Dave's Mormon Inquiry

Prince on the Evolution of Mormon Thought

I stumbled across a Greg Prince talk giving a nice overview of Mormon thought in the past and present. It's not an approach one often sees as so few Mormons are comfortable with the thought of "evolving doctrine." It's interesting to see how Prince identifies the key doctrinal shifts as he evaluates the contributions of various LDS presidents:

The Veil: Thick or Thin?

In LDS thought, the veil as a symbol of the human condition is used in at least two distinct ways: (1) "a symbol for a separation between God and man," and (2) "a God-given forgetfulness that blocks people’s memories of the premortal existence." ["Veil," Guide to the Scriptures at LDS.org.] The second veil, forgetfulness of the premortal life, appears to be impenetrable: I have never heard an officially endorsed account claiming this divinely imposed forgetfulness was lifted. But there's a general sense that the first veil seems to rise and fall almost on demand. Prayers flow upward, inspiration flows downward, the Spirit pervades our meetings.

Assessing the Optimal Degree of Religious Certainty

So I read through Terry Eagleton's Trouble With Strangers: A Study of Ethics (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009). It wasn't quite what I'd hoped, as he doesn't directly engage with either classical or recent ethical theories; rather, he pursues what one might call a literary approach to a philosophical topic. That worked for his earlier short treatments, such as Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate. Here, he shoehorned the entire book into Jacques Lacan's imaginary-symbolic-real paradigm and used Lacan's mirror image metaphor as a touchstone throughout the book. Some readers might find that an insightful approach to ethical issue and questions, but not me. I did enjoy the discussion of Alain Badiou and his idea of "truth events."

A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation: Idaho Falls Edition

I took the two-hour drive to Idaho Falls last night to hear Greg Johnson and Robert Millet present their friendly conversation on Mormons and Evangelicals to an audience of six or seven hundred. Johnson is an Evangelical pastor who runs the Standing Together ministry in Utah; Millet is a Professor of Ancient Scripture at BYU. Together they coauthored Bridging the Divide: The Continuing Conversation Between a Mormon and an Evangelical back in 2007. Their live presentation covers some of the same ground as the book, but also takes questions from the audience.

Troubling Dreams

I keep my visions to myself.
Have you any dreams you'd like to sell?

Mormons tend not to keep their visions to themselves. In his recent General Conference talk "How to Obtain Revelation and Inspiration for Your Personal Life," Elder Richard G. Scott seems to be inviting Mormons to do the same with their dreams.

Esoteric Mormonism: Marginal or Mainstream?

I recently finished reading Samuel Brown's In Heaven as It Is on Earth: Joseph Smith and the Early Mormon Conquest of Death (Oxford University Press, 2012; publisher's page). It's an impressive book, although I disagree with the implicit argument of the book that the esoteric branch of Joseph Smith's eclectic and diverse theology is central to his thinking and, by extension, should be central to present-day Mormonism. It is a book anyone interested in Mormon Studies should read (twice), but probably not the first or even second book on Joseph Smith that a practicing Mormon should read.

Mormon Doctrine: Confusion or Clarity?

Mormon doctrine is showing up in unlikely places lately, including the campaign trail, where earlier this week Mitt Romney squelched a questioner's short speech that started off quoting from the Pearl of Great Price. I suspect that will not be the last doctrinal question of this campaign. But the glare of heightened publicity and attention that comes with having an LDS candidate on the presidential ticket is making it evident that Mormon doctrine — simply what it is and what it isn't — is just not all that clear.

A Different Jesus?

Google "a different jesus" and you'll find that 7 of the first 10 links that come up on the first page are about Mormonism. Three of those link to predictable discussions either proclaiming that Mormons worship a different Jesus or arguing that Mormons worship the same Jesus as most other Christians. Four of those link to Robert L. Millet's A Different Jesus? The Christ of the Latter-day Saints (Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2005), the book that ought to be a primary reference for those engaging in the discussion, but usually isn't. Along with How Wide the Divide?, it seems like the best book to give to any Christian interested in learning about LDS beliefs concerning Christ (as opposed to what critics portray LDS beliefs to be).

