MY WIFE'S TALK: This was given a few weeks ago as we spoke for the last time in our ward, on our last Sunday there. (I will post my talk soon too.)

"As it is our last Sunday in the Cambridge First ward, I feel beholden to offer some reflection on what I have gained during my time here. I would like to frame musings in the context of womanhood in the global church.

My tenure in the Cambridge First ward has given me the opportunity to develop my relationships with other women on many levels. While most women’s sojourn in Cambridge brings with it an infant, my trespass has allowed me the opportunity to find common ground with the woman of our ward and to define my space is as a woman within the church as a whole.

When I entered this ward, a saw that the women here had many differences: age, marital status, stage of life, career progression, race and motherhood. At first I was overwhelmed: what is it that I could find in common with a mother of two? With a widow? With a refugee? I was lost for a solution and frustrated with my surroundings. What I needed was a paradigm shift: it was not our differences, but our similarity, that makes us sisters. What is consistent is the sacredness of what binds up together: womanhood.

The lexicon that the Church uses to describe this common bond begins with Young Women. For those of you of have had the opportunity to participate in the Yong Women’s program will be familiar with this theme:
We are daughters of our Heavenly Father, who loves us, and we love Him. We will “stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places” (Mosiah 18:9) as we strive to live the Young Women values, which are:

- Faith
- Divine Nature
- Individual Worth
- Knowledge
- Choice and Accountability
- Good Works and
- Integrity

We believe as we come to accept and act upon these values, we will be prepared to strengthen home and family, make and keep sacred covenants, receive the ordinances of the temple, and enjoy the blessings of exaltation.
It is at this pivotal time in a young woman’s life, the church begins introducing what is important for her to focus on. The church has defined common values that are applicable to all women globally:
- Faith
- Divine Nature
- Individual Worth
- Knowledge
- Choice and Accountability
- Good Works and
- Integrity
This is also the first time that the concept of a return on investment will occur (excuse the financial reference), which is that “if we come to accept and act upon these values” that the following items will occur:
• We will be prepared to:
o Strengthen home and family
o Make and keep sacred covenants
o Receive the ordnances of the temple
o Enjoy the blessings of exaltation.
This promise is repeated at the beginning of every young woman’s meeting. To this day, I am sure that the majority of the women here can say this theme by heart. My thought is how does this translate, literally, in a global context?
For me, Young Women’s had been a time of achievement. I meet each class with the goal to receive my medallions: Beehive, Miamaid and Laurel. Every “New Beginnings Meeting” was like heading the jewelry store. My senior year culminated with my Young Women’s Achievement medallion and my Seminary Diploma.

Ready to take on the world, I charged into Relief Society as a slightly naive, ambitious young woman in Upstate New York, I can remember wondering what this next phase would bring. I’ll never forget receiving my first Relief Society Manual, “Remember Me,” and reviewing the exhilarating topics, such as:
• Personal Grooming and Cleanliness
• Gardening in Small Spaces
• Preventing Accidents in the Home
• Mothers in Israel.
I promptly left for college.

I want to undergraduate school in Pennsylvania at a very large university with a very small Mormon population. This was nothing new to me as a native New Yorker, but what was new was the quality of my Institute. Our CES director was also our Bishop, so my ward customized lessons, took twists and turns and found it necessary (and ok) to “adapt” the manual to meet our demographic group.

Upon moving to Manhattan midst a career change, I was called to be in the Relief Society Presidency of our very large, very migratory singles ward. We had a number of outreach programs that we were managing as well as trying to maintain a semblance of order with the far reaching needs of our ward.

We found that many of our sisters who moved to NY were there to escape the church. It was typical to have phone calls from family members asking us to find these sisters and to reach out to them. In such a large city, it is easy to be lost and hard to be found. For those who were attending, we had a number of challenges within our diverse population: single motherhood, same sex attraction, drug addition, depression, loneliness, work/life pressures, school demands, the list goes on.

One of the ways we met that challenge was to divide our RS into two lesson groups and offer a large variety of teachers, some were a little edgier than others, but this “choose your own adventure” allowed women to find guidance that met their needs.

When I began traveling internationally on business, I had the opportunity to see the gospel in action in multiple countries around the world. I remember the first time I heard a lesson in modest dressing, where the manual talked about prudently purchasing your clothing and not coveting the dress of others, in a third world nation, where clothes were donated from aid agencies and then sold on the street by industrious people.

I remember a lesson in young women’s about food storage, in Manhattan, where space is premium and our number one goal was to keep the young women off the streets, in school and chaste.

I attended church in Hong Kong where women from Taiwan, Korea and other employment challenged countries attend the English speaking ward since it offered “more opportunities” than the Mandarin speaking ward. The ward was filled with women, women who had left their homes because of their multi-lingual capabilities to work in Hong Kong to support their families back home.

This juxtaposition: womanhood and its divine role v. there daily adversities. As the role of women change within the church, we see that women are waiting longer to be married or not finding the opportunity to marry at all. They are completing their educations and exploring the opportunity of promising, fulfilling careers. Women are bearing children later in life than ever before.

But wait, this woman exists where? What about the women of genocide in Africa? What about the employment opportunities in South America? What about the living circumstances of South East Asia? Do these locations and cultures change our construct of womanhood? Of the life choices available to women? And their behavioral patterns?

