Dave's Mormon Inquiry

Mormon Neo-Orthodoxy

Learn a new word and you suddenly see it everywhere. I post on modern theology and lament the lack of Mormon theology, then what do I bump into the next day but O. Kendall White, Jr.'s Mormon Neo-Orthodoxy: A Crisis Theology (Signature, 1986). Even better, the full text of the book is online and free. I'm going to read through it over the next week and invite you to read along.

Faith and Scholarship

I just read Professor Kent P. Jackson's article "Asking Restoration Questions in New Testament Scholarship," pages 27-42 in How the New Testament Came to Be, the published collection of the 2006 Sydney B. Sperry lectures (Deseret, 2006). It covers at greater length ideas later summarized in "Sacred Study," a short Jan. 6, 2007 Church News article by Jackson, examined at some length by Mogget at FPR in a three-part series (here, here, and here). I'm going to summarize Jackson's longer article and add a few personal observations.

I Know This Booklet Is True

In the Winter 2006 issue of Dialogue, Lavina Fielding Anderson has a short article on True to the Faith ("TTTF"), the doctrinal booklet published by the Church a couple of years ago. The contents of the booklet were subsequently posted online at LDS.org. She calls it "190 pages of what Mormons are supposed to believe, know, and do." I have described it as a long-delayed response to the notorious Mormon Doctrine. However described, it is a terribly useful little booklet, offering official comment on everything from Abuse, Addiction, and Adoption, to War, Welfare, and Zion.

Big Love's Evil Twin

From the SL Trib: Warren Jeffs' preliminary hearing continues in a St. George courtroom, as a witness whose name is being withheld testified about entering an arranged marriage at the tender age of fourteen. She testified that Jeffs officiated at the service, which, according to the article, was held in a motel in lovely Caliente, Nevada. The article includes links to several other SL Trib stories, including one giving details from the witness about her allegedly unhappy marriage, and another reviewing Jeffs' teaching and counsel to his flock on the subject of marriage: that women should be "submissive and obedient," and that men should "'persuade through love' and act with kindness, not force."

No story on this at DN online that I could find. Their top headline was a review of The Work and the Glory III.

A Story of Interest

No sooner did I remark (in my prior post) that the media hadn't commented on the Statement on Homosexuality than the SL Trib's Peggy Fletcher Stack posts a story on it. She notes the Statement was "quietly posted two weeks ago" at LDS.org rather than via the more usual avenues of communicating doctrine or policy: at Conference, by a letter to local leaders, or in a press release. The Statement is described as "controversial," and the comments by Elders Oaks and Wickman as "complex and personal."

LDS Statement on Homosexuality

The mainstream media still hasn't put out a story on the recent Statement on Homosexuality (the "Statement") posted at LDS.org, although there have been several posts already in the Bloggernacle (here, here, and here). In this post I will try to offer a description and some analysis of the Statement.

Higher Criticism and Mormonism

Sticking with my topic for the week, I have a couple of essays to offer as my online essays of the week. The first essay is a 1911 Improvement Era article by B. H. Roberts entitled Higher Criticism and the Book of Mormon. Elder Roberts took Book of Mormon apologetics seriously and is still regarded as one of the Church's finest intellectuals, a truly remarkable accomplishment given that he grew up poor and was largely self-taught. He was not one to shrink from an intellectual challenge. Here's a quote supporting in principle, if not in all its generally held conclusions, the application of "higher criticism" to the scriptures:

Abortion: Another Small Step

Last year I posted Rethinking Abortion, a post that noted how the three-paragraph article Abortion in the True to the Faith doctrinal booklet published by the Church seemed to signal "a change in policy or at least a shift in emphasis" when compared to prior statements. Now there's another new statement on abortion, this one posted at LDS.org, that is even mellower than the TTTF article. The winds of change are blowing, it seems.

McMurrin on Evil

As a follow-up to yesterday's post on the problem of evil, I want to talk about Sterling McMurrin's surprisingly positive evaluation of the LDS view: "It is in the explanation of moral and natural evil, the most persistent problem with which theistic philosophy must contend, that Mormon theology exhibits its chief theoretic strength" (p. 91; all quotes are from the Signature edition of his short book The Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion). The key to Mormonism's approach is its willingness to embrace "the heresy of the finitistic concept of God" (p. 95).

