Joining Mormon Matters host Dan Wotherspoon in reflecting on this current moment are podcast veterans, professor, blogger, and LDS commentator Joanna Brooks, professor and holder of the Leonard J. Arrington Chair of Mormon History and Culture at Utah State University Philip Barlow, and first-time podcast guest and business strategist Scott Holley, who served as a key analyst for the survey.

We hope you’ll enjoy the discussion and will share your thoughts in the comment section below!

_____

Links to Sources:

Preliminary results of Open Stories Foundation Survey

Joanna Brooks Religion Dispatches blog post on Mormonism facing its history

Reuters article reporting on Elder Marlin Jensen’s remarks at Utah State University

Salt Lake Tribune article about topics under discussion in this podcast

Deseret News article about topics under discussion in this podcast

Carrie Sheffield Washington Post essay on LDS Church in need of reform

In this episode, host Dan Wotherspoon and panelists Joanna Brooks, John Dehlin, and Brian Johnston use Brooks’ column as a springboard for their own dive into many aspects of Mormonism, including both the light and shadow sides of its rigor, demands, and messages (and the ways these messages are communicated), and what contributions any of these have to those who are unsure about staying LDS or others who are seeking ways to engage with the church and fellow members in enjoyable and spiritually healthy ways even though they may be less literalistic or in some other ways  “out of the box” in some of their views.

1. The LDS Church’s recent reaffirmation of the King James Version as is its official Bible translation and
2. The changes it has made to chapter headings in the online version of the Book of Mormon (changes that will be carried forward in future printings) that de-emphasize the idea of darker skin as a curse from God.

What is the significance of this renewed commitment to the KJV instead of switching to newer, more scholarly Bible versions based on older manuscripts, translated into more modern English, and increasingly the Bibles of choice for other Christians? What are the possible positive and negative impacts of the Church’s continued use of this translation–on missionary efforts, scriptural literacy among the rising generation, and so forth? What do the new Book of Mormon chapter headings say about the continued fading of Mormonism’s history of equating skin color with God’s blessing or cursing? What steps might be next? What steps should be next?

Instead, I like to test my scriptural canon in the disciplines where I have my own professional training in college or experience on interdisciplinary teams later in life. So rather than argue about Mesoamerican artifacts, I like to look instead at Mesoamerican volcanoes.

I suspect that most people who read about the disaster that befell the Nephites and Lamanites at the time of the crucifixion (~30 CE) recognize that most of the effects described are symptoms of major volcanic eruptions. Earthquakes and volcanoes go together. Volcanoes will always produce earthquakes, and earthquakes can often trigger volcanic eruptions. Choking ash clouds in which no light will penetrate; landslides, mudflows, or pyroclastic flows that bury towns, fill stream beds with debris, change drainage patterns, and push mighty winds ahead of them; continuous lightening and thunder from friction within the eruptive clouds; volcanic bombs to set buildings on fire – they all come with volcanic eruptions. The earthquakes have their own effects: fissures, scarps, liquefaction of delta sediments, and/or fluctuations in underground water tables.

But the eruption depicted in the Book of Mormon is not the eruption of a single volcano. Oh, there can be single volcanic eruptions big enough to devastate the geographic areas of the Book of Mormon (measured by distances that could be covered in journeys described in the Book itself). A volcano in New Zealand 26,500 years ago erupted the equivalent of over 500 cubic miles of magma and buried islands 600 miles away in a seven-inch deep layer of ash. However, the types of destruction that befell various cities in the Book of Mormon account further constrain the event (i.e., mudflows or pyroclastic flows don’t travel 600 miles even if ash clouds do). The Book contains geographic clues about the cities’ relative locations to each other that suggests they were near, or at most a few tens of miles downstream from, the volcano that destroyed them. That points to multiple simultaneous eruptions.

John L. Sorenson, in his book An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, spends a good portion of his discussion of “The Great Catastrophe” (pages 318-323) focusing on volcanism in the Valley of Mexico near modern Mexico City. This may have some value in establishing the plausibility of volcanism at the time of Christ to a casual reader, since many LDS at the time his book was produced still held to a hemispherical geographical model or one centered on the Great Lakes or Central United States.

However, volcanism near Mexico City is simply too far west, even in his own proposed locations for various Nephite and Lamanite cities, to do the trick. This is especially so since he places Bountiful, which survived, in a location near the Gulf Coast between Mexico City and Moroni, which sank into the sea. So this was one of the things that made me wary of his model, along with his interpretation of directions. (The relevance of Valley of Mexico eruptions is even more problematic if you use modern directional systems for east and west, because that places Moroni no closer to Mexico City than is southeastern Guatemala.)

In 1982, El Chichon erupted in the Chiapan Highlands where Sorenson’s model had placed the Nephite lands. El Chichon had not previously been recognized as an active volcano, but this eruption was roughly on the scale of the Mt. St. Helens blast two years earlier. As described in Wikipedia, El Chichon killed 2000 people, and produced major ash clouds, pyroclastic flows and surges. It left a kilometer-wide caldera that rapidly filled with an acidic lake. Happening so closely after St. Helens (though totally unrelated), geologists flocked to study volcanic structures in the region, especially when they realized that the eruption happened unexpectedly far inland.

The west coast of the Americas is known to be overriding oceanic crust and mantle as the surface of the earth is slowly dragged around by convective heat and mass transfer within the earth’s interior.  These motions, which have been underway for tens of millions of years, produce the earthquakes and volcanism that characterize and drive the mountain building that we observe from Alaska to the tip of South America.  But the regional angles of collision and the presence of submarine features as scars left from past convection can produce vast differences in individual mountain ranges.

As shown in a 2005 paper by staff of the Cal Tech Seismological Laboratory (a pdf version of the paper is here for those interested). the Modern Chiapanecan Volcanic Arc (MCVA), of which El Chichon is the most northern and active volcano, can be explained by a NW-SE heating gradient induced by the resistance of such a submarine feature (The Tehuantepec Ridge) to being forced below Central America.

To the northwest of the ridge, the ocean crust was buoyed up and passed below the continent at a shallow angle. To the southeast of the ridge, the ancient coastal volcanoes were gradually extinguished by the relatively low temperature of the adjacent slab on the other side of the ridge. The extinction has now reached almost to the volcano Tacana on the border between Mexico and Guatemala.

In place of the coastal volcanoes, the MCVA developed as the ocean floor was forced deeper into the earth (and farther inland under the continent) before melting of the oceanic slab could occur. Furthermore, the buoyant oceanic slab to the northwest of the ridge also took longer to heat up and melt, moving volcanism inland to the Mexico City area as well.

Directly over the landward extension of the submarine ridge lies one additional feature that the Cal Tech team does not try to explain in detail. This isolated Tuxtlas Volcanic Field, of which the San Martin volcano is the largest peak, may be a “leak” to the surface somehow related to the ridge itself. Interestingly, it is this area that the Sorenson model identifies as the area of the Nephite’s final stand.

The approximate locations of these three volcanoes — San Martin, El Chichon, and Tacana — are sketched in the thumbnail. They are the volcanoes with the most “punch” in the area of the Sorenson model, and together – but not separately — they could produce the appropriate regional types of destruction noted in the catastrophe, with significant damage in the land southward from Zarahemla, to the “eastern” (Gulf Coast) lands, and into the land northward from Zarahemla.

This is not trivial in evaluating a geographic model of the Book of Mormon. You won’t find evidence of 2000 year old volcanic eruptions in the Mississippi River basin or in upstate New York. You can’t even find the right volcanic evidence in Mesoamerican models that match the Book of Mormon’s Sidon with the Usumacinta River instead of the Grijalva.

So we ought to ask how much of the time these volcanoes could have erupted “simultaneously”, and when those times were. We can never hope to know whether such eruptions began “within the space of three hours” of each other. What we can hope to detect is the radio-carbon ages of organic matter destroyed at the very beginning of the eruptions, when the pyroclastic materials or tephra first reach them. And the uncertainty in such dates for the times of interest here will normally be measured in decades.

The Smithsonian Global Volcanism Program tabulates reports on eruption histories of volcanoes worldwide. They have data on timing and size of eruptions for all three of the above volcanoes that permits identification of whether the three could have produced large eruptions simultaneously as far back as 6585 BCE. In that 8600 year record, there are possible overlaps only about 3% of the time, in two separate eras. In short, it’s a test that is too imprecise to provide positive evidence, but a test that is remarkably easy to fail.

The first possible simultaneous eruption lies between 1230 BCE and 1190 BCE.

The second possible simultaneous eruption lies between 30 BCE and 170 CE.

A remarkably easy geophysical test for the Sorenson Mesoamerican model to fail gets passed.

The overall article is well worth reading to better understand current political debates, but that wasn’t what called my attention to it as a possible subject for Mormon Matters. Rather, the following paragraph toward the end of the Article startled me:

“Nothing has set the country class apart, defined it, made it conscious of itself, given it whatever coherence it has, so much as the ruling class’s insistence that people other than themselves are intellectually and hence otherwise humanly inferior. Persons who were brought up to believe themselves as worthy as anyone, who manage their own lives to their own satisfaction, naturally resent politicians of both parties who say that the issues of modern life are too complex for any but themselves. Most are insulted by the ruling class’s dismissal of opposition as mere “anger and frustration” — an imputation of stupidity — while others just scoff at the claim that the ruling class’s bureaucratic language demonstrates superior intelligence. A few ask the fundamental question: Since when and by what right does intelligence trump human equality? Moreover, if the politicians are so smart, why have they made life worse?” [Emphases added.]

When I read the bolded sentences above I almost sputtered to myself. “Of course, the intelligent should…” And then I remembered a series of conversations I had with my wife-to-be several decades ago when I was getting my baptism into the government policy environment in the DC area and she was free-lancing as a classical musician in New York City. When I visited her, it seemed her colleagues were always complaining about how little funding there was for the arts. When we were alone together, this conversation often continued as she noted that the government seemed to have plenty of money to pay me well for what I did. (I had enough spare cash at the time to fly back and forth between the two cities; she once, I found out later, had to walk home from seeing me off at the airport.) I had initially defended my privilege with exactly the same “Of course…” sputtering.

Well, true love triumphed, and we long ago moved on to debate other issues in our marriage, but my memory of those conversations stopped the sputtering, and I could start taking the article’s fundamental question seriously.

What trumps “the worth of all persons”, to use a Community of Christ terminology? Is it intelligence, which we now measure in our culture by having accrediting bodies grant us degrees that say we are intelligent? It is a very seductive idea, until I start to examine it closely. Why does a master’s degree in physics make me more intelligent than my wife’s masters degree in classical music makes her? She can play a piano; she gets calls to do that more often than I get called upon to solve third order differential equations (and she can still do it from memory, too). Who’s more useful? How many of me does society actually need?

Other cultures have believed (do believe?) that the basis of rule should be the ability to defeat enemy armies, to belong to a divinely-favored race or gender or ethnicity, or even a dubious claim to be sired by a previous member of the ruling class.  Shouldn’t I be willing to question the basis of my belief in the rule of “intellect”.

I am proud of my degrees and my connections to what Codevilla’s article calls the “ruling class”. My pride shows, no matter how hard I try to become conscious of it and question my cultural assumption. Oh, oh!

