for any interested uvsc students, this fall brian birch will be teaching a course on mormon theology. the class will discuss various perspectives of mormon theology, eschatology, soteriology, ecclesiology, christology, anthropology, and scripture(-ology?) and compare that against the background of the broader christian tradition.
a few nights ago, i caught the beginning of a simpsons episode where ned flanders and reverend lovejoy were confronting principle skinner about evolution being taught in the school.
flanders and lovejoy: the children should be taught an alternative to darwinian evolution!
skinner: you mean lamarckian evolution?
yeah, i thought it was pretty funny too.
the differing and sometimes evolving views of evolution (while lamarckian evolution has been discounted, there are also newer neo-darwinism and neo-lemarckism in the scene) had me thinking about the varying creation myths within mormonism (i use the word myths in the sense of religious narrative, and not necessarily to denote fantasy or supernatural). off the top of my head, i could come up with at least 6 different mormon creation myths.
the first two come from the genesis account and lay the foundations for all other accounts.
1. the priestly version is contained in genesis chapter 1 through the third verse of chapter 2. in this account, god (el/ohim) creates the heavens, earth, and life in seven days. humanity is created in god's image and then god considers the work done.
2. the yahwist account begins in the fourth verse of chapter 2. in this version no duration of time is given. god forms adam out of mud, breathes life into him, removes a rib from adam with which god creates eve, god then plants the garden of eden and places the naked couple in the garden. the whole garden story is a part of the yahwist account.
3. the mosaic version in the book of moses combines the priestly and yahwist versions, but tries to reconcile the two by making a distinction between spiritual creation and material creation. the serpent is directly identified as satan, though is still a serpent in form. after their banishment from the garden particulars about their lives, worship, and families are further elaborated on.
4. the abrahamic version in the book of abraham begins with a pre-creation account where the process is planned and discussed. the monotheism of the earlier accounts is replaced with a plurality of gods. like the mosaic account, both the priestly and yahwist accounts are both used. unlike the mosaic account, this time the priestly version is presented as the plan, while the yahwist account is the implementation. the garden myth is only briefly introduced.
5. the endowment version was first introduced by joseph smith. it combines the priestly and yahwist accounts but presents them both as material creations. the gods of the abrahamic account are given a hierarchical order, satan is now in the form of a human, and various endowment rituals are intermixed within the narrative. over the last century various charactersand storylines have come and gone.
6. the adam-god version was taught as revealed doctrine by brigham young and his counselors. some have attributed it to joseph smith. in this account, god the father takes on mortality and becomes adam. one of god's plural wives also takes on mortality and becomes eve.
while certain reconciliations or denials have been attempted, the differences seem to me to be too distinct and sometimes too drastic for reconciliation. instead each should be understood as a single and self-sufficient creation myth. the key to making sense of them is in the endowment and mosaic accounts where adam represents each individual human "which is many"(moses 1:34). each creation myth should not be understood in terms of modern science, but in terms of religious identification, myth, and understanding. they are true, not by correlation to any scientific method, but by correlation to human experience, purpose, and value. each rendition is provided to express a different divine understanding of humanity.
this week's essay is one of my all-time favorite mormon essays ever. eugene england's "the weeping god of mormonism" highlights some of the greatest and largely ignored aspects of mormon theology.
