Catholic "LDS-style" missions?

A Florida Catholic paper has reported that Catholic Volunteers in Florida examining the LDS Church model of missionary work for possible emulation in the Catholic Church. Soon, young Catholics will be singing, "I hope they call me on a mission". Good luck to them, but I think finding people willing to give up two years' of their life is one thing; getting them to pay for it themselves is another. Mormon missionaries are truly unique. Anyway, here are excerpts from the article: Richard Galentino has a dream - for every Catholic young adult to spend a year or two as a full-time missioner. Taking a page from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the executive director of Catholic Volunteers in Florida is on a mission to change and expand the concept of volunteerism within the Catholic Church. "When you see two men in nice white dress shirts riding on bicycles through neighborhoods - you almost always think of the Mormons," he said. "In their faith tradition every male is expected to give a couple of years to do mission work here or overseas. We'd like to see that idea fostered among young men and women in the Catholic Church." Galentino knows he and his staff have their work cut out for them but he has gained the support of the state's seven diocesan bishops to pursue the effort. The bishops recently awarded the Catholic Volunteers seed money to research the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and learn more about their missionary and volunteer concept. Galentino is in the process of selecting two or three philanthropists from Florida's Catholic community to visit the Church of the Latter-day Saints' Utah-based headquarters to conduct a feasibility study on its missionary process. Galentino said statistics on volunteering with long-term missionary programs shows that in the 1960s Mormons and Catholics were nearly even with approximately 6,000 volunteers each within their respective missionary programs. Today, the increase in volunteers among the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has reached 60,000, while the number of Catholic volunteers remains virtually the same as it did in 1960. "The problem is, right now, most Catholic volunteer groups recruit from the same pool - mostly out of college," said Galentino. "We should be planting the seed of expectation much earlier in elementary and high school so that by the time they graduate from college, long-term missionary service is virtually automatic."

NPR on LDS and Indians

NPR's All Things Considered recently aired a segment on the LDS Indian Student Placement Program. Show blurb: Between 1954 and 1996, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sponsored a program for American Indian children. The Indian Student Placement Program had two aims: to provide Native children with an education and to help the Church fulfill one of its central prophecies. According to Mormon teachings, American Indians are descendants of the ancient House of Israel and church members have a responsibility to help bring them back to the Kingdom of God. Since the Church's founding, Mormon missionaries have sought to spread their religion to Native people -- the Placement Program was part of this effort. More than 20,000 children – mostly Navajo -- were enrolled and baptized in the program over the course of 40 years. Producer Kate Davidson spent a year talking with people involved in Placement. The story that emerged is a complicated one -- about culture and families and what can happen when people live closely but in different worlds. Our report, "Saints and Indians," is part of the series Worlds of Difference.

Abandoned by God; Betrayed by Humanity

They have drunk the Black Milk: Of Schiller and Shulamith over at a bird's eye view. [sorry for the cross post]

Be careful choosing your friends

Here's an interesting dilemma (at least in the way it is portrayed by Britain's liberal Guardian newspaper): BYU's World Family Policy Center, in an effort to build an international coalition of "pro-family" organisations and governments, has made some unsavoury friends. Chief among them are Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a controversial Islamic scholar who apparently "approves of wife-beating" and believes that it is a religious duty for Iraqis to "resist the invaders", and Mahathir Mohamad, the dictatorial former prime minister of Malaysia who sacked and jailed his deputy for alleged homosexuality. In the words of the Guardian, "the United States (read: wacky Christians) now sits in the religious camp alongside the Islamic regimes: not so much a clash of civilisations, more an alliance of fundamentalisms." I'm not sure what to make of this. Whilst one can certainly team-up with an otherwise dodgy character if it will serve some common good, should BYU be more circumspect in the friends it chooses? Admittedly, this is an issue that needs more information than a Guardian article can provide. I shall endeavour to get the World Family Policy Center angle.

Joseph an Englishman?

