Author: TT

Many contemporary Christians subscribe to a certain normative fable of a “historic orthodox Christianity.” This view of Christian history relies on a master narrative of a “pure” Christianity which is distinct from heresy. In this view, Christianity is differentiated from heresy in double terms, that it is both “historic” and that is “orthodox.”
Continue reading “Historic. Orthodox. Christianity.”

Using Elder Oaks’ guide to would-be critics of church leaders, I’d like to explore some of the implications of this important text. In this talk, he recommends five options for those who wish to criticize the church. First, one can overlook the difference. This doesn’t mean that one must accept the leader’s view, but simply not act on it. Second, like the first, is to reserve judgement and not act on it for a time. This requires that one reflect substantially before acting because upon further consideration one may change their mind or the situation may be resolved. Third, one may meet and discuss the criticism privately with the leader. Fourth, one may meet privately with a higher leader to discuss the problem or send a letter. And fifth, one may pray for a resolution. Options 1, 2, and 5 require complete silence, while options three and four offer the relative silence of a “private” meeting or letter. None requires that one simply accept the leader’s views. The strength of Elder Oaks’ teaching is that silence is offered as a spiritual practice as a virtue. I’d like to compare this practice to the practice of biblical interpretation based on inerrancy.
Continue reading “Criticism of Leaders and Inerrancy”

The topic of “criticism” of Church leaders has arisen again in the blogs in response to three recent important talks: 1) Elder Holland’s Oct 2009 General Conference address on the Book of Mormon, 2) Elder Oaks’ BYU-I talk about preserving religious freedom, and 3) Elder Hafen’s remarks on “same sex attraction.”

In trying to formulate my own thoughts about the role of criticism in the church, I went back to look at some things that FPR bloggers, including myself, had said on this topic before. Many of these posts attempt to lay a foundation for a critical stance toward the church that is fully inside, while attempting to account for the conditions in which such criticism is possible, but also seeking its limits. I offer them for your enjoyment and consideration as well.
Continue reading “Recycled Posts on Criticism”

In the recent talk by Elder Oaks to BYU-I addressing the topic of the constitutional right to free speech and free exercise of religion, he also noted the establishment clause of the first amendment.

The prohibition against “an establishment of religion” was intended to separate churches and government, to prevent a national church of the kind still found in Europe. In the interest of time I will say no more about the establishment of religion…

The difficulty with this omission was evidenced in the reaction to his speech. Many of the debates about the place of religion in public life tend to focus on either free exercise or the establishment clause, to the detriment of the other. Religionists, as in the case of Elder Oaks, tend to emphasize free exercise, while secularists tend to emphasize disestablishment. Each views the other as a threat, and Oaks’ overlooking of the limitations of the establishment clause in relationship to free exercise plays into the fears that those who emphasize the role of religion in public do so at the expense of the establishment clause.
Continue reading “Free Exercise of Religion…and Sex”

There is a strong intellectual current among some popular LDS personalities and bloggers (and a very few non-LDS thinkers) that see the temple not only as the defining element of Mormonism, but also of ancient Judaism, Christianity, and for many, a near universal cultural theme. This tradition imagines a cultural inheritance that is both conscious and unconscious of temple themes, motifs, and rituals. In this recent revival of this theme in Mormon thought, Margaret Barker has emerged as a central influence, not only because of her prolific and provocative theories about ancient Judaism and Christianity, but also because of her non-Mormonism.
Continue reading “Pan-Templism and Early Christians”

Sorry to our dear readers who’ve suffered in our recent absence. For me, the start of the fall TV season means big business in VCR repair. I don’t know what my co-bloggers’ excuse is…

The last few decades of Mormonism have been a period of intense assimilation. Latter-day Saints have become an increasing presence in various urban areas and increasing numbers of Mormons hold positions of influence in business, government, and academic life. There seems to be more engagement with the “world” in ways that have been mutually beneficial to Mormonism and non-Mormons alike.
Continue reading “R-e-s-p-e-c-t”

Testimony is clearly a central component of Latter-day Saint thought and culture. Testimony is a sacred discourse, with all of the power and potential that the sacred holds. One of my VCR-repair professors once came to church and remarked about the ubiquitousness of the term and how it is employed at the end of every talk and lesson. We devote entire sacrament meetings to the vocalization and production of this kind of utterance. Even in our publications and blogs, we come to expect and even demand the bearing of a testimony as an essential part of the discourse of recognizably Latter-day Saint speech. I once attended a wonderful academic-oriented fireside that was seen as a mild disappointment by some because the speaker didn’t conclude with the usual set of “I knows.” Such speech is so important that LDS leadership is continuously worried about the boundaries of such speech, constantly reminding us to limit our testimonies to only a few central issues. But given it extreme importance, what sorts of ethical obligations does one have in the bearing of it? Because so much weight is placed on it, what is the ethical burden that should accompany such critical speech? How might we engage others that may overstep the ethical imperatives for invoking such potent discourse?
Continue reading “Testimony and Ethics”

This is a talk I gave many years ago, slightly modified.

I have had a lot of time to think about the scriptures, what they mean and how they mean. I have read the history of the times in which these texts were produced, and learned all sorts of theories about their development. Clearly, I think that these things are not only interesting, but also extremely useful for making the scriptures real, seeing in them both the humanity and divinity, and at the same time obliterating such binary distinctions, which I take to be the essential message of Mormonism.
Continue reading “The Word”