From the Archives: Condorcet, Brigham, and Succession to the Presidency

Condorcet was a French social theorist in the opening decades of the 19th century and is credited with first discovering a paradox of majority voting that bears his name. Here is the paradox: Imagine that you have a group of three people (A,B, and C) who are voting on three different alternatives (X, Y, and Z). A prefers X to Y and Y to Z. B prefers Y to Z and Z to X. C prefers Z to X and X to Y. If X is paired in a vote with Y, then X wins (A and C against B). If Y is paired with Z, then Y wins (A and B against C). But — and this is the kicker — if Z is paired with X, then Z wins (B and C against A). In other words, even if the individual preferences of A, B and C are transitive, the collective preferences of A, B, and C are not. Put in starker terms, if you control the order the votes are taken in, then you can get any outcome you want because any choice can be defeated by one of the others. I have often wondered if this paradox might in part account for how Brigham Young became president of the Church.

Getting it wrong, kinda sorta…

OK, let’s ask a relatively simple question: Why do non-Mormon accounts of Mormon theology so often seem grotesque? To avoid derailing the discussion immediately, let me concede that there are non-Mormon folks who “get” Mormon theology, etc. etc. etc. On the other hand, if you are a Mormon and have not seen, heard, or read some non-Mormon describing Mormon theology as a pastiche of ridiculous beliefs about magic underwear, visitors from outer space, and eternal sex in the hereafter you haven’t been paying much attention to what your neighbors think about you.

Elder Oaks’ Public Affairs Interview

I decided that this is too important for a mere sidebar link. (I hope that it is an indication of things to come on other prominent topics.) I don’t want to take away from the discussion already under way at M*, so please head there to discuss. (Rosalynde and J. Stapley’s comments are particularly noteworthy.)

“Whores” and Scriptures: Epithets, perceptions of women, and divine texts

Recent comment discussions at the Exponent II and Feminist Mormon Housewives blogs have examined the propriety (or impropriety) of using terms like “slut” and “whore.” A few male commenters used those terms in comments; in response, female commenters, making an argument I tend to agree with, have asserted that there is no place for these words in general discussion. I think that’s right; people should not use these kinds of terms in general conversation. And yet, how can I make that argument with a straight face, given the frequent usage of these kinds of terms in scripture?

Artists and Mormonism

Motley Vision has been playing host to an interesting discussion on Mormon aesthetics. The question du jour from the Sunstone Symposium seems to be whether or not one can be a Great Artist (or any kind of Artist) and still be a member of the Church. Two out of three panelists were apparently skeptical. For myself, I suspect that we are operating with a rather parochial definition of Artist, furthermore one that is ill suited to both the theology and demographics of Mormonism.

Apples

Wilford Woodruff’s journal entry for Tuesday, December 5, 1865, is short: “I spent the day packing away Apples.” (The entry for the 6th is equally short: “I undertook to make some Cider to day. It was to Cold to get the Juece out of the Apples.”)

Grudging Obedience

I was maybe ten years old when I complained to my father about having to go to church. I didn’t like it; it was boring; why couldn’t I just stay home? His response susprised me: “If you don’t want to be there, then stay home. God doesn’t want your grudging obedience.”

The next great Mollywood horror movie

Let’s face it — we haven’t hit the mainstream until we’ve broken into horror movies. And the possibilities for Mormon horror are enormous. After a quick brainstorm with danithew (of Blog-Diss fame), I’m chuckling about some of the possibilities. In the best Julie-Smith tradition, let me present:

Breaking Promises

A common narrative in the church relates to new converts who join the church despite intense pressure from their family or community. But does the calculus change any if a promise is involved? How and when should religious promises be broken?