| |
|
Monday, March 01, 2004
|
|
There are some detailed comments and samples of several reviews of the movie in this story at Christianity Today. The Christian world is abuzz over the movie; perhaps it's a sign of the times that this generation's cinematic treatment of Jesus is steeped in violent scenes. Comment on Mormon blogs touches on the problematic fact that the film is rated R, and Latter-day Saints have been counseled to avoid R-rated movies. This blog posting at Times and Seasons, with links and comments, is a sample of the mixed reactions Mormons are having. This Deseret News story covers the rating problem, along with some hearteningly reasonable comments by Prof. Millet of BYU. For me, it's the violence, not the rating, that bothers me; haven't seen it yet, don't plan to anytime soon. Prof. Tom Smith at The Right Coast made comments that come closest to my feelings about the movie: To call the movie violent is a ridiculous understatement. It should have been rated NC-17, not R. . . . [T]here is a sense in which the crucifixion is meant to be contemplated in private, not shown on a screen, or so it seems to me. I felt a little violated by the movie. I know some Christians view the violence of crucifixion as integral to the Atonement, but I don't. I see the whole Jewish sacrificial parallel (Lamb of God, spotless offering to God stuff) as metaphor, and one which was most meaningful to the first generation of Jewish Christians. If Jesus had been made to drink the hemlock with his disciples gathered round him, would he have been any less The Christ? It hardly makes sense that the particular mode of execution employed by the pagan Romans played any necessary or soteriological role; if true, this suggests the violence truly is gratuitous and incidental rather than integral to the story. Besides, tens of thousands of people suffered crucifixion by the Romans, there was nothing unique or even exceptional about it. In that world, violence was common, not exceptional. We forget that, I think. After this movie, we'll forget it less, perhaps.
10:23:32 PM 
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
|
|
 Part of the Isaiah Scroll
The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles has this short article about the Dead Sea Scroll exhibit currently on display at the Los Angeles Temple Visitor's Center. As noted in the article, Mormons have a particular affinity for the Dead Sea Scrolls. Yes, the Church is always eager to associate authentically ancient manuscripts with the Book of Mormon. The exhibit contains a model of the Qumran community, models of the urns that the scrolls were found in and facsimiles of the scrolls themselves, including 24-foot long replica of the Isaiah Scroll, the largest of all the Dead Sea Scrolls. Sounds like it is worth a visit if you live near the City of Angels.
9:26:12 PM
|
|
As reported recently in the Deseret News, Elder Vaughn J. Featherstone continues his recovery from an automobile accident he was involved in earlier this month in Wyoming when his car struck two horses on a dark stretch of highway. A later story notes that he is now at home, having been discharged from the hospital on or about February 16th.
9:15:42 PM
|
|
|
|
Monday, February 23, 2004
|
|
Headline of Christianity Today interview of Mel Gibson about his movie, The Passion of The Christ. Lots of blog chatter about this movie, but I have no plans to see it. No qualms about the R rating, I've just never been interested in commercial religion films. I never saw the Exorcist; I never saw the Damien flicks; I started but couldn't finish End of Days. So I think I'll just pass on this one. I have never gotten the good karma some Christians seem to draw from depictions of the Crucifixion. Perhaps my early positive connection of the term "Passion Play" with the Jethro Tull album of the same name, only belatedly expanded to include the orthodox meaning, explains my lack of ardor.
10:04:44 PM
|
|
|
|
Saturday, February 21, 2004
|
|
There's another interesting Salt Lake Tribune article on Mormon Studies, Utah colleges lagging on LDS history. This article relates how several major universities have Mormon Studies programs or professorships, but Utah universities, especially the U, have studiously avoided moving in that direction, even in Mormon history, and cites the recent decision not to hire D. Michael Quinn as illustrating the reluctance of Utah colleges to be active in the field. The Y hasn't done much better. Thus UVSC, the upstart state college in Utah County, seems to be more supportive of the religious studies approach to Mormonism than any institution of higher learning in the state of Utah (caveat: the article mentions that USU has a small program in Mormon Studies). Sample from the article which might explain this: Mormon students have an especially tough time being objective, says Kathleen Flake, an LDS professor who teaches American religious history at Vanderbilt University. Flake says many LDS students are primed to review any class on Mormonism through an "are-they-for-us-or-against-us" lens. "Unlike a lot of undergrads who are taking religious studies to understand the faith of their parents, Mormon students come to the class thinking they already know it and are prepared to debate the class material and defend the church from perceived attacks," Flake says. Is this a failure of objectivity or a simple case of know-it-all hubris on the part of Mormon students? And it is probably unfair to limit the scope of the problem to the approach taken by students, who after all tend to reflect what they've been taught.
