Seth Payne

I freely admit that the Mormon practice of wearing undergarments with religious meaning is one of the most odd, peculiar and misunderstood aspects of Mormon religious observance.  What is the purpose of these garments?  Do Mormons really believe that wearing the garments will protect them from physical harm?  Are these garments, as so many lazy observers claim, “magic underwear?”

Let me begin by quoting what I have written on this very subject in the past:

Mormon undergarments, or simply garments, are directly related to Mormon temple worship. In the temple, Mormons perform several rituals the most common being what is called the Endowment.

Mormons who receive the Endowment are given the garment, also known as the Garment of the Holy Priesthood, as part of the preparation for the ceremony itself. Thereafter, Mormons are expected to wear the garment as a continual reminder of the covenants they make with God in the Endowment ceremony.

Today’s garments are no different than a standard t-shirt and long boxer shorts. However, they do have symbolic markings which are intended to remind the wearer of their commitments made to God.

Garments are entirely symbolic. A common misconception amongst both Mormons and non-Mormons alike is that the garment provides some sort of supernatural or divine protection from bodily harm. Thus, the garment is often referred to by some as magic underwear. This misconception is a Mormon folk-belief and is NOT part of official Mormon doctrine. A careful study of the Endowment (which I will not offer here) indicates that the garment offers spiritual protection through the wearer’s commitment to spiritual covenants and makes no promise of physical protection. Plenty of Mormons have been injured and killed while wearing their “magic underwear.”

The garment was introduced as part of temple worship by Joseph Smith, Mormonisms’ founder, during the Nauvoo period sometime around 1842-43. Smith was heavily influenced by the Old Testament and often used OT conceptions of priesthood as the basis for the temple worship he introduced.

For example, consider serveral verses from the Book of Exodus. Exodus 40:13-15

13 And thou shalt put upon Aaron the holy garments, and anoint him, and sanctify him; that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office. 14 And thou shalt bring his sons, and clothe them with coats: 15 And thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their father, that they may minister unto me in the priest’s office: for their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations.

Also, Exodus 28:2-3

And thou shalt make holy garments for Aaron thy brother for glory and for beauty. 3 And thou shalt speak unto all that are wise hearted, whom I have filled with the spirit of wisdom, that they may make Aaron’s garments to consecrate him, that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office.

It is possible that Smith was influenced by New Testament texts as well. Consider Revelation 3:4-5

Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy. 5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

As the Endowment is intended to give both men and women the opportunity to minister to God in priesthood ritual, it makes sense that Joseph Smith introduced special garments as part of the preparation for the Endowment. Smith also introduced other ritual temple clothing but a discussion of those particulars is beyond the scope of this question.

Joseph Smith was also influenced by his modern surroundings in designing garments. Thus, as Joseph Smith was a Mason, he included some Masonic symbols as part of the temple garment. This being said, however, it is important to note that the garment is merely influenced by Joseph Smiths practice of Masonry and was not strictly borrowed from Masonry.

With the nomination of Mitt Romney  very likely, I feel compelled to comment on Mitt’s religion: Mormonism.  Just as Mitt, I am also a lifelong Mormon albeit a much more theological liberal akin to Liberal Protestants. It would seem my beliefs are similar to those of Jon Huntsman.  I do not accept most of Mormonism’s unique truth claims but I am a theist, a participant in my Mormon community, and will always choose to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ if Latter-day Saints. 

My middle name is Romney.  My great grandfather is Mitt’s grandfather.  Miles Park Romney had four wives. I come through the ancestral line of one wife and Mitt comes from another. I know this makes us some form of cousins although I have no idea what this familial relationship is formally called.

During the course of the GOP nomination process I have been dismayed at some of the more idiotic comments about Mormonism by both Romney’s GOP rivals and those  who claim to be “progressives.”  I would like to take this opportunity to comment on this idiocy, not because I support Mitt politically, I don’t; rather I believe my heritage needs a little defense from the blatant attack coming from both the idiotic right and the hypocritical left.

Is Mormonism Weird?

