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.

ADOLF VON HARNACK In a discussion about anti-Judaism in the scriptures in church last week, I was asked rather directly whether I believed that the scriptures were political documents or divinely inspired texts. Admittedly I was somewhat shocked by the question and I answered it badly. I tried to respond by asking why the person was making such a distinction. Why must there be an either/or? The question, however, has made me reconsider exactly what I believe the relationship between the “Gospel” and the “world” to be.

I received some points to ponder this afternoon while I was reading Harvard professor Karen King’s new book, What is Gnosticism?, which deals with the question of ancient and modern constructions of Gnosticism. It is an excellent read, and has a fascinating chapter on the great scholar of early Christianity Adolf von Harnack. Harnack retold the story of early Christianity in a powerful way that still has profound influence on historiography today, over a century later. He wrote about the place of Christianity in its historical context, and noted that it was inextricably linked with both the Judaism and Hellenism of its day. However, he saw these features are historical accidents, the historical husk that surrounded the pure kernel of true Christianity. When these two forces unduly affected Christianity, its essence was occluded and either a Judaized or Hellenized form of Christianity was taken for the real thing. Thus, all ancient heresy could be traced to one of these two influences, either being too Jewish or too Hellenized.

So what did the essence of Christianity look like for Harnack? Not surprisingly, it looked like the liberal Protestantism of his day. Harnack’s methodology is familiar to many Mormons. The LDS concept of apostasy and the Protestant version of the history of Christianity share a lot of common ground. Of course, the conclusions are different. When we tell the story, the pure essence of Christianity looks a lot like late 20th century Mormonism. But the structure of the story is the same. Do Mormon’s take their cue from historians such as Harnack who criticize the Hellenization of Christianity through Catholicism? I am not sure. I know that many LDS scholars such as Hugh Nibley have relied upon Harnack. However, this kinship in thought may not be from direct borrowing, but it may emerge from a complex world of thought about apostasy and return to origins shared by both Harnack and Mormonism, such as that described by Dan Vogel in Religious Seekers and the Advent of Mormonism.

Whatever the origins of the shared beliefs, my question is about the validity of the methodological strategy. Both Mormons and Harnack criticize Christianity for having adopted Greek philosophical thought. Yet, they are both willing to admit a certain level of historical “mixture” with the Gospel. Mormons even have historicism built into their theology of revelation, recognizing that some aspects of the Gospel are given only for specific times, like polygamy, or even the Word of Wisdom. Other passages even suggest that many more commandments are given to humanity in their weakness, within the bounds of their cultural framework (D&C 1:24). God works through “language,” the ultimate human construction to teach them. The question is whether what is being taught transcends language, or culture, or Hellenism, or whether it is so bound together that it cannot escape. Harnack (and many Mormons) believes the former. There is a kernel and a husk.

The ultimate irony of Harnack’s hierarchy of beliefs that understands the Gospel and the world around it as separable is that such a method is solidly Hellenistic! The notion of essence and appearance, of substance and accident, are ideas worked out by Greek philosophers of antiquity. The very language he uses to save the Gospel from Hellenism is a product of it!

Mormons desire to arrive at a historically transcendent form of Mormonism, no doubt, based on our belief in a Restoration, a return to pure origins, something that has been practiced and believed by Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and then Joseph Smith. The problem doesn’t stop there, for the link between the early world of emergent Mormonism and routinized 21st c. Mormonism must also be made clear. The search for an essence that has been transmitted throughout time is no easy task, historically or theologically.

My question is whether the search for an essence needs to be abandoned all together. It is a powerful rhetorical tool, but it often leads us to take too much for granted, to stop seeking, and to rely on a flawed epistemology that cuts us off from revelation. We must be closer to our Heavenly Father. To believe that our revelations, both personal and institutional, are always a product of their time, spoken in “weakness” after the manner of our own language, does not diminish them, but rather makes the continual forging of a new relationship with God imperative. Just some thoughts.

A MORMON HERMENEUTIC: I recently posted a version of the following message to a group of LDS graduate students in religion. I post it here in order to solicit thoughts from the Elders on this topic that has long plagued me. It has been brought to the fore recently as a result of a new seminar at BYU this summer that is producing LDS commentaries and articles on the New Testament. The note is pasted below:

I have never had a chance to systematically work through anything, but I have had a lot of amateurish thoughts on it. The problem is whether or not there is such a thing as a "Mormon hermeneutic". There are of course traditional hermeneutic approaches that fall under the headings of "historical" or "literary" criticism. Additionally, many people have worked out hermeneutic systems for various social and political categories focusing on liberation. As LDS, is there a particular method that is more philosophically "true" to our heritage? Is this even a valid question? A more basic question is whether or not our faith should be the controlling factor in our hermeneutics. But I suspect that most of us don't believe that our faith is irrelevant in our interpretations. If that is true, than how exactly does our faith affect our interpretations? Are we affected in the same way as any other believing Christian, or is there something different? It is the "something different" that I am trying to pin down. A similar question is being asked in the field of Mormon literature. Bruce Jorgenson and Richard Cracroft have debated this at the Society of Mormon Letters. For a sample of essays on this issue see some essays on Mormon criticism. Perhaps this debate can shed a little bit of light on the problem. The question is what does it mean to call something "Mormon literature"? What is the referent? Is it anything that is produced by someone who is "Mormon"? But what is a "Mormon"? Or, is it anything that deals with Mormon themes, subjects, and history?

On the subject of the LDS New Testament commentary, How will an LDS commentary look any different from any other commentary? If there are differences, what sort of methodological moves are being made? How are they justified? How do these moves related to other hermeneutical strategies? I would really love some thoughts on this, or at least some new questions that I might want to consider that other people share.

FAREWELLS: I wish to bid to fondest possible farewell to the Lawyer. His departure will no doubt be felt deeply in our midst for a long time to come. He has had a profound impact on my own thinking and will no doubt have a profound impact on many more disciples. I have every confidence that one day we will all be indebted to his insights into many key Mormon topics. In the not too distant future we will be basking in his fame, proud to say, "I know him!" I am also sure that the times we have shared with him will be enshrined in legend someday. Best of luck, my friend.

So what is so great about the body anyway? Ah yes, it is 'postmodern,' it is 'hermetic'. But it isn't exaclty these things either... In fact, our body isn't really 'ours' at all. This body is the dust of the earth. There is nothing uniquely "me" about the material that consititutes my body at present. In fact, 7 years for now that material will be entirely replaced. The essence of me is not my present physicality, is it? This is the corruptible body, which I take all of our sacred texts to subordinate in importance. The resurrection provides us with a new body that doesn't suck. Part of being mortal is having a terrible body. Our bodies are weak, sickly, fallible, located, old-getting, etc. The body that we get in the resurrection doesn't seem to follow any of the rules that our present bodies follow. They can appear anywhere, move through walls, not be subject to corruption, etc. Exactly what is the same between the body that we have now and the body that we have then? It seems that the only thing that is the same about them is that our spirit (material or material-esque) happens to occupy both of them.

And thus we see, Platonism is insidiously intertwined with Mormonism. The entire notion of the unembodied spirit, the pre-existent form, and the eternal soul are are critical to the LDS plan of salvation and the Platonic myth of the soul. Why celebrate the materially constituted body? Why celebrate the matter of this world? I reserve my praises for the good body to come...

Happy birthday to the Lawyer and to the name-to-be-determined Baby Litcrit!