Amateur Scriptorians

Book Review, Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design

2011-08-09T10:51:00.000-07:00

I couldn't really decide which of my blogs to post this review on, my religion blog, or my science/technology blog. In the end, after all, this book is an interesting amalgamation of both. My end conclusion was to post my review over there, and link to it from here.

So, for those that are interested, here's the review:

http://jlcarroll.blogspot.com/2011/08/book-review-stephen-hawking-grand.html

Transhumanism and Satan's Plan

2011-07-13T09:49:00.000-07:00

I recently read an interesting blog post equating the goals of transhumanism with those of Satan's plan. I found this article to be interesting, and reasonably well thought out, even though I disagree with it rather profoundly.

After reading that article, I figured that his thoughts deserved some form of rebuttal, and after writing that rebuttal, I decided that it had value in its own right, and should therefore be posted.

This is the comment I posted to his blog (we will have to wait and see if it is approved or not):

BEGIN:

I believe that the central problem here is a misunderstanding of the doctrine of the proper balance between works and grace.

I have faith that death is part of God’s plan, and that God will eventually grant me immortality as a gift of grace, in fact, He will give this gift to all, and all will be saved (in this sense) but the Sons of Perdition (see D&C 76:43). If I am worthy, and do “all that I can do” to live a life of goodness, then I will also be granted eternal life, and given the power to become like God through the grace of Christ’s infinite atonement.

On the other hand, this faith doesn’t lead me to go out and step in front of a buss, nor does it lead me to refuse potential medical cures. When I get sick, I get a blessing, and I go to the doctor. Nor would it lead me to refuse medical means for moderate life extension, or even for radical life extension for that matter. Methuselah didn’t violate God’s plan by living for a long time, and neither did the three Nephites. If I too want to live and serve in His kingdom until He comes, that does not mean that I am following Lucifer’s plan. The fact that one group seem to have achieved their long lives from faith while transhumanists want to receive it through works, technology, and science does not mean that one is inherently good while the other is inherently evil. Nor is it fair to equate Lucifer’s plan of exaltation for all without any testing with transhumanists plan for immortality and a better life for all. Indeed, the transhumanist vision looks more like God’s plan for ALL his children (again read D&C 76:43) than it looks like Lucifer’s plan.

Pure religion is to feed the hungry, cloth the naked, serve those in need, heal the sick, and create a better world for all. As James so eloquently teaches us, this is about granting real, literal, physical, earthly, temporal aid. The sort of aid that in the past has best been provided through advances in technology. That last is nothing but a historically undeniable fact, and I have blogged about it extensively here and here. Technology leads to increased prosperity, and thus to a reduction in poverty, and thus to James’ “pure religion.” Of course we must also teach the gospel, but that priority does not absolve us from providing James’ pure religion. Doing this is a priority of our religious conviction. In other words, we are quite literally commanded to TRY to build heaven on earth as best we can, while at the same time waiting for God’s kingdom to come, and his will do be done, on earth as it is in heaven. We are commanded to strive to build Zion, through works as well as through faith.

A Luddite interpretation of our religion essentially denies its most fundamental aspect, charity, love, and compassion for all.

If the Telestial kingdom is really so much better than this world, and if ALL God’s children will eventually inherit that glory or greater, and we are commanded to seek by works that which we expect to be given by grace and faith, then a desire for the goals of transhumanism (and even those of the singularity) is nothing more than the logical extension of the doctrine of works and grace.

Life

2010-10-18T15:52:00.000-07:00

Science opens our eyes to what.

Religion is a quest to understand why.

Art finds beauty along the way.

Love puts another's hand in ours to share in our journey.

Evangelicals, Mormons, and Glenn Beck

2010-09-02T12:00:00.000-07:00

Here are two different articles, both from evangelicals on the relationship between Mormons and Evangelicals with regard to Glenn Beck. Both were posted on the same news network, an outlet for evangelical political "news."

In the first, an opinion piece by Russell Moore, the end of the world is coming because Evangelicals are giving up their religious foundations to stand up with Glenn Beck:

The second opinion piece titled "Evangelicals and Glenn Beck" by Dr. Jim Garlow describes how Mormons and Evangelicals can work together. He said "as evangelicals and Mormons, we are not theological brothers and sisters. But we are friends and neighbors. And on that basis we work [together]."

