The Solution to All Your Prime-Time Television Problems (TM)

I thought I would do something completely different for a change. I'm a little burned out and disappointed with politics right now and most of my thinking and writing on Mormon issues goes into my own Sunday School teaching right now. So this will be something a little lighter, but, sad as it may be, still in the front of my mind.

I watch more TV than I can be proud of. It seems as if I have at least one hour-long show I watch every night of the week, except on Sunday, and most nights it is more like two or three. Of course, the advent of the DVR has made it both easier and harder to deal with this level of viewership. I am not required to schedule my life around my favorite shows and can theoretically watch an hour-long show in 40 minutes (or a half-hour show in 20, unless they are on BBC America or PBS), which makes a difference when you are watching two or three shows a night. However, those same advantages make it possible to watch two or three shows a night and still feel like there is time left over to do something else.

Even though I really do love some of these shows, from time to time I find myself wishing that they would come to some conclusion or simply be cancelled, especially those that are going on into their fifth or sixth season or beyond. Plus, I have the frustration that most of us have shared of having a really beloved program cancelled prematurely, while there was still plenty of good storytelling to be done (see Kings or Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles). How do we correct this imbalance and frankly, cosmic injustice? I present to you The Solution to All Your Prime-Time Television Problems (TM)*

1. No reality TV. None. This needs absolutely no explanation.

2. All new shows will be limited to four seasons. This is the linchpin of my plan. Some shows just overstay their welcome (e.g. ER, which kids were watching when I was in high school. I am now almost 30). Putting a cap on the number of seasons focuses the writers and producers on storytelling. Beginning. Middle. End. Not Beginning...Middle...Middle...Middle...uh oh we just got canceled. (e.g. Heroes). What show could not put together a complete, complex story arc within four seasons of 18-24 episodes a piece? I could probably film all the good parts of the Bible (OT and NT) in 96 hour-long episodes. That ends up being the length of about 48 feature films or almost more than you could watch if you watched one two-hour movie every week for a year. You think Lost really needed more than four seasons to tell its whole story? Three words: Nikki and Paolo. Case closed. I cannot think of a single show that has improved in its fifth, sixth, etc. season over what it was doing in its first or second. The fifth or sixth season is also prime time for the original regular (and beloved) characters to start jumping ship for the movies, another show, etc. After that, its all downhill. (e.g. X-files)

2a. All currently running shows will be grandfathered in by allowing them two seasons beyond their current one (if necessary). In my recent experience, early notification of cancellation has saved at least two shows-- Lost and Battlestar Galactica, with a possible third being Alias. Anyone who watched these shows can tell you that in the late second and third season, these shows really started to wander. They had lost their original trajectory or raison d'etre. And everybody knew it. When the producers of Lost announced that they would wrap the show up in two more seasons, the quality of the late fourth season immediately picked up. Same with BSG. The show had started to wander from the goal (Earth). While still executing science fiction on a high level, watching began to tax one's patience. The final season brought the show home (literally and figuratively), with the possible exception of that mess of an ending. Bottom line: if Lost can gather its many scattered threads in two seasons, anybody can.

2b. (Almost) all shows will be guaranteed two seasons. Four seasons is plenty to tell a great story. But some stories do not deserve to be told. Nevertheless, everybody has their favorites, even if the ratings don't justify keeping a show on for another two years. Two seasons will not be enough to satisfy some folks, but letting producers know that two seasons is their initial threshold will drive them to build and orient the story towards a possible initial deadline.

2c. The first sentence of 2b says "almost," because television executives will be allowed to cancel some truly abominable shows after one complete season. These opportunities are limited. A network gets three each season (one for every two nights of prime-time programming). A network also gets one chance to pull the plug on a show that just does not work at all before the initial season is even up.

2d. Under the above system, renewal for a second season is considered automatic as a default option until a network plays one of its four possible cancellation cards. Once a show is renewed during the second season, it can either be renewed for one or two additional seasons. The choice between one or two additional seasons is locked-in and irrevocable once made. All renewal decisions must be made before the midpoint of the season, allowing those shows that are not being picked up for any additional seasons to bring their story to a proper close. Some may think that this system will lead all executives to go for the one-season renewal every time, just to avoid the risk. This would be true, except....

2e. Like athletes, shows that are offered one season at their "home" network may opt to take a contract with another network for two seasons. As a concession, the home network can insist on the show skipping one season (coming back to that later) and not erring on its new network until the subsequent season.

What does this mean for the decision-making of a TV exec and the viewing possibilities of your average TV consumer? Knowing that the network will be locked in with almost every show (with the possible exception of four) for two seasons, judgment and decision-making will be front-loaded. Producers and writers will have to offer more up-front for networks to take a chance on their shows. Ultimately, because of costs, this means that less pilots will be produced and less shows will be given that chance to air for the first time each season, thereby decreasing the choices available to consumers. However, in the long run, this will likely mean that more shows will get the chance to air, since shows that are camping on prime timeslots for six or seven years will be cleared off the schedule promptly.