At last! It's taken me a lifetime, but I can now categorily prove that the Restoration is in fact an English invention, not American: Manuscript History of the Church: "...if Satan could not speak in tongues, he could not tempt a Dutchman, or any other nation, but the English, for he can tempt the Englishman, for he has tempted me, and I am an Englishman;" (Ehat & Cook pg. 81) As my dad has always said, Zion is to be found among the Malvern Hills not the hills of Missouri. (Thanks to J. Stapley and his comment at New Cool Thang for the quote)

D&C Changes: 2 and 10 (part one)

Church was cancelled today (snow in Baltimore = end of the world), and besides we have a new baby at home. So it's a good time to continue the "D&C changes" series. I'm placing a chronological framework on this enterprise, using the order of the revelations that appear in our current D&C. I've already talked about the Lectures on Faith and D&C 3. Today, I'll pop back in time to D&C 2 then return to the correct order by discussing D&C 10. Again, the best sources are Saints Without Halos, and Robert Woodford's dissertation. D&C 2, Moroni's Malachi quote, did not appear in the D&C until 1876. Other sources for this passage include the Manuscript History of the Church (the earliest, dated to 1839), various LDS periodicals, and old editions of the Pearl of Great Price. No significant changes. D&C 10, a further revelation relative to the lost 116 pages, has seen a number of changes. Today, I will discuss the dating of this revelation, regarding which there is some disagreement. Our D&C has "the summer of 1828", the History of the Church and the Journal History have August or September 1829, and all other copies have May 1829. We follow B.H. Robert's dating as found in his edition of HC. The following reasons suggest a May 1829 date: 1. Joseph must have been actively translating the Book of Mormon at this time - April through June 1829 were his most prolific months. 2. D&C 10:53 says: "And for this cause have I said: If this generation harden not their hearts, I will establish my church aming them." In no revelation preceding May 1829 is this statement made by the Lord except for BC 4: 5 (substantially altered in D&C 5), which we date to March 1829. May follows March. 3. D&C 10:3 might suggest that Joseph was to resume work on the Large Plates. By May 15 1829 he and Oliver had reached 3 Nephi . If he had immediately begun work on the Small Plates then 4/5 of the Book of Mormon was finished by 15 May (which by our reckoning is too much). If the Small Plates were indeed translated last, then a May revelation detailing what to do about them would seem about right. 4. Lucy Mack wrote that the Urim and Thummim were returned in September 1828, too late for Joseph to have received section 10 through it earlier. 5. Joseph Smith did not correct the May 1829 date in the early copies of the revelation. Roberts preferred 1828 because the the Manuscript HC from which Roberts was working had this introduction: "After I had the above revelation, both the plates and the Urim and Thummim were taken from me again, but in a few days they were returned to me when I enquired of the Lord, and the Lord said thus to me *** I did not, however, go immediately to translating...." The asterisks referred to the pages containing D&C 10. Roberts reasoned that Section 10 must have been the first revelation received after the return of the Urim and Thummim (a "few days"). Section 10, therefore, must have closely followed Section 3, dated to July 1828. Phew! See also Max Parkin, "A Preliminary Analysis of the Dating of Section 10," Seventh Annual Sidney B. Sperry Symposium: The Doctrine and Covenants (Provo: BYU, 1979), 68–84), and Woodford pp. 200-205. Changes to the revelation will be discussed in part two...."

Vote Dave and Justin. But what of the future?

Call it British self-deprecation, but I'm not going to demand you vote United Brethren over at intellecxhibitionist (well, you can if you want, or create a new category - Best Semi-British Blog, or recognise John's A bird's eye view). Although T&S is clearly in a world of its own, you should vote for whatever combination of Justin n' Dave you can. DMI is a wonderfully cosy little blog, and Mormon Wasp is the blog equivalent of All Bran for breakfast. They get my vote (and should consider a permanent merger). BTW, Splendid Sun is my favourite new blog. I'm wondering to myself what future developments the Bloggernacle might herald. Should the smaller blogs combine into larger group blogs? Or perhaps the smaller blogs could organise a kind of blog-ring/creative partnership where we publicise each other and/or rotate guest blogging appearances? Email me off-list if you want: ronan at jhu dot edu.

