Dave's Mormon Inquiry

English Bibles

I found an interesting summary of English Bible History. I'm somewhat familiar with the general story but I discovered some new details. For example:

• The King James Bible in general use today, dated as 1611, is actually based on the 1769 Baskerville revisions of wording and spelling, despite the inclusion of the 1611 Preface at the front.
• On the other hand, the KJV itself is textually 95% the same as the Geneva Bible of 1560, which itself retained over 90% of William Tyndale's original English translations dating to 1525.
• The first Bible printed in America (in 1633) was done in Algonquin, not English.
• Up until the 1880s, all Protestant Bibles included the Apocrypha. The Bibles Joseph Smith used, both as a youth and later as the head of the Church, thus had the Apocrypha in them, which is rather interesting. Here's a link to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article on the Apocrypha and, of course, D&C 91. The following verse from the Apocrypha might ring a bell, for example: "And Neemias called this thing Naphthar, which is as much as to say, a cleansing: but many men call it Nephi" (2 Maccabees 1:36).
• The New American Standard Bible (NASB) is the best word-for-word or formal equivalent translation in English, while the popular New International Version (NIV) Bible is a dynamic equivalent translation, easier to read but less favored by serious students of the Bible.

Adventists Back Literal Creation

BYU NewsNet has an interesting article which opens with: "The Seventh-day Adventist Church released a statement last October regarding their official stance on the creation of the earth stating that the 'earth was created in six literal days and is of recent origin.'" The Adventist position is of less interest that the BYU reporter's perspective, providing nothing but glowing praise for the Adventist position. For example, an official document listing "11 statements specific to the Adventists’ views on creation, science and revelation and the need to teach correct principles regarding their correlation" is cited. The article goes on to point up similarities between the LDS Church and the Adventists: "The belief in a creation period is one of several Adventist beliefs that are similar to those of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, including a reverent observance of the Sabbath, payment of tithes and offer-ings, and a baptism of members at an older age than most protestant faiths." Yikes! The reporter shows no awareness that LDS doctrine is anything other than creation in six literal days. Just another casualty of the CES program to "educate" LDS youth.

The Evangelical Mind

For the online essay of the week, go read The Evangelical Mind Today, a short piece by noted religious historian Mark Noll over at First Things.  Noll authored the controversial book The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind ten years ago--the article at First Things gives his comments on how things look ten years later, which is pretty much the same.  His opening sentence: "Ten years after the publication of The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, I remain largely unrepentant about the book’s historical arguments, its assessment of evangelical strengths and weaknesses, and its indictment of evangelical intellectual efforts, though I have changed my mind on a few matters." The following paragraph from the article sums up his critique:

Yet on the whole, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind still seems to me correct in its descriptions and evaluations. What is true throughout the Christian world is true for American Christians: we who are in pietistic, generically evangelical, Baptist, fundamentalist, Restorationist, holiness, "Bible church," megachurch, or Pentecostal traditions face special difficulties when putting the mind to use. Taken together, American evangelicals display many virtues and do many things well, but built-in barriers to careful and constructive thinking remain substantial.

The LDS Church is Restorationist and shares many features of the Evangelical approach to religion. Does Noll's critique extend to Mormonism as well?

Modern Fundamentalism, Part II

Here's some background that might make Part I more understandable. First Things posted a short review some years ago of a detailed, scholarly treatment entitled Fundamentalisms Observed, edited by Martin Marty and Scott Appleby (U of Chicago, 1991). Here's a paragraph from the review summarizing their definition of fundamentalism:

A fundamentalism is defined as a counterattack in the name of religious tradition against the forces of modernity, a reaction that selectively recovers portions of the tradition in question while at the same time utilizing modern techniques. It is acknowledged to have a true religious spirit, and to forge a firm identity amidst crisis and change. In its nature, say the editors, a fundamentalism seeks a comprehensive system for human life and so is hostile to isolating religion from social and political life.

That captures the sense in which I referred to modern Protestant fundamentalism and Evangelicals as "modern."

