Orson F. Whitney

Lehi’s final counsel in the Book of Mormon is to his son Joseph makes an interesting literary link between Joseph in Egypt, Joseph the son of Lehi and Joseph Smith, Jr. But, LDS authors have largely ignored this link, especially before 1900, when any mention of Joseph was usually a reference to Joseph Smith, Jr. But I did manage to find an exception in Orson F. Whitney’s epic, Elias.

As far as I can tell, other than general righteousness, the only real link between these three is that they happen to have the same name. Their histories aren’t really comparable in any way that I can see. Still, Whitney at least mentions the prophecy of Joseph’s name, and connects it to Joseph in Egypt.

While perhaps overly turgid in his prose, Whitney is as or more sophisticated in his imagery than any of his poetic Mormon predecessors that I’ve read. To me the oblique references made to biblical, book of Mormon and mythological elements are fascinating.

The six stanzas I’ve chosen below (starting with the 30th stanza in Canto six) cover the Book of Mormon from its beginning to Lehi’s death, although the vast majority of the story is left out in favor of examining Lehi’s family’s importance to the overall narrative. I’ve left in Whitney’s explanatory footnotes verbatim.

Joseph

from Canto Six, Out of the Dust, from Elias, An Epic of the Ages

by Orson F. Whitney

Again, athwart the wilderness of waves
Surging old East and older West between,
Where the lone sea a flowery southland laves,
And Zarahemla reigns as ocean queen,
Braving the swell, a storm-tossed bark is seen.
From doomed Jerusalem, to Jacob dear,
Albeit a leper[fn1], groping, blind, unclean,
Goes forth Manasseh’s prophet pioneer[fn2],
Predestined to unveil the hidden hemisphere.

.

His lot to reap and plant on this rare shore
The promise of his fathers: Joseph’s bough[fn3],
From Jacob’s well, the billowy wall runs o’er;
Abides in strength the archer-stricken bow,
Unto the utmost bound prevailing now,
Of Hesper’s heaven-upholding hills. Bend, sheaves
Of Israel, as branches bend with snow,
Unto his sheaf grown mightiest! Here, as leaves
For multitude, the son the great sire’s glory weaves.

.

[fn1] A Leper. Jerusalem in her degenerate state.

[fn2] Prophet Pioneer. Lehi, a descendant of Joseph, through Manasseh, with a colony from Jerusalem, succeeds the all but extinct Jaredites upon the Land of Promise, where they extend the glory of their great ancestor.

[fn3] Joseph’s Bough. “Joseph is a fruitful bough.” (Gen. 49:22).

[fn4] Chosen Seer. Lehi predicts the coming of ” a choice seer” who is to be a lineal descendant of Joseph. The name of that seer is also to be Joseph, and it is to be the name of his father—a prophecy fulfilled in Joseph Smith, Jr. (II Nephi 3.)

[fn5] Buried Lore. The Book of Mormon.

[fn6] Favored Son. Nephi, who succeeded his father Lehi, and against whom his brothers Laman and Lemuel rebelled, thus dividing the nation into Nephites and Lamanites.

[fn7] Heavy Rod. The Lord used the savage Lamanites to scourge the enlightened yet ofttimes disobedient Nephites.

Now Available

Charles Harrel,“This Is My Doctrine”: The Development of Mormon Theology (Kofford Books) “In this first-of-its-kind comprehensive treatment of the development of Mormon theology, Charles Harrell traces the history of Latter-day Saint doctrines from the times of the Old Testament to the present.” I have my doubts that someone who does not equally control original Biblical sources and LDS history, as well as the vast amounts of secondary literature on historiography, exegesis, etc. can give LDS doctrine a truly comprehensive diachronic treatment, and compress it into 597 pages. Nevertheless, I’m grateful to Harrel, an engineering professor, for making the attempt and I look forward to reading it. Too many LDS labor under the assumption that the status quo sprang fully formed from Joseph Smith. I don’t recall which of my friends said, but it’s in my Evernote file, “If there’s one thing Mormons excel at, it’s enshrining the status quo and assuming that if we do anything, there must be a good reason for it, and if there’s a good reason, it must have been revealed as the only way to do it, and if so, then it must have always been that way in all dispensations. And a lot of people’s faith can be shaken when it turns out not to always have been that way, which unravels that chain of reasoning back from that point until you doubt the premise, i.e., that any of it was revealed at all.”

