I Made a Zine

I recently made a zine for class.

A zine (short for magazine) is a small, self-published work—often handmade, photocopied, and shared outside of traditional publishing. Zines are typically personal, experimental, and intentionally imperfect. They've long been used as a way for people to tell their own stories, especially when those stories don't fit neatly anywhere else.

It started as something small—words and images I needed to get out of my body and onto paper. What it turned into is a snapshot of where I am right now: my thoughts, my doubts, my anger, my tenderness, my becoming.

Zines have always felt like the right format for this kind of work. They're imperfect on purpose. Personal. Handmade. They don't ask permission or polish. They just exist.

I've scanned the full zine and am sharing it here as it was meant to be seen: one page at a time. You can scroll through it at your own pace, linger where you need to, skip what doesn't speak to you.

The zine touches on themes of identity, memory, and self-expression. Some pages may feel quiet; others might feel raw. Take what you need. Leave the rest.

Thank you for reading—and for witnessing this piece of me.

This page has a foldout confession,
the confession is below.

[Made for SOC 2750R class UVU Spring 2026]
aB . All Rights Reserved . 2026

Faith, Violence, and the Ethics of War: Reflections from Fall Break Readings

Even during Fall Break week, the readings for PHIL 366R offered a powerful lens into the intersection of religion and violence. From personal memoirs to theological treatises, each piece challenged me to think more deeply about how faith traditions grapple with conflict, justice, and moral responsibility.

We read To Hearken or Not by Brian Birch (my professor for the class). This essay examines the tension between obedience and moral authority within religious traditions. Birch's work made me think about how religious followers navigate commands that may conflict with personal or societal ethics. It's especially relevant in contexts where violence is justified by appeals to divine authority.

I have read Under the Banner of Heaven by Jon Krakauer in its entirety multiple times. We were asked to read the prologue for this week as Krakauer introduces the story of religiously motivated violence within fundamentalist Mormonism. The prologue sets a chilling tone, showing how sincere belief can be twisted into justification for horrific acts. It raises questions about the boundaries of religious freedom and the role of institutions in curbing extremism.

We also read an article titled Radical Mormon Jihad by Eric Peterson which was published in the Salt Lake City Weekly on July 30, 2014. It features an interview with Dan Lafferty, one of the brothers convicted in the 1984 murders of Brenda Lafferty and her infant daughter Erica. In the article, Dan Lafferty shares his apocalyptic beliefs, including a prophecy about escaping prison and calling down fire from heaven, likening his future actions to those of the biblical prophet Elijah. This piece offers a chilling look into religious extremism and how fringe theological interpretations can fuel violent ideologies. It's a powerful complement to Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven, which explores the Lafferty case from a broader investigative and narrative perspective.

Eric Peterson and Jon Krakauer approach the same disturbing subject - religiously motivated violence - through different lenses. Peterson's article is a journalistic profile, grounded in direct interview and observation. He presents Dan Lafferty in his own words, allowing readers to confront the raw extremism of Lafferty's beliefs without much editorial framing. Peterson is able to access Lafferty's mindet at the time of the murders, his current beliefs now, and his life in prison. Peterson's piece feels like a warning - an unfiltered glimpse into the persistence of radical ideology decades after the crime. It's stark, factual, and disturbing in its restraints. Krakauer's book is written as a narrative nonfiction book. He blends investigative journalism with literary storytelling. He contexualizes the Lafferty murders within broader questions about Mormon history, revelation, and religious violence. Krakauer discusses deep historical and theological topics, and shows an emotional and psychological insight into the perpetrators. His literary style draws the reader into the story. Krakauer's work is also more interpretive, inviting readers to consider how religious belief can evolve into fanaticism. His storytelling makes the horror feel personal and systemic. Reading both pieces side by side is like seeing two sides of the same coin. Peterson shows us the present-day reality of a man still consumed by his beliefs, while Krakauer traces the roots of those beliefs and their consequences. Together, they raise urgent questions: How do we recognize and respond to religious extremism? What responsibility do religious communities bear in preventing violence? Can faith be both a source of peace and a catalyst for destruction?

Next, we read a chapter by James Turner Johnson titled The Idea of Just War in Christian Thought. This chapter outlines the historical development of Just War theory in Christian theology. Johnson's overview helped me understand how Christian thinkers have tried to reconcile the teachings of Jesus with the realities of political conflict. It's a sobering reminder that even peace-oriented religions have developed frameworks for war.

Thomas Aquinas provides criteria for when war can be considered morally just, and so we read his words. Aquinas's clarity and structure are striking. His criteria still influence modern debates about military intervention. Yet I wonder how his ideas hold up in today's world of asymmetric warfare and non-state actors.

These readings collectively highlight the tension between faith and violence. Whether through personal testimony or theological argument, they ask us to consider how religious traditions can both justify and resist violence. As I continue this course, I'm left asking: Can religion truly be a force for peace in a world so often torn by its name?

Sources: 

Aquinas, T. (2011). Whether it is always sinful to wage war? In M. Juergensmeyer & M. Kitts (Eds.), Princeton readings in religion and violence (pp. 41–44). Princeton University Press.

