Football season has improved for Brigham Young University the last few weeks as they have won games by large margins. What is less known is BYU has been winning a competition that has national implications, sort of. Like the last few football games, the point spread is large. Unlike the last few football games, the competition isn't over with a declared winner. It extends until the middle of December.
The "Campus Wars," as it is called by USA Network, is a chance for colleges to compete to have a "shout out" on the popular show Psych. For those who don't know, Psych is about a guy who starts his own psychic detective company. He also does work for the Santa Barbara, CA police department on retainer. The catch is that he isn't really (if you believe there ever are) a real psychic, but has a very good eye for detail. He uses this to both fool the cops and clients while solving crime cases. It is similar to the other popular show "Monk" that was on the same network, but with different sensibilities. The two leads are much younger and there are more pop culture jokes, particularly about the 80s during the time the characters were kids.
As can be seen by the current leader board, BYU has a good point advantage:
1 Brigham Young University (UT)
1211690
2 California State University-Long Beach (CA)
551540
3 University of Wisconsin-Madison (WI)
238575
4 University of South Carolina (SC)
229790
5 North Carolina State University (NC)
150175
The reason BYU students and alumni like the show shouldn't be too hard to figure out, although there hasn't been any polling. It is mostly a relatively "clean" comedy. At times takes a swipe at mainstream culture both current and from past decades. Use of language is almost completely mild. For a "clean" culture like BYU that has more of a sense of humor than might be known by others, it seems a perfect match.
What is planned for the "shout out" is not known. It might be a mere mention of the college or an extended joke. Whatever happens, There is still some time left before the competition ends. Trends look in favor of BYU, but who knows. No matter the outcome, fans will keep watching.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Sunday, October 03, 2010
Religiously Smart Atheists, Jews, and Mormons. Not!
I know it has been a while since I have posted, but it has been summer vacation and took a writing break. Not sure how often this blog will be updated with my thoughts and ideas. A subject came up that I wanted to comment about.
The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life had a survey where Atheists, Jews, and Mormons scored higher than other groups. The conclusion has been that Atheists are smarter than all the groups because they answered more questions than the others. At least that is how blogs and mainstream news has reported the issue. Even some Mormons have congratulated themselves for knowing so much compared to those nasty Evangelical Christians.
However, when you really get down to the numbers all of this turns out to be much ado about very little. First, the survey only had 32 multiple choice questions. Pop quizzes usually have more than that in any given college classroom. Lets actually look at the results.
Average number of questions answered correctly out of 32:
Atheist/agnostic: 20.9
Jewish: 20.5
Mormon: 20.3
White Evangelical Protestant: 17.6
White Catholic: 16.0
White mainline Protestant: 15.8
No particular belief: 15.2
Black Protestant: 13.4
Hispanic Catholic: 11.6
Basically, there is not much of a difference between them overall. That means 20.9 out of 32 (65%) and 11.6 out of 32 (36%) was the spread. Talk about trumpeting smarts when colleges (at least before the era of grade inflation) would have flunked every one of them. I’ll admit a D can be passing and an F is flunking no matter how you look at it. None of them are near an A for bragging rights. It is true that reports do mention the poor performance by all, but then go right ahead and treat the top scores as unexpected brilliance. They are mostly shocked by the top standing of Atheists who are only ahead of Jews by .4 percent. Mormons are ahead of the 4th highest group by a mere 3.3 percent when the spread starts to become relatively significant. The sample size, unless you are enamored by statistical numbers, isn't very great. It consisted of 3,412 respondents. With the number of people in the United States, I would think that at least 10,000 respondents would be needed for trustworthy analysis rather than a quick water cooler discussion.
What accounts for the low scores? My own experience is the secularization of culture and purging religious discourse in the public square (not just politics) except between contending extremist ideology. Positive interfaith dialogue tends to be universal brotherhood with no serious discussion of theological or historical differences. Then again, I don't think the scores would be much higher during any part of American history except for questions about individual's own religious community.
The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life had a survey where Atheists, Jews, and Mormons scored higher than other groups. The conclusion has been that Atheists are smarter than all the groups because they answered more questions than the others. At least that is how blogs and mainstream news has reported the issue. Even some Mormons have congratulated themselves for knowing so much compared to those nasty Evangelical Christians.
However, when you really get down to the numbers all of this turns out to be much ado about very little. First, the survey only had 32 multiple choice questions. Pop quizzes usually have more than that in any given college classroom. Lets actually look at the results.
Average number of questions answered correctly out of 32:
Atheist/agnostic: 20.9
Jewish: 20.5
Mormon: 20.3
White Evangelical Protestant: 17.6
White Catholic: 16.0
White mainline Protestant: 15.8
No particular belief: 15.2
Black Protestant: 13.4
Hispanic Catholic: 11.6
Basically, there is not much of a difference between them overall. That means 20.9 out of 32 (65%) and 11.6 out of 32 (36%) was the spread. Talk about trumpeting smarts when colleges (at least before the era of grade inflation) would have flunked every one of them. I’ll admit a D can be passing and an F is flunking no matter how you look at it. None of them are near an A for bragging rights. It is true that reports do mention the poor performance by all, but then go right ahead and treat the top scores as unexpected brilliance. They are mostly shocked by the top standing of Atheists who are only ahead of Jews by .4 percent. Mormons are ahead of the 4th highest group by a mere 3.3 percent when the spread starts to become relatively significant. The sample size, unless you are enamored by statistical numbers, isn't very great. It consisted of 3,412 respondents. With the number of people in the United States, I would think that at least 10,000 respondents would be needed for trustworthy analysis rather than a quick water cooler discussion.
What accounts for the low scores? My own experience is the secularization of culture and purging religious discourse in the public square (not just politics) except between contending extremist ideology. Positive interfaith dialogue tends to be universal brotherhood with no serious discussion of theological or historical differences. Then again, I don't think the scores would be much higher during any part of American history except for questions about individual's own religious community.
Sunday, April 04, 2010
The Passover Mormon Style
When I was at BYU it seemed that Passover during the Easter season was a huge deal among a small group of students and teachers. At the time I thought it was a cool idea. Mormons believe themselves under Covenant to the Lord in the same way as Israel in ancient days. It would seem only natural that Mormons would pick something from Jewish tradition to share.
This year the Jewish news has taken notice of the practice among Mormons:
Why are some Mormons embracing this religious meal? Is Gileadi correct that it could become a Mormon tradition? Should it be?
I really don't have a strong opinion about this, but am interested in its increased prominence. At the moment the tradition is done among a very small group and usually in Provo or BYU. There doesn't seem to be a movement among grass-root Mormons to incorporate it as part of a yearly worship service. Even while writing this there was a talk in General Conference that mentions the Passover, but connects it to Communion/Sacrament taking. That might be why it has never been more than a curiosity. It is tied to a Christian holy rite done year around.
Probably the reason the Passover continues to come up in Mormon circles every now and then is the lack of Mormon religious celebrations. Christmas can be filled with personal and community activities both secular and religious similar to the mainstream, but Easter is a blank slate. Candy and Egg hunts are done by families, but there is nothing beyond General Conference of LDS leaders and that might take place during another week. It also isn't specific to the season. Passover for some Mormons could be a way to commemorate the Easter Holiday with religious meaning. I know some that go to or watch on television Catholic Mass during the holiday. Must Mormons reach beyond their own religion to worship at this blessed time or is there something within that might be used to create a unique tradition? Whatever the answer, I believe there are those who are searching for a greater than Easter Bunny to celebrate the Risen Lord.
This year the Jewish news has taken notice of the practice among Mormons:
On Monday evening, Jews around the world began the holiday with a Seder, the traditional meal during which the biblical story of the Hebrews' exodus from Egypt is retold. Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will be holding one of their own this week.
Avraham Gileadi, a Mormon who is also a Hebrew scholar, will direct "A Passover for Joseph and Judah" at Provo's Scenic View Academy on Friday.
Gileadi, 69, is affiliated with the Seder's sponsor, The Hebraeus Foundation, an organization promoting biblical scholarship. He said that Mormons and Jews share similar attributes and that while Passover isn't an LDS tradition, it could be.
"A lot of LDS people are also part of that heritage," Gileadi said. "It's as much about us as it is about Jews."
Why are some Mormons embracing this religious meal? Is Gileadi correct that it could become a Mormon tradition? Should it be?
I really don't have a strong opinion about this, but am interested in its increased prominence. At the moment the tradition is done among a very small group and usually in Provo or BYU. There doesn't seem to be a movement among grass-root Mormons to incorporate it as part of a yearly worship service. Even while writing this there was a talk in General Conference that mentions the Passover, but connects it to Communion/Sacrament taking. That might be why it has never been more than a curiosity. It is tied to a Christian holy rite done year around.
Probably the reason the Passover continues to come up in Mormon circles every now and then is the lack of Mormon religious celebrations. Christmas can be filled with personal and community activities both secular and religious similar to the mainstream, but Easter is a blank slate. Candy and Egg hunts are done by families, but there is nothing beyond General Conference of LDS leaders and that might take place during another week. It also isn't specific to the season. Passover for some Mormons could be a way to commemorate the Easter Holiday with religious meaning. I know some that go to or watch on television Catholic Mass during the holiday. Must Mormons reach beyond their own religion to worship at this blessed time or is there something within that might be used to create a unique tradition? Whatever the answer, I believe there are those who are searching for a greater than Easter Bunny to celebrate the Risen Lord.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Mormons and Extraterrestrials
It has been reported that Mormons may be the strongest religious believers in Extraterrestrials[pdf] according to a recent survey. Of course, this doesn't include New Wave or UFO religions that have Aliens as a core doctrine. Scientology cannot exist without the idea of alien life at least having existed at one time. However, Mormonism focuses on the more traditional (although with unorthodox views) of G-d, Satan, Jesus, and Angels. The existence of Aliens doesn't form any central teachings or rituals; but it is strongly present.
There were 39 Mormons, 1 by paper and the rest by e-mail, out of 1325 people who responded. It asked various questions about belief in life on other worlds, but mostly if discovery of such life would be damaging to faith. As reported in a New Scientist article, few believe E.T. would damage their own faith, but a larger percent believe that wouldn't be the case for others.
To be fair, there wasn't that much difference between the respondents as to their personal position on discovery of aliens and crisis of faith. All of them had strong numbers in the belief they would not have a major crisis. Mainline Protestants were virtually tied with Mormons, although using the mainline label poses difficulties in interpretation. Even the lowest number among the faithful was above 80 percent in the belief discovery of alien life wouldn't be harmful. Buddhists were the highest in those who didn't believe the discovery of E.T.s would undercut what they believe.
It is when asked about the official doctrines that the numbers become less even. Although still above half for all faiths, only Buddhist respondents had higher numbers than Mormons when asked if the faith tradition itself would be challenged. The survey singled out Mormons in particular as a religion that could survive discovery of alien life on other planets. It reported:
A greater disparity exists between Mormons and other religions when asked if Extraterrestrials would have sharp conflict of beliefs and practices compared to humans on Earth. Almost 30 percent more Mormons than other respondents disagreed that there would be significant differences. It didn't go without notice by those who gave the survey who wondered if incorporation of ETI in doctrine contributed to the responses.
Where does this positive acceptance of life on other world's come from? It is a combination of new revelations and doctrinal speculation. Mormonism can be seen as more than a religion based on a single planet called Earth. It extends The Gospel to both the Cosmic and the Eternal of existence. Critics might see this as "science fiction" rather than religion, but that is no worse than the "fantasy" of pure paranormal or metaphysical belief systems. Mormonism can often be science friendly and rather modern in theory.
There were 39 Mormons, 1 by paper and the rest by e-mail, out of 1325 people who responded. It asked various questions about belief in life on other worlds, but mostly if discovery of such life would be damaging to faith. As reported in a New Scientist article, few believe E.T. would damage their own faith, but a larger percent believe that wouldn't be the case for others.
To be fair, there wasn't that much difference between the respondents as to their personal position on discovery of aliens and crisis of faith. All of them had strong numbers in the belief they would not have a major crisis. Mainline Protestants were virtually tied with Mormons, although using the mainline label poses difficulties in interpretation. Even the lowest number among the faithful was above 80 percent in the belief discovery of alien life wouldn't be harmful. Buddhists were the highest in those who didn't believe the discovery of E.T.s would undercut what they believe.
It is when asked about the official doctrines that the numbers become less even. Although still above half for all faiths, only Buddhist respondents had higher numbers than Mormons when asked if the faith tradition itself would be challenged. The survey singled out Mormons in particular as a religion that could survive discovery of alien life on other planets. It reported:
Note how high Mormons score. Many Mormon respondents added comments to the effect that belief in ETI is already a part of Mormon doctrine. "My religion (LDS, Mormon) already believes in extra-terrestrials."
A greater disparity exists between Mormons and other religions when asked if Extraterrestrials would have sharp conflict of beliefs and practices compared to humans on Earth. Almost 30 percent more Mormons than other respondents disagreed that there would be significant differences. It didn't go without notice by those who gave the survey who wondered if incorporation of ETI in doctrine contributed to the responses.
Where does this positive acceptance of life on other world's come from? It is a combination of new revelations and doctrinal speculation. Mormonism can be seen as more than a religion based on a single planet called Earth. It extends The Gospel to both the Cosmic and the Eternal of existence. Critics might see this as "science fiction" rather than religion, but that is no worse than the "fantasy" of pure paranormal or metaphysical belief systems. Mormonism can often be science friendly and rather modern in theory.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Stay Away From Lawyers
A quote from my last blog entry continued to linger in my mind. I did a little more research on other scriptures related to 1 Corinthians 6, where the Saints are admonished not to go to secular law one with another. The conclusion seems to be that lawyers are unrighteous and judges at best a necessary evil. Ideally the Saints should be taking care of legal matters within the faith.