Brant Gardner, The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon (Kofford Books) Many questions about the Book of Mormon end up centering on the nature of the translation, and many papers make tacit assumptions about it. Brant’s is the deepest treatment addressing those assumptions.His FAIR Conference presentation this year appears to have been based on his book. Gift and Power has already been reviewed elsewhere, so I’ll pass by without further commentary except to say that Brant’s previous volumes on the Book of Mormon have been fresh and thoughtful, and I expect no less from this.

Harold Bloom, The Shadow of a Great Rock: A Literary Appreciation of the King James Bible (Yale University Press) This is one of a string of books to appear about the KJV this year, but Bloom and the literary approach mark this one apart. Preview available. I’m particularly interested because the literary argument comes up repeatedly in LDS contexts. Of historical note, though, is that the KJV was not meant to be literary, and no one thought it was so until at least a century had passed. Chapter 1, “Language within language: the King James Steamroller” of Hamlin, The King James Bible After Four Hundred Years: Literary, Linguistic, and Cultural Influences (Cambridge) appears to address this. (I only had a few minutes to browse it.) Another recent volumes of note is The King James Bible: A Short History from Tyndale to Today by David Norton, the author of the authoritative, technical and expensive Textual History of the King James Bible.

Coming in September

John Walton’s Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology (Eisenbrauns) This is the expanded version of Walton’s arguments found in The Lost World of Genesis 1 (Eerdmans), but Lost World was for a lay audience and Ancient Cosmology a more academic audience. Walton places Genesis 1 in its ancient Near Eastern context and argues convincingly that Israelites read it as a description of functional, not material creation, and furthermore, Genesis 1 is a temple text. You can get the gist of his thesis from the audio here. Jared at LDS Science Review has addressed Walton several times (here and here), and the comments include an enthusiastic endorsement by SteveP, BYU biologist and BCC blogger.

Coming in October

N.T. Wright, The Kingdom New Testament: A Contemporary Translation (Harper One) N.T. Wright is a prolific paradigm-shattering New Testament scholar, who is nevertheless very accessible to laypeople. Among others, he’s authored commentaries on Romans and a New Testament commentary series “For Everyone” as well as books on Paul, and Heaven. He’s criticized various Bible translations in the past, so I’m glad to hear he’ll have his own. Ben Witherington interviews him about it here.

Jewish Annotated New Testament (Oxford Press) I’m familiar with both of the editors, Marc Brettler from his How to Read the Bible (not to be confused with books of the same title from James Kugel or Steven McKenzie) and Amy-Jill Levine from her lectures with the Teaching Company. Oxford’s Jewish Study Bible has an excellent set of notes, essays and other aids. The Jewish Annotated New Testament aims to do the same thing for the New Testament, from a Jewish Perspective. “For non-Jewish readers interested in the Jewish roots of Christianity and for Jewish readers who want a New Testament that neither proselytizes for Christianity nor denigrates Judaism, The Jewish Annotated New Testament is an essential volume that places these writings in a context that will enlighten students, professionals, and general readers.” Among other notable features, the JANT, is the “first New Testament annotated by Jewish scholars (barring those who have converted to Christianity), brings out Jewish background of early Christianity, New Testament writers, explains Jewish concepts (e.g., food laws, rabbinic argumentation) for non-Jews & Christian concepts (e.g., Eucharist) for Jews, and will be helpful for non-Jewish readers interested in the Jewish roots of Christianity.”

Coming in January

Peter Enns, The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible does and Doesn’t Say about Human Origins (Brazos Press)

Enns says, “The book is divided into two parts. Part one focuses on Genesis, and my general point is that the creation stories are part of Israel’s literature of national and religious self-definition. In other words, they are not prepared to give the type of (historical and scientific) information we ask for today when speaking of “human origins.” To seek such information is to misread Genesis, and so attempts to align science and Genesis get us off on the foot altogether by not taking the biblical text on its own terms.Part two focuses on Paul’s use of the Adam story in Romans 5. Paul’s reading of the Adam story, despite superficial appearances, is hardly straightforward, and appreciating the theological subtly and depth of Paul’s words requires much more of us than simply opening an English Bible, reading a few verses, and drawing conclusions. I go on and on about this for a lot of pages, because this is a far more pressing problem for most Christian readers than Genesis.