Mormonism is “weird”, without question; but so are Catholicism, traditional Protestantism and the more modern charismatic/Pentecostal Evangelicalism.  Stay with me for a moment here.  All of these believe that 2000 years ago, a man was executed by Roman occupiers of Palestine, placed in a tomb and then about 36 hours later got up and walked out. Catholics teach that when the Eucharist is eaten that the wafer literally transforms into the actual body of Christ and that that the wine served literally becomes the blood of Jesus.  At face value then, Catholics are open cannibals.

Evangelical Christians believe that someday soon they will “raptured” and leave the rest of us behind to experience a tribulation and the awful rule of a world dictator, the anti-Christ.  Then, at the end of this of this rule Jesus, along with all of those raptured will return and burn up everyone who doesn’t believe in their version of Jesus. 

I don’t mean to mock Christian faith in any way as I myself and a Christian; but let’s all take an honest look at the facts. Christianity is weird just like every other religion. When I see Christians claim that Mormonism is too outside the mainstream of Christian thought and is therefore a “cult” I am forced to conclude two things. First, these Christians don’t realize how silly their beliefs seem to outsiders and second, these Christians want a monopoly on the word “Christian” thereby demonstrating their complete lack of understanding of Christian history.  If they think their modern ideas on the “rapture”, grace, and the so-called Trinity have any resemblance to the Christian church of the late first or second century, they need to pick up a book before they arrogantly start claiming to own the copyright on the word “Christian.” Oh, and let’s not forget that these same evangelicals also claim that Catholics are not true Christians either.  Seriously.  You can’t make this stuff up.

So, while the criticism of Mormonism by the Christian right is dripping with irony, the criticism coming from the left is, for the most part, ripe with hypocrisy. Remember, liberalism and being progressive means accepting people no matter their religion, sex, skin color or sexual orientation, right?  Peruse the comment section of any post on Romney at The Daily Kos or Huffington Post and see just how accepting these self-proclaimed progressives seem to be. Keep in mind that most of these folks probably voted for John Kerry, the Catholic cannibal, and revere another Catholic cannibal, JFK.  It should become apparent that their problems with a candidate’s religion are selective at best. Remember, most of these folks like Harry Reid and he’s a Mormon.  Funny how Reid’s religion never seems to be an issue. If progressives don’t like Romney’s politics then they should deal with his politics and stop using his Mormonism as a punching bag.  It’s quite lazy and betrays any sense of objectivity these progressive hypocrites may claim.

We should also remember that the US constitution is pretty specific about any type of religious test. Both left and right would do well to remember that little bit of information before spouting off about Romney’s religion.

If you choose not to vote for Romney due to his religion you are just as much a bigot as those who refuse to vote for Gay, Muslim, or black candidates. Period.

As I have shown above, any religion can be caricatured but this represents the worst kind of intellectual laziness.  Before criticizing a religious belief system, it is probably a good idea that you have made at least some kind of effort to understand it from the believers’ viewpoint.

So over the next few blog posts let’s take a look at Mormonism’s weirdness and I will attempt to bring in relevant context so that at very least, readers can understand why Mormons believe what they do. By understanding how Mormons view their own faith, Mormon belief will still seem weird but perhaps a bit less so. 

I do want to point out that I have no dog in this hunt, as it were. I’m indifferent as to who wins this presidential election as all candidates have been about as inspiring as a wet rag.

I want to apologize to all Catholics out there for using the term “cannibal” to describe your views on transubstantiation.  I am purely using hyperbole to illustrate an important point.

             At the beginning of each month, Latter-day Saint congregations hold what is called a “Fast and Testimony” meeting as part of their regular worship services.  It is on this day that Latter-day Saints refrain from eating or drinking for at least two meals, donate the money they would have spent on these meals (generally much more) to the Church’s humanitarian efforts and have an opportunity to share their testimonies with the congregation.  Quite often, these testimonies contain phrases such as: “I know that God lives” or “I know that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God.”