A child is born

The United Brethren have produced another sister. We welcome Mary Elizabeth Head to Planet Earth. See Beckynews for more information.

Are Mormons ready for a Mormon president?

Here's the partial transcript from Orrin Hatch's recent Hardball appearance. Chris Matthews asks him whether America is "ready" for a Mormon president. Hatch says it is: MATTHEWS: Mitt Romney has been making some noises. He's a very impressive fellow. He's a Republican governor of Massachusetts, and that‘s an accomplishment in itself for a Republican. He's an LDS member, a member of the Mormon Church. Do you think the country is ready to make that change, to say, well, how about a Mormon for president? We've got Harry Reid, who is the Senate Democratic leader, who is LDS. Do you think the country is sort of open now in saying, yes, let's - no problem there? HATCH: Well, I hope so, because LDS people, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, are really good people. They're honorable, decent people that you can rely on. ...MATTHEWS: Are we at that magic moment of change, like we did in 1960 with a Roman Catholic candidate, that this could be the time that a Mormon does make the presidency? HATCH: Well, I don't think anybody from any religious persuasion, and especially the churches that are among the top 10 in this country, and the Mormon Church is now the fifth largest in the country... I don't think anybody who is honest, decent and competent should be stopped from serving this country just because they may have differing beliefs. I'm not sure Hatch is right (that America is ready), but Romney might be the man. I'm wondering, however, whether Mormons are ready for a Mormon president? That would really signal our coming out of obscurity, but the wilderness is a comforting place to hide from the glare of an unforgiving world. If a Mormon president was utterly useless, terribly unpopular, or embroiled in some kind of scandal, it would reflect very badly on the Church in a way that it wouldn't for presidents from other denominations. And can you imagine the fallout overseas? Imagine Bush was a Mormon? Baptisms in Europe would grind to nothing! Or maybe I'm wrong: if the president's Mormonicity was common knowledge, then it would do wonders for brand recognition that years of missionary work and PR could not even come close to. I suspect that most if not all Mormons would be delirious if Mitt was president. But we should not imagine that such a prospect would bring only dividends: there might be a high price to pay for such exposure.

United Brethren

October 2004: United Brethren is born, the only child of Headlife, Ronan's expat life blog. United Brethren blogs the Mormon text and image from an international (British-European) perspective. Its name and subtitle intend to do honour to the thousands of British Mormon converts of the mid-19th century in Ronan's neck of the woods. The "United Brethren" were a group of Primitive Methodists who converted en masse to Mormonism through the ministry of Wilford Woodruff in Herefordshire and Worcestershire; Benbow's Pond was their famed baptismal spot. The title picture is of the Gadfield Elm chapel. (There are various other United Brethren's out there with no connection to Mormonism. I can only offer my condolences to them for this site's google rank. There is also the Apostolic United Brethren, Utah's second largest polygamous group. Alas, no connection there either.) United Brethren has seen the birth of the Mormon Archipelago (of which UB was a founder member) and put Rebecca and John C. on to the road to stardom. We even lured the inimitable Fowles here for a time. Thanks to all those who have read, written, commented, and guest blogged (Sahar). You can contact United Brethren via email. If you want some Ronan action elsewhere, visit By Common Consent, Kulturblog, and the Bloggernacle Times. Visit too, Archipelago: a Mormon Studies e-Journal. January 2006: Awaiting a return to the Old World, United Brethren goes into hibernation.

Church accounts

Church finances are famously mysterious. Time estimated that the Church brings in almost $6bn a year (mostly from tithing). The Church denies this figure, but has offered no alternative (Brother Dave has discussed this topic at length here). The Church has never been embroiled in a major financial scandal (in recent history) and most Church members are confident that their money is in safe hands: tithing - quite remarkably - seems to be something that many Mormons pay happily. Most really believe (often from personal experience) in a tangible opening of the "windows of heaven" to them because of their generosity. A snapshot of Church accounts outside of Salt Lake City can be gleaned from the UK's Charity Commission website. By law, all charities in the UK must submit their accounts for public inspection. Recent LDS accounts are found here - they're not super-detailed, but a trained eye might be able to glean some interesting information. In brief, the British church spends a little less than it earns (around $60million 1GBP = $1.9) and is largely self sufficient (but is still in debt to SLC from a major loan a few years back). Fast offering accounts are listed separately - a surplus is reported. The Church also has a massive AgReserves farm in England (and is consequently a top-ten landowner in the UK), but the accounts are not available online. Is there no legal requirement in the US for a charity to publish its accounts? (Not that Mormons seem to be asking the Church to do so).

