A new study in the news today is indicating that married couples who are willing to argue with each other (and resolve the arguments) live longer than those who keep it in. Those of you who felt bad about not keeping up with the old advice to never go to bed angry in a marriage can breathe a sigh of relief.
The Thang turned 3 years old this week. Happy birthday to us.
As our regular readers know, a focus of the posts here at New Cool Thang has always been trying to more deeply understand Mormon doctrine, theology, and scriptures. We have spent a lot of time trying to better understand things like the atonement of Jesus Christ, free will/agency, foreknowledge, personal revelation, eternal progression, and all sorts of other intriguing but difficult theological and philosophical subjects. Along the way there have been many wonderful comments and discussions. My life has been greatly enriched by these discussions and I feel simultaneously more knowledgeable about the things of God and more acutely aware of how much I/we really don’t know about God and the eternities. (more…)
As has been mentioned in a couple of other bloggernacle blogs (Julie at T&S, sidebar at BCC, and live on-location reporting from Steve H. at Splendid Sun among others), Elder Ballard just encouraged the graduating class at BYU-Hawaii to start a blog.
No, I’m not kidding.
Steven King is quoted as saying that the character Dolores Umbridge from the Harry Potter series of books is the “greatest make-believe villain to come along since Hannibal Lecter” [1] I think he is right on. I can’t think of a more despicable and grating and wicked fictitious villain in recent years either. The thing about Dolores Umbridge though is that it seems to me she is simply a personification and caricature of what we like to call the “Christian Right” in America.
If you have not read the Harry Potter series of books or have not seen the most recent movie (which features Ms. Umbridge) you may not know what I’m talking about here. Dolores has all the ingredients needed to make one’s skin crawl. She plays the sweet innocent role to perfection, complete with a simpering voice and (in the movie at least) all pink wardrobes to go along with her love for kitty cats. But it is all a front to cover a cruel, conniving, pitiless, bigoted, unforgiving, uncharitable, ungracious, hypocritical and bullying person on the inside. Dolores is cordial but not kind. She is saccharine but not truly sweet. She is a gleaming white sepulchre with rotting stench in the middle. In other words she is a true villain. (more…)
I have heard it said that Mormonism has no theology. I wonder what such a claim could mean. This claim has been made by such luminaries as James Faulconer and Richard Bushman. What does such a claim mean? Perhaps they mean that theology is an attempt to understand God in human terms and there can be no such understanding. Do they mean that all that we can do is kneel and genuflect (ritual means are all that we have)? Do they mean that when speaking of God we have no more than mindless babble (the human mind is so impotent that the attempt to reason about revelation is simply foolishness)?
Certainly they are correct if what they mean is that we can have no systematic theology that is somehow complete and self-contained. Sometimes I believe that what they mean by “theology” is a complete and exhaustive theology that is totally logically consistent like Thomas Aquinas (and several others) attempted. If that is what “theology” means, then Mormons don’t do theology. The fact of ongoing revelation means that we must always be open to more and to be willing to be corrected based on an incomplete understanding. Our theology is always tentative like science. It is always subject to revision. Perhaps they mean that all theology is alway premature given this commitment to God who is still speaking and theology is like drawing conclusions before God’s speech is done. We cannot do a book review of God’s book because he is still writing even though it went to press. If that is what they mean, then they are surely correct.
(more…)
Apparently there are a lot of Utah Ute fans who are having a cow over a post-game comment by BYU receiver Austin Collie. Collie is the receiver who caught the long pass from Max Hall on 4th and 18 in the waning moments of the game on Saturday. That unlikely play eventually led to the Cougar victory. As far as I can tell here is what Collie said to a radio journalist in the euphoria after the game:
“I wouldn’t say it was lucky. We executed the play well. We should have had another one (TD). Obviously, if you do what’s right on and off the field, I think the Lord steps in and plays a part in it. Magic happens.”
The sports message boards and Utah radio airwaves have been abuzz with debate over this comment. Journalist Mike Sorenson said: “That implies a higher power favors one team over another and that his team is favored for being more righteous.” Is it just sour grapes or is there something wrong with what Collie said?
(I lean toward the former…)
With respect to your questions regarding what constitutes Mormon Doctrine, your question is best answered by the Japanese “mu,” which means that the question is misinformed so it is better to withdraw the question. Like Judaism, and it appears earliest Christianity, there is neither “official Mormon Doctrine” nor council or creed that establishes such matters. Rather, there is a tradition of interpretation that is like the common law approach to deciding what constitutes the law. It is taken on a case-by-case basis guided by prior precedent of revelations, decisions and practices. So everything in the scriptures is “doctrine,” but of course that leaves open a lot of different approaches. It is well-settled that the doctrine of the Church is that Jesus is God’s Son and our Savior. What these basic affirmations mean is left open. It is basic that the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God. What that means is left open to a range of interpretation. (more…)
I admit it, when I first joined the church, I fantasized about apostles. Their names were Darius Gray and Truman G. Madsen. I fantasized about when they would become apostles, and how great that would be. Now, I’ve grown up a bit since then, and I am somewhat skeptical that Truman is young enough to make it into the 12, or that Brother Gray is in good enough health, but somewhere deep inside, I still have the fantasy of it, I guess. Perhaps it is wrong, But it’s a way I guess I honor these men for the amazing spiritual gifts they’ve given me.
Who’s your “fantasy” apostle?
I have long suspected that some of our creedal Christian friends have inadvertently begun worshiping the Bible itself in place of, or at least in addition to, the living God. Recently Aaron Shafovaloff (of the Fluffy Bunny Nice Nice Club) seems to have confirmed that suspicion for me in his case at least.
We were discussing how he knows the Bible is the word of God over at his blog and he kept saying things that made no sense at all to me. I kept asking things like “Did God tell you it is true or not”? And he kept saying things like “No, not in the way Mormonism talks about this “yes†answer.” Well his last comment finally started clearing up this issue for me. Here are some of his quotes: (more…)
Cjones brought up a question on a previous thread that I was planning on posting on.
As Christians, we worship God.
(more…)
