Though it’s only an “additional teaching idea” in Lesson 12, Jacob’s ladder has captured my imagination due to some conversations I’ve recently had with Christian evangelicals.

The theme of the ladder to heaven is often used by the Early Church Fathers. Their interpretations of Jacob’s symbolic dream in Genesis 28 are similar to those made by Mormon General Authorities. In the 2nd century, Saint Irenaeus described the Christian Church as the ladder of ascent to God. In the 3rd century Origen explained that there are two ladders in the Christian life; one of which is the ladder that the soul climbs on the earth increasing the virtues. In the 4th century Saint Gregory of Nazianzus spoke of ascending Jacob’s Ladder by successive steps towards excellence, interpreting thus the ladder as an ascetic path, while Saint Gregory of Nyssa wrote that Moses climbed on Jacob’s Ladder to reach the heavens where he entered the tabernacle not made with hands, thus giving to the Ladder a clear mystical meaning. The ascetic interpretation is found also in Saint John Chrysostom who wrote:

“And so mounting as it were by steps, let us get to heaven by a Jacob’s ladder. For the ladder seems to me to signify in a riddle by that vision the gradual ascent by means of virtue, by which it is possible for us to ascend from earth to heaven, not using material steps, but improvement and correction of manners.”

The account of Jacob’s Ladder as an analogy for the spiritual ascetic of life is again found in the classical work Ladder of Divine Ascent by St. John Climacus. The ladder in Jacob’s dream represented a symbolic journey where each of the rungs suggest the steps needed to move upward. Man must climb up one level at a time as he participates in the saving principles and ordinances of the gospel offered by the Lord, who stands at the top. Notice how similar this description is to the quote by Marion G. Romney found in our lesson:

“Jacob realized that the covenants he made with the Lord … were the rungs on the ladder that he himself would have to climb in order to obtain the promised blessings—blessings that would entitle him to enter heaven and associate with the Lord” (“Temples—The Gates to Heaven,” Ensign, Mar. 1971, 16).

***
Later Christian interpretation of Jacob’s ladder is quite different than the early Church fathers, and demonstrates the dichotomy of thought between evangelicals and Mormons on the faith and works issue. In this exegesis, Jesus is seen as being the reality to which the ladder points in that he bridges the gap between heaven and earth. According to Martin Luther, Jacob’s vision of the ladder represented the incarnation of Christ. In the Gospel of John 1:51 there is a clear reference to Jacob’s dream pointing towards Jesus Christ, referred to by his title of the Son of Man:

And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.

Adam Clarke, an early 19th century Methodist theologian and Bible scholar, elaborated upon this verse:

“That by the angels of God ascending and descending, is to be understood, that a perpetual intercourse should now be opened between heaven and earth, through the medium of Christ, who was God manifested in the flesh. Our blessed Lord is represented in his mediatorial capacity as the ambassador of God to men; and the angels ascending and descending upon the Son of Man, is a metaphor taken from the custom of dispatching couriers or messengers from the prince to his ambassador in a foreign court, and from the ambassador back to the prince.”

In this one Biblical symbol we find differing schools of thought over the issue of salvation: One group views the ladder as a way to reach heaven based on their own actions of improvement and obedience to covenants and ordinances. The other group has access to heaven based on the provisions of God through the Mediator, Jesus Christ, who came to earth and became that ladder or stairway for the sinner to reconnect the relationship with God.

In pondering this issue in the past, I have lamented that such a rift exists between our two faith traditions. It often seems to me that we are closer than we think, and that grace and works are both important. Mormons, I explain, emphasize works so much because we fear that if we don’t, the sinner might lapse into laziness or indifference. Christians emphasize the grace aspect of the equation so that no one will mistakenly trust in legalism rather than the Savior for their salvation. Isn’t the truth a balance between Paul and James? However, the evangelicals have labored hard to convince me that salvation must be accepted upon grace alone. Lately I’ve been pondering why I am reluctant to join them in their assurance. I’ve accepted Christ as my Savior, and it certainly would be a lot easier not to worry so much about whether I was paying my tithing, going to the temple regularly, or doing my visiting teaching. But here’s what holds me back: if Jesus offers me the grace they describe, then I’ll be OK whether I’m doing my works or not. But if the Mormon view turns out to be the more accurate description of the will of God for us, I need to be trying my hardest to do all of those works which are in my power.

Am I living my life based on fear rather than faith? Maybe. Will it count against me in the end?  I don’t see how it could.

What’s your take on Jacob’s ladder? Do we walk up, or does God descend to meet us where we are? Can this scriptural metaphor be of any help to us in our faith journey?

Sod, seed, and salvation — it’s how I like to describe the Abrahamic Covenant. There were three promises in the covenant. The first was a land promise, where the Lord gave Abraham and his descendants the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession. The second was the promise of a great and numerous posterity. And the third was the blessing of the everlasting Gospel: the priesthood and the promise of exaltation, to come to the world through Abraham’s lineage. (see Genesis 17)  But just look at how often the covenant was renewed!

• Several times with Abraham in Genesis 12, Genesis 15, Genesis 17
• With Isaac in Genesis 26
• With Jacob in Genesis 28
• With Joseph in Genesis 49

Not only that, but you may be surprised to learn that this covenant consisting of a land promise, a posterity promise, and a gospel of salvation promise was also given to

• Moses and the children of Israel in Exodus 6
• David in 2 Samuel 7

and, though we call it the Abrahamic Covenant, the same covenant was made even earlier, with

• Adam in Genesis 3
• Enoch and Noah in Genesis 9, Gen 9:21-25 JST

Finally, if you’ve read this week’s Sunday School lesson, you’ll know that the Abrahamic Covenant is made with faithful members of the Church today, as promised in D&C 132.

But when speaking of the Abrahamic Covenant, we might well consider the claim of Abraham’s firstborn son, Ishmael, his alleged descendants, and the ongoing conflict over the land of Canaan. I think it is interesting that the claims of both Palestinians and Israelis can be distilled into sod, seed, and salvation claims. Before you jump to a conclusion about how the argument over Palestine/Israel should be solved, let’s look at these with an open mind.

Sod: The Land Claim

Jewish claims to the land of Israel are based on the fact that this was the historical site and native site of the Jewish kingdom of Israel. There were always large communities of Jews in Israel, and the Jewish people have maintained ties to their historic homeland for more than 3,700 years. Palestinian Arabs’ claims to the land are also based on continuous residence in the country for hundreds of years. The land was originally “Arab” land taken from its native inhabitants by invading Jews, they say.  Who’s right?  Let’s see: 

§ It was the British who exercised sovereign authority in Palestine under a League of Nations mandate for thirty years prior to Israel’s declaration of independence in 1948.

§ But the territory was Turkish land, a province of the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years until the British wrested it from them during the Great War in 1917.

§ If you look back earlier in history than the Ottoman Turks, who took over Palestine over in 1517, you find it under the sovereignty of the yet another empire not indigenous to Palestine: the Mamluks, who were Turkish and Circassian slave-soldiers headquartered in Egypt. In 1250 they took Palestine over from:

§ The Ayyubi dynasty, the descendants of Saladin, the Kurdish Muslim leader who in 1187 took Jerusalem and most of Palestine from:

§ The European Christian Crusaders, who in 1099 conquered Palestine from:

§ The Seljuk Turks, who ruled Palestine in the name of:

§ The Abbasid Caliphate of Baghdad, which in 750 took over the sovereignty of the entire Near East from:

§ The Umayyad Caliphate of Damascus, which in 661 inherited control of the Islamic lands from

§ The Arabs of Arabia, who in the first flush of Islamic expansion conquered Palestine in 638 from:

§ The Byzantines, who (nice people—perhaps it should go to them?) didn’t conquer the Levant, but, upon the division of the Roman Empire in 395, inherited Palestine from:

§ The Romans, who in 63 B.C. took it over from:

§ The last Jewish kingdom, which during the Maccabean rebellion from 168 to 140 B.C. won control of the land from:

§ The Hellenistic Greeks, who under Alexander the Great in 333 B.C. conquered the Near East from:

§ The Persian empire, which under Cyrus the Great in 639 B.C. freed Jerusalem and Judah from:

§ The Babylonian empire, which under Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C. took Jerusalem and Judah from:

§ The Jews, meaning the people of the Kingdom of Judah, who, in their earlier incarnation as the Israelites, seized the land in the 12th and 13th centuries B.C. from:

§ The Canaanites, who had inhabited the land for thousands of years before they were dispossessed by the Israelites. (from Lawrence Auster)

This brings us to our second point. The Hebrew Torah clearly shows that the Jews seized the land from the Canaanites. Can we go back into history and discover who the descendants of these ancient native peoples are?

Seed: The Descent Claim

Ibrahim Alloush describes the descent claim of the Palestinians as follows:

“The Arab identity of Palestine emanates not from the Islamic conquest, but with the Canaanites who came into Palestine from the shores of the Arabian Peninsula around 2500 BC, and who had sovereignty over the land until about 1000 BC. Hence Palestine was called the Land of Canaanites, until the Philistines came from the island of Crete and intermarried with the Canaanites to melt peacefully into them leaving only the name behind: Palestine. The ancient Hebrews were indeed part of the peoples of the region but they came into Palestine (the Land of the Canaanites) as invaders.”

Those making this claim point out that descendants of the Canaanites/Philistines (ancient Arabs) have maintained a continuous presence in the land throughout history. Others say that the archaeological evidence disproves this. There is no record of the Canaanites surviving their destruction in ancient times. Prior to 1964 there was no “Palestinian” people and no “Palestinian” claim to Palestine; prior to the founding of the state of Israel in 1948, the name “Palestinian” referred to the Jews of Palestine.

Meanwhile, the Jews have their own problems proving literal descent. For example, Shlomo Sand insists that Diaspora Jews descend from converts and have no ethnic link to ancient Israel. In addition, human rights groups make the point that no other indigenous or aboriginal peoples on the planet are granted the same consideration as the Jews. But there is one other consideration being used to make a claim for the land.

Salvation: The Religious Claim

According to the Torah, Eretz Yisrael was promised to the Abraham and his descendants. Muslims believe that since Abraham’s son Ishmael is the forefather of the Arabs, then God’s promise of the land to the children of Abraham includes Arabs as well. The prophet Muhammed passed through Jerusalem on his first journey to heaven, and all of the land of Israel is designated as Islamic “Waqf” which implies it must be governed by Muslims.

Israelis insist that the covenant was renewed with Abraham’s son Isaac and the inheritance was passed through his line to the Jews. They made Jerusalem a holy city over three thousand years ago have remained steadfast to it. They pray in its direction, mention its name constantly in prayers, close the Passover service with the wistful statement “Next year in Jerusalem,” and recall the city in the blessing at the end of each meal. The destruction of the Temple is still an event commemorated by a special day of mourning, houses left partially unfinished, a woman’s makeup or jewelry left incomplete, a glass smashed during the wedding ceremony. Christians identify with the Jews’ love of Israel in many ways. The plaintive sound of Psalm 137 is reinforced in many of our hymns: “By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.” This sympathy has been apparent in modern reactions to the conflict over Israel.

In attempting to keep this post from being unwieldy, I am afraid that I have greatly simplified the issues. Please feel free to make additional points about these claims in the comments. However, what I am most interested in discussing is the great support the Christian world has given to the Jews’ political return to Israel in modern times. (Zionism was actually opposed by Orthodox Jews at first — they regarded Zionism as a violation of God’s will.) But the international community granted political sovereignty in Palestine to the Jewish people in 1947. Do you think there is a solution to this conflict? Who has the better claim? Should a world-wide coalition define boundaries, or should we let the two nations duke it out on their own?

Does your religious worldview and your Christian understanding of the Abrahamic Covenant affect your position on the issue?

Differences in religious belief can be the death knell to a marriage. For that reason, many organized religions strongly advocate against being “yoked with unbelievers”. This is not only a Mormon phenomenon; you see this in any faith tradition that teaches that they alone have exclusive access to God. Even before marriage, it is rare for the unmarried, devout Mormon to even consider dating (let alone marrying) a non-Mormon; most LDS women raised in the Church are taught from an early age to make a temple marriage to a returned missionary their primary goal.

Likewise, in the Catholic Church, marriage to any non-Catholic (including Protestants!) is not permitted within a Catholic church building, and is not considered to be a Sacrament. In particularly conservative Catholic cultures, it really is considered a heresy to marry someone not of the (same rite of the) Catholic Church. Consider, for example, the movie My Big Fat Greek Wedding: Toula refuses to marry Protestant Ian until he joins the Greek Orthodox Church (thus leading to a humorous scene of Ian being baptized).