The Not-So-Great Apostasy

I have seen several notices publicizing an upcoming conference at BYU, Exploring Mormon Conceptions of the Apostasy. Sounds interesting, particularly in light of the one-paragraph blurb stating goals for the conference, which challenges rank and file members of the Church as well as scholars to reconsider LDS views of "the Great Apostasy":

Under the Tree: LDS Beliefs

The latest book to digest Mormon doctrine for the popular LDS audience is LDS Beliefs: A Doctrinal Reference (Deseret Book, 2011), by four BYU religion professors: Robert L. Millet, Camille Fronk Olson, Andrew C. Skinner, and Brent L. Top. Entries are alphabetical, with authorship and cited sources listed following each and every entry. It's out just in time for Christmas and will no doubt find its way under the tree in many LDS homes, as well it should. The best way to summarize the strengths of this one-volume reference work is to compare and contrast it with other modern attempts to summarize LDS doctrine: Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine, True to the Faith, and The Encyclopedia of Mormonism.

Creationism and LDS Seminary

It's late September and LDS high school students really should be back at school ... and back at seminary. This year's course of study is the Old Testament, which covers (or has already covered) Genesis 1 and the Creation. I hope LDS seminary teachers can teach Creation without teaching Creationism. But I fear some LDS teachers won't or can't make that distinction, so it is likely some LDS seminary students are going to go home this week thinking Creationism is the LDS view about Creation. That is very sad and sets up LDS kids to have a bad experience when they inevitably take high school or university science courses.

Priesthood Principles

This post was part of a series on Handbook 2 at Times and Seasons.

Our series continues by looking at Priesthood Principles, the second of three foundational chapters found in the recently published Handbook 2 ("H2"). I'll first touch on the status of H2, then discuss some of the topics covered in the three pages of Chapter Two.

Doctrine and Practice

I enjoyed Alison's post from a couple of weeks ago, Does Gender Matter?, but I'm a little confused how the pieces fit together. The post appears to accept the nonscriptural, uncanonized Proclamation at face value, stating: "Gender is part of who we are and who we have always been. It is important. It matters." That makes it difficult to argue for reform of what is identified as a problem: "The church uses gender to delineate authority, callings, and roles." However, there is a different way to see the issue.

Cafeteria Correlation

Karl Giberson's Saving Darwin: How to Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution (HarperOne, 2008) relates Giberson's journey from fundamentalist Christian student to still-believing but no longer fundamentalist physicist. Chapter 5 of the book critiques the sources of Young Earth Creationism (YEC), primarily George McCready Price's The New Geology, published in 1923, and Whitcomb and Morris's The Genesis Flood, published in 1961. As Price's book is also a source for LDS YEC beliefs — which for some bizarre reason still seem to guide Correlation in approving statements made in LDS publications — the chapter seems particularly helpful for Latter-day Saints seeking to understand LDS views on science and evolution.

Rethinking the Proclamation

What exactly is the Proclamation, or, to use its full title, The Family: A Proclamation to the World? It is not scripture. It is not a revelation. It is not even a Conference talk. What is it? What status does the Proclamation have at present in the LDS Church?

Church Discipline in the Internet Age

Sometimes technology changes everything. First came writing, then television, now the Internet: Instant global publishing by just about anyone on the planet. You. Me. The guy who just got called in for a chat with his stake president.

Tsunami

I am sure that many of you have been following the stunning events in Japan: earthquake, tsunami, meltdown. Our first personal reaction to such events is always concern and sympathy for those swept up in the ongoing human tragedy. The first LDS institutional response, when resources are available, is to forward relief supplies and helping hands to those in need of assistance. But at some later point comes personal and institutional reflection. Is this just the sort of natural tragedy that happens from time to time, or is it a divine sign of the end times? Or both?

Cruise Control and Doctrinal Ditches

On Friday night, I was heading up the Snake River Canyon toward Jackson Hole, with snow falling gently through the darkness. At the entrance to the canyon, the following message was brightly displayed on a portable electronic sign: "Slippery spots: Turn off cruise control." I have never seen that particular message on a traffic sign before. Good advice, of course -- you'll live longer if you are thinking (cruise control off, brain on) while driving on slick roads.