Ancient people of many cultures built monuments to their gods. Often, it became a little confusing about whether the monuments were built to the gods, or whether the people who built them believed they were gods. In places like Egypt or Meso-America there eventually was no mistaking that the pyramids were about the rulers.

I look at the great monuments in Washington. Some are monuments to political demi-gods of the past. But some seem clearly monuments to the present rulers themselves. Oh, oh! In fact, the places you see Senators or House Representatives being interviewed on TV are not the most ornate Congressional office buildings. The newest structures have multi-floor glass walled interiors that work poorly with reflections from TV lights, so they go unseen by most people without day-to-day business there. (And why did I bother to tell you that? Oh, oh!)

Other monuments are ideological. If you can’t get your name on a monument (or at least an office building in your local district), get your name on a law. In the sciences, get an effect, or a theory, or an equation named after you. Win a prize. Leave your mark on history.

In the Book of Mormon, the falling of people into the “pride cycle” is frequently thematically associated with the wearing of “costly apparel”. Those on the fringes of the ruling class could not build monuments, but they could signal their membership in that class to everyone by what they wore. If we take Meso-America as a model, they could make themselves into living pyramids of expensive cloth, jade, or shell.

And the more widely those signs spread (physically or metaphorically), the more ideas like “the worth of all persons” became illusionary self-deception. The more people were excluded from the ruling class, the more strongly those still on the fringe found it necessary to justify doing ever-more-questionable things to hang on to the symbols of status. The gulf between the classes widened into violence.

I am very much on the “fringe” of my culture’s ruling class. I can signal my membership in that class through my university affiliations, the reports I’ve co-authored, the conferences and advisory hearings I’ve attended, and the offices of the government officials who’ve passed me written “attaboys”. I can make my pyramid out of paper, and my mark on history can last digitally until the digital formats themselves become obsolete. Oh, oh!

Intellectualism is not a vice. Neither is being a member of any elite. But could membership in a ruling “intellectual” elite be the particular form of the pride cycle to which our modern Western culture can be tempted?

So, re-reading the Book of Mormon stayed on the to-do list for a while. But then the press became more persistent and insistent: “No, you REALLY need to re-read the Book of Mormon,” and the very persistence began to get through my blocks of rationalization. So I kept moving it up the to-do-list until it was high among the emergencies and the recurring tasks, and I began to read.

I had not gone cover-to-cover since I was in elementary school. I still have my first Book of Mormon given me as a baptism gift, and almost every verse in it is underlined: I didn’t know what went with what back then, and figured just about everything must be terribly important and interrelated. So I absorbed the story for a story important in my religion, and soaked up any theology unconsciously in the process. In the decades since, I used the Book of Mormon many times in preparing sermons; you preach a lot when you live in a denomination of mostly small congregations where priesthood is not the province of all worthy males. I taught many individual topics in classes or missionary efforts. I even had a few verbal jousts on my front steps with LDS missionaries before I learned that was fratricide that wasted everyone’s time. But the focus on the immediacy of my assigned tasks didn’t convey the global oversight of that first boyhood reading. In the later readings, I had the theology, both from the Book itself as well as from a deeper understanding of the other scriptural sources of Christian theology, but had lost track of the story as story.

From this perspective, as I began to read I began to understand overarching themes I’d missed before because they hadn’t been “on task”. Among them, I began in particular to see the books of 1^st Nephi through the Words of Mormon as sort of an “old” Old Testament concerned with the overwhelming question of the first generations of Nephites: “Is there still a place for us with God?”

After all, in 600 BC, Judea was the “church”. You didn’t think of personal salvation outside of the structure of your Jewish tribal identity, and keeping the covenant kept your identity guaranteed by the only true God. I mean, look what had happened to the Northern Kingdom. Just gone! Conceptually to the Jews then, it didn’t matter whether individuals in the 10 tribes had been obedient or disobedient, just or unjust. The Kingdom of Israel had been judged unworthy of God’s continued protection as a whole kingdom. The fate of the people as individuals simply was not a question that had any place in the mental landscape. What did God care about a just Assyrian or Egyptian compared to a Jew?

What does it do to your mental landscape, then, when God starts telling you that you are to leave your tribe, and you aren’t ever coming back? You are being further told that the tribe itself is about to be conquered and won’t be there if you do change your mind. You are amputating your culture, and you have little to replace it with, physically, mentally, emotionally, or spiritually. There is beyond the wilderness and the sea a “land of promise” to fill the physical hole, if you cling to your faith, but what replaces everything else?

Lehi and Nephi had their visions. They went, but you can see their frustration and anger at the Jews in their writings over the sheer stupidity of the disobedience of the covenant that was bringing the Babylonian disaster upon them. Laman and Lemuel turned their anger toward their father instead. Everybody was supposedly committed to going into the wilderness, but they all kept forgetting things (like wives) and finding reasons to have to go back to Jerusalem to get them. They seem to have been in shock. Stay! Go! Make up your mind!

And so the scriptures about the ultimate fate of Israel/Judea, as discussed by Isaiah or Zenos, become dominant concerns in this Book of Mormon “old” Old Testament. It is not an abstract theological debate to the Nephites; much of their personal focus and records are devoted to testifying that God has promised a reconnection of their seed (and even the seed of their rebellious Lamanite brethren) to the Israelites in a future time. Acceptance of Christ is seen as the means of this reconnection as well as the means of personal salvation. In fact, personal salvation is the newer, more revelatory concept which is increasingly emphasized as the story moves toward its historical climax. Even at the time of Christ’s appearance, this societal reconnection is on the minds of the people, and Christ takes time to reemphasize it along with his teachings about personal salvation. Indeed, “convincing of the Jew” of Christ’s divinity is as important as “convincing of the Gentiles”; the land of promise is not just a promise for the Nephites, but a means of keeping a promise by God for everyone else.

Many of those who come to this site feel either their “sense of the Spirit” or the “sense of their intellect” calling them into the “wilderness”. Whether it is because the church is not found to be as-advertised, because it changes too slowly, or because it changes too much, the shock and the anger are real and pretty much the same for all. They often no longer can support parts of the culture, but have nothing clear in their sights to replace it. They leave, miss something they left behind, go back, and try again to follow one direction or the other. Some fraction of them experience rejection by the community because they are perceived to be rejecting the norms of the community first. And sometimes they don’t know whether to be angry at others or ashamed of themselves.

They are reenacting this great dilemma of the early Nephites. How are they and their families to be connected to the purposes of God, when they have previously experienced their “tribe” as the only authorized means of connection? Yet, if the call is genuine, it will keep persisting and growing more insistent. There will be a land of promise for those who follow that call, and if the Nephite example holds, it will not just be a land of promise for those “wandering Mormons”. It will be a land of promise of those who come after them, and, in the long run, a blessing for the tribe they left behind as well. Experiencing being called into the wilderness isn’t a strange thing in Mormon history; it’s sort of what makes you one of the tribe in the first place.

I really enjoyed studying about ritual – the ways that we use ceremony to create value and meaning – we just experienced one with our sacrament.

And I enjoyed learning about “memorates” – personal experience stories that people tell about their own encounters with the supernatural. In the church, we often call these faith-promoting stories, and that’s the way that folklorists look at them too – that these stories function to justify and validate the beliefs of the people who tell them. They create certainty in the face of uncertainty, and whether the stories themselves are true or not, this is a very valuable thing.

It was an interesting time, and I went through many shifts and changes as I looked more closely at what I believed, why I believed it, and how it fit with the beliefs of other people all over the world. It was a pretty humbling experience, to say the least. And as a result, I have developed this constant, nagging, unshakeable, internal tug-of-war between the skeptic and the believer. It is very much like the lyrics to a song:

When I was young, it seemed that life was so wonderful,
a miracle, oh it was beautiful, magical.
And all the birds in the trees, well they’d be singing so happily,
joyfully, playfully watching me.
But then they sent me away to teach me how to be sensible,
logical, responsible, practical.
And they showed me a world where I could be so dependable,
clinical, intellectual, cynical.

There are times when all the world’s asleep,
the questions run too deep
for such a simple man.
Won’t you please, please tell me what we’ve learned
I know it sounds absurd
but please tell me who I am.

That about sums up my graduate experience. It was kind of like worlds colliding. I had become skeptical, cynical, but I still had to exist in a believing world. What was I to do?

One thing I did was turn to the scriptures and to the counsel from general authorities and modern day prophets:
Mormon 9:27 - “Doubt not, but be believing.”  Thanks, but too late.
Bruce R. McConkie – “Doubt is an inclination to disbelieve the truths of salvation… it is a state of uncertainty… faith and belief are of God; doubt and skepticism are of the devil.”  Really? Yikes!
President Monson – “Remember that faith and doubt cannot exist in the same mind at the same time, for one will dispel the other. Should doubt knock at your doorway, just say to those skeptical, disturbing, rebellious thoughts: ‘I propose to stay with my faith, with the faith of my people. I know that happiness and contentment are there, and I forbid you, agnostic, doubting thoughts, to destroy the house of my faith. I acknowledge that I do not understand the processes of creation, but I accept the fact of it. I grant that I cannot explain the miracles of the Bible, and I do not attempt to do so, but I accept God’s word. I wasn’t with Joseph, but I believe him. My faith did not come to me through science, and I will not permit so-called science to destroy it’.”

With these quotes, I think it is pretty clear where I ought to be when it comes to doubt and faith. But if I’m being honest, I fall far short of these ideals. I just can’t accept the premise that faith and doubt cannot co-exist in the same mind. They have to. Because they both exist in mine. And I don’t know any other way to be.

I do want to endorse President Monson’s counsel, however, that if you can dismiss doubt when it knocks on your door, from my experience, you will be much more comfortable and far less troubled — so by all means, if you can do it, do it.

But if you’re like me – if you can’t just dismiss your doubts – there must still be a way to keep those doubts from destroying the house of faith. Right? Please? Because I can’t not doubt, but I still want to hold on to my faith. So what am I to do?

Well, the simple answer is that I have had to redefine my faith to make room for my doubts and to find a value in these doubts – so I want to share with you how I have done this.

MY TOP TEN

I want to walk you through my top ten personal beliefs about faith and doubt. Disclaimer – these are just my own imperfect opinions based on my own limited experience. I could be wrong. But this is how I have found personal peace and balance in my life amidst this constant tug-of-war between the skeptic and the believer. So I share these with you because they have helped me, but I also reserve the right to change my mind at any time – it’s happened before, it can happen again.

If I really wanted to be borderline irreverent I might say that these are the philosophies of Glenn, mingled with scripture – but I don’t, so I won’t.

So here are my top ten:

1. Faith – at its most basic level – is desire.

I think this is consistent with the scriptures. Especially Alma 32. This is where Alma is preaching to the poor among the Zoramites.

You may remember that the Zoramites were condemned for their incredible pride – they would stand up on their rameumptom and show forth false humility – praising themselves for being the elect chosen of God, and condemning everyone else around them for following foolish and corrupt traditions. They cast out the poor and were very exclusive in their membership.

