Prophet vs. President

President Hinckley's CNN appearance has drawn the usual criticisms from ex-Mormons, anti-Mormons, and NOMs. Chief among them is the notion that sure, Hinckley is a nice guy, and an effective CEO, but why does the world's Prophet only receive divine revelation relating to such minor things (in the grand scheme) as, say, the building of the Conference Center? Here's the crux of this matter, and it bears stating. As I see it we have no official doctrine that states that Hinckley is God's one and only prophet for the world. If he were, then yes, you might think God had more important things to communicate. The problem is the blurring of Prophet and President of the Church among members. Prophecy is a spiritual gift and as such is entitled to all those whom God chooses. I believe that there are many "prophets" who receive inspiration (perhaps without knowing it) that furthers God's work. Surely it is the will of God that the West do more to relieve Third World suffering. For communicating this truth with us, people like Bob Geldof and Bono are "prophets". There are many others, known and unknown. When we speak of the President of the Church as being "the Prophet" we mean that he is entitled to the gift of prophecy for the Church. From True to the Faith: "we sustain the President of the Church as our prophet, seer, and revelator—the only person on the earth who receives revelation to guide the entire Church." Note that last phrase - the Prophet is the only one on Earth who receives revelation for the Church. I do not believe that his sphere extends (at least not yet) to the world. Rare exceptions are those few times when a "proclamation to the world" is specifically made. The Prophet's "only" unique position in the world is as President of the Church. This is his priesthood office. About this office, True to the Faith says: "The Lord guides His covenant people today through the President of the Church, whom we sustain as prophet, seer, and revelator. The President of the Church presides over the entire Church." Again, his calling is to guide the Latter-day Saints, not anyone else. We leave ourselves open to criticism when we overbake our claims. The Lord inspires President Hinckey to guide our Church, and something like the Conference Center is the fruit of that. In the wake of the tsunami disaster I pray that God is guiding other "prophets" among governments, religious organisations, and relief agencies to do his will. This is not Gordon B. Hinckley's job, so you anti-Mormons quit whining, and you TBM's stop claiming something for the Prophet that he doesn't claim himself.

Santa's evil twin

Let me first wish UB readers a very happy Kwanzaa, Divali, and Hanukkah. I have only felt real fear three times in my life. The first was when I completely lost the road as I was driving at night and ended up in the central reservation. The second was on the NY subway not long after 9/11 when someone shouted "bomb" and the station erupted into chaos. The third was on my mission in Austria when a group of local thugs wearing grotesque masks and carrying big sticks came up the road towards us. I speak of Krampus. In Austria, St. Nick makes his rounds on December 6 to see if children have been good. The day before, Krampus stops by to see if children have been naughty. If they have they risk being beaten and/or carried away in a bag. One Austrian bloke I met told me that "Krampus" (really his uncle) threw him in a sack when he was a little boy. He hasn't been quite the same since. Anyway, Krampustag is an excuse for local yobs to roam the streets beating the crap out of people (the police don't care, because, hey, it's tradition). Mormon missionaries are fair game, so on that day in the Salzkammergut in December 1996, we ran for our lives. Krampus is truly scary. All my son is scared of this Christmas (whoops, did I say Christmas? I meant "this Holiday Season") is not getting tons of presents. Spoilt.

Peace on Earth

"And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn. And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." -Luke 2 I've been touched by two stories this Christmas season. One was told By Elder Monson at the First Presidency Christmas devotional. He told of a US ship during one Christmas in WWII which saw a German submarine near them, and panicked as they were not prepared for an attack. The German sub spelled-out a message in morse code, and to the sailors' amazement it was 'Merry Christmas'. The submarine then left. The second was told by Elder Faust in the December Ensign again in WWII of a group of Japanese Christians who bridged the gap between enemies. My husband gave a talk earlier in the year based around some experiences he had in Israel this summer. He told a wonderful story of a Palestinian lady who learnt Christ-like love for her enemies. I'm encouraged that Christ can make a difference in our lives, and what better time of year to follow His example and do something for others; to be bringers of peace on earth. What better time of year to worship Him, and proudly declare "Joy to the world, the Lord is come!"