Similar to Mormon ‘Marriage Prep’ and ‘Temple Prep’ Sunday School courses, dating Catholic couples are required to pursue a several-month course of marriage preparations classes, known as Pre-Cana. Similar to Mormons, Catholics who have pre-marital sexual relations (usually known from the resulting offspring) cannot be married on Catholic church grounds. However, they can have their marriage “convalidated” at a later date, similar to to a family being ’sealed’ a year after a civil marriage.

I compare these things not so much to indicate how Catholics do things so much as to show just how non-unique Mormons are in many ways with regards to their approach to interfaith marriage.

Disbelief that comes after marriage, however, is harder to deal with. Despite the admonition of Paul in the 1 Corinthians that:

[I]f any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy. (1 Cor. 7:12-14)

it is really not all that uncommon to see marriages Mormon temple marriages dissolve once one member of the union loses faith. The same can also be true in Catholic culture, where one of the vows made at the altar is to raise your children Catholic.

A few examples, then, to illustrate some of what I am talking about:

A Mormon female friend of mine (who also happens to be a reader of this blog) attended a non-LDS university for college. Her Patriarchal Blessing was explicit that she was to marry an RM in the temple. When a Baptist schoolmate asked her on a date, she turned him down several times before giving him an ultimatum: She would only go on a date with him if he would read the Book of Mormon and consent to taking the missionary discussions. Confident that the Mormon church was misguided, and that he could show her the error of her ways, he consented. He joined the LDS Church and they two were married in the temple a year later. Obviously, she and the Church would consider this example to be a huge success story; his Baptist family, in contrast, at that time considered their daughter-in-law to be the devil incarnate. (I suspect that they mellowed with time).

Another friend at the same university for four years dated a non-Mormon off and on, and was fairly involved with him physically (although never so far that she needed to go to the Bishop). She loved him and he proposed to her, but since he was not interested in the Church, she said no. Several years later, she met and married a convert of 1 year, in the temple. Another Church success story.

A Jewish friend attended a Jew-friendly university, but did not find a spouse. She later moved to an area in the Midwest that was predominantly Protestant, and met and fell in love with a Protestant. They moved in together, but when her family would call or visit, she threw him out of the house for the weekend. When her parents found out that she was dating this man, they first gave her a series of lectures on being ‘married under the canopy’ and of all that her grandmother had suffered at Auschwitz. They then cut off all verbal communication with her. When the grandmother found out about the boyfriend, she literally suffered a stroke. She broke up with the boyfriend, and later married an Orthodox Jew and was welcomed back into her family.

A Muslim co-worker of my husband’s met and married a Hindi woman. The parents of the Muslim refuse to acknowledge their daughter-in-law, and the parents of the Hindu refuse to call the Muslim by his real name, instead calling him by the Hindi equivalent.

When I married my husband, we were both Mormon, however I had converted to the Church as a young adult. My mother’s side of the family (who are culturally Catholic) refused to speak with my husband at family functions and boycotted our wedding. Indeed, my own marriage might now be considered as an interfaith marriage, with each of us losing our faith in the LDS Church and taking divergent faith paths. I’ve left the LDS Church and now consider myself a post-Mormon liberal Catholic, returning to the faith of my mothers (since Catholicism in America is largely passed down matriarchally). My husband is an agnostic atheist who remains actively Mormon: regularly attending his meetings and ‘magnifying’ his calling, held in the church by the faith of his fathers. My family is urging me to do what my responsibility as a Catholic mother would be: to baptize my son Catholic and raise him in the Catholic Church.

And so it goes, and so it goes. Its remarkable how adherents of all faiths claim that God will only recognize marriage in their church.

Through it all, my husband and I have retained enormous respect for each other and our religious decisions, as well as the effect that those decisions have on our son. I think respect for each other is really the only way such marriages can survive. My husband’s loss of belief was founded in his respect for me: Trusting that my reasoning was sound, he wanted to determine for himself what validity there was in my conclusions. Obviously, we came to different end-points, but part of respect is learning to accept (and even welcome) differences of opinion and conclusion.

My questions for the readership are these:

• What are your stories?
• How can a couple who finds themselves in a Mormon interfaith marriage make the relationship work?
• Is it possible to maintain a believing Mormon/non-believer relationship?
• If so, what components are required?

CofChrist Prophet: Baptism in Christ Transcends Culture

“5 It is imperative to understand that when you are truly baptized into Christ you become part of a new creation. By taking on the life and mind of Christ, you increasingly view yourselves and others from a changed perspective. Former ways of defining people by economic status, social class, sex, gender, or ethnicity no longer are primary. Through the gospel of Christ a new community of tolerance, reconciliation, unity in diversity, and love is being born as a visible sign of the coming reign of God.”

With these words, the Prophet/President of the Community of Christ delivered to the church for its consideration as divine counsel on January 17 a document that changes the relationship between its sacraments and its people. Copies of the documents are already posted at http://www.CofChrist.org.

Most stunning to readers on the bloggernacle, the document places resolution of pressing issues of marriage, sexual identity and roles, among others, into the hands of field or national jurisdictions to resolve within the context of their own cultures and secular laws. This appears to mean that the Community of Christ will no longer have a world-wide policy toward these cultural institutions, although what local policies will come into place is left undefined. Thus, jurisdictions in which gay marriage is permitted by the culture may be able to move forward with this practice as a sacrament of the church as well, and the church may continue to forbid discussion of the issue in nations where such discussion is taboo.

In addition, persons baptized by water within other denominations who are led by the Spirit to the Community of Christ are now to be accepted without rebaptism into membership upon confirmation following a period of study.

The headlines will probably not be the most important part of the document in the long run. Take a look at it and see what you think.

I would like to introduce Madam Curie which many of you know her by on her replies at Mormon Matters she also has her own blog Third Wave Mormon . She has shared with us what I think is a very interesting and thought provoking article.

Is a “believing heart” really a positive attribute?

“Blessed are those that have not seen, and yet have believed.” – John 20:29

“Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” – Hebrews 11:1

Having a “faithful” or “believing” heart is greatly prized among the religious. Those who uncover less savory aspects of LDS history are frequently told to “Just have faith,” even in the face of opposing evidence. As I have pondered the question of faith, I have begun to question whether a “believing heart” is really a positive attribute, or where and when it should be applied.

From a scientist’s perspective, faith is about the worst thing you can have; the scientific method entirely depends on an ability to be objective, and to rationally and logically question what you see. This seems absolutely antithetical to the idea that we should have a “believing heart”. From the perspective of a smart shopper, you should never take a product’s claims on their word only. And in terms of internet safety, there is an army of Nigerian princes waiting for you to have “faith” in them.

Is there a requirement that the thing we have faith in be a “true” principle? For example, I can have faith that my son will one day win the Nobel Prize in Medicine, but that doesn’t not make it so. In fact, that faith may lead me to make potentially detrimental decisions in my son’s upbringing: for example, stressing science over any other talent he may have, and giving him unrealistic and unattainable goals. Goal setting is incredibly stressed in the LDS church. In the Single’s ward we were told that all we had to do was set a date for when we wanted to be married; if we had enough faith, God would provide the man.

Even if we constrain the practice of faith to the spiritual realm, it is still not entirely clear what religious teachings we should have faith in. I have heard strong, compelling testimonies of faith from Jews, Muslims, polygamous FLDS, Mormons, Catholics, and born-again Christians. Each of them had a “believing heart”. Furthermore, am I required to have faith in the doctrine alone, or must I also have faith in the leaders of these individual religions? What if I am asked to do something that is illegal, or morally wrong? (An immediate example is Joseph Smith’s commandment to enter into polygamous marriages, something that was both illegal and was considered a moral aberration). Are faith and obedience to be prized above courage and conscience?

What about when your faith in something is at the expense of another? For example, Pres. Monson told the CA Saints to give their time and money to pass Prop. 8, which overturned the ability of homosexual Californians to marry. For many of those individuals, they had faith that Pres. Monson was speaking directly for God on the matter. If they had not, they may have acted differently.

If you apply the criterion that the thing you have faith in must “enlarge your heart,” well, even that is unclear. I have found equally strong spiritual emotions in the practice of Paganism and Buddhism as I have had as a Mormon, and I find great joy in attending Catholic Mass. Does that make all of these faith traditions “true”? Yet, they contradict one another in doctrinal teachings, so how is that possible? And several of them contend to be the “only true church”.

Where is the value in faith for faith’s sake?

New Year celebrations are some of the oldest holidays known to man.  The Babylonians had an 11 day celebration to ring in the New Year about 4000 years ago.  This celebration began with the first New Moon following the Vernal Equinox (Mar 21).  The Romans continued to observe the New Year in March, but due to tampering with the calendar by various emporers, the calendar became out of synchronization with the sun.  In 153 BC, the Roman senate decided to start the New Year to match the same time the senate started sessions:  January 1.  Further calendar tampering continued, and Julius Ceasar decided to synchronize the calendar in 46 BC by allowing the previous year to last 445 days.  (This is known as the Julian calendar.)  Our current calendar is based on the Gregorian Calendar, (named after Pope Gregory 13th), and was introduced February 24, 1582 using the birth of Christ as year 1.  (However, it is widely believed he was off a few years–even by his contemporaries.  With all the changes in calendaring systems, it’s easy to see why.)

Many of you are probably familiar that April 1 was originally the day of the New Year, and it was the April Fools who didn’t know it had been changed to January 1.  A possible origin for April Fools Day may have been when King Charles IX of France officially changed the first day of the year from April 1 to January 1, some of his subjects continued using the old system, based on the Julian calendar.

——

We don’t normally associate January 1 with Christian celebrations, but there is a great story in the Bible.  If Dec 25 represents Christ’s birth, 8 days later (Jan 1) would be the day Christ was circumcised.  The story is found in Luke 2:21-30.  You may remember that Simeon was promised that he would not die before seeing the Lord Jesus.

Luk 2:27 And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law,

Luk 2:28 Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said,

Luk 2:29 Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word:

Luk 2:30 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,

The Eastern Orthodox Church, Eastern Catholic Churches, Lutheran Churches, and some churches in the Anglican Communion celebrate Jan 1 as The Feast of the Circumcision of Christ. According to Wikipedia,

The feast is celebrated with an All-Night Vigil, beginning the evening of December 31. The hymns of the feast are combined with those for Saint Basil the Great. After the Divine Liturgy the next morning, Russian Orthodox churches often celebrate a New Year Molieben (service of intercession) to pray for God’s blessing for the beginning of the civil New Year.

So, would anyone like to celebrate the New Year the Russian Orthodox way?

———–

Now, I thought the beginning of Elder Eyring’s talk introduces the idea of New Years Resolutions quite well:

I feel blessed to have the opportunity to speak with you on this Sabbath day. Different as we are in circumstances and experiences, we share a desire to become better than we are. There may be a few who mistakenly feel they are good enough and a few who have given up trying to be better. But, for all, the message of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ is that we can and must expect to become better as long as we live.

It’s hard to tell by reading just the print version here, but Elder Eyring is actually saying this is a kind of joking way “There may be a few who mistakenly feel they are good enough”.  I’ve always noticed that Elder Eyring frequently gets choked up with emotion (as he does later in this talk), and it is nice to see that he is trying to exhibit a sense of humor, though there were no chuckles here.  (I get tired of people who feel the need to cry every testimony, and it seems to me Eyring usually fits to this category–if the gospel makes us happy, why all the crying?)

I think there are some who won’t do any resolutions because they “have given up trying to be better.”  I admit that I often don’t do resolutions, and perhaps I fit into this category.  Are there any others willing to admit this?

———–

The next paragraph, Eyring seems to have misplaced the setting of a scripture, calling it a revelation to Joseph Smith at first.  That seems like a bit of a mis-characterization to me.  Rather than a revelation to Joseph, isn’t this a sermon/exhortation from the prophet Mormon?  Is this some sort of off-handed way to say that Joseph revealed the Book of Mormon, rather than translated the Book of Mormon?  Eyring says,

Part of that expectation is set for us in a revelation given by God to the Prophet Joseph Smith. It describes the day when we will meet the Savior, as we all will. It tells us what to do to prepare and what to expect.

It is in the book of Moroni: “Wherefore, my beloved brethren, pray unto the Father with all the energy of heart, that ye may be filled with this love, which he hath bestowed upon all who are true followers of his Son, Jesus Christ; that ye may become the sons of God; that when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is; that we may have this hope; that we may be purified even as he is pure. Amen.” [Moroni 7:48]

That ought to help you understand why any believing Latter-day Saint is an optimist about what lies ahead for him or her, however difficult the present may be.

———-

Wait a minute–aren’t Mormons depressed because they’re trying too hard to be like Jesus, or is it true the Mormons live in the happiest State in the Nation?  Which side do you pick?

