| |
|
Friday, January 23, 2004
|
|
Last week I finished Antiquity: The Civilization of the Ancient World, by Norman F. Cantor (HarperCollins, 2003), a very readable survey aimed at the general reader. The four worldviews that formed around classic literary and philosophical texts (per Cantor) were the Hebrew Bible, the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle, and the Hellenistic literature centered in Alexandria. Thank God for the Hebrew Bible or we'd all be amoral technofascists. Anyway, his discussion of what made mainstream Judaism unique among ancient religions (at pages 88-95) caught my interest because I noted distinct affinities with what makes Mormonism unique among modern Christian denominations. He noted: (1) Lack of sacramental ritual. True for Mormonism with the exception of temple services. [Caveat: he actually said "it does not involve magic," which does not hold for Mormonism, but his concept of magic was very sacramental.] (2) Historicity. The Jew saw himself as part of a very long and tempestuous continuity reaching from the patriarchs to the present, which also describes the adopted Mormon mindset (see D&C 110, for example). (3) Community. The Jewish mindset stressed a temporally continuous community socially separated from the surrounding Gentiles, also true for Mormons, who identify deeply with their pioneer ancestors who formed the 19th-century Church and later crossed the Great Plains to Utah. The Mormons have managed to form in a mere 175 years what is perhaps the most uniform, integrated, culture-transcending global community known to man. I've visited LDS congregations in ten states, three provinces, and at least ten different countries, so I speak from direct experience. It's a religious franchise that works anywhere missionaries can scrape together a few dozen converts to form a congregation. I'll add a couple of my own general concepts: (4) Scriptures. The Jews wrote their own; so did the Mormons to a degree unrivaled in Christianity. (5) Persecution. While Mormon persecution pales compared to the Jewish experience, the Mormon experience in Christian America is nevertheless almost unique. Few Christians know, for example, that one-sixth of the United States Army marched against Brigham Young and the Mormons in 1857, or that the US Congress formally disincorporated the LDS Church in 1887 under the Edmunds-Tucker Act. Adversity builds character and identity.
My point is that the Mormons are more than just a denomination or a church, they have become, if not quite a kingdom (which implies a political presence not attainable at present and probably not desirable), at least a people. Few Christian observers catch on to this, which is why most don't really "get" the whole Mormon thing beyond just worrying about Mormon missionaries, TV spots, and chapels with really big parking lots.
Here are a few other idiosyncratic observations that support my point that the Mormons are different, qualitatively different, from a mere denomination or church. (1) Mormons have evolved their own system for giving kids unique names, like Mishelle or Kendra or Norval, names you have never heard of before. See the Mormon Name Generator for a hilarious take-off on this. (2) LDS, Inc. is a national corporation. Every LDS chapel or building in America is owned by LDS, Inc., in Salt Lake City. Every tithing dollar collected on Sunday gets swept to LDS, Inc. bank accounts in Salt Lake by Monday morning. Individual congregations or stakes have zero ownership rights in their buildings and land, despite truly impressive yearly donations by those congregations--it's all owned by Salt Lake. In comparison, even the Catholics form local diocese entities that own their own assets (and it is those local entities that are threatened with bankruptcy over multi-million dollar sexual abuse judgments). There is no overarching "Catholic Church" legal entity, but there is an LDS, Inc. Mormon corporate organization is so far ahead of other churches it would be an embarrassment to Christendom if any of them ever caught on. (3) Even people who exit the LDS Church can't get away from their Mormon past. They try, but it's like trying to get away from your shadow. Ever heard of an ex-Jew? Didn't think so. The label "ex-Mormon" is an oxymoron, as evident from the incessant complaints of LDS leaders that "ex-Mormons" just can't leave the Church alone. Mormonism leaves an imprint that transcends denominational affiliation in the same way that Jewishness does.