Good Exmos, When They Die, Go To Colorado

Or maybe Arizona. It's not really an issue I've mused over much, but I recently received an email question from a reader that deserves a response. Here's the question, lifted straight from the reader's email:

What happens to an excommunicated Mormon when she dies? Can you answer this and, if possible, cite a source?

I'll spend a few paragraphs sketching out a response, but I invite other bloggers and visitors to post their own views in the comments so my reader gets a broad sample of LDS thinking on what happens to former Mormons in the hereafter.

LA Times Story

The pretentious LA Times story (headline: "Bedrock of a Faith is Jolted") is making quite a splash. When LDS.org posts an official response, you know it got someone's attention. The response itself — two short paragraphs — probably merits its own post, but here I'll just talk about the LA Times article. Other B'nacle posts here and here also discuss the article, with a comprehensive list of relevant links on the BoM-DNA topic conveniently collected at Messenger & Advocate. I'll sort of run down a random list of my reactions to the article.

Whatever Happened to Free Agency?

Elder Christofferson delivered Tuesday's Devotional at BYU. Here's the key point: "There is no mention of free agency in the scriptures," Elder Christofferson said. "Agency is not free. We have to emphasize our moral accountability." Would someone explain how free agency, once a fixture in LDS theology, got such a bad name?

Pondering Proving Contraries

While reading through my currently featured book, Proving Contraries (Signature, 2005), I've been stewing over the title. It bothers me. The phrase comes from a Joseph Smith quote ("By proving contraries, truth is made manifest") and it sounds like just the sort of thing that would thrill a writer — a creative phrase that springs some verbal tension on the reader, hence its use as the title for the book. But writers and English profs never have to prove anything. In mathematics, one technique for proving an assertion is to assume the opposite, then show by careful mathematical argument that it implies a contradiction, hence the assumption can be rejected. In other words, by rejecting contraries, truth is made manifest. That's how I see things. So I need to dig a little deeper to be happy with the title.

Rethinking Abortion

I don't normally weigh in on politics and social issues, but I really must post a link to Abortion, Up Close and Personal at Get Religion (despite the title, nothing graphic in the post). The post summarizes a recent MSM abortion story that goes beyond the normal stereotyped statements and poses a few difficult questions about the practice of abortion in the US. Interesting development, in light of Wednesday's oral arguments before the US Supreme Court on two abortion cases, as well as the inevitable media discussion of abortion rights that will accompany nominee Judge Samuel Alito's upcoming confirmation hearings. This is a topic that will be in the news for the next few months.

So here's a question: What is the LDS position on abortion? Has it changed over the last few decades?

Homeric Mormons

I was reading through Classical Thought (Vol. 1 in OUP's History of Western Philosphy) this morning, and the thought struck me how similar the Mormon view of the world is to the Homeric world view presented by the author. Both mix frequent supernatural events and interventions in with natural laws and forces as part of a comprehensive explanation of what happens in the world. It extends to personal events and fortunes as well as the fates of nations. Here's an interesting quote:

Those who look at the world in a Homeric way will find it easy to reconcile their outlook with their experience and observation. If I get caught in a storm at sea, perhaps I have offended Poseidon and it will blow over if I make a sacrifice to him. If the storm does not blow over, my belief is not refuted, since I have other explanations ready. Perhaps Poseidon was too angry to be appeased, or my sacrifice was too small, or another god intervened, or this particular storm "just happened" with no particular divine cause. If I hold this sort of view, it will be difficult to refute me by observation; indeed, I may well claim that naturalist assumptions about general laws violate the evidence of observation.

(p. 32). In a similar way, everything that happens to a person — good, bad, or ugly — fits nicely within the Mormon "mixed world view." [Note: There were a couple of related Bloggernacle discussions about the role of naturalism/supernaturalism in LDS belief about six months ago ... links?]

