Making a difference

The other night I did a Google News search for "mormon" and was surprised by the title of an Associated Press article that had just been published. It was titled "Mormon church blames powder hoax on gay activists." I had read the powder hoax coverage pretty closely, and had read the press release from the Church earlier that day (here), which, while it did blame "opponents of Proposition 8" (not "gay activists") for recent vandalism, hadn't even referred to the powder incidents at the two temples. I read through the article, and while it seemed that the reporter was referring to this press release, he did not offer an substantiation of the claim made in his title or in the opening paragraph of the article.

I decided to send an email to the AP, and then, thinking that the email might take a while to make it to the right person, decided to try calling the number on the AP website. It was probably about midnight Eastern time, but someone answered the phone and immediately transferred me when I asked how I would go about reporting an error. My call was picked up by a national news desk editor. I told him what I was calling about, and he told me that he'd edited the article and had asked the reporter point-blank if the Church had actually assigned blame for the powder attacks. He asked if I had access to the Church's statement from that day, and I gave him the URL for the Church Newsroom website. He took down my name and phone number and said he'd take a look at it.

When I ran the same Google search about half an hour later, a new article showed up in place of the old one, with the title "Mormon church condemns gay activists for 'attacks'", and some changed wording in the first paragraph. It's still kind of odd that they put the word "attacks" in quotes, given that it was only used in the press report in the sentence "Attacks on churches and intimidation of people of faith have no place in civil discourse over controversial issues," and not in an actual assertion of blame or condemnation.

While the original article is still accessible on ~1800 web sites, according to Google, the new one is has ~19,000 occurrences, so I'm glad that the semi-fixed one has been used more. Success!

The LDS Church and Section 501(c)(3)

A number of web sites opposed to the passage of Proposition 8 in California, such as http://www.mormonsstoleourrights.com/, are claiming that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has violated its tax-exempt status by supporting the proposition. They quote a provision of the Internal Revenue Code section 510(c)(3) (26 U.S.C. § 501(c)), which says the following organizations qualify as exempt (emphasis added):

Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.

The critics of the Church claim that the Church's involvement in the Prop. 8 issue is a substantial activity, and as such, the Church should not qualify for tax exemption. Unfortunately, these critics are misreading the Code. What it says is that "no substantial part" of the organization's activities can be involved in influencing legislation. There is a huge difference between what the Code says and what the critics want it to say. Anyone familiar with the Church's activities throughout the world should recognize that the involvement of the Church in the Prop. 8 issue is minuscule compared with even its non-ecclesiastic projects, such as humanitarian work and education.

LDS Newsroom - Mistakes in the News: Associated Press Errors More Than Semantics

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/mistakes-in-the-news-associated-press-errors-more-than-semantics

This recent commentary posted on the Newsroom website of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints really zings the AP and one reporter in particular for "fail[ing] to provide readers with a clear and entirely accurate story." Here's one excerpt:

The article later states that Chad Hardy, the calendar’s creator, was excommunicated by leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for producing this year's calendar. However, Dobner was not present at the time of Hardy’s excommunication, nor did she participate in deliberations leading to this action and consequently can’t definitively draw such conclusions. Indeed, an article by the Associated Press published 14 July 2008 by the Deseret News reads, “regional church leaders who called the meeting raised three concerns with Hardy during the meeting: the calendar and his failure to keep some church covenants.”

I haven't found any reaction to this yet in the media or from the AP, but I'm interested to see if anything comes of it.

BELFAST TELEGRAPH - What if Mormons are right and Catholics and Protestants wrong?

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/columnists/eamon-mccann/eamonn-mccann-what-if-mormons-are-right-and-catholics-and-protestants-wrong-13955402.html

This article compares the practice of baptisms for the dead with practices in other religions--and asks why anyone cares about it. It's a bit tongue-in-cheek at times, but a fairly-written article.
I think, in light of common misrepresentations, that it's important to clarify that the practice is baptism for the dead and not of the dead. According to LDS doctrine, a proxy ordinance is only valid if the deceased chooses to accept it. From the second link below,

Any rite performed in a Latter-day Saint temple on behalf of a deceased person, who yet lives as a spirit being, is a rite of offering only, exacting no forced compliance nor acceptance of the rite. There is no imposed change of identity, heritage or religious belief, nor is the individual’s name added to the membership rolls of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

This work (and it is hard work to research the necessary genealogical information as well as manage the facilities and records, in addition to performing the ordinances) is done as a labor of love--to give people who have passed away the chance to receive ordinances that are, we believe, integral to their eternal salvation.

