Example 1:  Elder Poelman’s View of Divine Love:

About a month after McConkie’s speech excoriating George Pace for promoting the concept of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, Elder Ronald E. Poelman, a fairly new member of the First Quorum of the Seventy (one level below the apostles in the Church hierarchy) gave an address in General Conference which appears to have been carefully worded to imply the existence of a personal relationship with the Lord, without crossing any of the lines that McConkie had drawn.  Elder Poelman’s talk included the following statement:

By disobeying the laws of God and breaking his commandments, we do offend him, we do estrange ourselves from him, and we don’t deserve his help and inspiration and strength. But God’s love for us transcends our transgressions.

–God’s Love for Us Transcends Our Transgressions, General Conference speech, delivered April 3, 1982

It’s possible that I am reading too much into Poelman’s choice of words in this talk, but I note that he used concepts commonly reserved for personal relationships, like “estranged”, “reconciled”, “God wants us to return to Him”, and “God’s love for us, his children”, without using the actual word “relationship”. He also used the words “Lord” and “God” interchangeably, blurring the line between “God the Father” and “Jesus Christ”, a line McConkie had been very careful to draw in his BYU smackdown speech. Poelman suggested a concept of God’s love that was like a parent’s love: liberal, unconditional, and independent of any sins or disobedience we may engage in. This concept effectively takes God’s love out of the control of the Church by removing the possibility that conditions could be placed upon it by Church authorities.

If George Pace’s experience is any indication, Elder Poelman was skating on thin ice with this concept. But would Poelman’s status as a General Authority of the Church (rather than a religious educator) save him from the harsh correction of the top leadership? Well, McConkie didn’t crucify him for the speech, if that’s what you’re wondering about.  Years later, however, Poelman’s concept of divine love as unconditional in nature was definitively superseded by a 2003 article written by Apostle Russell M. Nelson, which places God’s love back in control of the Church by explicitly conditioning it on obedience:

While divine love can be called perfect, infinite, enduring, and universal, it cannot correctly be characterized as unconditional.

***

Why is divine love conditional? Because God loves us and wants us to be happy. “Happiness is the object and design of our existence; and will be the end thereof, if we pursue the path that leads to it; and this path is virtue, uprightness, faithfulness, holiness, and keeping all the commandments of God.”¹

–”Divine Love”, Ensign, Feb 2003, p. 20 (emphasis added)

I’m not saying that Elder Nelson’s article was specifically prompted by Elder Poelman’s view of God’s love (I don’t think Poelman’s 1982 talk was especially influential in 2003), rather, Poelman’s view is symbolic of the very common belief among members of the LDS Church that God has unconditional love for them. They aspire to model their own love for others based on this unconditionality. The persistence of that belief is what, I think, prompted Elder Nelson’s article, which puts an official stamp of disapproval on the concept, reclaiming for the Church (and its leaders) its traditional place between the Latter-day Saints and God.

Example 2:  Elder Poelman’s View of the Gospel and the Church:

On October 7, 1984 (an appropriately Orwellian year), Ronald E. Poelman’s General Conference talk became the most famous casualty to date in the ongoing battle for control over the lifeblood of the Church.

His talk was titled “The Gospel and the Church”, and it was about recognizing distinctions between the Church and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Poelman emphasized, among other things, that following the Gospel makes members of the Church less dependent on the Church for fulfillment, and that concepts of Mormon “orthodoxy” and conformity should be founded on the eternal laws of God, like free (moral) agency, rather than the institutional Church.  Prior to publication and distribution of the talk (in print and video format) to members of the Church worldwide, the talk was drastically rewritten, and the new talk was refilmed (and spliced into the conference program tape as if originally delivered there).  The edited talk now focused on the harmonious “essential relationship” between the Church and the Gospel, and it emphasized the members’ dependence on the instruction of the Church and its leaders in order to correctly follow the Gospel.  The original version of the talk, as far as the Church was concerned, disappeared down the memory hole.

Fortunately, however, people had recorded the original television broadcast of the talk (see [Part 1] and [Part 2]), and in November 1984, when the Church published the altered version of the talk, people transcribed the original talk and compared the two versions.²  For a side-by-side comparision of the entire talk, Click Here.  Below are some highlights:

1)         Original quote (deletions marked):

As individually and collectively we increase our knowledge, acceptance, and application of gospel principles, we become less dependent on Church programs. Our lives become gospel centered.