Birch, B. D. (2016, October). To Hearken or Not: Divine Commands & Ethical Dissonance. Paper presented at the Conference on Peacemaking: Ethical Perspectives in and Around Mormonism, Utah Valley University.

Johnson, J. T. (2009). The idea of just war in Christian thought. In R. D. Bainton (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to religion and war (pp. 207–227). Cambridge University Press.

Krakauer, J. (2004). Under the banner of heaven: A story of violent faith. Anchor Books.

Peterson, E. S. (2014, July 30). Radical Mormon jihad. Salt Lake City Weekly. https://www.cityweekly.net/utah/radical-mormon-jihad/Content?oid=2477964

[Written for PHIL 366G class UVU Fall 2025]
aB . All Right Reserved . 2025

Latter-Day Saint Authority: Theologians and Critical Thinkers Need Not Apply.

    Inside the Latter-day Saint faith there is little room for critical thinking, individualism, or external validation. From a young age you are taught to follow the Prophet, obey your parents, study the scriptures, to learn line upon line, and to trust in God’s plan that you signed up for before you came to earth. There is no need for you to philosophize or dive deep into the unknowns as you are given your knowledge by God through a living prophet that tells you he will do the hard work for you instead. All you have to do is to just follow him, believe in him, and have faith that he is the only one with the authority to do so. In this paper I will show how authority within the LDS Church keeps its members from developing into philosophers and theologians by teaching them that theology and critical thinking will make believers more worldly and distant from the divine guidance of their religious leaders for spiritual direction.

Authority Keeps Theology on the Outside

    Theology is described in many different ways by many different authors. David Ford defines it as, “at its broadest as thinking about questions raised by and about the religions” (Ford,3) Louis Midgley describes it as, “to seek understanding of God’s reality, to describe divine things rationally, and to elaborate the present meaning of past manifestations of God, whether theoretically, practically, descriptively, or critically.” (Midgley,1475) James Faulconer on the other hand takes a different approach and calls theology prophetic revelation in his paper titled “Rethinking Theology” as he describes it as, “the continuously revealed word of God.” (Faulconer, 175-199) Latter-day Saints believe that their current Prophet continues to receive revelation from God and that this was restored to the Prophet Joseph Smith in 1829. Each prophet since Smith has been able to receive revelation from God which has been passed down to their current Prophet today. Since continuing revelation is a key part of the LDS religion, dogmatic theology really has no place inside the tradition as it can always be replaced by new revelation. Faulconer warns Latter-day Saints that, “theologizing by those who are not prophets may put the kingdom at a distance by making talk about the gospel merely talk about our own learning.” (Faulconer, 175-199)

    This opinion of Faulconer is not a new one inside the Latter-day Saint faith, it is actually one expressed often by those in authority. Keeping members disciplined and blindly following the words of their prophets and leaders, members gather to listen to their prophet and other leaders of the church twice yearly as they deliver sermons over a two day period. This event is televised all over the world to reach as many members as possible. The Prophet, and the other 14 highest ranking officers in the church also identified as prophets, will captivate the audience and each member will listen intently to each of the words that they think are written just for them. They hope revelation will come and that divine words will be spoken that they can hold onto for another six months until the next conference. They are fully aware that their current prophet can reveal new things, even if it means contradicting a prophet from the past.

    Current Latter-day prophets have not made any major revelations like the Prophet Joseph Smith did in his day. We can easily count the number of official revelations that have been added to the open canon of the LDS Church since then. Gordon B. Hickley, a Latter-day Saint prophet, gave the following quote in an interview in 1997. “Now we don’t need a lot of continuing revelation. We have a great, basic reservoir of revelation. But if a problem arises, as it does occasionally, a vexatious thing with which we have to deal, we go to the Lord in prayer.” (Hinckley) Since not a lot of new revelation has been revealed, each statement made by prophets old and new have been dissected over the years by church members. With an impressive collection of conference talks on many different topics given by many different prophets past and present, members can study their words and can easily go down rabbit holes that lead to misinformation as canon has changed over the years with no set doctrine or theology in place. In an effort to keep things current and members on the right track, the current prophet has what Robert Millet calls “prophetic prerogative” (Millet, 2009) in his paper titled “Defining Doctrine”. Millet describes this as the ability to edit sermons of the past, giving prophets divine editorship to weed out the doctrine that is no longer taught, and giving sticking power to doctrine that has, “endured the test of time, that continued to be taught by Church leaders in later generations, would generally bear the mark of truth.” (Millet, 2009)

    Some examples of this would include the Adam-God doctrine that was taught during Brigham Young's time and had to be edited out of the conversation as it was false and led to many problems as members believed it long past the time it was talked about. Nathan Oman mentions Bishop Bunker of Bunkerville Nevada in his paper titled “Truth, Doctrine, and Authority”. (Oman, 2009) This bishop was excommunicated in the 1880s for teaching the doctrine of the Adam-God theory to his congregation after the rest of the Church stopped teaching it. Because of open canon, revelation was received around 30 years later by the First Presidency and they issued a Doctrinal Exposition titled “The Father and the Son” (Improvement Era, 934-942) which replaced the Adam-God theory altogether with this new official revealed doctrine. Since revelation replaced the outdated Adam-God theory, even if it once was doctrine, it now no longer had a place in that same realm.