Womanhood: its divinity cannot be denied. As the global church begins to develop its lexicon and pedagogy, I think we will begin to see a paradigm shift in the woman they are addressing. The woman of the global church has basic needs/wants/desires that can be translated into language in any country. Basic values of:
- Faith
- Divine Nature
- Individual Worth
- Knowledge
- Choice and Accountability
- Good Works and
- Integrity
can be addressed and understood in all circumstances of life. Regardless of where I attend church, the love in Relief Society for sisters is always present. Sisters, I encourage us all to reach out to all of the sisters of our ward. We have such a rich diversity here, find common ground in the church and ourselves. I foresee the Church modeling after this concept and shifting our paradigm back to its basic values and principles.

For me, coming back to basics occurred in my backyard. I truly love the women of this ward and I have been blessed with deep, life-long friendships. I have also placated my role as a woman in this expanding global Church and hope to provide support, as it continues to evolve. I have been grateful for the opportunity to serve, to live and to love with you in the Cambridge First ward.

I say these things in the name of Jesus Christ, amen."

THE LORD OF SHABBAT- I must admit that I do not understand the fascination with the 10 Commandments as some sort of list of requirements for good living. I agree that some of them are a nice place to start for creating a civilized society: don't steal, don't lie, don't kill people, etc. However, the one that strikes me as the most strange and completely out of place as the basis of a social contract is observance of the sabbath. I was definitely amused by the Judge in Alabama who wanted to display this commandment, especially since it is not obeyed by Christians. As everyone knows, the sabbath is on Saturday, but it has been so assimilated into Christian discourse that we don't even realize it anymore. We do not follow the 10 commandments! I have no problem if we want to follow the 9 commandments, or edit them to include observance of the Lord's Day, but let's not delude ourselves. The two reasons given for sabbath observance in the OT are remembrance of the Exodus and remembrence of the last day of creation. The Exodus is only vaguely part of our spiritual mythos (and not in the way relevent to the Sabbath) and since Sunday is the first day of the week the whole creation thing sort of loses meaning.
In Christian history the idea of a Christian Sabbath (on Sunday, of course) is relatively new. As I understand it, it wasn't until the 16th century when this idea was discussed. As part of the expirementalism of the age of the Reformation, several groups began to revive the Mosaic Law in various degrees. One that stuck was the notion of a Christian sabbath, especially in America, perhaps as a result of the Puritan roots of the idea. Before that, Sunday wasn't a time of "rest" or exclusive worship. It was the day that you went to church, but after you got back there was no reason that you couldn't dig a ditch or fight a war or even watch football.
As a LDS, I observe the Sabbath because I am commanded to. I think that we have in many ways a religion that reaches back to OT archetypes of religiousity and devotion (prophecy, temple, diet, etc.) and I rejoice in this. I am not sure that the particular brand of LDS observance of a Christian sabbath has any precedent, especially not in the 10 commandments...

SODOM AND GOMORRAH: Some recent discussions about Same-Sex Marriage have emphasized an apocalyptic disaster as a result of social wickedness. Many point to the promises in the Book of Mormon of a blessed land as long as the inhabitants are righteous. Others point to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 18. I do not think that S&G are useful for making sense out of our current situation. The reason is that this story has nothing to do with homosexuality. I do not intend to argue that the "biblical" view of sexuality allows for homosexual behavior or that church members cannot argue against SSM. I just don't think that the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah are accurately understood as homosexual sins. A quick look at the text should demonstrate this: Two angels go to Lot's house. A crowd gathers and wants to have sex with them. Lot offers his virgin daughters, but they refuse. A couple of things should be noted. First, the visitors are angels, second, the visitors are strangers to the city, and third, the men intend to rape the visitors. Starting from the last point, it seems that the crime of S&G is rape, not homosexuality. Homosexuality is a behavior that is engaged in voluntarily, which is not the case here. The reason that S&G is destroyed in not because two consenting males are having sex. Which brings us to the second point. The visitors are strangers to the city. Lot offers his to allow his daughters to be raped. Why? This is a pretty disgusting gesture, but it can be understood in the context of ancient laws of hospitality. Lot knows that they men are going to rape someone, so he offers his daughters, not because they are homosexuals, but because they intend to violate the strangers to thier city. The sin of S&G is that they want to transgress the laws of hospitality to strangers. In fact, this is the only sin that S&G are accused of committing in the Bible. Ezekiel says, "'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy" (16:49). Finally, the visitors are not men, they are angels. Do you remember the last time that humans had sex with angels? God does. It was right before the flood (Gen 6:1-4). In fact, it was the reason for the flood. When humans and angels have sex, God destroys stuff. He destroyed the whole world with the flood, and he destroyed S&G for even thinking about it.
The lesson from S&G is: don't have sex with angels, don't break the laws of hospitality, and don't rape people. I don't see anything about consenting males having sex in this story.

