The Lamanite

2009-03-12T21:58:00.001-07:00

Neal A. Maxwell- Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ
Words cannot express how much I miss this man.

'Ofa atu

The Lamanite

Goodbye To Harvard

2009-02-24T20:38:00.000-08:00

I'm Pretty sure I'm the first Tongan to stand at a lectern at the Harvard Divinity School

First, just a thanks to my good friend Blair. Were it not for him I would not have been able to go. Big Up to Seth Payne and Taylor Petrey who also contributed to my being at this conference.

The formal sessions of the conference were great. But the discussions in between was where I enjoyed myself the most.

Ron Walker- After the Turley/Walker presentation I spoke with Ron for quite some time. He was part of the "Camelot Days" of Church History. Everything he said was off the record. However, I can say that our conversation confirmed what I had always assumed. He was a very cordial and accomodating man. I thoroughly enjoyed our talk.

Richard Turley- I spoke with him quite a bit. I can't remember each conversation we had. Some of it was off the record. Some of it was just a discussion of Church History, the Joseph Smith Papers, and how he was enjoying the hummus. :-) I felt comfortable with him. I actually just started calling him Rick. He was very balanced and perfectly fine with letting others do the talking. I enjoyed his company immensely.

Jan Shipps- I had several short conversations with her throughout the conference. Then on the last night she walked in with Brother and Sister Bushman (I called her Sister Shipps too. I don't think she minded). I asked her if I could ask a couple of questions. She said "of course" and sat down. We talked about sharing a cab in the morning and made the arrangements. Then I started with the questions. About 15-20 minutes later Blair walked in and started recording this on video I believe. We talked about Bushman, Davis, Allen, Walker, Hoffman and such. We talked about D. Michael Quinn at length. We talked about the Prince bio of David O. McKay. She said that it was an "Important" book for Mormonism. She told the story of how we first got access to the Council of 50 documents; it was hilarious. She also talked about her respect for the Temple and her commitment to not cross that line. We talked for well over an hour. I wish somehow we could transcribe that whole conversation. That conversation was an important one for Mormonism. Those who were present were lucky. In the morning we shared a cab. We checked in together. She was absolutely lovelly to be around. I would love to have lunch with her when she comes to do research in the summer.

Kathleen Flake- Like I've said before, she was difficult for me to read. She did say that hanging out with me and Blair was like being in a Saturday Night Live Skit. LOL. I took that as a compliment. Rick Turley was with us when we had our Bodega Dinner. He seemed to be enjoying the levity. It was then that we Learned of Larry H. Millers death. Anyway I find that I am drawn to her in a certain way I can't describe. She's infectious and distant. I'd like to spend some more time with her so as to understand her personal Mormon hermeneutic. But more importantly I'd like to understand her spiritual beliefs. I'd love to hear her share her testimony; now that would be great!

Richard Bushman- He was polite but aloof. I'm not sure if he was distracted or if that is his nature. He signed my copy of RSR with a very nice note. He spoke to me when I spoke to him and he answered with brevity.

Claudia Bushman- She was much more talkitive. I sat near her through the whole conference. I talked to her about feminism, the Church, and the raising of my daughters. She was a delight to be around. She said she would give me a copy of the "Pink" issue of dialogue, but I never followed up with her.

To all the participants and presenters that sat with me, ate with me, and talked with me I just want to say thank you. You made the conference special for me. Being with like minded individuals who think and read and ponder and pray was something I've longed to experience. Whether we agreed or disagreed, the discussion sparked thought. It often times stretched me and my beliefs. I thank you for that. If there is any way you can e-mail me or leave a comment I would appreciate it. I'd love to stay in touch as you progress in school and in careers.

Well, Goodby to Harvard. It was everything I hoped it would be.

Sione/ The Lamanite

P.S. For pictures of our trip go to HARVARD PICS . Beware though, it's mostly of our trip to the Natural History Museum. And don't mind my picture descriptions, I wrote them while on Ambien. lol

Harvard Recap- Pictures and Casual Conversation coming soon!

2009-02-22T19:09:00.000-08:00

The following is a very brief glimpse of my notes. Some speakers I didn't take notes on while others received the opposite.

The real treat will be tomorrows post where I will discuss what happened after the sessions!

Faith and Knowledge

Latter-day Saints in Religious Studies
Harvard Divinity School
February 20-21, 2009

Friday, February 20,2009

Round Table Discussion

Richard Turley and Rondald Walker discussion on Massacre at Mountain Meadows.

One of the most exciting parts of the discussion was that Rick just signed a deal with Oxford to publish the second volume of Massacre at Mountain Meadows. Personally I had a very emotional journey through this event---again. However, the cover-up is what brings my blood to a boil, and I think that is one of the focuses of the second volume.

A guy named Max Muller (sp?) asked several question that IMO accused the two Historians of trying to justify the event by saying two things. 1. These were good people doing bad things. 2. That by discussing the quickly fomenting situation in Utah they were in some way trying to justify, or at the very least minimalize, the responsibility of the Mormons and Indians involved.

To that, I say nonsense. I had to comment to the panel and especially to Max at this point. My first point was that as Historians it was their job to provide context to the event discussed in the book. The evidence is what they followed, not some biased Mormon agenda. Context does not equal an attempt to Justify. Secondly the idea that a good person can do a bad thing, or that a bad person does a bad thing, is an issue left up to philosophers. The philosophical implications of the latter are enormous and it would take an entire day for me and another philosopher to agree on what question we should be asking and how it should be phrased. I think Max was off base.

Nevertheless. it was a wonderful session. Afterwords I got to spend some time talking to Ron Walker. I asked him everything I wanted to know about the "Camelot Days" of Church History, and he answered off the record. (Sorry) But it was an honor that he would be so forthright and honest.

I spent quite a bit of time with Rick (I never thought I would call Richard Turley, "Rick") over the weekend. He was open and honest and always sincere. He is a very genuine guy without an ounce of guile. I asked him about the New Church History Library and I am soooo excited. When asked when it would open, he answered off the record, but it will be soon.

Keynote Speaker : Kathleen Flake, Associate Professor of American Religious History, Vanderbil University, "To Disabuse the Public Mind"

My dear Kathleen. I really like her. I don't think the feeling is reciprocated though. I think she tolerates me, but I still smile when she looks at me disapprovingly. :-)Basically she talked about the tension/conflict between faith and reason. This has long been of interest to me, simply because my goal is to get my soul and my mind in harmony with God. When that happens, I have created an environment for development and revelation.When I wrestle with difficult questions, I wait for those condition to develop. I will study, ponder, and pray. But if no instruction is given, I simply place the issue on my mental shelf of unanswered questions, and then I wait. You see, God has this somewhat irritating habit of doing things according to his time, will, and pleasure. But I'm growing more accustomed to that.Sometimes things come off the shelf, while new issues are placed upon it. Nevertheless, this "conflict" has become familiar. I think Kathleen used a similar sentiment. And so we who question, think, analyze, and deconstruct--waiting and praying for God to send us further light and knowledge, which has been promised; while at the same time being patient and faithful.

Big UP! and Mad Respect!

Sione Pauni

P.S. You owe me a discussion on symbolism, rites, and liturgy. :-)

Saturday, February21, 2009

Scripture

Jared Anderson, "Preparing the Path for LDS Biblical Studies" (PhD Candidate, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill------He shared Orson F. Whitney's vision of the Savior. He went on to argue that God will cater and conform to our cultural associations in order to reveal himself and his will in a way that is familiar. Call me old fashioned but the God of the Universe, who also happens to be my creator need not change to meet the cultural norms of my day; Otherwise he would appear to me today as a "Girl Gone Wild". No I think God, through the Spirit, can communicate despite our culture ,race, or gender.

Scott Davis, "He that Increaseth in Knowledge Increaseth in Sorrow: Vexation and Catharsis in Critical Readings of Later-day Saint Scripture" (MAR Candidate, Yale Divinity School)---no notes

Justin White, "Ruim and Thummim or a Love Affair: Two Possibilities for LDS Scriptural Hermeneutics: (MA Candidate, Brigham Young University)-- Justin discusses two possible Hermeneutics. Namely, critical and devotional. I can't remember correctly but I think he places these two approaches to scripture at odds with each other. But I distinctly remember thinking the simply wonderful exhortation to seek learning by study and faith. These principles are not mutually exclusive; rather they are complimentary. Justin does make a very useful recommendation. He first makes the observation that many people bring their existing beliefs to the scriptures and look for them to be validated. On the other hand Justin suggest coming to the scriptures with an open heart and mind and allow ourselves to be taught something new. This I think is like having a clean heart; possessing a slate upon which God can write the indelible language of Heaven upon.

Mark Wright, "Hierophanies and the Omnilingual God: A sociohistorical Critical Approach to LDS Canon (PhD Candidate, University of California, Riverside)-----I like Mark a lot. Last time he spoke I completely misunderstood his message and accused him of presentism. He really knows what he's talking about. The idea of Heirophanies is interesting. I'd like to study more about the differences between Heirophanies and Theophanies.

