Book Review: Imagining and Reimagining the Restoration, by Robert A. Rees

 Amazon and Goodreads review:

A poetic attempt to promote liberal mormonism

This book is a decent contribution to the liberal mormon tradition, and as such, it should at least be read by folks in leadership in the church. There is nothing trailblazing in the book, but the author has been a lifelong voice and support in the struggle to help the church be the best it can be. His words are worth considering at the least.

Regarding the structure, there is a light bibliography in the back as well as an "acknowledgements" section that lists all the essays, etc from which the author drew for this book. The text is also interspersed with poetic and creative "interludes". A couple chapters are adapted from previous publications.

Regarding the style, this book is very much a devotional work. It uses insider-coded language, or what I consider "virtue signaling", to fit many of its thoughts and inspirations within a mainstream "mormon" framework.

Regarding content, the book sometimes promotes shallow, mainstream-type answers to how to make the church better, such as "accept callings and then magnifying them" (page 66), and also negative views against outsiders or those leaving the church - "Abandoning the Church because of something broken in it is like leaving a house because the plumbing isn't working well" (page 72). At the same time, it promotes many liberal causes -- elevating heavenly mother within our discourse, moving past our racist and anti-LGBTQ past and present, being stewards of the earth, etc.

Personally, I prefer much more academic rigor, and you will not find that here. The writing sits on the verge of mysticism and "creative misinterpretation", both of which I find to be harmful misuses of the imagination. The author wishes to appropriate what might be called the "midrashic" impulse in behalf of the churhc, whereas I would prefer careful and deliberate deconstruction and nuancing of our perspectives rather than letting our imaginations play with and run roughshod over truth.

Additional notes:

This book takes an approach at odds with my own sense of how to improve the world. Rather than subject our beliefs to a skeptical and reasoned scrutiny, it showcases the possibilities open to us when we suspend our disbeliefs and instead purposefully engage in creative misinterpretation, or in Rees's word, "reimagination". For some reason this always seems to entail requiring the reader to accept as "truth" propositions untenable to critical scholarship that aims to get as near to universal "truth" as possible. It seems Rees would agree wholeheartedly with Joseph Smith's 16 June 1844 statement (as reported by Thomas Bullock) that a man won't be damned for believing too much, but for unbelief. Yet, Rees seems only capable of imagining things which correspond to current church culture, and never grapples with an accurate understanding of the past as found in abundance in present-day scholarship.

In the intro, Bob Rees uses pointed reasoning and instances of others misinterpreting scripture (eg, Hosea 12:10 on page 2) to find tenuous support for his project of "reimagination," or in my words, creative misinterpretation.

Chapter 1, on Christ. Of Luke's birth narrative, "I believe, that he may even have tracked down shepherds who were in the field that glorious night" (page 8). Really? Even ignoring the many problems that arise when you try to reify Luke's infancy narrative, it defies any kind of sense to think that this account, composed about a century after Jesus' birth, relied on eyewitnesses. Where and how would the refined, urban Greek-speaking author of Luke have obtained fellowship with these apparently amazingly long-lived anonymous rural Aramaic-speaking shepherds? Nephi "was commanded to behead his own relative" (page 9). Um, citation please? This makes Laban sound like near kin. Also, "We can surmise that Nephi knew of Nazareth" because Nephi sees and names it in 1 Ne 11:13. He supports this claim with a dubious reading of Matthew. Sorry, but all archaeological evidence points to Nazareth being a late Hellenistic period settlement -- it didn't exist in Nephi's day. Then he quotes 1 Ne 11:21 and doesn't bother to note that the 1830 text read, "behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!" Lost opportunity to "imagine" what was going on when JS "reimagined" that passage and added "Son of" to the text. Apparently the heavenly council in the preexistence included "the Father and Mother" (page 11), and the celestial kingdom means living in "the presence of our Heavenly Father and Mother" (page 13. see also pages 22, 24, 91, 156, 164, all of chapter 3, etc). I guess he's "reimagining" the Mormon vision of a Father and many Mothers -- let's not forget about eternal polygamy!

Chapter 2, on Joseph Smith. Flowery phrases like "how absolutely profound, transcendent, and life-changing seeing the faces of the Father and the Son must have been for Joseph" (page 18). Ugh, please engage with scholarship -- "show me the receipts" and stop engaging in eisegetical misreadings of the historical record. Later on the same page he calls the "Jewish midrash" "the Rabbis' imaginative expansion of scripture". Yet he refuses to even get near the idea of the Book of Mormon and other revelations as a similar kind of midrash. On pages 19-20, he reads the vision of God as recorded in D&C 76 as if it was a photographic recollection rather than a mismash of scriptural tropes ranging from Jesus' baptism to Stephen's vision of God in Acts 7. He likewise on page 20 interprets D&C 110:3-4 as a literal description of seeing Jesus rather than seeing it as a rehash of the vision found in Revelation 1. Someone is drowning in the koolaid: "if we each carry the physical DNA of our earthly parents and other ancestors, why wouldn't our spirits, which are refined matter, carry the DNA of the parents of our spirits?" *Sigh*. Why not read Jonathan Stapley's musings on "Tripartite Existentialism" from way back in 2009 on the By Common Consent blog? Or any decent history of Mormon theology to see how these ideas were invented wholecloth in the 20th century and don't even go back to Joseph Smith.

