NoCoolName Blog

I used to work for the Church. Now, before you start imagining anything, it wasn't a very important job. I worked retail at one of the Church's now-defunct Distribution Centers; our purpose was to sell items produced by the Corporation of the Presiding Bishopric. We sold Sunday School manuals, scripture sets, Church videos and audio media, hymnals, pictures, and a host of other publications. We also sold garments.

The garment is an article of clothing given to endowed members of the Church upon their first time through the Temple rituals. The garment is produced by another branch of the CPB, Beehive Clothing, and was sold through Distribution Services.

Working a job with garments really gave me a new perspective on them and how to treat them. Before working at the Center, I enjoyed using the full name of the garment, the Garments of the Holy Priesthood, whenever it seemed appropriate. However, after only a few months of stocking garments, selling garments, dealing with irate customers trying to return used underwear, and (most fun of all) throwing dozens upon dozens of boxes of garments around the back room (go long!) it became difficult to mentally treat them with such a separate respect. My respect for garments became far more personal; they were part of the purpose of my employment. Though inanimate pieces of clothing, we had a relationship, an understanding between us. Using the full title became like calling a close friend by their family name: it felt wrong. Today, every time I hear someone using the full title I can't help but smile: I suppose it's good that they have respect for something their view as sacred, but for them the garments are still something “other” and “distinct” from their lives. Which isn't always a bad thing: many people view the garment as a constant reminder of promises they've made with God in the Temple. Perhaps too much familiarity with the garment would diminish their effectiveness as such a reminder. I don't know: I can only judge myself.

However, for an article of clothing that is related to the Temple, there is a certain paradox surrounding the garment. Most aspects of the Temple are easy to not talk about, because they stay in the Temple. Special clothing, ritual language, and other aspects don't ever have to leave the Temple, and thus are relatively easy to avoid in conversation outside. But this is not so with the garment: you bring it with you from the Temple and devout members wear it daily. It becomes part of daily life, and yet it still carries with it the sense that conversation about it should be avoided. Thus, it becomes the subject of quiet conversations between members. Their presence is openly acknowledged and simultaneously avoided.

One of the benefits of working at the Center where the garments are so central to our operations, is that this wall of paradoxical avoidance/interest quickly breaks down. And it's not just a question of employee culture: we receive training on how sell the garments, how to talk about the garments with customers, how to answer questions, and so forth. For us, avoiding the topic simply isn't possible: the topic of garments is part of our purpose as a Center.

There were a number of interesting things I learned while working at the Center. Because everyone seems to always have the same questions, let me approach it in the form of a question-answer session.

Can I try the garments on before hand? Can I see what the garments look like?

No, you can't try them on beforehand. The garments are a type of underwear and you cannot try them on without purchasing them first. Nobody else wants to wear used underwear. For this reason it's very difficult to return opened packages of garments. If you have garments you don't want/need, get in touch with the local Bishop or Relief Society president; perhaps someone in your ward has a need. Deseret Industries will also refuse to accept underwear of any kind, so don't bother.

As for seeing the garments beforehand, it used to be the practice of Distribution Services to have a garment without the marks that people could look at. They took this away a long time ago. My personal opinion: if you're really that curious and haven't been through yet, Google will probably be your friend. I'm not saying that I support the existence of such images, but the LDS Church can't do anything about them. The garment may be sacred, but it ceased to be secret a long time ago.

The sizing for women seems messed up. Why?

Obviously if you can't try them on beforehand, you need to rely on the sizing information. Men have sizes that are correlated to standard American belt sizes and shirt sizes, so for us it's easy.

Women, unfortunately, have it much worse. The sizing chart was updated at least three times while I was employed at Distribution. There are a number of problems in assembling the sizing charts.

One of the biggest problems, apart from the typical problems for women's clothing (dealing with waist and hips, various bust sizes, etc) is that there exists a very clear generational difference in how the garment is worn. Older members of the Church enjoy wearing garments a bit more on the larger size of the sizing charts. They like having loose, flowing garments. Younger members enjoy having a tighter fit for their garments and tend to wear a bit smaller on the sizing charts. The problem comes to the forefront when you realize that Beehive Clothing, who runs the surveys to determine correct sizing, favors the older generation style, so the sizing chart tends to run very large when members purchase according to what the charts tell them to buy.