ON COMING TO ZION: When I was in my early twenties, I never thought I would go back to Utah. I saw myself as a Mormon who was setting out on a reverse-pioneering mission. I was the only undergraduate at my college who was Mormon and I loved it. However, I was not alone as this NY Post article demonstrates. Perhaps we shouldn't be surpised at the surge in LDS populations in the East (mostly transplants from the Western states) since pioneering is so deeply ingrained in our mentality. However, I am noting a strange turn of events right now. It is nearing the 10 year mark from when I left Utah, and many of my friends from New York and Boston are now either returning to, or going to Utah. Two of the Metaphysical Elders will be there next year, and for the first time I am even thinking about returning, at least for a little while. Many diapora Mormons that I know see it as part of thier 5-10 year plan to return to Utah.
This is not just true of late-twenties/early thirties Mormons either. One of the problems in Boston is that the temple has too few patrons, depsite large stakes. I suspect that the problem is a lack of the right demographic (old people) to sustain hourly-sessions. My guess is that the NYC temple will have the exact same problem. The reason is that many of those who have spent thier adult lives here return to the West when they retire to be closer to family, to get more for their money, and to retire from demanding church callings.
Is this a new trend? Are the bold, community building Mormons from the ninetees going back home to Utah, or is it just a lot of my friends?

I am probably the last to read it, but I am working my way through The Metaphysical Club. I'm at the part contrasting William James and Henry James, his father. The elder James was a Swedenborg follower (more or less) and was vehemently against individualism. The younger James of pragmatism fame reacted against his father's views to adopt an individualism that even Peirce and his other friends felt excessive.

It raises an interesting question regarding Mormons and the individual versus the community. We believe that the members of the godhead are one, that we are commanded to be one, yet we simultaneously adopt a staunchly American view of individuality. (Perhaps one whose modern nature owes a great deal to James) Often it seems that we are so individualistic that the very aspects of our religion demanding unity are overlooked.

We exactly is the place of community in Mormon ethics, social structure and metaphysics? Where might a Mormon find fault with William James?

The Scientist and Clark Goble asked me to perhaps explain my apparently enigmatic comments of the previous week. Put succinctly the issue is that of information. Now we can view information statically, as the mere content of something's state. This might be for some particle its momentum, potential energy, spin, and so forth. For more complex entities we can have considerable more information. We might even say that the information about an entity is that entity's meaning.

Now information contains within it not just what the entity is but also by extension a lot of what the entity may become. For instance knowing the mass, size and momentum of a pool ball I can say what its future state will be. If I have several pool balls I can do the same.

DNA, so conceived, is information in the same fashion. It is quite complex, of course. Far more complex than simply knowing the types of sub-molecules in the DNA. Just like the pool balls I can describe the future of the DNA's effects only as I know the information of what else is around. Considered as a very complex molecule its information isn't simply the computer program like "code" that we hear about. It also is the information about its molecules and atoms and how they interact with other substances around it. The manifestation of that DNA molecule can, however, be perfectly described as information. Indeed we can think of it as pure information.

Now I recognize that is a rather unusual way to think about it these days. Well, perhaps not. After all the long printouts of A's, T's and so forth is information. We just assume that somehow those codes describe a person independent of the real information which is the molecule acting as a very, very complex set of pool balls indeed. So complex that we can on describe its possibilities in very vague terms. Those vague terms may sound very exciting and precise. But compared to the information we are talking about, it makes up only an extremely tiny fraction of the meaning of the DNA. When you consider all the things the DNA will encounter, both as one particular molecule or all the molecules like it, then things get inconceivably complex.

Now why do I suggest we think about it like information? Well think about these words coming to you right now. They contain information. You act on them. What I'm suggesting is that the way all these DNA molecules act is in a fashion much like this. There are differences, of course. But differences of degree, not kind. In the physics of the interactions the atoms in the DNA act far more precisely than the way we interpret words. But ultimately we can describe both as information. Just as reading these sentences produces an idea, so to do interactions in the DNA produce new states - new information.

Now once we start thinking of all this as interactions and modifications of information we can generalize. When I see an email message that says, "meet me at 9," some complex events take place and eventually we have all sorts of molecules moving throughout my body causing me to take up my coat and leave my office. Information of one sort - words - leads to an information change of an other sort - the signals causing my leg muscles to contract eventually moving me towards the door. But ultimately it is all information.

If the spirit can interact, we can thus describe that interaction as a kind of information that interacts with other information (whether that be ideas, words, or perhaps even DNA molecules). Now if we can consider a lead atom floating into a cell information then we can consider a spirit information. We can see how a spirit can interact in many fashions. Further we see that information of all sorts can interact. We are conditioned to think of the arena of words and the arena of chemistry as fundamentally different. But they really aren't. They are all information.

When I talk of an information function I mean nothing more than information that transforms itself in certain respects. For instance two pool balls colliding transform their information in accordance to the laws of Newton. (Or at least close enough for our discussion) Now that is clear enough for pool balls, and perhaps even molecules. (Although even a simple molecular interaction would require a supercomputer to work out) But consider words. When you read a particular word, say the word "blue," why do you react the way you do. Do you consciously think about what the letters b-l-u-e mean? No. There is an information-function that creates some chain of significations leading to your experience of reading that word. Consider that in that chain are many very complex molecular interactions. But fundamentally this is all information-functions. Put simply, it is a kind of code. But not a precise code, such as we have for pool balls. Rather a code that is somewhat ambiguous and certainly depends upon many factors. Perhaps when you read that you simultaneously think of the blue sky outside. Perhaps you think of how sad you are when you feel blue. Perhaps you think of B. B. King and the blues. All those are part of the information-function. Somewhere there are complex codes describing all this - in their way perhaps even more complex than what happens when a DNA molecule and and RNA molecule meet.