This isn't triumphalist bluster--I'm not sketching out Mormonism's version of Manifest Destiny here, I'm just making what I think are objective observations that highlight a rarely noted aspect of Mormonism as a movement and a community. I think the "Are Mormons Christian?" question that occupies so many Christian apologists who follow Mormonism predisposes them to think of the Mormon Church as just another denomination. I think that's a case of marketing myopia. They don't even understand what they're up against. At least that's how I see things. I would be interested in alternative viewpoints or experiences--email me if you have one.
10:26:47 AM 
|
|
|
|
Thursday, January 22, 2004
|
|
A popular saying ( attributed to John Gager) is that magic is a term used to describe someone else's religion. But magic is more than just a slur on religion--it was central to human beliefs about the world for millenia. Both religion and science, by comparison, are modern developments that emerged from a world permeated by magical beliefs. Reflecting on the past (magic) helps us understand the present (religion and science). How did a religious worldview replace the magical worldview? Only recently have scholars been willing to take magic seriously enough to study it. The seminal work is Religion and the Decline of Magic (Charles Scribner's Sons, 1971) by Keith Thomas. From a short review by Philip Greven of Rutgers: Thomas enables us to understand the extent to which Puritanism sought to delimit the magical elements of religious belief and yet, paradoxically, proved to be peculiarly susceptible to magic and witchcraft. The remnants of Puritan religious culture in New England were the backdrop for the emergence of Mormonism in the early 19th century.
In a longer article entitled Civility and the Decline of Magic, Alan MacFarlane, a social theorist and a student of Thomas, summarizes the bulk of Thomas' book as illustrating the gradual erosion of the magical worldview and the birth of modern science. Yet, he quoted Thomas as admitting that the most difficult problem in the study of magical beliefs is thus to explain how it was that men were able to break out of them. Actually, some didn't--magical beliefs mingled with religious beliefs for many years, and even now questions about the status of supernatural events and explanations in relation to religious belief remain controversial.
With this introduction, Quinn's Early Mormonism and the Magic World View (Signature Books, 1987; revised and enlarged edition, 1998) becomes more comprehensible. It was the first extended application of the "religion and magic" paradigm to Mormonism, but the theme and the approach were already well established. The Introduction to the 1998 edition of Quinn's book is online at the publisher's website. Long on detail but short on any kind of interpretive model, Quinn's book benefits from the framework laid out by Thomas. One approach to Quinn's material, for example, is to ask whether it was easy or difficult for Mormons to abandon the magical views they brought to Mormonism as they developed more modernist religious and scientific beliefs.
2:59:37 AM
|
|
|
|
Sunday, January 18, 2004
|
|
In today's priesthood meeting lesson ("The Mission of the Prophet Joseph Smith"), the popular Mormon concept of God as "just another guy" was held out as one of the glorious truths of the restoration of the gospel. Lucky us, to not be seduced by Christian doctrines emphasizing God's majesty, glory, and transcendence. I recognize, of course, that the formal LDS doctrine is expressed in rather more elevated terms. Formally, "[t]he Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also" (D&C 130:21-22), and He lives near the star Kolob, "which Kolob is set nigh unto the throne of God" (Abraham 3:9). But, "When the Savior shall appear we shall see him as he is. We shall see that he is a man like ourselves" (D&C 130:1). Not that he shall appear as a man like us, he is a man like us.
So it's easy to see where the popular Mormon view comes from, and why it offends some traditional Christians. See, for example, my earlier post where a committee of Methodist scholars stated that the [LDS] belief regarding a gendered, married, and procreating god is at the core of LDS doctrine of God and makes claims about the essential nature of God that are in sharp contrast to the doctrinal statements of United Methodism.
But even such theology as Mormonism produces refutes the popular Mormon view. Bruce R. McConkie, in his characteristically blunt talk The Seven Deadly Heresies (note these are Mormon heresies he's referring to), states that [t]he saving truth, as revealed to and taught, formally and officially, by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the Lectures on Faith is that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. He knows all things, he has all power, and he is everywhere present by the power of his Spirit. By restricting God's location, if not his spiritual presence, to a body of flesh and bone, Mormons are all too easily led to diminish his power and knowledge as well. In fact, the Mormon view of God as articulated by Elder McConkie is indistinguishable from the traditional Christian view of God as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent . Christians don't get hung up on Christ's resurrected body; why should they get so hung up on the LDS image of an embodied God, both Father and Son? Some, after all, would say any human conception of God is simply metaphor, that we cannot possibly hope to comprehend the true nature of God (Isaiah 55:9, "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.").
