I’m occasionally asked if I consider myself a Liahona Mormon, or an Iron Rod Mormon.

I say “Liahona. Except that the Liahona keeps pointing straight at the Iron Rod.”

Continue reading →

I’ll admit it, going on vacation put me seriously behind on my reading, especially of all the columnists out there (I will be very sorry when my NY Times archive/TimesSelect access goes away — it’s enough to make a girl enroll in grad school, just to retain the free access for a few more years.) Anyway, I’m a bit late in noticing the following quote:

Still, when the United States was seriously inconvenienced by our commitment to freedom of religion, we found means to handle Mormon polygamy.

That was William F. Buckley, Jr., in his August 25th column. His general point was that British society needs to find a way of responding to the increasingly vocal (and growing) immigrant Muslim population in the UK — that’s the only Mormon mention in the piece (the Queen gets far more attention.)

My take? Okay, yeah, figuring out how to cope with change is important for any society, and when lots of changes are happening, it’s obviously a more urgent matter. Duh.

But, umm, are we really that great of an example of how to deal with change? Excluding pre-1847 persecution for the moment: is disenfranchisement, wholesale asset seizure, and widespread imprisonment really the greatest model for adaptation to cultural challenge? Is the general historical lesson of pre-1890 Mormon polygamy really “phew, we got those Mormons to cooperate, eventually”? And, because maybe this isn’t an interesting enough question yet, how about “should Mormons look to the Utah Territory period as a positive example of how to treat newcomers in our own societies?” Or maybe we’re just on every commentator’s lips right now, even when they’re not thinking about hit-piece films or presidential candidates, and this was a really bad example to use?

Anyway, my little sister hates it when I try to start this kind of conversation with her, so: what do you all think?

Do not take the chance of dating nonmembers, or members who are untrained and faithless. A girl may say, “Oh, I do not intend to marry this person. It is just a ‘fun’ date.” But one cannot afford to take a chance on falling in love with someone who may never accept the gospel…In isolated instances a lovely young woman might be so far removed geographically from other Church members that she would either have to marry out of the Church or stay unmarried. Some might feel justified in such circumstances in making an exception to the rule and marrying a nonmember but, justification or not, it is important to recognize that the hazards in such a marriage would remain. To minimize the dangers the girl should by all means make sure that she marries a man who is honorable and good, so that even if he cannot at present be brought to accept the gospel there is a fair chance of his being converted later.”

Source: “The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball.”

Can I ask M* readers to respectfully discuss this quotation, keeping in mind that Pres. Kimball was a prophet of the Lord?

Congrats on your win over Pac-10 doormat Arizona. There is an even worse doormat, my team Stanford. We did our best to beat up UCLA a little bit today for you, and we only lost by four touchdowns. That’s my team!!! Anyway, you have us to thank if you beat UCLA next week. We will take any credit we can get.

M* needs five people to field a team in the T&S relay team race. I can run the longer legs, I’ve still got some speed left over from high school track.

Can I get four others? If you’d like to join, please comment here.

Check out this T&S post for the rules.

UPDATE: WE ONLY NEED THREE MORE RUNNERS. C’MON, YOU BLOGGERS, GET OFF YOUR DUFFS AND VOLUNTEER FOR THE M* RELAY TEAM! WE’RE GOING TO KICK SOME T&S POSTERIOR!

SECOND UPDATE: WE HAVE A TEAM. WE COULD USE ONE MORE ALTERNATE IF SOMEBODY ELSE WANTS TO PARTICIPATE.