At the beginning of 1 Corinthians, the Saints are told they will "judge the World" and "judge angels," and therefore should be able to handle the smallest legal details. Instead of taking on this responsibility, "brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers." Such reliance on judgment outside the faith is seen as both shameful and spiritually problematic.
It might seem silly and rather insular to keep from going to court to wrong grievances, but I believe it is the key to understanding how to love our enemies. One of the hardest admonitions of Christ is that we should love our enemies and not go after them. Part of this is not understanding exactly what he meant. Of course we shouldn't fight, seek revenge, or otherwise hate those who do us wrong. However, I think a closer reading of his examples in the sermon, along with other scriptures, leads to an even more radical interpretation. In Luke 6: 27-31 he states:
Considering other scripture's bleak look at lawyers and the legal system, it might be not taking our enemies to court is part of showing love. If we do seek justice then we might find something less satisfying to the conclusion. As verse 39 says, "Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch?" The search for justice ends up as retribution. The outcome is no better than an eye for an eye that makes both participants blind.
More than one story in the Book of Mormon demonstrates the destructive nature of lawyers and judges. They hold the power over the people and too often decide the fates of others. During the mission of Alma, he ran into the lawyer class as he tried to teach them the gospel. They found him in contempt of both the law and their profession. In some ways rightly so, as he said, "And now behold, I say unto you, that the foundation of the destruction of this people is beginning to be laid by the unrighteousness of your lawyers and your judges." (Alma 10:27). What he mostly condemned was the unethical practice of "ambulance chasing" as it would be called today, and more. Alma 11: 20 says:
This system of paying lawyers was set up by the righteous King Mosiah, but they were seeking profit unchecked. In the end the goal was to find a way to get Alma and Amulek to shut up, put in jail, or worse. This would not be the first time the lives of prophets had been endangered by lawyers. When Jesus finished up reproaching scribes and Pharisees for their legalities, a lawyer recognized his profession was also questioned. After all, they were the ones that often interpreted and made judgments according the laws. Jesus reply in Luke 11 was, "Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them." They are the ones that built up the cases making it possible to sentence prophets to death. More than that, "for ye [lawyers] lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers." They don't do any of the hard work, but simply place the work on other shoulders. Worse, they make it difficult for the judged to get from under the law. I don't believe Jesus was talking about those found guilty of serious crimes; although that can always be a possibility. At any rate, lawyers lived an easy life while making it hard for others to do the same.
What kind of law and judgment does Christ want from his Saints? It isn't based on adversarial opposition. One side should not be going against another to prove some kind of case. That creates contention that has been announced as of the devil. In Doctrine and Covenants 58: 19-23, it reads:
In the book of Exodus 18:20-22, the Lord explains:
Today's litigious culture is spiritually toxic. Going to court for every little grievance has produced too many laws and unscrupulous lawyers ready to stoke hatred and animosity. This isn't to say that we should allow laws to be broken, but the Saints should be slow to seek justice. Too many times the reasoning ends up retribution rather than set things right. The purpose for law in mortality, as the Lord has revealed, is not to prosecute and defend. It is for finding truth and helping those in the wrong to repent. How can modern Saints under the hand of secular government achieve those goals? It is not an easy question to answer.
At the beginning of 1 Corinthians, the Saints are told they will "judge the World" and "judge angels," and therefore should be able to handle the smallest legal details. Instead of taking on this responsibility, "brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers." Such reliance on judgment outside the faith is seen as both shameful and spiritually problematic.
It might seem silly and rather insular to keep from going to court to wrong grievances, but I believe it is the key to understanding how to love our enemies. One of the hardest admonitions of Christ is that we should love our enemies and not go after them. Part of this is not understanding exactly what he meant. Of course we shouldn't fight, seek revenge, or otherwise hate those who do us wrong. However, I think a closer reading of his examples in the sermon, along with other scriptures, leads to an even more radical interpretation. In Luke 6: 27-31 he states:
27 But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,
28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.
29 And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also.
30 Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.
31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise
Considering other scripture's bleak look at lawyers and the legal system, it might be not taking our enemies to court is part of showing love. If we do seek justice then we might find something less satisfying to the conclusion. As verse 39 says, "Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch?" The search for justice ends up as retribution. The outcome is no better than an eye for an eye that makes both participants blind.
More than one story in the Book of Mormon demonstrates the destructive nature of lawyers and judges. They hold the power over the people and too often decide the fates of others. During the mission of Alma, he ran into the lawyer class as he tried to teach them the gospel. They found him in contempt of both the law and their profession. In some ways rightly so, as he said, "And now behold, I say unto you, that the foundation of the destruction of this people is beginning to be laid by the unrighteousness of your lawyers and your judges." (Alma 10:27). What he mostly condemned was the unethical practice of "ambulance chasing" as it would be called today, and more. Alma 11: 20 says:
Now, it was for the sole purpose to get again, because they received their wages according to their employ, therefore, they did stir up the people to riotings, and all manner of disturbances and wickedness, that they might have more employ, that they might get money according to the suits which were brought before them; therefore they did stir up the people against Alma and Amulek.
This system of paying lawyers was set up by the righteous King Mosiah, but they were seeking profit unchecked. In the end the goal was to find a way to get Alma and Amulek to shut up, put in jail, or worse. This would not be the first time the lives of prophets had been endangered by lawyers. When Jesus finished up reproaching scribes and Pharisees for their legalities, a lawyer recognized his profession was also questioned. After all, they were the ones that often interpreted and made judgments according the laws. Jesus reply in Luke 11 was, "Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them." They are the ones that built up the cases making it possible to sentence prophets to death. More than that, "for ye [lawyers] lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers." They don't do any of the hard work, but simply place the work on other shoulders. Worse, they make it difficult for the judged to get from under the law. I don't believe Jesus was talking about those found guilty of serious crimes; although that can always be a possibility. At any rate, lawyers lived an easy life while making it hard for others to do the same.
What kind of law and judgment does Christ want from his Saints? It isn't based on adversarial opposition. One side should not be going against another to prove some kind of case. That creates contention that has been announced as of the devil. In Doctrine and Covenants 58: 19-23, it reads:
19 For verily I say unto you, my law shall be kept on this land.
20 Let no man think he is ruler; but let God rule him that judgeth, according to the counsel of his own will, or, in other words, him that counseleth or sitteth upon the judgment seat.
21 Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.
22 Wherefore, be subject to the powers that be, until he reigns whose right it is to reign, and subdues all enemies under his feet.
23 Behold, the laws which ye have received from my hand are the laws of the church, and in this light ye shall hold them forth. Behold, here is wisdom.
In the book of Exodus 18:20-22, the Lord explains:
20 And thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws, and shalt shew them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do.
21 Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:
22 And let them judge the people at all seasons: and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge: so shall it be easier for thyself, and they shall bear the burden with thee.
Today's litigious culture is spiritually toxic. Going to court for every little grievance has produced too many laws and unscrupulous lawyers ready to stoke hatred and animosity. This isn't to say that we should allow laws to be broken, but the Saints should be slow to seek justice. Too many times the reasoning ends up retribution rather than set things right. The purpose for law in mortality, as the Lord has revealed, is not to prosecute and defend. It is for finding truth and helping those in the wrong to repent. How can modern Saints under the hand of secular government achieve those goals? It is not an easy question to answer.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
I Will Not, I'm Mormon
Reading the many blog posts I do during the week, I came across answers to some strange questions. Often it seems that those who don't know Mormons, and some who do, have this idea that the faith has too many rules and regulations. Most importantly is that somehow the religion is different from all the others in the approach to ethics and commandments. Some have said there are over 100 commandments that Mormons must follow. There is some truth to these opinions because the Western World has changed over the years. What is expected of people today is far less than what was taught before the social revolutions back a generation. Yet, understanding the required behaviors for a believing Mormon isn't that hard.
The first recognition is that Mormons are not Eastern Quakers or Catholic Nuns and Monks. It is taught that a person should live in the world, but not of the world. That means participating in life; going to work, getting married, going to school, raising children, etc. Life is not about a cloistered existence. That leaves a lot of room for what a Mormon can do in this world. As one blog said about living the standards, "There may be lots of rules and guidelines but these aren't rocket science. Its simple things like get enough sleep, wear appropriate clothing. If you ask me.... Being Mormon is easy. The world is hard!"
What are the Mormon standards they are asked to live with as a believer? It starts with a basic list that can be found in the Bible of all places. In the book of Exodus Chapter 20 the list includes:
At the very least this list is the most basic of guidelines to be followed. In case any of the above was missed in the first reading, these 10 Commandments are also in the Book of Mormon where it is asked why those who teach it don't follow them.
There are another set of ethical standards that are said to be harder to follow, but no less familiar to those who know the Bible. Its called the sermon on the mount or the sermon on the plain,
depending on what version is used. It is standards of behavior outlined by the mortal Jesus to a gathered multitude.
Over the years there have been some guidance given the leadership of the Church to its members. Some of this can best be explored in For the Strength of Youth pamphlets. A few unusual suggestions might be "Do not attend, view, or participate in entertainment that is vulgar, immoral, violent, or pornographic in any way. Do not participate in entertainment that in any way presents immorality or violent behavior as acceptable." Still other unusual suggestions could include, "When you are well groomed and modestly dressed, you invite the companionship of the Spirit and can exercise a good influence on those around you," and "Do not disfigure yourself with tattoos or body piercings. If girls or women desire to have their ears pierced, they are encouraged to wear only one pair of modest earrings." It must be emphasized that the above doesn't automatically assume a sin has been committed (pornography might be the exception), much as trying to avoid them.
Biblical Prophets and Apostles have been just as concerned with strict avoidance of sin. Paul's letters are filled with advice, suggestions, and commandments that sound like a laundry list of do and don't. From 1 Corinthians is the admonition:
Jesus does break down the commandments into two basic components Of "love the Lord thy God," and "love thy neighbour as thyself." Those who are fulfilling the spirit of the Commandments or Law must have these as the basis for behavior. Following the Lord is built on Faith and Repentance.
Probably what singles out Mormons more than anything, besides dressing standards sometimes, is the health standards known as Word of Wisdom. At the minimum we are commanded not to drink alcohol and coffee, smoke, or do drugs. Technically, none of these are considered sins although they will keep a person out of sacred Mormon Temples. That is not a light restriction to be sure and can stop spiritual growth. However, a person who does these things won't be considered worthy of damnation just for doing them. It is a lot more complicated than an if/then eternal perspective. Too many times Mormons forget this fact and make improper judgments. Even so, our bodies are to be treated as temples of God.
Ultimately it isn't about "I can't, I'm Mormon", but following the 10 Commandments, Jesus' Sermons, and avoiding the sins as described in Scriptures. It is about not following after every trend of the world. It is about making a choice based on faith. Those who think Mormonism is strict must honestly come to the conclusion that what is taught in the Bible is no longer respected. There really is nothing new, only the old spelled out in new ways. Mormons are different only in so far as the social moral compass has been forgotten or regressed.
The first recognition is that Mormons are not Eastern Quakers or Catholic Nuns and Monks. It is taught that a person should live in the world, but not of the world. That means participating in life; going to work, getting married, going to school, raising children, etc. Life is not about a cloistered existence. That leaves a lot of room for what a Mormon can do in this world. As one blog said about living the standards, "There may be lots of rules and guidelines but these aren't rocket science. Its simple things like get enough sleep, wear appropriate clothing. If you ask me.... Being Mormon is easy. The world is hard!"
What are the Mormon standards they are asked to live with as a believer? It starts with a basic list that can be found in the Bible of all places. In the book of Exodus Chapter 20 the list includes:
1 And God spake all these words, saying,
2 I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
7 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
13 Thou shalt not kill.
14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
15 Thou shalt not steal.
16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.
At the very least this list is the most basic of guidelines to be followed. In case any of the above was missed in the first reading, these 10 Commandments are also in the Book of Mormon where it is asked why those who teach it don't follow them.
There are another set of ethical standards that are said to be harder to follow, but no less familiar to those who know the Bible. Its called the sermon on the mount or the sermon on the plain,
depending on what version is used. It is standards of behavior outlined by the mortal Jesus to a gathered multitude.
Over the years there have been some guidance given the leadership of the Church to its members. Some of this can best be explored in For the Strength of Youth pamphlets. A few unusual suggestions might be "Do not attend, view, or participate in entertainment that is vulgar, immoral, violent, or pornographic in any way. Do not participate in entertainment that in any way presents immorality or violent behavior as acceptable." Still other unusual suggestions could include, "When you are well groomed and modestly dressed, you invite the companionship of the Spirit and can exercise a good influence on those around you," and "Do not disfigure yourself with tattoos or body piercings. If girls or women desire to have their ears pierced, they are encouraged to wear only one pair of modest earrings." It must be emphasized that the above doesn't automatically assume a sin has been committed (pornography might be the exception), much as trying to avoid them.
Biblical Prophets and Apostles have been just as concerned with strict avoidance of sin. Paul's letters are filled with advice, suggestions, and commandments that sound like a laundry list of do and don't. From 1 Corinthians is the admonition:
7 Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?
8 Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Jesus does break down the commandments into two basic components Of "love the Lord thy God," and "love thy neighbour as thyself." Those who are fulfilling the spirit of the Commandments or Law must have these as the basis for behavior. Following the Lord is built on Faith and Repentance.