3. The year will be divided into three TV seasons: fall (beginning in August), spring (beginning in January), and summer (beginning in May/June). Shows on the major networks will either be fall or spring shows, but cannot air during both. Shows that transfer from one network to another may switch seasons, thus if a show transfers from ABC to NBC but ABC keeps it off the air for one season (fall), it may begin airing in either the spring season or the following fall season. Summer is reserved for shows on basic cable (we'll call it the Mad Men or My Boys season), vacations without your DVR, catching up on your backlog of reading, and going to the movies. Basic cable shows can also air during the fall or spring seasons. The institution of two separate and independent television seasons also adds to the total number of possible shows that can be aired by each network, also increasing viewer choice.

3a. Shows will air weekly (or more often) and consecutively. There will be no skipping weeks except for major sporting events (Olympics, World Series, March Madness) and major political happenings (SOTU, Election Night, etc.).

4. For those of you doing the math at home, you are probably thinking, "if a show has to start in August and end by the beginning of January, (or start in January and end sometime in May or June), how will you fit a 24-episode season into only 20 weeks or less?" Answer- you won't. Television seasons should shorter. A season of 24 (which is one of my favorites) feels interminable at this point. Furthermore, it only contains about 12-16 good episodes. Anyone who doubts me should go back and watch season 1, where Jack's wife Terri loses her memory and wanders around for three or four episodes. The rest is just filler. Part of what makes TV seasons seem so long is that airing 20-24 episodes, along with skipping five or six weeks (or more) along the way, means that shows last over half the year. That is a pretty heavy demand on a thread of your attention for a medium that is not known for inducing improvements in attention spans. I cannot sustain my attention on a book that I am reading in bits and pieces for longer than a month. So TV seasons will be anywhere between 16-18 episodes, which builds in some flexibility for starting later than August 1st, or for the aforementioned major sporting events.

5. Now for those of you who can still do math after my fourth point, you might be thinking "I thought he promised us 96 hours in four seasons? Now it sounds more like 72 hours, which is about three seasons worth of episodes." You got me. That was a dishonest "hook" to get you to read the rest of the post. Welcome to television.

_________________________________________

* Before someone brings this up in the very first comment, I want to point out that I am well aware that creative issues are not the only, nor even the chief driver of what gets put on television. Advertising and network politics (hi, Jay Leno, didn't see you standing there) are more powerful influences. I openly admit that my scheme is a pipe dream and could never possibly be adopted. But tell me I'm wrong.

Thoughts on the proposed "Mormon Review"

Sunday night, my wife (who has collaborated with Richard Bushman on the Faith & Knowledge conference for the past three years) received the following (a shorter version of which is posted here at T&S):

Out of the Best Books: Introducing the Mormon Review

By Richard Lyman Bushman

The scripture that begins “and as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom, yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom” may have been Joseph Smith’s favorite. He quoted it twice in the Kirtland Temple dedicatory prayer, and made the study of the best books the chief work of his School of the Prophets at Kirtland. Since his time, the scripture has been a favorite of all who appreciate the wide compass of Joseph Smith’s search for truth. It is inscribed in steel letters in the stairwell of the Harold B. Lee Library at BYU.

We launch the Mormon Review, an online journal of cultural criticism, in the spirit of seeking wisdom out of the best books. We ask: What is the meaning of this signal scripture in our time? How do we seek wisdom out of books today? We invite all who are engaged with Mormon culture to join this inquiry.

The task, as we conceive it, is to pursue the meaning for Mormons of the millions of items that constitute our larger cultural world. What are we to make of the books, movies, art, music, politics, and exhibitions swirling about in our environment? Contributors are invited to examine films, plays, art of any kind, TV shows, children’s books, philosophical treatises, novels, histories, documentaries, scriptures from other traditions, political speeches, poetry, popular songs, video games, entertainment sites like Disneyland--any cultural artifact that awakens their Mormon sensibilities. The only restriction is that these items must not be Mormon. Books by Mormons and about Mormons are reviewed in other journals. The Mormon Review will look outward. We believe the spirit of the best books scripture is to search outside of Mormonism for wisdom.

The phrase “best books” implies discrimination, and we know that even the classics must be read critically. They should not be naively accepted as gospel. We must be prepared to contest the thought of even the most honored writers and artists. The Mormon Review offers a public forum where Mormons can teach one another by exercising their critical powers on significant works

But criticism implies appreciation as well as attack. The “best books” scripture assures us that the best books contain wisdom. Working in that spirit, the characteristic Mormon perspective may more often be positive than negative. Are we not enjoined to seek after things virtuous, lovely, and of good report?

The wisdom Mormons find in their reading is most commonly a literary version of their own beliefs. We like to discover the familiar in unfamiliar places. We laugh at ourselves for wanting to baptize every great writer as a Mormon. But this practice need not embarrass us. Mormon criticism attempts to absorb the larger world, piece by piece, into Mormon culture. One way to make a text our own is to recognize the familiar in the unfamiliar. In hearing echoes of our own belief in great texts, we inevitably deepen our understanding and widen the scope of our faith.

