Year: 2010

Confession of a Primary Pianist

When my friend Craig Harline suggested a few months ago that I do some guest blogging on Times and Seasons, I was initially enthusiastic; but on second thought my enthusiasm waned. It became clear to me that I probably wouldn’t have much to contribute to this conversation. And the main reason I wouldn’t have much to contribute is that I’m largely ignorant in matters of Mormon thinking. So I would be like the naive newcomer to a conversation who says things that other people have already thoroughly hashed over. And why should I be ignorant about this part of Mormonism? After all, I was “raised in the Church,” went on a mission, and graduated from BYU. Since then I’ve rarely missed a Sacrament Meeting, have made substantial monetary contributions, and have usually watched at least one session of general conference. But in recent years I’ve missed out on the no doubt scintillating discussions in Gospel Doctrine or priesthood meeting, in part because for about nine of the last ten years my ward calling (in two different wards) has been Primary pianist. (That may tell you something.) And I long ago left off reading LDS-type publications, whether general and official, meaning The Ensign, or more academic, such as Sunstone and Dialogue– which I assume are still in business? Or (sorry!) Times and Seasons. Nor can I sincerely say that this lapse is among the many things in my life that I…

Times and Seasons Welcomes Steve Smith

Times and Seasons is happy to welcome as a guest blogger Steve Smith, who teaches and writes mainly about religious freedom, constitutional law, and jurisprudence.  His most recent book is The Disenchantment of Secular Discourse (Harvard University Press, 2010).  Steve graduated from BYU in 1976 before studying law at Yale, and he has taught at various law schools including Notre Dame, Colorado, Idaho, Michigan (as a visiting professor), Virginia (as a visitor), and the University of San Diego, where he is currently employed.  Steve’s wife Merina also attended BYU, and they have five children. An accomplished musician by most standards (not his), Steve’s biggest ambition, I happen to know, is to quit the rat race and rather than cultivate his garden become a bluegrass banjo player.

Redefining Morality in the Public Sphere

This past week more than 10,000 scientists launched the Vienna Declaration, a call for a major change in handling drug crimes and treatment. Noting that the global war on drugs has failed, the group wants governments to use scientific methods to determine policy instead of, as one health professional puts it, “a moralistic approach.”

Happy Pioneer Day!

This little reflection was originally posted on the blog Law, Religion, and Ethics — most of whose readers, if any, are presumably not LDS or residents of Utah. Pioneer Day, in case you didn’t know, is today, July 24; it commemorates the day in 1847 (give or take a day or two) when Brigham Young declared “This is the place,” and the Mormon pioneers entered the Salt Lake Valley. I imagine Pioneer Day is still celebrated in Utah, and it was a festive occasion in Idaho Falls, Idaho, when I was growing up in the 50s and 60s. My mother, though she lacked training or college experience, had an artistic bent, and she used to spend untold hours preparing the ward float for the annual Pioneer Day parade, to march along with floats sponsored by other wards (a ward is the Mormon equivalent of a parish) and other churches, as well as countless horse posses, 4-H groups, Shriners, and nicely waxed cars carrying local dignitaries. One year my sister and I were enlisted to stand on the ward float dressed as Betsy Ross and Uncle Sam.

Sunday School Lesson 30: 2 Chronicles 29-30; 32; 34

As the Old Testament tells the history, Hezekiah was the 13th king after David and the 11th king of Judah: David, then Solomon, then Rehoboam (who was king at the time of the split between Judah and Israel, and became the first king of Judah), then Abijah, then Asa, then Jehoshaphat, Joram, Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and finally Hezekiah. Hezekiah reigned from 715 B.C. to 687 B.C. King Uzziah was a successful king, but at the end of his career he came into conflict with the temple priests. Whether the description of the conflict that we see in 2 Chronicles 26:16-23 is accurate is debatable, for it is clear that, as king, David had the right to offer sacrifice and to use the Urim and Thummim. (See 1 Samuel 23:9-12; 24:7-8; and 2 Samuel 24:25. The Urim and Thummim were attached to the ephod mentioned in 1 Samuel 23 and 24.) In addition, David tells us that he was given the Melchizedek priesthood (Psalm 110:4). There can be little doubt that the king of Israel was originally a priest-king. (See 1 Chronicles 29:23, which says that Solomon sat on “the throne of the Lord.”) So it seems likely that Uzziah was not doing anything improper when he made offering in the temple. If so, then the story in chapter 29, that Uzziah was stricken with leprosy because he dared to act as a priest in the temple, was…

