Dave's Mormon Inquiry

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.

Bloggernacle Potluck I

Here's a test-run of a new feature, the Bloggernacle Potluck, giving links and short comments on notable Bloggernacle posts from the previous week. Just another way to support my local blogging community.

Matt at T&S comments on a FAIR talk examining the role of LDS history in supporting or criticizing LDS testimony. Matt thinks the author, a noted LDS historian, insulates LDS truth claims by narrowing them to events not subject to historical disproof. The talk itself is well worth reading--I always enjoy reading the personal perspective of LDS historians in reconciling their historical studies with their own faith. Matt's post links to Part I of the talk, but he doesn't post a link to Part II, which was posted at Meridian three days later.

John H at Bcc stakes out his position in the believing versus doing debate. John shares some amusing personal experiences to support his opinion that what Mormons believe is given more weight than what they do. Others have argued for "orthopraxis" or right practice rather than "orthodoxy" or right belief as the primary focus of Mormon conformity. I think they both come into play in different contexts. To test which of the two gets more weight in your own local ward, try wearing a pink shirt (rather than a white one) and bearing testimony of Heavenly Mother (rather than Father, Son, or Holy Ghost) at your next Fast and Testimony Meeting, and see which faux pas gets more comments from the members of your congregation.

William Morris at A Motley Vision scored a coup by posting (with permission) an excerpt from Michael Collings' The Nephiad, a retelling of the Nephi story in epic poetic form. If I (no poetry buff) like it, it must be good. Here's a teaser:

In fear and deep astonishment, four shapes
With ceaseless care and silent step retraced
Their paths toward ancestral lands . . .

At Mormon Metaphysics, Clark has collected links to his reading notes on selections from McMurrin, Ostler, and Pratt. For a sample, try Clark's comments on McMurrin's thoughts on materialism (seemingly embraced) as against metaphysics (seemingly dismissed).

Jeff of Mormanity has been guest blogging at T&S, where he posted a fascinating summary of his experience counseling members struggling with mental illness and dealing with the effects of childhood abuse. Discussion of this topic in LDS circles has been almost taboo until fairly recently. Jeff's comments are better than anything I've seen in the Ensign or heard over the pulpit, which suggests the Church has done very little in the past to equip Bishops to understand or recognize such problems, much less provide helpful counsel or referrals to trained practitioners for those in need of assistance.

For more links to notable posts, try Kaimi's latest installment of his periodic "Around the Blogs" series at T&S. By the way, the inspiration for Bloggernacle Potluck was the Christian Carnival series, but the resemblance is so striking that I do need to give a tip of the hat to Kaimi just to be fair.

Look for Bloggernacle Potluck II next week! Any Bloggernacker who does a post that they really, really think needs to be included, send me an email with a link.

Green Light to Judge Your Neighbor

The always-interesting Meridian Magazine has an article entitled What's the Problem With Moral Relativism? The author (who looks like a nice guy and probably is) first argues that the biblical injunction to "judge not" does not mean we cannot declare a position on a public policy issue like same-sex marriage. Fine, this is a democracy and everyone has a right to their opinion, on either side of an issue or right in the middle.

But the author continues with the "judgment" theme. "We are supposed to make moral judgments," he says, and we should make it a practice of reminding people about our view of the commandments. Thus the author says "of course we are meant to judge," but only if we are without sin ourselves--which explains the holier-than-thou streak that pervades Mormon political rhetoric. It's odd how easily a dose of self-righteousness helps morph "judge not" into "judge everyone." But only if you are convinced of your own moral perfection. So half of Utah thinks it has a green light to judge with reckless abandon. And not with much distinction between the policies and the people advocating them. I'm not sure this is how the author intended his article to come across, but that's the cue some Mormons are likely to take from this type of thinking.

That woman caught in adultery was pretty darned lucky she was accused by Jewish zealots who could actually respond with a bit of reflective humility and pity when Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin among you cast the first stone" (John 8:7, paraphrased). If it had been a Mormon crowd I think she would have been buried under a pile of rubble. [Edited 8/30]

LDS Sex Abuse Case

A Utah appellate court ruled (and I'm quoting from a Deseret News article) that the LDS Church "had no common law duty to warn plaintiffs" about the defendant's prior acts of child sexual abuse. The defendant was not a member of the clergy and was excommunicated in 1995. According to the article, the Church had been receiving complaints about this guy sexually abusing children as early as 1966. Do the math yourself. This kind of story confirms suspicions that local leaders generally close ranks behind a fellow priesthood holder rather than take complaints reported by mere women and children seriously. More reading along this line is available in the detailed case reports assembled by the Mormon Alliance.

