Why “Mormon Doctrine” Isn’t Doctrine

After posting an explanation as to why it is incorrect to assign other Christian denominations to the Great and Abominable church, I received a “loving” rebuke from someone accusing me of sinning, through lying, by omission. In fact, I think John W Redelf is trying to the use the same “loving” tactics as some of our loving ex-Mormons. I just find it funny that Redlef’s sin is not knowing where doctrine comes from (it comes to lowly seventy of course, why bother the Prophet, he’s got administration to do).

The assumption this “man” makes is intent. Number one, this man has no way of judging the intent of me or any other human. Two, this man’s form of disputation is a very good example arrogant Mormonism, calling someone a liar because they have viewpoints you disagree with.
I’m going to approach this by first off agreeing with another commenter on a blog. I do respect a lot of the effort Bruce R. McConkie did to study the scriptures. I respect him for trying hard and being wrong in spite of his efforts. It gives me hope that God can still do great things with those who are wrong. But that doesn’t make McConkie infallible. I agree with Geoff J. that Bruce R. McConkie was a man with opinions just like anyone else. Geoff wrote: “Apostles have the right to be wrong on occasion too.”

The reason Redelfs accuses me of lying, is because I have omitted the “real” story of how Mormon Doctrine came to be “authorized” by the church. While Redelf admits McConkie never claimed his book was official church doctrine, Redelf himself insists that somehow the book was “authorized” to be re-published. The problem is how Redelf claims this happened. We have a historical record, written President McKay, where he says he did not authorize any other editions of “Mormon Doctrine.” McConkie, on the other hand, also records his own historical record, where he claims he did have an authorization to produce another edition. How Redelf thinks accusing McKay of lying in order to save McConkie’s skin is a good thing for the church is beyond me. I personally believe McKay’s record, rather than McConkie’s. I mean, McKay didn’t have his own pride to save by writing the record that way, whereas McConkie, and McConkie’s family, certainly does.

Here’s the historian’s comments who wrote the Biography on David O. McKay:

It is clear, from comparing the two simultaneous, first-hand accounts of McConkie’s meeting with McKay, that they portray the meeting in very different light. When McKay’s own account has him saying, “. . . should the book be republished at this time . . . it will not be a Church publication . . .” and McConkie claims McKay “indicated that the book should be republished at this time . . .”, there is a definite disconnect.

Furthermore, Redelf insists that sharing how Elder Mark E Peterson found 1067 errors in the book Mormon Doctrine makes one a liar, because one is “abusing one of [God’s] true prophets.” I’m not sure how sharing an apostle’s findings makes one a liar. Is Redelf really that bold to insist that Elder Peterson, of the Quorum of the Twelve apostles at the time, was lying about and abusing “one of [God’s] true prophets”, when Elder McConkie wasn’t even an apostle when he wrote his book?

Redelf’s final snark is really kind of funny. I’m actually thinking of sending this to his Bishop, just because if his Bishop isn’t aware of this man, he’s missing out on comedic opportunities. “Shame on those saints that spend their lives running down the memory and reputation of Bruce R. McConkie. Those who do it are unworthy to kiss his feet.” I’m glad I can be of some use to Redelf here. While I recognize that he’s too busy reading and defending Mormon Doctrine to read in the standard works (the official teachings of the church), there’s this amazing story in the Revelation of John. When John is confronted with an Angel of indescribable glory, he falls at his feet to worship the angel, and he was forbidden from doing it, because even as an angel, a messenger of God, clothed in God’s authority and power, he was still not a divine being. Like this angel, McConkie was but a fellow-servant, and I will never worship him, and it is blasphemous for Redelf to even use the example, even in jest. Revelation 19:

10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

I’m also going to take the time to rebut some of the arguments put forth by Joseph Fielding McConkie, in an interview at Meridian Magazine.

Question: How is it, then, that the book was reissued?
Response: On July 5, 1966, President McKay invited Elder McConkie into his office and gave approval for the book to be reprinted if appropriate changes were made and approved. Elder Spencer W. Kimball was assigned to be Elder McConkie’s mentor in making those changes.
Response: Yes, but if they would think about it, that assertion does not make much sense. … It could also be noted that Mormon Doctrine was reissued in 1966, and its author was called to the Quorum of the Twelve in 1972. It takes a pretty good imagination to suppose that a man who flagrantly ignored the direction of the president of the Church and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles would be called to fill a vacancy in that body.
…Bruce McConkie would have died a thousand deaths before he would have disregarded the prophet’s counsel or that of the Quorum of the Twelve….

