Book Review February 09: Did God Have a Wife?: Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel

Sometimes academics get to the point where they have nothing original to say, they just want to remind everyone of what they've already said. Usually you can tell those books based on the number of times the author cites him/herself. This is one of those books.

We chose this book thinking that it would be develop Margaret Barker's research on the place of the Asheroth in early Hebraic worship. Barker's main thesis being that the worship of the First Temple period included worship of the goddess Asheroth as represented by the True Menorah. According to Barker this aspect of Hebraic worship was removed from the temple, along with the angels and the hosts of heaven, by Josiah's reform.

Sadly Dever fails to deliver like we had hoped. While his findings are compelling in and of themselves, the presentation was sufficiently lacking to be a major detriment to the work. Further his treatment of Josiah's reforms seemed almost annectodal, whereas our reading is that it was these very reforms that drove folk relgion underground and to the fringes of Jewish society and cost the goddess her place in the temple. Lastly, his goal to "draw a clear picture of a religious life," that was lost was he says in the introduction is "admittedly impossible."

Perhaps this is a book more suited to academics and those with long training in the field. For our little band this was a book with much too much noise and not enough substance.

Read more...

Book Review October 08: Muhammad: A prophet for our time

Karen Armstrong has been called a "Freelance Monotheist". Starting her career as a nun who became disillusioned with the teachings of her faith, Armstrong has since devoted her work to exposing the interconnectedness of religious experience to the western world. From the Buddha to the Crusades Armstrong has doggedly tried to help Western readers understand the heritage and commonalities of all religious traditions not just the Judeo-Christian tradition. In Muhammad, Armstrong attempts to expand the Judeo-Christian experience outwards to show the place of Islam with the faiths of the Levant.

With the alacrity of a well versed historian, Armstrong scours the original source material to paint a compelling picture not of the religion built by Muhammad, but of the life of the man himself. Framing his rise within the context of the expectations of 7th century Arabia, Armstrong shows Muhammad to be a man of his time but without the appreciation of the singularity of his own importance in his place and time. Says Armstrong:

Like most Arabs of the time, he was familiar with the stories of Noah, Lot, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and knew that some people expected the eminent arrival of an Arab prophet, but it never occurred to him that he would be entrusted with this mission.(Armstrong 2006, 10)

In Armstrong's able hands she shows the evolution of Muhammad's understanding and teachings to become that prophet of Arabia.

Yet there are some issues that exist in Armstrong's interpretation of Islam. Her life experience lends her to a pluralistic interpretation of religion. Her seminal work to date, The Great Transformation, is based on her belief in the native tendency toward pluralism in most faiths. In Muhammad she states that, "The fact that this appreciation of other traditions is written into the archetypal myth of Muslim spirituality shows how central this pluralism was to early Islam (Ibid, 86)". To prove this point she appeals to the Qur'an:

Say: We believe in God and in that which has been bestowed from on high upon us, and that which has been bestowed upon Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and their descendants, and that which has been vouchsafed by their Sustainer unto Moses and Jesus and all the [other] prophets: we make no distinction between any of them. And unto Him do we surrender ourselves (lahu muslimun). (Qur'an 3:84)

In her treatment of the subject, Armstrong develops the Arabian appreciation of all faith originating from a single starting point as an acceptance of pluralism. In so doing she fails to see that in Islamic tradition God revealed a single faith to all his prophets back to Adam. Yet this revelatory faith has been corrupted time and again. The Kabbah itself, the central alter of Mecca, speaks to this tradition of revelation and apostasy. Says Armstrong of the Kabah:

It was said that Adam had built the Kabah after his expulsion from Eden and that Noah had rebuilt it after the devastation of the Flood...Abraham had visited Hagar and Ishmael in the desert and had rediscovered the shrine. he and Ishmael had rebuilt it yet again and designed the rites of the hajj. (ibid, 30)

Again this is not the sign of a faith embracing the plurality of religion but of a faith that sees itself in past traditions and defines itself as the revelatory religion par excellence, restored and perfected with the last prophet.

Despite this weakness, and the susceptibility of any biography of a figure from a largely pre-literate society to critique, Armstrong's Muhammad fills a necessary void for those who don't know much about Islam besides stereotypes and misinformation. For the average reader one will learn much, not only about Islam but of the time and context in which it originated. For the Mormon reader this book should show some intriguing parallels with their own history and doctrine and give great insight to a faith too often excluded from its religious kindred in the West.

Read more...