And must we be forever lost in creative misinterpretation and hagiography? I think one of the greatest services we can do to our past and the dead is to uncover them and see them as clearly as we can. Some of these chapters were an exercise in doing the opposite.

Chapter 3, on Heavenly Mother. Honestly, authors like Carol Lynn Pearson do such a better job grappling with the hard questions and not simply imagining how our doctrines should be without grappling with them as they are. They refuse to even acknowledge, much less grapple with, the ways in which the present institutional church has stifled discussion of Heavenly Mother. How can we really make progress if we don't engage with the actual present and past?

Chapter 4, on Mary. Rees gets close to Brigham Young's imagination that God the Father literally fathered Jesus with Mary, imagining her "ravaged by a divine being" (page 87) and that "So much light floods into her that she feels as if the sun itself is inside her" (page 55). Eww. He doesn't even get close to the scholarly consensus that Joseph was the father of Jesus and that the miracle birth stories were a later invention. His imagination does leave Mary "Alone in her room at night" as "she reads and rereads the words of the prophets" (page 55). This peasant girl from a backwater town is literate, has her own set of scripture scrolls, candles for reading, and her own bedroom. Meaning she knows Hebrew along with her native Aramaic, and must be considerably wealthy. Who knew? I feel like Rees really wants to write his own infancy gospel like they did in the early days of Christianity. Is this kind of impulse really healthy for us?

Chapter 5, Repairing the Church. He has to stress so hard that admitting that the church is broken and trying to mend it doesn't make him a critic or an "ark steadier". Doesn't this need to spend so much space preempting criticism itself say a lot? He lists a lot of legitimate problems with church culture (many of which he himself reflects throughout this book), and a lot of common tropes found in the "liberal mormon" cultural sphere. He mentions secondhand knowledge of many "mission presidents not reporting truthfully on conditions in the mission field for fear of being blamed" (page 67). Folks ought to read Daymon Smith's "Book of Mammon" if they really want to know more about that kind of stuff. But then he goes and spends most of his space blaming the members and excusing church leadership. What are the solutions? "It begins by being willing to accept callings and then magnifying them" (page 66). Wow. What a "just read your scriptures, pray, pay your tithing, and go to church" kind of answer. He criticizes those who would just leave the church - "Abandoning the Church because of something broken in it is like leaving a house because the plumbing isn't working well" (page 72). He also criticizes those who complain about the church but who don't give 100% to it, "who don't show up on Saturday mornings to clean it for Sunday services or on Tuesday evenings to work with the youth" (page 72 -- but see the footnote where he at least gives lip service to the possibility that church itself might be blamed a bit too). I have to say, I'm a much bigger fan of Ursula le Guin and her short story, "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas". I'd rather side with those.

Chapter 6, a tribute to Lester Bush. This is decent. Rees laments about how the church and world would have been better if only Brigham Young hadn't insisted on racist church policy and doctrine. I think it's unfortunate that it's not better understood that Joseph Smith himself was also quite racist. "Fixing" Brigham Young wouldn't really quite have been enough.

Chapter 7, on intentionally "feminine" readings of scripture. He spends a lot of time defending a (shallowly understood, appropriated and jerry-rigged for his own purposes) "midrashic" approach to scriptural interpretation -- as opposed to "fundamentalist, literal, and privileged approaches to the scriptures" (page 84). He asks us to creatively reimagine and even intentionally distort (page 89) scripture and gives several examples. For some reason, his "good Samaritan" rereading involves a woman who is "physically and sexually assaulted" (page 88). I'm not sure turning negative things relating to women into rape stories is productive rather than just sensational. Also, in the "prodigal daughter" story of interlude 4a (page 95), it's kind of telling that he finds the need to make the husband a central part of the story. Is just telling a story centered on just women that hard to do? He also turned it into a rape story. I also don't think papering over the uncomfortable within the past in order to invent readings that "work" for modern mormons necessarily does us or anyone justice. If only we were to recognize the Book of Mormon as midrash, we would also be better positioned to see how it prioritizes its own misreadings of history over the real histories and experiences of the american indians... no luck getting close to that here, though.

Chapter 8 - LGBTQ members. Decent chapter. A weird paragraph on page 110 quotes Irene Bates, "Myths... can never serve as pillars of our faith". Um, what has this whole book been about again, besides generating faith-enriching myths? There is a lot of virtue signaling towards mainstream members of the church in this chapter as well as the rest of the book.

Chapter 9 - holy week. A decent celebration and remembrance of past celebrations of holy week and a desire for the church to do more with it.