We do not envision a single line of Mormon cultural criticism emerging from this undertaking. We expect each response to be individual and idiosyncratic. In our view, Mormon criticism will be the sum of many variegated parts. When accumulated and deposited, however, the essays submitted to the Mormon Review will form, we believe, an invaluable archive of twenty-first-century Mormons grappling with their world.

Essays of any length (optimally four or five pages) should be submitted through the review’s website. Reviews will be accepted beginning August 1 for the launch of the journal on September 1, 2009. The editorial board will judge essays on their relevance to Mormon culture, clarity of expression, and general interest.

I think that this is a tremendously worthwhile project, though I have some questions about how it will be executed. There are other fora where Mormons review non-Mormon cultural items (Meridian Magazine and Deseret News come to mind). Unfortunately, such reviews generally offer little more than a generic prude's point of view. They could have been written by any concerned conservative Christian author or just be a press release from Dr. James Dobson. In short, there is nothing particularly "Mormon" about the review itself, aside from its author.

This is the hurdle that the Mormon Review must overcome if it will distinguish itself as a more thoughtful version of the vanilla Mormon reviews described above. I have heard (or read) Bushman speak (or write) about his opinion that Mormonism has not yet proven to the world what non-theological contribution it has to make to humanity. The Mormon Review can be an important part of finding this community's special "something" or at least exploring whether Mormonism has anything non-theological to offer humanity. It seems that Bushman and the Mormon Review's editorial board have already recognized that there is not one strand of thinking that will be a Mormon viewpoint. Perhaps that by evaluating cultural productions based on Mormon principles and values, the participants may begin to nail down what exactly those principles are, and those that are relevant to cultural production (aside, that is, from the aforementioned generic prudishness). This is important to recognize, but will require a level of erudition and nuance that has previously been missing from Mormon efforts to engage a larger culture.

From the WMoL Archives- The Vatican vs. Temple Square

Given this morning's announcement of a new temple in Rome, Italy, I thought it might be appropriate to republish one of my first posts, now updated.

My wife and I took a week-long trip to Rome this past October.  My wife had spent a couple of months in Rome several years ago as a student, and had been dying to go back (with me) ever since.  It was also one of our last chances to take a big European vacation before the birth of our first child.  Like any tourist in Rome, we had to make a stop at the Vatican.

If I had to guess, I would think that many Mormons feel a certain kind of secret and shameful envy of the Catholic Church (which they would never admit to, of course) due to its size, wealth, and power.  Not too mention competition, especially for any missionary who served in heavily Catholic countries.  I don't think that is necessarily an admirable character trait, but just putting that out there.  Being a Mormon visiting the Vatican, you cannot help but reflect on Temple Square in Salt Lake City. Both are the physical and hierarchical centers of their respective faiths, and high-volume tourist spots to boot.  Plus, with this new development of a temple in Rome, you cannot ignore the tension and metaphor of plopping the perfect symbol of Mormonism right down into the heart of Roman Catholicism.

Here are some of my impressions about how they compare.

Temple Square is best described as an experience rather than simply a sight.  Everything about it is clearly aimed at impressing the visitor. From the sister missionaries in every conceivable language, to the visitor's centers, the carefully manicured landscaping, and everything around it, it is also a highly-managed experience (or at least we want it to be so).  Temple Square is beautiful, magically so, at almost any time of year (I am sure they have quite the budget for gardening).  For many of us, it is chiefly significant because of memories we have of it (first visits, weddings, etc.) and images that we see during General Conference. While one is aware that President Monson and other General Authorities occupy the huge office tower on Temple Square, your chances of bumping into them, or making an appointment to see them, are slim to none. If Temple Square is meant to send a message, the message is: this must be true because this is pretty and it makes you feel good.

The Vatican is also impressive, but more than this, it is overwhelming. This is the rhetoric and symbology of power, writ large. Everything is on a huge scale at the Vatican- the churches, the columns, the statues, etc. The sheer amount of art housed in St. Peter's and in the Vatican Museums is almost absurd. The art is beautiful, and the result of centuries of men's attempts to put God's (and the Church's) glory into some kind of visual representation. It is enough to make one feel small beside it (most likely an intentional effect). Famous pieces of art, like Rodin's Thinker (the original), are shoved off into some obscure corner where you would never notice unless you proceeded through very deliberately. Without the aid of sister missionaries (I don't think the Swiss Guard counts), most people will see the Vatican without the aid of a tour guide. Instead, you are left to yourself in awe of the riches and influence of the Roman Catholic Church. The experience is almost tiring. If the Vatican is meant to send a message, the message is: this must be true because how else would we get all this stuff?

Temple Square, while beautiful, is anything but overwhelming. I remember on my first visit there, how disappointed I was in the size of the SLC Temple. I guess it always just looked bigger on TV. The Conference Center, while much larger, is far too functional to be great art. Even the Church Office Building, while large, is only comparatively large with other huge skyscrapers in downtown SLC (like the Wells Fargo Building). And it is hardly an architectural masterpiece. On the other hand, St. Peter's is, by law, the largest and tallest building in all of Rome. The visitor's centers and Church Museum house no art by anyone instantly recognizable as being from one of the great masters, like the Vatican's Rafael and Michelangelo.

