite. We took pity on him and led him to the display.

"Doctor Who!" In his excitement, he used another new word: "Perfect!"

He played by the display for another five or ten minutes before the adults got bored. We decided that two new words and staying focused on one thing for 15 minutes was pretty impressive for a two-year-old, and we bought him the soft TARDIS toy.

He hasn't spent more than five minutes without it since.

Fact Check: Republican Party Platform and LDS Teachings

Mark Paredes's attack on the Democratic party has been widely criticized, primarily because he uses his position as a Bishop to imply that Mormons who belong to the Democrat party are not temple worthy, by beginning with the temple recommend question that asks whether the church member belongs to any organization that contradicts Church teachings.

Mark points out that the Democrat platform is opposed to the Church on abortion and same-sex marriage. He then writes, "While the 2012 Republican platform is almost unreadable, at least it does not contain statements that directly contradict LDS teachings." My purpose here is to show that his statement is factually incorrect: the Republican party platform has plenty of statements that contradict the Church's teachings.

The easiest example is immigration. Page 25 of the 2012 Republican Party Platform opposes any amnesty for illegal immigrants, and page 26 calls for "tough penalties," implicitly emphasizing deportation, where the Church statement says, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is concerned that any state legislation that only contains enforcement provisions is likely to fall short of the high moral standard of treating each other as children of God. The Church supports an approach where undocumented immigrants are allowed to square themselves with the law and continue to work without this necessarily leading to citizenship."

Another example, ironically, is abortion. Page 33 of the Republican Party Platform states simply, "We stand firmly against it." The platform makes no distinction between abortions after rape or incest, abortions when the child is unlikely to survive, and abortions when the mother is unlikely to survive. Yet The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints cites all of these cases as possible examples where abortion may be acceptable. Even Mitt Romney, the Republicans' 2012 presidential nominee and a Latter-day Saint, did not support his own party's platform on the issue.

While not a direct contradiction, it is also worth noting that the Republicans' anti-discrimination statement on page 9 omits any mention of sexual orientation, where the Church has come out in support of sexual orientation anti-discrimination laws for employment and housing. Once again, the Church is more moderate--and more focused on pertinent issues--that the Republican party. In fact, this is one of the Democrats' most poignant criticisms of Republicans: that they fight for traditional marriage, but not for anti-discrimination laws in other areas of life.

Another direct contradiction is the Republicans' declaration, "We are the party of peace through strength" (pg. 39). This is followed by several pages of reasoning for expanding our military capabilities; the party platform, along with most Republicans' personal statements, is filled with the rhetoric of military power and conquering our enemies. But in 1976, President Spencer W. Kimball said:

We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel—ships, planes, missiles, fortifications—and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become antienemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan’s counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior’s teaching:

“Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

“That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven.” (Matt. 5:44–45.)

We forget that if we are righteous the Lord will either not suffer our enemies to come upon us—and this is the special promise to the inhabitants of the land of the Americas (see 2 Ne. 1:7)—or he will fight our battles for us (Ex. 14:14; D&C 98:37, to name only two references of many). This he is able to do, for as he said at the time of his betrayal, “Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?” (Matt. 26:53.) We can imagine what fearsome soldiers they would be. King Jehoshaphat and his people were delivered by such a troop (see 2 Chr. 20), and when Elisha’s life was threatened, he comforted his servant by saying, “Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them” (2 Kgs. 6:16). The Lord then opened the eyes of the servant, “And he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.” (2 Kgs. 6:17.)

First Presidency Message, June 1976

The Church does not support disbanding our military or any such extreme measure. Instead, they unequivocally oppose the sort of military devotion that Republicans proudly espouse. President Kimball went so far as to call it idolatry.

So, yes, the Democrats have issues where the oppose the Church, but so do Republicans. If we were to apply Mark Paredes's final judgment of Harry Reid to staunch Latter-day Saint Republicans, we would conclude that they cannot be men or women of "serious religious faith," that they are an "embarrassment." However, I try to follow Cariadoc's Law: "Do not ascribe to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or error."

If you believe that your political party is entirely in line with the gospel of Jesus Christ, or if you believe that your political leaders are more enlightened than the seers who stand at the head of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then I believe you are simply mistaken. I invite you to exercise your faith, continue to learn through prayer and study, and become someone better.

