Faith-Promoting Rumor

The site is dead! Long live the site!

2005-10-10T04:31:00.000-07:00

Due to my recent struggles with blogger and a desire to experiment with wordpress, Faith-Promoting Rumor is moving to a new site. That site is faithprorumor.weblogs.us. Please reset your radio function keys accordingly.

An open letter to the lds.org webmaster (or why out-of-context quotes are bad)

2005-09-30T07:51:00.000-07:00

"Happiness and spiritual progress lie in following the leaders of the Church."
—Elder Dallin H. Oaks
Ensign, May 1999, 37

I love the church, the gospel, and the prophets. I am a particularly big fan of Elder Oaks. But this quote, found without context on the lds.org page, is kinda creepy, huh.

Let's put it in context. It is from a talk about Martin Harris. In it, Elder Oaks describes Harris's life, emphasizing the good about him. He covers his alienation from and then reconciliation with the church. After covering the events of Harris's life and his unwavering testimony of the Book of Mormon, Elder Oaks draws the following conclusions.

What do we learn from this example? (1) Witnesses are important, and the testimony of the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon is impressive and reliable. (2) Happiness and spiritual progress lie in following the leaders of the Church. (3) There is hope for each of us, even if we have sinned and strayed from a favored position.

In this context, the quote is much less creepy. It is inspiring even. It's meaning is more fully informed. It is no longer a vaguely brainwashy message from on high, but rather an example of how the gospel ultimately blessed the life of a great man, an example we can learn from.

The church is in the habit of putting quotes up at its website, generally drawn from the General Conference talks of the quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency. In general, I think it is a good idea, but they should try to remember that context helps one to understand the intended meaning. It allows us to grasp the whole picture a little better. So, dear webmaster of the lds.org site, please stop using a random generator for the quotes we see there. Read them over carefully and decide if the acontextual message you send out is one that we really want to say. From your neighbor, the Mormon.

Um, Ow!

2005-09-23T11:19:00.000-07:00

"If you feel that Heavenly Father is not listening to your petitions, ask yourself if you are listening to the cries of the poor, the sick, the hungry, and the afflicted all around you."
—Elder Joseph B. Wirthlin
Ensign, May 2001, 74

Historical Mormon Smackdown! Evo-NDBF Edition

2005-09-19T08:19:00.000-07:00

Remember back when I posted a weekly poll...good times. Well, since the Bloggernacle Times has started up again, I've decided I can go back to the well, too.

When last we spoke, the Old Testament was making sure that the Pearl of Great Price hied back to Kolob (rim-shot). This week, a reason to really bicker:

Who has the most influence on faithful LDS scholarship?
President Joseph Fielding Smith or Elder B. H. Roberts

President Smith is the son of the son of the brother of Joseph. He was the President of the Church (although not while most of his controversial stuff was initially published). He has written several books for the edification of the priesthood quorums. President Smith refused to countenance the idea of organic evolution.

Elder Roberts was an orphan encouraged into the church by Joseph Smith. He was a clear, forthright, and honest thinker and theologian. Many of his books were written for courses for priesthood quorums. Elder Roberts created a theory of pre-Adamites to explain the scientific evidence as he understood it.

There you go, please vote. I should also say that the idea for this week's smackdown came from an "a random John" comment somewhere, but I can't remember where. If you know what I am thinking of, please let me know and I'll post the link.

Why do we fall?

2005-09-16T16:49:00.000-07:00

Assuming that the Fall of Humanity wasn't an unplanned for mistake, but a part of God's overall plan, why do we need to Fall?

Grace/Salvation/Atonement as a process or as an event

2005-09-14T10:28:00.000-07:00

Elsewhere, Clark Goble has publically agreed with Dr. Millet's assessment of salvation as a process. In a slightly different context, Mssrs Goble, Greenwood, and Johnston have all admitted that, while they think it is possible for people to hold the idea that humans are "instantly transformed" at judgment, they are uncertain as to why anyone would (see here and following comments). I am one of those who do believe in "instant transformation", but I object to that characterization and actually believe that the distinction between process and event is actually not all that helpful. These notions are tied together; please allow me to explain.

I tend to view salvation/justification/sanctification as a process consisting of a series of saving events, each of which should be termed as a gift or a grace. I, therefore, dislike Dr. Millet's distinction because it seems to separate out two ideas that I find are intertwined. We are "instantly transformed" in a thousand, thousand small ways as part of the life-long process of repentance. All good things (including faith, grace, love, hope, patience, intelligence, light, and so forth) are gifts from God and, as such, are not earned. There is no way for us to earn them. They are given in God's own time and in His own wisdom. Even if we make the central covenants of the gospel, there is no gaurantee of the instant receipt of those gifts, just the promise that, as we abide in the covenant, we will receive...eventually.

Now some may argue that abiding in the covenant constitutes "work." I disagree, because those qualities that we use to abide in the covenant are themselves inherently gifts from God. It is a bit recursive, admittedly, but the idea that we can do anything of ourselves is, I believe, contrary to one of the central messages of the gospel: our need for complete submission to the will of God.

In fact, this is the central trial that Christ faced on earth. There is real pain, suffering, and work behind his concession in Gethsemene that God's will be done. My argument is that, fundamentally, this is what God is asking each of us to do. None of us will be as good at it as Christ, which is why the atonement is in place, but if we do what we are able (which, by the way, ain't much), then God considers us in fulfillment of this covenant in the same way His Son was (which is why we can be joint-heirs).

So, ultimately, all God asks of us is to submit to his will. He makes up for our lacks by a process of instantaneous transformations that slowly make us better. However, with that as an understanding of the atonement, I find no reason to object to the idea that transformations can be more overarching at the time of the judgement. I do believe that God can and will make us Celestial (so long as that is what we want), by means of instantaneous transformation (if that is what it takes).

The good fight

2005-09-13T12:06:00.000-07:00

First of all, I have been very busy lately with a variety of silly issues developing with my beginning a new semester. These are starting to smooth out and therefore I should be more able to post and comment in the future. This is a fundamental difference between me and Ronan; he posts more during the semester and I less.

Geoff J has a post over at his blog asking why people don't discuss doctrinal issues more. I should post a comment there, and will, but I fall along those who don't feel like they have done enough research to explain my take adequately (read: convincingly). I don't know enough Mormonalia (pithy mission statements aside) to really feel like I can comment on what Heber C. Kimball or Joseph Smith may have said as an aside in a discussion written down in someone's journal some years later. Or the journal of discourses.

For that matter, I am reluctant to dismiss arguments regarding other people's positions if I haven't had time to really consider them. For instance, there are several things in Jeffrey Gilliam's development of Mormon theology that I find objectionable, but having only taken the time to read about have his posts on the subject, I am consumed with the fear that he has answered my concerns elsewhere. Moreso, I think that I will find more of the same in his other posts and still be left with only a vague uneasiness defining my skepticism.

That said, there have been a rash of posts recently that deal with issues that are central to me and my understanding of the doctrine. I am certain that I fundamentally differ with J. about the meaning of the atonement. I know that I disagree with Jeffrey G. about the usefulness of evolution as a model for spiritual development, the importance of the inspiration/revelation distinction, and the pervasiveness of Adam-God. I think the parable of the mortgage vastly overestimates the importance of works and underestimates the power of grace. I respect all of these men, don't think that they are apostate, appreciate that they are good thinkers, and, nonetheless, believe that they are all wrong. Just plain wrong.

In part, this is because I am a fairly orthodox guy. I actually believe that the "common" understanding of the scriptures is, in many cases, the best one. This, in turn, makes it hard for me to defend my position because it makes it hard for state clearly what it is. As Davis Bell has commented elsewhere, the "common" understanding of the gospel is a witch's brew of innuendo, speculation, offhand remarks from general authorities, and occasional scripture. I have commented on this before.

That said, I am deeply interested in the Atonement. Many times I am impressed with the level of speculation that takes place here in the 'Naccle. But I feel like, in some ways, J., Geoff, and Jeff are creating issues out of thin air; creating confusion where the doctrine was fairly clear. I believe all three men (and others like them) to be sincere. So the confusion must be genuine. But it fails to make sense to me because I have a hard time understanding why the non-sense of previous theories needs rectification. The Atonement is inherently irrational. There is no need to create a theological foundation for it (and it is possibly backward to do so).

Nonetheless, with the discussion thusfar, and with my conscience growing guiltier every time I fail to comment on one of their interesting posts, I have decided to put forward what I mean by the "common" understanding of the gospel. I know that I am idiosyncratic (I let far more people into the Celestial Kingdom than might normally be considered doctrinally possible), but I feel like, in general, it is sound doctrine (I may even cite scripture to make my point).

First of all, the reason that we are sent here is to submit our will entirely to God in a manner whereby we do it rationally, devotionally, and willingly. God cannot make us do this, but he is not above engineering things so that this is the most likely outcome. We are sent to the mortal realm to experience failure, sin, pain, sorrow and a whole host of other things that are simply impossible for us to experience unless we are separated from God, which can only happen if we choose it and we have a mortal, fallible body. At least in part, we undergo this to develop compassion for our eventual wayward children. Additionally, we do this so that we can develop the faith necessary to take upon ourselves the name of Christ and, thereby, become joint-heirs with him.

The role of Christ is that of the Redeemer. Though necessarily sinless in order to undergo the atonement, it was necessary for even him to experience and take upon himself our sins. He had to be separated from God as part of his mortal experience. His role is that of the Father to us. I am not saying that He is the Father, because The Father plays a different role and is a different being. What I am saying is that Christ is divinely endowed with the power and, to a degree, the presence of the Father in his role as Savior, Redeemer, Judge, and God of this world. Christ is the Father of our covenants; the Gospel makes us His Children. The role of the Father (meaning God, the Father) in this is mysterious. We are already His Children. However, I can say that, however we interact with the Father, it is through the mediation of His Son. As much as He may like to, God cannot save his Children without the Atonement of His Son.

We are saved when, during or after this life, we are divinely invested with the attributes of the Father through the mediation of the Son. As Christ became the Father through divine investiture, so too can we. To do so, we must do as Christ did and submit our will wholely to God, allowing Divine Grace to perfect us. All good things are gifts from God and salvation is no exception. The reason that this is accomplishable in this life is because, ultimately, God isn't demanding some arbitrary level of righteousness or obedience for us to advance to the next level. Salvation is not earned; it is given by a loving Father through the conduit of His Son. What we are asked to do is to humble ourselves sufficient to rely on God and His Grace; He really will take care of the rest. So, that's what I think. You?

Mama, I've got those Fantasy Football blues...

2005-09-13T09:23:00.000-07:00

Well, the season has begun, and I have bested the forces of darkness yet again. Yes, John C. took a nosedive yesterday, as his team was left panting on the sidelines after a thorough drubbing by yours truly.

As large sweaty men pummel each other on the gridiron each Sunday, yet another of my neuroses surfaces. The commandment to keep the Sabbath holy is being battered to pieces by the aforementioned helmeted warriors, a small but significant portion of which are LDS. With a few notable exceptions, most of these seem not to mind.

So, what are your thoughts on professional sports and the Sabbath, particularly on LDS athletes/coaches, etc.? Are they truly accomplishing missionary work by being the public figures that they are, or is this just an excuse for them to ignore one of the Ten Commandments in the pursuit of the almighty dollar? Am I breaking the commandment if I watch sports on Sunday? What if I just check the fantasy stats on the internet?

What would Sean Diener do?

2005-08-30T14:01:00.000-07:00

PETA Campaign Coordinator Sean Diener, a devout Latter-Day Saint who grew up in Salt Lake City says,“Anyone who thinks that Jesus would approve of the way that these animals are raised and killed completely misses the gospel’s greatest message: compassion.”

Do you think that the gospel's greatest message is compassion?

Historical Mormon Smackdown: Standard Works Edition!

2005-08-29T14:05:00.000-07:00

Well, the last time we did this, the Book of Mormon hero wupped up on the Biblical one. It got me thinking about this, a subject destined to become this week's smackdown!