    Another example of doctrine that has been rewritten is the idea that people with black skin were less worthy, fence sitters in heaven, and not part of the “chosen lineage”. This was another idea that caught on during the early days of the Church and was very hard to write out of the narrative. The topic of Black people not being part of the LDS faith for a long time is a part of history most leaders would rather forget than remember. Joseph Smith let Elijah Abel, a young Black convert, join the early church in 1830, as well as Jane Manning James who joined in Illinois some years later. These two Black Latter-day Saints were not the only ones who joined the growing church as Joseph Smith and others welcomed them with open arms. Elijah Abel was given the priesthood by Joseph Smith as he himself did not see a problem with Black people having that authority. Years after the death of Joseph Smith, Latter-day Saints began to theorize about the hierarchy of lineages. With the belief that God had restored his one true Church back on the earth again through Joseph Smith also came the belief that they, Latter-day Saints, were from the chosen line that would be gathered with the gathering of Israel in the last days. Joseph Smith had taught them about life before they came to earth, a premortal life, where they were righteous, noble, and followed God’s plan for them. “To the Prophet Joseph Smith it was revealed that we are all literal spirit sons and daughters of heavenly parents. He received a revelation of information once made known to Moses. Intelligences were organized before the world was, and among these were many great and noble ones, such as Abraham and Moses. God stood in their midst, saw that they were good, and chose them for responsibilities on earth and throughout eternity.” (Brown, 1124) With this knowledge they started to see themselves, and the color of their skin, more righteous, and part of this royal blood line that God talked about in the premortal life. Brigham Young officially instituted a policy restricting Black men from holding the priesthood as opinions differed on chosen lineage and who was eligible and worthy. With this new ban in place came a lot of speculations over the years as to why Black men could not hold the priesthood. Many church leaders would share their words and opinions over the pulpit and members would take these words as doctrine and a lot of misinformation was spread this way. All of what was said by past prophets and leaders has now been rewritten to make the past history seem more like personal opinion and not prophetic infallibility. In 1978 a new revelation was given to Spencer W. Kimball, the Prophet at that time, that lifted the ban preventing Black men from holding the priesthood inside the Latter-day Saints faith.

    Joseph Smith himself declared that, “a Prophet is not always a Prophet, only when he is acting as such.” (Smith) This declaration from the original founder of the Church shows that even back then there was confusion of what was supposed to be revelation and what was opinion. Since Smith has uttered those words, other church leaders have made similar statements regarding prophetic infallibility. D. Todd Christofferson declared that, “Not every statement made by a church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole church.” (Christofferson, 86-90) Since the LDS Church does not have an official canon, and continuing revelation can change the wording on the canon that is currently in place, Armand Mauss, a renowned sociologist of religion who studied the LDS faith in depth, presented a “Scale of Authenticity” by which we can gauge what can be seen as official doctrine at any given time. Brian Birch explains this scale in detail in his paper titled “Beyond the Canon: Authoritative Discourse in Comparative Perspective.” (Birch)