Divine Command Ethics

So, as has been stated before, I am teaching ethics at UVSC nowadays. As a result, I am teaching, amongst other things, about the relationship between God and morality. Or rather, what we think it ought to be. Divine command ethics (the most explicit attempt to link the divine commandments with morality) states simply that the Good is God's will. There you go. So, what God likes is good and what he doesn't like is bad. Many people dislike this solution because, in that case, you could have a arbitrary God, who could tell you to do anything and it would still be good as it would be His/Her will. I don't like to bring the doctrine of the dominant religion in the valley up too often in class, but it seemed inevitable so I did. It seems to me that all this business in Alma 42 would indicate that the LDS don't go in for Divine Command Ethics. If God could mess up and cease to be God, that seems to indicate that there is some higher standard by which God's actions could be judged. If what is happening here is (to some degree) just a repetition of what has happened before elsewhere, wouldn't this indicate the same? However, it is hard for my students to buy this line of reasoning because it separates the Good from God. The Good becomes something by which we can judge God's actions, not the power by which God tells us how to act. I am wondering if I have been too quick to dismiss Divine Command Ethics as a means for understanding God's role in determining the Good and the Bad. I don't think I buy into Divine Command Ethics (DCE from here on out), but I am willing to listen. So, what think ye?

Why do they hate us?

It's a long and boring story, but one of the privileges/curses I have is to catalog many of the books that arrive in the Johns Hopkins University Library. There's some weird stuff out there. Anyway, I was browsing though a book on underground cinema, wondering whether there would be anything about Mormons in it, and hey presto I stumbled upon a review of the film Byromania, which, among other things, features stoned Mormon missionaries in compromising situations with transvestites. Ah yes, we have here the wonderful literary-cinematic motif of the Mormon. If, as an artist you need an up-tight, guilt-ridden hypocrite (who inevitably falls from grace), but can't be bothered to write a three-dimensional character, reach into the drawer marked "Mormon" and you're done (for detailed instructions, see Latter Days and Angels in America). When asked why he chose Mormons, the writer/director/star of Byromania said that "Mormons are an acceptable target". Why? Because, apparently, we are a) intolerant of others (women, blacks, gays), and b) openly proselytize said intolerance. I've often wondered why Mormon-bashing is acceptable, and there you have it folks - we deserve it. Speaking of which (and further to a previous post), here's another example of how the internet changes everything: Google Search: "mormonism" - 8 out of the first 10 hits are anti-Mormon sites.