Scriptural Mormon Smackdown: Standard Works Edition!
Not that one is, but if one was, which of these Standard Works is the most important: The Pearl of Great Price or The Old Testament?

The Pearl of Great Price is the source of all of our knowledge regarding Kolob and most of our knowledge regarding Enoch.

The Old Testament has Isaiah, Genesis, and several other LDS proof-texts.

Please vote and then comment below.

PETA billboards and Word of Wisdom

2005-08-29T06:06:00.000-07:00

At this posting, Judah holds a very slight lead with 3 votes. Personally, I think that's a case of the squeaky wheel getting the grease... at any rate, on to today's topic of contenti...er discussion.

Anyone see those LDS-oriented PETA billboards a year or so ago in Utah? The ones quoting D&C 89 about eating "...meat sparingly, only in times of cold or famine"? Those actually got me thinking. We (Americans) eat meat a lot, all year long. No recent famines to my knowledge. And yet we (Mormons) seem to just completely skip over this advice in the Word of Wisdom. I've asked people about this, and I can barely get the question out of my mouth when they start hollering at me "D&C says vegetarianism is not from God!" Well, no, that's not what the Lord says. He says PREACHING vegetarianism as a commandment is not from God. But in the WoW he also says it is pleasing unto him that meat not be used, only in times of cold or famine. Why doesn't anyone (except PETA) holler about that verse? Anyway, being as it's neither cold now nor faminous (I love inventing words) I opted for vegetarianism for the summer at least, with only minor villification from friends and church members.

So... whaddya think? Is a veggie lifestyle Satan's secret plan to destroy us? Or do we consume way more hamburger than was ever intended?

They're not lost, I just don't remember where I put them...

2005-08-25T11:29:00.000-07:00

So, moving on from Bigfoot.... I want to know, where have those Lost Ten Tribes got to? Center of the Earth? The Moon? Russia? right here among us, disguised as ordinary citizens? C'mon, let's have it... let's hear all those wild and wooly theories.

And by the way, exactly which tribes ARE lost, anyway? Ephraim was originally one of the Ten, but now we're back; Levi didn't originally count as one of the twelve, but he is technically lost. I think we know where Judah, Benjamin and the two Joseph tribes are, right? And what about Dan? why doesn't Dan count as part of the 144,000? Is Dan lost or not, and do we want to find him? If there's 13 tribes and only 12 apostles, does somebody get to skip the judgment? Tell me more....

Perhaps we should have a poll/smackdown:
Which tribe is most historically significant, and would win on MTV Celebrity Deathmatch?

Sasquatch and Melchizedek

2005-08-23T12:14:00.000-07:00

Ok, since this place is dedicated to "oddments and marginalia" and other weird Mormon Legends, I have two that I'd like to hear more about:

1) I remember reading somewhere that there was a theory that Shem, son of Noah, was the same person as Melchizedek. And then I remember reading somewhere else, Mormon Doctrine possibly, that the theory was nonsense. But if I remember right, the first person was quoting Joseph Smith. Anyone else ever heard of this controversy, and could provide better sources than my rotten memory?

2) In an old copy of the Lectures on Faith, I remember seeing a quote from somebody's journal about how they were riding on a horse, and a big 8 ft tall naked hair-covered man came up beside them, and then later on the Prophet told them they had seen Cain, son of Adam. Anyone know anything about this one? Makes no sense to me... first of all, how come Adam dies of old age, but Cain gets to hang out? And why does he look like Bigfoot? And how'd he make it through the flood?

Addendum: Ok, our intrepid commentators have informed me that I had it all backwards, the Cain story was in Miracle of Forgiveness and the Shem/Melchizedek story was in Lectures on Faith.

God v. Mammon, 2005

2005-08-20T12:29:00.000-07:00

Didn't Brigham Young say something to the effect that he knew the Saints could withstand mobbings and lynchings, but he was worried about the effects prosperity would have on [us]?

Well here is my question: Since leaving school and working for a few years, I've been able to put a little money away and now am beginning to invest it. How aware do I need to be of who gets my money? Certainly I'm not going to go out and invest in shares of Phillip Morris or Anheiser Busch or Bally's Casinos... But what about Coca-Cola? What about companies that SELL tobacco and alcohol, like restaurants & convenience stores, What about studios that make good movies, but also make R-rated ones? What about Marriott, for Pete's sake, which has porn available as pay-per-view in all its hotel rooms? If I invest in these companies, am I not also profitting from the vices they promote and exploit?

To take it a step further, what if I don't bother to invest in individual stocks at all, but stick to mutual funds? Am I responsible to monitor each individual company the fund invests in? If I don't, then in theory, my money could be used to do things I would never dream of doing in person, right?

Perhaps I'm neurotic. After all, Phillip Morris also owns "Kraft", I could tell myself that I was investing in Velveeta instead of Marlboro. I can go to the casino just for the buffet, right, and tell myself i'm not helping finance people's addiction to gambling. If I subscribe to HBO, but only watch the PG13 stuff, never mind that i'm also helping produce The Sopranos, right? right?

What's a gospel-conscious investor/consumer to do?

[For the record, when I mentioned this dilemma to a member of my stake presidency, he told me not to worry about it, because you don't have enough time to investigate all the uses your money is put to, and because ANY company might be doing something immoral you don't even know about. I'm not sure I'm satisfied with that answer....]

---------------------------------

Philip Morris is a tobacco company that has successfully diversified, and is now a producer of well-known brands of food and beer. (Its 2000 Annual Report noted that "Fifteen of our brands generated $1 billion or more in revenues last year: Marlboro, Kraft, Basic, Miller Lite, Virginia Slims, Parliament, L&M, Oscar Mayer, Post, Philip Morris, Maxwell House, Jacobs, Philadelphia, Merit and our newest addition, the Nabisco trademark.")

-(http://www.virginiaplaces.org/econ/philipmorris.html)

Please Welcome Rob

2005-08-19T11:50:00.000-07:00

FPR is pleased to announce the appointment of my brother Robert to perma-blogger status. Please feel free to welcome him to the blog.

Robert is a board-certified MD in rural Missouri with too much spare time. Although his online persona thusfar may make him seem like "House," he is really much more like "Marcus Welby" (by which, I mean, old).

In the interest of keeping all posts from becoming bitter flame wars inspired by sibling rivalry, please feel free to keep commenting (additionally, please feel free to point out that I am right).

Bloggernacle Fantasy Football

2005-08-16T09:04:00.000-07:00

Sure, the bloggernacle is a place to discuss obscure points of doctrine and the true meaning of Zelph. It is a place where you can scratch your itch for intellectual approaches to the Gospel and fluffy testimonials. But where can you get the violence, the splendor, the glory, the gory of NFL football in the 'nacle?

Well, right here, assuming that I get 6-10 interested nackers.

Announcing the Bloggernacle Fantasy Football league! Knock heads with Kaimi*! Drill Steve Evans* into the dirt! Watch Ryan Bell* juke Kristine Harris*! Catch a Hail Mary from Rosalynde Welch*! Get sacked by Danithew*!

Let me know if you are interested.

*actual participation by said Bloggernacle luminaries is dependent on their actually wanting to participate. Also, all afore-mentioned violence was and will remain purely metaphorical. Thank you.

Do we believe in a "timeless" church?

2005-08-16T08:58:00.000-07:00

This post was prompted by a comment made by my brother over here. I understand that the way of God is one eternal round and that he is the same yesterday, today, and forever. But I don't think those things mean what they seem to mean at face value. For two reasons:

1) If God is static, whence eternal progression?
2) If the Gospel is static, whence the need for continuing revelation?

Discuss.

Historical Mormon Smackdown: Scriptural Bloodletter Edition!

2005-08-15T10:11:00.000-07:00

First, may I say that if our entirely scientific poll is any indication, then Mitt Romney will do more presidential damage than Hatch did. Mitt, the comeback kid, came from 8 votes back to win by 6.

This week's competition is the result of a special request. As you know, here at FPR, the customer is king.

Historical Mormon Smackdown: Scriptural Bloodletter Edition
Who is the less problematic scriptural holy warrior is the LDS Canon: Capt. Moroni or Joshua, son of Nun?

Capt. Moroni: Nephite war-leader; fought invaders and internal traitors; forced said internal traitors to fight or be killed; made them hoist copies of a torn coat from their towers (how gauche!); and, finally, really, really didn't enjoy himself in all of this.

Joshua, son of Nun: hung out with Moses and, apparently, God; enacted God's haram, resulting in genocide in several Canaanite cities (according to the Book of Joshua, at least); and wasn't much into the whole "shade of grey" morality viewpoint. Unfortunately, we don't know how he felt about what he did.

So there you go, two heroes of a previous generation (okay, several generations) whom we might consider monsters nowadays. Express your defense or disgust below and vote away.

False Proxies

2005-08-03T09:29:00.000-07:00

I promised that I would talk somewhat about temple work and the work for the dead from time to time. Today is such a time. This is less about work for the dead, so you know.

The Adversary is at his most effective when he can get us to do the right thing for the wrong reason. If our outward appearance and action seem righteous, then we are less likely to question our inner beliefs and attitudes. In our church, there is sometimes such an emphasis on certain outward shows of faith (eg. church and temple attendance) that ministry toward people making these shows is never initiated until something drastic occurs. We need a way to help the despairing, lonely, confused, and wayward before it becomes physically apparent that they need help. More on that another time...

What I want to talk about today is the way that the Adversary has taken some of the most sacred things that we do in the temple and has altered them. Not in the outward appearance, but in the inner meaning.

Take for instance the relationship between a man and a wife. In the temple, God has something to say on the subject (although his remarks avoid a single interpretation). Outside of the temple, many other people have something to say on the topic. In the temple, the most important aspect is that God is to be involved in decision-making. Outside of the temple, however we care to structure our families is fine, so long as the parents agree with it. God is removed from the structure of family life, even though he was the one to initially ordain it. We now have an understanding of family structure without God. Some might argue that it is better this way, but I disagree. By substituting human understanding for Godly instruction, we create a situation where our inadequate social skills and our lacking wisdom is all might keep a family from self-destructing. We need God to keep our families going. Attempts to structure the family with anything else in God's place are doomed to fail.

The same can be said for the Gospel. There are several different Gospels out there, depending on how you want it interpreted. The vital truth of The Gospel is that it's interpreter is Christ himself (and, from Him, the Light of Christ). When we choose a Gospel other than Christ's, we are substituting someone or something else in His place. I had a friend who was investigating the church tell me that when it came down to it, he had to choose between what the Bible told him and what Mormonism told him. He choose the Bible. He made the choice he did because of how he understood the Bible and how he understood the way God works through it. I agreed that if we kept ourselves strictly to what the Bible (as it is translated) says, that the Book of Mormon does say and do things differently (it even contradicts the Bible on occasion). So if we want to put our understanding of the Bible above what God might tell us, we are again substituting something for God. If we prefer the interpretations of John Wesley, Martin Luther, or Eld. McConkie to what we are being told today by God, we are putting someone else in God's place. Churches or doctrines that are not founded in God are doomed to fail.

Similar things can be said regarding the bloody recitation of the suffering of the saints and the ascetic sacrifice of monks or even in the Horatio Alger stories of self-sacrifice and success, the replacement of marriage as being between a man and a wife with something much broader, or the communitarian ideal of communism. In all these cases, God is taken out of the equation, replaced with some human's idea of what is right or even some human. This is the Adversary at his subtlest. The outcome appears the same (strong families, stable societies) but the Adeversary's outcomes are only temporary. The substitution of mortal for immortal always works that way.

The appeal of all of this is to our pride. We believe that we are capable of these great moral heights without divine intervention. But we are not. We are a jealous, short-sighted, stumbling bunch of sinners. There is no lasting institution on Earth that isn't inspired and maintained by God. Although we may see in these developments things that make us better, without God, they have no effective force on us. Reason, education, reeducation, suffering, and strife have no edifying value of themselves. It is God to whom we must turn to be lifted above ourselves. All other sources are pale shadows and poor substitutes of the real thing.

