Don't Panic: We've Been Here Before

The fundamentals of the economy are strong.

Remember that quote? It still makes me giggle, especially since most knew at the time that John McCain was very, very wrong.

The more aware among us realize the Recession has been around for a while now, and now everyone's losing their jobs and losing their homes.

In my county and the neighboring county, unemployment is at a staggering 20%. The foreclosure to resident ratio in my neighboring county is the highest in the state.Most of us know where all this began: investment in housing. For the longest time when housing prices were so inflated as to induce laughter at the mere sight of the price tag (half a million for a dilapidated house in my father’s neighborhood was snatched up in no time), and nobody thought this would have to, you know, stop.

The experts were saying it would have to, but people refused to listen because they wanted to believe the realtors who swore that wasn’t the case. Because the realtors had no interest in lying to the public about any sort of bubble, right? We had our bank and others approach us to offer us home loans. Out of nowhere. Our annual income at the time was around $25k a year. Our credit scores were fantastic, but credit scores can change when a family making around $25k a year are talked into buying a $300k home. Because everyone wants that. Everyone wants to be able to buy a home. And I’ll admit, we considered it (for like, half a second. It took one look at the prices for us to realize that wasn’t possible no matter what we wanted. We’ve good credit for a reason).

People were going into interest-only loans where their $800 mortgage payment would balloon after five years into $3000. Some of these people were true victims, but I still believe many of them were just damn stupid.

You want to talk about entitlement? There's your entitlement.

And before we knew it, people owed more on their homes than the homes were worth.
And they couldn’t afford the payments.
The bank comes in and forecloses or the family asks the bank for a short sale (in which the bank basically forgives the remaining debt and takes the house to sell – hardly a “short” process)

But we’re hardly the first to think we can have everything we want, own things we cannot afford, and dive into an ocean of credit that will eventually return to stab us in the back.

Then the banks don’t want to give out loans to anyone. People lose their jobs because businesses need some loans to thrive and thus can no longer afford those employees.
A huge company defaults.
Throw a war in the mix,
And the economy grinds to a screeching halt.

And no, the Great Depression of the 1930s wasn’t the first time this sort of thing happened - just the worst yet. During my readings for my US History course, I came upon two panics which occurred during the 19th Century and found there to be many parallels. Upon more research I’ve discovered far more financial disasters our country has endured. This is hardly a comprehensive list, but I hope it says enough.


The Panic of 1819

War: The War of 1812, Napoleonic Wars
Speculative Activity: Real estate
Other reasons: American shipping boom ending, demand for American “foodstuffs” declining
Lasted: Five years

“The western land boom that began in 1815 turned into a speculative frenzy. Land sales, which had totaled 1 million acres in 1815, mushroomed to 3.5 million in 1818. Many settlers bought on credit, aided by small “wildcat” state banks that made loans far beyond their resources. This was not the first—or the last—speculative boom in western lands. But it ended like all the rest—with a sharp contraction of credit, begun on this occasion by the Second Bank of the United States, which in 1819 forced state banks to foreclose on many bad loans.” (Out of Many [1], 232, emphasis added)


The Panic of 1837

The War: None
Speculative Activity: The Second Bank of the United States
Other Reasons: Specie Circular of Andrew Jackson
Lasted: Six years

“The Recession of 1833-34 was followed by a wild speculative boom, caused as much by foreign investors as by the expiration of the [Second] Bank [of the United States]. Many new state banks were chartered that were eager to give loans, the price of cotton rose rapidly, and speculation in western lands was feverish. A government surplus of $37 million distributed to the states in 1836 made the inflationary pressures worse. [President Andrew] Jackson became alarmed at the widespread use of paper money (which he blamed for the inflation), and in July 1836, he issued the Specie Circular, announcing that the government would accept payment for public lands only in hard currency. At the same time, foreign investors, especially British banks, affected by a world recession, called in their American loans. The sharp contraction of credit led to the Panic of 1837 and a six-year recession, the worst the American economy had yet known.” (Out of Many, 284)


The Depression of 1873

The War: Civil War
Speculative Investing: Railroads
Other Reasons: Commercial Overexpansion
Lasted: 65 months (the longest in history at the time)
Unemployment: 15 percent+

“Mass meetings of worker in New York and other cities issued calls to government officials to create jobs through public works. But these appeals were rejected. Indeed, many business leaders and political figures denounced even meager efforts at charity. They saw the depression as a natural, if painful, part of the business cycle, one that would allow only the strongest enterprises (and workers) to survive.

"The depression of the 1870s prompted workers and farmers to question the old free-labor ideology that celebrated a harmony of interests in northern society. More people voiced anger at and distrust of large corporations that exercised great economic power from outside their communities.” (Out of Many, 457)


The Great Depression of 1930s[2]

The War: WWII
Speculative Investing: Stock Market investing. Investment in factories and new machinery led to overproduction, which lead to more stock investing. Loans given to invest in the stock market and for buying cars.
Lasted: Nine years
Unemployment: Nearly 30% in 1932.



I could go on. The Energy Crisis of 1970s (Vietnam War). The multiple recessions of the 1980s (I remember the late 80s one well). The dot-com bust of the late 90’s. And now the housing crisis of the late 2000s. The list is huge and goes back to the late 1700s for America.

It happens

In the words of John Rockefeller: "These are days when many are discouraged. In the 93 years of my life, depressions have come and gone. Prosperity has always returned and will again.”[3]

I could go on. The Energy Crisis of 1970s (Vietnam War). The multiple recessions of the 1980s (I remember the late 80s one well). The dot-com bust of the late 90’s. And now the housing crisis of the late 2000s. The list is huge and goes back to the late 1700s for America.