Chapter 10 - environmentalism. In between okay discussions of environmental stewardship and copious referencing of other work, he quotes someone using the phrase, "wave field of bio-emotional energy" (page 139). Plunging into Deepak Chopra territory here...

Chapter 11 - forgiving the church. Surprisingly decent, besides being structured using a somewhat arbitrary "spiritual evolution" model of life. I think this kind of teleological thinking is self-serving and procrustean in its application.

Chapter 12 - imagination and mormonism. A call for a more "liberal" mormonism. A good summary of the author's central concerns and hopes.

Throughout the book Rees tends to adopt modern liberal-ish positions. For instance, on page 66, right after saying that the church culture has too many people "committed to the values of our political parties than to those of the gospel", he praises a bishop who refused to follow church directives during the Proposition 8 debacle.

Book Review: The Revised & Expanded Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith: Compared with the Earliest Known Manuscripts, compiled by Alonzo L. Gaskill and Richard G. Moore

 Amazon and Goodreads review:

This book is a helpful update to the TPJS, for anyone acquainted with the original or who desires to understand one of the books that stood as a pillar of 20th century Mormonism. It reprints the original TPJS pretty much in its entirety, with transcripts from the earliest texts the TPJS drew on in a parallel column. The editors of the volume use pro-Mormon language in the introduction but remain scholarly throughout the rest of the text. There are appendices for some of JS's later discourses that had multiple independent records, so you can see what each source originally looked like. There is also an appendix identifying many possible "ghost-written" texts that may not have originally been by JS.

On formatting. The Google books version has a broken table of contents, so you can't immediately jump to a particular section. While reading the book online, my Safari browser occasionally blanked out the window to clear its memory usage, and this would make me lose my place.

On editorial choices. The authors quote the footnotes from the original text in their own footnotes, without any kind of critical evaluation. Often they include notes about the sources from which the original TPJS drew, but not all the time. For instance, Joseph's 18 December 1833 blessings to Samuel and William Smith were expanded in 1835 to promise riches, long life, and prowess in battle. The original TPJS text reflects the earlier Joseph Smith journal text, whereas the new text on the right actually reflects the expanded 1835 Patriarchal Blessing book text rather than the earliest source. I could only figure this and a few other details out by using the Joseph Smith Papers website's Calendar of Documents.

I think it would have been nice for the editors to make it more clear when most of the differences between the original TPJS and the earliest sources were made. It takes some careful investigation to realize that the original TPJS largely drew on the DHC, and that most differences between the old TPJS text and the new text actually come from changes made between around 1845 and maybe 1856 (from History, D-1 and E-1). But not all. For instance, the phrase "by the hands of a cruel mob and the tyrannical disposition of the authorities of this state" was first added to the 16 Dec 1838 letter from liberty jail when it was published in the April 1840 Times and Seasons.

On interesting differences between earliest manuscripts and the TPJS. The DHC really messed with the original Relief Society minutes. For instance, JS originally is reported to have said he wanted the Society to become "a kingdom of priests" and spoke of delivering keys to it and the church, but DHC editors made it so that JS wanted the Church to be a kingdom of priests and that he delivered keys just to the church. JS also said the society "shall have power to command Queens", but this was changed to, "through the heads of the Church, they shall have power to command queens". The DHC editors also changed a prophecy -- JS is originally reported to have said, "I now deliver it as a prophecy that before ten years shall roll round, the queens of the earth shall come and pay their respects to this Society". But this was changed to "if the inhabitants of this state, with the people of the surrounding country, will turn unto the Lord with all their hearts, ten years will not roll around before the kings and queens of the earth will come unto Zion, and pay their respects to the leaders of this people".

An early version of the endowment ceremony from 21 Jan 1836 was elided by the original TPJS, and is restored here.

Minor differences can be hard to catch. For instance, in JS's 21 Jan 1836 vision of the celestial kingdom, he sees "father Adam, and Abraham and Michael and my father and mother", which was corrected in the original TPJS to "Father Adam and Abraham, and my father and my mother" (page 135). The JSP Calendar of documents shows that the deletion of Michael from the text first happened in the 1852 Deseret News reprint of this text. Another example, 28 April 1842 RS minutes, "Respecting the female laying on hands", "there could be no devil in it" was originally changed to "there could be no evil in it" (page 291). Also, the text shows that throughout at least the Nauvoo era Joseph refers to apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists as "gifts" along with other gifts of the spirit (see, eg, 2 Jan 1843, page 350), which the original TPJS corrects.

This new TPJS also notes that the 15 Oct 1843 statement advocating capital punishment for officials who don't uphold the constitution comes from history book E-1, and was composed in the Utah period (pages 429-430).