No Matthew Knows My History

Just to underline (and finish) the thread on Mormon/Early Christian historicity, here's an article by Geza Vermes - doyen of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Historical Jesus - on Matthew's Nativity story. To sum: "The doctrine of the miraculous conception and birth of a God-man was based on a remarkable mistranslation into Greek - wilful or otherwise - of Isaiah's original, quite specific Hebrew words ["Immanuel" and "young woman/virgin"]. As for the episode of the massacre of the innocents and escape to Egypt, its similarity to the rabbinic story of the birth of Moses is so striking that it hardly can be attributed to coincidence. In both we find dreams, a murderous king advised by interpreters of sacred writings, and the frustration by divine intervention of wicked plans. Nor is it conceivable that Josephus and the rabbis, spokesmen of Jewish tradition, copied their birth legend of Moses from Matthew. "We are led inescapably to this conclusion: that the awesomely influential Nativity story in the first book of the New Testament is a speculative, rather than a historical text. Far from being a report of a literal happening, it is an amalgam of flawed Greek-Christian scriptural references, and of "birth tales" current in Judaism in the first century AD. The story with which we are all so familiar is not fact, but folklore." So, let's compare this to the Joseph Smith story. The Nativity as we celebrate it is based on an account written years after the fact (probably 80-90 compared with 18 for the History of the Church First Vision), has conflicted versions (Mark and John don't even bother with it, Matthew and Luke have wildly different accounts; ring any bells?), and uses a mixture of myths (Jewish and Pagan; Masonic, the Golden Pot?). Both accounts are implausible, both are easily criticised by scholars. Christian anti-Mormons (both within and without) should realise that the same "rationality" that dismisses Joseph can do the same to Jesus. They are treading a dangerous path if faith in Christ is their goal.

More on race

Mychal Massie SLAMS Mormon racism (and Harry Reid)

Race in the eternities

I taught Gospel Doctrine in a branch when I was first married. There was always one member of my class (and I'm sure similar ones are everywhere), who would come out with the most ridiculous, and often prejudiced things. Our Stake President was also in the class, and this same individual would always direct questions to him - me being a woman, and a lot younger than him, obviously I wasn't qualified to answer the most basic questions! Thankfully, the Stake Pres. always deferred to me. Anyway, this brother during one lesson, (I can't even remember the topic, but we were talking about people of colour - particularly black people), said "it's ok, because when they get resurrected they'll be perfected and be made white (skinned)." Many LDS artists apparently agree, as most have resurrection/after-life scenes with only white-skinned, fair haired people - but LDS art is a whole other discussion I'd like to get into another time. The issue of race is obviously still an issue for many church members today. (See Dave's Mormon Inquiry for an article on this.) Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not aware of any doctrine and I can't find any reference to us being one race or another post-resurrection. There's Justin's opinion at Mormon Wasp (look in the comments), but does anyone know of any actual doctrine talking about this?

Why not Jesus too?

Often when people become intellectually disillusioned with the Church they still claim to have "faith in Jesus". Apparently Grant Palmer, "still believes in the church because he has refocused his faith on Jesus Christ" (AP). Now, this is all to the good and I applaud anyone who focuses their faith on Jesus (who is, after all, the only name under heaven whereby we may be saved). But, something needs to be said here loud and clear: if you were to pass the New Testament through the same lens of hyper-critical scholarship that some do the Joseph Smith story then Jesus would not come out well. Not well at all. The result is the "historical Jesus" who bears little resemblance to the "faithful history" promoted by Paul and other early Christians. This is the state of Jesus within academia. Why is it so easy to be critical of Joseph but place Jesus in soft focus. Is it because: a) something that belongs to blurry antiquity is more believable (the printing press being both Mormonism's boon and curse)? b) fish-sticker Jesus gives everything and expects nothing? For me, it is as hard to believe that Jesus rose from the dead (known only from accounts written years after the fact) as it is to believe that Joseph had a vision of God (which he only published years after the fact). For reasons of faith and Spirit I believe both, but I want to understand why one story is worthy of trust and the other isn't. P.S. Do you think that a Mormon who wrote a "historical Jesus" book would be in trouble?