NOTE: This is not intended to be an in-depth analysis of the entire Republican Platform, which has many other good and bad ideas in it, and I do not claim that one party is more or less in line with LDS teachings than the other. There are scholars who have studied this in much more depth than I have. As for myself, I am a moderate conservative and a registered Republican, so in my last temple recommend interview, I freely admitted that I belonged to an organization that contradicts Church teachings. My fairly liberal bishop agreed with me, but he still gave me a temple recommend.

Economic Class and the American Dream

Upper Class: Lives on the work of others, through investments, ownership of land and corporations, or even slavery.

Upper-Middle Class: Controls their own means of production (like an author, or a small business owner), with enough extra money for savings, education, and charitable donations.

Middle Class: Able to survive without help through their own work, with enough extra money for investments, savings, education, entrepreneurship, and charitable donations.

Lower-Middle Class: Able to survive without help through their own work, but unable to save up or invest in entrepreneurship or education; unable to give to charity.

Lower Class: Unable to survive without help.

Slave Class: Treated as property.

Sometimes people talk about the "American Dream" being someone from the lower classes who rises to the upper class. That's not my dream. My dream is for every American to be in the middle class, and to have the opportunity to rise to the upper-middle class, if that's what they want to do. I think the upper class, lower-middle class, lower class, and slave class will not exist in Zion.

Chastity Does Not Equal Consent

Dear Matt Walsh,

On June 11th, you made a big mistake: you claimed that we can only end rape culture through chastity.

That is horrifying.

Don't get me wrong; I am a huge fan of chastity. Sex is precious, and sacred, and holy, which is why I waited until marriage to have sex, and why I hope others will do the same. Your blog has many uplifting insights into chastity and marriage.

So why am I horrified, you ask? Because chastity is always a choice of two people. It is consensual. Rape, by contrast, is always a choice of one person. There is an inherent contradiction in equating the two.

There is an inevitable implication when you make this logical error. It is that the girl--the victim of rape, the one who usually feels most responsible for sexual sin--will blame herself for being raped. She will think that she needs to dress more modestly to fix rape culture, when modest clothes are not necessarily safer. (I'm told that the safest clothes are the hardest ones to get off the girl's body, regardless of how provocative they are. Tight-fitting short shorts are much safer than sweat pants.)

Obviously, this wasn't your intent. Your intent was to promote chastity--a noble goal, as I've acknowledged.

But it's time for all of us to cease equating chastity with consent, sexual sanctity with sexual agency. They are related but separate issues, and we must teach both to our children. Otherwise, we risk blaming the victims of sexual abuse.

Let me be clear. I understand that you were not trying to blame the victims of rape. You said that rape is a problem, and that chastity is the only solution. Keep in mind that victims of rape are prone to blame themselves already, hence my reaction. If you do not purge this implication completely from your logic, you have not purged rape culture completely from yourself.

Thank you for listening, and may your blog inspire.
Michael Reed Davison

Egalitarian Feminism

I've seen so many people, both men and women, say that they aren't feminists: they're equalists, or egalitarians, or humanists. They usually describe feminists as angry. Sometimes, they accuse feminists of being unwilling to discuss men's rights, or exaggerating problems that come from sexism, or imagining offenses against women where none exist.

A good example is the debate about equal pay. Feminists fight for equal pay for equal work. Their opponents say that we already have equal pay for equal work, but that women choose to do less paid work, or choose lower-paying careers, or don't ask for promotions. Both sides agree that we need equal pay for equal work, but they have a different belief about whether women's rights need an advocate right now.

A quick Google search gives a nice definition of feminism:
The advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

A feminist advocates for women, specifically, because they see problems with the way women are treated. They call these problems "patriarchy," and there's an enormous amount of scholarship on how sexism and patriarchy affect everyday life. As a psychology student, I saw a lot of evidence of negative stereotypes towards women, so I became a feminist. I believe that God speaks to us every day through men, women, and children, but that almost all of us listen better when a man is speaking. Hence, men control most of the world's governments, churches, and businesses. Even in family life, many women do not have an equal voice in family decisions as the scriptures direct for all Priesthood councils.

