NOM = “new order Mormon” — a general term for people who self-identify as Mormon, yet maintain unorthodox beliefs or practices. I mention this because there’s a bit of drama going on right now with John Dehlin. John is one of the most well-known church members associated with the NOM world (he does the Mormon Stories podcasts) [update: to clarify, John doesn’t self-identify as a NOM — he says, “over the past year I’ve distanced myself from any particular model, and instead just want to help people find joy wherever they feel led.”]. Apparently he’s been called in by his stake president, and the two of them are working out whether or not his beliefs call for church discipline. John’s approach to this conversation has been to present his work as a positive contribution to the church, showing how he reaches out to members who feel alone and unsupported by the regular church structures. In a sense, John is working to demonstrate that there is a whole segment of members who want to be part of the church, but who find that the church is not meeting their needs. This is an interesting approach, but its success depends on whether church leaders actually want these uncorrelated Mormons to stay in the church. In group conflict, there is often a static faction (the side representing the status quo) and a dynamic faction (the side agitating for change). The static faction can respond…
Category: Cornucopia
Prove Me Wrong
I’m still not satisfied with how my two posts on doctrine and policy have wrapped up, so let me come back to that for one more minute. In those posts, I said that when members attempt to define doctrine, they essentially end up with “doctrine” meaning “things I agree with”. My attempt to get around that was to define doctrine as broadly as possible — anything taught by church members counts as doctrine. Most of the responses said that my definition was too broad, and put limitations on it like: if a general authority says something, we pray and ponder about, and the answer we get is that it is the doctrine of God or In order for church doctrine to be true it must be revelation. Revelation can be found in the standard works or the words of a sitting President of the church. or it does not become a doctrine of the church until it is affirmed and repeated by other leaders as religious precept or principle and reduced to written form in an official church publication. And then it only remains a doctrine of the church as long as the leaders of the church make a continued effort to keep teaching that precept or principle from year to year. The problem is that none of these criteria are objective, and so I believe that a person who uses any of these to define doctrine will ultimately come to a place where…
Tasteful Nudity
In one of the strangest Fast Sunday testimonies I recall from my youth, a member of the ward spoke about his recent trip to Las Vegas (or was it Reno?) He’d gone down there with some other church members, and they had seen one of the shows. He went into the show somewhat naively, and was surprised to suddenly be confronted with on-stage nudity. The only part of the testimony I remember was him justifying staying through the show with something along the lines of, “…but it was tastefully done. And besides, the stake patriarch stayed and watched too!” (I wish I could go back and hear the whole testimony again, if only to understand why he felt the need to insert that particular story there…) Up to that point in my life, nudity and pornography were synonymous to me. The idea that nudity could be “tasteful” or “acceptable” was a foreign concept and — as a teenage boy — a potentially awesome loophole. For better or worse (but probably better), the question was really just academic to me, since I didn’t have access to Las Vegas. The next time the issue came up in my life was as a freshman at BYU in 1997. The school was going to present a Rodin sculpture exhibit. The administration deemed a few (three, I think?) of the sculptures offensive, and chose not to display them. This resulted in a BYU student revolt —…
Increasing Agency, and the Healer
Does winning the lottery increase your agency? In my “Forms of Agency” post, I said yes. After all, the lottery winner suddenly has more resources, which leads to more choices, and isn’t agency about choice? But now that I’ve thought on it some more, I’d like to give a more nuanced response. Imagine that you are cool dude or dudette (which shouldn’t take too much imagination, since most T&S readers are, in fact, cool dudettes and dudes). You’re witty, well-dressed, and totally hot (as I’m sure you are), and people like you. Now say you win the lottery — suddenly you have several new options available to expand your jet-setting lifestyle! You can get your pilot’s license and an airplane to go with it. Or you can build a theme park in your backyard. Or you can get an all-Prada wardrobe. Each of these options represents a significant exercise of agency, but they all lead to the same end: increasing your prestige. So, while your options have increased, your values haven’t changed. Now say that, after winning the lottery, you happen upon King Benjamin’s address to his people. Your heart is pricked with a newfound desire to selflessly serve your brothers and sisters. Suddenly a whole sphere of new options opens to you. You can use your lottery winnings to build a vocational school in Detroit to help address chronic unemployment. You can donate your winnings to the Bill and…