The audience for the commentary is seminarians, pastors, and scholars. For The Evolution of Adam, the intended audience is similar to that of Inspiration and Incarnation: lay readers looking for different approaches to old problems. In fact, The Evolution of Adam applies the approach of Inspiration and Incarnation to a specific and pressing issue: in view of evolution, what does it mean to read the Bible well? So think of EOA as I&I part two.” I was a big fan of I&I, as well as the lectures of his I’ve heard online and in person. (Some posts of mine about Enns’ ideas here and here)

Happy reading.

The New Ogden Temple, © 2010, Intellectual Reserve, Inc.

This weekend I got to drive past the Ogden Utah Temple, which is currently surrounded by a high fence as it undergoes a major renovation. While there is nothing new with renovating a Temple, as far as I can tell, this is the first time that the outside appearance of a Temple has had such a significant change. What does this mean?

My brother, who lives in Ogden, says that many members there couldn’t be more pleased. He says many couples looked at the Temples and passed, choosing to get married in Bountiful and Salt Lake instead. Of course, Ogden-based wedding photographers, caterers and others are also pleased at the prospect of more weddings in Ogden.

No doubt many will initially claim that the exterior appearance doesn’t matter—or at least doesn’t matter as much as what goes on inside a temple. I agree with the latter—what goes on inside a temple does matter more. But the exterior clearly has some importance.

The exterior appearance clearly matters to the Church, because it has photos taken of temples for use in teaching and in buildings. We are regularly told by the Church that the exterior appearance of temples inspires. And the Church also defends the designed appearance of temples in court, arguing for steeples, lighting and other crucial design elements against neighbors who apparently don’t like Temples or don’t want them in their neighborhoods and challenge the Church in the zoning process.

How temples look is also a central part of Mormon culture. Seeing temple photos and illustrations on the walls of members homes is almost cliché. The popularity of such images is so widespread that an entire industry exists to provide these images. So the appearance of these buildings clearly matters.

Of course, Mormons are hardly the only group that cares about the architecture of its buildings. Last Thursday I listened to Diane Rehm interview the master architect for the new World Trade Center, Daniel Libeskind, about his life and his design for the building site that has attracted more attention than any other for more than a decade. [See Libeskind's design here]. I found his description (on the show) of his design to be fascinating and inspiring, especially his including symbolic elements in the design.

While I feel inadequate in any assessment of architecture (and I hesitate to compare temples to office towers, given their very different purposes), I do see a kind of parallel in the importance of symbolism and exterior appearance in these designs. Somewhat ironically, critics lambasted the original World Trade Center when it was first constructed, just as members have long lamented the appearance of the Ogden (and Provo) Temples. I have often wondered if local members had grown to love these Temples, despite the reactions to their appearance. In thinking about how members will react, I can’t help but remember that, in the aftermath of September 11th, the criticism of the original design of the World Trade Center have largely been forgotten and the images of the towers are largely beloved.

So, what does all this mean? If the exterior of a Temple is changed, what should we think? Is it just our own cultural understandings and influences that determine how we react? Does this change just reflect how our culture (both in and out of the Church) sees inspiration? or is there something more to appearance? And, was the original design a mistake? or just appropriate for its time?

Despite these issues, I assume that few Church members will mourn the old appearance of the Ogden Temple. Instead, rather quickly, they will adorn their walls with new illustrations of an Ogden Temple that looks very different from its predecessor. The old photos may eventually even be mistaken for photos of the Provo Temple—unless, of course, the Provo Temple is likewise renovated.

We’re pleased to share an interview with Stephen Frandsen here, and we invite readers to add their own experiences with or impressions of Duck Beach in the comments. The filmmakers are actively seeking further participants who are willing to share their stories, and they will be pleased to respond to questions in the comments here.  Finally, please do consider donating to the project via kickstarter, a unique online instrument for grassroots funding of interesting and worthwhile projects  — of which we expect you will fully agree this is one!  (Stay tuned after the interview for a bonus extra: “One Way Ticket,” a charming documentary short made by Stephen that follows one man’s journey through online dating to a surprise twist ending.)