england begins with a discussion raised by enoch's witness of a weeping god:
The answers to Enoch's questions reveal a concept of God which, I believe, is the essential foundation of all Mormon theology, one that makes our theology radically different from most others. However, it is also a concept which many Mormons, like the younger Enoch, still have not understood or quite accepted. Enoch asks God in amazement, "How it is thou canst weep, seeing thou art holy, and from all eternity to all eternity?" (Moses 7:29). In other words, Enoch wonders, how can an absolute and, thus, all-powerful being do such a human thing as weep? Humans weep in response to tragic events they cannot change; God can change or prevent them, so why should he weep?after finishing his discussion of the problems and failings of the traditonal view of an 'all-powerful' and other 'omni's god, he closes with:
Much of both my private reading of the scriptures and my public religious life is filled with stories and testimonies about how God has intervened in people's lives, destroying their enemies, helping them find a coin, protecting them from accidental injury or death, putting a book or person or divine voice in their way that led to their conversion. But while I tend to believe such witnesses because I too have experienced what I believe is such intervention from God in my life, I increasingly experience those stories as tragic. Each one reminds me of the innumerable occasions when my weeping God does not intervene, when a Hitler is not destroyed, a crucial passport is not found, a faithful missionary is killed, a young man pleads with God for a witness of the Book of Mormon and hears silence. At such times God seems too limited, too finite, too powerless in his weeping. It is a tragedy to believe in such a God; it would be a tragedy to lose such an understanding of him. At the very end of the Bible, John the Revelator is given a vision much like Enoch's; in fact, he sees Enoch's holy city, the New Jerusalem in the latter days "coming down from God out of heaven. . .And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people. . . .And God shall wipe away all tears from their eye" (Rev. 21:3-4). This is the great hope and consolation for all believers. For Mormons, it has the added poignance that as he wipes away those tears, God himself will be weeping for the residue of his children who are not there.
i just finished reading an advance copy of my friend joe vogel's book, free speech 101. my getting to read an advance copy was contingent upon me writing a review for it. so here it is. in all seriousness, it was an excellent read that i would recommend to anyone and everyone. it comes out in mid august. you can reserve a copy for only $9.97 at amazon.com.
Do conservatives fear free speech? Rather than merely answering this question, Joe Vogel recounts his experience as a Vice-President of UVSC's student body responsible for inviting the 'liberal' filmmaker Michael Moore to speak just weeks before the monumental 2004 presidential elections. Though the story behind Free Speech 101 takes place in Utah County, it is a paradigm example of the struggles that occur as a predominantly conservative community is confronted with new ideas and new voices. As a key participant in the event, Vogel provides behind the scenes insights of the battle for free speech, showing how some may use their politics, power and money to silence ideas that differ from their own.
Through his own first-person narrative, Vogel illustrates that the fight for free speech is not an issue only affecting nations and communities, but is an issue strongly affecting each individual member and voice of those communities – liberal or conservative.
this is a little something interesting i read in d. michael quinn's "the mormon hierarchy: extenstions of power." after having read of some of the great and loving stances hugh b. brown had made as a general authority, i found this quite touching.
Hugh B. Brown privately related a charasmatic experience which seems unprecedented among twentieth-century apostles. Following a decade of service as a counselor in the First Presidency, Brown was release in 1970 and resumed his position in the Quorum of the Twelve. In physicl decline and unhappy at his release from the Presidency, Brown had an experience which he related to his nephew:
"He said it was not a vision, but the Lord appeared to him, very informal, the same as I was sitting talking to him. The Lord said, ‘You have had some difficult times in your life.’ Uncle Hugh responded, ‘Yes, and your life was more difficult than any of us have had.’ In the conversation Uncle Hugh asked when he would be finished here, and the Lord said, ‘I don’t know and I wouldn’t tell you if I did.’ Then He said, ‘Remain faithful to the end, and everything will be all right.’"
this will be the first of what will hopefully be weekly discussions of what i feel are some of the 'must-read' mormon essays.
in light of the recent discussions on church history, i have decided to begin with two talks on doing mormon history. the first is elder boyd k. packer's "the mantle is far, far greater than the intellect" that he presented to byu and church educators in the 1981 ces symposium.
there seems to be a presupposition underlying packer's philosophy that there exists a strict dichotomy between 'faithful' history and scholarly history (that would be accepted by 'intellectually trained' secular academia). of non-mormon historians packer says
They do not know of the things of the Spirit. . . . These professors say of themselves that religious faith has little influence on Mormon scholars. They say this because, obviously, they are not simply Latter-day Saints but are also intellectuals trained, for the most part, in secular institutions. They would that some historians who are Latter-day Saints write history as they were taught in graduate school, rather than as Mormons.after claiming that faithful lds history cannot be done without appeals to the spirit and revelation, packer nexts argues that certain aspects of lds history should remain buried.
There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher Of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not.this is accompanied with a threat of judgment to historians that do actual history.
Some things that are true are not very useful.