I should say that there is much that I disagreed with during this session. I created a list of question that I could ask during the Q&A, but they don't seem as important now as they did then so lets just let them alone.

The Place of Religious Scholarship in the Church

Matt Bowman, "A Theology of Dissent" (PhD Candidate, Georgetown University)---Dissent within Mormonism goes back to its beginnings. But what is its place in today's Church? Matt poses a great many questions but according to my recollection does not offer solutions or remedies. Indeed there is dissent; one need only look at the recent goings on with Proposition 8. I happen to be one of the dissenters in this issue. I have no venue with which to voice my opposition, at least not without the potential for disciplinary action. So what to do? I say keep my mouth shut, and discuss your dissent quietly amongst like minded individuals. Not the best solution, but at least I provided one. lol

Richard T. Livingston, "Ontotheology and the Boundary Conditions of Inness" (PhD Student, Claremont Graduate University)------I didn't take many notes on Richards talk. However, outside of the conference we spent a lot of time together discussing a great many things. It was nice to say to him "Richard, do you think an Omniscient God negates free will", and have someone actually understand me, and also have a well thought out response. Richard is disarming in spite of an enormous intellect. I like people like that. He was willing to explain when I lagged behind. A true gentleman with whom I enjoyed plumbing the depths of theology and philosophy.

Guinevere Woolstenhulme, "serving Up 'Forbidden Fruits': Bringing Our Scholarship Home" (MA 2005, University of California, San Diego/JD Candidate, New England Law)------Guinevere was one of my favorites. Her presentation had real life implications. It was not couched in the abstract. She said something to the effect that the dissonance between faith and scholarship often involves "others". She has question, as have I, about how much I should share with the "others"? I wonder that all the time. My Mom recently was asking me about the Masonic Ritual. Without giving it any though I break out Duncans Ritual. Within this book are certain things that will be familiar to any endowed member of the Church. She was visibly shaken. I could have kicked myself. That was irresponsible. But there is also a time when our families and friends must be invited into our studies and knowledge. I think the only possible answer is to allow the Spirit to lead, guide, and direct us, as we strive forward with an eye single to he glory of God.

Elizabeth Pinborough, "Christ Doesn't Wear Blue Jeans': Becoming Reconciled to God through Other Critical Perspective (MAR Candidate, Yale Divinity School)-----No Notes.

Feminism and Theology

Sheila Taylor, "Feminist Theology in a LDS Context" (PhD Candidate, Graduate Theological Union)------I actually enjoyed her presentation the most. She was not so rigid that she wouldn't concede when necessary and still maintain a strong feminist position. She spoke of Heavenly Mother. In my estimation our Heavenly Mother exists without doubt or equivocation. Anything beyond that I must answer "I don't know". And I don't think the first Presidency or the twelve are praying for women to hold the Priesthood, or to further define our Heavenly Mother; so I believe we are on "pause" for awhile.

Deidre Green, "Selflessness as Sin: Feminis Theology for Latter-day Saint Women" (PhD Student, Claremont Graduate Univesity)-----Pretty much disagreed with everything she said. But she's extremely nice. I had a chance to talk briefly with her after her presentation. I think if we had a one on one dialogue it would help us understand each other better.

Kate Holbrook, "Mormonist Feminism: An Apologia" (PhD Canidate, Boston University)---- Not present for this talk but I heard it was awsome. Perhaps Life on Gold Plates will have some notes.

Gender, Sexuality and Theology

Gwedolyn Reynolds, "On Being a Mormon Man: The Performance of Mormon Maculinity" (MTS Candidate, Harvard Divinity School)----This girl had a lot of spunk. She talked so fast that sometimes I missed the weight of what she said. I asked for her notes but she said no, they weren't finished. Oh well. One of the things that she said is that men must possess feminine qualities (mercy, love, caring, empathy, nurturing) while exercising the Priesthood. I had two questions I never got answered. 1. What are the implications of these feminie qualities being made made manifest while officiating in the Priesthood. And also, I disagree that these are feminine qualities; I think they are Christ like qualities. Overall I really like her presentation. She's very cute but to tell her so would drive the feminist in her crazy. At one point we were both standing and I offered to get her a chair. She said that was sexist. I thought her reaction was extreme. Anyway she seems very nice, despite her inability to accept a kind gesture.

Ty Mansfield, "postmodernism in the Service of Orthodoxy? How Queer Theology, Systems Theory, and Social Constructionism Can Inform Latter-day Saint Thought on Gender and Sexuality" (M. MFT Student, Abilene Christian University)-----No notes

Carl Cranney, "The LDS Agument Against Hoosexual Marriage: Not a House of Cards, But Not Built on a Rock Either" (PhD Student, Catholic University of America)------ Carl does a good job at building a case. It was a bit abstract and required more than a few mental gymnastics to get to where we were going, but it was a decent attempt. I think I have a better solution which is more succinct, direct, and honest. It has nothing to do with the basic unit of the family, or anthing of that nature. My answer is that it is wrong. That's it. I think it's wrong because my interpretation of Holy scripture teaches me that God thinks it wrong. And so I follow the counsel of God and his Prophets and Apostles. I'm sick of this erosion of the moral fabric....blah blah blah argument. So in the end I think Homosexuals who practice homosexuality are committing a sin. However, I don't thing that should prevent them from getting married.

Pluralism

Michael Ing, "Pluralistic Perspectives on Ritual Practice" (PhD Candidate, Harvard University)----- The one thing I rember about Michael, well there's actually two, First is that He's Hawaiian, the second is his talk about "open inclusiveness" This is something I'm very interested in. A good portion of my being is pluralistic or universalist. And so I usually include and accept everyone. What are the theological implications of this type of pluralism. I say confidently that the the greatest outcome will be positive realtions and growth. There is only one caveat in my own life, and that is that I don't concede any of the basic tenets of the Gospel. The Gospel message of the restoration is what separates us from mainstream Christianity and should be protected. So I say let us work towards an ecumenical brotherhood; but never at the expense of our own theology.

David Golding, "missiology, Pluralism, and the Expansion of Mormonism" (MA Candidate, Claremont Grduate University)-----No notes

Chuck Schofield, "Defining Mormon Pluralism" (PhD Student, Claremont Graduate University)----No Notes. However, I got to sit next to him durin dinner and he's good people. He doesn't say much, but when he does speak, it's both poignant and/or funny. I like the Chuck.

Concluding Remarks: Richard L. Bushman- 20 min. Talk. Nothing earth shattering, but it was good. He signed my RSR book. "To Sione, a great student of the Prophet Joseph Smith" I thought that was pretty cool.

After Bushman finished we hung out in the hall and talked. Then we all went to eat Chinese food together. I sat by Kathleen Flake, Richard Livingston, Chuck (The Blair Doppelganger) Schofield, and Ty Mansfield. Great Conversation!

Big UP!

The Lamanite (Sione)

First Day at Harvard

2009-02-20T20:56:00.000-08:00

Fancy Pants Harvard

First of all let me say something about my blog. I never edit for spelling, grammar, or fluidity of thought. What you see is what came straight out of my cluttered brain. Just tonight I realized that my Terryl Givens post title makes no sense, and that the post itself contains some serious grammatical errors that affect meaning. I don't care enough to fix them. Plus I like the raw unedumacated flavor I'm kickin.

First day at Harvard

Blair and I go to the Peabody Museum of Natural History and Art. We had a good time. Pictures are forth coming.

Then we had a round table with Ron Walker and Richard Turley. Ron Walker is a very quiet but direct man. His words are measured and precise. Richard has a wonderful smile and is eager to answer questions. It was a pleasure to hear both of them go over the MMM narrative. They spoke on several different aspects of the incident, it was both fascinating and heartbreaking.

The Q&A portion of the meeting was interesting. Their is a distinct difference in the way Non-Mormons view and interpret this event which are too numerous to mention.

In the end my assessment is that these men provided a rich contextual structure for the Massacre and allowed the reader to draw whatever conclusion they wished.

Break

Key note speaker- Kathleen Flake-

Kathleen requires a post of her own. She is not soft spoken, but she speaks softly. It's an interesting Saruman type trick. It's very soothing; which almost makes you almost miss the incredible things she is saying. She uses words in a way that are different than what I'm used to. She also thinks about Religion, Ritual, and Mormonism just a bit differently than I do; which was great because it forced some introspection. However, I feel like she is hesitant to allow others completely into her personal spiritual space.

Later that evening we had a quasi-dinner hat was bought at the local bodega. We went back to the Inn and talked for awhile. Richard Turley, Blair Hodges, Kathleen Flake, Mark Wright, and David Larsen were all there. We had a nice time. I think me and Blair are a bit too much for Kathleen. She said it was like being in a Saturday Night skit.

Oh, I did Chat briefly with Claudia and Richard Bushman, and Jan Shipps. I had nice conversations with all three. I'd share details but they weren't earth shattering and dealt mostly with my family.

Anyway it was a day well spent. I look forward to tomorrow.

Big UP!