For my part, I choose the beauty and simplicity of Temple Square. It avoids the oppressive and overbearing nature of the Vatican, as well as the unfortunate times when Catholic art and architecture slips into the realm of the gaudy and morbid (there aren't any bones or relics on Temple Square that I am aware of).  While the Vatican is all stone and cold, Temple Square exudes a much more human warmth.

As the Church sets about to build a temple in the Eternal City, tons of questions come to mind.  The ones that intrigue me here are questions of its design.  Will this be a small temple or a large temple?  Will the Church attempt to imitate an older style of architecture or will it look more or less the same as all of the other temples we currently build?  I think to build another cookie cutter temple in Rome would be to miss out on a great opportunity.  Plus, I cannot think of another city where we currently have a temple where such a high value is placed on art and the aesthetic, not to mention really really old things.  A gleaming white brand new temple would just look out of place.  And finally, will the Church put the same old 10 or 20 pictures in the Rome Temple that we use in every temple?  I mean, the temple is never intended to serve as a museum for the patrons, and we only let visitors in once, but our art compares so poorly with the masters of Europe that I think it would be another missed opportunity to stick with the traditional and safe.

I, for one, will be following the developments surrounding the building of the Rome Italy temple with great interest and cannot wait to take my family back to Rome at a time when we can fit in a trip to a new "Temple Square" along with the standard sightseeing.
 

Humble About Our Certainties

NOTE: This post is NOT about gay marriage.

We are a very certain people.  To tweak the old saying, among Mormons you could cut the certainty with a knife.  After all, we are the folks that infamously exalt "I know" over "I believe."  Or, as my friend Brigham would say, Mormons like certainty.

But is all of our certainty healthy or justified?  In Isaiah, we read, "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord."  Naturally, we are so certain that this scripture applies perfectly to others, but never to ourselves.  "That's the way the world thinks, but in the Church we know better." or "Bro. So-and-So believes that the Gospel requires us to do X, but I know that what the Lord really wants is Y."  Any of this sound familiar?  Sadly, these kinds of statements reveal very little about God, but incredible amounts about our own character, as I illustrate below...

I believe that I am a good and rational being, doing the best I can according to the light I have been given (which, I am certain, is more light than anyone else has).  If I did not sincerely believe that, I would change my thoughts and behavior, right?  Believing that God too must be good and rational (like me) and furthermore possessing all light and knowledge, he must act, feel, and think the same way that I do.  In the end though, this logical move constructs God in my own image rather than mandating that I conform to his.  In spite of my own certainty, the belief in our own individual goodness and rationality has lead members of the Church (among all others) to behave and think in different ways and to build gods to our own taste and specifications.  Living as a Mormon in a predominantly Protestant nation and region, as well as observing and participating in discussions in the Bloggernacle, are ample evidence of that proposition.

Another illustration: Joseph Smith said, "Our heavenly Father is more liberal in His views, and boundless in His mercies and blessings, than we are ready to believe or receive; and at the same time more terrible to the workers of iniquity, more awful in the executions of His punishments, and more ready to detect in every false way, than we are apt to suppose Him to be..."  Some folks (like me) grasp quickly onto the first half of this statement, embracing God's "liberality" (ignoring that this word would have lacked its modern political connotation for him) and open-mindedness as models for our own behavior.  Others (like so many of the anonymous commenters who have recently graced this blog with their presence) would likely latch onto the second half of the statement, emphasizing God's justice (always inflicted on others) and impeccable morality (which would of course conform to their own morality).  My point here is not to point fingers at any one group or way of thinking.  Blame for such hypocrisy is to be spread widely here.  Which part of the quote we prefer, as well as the types of scriptures that we prefer (from the title of this blog, my own preference is clear), ultimately tells us who we are and where we stand but does not further illuminate the nature of God.

I suspect that at some future day, when we "know as we are known," we will see that the true God is quite different than the small gods we have built for ourselves.  That goes for all of us.  I suspect that what He will reveal at that time will show us that His thinking and His plans have always been a mystery to us, seen only through a glass darkly.  And I suspect that He will care about quite a few things that we have forgotten, and likewise not give a fig for many of our most cherished certainties.  Should we not then be humble in our contemporary assertions of God's thoughts and our determination that we do know His mind and will?

On Leaving One's Church in Protest - some context

As many of you might have heard or read, a couple of weeks back, presidential candidate Barack Obama resigned his membership in Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Some have criticized the candidate's move as either too long overdue or too politically expedient to be sincere. I think that this type of move is ripe for misunderstanding by Mormons (who I acknowledge are not likely to vote for Obama in the first place, but this won't be my first time tilting at windmills), so I will try to add some context. These observations come from lots of places, most notably my own upbringing as a Protestant, in an area where most of the churches and churchgoing folks were Protestant (few Catholics and Mormons, zero Jews or Muslims, etc.), and in a family that has experienced more than one church-swap.

