Scylla and Charybdis, Mingled with Scripture

According to ancient Greek myth, Scylla was a creature who was rooted to one spot in the ocean, and regularly ate sailors who passed by too closely. Her appearance has varied in classical literature; she was described by Homer in The Odyssey as having six heads perched on long necks along with twelve feet, while in Ovid's Metamorphoses, she was depicted as having the upper body of a nymph, with her mid section composed of dog's heads. Across a narrow strait from this fearsome nymph dwelt Charybdis, the daughter of Poseidon and Gaia. She was depicted with a single gaping mouth that sucked in huge quantities of water, and belched them out three times a day, creating whirlpools.

Click here to read the rest!

Chosen or Posin' ? Abraham, Buffy, and Other Choice Spirits

OT SS Lesson #2 -- originally posted at Mormon Matters

This was an interesting lesson to read after last year's brou-ha-ha over an alleged "generals in the war in heaven" quote. On the 25th of February 2008, the Church issued an official statement from the Office of the First Presidency to all General Authorities, Area Seventies, Stake Presidents, Mission Presidents, District Presidents, Temple Presidents, Bishops and Branch Presidents which read:

A statement has been circulated that asserts in part that the youth of the Church today “were generals in the war in heaven . . . and someone will ask you, ‘Which of the prophet’s time did you live in?’ and when you say ‘Gordon B. Hinckley’ a hush will fall, . . . and all in attendance will bow at your presence. [You were held back six thousand years because you were the most talented, most obedient, most courageous, and most righteous.]”*

This is a false statement. It is not Church doctrine. At various times, this statement has been attributed erroneously to President Thomas S. Monson, President Henry B. Eyring, President Boyd K. Packer, and others. None of these Brethren made this statement. Stake presidents and bishops should see that it is not used in Church talks, classes, bulletins, or newsletters. Priesthood leaders should correct anyone who attempts to perpetuate its use by any means, in accordance with “Statements Attributed to Church Leaders,” Church Handbook of Instructions, Book 1 (2006), 173.

Although this is not Church doctrine, I don't see much which distinguishes it from the following quotation in our approved Sunday School Lesson #2:

Click here to read the rest!

Evening Speculations

Tonight I read Ty Mansfield's post at North Star about his hopes for more dialogue between Mormon leadership and the GLBT community. Although I agree with him that rhetoric has softened, I must say that I don't see much of a change at all in terms of doctrine. Some say that the Church has shifted from implying that homosexuality is a sin to saying that acting on same-sex attraction is the problem. I don't know that that is the case.

Click here to read the rest!

Ardi and the Rise of Mormon Symbology

This post was cross-posted at Mormon Matters.


With the advance of science and the study of more and more artifacts such as Ardipithecus ramidus, believing Mormons are faced with a challenge which becomes stronger with each discovery.

Click here to read the rest!

Black, White, and Gray; and D&C 76

This week I had an interesting conversation with my RS President on Black and White and shades of Grayness in Mormonism. She describes herself as a person who sees the world in terms of Black and White, Right and Wrong; with very few gray areas to navigate. I, with my blessing and cursing to see every paradigm, encounter gray just about everywhere I look.

Click here to read the rest!

Jesus is our Temple Recommend

In my opinion, the best pithy quotation from Conference weekend came from Aaron Shafovaloff over at Mormon Coffee on his Liveblogging General Conference. In a conversation during Elder Eyring's talk, Aaron pointed out that introducing prerequisite merit and worthiness into the question of how to receive eternal life and forgiveness and sanctifying help removes a vital layer of grace. He then declared,

Click here to read the rest!

Mormonism and Personal Construct Theory

German philosopher Hans Vaihinger developed a system of thought which has had a profound effect upon me lately. He explained that our thoughts and constructions about God and the universe are best viewed as useful hypotheses rather than representations of objective reality.

Click here to read the rest!

Unconditional

While the romantic in me longs to be loved unconditionally by those in my life, both family and friends, I realize that it is almost impossible for humans to reach this ideal. They may aspire to love this way, but when their loved one lies to them, or hurts them, or when there are physical changes, or any one of a myriad of other circumstances occurs, love can weaken or vanish.

Click here to read the rest!

Healing the Waters of the Dead Sea

originally posted at Mormon Matters

The Relief Society teacher was teaching the lesson on the signs of the Second Coming, and she was writing these events on the board as fast as the sisters could shout them out. "Wars," "Rumors of wars," "Pestilence," "Earthquakes," she wrote. Then came an unusual one:

"The waters of the Dead Sea will be healed."

Click here to read the rest!

