Comments on: Going All Sorts of Gentile

By: Clark Goble

Clark Goble — Thu, 12 May 2016 18:27:30 +0000

I suspect the majority of things in the handbook are driven by past “disasters” whether that’s fires, leaders with poor intuitions or ability to follow the spirit screwing things up, and other such things. So while insurers and lawyers are part of that I think times the brethren have had to clean things up over the past few decades plays at least as big a role. And JRs right that there are big legal regulations regarding public kitchens. I’m pretty sure grease traps and water inspections are part of this along with yearly state agriculture/FDA inspections. Also I believe as soon as you publicly make something you’re legally responsible in a way you aren’t if you’re just serving. (I’m not sure on the details of that)

Some things just didn’t make much sense and are clearly cultural. Say no brass instruments in church. It’s to maintain a common atmosphere at odds with what Evangelicals have. As JR noted though that’s changed although the cultural bias towards piano and strings is huge. I’ve never heard of drums being allowed as a practical matter.

I didn’t know they’d eliminated stain glass. Of course most stain glass along the wasatch – especially those dating to the 70s – are horribly tacky and dated.

By: JR

JR — Thu, 12 May 2016 17:44:50 +0000

The Other Clark (12.1), while we’re taking this thread off on a tangent, I note:
1. Currently we have no “kitchens”. Instead, we have “serving areas.” This is not simply because of fire risk, but at least partly because many local jurisdictions would require periodic inspection and licensing of “kitchens” but not “serving areas” where no “cooking” is done.
2. We haven’t had a ban on brass instruments in worship for decades. (Though some GAs have still not caught up with the Handbook.) Instead “most” brass and percussion are deemed inappropriate and the decision is delegated by the Handbook to the Bishop for ward meetings and to the Stake President for stake meetings. For a long time now we have had local authorities who are not afraid to take such responsibility and who can tell the difference between a brass player incapable of playing the instrument appropriately and those who are capable.
3. There are crosses in some old LDS chapels. There was a time when American protestants rejected crosses as a symbol of catholicism. It was the anti-catholic attitude that prevailed against the LDS apostles suggestion that a cross be erected on Ensign Peak. There’s a very interesting cultural history to be considered in connection with the LDS love/hate relationship with the cross as a symbol of Christianity. We still sing “Onward Christian Soldiers”, originally titled “Hymn for Procession with Cross and Banners” and intended for a procession of Christian children following the cross bearer.

By: JKC

JKC — Thu, 12 May 2016 17:17:16 +0000

James, when you say this “one simply can’t argue that other’s lacked Jesus,” I get what you are saying, but at the same time, if you accept the canonized account of the First Vision, that appears to be more or less what Jesus had to say at least about the “professors” of Christianity before the restoration: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.” It’s not that their idea of Jesus was wrong (at least, not primarily that), it’s that they didn’t really come to him. So the restoration is not really an argument that our Jesus is real-er or better, it’s a call to repentance.

This is why I’m not so attached to uniqueness as a cardinal virtue. Being unique is fine if it happens to coincide with being wright, but being non-unique is not a problem in and of itself. The restoration doesn’t need to justify itself by being unique.

As far as the question, what is the unifying principle specifically for the restoration, I’ve agreed with Olde Skool that it is “Jesus-believing.” But I suppose the more detailed answer would be the one that Jesus himself gives in 3 Nephi and elsewhere: the set of principles that he calls “my gospel”: (1) Jesus came to do the Father’s will, (2) the Father sent Jesus to draw all men to him, (3) Jesus died on the cross to draw us all to him on conditions of repentance, (4) if we come unto him through faith and repentance, which we demonstrate through baptism, he will sanctify us by giving us the Holy Ghost.

Now, of course, there are differences between us and non-restoration Christians with respect to what we believe and how we worship. But it’s my opinion that unless those differences go to what Jesus calls “my gospel,” they are relatively minor and it’s not clear to me that emphasizing those differences for purposes of distinguishing ourselves is at all desirable. This is not to say that we should shy away from differences or hide them, but acknowledging difference as a fact of life and emphasizing it with the goal of drawing distinctions are two different things. Emphasizing difference for the sole purpose of making a case for uniqueness, especially when it is difference as to something other than core beliefs (what Jesus calls “my gospel”) in my opinion can have (and has had) the undesirable effect of creating confusion over what are really the core essential beliefs, and what are things that are incidental to those beliefs.

By: The Other Clark

The Other Clark — Thu, 12 May 2016 16:51:50 +0000

I suspect that many of the items Jader mentions as forbidden by the Handbook are driven by insurance agents, not apostles. These include:
* Bans on cornstalks and hay in chapels (increased fire danger)
* kitchens for warming only, not cooking (again, to decrease fire risk)
* Helmets for missionaries and bans on contact sports to decrease risk of accident

Another set of rules are purely to separate Mormonism from Protestantism
*ban on brass instruments in worship
*Eliminating stained glass in chapels
*No crosses

By: Craig H.

