The Catholic church is famous for its doctrine of papal infallibility. However, it is worth noting that this doctrine includes fairly strict criteria regarding what statements can be deemed infallible. It does not mean that every word the Pope utters is infallible. According to Vatican I, the Pope is infallible only when he is defining a doctrine of faith or morals, speaking ex cathedra (in other words, speaking explicitly as the head of the Church), and speaking with the clear intention of binding the Church. If there is any doubt about any of these, the statement cannot be considered infallible. This means that the vast majority of papal pronouncements do not in fact fall into the “infallible” category. In fact, to date there only exist two papal statements which theologians widely accept as infallible, both related to Mariology—one about the Immaculate Conception, and one about the assumption of Mary into heaven.

In contrast, while we quote the famous line about a prophet only being a prophet when speaking as such, we have no accompanying criteria with which to judge whether prophetic statements are in fact prophetic. And I wonder: if a prophet did err, would there be any way for us to know? Even the usual trump card of personal revelation is problematic here, because of the teaching that personal revelation will never contradict the teachings of the current prophet. While we can (and are indeed encouraged) to pray for a witness of the truth of prophetic teaching, there is only one possible answer to such a prayer—because any other answer would fail the litmus test which we’re instructed to use to discern whether something is in fact revelation.

In addition, I think much of our popular discourse reflects a belief in practical infallibility. The statement that God will never allow the prophet to lead the Church astray is often given as a reason to accept whatever the current prophet is saying as the will of God. I’ve also occasionally heard this framed as a question of probability. If a person finds herself in disagreement with a prophet, goes this argument, she should consider how very unlikely it is that she’s right and God’s appointed spokesperson is wrong—the point being that even if it’s a hypothetical possibility that prophets could err, the odds are overwhelmingly against it in any given situation.

And even if the prophet himself says that this is his personal opinion, that might make no difference at all on a cultural level. I remember one of my seminary teachers saying, but why would we ever go against the opinion of a prophet? Evidently one of the ways in which a prophet might actually be fallible is in his perception of his fallibility.

So what value is there in maintaining the idea of prophetic fallibility? My guess is that it has to do with dealing without our past. When we emphasize that prophets are fallible, this generally comes up in the contexts of past prophets: it’s a kind of loophole which allows us to deal with statements by past leaders which now sound bizarre to our ears. It gives us a way of responding to anti-Mormons who’ve dug up random odd statements out of the Journal of Discourses. When it comes to how we’re expected to view the current prophet, however, I am not sure I see much difference between where we are and where we would be if we did have a doctrine of prophetic infallibility. In other words, when is the prophet speaking as a prophet? When he’s alive.

While we may not have infallibility per se, then, we seem to have something that very closely resembles it.  But I think there is room in our doctrine for a somewhat broader approach. As a practicing Mormon, I do think it is incumbent on me to take what the prophet says quite seriously. I don’t think, however, that necessarily means agreeing with every single word that ever happens to fall from his lips. You know that Joan Osborne song, what if God was one of us? I wonder: what if the prophet were one of us, too? Someone with a unique and unusually demanding calling, one who’s entitled to revelation for the church as a whole—but in the end, not superhuman, not qualitatively different from everyone else. Having audaciously closed the ontological gap between human and divine, maybe we could do something even more radical, and close the one between top church leaders and rank-and-file members.

Please join us for a conference, “Exploring Mormon Conceptions of Apostasy” to be held on March 1-2, 2012 at Brigham Young University.

The notion of an apostasy from the primitive gospel and the original church has been a key animating feature in Mormonism since its inception and in other “religions of the book.” However, the concept of apostasy has proven to be tremendously fluid, with individual, institutional, communal, and historical meanings and applications all proliferating in religious thought throughout the ages. Fifteen faithful Mormon scholars from many scholarly backgrounds and methodologies will explore the concept of apostasy in various historical and religious contexts as we consider how to narrate apostasy in ways that remain historically authentic and cohere with Mormon theology.

The conference schedule and location information are available at the conference website <http://sites.google.com/site/mormonconceptionsofapostasy/>.

For more information, please contact the conference organizer, Miranda Wilcox, assistant professor of English at Brigham Young University (miranda_wilcox@byu.edu). The conference is funded by an Eliza R. Snow Faculty Grant.

I currently live in a city that used to be deep in former East Germany.  I’ve seen pictures of rows on rows of historic buildings painted grey and brown, falling down in the 1980s.  I’ve walked through the huge residential communist/brutalist-style neo-villages on the outskirts.  And, I’ve made a few friends who grew up in the DDR and have a lot to say about what it was like then, now, and during the difficult transition.

I had tea with my friend Ute yesterday and we talked for two hours about many things, but one thing in particular I just couldn’t get out of my head…

Some background

Ute asked me what I was doing with my time  in Germany since we will be here for two years for my husband’s post-doc.  I mentioned that I had a master’s program to work on and some classes at the university to teach, but that I wished I could find a job like the one I had in the states–a job I was really passionate about.   I went on to talk about how difficult it can be in a marriage to find a balance between each other’s dreams and ambitions–who moves for who, what time is best to have a family, what gets put on the back burner and for how long?  That sort of thing.

Ute nodded and said, “It is strange.  Even now, after so much change, it is still often the woman who gives up more of her ambitions.”

And I said, “I think you’re completely right!  Because even though I know, logically, that husband and I both are capable and deserving of our dreams, I still feel as if it is my responsibility to be the one to say, ‘You now.  You go.  I will later…’  And if I don’t say it, I feel like a horrible person, or perhaps a horrible woman.”

These comments led us to talk about how women have more choices today than they did before.  Ute talked about how many women in Germany (and, I said, many women in the US too) feel conflicted about their choices, still not sure what they are supposed to do with their lives and feeling as if a choice must be made, implying something must also be subsequently lost.

And I said, “Maybe, Ute, maybe, do you think it just was much easier for women in an earlier time?  They did not really have a choice–they only had one honorable path to take–and they just had to learn to like it or not.  Do you think the stress and anxiety of not having so many choices would make women happy?  I have heard people say this to me–that women today are unhappy because they have too many choices, too many different options and expectations…”

And this was the part that I can’t get out of my head (which I am paraphrasing, because we talked about this for about forty minutes).  Ute shook her head very emphatically and said:

“This is the same as the DDR–the transition is difficult, but that does not mean it would be good to go back!  Older people here sometimes say they want to go back to the communist times–then no one had to choose their lives, “Big Brother” organized everything for them; house, job, children, food.  It was easier they say and now things are hard they say.

But, they are only hard because they have to now look into themselves and be responsible for their choices.  There is no way now to say, ‘This is what I have to be, so it’s not my fault if I am not happy.’  It is frightening to be responsible for your own happiness when you grew up in a system that told you, in every detail, how you should be happy.”

I was so incredibly overwhelmed with feelings and thoughts about what she told me.  It seemed so wise and real– she knew what she was talking about.  And why wouldn’t it be wise?  Ute, of all people, who was 32 years old when she suddenly, blindingly was asked, “What do you want?”… Ute would know with so much depth what it would feel like to be a woman of the second- and third-wave today.

Today all the buildings are painted in pastels…  All the buildings look different from one another.  Losing the same-ness took a lot of work, and some people were frightened that so much difference would become chaos…but it has only made the city more beautiful…

The comments are in roughly chronological order. In most cases, I’ve taken excerpts from longer comments. Each commenter’s name is a link to the original comment if you want to see them in their full glory.

In case you missed them, here are links to my funniest comments lists from previous years: 2010 2009 2008.

• BrianJ, on the question of bringing food to primary, commenting on Matt W.’s post “A Major Doctrinal Shift in the 2010 CHI” at New Cool Thang:

What’s with all the talk of bringing candy? Do no teachers bring their Sunbeams bacon?!

• Sunny, commenting on mmiles’s post “Short Skirt, Long Jacket” at BCC:

The double message of being pretty enough to be appealing, yet not so pretty as to draw unwanted attention is both impossible and completely misguided in that it (again) makes the woman responsible for the responses of those who see her.

Or, as my husband said, “Don’t be walking pornography. Except, do it a little bit.”

• The redhead, commenting on Carina’s post “The Technophile and the Technophobe Go to Church” at Segullah:

Speaking as an easily distracted person, I can’t handle watching someone else play Angry Birds or the like at church. I’d end up critiquing their performance, and there goes my humility.

• Mathew, commenting on Steve Evans’s post “FYI, re: Marriott” at BCC:

True story, when I was an adolescent all the kids would talk about finding porn mags by the creek that ran behind our neighborhood. The creek as a source of porn was so well established that one of our teachers advisors, in a lesson about temptation, used a porn mag laying next to the creek as an example of Satan laying snares for young men. Armed with this information I spent hours scouring the banks of the creek for a nudie mag. Despite my repeated and feverish attemps I never once stumbled on even a lingerie catalogue. So excuse me if I’m skeptical about the existence of free porn on the Internet!

• jane walker, commenting on Heather’s post “Forbidden Fruit” at Doves & Serpents:

When my children were growing up I was very open about sex, We talked about everything from morning erections to how babies were really made which caused my son then in third grade to make a drawing of a machine that could “hand” sperm to your wife when you want a baby because what he had heard about how to do this sounded horrible.

• nat kelly, commenting on Starfoxy’s post “What do you like?” at the Exponent:

Buffy changed my life. I left work early yesterday because I was sick and just sat on my couch with my tissues and watched Buffy for a few hours. And today I feel all better. Coincidence? I think not.