The Dream Mine Today

A man named Delynn "Doc" Hansen is perhaps one of the best current sources of information on the Dream Mine on the internet. He describes himself as follows:

I became interested in Bishop Koyle and his Dream Mine starting back in the 1950's as a child. I was drawn to it like a magnet. When I was 28 and fresh out of college in practice, the Spirit told me to call the Relief Mine office. I didn't think they would have a phone as the project seemed dead. I phoned and talked to the president of the board, Quayle Dixon. The Spirit also told me to take $300. which was every last cent I had. My wife and I went up to the mine and talked to Bro. Dixon for 3 hours. The Spirit testified to both of us throughout the 3 hours. At the end...he said that Koyle recommended that a family have 100 shares of stock to see them through the hard time ahead. At $3. a share...it came to $300...so we bought our first stock.

Click here to read the rest!

Bishop John H. Koyle: Financial Prognosticator For The Latter Days

In Part I of the Dream Mine story, we saw that there were those in Church leadership who supported Bishop Koyle's visions, and even bought stock in the "Dream Mine." However, support from Church headquarters lessened after geologist and theologian James E. Talmage denounced the endeavor.



In a meeting on August 7, 1913, the First Presidency decided to send Elder Francis M. Lyman of the Council of Twelve Apostles to Spanish Fork for the purpose of releasing John Koyle as bishop of the Leland Ward. [8] Acting under the orders of Francis Lyman, the Stake President released John Koyle as bishop, in which office he had served since May 31, 1908. President Joseph F. Smith and his two counselors signed a statement published by the church-owned Deseret News that year, saying "when visions, dreams, tongues, prophecy, impressions or an extraordinary gift of inspiration conveys something out of harmony with the accepted revelations of the church . . . it is not of God, no matter how plausible it may appear. . . . It is our duty to warn against mining schemes which have no warrant for success." [9]

Click here to read the rest!

Bishop John H. Koyle: The Dream Mine Lives On

On August 27, 1894, John Hyrum Koyle of Spanish Fork, Utah, was visited by a personage attired in white and radiating intelligence. The angel told Koyle that the Lord had called him to open up a gold mine for the benefit of Zion and the world in a future time of trouble. John Koyle spent his life establishing what he called the "Relief Mine" near Salem, Utah, and though it never produced gold, he and his followers had faith that in the last days the gold would come in and provide for the Saints when they most needed it. [1] The mine is still maintained today on the west slopes of the Wasatch mountains in Utah County. It is the world's largest non-producing gold mine on the face of the earth!

Click here to read the rest!

Why Does God Help You Find Your Keys?

Admit it! You've prayed for God to help you find your keys, or something equally as trivial. You opened your eyes and there they were. Then you've wondered why a loving God would answer your prayer and not those of the millions of starving people in Africa. Perhaps you begin to feel like the following blogger:

"If God is an interventionist, He's doing a piss poor job. He helps middle-class americans find their keys while thousands suffer and die in other parts of the world. If God is an interventionist, I don't think He's worthy of worship. If God isn't an interventionist, and we are on our own, what practical difference does it make if we believe in Him or not? Either way, I just don't see the point in worrying about God anymore. Either what He is like, what He wants, or even if He exists."

If so, you need to review your Mormon Doctrine. God allows suffering in this life to help us develop all the things that we need in order to become purified and return to live with him someday. No one can live in the presence of Deity unless they have become sanctified. Trials are part of the sanctification process. This does not mean an interventionist God personally hands you every bit of suffering you experience here. (Didn't you read my Good, Bad, and Ugly Adversity post?) But God will allow the suffering that is a mortal condition of this world so that we can develop our agency and become holy.

So why does he sometimes help us find our keys? He won't interfere in the vicissitudes of life which help us to grow and attain glory. But perhaps our lost items aren't enough of a trial to teach us anything. Maybe we've already developed the small amount of patience necessary to deal with lost keys. If so, God can help us out a bit without interfering with the learning process.








...or maybe they were just there the whole time.

Born-Again Mormon

When I went to the Missionary Training Center a year after becoming a member of the Church, I earned the nickname "born-again Mormon" because of my evangelical Christian background and my enthusiasm for Christ and his teachings. At the time I saw no conflict between my acceptance of Jesus as my personal Savior and my conversion to Mormonism. And I still become dismayed when I encounter conflict between the two groups. Since my days at the MTC, I haven't heard the term "born-again Mormon" used to describe someone who has experienced a change of heart depending on the Savior to rescue them from sin and yet who embraces the truths of the restored gospel. The term is instead used to signify a Mormon who has left the Church because of their conversion to a brand of evangelical Christianity.