Probably what singles out Mormons more than anything, besides dressing standards sometimes, is the health standards known as Word of Wisdom. At the minimum we are commanded not to drink alcohol and coffee, smoke, or do drugs. Technically, none of these are considered sins although they will keep a person out of sacred Mormon Temples. That is not a light restriction to be sure and can stop spiritual growth. However, a person who does these things won't be considered worthy of damnation just for doing them. It is a lot more complicated than an if/then eternal perspective. Too many times Mormons forget this fact and make improper judgments. Even so, our bodies are to be treated as temples of God.
Ultimately it isn't about "I can't, I'm Mormon", but following the 10 Commandments, Jesus' Sermons, and avoiding the sins as described in Scriptures. It is about not following after every trend of the world. It is about making a choice based on faith. Those who think Mormonism is strict must honestly come to the conclusion that what is taught in the Bible is no longer respected. There really is nothing new, only the old spelled out in new ways. Mormons are different only in so far as the social moral compass has been forgotten or regressed.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Jesus and Joseph Smith
(From notes of a talk given in Sacrament Meeting)
This year we celebrate Christmas, but there is another birth that is important to Mormons. That is the Prophet Joseph Smith who founded The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He would be happy that the birth of Jesus Christ was recognized over his own, adding his testimony of the Savior.
Born Dec. 23, 1805 to Lucy Mack and Joseph Smith Jr. in Sharon Vermont, he came from a religious family. They didn't always go to the same church, but they were taught the Bible and about faith. Joseph Smith's father taught school in the winter and farmed during the summer, sometimes taking odd jobs to support his large family.
When I was young, I had access to a family library that included Mormon related books. Among the books I read was "Teachings of he Prophet Joseph Smith" edited by Joseph Fielding Smith and "Joseph Smith: American Prophet" by John Henry Evans. I became fascinated by his life and ideas, but didn't at first have a conviction of him as a prophet.
It wasn't until I read the Book of Mormon that my testimony of Joseph Smith as a Prophet came in full harmony with him as a great man and religious teacher. This was because of the nature of that Scripture as a testimony of Jesus Christ through the witness of the spirit. The Title Page sums this up:
Also I found it true that the Book of Mormon does well in accomplishing its mission, "And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins." Having gained a testimony of the book, I gained a testimony of Joseph Smith as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator.
Besides sharing a month in commemoration of their births, There are similarities that Joseph and Jesus share:
Both were born of working class families. Joseph of Jesus was a carpenter who probably did many odd jobs. Joseph Smith Sr. was a farmer, and as mentioned also a laborer.
Jesus had a religious upbringing, getting blessed as a baby and taken to the Temple as a young boy. Joseph Smith was taught religion from the time he was young along with the rest of his family.
They were both to have no official standing among the religious leaders, but claimed authority from Heaven. The towns they grew up in rejected them. A book was written against Joseph Smith using negative memories of some towns people. He often left to other places for safety. Jesus came back and taught in a synagogue only be questioned about his ancestory. Surely it is true, ". . . A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house."
Both never stayed in one place for very long. Jesus was an itinerant preacher and Joseph was pushed out of states along with his people while preaching along the way.
They were called liars and possessed of the devil. At the same time they had loyal followers in difficulties who believed their testimonies.
In death, both were betrayed by former believers and brought before the law for treason. One was crucified by the government and another by a mob. The Gov. of Illinois at the time, Thomas Ford, stated he feared becoming associated with Pilot as he recognized and tried to reject that role.
They died young: Joseph Smith at 38 and Jesus at 33. To this day both are controversial men of faith. Believers honor them and doubters persist in questioning every detail about them.
The true relationship between the two began while Joseph Smith sought to answer his religious questions. Besides the official version of the First Vision, an earlier diary entry by Joseph Smith states:
He continued with the familiar message about the world's sinful condition. After describing the vision, he wrote:
Of course, after that Joseph Smith would become the Lord's Prophet. He would testify of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He said, "Salvation could not come to the world without the mediation of Jesus Christ."
We hold the third of 13 Articles of Faith, as written by Joseph Smith, "We believe that through the aAtonement of Christ, all bmankind may be csaved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel." Every revelation and doctrine taught by Joseph Smith points to faith in the Lord and his salvation:
Like in the grove of trees where he first prayed and received an answer, Joseph continued to give supplication. He trusted the Lord Jesus Christ would forgive him of his human weaknesses and sin. In a letter to his wife Emma Smith, he wrote:
In a revelation at the organization of the LDS Church, the Lord tetified of Joseph Smith, "Behold, there shall be a record kept among you; and in it thou shalt be called a seer, a translator, a prophet, an apostle of Jesus Christ, an elder of the church through the will of God the Father, and the grace of your Lord Jesus Christ, Being inspired of the Holy Ghost to lay the foundation thereof, and to build it up unto the most holy faith." The Lord continued, "For thus saith the Lord God: Him have I inspired to move the cause of Zion in mighty power for good, and his diligence I know, and his prayers I have heard."
President Gordon B. Hinkley said of Joseph Smith and his testimony of Jesus Christ:
Pres. Hinkley went on to say:
This Christmas, let us celebrate the birth of our Savior in humility. Remember the gift of the Restoration of the Gospel as given through the Prophet Joseph Smith. Amen.
This year we celebrate Christmas, but there is another birth that is important to Mormons. That is the Prophet Joseph Smith who founded The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He would be happy that the birth of Jesus Christ was recognized over his own, adding his testimony of the Savior.
Born Dec. 23, 1805 to Lucy Mack and Joseph Smith Jr. in Sharon Vermont, he came from a religious family. They didn't always go to the same church, but they were taught the Bible and about faith. Joseph Smith's father taught school in the winter and farmed during the summer, sometimes taking odd jobs to support his large family.
When I was young, I had access to a family library that included Mormon related books. Among the books I read was "Teachings of he Prophet Joseph Smith" edited by Joseph Fielding Smith and "Joseph Smith: American Prophet" by John Henry Evans. I became fascinated by his life and ideas, but didn't at first have a conviction of him as a prophet.
It wasn't until I read the Book of Mormon that my testimony of Joseph Smith as a Prophet came in full harmony with him as a great man and religious teacher. This was because of the nature of that Scripture as a testimony of Jesus Christ through the witness of the spirit. The Title Page sums this up:
Written by way of commandment, and also by the spirit of prophecy and of revelation—Written and sealed up, and hid up unto the Lord, that they might not be destroyed—To come forth by the gift and power of God unto the interpretation thereof—Sealed by the hand of Moroni, and hid up unto the Lord, to come forth in due time by way of the Gentile—The interpretation thereof by the gift of God. . .
. . . Which is to show unto the remnant of the House of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations
Also I found it true that the Book of Mormon does well in accomplishing its mission, "And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins." Having gained a testimony of the book, I gained a testimony of Joseph Smith as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator.
Besides sharing a month in commemoration of their births, There are similarities that Joseph and Jesus share:
Both were born of working class families. Joseph of Jesus was a carpenter who probably did many odd jobs. Joseph Smith Sr. was a farmer, and as mentioned also a laborer.
Jesus had a religious upbringing, getting blessed as a baby and taken to the Temple as a young boy. Joseph Smith was taught religion from the time he was young along with the rest of his family.
They were both to have no official standing among the religious leaders, but claimed authority from Heaven. The towns they grew up in rejected them. A book was written against Joseph Smith using negative memories of some towns people. He often left to other places for safety. Jesus came back and taught in a synagogue only be questioned about his ancestory. Surely it is true, ". . . A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house."
Both never stayed in one place for very long. Jesus was an itinerant preacher and Joseph was pushed out of states along with his people while preaching along the way.
They were called liars and possessed of the devil. At the same time they had loyal followers in difficulties who believed their testimonies.
In death, both were betrayed by former believers and brought before the law for treason. One was crucified by the government and another by a mob. The Gov. of Illinois at the time, Thomas Ford, stated he feared becoming associated with Pilot as he recognized and tried to reject that role.
They died young: Joseph Smith at 38 and Jesus at 33. To this day both are controversial men of faith. Believers honor them and doubters persist in questioning every detail about them.
The true relationship between the two began while Joseph Smith sought to answer his religious questions. Besides the official version of the First Vision, an earlier diary entry by Joseph Smith states:
Therefore I cried unto the Lord for mercy for there was none else to whom I could go and obtain mercy. The Lord herd me cry in the wilderness and while in the attitude of calling upon the Lord . . . a pillar of light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me. I was filled with the Spirit of Go and the Lord opened the Heavens upon me and I saw the Lord.
He spake unto me saying, "Joseph my Son, thy sins are forgiven thee. Go thy way, walk in my statutes and keep my commandments. Behold I am the Lord of Glory. I was crucified for the world that all those who believe on my name may have eternal life.
He continued with the familiar message about the world's sinful condition. After describing the vision, he wrote:
My soul was filled with love and for many days I could rejoice with great Joy and the Lord was with me.
Of course, after that Joseph Smith would become the Lord's Prophet. He would testify of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He said, "Salvation could not come to the world without the mediation of Jesus Christ."
We hold the third of 13 Articles of Faith, as written by Joseph Smith, "We believe that through the aAtonement of Christ, all bmankind may be csaved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel." Every revelation and doctrine taught by Joseph Smith points to faith in the Lord and his salvation:
The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it. But in connection with these, we believe in the gift of the Holy Ghost, the power of faith, the enjoyment of the spiritual gifts according to the will of God, the restoration of the house of Israel, and the final triumph of truth.
Like in the grove of trees where he first prayed and received an answer, Joseph continued to give supplication. He trusted the Lord Jesus Christ would forgive him of his human weaknesses and sin. In a letter to his wife Emma Smith, he wrote:
I have visited a grove which is just back of the town almost every day, where I can be secluded from the eyes of any mortal and there give vent to all the feelings of my heart in meditation and prayer. I have called to mind all the past moments of my life and am left to mourn and shed tears of sorrow for my folly in suffering the adversary of my soul to have so much power over me as he has had in times past. But God is merciful and has forgiven my sins, and I rejoice that he sendeth forth the Comforter unto as many as believe and humble themselves before him.
I will try to be contented with my lot, knowing that God is my friend. In him I shall find comfort. I have given my life into his hands. I am prepared to go at his call. I desire to be with Christ. I count not my life dear to me [except] to do his will
In a revelation at the organization of the LDS Church, the Lord tetified of Joseph Smith, "Behold, there shall be a record kept among you; and in it thou shalt be called a seer, a translator, a prophet, an apostle of Jesus Christ, an elder of the church through the will of God the Father, and the grace of your Lord Jesus Christ, Being inspired of the Holy Ghost to lay the foundation thereof, and to build it up unto the most holy faith." The Lord continued, "For thus saith the Lord God: Him have I inspired to move the cause of Zion in mighty power for good, and his diligence I know, and his prayers I have heard."
President Gordon B. Hinkley said of Joseph Smith and his testimony of Jesus Christ:
To a world plagued with doubt over the actuality of the Resurrection, Joseph Smith testified unequivocally of the risen, living Christ. That testimony was spoken in many ways and under many circumstances.
Pres. Hinkley went on to say:
Joseph Smith testified of the risen Lord when by the power of his prophetic office he spoke these remarkable words:
“And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!
“For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father—
“That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God” (D&C 76:22–24).
Finally, he sealed that testimony with his life’s blood, dying a martyr to the truths of which he had spoken concerning the Redeemer of the world, in whose name he had carried on his ministry.
The Prophet Joseph Smith was a preeminent witness of the living Christ.
This Christmas, let us celebrate the birth of our Savior in humility. Remember the gift of the Restoration of the Gospel as given through the Prophet Joseph Smith. Amen.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Word of Wisdom Vindicated . . . Again
Part of the Word of Wisdom dealing with alcohol consumption was supposed to have been put into question by studies. Every few months, it seemed, a new study would come out stating that moderate drinking of wine or dark beer helped with this or that health concern. Not so fast, says another study, because there can be more harm than good:
The reason for the warning is that it may prevent some kinds of cancers and heart problems, but it can cause other cancers:
It also causes, as has been known, liver damage. However, all the benefits that do exist can be had by fresh fruits and vegetables:
Those who have produced the study seem to be trying to have it both ways, extolling drinking in moderation even when they claim that is harmful. As for the moderation, having one drink or two drinks a day is the recommended. Known patterns of drinking don't follow that very well. Other studies have shown that binge drinking, especially for the young, or having more than the above recommended glasses a day is far more likely.
Caution is still recommended with this study. Reports on doctors' and scientists' findings have a habit of discovering competing studies. For the moment, the health prescription from the Lord seems safe enough to continue following.
Experts with the American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association say that though these studies do show some benefits to moderate drinking, the health risks from alcohol consumption far outweigh the potential rewards.
The reason for the warning is that it may prevent some kinds of cancers and heart problems, but it can cause other cancers:
Drinking any alcohol at all is known to increase your risk for contracting a number of types of cancer, said Susan Gapstur, vice president of epidemiology for the American Cancer Society. These include cancers of the mouth, pharynx, larynx, esophagus, liver, colon/rectum and breast.
It also causes, as has been known, liver damage. However, all the benefits that do exist can be had by fresh fruits and vegetables:
For example, people can get resveratrol -- the antioxidant found in red wine that's believed to provide most of the drink's health benefits -- from drinking grape juice just as well as from drinking wine, Mieres said.