Some good footnotes. Pages 114-115, footnotes 70-72, point out material that belongs to JSP History book B-1 Addenda. What they don't note is that this material dates to sometime after 24 February 1845. Among other things, this material makes the High Council unable to try the Twelve. Page 132, footnote 90, also points out the later revision added the statement, "where I am not, there is no First Presidency over the Twelve". Footnote 32 on page 329 about the 6 Aug 1842 "Rocky Mountain" prophecy, rightfully casts suspicion on the provenance and specificity of the quotation. The "Happiness" letter, 19 Aug 1842, also has a contextual footnote 33, page 330. Footnote 44 on page 338, regarding the 1 Sep 1842 T&S claim that the Luke 11:51 Zacharias is the father of John the baptist (rather than the prophet Zechariah), has some references to this idea in LDS history and possible resolutions to the problem. The new TPJS also makes clear that the 28 May 1843 statement attributed to JS, that among the original Twelve only "Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball" have been faithful to him (page 401), is only found in the post-JS death D-1 history -- a time when the Twelve were securing control in Nauvoo. Also, footnote 103 on page 404 shows that the apparantly prophetic 11 June 1843 phrase "and will cause the people to kill the Prophets in this generation" was added after JS's death.

Some changed material. TPJS elided a comment by JS on 5 Jan 1841 that John C. Bennett was "a superior orator, and like Paul is active and diligent, always, employing himself in doing good to his fellow men" (page 231). Another elision about Bennett can be found in the 15 Jan 1841 T&S on page 234. JS was also critical of Parley Pratt, Orson Pratt, Orson Hyde, and John Page on 28 Apr 1842, but JFS follows the DHC in eliding it to just mention John E. Page (page 292). The 9 Jul 1843 idea that before the millenium the Christians need to be more united was a later addition to the text (page 411).

Some more new material. An 11 Nov 1835 discourse has a restored section, wherein JS interprets Daniel's vision. A 29 Sept 1839 sermon has an interesting statement restored, that "the righteous will remain with him in the cloud whilst all the proud and all that do wickedly will have to return to the earth". This King Follett discourse restores the section where JS claims resurrected children "will never grow.... Eternity is full of thrones upon which dwell thousands of Children reigning on thrones of glory" (page 474). A 5 Jan 1841 statement, "This earth was organized or formed out of other planets which were broke up and remodelled and made into the one on which we live". A 9 June 1842 statement, "by union of feeling we obtain pow'r with God".

Finally, an interesting note. The 2 May 1842 T&S mentions an "Ash" (Thomas Ashe) who discovered mummies and catacombs in Lexington, KY. Turns out the Mammoth Caves nearby did house several mummified Indian remains from ~2000-2500 years ago (pp 301-302).

Additional notes:

Since the book just follows the original TPJS, it is missing interesting contextual letters and revelations, such as the 18 Aug 1833 letter, that really give color to what is in the book and make clearer some of Joseph's more bellicose inclinations. I kept going back to the Joseph Smith papers website to "fill in" missing details.

One interesting note elided from the TPJS and restored here is from the 21 April 1834 discourse where JS says, "Take away the book of Mormon, and the revelations, and where is our religion? We have none". Right before this, the minutes say that Joseph "gave a relation of obtaining and translating the Book of Mormon, the revelation of the priesthood of Aaron, the organization of the Church in the year 1830, the revelation of the high priesthood, and the gift of the Holy Spirit poured out upon the church". This shows and surrounding text show how Joseph was rehearsing the highlights in the progress of the church in this season of his life. This also shows the chronological sequence of the Aaronic priesthood, then the forming of the church, then the high priesthood, then a pentacostal "enduement".

I like how deeply apocalyptic Joseph consistently is. The end is nigh and if they don't strive with all their might, the earth will be wasted when God comes. Preach the Gospel and the destroying angel will come for everyone who doesn't listen (page 114). "the signs of the coming of the Son of man are already commencd...the world will have litte peace from henceforth" (page 204). The project of establishing and gathering to Zion has as its raison d'être the need for a place to shelter from the coming apocalypse. 15 Oct 1843, prophecied that this generation will be "visited with utter dissolation" (page 432). 21 Jan 1844, "the Saints have none to much time" "before the earth will be smitten & the consumption decreed falls upon the world" (page 434).

I don't like how consistently violent Joseph's ideations are. After they failed to "redeem" Zion, we still find, for instance, 30 March 1836 "I want to enter into the following covenant, that if any more of our brethren are slain or driven from their lands in Missouri by the mob that we will give ourselves no rest until we are avenged of our enimies [sic]" (page 138). 19 Dec 1841 "what greater love hath any man than that he lay down his life for his friend[?] then why not fight for our friend untill we die[?]" (page 252). Prophecied on 25 Feb 1844 "that within five years we should be rid of our old enemies". 7 Apr 1844, claims apostates have sinned against the holy ghost and have "the same spirit that crucified Jesus" (page 471).

In April 1837, in the middle of KSS troubles, JS urges the "brethren abroad" to come with their money and bail out the saints and pay for all the land they speculated on. A further detail from the new TJPS is that Joseph Smith further remarked, "more houses must be built" (page 143).

