FAIR

Faithful Study Resources for Come, Follow Me

Articles of Faith

Articles of Faith Podcast 14: Ralph C. Hancock – An Invitation to Help Advance the Pursuit of Truth as it Concerns our Way of Life

by

Podcast: Download (53.7MB)

Subscribe: RSS

Ralph-Hancock2Ralph C. Hancock earned his Bachelors from Brigham Young University and his M.A. and Ph.D. from Harvard University, all in political science. Prior to joining the faculty at Brigham Young University, where he is now a professor of political science, he taught at Hillsdale College in Michigan (1982-1986) and the University of Idaho (1986-1987). Ralph is (at the time of this interview) the President of the John Adams Center for the Study of Faith, Philosophy an Public Affairs.

Ralph Hancock e is also one of the founders of the LDS Web journal SquareTwo (http://squaretwo.org/) and a member of its editorial board. His current focus is on meaning and the limits of philosophy in relation to politics, ethics, and religion, and has started a series of articles with Meridian Magazine. He is here today to talk about a soon-to-be-released introductory article to that series with Meridian entitled An Invitation to Help Advance the Pursuit of Truth as it Concerns our Way of Life.

Questions we address in this interview:

You are not a new voice in the dialogue and effort to defend the LDS Faith online. This effort with Meridian Magazine starts about how many years deep into your online efforts?

So when Elder Bednar spoke at BYU Education Week about flooding the earth with messages online, messages of righteousness and truth, what was your response?

I don’t mean to put you in a box, but in my reading of some of your past history of articles, you seem to want to be correcting perceptions, or narratives that are out there. You represent what many would place as a conservative voice. I use that term because of your political science training would have you experience many titles or compartments for certain perspectives. How do you classify yourself, or at least your online voice?

Speaking of terms, or tags, or social constructs, your article addresses several other token terms that are often used in the discourse, even critically of the Church? What are some of the those terms that you single out in the article, and why?

Typical LDS apologetics doesn’t always venture into matters of political discourse because the Church itself declares political neutrality. Perhaps we could blame it on your day job, but your new article series seems to approach the idea of apologetics but more from a cultural and political defense as opposed to a debate based on doctrinal interpretations or historical research. I believe you even refer to this as being called Moral Apologetics or perhaps “anti-ideological apologetics.” Perhaps you could explain further what you mean behind this categorization?

I want to share a quote from the article, to give a flavor of what people can expect, but also to ask a follow up question, but in speaking of the opposition voice that some encounter in online discourse surrounding Mormonism, its culture and teachings, you state, “I should add here that these forces will not just go away, and they will not leave us alone. It is comforting to think that we can simply agree to disagree with elements of our society that wish, for example, to redefine the “family” out of existence. But we will not be able to avoid the effects of the dominance of the new ideology. We see them already in the way this ideology tends to undermine the moral categories even of active Church members whose roots are not deep and strong enough. But even those whose beliefs are not undermined from within will find their religious practice constrained more and more by the dominant ideology. There is no way that religious freedom can be safe in a society in which traditional believers are regarded as “bigots.”

Another quote that I find to be rather accute to many of the church who wonder how they may more fully engage in what Elder Bednar admonished regarding entering the fray as some may see it by opening their mouths online. Her is the quote, “Others may wish to support Church teachings concerning morality and the family but would rather do so privately, even silently, leaving such controversial matters to Church authorities, conceding perhaps that reason has little to say in this area. This is a question that would require much further discussion. For now I will only say that I think it is a big mistake to concede the title of rationality to the proponents of radical equality and freedom, and thus implicitly abandon core moral principles and teachings concerning the family to the realm of some blind obedience.”We have time, let’s give this question further discussion. First off, do you find this mentality of avoidance amongst active members a common position?

Your article was an invitation, perhaps even an extension of Elder Bednar’s invitation, but your invitation seems a bit more focused. How is your article, as the title implies, an invitation and to whom?

Ralph Hancock is a BYU Professor in Political Science and is bravely engaging in a new project with Meridian Magazine into moral apologetics.

Articles of Faith 14: Mormon Women Stand – Defending Prophetic Authority

by

Podcast: Download (42.6MB)

Subscribe: RSS

Kathryn-Skaggs

Kathryn Skaggs is the founder, and Angela Fallentine the co-founder of the Mormon Women Stand Website and Mormon Women Stand Facebook Page—an effort that focuses its efforts on defending the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it’s leaders and its teachings by using a united voice of faithful women from the Church.

Kathryn Skaggs is a wife, mother, and grandmother. She took the Ann Romney approach to womanhood by staying home and raising her children, and making no apologies for doing so. Her online efforts started in 2008 with the blog A Well Behaved Mormon Woman where she shares her voice on a variety of social issues.

Angela grew up in Alberta Canada, and later attended Rick’s College/BYU Idaho, and Utah State UAngela-Fallentineniversity with a degree in Journalism with an emphasis in public relations and corporate communications. After graduating she interned for the Church Public Affairs Office and also worked for the Church’s Office of International and Governmental affairs in Washington D.C.

Both are here today to talk about what it means to be a voice on the internet, more specifically a female voice on the internet and the opportunities that effort has in sustaining Church leaders and furthering church dialogue online.

Questions we address in this interview: We are here (being recorded) at the Provo City library because you are both in town for BYU’s Education Week. How has your experience been so far?

In what ways does attending this conference help you in your efforts as a voice online in defense of the gospel and the church.

You have a combined effort that you co-founded, Mormon Women Stand. Was this a response to something in particular, the ground up inspiration to add your voice to the discourse online?

How and why is MWS different? (how many people involved and what is your audience?)

Who is the intended audience of your work with MWS?