Marriage: A civil and religious conflict

SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

I have to apologize for the delay in putting up this post. I've been mulling over my feelings over the course of the past months in regard to the California vote and debate over gay marriage. I have to admit that I find the strategies of both sides abhorrent. The money spent by all supporters and opponents of the proposition seemed to my mind, at least ill spent. Further, the acrimony on both sides is distasteful to say the least. The language and tone of many of the supporters of Prop 8, seemed homophobic and hypocritical (more on that later). Likewise the opponents of the proposition seemed, especially in their post election demonstrations, as intolerant of religious beliefs as they claimed the proposition's supporters were of homosexuals.

Others have dealt with the cultural and religious difficulties of homosexuality within Mormon doctrine, and I will leave the discussion to them. What I want to speak about is how Mormon supporters of Proposition 8 in California have framed their argumentation regarding the gay marriage debate.

On many blogs of my Mormon friends and associates I have noticed the following theme, "we must join together to protect traditional marriage." The question that has been asked from the other side has continually been, "Protect it from what?" In my mind however I have another equally interesting question, "How did Mormons become the defenders of traditional marriage?"

29 Abraham received all things, whatsoever he received, by revelation and commandment, by my word, saith the Lord, and hath entered into his exaltation and sitteth upon his throne...
31 This promise is yours also, because ye are of Abraham, and the promise was made unto Abraham; and by this law is the continuation of the works of my Father, wherein he glorifieth himself.
32 Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved.
34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.
35 Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, acommanded it.
40 I am the Lord thy God, and I gave unto thee, my servant Joseph, an aappointment, and restore all things. Ask what ye will, and it shall be given unto you according to my word.
(Doctrine & Covenants 132:29; 31-2; 34-5; 40)

"[R]estore all things" was the commandment given to Joseph, and the above scriptures give no doubt as to what those things were. Extant in Mormon canon is this notion of divinely appointed polygamy. While halted by Wilford Woodruff with Official Declaration One and the Manifesto, there is no doubt from the above quotation that Mormon doctrine maintains that polygamy was an institution received not only with divine approbation but as a divine commandment.

Woodruff's revelation did not end the reign of polygamy in the Church. It wasn't until 1945 with the death of Heber J. Grant that the last polygamist leader died in the highest levels of mainstream LDS leadership. Thus placing Mormonism a mere 64 years from the practice despite the Manifesto. Further, the doctrine and policies of the Church make clear that plural marriage continues as an official doctrine in the eternal world if not in mortality.

Current Church policy allows for an individual to be sealed to all of their deceased spouses. While this seems to allow for both polyandry and polygyny, it seems unlikely that this is doctrinally consistent with Utah era plural marriage, despite the polyandrous marriages of the Nauvoo era. More likely this arrangement of plural sealings seems to allow for polygamous marriage of men consistent with section 132 and the polyandrous female sealings would fall into that contemporary Mormon realm of doctrine "to be resolved in the Millennium".

Thus Mormons find themselves in a dilemma of self contradiction. Do we as a religious society fight gay marriage under the guise of protecting the sanctity of traditional marriage when our own doctrines belie this argument? For 47 years between the publication of D&C 132 (yes Fanny Alger was before this point but we'll use the document date for our purposes here) and the issuing of the Manifesto, the cause of plural marriage animated the Saints in a way that few other causes could. It was polygamy that was used to define the Saints and help justify their persecution by the outside world. In many ways this external definition was vital for Mormonism to cohere the various ethnic immigrant communities into an "us" versus the agents of persecution.

[W]e think it may safely be said there never has been a time in any State of the Union when polygamy has not been an offence against society, cognizable by the civil courts and punishable with more or less severity...[I]t is impossible to believe that the constitutional guaranty of religious freedom was intended to prohibit legislation in respect to this most important feature of social life. Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law. Upon it society may be said to be built, and out of its fruits spring social relations and social obligations and duties, with which government is necessarily required to deal...So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed.

(REYNOLDS v. UNITED STATES. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 98 U.S. 145 OCTOBER, 1878)

American society has changed a lot in the 131 years since Reynolds vs. US came firmly down against the LDS community. The Saints had tried to argue that polygamy should be allowed as it was afforded the constitutional protection guaranteed for free practice of religion. The Court rejected this notion stating quite clearly that while a religious institution, marriage is also a civil contract and thus definable by the mores and laws of the society in which the individuals live. Arguments and mores have changed drastically, to the point where the proponents of gay marriage take the language of Article 1 of the California Constitution to provide a legal framework for their relationship.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

In the end, we Mormons are left in an awkward position. Our assimilation or desired assimilation into the Christian world is forever out of reach, yet we continue to point to our support for items like Prop 8 as examples of our full and total participation in the Cause of Christ. This, despite the fact that our doctrinal history makes us peculiar defenders of a traditional structure to which we did not always adhere.

