Joining Mormon Matters host Dan Wotherspoon for this episode are philosophy and intellectual history professor James McLachlan, and BYU emeritus and current science professors Duane Jeffery and Steve Peck, all of whom argue that these tensions between Mormonism and evolution are quite minimal, and that Mormonism actually contains many teachings and theological thrusts, including a rich history of viewing scriptural accounts of creation as primarily figurative, that are extremely accommodating to evolution—far more so than those of many other traditions that begin with God creating everything ex nihilo (out of nothing) and being in full control of everything.

We know that you’ll very much enjoy learning the history of Mormonism in its interactions with evolutionary science at BYU and beyond, as well as listening in on this far-ranging and insightful discussion about the science and religion interface within Mormonism and the broader world. After listening, we hope you’ll join in the conversation by commenting below!

Links to additional readings or blogs:

Gary James Bergera, “The 1911 Evolution Controversy at Brigham Young University,” (from the volume, Search for Harmony: Essays on Science and Mormonism, eds. Gene A. Sessions and Craig J. Oberg, Signature Books, 1993).

James M. McLachlan, “W.H. Chamberlin and the Quest for a Mormon Theology,” Dialogue 29, no. 4 (Winter 1996)

Duane E. Jeffery, “Seers, Savants, and Evolution: The Uncomfortable Interface,” Dialogue 34, no. 1 (Spring 2001). This is an updated version of the original article, which was published in Dialogue 8, no. 3/4 (Autumn/Winter 1974).

Steven L. Peck, “Crawling Out of the Primordial Soup: A Step toward the Emergence of an LDS Theology Compatible with Organic Evolution,” Dialogue 43, no. 1 (Spring 2010). Because it is so recent, this article is not viewable online except to current Dialogue subscribers. However, the issue is available for purchase online.

Steve Peck’s blog, “The Mormon Organon: A BYU Biology Professor Looks at Science and the LDS Faith”

Essay by Steve Peck, “Why Mormons Should Embrace Evolution.” (Posted as a guest blogger at Jana Riess’s blog, Flunking Sainthood.)

Link to the papers or slides from the session on Mormonism and Evolution at the 2011 conference of the International Society for the History, Philosophy, and Social Studies of Biology, held at the University of Utah, 11-14 July 2011. This session featured this podcast’s three panelists, plus David H. Bailey, who presented: “Creationism and Intelligent Design: False Friends”

William E. Evenson and Duane E. Jeffery, eds., Mormonism and Evolution: The Authoritative LDS Statements. Link to book available for purchase at Greg Kofford books

Howard C. Stutz, “Let the Earth Bring Forth: Evolution and Scripture,” with a foreword by Duane Jeffrey. Link to book available for purchase at Greg Kofford books

Feminist readers of the scriptures are well aware of the passages in Proverbs 8 which personify Wisdom (GK Sophia, HEB Hokhmah).
These passages affirm that Sophia was there when God made the earth and acted as a partner with God in the creation. This idea fits in well with my conceptualization of the male/female duality of the Divine. The passages can be interpreted as instructions to the earnest seeker to discover and follow the promptings of a Heavenly Mother:

The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
When there were no depths, I was brought forth;
When there were no fountains abounding with water.
Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:
While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.
When he prepared the heavens, I was there:
When he set a compass upon the face of the depth:
When he established the clouds above:
When he strengthened the fountains of the deep:
When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment:
When he appointed the foundations of the earth:
Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;
Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth;
And my delights were with the sons of men.
Now therefore hearken unto me, O ye children:
For blessed are they that keep my ways.
Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not.
Blessed is the man that heareth me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors.
For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the LORD. (Prov. 8:23-35)

If we are ever going to discuss the Divine Feminine in our 2010 Old Testament study, this is the lesson to do it. Many biblical scholars feel that the personification of Wisdom in the Proverbs represents a female Divinity.  In these verses Sophia addresses Israel as her children with the authority of a Divine Being, and has great power and dominion.   She is a “tree of life” (Prov. 3:18), connecting her with other Near-Eastern deities as well as the source of eternal life in the Book of Mormon.

In the scriptures, there is additional female imagery which tends to support the existence of a feminine counterpart to God. I hesitate to use them as proof-texts for a Mother in Heaven. These passages can just as well be interpreted to mean that a male Deity has loving and nurturing characteristics. However, if one believes, as I do, that “Elohim” consists of both a Mother and a Father God, the verses that follow add welcome insight into possible roles and characteristics of a Divine Mother Goddess.

One of the early titles for God in the Old Testament is El Shaddai. This word has been translated “Almighty God,” or “God of the Mountains.” It may have linguistic ties to the word “breast,” prompting some to translate El Shaddai as “the breasted One.” Though I might not go as far as to use this translation, I enjoy the word play which is typical of Hebrew writing and which connects this title of God to breasts and nurturing. In the language used in Jacob’s blessing to his son Joseph in Genesis 49, El Shaddai gives him

“blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that lieth under, blessings of the breasts, and of the womb: The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren.”

Isaiah uses many feminine images of God in his writings. Consider the following:

• Isaiah 42:14–a woman in labor whose forceful breath is an image of divine power.
• Isaiah 46:3-4–a mother who births and protects Israel.
• Isaiah 49:14-15–a mother who does not forget the child she nurses.
• Isaiah 66:12-13–a mother who comforts her children.

The following poem in Hosea 11:1-4 is in the first person, presenting God as a mother who calls, teaches, holds, heals, and feeds her son.

When Israel was a child, I loved him,
And out of Egypt I called My son.
The more I called them, the more they went from me;
They sacrificed to the Baals,
And burned incense to carved images.
Yet it was I who taught Ephraim to walk, I took them up in my arms;
but they did not know that I healed them.
I drew them with gentle cords,
With bands of love,
And I was to them as those who take the yoke from their neck.
I stooped and fed them.

It is possible that Hosea is indirectly presenting God as mother over against the fertility goddess of the Canaanite religion that he is challenging.
Interestingly, Hosea presents God as the husband figure in Hosea chapter 4, and the mother figure in chapter 11. These paired images suggest the male/female duality of God.

Searching for feminine images in the scriptures is a fruitful pursuit. There are many other examples too numerous to list here. I realize that different conclusions can be drawn from the presence of the Divine Feminine in scripture. Some faith traditions have posited that God is genderless, yet “accommodates to human limitations by using physical, relational, gender-laden images for self-disclosure.” Others believe that God is solely masculine and patriarchal but possesses qualities that we culturally see as feminine.  My inclination is to picture “Elohim” as a God consisting of both a male and female element.  I present this view as one which aligns with the Proclamation on the Family where it affirms the eternal nature of gender:

“All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.”

Images by Kathy Ostman-Magnusen

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.

The story of David and Jonathan is one of the most inspiring examples of true friendship anywhere.  Our LDS SS manual firmly places this lesson within the mainstream view of Biblical exegesis, presenting the two as strong personal and platonic friends.  As I studied the covenant made between these young men in 1 Samuel 18, I was touched by the loyalty shown by the young Jonathan, because he “loved [David] as his own soul.”  Because of this love, Jonathan relinquishes his hopes for his father’s throne in deference to God’s choice.  In a symbolic and ceremonial gesture, Jonathan strips off his robe, which represents the authority he holds to succeed his father, King Saul, and gives it to David.  He also gives David his sword and his bow, representing his military prerogative; and his girdle, which symbolizes spiritual truths and the kingdom of God.

But other writers, beginning with Homer and continuing to the present day, have noted the strong elements of intimacy and eroticism within the relationship.  David’s love for Jonathan is described as “wonderful, passing the love of women.”  Saul also reprimands Jonathan at the dinner table, accusing him that “thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother’s nakedness.”  Martti Nissinen concludes that this “choosing (bahar) may indicate a permanent choice and firm relationship, and the mention of “nakedness” (erwa) could be interpreted to convey a negative sexual nuance, giving the impression that Saul saw something indecent in Jonathan’s and David’s relationship.  Some also interpret this as Saul’s caution that choosing David as a lover meant that Jonathan could not produce an heir to the throne. There is also an exchange pointing to 1 Samuel 18:21. Here Saul tells David that when he marries Michal he will become his son-in-law for the second time.  There is reason to suppose the union of Jonathan and David represents the first.

What does it mean that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David?

In trying to interpret the story of these two Biblical figures, I am greatly influenced by my reading of Michael Quinn’s Same-Sex Dynamics among Nineteenth-Century Americans.  In this book, Quinn describes a nineteenth-century Mormon culture far more hospitable to and tolerant of same-sex relationships than that of modern Mormonism, which he regards as “homophobic.”  He gives several examples of long-term relationships among Mormon couples he believes were homosexual.  But in doing so, he also admits of a world and an era where emotional intimacy and physical closeness of same-sex friends did NOT involve homoeroticism.  He gives examples of letters written in the nineteenth century between platonic friends which contained emotional intensity and passionate references.  Same-sex friends held hands, kissed each other on the lips, and sometimes slept in the same bed for years at a time. These things are more aptly described as “homosociality.”   Reading about this phenomenon gave me an insight into the world view of previous ages that I had not understood before reading the book.

At times when I read the story of David and Jonathan through my twenty-first-century lens, I have wondered if these men were not physically intimate.  The words and images used to describe their relationship are passionate, ardent, concupiscent.  But reading about some of the homosocial behaviors Quinn describes has convinced me that David and Jonathan were not gay.  I agree with Quinn that too many Americans find homosociality frightening. Some of my returned-missionary friends have spoken with embarrassment of the strong male bonding they experienced on their missions.  They recall vivid episodes involving platonic intimacy — walking arm-in-arm, embracing, and other emotional and physical affection.  We are suspicious and uncomfortable with these things in our modern paradigm.  But homosociality can be an enlightening concept to consider.  I’m glad this relationship is included among all of the other unusual associations described in the Old Testament!

BONUS: The woodcut of Jonathan and David pictured below may be astonishingly evocative, both to LDS members endowed before 1990 and to those familiar with Masonic ritual.

]]> http://mormonmatters.org/2010/06/17/homosociality-and-the-friendship-between-david-and-jonathan/feed/ 22 http://mormonmatters.org/2010/06/12/choice-seer-spokesman-and-scribe/ http://mormonmatters.org/2010/06/12/choice-seer-spokesman-and-scribe/#comments Sat, 12 Jun 2010 21:00:06 +0000 guest http://mormonmatters.org/?p=11531 Guest Post by Christopher C. Smith

Chris has a BA from Fresno Pacific University in Biblical Studies, an MA from Wheaton College in History of Christianity, and is pursuing a PhD from Claremont Graduate University in Religions in North America. In the tradition of Jan Shipps, he is a non-Mormon with a particular focus on Mormon Studies and Joseph Smith.