Ambiguity comes with the territory

2005-08-02T10:53:00.000-07:00

In a discussion with a BYU religion professor yesterday, he mentioned that he had been told by people at the Marriott School of Business that graduates from that institution are universally praised in all areas except one (I may be slightly exaggerating here). The one area in which the BYU grad is behind his fellow MBA's? Handling Ambiguity.

I wasn't terribly surprised by the revelation. I don't want to blame the "the brethren have spoken" mindset here, because I don't believe that provides sufficient explanation for this trend. The truth is that, in the church, we are conditioned to reject ambiguity. If there are no answers to our questions, we pray/study harder. If that doesn't work, we do it some more anyway. Problems are not problems, they're "tests" that we need to pass in order to resolve. Things do not just happen in the Mormon worldview. In spite of our insistance on free will, it turns out that God has carefully controlled everything in our lives so that we can learn the appropriate lessons from our challenges (if we choose to, of course).

Why do we fear the inexplicable, the contradictory, and the unmotivated? Perhaps a certain believe in a divine overseer removes fear when life becomes unpredictable and confusing. It seems hard for us to accept that some things are beyond our comprehension (perhaps because of our beliefs about intelligence and intelligences).

Perhaps I am only speaking for myself here.

In any case, it seems that we have lost our taste for mystery (in the Christian sense) in the church. We do not like to dwell on paradoxes in doctrine and faith, telling ourselves that there are no paradoxes and creating elaborate schemes to make our contradictions no longer contradict.

But the mind of God is not the mind of man and the ways of God differ from ours.

Joseph Smith once said:
"By proving contraries, the truth is made manifest"

To be honest, I have no idea what this means. It could mean that by showing that contradictions exist and that it is necessary to accept them, we approach God. Or it could mean that by examining apparent contradictions, God can help us unravel them and find the rational truth therein. I am not convinced that we have an either-or situation here. In any case, it seems that we need to pay close attention to the paradoxes in our belief. Contemplation thereof seems to be a manner of approaching God.

Historical Mormon Smackdown: Aspiring President edition!

2005-08-01T13:54:00.000-07:00

Now on a new day and time!

This week's contest is inspired by the news of late. Enjoy:
Which recent presidential aspirer has done more to impact the perception of the Church: Mitt Romney or Orrin Hatch?

Romney: "fixed" the Salt Lake Olympics, become a Republican governor in Mass, appears ambiguous on some key social issues, sure is purty

Hatch: has been a senator for a long, long time; constantly appears on "talking-heads" type shows; pro-stem cell research/anti-flag burning; those awful, awful songs.

That's it folks, get your political fix here. Vote to the right or below and discuss these almost-rans (or might-runs) here.

Historical Mormon Smackdown: Bomber edition

2005-07-21T10:27:00.000-07:00

Sorry for the sporadic posting of late. I've been busy. Also, I am still recovering from the results of the last poll. John Lee over Gary Gilmore? As other people have mentioned regarding other polls, I am beginning to suspect the tastes of our readership. Sure, Lee was pivotal in a minor event in Southern Utah a century or so ago. Gilmore only created a situation where W. could say, with a straight face, that he never executed an innocent man (also, Gilmore inspired the Cremaster cycle, for which he can never be forgiven in all the eternities). But I digress...

On to this week's competition:
Who is the more historically significant LDS bomber: Marc Hofmann or Gail S. Halvorsen?

Hofmann: forged a whole lot of "early Mormon documents", killed a couple of people to keep it quiet, inadvertantly got Michael Quinn's career going, inadvertantly got Jon Krakauer in touch with Dan Lafferty (Justin has a collection of articles about Hofmann up on his site).

Halvorsen: dropped candy out of his bomber for impoverished German children during the Berlin airlift. Read about it here and here.

So, what will it be? Vote below or to the right and defend your choice in the comments.

Historical Utah smackdown! Killer Edition

2005-07-08T05:52:00.000-07:00

I am sorry for not getting any posts out this week. I've been busy. According the the poll, it turns out that there isn't an unwritten order of things because Elder McConkie wrote it all down.

This week, somewhat inspired by recent events, is a little different in that I am not sure if one of the participants is LDS (and five minutes on the internet didn't help).

Historical Utah Smackdown: Killer edition!
Who is the more important executed Utah killer vaguely associated with Mormonism:
John Lee or Gary Gilmore?

John Lee: led the Mountain Meadows Massacre; claimed to have done it on orders from Brigham Young; the only person convicted for involvement (Justin, correct me if I am wrong).

Gary Gilmore: the first person executed after Furmand vs. Georgia had invalidated prior capital laws, captured by my stake's second counsellor, rumored to have sought death by firing squad because of things Brigham Young taught about "blood atonement."

Have at it, vote below or to the right.

Historical Mormon Smackdown: Hardliner edition

2005-06-30T16:21:00.000-07:00

So, last week we learned that, much as on the gridiron, it is the quarterback that has the influence, even though the running back does most of the work. But enough about that, on to this week's event:

Historical Mormon Smackdown: Hardliner edition
Who is the more influential hard-line interpreter of current LDS orthodoxy: Elder Boyd K. Packer or Elder Bruce R. McConkie?

Elder Packer has written and given several influential talks regarding what is and what ain't orthodoxy and firmly implying which side of the line the Lord would like you to be on.

Elder McConkie practically codified orthodoxy by writing Mormon Doctrine and has been known to take a firm position in a talk or two.

So, who is your pick? Who do you send in if you have a group of possible apostates in serious need of a spiritual beatdown (done with compassion, of course)? Vote below or to the right and comment on the proceedings.

An intentionally late Fathers' Day post

2005-06-28T10:51:00.000-07:00

My father has never been antagonistic to the church exactly. For all intents and purposes, he appears to have been indifferent. He never objected when we went, attended when something important happened, and generally refrained from criticizing the aspects of it to which he objected. He has reportedly even told neighbors that if he was to join any church, it would likely be ours.

We have had a whole slew of missionaries come through the house. Sometimes he has liked them; usually he hasn't. He'll generally tolerate them through a meal, sit and listen to their lesson, and then disappear into a back room until they leave. I don't think that he has ever taken a discussion; it is possible that he has never been interested.

During my mission, he started attending church with my Mom (it was really the first time she had had to go alone in a long time). Mom reported that he had started reading the Book of Mormon. In our eagerness for this development (long overdue in all our minds), we peppered Dad with so many questions (mine via mail) that we quickly overwhelmed his patience and he stopped reading to get us off his back. That period may have been the closest my father will ever come to joining the church and his family contributed to his turning away then.

We are told that there is no such thing as a death-bed confession. The spirit that inhabits the body in this life will be the same that in the next. We've also been told that this life is the time. My father is forty years older than me, has suffered pancreatitis and a heart attack. We are often told that there is hope for the parents of wayward children, what is there for the children of wayward parents?

I am not sure that my father will join the church before he dies. I used to be sure he would, but his mortality bears more and more upon me. He still isn't interested in the church after 40 some-odd years in close contact with it. I (and the other family members) often wonder if it is our fault. Was there something we could have done to be a better example? Have we failed to offer testimony when the moment was right? Did our reaction that one time (when I was on my mission) ruin his one chance? If he dies, will he get another?

The scriptures are sufficiently ambiguous on this point. The whole point of the work for the dead is to help those who couldn't help themselves. Does my father fall in this category? He has known about the church for a while; does his refusal to learn more constitute a rejection of knowledge or a simple ignorance of how important the gospel is? I know that he knows that we think the Gospel is important, but that's hearsay right?

If my father dies before he joins the church, we will have him baptized vicariously. He knows this. Does his refusal now mean that he will refuse then? If we do it, are we disrespecting his wishes? Or giving him an opportunity that he couldn't take advantage of in life?

This is a lot of mystery surrounding our beliefs about the work among the dead. I'll be posting on it on occasion for the next little while, if for no other reason than that I am worried about my dad. I love him and I wouldn't mind hanging out with him for an eternity or two.

Historical Mormon Smackdown: Sports Trivia edition!

2005-06-23T07:53:00.000-07:00

So, it turns out that Orson Pratt is more influential than Heber C. Kimball. Take that Geoff and Jeff!

On to the show!
Who is the more influential LDS Athlete: Steve Young or Elder Joseph B. Wirthlin?

Steve Young: star quarterback in the WAC, USFL, and the NFL; a scrambler leftie; didn't go on a mission; seems to be a generally nice guy; took a long, long time to get married, causing some...um...speculation.

Elder Wirthlin: played running back for the Utah Utes in the 1930's in his freshman, sophomore, and junior seasons (and is supposed to have been really good); skipped his senior year of college to go to a mission to Austria...in 1936; hasn't played since, but seems to be rather busy; has been married for a long, long time, causing...um...no speculation.

Okay, you know how it works. Vote below or to the right and write your comments below.

Fond Farewells

2005-06-22T09:32:00.000-07:00

Recently, I attended a missionary farewell that did not...er...go well. I mean, it was fine. The young elder spoke about his family, his father, repentance, and he sang a song. He told a series of jokes that weren't funny, but that his family and a group of girls laughed at. His song was of the sort (you know the sort) written by modern LDS songwriters that is intended to earn tears with references to gospel themes and traumatic life events. It was tremendously cheesy and really not terribly spiritual.

I have never before felt sympathy for this kid (or his family, really (because I am a bitter, cruel man)), but I was filled with empathy for this kid as he spoke. It was awful (really, it was), but he clearly felt like what he was saying was important and that we wanted to hear it from him.

That kid was me!

Not literally, of course. But I remember the farewell talk that I gave (back when farewells were whole hours devoted to the glory of the departing missionary). I was the second missionary to leave my ward in the previous 10 years or so (the first being my brother). I was so certain that I needed to show the ward that I was the appropriate vehicle for their hopes and surrogate missionary dreams. I was going to an "important" foreign mission. I was practically opening up a whole country to the gospel. I was determined to show that I was the spiritual giant I had always pretended to myself that I could be. I was going to blow their spiritual minds.

So, I got up there. I told them about my testimony; I mentioned how I had had all of these cool spiritual experiences and that my testimony was rock-solid. I mentioned how I was going to work hard and be a good example to the youth in the ward. I told them that I would write back to anyone who wrote me.

In hindsight, I can't believe how full of myself I was; how strong I thought my untested testimony was; how out-of-touch to think that sharing a litany of spiritual experiences would let them know who I was and what I planned to do. I was green, so green, but I was convinced that I wasn't. What a punk!

I saw all of that in this missionary this past week. It's Wednesday today, so I assume that he'll be entering the MTC today and that his parents will leave and he won't (today, at least). He'll think it's the greatest and he'll think it's the worst. He'll eventually get to his mission and find the bravado with which he spoke this past Sunday gone, replaced by some combination of fear, peace, desire, and love. I hope he'll have a wonderful mission (I did). He'll be in my prayers.

There has recently been some discussion of mtc mission journals. I don't have mine handy enough to look at, so I couldn't contribute to that. But I would like to invite the interested (who remember) to share what they spoke about at their mission farewells and what they think of the topic today.

Spiritual "Maturity" and the principle of obedience

2005-06-21T07:29:00.000-07:00

In Rusty's post regarding the necessity of reasons for commandments (ie. do we really need reasons to obey?), there has been a comment that got me thinking. It is from bboy-mike and here it is in its entirety:

What about ethical dilemmas? What do you do when you're in an abusive, temple sealed marriage? Do you leave, or do you stay because of the covenant? These are real questions that people go through, and yet, if we only understood our faith through simple obedience, we'd have no idea how to act when faced with such a dilemma. (such dilemmas were the cause for ethics in the first place)

That is the reason to know the why behind the command, to understand the principle is the ability to then apply that principle in different and varying circumstances with certainty; it is nearly impossible to come up with a universal application when dealing with particular circumstances.

I reject the Divine Command Theory for the reason that if obedience were the only requirement for this life (which is an implicit understanding in church culture), we would remain as eternal children, never able to become mature adults of understanding and intelligence; we'd always have to ask our 'bishop' what to do in any difficult ethical circumstance, which is very unhealthy to one's moral development.

I find that I disagree with the first and third paragraph of this because I agree with the second.

