Posted on

Ancient Justification for Modern Practice

Kevin Barney’s post over at BCC has me thinking about the ramifications of female Apostleship (capital A): What it would mean if we came to agree that the New Testament bore strong witness to there having been women in roles now held only by men?* The question, when placed within the larger framework of our penchant for finding ourselves in the past, presents an interesting dilemma: Could a future opening of the Priesthood to “all worthy persons (not just males)” find scriptural justification for itself in the same way that we see the Book of Mormon in such difficult places as John 10 and Ezekiel 37?

As is well known, we are fond of justifying our ban on homosexuality with reference to Leviticus 20:13, but have no qualms about neglecting passages such as Lev. 19:27: “You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard,” or 17:10, where anyone who eats meat with blood in it will be excommunicated. (Note that the “ban” on homosexuality is part of the “Law of Moses” …)

So here’s a question: What are some issues not currently part of LDS practice for which one might find justification in the scriptures? (This question is more about discerning our use of scripture than about calling for social change.) Continue reading “Ancient Justification for Modern Practice”

Posted on

I know that Mitt is true.

In testimony meeting this month, a good sister bore testimony of Mitt Romney. She stated that she knew that God had prepared Gordon B. Hinckley to be the prophet is these days. Then she said that she knew that God had also prepared Mitt Romney for this day. She went on to talk briefly about having recently read the Hugh Hewitt book on Romney and how much she liked it (“…and he is not even a member…”).

The best part was watching the bishop squirm. It obviously made him nervous. Of course, it is nothing like the time when a high counselor went on for 30 minute about secret combinations plotting to destroy our national sovereignty and bring about world-wide communism. The bishop was ready to jump him, though all ended peacefully.

I expect that talk about Mitt at church (and in testimony meeting) will become more common. Maybe I lack faith. Do I need to pray and find out for myself whether Mitt is really true?

Posted on

What is an Author?

As Mormons I think that we are deeply invested in authorial intent as the source of authority in the scriptures. We share this belief with many historical-critics, who have also left unhistoricized this assumption. In this view, the author’s voice is the voice of author-ity, the one who determines meaning and from whose perspective we are able to survey the situation. Certainly, we are allowed to be suspicious of the author’s claims from time to time, but even here it is the author’s voice that we doubt.
Continue reading “What is an Author?”

Posted on

The Trouble With Belief

I have just finished another semester of VCR repairperson school and because I am an advanced repairman, I actually spent the end of the semester grading student papers rather than writing them. This is by no means my first time grading, but this time for some reason that I have begun to reflect on the ethics of the disciplining task in which I am engaged. You see, like all classes, my VCR class this semester had a particular perspective on how one should approach VRC-repairpersonship. By no means was the class dogmatic, and in some respects this class was open to a great variety of various VCR hermeneutical approaches (a budding field). However, certain approaches are always excluded and it just so happens that these approaches seem to coincide with the kinds of approaches that many people come to the class with.
Continue reading “The Trouble With Belief”

Posted on

The “Vote of Thanks”

I’ve been a Mormon all my life. Sadly, I mostly tune out during sacrament meeting, and I usually bring something to read because 99.9% of the time, I come away from sacrament meeting feeling less in tune with God than before. With a good book in hand, I can have some face time in the ward but simultaneously worship God my own way (currently reading Grant Palmer’s Insider’s View of Mormon Origins – IT’S EXTRAORDINARY!). Last week, I heard something I’ve heard all my life, and like a good intellectual, I questioned it. It was a “vote of thanks” for Brother Jones who had “served diligently” for two years in the Boy Scout troop.*

Just exactly what is a “vote of thanks?” Where did it come from? (Duh. The obvious answer is Utah. What I meant was When did it come from?). What if someone votes against it? If a vote of thanks is just some quirky motion we go through with no basis in anything, why can’t the leadership just ask members to go thank Brother Jones individually? I suspect the latter might even generate more feeling of true gratitude than a robotic motion of raising the hand in order to thank Brother Jones.