Until Beehive Clothing begins to acknowledge more the younger style of wearing a tighter fit (which is beginning to happen, especially with the popularity of stretchy fabrics), the sizing chart will remain problematic.

Do they need to go down to my knees?

This is a very common question. Both men and women have asked me, very concerned, if there is something wrong with them because their garments don't come down to their knees. In trying to be respectful to the subject matter, I'll just say that one of the marks on the garment is called the “knee mark”. The plain fact is that the short style of garments in use today are not designed to extend down to the actual knee. Those who are truly concerned could wear the ankle-length garments that the Church produces, but those are meant for cold weather and would probably be unbearable during the non-winter parts of the year. The simple answer is: no, the garment does not need to extend to your actual knee.

A similar issue that came up often for us employees was the issue of tall people purchasing the shorter “petite” cut. Every few months we had to be told again that members of the Church are allowed to purchase whichever garments they want to purchase. If a tall individual was purchasing petites, even if for his or her own use, we were not the gatekeepers of the garments and there was nothing wrong with such an individual purchasing and wearing their garments. Still, we'd occasionally get some of our older employees telling customers that they “shouldn't” buy the smaller garment bottoms, and eventually Salt Lake would tell us again that everyone is allowed to purchase and wear what they want.

The only rule is that members are not allowed to physically alter the garments by hemming or trimming them.

I don't like the crew necks because they peek up over my collar, but I don't like the scoop-style necklines. Do I have to hide my garments?

This is a question that is more often asked by women, but some men are concerned about it, as well. It comes from the popular belief that in order to treat the garment with respect and to not defile it that the garment must be protected and hidden from the world. Yet, male endowed members quite often can be seen with some of the garment showing above their collar.

The better answer can be found in the new military garments, however. As the American military has spent the past several years in active duty in the Middle East and Afghanistan, it became very burdensome for LDS servicemen and women to have to wear an additional layer of clothing. In the mid-2000's, a new garment arrived in the store. Tan now, instead of white, to match the BDUs of the American Army, the garment tops did not have any marks sewn into them, but instead had the marks silkscreened on the inside of the fabric. When worn, the garment tops appeared the same as any other military T-shirt and could be worn without anything else on top. In fact, that's all that the new military top is: a military T-shirt. The only difference is the marks that have been applied inside. In fact, other branches of the armed forces, as well as police and fire, can send in their official uniform T-shirts to have them silk-screened (this can be especially useful for the Navy uniform, which has a V-neck that no garments are produced in and often was difficult to wear with garments).

The end result is that endowed military now have garment tops that they can wear publicly without anything covering them up. Only the marks are obscured by their placement on the inside (this also marks a change from the marks on other garments which are made by tearing the fabric and then sewing the tears back up).

So the long and short of it is: if the military can honorably wear their garments completely in the open as long as the marks are obscured, why would there be a change for civilian garments as long as their identity as garments is similarly difficult to detect? For this reason, Distribution Center employees have received explicit instructions to never counsel anyone about the propriety or impropriety of wearing the garment as a “layer” in clothing styles.

I think I'd like one of the styles carried for the other gender. Can I wear garments that are not my gender?

Yes, you can. There are no rules that garments marketed towards one gender can only be worn by that gender.

I like one fabric as a bottom, but I like another fabric as a top. Can I purchase and wear different kinds together?

There is no requirement that garments must be purchased or worn together. Purchase the fabrics you want to purchase and feel free to mix and match to find the fabric combination that best suits you.

My garments are starting to turn yellow. I tried bleaching them, but the problem just got worse. How non-white can they be before I have to replace them?

The color of the garment is actually not important. Chances are if this issue (yellowing garments) has occurred to you, it's because the artificial fibers have been dyed white (they're naturally yellow) and bleaching them tends to remove the dyes and actually makes them more yellow. However, there is no reference anywhere to the garment having to be bleached white in color. In fact, a hundred years ago the garments would have been made of fabrics that would have seemed off-white to us today. The color is not important. Don't replace your garments until you want to replace them.