To round out the discussion, it should be noted that even the modern Christian view of God is hardly monolithic. A group of Christian theologians now defends a doctrine known as Open Theism that questions the omniscience of God in much the same way as popular Mormon views of God--see my earlier post on Open Theism for more details.
2:21:02 PM
|
|
|
|
Monday, January 05, 2004
|
|
If it feels good, believe it. That's the short form of the popular Mormon testimony model. I got a double dose of it today in Sunday School (Mormon adults attend an adult Sunday School class each week as part of their 3-hour block of weekly meetings). The text for study this year is the Book of Mormon; in today's introductory lesson, several participants waxed eloquent on the nice feelings the Book of Mormon brings them (while reading it, while praying, while singing hymns in church, whatever) and how that establishes the truth of the book for them.
Of course, members of other denominations get nice feelings too (while reading their Bible, while praying, while singing hymns in their congregations) but that can't possibly say anything about the truth of their beliefs or creed. And the possibility that a person might read the Book of Mormon and NOT get nice feelings is simply beyond reasonable consideration. The instructor in today's class did a nice little play-act ridiculing such an outcome by reading a Book of Mormon verse with an emotionless response. I'm sorry, this is not a model of inquiry, this is a mindset. And a firmly entrenched one, I might add. The longer form of the Mormon testimony model might go like this: "If it feels good, believe it, if it's what WE told you to believe. If anything else feels good, don't believe it. If what we told you to believe doesn't feel good, then there's something wrong with you."
Something wrong, you say with surprise? Would anyone possibly critique or reject another person's prayer experience? Yes, there's an ugly side to Moroni's Promise if you don't play along with the Mormon script. "[I]f ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of [the Book of Mormon] unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost" (Moroni 10:4). So obviously (to the convinced Mormon) a person who doesn't get nice Holy Ghosty feelings about the Book of Mormon (1) is insincere; or (2) is sincere but irresolute, lacking real intent; or (3) is sincere and determined but lacks faith in God. Plenty of outs here; if a seemingly sincere person fails to admit to nice feelings about the Book of Mormon, it's obviously not the prayer method or the Book of Mormon that is flawed, it's the person. There's something wrong with them and it's obvious what it is: they are insincere, they lack intent, they are unfaithful.
Surprisingly, this unwillingness to give any weight to contrary experience is not limited to others. A prayer confirmation of a choice of marriage partner, job opportunity, investment, or other significant life choice that subsequently turns out badly or even disastrously is not likely to lead the average Mormon to question their own prayer experience or the validity of the nice feelings model as a guide to truth. Faith in the Mormon prayer method seems impervious to contrary experience. As an explanatory device, it is just too useful and convenient to discard. Contrary facts or experience are ignored, denied, or explained away.
I'm not being unduly harsh here, just engaging in self-criticism. I hasten to point out that there are defensible reasons for believing in Mormonism and being an active member of the LDS Church, as there are for most other denominations. They are pragmatic, like the reasons we give for most things we do in life. One could say "I grew up a Mormon, I'm comfortable worshipping God here, and I see no reason to change." One could say "I get meaningful Christian fellowship from fellow Mormons and experience spiritual growth through my activity in the Church." One could say "I read lots of books on Mormon doctrine and history, including Mormon scriptures, and the Mormon system of belief is at least as defensible as the others I am familiar with."
That last statement is no hollow position, by the way. Creation Science makes fundy Christians look foolish. Five million Southern Christians defended the morality of slavery by appeal to the Bible all the way to the battlefield, just like modern Christians attack homosexuality by appeal to surprisingly similar Biblical injunctions. Jews feel they have an ethically pure religion and one rather unstained by sacramental ritual; right, until you read about wholesale animal slaughter in the temple or Samuel hacking Agog to death (shades of Nephi and Laban) or God giving Israelites the green light to ethnically cleanse aboriginal Canaanites who inconveniently occupied the promised land. I won't even discuss Islam. And don't think secularity is any moral high ground--consider the barbarity that secularity and the proscription of religion brought to the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution.