Church and Family

After a flurry of posts related to the new edition of the CHI (now titled Handbook 1 and Handbook 2), the Bloggernacle has fallen silent. (The Salt Lake Tribune has followed up with a helpful article.) One of the new features of Handbook 2 ("H2") highlighted in the worldwide training broadcast is the three introductory chapters that provide a foundational and doctrinal context for the guidance given in the balance of the book. I am going to note a few statements given in the four pages of Chapter 1, "Families and the Church in God's Plan," with short comments following each statement. The bold titles are my own; all quotes are from H2.

The End of the World

I took a stroll through the End of the World last week. Brought the wife and kids and a picnic lunch. It was beautiful, as always. But one of these days (and it won't be long) it will be gone. Maybe us too.

Lineage: A Troubling Concept

Here's a quote from Lesson 7, "The Abrahamic Covenant," that caught my attention in Sunday School:

The great majority of those who become members of the Church are literal descendants of Abraham through Ephraim, son of Joseph. Those who are not literal descendants of Abraham and Israel must become such, and when they are baptized and confirmed they are grafted into the tree and are entitled to all the rights and privileges as heirs.

Mormons and Prosperity

The Prosperity Gospel (which the linked Wikipedia article defines as "the notion that God provides material prosperity for those he favors") is often associated with Evangelical megapreachers. [Note 1.] But we all know there is a Mormon variation of the Prosperity Gospel lurking behind the ubiquitous references to blessings and how to earn them that populate LDS books, sermons, and discourse. So when I started reading my review copy of What the Scriptures Teach Us About Prosperity (Deseret Book, 2010) by S. Michael Wilcox, I was hoping that at some point the author would distinguish the Mormon view of prosperity from the Evangelical version of the Prosperity Gospel.

Underwhelming Thoughts on Correlation

I confess that I am not a regular reader of the Church News, but I did happen to run across this recent piece, "Using proper sources." I will note a couple of quibbles I have with the piece (which, as an unsigned post in the "Viewpoints" section, I take to be essentially a staff editorial), but in the end I think I agree on the need to avoid the use of "uncorrelated" supplementary sources or materials in class.

Do We Need A Fifth Mission?

The news is out that LDS leaders are adding a fourth mission for the Church: caring for the poor and needy. According to an official LDS spokesman cited in the Salt Lake Tribune article, the new mission (or purpose or emphasis) will be included in the new edition of the Handbook of Instructions to be issued next year. With a publishing deadline looming, I propose that we put our collective heads together and see whether we need a fifth mission as well. Perhaps adding a fourth mission alone is not enough to fill in the gaps apparently missed by the first three missions.

White-Collar Sin

From an AP story reporting the results of a recent poll.

A politician taking bribes is considered by far the greater sin (chosen by 37 percent of the respondents) when stacked against extramarital affairs (just 2 percent).

Apparently sexual sin doesn't carry much weight with most people anymore.

Two Kinds of Faith

I recently read Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate, Terry Eagleton's critique of the contributions to that debate by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens (who he conflates via the memorable moniker "Ditchkins"). It's less than I'd hoped for, but Chapter Three, "Faith and Reason," raises issues and questions about that most basic of First Principles, faith.

Reason and Revelation in Mormonism

This is a second post on Bushman's Mormonism: A Very Short Introduction (OUP, 2008). [See Part 1.] Every faith and denomination has an approach for balancing faith and reason. In Chapter Two of the book, Bushman briefly outlines the LDS approach.

Different Views of Inerrancy

It is sometimes difficult for Protestants and Evangelicals to understand that the LDS Church is not simply another Protestant denomination with a well-defined catechism or creed. It is expected to be well defined since, in the Protestant world, those with different doctrinal views quite easily split off to form their own denomination, movement, or megachurch affirming a slightly different set of well-defined doctrines. The idea that Mormonism is more like a religious tradition embracing a range of doctrines rather than a denomination with a narrow doctrinal range is not easily grasped. Views on inerrancy are a good example of this.