The Book of Mormon records in 2 Nephi 3 a very interesting prophecy attributed to the biblical patriarch Joseph of Egypt, according to which a “choice seer” would be raised up from the fruit of Joseph’s loins in the latter days.  “And his name shall be called after me; and it shall be after the name of his father,” the patriarch announces.  Clearly Joseph Smith is in view.

An addendum to this prophecy adds an interesting additional promise. “I will raise up unto the fruit of thy loins; and I will make for him a spokesman. And I, behold, I will give unto him that he shall write the writing of the fruit of thy loins, unto the fruit of thy loins; and the spokesman of thy loins shall declare it.”  The traditional Mormon view is that the “spokesman” of the prophecy is Sidney Rigdon (see for example George Q. Cannon’s remarks in JD 25:126).  This view is based on D&C 100:9–11, which proclaims that “it is expedient in me that you, my servant Sidney, should be a spokesman unto this people… I will give unto thee power to be mighty in expounding all scriptures, that thou mayest be a spokesman unto him.”  I would like to suggest, however, that a better candidate for the spokesman of the “choice seer” prophecy is Oliver Cowdery.

Note that whereas the D&C emphasizes Sidney’s preaching role, the prophecy itself emphasizes writing.  In fact, the roles of Smith and his spokesman are precisely the reverse of Moses and Aaron.  The prophecy says of Moses, “I will give power unto him in a rod; and I will give judgment unto him in writing. Yet I will not loose his tongue, that he shall speak much, for I will not make him mighty in speaking. But I will write unto him my law, by the finger of mine own hand; and I will make a spokesman for him.”  Whereas Moses needed a spokesman for speaking but not for writing, Joseph Smith evidently needed a spokesman for writing but not for speaking.  The reference to a rod is also suggestive.  Unlike Moses, Joseph Smith did not have “power in a rod.”  But if the roles of seer and spokesman are reversed, then we might surmise that his spokesman did.  And in fact, that is precisely what the D&C says of Oliver Cowdery.

Oliver Cowdery served as Joseph Smith’s principal scribe for the Book of Mormon and some early sections of the D&C.  Of all Smith’s associates, Cowdery was the most prominent in the early period.  D&C 28 specifically likens him to Aaron, and tasks him not only to write but also to “speak”, “preach”, and “declare faithfully the commandments and revelations” (D&C 28:3–8). Cowdery apparently sometimes made use of a divining rod, which the 1835 D&C describes as a “rod of Aaron”.  He even received revelations of his own (EMD 2:409; 1835 Pat. Blessing Book), and did much of the early preaching and baptizing.  But here’s the unambiguous kicker.  In Cowdery’s patriarchal blessing—given in 1835 by Joseph Smith, Jr. himself—there is a reference to “the prophecy of Joseph, in ancient days,” which pronounced blessings upon “the Seer of the last days and the Scribe that should sit with him.” Clearly the choice seer’s “Scribe” is here supposed to be Cowdery.

So what are we to do with the D&C’s application of the spokesman label to Sidney Rigdon?  Like Oliver, Sidney served as a spokesman for the prophet in both written and oral capacities.  Sidney had started as the prophet’s scribe.  In fact, when Joseph met Sidney in 1831, Sidney was specifically instructed to preach only “inasmuch as ye do not write [for the prophet]” (35:20–23). But by 1833 he had taken on a much larger role in the movement, and his role as “spokesman” was primarily a preaching and teaching role.  Clearly Sidney did serve as a spokesman for Joseph Smith.  But was he the spokesman of prophecy?

One possible reading of these sources is that by 1835 Joseph Smith had bifurcated the “spokesman” role of Joseph of Egypt’s prophecy into oral and written components, such that Rigdon was the “spokesman”, and an additional role of “Scribe” was created to accommodate the displaced Oliver Cowdery.  But there is another possible reading as well.  Perhaps the spokesman was never intended to be a single, unchangeable individual, but rather referred to a role or office that might be filled by multiple individuals simultaneously or in succession.  A capital “S” is used in the prophet’s journal when calling Warren Parrish his “Scribe”, as well, suggesting perhaps that he saw Parrish as filling the same eschatological role that just a few months prior had been assigned to Oliver Cowdery.  Smith in fact enlisted many talented scribes over the course of his life, selecting for the role some of the Church’s most talented and educated men.  He never felt constrained to limit himself to a single individual.  He had a whole cadre of spokesmen, some of whom moved in and out of the role as their fortunes and the Church’s changed.

I’m interested to hear how the commenters here at MM read this evidence.  How are we to reconcile D&C 100 with Cowdery’s patriarchal blessing?  Was the spokesman a person, or an office?  If it was a person, then who?  Cowdery?  Rigdon?  Or someone else entirely?

Ever since I was introduced to the word “liminal,” I have claimed it as my own. This word describes a threshold or a transitional position — a balancing point between two states of being. For many years I have felt poised on the threshold between two totally different ways of viewing the world. One is scientific and rational. The other is a place where angels materialize and shake your hand, where dreams have meaning, where God’s words come out of men’s mouths when they lay their hands on your head. Many members of the Church seem easily able to slip between both of these worlds. But I see a fundamental difference between the two world views. In the naturalistic view of the universe, events do not violate natural laws and are subject to the principles of empirical investigation. In the mystical view, divine intervention is possible outside of natural law.

Striving to make sense of my world has been like trying to ride two donkeys with one ass. I often feel quite schizophrenic for even making the attempt. I do it because I feel like both paradigms are equally valid and I can’t imagine jumping off on one side or the other and excising a vital part of my being. But living a double life makes me feel uncomfortable around everyone. For example, when I am with a certain group of Mormons I can’t fathom why they don’t realize that the founder of their Church took the temple ceremony largely from Masonry, a tradition whose roots are not as ancient as some suppose. Then when I am with another group of my LDS friends I feel equally out of place because I recognize some sort of cosmic connection to the Infinite which occurs at these mystical points of ascent.

Liminality in my life is reading the RS/PH handbook at home and critiquing it from a secular/humanist perspective; then later in Church giving that same lesson from a mystical worldview, and feeling some Greater Power assisting me to articulate the principles. Afterwards I feel dizzy and disoriented. Am I leading people astray? Was that a real experience or just my emotions or hormones coming into play?

This week’s SS lesson is centered around the heart; and the story of Saul, Israel’s proto-monarch, is a perfect place to start for someone who is not quite sure of the state of hers.

To begin with, it is possible that in the course of Biblical transmission, Saul’s birth narrative was dispossessed by another. Biblical scholars have noted that the wordplay in 1 Samuel 1 works best when applied to Saul’s name, but this has been replaced by Samuel. In Hebrew, “Saul” can mean “petition,” “request,” or “thing given.” Thus verse 20 may have originally read:

And she named him Saul, saying, “Because I have ‘sauled’ him (requested him) from YHWH.

The etymology is carried through in verses 17, 20, 27, and 28. But for a variety of reasons, the birth narrative has been transferred to the prophet Samuel.  Was it Saul, rather than Samuel, who was dedicated to the Lord by his mother?  Was it Saul who was divinely appointed and raised?

The reader next encounters Saul in a narrative of spiritual rebirth. Saul is searching for lost donkeys, and ends up visiting Samuel. This prophet anoints Saul and tells him that the Lord’s Spirit shall come upon him, he shall prophesy, and he will be “turned into another man.” That day, “God gave him another heart.” The significance of this regeneration which seems so obvious when reading chapter 10 is actually hotly debated in Christian circles.

“Was Saul saved?” evangelicals wonder.  They point to later actions and speculate whether his heart had really been changed.  I confess that Saul’s actions at Gilgal seem defensible to me. The Lord had commanded that burnt offerings be made before going into battle. Saul had gathered his army and the Philistines were threatening. Saul waited the agreed-upon seven days for Samuel, but he didn’t show. The Israelite army was beginning to scatter. So Saul went ahead and performed the sacrifice. What a conundrum he faced! Should he wait for Samuel, and lose his army? Should he go into battle without performing the sacrifice? Or should he offer the sacrifice himself, without the necessary authority? Doubtless I would have made the same choice Saul did. But we are told that his heart was in the wrong place — that “obedience is better than sacrifice” — and that at this point his kingdom was lost and given to another.

This was a pivotal moment for Saul, and through the rest of his life he wavered between acts of anger and rebellion, and heartfelt repentance. The mental distress he experienced is anguishing.

Saul strikes me as a man trying to ride two donkeys, and I have the greatest compassion for him.  I’d like to end this post with a poem by John Donne which I can envision coming from my mouth, and from Saul’s.  It’s a  lament from a soul which recognizes the pull of the profane and natural man, yet longs for a mystical union with the Divine.

Holy Sonnet XIV

Batter my heart, three person’d God; for, you

As yet but knocke, breathe, shine, and seeke to mend;

That I may rise, and stand, o’erthrow mee,’and bend

Your force, to breake, blowe, burn and make me new.

I, like an usurpt towne, to’another due,

Labour to’admit you, but Oh, to no end,

Reason your viceroy in mee, mee should defend,

But is captiv’d, and proves weake or untrue.

Yet dearely’I love you,’and would be loved faine,

But am betroth’d unto your enemie:

Divorce mee,’untie, or breake that knot againe;

Take mee to you, imprison mee, for I

Except you’enthrall mee, never shall be free,

Nor ever chast, except you ravish mee.

When someone has been disappointed and broken, it affects all of his or her relationships. A broken heart could just be the cause of that cutting remark someone made to you, or even the rude gesture someone made out of a car window.  There’s a passage in the Old Testament that really comforts me when I am feeling the weight of loneliness and sorrow that sometimes comes over me.  It also comes to mind when I’m wondering how I can possibly make a difference in someone’s life who is hurting so badly.  Here’s my poetic interpretation of Isaiah 61:1-3:

He hath sent me to bind up the broken,
To cry to the captives: Behold, ye are free!
‘Tis the year of Jehovah’s good graces
Then eyes that are fettered, at last they shall see.
Day of our God’s just avenging:
All mourners in Zion shall comforted be.

I shall give to them beauty for ashes,
The oil of rejoicing in place of pain,
The garment of praise for sad spirit;
That strong trees of righteousness they might remain.
Oaks of Jehovah’s own planting,
That ever may be for His glory and gain!
(BiV’s Isaiah 61:1-3)

In the Garden of Eden narrative, we are taught that there is an opposite to everything.  Joy and sorrow are opposites, so are pleasure and pain. When Adam and Eve partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, their eyes were opened and they were able to experience all of these things.  In the Isaiah passage above, it speaks of eyes being opened through the experiencing of some of these opposites: beauty/ashes, rejoicing/pain, praise/sadness.  These figures show us the value of living in a world where suffering exists.  A broken heart opens us to insights that we wouldn’t be able to see without it.