No, it's not at all unreasonable for an eyes-wide-open Mormon to prefer the devil they know to the other brands on the market. I just wish the Saints were less attached to word games and displays of affected certitude. Faith, hope, and charity are quite enough.
12:55:57 AM
|
|
|
|
Friday, January 02, 2004
|
|
A recent post at Doctrinal:net (a chatty new LDS blog I recently added to the sidebar Weblog list) makes the odd claim that the Atkins Diet is in conflict with the Mormon Word of Wisdom. On behalf of low carb Mormons everywhere, let me dispel this foolish notion. The "Word of Wisdom" is the shorthand term for the dietary laws of the Mormon Church. A Mormon must abide by these dietary laws to remain in good standing in the Church and to qualify to enter Mormon temples. D&C 89 is offered as the textual basis for the Word of Wisdom. The text makes the dietary directives "not by commandment or constraint" and counsels against use of "wine or strong drink," tobacco, and "hot drinks." Modernly, this is interpreted as a commandment proscribing the use of all alcoholic beverages, coffee and tea, tobacco products, and illegal drugs. Many Mormons also abstain from caffeinated soda pop on the grounds that it is proscribed by the Word of Wisdom, although there does not seem to be any "official" LDS statement to support this. For what it's worth, the cafeteria and the soda pop machines on the BYU campus do not offer Coke, Pepsi, Dr. Pepper, or Mountain Dew. Maybe the soda pop thing just applies to Utah Valley Mormons.
The differences between the text of D&C 89 (dated 1833) and the modern interpretation are instructive. Note how what is expressly stated to be "not by commandment or constraint" can be "interpreted" to mean the exact opposite in later generations. If the text in no way constrains the "interpretation," it's not really an interpretation of the text, is it? In other words, the modern Word of Wisdom bears no particular relationship to the text of D&C 89.
This becomes clearer when considering the positive directives included in D&C 89, which carry no weight in the modern interpretation. "[T]obacco . . . is an herb for bruises and for sick cattle" is one such injunction. Vegetarianism is somewhat discouraged, as the "flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man." Yet, meat is "to be used sparingly," and only "in times of winter, or of cold, or famine." In practice, all of these D&C 89 injunctions are simply ignored under the modern Word of Wisdom. It is therefore incorrect to suggest that a low carb, high protein, meat intensive diet is against the Word of Wisdom as presently practiced in the Mormon Church. They don't care what you eat, as long as you don't wash it down with a glass of wine or a can of beer.
Verse 11 of D&C 89 allows the use of "every herb in the season thereof, and every fruit in the season thereof; all these to be used with prudence and thanksgiving." But the term "every herb" does not apparently extend to coffee beans and tea leaves. Of course, vanilla beans and chocolate are okay. Vanilla beans good, coffee beans bad. Just seems a bit arbitrary to me; I think "all herbs are good if used with prudence" is a more reasonable and defensible principle. And don't think that health concerns justify the arbitrary labelling of some herbs as proscribed. Sugar does a lot more harm than caffeine ever could. The adverse health effects of our hyper-sugared diet--tooth decay, blood sugar disorders, and excess weight gain come to mind right off the bat--far outweigh any harm caffeine might cause. If the Word of Wisdom were a health law, coffee and tea would be allowed and sugar would be proscribed. If you really think the Word of Wisdom is a health law, take a stroll through the BYU Bookstore snack shop sometime.
For further reading, there is a nice pro-LDS summary of the Word of Wisdom at the FAIR site which also, to my mind, illustrates some of the confusion surrounding the doctrine as noted above. Also, there are longer excerpts on the Word of Wisdom from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism and from Mormon Doctrine over at All About Mormons; click on "Word of Wisdom" under the "Daily Living" heading. The Encyclopedia material gives some consideration of the historical development of the current Word of Wisdom. Bruce R. McConkie, while characteristically but charmingly blunt ("Some unstable people become cranks with reference to this law of health"), does note that "the partaking of cola drinks, though not included within the measuring standard here set out, is in violation of the spirit of the Word of Wisdom." This, of course, suggests that it does not violate the letter of the Word of Wisdom.