People are “scared” about Obama’s stimulus plans. They were fuming over Bush’s bailout plans. People were pissed off about some of Roosevelt’s solutions. And they still argue over whether or not it did anything.

But let's consider the alternative and if anyone has any other ideas?

“In neither 1837 nor 1819 did the federal government take any action to aid victims of economic recession. No banks were bailed out, no bank depositors were saved by federal insurance, no laid-off workers got unemployment payments. Nor did the government undertake any public works projects or pump money into the economy. All of these steps, today seen as essential to prevent economic collapse and to alleviate human suffering, were unheard of then. Soup kitchens and charities were mobilized in major cities, but only by private, volunteer groups, not by local or state governments. As a result, workers, farmers, and members of the new business middle class suddenly realized that participation in America’s booming economy was very dangerous.” (Out of Many, 284)

Before too long, few will remain who were alive during the Great Depression enough to really remember it. In time there will be none left who experienced it, and we will forget. In some ways we are ignoring it. We’re willing to allow people to lose their homes and with the potential live in squalor just so we can see which of us is the strongest (please go read John Steinbeck’s "The Harvest Gypsies". Unbelievable). We seem to think we should suck it up and let the market roll.

But couldn't we say that's kinda what got us in this mess in the first place?

While I’m hesitant of the bailouts (hated them) and of the stimulus plan, I have hope in Obama’s idea to invest in programs which will encourage economic growth. This doesn’t mean I agree with all of it, but I like the idea. And I realize it isn’t his idea, but modeled under FDR. Truly, what other choice does Obama have?

And truly, Bush followed the model, too.

Though the debt is and will be far beyond comprehension, I have hope that investing in infrastructure, education, and in green jobs will promote such growth that we’ll be able to pay this off.

We can learn from history, though. We have to take care when investing in speculative issues. We have to be informed. We have to think critically. We have to have an educated population. We have to be willing to dissent.

To this I add that we have to learn that if we’re too big to fail, than we’re probably too big. If it’s too good to be true, it probably is.

And it’s easy for me to say this. My husband still has his job. We’re able to afford a home now because of the bubble bursting. But that doesn’t mean what I’m saying is untrue. The market will recover. We need to take care of each other. We need to work with the government instead of against it. We need to be informed and educated and work with reason rather than emotion. It does seem to be the natural course of things for the universe to strike us back when we get too excited about money and material things – the problem is we’re not learning. And we won’t. But it is hardly the end of the world.

Footnotes:

1. Out of Many: A History of the American People. 5th ed, Volume 1
2. http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/lectures/lecture18.html
3. http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/lectures/lecture18.html

Teabag the President? Ewww.

How lame is this tea bag thing? Seriously?

Has anyone taken U.S. History 101? Anyone gone to high school? Do they just remember that this had something to do with taxes? Because that’s what the extent of their knowledge seems to be.

Has anyone done their research, or does this just sound like a clever way to get attention?

I have to admit straight out of the gate that I would’ve easily fell into this category of people who knew next to nothing about the Boston Tea Party but remnants of what my high school history course made it into my brain. Back in my conservative days, chances are we would’ve bought our own tea bag to send to the President.

And we would’ve been stupid, stupid, stupid.

What was the Boston Tea Party about? Taxes? Yes. But the similarities truly do stop there.

Back in the mid-Eighteenth century, American colonists were beginning to form a sense of American identity separate from the British. The British didn’t like the potential for a revolt – they wanted the colonists to remain dependent on them so they imposed various tariffs and laws. Following the Seven Years War between America (who the British fought with) and the Indian people, Britain, in an effort to keep any uprisings at bay, kept 10,000 troops in North America. This was an expensive move and Britain needed money.

So they imposed the Sugar Act – a tariff (or tax) on imported sugar to the colonies and moved to make it difficult if not impossible for the colonists to smuggle sugar. The colonists had no say. The courts of vice-admirality used to force these taxes didn’t assume innocence before proven guilty. There was no trial. There was no representation. Therefore “Taxation without representation is tyranny” – James Otis, Massachusetts lawyer.

Britain felt it was only fair for the American colonists to help pay for the costs incurred by the French-Indian/Seven Years War, and so felt no regret for their actions.

To make matters worse, since the colonial taxes remained lower than those in Britain, Britain decided to impose yet another tax in a measure called the Stamp Act. This placed a tax on anything on printed paper (newspapers, letters, licenses, ship papers, playing cards, etc). This stamped paper had to be bought with hard money during a time when the economy wasn’t doing so well.

Britain’s response? “Eh, you’re represented about as well as we are here in Britain. Kinda like how citizens here represent those who cannot vote, such as women, slaves, and children.”

(sounds like us, huh? ugh. we're soooo unrepresented here.)

The colonists hated this response and it only heightened their resolve to fight against “Taxation without representation.” (Yeah, sucks to not have a voice and have yours depend on someone you don’t know/can’t see/have no or little contact with, huh? I wonder if this made anyone think of women’s suffrage if not the black man’s vote. Doubt it.)

And the center of all protests came from…Boston.

The taxes created for a worsening economy adding to the skyrocketing unemployment and inflation rates. Samuel Adams, of the beer brand, became a leader for this movement in Boston, including a group who called themselves the Sons of Liberty, who called for protesting by way of pamphlets and petitions. In time, Britain was unable to enforce the Stamp Act since all stamp distributors had left the area. And the colonists were calling for a halt to importation of goods to pressure Britain who, by 1766, repealed the Stamp Act and reduced the Sugar Act.