The problem I have with JFM’s “logic” is that there are a number of possibilities that he doesn’t consider. He doesn’t consider that 1) permission might not have been granted, and 2) BRM thought he had obtained permission. I know in my own life, people tend to hear what they want to hear. While I don’t doubt BRM’s integrity in thinking that he lied about it, I do think he was incorrect. It is clear from the historical record, that McKay did not authorize any other printings. Joseph Fielding McConkie also makes a number of assumptions about how things work when apostles are called. Joseph Fielding McConkie assumes that if Bruce R McConkie had disobeyed a prophet two previous to the time of his call, that he automatically wouldn’t be called as an apostle later on. Maybe not everyone was aware that he HAD disobeyed. It already seems clear he had persuaded himself that he hadn’t done anything wrong. And with McKay’s declining health, we shouldn’t make assumptions about anything not in the historical record, where he clearly did not authorize the second edition. Joseph Fielding McConkie also appears to believe calls to the apostleship are based more on human observations of obedience rather than the will of God. That’s really kind of sad for a religion professor at Brigham Young University. FWIW, I can see Bruce R. McConkie having deluded himself, and being incorrect about whether he could publish, God forgiving him and still having him called as an apostle. But let’s all remember, he was never called as the prophet, the only man authorized to receive revelation for the church, and the only man authorized to exercise all priesthood keys.

Defining the Great and Abominable Church

My Evangelical friends should know that I have worked tirelessly to excise the inappropriate usage of some Mormons to consign all other denominations to the heading “great and abominable church” (GAC).

I’m fairly certain, that this has been promulgated the most by the authoritative sounding book published by the late Bruce R. McConkie (BRM). While BRM was an LDS apostle, at the time his book was published he was not an LDS apostle. For a number of reasons why this book was problematic, (as seen from the leadership of the Church), you can see a number of sources, including this one.  Of particular note, is the need of over 1000 corrections, and even then, the President of the Church did not want any other editions published. More information about this can be read about in the biography on David O. McKay.

It’s probably clear by now, that I don’t consider Mormon Doctrine to be “Official Mormon Doctrine.” I point out that the book has never passed the Church’s correlation, and therefore, I don’t think anyone should use McConkie’s writings as “the official” way to interpret LDS scriptures. In fact, in discussing the “Great and Abominable Church,” there is a writing that HAS passed Church correlation. I think that all LDS church members should read this talk before ascribing anyone to the “great and abominable church.”

The article was written by Stephen Robinson, and is found in the 1988 January Ensign magazine, entitled “Warring against the Saints of God,” on page 34.   You can read the entire article for yourself, and also check my conclusions, but I’m going to give a paraphrase of the article.

Nephi’s vision in 1 Nephi chapters 13 and 14 fits into the genre of apocalyptic literature, meaning that the seer is caught up in vision and sees things from God’s perspective. “Time ceases to be an important element; this is one reason the chronology in Revelation at times seems to be scrambled: with God there is no time as we reckon it. (See Alma 40:8.)” Because of the symbolic nature of apocalyptic visions, usually an angelic interpreter is required. The symbols are all-inclusive: all things can be placed into the categories. While the name of the symbol may change, the character, that which defines the symbol, always stays the same. And while a symbol could theoretically stand for a single thing, often it doesn’t. For instance Babylon doesn’t describe a single city, it describes a situation, one script, one plot. Therefore, in apocalyptic literature, the important point is identifying the patterns and characteristics of those categories.

Vocab:
We are informed that great means large, and abominable means that which God hates, often being associated with idolatrous worship or gross sexual immorality.
The Hebrew and Greek words for “church” have a broader meaning anciently than our modern use of church, meaning basically any association of those with the same loyalties, and was not restrictive to mere religious associations.

Robinson posits that the term great and abominable church should mean: “an immense assembly or association of people bound together by their loyalty to that which God hates. Most likely, this “church” is involved specifically in sexual immorality, idolatry (that is, false worship), or both.” Then Robinson lists the major characteristics of the GAC as found in 1 Nephi and compares that with the characteristics of Babylon as found in Revelation.