12:27:55 PM
|
|
|
|
Saturday, December 13, 2003
|
|
Not surprisingly, Albert Mohler comes out squarely against a recent book by John Killinger, entitled Ten Things I Learned Wrong From a Conservative Church. Killinger's perpective is similar to that of noted Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong--he makes the case for liberal Protestantism as the "real" Christian church embodying the spirit of tolerance and charity, as opposed to the fundamentalist, conservative brand of Protestantism that has swept across the Sunbelt in the last fifty years. Just to give you a hint of how different Mr. Killinger is from his conservative cousins, he wrote a book arguing that the Harry Potter books are NOT satanic and evil, they are just good kids books! See God, the Devil, and Harry Potter: A Christian Minister's Defense of the Beloved Novels. (Well, he actually argued that Harry is a Christ-figure of sorts, but you don't need to go that far if you don't want to.)
The topic of liberal versus conservative (theology, not politics) should be of interest to Mormons because Mormonism is much closer to the fundamentalist, conservative Christian outlook than is generally recognized. An overwrought dedication to scriptural literalism, scriptural inerrancy, and supernaturalism characterizes both movements. And both movements consider the liberal wing of their party to be the enemy. Mormonism simply excommunicates Mormons who "go liberal" (or tries to, anyway), so the liberal arm of Mormonism is a disorganized rabble of ex-Mormons, Sunstone Mormons, and closet liberals. The diversity of Protestantism precludes such an easy organizational solution to their "liberal problem," but by forcing a dialogue (of sorts) I think the cause of truth is advanced. Dialogue is good. Mormonism needs less finger-pointing and more dialogue. Mormonism needs more liberal Mormons. And a token liberal GA would be a nice gesture, too.
11:36:26 PM
|
|
Nice comments on tolerance in this BYUNewsNet story. Sample: The key to tolerance is to distinguish between what is church doctrine and what is left up to personal choice. Well, that's a bit confusing--makes it sound like tolerance is reserved for areas of personal choice, while intolerance gets a green light where church doctrine has spoken.
There's also this interesting quote from a First Presidence message in 1910 about science: Our religion is not hostile to real science. That which is demonstrated, we accept with joy; but vain philosophy, human theory and mere speculations of men, we do not accept nor do we adopt anything contrary to divine revelation or to good common sense. In other words, our religion IS hostile to science when it is contrary to divine revelation or to common sense. [BYU NewsNet : Religion]
10:20:30 PM
|
|
|
|
Monday, December 08, 2003
|
|
From the Times & Seasons weblog, a long discussion on Mormons, Polygamy and Gay Marriage, with over 30 comments posted. This topic is going to be topical for quite some time, I think.
9:56:09 PM
|
|
|
|
Thursday, December 04, 2003
|
|
With the help of Rogers Cadenhead's Radio Userland Kick Start, I have learned how to use Radio Userland to upstream text files into web pages. Wow, I feel like I've crossed a real geek threshold here. To test this newfound power, I dug up an old file I put together a couple of years ago on the topic of constructing a Mormon creed. Mormonism is a creedless church, and I thought with mainstreaming and all we might need to come up with one. Sorry, the Articles of Faith are far too general to serve as a creed. Anyway, here is my attempt at a Mormon Creed, along with an explanation of the methodology I used to construct it.