The following is my own opinion that I developed while working for Distribution. I think that much of the cultural assumptions related to garments have been picked up in the Church by well-meaning members who've looked to the US Flag Code about how best to treat fabric items (flags or garments) with respect. Flags, according to the flag code, need to be retired when their colors start to fade, when the fabric starts to fray, or when dirtied; they should not be placed on the ground, etc. Most of the “rules” members follow in how they treat their garments come from the flag code and while those rules certainly impart a great deal of respect to the garments, they originally appear in LDS church culture during the 1950s and the Cold War. Pioneer descriptions of how to treat the garment do not match how we treat them today, but instead show them being treated as an article of clothing. Still treated with respect, of course, but not anything on a level like how most members today treat their garments. In Distribution we never tried to offend people, but we didn't tend to follow most of these “rules” in our back rooms. Boxes of garments often rest on the floor, and throwing boxes of garments like footballs while unloading trucks is common.

The eternal debate for women: does the bra go on top, or does the bra go underneath?

Again, you won't find anything about this officially. It come from the popular belief that the garment must touch your skin, but this belief is not official. Those who are truly concerned about this can call their local Temple matron and ask her (it's her responsibility to manage the temple workers who will be explaining how to wear the garment to members going through for the first time). While she'll probably try to impress upon you the idea that there's a “recommended” way, she'll have to agree that there is no way to wear a bra or panties with your garments that is somehow “dishonorable” to your covenants. Wear them how you want, but understand that changes occur slowly in the Church and while it's perfectly fine now to wear them how you want, the local culture still thinks that you need to wear the garment underneath everything.

Again, the best example for this would be female servicemen wearing the military top: do they wear their other undergarments over their garments? Nope, they wear them under. If you want to do the same, feel free to do so. You will not experience any negative official response.

I'm inactive and haven't been to Church for a while; my garments are starting to get nasty. What do I have to do before I can get new garments?

Actually, as long as you're still a member and have not yet resigned, you are allowed to purchase garments. A current Temple Recommend is required to purchase other Temple clothing, but garments can be purchased by anyone who has received their endowments no matter how long it's been since they've been to Church.

If you don't have a recommend and don't plan on getting one there is a computerized system in place at the Distribution Centers and on the Distribution web site that will look up your endowed status by your name and birthdate. The cashier will not see any other information except for the date when you were endowed.

I always loved it when “non-typical” Mormons came through the line to purchase garments. Multiple piercings, colored hair, off-color T-shirts: they made me happy to see such a variety of people who still wanted a bit of Mormonism in their lives. Just as there is nothing you can wear that will keep you out of the Temple (which by the way, if you thought they'd ever turn you away for what you were wearing, they won't; they only care that you have a valid recommend), there is nothing you can wear that will keep you from being able to purchase garments.

If you want to buy them, go ahead and do so.

I have some old garments that I hadn't opened until now and they're smaller than the same size garments I purchased recently. Do the sizes change? Have the garments gotten longer?

I have no proof of it, but it was an open secret in the Center among employees and management that garment sizes were not constant through time or around the world. Different areas of the world produce different sizes of garments, and the styles themselves do undergo changes every few year. Women's garments seem to have gained an extra inch or two in the past decade among the same size., both on the bottoms as well as on the sleeves. We had members come in more than once asking about this problem who brought in their garments so that we could compare.

Again, there's no proof of it, but even members of management at our Center were not quiet about their assumption that these changes were introduced purposefully by Beehive Clothing in an attempt to try to influence clothing styles among US members. European garments tend to be a little shorter, but there was no real explanation as to why that would be.

All of this was the case during the mid-2000's. If things have changed now so that worldwide styles and sizes are now the exact same, I can't say. Some of the new tops introduced in the past year for women have extremely large sleeves, so it seems that the process is continuing.

But the answer is yes: the garments have gotten longer, but there's no official explanation as to why.

I have a need for a style or fabric of garments that don't exist. Can I get them made for me?

You can... but it'll cost you. Garments are subsidized by the Church in an attempt to make them more affordable. They'll be able to help you at any store that sells garments (most of the Distribution Centers are gone now, merged with Deseret Book). It'll take a while to get them, and it'll cost a lot, but it it possible. If you have a genuine need for custom garments, such as a medicinal needs, the added costs might be waived, but that'll have to be dealt with on a more individual basis.

Can I purchase the military-style garments?

Only if you're currently in the military. If you're a hunter, a private contractor like Xe, or if you just like the idea of wearing combat fatigues, you can't purchase them.

Best advice I have for you: get a military friend to hook you up if you really want them, because you're not gonna get them otherwise.

What's the best type of garment for (insert activity/location here)?

This is by far the most popular question asked of us in the Center. We received a lot of training on how to answer this question without actually answering it because Distribution Services felt that it was very important that the employees not limit the options available to customers. If there was a style or fabric that would work best for an individual they didn't want that individual to not find it because of something an employee said.