Those who have produced the study seem to be trying to have it both ways, extolling drinking in moderation even when they claim that is harmful. As for the moderation, having one drink or two drinks a day is the recommended. Known patterns of drinking don't follow that very well. Other studies have shown that binge drinking, especially for the young, or having more than the above recommended glasses a day is far more likely.
Caution is still recommended with this study. Reports on doctors' and scientists' findings have a habit of discovering competing studies. For the moment, the health prescription from the Lord seems safe enough to continue following.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
About Mormon Tears
Many times, usually during testimony meeting, a member of the LDS Church will cry while talking about life and the gospel. The message is clear; they are experiencing a spiritual moment. What is not as clear is if the tears are genuine. Most of the time they are, but sometimes its hard to tell. Sincerity isn't the issue, but there can be a question of necessity.
One of the most famous "crying Mormon" is Glenn Beck, the controversial Conservative pundit. He is known to shed a tear either about his testimony or topics about the U.S. Constitution. Next to him in recognition of tear soaked words is Elder Richard G. Scott Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. He is often like Pa in Little House on the Prairie; each time you hear him there is going to be tears by the end.
There is much that could be said about the article on Glenn Beck, but there is one paragraph that seems wrong:
This sounds more like feminist self-indulgence not based on everyday facts. Besides Elder Scott as mentioned above, very few leaders of the Church cry often. The Mormons who are most likely to cry and choke up are the Women, particularly younger ones. Worst offenders are those who get up on the podium and shed tears the moment they start talking. Once you get to know a congregation it isn't hard to predict who will tear up every time they reach the podium. Personally, instead of sharing in their spiritual experience it can be annoying. My own encounters with the Spirit can make me smile.
It isn't to say that crying when you feel spiritual, or what is known as "the gift of tears" in other traditions, is to be avoided. The most famous shedding of tears was when Jesus wept (John 11:35) at the grave of Lazarus because of the sadness of his friends. More tears were shed by him as the Christ looking over the Nephites and Lamanites. However, there should be judicious use and careful examination of the sincerity involved. Powerful moments of spiritual expression can be made less by overdone presentations. Don't cry if you don't feel it.
One of the most famous "crying Mormon" is Glenn Beck, the controversial Conservative pundit. He is known to shed a tear either about his testimony or topics about the U.S. Constitution. Next to him in recognition of tear soaked words is Elder Richard G. Scott Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. He is often like Pa in Little House on the Prairie; each time you hear him there is going to be tears by the end.
There is much that could be said about the article on Glenn Beck, but there is one paragraph that seems wrong:
Beck’s oft-ridiculed penchant for punctuating his tirades with tears is the hallmark of a distinctly Mormon mode of masculinity. As sociologist David Knowlton has written, “Mormonism praises the man who is able to shed tears as a manifestation of spirituality.” Crying and choking up are understood by Mormons as manifestations of the Holy Spirit. For men at every rank of Mormon culture and visibility, appropriately-timed displays of tender emotion are displays of power.
This sounds more like feminist self-indulgence not based on everyday facts. Besides Elder Scott as mentioned above, very few leaders of the Church cry often. The Mormons who are most likely to cry and choke up are the Women, particularly younger ones. Worst offenders are those who get up on the podium and shed tears the moment they start talking. Once you get to know a congregation it isn't hard to predict who will tear up every time they reach the podium. Personally, instead of sharing in their spiritual experience it can be annoying. My own encounters with the Spirit can make me smile.
It isn't to say that crying when you feel spiritual, or what is known as "the gift of tears" in other traditions, is to be avoided. The most famous shedding of tears was when Jesus wept (John 11:35) at the grave of Lazarus because of the sadness of his friends. More tears were shed by him as the Christ looking over the Nephites and Lamanites. However, there should be judicious use and careful examination of the sincerity involved. Powerful moments of spiritual expression can be made less by overdone presentations. Don't cry if you don't feel it.
Sunday, October 04, 2009
Dan Brown and Mormonism
Author Dan Brown has confused and scandalized Christians with some of his work. His most ferocious attacks have been against the Roman Catholic Church, with special emphasis on the exploits of the little known Opus Dia order. Critics describe his writings as clumsy, filled with poor grammar and overused cliches, and lacking historical accuracy. Despite all this, his books are best sellers and two were made into Hollywood movies. Another side of the success is that what scandalizes Christians resonates with Mormon fans.
Brigham Young University is going to release a seven-part documentary about the life of Jesus Christ. "Messiah: Behold the Lamb of God" was produced in response to a PBS documentary that explored the "historical" Jesus. It may not have any ties to Dan Brown, but BYU professor of church history and doctrine Richard Holzapfel said in the 15 minute preview that interest in Mormon views about Christ increased after the author's publications became popular. Before that, he said, revealing you were a Mormon would shut down any discussions.
The reason for this change in attitudes and Mormon interest in Dan Brown's writings is the ideas he presents. When his first book "The Da Vinci Code" came out, it talked about how Jesus was married and had children. For a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints this wasn't unheard of. One of the most outspoken early leaders of the LDS Church, Apostle Orson Hyde, insisted, "Now there was actually a marriage; and if Jesus was not the bridegroom on that occasion, please tell who was. If any man can show this, and prove that it was not the Savior of the world, then I will acknowledge I am in error." Elder Hyde said at another time, "Before the Savior died, he looked upon his own natural children, as we look upon ours; he saw his seed, and immediately afterwards he was cut off from the earth; but who shall declare his generation? They had no father to hold them in honorable remembrance; they passed into the shades of obscurity, never to be exposed to mortal eye as the seed of the blessed one." Other early LDS leaders known to have expressed these beliefs include Pres. Joseph F. Smith, Apostle Heber C. Kimball, Apostle Jedediah M. Grant, and Apostle Orson Pratt.
The highly regarded book "Jesus the Christ" by Apostle James E. Talmage and other LDS Apostles since have not made these conclusions. Following generations have almost forgotten the teachings of a few in earlier days. The marriage and family of Jesus has become Mormon folklore doctrines.
At first Mormons were worried that Dan Brown's latest book would feature the LDS Church in a bad light, much like he did the Roman Catholic Church. Mostly this was because he visited Salt Lake City and was going to write about Free Masonry. LDS history and temple ritual have ties to Free Masonry that some critics find worthy of contempt. There was relief when "The Lost Symbol" turned out to hardly mention Mormonism other than in a few minor paragraphs.
More intriguing was once again Dan Brown had touched on subject matters closer to Mormonism than traditional Christianity. Bryce Haymond of the blog "Temple Study" wrote about the different subjects in the book that Mormons could relate to as part of their own beliefs. These include spirits as "intelligence," spirit matter, ancient mystery initiations, and the plurality of God. The central theme of the book is theosis, or the potential of men to become god-like. The painting The Apotheosis of Washington is used as a point of reference. Haymond states, "Theosis, or deification, has always been a sticking point with critics of the LDS Church. To these seemingly erudite scholars, a belief in theosis is likely the most heretical and blasphemous doctrine Mormonism could have possibly come up with – the idea that fallen and sinful man could rise to the stature of our God in heaven."
A few Mormons have questioned if he got some of his ideas while in Salt Lake City. How closely "The Lost Symbol" touches on Mormon theology could make for an intellectual conspiracy theory. Blog respondent Clark, in a post at Mormon Mentality said, "It does make one wonder what he was researching in the Church archives if Mormonism is so minor." Maybe it is time for Mormonism to once again focus on its unique characteristics; all courtesy of a second rate writer with a popular following.
Brigham Young University is going to release a seven-part documentary about the life of Jesus Christ. "Messiah: Behold the Lamb of God" was produced in response to a PBS documentary that explored the "historical" Jesus. It may not have any ties to Dan Brown, but BYU professor of church history and doctrine Richard Holzapfel said in the 15 minute preview that interest in Mormon views about Christ increased after the author's publications became popular. Before that, he said, revealing you were a Mormon would shut down any discussions.
The reason for this change in attitudes and Mormon interest in Dan Brown's writings is the ideas he presents. When his first book "The Da Vinci Code" came out, it talked about how Jesus was married and had children. For a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints this wasn't unheard of. One of the most outspoken early leaders of the LDS Church, Apostle Orson Hyde, insisted, "Now there was actually a marriage; and if Jesus was not the bridegroom on that occasion, please tell who was. If any man can show this, and prove that it was not the Savior of the world, then I will acknowledge I am in error." Elder Hyde said at another time, "Before the Savior died, he looked upon his own natural children, as we look upon ours; he saw his seed, and immediately afterwards he was cut off from the earth; but who shall declare his generation? They had no father to hold them in honorable remembrance; they passed into the shades of obscurity, never to be exposed to mortal eye as the seed of the blessed one." Other early LDS leaders known to have expressed these beliefs include Pres. Joseph F. Smith, Apostle Heber C. Kimball, Apostle Jedediah M. Grant, and Apostle Orson Pratt.
The highly regarded book "Jesus the Christ" by Apostle James E. Talmage and other LDS Apostles since have not made these conclusions. Following generations have almost forgotten the teachings of a few in earlier days. The marriage and family of Jesus has become Mormon folklore doctrines.
At first Mormons were worried that Dan Brown's latest book would feature the LDS Church in a bad light, much like he did the Roman Catholic Church. Mostly this was because he visited Salt Lake City and was going to write about Free Masonry. LDS history and temple ritual have ties to Free Masonry that some critics find worthy of contempt. There was relief when "The Lost Symbol" turned out to hardly mention Mormonism other than in a few minor paragraphs.
More intriguing was once again Dan Brown had touched on subject matters closer to Mormonism than traditional Christianity. Bryce Haymond of the blog "Temple Study" wrote about the different subjects in the book that Mormons could relate to as part of their own beliefs. These include spirits as "intelligence," spirit matter, ancient mystery initiations, and the plurality of God. The central theme of the book is theosis, or the potential of men to become god-like. The painting The Apotheosis of Washington is used as a point of reference. Haymond states, "Theosis, or deification, has always been a sticking point with critics of the LDS Church. To these seemingly erudite scholars, a belief in theosis is likely the most heretical and blasphemous doctrine Mormonism could have possibly come up with – the idea that fallen and sinful man could rise to the stature of our God in heaven."
A few Mormons have questioned if he got some of his ideas while in Salt Lake City. How closely "The Lost Symbol" touches on Mormon theology could make for an intellectual conspiracy theory. Blog respondent Clark, in a post at Mormon Mentality said, "It does make one wonder what he was researching in the Church archives if Mormonism is so minor." Maybe it is time for Mormonism to once again focus on its unique characteristics; all courtesy of a second rate writer with a popular following.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Book of Mormon Reading Breakdown Pt. 2
The Book of Helaman
1-2 (Murder of the Chief Judge and rise of Gadianton)
3-6(Righteousness of the Nephites and the rapid decline into wickedness)
5-9(Preaching and Prophecy of a later Nephi)
10-11 (Miracles of Nephi, repentance of people, and disturbance of Gadianton)
12 (Mormon's commentary about the "Pride Cycle")
13-16 (Samuel the Lamanite prophecies about the First Coming of Christ)
Third Nephi: The Book of Nephi, The Son of Nephi, Who was the Son of Helaman
1-4 (Signs of the mortal coming of Christ, war with the Gadianton Robbers)
5-7 (Righteousness and wicked decent into Tribalism)
8-10 (Destruction, three days of darkness, and the Voice of the Lord)
11-16 (Glorified Jesus comes down, organizes the Church, preaches His message)
17-20 (Institution of Communion, calling of Disciples, prophecy)
21-25 (Jesus prophecies of the Last Days)
26-28 (Unity of the Church and instructions to the Disciples)
29-30 (Mormon's warning to the Gentiles of their unbelief)
Fourth Nephi: The Book of Nephi, Who is the Son of Nephi- One of the Disciples of Jesus Christ
1 (Two Centuries of righteousness dissolving into absolute wickedness)
The Book of Mormon
1-7 (Mormon given the records, leads Nephite armies, and laments about their wickedness and destruction)
8-9 (Moroni, son of Mormon, finishes the record. He warns the Gentiles to learn from the Nephites and repent)
The Book of Ether
1-3 (Tower of Babel; brother of Jared sees pre-mortal Christ)
4-5 (Sealing the records until the Last Days)
6-11 (Jaredites arrive at the Promised Land, but wickedness spreads and prophets warn of destruction)
12 (Moroni comments about faith and miracles)
13-15 (Prophet Ether teaches of the New Jerusalem and the Jaredite destruction. The Jaredites lose faith and destroy themselves)
The Book of Moroni
1-6 (organization and practices of the Church)
7 (Sermon on Faith, Hope, and Charity)
8 (Epistle of Mormon on the wickedness of infant baptism)
9 (Second epistle of Mormon on the wickedness of the Nephites and Lamanites)
10 (Mormon testifies of his record and how to gain a testimony of its words and Christ)
1-2 (Murder of the Chief Judge and rise of Gadianton)
3-6(Righteousness of the Nephites and the rapid decline into wickedness)
5-9(Preaching and Prophecy of a later Nephi)
10-11 (Miracles of Nephi, repentance of people, and disturbance of Gadianton)
12 (Mormon's commentary about the "Pride Cycle")
13-16 (Samuel the Lamanite prophecies about the First Coming of Christ)
Third Nephi: The Book of Nephi, The Son of Nephi, Who was the Son of Helaman
1-4 (Signs of the mortal coming of Christ, war with the Gadianton Robbers)
5-7 (Righteousness and wicked decent into Tribalism)
8-10 (Destruction, three days of darkness, and the Voice of the Lord)
11-16 (Glorified Jesus comes down, organizes the Church, preaches His message)
17-20 (Institution of Communion, calling of Disciples, prophecy)
21-25 (Jesus prophecies of the Last Days)
26-28 (Unity of the Church and instructions to the Disciples)
29-30 (Mormon's warning to the Gentiles of their unbelief)
Fourth Nephi: The Book of Nephi, Who is the Son of Nephi- One of the Disciples of Jesus Christ
1 (Two Centuries of righteousness dissolving into absolute wickedness)
The Book of Mormon
1-7 (Mormon given the records, leads Nephite armies, and laments about their wickedness and destruction)
8-9 (Moroni, son of Mormon, finishes the record. He warns the Gentiles to learn from the Nephites and repent)
The Book of Ether
1-3 (Tower of Babel; brother of Jared sees pre-mortal Christ)
4-5 (Sealing the records until the Last Days)
6-11 (Jaredites arrive at the Promised Land, but wickedness spreads and prophets warn of destruction)
12 (Moroni comments about faith and miracles)
13-15 (Prophet Ether teaches of the New Jerusalem and the Jaredite destruction. The Jaredites lose faith and destroy themselves)
The Book of Moroni
1-6 (organization and practices of the Church)
7 (Sermon on Faith, Hope, and Charity)
8 (Epistle of Mormon on the wickedness of infant baptism)
9 (Second epistle of Mormon on the wickedness of the Nephites and Lamanites)
10 (Mormon testifies of his record and how to gain a testimony of its words and Christ)
Monday, September 07, 2009
Book of Mormon Reading Breakdown
John G. Turner at Religion in American History blog said he was having problems reading The Book of Mormon. He expressed the same frustrations that even believers often have with its dry narrative. He found it easier to digest short chunks given to him as suggested readings. With his invitation to help finish the book, I replied it would probably be best to break it down into major stories and sermons.
