Here We Go a-Caucusing

What is a Caucus?
And Where Did It Come From?

Tonight the primary season for the 2012 presidential election begins (ugh!). The Iowa Caucus, which has traditionally been the first major presidential primary event since the early 1970's, will be our first forecast into what is sure to be a fascinating election season. After Iowa, several other states (including my beloved "Centennial State") will also gather its delegates into various caucuses to nominate the man/woman they feel is the best possible candidate for the presidency of the United States. These caucuses, which are essentially nothing more than group meetings of political supporters, may seem a bit confusing to both the participants and to the general public. After all, isn't it a much easier process to simply cast an electronic vote?

What most Americans don't know when it comes to the caucus is the fact that it is a very old tradition, which dates back to a time before the United States ever existed. Though the origins of the word are still debated to this day, caucus is believed to have originated from the Algonquin Indians, who resided in what is today New York and Vermont. It is believed that the Algonquin word 'cau´-cau-as´u', meaning "counsel" was adopted by early American Democratic-republicans in the latter part of the 18th century. Historian J.L. Bell notes that the first known usage of the word caucus comes from the diary of America's second president, John Adams, who wrote:

"This day learned that the Caucas Clubb meets at certain Times in the Garret of Tom Daws, the Adjutant of the Boston Regiment. He has a large House, and he has a moveable Partition in his Garrett, which he takes down and the whole Clubb meets in one Room. There they smoke tobacco till you cannot see from one End of the Garrett to the other. There they drink Phlip I suppose, and there they choose a Moderator, who puts Questions to the Vote regularly, and select Men, Assessors, Collectors, Wardens, Fire Wards, and Representatives are Regularly chosen before they are chosen in the Town. Uncle Fairfield, Story, Ruddock, Adams, Cooper, and a most rudis indigestaque Moles of others are Members. They send Committees to wait on the Merchants Clubb and to propose, and join, in the Choice of Men and Measures. Captn. Cunningham says they have often solicited him to go to these Caucas, they have assured him Benefit in his Business, &c."

(Click here for the link to the electronic archive of the Diary of John Adams)

And though the Iowa Caucus represents only 1% of all delegates, Iowa has been an effective indicator into how a presidential primary may go. Of the ten Democratic Iowa Caucuses since 1972, seven have gone on to be the party's nominee. For Republicans, six of the nine Iowa Caucus winners have won the party's nod. In short, the Iowa Caucus votes for the party's eventual nominee about 65-70% of the time; not a surefire gauge for the future but good enough for us to understand why the candidates love Iowa so much.

So as you make your way to your state's caucus in the next few months (assuming your state has one), remember that you are participating in a tradition that is possibly older than America itself. To go "a-caucusing" is an activity as American as apple pie, which, by the way, Native Americans enjoyed as well.

My prediction for tonight's caucus: Mitt Romney edges out Ron Paul to win.

Of Kings, Popes, Ecclesia and Mundus

The Love/Hate Relationship
Between Church and State

210 years ago today, on New Year's Day, 1802, President Thomas Jefferson penned a letter to a group of Connecticut Baptists who had been the unfortunate victims of religious persecution. At the time, Connecticut had established Congregationalism as the official religion of the state, and these Danbury Baptists had asked President Jefferson for aid. In what has become known as the Danbury Letter, President Jefferson responded to the Danbury Baptists by repeating the words of the First Amendment, which state that Congress shall "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." President Jefferson then added the words, "thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

This "wall" of "separation" between church and state is the fundamental issue at play in many a culture war today. Advocates in favor of a "Christian Nation" reduce the significance of the Danbury letter by revealing the fact that the phrase "separation of church and state" is nowhere to be had in our founding documents. Those opposed to the "Christian Nation" rebuke such a claim by pointing out that many of those same founding documents (particularly the Constitution) make no mention of God. And while both sides make appeals to different influencing factors that helped to bring about the formation of the United States (i.e. Christianity, Enlightenment, etc.) it is important for us to recognize that there is NOTHING uniquely American about this church/state battle.

To better understand the depth and the importance of this church/state conflict let us travel back to a time when it wasn't constitutions and congresses that made law but rather kings and popes. Of course I am speaking of Medieval times. This was a time of passionate religious and political bickering, as heads of state (or kingdoms) and vicars of Christ jockeyed with one another for ultimate control. The question of who possessed ultimate authority became the central theme of almost all Medieval politics. Pontiffs and princes, priests and politicians, spend centuries arguing over this singular issue in the futile effort to seize a measure of control over the other.

The analysis into the origins of this Church/State conflict could, if we let it, take us all the way back to Constantine himself. Ever since the day that Constantine the Great saw his famous vision and heard the voice "En Hoc Signo Vinces", the battle between church and state has been a raging fire throughout the Western world. Constantine's newly endowed Catholic Church, complete with imperial sanctioning and ecclesiastical authority, was a budding juggernaut of power that would eventually monopolize the governments of heaven and much of earth. Unlike its pagan predecessors, which required no major governing bureaucracy, Christianity (at least of the dominant Roman Catholic form) developed a hierarchical, authoritative governing body that eventually came to rival that of the Roman Empire itself (many historians, including the legendary Edward Gibbon, have hypothesized that this development was THE catalyst to the demise of the western Roman Empire). Traditional and simplistic rituals to the various gods and priests of paganism were replaced with dominant and influential representatives of the resurrected Christ who held all the keys to one's salvation.

As Christianity continued to rise upon the ashes of the dead western Roman Empire, various leaders of various lands hitched their wagons to the church in order to add divine sanctioning to their leadership resumes. Gothic lords and Frankish kings all saw the advantages that Christianity provided. It is therefore no surprise that so many of these former "barbarians" eventually became anointed kings and saints of the church. But these perks were not without their costs. As the Medieval world continued to evolve, monarchs found themselves at odds with their religious counterparts. Popes, abbots, bishops and priests demanded more control (and money) from their secular leaders, who were often found reluctant to acquiesce to those heavenly demands. And with Catholicism still in its infancy, secular leaders were able to put the early church in check by integrating themselves in with church authority. For example, most early popes relied upon powerful monarchs for not only protection but also for their nomination to the papacy. For centuries, the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire wielded incredible influence over new nominees to the Holy See, and once in power, these same popes relied heavily upon the Emperor's authority. There is no greater example or precedent of this fact than Pope Leo III, who begged Charlemagne for protection and for reinstatement to his seat as Bishop of Rome. Charlemagne obliged Leo and restored him in Rome; a gesture that Leo rewarded by pledging his allegiance to the Holy Roman Emperor and by crowning Charlemagne in St. Peter's Basilica on Christmas Day, 800.

But this reliance upon monarchs was not held in high esteem by everyone within the church. For centuries church authorities had tried, with varying levels of success, to break free from the secular power. From the fraudulent Donation of Constantine to Libertas ecclesiae, examples of Ecclesia's quest to be on equal or superior footing with Mundus fill the archives. The best example of this quest to "break free" and assert the church's ultimate authority is the Investiture Controversy, in which several kings (specifically King Henry IV) and popes (specifically Pope Gregory VII) took center stage in a clash worthy of a Hollywood script. In a nutshell, the Investiture Controversy was a disagreement that arose when church leaders challenged those monarchs who had granted appointments (investitures) to bishops and abbots within their kingdom. Contrary to popular belief, the church did not always exercise its domain over the appointment of local leaders. In fact, almost all local bishops and abbots of the early Medieval period were appointed by their local secular powers. This was due to the fact that these positions were almost always accompanied with a large land endowment. In what became known as the practice of Simony, kings and lords profited substantially from the sale of these church investitures, which were usually granted to secular nobles who could both afford to pay for the post and would remain loyal to the crown. For obvious reasons, church leaders saw this practice as an affront to their sovereignty and authority and looked for ways to change the status quo. This effort, however, proved to be extremely difficult, especially in the wake of ugly affairs like the Rule of the Harlots and the Great Schism of 1054.