Lamanite

P.S. For more detailed info and a few transcribed quotes got to LIFE ON GOLD PLATES

People of Paradox by Terryl Givens. Apologetics and the Church

2009-01-30T18:59:00.000-08:00

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

Harvard Divinity Scool- Faith and Knowledge

2009-02-08T17:18:00.000-08:00

I am pleased to announce that I will be attending the "Faith and Knowledge" conference at the Harvard Divinity School in February. I will not be presenting. I'll be going with a friend of mine who participates with me at Mormonapologetics and at F.A.I.R.

Reconciliations and Reformulations
A Conference for LDS Graduate Students in Religious Studies
Harvard University, February 20-21, 2009

Many Latter-day Saints experience their scholarship and their religion as clashing cultures, each with its competing values and contradictory conclusions. Religious studies students especially struggle to reconcile their faith and the knowledge they acquire in graduate school. The forms this reconciliation take–including the failure to achieve reconciliation–become crucial episodes in a student’s life history. The purpose of the Faith and Knowledge Conference for 2009 is to provide a forum for exploring these attempts at reconciliation.

Kathleen Flake (Vanderbilt) will deliver a keynote address the evening of Februrary 20.

We invite paper proposals from graduate students in religious studies and other related fields in the following four categories:

I. Gender and Sexuality
The academic discipline of religion is interacting more and more with methodologies and theories borrowed from gender and sexuality studies. As LDS scholars, to what extent do we engage in or disregard these methodologies? Can we take more expansive views of homosexuality, feminism, and other related issues than Mormon theology traditionally does without compromising our faith? Can feminist theology, queer theory, and similar approaches be useful to LDS scholars or must they be rejected altogether? How do more traditional viewpoints inform our academic scholarship, and how may the more expansive contemporary views of such issues inform both our academic scholarship and our understanding of the Gospel? Is reconciliation possible (or even needed) between these academic paradigms and the faith of the LDS scholar?

II. Scripture
LDS scholars commonly perceive a tension between “academic” and “devotional” approaches to scripture. Can scholarly methodologies (the historical-critical method, literary criticism, etc.) be usefully incorporated into the study or interpretation of LDS scripture, both ancient and modern, or must they be abandoned or subordinated to faith-based understandings? What investments do LDS scholars of scripture bring to the academic table and in what ways do they manifest themselves in productive or unproductive ways in LDS scholarship? Can academic approaches to the Bible be helpful in the study of revealed scripture, and if so, do they require some kinds of reconciliations or transformations? Is there and/or should there be a unique LDS scriptural hermeneutic, and what would it look like?

III. Pluralism
The approaches of religions to their own truth-claims may be divided into three categories: exclusivist religions, which assert that theirs is the sole bearer of truth and salvation; inclusivist religions, which recognize that other traditions possess enough truth to qualify them for salvation; and finally, pluralist religions, which hold that all traditions are equal paths to God. In a time of globalization, Latter-day Saint interactions with other religions, both Christian and non-Christian, raise questions about our view of ourselves. As we learn to appreciate the depth of other religious traditions, we wonder if our exclusivist view on truth is sustainable and defensible. How do we react to the theological and political dilemmas that exclusive claims to salvation through Jesus Christ or through Mormon rituals entail? Can a Mormon pluralism exist, or must we take on the burden of exclusivism?

IV. The Place of Religious Scholarship in the Church
Religious scholars and scholarship occupy an ambiguous role in the Church. Religious scholarship is cited when it supports Church teachings but rejected when it suggests that Church positions may be problematic. Moreover, the scholar who raises questions of this find falls under suspicion. Given current Church culture, what can an LDS scholar of religion bring to the table? Can a scholar utilize his/her tools and scholarship in a pastoral role? Can LDS religious scholars work to remove the stigma in the Church associated with the academic study of religion – and especially the academic study of Mormonism? Specifically, in what ways can areas of religious scholarship contribute positively to the spiritual and cultural life of the Church?

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

2009-01-07T19:46:00.001-08:00

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

2009-01-05T23:10:00.000-08:00

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

Internet Mormons, Chapel Mormons, and Unity amongst the Saints.

2008-12-14T19:35:00.000-08:00

*This is a continuation from a thread at MADB,

Nuku'alofa, Tonga Temple

A place where the Saints are united with each other and with God.

Internet vs. Chapel Mormons

This specific terminology was introduced by a critic of Mormonism, Jason Gallentine, who identifies himself as "Dr. Shades."1

Examples of distinction:

1. Chapel Mormons will typically try and bend the facts to fit the prophets, while Internet Mormons are far more comfortable bending the prophets to fit the facts.
2. When the apologists contradict the prophets, Internet Mormons almost always go with the apologists, while Chapel Mormons almost always go with the prophets.
3. Internet Mormons believe that the words "Lamanite" and "Native American" refer to two entirely separate cultural and linguistic groups. Chapel Mormons believe that the words "Lamanite" and "Native American" are interchangeable.
4. Internet Mormons believe that Noah's flood was a localized event, covering only a certain area. Chapel Mormons usually believe that Noah's flood was a global event, covering the entire world.
5. Internet Mormons believe the Lehite colony landed in a New World filled with Asiatic inhabitants. Chapel Mormons believe the Lehite colony landed in a New World devoid of inhabitants save, perhaps, for at least one remaining Jaredite.
6. When discussing prophetic utterances, Internet Mormons often say "it was only his opinion." Chapel Mormons almost never say "it was only his opinion," believing that a prophet's words and God's words are essentially one and the same. 2

I'm sure you get the idea. This topic has been done to death on message boards and on blogs. But for me, this line of thinking has lead me contemplate something completely tangential. Or perhaps what I've been pondering is the central issue and all else is tangential.

Generally "Chapel Mormons" are not even aware that these labels exist. Internet Mormons resist these labels primarily because Dr. Shades (an Anti-Mormon) coined the phrases. I think absent the labels, most Mormons will admit to very "blurry" lines of distinction within our personal beliefs.

I wrote in the MADB thread:

I don't have a problem with...blurry lines of distinction. The days of orthodox literalism is shifting, IMO. I absolutely think that as scientific or historical information becomes available that may challenge our current theological paradigms, Internet Mormons are more likely to entertain the implications; whereas ...Chapel Mormon[s] may bristle to know the Earths age is approx 4.5 billion years old and is not pieces of other old Earths put together.

One does not need to be one or the other. But I don't have a problem with a loose distinction for conversations sake.

My method concerning the acquisition of truth is that...when there seems to be a question regarding something that has previously been confirmed by the Holy Spirit, then there is no question whatever about it. However, if I'm seeking truth that has not been confirmed or revealed by God, then it will come by study and by faith. And I will stay that course until the Spirit bestows further light and knowledge, and my testimony is increased.

I'm rambling now, but here is the thrust of my musings. Despite all of our minor differences we are all Saints. And despite a healthy discussion of the age of the Earth; or biological evolution; or DNA and the Book of Mormon, we remain united in a covenant relationship with God and with each other.

"He that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another" (3 Nephi 11:29)

And to our dispensation God declared:

"I say unto you, be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine." (D&C 38:27)

I could write twenty pages on this single concept. The Temple is where I have learned more about this idea than any other place. But let's look at the Book of Mormon for a moment:

[1]...and behold they [a multitude of Saints] had fallen to the earth, for the fear of the Lord had come upon them.

[2] And they had viewed themselves in their own carnal state, even less than the dust of the earth. And they all cried aloud with one voice, saying: O have mercy, and apply the atoning blood of Christ that we may receive forgiveness of our sins, and our hearts may be purified; for we believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who created heaven and earth, and all things; who shall come down among the children of men.

[3] And it came to pass that after they had spoken these words the Spirit of the Lord came upon them, and they were filled with joy, having received a remission of their sins, and having peace of conscience, because of the exceeding faith which they had in Jesus Christ who should come, according to the words which king Benjamin had spoken unto them.

[4] And king Benjamin again opened his mouth and began to speak unto them, saying: My friends and my brethren, my kindred and my people...(Mosiah 4: 1-4)

This was both an individual and collective experience. United in heart and purpose, vocally they cried out and made a covenant with God. They were truly kindred people. They had taken the name of Christ upon themselves and were washed clean, they had joy and peace of conscience.

Now, does this mean they were a Borg like collective conscience void of any differences or distinctions? I would say no. I don't know why we have this incredible zeal to label each other with a one dimensional category?

Think for an instance why we have so many varied talents and blessings.

11 For all have not every gift given unto them; for there are many gifts, and to every man is given a gift by the Spirit of God.
12 To some is given one, and to some is given another, that all may be profited thereby. (D&C 46)

What a wonderful thing it is that there is so much variety within the Church. And how wonderful it is that we are able to take those talents that we are blessed with and dedicate them, along with those of our brothers and sisters in the Gospel, to the building up of the Kingdom of God.

So may I simply say thanks to Dr. Shades! Thank you for identifying two of the most beautiful shades amongst the spectrum of colors that is Mormonism.

Am I an Internet Mormon?

Am I a Chapel Mormon?

Am I much more than the aggregate of the two?

Yes!

Big UP!