The writer or the teacher who has an exaggerated loyalty to the theory that everything must be told is laying a foundation for his own judgment. He should not complain if one day he himself receives as he has given. Perhaps that is what is contemplated in having one's sins preached from the housetops. . . .granted, he does promote a milk-before-meat philosophy, however it is clear from his actions and rhetoric that he does not think the meat should ever be offered. if my mother raised me in this way, i'd be twenty-seven and still nursing on her breasts (i know, not a happy thought).
. . . . He is serving the wrong master, and unless he repents, he will not be among the faithful in the eternities. . . . If that one is a member of the Church, he has broken his covenants and will be accountable. After all of the tomorrows of mortality have been finished, he will not stand where be might have stood.
I want to say something to that historian and to others who may have placed higher value on intellect than upon the mantle.this was pretty much the reason why howard w. hunter turned down his calling to be the church historian and pushed to call an actual historian to run the church archives, as well as pushed to have the church historical archives opened for research - all of which were opposed by packer. i also find it humoring that he begins his plea with the claim that "The Brethren then and now are men, very ordinary men, who have come for the most part from very humble beginnings" - the very thing that he criticized historians for affirming.The Brethren then and now are men, very ordinary men, who have come for the most part from very humble beginnings. We need your help! We desperately need it. We cannot research and organize the history of the Church. We do not have the time to do it. And we do not have the training that you possess. But we do know the Spirit and how essential a part of our history it is. Ours is the duty to organize the Church, to set it in order, to confer the keys of authority, to perform the ordinances, to watch the borders of the kingdom and carry burdens, heavy burdens, for others and for ourselves that you can know little about.
It does disservice to the church for LDS historians to render themselves subject to the criticism that they have ignored readily available and previously published materials. If such material is sensitive, controversial, unworthy, unsavory, or sensational, then it is a matter of the author's judgment of its importance whether the item should be quoted, paraphrased, or only referred to in a note. It is careless, if not dishonest, to write as if such evidence did not exist.in response to (then) elder bensons admonition that historians do not discuss environmental influences on joseph smith and others, quinn replies
It is obvious that Elder Benson opposed the idea that Joseph Smith invented something he called revelation that was a product of his own mind and of his culture and environment. As both a believing Latter-day Saint and historian, I also oppose such conclusions. One can acknowledge the influence of environment and contemporary circumstance and still affirm the actuality of divine revelation. In Mormon doctrine, revelation comes because of specific questions that individuals or prophets ask God, and those questions usually arise in the minds of prophets because of conditions they observe or experience.quinn further disagrees that lds historians should do as benson and packer wish and do history as if the hand of the lord was involved in ever step. rather Mormon historians
Without environmental influence or surrounding significant circumstances, there would be no revelations from God to the prophets. And the changing circumstances and environment of the world are the very reasons Latter-day Saints affirm that there must be living prophets to respond with the word of the Lord to the new circumstances. If we write Mormon history as though its developments occurred without reference to surrounding circumstances, we undermine the claims for the restoration of living prophets. This is one of many areas in Mormon history where an alleged defense is actually a disservice to the Saints.
would be false to their understanding of LDS doctrine, the sacred history of the scriptures, the realities of human conduct, and the documentary evidence of Mormonism if they sought to defend the proposition that LDS prophets are infallible in their decisions and statements. Moreover, it would be hardly less false to allow readers of Mormon history to draw the implicit conclusion that LDS prophets were infallible, because Mormon historians presented church history as though every decision and statement came as the result of direct revelation.against the idea that leaders' frailities should never be portrayed in church history, quinn offers what i feel is his best arguement - that such an idea goes against the very notion of sacred history contained in lds scripture.
Mormon historians have both a religious and professional obligation not to conceal the ambivalence, debate, give-and-take, uncertainty, and simple pragmatism that often attend decisions of the prophet and First Presidency. The historian has an equal obligation not to conceal the limitations, errors, and negative consequences of some significant statements of the prophet and First Presidency. In like manner, Mormon historians would be equally false if they failed to report the inspiration, visions, revelations, and solemn testimonies that have also attended prophetic decisions and statements throughout Mormon history.