There is a common pattern that seems to emerge in every LDS sex abuse case. The abused blame the Church and local leaders ("someone should have warned me!") as well as the individual perpetrators. The Church blames Satan, pornography, the perpetrators, the victims, pretty much everyone or anything except the Church or the local leaders, and is always quick to point out that some or all of the parties got excommunicated at some point (generally quicker than 29 years after the first reports).

Goodbye Area Presidencies

Most people didn't even know they were there. Areas presidencies are being dissolved, according to this Deseret News article. And what "profound changes" will this bring? (1) Fewer meetings. Yes, fewer middle managers who need to hold quarterly "tell me some good news" meetings to justify their place in the hierarchy. (2) Uh, I'm thinking . . . sorry, I just can't come up with anymore "profound changes." Seems like they just set up these "Area Presidencies" about ten years ago, talking about how wonderful they would be, didn't they?

Prolife Trend

Interesting article at Get Religion considering the continuing evolution of prolife/prochoice politics--the prolife camp seems to be gaining ground. Not that you'd know it from the mainstream media. The article notes, for example, that "a January poll showed that 43 percent of Democrats believe abortion 'destroys a human life and is manslaughter.'" You might have noticed, for example, how the Kerry campaign is sounding unusually moderate and low-key on issues like abortion and religion--these people know how to read polling results.

Mormon Grace and Free Will

This post follows earlier discussion in About John Calvin. What follows is something like a creative restatement of the Mormon view of grace versus works, namely that Mormons see "good works" as the showing or demonstration of free will necessary to invoke grace.

LDS doctrine recognizes grace to the extent that human effort alone is insufficient--there is an Atonement, and "we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do" (2 Nephi 25:23). Yet we can do something, and seemingly must do something, to accept or make operative that grace.

Relying on earlier comments by Jeremy for a statement of Calvinist theology: "No Calvinist would deny that accepting the gospel as a free act of the will is required for salvation." For one predestined for salvation, that free act of will would seem to be all that is required. To suggest more that a free act of will is required would seem to qualify as "what Luther would have described as salvation by works."

But how to communicate or demonstrate a free act of will? By sitting on the prayer bench at a camp revival and being moved to rush to the stage and declare oneself for Jesus? By experiencing a powerful but private spiritual experience accompanied by a personal commitment to Jesus, the gospel, and the atonement? I think the Mormon position would depict obedience to specific commandments and general principles of Christian living as contituting a demonstration of one's free act of will to accept Jesus and follow his gospel. Think of the argument in James (showing faith through works rather than by words), often invoked in Mormon explanations of the faith versus works issue.

This approach seems to have some merit. Words are cheap, and the Protestant view seems naively inclined to take words at face value (or sidestep the question by saying God will discern the insincere so it need not be a concern in the here-and-now). Actions over time, on the other hand, are in a sense self-verifying, a better discloser by far of one's actual exercise of human free will than mere words. In fact, it seems quite close to the Calvinist notion that good works are a sign of election. Instead, good works are a sign of human will, a speech act of sorts rather than a "merit act" subject to Luther's critique.

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.

New Kid on Block

Nine Moons has been captured by the gravitational tug of the Bloggernacle and is now securely in orbit around Times & Seasons (and added to my Weblogs list). Go check out a blistering post on the absence of symbolism from contemporary Mormon art and architecture. The critique goes further than that: symbolism communicates insight, so the implied suggestion of the post seems to be that artists who lack symbolism have no insights to share and those who proscribe symbolism act to banish human insight from art. Mormon art bears some resemblance to Soviet art. Don't you think those posters of the New Soviet Man resemble an Arnold Friberg of Nephi or Mormon? No, way too much symbolism in that Soviet art.

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.

Visitors Sign In Here

The Internet has made the global village a reality. My sitemeter data shows this weblog gets visitors from all over the globe: Brazil, Europe, India, Australia, Asia. Welcome you bloggers from afar. This thread is for you to leave a comment and say hi, from a simple "I'm a computer programmer in India" (which must have at least twenty million programmers) up to a few paragraphs on what it's like being a global blogger.