The Lamanite

1. F.A.I.R. Wiki article.
2. Anti-Mormon site

Robert A. Rees: The Goodness Of The Church, Dialogue: Vol. 41, No. 2 pg 172

2008-12-04T13:04:00.000-08:00

Julian the Apostate
I'm sure it had something to do with his subscription to
Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought

Recently I was added to the Mormon Blogosphere aggregator. The wonderful part about the addition is that my blog was added to the "Liberal/Fringe elements" category, lol. So to celebrate- I thought I would add a special Dialogue post celebrating the deficiencies within the institution of the Church.

I'm just kidding, but this is a damn good essay by Rees. I'm only commenting on the last two paragraphs, but the whole essay is fantastic, IMO.

QUOTE
"...Like any institution managed by humans, the Mormon Church is less than perfect..."

Now, everyone in the Church will concede this point. It's obvious that that imperfect men and women will make mistakes in the operation of the Church and the preaching of the Gospel. It is to be expected.

However, no one appreciates a list of the imperfections, and often will vehemently oppose the allegations.

Imperfections, "both in its teachings and its practice. The extent to which the Church reflects values and perpetuates policies and practices that are too hierarchical, patriarchal, sexist, anti-intellectual, racist, homophobic, and protective off its own image, it diminishes its power to be a force for goodness."

If the above assertions are baseless and false, then what imperfections are we talking about? Surely no one can make a case for an infallible Prophet, nor can they make the case for infallible Apostles, Stake Presidents, Bishops, et al. There are small and major policy and procedural mistakes, both past and present, but I think we are moving in the right direction. But there has always been hope and promises that despite our screw ups the Church will move forward like the rock cut out of the Mountain without hands.

Nevertheless, as it is a "living" and therefore potentially evolving institution, we can hope that its evolution is progressive rather regressive. It is the stewardship of all the leaders and the members to ensure that it is, and this means facing honestly those things about the Church that are not reflective of the gospel of Christ as well as acknowledging and affirming those that are.

We, the imperfect, are left to govern ourselves the best we can. The ideal situation is that we will act appropriately and in conjunction with God's will. But that's an ideal, not a reality. When we stray from the course, I'm sure there will be those that lovingly bring us back to the straight and narrow. I know that quorum of the Twelve operates in a very similar fashion. (See, Rise of Modern Mormonism, Prince), and so should we.

"So, while there are things that are wrong with the Church, there is much that is right with it. Finally, what is right with it is that it is one of few places where we can find holiness, where we can find manifestations of God's abundant love and his amazing grace. Not always, but often. And in an increasingly unholy world, this is no small thing. It is, I believe for the possibility of finding such holiness that the Lord created His church, that He commands us to be engaged in its mission, and that He invites us to partake of its blessings. It is partly out of hope that I will find such holiness and perhaps in my small way make holiness happen for myself and others that I continue to go to Church."

I feel much the same way. It is a place of refuge amidst a ver large and looming storm covering the earth. I found God within a Christian/Mormon context. Idevelop that relationship within the same context. Mormonism is a place for me to serve and love and increase my Discipleship. I make sacred covenants with God and renew them weekly, and believe me I need it. I find forgiveness and Peace within this Church. And although the world has its counterfeits, it can never offer Peace and Forgiveness in its purest forms as our Father does.

"And, in spite off occasional disagreements with practice or policy, in spite of occasional frustration and hurt, and in spite of the weekly challenges of being a liberal, intellectual Latter-day Saint in a conservative, often anti-intellectual church community, because of my wish for the Church as it is to be more like the Church as it should be and because off a lifelong experience of finding love and goodness there, I give the Church my allegiance and devotion, not mindlessly but mindfully, and with full heart and voice."(bold mine)

The thing I appreciate most is that he's completely honest about his loves, his concerns, and his complete devotion. Contrary to some beliefs, one can be a critic of the institution of the Church and as orthodox and devoted as anyone else.

From "Faith of an Observer- Conversations with Hugh Nibley":

"There have been some things said about Brigham Youn University by others, non of them are as painfully citical as what Nibley occasionally says, and the same goes for certain aspects of the Church, institutionally speaking. He really is its gadfly critic..Is he a cynic and pessimist, with all kinds of negative things to say? Yes. Is he an optimist, an idealist, with great hope for the future? Yes. Some would say you can't get those together. He does."

I'd like to think I can too.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Joseph B. Wirthlin - In Memoriam

2008-12-02T18:29:00.000-08:00

SALT LAKE CITY 2 December 2008 Elder Joseph B. Wirthlin, the oldest living apostle of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, died last night, age 91.

Elder Wirthlin had gone to bed at his Salt Lake City home, and died peacefully at about 11:30 pm of causes incident to age. His oldest daughter, Jane Wirthlin Parker, was present. A member of the family had been staying and caring for Elder Wirthlin, whose wife, Elisa Young Rogers Wirthlin, died in 2006.

He had continued to work at his office right up until the Thanksgiving holiday.

Funeral services will be held at noon on Friday, December 5, at the Tabernacle on Temple Square. Press Release LDS.org

In the year 2000, the Church released a DVD called Special Witnesses of Christ. The Twelve men in that DVD, were men I had come to love. I converted to the Gospel while those 12 men served. And now, more than a few have passed quietly on to something greater. Change is always difficult for me, and so I mourn the loss of another one of my "original" 12. For some reason, I always had a special affinity for Elder Wirthlin. Perhaps it was his unassuming demeanor. Or perhaps it was his gentle humility. Whatever the reason, I'm sure he will be missed by millions, and he will be missed by me.

From a conference address(Life's Lessons Learned 1997), he shares his simple yet powerful testimony:

President Gordon B. Hinckley has promised that "[Heavenly Father] will shower down blessings upon those who walk in obedience to His commandments."

I add my voice to his.

I testify that Jesus is the Christ, the Savior of all mankind. I testify that God is close at hand. He cares about us and loves us, His children. Prophets, seers, and revelators guide the progress of the restored Church of Jesus Christ. President Gordon B. Hinckley stands as a latter-day prophet to the Church and to the world.

I give thanks to my Creator for this wonderful life where each of us has the opportunity to learn lessons we could not fully comprehend by any other means.

My dear brethren, may we set righteous goals and work to achieve them, do what is right, and reach out in love to those around us. This is my prayer and testimony, in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

Respect,

Lamanite

Ancient Manuscripts Fit Book of Mormon Pattern

2008-12-01T14:02:00.000-08:00

Based on findings from the following article:

Ancient Manuscripts Fit Book of Mormon Pattern, Insights, February 1999 pg.3-4
contributed by John Gee and John A. Tvedtnes

The metal plates, which had the appearance of gold.

Looking back into time at the beginnings of Mormonism I find that almost 200yrs. allows me a very broad perspective. I think it almost impossible to separate what we know now; from what we think Joseph would have known then. We project our own hopes, disbeliefs, and agenda's onto the past almost subconsciously.

So as I was digging through old Insights trying to find a needle in a haystack, I came across this little article, that attempts to establish a pattern of ancient religious writings on metal plates:

QUOTE

"...the earliest extant manuscripts containing biblical text have the same three features that were stumbling blocks for early detractors of the Book of Mormon. One of these manuscripts was written on metal plates, onne manuscript was written in a reformed Egyptian script, and a set of manuscripts was concealed for future recovery.

"The earliest of all known manuscripts displaying biblical text was found in 1980 when archaeologists opened an ancient tomb adjacent to the Scottish Presbyterian church of St. Andrew in Jerusalem. They discovered two small rolled-up strips of silver with a Hebrew inscription of the priestly blessing found in Numbers 6:24-26. From paleographic evidence...the scrolls have been dated to the end of the seventh century B.C. or the beginning of the sixth centruy B.C.-about the time Lehi left Jerusalem." 1.

QUOTE

"The second oldest known manuscript citing a Bible text is written in Egyptian demotic script and dates to the fourth centurey B.C...it includes a quote of Psalm 20:2-6. Though the language of the text is Aramaic, the language spoken by the Jews of that time, it is not written using the Aramaic alphabet. Instead it is written in Egytian demotic, and ancient cursive script that can properly be called "reformed" Egyptian." 2.

Identifying these patterns is definitely a compelling argument. But is this proof of the historicity of the BoM, No. Is it even evidence? I'd say yes, although I'm sure some would disagree. But what seems obvious is that there is something profound about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. I've tried to separate myself from the spiritual connections I have with this book and with Joseph, and I've tried to separate myself from any agenda I have in "proving" the Book of Mormon to be authentic; in an attempt at objectivity. I've looked at it from many different angles, including a strictly intellectual approach (as much as is humanly possible), and invariably I arrive at the conclusion that this is a very special man, and a very special book.

When I reintroduce the Spiritual witness I've received regarding the Divinity of Joseph's calling and the historicity of the Book of Mormon then the intellectual pursuits fade into the background and become a very mild form of Brain Candy.

So to the non-believer, I respect your declination. But what I can't understand is some of the reason's behind your unbelief. I think the best one I've heard is, "Satan inspired the whole thing and gave Joseph the power to do what he did". Honestly, that really is the best argument against the Mormon narrative, IMO. Try and reply with a list of other reasons, and Apologists will jump on it with explanations ad nauseum. And you will respond in kind. And the back and forth exchange will continue for 22 pages.