There is an article posted on the Mormon Women Stand website entitled Chipping Away at Priesthood Authority of Mormon Prophets to Undermine Faith. This was written by Angela, but I was told by Kathryn that she shares your words. While neither of you have been guilty of too much subtlety when it comes to your online articles, I am sure the title is a bit of a giveaway, what is the genesis of the article?

The warning that you give in the article is that we need to give care and attention to the idea that the more we seek out the faults of our leaders, and they will be found as all of them will have them, the more we give place for discord, for distancing ourselves from orthodoxy. Is that accurate? What then is the remedy as many will say that there is nothing wrong with becoming aware of even the self proclaimed faults of the leaders themselves?

You give a statement in the article that might come across as strongly worded so I want to give you the opportunity to develop it further, “Is it wrong to speak ill or critically of church leaders or of a talk they give in General Conference? Yes. How serious is speaking and writing against the leaders of the Church? Very serious.”

You give in support of the thesis and title of your article, a quote from Elder Dallin H. Oaks, “Criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward Church authorities, general or local. Jude condemns those who ‘speak evil of dignities.’ (Jude 1:8.) Evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed is in a class by itself. It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true. … When we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and His cause.”

You encounter people everyday leaving comments on your articles and your accompanying Facebook posts. You are actively engaged in online discussion, which leads me to Elder Bednar’s talk here at Education Week regarding the proper use and role of social media online. In what ways has that presentation effected you, in what ways might you change and in what ways did you find yourselves affirmed by his presentation?

 

Kathryn Skaggs is the founder and Angela Fallentine the co-founder of Mormon Women Stand, found at mormonwomenwomenstand.com.

 

 

Articles of Faith 13: Russell Stevenson FairMormon Conference Follow Up – Coming to Grips With Brigham Young and Race

by

Podcast: Download (39.0MB)

Subscribe: RSS

Russell Stevenson
Written by Russell Stevenson

That Brigham Young struggled with and eventually succumbed to racial insensitivities is an undisputed matter of the historical record. From the perspective of not a few nineteenth-century Americans, not to mention most anyone born in the last 50 years, Brigham Young peddled in racial rhetoric and promoted policies that bode poorly not only with our sensibilities but also with the spirit of the Book of Mormon: “All are alike unto God, both black and white, bond and free,” a vision established for the Saints in 1830, not 1978.

I view the races of mankind as fundamentally equal in privilege and love before God. Embracing the gospel as I do, I cannot believe otherwise. Few things bring me as much pain as reading that a man whom I want to revere could say things so far below his calling. So how can such a man be worthy of my respect, let alone my sustaining vote?

Were the Saints merely a product of their time? Perhaps. But so was Rees E. Price, a Mormon convert in Cincinnati in 1842 who had committed much of his time and resources to the absolute destruction of the slave system in America. Though he left the faith shortly after his baptism, he never left behind his principles that slavery was a blight so evil that he could not find words strong enough to condemn it. However much a radical he was, the Latter-day Saint message resonated with him and his anti-slavery principles. For Price, Mormonism need not be moderate on matters of race, however much Missouri had frightened Church leaders.

As I place the finishing touches on my forthcoming book, For the Cause of Righteousness, I have had occasion to reflect on how I view the man most closely associated with the priesthood restriction: Brigham Young. A man who succumbed to a weakness that the Saints are only beginning to overcome. Unlike Price, Young endorsed slavery, albeit with reservations. While politics likely played a role in Young’s support for it, he would have found himself in good company had he chosen to oppose it outright. How could Mormonism not only produce men with such differing ideologies but with one as its prophet and another as its apostate? Even by standards known and accessible in mid-nineteenth-century America, it is hard to explain away racial rhetoric when anti-slavery activists such as Price, William Lloyd Garrison, and Angelina Grimke were successfully meeting a much higher standard–––and paying a heavy price for it.

The meaning of the word sustain can provide some answers. Drawing from an old French root, sostenir, the word originally meant “to hold up, bear, suffer” or “endure.” It is noteworthy that sustenance also derives from a French term referring to “support [and] aid.” Webster’s 1828 dictionary defines it as “to bear; to uphold; to support; as a foundation sustains the superstructure; pillars.”

How have I worked through my support for Brigham Young? The dismissal of Brigham Young based on racism follows this line of logic:

1) Brigham Young said racially offensive things–––things worthy of our condemnation.

2) Brigham Young is no longer trustworthy as a prophet.

3) Prophetic authority is no longer trustworthy

Let’s look at these individually. 

1) Brigham Young said racially offensive things–––things worthy of our condemnation.

Yes, and we have a moral obligation to come to grips with it. For a fuller discussion of the details of this claim, please listen to FairMormon conference talk accompanying this blog post.

2) Brigham Young is no longer trustworthy as a prophet.

I endeavor to see everybody—living and dead alike—in the complicated way that God sees them. And people are complicated. Their motives elude us. We think we know who a person is, and then we learn that they are better—or worse—people than we ever considered them to be.

That tremendously talented people have deep-seated weakness is a familiar theme in literature. We even have a body part named after one: the Achilles’ heel, named after the part of Achilles’ body left untouched by the waters of the river Styx–––waters capable of rendering anything it touched invulnerable.  Why do we have such a difficult time accepting the notion today?

At this juncture, it is tempting to rattle off all the biblical figures who cast national aspersions on peoples (and they number not a few: Jonah, Peter, and even Paul, to name a meager few). But one should hope that mankind is a little bit more tolerant in 2014 than it was in first-century C.E. And given the hope and vision of my faith at the outset, I have no choice but to look at racial discrimination in its midst with a critical eye.