11:40:05 AM
|
|
|
|
Saturday, February 14, 2004
|
|
A Washington D.C. law firm is posting many of the briefs filed in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, better known as the Pledge of Allegiance case, now at the US Supreme Court. This case garnered national attention even before the initial three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit issued its original opinion almost two years ago. Most interesting is this brief by 19 religious scholars and theologians, arguing that prior to the 1954 addition of the words "under God" the pledge was civic and constitutional, but after the addition it impermissably advances religion in public schools. The short historical section is quite readable and very informative. Personally, I think it is an unfortunate issue to get all excited about. Christians feel deep in their heart that America is a Christian nation, whereas it is actually a land of religious liberty (big difference if you're not a mainstream Christian!). Only because Protestantism was the unofficially established religion of America until the mid-20th-century do such Christians take it for granted that "religious liberty" means "de facto Christian nation," but that conception is as dated as racial segregation. Ask any religious outsider (Jews, Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Native Americans, atheists) and you'll likely get a different perspective on the religious history of America than you get from conservative tele-evangelists. I think we're better off without "under God" in the Pledge -- keep religion in church and at home where it can be taught properly.
Besides, introducing "under God" broke the 4-2-4 cadence of the Pledge (see below with breaks). Try saying it without "under God," and you'll see it flows better. God likes good meter, I'm sure He prefered the old cadence better.
I pledge allegiance | to the flag | of the United States | of America.
And to the republic | for which it stands,
One nation, | indivisible, | with liberty and justice | for all.
If taking out "under God" will advance the unity ("one nation, indivisible") that the Pledge is intended to foster, it seems like a step that should be taken.
10:30:12 PM
|
|
|
|
Saturday, February 07, 2004
|
|
At BYU-Idaho (the college formerly known as Ricks) Virginia Pearce, daughter of President Hinckley and former member of the LDS Young Women General Presidency, gave a devotional depicting the Book of Mormon as an example of a "'single point failure' – an item that, if [it] failed, would cause the failure of the entire system" (quoting the BYU-I article, not Pearce directly). In her opinion, everything about Mormonism "succeeds or fails in light of this one critical item." LDS leaders have been stressing this a lot lately, upping the ante on the Book of Mormon's historicity (at least in public remarks directed to chapel Mormons). The devotional and BYU-I article are highlighted at LDS.org's Church in the News page. First, this shows the prevalence of business-speak in LDS leadership thinking: single-point failure? Give me a break. More directly, the depiction of the Book of Mormon as a "single-point failure" is simply wrong. Thousands of people have come to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon is not historical yet remain active and faithful Latter-day Saints, so the Book of Mormon is not a single-point failure, period. LDS leadership statements on the subject do make it clear it is impolitic to recite this fact in public, but as a literal statement that claim is just another example of how LDS leaders often prefer to deny inconvenient facts rather than deal with them. [Note: The inconvenient fact is that one can reject historicity yet remain a faithful Mormon.] You recall this is exactly the issue that drove the Murphy fiasco last year: Thomas Murphy's Stake President insisted on excommunicating him because he made public statements denying (with good evidence) the historical basis of the Book of Mormon, yet Murphy defended his right to remain a Latter-day Saint of record (he's not presently active but does not choose to resign his membership and resists being excommunicated). The excommunication attempt turned into a PR disaster for the Church and was put on hold. LDS leadership is still struggling to define an alternative approach, it seems.
This "single-point failure" mindset is exactly how fundamentalist Christians tried to define the inerrant Bible in their fight with liberal Christians over evolution and higher biblical criticism one hundred years ago. Liberal Christians rejected inflated claims of inerrancy (as do Mormons) and were willing to make peace with evolution rather than fight a losing battle with science. Seems like LDS leaders should go read their religious history books and try to avoid painting the Mormon Church into the same corner that Christian fundamentalists now find themselves in.
Personally, I think it is obvious that Mormons accept the Book of Mormon only "as far as it is translated correctly." Who would want to affirm the truth of an incorrectly translated document? As our understanding of "translation" increases, the conclusions one draws about the status of the translated English-language text of the Book of Mormon naturally change. One can say whatever one wants about inerrant autographs of the Bible or golden plates of the Book of Mormon. The RLDS Church (now known officially as The Community of Christ) has made reasonable accomodations along these lines. I'll close with a quote from the Summary of Beliefs presented at the RLDS version of LDS.org.
