Mormon Mudphud

"Mormon feminists"

2008-04-27T19:28:00.000-07:00

Mormon feminists do not really exist--not IN the Church anyway. And definitely not on feministmormonhousewives.org.

I think it's virutally impossible to be a true Mormon feminist and endure Relief Society for 20+ years. I think self-proclaimed "Mormon feminists" are much more likely to be orthodox believers in a patriarchal order. Real feminists would reject everything about Mormon patriarchy. Self-proclaimed "Mormon feminists" usually just defend their treatment and the patriarchy.

A Mormon woman cannot be a feminist in the Church any more than an FLDS woman in a polygamous marriage with 13 kids could be a feminist.

If an online "Mormon feminist" wants to walk on the wild side, she might suggest that Joseph Smith committed adultery, or she might even claim that Nephi committed murder.

But "feministmormonhousewives" take wimpy positions that reject anything resembling true feminism, and then they claim to be something they are not. That's my opinion.

A female bishop...

2008-04-22T13:32:00.001-07:00

I have often pondered how it's going to work when women get the priesthood.

For example, how would a bishopric operate? What about a man calling another man's wife to be first counselor? That seems problematic.

I think the Relief Society presidency will someday be elevated to the stand, and they will be the female priesthood leaders of the ward. I think women will confess to women, and men will confess to men. Would discipline situations be enforced more arbitrarily because of this? I think it's hardly possible to be more arbitrary than things already are.

I still can't figure out how a bishop or bishop-ette would handle couples counseling. Could a couple choose a favorite priesthood leader (male or female) for counseling? Maybe they would just refer couples to professional counseling more often. I'm all for that.

I shared my thoughts with a Mormon friend of mine the other day. He replied:

"Don't tell me women don't have the priesthood already!!! They perform ordinances in the temple!"

Hmmmmm.

Best Senate Beatdown Ever

2008-04-22T13:30:00.000-07:00

Japanese Health Care System

2008-04-19T10:32:00.000-07:00

I recently had a question/answer session with my Japanese physician coworker, an ear, nose, and throat physician who is working in my laboratory. He has lived in America for 10 years, and he has 3 children.

Q: How long is the wait to see a physician in Japan?
A: Same day

Q: What if you are diagnosed with cancer and need to see an oncologist? How long do you have to wait in this case?
A: Same day

Q: How much does a doctor's visit cost you personally?
A: 5 dollars

Q: What if the patient is diagnosed with cancer? How much does that cost the patient?
A: 10-20 dollars a month.

Q: What is the average salary for physicians in Japan?
A: Over 100,000 dollars a year.

Q: What do you think the problem is with Japanese health care?
A: If you are wealthy, you cannot pay for a higher level of care. I would like to see wealthy patients be able to demand better care. However, I believe the average level of care in Japan is similar to that in America, except we don't have to wait in Japan.

Q: How are physician salaries determined?
A: A physician makes a certain salary based on the level of subspecialty, and salaries are identical for each "level of training." The hospital hires as many physicians as is necessary to treat patients immediately, without a wait.

My conclusion: American health care could be SO much better if powerful people weren't for sale.

Don't call us Mormon!

2008-04-19T09:24:00.000-07:00

Maybe I'm just being silly, but the word Mormon is still SO problematic for us. I was just pondering the following:

1) "Don't call us 'Mormon'. We don't go by that name."
2) "Don't call the FLDS 'Mormon'. They are not part of our Church!"

D&C 132 needs to be amended or deleted ASAP (if GAs really want to cut the cord). Fact is, common heritage and common scripture link the FLDS and the LDS. The vast majority of Mormons believe in Celestial polygamy. It's been 120 years since the Church officially disavowed polygamy. It's time to take that rejection of polygamy to the next level. I wish the LDS Church would set the record straight, clarify a complete (past, present and future) rejection of polygamy, and start an advertising campaign aimed at educating people.