An opportunity for change finally presented itself 1056 with the death of Emperor Henry III. Henry's successor, six-year-old Henry IV, was obviously too young to govern, thus opening the door for the church to make its move. During Henry IV's youth, the church made three significant moves to help establish its supremacy: First, in 1059, Gregorian reformers helped to push forward the all-important Papal Bull, In Nomine Domini, which established the College of Cardinals and invested in them the exclusive power of electing future popes. Second, in 1075, Pope Gregory VII created the Dictatus Papae, which, among other things, stated that the Pope alone had the authority to depose an emperor. And third, in a Lantern Council of 1075, church leaders declared that the Pope alone had the power of investitures. With these three new mandates in hand, church authorities were finally armed with the justification for ultimate sovereignty that they had longed for.

But as was often the case with Medieval politics, many within the secular realm were not impressed. Now no longer a child, King Henry IV elected to continue with the status quo and appointed his own bishops and abbots. In addition, Henry revoked his imperial support of Pope Gregory and issued a stern warning to the Holy Father. In a letter to Pope Gregory (in which Henry addressed him as "Hildebrand, at present not pope but false monk") Henry declared that his divine kingship came not from papal decree but from god himself:

And we, indeed, have endured all this, being eager to guard the honor of the apostolic see; you, however, have understood our humility to be fear, and have not, accordingly, shunned to rise up against the royal power conferred upon us by God, daring to threaten to divest us of it. As if we had received our kingdom from you! As if the kingdom and the empire were in your and not in God's hands! And this although our Lord Jesus Christ did call us to the kingdom, did not, however, call thee to the priesthood. For you have ascended by the following steps. By wiles, namely, which the profession of monk abhors, you have achieved money; by money, favor; by the sword, the throne of peace. And from the throne of peace you have disturbed peace, inasmuch as thou hast armed subjects against those in authority over them; inasmuch as you, who were not called, have taught that our bishops called of God are to be despised; inasmuch as you have usurped for laymen and the ministry over their priests, allowing them to depose or condemn those whom they themselves had received as teachers from the hand of God through the laying on of hands of the bishops.

Unfortunately for Henry, his royal rebuking fell on deaf ears. Pope Gregory simply ignored the letter and responded by excommunicating the Holy Roman Emperor. Not only did Henry's excommunication please church authorities but it also excited a number of German lords who had longed for a justification to usurp the king and increase their own wealth and power. Faced with overwhelming opposition from the church and growing hostility from his nobles, Henry finally chose to swallow his pride and appealed to Pope Gregory for reinstatement (legend has it that Henry traveled to Canossa, adorned himself in hairshirt and stood barefoot in the snow). Pope Gregory eventually removed Henry's excommunication but did not declare him king. In 1080 German lords had elected a new king, Rudolf of Rheinfelden, and had petitioned Gregory to anoint him as Holy Roman Emperor. Gregory found himself at a difficult crossroad and decided to not anoint either man as king. This infuriated Henry who proclaimed Clement III as pope (or antipope if you are on Gregory's team). Henry then attacked and killed Rudolf of Rheinfelden and moved on Rome to forcibly remove Gregory from the papacy. Left with no choice, Gregory called on Normon allies to come to his rescue. And though the Normans were successful in driving Henry's forces back, they chose to sack Rome themselves, causing Gregory to flee for his life.

Eventually the Investiture Controversy was resolved by Henry and Gregory's successors. The Concordat of Worms, which essentially granted sovereignty to both the church and the state in their respective realms, became one of the first occasions in which a "wall" of "separation" was created. The Investiture Controversy, though a dramatic mess to say the least, had revealed the fact that mixing matters of church and state together would surely lead to an explosive reaction. Both entities needed a buffer from one another. As the great Medieval historian Norman Cantor put it:

The Investiture Controversy had shattered the early-medieval equilibrium and ended the interpenetration of ecclesia and mundus. Medieval kingship, which had been largely the creation of ecclesiastical ideals and personnel, was forced to develop new institutions and sanctions. The result during the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries, was the first instance of a secular bureaucratic state whose essential components appeared in the Anglo-Norman monarchy.

And though the tug-o-war between church and state would rage on for several more centuries, the Investiture Controversy was a landmark event for both ecclesia and mundus. It gave religion a greater measure of independence from secular authorities who had for too long meddled in affairs to which they did not belong. The Investiture Controversy also endowed the state with a very clear sense of legitimacy that would, over the next millenia, rely less and less upon ecclesiastical endorsement and divine right authority. In short, the Investiture Controversy became the launchpad for future reformers and revolutionaries, who battled against the powers of church and state, in an effort to legitimize the independent authority of both. While the Investiture Controversy (along with subsequent struggles over the next several centuries) didn't completely solve the church/state debate, it did lay some of the initial mortar for the "wall." And as we have learned, this "wall" is not made of bricks but rather is a semi-permeable membrane through which church and state are able to occasionally cross, though once crossed is navigating through delicate waters.

For me, the church/state barrier is like a peanut butter and jelly sandwich: though very different in texture and flavor the two were made for one another, so long as they are applied in the appropriate proportions and nobody uses the jelly knife to scoop out the peanut butter (or visa-versa). And as everyone knows, though sticky and often messy, there is nothing better than a peanut butter and jelly sandwich!

Noteworthy Historical Anniversaries in 2012

2012 is sure to be an exciting year in history. Not only is the world going to end on December 21 (according to those clever Mayans who could foresee the future but not their own demise), but it is also the anniversary of an number of interesting historical events. Here are just a few:

January 6: 100th anniversary of New Mexico becoming the 47th U.S. state.

January 6: Tradition holds that 600 years ago on this day, Joan of Arc, the French soldier and saint, was born.

January 24: 300 years ago, Frederick the Great of Prussia is born.

February 5: 250th anniversary of the Great Holocaust of the Sikhsis, carried out by the forces of Ahmed Shah Abdali in Punjab. In all, over 500,000 men, women and children perish in this campaign of slaughter.

February 6: The Diamond Jubilee celebration of Queen Elizabeth II, marking the 60th anniversary of her accession to the throne of the United Kingdom, and the 60th anniversary of her becoming Head of the Commonwealth.

February 14: 100th anniversary of Arizona becoming the 48th U.S. state.

February 20: 50th anniversary of John Glenn becoming the first American to orbit the Earth.

February 22: 150 years ago, Jefferson Davis is officially sworn in as the first and only president of the Confederate States of America.

March 2: Wilt Chamberlain scores 100 points in one professional basketball game (50 years ago).

April 13: 150 years ago, the government of Vietnam is forced to cede the territories of Biên Hòa, Gia Định and Dinh Tuong to France. This will be a huge deal for the U.S. in About 100 years.