                A unique aspect of Mormonism, and one which differentiates it from many other Christian sects, is that Mormonism teaches that a knowledge of the truth claims of Mormonism come from without the actual teachings and sacred writings of the Church.  In other words, Mormonism does not use the Bible, Book of Mormon, or teaching of its prophets to argue for its authenticity or authority.  Rather, Mormonism teaches that each individual must seek for truth by directly petitioning God.  God will then reveal truth to the individual who petitions.  Such truth is revealed through some sort of spiritual experience or experiences.  These spiritual experiences continue throughout a Mormon’s life as he or she continually asks God for confirmation of truth and thus, these continual experiences become the anchor of a Mormon’s faith; they are often what Mormons turn to in times of struggle, doubt, and fear.

                As one who is a non-believer in the vast majority of Mormonism’s truth claims, yet remains a committed Latter-day Saint, I have become increasingly uncomfortable with how freely my community uses the word “know.”  In my view, the word “believe” may be a more appropriate word choice as it more accurately reflects the experiences described and sentiments expressed.  This is not to say that individual Latter-day Saints do not genuinely believe that they “know” God lives, but what does it really mean to “know” something?

                I use the Mormon experience to introduce the broader notion of distinction between belief and knowledge.  As human beings we are constrained in what we can know but there are absolutely no constraints on what we can believe or in the things which we can have faith.  For example, I know that Seattle exists.  I have lived there, walked its streets, seen and touched its buildings, and directly experienced the city.  On the other hand, I do not know that Tokyo exists.  I have never been to Tokyo, never seen its streets or buildings or experienced the city.  Now, I can state with near-certainty that Tokyo does exist simply because of the preponderance of evidence which affirms its existence.  I have seen pictures and films of Tokyo.  I have met citizens of the city who describe their lives there and the city’s ambience.  I buy and use products developed and manufactured in Tokyo.  Yet, to know Tokyo exists I must walk its streets and experience the city myself.   This case of my knowledge of Seattle and near-certain belief in Tokyo demonstrates a small, but important point:  knowledge and belief – even strong, near-certain belief – are distinct.  Knowledge requires a level of experience that exceeds that necessary to formulate a strong belief. 

                Allow me explore a more esoteric example.  I am a theist; a believer in divinity.  I do not know God lives any more than I know Tokyo exists.  Yet, I believe in God.  Why?  Simply because my experience, what I consider evidence, leads me to this belief.  Belief is akin to faith and faith represents a hope for something unseen or for something which our level of experience cannot provide absolute knowledge.  In other words, because of my experience (educational, spiritual, etc…) I hope God exists; I have faith in God.  Having said that, I must freely admit that the evidence of Tokyo’s existence far surpasses that for the existence of God.  In matters of faith and belief there are varying degrees.  I never doubt the existence of Tokyo but at times, I do have doubts about the existence and nature of God; degrees of belief are a function how much stock we put into the evidence for any assertion of truth.

In the 1970’s the US congress created what is known as the National Market System (NMS) and mandated that the SEC create regulation to support the system.   This regulation is known as Reg-NMS.  The purpose of the NMS is to ensure that buyers and sellers of stock received the best price available at the time their buy or sell order was submitted.

As the NYSE and NASDAQ are the most widely recognized markets in the United States for the trading of stocks, many assume that these are the only venues where stocks like AAPL, IBM, MSFT, GE, and others are bought and sold.  Such is not the case.  In fact, there are currently 15 stock markets;   what the NMS considers market participants, in the United States where stocks can be actively traded.  Current market participants include:

·         NYSE Amex

·         NASDAQ OMX BX

·         National Stock Exchange

·         FINRA

·         International Securities Exchange

·         Direct Edge A

·         Direct Edge X

·         Chicago Stock Exchange

·         New York Stock Exchange

·         NASDAQ OMX

·         NYSE Arca

·         CBOE Stock Exchange

·         NASDAQ OMX PSX

·         BATS Y Exchange

·         BATS Exchange

Many of the above exchanges have been in existence for quite some time and their existence is what prompted congress to mandate the creation of the NMS.

Say, for example, that the price of IBM is $100 at the New York Stock Exchange but is offered at the Chicago Stock Exchange for $99.  If an order were sent to NYSE and executed at $100 the buyer would have paid $1 more than if her broker had sent the order to Chicago.  Of course, this is fundamentally unfair and is the problem the NMS successfully eliminates.