Canadians in Canada count, but Canadians in the US (green card or not) just aren't exotic enough to qualify. Alaskans, Hawaiians, and residents of a US territory count. US military overseas count. US tourists at Athens for the Olympics don't count (I'm not sure any went, so this might not be a problem). Let's even include US citizens serving abroad in embassies or consulates. Who are all you interesting people who have been silently dropping in to visit?

FARMS and Authorship

I just queued up Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins (FARMS, 1997). It presents a number of general essays on the related "Book of Mormon origins" themes of authenticity, authorship, translation, historicity, and geography. Noel Reynolds, one of the restrained voices within FARMS who seems to be liked and respected by all, is the editor and contributed a general introduction, short section introductions, as well as one of the articles.

He seems to use the term "anti-Mormon" to refer to anyone who proposes ideas that conflict with the FARMS ideology. Mormons scholars make a variety of arguments that clearly conflict with Catholic faith claims, but wouldn't consider themselves "anti-Catholic," yet they reflexively use "anti-Mormon" to describe not just Christian publishing houses that put out tracts targeting LDS beliefs, but also scholars, dissenting Mormons, and even faithful Mormons who don't belong to the Church of FARMS. He notes that "Earlier in this century, skepticism about [the supernatural account of the origins of the Book of Mormon] was widespread within the LDS community, particularly among the more educated" (p. 2). This ought to be a clue that such views are not "anti-Mormon," but even Reynolds can't avoid employing that term to turn disagreement about ideas and history into an allegation of disloyalty.

"Vocal doubters are a small and shrinking minority that finds itself much closer to anti-Mormons in its interests and views than to the general LDS community" (p. 2). Even if you accept this characterization, this suggests a sociological shift within Mormonism more than anything. The conservative view has been institutionalized, FARMS being a prime illustration of the trend, and competing beliefs have been shouted down or silenced.

"The contributors to this volume are not trying to 'prove' the authenticity of the Book of Mormon" (p. 3). Right, just like "anti-Mormons" aren't trying to prove it wrong.

Wicca Goes to War

There's a fascinating discussion of the emerging issue of Wiccans in the US military over at Get Religion [following a front page story yesterday in the Contra Costa Times, a Bay Area paper]. Is this what freedom of religion means? Well, basically yes. No doubt Evangelicals will go ballistic over this, but no one really has anything to worry about from a bunch of nature worshippers. Hint to believers who are still living in the 17th century: they aren't really witches. Those poor unfortunates strung up or burned by good Christians in years past were simply victims of patriarchal village politics in a superstitious era. We're smarter now--we give them guns and send them off to kill enemies of the state. That's progress for you.

"The Air Force attracts the most pagans in uniform, with 1,552. The Marines have 68. The Navy doesn't report numbers and the Army -- so far -- claims to have no Wiccan soldiers." I'll bet that's 68 damn tough Wiccans. Marines do a pretty fine job cursing (think Heartbreak Ridge), but when Wiccan Marines curse, watch out, they really might send you straight to hell. The whole article suggests the unthinkable: that the US military is out ahead of US civilians in terms of progressive social thinking and tolerance (well, except for the part about soldiers throwing bottles at humbly worshipping Wiccans). Travel broadens one's vision, they say. Join the Marines, see the world, kill the enemy, and come home an enlightened and diversity-tolerant veteran ready to put those skills to work in the private sector. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like the military is the most religion-tolerant institution in society at the moment.

Random Reflections

The papers from the recent FAIR conference aren't posted yet, but I found a fun piece by Daniel Peterson from last year's conference titled Random Reflections on the Passing Scene. It's the first Peterson article I've actually enjoyed, probably because he was addressing a friendly audience as opposed to a world full of anti-somethings who need to be put in their place.

First, he noted the sudden prevalence of articles and books stressing the connection between Mormonism and violence, such as Bagley's Blood of the Prophets and Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven. I like the point he makes about journalists being, as a rule, liberal and left-leaning, inclined to (1) not understand or sympathise with religion, and (2) reflexively attribute the worst in human nature to religion and believers. Yes, 9/11 plays right into those biases, confirming what journalists always suspected, and Peterson thinks that is now being reflected in how the media and publishers are framing religion, general Christianity as well as Mormonism.