More information is available at

• http://www.mormon.org/mormonorg/eng/basic-beliefs/glossary/glossary-definition/baptism-for-the-dead,
• http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/everyone-else-makes-such-lonely-heavens,
  
• and http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=1ec52f2324d98010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____.

Any questions?

The Church sends a letter to the media

Today the Newsroom site of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (http://newsroom.lds.org) posted a letter sent out two days ago "from Elder Lance B. Wickman, General Counsel of the Church to publishers of major newspapers, TV stations and magazines."

The letter is available at http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/media-letter.

I found this part interesting:

Specifically, we have obtained registrations for the name “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” “Mormon,” “Book of Mormon” and related trade and service marks from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and corresponding agencies in a significant number of foreign countries.

This sentence and the fact that this letter is being sent out by the General Counsel (the chief lawyer, for those unfamiliar with the term) of the Church makes me wonder if the Church might pursue legal avenues is ensuring that the term "Mormon" and other references to the Church are used appropriately. I'm not sure what legal basis there might be for that--there aren't any trademark infringement issues involved, but perhaps a libel case could be brought if a news outlet is negligent in adhering to the guidelines. Any thoughts on this are welcome in the comments.

On a related note, the Newsroom also released material today, at http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-seeks-to-address-public-confusion-over-texas-polygamy-group, that serves to clarify the difference between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), and the polygamist groups, such as the FLDS.

More bias in The Week

I've commented on articles in The Week before being irresponsible (1, 2) but a recent one (http://www.theweekdaily.com/news_opinion/briefing/41181/briefing_married_to_a_mob.html), particularly the third paragraph, showed blatant bias and/or laziness--take your pick. For this one I didn't bother with posting a comment on the web page; other people had already done that. Here's the message I sent to the editors.

I would like to inquire as to who the anti-Mormon member of your editorial staff is. I have sensed an anti-Mormon bias in articles in the last few months about Romney and other issues, but nothing so blatant as the recent article about polygamy in the May 16 issue.
This article attributes to Joseph Smith instruction that a man must have at least three wives to enter heaven, and gives a date for the revelation. This date, much less this teaching, is not given by any reliable source, but is to be found in anti-Mormon literature. Polygamy was never a requirement in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints--the three wives requirement is not to be found in any verified source. In short, the material used in the third paragraph was not drawn from reputable sources, and most likely was taken directly from anti-Mormon literature.
In addition to this rude display of journalistic irresponsibility, your editors have continued to ignore the AP Stylebook direction and the LDS Church's request that the term "Mormon" not be used to refer to any groups besides the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. From the Stylebook, "The term Mormon is not properly applied to the other Latter Day Saints churches that resulted from the split after [Joseph] Smith's death."
I recognize that it is the right of "The Week" and its editorial board to hold and express any opinion, however offensive, about Mormons and the LDS Church. Decency, however, would suggest that such editorial bias be saved for the editorial pieces and not the News section, where the readers of your magazine should be able to expect verified fact.

The purpose of physics research

I had a conversation via email with a friend who was inquiring about my current research. I thought I'd post it here (with a couple corrections), since people always ask me what the potential applications for the results of our experiment are.

AH:
wow, what is the experiment?

Me:
Some theorists have suggested that gravity will behave differently at distances less than about one-five-hundredth of an inch. We're trying to test that hypothesis by looking at the gravitational force from a dense 4" diameter metal disk on a small pendulum as we move the pendulum disk towards and away from the disk pendulum.

AH:
wow! what would be the benefits of knowing whether or not gravity does behave differently at that small of a distance?