Mauss’ Scale of Authenticity

    Canon doctrine is what is currently being taught as revelation within the Church and as such is the most important doctrine. The scriptures, this includes the Book of Mormon, the Bible, the Doctrine of Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, are also considered part of the most important doctrine taught within the Latter-day Saints tradition. Official doctrine would include statements from the Prophet, the First Presidency, official Church publications, and curriculum currently being taught within the Church. Since the Church has open canon the next prophet can change any of the official doctrine at will when he comes to power making this level of doctrine hold less authority on the scale. Finally there are two more categories which include authoritative doctrine and popular doctrine. Authoritative doctrine is all the literature and talks given by Church authorities and educators over the years. In 1983, a disclaimer had to be added to all books published by the Church stating that, “the views expressed in this book do not represent the official position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” (1983 Letter) With so many books published by so many different Church leaders putting their own opinion into their work, the Church could no longer control what was being put out there for members to read. In the past prophets had to rewrite and edit doctrine that was no longer taught inside the faith with new revelation, or it had to be written out of the narrative all together. Now with this disclaimer, the Church could just say this was the personal opinion of the author and not official Church doctrine and there would be a lot less rewriting and editing later on when doctrine would change. Popular Doctrine includes all the literature containing folk theology and doctrine that circulated among the membership that was never officially adopted by the Church. This would include the racist theological beliefs that Black individuals were from the cursed line of Cain, the Adam-God theory, the three Nephites from the Book of Mormon that still wander the earth today, the opinion that God will restore the Adamic language before the second coming, the King Follett Discourse, and more. With almost 200 years of revelation and doctrinal changes that is a lot to keep track of to know which particular policy or doctrine is accurate and currently being used and which one is outdated or has been replaced. The changes alone from Joseph Smith's time to today when it comes to the Word of Wisdom, Polygamy, and the Temple ceremony are significant to name just a few. There are many other changes that are less noticeable that I want to point out just to show you how they fly under the radar. Many Church leaders gave talks on the topic of divorce such as David O. McKay, Spencer W. Kimball, and John A. Widtsoe. Their words were given during General Conference and while they were speaking as Prophets and Apostles. Back in the 60s and 70s their words on divorce were harsh and not very eloquent. For example David O. McKay wrote, “When one puts business or pleasure above his home, he that moment starts on the downgrade to soul-weakness. When the club becomes more attractive to any man than his home, it is time for him to confess in bitter shame that he has failed to measure up to the supreme opportunity of his life and flunked the final test of true manhood. No other success can compensate for failure in the home.” (McKay, 5) If you were to look up the official Church stance on divorce today all of these past Prophets and Apostles words are replaced by much more neutral wording, talks given by more recent prophets, and scripture references. Another example of this is when we look up homosexuality. J. Reuben Clark, Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B. Lee, Boyd K. Packer, and N. Eldon Tanner, to name a few, wrote very strong words about homosexuality in the 60s and 70s. Church leaders perceived homosexuals as depressed, unhappy, sinful, and in need of repentance. (Brough,157) In 2006 the official position of the Church changed and the word homosexuality was removed and substituted by same-gender attraction. “The Church does not have a position on the causes of … susceptibility or inclinations … related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific questions - whether nature or nurture - those are things the Church doesn’t have a position on.” (Bergera, 418) The previous statements written by the Prophets and Apostles in the 60s and 70s are no longer up on the Church website, they have been edited out of the narrative.

Follow the Prophet

    In 1980, Ezra Taft Benson, gave a talk to the membership of the church titled, “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet.” (Benson, 1980) He would become the next Prophet five years later. Over the years the focus on listening to authority would increase even more. The very first point he mentions is that the Prophet is the only man that can speak for God in everything. He is making sure that all members stay aware of this fact as this is a very important matter within the Church as the Prophet is the man that can change doctrine and has as we have seen. The second point is that the Prophet is more vital than the scriptures. A living prophet today can rewrite and edit what was written all those years ago if God comes to him and gives him a revelation to change it. Number three on his list was that a living prophet was more important than a dead prophet. Again here the Prophet today can rewrite history if God wants him to and as we have seen by some of my examples above, a lot of prophets seem to do so in a sense. His fourth point quickly after that tells us that the Prophet can never lead his people astray. His fifth point is that a prophet is not required to have any sort of earthly training to be a prophet as God will be his mentor. He warns that there will be those out there who may feel that they may be more qualified on certain topics than the current prophet and this may be why members are not encouraged to become philosophers and theologians because they would be able to understand more than the current prophet when it comes to religion or philosophy. Number six on the list is that the Prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” for his words to become scripture. He goes on to say that some people may argue with the Prophet if they don’t agree with some of the things he is asking the members to do. This leads into number seven which is that the Prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know. He quotes Harold B. Lee here, another former prophet, “You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may conflict with your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life… Your safety and ours depends on whether or not we follow… Let’s keep our eye on the President of the Church.” A man with authority telling its members that if they don’t listen and follow everything their prophet tells them they could be in danger and put their fellow neighbors, members, and family members in danger as well is a great tactic to keep members in line and keep them from thinking for themselves. Number eight on his list is that the Prophet is not limited by man’s reasoning. Here again you are told to put your entire trust in God and the Prophet even if you might not understand why at times. Number nine and ten go together as nine is that the Prophet can receive revelation on temporal and spiritual matters and ten is that the Prophet may give advice on civic matters. I think this is an interesting idea as I personally believe in separation of Church and State and don’t believe that those two should ever mix. The Church has a lot of power and I have seen LDS authority use that power to make sure the Equal Rights Amendment was not passed in Utah in 1975. They again used that authority within the Church to rile up members to vote against proposition 8 in California in 2008 as they did not want same-sex marriage to become legal there. Number 11 on the list reads that the two groups who have the most difficulty following the Prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich. Again this is a reference to if you think you know more than the Prophet you are not in harmony with the teachings of the gospel. Number twelve reads that the Prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or be worldly. Number thirteen just states that the Prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency, the highest quorum in the Church. And finally number fourteen states that if you follow the Prophet and the First Presidency you will be blessed and if you reject them you will suffer. After hearing all that, who would not want to obey and follow the Prophet's words because you are told the alternative means suffering.