Craig H. — Thu, 12 May 2016 16:49:07 +0000

James, I couldn’t have said that any better either; a very nice summary of what the post was supposed to be about, and especially a very interesting explanation of what you meant with your comment 7.1. I’m not sure that peoplehood isn’t important to Protestants, if you feel like explaining that, but again very nicely put.

By: jader3rd

jader3rd — Thu, 12 May 2016 16:02:22 +0000

While I know that some people read this and hope that you’re suggesting big social justice issue changes for the church, that’s not what comes to the forefront of my mind. I feel like there’s a cruft of items built up in the Handbook of Instructions, all because some Apostle imagined what a “perfect” ward looked like, and then when he discovered that some wards weren’t doing that, wrote it into the handbook that they should.
And I might even agree that lots of things would reflect the perfect ward, but we need some wards to be less than perfect.
I particularly think we could make some good progress with ward activities. I can only imagine what it would be like for a new convert\recent active to try and plan a ward activity, only to be confronted with a last minute list of things they can’t do\did wrong. One example would be bringing hay or corn stalks into the building as decorations for some fall themed activity. I know it really bums my mother-in-law out when she decorates the building, only to be told that some items are forbidden according to the handbook. That’s not going to destroy her testimony, but I can easily see it giving some the sense that “you’re not one of ‘us’ yet.”
Another example that really stands out in my mind is the “no face cards in the building” rule. About a year back the Elders quorum hosted a bring your own game – game night at the building. A convert of around a year showed up with face cards and poker chips. Now of course there wouldn’t be any actual gambling, but still the EQP thought it wouldn’t be appropriate. He took the member aside, and in private and informed it that it would be preferred if poker wouldn’t be part of the Elders quorum official, sanctioned activity. The new member was understood, and had a great time playing whatever he played that evening. He did go inactive a few weeks later, and I’m sure it wasn’t because of this. But I can’t help but think that it did add to an overarching feeling that he was struggling with the idea that he wasn’t one of ‘us’ yet. Yes, he had been baptized, but probably felt like he wasn’t ‘Mormon’.

By: Ralph C. Hancock

Ralph C. Hancock — Thu, 12 May 2016 13:44:56 +0000

It’s called Marcionism. Today you can call it Badiou-ism. I’m not against heresies in principle, but this one has problems.

By: James Olsen

James Olsen — Thu, 12 May 2016 01:45:21 +0000

JKC/Olde Skool/Craig H.:
It’s hard to tell if we’re talking past one another or agreeing, or if there’s a disagreement we haven’t yet brought to light. In the context of the OP, we’re urged toward a single, unifying principle that allows all of us to carefully, imaginatively, creatively compromise and come together — just as Paul’s vision allowed early Jewish Jesus-believers and Gentile Jesus-believers to do. This is all done with an aim toward us Mormons adopting this sort of creative inclusivity, and particularly toward our being able to get past older understandings that make strong claims about the necessity of certain ideas/practices. Anciently, as our parable goes, folks were successful to the degree they realized that in the end it’s all about Jesus. That’s all fine and good, but it certainly doesn’t justify the Restoration — one simply can’t argue that other’s lacked Jesus. UNLESS you make a move like JKC just did: the problem is that other folks’s Jesus isn’t really Jesus or isn’t Jesus enough or isn’t current-enough-Jesus. Then great, the Restoration’s very relevant. However, if we make that move, it looks like we’re just repeating the olde skool Peterian Christian move of fighting over who the real Jesus was/is (which then doesn’t allow Jesus-believing to serve as the centrifying principle). Ultimately a lot of those Peterites came together around a Jesus-believing set of creeds (and destroyed or ignored the subgroups who didn’t go along with it). The Restoration’s taken a fairly dim view of those creeds. Vis-a-vis the rest of Christianity, Mormons tend to take JKC’s view — we’re (in some sense) realer Jesus-believers.

But that’s not, I take it, what the point of this parable is. The point is, how can we Restorationites be more Pauline and less Peterian amongst ourselves. Perhaps JKC’s right here too: our central tenet is Restoration-Jesus-believing.

I’ll admit, I’m a bit skeptical concerning this solution for two reasons: I don’t think our current articulation of Jesus is different enough from others’ to sustain the differentiation or bond us together. This is especially true as the world gets ever more comfortable with Jesus-believing having nothing to do with people-building. But maybe it’s just that I’m an old Peterian crank who thinks peoplehood is central to the Restoration (and the good life), when really, I ought to just be more Protestant (er, Pauline) Jesus-believing.

At any rate, Craig, great post. I’ll take my leave now.

By: HH9

HH9 — Thu, 12 May 2016 00:58:40 +0000

I read this this morning and half way through thought, hey Craig should read this, it sounds a lot like him. The first comment told me why I had that impression.

This reminds me of a book I just read, The Bible Tells Me So, by Peter Enns. Who also agrees the NT is just one surprise after another and when we try to confine scripture or God into our notions of him, we end up with far less than he has on offer.