1. The GAC persecutes, tortures, and slays the Saints of God. (See 1 Ne. 13:5.) & Babylon is drunk with the blood of the Saints, the martyrs of Jesus, and the prophets. (See Rev. 17:6; Rev. 18:24.)
2. The GAC seeks wealth and luxury. (See 1 Ne. 13:7–8.) & Bablyon is known for her enjoyment of great wealth and luxury. (See Rev. 17:4; Rev. 18:3, 11–16.)
3. The GAC is characterized by sexual immorality. (See 1 Ne. 13:7.) & Babylon is characterized by wanton sexual immorality. (See Rev. 17:1–2, 5.)
4. The GAC has dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people. (See 1 Ne. 14:11.) and Babylon has dominion over all nations. (See Rev. 17:15, 18; Rev. 18:3, 23–24.)
5. Its fate is to be consumed by a world war, when the nations it incites against the Saints war among themselves until the great and abominable church itself is destroyed. (See 1 Ne. 22:13–14.) and Babylon’s fate is to be consumed by the very kings who, because of her deceptions, have made war on the Lamb. (See Rev. 17:14–16; Rev. 18:23.)
6. The GAC has excised plain and precious things from the scriptures. (See 1 Ne. 13:26–29.)

In Revelation, there are several symbols of the devil’s kingdom. The un-virtuous woman representing false religion, and not kingdoms or governments as the beast and its horns do.

Chapters 13 and 14 of 1 Nephi use different definitions for “church” and therefore can cause an apparent contradiction. In Chapter 13, the GAC is one SPECIFIC church among many others that are not ‘great and abominable’. The language of “most abominable above all other churches (1 Ne. 13:5, 26) does not make sense otherwise.” Further, the church described in chapter 13 has a “specific historical description: it was formed among the Gentiles after the Jews transmitted the Bible in its purity to the Gentiles. (1 Ne. 13:26.) It is also the specific historical agent responsible for excising plain and precious truths from the scriptural record.” We’re also reminded that the GAC did it’s work after the end of the first century a.d.

In Chapter 14, on the other hand, an exclusionary definition of church is used, instead of many possible different churches or organizations, only two are talked about. Robinson asks: “ How can the devil’s church or churches be one and many at the same time? …. The answer is that the term is used in two different ways in 1 Nephi 13–14. In chapter 13 it is used historically, and in chapter 14 it is used typologically.”

Robinson quotes 2 Nephi 10:16 to describe this typology: “He that fighteth against Zion, both Jew and Gentile, both bond and free, both male and female, shall perish; for they are they who are the whore of all the earth; for they who are not for me are against me, saith our God.” (Italics added.)” If we apply the definitions of apocalyptic literature to the GAC (one exclusive and historical and the other inclusive and archetypical, we see the historical in chapter 13 and the archetypal in chapter 14.

Some further information about apocalyptic literature:

“Apocalyptic literature is dualistic. Since it deals with types, everything boils down to opposing principles: love and hate, good and evil, light and dark. There are no gray areas in apocalyptic writing. In this sense, there are only two categories in the realm of religion: religion that will save and religion that won’t. The former is the church of the Lamb, and the latter, no matter how well intentioned, is a counterfeit.”

This is how Robinson applies the distinction to the Great and Abominable Church.

“In the historical sense, though, only one entity can be the great and abominable church. Well-intentioned churches would thus not qualify as the mother of abominations described in 1 Nephi 13. They do not slay the saints of God nor seek to control civil governments nor pursue wealth, luxury, and sexual immorality. In either the apocalyptic sense or the historical sense, individual orientation to the Church of the Lamb or to the great and abominable church is not by membership but by loyalty.”

At this point, it is probably good to recap what Robinson wrote: Well-intentioned churches do not qualify as the GAC defined by 1 Nephi 13 because they do not fulfill the qualifications outlined in 1 Nephi 13. Furthermore, for both definitions of GAC, loyalty is more important than membership, and since no mortal has the ability to see into another person’s heart and judge them, we are wrong to judge their loyalty by calling them a member of the GAC.

Robinson’s money quote, which passed church correlation just fine: “Just as there Latter-day Saints who belong to the great and abominable church because of their loyalty to Satan and his life-style, so there are members of other churches who belong to the Lamb because of their loyalty to him and his life-style. Membership is based more on who has your heart than on who has your records.”