April 13: 700th anniversary of Pope Clement V forcibly disbanding the Knights Templar. Some argue that this date is the basis for the stigma surrounding the "Friday the 13th."

April 15: Marks the 100th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic (at 2:20 a.m. that morning), which claimed the lives of over 1,500 people.

April 20: The 100th anniversary of the opening of Fenway Park, home of the Boston Red Sox.

May 1: The Incredible Hulk made his grand debut 50 years ago.

May 5: The 150th anniversary of the Battle of Puebla...i.e. Cinco de Mayo.

May 21: 80th anniversary of Amelia Earhart becoming the first woman to cross Atlantic.

June 18: The 200th anniversary of the start of the War of 1812 between Great Britain and the United States. I'm sure the History Channel will ONCE AGAIN butcher the history of this war. Heck, they will probably try to show how aliens, monsters, ice road truckers and ancient Mayans were involved.

June 28: 300 years ago, the great Swiss philosopher, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, is born.

July 2: First Wal-Mart opens in Rogers, Arkansas 50 years ago.

July 10: AT&T's Telstar, the world's first commercial communications satellite, is launched into orbit 50 years ago and activated the next day (this is for you, Grant).

July 10: 800 years ago, the most severe of several early fires of London burns most of the city to the ground, Over 3,000 people die.

July 27: The opening ceremonies of the 2012 Summer Olympics begin in London, making London the only city to host the Olympics three times.

August 5: 50th anniversary of the "probable suicide" of actress Marilyn Monroe. She died from an overdose of sleeping pills and chloral hydrate. I have no clue what chloral hydrate is but it sounds BAAAAAD!

August 31: 2,000th birthday of the horrific Roman Emperor Caligula (and he doesn't look a day over 1,200).

September 22: Otto von Bismarck becomes Prime Minister of Prussia 150 years ago.

October 1: 50 years ago, Johnny Carson took over as permanent host of NBC's "Tonight Show", a post he would hold for 30 years.

October 5: The 50th anniversary of the James Bond franchise, which began with the premiere of "Dr. No."

October 14: 50th anniversary of the beginning of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

October 28: 1,700 years ago, one of the most important battles in world history, the Battle of Milvian Bridge, is fought. Constantine I defeats Maxentius and becomes Emperor of Rome. During the battle, he reportedly has a vision of a cross (labarum) with the phrase "in hoc signo vinces" ("In this sign you shall conquer"). This becomes the catalyst for Rome converting to Christianity.

November 1: 500 years ago today, the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, painted by Michelangelo Buonarroti, is completed and exhibited to the public for the first time.

November 25: The 10-year anniversary of the WORST federal agency in American history: the pathetic Dept. of Homeland Security.

November 28: 100th anniversary of Albania declaring independence from the Ottoman Empire.

December 1: 800th anniversary of "The Children's Crusade", led by 12-year-old Stephen of Cloyes from France. That's right, there was a Children's Crusade (oh the insanity!).

December 21: The Mesoamerican Long Count calendar (Mayan calendar) completes a "great cycle" of thirteen b'ak'tuns (periods of 144,000 days each) since the mythical creation date of the calendar's current era. Oh, and the world comes to an END!!!!!!

There you have it! 2012 is sure to be another fantastic year. God bless you and yours in this new year!

Christmas, 2011

It finally came! After 365 days of counting down to the greatest day in humanity, Christmas is finally here! And it was a WONDERFUL Christmas for our family. Here are a few highlights (and yes, the new Christmas countdown clock is up and running on the right-hand side of this blog):





Some videos:

Calm Before the Storm:


Part I


Part II


Part III


Crazy Helicopters


Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night!!!

Christmas in Colonial America: A Drunken Bash?

Baylor University historian Thomas Kidd has written an interesting article on how colonial Americans celebrated the holiday season. He writes:

In the 1700s, Christmas was notorious for drunken bashes more reminiscent of Mardi Gras than our family-friendly holiday. An account from New York published during the "twelve days" of Christmas in early 1787 (the same year Americans would frame the new Constitution) paints a picture of a deeply conflicted holiday. As one might expect, some people focused on the religious meaning of the season, setting aside the time "for a most sacred purpose." Others, however, spent the twelve days "reveling in profusion, and paying their sincere devotions to merry Bacchus," the Greek god of wine and festivity.

The city's churches were full on Sundays in the twelve days of Christmas, but so were the "temples dedicated to the service of merriment, dissipation and folly . . . where the sons of gluttony and drunkenness satiate their respective appetites." The taverns let out around midnight, when Christmas revelers poured into the streets, and "by their unmeaning, wild, extravagant noise," the account grumbled, "disturb those citizens who would rather sleep than get drunk."

And the following short poem illustrates the frustration that many pious early Americans had with their wild, drunken neighbors:

So merry at Christmas are some, they destroy
Their health by disease, and by trouble their joy
At Christmas, mix wisdom with mirth and never fear,
You'll secure the wished blessing—a happy New Year.

It has long been a fascination of mine to look at how people of the past celebrated the holidays. Contrary to popular belief, the modern American Christmas celebration is a relatively new phenomenon. As historian Nicole Harms points out:

Christmas in colonial America did not resemble the brightly lit festivities we celebrate today. In fact, many colonial religions banned celebrations of the holiday, claiming that it was tied to pagan traditions. The New England Puritans passed a law in Massachusetts that punished anyone who observed the holiday with a five-shilling fine. The Quakers treated Christmas Day as any other day of the year. The Presbyterians did not have formal Christmas Day services until they noticed that their members were heading to the English church to observe the Christmas services. This sparked the Presbyterian Church to start services of their own.

But not all of the earliest settlers detested Christmas. As I point out in a previous post, the settlers of Jamestown celebrated Christmas by getting absolutely hammered on "grog." Grog was colonial slang for any beverage containing rum (brings a new meaning to the expression of feeling "groggy" in the morning). Eventually, the word was changed to "nog" giving rise to its current name: eggnog. In addition, eggnog probably descended from the English drink "posset" or "sack posset," which was a hot drink made with sweetened milk and ale and was often mixed with eggs.

So however you choose to celebrate your holiday make it a safe one! God bless you and yours this Christmas season and throughout the new year!

Amazing Grace: Fact and Fiction

One of my favorite movies in recent years was the 2006 film Amazing Grace, which is the story of British politician William Wilberforce and his quest to destroy the slave trade. The film is also meant to explain the origins of the popular Christian hymn Amazing Grace, written by John Newton in 1779.

The film is both inspiring and aggravating. I say this because the movie does an excellent job of shedding light on an important historical figure (William Wilberforce), and aggravating because the film omits some important truths.

The film also does an solid job of recreating the Great Britain of the 18th century, including an excellent portrayal of London's contrasting social classes. The film brings to live the stark reality of both 18th century British poverty, its plight in the wake of emerging market capitalism, and its almost complete dependence upon the far wealthier gentry class. 18th century Britain was a world of two extremes: an incredibly wealthy gentry class invested with power, prestige, comfort and education, and the poor masses, ignorant, brutish, and in the infancy of emerging as a stronger class.

