A discussion I had recently with a friend of mine reminded me of one of my other favorite soap boxes that I haven’t stood on in this forum before. No, it has nothing to do with swearing (in a traditional sense at least). Today I’m more interested in the sort of curses that God lays on peoples. Like on the Lamanites and stuff. And yeah I know that there is nothing new in the ‘Nacle so I’ll just say outright that I haven’t even looked elsewhere to see who has already broached the subject and what they said. Feel free to restate and/or link. Continue reading “Curses!”
Have We Been Praying to Her All Along?
Submitted from an anonymous reader:
If “the song of the righteous is a prayer” (D&C 25:12), does singing “O My Father” constitute praying to Heavenly Mother? It does, after all, contain the line “Father, Mother, may I meet you / In your royal courts on high? / Then, at length, when I’ve completed / All you sent me forth to do / With your mutual approbation / Let me come and dwell with you.”
Is the “Family” the problem?
It is evident that the LDS church has made the institution of the nuclear family its centerpiece in both its external PR and internal emphasis. There are many wonderful things that can be said about such an approach. The rise and fall of the nuclear family in the 20th century is certainly an interesting moment in history and much can and should be said about this trend in the coming years. I have been doing a bit of reading lately that has got me thinking about the role of the family and the critiques it has faced by different religious thinkers.
Continue reading “Is the “Family” the problem?”
The Mark of the Bar Code
A recent comment prompted a post for discussion and speculation on the new bar coded-temple recommends that have been issued. In case you haven’t heard, all temple recommends will need to be converted over to the new versions. The temple will no longer accept the old recommends starting relatively soon. So, we are left with the question of what prompted the change.
Continue reading “The Mark of the Bar Code”
Timing Tithing
In my understanding of the GHI, there is no answer to the question that I have about tithing, so I wanted to throw it out to get some feedback. The question concerns when one should pay their tithing. There are many members of the church who pay tithing on their income the moment that they receive it. Others pay it at the beginning of the month. Others pay it once a year. I am interested in whether or not one method is preferable.
Continue reading “Timing Tithing”
The Joy of Suffering
The Gospel is a strange thing sometimes. Often, it challenges our most fundamental conceptions of truth. It forces us to question our basic assumptions about humanity. This is no more clear instance than in the value and valorization of suffering in the scriptures. For example, the Lukan Beatitutes offer a vision of salvation for those who suffer the most in this world. This overall theme is difficult to miss in Jesus’s ministry. The model of discipleship is suffering. Jesus’s instructions to departing missionaries are to take minimal provisions. The culmination of this is in Jesus’s command “If any will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me” (Luke 9:23 and par). The suffering of the cross is not imposed by an outside power, but commanded by Jesus himself. Similarly, 1 Peter 2:21-25, 2 Cor 10-12, the list goes on and on.
Continue reading “The Joy of Suffering”
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”
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?”
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.
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?