All that aside, I don't work there anymore, so let me give my honest opinion on all of this “wicking” nonsense: some of the garments suck. There's no other way to say it: some of them simply stink and will literally make you stink. The nylon blends are horrible in terms of holding onto sweat: I'd recommend avoiding them. Cotton is a good choice, and the expensive blends also tend to operate well. Anything that is 100% nylon may seem like it'll feel nice (since they feel like silk underwear), but they'll probably be nasty after a while. The garments don't really look very appealing anyway, so don't shop based on how shiny the fabric is. Find the fabrics that are functional and keep you dry and not stinking (and these tend to be the cottons and the expensive blends).

Anything else?

That's about it that I can think of right now. Any other questions? Remember that Distribution Services used to also sell much of the publishing and merchandise that was directly Church-produced (this means that we sold Jesus the Christ and Miracle of Forgiveness, but we did not sell Mormon Doctrine or The Origin of Man, thank goodness).

#Mormon #Garment #ChurchStore

I wonder if I'll be able to put a date to when I broke the camel's back: will it be September 4, 2011? I'm probably over-reacting, but if that's so, at least I'll be happy about what I did: I got the kids some Bibles. They've always really liked my little pocket-sized KJV that I bring with me to Sunday School. They like the red letters for whenever an author has Jesus speaking. They like the size. They like the self-pronouncing names.

So I went and got a bunch of KJV bibles from the Internet: they were cheap and seemed like a good idea. Then, as I was ordering, I thought a bit about what I was getting them and decided to order a handful of similarly sized NIVs. Yes, I know that the NIV isn't the most accurate translation (trying to determine what is would be an exercise in futility and argument about the purposes and limitations of biblical translation), but it's certainly the most popular English version and one that any non-Mormon Christian is going to be very familiar with. Besides, almost anything would be better than the KJV (well, possibly not The Message, but that's my opinion).

The lesson was on Galatians and some fun chapters in Acts, which really ticked me off. We're going to be spending three weeks on the Corinthian letters, which are mostly rambling letters that address a multiplicity of topics, but for Galatians and Romans, where genuine Paul attempts to explain his complex theological model of Jesus as Messiah we get less than a single class session each. Why is that? The cynical side of me is actually rather convinced that the grace message of both Galatians and Romans is troubling to the Correlation Committee. Both of them are rather unapologetic in their approach: faith is what Paul feels starts the whole process of justification and salvation. Works don't ever enter into it.

Being an agnostic does not mean that I somehow shouldn't spend time trying to puzzle out what Paul is saying. I may not view Jesus of Nazareth the same way as Paul, but that doesn't mean that it's a waste of my time to try and understand Paul. It's intellectually lazy for some to approach Paul as though their belief system (or lack of one) somehow informs them better of Paul's points before they even read him. Mormons are certainly guilty of this as well. The lesson on Romans, for instance, attempts to push the teacher to tell the students that Paul is all about grace and works, which is like saying that the American Revolution was all about taxes on tea.

My own research on Paul is strongly influenced by the recent “New Perspectives” movement, especially the writings of N.T Wright. In fact, Wright's most recent book about Paul, Justification, is a fantastic exploration of genuine Paul's beliefs about God's plan for humanity. I think that Mormons are missing a huge opportunity by refusing to deal with this grace/works issue. As I keep studying the New Perspectives, and especially as I read Wright, I am constantly surprised by how my Mormon upbringing helps out in dealing with concepts that are apparently more foreign to traditional Protestants. Wright in particular is a fan of approaching Pauls arguments from a “covenantal” perspective. Mormons are all about covenants, and yet I see Wright go through some detailed discussion of suzerainty contracts to explain the concept.

I hope the kids weren't too bored with my attempts to cover the material of Galatians from a New Perspectives perspective :–). We'll see if it was helpful at all when/if I teach the lesson on Romans, which is basically a continuation and expansion of the themes explored in Galatians. AS it was, I know they at least enjoyed my telling them that Galatians is the “angry” letter, that Paul at one point in it is so angry that he expresses a wish that his enemies in Galatia didn't just stop as circumcision but were themselves mutilated (I didn't mention, however, that the footnotes' explanation of the phrase “I were that they were cut off” as a reference to excommunication is quite anachronistic and not nearly as likely as Paul actually calling for his opponents to cut off their own penises), and Paul's description of his dressing down of Peter due to Peter's failure to continue treating Gentile Christians the same as Jewish Christians. Seriously, I love Galatians because the veneer of the stoic “Saint” Paul falls away and we see a human being who can get seriously ticked off (at the end of the letter he even grabs the paper from his scribe and finishes the letter on his own ending with a terse dismissal of his opponents and a plea to “let no one trouble me”).