The Messiah figure in this passage also opens us up to embrace dependence.  I think humans have a tendency to adulate self-reliance.  With this comes pride and even solitude.  As we become more open to dependence — on Divine guidance, on a Savior and on each other, we learn love and community.  These are things which can heal the brokenness that is a part of living in a fallen world.  Isaiah 61 is a Messianic prophecy which teaches of a Savior who is sent forth by God’s spirit to replace pain with rejoicing, to give beauty for ashes.  But it also teaches us that we can go forth in the same spirit to bind up the broken.

I heard a story about a young man who proclaimed to have the most beautiful, flawless heart. As the crowd watched, he bared his chest to show a shining, golden, perfectly shaped heart.  Then an old man challenged him.  He came forward to show the crowd what his heart looked like.  It was beating strongly, but was misshapen and full of holes and scars.  It appeared that some pieces had been removed and others had been put in, but didn’t fit quite right. The old man looked at the young man, “I would never trade my heart for yours. Every scar represents a person I’ve given my love — I tear out a piece and give it to them. Sometimes they give me a piece of their broken heart, which I fit along jagged edges. When the person doesn’t return my love, a painful gouge is left. Those gouges stay open, reminding me that I love these people too. Perhaps someday they will return and fill that space.”

Over the years, my heart has come to resemble that old man’s.  What a Messiah means to me is recognizing this connectedness and interdependence.  It is knowing I am not as complete with a golden flawless heart that has never felt the great wrenchings.  It is opening myself to love and sorrow and rejection and recognizing that I can’t do it all on my own.  And then it is doing my best to give others a piece of my heart to help heal theirs.

Whenever I come across an odd story in the Old Testament, I feel compelled pull it apart and try to make some sense out of it. Why is it there? Does it have some symbolic meaning of which we are unaware? Are we misinterpreting crucial aspects? Would it make more sense within the cultural milieu? Such is the story of this lesser-known Biblical judge.

This strange little story begins with an “unlikely hero,” Jephthah, the son of a prostitute. He was taken into his father’s family and raised there, but after the death of his father the legitimate children forced him to leave. He made some reputation for himself among a band of “vain men,” so that when his countrymen needed help against the Ammonites, they came to him. Jephthah agreed to captain an army against Ammon, in return for being named their titular head. His first military action was an attempt to negotiate with the enemy. When that did not work, he gathered together the men of Israel. The Spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah, and he went forth to battle, making a interesting vow to the Lord. If the Lord would help him win the battle, he would dedicate to the Lord and offer up for a burnt offering whatever should come forth from the doors of his house to meet him when he returned.

After a successful conquest, Jephthah returned home and was greeted by his daughter, his only child. That she was a precious and only child is pointed up by the fact that the judges immediately before and after him were Jair (who had thirty sons who rode on thirty ass colts), and Ibzan (who had thirty sons and thirty daughters). The number of children is the only fact we are told about these two judges, making it very likely that they are there solely for the reason of emphasizing Jephthah’ only begotten child. But she was a female.

Not only was human sacrifice forbidden by the Lord, (Deut. 18:10), but burnt offerings were to be firstborn males (Lev. 1:3). Nevertheless, Jephthah had made a vow, and intended to keep it. His daughter acquiesced, asking only for two months time to go up to the mountains with some friends and “bewail her virginity.” At the end of the two months, she returned to her father, and he “did with her according to his vow which he had vowed, and she knew no man.” Thereafter it became a custom for the daughters of Israel to go up four days in a year to lament the fate of the daughter of Jephthah.

The tradition of Biblical scholars is to interpret this vow of Jephthah’s as an impetuous and evil action which had disastrous consequences. That Latter-day Saints have followed in this tradition is clear from the chapter heading of Judges 11: “He makes a rash vow which leads to sacrifice of his only daughter.”

This interpretation is problematic for at least two reasons. First, if this was a “rash vow,” why would the Lord be given credit for bringing about the victory of Jephthah’s army? In the Book of Judges, the people are punished with captivity and defeat when they forsake the Lord. Second, why would Jephthah make such a vow? Did he think perhaps an animal would be the first out the door to greet him? (In ancient Israel the animals were sometimes kept in the house.) What if the animal was an unclean one, such as a dog? To offer up such a sacrifice would be a great affront. But perhaps the greatest problem Biblical scholars face in the exegesis of this passage is the inclusion of Jephthah in Hebrews 11 — the “faith chapter.” Here Jephthah is included along with the great heroes of the Old Testament in obtaining “a good report through faith.”

I rather favor an interpretation that became popular in medieval times and has been revived recently — that Jephthah was promising only to dedicate his daughter to the Lord and not to kill her. This would parallel Jephthah’s daughter more to Samson and to Samuel than to Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac. But it would preserve the Messianic shadowing. Several points make this interpretation possible:

1. The Hebrew “vav” usually translated “and” may also be translated as “or” rendering the reading in Judges 11:31: “whatsoever cometh forth…to meet me…shall surely be the Lord’s, or I will offer it up as a burnt offering.” Thus Jephthah’s method of sacrifice would depend upon what came forth out of his door.
2. The daughter departed into the mountains to “bewail her virginity,” not her death. It is possible that she was being offered to some type of temple service which would necessitate her remaining unwed for the rest of her life. Note verse 39 which says that Jephthah kept “his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man.” This last clause would seem awkward and unnecessary if she were being put to death.
3. Certain Hebrew scholars believe that for as long as she lived, the virgins of Israel went at different times, each for four days in the year, to provide comfort and encouragement to the daughter of Jephthah at the tent of meeting. This custom must have ended at her death, since there is no further reference to it in scripture or Jewish history.

You see that it is possible to fit this story quite nicely into our Latter-day Saint canon. Faithful Jephthah makes a promise to the Lord, and keeps his promise. Faithful Jephthah’s daughter yields herself to her father’s vow and becomes a type of Christ.  Handel uses a variation of this interpretation in his oratorio, Jephtha.  I’ll share with you a lovely aria from the oratorio below.  Here Jeptha is reconciled to the blood sacrifice of his daughter, and sings “Waft her, angels, through the skies,” before learning that her death is not required, and she shall instead be dedicated to God in a pure and virgin state for the rest of her life.

The story doesn’t fit quite so nicely into feminist thought, however…or does it? What was the name of this intriguing daughter? What was she like? Didn’t she deserve to make her own decisions? Why must her life be subject to her father’s vow? Here’s the other side of the question: if Samuel and Isaac were obedient to the vows of their parents, isn’t it equal treatment for a young woman in the scriptures to show the same dedication? Is submission not a principle that Christ modeled, and which males and females must all learn? In my search for spiritual submission, is it helpful to have a female role model? Or would this simply reinforce unrighteous patriarchal domination which tends to crop up in religious settings? Can it be possible to spin this story into a celebration of a strong woman character who makes her own decisions and chooses on her own to follow the Lord? And what of my own life? Is it conceivable to view the submission I have promised in the temple as a glorious principle even though the submission my husband covenants is to God, and mine is to a mere mortal? Is the surrender I give freely in this holy place simply that required of all Christian disciples? Or does God require of women an additional offering? Does Jephthah’s daughter hold the key? Am I to become a daughter on the pyre? I’m still wondering.

The advantage of blogging the SS lessons instead of teaching them is that I get to cover the chapters that are totally skipped by correlation. (This one [Joshua 5] probably for good reason, but it deserves a mention SOMEWHERE.)

Everyone knows that good Jews are circumcised. God instituted the covenant with Abraham, and faithful Jews have been performing this ordinance on their 8-day-old males ever since, right?

WRONG!

Immediately after Israel crossed the Jordan into the Promised Land under their new leader, Joshua, they were given a commandment. They were told to again circumcise the entire company of the children of Israel.  This was necessary because none of the people who were born during the 40 years in the wilderness had been circumcised.  All the males who left Egypt over the age of 20 had been circumcised but had died in the wilderness.  Joshua circumcised their children, whom Jehovah had raised up in their place. They stayed at the Hill of Foreskins a while to heal.  God told Joshua, “Today I have rolled away (galal) the reproach of Egypt from you” and thus the place was called Gilgal. Gilgal means “heap of stones” or “stone circle”; it sounds similar to galal (“to roll away”).

Given that circumcision was commanded in the Torah, and also a necessary prerequisite to participation in the Passover celebration, why weren’t the Israelites circumcised during that 40-year period?  I think the answer has to do with Moses’ attitude toward circumcision.

Though Moses was born into an Israelite family, it is not certain that he was ever circumcised as a baby.  At least, it is not included in his birth narrative in the scriptural record.  To correct this oversight, some commentators have even tried to assert that Moses was “born circumcised.”  Whether or not this is true, we know that his sons did not inherit this genetic trait!  After marrying and having two sons in the land of Midian, Moses went back to Egypt with his wife and children.  We read about this incident in Exodus 4:18-26:

And Moses went and returned to Jethro his father in law, and said unto him, Let me go, I pray thee, and return unto my brethren which are in Egypt, and see whether they be yet alive. And Jethro said to Moses, Go in peace.  And the Lord said unto Moses in Midian, Go, return into Egypt: for all the men are dead which sought thy life.  And Moses took his wife and his sons, and set them upon an ass, and he returned to the land of Egypt…

And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the Lord met him, and sought to kill him.  Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.  So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.

It appears that Moses and his wife recognized that the Lord was preventing Moses from proceeding because one of his sons had not been circumcised.  We can speculate that Moses circumcised his firstborn son at the proper age, and that Zipporah was appalled at the bloody act.  Perhaps that was why they decided not to circumcise the other son.  When the Lord chose Moses to lead the nation of Israel out of the land of Egypt, it was necessary that he make a decision: circumcise his son, or die!  Zipporah relented, but was not happy about it.  I think that this incident made Moses very conflicted about the practice of circumcision.  He himself may even have been circumcised later in life, a painful experience!  No wonder he was not strict about making sure the nation of Israel complied with this ordinance while in the wilderness.  But when Moses died and the new generation entered Canaan, a ritual was enacted as a type of the plan of salvation.

Tony Badillo explains the symbolism of the events which took place at the crossing of the Jordan and at Gilgal.  A careful reading of Joshua 4:8-9 shows that twelve stones were taken out of the river and placed on the new land as a memorial, and twelve stones were also taken from the dry land and placed in the midst of the Jordan.  The twelve smooth, rounded river stones symbolized Israel circumcised, analogous to the smoothness of the male reproductive organ after circumcision; a new spiritual beginning in a new land.  The twelve rough stones taken from the dry land represented the uncircumcised male organ; placed in the Jordan to signify death to sin.