When I first came up with the idea it was going to be a loose collection of readings. However, I soon found it hard for me to find what might be skipped without serious lack of literary context. My final decision was to take the entire book and break it down into parts for complete consumption. Because I didn't want to overburden the post with my complete work I decided to publish the work on my blog. As I continue from 1 Nephi to Moroni there will be additions.
All books and chapters broken down from the LDS 1981 publication copies.
First Book of Nephi
1-7 (The calling of Lehi’s family to the wilderness)
8-9 (dream of Lehi and Nephi’s plates)
10-15 (encapsulated Lehi prophecy and Nephi’s Christian gospel history vision)
16-18 (continued travel and building of ship. Emphasis on Exodus)
19 (Purpose of writings to chronicle destiny of Israel. Note: the Book of Mormon doesn’t see a marked difference between Israel and Christianity. They are one and the same.)
20-22 (Nephi reads Isaiah to explain Israel’s destiny)
The Second Book of Nephi
1-4 (Lehi blesses his sons and grandsons, and the servant Zoram. Promises and warnings about the Promised Land)
5 (The split between Nephi and his brothers. Formation of Nephites and Lamanites)
6-10 (The sermon of Jacob concerning the scattering and gathering of Israel. Christ is center of salvation)
11-24 (Nephi quotes chapters of Isaiah as illustration of Jacob’s teachings)
25-26 (The salvation of Christ in history)
27-31 (The Book of Mormon as a final warning to repent before Christ comes in Power)
31-32 (How to become a Christian by Christ’s example)
33 (Nephi’s testimony of his writings)
The Book of Jacob: The Brother of Nephi
1 (Passing of the plates, death of Nephi and continued legacy)
2-3 (Jacob's sermon on pride and whoredoms)
4 (Foundation of the Lord)
5 (Allegory of the Olive Tree as a likeness to scattering and gathering)
7-8 (warning to not deny Christ. Sherem challenges Jacob)
Enos (His prayer struggle in the wilderness)
Jarom (Growth of the Nephites and Lamanites)
Omni (Discovery of Zarahemla)
Words of Mormon (Introduction of the editor and continued history)
The Book of Mosiah
1-6 (King Benjamin's address calling for a Christian covenant people)
7-8 (Rediscovery of Lehi-Nephi, the 24 plates)
9-11 (The founding of Lehi-Nephi and rising wickedness)
12-17 (Trial of Abinadi, his defense of faith in Christ the reason for Law of Moses)
18 (Alma and the Waters of Mormon)
19-21 (Bondage of Lehi-Nephi by Lamanites up to its rediscovery)
22 (Escape to Zarahemla)
23-24 (Alma, founding of Helam, bondage and escape to Zarahemla)
25-26 (The rise of the Church in Zarahemla and persecutions)
27 (Conversion of Alma and the Sons of Mosiah because of Angelic message)
28-29 (Mission of sons of Mosiah, change from Kingship to Judges after divine interpretation of 24 plates)
The Book of Alma: The Son of Alma
1-4 (The Nehor Priestcraft, war against Amlicites and Lamanites)
5-6 (Alma preaches and organizes the church in Zarahemla)
7 (Alma preaches in Gideon)
8-9 (Alma preaches, gets rejected, returns to Ammonihah)
10-11 (Amulek preaches to people of Ammonihah)
12-13 (Alma preaches righteousness and the priesthood to Zeezrom)
14-16 (Alma and Amulek see believers martyred, escape imprisonment, convert Zeezrom, and return to Zarahemla. Ammonihah destroyed by Lamanites)
17-20 (Ammon preaches to Lamanite King Lamoni)
21-25 (Mission to Lamanites, faith of the Anti-Nephi-Lehies)
26 (Ammon glories in Lamanite conversions)
27-28 (Anti-Nephi-Lehies called people of Ammon, Lamanite attack)
29 (Alma's desire to preach like an Angel)
30 (Korihor the Anti-Christ)
31-35 (Missionary work to the self-righteous Zoramites and poor outcasts)
36-42 (Commandments of Alma to his missionary sons)
43-44 (Captain Moroni leads the Nephites defenses against Lamanites)
45-49 (Amalickiah the Nephite joins the Lamanites. Moroni raises the Title of Liberty)
50-51 (Divisions among the Nephites; Freeman and Kingman factions)
52-55 (Moroni continues to lead the Nephites in defense against Lamanites and dissenters)
56-58 (War letter of Helaman to Moroni, including story of two thousand sons of Anti-Nephi-Lehies)
59-61 (Letters between Moroni and Pahoran)
62-63 (Major war ends, Moroni dies, Nephites expand)
When I first came up with the idea it was going to be a loose collection of readings. However, I soon found it hard for me to find what might be skipped without serious lack of literary context. My final decision was to take the entire book and break it down into parts for complete consumption. Because I didn't want to overburden the post with my complete work I decided to publish the work on my blog. As I continue from 1 Nephi to Moroni there will be additions.
All books and chapters broken down from the LDS 1981 publication copies.
First Book of Nephi
1-7 (The calling of Lehi’s family to the wilderness)
8-9 (dream of Lehi and Nephi’s plates)
10-15 (encapsulated Lehi prophecy and Nephi’s Christian gospel history vision)
16-18 (continued travel and building of ship. Emphasis on Exodus)
19 (Purpose of writings to chronicle destiny of Israel. Note: the Book of Mormon doesn’t see a marked difference between Israel and Christianity. They are one and the same.)
20-22 (Nephi reads Isaiah to explain Israel’s destiny)
The Second Book of Nephi
1-4 (Lehi blesses his sons and grandsons, and the servant Zoram. Promises and warnings about the Promised Land)
5 (The split between Nephi and his brothers. Formation of Nephites and Lamanites)
6-10 (The sermon of Jacob concerning the scattering and gathering of Israel. Christ is center of salvation)
11-24 (Nephi quotes chapters of Isaiah as illustration of Jacob’s teachings)
25-26 (The salvation of Christ in history)
27-31 (The Book of Mormon as a final warning to repent before Christ comes in Power)
31-32 (How to become a Christian by Christ’s example)
33 (Nephi’s testimony of his writings)
The Book of Jacob: The Brother of Nephi
1 (Passing of the plates, death of Nephi and continued legacy)
2-3 (Jacob's sermon on pride and whoredoms)
4 (Foundation of the Lord)
5 (Allegory of the Olive Tree as a likeness to scattering and gathering)
7-8 (warning to not deny Christ. Sherem challenges Jacob)
Enos (His prayer struggle in the wilderness)
Jarom (Growth of the Nephites and Lamanites)
Omni (Discovery of Zarahemla)
Words of Mormon (Introduction of the editor and continued history)
The Book of Mosiah
1-6 (King Benjamin's address calling for a Christian covenant people)
7-8 (Rediscovery of Lehi-Nephi, the 24 plates)
9-11 (The founding of Lehi-Nephi and rising wickedness)
12-17 (Trial of Abinadi, his defense of faith in Christ the reason for Law of Moses)
18 (Alma and the Waters of Mormon)
19-21 (Bondage of Lehi-Nephi by Lamanites up to its rediscovery)
22 (Escape to Zarahemla)
23-24 (Alma, founding of Helam, bondage and escape to Zarahemla)
25-26 (The rise of the Church in Zarahemla and persecutions)
27 (Conversion of Alma and the Sons of Mosiah because of Angelic message)
28-29 (Mission of sons of Mosiah, change from Kingship to Judges after divine interpretation of 24 plates)
The Book of Alma: The Son of Alma
1-4 (The Nehor Priestcraft, war against Amlicites and Lamanites)
5-6 (Alma preaches and organizes the church in Zarahemla)
7 (Alma preaches in Gideon)
8-9 (Alma preaches, gets rejected, returns to Ammonihah)
10-11 (Amulek preaches to people of Ammonihah)
12-13 (Alma preaches righteousness and the priesthood to Zeezrom)
14-16 (Alma and Amulek see believers martyred, escape imprisonment, convert Zeezrom, and return to Zarahemla. Ammonihah destroyed by Lamanites)
17-20 (Ammon preaches to Lamanite King Lamoni)
21-25 (Mission to Lamanites, faith of the Anti-Nephi-Lehies)
26 (Ammon glories in Lamanite conversions)
27-28 (Anti-Nephi-Lehies called people of Ammon, Lamanite attack)
29 (Alma's desire to preach like an Angel)
30 (Korihor the Anti-Christ)
31-35 (Missionary work to the self-righteous Zoramites and poor outcasts)
36-42 (Commandments of Alma to his missionary sons)
43-44 (Captain Moroni leads the Nephites defenses against Lamanites)
45-49 (Amalickiah the Nephite joins the Lamanites. Moroni raises the Title of Liberty)
50-51 (Divisions among the Nephites; Freeman and Kingman factions)
52-55 (Moroni continues to lead the Nephites in defense against Lamanites and dissenters)
56-58 (War letter of Helaman to Moroni, including story of two thousand sons of Anti-Nephi-Lehies)
59-61 (Letters between Moroni and Pahoran)
62-63 (Major war ends, Moroni dies, Nephites expand)
Sunday, August 09, 2009
Why "Twilight" is Poor Mormon Analogy
There has been some speculation recently, particularly among non-Mormons, of the Mormonism that can be found in the "Twilight" vampire series. The recent conjectures of John Mark Reynolds and a writer at the blog Forks High School Professor adds to the discussion. At best these comparisons of the series and Mormonism are problematic. Like the original Battlestar Galactica series, the background is far too often treated like the actual story. Understanding the relationship between story and theology cannot be done without vigorous oversimplifications and outright unwarranted conclusions. To put it another way; to see the Mormon analogies in the books ends up distorting both.
Probably the most troubling idea that these analysis make is that Stephanie Meyer has consciously preached Mormonism in the series. This has been a subject of criticism toward Orson Scott Card as well, although he states openly that it isn't preaching more than using his culture. There is no reason why either of them should apologize for doing this, because all authors write what they know. Even if S. Meyer did use Mormonism, I don't think she has demonstrated enough sophistication in her writings to make any lasting impressions. The books are mostly romances with vampires made for young adults. Arguments with any real merit made against the books can be related to any number of literature from the same traditions. The fact that another writer can issue a lawsuit for what has been described as "Mormon" elements should make critics reconsider their conclusions. Mormonism is either more universal or the books are less Mormon than has been supposed.
Even if there is Mormonism in the "Twilight" series, it is so hidden that there isn't much of a practical value. Like the "Harry Potter" criticism, what is said reveals more about the critics than the author or writings. Calling out the evils of witchcraft in its pages (much like the Mormon labels) end up sounding like unreasonable conspiracy theories put out as facts. No one is going to actually become sorcerers or even learn about real magic from the books. Similarly, the idea that readers will become a member of or really learn about Mormonism by reading "Twilight" is highly unlikely. Context of fantasy has supplanted any viable discussion of real beliefs outside of speculative literary interpretation. The average reader could care less without pre-conceived notions of what they want to find. That goes for Mormon and non-Mormon readers involved with subjecting the series to religious examination. Again, the worthwhile criticisms have been what can be used in examining any literary production.
An analogy can be so hidden or convoluted that it becomes very hard for casual readers, in isolation from other sources, to get anything out of them. The highly praised "Lord of the Rings" and "Narnia" series are examples of this that the "Twilight" series shares with them. It is hard for casual readers to understand how wizards, goblins, faeries, soldiers, and talking animals have anything to do with the theology of Anglicanism or Catholicism, much less vampires for Mormons without troubling biases. Books and papers might explicate the themes, but the original writer might as well have written straight forward papers to get the points across. Doubly so for audiences that are no longer steeped in the cultures that define the analogies meant by the authors.
