United Order of Mormon Theologians

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

2009-08-27T21:52:00.000-07:00

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.

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

2009-04-09T12:00:00.000-07:00

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.

Marriage: A civil and religious conflict

2009-01-26T23:38:00.000-08:00

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.

Book Review December 08: Massacre at Mountain Meadows

2009-01-01T08:52:00.001-08:00

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.

What if Mormons are right and Catholics and Protestants wrong?

2008-10-13T04:33:00.000-07:00

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.

Our New Location-Hello World Part 2

2008-10-06T16:19:00.001-07:00

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

Book Review September 08: Temple Themes in Christian Worship

2008-09-30T10:25:00.000-07:00

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.

Book Review June 08: Rough Stone Rolling

2008-07-01T09:56:00.000-07:00

(By Carter)

When this book was suggested as the next [May, June] read some members rightly questioned why we would read such a book given the only book selection rule is we don’t read things that could be cited in Sunday school. What could we possibly learn from a book about a story we have all heard literally thousands of times?

It is safe to say all members of the group give Bushman two thumbs up. Bushman’s cultural biography of Joseph Smith is undoubtedly the most balanced and in-depth look at the prophet’s life to date. He treats topics such as polygamy, priesthood authority, and the need for a restoration with an even hand by presenting both arguments for and against. We were all impressed with the rigor and quality of Bushman’s research and he clearly scoured the Church historical archives to create this work. The book tended to drag at times due to the detail and in spots we wished he would just get to the point but overall the extra effort was appreciated.

While much of what Bushman presented wasn’t anything new to most of us we give him credit for being the first author that we know of who states that prophets of the Lord are mortal men and then presents evidence showing as much. Rough Stone Rolling pulled no punches when it came to showing the clearly human side of our beloved prophet. This was especially true when it came to the sections concerning the beginnings of polygamy in the Church and the manner in which Joseph went about his “business”. This gave the club plenty of fodder for discussion during our last meeting.

Overall the book was an outstanding portrait of a man who been called an enigma by believers, critics, and interested onlookers. It will not only serve as a good re-read in the future but also as a solid piece of Church scholarship that can be used as a historical reference when you want to spice up a a Sunday school lesson or just rile up the old guard in your respective ward or branch.

(Stewart's somewhat more critical take)
First things first, I don't think that the humanization of Joseph can be considered the horrific evil that some reviewers have made it out to be. If anything it's nice to read a biography that wasn't blinded by hero worship or by prejudicial hatred. Bushman did an outstanding job of showing that Joseph was a man, a point that Joseph himself made over and over in his life.

Drawing from the cultural landscape of 19th century religious and political life, Bushman's biography endeavors to show Joseph as a product of his era. Interestingly enough, this era's devotion to the Bible helped Joseph frame himself in terms of a more ancient Biblical history in addition to the frontier history. This point Bushman makes in more depth in his Library of Congress symposium presentation.

Also Bushman doesn't shy away from the areas that make Mormons the most uncomfortable: the seer stones, masonry, and polygamy. Yet with the context of the religious development of Mormonism, which was Bushman's main theme, each of these became more comprehensible than they typically are presented. In my experience Mormons like to ignore or explain away these aspects of Joseph's life, it was refreshing to see them treated head on.

I have only two complaints with the book, one seemed editorial and the other historical. It seemed to me that the chapter discussing the Book of Mormon was completely out of place in a biography. Yes it is an important feature of Mormonism and necessary in framing the conflict around Joseph, but it seemed to me that the chapter broke up the narrative flow to the point of being distracting. I couldn't help but think as I read it that Bushman's editor had gone through the book and said "well that's great but what is this Book of Mormon thing anyway?" Thus forcing Bushman to insert a chapter in the middle of his narrative.

My other complaint is less Bushman's fault and more a problem of the historical record. There were several chapters where it seemed that Joseph himself disappeared from the book. These were mostly in the Missouri period. Given the state of the Saints at that time it is entirely understandable that we have little from the Mormon side on Joseph. Still I felt those chapters dragged a bit because of that loss of documentary evidence.

All in all though this was an outstanding book which brought into a single source all of the rumors, stories, and bits of gossip that have floated in the ether of cultural Mormonism that I have picked up since my childhood.

Mormon Cultural Homogeneity: A Discussion

2008-06-10T11:30:00.000-07:00

I thought it might be a good idea to start a weekly discussion area for this blog. In lieu of a doctrinal post, the idea simply would be for an individual to start a discussion regarding an issue affecting contemporary Mormonism. This discussion would be opened for a week or two until a new discussion post is added. As this is my idea, I will start the conversation. Specifically I think it timely and pertinent for us to discuss the problem and issues of Mormon Cultural Homogeneity.

Whatever we may claim about ourselves we Mormons, at least the missionary population (and all of BYU), are culturally engineered to act a certain way. This is an advantage and a disadvantage. It does reduce conflict and make people more efficient in a lot of ways. However once an individual is exposed to alternative viewpoints too often their faith is rocked and they fall away. For individuals who start out as idiosyncratic and heterodox, the trial of faith is often found in the subtle mocking of their fellow congregants.

While Joseph certainly brooked no dissent in the establishment of the Church, my reading of the history indicates that he was historically more accepting of difference so long as it was respectful to his authority and organization. With other faiths that did not attack the Mormons he seemed to get on well, granting a level of religious freedom in Nauvoo that the Saints had never experienced in their wanderings. Further, suppositions regarding non-revealed doctrine seemed to actually invigorate him; here I'm thinking of the moment early in the Church when Brigham Young spoke in tongues. Thus even orthodoxy of belief was not a prerequisite in Joseph's Church.