Page 130, the new TPJS has additional material from 11 Nov 1835, wherein JS interprets Daniel's vision of the image with head of gold and feet of iron and clay: "this Image is characteristic of all governments and institutions or most of them; as they begin with a head of gold and terminate in the contemptible feet of Iron & clay: making a splendid appearance at first, proposing to do much more than the[y] can perform, and finally end in degradation and sink, in infamy".

JS was somewhat consistent over time with many of his thoughts. He modeled the endowment after the pentecost, and consistently taught that the disciples were to go into all the world only after their endowment (see 22 Jan 1843 sermon, page 355). On 13 June 1844 he dreamed about his guardian angel (pages 486-7), and seems to always divide the world into people following or listening to or being possessed by different kinds of spirits.

Interestingly, the later temple ceremonies involving becoming kings and priests seems heavily influenced by, eg, Rev 3:6, and JS seems very involved with reading and interpreting it by at least his 8 Apr 1843 sermon.

Regarding polygamy, in the 16 December 1838 letter, JS says, "We have heard that it has been reported by some that some of us should have said that we not only dedicated our property but our families also to the Lord, and satan taking advantage of this has transfigured it into lasciviousness such as a community of wives which is an abomination in the sight of God" (page 160). It follows with a description of what it means for a man to conscrate or dedicate "his wife & children to the Lord", so this (not polygamy, but "consecration" of households) actually was a practice! In the 22 Mar 1839 letter, JS said, "There are times comming [sic] when God will signify many things which are expediant [sic] for the well being of the saints but the times have not yet come but will come as fast as there can be found place and reseptions [sic] for them" (page 184). The 5 Oct 1843 journal entry says, "gave inst[r]uction to try those who were preaching teaching" "the doctrin of plurality of wives. on this Law. Joseph forbids it. and the practice ther[e]of -- No man shall have but one wife", whereas the original TPJS follows the DHC in changing it to have JS say "I hold the keys of this power" and "I have constantly said no man shall have but one wife at a time, unless the Lord directs otherwise" (page 425).

The keys of the First Presidency are apparently "dominion" "over every living Creature" (pages 199-200).

JS (mis)readings of scripture seem to have gotten more extreme during early 1839. One instance was his view on murder of innocent blood being the _only_ unforgivable sin. See 6 May 1841 discourse (and the 1 June 1841 T&S), where he reads the differences in wording between Acts 2:41 and 3:19 as meaning the Jews Peter preached to would suffer in hell until "the times of refreshing". Another example of misreading: 15 Apr 1842 T&S originally misquoted John 3:5 as, "Except a man be born again of water, and of the spirit he can in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven". The original TPJS corrected the multiple differences back to the KJV text, causing us to miss, for instance, the use of the Matthean phrase "kingdom of heaven", and using the word "again", demonstrating the failure to comprehend that being "born of water" refers to the first, natural birth, and "of the spirit" refers to the second, spiritual birth.

The fire, water, air, earth view of the elements is hinted at in summer 1839, Willard Richards' Pocket Companion, "Any thing created cannot be Eternal & earth, water &c -- all these had their existence in an elementary state from Eternity" (page 201). Also, "The sun has no beginning or end" (5 Jan 1841, page 232). Also, "chaotic matter -- element had an existence from" [the beginning]. "The pure pure principles of element are principles that never can be destroyed -- they may be organized -- and reorganized -- but not destroyed" (7 April 1844, pp 462-3).

Doctrine of "Elias's" -- summer 1839, "there were Elias's raised up who tried to restore these very glories but did not obtain them" (page 202). JS is talking about prophets trying to bring people into God's presence and how Peter, James, and John received the keys of the priesthood from Christ, Moses, and Elias on the mount of transfiguration. Interesting. Also, 10 Mar 1844, "I went into the woods to inquire of the Lord by prayer his will Concerning me, & I saw an angel & he laid his hands upon my head & ordained me to be a priest after the order of Aaron...my ordination was a preparetory work or a going before which was the spirit of Elias" (pages 440-441 -- it continues with JS distinguishing the spirit of Elijah as more powerful than that of Elias, and later the spirit of "Mesiah" as the last and greatest).

Interprets Heb 11:4 on 5 Oct 1840 that Abel "being dead yet speaketh" must have actually been resurrected and come to visit Paul (pp 215-216). Also interprets Jude 14-15 as Enoch having visited Jude and told him those things. Also visited Paul because of Heb 11:5 (page 217).

money quote: "nothing is a greater injury to the children of men than to be under the influence of a false spirit, when they think they have the spirit of God" (T&S 1 Apr 1842, page 266). And JS is trustworthy guide, someone who sees the devil almost everywhere he looks? This same issue contains a very long discussion of then-modern movements that must be wrong because they were started by women. another money quote: "God told him in whom he might place confidence" (16 May 1843, page 391) -- God told him to trust John C. Bennett? "a jew put it there" (7 Apr 1844, page 459, and elsewhere) - it seems JS's approach to the apostasy is highly antisemitic, following of course the authors of the NT.