Me:
The short answer, in terms of practical applications, is we don't know yet--we'll let the engineers figure that out.
The long answer is that it would validate or invalidate proposed hypotheses, giving us a better picture of how the world actually works. Gravity is much weaker than the other forces between particles (electromagnetics and the forces responsible for nucleus cohesion and decay), and no one knows quite why. Our experiment could validate one hypothesis as to why it is. In some sense it would be a cultural achievement. What practical benefit is there from Sir Edmund Hillary reaching the peak of Mt. Everest, or from someone discovering a new species of animal, etc.?
Typically, practical application of scientific discoveries doesn't come for some time. Take Einstein's theory of relativity, for example. It's regarded as one of the greatest scientific breakthroughs in history, but now, a century after it was developed, the only current practical application I can think of for it is correction to the clocks on GPS satellites. That's pretty helpful, since GPS systems wouldn't work without it, but it's not indicative of the importance of the theory. It has enabled physics to progress and opened the development of other tested theories that have further enlarged our understanding of the world.
(I hope this isn't coming across as a rant. I do get this question just about every time I tell someone about our research, and I'm slowly figuring out better ways to answer it. Thanks for the interest!)

I can't take credit for the "cultural achievement" bit--I think I heard that from someone who'd heard Wolfgang Ketterle answer a question about what the benefit is to creating a Bose-Einstein condensate.

WASHINGTON POST, ON FAITH - Michael Otterson: Polygamists Are Not Mormons

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/michael_otterson/2008/04/polygamists_are_not_mormons.html
The Church's media relation director, Michael Otterson, has a blog on the the Washington Post's On Faith site. His post today reiterates the proper use of the term Mormon, and includes a link to a Reuters article and his own video statement. Backtracking to the Church's Newsroom site (http://newsroom.lds.org), you can find this video along with a video of President Hinckley, the president of the Church who passed away earlier this year, "speaking about the clear distinction between the Church and polygmagous sects."
On a related note, I've noticed that many journalists are referring to the polygamist groups as fundamentalist Mormons. Despite the F in FLDS standing for fundamentalist, these groups are not fundamentalist in the sense of following the fundamental tenets of Mormonism. Just because they've named themselves that doesn't mean that they are.

Proper use of the term "Mormon," take 2

I haven't posted anything for a while mainly because there hasn't been much to post about. In the last few days, however, there have been events in Texas involving the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (commonly referred to as FLDS). I'm not going to go into explaining what this church is, as I'm not qualified to do so, but suffice it to say that it is not connected to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS). A number of media sources have used the term "Mormon" to refer to the FLDS church, but this is incorrect, as I've explained previously. The Associated Press Stylebook explains, “The term Mormon is not properly applied to the other Latter Day Saints churches that resulted from the split after [Joseph] Smith’s death.”
I have covered this topic before, but it really irks me to see a picture of the Salt Lake Temple, a recognized symbol of our church, associated with an article about an unrelated group (such as here). Sure, this group may be a breakaway sect from the LDS Church, but calling them Mormon, especially in the headlines, gives people the impression that these events involve the LDS Church, which they don't.
In case any of this is unclear, let me reiterate. Any group that endorses polygamy is not connected to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also known as the LDS Church or Mormon church. The term "Mormon" should not be used to label these groups, both by request of the LDS Church and according to the Associated Press Stylebook, the standard for journalism language style and usage. Improper use of the label "Mormon" is misleading, irresponsible, and disrespectful to members of the LDS Church. If anyone has questions about the proper use of the term, feel free to post a comment with your question.

Offer to journalists

So I've done some complaining about a lack of fact and style-guide checking in news about the Church. One of my friends has the saying that you can complain as much as you want, as long as you have a solution. Here's my solution: I'm offering to fact-check articles about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for any journalist who happens across this offer (for free). Checking my visitor logs, I don't think I'm going to get swamped by requests anytime soon, but the offer stands.

Name of the Church, pt. 2

I already wrote a post about the real name of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but there's a couple other things I want to bring up. I failed to mention in my last post that the Church's style guide for journalists specifically requests that the Church not be called the "Mormon Church." It also asks that "LDS Church" and "Church of the Latter-day Saints" not be used. While I can understand use of "LDS Church," since the acronym is so prevalent, I'm been surprised in my recent news searches to see articles calling the Church the "Church of Latter-day Saints." Doing this presents it as the official name of the church, which it is not, and, by removing the name of the Savior, seems to reinforce the bias that we aren't Christians. I'd like to know why this happens--are the journalists just trying to save some space? I understand that mistakes happen, but with the Church being the fourth-largest denomination in the U.S., you'd think that writers and editors could put more effort into doing some background research and getting things right.