Edited quote:

As individually and collectively we increase our knowledge, acceptance, and application of gospel principles, we can more effectively utilize the Church to make our lives more gospel centered.

2)        Original quote (deletions marked):

The conformity we require should be according to God’s standards.  The orthodoxy upon which we insist must be founded in fundamental principles and eternal law, including free agency and the divine uniqueness of the individual.

Edited quote:

Therefore, as we live the gospel and participate in the Church, the conformity we require of ourselves and of others should be according to God’s standards.  The orthodoxy upon which we insist must be founded in fundamental principles, eternal law, and direction given by those authorized in the Church.

3)        Original quote (deletions marked):

When we understand the difference between the gospel and the Church and the appropriate function of each in our daily lives, we are much more likely to do the right things for the right reasons.

Edited quote:

When we see the harmony between the gospel and the Church in our daily lives, we are much more likely to do the right things for the right reasons.

4)        Original quote (deletions marked):

Institutional discipline is replaced by self discipline.  Supervision is replaced by righteous initiative and a sense of divine accountability.

Edited quote:

We will exercise self discipline and righteous initiative guided by Church leaders and a sense of divine accountability.

The details of how a completely new version of Poelman’s talk came about are not publicly known, and it is doubtful that the folks involved in the censoring will ever explain what happened, as Elder Poelman was, and continues to be, a loyal General Authority of the Church.  Clearly, however, the edits made by the Church to Poelman’s talk demonstrate Church leaders’ insistence on asserting themselves into the middle of the relationship between Church members and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  By doing this, the Church leaders retain control over Hope, the lifeblood of the Church system.

-PWM

_________________________

1. As an aside, this statement quoted by Elder Nelson comes from a letter written by Joseph Smith to 19 year-old Nancy Rigdon, in an attempt to persuade her to be his secret polygamous bride, using the rationale that anything God commands is automatically moral and right. She was ultimately unconvinced, and showed the letter to her father, Sidney Rigdon (Joseph’s second-in-command). Joseph allegedly told Sidney that the letter had just been a test of his daughter’s virtue. The episode remains one of Joseph Smith’s creepiest alpha-maleish abuses of power.  With that context in mind, Elder Nelson’s use of the quote raises questions. What kind of “happiness” was Elder Nelson thinking of? The kind that comes only through fully submitting to the authority of Church leaders? Very clever, Russ.
2. The incident was reported in Sunstone Magazine.

In the early 1980’s, a BYU professor named George Pace had previously given speeches and written a book promoting the idea that people should “center their lives on Christ and…develop their own personal relationship with Him.” Even though Pace was simply echoing ideas recently taught in General Conference by then-apostle (and future First Presidency Counselor) James E. Faust, his “taking out the middle man” approach to interacting with the Savior prompted a humiliating public rebuke from Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, which included the following counsel:

The proper course for all of us is to stay in the mainstream of the Church. This is the Lord’s Church, and it is led by the spirit of inspiration, and the practice of the Church constitutes the interpretation of the scripture.

And you have never heard one of the First Presidency or the Twelve, who hold the keys of the kingdom, and who are appointed to see that we are not “tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine” (Ephesians 4:14)–you have never heard one of them advocate this excessive zeal that calls for gaining a so-called special and personal relationship with Christ.

***

I wonder if it is not part of Lucifer’s system to make people feel they are special friends of Jesus when in fact they are not following the normal and usual pattern of worship found in the true Church.

–Our Relationship with the Lord, BYU Devotional speech, delivered March 1, 1982

George Pace’s idea had (inadvertantly or not) removed the Church and those leaders “who hold the keys of the kingdom” from their position as mediators between Church members and the Savior, and in doing so, had given Church members a means of independently obtaining Hope, through their personal connection with Jesus Christ. Elder McConkie put Pace, and the rest of his Lucifer-inspired (possibly unintentional) populists in their place. In McConkie’s view, only the prophets and apostles have the right to a special or personal relationship with Christ. Only the prophets and apostles have the power to prescribe the proper way for mankind to approach God and obtain salvation.  Hope is managed and apportioned through them.

