One of the most basic and fundamental premises of Mormonism is the idea of free will. While we take this for granted in Mormonism, in the secular world the debate is far from settled. In fact, the debate over determinism vs. libertarianism (not the political philosophy but the metaphysical philosophy) has raged on and on for centuries.
Yesterday’s activities began with a Pancake Breakfast over at the Church, followed by a softball game. We loaded up several of the kids from the Ward, my children’s friends, and hauled them all to the beach in both of our vans. Arriving home at 5:00, we joined some neighbors for a potluck and barbecue. There were even some small fireworks lit out in the field behind our house. I enjoyed the day very much. It was a lot like what we’ve done on the Fourth of July in years past — but this was on the third. As I...
“We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all Song Practice Ladies, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.”—Fabricated Quote from Joseph Smith circa 1842. Today’s guest post is by Matt Workman.
A unique aspect of Mormonism is that all males over age 12 can hold an office of the priesthood, and that they are expected to use that priesthood in service to both the community (sacrament, callings) and to individuals (healings, blessings, and acts of service). When the church was first organized, most of the offices of the Aaronic priesthood were held by adult males, not teens. Has teenage priesthood ordination evolved into a form of puberty rite?
“God against Man. Man against God. Man against Nature. Nature against man. Nature against God. God against nature–very funny religion!” ~Dr. D. T. Suzuki. Is Mormonism as a restorationist church a “nature” religion or a “social” religion or something in between?
Today’s post is by Matt Workman. I waited backstage with my small troupe of comedians. One more act to go, then it was our turn to perform. Would the act on before us whip the crowd into a frenzy? Take all the steam out of the room? Perhaps overshadow our under-rehearsed sketch? The performance started and it took us a while to figure out what was happening, but soon it was painfully obvious: our lead-in act was a PowerPoint presentation. It may not surprise you to learn that the venue for this particular comedy performance was a church activity...
Today’s guest post is by Glenn. When I was at BYU, I got interested in the study of folklore – the way that traditional culture informs our understanding of the world. I worked in the BYU folklore archives cataloguing missionary stories – encounters with the three nephites, miraculous experiences (some easier to believe than others), initiation stories of greenie missionaries, cautionary tales — just a whole bunch of really interesting stuff. I was hooked.
What should a church member do if their spouse is a non-believer? This is something that many couples encounter, either because one spouse ceases to believe or because one spouse converts and the other does not. What should the church advise these believing spouses who ask? What is the “doctrinal” implication in these situations? Does this put the believing spouse’s salvation at risk as some fear?
One of the distinct LDS doctrines is that of eternal progression: the idea that we continue to grow and develop as individuals throughout eternity unless through our own choices we stop progressing. But there are two different interpretations of this doctrine that both seem to be supported by authoritative statements. Are both interpretations correct? Or is one correct and the other incorrect?
Distinctly Mormon doctrines relating the physical appearance of humanity to God’s own “preferred” form grew gradually in early Restoration history rather than springing forth in full. Although there are references in the Book of Mormon to the Brother of Jared seeing the “finger” and then the full vision of Christ (the earliest recorded of Joseph Smith’s prophetic writings), even the earliest published accounts of the First Vision do not feature descriptions of two personages appearing as does the “official” version eventually recorded several years after formation of the church. This doesn’t mean that later descriptions were contradictory to the...
Early Christian Theological Differences I recently read Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman. One of the interesting realities on which Ehrman elaborates is that early Christianity was anything but homogeneous. More specifically, there were many factions, some heterodox, some orthodox, some in the middle. Some of the books of the apocrypha, gnostic texts, and other early Christian writings seemed to support various theological ideas not represented, and in fact, even repressed in what became the canonized New Testament.
A recent article in the Arizona Republic highlights the negative impacts to the LDS church of the new Arizona law that steps up enforcement of state immigration lows. Due to the large population of Mormons in AZ (6% of the state are LDS), and the large population of Latinos (1.8 million, including many who are LDS), this issue is one that poses internal conflicts for members.
Last night on KUTV in Utah, an announcement was made which signals the end of an era. It was reported that Bruce R. McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine will no longer be published by the Church, and that it will not be sold by Deseret Book. Since I didn’t see the newscast, I’m not sure what reasons were given, but one viewer stated, “Why? For tighter correlative control, because of the book’s embarrassing clarity, and because of some controversial assertions in the book.” He also said that the publisher asserted the book was withdrawn because of poor sales.
There has been a lot of discussion in the b’nacle about what the church can do from a practical standpoint to address the thorny issues in church history. The current approach has been to: 1) keep the curriculum uplifting and free from controversy, 2) to never speak ill or contradict leaders of the past or present (even if they have been demonstrably wrong), 3) to let FAIR and FARMS apologetics address any tricky issues raised by external critics, and 4) to remind people that ”we simply don’t know” when it comes to conclusions about the trickiest issues. With the internet and ready access...
There was a great article in the New York Times this week: Who Can Mock This Church? While it was about Catholicism reeling in the wake of the pedophilia scandal, it raised a few points relevant to critics of any church.
In my previous discussion of “A Rational Theology” by John Widstoe, I discussed two methodologies of deriving a full LDS theology in use during the time Widstoe was writing this book. We then compared such strategies with modern church apologists. In this installment, I’d like to discuss the first four principles and ordinances as we view them today, and contrast them with what Widstoe lays out in his rational theology.
People like to talk about putting things that bother them about the church on a shelf. Of course, the problem is that for some, the shelf gets pretty full and comes crashing down like Fibber McGee’s closet. So what’s on your shelf, and is there a better model for dealing with problematic church doctrines?
The church decided to “raise the bar” in 2002 on entry requirements for missionaries, effectively preventing those with a history of serious sin from repenting and enter the mission field. This reduced the number of missionaries serving (down from a peak of 62K to approximately 51K at a time) and the number of convert baptisms (initially maintaining a rate of 4.7 or 4.8 baptisms per missionary, which rose to 5.5 in 2009), but another trend has also emerged in the last few years. A higher percentage of missionaries are returning home early than before the change. Is there a correlation between high...
Yep. Those wacky, irreverent South Park guys (Trey Parker and Matt Stone) are up to their old shenanigans. They’re bringing down the irreverence anvil once again with a mighty blow to the head of organized religion — and (yet again) Mormons are the target. As if this and this and this and this were not enough Mormon mischief, Parker and Stone have announced the pending release of their newly penned Broadway musical to be titled: “The Book of Mormon” (LDS Church lawyers permitting, of course). As we read from the New York Post: “The Book of Mormon” will juxtapose a...