But was Brigham Young the one who started it all? As discussed in the presentation, Brigham Young tried to include a black priesthood holder, William McCary at Winter Quarters, in spite of the fact that he had married a white girl, Lucy Stanton, whose family was well-regarded (a taboo that could win a lynching in some places). After Brigham Young left Winter Quarters in early April, McCary experimented with (presumably unauthorized) polygamy, a social transgression that the already on-edge Winter Quarters Mormons could not abide. Word spread, and the Saints formed a mob to chase the McCarys out. It was in this context that local presiding officer Parley P. Pratt first declared that having Hamitic ancestry could disqualify a man (particularly McCary) from holding priesthood office. When Brigham Young returned that December, he learned of McCary’s offenses. Young’s jocularity warmth toward the young black man quickly soured. When he further heard of an interracial Mormon couple bearing a child in Massachusetts, his feelings descended into a kind of racial seizure. The meeting minutes reveal a man struggling with deeply-seated contradictions: a gospel vision he knew to be true versus entrenched views about the propriety of interracial couples bearing offspring.

But did not Brigham Young cite a revelation years later? In February 1852, he pointed to his position as prophet in declaring that African-Americans were not eligible to hold the priesthood. That he believed his statement to be inspired is certain; he knew well Joseph Smith’s comment that “a prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such” (Link).

We also have the fortune of knowing how revelation happens in this Church, and it’s a process Brigham Young had participated in as well (e.g. D&C 136). So whatever his beliefs or justification, he did not follow the standard protocol for ratifying his comments as a binding revelation upon the Saints. As Apostle Neil L. Andersen has said, true doctrine is found in statements approved by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles: “It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many” (Link). For the next six generations, the Saints could never quite decide what the priesthood restriction was about. Was it the curse of Cain? The curse of Ham? Premortal failures? Or maybe the Saints just didn’t know? Calling the priesthood ban revelatory is a claim that fails the Andersen test with flying colors. And, as President Dieter F. Uchtdorf has said so clearly, “[T]here have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine” (Link).

Complicating matters further is the role that Brigham Young’s fellow travelers played in developing the priesthood restriction. In many ways, modern Mormons have accepted the easy trope that Brigham Young ruled the Mormon people with total control, molding their thoughts, feelings, visions, and actions in every particular.

But there is a problem with this paradigm: its usable simplicity is more than overwhelmed by its inaccuracy. In other words, it isn’t true.

At the time Young was looking McCary in the eye as he promised him that he had a safe place in Mormonism in spite of the Saints’ flurry of racial epithets, Young was only beginning to win the full confidence of a community still mourning Joseph’s death. Even Young himself confided in other members that he might not ever live up to Joseph’s legacy. “I feel my weakness, my bitterness. I hurt in the Almighty,” he told his Brethren in May 1847. “I shall yet be a Mormon.”  Young struggled to keep the Saints on-board with his initiatives. When he tried to consolidate his control over the Saints in spring 1846, he felt it necessary to threaten those who resisted with a “slap of revelation” if they would not obey. But his efforts failed him when the Saints waffled on his initiative to head for the mountains in summer 1846 (Link).

That Brigham Young supported blacks holding the priesthood as late as March 1847 is a clearly documented point. So who made the shift first? Brigham Young was well on his way to the Great Basin while McCary was scandalizing the Saints. Apostles Parley P. Pratt and Orson Hyde both spoke of his sexual escapades as a point of high-profile spectacle. Those few who did support McCary–––and they were few indeed–––were considered low-browed. Hyde compared the sectarian James J. Strang favorably to them. At least Strang was an “honorable imposter.” Pratt (for the first time, incidentally) connected race to a priesthood restriction: “[T]his Black Man . . . has got the blood of Ham in him which linage was cursed as regards the Priesthood.” Perhaps, it was for the best, Hyde concluded, as it was “taking away the tares who were his kindred spirits.” McCary had so enraged the Saints from lay to leader that apostasy and dissent had been cast as cheap, low-browed “black religion” along the order of what McCary peddled. While Brigham Young was declaring the Great Basin to be “the place,” the Saints had worked themselves into a frenzy about eradicating the black influence from their midst. Whatever the depth of Brigham Young’s commitment to black inclusion in March 1847, it was more than overwhelmed by the collective action of the Pratt, Hyde, and others to ensure that blackness was rooted out of Zion. Though they no longer faced the racial politics of Missouri during which locals so readily associated them with the black population, they continued to deal with Missouri’s ghosts. McCary represented exactly the reason they had lost their homeland some fourteen years earlier, and they were not ready to forgive and forget.

It is a messy narrative, and a painfully human one. A prophet can only be a prophet when the people want prophecy and expansiveness. Prophethood is not the unlimited capacity to compel a people to the Lord’s will, no matter the circumstances. The Lord allows his children to wander in the wilderness when they refuse to accept the greater truths he has prepared for them. It’s the story of how generally good Saints allowed themselves to countenance the great sin of the age–––slavery–––in spite of their having started out with such a noble vision of racial equality in the kingdom of God. In the Saints’ push to survive in the racially-tumultuous waters of nineteenth-century America, they adopted the very prejudices their gospel vision was designed to protect against.

3) Prophetic authority is no longer trustworthy.

As a child, I sat in a seminary class where the teacher handed out brownies and watched us greedily devour them, only to have him tell us that he had put a cockroach in the mix. I had heard the schtick before, but those around me gagged in disgust. “But it was a small cockroach,” he assured us. “Why are you making such a big deal out of it?” It was a lesson on the media, of course, and intended to teach us that even a “little bit” of inappropriate material makes the whole film, book, or song undesirable.