All About Excommunication

Since this promises to be a newsworthy topic for the next few days, I think it's worthwhile to pull together some of the written material that speaks to LDS policy on who can be excommunicated, who conducts the proceeding, what rules or policies control the proceeding, and how much discretion there is in taking disciplinary action based on the findings or feelings of the LDS officials conducting the trial. Having never been directly involved with an LDS disciplinary action myself, my sources of information reflect only LDS written material and statements by those who have participated in LDS disciplinary councils (often referred to within the Church as "courts of love" and previously described by the more convenient term "church courts").

Saving Brother Ryan

I just finished a DVD viewing of Saving Private Ryan, one of the more intense movies of recent years. It takes a second or third viewing to really capture the institutional cynicism of the movie: The war was not about freedom or liberation; it was about brothers. The mission wasn't the defeat of fascism; it really was a man, or a few good men.

The same theme is sounded in Stephen Ambrose's book Band of Brothers: soldiers fight for their comrades in arms, not with any eye to the stated goals or war aims of politicians or chiefs of staff. At ground level, those larger aims lose their relevance and come to be seen as irrational, counterproductive, or even messed up beyond all recognition (MUBAR).

Stupid Things

I generally avoid controversial topics, but here I will bow to the request of several commenters and start a new thread on a topic that came in the comments to an earlier post. Here is the interesting statement that started the ball rolling:

There's a lot of scriptural precedent for being asked to do stupid things by Church authorities and being blessed for it.

I think there are sound arguments on both sides of this interesting claim. I'll try and give a fair hearing to both sides, then let the comments do the choosing. To soften the discussion a bit, I'll talk more about the general question of why we do stupid things in any organization.

On Satan

Touchy subject. An LDS seminary scripture (the next on our list) reads: "Pray always, that you may come off conqueror; yea, that you may conquer Satan, and that you may escape the hands of the servants of Satan that do uphold his work" (D&C 10:5). Well, seems like good advice to give LDS teenagers, but talking about the Devil in such blunt terms makes some people a little skittish. And who exactly are these "servants of Satan"?

More On Testimony

The article on "Testimony" in the LDS doctrinal guide True to the Faith (TTTF) is a nice supplement to my earlier post on this topic (see also this thoughtful response by Geoff). The article defines testimony as "a spiritual witness given by the Holy Ghost," which "usually comes as a quiet assurance, without spectacular displays of God’s power." I think that understates the power of the Mormon method, which seems capable of developing a testimony without any display of God's power!

Mormon Testimony

"I know the Church is true" is the key assertion in the standard "Mormon testimony" or upbeat personal confession of faith. One bears testimony not only in monthly "fast and testimony meetings," but also quite often at the tail end of talks from the pulpit, Sunday School lessons, and missionary discussions or lessons. Bearing a testimony and explaining how one came by it is, for Mormons, roughly equivalent to knowing one is saved and recounting that special "Jesus moment" for Evangelicals. In this first installment of a weekly feature going through the list of 100 LDS seminary scriptures, I'll talk about D&C 8:2-3 and Mormon testimony.

This Just In . . .

At LDS.org, a new First Presidency statement on same-gender marriage (I saw it first at A Soft Answer), which I post in full:

We of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reach out with understanding and respect for individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender. We realize there may be great loneliness in their lives but there must also be recognition of what is right before the Lord.

As a doctrinal principle, based on sacred scripture, we affirm that marriage between a man and a woman is essential to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children. The powers of procreation are to be exercised only between a man and a woman lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

Any other sexual relations, including those between persons of the same gender, undermine the divinely created institution of the family. The Church accordingly favors measures that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman and that do not confer legal status on any other sexual relationship.

Expect a lot of media and Bloggernacle chatter on this one!

Update: There's a T&S post with nice discussion in the commments.

More on Born That Way

There's no public debate on how heterosexuals "became that way," but homosexuality seems to require an explanation, with much of the debate now tied to public policy discussions. The present flap over Sen. Kerry's remarks about VP Cheney's daughter prompted this USA Today story which quoted Pres. Bush's "I don't know" reply at the most recent debate, then added a couple of opinions from experts in the field:

In Wednesday's debate, Bush had this response when asked whether homosexuality was a choice: "I don't know. I just don't know."

Research on the question is sparse. Most scientists agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of an interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors, according to the American Psychological Association.