Despite these delightful movie recreations, Amazing Grace is deeply saturated with pop culture imagery that distorts the historical record. As Adam Hochschild points out in his article, English Abolition: The Movie, the abolitionist movement to end the slave trade was in no way a solo effort on the part of William Wilberforce. In fact, Wilberforce had a tremendous amount of support for his abolitionist agenda. As the articles states:

In recent decades, however, scholars have seen the history of British abolition as involving far more than Wilberforce's personal virtue. In 1787–1788, during the heady period between the American and French Revolutions, a huge grassroots movement against the slave trade burst into life in Britain, startling abolitionists and slave traders alike… more than 300,000 people refused to buy West Indian sugar. This was the largest consumer boycott the world had yet seen.

To be certain, Wilberforce is a man that is more than deserving of the accolades he has received over the years (and in this movie in particular), however, we should all be mindful that British abolitionism was a movement in which thousands of British citizens felt morally compelled to take action. In fact, the British abolitionist movement was deeply inspired by the Quaker movement. As Hochschild again points out:

The movement was led by an extremely imaginative, hard-working committee of activists, most of them Quakers, who pioneered tactics that are still used by human rights groups today...In addition, Anglican sentiment against the slave trade forced clergy members to adopt a pro-abolitionist stance in their sermons.

In addition, the best-selling memoirs of Olaudah Equiano, a former slave who became a powerful voice for abolition in Britain (essentially Britain’s Frederick Douglass) made mention of the Christian imperative to end the slave trade:

“O, ye nominal Christians! might not an African as you, learned you this from your God, who says unto you, Do unto all men as you would men should do unto you?”

Any you can see, Wilberforce was FAR from alone in his quest to end slavery in Britain.

Apart from the story on the abolition of the slave trade, Amazing Grace attempts to provide an inspiring tale on the origins of John Newton’s infamous hymn. In the movie, the Reverend John Newton is portrayed as a former heathen, who goes the way of the world by taking part in the transportation of thousands of African slaves to the New World. While in the course of transporting these slaves, Newton allegedly experiences a change of heart, in which he realizes the errors of his ways and devotes the rest of his life to the ministry and a remission for his sins.

While this comes off sounding nice, the truth is actually a bit different. As Adam Hochschild points out:

The reality was quite different. Most inconveniently for sin-and-repentance storytellers, John Newton came to evangelical Christianity before making four transatlantic voyages as a slave-ship officer, not afterward. He left the trade not for reasons of conscience but of health. And when he later was ordained a minister, he had all his savings invested with his former employer, who still had a fleet of slave ships at sea. There is no evidence that he mentioned slavery when Wilberforce first came to see him. Newton said not a word in public against the slave trade until 1788, several years after meeting Wilberforce and more than thirty years after he left the sea; by then a huge mass movement was underway and it was no longer easy for so prominent a former slave trader to avoid taking a stand. He then wrote a forceful pamphlet against the trade, testified twice at hearings, mentioned the subject once or twice in sermons, and otherwise did not openly raise it again for the remaining two decades of his preaching and writing life. He believed that the major evil of the day was blasphemy, which he once called "Our national sin."

So instead of being offered as an atonement for sin, Newton’s hymn Amazing Grace was actually written while the reverend continued to profit from the slave trade.

Though thoroughly entertaining and enlightening to the viewer, Amazing Grace is far from an accurate portrayal of real history. With that said, the film is still worth watching. The story of William Wilberforce is inspiring to say the least. And even if the back story behind John Newton's epic hymn isn't what we would like to envision, the hymn itself is still a timeless classic.

Here is the trailer for Amazing Grace

The Pearl's Great Price: Juxtaposing the Book of Abraham With the Book of Moses

And What They Teach Us About
the Nature of Revelation

One of the most popular "smoking gun" allegations against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), and of Joseph Smith in particular, has been the Book of Abraham. This book, along with the Book of Moses, comprise the majority of what Mormons call The Pearl of Great Price, one of four works canonized as scripture by the LDS faith. To understand the nature of these allegations we must first briefly revisit the history of the Book of Abraham and of the Pearl of Great Price in general.

A Brief History of the Joseph Smith Papyri
In 1833 a man named Michael Chandler purchased a collection of mummies, scrolls and other Egyptian artifacts from an excavator named Antonio Lebolo. Chandler attempted to earn money by touring the eastern United States with the artifacts, electing to sell a number of them along the way. In 1835, while traveling through Kirtland, Ohio, Chandler sold his last four mummies along with a collection of several scrolls to Joseph Smith for $2,400. While examining the artifacts, Smith declared that the scrolls "contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt" (History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 236). Smith immediately set out to translating the record and completed most of the work in the latter months of 1835. After a few revisions in 1842 the work was completed and published in the church magazine Times and Seasons later that same year. In 1880, along with other works, the Book of Abraham was canonized as scripture as part of the Pearl of Great Price.

For members of the Mormon church in Smith's time, the Book of Abraham was seen as the palpable reality of Smith's divine revelatory powers. Though members already had access to the Book of Mormon they did not have access to the golden plates. The Book of Abraham, however, retained its original primary source material in the form of ancient Egyptian scrolls. Even today most members of the church accept the Book of Abraham at face value. Few have found any reason to question its authenticity.

And though Mormons of the 19th century had an excuse to not question the Book of Abraham (the Rosetta Stone had still not been deciphered making any translation of Egyptian impossible), today's Mormon is forced to confront some difficult hurdles. Unlike 19th century historians, modern day scholars know precisely what the book of Abraham scrolls and facsimiles have to say. How? Because we have the scrolls themselves.

When Joseph Smith died in 1844, the papyri became the property of his wife, Emma. In the wake of the succession crisis over who would replace Smith as prophet, a battle that Brigham Young eventually won, Emma refused to relinquish control of the documents to the church. At some point, Emma elected to donate the artifacts to a Chicago museum. For decades thereafter it was believed that the ultimate fate of the papyri ended with their destruction in the great Chicago fire of 1871. However, in 1966 the papyri were rediscovered in the archives of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. The papyri were then given back to the church where they remain to this day.

So What do They Say?
The natural question for us today is, "Have modern Egyptologists deciphered the papyri?" The answer is "Yes." The obvious followup question is "What do modern Egyptologists have to say?" For Mormons the answer isn't very appealing. It turns out that the papyri are nothing more than common Egyptian funerary texts from the first century B.C. (a full translation of the papyri can be found here). In addition to the papyri being common funerary texts, the facsimile's from the Book of Abraham are of note. Contrary to Smith's interpretation, modern day Egyptologists have conclusively shown that the facsimiles are not a depiction of Abraham on an altar (facsimile 1), or of Kolob and other heavenly representations (facsimiles 2 and 3). Rather they are common embalming scenes and a hypocephalus from the Egyptian Book of the Dead and Book of Breathings. When asked about Smith's interpretations of the facsimiles, Dr. W.M. Flinders of London University stated, "It may be safely said that there is not one single word that is true in [Smith's] explanations" (I recognize that these facsimiles deserve further attention but that is not the purpose of this post. You can find a plethora of good material on the topic with a simple Google search. I'll let the reader decide what are good sources for further research). In short, modern day Egyptologists have successfully shown that the Book of Abraham is not what Joseph Smith said it was. And make no mistake, this isn't a conspiracy nor an attempt to smear Joseph Smith. This is factual, provable, verifiable reality. There is no reason that I or any other Mormon should attempt to sugarcoat these undeniable facts.