But imagine if we actually made that a motto for life? Imagine if we discarded a man or woman because they had a little–––or, in some cases, more than a little–––dirt in them. It might be a colorful way of teaching about good media, but it’s also a good way to reinforce self-righteousness and intolerance of others’ weaknesses. It certainly wasn’t the approach Jesus Christ took when he rubbed shoulders with lepers and the poor. He certainly was willing to overlook the hatred that Simon the Zealot harbored (not to be confused with the Zealot party that arose in later years) for all things Roman. Jesus happily entrusted Matthew with responsibilities of the kingdom, even if Matthew, who collected taxes for the Romans, collaborated in the oppression Simon had committed his life to opposing. When Jesus commissioned these men to take the lead in establishing his kingdom on earth, both had considerable prejudices to grapple with. And when Jesus told the story of the Samaritan kind enough to care for the dying man by the road, he chose his characters strategically, knowing full well that his listeners would recoil at the thought of a Samaritan being anything other than a disgusting example of the ills of racial intermarriage. After all, when locals wanted to hurl an easy insult at Jesus, they simply asked, “Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?” (John 8:48) Though he lived by the standard of perfection, he worked with radicals and bureaucrats alike, despite their deep-seated flaws.

If we dismissed people based on such character flaws, imagine which luminaries we would need to ignore. If Reverend Ralph Abernathy and most reports are to be believed, Martin Luther King, Jr. had serious problem with marital fidelity. What’s more, he certainly plagiarized a large portion of his dissertation. Malcolm X had a penchant for violent rhetoric, but he helped the black community to articulate a more assertive voice after generations of oppression. Yet I would count them among the inspired leaders of their times in their part of the Lord’s vineyard.

Faithful members need not defend, excuse, ignore, or even deflect the racial thinking of our fathers, and it should pain us when we hear of it. But owning a deep-seated flaw in our past is a very different thing from trying to burn the Church to the ground. Our history can be not only a powerful story of faith, love, and triumph, but also, as Terryl Givens has said, a “troubling morality tale” that reveals “the need for eternal vigilance in negotiating a faith that must never be unmoored from humaneness.”

References:

Neil L. Andersen, “Trial of Your Faith,” October 2012 General Conference.

Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “Come, Join with Us,” October 2013 General Conference.

General Meeting Minutes, in Selected Collections from the Archives of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, DVD 18.

Joseph Smith, Journal, www.josephsmithpapers.org.

Russell Stevenson, Black Mormon: The Story of Elijah Ables (Afton, WY: PrintVision, 2013).

Russell Stevenson is the author of Black Mormon: The Story of Elijah Ables and For The Cause of Righteousness: A Global History of Blacks and Mormonism, 1830-2014 as well as several articles on race, sexuality, and politics in publications such as the Journal of Mormon History, Dialogue, and Oxford University Press’s American National Biography series.

Articles of Faith 12: David L. Paulsen: A Mother There – A Survey of Historical Teachings about Mother In Heaven

by

Podcast: Download (38.0MB)

Subscribe: RSS

 

David-Paulsen-BYUDavid L. Paulsen received an associates degree from Snow College in English in 1957, a bachelors degree from BYU in Political Science in 1961 (in which he was BYU’s valedictorian), a JD from the University of Chicago Law School in 1964, and a Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Michigan in 1975, with emphasis in the philosophy of religion. His doctoral dissertation, entitled The Comparative Coherency of Mormon (Finitistic) and Classical Theism, was said by two philosophers critical of LDS theology to be “by far the most detailed and comprehensive defense of Mormon theism.”

 

He is the author of an article in BYU Studies entitled: “A Mother There” A Survey of Historical Teachings about Mother in Heaven. Paulsen is married to Audrey Lucille Leer and has six children and eleven grandchildren. Recently returned from a mission with his wife to Iceland, welcome David L. Paulsen.

 

Questions and topics addressed in this interview:

 

Among your other articles is one that address an subject that is enigmatic for some, perhaps a rational conclusion for others. That is the subject and being of Heavenly Mother. We should give credit where credit is due. You had a research partner on this. Who is it, and what did they contribute?

 

“Penned in 1845 by Sister Eliza R. Snow (who would later serve as the Relief Society general president from December 18, 1867–December 5, 1887), these lines from our beloved hymn “O My Father” are perhaps the best-known reference in Latter-day Saint literature to a Mother in Heaven. Written and published within months of Joseph Smith’s death, these and other lines give considerable evidence that the Prophet taught of a Mother in Heaven, even if he did so only implicitly or restrictively to certain limited audiences.”

What is the earliest text that we have that mentions a heavenly mother, even if it is apocryphal?

 

Has anyone ever claimed to have had a vision of her?

 

There is a teaching that I have heard, and that is that we are not supposed to talk about our Heavenly Mother. It is too sacred to talk about. Where did that come from, and is there any substance to that concept? You refer to this in your article about, ““sacred” censorship.”

What might the warnings be with regard to a discussion of God Mother, or Heavenly Mother? Would worship be inappropriate and if so, why? Is she part of the Godhead?

As the song, Oh My Father, alludes, there has been a longing in the undercurrents of mormon thought for a connection to the feminine divine. How much of what we read is actual doctrine, official teachings of the church, vs. the longings and educated statements regarding who Heavenly Mother is, or if she exists?

There is also a notion that because God the Father and God the Mother are so unified that there is no need for distinction in holy writ or in our discourse as you cannot speak of one without speaking of the other. From what you have studied is our Heavenly Parents this androgynous concept of deity the dominant idea, or are there still some elements of individuality that each possess uniquely, but it is there combined effort that we experience?

 

The question arises with regard to Heavenly Mother’s involvement in our daily lives. The following is quote from President Harold B. Lee :

“Sometimes we think the whole job is up to us, forgetful that there are loved ones beyond our sight who are thinking about us and our children. We forget that we have a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother who are even more concerned, probably, than our earthly father and mother, and that influences from beyond are constantly working to try to help us when we do all we can.”

 

Elder Glenn L. Pace (First Quorum of the Seventy, October 3, 1992–October 2, 2010) at a 2010 BYU devotional: “Sisters, I testify that when you stand in front of your heavenly parents in those royal courts on high and you look into Her eyes and behold Her countenance, any question you ever had about the role of women in the kingdom will evaporate into the rich celestial air, because at that moment you will see standing directly in front of you, your divine nature and destiny.”

