exploring mormon culture, thought and texts
As Mormons can we talk about “salvation” in the plural?
It seems that part of the restored gospel is the pluralization of “salvation”. We teach multiple “kingdoms” after death–where people receive different kinds of salvation. Granted we teach that these “salvations” are gradated, with the Celestial Kingdom being the highest (and even gradated within itself); but it does seem proper to talk about different “ends”, beyond the paradigm of simply Heaven or Hell.
Continue reading “Salvations”
In light of the recent FARMS post, I wanted to briefly discuss an article I came across by M. Gerald Bradford, published in a recent FARMS Review. I should first state how impressed I was to see an LDS scholar trained in a Religious Studies program, addressing the role of Mormon Studies within the context of Religious Studies. Bradford even lays out a brief outline of “Religious Studies”, influenced by Ninian Smart (former Professor at UCSB, and leading figure in the development of the field of Religious Studies). While tentatively accepting his characterization of Religious Studies, I would like to raise a couple of issues as it relates to both Mormon Studies and the Latter-day Saint engaged in this kind of Religious Studies. Continue reading “The Study of Mormonism: A Growing Interest in Academia”
What is the responsibility of the academically trained scholar in Mormonism? As more LDSs go to graduate schools (or even various undergraduate institutions) and study religion, this becomes an interesting question. I’m defining “scholar” here as someone who has graduated from a institution of higher education focusing specifically on religion (broadly conceived). This isn’t meant to position one type of scholar above another, but to ask a specific question about what our expectations are from this group of people.
Do we expect them to “reaffirm faith”? If so, concretely what does this mean? Should they, for instance, only teach things that encourage people to come to church (for the “right” reasons of course)? Or can they opperate free from the results of their teachings in pursuit of certain questions (Was Jesus divine for the NT authors, for instance)?
Do we expect them to “challenge faith”? If so, how? Can they only challenge the faith in such a way that the challenge must be completely resolved (leaving the questioner with a “stronger testimony”, usually measured by higher activity in the church)? Or can they complicate things in such a way that the world appears more complex, more ambiguous, and less cut and dry?
I’ve always been curious as to why Church schools have different Honor Codes. At BYUI, for instance, men cannot wear shorts or slippers to classes; apartments are also monitored by an “apartment manager” who ensures things such as people are in their apartments by midnight (1am on the weekends), and enforces things such as the following:
Men and women may visit in apartments of the opposite sex beginning at noon. All must leave in time to arrive at their own apartment by curfew. Visitors need to be in compliance with the following guidelines:
1. There should always be at least three people in an apartment being visited by a member of the opposite sex.
2. Drapes and blinds must be left open during the visit.
BYU Provo is somewhat different. As are the other church schools.
Over at T&S a discussion about the legalization of polygamy was closed after some of the participants got too heated. I’m not asking to continue that discussion here, but I do think it raises a central issue–how much diversity can and should the church tolerate?
What issues/practices/doctrines can we hold differing “righteous” positions on; and which require complete uniformity? How do describe the interplay between culture and gospel norms? Why does it seem that we are more comfortable with gospel norms varying through time, rather than varying by location? We can consent to the practice of polygamy in the OT or in the 19th century, but why not contemporary Africa?
I served a mission back when the commitment pattern was king. Prepare–Identify–Invite–Follow Up; those were the rules of the game. If we could get investigators to make and keep commitments, they would feel the spirit and ultimately receive a testimony of the gospel.
I’m wondering though, what this tells us about the role of doctrine (loosely defined) in the conversion experience. Does doctrine serve a functional role, where it is a means to an end? Is the value of doctrine, perhaps, more in its ability to bring about a particular result, rather than in its systematicity? To make it more concrete, the way I viewed “teaching the gospel” in light of the commitment pattern was not so much in getting people to understand the gospel as a comprehensive theology, as much as it was to get them to take action and experience the gospel for themselves.
My hunch is that the value of things such as the BoM is not so much in its ability to present a coherent argument for a certain ideology, as much as it is in its capacity to generate a conversion experience. It’s a raft of sorts, meant to get us to the other shore, and not to be mistaken for that shore itself.
A few Sundays ago the topic of the sacrament meeting talks was the “restoration”. It had all the necessary ingredients: restoration versus reformation, authority being lost as the ancient apostles were killed, our church being the “same” as the ancient church, and America as the prepared homeland for the restoration.
A brief discussion I had with someone between sacrament and sunday school centered on bringing up the differences rather than similarities bewteen the Latter-day church and the ancient church. By only discussing the restoration as a return to the early church, do we sometimes create an awkward space to talk about differences? Can we spell out some of these differences in a faith-reaffirming way?
I’m no historian of early Christianity, and so I won’t even try to make any historical claims (although those with historical interests are more than welcome to); but I am wondering what kinds of similarities are essential to our “restorationist” claims, and what kinds of differences are we comfortable accepting?
While reading through some of the transcripts of the interviews used for PBS’ “The Mormons“, some of Elder Holland’s comments caught my eye. Dave over at DMI also posted about this interview, although he didn’t necessarily pursue the issue I would like to raise here.
I actually do not have much time to put together a thorough review (which the film certainly deserves), but this is probably the only chance that I’ll have in the next week or so and it airs on the 30th.
The piece I’m discussing here is the first of the two-part series and deals with the history of Mormonism (the second part deals with the contemporary church).
The first film is two hours long is divided into 6 “acts”: Revelation, The Saints, Persecution, Exodus, Mountain Meadows, and Polygamy.
Interviews are done with: Richard Bushman, Kathleen Flake, Will Bagley, Judith Freeman, Dan Peterson, Jeffrey R. Holland, Terryl Givens, Greg Prince, Ken Clark, Harold Bloom, Dallin H. Oaks, Ken Verdoia, and few others. Continue reading “The Mormons on PBS an Early Review”
As Mormons we believe that all human beings have the capability to become like God. Part of this is based in the notion that we are the spirituatl offspring of God (in other words we were “born” and “begotten” in a pre-existence and “reared” accordingly). In this life we are gods in embryo learning what it means to become like him (and her). Indeed this is part (if not all) of our human nature.
One of the questions I’ve been thinking about lately is whether this God-like nature is something “discovered” or “recovered”. From the discovery perspective this nature is something given to us by God; and we “discover” it as it is revealed to us by the Holy Ghost. It is made available to us because we are actively seeking to know God and cultivate a relationship with him. From the recovery perspective, this God-like nature is already within us and what we must do is to “look within” and live our lives in such a way that it shines forth.
Not that these two models are mutually exclusive, but I think which one we gravitate toward will shape our world-view. For instance, with the discovery model the things I do such as reading the scriptures, participating in the ordinances, etc. are about gaining knowledge that is not necessarily inherent in me, and they are done so that God will reveal to me, my role in his plan. Texts (such as the BoM or Bible) play a vital role because they serve as the “keys” for unlocking the mysteries of God which they hold.
In the recovery model, the same actions (ordinances, etc.) are done, but not for the sake of receiving some external knowledge about what one should do. Instead these actions serve to align the self in such a way that one’s god-like nature can shine through. Texts play a rather different role in this theory because the mysteries they unlock are actually mysteries that are already contained within the self.