———-

Eyring continues,

We believe that through living the gospel of Jesus Christ we can become like the Savior, who is perfect. Considering the attributes of Jesus Christ should quash the pride of the self-satisfied person who thinks he or she has no need to improve. And even the most humble person can take hope in the invitation to become like the Savior.

Ok, I guess we all have need of New Years Resolutions….  How far do we take this analogy to be like Jesus?  Can we take it to exaltation/theosis?

———–

Elder Eyring gets choked up while relating the words to a children’s song.  I think the words could well be heeded on the bloggernacle.

“Love one another as Jesus loves you.
Try to show kindness in all that you do.
Be gentle and loving in deed and in thought,
For these are the things Jesus taught.”
[“I’m Trying to Be like Jesus,” Children’s Songbook, 78–79.]

I know that I can do a better job of “trying to show kindness in all that [I blog]“.  While feelings can often get heated on the bloggernacle, how do we disagree in a way that “show[s] kindness”?

——–

I liked Elder Eyring’s counsel to see the good in our spouses.  As marriage lengthens, it is really easy for all of us to become shorter with our spouses, and I don’t look for the good in my wife as I should.  I resolve to look for the good in my wife.

First, I give counsel to husbands and wives. Pray for the love which allows you to see the good in your companion. Pray for the love that makes weaknesses and mistakes seem small. Pray for the love to make your companion’s joy your own. Pray for the love to want to lessen the load and soften the sorrows of your companion.

I saw this in my parents’ marriage. In my mother’s final illness, the more uncomfortable she became, the more giving her comfort became the dominant intent of my father’s life. He asked that the hospital set up a bed in her room. He was determined to be there to be sure that she wanted for nothing. He walked the miles to work each morning and back to her side at night through those difficult times for her. I believe it was a gift from God to him that his power to love grew when it mattered so much to her. I think he was doing what Jesus would have done out of love.

———–

I think this counsel can be applied to the bloggernacle as well.  We ought to pray for the love which allows us to see the good in those we disagree with.  We ought not to be so judgmental, especially on divisive topics.  One wouldn’t think that the next paragraph would be divisive, but it sure can be on the bloggernacle as we talk about families.

That is because the greatest joys and the greatest sorrows we experience are in family relationships. The joys come from putting the welfare of others above our own. That is what love is. And the sorrow comes primarily from selfishness, which is the absence of love. The ideal God holds for us is to form families in the way most likely to lead to happiness and away from sorrow. A man and a woman are to make sacred covenants that they will put the welfare and happiness of the other at the center of their lives. Children are to be born into a family where the parents hold the needs of children equal to their own in importance. And children are to love parents and each other.

That is the ideal of a loving family. In many of our homes, there are the words “Our Family Can Be Together Forever.”

———

I think the Prodigal Son is one of my favorite parables of Jesus.  It is the story of both Judgment and Forgiveness, and I think its’ application is one of the most difficult.

The story of the prodigal son gives us all hope. The prodigal remembered home, as will your children. They will feel your love drawing them back to you. Elder Orson F. Whitney, in a general conference of 1929, gave a remarkable promise, which I know is true, to the faithful parents who honor the temple sealing to their children: “Though some of the sheep may wander, the eye of the Shepherd is upon them, and sooner or later they will feel the tentacles of Divine Providence reaching out after them and drawing them back to the fold.”

Then he goes on to say: “Pray for your careless and disobedient children; hold on to them with your faith. Hope on, trust on, till you see the salvation of God.”4 You can pray for your children, love them, and reach out to them with confidence that Jesus reaches for them with you. When you keep trying, you are doing what Jesus does.

When we look at people with drug problems, or serious sexual offenses, how do we apply this story?  Recitivism for drug addicts and sexual predators is very high.  Some believe they can’t be rehabilitated.  Governor Huckabee’s pardon of a man who went on to kill 4 police officers seems that he was trying to use the example of the Prodigal Son.  From the Washington Post article,

“If I could have known nine years ago this guy was capable of something of this magnitude, obviously I would never have granted a commutation,” he told Fox News Channel host Bill O’Reilly on Monday night. “It’s sickening.”

Huckabee defended his decision,

On Tuesday, Huckabee defended his decision to commute Clemmons’ sentence during a call to “The Joe Scarborough Show” on 77 WABC radio in New York. If his critics had been there in the governor’s mansion, Huckabee said, “They would have seen a 16-year-old kid commit crimes of which normally, there would have been a few years. And if he’d been white and middle-class with a good lawyer he’d have gotten probation, a fine and some counseling. But because he was a young black kid, he got 108 years!”

“People don’t go to prison for murder” with that sort of sentence, Huckabee said.

The recent hit movie, The Blind Side, seems to be a feel good story of a family who took in a Prodigal Son, Michael Oher, and turned his life around from a life of crime and gangs.  How do we practically apply this parable, when it is so easy for criminals to deceive?

A close friend of mine who wishes to remain anonymous recently saw in the shadow of the temple his story follows

In October, I was fortunate to attend the Portland, Oregon, screening of the movie, In the Shadow of the Temple. http://www.intheshadowofthetemple.com The screening was hosted by the producers, Karen Di Millia and Dennis Lavery. Prior to the screening Dennis and Karen spoke for 10 minutes and explained how they started this project. After the screening they took questions and answers for roughly 30 minutes.

Lavery and DeMillia, who are not–and never have been–LDS, originally planned to make a movie about people who had left the religion of their youth. They attended a meeting of the Portland Humanist Society, explained their project, and asked if anyone had such stories they would be willing to share. In the course of discussing the project with members of the society, they were told that who they really needed to talk to was Sue Emmett, who had left the LDS church. After talking with Sue and others with whom she put them in touch, they decided to re-focus their project on the experience of those who have left the LDS church.

They did hundreds of hours of interviews over two years and edited it down to a 55 minute film. The film is very moving–a tribute to those who shared their stories as well as DeMillia and Lavery’s videography and editing skills.

About two dozen people appear in interviews in the film. Each story is unique, but a common thread runs throughout them all. All faced a similar rejection by family, friends and community. Some of those interviewed have left the church. Others no longer believe, but remain active because of family or community pressure. The latter are filmed in shadows, to obscure their identity. The film refers to these people as “Shadow Mormons.” They define “Shadow Mormons” as those who privately do not accept the exacting doctrine of the Church, but publicly profess to be true believers. They are in shadow to protect their relationships with family, friends and employers.

Someone commented to me after the film, “That’s you. You’re a Shadow Mormon.”

Yes, I’m a Shadow Mormon. Maybe that’s why this film hit me so hard. I haven’t believed in over 20 years – most of my adult life. Yet, during that time I’ve paid my tithing, gone to the temple, served in bishoprics and high councils and done all the things that were expected of me. Why? Because I am tied to the church by family and community.

The story of “Grace” (not her real name) resonated with me because it was so similar to mine. Her pain, and anger, were born of all the energy she has given to a religion that she doesn’t believe in. Finding out that the Church was not true was like a death experience for her. Like me, she tried following the Church’s teachings to fast, pray, read the scriptures and yet never felt she received the “burning in her bosom” that is promised in the scriptures.

What of the families and communities of these people? What are their stories, their experiences with loved ones who go through a process of losing belief and leaving the church. Only one person who was a family or friend agreed to be interviewed for the film. The believing husband that was interviewed told how he still loved his wife, even though she has left the church. What about the others? Are they embarrassed to say that the Church was more important than their relationship with the person who left?

The saddest stories, to me, were of divorce caused by one spouse believing and the other not believing. Michelle (another woman interviewed in the film) said her heart was broken that her husband would choose the Church over her. He told their marriage therapist that if she had not been Mormon he never would have married her. “There was more to me than being a Mormon,” she said. “And I thought that there was more to him.”

The dictionary defines empathy as “the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.” We could all use a little more empathy for those around us. I have had several people tell me, “I can’t imagine how a person could leave the church.” Either they need a better imagination or they need more empathy. Maybe they just need to see this film.

One of the questions at the screening–one that Lavery could not answer–was, “How do we get the right people to see this film?” Sadly, many members of the church would not even consider it. (It screened in Salt Lake City in October and got almost no media coverage.) The film does not try to de-convert anyone or disparage the doctrine of the church. It doesn’t assert that someone is right because he or she believes, or that someone else is right because he or she leaves the church. This film is about accepting people regardless of what they believe, and about how we treat those who believe differently than we do. I wish every member of the church could see this film.

Film Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICbylWK-i2Q&NR=1

Gold is a gift for an earthly king, and holds obvious symbolic significance.  Frankincense is used in incense, for many religious observances.  Frankincense was used by Jews in the temple, as well as a great number of other religions of the day.  It is made from the resin of rare trees.  It was so precious that it was literally worth its weight in gold.  Myrrh also comes from a rare plant (in Arabia) and is worth 7 times more than frankincense.  It’s use was for annointing the dead, as well as for healing properties.  In modern day use, it has anti-fungal properties, and there is some anti-cancer research regarding myrrh as well.  It would have been a gift for a physician.  Obviously, Jesus was a master physician with all the healings he performed.

Astronomer David Hughes tells us “Myrrh is used to anoint the dead.  You get this Christian attitude that even as Jesus was born, they knew he was going to die on the cross.”  While none of us would have any idea what to do with frankincense and myrrh, when we uncover how the ancient people felt, it helps us realize how valuable these gifts were.

Matthew and Luke seem to have some differing accounts of Jesus birth.  In Luke, the shepherds visit a manger.  In Matthew, the Wise Men visit a house.   One tradition has it that the Wise Men visited 12 days after Jesus birth, but it could also be that Jesus may have been as old as 2, since Herod ordered all male boys killed under the age of 2.

The gifts may have been a test for Jesus.  There is evidence that the Jews expected as many as 3 different Messiahs:  a spiritual one, a great warrior, and a healer.  When presented with the gifts, the idea was that if Jesus chose gold, he would have been an earthly ruler.  If he had chosen frankincense, he would have been a spiritual leader.  If he had chosen myrrh, he would have been a healer and miracle worker.  Legend has it that he chose all three, showing that he was all of the above.

Of course, the magi sneaked out of Judea due to the dream not to return to Herod.  Joseph was also warned in a dream to leave for Egypt.  These gifts would have been very helpful for their flight into Egypt and would have helped pay their way.  Jesus going to Egypt follows previous precedents of Joseph and Abraham fleeing there to save Israel.

So, has anyone received gold for Christmas?

A child is born in Bukavu

A child is born in Bukavu, and sadness fills his mother’s heart… Bukavu is not the city of David. It is a town in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo. War has been ravaging the country for years. Ever since Kabila invaded the former Zaire with military support from the US. It is a war that no one speaks of – but it has cost the lives of millions of people and caused unimaginable suffering.

The child’s mother is a young girl, a daughter of the area. This young girl is named Maria.  Maria was a girl like most any other girl in her town. She walked miles for water, she helped her mother with the cooking and she also tilled the land. She learnt how to read in primary school, but ever since the war her parents no longer could afford to pay her school fees. Maria was a believer in the Christian gospel – and went like all other young girls her age to church on Sunday.

Church was a mud hut with a roof made out of straw. There on Sundays, the kids would gather to learn about God. The preacher, an older man with glasses and graying hair, would always talk about God’s love for humanity – and that God once, long time ago, had come to the world as a male child to save humanity. In church, she had also learned some words of English. She knew that when you greeted someone, you had to say: “Good morning, class”. 

The morning breaks

That was then. Prior to the attacks… One day, as the morning broke and shadows gathered, foreign soldiers drove into town. The houses were set on fire. The adults were gathered on the square and the older men were executed one by one. This is how Maria lost her father – and she and her mother witnessed it. The soldiers held their heads for them to watch. Maria was afraid. After having seen the murder of her father, they also separated her from her mother. She was chosen from among the young girls to follow a group of soldiers. One of them stripped her of her clothes and forced himself on her – he, subject to the commanders’ orders.

Now she held this young child in her arms. Her heart was filled with sadness, and she knew that her firstborn child would have given her joy under other circumstances. Some months after the soldiers left, Maria was chased away. The villagers who were left behind were ashamed of her and of the other girls who had become pregnant. These girls were a constant reminder of the day when the men in the village had been powerless – confronted with the threat and the fear of a gun. “Do not ever come back”, were the last words she heard as she was running for her life into the deep woods. 

Maria sings to her little child a song she learned many years ago: “Lullaby, lullaby, my little one. Lullaby, my child so dear. Thy precious life has just begun. Thy mother holds thee near”. And yet, she knows the words do not ring true. True, all life is precious. But not one soul will ever value the life of this child. Born of a violent union, unwanted by his mother, into a world where people willingly march to the sound of guns. What future can she promise him? What life can this child possibly hope to have? Even though she loves him, he is a constant reminder of what happened to her, and like the villagers who once chased her away she cannot find peace when she looks into his eyes. 