Your opportunity to WIN. FABULOUS. PRIZES.

You’ve always dreamed of starting a handsome Mormon studies collection — who hasn’t? This week, you have an unprecedented opportunity to start your collection in style. As we’ve mentioned here and elsewhere, Sunstone 2010 is just around the corner. It will take place from August 4th through August 8th in Salt Lake City. Online pre-registration is available up through 5:00 p.m. on Friday, July 30th. And about those prizes? Here goes. — RAFFLE ANNOUNCEMENT All persons who pre-register for Sunstone 2010 between July 26th and July 30th will be automatically entered into the inaugural Fabulous Pre-Registration Prize Raffle. This year’s prizes include signed copies of: Richard Lyman Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling Carol Lynn Pearson, Mother Wove the Morning Carol Lynn Pearson, No More Goodbyes Margaret Young and Darius Gray, Nobody Knows: The Untold Story of Black Mormons Kathryn Lynard Soper, The Year My Son and I were Born Each one-day registration, stand-alone workshop, or stand-alone banquet registration gets you one entry into the raffle. Each full registration, student registration, or first time registration gets you three entries in the raffle. The deluxe registration with MP3 gets you five entries into the raffle. Winners will be announced on August 2st, and prizes will be distributed at the symposium. What are you waiting for? Register now online or by calling in to 801.355-5926. Good luck, everyone! And if you have any questions, please send them to mary.ellen (at) sunstonemagazine.com.

Leadership and Self-Flagellation: Sharing Your Sins with the World

Nate’s thoughtful post inspired a great discussion. Andrew spoke up to say: …even though Church leaders could and should stress their own imperfection before Church members, they don’t…but instead they play into this paragon of virtue imagery that people put on them. Wm Morris responded with: I have no desire to see more self-flagellation on the part of our leaders. And I don’t see the paragon of virtue imagery — when general authorities to talk about themselves as persons, they are very often self-deprecating and even talk about their imperfections. “Self-flagellation” is is kind of a stretch. Exposing our own imperfections and struggles isn’t akin to beating ourselves silly in the town square. I think Andrew makes a good point. While I’m sure there are examples to support the latter position, I can’t think of many off the top of my head. The most vivid personal example from our general leaders I can remember is the recollection of of one of the general youth auxiliary leaders about lying on the grass in the summer, staring up at the clouds and thinking about Jesus. I remember the story because my thought was, “Wow. I remember doing the same thing at that age — but I was thinking about boys.” I have seen the positive side of our leaders personal experiences so overwhelmingly expressed that I’ve concluded that either: These people really are far more perfect than any people I have ever…

I Cannot Read a Sealed Book – Part I: The Basic Case for Making Public the Handbook

The church handbook is a foundational document for the lived experience of LDS church members. The handbook (actually two specific handbooks at present, but for convenience’s sake we’ll just refer to it as the handbook) sets out rules regarding a variety of important experiences in church member life. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism notes that the handbook contains “instruction on (1) Church administration and meetings; (2) calling members to Church positions and releasing them from such calls; (3) ordaining members to priesthood offices; (4) performing ordinances and giving blessings; (5) doing sacred temple work, and family history; (6) responding to calls for missionary service; (7) keeping records, reports, and accounting for finances; (8) applying Church discipline; and (9) implementing Church policies on such matters as buildings and property, moral issues, and medical and health issues.” The handbook is cited repeatedly in a variety of general member discussions (see, e.g., here or here). However, under current policy, the handbook is not made available to the general church membership. Instead, as the Encyclopedia of Mormonism notes, “Church leaders who receive the handbook include General Authorities, Church department heads, general auxiliary presidencies, temple presidents, and officers in stakes, wards, missions, districts, and branches.” In my observation, there are some potential negative consequences to the current policy. One negative consequence is confusion and inconsistent application. The handbook sets out a number of specific rules and church policies that aren’t available anywhere else. It’s not clear…

