People of Paradox by Terryl Givens. Apologetics and the Church

For some reason I thought Terryl would look like Colonel Sanders

For some reason I had a lasting obsession with Armand Mauss. It has now been transferred to Terrly Givens.

While reading People of Paradox, a History of Mormon Culture, I came across a few passages that interested me. I'm further into the book now but they keep nagging at me.

QUOTE

"Mormons by and large believe that God's revealing of himself to his prophets is just as literal as it ever was. In the face of such widespread rejection of Old Testament literalism regarding God's interaction with human beings, Mormonism is emphatically regressive. Joseph was inflexible in his insistence that his encounters with Deity involved in literal speech acts between divine persons and himself. The Book of Mormon he produced [I despise the secular use of the word produced] emphasizes as one of its cardinal teachings the urgency of embracing dialogic revelation as the birthright of righteous seekers in all ages. " pg. 14-15

Speaking of both Prophets and "righteous seekers" Terryl emphasizes what I think is one of Mormonisms greatest strengths; namely, the Church's insistence that members speak to God and receive personal revelation for themselves. Whilst the Prophet has always had a responsibility to speak to God and receive answers for the guidance and direction of the Church.

We are a prayerful people. And even more important than our prayerfulness- is that we fully expect to receive answers.


The point of all this is a bit disjointed; but these passages and my own personal desire to "become"(in the Maxwell and Oaks sense of the word) that I find myself at a weird crossroads in my relationship to Mormonism and Apologetics. Simply because my relationship to Modern Prophets and Apostles is shifting more towards that of a submissive role. This submission is always subject to my own relationship and communication with God; but to be honest, I trust the The Brethren completely.

Within Mormon Apologetics I think there may be a tendency to secularize what cannot be secularized. Example: Why couldn't people of African descent receive the Priesthood? Apologetic Answer: ...once the ban was in place —whether as a matter of revelation, or as a policy that arose out of the Church's 19th-century origins—members and leaders did not feel that they could simply "change" things. Six months ago that was the answer I would have given. However, there now exists a dissonance between my faith in God's Prophets and what I long considered a racist policy. Would God really allow such a racist policy to exist for so long? I think my answer right now may be one of 3:

1. It was a social construct for many different reasons.
2. It was given by God to one holding the office of Prophet and President.
3. I don't know.

#3 is my answer at the present. And so here I am back to saying (about a great many things) "I don't know but I'm praying about it. However, I trust and sustain Brigham Young and every other successive Prophet up to and including Thomas S. Monson, so I am at peace."

Back to People of Paradox:

QUOTE

"The last visitation acknowledged by a modern Mormon prophet was Christ's appearing to the fifth president, Lorenzo Snow, in the Salt Lake Temple in 1898...But what is important is that the heritage of encounters with a physically embodied Deity who speaks his will to a prophet continues to inform Mormon understanding of the prophetic role...As recent president, Ezra Taft Benson, declared, "today in Christ's restored church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, [Christ] is revealing Himself and His will- from the first prophet of the restoration, even Joseph Smith, to the present"ibid pg 14-15

The implications made by his differentiation between Christ revealing his "will" and Christ revealing "Himself" is staggering to me. But it's comforting and awe inspiring. But why should I be awestruck when God has revealed himself to me?

Recently I read a question regarding Biblical archaeology and BoM archaeology. One has more (Bible) and one has less (Book of Mormon) .I answered that both are records of Gods dealings with mankind. As such, both books should be viewed through spiritual eyes. I'm a firm believer in understanding context. But sometimes context and scholarship seem to overwhelm the plain and simple truths. I've heard both John Welch and Robert Millet say similar things.

I like Apologetics. I want to stay involved in Apologetics. I learn a lot from Apologetics. I believe Apologetics has a place within the Church.

So I wonder if I've just reduced my own view of Mormon Apologetics to some weird form of Brain Candy. It tastes good, but it sure isn't the bread of life.

Big UP!

The Lamanite

"The Angel and the Beehive, The Mormon Stuggle with Assimilation" by Armand Mauss

The epitome of Scholastic
I like it. I like it a lot!

I've recently recommended Armand Mauss' book The Angel and the Beehive, The Mormon Struggle with Assimilation, to several people. So I decided to give it a read again.