Theology Can Be Beneficial

    “Active Mormons are surrounded by church teachings and ideals at every turn: the time commitments required of a faithful Saint make the religious social sphere the primary sphere in his or her life, creating an arguably insular LDS culture wherein children and converts are gradually and completely oriented to social norms and regulations. At church meetings, LDS doctrine is continually taught and reinforced beginning at 18 months of age (through simplified “nursery” lessons) and continuing through adulthood, using Church-published manuals to organize lessons around pre-approved doctrine or themes. Moreover, through ubiquitous use of media such as Church-sanctioned magazines, books, pamphlets, and videos, the Church gains a pervasive presence in the lives of active members, constantly reaffirming the doctrine and standard of the Church in all areas of life.” (Avance, 12) Since philosophy, theology, and critical thinking are not part of the curriculum within the Latter-day Saint church, it always amazes me when I meet new people who discover Plato and Aristotle for the first time and are in awe. Philosophy is all about being curious about the world and asking the right questions and then trying to answer them. The most complex philosophical questions never seem to change over the years as we never seem to be able to answer them. Theology is the same in a sense where we are trying to understand God, human beings, and how it all fits together. The fact that Latter-day Saints “don’t do” theology is something they should look into as there are many conflicting issues within the faith that could benefit from some critical studies involving more than revelation. Stephen Davis wrote a paper titled “Philosophical Theology for Mormons: Some Suggestions from an Outsider.” One of the points he brings up is logical consistency. He points out that not all the doctrine within the Church is consistent with each other. There are conflicting principles and statements here and there which can make sense when you can change your doctrine at will and you have been doing this for almost 200 years. Davis points out that the Church has two ways in which it changes doctrine, officially and unofficially. When revelation is received, it can officially make a change and the new doctrine takes over for the old doctrine. Unofficially, when Church leaders decide to stop teaching something that is believed by most members, they don’t make an announcement, they just stop. I pointed this out above with my examples on divorce and homosexuality. There were never any announcements made that the views of the Church changed on those topics, you would only know this if you were to search for it. Another part of this that Davis points out is that church leaders should distinguish between normative doctrine and traditional, but not permitted doctrine. As I pointed out earlier again, Mauss has a scale for this which we can look at which would put the traditional doctrine all the way at the bottom with the folk beliefs and hopefully members will know the difference between the doctrine currently taught and doctrine that is just talk.

    Davis gives us three reasons why he thinks Latter-day Saints don’t like theology. The first is that they don’t want to concern themselves with academic problems and would rather deal with down-to-earth problems. Number two is that the scriptures are more important than dealing with theology. Third, revelation and open canon, would make theology useless as it would just override anything theology could come up with. Latter-day Saints have always been taught to study from the best books and get an education, so I don’t understand why academic problems would be a concern. In my personal opinion I believe Church leaders don’t want their members to think critically, develop theories of their own and study the deep questions that philosophers have been studying for years. But this is exactly what they should be studying because this kind of thinking would, “help Latter-day Saints understand their own religion, help settle internal disputes as to what church doctrine is and what is not, and enter into informed dialogue with non-Mormons and assist Mormon scholars whenever necessary to defend Mormonism from criticism” (Davis, 2007) according to Davis.

    James Faulconer points out in his paper titled “Performative Theology: Not Such a New Thing” that studying the scriptures inside the Latter-day Saints church, understanding the history behind them, and reflecting on them in a scholarly way, can be a form of theology. (Faulconer, 1-24) Many members read the same scriptures multiple times in their lifetime hoping to gain new insight each time they read the same passages. Benjamin Huff compares Latter-day Saint learning to Theology in a one-room schoolhouse. (Huff, 2004) Every member continues to learn throughout their life, line upon line, precept upon precept with the goal that in the end they are all unified in one faith. Each Sunday, members gather together to study the scriptures and discuss doctrine with other members who may not have their same level of knowledge. Huff calls the scriptures messy and polyphonic (layered) in his paper, and advocates for studying the scriptures together with those of all levels of knowledge to gain a better understanding than you would studying alone. This could be considered a form of philosophizing with others as you dive deeper into the meaning behind what you are reading and thus bring the scriptures into theology.

    When it comes to Davis’ third point about the LDS Church having revelation and open canon and thus not being able to have theology, he addresses that by stating that this should not be a barrier but that it should just be treated how doctrine is being treated inside the LDS Church today. When things change, the current theological statements can be indexed with the old doctrine or they can be revised alongside with the changes that were made.

Theologians and Critical Thinkers Need Not Apply

    Latter-day Saint members should be able to weigh their prophet's words and personally filter out the components they believe they want to follow in their lives. They should be able to use their own critical thinking to study their scriptures, doctrine, and other components of their religion. They should be able to raise intellectual questions about their faith and their leaders without fear of discipline. A culture wherein philosophy and intellectually stimulating conversations can be had would be beneficial as discipline, group thinking, and blind obedience only keeps members from reaching their true potential in life. Past theologians such as John Calvin, Martin Luther, Thomas Aquinas, and many theologians today are worth studying as they can enlighten us in so many ways.

Sources:

Avance, R. (2010). Worthy “Gods” and “Goddesses.” Journal of Religion & Society, 12.

Benson, Ezra T. (1980) Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet. Brigham Young University address

Bergera, G. J. (2007). Statements of the LDS first presidency: A topical compendium. Signature Books. Page 418 sexual relations

Birch, Brian D. Beyond the Canon: Authoritative Discourse in Comparative Perspective (could not locate anymore information online for citation)

Brough, R. Clayton (1980) His Servants Speak: Statements by Latter-day Saint Leaders on Contemporary Topics, chapter 32 homosexuality, page 157

Brown, Gayle O. (1992) Premortal Life. Encyclopedia of Mormonism V.3 Macmillan, page 1124.