Now before my Mormon friends bail on me for sounding too "anti-Mormon" hear me out for a second. Though it is true that the papyri and facsimiles are not what Joseph Smith said they were, and regardless of the fact that Joseph Smith didn't understand Egyptian in any way, shape or form, and in spite of the true interpretations of modern Egyptologists, I still maintain that the Book of Abraham is inspired scripture. Here's how:

Don't Throw the Baby Jesus
Out With the Bathwater
As I write this post we are but 2 days away from my favorite holiday: Christmas! This is truly the best time of the year! Holiday cheer is in the air, Christmas lights decorate the town, and homes smell sweet with the scent of freshly cut Christmas trees. But most importantly I love Christmas because of Christ. And though I love this holiday more than all the rest, I fully recognize the fact that almost everything we do on Christmas has nothing do do with Christ. In fact, most of what we do to celebrate this season is pagan in origin. From Christmas trees to holiday wreaths, yule logs to mistletoe, Christmas is LOADED with pagan rituals and tradition that have absolutely nothing to do with Jesus or Christianity (for more on this topic see my post here).

Does this truth about Christmas take away from the holiday season? Is it the duty of all good Christians to reject these traditions? Does the baby Jesus care that we celebrate his birth with pagan symbols in the dead of winter? I contend that he does not. What matters is that Christmas, even with all of its pagan elements, is the medium through which we celebrate the birth of Christ. We are imperfect people. Imperfect people make mistakes. This means that it is only natural that our imperfections will manifest themselves through our traditions, customs and yes, even our history.

And the same is true of the Book of Abraham. Is the book good history? Absolutely not. Is it good scripture? No doubt about it. And make no mistake, there is a clear difference between history and scripture. The former must be analytical, objective and rely on demonstrative evidence, while the latter is allegorical, inspiring and faith-promoting. For critics to expect perfection from the Book of Abraham is to expect what never was, is, or ever will be. Or as the poet Alexander Pope put it:

Whoever thinks a faultless piece to see.
Thinks what ne'er was, nor is, nor e'er shall be
In every work regard the writer's end,
Since none can compass more than they intend,
And if the means be just, the conduct true,
Applause, in spite of trivial faults, is due.

And though my defense of the Book of Abraham will no doubt come off sounding like the rantings of a biased apologist to critics, I still maintain that the Book of Abraham is inspired scripture, and to support this claim I now turn to the Book of Abraham's "twin sister" in the Pearl of Great Price: the Book of Moses.

Enoch: The Mystery Man
Unlike the Book of Abraham, the Book of Moses was the result of direct revelation to Joseph Smith while he attempted his revision of the Holy Bible. The work was completed long before the book of Abraham (1830-31) and was incorporated into the Pearl of Great Price as a "sister book" to the BoA. In Smith's translation, 3,422 words were added to the Genesis story up until chapter 6:13, which is where the Book of Moses ends. That almost exactly doubles the conventional word count of Genesis up to that point in the King James Version. The Book of Moses deals with the creation story and a few short narratives on Moses himself, but the bulk of it centers on the story of Enoch. This is significant because the story of Enoch is almost non-existent in most Christian scripture (particularly the Bible) but is the central theme of the Book of Moses. And it also helps that the Enoch of the Book of Moses just happens to fit very nicely with the Enoch from the actual ancient texts. For example:

Moses 7:67 "And the Lord showed Enoch all things, even unto the end of the world."

2 Enoch 40:1 "Now therefore, my children, I know everything;...my eyes have seen from the beginning even to the end, and from the end to the recommencement."
-----
Moses 7:4 [the Lord said to Enoch] "Look, and I will show unto thee the world for the space of many generations."

3 Enoch 45 "And I saw Adam and his generation, their deeds and their thoughts...And every deed of every generation, whether done or to be done in the time to come, to all generations, till the end of time."
-----
Moses 6:51 "And he called upon our father Adam by his own voice, saying: I am God; I made the world, and men before they were in the flesh."

2 Enoch 23:4-5 "You [Enoch] sit down and write all the souls of men, whatever of them are not yet born,...For all the souls are prepared for eternity, before the composition of the earth."
-----
Moses 7:44 "And as Enoch saw this, he had bitterness of soul, and wept over his brethren, and said unto the heavens: I will refuse to be comforted.

2 Enoch 41:1 "And I [Enoch] sighed and burst into tears, and I said concerning their disreputable depravity, Oh how miserable."
-----
Moses 7:59 [Enoch to God] "Thou hast made me, and given unto me a right to thy throne."

3 Enoch 10:1-3 [Enoch speaking] "The Holy One made for me a throne like the throne of glory...He placed it at the door of the seventh palace and sat me down upon it."

Needless to say, the similarities between Smith's Book of Moses and the actual records of Enoch are striking (and there are a lot more than what I listed above). These incredible similarities are a fact not lost to many experts. For example, noted Yale scholar Harold Bloom, who specializes in ancient and sacred literature, stated that the Book of Moses (and Abraham) is "strikingly akin to ancient suggestions" that essentially restate "the archaic or original Jewish religion, a Judaism that preceded even the Yahwist." Bloom continued by stating that he found "enormous validity" in the way these writings "recapture critical elements in the archaic Jewish religion...that had ceased to be available either to normative Judaism or to Christianity and that survived only in esoteric traditions unlikely to have touched [Joseph] Smith directly." So while the Book of Abraham is often the recipient of criticism, it's "sister book" has been praised by scholars in a variety of fields.

Of course, critics have countered these claims by pointing out the fact that the first English translation of the Book of Enoch (the Bodleian/Ethiopic manuscripts) was published in 1821 by Richard Laurence, nine years before Smith's Book of Moses revelation. However, these early translations (and others like them) do not contain the similarities mentioned above. Those come from later (and better) translations of the ancient text made long after Smith's death. In addition, though these works were published in the early part of the 19th century, they did not become popular (even in Europe) until the 1850s. So while it is possible that Smith had access to a condensed early version of the ancient Enoch, it is certainly not probable.

The Nature of Revelation
So how can one book in the Pearl of Great price (the BoA) have so many apparent problems, while the other (the BoM) receives praise? The answer lies with the nature of revelation itself. Contrary to what many believe (even within my own faith) I maintain that revelation is not some magical, mysterious, supernatural connection to heaven. I do not believe in psychics and I reject the "hocus pocus" tactics of fortune tellers. Heck, I reject a lot of the supposed "revelation" that many in my own faith hail as fact (every faith has its mythology). Instead, revelation is (in my opinion) the quiet, consistent persuasions of the mind that often lead to those "AHA!" moments. Or as Joseph Smith himself put it:

A person may profit by noticing the first intimation of the spirit of revelation; for instance, when you feel pure intelligence flowing into you, it may give you sudden strokes of ideas, so that by noticing it, you may find it fulfilled the same day or soon...And thus by learning the Spirit of God and understanding it, you may grow into the principle of revelation, until you become perfect in Christ Jesus (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith, 1976, Pp. 151).

Does that mean that anyone can receive revelation? Absolutely, and I believe that most of us receive it without our even knowing it. Revelation is a part of us. It invigorates the mind the same way air invigorates the lungs (and most of us breathe without even thinking of it). Revelation is the "light bulb" of the mind turning on to new and exciting ideas. It is what inspires the poet, motivates the scientist, drives the composer and enlightens the philosopher. This is how everything from the Bible, the Qur'an, Handel's "Messiah", and Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel can be seen as the fruits of revelation (yet all of those still have their human imperfections). I believe that some of the world's greatest thinkers received revelation. As James E Faust taught:

The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals.