God and Baby Face Nelson: Thoughts on Obedience, Genocide, and Problematic Narratives
How should church members today approach morally repugnant scriptural narratives? I wondered about that as I recently read over Elder Hales’ talk about agency and obedience. There was a lot in the talk which I liked. I do think that order and consistency can absolutely be useful for faith communities (for instance, in helping establish expectations). I think that agency is a useful way to conceptualize human behavior, and that despite its problems it remains one of the best broad answers to problems of theodicy. And I certainly agree with many of the talk’s basic points, such as the tension between freedom and accountability. But I had a strongly negative reaction to a central portion of the talk, because it relies heavily on a morally repugnant Old Testament story. I give you Elder Hales: Contrary to the world’s secular teaching, the scriptures teach us that we do have agency, and our righteous exercise of agency always makes a difference in the opportunities we have and our ability to act upon them and progress eternally. For example, through the prophet Samuel, the Lord gave a clear commandment to King Saul: “The Lord sent me to anoint thee to be king: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the Lord. “Go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have.” But Saul did not follow the Lord’s commandment. He practiced what I call “selective obedience.” Relying on his own wisdom,…
Barrack Obama, Osama bin Laden, and the Kids Eat Corn Pops
I’m sure you’ve heard the news — Osama bin Laden has been killed, and his body is held in the United States. I’m not someone who can speak insightfully to the political, military, or diplomatic facets here. I’m just a guy who was on the phone with his wife when she said, “Hey, it looks like bin Laden is dead. They say the president will be speaking in a few minutes.” I’m visiting my parents tonight, so we turned on the TV to ABC News and waited for about half an hour. During the wait, ABC showed video footage of bin Laden while the commentators talked about what this means. My first emotional response was when I realized that he was just a guy too, walking through the mountains, hugging his friends, sitting in a room, etc. That’s not to say that he wasn’t a terrorist mass murderer. He killed thousands of innocent people. I have no sympathy for him here. I just recognized that in addition to being a terrorist mass murderer, he is also a human being, living life like a human being. Then, just as President Obama came on, my kids ran in and asked for their bedtime cereal. So I grudgingly got up from viewing the president’s historic address to pour two bowls of Corn Pops. I took the kids their cereal, and went back to listen to the president’s speech (which was, in my opinion,…
More on the Mormon Gender Gap
Once upon a time, I wrote a post titled “The Puzzling Mormon Gender Gap.” It is still puzzling, primarily because it seems so inconsistent with the popular picture of the Church as a patriarchal institution run by old white males. When the topic came up recently in a ZD thread, the ZD discussants (generally a fairly rational bunch) simply denied the data. Well, I think the question is too important and too interesting to dismiss simply because LDS feminists (and I use that as a descriptive term, not a dismissive one) don’t want to talk about it.
“Policy” and “Doctrine”, This Time with Venn Diagrams!
Here’s the circle that represents everything taught by church members, from the uncontroversial (like faith and repentance) to the bizarre (“King Arthur lost the priesthood for not listening to Merlin”): Now let’s add another circle for things taught by General Authorities. Every GA is a member of the church, so this circle is entirely encompassed by the first: Now another circle for things taught in General Conference. Most conference talks are given by General Authorities, but some are not (e.g. talks given by auxiliary leaders): Now let’s add one more circle for the words of the prophet (he’s always a General Authority, and some of his words are delivered in General Conference): We could add many more circles — one for apostles, one for scriptural teachings, one for things taught recently, one for things taught repeatedly. But most importantly, we can add one more big circle to identify the parts of each which are true: Some things taught by church members are true, some are not, and some truth is not taught by church members…and so on, through all of the circles. So where is doctrine and where is policy? Is policy the orange circle, and doctrine the overlap of the purple and blue circles? Is doctrine the overlap of the orange and green circles? It depends on who you ask. For me, doctrine is the blue circle — everything taught by any member of the church.
