Category: Uncategorized

I actually do not have much time to put together a thorough review (which the film certainly deserves), but this is probably the only chance that I’ll have in the next week or so and it airs on the 30th.

The piece I’m discussing here is the first of the two-part series and deals with the history of Mormonism (the second part deals with the contemporary church).

The first film is two hours long is divided into 6 “acts”: Revelation, The Saints, Persecution, Exodus, Mountain Meadows, and Polygamy.

Interviews are done with: Richard Bushman, Kathleen Flake, Will Bagley, Judith Freeman, Dan Peterson, Jeffrey R. Holland, Terryl Givens, Greg Prince, Ken Clark, Harold Bloom, Dallin H. Oaks, Ken Verdoia, and few others. Continue reading “The Mormons on PBS an Early Review”

Lehi and Nephi have apocalypses? Why doesn’t anyone else? (Brother of Jared doesn’t count, he’s not a Lehite) Continue reading “Apocalypticism in the Book of Mormon and the Striking Lack Thereof”

Oxford Press, like some other publishers, have been cooperating to make their books available in various electronic forms. I’ve mentioned Logos before, as one example. Google books is another, as J. Stapley points out.

I’m also aware of two subscription services, which most University students can access for free through a University connection. The first is something called Ebrary.com I stumbled over this at BYU when I was looking for Marc Brettler’s Creation of History in Ancient Israel and discovered that they had an electronic copy of his The Book of Judges. This and many other scholarly books are available and text-searchable through ebrary. I haven’t played with it much, and I have no guidance to how to use it or finding out if your University has access.

The second subscription service is www.OxfordScholarship.com which publishes Oxford titles. A recent announcement proclaims that starting in September of this year, “the majority of its scholarly monograph publishing” will be available on-line. This will include some excellent titles, available wherever you can get internet access (University proxies) , negating the need, perhaps, for interlibrary loan or typing out lengthy quotations into your notes.

A few of Oxford’s relevant titles- Marc Brettler’s How to Read the Bible and Teryl Givens’ By the Hand of Mormon, will both be worthy additions. Notable already are Mark Smith’s Origins of Biblical Monotheism and Jerome Murphy-O’Connor’s biography of Paul, and Hoffmeier’s Ancient Israel in Sinai, to pick a few of the nuggets 🙂

A complete pdf list of all religion books currently available can be downloaded from the bottom of this page.

Edit: Looks like By the Hand of Mormon is already available .

As Mormons we believe that all human beings have the capability to become like God. Part of this is based in the notion that we are the spirituatl offspring of God (in other words we were “born” and “begotten” in a pre-existence and “reared” accordingly). In this life we are gods in embryo learning what it means to become like him (and her). Indeed this is part (if not all) of our human nature.

One of the questions I’ve been thinking about lately is whether this God-like nature is something “discovered” or “recovered”. From the discovery perspective this nature is something given to us by God; and we “discover” it as it is revealed to us by the Holy Ghost. It is made available to us because we are actively seeking to know God and cultivate a relationship with him. From the recovery perspective, this God-like nature is already within us and what we must do is to “look within” and live our lives in such a way that it shines forth.

Not that these two models are mutually exclusive, but I think which one we gravitate toward will shape our world-view. For instance, with the discovery model the things I do such as reading the scriptures, participating in the ordinances, etc. are about gaining knowledge that is not necessarily inherent in me, and they are done so that God will reveal to me, my role in his plan. Texts (such as the BoM or Bible) play a vital role because they serve as the “keys” for unlocking the mysteries of God which they hold.

In the recovery model, the same actions (ordinances, etc.) are done, but not for the sake of receiving some external knowledge about what one should do. Instead these actions serve to align the self in such a way that one’s god-like nature can shine through. Texts play a rather different role in this theory because the mysteries they unlock are actually mysteries that are already contained within the self.

I always figured that the last sign of the apocalypse would be that the Boston Red Sox would win the World Series. And then they did. Then I shifted to the White Sox, and they did too. Then I tried to imagine something that would prolong the apocalypse (in my mind, anyway) until far, far beyond my own lifetime: Mormons giving up on all things conservative.

Well, the majority of Mormons may not be heaving out conservatism entirely (one can only dream in my case…), but they are beginning to not feel the glow of the spirit when the Iraq war comes to mind. I found this today at one of my usual daily reading websites. It appears that the usual Mormon support for whatever is painted Republican, in this case Bush’s (illegal/unconstitutional/unprovoked) war in Iraq, has begun to wane. It is no secret or even matter of opinion that Bush is quite obdurate, but when the good state of Utah and its predominant redness begins to turn on you, you gotta know your time is about up.

Perhaps Utah isn’t as neo-conned as I thought. Or maybe Bush is just that bad. Who knows.

I like this little quip at the end of the synopse: “Mormon leaders in the church and government have been signaling that good Mormons can oppose the war” (emphasis mine). Oh, so I guess before these statements from the church the general consensus was that those of us anti-war Mormons were not good Mormons…

Dave’s post over at DMI reminded me of first time I heard that Mormonism didn’t have “theology”. Back then I thought, “You’ve got to be kidding me!” As I listened, though, I slowly understood. I also agreed. However, the more I’ve listened to discussions on the topic, the more I’ve found the claim problematic.

The problem with this, as I see it is (at least) two-fold:

First of all, “theology” is removed from it’s broader sense of “faith seeking understanding” to a more specialized/technical sense that disqualifies not only Mormonism from having theology, but just about every religion besides Christianity (and only certain kinds of Christianity there in). Etymological concerns aside, I’m not persuaded that this amounts to much more than saying Mormons have not engaged in activities such as those done by Schleiermacher or convened councils to enact creeds. Many, if not all of these conclusions are already known, and could be arrived at without invoking the term ‘theology’. I am also not persuaded that much is gained by using so narrow a definition.