It is arrogant presumption for us to think that all of our thoughts and ideas are exclusively our own. We thank God for the air we breathe and the food we eat. Why not for the inspirations of our mind? In short, revelation is the "eye" (or "I") to enlightenment, which we discover through: "I"nspiration, "I"ntellect, "I"ntuition and "I"nstinct.

None of this, of course, can explain how the Book of Abraham can appear as an apparent historical fraud and still be inspired scripture. Much of this rests with the eye (or "I") of the beholder. What we do know is that inspiration, intellect, intuition and instincts are tricky things. We all know that they are real but they can also be quite deceiving. It's hard for us imperfect humans to fully trust our intellect, intuition, etc., but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try. Perhaps Joseph Smith's intellect and intuition were wrong about the papyri he purchased but that doesn't mean that he wasn't inspired. Could the papyri have served to "spark" the revelation? To the critic such an assertion is ridiculous, to the believer in revelation...true revelation...it is quite probable. As Nephi put it:

But behold, there are many that harden their hearts against the Holy Spirit, that it hath no place in them; wherefore, they cast many things away which are written and esteem them as things of naught (2 Nephi 33:2).

For me, the real beauty of the Pearl of Great Price rests with its lessons on revelation. Here are two books, with very different pathways to revelation, testifying of the truthfulness of the Gospel. It is true that scripture never has, nor ever will be, good history or science, but history and science have never been good scripture. History may answer the "who", "what", "where", and "when" questions, while science answers the "how" questions, but it is religion that answers the ever-important "why" questions. The truth of the matter is that we need them all to gain further light and knowledge...i.e. further revelation. As one important revelation put it: "The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth." (and dare I say that the glory of God is also Inspiration, Intuition and Instinct as well).

Let us all be grateful for the revelation we receive, regardless of its source. Whether in the form of "non-Mormon" source material or questionable historical relics is irrelevant. The work of revelation, though often painstaking and difficult to sort out, is worth all of the work. Remember, every butterfly was first a caterpillar, every flower had to first push through dirt, and every pearl of great price was first irritating sand inside of an oyster. No revelation is meant to be easy, if this were not the case, what would it be revealing?

David Cameron: "The U.K. is a Christian Nation"

In a speech delivered last week at Oxford for the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible, British Prime Minister David Cameron called for a "revival" of Christian values to counter Britain's "moral collapse." "We are a Christian country and we should not be afraid to say so" stated Cameron to an audience of more than 3000. Cameron also stated that he was a man "full of doubts" when it came to matters of faith, but that he was, nonetheless, a Christian:

I am a committed – but I have to say vaguely practising – Church of England Christian, who will stand up for the values and principles of my faith, but who is full of doubts and, like many, constantly grappling with the difficult questions when it comes to some of the big theological issues

But what I do believe is this.

The King James Bible is as relevant today as at any point in its 400 year history. And none of us should be frightened of recognising this.

[...]

We are a Christian country. And we should not be afraid to say so. Let me be clear: I am not in any way saying that to have another faith – or no faith – is somehow wrong. I know and fully respect that many people in this country do not have a religion. And I am also incredibly proud that Britain is home to many different faith communities, who do so much to make our country stronger. But what I am saying is that the Bible has helped to give Britain a set of values and morals which make Britain what it is today.

[...]

Responsibility, hard work, charity, compassion, humility, self-sacrifice, love, pride in working for the common good and honouring the social obligations we have to one another, to our families and our communities, these are the values we treasure. Yes, they are Christian values. And we should not be afraid to acknowledge that. But they are also values that speak to us all – to people of every faith and none. And I believe we should all stand up and defend them. Those who oppose this usually make the case for secular neutrality. They argue that by saying we are a Christian country and standing up for Christian values we are somehow doing down other faiths.

But not everyone agrees:

If values of a Christian country are shared by people of all faiths why the need to specifically label the country Christian? Why not say that we share a common morality and common values? Call it humanism, call it whatever you want - don't call it anything at all. Only this will unite us.

the only reason to evoke Christianity is a desperate attempt to address the declining morality. But he falsely makes the classic polar argument 'it must be either this or god', just as people assume it must 'science or god'. There are alternatives - it just takes just a little bit of forward thinking and trust in mankind's ability to be a moral being.

And from Richard Dawkins' website:

Firstly, the UK is not a Christian country except constitutionally - the Queen being the Head of State and the Head of the Church of England. We are not even a practising religious country.

Secondly, the morals of the bible are, to put it generously, 'confused'.

Thirdly, in any event, Christianity is not the basis of even the good parts of our 'moral code' given that concepts such as the 'golden rule' (like it or loathe it) pre-date monotheistic 'Abrahamic' religions by some distance.

To be honest, I tend to side with Cameron on this one. One doesn't need to be an expert in British history to recognize just how important Christianity has been on Great Britain (and Europe in general). Heck, in many respects Christianity pre-dates the establishment of England, and certainly of Great Britain and the U.K. From Catholicism to Henry VIII's break with the church, from Elizabeth I's creation of the Church of England to the Puritans, Protestants, Methodists, Baptists, etc., etc., etc., the United Kingdom has a rich Christian heritage AND founding.

So how does this relate to the United States?

Obviously the history of Britain and the U.S. are joined at the hip, however, I still maintain that the United States, though incredibly religious in its own right, has a different founding than Europe. As I stated in a previous post, America's PLANTING is certainly Christian in many respects (the Puritans being the prime example). However, America's FOUNDING was something different entirely.

Of course, much of this debate boils down to semantics: what constitutes a "Christian", what constitutes a "Nation"? I maintain that if we look at America's founding from a traditional orthodox Christian perspective we cannot conclude that America was founded as a Christian nation (though England certainly was).

My 2011 Person of the Year

At the conclusion of very year, since 1927, Time Magazine has selected a "Person of the Year", to headline a special December issue of their magazine. Everyone from Adolf Hitler to Franklin D. Roosevelt; the computer to the endangered Earth have been given this distinction. For 2011, Time has selected "The Protester" as the person of the year. And though I agree that "The Protester" is a fair selection, I have a problem with Time selecting a very generic "person" to headline their "Person of the Year." This isn't the first time that Time has chosen a generic figure. In 2006, Time selected "You" for person of the year. In 2002, the honor went to "The Whistle blowers", and in 1993 the award went to "The Peacemakers."

Now, I realize that Time is trying to do two things with these types of selections: first and foremost, sell magazines and second, I do believe they are trying to be objective. However, I personally believe that a "Person of the Year" needs to be just that: a PERSON! Picking a large, generic group of people just seems like a cop out.

With that said, here are my 10 selections (from 10-1) for the 2011 Person of the Year:

10.) Muammar Gaddafi
The former Lybian dictator, who was killed on October 11 of this year, kicks off my list. I chose Gaddafi not because of anything great he did but rather for all of his horrible acts towards the people he claimed to "love" so much (those same people are the ones who killed him). Gaddafi was the epitome of a narcissistic dictator who used his position of power to exclusively benefit himself. The irony is that his style of leadership is ultimately what led to his pathetic demise. He is deserving to be on this list because he is essentially the embodiment of a changing Middle East. His long reign of terror is finally over. Adios, puto!