I leave it to my esteemed readers to compare the two and see which seems to make the most coherent argument.

As a Mormon, I believe that Jim Garlow's quote goes both ways. His quote almost exactly expresses how I see our relationship with Evangelicals, they may not be my theological brothers and sisters, but if we are not "theological brothers and sisters" surely we are theological cousins. I can work together with them, and hope that they can work together with me to bring about our shared goals (which are many).

Religious Freedom, 9/11, and a Muslim Mosque

2010-08-16T12:46:00.001-07:00

Freedom, (and religious freedom especially) was what was attacked on 9/11, and it would be a shame if we succumb to religious intolerance ourselves within the very shadow of this vicious attack. If Christians don't like a Muslim mosque on the location, then build a Church themselves, and get out and convert the Muslims, that is how one disagrees in a free and open society.

I am a Christian and a conservative to boot, but on this particular issue I appear to depart from the majority of my party. I feel shocked to find myself in agreement with President Obama (someone I almost NEVER agree with), but Muslims have the legal right to build on private property they own (what he said) but I question the wisdom of their choosing that spot (also what he said). They have the right, but I question their choice. Almost exactly what Obama said..... (wow).

Although I question the wisdom of their choice of locations, if you believe in freedom, and in religious freedom especially, you have to give all people the same freedoms you yourself want. If you want the freedom to build Christian churches wherever you want (which I do), then you MUST grant the right to build Mosques wherever they want, even if they are being stupid about their choice.

I find it fascinating to see organizations like AFA who so often complain about religious persecution of Christians being the first ones to take up the banner against the Muslim mosque. Freedom means freedom, even for people you disagree with (and those who know me know that I disagree with Muslim ideology strenuously and vocally). But freedom is freedom, it has consequences, like having a Mosque where nearly any sane person knows one shouldn't be, but the price of those consequences is worth paying.

Money, Things, Experiences, and Happiness

2010-08-11T09:58:00.000-07:00

I recently read an article in the N. Y. Times about money and happiness that drastically changed my world view about money, possessions and happiness. These topics are clearly related to several important gospel principles, so I thought that I would share some thoughts about the article, and the gospel implications of these ideas.

In the Church, we have several common platitudes about money, such as the love of money is "the root of all evil," or that "money can't make you happy." I believe that these statements are only partly true, and the issues revolve around what we mean by "money."

It has often been said that time is money. There is a large amount of truth to this, and no one would argue that time (properly spent) can't make us happy. I believe that it is actually THINGS (or the pursuit of material possessions) that can't make us happy. On the other hand, relationships can and do make one happy. We can clearly spend our time on either acquiring possessions, or on building relationships. One can make us happy, while the other can not.

The article claims that studies have shown that while there is no correlation between wealth (the amount of money we have) and happiness, there is a correlation between spending habits and happiness. Most in the world would say that if money isn't making you happy, then you don't have enough of it. However, if the article is correct, then this would lead to the astonishing conclusion that if money isn't making you happy, then you aren't spending it right! You likely have enough money for your needs (and for your happiness) if you just spent it right.

If we spend our time/money acquiring things that we never use because we are too busy making money to buy more things, then money/time will not make us happy. On the other hand, if we spend our time/money making our relationships better then money can make us happy. Thus, the difference between those who are happy and those who are not is all about their priorities.

How does one spend money on relationships rather than on possessions? The real question is how we spend our time (remember, time is money). One telling example in the article is of a couple who were house shopping, and who had the choice between buying a larger/nicer home, or buying a home next to an attractive hiking trail. The article claims that studies have shown that we become "used" to our physical environment, and that after time, changes in the environment (larger home etc) have no measurable impact oh happiness. On the other hand, changes in behavior (especially relationship building behavior such as going on long walks with your spouse) do make us happy. Thus, the couple opted for the simpler home next to the hiking trail, and have made use of the train consistently ever since. They believe that this choice has directly lead to their being happier.