So Alma went among the cast out poor and taught them an allegory about faith – that it starts with desire – and that desire can be nurtured and tested and grown into a firm conviction. He compares it to a seed that is planted in fertile soil and cultivated until it grows and bears fruit and you can taste the fruit to know that the seed was, in fact, a good seed.

So faith starts with desire, but it isn’t JUST desire – you have to act upon that desire.

One of my basic desires is to be fair to people and respectful of their beliefs. And this desire has had a great influence over the mental gymnastic that you are about to see, because I also desire to hold on to my faith in spite of all of my doubts.

2. There is really no such thing as “doubt”

I guess you could say that I doubt doubt.

“Doubt” is just a word. It’s a word that we use to describe someone else’s belief that is contrary to our belief. For example, I could say, “I believe it is going to rain today.” And you could say, “No, I doubt it.” That’s really the same thing as saying, “No, I don’t believe that it will rain today.”

My point here is that “doubt” isn’t really anything but another way of saying “I don’t believe.”

3. There is really no such thing as “don’t believe”

I’m playing a game of semantics again. When you say that you “don’t believe” that it will rain, what you really mean is that you “do believe” that it will not rain. It is still an active belief.

I believe it will rain – you believe it will not rain. Your belief vs. my belief. And we may both have valid reasons for believing what we are choosing to believe.

I believe it will rain because I trust the forecast – it’s been right more than it has been wrong, and I don’t mind carrying an umbrella.

You believe it won’t rain because, despite the forecast, you just looked outside and no Japanese person in sight is carrying an umbrella, and the Japanese are never wrong about this sort of thing. Plus, you don’t want to be the only one carrying an umbrella, cuz then you’d look stupid.

So the point here is to define belief as an active thing, despite whatever words we use – whether we call it doubt or say we “don’t believe” it is all really just belief.

4. Faith and Doubt are not opposites – they are equivalents

If both faith and doubt are active beliefs, then they are really the same thing, aren’t they? They are both beliefs, just pointed in different directions.

Someone may say that faith has action but doubt has no action, but I would challenge that.

Yes, the faithful person takes an umbrella even if they are uncertain whether it will rain or not, and that is a faithful act.

But even the doubter takes action by choosing to NOT carry an umbrella and still walking outside anyway. Both are beliefs and both inspire action. Maybe this is the secret key to unlock the mystery of believing “all things” that we have been admonished to do. And then again, maybe not.

5. Faith and Doubt can co-exist

President Monson said that doubt and faith cannot exist in the same mind at the same time – and maybe I am using this quote out of context – but don’t we all doubt some things while simultaneously having faith in others?

For example, I doubt the traditional meaning behind the James 2:20 scripture mastery scripture “faith without works is dead.” I was originally taught that this was James’ response to the atonement of Christ. That we are not saved by grace alone, but must also show forth works for our eternal salvation, for faith without works is dead.

But when I went back and read all of James chapter 2, I saw that James’ message wasn’t about the atonement. It was about our own exercise of faith. It is saying that you have to put your money where your mouth is. If someone comes to you seeking food, and you say “bless you, and hunger no more” but you don’t actually give them any food, then you aren’t actually going to save them.

So I doubt the way that I was originally taught this scripture, but I still have faith that the message is a good message and that it comes from a good source. And that is a balancing act between doubt and faith.

6. Faith without doubt is dead

That is the GOT – the Glenn Ostlund Translation of James 2:20. Faith is a hope and a desire, but it is not a perfect knowledge. So there must be uncertainty, some degree of questioning or doubt, otherwise faith would be knowledge. Uncertainty in and of itself is not a bad thing in my world. And when uncertainty or doubt spurs us to positive action, it can actually be a very good thing.

7. Uncertainty is a scary thing

Without a doubt, doubt will make you more unsure about what you used to be very sure about, and this can be a scary thing. But one lesson that I learned as a kid is that anytime the scriptures say “have faith” you could interchange the phrase for “fear not” and the meaning would stay the same. So even with all of the different conflicting messages all around us in the world every day – even with all of the valid and reasonable reasons to have doubt, if we nurture our faith, we do not need to fear doubt. Doubt does not have to destroy our faith – it can bolster and lift it and lead us to new light and knowledge.

8. Our church has been built upon doubt – or at least upon the positive interaction between doubt and faith.

The First Vision would not have happened unless Joseph had experienced some questions and doubts about what he was hearing in the different revival meetings. But he also had faith that the Lord would answer his prayer. A pretty successful one-two punch, if you ask me.

And throughout the history of the church, doctrines and policies have been added or removed or amended because people have debated and doubted and questioned and reached out in faith, and received further light and knowledge. So there is a lesson to be learned here, that doubt and faith can interact together towards a good end.

9. Repentance without doubt is dead

We are constantly encouraged to evaluate and examine how we are living our lives. We are encouraged to repent when we need to repent, and I think that doubt plays a role here.

I have always found illumination in the Japanese word for repentance – kuiaratameru. If I understand it right, it literally means to remorse and to change. What causes this remorse? What leads us to a realization that we are in error? We must at some point doubt our very selves – we must doubt that our actions have been good actions. So perhaps this is another area where doubt can have a positive influence in our lives.

10. Humility is the key

Whether as individuals or as a church, regardless of what we currently believe or how strong our convictions, further light and knowledge can always reveal new truths, and our beliefs can always change.

Shouldn’t that awareness then lead to greater humility on our parts? Isn’t humility the way we learn to show Christ-like empathy and compassion and forgiveness for others, even when we disagree with them or when they disagree with us?

Isn’t that the humilty that caused the good Samaritan to stop and help the man on the side of the road, even though he probably doubted the other guys’ beliefs?

Isn’t that the compassion and empathy that caused Christ to say “forgive them father, for they know not what they do?” even as they were in the very act of doubting him to a painful and undeserved death?

Back to Alma 32 – Alma rejoiced when he saw that the poor among the Zoramites had been cast out. Why? Because they had been compelled to be humble, and that softened their hearts. No one wants to be compelled to be humble, but I think we should all have soft hearts — believers and skeptics alike. We should be open-minded, tolerant of different ideas, willing to admit our own imperfect understanding.

Doubt – for me – has compelled and pounded and softened my heart. It has lead me to a humilty in my beliefs, or at least an ability and a desire to step off of my own rameumpton and drop any pretense that I am any more elect than anyone else around me. Doubt has helped me repent of this pride.

In conclusion, I have atheist friends who are some of the most charitable, kind, Christ-like people that I know. When I ask them about God, they often say that it makes no sense to them that a loving God would put us in a no-win situation, and would punish us for living in a sinful world that God himself created.

There are many responses to this, but I want to give just one. If the story of the atonement is true – if Jesus Christ took upon himself the sins of the world and died for our sakes – then isn’t that the responsible thing for a God to do? Doesn’t that mean that he has personally erased the effects of sin and death that have come to us as a result of our following his plan and entering into this mortal probation full of death and sin? To me it is like he is saying, “don’t worry, I’ve got you covered. Have faith. Fear not. Now just go and love each other as I have loved you. “

I find great beauty and hope in this approach. And I have a firm desire for this to be true. I also have a strong faith in the principles of charity that we read about in Moroni:  “Wherefore, if a man have faith he must have hope; for without faith there cannot be any hope. And he cannot have faith and hope, save he shall be meek, and lowly of heart. Otherwise, his faith and hope is vain; and he must needs have charity; for if he have not charity he is nothing; for charity suffereth long, and is kind, and envieth not, and is not puffed up, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, and rejoiceth not in iniquity but rejoiceth in the truth, beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Charity is the pure love of Christ, and it endureth forever; and whoso is found possessed of it at the last day, it shall be well with him.”

This is my hope and my faith, in spite of my doubts.

How do you feel about doubt and its relationship to faith?

When we lived in Saudi Arabia a few years ago, I obtained a faculty position in the fairly newly-formed department of Health and P.E. at a university which was strictly segregated by gender.  The women’s side of the university operated independently, with our own female custodians, technical staff, professors and administration,  and very little oversight from the male president.  Our department consisted of five women, and we made all decisions collectively, with no titular head.  After the first semester I was there, one of our staff meetings was dedicated to the question of whether we should have a department head.  Being the newest addition to the faculty, I had little say in this decision, but I did bring up the point that we had successfully administrated the department jointly, and I questioned the necessity of one department head.  It would completely change the group dynamics that we had experienced as a body of women removed from a patriarchal hierarchy and which I very much enjoyed.  The reply from all of the rest of the women, though there had been no problems thus far, was that “you HAVE to have a leader,” that one person MUST be in charge of any organization.

At the time I was struck by how much this assertion resembled the one I have heard from many Mormons justifying the hierarchical, patriarchal system in place in the Church, both within the institution and within our individual families.  The argument seems to be that harmonious resolution of difficulties is impossible without one leader to make final decisions.  I am not entirely sure I agree that no other model beside the “one-leader rule,” or what I will here call the “kingship” model is viable in administrating a successful community.

The kingship model of administration appears to have been particularly desirable throughout history.  It seems obvious that strong personality types would desire to set up a system of governance where they were in charge of making all the decisions.  But the scriptural record and our OT SS Lesson #21 show that groups of people also wish to configure their communities under the supervision of a king.  1 Samuel 8 recounts the story of the Israelite people, dissatisfied with judges and prophets, clamoring for Samuel to get them a king.  Their reasoning is found in verse 20: they want to be like the other nations, they want one strong leader to judge them, and they desire to be under the protection of a military commander who will lead them in battle.

Passages in the Book of Mormon also describe this desire of the general population to set up a monarchy.  In Mosiah 23 the people want Alma to be their king because of their great admiration for him.  In 3 Ne 7 a league of tribes attempt to establish a kingship in order to overthrow the tribal system of government then operating.  In Alma 51 there is also an attempt to overthrow the current leadership and inculcate a kingship, inspired in part by pride and aspirations to nobility.  In each case in the scriptures where there is a desire to crown a king, it is denounced as contrary to the ideals of freedom.  Several reasons are given in these passages as to why kingship is considered malapropos:

• It is a rejection of divine rule in favor of human rule (1 Sam 8:7)
• A king would allocate human and natural resources to his own advantage (1 Sam 8:11-17)
• One man should not think of himself as being above another; kingship gives those of high birth unfair power and authority (Mosiah 23:7; Alma 51:8)
• Not all kings can be trusted to be just (Mosiah 23:8,13,14)
• A king can oppress people and lead them into iniquity (Mosiah 23:12)
• A monarchy is not a free government (Alma 51:6)

I’m looking to do a podcast series for Mormon Stories on Book of Mormon Historicity and DNA.  I’ve approached Mike Ash to participate, and he has politely declined (I’m waiting to hear back on his reasons).  I’ve also approach FAIR, and am waiting to hear back.

In case FAIR/FARMS decide not participate, do any of you know anyone who is a believer in Book of Mormon authenticity, who is able AND willing to discuss Book of Mormon historicity and DNA issues on a podcast?  I offered Mike Ash and FAIR the questions in advance, and an opportunity to review/edit before publishing.  I also promised to be fair/kind in my interview…and I’ll offer the same to others if necessary.  I think my track record with believing folks like John Lynch, Greg Kearney, Richard Bushman, and Margaret Young/Darius Gray supports that I will be kind/fair.

Thanks so much!

