Recently, when I was teaching Gospel Doctrine, class members pointed out something said in James to “clarify” something said by Paul. I noted that these are two different speakers, not one, with two different viewpoints. They were writing to different audiences at different times and for different purposes, and further, I’m not entirely convinced they agree on this matter. I can’t exactly dig them up and ask them.
There is a tendency in our reading of scripture to conflate all sources into one big source, or to attempt to “harmonize” the scriptures. This is a lazy reading habit that can result in misunderstanding the gospel.
A Gospel harmony is an attempt to compile the Christian canonical gospels into a single account. . . The construction of harmonies has always been favoured by more conservative scholars. Students of higher criticism on the other hand, see the divergences between the Gospel accounts as reflecting the construction of traditions by the early Christian communities. In the modern era, attempts to construct a single story have largely been abandoned in favour of laying out the accounts in parallel columns for comparison, to allow critical study of the differences between them.[1]
Why do members do this? Quite simply it’s because most people don’t know how to read. They are literate and fluent in language, but unskilled and uncritical in comprehension. Language is always an act of interpretation. As Jacques Derrida succinctly put it “We are all mediators, translators.” Roland Barthes, in a similar vein, observed that “a photograph is always invisible; it is not it that we see.” We ignore the medium and go for the content whenever we read or listen to words. We hear the meaning and forget the context, the speaker and the process of getting those words to us. As Magritte famously said on hipster tee shirts everywhere “Ce n’est pas une pipe.” The picture is not the thing itself.[2] Words are not truth.
Additionally, LDS people frequently trot out D&C 1:38 says: “whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.” This admonition is helpful in encouraging us to take things church leaders say seriously, but it makes a terrible heuristic. We know that not everything a prophet says is him speaking as a prophet and that prophets make mistakes. So there is a lot of looseness in how to apply this scripture. Mormons are not scriptural literalists as Articles of Faith #8 and 9 make clear. We believe that scripture contains human errors [3] and is incomplete. We also know that God didn’t write the scriptures personally. He always works through human beings.
I wrote all of that over a week ago, before General Conference and Ponder-gate. Hoo boy.
For those who missed it, Devin Durrant (who is not a GA but from the General Sunday School Presidency) gave a talk on something he called “ponderizing,” a way he recommends to read the scriptures. It’s a neologism combining pondering with memorizing, similar to the scripture mastery program for seminary students.
I invite you to “ponderize” one verse of scripture each week. The word “ponderize” is not found in the dictionary, but it has found a place in my heart. So what does it mean to ponderize? I like to say it’s a combination of 80 percent extended pondering and 20 percent memorization.
This invitation was extended with the perkiness of an EFY instructor and the gravitas of a Tony Robbins (aka the perkiness of an EFY instructor). To complete the picture of just what happened, here’s the series of events that accompanied this General Conference address:
- In 2014, a book was published by a Reverend David Morrison using the word Ponderize in the title (the book was called Think on These Things: A Time to “Ponderize”).
- A week or so before conference Devin Durrant’s son and daughter-in-law register the site ponderize.us and start to sell t-shirts and rubber bracelets using the word “Ponderize” and related catch phrases.
- Devin Durrant gives his conference talk where he repeatedly uses the phrase “ponderize,” presumably to help the talk stand out in people’s minds. [4]
- Amid criticism, T-shirt prices drop from $19.99 to $9.99 with the claim that the owners of the site only want to sell at cost, not make a profit, and only meant to get the word out to “ponderize.”
- Amid increasing criticism, T-shirt prices go back up to $17.99, this time site owners state that all proceeds will go to the mission fund.
- Team “ponderize” goes nutso on twitter, favoriting every use of their hashtag, including the one I did for my own amusement: “I was just ponderizing 2 Nephi 26: 29, 31.” Members are flocking to the site, ka-ching ka-ching. FB status updates talking about ponderizing crop up all over the place. A request for a “ponderize” app is received and taken very seriously by lds.tech.
- As criticism reaches firestorm levels, the site is yanked.
