Author: davidj

In light of Ronan’s helpful rules on cultish behavior and public orthodoxy, my brother and I have developed yet another rule by which to measure our collective worth; especially in light of our place among the religions of the world. Introducing The TK Smoothie Rule.

You’re probably thinking, “David J, WTF is a TK Smoothie?!” Let me give you some background: I believe it was Joseph Fielding Smith who, in his typical cavalier doctrinal musings, indicated that the heirs of the telestial kingdom (that’s the worst one, btw), would not be able to reproduce sexually. The logical conclusion for JFS, then, was to say that the people in the TK would not have male or female genitalia. One also needs to remember that the Mormon view of sexuality in heaven is quite liberal, and that those who go to the celestial kingdom (that’s the best one, btw) will be able to eternally pro-create (possibly a TK Smoothie in itself, but bear with me). In order to do that, they will need their genitalia. So, for JFS, those who go to the CK will have their genitalia and be free to use it for reproductive means, and those who go to the TK will not have their genitalia.

This raises the question: “What will they have then?” Enter the TK Smoothie. About 1 year ago at BCC, some lively discussion ensued in which someone mentioned a TK Smoothie. The TK Smoothie, I came to find out, is the crotch(al) area of a person doomed to the TK. Since it has no features, it will be “smooth,” much like that crotch(al) area of a Barbie doll or a Ken doll. Sound ridiculous? I think it is, and that’s what the TK Smoothie rule is for.

Here’s how it works. If a doctrine of the church seems like it has been created in order to “fix” or explain another, it might be a TK Smoothie. The TK Smoothie is eponymous for all doctrines that are probably bogus but exist in order to clarify some other doctrine or speculation. This begs the question: what was the TK Smoothie doctrine attempting to clarify? We may never know, but at least we can invoke the TK Smoothie rule in order to identify it.

What are some of your (suspected) TK Smoothies?

My daily reading for all things Libertarian comes from LRC. I noticed today an interesting post referencing the Mo-Tab and a new CD/DVD collection based on the oft-quoted story of soldiers in WWII from opposing sides coming together to celebrate Christmas. (Could someone take the time to verify the historicity of this story? If it’s coming from the church, you can’t blame me for being a little bit skeptical…).

I haven’t heard it yet, but mine is on the way.

We frequently hear of our “baptismal covenants” in church and conference. I cannot quite pinpoint the exact spot in space-time, but I can say that a few years ago I began to view the “baptismal” covenant with suspicion. Why? It seemed that a lot of people were discussing the baptismal covenant, but I could not recall for myself what exactly that covenant entailed. With all the other covenants of the gospel, most of them housed in the temple, I could easily recall their stipulations, scope, focus, (and before 1990, their) penalties, etc. etc. I made a covenant of chastity which was laid out in detail before me, one of consecration that was explained to me, one not to reveal the little tidbits of the rituals, etc. etc. In each case, I bowed my head and said “yes.” I had volition. The ceremony itself allowed me to back out before it began (“if you don’t want to take upon yourself these obligations, raise your hand”). Same thing when I was married. The proctor (I still have a tough time calling them “sealers” if they’re not performing the fullness of the priesthood) looked at me and asked me if I would enter a covenant to keep my wife and I said “yes.” I could have said “no.” Same with her. Volition was present. The choice was mine, and I made it. The ceremony allowed for this. None of the stipulations in these covenants were given by implication, all were explicit and given to me in plain speech.

Continue reading “On the “Baptismal” Covenant”

Recenly, I read a comment that the realm of “Outer Darkness” does not really qualify as “Hell” because there will be “so few” who inherit it, probably about 6 or 7 people in total. Not only does this border on unitarian universalism, but we would be making a mistake, I believe, in completely dismissing the word “Hell” from our vocabulary as a substitute for “Outer Darkness.” The word “Hell” comes in handy when teaching discussions as a missionary and in discussing soteriology with non-Mormons. Among other members, the term “Outer Darkness” functions just fine.