Finally, the smack-down: “Some Latter-day Saints have erred in believing that some specific denomination, to the exclusion of all others, has since the beginning of time been the great and abominable church. This is dangerous, for many will then want to know which it is, and an antagonistic relationship with that denomination will inevitably follow.”
Robinson then outlines how Judaic elements were not able to fulfill the scriptural requirements of belonging to the GAC. After which, Robinson outlines why it is untenable for Roman Catholicism to be considered the GAC. Untenable means undefendable. All Robinson has to do to show that something is indefensible is to show that any of the claims are wrong. Robinson shows this by recognizing the historical fact that the Roman Catholic Church did not exist when the GAC was doing it’s work. Robinson shows that the plain and precious parts were already removed by 313 AD, before the Catholic church was made a state religion by Constantine. Robinson shows how the orthodox church was not known for it’s immorality (rather its asceticism), and how they weren’t able to persecute any saints, as they had NO power, and were themselves being persecuted!
So Robinson’s conclusion was that “The Catholic church of the fourth century was the result of the Apostasy—its end product—not the cause.”
And therefore it would be incorrect to call the Catholic church or anything that came after the Catholic church the GAC.

Robinson then outlines how we know of no historical church, denomination, or set of believers that meet the requirements for being the great and abominable church, because no historical organization fulfills the requirements listed in the scriptures. The reason we know of no historical church is because we have the fewest primary historical sources. After this historical blind-spot, we find a different entity than the one that Christ organized, Hellenized (or made-Greek) Christianity. While LDS do not believe that Hellenized Christianity maintained the same fullness necessary, one should also not conflate Hellenized (and incomplete) Christianity with the Great and Abominable Church.

I conclude with Brother Robinson’s final paragraph:
“The historical abominable church of the devil is that apostate church that replaced true Christianity in the first and second centuries, teaching the philosophies of men mingled with scriptures. It dethroned God in the church and replaced him with man by denying the principle of revelation and turning instead to human intellect. As the product of human agency, its creeds were an abomination to the Lord, for they were idolatry: men worshipping the creations, not of their own hands, but of their own minds.
Babylon in the first and second centuries may even have been a collection of different movements. Some Jewish Christians couldn’t let go of the law of Moses and eventually gave up Christ instead. The Orthodox Christians adopted Greek philosophy. The Gnostics wallowed in the mysteries and in unspeakable practices on the one hand or in neurotic asceticism on the other. Second-century compilers like Tatian and Marcion rewrote the scriptures, the latter boldly chopping out anything he didn’t like. And all of them together forced the virtuous woman, the true church of Jesus Christ, into the wilderness.”

Go ye Now in Peace

Amen!

An Average Mormon

I heard a funny story about myself today: Apparently, I’m an average Mormon.

Several months ago when my new roommate arrived, I took him on a tour of the city, and helped him move his stuff in. You know, the same things anyone would do for a roommate. He then told his sister.

Several weeks later, his sister asked: “So how are things going with your roommate?” “Which, the member or the non-member.” She responded, “you know, the average Mormon.”

Upon hearing this response, my roommate burst into laughter, knowing that I am, by no means an average Mormon. But I guess, even when I was inactive, I acted like one. Who would’ve thunk it?

Atheist’s Watermellon

This is funny.

Remedial Statistics

Recently, I was able to quite impress a Young Lady (doing statistical biology) by (honestly) stating that statistics should be more required in high school, and college.

Jack’s comment here made me want to make the following comment. The reason people anything like, “Not in my experience” or “not in my ward” is to show that it’s not a mainline or mainstream strain of thought. That is, assume an individual who has been in the church for ten years has been in three wards, each with 200 people in it. Assume next the individual blogging is aware of many of the struggles of those in their wards (either as a leader, or as a member on which the struggling person has turned to for support). Now of course, not everyone knows everything, but large scandals are going to get some attention. That means, even within a stake (of over 2000 people), you’re going to hear about the big scandals, and not just the small stuff. So, usually a blogger can assume that they have some of the shared experience of at least 600 people, and a superficial awareness of large scandals of around some 6000 people. In any case, the number of people required by the central limit theorem is only some 30 people. So, a blogger is justified in believing that most statistics they experience are in some way valid. Therefore, when someone hasn’t experienced something what they’re doing is placing an upper limit on how prevalent that is. What do they end up finding? While the LDS standard deviation is much smaller than the rest of Christendom or American culture, it is still finite. Such lack of experience means that the occurance is very, very rare. Not even a three sigma deviation, but something even more rare. As such a statistical outlier, is it really fair to focus so much time and attention on it? I don’t think so. I mean, regular Christians certainly aren’t fond of liberal lefties equating all Christianity with their statistical outliers, such as abortion clinic bombers, abortion doctor murderers, and other wackos.