Such is the case with Micah Wilder and his Christian rock group, Adam's Road.

I knew the Wilder family quite well when we lived in Indiana. Micah's mother was the RS President when I was Compassionate Service leader, and we worked closely together. My husband home taught the family, my oldest daughter had a crush on their son, and I babysat the youngest Wilder daughter. We haven't been in touch in quite a while, but Micah and his band have recently been in the news. Apparently he changed his views while on a mission, was sent home two weeks early and influenced several missionaries and a recent convert from the Florida area who have joined together in this band. His brother, a talented pianist, soon followed, along with other members of the Wilder family. His mother, a professor at BYU, resigned her position and left the Church with her husband and the boys.

It is difficult for me to come to terms with my reaction to this news. I feel greatly saddened that these young RM's were unable to find the love of Jesus within the Church. Since I know the family, I've listened to several hours of interviews with these young men and I don't agree with many of the conclusions that they have made. I think that the Mormons DO rely on Christ's atonement to save us. Although we have doctrinal differences, there are also large differences among the Christian sects. I really believe that we are worshipping the same God and the same Jesus.

I don't know if all my Mormon friends would agree that they are "born again," or that the sacrifice of Christ has already saved them. What about you? Can you say, as these young men do: "I am saved--my life is yours alone"?

Mormon Prophets, Christian Theologians, and Eternal Progression

After contrasting two LDS views of eternal progression Aaron Shafovaloff chides, "If only Mormonism had a prophet to clear up this mess!"  He then declares:

The Christian view of eternal progression is easy to describe. We will ever-increasingly grow in the knowledge and power of God for all eternity. And no, that isn't simply just a long amount of time with an ending point. It's for eternity. Christians essentially believe in a true eternal progression more than traditional Mormons do. We will never get to the point where we can say we have fully appropriated and received the entirety of our inheritance in Christ. (emphasis mine)

A little research will show that to the contrary, Christians have widely disagreed over the doctrine of theosis (becoming God).  Beginning with early Christian theologians,  St. Athanasius of Alexandria wrote, “God became human so humans would become gods."  And St. Maximus the Confessor exhorted, "let us become the image of the one whole God, bearing nothing earthly in ourselves, so that we may consort with God and become gods, receiving from God our existence as gods." During the Reformation, Martin Luther understood justification to mean theosis.  John Calvin and Lancelot Andrewes viewed the process of salvation and sanctification to be a divinization of man.  Wesleyan Protestantism developed the notion that ""that man in this present life can acquire so great and such a degree of perfection that he will be rendered inwardly sinless, and that he will not be able to advance farther in grace," and this was declared a heresy by the Roman Catholic Church.  To this day, there are widely divergent views among the many Christian churches.  (see this, for example.)  Aaron's "easy to describe" Christian view is in fact simply one opinion among many. 

Scripture is not crystal clear regarding whether man can become a god, but there are many intimations.  1 John 3:2 tells us that we shall be like him.  Romans 8:16-17 states that children of God are his heirs, to be glorified as Christ was.  Verse 29 of the same chapter further explains how the saints become conformed to the image of the Son, so that Christ is the firstborn among many justified and glorified brethren.  In Phillippians 2:5-6 we are told that we should have the mind of Christ, who, being in the form of God, did not think it robbery to be equal with God. 

Though the Savior did not quail at the thought of being equal with God, apparently human beings do.  Despite the writings of Biblical theologians and Church fathers, many Christians such as Aaron equivocate by saying that the saints will never receive their promised inheritance (see above).  And what he doesn't realize is that Mormons do the same.  LDS authorities are quick to explain that although we may become exalted and attain to all the power, authority, knowledge, wisdom and might that a god may possess, we are yet eternally subservient to our Heavenly Father.  He created us, and any works we might do bring further glory to Him. (see the comments to my last post, which were awesome!)

Thus I stand by my earlier statement that Mormons and Christians have very similar positions on eternal progression.  We both have scriptural traditions promising us "all that the Father hath."  Both groups have leaders in our respective religious traditions who teach us that we are sons of God and have the divine potential to be gods ourselves.  Yet we also have some differences of opinion among ourselves as to how and to the extent that this will be accomplished. 

It seems that Aaron would hold Mormons to a higher standard, since we claim a prophetic voice, to be consistent in our explanations of whether God himself is still progressing.  I would have to agree with him on this point.  Many Latter-day Saints have experienced ambiguity when faced with the problem that earlier prophets do not always agree doctrinally with those who come later.  This cannot fully be explained by saying that different prophets speak for different times.  In this case, the nature of God should not change between the time of Brigham Young and Thomas S. Monson.  Most of us are inclined to view prophets as mortal men, who search out religious truths line upon line, sometimes making mistakes which are later corrected.  But this does weaken the claim to prophetic leadership. 