During the discussion I made sure to mention how for Paul, entrance to the new covenant community between God and humanity is based upon faith in Jesus. It's not based on doing anything in particular, and when Paul does mention things that Mormons would call “works”, such as avoiding contention (ironically) being unified, he does so more from an honor perspective. In other words, entrance to the community of Christians is based on faith, and once we belong to this community we should act like it. Paul nowhere says that bad behavior within this community will eject us from it, but rather asserts that the faith necessary to truly enter into the community and enter a justified status before God is a transformative faith. Once we are dead to sin Paul encourages us to leave it alone. That's what all of the stuff about fornication and other stuff is about.

Paul opponents accused him of being an antinomian, or a person who encourages lawless living, because of his assertion that sin is conquered by faith in Jesus and not through ritual observances as found in the Torah. Paul agrees with them, but denies being an antinomian. His constant expression translated in the KJV as “God forbid”, or more modernly as “hell no!”, is applied to the idea that a person should expand the miracle of being saved as an unrighteous human by being even more unrighteous and thus making grace abound even more fully. Paul's response is to reiterate that entrance to the community of Christ should create a yearning to live better, but he does not ever say that his opponents are wrong in their reductio ad absurdum. For Paul, faith is an “is”, and works are an “ought”: faith is the principle of salvation for God's community, and good works are how members of that community ought to behave.

We'll see if this lesson is the one that finally gets me kicked out, which would then free me to actually speak my mind even more fully in the adult Gospel Doctrine class! (Hmm, maybe that's why the Bishop lets me stay where I am?) Oddly enough, I was telling the kids that Paul, in Galatians, is all about faith instead of works, but if this is the end, I'm pretty sure it'll be because of the Bibles. And yet, I only got them the Bibles because I want them to read the Bible and the KJV is crap. Besides, once they actually start to read the New Testament, especially one without the thought-limiting “study aids” found in the LDS standard works, they'll already be in a better position to evaluate the faith claims of the LDS Church. As I've said before, I'm not trying to produce a class of future ex-Mormons, but rather a class of future well-rounded Mormons with a tolerance for the beliefs of others. As the LDS Church continues to retreat more towards fundamentalist in regards to feminism and homosexuality I'm sure that such an approach will probably force more young people with such a view point to not comfortably remain within the LDS Church, but that's up to them.

So that's how the week went: explaining to the kids how the modern faith/works debate is influenced by 450-year-old arguments of the Protestant Reformation, what Paul's actually saying in Galatians (which is still faith and graced, but not so much anti-works as anti-Torah), and giving them pocket KJVs and NIVs.

I'll let you when/if the hammer falls. :–) I hope it doesn't fall before the end of the year. There's still so much to try and work into the class: the hopeful Christianity of Romans to combat the guilty, neurotic Christianity of modern Mormonism; the pseudo-Pauline letters and issues of Pauline authorship (I actually covered a little of this already when trying to get them excited about reading 1 Thessalonians, the oldest book of the Bible [“What's the second oldest?” “Well, if Paul wrote it, then 2 Thessalonians, but there's some serious doubt that Paul actually wrote that one”]); James and his misreading of Paul in trying to respond to Paul's apparent antinomianism; and of course the craziness of the Revelation of John (not to mention all of the equally-crazy Mormon cruft that has accumulated around the Revelation and is in the manual). I hope I can get to all of it.

Thanks for keeping up with the posts if you're out there reading.

#Mormon #SundaySchool #AcademicBiblical

Back again! I didn't teach Sunday School this week, so there's no real new updates there. When I'm not teaching I tend to take a support role; I don't appreciate when a team teacher tries to hijack my lesson, so I feel it's appropriate for me to show the same courtesy. I try to give factual information when I can, however, as well as summations of what the kids read.