Sacred history (which is contained in the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price) is an absolute refutation of the kind of history Elders Benson and Packer seem to be advocating. Sacred history presents prophets and apostles as the most human of men who have been called by God to prophetic responsibility. Sacred history portrays spiritual dimensions and achievements of God's leaders as facts, but it also matter-of-factly demonstrates the weaknesses of God's leaders. Examples are scriptural accounts of Abraham's abandonment of his wife Hagar and son Ishmael, Noah's drunkenness, Lot's incest, Moses' arrogance, Jonah's vacillation, Peter's impetuosity and cowardice, Peter and Paul's mutual criticism, Lehi's doubt, Alma the Elder's whoredoms, Alma the Younger's apostasy, and the progression of Corianton from adulterous missionary through repentance to one of the three presiding high priests of the church among the Nephites. Moreover, the Doctrine and Covenants contains frequent condemnations of Joseph Smith by the Lord. Sacred history affirms the reality of divine revelation and inspiration but also demonstrates that God's leaders often disagree and do not follow divine revelations consistently. An example is Peter's continued shunning of Gentiles despite his revelation at Joppa, for which Paul publicly condemned him.quinn ends with his appeal that historians. . .
According to the standards of history required by those who have criticized Mormon historians, writers of scriptural history are suspect at best and faith-destroying at worst. To use Elder Packer's words, "Instead of going up to where [God's leaders] were, he devised a way of collecting mistakes and weaknesses and limitations to compare with his own. In that sense he has attempted to bring a historical figure down to his level and in that way feel close to him and perhaps to justify his own weaknesses." In fact, the scriptures do exactly what Elder Packer condemns.
. . . did not create problem areas of the Mormon past, but most of us cannot agree to conceal them, either. We are trying to respond to those problem areas of Mormon experience. Attacking the messenger does not alter the reality of the message.
Dedicated and believing Mormon historians seek to build the Kingdom of God and to strengthen the Saints by "speaking the truth in love," as Paul counseled (Eph. 4:15).
i decided that my last post was way too long with the list. so here it is again, minus the list. download the program and check it out. there is something for everyone.
the preliminary program for the 2006 sunstone symposium is now available. you can download it here.
it will be held august 10-12 (thurs-sat) at the salt lake sheraton hotel. as i've mentioned before, i've been one of the youngest attendees the last couple years, and so this year i want to get a large group of college students to attend. i think it'd be also fun to get a bunch of the happy valley/college bloggers together for dinner one of the nights.
as expected, they planned a lot of the sessions i wanted to attend, so much of it will probably be a game time decision. if you are planning on attending or have any questions, feel free to comment.
after a discussion with some friends about the whole mkh ordeal, i've decided to repost my original apology (especially for those who really hated my original 'sweet cheeses' post. i've taken out some of the more specific and incriminating aspects of it
-----------------------------------------------------------
one of the debates in utilitarianism is the question on how to measure suffering in respect to happiness. does hurt and pain count as negative values in the equation determining the greatest amount of happiness? or is absolute suffering and misery a zero value, with any lesser degree being a positive push toward an infinite level of joy?
this question didn't cross my mind as i typed up my last post.
instead the question that crossed my mind was of how many people i could get to laugh. a funny idea crossed my mind that night and i wanted to put it out there before it had left. unfortunately, late at night i don't always make the best judgements (perhaps there is some truth to the whole holy-ghost-has-a-bedtime-thing).
as i was writing, i didn't really care about xxxx xxxx's feelings. now i'm not that cold and shallow. i knew that what i was writing was rude and potentially hurtful. i just didn't think that there was any actual potential for it to cause any hurt. i didn't think that she (or anyone close to her) would ever read it. instead i thought about what others would think of me after reading it. i figured that some would think i was an ass, but decided the potential laughter of others would outweigh the potential disdain.