After McConkie’s rebuke, Pace apologized for his impertinence:

I mean to stay in the mainstream of the Church, urging any with whom I have influence to listen to the words of our leaders, to pray earnestly for guidance, and to grow spiritually in our capacity to be obedient to the will and mind of God for us, giving full and appropriate reverence to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

-PWM

____________________________

This can be seen, for example, in an organism, which is a living system made up of highly specialized components (subsystems, cells, symbionts, etc.). These specialized components have certain needs that are outside the scope of the functions they perform themselves, and they must therefore rely on other components of the system to meet those needs. The paradigmatic example of this phenomenon is blood, a system component that performs oxygenation, nutrition, waste management, temperature regulation, immunological response, communication, and other functions for the specialized parts of the organism, enabling those parts to spend their time making unique contributions to the whole. Blood is a key part of the system, because most other components rely directly upon it for continued existence.

Higher-level systems, like business organizations or religions, are made up of individuals that aren’t as fundamentally dependent on the system as the specialized parts of an organism, but there are analogous “lifeblood” elements that keep individuals engaged in, and contributing to, the system.

A business organization’s lifeblood element is money. Money, like blood in an organism, is the key medium through which the individuals in the system are able to meet the needs they must set aside in order to participate in the system (e.g., they buy food instead of spending time hunting it, buy clothing instead of spending time making it, etc.). Money is also the central incentive motivating people to contribute to the system, because money allows them to eat better food than they could come up with on their own, wear better clothing than they could make on their own, etc. The top managers of a business organization perform the important function of determining how the money earned by the organization should flow through to the different parts of the system. More important individuals generally get more money, but everybody gets something–enough to keep the system intact.

The LDS Church (at least the religious wing of the organization) has a lifeblood element, but it is not money. The lifeblood of the Church is hope or reassurance about one’s eventual salvation in the Celestial Kingdom (I’ll call it “Hope”). Like business organizations, the top managers of the Church exercise control over how the lifeblood of Hope flows through the system to nourish and motivate the members of the Church. The strength of the Church system depends on how effectively Church leaders manage the distribution of Hope.

I started to see the Church in these terms during the early days of renegotiating my relationship with it. I noticed that the LDS apostles and prophets usually make sure to place themselves and the Church between God and Church members, in a position that allows them to meter out and control Hope, and therefore control the members. The more a Church leader’s personal interests are aligned with the interests of the Church organization, the more of an interest he has in controlling the means by which Church members can obtain Hope.

Church leaders at different levels of the hierarchy have butted heads over this issue. Sometimes a lower-level authority or academic will advocate for a view of salvation that allows for Hope independent of the Church hierarchy. Such populism-flavored views are usually corrected by the top leaders of the Church, sometimes in particularly nasty ways. I will give examples in future posts.

-PWM

Mormon Woman Wondering asked:

Please help me understand how you…speak with your children, with integrity to your beliefs and with sensitivity to their need for something to hold onto in this world.

This is a tough question, particularly for somebody like me, with a spouse who is active in the Church, and who wants our kids to be active too. Obviously, my solution is a compromise, and could possibly have been different if she felt differently.  But I think this solution does take into account the potential need for kids to have something to hold onto as they develop their own worldview.

As background, I think it is useful to note that my wife and I share the opinion that childhood is a key time for a person to learn basic lessons about how the world works, and the older a person gets, the more costly those lessons will generally become (e.g., getting caught cheating on a test when you are eight years old is less costly than getting caught cheating on a final exam in college).  As parents, we have a chance to control, to a significant extent, the circumstances under which our children get their lessons, in order to best help them prepare for adulthood and the real world.  The issue my wife and I are dealing with, then, is deciding which circumstances are best for teaching our kids the lessons.

My wife believes that going to church is a good way for the kids to get some of those lessons, and at the age the kids are at right now (5-9 years old), I agree.  At this age, the church teaches kids simple lessons about gratitude, sharing with others, respect for other people, honesty, obedience, and other basic concepts that help them get along in society.  The fact that these lessons are often taught in the context of myths and legends about Joseph Smith, or characters in the Book of Mormon or Bible, is not that big of a deal to me.  I think children are well-equipped to learn through stories that are presented as true, whether they actually are or not.  It is not much different to me than using any other more conventional fairy tales to teach morality and ethics (i.e. Goldilocks and the Three Bears, or Santa Claus), so I have gone along with the process, limiting my input to questions meant to gauge their understanding of the lessons they learn in church.