The article claims that studies have shown that people who spend their money on "conspicuous consumption" are not happy, while people who spend their money on "fishing poles," "sports equipment," "back yard grills," or "family vacations" do tend to be happier, because, fundamentally, they are spending their money on experiences (or things that can be used to build experiences) and not on possessions. Luckily, these experience building things are not the most expensive items in our budget. The suggestion is that if we want to be happier, perhaps we should buy a smaller car, and go on a vacation, or buy cheaper clothes and save for a backyard grill, and then spend time with our family hanging out in the back yard, or perhaps we should get a less well paying job that provides us with more time to spend at home with our family.

I cannot recommend the N. Y. Times article enough. However, there is a doctrinal reason for these observations. The article's advice (which seems so revolutionary to the world) has been the advice of the Church for years, and it is based on several doctrinal principles:

God's work and glory is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of his Children (Moses 1:39). His plan revolves around individuals, not around things. Money and time both have value, but only when they are spent upon people, relationships, and building the kingdom rather than spending money on things. "Wherefore, do not spend money for that which is of no worth, nor your labor for that which cannot satisfy." (2 Ne. 9:51).

The purpose of wealth (money) is specified in Deuteronomy 8:18, where the Lord tells us that when we become rich we should "remember the Lord thy God: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth, that he may establish his covenant which he sware unto thy fathers." This is similar to what Jacob famously said "But before ye seek for riches, seek ye for the kingdom of God. And fter ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to do good—to lothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted" (Jacob 2:18-19).

See also 2 Ne. 26:31, 2 Ne. 9:50-51.

Wrestling Before the Lord Continued

2009-11-05T08:32:00.000-08:00

Continued from: http://amateurscriptorians.blogspot.com/2009/10/summary-of-my-sperry-presentation.html

Here is a summary of the similarities between Jacob and Enos's wrestling:

Jacob	Enos
Struggled and wrestled	Wrestled and struggled
Peniel	Before God
All night, into the day	All day, into the night
Estranged brothers/nations (Jacob and Esau)	Estranged brothers/nations (Nephi/Laban)
Esau wanted to kill Jacob	Laman and Lemuel wanted to kill Nephi
Jacob fled into the wilderness to escape	Nephites fled into the wilderness to escape
Esau is a cunning hunter, with skill in the bow (Gen. 27:1-5)	Lamanites are hunters, with skill in the bow (Enos 1:20), Enos went to “hunt”
Records preserved and “sealed” up in an earthen vessel for a long time recording Esau’s loss of the birthright (Jasher 56:55-57).	Preserved and “sealed” records coming forth to convert the Lamanites.
Reconciliation with God and man	Reconciliation with God and man
Blessed	“Thou shalt be blessed”
“Life is preserved”	“the Lord God would preserve a record”
Entered the promised land	Soul did “rest”
Seeing Esau like seeing the “face of God.”	Then shall he “see His [God’s] face”
“and thou wast pleased with me”	“see his face with pleasure”

Let me know if you can think of any that I missed.

A Summary of my Sperry Presentation, Wrestling Before the Lord

2009-10-06T14:42:00.001-07:00

I will be presenting at the Sperry Symposium this year. A summary of my presentation follows:

Enos compared his experience of reconciliation with God to that of Jacob in the Old Testament. Why would Enos make this particular comparison and what lessons did he intend for us to learn from it? By better understanding the context of the Jacob story, particularly its intended lessons, we can better understand what Enos wanted us to learn from the comparison.

Although there are many unanswered questions in the Jacob story, the central theme is one of intense effort rewarded by blessings and reconciliation. Jacob’s entire life was a wrestle, and his story is one of intense effort, hardship, and eventual reward and reconciliation. He wrestled with his brother Esau from the womb. His name means supplanter (literally “heal catcher”). Jacob’s competition with his brother Esau continued into adolescence and involved the mess of pottage and Jacob’s famous deception of and blessing by his father. The competition was so bitter that Esau desired to end Jacob’s life. He had to flee his home and family to preserve his life. Jacob was deceived by Laban in the matter of his marriage. He was forced to serve him for fourteen years for his wives. Jacob returned home and wrestled with a mysterious messenger at the fords of Jabbok. He wrestled with this messenger all night long. Finally the messenger blessed Jacob and changed his name to Israel because he had “prevailed.” Jacob then forded the river Jabbok and named the place Peniel (face of God). There he met Esau, who ran and “embraced” and kissed him and they wept. There they were reconciled and Jacob said, “if now I have found grace in thy sight, then receive my present at my hand: for therefore I have seen thy face, as though I had seen the face of God, and thou wast pleased with me.”