Why do I bring all this up? Am I simply being verbose for verbosity's sake? Perhaps Mr. Goble will accuse me of such. However I simply wish to point out that intelligence is a form of information. It is information with associated functions. A spirit consists of this information and these transforming functions. So does DNA. So does a lead atom. All these things are information and have associated functions. The universe is so filled. Not only is the universe filled with them but all of them transform your body. We can't limit our discussion of DNA to just the DNA and neglect the lead atoms. But we also can't neglect the words you hear. It is all one great continuum - each having an effect.

My point was not to disagree with the Scientist, but perhaps to radicalize what he said. You must excuse an old man rambling on somewhat. The danger in terseness is difficulty. Now I've pontificated far too much and will be thought the old man who talks far too much. My one defense is that I so responded only upon nudging. I hope the other elders here will forgive me. I do think that thinking reality as a collection of entities, information and functions is a rather helpful endeavor. Perhaps if someone asks kindly, I'll even mention briefly how this conception of reality and religion ties into our namesakes of the 19th century...

PHILO JUDAEUS AND ME- I have been rereading Armond Mauss' The Angel and the Behive. I am really quite enjoying it. The central sociological theory he employs is that religious groups oscillate between assimilation to the outside world and total rejection of it. At both ends of the spectrum the religious group in question risks annihilation, either by dissappearing into society or being crushed by it. Though Mauss' data is sometimes embarrisingly bad, for the most part he cannot be held to too high of a standard since the historical data just doesn't exist. Despite this shortcoming, the sociological theory's application to Mormonism is still quite interesting and cause for reflection. The argument is ultimately that some degree of assimilation is necessary for survival, but not too much. Finding this balance can be quite difficult, but it seems to me that Mormonism has successfuly done this, albeit differently at different times.

This reading has led me to reflect on my own degree of assimilation. In many ways I see myself as highly assimilated. Though I grew up in Utah, I never received any formal religious instruction (seminary drop-out...). I then attended college out of state where I was the only member. Now, I am at a prestigious university studying religion from non-Mormons. I see the boundaries between the world and the Gospel as pretty porous.

Judaism (Ancient and Modern) is an interesting point of comparison. Historically it has waxed and waned from exclusivity to assimilation. Groups such as Qumran were eventually wiped out while the disappearance of Diaspora Judaism is one of the greatest historical mysteries. Contemporary Judaism is literally fractured over this question. Philo and Josephus were two of the most enduring figures from antiquity, and both were highly assimilated, while remaining deeply committed to their Judaism. I have often looked to Philo as a sort of guide for how to balance one's peculiar religious identity with "outside" ideas. He did not shy away from them, but saw them through the lens of his religion (much like what Nibley has done with Mormonism). The problem with both Philo and Josephus is that they were preserved not by Jews, but by Christians. Perhaps this is no more than a historical accident that Judaism took one turn and Christianity took another, but it also may be instructive as to what levels of assimilation are viable in the long run. Even if Philo, or I, can master a certain level of assimilation, this does not demonstrate that such a level is desirable for the entire community. Later generations may judge me too close to the outside world for comfort and reject it. It seems that we are pretty solidly on an assimilation upswing these days, but no doubt this will begin to swing the other way. At the extreme ends, our exclusivism has breed fundamentalist offshoots, while at the other end we have bred apostate assimilationists. The swing back and forth is most likely necessary since the proper balance will constantly be in flux as the world around us changes. My self-indulgent reflections here are meant only to remind myself that I too must be flexible and not dogmatic about my level of assimilation.

GENEALOGY VS. HISTORY - I've noticed that people discussing scriptures often confuse what one might choose to call the genealogy of the text with the history of the text. By genealogy I mean those events that led to the text being produced. I've noticed a distinctive trend among both Mormons and "foes" alike that assumes that the text ought to be taken on its own terms. In one sense I obviously must agree with this. Its meaning is found within the text. Yet in an other important sense, it seems to ignore the role of context in interpreting any text. If we view the "point" of the production of the text as the place where history and genealogy meet, it seems odd to place one above the other.

Lest I be taken as advocating something too abstract and philosophical, let me provide a practical application of this principle. Consider the narrative of Noah as related in the scriptures. Some see this as problematic due to the evidence against a universal flood of the sort most imagine described within the text. Yet in making this judgment, they implicitly assume that the text must be taken as it is. They can't allow for say the position of William Hamblin who has argued for a more local flood. In this case there was a real figure who was Noah who was commanded to build a barge much like the Jaredite barge. Perhaps a hurricane, massive flood or other event devastated the region (North Carolina according to some accounts of Joseph Smith). Now in this case the genealogy of the text is somewhat different from what the history of the text gives us. Its history is the later editing and redactions leading to Genesis, more than a thousand years after the time of Moses. (An other way to look at this is to say that our Genesis has its genealogy in these earlier lost texts) The narratives are told and retold again, slowly transforming themselves into the text we have now.

Why do I bring this up? I think that the repression of the very question of genealogy entails a kind of hidden inerrancy that I find problematic. It implies a static view of scripture that seems quite at odd with what Joseph Smith or other prophets have taught. Further it requires that the meaning of the text is purely found within the descriptions given within that text. It ignores the fact that what is in the text includes the feature of being about something outside the text. By castrating from the text the very question of its genealogy people remove the very question reality from the text. Put simply they remove a text's ability to reference things. This nominalizing tendency is alive and well among both foe and friend alike of the scriptures. To judge the text purely by the text is to fall in the trap of assuming an inerrancy and a determinate history to the text that denies its very nature. A nature in which an author wrote about things.