I don’t go to church, and my kids notice that.  But just like times when they notice that Santa doesn’t being me very many presents, I refrain from completely leveling with them.  My response so far has been to say that I have graduated from church, just like I graduated from school.  I can say this with sincerity, because it is the truth, from my perspective.  It works as an answer for my kids and my wife, because, just like school, I am not giving them a reason to give her trouble about staying home.  They go and learn their lessons, just like their mom and I went when we were their age, and they will have a chance to “graduate” when they are old enough to make that decision.  We have stayed vague about the details of graduation.

Of course, as our kids get older, the focus of the lessons taught in the Church will gradually change from teaching them basic moral and ethical concepts to indoctrinating them into the LDS worldview (regarding gender roles, sexuality, sin, Truth, religious authority, non-LDS beliefs, etc.).  I do have serious concerns about that, but my wife and I haven’t formally developed a game plan for dealing with it yet.  I might write more about the issue in a future post.

-PWM

This seems like a neat and tidy way to avoid conflicts between science and religion–just treat the religious view as a divinely-inspired metaphor only.
The strategy carries forward to other events described in the Bible that conflict with science (e.g., Noah’s Ark (and the flood) , or even the Exodus). Once science has persuaded you that the events probably didn’t actually happen the way the Bible says (and perhaps you were taught to believe), you simply thank science and conclude that they’re just metaphors.

It’s actually easy for a Mormon to do this with the Bible, because Mormons believe the Bible to be the word of God only to the extent that it has been translated correctly, and the current version of the Bible is missing many “plain and precious things” that were removed or otherwise corrupted since the books were first written. In the mainstream LDS view, the Bible is already a potential minefield of half-truths and uninspired poetry, so relabeling seemingly literal elements as metaphorical in light of new scientific knowledge is no big deal.

But what about taking that same approach with the Book of Mormon?

Such an approach is rarely seen in the LDS Church, if ever. Joseph Smith once said that the Book of Mormon is “the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion.” That quote is proudly printed in the introduction of every copy of the Book of Mormon published by the LDS Church, as is the following challenge to the world: “We invite all men everywhere to read the Book of Mormon, to ponder in their hearts the message it contains, and then to ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ if the book is true.” Now, as a Mormon with those sweeping declarations ringing in your ears and permeating your concept of the religion, which Book of Mormon stories are you going to declare to be not literally true? I didn’t think so.

That doesn’t mean, of course, that events and facts depicted in Book of Mormon stories don’t conflict with the discoveries of science. In fact, I would assert that under scientific scrutiny, the Book of Mormon fares significantly worse than the Bible (which is saying a lot, considering the Bible’s track record). Here are a few clear opportunities to label Book of Mormon stories as metaphors that mainstream Mormons never take:

1. The American Indians, who the Church (until 2006) believed were descended principally from large Semitic nations that dominated the Americas for about 1000 years (Nephites and Lamanites), as chronicled in the Book of Mormon,¹ are actually genetically Asian. Their ancestors came from Siberia to the American continent via a land bridge that existed anciently.
2. Crucial Book of Mormon animals (horses, domesticated cattle, elephants, domesticated sheep, goats, swine)? No trace.
3. Crucial Book of Mormon ores and alloys (iron and steel)? No trace.
4. Millions of Jaredites and hundreds of thousands of Nephites and Lamanites (numbers rivaling the size of the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans) who died on the same battlefield, years apart? No trace.
5. The Book of Mormon’s Jaredite civilization is supposed to have formed in the wake of the miraculous confounding of human languages at the Tower of Babel. LDS apologist John L. Sorenson places the date of that event at the unreasonably early date of 3100 BC². Even accepting this strained, faith-accommodating date as the best estimate for the event, it is still right around the generally accepted date of the emergence of the Sumerian writing system (3100 BC), which developed long after humans were already speaking Sumerian and any number of other languages, not the mythical “Adamic” language.

For somebody taking the “inspired metaphor” approach, just the few conflicts between the Book of Mormon and scientific consensus listed above seem to place the entire Book of Mormon narrative in the category of metaphor. It’s no wonder this approach is not accepted in mainstream Mormonism–as applied to any LDS Scripture, including the Bible and the Book of Mormon. This rejection of the “inspired metaphor” approach places mainstream Mormons in the same camp as the creationists and intelligent design proponents.