• marta, describing her gift-giving practices at Valentine’s Day, commenting on Shelah’s post “Covered Wagons and Carnations” at Segullah:

We just flat out don’t give each other gifts. Not for valentines day, birthday, christmas, anniversary (29 years come june). What we do give each other is sincere, heart-felt thanks for not giving a gift and for not expecting a gift. And then we play scrabble.

• Paul 2, commenting on Julie M. Smith’s post “Polygamy, Again” at T&S:

When my mission president told me no woman would ever marry me, he could tell I wasn’t fit by polygamy standards. Good thing I live in the times when guys have it easy. The bar has been lowered.

• meggle, commenting on a guest post “Dear fMh (or ending Manuary and how)” at fMh:

My husband wears tighty whities if I haven’t got the laundry done. Who’s going to hell? Him for not wearing his G’s, or me for not getting the laundry done? Or him for not doing the damn laundry himself? . . . Probably we’re all going to hell. And not because of how we wear our garments. Probably because I say hell too much.

• Fran, commenting on a guest post “Dear fMh (or ending Manuary and how)” at fMh:

If you are concerned with being judged for wearing garment tops or not while nursing, I recommend flashing everyone heavily once. Hopefully, anyone who dared to look will quit after that, and you won’t have to worry about being judged anymore.

• Ardis E. Parshall, responding to Kristine’s assertion that she had written the new CHI, commenting on MCQ’s post “Sacrament Postlude Music Prohibited?” at Nine Moons:

I knew it! All those additional responsibilities for women and the creation of the Quorum of the Twelve Musicians gave it away!

• madhousewife, commenting on John C.’s post “Exercise and its discontent” at BCC:

I remember the day I realized that I felt more morally obligated to recycle than I did to read my scriptures. I just stopped recycling. (Just kidding. I just did less of it. You know, just to even things out a bit.)

• Laurie, commenting on Heather’s post “The Birds and the Bees, Mormon Style” at Doves & Serpents:

[My son] asked me a question about sex a few weeks ago, and I told him that he could always ask his dad about this stuff too. He looked horrified and said, “I would NEVER do that”. I asked why and suggested that dad would be great to talk to since he has the same “parts” as you do. He said (and I will forever be able to tease my hubby), “Because you know way more about this stuff than dad does.”

• Bobby Pin Natalie, commenting on Joanna’s post “Ask Mormon Girl: What’s the right way to kiss a Mormon woman?” at fMh:

Pet your dog not your date! I think that is totally in a seminary manual somewhere….

• Norbert, on offering to shake hands with spirit visitors, commenting on Karen H.’s post “I Wanna Shake Your Hand” at BCC:

Could it be some other physical contact, like a fist-bump or pull my finger? Just askin’.

• Rebecca J., commenting on Devyn S.’s post “The Nursery Parents…” at Mormon Mentality:

Every nursery worker I’ve talked to prefers the dump and run parent. The Kling-ons, in their opinion, made the transition harder for the child. So I dumped and ran when I could. But running ability is hampered when the dumpee is still attached to your leg.

• Mathew, commenting on Natalie B.’s post “Should tithing subsidize BYU?” at BCC:

“What precisely are appropriate uses of tithing?”

1. The construction of a Mormon Gold Base.
2. A museum dedicated to comparing and contrasting the the artistic styles of President Packer and Matsby.
3. The publication of a pamphlet discussing 2 above and titled “Mormon Miltons and Shakespeares”.
4. Living stipends for BCC permas.
5. Purchasing and then destroying the entire run of Men on a Mission calendars.

• Jennifer, commenting on Emily M.’s post “On Questions” at Segullah:

My husband’s response to the “When are you going to have more kids?” question: “We tried several times last night!” That always seems to end the conversation.

• Janet, commenting on Emily M.’s post “On Questions” at Segullah:

I hate being asked: “What’s for dinner?”

I usually answer: “We had dinner yesterday.”

• ZD Eve, commenting on Rebecca J.’s post “Modestly played” at BCC:

I’ve always found that Lucky Strikes taste better when one smokes them bare-shouldered.

• wonderdog, commenting on ESO’s post “I Heard a Voice Giving the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and it was Female” at Mormon Mentality:
  

As High Councilor, I spoke in a ward with several deaf members. I told a joke and the interpreter literally fell out of his chair laughing. After that I never told jokes in my HC talks.

• Newly Housewife, commenting on Reese Dixon’s post “Garments and protection from the adversary” at fMh:

I . . . believe the extent of physical protection the garment offers is based on the off chance that seeing your ugly underwear will ruin the mood in an affair.

• Chris H., commenting on Scott B.’s post “What on Earth was I thinking?” at BCC:

I do not pray to be humble in my family prayers. I worry this may encourage my wife to act as God’s messenger.

• jes, commenting on Scott B.’s post “What on Earth was I thinking?” at BCC:

I had a YW leader who said that every time she prayed for patience, she got pregnant. After 5 kids, she quit praying for patience.

• Martin, commenting on Scott B.’s post “What on Earth was I thinking?” at BCC:

In high school, I got caught in a huge line of cars coming down Pajarito road from LA to White Rock — somebody in front was going way too slow. As soon as I could see coming down the mesa (while still on the descent), I gunned it and passed 13 cars in one swoop. It was close. Reveling in my success, I looked back on that car that was slowing everybody down. It was my mom.

• hawkgrrrl, commenting on Mormon Heretic’s post “Why Do LDS Leaders Care So Much About Grooming?” at Wheat & Tares:

Blue shirts and goatees are a gateway sin. It’s a slippery slope from there to worshipping Satan and having sex with goats. It could happen.

• raedyohed, commenting on Mormon Heretic’s post “Why Do LDS Leaders Care So Much About Grooming?” at Wheat & Tares:

If my bishop or stake president or area president ask me to shave, I’ll do it. I’ll shave my eyebrows too, just for good measure.

• TopHat, on a therapist’s recommendation to have marital “check ups” with your spouse, commenting on EmilyCC’s post “Nate the Great or a Fight I’m Having with My Husband Through Poetry” at the Exponent:

The “check ups” remind me of companionship inventories. Don’t forget to use the phrase “less effective!”

• Steve Evans, commenting on MCQ’s inclusion of the Steve Evans Mood Ring in his post “The Online Bloggernacle Gift Shop” at Nine Moons:

Yes, I have many rings for sale:

Three Rings for the Perma-kings under the sky,

Seven for the Comment-lords in their halls of stone,

Nine for Newbie Trolls doomed to die,

One for Steve on his dark throne

In the Land of BCC where the Shadows lie.

One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,

One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them

In the Land of BCC where the Shadows lie.

• Starfoxy, commenting on Natalie B.’s post “Are Mormon naming conventions useful?” at BCC:
  

A big moment of my childhood was in second grade when I called our substitute teacher (who I happened to know from church) “Sister J” in front of my friends. They all gasped and one of them asked “Is she a nun?!”

• jimbob, commenting on Steve Evans’s post “Your Friday Firestorm #56″ at BCC:

I was under the impression Uzzah was struck down for constantly bellowing “Uzzah in the hizzle!” or “Huzzah to Uzzah, my Hebrews!” every time he walked into a room.

• MAC, commenting on Winterbuzz’s post “The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands, and Other Popular Fiction” at fMh:

We got a similar book for our wedding. We burned it for heat in the fireplace at the place we stayed for our honeymoon.

• ifrit, on a video about Planned Parenthood in which many young adults say “I have sex” in Winterbuzz’s post “Planned Parenthood: Bad, Evil, or Just too Rich” at fMh:

Crap. I just watched that without thinking about the fact that my 4-year-old was standing right there. As soon as the commercial was done, she said, “I have sex.” Great. I guess I have some ‘splainin’ to do.

• jjohnsen, quoting and responding to another commenter in a discussion following Winterbuzz’s post “Planned Parenthood: Bad, Evil, or Just too Rich” at fMh:

“It use to be a requirement that you owned property to have the right to vote.”

It used to be a requirement that you owned a penis to have the right to vote, I’m not sure what your point is.

• DKL, commenting on his own post “Everybody Eats Something” at Mormon Mentality:

I’m not afraid of cholesterol, because I know that when I die I’ll go straight to heaven.

• Spack, on how a boy living in a protective bubble because of an immune deficiency might be baptized, commenting on an anonymous guest’s post “You Make the Call: Bubble Boy edition” at BCC:

Is his bubble tight like unto a dish? If so, use heavy machinery to submerge the bubble in the ocean. As long as the bubble is totally immersed, so is he. But it has to be a worthy priesthood holder driving whatever machine does it.

• Michelle, making a suggestion for President Dalton’s “Guardians of Virtue” talk in a discussion following ECS’s post “Are Mormon Girls the Dementors of the Priesthood?” at fMh:

Someone should make a video for this talk.

Buffy the Virtue Slayer!

Brandishing her deadly cell-phone of doom, she roams around Sunnydale, wearing provacative outfits and sending virtuous young men to hell, utterly helpless against her Slayer powers.

• RMWife, commenting on Joanna’s post “Ask Mormon Girl: How do you raise daughters in the Church?” at fMh:

I remember in the MTC being spoken to by the MTC president’s wife about putting band aids on my nipples “or at least an extra top” to keep the boys from being distracted when the air conditioner came on.

My response to her was – “Sure. As long as you ask the young men to please duct-tape their erections to their leg, because if you think nipples are distracting, THAT is distracting.”

• StillConfused, commenting on Mark Brown’s post “Conference Predictions” at BCC:

In order to ensure that everyone knows what porn is so that they can avoid it, the large video screens will show the covers of various questionable magazines and books.