Ostler's view arises out of process philosophy, starting with Whitehead but more particularly developed by Hartshorne who was himself highly influenced by Peirce. The differences between these two thinkers are illuminating and often raise interesting issues. The overall framework of process theology I am more leery of, if only because of the implicit equating of God with the ouisa of the Trinitarian theology. It seems quite difficult to reconcile with Mormon theology. Since process theology (along with the philosophical tendencies of both Peirce and Whitehead) adopts a basically neoPlatonic outlook, the problem of the difference between the One as the source and perhaps "sum" of all reality and an individual God is rather important.

Peirce, perhaps anticipating in certain ways Buber and even Levinas, speaks of an "It" and then "thou - I" relationship. The "thou" is an "it" where "I" am also found. This is important for Ostler's view, as well as the writings of various recent Mormon theologians. (Although rarely put to print unfortunately) Peirce, however, must be seen in the context of a general neoPlatonism. Perhaps a neoPlatonism quite different from those of Emerson and especially Schilling in Germany (which culminated in both Hegel and Nietzsche as two opposed reactions).

How does this relate to DNA? Well, I bring up Peirce since DNA can best be seen as a kind of semiotic reality constituting life itself. (Once again Peirce was ahead of science) Yet mutations and other errors in DNA are also a manifestation of Peirce's fundamental doctrine of fallibilism. Many have noted a certain similarity between DNA and the logoi of late Hellenism. They provide a telos, but not a telos with a clear path. The logic of the semiotic "word" in biology is "teleonomy." Just as a perfect "form" is, in its temporal manifestation in the word, never a pure manifestation, so to do we find this with our system of DNA codes. The "individual" is this holistic manifesting of multiple logoi within the material world.

This conception, of course, begs the question of whether DNA is the only logoi at work. It we view the manifestation of DNA, especially in the development of the brain, as a complex interplay of the signs of DNA with the signs brought into the system from its environment, we can see that even in a purely sectarian view things are quite complex. (Consider, for example, the logoi of lead molecules on the developing semiotic network that characterizes a young child) If we recognize these environmental logoi that dramatically affect the manifestation of our sign carriers (the DNA of cells), then perhaps haven't we provided room for other logoi, perhaps of a more spiritual kind?

The scientist writes well of the notion of Mormon eschatology. However ought we really say that Mormon eschatology emphasizes a "sameness" or "repetition of the same" over "difference"? I'd point out that, as discussed, Mormons speak of having their own world to create as they will. Further, unlike the more mystic forms of religion emphasizing the unio dei, Mormons believe salvation essential consists of having their own body. While we speak of "one heart and one mind" they way it is conceived seems essentially a union based upon difference and not the elimination of difference.

I'd note that Brigham Young, as good a pragmatist as those in the association we take as a namesake, agrees with those comments of John Taylor the scientist has quoted.

"When all nations are so subdued to Jesus that every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess, there will still be millions on the earth who will not believe in him; but they will be obliged to acknowledge his kingly government." (JD 7:142)

What an odd saying if we have an eschatology which supposedly suppresses such matters. What then is the unity we speak of? Brigham Young once again offers an aid.

"A perfect oneness will save a people, because intelligent beings cannot become perfectly one, only by acting upon principles that pertain to eternal life. Wicked men may be partially united in evil; but, in the very nature of things, such a union is of short duration. The very principle upon which they are partially united will itself breed contention and disunion to destroy the temporary compact. Only the line of truth and righteousness can secure to any kingdom or people, either of earthly or heavenly existence, an eternal continuation of perfect union; for only truth and those who are sanctified by it can dwell in celestial glory." (JD 7:277)

This suggests that the unity is a unity of principles upon which rational thought proceeds. One must well note that the potential acts resulting from any principle is infinite. Indeed, if we take the meaning of any principle to be precisely those acts that logically follow if the principle be true, we can see how any such principle maintains within it a diversity of opinion and thought. To place it within the more common conceptions of science, we simply note that we are all of one mind towards mathematics. Yet the manifestations of mathematics within the sciences are truly myriad, to say nothing of the practical applications to which science is placed in service.

Hugh Nibley has called Brigham Young a pragmatic genius. Perhaps then, in following in the steps of the metaphysical club of old, we ought well call Mormon eschatology a pragmatic eschatology?

The historian's dichotomy between "the gnostic" and "the kingdom" is interesting. He opposes them on the basis of salvation by knowledge (gnosis) and salvation by relationship (politia?). Without necessarily disagreeing with the historian's point, may I suggest a meaning intrinsic to his models that is at least as equally interesting? The gnostics didn't just emphasis knowledge, but gave know-ing the prime place in existence. Reality became conceived of in terms of ideas, with the ideas being more real than the material world. The kingdom, requiring relationships to be understood in terms of human relations, was much more materially minded.

In a sense the gnostic turned their heart away from others and sought a salvation within themselves. The kingdom turned to others, but often degenerated as well by seeking salvation by subjugation of others.

Within Mormonism there is, of course both knowledge and community. Yet both exist in an essential, inseparable relationship. Perhaps we can even see this in the second great commandment, which was like the first. Love thy neighbor as thy self.