AWOL: The Threefold Mission of the Church

I was cleaning up my blogroll yesterday and came across this post at Intelligent Life that prominently displays the threefold mission of the Church: preach the gospel, redeem the dead, perfect the Saints. It occurs to me I rarely hear this once-prevalent formulation in current LDS discourse. Where did it go?

Mormonism, Fundamentalism, and Absolute Truth

I recently read Terry Eagleton's After Theory (Basic Books, 2003), in which Eagleton manages (in a very entertaining way) to be critical of just about everything, including fundamentalism and "Utah" (a term he seems to be using as a proxy for Mormonism). He makes an interesting argument about fundamentalism, suggesting that it is rooted in how certain people ("fundamentalists") read texts. His references to "Utah" suggest he sees Mormonism as practicing a fundamentalist approach to truth. I think I disagree with both points. Some fundamentalist movements might be based on how certain texts are read, but not all, and Mormons don't really employ the fundamentalist approach that Eagleton seems to attribute to us.

Against Literalism and Inerrancy

While some outsiders lump Mormons in with Evangelicals as thoroughgoing biblical literalists and inerrantists, there is actually a range of opinion on this subject within the LDS community. For the not so literal view, check out a recent two-part guest post at Mormon Organon by David H. Bailey, an accomplished LDS mathematician. In Latter-day Biblical Literalism, Part One, he disagrees with those who hold that the LDS Eighth Article of Faith ("We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly") requires strong biblical literalism.

I personally cannot see how such claims can be defended in light of modern scholarship, or even from a careful reading of the text itself. A more flexible approach is required, one that recognizes the human as well as the divine in scripture. To that end, I present the following examples, certainly not out of disrespect for the Bible, but only to underscore the hopelessness of a literal or inerrant approach.

Does Preexistence Really Absolve God?

The Mormon Times has a short write-up on a presentation given by Terryl Givens at UVU (that's Utah Valley University) on the preexistence in Western thought, the topic of his soon-to-be-released book. While the doctrine certainly has its appeal, it remains a heresy to orthodox Christians. Here, quoting from the article, is one purported theological advantage of accepting the doctrine.

What If the Mormons Are Right? An Alternative View of Baptisms for the Dead

A pleasantly entertaining op-ed piece from the Belfast Telegraph: "What if Mormons are right and Catholics and Protestants are wrong?" Not only does the writer cover in short order the ancient Christian tradition of baptism for the dead and why its practice by modern Latter-day Saints shouldn't really bother anyone ... hey, it's just fun to read Irish! As in this closing line: "If, on the other hand, it isn't the Mormons at all, those who turn out to have been right can wave a merry farewell to the crestfallen followers of Brigham Young as they trundle downwards to their eternal comeuppance."

Mormons and Restorationists

This is the second post drawing on E. Brooks Holifield's Theology in America: Christian thought from the age of the Puritans to the Civil War (see first post here). The broad themes Holifield draws from American religion in the 19th century -- a continuing quest for reasonableness and rationality, avoidance of theological "speculation," and appeals to internal and external "evidences" to support belief in God and the Bible -- are observed in the theological content and style of almost every American denomination. It is other factors that distinguish them from each other. Restorationists, those who would "return the Church to its primitive purity, return theology to the people, and return reason to theology," emerged as an identifiable movement in the early 19th century. Interestingly, Mormonism is not grouped with the Restorationists.

Quakers, Shakers, and Mormons

One approach to understanding early Mormonism and its doctrines is to compare it with other denominations of the same period. In E. Brooks Holifield's book Theology in America, Mormonism is covered in Chapter 16, "The Immediacy of Revelation," which also discusses two other movements that claimed new revelation as the basis for their theological innovations.

The Mormon Trinity

This is the first of several posts on Blomberg and Robinson's How Wide the Divide: A Mormon & an Evangelical in Conversation. The format of the book is its biggest strength -- each chapter contains a joint conclusion in which the authors summarize the exchange, with an emphasis on restating the many points of belief that both share (despite the often confusing use of different terminology by Mormons and Evangelicals). That seems like a nice way to approach an interfaith exchange and accounts, I believe, for the success and continuing relevance of the book.