I disagree with his reading of Krakauer, though. He started his research well before 9/11, and while he made a few jabs here and there, his book was mostly critical of 21st-century polygamists, not 21st-century Mormons. Nor do I see Krakauer using polygamous Mormonism as a stand-in for Christianity in general. I don't imagine Krakauer is a real fan of religion, but I don't see UBH as a clever attack on religion in general. If that's what he had wanted to do, a writer of his caliber would have done it much more effectively.

You really should go read the paragraphs on the Islamic anti-Mormon conference in Idaho. Am I the only one surprised there are Muslims in Idaho? As there is more Mormon activity in Islamic states and communities, there will be more resistance of this sort (and in case you haven't noticed, the Islamic mentality inclines toward aggressive responses). The behavior of the Evangelicals at the Idaho conference is especially disappointing. Stupid hypocritical Christians of that sort better figure out who their friends are before it's too late. Go read about the fate of the Christian denominations in Germany, who were happy to see Hitler pick off their denominational adversaries until they realized he wasn't stopping with marginal, unpopular groups and at that point it was too late to stop him. How clueless do Idaho Evangelicals need to be to think Muslims are their allies against evil Mormons? They'd rather let Islamic critics slime Jesus than stick up for a Mormon on the podium? Don't we still get some good feelings up there from Harmon Killebrew?

Sex and Spirituality

"Whether an individual is religious or not, there seems to be a need for a spiritual connection when dealing with sexuality." So says a U of U med school psychologist at the recent FAIR conference, as reported in a story at BYU NewsNet. I am trying to think of survey questions that would provide support for this proposition: Do you feel a sudden need to pray during sex? Do you find your heterosexual urges strengthened when viewing religious art or singing hymns? The article is a bit sketchy--I suppose that's understandable for a BYU NewsNet article on sexuality. Even so, it still seems a little half-baked to me. But I'm sure it brightened up the FAIR conference.

Of course, there's a gay angle: the researcher works with men "distressed by unwanted homosexual attraction." Generally, if you wear scuffed-up shoes and ties that don't match, they leave you alone. For some of us that comes naturally, others have to make a real effort.

Theological Foundations Part 2

McMurrin, p. 11-18; see Part 1 (p. 1-11) and Clark's notes on p. 11-18. McMurrin addresses universals and particulars in this section, winding up his treatment of "The Concept of Reality." Wow, reality in 18 pages. Not bad.

Reading Beowulf

I just queued up Beowulf, checking out from my local library the recent Seamus Heaney translation that has reinvigorated the classic Old English epic poem. Reading it is something of an adventure into the world-view of Scandinavian warriors, ancestors of the Vikings; into Old English, the language of the poet and ancestor of modern English; into Ireland and Irish, the home and touchstone of the translator; and even into Tolkien's Middle Earth, as it was Tolkien who rescued Beowulf from the scholarly fog that hung over it before his 1936 essay Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics.

Beowulf is epic poetry that we have in written form but which retains the cadence and syntax of orally transmitted verse. In the same class falls The Iliad and The Odyssey, much of the Old Testament, and Shakespeare (who wrote for the stage, after all). Interestingly, the Book of Mormon falls into this category too, more or less. The book was spoken (falling from the lips of Joseph Smith) before it was written (verbatim by scribes, then edited into verses with punctuation by copy editors at the printer's shop, and touched up ever since in successive editions). Joseph, we know, was a gifted storyteller as a youth who later matured into a fine preacher who could entertain audiences for hours.

Parallelism (of which chiasmus is one example) and alliteration appear in such transcribed oral poetry--these are devices storytellers use to punctuate their delivery and to order the material. I see this oral storytelling perspective as one interesting avenue into the text of the Book of Mormon. Would that someone like Seamus Heaney would come along and translate the Book of Mormon from its rather dated rendition of the King's English into modern verse!

Support Your Local Blog Club

In response to a general summer slowdown in blogging (or is T&S just sucking the life out of the rest of the Bloggernacle?), plus a couple of specific requests to pull out of a club, I have dropped a few sites and consolidated the remaining sites into one streamlined club/list. Please update your lists accordingly. Ongoing highlights: I think Clark's book club-type discussions of Mormon theology books at Mormon Metaphysics is turning out to be very interesting. This Liberal will have lots of things to talk about as the election rhetoric heats up. Our Thoughts adopted a spiffy new template. A Motley Vision continues to be the only site I know of producing high quality commentary on Mormon film and fiction--in fact, I find the weblog more interesting than the film and fiction it reviews! College bloggers Imagination's Fool and You Too! will no doubt be joined by other student sites this fall. I think every student should have a blog. This is a good thread for Blog Club feedback, comments, and ideas, as well as requests to join. FYI, here's a link to the most recent Blog Club FAQ.