TWO THEOLOGIES- It seems that there are two general trends in Mormon soteriological theology. Let me characterize them by means of two typologies: Gnostic and Kingdom. Let me emphasize that I don't think that these have any historical instantiations, nor are the categories thought out very well. Rather, they represent trends or types of thought. The Gnostic view places much emphasis on knowledge of the true nature of the cosmos, a loss of sacred distance between God and humanity. On this list, the Antiquarian has claimed that the essence of Mormonism is gnostic. It hangs on recognition of the truth that "Ye are gods." I think Mormons are sympathetic to the Gospel of Thomas when it says "When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty" (3b). Such a theology emphasizes the self and the relationship of the human to the divinity. It is thus no coincidence that the Gospel of Thomas also sees the "single one" (monachos), the sole person as the soteriological ideal (4, 23). However, the other aspect of Mormonism that I have called Kingdom emphasizes the exact opposite. It is the family, community, and entire human race that it the soteriological ideal. We seek to be welded together with all of our brothers and sisters. The afterlife continues the same kinds of sociality that we have here. The downside is that sometimes people substitute relationship with the community for personal spiritual growth. They fulfill their callings, go to all thier meetings, have family home evening, but fail to progress spiritually, perhaps without even noticing it. Such a view even discourages individual spirituality as suspicious (see 1 Cor 13).
Has Mormonism successfully bridged these two opposing theological tendencies, or do they continue to stand in tension? My feeling is that rarely are the two evenly balanced, and that many people neglect either the community or themselves individually.

POLITICS AND HERMENEUTICS- The recent posts on Iron Rods and Liahonas, and "active" and "contemplative" Mormons have been very interesting. It reminds me of another issue. Is there a relationship between fundamentalist/inerrantist scriptural hermeneutics and conservative politics, and conversly post-modernist hermeneutics and liberal politics? The Religious Right seems to beleive so. They are both the most conservative and the most anxious guardians of biblical authority. The claims for inerrancy of the biblical text are not shared by most Mormons. However, in practice many Mormons are very reluctant to challenge the biblical text and believe that all of the errors were caught by Joseph Smith in the JST. Further, the principle of inerrancy is frequently applied to the BoM and the D&C, as well as any thing that has ever been said in General Conference, or even by high-ranking authorities outside of that context. My impression is that those who most vigorously defend the authority of scriptural/priesthood pronouncements (e.g., Iron Rods) are also most likely to be vigorously conservative politically. In Mormonism, is the inverse true as well? Are those few liberal Mormons likely to consider themselves Liahonas? What is the link between conservatism politically and religiously?

LIAHONAS AND IRON RODS- Recently, my bishop characterized members of my ward as falling into roughly two camps: those who follow the Liahona and those who follow the Iron Rod. I don't know if he came up with it himself, or if it comes from somewhere else, but I really liked it. Those who follow the Iron Rod tend to have a clear picture of the church and the right way to do things, a solid line that cuts through the mist of darkness. Those who follow the Liahona tend to seek spiritual guidance as they wander in the wilderness. They may be more likely to question the way when Iron Rodders beleive the answer is clear. I like this typology very much because it allows for spiritual space for both kinds of members of the church. To be fair, no one is entirely one or the other, but it is a useful way to think of general trends. Too often each group fears the other, thinks they are wicked, and will lead to the downfall of the church. In reality, they represent two very different ways of being in the church, each of which are faithful, uplifting, and fulfilling for those who belong to them. I think that we have a lot of work to do to learn to respect each other, rather than criticize and demonize. May our spindles point more straight and our rod wander a bit.

MY PROFESSOR UPDATE- The letter has been read by my professor. S/he just called me and told me that s/he has no interest in getting involved in an inter-necine polemic and that s/he would give them an earful about the "textaul transmission of the Holy, Sacred, New Testament." Whew.

INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST??- The letter to my professor has sparked an interesting discussion at the Times and Seasons blog. The discussion has mostly focused on my claim that "Informed Mormons have shown for over sixty years on the basis of the Book of Mormon text itself that it does not teach that Native Americans are descended from Israelite origin". Kaimi Wenger has accused me of being intellectually dishonest in making this claim. However, I am surprised by this since I take what I have said to be entirely uncontroversial. I admit that often times uncritical statements are made that support the notion that all Native Americans trace thier decent to Lehi, but I think that these are "uninformed" statements. I equated "informed Mormons" with "Mormon scholars" in my post. I (with all the intellectual honesty I can muster) cannot think of a single Mormon scholar (that is, Mormon scholars of the Book of Mormon) who does not accept a version of the view I presented here. Additionally, I think that this idea will become increasingly dominant in the Church at large. While I have never attended BYU, my perception of the high status that scholars who defend this view have there is evidence that this veiw is frequently taught in Book of Mormon classes. These students will go on to teach Sunday School, seminary, etc. The most important witness, however, is not the list of bibliographical references who support one view or the other, but what the Book of Mormon text actually says. With that in mind, I think I am on pretty solid ground.

LIVING HOPE MINISTRY- One of my professors of New Testament was recently contacted by Living Hope Ministry about participating in a video about the textual transmission of the Bible directed against contradicting Mormon claims. He has tentatively agreed, but he asked my opinion and wanted to know more about the project. I just finished writing him a letter, presented here.

November 25, 2003

Dear Prof. (name witheld),

As we discussed, I looked into the Living Hope Ministry. I wanted to summarize some of my findings and assess the overall scope of the project to which they have asked you to contribute.