As we were driven west however I think there was less time and tolerance for difference. It was difference that lost the Saints their farms, homes, and lives in Missouri and Illinois. While undoubtedly unique individuals still existed within Mormon society, one need look no further than Porter Rockwell and later J. Golden Kimball, homogeneity became a virtue. Ironically while our critics claimed Joseph's demagoguery deluded these poor Mormons into blind obeisance, I believe it was the visceral reaction to the persecution that these critiques produced that homogenized the culture.

It is with this backdrop that we must recognize an important day that passed on Sunday. It has now been 30 years since the revelation on the priesthood, restoring the priesthood to all worthy men. Now the debate over why and how this became necessary can certainly be aired in the comments to this post. For my part I believe, as I expressed at our latest book club meeting, that the saints blamed in part their eviction from the east on their abolitionism. Sadly I fear that a certain amount of racism existed with the leaders that succeeded Joseph, notably Brigham.

Regardless of how the priesthood policy came about, I think it's more important at this time to assess where contemporary Mormonism finds itself. On the positive side there is rampant growth amongst people in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Church units in Harlem and other black neighborhoods of New York City are growing faster than most places in New York Metro. Lastly, Many of the continental European stakes wouldn't exist were it not for the African Saints that dwell there.

Yet the white American church still seems to struggle with the legacy of racism. While a headquarters celebration of the 30th anniversary was conducted in Salt Lake little was made of the anniversary on the local level. Instead of celebrating the joyous end to a nonsensical policy, the moment was ignored. Why would this be? Certainly it has nothing to do with the autonomy of congregations to set their own agenda, the pioneer celebrations of 1997 proved that Salt Lake is fully able to set the theme for talks in all their congregations worldwide.

Personally I think it is something more insidious. It is a problem of apathy and lingering racism. For many white Mormons, the revelation on the priesthood is sufficient to end the legacy of racism and no more should be said on the matter. In addition to this, my own experiences of the stares I received while on a date with a black girl at BYU and of attending a priesthood leadership meeting with Elder Ballard where a bishop asked if he could refuse temple recommends to illegal Mexican immigrants, have taught me that racism lingers despite President Kimball's revelation. As this article from the Salt Lake Tribune points out, I'm not alone in this experience.

How then do we change this? How can we embrace the tolerance that Joseph showed in allowing a Catholic priest to hold mass in the shell of the Nauvoo temple? It is my opinion that familiarity is the only way that this can be acheived. The more white Mormons reach out to their black co-workers, friends, and neighbors, the more likely we are to overcome the racism of our past and embrace the reality that all men and women are equal in the sight of God. This first step will truly help us as a people move beyond our racist history and hopefully help us admit that we as a Church erred.

A Response to Culpability and the Fall: The Vindication of Eve

2008-05-27T10:08:00.000-07:00

Thank you Stew for your insightful comments on Eve and the role she plays in the restored gospel. I have a number of comments on the post, which I will try and explicate below. I have read the post several times in an attempt to tease out the various facets. If I understood the posting, something I never take for granted, then there are at least three distinct themes that come together in the person of Eve. I shall summarize them as follows (I) Eve has traditionally received a bum deal from Christian churches; (II) Eve and Original sin; (III) the necessity of Eve’s action in bringing about the atonement.

I. Stewart is absolutely correct, historically, Eve has received a bum deal from the Christian churches. He provides ample evidence to make his case and so needs no additional help from me. With that said, however, there are a few things that ought to be mentioned on this point. First, long before she played any role in Christian soteriology, Eve was a figure in Jewish scripture and it is important to understand her role in that context. Eve shows up in the Torah and all books in the Torah should be understood within the overarching framework of establishing the Jewish people as a covenant people. As Leo Trepp points out in his discussion of the Torah Bereshit (Genesis) is the first book of the Torah, dealing with creation and the lives of the patriarchs. Bereshit is the Prelude. Here the destiny of the people as people of the Covenant is anticipated and founded. The story of creation emphasizes the divine origin of the universe, and humanity’s stewardship in it (Trepp, 1982, p.189).

It is in the garden that the very first commandment is given, and it is in the garden that the very first commandment is broken. According to Trepp, this episode establishes the significance of law and commandment as tools for making moral decisions. Adam and Eve disobey the commandment by eating from the tree. It is not until Noah that the obligation to obey divine commands is realized. Hence Noah is spared death in the flood and God makes a covenant with him. God makes the covenant with Noah because of his obedience, but all of humanity is included in this covenant. This last point underscores a parallel that will be picked up again by Paul, albeit in a modified formed. Specifically, just as humanity is punished for the sins of one man, so too is humanity brought into the covenant because of the obedience of one man.

The Jewish religion is, as far as I know, singularly unique insofar as there is no particular way a given scripture must be understood. This has left us with a long tradition of biblical exegesis by the rabbi’s now complied in the Talmud. I mentioned this because it is interesting and important to understand how the Jewish people understood these earliest chapters of Genesis. For example, in the commentaries by the rabbi’s we read that “God created only one person to promote peace in the world, that no one may say to his neighbor, my ancestors were more distinguished than yours” (Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5 as quoted in Trepp, 1982, p.189). From this same chapter in the Mishnah the emphasis is on the equality of all humans: ‘God created one man only, to teach you that he who destroys one single soul is deemed as having destroyed the world’(ibid).

Finally, an explication of Gen 3.14-19 that appears in The Oxford Study Bible (OSB) suggests that these verses are culled from independent folk explanations that are known to have exist and their purpose is to demonstrate “that the world as now encountered is of human making rather than remaining the divine ideal” (OSB, n.p14). The suggestion clearly is that cause and effect are reversed. Women, as personified in the person of Eve, have always gotten a bum rap, and part of what Genesis does is recognize this and attempt to account for it. Typically, however, we tend to think women get a bum deal because of Eve’s transgression. Jewish society, like most other societies, was very patriarchal and women were always subordinate, and from a Jewish standpoint anyway, there subordination had nothing to do with Eve. This is one of things that makes Jesus such a rebel, he bucks this tradition and clearly sees women as equals: Some of his closest friends and disciples were women. It was women who were with him at the cross and it was women who discovered the empty tomb .