When an order is sent to any market participant, the participant is obligated to route that order to the exchange with the best price.  This is known as ensuring “best execution.”  Brokers can, and often do submit orders to market participants with explicit instructions not to route the order but rather, to execute the order at the best price at that market center.  There are many reasons a broker may choose to do submit orders with these instructions but is beyond the scope of what is being discussed here.

As an individual investor who chooses to buy stock through your broker, any order you submit may be executed on any of the 15 US stock exchanges.  Your order will be sent to the exchange with the best price.

So how does each exchange know the best buy or sell price at any given exchange or what is known as the National Best Bid and Offer (NBBO)?  Each market participant is required to continually publish their best price to what are known as Securities Industry Processors (SIPs).  Today there are to SIPs:  CTA and UTP.  CTA is operated by the New York Stock Exchange and UTP is operated by NASDAQ.  CTA reports trade and quote information for NYSE listed stocks (Tape A) as well as NYSE Amex and the smaller regional exchanges (Tape B).  UTP reports trade and quote information for all NASDAQ listed stocks.  For example, any trade or quote of IBM (a NYSE listed stock) will be reported by CTA and any trade or quote of AAPL (a NASDAQ listed stock) is reported by UTP.  Recently, the BATS exchange announced that it will begin listing stocks and simply executing trades based on orders.  At this point it is unknown which SIP will handle the consolidation of data for these stocks.

It is important to remember, however, that not all stock trades happen on an exchange.  Let’s say a broker receives a buy order from one client and a sell order from another and the price of these orders are equal to the NBBO, the broker will execute the trade themselves without sending the orders on to any exchange.  By doing so, they avoid paying fees charged by each exchange to both send orders, and execute trades to the market center.  When brokers execute trades in this manner they are required to report the trade to a Trade Reporting Facility (SEC) as mandated by the SEC. 

The NMS has played a significant role in the US equities market since its inception by providing a complete picture of US equity market activity throughout every trading  day.

The candidacies of both Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman have generated a lot of interest in Mormonism, its history, and its people.  Just as with any religion or social group, Mormonism has its strengths and weaknesses as well as its historical high points and low points.

One of Mormonism’s historical low-points was its prohibition against ordaining men of African heritage to priesthood office between1852 and 1978.  To this day, many consider Mormons to be racist due to this policy.  Such claims attempt to simplify a complicated issue.  Where did the priesthood ban — as it is commonly referred to — originate?  Why did it persist for so long even after it became clear that Joseph Smith, Mormonism’s founder was an abolitionist and actually ordained men to high priesthood offices before his murder in 1844.

Lester Bush and Armand Mauss are the experts in this area of study and have, over the years, produced essays and articles to help both Mormons and non-Mormons understand the social, theological,and cultural dynamics at work during this period.  Mauss covers this issue extremely well in his essay “The Fading of Pharoah’s Curse.”

In 2006, as part of my graduate studies, I decided to seek out my own answers to these questions and this paper is the result:

priesthood.pdf

Everyone remembers where they were the morning of September 11, 2001 while we watched in horror as our country was attacked by cowardly men willing to sacrifice the lives of innocent men and women.

Although I lived in Provo, Utah at the time, on 9/11 I was traveling on business in the San Francisco Bay area.  I remember getting dressed for an early meeting and watching news reports of the first plane striking the World Trade Center in New York City.  Then, of course, the second plane hit and it became clear that this was a coordinated attack and not an accident.

Driving into the office with colleagues I listened to Tom Brokaw describe the Twin Towers collapse.  Throughout the day we were glued to the television, along with millions across the world, trying to make sense of the day’s events.  I will never forget that day and the weeks that followed.  It still seems surreal.

Tomorrow will mark the 10 year anniversary of that horrific day and I, along with many most Americans, am reflecting on  9/11 10 years on.

Now that I live and work in New York and have both friends and colleagues who were in the city on 9/11 and somehow this had made the event all the more personal as I see how these attacks have impacted their lives.  To this day, some cannot bring themselves to go downtown.

