Sorry I haven't posted anything around these parts in a little while. It has been a hectic week. For one, I taught Seminary this week (I was substituting for a friend of mine who has the calling). Since I never went to Seminary in high school (I was not yet a member), I wanted to go the day before to check it out and see how it was done. All in all, it was a good experience. The kids seemed to like my lesson, but I think that might have something to do with the fact that they were scarfing down Krispy Kreme donuts and OJ at the same time. Anyway, that was two straight days of getting up at 5 am, and nobody should blog on such little rest.
So hopefully I will have something to post on Sunday afternoon. I already have at least two posts in mind: a review of Terryl Givens' new book, People of Paradox: A History of Mormon Culture and an analysis of whether BYU profs are the real doctrine-makers in the Church.
21 September 2007
11 September 2007
The vicious cycle of polygamy and anti-Mormonism
This semester, I am enrolled in a course in Family Law. Two weeks ago, we had an extensive discussion about polygamy (particularly in the FLDS context) and I became quite involved in it. A classmate of mine pointed out that too frequently, polygamy is immediately associated with Mormonism, while it is also practiced widely by neopagans (Wicca, etc.) and Muslims (though not in the US). I was thankful to him for that point, not only in recognizing that polygamy is not exclusively a Mormon "problem" but also for the fact that I was no longer the person in the room with the weirdest religion (he had previously confessed that he himself was a neo-pagan).
The reason I mention all this is that it got me thinking about how anger and ridicule over polygamy gets rolled into general anti-Mormonism. Anti-Mormonism did not begin with Joseph's practice of polygamy. The JS-H attests to this; but also there is some argument that Joseph's polygamous wives were not publicly known before his martyrdom, which was a direct result of anti-Mormonism. However, it is likewise indisputable that a large portion of anti-Mormonism in the late 19th and 20th centuries, even up until know, is based in the Church's previous practice of polygamy and the mistaken impression that it is still practiced among us. My impression is that the two (the larger anti-Mormon sentiment and the horror of polygamy) feed off of one another. If polygamy were no longer an issue, anti-Mormons would focus on something else. But many people who might be willing to let Mormons alone on many theological differences get very riled up about the Church's practice of polygamy.
I say this as someone who supports the 1st Amendment rights of polygamists to practice their religious beliefs. I understand that polygamy (particularly as practiced by FLDS) has many attendant evils, e.g. the "Lost Boys", sexual abuse, incest, etc. However, a blanket prohibition on polygamy is too blunt an instrument to deal with these issues. Nor would I be against polygamists who entered into plural marriage for purely secular reasons or simply as a matter of preference. I do not say this as a Mormon, and therefore predisposed to sympathize with polygamists, or as a liberal, and similarly predisposed to allow plurality of belief (and some would say sexual freedom). Rather I think the liberty-related imperatives of our Constitution show that previous laws or decisions that would prohibit polygamy were profoundly mistaken and un-American.
The reason I mention all this is that it got me thinking about how anger and ridicule over polygamy gets rolled into general anti-Mormonism. Anti-Mormonism did not begin with Joseph's practice of polygamy. The JS-H attests to this; but also there is some argument that Joseph's polygamous wives were not publicly known before his martyrdom, which was a direct result of anti-Mormonism. However, it is likewise indisputable that a large portion of anti-Mormonism in the late 19th and 20th centuries, even up until know, is based in the Church's previous practice of polygamy and the mistaken impression that it is still practiced among us. My impression is that the two (the larger anti-Mormon sentiment and the horror of polygamy) feed off of one another. If polygamy were no longer an issue, anti-Mormons would focus on something else. But many people who might be willing to let Mormons alone on many theological differences get very riled up about the Church's practice of polygamy.
I say this as someone who supports the 1st Amendment rights of polygamists to practice their religious beliefs. I understand that polygamy (particularly as practiced by FLDS) has many attendant evils, e.g. the "Lost Boys", sexual abuse, incest, etc. However, a blanket prohibition on polygamy is too blunt an instrument to deal with these issues. Nor would I be against polygamists who entered into plural marriage for purely secular reasons or simply as a matter of preference. I do not say this as a Mormon, and therefore predisposed to sympathize with polygamists, or as a liberal, and similarly predisposed to allow plurality of belief (and some would say sexual freedom). Rather I think the liberty-related imperatives of our Constitution show that previous laws or decisions that would prohibit polygamy were profoundly mistaken and un-American.