* I have issues with the mixing of Church and Scouts because the BSA is not affiliated with a religion of any kind. I have blogged on this before at FPR.

Posted on

A Case for the DH, Part III: No New Covenant (not in Exod 34, anyway)

The evidence and discussion in parts I and II are more than just academic exercises and proofs of the DH, because they deal with a narrative that is central to some of the fundamental tenets of the Church: the “New Covenant” that we understand God to have made with the Israelites. In the compiled version of Exod 34, it appears that Moses went up the mountain a second time to get a new set of tablets. The first set, which was intended to include the decalogue and possibly the Covenant Code (Exod 21-23), was smashed in Exod 32. The second set, as we have seen, looks as if it contains the words the covenant of Exod 34:10-26. But when the strands are separated (as we have done with confidence), there is nothing new to be written on the second set of tablets. And J only ever has one covenant: the one that stipulates that in exchange for obedience to vv. 10-26, God would be with Israel when she went into the promised land. It’s only because someone tried to make a Diatessaron-like narrative that we suppose a new covenant ever existed. Thus the “new covenant” is a product of the compiler’s work, not of any “original” story. Continue reading “A Case for the DH, Part III: No New Covenant (not in Exod 34, anyway)”

Posted on

Race and Why Christopher Hitchens is an Embarrassment to Good Atheists Everywhere

I don’t know if many of you have been following the Romney-Sharpton debacle. The strange part about this is that the comment Sharpton made about Mormons was in the context of a debate with Christopher Hitchens, author of the new book God isn’t Great. Sharpton’s comment was a rebuttal to Hitchens’ scathing remarks about Mormons and their racist past. To a certain extent, I can see where Sharpton’s explanation about his unfortunate remark is coming from, though it is obviously highly problematic. However, I want to focus on the other person in this controversy, namely Hitchens.

I have been watching Hitchens appear to promote his book on a few different programs. Every time I see him I just have to cringe. His argument against religion is about the equivalent of an 8th grader’s. I have yet to see him give a single factual statement about any of the religions that he speaks about. For instance, in a vulgar discussion of sex on one talk show he claimed that every single major God had been born from a virgin and how this is misogynistic. Uh, not only is it not true about every single god (not many, actually), but also it makes no sense how this is in any way against women. I had to chuckle when John Stewart actually called him an a**hole during their interview. There are plenty of good atheists out there who have well-thought out, sophisticated comments about religion. Hitchens is more like a joke whose arguments are so easy to knock down that as a sympathetic non-atheist, I can’t help but be embarrassed for him.

Fast forward to the most recent controversy with Mormons, specifically his Lou Dobbs interview. Hitchens claims that it is Mormons who are bigoted because they believed up until 1965 (sic) that black people were inferior to others. Sharpton has also accused Mormons of “segregation” prior to 1978. These comments have got me thinking about the nature of pre-1978 racialized policies. There is no denying that there is a generally “racist” element to the policy of “one drop” and the priesthood ban. However, it strikes me that this policy does not always easily fit into the larger discourse of racism.

First, the LDS policy was never directed against any other races except those of African descent. There was no sense of white superiority either by nature or by divine grace. In fact, Mormons were strong advocates of missionizing to all peoples, with very early missions to India, China, Polynesia, etc.

Second, Mormons never practiced segregation. To the extent that there were black members of the church, they always worshiped alongside other members. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised at all to find out that today Mormon congregations are less segregated than many denominations (prorated to numbers of members of different races).

Third, while there are certainly instances of comments that were based in scientific racism (the belief that some races are innately superior and others are innately inferior on an evolutionary continuum) by church leaders, this is really not the basis of either the Hamitic doctrine or the other popular explanations of the priesthood restriction. Even still, the Hamitic doctrine in Mormonism was used substantially differently than it was used by other 19th and 20th c. Christians. There cannot be a simple understanding of the Mormon case by just looking at how other Christians invoked this doctrine. Mormons really were different in tone, if not in tune. This might be disputed, but it seems to me that the most vocal voices in this issue seemed to emphasize God’s love for all of his people and argue for an eventual lifting of the “curse.” This is much less like a belief in superiority/inferiority, but I am not entirely sure how to characterize the difference.