21st century mormonism

Sam Brown's comment #52 on this post on Mormonism and Masonry inspired today's thoughts:

I believe there is an obligation to assist with the denaturation of that poison (the “poison” being this system that has evolved of staking Mormon truth claims on their entire independence from cultural touchstones like Masonry)

I have been re-orienting my position over the past several months. Anyone who desires and commits the time and energy will find out both that Joseph Smith was likely very sincere in his proclamations, but also that his beliefs, writings, and translations are inseparably connected to the environment in which he grew up.

When we find out our early assumptions are wrong, what do we do about it? I belong to a church which insists that its claims which evolved out of a nineteenth century environment will somehow measure up to 21st century assumptions and expectations. It makes many of the same mistakes our fellow fundamentalists of other religions make.

That being said, just because fundamentalist ideology is fundamentally wrong, doesn't mean one should part from the faith. Why make it any more fundamental than it already is? It needs the chatty voices of the liberal minority to keep it afloat and help it transform into the 21st century church it had ought to be.

I am stumbling forward into an orientation that I hope is true to myself and true to my church. I don't personally accept a lot of things on the religious level. I don't accept that the earth was intelligently designed, nor that humans are much more than a brilliant accident of natural selection and speciation. I don't accept that he we call Jesus Christ was raised by God or likely considered himself more than a mortal, perhaps chosen by God. I don't believe the Book of Mormon contains, by 21st century standards, "real" history or authentic early American, Jewish, or Egyptian traits. I don't think Joseph Smith's theology, as he seemed to interpret it, had much literal truth to it, by today's scientific standards. The Book of Abraham is not a translation of an ancient work, nor is it independent of ideas floating around in Joseph Smith's environment.

That all being said, again, I don't believe the church should be abandoned. I believe Joseph Smith and others were sincere, and made sense of their experiences by believing things I do not accept. It is how they experienced the divine. I have experienced the divine through them, and my soul has resonated with the documents they left behind.

Likewise, I believe many Mormons sincerely made sense of the Book of Mormon in the 20th century by reading it as an ancient document, and finding tenuous connections with the ancient Near East or Mesoamerica. I don't accept their conclusions. It is how they made sense of the divine as the world slowly came more of age. I have experienced the divine through them, and my soul has resonated with a few of the documents they produced.

I try to live by modern standards of rigour in what I accept as true. My soul resonates with this approach. I experience the divine in discovering mathematical, historical, and even interpersonal truth -- truth upheld by standards of plausibility, probability, naturalistic skepticism and analytic rigour. I accept and my soul often resonates with the vastly divergent experiences of others. I do not often accept their interpretations as truth, but I am open to enriching my own understanding through them, and hope to return the favor.

This is my current, modern Mormonism. I accept modern and historical experiences and worldviews of church members as legitimate and often inspired, whilst not dogmatically asserting their universal applicability.

Atonement and Gethsemane

a comment I added to
http://bycommonconsent.com/2012/01/22/atonement-and-mormonism-cultural-over-belief-and-a-poll/

The author of Luke-Acts portrayed a very saintly Jesus who never lost his cool, and seemingly out of nowhere, in Lk 22:43-44 we have him needing the help of an angel and sweating blood. IMHO, the f13 group of manuscripts place these 2 verses, as well as the pericope adulterae, in much more logical places within the gospels. Even then, we still deal with the possibility of a fraudulent insertion.

Outside of that scripture, other NT references to Christ's blood atonement seem to refer directly to the cross. And the meaning of said atonement seems to vary from author to author. Luke seems to indicate that God will vindicate us after we feel guilt for our sins (recognizing our guilt via Christ's innocent death), and seek forgiveness, are baptized, and live a saintly life thereafter. Christ's death only "atones" with the likely late addition of Lk 22:19b-20. (Elsewhere, Luke seems to intentionally rewrite or remove references to Christ "atoning" with his death: Lk 23:47 vs Mk 15:39, Lk 22:26-27 vs Mk 10:43-45. Seems like Luke prefers the perspective that God had the power to forgive all along). Paul indicates that all are guilty, and Christ's atonement reconciles us to God if we believe in his resurrection / participate with him in the resurrection through baptism.