A note on nomenclature

The United Brethren were a sect of Primitive Methodists who were organised in the Malvern Hills area of England in the 1830s. They converted en masse to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints through the ministry of Elder Wilford Woodruff. Many of them were baptised in a pond belonging to John Benbow, a prominent convert. The United Brethren donated their meetinghouse to the Church, and the Gadfield Elm chapel (as it was known) is the world's oldest LDS chapel. After years of neglect the chapel was recently refurbished and donated to the Church. I wrote in detail about all of this at Meridian Magazine, and it is a life ambition to write the definitive history of the United Brethren (I grew up in Malvern and so feel a special kinship with these English Saints).

Hearts and Minds

Knowledge is power and the Church, whether it likes it or not, faces a new information war. The Grant Palmer case (discussed ad infinitum all over the Bloggernacle), raises interesting issues. A letter in defense of Palmer published in the SL Trib highlights the core of this challenge: "The gap between what is taught in LDS chapels, missionary discussions, etc., about Mormonism's foundational events and what is available at a few mouse clicks distance is dangerous for many Mormons." The letter-writer suggests that Palmer has bridged this gap and done the Church a service. I strongly disagree here, but do accept that the fundamental problem he raises is real, viz., how easy it is to find counter-views over the internet. Do a google search under "Mormon" and in the first 10 hits you will find exmormon.org and lds-mormon.com, plus an advert for beyondmormonism.com. So anyone interested in Mormonism will straight away be confronted with some pretty harsh criticism. If they go to lds.org or mormon.org for answers to tough questions they are likely to be disappointed. No longer are sources critical to Mormonism to be found only in academic journals or grubby anti-Mormon pamphlets with restricted circulation. Google has changed things forever. We need a direct, honest, and centralised apologetics effort. Sure, we have FARMS and FAIR, and they do a great job, but their circulation is also limited. They are also heavily English-oriented. What if I'm a German member or investigator who searches "mormonen" at google.de? The results are just as bad. Where would I turn for candid answers? Nowhere. Or I would have to search hard to find them. No longer can we pretend that questions and counter-views don't exist, or that they are a fringe problem. Grant Palmer's book was not the answer (as it raised problems but then agreed with them-hardly a candid defense of the faith!). Faithful LDS apologetics needs to up the ante for the sake of the ordinary member and not just the inquisitive "intellectual". The Church does maintain an extensive PR Department, but it is the message of the internet and not mainstream media that needs to be influenced.

Woe to be an American

I have at times made comments in the bloggernacle that have bemoaned the Church's American-bias. I still hold to those, but I would like to point out that in some ways being an American Mormon is a curse as well as a blessing. Two examples: 1. Marriage. There is often much hand-wringing in the Church over the fact that non-member family cannot attend a Mormon couple's wedding. This is indeed a painful issue, but for Americans only! In England, for example, marriages by law have to be conducted in public, so LDS couples have to be married civilly first before they are sealed in the Temple. This is a wonderful compromise. When Becky and I married we were able to have a nice traditional wedding with family and friends before driving to the Preston Temple to be sealed. As I understand it, American members, even if worthy, have to wait a year to be sealed if they have a civil wedding first. Alas. 2. Culture. (This is probably more a Utah-issue than strictly an American one.) Outside of Utah, and certainly outside of the USA, there is little or no cultural pressure to be Mormon. In fact, it's the opposite: it would be easier for me not to be a Mormon. Which is why I look with sad bemusement upon the Grant Palmer case. If I were him there would be no need to excommunicate me because I would have long since left the Church anyway. If I came to the conclusion that the foundational beliefs of the Church were of dubious credibility I would just quit (perhaps easily said, I admit). But for Palmer et.al. being Mormon is as much a cultural thing as it is religious, and to leave or to be kicked-out is to sever or weaken ties to family and community. Again, alas. So, there are advantages to being a non-American Latter-day Saint. Now, if only we could do something about that pesky Stars and Stripes at Temple Square....

