exploring mormon culture, thought and texts
So even those of us who live under rocks have now heard that some sort of an Event has occurred out in Utah that apparently involves the potential demise of FARMS. This should be considered bad news by those who think themselves called to defend the Church because it means that the dirty laundry all organizations generate has now risen to such a level that even misanthropically inclined hermits such as me are now aware of it.
Continue reading “Apologetic Activism — Occupy Your Own Self”
Published this AM, by Ross Douthout. Amazing what Kindle can do, no?
So the “problem,” so far, is the loss the great orthodox Christian center. And this means heretics, among whom Douthout places us. He writes:
Heretics are often stereotyped as wild mystics, but they’re just as likely to be problem solvers and logic choppers, well-intentioned seekers after a more reasonable version of Christianity than orthodoxy supplies. They tend to see themselves, not irrationally, as rescuers rather than enemies of Christianity–saving the faith from self-contradiction and cultural irrelevance” (335).
Looks like that shoe fits, no? Makes me think about all the denunciations of Trinitarianism as a “mass of confusion.” I wonder, though, did JS really produce a more rational or reasonable version of Christianity?
Well, we shall have to see where Douthout takes his ideas…
Mogs
So, you know, this blog has that stuff about Mormon culture and all up on the masthead, but I don’t usually write much about it. This probably has to do with a certain snobbishness on my part. I left Utah at seventeen and haven’t really looked back, so I usually think Mormon culture isn’t. Then again, I’m not much of a culture person myself, or at least not the culture of the 21st century. Nevertheless, something has impinged on my cultural awareness, something about BYU from site called “The Frisky.” I suppose I will link to it below, at least until my homies find it offensive or it causes that sort of unusual spam that must be stopped before the kiddies read this blog.
Are you wondering how I found this item? Well, I was following a link to a story about a Valentine’s Day live-action bondage scenario in a grocery store parking lot that ended up in a nine-car police chase while I was getting my hair done last night. I am sure that all the ladies understand and the gentlemen would still be confused, even if I explained it, so I won’t.
Anyway, consider yourself warned by this: If you are either a prude or likely to be offended by my amusement over strange BYU happenings, read no farther…
Among the many threads of irony that pass through the passion narratives is this story of a second interrogation of Jesus by Herod (Luke 23:7-12):
And when [Pilate] learned that [Jesus] was under Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him off to Herod, who was himself in Jerusalem at that time. When Herod saw Jesus, he was very glad, for he had been wanting to see him for a long time, because he had heard about him and was hoping to see him perform some sign. He questioned him at some length, but Jesus gave him no answer. The chief priests and the scribes stood by, vehemently accusing him. Even Herod with his soldiers treated him with contempt and mocked him; then he put an elegant robe on him, and sent him back to Pilate. That same day Herod and Pilate became friends with each other; before this they had been enemies.
The irony here is that Pilate and Herod, who had previously been estranged, were united by their interaction with Jesus. I guess that what bound them together was their mutual aversion to the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem rather than any appreciation of Jesus, but there you have it: Jesus hasn’t even died yet and peace is beginning to settle in!
And now I see another round of ironic reconciliations developing as I watch the current brouhaha over the Obama administration’s attempt to force Catholics to violate their distinctive beliefs regarding the sanctity of life. Whatever might be their personal “take” on the manner, I see signs that Catholics from all parts of the ideological spectrum are falling in together against this perceived threat to their religious freedom. Joining them are Protestants, members of the Orthodox community, and Jews, among others. Kind of amazing, really.
And yet, I’m sad. Sad that the matter ever came up, I guess. But I have to say this: I don’t think the Catholic bishops will give in. They own an awful lot of hospitals and other facilities and I think they will close those doors before they compromise on this particular issue. I dunno what will happen, but the Catholic Church has buried every empire since the Romans. The smart money is, I think, on the Catholics.
Mogs
It appears that Andrew Sullivan published something on Mormons yesterday. How do I know this without reading Sullivan? Because there’s a zillion Mormons responding to his comments at sites far removed. In fact, there’s a bumper crop of Mormon apologetics springing up all over the place and I’m detecting a bit of a common theme. It is, I think, something of a South Park approach.
Continue reading “Apologetics Into Doctrine: Romney’s Impact”
Sitting near York Minster in England is the statue of Constantine shown below. Notice the contemplative look on Constantine’s face as he examines his sword. You’d think he’d never really seen it before! Why? Look again, at where the tip of the sword should rest on the ground. As you can see, the tip of his sword is broken off. Although the sword could still cut, it’s utility as a weapon is pretty much gone. It is a cross now, the great symbol of God’s self-gift of life rather than an instrument of death.