I think there are dozens of things in the restoration that make us reconsider our non-negotiables/never missables. That’s sort of the heart and soul of the restoration. To take just one example: families. Say what you will about Joseph, but he was clearly open to radically reconsidering just what a family is. Polygamy was a part of that, but polyandry, posthumous sealings, adoption sealings, sealings in name only, sealings for time only all show an expansively different family he was just beginning to imagine. We’ve been trying to shove the implications of this reimagining back into a Victorian box ever since. Now, I don’t want us to go back to polygamy, but exploring threads of the restoration that we’ve under-explored would be nice. (I like your point that it is on all of us, we can’t just sit back until a leader tells us to move.) I imagine it might give new possibilities for conundrums currently plaguing us.

By: Craig H.

Craig H. — Wed, 11 May 2016 21:24:29 +0000

Right, James, how the community is bound, or not, depends on what it cares about most, I presume. Does binding have to come through following basically the same practices and rituals and even detailed beliefs? Or does binding happen through something that transcends those, ethereal as it sounds? More concretely, I studied this in microcosmic settings, namely in mixed-faith families and marriages, especially during the time of the Reformation. A small percentage couldn’t function at all, and broke apart. Most tolerated each other but didn’t exactly accept each other. Another small percentage made their relationship the highest form of their religion, based on the idea that observing the second great commandment is the best way to show your love for God in the first great commandment. This last group had unity too, even though they didn’t have the same religion. I know more recent couples which include a believer and total unbeliever, and they’re able to achieve this same sort of binding. But it’s hard, I’m sure.

By: Craig H.

Craig H. — Wed, 11 May 2016 21:10:16 +0000

It probably will, since change is always going on, sometimes so slowly it’s not always easy to see, or we imagine it’s the first such change to something. And it’s not just about adapting to other places; it’s about adapting to all sorts of people, including within what you assumed was your own pretty uniform culture. If we don’t like the adaptation, we might call it schism; if we do, we might say it’s expanding the definition of a culture, or religion.

By: Craig H.

Craig H. — Wed, 11 May 2016 20:40:43 +0000

I couldn’t have said it any better JKC, so I didn’t. And so yes there’s a lot to that Olde Skool.

By: Clark Goble

Clark Goble — Wed, 11 May 2016 20:32:26 +0000

I suspect we’re going to see the church change culturally quite a bit over the next few decades. I think to really expand in Asia and Africa requires changes we’ve not yet made. Evangelicals for instance are growing extremely fast in Asia in a way we aren’t. Not that growth is or should be our only aim. However it does suggest that a stumbling block is our cultural assumptions – especially in our church services largely lifted from American low church protestant traditions. Even among Americans there’s enough grumbling about meetings that I suspect we’ll start to see changes on part with what happened in the late 70’s and early 80’s.

The danger of course is that the more you ease up on correlation and “one size fits all” the more often you get Bishops and Stake Presidents doing screwy things. I think that oft told story of wards left alone during WWII only to be found adopting very Catholic like sacrament meetings remains in the back of most of the brethren’s mind.

Again it’s worth noting that by all appearances what happens fairly early on in the 1st century Palestinian church are a series of schisms. And many of these schisms, such as the gnostics, are not at all minor. The very meaning of Jesus changes radically differently. Indeed while we can see Paul as pushing this openness, as I said it’s a double move. He wants openness to the gentiles yet at the same time he’s also spending much of his epistles yelling about apostasy. From the LDS perception the attempt to reign in the schisms is unsuccessful. The Church as a whole goes into hiding.

By: JKC

JKC — Wed, 11 May 2016 20:05:52 +0000

That was my reaction, too, Olde Skool.

James, I disagree that making faith in Christ the point and purpose of the restoration renders the restoration redundant or superfluous. If that were true, you could basically say the same thing about any dispensation. All prophets are redundant, until you realize how thick-headed humanity really is, and how much we need repetition–and not just repetition, but also currency–that is, to truly experience what is means to believe in Jesus, you have to experience what it means to believe in a Jesus that continues to work through his church in literal ways.

Put differently, if you agree that Jesus-believing in its fullness was lost through the apostasy, then the restoration is not redundant or superfluous. If you believe that Jesus-believing continued alive and well, then I suppose you would need to look elsewhere for what makes the restoration unique. Personally, while I’m happy to concede that faith in Christ persisted in some sense, I don’t believe that there is much at all in the church that either (1) doesn’t derive from Jesus’ incarnation and death, or (2) isn’t designed to increase faith in Jesus’ incarnation and death, so anything that might seem to be unique is not really something different from Jesus-believing, but is the fullest expression of Jesus-believing.

In addition to that, I’m not so attached to uniqueness as a cardinal virtue, anyway.

By: Craig H.

Craig H. — Wed, 11 May 2016 19:39:40 +0000

One place to start with imagination, James, would be to imagine what modern Mormon parallels might be to the sorts of things Paul was willing to make concessions on. Those were huge for Jesus-believing Jews, and would be huge for Mormons too. But if you can imagine such things, then you have a chance to grasp what Paul was doing, and what that might mean for you.