But they also made a Declaratory Act which basically said they could do whatever they wanted anytime they wanted. They were just being nice by repealing and reducing those acts, basically. Not backing down.

Britain’s national debt wasn’t going away. Riots and tax protests ensued at the mainland, and Britain cared more for the protests occurring at home than in the colonies which showed in their Revenue Act which called for a tax on imports such as glass, paint, paper and tea.

In October 1767, a meeting in Boston reignited the call for nonimportation as they drew a list of British products to boycott. They called for people to live more frugally and stimulate the local economy, which the small towns are rural areas loved. In time, all colonies but one enacted legislation to ban importing British goods, bringing the value of these imports down by nearly half.

By 1773, Parliament imposed a tax on tea which infuriated the colonists (who loved tea – after all) and incited rebellion and later passed the Tea Act which placed a monopoly on tea to the East India Company, a company ready to collapse in bankruptcy. Parliament didn’t want it to fail and knew the colonists loved their tea as much as they did. In time, the consumption and purchase of tea was seen as an act of treachery.

The Boston Tea Party took place late that November when Bostonians disguised themselves as Indians, boarded the ships, and dumped all the tea into the harbor, pissing off the British and making them question what authority, if any, they still had in the colonies and leading them to other Acts to punish Massachusetts. In time, we'd have the American Revolution.

Sounds just like today, eh?

Anyway, on a fun note: this is why Americans drink coffee and not tea.

See also the New York Times Online: Tax Day Is Met With Tea Parties. (registration required)

and

Brian Schuster on YouTube (Thank you, Project Mayhem!). I am doing my best to keep all my coarse jokes to myself, but Schuster does a good enough job I guess. I much prefer Rachel Maddow or Olbermann.



*Source: Out of Many: A History of the American People, Vol. 1. 5th Ed. 136-142

Marriage is a Civil Right.

With Iowa's recent ruling the unconstitutionality of banning same-sex marriage and the upcoming elections in California and I assume elsewhere, I want to begin my arguments in support of gay marriage...again.

In this post, I will attempt to allow various definitions and whatnot to make the case for me (with some commentary of course). This is part one of a few posts I expect to write in order to make the case that same-sex marriage is indeed constitutional and the banning thereof a violation of one's civil rights, as well as another instance of the Church's misguided efforts. Readers will notice I offer backup links so they can look at the context and verify my sources themselves and that I also offer many different sources' definitions as to erase all question.

All arguments for and against my own are more than welcome. I understand some have made up their minds without intention of changing it as have I. The purpose of debates between two strongly opposing parties is to help those who haven't made up their mind or who are open to changing theirs to consider each side. While hardly a lawyer, I hope to make my case.

* * *

“civil right (right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship including especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments and subsequent acts of Congress including the right to legal and social and economic equality) (WordNet Search, Princeton University)

“A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, and assembly; the right to vote; freedom from involuntary servitude; and the right to equality in public places. Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class. Statutes have been raised enacted to prevent discrimination based on a person’s race, sex, religion, age, previous condition of servitude, physical limitation, national origin, and in some instances sexual preference.” – Cornell University, Legal Information Institute, Civil Rights.

Wikipedia offers a few definitions of Civil Rights:
1) "Civil and political rights are a class of rights ensuring things such as the protection of peoples' physical integrity; procedural fairness in law; protection from discrimination based on gender, religion, race, etc; individual freedom of belief, speech, association, and the press; and political participation."

(Remember: gender and race weren’t always part of this list. They had to be fought for, which means some believed both women and black people had no claim on certain rights, such as to own property, to be free, to vote, etc. Do we disagree with this today?)

2) "Legal rights are rights that are bestowed by nations on those within their jurisdiction; they are sometimes also called civil rights in common law jurisdictions. Contrast with natural rights or human rights, which many scholars claim that individuals have by nature of being born.

3) "Civil rights, in civil law jurisdictions, are rights or powers which can be exercised under civil law, which includes things such as the ability to contract. In civil law jurisdictions, lawsuits between private parties for things such as breach of contract or a tort are usually expressed in terms of infringement of a civil right." (emphasis added).

(Remember, marriage is a contract)

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of The U.S. Constitution:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The Fourteenth Amendment has been used to argue for many rights, including marriage rights such as in interracial marriage. We must remember, for a time the definition of "marriage" either directly or indirectly included "between two members of the same race." Interracial marriage went against the generally accepted notion of what was not only moral but natural and God ordained. If this wasn't so, there would be no need for various court cases including California's 1948 case Perez v. Sharp and the U.S. Supreme Court's 1967 case Loving v. Virginia. Both of which concluded that marriage is a right.

And finally:

Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

(Isn’t marriage part of pursuit of happiness for those who pursue it?)


Not all rights we recognize and enjoy today have always existed. We've had to fight against racism and sexism to assert the equality our Constitution rightly demands. It is not in our interest to judge others who wish to pursue their own happiness, a happiness most recognize as selfless and beneficial to both those involved and those not involved. It's God's job to judge. According to many, there are heterosexual marriages of which God will not recognize, but we allow it because we believe straight sex to be "moral" - but only in the bonds of marriage.

And this, everyone, is what kills me.

First we tell everyone sex outside marriage is unacceptable to God and provokes his wrath. We essentially give everyone this choice: be celibate outside of marriage or go to hell. We tell everyone if they’re gay they can’t marry one of their same sex - but they can marry someone of the opposite sex (so very respectful to the poor straight partner, whether or not he/she is aware).