Speaking of summation, it seems as though a large part of each lesson I have is me merely summarizing the proof-texts in question instead of the class reading them for themselves. It bugs me each and every week when these kids struggle to try and read the language of the KJV. As adults who have been raised in the LDS Church we've all suffered through it and have overcome. We've learned the rhythms and idioms of Jacobean English, so for us reading the KJV isn't actually that hard. Sitting with these kids who are still in the middle of their Seminary years really brings me back to how horrible the KJV is and how dense and foggy the text seemed to be as a youth. Seriously, we read through the Saul on the Road to Damascus pericope and, while these kids knew the story well enough, when pressed for details they had trouble even finding those details in the narrative! Yet there I was sitting with my NSRV (like I'm going to actually use a 400-year-old text) knowing that if I simply read out loud from my text they'd follow it quite easily. Maddening.

I've promised the Bishop that I'd used the King James Bible (I can't remember when it came up, but it did at one point) in class, so while I prepare and get ready with my Greek New Testament and bring my NSRV to class (because I'm not that good with Greek yet), I'm still stuck referring them to their woefully antiquated King James scriptures. I've made my dissatisfaction with the KJV quite clear to the class (as well as its limitations upon me as a teacher), but so far nobody has taken me up on my challenge to purchase a modern Bible and bring it to Church. Oh well, at least one change that has occurred is that they're aware of the many different English translations and that they're not problematic for Mormons to read after they asked me one day which translations I have read and liked (answer: NIV is the most readable, NSRV tries to be the most true to the text, Jerusalem Bible is the most thought-provoking, etc).

Yes, I've read all of those versions (and portions of many others). I like the notes for the NET Bible (though they're far too conservative on controversial issues), and I always enjoy reading the Skeptic's Bible (and the Skeptic's Book of Mormon, for that matter). I'm not afraid to say it: I love reading and studying the Bible. Doesn't mean I believe it, to be sure, but belief and enjoyment do not have to go together.

The Bible is an old book. It's from a different culture (actually, it's from many different cultures and is influenced by Babylonian, Persian/Zoroastrian, Greek, and even Roman culture and beliefs), and it's not a modern book. It usually doesn't care about issues like slavery, the rights and equality of men and women, or such things as tolerance for other people and beliefs. It's often violent, vindictive, and presents worldviews that are dangerous when fully followed in our modern world. Why do I like it?

Because that's not the whole story. Liking the Bible is not a binary thing: acceptance of one part of it does not require acceptance of another unless you feel that the whole work is linked together by divine approval. If you believe in an inerrant text that is “God-breathed” or “inspired”, then you'll probably be interested in the countless apologetics that have been written over the millennia to explain the real shortcomings and problems present in the Bible.

But the Bible does present, at times, some very interesting questions to be answered. In opposition to the Book of Mormon's “Pride Cycle”, which features an an integral part of the process the doctrine that God blesses the righteous and punishes the wicked, we have the dual knockout punch of the Hebrew Bible books of Job and Kohelet (Ecclesiastes), both of which have as their central question: Why does life allow the wicked to prosper and the righteous to suffer? And both books refuse to answer the question, instead choosing merely to fling real life into the debate: all of us have suffered when doing what God “wants” us to do, and all of us have been blessed when going against the “commandments”. The solution found by the time the Christian New Testament rolls around is the dualistic idea of heaven and hell: the discrepancy will be made right in the next life or that this world will shortly be remade into a new world where such injustices no longer occur. For the majority of the New Testament authors this new world is coming quickly and the transition will not be pretty. When Jesus came the first time it was to start the ball rolling in bringing the Kingdom of God to earth; when Jesus comes again, he will finish the job and the world will be made anew. No more death, no more evil, and no more injustice. (Note: this is not unique to Christianity and is known as “apocalypticism”; however, it is certainly from apocalyptic ideas that Christianity formed.)

All of this gives a sense of urgency to much of the New Testament. The central message of most of the New Testament is not “Come Unto Christ because it's a Good Thing and you'll Feel Happy,” it's “You'd better be ready NOW, and the only way to be ready is to make yourself right with God through his Messiah”! The New Testament is not a pro-family collection: there's not enough time to worry about that sort of thing. The New Testament is not a pro-peace collection: war and peace will distract us from focusing on what's important.

I won't disagree that this can be a very discouraging and unloving message, but it is a very passionate message. It is a demanding message. It is a loud message. The focus is not on the Atonement of Jesus (a doctrine that, when it is present at all, is never really agreed upon by the various writers). The “atonement”, if discussed, is usually what begins the process: Jesus's death allows his followers membership variously into a covenant with him or simply directly into the kingdom to come, and his resurrection is the first crack in the barrier between this world and that barrier is about to collapse completely.