9:48:41 PM
|
|
|
|
Sunday, November 30, 2003
|
|
Over at Metaphysical Elders, The Historian continues to defend his characterization of LGH as the Nephite theory of choice for "informed Mormons." I disagree: go here for a sympathetic summary of Book of Mormon geography theories by John E. Clark, a FARMS researcher. FARMS is the institutional force behind the present LGH hypothesis. If Clark, a FARMS guy, doesn't defend LGH in an article entitled "Book of Mormon Geography," then it is hard to hold that it should be regarded as a theory embraced by "informed Mormons." The article appears to suggest that the official Mormon position is "we have no official position on Book of Mormon geography." My earlier critical comments on The Historian's depiction of LGH, posted over at Times and Seasons, were zapped off to cyber-limbo when T&S transitioned to Movable Type. So I considered doing a longish post on the topic here--it certainly merits further discussion. But with the holiday season upon us, I'm feeling a bit less critical and decided against it.
The Historian's use of LGH is certainly not "intellectually dishonest," as depicted by some observers. LGH has been bandied about by the Mormon intelligentsia for several years and yes, most chapel Mormons are entirely uninformed about it. I regard it as one of a class of have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too positions that appeal to Mormon scholars faced with discontinuities between traditional Mormon faith claims and what "informed non-Mormon scholars" are inclined to accept as established fact on a variety of issues. Other members of the class of cake solutions include the following: The Mormon Church has no official position on the theory of evolution; the validity of Second Isaiah is disputed by reputable scholars; the Masonic endowment actually derives from the rituals of Solomon's temple; and (my favorite) there is no evidence that Joseph actually consummated any of his "marriages" with young women in Kirtland, Far West, or Nauvoo (what kind of evidence do they expect?).
But let's be generous and give The Historian his cake on this one; his use of it is a bit sly but not dishonest. I suppose we've all got a cake or two lurking in our pantry of ideas. Besides, I feel bad that all the Mormon lawyers migrated to T&S, leaving The Historian as an army of one over at ME.
10:57:33 AM
|
|
|
|
Saturday, November 22, 2003
|
|
Crosswalks.com has an interesting op-ed piece by Albert Mohler, The 'Openness of God' and the Future of Evangelical Theology. What is open theism? As preached by several evangelical theologians such as Gregory Boyd, it argues that God's foreknowledge is limited and that He does not know the outcomes of all the choices we will make in life. Mohler sees this as an affront and a challenge to traditional Christian theology which affirms the omniscience of God. This is interesting, of course, because open theism bears distinct affinities with Mormon theology, which emphatically affirms free agency. Calvinistic determinism retained both God's role as the cause of events and His omniscience. When American Protestants repudiated determinism in favor of free will, they attempted to salvage God's omniscience by emphasizing the compatibility of foreknowledge and agency. But there is always tension--it is difficult to argue that true free agency does not compromise omniscience to some degree. "Open theism" recognizes this by expressly admitting that God lacks certain knowledge of some future events. Under this "open theology," God can be surprised.
This development makes little impact on Mormons, whose theology already downgrades God's omnipotence and transcendance, but it shocks traditional evangelicals. See, for example, this satirical list of 20 things the God of Open Theism might say, topped by "Ooops!". Or see this site for a more balanced discussion of what open theism means from a Christian perspective.
To understand why free agency and foreknowledge are deeply inconsistent, consider this hypothetical. X, a free moral agent, flips a coin. X has decided that if it is heads, he sells all he has, gives the money to the poor, and enters a monastery. If it is tails, X will instead go blow himself up in a crowded gathering of an opposing religious sect, possibly inciting civil unrest and even war. Big impact on human history. Does God know beforehand what's going to happen? No, as long as the agent is truly free and the coin flip is truly random. He is, in the language of open theism, the God of the possible rather than the traditional all-knowing God. But see this argument the two can be reconciled for a contrary view of free will and foreknowledge.
You can't get around this problem by arguing God knows how the coin would land. That was Einstein's objection to quantum mechanics ("God does not play dice"), but it is not sound. It is a probabilistic universe we live in, not a determined one. Open theism is a theology compatible with a stochastic universe.
