Even ignoring that controversy Clement seems to have the idea of secrecy as a common theme. Nibley of course loves Clement although from my limited view he seems to twist him in a few places. Eusebius attributes to Clement the idea of secret inner teachings taught to Peter, James, and John and then only taught to select few. (Of course Mormon apologists go crazy for that although I suspect they push that too far at times)

Are you referring to Clement of Alexandria or Clement the third bishop of Rome? I have a copy of the latter,(the first and second epistles to the Corinthians) and they seem to have several Mormon themes.

So I don’t think what we have is necessarily the intended result, but I think one has to look at what variables one is juggling. I remember when I was in an EQ Presidency the people we felt inspired to call as teachers often weren’t good teachers (although some were) but needed to feel a part of the quorum. So I think how we look at this is often a bit misdirected. Sunday School and EQ/RS shouldn’t be about entertainment.

That said, as I mentioned in that other thread were I in charger I’d definitely do things differently. Fortunately though I’m not in charge. (The calling I’d hate the most!)

“Numerous scholars have scoffed at the notion of secret rituals behind the Christian message, but oral and semi-literate cultures are orthopraxic. In such cultures the “word of God” turns out not to be the written word but rather the spoken and enacted word. Centuries of literate biblical exegesis seems to have blurred the reality that non-literate peoples must perform their religious beliefs as the only real way of conceptualizing them. Why are rituals not prominent in the surviving texts? Problematically, ritual initiation was sacrosanct and there were terrible taboos against writing about sacred liturgies. Clement of Alexandria insists that the most sacred things of deity were kept oral and could never be written down (Lundwall 70). The center of ancient religious practice was never textual. If this was true for early Christianity then the reality is rituals were not only a necessary part of the new religion but most likely the foundation of its very ethos—a part that never makes it into the New Testament.

[…] What are we to make of this? Whatever the religion of Abraham, Moses, or Jesus, the writers of the Testaments lived in a different conceptual world that was rooted in a cosmological relationship between heaven and earth. This world was not accessed by texts but by rituals. This was all changing by the time of Jesus, where the old cosmological models were slowly being turned into the mechanical spheres of Greek astronomy. This happened with the advent of writing and fully literate consciousness. Science as we recognize it was being born from the fertile world of textual thought. And so was religion. We have forgotten that fantastic cosmos the pre-literate world had imbued upon all of its cultural artifacts. It was this older cosmology that underwrote the theologies of rebirth long before that new star shone in the heavens announcing a resurrecting god. In the context of biblical studies, perhaps the greatest gift from this god was not the secrets of rebirth—but finally a religion of the book.”

On the topic of Adam Miller’s book: I have not read it. Yet another to put in the pile. At least this time it is a Mormon book with a Mormon author about Mormonism. I don’t have any books in my pile like that, so this is good.

On the topic of this thread: interesting exchange eternally set between the paradigms of “intellectualism” and “traditionalism” using those terms as horribly generic descriptives. This tension will never die out though.

Comparing Mark and Luke is interesting here though. Mark 4:11-12 is the classic text for hidden teachings. There’s strong reason to take that as an initiation into some secret. Lots of scholars note the parallels to the Eluesian Mysteries. However the parables in Mark 4 are presented in the other gospels such as Luke 8 and Matt 13 somewhat expanded and explained. Luke even takes the warning of Mark 4:11-12 and gives us instead “nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad.” Although how one takes that isn’t clear. After all the warning that some will hear and not hear and have things taken away remains. (Luke 8:18) Even in Matthew which is even more expansive than Luke there’s still the note that he spoke to the masses only in parables (13:35) despite his speaking things that were secret. Matthew only has the mysteries explained clearly to the disciples (13:11).

So Jesus definitely is more open in the other gospels. I’m not sure though that the secret aspect of Mark is somehow effaced.

Now this raises the question of what they are explained in the gospels but not before. And there’s lots of theological dispute over that point. The typical mainstream Christian view is that it’s only when Christ is resurrected and the temple ripped asunder that it’s made known. A lot ends up getting pinned on how one reads Acts 1:6-8 even though that’s more talking about the second coming. The question ends up being how much of the mysteries of Mark are simply the prophecies of Christ’s death and resurrection combined with the end times. i.e. by and large topics different from what Mormons focus in on when we get concerned with mysteries and inner teachings.

The problem is making lessons of interest to everyone given the diversity in the typical ward is nearly impossible. The number of people who would enjoy Adam’s book the way you or I might really is pretty small.

MTodd, it is obvious that Rachael Givens Johnson (above) and Adam Miller are not writing for the Brethren, that in our edict-driven, top-down institution, the change agents are us.

I agree.

This will be interesting.

As I also mentioned in that linked thread I’m not sure it’s fair to call Adam an apologist at all. Indeed I’d say one big issue in the whole Maxwell Institute kerfuffle of a few years back is to what degree apologetics should be part of Mormon Studies. Most of the people who wanted a strong apologetics presence formed the Interpreter. Calling what the Maxwell Institute does apologetics might somewhat apply in a few cases but in general I think they’re much more interested in Mormon Studies without the types of debates apologetics engages in.

So too it is with the meat of the doctrine of our church. We want to know all this meat without the work of processes that take years to hold and hash out. Arriving at the conclusion is in reality all the little parts of the journey itself. We don’t even understand our own plan of salvation. So how are we going to arrive at the meat when the sips of milk arent being digested properly?

Mars, won’t you be surprised one of these days when you learn that post-modernism is the only meat there is. Bro Miller, one of the best minds in the Church, is not just deploying PM for the hell of it, believe me.

“meat”

…

“postmodern”

“meat”

Postmodernism is a fad, friend. The 1970s Kimballist Mormonism, the Religion for the Space Age, is alive and well, but it’s not always transmitted through official meetings. Those are always meant to be welcoming to investigators, and so, well, they’re always serving milk. Meat is served around kitchen tables late at night. It’s served in vans driving home from temple trips, in phone calls with old friends and at dinner with missionaries. We serve the meat. A divinely appointed purpose of this website – and ask God if I’m speaking falsely – is meat-testing.