Its ranks are filled with soldiers, united, bold and strong…

Victory, victory… The guys were singing and shouting, drunken by their thirst for blood and proud of their conquest. Bukavu had been encircled, trapped, taken, raped and ravaged. The soldiers executed the orders of their commander and had in turn executed the elders of Bukavu – one by one. Herodes was the commander’s name. His boys feared him.

They were now men. They had proven it – to themselves and to him who had led them into victory. Joseph, one of the soldiers, the one who raped Maria, was nonetheless feeling some unease. In following orders, Joseph had forced himself upon this young girl. The others had told him that having sex with a virgin was going to save him from the disease that was making him weak, this pandemic they called AIDS. But more importantly, the others respected him now. He had become one of them: their partner in crime.

You are the man! We saw you, Joseph. You did it. You made her cry – you and your gun. You made her scream. The words were both making him feel proud and good about himself, but for one reason, unknown to him, they were also haunting him. Could he look at a woman again without thinking of the pain he had caused to this young girl – whose name he would never know? In order to survive – either you dominate or you are dominated, Herodes used to say. To rule, you have to systematically brake down the bonds that bind communities together. They need to fear you or fear will overtake you…

I am trying to be like Jesus

War does not bring out the best in us – it brings out the worst in us. True, some acts are acts of courage – but aren’t those heroic acts always associated with saving lives, and not with taking them? Fear begets fear. It is the opposite of love. Misery begets misery. It is the opposite of joy. Violence begets violence. It is the opposite of peace.

The nativity story told the world of a little baby boy, born to Mary, a girl chosen among other girls to be the mother of a Savior, rejected by men and yet, many are they who believe he is their safe ticket to heaven. The story from Bukavu is the story of a little baby boy, born to Maria, a girl chosen among other girls to be the victim of a soldier, so he could gain accept in the eyes of his comrades, so he could become a man, taking by force what he believed was a safe ticket to health.

Jesus taught us that he was not Herodes. “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.”  Jesus was nonviolent. Not exactly what you would associate with being a King. He was God. He was love, both long-suffering and kind. That is why he came to earth as a man and not as a woman: not because God favors men, but because the concept of what it means to be a Man on earth is so contrary to what it means to being God in heaven – who Mormons believe is male. Be kind, as a child, he said to them, and loving as a hen gathers her chickens:

“O ye people of these great cities which have fallen, who are descendants of Jacob, yea, who are of the house of Israel, how oft have I gathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and have nourished you. Yea, how oft would I have gathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens, and ye would not. O ye house of Israel, whom I have spared, how oft will I gather you as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, if ye will repent and return unto me with full purpose of heart”. 

Love one another

It was necessary for Jesus to come to earth in the form and shape of a male – to represent God as his firstborn son, the first among all great men, a king of kings. “Little children, a new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another”.

The divine irony is the fact that Jesus exhibits throughout his life traits that we call feminine: peaceful, loving, kind, sharing, meek, forgiving, gentle, and caring. He helped the poor and he healed the sick. We crucified him, because he was a threat to men everywhere. He challenged the very idea of what it means to be a man: strong, violent, forceful, greedy, noisy, arrogant and proud. He challenged the way we think about achieving peace, not by dominating others before they dominate us, but by showing us a better way to freedom – paved with love and with sacrifice.

In short, this was the message Jesus gave to the modern House of Israel, to the modern sons of Jacob: “What manner of men ought ye to be? Verily I say unto you, even as I am.”  He showed all men an alternative masculinity – that of the nonviolent male who sides with the poor and the downtrodden. Come, follow me, the Savior said. 

For an alternative and nonviolent study of the Book of Mormon, mormongandhi is regularly publishing a study chapter on mormon nonviolence (latter day satyagraha) at http://mormongandhi.com. Each chapter follows the set-up of the Institute Study Manual of the LDS Church. In addition, you can share your thoughts and insights on the nonviolent readings of the Book of Mormon with other “peaceable followers of Christ” (Moroni 7:3) at the discussion forum (http://peaceablefollowers.wordpress.com) created in parallel to the “latter day satyagraha” site.

mormongandhi currently lives in Oslo, Norway. He has a BA in peace and development studies from Bradford University in the UK, where he studied religious peacebuilding, as well as a master’s in peace operations from GMU in Washington D.C.

mormongandhi is looking for alternative and more peaceful ways of thinking and living. He calls himself an advocate for nonviolence in the Restoration movement.

Firstly, I can understand other religions who live in my community who might be frustrated at the effort and money that is spent of events during the Christmas season, that is not directed into events that would help their own religious festivals.

Secondly, I sense that if Christians want their festivals to remain important then we need to ensure that they are important by our practising them rather than using (or assuming) some sort of cultural supremacy simply because we happen to be the dominant religious culture in a country.

Thirdly, no one else can determine whether I worship Christmas and the extent to which I feel the spirit of Christ.  Therefore although I think having that focus at Christmas time is a good thing I should not let the fact that other people do not believe become the major focus of my worship.  I am sure people who celebrate any of the Islamic festivals do not concern themselves with my benign neglect of their religious festival so why should I use mine against them.

Fourthly, no one can stop me from calling it Christmas, if I so choose.  I don’t care what anyone else calls.  If they want to change the legal name so that it does not alienate other religious denominations then I can’t see an issue with that.

This just seems a mis-directed way to focus on Christmas at a time of year when Christians should be at their most tolerating, inclusive and forgiving.

What do you think?

Should we legally protect Christmas or should we emphasise celebrating it ourselves and not be concerned about what others do?

I talked previously about the Wise Men and their part in the Christmas Story.  Not much is known about them, but there are quite a few interesting legends.  For example, we assume there are 3 Wise Men, but some ancient paintings show as few as two, and sometimes as many as four.  Names and legends have even sprung up to provide more information about these men.

In the Greek church,  Gaspar (or Caspar), Melchior and Balthasar are their names.  Some artists have shown them to represent all of humanity: its youth, middle age, and elderly.  In the Renaissance, other artists sought to make the magi represent race, color and creed.  In one painting, one of the Magi is represented as coming from Ethiopia and was black.  The others came from Persia and India.

Syrian Christians have a 6th century tale naming them Horamistar, King of Persia; Yestigat King of Saba; and Perozad, king of Sheba.  Wikipedia lists some other names and legends, and has some footnotes to provide some sources to these legends.

According to this video, in the Spanish world, presents are not exchanged on Christmas, but 12 days later on 3 Kings Day, January 6.  Presents under the tree are left by the 3 Kings, not Santa Claus.  A special cake is prepared, representing good luck for the next year.  The one who finds a ring cooked into the cake gets the good luck.

Marco Polo in the 13th century, claimed that he was shown the three tombs of the Magi at Saveh south of Tehran in the 1270s:

“In Persia is the city of Saba, from which the Three Magi set out and in this city they are buried, in three very large and beautiful monuments, side by side. And above them there is a square building, beautifully kept. The bodies are still entire, with hair and beard remaining.”

Another legend says their bones were allegedly removed by Helena, mother of Constantine, who was looking for Christian artifacts in the 4th century.  She took them to Byzantium, and the bones have been moved a few times, finally ending up in Cologne, where they are today, sealed in a golden coffin in a cathedral.

So, can anyone verify that the Spanish celebrate 3 Kings Day?  It sounds like a very interesting tradition to me.  I really like the cake idea.  About 3 years ago, I was trying to explain to my then 4 year old that Christmas was more than just Santa Claus.  I told him that it was Jesus’ birthday.  My boy exclaimed, “We should make him a cake!”

As I thought of this 3 Kings Day tradition, I thought that might be an interesting addition to the holidays.  Perhaps we should all celebrate 3 Kings Day.  Perhaps we could save some money on the post-Christmas sales if we waited to buy presents after Christmas.  What do you think?  I like the idea of 3 Kings Day better than giving birds to my love (and I think she wouldn’t know what to do with all the birds either.)

Recently I drove up Little Cottonwood Canyon with my brother and nephew.  This is the canyon in which many of your ancestors pulled out  the granite for the construction of the salt lake temple. As soon as we passed the granite facings on the side of the canyon my nephew played a song on his iPod by Corb Lund Brother Brigham Brother Young and it brought mental flashes into my mind of men working on the side of the mountain blasting granite out of it.    It made me think of the struggles that men and women had even back then with the faith in many ways very similar to our day. From what I have read Mr Lund isn’t LDS but has relatives that are. Im assuming one of his relatives is a historian buff? Its probably safe to presume this song will never be played in a chapel but I can’t help liking it!  You can listen to his song Here

Brother Brigham Brother Young

music and lyrics by Corb Lund

I have sinned so gravely Brother Brigham, Brother Young
I have sinned so gravely Brother Young
That only you can save me Brother Brigham, Brother Young
That only you can save me Brother Young

I have revealed the temples secrets Brother Brigham, Brother Young
The temple garments, oaths and secrets Brother Young
I have apostatized and doubted Brother Brigham, Brother Young
And borne my testimony falsely Brother Young

And I have loved a woman Brother Brigham, Brother Young
A woman in adultery Brother Young
I have also wed a negress Brother Brigham, Brother Young
My fifth wife has some color Brigham Young

I now see that you’re a prophet Brother Brigham, Brother Young
A living, breathing prophet Brother Young
And now I believe the revelations Brother Brigham, Brother Young
I now believe your revelations, every one

Even the ones beyond all reason Brother Brigham, Brother Young
Even the ones beyond all reason Brother Young
For you’re the Lord’s own earthly prophet Brother Brigham, Brother Young
And he’s simply testing in our faith o Brigham Young

My only hope for exaltation Brother Brigham, Brother Young
My only chance for exaltation Brother Young
Is to send me o’er the rim of the basin Brother Brigham, Brother Young
The rim of the Great Salt Lake Basin Brother Young

For water cannot save me Brother Brigham, Brother Young
Baptismal water cannot save me Brigham Young
My sins are just too deep a dye o Brother Brigham, Brother Young
My sins are just too deep a stain o Brother Young

So send Avenging Angels Brother Brigham, Brother Young
Won’t you send Destroying Danites Brother Young
To spill my blood upon the earth o Brother Brigham, Brother Young

So what do you think?

Do you find the song offensive?

Is it historicaly accurate of what may have happened to some of the saints in the salt lake valley?

Does it bare some similarites to what we have gone through in our day or not?

Could God evolve?

As part of a discussion group, I have been reading Robert Wright’s The Evolution of God. My group isn’t anywhere near finished (the “heart” of the book focuses on the three major Abrahamic religions — Judaism, Christianity, and Islam — yet we’ve only finished through the part on Judaism that sets the stage for Christianity), but as I blogged about on my personal blog, I already have concerns about the arguments that Wright presents.

Some of my comments, however, may not necessarily apply to Mormonism. For example, Wright seems to rely on this idea of a God that can evolve. The big issue is that many believers are constrained to believing that God is constant and thus ineligible for evolution. However, Mormons — through ideas like eternal progression — may not have that reservation (depending on whether or not eternal progression is “in” or “out” of the theology du jour.)

So, what does Wright say?

This isn’t anywhere near comprehensive for Wright’s position, but one thing that reached out to me (on page 214):

What might qualify as evidence of a larger purpose at work in the world? For one thing, a moral direction in history. If history naturally carries human consciousness toward moral enlightenment, however slowly and fitfully, that would be evidence that there’s some point to it all. At least, it would be more evidence than the alternative — if history showed no discernible direction, or if history showed a downward direction: humanity as a whole getting more morally obtuse, more vengeful and bigoted.

Or, to put the point back into the context at hand: To the extent that “god” grows, that is evidence — maybe not massive evidence, but some evidence — of higher purpose.

And also, on page 221, after Wright introduces the concept of the logos as a kind of “algorithm” for the universe from God:

…Some say Philo believed a kind of direct contact with God was somehow possible; others talk about a union with “the divine” that falls short of communion with God himself.

But, however direct the connection, the first step to making it was to try to understand God and God’s will. Thus deciphering the Logos could bring enlightenment not just intellectually but spiritually. “The logos was meant to guide the human soul to the realm of the divine,” writes the scholar Thomas Tobin.

And what we also know is that “Logos” as an idea later landed in a little book testifying about a guy named Jesus…”In the beginning was Logos, and Logos was with God, and Logos was God.”

Matt Evans at Times and Seasons wrote about eternal progression as a necessity for a benevolent theodicy a long time ago.

I guess there are several possible directions to go with this. Obviously, Wright’s full position may not go in the direction we need to fit it with eternal progression, and these snippets don’t even truly grab the essence of the position. But…going with Wright, for some reason, somehow, history shows a trend of things getting better. This is indicated through a number of things — our general prosperity (despite ‘hiccups’ like financial crises and wars, we have accumulated great wealth and great scientific advancement), or our general ability to get along with each other, for example (think about Europe. Hundreds of years ago, a union would have been laughable. Now, it is a reality.)