Reading these OT passages with our SS lesson gives us the opportunity to reflect on the rich symbolic meanings which lie behind the violent act of circumcision.  I tend to identify with Zipporah on this matter, shrinking from the bloody, brutal deed.  But in the latter-day we are asked to circumcise the foreskin of our hearts, removing our pride and exposing our tender, inner selves to the influence of the Spirit.  We have to be “strong and of a good courage” to do this!   It can be more painful and difficult even than the physical act of circumcision.  As Badillo puts it: “Outer circumcision of the flesh may be done by anyone skillfully using a knife; but inward circumcision of the heart can be done only by the Lord’s spirit , and it is this type circumcision (for subduing the sinful inclination ) that Joshua’s men received at the crossing of the Jordan.”

A worthy Sunday School lesson, even if it didn’t make the manual!

The story of Balak and Balaam is a study in the marvelous complexity and richness of Biblical literature.  The pericope includes five narrative sections, four poetic prophecies, and a fable (the tale of the angel and the ass).  It also includes commentaries found elsewhere in the scriptures.

When teaching this lesson in the past, I have started with the narrative sections, which contain the foundation of the story.  The first narrative, found in Numbers 22:1-21, tells of Balak, king of Moab, who becomes distressed because the Israelites have come out of Egypt in a mighty company and he is afraid of their military strength.  He wishes to drive them out of the land, so he seeks out and offers a reward to Balaam, a prophet, if he will lay a curse upon Israel.  Balaam first refuses, but then agrees to prophesy, warning Balak that he will only speak the words that Jehovah gives him to say.  It has been pointed out that very few people in the Bible are as confusing and contradicting as Balaam. As a result there are many views concerning him; was Balaam a true believer in God, a false, pagan prophet, or a back-slidden believer who succumbed to the temptations of life?  This first narrative yields a clue — Balaam refers to the Lord as “Jehovah my God.”  The fact that he uses the tetragrammaton here tells me that although Balaam is a non-Israelite from Pethor, he is intimately familiar with the Hebrew God.  This God speaks to him many times throughout the story.

Those of you who know your BiV will remember how impressed I am by a man who can quote scripture or recite poetry. So it won’t surprise you that I am head-over-heels in love with Balaam when he does both by the end of Chapter 23.  After the second narrative section, Numbers 22:36-23:6, in which Balaam builds seven altars [1] and offers sacrifice in the mountains overlooking the camp of Israel, God speaks to the prophet in the first of four of the most lovely examples of Hebrew poetry in the Old Testament.  Biblical Hebrew scholars will know what I mean, but for the rest, I have translated these prophecies into a poetic form English speakers will recognize. [2]

Balak, the king of Moab from the mountains of the East
Hath brought me from my country to perform a shameful deed:
Come and curse this Jacob, come hinder Israel.
But how shall I rebuke those upon whom God’s mercies dwell?
How can I smite the nation that Jehovah keepeth well?
From high atop the rocky cliff, I see this mighty fold,
From the hills above this place, their army I behold.
A people who shall stand apart and always live alone;
Among the nations’ reckoning, they scarcely shall be known.
But yet the dust of Jacob shall soon be too vast to count;
The tribes of Israel shall be in numbers that will mount.
O may my death be likewise, my rest an endless fount! (Numbers 23:7-10)

In the third narrative, Numbers 23:11-17, King Balak remonstrates with Balaam for blessing, rather than cursing Israel.  He takes the prophet to a smaller hill, where the view of the encroaching army is not so large or terrifying.  There Balaam again builds seven altars and offers sacrifice.  The prophecy comes as follows:

Arise, Balak, and listen; hear now, O Zippor’s son:
God is no man, no liar he, no human who must run.
What he hath spoken he’ll make good, his sayings shall be done;
He bids me bless, and once I bless, constrained, I call back none.
There is no sin in Jacob, no fault in Israel;
Jehovah God is with him, shouting for this King as well.

God brought them out of Egypt’s pox,
Like the lofty horns of a wild ox.
Jacob scorns the enchanter’s pow’r;
To Israel the diviners cower.

Behold this mighty people who now rise up as a lion
And eat the prey and drink the blood — What God hath wrought in Zion! (Numbers 23:18-24)

As expected, Balak is none too pleased with the second prophecy.  But he tries one more time to use Balaam’s power to his advantage.  This is not surprising, for there is evidence from outside the Bible record that Balaam was a well-known seer; a cursing prophet living in the environs of Deir Alla, Jordan. [3] In this fourth narrative, Numbers 23:25-24:2, Balaam is taken to an even less advantageous vantage point.  Altars are once again built, and sacrifices offered.  But this time, Balaam approaches God in a more humble spirit.  He goes, seeking not “nechashim” (translated in our KJV Bibles as “enchantments”).  We have encountered this word before — just a chapter before Balaam’s story begins. Nechashim are the serpents which afflicted the children of Israel in the wilderness, a brazen one of which Moses lifted up on a pole to symbolize the Savior.  These serpents are described as “seraphim,” translated variously as “fiery,” “poisonous,” or “enchanter.”  I like to interpret them as being symbolic of false gods, with Moses’ brazen serpent standing for the true Messiah. [4] This would mean that Balaam is turning from any false system of thought that might remain in his beliefs after communing with Jehovah, and striving for the truth.  And the word of the Lord comes to him again:

How goodly, Jacob, are thy tents,
And Israel’s dwellings, tribe by tribe:
As aloes green, as valleys wide,
As gardens by the riverside,
As cedars near the stream abide.

Water from thy branch shall flow,
Thy seed in many waters go;
Thy king be highest, and the best,
Thy kingdom ris’n above the rest!

God brought thee forth from Egypt’s scorn,
Just as the wild ox’s horn
To eat the nations, break their bones
And pierce them through with arrows honed.

Thou shalt couch down as a lioness,
And bless all those who call thee blessed,
And curse all those who fail the test. (Numbers 24:3-9)

A cursing at last!  But not upon Israel, rather, her enemies.  Following this prophecy, the narrative tells us (Numbers 24:10-14), Balak is furious.

“I was going to promote you to great honor,” he tells Balaam.  ”But now, forget it!”

Balak replies by making it abundantly clear that though the king might offer him a house full of silver and gold, he cannot go beyond the commandment of the Lord. And then he gives a final prophecy, for good measure, one he says concerns the latter days. This one turns out to be Messianic. Fifteen hundred years later, seers from the East will take these words seriously and use them to find a babe in an obscure location in Israel:

Balaam, the son of Beor am I –
I hear the words of the Most High,
I see his vision with mine eye,
Yea, I behold him, but not nigh.

A star from Jacob in the skies
From Israel, a scepter rise;
Smiting Moab’s corners ’round
And breaking Seth’s descendants down.

Edom, too, shall be possessed,
Seir, the adversaries, pressed –
Israel doeth this with zest.

From Jacob, One will have the rule,
And shall destroy the remnant cruel.
Amalek was first of all,
But in the end the great shall fall.

And Cain, though firm from every knock,
A nested one upon a rock
Nonetheless shall wasted be,
When Assyria comes for thee.

God appoints this: do not boast.
Ships shall sail from Kittim’s coast,
Afflict Assyria by ploy,
And Eber also shall destroy. (Numbers 24:15-24)

Now, you Sunday School teachers will have noticed that what I have written above gives a different interpretation than our Lesson Manual.  I find it curious that the indications we have that Balaam was not a completely righteous prophet come from later scriptures, namely the following:

• Num 31:8: Moses’ warriors slew Balaam
• Num 31:16: Balaam counseled the Midianites how to cause the Israelites to commit sin.
• Deut 23:3-6: The Lord turned Balaam’s curse into a blessing
• Josh 13:22: The Israelites slew Balaam, who was a soothsayer
• 2 Peter 2:15-16: Balaam loved unrighteousness, was rebuked for his sin when his ass forbad his madness.
• Jude 1:11: Woe unto those who run greedily after the error of Balaam for reward
• Rev 2:14: Balaam taught Balak to cast a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.

There are additional passages which mention Balaam, but not in a condemnatory manner.  This leaves open the possibility that the Balaam pericope was initially quite positive.  Later attitudes toward toward Balaam may have changed when Israelite misfortunes at the hands of neighboring nations, with whom Balaam was identified, brought him into disrepute.

And NOW it is time to discuss the story of the angel and the ass.  (Did you think I’d forgotten?)

Many Biblical scholars conclude that the Tale of Balaam’s Ass is a distinct literary entity which derives from a separate source.  This fable is an adaptation of an originally independent folktale in a mode similar to ancient Near Eastern wisdom literature.  The Tale reflects the late, hostile evaluation of Balaam common to other Biblical passages. [5] As I read Numbers 22:21-35, it seems quite clear that this fable has a different purpose than the rest of the scripture block.  There is a sudden switch, from verse 20, where God tells Balaam to go with Balak’s men, to verse 22, when without explanation God’s anger is kindled against the prophet for taking the journey.  The story of an angel trying to prevent Balaam from proceeding seems extraneous to the story as a whole, whereas the speaking donkey lends a comical and fantastical air to what otherwise is a sober and spiritual message.

The student of the Bible must decide how the fable and the later Biblical verses referencing Balaam fit in with the primary passages.  Were these parts added as Balaam became associated with surrounding hostile nations?  Is this a more likely explanation than more conservative, traditional views that Balaam’s allegiances changed, or that found in the OT SS Manual that Balaam’s greed for wealth and lust for honor swayed him from his determined course?

As you have studied this prophet and poet, do you concur with Bruce R. McConkie, as quoted in our manual, that “Balaam, … inspired and mighty as he once was, lost his soul in the end because he set his heart on the things of this world rather than the riches of eternity”?

______________________________________________________________________

[1] Look up the symbolism of the Hebrew number seven!

[2] Hebrew poetry doesn’t use rhyme, but uses other techniques readily recognizable as poetry, such as parallelism. Here I have used meter and rhyme to render the Hebrew poetry into English.

[3] In 1967 an ancient Aramaic text was found in Deir Alla, Jordan, dating to the time of the Biblical Balaam. The text begins with the title “Warnings from the Book of Balaam the son of Beor. He was a seer of the gods.” Much of the document describes curses uttered by this prophet.

[4] The Hebrew word “nachash” is used as an adjective (bright, brazen) and as a noun (serpent, hiss, enchantment) I also like to think of the “nachash” in the Garden of Eden as a wordplay using all the meanings in the semantic range of this word: an enchanter, deceiver, or false god, who was shining or serpentine in appearance.

[5] see Jonathan D. Safren, “Balaam and Abraham,” in Vestus Testamentum XXXVIII, 1, 1988.

We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

While these verses lay out the principles/ordinances, they do little to explicate what these terms actually mean. And indeed, the confusion over these principles is the subject of many theological debates in Christianity. In Mormonism, however, I think we have some fairly clear explanations for how these principles/ordinances are used in our theology. For example, to establish a definition of faith, most Mormons will refer to Hebrews 11:1, or perhaps Alma 32:21 (not quoted for sake of brevity).  Additionally, at least to me, I sense a kind of loose cultural consensus for what faith is, and is not.  For baptism we can look to D&C 20:73. As for the Gift of the Holy Ghost, modern revelation confirms the method of the “laying of hand by those who are in authority,” and we have a ready explanation of the difference between the gift of the Holy Ghost, and the influence of the Holy Ghost.