Psychologist J. Michael Bailey of Northwestern University in Illinois, who has done research on sexual orientation, says, "The evidence is not entirely persuasive for either side." Psychologist Gregory Herek of the University of California-Davis says, "There are genetic and social roots for all behavior."

So the medical profession or "science" seems to be saying, "We don't know either," thus agreeing with Pres. Bush's position. I was kind of surprised to see these quotes in the media. See also my prior posts linking to some LDS views on this interesting subject here and here.

LDS SSA Conference

Evergreen International, a support organization for Mormons dealing with same-sex attraction (SSA) issues, just held its annual conference in SLC, as reported in this article in the Deseret News. While not "officially" affiliated with the Church, it's pretty clear Evergreen has close ties to the Church: the conference was held in the Joseph Smith Memorial Building in SLC, a GA speaker is listed on the conference agenda, and "ecclesiastical leaders" are given free admission to most sessions.

On the postive side, it's nice the Church bends over backwards to support an LDS organization that tries to understand SSA in terms other than sin and condemnation. While official LDS statements and pronouncements always qualify their "hate the sin" counsel with a "but love the sinner" clause, popular Mormon culture (i.e., Utah and the general membership of the Church) pretty much just takes "hate the sin" and runs with it. Perhaps more overt support for Evergreen, along with Ensign articles such as the recent piece by a gay Mormon, is an attempt by leaders to move the membership toward a more sophisticated understanding of this increasingly visible issue. See also the FAIR presentation that I blogged on a couple of weeks ago.

Interestingly, a close reading of the Deseret News article shows that dealing with other Mormons is at least as big a problem for these people as dealing with their SSA. For example, a middle-aged woman is quoted as saying, "In the Relief Society, I felt if they really knew what I was struggling with, they wouldn't want me around." The unacknowledged problem seems to be that many Mormons are covertly following a "hate the sin and hate the sinner" approach. Personally, I can't understand why anyone who figures out they are gay would possibly decide to stick around the LDS Church to be the village scapegoat when they can find sincere Christian support and understanding from any of several other denominations.

Born to be Wild . . . or Not

My short post two weeks ago entitled Sex and Spirituality got 26 comments, so I assume you'll all be interested in reading the full text of the talk it referred to (now posted at the FAIR website) entitled Born That Way? Facts and Fiction About Homosexuality. Here is a short quote giving the author's perspective:

There is a considerable body of ideologically inspired "scholarship" which leans toward the notion that homosexuality is so strongly compelled by biological factors that it is indelibly ingrained in a person's core identity, and is therefore not amenable to change. Many of these articles, though well-written, do not reflect good science. In fact, the social advocacy of the articles would suggest a greater reliance on politics than on the scientific method.

Question: Does this article accurately reflect the LDS view and/or the Proclamation? As the SSM debate continues to rage and the Utah marriage amendment comes to a vote, the Church will be under some pressure to clarify its doctrinal position on homosexuality.

Church Supports Civil Unions

Sort of, maybe. Here's the statement, from a news release at LDS.org dated July 7, 2004:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints favors a constitutional amendment preserving marriage as the lawful union of a man and a woman.

This only looks like a national Prop 22 endorsement or ERA all over again. Reading between the lines a bit, the Church (meaning its senior leaders, of course) here reveals a primary interest in reserving legal and formal marriage for opposing pairs where such unions are lawful. This leaves the door open for achieving same-sex pairings by civil unions. It would preserve marriage as the lawful union of a man and a woman, wouldn't it? I'm sure we'd all be tickled to see Utah out in front on this one.

For earlier thoughts on civil unions, see my prior post here.

Reformed Mormonism

Not a term you hear too often. The idea of reform of the Church is utterly alien to the orthodox LDS perspective, as if a restored church couldn’t possibly ever be in need of reform. I just finished The Catholic Church: A Short History (Modern Library, 2001), by Hans Kung, the noted Catholic theologian. I’m surprised at the extent to which reform as a theme dominates modern Catholic history, which ignored 16th-century Reformers and lost half of Europe, then adopted some reforms during the Counter-Reformation, then successfully opposed accommodation to modernism in the 19th and half of the 20th century, then finally made some major reforms following the decrees of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65).