First let's lay out some ground work. We all "know" that "obedience is the first law in heaven". I am not familiar with any particular verse that states it this way, but there is some support for this idea in the temple ceremony and, in particular, in Abraham 3:24-26

24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;
25 And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;
26 And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever.

Now there are a couple of different ways of taking verse 25 there. Perhaps God thinks it is a bad thing to do everything that he commands. However, the standard interpretation (and, I think, the right one) is to understand 25 as having something to do with verse 26. In other words, the proving discussed in 25 seems to have some effect on the receipt of estates discussed in verse 26. We have some positive confirmation of this theory in the fact that we are indeed here, with a body, while, we believe, the Adversary is here without one. So it does seem important that we seek to do as God has commanded.

So the next question is: Is it right to have God command us in all things? This gets a bit more complex. Let's take a look at a scripture much discussed in connection with this, D&C 58:26-29

26 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.
27 Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;
28 For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward.
29 But he that doeth not anything until he is commanded, and receiveth a commandment with doubtful heart, and keepeth it with slothfulness, the same is damned.

This seems pretty straightforward. We shouldn't wait around for God to tell us to do everything. This command was given in connection to Edward Partridge's move to Missouri, apparently is response to a request to God to tell Bishop Partridge's group how to organize themselves.

D&C 58:24-25
24 And now, as I spake concerning my servant Edward Partridge, this land is the land of his residence, and those whom he has appointed for his counselors; and also the land of the residence of him whom I have appointed to keep my storehouse;
25 Wherefore, let them bring their families to this land, as they shall counsel between themselves and me.

What's important here is the terminology used. You'll note that in verse 25 The Partridge group is told to include the Lord in their planning. Apparently, they fell into the Oliver Cowdery trap (see D&C 9:7-9) of thinking that it was sufficient to ask God and wait for an answer, without trying to work it out themselves, too. This may be the course of the slothful servant, who strives to do nothing more than what he is asked because he wishes to do as little as possible, but (at least according to verses 26-29) this isn't what God wants from us. He wants us to use our own noggin to work out how best to obey...sometimes.

Let's take another useful example, Mahonri Moriancumer:

Ether 2:22-25
22 And he cried again unto the Lord saying: O Lord, behold I have done even as thou hast commanded me; and I have prepared the vessels for my people, and behold there is no light in them. Behold, O Lord, wilt thou suffer that we shall cross this great water in darkness?
23 And the Lord said unto the brother of Jared: What will ye that I should do that ye may have light in your vessels? For behold, ye cannot have windows, for they will be dashed in pieces; neither shall ye take fire with you, for ye shall not go by the light of fire.
24 For behold, ye shall be as a whale in the midst of the sea; for the mountain waves shall dash upon you. Nevertheless, I will bring you up again out of the depths of the sea; for the winds have gone forth out of my mouth, and also the rains and the floods have I sent forth.
25 And behold, I prepare you against these things; for ye cannot cross this great deep save I prepare you against the waves of the sea, and the winds which have gone forth, and the floods which shall come. Therefore what will ye that I should prepare for you that ye may have light when ye are swallowed up in the depths of the sea?

You know the story and, I assume, you are familiar with the standard exegesis. God is telling Jared's brother to do some of his own thinking for a minute here. But, this is the second time Mahonri has come to the Lord with questions. The first time they spoke, the Lord told him to cut holes in the boat. So, Bro. Moriancumer knows that the Lord is willing to give him some answers just for the asking. Note the phrasing above in verse 25: "what will ye that I should prepare for you that ye may have light when ye are swallowed up in the depths of the sea?" We have a tendancy to hear in this the sound of an exasperated parent who is fed up with a whiny kid. I think that this might be better read as a loving parent watching a child take a first couple steps. Consider it as a sincere request: "Ask and ye shall receive". Sometimes, we are asked to work it out on our own. Sometimes, we are commanded. There doesn't appear to be a one-size fits all approach to this on God's part.

So, now that we have established the ground rules for the game (I hope) let's deal with bboy-mike's comment:

What about ethical dilemmas? What do you do when you're in an abusive, temple sealed marriage? Do you leave, or do you stay because of the covenant? These are real questions that people go through, and yet, if we only understood our faith through simple obedience, we'd have no idea how to act when faced with such a dilemma. (such dilemmas were the cause for ethics in the first place)

Now, I'll assume that bboy-mike believes that there are times in the Gospel when we have to deal with conflicting commandments. In this, he is absolutely correct. Sometimes we get what appear to be mixed messages. I would submit that when this is the case, that these are times when, as spiritually mature adults, we are expected to turn to the Lord and counsel with him. The contrast between counsel and command in D&C 58 is quite clear. The Lord admits that His commands can get us into contradictory situations, so He has provided a way to find the way out of given situations. That way is to talk to Him about it. This can involve several different means of approach (eg. prayer, fasting, talking with church authorities),but the key is to get Him involved. It is we who shut Him out; it is never the other way around.

Now, up to this point, I am in agreement with bboy-mike. But then he mentions "simple obedience." Now, I don't know what exactly he believes that phrase means. Elsewhere in the bloggernacle, "simple faith" is taking a beating (see the comment here and the following comments ("child-like" is being substituted for "simple")). The impression I have gotten is that the people who use the adjective "simple" here are using it in the sense of "simple-minded" (aka. dumb). People who emphasize trying to be obedient all the time are being simple, while I understand that it is more complicated than that (sometimes we must choose the greater of two goods, for instance). Talk like this seems to indicate that the speaker believes that they have opened up some sort of great secret ("Obedience isn't actually always easy! The commandments can be unclear!") when, in my experience, these are things that those who have commited to total obedience understand. It is a principle that appears "easy" (just do what you're told), but everyone realizes that the application is more complicated. Making the decision to be as obedient as possible may seem simple but anyone who has done it can tell you that it is a messy, confusing, and complicated commitment. The only thing you learn from it, ultimately, is to rely wholly on God (which is probably the reason for the commandment in the first place).

On to bboy-mike's third paragraph:

I reject the Divine Command Theory for the reason that if obedience were the only requirement for this life (which is an implicit understanding in church culture), we would remain as eternal children, never able to become mature adults of understanding and intelligence; we'd always have to ask our 'bishop' what to do in any difficult ethical circumstance, which is very unhealthy to one's moral development.

Let me first say that I don't see the problem in including the bishop in your counsels with the Lord, if that is what you feel you must do. Certainly, you could go overboard (see, again, D&C 58:26-29), but it shouldn't be a bad thing to seek the Lord's guidance. Which is what irks me about this sentiment. I am of the firm opinion that no matter how far we progress in this life, we will leave it spiritual children. The idea that by the proper application of reason, intellect, spirituality, humility, etc. we will become spiritual adults is absurd. To imply that is to imply that we will cease to be mortal (physically and spiritually). It isn't something that we can do. Certainly that knowledge that we acquire (that pertains to the eternities) will be carried into the next life, but, whatever knowledge that may be, it does not make us Gods in this life. I repeat, I do not believe that we will ever be spiritually mature in this life. I don't believe Joseph Smith was. I don't believe Gordon B. Hinckley is. I know I am not. I think that there is an argument to be made that Jesus wasn't (didn't he have to get a resurrected body to be a God?). If you believe that it is possible to be a spiritually "mature adult" in this life, more power to you, I suppose, but I don't buy it.

This is especially so when all the counsel we receive is that the spiritually mature are those who submit their will to God (see any talk by Elder Maxwell, for instance). This means a type of "simple obedience." We must decide to counsel with God in all things that we do and then, when he gives us specific instructions, do them, no matter how scary they may be. Look at the following (going back to D&C 58):

29 But he that doeth not anything until he is commanded, and receiveth a commandment with doubtful heart, and keepeth it with slothfulness, the same is damned.
30 Who am I that made man, saith the Lord, that will hold him guiltless that obeys not my commandments?
31 Who am I, saith the Lord, that have promised and have not fulfilled?
32 I command and men obey not; I revoke and they receive not the blessing.
33 Then they say in their hearts: This is not the work of the Lord, for his promises are not fulfilled. But wo unto such, for their reward lurketh beneath, and not from above.

The condemnation isn't for those that ask God (or that wait on him when waiting is called for). It is for those who don't keep the commands that they have received or who keep them half-heartedly. It is for those who, upon learning that their half-hearted efforts are not rewarded, decide that the fault is with God and not with them. The people who act the part of the slothful servant are the ones who are damned.

Now, I am not calling bboy-mike (or anybody else) to repentance for this. I am sure that bboy-mike is a great Mormon, a swell guy (nice to little children and puppies), and a wonderful human being. I quite like everything that he said in his second paragraph (I actually think most of this post is a rehash of the sentiments of that paragraph (although I do think that God sometimes withholds the reasons behind things for our benefit)). I am just tired of people equating spiritual "maturity" with the ability to pick and choose commandments. Maturity, to me, if it were possible, would mean that in all cases you ain't the one doing the picking and choosing. Letting the better qualified make some decisions and being prepared when He gives you ones he thinks you can handle, that is what being an adult in the gospel is (I think).

By Study and also By Faith

2005-06-20T09:33:00.000-07:00

The following quote by Orson F. Whitney came up in Sunday School yesterday.

"Seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning even by study, and also by faith."

Why did the Lord so instruct his Prophet? Why did the Prophet so teach his people? It was because God had designed, and his prophet had foreseen, a great and glorious future for that people. Chosen himself in weakness, so far as this world's wisdom was concerned, as a foundation stone of the mighty structure which is destined to tower heavenward, reflecting from its walls and glittering spires the splendors of eternity, he knew there must come a time, unless God, who cannot lie, had sworn falsely, when Zion, no longer the foot, but as the head, the glorious front of the world's civilization, would arise and shine "the joy of the whole earth"--the seat of learning, the source of wisdom, and the centre of political power, when, side by side with pure Religion, would flourish Art and Science, her fair daughters; when music, poetry, painting, sculpture, oratory and the drama, rays of light from the same central sun, no longer refracted and discolored by the many-hued prisms of man's sensuality, would throw their white radiance full and direct upon the mirror-like glory of her towers; when the science of earth and the wisdom of heaven would walk hand in hand interpreting each other; when philosophy would drink from wells of living truth, no longer draining the deadly hemlock of error, to poison the pure air with the illusions of sophistry; when love and union would prevail; when war would sit at the feet of peace and learn wisdom for a thousand years; when Zion's sons and Zion's daughters, as famed for intelligence and culture as for purity, truth and beauty, "polished after the similitude of a palace," would entertain kings and nobles, yea, sit upon thrones themselves, or go forth, like shafts of light from the bow of the Almighty, as messengers and ambassadors to the nations.

To read it in context, go here

It was accompanied by a scripture chain that included all of the admonitions to set the Lord first in one's education that I have come to expect when education and the church are discussed, but it also included D&C 88:76-80, 90:15, and 93:53. These verses are the sort that encourage one to get a liberal arts degree, not necessarily a business or scientific one. Combine this with President Hinckley's recent admission to having read a scholarly commentary on the Bible and it is possible to wonder if a trend is developing.

Are we beginning to actively encourage academic achievement in the liberal arts again? Not that we necessarily discouraged it for a while, but, in some ways, liberal arts people have been viewed with suspicion. In my field (the study of ancient religion) there was a perception in the church that the more educated one became, the more likely that one was to lose one's testimony. I have heard anecdotal evidence that this has been the prevailing thought regarding all who pursue graduate studies in the humanities (and, sometimes, social sciences).

I have always assumed that this was due to the idea that the more critically-minded you become, the less likely you were to accept irrational notions like faith and the Atonement. Additionally, the educated you became, the more likely you were to be exposed to theories that some conservatives in the church might use as litmus tests to determine a person's orthodoxy. So, in general, although higher education was always well-spoken-of and never discouraged, in my experience, there has always been a kind of suspicion of those who pursued it.

One might have asked if Elder Whitney's vision of the future is compatible with such suspicion, but I am not sure that we need to. The fact that the lesson was structured as it was on Sunday and the general trend in President Hinckley's rhetoric seem to be leading us away from viewing higher education (slightly) askance. Certainly President Hinckley wants us to get a university education and he certainly wants to fulfill Elder Whitney's vision. I think this perceived trend might be getting us closer.