Mormon Studies on Your eReader

I got a Kindle a few weeks ago, and my affection for it is quickly approaching idolatry. But we aren’t going to talk about that right now; we’re going to talk about how to Mormon-Studies-geek out your ereader. Here’s what I have found so far; I expect you to add to the fun.

Reforming the Church – A Response to Nate

Nate has written a very articulate and worthwhile post that I think cuts to the heart of a common problem in how we emotionally respond to issues we have with the church. It goes together well with this other post of his which is similarly worth (re-)reading. I’m responding not because I particularly disagree with the things he has said (though I think he has mis-framed the issue a bit), but because there’s so much more to say on the subject that I fear Nate’s characterization may threaten to cover up rather than shed light on the issue.

Reforming the Church, Angst, and the Spirituality of Democratic Liberalism

t seems to me that what is at issue here is less one’s conduct than one’s emotional and intellectual stance.  In other words, I suspect that there is relatively little in terms of conduct that would differ between folks here.  We’re all interested in remaining faithful, contributing, serving, etc.  I suspect that none of us is likely to go along with some great evil perpetrated by the church (such evils being — in my opinion — mainly hypothetical intellectual playthings rather than regular aspects of lived experience). We can all think of changes that we would welcome and that we would be willing to act to bring about.  The difference, it seems to me, lies in the presence or absence of a particular kind of angst and how we interpret it. I can’t help but notice the many places in which James invokes analogies to democratic liberalism.  There is a desire for participatory self-government, a fear of institutional suppression of rights or other kinds of abuse, a desire for an ever more egalitarian, universal, and inclusive kind of discussion.  Seen in these terms “fatalism” looks like an abdication of political responsibility, a failure to behave as virtuous citizens ought.  It seems to me that the spiritual angst here is a spiritual angst that is filtered through a set of political ideas, ideas that we would do well to treat with some skepticism.  Indeed, one of the intellectual virtues of a…

Please, Please, Sing Out!

I’m currently visiting my in-laws for a few weeks. I attended their ward on Sunday and once again was shocked at the difference in the singing there compared to my home ward. Why don’t members sing the hymns in Sacrament Meeting here?

Sunday School Lesson 29: 2 Kngs 2, 5-6

A reminder: these are not notes for preparing a Sunday School lesson—though they may help a person do that. They are notes for studying the chapters assigned for reading. Arthur Bassett has pointed out these parallels between Elisha, on the one hand, and Moses and Christ, on the other. (All scripture references are to 2 Kings). Elisha parts the water [2:14] (as Moses parted the sea and Joshua and Elijah parted the Jordan)—Jesus parts the heavens at the time of his baptism in the same Jordan. He supplies water [2:19-22] (as had Moses)—Christ presents himself as the living water. Waters appear to be blood [3:21-23] (as Moses had changed the river to blood)—Jesus turns water into wine. He provides a never-ending supply of oil [an essential ingredient in bread, the staple food] for a widow [4:1-7] (as did Elijah)—Jesus provides a never-ending supply of the bread of life. He restores life to a child [4:18-37] (as had Elijah)—Jesus does the same for two. He renders poison harmless [4:38-41] (as had Moses with the snakes)—Jesus atones for the poisonous effect of sin in our lives. He feeds a multitude with twenty loaves [4:42-44]—the Savior feeds the 5,000. He heals a leper [5:1-14]—Christ heals ten lepers. He defies gravity by causing an ax head to float [6:1-7]—Jesus defies gravity by walking on water and ascending bodily into the heavens. He blinds his enemies who come searching for his life [6:18-20]—the Savior walks…