If anyone has ever been compelled to pretend to be something they're not for fear of invoking the wrath of those with authority over them (parents, teachers, a church), they will understand the horrendousness of such a suggestion to be straight when one is gay.

So now that we've ensured gay people cannot marry one another, if they have sex, they’ve not just the sin of homosexual sex on their hands but fornication as well. We’ve dug that grave deeper for them, taking their freedom of agency from them, first by telling them they cannot marry and then by saying because they're not married they can't have sex.

(By the way, nobody has ever said any Church would be forced by law to sanction such unions. If need be, I can dig up the specific wording of both the May 15, 2008 California ruling and the most recent Iowa ruling.)

Before we demand lifelong celibacy out of anyone, I suggest we consider what it would be like for us - and this doesn't just include marriage but dating, too and anything which we believe God would consider sinful or lustful outside marriage. And we've quite a list of "no-no's" which even the most faithful have difficulty following. Because we don't want to be alone, and even God has said it is not good for man to be alone.

So why marriage?

Marriage provides stability (for children). Marriage provides security (for children). Marriage forces us to act like adults and commit. It does not point a gun to anyone's head to force anyone to accept it, God especially. Not everyone who marries is religious anyway.

The fact is we all have our own beliefs and we all teach our children those beliefs despite the world who may or may not fight against them. But this is no theocracy. I cannot say that enough, and that is why so many like me reject with zeal and with even patriotism that no religion's beliefs should even try to impede on non-member's lives. And that is what this is all about.

Many straight couples/individuals today engage in behavior which I would consider detrimental to the family unit, yet we don't fight against them because it is their right to do so and my right to avoid them and their behavior. That makes the "it's moral" argument incomplete. If we're so concerned, we ought to legislate against all couples who, in our eyes, morally threaten the sanctity of marriage/the family regardless of sexual orientation.

Fear of marriage is unfounded. Fear of having any religion led by men dictate our laws and what constitutes a right is totally founded (I don't care if he's the Prophet, he's still a man).

The Church was wrong about blacks and interracial marriage and expressed racist statements in official settings which lend to the impression of divine authority and blessing. Later they argued their beliefs were merely due to the times and culture of which they grew up and belonged in, and further that they were working with limited knowledge. Fair enough - but they can be and I believe are wrong regarding gay marriage today in much the same fashion.

How Racism was Created in America*

The following is something I recently learned in my US History class (that's right - all new) and I found it worth sharing. At first I posted this as a pretext to upcoming posts on racism in the Church, but after spending all day on such posts I found myself exhausted and decidedly unfulfilled. There's no point to it.

But this - how racism was created in America - this is interesting.

I had no idea slavery had zero to do with skin color in the beginning. No idea. In fact, it seems slavery in America created racism.

Servants and slaves alike haven't always been black. In fact, the word "slave" is derived from "Slavic." Wikipedia states, "So many Slavs were enslaved for so many centuries that the very name 'slave' derived from their name, not only in English, but in other European languages and in Arabic." To avoid confusion and perhaps to state the obvious, Slavs are not black.

It is also important to note that with Europeans, the terms "white" and "black" didn't exist. "White" people were generally referred to as "Englishmen" or "Christian" and blacks simply as "Negroes."

From the beginning the folks in Jamestown, Virginia used white indentured servants from England. Not slaves - servants. Though twenty Africans came in 1619 to serve as slaves, they were cost prohibitive and as King James needed land for the flourishing wool industry, he kicked many peasants from their homes. With nowhere else to go, these men contracted with landowners in Virginia. The landowners would pay their way to America, and in exchange the men would work as indentured servants for a specific amount of time. These men were generally 18-22 year old males (some females), uneducated and unskilled. You could say they didn't have much of a choice.

Here's the problem: Most who came to work in Virginia died within two years. The high turnover rate really put a dent in things after some time - not to mention the contracts. There was no permanence. These servants, if survived, were free men after 5-7 years. Many question why American Indians weren't "utilized," but the decimation of their population due to warfare and the Spanish and European introduction of smallpox and other diseases rendered that option impractical. There simply weren't enough Native Americans to fill the Europeans needs, and after a while the number European indentured servants coming to the New World also failed to fulfill the need.

So what would the English do? They had tobacco crops and later sugar crops which required much labor. Answer: African slaves.

But why Africans? Here are a few reasons why:

1) Location - the proximity of Africa to both England and the Americas;
2) A pre-existing slavery system in Africa.

African nations were constantly at war with one another. They settled debts by agreeing to become slaves for a pre-determined time. Here's the kicker: Arab slave traders crossed the Sahara, attacked villagers, enslaved them, and took them back to Arabia. The Arab presence near the ports where the English would come and "purchase" slaves did the African people no favors here. Remember: Christians v. Arabs (The Crusades) - which leads us to the main reason:

3) Religion. Christians would not enslave fellow Christians. By now the Pope had declared it immoral to do so - and Africans weren't Christian. And again, the Arab presence didn't help.


Initially the African people worked alongside the white servants, and this is what they were considered: Servants. Many English and African servants slept, worked, ate, even had sex together.

Outnumbered, the plantation owners soon worried about rebellion and enacted a device we know as "Divide and Conquer” – by skin color.

Owners separated their servants thusly for a few reasons: First, it was the only difference between the two. Second, white servants outnumbered the blacks at this time - so if the whites combined together with the owners, they could overwhelm the black servants, thereby decreasing any chance for victorious rebellion.