9.) The Scientists as CERN
Ok, I know I started this post off by complaining that Time sometimes chooses a group of people for their person of the year, and here I am doing the same thing (I actually do it twice on this list. Another "group" is coming). I chose the scientists at the CERN laboratory for one big reason: they may have proven Einstein wrong. Earlier this year, CERN released the findings from their neutrino studies conducted at the Swiss/French Hadron Collider. In a nutshell, what they discovered is that neutrinos apparently can travel faster than the speed of light. This is a monumental discovery because, if substantiated, it would prove a portion of Einstein's Theory of Relativity to be wrong, and would force us to reevaluate some of the ways we look at physics.

8.) Princess Kate Middleton
Ok, I know that most Americans don't understand the importance of the British Royal Family but that doesn't mean that they are irrelevant to the rest of the world (and especially to Britain). Earlier this year, Kate Middleton married Prince William, the future King of England, making Kate the future queen. Kate has become an icon for the British people. As the spouse of the son of the Late Princess Diana, the pressure for Kate to meet expectations is extreme. Needless to say, she has met those expectations. Kate Middleton, a "commoner" by birth, actually has a great deal in common with her mother-in-law. She has been a vocal advocate against poverty and children with cancer. Kate was also a vocal proponent in favor of the new British law (passed this year) which no longer gives favor to males as heirs to the crown. This means that if Kate has a daughter first, she will be the first future Queen of England to have preference over a brother.

7.) Mitt Romney
As we all know, Romney is running for president in 2012. But unlike the other candidates, Romney has managed to stay consistent and relevant in what has been a whirlwind mess of a GOP field. It seems like every other month a new Republican candidate gains a ton of momentum and then fizzles out. Romney, however, has been the epitome of steady consistency, which according to many political experts, makes him the biggest threat to an Obama reelection.

6.) Ai Weiwei
Most Americans are probably not very familiar with Weiwei (I wasn't until earlier this year) but he has done some wonderful things in China. Weiwei is by trade an artist, but in recent years has taken to being a very vocal supporter of Chinese reform. A former communist himself, Weiwei is now a staunch supporter for democratic reform in China. His work has landed him in prison on a number of occasions, where he has been the recipient of several police beatings. Unlike other Chinese advocates who usually fizzle out, Weiwei is extremely popular throughout the country.

5.) Barack Obama
Anytime you are the President of the United States you are probably a perennial person of the year. Obama has fallen in popularity this year but is still a powerful contender for 2012. Among his other accomplishments this year, Obama concluded the war in Iraq, cut taxes (yes, he really did cut taxes), and ordered the mission that killed Osama Bin Laden. Obviously, 2012 is going to be the most important year for Obama's presidency as he seeks a second term, but his role as President of the United States in 2011 secures him a spot on this list.

4.) Gabrielle Giffords
In January of this year, Congresswoman Giffords was nearly killed in a horrific shooting that claimed the lives of six people. Giffords' prognosis was grim for most of 2011 as she struggled for life while on a ventilator and in a coma. Doctors were unsure if she would survive let alone return to her seat in the House of Representatives. And though she initially had several complications including an inability to walk, talk and breathe on her own, Congresswoman Giffords eventually made a near complete recovery. Less than eight months after being shot several times (including in the head) she was back in the House attending to the affairs of her elected position. Regardless of one's political leanings, Congresswoman Giffords is one heck of an example and inspiration!

3.) Tayyip Erdogan
Erdogan, who is the Prime Minister of Turkey, is the personification of the many changes that are taking place all over the Middle East. A devout Muslim, career politician, popular protester (he served time in prison for opposing Turkey's dictatorship), and a former professional athlete, Erdogan's politics appeal to a wide range of Turks who have been hungry for change. Erdogan has helped Turkey emerge as a serious economic juggernaut. Next to China, Turkey is currently the second fastest growing economy in the world. Erdogan has also been a champion of Islamic pacifism by promoting secular democracy and by opposing Syria. And though he has opposed the United States on its policies regarding Israel and Iran, Erdogan is considered an important American ally in the Middle East.

2.) Seal Team 6
Seal Team 6 is my second "group" nominee for person of the year. Needless to say, Seal Team 6 succeeded in killing a man who had been on the run for almost 10 years. The killing of Osama Bin Laden was a righteous achievement, though not one in which we as Americans should boast. The taking of any life is never an occasion for celebration. With that said, the men of Seal Team 6 did a remarkable job in completing a very complex and important mission and they deserve to be praised.

And the winner of the Brad Hart Person of 2011 is...

...

...


1.) Steve Jobs
On October 5 of this year, Steve Jobs passed away after a lengthy battle with pancreatic cancer. Jobs was a rare and special talent to say the least. As the co-founder of Apple, Jobs became a pioneer in the computer and technology world. He revolutionized the music industry, improved the entertainment business and made personal computers a reality (heck, a near necessity) for humanity. Jobs was the epitome of a dreamer, an innovator, an inventor and a visionary. Jobs' genius was that he wasn't a genius. He was a normal person who knew what he wanted out of life and did it. He expected greatness from himself and all others around him, but not so much that he didn't know how to cut loose. It is a well known fact that Jobs was a drug user in his early years while creating apple (especially LSD). Even though at the end his body fell apart, Jobs' mind was always sharp. He was the primary advocate for the creation of the iPad and the iPhone, innovations that have catapulted Apple to an even greater level.

And even in death Jobs saw what we couldn't. His final words were, "Oh wow. Oh wow. Oh wow!" One can only imagine what Jobs was seeing but I would imagine that it would have to be pretty damn impressive to get that kind of a reaction from Jobs. There is no doubt that the world lost an icon in 2011. Thank you, Steve Jobs for all you gave us! And don't rest in peace (since we know that's the last thing you want to do). Instead, go dazzle the heavens with your next innovation!

Steve Jobs' EXCELLENT address at Stanford University:

We Mormons: An Essay on Church Culture

We Mormons are a strange bunch sometimes. Most see us as being an ultra-cheerful bunch (which is a good thing), who despite being a bit naive to the realities of the world (which is probably true...that darn "Mormon bubble"), are always willing to give a helping hand wherever possible. And like most churches, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have also developed their own sense of "Mormon-ness", or in other words, our own micro-culture. Heck, we even have our own language. We "know beyond a shadow of a doubt" and "with every fiber of our being" that certain things are "true", we always ensure that our food is blessed to "nourish and strengthen our bodies", we "revere the brethren", "obey all traffic laws" after General Conference (except for the idiot drivers in Utah County), we "search, ponder and pray", color our favorite scriptures in our "triple combinations", and sometimes believe that popcorn really does pop on an apricot tree.

Oh, and we "always" vote Republican. =)

Of course, these stereotypes are nothing more than an illustration of the fact that Mormonism has, like virtually every other group of people, developed its own culture. And though this culture is far from a fair representation of church theology, the fact of the matter is that Mormon culture does sometimes get messed up with Mormon religion, and occasionally it can be difficult to separate the two.

For example:

1.) We Mormons sometimes revere a BYU education to any other. And though the "Lord's University" is a great institution (I can't rip on it too hard, my wife and most of her family graduated from BYU) there is definitely a cultural preference that is granted to all things BYU. For some, a BYU degree increases one's intellect (and spirituality) to an "Einstonian" level. In addition, BYU football is ALWAYS cheated out of a national championship by evil "gentile" voters, and Steve Young is the greatest athlete in the universe. Oh, and there is no greater musician than a BYU musician. =)

Of course, Mormons should be proud of BYU. It is a wonderful school with much to be proud of. It was inevitable that BYU would eventually become a big part of Mormon culture.