Indeed, Jesus’ own treatment of women makes even more inexplicable that early Christian patriarchs would fail to understand his example, but prior to their role as Christian patriarchs they are a product of their society and their treatment of Eve is just a specific instance of their attitude towards women generally. My point, however, is that any discussion of Eve must situate her in her Jewish context as a character in Jewish scripture. As I have endeavored to show above, the Jewish concern was never with the role Eve plays in salvation, rather it was her role in establishing the Jewish people as a covenant people. Furthermore, the rabbinical commentaries and authors of Genesis use Adam and Eve to make sense of various human experiences and social dynamics.

II. The doctrine of original sin as it has been inherited by the Christian churches has been most strongly influenced by St. Augustine, and therefore, any discussion of original sin should begin with him . He discusses original sin in City of God and his reason for discussing it is to argue against a variety of Pelagian positions including the denial that the sin of Adam was the origin of death. Augustine argued that Romans 5.12 and again at 5.19 give scriptural support for the doctrine of original sin. There is much to criticize in Augustine’s account, and according to Philip Quinn (1999), many contemporary scholars doubt that Augustine’s arguments for original sin based on Romans 5.12 are legitimate because he read the text in Latin, rather than in the original Greek. However, his arguments can be based on 5.19, so. . .

For as through the disobedience of one man many were made sinners, so through the obedience of one man many will be made righteous (Romans 5.19 Oxford Study Bible).

As mentioned above in the case of Noah’s obedience, here Paul is attempting to establish a parallel between the disobedience of one man and its effect on humanity and the obedience of one man and its effect on humanity. Quinn writes the following with regard to 5.19:

The carefully balanced contrasts in the second of these verses suggest that al become guilty as a result of Adam’s disobedience. The obedience (good action) of one man (Christ) is that through which all (future) shall become just (positive ethical status), and so, if the set of contrasts is to be complete, the disobedience (bad action) of another man (Adam) must be that through which all became (past) sinners (negative ethical status). But this would imply that all acquired the negative ethical status of being sinner’s through Adam’s sin, which would make sense on the assumption that guilt is somehow transmitted from Adam to his progeny in a way that parallels the transfer of justice from Christ to those who benefit from his atoning work (Quinn and Taliaferro, 1999, p. 543).

My point here is not to attempt a defense of original sin or even a presentation of Augustine’s complicated version, rather I want to say enough to show that Augustine’s development of the doctrine was based on scriptural passage and the focus of that passage is Adam and not Eve who is never mentioned. I fully acknowledge Stewart’s point that many of the church patriarch’s were very harsh in their treatment of Eve, but as a matter of fact when the doctrine of original sin was formulated, discussed and defended as an official church doctrine the emphasis was always on Adam and his sin, Eve was scarcely ever mentioned. The Council of Trent while it did not make the following definition obligatory it did authorize the use of original sin as “the privation of sanctifying grace in consequence of the sin of Adam” (newadvent.org). This definition is advocated by Both St. Thomas and St. Anselm. Consider the following form St. Thomas:

An individual can be considered either as an individual or as part of a whole, a member of a society . . . . Considered in the second way an act can be his although he has not done it himself, nor has it been done by his free will but by the rest of the society or by its head, the nation being considered as doing what the prince does. For a society is considered as a single man of whom the individuals are the different members (St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 12). Thus the multitude of men who receive their human nature from Adam is to be considered as a single community or rather as a single body . . . . If the man, whose privation of original justice is due to Adam, is considered as a private person, this privation is not his ‘fault’, for a fault is essentially voluntary. If, however, we consider him as a member of the family of Adam, as if all men were only one man, then his privation partakes of the nature of sin on account of its voluntary origin, which is the actual sin of Adam” (De Malo, iv, 1, as quoted on newadvent.org).

I do not wish to belabor the point, however, I do maintain that whatever bad rap Eve has got, when the church father’s have discussed and formulated original sin as a doctrine Eve was scarcely mentioned, the sin is always Adam’s. This just reinforces the point from part I, Eve was so reviled because she was a woman, and women in the culture of the early church were understood to be secondary, subordinate people. Again I maintain the cause and effect relationship was not Eve caused the fall so women suck, but rather women suck generally so Eve sucks too. For whatever the patriarch’s thought of Eve, original sin was Adam’s sin, the result of Adam’s disobedience.

III. Whereas the prior sections dealt a great deal with religious and theological issues this next section takes up a tangle of decidedly philosophical issues centering on the problem of evil (suffering). I wish to begin this section with an excerpt from Stew’s post:

Satan did tempt Eve but Eve did not make a rash choice. After contemplation the fruit, and the right of choice that the Lord gave them at the beginning, “became pleasant” to Eve. No longer can we paint womanhood as a rash unthinking bunch as Tertullian did. Instead the Restoration’s Eve epitomizes thoughtful, careful and inspired action.

Yet still a question must be answered, a question that drives to the heart of the problem of suffering. How could willful disobedience be seen as pleasant? Especially when the Lord has made clear that those who transgress risk his wrath. Also, how could the introduction of suffering be seen as a positive for human kind? Lehi and the Book of Mormon answer both questions in a chapter that amounts to a rebuttal of original sin.

From the first paragraph of this excerpt we learn Eve exercised her free will and made a choice, and not a rash choice but a thoughtful, careful, and inspired, choice. What first struck me about this is that the result was still a choice to disobey. Whether the choice was rash or thoughtful the result was still disobedience and Stew acknowledges this in the second paragraph of his excerpt when he asks “How can willful disobedience be seen as pleasant?” and he ties this to the problem of evil “How could the introduction of suffering be seen as a positive for human kind?” Answers to both of these questions can be found in BOM and not only are these questions answered but original sin is rebutted.