But even more interesting is the way that our ideas of God and morality evolve as the rest of our society does. So, Wright points out that we have moved from an idea of a vengeful god to a glorious understanding of on who is benevolent in novel ways (in Mormonism, our exaltation includes eternal progression). Additionally, whereas even a hundred or two hundred years ago, rights for certain minorities would not have been on the table, today we can and do have discussions on prospects of egalitarianism (even if we don’t feel we as a society are in an ideal point, the important point is that somehow, we have started to feel that there is an ideal point).

Wright argues that this may be sign of some higher purpose.

Now, I have countered that using such an analogy doesn’t necessarily go as far as Wright needs it to. For example, in biological evolution, things appear to get “better,” but really, there isn’t a “forward” or “best.” There isn’t a “best species” that everything is moving toward. Rather, there are adaptations that are more successful to the given environments and adaptations that are less successful. Adaptation toward a better fit to the environment doesn’t necessarily show a higher purpose.

But…with eternal progression, we might avoid that. As long as there is knowledge and experience, shouldn’t our “environment” always be flexible…and if this is the case, shouldn’t we be always able to adapt to this environment? So, we don’t need to imply a “best” to recognize that progress itself, successful adaptation itself is the focus. As Ray points out on his blog, with eternal life, we yet have opportunity to progress in post-mortal life. At some point, our progress will appear so advanced (to us non-advanced peons…probably not to us when we’ve gotten there) that we will be able to do seemingly novel things (like, say…create worlds beyond numbers? — remember, we don’t have to be constrained to “ex nihilo”).

But to progress, we must discover and seek the correct principles — as Ray highlights, and which compare well to Logos — and so these principles too call for our change in order for us to grow.

At the time, I was reading Muhammad Yunus’ book, Banker to the Poor, in which he relates how he, as an Economics professor in Bangladesh, helped create a micro-lending bank that makes small loans to the poor so they can quit their exploitative jobs, start their own businesses, and climb out of poverty. Yunus explains how traditional aid programs, which typically rely on the UN and government agencies as “middle men” to administer aid, have a proven track record of gross inefficiency and failure spanning several decades. His micro-lending operation, and many others like it, cut out the bureaucratic middle-men so that the money intended for the poor actually makes it to the poor. By working with impoverished communities around the world, Yunus learned first-hand that the poor are willing and able to work, but simply lack the capital needed to start their own businesses. By providing loans that must be repaid, rather than giving away handouts, Yunus and micro-lenders like him “teach a man to fish” by enabling the poor to break out of the poverty cycle and support themselves.

When I discussed all this with a friend, Stephen Wellington, he told me Kiva.org was exactly what I was looking for. And he was right. Kiva builds on the work of Yunus and others by taking their micro-lending model to the next level. Using the Internet, Kiva enables regular people like you and me to make micro-loans as small as $25 to people all over the world who want to lift their families out of poverty by starting their own businesses.

Here’s a typical example of how Kiva works: a family in Cambodia grows rice, but is barely subsisting. They could greatly increase their rice production if they had a new plow and some fertilizer, but they don’t have the money for it. So they submit a loan application for $600 to a local mico-lending agency in Cambodia that partners with Kiva. The family’s loan request is then posted on Kiva, and that’s when the loan fund-raising begins. With just a few mouse clicks, regular folks like you and me all over the world can pool our contributions of as little as $25 each to reach the $600 total that the family needs. Once the loan money has been raised, Kiva sends it to the local micro-lending agency, which disburses the loan funds to the family in need. Every month, the family makes small re-payments to the local micro-lending agency in Cambodia, which are sent back to Kiva and put in your Kiva account. When you receive a monthly repayment, you can either cash out and get your money back, or re-loan the money to another family in need.

This month is our family’s one-year anniversary with Kiva. A year ago we spent a Family Home Evening with our children reviewing loan requests on the Kiva website. Because we were new to Kiva and therefore a little uncertain about its reliability, we decided to loan an amount of money that we thought could make a difference in a few families’ lives, but that was small enough that we could accept losing completely if it all turned out to be a scam. So we took $500 and divided it amongst a few families from a few different countries: the Cambodian family already mentioned; a mother in Peru needing funds to expand her door-to-door grocery business; a father in Mongolia needing funds to repair his mini-bus for his transportation business; a father in the Philippines needing funds to expand his small hog farm; a mother in Senegal needing funds to buy ice-cream making equipment, etc.

As we received the monthly re-payments, we immediately re-loaned the money in $25 increments to other families. We also received Kiva video updates from the field about the families we were assisting. (See an example here.) These video updates provided our children with a window to the world, showing them how families around the world struggle to support themselves, and helping our children develop a greater awareness of, and desire to help, those in need.

So what were the results of our family’s first year experimenting with Kiva? With just our $500 initial contribution of loan funds, which we re-loaned to other families in $25 increments as loans were repaid, we were able to:

• Make a total of 40 loans . . .
• in a total amount of $1,275 . . .
• to families in 21 different countries (Azerbaijan, Bolivia, Cambodia, Dem. Rep. of Congo, Dominican Republic, Ghana, Indonesia, Kenya, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Rwanda, Senegal, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, and Ukraine) . . .
• $783 of which has already been repaid . . .
• with a delinquency rate (late payments) of 7.38% . . .
• and a default rate of 6.25 % (higher than the Kiva average of 1.65%) . . .
• meaning our total loss after one year has been only $25 (one loan in the Dominican Republic).

Our family’s contribution has been just one tiny drop in the ocean of Kiva lending. Just last week on Kiva: 3,629 new lenders joined; 11,207 lenders made a loan; 2,344 entrepreneurs were funded; and $752,850 was lent, at a rate of one loan every 23 seconds.

Overall, our family has fallen in love with the concept of micro-lending, because we’ve discovered that by re-lending funds as they are repaid, we were able to do $1,275 worth of good with our $500 initial contribution of loan funds. Over the coming years, the amount of good that $500 initial contribution does will only multiply. And with a loss of only one $25 loan that defaulted, we’ve learned that Kiva, its field partners, and its borrowers are trustworthy enough to continue lending to them for years to come.

Prophet/President, Community of Christ

There are those (especially among Evangelicals) who believe that the Bible is inerrant and literal.  For example a scriptural literalist will claim that Noah’s flood covered the entire earth.  A non-literalist may say that the flood was merely a large localized flood.

Pres. Stephen Veazey is the prophet for the Community of Christ, and he gave a sermon on scriptural literalism.  The videos can be found on the CoC website, and this quote comes from Chapter 4.  Let me quote from Pres. Veazey directly:

Scripture is authoritative, not because it is perfect, or inerrant in every literal detail, but because it reliably keeps us grounded in God’s revelation.  And here is the heart of our challenge:  over the last several centuries, a doctrine of scripture emerged in Christianity that insists that all scripture, every single word, was directly dictated by God, and is inerrant in every detail.  This belief emerged as a response to the questioning of religious authority from those who held that human reason alone was the most reliable pathway to truth.  So a doctrine of scripture emerged that enshrined the literal words of scripture as inerrant and as the sole authority on all matters.

This view still dominates much of global Christianity today.  It also strongly influences more than a few members of the Community of Christ who have adopted it from the larger religious culture.  However, that doctrine, that view of scripture is not how scripture was understood in Christianity since its birth.  It’s not how Jesus Christ used and viewed scripture.  And it is not how the community of Christ officially views scripture today.

The church affirms that scripture is inspired, indispensable, essential to our knowledge of God, and the Gospel.  In addition, we believe that scripture should be interpreted responsibly, through informed study, guided by the Holy Spirit working in and through the church.  Scripture was formed by the community of faith to shape the community of faith, therefore, interpreting scripture is the constant work of the faith community.  Community of Christ also stresses, that all scripture must be interpreted through the lens of God’s most decisive revelation in Jesus Christ

So if portions of scripture don’t agree with our fullest understanding, of the meaning of the revelation of God in Christ, as illuminated by the Holy Spirit, and discerned by the faith community, the teachings and vision of Christ take precedence.  This principle applies to all of our books of Scripture, especially any passages by some to categorically assign to God’s disfavor, or negative characteristics, or secondary roles to others.

This is why our belief in continuing revelation is so important.  This belief keeps us open to yet more light and truth so we can grow and understand of God’s supreme will as revealed in Jesus Christ.  Doctrine and Covenants 163:70 states, “Scripture, prophetic guidance, knowledge and discernment must walk hand in hand to reveal the true will of God.”  Follow this pathway, which is the way of the living Christ, and you will discover more than sufficient light for the journey ahead.”

I find tremendous agreement with the CoC position.  What are your thoughts?  Do you lean for or against scriptural literalism?

I have to shake my head in amusement - and sometimes really laugh – when I hear those who complain about the wording of the Book of Mormon (that it’s too much from the KJV of the Bible and the language Joseph and the people of his time spoke), while having no problem whatsoever with Christians using non-KJV, modern translations of the Bible because that version is too hard to understand. It’s totally fine to translate the Bible into words and phrases and a style that teenagers now will understand, but it’s not OK for Jospeh to use words and phrases the readers of his time would understand?  It’s fine for the Bible to go through extensive translations of varying degrees of difficulty for individual understanding, resulting in numerous acceptable versions (including some that without question are “20th and 21st Century versions”), but it’s not OK for Joseph to have translated the Book of Mormon into 19th Century, Christian terminology? 

If people hundreds of years from now could access only the translations of the Bible written in modern English for modern teenagers, they would reject it out-of-hand as being a “product of its time” – exactly as so many people say they reject the Book of Mormon for that reason.

All other translation issues aside, I just find this particular argument amusing, since it really is a comical argument to make from within Christianity.  I have to believe those who use that rationale either don’t understand that modern translations of ancient works generally are written and “translated” in such as way that those who read it in that culture and time can understand it (“Romeo+Juiet” or “Oh, Brother, Where Art Thou”, anyone? – or the multitudinous versions of classics that get modernized as movies) OR that they have a deeper, more foundational reason for rejecting it – like a rejection of the overall prophetic calling of Joseph Smith. 

I believe rejecting the Book of Mormon because of a rejection of Joseph Smith is a teneble position; I belive rejecting Joseph Smith because of a belief that the Book of Mormon linguistically is a ”product of its time” is not. 

Irony, thy name is scriptural translation.

1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:
2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,

Here is my point – my two points, really.

1) This great sermon was delivered as a higher level discourse to his most dedicated followers – including those who eventually would form the new faith of Christianity.  Its standards absolutely are not easy, and its directives absolutely are not natural.

Sometimes we hold the general population of the Church (and each other and others) to these standards, while Jesus himself took great care not to do so of the general population of his followers. This often is a good example of unrealistic expectations – and of demanding others live a standard we ourselves are unable to master.

2) This great sermon was delivered mostly to the MEN who would form the leadership of his movement, even though there is no reason to believe that the listeners were all men.  (I personally believe there were women present.)

QUESTION:

Did the gender composition of the listening group have an impact on the content of the sermon?

Generally speaking, the list of attributes included in the Beatitudes are considered throughout history to be feminine.  Jesus was speaking primarily to men about how to change and grow (repent) and become godlike.  So,

1) Might the Sermon on the Mount have been different if the primary audience had been women?  If so, how?

2) How can we take the general message of repentance (change and growth and the acquisition of godly characteristics) and use it to achieve the proper balance we need to become “perfect” (complete, whole, fully developed)?

3) Must every individual acquire all the characteristics listed – or can a spouse/companion share that endeavor and, between two, create one united, balanced, “prefect” whole?

[A story from Prairie_Chuck at FacesEast.org, adapted by permission]

In Sunday School last week, the lesson topic was about motivation for obedience and service to others. The teacher referred to Elder Oakes’ talk titled “Unselfish Service.” Elder Oakes discussed reasons why people serve, saying that 5 of the 6 reasons were selfish: having a desire for blessings, wanting the association with others that callings bring, and fear of condemnation to name a few. The only right reason to have a calling was because one loved God and had faith.

The teacher referred to D&C 124:119-120 where the Lord says that those who pay for stock in the Nauvoo House must believe in the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith’s revelations, that anything less than this would result in curses rather than blessings.

In answer to the question from the teacher “Is it ever good to do something right for the wrong reasons?” everyone in the class responded “no.” You should only do callings and obey commandments if it is done for the right reason. According to Elder Oakes’ talk, faith and belief in that commandment or calling was the only proper motivation.

So I decided to play devil’s advocate. I asked “So if someone didn’t have a complete testimony of tithing, she shouldn’t pay tithing. Right? According to verse 120, anything more or less than this ‘cometh of evil.’”

