Many Christians believe that God reveals himself to those who are not Christian through various means, including the evidence of his role in the creation of the universe. The reaction of many Christian churches against the subjectivity of personal revelation, a legalism that is often their grounds for attacking the Mormon emphasis on seeking personal revelation, is not universal, and there are still many Christians, above and beyond Pentecostals of various stripes, who believe that the Holy Spirit communicates to them. I heard one BYU professor, a former Protestant minister, testify at a FAIR conference a few years ago that he believes his call to the Protestant ministry was just as inspired by God as his decision to join the LDS Church.

My own feeling is that there is real inspiration behind many of the Christian theologians of the present day who are seeking to better understand the nature of God and how salvation is offered to all mankind, and have become advocates of Open theology and of Post-Mortal Evangelism. There are even those who recognize that a real physical resurrection on a perfected Earth is part of God’s plan, or who understand that salvation through Christ means becoming Christlike and Godlike. A general authority who had a house in my old ward in Idaho expressed concern that some of those people were diluting the brand of Mormonism by adopting some of our distinctive doctrines, but it seems to me that there will be many people who embrace those truths who will reduce their resistance to Mormonism, and recognize the long existence of those truths in the Church as prophetic.

Your post does raise problems that mine doesn’t; but again, I think this is because we really are approaching two different (if broadly related) topics. I very much appreciate your use and extension of Said, and love your term “inverse Orientalism,” though I think there are significant differences (despite the similarities) between this term (if I understand you correctly) as a motivation for and mode of comparison and the Nibley Approach which is a colloquialized version of Nibley’s Mormonized version of “Patternism” used by the Cambridge School–a sort of subset methodology of the History of Religions School in religious studies–a methodology used to figure out what was going on in earlier periods based on the remnants or evidence of later periods.

And I agree with your point about the exotification of other traditions. It’s very easy to take the lazy approach of glorifying an aspect of another tradition that you don’t fully understand, but which you can use to criticize aspects of your own tradition that rub you the wrong way.

I’m confused why you wouldn’t. What I am calling “inverse Orientalism” you are calling “the Nibley Approach”. I think my post raises some of the problems with it that yours doesn’t.

Secondly, my post also raises the question of how we go about identifying and integrating these truths from what you call grassroots dispensations. Almost as easy as the comparative endeavor could become one of reducing other traditions to lesser forms of ours, it can also become one of exotifying other traditions such that they become foils to highlight the deficiencies of our own tradition. Not that you necessarily are doing anything like this, but the importation of Buddhism into the West/America is perhaps a good example. “I’m Buddhist” often means “I can’t stand organized religion and meditation is so cool”.

For the most part, however, I think we’re both value pluralists; and I agree with just about everything you have to say.

Now, I am not into smut. I am all for the “War on Smut.” But I don’t think the scriptural injunction above, and others like it, are limiting ones. We are supposed to “seek after” virtuous and lovely things, not just “seek to avoid, unwholesome, r-rated things.” The MPAA will not make us Holy. Again, there is plenty of “flee babylon” in the scriptures, but the equally powerful admonition is to be diligent and study. I don’t think that we score a great many points for a “a fugitive and cloistered virtue, unexercised and unbreathed, that never sallies out and sees her adversary.” I think that adversary is sloth, as much as smut.

You mentioned Nibley. As bright as he was, and as much as he struggled with not being overly snide, I think in many respects he was among the humblest of saints. Which is more arrogant, to look at the wide universe of knowledge out there and say “I give up. I am going to watch TV,” or to respond to the scriptural admonition by saying “I will try”? We thumb our noses at God when we avoid knowledge, not when we seek it. We cite Nephi’s statement “nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things” as a defense and a comfort, but it should not be. The Angel did not think it was. The Book of Mormon would have stopped there if not knowing the meaning of all things was sufficient. Nephi wasn’t humble because he didn’t know. He was humble because he knew he didn’t know, was unsatified with his ignorance, and sought knowledge in the Lord’s way. The Angel proceeds to tell Nephi the meaning of all things. I don’t understand why that scripture is used in the way it is. The takeaway ought to be “not knowing is not good enough.” After explaining that the best answer to doctrinal questions for which we can’t cite authority is “I don’t know,” President Lee said, “but don’t say you don’t know about things you ought to know about. Study the scriptures and be well informed.”