For the other side of the coin, go read another First Things article entitled Mainline Churches: The Real Reason for Decline. The authors of the article present data supporting the views advanced by Dean M. Kelly in his book Why Conservative Churches Are Growing (HarperCollins, 1972), summarized here:

Kelly argued that the mainline denominations have lost members because they have become weak as religious bodies. Strong religions provide clear-cut, compelling answers to questions concerning the meaning of life, mobilize their members' energies for shared purposes, require a distinctive code of conduct, and discipline their members for failure to live up to it. Weak religions allow a diversity of theological viewpoints, do not and can not command much of their members' time or effort, promote few if any distinctive rules of conduct, and discipline no one for violating them. In short, strong religions foster a level of commitment that binds members to the group; weak religions have low levels of commitment and are unable to resist influences that lower it even further.

So I was just pulling together in Part I, in my own compressed blog style, ideas about the rise of modern fundamentalist or conservative or Evangelical churches and the decline of mainline Protestant churches which have been circulating for 30 years.

Calvin the Modernist

Building on my earlier Calvin post, here's another to do him justice. If he wasn't yet a modernist, he certainly helped move the Reformation away from the static, conservative worldview that defined every society before the modern age and toward the dynamic, evolving modern view we have today. Here are comments from Karen Armstrong in The Battle for God:

[Calvin] believed that Christians should express their faith by taking part in political and social life rather than by retreating to a monastery. Calvin helped to baptize the emergent capitalist work ethic by declaring labor to be a sacred calling, not, as the medievals thought, a divine punishment for sin. Nor did Calvin subscribe to Luther's disenchantment of the natural world. He believed that it was possible to see God in his creation, and commended the study of astronomy, geography, and biology. . . . Calvin saw no contradiction between science and scripture. The Bible, he believed, was not imparting literal information about geography or cosmology, but was trying to express ineffable truth in terms that limited human beings could understand. (p. 67)

That's a remarkably progressive view of things for a religious thinker living before the Scientific Revolution of the 17th century. Calvin lived from 1509-64, dying the year Galileo was born.

About John Calvin

There's a short article by Peterson and Hamblin on John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion over at the always-interesting Meridian Magazine. He was a theologian, a systematizer, and an organizational genius who laid the foundation for the spread of "presbyterian" churches across Western Europe and then across to America. Then, strangely, the American Calvinist theology of human depravity simply dried up and disappeared, replaced by entirely unCalvinist but highly popular idea that men and women could actually contribute to their own salvation by freely accepting the gospel (think frontier revival meetings) and even by doing other good works (giving grace a helping hand).

I confess, however, that I find it very difficult to get a handle on Calvin's theology. I can understand the definitions, I just can't grasp that Calvinists actually affirmed and embraced predestination as an operative ethical principle. For a more detailed examination of John Calvin's thought, try this article on Calvin at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Islam and Evangelizing

Get Religion has a post highlighting the difference between Christian and Islamic approaches to evangelizing. Christian states ("The West") have open societies and with a (relatively) free market in religion. Islamic states have closed societies where only Islam is permitted and Christian preaching, Christian churches, and Christian literature are all proscribed or strongly discouraged. As the article points out, Islam is on the rise in Christian states, whereas Christianity is in decline even where it is permitted. Obviously this picture cheers those who favor the spread of Islam and gives pause to those of us who value liberty. I ought to have something to add about Mormonism here (an aggressively evangelistic Christian denomination) but nothing leaps to mind.

Something Rotten in Denmark

A Danish clergyman of the Lutheran Protestant Church (LPC) faces a church trial over his public statements that he does not believe in God, resurrection, or eternal life [link from The Revealer]. The problem isn't that this pastor's faith headed south. What's wrong is that the LPC needs to hold a trial to figure out whether those views are incompatible with being an LPC minister. What's wrong is they may very well decide those views are okay as long as the pastor makes it clear to his flock they are perfectly justified in maintaining their own faith in such things.

Luther, a bold believer if ever there was one, must surely be puzzled over Lutheranism and the state of Christianity in Germany and Scandinavia. I attended the confirmation of a friend's teenage daughter at a Lutheran church in Sweden a few years ago. Dozens and dozens of youth participating, several hundred observers, flowers, singing, a really big deal. Yet these same Swedes design their homes with a little bedroom right by the front door so their teenagers can sneak in unobtrusively (without Mom and Dad having to notice) with the friend of their choice and experiment with Nordic sex--the teenagers don't have cars, you see. It's all so nicely planned, almost programmed. But it shows how lightly they carry their Lutheranism. I can't see how the Danish pastor can possibly be convicted. He's probably quite popular locally. I'll bet dimes to donuts it's his embarrassing popularity that is the problem, not his beliefs per se!