John Dehlin

Seeing that ‘the importance of discerning correctly that which is figurative and that which is literal would be hard to overstate’ [p. 133] we might expect that the insights that Bro. McConkie will offer would reflect this seriousness. Yet his answers seem facile and ill-thought out. For example, his first insight into working through this dilemma is that often ‘the scriptures provide the answer’ [p. 134]. Following this he then explain that Adam was clearly born (literally) because of the scripture in Moses 6:59 (Adam is described as being ‘born’ in this verse).

His second insight is that sometimes ‘things spoken of in the scriptures are both figurative and literal’ [p. 134]. What is confusing here for me is that he argues that sometimes symbols are used in the middle of real stories, for example in the Garden of Eden. However, what those symbolic aspects are is less clear. Certainly Pres. Kimball’s declaration that the Eve-Adam-Rib story was figurative would be one example of what McConkie is discussing here. Yet, Pres. Kimball’s remark assumes a particular understanding of the Garden of Eden narrative to make that argument (i.e. that the story is literal and that they were born). Why is this reading any less literal than the born passage? Could the rib be literal and the reference to born be figurative?

His third insight is the most troubling for me. He writes that, ‘When scripture provides no clear answer by which we can discern what is figurative and what is literal, we are reduced to our own good sense and wisdom’. He continues ‘This… may well be quite deliberate, for it creates an opportunity for [God] to get a measure of our judgement, spiritual maturity and spiritual integrity’ [p. 135]. Really! ‘Figure it out for yourself’! That’s your key to discerning between what is literal and figurative. However, what is more perplexing is the implication of McConkie’s discourse.

By invoking issues that relate interpretation to spiritual maturity McConkie is creating an implicit ‘orthodoxy’ which places the reader in a position of spiritual uncertainty regarding their position with God. This is surely spiritually destructive. To encourage individuals to read the scriptures in a way that is reflective of their spiritual standing is to place them in a situation of tension of with God. For if their interpretation is wrong then they are not ‘saved’ and are in need of repentance. Moreover it allows those who are in authority to question worthiness upon the basis of differing interpretations. I believe that if we are to benefit from the scriptures, i.e. if they are to draw us God, then placing the individual into a spiritual uncertain situation while engaging with the texts is spiritually unproductive.

A recent post by SteveP, at BCC, argues that there is a temptation to approach the scriptures literally when they were not intended to be read in that particular way. I think this is fundamentally correct, however, I am convinced that there is a tendency within such arguments to find those who derive spirituality through a literalistic approach to the scriptures as incorrect or mis-informed. I am not arguing that SteveP would advocate this but rather that I have seen some who do. In one sense this form of argument can be used just like McConkie’s but instead to defend a non-literal orthodoxy.

Though SteveP frames his debate within the context of the literal/figurative binary, his position is rooted to the idea that the scriptures are intended to help us related to God and to ‘spiritual’ truth. My contention is that perhaps the literal/figurative dichotomy is part of the liahona/iron-rod split. Applying Richard Poll’s analogy here is useful because it helps us see that Liahona (figurative?) and Iron-Rod (literal?) readers of the scriptures are not in competition and should learn more empathy for the other position.

I am not convinced that literal readings of the scripture do violence to the depth the scriptures have to offer (though I am concerned about how they view more figurative readers). Yet, I am convinced that they do violence to the depth’s that SteveP sees in the scriptures (and I admit that feel the same). For another person that literal reading might derive other depths that (perhaps) non-literal readers might miss. Each paradigm has its failings and flaws, just like Liahonas and Iron-rods.

I think that a better way, a more complex and certainly less clear way, of approaching the scriptures is with different lens of literalism. If we rather see the scriptures literally in a way that both groups can accept, i.e. the scriptures can literally help us to come to God, then perhaps both sides could be more willing to apply these different lens of literalism to the same story and deal with the challenges that each will bring. Though a non-literal reader by inclination I have felt the challenge of trying to reconcile a literalistic reading of certain OT passages. Though I do not feel bound by such a paradigm, trying to read them in that literal way has proved a spiritually productive venture. Moreover, I hope that I am still able to plumb the depths that a non-literal paradigm has often provided for me.

Ash argues that we commit spiritual murder when we destroy the testimony of another person.  He argues that our sins can do this and thus he believes Alma’s counsel to his son is to help him see the damage that he has caused, ‘for when [the Zoramites] saw your conduct they would not believe in my [Alma’s] words’ (see Al 39:11).

Ash argues that there two things people need to wary of, if they are to avoid committing this sin.  First, our actions, like Corianton, can destroy the testimony of another.  Second, is sharing information with people that might damage their faith, like ‘the stickier parts of early LDS Church history or scriptural difficulties’ [1].  Now Ash also notes that the intent’s of our hearts are what is important when it comes to deciding who is guilty.  So Richard Bushman is not guilty of spiritual murder, but presumably Fawn Brodie might be and the Tanners are certainly in trouble.

Yet, although I accept his interpretation of this passage of scripture I am not sure I can fully accept how he then goes on to define spiritual murder.  For example, when are our motives ever directed by one factor?  We are often influenced by a multiplicity of ideas whenever we do something.  So I am not convinced that we ever wholly desire to do right or wrong.

Further, if the information shared is the same and true regardless of with what intention it is shared, why does this issue of sincerity become a factor at all.  Maffly-Kipp, in another Sunstone article, has argued that issues around sincerity are part of a Protestant theological tradition that seeks to categorise people into the righteous and the unrighteous.  This assumes that only the good or sincere can do Gods work, but the scriptures have examples of people who may not have been ‘righteous’ or ‘sincere’ but who nevertheless were used by God.

Is it possible that Fawn Brodie was directed by God to do what she did?

This question of spiritual murder also raises important questions about how this issue is dealt with within the Church, in relation to Church discipline.  I recall Paul Toscano, when speaking to John Dehlin, asking at his Disciplinary Council that someone ‘show [him] the body count?’  He argues that he was excommunicated on the possibility that what he had written might damage people’s faith.  Now although I would argue that it is difficult to prove that one person has destroyed the faith of another; it seems that the Church would never excommunicate someone because they could have killed someone in doing something dangerous.  Then why are comfortable in excommunicating someone that might damage someone’s faith.

It seems to me we need to careful about how we use this concept, if it is to become something that is used in the Church (again).

Questions:

How would you define spiritual murder?

Should it be necessary to prove spiritual murder before someone is excommunicated?

Notes:

1. Michael R. Ash, The Sin “Next to Murder” in Sunstone, 2006, p. 34, 40.

 [poll id="93"]

The Dialogue subscribers answered in the following way:

33.9% = Historical

21.6% = Teaching and Moral Theology Authentic; Historicity Doubtful

12% = Moral Teachings Sound, Historicity & Divine Origin Doubtful

13.7% = 19th Century Literary Product

I would have thought that less people would have thought that the Book of Mormon was historical?  Just in case your wondering, for those people who subscribe to Dialogue only 5.9% subscribe or read regularly FAIR.

Questions:

Are these results surprising to you?  If so why?

First, a few of the articles with their key points:

• Entertainment Weekly‘s Owen Gleiberman asks and answers “Edward Cullen, stalker?  Yes, but so is the hero of the Graduate.” His point:  This is a novel about a vampire, so stalking is the least of his sins (he compares calling Edward Cullen a stalker to accusing Dracula of trespassing and sexual harassment).  He also lists many other films and books in which the male character could be accused of stalking (e.g. Say Anything, Pretty Woman).
• Entertainment Weekly‘s Owen G. talking about “New Moon:  why its girl-driven success is good for the future of movies.”  His point:  most teen movies are geared toward males, so teen movies for females (even unenlightened, quivering female doormats) are a step in the right direction.  He also lauds the lack of consummation as (kind of, in a retro-way) empowering to the female audience.
• Anita Singh of The Telegraph (a UK-based news source) reports:  “Twilight sequel New Moon is anti-feminist claims professor.”  The point:  New Moon is not only anti-feminist in its themes, but who could expect anything else from such a patriarchal backwards religion like Mormonism?  According to Prof. Sieber:  “This is a film full of gender stereotypes—testosterone-driven male aggression, females who pine away over lost loves, boys who fix motorcycles and the girls who watch them.”  As Anita Singh paraphrases Dr. Sieber:  “Bella’s choices are influenced by Meyer’s background as a member of “the highly patriarchal” Mormon church.”
• Religion Dispatches bloggers Anthony Petro and Samira Mehta reveal the hidden Mormon theology of the Twilight Series in a post titled:  Big Vampire Love:  What’s so Mormon about Twilight? They include such Mormon parallels as:  sealing and eternal marriage, chastity, and family values.  The post does not beef about sexism or anti-feminism and treats the religious angle with curiosity and respect, not disdain.
• Graeme McMillan of i09 wrote a post:  Official:  Twilight’s Bella & Edward Are In An Abusive Relationship.  This post shows that the relationship between the main characters in Twilight hits 15 of the markers of an abusive relationship according to the assessment questions from the National Domestic Violence Hotline.

Lest I get too far ahead of myself, here’s a list of the anti-feminist traits people have identified in the books:

• Bella is a typical “damsel-in-distress” waiting to be rescued and only comfortable when in the protection of a man.
• Bella never drives – only the men drive in Twilight.  They literally are the ones responsible for Bella’s direction and movement.
• Edward acts not only protectively, but crosses the line into stalker / predator territory. His controlling behavior is abusive.  (I suspect that abusive relationships are more the norm among those of previous generations, bloodsucking vampires, and fictional characters in general:  Edward hits the trifecta on this one.  No offense to Team Edward.)
• Bella suffers from low self-esteem.  After a breakup, she literally wallows in the mud.  Perhaps critics would have appreciated a nice Aretha Franklin R-E-S-P-E-C-T moment coupled with some cutesy shadow-boxing (a la Meg Ryan in You’ve Got Mail).
• Bella gets married straight out of high school, although the men in the books are all college educated.  One wonders what her fall back plan will be should Edward encounter Buffy the Vampire Slayer at some future date.  Slinging hash at the local diner?

Of course, many of the same criticisms (and more) could be leveled at The Little Mermaid (literally gives her voice away at age 16 to ensnare a man with her body language – wanting only to be a “part of YOUR world,” meaning Eric’s world, rather than making her own way) which we know was written by that uptight, patriarchal, right-wing, er, gay, show-tune writing duo:  Mencken and Ashe.

So, time to weigh in with a few poll questions!

[poll id="86"]

[poll id="87"]

[poll id="88"]

Confession time:  I haven’t read the books or seen the films, so I’m just reporting what has been written in the media here.  Regardless, that picture (above) is hawt!

The story of Adam and Eve is the primary narrative when discussions of agency and accountability arise.  How we interpret the events of the Garden has a big impact on the way we frame this debate.  A standard statement is the second Article of Faith: ‘We believe that [individuals] will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression’.  Notions of Individual accountability are often rooted in this declaration because it apparently denounces ‘Original Sin’.