I cannot help but be struck by the peculiarity of the idea that in order to bring about redemption we needed an act of disobedience. God gave a commandment, Adam and Eve were tempted and subsequently did break it, but Eve was able to see that by breaking God’s commandment she would be fulfilling God’s redemptive plan: “Yet in tempting Eve he failed to see what she clearly saw, that the fruit with which he tempted her hoping to frustrate the plans of the Father was a pathway to greater joy, the joy of Redemption.”

The problem with this explication is that if we think it though to its logical conclusion we may not like what we end up with: If Eve’s disobedience is necessary for salvation, then on what grounds do we justify punishing Eve for her transgression, indeed why even call it a transgression? How can it be disobedience? Suppose she chose to obey the commandment. We normally think that is something praiseworthy, but it seems that if she chose obedience, then God’s plan would have been frustrated and upended.

If the Fall was necessary to the plan on what ground’s can we possible punish Adam, Eve, and the serpent? If the fall was necessary and everyone was doing their part there could have been no disobedience, and the world should still be populated by serpents that walk upright. We can generalize this too: “The Restoration’s Eve, like all mothers, knew her posterity would have to walk through the paths of despair, heartache and suffering. Yet the fruit “became” pleasant to her eyes precisely because the ills of the world could be swallowed up in the atonement of Christ, and our sorrows healed by his grace. Joseph’s genius transformed the story of humanity from the ante-deluvian patriarchs to Moses and on to today, into a Christian narrative”.

In the overall context of his post, Stew implies here that not just Eve had to be willfully disobedient, but that at least some of her posterity have to be willfully disobedient. In other words, if it is necessary that we have to “walk through paths of despair, heartache and suffering”, then this implies that there must be people who misuse their freewill and as a result bring about “despair, heartache and suffering” for others. If this is true, however, then some notion of predestination is almost unavoidable, and yet if you introduce predestination freewill falls by the wayside; you cannot have both predestination and freewill.

Freewill is typically presented as a solution to the problem of evil. The problem of evil is the age old question: If God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, then why is there evil in the world? Many answers have centered on freewill: God created us with the gift of freewill, we all agree that having freewill is better than not having freewill, however, it is unfair of us to tell God that we want to have freewill, but then turn around and ask him to guarantee that no one will ever choose the wrong. Evil exists because people misuse their freewill. This is generally the line of attack against the problem of evil: at least some evil and suffering is the inevitable byproduct of the gift of free will. But this is not how evil is explained on Stew’s account. On his account evil seems to be divorced from freewill and exists to make necessary our salvation, but since salvation is good and we should want it and desire it, then a fortiori evil is good or perhaps, if you can stand a pun, we should say evil is a necessary evil. This brings me back to my initial feeling of peculiarity.

~John Styles~

Culpability and the Fall: The Vindication of Eve

2008-05-20T09:47:00.000-07:00

Judeo-Christian traditions regarding womanhood seem confused. The first mothers of the race, Lilith and Eve, are condemned as the bringers of death and fornication, while long suffering Sarah and Hannah are redemptive in their suffering through barrenness. Lot’s wife turns her back on righteousness and his daughters deal in incest, whereas Ruth turns her back on idolatry and becomes ancestor to the king. Yet despite the good examples of women in the canon, one individual provided the justification of the repression of women throughout the Christian era. That woman of course is Eve. For Mormons however, Eve, along with Mary, belongs in the pantheon of righteousness. Within the context of Joseph’s religion, both Mary and Eve point us to the single most transcendent event of human history, that of the atonement.

This perspective on Eve is a radical departure from the misogynistic tendencies of early Christianity and even Western Pagan religion. It was that first woman in Greek mythology, Pandora, who opened the box that unleashed all the ills on the innocent mass of mankind. Eve has been treated as the Pandora of the Judeo-Christian world. Her sin brought down upon the people sin, death, sorrow and pain. Eve, like Pandora, was the harbinger of doom for the poor witless man, who just wanted to stay in the Garden and play horse shoes.

Her treatment by the church fathers shows this blame quite clearly. Going back to the 2^nd Century C.E., Tertullian set the tenor of the treatment of Eve, using language that hearkened back to Hesiod and Homer. He said of Eve, and by extension all women,

You are the devil's gateway: you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image man. On account of your desert—that is, death—even the Son of God had to die. (Tertullian 202)

Tertullian goes on to indict all of femininity for the sin of Eve. He painted all women with the brush of original sin, stating that it [original sin] was the “baggage of woman in her condemned and dead state.”

A thousand years of Christian development did little to improve Eve’s standing. Thomas Acquinas, for example, said when discussing “Whether Adam’s sin was more grievous than Eve’s” that

the woman sinned more grievously, for three reasons. First, because she was more puffed up than the man. For the woman believed in the serpent's persuasive words, namely that God had forbidden them to eat of the tree, lest they should become like to Him; so that in wishing to attain to God's likeness by eating of the forbidden fruit, her pride rose to the height of desiring to obtain something against God's will. On the other hand, the man did not believe this to be true …Secondly, the woman not only herself sinned, but suggested sin to the man; wherefore she sinned against both God and her neighbor. Thirdly, the man's sin was diminished by the fact that, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xi, 42), "he consented to the sin out of a certain friendly good-will, on account of which a man sometimes will offend God rather than make an enemy of his friend….It is therefore evident that the woman's sin was more grievous than the man's. (Acquinas 13 Century, Question 163 Article 4)

Thus was justified centuries of chauvinism and blame heaped on the shoulders of Eve. The reformation did little to improve upon this view of Mother Eve. From Reverend George Whitefield to Alexander Campbell, Eve was derided and blamed for the Fall of man and the burden of original sin. About the only one to even see a bright spot in the whole affair in the Garden was John Wesley who wrote that