So, I'm a feminist.

"But," someone says, "Feminists are so angry at men! Men have issues, too. Who's looking out for men who are abused, or mocked, or hurt?"

This is why egalitarianism is important. Obviously, everyone deserves to be treated like a human being. An egalitarian is open to discussing the needs of anyone and everyone who needs help, regardless of whether they're more disadvantaged than the person standing next to them. If I understand this verse right, the scriptures openly endorse egalitarianism:

[God] denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

2 Nephi 26:33

Since I believe that women's issues are in need of special advocacy, and I am also open to discussing men's issues, I am an egalitarian feminist.

I propose the following three principles for egalitarian feminism:

1. Standing up for women's rights in every sphere of life.

2. Openness to discussing men's issues, as well as all other social issues.

3. Fighting against blanket statements and stereotypes about either gender.

I propose that egalitarian feminism can advocate for women without being angry at men in general, acknowledging that patriarchy is sustained by both men and women. Egalitarian feminism blames individuals for their crimes, not the victim or the criminal's demographic group. It calls on everyone to consider whether they are treating women respectfully, and it is bold in pointing out real problems in the education and treatment of both men and women. Egalitarian feminism holds that men are human beings, capable of making their own choices, and argues that feminism is liberating to both genders.

Men, we need to stop using "girly," "sissy," or "gay" as an insult. We need to admire sensitivity and empathy in everyone, as God does. We need to respond to statistics about male violence with solutions, not defensiveness.

Women, we need you in politics. We need you in academia. We need you in our personal lives.

Egalitarian feminism does not argue that men and women are the same (that's equality feminism). It does not argue for abolishing gender entirely. Instead, it argues that men and women, together, can choose to treat women better than they are being treated right now.

As a final note, my lovely Latter-day Saint audience, please note that "patriarchy" and our scriptures' "patriarchal order" are not the same thing. The patriarchal order states that women and men lead their families together, as equals, with somewhat different roles; in patriarchy, the man is in charge, with freedom to command and abuse however he likes. Patriarchy and the patriarchal order are exact opposites, despite their similar names. For more on this, as well as what it means to "preside," go study D&C sections 107 and 121. Even the Prophet is required to make decisions in unity with his counselors.

Praying for Ourselves and Others

We often talk about how we pray for our own talks to be inspired, or how we should pray for ourselves to learn something in a Church meeting, or from the scriptures. But sometimes we forget that praying for others is just as important. The prophets, in days of old, became prophets by pouring out their tears and prayers on behalf of their people:

Wherefore it came to pass that my father, Lehi, as he went forth prayed unto the Lord, yea, even with all his heart, in behalf of his people.

And it came to pass as he prayed unto the Lord, there came a pillar of fire and dwelt upon a rock before him; and he saw and heard much.

1 Nephi 1:5-6

God forbid that I should sin against the Lord in ceasing to pray for you.

1 Samuel 12:23

Likewise, we as the Lord's covenant people are commanded to sustain the prophets through our prayers:

And if ye desire the glories of the kingdom, appoint ye my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and uphold him before me by the prayer of faith.

D&C 43:12

Sometimes we talk about this entirely of terms of duty, but it is more than that. It is a principle of power by which the Lord decides what revelation to give the Church:

Unto them [the church]is his [the Prophet's] calling, that all things might be revealed unto them, whatsoever I will, according to their faith.

Without our prayers and faith, the Prophet could know all the mysteries of eternity, and he would never be inspired to reveal them to us. And without his prayers for us, the Prophet would not be the Prophet. That is the pattern in the scriptures: the prophets pray for the people, and the people pray for the prophets, as well as for themselves.

3 Ways to Listen to General Conference

I have tried using three different approaches to listening to my church leaders. I'd like to share what each one was like for me, and what the prophets and scriptures have said about that sort of approach. I have found that the third approach brings me closest to God.

Preparing to Obey

When I was a teenager, I took pages and pages of notes every LDS General Conference. Whenever I listened to a priesthood blessing or a general authority, my mental effort involved paying attention, comparing my own behavior to what the church leader said, and remembering as much as possible.