On the 10 year anniversary of 9/11 I want to say thank you to the brave men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice that day to save the lives of others.  The men and women of NYPD, NYFD, and the passengers of United 93 should be remembered and revered.

I also want to thank the brave workers and volunteers in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania who put themselves in harms way in the days that followed 9/11.  Their bravery in the face of an incredible and unknown danger is humbling.

It is often said that the best revenge is living well and I believe that the the way to achieve lasting victory over those who seek to instill fear within us by threatening to kill and maim more innocent men, women and children is to continue on with courage; to live “normal” lives despite their threats.

My thoughts and prayers are with the families of 9/11 victims and with those who continue to suffer.  Thank you for your courage and your sacrifice.  You and your loved ones will never be forgotten.

• Articles should be between 300-500 words
• These articles should be fair and accurate.  In other words, they should not be devotional nor polemical.
• References and corresponding links to references are highly desirable.
• The tone of the articles should be academic but also accessible.

etc ……

If looking at the New Testament as purely literature, a theological treatise, or as a the definitive statement of Christian faith, it is impossible to ignore the brilliance of the Book of John.  Unlike the other Gospels which, in the case of Mark, a relatively simple accounts of the life of Jesus and in the case of both Matthew and Luke, interweaving of  Jesus’ life (mostly taken from Mark), and his collected sayings (from the theoretical Q source) intended to persuade either Jewish or Greek readers (listeners) of Jesus’ place as Messiah and Son of God; the Book of John makes an unequivocal statement:  Jesus is Divine.  From the first words of chapter one the Book of John states that Jesus is the Word, the creator of all things and, at least in readings post-Nicea, serves as the central proof-text for the concept of the Christian Trinity.

The themes found all throughout John are both persistent and persuasive and find their culmination in John 17; the Great Intercessory Prayer given by Jesus before the account of his arrest, conviction, crucifixion, and ultimate resurrection.  In this single chapter, the author of the Book of John is able to combine themes into a powerful holistic statement on Jesus’ nature, the purpose of his ministry, and nature of Christian discipleship.

Technorati Tags: christian ethics, christianity, easter, jesus, mormonism

Read the rest of this entry »

It is hard to believe that just over 10 years ago I began my college education.  While working at Safeco Insurance in Redmond, WA — just a few short blocks from Microsoft’s corporate campus — I began taking courses part-time at Bellevue Community College.  My first courses were in World History and Political Science.  The most important and influential class I took at BCC was Philosophy of Religion.  The course was taught by an incredible professor who received either his Masters or PhD (I don’t recall which) in Philosophy at Yale and he helped me recognize my appreciation for both philosophy and the academic study of religion.  More importantly, this professor took the time to encourage me in my academic pursuits by helping me work through difficult philosophical questions and providing guidance as I began developing a rational basis for faith (not dogma!).

Read the rest of this entry »

In the most recent General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Boyd K. Packer, President of the Council of Twelve Apostles — the second highest ranking body of ecclesiastical leadership in the Church — gave a sermon wherein he made some controversial remarks regarding homosexuality generally, and same-sex marriage specifically.

President Packer’s remarks angered many within the LGBT community and even some members of LDS Church found the remarks to be troubling.  President Packer put forward, quite boldly, that homosexuality is a choice and one that can be overcome.

These are the remarks, in reference to homosexuality,  as delivered:

Some suppose that they were pre-set and cannot overcome what they feel are in born tendencies towards the impure and the unnatural. Not so. Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone?

The following day the Church released the official printed version wherein President Packer made some changes to these remarks:

Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn temptations toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Remember, God is our Heavenly Father.

You will notice of course, that the printed remarks are toned down a bit.  It is not at all uncommon for General Conference addresses to be altered and amended after delivery (perhaps the most extensive example can be seen here).  The Church actually released a statement on these particular changes:

The Monday following every General Conference, each speaker has the opportunity to make any edits necessary to clarify differences between what was written and what was delivered or to clarify the speaker’s intent. President Packer has simply clarified his intent.

As we have said repeatedly, the Church’s position on marriage and family is clear and consistent. It is based on respect and love for all of God’s children.

-Scott Trotter, LDS Church Spokesman

Read the rest of this entry »