The Cornerstone

Since 1833 at Kirtland, the ceremonial laying of a cornerstone has been an integral part of Mormon Temple construction and dedication. Cornerstone ceremonies are also important to Freemasons, and the building of public structures in general. These construction rituals go back to Solomon, and beyond--to the Sumerians and the Egyptians. Often they are accompanied by much fanfare and jubilation, as in the laying of the foundation of the Second Temple: "And all the people responded with a great shout when they praised the LORD, because the foundation of the house of the LORD was laid." (Ezra 3: 11) Such sentiments reach back to the foundation of the earth. In biblical thought, the earth was conceived as a building set on foundations, built according to plans and specifications. God asks Job where he was, "when I laid the foundation of the earth...[when I] laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together and the heavenly beings shouted for joy"? (Job 38: 4-7) Because of the New Testament, we are used to thinking of Jesus as the cornerstone of the household of God, the foundation of Zion (see Ephesians 2: 20). This passage in Job (caveats aside--see On being a Mormon biblicist) becomes for me a beautiful statement on the centrality of Christ in the universe, and our own joy as his atonement was established for the earth. Our Temple cornerstones, then, should be a salient reminder of whose House it is. Jesus is at the centre of the Mormon Temple experience, both in the symbolic design of the building, and in the sign of his sacrifice that draws us through the Veil and binds families together. Something worth "shouting for joy" for.

Mo' Music: a positive spin

To follow on from the previous post on the lack of good Mormon music, and to steal an idea from headlife, let's hear some favourite hymns and/or spiritual music that have had an impact on you. I really like the music from 'The Passion of the Christ' Soundtrack. It complimented the film superbly. My favourite piece is 'Mary goes to Jesus', which accompanies a scene where Mary sees Jesus fall on the way to Calvary and has a flashback memory of Jesus falling as a child. She then runs (in both the flashback and present time) to lift him up. Even listening to this piece in the car, I well up thinking of that scene and the suffering of the Saviour. In a similar vain, I also love the Kurt Bestor soundtrack to 'The Lamb of God'. It is wonderfully emotive in portraying the 'Passion' and resurrection of the Saviour.

Networks reject United Church of Christ ads

"As church bells chime in the background, a burly bouncer guards the velvet ropes at the church entrance. 'No, step aside, please,' he tells two men holding hands. 'I don't think so,' he says to a young black girl, blocking her entrance. A Hispanic man and a person in a wheelchair are also denied entry. The scene fades to black and a message: 'Jesus didn't turn people away. Neither do we.'" This ad has been rejected by the networks as "too controversial" (citing the image of gays in the ad). To the discussion underway at T&S I would like to add this: I empathise with the message of this commercial: we should never turn people away from Church. I remember well how a branch I used to attend showed their true christianity by welcoming a transvestite into our meetings. But I disagree with the idea that Jesus somehow tolerated sin. He loved sinners and counted them as his friends but told the adulteress to "sin no more". I champion Christian tolerance; I reject the trendy Christian "anything goes" attitude.