2.) We Mormons obsess over politics. In fact, politics are seen as almost a religious duty for every Latter-day Saint. To be uninterested, or worse, to be a DEMOCRAT, is akin to being sent to "Outer Darkness" for eternity. Republican politicians, even if not Mormon, are almost always considered to be soldiers of goodness, while Democrats are wolves in sheep's clothing. Glenn Beck (who will one day be a General Authority) is a treasure of righteousness that is to be praised in many a testimony meeting.

I find politics to be arguably the most interesting influence on Mormon culture. As most already know, Utah (and American Mormons in general) are overwhelmingly Republican. And though there is surely a large number of Mormon Republicans who are truly conservative to the core, the majority of Mormon "conservatism" is cultural in nature. Most Mormons are probably unaware of the fact that early Latter-day Saints were overwhelmingly Democrat. In fact, when Utah was applying for statehood church leaders resorted to assigning members to join the Republican Party in an effort to show that Mormons embraced all political ideas (the U.S. Government was deeply concerned that Mormons were overwhelmingly Democrats). Mormons in the 20s and 30s overwhelmingly supported FDR, the New Deal, and other "evil" progressive programs.

3.) We Mormons sometimes get upset when we aren't considered mainstream or when we don't get the media attention we think we deserve, but then are furious when South Park makes a "Book of Mormon" musical. I'm not saying I like negative attention but you have to be able to take the good with the bad if you are wanting to become more public.

4.) We Mormons start and end every activity known to man with a prayer, believe violence is only warranted in a church basketball setting, think green Jell-O with shredded carrots is a delicacy, believe the Holy Spirit goes to bed at midnight and think that every time an R-rated movie hits theaters an angel dies. =)

5.) We Mormons celebrate the 24th of July (the day early Mormon pioneers arrived in the Salt Lake Valley) as a second Independence Day of sorts. We proudly cover floats in the red, white and blue and waive "Old Glory" from our rooftops. This is ironic since early Mormons were fleeing from the United States. Most early saints had a deep hatred for the U.S. government (and rightfully so). Their arrival to Salt Lake had nothing to do with American patriotism. In fact, quite the opposite is the case. And though I have no problem with modern day Mormons demonstrating our incredible patriotism (and make no mistake, Mormons today are very patriotic) I do think we sometimes forget that early Mormons were actually quite anti-American...and for good reasons.

6.) We Mormons love to collect and store tons of food. The church has done a remarkable job of making canned goods available to its members. Some Mormons have literally years of food storage saved up. We even like to cook creative meals with our massive surplus and then show them off. This is actually a wonderful cultural practice that most people in the world would greatly benefit from if they followed our lead.

7.) We Mormon men are given the "big" leadership roles in the church but the reality of Mormonism is that women run the show. There is no doubt that local Mormon wards and stakes would literally crumble without the women. Almost all of the actual work that is done in the church is done by those who lack a Y chromosome.

8.) We Mormons like to think that we are deep religious scholars. We debate over "deep" religious stuff like, "Did Adam have a belly button?", "What is an intelligence?", "Where is Kolob?", "Is Emma Smith going to heaven?", and "Were we all friends in the pre-existence?" We Mormons hold Gospel Doctrine classes every Sunday, send our kids to four years of Seminary during their high school years, include Institute of Religion classes as part of one's college curriculum, and send our missionaries to intense training centers. Yet despite all of this, most Mormons know very little about other religions. Heck, most don't know much about Mormon theology and/or history. Don't get me wrong, I am not knocking these FANTASTIC church programs (I have participated in all of them) but the fact remains that most Mormons are fairly ignorant when it comes to theology in general.

9.) We Mormons like to say, "The church is true no matter where you go." And though I agree that church theology can be found anywhere, the fact is that not all Mormon wards are created equal. Depending on location, demographics, wealth, age, etc., Mormon wards are actually very different from one another.

10.) We Mormons HATE swearing. And though I agree that swearing can be a disgusting practice, most Mormons probably don't realize that early Latter-day Saints swore like sailors...even occasionally in a talk. Hell, some habits are just too damn hard to break!

11.) We Mormons are extremely quiet during church services. Aside from the occasional obligatory laugh at a lame joke, the Mormon congregation sits quietly during a service (with the exception of kids). There is no applauding a musical number and it is rare that people get up during the service (again, usually because of kids). This is ironic because early Latter-day Saints were quite expressive during the church services. Members in the congregation would regularly chime in with an "Amen" or a "God be praised" comment. Members would even interrupt the speaker with a long comment and then the speaker would respond! In the modern Mormon church, the passing of the sacrament is a quiet, reverent time of reflection. In the early church, the sacrament was handed out while speakers spoke and music was sang. And instead of separate cups for the Sacrament water, early Mormons simply shared a cup (and it wasn't always filled water) that they passed around. Oh, and there was even some early Mormons who did the whole "speaking in strange tongues" thing while at church.

12.) We Mormons treat the Sabbath day (Sunday) with great respect. Most refrain from work, shopping, television, and eating out. Spending money on Sunday is sometimes seen as a Sabbath-breaker. And though I greatly enjoy such practices on my Sunday (for me they make Sunday feel special), early Mormons were notorious for spending money on Sunday. In fact, early leaders didn't care much about it. Of course, they preached against gambling and buying alcohol on Sunday, but spending money was no big deal. In addition, work was common on Sunday, in fact, it was a necessity. Crops had to be tended to, cows milked, chickens fed, land plowed, etc.

13.) We Mormons stress the importance of living a healthy life. Our "Word of Wisdom" teaches that we should abstain from harmful things like alcohol, tobacco, caffeine and eating too much meat. And though this is great advise, we Mormons sometimes forget that early Latter-day Saints regularly drank coffee, alcohol and tobacco...even in church.

14.) We Mormons preach frugality and condemn obsessive materialism, yet Utah is a leader in the nation in foreclosures and bankruptcies. That is a sad aspect to Mormon culture.

15.) We Mormons love to meet...for EVERYTHING! It seems like we have a meeting in order to plan more meetings.

16.) We Mormons are huge into scouting. For some, earning the rank of Eagle Scout is as important as baptism. Some Mormon girls require an Eagle Scout of their future hubby's. And though I have no problem with scouting, there is no doubt that the church's devotion to the program is purely cultural.

17.) We Mormons have refreshments for EVERYTHING. I remember going to a viewing for a dead person and seeing a table full of bean dip, casseroles and, of course...green Jell-O with carrots...at a VIEWING!!!

In conclusion, though these cultural facts are amusing, I love my faith. It has made me a better person than I would have been without it. Yes, there are a number of crazy cultural components to Mormonism that are fun point out, but none of them fly in the face of the Mormon religion. Perhaps some of my fellow Mormons will think it inappropriate for me to even point out these cultural truths. They may feel that it is "mocking" the faith. This is not my intention. Instead, I think it's more than proper to laugh at the silly things we do. Yes, life is serious but not so serious that you can't laugh at yourself. Being a member of the Mormon Church (or any church for that matter) means taking the good with the bad; accepting the religion and the culture. And even if I sometimes complain about Mormon culture I am, in the end, grateful for it. After all, where else would I get my laughs?

***Special hat tip: S. Faux's incredible blog