 

David L. Paulsen and Martin Pulido are the authors of “A Mother There” A Survey of Historical Teachings about Mother in Heaven.

 

 

Links from the episode:

Joseph Smith and The Problem of Evil – BYU Devotional

Are Christian’s Mormon?

Joseph Smith Challenges the Theological World

Articles of Faith 10: S. Matthew Stearmer – A Reflection on the Cultural Construction of Sexual “Needs”

by

Podcast: Download (41.8MB)

Subscribe: RSS

stearmer_picMatt Stearmer is a Ph.D. Candidate of Sociology at The Ohio State University. His academic interests include social movements, gender, networks, public health and religion. His work has appeared in the Journal of Peace Research, and in a book titled Sex and World Peace. He currently serves as the first councilor in the Young Men’s Presidency. He and his partner Janille have four children ages 5-16. He is the author of an article entitled, A Reflection on the Cultural Construction of Sexual “Needs” in the journal SquareTwo found at SquareTwo.org Welcome S. Matthew Stearmer.

Questions addressed in the interview:

Your article is quite possibly one of the most potentially volatile mixes of topics; sex, and religion. Throw in politics and you will probably have a perfect recipe for social conflict cocktail. Let’s try and ease into a bit by maybe first addressing why sex in a religious or faith based context is either difficult or even contentious at times?

In your article you open with, “Recently, the topic of male sexuality, responsibility and faithfulness came up in a discussion among several LDS friends and co-workers.” First of all, I am glad to hear that even after this conversation you are still referring to them as friends and co-workers, not enemies….if one were to be a the proverbial fly on the wall in that discussion what would we have heard? What were some of the opinions that were injected in that conversation?

Is there a doctrine on this subject of marital intimacy? Responsibility of sex in the marriage? Your article asserts the following: “The central aim of the doctrine of the Restored Gospel is unity. Anything that divides us and creates hierarchy, especially between spouses, must be renounced for the evil it is.”

Your article presents another good quote, “The goal from a gospel perspective is not more sex, but more unity. Intimate sexual relationships between a husband and wife may be one means of getting there, but it is not the locus of the unified relationship.” The article makes the assumption, and there are probably statistics to make this a well founded assumption, that men see sex as a need, and women see responsibility as filling that need, as something to give up to their husbands. This paradigm, according to your article, leads to disunity. The next assumption, and maybe I am reading this wrong, is that this condition is far more universal than many may notice, even in temple sealed LDS marriages.

You give one such example of a couple who came to you for some counseling on the matter. Could you share that example?

There are three points that you feel is critical to having a healthy relationship, but one that actually falls in line with doctrinal precepts. Let’s go through those three:

– The first, sex is not intimacy.

– Second, even in marriage, sex does not necessarily lead to unity.

– Third, a focus on who “needed” what, and who did or did not get what they felt they “needed” from their spouse sexually, would have been an unnecessary, confusing, and further damaging approach to the problem being faced.

When one ventures into calling sex a spiritual or sacred thing, that can sometimes be a bit off putting, maybe even a mischaracterization. Here again, you face the idea head on with the article by making an assertion that placing sex as a “need” in a marriage is spiritually damning. How are these things connected?

This is even tied further to the idea that people who have committed sexual sins, either in or out of marriage covenants, seek to establish an excuse for their actions because sex was a need that was not being met.

This same idea is actually tied back to the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood. How is that?

S. Matthew Stearmer is author of the article A Reflection on the Cultural Construction of Sexual “Needs” in the journal SquareTwo found at SquareTwo.org Thank you for coming on.

 

Articles of Faith 9: Greg L. Smith on FairMormon Wiki and Evolution

by

Podcast: Download (69.0MB)

Subscribe: RSS

 

greg-smith2Greg Smith studied physiology and English at the University of Alberta, but escaped into medical school before earning his degree. He then did his medical residency in Montréal, Québec, learning all the medical vocabulary and all the French Canadian slang that he didn’t learn during his LDS mission to Paris, France. He is now an old-style country doctor in rural Alberta with interests in internal medicine and psychiatry. A clinical preceptor for residents and medical students, he has been repeatedly honored for excellence in clinical teaching.

Smith has a particular research interest in Latter-day Saint plural marriage and has been published in the FARMS Review and elsewhere on this and other topics. He was an associate editor of the Mormon Studies Review from 2011-2012.  With twelve years of classical piano training, he is a lifelong audiophile and owns far too many MP3 files. He lives happily with his one indulgent wife, four extraordinary children, and two cats.

A member of FAIR since 2005, Greg helps manage the FAIR wiki and has contributed to multiple online journals as a reviewer of various issues and movements in and surrounding Mormon culture and theology. His article in the Interpreter that is the basis for some of the discussion in this episode is found here.

Some of the questions for this interview include:

So let’s get to the FairMormon Wiki. For those unfamiliar with the concept behind Wiki’s, what are they, how do they work, and why are they relevant?

People can go to this site with questions in mind, or perhaps if they are preparing for giving a lesson. Any chance that you know approximately how many topics or articles there are currently on the FairMormon Wiki?

One of the topics that is in the Wiki is that of Evolution. To be more specific, the questions and quotes about what we will refer to as organic evolution, or even biological evolution. But even that term comes pretty heavily loaded. So, let’s set a sort of foundation of what we mean when we say “evolution?”