There are many unanswered questions that remain about Jacob’s story, especially regarding the nature of the messenger and Jacob’s wrestling. For example: who was the messenger, what is the nature of the wrestling, and what is the nature of the blessing given? The text intentionally leaves many of these questions unanswered, and we will not attempt to answer them all here. Nevertheless, the central message of the story is clear. Jacob’s entire life was a wrestle for the blessings of God. Wrestling is one of the most physically demanding activities, and the length of Jacob’s wrestle indicated the intense effort he expended in order to overcome and receive the promised blessings.

The effort of the first part of this story stands in opposition to the reconciliation that followed. In Gen 32 Jacob wrestled with a messenger, in Gen. 33 he embraced Esau, in Gen 32 he called the place Peniel (face of God) in Gen 33 he says that seeing the face of Esau is like seeing the face of God. The Hebrew word for “wrestle” is an intentional word play on the Hebrew word for “embrace” as Peniel forms a word play for seeing the face of God which followed. Thus Jacob’s intense effort (his wrestling) eventually resulted in reconciliation with his brother which is a type of his (and our) reconciliation with the Lord, the greatest of blessings offered in mortality. This teaches us that sometimes the greatest of the Lord’s blessings require intense effort on our part if we are to receive them. Furthermore, God will help us along our journey as he helped Jacob along his journey.

Several comparisons between Jacob's wrestling and temple imagery have been made. Some have suggested that Jacob did not wrestle at all, but actually "embraced" the mysterious messenger. Given the context and intended moral of the story, (effort preceding reconciliation) it seemed that the wrestling must have been more than a simple embrace. On the other hand, temple imagery can still be found in the story, perhaps made even more intense by the idea that this "wrestle" is resolved into an "embrace" which follows, and which represents the concepts of reconciliation, forgiveness, and atonement so beautifully.

In the Book of Mormon, Enos used many images from the Jacob story in his own account. He too “wrestled” “before God” (in Hebrew this would likely have literally read “to the face of God” or l-Peniel, a reference to the place where Jacob wrestled the messenger). His wrestle lasted all day and into the night as Jacob's lasted all night and into the day. Finally, he too was reconciled with God, finding forgiveness for his sins and personal assurance that his course in life was agreeable to God’s will. It was these themes of effort and reconciliation that Enos likely intended to convey through his comparison between his own experiences and the Jacob story.

continued in http://amateurscriptorians.blogspot.com/2009/11/wrestling-before-lord-continued.html

The Language of Symbolism Continued

2009-06-20T12:30:00.001-07:00

Continued from: The Language of Symbolism

Another misconception about symbolism that I commonly see goes something like: “Your religion / churches / buildings / temples use symbols that were also used by pagans, so you are worshiping the devil.” I have already pointed out the most significant problem with this logic, namely that symbols have no inherent meaning outside their power to communicate ideas. As such, a symbol only means what the hearer thinks it means, and so, if its user doesn’t think it represents a Pagan idea, then for that user, it doesn’t. However, there is another important issue at work here, and that is that it is apparently standard operating procedure for God to use the images of the culture around His covenant people in order to teach them His eternal truths. One way to express this idea would be to say that God speaks to us “according to our own language and understanding” (see 2 Ne. 31:3; D&C 1:24).

Let me give several illustrative examples. When the Israelites came out of Egypt, God commanded Moses to construct an "ark." The Ark of the Covenant was basically a portable representation of the throne of God carried by the priests on poles (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Israelite "Ark of the Covenant

The Egyptians of the time build very similar "portable shrines" and placed them in the holy of holies of their temples. These Egyptian shrines were carried on poles by priests like the ark; they were covered by cloths when carried, like the ark; and like the ark, they had a representation of the God's throne. Unlike the Israelite version, the Egyptian arks actually contained a statue of the deity (see Figure 2). The Egyptian versions were fashioned like boats, because the Egyptians believed that the sky was blue because it was made out of water. The idea was to represent the concept that the throne of the deity moves through the heavens, and that their god was a king of the heavens.