It really is a matter of study and faith. If you remove the faith, you cut your own neck, and are left only with intellectualism, and you will soon find that you have thought yourself straight down to Hell! LOL! I like a little hyperbole now and then.

Big UP!

Lamanite

1. The finds were reported by Gabriel Barkay in "The Divine Name Found in Jerusalem,"Biblical Archaeology Review 9/2 (19830:14-19; and "Priestly Blessings on Silver Plates"(in Hebrew, Cathedra 52 (1989): 46-59; see Insights (summer 1986):1

2. For a biliography o the scholarship on Papyrus Amherst 63, see John Gee in Review of books on the book of Mormon 6/1 1994: 96-97-n. 147

Games of Chance within God's Kingdom

2008-11-27T21:34:00.000-08:00

*Taken from a post on MADB.

Recently I was watching a National Geographic show on the Bible. It discussed the Atstronomy and other divining techniques used by Old and New Testament Priests and Apostles. This got me thinking.

Here are some relevant scriptures:

22Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

23And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

24And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,

25That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

26And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

Acts 1:22-26

I like this method. I wouldn't mind casting lots between Bishop Burton and Elder Groberg next time there is a vacancy in the Twelve and see who gets the short one. Moreover, from a more personal stand point, I really feel like I could I offer a sincere and faithful prayer between two choices and then spin a bottle. However, I must consider this in light of modern revelation. There is direction in the D&C but I find it is much more complicated and leaves too much wiggle room:

7 Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.
8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must cask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall eburn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.
9 But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.

Much too complicated for most situations. I do understand that the D&C account can be understood as instruction to us/Oliver; and the Acts text is one is of example by the Apostles. Both seem to offer perfectly good alternatives should one not work to our satisfaction.

My solution...both should be tried on by each individual and see how they fit. This is a good example of personal preference. So break out the straws and bottles and any other tools of chance and get to praying.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Richard L. Bushman-"My Belief"-Testimony and Conversion

2008-11-09T23:01:00.000-08:00

Based on Bushman's essay "My Belief"
BYU Studies 25:2 (1985)
All quotes are from this essay unless otherwise noted.

Belief into action!

Perhaps most influential was a gradual merger of personality and belief. By 1976 I had been a branch president and a bishop and was then a stake president. Those offices required me to give blessings in the name of God and to seek solutions to difficult problems nearly every day. I usually felt entirely inadequate to the demands placed upon me and could not function at all without some measure of inspiration. What I did, the way I acted, my inner thoughts, were all intermingled with this effort to speak and act religiously for God. I could no longer entertain the possibility that God did not exist because I felt his power working through me.

There are a few words here that I want to key in on.

1. Seek- Verb. Seeking reminds me of this scripture.

John 1:38 (King James Version)
38Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?

Like Bushman, the two disciples found a burgeoning faith that was developing as they "sought" the Lord.

2. Felt. Noun, verb. The workings of God deal with both intellect and feeling. Finding a balance is a trick. But I often find that when my intellect is worn out in the search, it's best to follow my heart and the feelings I have.

3. Inspiration. Noun. Simply put this is God revealing himself onto/into Man's soul.

I notice a pattern here, that is often reflected in my own life. Seek, feel, Inspired.

He knew the Book of Mormon was true. He knew the Gospel was true. He had a testimony. Now it was time to become converted. This reminds me of Peter:

Luke 22:32 (King James Version)
32But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

Peter had already testified to the Lord himself, when he said, "Thou art the Christ", and yet he still lacked conversion. Elder Oaks further clarifies:

Jesus' challenge shows that the conversion He required for those who would enter the kingdom of heaven (see Matt. 18:3) was far more than just being converted to testify to the truthfulness of the gospel. To testify is to know and to declare. The gospel challenges us to be "converted," which requires us to do and to become."The Challenge to BecomeElder" Dallin H. Oaks

I think it is obvious that Brother Bushman was testifying in his ministry, but I think it is also evident that he was converted as displayed in his willingness "to do". I think Bushman's greatest achievement at this point is that he went into action. We can ponder and testify all day, but this is a Gospel of doing and becoming. Proclaim and become was and is the order of the day.

I also take special note of his feelings of inadequacy. They are normal and to be expected, especially in callings like those that Brother Bushman held, but his reliance on the Lord is really what is admirable and worthy of emulation, in my opinion.

Sometimes I toyed with the notion that there could be other ways of describing what happened when I felt inspired, but the only language that actually worked, the only ideas that brought inspiration and did justice to the experience when it came were the words in the scriptures.

His use of the word "toyed" is kind of funny to me. I often "toy" with a lot of silly idea's. These ideas however, are but mere fleeting factoids in comparison with God's sacred scripture. There is no great power in factoids, but there is great power to be found within our canon of scripture. Thus my over inflated intellect benefit's me only in that it allows me to feast upon the everlasting words of life. From President Benson:

It is not just that the Book of Mormon teaches us truth, though it indeed does that. It is not just that the Book of Mormon bears testimony of Christ, though it indeed does that, too. But there is something more. There is a power in the book which will begin to flow into your lives the moment you begin a serious study of the book. You will find greater power to resist temptation. You will find the power to avoid deception. You will find the power to stay on the strait and narrow path. The scriptures are called "the words of life" (D&C 84:85), and nowhere is that more true than it is of the Book of Mormon. When you begin to hunger and thirst after those words, you will find life in greater and greater abundance. "The Keystone of our Religion" Ezra T. Benson

Here we are dealing with a great power connected to God's word. I have felt this power flow into my life. And like Brother Bushman often find myself only able to express the experience in the language of these sacred texts.

Only when i thought of God as a person interested in me and asked for help as a member of Christ's kingdom did the idea and reality fit properly. Only that language properly honored the experience I had day after day in my callings.

Church work more than anything else probably quieted my old question...it came to me in a flash that I did not want to prove the authenticity of Joseph Smith's calling to anyone. I recognized then that the pursuit of Christian evidences was not a Mormon tradition; it was a borrowing from Protestantism and not at a moment when Protestantism was at one of its high points. At any rate, it was not my tradition, and I did not want to participate in it. There was no proving religion to anyone; belief came by other means, by hearing testimonies or by individual pusuit or by the grace of God, but not by hammering.

At the present moment, the question of why I believe no longer has meaning for me. I do not ask it of myself or atempt to give my reasons to others. The fact is that I do believe. That is a given of my nature, and whatever reason I might give would be insufficient and inaccurate. More relevant to my current condition is a related question: how do others come to believe? I would like to know if there is anything I can do that will draw people to faith in Christ and in the prieshood. My answer to this question is, of course, related to my personal experiences. I no longer think that people can be compelled to believe by any form of reasoning, whether from the scripture or from historical evidence. They will believe if it is in their natures to believe. All I can do is to attempt to bring forward the believing nature, smothered as it is in most people by the other natures that culture forms in us. The first responsibility is to tell the story, to say very simply what happened, so that knowledge of those events can do its work. But that is the easy part, the part that could be done by books or television. The hard part is to create and atmosphere where the spiritual nature, the deep down goodness in the person, can react to the story honestly and directly. Some people can create that atmosphere quite easily by the very strength of their own spiritual personalities. It is hard for me. There are too many other natures in me: the vain aspirer formed in childhood, the intellectual fostered at Harvard, the would-be dominant male created by who knos what. But I do believe that when I am none of these and instead am a humble follower of Christ who tells the story without pretense to friends whom I love and respect, then they will believe if they want to, and conversion is possible. Questions may be answered and reasons given, but these are peripheral and essentially irrelevant. What is essential is for a person to listen carefully and openly in an attitude of trust. If belief is to be formed in the human mind, it will, I think, be formed that way.

Well, there it is. Doing equals conversion. Doing and inspiration melts away doubts. Humility and conversion points our hearts towards the happiness of others. Service cleanses the soul. And love for one another is truly evidence of a disciple of Christ.

Much Love and Respect Brother Bushman!

Lamanite

P.S. Thanks for the quasi-objective Biography(I'm glad you could not separate yourself from your Faith while trying to balance it with that of Historian). I came to know Joseph in a way I couldn't have without your efforts!

Mormon Critics, Freemasonry and Mormonism

2008-11-14T22:13:00.000-08:00

To Dark Sparks or other interested parties:

Let's presuppose that Joseph borrowed/took/stole elements of the Masonic ritual and used them in the Mormon Endowment.

How and why is that bad?

Big UP!

Lamanite

Government Pressure behind the 1978 Revelation

2008-11-13T15:29:00.000-08:00

A friend I know said she has proof that the Government was pressuring the Church to change its policy regarding Blacks and the Priesthood or it would lose its tax exempt status. I asked for a source. None was provided, but I was assured it existed.

I would like anyone to produce a document or affidavit that a Government agency or employee exerted pressure, by way of threatening to remove the tax exempt status of the Church.

I didn't think such a thing existed. I've created this post so that there is a forum for her or others reply's.

Big UP!

Lamanite

P.S. The image above is of one of my heroes, Darius Gray. Google him if interested in an amazing story.