But why the idea that so few will go there? I scoured the scriptures and the teachings of JS and came up empty-handed on this idea. Furthermore, I believe that there will be many who wind up in that dreadful place (maybe even me), and that to indicate that one knows the exact number of folks who go there is not only passing judgment on others (and therefore putting judgment in God’s mouth where none was invited), but also an admission that God’s punishment is fixed and knowable to the finite mind.

Here are some of the tidbits that I found:

“Evidently many among us have made a dreadful mistake, but not unpardonable, in thinking that the sons of perdition will be very few. We have heard it said at times that they will be so few that they probably could be “counted on the fingers of one hand.” Where this thought originated we may not know. From the reading of the scriptures it appears that there will be a large number; far too many even if there were but one, for their punishment is most severe without any question.” Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 5 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1957-1966), 1: 78.

And again:

44 Wherefore, he saves all except them—they shall go away into everlasting punishment, which is endless punishment, which is eternal punishment, to reign with the devil and his angels in eternity, where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched, which is their torment—
45 And the end thereof, neither the place thereof, nor their torment, NO MAN KNOWS;
46 Neither was it revealed, neither is, neither will be revealed unto man, except to them who are made partakers thereof;
47 Nevertheless, I, the Lord, show it by vision unto many, but straightway shut it up again;
48 Wherefore, the end, the width, the height, the depth, and the misery thereof, they understand not, neither any man except those who are ordained unto this condemnation.(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 76:44 – 48)

It seems from this that for one to know how many people are going to be in Outer Darkness serves as a qualifier for candidacy therein.

It is commonly believed, and I think correct to say, that those who find themselves in this place have commited the unpardonable sin. About that JS said that “this will be the case with many apostates of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (TPJS, 358).

Regardless of who qualifies as an apostate doomed for outer darkness, it seems clear that in the early days of the church, this notion that one could count the people who will wind up in that place on the fingers of one hand did not exist. Perhaps this notion ought to be re-examined.

I’ve struggled for a little while about asking those of you in the bloggernacle who read FPR about this topic for some time, but I resolved that I really, really want your opinion on it. I know what my file leader’s response to some of these issues would be, but your opinion is the one to which I most adhere, and to which I listen best. It’s also a carefully calculated opinion, and is generally well thought out. I like that about you, bloggernacle. You’re smart and courteous.

We change our rituals and ceremonies on occaision, for reasons which are largely nebulous. Some say it’s because of sociological changes, others due to direct revelation, others say it’s in order to speed up the posthumous ceremony process. Regardless of why they might change, the fact is that they change. And when they do, something is usually trimmed off. Something new is rarely added, unless it’s some form of clarification or alternate way of doing what was once done in the past.

In my own temple-going lifetime, the changes in 1990 were the most drastic. Again, details aside, much was trimmed off which was probably uncomfortable for many people. In fact, it has come to my attention that this is perhaps why some of those elements were trimmed off. People were uncomfortable.

A good friend of mine pointed out to me that the 1990 changes (and perhaps even the February 2005 changes to the initiatory) were survey-driven changes. Folks in certain regions were polled on what they thought about this or that, and then changes were made. My own grandparents were among those who were polled. Before I knew about the surveys, I remember asking Grandpa about the changes, and why the church would do such a thing. His response: “Progress!” He said that this is what the Lord revealed. It made me wonder: if we keep “progressing,” will the Lord continue to “bless” us by trimming away his ceremonies until they’re all gone? Probably not. I learned a few years later that he was polled about the 1990 changes before they went into effect. It seems that even though Grandpa was polled, he still thought that it was revelation which kickstarted the changes. Enter the paradox.

So it makes me wonder: Are our rituals susceptible to our own wills? If so, what changes can we expect in the future?

While studying the Elijah narrative in school last semester, and now once again for Sunday School, I was impressed with the literary flavor the book displays. There are many literary devices and tools by which an author may express him or herself. Some of these devices are given various names. Some use causation as a way of moving a story forward (“Because you have sinned against Yahweh, then…”), others use comparison (“consider the lillies of the field”), etc. etc.

Continue reading “Contrast in the Elijah Narrative”