I confess, I find some of the typical Mormon explanations of these principles and ordinances somewhat (okay, at least for faith very) unsatisfying. Faith, when described as “substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” leaves me wondering about the difference between God and electromagnetic waves or general relativity! In the case of Alma, it is worse because we bring a new term “knowledge” into the mix without an appropriate definition. After such standard definitions it is little wonder to me why we argue over semantics, and describe those who either fall away, or reject the church, as “faithless.” Faith often becomes the lynchpin for anyone who doesn’t see things our way!

Likewise, even the explanation for baptism in D&C 20 leaves me wanting. What is so magical about immersion in water? Is it entirely clear from the New Testament that Jesus was “completely submersed” in the water like we believe is necessary in LDS theology? It feels like there should be more to this ordinance than simply a bath!  Even coupling it with repentance (as it should be) just clouds the waters of my mind.

In “A Rational Theology,” Widstoe lays out a compelling alternative for these standard definitions. Not that he repudiates them, but he explicitly differentiates between the abstract meanings of the principles and ordinances, and the concrete implmentation on terra firma. I think his words are enlightening:

In God’s Plan for life on earth is a system of laws representing eternal realities, to which man must conform. Such a law, for instance, is faith, which, in its simple, universal meaning, is man’s certainty that in the universe is found everything he may desire for his upbuilding and advancement, and that the eternal relations of universal forces will prevail in the end for his good. Another such fundamental law, to which man must conform, is that of repentance, which in its larger sense is merely faith made active. Passive faith can do little for man’s advancement. Yet another such law is that of baptism, which is essentially obedience to existing laws. And still another such law is that of the gift of the Holy Ghost, which perhaps means that a man may place himself in touch with the whole of the universe, including the beings of superior intelligence that it contains, and draw knowledge from forces beyond the earth. – John A. Widstoe, “A Rational Theology” pp 42-43

Here, it is clear that the first four principles and ordinances of the Gospel are eternal laws, are independent of the LDS church, earth, priesthood, or any other convention, organization, or authority in the universe. I believe this offers us perspective on the larger context in which the specific LDS implementation resides. It also makes allowances for God’s other non-terrestrial children to experience different forms of these basic laws and principles.
Widstoe goes on to say:

Life on earth deals directly with gross matter and the forces pertaining to it. The laws formulated for the guidance of man are especially devised for earth conditions, and belong to the earth. For instance, water baptism, the symbol of obedience to God and acceptance of his love, is essentially an ordinance of and for this earth. It is not thinkable that water baptism is practiced in a future estate for water is an earth substance. If this be true, then all who enter upon the earth-career, and who desire the perfected joy derived from the Gospel, must have baptism on this earth. – John A. Widstoe, “A Rational Theology” pp 44-45

Then the all-encompassing explanation provided formerly, couched in the reality of earth life, offers a surprising explanation of vicarious ordinances, necessarily performed here, on behalf of those who did not receive them while “in the flesh.”

Should some of the spirits refuse, while on earth, to accept the Gospel, or fail to hear it, baptism, belonging to the earth, must be done for them, vicariously, on earth, so that they, having had the work done for them here, may accept or reject the ordinance in their life beyond the grave. This is the motive of the work for the dead. The earth ordinances must be done by or for every soul born upon the earth so that the earth-experience may not be in vain, should the Gospel be accepted in the remotest day of eternity. This view becomes more important when it is recalled that the ordinances of the earth, belonging primarily to the earth, stand for vast, eternal realities, indispensable to man’s progress. – John A. Widstoe, “A Rational Theology” p. 45

For me, I find the deeper theology here enriching, satisfying, and meaningful, particularly in my state of uncertainty with regard to the plenitude of truth claims in the LDS church.

So how do you view Widstoe’s rational “first four principles and ordinances”? Do his explanations provide you with more insight? Is he right? Or is this just another attempt by an “apologist” to justify his belief system? Is there scriptural backing for his claims? We do not emphasize such distinctions in the church today. Is this because we don’t really know, or is it just not important?

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.

Whether dreams come from the unconscious mind or directly from God, they are valuable sources of revelation. Dreams can tell us important things about ourselves and our relationships that may remain veiled deep in the psyche if we are unskilled at interpreting the symbolic language from which they present. The great attainment of Joseph of Egypt and the message this scriptural character brings to readers of the Old Testament is the importance of developing an ability to decode symbolic dream messages and using them to integrate our conscious and subconscious knowledge.

Joseph had a huge, almost megalomaniac faith in his interpretations of dreams.  Early in his life he risked the rebuke and envy of his father and brothers to describe to them the images of the sheaves and the sun, moon, and stars bowing down to him.  Later, when interpreting the dreams of the chief butler and baker, he attributed his interpretations to God, even though he had no evidence this was so.  His own dreams seemed refuted — far from bowing to him, his brothers sold him into Egypt and he had been cast into prison.  His confidence reminds me of Joseph Smith’s great intrepidity regarding his own visions:

“For I had seen a vision; I knew it and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it…”

Joseph Smith once said, after reading Foxe’s Book of the Martyrs, that he had “seen those martyrs, and they were honest, devoted followers of Christ, according to the light they possessed, and they will be saved”  He also saw in vision marchers in Zion’s Camp who had perished from cholera in Clay County, Missouri. He encouraged the survivors of that endeavor, saying, “Brethren, I have seen those men who died of the cholera in our camp; and the Lord knows, if I get a mansion as bright as theirs, I ask no more” .  He foresaw the struggles of the Saints in crossing the plains, their establishment in the Rocky Mountains, and the future condition of the Saints.  Of these and many other spiritual manifestations he remarked, “It is my meditation all the day & more than my meat & drink to know how I shall make the saints of God to comprehend the visions that roll like an overflowing surge, before my mind.”

Joseph of Egypt had this same certainty regarding communications from God through the medium of dreams.  When finally brought before Pharoah, he reiterated his assertion that certain dreams are communications from the Divine:

“And for that the dream was doubled unto Pharoah twice; it is because the thing is established by God, and God will shortly bring it to pass.”

This assurance seems incredible when taken into account that his own early dream had also been repeated twice but not yet brought to pass.

Today we have varying degrees of confidence in the interpretation of our own spiritual experiences.  Some are unimpressed by the fleeting images that pass through their minds in a somnolent state.  But others become adept at the language of symbolism.  They confidently assign meanings to everything from dreams to emotional impressions, and use these to order their actions and their lives.  Psychologists have noted that people tend to dream in images that are familiar to them in their culture.  For example, Native Americans may dream about the spirits of animals and the world of nature, Catholics envision the Virgin Mary, Mormons have visitations involving the temple and their dead ancestors.  This can facilitate dream interpretation, but it can also obscure it, because the images are so familiar that we don’t look deeply at the meaning behind the symbol.  In our modern world, we have emphasized the logical mind so much that we have lost the sensitivity to understand primal and pictoral forms and symbols, even those with which we are well-versed.

Often our lesson manuals apply the scriptural stories to the modern audience, as was done in Lesson 11.  Here Joseph’s rejection of Potiphar’s wife is presented as an example for the righteous member to follow in avoiding moral transgression.  I am curious why, in Lesson 12, although Joseph’s dreams play a prominent part in the lesson material, the class member is not encouraged to become more adept in interpreting dreams and visions or even to pay closer attention to unconscious symbolic messages.  Moving away from the esoteric, the manual broadly associates the scriptural passage in Genesis 40-41 with “talents,” and asks:

How can we give proper acknowledgment to the Lord for our talents and gifts? (We can use them to glorify God and bless others, not for our own glory.)

In the early days of the Church Joseph Smith reprimanded some of the members for using messages from their dreams and visions improperly.  Do we fear this will happen if we freely encourage the widespread scrutiny of these types of unconscious messages?  What does this tell us about our confidence in recognizing inspiration from the Divine?

Lesson 11 in the Old Testament manual employs several stories from Genesis 34-39 to develop the theme of sexual morality. Joseph’s actions embody the “Lord’s standards” for morality and are contrasted with the actions of Shechem, Reuben, and Judah. You may notice that the featured characters in the lesson are all male. What shall a woman do with a lesson like this? I think the idea is for women to identify with Joseph — to be virtuous when facing temptation. But Joseph is a man, his responses are male-oriented, and intentionally or not this approach will tend to render the women in your Sunday School classroom invisible.  Consideration of the female archetypes found within these chapters may yield some surprising insights.

As feminists might point out, a patriarchal “virgin/whore” stereotype divides and traps women on one side or the other.  Yet this is how our lesson is developed with regard to the female characters.  Joseph’s encounter with the wife of Potiphar introduces us to “The Whore.”  This nameless woman casts her eyes upon Joseph, and day after day entreats him to lie with her.  In a final, dramatic scene, she grabs his clothing and tears it from his body as he pulls away from her and runs off.  Then she lies and accuses him of trying to rape her.

In the next scriptural passage the lesson covers, we meet Dinah, “The Virgin.”  As with most archetypal women figures, Dinah is shadowed and one-dimensional.  She is described as a daughter and a sister to be protected and avenged by her father and brothers. She is “defiled” by Shechem, a young man of highborn status from a neighboring town.  We are not told how she feels about this lover, whose “soul clave unto [her]” and who desired to marry her.  The lesson material tells us that Shechem did not truly love Dinah, or else he would not have defiled her.  However, Genesis 34 describes his offer to pay any amount for a dowry, and his willingness to join with her people, submit to circumcision, and convince all of the men in his town to do the same. In my eyes he is a tragic and romantic figure.  I wish there was more information available about Dinah’s response to this man. But the lack of detail is necessary to preserve the asexual, archetypal element of the deflowered virgin in the story.

Perhaps it is an unconscious arrangement for the writers of this lesson to have placed these two bilateral female archetypes side by side in the lesson material, but if so, it is all the more significant.  Archetypes are elementary ideas stemming from the unconscious.  The danger in including only these two women in the lesson is that they are both powerless.  Dinah the virgin is a victim of a powerful male, and Mrs. Potiphar the whore is also rendered powerless by the virtuous Joseph who rejects her advances.  Males in the stories are shown as individuals with the ability and strength to choose and control their sexual and moral options.