The first time through it I thought Mauss was a Godsend to Mormon Scholarship--a man whose ideas were beyond refute. I still think he is a brilliant scholar. But my views on this book changed.

This time through I felt as if the book had been sanitized by extra strength Scholarship at the expense of God. How can one make a sociological study of the Mormonism's place and assimilation into society without taking into account that some of the shifts it is making are a direct result of Gods revelations to his Prophets?

If survival is the first task of the movement [Mormonism], the natural and inevitable response of the host society is either to domesticate the movement or to destroy it. In seeking to domesticate or assimilate it, the society will apply various kinds of social control pressures selectively in an effort to force the movement to abandon at least its most unique and threatening features. pg 4

I agree with this assessment. I think Polygamy would be the most notable example. But then he goes on to say:

...To the extent that the society succeeds in this domestication effort, the result will be the eventual assimilation of the movement. Failing to achieve sufficient domestication, the host society will eventually resort to the only alternative: Persecution and repression" pg. 4

Now we all know that 19th Century Americans did in fact persecute and repress, but to what avail? Each time the refiners fire was lit, the Saints emerged a more determined God fearing people than before. They did now cow tow to every whim of society.

The logical extreme of either of these two societal responses (assimilation or repression) is, of course, oblivion for the movement...the "natural history" of the interaction between radical social movements and their host societies...movements must either submit to assimilation in important respects or be destroyed. pg 5

Nonsense. If God be with us, who can be against us? The abandonment of extreme religious practices were not done as a concession to the United States; rather doctrinal practices abandoned or evolved are merely evidence to me that God leads and guides the Church through his Son Jesus Christ and inspired leaders.

Mauss makes the point that until the 50' and 60' the Church was in the phase of assimilation. But an organization can oscillate between acceptance and rejection as long as the tension is not stretched too far.

Enter stage right: J. Reuben Clark. Mauss states, "Much of the significance of President clarks appointment lies in the fortuitous demise at about the same time of some of the great minds of the church who had been proponents of quite a different leadership orientation from his- e.g. B.H. Roberts, James Talmage, and Anthony Ivins." (ibid pg80)

The esoteric value of this statement is that intellectuals are liberal trouble makers and the conservative and eloquent President Clark was there to steady the ark. Rubbish. Clark was a man of God who was called and prepared to do His will. The idea that he woke up and thought, "Whoa, we've drifted too far into the assimilation continuum, we must begin a plan of retrenchment so as to maintain our unique identity", is laughable, IMO. To be fair, I don't think Mauss directly states this. But using some of my own hyperbole I don't think I'm far off the mark.

The plan for retrenchment had its beginnings while President Grant lay incapacitated, and Clark called Harold B. Lee, Spencer W. Kimball, Ezra Taft Benson, and Mark E. Petersen. He call 3 of the 4 "Clark men" while the other is obviously a "McKay man". lol

Finally he lists the "Five Major Thrusts of Retrenchment"

we can see that the "leadership in more recent years...reassert the distinguishing features of the Mormon heritage, almost as if to declare, "Assimilation has gone far enough. Let's start remembering the things that have made us a peculiar people." Five of these initiatives, in particular, seem especially apparent and worthy of review here:" (pg. 85)

1. Renewed assertion of the claim of continuous revelation through modern prophets
2. Renewed emphasis on temples, temple work, and genealogical research.
3. Expansion and standardization of the missionary enterprise
4. Family renewal and retrenchment
5. Expansion of formal religious education in the service of parochial indoctrination.


Perhaps some of you would like to comment on the alleged "retrenchment" operations of the Church, or Mauss in general.


Mauss has written some amazing things on blacks and the ban on the Priesthood. I really like him. I thought I liked this book. Every time I re-read a book it seems as if a little troll keeps adding and removing things that were or were not there before. Perhaps I'm different and so the book seems different? Nah, I'm sure it's a troll.

Big UP!

