Category: Uncategorized

Hello, Everyone! This post comes from one our favorite contributors, David Clark. He gets around the bloggernacle and apparently he gets around the larger theological universe, as well. I think you’ll enjoy this post. I know I did when I first read it.

Mogs

The impetus for this post comes from a blog entry at Parchment and Pen: a theology blog. I encourage everyone to go and read the full blog entry. The blog is written by an evangelical Christian for evangelical Christians. However, in this blog entry if you just mentally replace all references to “Christian” with “Mormon” you get an insightful commentary on the state of our church with respect to intellectual crisis. I found this blog insightful for two reasons: 1) Evangelicals face many of the same problems we do; it’s alway nice to see that you are not alone and 2) his solution to the problem is in my opinion the right one as it goes beyond “innoculation” which has been discussed online recently (see the blog formerly known as a podcast called Mormon Matters).

In a nutshell what is the intellectual crisis facing evangelical churches?:

The majority of churches simply do not stimulate serious discussion concerning matters of theology. Most people do not find the church as a safe place to ask serious questions. In fact, most people are trained to fear any doubt, reserve questions, or to put away any sinful antagonistic feeling concerning any challenge that comes to the table.

Sounds very similar to complaints from some Mormons.

Continue reading “The Parallel Universe of Evangelical Christianity”

I’m sure we’re all very familiar with the advice that Pres. Hinkley’s father gave to him shortly after Pres. Hinkley arrived in England on his mission and was feeling a little down and out: “Forget yourself and get to work!”. 

The notion of “forgetting” is rarely used in a positive sense in LDS discourse (and probably in Christian or even Western discourse in general). Indeed we are admonished to “remember” certain things such as the covenants we made when we were baptized, and to pay particular attention to versus of scripture that doubly exhort us to “remember, remember….” (for instance Helaman 5:9, and this from Spencer W. Kimball, quoted in the SS Manual: “When you look in the dictionary for the most important word, do you know what it is? It could be ‘remember.’ Because all of [us] have made covenants … our greatest need is to remember. That is why everyone goes to sacrament meeting every Sabbath day—to take the sacrament and listen to the priests pray that [we] ‘… may always remember him and keep his commandments which he has given [us].’ … ‘Remember’ is the word” (Circles of Exaltation [address to religious educators, Brigham Young University, 28 June 1968], 8)). Continue reading “Forgetting Morality”

Among the LDS films worth watching is 2003’s Saints and Soldiers. I’m sure it’s been discussed around the Naccle several times, so google if you’re interested. I liked the film. And now you can watch it for free, from Hulu.com. Direct link

In spite of the prophetic statement in D&C 89 that the Word of Wisdom was given because of conditions particular to our own time, many LDS read it back into the scriptures in one form or another. “Wine,” for example, only means “grape juice” or some such. I view these historically inaccurate statements as attempts to legitimate or rationalize the Word of Wisdom. For myself, I keep the Word of Wisdom because I believe that it is God’s will for me, and I have covenanted to keep it. (Sidenote: Interesting paper on the authority of doctrine.) Historically speaking, however, several things are fairly undisputable regardint the use of alcohol in the Old Testament. Continue reading “Take your tithing and have a kegger, thus saith the Lord?!”

A little while ago TT wrote about a debate in the field of Religious Studies concerning the role of personal judgment in scholarship. “Bracketing” one’s judgment, meant withholding a pronouncement of “superstitious”, “backward”, or even “good or bad” on the people or objects one studies. The scholar’s role in this regard is to provide an accurate and sympathetic account of religious attitudes and actions. S/he attempts to see the world from the place of an other, and understand them in their own terms. This is sometimes described as a methodological “agnosticism”, that at least leaves the door open for the real possibility of religious experience by not ruling it out from the get-go. Thus for LDS scholars, there is a strong benefit to this position in that it provides an opportunity to study and produce scholarship about religious claims without having to “come out of the closet” so to speak in regards to their personal beliefs which may not be widely shared (or accepted). Some form of bracketing in this general sense is the dominant position in the field. Continue reading “Compartmentalizing the Bracket and the Problem of Creep”

 

I was recently introduced to the term “new order” Mormons (or is it new order Mormonism).

This is apparently not a new term, but nonetheless new to me. Do any of our erudite FPR readers have an interpretation of the label “new order” as it relates to Mormonism? What are its origins? Does anyone still use it to describe themselves?

Since thinking about what it means to be a “new order” Mormon, I have not been able to get the song “Blue Monday” by the 1980s band New Order out of my head. I have decided to share it.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niCfmQajoh0]

 

Maybe this is a song about Family Home Evening in the homes of liberal Mormon intellectuals.

In our two previous posts we discussed the curriculum as well as what to cover in the theory and introductory courses for our new major. In this post I’d like to raise the issue of how the “areas of emphasis” should be structured and who/where we could draw from in creating classes from these areas. 