One might feel constrained by the material on women available in the scriptures, however, there exists within these passages a third woman who might prove to be a foil to our figurative virgin and whore.  Let us examine the lessons taught by the actions of Tamar in Genesis 38.  Tamar is conspicuously left out of the lesson manual, though this chapter is included as part of the scripture block. Judah’s actions are briefly contrasted with the faithfulness of Joseph.  Going back to the scripture passage, we read that Judah chose Tamar to be the wife of his eldest son, Er.  When Er died, custom dictated that the next son, Onan would marry her and provide her with children.  Onan’s refusal to properly execute his responsibility resulted in his death, and the next son, Shelah, was not old enough to marry.  Judah told Tamar to go and live with her parents until Shelah was grown, and then promptly forgot or ignored the family’s responsibilities to the widow.  Several years later, Tamar conceived a plan to remind Judah of these things.

Deuteronomy 25: 5-10 shows that the law was on her side, and Tamar could have reported Judah to the authorities, legally loosened Judah’s shoe, and spit in his face.  But she was smarter than that.  In contrast to the other women acknowledged in the lesson, Tamar deliberately used her sexuality to affect her destiny.  Despite the fact that she lived in a culture where women had little power or choice over their own circumstances, she seized her opportunities and was rewarded for so doing.  If we reduce this gospel lesson down to following or not following a strict standard of sexual morality, we miss the potent, powerful, and purposeful choice of Tamar to initiate sex with her father-in-law.  This choice is presented in the scriptures as a faithful action.  The nuance and meaning of the word “righteous” as Judah uses it to describe Tamar is very significant in understanding whether her actions were justified. The Hebrew word used is tsadaq, “to be just or righteous.” This word and its derivatives are used hundreds of times throughout the Old Testament. It is used to describe the righteousness of Noah (Gen. 7:1), the Law (Deu. 4:8), David (1 Sam. 24:17), and even Jehovah (2 Chr. 12:6). The meaning is thus: correct, right before God, or justified, in a very strong sense of the word righteous. Tamar was a woman of integrity who struck out in a creative though unorthodox way to fulfill her duty to herself and her family.  Her exploit resulted in twin sons, one of whom would continue the chosen lineage and become the progenitor of the Messiah.  Tamar is a complex human being and one of the few women in the scriptural record who is described in such a rich and nuanced manner.

What is more, the story of Tamar can be nicely dovetailed with a secondary message of Lesson 11, that class members “learn how to make all experiences and circumstances work together for their good.”  Surely Tamar deserves a prominent place in Lesson 11, wherever female members form part of the class population!  Don’t you agree?

On the one hand, we teach that God is omniscient, all knowing, the smartest of the smart, prognosticator of prognosticators, etc.  OTOH, we teach the doctrine of eternal progression:  that as man is, God once was, and as God is, man may become.  We also teach that eternal progression is part of God’s plan for us, and that we are to learn and grow “line upon line, precept upon precept.”

Since “the glory of God is intelligence” (D&C 93:36) and “intelligence or the light of truth was not created nor made nor indeed can be” (D&C 93:29) and when “there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all” (Abraham 3:19) – does that mean that there are hierarchies of Gods based on intelligence or the “light of truth”?  Is intelligence something that we can’t increase?  Does that mean that eternal progression is not increasing our intelligence?

  So, what does eternal progression mean?

• Does it mean that we continue to make mistakes and learn from them?  Are we allowed to make mistakes after we die?  Does God still make mistakes?  Does he have some discarded practice earths floating around out there?  (Maybe that’s what happened to Pluto)
• Does access to knowledge constitute eternal progression (e.g. celestial Wikipedia, when the earth becomes a Urim & Thummim)?
• Does God explore strange new worlds (presumably created by other Gods), seek out new civilizations and boldly go?
• How does God become like His Father?  Is that just getting old, but no additional skills are required, kind of like going from CEO to being on the board of directors?
• Is there a God threshold?  At which point do we say “Now THAT’s Godhood.  Yesterday, that was pre-Godhood, but today you’ve arrived”?  Is that when one has atoned?  If so, are there enough atonements to go around or are there lower level God positions for those who aren’t going to go that far?
• Can stupid people become Gods?  Wouldn’t stupid Gods have stupid spiritual kids?  Do different planets have different intelligences?  What if we ARE the stupid ones?
• Wouldn’t it be boring as all get out if you were a God and there was nothing new to learn or experience?  Is God in a constant state of ennui?  Isn’t that why the Greek gods were always chasing tail and creating havoc – boredom + power?
• Isn’t lack of progress the Mormon definition of hell?  If God doesn’t progress, doesn’t that = hell?  That can’t be right.

So, take a moment to consider what your opinion is and answer the following poll:

[poll ID = "141"]

Discuss.

I think the same is true of the many scriptural accounts we have of the Creation. It is not always evident from our lesson materials that we have so many scriptural and authorized accounts, because the goal seems to be to present one harmonized depiction. But what can we learn by looking at all of them separately?

Genesis 1:1 – 2:3

It is not my intention here to get into a discussion of the Documentary Hypothesis, but suffice it to say that there are two separate Creation accounts here in Genesis. The first account focuses upon heaven-centered activity. It emphasizes the power of Deity in each step of creation. God speaks a word, it is done, and he pronounces it “good.” A straightforward, six-pronged plan is presented, in chronological order. The purpose of each creative act is also explained. For example, the firmament of Heaven is to divide the waters above and the waters below, the seas are to gather together so that dry land can appear, the vegetation is to yield seed and fruit. “Lights” are to provide lumination in the day and the night and to make possible the seasons, days and years. The fish, fowl and animals are to be fruitful and multiply after their own kind. Mankind is presented as being in the very image of God. Humans are to replenish and subdue the earth and have dominion over the other creatures. Also at the time of creation mankind was to subsist off the plants, herbs, fruit and seeds, as were the animals.

Genesis 2: 4-25

In this Creation story, humanity is the center of interest. Man is formed of the dust of the earth, pointing at his earthy, rather than heavenly origins. The Garden is described, as well as other features of the earth such as rivers, minerals, and gemstones. The separate nature of man and woman is discussed. Also in this story, Adam is given more specific instructions than in Genesis 1. He is told to care for the garden, and to stay away from the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Adam names the creatures and discusses his relationship with Woman.

There are essentially five supposed discrepancies between chapter one and two of the Genesis’ account of creation (the following was arranged and succinctly worded by Isidor Kalisch ).

1. In chapter one vegetation is immediately produced by the will of God, in the second “account” its existence is made dependent on rain and mists;
2. In the first the earth emerges from the waters and therefore, contains necessary moisture, in the second it appears dry and sandy;
3. In the first man and his wife are created together, in the second the wife is formed later and from a part of man;
4. In the former man bears the image of God and is made ruler of the whole earth, in the latter his earth-formed body is only animated by the breath of life and he is placed in Eden to cultivate and to guard it;
5. In the former the birds and beasts are created before man, in the latter man before birds and beasts.

These five comparisons constitute the so-called insoluble contradictions between chapters one and two. There have been many attempts to reconcile the contradictions, but I enjoy savoring the principles each separate story can teach. For example, Genesis 1 teaches of the unity of mankind (male and female together) and their creation in the express image of Deity. The human is the culmination in the formation of life. Genesis 2 presents geologic, atmospheric and biological dependencies and interconnections. It hints that there is more to the creation process than the figurative and lyrical story told in the first account.

Moses 2-3

This account is presented as a recitation by God, telling Moses how the Creation took place. Its framework is the same as the combined Genesis accounts, with some important differences. In the Moses account there is a clarification that there was a planned or spirit creation of all living things in heaven before they were created physically upon the earth. Its personal nature (“And I, God, said…”) highlights the Father’s close involvement in each aspect of the work. Interestingly, the “Only Begotten” joins God on the sixth day and is referenced as the pattern in whose image man was created. The lights in the firmament are specifically called sun, moon, and stars. Trees and animals are presented as having “living souls.” Into the commandment not to eat of the tree of knowledge a disclaimer is placed: “nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; but, remember that I forbid it…”

I see this account as somewhat gnostic. Moses is given specialized, personal knowledge of the Creation, passed on to him by God himself. It makes me wonder what I might see, what small details I might notice, what symbolic items would be present, if I were given an individual revelatory view of the Creation.

Abraham 4-5

Abraham’s account is similar to Moses’, but is given in the third person. Abraham describes what the Lord has shown him concerning the Creation. The most obvious difference here is that instead of One God creating the earth, the Gods act in Council to create the earth. (“And the Gods organized the earth…and the Gods saw that they were obeyed.”) the six days of creation are presented as decisions that the Gods made as they counseled together. This same hierarchical arrangement is noted in other aspects of the account. For example, Abraham describes many stars, one above another, with their different periods and orders of government. He also tells of eternally existing spirits, one above the other in intelligence.

Several key words are changed in the Abraham account. The words “organized” and “formed” are used, perhaps to contradict the notion of creation ex nihilo. The firmament is renamed “expanse” (which is a better translation of the Hebrew word raqiya). The days are called “times,” which supports the theory that each Biblical day could have been much longer than 24 hours, perhaps even thousands of years, and allows for a belief in evolution and an “old earth.” Time in the Garden of Eden before the Fall is reckoned according to the time of Kolob (1 day = 1000 years).

An interesting phrase is found in Chapter 4:18 “And the Gods watched those things which they had ordered until they obeyed.” This is one of the verses which gave rise to Cleon Skousen’s interesting speculations on the Atonement.

The formation of mankind is seen as a committee decision. Humans are created and blessed in the image of the Gods, “and behold, they shall be very obedient.”

Although this account is presented as being more compatible with a scientific view of creation, it is also the most objectionable to mainstream Christian theology.

The Temple Account

The endowment ceremony in the LDS temples presents another authorized version of the creation. It provides yet another view of how the Gods were involved in the creation process. Here Elohim (God the Father) directs Jehovah and Michael to go down to complete the work of each of the six creative periods, then return and report that these things have been done. In the temple account, the events which occur on each day are greatly changed from how they are presented in the scriptural accounts, and are as follows:

• Day 1: The world is organized.
• Day 2: The waters are gathered together and the dry land appears.
• Day 3: The light and darkness are divided as described in Day 1 of the scriptural accounts, and the lights in the firmament appear, as described in Day 4 of the scriptural accounts.
• Day 4: Seeds are placed in the earth, and vegetation grows.
• Day 5: All manner of animal life is formed–fowl, fish, creeping things, and other animals.
• Day 6: Adam and Eve are formed.

I find it interesting to contemplate the order of the creative events as found in the Temple account.

Just as in the Joseph Smith accounts of the First Vision, I don’t believe it is possible to completely harmonize the Creation passages. The Sunday School manual does make an attempt to do so as follows:

“How do the accounts of the Creation found in Genesis, Moses, and Abraham differ from each other? (Abraham and Moses saw in vision the organizing of this earth and then recorded their visions. Each included slightly different details. The account in Genesis was originally written by Moses, but some of the fulness of his account was lost. This fulness is restored in the book of Moses.)”