What do you think: are recent events leading you to believe that we are getting closer to or farther from Elder Whitney's ideal?

This is the last time, I promise. Ahem, "We're gonna rage Mormon-style!"

2005-06-17T06:17:00.000-07:00

Woo-hoo! On a lark, I sent in an application to be the new Friday blogger on one of my favorite blogs: Various Stages of Mormondom. And they fell f...er, carefully examined my qualifications and gave me the job. I'm so excited I could spit (this, by the way, is a good thing)!

Anyhoo, this probably puts an end to any posts around here on Fridays. Please try to contain your collective sighs of disappointment. I'll put the usual stuff up on other days of the week.

For now, I am just excited about all the perks that come with group blogging again. Only having to rip-off an idea from somewhere else once a week. Basking in the glory that reflects to you from your more talented colleagues. Oh, and there's the sauna.

Please feel free to read my first offering over there and compare me to my betters. I am just happy to be in the presence of greatness.

Suckers.

"We're gonna rage Mormon-style!" or yet another WoW post

2005-06-16T12:56:00.000-07:00

Over on my sideblog there is a Rolling Stone article about Brandon Flowers, the lead singer of The Killers, a band whose music I am entirely indifferent to (okay, it's supposed to be about the whole band, but it isn't). The article mentions Flowers' Mormonism quite prominently, with him declaring himself quite devout and mentioning that he is trying to smoke and drink less. Of course it then mentions him rolling a cigarette but holding off to smoke it because he prefers to be drinking while he smokes. The article spends a lot of time setting Flowers up as the innocent who is being swallowed up by the sordid demands of fame.

Of couse, there is always the possibility that Flowers is really working the reporter, trying to sell this angle so that "good Mormons" will buy his album out of misplaced solidarity. "Sure he drinks and smokes, but he doesn't enjoy it! Sure he prances about on-stage and in after-parties, but he's awkward about it (especially with people making mistakes regarding Mormon beliefs)!" But I'm not actually that cynical (yet, give me a week).

Instead, I wonder about what this means for our Word of Wisdom beliefs. What will we say when someone asks us a difficult question about Brandon Flowers? I am unwilling to label him just yet (perhaps because I have bought the reporter's tale) as anything other than someone who is trying to quickly come to grips with fame and the temptations that it brings. But should Brother Flowers be held up as an example of a Mormon to the youth? He seems like a nice enough guy, but don't we want our Mormon heroes alcohol- and tobacco-free? I am not engaged in judgment here (I don't know the guy from Adam), what I am curious about is what this means for our love of Mormon celebrities?

I will however judge Alice Cooper, who despite being neither a vampire nor a Mormon is still a famous Mormon Vampire. That just isn't right.

Historical Mormon Smackdown: Kimball vs. Pratt [edited]

2005-06-16T05:28:00.000-07:00

Well, it turns out that we think by almost 2:1 proportions that the Proclamation is more influential today. I guess that isn't too shocking. I wonder however what the results would have been if I changed "influential today" to "important". But probably I'll save that for March Mormon Doctrine Madness next year.

Anyhoo, on with the show:
Which is the more influential early Mormon theological bigwig: Heber C. Kimball or Orson Pratt?

Heber C. Kimball: a visionary man, a member of the First Presidency, boon companion to Brigham, possible believer in Adam-God and Multiple Mortal Probations

Orson Pratt: An apostle who left the church and came back, put the Book of Mormon into chapter and verse, created the first good attempt at systemizing Mormon Theology, gave that one talk in the Journal of Discourse that all the Anti's quote about Jesus, Mary, and Martha.

Well, what think ye? Please vote in the blogpoll on the right or below and post your thoughts.

Do we overcomplicate things?

2005-06-15T14:52:00.000-07:00

"One of the surest ways to avoid even getting near false doctrine is to choose to be simple in our teaching."
—Elder Henry B. Eyring
Ensign, May 1999, 74

What do you think this means in relation to the activities of the 'nacle?

There is no other way

2005-06-15T07:22:00.000-07:00

If you have a spare half-hour or so, please read the following chapter from the Brothers Karamazov, "Rebellion". Now, I give this reading to my students to prove two points: first, that utilitarianism has some fundamental flaws; and second, that atheists can be good moral thinkers too. (I should hasten to add that Dostoevsky was devoutly, fanatically Orthodox Christian, it is his character here who is an atheist (kinda)).

This chapter comprises the most thorough and convincing argument against a Benign God that I have ever stumbled across. It is not so much the examples that Ivan uses, but rather it is the fundamental question that he asks: If it is true that all injustice will be corrected in the end and we will all be filled with God's infinite compassion (even for those who have despitefully used and abused us), what exactly is the reason for all the suffering in the world?

This is somewhat different than the question I heard all the time on my mission: Why would a Benign, All-powerful Deity let bad things happen to Good people? How? The people who I talked to on my mission were generally upset that people suffered, that is true, but they usually operated from a position of assuming that there would be no reckoning in the afterlife, that the afterlife was offered only as a balm to the weak-headed who couldn't get along in this life without supposed other-worldly support.

Ivan, on the other hand, is looking straight at the possibility that God will make it right, that God will really correct the inequities that we have suffered in life. For Ivan, there is nothing more unjust than the establishment of justice after this life, because he reckonizes that there are some injustices that can only be overcome in us through divine help. The mother is unlikely to be able to forgive the murderer of her child without divine aid. The abused daughter is equally unlikely to be able to forgive her parents. So, in order to make everything Christian here, God is going to have to intervene to help the wronged forgive their abusers.

But, if God can intervene and make it possible for us to forgive or if forgiveness is sometimes impossible without his aid, what exactly is the point? If life is just a series of tests to show us how we are nothing without God, how does suffering (in particular the suffering of children) make this point more clear? If God can make it all better with a wave of his hand once we're dead, why put us through it in the first place? How does suffering teach us anything if its effects are only overcome through divine intervention? Is God a sadist or a megalomaniac?

These are actually some hard questions that aren't necessarily quickly dismissed by a reference to opposition in all things. The system that God has established for bringing his children back to Him appears terribly inefficient. The whole world is drenched in the blood of the innocent, is all of it necessary for our redemption?

I believe in a benign, all-powerful creator. I believe that we have been given free will. I believe that this establishes some limits on how God can interact with us and it makes it possible for us to sin. I believe that if there was any other way to get us back to Him, knowing the things that we should know and being the beings we should be, he would have used it. Think about how he had to answer the following question:

Tell me yourself, I challenge your answer. Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature- that baby beating its breast with its fist, for instance- and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on those conditions? Tell me, and tell the truth.

God loves us a great deal. He has spilt an awful lot of blood for us. It is my sincere hope that someday I will make it back so that I can tell Him face-to-face how grateful I am that He did what he had to do.

Out of the best books...

2005-06-14T15:02:00.000-07:00

Dear reader,

I am once again, too lazy/busy to come up with an actual topic for discussion (although I do have a couple that I am pecking at on the keyboard). That said, the discussion from my last post has gotten me thinking about the books that we read in the church.

What book have you read that has best helped you to understand the atonement?

Here are the ground rules for this discussion:
1. The scriptures are disqualified (this isn't because I don't like them (the opposite is quite true) but because it is a too easy answer).
2. Explanations are not necessary but are appreciated.
3. Books do not need to be limited to the LDS publishing market.
4. More than one entry is acceptable.

As for me, I think the best book I have ever read for helping me understand the atonement in The Brothers Karamazov (runners up include Believing Christ, The Miracle of Forgiveness, and Pilgrim at Tinker Creek). I like it because it is concerned with how the atonement plays out in the real world. There are no easy answers in the book and the atonement remains hidden through much of it, but it is there throughout. For all its realism, the book is nowhere near reality, but Dostoevsky is exceptionally good at exploring the extremities of human existence which is as good a place to test the reality of the atonement as any (and better than most). It is a glorious thought experiment and a powerful testimony of the workings of Christ and his atonement, brought to us by an alcoholic, compulsive-gambling, religious fanatic. I love this book so much that I make my students read bits of it each semester. So, there is that.

What have you read?

A hierarchy of scripture

2005-06-10T16:20:00.000-07:00

As I see it, we have a hierarchy of belief in scripture. In other words, we give more authority to certain types of scripture than to others.

Here is how I think we rank it, from most authoritative to least authoritative:
1. Statements acknowledged as directly from the Lord made over the pulpit in General Conference by the current President of the Church
2. Statements made over the pulpit in General Conference by current members of the First Presidency or the Quorum of the Twelve
3. Statements made by Joseph Smith in a church setting
4. The Standard Works
5. Statements made over the pulpit in General Conference
6. Statements made by the current First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve in a church setting
7. Statements made by Joseph Smith
8. Statements made by former general authorities in general conference
9. Church-related statements made by current general authorities in a non-church setting
10. Books written by general authorities, intended for church audiences
11. Books discussing scripture written by non-ecclesiastically authoritative Mormons (eg. Hugh Nibley, Sidney Sperry, etc.)

What do you think? Are there categories here that shouldn't be? Are there categories that I missed? Did I get the ordering messed up?

When it is bad to do good...

2005-06-10T10:30:00.000-07:00

I've been thinking a bit about the Anti-Nephi-Lehi's of late. They were clearly deep in sin, in particular murder. They had killed a lot of people for bad reasons and, with the introduction of the Gospel into their lives, they realized what the price to be paid for that really was. Think about this as you're reading Alma 17-22. Have you noticed that the first thing on the lips of Lamoni and his wife is gratitude for the mission and mercy of Christ? Look at the prayers of Lamoni and his father. They are the prayers of the penitent who have realized that they have really screwed up.

Then you get the moving story of the Anti-Nephi-Lehi's burying their weapons of war. It is symbolic of a covenant that they have made to never shed blood again, a covenant made because they have already shed so much blood. As a result and as a condition of their repentance, they are vowing to completely forsake the sin of killing, even at the risk of their own lives. In part, they can do this because they, like God, realize that death is meaningless in the Gospel if you are prepared, if you have hope.

So they are slaughtered, refusing to defend themselves because of a promise made to God, a promise made to secure their own salvation.

Move forward a few years and the Anti-Nephi-Lehi's are known as the people of Ammon and are living in the Nephite homeland. The Lamanites are invading and using the mass defection of the people of Ammon as one of their many reasons for invading. If they do nothing, it is not they who will be in (immediate) risk, it is their sworn-defenders. Other people will die for them, because of the oath that they swore.

Obviously this is disturbing to what was once a warrior people. They can defend themselves and probably do it better than the Nephites (they think). Additionally, the Nephites are facing recruitment challenges in the army because of internal divisions. The Nephites could use their help. But they have sworn an oath to never shed blood again. It was a key component of their repentance process. Nonetheless, they begin to consider breaking the oath in order to save their new home and their new friends.

The prophet of the church tells them that God would not be pleased if they did this.

Think about it. There is no evil in what the Ammonites were planning. They are explicitly motivated by the ideas that motivate the rest of the Nephite army. They are hoping to defend those who have helped them, to express gratitude by saving the lives of their saviors. But, because of the oath that they previously made with God, they cannot. What must it be like to sit and watch on the sidelines when you feel like you could save those struggling? So instead they offered up their sons as a substitute army and taught those boys to fight well and faithfully.

There are times when we run into what we consider to be conflicting commandments. The choice between two goods can be just as confusing as the choice between two evils. How should we best negotiate these moments? The people of Ammon turned to the prophet. Nephi followed the promptings of the Spirit. Is this sufficient advice? I think it should be, but the practical use of it is vague. What do you think?

Historical Mormon Doctrine Smackdown! [edited]

2005-06-09T15:22:00.000-07:00

Well, the will of the people has been made known and the goatee was too important to be ignored. I'm sure this will come up in Relief Society in a couple of years.

This week, we will try something a little different:
Historical Mormon Doctrine Smackdown!