Christofferson, D. Todd. (2012) “The Doctrine of Christ,” Ensign, May, 2012, 86-90.

“Compass Interview with Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley,” Compass, November 9, 1997, transcript at http://www.abc.net.au/compass/intervs.hinckley.htm.

Faulconer, J. E. (2020). Performative theology: Not such a new thing. Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 53(3), 1–24.

Faulconer, J. E. (2007). Rethinking theology: The shadow of the apocalypse. The FARMS Review, 19 (2007)(1), 175–199.

Ford, David (2003) Theology: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 3.

Huff, Benjamin. (2004) Theology in the One-Room Schoolhouse. Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology Conference 2004.

Joseph Smith Collection, Box 1, Folder 5 Church History Library

Letter to General Authorities, March 22, 1983, LDS Church History Library.

McKay, David, O. (1964) President of the Church, CR, April, 1964, pp 5

Midgley, Louis. C. (1992) Theology. Encyclopedia of Mormonism V.4 Macmillan, page 1475.

Millet, Robert L. (2009) Defining Doctrine: A Response to Loyd Ericson. Element Vol. 5 Issue 1 (Spring, 2009)

Oman, Nathan B. (2009) Truth, Doctrine, and Authority. Element Vol. 5 Issue 1 (Spring, 2009)

Stephen, T. Davis, (2007) Philosophical Theology for Mormons: Some Suggestions from an outsider. Element Vol 3. Issues 1 & 2 (Spring & Fall 2007)

The Father and the Son. (1916) Improvement Era, 934-42

[Written for PHIL 490R class UVU Summer 2024]

aB . All Rights Reserved . 2024

Authority in the LDS church and the impact on personal religiosity

 I took a class called "Mormon Media & Culture" at UVU in 2024. For my final paper I needed to take 3 papers we had read and analyzed to come up with my final paper. I had a stack of papers to chose from and could have chosen so many different topics we covered, for some reason I ended up with 2 papers my professor himself had written at one point during his career which was kind of fun. I highly recommend all 3 papers cited here as they were all worth a read.

Authority in the LDS Church and the Impact on Personal Religiosity

    For this paper, I wanted to connect how authority within the LDS church takes away from personal religiosity. I started with the paper written by Rosemary Avance titled Worthy “Gods” and “Goddesses” as she sees authority inside the LDS church as patriarchal and dogmatized which then led me to the paper titled Mormon “Family Values” Versus Television by David W. Scott. This paper emphasized authority within the LDS church and internal struggle between institutional devotion and personal religiosity. I was then able to add the article titled Religiosity in South Park, also written by David W. Scott, emphasizing how personal religiosity is taking over institutional worship. I will use Peter Berger’s view that religion is socially constructed leaving people with less desire for institutional dogma and more individual spirituality instead.

Worth “Gods” and “Goddesses” The Meaning of Modesty in the Normalization of Latter-day Saint Gender Roles by Rosemary Avance

Summarize
    According to Avance, from a very young age, members of the LDS church are socialized to know gender differences, modesty standards, and church guidelines. Starting at 18 months through adulthood they receive lessons on Sundays, read Church published magazines, books, pamphlets, and more. The church is an active presence in their lives, constantly reminding them of the doctrine and standards. “Latter-day Saints are socialized to internalize and appropriate both Church dogma and Church-sanctioned standards of modesty, normalizing both temporal and eternal gender-based roles.” (Avance, 12) She explains how these institutionalized messages serve as justification to enforce patriarchy while women grow up as second-class citizens always afraid they might inadvertently lead men astray if they don’t dress according to church standards. Those in authority within the LDS church have always put out guidelines as a way to control members’ behavior with recurring themes such as modesty, purity, chastity, virtue, and ideal motherhood from an early age. Even in adulthood, those who are “faithful” or rule-abiding members, can notice the presence or absence of others' membership garments as a form of social control.

Analyze
    Avance shows how LDS authority uses modesty and chastity to socialize members into accepting standards at a young age that are then self-policed by other members throughout their entire lives. This is not a new concept as modesty guidelines have been in place inside the LDS church for decades becoming existing knowledge and part of the cultural practices still used today. Avance notes that LDS women have become co-creators of normalized gender roles to distract them from seeing their true potential as powerful women in a patriarchal world. She points out similar practices used to keep women submissive in Islam by the wearing of a hijab.