McNaughton pulled his art after the BYU Bookstore stopped ordering his controversial but strong-selling painting One Nation Under God, which BYU professor of art Jennifer Barton, in yesterday’s Deseret News article, calls a propaganda piece for the tea party. While BYU spokesperson Carri Jenkins says this was a bookstore decision, McNaughton suggests that it was BYU’s administration that decided the work wasn’t acceptable. He told the Salt Lake Tribune, “I think [BYU] is trying not to offend the few liberals on campus.”

Regardless, the bookstore has apparently sold thousands of copies of the popular painting, which not only depicts Christ holding the constitution, but also gives a positive nod to Cleon Skousen’s “The 5,000 Year Leap” and portrays negatively an anonymous supreme court justice, the Marbury v. Madison supreme court decision and Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species, among other things. Former BYU Bookstore art and frame department Val Ugolini told the Deseret News, “I couldn’t keep it on the walls. No matter how much it would cost, from $50 to $5,000, we were selling it like bread.”

If Ugolini is right, then the bookstore’s decision to stop carrying this work isn’t exactly about making money. Even taking at face value Jenkins’ assertion that this was a bookstore decision, the decision is more about appearance, and perhaps how that overall appearance might affect profits (though I kind of doubt this last part).

Whose appearance? At the least, the issue is how this work reflects on the BYU Bookstore. But likely the bookstore’s decision makers are also worried about how it reflects on BYU and on the Church. General Authorities have repeatedly told the BYU community that what they do reflects on the Church, just as they have often told the membership of the Church the same.

What makes all of this worry over how things reflect on the Church difficult in my mind is the influence that the BYU Bookstore has in the campus and LDS marketplaces. The reverse of whether or not a product sold in the bookstore reflects badly on the Church might be whether or not it is approved of by the Church — and to some degree that is the perception (erroneous in my opinion) of a portion of Mormons about what is sold in the BYU Bookstore, and, to an even greater degree, in Deseret Book.

When this kind of influence exists, there is a very clear danger to the weakest products, to the more unusual items and to the most radical and innovative works, regardless of how faithful or how acceptable they may be to the Church. If the companies and institutions with this influence don’t carry a work, does that mean that it isn’t financially viable? or does it mean that it would “reflect badly on the Church?” And regardless of which of these is the reason, how will I, the consumer, know?

In the case of the BYU Bookstore, I’m not as worried about this influence in Mormon Cultural items. In my experience the bookstore has been much more open to new works, academic works and the unusual than Deseret Book and most other stores that carry LDS products. As an academic bookstore, that’s no surprise. Deseret Book, on the other hand, dominates the LDS market to such an extent that if a work isn’t available there, it might as well not exist for most LDS consumers.

But, in McNoughton’s case, I worry that the bookstore is defining this as “reflecting badly on the Church” when it should not. Those who know me and my sentiments as expressed here on Times and Seasons know that I don’t care for McNoughton’s ideas. I think some of what he is saying in One Nation Under God is simply wrong, and somewhat offensive. [For what its worth, I also think his art is atrocious -- but that's more a matter of taste.] But in my view one valid purpose of art is to provoke and perhaps, in doing so, even offend. [Professor Barton should know this, shouldn't she?] Besides, how can I object to McNoughton’s “behaving badly” (in my view), when I recently advocated for Mormons knowing about those who are doing much worse!

So, were I the decision maker at the BYU Bookstore, I would hold my nose and stick the painting on the wall, selling as many as I can. [If anyone asked, I'd have to be honest about how I feel about the work]. But, I’m not and I can also see the other side of this issue. I also don’t want people to think that the Church approves of his artwork!

Nor can I manage much sympathy for McNoughton — not when I suspect that neither he nor most of those who like the ideas expressed in One Nation Under God are likely to be as understanding of works on the other side of the political spectrum, or even of those works that are simply unusual, radical or innovative.

Home Waters models what, on my account, good theology ought to do: it is experimental, it is grounded in the details of lived experience, and it takes charity – that pure love of Christ – as the only real justification for its having been written. It is not afraid to guess, it is not afraid to question, it is not afraid to cry repentance, and it is not afraid to speak in its own name.

The book deserves some time and attention. It’s what you’ve been wanting to read. It may also be what you’ve been wanting to write. At the very least, it made me want to write about it.

