The Rocky Shore

The Rocky Shore has moved...

noreply@blogger.com (Jared E.) — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 17:02:00 +0000

We'd like to thank all those who have been visiting and interacting with The Rocky Shore. Being a young blog can be tough as you try to establish a steady readership. We have in fact moved, to www.therockyshore.com . Blogger has been good to us, but we feel this has been a successful experiment and have decided to move into a more versatile wordpress platform on our own server. If you link to us please adjust the address to our new location and please come visit us at our new site.

Thank you

A More Rational Theology

noreply@blogger.com (Jared E.) — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 22:18:00 +0000

Math is an interesting thing. Most people profess a strong fear of it, myself being one such person until I began to take it seriously. I was a sophomore in college when I first began to make the study of mathematics a serious endeavor. Up until this time, I had been a philosophy major. Upon returning from my mission, I decided I needed to take a more pragmatic approach to my career; I needed a career from which I could comfortably support a family. I decided engineering was my new forte, and delved into math and science classes, subjects which until this time I had never really studied. I fell in love with math. I think Bertrand Russell summed up a love for mathematics best:

“Mathematics, rightly viewed, possesses not only truth, but supreme beauty -- a beauty cold and austere, like that of sculpture, without appeal to any part of our weaker nature, without the gorgeous trappings of painting or music, yet sublimely pure, and capable of a stern perfection such as only the greatest art can show.”

He also once said “that mathematics is capable of an artistic excellence as great as that of any music, perhaps greater…because, in fact, it constructs an ideal world where everything is perfect but true.” This is what I saw (and continue to see) in the logical approach to the world a mathematical mind embodies.

The Gospel is true, but the Mormon conception of deity has very little to do with math. Not all religions have been this way; Greeks such as Pythagoras based much of their conception of deity and its relationship with the world on the austerity of mathematics. But Mormonism is not exacting. In fact, more often than not, it has been incredibly inconsistent (I’m sure there are many out there who will argue against this opinion). As a person who values logic, the inconsistencies of Mormonism have long bothered me.

Christian Cardall’s blog, The Spinozist Mormon sports an interesting quote: “Although all is not gold that shines, … yet, “by proving contraries,” truth is manifest…” (Joseph Smith Jr, 5 June 1844), and LDS Science Review has a subheading that reads: “That which is demonstrated, we accept with joy.” (First Presidency 1910). These quotes seek to present the faith as rational. In my experience, Mormons love to view their religion as rational, but I can see the faith as rational only in a compartmentalized sort of way: it is piecewise rational. The faith also seems to be defended in a piecewise manner. In my view, this piecewise approach to our faith all too often leads to ‘missing the forest for the trees’.

I wish the Mormon conception of the gospel were treated as mathematicians treat their field, where axioms are assumed, and based upon those axioms, things are inferred. All too often in our theology, it seems that preconceptions are formed, and then axioms are created to justify those preconceptions.

The gospel is very simple and it has very little to do with justifications for our beliefs, or apologetic responses to criticism. I think the only thing the Savior ever wanted people to learn from him was how to love each other, yet it is what we routinely fail to do.

I wish we would start with an axiom that states: ‘we love all people, regardless’. I believe beginning here, and then building our theology with strict adherence to this axiom would provide, not only the logical religion I desire, but also a much stronger Mormonism. If we are to be recognized by our fruits, then our most basic conceptions of our religion need to be grounded in the ideal of loving our fellow persons. It is only through grounding ourselves in this ideal, that our fruits will ever truly reflect the Savior’s teachings.

Let's Talk About Adultery

noreply@blogger.com (Jilopa) — Sat, 26 Aug 2006 03:07:00 +0000

Guess where my husband is now? He is currently at his boss’s house helping with computer problems. The only thing is that his boss is not home. The only person home is his boss’s wife. As he left, we joked about the obvious taboo he was making. He is breaking the unwritten church rule, thou shall not be alone with anyone of the opposite sex other than your spouse.