The Book of Mormon says Christ will bleed from every pore (literalizing the "as it were" of Luke) because of "his anguish for the wickedness and the abominations of his people" (Mosiah 3:7), not necessarily because of taking upon himself their sins at that point. It could reasonably fit the role of strong apprehension at what is about to take place, similar to the rest of Christendom. The anguish seems to come in large part due to knowing the true nature and consequences of wickedness -- exactly the kind of which Christ is about to experience (and the Book of Mormon makes clear in Alma 28:14 and throughout, that needless death, destruction, and loss follow sin). Alma 7:11-12 jumps straight from His going "forth, suffering pains, and afflictions, and temptations of every kind" to his taking "upon him death". It seems there that his sufferings were the experiences of mortality, experienced through his life as a mortal rather than something extra happening in Gethsemane. The big deal in this regard throughout the Book of Mormon seems to be that God Himself will choose to become mortal and experience the afflictions of mortality, whereas nowadays we take for granted that a God would become mortal (because after all, aren't mortals gods in embryo?) and maybe thus interpret that God had to do something extra special, like suffer every last pain and wrong in the universe in Gethsemane, for it to be all that special. Alma 7:13, to me, indicates that in His role as a sacrificial substitute, He takes upon Himself our sins, as He dies in our place. The point is driven home in Alma 34:8ff, that since God Himself sacrifices His life ( = His atonement), the sacrifice is thus infinite and eternal, and thus accomplishes everything it needs to.

Moving on, D&C 19 introduces some new ideas, and leaves plenty of room for some interesting interpretations. 19:16 leaves room for the possibility that God suffered "these things" once for all, and v.17 indicates to me that those who sin must suffer in the same way. Verse 18 indicates the type of suffering required of the unrepentant is the same kind of anguish Christ experienced in Gethsemane (it may be argued, not the physical side effects). It follows from above that this anguish is knowledge of what might have been versus what is, due to wickedness. As Joseph Smith later said, "A man is his own tormentor and his own condemner.... The torment of disappointment in the mind of man is as exquisite as a lake burning with fire and brimstone. I say, so is the torment of man." (HC 6:314).

I don't think that such anguish really has to do with atonement per se. I don't know why such anguish was so intense immediately before the atonement happened on the cross, but it certainly makes a few points clear. One is that it points to the importance of what Christ did for us, so that we need not feel such anguish. Instead, we can be forgiven of our sins and have things righted so that the gap between what is and what could have been no longer smarts. (I tend to think of the "cosmic" nature of atonement from Judaism wherein sin reverses God's divine ordering of the cosmos, and leads to chaos, and the blood of the atonement, as applied to representations of heaven and earth in the temple, restores the divine order once more). Another is that suffering has its place, but so does joy. Christ was certainly capable of fully comprehending and mourning the effects of sin at any time of His life, but He chose to do so only at the end, in preparation for what was to come. It's great to know that we need not dwell on the negative.

I fear we mythologize sin, and suffering, in church culture. In turn the nature of the atonement has been complicated in a harmful way. We turn an infinite atonement into an incomprehensible one. Whereas, the only "incomprehensible" thing mentioned in the scriptures is the joy the sons of Mosiah experience in their missionary work (Alma 28:8). And it's incomprehensible to me why we've done this. As if complicating God brings us nearer to Him (which is the approach *ahem* that classical Christianity seems to take).

Comment on goodly parents

I posted this to http://bycommonconsent.com/2012/01/01/goodly-parents-revisited/

You might add the 1828 webster's definition from http://www.1828-dictionary.com/d/search/word,goodly:

GOOD'LY, adv. Excellently.

GOOD'LY, a. Being of a handsome form; beautiful; graceful; as a goodly person; goodly raiment; goodly houses.

    1. Pleasant; agreeable; desirable; as goodly days.

    2. Bulky; swelling; affectedly turgid.

Although the apparent meanings of some words in the Book of Mormon seem to diverge from the norm of both King James English and 1820's vernacular..

Perhaps some of us have been overly zealous in reading far more into the text of the Book of Mormon than we fairly ought to. We use the "therefore" in 1 Ne. 1:1 to connect "goodly" to being "taught somewhat", and then somehow think Nephi is being modest concerning his education, pointing to the "gold, silver, and precious things" that are "exceedingly great" (1 Ne. 3:25) to indicate that Nephi's parents must have been wealthy, therefore must have afforded a great education for themselves and their children, including erudition in Jewish lore and Egyptian hieroglyphics (and, if you follow Nibley et alii down the rabbit hole, an expansive milieu of philosophical schools of thought from across the ancient world). Further speculation leads many to believe that Lehi must have been a merchant of sorts, in order to explain his (speculated) wealth and especially make plausible the host of supposed 'parallels' between his philosophies (esp. that of 2 Ne. 2) and those scattered across time and space in the ancient world.

What happens if instead we emphasize the "somewhat" in 1 Ne. 1:1, and the "exceedingly young" in 1 Ne. 2:16? Can't we just as fairly suppose that Nephi must have been too young to have been formally educated too much before their flight into the wilderness? Then we might speculate that Lehi took pains to educate Nephi (and Jacob and Joseph) in the wilderness. After all, why waste those 8 arduous years in the wilderness (1 Ne. 17:4)? Plus, the early Nephi was more of a visionary than a hands-on, read-the-plates-to-find-my-answers kind of guy. This reading also gives us explanatory power as to why Nephi would have his father inquire of the Lord as to where to get food in the wilderness -- at that time maybe only he could read the writing on "the ball" which seems to be how instructions were given by the Lord (1 Ne. 16:23-30). It also may help explain how Jacob became literate in the same ways Nephi was. Nephi also indicates that they couldn't preserve the language of their fathers without the plates (1 Ne. 3:19). Strange comment if he had any inkling that he could later become a writer and thus preserve their language himself.