If Adam had not sinned, the Son of God had not died: Consequently that amazing instance of the love of God to man had never existed, which has, in all ages, excited the highest joy, and love, and gratitude from his children. (Morris 2006, 33)

Wesley here comes close to seeing the truth as revealed in the Restoration, but he still withholds all thought of redemption for Adam and Eve (Ibid, 34) . The Fall did necessitate the atonement of our Lord. This is part of the great truth that the restored gospel brings. Brigham Young put it very well when he said:

Some may regret that our first parents sinned. This is nonsense. If we had been there, and they had not sinned, we should have sinned. I will not blame Adam or Eve. Why? Because it was necessary that sin should enter into the world; no man could ever understand the principle of exaltation without its opposite; no one could ever receive an exaltation without being acquainted with its opposite. (Young 1954, 103)

Why does the Restoration give us this leeway? The account of the Fall in the book of Moses differs slightly from that in Genesis, in fact in the operative verses of the temptation of Eve only one word is changed. The text given to Joseph during the JST period simply replaced the word “was” and made it “became” in the following verse

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it became pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make her wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and also gave unto her husband with her, and he did eat. (Moses 4:12)

Satan did tempt Eve but Eve did not make a rash choice. After contemplation the fruit, and the right of choice that the Lord gave them at the beginning, “became pleasant” to Eve. No longer can we paint womanhood as a rash unthinking bunch as Tertullian did. Instead the Restoration’s Eve epitomizes thoughtful, careful and inspired action.

Yet still a question must be answered, a question that drives to the heart of the problem of suffering. How could willful disobedience be seen as pleasant? Especially when the Lord has made clear that those who transgress risk his wrath. Also, how could the introduction of suffering be seen as a positive for human kind? Lehi and the Book of Mormon answer both questions in a chapter that amounts to a rebuttal of original sin.

For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so…righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility. Wherefore, it [creation] must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation….And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away… And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents…it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter. (2 Nephi 2:11-3, 15)

Here the prophet quite clearly indicates that the eternal purposes of God require man to pass through challenges? Why? Eve put it this way “were it not for our transgression…we never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.” (Moses 5:11)

In other words the equation of salvation in Joseph’s Restoration demanded that if God’s work and glory was to bring to pass the eternal life of man, man needed to pass through good and evil, finding in the end the joy of reliance upon the atonement of Christ for redemption. Satan misunderstood the equation, believing that he could force all men to be perfect, denying choice and thus denying joy. Yet in tempting Eve he failed to see what she clearly saw, that the fruit with which he tempted her hoping to frustrate the plans of the Father was a pathway to greater joy, the joy of Redemption.

Instead of a lamenting Eve like the one Milton describes in Paradise Lost who weeps:

Ill-worthy I such title should belong
To me transgressor, who, for thee ordained
A help, became thy snare; to me reproach
Rather belongs, distrust and all dispraise.
(John Milton, Paradise LostBook 11)

The Restoration makes Milton’s Eve little more than a caricature of past stereotypes. Indeed John Wesley was right; the Fall necessitated the atonement, as was counseled from the beginning of time. That’s why Lehi ties the joy that men might have because of the Fall with the redemption that the Messiah offers (2 Nephi 2:25-6). Eve understood this, and gave to her children the opportunity for joy in redemption, the very joy that she and Adam knew.

As one author wrote, “This is an enlightening doctrine. Instead of Adam and Eve being the first great tragedies in scripture, they become people of hope.” (Morris 2006, 34) Instead of lamenting like Milton or the apocryphal literature would have us believe, Mormonism teaches that Adam and Eve rejoiced in the knowledge of their Redeemer and understood that the Fall was a necessary step for all mankind to achieve eternal life.

Thus the doctrine of redemption is not something introduced to the world with the ministry of our Savior. We can’t look at a calendar and say, “Okay everybody after 36 A.D. you can be forgiven, everybody else, well thanks for playing hope you like it warm”. It doesn’t work that way. Redemption according to Joseph has always been extended by God to his children, ignoring inconvenient factors like date of birth. According to the Restoration than, it is only the egotism of apostate Christianity which would have us believe that we can be saved while our ancient neighbors cannot.

The eternal availability of the atonement means that no burden of sin is on us just for being born. Nor does it mean that Adam and Eve are without redemption. In Kirtland Ohio in the 1830s, Zebedee Coltrin, an early convert to the Church wrote about seeing a vision with Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and Oliver Cowdery. He says,

The heavens gradually opened, and we saw a golden throne, on a circular foundation, and on the throne sat a man and a woman, having white hair and clothed in white garments. Their heads were white as snow, and their faces shone with immortal youth. They were the two most beautiful and perfect specimens of mankind I ever saw. Joseph said, "They are our first parents, Adam and Eve. (Hyrum L. Andrus and Helen Mae Andrus 1974, 28.)

The Restoration’s Eve, like all mothers, knew her posterity would have to walk through the paths of despair, heartache and suffering. Yet the fruit “became” pleasant to her eyes precisely because the ills of the world could be swallowed up in the atonement of Christ, and our sorrows healed by his grace. Joseph’s genius transformed the story of humanity from the ante-deluvian patriarchs to Moses and on to today, into a Christian narrative. For Joseph, all prophets, all revelation, pointed toward Christ. In thus redirecting religious history Joseph achieved a monumental feat by eliminating original sin and redeeming Adam and Eve.

Tertullian. 202. Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second. Christian Classics Ethereal Library. http://www.ccel.org/print/schaff/anf04/iii.iii.i.i

Acquinas, Thomas. 13th Century C.E. Summa Theologica. Christian Classics Ethereal Library. http://www.ccel.org/print/aquinas/summa/SS_Q163_A4

Morris, Chad. 2006. New Light on the Atonement: Revelations of the Prophet Joseph Smith on the atonement of Christ. Springville: Cedar Fort, Inc.