From time to time in the Bloggernacle or in personal encounters with others, one is likely to encounter someone who has left the Church for "political" or religious reasons. I am not talking about those who claim to have “discovered” that the Book of Mormon isn’t authentic or who believe that Joseph Smith was a total fraud, and therefore leave the Church. Rather, I am talking about those who learn about the injustices of the priesthood ban, or will take exception to the treatment of some group within the Church (gays, women, singles, etc.), and subsequently decide to leave the Church in protest. In the minds of many, the kind of person who leaves their church over some controversy or misunderstanding is one of "those people"-- apostates, infidels, etc.

First, the context. Mormons consider their Church to be TOTAL- The Only True And Living (no I did not make that up). Few Protestant Christians that I know would claim the same for their own congregations or denominations. Most Protestants identify primarily as Christians and only later, if at all, as members of a particular denomination. They recognize members of other Protestant denominations as fellow Christians and as members of some common thing they call "the Church," the boundaries of which are never quite explained or brought up in polite conversation. For most, this obviously excludes Mormons and for some, Catholics as well. But overall, it casts a pretty wide net. Choosing a denomination or a church within a denomination (which can often vary as much as churches in different denominations) is a matter of personal preferences for style of music and preaching, personnel, and the demographics of the congregation. For this reason, changing congregations or denominations, which frequently requires little more effort than sending a letter to the congregation's secretary, is completely acceptable to your average Protestant. The difference between most of these denominations (particularly in the South, which has its own religious culture completely apart from any denomination) is like the difference between vanilla, French vanilla, and maybe some chocolate/vanilla swirl- after all, it's still vanilla.

Mormons frequently sneer when it is suggested that a Protestant would change churches or denominations simply because "they (don't) like the preacher there." After all, isn't that what Barack Obama did? Nevertheless, people within my own family, good Christians all, have changed churches for reasons far more mundane than this. In my own childhood, my parents left the first church I ever attended (a Southern Baptist congregation) to take our family to the local Methodist church, simply because they had a better youth program (ward-shopping anyone?). My grandparents recently left their Baptist church because of serious problems with their preacher (too dictatorial). My uncle and aunt also left their congregation over some undisclosed conflict with something going on at the church (which certainly did not rise to the level of anything doctrinal). In all of the moves I have seen, the split is reasonably amicable- people will still call you, talk to you when you run into one another at the grocery store, have dinner with you, etc. In other words, it's NOT a big deal!

I hope that this will explain Senator Obama's move, at least a little bit. For most of my Mormon audience, I imagine that abandoning one's church, especially one to which one claims to have such a strong emotional bond and history, seems to be a drastic and shocking move. However, for the average American Protestant, switching congregations is completely ordinary, and something that he/she may do several times during their life.

Next, a defense of the sanctity of conscience...

Content analysis of a Deseret Book catalog

Finally! It has been a long month+ indeed but I am back. Since my last post, I have been swamped with exams, graduation, vacations, and the beginning of bar review, with nary a moment for blogging. But I have a much lighter schedule now, and should find time for more regular posts.

After that aside, I would prefer to jump right into the meat of the post. Of course, it turns out that the intro to the post really is the meat so here goes...

I've been meaning to write this post for about six months now. I wanted to analyze your typical Deseret Book catalog, which I receive approximately every month or so, to see what was in it, how the items were placed relative to one another, and in what proportion. I kept putting it off because I would get the Christmas issue and say, "well the Christmas issue is going to have a little more kitsch than a normal catalog, so it would hardly be fair to judge them on that basis." Then you get a Conference edition, and then its Mother's Day, and it would really be unfair to judge a company on the basis of what is essentially the catalog version of the sappiest Hallmark card ever. Hence my delay.

Earlier this week, the summer issue of the catalog arrived in my mailbox. By this point, my patience is nearly exhausted and so I forge ahead. In the final analysis, what I was missing all along is that Deseret Book does not just put out bad holiday catalogs....they are ALL terrible! Like raze it to the ground and let's start from scratch terrible.

The title and first page of the summer catalog feature a new book by everyone's favorite motivate-a-Mormon, John Bytheway. His most recent book carries the unfortunate title Golf: Lessons I Learned While Looking for My Ball. My wife finds this funny, since it tends to bring to mind musings by Brother Bytheway on his testicular integrity. Pages 3 through 11 run the gamut from really bad Mormon historical fiction through really bad Mormon adult fiction all the way to really bad Mormon youth fiction. On pages 12 and 13, we stumble upon the first items that might endanger us with actually learning something- a book on pornography (in the shape of an iPhone no less- now you've reminded me that I can get porn on one of those, I really have learned something!) and an audiobook on Mormon perspectives on C.S. Lewis. If I am not mistaken, catalogs ought to lead with something that a well-adjusted intelligent person with disposable income might actually want to purchase, kind of like that "hook" that sucks you into the latest novel, but here Deseret Book makes us wait until we are nearly halfway through the catalog. Not good business, people, not good business. It might be time to call Sheri Dew back into the Relief Society presidency as a third counselor.