These unwritten rules, (or perhaps even written rules,) are everywhere in Mormon society. They are there to protect us from breaking bigger, more known commandments. However, the rule of not being alone with another for fear of adultery seems wacky at best. Men can be alone with women without fornicating. It has been done millions of times before and is occurring right now as my husband helps his boss. Rather than harping on the benign act of merely being with another of the opposite sex, why not discuss the actual steps that lead to adultery? Why not discuss the importance of maintaining a positive sexual relationship with your spouse or satisfying friendship with your partner?

My father fell in love with his tennis partner while married to my mother. Yes, they spent many afternoons alone playing tennis together. However, years before the “illegal” acts of spending alone time ever occurred, my parent’s relationship was falling to pieces. The reasons for their destroyed relationship was because their lack of intimacy, friendship, and companionship. They did not have a good marriage.

So, let’s be real. If the church is truly concerned about its members committing adultery, there should be more discussion on the importance of sex, partnership, and friendship in a marriage. Sex should be discussed more openly as an essential, healthy aspect of marriage. It should not be a topic avoided like the plague.

The pitfalls of marriage occur way before a man is alone with a woman. These pitfalls should be the unwritten taboos of Mormon society.

My husband just came home.

To Shave Or Not To Shave... Pt. 2

noreply@blogger.com (Jared E.) — Tue, 22 Aug 2006 20:00:00 +0000

Ok, so I am going to rant about my parents stake again… I really don’t have a problem with the church hierarchy in general, it’s just that my parents stake is so weird…

The first gripe I have I’ve been planning on posting about for a while (FHM is going to love this one): the women in the stake are not allowed to say the opening prayer in sacrament meeting. My mother had a real problem with this so she asked the bishop where this policy originated. She pursued him for a while, and finally he called Salt Lake, and they said that such policies were up to the Stake President. She talked to the Stake President about it, and he basically said tough, that is just the way it is in their stake; they like a priesthood holder to open sacrament meeting.

The second gripe I have is based upon a new policy they came out with. This one wouldn’t really bother me if they weren’t weird already, but… they have decided that they will no longer serve the sacrament to those in the foyer. The reasoning is that the bishop needs to see who is taking the sacrament, because he is their respective judge in Israel. Since he cannot see who is in the foyer, they can’t partake of the sacrament. At least this one has some logic behind it (albeit strained in my opinion). I don't know how many times I've been stuck out in the foyer due to the antics of my daughter. Now I have to miss the sacrament because my wife gave birth to Rosemary’s Baby?

My question is this: what the heck is going on up there? How much latitude is the State Presidency given? They’ve also said that from now on, visiting in the chapel is a no-no. It seems like the soup nazi has taken control! What is a member to do when faced with such silliness?

Who Cares!?!

noreply@blogger.com (Jilopa) — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 21:31:00 +0000

Several years ago, we had a lesson in Relief Society about the temple. A sweet, older lady told a story of how little she felt judged at the temple.
The week previously, she had been in Portland visiting family. She was dressed casually, but wanted to walk the temple grounds. A matron came out and, after talking to her for a little while, asked her if she wanted to join the next session. The woman was surprised, but delighted and entered the temple to take part in the endowment session. She left feeling uplifted, edified, and not judged for her appearance.
After the woman recanted her story, the relief society room erupted. Several were shocked that she was allowed in the temple at all. Many felt it their duty to stress the importance of dressing "appropriately" to the temple--nylons and all. Of course we should not go to the temple in casual dress, but rather than accepting this woman's story of what an accepting atmosphere the temple presents, they were shocked, stunned, and in fact, began judging the situation and this woman like crazy.
I've been pondering this story and have decided to post a list of "who cares." After all, this is the church of Jesus Christ--the one man who never judged. Why, then, are we the church of relentless judging?
Who cares if people's spiritual stories are not spiritual to us?
Who cares if people do not dress "appropriately" to church? What does this mean, anyway?
Who cares if a woman wears slacks to church? We all know we wish we could.
Who cares if someone's child is freaking out in sacrament meeting? They may be actually paying attention to the talk and getting something out of it.
Who cares if someone says "crap" in their sacrament meeting talk? It is funny.
Who cares if someone gets something pierced, or, when bending over, exposes a tatoo?
Who cares if someone gets divorced over something we may not approve?
Who cares if a child/adult is not prepared for a sacrament meeting talk? They may just be really nervous.
Who cares if someone wishes to bare their testimony about their dead cat?
Who cares if I've misspelled something on this blog?
Who cares if someone's cell phone rings right as the chapel gets really quiet?