Latest Polygamy Case

The latest Utah polygamy case [SL Trib link] is by a trio not yet entered into polygamy, who argue that "the state of Utah should not be able to criminalize the maintenance of an intimate relationship." Well, there's prostitution, statutory rape, and incestuous unions, all of which are acceptably criminalized or "regulated" intimate relationships, so it's hard to affirm the general rule. The plaintiffs also argue that "the [state's] ban on plural marriage violates their constitutional rights to practice their religion and to free association." Reynolds redux, that won't fly.

But when they argue that "the law unfairly targets religious polygamy because people who create multiple common-law marriages through cohabitation are never prosecuted for bigamy," this highlights the potential to frame the state's prohibition on polygamy as contravening the Lukumi Babalu Aye principle that religious practices cannot be targeted while identical or similar secular practices are ignored. The state argued that polygamy laws are enforced across the board, regardless of the religious motivations or affiliations of the participants, and that the state has a right to define marriage legally and enforce marriage laws. This case might show how far Lawrence v. Texas can be made to stretch. The Deseret News story on the suit provides additional details (a better discussion, actually).

Krakauer Walks the Walk

This AP story recounting Jon Krakauer's work with former FLDS members might be one of the most unexpected and pleasantly surprising news stories I've run across recently [see earlier post at Mormon Wasp too]. My impression is that Krakauer alone has now done more for these unhappy souls than any single LDS Church leader has ever managed to achieve (at least officially). Correct me if I'm mistaken, but the Church seems hamstrung by an informal "we won't touch polygamy with a ten-foot pole" policy that unswervingly directs LDS statements and conduct away from this third rail of Mormonism. Touch it, you're an Ex. And working to help castouts and victims by exposing the foibles of polygamist leaders is not without some personal risk: when these people go postal, they go plurally postal. I suppose Krakauer isn't the first to come down from the mountain a different man . . .

Bloggernacle Addition

A Bird's Eye View is a new weblog set up by a long-time Bloggernacker now turned blogger. Just for clarity, I would define "Bloggernacker" as one who frequents the Bloggernacle and hopefully comments from time to time, whether they host a blog or not. This appears to be one half of yet another pair of blogging brothers. There haven't been many new weblogs started lately, so this "new guy on the blog" should get plenty of attention. He plans to blog in six different languages. Well, that's different.

What Did Joseph Know . . .

. . . and when did he come to know it? This reformulates and continues the interesting exchange from the earlier Losing a Lost Tribe post. The question refers to Joseph Smith's apparent knowledge of things Nephite independent of the Book of Mormon text.

Those arguing for the Continental Geography Hypothesis (CGH) cite Joseph Smith's telling of Nephite stories to his family years before he translated the plates (as described by Lucy Mack Smith), the Zelph accounts, other remarks by Joseph Smith, and the traditional understanding of Native Americans as descendants of the Lamanites (memorialized by the current Introduction to the Book of Mormon, which describes Lehi's descendants as "the principal ancestors" of Native Americans). Of course, proponents of the CGH aren't really arguing for a continental geography, they are arguing against historicity.

Those arguing for the Limited Geography Hypothesis (LGH), the view generally advocated by FARMS authors, attempt to downgrade Joseph's extra-textual knowledge of things Nephite and suggest he could, should, or did know nothing more about Nephite origins, history, culture, or extent than is available from the text of the Book of Mormon, regardless of what Joseph himself thought or stated. This is a tricky position to maintain, running counter to traditional Mormon deference to any verifiable statement by Joseph, especially as it concerns the Book of Mormon. Of course, proponents of LGH aren't really as concerned about Nephite geography as they are laboring to maintain a plausible conception of the Book of Mormon as a historical document describing real-world events.

I believe we can advance the debate and peel at least one layer off the misleading geography discussion by asking commentators to directly address a key question that frames their geography arguments: What extra-textual knowledge did Joseph have, and when and how did he obtain it?