A real Christian or Mormon literature wouldn't need images and characters to hide behind for mass consumption. The last real Christian stories for the masses since Shakespeare might have been the "Left Behind" series by Tim LaHaye that didn't use mere analogies for the stories. Milton, Dante, Shakespeare, and even the writer of Beowulf were not playing Johnathan Swift like games in their literary achievements. The exception might be "Pilgrim's Progress" by Bunyan, but that is borderline. At any rate, they had specific theological and moral messages and images not stunted behind hidden stories and characters. Heaven, Hell, Satan, Creation, Angels, Devils, and much more were not disguised as something else that had to be guessed at in papers and explications. Even the nearly allegorical Beowulf didn't need much work determining what the Grendel and mother Monsters or the Dragon stood for in relation to the hero.
Playing the analogy game with the "Twilight" series doesn't work very well. There are too many assumptions that have to be made about Mormonism, Stephanie Meyer, and the purpose of the books. Sources that are obscure to every day Mormons often have to be trotted out to make a case that is speculative at best. What is brought into the discussion by the critics is at least as important as what the series brings up. In the end the proof is manufactured because the reality cannot be proven without a direct quote from the author accepting or denying the connections. It can be fun, but unprofitable. In the end, the books have to speak for themselves and the readers decide.
Probably the most troubling idea that these analysis make is that Stephanie Meyer has consciously preached Mormonism in the series. This has been a subject of criticism toward Orson Scott Card as well, although he states openly that it isn't preaching more than using his culture. There is no reason why either of them should apologize for doing this, because all authors write what they know. Even if S. Meyer did use Mormonism, I don't think she has demonstrated enough sophistication in her writings to make any lasting impressions. The books are mostly romances with vampires made for young adults. Arguments with any real merit made against the books can be related to any number of literature from the same traditions. The fact that another writer can issue a lawsuit for what has been described as "Mormon" elements should make critics reconsider their conclusions. Mormonism is either more universal or the books are less Mormon than has been supposed.
Even if there is Mormonism in the "Twilight" series, it is so hidden that there isn't much of a practical value. Like the "Harry Potter" criticism, what is said reveals more about the critics than the author or writings. Calling out the evils of witchcraft in its pages (much like the Mormon labels) end up sounding like unreasonable conspiracy theories put out as facts. No one is going to actually become sorcerers or even learn about real magic from the books. Similarly, the idea that readers will become a member of or really learn about Mormonism by reading "Twilight" is highly unlikely. Context of fantasy has supplanted any viable discussion of real beliefs outside of speculative literary interpretation. The average reader could care less without pre-conceived notions of what they want to find. That goes for Mormon and non-Mormon readers involved with subjecting the series to religious examination. Again, the worthwhile criticisms have been what can be used in examining any literary production.
An analogy can be so hidden or convoluted that it becomes very hard for casual readers, in isolation from other sources, to get anything out of them. The highly praised "Lord of the Rings" and "Narnia" series are examples of this that the "Twilight" series shares with them. It is hard for casual readers to understand how wizards, goblins, faeries, soldiers, and talking animals have anything to do with the theology of Anglicanism or Catholicism, much less vampires for Mormons without troubling biases. Books and papers might explicate the themes, but the original writer might as well have written straight forward papers to get the points across. Doubly so for audiences that are no longer steeped in the cultures that define the analogies meant by the authors.
A real Christian or Mormon literature wouldn't need images and characters to hide behind for mass consumption. The last real Christian stories for the masses since Shakespeare might have been the "Left Behind" series by Tim LaHaye that didn't use mere analogies for the stories. Milton, Dante, Shakespeare, and even the writer of Beowulf were not playing Johnathan Swift like games in their literary achievements. The exception might be "Pilgrim's Progress" by Bunyan, but that is borderline. At any rate, they had specific theological and moral messages and images not stunted behind hidden stories and characters. Heaven, Hell, Satan, Creation, Angels, Devils, and much more were not disguised as something else that had to be guessed at in papers and explications. Even the nearly allegorical Beowulf didn't need much work determining what the Grendel and mother Monsters or the Dragon stood for in relation to the hero.
Playing the analogy game with the "Twilight" series doesn't work very well. There are too many assumptions that have to be made about Mormonism, Stephanie Meyer, and the purpose of the books. Sources that are obscure to every day Mormons often have to be trotted out to make a case that is speculative at best. What is brought into the discussion by the critics is at least as important as what the series brings up. In the end the proof is manufactured because the reality cannot be proven without a direct quote from the author accepting or denying the connections. It can be fun, but unprofitable. In the end, the books have to speak for themselves and the readers decide.
Sunday, August 02, 2009
Rise of the Mormon Singers
When Mormons are asked to name famous Mormons in music, Gladys Knight and The Mormon Tabernacle Choir might be the first that come to mind. Recently another name might be the pop sensation David Archuleta, the American Idol second place winner. There is a growing diversity of Mormon musicians who are, if not proud, at least not shy about their Mormon faith. It isn't the lip service recognition of Mormon roots such as the Hollywood actors who mention upbringing as an afterthought. They express that they are still practitioners, even if imperfect.
More surprising is up and coming Mormon singers are coming from a traditionally hedonist genre; the Rock band. The most famous of them is Brandon Flowers of "The Killers" who has been mentioned before. At least two articles about almost famous bands have interviews were his name comes up almost as a comparison to them. Alan Sparhawk of The Low said, "There are a few of us [Mormons] here and there. It would be fascinating to meet him," when Independent.IE seemed to bring up the subject of any relationships. More directly, 411mania.com reported that Neon Trees has been touring with The Killers after the drummer spotted them and enjoyed what he heard.
The juxtaposition of Mormonism and the Rock Band lifestyle is a constant theme in the interviews. As Sparkhawk stated, "He [Flowers] is an odd one. He's not at all perfect. There are plenty of instances where he's shown his ... ah weaknesses." Yet, Brandon has acknowledged those weaknesses, but also expressed his Mormonism is part of his life. More surprising is that Mormons in both The Low and Neon Trees declare that they are reserved in their behavior. In a business where drinking, drugs, and sexual promiscuity are considered part of the life, for some reason they haven't fallen victim. It is true that Tyler of Neon Trees said, "we all kind of dabbled in our teenage years . . ," but they are apparently no longer involved with the more party element of the work.
What makes it easier for members of a Rock band to be practicing Mormons where Hollywood actors fail? Perhaps its because singers have more of a hand in creating their roles. They aren't stuck with the script handed them, but often are the ones writing the lyrics and making the music. If they don't want to do something, there isn't as much pressure from a director, writer, and producer telling them they must for the integrity of the production. There is also a niche called "straight edge" that rebelled against the hedonistic lifestyle if not the music. A similar movement is unheard of in the cloistered Hollywood movie hills. In fact, the Bishop in the Hollywood area said, ""The honest truth is when people call me, I attempt to persuade them to go elsewhere . . . This is an extremely tough, tough town." As he stated, they have to compromise and make the career their lives.
Maybe it is just a coincidence that the music business has more admittedly practicing Mormons in the spotlight. Whatever the reason, there is something to be learned. Art doesn't have to get in the way of Religion. They just have to be placed in proper perspective.
There are still some holes to fill. None of the work done by the mentioned artists (other than Gladys Knight and obviously the Mormon Tabernacle Choir) seems to have any Mormon influence. Secondly, on politics they also lean toward the Left; such as supporting Obama or attacking George W. Bush. It is still unbecoming to be Republican and Conservative, even if Mormonism isn't a problem.
More surprising is up and coming Mormon singers are coming from a traditionally hedonist genre; the Rock band. The most famous of them is Brandon Flowers of "The Killers" who has been mentioned before. At least two articles about almost famous bands have interviews were his name comes up almost as a comparison to them. Alan Sparhawk of The Low said, "There are a few of us [Mormons] here and there. It would be fascinating to meet him," when Independent.IE seemed to bring up the subject of any relationships. More directly, 411mania.com reported that Neon Trees has been touring with The Killers after the drummer spotted them and enjoyed what he heard.
The juxtaposition of Mormonism and the Rock Band lifestyle is a constant theme in the interviews. As Sparkhawk stated, "He [Flowers] is an odd one. He's not at all perfect. There are plenty of instances where he's shown his ... ah weaknesses." Yet, Brandon has acknowledged those weaknesses, but also expressed his Mormonism is part of his life. More surprising is that Mormons in both The Low and Neon Trees declare that they are reserved in their behavior. In a business where drinking, drugs, and sexual promiscuity are considered part of the life, for some reason they haven't fallen victim. It is true that Tyler of Neon Trees said, "we all kind of dabbled in our teenage years . . ," but they are apparently no longer involved with the more party element of the work.
What makes it easier for members of a Rock band to be practicing Mormons where Hollywood actors fail? Perhaps its because singers have more of a hand in creating their roles. They aren't stuck with the script handed them, but often are the ones writing the lyrics and making the music. If they don't want to do something, there isn't as much pressure from a director, writer, and producer telling them they must for the integrity of the production. There is also a niche called "straight edge" that rebelled against the hedonistic lifestyle if not the music. A similar movement is unheard of in the cloistered Hollywood movie hills. In fact, the Bishop in the Hollywood area said, ""The honest truth is when people call me, I attempt to persuade them to go elsewhere . . . This is an extremely tough, tough town." As he stated, they have to compromise and make the career their lives.
Maybe it is just a coincidence that the music business has more admittedly practicing Mormons in the spotlight. Whatever the reason, there is something to be learned. Art doesn't have to get in the way of Religion. They just have to be placed in proper perspective.
There are still some holes to fill. None of the work done by the mentioned artists (other than Gladys Knight and obviously the Mormon Tabernacle Choir) seems to have any Mormon influence. Secondly, on politics they also lean toward the Left; such as supporting Obama or attacking George W. Bush. It is still unbecoming to be Republican and Conservative, even if Mormonism isn't a problem.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Are Mormons Depressed or Not?
Right when the idea of Mormon depression (using Utah statistics) was a given, another study has been done that challenge that impression. According to a Gallup poll on U.S. state "happiness", Utah ranks the highest with 62.9 points. There were 350,000 interviews taken about job satisfaction to health issues. The poll was conducted by Gallup in conjunction with Healthways and America's Health Insurance Plans.
Lets not get carried away. There are some cautions that those using the depression poll need to be careful of before making assumptions. Since Mormonism will most likely come up, it needs to be remembered that Utah residents are not all Mormons and not all Mormons are active members. There is also a curious fact about the numbers, as reported:
In other words, Utah is neither more depressed or more happy than anyone else in the United States. That means that, in all likelihood, Mormons aren't any mentally worse off than other people. It is hard to see how this relates to the other study that found, according to an ABC News article on the subject:
Both studies, like all studies of this nature, are probably flawed in their own ways. Reporters have an even worse tendency to conclude causation where nothing concrete exists. In the meantime, I am going to remain happy that it appears (if past "logic" holds) Mormons are at least as happy as everyone else.
Lets not get carried away. There are some cautions that those using the depression poll need to be careful of before making assumptions. Since Mormonism will most likely come up, it needs to be remembered that Utah residents are not all Mormons and not all Mormons are active members. There is also a curious fact about the numbers, as reported:
The survey, which takes about 15 minutes, involved 42 core questions. Those taking the survey could get a score of up to 100. The actual difference between states wasn't great: The average score for the highest-ranking state, Utah, was 69.2 points, while the average for the lowest-ranking state, West Virginia, was 61.2 points.
In other words, Utah is neither more depressed or more happy than anyone else in the United States. That means that, in all likelihood, Mormons aren't any mentally worse off than other people. It is hard to see how this relates to the other study that found, according to an ABC News article on the subject:
According to MHA, some 10.14 percent of adults in Utah "experienced a depressive episode in the past year and 14.15 percent experienced serious psychological distress. ... Individuals in Utah reported having on average 3.27 poor mental health days in the past 30 days."
Both studies, like all studies of this nature, are probably flawed in their own ways. Reporters have an even worse tendency to conclude causation where nothing concrete exists. In the meantime, I am going to remain happy that it appears (if past "logic" holds) Mormons are at least as happy as everyone else.
Friday, March 06, 2009
Infestation of Mormon Leadership
When something unusual happens it can be considered a coincidence. When it happens more than once a trend might be starting. In this case, Mormons are getting elected to leadership positions by other religious groups. That isn't to say that they are called to ecclesiastical positions any more than Mormons would grant a non-baptized person the Bishopric. Just like in the business world, however, top spots for finance and organization have Mormons picked as the leaders.
In one fascinating case there is Mark Paredes hired by The Los Angeles office of the Zionist Organization of America as an executive director. The duties of the office include promoting the State of Israel and fighting anti-Semitism. In the Q & A, Paredes explained:
He doesn't leave any details as to how he is going to accomplish his goals, saying only he has "many weeks and months of hard work." It shouldn't take long to see if he is more successful than his predecessors. Recent leaders lasted only a few months. There is no available information in the article to determine why the others lasted such a short time. It is interesting that as a Mormon he was picked at all, although not extraordinary.
The second leadership position of interest is in Utah. Rev. Monsignor Terrence Fitzgerald, a friend of LDS Pres. Monson, has hired Mormon Brad Drake as executive director of Utah's Catholic Community Services. As reported in the Salt Lake Tribune:
Why Mormons are getting picked in organizations controlled by other religions or if this is really a trend is hard to say. What this holds for future relationships is just as much a mystery. That this is happening during a time when Mormons are less liked than since the start of the 20th Century is heartening. At the least it represents discussions of "how wide the divide" should be scrapped for real working together.