Definitely not my camp.

-PWM

_________________________

1. For example, the Nephites and Lamanites “did cover the whole face of the land, both on the northward and on the southward, from the sea west to the sea east“
2. I think 3100 BC is early because the Book of Mormon indicates that only about 30 generations of Jaredites lived prior to the civilization’s demise sometime after 600 BC, which requires an unthinkable 80+ years per generation, if we take Sorenson’s early date. With this in mind, the more mainstream Christian/LDS date (acknowledged by Sorenson) of around 2200 BC seems early too (50+ years per generation). Using Sorenson’s dates, about 125 generations (20 years per generation) would be more reasonable, but possibly still a bit low. But it doesn’t matter. What matters is that as far as science is concerned, the chronology of Middle Earth is just as real.

Jack Mormons, despite having left the Church, continue to view the world essentially through the lens of Mormonism, and maintain the essential beliefs of the mainstream LDS Church. They are basically orthodox (i.e., correct in their religious beliefs), but they are not orthoprax (i.e., correct in their religious practices). Jack Mormons and mainstream members of the LDS Church get along pretty well, because Jack Mormons confirm and support LDS religious beliefs; their only problem is failing to obey the rules. They agree that they aren’t doing what they are “supposed” to do, and they can often be coaxed back into participation.

Apostates are a different story. Apostates and mainstream members of the LDS Church generally have a much harder time getting along, because Apostates are often neither orthodox nor orthoprax–they have knowingly discarded the essential LDS paradigm and beliefs, and that is why they do not obey the rules. The dynamic of the relationship is different from the relationship with Jack Mormons–it’s not merely about participating (”active”) vs. non-participating (”inactive”) Mormons, it’s about believing vs. non-believing Mormons. When believing Mormons engage Apostates, they come dangerously close to questioning their own beliefs, and becoming Apostates themselves. Not surprisingly, the LDS Church openly demonizes and belittles people it considers to be Apostates, and teaches that they are covenant-breaking servants of Satan (see, for example, this 2007 adult Sunday school lesson, titled “Beware the Bitter Fruits of Apostasy”, which was recently presented in LDS congregations worldwide).

Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland recently publicly belittled people who don’t believe in the literal historicity of the Book of Mormon. He called them “foolish”, “misled”, and “deceived”, and derided their attempts to explain the origins of the Book of Mormon in naturalistic terms as “pathetic”. He likened people who leave the Church for intellectual reasons to insects or vermin of some sort who have to “crawl over, or under, or around the Book of Mormon to make that exit.” Jeffrey R. Holland apparently likes to pontificate about the awful fates and consequences that await intellectual dissenters from the Church (and their children). I wrote more about that here.

Obviously, if you want to leave, but still maintain relatively positive contact and open relationships with members of LDS communities, it is easier to be a Jack Mormon than to be an Apostate.

-PWM

I attended Brigham Young University, and within a few of years of fairly intense study there, I found that current LDS beliefs and practices didn’t match up with past LDS beliefs and practices, and that both the present and the past Church left much to be desired as God’s beacon of Truth, wisdom, and enlightenment. I graduated from “the Lord’s University” with a BA, a pregnant wife, a kid, and very little religious faith in Mormonism. I tried hard to find an explanation for the state of the LDS Church that could reassure me that God was involved somehow in running the show, but reassurance never came. I dealt with my severe disappointment by resolving to not take Mormonism so seriously, and to focus on the good that the LDS Church was about as a social institution, rather than its Truth, which I found had a tendency to crumble under scrutiny.

In spring of 2003, after I graduated from BYU, I listened to an address delivered by LDS Church Apostle Jeffery R. Holland, titled A Prayer for the Children. In it, he said:

I speak carefully and lovingly to any of the adults of the Church, parents or otherwise, who may be given to cynicism or skepticism, who in matters of whole-souled devotion always seem to hang back a little, who at the Church’s doctrinal campsite always like to pitch their tents out on the periphery of religious faith. To all such—whom we do love and wish were more comfortable camping nearer to us—I say, please be aware that the full price to be paid for such a stance does not always come due in your lifetime. No, sadly, some elements of this can be a kind of profligate national debt, with payments coming out of your children’s and grandchildren’s pockets in far more expensive ways than you ever intended it to be.