Homosexuality Issue Splitting Methodists

Christianity Today has a short but pleasant editorial on the intra-denominational politics of the homosexuality issue, which is slowly splitting Methodism in two. CT is Evangelical in orientation, so the editorial critiques the Liberal position but it does so rather gently. It points up (to me, anyway) how tough it is for Christian Liberals to defend their right flank. It isn't just that fundamentalists are good Bible-thumpers--the problem is there isn't much solid ground for Liberals to build their position on. It's hard to flesh out "tolerance" into a workable, defensible position that stops short of total acceptance and endorsement. No one is happy just being "tolerated."

Liberals are stuck in the middle, criticized by both extremes. Unfortunately, this whole critique seems to apply to Mormon Liberals with as much force as to Liberal Protestants. Noting how gays "coming out" mirrors the liberal idea that religion is about finding one's true self, the article makes this trenchant summary:

This exaltation of the self first blossomed in the values-clarification sex education curriculum used by many denominations in the 1970s—in which teenagers' self-chosen value systems became the authority for their sexual ethics. We now see its flowering in the Christian gay culture, in which gays feel they will "wither and die" (as one homoerotic bishop recently put it) if they cannot express their sexuality.

The Pagan Christ, Debunked

Here's a nice article debunking the idea, popular in some circles, that the Christian motifs of the life of Jesus came from pagan sources, especially Egyptian sources (link from Cronaca). In fact, the scholarship on which that view was founded is far out of date.

If you like the first Cronoca link, try the later one to a similar revision of the standard story of the Spanish Inquisition too. It was actually a fair and enlightened tribunal. Surprising? Yes. But fair or not, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Holy Oil

A page from the "Where Are They Now?" book: Hal Lindsey, well-known campus evangelist and writer of the phenomenally successful 70s book The Late Great Planet Earth, is now zealously promoting an oil exploration company. It's called Zion Oil & Gas (ZOG), but it's there's no link to Utah Zion, this is strictly Evangelical Zion. It's well known that Utahns who fall under the spell of holy riches opt for mining or multi-level marketing, not oil drilling. ZOG's drilling efforts are informed by Lindsey's take on Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33. Maybe they should review this one too.

Faith, Evidence, and Rationality

Freespace (looking good on the new Typepad platform) has an interesting post disputing the meaning of the term "faith." Here's a quote:

But the relevant use of the term “faith” is to refer to an epistemological method. That method must be distinguished from reason in some way. And that way is, that faith is an act of will. Faith means to believe in something despite the absence of evidence, or even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

It's a little unfair to define faith as a belief held in the absence of evidence and with no relation to reason. Let's talk about faith, evidence, and reason, and come up with a better summary.

An Easter Sermon

Thinking Anglicans posted the Easter sermon delivered by the Archbishop of Canterbury. It's a short address, well worth two minutes of your time. Here are the first few sentences:

A good few years ago, I heard a distinguished American scholar of ancient history commenting on the proclamation of the resurrection as it would have been heard in the classical world. ‘If an educated Greek or Roman had been told that someone had been raised from the dead’, he said, ‘his first question would have been “How do you get him back into his grave again?”’. The point was that most of those who first heard the Easter gospel would have found it grotesque or even frightening. Resurrection was not a joyful sign of hope but an alarming oddity, something potentially very dangerous.

Christian Comments

Albert Mohler comments on John Kerry's Faith, which has become a news item lately. Such is life in the political fishbowl--here they guy suddenly gets the urge to go to chruch and take Communion, and people act like he did it merely for political purposes! Mohler notes that "in the modern age, the Catholic Church has faced the development of 'cafeteria Catholics' who pick and choose the Church teaching they will accept, and simply disregard and disobey the rest." Like picking on Kerry is going to solve that problem. One could always consider upgrading the menu.

Christianity Today posted an interview with William Dembski, the leading proponent of Intelligent Design, the latest incarnation of Creation Science. His bio notes he has studied just about everything except biology. Well, no wonder he doesn't quite appreciate evolution. Let me just take this opportunity to say something nice about the LDS Church: It managed to dodge the Creation Science bullet (despite the best attempts of Joseph Fielding Smith and his son-in-law). At BYU you get real science (despite the best attempts of the Religion Department).