I think that Romney’s engagement with charges of “bigotry” have unfortunately opened up this debate in a way. No doubt many will continue hurling charges of past (and present) racism at Mormons. The question is whether any of these charges will be made carefully and responsibly, since the nature of the Mormon past with racial difference does not fit into the normal American discourse of racism. Further, I hope that the claim of persistent Mormon racism will be exposed as nothing more than senseless slander.

Posted on

Scholars and Prophets

I presented a paper at the Yale conference in February in which I argued that the reason that most people don’t read the works of Biblical scholars (LDS or otherwise) is that most people don’t read scripture in order to understand what scripture says; most people read scripture in order to interpret it in light of their own experience or to have a revelatory moment with God. Actually understanding the original intended meaning of the words is secondary to this personal divine experience and it is possibly entirely unnecessary to having this experience.  This explains, I think, why most scripture readers don’t seek the original meaning. Continue reading “Scholars and Prophets”

Posted on

Elder Bednar on “spiritual creation”

As far as I can tell, there is neither established doctrine nor GA agreement on what “spiritual creation” constitutes, nor on the nature of each account in our dual-creation accounts (ie. Genesis 1-2:4, 2:4ff.) I did a good bit of research on the topic in preparing a presentation a few months ago.

In the recent broadcast Stake Conference, Elder Bednar said something that struck me as relevant to the first question above. I had my laptop, and I typed it down word-for-word, or as close as I could get.

“Morning prayer is the spiritual creation of our day.”

Though from context he intended this to be about the importance of beginning the day with prayer, I think it also implies that he holds spiritual creation to be nothing more than the mental planning stage of creation, the blueprints, as it were. (There are interesting visuals suggesting this in the filmed editions of the Endowment. Beyond that, however, the version of creation in the temple combines elements from the dual accounts in the scriptures, and does not have a dual account the way Genesis does.)

I suspect that this is not how most members understand “spiritual creation” but given my experiences and education, I no longer trust my own intuitions about what the average English-speaking member thinks.

Posted on

He is Risen?

Many LDS scholars are more or less willing to give up on historical accuracy of the accounts of Jesus’s life, and even some of the historical details of the Passion Narrative. However, I haven’t met any that are willing to compromise the necessity of the resurrection. Indeed, some even argue that this is the ONLY thing which needs to have occurred in order for the gospel to be “true.” Presumably, the reason is because the atonement and miracle of Jesus’s resurrection are the foundation of our faith in him as the Son of God and as a demonstration of the efficacy of the gospel to effectuate eternal life. The essential truthfulness of the gospel is a great weight to hang on the shoulders of the resurrection.

Without denying the resurrection, I want to ask two questions. First, is the resurrection a sufficient cause for belief in the truthfulness of the gospel? Is this the only historical reality that needs to have occurred? Are all other truth claims contingent? Second, is the resurrection a necessary aspect of the gospel? This question is perhaps more controversial, but I think that it bears some consideration. Why is the resurrection necessary? Can the gospel still be true without it? Why or why not?

I think that the answer to both questions suggests something about what we take to be fundamental about religion. Is religion a morality system? A set of rituals? A community with shared culture and values? If it is any of these, then the resurrection does not need to be a historical reality in order for religion to have its efficacy. I think that most people would argue that religion (Mormon religion, at least) is a system of salvation, which is why the resurrection is necessary. But what is a system of salvation apart from morality, rituals, and community? Is the resurrection the true fundamental aspect of the gospel without which it all falls apart, or can there be a fully “secularized” understanding of the resurrection, as many have taken to be the case with the other miracles?