I have long been sensitive to evangelical critics of Mormonism. Far too often, whether done out of ignorance or malice, they have spread lies about Mormons and been very hurtful. They frequently misrepresent Mormon belief and portray them as monstrous, evil people. They are often believed to have been either deceived by Satan or Satanic emissaries themselves. They often use the genre of the exposé focusing on some salacious materials or incorrect beliefs.

The Living Hope Ministry is located in Brigham City, Utah, a small town about 90 minutes north of Salt Lake City. They describe themselves as “a small, evangelical non-denominational congregation.” I examined their website to assess the character of this group. To their credit, I must say that Living Hope Ministries is relatively mild and does attempt to be respectful, couching their criticism in terms of love.

According to its mission statement: “Living Hope Ministries exists to produce and provide materials useful to individuals, churches, and ministries for the evangelization of those who are caught in the deception of the LDS Church.” The phrase “caught in the deception” seems to imply that there is some kind of active deception being perpetrated by Mormons or Mormon leaders. The website calls Joseph Smith as a liar and a false prophet and declares that “the Bible says Joseph Smith is eternally condemned.”

They discuss Mormons’ claims to spirituality and fellowship with the Holy Ghost: “We have also tested these experiences and found that they are not consistent with the ministry of the Holy Spirit taught in the Bible. The Bible teaches that demonic spirits influence people. These spirits can only be effectively defeated by following the instructions of God in the Bible.” Again, the notion that Mormons have been deceived by Satan is a common motif.

The Living Hope Ministry produced a video recently that dealt with DNA and the Book of Mormon. They gathered scientists, some of whom were former Mormons, to discuss a supposed Mormon belief that Native Americans were descended from Israelite origin. They included one LDS scholar. I have some criticisms of the film. First, their representation of Mormon belief was often misleading. They attacked popular beliefs held by Mormons about the Book of Mormon, but rarely addressed any of the scholarly material. Informed Mormons have shown for over sixty years on the basis of the Book of Mormon text itself that it does not teach that Native Americans are descended from Israelite origin (Mormon scholars argue that the Book of Mormon story took place a limited geographical space and that the DNA of one family could not have had any measurable impact on the DNA of an entire native population). The misrepresentation of LDS belief was highlighted by the interview with the sole LDS scholar. He was quoted describing what he believed the Book of Mormon was when he was a child, but was never quoted describing what he now believed about the Book of Mormon.

Second, the video often mixed theological and historical arguments. This was evident in the way that many of the issues were framed, e.g. “Joseph Smith cannot have been a prophet if…” There were several quotations from the Bible about “false prophets” and “one gospel.” The point is that the video was not a scientific study, but a focused theological attack. The video concluded with an invitation to Mormons who may have been watching to offer up this sample prayer:
“Dear Lord Jesus,
I know that I am a sinner and need Your forgiveness. I believe that You died for my sins. I want to turn from my sins. I now invite you to come into my heart and life. I want to trust You as Savior and follow You as Lord. I give you my life—make me the person You want me to be and help me daily to live my life for You.
Thank you Jesus,
Amen”

My preliminary assessment of the project that they have asked you to participate in is similar. This new video aims to treat the transmission history of the Bible. They have invited scholars of the New Testament and Hebrew Bible to be interviewed. It seems that they intend to attack either popular notions of LDS belief about the transmission of the Bible, or common misconstructions of it.

It is important to note that there is not official LDS teaching on this subject. Beliefs about the Bible are as wide-ranging within Mormonism as any other church. The most that can be said officially is the Mormons do not believe that the biblical text is inerrant. Conservative Christians object to this. The common critique of the LDS view comes from one of the Articles of Faith, a set of informal doctrinal explanations written by Joseph Smith. It says: “We believe the Bible to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly. We also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.” There are two objections to this statement by critics. First, they object to the insinuation that the Bible is not “translated” correctly. Second, they object to the fact that the Book of Mormon does not have the same qualification, which seems to elevate its authority above that of the Bible.

These objections, however, misrepresent the issue. Word studies of 19th century usage of the word “translate” show that it was often used to mean, “transmit,” or “transform.” In this sense it does question the transmission history of the biblical text and its inerrancy. However, it would be strange to assert the opposite, e.g. “We believe the Bible to be true including transmission errors.” The LDS view here simply allows for the possibility of transmission errors, and claims that they are not binding. Yet frequently critics exaggerate this claim. Why then does this caveat not appear for the Book of Mormon? The primary reason why is that Joseph Smith claimed to translate the Book of Mormon from the autograph text. There were no “transmission” errors. Additionally, the Book of Mormon itself claims that it is subject to errors and imperfections. If one believes the Book of Mormon, one accepts prima facie that there are errors in it.

Critics sometimes charge that Mormons believe that the biblical text is therefore “unreliable.” As far as I am aware, this claim has never been made. Sometime LDS scholars point out that we do not have the complete record of early Christianity, such as Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, but this is not the issue at stake. Rather, Mormons claim that the Bible is not sufficient for salvation or knowing the entire will of God. The Bible is historically conditioned, and as such, represents God’s revelation for the past. This revelation is not replaced by Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, etc, but is supplemented by God’s continued revelation. One of the other Articles of Faith explains: “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.” This denies the notion of a closed canon, but does not declare that the Bible is irrelevant or unreliable.