Catholic Analysis embraces George Bush as the most Catholic President in American history. That's kind of a slam on Kennedy, but the author was looking at actions rather than labels, and Bush has done more things in line with the social issues Catholics favor than Kennedy ever did, it seems. Still, he deserves nice marks for making the Peace Corps. And for avoiding WWIII in Cuba and West Berlin. And for the moon thing. The post notes that Jeb Bush of Florida is a convert to Catholicism. I'd never heard that--how interesting, especially with Catholicism becoming an election issue. It's gonna be a strange year. Ralph Nader actually has a chance to win, I think, if he picks a credible running mate. How about Bill Clinton? He's available. Great speaker. No skeletons left in his closet.

Catholic Parallels

In a series of earlier posts here and here I considered how Methodism influenced Mormonism, primarily by providing a low-church template for Mormon Sunday meetings. I'm going to shift my Christian focus to Catholicism in this and several future posts. My initial point of entry is the fine book noted on my Now Reading list, The Catholic Church: A Short History (Modern Library, 2001, translated by John Bowden), by Hans Kung, the noted Catholic theologian. It's a little gem. Not unlike some Mormon historians, Kung has had his differences with the Catholic hierarchy. His approach is definitely more critical history than apologist history. He distinguishes between God and the institutional church to a greater degree than do Mormons generally.

God and Public Policy

By Common Consent has just been hopping lately, most recently with an extended discussion about the LDS Chain of Command, which has morphed into a separate thread discussion God and Public Policy.

Obviously, anyone inclined to talk about God in a public policy discussion is going to claim He is in favor of their proposal. No one is going to say, "I think God is squarely against my view, but it's worth considering nonetheless." So the fact that people invoke God's support of their policy positions is a function of human psychology, not an indicator of how God would vote were he inclined to participate in the democratic process.

Denominational Positions on Evolution

Thanks to Ann for pointing out this interesting site on evolution, Religious Responses to Evolution. It was done by a university biology professor and is an objective and fair compilation of denominational positions on evolution. He sounds like a compassionate biologist who is just trying to spell out the denominational positions on evolution, rather than a fire-spitting Dawkins type. There's considerably more variety to the denominational positions than one would guess from media stereotyping of the "religion versus science" issue.

The LDS Church was put in the "neutral or ambivalent to evolution" group, avoiding both the "critical of evolution" and the "more or less open to evolution" labels. Hiding in the middle of the spectrum on contentious issues is sometimes sound strategy, but here it results from being all over the map rather than from aiming for the middle. Here's a selection from the LDS summary:

The official statements are generally neutral. However the full range of views are represented in unofficial statements from Church leaders and members. Some Church leaders have been highly critical of evolution. However, articles more or less open to evolution have appeared in official church magazines . . . .

Church president David O. McKay wrote in 1957 that, "on the subject of organic evolution, the Church has officially taken no position."

There were two recent and detailed discussions of the LDS position on evolution at Mormon Metaphysics, Evolution, and Evolution Again. For more official statements, go look up the evolution quotes at All About Mormons (great site, tough to navigate but worth the effort: go to Doctrines of the Gospel, then The Creation, then Evolution).

In the Footsteps of John Wesley

This is the last of several entries on Methodism, the others being Methodists and Mormons, on the old weblog, and Mormon Exhorters here. I'm following Chapter 10 in Noll's Turning Points (see Now Reading list). I think Methodism and John Wesley help put Mormonism and Joseph Smith in context and perspective. How?

It Started in England

I just finished Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity (Baker Books, 1997) by Mark Noll, a well published religious historian. While we generally identify the Reformation with Luther and his 95 theses (1517), what I picked up from the book is how central Henry VIII in England and his Act of Supremacy (1534) was for the course of Protestantism for England and America. Anglicans/Episcopalians, the dissenting sects (Baptists, Congregationalists, and Presbyterians), and later the Methodist movement all flowed more or less from the Act, and all of which were successfully exported to America. After revolution and disestablishment, America became a living experiment in free market religion. With legal and institutional barriers to entry removed, new entries flooded the religion market in the 19th century, including Mormonism (est. 1830), arguably the most successful of the new entrants. All because Henry needed a new wife. God moves in mysterious ways.