Next we find a solid six pages of videos and music, more or less LDS-related. I don't listen to Mormon music (other than a little Mo'Tab on Sundays) or watch Mormon movies, so I can hardly have an informed opinion. However, I do hang out with Mormons in and out of Utah all the time, and I have never even seen one of these CDs, much less heard them (except of course Mo'Tab) so I don't think that Jenny Phillps qualifies as either a "highly requested recording artist" or worthy of a greatest hits album. And if you think you need six CDs to contain all of Michael McLean's best songs, let's talk another time.

On the next two pages, we find that from last month's Mother's Day issue, almost entirely female-oriented, Deseret Book is going to remind women of their place this summer. You get two pages full of motivational material, but don't worry, nothing that might require you to open your scriptures. It's nearly June, so its the men's turn, right? Father's Day, as in your average ward sacrament meeting, is a small footnote in this catalog, relegated to page 26. The contrast with the previous women's material could hardly be greater. The men's pages are dominated by historical and biographical literature (but not of the fictional kind), featuring LDS heroes such as Brigham Young, Hugh Nibley, and Henry Eyring, and other notable figures such as US Presidents, the Founding Fathers, soldiers and pilots. None of that sissy namby-pamby emotionalism for the Priest....oh wait, never mind. See page 28. The Holy Secret by James L. Ferrell. Is that like Oprah's The Secret? And more importantly for Mormons, will it make me rich like Oprah's The Secret? Finally, no good catalog for Father's Day would be complete without a half page of the one gift that every dad already knows that he doesn't want -- TIES, especially the ones that are good to wear to the office or the courtroom, like ties with Captain Moroni and the Stripling Warriors.

I wish I could say that this was a particularly poor example of Deseret Book's offering, but in the end it may be the least pathetic catalog in recent memory. Even so, if you are looking for something edifying or thoughtful, with the exception of a small speed bump on pages 12 and 13, do not pass GO and do not collect the latest Mo'Tab CD, go straight to the Father's Day pages, four of the LAST SIX PAGES in the catalog. Everything you need from Deseret Book in four pages in a 30+ page catalog. Unfortunately, while I scan the horizon for someone to blame, I realize that it's US and no one else. The old law of supply and demand, biting us in our rears at the gas pump and at Deseret Book. And so in the immortal words of the late Jerry Falwell, I say: "I point the thing in [the Mormons'] face and say you helped this happen."

Women Kan't stay home

Will feminists in the Church begin counting time in terms of AJBT (After Julie Beck's Talk)? In commemoration of the first General Conference after the now- infamous "Mothers Who Know", I offer the following:

I will admit that I am no expert on Kantian moral philosophy. Somebody out there in the Bloggernacle is bound to have done some serious graduate-level studies on his philosophy. If so, feel free to help out here (that goes for all the rest of you too). However, I think I probably read Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals no less than a half-dozen times during my undergraduate years. So I hope I learned something...

It seems to me that the Church's counsel that women (and particularly mothers) should remain in the home is grounded primarily in a utilitarian ethic. Utilitarianism (a branch of consequentialist ethics), in short, views the moral quality of an act based on the consequences of that act. Women are asked to stay home because the consequences of that act, the better rearing of children and a higher quality family and home life. On the other hand, it might also be grounded in a theory of virtue ethics, which would view the decision to stay home as evidence of a desirable character trait, such as selflessness or charity. (I am not sure that a virtue ethicist would see obedience qua obedience as a virtue.)

But what about a deontological theory, one based on duty? Can a rule of "women should remain in the home" be grounded in deontological moral philosophy? Probably the most famous of the deontological theories is Kant's categorical imperative. In its first formulation, Kant said "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." Can we will that our notion that women ought to stay home be universalized? As a practical matter, I am not sure that the removal of all women from the market economy is even possible. Furthermore, I don't think that such a thing would be desirable. Many women (perhaps most women) make valuable and essential contributions in their workplaces, including such formative areas as medicine and education. Also, are we sure that all women would make more valuable contributions in the home? From personal experience, I doubt that very seriously. On the other hand, I think that the opposite rule, that "all women should work outside the home", fails the first test of the categorical imperative as well.

The second formulation of the categorical imperative is as follows: "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end." This is diametrically opposed to a consequentialist ethic, and, as I noted above, I think that is the primary ground in moral philosophy for the Church's counsel. It would be difficult to see how asking women to remain in the home in order to improve the quality of their family's home life and to raise children does not treat them as means to those ends. However, the second formulation says that we should not treat others "merely as a means to an end." Is there some way in which asking women to remain in the home treats them as an end-in-themselves? For some women, perhaps this is true. But for many, such as those who overtly objected to elements of Pres. Beck's last Conference talk, they do not feel as though they are being taking seriously as individuals apart from their families and children (this was my primary interpretation of the backlash to that speech in my earlier post on that subject). Again, another rule that demands that all women enter the workforce, presumably in order to increase the GDP or to push the cause of feminism forward, would just as easily fail this rule.

The third formulation is "Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends." This third formulation seems to simply run both the first and second together. We must ask whether we can will a rule that will treat all those under that rule as ends in themselves. I won't analyze this separately, since the rule already failed both of the first two rules.