Between the 1660s and 1680s things really began to change regarding the treatment of the African people. The government permitted owners to beat their slaves, to threaten them with their lives. In the 1640s a law passed stating Africans could be sold as servants (not slaves) for life, taking care of the permanence and cost-effectiveness problem. By the 1660s, it was legal to purchase slaves outright. By 1667, the law declared it irrelevant if the slave/servant had converted to Christianity despite the Pope. A 1669 law absolved any slave owner from a felony should they kill their slave. In 1680 it became illegal for any African, bond or free, to strike a “Christian.”

Skin color becomes associated with slavery.

But the issue of interracial unions and their children still existed. Out of Many states "A 1691 act for 'prevention of that abominable mixture and spurious issue which hereafter may encrease in this domination' established severe penalties for interracial sexual relationships. Such penalties were rarely applied to masters who had sexual relations with their slave women. Because by law the children of slave mothers were born into bondage."

Basically the status of the child hinged on the status of the mother - down to 1/32 black - a drop.**

But there's a problem: there were black men having children with white women. How did the law answer this? By miscegenation laws which made it illegal for a white woman to be with a black man. This is the reason such unions are still frowned upon today. It follows us even three hundred years later.

And by the 1700s, racism is the norm.



*Source: Out of Many: A History of the American People, Vol. 1. 5th ed. Faragher, Buhle, Czitrom, Armitage.

** This is, by the way, also why biracial people like President Barack Obama are considered black.

California Missions

For my U.S. History class, we read a short book entitled Monterey in 1786: Life in a California Mission, The Journals of Jean François de la Pérouse.

Since I realize not everyone lives in California, here's a short history. The California Missions of the 1700s were placed along the coastal areas of California: San Jose, Monterey, San Rafael (one I've visited), San Francisco, Santa Cruz, etc. Each of these missions were headed by Spanish colonists and were there for the express purpose of converting the Native American people to Catholicism.

With questions regarding the new land, trade possibilities, and other issues, King Louis XVI of France asked Pérouse to head an expedition to the colonies to make notes of everything: land, weather, plants, people, etc. so they could learn more of it to see if they could perhaps capitalize on it. This book is part summary and part Pérouse's personal journal of the trip and says much of the Spanish treatment toward the Native American people.

A few things struck me as I read:

First, that the Spaniards sought not to understand the Native American way of life, but simply to judge it, deem it anarchist and godless, and then seek to save them. No matter the motivation they would use to convert the people, those in charge "agreed that converting the Indians to European ways was not merely desirable, but indeed a moral necessity" (40). It earlier states "There was, in their eyes, only one true religion, the one the Spanish monks were bringing with them to the Monterey Bay area" (28).

The Indian people for various reasons all came to the missions voluntarily and, once baptized, were stuck. Without experience with organized warfare, a tradition of strong leaders and of long, drawn out decision-making processes, they also had language barriers between them. No real weapons to speak of.

Mostly, though, they had the fear of God instilled in them. It states,

"The Spaniards also had an enormous psychological edge...while the Indians seemed to have been burdened by the incapacitating belief that the Spaniards were powerful magicians, deriving their powers not just form the bullets in their guns, but directly from the gods. Proof of the alliance between the Spaniards and the gods was everywhere: the monks were seen constantly talking directly to their gods, and it seemed obvious that their gods were answering them. To rebel against the monks and soldiers meant to rebel against their gods as well" (31)

Does anyone think these people had a choice?

In civilizing the Indian people, the Spaniards managed also to take away everything that defined them. Their link to the land. Their homes (they weren't allowed outside the mission). Their calendars and rituals. All gone. Mission president Fermín Lasuén said of the conversion process:

"This can be accomplished only by denaturalizing them. It is easy to see what an arduous task this is, for it requires them to act against nature. But it is being done successfully by means of patience and by unrelenting effort" (33)

The result of such actions? Deep depression. "Unable to rebel, their old way of life destroyed, they sank into the deepest gloom" (33)

But this one really stuck out to me:

"To enjoy membership in this new community, the Indians were invited to partake in the ritual of baptism, thus allowing them to communicate with the spirits and gods who had given the newcomers such great power and wealth. What the Indians could not have understood, however, was that the waters of baptism were, in the eyes of those administering it, taking away not only something called 'sin' but freedom as well...

The Indians had to be kept at the mission, by force if necessary, lest they revert to their old ways and stray into sin. To preserve the soul, the monks understood to regulate the Indians' every activity, monitor their behavior, and teach them (by whatever means necessary) the correct mental and spiritual attitudes...they were now wards of the church - their lives, their bodies, even their thoughts no longer their own." (30)

I think this could all be read in a few different ways aside from the literal historical aspect of it.

Any thoughts?

Typographical errors...oh, and this, too.

Want to know one of the things I loved about this Church as an investigator?

We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. (Articles of Faith, no 8)

We use the King James Version, not because it is a perfect translation but the closest to perfect. Joseph Smith spent some time reworking the Bible as evidenced in the Joseph Smith Translation and his revised, if you’ll pardon the term, version of The Gospel of Matthew.

I’ve never taken issue with this. It’s only truth that over time a work can change – we all know the grapevine rule. The first whispers that his mother got a new job and by the time the twentieth person has heard it, the news has changed to some lady was murdered. An exaggerated example, but the idea is there.

The Book of Mormon, however, is supposed to be pure, the most correct book on the Earth. I’ve always understood the book has no need for further translation.

It appears I am wrong, and on some fronts I can accept this. After all, Joseph Smith and his scribes couldn’t exactly spell and when they could, capitalization and other spelling rules differ. The grammar of the time also varies widely from the grammar of today. There are typographical errors and clarifications to be made, as well as a translation of the original handwriting (handwriting can be difficult to understand).