Mormon “Family Values” Versus Television: An Analysis of the Discourse of Mormon Couples Regarding Television and Popular Media Culture by David W. Scott

Summarize
    The research in this paper is based on Stuart Hall’s encoding/decoding model and Peter Berger’s idea that religion is socially constructed. Hall divides viewers into three different categories, those who follow the preferred position, those who negotiate, and those who oppose the readings. Six different LDS couples were interviewed for this paper, and all are active, faithful members who read the guidelines set by those in authority. The preferred position, in this paper, meant that they mainly agreed with the guidelines set by those in authority within the LDS church which led them to stay away from viewing things on television that were threatening to the family. They avoided programs with alternative lifestyles, especially those involving homosexuality. “Those whose construction of television was most consistent with the discourse of church leaders were the least likely to watch much (if any) television.” (Scott, 20) The negotiated position was a little more complex. These couples mostly agreed with the guidelines set by those in authority within the LDS church but they would remove themselves from the shows they were watching by seeing the characters as fictional or just actors and not having any impact on their religious views. They would be able to overlook certain parts of their programs by highlighting other parts that had good family values. The resistant position was only practiced by one couple in the study. While they also have read all the guidelines given by those in authority within the LDS church, they saw them as guidelines and nothing more. Both agreed that too many members took the words from leaders too literally without weighing their own personal religiosity. They like to have the ability to personally resist watching certain media through choice and not obedience.

Analyze
    Many studies have been done about religion and why individuals follow their own personal views at times even if they contradict what they have been taught. Peter Berger is one of those Sociologists who believed that religion was socially constructed making it more about personal belief and not institutional discourse. During the study most of the participants chose to use their personal beliefs as well as the guidelines offered by those in authority within the LDS church to alter their television viewing habits proving Berger's theory correct. While this was just a small sample of a conservative religious group, it showed how Hall’s encoding/decoding model worked on those who were given religious media guidelines to potentially test their ability to personally filter out negative television content rather than to just listen to their church leaders.

Religiosity in South Park: Struggles Over Institutional and Personal Piety Among Residents of a "Redneck Town" by David W. Scott

Summarize
    Since World War II we have seen a decline in Institutionalized religion. Large churches are losing members as people are calling themselves “spiritual” instead of religious and finding ways to worship in other places besides large buildings. South Park also encourages private religious worship over institutional practices by using satire to show how damaging large denominations can be by pointing out group thinking, blindly following authority, dogmatic ritualism, and how religion uses fear to keep members loyal.

Analyze
    The religious organizations portrayed in South Park are done so with satire and one is never preferred over another. The consistency in which all of them are equally criticized highlights the fact that the creators of South Park also emphasize Peter Berger’s theory on religion that it is socially constructed. They use satire to make fun of sacred text and rituals while portraying God as a Buddhist. They reinforce personal religiosity over institutional worship as nothing is too sacred to make their episodes.


Reflect & Apply Knowledge

    Authority is a powerful tool. Many of the concepts in the paper written by Avance were not new to me, but she did an excellent job relating it all together into a cohesive paper. She talks about patriarchal authority being used in the LDS church to teach women from a young age that their bodies are sacred and essential for their future as mothers. She also explains that these women are then told it is their responsibility to dress modestly as men cannot control their own thoughts. Authority has been institutionalized and dogmatized inside the LDS church for many years making it easier to follow guidelines without question.

    Authority is also a main topic of conversation in the paper on Mormon Family Values Versus Television. For years, general conference talks, articles in magazines, and lessons in Sunday school would give us gentle reminders on what kind of programs we should avoid watching on television. Like Avance mentioned in her paper, members are taught from 18 months old how to be good Latter-day Saints. How do you justify living in two different worlds when you have been told your whole life to avoid certain topics on Sundays but you live in the real world the other six days of the week? Seeing shows on television and associating the roles as make believe or “not real” to avoid contradicting your personal religious beliefs makes complete sense. Instead of questioning the authority that made the guidelines in the first place, altering their own personal views is easier.

    After reading both articles where authority seemed to be a problem as it was dictating a way of life without leaving room for personal interpretation, I was pleasantly surprised by the South Park article. I had never once seen an episode of South Park but was vaguely aware of the crude and satirical nature of the show. Peter Berger’s view of religion being a social construct was very noticeable immediately and the notion that the creators were not fans of institutionalized dogma was very front and center. The article reinforced my view on patriarchal authority and the need for more personal religiosity.

    While there have been many changes over the years when it comes to authority within the LDS church, there are still many changes that could be made. Too many members are being taught, since they are little, that guidelines are more than what they are, guidelines. Instead of just blind obedience they need to be taught to make informed decisions, to not just go along with the group, but to be an individual who can have personal beliefs that sometimes can be contradictory to what others may think.


Bibliography


Avance, R. (2010). Worthy “Gods” and “Goddesses.” Journal of Religion & Society.


Scott, D. (2003). Mormon “Family Values” Versus Television. Critical Studies in Media Communication.


Scott, D. (2011). Religiosity in South Park: Struggles Over Institutional and Personal Piety Among Residents of a “Redneck Town.” Journal of Media and Religion.