On the Proper Usage of “Policy” and “Doctrine”
We’ve enjoyed (or endured) countless discussions about which church teachings are “doctrines” and which are merely “policies”. Here’s my two cents: “policy” and “doctrine” aren’t opposites — they’re not even on the same axis. Doctrines are beliefs that are taught (in fact, the word “doctrine” comes from the Latin for “teachings”, suggesting that any belief taught in the church is, at some level, doctrine). Policies are organizational practices. Some doctrines are policies, some policies are doctrines, some are both, and some are neither. Determining that a particular teaching is policy doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s not also a doctrine. Both Doctrine and Policy: Baptism by authority. It is both taught and practiced. Neither Doctrine nor Policy: Raisin Bran is the best cereal ever! Doctrine but not Policy: The 10th Article of Faith. It is taught and believed in the church, but we have no organizational practices associated with the teachings contained in it. Policy but not Doctrine: …hmm…now that I think about it, perhaps every policy is necessarily a doctrine. After all, if it’s not taught, how can it be practiced? So the next time someone tells you that the priesthood ban or polygamy or some other controversial historical topic was “just policy”, don’t accept that as justification for ending discussion on the topic. Perhaps it was “just policy”, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t also doctrine.
May 2011 FHEs
You can find an explanation of this series here.
NT Lesson 18 (JF): Luke 15, 17
Luke 15 As I learned from Bruce Jorgensen, it is important to read the parables of Luke 15 together. Consider the setting that Luke gives us in verses 1-2 and then imagine Jesus telling each of these parables in response to what happens in those verses: he hears the Pharisees and the scribes complaining because he eats with sinners, so he tells the parable of the lost sheep; evidently they don’t understand his point because he immediately tells another parable, that of the lost coin—I imagine a silent pause after the first parable, with Jesus waiting for the Pharisees and scribes to respond; they seem not to understand the second one either, so he tells them a third, more complicated parable, the parable that we often call “The Parable of the Prodigal Son.” As I learned from Arthur Henry King, “The Parable of the Prodigal Son” is a strange name for this parable. It draws our attention to one of two sons and neglects the father, yet the parable is clearly about both sons (else there would be no point in the parable continuing past the announcement of the feast) and the father is clearly central to the parable’s meaning. Arthur suggested instead “The Parable of a Father and His Two Sons.” I think that is a better name. Verses 1-2: Why would the publicans and sinners have come to hear Jesus? Why does it bother the Pharisees and the…
What Today Means
NT Lesson 17: Mark 10:17-30; 12:41-44; and Luke 12:13-21; 14; 16
Given the quantity of material in these chapters, rather than try to cover everything, I will focus my questions on the verses from Mark and selections from the verses in Luke. As you read this material, be sure to ask how it applies to us who live in the latter-days. What do these verses teach us about taking up our cross (cf. Jacob 1:8, 3 Nephi 12:30, and perhaps Alma 39:9)? What do they teach about riches (not what do we recall others saying that they teach, but what do they really teach)? What does the parable and explanation in Luke 16:1-12 teach us about our relation to the world? Mark 10:17-30 How is the story of verses 13-16 connected to that in verses 17-30? Why does the fact that the man is running suggest? Why does he kneel? That is an unusual thing to do before a teacher, which is a more accurate translation of the word that the King James version translates “Master.” Why do you think the man uses the unusual title “good teacher”? Why does Jesus reject being called “good” (verse 18)? What does this person want? Compare this story to that in Matthew 12:28-34. How is the scribe in that story like the person in this one? Jesus says that the man in this story knows the commandments (verse 19). What does that tell us about that person? Why might Jesus have reworded the commandment…
Fry Sauce or Sriracha?
There can only be one. [poll id=”2″]
Jesus, our Only Joy be Thou
Err — only?