However I feel that this is actually contrary to what is being stated.  What the second Article of Faith acknowledges is that Adam and Eve’s action in the Garden has influenced the choices that are currently available to us now.  We are taught that people are conceived in sin and that we begin to desire sin in our earliest years, even before we are aware of it (see Mos 6:55).  We are born into a world where sin pre-dominates and this will inevitably impact the choices that we will make [1].  Therefore my capacity to choose is influenced by the choice of another.  This article of faith teaches that I will not be punished for Adam and Eve’s transgression, but my sins are a direct consequence of the world they created.  So is this really saying to us that there is a reduced accountability for what we do wrong in this life.  Certainly, at the very least, the choices I make now are impacted by what Adam and Eve did.

To put it another way, Lehi, when speaking to the Children of Laman and Lemuel, promsies them that they will not be held accountable for not believing and following the gospel if their parents continue to rebel.  In other words, Lehi suggests that the patterns of belief and action are set early in life and may be difficult to change, but these children will have a ‘reduced’ accountability because of the reduced likelihood that they will accept the gospel because of the actions of their parents.  From a different perspective, Boyd K. Packer has said that children are influenced by their environment and that the degree to which the society accepts a set of morals which are mis-directed is an important factor on the values we have.  Elder Packer therefore believes that the extent of such cultural ‘wickedness’ will be factored into our Final Judgment[2].

All this suggests that accountability and agency are actually a matter of being inter-dependent.  Our actions are invariably linked to a multitude of other people.  We are tied to this multitude, by the ripples of influence that reverberate out from every action.  If we fall, others will fall with us; but if we are lifted up to God, others will come with us as well.

Thinking this way helps me understanding a little the more the statement that ‘we without them cannot be made perfect; neither can they without us be made perfect’ (D&C 128:18).  I see this as not only applying to the salvation of the dead but also to each of those people who are around us; those who are tied to us by love or even by association.

I am not suggesting that we are merely puppets who are controlled by those around us.  We can choose to return evil for good, or good for evil.  However, we cannot make these choices, develop our values or live our lives separate from others.  It seems to me that our very nature indicates that we are social beings, that we are not alone in making choices and are therefore not wholly alone when speaking of our accountability.  Our choices and our accountability are reciprocal.

Notes:

1. Robert L. Millet, The Regeneration of Fallen Man in Selected Writings of Robert L. Millet: Gospel Scholars Series [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 2000], 172.

2. Boyd K. Packer, Our Moral Environment in Ensign, May 1992.

‘The Sealed Portion – The Final Testament of Jesus Christ’ is published free online.  The book is 655 pages long with 100 chapters, each divided into verses, and there are even Chapter headings.  Stylistically the text is similar to the Book of Mormon itself.  But from my brief  overview here are few samples from his translation that interested me.

Christopher expands on the vision seen by the Brother of Jared, he writes “Behold this is the Kingdom and Glory of our Father.  It was on this world that our Father begat his posterity, even the spirits of all men which lived upon the world which thou standest.  And this was once a world like unto the world on which thou livest, and is where our father learned the mysteries and responsibilities of godhood.  And behold, it is upon this same world where the Mother of the Spirits of all the children of God reside with the Father” (TSP: 2: 12-3). 

In Chapter 3 the Brother of Jared meets the Heavenly Father and his Heavenly Mother.  Here he provides the name of the Heavenly Mother.  This chapter shows that God practices polygamy.  Chapter 4 teaches how spirits are born from the various Heavenly Mothers.  In Chapter 8 we learn that Michael ruled Heaven when Jesus came down for his mortal ministry.  Furthermore we learn that “Michael is the other member of the Godhead, yea even the Holy Ghost” (TSP: 8: 17).  Michael can do this because when he died he refused to take upn him a resurrected body. 

In Chapter 10 the details of the Endowment are shown to have been taught.  The text teaches that Joseph Smith was a Prophet and received the Endowment but because of the wickedness of the people he was taken from the Church and that the Lord left this people to their own devices.  As a result the Endowment would be changed from the pure form revealed by Joseph Smith.  The leaders after Joseph Smith will do this because they seek the praise of the world.  Christopher reveals that the Lord wants all people to have this endowment without any keeping of the commandments.  He then continues to give the endowment in detail in the text.  Christopher also provides us with a revealed understanding of the Endowment in his book Sacred, Not Secret.

He has also published his ideas regarding how to overcome world poverty on youtube.

Unfortunately I do not have the time to read the whole text.  I guess I did not feel particularly inspired by it.  However, has anyone ever heard anything from Christopher before?  Being from England I may be a bit late to the game.  On the FAIR site there are some cursory details about his life and some quotations from interviews he has given.  They also try to show that the translation is a forgery. 

What do you think about the ideas that he includes at the beginning of the book.  I guess this raises important questions for us about how we can discern whether Christopher has a message for us.  I am not convinced, but I acknowledge that I am may be closed off from this.

But now, after 36 years of practice, I’m rethinking prayer.  In the interest of full disclosure, let me say that I’m not a “lose the keys, pray for keys, find the keys” sort of guy by nature.  When I hear those sorts of stories, I am more likely to roll my eyes than dab with a Kleenex.  Nevertheless, I have a confession to make:  I suffer from Enos Envy (E.E., for short).

You all know the story:  Enos was a young man who, while raised with a knowledge of the truth, found himself having strayed from it.  Then, while out hunting, he had epiphany of sorts, which left him with a heart full of joy and a soul that “hungered.”  Overwhelmed with these rushing emotions, Enos prayed.  And prayed.  And prayed.

The zenith of this day-long supplication was a conversation with God, in which God basically agreed to a long list of requests presented by Enos.  Not only did God forgive Enos’s sins, he agreed to, among other things:  (i) visit the Lamanites according to their faith, and (ii) preserve the records that would eventually become the Book of Mormon.  Pretty good for a day’s work, right?

We use this scriptural account to teach one another about the power of prayer.   In most recountings, however, Enos’s powerful experience is reduced down to a simple formula to be followed (the Enos Equation):

Earnest Prayer = Tangible Results (i.e., blessings)

This is the model of prayer I hear lauded consistently as the ideal.   A quick example:  Just this past Sunday, our EQ lesson dealt with temple worship.  The instructor spoke at great length about the revelations that await us in the Celestial Room.  His lesson culminated with his promise that if we want those revelations and/or spiritual manifestations, “all we need to do is pray.”  Citing Christ’s words in Matthew 7:7, he said:  “‘Ask, and it shall be given you.’  That’s the promise; it’s a guarantee from God.”

This used to be a great source of consternation for me.  So often I felt as if my prayers simply went unheard — I did poorly on tests, both my sisters ended up with MS, and I often was plagued with doubt.  That’s where the Enos Envy kicked in.  I was praying with real intent:  why wasn’t I getting the same results?

As I have thought about prayer, I have come to see the Enos Equation as missing the point of the story.  It has all of the right elements — faith, prayer and blessings certainly are wonderful things and belong together in the same sentence — but the emphasis is wrong.  In the traditional telling, the Enos Equation focuses on ends of prayer, rather than the means by which we communicate our desires to God.  In my example above, the well-intentioned EQ teacher taught prayer as the direct method to by which to obtain revelation, with nary a word about how we should approach God with our requests.

Taken to its extreme, this view of prayer smacks of the Prosperity Theology (or “Health and Wealth Gospel”) preached in Evangelical mega-churches.  In a nutshell, these churches teach that God wants us to be financially prosperous; if we want a new Mercedes, all we need do is ask for it and, if God deems us “godly” enough, we’ll get it.  And the secular version of this approach is wildly popular, as well.  After reading “The Secret,” some folks I know have taken to “sending” their requests “out to the Universe.”  Want a new a new and bigger home, get the Universe on the horn and you’ll moving in sooner than you think.

In short, the Enos Equation reduces God (or the Universe, for you atheists out there) into a spectral Santa Claus, just waiting to grant even the most materialistic wishes of our hearts.  To be clear, I am not suggesting that those who adopt this approach pray only with selfish intent.  But focus on self is inherent in the model.

This strikes me as backwards.  For me, the important part of Enos’s account is his “wrestle” with God which preceded his experience.  To that end, I propose a Revised Enos Equation:

Faith + Humility + Prayer = Communion w/God

In this formulation, the emphasis is on our relationship with God, not on what he can do for us.  Said another way, the point of prayer is put ourselves on a spiritual and emotional plane (i.e., the “wrestle”) where we can communicate openly with God.  This “wrestle” is no easy feat — it requires faith, humility, patience, sacrifice, etc. — characteristics Enos had in spades.  For example, think about how we teach our kids to pray:  kneeling with eyes closed, arms folded, and head bowed.  Simple gestures, but they bespeak a reverence for the act of communicating with God.   I don’t imagine God cares one whit about the position of limbs during prayer, or that he conditions his blessings on our ability to pray in ritualistic form.  But these gestures can help us to focus ourselves such that we God can speak with us.  The means by we speak with God matter far more than whether we obtain the end we seek.

Even with this new perspective, I still suffer from occasional bouts of Enos Envy.  But now, I’m less concerned about my abilities to call forth the tangible blessings of heaven, than I am jealous of Enos’s ability to find peace with God, to reach a state of mind where God can communicate with him directly.  So what if I haven’t moved a mountain or cured anyone’s cancer?  If I can, even on an occasional basis, reach that state of Enos-like zen, then I consider my prayer a success.  Blessings will follow according to God’s will.  I  no longer feel I have the authority/right to demand such blessings at will.  God is God, and that’s good enough for me.

So, do you suffer from Enos Envy?  What are your thoughts on, and expectations regarding, prayer?  (I would have created a poll, but I am far too lazy for such an endeavor.  Perhaps I should throw that out to the Universe — check back in a day or two to see if my wish has been granted )

*Anyone who served a mission South of the border offered this prayer more than once, guaranteed! Unfortunately for some, God is sometimes cruel, even to his beloved servants.

A recent article in Newsweek talks about this issue.  There are some biases inherent in some circles of scientists that are anti-religion.  Likewise, there are some biases among religionists that are anti-science.  The general arguments are:

• Pro-Science.  Science is the process of proving a theory through repeatable processes that always yield the same result.  Science leads to an understanding of truth.
• Anti-Religion.  Religion doesn’t hold up under the scrutiny of scientific theory.  Therefore, religion leads to a misunderstanding of truth.
• Pro-Religion.  Religious life is essential to human beings and is what makes life worth living.  Religion leads to a knowledge of human truth and the truths about God; truths that save the soul.
• Anti-Science.  Religion is a belief or hope in what is often considered “unknowable.”  Because God created all, he is not bound by the same sets of rules as humans.  Humans can never fully comprehend God.  Science is based on theories of men, not of God, and dismisses the more important spiritual truths that are essential to humanity.  Science may lead people to misunderstand or wrongly dismiss spiritual truth.

Generally speaking, the church’s stance is both pro-science and pro-religion and many church leaders have also been scientists.  So, consider the following example and the possible responses to the scientific proof.  The BOM speaks about horses, elephants, and the use of steel weapons and refers obliquely to the BOM people living somewhere in the Americas.  Based on current archaeological evidence, these animals and weapons have not been found.  Here are some possible responses one might have to this lack of evidence:

• Pro-science/anti-religion.  The BOM is clearly in error.  Obviously, the BOM was not an accurate historical record and was written by someone who did not know that these things did not exist.
• Pro-science/pro-religion.  The data may be in error or more data may be found.  Scientists may have been looking in the wrong place.
• Pro-religion/pro-science.  The book may be ancient but have inaccuracies in it due to assumptions by either the readers or the translator.
• Pro-religion/anti-science.  The BOM is true because I received a spiritual witness it is true, so scientific evidence is a non-issue.