Whether it’s priestcraft or not to use General Conference to sell tee shirts, [5] I’ll leave for another discussion. The talk certainly sounded like an infomercial, including the requisite sales pitch and overcoming objections from planted questions. I’ll leave it up to those at a higher pay grade to determine whether or not we want to monetize General Conference. The speaker has apologized, and I actually liked his apology more than his talk, although in true Mormon fashion, he does make sure to put the onus for his mistake back on those unnamed individuals who were “offended”:
“Yesterday, I had the wonderful privilege to speak in General Conference about a topic that is near and dear to my heart – the pondering of God’s word in an extended and deeper manner on a weekly basis. I have been touched at the outpouring of support for my message. Please know of my heartfelt gratitude for the positive responses I have received from so many!
However, I have also received some negative feedback. A week before my address, my son obtained the ponderize.us domain name and subsequently created a website to offer t-shirts and wrist bands to highlight and extend the ponderize message, which we have long talked about in our family. Although we didn’t invent the term, as far as we know our use of it is unique. Because of the backlash he received in associating a commercial venture with a General Conference talk, he initially lowered his prices to cover his costs and then decided to keep prices as originally set and to donate the profits to the missionary fund of the Church. Ultimately, he decided to take down the website last night. The site will remain down. I was aware that my son was creating a website related to the topic of my talk. I should have stopped the process. I did not. That was poor judgment on my part. Of course, none of the Church leaders were aware of the site. I offer a sincere apology to any person who was offended in any way by the site.
My message remains the same – overcome evil by choosing to elevate your thoughts by ponderizing God’s word every day.
Thank you, again, to so many of you for your kind messages of support and your willingness to accept the invitations given yesterday.”
My bigger concern is with the concept itself. In order to understand why the advice to “ponderize” is insidious, it’s important to understand a few related ideas:
- Prooftexting. The practice of using isolated, out of context quotations from a document to establish a proposition. Such quotes may not accurately reflect the original intent of the author, and a document quoted in such a manner, when read as a whole, may not support the proposition for which it was cited. The term has currency primarily in theological and exegetical circles.
- Bible dipping. According to the urban dictionary and popularized in the book Running with Scissors, Bible dipping is defined as: “ask the bible a question close your eyes open to a random page and put your finger on a word without looking, and whatever that word is has something to do with the answer to your question.” tl;dr using scripture as a Magic 8 Ball.
- Biblomancy. The practice of seeking spiritual insight by selecting a random passage from a Holy Book.
Bible dipping is really just a cooler way of saying biblomancy; the two are roughly the same thing. Prooftexting may be done intentionally to alter the meaning of a passage to support one’s interpretation. In any case, all three are examples of taking scriptures out of context, and once we take them out of context, we diminish our ability to understand them correctly.
He’s in good company as this is a practice that is common to most CES-issued materials. Very seldom do we really read our scriptures in Gospel Doctrine. Instead we just read isolated passages that fit certain themes and doctrines the manual wants to pursue. Unfortunately, this often does require ignoring the context and the real meaning.
Many ministers and teachers have used some version of the following humorous anecdote to demonstrate the dangers of prooftexting: “A man dissatisfied with his life decided to consult the Bible for guidance. Closing his eyes, he flipped the book open and pointed to a spot on the page. Opening his eyes, he read the verse under his finger. It read, “Then Judas went away and hanged himself” (Matthew 27:5). Finding these words unhelpful, the man randomly selected another verse. This one read, “Jesus told him, ‘Go and do likewise.'” (Luke 10:37). In desperation he tried one more time. The text he found was: “What you are about to do, do quickly.” (John 13:27)
Can scriptures be used as fortune-cookie sized soundbites for personal edification? Perhaps. But so can road signs or flipping channels on the TV or song lyrics or any other random input we wish to seize upon and imbue with meaning that it doesn’t inherently possess. When I was a child I used to play a game at stoplights in which I would count to a number, and if I reached the number before the light turned green, then whatever I was thinking of was right. I quit doing that at around age 9 because I discovered it was actually a pretty poor way to assess things.