In one fascinating case there is Mark Paredes hired by The Los Angeles office of the Zionist Organization of America as an executive director. The duties of the office include promoting the State of Israel and fighting anti-Semitism. In the Q & A, Paredes explained:
Jewish Journal: At least two people have held your position since late 2006. What will be your formula for turning ZOA around?
Mark Paredes: I plan to bring together Jews, both religious and secular, who are proud to be Zionists, who are willing to defend Israel and the Jewish people, who want Israel to negotiate peace only with partners who have already renounced terror and incitement and recognize Israel, and who believe that Jews have the right to live in the Land of Israel, including Judea and Samaria. Belief in these principles transcends movements and the religious-secular divide, and it’s my job to organize events that will inspire our supporters and attract other defenders of Israel to the ZOA banner.
He doesn't leave any details as to how he is going to accomplish his goals, saying only he has "many weeks and months of hard work." It shouldn't take long to see if he is more successful than his predecessors. Recent leaders lasted only a few months. There is no available information in the article to determine why the others lasted such a short time. It is interesting that as a Mormon he was picked at all, although not extraordinary.
The second leadership position of interest is in Utah. Rev. Monsignor Terrence Fitzgerald, a friend of LDS Pres. Monson, has hired Mormon Brad Drake as executive director of Utah's Catholic Community Services. As reported in the Salt Lake Tribune:
"Our mission is not to proselytize or to make people Catholic, but to serve all those in need in any way we can," Fitzgerald said.
In addition to a good grasp of its mission, Drake brought something else to CCS: a lifetime of business experience capped by service in the nonprofit world.
He has "the ability and skills to manage a complex agency in difficult times," Fitzgerald said.
Why Mormons are getting picked in organizations controlled by other religions or if this is really a trend is hard to say. What this holds for future relationships is just as much a mystery. That this is happening during a time when Mormons are less liked than since the start of the 20th Century is heartening. At the least it represents discussions of "how wide the divide" should be scrapped for real working together.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
The Mormonism and Evolution Debate
According to a recent Pew research poll about Evolution and Religion, Mormons are among the least likely to believe in Evolution as the best explanation for the origins of human life on Earth. Just like any poll, there are serious problems. How the question is asked doesn't leave much room for alternatives and the elusive nuances to the answers. The word "best" automatically contradicts core Mormon theology about human origins. It doesn't give the respondents a way to explain themselves. As a self-described "Theo-Evolutionist" I can think of other better explanations without denying the huge discoveries of the fossil record. Another problem pointed out was, "The dotted line puts the US population at 48%, yet only five groups, which make up perhaps a third of the US population, are shown below 48%. Some piece of the puzzle is missing." The "science" of poll taking has always been suspicious. Who is giving, who is responding, and how to interpret can be troubling no matter how careful the research. Mormons who are anti-Evolutionists do exist in large numbers, but that doesn't have to be and probably is shrinking.
Probably the biggest hurdle for Evolution is the position held by leadership of the LDS Church who are more likely to be negative. The LDS Church might have “no official” position on Evolution, but the more I study the issue the more ambiguous such a statement comes across. What does it mean to have “no official” position in the LDS Church? That isn’t to say I disagree with that fact, but it is a very slim non-position. It is true that there have been LDS leaders, like Pres. David O. McKay and Stephen L. Richards, who spoke positively in public. In General Conference where it does count theologically and officially, statements about Evolution have been overwhelmingly negative. That translates to members who believe what is spoken there is scripture into an official position; and rightly so for the significant value of General Conference talks. Only slight room for disagreement remains.
There is a reason anti-Evolution remains in Mormonism even if Creationism is seen as unattainable. Despite all the witnesses (evidence) to Evolution, many Mormons hold on to anti-Evolution positions because there isn’t anything to fill the void. The unsaid argument for Mormon Creationists is “if there is no position on Evolution, than what exactly are modern Prophets and Scriptures saying?” I have my own answers to that, but there has been little discussion on the theological implications. Keeping the questions of Evolution vs. The Creation on “a shelf to ask when I am dead” might be a good personal approach, but it will fail to convince other LDS members. And that means more than dismissing McConkie, Smith, Benson, et el. as wrong. It means the very difficult, but I believe possible, work of explaining how they are correct in their own message (such as explaining what they are really going against is the atheist use of the theory). Then, moving past that, explaining how Evolution fits into Mormon theology and Scriptures.
Religious Evolutionists must confront theological concerns to make any lasting headway. To simply say that science and religion ask and answer two different questions is the real “God in the gaps.” Exactly what questions do they ask and what kind of answers are to be found? Scientists should understand there has to be interpretive frameworks to make sense of desperate evidence. The “don’t take it literally” is still NOT an answer or even a discussion. There has to be interpretive discussion of even non-literal meanings. You don’t read a book if you can’t understand the words.
I have my own tentative theory of the relationship between Evolution and the Garden of Eden, the sticking point. Many questions remain such as the idea of pre-Adam-ites and no death before the fall. Still, it is better than leaving it alone or dismissing one or the other. Even Elder McConkie didn’t believe in the Young Earth theory. That is a starting point.
I believe Mormonism is a "literalist" religion. After all, there were angels, miracles, gold plates and visions that are at the center of its founding. Joseph Smith did more than talk about Biblical events, but proclaimed that he conversed with many of the participants - including Adam. There just isn’t room enough in Mormon doctrine (if you take its divine founding and founder seriously) to make the scriptural stories just metaphor or symbolic. Yet, there is plenty of room for a re-interpretation of the scriptural stories. Because Mormons believe in the Scriptures as spiritually inspired, but human produced, the written word isn’t set in perfection. Just as Mormon acted as editor and Joseph Smith made editorial changes to the Book of Mormon, other writers wrote from their prospective. That means that the Scriptures are malleable to both new revelations and new understandings. I think the idea that we have to believe all the stories as written or none of them is spiritually harmful. The Scriptures, like history, are multi-faceted and full of missing pieces or even hyperbole.
Joseph Smith said that by two contraries we come to the truth. When it comes to Evolution and the Creation that has been my guiding principle. Puzzles can be fun. Puzzles can be frustrating. Some can fall apart, but that doesn't mean we should not try to put them together and see if we can see a bigger picture.
Probably the biggest hurdle for Evolution is the position held by leadership of the LDS Church who are more likely to be negative. The LDS Church might have “no official” position on Evolution, but the more I study the issue the more ambiguous such a statement comes across. What does it mean to have “no official” position in the LDS Church? That isn’t to say I disagree with that fact, but it is a very slim non-position. It is true that there have been LDS leaders, like Pres. David O. McKay and Stephen L. Richards, who spoke positively in public. In General Conference where it does count theologically and officially, statements about Evolution have been overwhelmingly negative. That translates to members who believe what is spoken there is scripture into an official position; and rightly so for the significant value of General Conference talks. Only slight room for disagreement remains.
There is a reason anti-Evolution remains in Mormonism even if Creationism is seen as unattainable. Despite all the witnesses (evidence) to Evolution, many Mormons hold on to anti-Evolution positions because there isn’t anything to fill the void. The unsaid argument for Mormon Creationists is “if there is no position on Evolution, than what exactly are modern Prophets and Scriptures saying?” I have my own answers to that, but there has been little discussion on the theological implications. Keeping the questions of Evolution vs. The Creation on “a shelf to ask when I am dead” might be a good personal approach, but it will fail to convince other LDS members. And that means more than dismissing McConkie, Smith, Benson, et el. as wrong. It means the very difficult, but I believe possible, work of explaining how they are correct in their own message (such as explaining what they are really going against is the atheist use of the theory). Then, moving past that, explaining how Evolution fits into Mormon theology and Scriptures.
Religious Evolutionists must confront theological concerns to make any lasting headway. To simply say that science and religion ask and answer two different questions is the real “God in the gaps.” Exactly what questions do they ask and what kind of answers are to be found? Scientists should understand there has to be interpretive frameworks to make sense of desperate evidence. The “don’t take it literally” is still NOT an answer or even a discussion. There has to be interpretive discussion of even non-literal meanings. You don’t read a book if you can’t understand the words.
I have my own tentative theory of the relationship between Evolution and the Garden of Eden, the sticking point. Many questions remain such as the idea of pre-Adam-ites and no death before the fall. Still, it is better than leaving it alone or dismissing one or the other. Even Elder McConkie didn’t believe in the Young Earth theory. That is a starting point.
I believe Mormonism is a "literalist" religion. After all, there were angels, miracles, gold plates and visions that are at the center of its founding. Joseph Smith did more than talk about Biblical events, but proclaimed that he conversed with many of the participants - including Adam. There just isn’t room enough in Mormon doctrine (if you take its divine founding and founder seriously) to make the scriptural stories just metaphor or symbolic. Yet, there is plenty of room for a re-interpretation of the scriptural stories. Because Mormons believe in the Scriptures as spiritually inspired, but human produced, the written word isn’t set in perfection. Just as Mormon acted as editor and Joseph Smith made editorial changes to the Book of Mormon, other writers wrote from their prospective. That means that the Scriptures are malleable to both new revelations and new understandings. I think the idea that we have to believe all the stories as written or none of them is spiritually harmful. The Scriptures, like history, are multi-faceted and full of missing pieces or even hyperbole.
Joseph Smith said that by two contraries we come to the truth. When it comes to Evolution and the Creation that has been my guiding principle. Puzzles can be fun. Puzzles can be frustrating. Some can fall apart, but that doesn't mean we should not try to put them together and see if we can see a bigger picture.
Sunday, February 01, 2009
The Mormon Nature of Symbols
Recently over at "Mormon Matters" there has been some discussion about Mormon usage of symbols, particularly about Jesus Christ. Most recently it has been about images of Christ and the lack of realism. This seems to tie into an earlier discussion about the lack of cross use by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I have discussed the cross topic before and would like to add some thoughts on symbols in general.
From my other entry I said:
To continue, what is missing is a discussion on the nature of “symbols” in Mormonism. When a symbol is used, what symbol and what kind? Mormons might not use the cross out of historical accidents and might make excuses to keep from starting, but why? I think it has to do with the sacred nature of symbol in Mormonism that is seen in few religions.
How has the Mormon use of symbols started? More often then not any significant symbol is associated with the Temple. There are only two “official” symbols used by the Church that are not tied to the Temple in a direct way and that is the Sacrament and the CTR ring. The Sacrament has a very specific purpose used at a very specific time. It is an extension of our baptismal oaths and covenants. One could argue that makes it partly Temple related. As for the CTR ring, it really started more as a primary gimmick that seems to have slipped from official usage and became consumerist. Paintings commissioned or displayed by the Church are actually rather generic and serving the purpose mostly of garnishing. There are still very few chapels that have any art (symbols) of any kind displayed - not even in the way of Islamic geometric patterns.
The reason Mormonism has not “taken up the cross” is because it already has a symbol that the cross fills in for; and that would be the Temple. Pictures of the Temple in homes are often placed where other religions would put their own symbols. When a prophet says that the symbol of Christ should be our own lives rather than a cross, that means something more than a cute expression of examples to others. That is precisely what the Temple is commanding us to do as members. Not saying that is what the prophets mean by that, but who knows? I have come to the conclusion that crosses are not bad (I prefer and keep, but don’t actually wear, an Ankh), but they are superfluous for Mormon tradition. I might even go so far as to say that Mormons who have gone to the Temple should put it aside. There might be several reasons a Mormon wants to wear a cross, but the only ones I feel that have a legitimate reason are converts and out of friendly gestures.
What I am about to say will have to suffice so that I don't step over sacred boundaries. When a person goes to the Temple they take on themselves more than the name of Christ, but make promises that they will become symbolically Christ in their lives. The life, death, and resurrection narratives are now part of our own narratives. Ultimately, Mormon usage of symbols is more than for memorial, but for transformation. Nothing in Mormonism is more important in that transformation than Temples where salvation is solidified by symbolic actions. The one piece of physical symbol taken out is not even to be shown. It is for this reason that I feel the cross and any other "Christ symbol" will remain outside of Mormon religious culture. There is no official need. If it was ever to be included it would be for political purposes.
From my other entry I said:
I believe, from my research, that the absents of a Cross is an "accident" of history. Not that I don't think there were deliberate reasons - as the LDS Church has been using other symbols since almost the start. The Angel Moroni seemed to have replaced the Cross as a symbol because it represented many of the key teachings of the Church. It carries the Book of Mormon in one hand and a trumpet in another. This represents Restoration of the Gospel, calling of the Elect, Resurrection and Judgment, and etc. The Cross did not get added to the plethora of other symbols available for iconography.
To continue, what is missing is a discussion on the nature of “symbols” in Mormonism. When a symbol is used, what symbol and what kind? Mormons might not use the cross out of historical accidents and might make excuses to keep from starting, but why? I think it has to do with the sacred nature of symbol in Mormonism that is seen in few religions.
How has the Mormon use of symbols started? More often then not any significant symbol is associated with the Temple. There are only two “official” symbols used by the Church that are not tied to the Temple in a direct way and that is the Sacrament and the CTR ring. The Sacrament has a very specific purpose used at a very specific time. It is an extension of our baptismal oaths and covenants. One could argue that makes it partly Temple related. As for the CTR ring, it really started more as a primary gimmick that seems to have slipped from official usage and became consumerist. Paintings commissioned or displayed by the Church are actually rather generic and serving the purpose mostly of garnishing. There are still very few chapels that have any art (symbols) of any kind displayed - not even in the way of Islamic geometric patterns.