Which of the following two uncanonized yet influential bits of prophetic discourse is more influential in the church nowadays: The King Follett Discourse or The Family: A Proclamation to the World?

The King Follett Discourse has more information about family relations in the eternities than we really seem to know what to do with

The Family: A Proclamation to the World has both too much and too little information regarding family relations in this world (or just the right amount, depending on who you ask, I'm sure).

Please vote in the blogpoll on the right. Please comment on this our democratic process below.

Adam and faith

2005-06-09T09:37:00.000-07:00

Sometimes I wonder if I am going about all of this all wrong.

Take Adam, for instance. He is told to sacrifice animals, so he does. He doesn't bother to ask why; He doesn't care to ask for how long. He just sacrifices animals.

For that matter, Adam doesn't really seem to bother with trying to work things out on his own at all. He just humbly does what he is told and operates on the belief that at some point he will get an explanation. And then, at some point, he does.

Are we going about this whole thing in the wrong way? Should we really be trying to figure anything out on our lonesome? How does Adam's example work with D&C 9:7-9? Is there anyway to avoid producing the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture, while pondering the scriptures on our own?

Historical Mormon Smackdown

2005-06-03T05:44:00.000-07:00

My predictive abilities were better this past week as I had thought the Prophet would prove to be more influential than the Apostle (shocking, I know).

But, on to this week's match-up:

Which is the more important, little-known, latter-day prophet:
President George Albert Smith or President Howard W. Hunter?

G. A. Smith: I think he was an eagle scout.
H. W. Hunter: May have also been an eagle scout.

In addition to voting in the poll on the right, please impress me, your friends, and your relatives by relating whatever you might happen to know (without having looked it up on the internet) about these two great men. You'll note that I have the eagle angle locked up.

The name of Christ

2005-06-01T16:10:00.000-07:00

Not to be overly literal, but the Book of Mormon has a notion in it that I am having a hard time wrapping my head around: faith in the name of Christ.

Let's look at a couple of passages:
Mosiah 1:11 - 12

11 And moreover, I shall give this people a name, that thereby they may be distinguished above all the people which the Lord God hath brought out of the land of Jerusalem; and this I do because they have been a diligent people in keeping the commandments of the Lord.
12 And I give unto them a name that never shall be blotted out, except it be through transgression.

Mosiah 3:9

9 And lo, he cometh unto his own, that salvation might come unto the children of men even through faith on his name; and even after all this they shall consider him a man, and say that he hath a devil, and shall scourge him, and shall crucify him.

Mosiah 3:17

And moreover, I say unto you, that there shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent.

Mosiah 5:8 - 10

8 And under this head ye are made free, and there is no other head whereby ye can be made free. There is no other name given whereby salvation cometh; therefore, I would that ye should take upon you the name of Christ, all you that have entered into the covenant with God that ye should be obedient unto the end of your lives.
9 And it shall come to pass that whosoever doeth this shall be found at the right hand of God, for he shall know the name by which he is called; for he shall be called by the name of Christ.
10 And now it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall not take upon him the name of Christ must be called by some other name; therefore, he findeth himself on the left hand of God.

So what do you make of this? There are several other examples, these are ones that I just happened to stumble across today.

According to the first Article of Faith, it is Christ himself that we are supposed to have faith in. Why do we have all this information about having faith in his name? King Benjamin's whole speech is an attempt to get his people to do things with this name? What is the significance?

Could it be another instance of the vicarious nature of the Gospel? By taking Christ's name upon ourselves are we allowing the Atonement to take effect in our lives? Faith in the power of the name to ward off evil? Faith in the name as an intermediary with the Father? Faith in the power with which we are endowed when we take his name upon us? Faith in the power of prayer and the opportunity thereby to petition God (always done in Christ's name)? These possibilities of interpretation just came off the top of my head. How do you think this doctrine should be taken?

Historical Mormon Smackdown: Benson vs. McConkie [edited]

2005-05-27T06:49:00.000-07:00

Well, the 'nacle has spoken and it turns out the Eliza was a greater historical figure. Who knew? I certainly didn't, I predicted a runaway for Emma.

In this week's version, we ask the following question:

Who has had a greater effect, internally and externally, on how the Church is perceived: Ezra Taft Benson or Bruce R. McConkie?

Ezra Taft Benson, a prophet of the Lord, Eisenhower's agricultural secretary (at a point when people cared about the agriculture secretary), member of the John Birch society, inspired to flood the earth with the Book of Mormon, utterer of "Beware of Pride" (one of my favorite conference talks).

Bruce R. McConkie, member of the quorum of the Twelve Apostles, author of several doctrinal treatises (the most influential being "Mormon Doctrine"), a Biblical autodidact, famously and humbly retracted statements regarding Blacks and the Priesthood, utterer of "The Purifying Power of Gethsemane" (one of my alltime favorite conference talks).

So there you have it. Please vote in the blogpoll on your right!

Are we limiting God?

2005-05-26T13:44:00.000-07:00

A few week's back there was a discussion on Issues in Mormon Doctrine regarding the relative number of revelations and signs in the church nowadays as opposed to during the Joseph Smith period. One of the fundamental questions asked was, to paraphrase, why has the initial outpouring of revelation stopped?

I don't know. To be honest, I am not entirely certain it has. There is Geoff J's take and there is Ben S's. But, in reading the Book of Mormon today, I came across some interesting stuff.

Let's start with 2 Nephi 26:13:

13 And that he manifesteth himself unto all those who believe in him, by the power of the Holy Ghost; yea, unto every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, working mighty miracles, signs, and wonders, among the children of men according to their faith.

This seems pretty straightforward. God's manifestations are contingent on context, that context being provided by faith. So, if we have the faith to see the miracles, we will see them. However, this seems like a too-easy answer and it is.

To demonstrate, let's read Ether 12:12

12 For if there be no faith among the children of men God can do no miracle among them; wherefore, he showed not himself until after their faith.

Now, some people are of a mind that every new day is a miracle. We'll adopt their approach for the moment. Apparently, they, through their faith, allow God to continue to produce new days. This seems terribly limiting on God. Do we really believe that we have this kind of power? That the power of God is dependent on the faith of his children? Even if you are demanding classical miracles (ie. healings, tongues, etc.), the requirement of human faith (flawed as it usually is) seems to place some sort of human control over divine will.

Here's another interesting passage, Moroni 7:35 - 38:

35 And now, my beloved brethren, if this be the case that these things are true which I have spoken unto you, and God will show unto you, with power and great glory at the last day, that they are true, and if they are true has the day of miracles ceased?
36 Or have angels ceased to appear unto the children of men? Or has he withheld the power of the Holy Ghost from them? Or will he, so long as time shall last, or the earth shall stand, or there shall be one man upon the face thereof to be saved?
37 Behold I say unto you, Nay; for it is by faith that miracles are wrought; and it is by faith that angels appear and minister unto men; wherefore, if these things have ceased wo be unto the children of men, for it is because of unbelief, and all is vain.
38 For no man can be saved, according to the words of Christ, save they shall have faith in his name; wherefore, if these things have ceased, then has faith ceased also; and awful is the state of man, for they are as though there had been no redemption made.

Here we see human limitations being placed on the Atonement itself. If there is anything that God wants, it is for His children to return to Him. How is it even possible for human faithlessness to deny God what He most wants? It is hard to reconcile this idea with that of an omnipotent creator.

Unless you have an idea of a self-limiting creator (which we have). The limitations on God are self-imposed as a necessary step in granting us free will. Apparently, there was no other way. As a result, we, by our limited faith in God, create limits on how He can interact with us personally. But there appears to be a way around this.

Faith, as the scriptures above point out, is a means whereby miracles can be wrought. Why? Because faithful prayer gives us access to the mind and will of God and, in those cases, we can ask Him to do for us what he would like to do. The limitation that God has self-imposed seems to be that He can bless us as He would like to do, but we must sincerely ask Him to. If we are willing to seek out His will and ask Him for His help in accomplishing it, our blessings, revelations, and miracles can presumably be limitless.

Regarding the revelation issue from the first paragraph then, if the revelatory nature of the Church has changed, the reasons may be twofold. First, perhaps we don't have so much revelation because people don't sincerely want God to weigh in on the matters of the day (think about the internal church discussions over gay-marriage propositions in California). Second, as the church has expanded, the need for a central source to get the kinds of revelations that you see in D&C 12, 14, 15, and 16 has gone away. Perhaps people, in approaching the Lord directly, are receiving these sorts of revelations themselves. So, my guess is that a combination of a lack of desire for institutional revelation and an increased emphasis on personal revelation (perhaps to give the Brethren more time to work on other issues) has brought about the current situation. For better or for worse...

Admin: FPR is online

2005-05-25T06:35:00.000-07:00

Blogger had a big ol' hardware failure yesterday. But their feeling much better today and, as a result, we are back up and running. Thanks to those who emailed with concern!

On an unrelated note, I am now the #1 reference on google for "Faith Promoting Rumor". Yea for me!

'Hit pigeons flutter'

2005-05-24T11:18:00.000-07:00

I am being given a tryout at BYU this fall in the religion department. Good or bad, it won't necessarily turn into a job, but it could. Anyhoo, I have been thinking over my BYU religion class experiences, what was good and what was bad. I had two classes from religion professors, two from a language professor, and two from grad students. My first class was horrible, my remaining classes were better, because I got better at choosing them. I think this is the general pattern of most students. The class that I didn't like had a heavy emphasis on memorization and moralizing. The others focused more on doctrine and patterns within scripture.

The question is: BYU grads or current students, look back on your experiences in religion classes. What worked for you and what didn't? Please don't mention names (possible future employment is important to me), but feel free to share crazy stories. Besides, we'll have fun trying to guess who your talking about.

I am the Bread

2005-05-23T13:50:00.000-07:00

This past Sunday, our stake high council speaker said something that struck me as interesting. I should be clear that I am not a high council speaker basher and therefore I will not point out that this is a rare enough occurance to warrant its own post.

Instead, I will focus on what he said, sort of. In the course of his sermon, he brought up the miracle of feeding the multitude. Generally, when people talk about this miracle, they talk about how many people were fed. This speaker chose to emphasize the small amount of food.

Consider at how little food there was. A few loaves of bread and a couple fish. The implication of the miracle is that the people ate their fill and, explicitly, that there was plenty leftover. In the Gospel of John, this incident precedes Christ's declaration that He is the bread, that we must eat his flesh and blood.

Going Synoptic, we are the leaven. We spread through the dough, raising it (or filling it with hot air). The scriptures consistently teach that the church in the last days will be small, but widespread. The truth we bear (or that we embody) will be spread to the ends of the earth. Like bread in a crowd.

Some people have argued that the threefold mission of the church is impossible. We are too few to spread the gospel to all the world or to teach it to every creature. We are too few to even get everyone baptized who needs it. They are probably right. But we have a precedent. Few, in the hands of Christ, become more powerful than many.

Welcome to the crowd.

Historical Mormon Smackdown! [edited]

2005-05-20T14:56:00.000-07:00

Inspired mostly by your comments on my Emma post, but also because I am curious to see if this will be the runaway win that I think it will be I offer you:

HISTORICAL MORMON SMACKDOWN!

This week's contestants: Emma Hale Smith and Eliza Snow Smith. Which of Joseph's two most prominent wives do you think is the most important historical figure in Mormonism?

Emma, first wife of Joseph, subject of D&C 25, mentioned a few other times in the D&C, struggled with and eventually denied the revelation on plural marriage, first president of Relief Society, stayed in Nauvoo and eventually encouraged Joseph Smith III to participate in the founding of the RLDS (Community of Christ).

Eliza, a plural-wife of Joseph (I don't know the order), wrote poetry and hymns, sister of a prophet, eventually a (sorta) general Relief Society president (first Relief Society secretary), apparently was cool with plural marriage and Brigham, gave blessings and generally acted in a manner that would not be smiled upon today.

Please vote and help us decide this most important question.

Is there anything wrong with cheap sentiment?