Church Leaders and Street Bums

2008-04-19T08:50:00.000-07:00

"Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these My brethren, ye have done it unto Me." -JC

Is it wrong to show more respect (or reverence) for a church leader than a street bum?

This question follows: why does everyone stand up when GBH walks into the room? This tradition has always seemed strange to me. It's as if people worship the prophet himself. I guess it's ok, if people would treat anyone the same way, but I don't think they would.

Evolution and Genesis

2008-04-18T21:55:00.000-07:00

I have a few things to say about evolution and Genesis.

First of all, if you are literalist, then let's all be genuine literalists for a moment. God created the world in 6 days. He made Eve from Adam's rib. If you're a Mormon, then you had modern prophets who taught you that it was actually 6 creative periods, and the whole rib things was completely figurative (according to Kimball). If it weren't for these guys, Mormons might be Evangelicals.

We know that the LDS Church initially embraced the concept of evolution. The first presidency actually published missionary tracts about how we embrace Darwin's theories and that all of these truths are consistent with the Gospel. It wasn't until Joseph Fielding Smith and McConkie that Mormons reverted to literalism.

I ask you literalists (or partial literalists..."macro vs. micro evolution"...half-way acknowledgers of the scientific evidence) to assume that your God does not lie or attempt to deceive his children by planting misleading evidence in the earth's layers.

What do we know beyond any reasonable doubt? Here are just a few items:

1) We know that the earth is ~4.5 billion years old.

2) We know that life first appeared as very simple lifeforms which were replaced and/or joined over many millions of years by more complex lifeforms.

3) We know that snakes have vestigial hip bones and legs that have no function and don't even protrude from their bodies.

4) We know that whales have bony legs and hips in their bodies.

5) We know that birds have pairs of organs just like we do, including pairs of kidneys and ovaries, etc. This is a form of insurance, whereby you can lose one organ, but the second acts as a back-up. In the case of birds, however, it was such an advantage to be lighter that one of the paired organs is very small and has no function. We also know that flightless birds still have "flight feathers," which is sort of funny when you think about it.

6) We know that the fossil record is full of innumerable organisms which have lived and died on this earth, which are obvious evolutionary intermediates.

7) There are ~20,000 genes in a single human being. We know that basically all of the genes in humans are very similar to the genes of other mammals, including mice. There are many very small genetic differences which yield a very different-looking organism. Many human genes can replace mouse genes without any change in function or development. And we know that small genetic differences and mutations occur frequently within any given species.

8) We humans all look different because we all have different versions of the same genes, and these differences result from random mutations. Some of us are actually "missing" genes which other humans have, or some of us have defects that render particular genes to be completely "nonfunctional."

9) We know that there were many humanoid organisms that lived on earth before us, and these organisms could not be called humans.

10) We know that humans tend to get sinus problems because our sinuses are actually designed to drain well from a position of "all fours," but when our ancestors began walking upright, the drainage problem wasn't exactly something that was life-threatening, and so this problem remains.

11) We know that the human jaw has progressively become smaller over the last few thousand years, leading to pesky "wisdom teeth" problems.

12) We know that our own chromosomes are absolutely full of "nonfunctional genes" and junk DNA that are vestiges of genes which were once functional (or are still functional) in other species. I guess God inserted "junk genes" into our DNA for recreational purposes? It's especially fun to look at homologues of our junk genes which are fully functional in other species, and vice versa.

For example, we know that humans actually have functional genes which encode rows of nipples, just like a dog. However, most of these genes are "turned off." Occasionally you might have seen someone in gym class with "extra nipples" which resulted from a random mutation. (Most mutations are bad, but rarely you get a good mutation which makes survival and reproduction more likely.) We also know that males have nipples, which is sort of silly when you think about it.

Why do vestiges exist? It's not advantageous to get rid of them once a feature becomes vestigial. This is especially true if a vestige is not energetically expensive and doesn't harm one's ability to survive and reproduce. It's the same reason that human embryos transiently display nonfunctional gills and tails during their development.