When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
A certain amount of superstition and invented meaning is required in this approach to scripture. It’s a fun game for sleepovers, but beyond that, it’s not terribly instructive. It takes what should be profound, complex, and thought-provoking and trivializes it.
If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we Pinterest these things.
More alarming than the fact that the suggestion was made is how quickly church members flocked to it, calling it inspirational and quickly taking up the “challenge” to “ponderize.” Perhaps anything that enlivens scripture study is better than not reading them at all, but I’m not convinced. Creating memes of scriptures and general conference quotes has become so popular, maybe that’s all that we know how to do.
One of Jane Austen’s most overlooked novels is Northanger Abbey, and it’s a book about reading, both reading novels and misreading people. Her heroine Catherine Morland devours gothic novels to the point that she sees sinister shadows in every corner. She is both guileless and incredibly gullible. She hasn’t learned to read people or social situations accurately because of her poor reading habits and her lack of self-discipline and critical thinking. As a result, she mistakenly accepts a marriage proposal from someone she doesn’t like and accuses her real love interest’s family of matricide. She specifically fills her mind with the same type of reading over and over until she is incapable of seeing people and situations as they really are, and the result is both comedic and disastrous. Likewise, if we take things out of context in our reading, we are prone to misunderstanding. We will also create a self-reinforcing set of ideas that crystallizes over time and doesn’t serve our understanding well.
Is it a coincidence that Mormons are susceptible to both this type of marketing scheme and to the advice itself to take scriptures out of context? It seems both are born of the same character trait.
Discuss.
[1] I note that our own Gospel Harmony found in the Bible Dictionary is arranged in columns to compare each book’s account. We are keeping with the trends.
[2] Derrida, Barthes and Magritte are all French dudes, all pointing out a similar issue with language. But who better than the French to opine about the complexities of human communication? They are the culture that polices the entry of new words into their language, limiting it to 200 new words a year. Stephen Colbert probably personally topped that number of new words added last year.
[3] I think the talking donkey tipped us off.
[4] Reverend Morrison’s book was not given credit for the term.
[5] it is.
Wheat & Tares 
This is a very perceptive and at times brilliantly written…….I will try not to “ponderize” the most insightful parts
Pondering is a lame idea even without the profit motive! Soon it will be legalized and LDS checklists will be reprinted to include a box for weekly ponderizing thanks to enthuastic Pollyanna enertia applied to the plagiarism of a non prophet’s 20 minutes of fame. Whatta church!
Thanks for this–I had no idea this was all going on.
I really love the idea of ponderizing, and it something that I needed to hear, so I apologize for all of you who had to listen as well.
We are going to be ponderizing in two languages. We have thought about possibly, depending on our health and the situation of other family members, serving a mission in the country where my husband served 40 years ago. That will not be an option if I do not learn the language.
It took me three years to read the Book of Mormon stories, the kids’ version with pictures. I am a bit intimidated by the actual scriptures. But taking them one at a time is less daunting.
So for the next year, we will be ponderizing a scripture every week in both languages, using scriptures from the Seminary Scripture Mastery list and Preach My Gospel.
I’m just really cranky about messing with words. So while I’m at it can I just say the verb is burgle. Burglars burgle. That one has been irritating me for years… You aren’t going to enthuse anyone here by massacring the language. Also feeling sensitive to proof texting now that my kids are doing seminary again. That said, our family scripture study consists of just a few verses each day, though I try to look at context, and we read consecutively through the scriptures, so it’s not a lucky dip.
I think the marketing scheme (really! Oh my!) likely passed us by on this side of the Atlantic.
In 2008, I wrote this on Mormon Matters, http://mormonmatters.org/2008/07/11/proof-texting-for-fun-and-prophet/. Little did I know it would become literal.
The concept of pondering (starting to really hate this word now)on a scripture a day is a noble concept and has been around for eons. Not a new idea at all. In fact, commercializing it (calendars, books, websites, etc.) has also been with us for while.