Figure 2: Egytpian parallels to the Ark of the Covenant

Both the similarities and the differences are important for understanding the symbolis of the Ark of the Covenant. Since symbolism is a language, the right approach is to ask, "what would the Israelites, who just came out from Egypt understand by the symbolism of the Ark." Clearly, they would have recognized it as a portalbe throne for a king similar to those used in Egypt and Mesopotamia:

Figure 3: A Kings throne guarded by Cherubim from Messopotamia

Furhter, the Israelites would have understood the idea that God is a heavenly king. Since the throne was the seat of judgement for earthly kings, they would have understood the ark as a representation of the place of God's merciful judgment, and so it was called the "mercy seat."

There are many more instances where God used what Pagan symbolism to teach His eternal truths to the Israelites. For example, the Temple of Solomon looks like many of the Pagan temples that surrounded it.

This drawing of the temple at Tainat could be accidentally confused with Solomon's if you don't look closely.

And there are many other examples, for example, this Pagan temple from Arabia:

And this one from Syria, which is perhaps the closest Solomonic Parallel [1]:

This "similarity" was not restricted to the architecture of the Israelite temples, but extended to their rituals as well. The Day of Atonement ritual has many similarities to Babylonian year rituals, complete with the goat killed and cast out (although the Babylonians only used a single goat, which they both killed and cast out) [2].

So what are we to make of these similarities? If we were to take the approach taken by many critics of LDS temples, we would have to conclude that the Israelites were worshiping the devil. Clearly they are using pagan imagery, even "occult" imagery in their worship of God!

However, there could be many other explanations for the similarities between pagan traditions and the Israelite temples. A more balanced aproach might see fragments of truth left over in the Pagan practices and worship, or one might see Satan imitating truth in the pagan traditions, or one might see God teaching the Israelites eternal truths using the symbolic language that they understood given their cultural contact with the pagans around them.

Symbolism is a language. As such, the definitions of its "words" depend on how the people being spoken too would view the image or symbol. The Israelites contact with the pagans which surrounded them would have given the symbolic "words" meaning, but the message, the way those words were combined to teach eternal truths was still inspired dispite the pagan (and even "occult" whatever that might mean) nature of some of the individual elements.

Clearly the same sort of balanced approach should be applied when analizing similarities between LDS temples and the religious and symbolic systems that surrounded Joseph Smith when the Endowment was revealed to him, or which surrounded Brigham Young when the design for the Salt Lake Temple was revealed to him.

References:

[1] "The New 'Ain Dara Temple: Closest Solomonic Parallel," by John Monson, in Biblical Archaeology Review, Vol. 26, No. 3 [May/June 2000]. The article says that the 'Ain Dara temple "has far more in common with the Jerusalem Temple described in the Book of Kings than any other known building" (p. 20). Its archaeology dates it to the period just preceding (Phase 1) Solomon's Temple, contemporary with Solomon's Temple (Phase 2) and just after (Phase 3). It is far better preserved than Tainat, and "is the most significant parallel to Solomon's Temple ever discovered (p. 22).

[2] James L. Carroll "An Expanded View of the Israelite Scapegoat" in Temples and Ritual in Antiquity, presented by the BYU Religious Studies Center and SANE's Studia Antiqua, 2008.

The Language of Symbolsm

2009-06-18T11:56:00.000-07:00

I am always amused when people take the position: "you are actually worshipping the Devil, you don't know it, but you are doing it on accident, if you only knew what your own symbols meant, then you would understand that you are worshipping the Devil. I know YOU don't think that the symbols are about the Devil, but they are, and by using them you are actually accidentally worshipping the Devil." For one example of this ridiculous approach applied to the Mormons see:

http://vigilantcitizen.com/?p=986

The same page takes a similar approach with a lot of images/symbols for the monuments of many groups. Mormons typically respond to this sort of garbabe by pointing out instances where symbols like the pentagram have anciently been used to represent good things, not to represent evil, and that its modern use as a symbol of evil is relatively new (see here and here). For example the following is a great example of the pentagram (even with the point downward) used as a symbol of Christ. It is an icon of the transfiguration by Andrei Rublev in 1405, and now located in the Moscow Annunciation Cathedral (in Moscow Kremlin):
However, such evidence makes no difference to people who see the Devil everywhere, because they just see any early Christian use of the pentagram as due to those early Christians having been deceived (much in the same way that they see Mormons as having been deceived). Thus any early Christians who might have used the pentagram were worshipping the Devil too. Thus Mormons and their critics tend to talk past each other on this issue.