I think that when we interpret the admonition to “seek” as one to “limit” we wax Orwellian and the angels weep for us. I have begun to worry that in the judgment we may be asked “Why are you so stupid? Seriously, you had a public school, a public library, a university education, access to the works of nearly every great thinker at your finger tips, and yet you are genuinely dumb-even by mortal standards.” I think the “but I didn’t watch any smut” defense is going to be about as helpful as the “but I didn’t lose my buried talent” defense. Even in this market, the Lord is not satisfied with a return of principal.

SmallAxe – I didn’t find the post very “related.” You make a point about comparison to buoy up power structures and make a good point about the similarly distasteful nature of such comparisons if motivated by looking for an inferior “other” or familiar “another.” Your main concern seems to be motivation for comparing likes and un-likes. My post is meant to remind us that according to our own doctrines and history, God is working directly to inspire non-Mormons throughout the world & history; consequently we ought to be reserved in our condemnation, and open to and seeking for truth wherever we can find it. Yes there are dangers, but these are not dangers that excuse us or allow us to abnegate our obligations by sticking with “all is well in Zion.”

Jack – It’s probably best if we don’t go into details on how my wife and I met ;) Next, I personally disagree with your comment about your holding just as much priesthood outside of the church as you would within it, though there’s certainly room for argument here. Finally, I enjoyed everyone else’s responses to your question. I certainly don’t think that Mormonism is capable of endorsing any sort of bland cultural/anthropological relativism (though there’s a good deal of affinity with some of the more sophisticated forms of relativism). And I think the question about doctrine is a little wrongheaded. Recognizing that God doesn’t reveal things in a cultural vacuum, we’ve a good deal of wiggle room accounting for superficial differences and interpretations. We’re also pretty good at stating that people have a limited understanding that isn’t wrong (or at least is quite excusable), even if it does contradict or seem to contradict doctrines of the restoration (biblical notions of Heaven and Hell or Abinadi’s notions of the Godhead are great examples). A good deal depends on context. But rather than worrying about specific doctrines in other religions that appear to flatly contradict those of the restoration, I’m concerned here about our faithfully sallying forth into the vast reaches of human knowledge, exploration, and culture, appropriating every good book, gift, and practice.

Bookslinger – that’s a great story; the first time Brigham met Joseph. We usually leave out John Portineous Greene who also spoke in tongues on that occasion. We had public speaking in tongues through much of the 19th century. This is a good example of my point that I think we might be just as uncomfortable taking part in services in our own history (early restoration sacrament services, Nephite services, ancient Israelite temple sacrifices) as we sometimes are amongst our contemporary non-Mormons. I don’t think we should let our discomfort keep us either from acknowledging God in “foreign languages” (which certainly doesn’t mean we uncritically endorse everyone’s claim to inspiration) or from seeking for truth in these languages.

Bob – I personally like the way Terryl Givens has interpreted this quote about contradictions; it’s not that we ignore their contradictory nature and resign ourselves to something mystical or holy in irrationality. Rather, contradictory “truths” often lead us to either a greater understanding that supplants our former understanding, or else leads us to a paradigm shift wherein we can encompass both truths in a non-contradictory (though perhaps still tense) way.

Ben – that’s a very interesting take on the gift of the differences in administration.

This is very insightful. It changes the way I look at everything.

Perhaps the contradiction is actually a contradiction, but the doctrine or idea long held to be important to God isn’t actually all that important to God after all (that is to say, your putative Mormon has personal revelation that, say, a certain collection of people should receive the Priesthood after all, and is merely waiting for the organization or the surrounding culture to twig to the idea without tearing itself apart over it.)

Perhaps the contradiction is two memes competing in a mutually beneficial competition/cooperation matrix, where, at a higher level (that is, considered in a system of many more interacting memes), they appear to be in harmony rather than dichotomy. (It’s really hard to find an example of this, but see Isaiah 55 for an expression of this notion in other terms.)

Perhaps both contradicting ideas are actually false.

Can you tell?