the post drew the laughs i was expecting, but it also raised some valid criticisms. i still didn't give any thought of the what if she read it idea, because that wasn't going to happen. however, it gave me much thought about the person i was and the effect such an attitude has on the people around me. the problem is not about what i think of mrs. huntsman - the chance that my path will ever cross with her's is slim to none. the problem was that my post reflected my attitude toward humanity as a whole. it showed that i was a hypocrit; that i didn't live up to my own proclamations of realizing and upholding the value, rights, and worth that every person has. furthermore, like 'harmless' racist and sexist remarks, comments that jokingly demean others too often act like a communicable disease that spreads and silently inflicts and ultimately hurts others.
to be honest, i don't think [xxxxxxx] is ugly. if she was i wouldn't have written about it. is she an aging barbie doll who perhaps wears too much makeup? yes, but so are most women today. she was probably gorgeous in her prime and how she looks now is not so much a reflection of her, but a reflection of our patriarchal society and the pressure we put on women to look a certain way. it's a reflection of me. everytime i say someone is ugly or fat or whatever, i'm adding that much more to a culture that preys on emotions and self-esteem of others - even if i'm saying it in satirical jest.
i was planning on writing much of this as a comment on the previous post in response to some of the anonymous comments i recieved. however, as i was stewing over the best way to put it, i recieved a swift kick in the balls (also known as nards, testicles, huevos, nuts, buddies, and family jewels) from the first lady of utah (or an imposter). the idea that didn't cross my mind quickly did. an anonymous commentor's prediction of karmic retribution proved true. my attempt to point out the ugly outward appearance of another proved to point out my own inner ugliness.
i want to begin with a short quiz.
before i begin, i have a confession to make. well... i have a couple confessions to make. first, i did not vote in the 2000 elections. second, if i had voted, i would have voted for bush.
i know, it wouldn't have made a difference - i live in utah, the reddest of states. nevertheless i am ashamed. my only plea of defense is ignorance. i didn't know.
with that out of the way, let's continue...
i recently saw al gore's big screen power point presentation, an inconvenient truth. whatever your political stance, this is a movie you and everyone else should see. like many of the misguidances of my past, i once disbelieved in the human involvement and implications of global warming. i bought into the whole this is a natural cycle of the earth and we are just still recovering from an ice-age mumbo jumbo. despite the science and and studies, i relied on the so-called wisdom of the right-wing and just pushed it aside.
i've since learned my lesson.
an inconvenient truth is by far the best presentation of global warming i have ever seen. you may disagree with much of al gore's politics (i once did). you may think his humor is still too dry and scripted (i still do). however, it is difficult to find fault with his presentation which is largely the culmination of over two decades of work. as he discusses the evidence andpoints out the implications of this growing crisis, you can tell that this something that he cares deeply about and not just some partison political maneuvering. in fact, there is very little partison politics going on. gore openly points out that this is a issue that both democrats and republicans wish to avoid.
our planet is in danger. it's that simple. each day scientists are unanimously finding evidence that carbon dioxide (greenhouse gasses) is higher than it has been in the last 700 millenia, and is increasing at an accelerated rate. temperatures are rising and glaciers and ice caps are shrinking faster than expected. i have had a basic idea of what has been going on, but i had no idea had badly things are. it is not something that our children's children will face, but something that might have major implications in our lifetimes if not dealt with, things far worse than what we've already experienced with the rise of tornados and hurricanes.
go see an inconvenient truth and judge it for yourself. do some research and find out if gore is presenting the truth.
for those of you in the provo area, it is currently playing at the wynnsong theatres.
we need to put partison politics aside here and deal with this issue.
things look to be going for the better. i have some hope now that i might be able to get back the job i lost.
[MKH: the following has been both faxed and mailed to your offices]
Please accept my sincere apology for the caustic and insulting satire I posted online last week. Although I meant nothing personally against you and never intended for it to go beyond my circle of friends, I should have never written the post in the first place. While my intent was geared at garnering the laughter of my friends, instead I exemplified how ugly I could be in my total disrespect of another person. I am deeply sorry for any pain I may have caused you and your family.
Before all of this, I knew very little about you besides a few news clips and commercials. After receiving your response I have learned of the great work you have been doing, especially through your Power in You organization. Having watched a favorite cousin of mine struggle tremendously through his teens, the work your organization does means a great deal to me.
Again, I am truly sorry for what I wrote and hope you accept my apology.