The nice thing about this approach is that it's spiritually safe. Doing whatever someone says in General Conference will never get you thrown into hell. It doesn't take a whole lot of critical thinking, but that doesn't mean it's easy: it means trying to balance hundreds of ideas and commandments and apply them to your life. This is an honorable, challenging, and very common way to listen to General Conference.

Unfortunately, Brigham Young didn't like it very much. Apparently, being so dependent on others for your spirituality can never lead to eternal life:

"Now those men, or those women, who know no more about the power of God, and the influences of the Holy Spirit, than to be led entirely by another person, suspending their own understanding, and rinning their faith upon another’s sleeve, will never be capable of entering into the celestial glory, to be crowned as they anticipate; they will never be capable of becoming Gods. They cannot rule themselves, to say nothing of ruling others, but they must be dictated to do in every trifle, like a child. They cannot control themselves in the least, but James, Peter, or somebody else must control them. They never can become Gods, nor be crowned as rulers with glory, immortality, and eternal lives. They never can hold scepters of glory, majesty, and power in the Celestial Kingdom. Who will? Those who are valiant and inspired with the true independence of heaven, who will go forth boldly in the service of their God, leaving others to do as they please, determined to do right, through all mankind besides should take the opposite course. Will this apply to any of you? Your own hearts can answer.”

President Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 1, p. 312

As if that weren't enough, General Conference itself says that not all church leaders' statements are doctrine! Elder Christofferson explained,

It should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such.” President Clark, quoted earlier, observed:

“To this point runs a simple story my father told me as a boy, I do not know on what authority, but it illustrates the point. His story was that during the excitement incident to the coming of [Johnston’s] Army, Brother Brigham preached to the people in a morning meeting a sermon vibrant with defiance to the approaching army, and declaring an intention to oppose and drive them back. In the afternoon meeting he arose and said that Brigham Young had been talking in the morning, but the Lord was going to talk now. He then delivered an address, the tempo of which was the opposite from the morning talk. …

“… The Church will know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of the members, whether the brethren in voicing their views are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’; and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest.”

Elder D. Todd Christofferson, The Doctrine of Christ, April 2012 General Conference

Elder Neil A. Anderson also pointed out that this method--complete acceptance--can lead to confusion when a church leader makes a mistake:

A few question their faith when they find a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine. There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find.

The leaders of the Church are honest but imperfect men. Remember the words of Moroni: “Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father … ; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.”

Joseph Smith said, “I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations.” The miracle of God’s hand in the history and destiny of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is understood only through the lens of spiritual inquiry.

Elder Neil A. Anderson, Trial of Your Faith, April 2012 General Conference

This approach's focus is on obedience to prophetic authority, which is a good principle, but the three quotes above show that this approach is limited.

Sifting for Truth

Recognizing that prophets make mistakes, I have also tried approaching General Conference critically, trying to sort out what is doctrine and what is a particular speaker's opinion. The mental effort here involves comparing them with other talks, with the scriptures, and with logic.

This approach is intellectually healthy (it's very similar to how academics approach each other's scholarship), but it also has some problems. When I first tried using it, I found that General Conference wasn't much of a spiritual experience for me, leaving me feeling empty and a little sad.

One spiritual danger of this approach is explained by Jacob:

O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.

But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.

2 Nephi 9:28-29

This approach can be sincere as long as you accept truth, as long as you listen to whatever is really from God. However, there is still a better way to listen. For me, at least, there are more important things to think about during General Conference than whether or not the speaker's words are technically in line with doctrine.

Listening with Faith

This is by far the most powerful approach I have tried. Instead of just remembering whatever they say, or critiquing their talks, I pray to hear what God wants me to learn. The mental effort here includes praying for yourself and your leaders to have the Spirit of the Lord.

Once, Nikki and I went to the bishop for some help resolving a disagreement. I prayed about the interview ahead of time, and I felt impressed that there was something I needed to learn from him. The bishop spent a long time giving us well-intentioned advice about how men and women think about emotions differently and have different expectations, and how we need to try to understand each other's perspective. And then, without seeming to realize that he was changing the topic, he looked at me and said, "You will need to make a sacrifice that feels unfair to you, for this situation to feel fair to your wife." The Holy Ghost burned within me, and I knew that this was what God wanted me to learn.