• Thomas Parkin, commenting on Mark Brown’s post “Conference Predictions” at BCC:

Elder Oaks will wear a purple shirt with a silver tie and will speak on the need to lighten up.

Elder Nelson will say, in his own words, ‘I didn’t much care for most of my family in this life, and I’ll be darned if I’m going to live with them for Eternity.’

President Uctdorf will announce that he has changed his last name to Johnson, and that when it is his turn to be Pope he will take the name Innocent Smith Young I.

Dancing elephant show – during a Saturday session, of course.

Elder Packer’s address will include an endearing, if horse and stumbling, rendition of Morning Has Broken, as sung by Yusuf Islam, formerly known as Cat Stevens.

• jks, commenting on Mark Brown’s post “Conference Predictions” at BCC:

I look forward to general conference–church meetings where someone doesn’t close their talk/testimony/lesson with “in the name of THY son Jesus Christ.” I get tired of being mistaken for Mary, the mother of Jesus, every single week.

• Scott B., commenting on his own post “Saturday AM General Conference: Two-Hour Blocks 4Evar!” at BCC:

Until I see a copy of Jesus’ birth certificate, proving where he was born, I’m not going to accept his Earthly or Heavenly Citizenship.

• Brad, responding to other commenters’ descriptions of the drinking/eating games they play while watching Conference, commenting on Scott B.’s post “Saturday AM General Conference: Two-Hour Blocks 4Evar!” at BCC:

When I watch c-span, every time Reid uses a profane hand gesture I eat a Reeses Peanut Butter Egg.

• Aaron B., summarizing the Conference statistical report while commenting on Scott B.’s post “Saturday PM General Conference: Since Jimmer’s Not Playing Today, Let’s Watch Conference!” at BCC:

14million + members, 340-ish missions, 28,000+ wards, 3 Nephites still roaming 1-15.

• annegb, commenting on DKL’s post “If We Can’t Burn the Koran, Then Islam Isn’t Worth Spit” at Mormon Mentality:

Everybody who disagrees with me is stupid. Or a putz. Here at Mormon Mentality, we celebrate ad hominemism. I fondly remember the use of the epithet “shithead.” What a tremendous argument that was. It’ll stick with me forever.

• MikeInWeHo, commenting on Mark Brown’s post “Outreach, ur doing it wrong” at BCC:

Just remember: When bbell and MikeInWeHo agree, the thinking has been done.

• Ben S, commenting on Scott B.’s post “Mormon Merit Badge #2: Mormon Cuisine” at BCC:

I think Jello+carrots= salad, whereas Jello+marshmallows= dessert. Jello+carrots+marshmallows is the Schrodinger’s Cat of Mormon food, which can be either one until you serve it.

• winnie, commenting on Winterbuzz’s post “Mormon Superstition, Urban Legend, and Folklore Post” at fMh:

I used to be certain once a month that I was under Satan’s grip. Turned out to be PMS.

• mermaid, commenting on Winterbuzz’s post “Mormon Superstition, Urban Legend, and Folklore Post” at fMh:

The first time I skipped church (to go to an out of town festival) I thought for sure it would be the Sunday when the bishop (via a letter form the prophet) would announce that all members needed to go to Missouri. I was so scared I wouldn’t get the message and get left behind.

• Michelle, commenting on Winterbuzz’s post “Mormon Superstition, Urban Legend, and Folklore Post” at fMh:

I once had a Sunday School teacher say, in class, that drinking Coke is taking the Lord’s name in vain.

Ummmm, never did quite understand that one.

• kramer, reporting a Mormon urban legend while commenting on Winterbuzz’s post “Mormon Superstition, Urban Legend, and Folklore Post” at fMh:

UFO’s are from the City of Enoch. Although if that were true, there wouldn’t be all those stories about probing.

• Jacob M, commenting on Kaimi Wenger’s post “Jesus, our Only Joy Be Thou” at T&S:

I enjoy bacon and eggs, but only because they typify Christ.

• Hemi, commenting on Aaron B’s post “Follow the Prophet” at BCC:

Our primary kids sing this:

Joseph was a prophet,
He had lots of wives,
Emma didn’t like it,
Caused a lot of strife,
Emma threw a lady,
Right out of the door,
Eliza wasn’t married to Joseph any more.

• Emily A., commenting on Alliegator’s post “False Advertising and the (Mythical?) Utah Mormon” at fMh:

“I’m a Mormon” ads would be a more honest depiction of the actual population if they put in a few “all kinds of crazy” people in the ads.

For instance, the lady in relief society who bears her testimony about pet healings and the three nephites, or the man who bears his testimony on Sunday that the second coming is near and its time to stock up on rice and wheat.

• gst, on the appropriate subject for talks given at funerals, commenting on Kent Larsen’s post “Mormon Funerals” at T&S:

I think the King Follett sermon should have focused more on the life and accomplishments of King Follett.

• fMhLisa, commenting on nat kelly’s post “Sunday General Conference — Morning Session Open Thread” at fMh:

A woman in my ward wrote on her facebook page yesterday that the new temple here in Meridian (about ten miles from the temple in Boise) will keep the evil forces at bay. I wonder what the holy circumference is, precisely.

• Syphax, commenting on Dane Laverty’s post “Tasteful Nudity” at T&S:

I never had a problem with nudity until I first entered the showers at the MTC. There’s good naked, and there’s MTC naked.

• Alison Moore Smith, commenting on Dane Laverty’s post “Tasteful Nudity” at T&S:

I really see little purpose in drawing David or Adam or God or anyone else in the (mostly) raw. I find most claims of “art” to be justification. Yea, I know it’s “reality” that David was naked sometimes, but do we need to sculpt him that way? Why not a nude President Monson in marble or bronze? (I hear he’s naked sometimes, too.)

• Adam Greenwood, commenting on Dave Banack’s post “Church Discipline in the Internet Age” at T&S:

Clearly we need disciplinary counsels on streaming pay-per-view.

Continued membership would be determined by audience ‘likes’

• Scott B., commenting on Russell Arben Fox’s post “What Matt Missed About Mitt (and Jon)” at BCC:

Political persuasion by blogger:

Cynthia/John C: Democrat
SteveP: Social Darwinist
RAF: PTA-Marxist
Steve Evans: Canadist
Ronan/Aaron R.: Kingmen
Scott B/J. Stapley: Apathist
Brad Kramer: Nudist

• LukeWarm, commenting on nat kelly’s post “Waiting for Blood” at fMh:

I once knew a girl who was so upset with her menstrual cycle she was going to trade it in for a Harley Davidson.

• Kiskilili, commenting on Lynnette’s post “Family Ties” at ZD:

I think the church’s emphasis on the nuclear family is sort of befuddling. We talk about the nuclear family as if it’s in opposition to . . . single parents? Gays? Kibbutzim? People marrying their furniture and begetting little Ottomans?

• Martin, on pictures of temples included in Alison Moore Smith’s post “Are These Rooms Modest?” at T&S:

Next thing you know, you’ll be posting pictures from anatomy textbooks and asking “is this woman modest? Look, at her display her muscles — she’s not even wearing skin!”

• Anna M, commenting on Sarah d’Evegnee’s post “Dear Mother’s Day” at Segullah:

My 7yo son was SO excited when we all woke up. He asked, “What are you making for Mother’s Day breakfast?” I told him he could have cold cereal or I’d make him an egg.

“Mom, it’s a special day. You need to make something INCREDIBLE for breakfast.”

• mmiles, commenting on Karen H.’s post “A Rapturous Poll” at BCC:

Today I went through my 72 hour kits, long overdue. . . . To his detriment, my husband insisted not all expiration dates on food are important. He decided to sample all the goodies, repeatedly running to the sink and spitting.

• Cynthia L., quoting and responding to another commenter while commenting on Alison Moore Smith’s post “Does Gender Matter?” at T&S:

“it’s as much the responsibility of women to make sure that their/our voices are heard as it is the men’s.”

How are we supposed to discharge that responsibility? BASE jump off the top of the church office building and feet first bust through the window of whatever room the FP, Q12, Q70, 2nd Q70 or Presiding Bishopric are meeting in?

• Sunny, commenting on Kyle M’s post “Church-Hacker #2: The Romper Room” at BCC:

When I taught nursery our stake . . . insisted the kids only color pictures with a religious theme, no animals, generic people, plants, etc. They also didn’t want them coloring drawings of Jesus because they didn’t want the kids to think Jesus was a cartoon. I invited them to furnish a photo of Jesus and I would let the kids color on that, otherwise, cartoon Jesus would have to do.

• Stephanie, responding to another commenter who talked about bishops sitting on the stand and assessing people’s needs by looking at them during sacrament meeting, while commenting on Norbert’s post “Sitting on the stand” at BCC:

That is exactly why I sit behind someone else during Sacrament meeting. I am not interested in the Bishopric assessing me. (unless, of course, my countenance screams “Get me out of scouts now!!!!!” Then I will glady sit in the front row.)

• gst, commenting on Norbert’s post “Sitting on the stand” at BCC:

I like to sit in full view of the bishopric so that they may behold my beatific visage, and marvel as I am transfigured into the form, voice, and countenance of Joseph Smith, and thereby validate my claims to the leadership of the church.

• hawkgrrrl, commenting on Mike S’s post “If I Were In Charge: Make ‘I Believe’ As Valid As ‘I Know’ in Testimonies” at Wheat & Tares:

On the upside, I’ve noticed that Mormons are more effective in a work setting because we are comfortable with silences. We can patiently wait and let the other person blather on like an idiot. I think this is one of the lessons we learn monthly in Fast & Testimony meeting.

