In 1 Cor 8, Paul give some advice to the “strong” who know something that the “weak” do not know. He argues that even though the strong are in the right, and that what they know is fully true, they should keep such knowledge to themselves. The reason is that, “by your knowledge those weak believers for whom Christ died might be destroyed” (1 Cor 8:11). Paul suggests that one’s primary duty is to good of the community as a whole, not to the truth. It even seems that Paul is saying that the liberal, more open minded people should cede ground to the more close minded precisely because they are more capable of handling the disparity.
If the Book of Mormon is dull, the New Testament is duller
One recent, sympathetic critic called the Book of Mormon “dull.” This is not a new accusation. Mark Twain famously called it “chloroform in print,” and I don’t deny the charge. Trust me, I’m quite aware of the boringness of the Book of Mormon. Mormons are aware that the Book of Mormon can be difficult reading, and often make jokes about it. It’s characters are one-dimensional, there isn’t much plot to speak of, only some of the content is occasionally moving, and even many of the theological debates just seem not particularly pressing anymore. But is an aesthetic appraisal the best way to evaluate sacred literature? Is dullness really relevant at all? Continue reading “If the Book of Mormon is dull, the New Testament is duller”
1000 Posts: A FPR Retrospective
We have reached a certain milestone in our history and it has been for us a cause to celebrate and reflect upon what we’ve done here, what we’ve learned, and a bit on who we have become in our nearly 7 year history. When we reached 500 posts a few years ago, we posed the following question for our current bloggers:
How has your decision to pursue academic research in religion or ancient history affected your faith?
This is an enduring question that we all face, and one that not all of our newer bloggers have had the occasion to address, so we have posed the question again. For those who answered this question the last time, we have asked that they reflect on: how things have changed in the intervening years? In addition, we have asked that our bloggers share a favorite or impactful post that they have written. (There is no significance to the order in which the replies below appear other than chronology of who gave them to me first.)
FPR, meet Patheos. Patheos, meet FPR
We are extremely excited to enter this new phase of Faith-Promoting Rumor’s (FPR) history, joining up with Patheos.com. We thought we could take this occasion to discuss a bit of the history and personalities of FPR as we enter into this relationship.
First, we are a blog of mostly, or at least somewhat pseudonymous personalities. Each of us has various reasons for wanting to keep our personal, professional, and ecclesiastical lives separate from our blogging lives. Some is a matter of privacy, and some of principle. After so many years, it is basically just a part of who we are, and we don’t worry about it so much.
Eve and Abraham
We have two opposing notions of the relationship between ethics and God’s command.
Continue reading “Eve and Abraham”
World Religion at BYU
BYU’s Church History and Doctrine department in the Religious Education school has recently posted a job that may go to someone in “World Religions.” This is an important search and I am eager to see the outcome. Whoever is offered this position is in an important position to shape a coming generation’s approach to the study of non-Mormon religions. BYU is to be commended on this tradition of teaching “world religions,” however small a part of the curriculum. The history of this position has been shaped by the development of courses on “world religions” in previous decades across the academy, and the way that this interest manifested itself even within the Church as the 1978 “God’s Love For All Mankind” statement demonstrated. As those “world religions” courses in colleges, universities, and seminaries have come under greater scrutiny and have been abandoned or modified in many religion and theology programs, it will be interesting to see how BYU’s future hire engages with (updates?) the curriculum.
Atonement and Torture
Both LDS theological maximalists and minimalists seem to think that there is something invialby sacred about the atonement. It is the quintessential doctrine, the essence of Christianity, and the sine qua non of Christian faith. Perhaps the Book of Mormon isn’t ancient, and perhaps Moses didn’t write the Torah, and perhaps Jesus didn’t do the miracles–but if Jesus did not suffer, die, and be resurrected to satisfy God’s plan, then the really is nothing of value in these stories. Perhaps this perspective has some value, but at the very least it effectively warns anyone from looking too closely at the atonement.
Reading, and Rereading Scripture
One often hears in testimonies that every time you reread the scriptures, you will see something that you have never seen before. Such a claim likely functions in two different ways. First, restricting oneself to a particular canon can and does produce monotony, so there must be incentives to go over the familiar again. Reading a text, watching a movie, eating a new dish, kissing a person for the first time likely has a certain heightened degree of pleasure because it is “new.” After that, there are diminishing returns. Yet, there remains a promise of returns nonetheless. There is still the pleasure of the “new” even in the familiar, we are told.
Canon and Culture: The Scriptures Made Me Do It!
Fundamentalism is the belief that all that the scriptures and revelation say are to be taken as factually accurate. This view is clearly problematic, but I’d like to address its cousin, foundationalism. Foundationalism admits that the scriptures are not factually accurate in all things (though they may be in some), yet argues that they still give us clear moral, ethical, or doctrinal guidance. The scriptures, when properly interpreted, are the secure foundation for our doctrines about the “important” things, like the nature of God, human beings, gender relations, sin, etc, if not science and history. This modernist notion is deeply problematic.
Continue reading “Canon and Culture: The Scriptures Made Me Do It!”
Is Mormon Theology Masturbatory?
Adam Miller’s recent post at Times and Seasons concerns me. The issue that Miller’s post seems to be wrestling with is why Mormon theology should be done in an academic context, rather than an institutional context. After all, no one ever asked him to do what he does, so then why does he do it? The presumption implicit in the question is that only things that the institution deigns to ask for are self-evidently necessary, so one must justify doing what is not asked. In defense of what he does, he characterizes the practice of Mormon academic theology as a “diversion,” “gratuitous,” “unnecessary,” done “for its own sake,” a sort of onanistic act that denies its responsibility toward its partner. He depicts the theologian as the fetishistic “pack rat” who scours texts and objects for the perverse sources of his own “pleasure,” an act that culminates in a “satisfyingly solid thump.” Such an act is done in relative privacy, for the “joy” of the theologian alone.