Another theological claim that is often brought into this debate is that many LDS doctrines are not “biblical.” In most cases there are interpretive issues at stake, such as the meaning of “baptism for the dead,” whether or not the Trinity is a biblical doctrine, or whether or not the Bible teaches that it is a closed canon. In others cases, some LDS doctrines cannot be found in the Bible. For biblically based Christians this is a problem. But for Mormons, the doctrine of continuing revelation holds that God continues to reveal to humanity on subjects such as soteriology, cosmology, etc. This question is a theological and hermeneutical one, not a historical one. It has to do with the status and authority of the biblical text, not with its accuracy. Mormons could accept that the Bible has been transmitted completely accurately, but their hermeneutics are fundamentally different.

My larger point is that I am unsure how anything you would say about the transmission history of the Bible could be properly construed as a way of disproving a tenant of Mormon belief. Quite simply, I am positive that if you were invited to speak to a Mormon audience on the same subject that you would be warmly received. I have read your books and heard your lectures and do not find anything you say about the history and development of the Gospels or the Pauline traditions to be at all inconsistent with my beliefs as a Mormon. For this reason I am skeptical about what you have to offer to these people. It seems that only by setting up a straw-person of Mormon belief is it possible for them to contradict Mormonism’s claims about this issue. However, it seems that conservative Christian groups, like those interviewing you, would not only disagree with you, but have much more at stake given their pre-conceived notions about the status of the Bible. It is the selectivity of their intentions that concerns me.

I hope that this is helpful in making the decision whether or not to participate.

Regards,

Last night Terryl Givens spoke at the Harvard Divinity School. He was chosen to speak by the HDS Latter-day Saint Society because of his reputation as a good scholar and the respect he has from faithful Latter-day Saints. This balance isn’t so easy to find. There are many successful Mormon scholars who are well respected within their field. But when they have something to say about Mormonism, they speak only to other Mormons. Much of the Mormon intelligentsia who does engage the outside world about Mormonism is either explicitly involved in apologetics, or harbors some hostility to the Church and its teachings. This division tends to perpetuate itself by leaving little room in between. At some point many LDS intellectuals find that there is a parting of the ways, and they must choose sides to defend their faith from malicious attackers who represent the outside world or expose its soft underbelly for destruction in order to gain respect and acceptance in the outside world.

There have been a few to have successfully navigated these waters when they speak about Mormonism, who have been able to achieve success and respect in both the world of Mormonism and world outside of Mormonism. Of course, no one will be universally liked, and extremists at either end will tend to dislike anyone who is not firmly within their own camp. Despite this, I think Terryl Givens, among others has achieved this kind of success. But no one has quite mastered it yet.

The Yale Conference on Mormonism demonstrated this to me. Many of the non-LDS respondents challenged what they understood to be claims of Mormon exceptionalism, wanting to show that Mormonism wasn’t as unique as it was being claimed to be by the LDS presenters. However, to my ear this claim wasn’t being made and if it weren’t for the persistence of this episode in nearly every one of the sessions, I wouldn’t have begun to see the problem. It seems that when Mormons speak of LDS doctrine or theology, the tone is often seen as “apologetic” by outsiders.

Last night was no exception. A close non-LDS friend of mine characterized Givens’ talk as “apologetic.” Perhaps it was. It celebrated in how Mormonism had closed the “sacred distance” that “other Christian religions” had seen as central to their religious experience. It was enthusiastic, and perhaps even triumphalistic. As a Mormon, I loved it. I tend to agree with most of what Givens says about Mormon metaphysics (though I think I disagree with him about the room left for myth and mystery…I will blog on this later). Maybe my friend was sensing in Givens’ talk was that he had delivered a theological discourse, not a theoretical treatise on the nature of Mormon heresy.

So why does this happen, even to LDS scholars who are most attentive to this very problem? Does the blame lie squarely on us? When faithful Mormons speak about Mormonism, are they inevitably involved in a theological defense of faith? Or is it that non-Mormons’ perceptions of Mormons are so strong that they lead them to interpret any positive (or at least not critical) evaluation of Mormonism as “apologetic”? I do not know the answer to this question, but I see it as a major hurdle to the success of a viable field Mormon Studies that engages academics regardless of belief.

JESUS IN FILM- CNN reports that members of the cast of Mel Gibson's Passion keep getting struck by lightning. It must be because of the film's gross historical innaccuracies!

MORMON FEMINISM- Peggy Fletcher Stack just published an article in the SL Trib titled "Where have all the Mormon Feminists Gone?" located here. You all should read it all the way through...I think you'll be surprised at how close we are to the heartbeat of Mormon feminism! The article describes the changing face of Mormon feminism throughout the church's history. Most significant is that it describes a softening of both feminists and the church. It also notes the difficulties with the term 'feminism' in today's academy. The central issue of women serving in priesthood leadership has yet to be resolved to the satisfaction of many feminist thinkers, but it does seem that on almost every other question the church has made great strides.


I think that the article does a great job of describing the status questiones, but does little to describe what the future of Mormon feminism is. A few years ago, when Claudia Bushman spoke at Harvard, she predicted a retrenchment from much of the progress the church has made recently, expecting an increased focus on "family values" in order to increase family sizes to compensate for diminishing converts. This may be true, but I suspect that many of the values held by today's LDS women on social issues, such as career, education, and family roles, as well as ecclesiastical issues, such as making women present in general conference, and expectations of providing input in local church matters, will be increasingly hard to reverse.