The scriptures provide divine guidance and inspired insight for life when responsibly interpreted and faithfully applied. With other Christians, we affirm the Bible as scripture for the church. In our tradition, the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants are additional scriptural witnesses of God’s love and Christ’s ministry.
Sounds pretty reasonable, doesn't it?
9:02:21 AM
|
|
Here are some interesting stories highlighted in LDS.org's Church in the News section. The LDS Bishop of a ward in Florida was interviewed by the local newspaper; scripted, but interesting. (Hero: President Hinckley. Ever doubted your faith? Essentially no, never. Life motto: Be positive.) Another small-town paper interview here, this one of a returned missionary. The "I'm just a regular guy serving Christ" story seems to play well in the South. Finally, there's a story from the Napa Valley News (California) purporting to be an average resident's comments on Mormon missionaries in their town. Sample: Their white shirts, ties and black name tags give them away. They often ride their bicycles in all types of weather including cold and rainy days. These missionaries show kindness to all they come into contact with.A nice God and football story from the Sacramento Bee. Talented high school football player with several scholarship offers commits to BYU and plans to put football on hold for two years after his freshman year to serve an LDS mission. Seems like "God is more important than football" stories are the 21st-century equivalent of "man bites dog" stories -- newspapers just can't resist them. Just one more way Mormonism is out of step with mainstream Christianity: we teach our kids that religion matters more than football.
Finally, a study conducted through UNC-Chapel Hill reported in the Christian Examiner notes that most teenagers are not alienated from organized religion, and as many as two-thirds closely agree with the religious beliefs of their parents. Only 21% said their religious beliefs were "different or very different" from their parents' beliefs. Wow, the sixties are over, aren't they?
8:03:59 AM
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, February 03, 2004
|
|
Yes, under the sponsorship of a Utah Valley institution of higher learning with a sincere commitment to the informed study of religion, this new Society is intended to "to promote disciplined reflection on Latter-day Saint beliefs." The sponsoring institution is Utah Valley State College, which has already formed a lively Religious Studies Program intended to "create an educational forum for the academic study of religion." The first meeting of SMPT will be March 19-20, 2004, at UVSC. They will also sponsor the already established journal Element. Both Element and SMPT now have permanent links on the sidebar to your left.
9:12:03 PM
|
|
|
|
Monday, February 02, 2004
|
|
Christianity Today has a two-page article on Evangelical preaching to the Mormons, p. 18-19 of the Feb. 2004 issue or online here. Sample: After years of ineffective and often acrimonious evangelism . . ., a new coalition of evangelical clergy in Utah is attempting to treat Latter-day Saints with respect. Well, there's a radical approach to Christian preaching: respect. It certainly beats what their religious confreres have been doing at LDS Conference (there's a big photo in the magazine but not online, or go here for photos). These "street preachers" were trying to ridicule LDS beliefs (read the article for details), but all they managed to do was discredit Christians and tarnish their own message. These people have issues to deal with entirely unrelated to religion, I think.
It's too bad clowns like that can overshadow the commendable efforts of others, such as one Salt Lake minister quoted in the article who "has been trying to build trust with LDS leaders for nearly three years," or the three dozen evangelical ministers who defended the right of Mormons to go to their religious meetings without encountering that kind of ugliness. I would have been on the first plane out of town had I taunted Protestants in front of their church on Sunday morning or publicly made fun of the vestements of Catholic ministers or the robes of Buddhist monks during my two-year Mormon mission. Religion brings out the best in some people, but the worst in others, it seems.
9:23:25 PM
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, January 28, 2004
|
|
That's a headline you won't see every day in the Daily Universe, but here it is on BYU NewsNet. It's really quite interesting. For example, there's this quote from the current General Handbook of Instructions: The decision as to how many children to have and when to have them is extremely intimate and private and should be left between the couple and the Lord. Church members should not judge one another in this matter. That's a roundabout way of telling overinquisitive Bishops to stay out of the bedroom, but I think it's too circumspect to get the job done. Of course, there are about five quotes from BYU family profs reminding everyone how important families are, even though we're not supposed to compete for the largest family on the block award anymore. Then there are the interesting student quotes at the end of the article, such as one young man who said, When I was younger, I assumed methods of birth control were only for promiscuous people. It wasn't until I was in college that I realized that people use birth control to plan for their families. I learned that many people use it proactively instead of as a defense against illegitimate pregnancies.