Sure, Nephi took a wife (1 Ne. 16:7) at that age, but I wouldn't be surprised if he was barely a teenager or younger. I mean, people speculate that Mary was 12-14 when she married Joseph... and what with the flight in the wilderness, circumstances might have called for early pairing off. Some young folk look like adults, and apparently Nephi was one of them.

Also, consider that "gold, silver, and precious things" is formulaic to symbolize worldly possessions across the Nephite records. If Nephi was as young as he indicates, then perhaps he unconsciously exaggerates when he recalls the "exceedingly great" property that Laban lusted after. Certainly, my perspectives when I was younger were filled with more hyperbole than they are today. This reading, to me, also helps me justify Nephi's tiring of writing his own words and resorting to Isaiah, and also his treatment of himself and his brothers in his writings.

Some food for thought... for those of us, at least, not entirely enraptured by Hugh Nibley's rhetoric.

**********************
EDIT - additional comment
**********************


Per the above discussion, I will continue to maintain that Lehi was not necessarily wealthy, and to me Nephi was pretty unlettered. Arguments in support of Abraham not being the actual physical author of the Book of Abraham might even be applied to Nephi’s authorship. In the Abraham intro, the record purports to be written by the hand of Abraham, but it has been argued by those of Nibley’s ilk that it can mean that Abraham commissioned someone to write for him. 1 Nephi 1:3, 6:1, etc, might be explained this way. Then the peculiar language of certain parts might have better explanation:
1 Nephi 9:1-2 (and elsewhere) first mentions about things that can’t be written on the plates, and then Nephi says, “And now, as I have SPOKEN concerning these plates…”. Note the language in 9:3, “there should be an account engraven” rather than “I should engrave an account”. 2 Nephi 11:1, “these things have I caused to be written”, rather than “these things have I written” (even though in verse 2 it says, “I, Nephi, write more”, that can be explained in the same way as the BoA. To say that you wrote, or even that you wrote with your own hand, doesn’t necessarily mean you physically did it. Then again, he might have done 2 Nephi 11ff himself, given most of it was copying, or in other words, didn’t require as much effort).
It is enough for me to say he was a blacksmith / shipbuilder / architect / hunter / warrior / ruler / visionary / prophet without assuming he also had time to be a great man of letters as well. And maybe what little work he was acquainted with before they left Jerusalem had more to do with blacksmithing than with merchanting. It could better explain his fascination with Laban’s sword, his own great strength, his apparent familiarity with creating tools and manipulating ores and bellows in Bountiful (the first), and his continuing metallurgical forays in the promised land.
Furthermore, if Lehi (and thus Nephi and perhaps Jacob) was as rich or educated as some people seem to assume, I would be more surprised at the tone of the statements of Jacob in 2 Nephi 9:28-30 about riches and learning. I also would be more surprised at Jacob’s method of defeating Sherem, relying on testimony and especially the blanketing argument in Jacob 7:11 rather than proving Sherem wrong by opening up the scriptures. Likewise, the weak dialectic in most of the philosophical portions, like 2 Ne. 11:7. All this being my opinion, of course, but it seems as valid as any other explanations I’ve seen.

funny quote

Sterling: Oh, I thought you were going to ask me to comment on Elder Packer.
Jack: Oh, I wouldn't restrain you from doing that.
Sterling: I was kind of looking forward to the opportunity. Well, I will just make a very short statement. I think he is a total disaster to the LDS church.
from http://www.lds-mormon.com/newell_mcmurrin.shtml

That was true in 1993, and it is still true today. Kind of sad. Good thing we've got some fairly decent authorities among the twelve, though I haven't done enough research to have an opinion on all of them.

Response to http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-science/ essay

I was just wondering,

how do you justify the ending to your mostly decent essay regarding science and religion, in the section on naturalism and science? If cognitive faculties evolved to be completely unreliable, as the essay seems to imply, in what way could the mechanism of natural selection have been used to evolve them? Doesn't it make better sense to acknowledge the possibility that more accurate cognitive faculties, at least in certain areas of thought, have a more competitive advantage? One doesn't need to accept that all of our faculties evolved to be reliable, either. After all, scientific naturalism doesn't really come naturally to the common man. Personally, our cognitive faculties seem geared toward assimilating what we experience into what we believe is a consistent understanding of the world around us.

Not that much of the above matters, only I am a bit bugged that the argument at the end of your essay seems to be a weak misapplication of statistical reasoning in an attempt to demonstrate an imagined fault of naturalism in conjunction with evolution, as if that somehow buffets the logical support of theistic religion. Is there a reason you ended the essay this way? I hope it was not due to political considerations or personal theological views, but I can't imagine what else would have motivated such an unfair conclusion...

Sincerely,

~Jacob