• Suzanne Neilsen, commenting on Winterbuzz’s post “Losing Your Eternal Family, A Lesbian Sister’s Story” at fMh:

Just what the heck is a practicing homosexual?
Sounds like, what, they take a class in it from a qualified instructor and every day after school they spend an hour doing homework?

• Ardis E. Parshall, commenting on Russell Arben Fox’s post “Do We Want Our Religion To Be Mainstream?” at BCC:

I’d like our religion to be just mainstream enough that when people list our weirdnesses, they’re at least hitting real weirdnesses and not making stuff up.

• Scriptural band names suggested in comments on Scott B.’s post “Scriptural Band Names” at BCC:

The Prick Kickers (RJH)

Four Horsemen of the ROCKPOCALYPSE! (Steve L)

Baals to the Wall (Alan)

When the Prophet Speaks, The Rocking Has Begun (Bryan)

The Sister Marsh Creamskimming Experience (Bryan)

• Thomas Parkin, commenting on John C.’s post “Ron Paul and Korihor: a comparison” at BCC:

My Top Ten Folks I’d Like to See Compared to Korihor:

10. Oprah. Similarities: Korihor claimed that he didn’t bind people down to foolish ordinances; Oprah had several shows about not being bound down to foolish ordinances. Differences: Oprah’s weight has been really up and down over the years. Korihor stayed thin on a diet of mango and garlic fries, with regular exercise – at least twenty minutes, five times a week.

9. Lady Gaga. Similarities: Both created eye-popping videos that dulled people’s senses to their evil intent. Differences: Korihor lead many women into whoredoms. Lady Gaga makes many people never want to have sex again.

8. Ben Franklin. Similarities: Korihor claimed that because people fared according to their genius, nothing they did was a sin. Ben Franklin was a genius who claimed that nothing he might do would be a sin, as long as he did it in France. Differences: Ben Franklin wrote the Poor Richard’s Almanac; Korihor wrote the Richie Richard’s Almanac.

7. Yul Brenner. Similarities: Both Yul Brenner and Korihor looked great with a shaved head. Differences: Yul Brenner worshiped idols even after many different kinds of plagues were brought down on his kingdom. Korihor went squealing like a baby the first time someone threatened to put him in the slammer.

6. King Tut (another Egyptian!). Similarities: Both their names start with a K. Both lived in a condo made of stone-uh. Differences: Both were born in Babylonia, but King Tut moved to Arizona, while Korihor moved to Zarahemla.

5. J.K. Rowling. Similarities: Both told bewitching stories that lead good Christian children to join covens and practice wicked sorcery. Differences: Actually, this is another similarity: we see in both cases that the devil will not support his own in the end, but carefully leadeth their souls down to hell.

4. George W. Bush. Similarities: Both were struck dumb. Differences: Korihor was struck dumb as a sign to him of the existence of God. Bush was struck dumb as a sign to us that someone unseen is definitely in charge.

3. Neal Armstrong. Similarities: Both came to see that the regular motions of the planets were evidence of a supreme creator. Differences: Neal Armstrong walked on the moon. Korihor believed that the moon landings were faked in order to distract us from the nuclear arms race and urban poverty. This lack of credulity didn’t keep him from discovering the Three Laws of Planetary Motion.

2. Bill Cosby. Similarities: Both were pretty funny, though neither has ever made me lol. Bill Cosby was on President Nixon’s enemy list. Korihor was on President Jesus’ enemy list. Differences: Cosby was known for his promotion of Jello brand gelatin. Korihor was known for his promotion of hell bound Mayan men.

1. William Jefferson Clinton. Similarities: Both benefited from a period of prosperity that probably had little to do with their own policies. Differences: Clinton was a Democrat. Korihor was a Republican.

• PieFace, telling how she would have dressed for a Relief Society activity at which women were asked to come as princesses, while commenting on nat kelly’s post “Not a pretty princess.” at fMh:

I would have come as She-Ra, Princess of Power. And I would have kept saying things like “By the power of Grayskull-THERE ARE REFRESHMENTS!”

• Jennie, commenting on Kent Larsen’s post “defining ‘Oh My Heck’” at T&S:
  

I overheard this joke from one teenage girl to another, on a Trax (public transportation) in Salt Lake, circa 2000: “Do you know what heck is? It’s the place you go if you don’t believe in gosh.”

• Kevin Barney, on suggested clothing for sister missionaries, commenting on Kristine’s post “Another very short post” at BCC:

The white and cream-colored bras they recommend may be purchased at Eliza’s Secret.

• NewlyHousewife, on suggested clothing for sister missionaries, commenting on Kristine’s post “Another very short post” at BCC:

Whenever I’m confronted with issues of dress, I ask myself:“What would ‘I am a Mormon’ do?”

So far the answer has been “they’d have a tattoo”.

• SteveP, commenting on Kristine’s post “What I Wish I Had Said, Part 26 or so” at BCC:
  

I’m lucky to serve in a calling that demands that I use my intellectual gifts as deeply as I can take them. Just a couple of weeks ago one of my nursery kids asked me why bugs have eyes. I knew! I knew! It was a wonderful moment.

• Jami, commenting on Tracy M’s post “Perverting Modesty” at BCC:

Anyone who puts a potty-training girl in a one-piece swimsuit is just asking for trouble. This I believe.

• Adam Greenwood, commenting on Julie M. Smith’s post “A Celestial Education?” at T&S:

For a number of pedagogical and philosophical reasons, my current preferred method of schooling is the Lord of the Flies method. Sort of a hands-on interaction with great literature. This can be done either publicly or privately.

• Amy, on priesthood leaders in meetings telling men they could remove their suit coats, commenting on Norbert’s post “Summertime & Suit Coats” at BCC:

I would love to see that priesthood leader announce that the women could now remove their pantyhose.

• Whitney, commenting on Shelah’s post “Community Spotlight: that1girl” at fMh:

Top five things that make Heavenly Father sad:
5. War
4. Hunger
3. Rejecting Christ
2. Domestic violence
1. Women getting PhDs

• fMhLisa, commenting on Shelah’s post “Community Spotlight: that1girl” at fMh:

Who dusts? That is why I have children.

• Bored in Vernal, commenting on John C.’s post “My Little Heresies, Part One: Renovating the Afterlife” at BCC:

I think I’ll end up having friends in all of the kingdoms, and I want to hang out with all of them. Can’t we just configure it sorta like Google+ ?

• Mark Brown, commenting on John C.’s post “My Little Heresies, Part One: Renovating the Afterlife” at BCC:

Since it’s only one step up from the Sons of Perdition, we ought to call it hellestial.

• Researcher, on people calling Joseph Smith “John Smith,” commenting on Ardis E. Parshall’s post “Review: The Devil Colony, James Rollins” at Keepapitchinin:

That John Smith error is curious. My daughter’s American history textbook had the same error, and she mentioned it to her teacher who contacted the publisher. The publisher replied that the author had it on very good authority that the founder of Mormonism was John Smith. Go figure.

• Ardis E. Parshall, on people calling Joseph Smith “John Smith,” commenting on her own post “Review: The Devil Colony, James Rollins” at Keepapitchinin:

This is a twist on the meme that Joseph’s name would be had for good and ill among all men. What difference does good or ill make if they can’t even get the name right?

• Meridian Commenter, commenting on Julie M. Smith’s post “Grant Hardy at Meridian” at T&S:

If Creeping Socialism is so great, then why does it have to creep so much, instead of walking uprightly like normal people or social movements?

• Kaimi, commenting on Kmillecam’s post “The Next Chapter” at the Exponent:

The Book of Mormon makes clear that Laman and Lemuel only fell away after Sariah started working part-time selling figs at the local bazaar.

• tisheli, recalling getting her period, commenting on nat kelly’s post “The First Time” at fMh:

Mom never talked to us about girl stuff. I remember one very awkward conversation where she started off, “Um, are you ready for the, ah, *changes* that will soon be happening in your body?” My response was a quick and final, “Yes!” and we never spoke of it again.

• Marie, commenting on Kyle M’s post “Church-Hacker #13: Programmatic Change” at BCC:

My aunt was (is?) in charge of the Sacrament Meeting programs in her ward. She had an older lady come up to her at church and beg her to stop putting pictures of Jesus on the front of the programs because she was psychologically incapable of throwing Jesus away at the end of the week and the Sacrament Meeting programs were piling up in her house.

• Raymond Takashi Swenson, commenting on Alison Moore Smith’s post “Serving on the Sideline” at T&S:

Men and women in the military have served twenty year careers without ever firing real weapons. Strategic Air Command asserted that this was a desirable state of affairs with the motto appearing on its shield: “Peace Is Our Profession”. (I used to tell my family that the corollary of that is “War Is Our Hobby”.)

• Michelle2, on the Arnold Friberg painting of Captain Moroni, commenting on fMhLisa’s post “Breaking News: Mormon Man Loves to Preside Over Women” at fMh:

I always liked the story of Captain Moroni, and hence the picture. Phallic symbols? Never noticed them. I just noticed that I got all stirred up by feelings of “fighting for a righteous cause,” or something. . . .

Now I notice the phallic symbols, and I feel patriotic AND horny. Thanks a lot.