The problem is that people don't understand that symbolism is a language, and the real question should not be "what does a symbol mean" but should be, "what does a symbol mean to those who used it when they used it." For example, a black cat symbolized witchcraft if you happen to have lived in Salem Mass..., on the other hand, if you lived in ancient Egypt, the black cat symbolized divinity.... This sort of confusion happens because symbolism is a language, with different vocabularies and different interpretations for different people at different times. You wouldn't expect all words to have the same meaning in Spanish that they do in English, so why should they in symbolism? So to accuse an English speaker of worshipping the Devil because of a confusion between the meaning of a word between English and Spanish would be silly. But when you begin to believe that Satan is behind it all, and that it is all some big conspiracy, then you believe that black cats mean witchcraft in Ancient Egypt too, and the Egyptians who saw black cats as symbols of divinity were just worshipping the devil, and didn't know it. After all, such people often think that all Pagans were worshipping the Devil (even when they didn't believe in him), so why not the Egyptians?

But my understanding (and C.S.Lewis's understanding too) is that you can't worship the Devil on accident. Any good intentioned worship of the Devil IS worship of Christ, and any bad intentioned worship of Christ IS worship of the Devil (see CS Lewis' conclusion to the Narnia series, "The Last Battle" for his take on this idea). On this point I must agree with Lewis. Thus, Mormons are only worshipping the Devil with their pentagrams IF that is what THEY think the pentagram means... because they can't be "accidentally" worshipping the devil, it doesn't work that way. All that is good comes from Christ, and all that is evil comes from the Devil (see Moroni 7:5-19).

Thus:

1. symbolism is flexible,

2. symbolism's meaning is only defined in the context of what someone, sometime thought it meant,

and

3. worship of God or the Devil must be intentional, some hidden meaning behind symbols can't cause you to somehow accidentally worship the Devil.

To be continued.....

Sacred Silence, Temple Types, a Changing World, and Big Love

2009-04-01T12:04:00.000-07:00

I hate to bring this (Big Love) up again, but I believe that the world's response to this is telling. For those of you who don't know what happened, HBO's TV show, "Big Love" portrayed the LDS Endowment in one of their episodes, which started a large controversy on the web, and greatly offended many members of the LDS Church.

Many of them can't understand what we are so upset about the portrayal of the endowment. One person said in effect: "there are many more offensive parts to the show than this, so why all the commotion? The show openly mocks Church leaders... why don't Mormons care about that, but are so upset about the Endowment? ... after all, they portrayed the endowment with 'reverence' and 'respect.'" It was those last two words that I found so interesting. One member responded to this line of reasoning: "that is like saying that you slept with my wife, but you treated her with all the reverence and respect that she deserved." Clearly these people are talking past each other, and as a community, we seem to no longer share a common vocabulary/understanding with which to communicate these ideas effectively. Especially lacking is a common understanding of the ideas of sacred silence and sacred space.

There was a time when the world would have understand this idea of sacred silence. What makes something sacred? When evaluating the ancient world's use of the sacred, things/places/time are usually sacralized by exclusion and inclusion, you exclude the unclean, and you include sacred events that happened on/near the place/time/object, as well as sacred acts (such as dedication rituals) performed over/near/on the place/time/object. This concept has been largely forgotten I think. Especially by most Western Christian churches. Most of them have sacred rituals, but portraying them would not be offensive if they were done with "respect" or "reverence." What
Baptist would complain about a tv show portraying their sacrament or baptism rituals? Because the world has forgotten sacralization through exclusion by sacred silence, they no longer understand us, since we are one of the very few religions that still practices this once common ancient tradition.

