Page 1 and 5: Christ appearing in the New World: hair perfect, well-trimmed beard, spotless white robe, and light-colored skin. Some of the inidividuals he is communicating with look like people of color. Extreme movie star good looks.

Page 6. This small simplistic image intended for children is bizarre: hair perfectly parted down the middle, well-trimmed beard, robe a little more realistic, but his skin color is lily white. The adjacent images all show children of different races, so what’s with the European Christ? A real missed opportunity here.

Page 8. A little more realistic: hair and beard less groomed, brown robe, but his skin is still pale. I like the illuminated cross behind his head.

Page 10. What’s with this Christ? blond hair (slicked back), well-trimmed beard, bizarre white robe, and the skin is glowing white. This is the most Scandanavian of the depictions, and leaves me speechless. 

Page 25. Christ praying: well-groomed hair and beard, dull-yellow coat over off-white robe, and darker skin (looks like a deep sun tan). This illustration also gives him movie star good looks.

Page 40, 42, and 45 (repeated 7 times): Photographs of the cover to the spiral bound “Preach My Gospel: A Guide to Missionary Service.” This Christ is the most disappointing because of its intended use, missionary work. Christ has well-groomed hair (parted down the middle) and beard, white robe, and pale skin. The illustration, which shows John baptizing Christ, shows a similar John (except he has a tan robe and a slightly more rugged looking face).

Christ was born into a Mediterranean environment (King of the Jews), his skin was not lily white. How dark we will probably never know, but he was not Scandanavian. If Mormonism wants to be a truly international church, it needs to drop the European Christ, and come up with more realistic images. If the LDS Church wants to atone for past racial problems, it would be good to have a rather dark-skinned Christ. It would be good for the membership also.

I travel to Africa a great deal. It would be good for the members there to see a more realistic depiction of our Savior. Colonialism needs to end.

“Our ancestors have been human for a very long time. If a normal baby girl born forty thousand years ago were kidnapped by a time traveler and raised in a normal family in New York, she would be ready for college in eighteen years. She would learn English (along with—who knows?—Spanish or Chinese), understand trigonometry, follow baseball and pop music; she would probably want a pierced tongue and a couple of tattoos. And she would be unrecognizably different from the brothers and sisters she left behind.” –Kwame Anthony Appiah, Cosmopolitanism (2006)

What is this all about? Why the stark differentiation between genetically identical, yet unrecognizably distinct individuals like the girl in our time traveling kidnapper scenario and her siblings? Explicitly, the differences are not biological. They are ultimately differences in the collective, accumulated, storied contexts for the humans we are considering.

What is story, and why is it so powerful and persuasive in our development into mature individuality? The human capacity for narrative—like all of our intelligence capacities—is grounded in our biological make up. For us human beings, though, narrative and story are not only capacities, but they are veritable drives. We are a species saturated by fictions and story, and always will be so unless we undergo major, major revamping of the biological infrastructure underpinning our intelligent processes. (Which, incidentally, is not where I am going with this post.)

The story of our thirst for fiction and narrative is rooted in the story of the human brain. Briefly, I would like to look at narrative from the ground up. I should note that I lean heavily in this explanation on the work of Brian Boyd who has authored fabulous writing on the origin of stories. First, consider the evolutionary advantage of information sharing. Simply put, by sharing information, we can access more information than we can glean from our own efforts. This pooling of information shows up everywhere from honeybees doing a waggle dance to indicate to their fellow honeybees the distance and direction for nectar, to the alarm cries of monkeys or birds to alert their fellows toward the danger of lurking predators. It is readily apparent that the pooling of information by a group presents a major source of survival advantage, and indeed this cooperative communication to share more information than we can glean by our own individual efforts has been a major incentive in the development and evolution of social life.

So why narrative? Why story? Narrative is chock full of social information to guide our immediate decisions and general principles that we can apply in future circumstances. This is a very important point: that narrative–unlike mere communication–is essentially a compression of social information, which in other words means that narrative overwhelmingly focuses our attention on “strategic information.” As Boyd articulates:

The salient features of narrative are the strategic data, for example, of whether Jack is sleeping with Jill, rather than a metric of how deeply Jack is sleeping. Outside of notable exceptions such as autism, human beings are prone to swiftly both observe and interpret their world in terms of the patterns of agency, humanity, individuality, personality, action, and interaction of other human beings around them. In our ancestoral environment, strategic social information would almost always have been about people we had already met and would often meet again. We therefore have an endless fascination with *character* information, since it helps us to predict the behavior of those we interact with, and because this character information remains relatively stable over time. Today, many of us human beings are caught up in the fascination of people and lives of media celebrities who we will likely never meet, or with whom we will likely never have consequential interaction. Why do we do this? Just as our continued craving for sweet and fat reflects old circumstances of our environment of evolutionary adaptation from which we have not yet biologically advanced, likewise our often indiscriminate appetite for social information reflects an era in our evolutionary adaptation when we were likely to encounter repeatedly everyone we heard about. Thus we especially ingest information about the powerful, because their decisions and actions could influence our lives, as well as ingesting information about those who command attention, since they were likely to be the social leaders.

We [the directors] agree that it is a distinguished piece of writing; that the fable is very skillfully handled, and that the narrative keeps one’s interest on it own plane–and that is something that very few authors have achieved since Gulliver. On the other hand, we have no conviction that this is the right point of view from which to criticize the political situation at the present time [WWII]. . . . I am very sorry because whoever published this will naturally have the opportunity of publishing your future work: and I have a regard for your work, because it is good writing of fundamental integrity. . . .

Eliot, the ultimate Tory, did want want to upset the Soviets in the tough times of WWII. Besides, he noted, the pigs were the smartest of the farm animals, and were therefore the best qualified to rule.

This must be one of the oddest rejection slips ever. Animal Farm was eventually published by a small socialist house. Its success was immediate. Orwell must have taken pleasure in the fact that the book’s profits didn’t go to a capitalist publisher.

The book publishers had no qualms about going with 1984, an immediate best-seller on both sides of the Atlantic. Orwell, a writer long associated with the left, was a well-known socialist figure. Against that background 1984 was not conceived as a repudiation of socialist ideals, but as a warning for what might happen if the trends evident in 1948 continued (dividing up the world). When the book was hailed by the right-wing press generally, Orwell was so bothered by their simple anti-Communist interpretation that he sent out a press release outlining the book’s intended meaning.

Ten years ago, UHP Lt. Lee Perry and I thought up the memorial crosses as a way of honoring fallen friends and co-workers. Today, 14 crosses are posted around Utah. Some atheists are suing to have them removed from public land.

The crosses were recently declared illegal by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

. . . Truthfully, I don’t have a problem with them (atheists), and that includes the lawsuit. If they object to the crosses, they should sue us. This is America. That’s how this sort of thing works.

Corey J. Hodges writes on a similar subject. Author Ann Rice, former Catholic, former atheist, recent convert back to Christianity, has decided to move on . . . again. Rice explained that she does not fit into organized Christianity because she is not anti-gay, anti-feminist, anti-artificial birth control, anti-Democrat nor anti-science. Pastor Hodges sympathizes with her criticisms, but states:

Rice’s decision is unfortunate. She states that while she no longer is a Christian, she remains a follower of Christ. She reads the Bible and prays every day, by herself.

For obvious reasons, Pastor Hodges admonishes readers not to give up church atendance.

Both SLTrib writers have great conclusions to their columns:

A Christian should follow Christ and look to him, not other Christians, for an example.

In the end, it’s arrogance and intolerance that ruin any society (not atheists). And we are all working overtime on that.

The reader is left to guess which columnist wrote which conclusion.

On Aug 4, Barack Obama, celebrated his 49th birthday. Or at least, he did if you live in one version of the U.S. If you live in another version, on Aug 4, Barack Obama, the claimant to the presidency, celebrated an unknown anniversary of his birth on foreign soil, maybe Kenya, which makes him ineligible to hold his office.

And:

Many also believe that he (obama) is a Muslim, that 9/11 was an inside job or the work of Saddam Hussein, that health care reform will establish “death panels,” that FEMA made plans for “concentration camps,” that Trig Palin’s real mother is not Sarah but Bristol, that corporations or community organizers stole this or that election.

And religions are not immune from the power of myth. A very high percentage of Americans do not believe in evolution, instead professing a belief in the literal story at the start of Genesis. The Old Testament is full of myths that many Christians continue to believe are reality, for example:

• The creation story
• No death before the fall
• Noah’s flood
• Tower of Babel and language
• Jonah and the big fish
• Earth standing still

The Old Testament may be great literature, but is not particularly good history, and its certainly not a science book.