Where does this leave us? As you might have guess, Kantian moral philosophy is all about how you define and delimit the rule. While we might more readily accept a rule that some women or my wife/sister/daughter/etc. ought to stay home, Kantian philosophy would reject them all, since they must in the end be universalized. What Kantian ethics might support is a rule that allows individual women and their families to choose their own situation. Leaving women an open choice as to their situation is a rule which can (and in my opinion ought to be) universalized (it is essentially the rule that operates outside the Church), and furthermore it treats women as ends in themselves (though whether it treats their children as means only is an open question in my mind).

I want to know people's thoughts, especially those who might have a little more background in moral philosophy who can help me work out the kinks in this admittedly under-developed and cursorily-described hypothesis (or if necessary, shoot it down altogether).

Future apostleship speculation

You will recall that, immediately behind a Hispanic, Marlin K. Jensen was my second choice for the new Apostle that will be called into the Quorum as of the April General Conference. Obviously, anything we hear or say prior to then that does not come from the First Presidency can be taken as speculation and rumor. But thinking back to this past September, when the Church sent a high-ranking member of the leadership to the memorial service at Mountain Meadows, they sent then-Elder, now Pres. Eyring. Less than a month later, he would be called into the First Presidency, though none of us knew it at the time. Is this a generally reliable tool for ascertaining the identity of the newest Apostle? If so, see these stories to see who the First Presidency is sending out to do their bidding now. Elder Jensen already carries the title Church Historian, but this particular function seems to be entirely unrelated to that role. Is this a result of the fact that Elder Jensen is a well-known Democrat among the Seventy? I doubt it, because the Church is so famously neutral on partisan issues, and this would seem out of line with that stance.

My picks - First Presidency reorg (February 2008)

Before the official announcement, I wanted to announce my predictions for what we'll see at 11am MST, 1pm EST today.

First Presidency:

Pres. Thomas S. Monson (duh)
1st Counselor- Dallin H. Oaks or M. Russell Ballard
2nd Counselor- Henry B. Eyring

I think that President Eyring will stay as 2nd Counselor simply because he will likely be junior in the apostleship to anyone who could be named except for Elders Uchtdort, Bednar, or Cook. Also, he has not really been in the First Presidency so long to earn any seniority there.

New Apostle:

1st choice- a Latino (Walter Gonzalez of the Presidency of the Seventy would have been my pick, but then I found out he worked for CES...)
2nd choice- Marlin Jensen (Democrat, a white male but practically a minority in the Church)
3rd choice- D. Todd Christofferson (Duke Law alum)

Does anyone know if we'll get the announcement of the new apostle today or will that wait until GC in April? If we have to wait, why? So the membership can sustain the new Apostle? Then why is that not necessary for the reorganization of the First Presidency?

To see some more predictions, reached in a more rational and deductive fashion, see here.

Hangin' with the "other" House of Israel

On Friday night, I got the chance to attend a local synagogue for Shabbat services. To give you some background on my visit, the youth from the synagogue visited our ward en masse for Sacrament meeting and stayed for a Q&A session with our youth. Adults who were not directly responsible for the YM/YW programs were not allowed to be in the room, but from the reports I have heard, things went very well. The youth leaders decided that they wanted to reciprocate that interest and thus our visit from last week came about.

I don't want to give a blow-by-blow account of everything that happened, so I'll only mention a couple of the more interesting moments. If you are really interested in witnessing a Jewish worship service, just visit your local synagogue (and if possible, arrange for reciprocal visits for your youth). I found that the rabbi was extremely kind and open to our attendance (he even announced it to the whole congregation), and furthermore stayed after the Shabbat service ended to answer our questions and allowed us a close-up look at the Torah scroll which he removed from the ark again just for our benefit. From my interaction with him, it seems that the rabbi thought that this kind of interfaith dialogue and experience was a vital part of his youth's education in their own faith and key to their correct education. But more on that below...

First, a couple of my own observations about the Shabbat services...

1. When Mormons think about bringing investigators to church, one of the things we naturally worry about is how people will handle our unique Mormon vocabulary (and how it might differ from how the same terms are used in mainstream Christianity). That obstacle is greatly enhanced in the synagogue since nearly the entire service (except for some brief reader responses and the sermon) is conducted in Hebrew. All of the songs and chants are done in Hebrew AND the books you are provided to follow the service have NO MUSICAL NOTES. I assume that the Jews know them by heart, but the rest of us just have to muddle through and follow the tone as best as possible. Imagine our hymn book with no notes and a first-time investigator trying to sing "Come, Come Ye Saints" just following the rest of us.