It was certainly a first to hear a commercial about it in General Conference.
So I hate the idea that studying, meditating and, yes, pondering, on a scripture becomes a bad idea because of a silly attempt at merchandising arising from a Dad’s talk in conference.
I think you are ignoring that fact that good and healthy engagement with the scriptures involves in depth study and engagement with the scriptures as a source of inspiration. Ponderizing does not and should not take away from scripture study, instead it encourages contunual engagement with the scriptures in down time, which make it more likely that one will remember to read scriptures.
The plagarism accusation is also weak, since Brother Durrant used the term with his Missionaries when we was a mission president several years ago.
I wonder how, if at all, the talk gets edited when it is put up on LDS.org.
“So I hate the idea that studying, meditating and, yes, pondering, on a scripture becomes a bad idea because of a silly attempt at merchandising arising from a Dad’s talk in conference.”
I agree completely Jeff!
Having said that, Deseret Book does exactly the same thing that the Durrants did, and nobody bats an eye. It seems like it’s ok when the Corporation of he President does it, but not John Dehlin or Devin Durrant’s son.
On my mission, there was a practice to tear out a page out of the Book of Mormon and put it in your pocket. When there was down time, you would read that page over and over, pondering it. I didn’t view that as a bad thing at all, and I don’t think pondering is a bad thing. It’s too bad this controversy has made people hate the word ponderizing, because I think Brother Durrant’s talk was a good idea, and if his son has waited a month instead of a minute after the talk to make t-shirts, I think the tempest in a teapot would never have happened.
MH,
“I think Brother Durrant’s talk was a good idea, and if his son has waited a month instead of a minute.”
Yes, agree about the whole DB thing. And yes, it could have been a huge hit if it didn’t look like a marketing campaign.
“I can’t, I’m a Ponderizer.”
T-shirts, hats, wrist bands, posters, books, seminars, websites, three-day conferences, Ponderizing treks, “Especially for Ponderizers” at BYU.
Man, they blew it!
I think you’re doing quite a bit of proof-texting yourself with his talk. I’m not a fan of the salesman/athletic coach approach to anything religious, so this isn’t coming from a fan defending his team.
Durrant assuages most of the the hand wringing bloggernacle criticism, including your criticism (which covers no new ground…maybe you should give someone credit for your rehashed remarks?) about his talk in his talk. He specifically cautions people not to think that this approach can replace real gospel study. He promotes ponderizing as a way to elevate our thoughts during the week. While the word itself doesn’t do much for me I don’t see anything in the actual talk that is worthy of the reactions I’ve read in LDS blogs. Reading things as a whole instead of cherry picking a few phrases should apply to his critics also.
As for the Reverend Morrison cheap shot, ie insinuating that Durrant is a liar and plagiarizer, fabricating ponderize from ponder and memorize is hardly so difficult and obscure that only one person in human history, ie Rev. Morrison, could have done it. And Durrant in his apology notes that it has been “long talked about” in his family and his talk stated that he and his wife have been ponderizing a scripture a week for 3 years. Morrison’s book was published in 2014, Durrant clearly has been using this word long before then, maybe Rev. Morrison should have credited Durrant.
Durrant’s apology was quick and sincere. I think his critics in the LDS blogs should follow his example.
I recall once, many a moon ago (but not TOO many!) at good ol’ Fresno State, in an junior-level engineering course (named “Strengths of Materials” which is more an advanced ‘Statics’ course oriented towards Civil Engineering but Mechanicals like myself had to take it), and in due time the subject of trusses came up, which involves a little ‘fudging’ of a mathematical concept called “L’Hôpital’s rule to solve many common designs. The good Prof’s (who in ’79 always sported a crew cut and wore sweater vests and bow ties, so you can figure the type) response? “Lop the hell out of it!” (e.g., he demonstrated a shortcut which dispensed with mathematical precision).
