exploring mormon culture, thought and texts
This podcast was made by two of my students, Jericho Cline and Ethan Blevin, during a senior seminar on global justice.
I am sharing this today because I have been thinking a lot about Ethan. He recently got into a great law school. He also just suffered a great loss in his family. He and Jericho are not only great students, but great men. I have some great former and current students.
I have a box of posters, signs, t-shirts, and other junk in my office in Provo that stands as a physical reminder of what was once the College Democrats at BYU-Idaho. I was the last faculty advisor for the club and when I moved to Provo, I could not find anyone to take them.
For the first time in four years, I am not an employee of Brigham Young University-Idaho. This post, despite being about the political clubs at BYU-Idaho, is not a political post, but instead a post about BYU-Idaho. For the first time, I feel that I can freely discuss this situation. It was discussed last year both at A Soft Answer and at Millennial Star.
The College Republicans and the College Democrats are a standard feature at most college campuses. At Ricks College and then later BYU-Idaho, the College Republicans were at time a huge and active club, while the College Democrats was a much smaller, though tight, group. I have had interaction with both. I was a College Republican at Ricks before my mission. I was an exciting time. That Fall, the Republican Gingrich revolution swept both houses of the Congress. I was elected to be one of the vice-presidents for the following year, but instead decided to go on my mission rather than return for my sophomore year. When I returned from my mission, I was again elected to a leadership post…though I would no longer be a Republican by the end of the year.
I returned to Rexburg in 2006 as a visiting member of the faculty. I attended some of the meetings of the College Democrats and gave a couple of guest lectures. When the previous advisors sent out an email in late 2008 looking for volunteers to take over the responsibility, I volunteered. I was excited, the College Dems were a thoughtful group of kids who enjoyed discussing politics and policy. I actually tried to get them to be a bit more partisan. Most of all, I tried to get them to stop apologizing for being Democrats.
In March, I got wind that the University was up to something in relation to the clubs. A meeting was scheduled with the administrator over student activities. We were informed that the President’s council had decided to abolish the club be they violated the University’s neutrality policy which pretty much banned any and all political activity on campus. The neutrality policy is more of an anti-politics policy. I understand why the University would want to be viewed as neutral. Yet, this policy sought primary to keep the stain of politics off the BYU-Idaho campus. Continue reading “BYU-Idaho College Democrats-in-Exile”
In this weeks Sunday School lesson we will be discussing Noah. I love this story. My second child is named Shem. It is one of the classics.
The class I teach is for high school juniors and seniors. We have a discussion-oriented class. They have had these stories before in seminary and elsewhere. They know the details of the scriptural narrative better than I do. As a result, we have been able to discuss applications and potential meanings of different concepts. It has gone really well (which is my way of saying that I have enjoyed the last few months).
Yet, I have a problem. I do not believe that the flood in the story of Noah covered the entire earth. I do not view this as a big deal. Whether the entire world was flooded or not is not the point of the story. I view the story as being one about obedience and separating ourselves from the world (something like that).
However, I have a few questions about how I will deal with this in my lesson.
Should I mention my interpretation of the flood?
It is not necessary for me to do so. Yet, I am planning on making some comment about it not mattering whether the flood covered the whole world or not. Here I worry that I might be doing this for my own purposes and not out of love.
Does it matter how anyone, including my students and myself, view the flood?
No. It does not really matter. Additionally, I feel no need to disabuse anyone of their view of the flood. I am not claiming that I am right and that they are wrong. I just do not think that the earth was entirely flooded. I think it is great that others think differently than I do.
What has me thinking about this is a recent Facebook interaction with a former member of the Church. He is now a proud atheist and claims to only take “scientific” approach to the world (he in fact has a high school level of the scientific method which he thinks is clever. At every chance he seeks to tear down the beliefs of the Mormon’s he knows (including his family).
While I am very secular in some senses, I cannot relate to this. While I do not view things in a particularly orthodox way, I do not mind if others do. I just hope they give me the same benefit of the doubt.
As a teacher in the Sunday School, I do hope that my students will think about these things, particularly if they have not done so in the past. However, what they think is up to them. They are a great group of kids. I hope not to do anything that messes that up.
Do you know of any good articles about Mormon thought about the pre-existence? I am looking for something academic, though it can be of an apologetic nature. I need sources for documenting my account of the role of the pre-existence in Mormon thinking. I would also be interested in anything dealing with the council in heaven.
This is part of my dissertation chapter that I started addressing in this post.