2. One of more interesting moments in the service was that the rabbi mentioned politics (and the upcoming Super Tuesday primaries) in his announcements and sermon. Now, I am personally in favor of having a wider latitude to speak about political issues (on both sides and from a Gospel-centered perspective) as an official matter in our Church meetings (I think that often the perceived space to speak about such things is smaller than it actually is). Nevertheless, when individual members attempt it, it usually goes poorly, in my opinion, so perhaps the "don't discuss it" rule is best. So when the rabbi immediately mentioned the primaries, the Mormon part of me had a cringe moment. Nevertheless, he was only bringing it up in order to remind those present that they should take a rest from the constant flow of news and rumor on Shabbat to preserve the day of rest as holy. As a news and politics junkie myself, it took a rabbi to remind me how wrapped up I can get in these things, as opposed to some of the other important aspects of my life and spirituality that I routinely ignore. Perhaps more interestingly is that even though the rabbi limited his comments on this occasion, he did not seem to feel utterly constrained to prohibit all talk of politics in his congregation. Furthermore, his sermon was a semi-serious look at a recent humorous book entitled "The Year of Living Biblically: One Man's Humble Quest to Follow the Bible as Literally as Possible". The rabbi spoke light-heartedly about the book's premise, but avoided irreverence, and managed to make important points about the value (and limitations) of ancient scripture and the meaning of following commandments in the modern world. Typically, when members of our own church stray afield of the Standard Works or GC talks (and sometimes even when they don't), the result is sometimes painful and most often not good. I am actually all in favor of allowing a range of materials into our lessons and talks (as opposed to the limitations currently placed on those activities by the correlated manuals themselves) but seeing that we do it so poorly, perhaps it is for the best. I am sure that the rabbi has trained to do what he does and I do not advocate a professional clergy on the local level within our church- on the contrary, the lay nature of our local leadership is one of the things I love about the Church. But a little basic education on how to give a Church talk and how sources (both Church-approved and not) can be used to elucidate Gospel truths is certainly in order.

3. In another part of the service, the rabbi announced birthdays and anniversaries of those in attendance. When I attended the Methodist Church, we had a similar practice in those worship services called "joys and concerns." Any member of the congregation could stand up and mention to the pastor and the rest of the congregation something noteworthy and good that happened to them or a friend or family member, and likewise could notify us of anyone who might benefit from our prayers or some Christian service for some reason. That is a particular element of those worship services that I wish we could incorporate into our own Sacrament meeting. I feel like it would greatly increase my sense of community and family with other members of the ward, and I think it could do the same for all of us.

4. At this same point in the service, the rabbi recognized a young woman who was about to have her Bat Mitzvah (the female equivalent of our Bar Mitzvah). She was asked to take part in the ceremony and her parents were allowed to read a prepared prayer that both commended her to God and told the congregation a great deal about the girl, her parents, and the hopes that her parents have for her future. It made me wonder how much we do to recognize the good things that our own youth, and particularly the YW, are doing. In most cases I have seen, major milestones in a youth's life are marked by nothing more than a cursory recognition of that achievement by the bishop, without any comment by the parent or the youth who just received the recognition as to how this achievement has impacted their lives and/or their testimony of the Gospel. It extends beyond the youth as well. For example, immediately after I left on my mission, the Church imposed stricter guidelines on how missionary farewells could be conducted (and for good reason, in my mind). Girls both did and do have equal access to take advantage of missionary opportunities, but far fewer girls take advantage of it than boys. I realize that this opens up larger questions about the treatment of YW in the Church, but I do not want to get into that here. My only question here is whether we could do better in appreciating and recognizing our youth and their achievements and provide them with further opportunities to grow and be recognized by the wider ward family. This recognition for the Jewish girl in my story was obviously a momentous occasion for her and she would be further recognized in a smaller Bat Mitzvah ceremony the next day. My fear is that in our services, the recognition of a YM or YW's achievement seems to be nothing more than another item on the agenda.

And now for the grand finale...
When I learned that the leaders of the synagogue had approached a member of our stake and wanted to arrange a visit to our meetings for their youth, it was immediately clear to me that the polite and enlightened thing to do would be to offer to visit their services. Too often, members of the Church are all-too-eager to share our knowledge of the Gospel with others, and too reticent to accept the light and truth that others might have to share with us. I think that too many believe that those of other faiths, and in particular non-Christian faiths, have little or nothing to offer us. When I brought the idea of another visit up with the ward leadership, they were initially hesitant, which seemed to confirm my suspicions. But other youth leaders seemed to have had a similar idea, and made sure it was carried out.

I suppose that you could cynically look at this as just another missionary opportunity (or as preparation for our young men who will serve missions), but since the conversion of the rabbi or any of the Jewish youth seems highly unlikely at this point, I think we can look for deeper indications of the value of this kind of interfaith practice. Even with the revealed knowledge we have of the Gospel, it is very important for us to understand and appreciate the beautiful and more ancient rituals of religions like Judaism. I grew up in a small town in the South with no Jews, Catholics, or Muslims, and I feel that my upbringing was diminished because of it. I did not get the opportunity to know any such persons until I went to college. Because of these kinds of interfaith activities, I hope that this generation of youth in the Church will be better able to forge strong bonds of friendship with those of other faiths, not only in my own stake, but throughout the Church. So for those of you who lead auxiliaries, and in particular the YM/YW program, my hope is that you will look for and take advantage of similar opportunities, even if you are the ones that initially have to show interest in visiting the services of another faith tradition.