This is possibly very interesting to you as a reader (or not, I don't know), but if you're much like me, which should you care? I'm a psilanthropist, which means that I believe that the historical Jesus (yes, I think there was a historical Jesus, but I don't know much about his actual life) is the son of Joseph and Mary. If there was anything supernatural about him, I would count myself as an adoptionist, which means I find myself in the camp that believes that the “Christ” came upon Jesus at his baptism where Jesus became God's son. But frankly, I simply don't care about the issue as I find the idea that an all- powerful God is powerless to allow sinful humans to be in his presence bizarre: the very idea that an atonement is necessary is very limiting to me (this probably represents a failing of my own to fully understand orthodox Christian theology; I'm sure they have very detailed reasons).

But I still like the New Testament because, to me, it represents the thoughts of some very intelligent people even if they believe in some rather fantastic claims. Following the complicated, yet well-organized, reasoning of Paul takes some real work and effort; examining the differences between Mark and Matthew can be very illuminating about the beliefs of some of the early Christians. I find the collection fascinating for the window it opens up to the ancient world. It's a loud conversation that occurs as you read it. Just look at James responding to Paul about works: he's not exactly disagreeing, not exactly agreeing—-instead he changes the meanings of the terms and moves the focus of the argument. Fun!

An analogy I've employed with friends is that the Hebrew Bible is like a house a few hours after a huge party has occurred. The whole place still smells kinda odd, but it's been mostly cleaned up. There's still evidence of the mess, but it's in the process of being cleaned (just don't go looking in some of the closets like Judges). But the Christian New Testament is like coming into the house mere moments after the last guest leaves: it's messy. It hasn't been entirely cleaned up. There's still stains on the walls and lampshades on the ground. Between the few people left in the house you'll not get the same story about what happened between any of them. All that the writers of the New Testament can agree upon is that God has been interacting with the world recently, and it has something to do with this Jesus guy.

Of course, some of that is taking the New Testament writers at their word, which is tough to do. I'm not saying you have to (I don't), but I'm saying that part of the fun is doing so.

And there are parts of that message that can be beneficial for humans. Sure, there's better formulations of ethical behavior than the Golden Rule, but I'd argue that the Golden Rule is generally a great idea. Yes, the New Testament writers often approach the end of the world and the destruction of the wicked with an uncomfortable excitement, but they also do preach about the need for tolerance, love, and respect within the community. It's not perfect (it'd certainly be better if it were more about love for everyone more often than it was about love for other Christians), but it's still good.

And that's one of the reasons I teach the class right now. The LDS Church can be very harmful in how it approaches its own doctrines. The idea of eternal families can often be used as a hammer to beat people into submission with the threat of losing their eternal family. The debate between James and Paul about “works” is often turned into a discussion about “ordinances” by Mormons, with the assumption that the Christian New Testament is somehow clear and obvious about the necessity of things like baptism or the Temple rituals (hint: it's anything but). These approaches, and other like them, to the Christian Bible can produce horrible results in some people: guilt, anxiety, perfectionism, depression, and worse. Adults and youth within the LDS Church are often sold a false bill of goods when they're told that the New Testament presents a unified voice on LDS doctrines that is always in agreement with modern prophets. And then, when they believe that the New Testament is “Mormon” in its outlook, they simply help perpetuate that view for others.

But the New Testament is not clean, and it is not Mormon. In some ways, it's almost against Mormon ideas: Paul clearly believes in the importance of grace (hopefully more on that later in a few weeks when I finally get to cover Romans in class and can report on it—-if there's one thing that keeps me going, it's the idea of talking about the genuine and pseudipigraphal epistles of Paul), the apocalyptic focus on the coming-right-now-better-be-ready End of the World means that it's remarkably anti-family, and the idea of the gifts of the spirit being tempered by a need for authority is held by only a very small part of the New Testament.

Within these differences, though, lies the solution to many of the cultural problems created by current Mormon thought, I believe. Within the chaos of so many different ideas lies the opportunity to present an alternative interpretation that is just a valid as the traditional Mormon one. There's enough to focus on within the book that presents a narrative against guilt, against anxiety, and against bigotry. You can show people a New Testament that is kind, soft, and loving; you can show the importance of inclusion, of equality, and of respect for others. You can show the importance of questioning, and you can show the importance of rejecting blind faith.