A few years back, my mom gave me a 1920 edition of the Book of Mormon she discovered at an estate sale. I thought “Oh, cool. I wonder what the differences are,” but I didn’t consider anything huge to have happened. I didn’t study it either, but I figured it was all grammatical and placed it on my bookshelf. It is cool after all. I’d kill for an 1830 edition, too, just for the historical value. I never really thought I’d ever have reason to reference this older edition.

So when I ran across an article last night which discussed a major word change from the 1920 edition to the 1981 edition, I double checked and sure enough…

1920 Edition 2 Nephi 30:6

And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and delightsome people.

1981 Edition, 2 Nephi 30:6

And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure and a delightsome people.

It’s not that difficult to catch, though I do find it interesting that other passages within the Book of Mormon were not changed:

2 Nephi 5:21 (1981 Ed.)

And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

Listen, as an investigator I knew about the accusations of racism directed at the Church. Everyone – at least most – knows of the ban of Blacks and the Priesthood. I still remember sitting in my college library, reading the scriptures in an effort to figure this out. I knew of the passages in the Book of Mormon which used the word “white” and concluded it must be metaphorical. After all, white generally signifies purity because white is devoid of all color. Easy enough, and upon some research I’m hardly the first to come to such a conclusion.

But I didn’t know about these quotes. I already mentioned this one in a previous entry, but I’ll repost it anyway:

Think of the Negro, cursed as to the priesthood…. This negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the Lord in sending him to the earth in the lineage of Cain with a black skin, and possibly being born in darkest Africa—if that negro is willing when he hears the gospel to accept it, he may have many of the blessings of the gospel. In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory.

- Race Problems—As They Affect The Church, Address by Mark E. Petersen at the Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, delivered at Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954. Emphasis added.

That one is bad enough. As a church we like to dismiss such horrible words as the words of an Apostle speaking as a man. Surely this isn’t doctrine, surely these words spawn from a horribly racist culture of the 1950s.

And yet…

I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today as against that of only fifteen years ago. Truly the scales of darkness are falling from their eyes, and they are fast becoming a white and delightsome people. . . .

The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos; five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.

At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl—sixteen—sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents—on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather. There was the doctor in a Utah city who for two years had had an Indian boy in his home who stated that he was some shades lighter than the younger brother just coming into the program from the reservation. These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated. (Spencer W. Kimball, General Conference, October 1960; See also Improvement Era, Dec.1960, pp. 922-923)

Have we taught that the Lamanite people, even the African-American, the Asian, etc. people have darker skins than us due to their less-than-valiant work in the pre-existence? Before finding this discrepancy between Book of Mormon editions, I might've squeezed a “probably not” from my lips. I couldn't say that now.

And it continues in the 2006 Doubleday Edition of the Book of Mormon. For anyone who is unaware, the Doubleday edition is a "commerical" edition of the Book of Mormon meant so anyone who wanted to get a copy could get one without contacting the Church.

1981 Official LDS Version, 2 Nephi 5 (chapter summary)
Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites are cursed, receive a skin of blackness, and become a scourge unto the Nephites.

2006 Doubleday Edition, 2 Nephi 5 (chapter summary)
Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites are cut off from the presence of the Lord, are cursed, and become a scourge unto the Nephites. (original emphasis)

1981, Official LDS Version, Mormon 5 (chapter summary)
The Lamanites shall be a dark, filthy, and loathsome people. (original emphasis)

2006 Doubleday Edition, Mormon 5 (chapter summary)
Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites will be scattered, and the Spirit will cease to strive with them. (original emphasis) (all from Lamanite Curse, FAIRwiki)

Much more PC, eh?

Look, I appreciate the changes, but I don’t appreciate our silence and inability to just apologize for crap said and basically condoned by Church leadership. We explain it away as if it doesn’t matter, but it does matter. The Church explained the change thusly,

The Prophet himself attempted to correct some of these kinds of errors, but his many duties prevented him from completing the project; and even so, some of his corrections seem to have disappeared again in later editions. For example, the 1830 and 1837 printings of the Book of Mormon contained a prophecy that the Lamanites would one day become ‘a white and delightsome people’ (2 Ne. 30:6)

In the 1840 printing, which the Prophet edited, this passage was changed to read ‘pure and delightsome people,’ but for some reason later printings reverted to the original wording.

-Bruce T. Harper, The Church Publishes a New Triple Combination, The Ensign, October 1981.

What are the other changes made? Here are two examples from that article, representative of the whole:

(1) 1920 Ed, Alma 16:5 - To know whether the Lord would that they should go into the wilderness…

1981 Ed., Alma 16:5 - To know wither the Lord would they should go into the wilderness

(2) 1920 Edition, 2 Nephi 29:4 - Do they remember the travels and the labors, and the pains of the Jews…

1981 Ed., 2 Nephi 29:4 - Do they remember the travails, and the labors, and the pains of the Jews…

Simple enough. Understandable enough.

But from “white” to “pure”? Someone’s idea got in the way here, and we’d have to question at a motive. Why would anyone change it either way?