• ZD Eve, describing a Mormon Men’s Rights blogger while commenting on fMhLisa’s post “Breaking News: Mormon Man Loves to Preside Over Women” at fMh:

Whatever he may be in other contexts (husband, father, son, child of God), in cyberspace he’s a troll. To be enjoyed with prudence and caution, not with thanksgiving, sparingly, in the winter and famine of a comic discontent. Under no circumstances to be fed.

• MCQ, commenting on Dr. Laura’s “acceptable A’s” that justify divorce, commenting on Scott B.’s post “Mormon Familiolatry” at BCC:

I think there are acceptable B’s C’s and D’s of divorce too:

Bank robbing
Cat fancying
Dirty dancing…

I could go on.

• BrianJ, commenting on Matt W.’s post “Opinion: Be considerate of those who do not use Thee, Thou, Thine and Thy.” at New Cool Thang:

I canst not understandeth how thou couldest find difficulty using proper pronouns whenst speaking in prayer. Surely if thou wast guidethed by the Spirit thou wouldst instinctively get all conjugations correct.

• CS Eric, commenting on Cynthia L.’s post “Reader Question Box #2: ‘do mormons consummate their marriage in the temple’” at BCC:

My patriarchal blessing said something about consummating my marriage in the temple. Never happened. We couldn’t figure out the logistics to make it work.

• StillConfused, commenting on Cynthia L.’s post “Reader Question Box #2: ‘do mormons consummate their marriage in the temple’” at BCC:

So I attended church in Vernal Utah today. It had the clerk’s table up on the stand. But in lieu of the clerk was a flower arrangement. (It was a small ward so maybe the flower arrangement was the clerk)

• SPE, commenting on fMhLisa’s post “Babies suck! No! Babies rule!” at fMh:

I love my daughter, but I didn’t always love having a baby and I didn’t swoon every time I saw her. Sure, I spent many a nap time leaning over her sleeping in her crib and marveling at her perfection–but I also spent a significant amount of time wishing I could run away and punch my husband in the balls for getting me pregnant as I sped off laughing maniacally into the sunset.

• Anon for this, commenting on Rebecca J.’s post “Building the perfect resurrected body” at BCC:

This is a nice post, but I’m more interested in my future hyper-nerdy Sci-Fi powers like going through walls and ceilings, traveling faster than the speed of light, and glowing brighter than the sun. Maybe I will also be able to make plants grow in seconds and attract birds of many kinds that will eat out of my hands. Who cares about stray body hair when you get unlimited bandwidth on your Urim&Thummim (made by celestialized Apple technology)?

• NewlyHousewife, commenting on Rebecca J.’s post “Building the perfect resurrected body” at BCC:

I vote to have all stretch marks removed, along with any surgical scars,and since Jesus got to pick and choose I’d like to add a tattoo on my right buttock to ensure visibility within a crowd–assuming in the afterlife we’re all naked like Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. If not, move said tattoo to a visible location on my upper arm. The last thing I want is to be confused with someone else’s wife.

• Ray, commenting on Cynthia L.’s post “Reader Question Box #4: ‘what are the disadvantages of being a mormon’” at BCC:

Steve or gst is the one both mighty and strong. I’ll let them fight it out with their man-purses.

• Ardis E. Parshall, commenting on Tracy M’s post “Borrowed Light for Your Sister” at BCC:

When a sister’s life doesn’t fit your idea of the ideal, don’t become a linguistic contortionist in a silly pretense that fools nobody: “Well, you teach Gospel Doctrine, so it’s kind of like you’re a mother and we’re your children.”

(What’s next? “You’re really lucky to have those horrible scars on your face, because it makes you more Christ-like. You know, like in ‘no apparent beauty that man should Him desire.’” Or maybe, “Too bad you killed all those people. But you were ushering them into the next world, so it’s more like you’re a mother than a murderer.”)

• Emmie, commenting on fMhLisa’s post “I love being a girl!” at fMh:

A lady in my ward calls her GYNO “the vagina whisperer” cause he is soooo amazing!

• me, commenting on Kyle M’s post “Church Hacker #14: Ender’s Game” at BCC:

I’m more annoyed by speakers who feel what they have to say is more important than the scheduled break at 5 after the hour.

I’d prefer that the bishopric member rise at 5 after and body slam the speaker into submission and then reverently close the meeting with a hymn and prayer.

• Anonymous today, commenting on Cynthia L.’s post “Reader Question Box #5: “what’s tmi for a sacrament meeting talk” at BCC:

Quote from a testimony: “I’m so grateful that all of our children were conceived through the garment of the holy priesthood.”

I don’t know. I don’t want to know. I’m out.

• Emily A., commenting on Elder Anderson’s Conference talk in which he encouraged people to have children, commenting on the post “Saturday Afternoon General Conference- Open Thread” at fMh:

The whole baby talk? I threw it out with the bath water.

• Syphax, on President Monson’s late arrival,commenting on Scott B.’s post “Saturday AM General Conference: The T&S Memorial Session” at BCC:

President Monson was using an analogy to teach the principle of the Second Coming, by appearing suddenly in Conference at a time that no one expected.

• Jacob M, commenting on John C.’s post “Saturday PM General Conference: The Edgar Albert Guest Memorial Session” at BCC:

My mother commented that Elder Bednar glows, mostly from the lighting, but probably from the Spirit, too.

• Allan, commenting on John C.’s post “Saturday PM General Conference: The Edgar Albert Guest Memorial Session” at BCC:

If you’re texting, tweeting, and using the Internet for family history work and thinking about the temple, you probably won’t follow the paths of former Representative Anthony Wiener. Tweet for the Lord.

• Brad, commenting on the post “Saturday Evening General Conference: The Connor Macleod Memorial Priesthood Session” at BCC:

Carpeted cultural halls are evidence that the Adversary is oh so real.

• Casey, commenting on the post “Saturday Evening General Conference: The Connor Macleod Memorial Priesthood Session” at BCC:

I fear that subsidized senior housing will lead to a class of free-loading “mission queens” who refuse to ever stop serving. It will create a self-perpetuating “mission state” for the elderly of the church.

• kc, commenting on Cynthia L.’s post “Let My People Pray: It’s time to consider having women give opening/closing prayers in General Conference” at BCC:

My Mom . . . was fine with women saying the opening prayer [in sacrament meeting], but she felt like only PH holders should say the closing prayer so they could seal the meeting with the Holy Spirit of promise. Huh?! Every time I hear some PH holder mumble out a stereotypical prayer ending with bless us to go home safely, etc. I think, “Whew! So glad that this meeting was sealed with the HSoP!”

• Brother Matsby, commenting on Scott B.’s post “Sunday AM General Conference: The Gordon Jump Memorial Session” at BCC:

It is important that we not refer to ourselves as “Mormon”. For more information about who we are, visit mormon.org.

• RickH, commenting on Scott B.’s post “Sunday AM General Conference: The Gordon Jump Memorial Session” at BCC:

Ummm… The audio just cut out on my satellite. Does that mean those sentences were uninspired?

• Seth R.,  commenting on Scott B.’s post “Sunday PM General Conference: The Languatron Memorial Session” at BCC:

“We shall now be pleased to hear….”

Is that a prediction, a description, or a commandment?

• nobodyputsbabyinacorner, on the idea of men as guardians of women’s virtue, commenting on the post “Sunday Morning General Conference- Open Thread” at fMh:

on the plus side, there is a running joke at my house about how canned clams look like tiny vaginas (sorry, we’re that kind of people). my husband hates clams, and after that talk he used his authority over my virtue to command me to not make any more food involving immodest clam-ginas. what can i do? he presides.

• gst, commenting on Kristine’s post “Stop Saying That!!” at BCC:

I don’t know how I’ll sleep at night if some snake-handling illiterates don’t think I’m Jesusy enough.

• lessonNumberOne, commenting on Scott B.’s post “Depressing Discoveries About My Libertarianism, Part 2″ at BCC:

the message I learned from the book of mormon and prisons? it’s easiest to gaurd your prisoners if they are working. I apply it to parenting.

• Syphax, commenting on John C.’s post “Should Mormons feel obligated to support Vocal Point in the Sing-Off?” at BCC:

You’re not obligated to support them, you’re just obligated to feel bad if you don’t. It’s the Mormon way.

• hawkgrrrl, on what a bishop should do if one ward member is scamming many others with a phony investment scheme, commenting on Bishop Bill’s post “Ward Investment Scam!: You’re the Bishop (Poll #12)” at Wheat & Tares:

I would pull out and re-read the “people, don’t be a dumbass” letter from the first presidency reserved for such occasions. Do we have one of those?

• Layne, commenting on crazywomancreek’s post “Study: ‘What Moms Choose’” at fMh:

I like a clean place, too, but not as much as I like books and the internet and eating.

• Kristine, commenting on Kyle M’s post “Church-Hacker #16: Impromptu Ward Choir” at BCC:

Jesus may hear the songs we cannot sing, but he still might not like listening to the ones we don’t bother to practice.

• Just My Opinion, commenting on Kyle M’s post “Church-Hacker #16: Impromptu Ward Choir” at BCC:

Our bishop used to announce that we would have a “rest” hymn, and I guess someone must have mentioned that we shouldn’t used that term. So he announced (on two different Sundays) that we would sing a “congressional” hymn. I think most people completely missed it, but someone (the same someone?) must have mentioned it to the bishop, because now he’s back to calling it a “rest” hymn. Too bad. I rather liked the idea of “congressional.”

• gst, commenting on Kyle M’s post “Church-Hacker #16: Impromptu Ward Choir” at BCC:

Please consider that metrognomes aren’t an option for those of us that live in rural areas without access to magical dwarves.