Theology and Memory

It has been awhile since I posted links to an online essay, so here goes: The Theology of Memory: Mormon Historical Consciousness, by Steven L. Olsen from a 2007 FARMS Review. It's an easy read and raises some interesting questions.

Apostasy and the Dark Ages

Do these concepts have anything to do with each other? Apparently some Mormons think they do, hence Davis Bitton's corrective essay "How Dark Were the Dark Ages?" (conveniently reposted at Meridian Magazine).

Apostasy is Back on the Bookshelf

Once upon a time, The Great Apostasy by Elder James E. Talmage was on every Mormon's reading list. But somehow that topic went out of fashion for a couple of decades -- no LDS books treated the subject and it received considerably less attention in General Conference talks. Suddenly, the Great Apostasy seems to be back.

Reflections on the Musician Affair

The SL Trib ignited a noisy debate with its story published on Monday, Fallout from debate over gays leads musician to leave LDS Church." The story concerns a musician with the LDS Orchestra at Temple Square who, in June 2006, wrote a letter to the SL Trib voicing public support for Jeffrey Nielsen, a part-time philosophy instructor at BYU who had himself published a letter in the SL Trib in support of same-gender marriage only days earlier. As a result of the letter (reproduced in full in the Trib article), the musician was suspended from the orchestra, then spent 18 months in what can only be described as an informal disciplinary process with his local LDS leaders. He resigned his membership in the LDS Church in December 2007.

It's a messy story with no winners. For more background, read the linked SL Trib story, the publicly posted LDS response, a post at M&A, a post at Mormon Matters, and a detailed discussion at the FAIR Blog. I'm going to make short comments on the role of each player in this unfortunate affair.

The Moral Law Within

No doubt Kant would be genuinely surprised that science has had an easier time exploring "the starry heavens above" than comprehending "the moral law within." But progress is being made. For this week's online essay, go read Steven Pinker's article "The Moral Instinct," a long essay published in the New York Times (hat tip: Concurring Opinions). As posted, it has 8 segments to it, but I finally discovered the "one page" and "print" options in a small box at the top of the first page -- very nice. Thank you NYT.

Essential Differences

I recently read The Essential Difference: The Truth About the Male and Female Brain (Basic Books, 2003) by Simon Baron-Cohen, professor of psychiatry at Cambridge University. Anyone interested in the source and nature of gender differences (i.e., everyone) will find this an interesting book, and people with an interest in understanding autism are particularly encouraged to find a copy and read it.

A Pleasant Surprise

It seems 2008 has delivered its first miracle -- the new Joseph Smith manual. Who would have thought that a correlated manual could actually be interesting? That's doubly rewarding as the new Joseph Smith manual will be with us for two years. A short write-up with several striking illustrations is posted online at the Church News. I'll add a few things I noted while browsing through the manual on Sunday afternoon.

Inoculation Now?

The B'nacle has been so busy talking about the possibility of "inoculation," we might just have missed the real thing. That's the thought that occurred to me as I read a post entitled Should the LDS Church Deal With Its Controversial History? at an off-MA blog, Mormons Talk. The post notes that several rather direct historical articles have appeared in the Ensign and Church News this year, and the thought struck me ... it has begun. LDS leaders don't generally announce policy changes on sensitive topics, so we sort of have to guess what's going on. I suspect the PBS documentary "The Mormons" was a real catalyst on this one.

Other inoculation posts worth reading if you're interested: "The Mormons" and Inoculation (at BCC) and The Devilish Details of Inoculation (here at DMI, although I forgot about it until I did a 'nacle search at MA and it popped up). There are also a couple of podcasts, here and here.

All About the Flood

For this week's online essay, go read an article from the latest Dialogue, entitled "On Balancing Faith in Mormonism with Traditional Biblical Stories: The Noachian Flood Story." The authors review a variety of scientific evidence suggesting there simply could not have been any worldwide flood, as some Mormons and Christians suppose. The authors also review the scriptural account itself, questioning the interpretation that a global flood is what is being described.