The Utah Lighthouse Ministry – admittedly not a fan of the church – has responded to the Church’s explanation. I don’t post this lightly. I know some, if not many, will stop listening right here but please keep with me. I’m not trying to disprove anyone but offer other arguments for discussion:

It should be noted that Church leaders are unable to produce any documentary evidence to support their claim that this was merely a correction by Joseph Smith of a typographical error. There were originally two handwritten manuscripts for the Book of Mormon—a copy which was written by Joseph Smith's scribes as he dictated it and a second "emended" copy that was prepared for the printer. Unfortunately, most of the first manuscript was destroyed through water damage. The Mormon scholar Stanley R. Larson informs us that this manuscript "does not exist for this section of the text. . . ." ("A Study of Some Textual Variations in the Book of Mormon Comparing the Original and the Printer's Manuscripts and the 1830, the 1837, and the 1840 Editions," Unpublished M.A. thesis, Brigham Young University, April 1974, page 283)

Fortunately, the second handwritten manuscript—the copy given to the printer to use to set the type for the first printing of the Book of Mormon—was preserved by Book of Mormon witness Oliver Cowdery and is still in excellent shape. This handwritten manuscript does contain the portion printed as 2 Nephi 30:6. It uses the word "white," and therefore does not support the claim that Joseph Smith was only correcting a typographical error (see Restoration Scriptures, by Richard P. Howard, Independence, Missouri, 1969, p. 49). It should be remembered also that both the first two editions of the Book of Mormon (1830 and 1837) used the word "white." It is especially significant that the 1837 edition retained this reading because the preface to this edition stated that "the whole has been carefully reexamined and compared with the original manuscripts, by elder Joseph Smith, Jr., the translator of the book of Mormon, assisted by the present printer, brother O. Cowdery, . . ." (Book of Mormon, 1837 Edition, Preface, as cited in The Ensign, September 1976, page 79)

- Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Salt Lake City Messenger, A White Pure and Delightsome People, Issue # 46, October 1981.

Many will trust the Church on the basis they don’t believe the Church, its leaders, or its doctrine to be racist – at least not today. As other passages in the Book of Mormon continue to use the word “white” in much the same way it is used in 2 Nephi 30:6 in the current edition, it’s difficult to really know. You’d think each ambiguous use of the word (not easily dismissed as metaphorical) would have changed as well in the 1981 edition.

What also baffles me is that, through my own research, I remain unconvinced that Joseph Smith was racist. His political platform dealt with the freedom of the slaves and I understand he baptized at least two black men.

It is curious. I’m unsure who to believe and it is due mainly to the many racist comments made by church authorities over the years – comments which have been dismissed and explained away rather than apologized for and recognized as patently disgusting (after all, we don’t criticize our leaders, even if that criticism is justified). It’s become more obvious to me the doctrine regarding people of dark skin being less valiant in the pre-existence was taught and can be linked to such scriptures as the ones I’ve mentioned here.

In a semi-related issue, there is also the rumor that Joseph Smith taught that polygamy would be necessary to mix the blood of the white people with that of the darker-skinned people as to help expedite the “whitening” process. This is an easy enough teaching to dismiss; however, when compared with then Elder Kimball’s General Conference remark, “One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated” it’s a more difficult an idea to reject.

I also understand that if one wants to, one can find evidence sufficient to support any claim. After viewing what I am able, I happen to lean to the side which states the original handwritten copy edited by Joseph Smith used the word “white” instead of “pure.” The LDS sources I’m able to view are short and rather vague while the other sources are much more thorough and cite other sources as well. When I compare and contrast, this is the conclusion I find myself coming to. I know many will undoubtedly gasp in horror and shock at such words (sarcasm), but the links are there for individual viewing and conclusion. I’m interested, if anyone finds the time, for other points of view.

Any thoughts?

I'm very, very proud today. Welcome, President Obama!

Thanks to the Dallas Morning News, here is the transcript of President Obama's Inauguration speech this morning.

Once you're done reading, please visit Renew America - USA Service. This is a fantastic site where we can all find something to do for our community and our country - for our fellow (wo)man

Today is a happy day!

* * *

I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.

So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.

That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land - a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America - they will be met.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted - for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things - some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.

For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.

For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.

Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.

This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions - that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act - not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control - and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart - not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort - even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West - know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us today, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment - a moment that will define a generation - it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.

For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.

Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends - hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism - these things are old. These things are true.

They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility - a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

This is the source of our confidence - the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.

This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed - why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.

So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:

"Let it be told to the future world...that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive...that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it]."

America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

- President Barack Hussein Obama, January 20, 2009.

Prophecy and the Word of Wisdom

One of the things I always loved about the Word of Wisdom was how prophetic and progressive I considered it to be.

In my experience, I’m not alone. I believed we only recently came to the conclusion about the detrimental effects of tobacco on the body. Not so. We also recognize now the wonders that are whole grains and less meat. It gave me hope that one day the world would come to its senses about coffee and tea. Anyone else?

Society goes through cycles of preoccupation with healthy living. The most recent was that of the 1980s, but I was unaware of a temperance and "clean living movement" of the 1830s, the same decade the Lord revealed the Word of Wisdom.

Just in case some readers don’t know, I’ll offer a quick “official” background on what led the Prophet to what is now Doctrine and Covenants 89.

“’The first [thing] they did was to light their pipes, and, while smoking, talk about the great things of the kingdom, and spit all over the room, and as soon as the pipe was out of their mouths a large chew of tobacco would then be taken’ (Journal of Discourses, 12:158). After finding himself in clouds of tobacco smoke and hearing the complaints of his wife at having to clean the filthy floor, the Prophet Joseph asked the Lord about the proper conduct for members of the Church. He was told that “tobacco is not for the body, neither for the belly, and is not good for man’ (D&C 89:8)” – Brigham Young as quoted in the September 1995 New Era article, “Hooked!”