• IdahoG-ma, commenting on Elisothel’s post “Best Worst Mom Moments Ever — Got One?” at fMh:

I called a ward member with many children once and her small daughter answered. After I told her I needed to talk to her mom she said, “You will have to call back, cuz Mom said she was going to take bath and we ‘damn well’ better not bother her less it was a ‘megency.”

• Andi, commenting on The Wiz’s post “How I Ended Up Calling 911″ at Mormon Mommy Wars:

My DH had next door neighbors growing up that ended up being murderers. Awesome considering they had a house key to my hubby’s house to use their phone and “in case of emergencies”. Luckily, they just murder their family members and not neighbors.

• Matt W., commenting on Scott B.’s post “Repentance and Conflicts of Interest” at BCC:

And forgive me my spelling and punctuation and I will forgive those who have spelled and punctuated against me.

• MMM, on a supervisor who tried to run his business department as a church auxiliary, commenting on Ardis E. Parshall’s post “Daryl’s Integrity” at Keepapitchinin:

Yeah, I tried that kind of stuff with my employees too. Nobody seemed to like fasting on Thursdays, and the company Handcart Trek was a non-starter.

• Jess, commenting on Dalene’s post “This was not in the brochure” at Segullah:

I snuck zucchini into a chocolate cake I baked today, and I am not kidding about this. I don’t even feel particularly guilty about the oven baked turnips and parsnips I told the boys were “frech fries” with dinner tonight. Dear heavens. No one told me the thirties were going to bring me to this.

• Rachel Whipple, commenting on Ben S.’s post “Finally, Family Scripture Study that Works for Us” at T&S:

Sometimes a kid will pick a topic and we work on how to look up scriptures and use the cross references. The last one of those my 11 year old picked out was “leviathan.”

• Kaimi, commenting on Winterbuzz’s post “Fun With Skinny Jeans, or Lack Thereof!” at fMh:

The school name says it all. Tight jeans are not appropriate for the BYU Eye.

• Brad, commenting on Matt W.’s post “Failing Falling” at New Cool Thang:

I tend to pay more for other people’s transgressions than my own. Why not throw in Adam for good measure?

• Sundance, commenting on Kyle M’s post “2011: The Year of the Mormon” at BCC:

Is it just me or do all of you sing this tune every time you read about the skinny jeans story: “Skinny jeans, skinny jeans, its not your fault”

• WVS, commenting on J. Stapley’s post “Review: LDS Beliefs” at BCC:

Anybody who pulls out TWtP [The Way to Perfection] writes the word BOGUS all over their book.

• Lessonnumberone, commenting on Cynthia L.’s post “Reader Question Box #8: ‘is Tim Tebow Mormon?’” at BCC:

Of course he is Mormon if his Jesus wears socks with his sandals…it’s just that other people don’t see him as christian because of that.

• Vader, commenting on Man SL’s post “The Decline and Fall of the Dirty Word” at Junior Ganymede:

I used to be able to display my inner darkness with just a dark tunic, a single small scar over one eye, one artificial limb, and lots of scowling.

Nowadays it takes a black plastic armor outfit complete with a cape and a hideous gargoyle face, a complete set of artificial limbs, and more scars than a Broadway audition for The Lion King.

This is, I’m starting to suspect, a symptom of a nascent “lifestyle blogger”–someone who blogs frequently, using usually instagramed or picniked photos, about everything from their breakfast to the way their shoes look against the pavement.  Heavy on the color saturation, easy on the text.  Usually with an underlying thesis of something like, “I love my freakin’ life!”

I’ve always had guilty relationship with these kinds of blogs–sneaking a surreptitious peek at Rockstar Diaries or Nat the Fat Rat when I think no one is looking.

“What are you reading about?” asks my husband from across the room.

“Oh…just…the news…” I call back.

Because I’m an intellectual, dag nabbit!  Or, at least, I want people to see me as one.  So I’ve often found myself concerned about the appropriate level of smarty-pants-poseurness I should be showing. (This, I realize, only shows how insecure I am in being thought of as an intellectual person.  But part of me wonders if every intellectual person in the world feels this way and we’re all being poseurs together…or at least 99%.)

Intellectuals are “supposed” to be forever interested in reading the NYT and forever horrified at anything that smacks of someone taking their privileged life for granted.  I’m “supposed” to be able to make witty jokes about obscure philosophers and make refined judgements on post-modern literature in my facebook status.  I’m “supposed” to be above things like incredibly upper-middle class Christmas card photo shoots in the Normandy countryside–in fact, I should probably feel somewhat aghast at them.

And the thing is that I do feel aghast!  And the thing is that I don’t at the same time.

I read these blogs, and write my own, and think of how silly it all might look.  What are my orange tulips I found in a street market compared to the suffering of women in Sudan?  What are your colorful Zara outfits compared to climate change?  What does that particularly good cupcake shop matter in relation to the tragedy of modern slavery?

But then…

Why not be happy about the way a blue vase looks against a white window sill?  Why not share a photograph of your baby wearing hipster glasses because it’s funny!  Why not document your walk around the block, or the blanket fort you made for no good reason, or even the day you sat in bed and blogged about blogging?  These are things that are happening.  These are lives that are trying to find as much beauty and happiness around them, in real time, every day, as they can.

I realize that my stereotype of “being an intellectual” is exactly that, a stereotype.  But I think that there is still a little truth to it in that we’re never “supposed” to get too emotional or too happy about any small thing.  And we’re “supposed” to be at least a little vocally angsty about something world-changing, that we are more or less really doing nothing else about.

And my stereotype of “being a lifestyle blogger” is exactly that as well, and these (all) women truly do have more complex lives that go through pain and anger and fear just like the rest of us.  But I think that there is truth in the stereotype that they are never supposed to get too angsty or too revolutionary about any thing–at least publicly.

And if you’re someone like me, in the middle, you live a split and confused life–noticing how lovely damp cobblestones and flower baskets on thatched-roof houses can be, but feeling like highlighting them in your blog would only make you seem in denial about the “real world.”

When is it okay to stop feeling guilty about being content?  Will anyone ever believe you?  Do you think it’s ever possible to really, truly be genuinely happy when there’s pain and suffering in the world?

Taylor points out that we have competing narratives about our premortal origins—one which describes a spirit birth which is comparable to the kind of birth we have in mortality, and one which emphasizes eternal intelligences. The first, he argues, is problematic, both in its assumptions about the continuities between mortal and spiritual reproduction (are we seriously positing a Heavenly Mother who has a menstrual cycle?), and in the problem of glorified bodies which for some strange reason give birth to spirit bodies. Taylor proposes that we can instead imagine models in which “biological reproduction is not needed to explain celestial parentage,” noting, for example, that resurrection, which might also described as a kind of birth, does not get described in terms of biological reproduction.

I wonder whether this might be connected to Taylor’s later discussion of kinship—which, he argues, trumps biology. Could this paradigm also apply to our relation to God?  I am thinking of the King Follett God who “finds himself in the midst of spirits and glory,” and then, “because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself.” God, in other words, establishes a particular kind of relationship with us—one which might make more sense in a kinship model than one of literal mortal-style procreation. In any case, I agree with Taylor that we have little evidence that sexual reproduction as we know it here is necessary to create life in the eternities, which calls into question one of the common assumptions about why heterosexual relationships are privileged.

Taylor also proposes that we cannot reduce relationships, whether heterosexual or homosexual, to sexuality, as this is “inconsistent with our own understanding of the salvific character of relationships per se.” I would like to think more about this point. In LDS theology, what exactly is it about relationships that is salvific? And if heterosexual relationships are deemed salvific while homosexual ones are not, what is the soteriological difference between them? Taylor describes three reasons why LDS raise concerns: the issue of celestial reproduction (as just discussed), the practice of sealing, and the issue of eternal gender. He notes that “gender” in LDS discourse refers to at least three aspects of human existence: “the morphological bodies of males and females,” “an ‘identity’ that males and females are supposed to possess,” and “differing ‘roles,’ purposes, and responsibilities.”

I would add to this another issue, which is perhaps already implicit in a discussion of differing gender roles—that of complementarity. The church document “The Divine Institution of Marriage” quotes sociologist David Popenoe:

. . . The complementarity of male and female parenting styles is striking and of enormous importance to a child’s overall development. It is sometimes said that fathers express more concern for the child’s longer-term development, while mothers focus on the child’s immediate well-being (which, of course, in its own way has everything to do with a child’s long-term well-being). What is clear is that children have dual needs that must be met: one for independence and the other for relatedness, one for challenge and the other for support.

Setting aside the credibility of this particular argument (“it is sometimes said”?), I think this is an important element of LDS resistance to homosexual relationships: the belief that there is a complementarity which exists exclusively in heterosexual relationships. Taylor observes that one of the objections to same-sex marriage is that it means that one partner is not fulfilling their correct gender role. In contemporary church discourse about gender differences and gender roles, it can be ridiculously difficult to pin down exactly what those differences and roles are. Men “preside,” but no one knows quite what that means, and notably women can preside in the absence of a man (see Dallin Oaks’ story about how his mother presided after the death of his father), which means it cannot be tied to some exclusively masculine trait. Women “nurture,” but again, the meaning of this is less than clear—and the whole thing is complicated by the language of equal partners. While heterosexual couples must figure out how to pull an “equal partners” rabbit out of a “preside” hat, Taylor notes that homosexual partners have the reverse problem: “in homosexual relationships, the question of who presides is much more important than the fact that there is an equal partnership.”