Areas of emphasis (or areas of study–AoS) are organized differently depending on the organizing committee’s perception of “religious studies” as well as the school’s strengths. Below are three options of organization, although often times more than one is adopted to meet the diverse opinions of what constitutes religious studies, as well as the fact that they often overlap (how can one do sociology of religion for instance without focusing on an area or tradition?):

• By Area:

            Religion in America, Europe, Africa, etc.

            A strength of this approach is that it allows one to do more inter-disciplinary and inter-traditional work. A weakness is that if strictly interpreted one could end up knowing very little about any particular tradition outside of one geographical location. It’s also possible to end up ill-trained in many disciplines, but proficient in none.

• By Tradition:

            Islam, Judaism, Christianity, etc., and at BYU, I would imagine, Mormonism.

            A strength of this approach is that it allows one’s work to extend beyond a geographic location. Islam, as we know, is a major religion of SE Asia for instance. A weakness is that in some cases the category of a religious ‘tradition’ is a construction of Western attempts to assert a universality of ‘religion’ (see for instance Oddie’s Imagined Hinduism). Working according to ‘traditions’ therefore could play into this bias.

• By Discipline:

            History, Philosophy, Sociology, Anthropology, etc. 

            A strength of this approach is that it gives the student a firm grounding in a particular discipline. A weakness is that these approaches sometimes lack the depth into a particular tradition. A philosopher of religion, for instance, might not be well informed about the history of Christianity.

So, here are the questions:

Given BYU’s current scenario, how should the “areas of emphasis” be structured? What kinds of areas of emphasis could be offered?

Which faculty members should be drawn from in teaching classes in these areas? Related to this question are the more sensitive issues of: Should current classes in Religious Education count? Will faculty from RE be allowed to teach classes in RS? On what basis will this be determined?

In responding to these latter questions, let’s try to keep comments from becoming too personal.

Every so often I like to drop in and chat with you Mormons about your understanding of my epistle. There’s always been a great deal of interest in this passage:

James 1:2-8 2 Consider it all joy, my brothers, when you encounter various trials, 3 for you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. 4 And let perseverance be perfect, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. 5 But if any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God who gives to all generously and ungrudgingly, and he will be given it. 6 But he should ask in faith, nothing wavering, for the one who wavers is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed about by the wind. 7 For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord, 8 since he is a man of two minds, unstable in all his ways.

You’re supposed to be interested in becoming perfect in the sense of being complete or whole. Good idea, no? This means that you view Life’s Little Issues as the opportunity for joy. As a believer who’s doing everything else right, the thing you really need and that you might be short on is the wisdom to do this. And in the Wisdom Tradition, God is the source of wisdom. Lucky for you that God is identified precisely as the One who Gives, isn’t it?

Now here’s a key point. You know that business about “nothing wavering?” It means that because God is the One who Gives, you can ask with perfect confidence that he will respond. It doesn’t mean that you have all the answers because, remember, you’re short on wisdom. Smarts, you know, the ability to deal properly with the things that challenge and try us, to see them as a source of “joy.”

Now the thing is, I’ve also defined the nature of this wisdom for you. Yup. But because I put it a few chapters away, and because your GD is only forty minutes long, and because you do so need to get to the bottom of how many polygamous marriages can be solemnized on the head of pin in that forty minutes, you almost never find it. Anyway, here you go:

James 3:13-18 13 Who among you is wise and understanding? Let him show his works by a good life in wisdom’s meekness.

Wisdom’s meekness? That’s the approach to life that admits you don’t have all the answers and that God does. Trust in God and all that.

14 But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth. 15 Wisdom of this kind does not come down from above but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. 16 For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there is disorder and every foul practice.

We Sages sometimes can’t quite make up our mind about things but on one point we tend to be quite clear. Folks who work in a wisdom tradition that comes from below find themselves engaged in lots of strife. And there’s a clear contrast with the other kind of wisdom:

17 But the wisdom from above is first of all pure, then peaceable, gentle, compliant, full of mercy and good fruits, without inconstancy or insincerity. 18 And the fruit that is righteousness is sown in peace by those who cultivate peace.

So now…if you would like to recognize folks who have actually managed to get close to the “nothing wavering” standard and so receive the wisdom from above, you’ll see a way of life characterized by peace and peacemaking. It is this wisdom that enables them to create and achieve relationships that are peaceful precisely in those situations that invite conflict.

Nothing Wavering. Indeed.

Yesterday’s post was on Vatican II as a background to Dei Verbum. Here you will see how the Catholics talk about integrating critical methods with the pastoral mission of the Church. This is a very interesting topic, but I am assured that students at BYU would find this scary and useless (See comment #30) so if you came out of that institution you’ll want to read the rest of this with your eyes closed and the blankets over your head.

Although pretty much all of the documents of Vatican II made extensive use of scripture (the result of the research directed by Divino), the teaching of the Council on scripture is found in the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation and called Dei Verbum. This document has six chapters, five of which we’ll cover today.

Continue reading “Dei Verbum: The Word of God in Modern Times”