Michael De Groote of MormonTimes writes of the many concerns of those in the 1830s related to health. Alcohol, tobacco, hot drinks (both discussed in the word of wisdom and not), meat, water, standard 19th century medical procedure, fruits and vegetables, hygiene, clothing, exercise, and yes, even thinking.

This is not to discredit the Word of Wisdom – in fact, De Groote dismisses the easily concluded notion of D&C 89 as mere reflection of 19th century society and credits the Lord’s propensity to prepare his people for a commandment – read: the temperance and “clean living” movement. It's much akin to those who attribute the Civil Rights Movement as the Lord preparing His church for blacks to receive the priesthood.

As Section 89 is now requisite to a temple recommend, we often find ourselves asking to what extent we must follow to be worthy of the temple. I’d like to go one step further: to what extent does context matter? For fun I’d like to focus on the drinks mentioned therein.

Alcohol

“Behold, verily, thus saith the Lord unto you: In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days, I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation – ” (v. 5)

We could easily cross reference this verse with D&C 27:2-4. In these verses, the Lord tells Joseph it doesn’t matter what we use for the sacrament and issued this command: “…you shall not purchase wine neither strong drink of your enemies.”

We cite D&C 27:2 when people ask why we use water instead of wine – after all, wine is mentioned in the sacramental prayer written in Moroni 5. But surely the waitress at the local Italian restaurant is not our enemy. Perhaps our “enemy” today is Satan playing with our temptations instead. Hm. There’s a lot of fear instilled here. Some would call it wisdom. I think it’s both.

Now take D&C 27:4, received August 1830: “Wherefore, you shall partake of none except it is made new among you; yea, in this my Father’s kingdom which shall be built up on the earth.”

Cross reference this with Section 89 verse 5 and 6:

“That inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father, only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before him.

“And behold this should be wine, yea, pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make.”

I suppose we could make our own wine but with the stigma we’ve established I don’t imagine the Church would sanction one. Can you imagine an LDS vineyard today? Would it interest you to know we used to have them in Utah? Google it. Either way, this verse with others seems to say that we could use wine for our sacraments if we so desired. We’d just have to do it the right way.

1 Timothy 5:23 states "Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities."

Verse 17 recently caught my attention:

“Nevertheless, wheat for man, and corn for the ox, and oats for the horse, and rye for the fowls and for swine, and for all beasts of the field, and barley for all useful animals, and for mild drinks, as also other grain.”

Now a few people like to hop up and down and insist “He meant this barley drink people back then used to drink to detox their bodies!”

Perhaps, but there are many who disagree. Barley, as many know, is used in the production of beer. Reports argue the early Saints liked their beer. It wouldn’t be a leap to justify their activity with this verse, though others cite the “guideline” that was the Word of Wisdom in the 1800s as opposed to the commandment it is today. Could we consider beer a “mild drink” as opposed to “strong drinks” such as rum, whiskey, or vodka? Absolutely.

Hot Drinks

Coffee and Tea. As a new member, I trusted the WoW explicitly prohibited “coffee and tea.” I hadn’t bothered checking for myself as I felt my institute classes and new member discussions and Sunday School classes covered it well enough. Was I surprised!

On a slightly related note, I also thought “caffeine” must be mentioned here as well the way some of my friends acted. It’s a widely misunderstood notion that the reason we avoid coffee and tea is because of the caffeine. Perhaps, but if we’re avoiding caffeine we should also avoid chocolate.

Not enough in it, you say? Decaf coffee has about the same amount, if not much less.

We have to assume coffee and tea is mentioned here for some other reason. Perhaps there’s something inherent in the coffee beans or the tea leaves (some cite tanic acid), though it's difficult to find much to that regard. Perhaps it has everything to do with its addictive qualities. Others contend it may not be a health issue at all, but a test of obedience. As the Word of Wisdom is understood as a matter of health, I wonder about that. We don’t really know. That's where faith comes in for some; for others, deference coupled with hope.

Hot Chocolate. When I first read this verse I thought “This can’t mean hot chocolate!” I love my hot chocolate. Given the plain scripture I found it odd hot chocolate wasn’t interpreted as included, but oh well, right?

I’m told some ensure their faithfulness and obedience by avoiding anything hot – even hot chocolate. Sound crazy? Elder Harold G. Hillam of the Seventy writes in the October 2001 Ensign article entitled “Not for the Body,”

“Tea and coffee were discussed, not only because of their adverse chemical effects on the body, but also because of the temperature of the drinks. The drinks were often taken so hot that, without realizing it, many individuals were drinking liquids close to the boiling temperature. Those detrimental effects were observed.”

I hardly think any of us enjoys pouring anything boiling down our throats, though we’ve all done it. I’ve ordered hot chocolate at a café before and about lost all my taste buds due to the temperature. Heck no, I let that stuff cool down now.

But with that in mind, why aren’t things such as herbal tea (often very hot) and hot chocolate forbidden – or at the very least, discouraged?

Conclusion

I could live according to the letter and still get my recommend – perhaps have a beer and attribute verse 17 to my bishop (don’t worry, beer has never tempted me), or perhaps make my own wine? Anyone think that would fly? Why is it, then, I can never have a bite of whole grains and probably get away with saying I follow the WoW – after all, it seems we’re only concerned with the drinking and smoking, correct?

It seems so straight forward at first, but after only a little serious study, the Word of Wisdom strikes as guidance still – pliable, given to historical context. I understand Brigham Young and his successors have stated otherwise, but scripture remains the same.

Just where do we draw the line and why?