So I guess what I’m trying to say is, when anyone says, “I’ve never experienced that,” they ARE NOT saying that it’s impossible, or even highly improbable. But rather, the event is very uncommon. This stands in oppostion to those with a psycholociacal need to tear down the LDS church.

As I mentioned before, I’m no inerrantist. I have no psychological need to prove every leader or person on the LDS church as perfect. I have no false faith that no Stake President or Mission President has ever done anything morally depraved. But statistically, I am justified in recognizng that those who visit the post-Mormon boards have less trust than a random stake President or Mission President, and without some other kind of evidence, I’m not likely to be persuaded. I have no need to doubt someone’s honesty or sincerity, but just because someone’s sincere or honest doesn’t make them right. Evidence not just innuendo is how you persuade. In America, someone is innocent until proven guilty, and Gloria has provided no evidence.

On Bearing False Witness

From the heights of Sinai, the voice of Yahweh commanded Moses, the Israelites, and all people to keep the Ten Commandments. One of those commandments was against lying. “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” This is a commandment broken almost constantly by everyone, both purposefully and unintentionally. People tell non-truths all the time, “No it doesn’t make you look fat” (intentional), “Um, the answer is b”, even though the answer was a. They answered honestly about what they thought, but untruthfully about what the answer was. But there is a certain ugliness when the person knows the answer isn’t true. Because of the vicissitudes of humanity, we must be careful about whom we believe, and I’ve never met anyone who believes everyone. I believe those who have built up a history of telling me truthful things. Those who constantly tell me things which I know to be untrue, I learn to not trust. There are people I trust with knowledge of science that I do not trust with knowledge of God, or with knowledge of “how to treat people”. There are people with knowledge of God that I do not trust with knowledge of science.

But it is not an “extreme viewpoint” to believe someone or not. Those who set this up as an extreme option are really showing their own delusional thinking. Every day, each of us makes a conscious decision of whom we’ll choose to believe and who we won’t. It is neither extreme nor unexpected.

Nor does disbelieving someone have anything to do with whether not someone believes another is a liar. There are other options. For instance, someone who insists that the squareroot of 26 is 5 doesn’t necessarily have to be a liar. No matter what, they’re wrong. But in their head, they could honestly believe that 5×5=26. Let’s set this up.
Grandma says: “5×5=26, therefore, 5 is the squareroot of 26″.
PC: “Um Grandma, I don’t believe you.”
Now at this moment, one’s siblings could start breaking in with judgemental and arrogant comments such as, “PC, you’re calling grandma a liar.” But that’s just not true. Know, if I knew that grandma new better, and said, “Grandma, you’re lying” then that statement would have been true. Instead, I was stating a fact, “I don’t believe Grandma, she’s mistaken.”

Now my personal reasons in thinking how Grandma is mistaken here are personal, and I don’t think it’d be fair to express. But there’s nothing inappropriate, extreme, or incorrect in expressing disbelief.

Now, to change the subject a bit.
I don’t have much patience for those who bring up accusations in vague, unverifiable ways. Hugh Nibley’s daughter came out with a book after her father passed away. During his life, he had refuted her accusations, but didn’t have a chance to refute her written record. Of course, the sisters who had slept in the same room with the girl did refute her “recovered memories”, which fits in good accord with modern science which has shown that most of these “recovered memories” are merely falsities suggested to supposed victims.

Mackenzie Phillips also came out with accusations after her fathers death. While I tend to actually believe her infinitely more than Beck, I do find the tactic of waiting until after someone has passed on to be unforgivable. I mean, it is now absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to verify most of her stories. Of course, that won’t stop the weak minds from thinking they know the absolute truth. Sad.