Is the Mormon God a Finite God?

Most of us would feel very uncomfortable with the notion that God was anything but omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient. Indeed, at first I couldn't agree with Dennis Potter's description of a Mormon God who was finite, even if it did help to explain the problem of evil and suffering in a created world.

"In some sense," Potter explains, "God cannot eliminate all of the pointless evil that exists."

I don't agree.  I believe that God can eliminate evil, but my current thinking is that he intervenes in worldy affairs very, very infrequently.  Though Potter never won me to his way of thinking, he does present a very cogent argument which got me thinking about Mormon ideas on the nature of God. And I am beginning to entertain the idea that perhaps our God is finite in some ways.

Latter-day Saint doctrine on the creation differs slightly from mainstream Christianity.  We believe that instead of creation ex nihilo, or from nothing, God organized elements which already existed to make the earth.  Apparently, there were some eternal principles already in place which God could not violate.  In the same way, he created humans.  We existed as eternal intelligences which God organized into spirit beings.  Then these spirits participated in developing a plan whereby we would come to earth to receive bodies and an education.   Because we were intelligences who already existed, God's power to create us in certain ways is limited.  This answers the question Christian theologians wonder of why God couldn't have created beings who could learn without having to suffer. 

Does this make God finite?  In a way, I suppose it does.  He does not have the power to work outside of the laws of the universe.  He must work within certain parameters in developing a plan for the salvation of his creations.  The Mormon Gnostic adds that

"if good and evil, light and darkness, are primordial principles, then they are not created by God, and God does not have the power to eliminate them.  The need to explain how an all-perfect God could allow suffering as the manifestation of evil becomes a moot point, because evil is fundamental to the fabric of our cosmos."

What do you think?  Is the Mormon God a finite God?

Cat on a Hot Tin Roof

I swear I must have a split personality.

We went to our new ward on Sunday. I felt really happy when we walked in. It's such a comfort to go anywhere in the world and have a ready-made family to go to when you arrive. You know that the three men sitting on the stand are the Bishop and his counselors; that Gospel Doctrine will probably be held in the chapel; that the Relief Society room is the one with the comfortable chairs. You know the Elders Quorum president can help you out if you need some heavy lifting done for your move. You'll be within one SS lesson of where you left off in your old ward. All those things were so nice. After Sacrament Meeting it turned out that the family who sat in front of us lived in the same subdivision we will be moving in to. They have a nine-year-old daughter. To find out if they would be in the same Primary class, my LDS-savvy nine-year-old daughter asked her when her birthday was. The child replied by giving the exact same date my daughter was born!

I felt completely at home in the ward. I answered a question in RS with a standard Mormon reply and I really believed what I was saying. I was invited to a book club group and promised to attend. I was deeply immersed in my Mormon brain, and everything was perfectly OK.

I don't know what to say. I want to get along here. I don't want to be the odd duck. I want to have validity in the ward. I want to be a nice Mormon mommy. I feel happy, I feel the Spirit when I spout the Mormon line. I know I can project a version of myself which will be welcomed and accepted here. So why do these things bother me:

• The bishop gave a sacrament meeting talk on the importance of "the family."


• The Gospel Doctrine teacher mentioned 3 times during the lesson that he was the former Bishop. In spite of this, he taught some very disturbing views of Alma 5, including the necessity for members to "forgive themselves," and that we are saved by "all that we can do."


• The RS lesson was a talk by a GA which was given to a group of priesthood holders. Little was changed, except to note that as women, we could "apply it to ourselves," and a question was inserted in the middle somewhere about how could we encourage the brethren to magnify the priesthood.


• The sisters meet monthly for a Deseret Book club.

Is it just the natural man which prompts me to dissect and criticize these aspects of my ward experience? I'm truly a kinder and a better person when I live the Mormon gospel. Why can't I excize the strange liberal being who doesn't want to eat red jello, live in a subdivision, vote Republican, or drive a mini-van? Why is there such a huge separation between the two of me? It seems that others on the Bloggernacle have somehow fused their diversity and their Mormon-ness, but not me. It's like I'm either completely Molly-fied or flaming radical. I'm standing on a barbed-wire fence longing to throw myself over to one side or the other. Instead, I painfully perch on the barbs, facing this way one day and that way the next.

Ouch.

Unity and the NAS

If Blogger works properly, this will post while I am in the air on my way back to the States. Last Friday DH and I gave talks on unity in Church. If you were there, you would have found them quite interesting, for, as he said in his remarks, we are not exactly poster children for unity.