I think also of how, in the design of most modern nuclear weapons (typically a variation on the Teller-Ulam design, or for those of you with allegiance to ‘Mother Russia’, Sakharov’s ‘Third Idea’) that physicists don’t agree with unanimity on what fires the ‘secondary’ stage (yes, tertiary and subsequent stages ARE possible, and both sides did develop them, but were found to be impractical)…is it radiation compression, or compression from the plasma formed by plamascisation of the filler material in the holoraum (reflective chamber between primary and secondary), or by oblation of the tamper-pusher surface as it’s heated and vaporized? We do know the thing goes off with a terrific BOOM! What’s more, by thorough fissioning of the Pu-239 ‘sparkplug’ inside the secondary and ‘fast fission’ of the tamper-pusher and ‘fast fission’ of the tamper-pusher, a significantly higher yield is generated than possibly in the primary by mechanical implosion alone.
The LACK of complete Gospel ‘harmony’, just like the times that Joseph Smith got proverbially taken to the woodshed by Lord as documented in several D&C sections, teaches us the limits of human observation. Could the Lord have devised some sort of hover droid (ala Star Wars) equipped with a hi-def camera and roll tape for us today? I think so, certainly His technical prowess is not in question. One may as well ask why HE doesn’t simply rend open the Heavens and show Himself. Be careful what you wish for…
When Dietrich Bonhoeffer was training future pastors, he taught them to spend an entire day pondering one verse of scripture. I’ve tried it and it’s a great path to open up the deeper meaning of the scripture and to allow it to really sink in. I don’t see much of a connection between this type of meditation and study and “bible dipping”. But I do agree with hawkgrrrl that gospel doctrine lessons often cherry pick several text from the scriptures to support pre-determined themes. But the opposite of this kind of cherry picking is to go deeply into the text itself, and I think the “ponderizing” concept is trying to get us to do that. Ponderizing seems like a very good idea to me, it’s sad that it has become a source of embarrassment for Brother Durrant and his family.
I appreciate the thread a great deal. I posted this on facebook and I’m still receiving grief for it:
I hate the word ponderizing. As though nobody knew how to read, reflect and memorize before, we had to come up with a really, really, really, stupid new word for it. Every time I read this word and see otherwise smart people using it I shudder as though the guy from Jaws is scraping his fingernails down a chalk board. For somebody who lives a life of contemplation and often envies monks who unburdened themselves of even talking in order to meditate on life, I’m kind of annoyed by the term. If you really wanted a fancy new word for what you’ve been doing (or should have) your entire life, briefly consult a thesaurus and use a real but underused term like ruminate, reflect, muse, contemplate, consider, dream, or just ponder.
Naismith: I think your point about using this approach with children is probably a good one, and Bro. Durrant did say it was something they talked about in his family. Maybe it’s better applied in that way.
My concern stemmed from the trend I’ve noted in how scriptures are understood (almost deliberately misunderstood) by taking them out of context as I’ve seen repeatedly in church classes. It seems we’ve instilled some very lazy reading habits. Scripture mastery is probably partly to blame, and that’s basically what ponderizing is. There is a lot of interesting stuff in the scriptures, but we like to reduce it to a soundbite. Perhaps ponderizing doesn’t intend to replace real scripture reading, but from what I can see, this just gives tacit approval to avoid the heavy lifting. Then again, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.
I don’t doubt Bro. Durrant’s sincerity either. On the contrary, his apology for the merchandising seemed sincere to me.
In this situation, the problem isn’t that the p-word was a hit, inspiring memes and kitsch (Elders Perry and Bednar have long advocated using social media to #sharegoodness). It’s that Durrant’s son began the site a week before, fully aware (and taking advantage of) the inevitable advertising bump from his dad’s talk in General Conference. The dad, though not financially profiting from the venture, was also fully aware of the new for-profit website prior to delivering his address. The talk felt like a late-night infomercial (“And if you call the conference center within the next 30 minutes, you’ll double your Ponderizing power and get a free ShamWow! Just pay shipping and handling”). Putting all this together, what should have been a spiritual experience was tainted by what appeared to be a church leader with ulterior financial motives. At best, it’s bad PR. At worst, it impacts trust in church leaders.