Members in the class responded “No, but paying tithing leads to a testimony.” I pointed out that it was a selfish reason to pay tithing, if someone did it to gain a testimony. And what if someone never gained a testimony of a calling they have? Without complete belief in the calling or the person extending the calling, they shouldn’t take it.

Someone in the class quoted Alma 32, where it mentions having faith like a seed. Someone else referred to the story in the Book of Mormon about the Rameumptom tower, where people prayed for vain reasons (Alma 32). I understand all that, but on one side you have people who have complete faith in all church things, on the other side are those who are vain or deceitful. In the middle are most of us — we who lack perfect faith, who struggle with belief on some level. According to the lesson, as it was being presented, these people in the middle are cursed for accepting a calling to serve or obeying a commandment for less than perfect motives.

The teacher then began talking about how faith in Christ completes us, compensates where we are lacking. That should have been the focus of the lesson! Afterward, the teacher said to me “I hope I explained that well enough for you.” I agreed 100% with his final conclusion: that faith in Christ is what counts. Applying D&C 124:119-120 to everything we do in Church would put us all in impossible situations, more or less cursed for lack of belief.

It was funny because there were times when the class seemed so close to what I wanted to get at–we need faith in Christ. He will compensate where we are lacking, when we sometimes just go through the motions. Isn’t it better to do good in the world and serve our brothers and sisters, than to do nothing at all for the sake of pure motivation? I can hardly imagine that is what God has in mind.

I apologized for derailing the class. I said “I guess I’m just the defender of the unbeliever.” The direction they were headed in the lesson is one of the reasons my husband left the church — because he didn’t feel like he was permitted to believe less than 100%. He felt like what little he did believe or practiced was hypocritical according to the community standards. Even if he did the right things, it was counted a curse to him because he lacked faith. The all-or-nothing focus on the pure ideal did not uplift him, and instead pushed him away from a place that can feed and encourage the best in us.

-Brian Johnston, www.staylds.com

The reason I highlight this is because there are certain callings within the Church that make it impossible, or at least very unlikely, for you to have if you have been involved in certain activities.  I am sure that these people do not seek for these types of callings.  I highlight this as an apparent ‘inconsistency’ between scripture and practice.  For example, over the years there has been some flip-flopping on the issue of Divorce and being a Bishop.  It seems that with current levels of divorce so high that the Church can no longer not have those people as possible candidates, when in the past they have made that restriction.

Any records of Church disciplinary councils are kept at Church headquarters (they are destroyed after a short-time in the local areas) presumably so that callings that need to be ratified by the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve can check to see if there are any issues.  Further if an individual commits some sins then these become annotated permantly on your membership record.  An example here is being involved in child abuse or pornography.  This means that you cannot have callings with children.

How far then does forgiveness go?

Are there cases when this type of policy is justifiable?  If so which?

If we believe in true repentance why does the Church need to check their past, presumably because they want to see if they are likely to do something again in the future?  Is this faulty reasoning?

I’ve always enjoyed books about world religions, especially the obscure and forgotten, but I was expecting something rather bland, or apologetic, or dismissive.  I was pleasantly surprised.  This one was actually very unbiased, concise, and interesting.  It didn’t break any new ground, necessarily, except that it offered interesting comparisons and contrasts with other major world religions.

I found that book packed in an anonymous box last week and decided to give it another read.  As I read about Guru Nanak I was struck by one tiny thing: how comparatively little we really know about him or his life.  How can anyone believe in a prophet whose life we can’t relentlessly scrutinize?

I’m not going to go into detail about his life here.  A quick appeal to Wikipedia will take care of the information you need to get started, I guess, but let me get to the thrust of this post.  How do we test the fruits of a prophet we know so little about?  As I read, my mind went over the prophet I feel I know so well, Joseph Smith, and I was impressed by how we scrutinize his life for tiny details.  Every scrap of information about his life has been scoured by historians, theologians, apologists, and lay-people, for clues as to whether he is a true prophet, and yet no-one to date has really been able to come to a consensus.  Was he a charlatan?  A saint?  A prophet?  A nut?

Right around the time of Christopher Columbus, northern India was embroiled, as it is now, in a theological struggle between Hindu and Muslim.  To be fair, Guru Nanak does have a few interesting sources about his life (all written after his death), but for the most part, we know little about him compared to Joseph Smith.  The people he lived with in the north of India spent their entire lives agonizing and struggling over their age-old question: which religion is right, Hinduism or Islam?  No doubt many people prayed mightily towards Heaven asking for divine guidance.  Is Hinduism worth dying for?  Was Mohamed really a true prophet?  That struggle was personified in Guru Nanak, whose simple initial revelation, “There is neither Hindu nor Muslim,” must have jarred most of his listeners.  “Neither Hindu nor Muslim?” they must have asked themselves.  “What else is there?”

I felt moved with immense compassion as I read about this struggle, especially in light of the invasion of India by the Moguls.  Here was a whole civilization, turned over by wars and religious strife, foreign to Americans, who lived and died struggling with the great questions of the soul, and here was a prophet among them, Guru Nanak, who offered peace, and eschewed outward ordinances in favor of clean living and always remembering God in your heart.

How can I possibly determine whether Guru Nanak is a true prophet if I have so little information about him?  Where are all the documents?  Stanford hasn’t done any word imprint studies on his writings, his mother never wrote a Biography of his life.  There are definitely no Sikhs here in Lexington repeatedly bearing testimony to me, “I know that Guru Nanak was a true prophet.”  Not to say there isn’t any information about him (and, to be fair, there are some Sikhs here in Lexington, if you seek them out, pun intended) but it seems quite lean compared to what we have about Joseph Smith.

Let us swing back a few thousand years and move a few hundred miles to the West to Iran, where we find the cradle of  another world religion, that of Zoroastrianism.  One could easily argue that Zoroastrianism is the grandfather of all monotheistic faiths.  They have been around for thousands of years, though their numbers have dwindled in the last couple centuries.  Want to approach Zoroastrianism objectively, and test the fruits of Zoroaster (Zarathustra)?  What do we know about him?  Well, a quick survey of historians will reveal that he probably lived sometime between 6000 BC and 100 BC.  That’s right, we can nail down his life to a 5900-year period.  Recently, the number has settled right around 1100 to 1000 BC, but how on God’s Green Earth are we supposed to find out if Zoroaster was a true prophet if we can’t even agree on the millennium in which he lived?

And where did Zoroaster live in this period of time?  I’ll quote Wikipedia this time:

Yasna 9 & 17 cite the Ditya River in Airyanem Vaējah (Middle Persian Ērān Wēj) as Zoroaster’s home and the scene of his first appearance. Nowhere in the Avesta (both Old and Younger portions) is there a mention of the Achaemenids or of any West Iranian tribes such as the Medes, Persians, or even Parthians.

However, in Yasna 59.18, the zaraθuštrotema, or supreme head of the Zoroastrian priesthood, is said to reside in ‘Ragha’. In the ninth to twelfth century Middle Persian texts of Zoroastrian tradition, this ‘Ragha’ – along with many other places – appear as locations in Western Iran. While Medea does not figure at all in the Avesta (the westernmost location noted in scripture is Arachosia), the Būndahišn, or “Primordial Creation,” (20.32 and 24.15) puts Ragha in Medea (medieval Rai). However, in Avestan, Ragha is simply a toponym meaning “plain, hillside.”

Apart from these indications in Middle Persian sources which are open to interpretations, there are a number of other sources. The Greek and Latin sources are divided on the birth place of Zarathustra. There are many Greek accounts of Zarathustra, referred usually as Persian or Perso-Median Zoroaster. Moreover they have the suggestion that there has been more than one Zoroaster. On the other hand in post-Islamic sources Shahrastani (1086-1153) an Iranian writer originally from Shahristān, present-day Turkmenistan, proposed that Zoroaster’s father was from Atropatene (also in Medea) and his mother was from Rai. Coming from a reputed scholar of religions, this was a serious blow for the various regions who all claimed that Zoroaster originated from their homelands, some of which then decided that Zoroaster must then have then been buried in their regions or composed his Gathas there or preached there. Also Arabic sources of the same period and the same region of historical Persia consider Azerbaijan as the birth place of Zarathustra.

By the late twentieth century the consensus among some scholars had settled on an origin in Eastern Iran and/or Central Asia (to include present-day Afghanistan): Gnoli proposed Sistan (though in a much wider scope than the present-day province) as the homeland of Zoroastrianism; Frye voted for Bactria and Chorasmia; Khlopin suggests the Tedzen Delta in present-day Turkmenistan. Sarianidi considered the BMAC region as “the native land of the Zoroastrians and, probably, of Zoroaster himself.” Boyce includes the steppes of the former Soviet republics. The medieval “from Media” hypothesis is no longer taken seriously, and Zaehner has even suggested that this was a Magi-mediated issue to garner legitimacy, but this has been likewise rejected by Gershevitch and others.

So we know where he lived, give or take a thousand miles, and we know what time period, give or take a few thousand years.  And by the way, there may have been more than one Zoroaster.

Again I ask, how do we know a true prophet?  The Bible says a few things, but let’s focus on one:

Matthew 7:15-20

15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth devil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

So my question is, how do we test the fruits of these prophets? Not only these prophets, but anyone who has claimed revelation in the past.  What about Mani, who led the people now known as Manicheans, who expanded upon what he saw as truths in Christianity and Zoroastrianism? What of Confucius, whose followers led thousands in Ancient China (all bureaucrats in the government were well-versed in Confucian texts). Do we know as much about Mo Tzu, whose teachings were seen as a real competitor to Confucianism early in its history, as we do about Sidney Rigdon or John Taylor or Thomas S. Monson?

A few possibilities come immediately to mind, some conclusions that easily could be made by the modern reader.

1. We don’t need to test their fruits. Zoroaster was a prophet who lived thousands of years ago, to a people who lived thousands of years ago. These people don’t pertain to us. We know the truth, and we can just forget about these guys.  Besides, if they were so right, where are they now?

Forgive me, but doesn’t this seem like an arrogant conclusion? To dismiss an honest, sincere group of people because of distance or difference seems quite wrong, at least to my heart, especially in the case of Zoroaster, whose religion has endured longer than any other monotheistic religion, and that historians even date to before Judaism (many historians believe that it was actually the Babylonian exile, and the Jews’ exposure to Zoroastrian thought, that really ironed out their concepts of Heaven and Hell, God and the Devil, etc.).  If time is any indication of truth, it’s arguably on their side, not ours.

2. We can automatically dismiss anyone who didn’t teach about Christ.

Fair enough, if you believe Christ really was the Son of God, which I do, for the record. However, how many of Basava’s followers knew about Christ or His teachings? Guru Nanak’s world was divided into Hindus and Muslims, and the wars between them. Christ, to them, was some obscure prophet, mentioned in the Qur’an, or maybe a Bodhisattva, but not really someone whom the average person knew about. Furthermore, is it useless for a prophet to teach about loving one another in a land where Christ’s name is not mentioned? Is a prophet not “true” if he teaches that we should cease our murders and contentions and try our best to live a holy, charitable life?

3. We can dismiss them because we don’t have any useful information about their lives, like we do about Joseph Smith. We simply can’t test their fruits, and thus we can see that God doesn’t want us to know about them. If God wanted us to know about them, information about them would have fallen into our (or Joseph Smith’s) hands.

Pleading ignorance?  Really? “We don’t need to know something because we don’t know something.” This may be precisely the reason why most people in the world don’t know who Jesus Christ really is. “If God wanted me, here in Urumqi (or Jakarta or Chongking or Tokyo or anywhere else not predominantly Christian), to know about Jesus Christ, God would have sent that information here, but He hasn’t.”

4. We can dismiss any religion whose followers are a tiny group compared to the whole. For instance, why study the teachings of Alevi Muslims if they are such a minority in the world, even amongst the Muslim world?

For the record, there are probably more Alevi Muslims in the world as there are Latter-day Saints, and the Alevi are a tiny minority compared to the Muslim World as a whole. Secondly, when has truth been determined by the majority? And what was the result?

5. The particulars of a prophet’s life aren’t important, what matters is the fruits we see in the followers.

Take quantum mechanics as some sort of analogy here.  By the 1800s, Newtonian Physics had pretty much permeated all of the scientific community.  Edmund Halley’s orbital prediction of what is now called Halley’s Comet was regarded as an ultimate triumph of Newtonian Physics, and the philosophers finally concluded that if one could know the starting positions of all the atoms and matter in the Universe, one could calculate all of history over billions of years.  However, when we really started to dissect the atom, Newton’s ideas broke down on the quantum level.  We discovered entanglement and particle spin and all sorts of new, amazing, sometimes counter-intuitive facts about how things work on a tiny scale.  Yet, to this day, we haven’t seemed to reconcile Quantum Mechanics with the Universe on a large scale, and the search for a Unified Theory is one of the most interesting searches in physics.