There has been spirited discussion on the article in a T&S post. There is also a conservative rebuttal at NDBF Gary's site.

Myths for the Modern World

I just finished finished reading Karen Armstrong's A Short History of Myth (2005). Almost everyone loves myth from a distance, as a conceptual springboard or reference, as long as it doesn't get too close to one's own beliefs or worldview. This book helps put myth in a more useful perspective, which I'd like to explore. But rather than spend several paragraphs defining or explaining what myths are or are not, I'll just settle for a one-sentence definition [myths are stories about the world with cosmic significance, that talk about birth and death, love and pain, good and evil, earth and sky, origins and end times] and move on to the good stuff. I'll give one paragraph each to two particularly relevant points Armstrong makes in the book, then speculate a bit on whether and how Mormonism has shown itself capable of providing usable myths for the modern world.

A Broader View of Faith

Here's another attempt at an upbeat Sunday post (not that I specialize in cynicism on weekdays or anything). I've been reading Marcus Borg's The Heart of Christianity and quite enjoying it. In Chapter Two, "Faith: The Way of the Heart," he discusses faith in a way that illustrates it differently than one generally hears the term used in Mormon discourse, where it is usually taken to mean belief in the modern version of the main historical claims and central doctrinal tenets of Mormonism and the Restoration. Borg's discussion helps broaden that view. He discusses four meainings of faith.

PoD: Faith and Fundamentalism

Post of the Day: Fundamentalism and Historical Criticism (from a few days back) by TT at FPR, arguing that fundamentalism (or, more generally, the conservative approach to religious belief and practice) is as much a product of the Enlightenment rationality project as are higher biblical criticism and liberal Protestantism. It's true that religious conservatives reject the priority of rationalism while religious liberals try hard to incorporate it, but they are both doing battle on Enlightenment turf. Of course, there is dispute over which of TT's five propositions actually apply to both fundamentalism and critical biblical studies (I'd say only 2 and 5).

Unwittingly following the same theme, a much more freewheeling discussion pitted personal revelation as a trump card (a conservative technique) against careful reading and exegesis of canonized texts (a critical studies approach). The debate started first at ZD in Women as Possessions (the relevant text being D&C 132; the post garnered 243 comments), then jumped to NCT in Of Course Personal Revelation Is Our Ultimate Trump Card (with 410 comments), then migrated back to ZD with What Sort of Trump Card Is Personal Revelation? (getting a mere 47 comments). Anyone who reads all 700 comments deserves a special prize. It's worth noting that the terms of the extended discussion are very much set by the Enlightenment rationality project that is the focus of TT's FPR post from the first paragraph.

Here are my one-sentence responses to each of the three posts in the Mother of All Comment Threads: (1) Of course women aren't possessions; who cares what it says in D&C 132? (2) Until you can give an objective definition of "personal revelation" there is no real substance to the proposition that it is an epistemological trump card. (3) It's not an epistemological trump card, it's just a way of saying "I'm right because God told me so" using fancier terminology.

Mormon Neo-Orthodoxy, Chs. 3-5

I used to avoid weekend blogging, but as weekdays have gotten busier, I find myself doing meatier posts on the weekend and sliding by with quickie "link and comment" posts during the week. So here I am on Saturday afternoon writing a post on (1) why I think the second half of Mormon Neo-Orthodoxy misses the mark rather badly; and (2) why any book trying to address LDS doctrine faces similar difficulties. My two earlier posts on the book are here and here; the book is available online here.

Slippery Rocks

Philosophy is a walk on the slippery rocks.
Religion is a light in the fog.
  -- Edie Brickell and the New Bohemians

So is theology more like philosophy or religion? Is it a walk on slippery rocks or a light in the fog? Is it the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture, or a reasoned inquiry seeking the principles that define spiritual truth? For an LDS view on this interesting question, go read the EOM article "Theology," authored by Louis C. Midgley, this week's online essay.