VENTURA COUNTY STAR - With a Mormon candidate on the ballot . . .

http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/jan/12/latter-day-politics/
This was a well-written article that I didn't find any factual errors in. Kudos to them.

Change in Book of Mormon wording

News media, including the Associated Press (article here) have picked up a story about the addition of the word "among" to the introduction of the Book of Mormon. Apparently, this has become an issue of interest for critics of the Church. From the AP article,

What's the big deal? Church defenders say there is nothing important in the change.

But skeptics view it differently. The issue is that church missionaries have long portrayed Book of Mormon stories as fact. To them, it looks like the new wording is a quiet concession that DNA research accurately contradicts the scriptural claim.

Anyone unfamiliar with the Book of Mormon might assume from reports of this change that the actual text of the Book of Mormon was changed. This is not the case. The introduction is not part of the original text as translated from the original records, but an editorial explanation of the origin of the sacred text, somewhat akin to the introduction in a King James translation of the Bible.
Now to address the actual issue of "the scriptural claim" that Israelites were the sole inhabitants of the Americas and thus the ancestors of the Native Americans. The Book of Mormon does not make this claim. The arrival of three separate groups in the Americas are recorded in the text, one of which was contemporary with the Tower of Babel. I could be wrong, but I don't believe that the text makes any claims that no other groups came.
While I'm somewhat on the topic, I should say something else. Attempting to disprove or prove the historical account of the Book of Mormon is not the appropriate way to come to a sure knowledge of its veracity. This knowledge can come only from God. The Book of Mormon prophet Moroni, in the last chapter of the Book of Mormon, explains,

3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.
4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. (Moroni 10:3-5)

Pretty simple, huh? When you sincerely want to know the truth, pray and ask God whether the Book of Mormon is true, and you will receive an answer. If you want truth, go to the source of all truth. This is how I know that the Book of Mormon is true, that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true and living church.

Recognition of Wide-Spread Prejudice Against Mormons

I watched the Iowa caucus coverage on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer with my wife's family while we were visiting for the holidays. We were all pretty surprised by an answer by Stuart Rothenberg, one of the commentators, to a question about the effect of Romney being a Mormon. Here's part of the transcript (link, emph. added):

MARGARET WARNER: But back in the early fall, also, everyone was talking about the Mormon factor, that the evangelical Christians didn't entirely trust Romney, being a Mormon. Do you think that was a factor?

STUART ROTHENBERG: Oh, I think it was a huge factor. And it's not so much that they didn't trust him. They were uncomfortable with elevating a Mormon to the presidency and giving that legitimacy.

But I think that was a huge factor, Margaret. There were whole chunks of conservatives who couldn't buy into Romney, and were uncomfortable with Giuliani and McCain, and when Thompson ran it didn't look like very much, and so Huckabee became the default candidate. There was a vacancy there, and he just moved into it.

It just blew us away that someone would be so straight-forward in recognizing the anti-Mormon bias that exists in this country. I did a search for "Stuart Rothenberg Mormon" and turned up a recent article he wrote that explains his ideas as to why evangelicals are so anti-Mormon (link). My summarization of his thesis is that evangelicals are afraid of legitimizing our faith because they don't see it just as a faith but as an organization with the purpose of "wooing evangelicals or potential adherents away from Christianity."

Video Challenges Public Misperceptions, Explains Myths vs. Reality

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has publicly released a video that addresses a number of issues relevant to the Church's treatment in the media. From the news release: "A 10-minute video originally produced for the large number of journalists visiting Salt Lake City for the 2002 Winter Olympics has been updated and posted on Newsroom today to help counter persistent myths about the Church."

Here's the video (link).

DESERET MORNING NEWS - Mormon Media Monitor: Time to grade LDS coverage

http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695240109,00.html

A journalist and professor grades recent media coverage of the LDS Church in this article.