The reason Mormonism has not “taken up the cross” is because it already has a symbol that the cross fills in for; and that would be the Temple. Pictures of the Temple in homes are often placed where other religions would put their own symbols. When a prophet says that the symbol of Christ should be our own lives rather than a cross, that means something more than a cute expression of examples to others. That is precisely what the Temple is commanding us to do as members. Not saying that is what the prophets mean by that, but who knows? I have come to the conclusion that crosses are not bad (I prefer and keep, but don’t actually wear, an Ankh), but they are superfluous for Mormon tradition. I might even go so far as to say that Mormons who have gone to the Temple should put it aside. There might be several reasons a Mormon wants to wear a cross, but the only ones I feel that have a legitimate reason are converts and out of friendly gestures.
What I am about to say will have to suffice so that I don't step over sacred boundaries. When a person goes to the Temple they take on themselves more than the name of Christ, but make promises that they will become symbolically Christ in their lives. The life, death, and resurrection narratives are now part of our own narratives. Ultimately, Mormon usage of symbols is more than for memorial, but for transformation. Nothing in Mormonism is more important in that transformation than Temples where salvation is solidified by symbolic actions. The one piece of physical symbol taken out is not even to be shown. It is for this reason that I feel the cross and any other "Christ symbol" will remain outside of Mormon religious culture. There is no official need. If it was ever to be included it would be for political purposes.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Reasons Mormons Stand Alone
There has been talk that 2008 was a bad year for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its image. To many it was a self-inflicted image because of the political stands it took and history. True as that may be, Mormonism has almost never had good press coverage or widespread respect. Perhaps the closet to a good reputation was during the era between 1950 and the first years of the 1960s when the forced Americanization of Mormonism coincided with wide spread U.S. patriotism and conservative spirit. That window of time was short lived and perhaps illusory. Radical social and political liberalization quickly took over. What remained was the LDS Church standing in the crosshairs of a culture war. It was left again where it started in the 18th Century. The conservative religious considered Mormonism a blasphemy and secularists an affront to human progress and logic.
The conservative antagonists to Mormonism are often religious theocrats who see anyone with different beliefs than themselves as doomed to eternal punishment. Christians are not alone in this view. To deviate from dogma is a worse sin than moral failings. Mormons are seen as the enemy because no matter how good a person is, the differences are too much for any respect. For many Christians, Mormonism's questioning of dogmatism and focus on works as an important aspect of spirituality is despicable. Faith in the correct beliefs are of the utmost importance. To believe anything more or less than exact dogma is to be evil.
Having a belief in Priesthood that governs and leads, rather than simply informs is another thorn in many Christian's sides. Similar to secularists, Protestants question authority and reject it except as a loose influence. Interesting enough, for years Catholics were kept out of the political process by Protestant gatekeepers for many of the same reasons. An overwhelming number of Catholics have forced a grudging respect on the Republican conservative Protestant base. It remains an uneasy reliance. Regardless of what chances Romney might have lost because of a dislike for Mormons, it is just as unlikely a Catholic could become a Republican U.S. Presidential contender. Nevertheless, the numbers and a respectable balance of traditional Christian dogma that Protestants inherited gives them an equal amount of room to ostracize Mormons.
Liberals are no less problematic for Mormons because they hold different metaphysical views about G-d and religion. Strict secularists hold even less similarities. Morals are seen as universals based on human relations rather than any set of doctrinal justifications. There is no right and wrong other than treating others with respect and social justices as they define the terms. Since there is no authority (other than a tolerant G-d by the liberal religious) then science and logic become the ultimate determiners of Truth. For the secularist liberal what cannot be proven in physical life must be rejected. Mormonism posits that truth and moral ism is more than what can be proved, but is centered on faith and Church authority. Often the only difference between the conservative religious criticisms of Mormonism and the secularists is tradition and a Holy book.
Strangely, since both conservative religious and Western liberalism both believe morals and authority are of secondary considerations, both view Mormonism as "cultic." It is an anti-papist sentiment shared by Christian and Secularist alike aimed at anyone who proclaims they have divine authority. This is exacerbated by the Mormon history of continual revelation, visions, miracles, new Scripture and Prophets. All of these have been rationally rejected as a sign of delusion. The religious say G-d no longer speaks words openly and the secularist that there never was a divine voice. To paraphrase one secularist, Mormonism doesn't allow for easy metaphorical re-interpretation. The foundational doctrinal history and Scriptures are too grounded in literalism. A culture built around the idea "G-d is dead" or at least silent is scandalized by one that continues to insist prophets exist that can declare "That He lives."
The conservative antagonists to Mormonism are often religious theocrats who see anyone with different beliefs than themselves as doomed to eternal punishment. Christians are not alone in this view. To deviate from dogma is a worse sin than moral failings. Mormons are seen as the enemy because no matter how good a person is, the differences are too much for any respect. For many Christians, Mormonism's questioning of dogmatism and focus on works as an important aspect of spirituality is despicable. Faith in the correct beliefs are of the utmost importance. To believe anything more or less than exact dogma is to be evil.
Having a belief in Priesthood that governs and leads, rather than simply informs is another thorn in many Christian's sides. Similar to secularists, Protestants question authority and reject it except as a loose influence. Interesting enough, for years Catholics were kept out of the political process by Protestant gatekeepers for many of the same reasons. An overwhelming number of Catholics have forced a grudging respect on the Republican conservative Protestant base. It remains an uneasy reliance. Regardless of what chances Romney might have lost because of a dislike for Mormons, it is just as unlikely a Catholic could become a Republican U.S. Presidential contender. Nevertheless, the numbers and a respectable balance of traditional Christian dogma that Protestants inherited gives them an equal amount of room to ostracize Mormons.
Liberals are no less problematic for Mormons because they hold different metaphysical views about G-d and religion. Strict secularists hold even less similarities. Morals are seen as universals based on human relations rather than any set of doctrinal justifications. There is no right and wrong other than treating others with respect and social justices as they define the terms. Since there is no authority (other than a tolerant G-d by the liberal religious) then science and logic become the ultimate determiners of Truth. For the secularist liberal what cannot be proven in physical life must be rejected. Mormonism posits that truth and moral ism is more than what can be proved, but is centered on faith and Church authority. Often the only difference between the conservative religious criticisms of Mormonism and the secularists is tradition and a Holy book.
Strangely, since both conservative religious and Western liberalism both believe morals and authority are of secondary considerations, both view Mormonism as "cultic." It is an anti-papist sentiment shared by Christian and Secularist alike aimed at anyone who proclaims they have divine authority. This is exacerbated by the Mormon history of continual revelation, visions, miracles, new Scripture and Prophets. All of these have been rationally rejected as a sign of delusion. The religious say G-d no longer speaks words openly and the secularist that there never was a divine voice. To paraphrase one secularist, Mormonism doesn't allow for easy metaphorical re-interpretation. The foundational doctrinal history and Scriptures are too grounded in literalism. A culture built around the idea "G-d is dead" or at least silent is scandalized by one that continues to insist prophets exist that can declare "That He lives."
Saturday, January 03, 2009
Books on Mormonism to Start the Year
A while ago I had written a review at Amazon.com about a book on Mormonism that I still find relevant. The book is by a non-Mormon who seems to get it right where others go wrong, even Jan Shipps who is more of an historian. Its price is the most problematic at $30 new and hard to find in any stores or libraries. The other book I am including is a great companion to the first and by a wonderful Mormon scholar. Neither of these are new, but are great reads for those who are interested in learning more about the religion.
An Introduction to Mormonism by Douglas J. Davies.
This is a wonderful book if you are into understanding the more difficult basics of LDS doctrine. Because of its complicated interpretive structure, I have a hard time calling it an introduction. He writes as a University Professor and it shows. Certainly it is the best book on the subject written by a non-Mormon, without clinging to esoterica and other people's misconceptions that usually hurt even the best books on the subject. Even the most celebrated non-Mormon authority Jan Shipps can be too skeptical and careless rather than understanding. This author, however, stays mostly with the authoritative works first, and the others second when needing clarification.
The touch tone of any treatment of Mormonism is how they approach the LDS Temple. I was very surprised and excited that the author rejected sensationalism and expose. He actually talked about the meaning behind the Temple and other related subjects. It is a far cry better than any other similar studies outside the LDS Church. I would recommend reading By the Hand of Mormon
by Terryl L. Givens with this book. Both are a compliment to each other.
I would like to mention what I see as a weaknesses in his study. One of the reasons I recommended Givens is that Davies misunderstands the Book of Mormon. Perhaps that is going too far as he does have a pretty good sense of its general message. Rather, Davies doesn't understand the deeper teachings within the Book of Mormon, much less the anticipatory sections that touch on things that will show up later in the Doctrine and Covenants. He reads the Book of Mormon, sadly much like LDS members themselves, from a purely surface reading. That causes him to miss the many subtle and complicated issues it brings up, and dilutes the connections between it and later LDS Scripture. For instance, Davies doesn't sense the deeply ritualistic and priesthood oriented teachings of the Book of Mormon that continually shows up. Examples would be talking about the importance of mysteries, discussions on Melchezidek, mentioning of Priests and Teachers and Twelve Disciples, setting up Churches. Most importantly he misses the discussion of "turning the hearts of the children to the parents" in Third Nephi that Davies makes a big connection with ritual in other chapters of his study. There are other minor quibbles, but they are far less worrisome than what other authors even of the same caliber usually have.
The other book is by an author just mentioned. He doesn't delve into the deep waters of theological exegesis or complicated matters, but what he covers is a worthwhile overview. Again, the main concern is that the purchase prices is too high and a library copy should be sufficient.
The Latter-day Saint Experience in America by Terryl L. Givens.
There isn't as much to say about this book because it doesn't seek to explore any particular arguments. It starts out as a clear narrative of LDS history that covers some controversial events from the Mormon point of view. Yet, it doesn't act as a apologetic so much as clearly trying to present the Mormon understanding of themselves. The history sections alone would be informative to both Mormons and non-Mormons in ways that general writings of one or the other seem to come short.
The second section is more theological and covers the main beliefs. Again, there isn't any deep discussions and yet the information is full of enlightening insights. He sometimes explains misunderstandings that boarder on apologetic, but only when he feels outsiders have misinterpreted key doctrines. His harshest criticism is for those who perpetuate the idea that Mormons hold Christ's Salvation and Grace as of secondary importance. It is clear he holds orthodox beliefs about the LDS Church and its doctrines. That might turn off those who insist on holding their own ideas about Mormons in a negative light. For those honestly wanting to understand the religion, this book is a good start. It is succinct, leaning unbiased for most audiences, and covers a wide range of topics and controversies.
An Introduction to Mormonism by Douglas J. Davies.
This is a wonderful book if you are into understanding the more difficult basics of LDS doctrine. Because of its complicated interpretive structure, I have a hard time calling it an introduction. He writes as a University Professor and it shows. Certainly it is the best book on the subject written by a non-Mormon, without clinging to esoterica and other people's misconceptions that usually hurt even the best books on the subject. Even the most celebrated non-Mormon authority Jan Shipps can be too skeptical and careless rather than understanding. This author, however, stays mostly with the authoritative works first, and the others second when needing clarification.
The touch tone of any treatment of Mormonism is how they approach the LDS Temple. I was very surprised and excited that the author rejected sensationalism and expose. He actually talked about the meaning behind the Temple and other related subjects. It is a far cry better than any other similar studies outside the LDS Church. I would recommend reading By the Hand of Mormon
by Terryl L. Givens with this book. Both are a compliment to each other.I would like to mention what I see as a weaknesses in his study. One of the reasons I recommended Givens is that Davies misunderstands the Book of Mormon. Perhaps that is going too far as he does have a pretty good sense of its general message. Rather, Davies doesn't understand the deeper teachings within the Book of Mormon, much less the anticipatory sections that touch on things that will show up later in the Doctrine and Covenants. He reads the Book of Mormon, sadly much like LDS members themselves, from a purely surface reading. That causes him to miss the many subtle and complicated issues it brings up, and dilutes the connections between it and later LDS Scripture. For instance, Davies doesn't sense the deeply ritualistic and priesthood oriented teachings of the Book of Mormon that continually shows up. Examples would be talking about the importance of mysteries, discussions on Melchezidek, mentioning of Priests and Teachers and Twelve Disciples, setting up Churches. Most importantly he misses the discussion of "turning the hearts of the children to the parents" in Third Nephi that Davies makes a big connection with ritual in other chapters of his study. There are other minor quibbles, but they are far less worrisome than what other authors even of the same caliber usually have.
The other book is by an author just mentioned. He doesn't delve into the deep waters of theological exegesis or complicated matters, but what he covers is a worthwhile overview. Again, the main concern is that the purchase prices is too high and a library copy should be sufficient.
The Latter-day Saint Experience in America by Terryl L. Givens.
There isn't as much to say about this book because it doesn't seek to explore any particular arguments. It starts out as a clear narrative of LDS history that covers some controversial events from the Mormon point of view. Yet, it doesn't act as a apologetic so much as clearly trying to present the Mormon understanding of themselves. The history sections alone would be informative to both Mormons and non-Mormons in ways that general writings of one or the other seem to come short.
The second section is more theological and covers the main beliefs. Again, there isn't any deep discussions and yet the information is full of enlightening insights. He sometimes explains misunderstandings that boarder on apologetic, but only when he feels outsiders have misinterpreted key doctrines. His harshest criticism is for those who perpetuate the idea that Mormons hold Christ's Salvation and Grace as of secondary importance. It is clear he holds orthodox beliefs about the LDS Church and its doctrines. That might turn off those who insist on holding their own ideas about Mormons in a negative light. For those honestly wanting to understand the religion, this book is a good start. It is succinct, leaning unbiased for most audiences, and covers a wide range of topics and controversies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