The “V” Words

This post is brought to you by the letter “V”. (Don’t worry, that’s grape juice in the picture. Really. I’m sure it is.) Vigor. Verdant. Vibrant. Vivacious. AliVe. These are the qualities I expect true religion to inculcate. Does it make me think more? Does it make me love more? Does it make me see more? Does it make me do more? Does it make me be more? “These things are fun and fun is good.” Does it make life awesomer, and does it make me awesomer? Or, as Parley P. Pratt so effectively stated: The gift of the Holy Spirit…quickens all the intellectual faculties, increases, enlarges, expands and purifies all the natural passions and affections, and adapts them, by the gift of wisdom, to their lawful use. It inspires, develops, cultivates and matures all the fine toned sympathies, joys, tastes, kindred feelings and affections of our nature. It inspires virtue, kindness, goodness, tenderness, gentleness and charity. It develops beauty of person, form and features. It tends to health, vigor, animation and social feeling. It develops and invigorates all the faculties of the physical and intellectual man. It strengthens, invigorates and gives tone to the nerves. In short, it is, as it were, marrow to the bone, joy to the heart, light to the eyes, music to the ears, and life to the whole being. In the presence of such persons one feels to enjoy the light of their countenances,…

Labels

Alright people, here we go…on labels! (apollo, this one’s for you.) Labels of preference These are the labels anyone can just pick for themselves. “Awesome”, “feminist”, and “Abba fan” are all labels of preference. You just pick one, apply it to yourself, and no one can say you’re wrong! These labels aren’t owned by any organization, so they mean whatever you want them to mean. Labels of significance These are labels a person must earn, like “doctor”, “lawyer”, and “cosmetologist”. Labels of significance are “owned” by an organization, like the American Medical Association owns “doctor” (at least in America). In order to acquire a label of significance, a person has to meet the qualifications set by the body that owns that label. Labels of organization These labels are used internally within organizations, like “sergeant”, “project manager”, and “Relief Society President”. These labels don’t signify things a person has done, but rather point at the things that person will be doing. They are labels of convenience, and generally identify roles and responsibilities a person will carry within an organization. Sometimes heated discussions ensue over the proper application of labels, like, say, whether someone really is a “feminist”, a “mother”…or a “Mormon”. Usually these debates are painful and fruitless because the parties are arguing about labels of preference as though they were actually labels of significance. So what kind of label is “Mormon”? It’s easiest to approach as a label of organization…

What Did We Lose?

In 70 AD, the Romans capped their extended campaign to crush a Jewish revolt by destroying the magnificent temple in Jerusalem. The Jews lost their temple. Earlier, they had lost political autonomy and the kingship; later, in 132 AD, another Jewish revolt was suppressed and Jews were barred from living in or even entering Jerusalem. Despite this loss of temple, king, and land, the Jews adapted and Judaism endured. In the 19th century, Mormons had their own sharp if somewhat less dramatic struggle with American government and culture. What did we Mormons lose?

Sunday School Lesson 28:1 Kings 17-19

Elijah We know from passages in the New Testament and, especially, from Latter-day revelation, that Elijah is one of the most important prophets to have lived. (In the Jewish tradition, he is second only to Moses.) Yet we know almost nothing about him. Why do you think that is? In addition to the story of his life, in these and the next few chapters of scripture, we have Malachi’s prophecy that Elijah would come to bind the hearts of the fathers and the children (Malachi 4:5), as well as the repetition of that prophecy in several places, notably in D&C 2:1-3, where we are told that his coming will bring a restoration of the sealing priesthood. (See also D&C 110:13-16). The Savior thought the prophecy was so important that he repeated it during his ministry to the Nephites. Of Elijah, Joseph Smith said: The spirit, power, and calling of Elijah is, that ye have power to hold the key of the revelations, ordinances, oracles, powers and endowments of the fulness of the Melchizedek Priesthood and of the kingdom of God on the earth; and to receive, obtain, and perform all the ordinances belonging to the kingdom of God, even unto the turning of the hearts of the fathers unto the children, and the hearts of the children unto the fathers, even those who are in heaven. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, page 337) The Spirit of Elias is first,…