Read more...

Book Review December 08: Massacre at Mountain Meadows

I am typically not a fan of Mormon history once they cross the Mississippi, yes this means the Missouri period too. And so I was not terribly excited when this was chosen as the latest work for the book club. Knowing nothing of the Mountain Meadows Massacre this I was a total blank slate, I was surprised that the book held my interest as well as it did.

The authors's paradigmatic approach throughout the work was to show the cultural and political realities of Mormon frontier life that helped cause the massacre. In this regard they painted a fascinating portrait of how seemingly non-related events paved the way for the self-justification of the Mormon participants in the massacre.

Certainly there will be many who will reject it as another work of Mormon apologetics, since the authors did not place the blame of the massacre squarely on Brigham Young's shoulders. The authors certainly show their sympathy to many of the participants who participated in the horrific events, but those sympathies are tempered by the fact that they don't pull any punches in the description of the massacre itself. Further, the authors repeatedly emphasize the personal responsibilities of their non-contemporary coreligionists in the massacre itself.

The narrative of the book only lasts 200 pages or so and is both well written and easy to follow. In addition to which the novice researcher has another 200 pages of bibliography and footnotes. The thoroughness of this bibliography I found almost as compelling as the narrative as it showed their willingness as authors to follow every lead regardless of how unsavory the information proved to be. I look forward to seeing the sequel dealing with the cover up of the massacre and hope they can approach that book with equal intellectual honesty.

Read more...

What if Mormons are right and Catholics and Protestants wrong?

I have a hard time understanding why some things are controversial. The idea of proxy baptism for the dead is one of those things. In my mind the argument boils down into the following camps. 1. If Mormonism is right than everyone needs baptism and the most equitable way to cope with those millions/billions who've never had the chance for baptism is to do proxy work. 2. If Mormonism is wrong than wow those Mormons are kooky but since they're wrong et them do their wacky baptism for the dead see what good it does them.

It has never made sense to me why individuals would panic over a belief they reject, in a faith they hold as untrue. I think this article in the Belfast Telegraph says it better than I could:

Why are the Catholic bishops so concerned about Mormons baptising dead parishioners? The Mormons didn’t invent baptism of the dead. The practice has a significant history within mainstream Christianity. The decision to order its abandonment was taken only after heated debate, and was a close-run thing.

What’s the difference, anyway, between baptising the dead and baptising babies? A tiny infant will have as much understanding as a dead person — none at all — of the complex philosophical belief-system it’s being inducted into when baptised, say, a Catholic. Transubstantiation? There’s daily communicants go to their deaths without any clear understanding of the concept. So what chance the mewling tot?

Indeed, given that all Christian Churches believe that the soul lives on after death and retains understanding and consciousness of self, doesn’t it make more sense to baptise dead adults than live babies?

Apart from which, if the Catholic bishops hold that the beliefs of the Mormons are pure baloney (as they must), and their rituals therefore perfectly meaningless, how can it matter to them what mumbo-jumbo Mormons might mutter over Catholic cadavers?

The current controversy has been prompted by Archbishop Dermot Clifford and Bishop Bill Murphy complaining to the National Library in Dublin about records handed over by the Church being made available to all and sundry. The Mormons are believed to have taken advantage of this facility to comb through parish records and baptise the souls enumerated therein, a batch at a time.

The bishops stepped in after the Vatican warned all national churches earlier this year about Mormons misusing diocesan records. I have heard it suggested that the alarm of the Holy See had escalated after reports that Mormon multiple baptisms were regularly breaking the official record set by General Liu Kung Lee who, in one afternoon, baptised seven regiments of Chinese soldiers into Christianity with a fire-hose.

Let’s look at the facts as understood by the early followers of Christ. For more than 300 years after the Crucifixion, baptism of the dead was widely accepted, its biblical basis located in 1 Corinthians 15, 29: “Otherwise, what shall they do who are baptised for the dead if the dead rise not again at all? Why are they then baptised for them.” In other words, a deceased person could be baptised by proxy: otherwise, how could such a person be included in the Resurrection? A good question.

The radical Cerinthians and the Marcionites were especially energetic baptisers of the dead. It was to wrong-foot these sects, seen as competitors with the official Church at a time when it was consolidating its position as the State religion of the Roman Empire, that the Synods of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) voted, after bitter debate, to condemn the practice.