In trying to sort out this topic, I have wondered whether it might be useful to bring in relational theology. One of the most prominent shifts of theological thinking in the last half-century is the move from a substance ontology to a relational one, meaning that the self does not first exist as an autonomous entity which then enters into relationships, but is inherently relational from the beginning. In traditional Christian theology, this has been closely tied to the trinitarian nature of God. If God is constitutively relational, goes the argument, then humans, as imago dei, are also constitutively relational. The image of God, in other words, is not found in an autonomous will or intellect, but in the relational orientation of human beings. This is an important background, I think, to any discussion of sexuality. For Mormons, a key question is this: in talking about eternal heterosexual marriage, do we see eternal gender, or eternal relationality, as primary? In other words, is the relationship something secondary which is constructed by two eternally opposite-gendered beings—or is it something primary which happens to get expressed in sexually differentiated beings? If the former is true, one cannot talk coherently about an eternal same-sex marriage, because a marital relationship is contingent on the gender of those involved; but if the latter, there is no clear reason why inherent relationality could not be expressed in same-sex pairings.

Theologian Stanley Grenz makes an argument that Mormons might find particularly interesting. He looks at possible connections between two elements of the Genesis creation narratives: first, humans as created in the image of God, and second, humans created as “sexually differentiated and hence relational creatures.”¹ But while Mormons cite this as evidence of a sexually differentiated God, Grenz goes in a different direction: This does not imply some kind of divine sexuality, he says—rather, “in the creation of humans as sexually differentiated we see the character of human existence as something which “entails a fundamental incompleteness or, stated positively, an innate yearning for completeness.”² This produces a drive for bonding, and it is on this basic dynamic of bonding that community is based. Salvation, then, has to do with completeness—a completeness we cannot achieve on our own. It is something we attain through relationships of difference.

The question at stake in this particular discussion is whether such completeness can only be found in heterosexual relationships. The gender complementarians would likely argue yes, that male and female complement each other in a way that two persons of the same sex cannot do. There is perhaps an appealing tidiness about this model. But in the messiness of everyday life, it is a difficult claim to verify. There is enough variety within the sexes that it is not difficult to see how two men or two women might also bring very different strengths to a relationship.³ Any relationship, be it same-sex or opposite-sex, is going to pose the challenge of negotiating similarity and difference. The only way I can see to make the case that opposite-sex couples are somehow qualitatively different from same-sex ones is to propose that men and women are qualitatively different—an assertion which causes far more problems than it solves.⁴ And appeals to innate gender differences are dicey, given that such differences frequently turn out to be so mysterious and ineffable that no one can articulate what they are. (I am not arguing that such differences might not exist; I am simply questioning whether an appeal to their existence is in itself sufficient rationale for privileging opposite-sex relationships.) In the Garden of Eden, one might argue that the important point is not the sexual differentiation of Adam and Eve, but the statement that it is not good for [a human being] to be alone. Even perhaps (!) a gay human being.

I also wonder about our relationships to each other in different phases of existence. I am struck by their fluidity. In the premortal life, as the children of God (however you interpret that), we are all in some sense spirit siblings. But here on earth those relationships get re-formed—we who used to be siblings now become spouses and parents and children, and we do not seem overly perturbed that our relationships have rearranged themselves in this way. I think this lends weight to the idea that relationality itself is more crucial than the particular form it takes in any given sphere of existence.

In re-reading various church statements on the topic of same-sex marriage, I have been interested to see how much of it is along the lines of, “but what about the children?” But in LDS teachings, while procreation and child-rearing are crucial, relationships themselves are seen as salvific—intriguingly, having children is not a requirement for exaltation. And even if it were, Taylor has made a strong case that procreation in the eternities may well be very different from mortal procreation, and that the obligation to raise children in a righteous way is not contingent on procreative ability. In addition, I would note, same-sex couples can decide to assign roles as a way to divide labor (much as opposite-sex couples do), usually consist of two people with a clear gender identity, and will inevitably require those in them to grapple with difference. What, then, is it that heterosexual couples have, theologically speaking, that homosexual ones lack? I am still having a hard time articulating an answer, at least in part because I am still trying to pin down precisely what aspects of relationships are salvific, and whether this is tied to gender.

On a somewhat tangential note, I am also interested in the sources upon which church leaders draw in discussing this subject. Notably, unlike in many other Christian settings, scriptures from Leviticus and Paul rarely come into play. This does not surprise me, given that Mormons do not seem to feel particularly bound to either source. Instead, from what I can see, church leaders cite the creation of Adam and Eve, the historical tradition of heterosexual marriage, the Proclamation on the Family, and contemporary social science. The PotF has always struck me as a surprisingly weak argument against gay marriage, which is not even explicitly addressed in the document; there are several steps between “gender is eternal” and “gay marriage is wrong” (especially once you differentiate between gender identity and sexual orientation, a distinction that has unfortunately been blurred in many LDS writings)—and the statement that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God can be read as just that, as opposed to a condemnation of any other kind of marriage. The same holds true, I think, of the Genesis account. Contemporary social science seems like an odd place to go (especially given the existence of those social scientists who are finding no difference between children raised by opposite-sex and same-sex parents). And history and tradition are not insurmountable obstacles to a church which believes in continuing revelation. I am not disputing that the church currently has a strong stance on the subject, but I do wonder whether it is as ironclad as it often seems to appear.

In any case, I have only mentioned some of the questions raised by Taylor’s thought-provoking article. If you haven’t yet, you should totally go read it.

1. Stanley J. Grenz, The Social God and the Relational Self: A Trinitarian Theology of the Imago Dei (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 269.
2. Ibid., 277
3. I would also note that no pair, whether same-sex or different-sex, is going to perfectly complete one another—I thus like Grenz’s idea that we should not stop at pair bonding, but see differences as a way to drive us toward community.
4. There are already enough difficult teachings and practices in the church that raise questions about whether women are in fact full persons. In addition, this would undermine any christology in which a male savior can comprehend the experience of women.

This struck me as an odd use of the billboard. Isn’t the default state of a road to have all of its lanes open? Why the need to announce this with a billboard? That the announcement was needed suggested that the road had been under construction, perhaps for a long time, and was now open, or perhaps that it had been scheduled for a construction project that had been cancelled.

I thought for a while about this question while driving. (Yes, it was a loooong and boooring drive. Why do you ask?) I think what this case illustrates is that stating what should be obvious calls into question whether it’s actually obvious. It should have been obvious that all the lanes on the highway were open. The presence of the sign calling my attention to this fact suggested that in reality it wasn’t a given that all the lanes should be open; like I said before, maybe they had been recently closed or had been scheduled to be closed.

Thinking about the phenomenon even more generally, it appears that this is a situation where saying one thing has the effect of suggesting the opposite thing. If I had seen no billboard, it’s unlikely that I would have spontaneously wondered whether any of the lanes were closed. But once I saw the sign telling me that all the lanes were open, I started mulling over reasons why it might be necessary to tell me this. I did start thinking about lanes being closed, which was the opposite of what the sign had told me.

I think this inadvertent suggestion of the opposite by stating what should be obvious occurs in two church settings. First, in the recommendation (but not requirement) that boys and men blessing and passing the sacrament wear white shirts, and second, in General Authorities’ frequent assurances that women of the Church are loved and appreciated.

White shirts

The Church Handbook says this about the issue:

Those who bless and pass the sacrament should dress modestly and be well groomed and clean. Clothing or jewelry should not call attention to itself or distract members during the sacrament. Ties and white shirts are recommended because they add to the dignity of the ordinance. However, they should not be required as a mandatory prerequisite for a priesthood holder to participate. Nor should it be required that all be alike in dress and appearance.

What if the last two sentences were dropped from this section? Ties and white shirts are recommended, and that’s it. The last two sentences run into the same problem as the “All lanes open” billboard, I think. They state what should be obvious: wearing a white shirt shouldn’t be a requirement and having everyone dress alike shouldn’t be a requirement. Unfortunately, in doing so, they bring to mind their opposites. Why would there be a need to explicitly point out that these aren’t requirements if there weren’t people who were making them requirements?

I think this is particularly a problem because many Church members seem to relish the idea of living a slightly “higher” (i.e., more restrictive) law than everyone else. If no tobacco or alcohol is good, no chocolate or white bread is better. If no R-rated movies is good, no PG-13 rated movies is better. I think these lines in the Handbook are well intended, but given the commonness of the idea that more restrictive is better, I wonder if they don’t sometimes have the opposite effect that they’re intended to have. They may inadvertently put into readers’ minds the possibility of making white shirts and identical dress requirements to bless or pass the sacrament.

Consider a hypothetical alternative wording of the Handbook, and imagine what its likely effect would be. Setting aside the line about what is recommended, what if the Handbook reminded us about non-requirements like this?

It is not required that priesthood holders who administer the sacrament be circumcised.

Well of course it’s not required. But if the Handbook went to the trouble to say so, it would suggest that some people think it’s required, and given that it’s more restrictive that just letting any old priesthood holder administer the sacrament regardless of the status of his foreskin, I suspect that at least a few local leaders would hastily implement this new higher law.

You can make up fun examples all day. What if the Handbook said this?

The sacrament table need not be shaped like the Salt Lake Temple.

Well of course it doesn’t need to be. But now that it’s been suggested . . . maybe it would be safest to do it just in case.