Secondly (and this is the bone I really wanted to pick), it seems that all too often we use the notion of no “theology” to create a convenient “other” for us to work in opperation against. “We” are a-theological and not bound by the same constructs as “they” are. We revel in our a-theology because it gives us the leeway to build multiple intellectual positions, and not be so hard and fast in our definitions and doctrines. I believe this leads to us creating ways of thinking that are “Orientalist” in as much as we require this “other” for self definition and identity.

Earlier comments made by Mogget that the BoM tends to deal with the “other” in terms of conversion, military conquest, or basically “ignoring” them has got me thinking. How do we as a people deal reconcile difference? I’m less inclined to make a textual observation here (as I believe Mogs was doing); and instead am speaking socio-culturally.

I think there are a variety of (sometimes competing) alternatives we already employ in dealing with difference (both internal and external differences). In some regards this is directly related to recent posts dealing with the problem of history and theology, or scholarship and faith. What I would like to do here is creating a listing of sorts–a taxonomy that identifies the ways in which we reconcile these kind of challenges. Below are four methods that I would suggest we already use. The questions I would like to ask are, what other modes of reconciliation do we or should we employ? What are the strengths and weakness with each of these approaches? Should some of these be “dismissed” as ineffective or non-viable means of dealing with difference?

Eclecticism: The selective adoption or rejection of specific concepts to the de-emphasis and overemphasis of others. E.g., We have become the “Book of Mormon generation” where the BoM is employed much more frequently than the Bible. In the Bible we emphasis certain portions and downplay others. The Gospels compared with the epistles, for instance.

Ecumenicism: An exercise of faith where God’s omniscience is trusted to somehow tie the differences together into “one great whole”. E.g., Different Mormons can have differing opinions as to God’s relationship with the world he has created. How much does he intervene? How do we explain evil? The scripture mastery verse in Isaiah is usually implied with Ecumenicism: “His ways are greater than our ways.” (pardon my paraphrasing)

Compartmentalism: Different circumstances call for different responses. E.g., In Polynesia, many males wear the traditional lavalava to church rather than slacks. Comparmentalism is also used to explain how early members of the church (or even individuals in the scriptures) did things differently because they were of a different time (drinking of wine for instance). We often employ Compartmentalism with the phrase, “It’s the Spirit that matters.”

Inclusivism: The reworking of the concepts of the “other” in a shared terminology (or often purely in our own terminology). E.g., Most people believe in a supreme being, but we call him by different names.

One of the key differences between the story of the death of Jesus in Matthew and that of Mark is the narration of the fate of Judas in Mt. 27:3-10.  This story plays a variety of roles in Matthew’s story.  It’s another of Matthew’s famous fulfillment citations.  It fills a narrative gap in the Marcan version, which mentions the perfidy of Judas but not his fate.  And along with the story of the dream of Pilate’s wife, it also affirms the innocence of Jesus. 

There is, however, more to the story than this.  Here are the pertinent verses from the NRSV: 

³ When Judas, his betrayer, saw that Jesus was condemned, he repented and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. ⁴ He said, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.” But they said, “What is that to us? See to it yourself.” ⁵ Throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself.

Continue reading “The Matthean Judas”

Seriously. This is a real question. We’ve been so busy patting ourselves on the back about Claremont, USU, and Wyoming, that I have rarely heard anything interesting about what the category of Mormon Studies consists of (the Yale grad student conference was an exception to this, from what I understand). At T&S, Nate Oman reflects on whether or not to include his research on Mormonism as part of his Letter to the Dean. The response (so far) is that Catholic Studies and Islamic Studies exist, so why not Mormon studies? But this question is to side step the issue.
Continue reading “What is Mormon Studies?”

I have been thinking a lot lately about ex-Mos. In so doing, I imagine what their excommunications are like, or what their mindset was like when they petitioned to have their ‘records removed.’ I even know some ex-Mos; some who have taken the long way back into membership, others who have left the church, and others who have left the church but cannot leave it alone (There was a great post at BCC over this, but I can’t find the link). Instead of concentrating on the ex-Mo himself, I have been thinking about all the people affected by the ex-Mos departure (assuming he/she decides to stay out and not seek a way back).

I may sound reductionistic, but it seems like there are two kinds of ex-Mos: 1) those who commit a sin the church considers egregious and are excommunicated, and 2) those who leave without committing serious sin, or who leave for intellectual reasons. In both cases, membership is revoked (ie, I’m not discussing the habitually inactive). It seems to me that the group who fall into the first category are generally welcomed back, given the hand of fellowship, and receive a lot of help along the way. However, I have known a few people (mostly from my days as a missionary a long time ago) who left the church for intellectual reasons. Their faith could no longer support Mormonism’s claims. With this latter group, I almost never saw the same heart-warming reactions among those affected by the ex-Mo’s decision to leave. Instead I noted contempt, disdain, abandonment, and often ridicule. Sometimes I wonder if things might have gone easier/smoother if the person who fled over intellectual disagreements had instead confessed to an (imaginary?) egregious transgression in order to avoid some of these post-membership complications.

Again, I know I might appear like I’m being overly reductionistic, but I do believe there is a kernel of truth in this. (If I could steer the comments, I would ask only those who have observed the same thing or something very similar to respond). In my sincere heart of hearts, I wonder why those who choose exile over intellectual incompatibility seem to receive ill treatment over those who fall victim to their passions.

Any suggestions why this may be?