I have a hard time completely dismissing the Ponderize thing since I’ve already seen people be inspired to memorize verses. I get that turning the scriptures into bite-size chunks is considerably less intimidating than opening a 500-page volume and struggling through archaic language. However, one of the big benefits of the simplified kids picture scripture books is that it helps to establish context for those scripture bites. For me, understanding the doctrine was so much easier once I got the scriptural narrative and people down. It just seems backward to memorize a bunch of scripture verses and only later figure out how they attach to a narrative.
D.H. Oaks said that out-of-context readings can be inspired. (“Scripture reading can lead to inspiration and revelation… not limited to what it meant when it was written but may also include what that scripture means to a reader today. Even more, scripture reading may also lead to current revelation on whatever else the Lord wishes to communicate to the reader at that time.”)
However, when an entire book has been written on why Book of Mormon dipping is appropriate, acceptable, and inspired, complete with examples. (http://www.amazon.com/The-Liahona-Principle-Bradley-Wilde/dp/1555179320) perhaps we’ve crossed a line.
Other Clark – that’s a valid point (Oaks’ point), particularly in a church of personal revelation. I mean, really, song lyrics and road signs can and often are a source of inspiration. We hear stories like that in F&T meeting all the time. I’m not really opposed to personal inspiration and revelation, just superstition and poor reading comprehension skills.
Yield and Stop are my two favorite inspiring road signs. But the fork in the road sign has has its moments……
I am disgusted at this behaviour. The culture of extremist capitalism at its worst.
I’ll be posting tomorrow on wheat and tares on Elder Ballards presentation to the 235 stakes in southern Utah. Maybe my son and I can make some money out of this…..!!!
Jeff, I’m partial to Slow Children at Play.
I was disappointed to see a talk that motivated a lot of people in a good way (though the use of the coined word in the talk was excessive) become tarnished by the actions of people with dubious intentions. Bad timing, bad reactionary management, and decreased stature for the GA who has to apologize.
Sharing the ponderizing verse with others via social media seemed like a fun and unifying activity. Now each time the word is used, it will be associated with the feeling that the users are pawns in a multilevel marketing campaign.
But wasn’t that the intention? That we be used as pawns in a marketing scheme? That’s why the word was so often repeated — it’s called branding — the word was so often repeated BECAUSE of the sales potential of the already-created marketing campaign. I tend to think it was intended, and the apology is because of the brouhaha, not the plans. I’m trying to be charitable, but I do feel used. I had a negative reaction to the talk while it was being given, and I was greatly saddened when learned the next day about the marketing campaign.
I find it interesting that he apologized for his son’s website while not admitted that he had purchased the, ponderize.net website before hand.
OK, this is just too easy….
“For my soul delighteth in the scriptures, and my heart ponderizeth them, and trademarketh them, for the earnings and the profit$ of MY CHILDREN.
I’m a pondering addict.
I’ve pondered Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.
I’ve pondered salvation by grace.
I’ve pondered salvation by works.
I’ve pondered D&C 132:26.
I’ve pondered 2Nephi 25:23.
I’ve pondered the mercy of God.
I’ve pondered the killing of God.
I’ve pondered the Bloggernacle.
I’ve pondered the Blabbernacle.
I’ve pondered the truthfulness of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
I’ve pondered charity. That’s a tough one.
I’ve pondered and pondered.
There are about ten references in the scriptures of the standard works.
All of them are good, but read, especially, 2Nephi 32:1-9 (The whole chapter). God wants us to ponder but there comes a time when we don’t need to ponder.
“[3] I think the talking donkey tipped us off.”
The talking donkey knew the will of God. Balaam didn’t.
The bottom line in all of this for me is: are we as a church members having experiences with the Holy Ghost. I just checked, I just used the term Holy Ghost for the first time in this thread.
Without the Holy Ghost the scriptures are not really useful. For that matter, the church isn’t either.