Obviously, there could be other alternate views, but these are just some broad categories to force a choice.  So, where do you stand on an issue when science contradicts religion or vice-versa?  Take this poll to see.

[poll id="44"]

Discuss.

The majority of these comparisons between early Mormonism and other contemporary religious movements were detailed in an excellent Universal Unitarian sermon on Mormonism.

We tend to think of upstate New York as part of New England, in the heavily populated eastern seaboard (although upstate NY is quite rural), but in Joseph Smith’s day it was actually the frontier of the nation.  From the sermon:

Here strange new religious ideas could flourish unchecked by the religious establishment.  In upstate New York, the conservative hand of New England Puritanism barely reached.  There, on the fringes of civil society, mesmerizing itinerant preachers roamed.

• Universalists could teach that God would never condemn anyone to eternal damnation.
• Unitarians could teach that each human being could be nurtured and educated and guided into right living.
• Here, Mother Ann Lee and her Shakers taught that God was both male and female, that marriage should be abolished, and that a person could visit the spiritual realms to receive revelations.
• It was here that William Miller predicted that Jesus’ Second Coming would take place in 1843. Over 100,000 people took up this belief, leaving jobs and selling farms and gathering to wait. When Jesus didn’t return, splinter groups kept the faith and became Jehovah’s Witnesses and Seventh-Day Adventists.
• It was here that the Fox Sisters—Kate and Margaret—claimed to be able to speak with the spirits of the dead, giving birth to the widespread Spiritualist movement.
• It was here that John Humphrey Noyes created a utopian commune, where everything was shared, including sexual partners. Here Noyes’ followers practiced “complex marriage,” where women and men, though married, were free to enjoy sexual relations with any one else in the commune, and where post-menopausal women were encouraged to introduce teenage males to sex, since there was no fear of pregnancy.
• It was here that belief in folk magic was widespread, belief that talking spirits roamed the countryside, and “seer stones” could predict the future.  It was here that Indian burial mounds were raided for artifacts, giving rise to wild speculation about the origins and demise of the Native Peoples, who some claimed were remnants of a lost tribe of Hebrews.

So, is Mormonism a Whitman’s Sampler of all the “fringe” religious ideas that were in place at the time and place Joseph Smith lived?  Or were these “fringe” notions inspiration for him to ask for and receive revelations?  Why have so many of these movements blossomed into successful religions (e.g. Jehovah’s Witness, Universal Unitarianism, Mormonism) while some others have waned over time?  Discuss.

Christian sects have a Jewish problem.  Christ was a Jew who either fulfilled or rejected the faith in which he was raised.  Christianity shed basic tenets of Judaism including circumcision, dietary restrictions, the authority of the rabbis, and rituals that became impractical as the religion gained non-Jewish converts.  Early Christians invested in highlighting any Old Testament scripture that could plausibly be considered Messianic to bolster their claim that Jesus was divine.  Many early Christians sought to discredit the Jews to make it clear that despite their common roots, it was the parent religion that was in error, not its offspring.  A negative cycle of Jewish antagonism ensued which resulted in some of the worst atrocities of humanity, including the Inquisition and the Holocaust.

From its inception, Mormonism re-invented the relationship of Christianity to its Hebrew roots.  The Book of Mormon purports to be written by Hebraic people who openly worshiped Jesus Christ and knew directly about him, hundreds of years before his birth.  In proposing a pre-Christ Christology, Mormonism created an alternate Jewish history with a very recognizable and familiar Jesus Christ in the role of Messiah.  Even Isaiah is quoted at length to further solidify the notion that Isaiah was specifically talking about Jesus.

From the very beginning, Mormons have viewed themselves as an actual part of the House of Israel.  This belief in being part of “the chosen people” gives Mormons today and early Mormons a sense of purpose.  Some of the “Israel-centric” beliefs of Mormonism:

• Gathering.  We believe in the literal gathering of Israel.  Many Christian sects also believe in this, and it certainly prompted the creation of the state of Israel.  Nevertheless, a unique component to the beliefs of early Mormonism was that there would be a “new” Jerusalem in the United States.
• Lost Tribes.  The LDS have a belief that each member of the church is literally descended from (or adopted into) one of the Lost 10 Tribes.  As revealed through Patriarchal Blessings, most hail from the tribe of Ephraim, although commonly, native Americans and Polynesians tend to be assigned to Mannaseh, while those of actual Jewish descent have tribe assignments that reflect that.  (Incidentally, the Church of God in Christ, a black Pentacostal church formed in 1907 also has unique beliefs about the lost tribes, believing that England is Ephraim and the U.S. is the tribe of Mannaseh.)
• Utah’s geography.  When Saints arrived in Utah, the fact that there was a northbound freshwater lake flowing into a salt water lake was yet another sign that this was the right gathering place for the heirs of Israel, one with the same geography as the holy land.
• Wandering.  The House of Israel wandered for 40 years before inheriting their promised land, which was frankly a barren wasteland.  Sound familiar?  Early Mormons considered their westward trek to be another test of the House of Israel, wandering by faith toward an unknown destination, and finally arriving in their arid home.  Yet pioneer stories are retold in Mormonism much as stories of Moses and the Israelites were told within Judaism.

When apostasy struck in Kirtland (over the bank failure and economic crisis of 1837), elders were sent under Heber C. Kimball’s leadership to England to preach.  Within 8 months, there were two thousand converts to Mormonism, many of whom are ancestors of current members of the church.  Most of these new converts (through Patriarchal Blessings) were assigned to the tribe of Ephraim.  Is the claim that the British descend from the tribe of Ephraim credible?  Interestingly, the idea that the Celts were descended from the Hebrews (tribe of Ephraim) has many non-LDS and LDS proponents.  This idea became popular in England, especially during the Victorian age; critics considered it an attempt to justify colonialism.  The catalyst for its popularity was a book written in 1871 by Edward Hine.

A few reasons Celts are believed to descend from the tribe of Ephraim:

• similarities between Druidism and Phoenician religious worship combined with early Hebrew worship, see here.
• similaries in Celtic names and Hebrew names, see here.
• cultural similarities, see here.

And, a quick poll to see what tribe you were assigned personally.  (My guess is we’ll be over 95% Ephraim):

[poll id="43"]

So, what do you think?  Does the church’s view of the House of Israel strengthen our position and give the people a sense of purpose lacking in some other sects (but present in some other non-LDS sects as well)?  Was it an ingenious concept unique to Mormonism?

And do you believe in the accuracy of lineage as assigned in Patriarchal Blessings?  Why or why not?  Do you think that Celts are of Hebrew descent?

Discuss.

When you hear the name Oliver Cowdery, you probably think of the story that culminates in the revelation that became Section 9 of the Doctrine & Covenants. This section uses Oliver as a (bad) example of how to seek and receive personal revelation.  Today’s guest post is from The Teacher.  Come visit The Teacher here.

But, the poor guy. I can’t help but thinking that Oliver felt a bit like the rug was pulled out from under him. In sections 6 and 8, the Lord seems very encouraging of Oliver’s desires to help with the work and even to actually translate. “If you ask of me, you will receive; if you knock it shall be opened unto you” the Lord says. (6:5). “Even as you desire of me, so it shall be done unto you” the Lord says (6:8). “If thou wilt enquire, thou shalt know mysteries,” the Lord says. (6:8). Whatsoever you shall ask me . . ., that will I grant unto you,” the Lord says. (8:9). Then, the Lord gets very specific. He tells Oliver that if he asks to translate, by his faith “it shall be done unto [him.]” (8:11).How could Oliver not feel like it was done deal? Oliver Cowdery was no slouch in the personal revelation department. He learned of the Prophet Joseph and the translation of the Book of Mormon while living with the Smith Family. He prayed for his own confirmation of the truth and saw the plates in a

vision, before he ever met Joseph. Clearly, he was a very faithful, believing person. Why else would he essentially abandon his life to go help a self-proclaimed prophet he’d never met translate the Book of Mormon?But we know the rest of the story. Oliver tries to translate, and fails. The Lord famously tells Oliver that he did not get it; it was not just going to be given to him. Oliver had to work for it. He needed to study it out and seek confirmation. (9:7-9). “Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it to you when you took no thought save it was to ask me.” (9:7).

Huh? What is going on here? Despite my ironic title, I do not think God fooled Oliver Cowdery. God is by definition just and fair. But, I tell you this: I am not as faithful or diligent a person as Oliver Cowdery. If Sections 6 and 8 had been directed to me, I would have assumed that I was going to get what I wanted if I asked.

So, why did the Lord put Oliver in this situation?

There is a danger in trying to force fit the Book of Mormon into a pre-existing theological doctrine of deity. It is the same danger that exists in trying to force the Bible into a pre-existing theological doctrine of deity.

Scripture — whether the Book of Mormon or the Bible — supplies us points of data. They do not supply us a specific theology. Theology is how we interpret or put those points together into a coherent whole for ourselves.

But often our theologies are merely approximations of scriptural teachings.  After all, profound truths must somehow be turned into concrete concepts or we can’t wrap our mind around them.

In this article, I’m going to attempt to actually list all the data points but not (at least not yet) attempt to “best fit” it to a theology.

Jesus is God

This is the most fundamental message of the Book of Mormon and the Title page states so:

…to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations…

2 Nephi 26:12:

12 And as I spake concerning the convincing of the Jews, that Jesus is the very Christ, it must needs be that the Gentiles be convinced also that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God;

Jesus is specifically indicated as being fully God and fully Divine. There is no Book of Mormon concept of Jesus being a sub-god of some sort.

Jesus is specifically referred to, by those worshiping Him, as their Lord and God:

3 Nephi 3:18:

And behold, they began to pray; and they did pray unto Jesus, calling him their Lord and their God.

See also Mosiah 13:28,33-34; Helaman 8:22-23; 3 Nephi 11:10,14;

Jesus is the Son of God, the Only Begotten of His Father

2 Nephi 25:19

19 For according to the words of the prophets, the Messiah cometh in six hundred years from the time that my father left Jerusalem; and according to the words of the prophets, and also the word of the angel of God, his name shall be Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Alma 9:26:

26 And not many days hence the Son of God shall come in his glory; and his glory shall be the glory of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace, equity, and truth, full of patience, mercy, and long-suffering, quick to hear the cries of his people and to answer their prayers.

3 Nephi 20:31:

And they shall believe in me, that I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and shall pray unto the Father in my name.

See also Mosiah 4:2; Alma 5:50; Alma 6:8; Alma 7: 9-10, 13; Alma 13:16; Alma 16:19-20; Morm 9:22 and many many more. (See here)

Jesus is Worthy of Worship

In some sense of the word “worship” — we shall allow for more than one sense of that word –  Jesus is to be worshiped, though the proper sense is specifically stated as worshiping the Father in His name. 