Be Ye Perfect
The gospel instructs us in a certain way of being imperfect. Here, salvation turns on practicing what Elizabeth Bishop calls “the art of losing.” Jesus famously describes this art of losing in Matthew 5:48. “Be ye therefore perfect,” he says, “even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” Here, the term “perfection” indexes that “certain way” that is peculiar to both Jesus and the Father. The baseline meaning of perfection, of teleios, is completion. But what kind of completion? My suggestion is that, rather than burying Jesus’ teleios beneath layers of curdled metaphysics and ripe fantasy, we ought to simply read the preceding verses in which Jesus tells us exactly what kind of perfection or completion he has in mind. Here are the preceding verses: 38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. 41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. 42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. 43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love…
Amens
I wonder sometimes if our kids don’t think that “amen” means “thank heavens that’s over!”
Do we still teach homemaking?
A guest post from our friend and colleague emeritus, Russell Arben Fox. The title of this post isn’t a snark; it’s an open question, about which I am genuinely curious. (I’m also giving a presentation on this topic next week at the Midwest Sunstone/Restoration Studies conference, so my ulterior motive is a fishing expedition for anecdotes from the Collected Saints of the Bloggernacle.)
Forms of Agency
Agency is closely linked to power. Without power, we cannot make choices, and without choices we have no agency. It is by our power to help, to learn, to build that we exercise agency. Each of these — helping, learning, building — are forms of agency. (Agency is also closely linked to work and value, but I’ll come back to those later.) I’m fascinated by the idea of “forms of agency”. Most of us tend to exercise agency in only a very few forms, limited by our ignorance of the options available. For example, if you decided to bake muffins, you could exercise your agency to choose between several “forms of muffins”: blueberry, bran, orange, etc. But how about pepperoni muffins? Even if you had all the ingredients for pepperoni muffins in your kitchen, you could not have exercised your agency to bake them; the thought wouldn’t have entered your mind (at least not until you’d read about them here. Now when you bake muffins, your agency will be expanded as a result of having read this post — and that’s what Times & Seasons is here for: expanding your culinary agency :) ). In other words, beyond requiring just resources and skills, agency also requires awareness of the available options. So I’ve created a framework of forms of agency. Each form is labeled with an archetype. I’m going to explore seven of these forms in a series here, starting…
Structures
Not every scholar agrees (as if!), but some identify the following structure in Matthew’s Gospel:
Serving God with Our Minds: SMPT Conference This Weekend
This weekend at BYU, the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology will hold its 8th Annual Meeting on the theme, “Serving God with Our Minds—The Place of Philosophy, Theology, and Scholarship in a Prophetic Church.” Featured speakers include Patrick Mason, who will soon be taking the Howard W. Hunter Chair of Mormon Studies at Claremont, Alan Wilkins, a former Academic Vice President and currently Associate Director of the Faculty Center at BYU, and Jack Welch, Robert K. Thomas University Professor in the BYU Law School. Sessions will address themes including the role of theology in devotional life, prophets and continuing revelation, spiritual dimensions of education at BYU and elsewhere, scriptural interpretation, liberation theology, and justice in a gospel society. A session on “Art and Philosophy of Art in the Restored Church” includes reflections by artists with work in the “Seek My Face” exhibit currently showing in the Church History Museum. The conference runs Thursday-Saturday, April 7-9. All sessions are free and open to the public. For more information, see the conference schedule on the
What About Portable Temples?