I thought this non-member's analysis was telling, he was one of the very few non-members that really got it I thought:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-blankenship/ibig-lovei-wife-watch-rou_b_175861.html

It was fascinating to listen to a non-member (and fan of the show) respectfully come to grips with the use of the sacred for entertainment, and with the ideas of sacred silence that he doesn't share, but that he finally came to understand because of the issues raised by the show. As is almost always the case, these things tend to end up doing more good than harm. This seems to be the case yet again.

Rough Stone Rolling Review

2009-02-20T11:28:00.001-08:00

Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling by Richard L. Bushman

My review

rating: 5 of 5 stars
I originally wrote this as a response to someone else's review. I think that it would also make a good review in its own right, so I am also posting it here. First, let me briefly review the content of the review I was responding to. Their review said that they didn't like the book because they felt that it was "digging up dirt" on the prophet, and they quoted several of the brethren saying that this would be a bad idea. They pointed out that they believed that Joseph was a "hero" and that by portraying Joseph as a man and not as a hero, the book was un-faithful to Joseph. The following was my response to those thoughts:

I have spoken to Richard Bushman about his book at a symposium about helping people who's faith has been damaged by anti-Mormon propaganda. I believe that his purpose wasn't to "dig up dirt" on the prophet to show that he was "human." I agree with all the quotes he gave that implied that such an approach isn't usually a good course. However, since we are living in a world where many other people are digging up such "dirt" it isn't healthy for the enemies of the prophet to be the only ones talking about the difficult questions. When that happens, people lose their testimonies. We need good people who can honestly say, "ya, I know that about Joseph, and I believe he is a prophet anyway." From what Bushman said at the symposium, I believe that this was his motivation and purpose, and I believe that he did a good job. If you already have questions about Joseph, then this is a great resource to find answers to your questions. Sticking our collective heads in the sand is not helpful for anyone's testimony. I believe that Richard Bushman and his book, have saved the testimonies of many many people, many of them people I know.

Of course there is a danger here, in missionary speak, we don't want to "raise" the concern in order to "resolve" the concern. If you leave a cow-pie alone, it scabs over, but if you repeatedly kick it, then it stinks forever. Therefore, there must be a balance. The real question is, did Richard Bushman hit that balance? I believe that the answer to that question depends on what you think the purpose of the book was.

If he was writing for the Church, or primarily for church members, I would agree with you that he missed the mark. On the other hand, "No Man Knows My History" (essentially an anti-Mormon book) has been the standard textbook in American History classes that deal with Joseph. If Richard was trying to write a balanced textbook to replace "No Man Knows My History" in such classes, one that non-members would accept and actually be willing to use as a replacement for their un-balanced current book, then he succeeded, and did so brilliantly! If he had instead shared his testimony, then they would not have been willing to use the book. He has a testimony, and shares it often, but in other places and for other audiences. It is all about who his intended audience was. Many non-members will now be getting a much more favourable view of the Prophet than they otherwise would have been getting.

He also succeeded brilliantly if his audience was members of the Church who have questions about Joseph raised by enemies of the Lord's Prophet. Many members are now getting their questions about the prophet answered by someone who can say "yes, that happened, but does that really mean that Joseph wasn't a prophet?" Often what happens instead is that someone with a question who asks for answer is given the a response from a well meaning but ignorant member that goes something like: "I have never heard that before! It must be a lie!" Usually this is followed by the questioner turning to the history, only to find out that it isn't a lie, and really did happen. Then our questioning member feels lied to not by enemies of the Church, but by the Church itself, and then they leave the Church. This just should not happen. As a teacher of the Gospel, the book has been remarkably helpful for me, and has helped me to be better prepared to answer my student's questions.

If Bushman had written another biography that praised all of Joseph's successes and ignored all the hard questions, (and we already have plenty of those) then the secular world would still be using "No Man Knows My History" and believers with questions about the first vision, seer-stones, treasure hunting, polygamy, and the restoration of the endowment, would still have no sympathetic source to go to. The enemies of the Church would again be the only people dealing with the hard questions. What a shame that would be!