I won't reproduce my talk here, for I plan to use several points from it in my presentation at Sunstone in August. But I had an experience with it that was interesting. In one of the scriptural citations I used in my talk, I quoted from the New American Standard Version of the Bible. I almost always use the King James Version in both my study and my teaching. I feel quite comfortable with the Old English, having studied the Bible in this version from my youth. But occasionally I will compare versions, especially when there is a doctrinal sticking point. Friday I used Phillippians 21-5: in the NAS just because I liked the turn of phrase a little better (I don't like the word bowels), and it seemed to make my point about unity a little clearer:

1 Therefore if there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion, 2 make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose. 3 Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; 4 do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. 5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus…

(Click here to compare the KJV.) Interestingly, several people came up to me afterward and asked for this particular scripture reference, saying they were very touched by it. I gave them the reference without mentioning that I had used the NAS. I didn't mention it in my talk, either.

It's odd that I've felt pricked by my dishonesty. I'm trying to figure out what's been bothering me. Is it because I used an "unauthorized" version? Or that I wasn't straightforward about its provenance? Perhaps it's more that I didn't do justice to my source. If I'm not ashamed of the gospel of Christ in the NAS, should I necessarily have to proselyte for it?

Do you use other versions of the scriptures? Do you do it secretly, like I do?

Compartmentalization Woes

I wouldn't describe myself as an integrated person. I like to compartmentalize my life. I go to Church on Sunday and I can be the Seminary Teacher/mom with 8 kids/faithful Mormon and I know how to talk the talk. Then I go on my blog and emote about feminist issues and polygamy and the washing of feet. But now that DH is a blogger he actually TELLS REAL PEOPLE where to find me online. And someone who knows me through blogging has MOVED IN TO MY WARD!! (Hi, Tim!) Recently I joined Facebook and GoodReads, and I made the awful mistake of adding Church friends, my children, Seminary students, and blog friends. It's caused the most awful angst.

For example, there are books I want to review intellectually on Goodreads but because of my audience I'm feeling a strange compulsion to say things like, "you don't want to read this book, there was way too much sex in it--wait, this is a book everyone should read because it deals with issues we should never forget!"

And then my kids were checking out my friends on facebook and wanted to know who "Nick" was. (A gay guy I met blogging. Great example of online behavior, Mom.)

So all this makes me think. When I get to my new ward, who will I be? Will I sit back quietly and let everyone see me as Molly Mormon? Will I compartmentalize the difficult and unorthodox parts of myself?

Daughters of Perdition

26 Mar 1903 - Joseph F. Smith told the Apostles "there would be no daughters of perdition" in the final judgment.



You may think it is a sign of my complete depravity that I am put out because women cannot become Sons of Perdition. But give me some time to explain, and you may see why.

Mormon doctrine teaches that those who are "sons of perdition" are those who had a sure and perfect knowledge of the truth, then voluntarily turned from it and committed the "sin unto death." The first requirement, then, to become part of this group is to have been members of the LDS Church, then to have the truth revealed to them with such sureness and clarity that there would be no doubt in their minds about the truthfulness of the Mormon gospel. Speaking of the sons of perdition, Joseph Fielding Smith taught that "before a man can sink to this bitterness of soul, he must first know and understand the truth with a clearness of vision wherein there is no doubt" (Doctrine of Salvation 1:49). Such clarity requires a confirming vision from heaven. Joseph Smith taught that to become a son of perdition, a person must "have the heavens opened unto him, and know God....He has got to say that the sun does not shine while he sees it; he has got to deny Jesus Christ when the heavens have been opened unto him, and to deny the plan of salvation with his eyes open to the truth of it" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.358).

After potential sons of perdition have had this sure knowledge manifested to them, they would then have to turn away from the Mormon Church, deny the truth, and commit the "unpardonable sin."

So why can't women become Sons (Daughters) of Perdition? Is there something about not having the Priesthood that makes a woman less able to have this sure knowledge of Christ? After all, in D&C 13:1 we learn that the Aaronic Priesthood holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and in D&C 84:19 we are told that the Melchizedek Priesthood contains the keys to the mysteries of the kingdom and the knowledge of God.

I'm just as positive as can be that many Mormon women will be pleased not to have the opportunity to become Daughters of Perdition. Our women leaders have assured us that we can partake of every blessing that is available to priesthood holders. But if this is true, then why is the converse not possible?

(I was going to write more on this topic, but a post just went up on Main Street Plaza on this subject, so I thought I'd get my ideas out there and we can continue the discussion in the comments. Have at it!)