11:18:00 PM
|
|
A lot, according to this New York Times story (republished on LDS Newsline, a Deseret News online service). This excellent article discusses the pros and cons of the arrangement whereby the LDS Church leases the Martin Cove land (in Wyoming) from the federal government, then puts LDS missionaries at the site to share their stories of faith and the Mormon pioneer heritage with all comers. On the positive side, the article notes it is refreshing to see someone buy or lease land for storytelling rather than resource extraction, and some of the local Wyomans are quite happy for the economic boost this is giving their neighborhood. One local (who is planning to build an 8-unit motel nearby) said, "I'm happy to have them." On the negative side, the article questions the propriety of the Mormons "owning" the story of this public site, which they recount with the usual angelic flourishes.
10:58:09 PM
|
|
An Albert Mohler editorial on Homosexual Marriage is posted over at Crosswalk.com. No scripture quotes, no Proclamations, just a reasoned, conservative critique by a Christian thinker. I recommend it to my Mormon friends who struggle to formulate their public policy arguments in a form other than "I'm right, I know I'm right, and you're wrong because I'm right." You know, for an uninspired Gentile, Mohler certainly expresses himself well. Maybe training for the ministry (as opposed to a career in corporate management) isn't such a bad idea for a church leader.
10:37:11 PM
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, January 14, 2004
|
|
According to this Deseret News story, the most recent Tuesday devotional address was devoted to the BYU dress code and the pressing problem of bare midriffs on campus. The new president addressed everything you'd expect your grandmother to say about fashion and modesty. He justified his remarks by reference to a parent who "reprimanded" him for not policing female fashion on campus with more vigor, and to a former student attending her 50-year reunion (see? a grandmother) who saw too many tummies on campus. Yes, I know you think I'm joking, but I checked the paper and this is not the April 1 edition. If you need two witnesses, see the BYU NewsNet story on the same topic. Gee, I wonder how he'd react if a parent complained about an academic issue rather than a fashion concern? For example, academic freedom concerns, mistreatment of professors, or the AAUP censure which followed an AAUP investigation in 1997? No, it's bare midriffs that are the real concern.
10:01:19 PM
|
|
This Salt Lake Tribune story begins: Some things about Brigham Young University basketball star Rafael Araujo are hard to miss: his determined rebounds, his monster dunks, his crowd-pleasing blocks -- and, well, his tattoos. BYU has apparently been airbrushing his tattoos out of PR photos--see the two photos in the story. Is this just the institutional equivalent of a sophomoric prank? Or is it an illustration of the general corporate principle that it's okay to lie if it makes the organization look good? Most disturbing is the fact that the BYU spokesman quoted in the article gives no indication he sees a moral problem with the misrepresentation. Sad when a journalist (quoted in the article) shows better moral sense than the the publications department of a church college.
UPDATE: In another story in the Deseret News on Jan. 15, BYU denies altering the photos, claiming the tattoo-free photo of the basketball player was from last year. But the follow-up story also includes new statements from a BYU cross-country runner whose photo was faked--her head was placed on a teammate's body for the media guide cover. It's hard to tell what all this means. Maybe we need more "I will tell the truth" lessons in Primary and Sunday School. Somehow that lesson gets lost in all the self-improvement and organizational maintenance lessons that pervade the LDS curriculum.