I ask you to join me in my list of "who cares." We really need to be a little less judgemental and a little more Christ-like. Afterall, we don't know anybody else's situation or circumstance.

To Shave Or Not To Shave...

noreply@blogger.com (Jared E.) — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 23:41:00 +0000

Up where my parents live, an interesting phenomenon has taken place: it seems that the stake presidency has taken it upon themselves (or perhaps it came from higher up) to insist upon all men in the stake be clean-shaven.

How can they insist, I hear you ask…

From what I have been able to gather, a year and a half ago the stake presidency announced in a stake priesthood meeting their desire to have a clean-shaven male (and female I presume) stake membership. Since that time, the local hierarchy has specifically taken the temple recommend interview as an opportunity to pressure men with facial hair to expunge their faces of it. It is not that they are denying temple recommends, but at the end of the standard questioning they then council the man to shave.

One friend of my father stated that when he shaved, the bishop approached him and thanked him for his sacrifice. Another very good friend of my mother was quite upset about the new policy, and when her husband was counseled to shave his mustache she gave the bishop quite a tongue-lashing. Obviously these are just two examples of current reactions to the policy, so they are anecdotal at best. From what I have heard most have simply chosen to shave.

I have four initial reactions to hearing about this:

1) I was considering moving to their stake. Since I have a beard and absolutely no desire to confront such silliness, I will choose a different residence.

2) Aren’t there more important things to be worrying about besides facial hair?

3) If the church wants to promote a clean image of itself, how about expanding the WOW to include obesity?

4) What the hell kind of sacrifice is shaving?

Is this an isolated instance of silliness, or have others of you out there been confronted with this travesty in your stake?

Do We Really Want Romney???

noreply@blogger.com (Jared E.) — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 23:26:00 +0000

There has been quite a bit of buzz around the bloggernackle about a Romney presidency. Over at The Messenger and Advocate and especially at The Millennial Star they seem fairly excited about the prospect. Mitt Romney is the conservative Mormon Massachusetts governor. I would just like to ask the question: is a Mormon president in the best interest of the Church?

There are two reasons I raise the question. The first one has to do with the state of American politics. If Romney is given the Republican nomination, he will be attacked and derided in any way that will give Democrats an advantage. This will include the dredging up of anything weird and Mormon, that in any way might hurt his chances for the presidency. It seems the Church’s main desire, is to present the Church and its members in the most 'all-American' light possible. "We Are Mainstream" is the message I hear every time Pres. Hinckley does an interview. Shining the light of the mainstream media on Romney and his religious beliefs seems dangerous.

The second reason I raise the question is due to the fear that a Romney run for the presidency will further the link between Mormonism and American Conservative Politics. If Romney wins the presidency, the Church will rally behind him. American Conservatives have some decent ideas, but like all political groups they have a lot of potential for corruption and scandal. Do we want the Church pulled closer to any political scene?

I mean, it seems to me that Mormonism will become much more political if a Romney run becomes a reality. Is this good for Mormonism???

Much Ado About Integrity

noreply@blogger.com (Jay) — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 06:08:00 +0000

Yet again I was trounced by heavy eyelids and unable to overcome the wiles of boredom. So, instead of pretending to be captivated by a robotic lesson, I dipped into the preparation of my own lecture I am to teach in Elder’s Quorum next week. Upon reviewing the subject and reflecting upon background and possible angles I might use in order to create a somewhat endurable hour, I recognized that my heart and soul were not completely supportive of the lecture material; otherwise referred to as facts.

How can I teach a lesson I do not feel comfortable with defending?

I have been in this situation a number of times over the years and always, without fail, feel like I’ve let myself down by not having enough integrity to simply recognize that I’m probably not the most ideal person to be teaching that particular lesson if I so decided on going ahead with a half-hearted attempt.