The bishop went back to his differences-between-men-and-women-and-let's-try-to-understand-each-other speech, which was somewhat helpful. But 95% of the benefits of that conversation came from that one moment, when he looked at me and spoke by the power of the Holy Ghost, in answer to my prayers. Elder David A. Bednar described this as a kind of spiritual discernment:

The gift of discernment opens to us vistas that stretch far beyond what can be seen with natural eyes or heard with natural ears. Discerning is seeing with spiritual eyes and feeling with the heart—seeing and feeling the falsehood of an idea or the goodness in another person. Discerning is hearing with spiritual ears and feeling with the heart—hearing and feeling the unspoken concern in a statement or the truthfulness of a testimony or doctrine.

Elder David A. Bednar, Quick to Observe, BYU Devotional, May 2005

As I follow the Holy Ghost, I feel prompted to focus on talks and passages that are particularly appropriate to my family, which answer my prayers, or that get me thinking about topics I hadn't fully understood before. I have found that, like how Elder Oaks describes the Book of Mormon, General Conference can be a Urim and Thummim for personal revelation: a tool, a starting ground, for inspiration.

This principle--reading and listening as a staging ground for revelation--was essential to Joseph Smith. His First Vision came because the Spirit touched his heart as he read James 1:5-6, and many of the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants (including sections 37, 45, 73, 76, 77, 86, 91, and 132) were received because the Spirit spoke to him as he read the Bible.

I have found that listening with faith is both spiritually safe and intellectually healthy. This approach acknowledges that Church leaders may make mistakes, but it focuses on learning what God wants you to learn, praying for the Spirit, and praying for your leaders. And this is the approach I plan to use this weekend.

Addendum:
In response to my post, my aunt shared a quote from J. Reuben Clark: ""We can tell when the speakers are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’ only when we, ourselves, are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’" (J. Reuben Clark). I believe that, if we don't get the Holy Ghost through prayer, sincerity, faith, and real intent, no method for listening to conference will benefit us.

As I listen to the April 2014 General Conference, I just heard Elder Neil A. Andersen say that it is good to take anything the Prophet says as from the mouth of God himself. I agree with that, as a general principle. In the story Elder Christofferson told two years ago, when the Prophet made a mistake, it was the Prophet himself who corrected it. And I think that's a good, general pattern for how the Lord tends to work through the head of the Church.

Anna from Disney's "Frozen" as a Type of Christ

I believe that the story of Anna and Elsa symbolizes Jesus Christ's sacrifice as well as any parable in scripture. In literary terms, Frozen is the most obvious retelling of the Messiah story since The Lion King or I, Robot.

Leaving the Ninety-Nine for the One

Anna loved and gave freely, focusing on those who needed it the most. She left her people at home and went to search for the one who was lost, no matter how difficult the journey. She even left her handsome prince at home, instead of asking him to come along, so that someone could take care of Arendell.

How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?

Matthew 18:12

Even when Elsa froze Anna's heart, she kept on pleading: I am here; let me help you!

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

Revelation 3:20

Redemptive Sacrifice

Elsa hurt all of Arendell. Many people suffered because her powers got out of control, but the person who suffered most was Anna.

Weak and dying from the ice in her heart, Anna has one last hope: if she and Kristoff share a kiss of true love, then she will be saved. She sets out across the frozen fjord, hoping to find him. The storm clears, and she sees him, just a few dozen yards away. They run towards each other, but then something more important than her own life attracts Anna's attention.

Elsa is in danger.

Giving up any hope of surviving, enduring the pain Elsa has caused her, Anna runs to her sister's side and saves her life. As she does so, her own time runs out, and she becomes frozen solid. Her sacrifice shatters the sword that had been raised to kill Elsa--just as Elsa gave up all hope of forgiveness.

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

John 15:13

Conquering Death

But, like Jesus' sacrifice for us, Anna's sacrifice went beyond saving her sister. Her act of true love literally brought her back to life, much like the Father gave power to the Son to live again.

