And thus endeth my sojourn in the wilderness...

So here I sit at 7:17 pm, on Wednesday June 13th of 2006. I just finished my last project and have thus completed my Masters Degree. In the morning I will submit it to my professor, and will then strike out into the real world were gainful employment and mountains of student debt await me.

I would like to dedicate this post to my wife, who the three or four people who have actually been to this site know as Jilopa (she is the one in the middle.) She has been with me for the last four years of school, my last two years of undergraduate and the two years I've spent in graduate school. She could have easily asked me to not go to graduate school, and ended our poverty. In fact if she had asked me to stop I most likely would have. Jilopa never did any such thing. In fact all she has ever done is try to know what my ambitions are, and figure out how we might realize them. I would not be graduating this weekend if it were not for her.

So I would like to say two things on this Wednesday evening:

1) I love you Jilopa, thank you for loving me enough to allow me to pursue my dreams,

and 2) it is now your turn to return to school and get your Masters Degree, so lets get ready.

Read more!

A question for homeschoolers

I am a fairly new homeschooling mom, (my oldest is 4 ½). I love homeschooling primarily because it is fun and I feel I can provide a more catered education to my children’s diverse learning styles. Many homeschooling parents, LDS and non-LDS, have predominately Christian curricula. I have never felt right about utilizing my decision to homeschool my children as a means by which to instruct the Gospel 24 hours a day. We open the day with a prayer, (as many families do,) and every once in a while I’ll say, “Isn’t it neat that God made it like that?” Other than that, Gospel instruction is left to FHE and Sundays. Don’t get me wrong, we read scriptures daily, pray over every meal, and discuss spiritual topics as they arise. However, I have thought that centering our teaching on the Gospel would rob them of a well-rounded education, and perhaps ostracize them even more since they would be getting a one-sided view of the world.

Having said that, I would love to hear others’ opinion on the matter. Maybe there is a happy medium that a novice like me has not considered.

Read more!

Reconciliations with Genesis

So I’m watching Penn and Teller’s show on Showtime last night. I don’t subscribe to Showtime because my wife and I are too cheap, and because if we did I’d be tempted to watch shows like Penn and Teller’s ‘BullS%#T’. But alas, there is currently a free preview, so I succumbed to the temptation.

The show, hereafter referred to as BS, is basically the explanative filled rants of Las Vegas magicians Penn and his silent partner Teller (ironic huh?). They explore the BS that is commonly taken for granted in our society, often challenging conspiracy theories and the like.

On this particular episode they were examining The Bible (I wonder how long it will take before they begin exploring the Book of Mormon.) The vitriol they unleash, somewhat overshadows the good points they make, i.e. the inconsistencies found in the Bible and the obvious presence of multiple authorship throughout several books which traditionally has been ascribed to a single author.

The above got me thinking about something I’ve been wrestling with for sometime, i.e. the documentary hypothesis and how the hypothesis helped me to reconcile another controversy. For the uninitiated, I will sum up the hypothesis. Essentially the hypothesis posits that several authors, at different times actually authored the five books of Moses, or the Pentateuch. These authors are spread out over a number of years and periods, and their view of Judaism is reflected in the text. It is for this reason that stories are found multiple times in the text, and that at times the details conflict. When the Pentateuch is studies from this point of view, it can be seen how Judaism evolved from a decentralized charismatic religion, into a centralized, Priestly, bureaucratically structured religion. A great Dialogue article by Thomas Dozeman on the hypothesis can be found here and a great response by Kevin Barney here.

In my mind the evidence is very convincing. If the theory is taken to be correct, then several questions must be answered (or at least asked). Much of Mormon theology is based upon what is found in Genesis, e.g. the Mormon conception of eternal increase is based squarely upon the interactions and promises made between Abraham and God. So what does it mean if Genesis was not written by Moses, or any other prophet we know of, but instead by a number of Hebrew scholars? According to Penn and Teller, and an ‘expert’ they employ named Dr. Michael Shermer, this invalidates any confidence that people may have placed in the Bible. I will state the problem succinctly: If Genesis is based upon the historical recollections of men, instead of being revealed or inspired by God, how can we have confidence in it? If we can not have confidence in Genesis, how can we have confidence in our doctrine? This is especially difficult for the Latter-Day Saint, since so much of our most important doctrines are derived from the story of Abraham.

