I recently came across a phrase from feminist theologian Hannah Bacon that I really liked. She talked about a “generous orthodoxy,” a term used “to identify orthodoxy as an emerging, incomplete process that is never closed in on itself, always receptive to the voice of the other.” (See Bacon, “A Very Particular Body: Assessing the Doctrine of Incarnation For Affirming the Sacramentality of Female Embodiment,” in Women and the Divine: Touching Transcendence, eds. Gillian Howie and J’annine Jobling (New York: Palgrave Mcmillan, 2009). Her essay is interesting in its own right, but I was particularly moved by the framework of the project itself. Continue reading ““Generous Orthodoxy” and Continuous Revelation”
A Mormon Tribute to MLK
Given some of the discussion of Martin Luther King, Jr. in some LDS venues, I thought it would be a good time to reread my own tribute written five years ago.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2009/01/an-american-prophet/
Repost: Ethics as an Interpretive Lens
This is a repost of an earlier post of mine that seems relevant today.
How should we evaluate and adjudicate doctrinal and practical matters? As LDS we look to scripture, authoritative statements by leaders, and to the history of LDS practice and thought. Appeals to these sources of authority, however, not only fail to yield definitive answers, but also obscure the authority with which they are invested. The authority by which these sources are invested is never itself investigated. The reinscription of the authority of these sources and the results they produce requires another level of scrutiny, particularly ethical scrutiny. Too often, authoritative sources become a cover for not having to deal with the ethical implications of doctrinal or practical matters.
Yes, M* is a Child-Sacrificing Misogynist and Racist Bigot Blog
I believe that I recall the last time I posted M*. It was April 2012. JMax was defending Mormon racism and inventing a new history of the exclusion of those of African descent into LDS priesthood and temple rites. (You can read the post and comments here.) After they closed the thread without explanation, I decided that I had too many things going on in my life and I unlisted them from my RSS reader.
Continue reading “Yes, M* is a Child-Sacrificing Misogynist and Racist Bigot Blog”
FPR Best of 2013
This year, like many years past, we had some great posts. We tend to be pretty inconsistent week to week, with regular life taking over, but every time we think we are going out of business, something else sparks our interest. Reports of our demise have been greatly exaggerated.
This year we also resolved to quit reading some of the more problematic Mormon blogs and “journals” (or at least to quit publicly commenting on them). There were a handful of frustrating exchanges on other blogs, but overall we were a lot happier simply ignoring the incessant drivel out there. Still, I think it is nice to reflect on some of our greatest hits from this year.
Even Christ’s Body Has an A**hole
Communities sometimes find themselves in deep division over really important issues. There is no universal answer to how to respond to these divisions, but one example from the New Testament, in 1 Corinthians, has been deeply influential for me, and one with conflicting messages in our present circumstances.
Korihor and the Defense of Secularism
Generally, Korihor is understood as a kind of anachronistic representation of secularism by many modern interpreters. However, it is not at all clear that Korihor represents secularism. Indeed, his confession notes that a religious experience is what motivated him.
Secularism may be defined in various ways, and indeed has enjoyed a rigorous critical discussion over the past decade or so. For the purposes of this post, I want to examine just two important ways for thinking about the secular: secularism as the rejection of religion (whatever that may mean), and secularism as the separation of ecclesiastical power from state power. In brief, I argue that Korihor is not guilty of the first, and the narrator is guilty of the second. Indeed, the text actually argues in favor of this latter kind of secularism!
From the Archives: King Benjamin Killed God
This is a repost from four years ago. I was reminded of it and thought it worth rereading. Original with comments here.
Jesus set up an impossible paradox when he explained that the two great commandments are to love God and to love one’s neighbor (though he was not the first to summarize the Law in such a way). The problem is that one simply cannot do both, as Jesus himself elsewhere noted that one cannot serve two masters.
King Benjamin saw the impossible tension between these two contradictory commandments and attempted to resolve it by collapsing them into one single ethical imperative. He said: “when ye are the in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God” (Mos 2:17). The attempt to equate the love of God and the love of neighbor as simply one ethical imperative elides the problem of having two competing duties. The problem (or promise, depending on your perspective) with such a position is that the duty to love God cannot possibly come into conflict with the duty to love one’s neighbor.
Continue reading “From the Archives: King Benjamin Killed God”
Hellenism and the Sermon on the Mount
The Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7) has sometimes been put forward as one of those features of Christianity that marks it as distinctive from Hellenism. Traditional Protestant scholarship on the Bible reproduced popular racialized conceptions of culture in their analysis of ancient categories of thought. For instance, Adolf von Harnack distinguished between Judaism and Hellenism in his analysis of early Christianity. To this may be added the idea that Christianity represented something unique and distinct from its surroundings. In this narrative, the unique (=true) form of Christianity faced the risk of being corrupted by influence from Judaism and Hellenism. Harnack mapped all ancient heresies according to how much Judaism or Hellenism they exhibited.
Scholars today have largely abandoned these polar divisions between Judaism and Hellenism, some going so far as to call Judaism itself a Hellenistic religion. This movement has had significant impact on the study of ancient Christianity. Far from imagining Jesus as either ignorant of, or opposed to, Hellenism, we might best think of him as belonging to a cultural complex that represented the confluence of Greek, Israelite, and other cultural contexts. Among these, we can see the SM as part of this confluence, including several Hellenistic elements.
Continue reading “Hellenism and the Sermon on the Mount”
The Politics of Editing “The False Gods We Worship”
President Spencer W. Kimball’s most famous sermon recently received a makeover in the June Ensign. Kimball delivered one of the most enduring sermons of his career, “The False Gods We Worship,” in 1976 in the context of the bicentennial celebration of the United States. Kimball was a conservative political thinker, but this talk has endured in part because it appealed to conservatives and liberals alike.
There are two sins that are at the heart of Kimball’s critique of society. First, Kimball warns about the idolatry of wealth. He sees materiality in conflict with spirituality, and the searching for wealth in conflict with service in the gospel. These plentiful resources compete for our time, attention, and allegiance. These resources should be put to use to bless others. He express regret that some have chosen their wealth or possessions over service in the church.
Second, Kimball expresses opposition to war. Preaching in the wake of Vietnam, but also in the context of the Cold War, Kimball condemns the use of resources, the training of soldiers, and the perversion of the Savior’s teaching to “love your enemies.”
Continue reading “The Politics of Editing “The False Gods We Worship””