And Anna's sacrifice had one final gift: when Elsa saw that Anna's love could thaw the ice inside her, Elsa was inspired to be more, to gain control over her own powers. I believe that Jesus Christ, likewise, lives to this day, praying for us and inspiring us to be more than we could ever be without his death and resurrection.

But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

Romans 8:11

A Christian, Latter-day Saint Reading of Frozen

Several authors have done interpretations of Disney's Frozen. Kathryn Skaggs did a critical queer reading of the show, which has many critiques, including an excellent satire by Julie of Huopo. In the comments of Skaggs's blog, Jeffrey Thayne did a fascinating comparison of Frozen to Carl Roger's humanism, which is a major theory in psychology.

My purpose here is not to critique any of them, but to talk about the many different messages of the movie Frozen in light of the word of God, using the Bible, the Book of Mormon, my own experiences, and other Christian and Latter-day Saint sources. In doing so, I hope to build on the work of Whitney of Mercy River, who was inspired by Frozen's message that love can thaw a frozen heart. I also hope to inspire conversations in other Christian families about what we can learn from this movie.

Overall, I find this movie inspiring, and I see several scriptural principles in it.

Love Thaws, Fear Freezes

John and Mormon both wrote that "perfect love casteth out fear" (1 John 4:18, Moroni 8:16). The scriptures are filled with the instruction to overcome our fears--angels tend to say, "Fear not!" before they even introduce themselves, and God gave Joshua some beautiful encouragement when he become the leader of Israel:

Be strong and of a good courage: for unto this people shalt thou divide for an inheritance the land, which I sware unto their fathers to give them.

Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest.

This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.

Have not I commanded thee? Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee whithersoever thou goest.

Joshua 1:6-9

Elsa is taught that as her powers grow stronger, fear will make it harder to control them. Grandfather Troll says, "Fear will be your enemy." The reprise of For the First Time in Forever is devoted to contrasting Elsa's fear and with Anna's love:

Anna:
You don't have to protect me I'm not afraid
Please don't shut me out again,
Please don't slam the door
You don't have to keep your distance anymore

'Cause for the first time in forever, 
I finally understand
For the first time in forever, 
We can fix this hand in hand

We can head down this mountain together
You don't have live in fear
Cause for the first time in forever,
I will be right here

...

Anna: You don’t have to be afraid
Elsa: No escape from the storm inside of me!

Anna: We can work this out together
Elsa: I can’t control the curse!

Anna: We’ll reverse the storm you’ve made
Elsa: Anna, please, you’ll only make it worse!

Anna: Don’t panic
Elsa: There’s so much fear!

Anna: We’ll make the sun shine bright
Elsa: You’re not safe here!

Anna: We can face this thing together
Elsa: No!

Anna: We can change this winter weather
Elsa: AHHHHH...

Anna: And everything will be all right...
Elsa: I CAN’T!

In the end, Anna sacrifices herself to save Elsa, in a beautiful type of the Atonement of Christ, and the act of true love saves Anna's life and gives Elsa inspiration--love thaws! By focusing on her own feelings of love, she's able to overcome her fear and control her powers.

Conceal, Don't Feel... Let It Go!

Throughout the movie, Elsa struggles with how to control her immense power. And who hasn't felt a strong passion--a consuming desire for accomplishment, for closeness, for rest, for beauty? For the first part of the movie, Elsa stifles her power completely, burying it, hiding it. This doesn't make her happy, but at least she doesn't hurt anyone--until she explodes. So, she sings Let It Go and unleashes her power completely, giving her a beautiful moment of creativity and release.

But then she finds out that she is hurting other people, and she doesn't know how to undo her explosion of power.

As mentioned above, Anna's sacrifice inspires Elsa with the answer: love! Using love to control her power lets her use it safely, without hurting anyone else or stifling herself.

This is very much like the scriptures' statements about passion and sexuality. The prophet Alma wrote,

Use boldness, but not overbearance; and also see that ye bridle all your passions, that ye may be filled with love.

Alma 38:12

The awesome power of Elsa's ice is foreshadowed in the opening song of Frozen:

Beautiful, powerful, dangerous, cold
Ice has a magic, can't be controlled...
There's beauty and there's danger here...
Beware the frozen heart

Although the analogy is usually fire, rather than ice, this sounds very much like the scriptural teachings about sex, especially when ancient prophets talk about chastity.

Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?

Can one go upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned?

So he that goeth in to his neighbour’s wife; whosoever toucheth her shall not be innocent.

Proverbs 6:27-29

I like Frozen's example of balance and love, rather than stiflement or pure passion, and I think Elsa's power could be a useful metaphor for teaching children about sex. I plan to use Frozen to teach my children about the law of chastity: sex is beautiful, powerful, and (if not an act of love in a covenant marriage) dangerous.

Love and Fixer-Uppers

When Kristoff introduces Anna to his adopted family of "love experts," they burst into song about loving someone who's a fixer-upper, how love is about loving someone in spite of their flaws. Or, in the words of Peter:

And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.

1 Peter 4:8

This song is a beautiful way to open a discussion with children about loving people who aren't perfect. In a way, the entire show is about Anna's love for her flawed sister. Although the song is about love, it adds a caveat that love doesn't necessarily change people:

We aren't saying you can change him
'Cause people don't really change
We're only saying that love's a force that's powerful and strange
People make bad choices if they're mad or scared or stressed
But throw a little love their way, and you'll bring out their best
True love brings out the best

While the line "people don't really change" contradicts the Book of Mormon promise that Christ can change our hearts, the overall message here is important. We don't love people so that they will change, we just love them, and that is likely to bring out the best in them. Again, here is a good starting point for a family conversation about how we can influence others, but we cannot truly change them.

I'd leave real change between them and God.

Let What Go?

The song Let It Go is a beautiful piece of art about letting go of something that's holding you back. This message, in itself, can either contradict or confirm the scriptures, depending on what you're letting go of. But the movie itself shows that the more extreme interpretations of the song are dangerous, and Elsa clearly accepts right and wrong and cares about the well-being of her sister and her kingdom.

Instead, when singing this song, Elsa seems to be rejecting the stifling tradition of her father. Tradition is often opposed to the Gospel:

And that wicked one cometh and taketh away light and truth, through disobedience, from the children of men, and because of the tradition of their fathers.

D&C 93:39

Elsa was letting go of a rule which came from an earthly father, not a Heavenly Father, a rule that was no longer working, a rule that may not have really accomplished anything to begin with. In doing so, she lost some people's respect, but she prepared herself to learn a better rule: use love to keep the ice under control. It's normal to have rules that are based more on tradition, pride, or habit than the word of God, and those are things we need to change.

Rules without love are not redemptive or healing.

Whitney of Mercy River wrote, "Ultimately, Frozen teaches us to be more worried about the condition of our hearts than our pride or our need to be right. These things will freeze our ability to progress, our happiness, our peace, and our character. A frozen heart will most certainly distance us– not only from our siblings, our parents, our neighbors, and our friends– but also from God."

In the Hollow of thy Hand - Lyrics for Sister Missionaries

This is an adaptation of Janice Kapp Perry's "In the Hollow of thy Hand," to celebrate how many wonderful sister missionaries we have now. Most of the song is the same, but a few lines were rewritten because "woman" and "daughter" have more syllables than "man" and "son". :)

Dear Lord who blesses us with love
Please send this day thy spirit from above
As this thy daughter hears a call from thee
Help her we pray to learn humility

Direct her footsteps every day
And keep her ever walking in thy ways
Protect her as in holiness she stands
Lord, hold her in the hollow of thy hand

Chorus:
In the hollow of thy hand, as our Zion she expands
Help her understanding deepen and increase
In the hollow of thy hand, as our Zion she expands
Let her know the special blessing of thy peace

Dear Lord, who hears and answers prayers
Please keep thy servant always in thy care
As she prepares to teach her fellow men
Oh keep her safe and bring her home again

Protect her from all worldly ways
And always send thy spirit when she prays
From girl to woman as she serves that land
Just hold her in the hollow of thy hand

Chorus:
In the hollow of thy hand, as our Zion she expands
Help her understanding deepen and increase
In the hollow of thy hand, as our Zion she expands
Let her know the special blessing of thy peace

As she faces life's demands
May she take a valiant stand
Give her shelter in the hollow of thy hand

Job: Repentant Pharisee

If you grew up with a lot of Bible stories, you're probably very familiar with half of the story of Job. He's a righteous man, he loses everything but refuses to complain, his three friends tell him he's obviously sinned instead of being supportive, and in the end Job gets everything back plus more.