Joseph Smith, Lucy Walker and Polygamy

2008-11-06T19:09:00.000-08:00

This was taken from a post I put on a Mormon Apologetics site. I put it here with minor corrections and additions. I truly love this story and the implications it has on my own theology and spirituality.

QUOTE
"Joseph told her, "I have a message for you. I have been commanded of God to take another wife, and you are the woman." Lucy was astounded..."What have you to say," Joseph asked her. "Nothing," she replied. Rather than exert more pressure, Joseph backed away. "if you will pray sincerely for light and understanding in relation thereto, you Shall receive a testimony"...Lucy felt tempted and tortured beyond endureance untill [sic] life was not desirable. For months Joseph said nothing more.

"Facing an ultimatum, Lucy bluntly refused, unless God Himself told her other wise..."

After a sleepless night in prayer, Lucy felt something in her room. "My room became filled with a heavenly influence. To me it was in commparison like the brilliant sunshine bursting through the darkest cloud...My Soul was filled with a calm sweet peace that I never knew. Supreme happiness took possession of my whole being." Going down the stairs o "go our into the morning air," she met Joseph, who took her by the hand...On May 1, 1843, William Clayton married Joseph to Lucy" Rough Stone Rolling pg. 491-492

From Josephs initial search for truth and the subsequent revelation(s), I believe one of the hallmarks of this Church is personal revelation. Just as it was for Peter in the NT:

And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven." Matthew 16:17

Some may point to creeds, or interpretations of scriptures, or institutional degrees as proof of authority; but my Church simply says inquire for yourself if it is true, and let God reveal the truth of all things to you.

Not once have I been pressured, coerced, or manipulated in this Church. It has always been by free will and the encouragement to receive Personal Revelation for myself.

Big UP!

Lamanite

P.S. If you prayed about the truthfulness of the Church and the BoM and the answer was in the negative, then you better do what God revealed. We'll meet again, and hopefully we will all be better for our search for God.

Physics and the Gospel

2008-11-04T16:37:00.000-08:00

Recently I have been studying quantum and Newtonian physics. In this post I have gleaned most of my information from Brian Greene-- author of "The Elegant Universe" and "The Fabric of the Cosmos". It should be noted though that his is not the only influence nor the only source of information for my studies.

I thought this interesting though from Greene.

QUOTE
"Surely,...progress in physics, such as understanding the number of space dimensions; or progress in neuropsychology...may fill in important details, but their impact on our evaluation of life and reality would be minimal. Surely, reality is what we think it is; reality is revealed to us by our experiences"

I think this idea is congruent with the idea that we as individuals needed to come to earth to "Experience" stuff. Taking for example the experience of Gethsemane, the Christ understood intellectually what must take place.Surely the Savior understood intellectually what the event might entail, as well as what it might be like; but when the Atonement began he was "sore amazed". It was the experience that brought true reality into existence.

However Greene goes on to say:

QUOTE
"...But the insights of modern physics have persuaded me that assessing life through the lens of everyday experience is like gazing at a van Gogh through an empty Coke bottle"

So how do/should we assess life?

QUOTE
"By deepening our understanding of the true nature of physical reality, we profoundly reconfigure our sense of ourselves and our experience of the universe"

So I guess as my understanding of both quantum mechanics and general relativity develop I begin to see the massive disconnect between the two; there is no unification.

Then comes the possibility of a unifying theory in "string theory" and it's extension "M-Theory". What fascinates me is that as we peer into our physical realities and begin to understand them better, we also peer into the power and order of God. We draw closer to Him through study and faith.

In quantum mechanics we can take particles that have a shared beginning, and see that one affects the other through time and space (even at great distances) at a speed that exceeds the speed of light. Can such an observation give us insight into our relationship to the Divine, and His ability to communicate and affect us.

Is space a human abstraction or a physical entity? How close is God? Is His perceived distance an abstraction? Or is His distance closer than we believe because of dimensional simplicities?

Interesting questions to me. Will it make much of a difference in my Human experience? I don't know. But it sure reminds me of Plato's cave and the burning fire with the participant only able to see the shadows of reality. I think at times I glimpse what I would call "reality", but this life seems only to be a shadow of things past. Occasionally I learn and hear things which feel like home, things that I feel I remember.

And so I act out my part, waiting for the veil to be withdrawn, when I can then see "things as they really are".

Big UP!

Lamanite

Bushman, Intellectualism and a little Nibley.

2008-11-03T19:01:00.000-08:00

Hugh W. Nibley

Richard L. Bushman

Two of the greatest minds in Mormonism

Bushman on Hugh W. Nibley

"...Hugh Nibley's writing played a large part in my thinking. Although I recognized the eccentricities of his style and was never completely confident of his scholarship, there seemed to me enough there to make a case. 1 Nephi could not be dismissed as fraudulent, and so far as I know no one has refuted the argument Nibley made in "Lehi in the Desert. He offered just the kind of evidence I was looking for in my pursuit of answer: evidence that was specific, empirical, historical." BYU Studies, My Belief pg 26

First, Bushman's statement that he was in pursuit of answers that included " evidence that was specific, empirical, historical." In my life I have found what I consider specific evidence; one example may be Jacob 5 and the allegory of the Olive tree. Although not a primary factor during my conversion the historical evidence of the three witnesses is compelling. As for empirical data, we know empirical data can be gathered simply through observation, or experienced through the senses. I have my own conversion that stands as a form of empirical data and can stand the test of the Scientific Method.

On to Nibley. For believing Mormons his reach is almost without boundaries. For those who are naturally inquisitive about the Mormon construct, he remains a constant resource. However it has been verified by a number of people that his footnotes and sources left much to be desired.

Nibley's son in law stated:

I have contacted many of the note checkers and editors of the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley...and they all confirm that, while Hugh has been sloppy—at times mistranslating a text or overstating his case—he does not make up his sources. (link)

Kent P. Jackson who is a well respected Scholar and Administrator wrote one of the most critical essays on Nibley in 1989:

"Among my critiques was that Nibley often generalized excessively, saw "things in the sources that simply don't seem to be there," let his "predetermined conclusions set the agenda for the evidence," and misinterpreted authors he cited. Others, including some of Nibley's greatest admirers, have found the same problems in his scholarship. But the academic transgressions committed by Nibley (hardly unique to him) were the products of carelessness and wishful thinking, not of fraud and deception. Nibley's greatest skill as a scholar was his ability to see the big picture, not his ability to finesse the fine details. Nowhere in my own examination of his research and writing did I find any hint of his making up sources for fictional references. I do not believe it happened." Link

But in the end John Gee has said:

"As one who has probably checked as many or more of Nibley's footnotes than anyone alive, I think that it is important to say up front that the vast majority of his footnotes are correct and that only a few are questioned, even fewer would be seen as questionable.

Second, before I did my statistical study I did an impressionistic estimate of the accuracy of the footnotes based on my personal experience. The estimate was 70% accuracy when in reality it was over 90%. Those of us checking footnotes spent more of our time dealing with problems (a correct footnote takes only a minute or so to check, while fixing a problem may take hours) and that makes us inclined to vastly overestimate the number of problems.

One also needs to compare Nibley's accuracy with other authors, although here I have been less systematic. Compared to other scholars whose footnotes I have checked, Nibley does very well.

[Furthermore] With the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, the issue of footnote accuracy is essentially moot. All the footnotes were checked (at least since volume two). The issue of the footnotes is essentially only relevant in works before they were published in the Collected Works" Link

One of the things that Nibley was often guilty of was that of Presentism, (Presentism is a mode of historical analysis in which present-day ideas and perspectives are anachronistically introduced into depictions or interpretations of the past. Some modern historians seek to avoid presentism in their work because they believe it creates a distorted understanding of their subject matter.) Wikipedia, "presentism"

And here is where two divergent approaches can be contrasted; One of frequent Presentism, and the approach I prefer and to which Bushman took at this point in his life:

"I long ago learned that it is better to flow with the evidence than to compel compliance with one's preformed ideas." BYU Studies, My Belief pg 26

This approach allows for the full flowering of the truth despite personal agenda's. Now, to say that complete objectivity is possible may be a stretch, but it is possible to be self aware of one's own paradigms and try our best to consider the truth on its own merits.

In the end. We may ask "what is truth?" We could ask Tertullian and Clement. They had quite a bit to say about it. We may ask Origen and the Philosophers with their Hellenistic idea's what the truth is? Or we may ask the appropriate question "who is truth?". And we receive an answer from a Nazarene, "I am...the Truth." The Truth flows like water when sought. So taught the Master in John 4:14... but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life."

Asking the right questions and following the trail truth leaves behind sounds pretty good to me. Then just DO and BECOME!

Next wee see Bushman employ both Faith, Reason, and the exercise thereof.

Big UP!

Lamanite

An aside. Nibley's writings have colored my ideology and theology a great deal. I love and respect him and his scholarship. I feel like I came down on him pretty hard here, and I wish to state without equivocation that I owe a deep debt of gratitude to his startling intellect and dedication to he Gospel.