So here’s what I’m asking. Be willing to provide some evidence so that your story can be verified or invalidated. Provide some evidence and details. Be specific. Let’s hear your name, your age, your mission, so we can go find out who the mission president was, and confront him. Let’s extract some verifiable truth rather than abstract accusations. Let’s see a sealed testimony with an affidavit.

Is that really too much to ask?

Telephone: The Game.

Or, on the Single’s/Married Divide in Illinois.

Here’s an example of the “telephone game”, which is illustrative of a problem in our stake. Last year, two of the great professional musicians in our stake wanted to start a choir, and did so under the institute. The directors chose some wonderful music, designed a diverse and spiritual program, and brought the choir to a great level. All of the concerts were very sparsely attended (they weren’t advertised very well), but it was still a very uplifting experience. The only drawback, in my opinion was the lopsided demographics of the choir. Including the two directors, there were 17 people in the choir. Taking a strict demarcation between conventional wards and the student ward, roughly 1/3 of the choir was from the student ward. Taking a more effectual look at the demarcation, I count the engaged people with the conventional ward against people who are not engaged. That left 2 versus 15 or approximately 1/10 of the choir was representative of the student ward. I know the directors didn’t plan for more married people than single, and they certainly wouldn’t ever want people to think singles were unwelcome.

But there’s a problem with Mormon social culture. Actually, it’s all social cultures. We tend to talk about the things we have in common. Therefore, you get a group of married Mormons together, they will talk solely about their marriage, their children, everything focused on their “marriedness.” In this sense, this is a problem with Mormon social culture: people are defined by their marital status rather than their personhood. So, I tried to get several other people from the student ward to join, but was informed that they have no desire to hang out with people that they consider “cliquish”. One quote I can share is, “I don’t feel welcome, everyone’s married, everything they talk about is their marriage.” This quote doesn’t originate from someone afraid of being with families, she babysits, and does quite a bit with her married friends, they’re just different than the type of people in the choir. Her friends discuss their lives in a way that’s inclusive, whereas choir members would discuss their lives in a way that was exclusive.

I shared this information with a member of the choir, so they could hint to members of the choir to try being more inclusive rather than exclusive. Of course, conversation lead to conversation, and eventually this email was sent to our list-serve:

I also want make sure ward members are clear that the choir is for all stake members of institute age, not married students only. I’ve heard that some people have been told that it is just a “married student thing”, but that has never been the intention of the choir. Last year the choir was about half married students and have (sic) single students, and it would great to have that kind of a group again this year. We would love to have any who are interested in participating from the University ward.

Somewhere between what my friend said, and what I said, and what was reported to the director, there was a little bit of telephone effect. A little bit of a straw-man that was built up. Something which is easy to fight, but what was not a fair representation of what was said. I never said that the intention of the choir was to make a choir of married students to which singles were not invited. I said, that the way the choir had turned had become something to which many singles did not feel welcome, as any socializing before or after focused on the married nature of most of the members of the choir. And, because the director didn’t understand the problem, the email he sent out certainly didn’t address the problem.

In discussing this whole thing with Tomchik, he wrote something very profound, which I share here:

[B]ut I wish that married folks wouldn’t treat the University Ward folks as different, when they are just like anybody else – human beings, members of the Church, who want to fit in, be loved and appreciated, etc. It goes the other way, too, when people in the single’s ward don’t want to participate in something simply because of the high number of married people involved. In essence, I wish no one would view marital status as a social divider, and I wish no one single or married would act in such a way that others would resort to using marital status as a social divider.

But we’re not there yet. And I’ve given up on this stake. I decided to join a community choir instead.

Anthem: A Parable

I don’t play chess. I’m not Russian. I’m incredibly patriotic to the original righteous principles of the Constitution of the United States. But to me, this song isn’t about patriotism to a nation, at least not now. If I was away from the US, (like in Germany), I might view this song within the context of how much I missed my homeland, and yet was still, at heart, fully American (albeit one fully converted to Quark, Gouda , and Schwarz-brot). I can still remember how much I longed and yearned for my homeland.