 

This is a question that rests on the mind of some latter-day Saints. I have been taught creationism in church, and scientific theory in school, and both seem to have merit yet, they also seem to be be taught as dichotomies. As part of wanting to answer those questions, you wrote an article in the Interpreter where you “reviewed” or as I like to put it, you reconciled, six different books that profess to offer a bridge to evolution and Christianity. I want to first put out what is probably one of the foundational quotes germane to our discussion of the topic of Evolution with respect to Mormon Theology and doctrine. You include it as the opening for your article in The Interpreter entitled “Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The uses and abuses of evolutionary biology in six works.” The article opens:

 

The position of the Church on the origin of man was published by the First Presidency in 1909 and stated again by a different First Presidency in 1925:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, declares man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity…. Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes…

The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again (D&C 101:32–33). In 1931, when there was intense discussion on the issue of organic evolution, the First Presidency of the Church, then consisting of Presidents Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley, addressed all of the General Authorities of the Church on the matter and concluded,

Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church.… Upon one thing we should all be able to agree, namely, that Presidents Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund were right when they said: “Adam is the primal parent of our race.”

—First Presidency Minutes, April 7, 1931

 

Does this statement constitute an official stance from the LDS Church on Evolution? Why or Why not?

 

President Hinckley made the following statement, “What the church requires is only belief ‘that Adam was the first man of what we would call the human race.’ Scientists can speculate on the rest.” With such a wide open field for faithful belief on this subject, why is there so much debate do you suppose?

 

The six books that you review in your article in the Interpreter represent a wide variety of perspectives,. The six are:
Michael Dowd. Thank God for Evolution.

Karl W. Giberson. Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution.

Daniel J. Fairbanks. Relics of Eden: The Powerful Evidence of Evolution in Human DNA.

Howard C. Stutz. “Let the Earth Bring Forth”, Evolution and Scripture.

David C. Stove. Darwinian Fairytales: Selfish Genes, Errors of Heredity, and Other Fables of Evolution.

William A. Dembski. The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World.

 

Why did you pick these titles?

 

We don’t have the time to go into each one, and I hope that people will take the time to read the article that we will have linked to this episode at blog.fairmormon.org. So let’s speak in broader terms. The topic of evolution, as with any topic that involves the heavy secular constructs and reconciling them with religious beliefs, is a tricky proposition. There are warnings against mixing the philosophies of men and mingling them with scriptural passages and modern day revelation. Yet, we hear quotes from President Hinckley leaving it wide open to do so. What is the right formula for mixing science and religion, specifically with the topic of evolution?

 

It seems that once we come to an understanding that Adam is the first man of what we would call the Human race, why else should we care about Evolution? In another manner of speaking, What are some questions that Latter-day Saints should be asking about Evolution?

 

Elder Widstoe and others have made comments from time to time that seem to imply that some form of evolution was used in the creation. Even Joseph Smith pointed out that the Earth was organized from matter that already existed, thus to some degree, creation was the evolution of these elements into something that was multiplied by the hand and word of God. The earth itself evolved from space, to organized matter, to water, to earth, and other forms came from this same process of organization—from building on the stage of creation that proceeded it. Even the creation of the human body in the mother’s womb starts out as a single egg that evolves into a person. So, there clearly is a place for evolution in creationism, evidence for such is in the mirror. So why, as you put it in your article, do we see that these stark choices are almost always unnecessary, yet the line seems to be drawn in the sand so to speak?

 

Will the end result of science be proof that God exists and that the biblical narrative is true?

 

 

Articles of Faith 8: LDS Church Disciplinary Councils

by

Podcast: Download (53.8MB)

Subscribe: RSS

This is a special episode of Articles of Faith. It is special because, our normal focus with the show is on articles written in scholarly journals such as The Interpreter, Square Two, and we have some being lined up to include BYU Studies as well. In this episode we are featuring two articles written on blogs, chosen because of their firsthand experience with church disciplinary councils; one article from the perspective of a person who went through one such council, and the other from the perspective of one who was in a variety of callings that involved being a part of disciplinary councils.

This episode will feature two interviews, one with Barbie Berg, who wrote the article The Truth about an LDS Disciplinary Council. The other is by Allen Wyatt, with his article simply entitled Excommunication. This episode is, in some ways, a response to the events and discourse surrounding the very public church discipline hearing for Kate Kelly.

At the time of these interviews, Kate Kelly has been formally excommunicated for “conduct contrary to the laws and order of the church” and that she “persisted in an aggressive effort to persuade other Church members to your point of view and that your course of action has threatened to erode the faith of others.” Kate Kelly has since declared that she intends to appeal her excommunication. John Dehlin has not yet attended a formal council regarding his possible excommunication.

While an overwhelming majority of church disciplinary councils are not made public, because of the attention that these two have received, largely due to the efforts of Kate Kelly and John Dehlin themselves, we find many asking questions and seeking answers, while others make incorrect, incomplete, or un-Christlike declarations about what disciplinary hearings are, what they mean, how they come to be and how they are to be conducted.

Both of these articles and authors were chosen because, over the course of the weeks surrounding the public announcement of Kelly’s forthcoming church disciplinary council and Dehlin’s possible council, there has been a lot of commentary regarding their circumstances. It is my opinion that much of what was said fell short of the true nature, spirit, and purpose of church disciplinary councils, and I felt it was important to re-align the discourse. It also my opinion that these two articles share a valuable perspective that should be taken into consideration when absorbing and discussing all church disciplinary councils, not just the Kate Kelly scenario.

Barbie Berg: Article – The Truth about an LDS Disciplinary Council

http://barbieannlove.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-truth-about-lds-disciplinary-council.html?m=1

Based on her personal experience with going through a disciplinary council as a younger female as well as her testimony of the spirit that accompanies these councils.

Allen Wyatt: Article – Excommunication

http://www.allenwyatt.com/blog/excommunication

Allen served as a bishop from February 2006 until October 2012. He also served as a branch president, as a counselor in at least three different bishoprics, as a stake executive secretary, and on a high council. In all those positions Allen had the opportunity to sit in on disciplinary councils.