D&C changes: D&C 3 - The lost 116 pages

Were I a false prophet, I would be reluctant to publish revelations where God chastised me. Anyway, here are changes relevant to D&C 3 ( = Book of Commandments 2, 1835 Doctrine and Covenants 30) (italic: removed from BoC; bold: added to D&C) - BoC (4): ...but remember God is merciful: Therefore, repent of that which thou hast done, and he will only cause thee to be afflicted for a season, and thou art still chosen, and wilt again be called to the work; and except thou do this, thou shalt be delivered up and become as other men, and have no more gift. - D&C (10-11): But remember God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you, and thou art still chosen, and art again called to the work; Except thou do this, thou shalt be delivered up and become as other men, and have no more gift. Comment: A simple updating to place the chastisement in the past tense and a more specific allusion to the sin committed. - BoC (6): Nevertheless, my work shall go forth and accomplish my purposes, for as the knowledge of a Savior has come into the world, even so shall the knowledge of my people, the Nephites, and the Jacobites, and the Josephites, and the Zoramites, come to the knowledge of the Lamanites, and the Lemuelites, and the Ishmaelites, which dwindled in unbelief because of the iniquity of their fathers, who have been suffered to destroy their brethren, because of their iniquities, and their abominations: - D&C (16-18): Nevertheless, my work shall go forth, for inasmuch as the knowledge of a Savior has come unto the world, through the testimony of the Jews, even so shall the knowledge of a Savior come unto my people - And to the Nephites, and the Jacobites, and the Josephites, and the Zoramites, through the testimony of their fathers - And this testimony shall come to the knowledge of the Lamanites, and the Lemuelites, and the Ishmaelites, who dwindled in unbelief because of the iniquity of their fathers, whom the Lord has suffered to destroy their brethren, the Nephites, because of their iniquities, and their abominations: Comment: Some minor stylistic changes plus some clarifications (e.g. their brethren, "the Nephites"; the knowledge of the Savior "through the testimony of the Jews"). The BoC text seems to make more sense on one point, viz., "the knowledge of my people the Nephites....[shall] come to the knowledge of the Lamanites", an allusion to the Nephite record (the BoM) coming to the modern-day Lamanites. The D&C text has the Lord saying that a knowledge of "a Savior" shall come to my people, and to the Nephites etc., and then to the Lamanites. I'm not sure who the initial "my people" are . I want it to mean the Nephites (in line with BoC), but the text states "and to the Nephites". Perhaps the modern LDS are in mind. Doctrinal commentaries seem to believe that these verses suggest that the BoM will be shared with not only modern Lamanites, but also latter-day Nephites (i.e. they weren't all destroyed). This series should not be taken as evidence that there have been many changes in the D&C. There haven't. And if Christian anti-Mormons want to play text criticism, well, the smell of hypocrisy is overwhelming...

News sidebar

FYI, the "Mormon news feed" on the sidebar is a direct feed from Yahoo news, keyword "Mormon". There is no editorial control over it, so you might see stories that are a) irrelevant, and b) not entirely positive. The Boston sex case is an example of the latter, but to those who think we should keep our eyes closed to such matters, I beg to differ. Let's keep this kind of stuff out in the open: sex abuse in the church (which I am confident is rare) must be confronted. See Mormon Wasp for discussion. [On the Boston case, let's also remember one thing: innocent until proven guilty]

Is Mormon "racism" real or imagined?

There's some discussion floating through the ether (see, for example, darronsmith.com) about whether the Church ought to clarify its doctrine towards blacks (or more strongly, apologise for it). The basic idea is that although it has been 25 years since the priesthood ban on blacks was lifted, the Church has done little to repudiate past teachings. The continued printing of McConkie's Mormon Doctrine is taken as evidence of the persistence of a racist Mormon folklore. Although McConkie's book is not officially sanctioned by the Church it still supplies guidance to many members who find within its pages ideas such as: - the superiority of whites - dark skin as a curse from God - the value of caste systems and racial segregation - the descent of all blacks from Cain and Ham - the condemnation of interracial marriage I do not wish to explore territory already well-trodden (both here at UB and at DMI, for example), nor discuss the wisdom of making requests for action to the Brethren. What interests me are people's experience with racial folklore. It is assumed by many that when asked "why was there a ban on blacks holding the Priesthood", most members (despite no official teaching on the matter) will reach for such notions as the curse of Cain/Ham and the alleged neutrality of blacks in the War on Heaven. So my question is, how would the average Latter-day Saint explain the Priesthood ban? From my experience growing up in the Church in England Britain, the consensus would be that a) there was a curse, and b) less than valiant spirits (blacks) inherited the curse. IF my experience is typical, then there may be a problem. If not, then Mormon racism is perhaps more imagined than real. Interestingly, although these were the ideas that were shared with me during my LDS upbringing, I don't think that the members of the Church in the UK are racist. Quite the contrary. There seems to be a disconnect there: on the one hand racist folklore was around, but no-one was (in practical terms) actually racist, which is why I resist suggestions that Mormons are (as a whole) racist. Compared with the overwhelmingly white community which was my home, Mormons were actually far more enlightened. But I'm not black, so I may not have noticed anything to the contrary. Anyway, please consider my question: how would the average member explain the ban? (And you, dear reader, are not the average member!)

