The Second Year of The Pierian Spring: 2011 in Review

I’m sure many of you are too busy to be reading the blogs today.  I’m writing on New Year’s Eve.  It’s the day when people are busy involved in festivities with family and friends.  But I would like to take some time to reflect on this year’s comings and goings.

The year 2011 has been very eventful.  I was invited to post at Faith-Promoting Rumors—my sort of test run with group blogging.  It’s been great.  I feel good about the posts I’ve written this year.

• The Saint Pauls of Mormonism (technically 2010 but I still snuck it in)
• God, Self and Spiritual Birth: Two Perspectives
• Roberts and Descartes
• Spiritual Birth: Challenges for Historians
• Givens on Atonement, Agency, and the War in Heaven
• Spiritual Birth: Challenges for Philosophers
• After the Lesson: “God Is No Respecter of Persons”
• Reflecting on Two Years of Gospel Principles 2010-2011

Especially with my post on the ending of the Gospel Principles manual, I really appreciate all the comments and people reading my post.

Thankfully, I’ve also found time to continue with my Understanding the Fall in Mormonism series.  This series is not completed yet and I envision at least two, perhaps three, more posts.  This has been a wonderful experience for me.  I was hoping to have this completed by the time Latter-day Saints start thinking about the Fall again this year.

• Understanding the Fall in Mormonism – Part III: Adam to Michael
• Understanding the Fall in Mormonism – Part IV: The Fall of Man Meets the Plurality of Worlds
• Understanding the Fall in Mormonism – Part V: From Sin to Transgression

This year I was invited to participate as part of one of the bloggers for the Joseph Smith Papers Blogging Event.  Blair does an excellent job covering this event.  This led to me being invited to write a review for the Turley and Slaughter volume.  I’m already behind on writing reviews for other books.

• The Unfolding of Revelation: Reflections on the Joseph Smith Papers
• Richard Turley and William Slaughter’s How We Got the Book of Mormon

2011 was a wonderful time of scholarship, navel gazing, and debates about Mormon theology, the beginning of a new academic journal of Mormonism, and several great books, interviews, and other posts.

One of my favorite posts this year came from Ben Park titled Scholarship as “Intellectual Kinship”: Richard Bushman’s Vision for the Academic Community.  I like Ben’s post because, although I’m not a religious studies scholar, I feel I belong to this community of thinkers.

One thing that happened this year was I began to work quite a bit.  It is a great blessing, especially during this time of economic turmoil and uncertainty, but in another respect I’ve missed being able to spend more time engaging in conversations and discussions about the things of greatest import.  I haven’t had time to respond or participate in discussions about Grant Hardy’s Understanding the Book of Mormon, or Taylor Petrey’s Dialogue article, or Adam Miller’s discussions of James Faulconer’s book, or Joseph Spencer’s post on reading the scriptures, or write a review of Charles Harrell’s This Is My Doctrine, or several other books on my reading list.  Not to mention that there have been several really solid podcast interviews, some I’ve just barely gotten around to listening and others still on my list.

This is where I find consolation and comfort in my friends.  Those friends of mine I can call on my way home from work and discuss some new book that has come out or talk about how we find some statement made at church frustrating.  It’s been wonderful.  I can speak with or chat or email with my friends that I’ve met through blogging than I could with people I know in “real life.”  So thank you, and thanks to all who read and lurk out there and to those to make comments and even argue with my reasoning.  It all enhances the quality of life.  I look forward to next year.

Exploring the Book of Mormon with Givens, Hardy, and Skousen

As we embark on the next iteration of the 4-year curriculum rotation for Sunday school curriculum, I find myself grateful that I live in an age where Book of Mormon scholarship has produced many fine choices for the student of the Book.

The way I see it, every generation seems to have individuals who long nostalgically for a prior age where, it would seem, we were better off economically, spiritually, or culturally.  While perhaps none of us can escape those thoughts from time to time, the present looks mighty good in terms works on the Book of Mormon.

In our age, who is shaping our discourse on the Book of Mormon?  Every voice shapes our discourse, yet there are three scholars in particular whose work seems unavoidable today (not that you would want to avoid them!) and who seem to be instrumental in advancing our discourse in new and fruitful directions.

Terryl Givens, By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a World Religion (Oxford University Press, 2002).

Terryl Givens, The Book of Mormon: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2009)

I still remember first reading By the Hand of Mormon.  During lunch with a friend of mine I remember sharing Givens’ argument that early Mormons understood the Book of Mormon’s importance for what it signifies, rather than important for the message it contains.  Living in a Post-Benson Latter-day world, my friend was skeptical of such an argument and was not persuaded.  I, on the other hand, was intrigued by the claim and didn’t need much argument to be convinced.