I believe there are many things to be learned from the other accounts that are contained neither in the “fulness” of the chapters in Moses, nor even in the Temple presentation. I hope I have convinced you that there is much to be gained by the study of each account as it stands, without a futile attempt at harmonization.

A statement has been circulated that asserts in part that the youth of the Church today “were generals in the war in heaven . . . and someone will ask you, ‘Which of the prophet’s time did you live in?’ and when you say ‘Gordon B. Hinckley’ a hush will fall, . . . and all in attendance will bow at your presence. [You were held back six thousand years because you were the most talented, most obedient, most courageous, and most righteous.]”*

This is a false statement. It is not Church doctrine. At various times, this statement has been attributed erroneously to President Thomas S. Monson, President Henry B. Eyring, President Boyd K. Packer, and others. None of these Brethren made this statement. Stake presidents and bishops should see that it is not used in Church talks, classes, bulletins, or newsletters. Priesthood leaders should correct anyone who attempts to perpetuate its use by any means, in accordance with “Statements Attributed to Church Leaders,” Church Handbook of Instructions, Book 1 (2006), 173.

Although this is not Church doctrine, I don’t see much which distinguishes it from the following quotation in our approved Sunday School Lesson #2:

President Ezra Taft Benson taught:

“God has held you in reserve to make your appearance in the final days before the second coming of the Lord. Some individuals will fall away; but the kingdom of God will remain intact to welcome the return of its head — even Jesus Christ. While our generation will be comparable in wickedness to the days of Noah, when the Lord cleansed the earth by flood, there is a major difference this time. It is that God has saved for the final inning some of His strongest children, who will help bear off the kingdom triumphantly. …

“… Make no mistake about it—you are a marked generation. There has never been more expected of the faithful in such a short period of time than there is of us” (The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson [1988], 104–5).

I’ve been scratching my head all evening wondering why the Church would come out so emphatically against the “generals in heaven” quote, denouncing it as false doctrine, and yet retain these very similar teachings in the manual. I suppose it might be because of the notion that someone in heaven would bow to anyone other than a member of the Godhead; however, if we become gods when we are exalted that’s not as heretical as it seems. Perhaps the problem lies in the substitution of being chosen as a heavy responsibility for a kind of entitlement or specialness. But this is very subtle. The entire Sunday School lesson, based on Abraham 3 and Moses 4:1–4 expounds our own unique spin on Calvinism and the doctrine of election. In the vision recorded in Abraham 3, the Lord showed Abraham the Council in Heaven that was held before the earth was created. Present at the Council were “many of the noble and great ones,” including (as enumerated in D&C 138) Adam, Eve, Abel, Seth, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Elias, Malachi, Elijah, Nephite prophets, Joseph Smith, Hyrum, Brigham, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, “and other choice spirits who were reserved to come forth in the fulness of times.” These spirits, the lesson teaches, were foreordained to do important things for the kingdom of God during their mortal lives. Including ourselves in that list of scriptural V.I.P.s is heady nectar.

That’s a very careful word — “foreordination.” We teach that even though a person is foreordained to a calling, that calling is dependent on the person’s worthiness and willingness to accept it. We may have been righteous in the premortal “first estate,” but that doesn’t guarantee the keeping of our second estate here on earth. In this way, we stay a pace away from predestination. But foreordination is a loaded word for twentieth-century Mormons.

Episode 22 of Season 7 and the series finale of Buffy the Vampire Slayer is titled “Chosen.” In this episode Buffy comes up with a plan which involves Willow performing a difficult spell. The magic activates Potentials all over the world, defying the tradition of only one Slayer per generation. As the screen shows a montage of young women, Buffy’s voice-over says:

From now on, every girl in the world who might be a slayer…
A young woman stands at the plate staring at the pitcher, waiting to bat. She looks a little nervous.

will be a slayer.
A young woman breathes heavily as she leans on her locker for support.

Every girl who could have the power…
A young woman is lying across the floor, having fallen out of her chair.

will have the power… can stand up,
In a Japanese-style dining room, a young woman stands up at family dinner.

will stand up.
A young woman grabs the wrist of a man who’s trying to slap her face, preventing him.

Slayers… every one of us. Make your choice.
The girl at the plate changes from nervous to confident, smiling as she waits for the pitch.
Are you ready to be strong?

This scene gives me the same kind of feeling I used to have as a young adult, when countless Church leaders spoke to groups of us telling us that WE were the chosen, saved for the Latter-Days, to prepare the world and usher in the Millennium. That’s the feeling I got when I heard the word “foreordination.” It still gives me shivers, thinking about it. I wasn’t a member yet, but in 1970 I was 11 years old when President Joseph Fielding Smith declared: “Our young people … are the nobility of heaven, a choice and chosen generation who have a divine destiny. Their spirits have been reserved to come forth in this day when the gospel is on the earth, and when the Lord needs valiant servants to carry on his great latter-day work.” I was part of that generation. But then I had children, and they grew, and became the Youth of Zion themselves, and suddenly the leaders were telling THEM they were the marked ones. “This is the greatest age in the history of the world, and its youth are a chosen generation,” President Hinckley told them in 1995. And then in November, my daughter brought forth my firstborn grandchild, and a third generation is beginning to rise up since I heard those words.

OT SS Lesson #2 states that its objective is “To help class members understand the doctrine of foreordination and their own responsibility to help build up the kingdom of God and bring souls to Christ.” Do you think this is the intended meaning of the scripture block in Abraham 3, Moses 4, and D&C 138? Do you think you were part of the Council in Heaven described there? Does the doctrine of foreordination as you have been taught it give you a sense of specialness and entitlement? Were you taught you would usher in the Millennium? Do you feel your day of being a chosen generation of youth has passed you by?

________________________________________________________________________________
*Bracketed portion of the circulated quote not included in the First Presidency letter.

 [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?

Select two class members and hand them a bag that contains a few everyday items. Tell the participants that they are going to play a game, but do not give instructions or explain the object of the game. Ask the participants to open the bag and begin playing. They will expect the contents of the bag to explain the game. However, the contents do not provide this information, and the participants will wonder what they are supposed to do.

Our family enjoys searching thrift stores for old and obsolete games. If you’ve never heard of it, so much the better! Sometimes the games come with missing parts, and very often the instructions are missing. We have a lot of fun constructing a game out of what is in the box. Sometimes it’s obvious how to play, and sometimes we have to be creative, making up intricate rules as we go. We always end up with a family version — and if anyone who actually knew how to play the game should sit down with us, they might become frustrated that we weren’t playing by the “right” rules.

I guess that’s why this object lesson made such an impression on me. It occurred to me that this is a big reason why the Mormons and the evangelicals (indeed, any two religious sects) have such a problem with each other. We have the scriptures–the game in the box–although some of the pieces are missing, and there are no instructions. Each religious tradition has developed their own rules of how to play the game, what the purpose is, what the final goal shall be. For Mormons, we are here on earth to prove ourselves, to see if we will live the commandments, to perfect ourselves and come into the presence of God. So this is what we emphasize as we read the scriptures and expound our faith. This emphasis can sometimes look as if we are too focused on the “works” aspect of the gospel. The evangelicals have developed a set of instructions which is similar, but their emphasis is to discover a belief and faith in Jesus Christ, to develop a relationship with him and come to the Father through trust in the Atonement. They are playing the game just a bit differently.

There are some religious traditions which would assert that these things don’t really matter–that the skills we learn as we play the game are what is important: if we are getting better at being fair, honest, helping our fellow players, and moving our game piece to the final goal, we are accomplishing the purpose of life. Other religions, such as ours, put a lot of emphasis on if we are playing the game “right.” Baptism doesn’t count if you don’t have the right authority, all of the proper ordinances must be taken care of, certain commandments must be lived, or we won’t develop the kind of personality that can come into God’s presence.

So do you think the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has the true instructions? Do you think there IS one true set of instructions on how to play this game of life? What is the purpose of this game we are playing? Are you finding satisfactory answers in Lesson 1, and in the corresponding scripture block Moses 1, or do you think there is more to it?

1. probably Elder Oaks or Elder Holland will be, or will have been,president by then.
2. I hope, by that time, the Lord will have seen fit to call one or two non-caucasians to the 12.
3. Some sermons in conference will be given in a non-English language, with simultaneous translation available for English speakers.
4. The Church will have, in some way, formally disavowed teachings on the curse of Cain/Ham and any teaching that the practice of withholding priesthood/temple on the basis of lineage/race had its origins before the Restoration.
5. There will be a continued outreach to the GLBT community. While the Church will not recognize or perform same sex marriages, it may well permit GLBT individuals in a committed monogamous union to retain their formal membership, but not attend the temple or exercise the priesthood (sort of like the Church’s current position on those who have undergone”elective” transsexual surgery and who join the Church or who are rebaptized).
6. Some sort of initiative will address the problem of excluding nonmember parents from weddings of their children when those weddings take place in the temple. My guess is that the automatic one year wait rule will be softened to accommodate those faithful members who wish their parents to witness the “for time” portion of the ceremony.
7. Women will be invited to offer open and/or closing prayers in general conference. A woman will be appointed as president of at least one of the Church universities.
8. The teaching and practice of women being permitted to join with their husbands in blessing their sick children will again officially become permitted and/or encouraged.
9. The weekly priesthood executive committee will be expanded to include the RS president and YW president. Presidents of auxiliaries will be referred to as “President”.
10. Another attempt at simplifying Church programs will occur. The three hour block may be reduced to two and one-half hours. It is possible that priesthood/relief society and Sunday School will be held on alternate Sundays.
11. Small Church post-secondary colleges may be established in Mexico, Brazil, the Philipines, and Chile. The tithing subsidy for tuition at the BYU campuses in the U.S. might be reduced to provide a similar subsidy to students at the non-U.S. campuses. Alternatively, the BYU campuses might be spun off entirely, in the same way the Church hospitals were. They would remain LDS in focus, but without the tithing subsidy. Or, if that does not occur, then greater equality of US and nonUs members might be attained by a greater subsidy to PEF out of tithing, in the same manner the Church universities are subsidized.
12. Small temples will continue to be built throughout the world, perhaps reaching 200 or 250 temples.
13. Missionaries will be permitted to teach in China and in many parts of the Middle East. The Church will strengthen its ties to Islamic countries and representatives. For the first time since the Church was established in Indonesia, the most populous Muslim nation in the world, there will be a serious and significant increase in conversions in that country.
14. The birthrate of LDS in the US will increase slightly, but not return to baby boom levels. Divorce rates will stabilize or drop somewhat.
15. As the baby boom retires, the number of senior missionaries will increase significantly, however, the relative proportion of members serving missions will remain steady. If Church membership of record increases to 20 million (about 50%), then the number of full the full time missionaries serving at that time will also increase about 50% (to 80,000 or 90,000).
16. The Church will once again begin making occasional disclosures of its finances.
17. Retention levels will continue a slow increase. Addiction recovery programs meetings (including pornography addiction support groups) will be part of this growth in retention, helping new converts (or lapsed members) address pernicious addictions in a safe, supportive environment, to return to complete spiritual health.
18. There will continue to be a strengthened emphasis on the Book of Mormon, and its teachings of gospel fundamentals such as God’s grace, free moral agency, redemption, and forgiveness. Further discouragement of the use of guilt as a motivator, and greater use of support and positive encouragement.
19. The Proclamation on the Family may become section 132, and the current section 132 will either be removed entirely (like the Lectures on Faith) or will be added as an historical footnote (like the footnote at the end of Joseph Smith-History).