I’ve planned a few posts that will air some of my ideas about Handley’s ideas: one on the importance of place, a second on the importance of genealogy, and a third on importance of (re)creation.

The book’s self-description reads like this:

People who flyfish know that a favorite river bend, a secluded spot in moving waters, can feel like home—a place you know intimately and intuitively. In prose that reads like the flowing current of a river, scholar and essayist George Handley blends nature writing, local history, theology, environmental history, and personal memoir in his new book Home Waters: A Year of Recompenses on the Provo River. Handley’s meditations on the local Provo River watershed present the argument that a sense of place requires more than a strong sense of history and belonging, it requires awareness and commitment. Handley traces a history of settlement along the Provo that has profoundly transformed the landscape and yet neglected its Native American and environmental legacies. As a descendent of one of the first pioneers to irrigate the area, and as a witness to the loss of orchards, open space, and an eroded environmental ethic, Handley weaves his own personal and family history into the landscape to argue for sustainable belonging. In avoiding the exclusionist and environmentally harmful attitudes that come with the territorial claims to a homeland, the flyfishing term, “home waters,” is offered as an alternative, a kind of belonging that is informed by deference to others, to the mysteries of deep time, and to a fragile dependence on water. While it has sometimes been mistakenly assumed that the Mormon faith is inimical to good environmental stewardship, Handley explores the faith’s openness to science, its recognition of the holiness of the creation, and its call for an ethical engagement with nature. A metaphysical approach to the physical world is offered as an antidote to the suicidal impulses of modern society and our persistent ambivalence about the facts of our biology and earthly condition. Home Waters contributes a perspective from within the Mormon religious experience to the tradition of such Western writers as Wallace Stegner, Terry Tempest Williams, Steven Trimble, and Amy Irvine.

If you’re unfamiliar with George Handley, you might try this.

You can also find an excerpt from the book here.

After retirement, my father turned to family history and temple work to fill his time.  Most of this work has focused on researching ancestors from Virginia and North Carolina.  I took this photo at a cemetery in Carrol County, VA, near the the birthplace of my father’s grandparents.  My father is shown in the picture.  While in the cemetery he was able to locate headstones of people for whom he had completed temple work.  It was the first and only time that my father has visited this place that has taken so much of his attention.

As a side note, I have to feel for my ancestors who left lush, green, beautiful Virginia for the desert of Vernal, Utah!  Sorry Vernal.

By L-d Sus

___

This picture is part of our ongoing series highlighting Mormon images. Comments to the post are welcome; all comments should be respectful. In addition we invite you to submit your own images to the Mormon Image series. Other images in the series can be found here. Rules and instructions, including submissions guidelines, can be found here.

“I was born in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and five, on the twenty-third day of December, in the town of Sharon, Windsor county, State of Vermont.” Joseph Smith History 1:3

By Gary Boatright Jr.

___

This picture is part of our ongoing series highlighting Mormon images. Comments to the post are welcome; all comments should be respectful. In addition we invite you to submit your own images to the Mormon Image series. Other images in the series can be found here. Rules and instructions, including submissions guidelines, can be found here.

For those unfamiliar with Facing East, it is the story of a Mormon couple who is grappling with the suicide of their gay son. It was written by Carol Lynn Pearson, a Mormon playwright and whose husband (and the father of her four children) left her to confront and explore his own homosexuality.  He returned to live with her 6 years later after being diagnosed with AIDS, with Sister Pearson caring for him in the months preceding his death.  She authored a book about the experience, Goodbye, I Love You, and has sought through her works to encourage understanding among gay members and their families (including the recent No More Goodbyes: Circling the Wagons Around Our Gay Loved Ones). Of her effort, she’s said “I love the Mormon community … and I have a unique opportunity to build bridges.”

This sponsored performance follows other notable developments within the Church this past year, including the Church endorsing a gay rights initiative in Salt Lake City and prominent efforts by the Oakland Stake in California to reach out to gay members and heal the rifts that developed in the wake of Prop 8.  I personally find these attempts at bridge-building very gratifying and am certain that they will help to soften hard edges and result in greater understanding. I’m curious, however, what others make of these efforts, and whether they believe these occurrences are simply anomalies or are the sort of thing we are likely to see more of in the coming years.