He wrote his article because he was seeing so much vitriol directed against the bishops and stake presidents involved in these matters that he felt someone needed to stand up and say, “no, this is the way it really is.” His article describes just one of the councils that happened to involve the excommunication of a sister.

Articles of Faith 7: Rick Anderson on Mormonism and Intellectual Freedom

by

Podcast: Download (63.2MB)

Subscribe: RSS

Rick Anderson - Mormon InterpreterRick Anderson is Associate Dean for Scholarly Resources & Collections in the J. Willard Marriott Library at the University of Utah.  He earned his Bachelors and Masters in .Library Information Systems degrees at Brigham Young University. He serves on numerous editorial and advisory boards and is a regular contributor to the Scholarly Kitchen blog and to Library Journal’s Academic Newswire.

In 2005, Rick was identified by Library Journal as a “Mover and Shaker”—one of the “50 people shaping the future of libraries.” In 2008 he was elected president of the North American Serials Interest Group, and was named an ARL Research Library Leadership Fellow for 2009-10. In 2013 Rick received the HARRASSOWITZ Leadership in Library Acquisitions Award and was invited to give the Gould Distinguished Lecture on Technology and the Quality of Life at the University of Utah. Welcome the man who makes being a librarian cool, Rick Anderson. Rick Anderson is the author of the article in the Interpreter entitled Mormonism and Intellectual Freedom.

Questions Rick Anderson addresses in the episode:

I would assume, especially considering your many accolades and accomplishments professionally, that you spend a great deal of time around some of the brightest minds in your field, and to a certain extent, other fields as well. As a library management professional, you have to know a good bit of information about a lot of subjects. I have heard these individuals referred to as intellectual polygamists. With that being said, the genesis of your article, Mormonism and Intellectual Freedom, comes from a friend making what appears to be an ironic assumption. Could you flesh out that story a little?

 

Right now there is a great deal of discourse online regarding the quest for dovetailing intellectual pursuits in a spiritual or religious context. Lines are being drawn in the sand. What then is the role of scholarship in religious endeavors?

 

We hear people use two terms almost synonymously and I think that is the cause of some confusion in the discourse to which I am referring. Questioning, and doubting. How are these two terms different when considering this pursuit of knowledge?

 

Rick Anderson is the author of the Article Mormonsim and Intellectual Freedom found in the Interpreter: Journal of Mormon Scripture found at MormonInterpreter.com

Articles of Faith 6: Jane Birch on the Word of Wisdom – Errant Comma Theory

by

Podcast: Download (51.4MB)

Subscribe: RSS

 

Jane Birch

Jane Birch is the author of Discovering the Word of Wisdom: Surprising Insights from a Whole Food, Plant-based Perspective (2013). She graduated from Brigham Young University with a Bachelors in History and a PhD in Instructional Science. She currently serves as Assistant Director for Faculty Development at the BYU Faculty Center. Her accomplishments include creating BYU’s premiere faculty development program for new faculty, which she directed for 15 years. Her current work includes assisting BYU faculty in combining religious faith with academic discipline. Her academic publications and presentations cover a variety of topics, primarily related to faculty development. She is the author of an article in The Interpreter entitled: Questioning the Comma in Verse 13 of the Word of Wisdom.

Questions asked in the podcast interview:

Your current work at BYU is on combining religious faith with academic discipline and research. It seems that this effort is one of the challenges that many people face in this internet world, and a world where secular institutions have been given the highest praise for their work in many fields. Teaching faithful academics is an almost lost art. What are some of the hurdles that hinder developing faith and academic knowledge at the same time?

 

You spend time writing on instructional sciences, personal and professional development, especially within institutions of higher learning, what prompted you to say, I need to write about the word of wisdom?

 

Before we begin a discussion on the topic of your article, we should probably set down the text of Verse 13 in doctrine and Covenants section 89 otherwise referred to as the Word of Wisdom. So, let me take a moment to read that verse for reference, for the people driving in their cars who can’t open to the verse. “And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.” You have ventured to discuss what might seem like the most petty thing to quibble about in grammar, a comma. In this verse, what is the great comma at the heart of the controversy?

 

There are other comma’s in this section, why is this comma different?

 

English language has its limitations in conveying a message perfectly. Have you looked to the interpretations given in other languages to see if there is any additional light that is shed on this verse?

 

Throughout the article you refer to the “errant comma theory.” Will you explain what that is for those that are unfamiliar.

 

You give several quotes from leaders in the early church, observations that might have been a simple description of what was happening, but have become a way for us to interpret, at least initial implications of this verse to the people in the first 100 years of Church operation. Perhaps you could give a few of those quotes as an example of their application to your article?

 

From the early era’s of recorded mortality, we have stories of ritual animal sacrifice. Mosaic law indicated that these sacrifices included ritual consumption of the meat. Kosher tradition includes certain meats that are considered clean. Jesus Christ has been recorded as feeding 5000 people with fish. Following his resurrection, Jesus Christ fed the apostles some fish. In fact, there are few indications that Jesus Christ ever spoke out against the consumption of animal products, perhaps the only instance is to end the life of an animal where there is no need, or if there is food that would go wasted as a result. However, I also recognize that there is equally no evidence condemning vegetarianism, only perhaps the advocacy of vegetarianism by way of commandment as found in D&C 49 18-21 which reads:

18 And whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats, that man should not eat the same, is not ordained of God;

19 For, behold, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and that which cometh of the earth, is ordained for the use of man for food and for raiment, and that he might have in abundance.

20 But it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin.

21 And wo be unto man that sheddeth blood or that wasteth flesh and hath no need.

 

Some will argue that church operation can serve as an interpretation of scripture. The church has extensive operations in beef farming, as well as other meats. In light of all these sources, and with your interest and study of the word of wisdom, I am interested in hearing you reconcile all this information with your efforts in light of your vegetarianism.