Assurances to women

General Authorities frequently give talks in which they tell women how essential they are, how much good they do, and how loved and appreciated they are. I suspect this is obvious enough that I don’t need to provide examples, but just in case, here are a few from the past decade or so:

• President Uchtdorf: “You are an essential part of our Heavenly Father’s plan for eternal happiness.”
• Elder Cook: “Much of what we accomplish in the Church is due to the selfless service of women.”
• President Hinckley: “Women are such a necessary part of the plan of happiness which our Heavenly Father has outlined for us. That plan cannot operate without them.”
• Elder Ballard: “There is nothing in this world as personal, as nurturing, or as life changing as the influence of a righteous woman.”
• President Faust: “I do not have words to express my respect, appreciation, and admiration for you wonderful sisters. . . . We are humbled by your acts of faith, devotion, obedience, and loving service, and your examples of righteousness. This Church could not have achieved its destiny without the dedicated, faithful women who, in their righteousness, have immeasurably strengthened the Church.”

These things should be obvious. Of course the Church couldn’t function without women and of course women are essential to the plan of salvation happiness. But when these things are said so often, their obviousness is called into question. Would women get this much reassurance about their importance in the Church if there weren’t clear reasons for them to question their value in the Church? That General Authorities address this issue so often seems to me to be tacit admission that they know lots of women feel less valued in the Church than men do. I’d like to believe they are also aware that, at least in some cases, it’s simply the sexist structure of the Church, and not some failure of local leaders or neuroticism on the part of the women that’s driving this feeling.

You probably get the idea, but just because alternative examples make the point more clearly, here are a couple. Consider the message that would be sent if General Authorities were constantly reassuring other groups of Church members of their value:

You left-handers are a crucial part of God’s plan of happiness for his children.

Even though the content of this message sounds completely benign, the fact that they were singled out for reassurance would probably make left-handers feel immediately less valued.

I do not have words to express my respect, appreciation, and admiration for you wonderful Black people.

Again, even though on the surface it might sound benign, the singling out of Blacks suggests that they have reason to feel less respected, appreciated, and admired.

A caveat

One objection to my conclusion that stating the obvious calls into question that it is in fact obvious is that people state obvious things in conversation all the time. For example, if you ran into me at church while I was holding my 13-month-old daughter, you would likely feel compelled to point out that she is, in fact, the cutest kid ever born. (You probably couldn’t help yourself. I would understand.) This is a pretty obvious thing to say, but it doesn’t really suggest that my daughter’s cuteness has been called into question. I think this is because the intent of casual conversation is typically more to maintain relationships than to convey information. In the examples I’ve cited above–the electronic billboard and Church pronouncements in the Handbook or over the pulpit–it’s pretty clear that the primary goal is to convey information. So this is a limiting condition for my conclusion.

Hudson isn’t someone whose theology I find particularly reliable, honest, or convincing, but it is true that I enjoy a little Catholicism on the side, and I sometimes dress up as an LDS intellectual for Halloween, so I started reading. Disappointingly, she has not a word to say about what actually makes Catholicism appealing, but has a lot to say about what’s wrong with the social policies and fifth-century theology of the Catholic Church. (As a side note, it could just be me, but I’m not sure that these “LDS Intellectuals”  – a category she interestingly does not identify with, despite that she has a PhD and is a college professor – are all that enchanted either by the way Catholics handle gender in general or abortion more specifically. Me, I just like to hit up a Catholic church on Ash Wednesday to participate in a holy day that Mormons take no official notice of. I like the high church liturgy of the Mass, I appreciate the way the liturgical calendar imbues different meanings into different seasons, and most importantly, the I love, love, love the music. But maybe I just haven’t been invited to the Catholiphile LDS Intellectual club yet.)

Hudson’s evidence that LDS intellectuals are coveting after Catholic goods is that (i) someone once apologized for her having asked a maybe-rude question about celibacy to a visiting “prominent Catholic”; (ii) Richard Sherlock, a formerly-Mormon philosopher, converted to Catholicism; (iii) and a colleague of hers once spoke “in glowing terms about the nuance and sophistication of [Catholic theologians'] moral arguments,  honed as they were by almost two millennia of theological work.” She took from this that he didn’t feel that Mormon moral reasoning was up to snuff. Maybe he didn’t, and maybe Mormon moral reasoning might not be (we hardly have a robust tradition of theological scholarship on our hands). Either way, it seems a little less like she’s noticed that some Mormons like Catholicism, as that she’s noticed that some Mormons don’t dislike Catholicism as much as she (as a Catholic to Mormon convert) thinks they should.

But all this is just the prelude to the truly bizarre central thesis of Hudson’s article: she’s writing to remind us of how sexist Catholicism is, compared to Mormonism. And while I (speaking as a Mormon feminist) certainly agree that Catholicism shares some of the patriarchal issues that Mormonism has, Catholicism also has a tradition of female veneration that Mormonism lacks, while not having the tradition of polygamous wife-swapping that many (most?) feminists find so troubling in Mormonism. While I certainly don’t see the Catholic Church with its all-male clergy as some bastion of feminist progressivism, I have a lot of trouble pointing fingers out of my own tradition and calling feminister-than-thou at the Catholics.

At several points in this article, I frankly wonder if Hudson is lying on purpose, or just embarrassingly ill-informed. She goes on for several paragraphs about how disenfranchised Catholic women are because they believe in a male God with no female counterpart. Except, I must point out, in contemporary Catholic theology, God having no body also has no sex or gender: God is neither male nor female. (It’s actually Mormonism, with our maybe-there-but-totally-silenced Mother in Heaven, that sets up a male God with no active or accessible female counterpart.)

Hudson describes how damaging it was for her to read Augustine and Tertullian as a child, internalizing their vision of the Fall and their negative views of sexuality and thus (the two are admissibly inextricable for so many early medieval thinkers) women. I love me some Confessions, but I do agree that fifth-century Christian views of women aren’t really the ones I’m lining up to get a testimony of. But I’m also pretty sure that Augustine, or even Aquinas, or even Paul VI (who was Pope at the time of Hudson’s conversion) isn’t the final Catholic statement on women. And Hudson acknowledges that ”The Roman Catholic Church leadership and intellectual class would now never write types of things that Augustine and Thomas Aquinas did,” though she doesn’t give much airtime to anyone but the really old, misogynist Catholics, explaining that those early doctrines “linger on and creep into the consciousness of its membership.”

I don’t doubt that’s true. Also, there are some pretty fetid things taught by one B. Young that I could wave around to bolster my case that the LDS Church isn’t as feminist as you’d like to think it is. And you’d probably point out that all that’s been superseded by later revelation. And I’d reply, Yes, but isn’t it just a bitch how those doctrines linger on and creep into the consciousness of the membership? Golly, but it was damaging growing up in that environment.

(Hudson, in one of the most verbose flourishes of euphemism I’ve seen in a while, does acknowledge that “In all fairness, it should likewise be acknowledged that comparison of some statements by, say, Brigham Young with those of the living oracles evidences that, over time, the continuing stream of revelation that flows to the Church has resulted in a much fuller appreciation of the role of women in the divine plan.” Whoa there. I think I lost your point in your compensatory bout of testimony-bearing.)

The real knock-it-out-of-the-park-awesome pièce de résistance, though, is when she addresses the LDS Church’s much more nuanced view of abortion, relative to the Catholic view. In considering the really wretched case of a 10-year-old girl in Mexico who was denied an abortion after having been raped by her stepfather (a decision that the Catholic church endorsed) Hudson explains that:

The LDS Church would have had a different response, based on respect for the girl’s dignity and wellbeing as a daughter of God: abortion would be seen as a possible legitimate decision after prayerful consideration and consultation. But maybe that is because the leadership of the LDS Church is composed of men who have had loving, committed, intimate relationships with women, and are the fathers of both sons and daughters.  The leaders of the Roman Catholic Church are, by principle, neither: they have never been the lovers of women or the fathers of 10 year-old daughters.

Wow. Just, I mean, wow. I don’t disagree that the Catholic response to this is sickeningly antifeminist. And I don’t normally go around telling people whether they’re “real” feminists or not, but Hudson is testing me on that. Let’s see if I’ve got this right: her evidence for the feminist-friendliness of Morminism is that the all-male LDS governing hierarchy is so much more sensitive to women’s dignity, and so much more nuanced when legislating the uses and abuses of women’s bodies, because THEY KNOW A LOT OF WOMEN???

Hand over your feminist card, Dr. Hudson. I’m about to stick it in a censer and watch it burn.

My! How the Women are Raging! (Master the Tempest is Raging)

My! How the women are raging!
We can’t keep them in their place.
They’ll soon be demanding the priesthood,
Addressing us face to face.

We can no longer command them.
They want their equal rights.
Without good humble women beneath us,
How can we ascend the heights?!

Your clamoring, yammering can’t go on!
Please! Be Still!
We’ve given you children to raise for us,
And freedom to utter your praises for us,
And when you’re unsatisfied sexually,
We tell you we don’t want polygamy.

We counsel you with propriety
To repent
And content yourselves with Relief Society
AND TO BE STILL!

Let us all be Faith-Promoting (Lord Accept our True Devotion)

Let us all be faith-promoting.
Let us all work as a team.
Let’s not probe and let’s not question
Lest we stray from the mainstream.

Chorus:
Pretty pictures, lovely stories,
Charming smiles, and flowing tears
Sweetness, light and whitewashed history
Chase away all doubts and fears.

Let’s be gentle and soft-spoken.
Let’s be calm, let’s be serene.
Let’s be humble and submissive.
Let our minds be neat and clean.

(chorus)

Let our thoughts be pure and simple
And uplifting be our quotes.
Whited sepulchers of Zion,
Full of pleasant anecdotes.