Sunday School Lesson 27: 1 Kings 12-14; 2 Chronicles 17, 20

The material of this lesson, especially that of chapters 12-13, is important to understanding the rest of Old Testament, for the eighty years that it covers details the split that occurred between the ten tribes of Israel in the north and the tribe of Judah/Benjamin in the south. Since these accounts, like the rest of the Old Testament, were edited many years later (for example, after the return from Babylon) by descendants of those in the southern kingdom, you should think about what their point of view would have been and how that might have shaped their version of the story, the only version we have. There is no factual, objective account of the division, only this one written by someone on one side of the division and later edited by people also on that side of the division. On the other hand, the fact that, apparently, the original writer continually refers to all Israel—both the northern and the southern kingdom—shows that he, at least, was not a simple propagandist for the south. He had the unification of Israel at heart. After this lesson, the material we read will often not be in chronological order. You can use the Old Testament chronology in the LDS Bible Dictionary to see how the materials we study are related to each other chronologically. The Story 1. Original Israel splits into two factions. The first, in the north, is called Israel and ruled by…

Scriptural Literacy

I’ve just been called as a seminary teacher. Today I was sustained during sacrament meeting. I’m really excited about it — I enjoy working with youth, I enjoy the scriptures, and I enjoy teaching. Heck, I’m even a morning person. The course of study is the Doctrine & Covenants. It has me thinking about how to help them understand the role that the scriptures play in the church. When I was twelve-or-so years old, I had a teacher who wanted us to understand the importance of the scriptures. He encouraged us to bring our scriptures to class each week, and even took roll on who brought theirs. However, I remember consciously asking myself, “What’s the point? We don’t learn from the scriptures at church. We learn from the lesson manual.” In other words, I hadn’t made the connection that the doctrines in the lesson manual were based on scriptural teachings. Like most Sunday school classes, the teacher would have us read passages from the scriptures, but I didn’t understand that the purpose of those scriptures was to provide a legal basis for the principles in the lesson. (Of course, twelve-year-old boys mumbling quietly through verses of KJV prose doesn’t leave one understanding much of anything at all.) So it was kind of a revolutionary connection for me when I finally realized that church policies and doctrines weren’t true for their own sakes, that they were at some point founded on…

Wanted: Greener Grass

People leave the church because…well, I don’t know. I’ve had a few acquaintances who’ve decided to be done with it, but I’ve never sat down and talked with them about why. If I were to guess, it’s because they discovered things they didn’t like about the church and decided to head out to where things are better. That’s why this article on gender stereotypes and science caught my eye—it’s easy to think that the cultural difficulties we try to navigate in the church are specific to the church. I wonder how many people leave the church thinking, “I’m done with these folks—I’m heading out there where [gays/women/intellectuals/artists] are treated with respect!” only to discover that our cultural biases within the church are largely just reflections of the cultural biases of the world at large. In the ‘80s, China performed an “Anti–Spiritual-Pollution Campaign”. The nation’s leaders were concerned that the world outside of China was having too much influence on the people inside of China.  The campaign used the term “spiritual pollution” as a catch-all term for a variety of media and beliefs that were feared to be harmful, including modern views on sexuality, philosophy, modern art, and individualism. As is often the case in these sorts of hysterical cultural retrenchments, accusations were leveled, deviants were executed, and then, after the hysteria had passed, the campaign became a taboo topic, not to be discussed inside China and quickly forgotten outside of…