2 Ne. 25: 16, 29

16 …until they shall be persuaded to believe in Christ, the Son of God, and the atonement, which is infinite for all mankind-and when that day shall come that they shall believe in Christ, and worship the Father in his name, with pure hearts and clean hands, and look not forward any more for another Messiah, then, at that time, the day will come that it must needs be expedient that they should believe these things.

29 And now behold, I say unto you that the right way is to believe in Christ, and deny him not; and Christ is the Holy One of Israel; wherefore ye must bow down before him, and worship him with all your might, mind, and strength, and your whole soul; and if ye do this ye shall in nowise be cast out. 

When Jesus is On Earth, He is Treated as a Separate Personality from His Father

3 Nephi 19, previously discussed, Jesus explains that the people prayed to Him only because He was present while the Father was not. He prays to the Father while they pray to Him and he explains that He wants them to be one in the same sense that He and the Father are one.

3 Nephi 19:21-23:

21 Father, I pray thee that thou wilt give the Holy Ghost unto all them that shall believe in their words.

22 Father, thou hast given them the Holy Ghost because they believe in me; and thou seest that they believe in me because thou hearest them, and they pray unto me; and they pray unto me because I am with them.

23 And now Father, I pray unto thee for them, and also for all those who shall believe on their words, that they may believe in me, that I may be in them as thou, Father, art in me, that we [the disciples and the Godhead] may be one. 

3 Nephi 11:6-8

6 And behold, the third time they did understand the voice which they heard; and it said unto them:

7 Behold my Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, in whom I have glorified my name-hear ye him.

8 And it came to pass, as they understood they cast their eyes up again towards heaven; and behold, they saw a Man descending out of heaven… 

Jesus Existed Before His Incarnation

Ether 3: 14

14 Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.

Indeed, the majority of the Boo k of Mormon enforces the idea that Jesus existed before His Incarnation. [2]

When Jesus is in Heaven, Prior to His Incarnation, He is Treated as a Separate Personality Than His Father

2 Nephi 31:11-12, 15

11 And the Father said: Repent ye, repent ye, and be baptized in the name of my Beloved Son.

12 And also, the voice of the Son came unto me, saying: He that is baptized in my name, to him will the Father give the Holy Ghost, like unto me; wherefore, follow me, and do the things which ye have seen me do.

15 And I heard a voice from the Father, saying: Yea, the words of my Beloved are true and faithful. He that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved. 

Compare also to 3 Nephi 31:18:

18 And then are ye in this strait and narrow path which leads to eternal life; yea, ye have entered in by the gate; ye have done according to the commandments of the Father and the Son; and ye have received the Holy Ghost, which witnesses of the Father and the Son, unto the fulfilling of the promise which he hath made, that if ye entered in by the way ye should receive.

Jesus Has the Title “Father” Because He Created All Things

Often, Jesus is referred to as the Father when we are specifically talking about Jesus as Father of Heaven and Earth because he created “all things”. 

Mosiah 3:8

8 And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary. 

Hel 14:12

12 And also that ye might know of the coming of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and of earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and that ye might know of the signs of his coming, to the intent that ye might believe on his name.

Ether 4:7

7 And in that day that they shall exercise faith in me, saith the Lord, even as the brother of Jared did, that they may become sanctified in me, then will I manifest unto them the things which the brother of Jared saw, even to the unfolding unto them all my revelations, saith Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of the heavens and of the earth, and all things that in them are. 

Alma 11:38-39

38 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?

39 And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last; 

Compare to 3 Nephi 9:15

15 Behold, I am Jesus Christ the Son of God. I created the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are. I was with the Father from the beginning. I am in the Father, and the Father in me; and in me hath the Father glorified his name. 

See also 2 Nephi 25:12; Helaman 16:18;

Jesus Fully Represents and Even Identifies as the Father

But Jesus is also presented as being called the Father because He fully represents and even identifies as His Father. This is specifically stated as being because they share the same will. Thus they are “one God” because they have one moral will. The very best example of this is the incorporable Mosiah 15:1-5 

1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.

2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son-

3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son-

4 And they [not "He"] are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people. 

This passage is so full of meat that we’ll have to revisit it under another point later.

Against all odds or sense, Mosiah 15:1-5 is the passage most used to “prove” that the Book of Mormon teaches modalism. But modalism does not teach anything like this passage. The closest fit to a literal interpretation of this passage is actually Swedenborgian, not modalism. [3]

However, it’s not really Swedenborgian either since v. 2 specifically states that Jesus is God (in v.4) due to subjecting His Flesh to the will of the Father. To the best of my knowledge, Swedenborg had no corollary to this. And this is to say nothing of the rest of the context of the Book of Mormon, which does not allow for Swedenborgian teachings at all.

Ether 4:12 also specifically teaches that Jesus fully represents the Father

12 And whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do good is of me; for good cometh of none save it be of me. I am the same that leadeth men to all good; he that will not believe my words will not believe me-that I am; and he that will not believe me will not believe the Father who sent me. For behold, I am the Father, I am the light, and the life, and the truth of the world.

Compare also to Morm 9:12 and Ether 3:14;

The standard Mormon “explanation” for why Jesus identifies as His Father in some cases is to refer to the doctrine of Divine Investiture. I will have to deal with this in a future post.

Jesus, Prior to His Birth, is a “Spirit Body” with a Physical Image – Not a Formless Spirit Filling Everything

This fact comes out when the brother of Jared sees the pre-mortal Jesus and see a physical form like a man’s.

Ether 3:6-8

6 And it came to pass that when the brother of Jared had said these words, behold, the Lord stretched forth his hand and touched the stones one by one with his finger. And the veil was taken from off the eyes of the brother of Jared, and he saw the finger of the Lord; and it was as the finger of a man, like unto flesh and blood; and the brother of Jared fell down before the Lord, for he was struck with fear.

7 And the Lord saw that the brother of Jared had fallen to the earth; and the Lord said unto him: Arise, why hast thou fallen?

8 And he saith unto the Lord: I saw the finger of the Lord, and I feared lest he should smite me; for I knew not that the Lord had flesh and blood. 

It might be tempting to say that God was just taking a physical form so that the brother of Jared had something to look at. But the actual passage does not allow for that possibility because of the reason Jesus Himself gives for why the brother of Jesus saw a physical form:

Ether 3:13

13 And when he had said these words, behold, the Lord showed himself unto him, and said: Because thou knowest these things ye are redeemed from the fall; therefore ye are brought back into my presence; therefore I show myself unto you. 

According to this Book of Mormon passage, to be in the presence of God is to be physically standing next to Him. So the physical form of Jesus is literally His presence. The popular Christian idea that God has no physical presence, because God is everywhere present fully, is thus eliminated as a possibility. [4]

We are Physically Created In the Image of God

Ether 3:15-16

15 And never have I showed myself unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image.

16 Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh. 

Gen 1:26-27 is specified in the Book of Mormon as being a physical image, not just sharing having free will like God has or some other spiritualized interpretation. This is one of the most ignored aspects of the Book of Mormon, that it declared a physical God in which we are physically the image of. Compare this passage also to Mosiah 7:27

27 And because he said unto them that Christ was the God, the Father of all things, and said that he should take upon him the image of man, and it should be the image after which man was created in the beginning; or in other words, he said that man was created after the image of God, and that God should come down among the children of men, and take upon him flesh and blood, and go forth upon the face of the earth- 

It’s difficult to twist this passage to mean anything but that Gen 1:26-27′s “image of God” was meant to be a literal image, not a figurative one because it specifies that Jesus’ human form was the image of man because we were in the image of God. In other words, it specifies it both ways so that you can’t miss the point.

The Spirit of the Lord is Also Presented as Being With a Human Form

1 Nephi 11:1, 11

1 …I was caught away in the Spirit of the Lord…

11 And I said unto him: To know the interpretation thereof-for I spake unto him as a man speaketh; for I beheld that he was in the form of a man; yet nevertheless, I knew that it was the Spirit of the Lord; and he spake unto me as a man speaketh with another. 

Compare this wording also with 1 Nephi 1:12, 1 Nephi 7:14-15, 1 Nephi 13:15 and many others were the Spirit of the Lord is referred to.

The Idea that God Is, Was, and Always Will Be a Spirit Is Considered Heresy

The heretical Zoramites believed that God was a spirit, is a spirit, and will always be a spirit forever. This shocks our true believers who immediately recognize the heresy involved.

Alma 31:12-15

12 Now, when they had come into the land, behold, to their astonishment they found that the Zoramites had built synagogues, and that they did gather themselves together on one day of the week, which day they did call the day of the Lord; and they did worship after a manner which Alma and his brethren had never beheld;

14 Therefore, whosoever desired to worship must go forth and stand upon the top thereof, and stretch forth his hands towards heaven, and cry with a loud voice, saying:

15 Holy, holy God; we believe that thou art God, and we believe that thou art holy, and that thou wast a spirit, and that thou art a spirit, and that thou wilt be a spirit forever. 

Jesus is the Son of God Because of His Physical Birth

I previously used Mosiah 15:1-5, but let’s look at it again with an eye to what we mean when we refer to Jesus as the Son of God

1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.

2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son-

3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son- 

Since the rest of the Christian world considers Jesus the only Begotten because He was Begotten before the world began [5], this passage is significant theologically and separates the Book of Mormon view of Christology from the rest of the Christian worlds.

What The Book of Mormon Doesn’t Teach

What the Book of Mormon doesn’t say is as important as what it does say. It does not use the phrase “of one substance.” It does not tell us that Jesus and the Father are “one person.” It does not tell us God is a formless spirit. It does not tell us that God is equally present everywhere. It does not develop an Athanasius-like formula of “one God.” There is no mention of “persons” vs. “beings.” In fact, it does not use any creedal phrases at all.

What the Book of Mormon Doesn’t Confront

On the other hand, the Book of Mormon never actually deny any popular view of God directly. Though clearly not Modalistic or Trinitarian, nevertheless, only a careful parser ever feels their modalistic or Trinitarian views are deeply threatened by the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon did not force people to confront their false views of God right away but instead left plenty that a Modalist or a Trinitarian would relate to or feel comfortable with, even while preparing them for something else later.

Full Analysis

The following chart summarizes the relationship between what the Book of Mormon actually teaches compared to the theologies of Joseph Smith’s and our day:

* Clearly Trinitarianism does teach that in heaven Jesus and the Father are seperate personalities. However, there seems to be at least some discomfort over something as blatant as 2 Ne 31:11-15 where Jesus and the Father both talk to a prophet from heaven. So I listed this one as “maybe.”

Conclusions

In conclusion [6], we can now easily see that The Book of Mormon doctrine of deity is not fully Modalistic, nor Trinitarian, nor Tritheistic but does share some attributes with each. Each might even be considered an appropriate approximation of the nature of God, to some degree, but none is definitive. In reality, the Book of Mormon denies all of the popular existing theologies about God. [7] 

Notes:

[1] One poster once quoted Melodie Moench Charles to me as, in his view, a fair evaluation of the Book of Mormon’s doctrine of deity: “Although modalism is the best description for Book of Mormon theology generally, it is not apt in every instance. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that Book of Mormon authors were intentionally constructing a theology that would fit any previous or future model or label. Nor did they seem concerned about making sure that the theology of any one part of the book was always consistent with the theology of other parts.”