Should I voice my concern to the Elder’s Quorum president? And if so, how?

Don’t misunderstand me, I have an extensive background with teaching large groups of people with only a moments notice; it has nothing to do with not feeling prepared. I, at the least, want to feel like I can play both the role of the teacher and the student without having a sense of shame.

So with that said…….....hit me with your best shots by way of either condemnation or advice.

Welcome Jime!!!

noreply@blogger.com (Jared E.) — Sat, 29 Jul 2006 17:03:00 +0000

I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome the newest blogger at The Rocky Shore. Jime has agreed to join us here, in our theological musings, political rantings, etc. Jime attended BYU acquiring a degree in Political Science with a minor in Philosophy. He has since forged a successful career in the Military, recently retiring. We hope he can withstand the constant mocking we have in store for him.

What's wrong with Syriana?

noreply@blogger.com (Jared E.) — Sat, 22 Jul 2006 21:13:00 +0000

So I'm going to cut right to the chase with this post: what is the deal with rated-R movies? I mean, most of the Mormons I know agree that anything R rated is unacceptable. I mean, it isn't that I watch R rated movies often, and am seeking to excuse myself; I am just really curious about where this has come from.

It was when I lived in Nebraska; my friends mother came home from some church meeting and announced to us: R rated movies are now a no no. I don't remember what meeting this was, and have no idea who spoke, but from that day forward the mantra of "no R rated movies" has been ever present.

Last night my wife and I watched 'Syriana', it was quite good. Was this movie uplifting? No. Was it supposed to be? No. In the "For the Strength of Youth" pamphlet put out by the church (which seems to be the source all discussions run to when things of this nature are discussed) under entertainment it states: "Do not attend, view, or participate in entertainment that is vulgar, immoral, violent, or pornographic in any way. Do not participate in entertainment that in any way presents immorality or violent behavior as acceptable." Syriana is violent, sometimes vulgar and many actions of the characters are immoral, but that is the point of the movie. It does not "present immorality or violent behavior as acceptable", in fact the thesis of the movie is to show that this behavior is not acceptable. It is an R rated movie that seeks to bring to light the evils of our day. I can't seem to grasp what is wrong with this.

Now I know there have been many posts that have discussed this issue, so I'm not trying to flesh it out again. I just really want to know where this conception in Mormon culture has come from? Has anyone of real importance said this? Where? I am looking for sources so that I might understand this issue better.

A Cry For Womanhood

noreply@blogger.com (Jilopa) — Fri, 21 Jul 2006 04:55:00 +0000

In the latest issue of Dialogue, Molly McLellan Bennion states,

“Some women have found it difficult to see themselves in the Church. We all need role models. We need to see ourselves or our potential selves in our leaders.”

These words, as did the entire article, created an emotion in me I have not felt in long time—woman’s pride. I, too, have often found it difficult to see my potential in the Church. I love the Gospel, and I love its teachings. However, I struggle to find a place in this highly patriarchal society.

To better illustrate my feelings, allow me to share an experience I had not too long ago. The elder’s quorum presidency came to visit our family.They were very polite and even played with my children. They conversed with my husband about his job, and his recent graduation. I graduated a couple of years ago, and was anticipating the conversation to eventually be directed toward me. It never did. The entire half-hour they were over, they did not say two words to me. Why, if you are there to visit the family, do you not direct at least part of the conversation to the wife? Though I do not work, I see my place in our family as important as my husbands—I rear my children, I homeschool them, I nurture them. Shouldn’t this get some recognition? At church, I began to notice how often people would ask my husband about his job, and how often the topic of occupations came up. Rarely does the conversation turn to me and ask, “What are you doing with your children?” “How are your days going?”

We so often hear how important motherhood is, but I hear it rarely being discussed outside these mediocre lessons.

And what about the Young Women? I have had the wonderful privilege of working in the Young Women’s program for three years. I love my calling, and I love the girls. However, I see them struggle in a church where they have no place. As soon as they are twelve, the young men receive the priesthood and actively participate in the Church. They have duties and responsibilities that are vital to strengthening its members. However, the young women are merely promoted out of primary and given callings that benefit only the young women.