Young, Brigham. 1954. Discourses of Brigham Young. Edited by John A. Widtsoe. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co.

Andrus, Hyrum L. and Andrus, Helen Mae eds. 1974. They Knew the Prophet. Salt Lake City: Bookcraft.

Book Review April 08: Who Wrote the Bible?

2008-05-01T09:43:00.000-07:00

It’s hard to follow Margaret Barker, but Richard Friedman’s work did a great job in our April book selection. Instead of approaching the Bible as a single work dictating from the mouth of Jehovah, Friedman approaches it as it is, a collection of books compiled over time to form Holy Writ. Indeed Friedman's attempt is admirable insofar that he moved the scholarly pursuit of identifying biblical authors, and made it accessible to the masses. I won’t give away the ending but I will say that Friedman did an excellent job in presenting the accepted theories of the J, E, D, and P authorship (if you want more on that read the book).

As a group we by and large enjoyed the book, but as Friedman obviously came from the position of an unbeliever we had to take his conclusions with a grain of salt. Still it was highly informative read and proposed many new avenues of research into the Book of Mormon and extra-canonical research.

Reflections on Faith and Knowledge in Mormon Theology

2008-04-29T18:52:00.000-07:00

Reflections on Faith and Knowledge in Mormon Theology

Faith gives substance to our hopes and convinces us of realities we do not see

Hebrews 11.1 (The Oxford Study Bible)

And now as I have said concerning faith –faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if you have faith, you hope for things which are not seen which are true

Alma 32.21

by John Styles

During a typical Mormon testimony meeting one is likely to hear the participating congregants make repeated use of the following formula: “I know that. . .”. The formula is usually completed with one of the following: “the Church is true”, “Thomas S. Monson is the Lord’s Prophet”, “Joseph Smith restored the gospel”, “the Book of Mormon is true”, or some such thing. In making such statements the congregant is making a knowledge claim, but this can be problematic on two different fronts. The first problem, I shall refer to as the problem of justification, and the second problem pertains to the inherent tension between knowledge and faith.

Philosophers have been interested in the philosophical implications of knowledge and knowledge claims since Socrates. Indeed, in Plato’s dialogues, Socrates thrives on demonstrating to his interlocutors that they do not know what they claim to know. When I make a knowledge claim such as “I know that p” (where p is some proposition, such as “it’s raining outside”) I am claiming to have something, viz, knowledge of p. But just what is entailed by knowledge claims? In the dialogue Theaetetus, Plato, through the person of Socrates, attempts to define knowledge. Knowledge (and its derivatives) is an interesting word because we all know how to use the word correctly, and yet, if any of us were asked to define it, we would probably be stymied. By the end of the dialogue, knowledge is defined as “true belief plus an account.” That definition is alive and well in philosophy today (though certainly not without its detractors). Today knowledge is usually defined as “justified, true, belief”. This seems to capture some, if not all, of the essential features of knowledge. For example, knowledge must involve beliefs. It would be very odd indeed to hear someone say “I know it is raining out, but I do not believe it is raining out.”¹Furthermore, the belief must be true. I cannot know something that is false (though I can hold a false belief). I can believe that platypi can talk, but I cannot know they can talk. Finally, in addition to being true, the belief must be justified. I may believe there is life on other planets, and there may in fact be life on other planets, but without justification can I claim to know that there is life on other planets?

When someone bears a testimony they claim to know something, let us take for examples sake the generic claim “I know that Razzle Dazzle is a prophet”. Well this claims that I believe something, viz, I believe Razzle Dazzle is a prophet. It means the claim is true, in other words Razzle Dazzle is in fact a prophet. It also means there is some kind of justification for this claim, and here is where the problem of justification enters. What can that justification be? What can possibly justify the claim “I know that Razzle Dazzle is a prophet”? I believe that the most common answer given is that the Holy Spirit testifies of the truthfulness of these things. If anything, that just affirms the truth component of knowledge claims. Where is the justification? One might say it is a subjective knowledge (of “the small still inner voice” variety), but that seems to be wrong. If knowledge were the kind of thing that could be subjective, then everyone could have a justification for knowing all sorts of wild and far out things. We should all shutter at that thought. The “subjectivness of knowledge” is an incoherent concept.

The problem is that the way we use the word knowledge. I can make a claim such as “I believe that p” or “I am certain that p”, and I cannot be wrong about those claims. If I assert “I believe the word will end next week” I cannot be mistaken about that^². If I say I am certain that the world will end next week, then, again, I cannot be wrong about this, i.e., I cannot be mistaken about my certainty. However, If I say I know that the world will end next week, that is something I can be wrong about: To summarize: “While avowals such as ‘I believe’ or ‘I am certain’ guarantee belief or certainty, ‘I know’ as an expression of a conviction of knowledge does not guarantee knowledge, only that one thinks one knows” (Glock, 1996, p.77). When we use the term “I know” it invites the question “How do you know?” which opens up the possibility for doubt. Objective knowledge, unlike the “subjective knowledge” that accompanies certainty is not a mental state; rather it must be demonstrable and open to all. A favorite example of Wittgenstein’s is the case of pain. Wittgenstein would say the claim “I know I am in pain” is an odd locution because it is not the kind of thing that can be the subject of doubt. In other words it would be odd for someone to respond “Are you sure you’re in pain, I mean maybe you’re wrong?”

Knowledge claims, then, presuppose doubt, i.e. the possibility that I’ve gotten it wrong somehow, and yet this is precisely what those sharing a testimony would want to rule out. From the perspective of someone bearing a testimony, the claims made in a testimony meeting are not the kinds of things I can be wrong about.