13) We know that we humans have a "plantaris" muscle in our calves which has no function, but is very important in apes for clenching their "feet."

14) We don't know everything about the evolution of species, but we know more than you or I or anyone could possibly remember or comprehend. And the evidence for human evolution is overwhelming.

The fundamental problem with evolution doubters is that they can't comprehend very large numbers and time periods, nor do they understand how biology and science operate. I'm completely sympathetic on the big number issue, because I can't fathom the thought of "100 million years" either.

Can someone else come up with an alternative theory that unifies all of biology and is completely consistent with the incomprehensibly large mountains of evidence? I simply cannot understand why a reasonable person would doubt human evolution, given the evidence.

Chiasmus

2008-04-18T20:33:00.000-07:00

Chiasmus is an ancient linguistic pattern that exhibits inverted parallelism, where the first clause is the same as the last, and the second clause is the same as the next to last, and so on. If numbers represent a word or phrase, chiasmus would look like this: 1 2 3 4 4 3 2 1. This sort of thing was common in poetry in the ancient Middle East. For example, in Genesis we read:

Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed.

Similar examples are found in the Book of Mormon, and this has often been used by "scholars" to argue that the Book of Mormon was written by ancient Hebrews, as is believed by most Mormons.

Maybe someone out there watched the PBS documentary on Mormons. The show had mixed reviews from Mormons and non-Mormons alike. That's a sign of a good documentary. I highly recommend it.

While perusing letters to the editor of the Deseret News, a friend and I noticed distinct linguistic patterns indicating that some of the letters were actually written by ancient hebrews.

A letter from Shawna to the Deseret News:

"As an active member of the LDS Church, I was disappointed in the documentary, "The Mormons" that aired on PBS. I felt it was way too negative and relied on too many interviews from former members whose views were definitely tainted, and possibly inaccurate. The interviews represented ONE person's experience and did not accurately represent the whole church. I don't feel that it represented the church well at all. It was not balanced and dwelt on too many negative issues, when there is so much good. People who don't know anything about our faith who watched this show will definitely come away with a narrow, negative view. What a shame! — Shawna, California"

MormonMudphud's analysis:

(1) As an active member of the LDS CHURCH, I was disappointed in THE DOCUMENTARY, "The Mormons" that aired on PBS.

(2) I felt it was way TOO NEGATIVE and relied on too many interviews from former members whose views were definitely tainted, and possibly inaccurate.

(3) The interviews REPRESENTED ONE person's experience and did not accurately represent the whole church.

(3') I don't feel that it REPRESENTED the church well at all.

(2') It was not balanced and dwelt on TOO many NEGATIVE issues, when there is so much good.

(1') People who don't know anything about OUR FAITH who watched THIS SHOW will definitely come away with a narrow, negative view.

Therefore, Shawna in California is probably an ancient Hebrew.

I say this only because I think many of us Mormons are intellectually dishonest, and that's sad. It's OK to be realistic and still be a Mormon. Shawna probably isn't an ancient Hebrew, and for all we know, Shawna (or one of her ancestors) could be responsible for Book of Mormon chiasmus.

It sort of ticks me off that I had to attend lectures on fake chiasmus at BYU to get my diploma. On the other hand, it's fun to consider why some (or all?) humans have a natural tendency to write with chiasmus.

Introduction

2008-04-18T20:05:00.000-07:00

Welcome to my blog!

I am a progressive, Mormon physician-scientist-in-training. I talk too much.

So instead of talking an unwilling listener's ear off, I decided to start a blog. That way people can voluntarily click in and out of my little world at their own convenience.

On my blog, you'll find ramblings on science, politics, sports, culture, religion, and much more. I prefer controversial topics. (I'm a dinner host's worst nightmare.)

And unlike most Mormonoblogs, you will not find an eternal Christmas letter. I hope someone out there enjoys it!