In his Sunday morning session remarks in general conference, President Monson told stories of great sacrifice offered to reach temples for sacred ordinances. He told of those in the Amazon who travel thousands of miles to the temple in Brazil. He told of the dedicated Tahitian man who — with his two sons — spent a total of six years, living away from the family, working in nickel mines to earn the money to get the family to the New Zealand temple. Given the recent local emphasis from the church on keeping families together, I was surprised to hear a story of a father and two sons leaving the mother and eight other children alone for six years being presented as a good thing. I had to wonder if there wasn’t a better way. President Monson said: No sacrifice is too great, no price is too heavy, no struggle too difficult in order to receive those blessings. There are never too many miles to travel, too many obstacles to over come, or too much discomfort to endure. I understand the sentiment. If there were no other choice, then sacrificing our lives to have eternal life would be the reasonable choice. But the stories led to a discussion about “temple doctrine” and, to be honest, I’m not sure what our doctrine about ordinance geography is. The early saints performed ordinances in all sorts of places, like spare bedrooms. Ancient Israelites had…
NT Sunday School Lesson 15: John 7-8
WARNING: Longer than usual notes. I agree with the generally accepted scholarly conclusion that John 7:53-8:11 is a later insertion into the original text. So I will deal with John 7:1-42 and John 8:12-59 as one narrative, the story of what Jesus does at the feast of the tabernacles. Then I will deal with the story of the woman taken in adultery separately. Chapter 7 Verses 1-5: In verse 1, to what is John referring with the phrase “these things”? Refer to the end of chapter 6 (e.g., John 6:66) to recall what things happened that caused him to be in danger. A more accurate translation of the word Jewry is “Judea.” in other words Jerusalem: Jesus left Judea and returned to Galilee. Nevertheless, the theme of Jewish opposition to Jesus is frequent in these chapters (John 7:1, 13, 19, 25, 30, 32, and 44; and 8:37, 40, and 59). John is setting the stage for Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem and his crucifixion, but how should we understand the term Jew in John’s gospel? Does the term always refer to the same group? If it does, who are they? If it doesn’t, in what ways does he use the term? Does it refer to the party of the High Priest, the Sadducees, in other words, the rulers of the temple? To the Pharisees? If so, to all of them or only some? Does it refer to the multitude, to the…
What’s the Scripturefulness Level of Conference?
A few weeks ago, our ward’s Relief Society did a lesson on the fourteen fundamentals of following the prophet. As a result, I now have a copy of them hanging on my refrigerator. Putting away the leftover cheesecake after last night’s games of Magic, my eyes caught on #3: “The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.” With General Conference (is that supposed to be capitalized?) nigh at hand, I got to wondering how we treat the words of the living prophets as compared to those of the dead prophets. So here’s my informal survey for y’all: Would you count reading conference talks as “scripture study”? Do you read regularly read conference talks as part of your scripture study?
April 2011 FHEs
Introduction to this series is here. I only prepared three this month in order to leave time for an Easter FHE (one of my favorites is here).
Book Review: God So Loved the World: The Final Days of the Savior’s Life
Eric D. Huntsman, God So Loved the World: The Final Days of the Savior’s Life, Deseret Book, 2011.
Faith, Philosophy, Scripture: Apocalyptic Theology
Imagine I’ve just been made supreme chancellor of a graduate program in Mormon theology. Thousands of students throng. We need a syllabus. What’s our first reading assignment? We’re going to start with Jim Faulconer’s dramatically subtitled essay “Rethinking Theology: The Shadow of the Apocalypse” from Faith, Philosophy, Scripture (Maxwell Institute, 2010). On my reading, Jim’s essay lays out a couple of basic principles for engaging in theology as quasi-academic meta-reflection on Mormonism: 1. Theology should be “apocalyptic.” Apocalypse does not so much refer to the end of the world . . . as it refers to the moment when the nearness of the kingdom of God is revealed to the believer and the believer’s life is oriented by that kingdom rather than by the world. To hear the gospel preached is to experience a type or shadow of the Apocalypse” (110) Our theology must be a figure of the Apocalypse, a theology that reveals God himself, even if only as a figure, rather than revealing only our understanding of him. (113) In an “apocalyptic” theology, the challenge is not to think another world or to think other than the world. It is not to create a Platonic metaphysics. The challenge is to think our being-in-the-world differently, to think it as directed toward God by his self-revelation in the world. (119) 2. Theology should confess its foolishness before God. If our theology is to be apocalyptic, it must demonstrate its foolishness…
Gospels
Imagine your four favorite meals. Now imagine them cut into bite-sized pieces and combined into one dish.
Parables
The Greek word translated as “parable” means, basically, a comparison. A parable compares one thing with another.
Hypocrites
As every tween knows, a hypocrite is someone who says one thing but does another.