I work around a lot of folks, including pacifists, who are uniformly horrified by the thought of carrying a weapon. And yet, there’s one weapon they carry with them, as do most of us: our sharp, savage tongues. The propensity of the human tongue to cause trouble was not missed by observers as shrewd as the biblical authors. The sages, prophets and psalmists all recognized the damage that the tongue can do. But for my money it’s James that has the most vivid imagery: the tongue is an untameable member, a fire ignited by hell itself, a “restless evil, full of deadly poison” (Ja 3:6-8). Poison is a nasty weapon for many reasons but one particularly reprehensible quality is that once released it cannot be controlled, that is, it does not distinguish between lawful combatants and those who are simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. And so it is with what we say: poison is a most apt description.
Too bad we can’t just cut off the tips of our tongues, so to speak, and change them from deadly weapons to a source of life. We’d probably all be as bemused as Constantine at the results.
Mogs
Over on BCC, Steve P has posted a nice summary of an article in New Scientist which attributes the decline in scientific literacy in the US to three factors: relativism in the academy, unserious journalism, and the illiteracy of Congress.
Amen to the third one! In fact, amen to all of them! However, speaking as someone who has taught both science and religion at the undergraduate level, there is at least one discipline in which student ignorance exceeds that of science: religion. Just sayin’ that when we’re passin’ round the cryin’ towels, I want one… Not really. I get paid for this, and I quite like it, except when I have to grade essay questions.
Anyway, as I prepping for my science and religion class next week, it occurred to me that some rejection of science arises specifically from religious venues and if Steve’s article mentioned that, he didn’t bring it up. Unfortunately, some scientists must themselves accept some level of responsibility for the ease with which their results can be ignored or downplayed by those who do not wish to engage them in a meaningful manner.
So in this last week we, that is me and the 17-18 year old gentlemen I teach, were looking at the Tree of Life vision and Nephi’s interpretation. As you know, our goal is to read the BoM and look for foundational Christian doctrine – hence the title “Christianity 101: BoM Style.” This time we started with that mysterious man who pops up in front of Lehi and declares his intent to lead Lehi to the Tree of Life (1 Ne 8:5-7).
Who is that guy and what is the Bat Signal that brings him out? I vaguely remember reading that someone thought he might be the Holy Spirit, although I can’t remember who or why. Myself, I thought it might be the Spirit because the whole scene reminds me of this passage (Rom 5:3-5 NRS):
And not only that, but we also boast in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance,and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not disappoint us, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit that has been given to us.
In Lehi’s vision, the Tree of Life and the Water of Life both represent the love of God. And in fact, so important is this symbol that when Nephi’s interlocutor wants to test Nephi’s response to his father’s narrative, he asks Nephi whether or not he believes that his father saw this tree! (1 Ne 11:4) So the man in Lehi’s vision is responsible for linking Lehi to the love of God, which is precisely what Paul suggests is the role of the Holy Spirit.
In a 9-0 decision the U.S Supreme Court has declared that the government may not second-guess a religious community’s decision about who should serve as ministers, teachers, or leaders even when employment discrimination issues are at stake. Why did the government even try this? Beats me. The unanimity of the decision, though, shows just how unreasonable the Court found the Obama administration’s argument.
Now you might ask, “Why do you care, Mogs?” Well, I teach the sole religion class my students take, so if they don’t “get religion” from me, with all its modern facets, they probably don’t get it at all. And since civics seems not to be as vital to those who create and execute high school lesson plans as, say, what kind of light bulbs Americans should use, my students generally have no idea how American courts work. So I try to clear up several mysteries with one stone, so to speak. This specific case interests me because it reinforces the idea that religious communities are different from other organizations. Had the Obama administration’s argument prevailed, the government could potentially insert itself into a variety of what we might think of as “EO issues,” such as an all-male priesthood, if it so desired.
Another little doorway into Christianity lies, I think, in the second of the three enumerated purposes of the BoM and particularly in the phrase I have underlined:
that [the remnant of the House of Israel] may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever
As I was looking into this, I discovered something interesting: in many web citations this particular purpose is completely missing or truncated, as you see here:
http://www.jefflindsay.com/BOMIntro.shtml#2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon
I think that the underlined phrase is quite important because it points up the difference between a religious covenant and a contract.
Both contracts and religious covenants are agreements between two parties. The difference is this: contracts may be rendered void if one or both parties fail to fulfill their part of the agreement. This means that when one of the parties defaults, the relationship is ended. Religious covenants, on the other hand, are created and lived in a larger context, one of forgiveness and repentance. This means that when one of the parties fails to meet an obligation, the relationship does not end. Instead, both parties may reevaluate the situation and opt to extend the relationship under the same, similar, or new conditions.
And that is why, when someone properly learns about the covenants of the Lord, they also learn that they are not cast off forever. God’s love is remarkable.
Mogs