I realize that I have the research skills should allow me to this on my own. But I am tired and overwhelmed. I need help from my bloggernacle brothers and sisters. Thanks.
This is something my friend Mike M. put together. He is a serious social scientist who says that I can just describe this as the “crazy ramblings of some kook you knew in Rexburg.” While I knew many kooks in Rexburg, I had not considered Mike to be one. Anyways, here is something fun for Christmas:
Were the wise men Nephites (and Lamanites)?
By Mike M.
Here’s something I’ve been mulling over for a while . . .
Who were the “wise men” mentioned briefly in Matthew Chapter Two? There are many
plausible theories, but I would like to suggest a particularly intriguing possibility: perhaps the wise men were descendents of Lehi who travelled to Jerusalem from the western hemisphere.
The Book of Mormon offers some tantalizing clues to support such a notion. First, Lehi’s posterity in the New World had been looking forward to the coming of Christ for centuries. It makes sense that representatives from a righteous branch of the House of Israel would be allowed to witness the arrival of the long-awaited Messiah.
Nephite and/or Lamanite representatives also likely had the means to return to Jerusalem.
Approximately fifty years before the birth of Christ, Hagoth was building “exceedingly large ships” and sailing the “west sea” with large numbers of people (Alma 63: 5). And with the Brass Plates and the records of Lehi and Nephi, these representatives would have had some knowledge of Old World geography
Interestingly, the star that the wise men followed is not mentioned anywhere else in the Old or New Testaments. But righteous Nephites and Lamanites in the New World had been looking for just such a sign of Christ’s birth as a result of Samuel the Lamanite’s prophecies.
Continue reading “Guest Post: Were the wise men Nephites (and Lamanites)?”
David H. Sundwall (my favorite bloggernacle Republican) reports over at A Soft Answer that the church will be revising the three-fold mission of the Church. It will be changing from the three missions to the four purposes of the Church. It sounds as though the three missions will still be represented, but the new forth purpose is of particular interest to me.
According to David’s report, Bishop Richard Edgley, counselor in the Presiding Bishopric, commented at a stake conference that the forth purpose would be “to care for the poor and the needy.”
Has anyone else heard any details or rumblings about this? I had heard somewhere that changes where coming to the three-fold mission, but I had not heard any further details.
I am excited about this. Issues related to poverty and inequality are central to my philosophical work and also drive my religious-interests.
Such an addition to the missions of the Church has been discussed at FPR by smallaxe almost two years ago (not only is he super nice, he is prophetic). I look forward to seeing how this is presented and discussed in coming Ensign magazines and General Conference addresses.
Now, this does not necessarily signal a radical change in the policies and practices of the Church. Bishop David H. Burton gave an account of the Church’s global humanitarian effort not long ago in General Conference. There has also been a focus on the perpetual education fund. Lest we forget, today is the day we give fast offerings.
However, I have long found that when it comes to matters of wealth and economics, there is no greater friend to inequality than Mormons (speaking of the general membership and not the leadership of the Church). What does inequality have to do with caring for the needy and the poor? Conditions of extreme inequality create and maintain poverty.
Like Hugh Nibley, I find that Mormons generally hold views consistent with Social Darwinism. The poor are poor because they deserve it. If only they worked harder and were more righteous they would not be poor. Like Nibley (see his lectures on the Book of Mormon), I find that most treat King Benjamin’s discussion of the beggar as outdated. If anything, King Benjamin’s discussion of the beggar is evidence that the Book of Mormon was written for our day.
While we seem more likely to give thought of the poor and needy at this time of year, it is a good time to give thought to how our actions (and inaction) year round contribute to poverty and the conditions of the poor.
Jacob 2:17: Think of your brethren like unto yourselves, and be familiar with all and free with your substance, that they may be rich like unto you.
Sheldon Lawrence has kindly agreed to do a bit of guest blogging here at FPR. Sheldon is a latter-day Thoreau, in that he is a scholar and an outdoorsman (we need another person around here who can talk guns with Mogget).
By day, Sheldon teaches at BYU-Idaho. He is also a father of four and husband of one. Somewhere in between he is also working on his dissertation in English.
Please give Sheldon a warm welcome. We look forward to his posts.
Author’s note: I originally posted this at Approaching Justice. The talk by Elder Oaks has gotten me thinking about the implications of public reason on the SSM debate and the use of public reason (directly and indirectly) in Elder Oak’s talk. I do not have the time right now to adequately address that speech. So, this is an introduction to the idea of public reason with a look at both John Rawls and Abraham Lincoln.