So the resulting Universe we see has emergent properties that seem (we’re still working on this) different than the properties on the Quantum level. Are prophets the same way? Does the whole of a religion have emergent properties that aren’t explained by the life of a single person who founded it? Can we test the “truth” of a religion by these emergent fruits, ignoring what the prophet did?

This seems a bit more plausible, considering there are so many prophets we don’t have information about. Except, is that really what we’re taught in the Church? Furthermore, what if the religion died out many years ago, so we can’t necessarily see the fruits of it now?

6. We can test a prophet by the book they brought forth. If we ask if the book is true, then we can know if the prophet is true. No book? Then see #3.

Does that mean that if you can’t read, then you’ll never know? Does that mean all the prophets in history who didn’t have a book are not true? Literacy is truth, and illiteracy is damnation? What about the Christians in the Middle Ages who didn’t have access to the Bible because the Bible was restricted to the clergy? Were they doomed, never having a true testimony?

7. Those prophets taught some truth, we know that from Latter-day revelation. Therefore, we can just accept that they taught some truths, but reading about them, knowing about them, or studying their teachings is unnecessary. All truth is contained in this Church.

This is pretty much what our Church teaches us, right? Certain prophets had access to the Light of Christ at certain times in history, and did much good, but we really needn’t concern ourselves with the particulars. I can’t help but thinking this is still being overly dismissive of other teachings, other cultures, and other people. Shouldn’t we search diligently for truth wherever it can be found? Joseph Smith seemed to snatch up truth wherever he saw it, whether it be in the rituals of the Masons or papyri he thought belonged to Abraham. This has led me to #8, which is closest to what I consider to be the truth.

8. The truth is complicated.

The older I get, the closer #8 seems to reality.  However, I thank God that I’m in a religion right now that can tie the Human Family together in a way that accepts and appreciates truths everywhere and anywhen.  In the darkest times at night, and on Sundays when I listen to what’s taught from the pulpit, and when I travel and see people of all different colors and faiths and nationalities, and when I read history books full of brave men and women who sacrificed their lives for their faith, even faiths much different than my own, I don’t have to accept on blind faith the conclusion that the majority of my family (the Human Race) is damned for Eternity for not knowing the name of Christ.  There isn’t a privileged time or place for personal salvation.

And this is very comforting to me.

The Story of Alexander Doniphan is well-known and probably does not need to be recounted here (For more information see Mormon Heretics Post – A Memorial Day Jack Mormon or see this).  Very simply: when a number of the leaders of the Church were threatened with execution the man asked to carry it out, Alexander Doniphan, refused to do so on the grounds that he thought it was illegal.  He is now recounted in LDS history as an example of integrity.  However, his refusal is also an example of dissent and viewed from another point of view would not be lauded as it now is.  For example, if a Stake President refuses to excommunicate someone, at the request of a higher General Authority, because they feel that is the right thing to do, would their integrity be praised?  Is there a way of valuing LDS dissenters and what is the criteria for doing so?

I want to use the example of Hugh Nibley as someone who successfully navigated this treacherous path.  He has written: “There may be things about the Church that I find perfectly appalling. But I know the gospel is true.” [1]  Many of his more popular writings have been critical of the Church’s culture and leadership and yet he is accepted and even quoted.  He even published with Signature Books; which as you know is just asking for trouble.  Neal A. Maxwell has said: “Hugh, of course, is above the fray not in the sense of his being esoteric or highly advanced but likewise I think his commitment has been so visible and so pronounced and so repetitively stated so that’s not even the issue.  So then we get on to what is Hugh saying?” [2] 

Is it enough to be visible, vocal and pronounced about your commitment?  Michael Quinn believes that his essay on Post-Manifesto Polygamy was one of the reasons that he was excommunicated[3] and yet this essay has a declaration of his continued faith in the Gospel.   In addition, I have heard many who fear being ostracised or disciplined for views they espouse online, even if they would fall under the category of things you find ‘perfectly appalling’.  It seems to me that there is an acceptable limit to dissent, but where is that limit?  What else is required to be within the limits of faithful dissent?

Lowell Bennion argues that we do not have to “accept any interpretation of scripture (I would add this applies to any ‘revelation or direction’) that denies the impartiality or love of God or the free agency and brotherhood of man. These concepts are too basic to the gospel to be denied by someone’s interpretation of a verse of scripture”[4]  or a policy.  Bennion suggests that we can legitimately dissent if we can justify it upon the basic ethical principles of Christ’s message (like Doniphan did).  Yet, to what extent is this a viable option for individuals within the Church? Eugene England shares the experience of being a Sunday School teacher for a few weeks before being released for expressing his ’liberal’ views on some sections of the O.T.[5].  Clearly this was not an acceptable level of dissent.

In addition Jeffrey R. Holland has discussed the line(s) of faithful dissent in the extreme cases.  He has said “We don’t discipline people in this church for very much.”  Moreover, he thinks the “church has a history of being very, very generous.”  In addition he argues that there are ”lines” plural that members should not cross, if they want to retain the blessings of being a member of the Church.  He believes that “The chief among these is the issue of advocating against the church” because then “the institution itself cannot retain its identity and still allow that”.  For example, he notes that “There are plenty of people who question the historicity of the Book of Mormon, and they are firmly in this church and the church isn’t going to take action against that. [The church] probably will be genuinely disappointed, but there isn’t going to be action against that, not until it starts to be advocacy: “Not only do I disbelieve in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, I want you to disbelieve.”" Yet it seems to me that there is a fine line between advocacy and discussing, raising questions and writing about these issues.

Questions:

• Where do you see the limit of Faithful Dissent? 
• Why is a declaration of commitment and faith not enough in some cases?
• Is there a space for dissent within the Church upon ethical principles, like Bennion argues?
• Does Elder Holland sound like he is accurately defining that limit and do you agree that this is an appropriate limit?

Notes:

1. Hugh Nibley, Nibley on the Timely and the Timeless [Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1978], xvii.

2. Neal A. Maxwell, Faith of an Observer [Provo: BYU & FARMS, 1985].  A Transcript is available here.

3. Michael Quinn, Transcript for The Mormons, PBS [online].  A Transcript is available here.

4. Lowell L. Bennion, The Best of Lowell L. Bennion: Selected Writings 1928-1988, edited by Eugene England [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1988], 208.

5. Eugene England, Why the Church is as True as the Gospel in Sunstone [Salt Lake City: Sunstone Education Foundation, Dec 1999].

Bercot was raised as a Jehovah’s Witness but left over differences about Biblical interpretation, and subsequently became an Evangelical Christian. However, he had doubts about some Evangelical doctrines as well, such as the idea of eternal security (once saved, always saved), and remained convinced the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ belief in pacifism was correct.

Based on the fact that the pre-Nicene Church Fathers were the closest in time and place to the Apostles, Bercot reasoned that present-day disputes over scriptural interpretation could similarly be resolved by examining the writings of the pre-Nicene Church Fathers to determine how they interpreted and applied scripture. (These pre-Nicene Church fathers lived anywhere between 50 and 325 A.D.) Bercot’s legal training taught him to seek out the primary sources containing the writings of the pre-Nicene Church Fathers, rather than relying on modern treatises that often present sixth or seventh-hand accounts of what the Early Christians supposedly believed and practiced.

At the conclusion of his research, Bercot published a ten-volume collection of the Ante-Nicene Fathers‘ writings, the most comprehensive collection of primary sources available in English. Bercot then compared what he learned about pre-Nicene Christianity to mainstream Evangelical Christianity, formed his own publishing company, and published his summarized findings and analysis in Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up.

Mormons might be interested to know that Bercot’s research into the Early Christian Church demonstrates that the LDS Church today shares many of the doctrines of the Early Church, including:

• A concept of salvation that stresses the importance of both faith and obedience. As Bercot puts it: “The early Christians believed that salvation is a gift from God but that God gives His gift to whomever he chooses. And He chooses to give it to those who love and obey him.” (Emphasis in original.) According to Bercot, the mainstream Evangelical interpretation of “saved by grace” actually originated with St. Augustine after the Nicene Creed.
• That a person, once saved, could fall from grace and lose his salvation through disobedience.
• That salvation depends on a person’s correct exercise of his free will, rather than being predestined arbitrarily and irrevocably by God.
• That baptism actually effectuates a remission of sins, rather than simply being a sign of outward commitment.
• That unbaptized infants who died before baptism could still be saved, as well as other good and noble people who died without baptism.
• That Christians should observe the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper weekly.

However, Mormons might also be interested to know that, according to Bercot, the Early Christians held additional beliefs and practices that may be waning or absent from Mormonism:

• Early Christians had no belief resembling the modern “health and wealth” gospel that physical health and safety, or material prosperity, are blessings for righteous living. Rather, the Early Christians lived in material simplicity, striving to have all things in common and giving to the poor to the point of joining others in their poverty.
• Early Christians believed in separating themselves from the world as much as possible, going so far as to abstain from politics and the legal system, refusing to take oaths, and abstaining from the popular amusements of the day.
• Early Christians rejected capital punishment and even refused to assist in prosecuting someone for a capital offense. Similarly, Early Christians rejected war and refused to serve in the military. According to Bercot, the concept of the “just war” did not exist amongst Christians until St. Augustine.
• Many Early Church Fathers taught there was no special doctrinal revelation after the apostles and that everything we need to know about God had been revealed to the apostles by Jesus.

As Real Heretics crept into Christian bookstores, Bercot was surprised to learn that the book was making a huge splash in Anabaptist (Amish/Mennonite) circles. Bercot’s historical validation of several Anabaptist doctrines like pacifism, baptismal regeneration, separation from the world, and a rejection of the Reformation doctrines of sola fide (faith only) and predestination backed up several of their most cherished views. While Bercot was intrigued to learn that his findings greatly overlapped with Anabaptist beliefs, he found no legitimate basis for some Anabaptist beliefs, such as their lack of evangelism and avoidance of modern technology.

Over the next several years, Bercot struggled to find a religious community that embraced all Early Christian beliefs and practices as he understood them. He formed his own short-lived Early Christian Fellowship, but later affiliated with the Anglican Church because it allowed him freedom to form his own society to promote Early Christian beliefs, and because it is one of the older Christian churches that avoids the veneration of icons. However, Bercot eventually left the Anglicans due to their Catholic practice of venerating the Virgin Mary and espousing the “Just War” theory.

Bercot ultimately relocated to Pennsylvania, where he currently resides, and now affiliates with the Mennonites, who have many, but not all, of the Early Christian beliefs and practices that his research discovered.

The Campbellite-Mormon Connection

As I read Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up, I was intrigued to find a non-LDS scholar giving historical support for so many LDS doctrines. Page after page, I kept wondering to myself: When Joseph Smith set out to restore the Early Christian Church, how did this largely uneducated 25-year old get so many things right? As far as I know, Joseph was ignorant of the writings of the Early Church Fathers. I couldn’t see how Joseph could have had the time or means to pour over old texts written by Polycarp, Ignatius, Origen, Ireneus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, or any of the other Early Church Fathers. Nor am I aware of Joseph ever having quoted the Early Church Fathers in his sermons or writings.

Moreover, I was struck by the fact that some of the Early Christian beliefs and practices that seem to be waning or absent in Mormonism today, such as the strong emphasis on creating a separate society and having all things in common, were found in Mormonism as originally established by Joseph Smith. The differences between Mormons today and the Early Christians (e.g., Mormons’ abandonment of communal living, strong involvement in political and legal affairs, common approval of capital punishment, military service, and strong allegiance to country) all seem to have resulted from Mormon “mainstreaming” over the past century .

In response to the question of how Joseph Smith got so many things right when he undertook to restore the Early Church, faithful Mormons will likely respond that Smith’s success owes to the fact that he was a true prophet of God who was called to restore the true Church of Jesus Christ. However, Real Heretics presents information that many others have cited to provide another possible explanation. After discussing the Early Church, Bercot discusses the eventual corruption and apostasy of the Church, and the valiant efforts of the Reformers to root out that corruption. Bercot then traces the development of several Restorationist branches of Christianity using language that will ring familiar to Mormons:

Whereas Luther had sought to reform the existing church-state establishment, others concluded that such an establishment was beyond reforming. So they worked to restore primitive Christianity apart from the church-state institution. Since the days of Luther, there have been numerous such movements to restore early Christianity. Real Heretics, p. 149.

Although Bercot does not identify Mormonism as one of those Restorationist movements, he does identify one of Mormonism’s cousins, the Stone-Campbellite Movement, as being one of the more successful Restoration movements:

Another movement to restore primitive Christianity sprung up in America in the early 1800s out of the Presbyterian church. . . . Barton W. Stone, a Presbyterian minister, began a movement in Kentucky to restore apostolic Christianity. Stone’s chief objective was to restore the holy living and separation from the world that had marked early Christianity.