 

Herein lies the challenges of the Word of Wisdom. While some may see this section as pretty clear, you come along and say, a simple interpretation of a comma can give space for multiple interpretations that can find a place within its text.

 

Jane Birch is the author of Discovering the Word of Wisdom: Surprising Insights from a Whole Food, Plant-based Perspective (2013) and an article in The Interpreter entitled: Questioning the Comma in Verse 13 of the Word of Wisdom.

Articles of Faith 5: Kevin Christensen on Inevitable Consequences of the Different Investigative Approaches of Jeremy Runnells and Jeff Lindsay

by

Podcast: Download (56.3MB)

Subscribe: RSS

kevin-christensenKevin Christensen has been a technical writer since 1984, He has a Bachelors in English from San Jose State University.  He has published articles in Dialogue, Sunstone, the FARMS Review of Books, the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Insights, the Meridian Magazine, including his article in the Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture entitled Eye of the Beholder, Law of the Harvest: Observations on the Inevitable Consequences of the Different Investigative Approaches of Jeremy Runnells and Jeff Lindsay. Kevin comes to us today by phone to discuss that article. (The article is not yet public-visit The Interpreter website to find the text when available.)

Some questions from the interview:

Some of your prior articles for the Interpreter have been dealing with Temple Mysticism and temple theology with an emphasis on the works of Margret Barker, a Methodist who seems to be making her way into the minds of some LDS scholars. This article that you have coming out in the Interpreter has very little if anything to do with such a topic; what brought about the shift in topic?

The title of the article is perhaps a bit verbose so I guess it serves as both the abstract and the title, it is Eye of the Beholder, Law of the Harvest: Observations on the Inevitable Consequences of the Different Investigative Approaches of Jeremy Runnells and Jeff Lindsay. Without knowing the two individuals Jeremy Runnels and Jeff Lindsay the article might be of a diminished value. Why don’t you give a summary of who these two men are and why they are the subjects or case studies of your article?

In a recent devotional at BYU Idaho, Elder D. Todd Christoferson invited the audience to have patience when doing investigation of the history of the church, and its teachings. In some ways it seems as if the subtext of that statement is that if you stop half way you will inevitably find yourself in a faith crisis. The only way to a faithful conclusion is to be diligent in learning by study and by faith. You insert a theory on just such a thing with your article, what is that hypothesis?

You put on a sort of spiritual doctor or maybe even a spiritual mathematician kind of hat as you write this article. I won’t call it an autopsy or audit of Jeremy Runnells spiritual journey, but rather an analysis or a diagnosis of how one comes to negative conclusions about the LDS faith. There is even an equation that you employ to describe this process, can you explain those two, let’s call them, equations?

I want to read a paragraph from your article as an introduction to my next question: “The familiar fable of Henny Penny (also known as Chicken Little) makes a related point. In the fable, a chicken interprets the fall of an acorn as evidence that “The sky is falling!” Another interpretation of exactly the same event would be that “The sky is not falling, but just an acorn. No big deal. No crisis. Acorns fall from oak trees all the time. It’s natural and to be expected.” Another character in the more cautionary versions of the fable, Foxy Loxy, sees not a crisis, or a non-event, but an opportunity to exploit fear and ignorance for his own gain. Same data. Different interpretation. The information does not speak for itself, but must be interpreted within an informational context and a conceptual framework.” This echo’s your title, the Eye of the Beholder. How we see things greatly informs our decisions. This is perhaps not that new a concept for some, but what is happening in the subtext of that statement is putting the onus on one’s spirituality and the way they take their spiritual path is their own fault. In other words Chicken Little’s interpretation of the sky falling is not the acorns fault. Nor is it the tree’s fault. These things just happen naturally. How them does this play into viewing the Jeremy Runnels of the world? For that matter, the Jeff Lindsay’s as well?

You pose the question or the situation, “what are we to do with the issue of perfection, meaning perfection of translation, etc.” That was an opening critique of the CES Letter, and that ends up being a pivotal start in determining Runnells mindset. How so?

When it comes to some of the arguments against latter-day Saint teachings, there is often a complaint about a given topic, such as prophets, but rarely offers an alternative definition. It is not so much that these individuals think that they are right, but that others are wrong.

You continue to go down the row, not necessarily point by point, but you do give some feedback on the faults of the Runnels argument. We don’t need to go into details about each one, but perhaps you could give a listing of some of the other topics that you address in Runnells argument.

You have a phrase in this article that is mentioned with respect to concerns that are raised about scientific issues, here is the quote, “I learned long ago to pay as much attention to the networks of assumptions involved as to the observations which are then fitted into that network.” Expand on that for a minute if you could.

I want to give an encapsulated example of the many issues you address and how you address them. So, I wanted to take on an issue that I am becoming more and more confused by, and that is the issues surrounding the Book of Abraham as a Smoking Gun argument. Let’s consider for a moment that I know nothing of this issue, take me from the beginning of this segment of the article and walk me through how you approach it. You start off by giving Runnell’s claims, “Of all of the issues, the Book of Abraham is the issue that has both fascinated and disturbed me the most. It is the issue that I’ve spent the most time researching on because it offers a real insight into Joseph’s modus operandi as well as Joseph’s claim of being a translator. It is the smoking gun that has completely obliterated my testimony of Joseph Smith and his claims.” That is a heavy indictment indeed. But why is this statement in and of itself quite telling as to what has gone into his research?

There is so much that this over 30 page article goes into, but the end goal of the article is to raise the question, “Why is it that when Jeff Lindsay studied these issues does his faith expand, and Runnells faith shatter? How can two individuals study the same issues and come to complete opposite conclusions?

If you could give one or two pieces of advice for the individual who is approaching various gospel subjects and is facing the junction of heading towards the Runnells conclusion or the Lindsay conclusions? Why is your approach the best approach?