1:14:11 PM
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, November 18, 2003
|
|
There's a pleasantly short little post over at FAIR entitled Dealing With Difficult Issues. The author gives seven suggestions for dealing with "difficult issues, noting that [f]aith, and what the LDS term testimony, can be a fragile thing. Sometimes we can run across information that challenges our long-held beliefs . . . . [W]e may question our testimony or wonder how our faith can survive intact in the light of the new information.Best point: Remember to focus on what you know. It is a common fallacy to think that we have to have all the answers. I'll buy that. There is "expert opinion" on both sides of every disputed issue, in religion or any other area of human inquiry. Weakest point: Remember that someone has already dealt with it. There are enough historians, apologists, and members in the Church to have heard every historical issue that you might deem difficult. This seems to invite the reader to have faith that "Mormon experts" have dealt with every question that might arise. You can have too much faith, you know. Paul counseled a degree of skepticism: "Test everything. Hold on to the good" (1 Thess. 5:21, NIV). We should take Paul's advice and ask more questions.
10:26:56 PM
|
|
|
|
Monday, November 17, 2003
|
|
The Givens talk at Yale continues to generate interesting discussion by contributors at The Metaphysical Elders. The topic is how to help Mormon Studies move from being the equivalent of a rather sophisticated fireside (enlightening and insightful but of interest only to Mormons because speaking only to Mormons) to being an inquiry that ties bona fide research questions to themes of broader interest. The cleverly phrased prescription in this post by The Antiquarian is to make Mormonism an independent variable (helping to explain other historical events or movements) rather than always a dependent variable and the primary focus of interest. That's good, if causal links go both directions. But it has to be a two-way street to avoid the apologetic label. Arguing that Mormon events influence the rest of society but are themselves uniquely immune to external influence (i.e., our ideas all come from revelation) is to argue religious exceptionalism again.
Seems like the New Mormon History has been down this path already. See this chapter of Mormon History, by Walker, Whittaker, and Allen (U. of Illinois Press, 2001). Sample: Instead of defending or attacking LDS faith claims—one of the major characteristics of nineteenth-century Mormon historiography—the new historians were more interested in examining the Mormon past in the hope of understanding it—and understanding themselves. Their tools were the same as those of other professionally trained historians: secular or naturalistic historical analysis. . . . They accordingly asked new questions and explored new topics, many of which had nothing to do with the "truth" of the religion. Their hope was to broaden the base for understanding Mormonism's history.
But there were challenges to this seemingly positive development. Some general authorities disapproved of the kind of history being produced at church headquarters. In 1976, Ezra Taft Benson, president of the Council of the Twelve Apostles, warned of the tendency to humanize church leaders. Such an approach minimized God's ruling hand and undermined "our prophetic history," Benson thought. Moreover, Benson objected to the neutral language employed by some of the historians. Such scholarly expressions as "experimental systems" and "communal life" seemed too foreign to Mormon traditional history and possibly a breach of it. More ...
8:50:48 PM
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, August 20, 2003
|
|
Elder Russell Nelson initiated a spirited discussion on the nature of God's love with his article "Divine Love" (Feb. 2003 Ensign, p. 20-25, available at Lds.org). He wrote that divine love "cannot correctly be characterized as unconditional," and that "the higher levels of love the Father and Son feel for each of us . . . are conditional" (p. 21-22, italics in original). While squaring God's absolute love with the various forms of divine punishment creates its own theological difficulties, the assertion God's love for us is conditional nevertheless raises eyebrows.
Contrary statements by LDS leaders are not hard to find. "God’s mercy comes from his unlimited and unconditional love for us. Likewise, we should show mercy to others because of our unlimited and unconditional love for them (Elder Robert E. Wells, "The Beatitudes," Dec. 1987 Ensign, p. 8+). A professor of family science writes in the October 1992 Ensign that "[p]arents who express unconditional love for their children and teach them the principles of the gospel" have done all they can to make troubled children emotionally secure (p. 53+). Scriptural references include John 3:16 (cited by Elder Nelson in the article). Only future statements by LDS leadership will indicate whether Elder Nelson's remarks mark a permanent reformulation of the Mormon doctrine of divine love, or merely a thought-provoking doctrinal detour.
12:10:30 AM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2004 Dave's Mormon Inquiry Weblog.
Last update: 2/19/2004; 8:48:16 AM.
|
|
|