There is a further problem with knowledge claims that are unique to the context of a testimony meeting and that is such claims obviate the need for faith and hope. As Hebrews 11.1 and Alma 32.21 makes clear, faith is only needed precisely because we lack knowledge. To say “I know that Razzle Dazzle is a prophet” removes the need to say “I have faith that Razzle Dazzle is the prophet”, or “I hope Razzle Dazzle is a prophet.” So knowledge claims make faith and hope expendable and ultimately unnecessary, and yet Mormons routinely talk about the faith they have and the need for hope. Indeed one of the four principles of the Gospel and an article of faith is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, however, if testimony claims are really knowledge claims then it would seem that no such principle is needed, at least not for a good deal of the membership.

In conclusion I am not trying to suggest that the Church is not true, or anything else, but rather my point is I do not think it is sustainable to make the knowledge claims that we often do. This, however, should not be seen as an attack on Mormon testimonies, rather as reasserting the need for a deep and abiding faith that sustains our hopes and nourishes those things of which we are certain.

1 Yes, there are figurative readings of this sentence that would work such as the person who goes on a golfing vacation with his buddies and on the first morning they are rained out. One buddy tells another, “Hey it’s raining out.” To which the second buddy responds “I know it is raining out, but I do not believe it is raining out.” Here the context allows the sentence to work. I am talking about non-figurative utterances of the sentence.

2 I want to be clear about what I am saying, I am not saying if I believe the world end next week, then the world will end. I am saying is that I cannot be mistaken about what my beliefs are.

Mormon Christianity: A Contradiction in Terms?

2008-04-18T18:40:00.000-07:00

I've been thinking a lot lately about my faith in terms of the variegated religions of the world. My own personal views demonstrate an appreciation for non-orthodox ideas within a single religious structure. As you well know I could be considered heterodox, even heretical, in my approach to spiritual things. I blame this tendency toward near heresy on growing up as a liberal-anglo-franco-mexican mormon in rural New York. There aren't a lot of us.

That said I wanted to speak somewhat on the categorization of Mormonism in the global family of religions. This has of course been getting a lot of play in the American media due to Mitt Romney's erstwhile campaign for president. In thinking about it I thought it was time for me to give my two cents toward the the question "Are Mormons Christian?"

The answer is an unequivocal Yes....and an unequivocal No!

For those of you who think that I'm equivocating let me first explain why Mormonism is not Christian and then why it is.

Evangelicals especially have difficulty grouping the Latter-day Saints in with the rest of the Christian tradition. Catholicism also has problems with the Latter-day Saints but for a different set of reasons.

Let's start by looking at the two most important principles of Evangelicism. Namely, (and this is the order used on the NAE's website) that the Bible is the Inspired, Infallible, and Authoritative word of God and that there is but one God in three Persons the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The Mormon claim that God didn't set the canon and that it's still open is therefore anathema to the Evangelical ideals. As if the canon problem wasn't enough Mormon use of additional scriptures draws the ire of traditional Christianity. Per much of mainstream protestantism John's statement in Revelation 22:19 that "if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." The implication from the "mainstream" Christian view is that Mormon scripture violates John's injunction and that the church and its texts are blasphemous.

John's statement however seems to be misapplied when used in this context. Consolidation of the Biblical canon was completed well after John's death. Further, only now are we beginning to see the full diversity of canons extant in the early centuries of the Christian era. Given the above interpretation of John, I have yet to find an adequate explanation of the place of the additional books included in the Slavonic, Ethiopic, Aramaic, and even Roman Bibles amongst Evangelical Christianity. That such books like 1 Enoch and the Gospel of Thomas were accepted as holy writ by some early Christians is beyond question. This then calls into question the infallibility of canon as defined above leaving Mormonism acceptance of additional books to the canon and its implicit acceptance of non-canonized and even non-Christian holy writ (D&C 91; 1978 Official Declaration) as inspired much less unique and "blasphemous" than previously supposed.

While certain of the evangelical movements accept the idea of separation between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, this is definitely a minority opinion. Traditional Christians cling to the trinitarian doctrine laid forth in the early Church counsels; this being a Trinity of a God with neither parts nor passions with three incarnations but being one God. This Trinity stands directly opposed to the doctrine of the Latter-day Saints and especially of Joseph Smith's earliest visions of a distinct and corporeal Father and Son.

The Nicean and Athansian creeds are among the only unifying forces in the "Christian Church". Yet early dissenting views against Trinity existed amongst the Arians, Cathars, and Manichaeism. While these were the three most influential and owed a significant theological debt to the dualist theology of the gnostics and other Hellenic influences, they were not alone in their opposition to the Trinity of the creeds. The God of the Shephard of Hermas differs as starkly from Rome as it does from Alexandria and Dan Brown wasn't the first to suggest Jesus had a family.

That said Mormonism is possibly unique amongst contemporary faiths, in its view of three beings united in purpose forming a Godhead, which is again why most of Christianity has a hard time accepting the unique Mormon view into the umbrella of Christians. Complicating matters is the idea of eternal progression of and toward deity. This deification process applying to the traditional Godhead has led the charge of polytheism being leveled against Mormonism. Ironically employing the charges Islam so adamantly used against Christianity against its own offspring.

Mormons typically don't understand these problems. We see the formal name of the Church "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" as the beginning, middle, and end of the argument. The use of Christian iconography especially in the Christus and the paintings of Bloch only reinforce for the Mormon mind our own Christianess.

Mormons often quote the statement of Joseph Smith given in Nauvoo Illinois before his assassination "Of all the testimonies we've given, this we give last of all, that he [Christ] lives, for we saw him, even on the right hand of God". This statement clearly delineates Mormon views. The separation of God the Father and God the Son as distinct individuals united in a common enterprise, to save as many of the human race as will be saved, maintains Jesus in the equation of worship and his role as the intercessor of humanity before the Father.