As friendly and gentle as Holland tried to make his words sound, the curse (or threat) they carried rang harshly in my ears. He was telling me that I must exchange my reticent skepticism and critical thinking for an outward show of “whole-souled devotion” to the LDS Church, or there would be hell to pay. I almost laughed when, a moment later, he declared that in the process of learning about the Gospel, “there is no place for coercion or manipulation, no place for intimidation or hypocrisy.” (Coulda fooled me, Jeffrey!) Over the course of his talk, Holland’s clear expectation of conformity at all costs marked the first (and not the last) time the rhetoric of an LDS Church leader rubbed me the wrong way. I was sincere in my skepticism; I had good reason for it. This Apostle was asking me to be insincere about my beliefs with my own children.

Hearing that manipulative pap from a man who was supposedly one of Jesus Christ’s key representatives on Earth was a monumental experience for me. It marked the moment that I realized there may no longer be a place for me at the LDS campfire, and I decided then to embrace my skepticism and critical thinking and set up camp at the periphery of Mormonism. And here I have remained, a poor wayfaring man of sorts, not really welcome in my own culture.

Who am I?

You might actually know me. I may have been an anonymous member of your ward, trying my best to blend into the background, biting my tongue in Sunday School, or maybe even serving in a bishopric. Don’t worry, even if I do happen to be living in your ward, I generally steer clear of the whole-souled devotees now. All of the inauthenticity I’m required to hide behind at church has made the LDS Sunday experience very tedious for me, so I prefer not to participate. But my wife and children still go to LDS Church meetings nearly every Sunday, and that keeps Mormonism on my mind.

You will probably hear more from me.

-PWM

What lesson does this song teach? Well, the central message appears to be that everything the narrator did to help the beggar actually earned the narrator serious capital in the economy of the afterlife; he is now destined to be a big shot–the ruler of a kingdom in Heaven. The song, of course, does not present this lesson in so many words. It is actually a first-person reformulation of a lesson Jesus is reported to have taught (in Matthew 25:31-40), which culminates in the famous line, “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” This lesson establishes that Christian behavior, however uncomfortable or difficult to engage in, will be richly rewarded in the afterlife.

This song was a favorite of the Prophet Joseph Smith–the founder of Mormonism (and the LDS Church’s ultimate big-shot). The song was sung a couple of times, at Joseph’s request, on the day of his 1844 murder. It’s no surprise that he liked it, given its central message, which Joseph used to great advantage in motivating the Latter-day Saints to action (or submission) during his time as their prophet and leader.

Okay, maybe the connection to Joseph Smith is just trivia, since it’s not really why I picked the hymn for the name of this blog. The reason for the name is that this blog features an author who isn’t the most attractive person to devout Mormons. I imagine his lack of faith and generally negative attitude toward the doctrines and certain cultural features of the LDS Church (which he was raised in) probably permeates the air of Mormon religious and social gatherings, in the same way the stench of a homeless person or a leper (true “poor wayfaring” folks) would. Maybe I’m not right about that, but I think the spiritual “illness” that afflicts me is considered every bit as scary and dangerous for a faithful Mormon as leprosy used to be for the unafflicted. The fact that I don’t really have any friends in the Mormon community where I live seems to support my theory. And the fact that people who I do interact with have never even come close to inquiring about my…er…shaken faith syndrome or any other reasons for not going to church on Sundays, seems to lend further solid support, but I admit I’m working with limited data here, and could be wrong.

As someone who grew up in Mormon culture, who has always been fascinated with Mormonism’s history and teachings, I have not found it easy to just disengage completely from the topic (as many mainstream Mormons would prefer). Also, my wife and kids are active participants in the local LDS community, so I am interested in finding ways to explain my own perspective and personal choices to them without being insensitive to their point of view. This is part of what I plan on doing with this blog.

It may be easy to see this collection of thoughts as yet another faceless unorthodox Mormon blog. Maybe I look like just one of many anonymous strangers wandering the wild internets, panhandling for your attention. But give this Poor Wayfaring Man a chance, and you just might get a little something in return. (You never know–I may actually be a big shot, giving you a chance to earn some heavenly real estate for yourself.)

-PWM