Lamanite

My Place in Mormonism

This is a photo of a group of Cameroon Saints traveling to the Nigerian Temple.
It simply reminds me that the Institution of the Church and its culture are changing more quickly than I can fathom. Big UP! to Cameroon

This post has been brewing for about a year now. It's EXTREMELY disjointed, but I needed to vent. I decided to give life to it when I read this from Armand Mauss:

"As much as anything, then, this .... is an effort to help me understand my own changing relationship to the Mormon institutions and people." (The Angel and the Beehive, xiii)

My relationship to the pure Gospel of Jesus Christ is very clear to me. It's only change happens when my discipleship increases. When that occurs, it seems to be the pattern of God to bestow more light and knowledge upon me; to see if I won't be true and faithful in all things. There are instances where I backslide a little and sometimes a lot, but it is then that the Atoning sacrifice of my God and Savior proffers forgiveness; and I humbly accept.

My love for the Prophet Joseph has always been deep and abiding. I wrote elsewhere that every spiritual blessing that I enjoy is directly and indirectly linked to Joseph Smith. I spoke confidently that if there were a word that existed between praise and worship, then I would like to use it in describing my feelings towards that man.

When Joseph went to the sacred grove to pray in 1820, he went with several things weighing heavily on his mind. One of those things was his own sinfulness, or how to be "saved". And so when the Lord spoke to him, he offered him what his heart desired most saying:

"Joseph my Son thy sins are forgiven thee. go [sic] thy way walk in my statutes and keep my commandments."

First, How incredibly touching that He would speak to Joseph in such a personal way; as well as answering his concerns regarding his sins. Second, How did that make Joseph feel? How does it make any of us feel when we are cleansed of sin? Joseph gives the answer; he said his "soul was filled with love and for many days I could rejoice with great Joy and the lord was with me."

What made this joy possible? Forgiveness. What made forgiveness possible? Jesus Christ and Him crucified. About 2000 yrs ago there was a night in April when all of Eternity hung in the balance. But I do not believe there was ever any doubt that Jesus, being filled with love and compassion for all of us, would fail. No, I do not believe there was ever any doubt. Just the heartache of a Father who allowed the great suffering to take place, and our own sorrow as the comprehension of what He would actually have to endure to complete that which he was sent here to do.

I think we talk about our Father less. That's just my opinion. But I see him in everything I do, and everything I am. It is his Divinity that dwells within me. It was under His direction and under His Power and Authority that all the worlds were created, and the inhabitants thereon who are begotten sons and daughters of God. I am also grateful that in spite of His title as Great Architect of the Universe, he still hears and answers my prayers. And I think that speaks volumes about our worth as His Children.

And now to the Holy Ghost. To be sure, he has been there to teach and enlighten me. He has been sent to me with instructions to teach me and to testify to me of Jesus Christ and of our Father who is in Heaven. He has unleashed a wonderful flood of light concerning the restoration of the Lords Church in this the last dispensation of the fullness of times. But what I appreciate most, is that he is there, even in the "Midnight" hours of our trials and tribulation, to console and offer Peace.

So with the Gospel of Jesus Christ in its proper position and place. I look around me as I try to exist within the culture and Institution of the Church. I wonder where it is that I fit in.

At times I feel uncomfortable. I cannot possibly belong in a Church full of white people who have not seen, done, or been the places I have. (this is hilarious because my wife and Mom are both white)

Now there are about 92 logical fallacies in the paragraph above, I only mentioned two. But I don't want to pick it a part. That's just how I feel. I'll work it out in therapy later. But I wonder if other people feel the same way? If they do, I wish I could talk to them.

I've noticed at times Women talk too much about each other and about stuff in general. Often times it hurts feelings. Men wield power and authority like they are a God unto themselves. And honestly Men, find a decent tailor for your Mr. Mac suits. And buy some shoe polish. I could probably go on. There are a lot of weird Mormon cultural issues. But are they only Mormon issues? Honestly I'd say no. All of humanity does irritating things. Me included. Hell, this post is irritating.

I have a deep affection for the Saints. I am bound by covenant to them and to God. I truly wish for a Zion like atmosphere. And to be honest, I think my selfishness and insecurities prevent that in many cases.

So on to conclusions. I think I should get out of my own way. I think I should love and serve others with more voracity than I have hitherto done. I think people are generally nice. I think Mormons are good people trying to do good things.

I AM PROUD TO BE A MORMON
MY PLACE IS, AND WILL ALWAYS WILL BE WITH THE MORMONS

Big UP!

The Lamanite