The History of the Bible

2008-10-31T00:48:00.000-07:00

Reading John A. Tvedtnes' book entitled "Defining the Word- Understanding the history and Language of the Bible", the textual problems and errant doctrinal problems that arose through translations and disputations came into sharp focus.

To begin I found it interesting to see in short form the various Bibles that arose throughout time:

The OT was written in Hebrew though some books such as Daniel have some Aramaic woven into the text. The NT was written primarily in Greek, so the OT went through a translation into Greek, now known as the Septuagint. Jerome then translated the Bible into Latin, "The Vulgate".

Then we turn to Anglo-Saxon Translations.

Wycliffe did a pretty good job translating the Vulgate into Middle English. circa 1830. However some of what was translated was from the French book of Revelation.

Then came Tyndale during the Protestant Reformation in the early 16th Century. English Bishops didn't like what he was doing so they forced him into exile into Germany. Cuthbert Tunstall, Bishop of London, claimed that he found 3,000 errors in Tyndale's Bible and sought to censure him in a unique way which I won't discuss here, but it's quite humorous. Tyndale introduced new words in the Bible like:

Jehovah
Passover
scapegoat
and most important, the self explanatory Atonement- At-one-ment, while the Hebrew word means "to cover"

Then Coverdales's Bible-Coverdale was an assistant to Tyndale and used a heavy reliance on Tyndale's work.

Then Bibles of Matthew and Taverner- A hodgepodge of all the Bible's before with a focus on "better" English

Then the Great Bible- written at the prodding of Anne Boelyn to King Henry the VIII so that all Church's might have a Bible.

Then the Geneva Bible- A response to the "heretical" Tyndale Bible.

Then the Bishops' Bible- Commissioned by Matthew Parker Arch Bishop of Canterbury and helped by 16 Bishops.

Then the Douai Bible- Basically a revision of the Vulgate to English for use by Catholics. Heavily influenced by Latin. there are quite a few words which I will not list here that have become common amongst our KJV and affect doctrinal issues.

Then we get to the KJV- Story is too long and complicated to tell

(Tvedtness pg. 5-18)

My point is this. It is obvious there are minor and major issues with the text of the Bible. My answer, and I believe Gods answer, is two fold.

1. Prophets and Apostles to declare doctrine and interpret scipture. There is scriptural evidence to support this pattern.
2. Personal revelation to guide and direct as we read and ponder sacred writ.

My formula is also applicable to the BoM. The worst possible problem for me with the text of the BoM is the "loose" or "Tight" translation question. And an answer in the negative or affirmative would not affect the verity and historicity of the Book for me.

Thoughts?

Big UP!

Lamanite

2008-10-17T10:23:00.000-07:00

Richard Bushman and the building of a Spiritual Chain, Pt. 3

2008-10-01T15:36:00.000-07:00

Continued from Part 2.

Bushman finds himself in a peculiar intellectual and spiritual space. While at school he reminisced:

"After I returned from the mission field, I no longer had doubts, but I did
have questions. "

This statement summarizes in such beautiful brevity my relationship with the theology and history of the Church since my conversion, up until the present time. His words are non confrontational and honest. They are liberating and comforting. I think the real dissonance occurs in people who pretend to have never wondered at all. I'm not sure if "dissonance" is the right word here, but dishonesty or naivete seemed too harsh.

"They were not specific questions about the meaning or validity of specific
doctrines, the wholesome kind of questions that enlarge understanding.
They were questions of some unknown interlocutor who asked me to justify my
faith. "Why do you believe?"...How those questionings cam to an end is
beyond my powers of explanation...I have come to understand questions and
answers differently...I now have a new sense of what constitutes
belief.

For a long time, twenty-five years or more, I went on trying to answer the
questioner...My chief line of reasoning was based on the Book of Mormon. It
was concrete and real and seemed like a foundation for belief, not merely belief
in Joseph Smith but in Christ and God. Joseph Smith and Mormonism, as I
said before, were never the issues, it was God primarily. Although it
was a lengthy chain from the historicity of the Book of Mormon, to Joseph's
revelations, to the existence of God, it was a chain that held for me. I
felt satisfied that if that book were true my position was sound. Without
it, I do no know where I would be."

Sometimes I wonder what, where, or who I would be without that Book. I'm not joking when I say the answer to that interrogatory could easily be Jails, Institutions, or Death. Perhaps I may be guilty of a little Niblyesque parallelism-- but either consciously or subconsciously, I have developed somewhat of a chain too. However, mine went like this.

I believe if there is a God. I'm pretty sure he hates me and wants to punish me.

God as an unknown entity-I'm Agnostic but not so hostile towards "it"

God as Yaweh or Jehovah- I thought I wanted to be an Hasidic Jew, I liked the rigidity of the theology-perhaps I thought that type of extreme orthodoxy could save me. However, as I spoke with a nuber of Jews not one of them supported my urgent desire to rebuild the Temple. LOL, but seriously) I kept trying to tell them that the temple and Priesthood are integral parts of this book they had me reading (Torah) and their oral traditions. The nail in the coffin was when I suggested it was time to re-convene the Sanhedrin.

God as Jesus, Jesus as God-I took a stab at reading the NT. I immediately became a Christian. This conversion story is too sacred and personal to share.

Which Church to Join? In the end it came down to Catholics or God forbid the Mormons.

And then came that pesky Book of Mormon. I read it. I studied it. I had no answer for it. It was a very powerful, moving, enlightening experience. It brought me closer to Jesus. It brought me closer to God. It explained all I had ever wanted to know about God, life and my purpose in the eternities.

For me the Book of Mormon is the medium that God often uses to reveal himself to me. He takes me into His bosom through that book. He comforts and embraces me through that book. He assures me of His love through that book. Praise Joseph for his part inbringing forth that book. Praise all the men and women that have sacrificed to bring me that divine book. It has in reality opened the heavens for me and granted me access to God!

Big UP!

The Lamanite

The Book of Mormon-- Richard Busman-- and Me-- pt. 2

2008-09-02T11:10:00.000-07:00

We left off with an agnostic Bushman accepting a mission call to New England. Not being sure of his motivations he "went" without knowing beforehand if he was a believer.

"The mission president was J. Howard Maughan, an agricultural professor from Utah State and former Utah State and former stake president. In our opening interview in the mission home in Cambridge he asked if I had a testimony of the gospel. I said I did not. He was not at all rattled. He asked if I would read a book, and if I found a better explanation for it than the book itself gave to report it to him. Then he handed me the Book of Mormon."

First, let me speak briefly about his honesty. I'm commenting specifically on Bushman's statement that he "did not" have a testimony of the Gospel. I have a hard time practicing this type of honesty. To some it may come naturally-- being able to allow others into your lives or being completely transparent, but it is not so with me. I'm not sure if it's sinful pride on my part as much as it is me simply not wanting to be hurt by allowing others in, so as a defense mechanism I usually put on my "mask" when asked "how are you Brother Pauni?", to which I reply in a vernacular that's not my own, "very well Brother Johnson, and you?" For once I'd like to be comfortable enough to say, "I'm actually pretty shitty, and I'm not quite sure whether the Joseph Smith translation process was "loose" or "tight" and it's causing some problems with the Book of Mormon text for me, how the hell are you?" Perhaps some of you are comfortable being as candid and open with authority figures as Brother Bushman, but I am not, and so- I find this quality in him very admirable.

So Brother Bushman now has a mandate from his Mission President regarding the Book of Mormon. He writes:

"I wrestled with the book and wrote long entries in my journal. I thought a lot about the Three Witnesses: were they liars? had they been hypnotized? were they pressured?"

I actually had a much different response to the Book of Mormon. I did not turn to historical evidence, or an overly analytical approach. Instead I turned to the text itself for "proof" or "validation". In my opinion the best commentaries on the scriptures-- are the scriptures. So I dove in. Bushman however, has brought with him a completely different sociological, economical, and educational background to the Book of Mormon equation. So I am not surprised his approach was different.

I tend to "feel" my way through issues. Of course I use my intellect, but I often allow inspiration to outweigh my pragmatism. Nevertheless, my first reading of the Book of Mormon was life changing. I remember the incredibly moving experience I had with Abinadi. I almost felt present during his preaching to King Noah. And while he burned he testified; and because he testified, I was changed! I remember the kinship I felt with Alma the Younger. He gave me hope that I could truly become something better than I was. I wept as the Savior of all mankind gathered the children around Him, and prayed. I felt connected as he invited "all" (even me), to come unto him. I had already become a Christian after reading the Bible, but now I was converted to the Gospel and to Mormonism. I was insatiable at this point. I loved Teancum, and was happy that I was not the only one that would have scaled a wall looking for a target. I cried as I read of Moroni walking around by himself and writing about the Sacrament and the Savior. I knew he was writing to me and for me. I knew then and I know now these things took place. I wish I possessed the ability to completely describe the light and knowledge that dwelt within me. It is a feeling beyond feeling. It is knowing way beyond knowing. It is feeling and knowing at God's level.