In the 1820s, Stone’s movement merged with a separate movement begun by Thomas and Alexander Campbell, who were also seeking to restore primitive Christianity. One of Alexander Campbell’s primary objectives was to achieve unity among all Christians, forsaking all man-made creeds and traditions and returning to the forms, structures, and doctrines of the apostolic church. Real Heretics, p. 151.

Both Stone and the Campbells published journals urging a Restoration of the Early Church in the early 1800’s (The Christian Baptist, Millennial Harbinger, and The Christian Messenger).

Those familiar with Mormon history will recognize the names of Thomas and Alexander Campbell as the founders of the “Campbellite” Restoration movement that Sidney Rigdon, Parley Pratt, Edward Partridge, Isaac Morley, and at one point a majority of all Mormons belonged to before converting to Mormonism. When Sidney Ridgon read the Book of Mormon in 1830 while he was a Campbellite preacher, he converted to Mormonism as did many other Campbellites.  This enormous influx of former Campbellites into Mormonism doubled the Church’s membership in three weeks and resulted in Joseph Smith relocating the Saints’ gathering place by joining the former Campbellite converts in Kirtland, Ohio.

Why was Mormonism so appealing to Campbellites?  Starting in 1823, Campbell’s publication The Christian Baptist advocated an abandonment of all creeds and sects that divided Christendom and a restoration of a unified Church in which the “original gospel and order of things” are present.  (Source.) Alexander Campbell explained the Campbellites’ “distinguishing views and practices” as follows:

They regard all the sects and parties of the Christian world as having, in greater or less degrees, departed from the simplicity of faith and manners of the first Christians, and as forming what the apostle Paul calls “the apostasy.” . .  .

They look for unity of spirit and the bonds of peace in the practical acknowledgment of one faith, one Lord, one immersion, one hope, one body, one Spirit, one God and Father of all; not in unity of opinions, nor in unity of forms, ceremonies, or modes of worship. . . .  

Thus while they proclaim faith and repentance, or faith and a change of heart, as preparatory to immersion, remission, and the gift of the Holy Spirit, they say to all penitents, or all those who believe and repent of their sins, as Peter said to the first audience addressed after the Holy Spirit was bestowed after the glorification of Jesus, “Be immersed every one of you, in the name of the Lord Jesus, for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

The immersed believers are congregated into societies according to their propinquity to each other, and taught to meet the first day of every week in honor and commemoration of the resurrection of Jesus, and to break the loaf which commemorates the death of the Son of God, to read and hear the living oracles, to teach and admonish one another, to unite in all prayer and praise, to contribute to the necessities of saints, and to perfect holiness in the fear of the Lord.

Every congregation chooses its own overseers and deacons, who preside over and administer the affairs of the congregations; and every church, either from itself or in co-operation with others, sends out, as opportunity offers, one or more evangelists, or proclaimers of the word, to preach the word and to immerse those who believe, to gather congregations, and to extend the knowledge of salvation where it is necessary, as far as their means extend.  (Source.)

Although the Campbellites and Mormons held many other beliefs in common, the above provides a sampling of the types of similarities that have presented religion historians with a fascinating chicken-or-the-egg question:  did Joseph Smith’s teachings resemble the Early Church’s “original gospel and order of things” because Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God whose authentic revelations enabled him to restore the true Church of Jesus Christ, or because contemporary Restorationists like Alexander Campbell first identified correct Early Christian beliefs and practices that were later adopted by Joseph Smith? In other words, did God use the broader Restoration movement of the American frontier as an “Elias” that prepared Rigdon and eventually thousands of souls to embrace the true Church of Jesus Christ restored later by Joseph Smith, or was Joseph Smith’s success in duplicating many Early Christian beliefs and practices the result of his simply mimicking the beliefs and practices of contemporary Restorationist preachers who got it right first?  Because Campbellite converts to Mormonism such as Parley Pratt reported that they were converted Mormonism because they were inspired by the truthfulness of the doctrine contained in the Book of Mormon (Source), it seems the answer to that question depends on whether the Book of Mormon is an accurate translation of an authentic record compiled by Early Christians living on the American continent, or is a fabrication cobbled together by Smith and possibly others inspired by the Restorationist ethos that pervaded the American frontier when it was published.  (We know where Alexander Campbell stood on that question: in 1831 he denounced the Book of Mormon as a fraud because it all-too-coincidentally addressed “every error and every truth discussed in New York for the last ten years.”)  (Alexander Campbell, “The Mormonites,”  Millenial Harbinger 2, (January 1831): 93.)

Regardless of the answer, Will the Real Heretics Stand Up suggests that the modern Christian denominations that most resemble the pre-Nicene Church’s beliefs and practices (i.e., Anabaptists and offspring of Restorationist movements) are relatively obscure groups that are popularly regarded as being on the outskirts (or on the outside) of Christianity today.

[Pictured below, left to right: Alexander Campbell, Sidney Rigdon, and Joseph Smith.]

“The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”  Joseph Smith —DHC 3:28-30

If Joseph Smith is, correct in his assertion that the fundamental principles of the Church are the testimonies and knowledge concerning Jesus Christ, His Life, His Mission, His Teachings, His Example and His Atonement and that ALL other things are only appendages, then it seems clear on what we should focus ourselves and our families — The Savior Jesus Christ.

Those testimonies are found in the scriptures, in the words of our modern day prophets and apostles, in the answers to our prayers and in the promptings of the Holy Ghost.

But, especially in the Bloggernacle, Jesus Christ and His Atonement seem to be the last thing anyone wants to discuss and consider.  We are much more interested in the appendages.

Appendages are important.

On our physical bodies, they play an important role.  Most of us wouldn’t want to live without them.  But, we can live without them and many do.

How neglectful have we become about the fundamental principles of our religion (never mind being LDS, how about just being a Christian?), that some, being so focused on the appendages, have lost the fundamental principles.  Or they have stopped hearing the testimonies of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ.

So, is/was Joseph correct about the fundamental principles of our religion?  Or have the appendages, at least as far as the Bloggernacle is concerned,  overwhelmed the message of the Restoration and of Jesus?

(If you want a review of these 3, click here.)  So, with Christ being resurrected, Christians would obviously find these 3 sources as problematic.  If Christ was really resurrected, there should be no bones, right?  I must say I was really intrigued by Simcha Jacobovici’s position.  Simcha is a Jew, and said that if the bones were really discovered, then it would actually give credibility to Christianity, because it would in fact give proof that Jesus was an actual person.  (Of course, there are many who claim Jesus never existed, citing lack of evidence.)

So, it got me thinking.  Obviously, all 3 can’t be right.  But what if one of them is right?  Critics of Christianity would loudly trumpet the fact that the resurrection couldn’t have happened if the bones were found.  They already make claims that say this discovery “would shake the foundations of Christianity”, seeming to imply that Christianity would somehow disappear.  But would it really disappear?

I don’t think so.  Let’s assume for sake of argument that one of these positions was scientifically proved correct–Jesus bones have been positively found.  Now, while I am sure it would cause much re-evaluation among Christians, I do not believe Christianity would vanish.  I suspect that many Christians would have to re-evaluate the resurrection.  Here’s some possible scenarios that I see happening.

(1)  The resurrection is actually not a physical resurrection.  I believe many people already believe this.  When we look at it, it’s a little tough to reconcile with the scriptures, because Jesus ate fish and honey after his resurrection.  “Touch me” was his reply–so it does seem to be a fact that he was physically resurrected.  But perhaps this physical resurrection would only apply to him, and not us?

(2)  Perhaps there was some sort of stem-cell/cloning technique for the resurrection.  Perhaps Jesus “corruptible” body is on the earth, but his new “celestial” body looks/feels the same, but is basically a perfected clone of his human body.

(3)  Perhaps the resurrection is not important at all.  Perhaps the Gnostics had it right, and the body is not needed in heaven.  Perhaps, Jesus true purpose is not the resurrection, but rather his purpose was to teach spiritual truths.  In this scenario, the resurrection is meaningless, and Christ’s atonement and teachings are what really matters.

I’m sure there are other options.  Can you think of some?  If Christ’s bones were truly found, would it really spell the end of Christianity, as skeptics claim?

This is an adaptation of a post my good friend Ron wrote. He is Catholic, so with his consent I have modified some of it to fit the audience here, as well as added some of my own thoughts. It was inspired by some of his encounters with a “rather nasty Fundamentalist Christian” who was “more interested in winning an argument, rather than learning.” These points, however, may be applied to anyone who wants to prove other people wrong rather than understand or learn.

“After spending years debating James White, I have noticed common tactics employed by people who want to win at any cost rather than seek a mutual understanding of the facts or even work toward a mutual disagreement. Ann Coulter is a good example of a political satirist who engages in this sort of rhetoric. Let’s take a close look, shall we?”

1. Make an outrageous claim. It doesn’t matter if it’s out of Mormon Doctrine, or if you take a comment out of context, or if the side you’re on is just as guilty as those you are making accusations against. The goal is not to be fair minded or even accurate; all you need to be concerned with is igniting an emotional response from the other person. Remember, you are always right and your opponent is always wrong; your job is simply to supply enough rope for your opponent to hang himself. Manipulative (e.g. “Don’t you think _____?”) and leading questions are also really effective here.

2. Rely on mocking or sarcasm to ignite passion. If you are of a conservative ilk, rely on a mocking or morally superior tone to deliver your message (Ann Coulter). If you are liberal use a lot of sarcastic humor to exalt yourself above your opponent’s attempts at presenting himself/herself as morally superior (Al Franken).

3. Do not give an inch. If your opponent happens to stumble upon a true statement, ignore, deny, or reframe the conversation! In all cases, NEVER concede even a minor point to your opponent. Also, be sure to ignore any sincere questions by your opponent. In the very least do not answer them directly. Again, the point is not to help the other person understand you, but to prove they are wrong.

4. Make Your opponent work harder. Always remember that you are right, regardless of the facts presented, and you will eventually prove it by weathering any storm that may be created due to the information your opponent happens to give you. Most importantly, put them in a place where they feel like they have to prove you wrong. If they present troubling information to you about your own position simply refuse to acknowledge it. The fact is your opponent is either a brainwashed innocent or at worst, a conniving interloper who has no right to challenge your superior position, and only appears to have the nerve to do so without merit.

5. Do not bother reading posts or listening to response from your opponent. After all, reading your opponent’s posts may ignite emotions within yourself, or take your mind off your primary goal, WINNING! Instead of reading, skim your opponent’s post for statements that can be molded to aid you in your ultimate goal. The best statements are usually the most irrelevant to your opponents point–why re-post something meaningful or relevant? Oh, and make sure you continue to apply the steady drumbeat or either mocking/moral superiority, or sarcastic humor.

6. Stay the course! Or leave! Whatever you do, just don’t engage! Eventually your opponent will either hang himself or simply tire of the interaction; in both cases, you must declare victory immediately. Like any good staring contest it is not the person that presents the best case who wins, but the person who is left standing. If it just keeps going you may want to consider eventually checking out. There are two ways to do this, either just disappear quietly until the next post comes along that you can slam, or make a big announcement about why you are not coming back. Try to make everyone reading it feel bad about your departure, and say self-deprecating stuff like “I guess I’m just not popular here”). Whatever you do, NEVER admit to any good points the other side made in their last comment, and when you come back, make sure it is only to attack again.

How can we avoid this? How can we learn together even when we disagree?

1. Ask sincere, open-ended questions. Look around and you’ll be surprised how little actually happens. Example, “What do you think about _____?” Amazing concept, but so often we end up trying to trip each other. Make sure your questions are not meant to lead the other person down a particular path, or that you don’t have some hidden underlying agenda.

2. If you use sarcasm or a lot of humor, be kind. Even if you don’t like emoticons, make sure others understand your intention, and don’t use it as a weapon. I know many people (myself included) like to use mocking now and then, but we must refrain.

3. Acknowledge (write in your replies) when the other person has a good point. Or, *gasp* when they say something you agree with.

4. Monitor the conversation to make sure it is not one-sided. Is there always one person on the attack and the other constantly on defense, or is it more even-handed?

5. Consider the whole comment. Don’t just pick out stuff to argue with.

6. Apologize when appropriate. Take a break when you need to, but don’t completely check out or make threats when you get upset. Come back and engage. We can all learn from each other.

7. When in doubt, ask Ray what to do. He will have the answer.

Why do you converse with others online? More specifically, why do you engage in commenting back and forth with other people on Mormon Matters? To share your views? To influence others? To learn from others?

What is your method of going about this? Debate? Crafting arguments? Sharing and working towards mutual understanding? What are the pros and cons of the different ways?