Mormons are certainly not immune from believing in myths. For example:

• Seagull-and-cricket story
• Three Nephite stories
• All Native Americans are Lamanites
• Afro-Americans are descendants of Cain and Ham, they were fence sitters in the war in heaven

Some of us would rather believe an inspirational fabrication, than a scientific fact. This anti-intellectualism is disturbing. But this type of thinking seems to be encouraged by the faction represented by Joseph Fielding Smith, Ezra Taft Benson, Bruce R. McConkie, and Boyd K. Packer. On the other side, you have individuals like B.H. Roberts, James Talmage, John A. Widtsoe, Henry Eyring, and many contemporary scientists at BYU who argue for a more scientific fact-based approach to Mormonism and religion in general. 

If we don’t give up on our myths (or at least de-emphasize them), we will continue to lose our young college-trained members. We are already losing our appeal to scientific community.

Situated in an isolated valley east of Ogden UT is the home of 37 Catholic monks. They live in an austere quadrangle of quonset buildings in the foothills near the small, predominently Mormon community of Huntsville. According to a promotional leaflet, the monks live a “gentle balanced life in the peaceful solitude of a mountain valley.”

Father Virgil, who is in charge of the monastery’s visitor center, explains that life at the abbey is centered around God’s work (or the Divine Office) and farm work. Seven times each day, with the first office beginning at 3:30 am, the monks gather in their large chapel to chant their praises to God. Each monk is required to do four hours of self-sustaining labor each day.

The Huntsville abbey sits on a 1,860-acre farm. The farm makes the abbey financially independent. The agricultural projects of the monastery are diverse. Father Virgil speaks proudly of the monastery’s dairy operation: “It’s the most productive herd of any in the State of Utah and 112th of 1,855 surveyed nationally.” The monastery also has 300 beef cattle, a large egg industry, a bakery for bread, and an honey processor.

The Huntsville monastic development is a farmer’s dream. A glance around tells even the casual observer that the farm is carefully maintained. It is stocked with modern equipment. The only television in the abbey is a closed circuit system to monitor developments in the calving pens.

The monks came to Odgen Valley in 1947 as part of Catholic missionary effort of prayer, work, and example in an area where members of their religion were in a minority. The abbey is an off-shoot from a Kentucky Monastery.

While the monastic farm has all the latest equipment, the monks live simple quiet lives. They belong to the Order of Cistercians of the Strict Observance, commonly called Trappists. They live the Benedictine Rule requiring celibacy, poverty, and humble obedience. Trappists also follow a strict dietary regime which allows no meat. The monks also live by a rule of silence. Up until the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council in the 1960s, the rule was almost absolute in forbidding verbal communications. But since Vatican II, the rule calls for a spirit of silence and allows for necessary verbal communication.

But silence is still a prized commodity. According to Father Virgil, each monk is expected “to respect the solitude of fellow monks.” Meals, for example, are eaten in silence.

• If you are a full tithe payer, consider dividing some of your 10 percent between: fast offerings, the perpetual education fund, and LDS Humanitarian Services.
• If you are not a full tithe payer, consider giving some of your 10 percent to reputable charities like: Oxfam, Doctors without Borders, Partners in Health, Heifer, Green Peace, etc.
• Volunteer with reputable local “green” organizations or charities. Robert Kirby suggested volunteering at least 2 hours for every hour that you spend in church.
• Organize “green” and charitable projects in your local church or place of employment.
• Volunteer for a humanitarian mission.
• If your church constructs a new building, encourage leaders to make it “green.”
• When informative articles appear in church publications, write a letter or email thanking the editor.
• If you travel abroad in developing countries, travel with eco-friendly groups or tours.
• Encourage low-cost “green” funerals.

To list just a few.

In rural areas where time can be more abundant than money, time banks give participants credits for time spent helping others, allowing them to tap these credits when they need assistance. States such as Missouri and Michigan have enacted legislation in support of time banks.

Localization of economics is a social and ecological imparative based on vibrant, resilient local economies, which support national and global economies. The global economy should not crush and destroy local economies. It should be based on earth-centered and community-centered knowledge systems. Living knowledge is knowledge that mains and renews living processes and contributes to the health of the planet and people. Living knowledge is a commons; it belongs collectively to communities that create it and keep it alive. All humans have a duty to share knowledge. Rights are derived from and balanced with responsibility. Those who bear the consequences of decisions and actions should be the decision makers. Living economies connect people in circles of care, cooperation and compassion instead of dividing them through competition and conflict.

It would seem that the concept of strong local land-based (living) economies would be very helpful on Native American reservations and in Developing Countries.