This situation deeply troubles me, but I suppose it is to be expected from a church that has mainly businessmen as its high up leadership. I take Jared’s comments about the Holy Ghost to heart, but I also can’t help feeling that a lot of what the church does is marketing and branding concepts and ideas rather than really encouraging deep thought and profound searching for truth. And speaking of branding, did you catch how he still managed to slip “ponderize” into the very end of his apology? This guy is a piece of work.
On a broader note, I’m not sure why this isn’t more of an issue for a lot of folks, but I’m wondering if general authorities make money on the books they write for Deseret Book? Is it uncharitable or just plain wrong of me to think that making money as a result of one’s leadership position in the Lord’s church is at least a bit unseemly, if not unsavory? I’m not asking rhetorically here, I’d love if someone could either straighten me out or share with me a different way to think about this issue.
Hmmm – I wonder if Ponderize would make it on Shark Tank. FWIW, I think people are taking the whole ponderize/web site/commercial pitch way too seriously. I know there is difference, but how many enterprising Saints have made money off “I love it I live it” and “Doubt your doubts.”? I think the basic principle of taking a small bite of scripture as part of one’s overall study is fine, especially if it gets one foot into the door of gospel study.
Overkill or not, I stripped the P-word—the word which shall not be named–off of my refrigerator this morning. I will continue to embrace scriptural discussion in our family, but not with the catch phrase. It would be a tender mercy if that talk was omitted from the November Ensign. I really do not wish to have it be one of the ‘talks from a talk’ that follows during the next 6 months of Sacrament meetings with it’s 15 or so (did anyone actually count the number of times it was used) P-words.
As I forgive and sustain Elder Durrant, who has apologized (and in a sense repented) for his actions in connection to the actions of members of his family, I hope that our leaders can, in this light, also continue to refrain from invoking the story of Thomas B Marsh, who repented of his actions that were (allegedly) in connection to the actions of member of his family. Just as we need not associate Elder Durrant forever with the P-word, we need not associated Thomas B. Marsh forever with the M-word.
If someone does enthusiastically use the P-word in a Sacrament Meeting talk, I will think of my own made-up word that combines the P-word with ‘milk strippings’ and is “pondrippings’. It will remind me that neither word has an appropriate place in our holy meetings of worship.
#29- My anecdotal experience is that most GA’s do not profit personally from the books they author. LeGrande Richards “Marvelous Work and a Wonder” is the earliest exampl I have in my library, where he states that any profits generated will be donated to the missionary program of the Church.
However, I just browsed a random sampling of apostolic works published in the last 30 years (Oaks ‘The Lords Way’; Ballard’s “Counseling within our Councils” and the bio of Hinckley and Monson–all printed by DB) and none have a non-profit disclaimer.
IDIAT – making money off church stuff is debatable. The difference in this case was the apparent premeditation. Many people enjoy purchasing and the kitschy stuff if they find it personally inspirational or just cute. People don’t like to feel manipulated for financial gain, though, especially by a trusted general officer of the church.
I’m already hearing from people who are having family members and friends really affected by this. For those already teetering in activity (especially if they believe the church has become too focused on marketing and branding over taking care of it’s members), this is not helpful.
My only source is eavesdropping on a customer and Des Book employee’s conversation some time after Gerald Lund had been called as a 70. There was apparently some question as to whether he’d be permitted to complete his series, as there were apparently specific restrictions on what GAs can publish. At the time I internalized that to mean he probably couldn’t publish for personal profit to avoid “the appearance of” priestcraft. Ultimately, I believe the last book was, in fact, published during his time as a GA, but who knows if an exception was made for the sake of the fans or if the proceeds were donated?
As for Pondergate, I suspect that the parties involved were naive, not to the opportunity for profit but to the concept that they were doing anything wrong. It’s not one of those things spelled out in thou-shalt-nots like tattoos and sleepovers.
This is embarrassing. There is no “ponderize”. It’s always been “ponder”.