2005-05-20T12:18:00.000-07:00

In the past I have heard people complaining about "Theological Twinkies," several of which I am sure you are familiar with. The idea being that these stories are beneath us in some way because they don't come directly from the scriptures or because they are overused. For some reason, people who use these things to help themselves feel the spirit or understand the gospel are to be condescended to because they don't understand just how useless these stories are.

While I appreciate the concern, especially when the twinkies are teaching something that ain't doctrinal, I am somewhat disturbed about the dismissal with which we treat people who like these stories. There is an us and them tendancy here that I don't like. Sure, we may be able to see the holes in whatever version of the "Bridge" story we are hearing for the twelth time, But that doesn't mean that it isn't spiritually moving for the person who is sharing the story. Sure, Pres. Monson might tell the same stories over and over again. But that doesn't mean that "The Touch of the Master's Hand" can't inspire someone lost in sin to repent.

I suppose what most people find offensive about twinkies is that they seem to dismiss the complexity of the gospel. God had no choice because the train was headed for the broken bridge. If it seems tough, don't worry it will be worth it. These answers have some explanatory power, but they can also some across as cheap sentiment; a way to convey an emotion without actually experiencing it. I am sure that when undergoing some trial, the last thing I would like to be told is that it will be worth it.

I am a big believer in 2 Nephi 31:3:

For my soul delighteth in plainness; for after this manner doth the Lord God work among the children of men. For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding.

As I see it, God recognizes that there are many different people and many different understandings of spirituality. What works for me, wouldn't work for someone else and vice versa. Therefore, God can and will use twinkies to help those it whom it will help. I don't think anyone argues with that.

Instead, my question is: does the identification and categorization of twinkies do anything but fan the flames of our own pride? While writing this I caught myself falling into the same "twinkie" them vs. "real-gospel" us idea that I have been complaining about. How do we account for people who approach God and the Spirit in ways that are foreign to us, in ways that we may consider beneath us? If nothing else, it certainly indicates that I (who cop to having this attitude occasionally) have got a lot to learn.

Finally, in the interest of full disclosure, I do like the occasional Michael McClean song (just to further establish my own hypocrisy in all this(and occasional poor taste)).

Straight outta BYUNewsnet (part 3)

2005-05-19T16:27:00.000-07:00

Career center creates competitive collegians

Ham-handed headlines heighten humor, as alliteration always ables absurdity

So, according to Ezra Taft Benson...

2005-05-19T15:49:00.000-07:00

I don't have a Benson quote for this post (although I did read Beware of Pride this morning and felt a bit like I do when I read Alma 5 (chastened)). Instead I have a concern regarding the usefulness of past prophets?

Why do we feel like we can set aside the counsel of past prophets? Admittedly, we don't ususally look at things this way, but we tend to get so caught up in the interests/inspired counsel of the current prophet that we just don't seem to ponder the former prophets like we used to.

Does continuing revelation make us a denomination that will forever be living in the now? Possibly.

And please, don't talk to me about the "Presidents of the Church" manuals. I appreciate them (heck, I may actually love the things)). But the powers that be have sifted through all the prophetic material in order to find the stuff that the current president (and the guy in charge) think is important. I don't think that we are always getting a representative sample of the actual concerns of the past president (which is fine, we shouldn't necessarily expect the beliefs and problems of 40 to 150 years ago to match ours).

So, we get the following: President Benson's concerns were (perhaps) inspired by a much more literal reading of the Bible than President Hinckley's. President Benson's rhetoric is therefore much more millenarian thatn President Hinckley's. President Hinckley never explicitly says (nor implicitely implies) that President Benson was a wacko John Bircher (at least on the millenarian front). Yet, because President Hinckley's emphases are elsewhere, we feel like we can safely ignore what President Benson had to say (or, at least, set it aside). So, we're no longer millenarian (also, there's the cold war thing).

Is this a fair description of the process? Is this appropriate? If not, what can we do about it?

The philosophies of men...

2005-05-19T15:44:00.000-07:00

Is there anything we do in an average Block meeting that isn't to some degree the spreading of the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture? (Certainly that is what we are engaged in here on the 'nacle).

I think that the sacrament doesn't fit this category and in many cases prayer doesn't either. Is there anything else?

Should something be done about this? If so, what could be done about this? Also, is this why people say that the sacrament is the real reason why me meet on Sunday?

Wait a second, Joseph Smith went to jail?!?

2005-05-17T10:44:00.000-07:00

Fourth Grade Teacher Apologizes For Joseph Smith Comment

And you thought Elder Packer was protective of Mormon history.

The slow, lingering death of modern millenarianism [edited]

2005-05-17T10:13:00.000-07:00

Is millenarianism dying the slow death in LDS culture? Jeff's comment here stung me a bit, because I thought that I was just as millenarian as the next end-of-time freak. I admit to taking both a literal and an abstract approach to the Second Coming in part because, rhetoric aside, I am not terribly convinced that the end is all that near. But then, I read quotes like the following (from Pres. Benson, natch):

I testify that as the forces of evil increase under Lucifer’s leadership and as the forces of good increase under the leadership of Jesus Christ, there will be growing battles between the two until the final confrontation. As the issues become clearer and more obvious, all mankind will eventually be required to align themselves either for the kingdom of God or for the kingdom of the devil. As these conflicts rage, either secretly or openly, the righteous will be tested. God’s wrath will soon shake the nations of the earth and will be poured out on the wicked without measure. But God will provide strength for the righteous and the means of escape; and eventually and finally truth will triumph. ("I Testify", October Conf, 1988)

Am I just clueless? Am I marrying and giving away in marriage? Is my lamp low on oil? Am I procrastinating the day of my (food storing/72-hour kit preparing/gold hoarding) until it is everlastingly too late?

Does it seem like the the Brethren have given up on this front? Sure there are usually one or two talks in conference that reference the Second Coming, but it sure seems like there was more emphasis back in the 70's and 80's.

Which brings me to my point: was modern millenarianism an LDS (or generally Christian) way of dealing with the Cold War? I am not saying that the Second Coming ain't coming, but rather did the ratcheting up of political tension during the Cold War lead us to believe it was coming sooner rather than later. Hence the urgency that we had then, as opposed to the lack thereof today.

Would this explain why it doesn't seem so important today, in spite of the popularity of Left Behind and such?

Or is this merely a matter of us having been duped into complacency by the International Jewish Conspiracy?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is an American Religion

2005-05-17T09:32:00.000-07:00

There has been some discussion of late, prompted by Douglas Davies's paper at the Joseph Smith Conference, regarding the status of the church as a world religion. On my mission, one of the common detractions potential investigators would make was that revolved around the idea that Mormonism is an "American" religion. In other words, Russians ought to believe in Russian religion and Americans ought to believe in American religions, so why proselyte in foreign countries?

While I don't agree with the conclusion that these particular investigators drew, I think that their jumping off point may have some merit. The LDS faith is and will likely always be an American religion.

Let's start with (what else) a quote from President Ezra Taft Benson:

I testify that America is a choice land. God raised up the founding fathers of the United States of America and established the inspired Constitution. This was the required prologue for the restoration of the gospel. America will be a blessed land unto the righteous forever and is the base from which God will continue to direct the worldwide latter-day operations of His kingdom. ("I Testify", October Conference, 1988)

We seem to believe that God has taken a direct interest in the formation of the US (Canada, Mexico, and Central and South America seem to be on their own). Additionally, He seems to have a keen interest in maintaining a hand in American politics. There is the "hanging by a thread" prophecy. There is the 10th Article of Faith (which seems at least willing to acknowledge the rest of the continent). There is the current church leadership, driving innocent German Families apart (see the first paragraph).

I know there have been recent efforts for more representation of the newer areas of the church in general leadership. I know that the move to send Elders Oaks and Holland into the mission field were possibly inspired by similar concerns. We do not appear to be a church that is much interested in spreading Americanism throughout the globe per se. Monolithic church culture may be a different issue (if such a thing can survive internationalism).

But America is always going to be central to our ideas. After all, the New Zion is in Missouri, not Brazil, Congo, or Uzbekistan. And, I would assume, that the next two or three generations of leaders will also be primarily American, due to language issues and due to training issues. Correct me if I am wrong but hasn't the boom in South America taken place primarily in the latter half of the 20th century? This would seem to indicate that the Third World representation we would all like to see probably won't happen for a while, since we are waiting for people to grow up in a church culture in a foreign land (just think how long it is taking the Catholics).

So, for the time being, we are an American church. But since we are all fellow citizens in Christ, perhaps we make too much of this.

Jeffrey Holland, ex-hooligan

2005-05-16T14:42:00.000-07:00

Jeffrey Holland Rings Bell Again in Restored Chapel

I wonder if anyone ever told him that he wouldn't amount to anything, the little punk!

Straight outta BYUNewsnet (Part 2)

2005-05-16T11:58:00.000-07:00

Experts debate hip-hop's influence on American culture, youth, for better or for worse

I just like the story's first line:

" Rap music is very influential and can have positive or negative effects, according to some experts."

I fell like that sums up the situation very well, don't you?

Why do we reverence Emma?

2005-05-16T11:45:00.000-07:00

No, really. Why do we reverence Emma? There are plenty of other women in the early church who are admirable, yet who didn't fall away. Why does she get such special attention and devotion?

Is it because of her close relationship with Joseph? Oliver Cowdery had a close relationship with Joseph (admittedly not as close). He fell away over doubts regarding Joseph's call (including issues with plural marriage). And HE CAME BACK. Yet, there is not 1/5 of the time spent in discussion of Oliver Cowdery as there is of Emma (statistics made up to emphasize my point).

Is it because she is a women? One with a section of the Doctrine & Covenants devoted to her (and a couple more chastising her)? Again, there are other early church women who didn't fall away. Why isn't Liz Lemon Swindle being paid money to paint their posthomous portrait?

What has Emma done to get all of this good press? Why does she continue to get it now?

(ps. I'm not actually an Emma hater and I do hope those two crazy, mixed-up kids work it all out. I just don't understand all the praise heaped upon this woman whom we all admit didn't make the right choice in the end (assuming that we aren't RLDS)).

The necessity of the fall?

2005-05-16T10:29:00.000-07:00

Christian, our intrepid Evangelical friend, is asking about salvation over at his site. One of the things he mentions there (as I mulled over my as-yet non-existent response) really struck me.

# So because of our sin (both Adam's and of our own own) we deserve to die - after all, there is no forgiveness of sin w/out the shedding of blood (Heb 10:22), and in our sin we are already dead to God (Eph 2:1). We are incapable of turning to God on our own (Rom 5:12, John 6:44). We're in deep do-do

We'll call this Christian's third rule of Evangelical salvation. Go to his post to see the others.

As luck would have it, I found President Benson expressing similar sentiments:

"Just as a man does not really desire food until he is hungry, so he does not desire the salvation of Christ until he knows why he needs Christ.

No one adequately and properly knows why he needs Christ until he understands and accepts the doctrine of the Fall and its effect upon all mankind. And no other book in the world explains this vital doctrine nearly as well as the Book of Mormon. "(Ensign, Nov 1987, 83)

And because you know that I am all about the quotes, here is a third, from the famous sermon Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God by Jonathan Edwards:

"The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times more abominable in his eyes, than the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours. You have offended him infinitely more than ever a stubborn rebel did his prince; and yet it is nothing but his hand that holds you from falling into the fire every moment. It is to be ascribed to nothing else, that you did not go to hell the last night; that you was suffered to awake again in this world, after you closed your eyes to sleep. And there is no other reason to be given, why you have not dropped into hell since you arose in the morning, but that God's hand has held you up. There is no other reason to be given why you have not gone to hell, since you have sat here in the house of God, provoking his pure eyes by your sinful wicked manner of attending his solemn worship. Yea, there is nothing else that is to be given as a reason why you do not this very moment drop down into hell."

Here is my question: Do we actually need to feel the effects of the Fall in our life to straighten up? Can we really change our life if we don't feel like that spider facing an immediate fiery doom?

In my life, repenting seems to come in fits and starts related to personal catastrophes, so I apparently do think that imminent destruction is helpful for one's relationship with God. Somehow, I don't think (the Rev. Edwards aside) that this is how it is supposed to work.