It is often noted that the late American political philosopher John Rawls had a great admiration for President Abraham Lincoln. While people often express admiration for Lincoln, there are many theoretical similarities between the thought and actions of Lincoln and the grand political philosophy of Rawls. For the purposes of this essay I would like to look at one particular aspect of Rawls’ work in which he can see parallels between his own theory and the thought of Lincoln. The aspect of Rawls’ work of which I speak is the idea of public reason. Below I will summarize the idea of public reason and then look at how public reason plays a role in Lincoln’s thought with particular focus on his second inaugural address.
The idea of public reason is rooted in Rawls’ later work about political liberalism, which for Rawls focuses on the hope that no matter what our religious or philosophical disposition we can all agree on a conception of justice that can form the basis of democratic legitimacy. Public reason within political liberalism places parameters upon the reasons that public officials can use in forming law and policy. Primarily, public official must appeals to publicly and commonly held ideas and concepts. Examples of such concepts would be the principles of liberty and equality found in the Declaration of Independence or the tenant of the Preamble of the Constitution (i.e. general welfare or common defense). Appeals to such concepts would be reasonable to all even if there is disagreement about the details or content of certain principles.
On the other hand, public reason limits or rejects arguments rooted solely in religious or philosophical doctrines that cannot be deemed reasonable in a public arena. One cannot support a policy position solely on the assertion that “the Bible says so.” Not only are such arguments tenuous because few policies can clearly be shown to be found in the Bible one way or the other, but such claims are meaningless and unconvincing to those the view the Bible differently or who find no meaning in it at all. According to Rawls, a policy lacks legitimacy if it is rooted in religious doctrine that not all could reasonably accept.
Continue reading “A Glimpse of Public Reason: Lincoln and Rawls (Mormon Rawls Project)”
BYU’S TOCQUEVILLE PROJECT
With funding from
THE JOHN ADAMS CENTER
For the Study of Faith, Philosophy and Public Affairs
PRESENT A SYMPOSIUM
Religion and Politics:
The Philosophical Problem and its Contemporary Implications
October 29-30, 2009.
Thursday, October 29
5pm B192 JFSB: Keynote Address: Daniel Mahoney (Professor of Political Science and Chair, Assumption College, Worcester, MA), “Moral Foundations of Liberal Democracy”
Response by Neal Kramer (BYU, English)
Friday, October 30
9am 4010 JFSB: Jeremiah John (Southern Virginia University, Politics): “The Site of Mormon Political Theology”
Response by Richard Sherlock (Utah State University, Philosophy)
10am 4010 JFSB: “Mormons and the Public Square: the Facts on the Ground”
Chris Karpowitz & Quin Monson (BYU Political Science)
Response by David O. Leavitt (Attorney)
1pm B192 JFSB: Peter Lawler (Dana Professor of Political Science, Berry College, GA) Science): “Dignity and Higher Education Today”
Response by Brant Bishop (Attorney)
3pm 4010 JFSB: Roundtable & Open Discussion: “Mormons and the Public Square”
Thomas B. Griffith (U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit)
Frederick Gedicks (BYU Law)
Ralph Hancock (BYU Political Science)
5pm 4010 JFSB: Scott Sprenger (BYU French): “Religion and Modernity in the Work of Honoré de Balzac”
Authors note: The following is the second in my Mormon Rawls Project Series. It is also the expansion of my first ever post here at FPR.
When Rawls develops the concept which he labels “justice as fairness.” This does not mean that a just society is one which is fair, but instead that principles of justice must be determined under conditions which are fair to all.
While fairness may not be something commonly found in the world, we can imagine what the conditions of fairness might appear like. This is what Rawls does when he introduces the original position (OP). The original position is a hypothetical situation where representatives come together to determine the principles of justice that will govern the basic structure of society (the basic structure being the political and economic institutions which impacts ones life-chances) . It is these principles that would guide the development of a constitution and further development of law and policy.
In order to ensure that these principles are chosen under fair conditions. Rawls introduces the device known as the veil of ignorance. The veil of ignorance prevents the participants from knowing the particulars of their own situation and standing in the world. They are unaware of their own wealth, gender, race, and geographical situation. They are essentially stripped of the knowledge that might lead than to pick principles of justice which benefit themselves or people like themselves rather than principles that benefit all and which could be accepted by all. Continue reading “The Mormon Rawls Project: The Original Position and the Council in Heaven I”