Fast forward seven years. Due to various circumstances I feel a bit separated from another important force. A lot of it arises because of things I just can’t understand. It used to be because I couldn’t understand a lot of things. The list is somewhat smaller now, but still larger than I can handle. My heart feels far away but in neighborhood but not in spirit. I know I have no idea how to leave the true love of my life, I just don’t know how to get rid of some of the damaging expectations. So my heart is gladdened by the phrase “Let men’s petty nations (forces) tell themselves apart. My land’s only borders lie around my heart.”

Wars on Cultural Mormonism: “Prosperity Teachings”

I want to preface this post with a recognition of how important our personal efforts are in keeping the commandments of God. All of the standard works teach that keeping the commandments is necessary. In fact, the LDS standard works contain a surrogate of the phrase “Keep [my, the] commandments] 264 times, 72 times in the OT, 14 times in the NT, 117 times in the Book of Mormon, 59 times in the D&C, and twice in the PoGP. So I recognize that as saints, we SHOULD be trying to keep the commandments. But the real point of my post is this: I hate the false “prosperity teachings”, that teach us to view God as a divine vending machine, or as someone whose blessings can be purchased. Some call this “the gospel of prosperity” but this is no good news, so it is not a gospel, rather a teaching.

For a while I didn’t know how to reconcile this belief (against the prosperity teachings) with some scriptures in the BoM. But recently, a friend shared a different way of interpreting these verses, that all depend on the pre-conceptions that I bring to the text.

Here are two representative examples of this teaching:

2 Nephi 1:20 And he hath said that: Inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments ye shall prosper in the land; but inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall be cut off from my presence.

Alma 50:20 Blessed art thou and thy children; and they shall be blessed, inasmuch as they shall keep my commandments they shall prosper in the land. But remember, inasmuch as they will not keep my commandments they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord.

Other examples include: 1 Nephi 2:20,22, 1 Nephi 3:16,21; 1 Nephi 4:1,14; and many, many others. And for my gelly friends, be reminded that Jesus himself told us to keep his commandments to show that we love him (John 14:15), and John told us that those who claim to know God, and don’t keep his commandments are liars (1 John 2:3-4). As Jack pointed out (somewhere), both LDS and regular Christianity confine unrepentant liars to a not very happy place (2 Nephi 9:34, Revelation 21:8).

What, therefore, are the preconceived notions I was bringing to the text? Why the Greek ones of course! Being a child of the Greek society, I’ve inherited a Greek worldview. What is the Greek worldview? According to Stephen Robinson, if you look at the Greek literature, the Greek worldview focuses on the individual. The Illiad is the Greek epic poem centered on what happens to a man, Achilles. The Odyssey is the Greek epic poem centered on what happens to Odysseus. Contrast this with the Hebrew worldview, The Hebrew Bible focuses on God’s dealings with “a people.” The Odyssey describes the failings and trials of a man, whereas the Bible describes the failings and trials of a people. The greatest Greek literature teaches an individual to focus on themselves, whereas biblical literature teaches an individual to focus on the community. Take the example of Achan in Joshua 7:21. He had taken spoils of war that God had explicitly commanded him not to. The result: All of Israel suffered until the matter was made right. The focus is not on the individual (Joshua wasn’t the one who sinned), yet Joshua, along with the whole camp, DID suffer. Of course, proper atonement meant the man had to be stoned and burnt, but that’s not the point.^[1] In the Hebrew worldview, the community is the most important, whereas for the Greek’s the individual was most important.

So therefore, when I read the Book of Mormon (from a Greek, individual focuses perspective) I misinterpret the text. I use to read it as a “Any individual who does well (temporally) was obedient to God’s commandments and was blessed (temporally) for that obedience.” Whereas, recognizing that the Nephites were Israelites by culture (“learning of the Jews”), we should read this passage in a communal sense. So, if the people as a people keep the commandments, they can expect to prosper, but not necessarily at an individual level.

I think this viewpoint is further supported by the last chapter of Mosiah (29)

26 Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.
27 And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.

The same problem is found when we interpret Paul’s teachings on predestination or foreordination.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Ephesians 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

So if we insist on reading scripture by a Jew as a Greek we are bound on misinterpreting it, as most Mormons think our Greek-Minded Evangelicals have for the last 500 years.

I’m grateful to have been reminded of this paradigm shift. I feel a little bit more grounded in the scriptures now that I am applying this interpretive tool. I hope it helps some of you too.

Notes

^[1] I’m of course ignoring that most bible scholars consider these story to be an etiology myth.