I’m sorry we make a man an offender for a word……
Ponder has always been the word for pondering and memorize has always been the word for memorizing. Ponderize combines the two tasks into one word. Nothing wrong with that….just like combining ponder and Watergate into Pondergate. We combine words and their concepts all the time. And everyone either sells or buys marketed items that reflect our preferences, styles, opinions and interests. We buy Nike shoes with a checkmark indicating we are doing their motto: Do It. We buy cars we think reflect our image and lifestyle. We buy framed photographs of favorite temples to hang in our homes. Or baptism cards and scrapbooks. Or wooden signs with “Come what may and love it”. Or Lladro’s replica of the Christus. Whether secular or spiritual, we buy and sell just about everything.
I agree that singling out a scripture for the week has the possibility of pondering a principle out of context. But my kids wouldn’t stand for a whole chapter up on the fridge every week. Yet they would see the hand-printed scripture each week with words of simple wisdom that reminded them of some small, simple, but profound concept of eternal worth. I often despaired that it was a waste of time. But no, in later years they have mentioned how frequently the weekly scripture was just what they needed for some situation that came up during that time.
So if ponderizing blesses you and your family, ponderize away! If you don’t like it or the word, don’t do it. And is Bro. Durrant’s son any less entitled to sell t-shirts for it than the ladies who will paint it on a wooden plaque to sell alongside “I know it! I live it! I love it!”? If it bothers us that they sell these things, don’t buy them. But the right and privilege to market and sell is given by the Constitution. And if a ponderize wrist band helps a middle-schooler get through a tough day at school, or a new mom grab a weekly uplifting scripture through the fog of sleeplessness, or a quick-tempered husband bite his tongue more frequently, then let ponderizing bless those whom it will. If the concept and marketing of it is so offensive, I have some scriptures for us to ponder and memorize while we are donating all our purchases of concepts that were marketed to us for someone’s gain (and our enjoyment) — gain that pays their bills and puts food on the table and a roof over someone’s head. And if we don’t buy wrist bands or wear t-shirts that say things, we aren’t higher, smarter, or holier people than those who do.
So maybe
Umm…So I’m not sure where in the Constitution the right to market and sell is listed, though some language in the 14th amendment about contract making could be construed to support your point?
And I suppose my point would be that whether it’s marketing “ponderize” or selling other inspirational Mormon paraphernalia, I’m uncomfortable at the notion of people profiting from spiritual principals taught, ultimately, by our savior. I don’t think that makes me better or worse than anyone else, just uncomfortable with this practice.
Perhaps I’m uncomfortable because I’ve pondered (not ponderized) scriptures like 1 Peter 5:2:
Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind.
Whoops. “principles,” not “principals”
I learned something listening to Brother Durrant’s talk.
What I learned: that it is never wise to choose a topic to speak on in church based upon 1)a practice that you feel you are very good at or 2)a practice that you created and used with energy and enthusiasm in a previous calling. His was a talk built on a framework of favorite behaviors, not gospel preaching. Yes there was some gospel, but the framework was behaviors. And an effective sermon must have gospel as its framework and it must be spoken with a keen sense of one’s own inadequacies, not one’s sense of success.
Brother Durrant did both numbers 1 and 2. He spoke about finances and saving (his professional field, in which, I gather, he as been successful) and about the “ponderize” plan that he implemented with great enthusiasm as a mission president in Brazil.
As a result, like all talks of that type, the talk simply did not carry the weight and power that a conference talk can when it is simply very thoughtful, inspired, humble explanations of essential truths and divine inspiration.
And the enthusiastic merchandizing by his son only pointed out again that “ponderizing” was a family tradition enthusiastically embraced and enjoyed and found to be helpful by an LDS family. And simply that.
I think that the merchandizing shows a concerning combining of capitalism and gospel that, if it were my son, would get the thorough kibosh from me.
And I feel sorry for Brother Durrant.
If he has not learned what he needed to learn from the experience, I feel sorry for him for that. If he has or does learn what he needs to from this experience, it will be a heavy and troubling load for to him to carry as he serves in his new calling, knowing that it was likely the only opportunity he will have to speak in that forum, and that he had fallen short of the mark to serve it as wisely as he could have.
No, not Brazil, Texas.