You probably skipped the part where God gives Job a tongue-lashing.

You see, most of the book of Job is him and his three friends going back and forth, where they say God wouldn't give him so much sorrow unless he'd sinned somehow, and Job responds with confidence in his own righteousness:

Not for any injustice in mine hands: also my prayer is pure... Also now, behold, my witness is in heaven, and my record is on high. My friends scorn me: but mine eye poureth out tears unto God.

Job 16:17, 19-20

I put on righteousness, and it clothed me: my judgment was as a robe and a diadem. I was eyes to the blind, and feet was I to the lame. I was a father to the poor: and the cause which I knew not I searched out. And I brake the jaws of the wicked, and plucked the spoil out of his teeth.

Job 29:14-17

Let me be weighed in an even balance, that God may know mine integrity.

Job 31:6

Job acknowledges that if he had sinned, he would deserve a punishment, but he's very confident that he hasn't done anything wrong. After twenty-nine chapters of debate, Job's three friends gave up:

So these three men ceased to answer Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes.

Job 32:1

Enter Elihu, the fourth friend.

Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu... against Job was his wrath kindled, because he justified himself rather than God... For Job hath said, I am righteous: and God hath taken away my judgment.

Job 32:2, 34:5

Have we ever been like that? Have you or I ever been quicker to justify ourselves in the law, instead of the God who wrote the law?

Surely it is meet to be said unto God, I have borne chastisement, I will not offend any more: That which I see not teach thou me: if I have done iniquity, I will do no more.

Job 34:31-32

In his self-justification, Job was missing out on learning opportunities. Have you or I ever neglected our relationship with God because we were "already righteous enough?" Have we assumed we understood all his expectations for us already, or have we ignored possible flaws in our desire to be perfect, right now? If so, Jesus had something to say about our actions:

And one of the Pharisees desired him that he would eat with him. And he went into the Pharisee’s house, and sat down to meat. And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster box of ointment, And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.

Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner.

And Jesus answering said unto him, Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee.

And he saith, Master, say on.

There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty. And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most?

Simon answered and said, I suppose that he, to whom he forgave most.

And he said unto him, Thou hast rightly judged. 

And he turned to the woman, and said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet: but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head. Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet. My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment.

Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.

And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven... Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.

Luke 7:36-50

If that isn't enough to shake our desire to be justified now, to be perfect of ourselves, without grace, then perhaps the next section of the book of Job will give us pause. After Elihu's words, "the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind," and spent four entire chapters telling him how stupid he was.

 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Job 38:2-7

If you or I felt too confident in our own righteousness, we might ask, Have I searched the deepest recesses of my heart? Do I ever feel happy about being a good person now, being Okay already, and not feeling obligated to improve any further? Could I really say, with confidence, that I have been forgiven of all sin and would never sin again, through God's grace? Am I more interested in my own righteousness or in what I can learn from God? Do I really believe that my good works are a manifestation of God's grace, that without him I am nothing?

Job must have asked himself some of these questions, and it sounds like the answers must have been painful:

I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not... Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.

Job 42:3, 6

It wasn't until Job repented, and became like the woman who anointed Jesus' feet instead of like Simon the Pharisee, that we get our happy ending. Job prayed for his friends and said to God,

I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.

Job 42:5

And the Lord turned the captivity of Job, when he prayed for his friends: also the Lord gave Job twice as much as he had before.

Then came there unto him all his brethren, and all his sisters, and all they that had been of his acquaintance before, and did eat bread with him in his house: and they bemoaned him, and comforted him over all the evil that the Lord had brought upon him: every man also gave him a piece of money, and every one an earring of gold.

So the Lord blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning...

And in all the land were no women found so fair as the daughters of Job: and their father gave them inheritance among their brethren.

After this lived Job an hundred and forty years, and saw his sons, and his sons’ sons, even four generations.

So Job died, being old and full of days.

Job 42:10-12, 15-17