Apology for Mountain Meadows
For those who had not heard, the Church, through Elder Henry B. Eyring, of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, issued an "apology" for the Mountain Meadows Massacre (hereinafter MMM). Some might gripe that the actual word apology or apologize is never used, and they would be right. However, the right sentiments and contrition are there. I hope that this will satisfy all the people who have hoped and waited for such an apology over many years. In my opinion, such an apology is long overdue. That there was complicity or responsibility for the MMM attributable to some Church members has not been in doubt (except among the most stubborn and closed-minded LDS) for many years now. It would have been better to come forward earlier when such an apology and acknowledgment of responsibility was not a foregone conclusion. Hopefully the healing can begin, both for the members of the Church who in their hearts have not recognized the capacity for evil in all men, even otherwise upstanding citizens and Mormons, and for the families and descendants of the victims, who may have held a grudge against the Church for too long now.
Also, I can't wait to get the new OUP book on MMM by Richard Turley, et al.
Also, I can't wait to get the new OUP book on MMM by Richard Turley, et al.
09 September 2007
Judges don't know Jesus (or Muhammed, or Buddha, or...)
In my other life, I'm a law student and therefore an aspiring lawyer. I am always interested in court cases that involve churches or religion, and even more so when it involves the LDS Church (see my posts from about a month or so ago). What I have noticed is an unfortunate fact that courts do an incredibly poor job of taking cognizance of religious doctrine and organization. Some people may say that a court has no business delving into a religion's doctrine and in many instances they would be correct. However, I can think of a couple of situations (including the OR Supreme Court case I discussed earlier) where it would be appropriate and necessary for a court to do so.
That being said, we, the Latter-day Saints, don't exactly make this easy on them. I have seen some pretty awkward citations of the standard works as proof of our doctrine, but we know that we don't believe everything in the scriptures and the scriptures don't contain everything we believe. What is a judge to do? Does the Prophet have to be put up on the stand or deposed out of court? Even then, we don't (or should not) make doctrine out of everything the Prophet says. A judge who is Mormon should clearly recuse himself/herself from any case involving the Church, so he/she would be little to no help. Supposedly unbiased and objective scholarship of the Church typically misapprehends the true form or substance of our beliefs as well, so it is an equally unreliable source. I guess my tentative conclusion is that we cannot expect to see any improvement in the treatment of religious doctrine in judicial opinions, because the sources are notoriously conflicted (even in our own hierarchical Church).
That being said, we, the Latter-day Saints, don't exactly make this easy on them. I have seen some pretty awkward citations of the standard works as proof of our doctrine, but we know that we don't believe everything in the scriptures and the scriptures don't contain everything we believe. What is a judge to do? Does the Prophet have to be put up on the stand or deposed out of court? Even then, we don't (or should not) make doctrine out of everything the Prophet says. A judge who is Mormon should clearly recuse himself/herself from any case involving the Church, so he/she would be little to no help. Supposedly unbiased and objective scholarship of the Church typically misapprehends the true form or substance of our beliefs as well, so it is an equally unreliable source. I guess my tentative conclusion is that we cannot expect to see any improvement in the treatment of religious doctrine in judicial opinions, because the sources are notoriously conflicted (even in our own hierarchical Church).
02 September 2007
A question of propriety
My uncle (mother's brother) died suddenly and unexpectedly over the weekend. I have not been asked to give a eulogy and do not expect to be. I am the only Mormon in my family (besides my wife) and my parents and assorted other relatives have been vocally anti-Mormon in the not-so-distant past.
If you were in my place, would you dare to use scriptures from the standard works other than the KJV Bible? I can think of many scriptures that would be both enlightening and uplifting at the time of a loved one's death that come out of the D&C and the BoM. Would you mention them in a hypothetical eulogy in a non-Mormon chapel?
My wife has also been asked to play the piano during the service. Could she use some LDS hymns that were appropriate to the occasion, but not found in the hymnal of my family's denomination?
In general, how much leeway do I have to use this as an opportunity to share the Gospel and when have I crossed the line and become tacky and even offensive?
If you were in my place, would you dare to use scriptures from the standard works other than the KJV Bible? I can think of many scriptures that would be both enlightening and uplifting at the time of a loved one's death that come out of the D&C and the BoM. Would you mention them in a hypothetical eulogy in a non-Mormon chapel?
My wife has also been asked to play the piano during the service. Could she use some LDS hymns that were appropriate to the occasion, but not found in the hymnal of my family's denomination?
In general, how much leeway do I have to use this as an opportunity to share the Gospel and when have I crossed the line and become tacky and even offensive?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)