Enter The Pearl of Great Price. The Pearl of Great Price is a book which has seen its fair share of controversy. Relevant articles on its controversy can be found here, here, here, here, here, and lastly here. All of these articles are worth reading. These articles delve into the question of the origin of The Book of Abraham. The last article, also by Kevin Barney of BBC fame, represents a good summation of current positions on it’s origin while also providing a decent reconciliation.

Whatever the answer happens to be upon the question of what the Book of Abraham’s origin is, its presence is what I would like to comment on. The Documentary Hypothesis leaves the Latter-Day Saint in a peculiar position. The Book of Abraham’s presence and its content relive this difficult position. Whatever the Pentateuch’s authorship may be, the narratives found therein can be relied upon, because those that matter to Latter-Day Saints are attested to in the Book of Abraham.

(Now there are those who will insist that Joseph Smith simply stole the narrative from Genesis, and therefore it isn’t any more reliable than what is to be found in the Bible. Well this is a problem I will not address, because the conclusion to the question will most likely be based more upon a persons base assumptions about Joseph Smith than on the evidence.)

So in my mind, questions of the Documentary Hypothesis need not worry me. Obviously that group of Hebrew men scattered over the years who authored the Pentateuch got their histories somewhat right. Does it matter that Moses didn’t write it? No, because it is content that matters, not origin. So thanks Penn and Teller, your F words and rantings got me thinking.

Read more!

Agnosticism and Mormonism

A recent thread over at BBC on South Park, and in particular a comment by Ronan reminded me of an old Dialogue article I would like to devote my first thread to. The subject from BBC that sparked my memory was that of agnostic Mormons; Ronan stated that he knew many happy agnostic Mormons.

In the Dialogue article, Glen Hettinger laments the current state of LDS testimony meeting. I must agree that Mormons are overly anxious to proclaim that they 'know beyond a shadow of a doubt' anything of import. But what I find most especially interesting about Mr. Hettinger's article is his exegesis of Heb 11:1.

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"... The first key element of faith to the author of Hebrews is its object: one has to have faith in "elpizo" or something that is desired or wished for and in "things not seen." That is, the object of faith must be
something uncertain that the believer believes in despite its uncertainty. The second element of faith to the author of Hebrews is hidden to many modern readers of this passage by the archaic use of the word "substance" and "evidence" in the King James translation. The Greek text uses the words 'hupostasis" and "elegchos" for these concepts. "Hupostasis" is literally an object that has been placed under another as a basis or foundation. Thus the "hupostasis" is the bases or foundation of belief. "Elegchos" is used only twice in the New Testament... In 2 Timothy, the word is translated as "reproof", indicating its base meaning of "conviction" in the sense of being convicted of a crime or accusation. Thus, for the modern reader, perhaps a better rendering of this verse would be: "Now faith is the basis for hoping and the conviction in things that we do not see"... The purpose of the forgoing analysis is to make clear the view of faith set forth in Hebrews, that "faith" is hope for things of which one cannot be certain.

Mormons usually interpret this passage in a way in which faith becomes something tangible and real, instead of it being seen as a mere hope for something uncertain. As Joseph Smiths tanslation puts it, faith is the "evidence" of an unseen, but true objective reality.

Another book which I recently read, which has influenced my thinking on this subject is "The Variations of Religious Experience" by William James. In a series of lectures, James chronicles the many types of religious experiences found in a variety of settings. As I read this book, I was forced to ask myself why my religious experiences are more profound than those of a Hindu or some other religious persuasion, and upon what basis my religious experiences can be seen as imparting objective truth.

I really have no good answer for this question, but it forces me to wonder what basis a person could have for claiming to not be an agnostic Mormon. If faith truly is "the basis for hoping and the conviction in things that we do not see", and not an objective possession, then aren't we all just "wait and see" Mormons when it gets right down to it?

Read more!

And Away We Go...

Observing that there exists only one way to enter the blogosphere, i.e. by starting your own blog, here is yet another attempt by a group of Mormons to pass their opinions off as fact. Also seeing as that the lawyer to non-lawyer ratio in the bloggernackle is rather high, it was thought that some additional non-lawyer influence could be useful.

This blog will be dedicated to open discussion about whatever those who post here seem inclined to talk about. Censorship will be nonexistent, unless posted comments openly defame the name of Christ. We only ask that if you are going to act like an ass, do so under a recognizable name, not anonymously.

Read more!