Is it really what the New Testament preaches? Debatable, but it's at least as valid as the Mormon view, but with an end result that is healthier. Instead of view the New Testament as a secret book that only Mormons truly understand and that supports all aspects of Mormon culture and doctrine good and bad, we can approach the New Testament as a piece from history that needs to be engaged with and that presents things both familiar and foreign that don't always line up exactly with what we were raised to believe.

For instance, I tried to emphasize last week that the entire community was presented as selecting the Seven (Acts 6...), that the Apostles were not administrators but were missionaries and that they wanted nothing to do with running the Church. I emphasized that what is arguably the first Gentile convert to the Church (the Ethiopian eunuch of Acts 8...) was a man who was part of a marginalized sexual class in both Jewish culture and religion. Because of the sexual class he occupied he was not allowed to participate fully in Jewish rituals (he could never be a priest in the Temple) and was viewed as not being a complete man in typical Jewish culture. (I figured it was enough of a comparison to not have to ask the kids, “Can you think of any social sexual classes in the LDS Church who occupy a similar role? What do you think you could learn from this story in Acts?”) I've been very vocal before about pointing out the presence of women in the narratives we've been reading and about their full participation in the stories we read. Hopefully it's enough to at least get them thinking about those areas where the LDS Church simply doesn't measure up when it comes to issues dealing with women and homosexuals.

I should probably stop there because I could easily keep going, but that, for me, is why I think it's still beneficial both for me to teach this Sunday School class as well as for an agnostic theist such as myself to continue to appreciate this first-century collection.

#Mormon #SundaySchool #AcademicBiblical

Again, the standard explanation: I'm not really writing these posts to be read, but more because I want to just talk. Thanks for listening; I'll try to fix the more egregious spelling/grammatical mistakes, but in the end I'm not too concerned.)

So one question I have had from people who both know of my lack of belief in the LDS Church and my calling as a Sunday School teacher has been, “Don't you feel like you're being misleading?”

Yes, I do. All the time. But for different reasons for different people. My students think that I'm a good Mormon, but at least they know that I value scholarship beyond stupid LDS sources because of what I try to bring up each week and because of my blatant ecumenical approach. My team teachers think that I'm supportive of the Church because I usually avoid the few difficult topics that they know about. Only one exception comes to mind:

Once a student in our class who enjoys reading obscure Mormon stuff (seriously, he brings up the Journal of Discourses about one a month!) mentioned an odd doctrine (I can't remember what it was, but I think it was about every human planet having its own savior) and thought the source was Brigham Young. I wasn't teaching, and my team teacher was a little flustered by the idea of Brigham teaching something like that. Trying to help, I tried to laugh it off with “Oh you know, Brother Brigham taught a lot of odd things about the nature of God and there's quite a few of those that the Church simply doesn't believe nowadays; you're free to disagree with Brigham if you want to.”

She got an angry look on her face and said simply, “No, people just wrote down what he was saying incorrectly.” I couldn't really say anything else after that without starting something that I couldn't control and I wasn't sure what lay down that road, so I just let her stick with that line of apology. However, I have a lot of difficultly controlling my face, so I'm sure my discomfort with such an idea was pretty apparent. Though it's a common apology about Brigham's Adam-God doctrine, it's simply not true. He taught it often, not just one time where his remarks were incorrectly transcribed. He even included it in the Temple drama, for Pete's sake!

But, getting back to the topic of me teaching difficult topics, there's one person that I really felt needed to know what I felt, and that was the Bishop. I didn't know what would happen during the year (still don't), and I knew it was a real possibility that something might happen (political event, apologetic crap in Elder's Quorum, conference talk, etc.) that would expose my beliefs more publicly than they are now known. When/If that happened, I wanted to have my ass covered if anyone thought that I had snuck in like a wolf in sheep's clothing to tear apart the youthful sheep of the ward. (Which, if you've been reading, wasn't my intention at all and is not how I approach the class. I know plenty of other Exmormons who are more than a little annoyed that I don't take such an approach.)

Actually, when I was first called, as I said previously, I told the counselor who called me that I wasn't sure I could do the job the ward/stake/Church wanted due to the (unspecified) doubts I had. He told me to just teach around the thorny issues and if I didn't believe it, to not teach it. He said that he had doubts