After I arrived at this point the Book of Mormon had become a joy and a staple in my life. I have actually only read the book cover to cover 6 times since 1997. I find reading it straight through to be my least favorite way of studying it. I usually study by topic. Textual problems that have arisen since then have relatively easy to resolve. Questions about the translation process have increased and remain a mystery and yet I persist. It's easy for me because I work from a Divine manifestation that the Book of Mormon is true, I simply reconcile historical and empirical data back to the simple testimony that Joseph Smith, The Book of Mormon, and Jesus Christ are exactly what and who they proclaimed themselves to be. Intellectually honest? No. True to the light and knowledge God has bestowed upon me? Yes.

I believe it was at that time I read Hugh W. Nibley's Lehi in the Desert. I also read the Book of Mormon and prayed, sometimes in agnostic form- "if you are God...."

Again, we see that Bushman turns to an agnostic disposition. Notwithstanding his agnosticism, he is exercising faith by virtue of his willingness to pray, and trust, and act on the answer. Again he exemplifies Alma 32.

"After three months, President Maughan came up for a conference, and when it was my turn to speak I said with conviction that I knew the Book of Mormon was right. The reasons that I had concocted for believing were not the difference - though Nibley made a great impression-it was more the simple feeling that the book was right."

This "simple" feeling he experienced reminds me of a scripture. It's actually one of my favorite scriptures:

1Ki 19:11 And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the LORD. And, behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the LORD; [but] the LORD [was] not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; [but] the LORD [was] not in the earthquake:

1Ki 19:12 And after the earthquake a fire; [but] the LORD [was] not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.

You see, I got into the Nibley and the likes to satisfy intellectual curiosities. To be sure, Nibley made an impression on me as well, but Mormon apologetics and historical pursuits remain a form of "brain candy". No man or woman can replace the "still small voice". Truly this voice pierces to the heart. It replaces doubt with faith. Jesus of Nazareth declared that he was the "Light" and the darkness "Comprehendeth" it not, and the Book of Mormon is a witness to the world the he truly is that Light.

For me and Bushman, and millions of others--the light within speaks that the Book is true!

Big UP!

Lamanite

Next time: Harvard life and questions aroused.

Richard Bushman, "My Belief", pt. 1

2008-08-19T14:15:00.000-07:00

The origins for this series can be found in "My Belief, Reprinted from BYU Studies 25:2 (1985)". It was originally an essay that appeared in "A Thoughtful Faith: Essays on Belief by Mormon Scholars, ed. Philip L. Barlow (Salt Lake City: Canon Press, 1986)."

I know ignorance of the law does not excuse the individual for breaking it; so with that being said, I don't know if I can or cannot reprint this article in part or in whole? If someone wants to write BYU Studies and inform them of what I'm doing please feel free to do so; I would be happy to take their opinion into consideration when I decide what I do or don't write.

Finally, before we begin, I must declare my status as an individual who is wholly and completely uneducated. I have no idea how to really use a semi colon and I'm not sure how to cite sources. Mostly, I just try to copy how others have done it in the books I read. I have no idea if my sentence and paragraph composition is correct, but I try. I feel a lot like Nephi when he said:

" 1 And now I, Nephi, cannot write all the things which were taught among my people; neither am I ^amighty in writing, like unto speaking; for when a man ^bspeaketh by the power of the Holy Ghost the power of the Holy Ghost carrieth it unto the hearts of the children of men" 2 Nephi 33:1

Perhaps, some of you may be touched by the Spirit, despite my abilities as a writer. If so, praise God.

My Belief
Richard L. Bushman

"...The issue in my mind never had anything to do with Latter-day Saint doctrine specifically. I was not bothered by the arguments against the institutional Church, which so troubled people today, or the problems of Mormon history, another current sore spot. I was not debating Mormonism versus some other religion; the only question for me was God. Did he exist in any form or not? I was not worried about evil in the world as some agnostics are. I suppose Mormon theology had made the existence of evil perfectly plausible. I simply wondered if there was any reason to believe. Was all of religion a fantasy? Were we all fooling ourselves?"

At this time in Richard's life, he was a sophomore at Harvard. "Logical positivism was at a high tide" and he was introduced to new ideas and new people. I suppose at different points in people's lives they begin to really ask the most fundamental of questions, Is there a God? Where am I from? Where am I going when I die? And, why am I here? I think it's wonderful that Richard started from the most essential of questions, "Is there a God?"

Agnosticism is a wonderful place to start in my opinion. To really admit, that perhaps, we don't know, can be extremely liberating. King Lamoni's father offered one of the most faithful and wonderfully agnostic prayers I've ever read or heard:

18 O God, Aaron hath told me that there is a God; and if there is a God, and if thou art God, wilt thou make thyself known unto me, and I will give away all my sins to know thee, and that I may be raised from the dead, and be saved at the last day. And now when the king had said these words, he was struck ^aas if he were dead. Alma 22:18 (emphasis added)

The answers did not come quickly for Richard. Despite the fact that, "...doubts came on strongest in the spring of my sophomore year…the preceding Christmas holiday, I had been interviewed for a mission and received a call to New England...Did I have enough faith to go on a mission?" Richard was left, "wondering if I were a hypocrite and if fear of displeasing my parents was all that carried me along." His honesty here is refreshing. In fact, Richard's honesty is one of his most endearing qualities. The admission after the fact, that he considered and conteplated his own hypocrisy is admirable. It is extremely difficult for me to be introspective about my own hypocrisies. But the maxim is true that "you must first admit you have a problem." The simple fact that he may be doing things simply to please his parents is another frank and honest admissions I don't think most missionaries make. These types of admissions leave one open to criticism and vulnerable to attack. I don't like feeling that way but Richard's example is worth emulating. I'm sure I'll start next week.

Here's another bit of honesty I adore, "I think looking back, that my agnosticism was a little bit of a pose, a touch of stylish undergraduate angst." How wonderfully refreshing. I'm sure we all strike poses through life, but few are willing to expose and discuss their juvenile posturing.

Finally, he admits, "It was true enough that my bosom did not burn with faith; on the other hand, I was quite willing to pledge two years to a mission. So I went"

I am elated in reading this last sentence. “I went.” It’s an action! “Went” is a verb. He didn’t sit around like Plato’s philosopher king. He did something. Whether right or wrong at this time, he knew not, but he acted in good faith. Faith that what he was doing was good. Faith that all would turn out for the better. Faith in a God that he wasn’t even sure existed. This attitude is exemplified in counsel given to President Gordon B. Hinckley from his Father while on a Mission:

“Dear Gordon, I have your recent letter. I have only one suggestion: forget yourself and go to work.”

Well, he got his call, forgot his troubling issues and went to work. It is incredibly brave, humble, and faithful; which is why it reminds me of Alma 32:

27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than ^adesire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.

28 Now, we will compare the word unto a ^aseed. Now, if ye give place, that a ^bseed may be planted in your ^cheart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your ^dunbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to ^eenlighten my ^funderstanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.

29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.

30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow. (emphasis added)

Brother Bushman, the great historian; the biographer of Joseph; the Stake President; the Temple sealer; the Husband and Father; had doubts. I feel comforted in that, because so do I.

My whole life I felt less than because my faith at times seemed non-exeistent. I felt less than because at times I wondered if God really did exist. I felt strange because I constantly seemed to want to "know". And yet, Brother Bushman seems to have weathered the storm. In fact, he seems better for having made the journey. In my opinion, it seems we can only receive answers if we are willing to ask the questions.

Big UP!

Lamanite

P.S. That is not to say that I lack a testimony, as some will assume. Those who know me, there will be no doubt. To those who don't, bumbaclot!

Next time a discussion of Richard’s first real experience with the Book of Mormon.

The Supreme Court, Justice Scalia, and Christianity

2008-08-15T23:20:00.000-07:00

Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia are my favorite sitting Justices. (Roberts and Alito have potential) Here is some typical Scalia:

QUOTE

Scalia was only too happy to...reject the moral relativism of the modern world. "For the son of God to be born of a virgin? I mean, really. To believe that he rose from the dead and bodily ascended into heaven. How utterly ridiculous," Scalia said at a meeting of the Knights of Columbus, the Catholic fraternal organization. "God assumed from the beginning that the wise of the world would view Christians as fools, and he has not been disappointed." pg 200 The Nine, Jeffrey Toobin

Scalia has always held fast to "truth" as it is, not as he perceived it, and damn the world if they didn't agree. I think he really tries to see things, "as they really are".

Within the context of the Supreme court, the 1990's to present represent a dramatic shift from originalism to severe activism, IMO. And so it is with Christianity, and possibly Mormonism.

As Mormons I don't think the doctrines of the Church have changed or evolved, but I do see a shift in the attitudes of members toward liberal agenda items like gay marriage, abortion, and chastity. The majority of Mormons will be quick to profess the doctrines of the Church are absolute, but it seems our "tolerance" for these licentious behaviors are beginning to increase. They also seem to be influenced and molded by popular opinion and double speak. Take for example the catch phrase, "freedom of choice" masquerading as a euphemism for infanticide. The slippery slope is becoming a luge.

I fear that the absolute nature of eternal truths are beginning to take on a form of mortality as they lay dormant and are discarded in favor of modern sophistry.

Big UP!

Lamanite