Revelation on the Name of God

(Cited in "The Holy Spirit and the Godhead," a discourse by Elder Orson Pratt, Feb. 18, 1855. See Journal of Discourses, Vol.2, pp. 342-343.) "There is one revelation that this people are not generally acquainted with. I think it has never been published, but probably it will be in the Church History. It is given in questions and answers. The first question is, "What is the name of God in the pure language?" The answer says, "Ahman." "What is the name of the Son of God?" Answer, "Son Ahman --- the greatest of all the parts of God exceptiing Ahman." "What is the name of men?" "Sons Ahman," is the answer. "What is the name of angels in the pure language?" "Anglo-man." (From Andy Hobbs' doctrinal resources page.) But, as every good 33 degree Mason knows, the real name of God is Jah-Bul-On.

Where is God?

An article on the BBC news web site gives the opinion of people from different faiths regarding the recent tsunamis in Asia, and their devastating effects. It asks a question I cannot even begin to answer - is it an act of God? If it is, how can I believe in such a merciless, cruel God? If not, why didn't He do something to stop it or lessen its effects? If anyone can help me understand the theological implications of this I'd be grateful.

D&C Changes: Lectures on Faith

As a new UB feature, I'm intending to take a look over the year at the changes that have taken place in various editions of the Doctrine and Covenants. The best tool to do this is the website Saints Without Halos. They have a nice side-by-side comparison of the D&C changes. These changes get some people excited (FAIR dismisses any significance in such things). They are generally typographical, but some are a little more interesting. This is not something I have ever studied, so I'm interested in having a look for myself. D&C 1 does not have any substantial changes, so this week I'll just say a few words about the Lectures on Faith (LoF). These were included in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants and constitute seven theological lectures (who says Mormons don't have theology?) that were used in the Kirtland School of the Elders. Interestingly, there is no clear evidence for who actually wrote them, but the consensus is that they are mainly to be credited to Sidney Rigdon. The lectures tackle three major themes: 1. What is faith? 2. On what does faith rest? 3. What effects flow from faith? (for summary of the LoF see Dahl in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism.) The lectures were commended to the Church by Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams, who wrote that the LoF contain "the leading items of the religion which we have professed to believe". Bruce R. McConkie stated that they constitute "some of the best lesson material ever prepared on the Godhead." Why, then, were the LoF removed from the D&C in 1921? An introductory statement in that edition of the D&C explains their deletion thus: "they were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise then theological lectures or lessons". In other words, they are not revelation. Conspiracy theorists out there might point to the concept of the Godhead taught in the fifth lecture and its comparison to D&C 130. It teaches that: - Two personages constitute the supreme power over all things - the Father and the Son - The Father is a personage of spirit - The Son is a personage of tabernacle - The Son possesses the same mind as the Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit Millet in Dahl and Tate, (eds.) The Lectures on Faith in historical perspective, dismisses any contradiction here with the traditional LDS view of the Godhead (that the Father is also a personage of tabernacle, and the Holy Spirit is more than just the mind of God). Apologetics are not necessary here, however. Joseph (or Rigdon with Joseph's consent) simply did not know the true nature of God in 1834/5. Is there any reason that they should have? It is interesting, however, to wonder about the processes that lie behind LDS theology, and to note how radically things can change.

Temple Preparation

Ben Spackman has put together a nice collection of Temple Preparation resources. Kudos to Ben for taking the time to do this. Preparing people to go to the Temple is an important responsibility. The Temple is the crown of LDS worship, but we hardly talk about it, other than "it's wonderful, you should go". Having people ready for the Temple experience whilst being sensitive to its sacred nature is something we can do better on.

ABC World News

ABC News last night gave this story a brief mention: Muslims and Mormons in Salt Lake City join together to send aid to tsunami victims