Interestingly, a clear trace of baptism of the dead has lingered in official practice to the present day, in the form of prayers for divine intercession on behalf of the unbaptised souls. Prayers for intervention were encouraged in Catholic schools in the 1950s. For all I know, this remains the case.

Baptising the dead might be seen as analogous, too, to the Jewish prayer of intercession. Which serves as a reminder that US Jews put a halt to galloping post-mortem Mormonism a couple of years ago by arguing that deJudaising those who’d perished in the concentration camps constituted a profound insult to Holocaust victims. Following talks in New York between leaders of the two religions, the Mormons backed off.

The key point is, surely, that all religions believe that the soul, after death, at last knows what’s what — whether Hinduism, Free Presbyterianism, Jainism, Judaism, Islam, Catholicism or whatever is the true religion. What if it’s Mormonism? What if it’s an everyday occurrence on the other side that Catholics and Protestants are left standing dumbstruck at the Gates, gasping: “Mormons! Who’d have believed it?” And maybe a wife berating her husband: “There! I told you it would be the Mormons! But would you listen?! Now it’s eternal hellfire for the two of us, I hope you’re satisfied.”

In that scenario, shouldn’t all members of all other religions be literally eternally grateful to the Mormons for sharing their saving grace even unto and after death?

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.

What’s the problem?

---

Thanks Yen for pointing this one out to me.

Read more...

Our New Location-Hello World Part 2

Welcome to the new home of the United Order of Mormon Theologians. After a brief flirtation with Wordpress that ended with her taking my cd collection and me with a permanent migraine, I have decided to move this blog over to our new blogspot location.

As I stated in my original "Hello World" post on our old site "I have two intents for this blog. The first is to create a mileu for the Templar Knights of Nehor to give their feedback on the books we're reading on a regular basis. The second is to create a friendly place where my theologically like-minded or at least politely disagreeable friends can discuss issues of theology, culture, and doctrine."

I now have a third goal, to not bore my family blog readers with my book reviews.

With these goals in mind I hope that you all enjoy what I hope to be the lively, polite, and engaging discussions that will occur here. God bless.

~The First

Read more...

Book Review September 08: Temple Themes in Christian Worship

Ah what can I say about Margaret Barker. She's one of my favorite feminist theologians. She's not as skeptical as Elaine Pagels or Bart Ehrman. She's not nearly as wordy as Karen Armstrong. Her world view is much more encompassing than some of the traditional conservative Christian thinkers I've read. I'd describe her theology as pan-christian.

She accepts, more than many, the validity of the non-canonical sources and the reality that what we have as "Christianity" today is merely the victor of the early Christian traditions. She also accepts that all scripture passed through human agents and was subject to human changes. If you have a problem with either of these assumptions than don't bother reading this book because these assumptions provide the paradigmatic backbone of this work.

In Temple Themes, Barker starts off with a bang. Going back to St. Basil and the 3rd Century C.E., she outlines how there were extra-canonical traditions within Christianity. These traditions derived largely, Barker contends, from 1st Temple worship. To show this connection then is Barker's main motivation.

She clearly outlines how the earliest Church Fathers expressed that such traditions existed and more importantly how they could or should not be wrote down. These were the traditions of the mystery worship, which she contends ultimately were the mysteries of the knowledge of God. Culling the non-canonical sources, Barker shows how elements of the pre-Josiah temple appear in places like the Epistle to the Hebrews, the writings of Clement, and the gnostic and Qumran texts. Pulling from the complete extant corpus Barker makes a compelling case that Christianity does not understand itself because it doesn't understand the Temple.

That said Barker runs into a problem that she doesn't readily admit. She is ultimately trying to prove the unknowable. Because Josiah purged the temple, destroyed the Tree of Wisdom, removed the anointing oil, and changed the priesthood, we have little documentary evidence to know what the first temple was and meant. What evidence we do have has come down through the generations in such a convoluted and corrupted form that we can only assume it's accuracy. This allows Barker to cherry pick quotes and traditions that support her argumentation but does not truly provide more than circumstantial evidence. That I tend to think she's right in her interpretation has more to do with my own religious beliefs than with the evidence she presents in this work.

That said, for those who are interested in speculative theology about the sources of Christian worship I highly recommend this work. It was entertaining, if a bit dense in parts. Further, if you've never read her works, Barker never shies from suggesting the most controversial things and this work does not disappoint in that regard. In the end this felt like the culmination of a lifetime of research and writing and was a highly worthwhile addition to my library.

Read more...