Reflecting on Two Years of Gospel Principles 2010-2011

As early as July 2009, news of a revised and updated version of the classic 1978 Gospel Principles manual hit the Mormon blogs, causing no small commotion.  There were questions about how much it was really revised (it wasn’t revised much).  Some observed that Bruce R. McConkie citations were eliminated (in reality only about 4 citations were removed but the material remained, and frankly never needed a citation to back it up anyway as it was rather standard and uncontroversial).  Some were excited about “getting back to basics” (as if we hadn’t been studying “the basics” since introducing the Teachings of the Presidents of the Church series in 1998).

But aside from all of that, the most interesting phenomena I observed was an extremely large amount of hope that this new and improved Gospel Principles manual was going to solve one of the most deeply problematic issues facing church membership today: the quality of Gospel instruction in Church meetings.   News of the arrival of the new manual became an opportunity (or outlet) for Mormon bloggers to reflect on the fruits of Correlation and the failures of Church Sunday School classes to challenge, engage, and inspire.

After the dust had settled, it seemed to me that the general consensus was that the anonymous and faceless generic Church manual was the culprit. “The Manual”—that relic of correlation was the cause of all of our problems.

Understanding the Fall in Mormonism – Part V: From Sin to Transgression

This is Part V in a multi-part series exploring the concept of the Fall in Mormon thought. Part I and Part II explores the Fall as described in the Book of Mormon. Part III explores the Adam-Michael connection and its implications. Part IV explores the Fall in light of a plurality of worlds.  Part V explores the birth of the distinction between sin and transgression. Part VI forthcoming…

We have been exploring the development of the Mormon concept of a positive fall.  While some observers point to Lehi in the Book of Mormon as the originator of the fortunate fall, the Book of Mormon, taken as a whole, views the Fall as a result of man’s disobedience and caused by the temptations of the devil.  The Book of Mormon labels the fruit of the tree as “forbidden,” and the Book of Moses spoke of Adam’s actions as “sin.”[1]  The Plan of Salvation as expounded in the Book of Mormon is the response to the Fall.

What I’ve attempted to show is the driving forces or undercurrents developing in Mormonism, propelling it towards a positive view of the Fall.  Such forces include the expanding role of Adam as prophet and patriarch with connections to priesthood, his post-mortal identity as Michael the archangel.  Michael’s role would expand from the traditional archangel role to a joint-creator of the earth in premortal councils.  Once the doctrine of pre-mortal existence developed, the fall of man was seen opening the floodgates; the act that allowed all the billions of spirits waiting in premortal existence the opportunity to experience mortality.  How could that act—so crucial to the salvation drama—be wrong?

Understanding the Fall in Mormonism – Part IV: The Fall of Man Meets the Plurality of Worlds

This is Part IV in a multi-part series examining the concept of the Fall in Mormon thought. This post will explore the ways in which the Fall has been influenced by the plurality of worlds idea. Part I and Part II explores the Fall as described in the Book of Mormon. Part III explores the Adam-Michael connection and its implications. Part V explores the birth of the distinction between sin and transgression.

Perhaps the most significant impetus to Mormonism’s positive view of the fall is the revelation known as the Book of Moses. This revelation came to Joseph Smith in June of 1830—only two months after the organization of the Church, and three months after the publication of the Book of Mormon.

The Book of Moses is perhaps best described as a prequel to the creation account as given in the Book of Genesis. God shows Moses a piercing vision of the world that increases in resolution as the vision unfolds.

Richard Turley and William Slaughter’s How We Got the Book of Mormon

“Although we cite scholarly sources we intend this book for general readers and have followed widely accepted editing practices aimed at ease of reading.” “Readers can verify the facts in our book by consulting the sources cited in the notes, which we have deliberately tucked in the back so as not to interrupt our narratives.”[1]

So begin Richard E. Turley and William M. Slaughter in the Preface of their book How We Got the Book of Mormon. The reassuring tone of the Preface reveals the authors’ perceptions that the general reader is, perhaps, wary of books with citations and references. Turley, in a recent interview states “We feel that general readers can benefit from excellent work done by scholars in recent years, but many general readers won’t approach works written by scholars for scholars.”[2] The reassuring Preface doubles as a challenge. The authors throw down the gauntlet to the adventurous reader and encourage her to “verify facts,” thus raising the bar for books produced for a general audience. Every reader will be better off for having read the book.

After the Lesson: “God Is No Respecter of Persons”

Most scholars accept that the author of the Gospel of Luke is also the author of the Book of Acts. In this post, I will refer to the author of the Gospel of Luke and Book of Acts as Luke. All scriptures are from the New Revised Standard Version.