My husband is quick to point out that things are progressing and changing for the better. I agree; we have come a long way. Though, I can’t help but feel we need to progress more. My question is this: What can we do now? I’m determined to add the conversation of motherhood to that of occupations, but what about the young women? They, too, need to feel included, needed, and wanted. Like Bennion expresses in her article, I lament over this issue. Though her lament was toward those who have already left the church, I lament for those that may leave the church.

What can we do? What can we do?

My trip to heterodoxy...

noreply@blogger.com (Jared E.) — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:20:00 +0000

Wow, the last few weeks in the Bloggernackle have been hot. The exchange between RT here and here, John Dehlin here and here, and (holy cow) Louis Midgley and John W. Redelfs has been driven. Dave posted on the situation a little bit ago, but I'd like to throw my two cents in. The debate over at The Iron Rod seems to center more on heterodox versus traditional views of the church. I humbly submit my story:

My parents are both converts to the Church and I was raised with the traditional view of Mormonism. The Joseph Smith of my upbringing was a man who was ardently truthful, as American as anything and that those who opposed the church were motivated by the devil. I grew up and gained a personal testimony of the Savior, Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. I served a mission and then attended Ricks College.

My last term at Ricks was an interesting one. It was summertime, I was engaged (but my fiancé was a few thousand miles from me) and I was enrolled in a church history class. I thought this class would be run-of-the-mill. I mean, I had served a mission, read “Church History in the Fullness of Times”, The Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt as well as Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, I thought I had a good background. The first half of the class went uneventful, but then the Nauvoo period was reached and I had a desire to understand what the deal with Mormon Polygamy was. I asked my teacher for a few references so I could do some self-study and then I proceeded in delve into study like I never had before. It took only a little while before I confronted the problem. In the bookThe Words of Joseph Smith, I first confronted an instance of undeniable dishonesty by the Prophet.

Perhaps I was naïve (in fact I know I was), but I was very shocked and very troubled. There are a few out in the blogosphere who have said that we shouldn’t need answers to all questions, and that we shouldn’t look at and try to understand the difficulties of our religion, but such a request is too much to ask of me. Since my startling discovery, I have searched out answers, and have largely been able to reconcile many of the problems in Mormon history/theology. I have read much, and am greatly indebted to many writers who seek to write about the truth, even though many Mormons deride them as unbelievers and heretics. I would say that my odyssey has lead me to become a “Liberal Mormon”. I love the Church, even more now that I have a deeper understanding of its past. I do not blame anyone for asking the hard questions; I just hope those that do have the fortitude and stomach to truly seek out the answers.

For those who read this post who would also describe themselves as having a more heterodox view of the Church, what is your story? How did you come to this view? For those who are traditionalists, what has convinced you that your view is best? I am really interested. After all, you can’t fault someone on their conclusion, only on how they reached that conclusion…

Radiohead 2006 Tour

noreply@blogger.com (Jared E.) — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 18:37:00 +0000

I discovered Radiohead back in high school, with the release of their now legendary 'Creep' track. I bought Pablo Honey, but largely didn't like it. I then served a mission, and returned right as OK Computer was released. I was happy to find that the band had matured. I've only been to one show, at the Gorge in Washington during the Amnesiac tour. That show was one of the best concerts I've been to (and I've been to a few). So it is with great pleasure that I present a link containing most of the bootlegged shows for Radiohead's 2006 tour, enjoy.

And thus endeth my sojourn in the wilderness...

noreply@blogger.com (Jared E.) — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 02:18:00 +0000

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.

A question for homeschoolers

noreply@blogger.com (Jilopa) — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 02:08:00 +0000

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.

Reconciliations with Genesis

noreply@blogger.com (Jared E.) — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 19:27:00 +0000

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.

Agnosticism and Mormonism

noreply@blogger.com (Jared E.) — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 20:12:00 +0000

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?

And Away We Go...

noreply@blogger.com (Jared E.) — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 19:12:00 +0000

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.