So, these are my predictions for the church in the next 20 years.  What are your predictions?  Which of my predictions do you think unlikely?  Which do you think will happen?  Discuss.

‘In recent years [Church Leaders] might be compared to a team of doctors: issuing prescriptions to cure or to immunize our members against spiritual diseases. Each time some moral or spiritual ailment was diagnosed, we have rushed to the pharmacy to concoct another remedy, encapsulate it as a program and send it out with pages of directions to use.  While we all seem to agree that overmedication, over-programming, is a critically serious problem, we have failed to reduce the treatments. It has been virtually impossible to affect any reduction in programs.  Each time we try, advocates cry to high heaven that we are putting the spiritual lives of our youth at risk. If symptoms reappear, we program even heavier doses of interviews, activities, meetings, and assessment’

‘The whole correlation effort, which took about twenty years, followed that course and much was accomplished. The habits for moral and spiritual health were defined. The scriptures were prescribed as the basic nourishment. The curriculum, loaded with spiritual nutrients, was developed but we did not allow time for it to work and we failed to close the pharmacy or even effectively control it.  We now have ourselves in a corner.’

‘The hardest ailment to treat is a virtue carried to the extreme. We cannot seem to learn that too much, even of a good thing, or too many good things, like vitamins taken in overdose, can be harmful. In recent years I have felt, and I think I am not alone, that we were losing the ability to correct the course of the Church.’

‘Both Alma and Helaman told of the Church in their day.  They warned about fast growth, the desire to be accepted by the world, to be popular, and particularly they warned about prosperity.  Each time those conditions existed in combination, the Church drifted off course. All of those conditions are present in the Church today.’

‘The patience of the Lord with all of us who are in leadership position, is not without limits.’

‘The most dangerous side effect of all we have prescribed in the way of programming and instruction and all, is the overregimentation of the Church. This overregimentation is a direct result of too many programmed instructions.’

‘It is not that any one thing we have been doing is wrong, for we have acted with the best of intentions. Some of us remember when President Kimball saw the outlay of curriculum and the vast display of printed material. He said he was frightened, “We have done it all with the best intentions.”‘

‘Latter-day Saints will come to depend upon the Lord instead of upon the headquarters of the Church.’

‘Matters with deepest doctrinal significance must be left to married couples and to parents to decide for themselves. We have referred them to gospel principles and left them to exercise their moral agency.’

I acknowledge that this is one side of the story, but it is a real dimension.  A facet that I appreciated seeing from Elder Packer.  I think there is much here which is of value, and has led me to think deeply about my own participation in the Church and my response to it and the programmes offered by it.

My questions are these:

Is there anything of value in his remarks?

Given that this was presented nearly 20 years ago, have we seen Elder Packer’s counsel followed?

Let’s start with faith.  There are many definitions of faith, and each religion seems to place a slightly different emphasis on faith and its meaning.  From Wikipedia: “faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth of or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.”  In Christianity faith is an act of trust or reliance on Deity.  In this way it is distinguished by the object of its faith rather than the faith itself [1].  In Islam, faith is a complete submission of will to Allah.  In Hinduism it means an unshaken belief and purity of thought.  In Buddhism faith connotates a feeling of conviction, specifically a conviction that something is, a determination to accomplish one’s goals, and a sense of joy deriving from these two.

There is another important aspect of some people’s faith – fideism.  Fideism is the idea of having faith for the sake of having faith.  That is to say, it does not rely on logic, or reason of any kind.  It is independent of reason, and even holds that reason and faith are diametrically opposed.  This may lead us, in the church, to shun intellectualism and focus instead on faith.  For many TBMs, faith trumps logic.  Some believe that the events of the restoration were physical, external realities.  This can result in viewing our own spiritual experiences as evidence of external realities.  We are taught from a young age that the “Spirit” will direct us, put thoughts in our head, prompt us to do things, not do things, comfort us, and even tell us what is “true.”

Intellectualism (rationalism, reason, logic, etc.) is “any of a number of views regarding the use or development of the intellect . . .”  It is sometimes synonymously viewed with “rationalism” the idea that knowledge is derived through reasoning [2].

In my life I have had thoughts come into my head, felt comfort, and felt promptings.  However, it has never been clear to me, since some of these thoughts were wrong and uninspired, how to distinguish “spiritual promptings” I should heed, from just plain ‘ole regular thoughts.  In other words, my “thoughts,” or “promptings” or “experiences” have not always been a manifestation of external truth or reality.

Science is often the “poster child” for intellectualism.  But it indeed has a strong track record.  It is repeatable, reliable, and effective at describing the physical realities that surround us.  Although science is imperfect, its mechanisms are very good, indeed inspired.  On the downside, science is not spiritual.  Science doesn’t write poetry, compose music, paint pictures, or do other activities meet humanity’s spiritual needs.  Science is a utility.  It is one of many tools in the toolbox of life.  It complements faith.

Faith, on the other hand, inspires us, makes us happier, makes us feel good.  It serves as a guide to help us know right from wrong.  It gives us comfort, something to rely upon, and hold to.  I believe that faith is the soul’s innermost desire to express itself, to be born, to come out, to manifest itself in the world around us.  Arguably most importantly, faith moves us to action, and that action is a manifestation of the spiritual being within.  There is great worth in this concept.  It is in this sense, that I believe that faith, like science, is a tool in our toolbox of life.

Having said this, why is it that so many view intellectualism as mutually exclusive to faith?  Might I suggest one possible cause; that religions and people have a psychological affinity for treating the spiritual as physical realities.  Studies have shown that people who have sleep-paralysis, after having an episode, associate the events with reality.  They literally are unable to distinguish the fact that it was a dream.  Is it possible that this happens at the subconscious level even while awake?  Certainly for some people this will be more pronounced than for others.  This can help explain why Joseph had many visions, revelations, etc. which he deemed external realities, yet many, and even most, prophets after him have not.  Joseph was a visionary, for whatever reason.  That does not necessarily mean that his experiences were literal, external, physical realities.  And what if, indeed, they weren’t?

This does not, in my mind, diminish the idea that the metaphorical ideas shared through these experiences can help us in our lives.  Nor does it mean that the organization that he started was worthless even if it’s origins were slightly less miraculous than we like to tell.  Muhammad had visions, and conversations with the angel Gabriel which were eventually written down to form the Quran.  The idea that Muhammad wrote that book himself is heretical to a Muslim.  Yet if it really came from the angel Gabriel should we not heed the teachings contained therein?  But in Mormonism we don’t.  In fact, we don’t give it a second thought.  My solution to this conundrum is the same as that of Joseph.  Muhammad was a visionary.  He even wrote a beautifully inspired book that is every bit as sacred, special, and inspired as the Book of Mormon. However, I would suggest that the truths therein, and even his conversations with the angel Gabriel were internal experiences and metaphors.

This viewpoint makes it a lot easier for me to have faith in Joseph’s teachings, Christ, God, etc.  I have internalized these concepts.  They are metaphors for my spirituality.  I don’t need to reconcile them with science.  I don’t need to reconcile them with reason, or logic, or rationalism.  And I don’t need to reconcile them with any specific brand of religion as they all have metaphors that can help me in my life.  I can have the celestial kingdom right here, right now in my life, by being humble, kind, loving others, etc.  If we will live the way He advocated, we can unleash the inner god and in this way have a testimony of the doctrine.  This, I believe is what Jesus meant when he said “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.”  (John 7:17)

Is faith in an external reality necessary for spiritual growth?  If faith moves us to action, is faith in metaphorical ideas as powerful as faith in physical realities?  Does intellectualism present a problem for faith in external realities?  Is that problem reduced if we only have faith in metaphorical ideas?

Discuss.

[1] Wikipedia article on faith.
[2] Wikipedia article on intellectualism

[poll id="3"]

It is in the early stages at the moment but I’m looking forward to seeing great things from it. If you’re looking for a more articulate extension of some of the thoughts and ideas I’ve expressed here, check out the following article, called Toward a Mormon Renaissance by James Goldberg:

http://mormonartist.net/issue-1/essay/

For myself, I’d like to relate a story that shows how, to me anyway, lyrics can be scripture. I am incredibly compelled by the story of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, a book by Douglas Adams. Without going into full detail, he gives a fictional and humorous account of the creation of the Earth, and how it is merely a gigantic computer so complex that life itself on it is part of the hardware, and it was built to discover, in short, the meaning of life.

If I look at my own life, in many ways I believe that it’s true. We are counseled that if we go to the temple or the scriptures with deep questions, we can “plug” those questions in and the output will be the correct answer, through revelation. I’ve found that life, itself, can be our “computer.” This world was built by Christ, with complexities we can’t even fathom, and I’ve found that when I look to the Earth and my own surroundings with deep questions, life sometimes spits the answer right back at me and I know that God is taking care of me.

A few months ago I interviewed a friend who goes by the stage name Young Sim when he raps, and I’ve been interested in his music as of late. He is a courageous young man who served in the same mission as me, and I was always inspired by his musical tenacity, but it was a line in one of his songs that stuck with me. Almost as an aside at the end of his song “Respect Me,” Sim mentions “you’re gonna be before that judgment bar by yourself, and you’re gonna be in that pine box by yourself.” The first time I heard that line, maybe six months ago, I filed it away in my mind.

Since then, it seems that every major life decision I’ve made has been influenced by those lines. Every time I begin to worry what other people think of me, whether they think my decisions are right, I think of those lines. They lead me to think that I have to do what I think is right, no matter what anyone else thinks. When it comes down to it, my agency is my own. I am the master of my own fate, and at the end, I will give an accounting of my actions, good and bad, to my Savior and to my God. I won’t be able to blame anyone else or point fingers at that time. It’s between me and God.

I’ve been so thankful to my friend Sim for including those lines in his song because they have inspired me to make the right decisions. I hope to continue to use them.

I firmly believe that others can use their lives as Scripture just as I use these lines as Scripture. Some people find their inspiration in sports, or paintings. Some people are interested in microbiology or even mathematics, and they find answers in these things, and they find God in these things. Life, the Universe, and Everything, it seems, can be Scripture if seen in the right light.

To read Arthur’s interview with Young Sim click here.  For more information on his music, click here.