Some time ago I was sitting in Sunday School and the lesson (New Testament Lesson 30) covered Acts 10. As I read Acts, something about the Lukan account of Peter bothered me. Luke has Peter relate to Cornelius and those that were with him the details of his ‘trance’ and subsequent understanding of its meaning.

But Peter said, ‘By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is profane or unclean.’ The voice said to him again, a second time, ‘What God has made clean, you must not call profane.’ (Acts 10:14-15).

You yourselves know that it is unlawful for a Jew to associate with or to visit a Gentile; but God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean. (Acts 10:28).

Did not Jesus already provide this kind of instruction to the apostles? For example, Mark and Matthew have Jesus tell the apostles:

Spiritual Birth: Challenges for Philosophers

Earlier this year we explored some of the historical challenges for telling the story of “spirit birth” in Mormon theological history. In this post, we will turn our attention to the philosophical challenges raised by “spirit birth.” Again, here we are less concerned with tracing the teaching to Joseph Smith as we are examining the implications of spirit birth given our tradition. Some of the most detailed treatment of the topic is given by Parley P. Pratt and Orson Pratt. However, developing a coherent theology of spiritual birth is something Mormon theologians have not been interested in doing. Blake Ostler, for example, says little about this doctrine in his multi-volume series Exploring Mormon Thought, other than to conclude it probably does not originate with Joseph Smith. Indeed, others may feel little is to be gained from developing a theology of spirit birth. However, for those who are interested in developing a coherent theology of spirit birth several challenges exist.

1. Early Mormon thinkers believed that our spirits are fashioned from spiritual element or spiritual matter. Thus, God has complete control when he configures each of our spirits. Parley P. Pratt and Orson Pratt understood intelligence as an attribute of spiritual element. Thus, given this metaphysics, God is the one who determines the intelligence of our spirits, and therefore the question arises as to how fair it is to judge us according to our intelligence when this is predetermined by God when he creates us. Parley P. Pratt recognized this dilemma and argued that God does not create this intelligence. The level of intelligence, rather, is a function of the particular element used to form our spirits, and element differs in its level of intelligence. Pratt should be credited with acknowledging this dilemma even if his solution doesn’t quite solve the problem. One can presume that God still has control over the particular element used in the organization of our spirits. Isn’t there some consequence in how God creates our spirits? Is there any significant difference between God creating our spirits from preexisting spiritual element and God creating our spirits out of nothing? Doesn’t this lead to a kind of determinism?

Givens on Atonement, Agency, and the War in Heaven

I

Terryl L. Givens, professor of literature and religion at the University of Richmond, published two articles in Meridian Magazine early this year, taking up the perennially problematic topic of divine justice.[1] Givens ends part one with this promise:

I believe what will provide greater clarity on [the problem of suffering], as well as greater clarity about LDS conceptions of the war in heaven, the purpose of mortal life, and the nature of the atonement, is a more coherent account of the meaning and role of moral agency. So in what follows, I want to make some very tentative efforts in that regard.

This is a serious claim. In this post, I would like engage Givens’ ideas, explore whether the article delivers on its claim, and offer a tentative critique of my own.

One of Givens’ central arguments is that human agency cannot exist unless every choice is linked to its natural consequence. For example, if an ice cream parlor offers several choices of ice cream, but everyone is served the same flavor no matter what they order, Givens might point out that in reality there was no choice. Merely providing choice is not the essential ingredient of freedom—it is guaranteeing that choices have predictable consequences. Otherwise, we end up with, in Givens’ words, a sham, “a mere pantomime of decision-making.” From here, Givens discusses the true nature of Satan’s alternative plan—a plan not brought about by coercion—but brought about by the seductive delinking of choice from consequence.

The Unfolding of Revelation: Reflections on the Joseph Smith Papers

As readers are probably aware, owing to the several reports, an unprecedented event took place recently. On March 23, the Church Historian’s Press invited several bloggers to meet in person and via video conference with Robin Jensen, Richard E. Turley, Jr, and Riley Lorimer—the three editors of the newly released and long awaited next installment of The Joseph Smith Papers: Revelations and Translations, Volume Two: Published Revelations.

By a series of fortunate events, I found myself with the unique opportunity to attend. At the appointed time I logged into the video conference software on my laptop, where I was instantly greeted by a view of the Cumorah Room on the fourth floor of the Church History Library, the editors, local attendees, and fellow “virtual” participants. The default setting of the video conference software displayed the webcams of participants in what reminded me of the opening blue box credits of The Brady Bunch, except populated, thankfully, with friendly faces from the blogging world—each one anticipating news of the new volume and many coming with questions.