Where is our sense of urgency?

2005-05-13T10:32:00.000-07:00

Here is a quote from an Ezra Taft Benson talk I read this morning:

"[The Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants] are bound together as revelations from Israel’s God for the purpose of gathering and preparing His people for the second coming of the Lord." (Ensign, November 1986, 78)

Do you ever get the feeling that we, as a people, are not millenarian enough?

Prophetic fallibility and faith

2005-05-13T10:31:00.000-07:00

I ran across the following quote from President Ezra Taft Benson this morning:

"It would be difficult to underestimate the impact the Bible has had on the history of the world."(Ensign, Nov 1987, 78)

I am relatively certain that this is the exact opposite of what he meant to say. An Ensign editor failed to catch it and now this error is here for you to enjoy.

The story goes that Simonds Rider left the church because Joseph Smith misspelled his name. I believe that Pres. Benson's above error is just as inconsequential (at least for me, as I have no desire to leave the church over it). But, to be frank, I revel in these sorts of errors anyway.

Moroni, in a fit of self-consciousness, wrote the following in Ether 12:23-25:

23 And I said unto him: Lord, the Gentiles will mock at these things, because of our weakness in writing; for Lord thou hast made us mighty in word by faith, but thou hast not made us mighty in writing; for thou hast made all this people that they could speak much, because of the Holy Ghost which thou hast given them;

24 And thou hast made us that we could write but little, because of the awkwardness of our hands. Behold, thou hast not made us mighty in writing like unto the brother of Jared, for thou madest him that the things which he wrote were mighty even as thou art, unto the overpowering of man to read them.

25 Thou hast also made our words powerful and great, even that we cannot write them; wherefore, when we write we behold our weakness, and stumble because of the placing of our words; and I fear lest the Gentiles shall mock at our words.

I don't believe that I really understand his distinction between the spoken word and print as I am equally awkward in both. However, print lasts longer than any individual speech, so people have much more time to pick nits regarding what you have written. If you screw up in print, your mistake is with you for a very long time.

I like that Moroni is worried about this sort of thing; it humanizes him for me. It helps me remember two fairly important things: Only God is perfect; and, for some reason, He has chosen to implement His perfect plan through imperfect people. The relationship we share with God is equally voluntary on both ends, He chooses us as much as we choose Him (if not more so). He probably could do whatever it is that He is doing much better without us, but He thinks it is important that we play a role in His plan. This makes me happy. Even if I can never get the 12-year-olds to shut up long enough to feel the Spirit, I know that God chose clumsy, accident-prone, absent-minded, little-ol' me to play this part in the plan. I can live with that.

Headlines

2005-05-13T09:17:00.000-07:00

From www.lds.org:

History Group Honors President Hinckley

Presumably, this isn't a crack about his age.

Carnival Provides Place for Fun

I suppose this is better than the Bradbury-esque alternative

Uncle Orson gets a job

2005-05-12T14:54:00.000-07:00

Orson Scott Card joins faculty of Southern Virginia University

Perhaps he will now stop accusing academics of failing to respect science fiction.

Attention English Majors

2005-05-12T11:03:00.000-07:00

A quote from www.lds.org for all you literary theorists out there:

"Salvation is not in facilities or technology, but in the word. Only in the power of the word will it impact our lives and help us to live closer to our Father in Heaven."
—Elder L. Tom Perry
Ensign, May 2000, 25

You don't appear to be alone.

Seven Brides for Creepy Brothers

2005-05-12T09:52:00.000-07:00

On the grand scale of musicals that are perpetually playing in Utah, "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers" probably ranks third (the first two being "Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat" and "Forever Plaid"). I can't speak for when it was originally produced, by the play strikes me as exceedingly perverse. Kidnapping your potential bride is not the sort of activity we would generally expect to find in plays that the Mormons laud (even if written by Sam Shepherd). So, what is the deal?

Do Mormons love it just because it is a musical set in the West that isn't "Paint Your Wagon"? Are we waxing nostalgic for a period when kidnapping and forced marriage could be seen as innocent fun? Or it is something more sinister?

The First Vision, the Apostasy, and You

2005-05-12T07:41:00.000-07:00

Here is a quote from the study questions area of the David O. McKay lesson that we will be studying in my ward this coming Sunday (at least in Priesthood; we have somehow gotten out of synch with the Relief Society).

In what way is the appearance of the Father and the Son to Joseph Smith the "foundation of this Church"?

This is in reference to a quote by Pres. McKay earlier in the chapter:

The appearing of the Father and the Son to Joseph Smith is the foundation of this Church. Therein lies the secret of its strength and vitality. This is true, and I bear witness to it. That one revelation answers all the queries of science regarding God and his divine personality. Dont you see what that means? What God is, is answered. His relation to his children is clear. His interest in humanity through authority delegated to man is apparent. The future of the work is assured. These and other glorious truths are clarified by that glorious first vision. (Gospel Ideals, 85.)

I suppose it is good to know more about God (He and Christ being separate beings and all that), but what is most significant about the First Vision to me is the active role in human life that it envisions for God. God cares enough to sit down and chat with us about the confusions of life (everyday or otherwise). He is manifestly a God who interferes in the doings of his children on earth. Perhaps not on a daily basis, but often enough to keep the whole project progressing.

A while ago, there was a discussion on T&S regarding whether or not we have a real doctrine of the Apostasy. The discussion was interesting but, to me, it seemed to skirt one of the more fundamental issues. Where was God during the Apostasy? If I believe that people today are not more or less worthy of God's active participation in their lives than the folks of circa 1000, why don't we have records of people engaging in the type of "dialogic revelation" that we believe Joseph Smith did (at least according to Givens) in that period?

The thing is that people did. I would argue that it is the most natural form of address that we use with God. In his Confessions, for instance, Augustine describes his conversion in terms that invoke the conversion of Alma the Younger:

CHAPTER XII

28. Now when deep reflection had drawn up out of the secret depths of my soul all my misery and had heaped it up before the sight of my heart, there arose a mighty storm, accompanied by a mighty rain of tears. That I might give way fully to my tears and lamentations, I stole away from Alypius, for it seemed to me that solitude was more appropriate for the business of weeping. I went far enough away that I could feel that even his presence was no restraint upon me. This was the way I felt at the time, and he realized it. I suppose I had said something before I started up and he noticed that the sound of my voice was choked with weeping. And so he stayed alone, where we had been sitting together, greatly astonished. I flung myself down under a fig tree--how I know not--and gave free course to my tears. The streams of my eyes gushed out an acceptable sacrifice to thee. And, not indeed in these words, but to this effect, I cried to thee: "And thou, O Lord, how long? How long, O Lord? Wilt thou be angry forever? Oh, remember not against us our former iniquities." For I felt that I was still enthralled by them. I sent up these sorrowful cries: "How long, how long? Tomorrow and tomorrow? Why not now? Why not this very hour make an end to my uncleanness?"

29. I was saying these things and weeping in the most bitter contrition of my heart, when suddenly I heard the voice of a boy or a girl I know not which--coming from the neighboring house, chanting over and over again, "Pick it up, read it; pick it up, read it." Immediately I ceased weeping and began most earnestly to think whether it was usual for children in some kind of game to sing such a song, but I could not remember ever having heard the like. So, damming the torrent of my tears, I got to my feet, for I could not but think that this was a divine command to open the Bible and read the first passage I should light upon. For I had heard how Anthony, accidentally coming into church while the gospel was being read, received the admonition as if what was read had been addressed to him: "Go and sell what you have and give it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come and follow me." By such an oracle he was forthwith converted to thee.

So I quickly returned to the bench where Alypius was sitting, for there I had put down the apostle's book when I had left there. I snatched it up, opened it, and in silence read the paragraph on which my eyes first fell: "Not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying, but put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh to fulfill the lusts thereof." I wanted to read no further, nor did I need to. For instantly, as the sentence ended, there was infused in my heart something like the light of full certainty and all the gloom of doubt vanished away.

I guess the point is that if Augustine can feel the Spirit and experience the Atonement via this kind of dialogue with God (being one of the parties most likely responsible for the prolongation of the Apostasy), why was the First Vision so revolutionary?

But I can't deny that it was and is. It created a literal church of prophets. We believe that every person has just as much right of access to God as the Pope, the Prophet, or the President. And we encourage people to make use of that right from Nursery onward, in spite of the possibility of confusing results. We, as a church, believe in the First Vision and insist on making it a model of how we ought to approach God. I don't believe that there is another way to put it.

So, getting back to the original question of the post, how foundational is the First Vision to your beliefs? Why? And, as a corollary, do we give enough credit to this experience when it is found amongst members of other faiths?

Straight outta BYUNewsnet (Part 1)

2005-05-11T13:29:00.000-07:00

Asian ladybugs outperform native variety

I am sure that it is just because their parents apply so much more pressure.

Initial thoughts

2005-05-11T12:12:00.000-07:00

I love the initiatory. I went to the temple and did initiatories last night and it occurred to me why I enjoy it so. There is a physicality to it that is missing from the other temple ordinances. I have to get up and move around and do things. I understand that all temple ordinances are somewhat passive (these included), but I liked the motion. It reminded me of the time I went to an endowment session in the Manti temple.

A well run initiatory session is like a ballet, a machine where the cogs are placed in just the right spots to catch each other. Last night's was not well run. The men helping me hadn't done it in a while and were stumbling over some of the things they had to say. But it was still beautiful, a reminder of God's choice to use imperfect humans to accomplish his perfect goals. It kept me grounded.

What do you think of this ordinance? Please keep your comments appropriate to the forum (ie. this ain't no temple, don't pretend it is).

It's sin that is in

2005-05-10T14:40:00.000-07:00

Doesn't it seem really important that we sin? Let me give you an example:

Ether 12:27
And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them.

Now normally we use this verse as a way to help people out of sin, but look at what it is saying: we are inherently weak, in part, because this is the only way to make us humble enough to turn to God. If we become humble enough, we will come to rely on His grace and become strong in Him. Here's the bookend verse to this one:

Abraham 3:25
And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;

Here we are given an impossible task (complete and total lifelong obedience) as our goal, necessary for exaltation. We are set up to fail, but it is just as well. Our failings will cause us to rely on the Savior, which is God's goal anyway. Doesn't the great authority (Nibley, of course) say that the righteous person is the one who is repenting?

Now I am not arguing against Paul's words in Romans 6:1-2. Of course we shouldn't sin just to get more repentance in our life. I just think it is interesting that the degree to which we sin is built into the system in such a way that it can (and should) turn us toward God. And, if we sin less, presumably this is because we have already done the turning.

If you weren't you, who would you be? [edited]

2005-05-10T08:34:00.000-07:00

The discussion at Nine-Moons prompted by Annie's post has taken an interesting turn that I would like to explore.

If tomorrow all of Mormondom disappeared, which of the remaining religions would you join, if any? In other words, of all the religions out there, which do you find most appealing and why?

Myself, I think that I would be most likely to go Unitarian. Something about the looking for good wherever it is to be found appeals to me. I have a feeling that I know which way Ronan would turn. How about you?

Whoooooooo are you? Whoo-oo-oo-oo?

2005-05-09T14:14:00.000-07:00

I would like to make a proposal.

Vicarious ordinance work is one of the central ideas around which our whole church revolves. All temple work is vicarious in one way or another. Prayer is vicarious. All priesthood work is vicarious. Some of the covenants that we discuss have an air of vicariousness about them (Abrahamic, for instance). And the Atonement is really vicarious.

Having now proven my point with a foundation of bedrock logic, I ask:
Why? Why doesn't anybody do anything for themselves in the gospel? Does God always work this way or is it a mortality thing? How does all of this fit in with our developing a "personal" relationship with God?

Tears were shed, hearts were moved...

2005-05-09T13:36:00.000-07:00

I saw the following on the church web-site and wondered if a Sugar Beet article had been indexed by mistake.

Women urged to let light shine

I have great respect for Elder Uchtdorf. I just found the headline a tad ridiculous. Just imagine the opposite:

"Women encouraged to bury light deep within, wallow in unfulfilled dreams"