Looking for historicity in all the wrong places

If you think that the textual history of the Book of Mormon includes historical records, then you can’t avoid the possibility that a lot of Book of Mormon scholarship has been looking for the wrong people in the wrong place at the wrong time, and reading the wrong verses. The problem is that Book of Mormon chronology is anchored in time only by the fall of Jerusalem and Christ’s appearance to the Nephites. But these events belong to sacral history, and their translation into historical chronology is not necessarily transparent. In the same way, the identification of the Nephites as descendants of pre-Exilic Jews depends on 1 Nephi, which is a literary account of an eponymous ancestor that grafts ethnic origins into sacred history. National theophanies and sacralized accounts of ethnogenesis are not the kinds of writing usually given much weight in historical analysis. And yet Semitic origins and a 600 BC – 421 AD timeline define the current debate about Book of Mormon historicity. I think this is a mistake, and that we needlessly limit what can or must be assumed about where and when the events described in the Book of Mormon could have taken place. It is as if Scandinavian history would focus exclusively on the question of Trojan origins as alleged by Snorri Sturlason, and attempt to date the events described in the Edda with respect to Ragnarök. Over time, histories get re-written and chronologies get…

Sunday School Lesson 26: 1 Kings 3; 5-11

The Story This week’s lesson focuses on the construction of the first temple. Previously there had been many places for offering sacrifices and several buildings that we would call temples. But this is the first one built on the site traditionally associated with Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac. As this temple came to prominence, it overshadowed the others and, by the time of the return from Babylon, it became the only one recognized. The first two chapters of 1 Kings are the background for that temple-building. Chapters 1-2 deal with the final days of David, when his son, Adonijah, aided by the captain of the army, Joab, and one of the two chief priests, Abiathar, attempted a coup. Nathan and Bathsheba, Solomon’s mother, entered into their own plot, telling David (who had previously promised that Solomon would be king) what Adonijah was doing. David’s solution is to have Zadok, the other chief priest, anoint Solomon co-regent. Historical side note: The term “Sadducees” in the New Testament may be a transliteration of “Zadokite,” reflecting their desire for a legitimate priesthood holder, a descendant of Zadok, ultimately the first temple’s high priest, to occupy the office. After the exile in Babylon, Ezekiel declared that only descendants of Zadok could perform all of the priestly duties in the Temple, but the high priest of the temple in the 1st century was not a Zadokite, but a Hasmonean. (But the name “Sadducee” may, instead, mean…

Excuses for Stopping

The post is brought to you by my wife, Heather.  Please be nice to her :) ****** It was time for Dane and I to have a discussion — the, “our baby is approaching 15 months old, do we want to have another one?” discussion.  We currently have three wonderful, healthy children.  At one point in this discussion I told my husband that I would probably feel guilty for not having more.  He was surprised and asked why I should feel guilty.  So I told him and the answer surprised him even more.  Actually, this is why I am writing this.  He wanted me to share this experience. As a disclaimer, I was not raised to believe that women are baby machines.  In fact, I was taught that having a family and kids was a good thing, but the number of children was up to us.  My siblings and I all decided that if/when we had kids we would try for at least two.  I learned all about the quotes that say, basically, “How many kids you have is between you, your spouse and the Lord.”  So in no way can I ever remember being told that I should have a certain number of kids. But, if I don’t have more, unless I am really, really sure about it, I will probably feel guilty for not having more.  I feel that there is this expectation among the sisters, despite what…

San Diego temple from the air

Google maps has added aerial views to a limited number of locations. I just saw (hat tip: Paula) that the San Diego temple is one of them. It’s a pretty cool feature. How do you see it? Unfortunately there’s no one-click link, because you have to enable aerial views. So it’s a slightly more elaborate process: 1. Go to the San Diego temple on Google Maps. (Click here.) 2. Click the little green “Labs” chemical-beaker icon at the top of the screen. (It’s above the Print button). Click “enable” on the tab that asks about Aerial Imagery. That’s it! You should now have a nice little view of the San Diego temple, which looks great from the air.