9:13:05 PM
|
|
|
|
Thursday, January 08, 2004
|
|
The Salt Lake Tribune reports that a 52-year-old Mormon tourist was slain in Guatemala yesterday when five men armed with automatic weapons accosted the tour bus on which he was riding. Summary: The passengers, all adults from Utah and Idaho, were on a tour of Book of Mormon sites in Central America and were heading from the mountain city of Quetzaltenango to the Mexican border when their bus was attacked by five men . . . . [T]he gunmen crashed their pickup into the front of the tour bus about 3 p.m. and forced it off the road. . . . [A]ll 13 passengers were pulled from the bus and taken about 200 yards into the jungle, where they were tied up and put face-first on the ground. They remained on the ground for between 45 minutes and 1 hour while men stole jewelry and money but did not take passports. The Deseret News also reports the story here, noting the group was traveling in western Guatemala with an Orem-based Book of Mormon group. My deepest sympathy to the families affected by this tragedy, of course. A superficial Mormon reaction to this story might be that the jungle is teeming with modern-day Gadianton robbers, what the rest of the world would term criminals or terrorists. They are a threat to Mormon tourists and missionaries in many third-world countries. The threat seems to be increasing--recall the recent story of an LDS couple slain by an intruder in their home in Brazil, reported here by the Deseret News. A deeper question that merits reflection is whether Mormons feel a certain false sense of security, thinking that their status as Book of Mormon tourists or as Mormon missionaries somehow protects them from harm, whether from crime, accident, or disease. It obviously doesn't. I have attended missionary funerals. I had a missionary companion on a bicycle do a head-on collision with a van that was traveling the opposite direction (he recovered nicely, fortunately). I saw a missionary go paranoid psycho while serving. Tourists, of course, can fend for themselves, and are quite free to avoid travel in unsafe areas or exposure to other risks. It's the missionaries I worry about. See here and here for other recent stories on missionary deaths. Again, my deepest sympathy to the families.
Missionaries aren't really adults, or at least they are not allowed to act like adults. They go wherever they are told to go and don't ask questions. Question-asking is simply not tolerated in the LDS Missionary Corps any more than it is in the US Army. Yours is not to question why. This often puts LDS missionaries in areas where they are at some physical risk, whether from thugs with guns, kamikaze drivers, or endemic disease. Places you or I would know better than to go, but LDS missionaries go there because they are told to. I am disturbed that the Church makes no effort to disclose either information regarding risks to which missionaries are exposed or the policies it has (or doesn't have) in place to limit the actions of gung-ho Mission Presidents who think missionary safety is taken care of by God and His angels rather than mere human caution and prudence. In the hyper-faithful culture of LDS missions, some might even see concern for personal safety as an expression of doubt. Fine--put your own kid at risk, not mine.
My impression is that the dissemination of information from the COB occurs on a strict need-to-know basis, and that in their opinion we don't need to know anything about the risks faced by missionaries, statistics about missionaries who die or are injured while serving (you know they keep them), or policies that govern missionary safety. Well, I personally feel an increasing need to know, and I doubt I am the only one. If anyone is aware of official or unofficial information regarding missionary risks or formal safety policies, please email me a copy or a link.
9:47:23 AM
|
|
|
|
Monday, December 29, 2003
|
|
When it comes to financial dealings, trust can be a bad thing. The LDS Newsline reports the latest big scam, run by a Mormon with many Mormon victims, here: Ponzi scheme: Faithful drawn into scam.
11:29:09 AM
|
|
|
|
Thursday, December 18, 2003
|
|
A visitor emailed me with comments on my Liberal Christians post, sharing his experience in an LDS ward somewhere in Middle America. People whose politics or skin tone don't conform to the standard Mormon categories are sometimes made to feel less than fully welcome, it seems. Here is part of my response: I don't quite understand why the Church continues to move to the right politically and theologically, but it is in some ways a recent development. Just a few years ago Utah elected a Democratic governor for two terms! (Scott Matheson, in the 70s and 80s). That would almost be unthinkable today. I don't really like the term "liberal Mormon" (a liberal Mormon is a conservative anything else), but I don't have a better one and everyone seems to know who the term refers to. I don't think there's any formal policy to drive liberal Mormons out of the Church, but increasingly some liberal Mormons seem to feel unwanted and unwelcome in the Church. I don't think it's intended, but I can see why some feel that way.
11:10:54 PM
|
|
|
|
Saturday, December 13, 2003
|
|
BYU fans spent most of the recent BYU-Oklahoma State game booing a former BYU student now playing for OSU. Sample: In light of the behavior many fans exhibited Saturday night against former BYU-turned-Oklahoma State basketball player Daniel Bobik, many BYU students and professors are wondering how students at BYU got so petty and intolerant.
Let's see: LDS youth are taught to see the world in simple black and white, good guys versus bad guys, us versus them, Mormons versus Gentiles, Church of the Lamb and Church of the Devil terms all their life--then BYU blames the students for being petty and intolerant? If Church leaders want to overcome pettiness and intolerance, they should create an LDS organizational culture that teaches morality and charity instead of conformity and groupthink. It took a basketball game for them to figure out they've got a problem? [BYU NewsNet : Religion
10:35:56 PM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2004 Dave's Mormon Inquiry Weblog.
Last update: 3/1/2004; 10:49:07 PM.
|
|
|