[Written for COMM 3780 class UVU Summer 2024]

aB . All Right Reserved . 2024

Women, Politics, and LGBTQ+ issues in Utah

Question: 

    Prior to 1900, Utah history was marked by violent conflict and a “weird” dominant culture marked by polygamy, Christian heresy, and theocracy. We have discussed the many ways in which Utah has opened-up to the outside and become more integrated into the United States. Yet a recent report finds Utah is the worst state in the nation when it concerns women’s equality (https://etvnews.com/wallethub-reports-womens-equality-in-utah-worst-in-the-nation/). The LDS Church policies on LGBTQ+ women’s equality, gender roles, and dissent are hotly debated. Compare conflict before 1900 with more recent conflicts, especially the major forms of conflict and accommodation to the United States.


My Response Essay:
    The walletHub article talks about three different key indicators namely workplace environment, education and health, and political empowerment. I believe this all stems back to the beginning of Utah. The Mormon settlers that inhabited Utah in 1847 came with the idea that women were less than men. The religion they were a part of was a very patriarchal religion and women were there to serve the men in their capacities. Leaders of the Mormon church have always indicated that women had a good place in the church but their main responsibilities lay in raising children, keeping the home, and supporting the men in everything they did. Even today in 2023 the church leaders still emphasize that a woman’s role is to be a mother first and to be obedient to her husband and the other priesthood holders. With this mindset the pioneers came to Utah and were raising their children with that same belief. Mormon leaders emphasized these beliefs every chance they had and so the Mormons today still have the same preconceived notions that men are in charge and women are there to support them and bear their children. Mormon theology backs up the beliefs from the past and today by explaining that men can marry many women in the temple and be sealed to them into the eternities and that those women will bear them many children so they can populate their own earth one day. The church has always opposed things that are different from their orthodox Christian beliefs. They are strong opponents on women’s rights when it comes to abortion and letting a woman make those decisions on her own.

    The majority of politicians in office in Utah are republican and Mormon at the same time and you can tell they vote based on their religious beliefs a lot. When it comes to LGBTQ+ issues in Utah you see the same results as once again the politicians in office vote according to their religious belief that same sex attraction is a sin and that marriage should only be between a man and a woman as ordained by God. I have realized over the years that separation of church and state is not being practiced in Utah. Because the Mormon church has such a strong beginning here and because so many of the people who live in Utah are Mormons the laws that seem to get passed affect those who are not Mormon, or different from Mormons, more than the Mormons themselves. Anyone who is not a conservative republican has a hard time winning a political seat in Utah. Last year Evan McMullin tried to unseat a longtime Republican senator and got close. He had the best numbers for a Democrat since 1976.

    When it comes to LGBTQ+ issues in Utah, the church has taken a neutral stance in public by saying they love everyone but in private they are still fighting against LGBTQ+ rights. In 2008 the church fought hard to pass Prop 8 in California and they urged members everywhere to fight for family values and to ban gay marriage. “We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage”. (https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/california-and-same-sex-marriage) These kinds of statements are repeated in many church gatherings and over the pulpit in General Conference sessions. Members are told repeatedly that being gay is a sin and that Mormons should not support the rights of those living that lifestyle. Because these things are said over and over and many Mormons believe their prophets words are law, the LGBTQ+ community in Utah gets a lot of hate. I live in Provo and go to events put on by LGBTQ+ BYU students to support them and there are always people protesting their existence. I have a daughter who is part of the LGBTQ+ community and she would get hate speech from kids at school who would then on Sunday be sitting in the same church building as her. The leaders of the Mormon church have a lot of influence with their words as many Mormons follow whatever is being said blindly. Because of this people who are different in Utah have a harder time being seen and heard and are constantly put down by those who believe they are superior to them because they are Mormon.

    When it comes to politics in Utah, women are not represented equally to men. Utah has not had a female senator and they currently don’t have any women serving in Congress. Because most women in Utah are expected to be mothers first a lot of women don’t even finish college. They are taught from a young age to be a mother and to not put off getting married or having kids to finish their education. Utah is also home to a lot of large families and so women are kept busy with the many children they bring into their home. This is hard for women who get divorced as a Mormon as most of the time they don’t have an education or experience to get a good job that will allow them to be able to raise their kids without having to work multiple menial jobs. I myself am one of those women who stopped my education when I got married to have kids. I got divorced after 20 years of marriage and am now back in college to finish the degree I started in 1994. I have multiple friends who are in the same boat as it was always stressed to them that being a mother was more important than anything else and now they are trying to make ends meet while raising their kids alone.

    The examples of the pioneer women that came to Utah is what still holds true to many today. Many Mormons still believe they need to be in the background while their priesthood holder takes care of everything. They believe they are less than men and that they have no place outside of the home. They don’t see themselves in politics or fighting for change. I can however see that things are slowly changing as the younger generation of women now see things a little bit different from their parents. I am proud of my two daughters who see the inequalities for women and don’t just accept it as fact. They are part of a generation that will change the way Utah sees their women. They are more tolerant when it comes to rights for everyone and they seem to want smaller families and an education as they will most likely also need to work alongside their husbands to make enough money. Hopefully this trend will continue in Utah as they catch up a little more to the rest of the country when it comes to women’s rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and really equality for everyone no matter who they are.

[Written for HIST 3260 class UVU Summer 2023]

aB . All Right Reserved . 2023