In the end, the world is better off because Bushman wrote this biography. Bushman's purpose wasn't to "dig up dirt" on the prophet, but rather to point out that the "dirt" that has already been dug up really isn't as bad as people sometimes think. Once it is placed in its historical context, and once we see Joseph as a man, then the so called "dirt" isn't such a big deal, and we can get back to the work of thinking of Joseph as the Prophet of God, and the "Hero" that he was.

Information comes from bibliographies, certainty comes from the Spirit of God and in no other way. I know that Joseph was a prophet of God because the Spirit of God has told me that this is true. What I now have because of Brother Bushman's wonderful bibliography is more information about Joseph's life.

Some have suggested censuring people, and preventing them from writing such biographies, thinking that this will save testimonies, but I believe that Bushman's book will help more people's testimonies than it will hurt. Further, if you believe that Bushman got Joseph's life wrong then the answer is that we need more biographies being written, not less. The great thing about biographies, is that if you disagree with the conclusions of one, by all means, write your own. As someone who has written and published a bit about Church topics, I know how hard it can be to do a good job, make everyone happy, and say the right things for your intended audience without offending some other audience. Let's see if you can do a better job! If you can, I will be happy to give your biography a good review too :-)

View all my reviews.

Benjamin

2008-12-30T17:40:00.000-08:00

I have long known about the connections between King Benjamin's discourse and the feast of Tabernacles, and the Day of Atonement.

However, just last semester, as I was teaching King Benjamin's discourse in my BYU 121 class, I suddenly remembered that Benjamin's name means "son of the right hand." I doubt that it is a coincidence that his most important discourse was therefore about becoming a son of Christ, and being found on His right hand.

Just one of those random things that everyone else likely already knew, but that I had somehow miraculously missed all these years.

Cheers!

Mormons, Polygamy, and Prop-8

2008-11-17T13:39:00.001-08:00

I would like to take a moment to comment on the connection between the gay marriage issue and Mormon polygamy that has appeared in the media recently. It has been claimed by some that since Mormons were once persecuted for a non-standard definition of marriage, it is ironic that they should be opposed to gay marriage. This is a red herring, and misses the point entirely. There is very little that is similar about these two situations.

It is true that Mormons practiced polygamy a hundred years ago. It is also true that they were unconstitutionally persecuted for their unusual religious beliefs concerning marriage. But the major difference is that Mormons were thrown in jail for their practice of plural marriage. Mormons have never suggested that gays should be thrown in jail. If California’s prop-8 had attempted to throw gays in jail, seize all their property, or to disenfranchise anyone who belonged to a church that performed gay marriages, then and only then would the comparison be justified.

Unlike the Mormons, gays in California can still perform religions ceremonies that they can call “marriage” without any danger of being thrown in jail. The Mormons simply wanted to be left alone to marry (in religious ceremonies) who they wanted. What the gay marriage advocates want is not what the Mormon polygamists wanted. The gay marriage advocates want to change the definition of marriage for everyone and to force the rest of society to recognize their “marriages.” Mormons did not demand societal approval or recognition of their practice.

Furthermore the Mormon polygamists had a good argument for why their practice was protected by the constitution. If a Mormon married one woman legally, and then had a religious ceremony before sleeping with a second woman, he was thrown in jail. If a non-Mormon married one woman legally, and then fooled around with another woman, no one seemed to care. This is as true today is it was back then. Today, if the other woman was the man's intern, then people seem happy to have him as the President of the United States. The only difference between the two is the religious ceremony. They were prosecuting one and not the other based on whether there was a religious ceremony beforehand. That means that they were throwing the Mormon polygamists in jail for the religious ceremony alone, and for no other reason. Yet the right of the Mormon to have the religious ceremony before having relations with the second “wife” should have been protected by the constitution of the United States. The problem was one of unequal prosecution under the law based on a religious ceremony. If the government equally prosecuted all instances of infidelity, then and only then would the government have had a truly constitutional stand to persecute the early Mormon polygamists.

There can be no doubt that the constitution should protect the rights of a group to perform a religious ceremony if they want to, and to call that ceremony a “marriage” if they want to. It is not nearly as clear if the constitution gives a small minority the right to redefine marriage for the rest of society. Whatever you believe on the Prop-8 issue there can be no real comparison to the Mormon polygamy persecutions of yesteryear.