The intercessory role is preeminent in Mormon thought on defining Christianity. For all the uniqueness of Mormon doctrine, Christ maintains his place as the "author and finisher" of our salvation. Thus Mormonism's definition of Christianity places belief in the Atonement as the sole defining attribute of a Christian Faith. All else is nuance so long as Christ is at the center.

That said Joseph Smith's revelations preclude acceptance of other faiths as True (the capitol is important here) within Mormon Doctrine. What outsiders often fail to see, and when they do see it they find it offensive, is that Mormonism defines itself as THE Christian Church par excellence. Not only does it see itself as a Restoration of the primitive church (Article of Faith 6), but it also views the gospel as eternal and given to all humanity at one point or another.

Thus all religion is, in the Mormon view, derivative of a primordial truth; this primordial faith would therefore be Messianic and revelatory in keeping with the order revealed to Joseph Smith. If all religion springs from a common source (a very evolutionary idea but we won't get into that here) than all religion, from the Mormon view, must be at its origin what Mormon's would call Christian. Not only that but one should see traces of the modern Restoration doctrine and rites in religious traditions as diverse as Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Greek Mythology, and Native American religions. I can only speculate that this is what largely drives the tendency of Mormon scholars toward comparative research.

One could from this perspective say that Mormons view all religion as springing from a Messianic, read Christian, origin. The divergence of worship that marks the religious landscape of modernity is a result therefore of apostasy from that earliest of belief structures. Looked at from this perspective, the Restoration that Mormonism preaches is not merely a Restoration of Christianity but really of all human worship. In this context therefore Mormons see their faith as the repository of all true religious belief on earth, with Christ restored to his rightful center point.

Thus the Gospel revealed to Joseph Smith points backwards in human history and opens its arms to the inspired traditions of all humanity, while stating quite clearly that the contemporary religious landscape is in apostasy. Mormonism then becomes the faith of the human family, which faith is revelatory, inclusive, and Christian.

Book Review January 08: The Lost Prophet: The Book of Enoch and Its influence on Christianity

2008-03-01T05:24:00.000-08:00

In this early work of hers, Margaret Barker introduces readers from the Western Christian tradition to the book of 1 Enoch, which has long found a home in the Ethiopic church. She first outlines the contents of this important non-canonical book, its influence on early Christianity, and concludes with a discussion of its place amongst visionary literature. Barker, a Methodist lay minister, does something a bit shocking for many biblical commentators, she accepts the notion of an open canon, and more importantly from an LDS perspective, the importance of temple theology in non-canonical literature.

We were left with a feeling that insufficient emphasis has been placed on this important work amongst Mormon scholars, Hugh Nibley's work on the subject being insufficient given the depth and breadth which 1 Enoch contains. Barker hints at aspects of the Enochian tradition, including a reworked creation cycle, that would have a great resonance with Mormon temple and scriptural tradition if tackled by LDS scholars. Margaret Barker’s outstanding piece on the place of the pseudepigraphical book of 1 Enoch was a pleasant relief after dealing with Wilson’s book.

Book Review December 07: Our Father Abraham

2008-01-31T14:41:00.000-08:00

When you see a title like Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith, you think that the book will be about the Judaic influence of the early Christian church. You'd think it would deal with the early strains of Christian faith as they interacted with Judaism throughout the Levant. You'd think chapters would be devoted to the influence of Jewish rite and ritual on Christian rite and ritual. You'd think that such a book would explore how the schisms between Essene and Hellenic Jews and Pharisee and Sadducee affected early Christian faith and schisms. You'd be wrong.

Instead this was a book lamenting the loss of the “Jewishness” of the Christian Church. Blindly devoted to the canonical works as the be all end all of inspired writ, Wilson ignored the abundance of non-canonical works that would have so enriched this work. Rite and ritual,especially as relating to the temple were completely absent. Operating from the evangelical paradigm he tries to lay out how Christianity should never have really strayed from its Jewish roots. We were all so frustrated with this book that none of us finished it.

Book Review November 07: Solomon's Temple: Myth and History

2007-12-01T09:21:00.000-08:00

Hamblin and Seeley, the authors, provide an excellent overview of the centrality of the Solomonic temple through history. Starting with the evolution of Israelite temple cult through the consolidation and centralization of worship in Solomon and much more profoundly in Josiah, the authors describe the importance of the First and subsequent temples as the contact point between divinity and humanity. They then go down through the centuries and examine the role this temple took in defining the places and systems of worship of the three great monotheistic faith families, along with its effect on the esoteric traditions.

Along the way Hamblin and Seeley provided wonderful iconic evidence of the temple through the many thoughtfully selected plates included in the book. These were largely images unknown to me. They provided excellent support for the arguments being made.

All that said I felt that the book would have benefited from a discussion of the broader array of drama worship native to the region in the pre-temple era and how it affected temple worship. By ignoring this aspect of worship, the authors started the story in middle. Furthermore while the authors were in their element in describing ancient Christian, Judaic, and Islamic usage of the temple, their arguments were somewhat lacking dealing with modern incarnations of temple worship. Given that both authors are Mormon, their section on Mormon temples was woefully inadequate and came off as more of an advertisement for the virtues of Mormonism than as a true evaluation of the status of Solomon's temple in Mormon temple worship. Likewise, other contemporary movements were passed off as simple millenarianism or pop culture fads, without a true sincere evaluation of the place of Solomonic worship in said movements.

As with many books trying to cover such a vast historical swath, Solomon's Temple tends to fade toward the end. Instead of simply discussing the differing views of various Christian, Islamic, and Judaic traditions about the destiny of the temple and Temple Mount, the authors conclude with a moralization about how the unifying theology of the temple is incongruous when opposing the eschatological currents in the three monotheistic faiths in question. This leads them simply to conclude that only a true understanding of the temple will lead to peace on the Temple Mount. True though this might be, the editorializing of this conclusion is out of place given the rest of the works and detracts from its overall strength.