I do not disagree with this analysis. In essence, Charles tells us that the Book of Mormon teaches Modalism, except for the parts that don’t.

Likewise, I feel that any of the following statements are also equally true:

The Book of Mormon teaches Trinitarianism, except for the parts that don’t.

The Book of Mormon teaches Tritheism, except for the parts that don’t.

Charles wrote her article, “Book of Mormon Christology”, as a response to how Mormons often, in her view, retrofit their doctrines of Deity onto the Book of Mormon. A point that is often valid. Yet she never realizes she’s fallen into the same trap herself, ignoring all evidence that runs counter to her theory of Nephite theology.

[2] Charles uses Ether 3:14 as the sole nod to the anti-modalism inherent on the Book of Mormon throughout: “On one point the Book of Mormon’s christology differs from what early Christian modalists believed. Although Jesus’ description of himself as Father and Son in Ether 3:14 is thoroughly modalistic, its context is not. In this same verse Jesus says, “I was prepared from the foundations of the world to redeem my people.” This, coupled with his identifying himself as Jesus Christ a millennium before his birth, suggests a “pre-existent” Christ. Always concerned to preserve the notion of the unity of God, early Christian modalists rejected the idea that Christ existed apart from his father prior to his incarnation. They would not have attributed to Christ any of God’s activity prior to Jesus’ birth. For example, they interpreted John 1:1-18 as describing the Word’s creation of the world allegorically, not as Christ’s literal pre-existent activity (Kelly 1960, 120).” Charles in “Book of Mormon Christology.” It is unclear why she ignored all the other anti-modalistic statements found throughout the Book of Mormon.

[3] Wikipedia explains: “Both Michael Servetus and Emanuel Swedenborg have been interpreted as being proponents of Modalism, however, neither describes God as appearing in three modes. Both describe God as the One Divine Person, Jesus Christ, who has a Divine Soul of Love, Divine Mind of Truth, and Divine Body of Activity. Jesus, through a process of uniting his human form to the Divine, became entirely One with His Divine Soul from the Father to the point of having no distinction of personality.” This is not classic modalism. In fact, the only thing it has in common with modalism is the lack of three “persons.”

[4] This doesn’t mean that God isn’t “omni-present.” It just means that that word “omni-present” means something other than God being physically present everywhere, as some Christians assume. 

Note: In the comments below, Aaron pointed out that Evagelicals make a distiction between physical presence and personal presence and thus, using an Evagelical point of view, it is possible for them to believe in a physical presence of God distinct from His personal presence.

Mormons make a distinction between their belief that God is everywhere present, which is understood in a spiritual sense, but not everywhere physically present. See the comments for further discussion.

Thus the two points of view converge moreso that I expected.

[5] “One of the creeds says that Christ is the Son of God ‘begotten, not created”; and it adds ‘begotten by his Father before all worlds.’ Will you please get it quite clear that this has nothing to do with the fact that when Christ was born on earth as a man, that man was the son of a virgin?” (Mere Christianity, p. 138)

[6] I apologize if I missed your favorite verse or excluded a reference to something that I should have included. Collecting all the statements in the Book of Mormon about the Doctrine of Deity together in one place isn’t as easy as it looks to. I’ll have to rewrite this article after I next read the Book of Mormon and find more passages that develop its collective doctrine of deity.

[7] As does the Bible.

There are many positions on which century the Book of Mormon originated in, but most seem to fall into two general camps: the book was largely produced in the fifth century by Moroni, or in the nineteenth century by Joseph Smith.

There is a third view: the text was largely produced in the 20^th century by committees of LDS Church employees.

Let me explain: when I say production, I mean the process of presenting, formatting, editing, shaping, and summarizing which goes along with creating a readable document for mass consumption. When I first read portions of the original and printer’s manuscripts of the Book of Mormon, I was struck by how differently the text read than the smooth twentieth century edition I was raised with.

The 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon was presided over by a committee of apostles including Thomas Monson (presumably for his professional background in printing) and Bruce McConkie and Boyd Packer (presumably for their doctrinal expertise). It is believed that the chapter summaries found in this edition of the Book of Mormon were written either solely or primarily by McConkie.

The 1981 edition is also the edition which has been most read by Mormons and non-Mormons, especially since President Benson’s push to flood the earth (or at least, thrift store bookshelves) with the Book of Mormon. Not many of us have the 1920 edition at hand or earlier versions. I remember my surprise when I compared my 1981 version’s rendition of “pure and delightsome” to refer to the Lamanites in 2 Nephi to my mom’s pre-1981 version of the same verse which read “white and delightsome.” Some twenty-odd major textual changes of this type were made to the 1981 edition, apparently by preferring the original manuscript to the printer’s.

Do you think a heavily edited production of the text (edited for spelling, grammar, punctuation, chapter summaries which highlight points of doctrine important to the editors, ) enhances respect for the text, and therefore increases the believability of, claims for historicity of the events depicted in the Book of Mormon? Or does it detract from the claims of historicity by seeming too clean, too “produced”?

]]> http://mormonmatters.org/2008/09/23/the-book-of-mormon-a-20th-century-text/feed/ 16 http://mormonmatters.org/2008/06/16/our-foundation-stories-part-iv-the-book-of-mormon-translation/ http://mormonmatters.org/2008/06/16/our-foundation-stories-part-iv-the-book-of-mormon-translation/#comments Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:42:17 +0000 John Nilsson http://mormonmatters.org/?p=528

Was the Book of Mormon translated? Was the Book of Mormon revealed? Was it inspired? Was it all three, or a combination of the above? How much does it matter?

The accounts left by Joseph and others involved suggest that the translation of the Book of Mormon was conducted, with a few variations, largely in this manner: Joseph and the scribe sequestered in a room, with a sheet or curtain drawn up to shield them from the casual view of others in the house. The plates wrapped in a cloth on the scribe’s table, with the scribe writing down what Joseph dictates. Joseph himself at least periodically buries his face in a hat to peer intently at his seerstone, in which he sees words, whether one at a time, or in clusters is unclear. Joseph also feels free enough with his work to correct spelling, grammar, punctuation, and word choice, both immediately and after the Book of Mormon was published.

In later productions, like the Books of Abraham, Moses, and the revision of the Bible, there was apparently even less physicality to the process. Other than the Egyptian papyri purchased from Michael Chandler, there appeared to be no seerstone or other mechanical device used in the writing of these books. They were received much as most of the sections of the D&C (with the obvious seerstone section aside) were, by inspiration.

Given the above, what does it say about Joseph Smith that he began his prophetic translations with physical objects and moved away from them later on? That he “graduated” in a spiritual sense? Were the physical objects necessary prompts to revelatory experience?

Why would Moroni bother with giving Joseph physical objects like the plates which were apparently so cumbersome and the desire of his neighbors when God could simply reveal the contents of the book to Joseph? And why would Moroni take them back again? Were the plates themselves like the “slippery” treasures spoken of in the text of the Book of Mormon itself, a thing of great worth which is impossible to control?

In the past, Clay asked me if I thought that someone who believes The Book of Mormon to be fiction lost their salvation. My answer was, no, I do not believe such a belief causes a person to lose salvation in and of itself. DougG asked me if I believe people that believed the Book of Mormon was inspired but not historical should be rooted out of the Church. My answer to that question was, no they shouldn’t be.

Both of these questions made me think of some counter questions for those that believe The Book of Mormon is inspired of God but just a work of fiction:

• Do you still study The Book of Mormon as a guide to your life on a regular basis?
• Do you still prayerfully seek for truths in The Book of Mormon to apply into your life?
• Did you do any of the above types of study when you thought The Book of Mormon was also historical?
• Do you limit your study of The Book of Mormon to only finding 19th century patterns now or are you open to finding unique eternal truths there for our day?
• Do you limit your study of The Book of Mormon to only what you need to do to fulfill a calling? (Like say preparing for lessons.)
• Did coming to believe The Book of Mormon was only inspired fiction cause you to reduce your efforts to study it in any way?

Lest I leave out TBMs from this post, I have a similar set of questions for you:

• Do you study The Book of Mormon as a guide to your life on a regular basis?
• Do you prayerfully seek for truths in The Book of Mormon to apply into your life?
• Do you limit your study of The Book of Mormon to only finding ancient patterns?
• Do you limit your study of The Book of Mormon to only what you need to do to fulfill a calling? (Like say preparing for lessons.)
• Or is The Book of Mormon more useful to you as a differentiator then a doctrinal source?
• What benefits do you feel there are to believing The Book of Mormon is historical? Does believing it is historical make much of a difference to the way you study or use The Book of Mormon?

Update: Based on working on the wording of the question with John Hamer, here is a possibly more neutral re-wording:

If The Book of Mormon once taught you a message that had enriched your life, and if you possessed a firm testimony that it was inspired of God, but later you felt you learned its narrative had solely modern origins, how has this, in real life, affected your relationship with the Book of Mormon? (i.e. change in how or how much you study it or use it) Do you still continue to seek spiritual guidance from it? Do you still do it in the same manner before you decided it was a modern work?

As a child, the story of Moroni visiting Joseph Smith seemed familiar to me, but I couldn’t put my finger on just why. Only later, on reflection, did the mythic aspects of the story stand out more sharply.

First the repetitive structure: The angel Moroni appeared to Joseph three times during the night in his bedroom and tells the same things each time. Joseph comes back each year on the same night to the Hill Cumorah, from 1823-1827. Some accounts, such as his neighbor Willard Chase’s, have him being told to dress in black clothing and to bring his wife.

Each time he is denied the plates, and told to return the same time next year. His words are “at the end of the year”, which is an interesting phrase given that one would assume the end of the year was December 31^st. He repeats the phrase “end of the year” several times in his narrative. Why is this? And why so much preparation time for the plates?

In addition to the repetitive structure, there are remnants of Joseph’s magical/organic/agricultural worldview showing through here. The “end of the year” is not a phrase you would use unless you are tied to the rhythms of the land. The fall equinox is the end of the growing season, and as such the end of the natural year. Nature is beginning to die. Wouldn’t it have made more sense for Moroni, revealing a new thing, to have visited Joseph in the spring, have him visit the Hill Cumorah in the spring each year, and then allow Joseph to take the plates in the spring, when life is beginning?

As far as the years of preparation time, perhaps the Book of Mormon and it’s significance needed to “grow” in Joseph’s psyche, where the end of the growing season and harvest time would have impressed very forcefully on a farm boy how things grow, from crops to individuals to societies. It also would be a time of celebration and a reduction of physical activity to a certain extent, allowing time for more contemplation.

Perhaps the story of Joseph’s nocturnal hill visits is about something old, mysterious, and forgotten, something that has died. Certainly the contents of the Book of Mormon reveal that indeed, the narrative is about a death. The death is of Nephite civilization and Nephite righteousness, which are inextricably intertwined. In that sense, the time of year is perfect to discover something hidden and old, a record of a people who have died, perhaps to save it from complete oblivion.

It is interesting to consider a gold book in a stone box in a New York hill about a civilization which no one would have known anything about had not Moroni told Joseph about it. Are there other books, in other hills, about other civilizations history and archeology knows nothing of, awaiting an inquisitive seeker?