On being a Mormon biblicist

I live in two often mutually incompatible worlds. In the one, I pursue a scholarly approach to the ancient Near East, using the tools of history, archaeology and philology in an attempt to arrive at considered conclusions regarding the past. I do all of this at a prestigious East Coast university. In the other, I follow a religious faith and accept as true things that I have neither seen nor can empirically prove. Unfortunately there are those in each world who claim either that as a scholar my affection for Mormonism is eccentric at best, blind at worst; or that as a faithful Mormon I am not suited to the world of godless academia. I beg to differ. I am only a quasi-biblicist as Hebrew is only my minor concentration (John C. should be writing this). Nevertheless I have been reading this semester the book of Job in Hebrew. It has been an exciting but challenging adventure. If the truth be told, Latter-day Saints are not very OT-literate and this was true for me until a few years ago. I had never read Job before, not even in English (apart from the odd verse or two). It’s difficult but rewarding stuff. This week we read Job 19:25: “I know that my Redeemer lives, and that at the last he will stand upon the earth”. We spent perhaps an hour discussing this one verse: what does Job mean? A Christian reading is clear—he is appealing to the intercession of the future Messiah, Jesus Christ. But such an interpretation will not do for a secular biblical program. Here are the problems: - Most scholars don’t believe that a man called Job even existed, so to imagine what he was thinking is futile. The book of Job is a piece of sophisticated wisdom literature which ponders the great question of ‘why bad things happen to good people’ when most of the rest of the Bible suggests they don’t. - There is a hint of resurrection imagery in this passage, but that cannot be taken literally because the Hebrew Bible does not believe in heaven or a Resurrection. - How could Job (or anyone) know about a man who had not even been born? - Christological interpretations are inherently bad because, well, they rely on evidence from religious faith which is anathema to secular scholarship. So, what’s the burden of the Mormon scholar in all of this? Well, in many ways I agree with these points. That is, purely as a scholar pursuing a PhD. in Near Eastern Studies, I am bound by certain rules. Objective, secular scholarship demands that I reject the notion that this passage refers to Jesus. I would not write it or suggest it, and if I were teaching a class on it I would criticise any student who raised the idea. Why? Because the only way to make this passage refer to Christ requires an injection of religious faith, which cannot be allowed to color our judgements of history, theology or literature. This is the creed of secular scholars, whose number, whilst I am being paid by a secular university, I am among. In short, I am required to see the Bible as a completely different book than the Bible I read on Sunday. But in my other world, this passage clearly refers to Christ! Even as I sat in class I felt a strong, personal feeling towards the Saviour. Job’s trial is immense and his hope is gone, so he appeals for a redeemer, a “go’el”, who in Hebrew law was often the kinsmen who bailed you out of trouble. Is this not Jesus, our own brother who satisfies justice on our behalf? Indeed it is. But is it exactly what Job is referring to here? I don’t know and frankly, I don’t care. Jewish rabbis realised long ago that the greatest boon of the Hebrew Bible is that it lent itself to contemporary interpretation i.e. we can "liken the scriptures to ourselves." Which is what I do as I try to balance the demands of liberal scholarship (of which I am an an advocate) and the mysteries of religious faith (of which I am a believer). I’m not Job and I didn’t write his book, but “I know that my Redeemer lives”. Such are the struggles and blessings of a Mormon biblicist, and the challenge for faithful scholars everywhere. To paraphrase England, “let’s maintain faith but remain true to reason”. It’s a little messy but it can be done.

Iron Rod vs. Liahona: The Case of Nephi

Regarding the comments received on a recent post by Ronan, I am somewhat disturbed. Certainly, in a perfect world, there is never any contradiction between what the commandments command us and what we are inspired to do. But there are cases where the right choice simply did not fall within these parameters. The most obvious example is the moral quandary of Nephi in 1st Nephi 4. He is a case where a righteous man is receiving an inspired command to do something that appears to directly contradict the commandments he has received prior. What do you do when God tells you to kill someone? It is interesting that Nephi, of all people, tries to argue with God here. He doesn't want to do it. He has to work it out between himself and God (eventually drawing on other commandments that he had received) in order to justify his killing of Laban. Perhaps it is the fact that Nephi had doubts and overcame them that make him a prophetic hero here. Certainly, he did not blindly go where the Spirit told him to go. But it does seem that people can, on rare occasion, be given commandments by inspiration that contradict their understanding of previous commandments. How to handle that type of situation is a trial I would just as soon not face.