My oldest daughter Samantha just finished 8th grade and is preparing to enter high school in the fall. She is brilliant and gorgeous. She is also sharp tongued and salty. The boys she has been going to school with for years know this about her. They also know she is Mormon. For those reasons they learned early on not to mess with her. Those who have messed have had their heads handed to them enough times to teach the rest of the kids to watch their steps.

But these boys certainly don’t mind messing with the other (non-Mormon) girls. You wouldn’t believe the amount of sexual harassment that these 8th grade boys regularly foisted upon their female classmates. Sam reported that groping girls, rubbing crotches on girls (sometimes in basketball shorts and aroused), and all kinds of other sexual harassment were basically daily occurrences in her school. The most disturbing part about her tales has been how much the girls encouraged and enabled this behavior. While it was traditional for the girls to superficially complain among themselves about the boys sexually aggressive behavior it was clear that many of these girls loved the attention. In other words, there was very little “Don’t!” and “Stop!” and too much “don’t stop” from these girls. It baffled and dismayed Sam and we spent may hours analyzing and discussing the situation with her.
(more…)

If there is a God, why is there no objective evidence of his existence?

Asked from a skeptical perspective, this question becomes one of the strongest arguments against God’s existence, on par with arguments from the problem of evil. Trying to convince an atheist that there really is a God but he simply chooses to remain hidden can feel like trying to convince the child that the emperor really is wearing new clothes. Sometimes I tell my kids that I have super powers and then when they ask me to show them my powers I tell them “I could, but I don’t feel like it.” (more…)

I just noticed that I haven’t posted here at The Thang in the last 5 month. I guess it finally happened. After more than six years I finally got completely sick of blogging about Mormonism.

I guess it was inevitable. And it’s not like I am the only one who just got bored of this hobby. Jacob seems to have burned out too and our other contributors like Kristen and Blake and Kent sort of drifted away.

Maybe the itch will return some time. Or maybe I’ll just put up posts on BYU sports during the season… In the meantime Matt has done a terrific job keeping us afloat over here.

Anyone want to discuss their experience with bloggernacle burnout? Do tell.

(I can’t promise I’ll have enough motivation to chip in much though… (I kid, I kid!)).

Stephen Finlan, Author of “Options on Atonement in Christian Thought”[1] ends his book with a modest proposal. It is that our understanding of divine revelation is subject to a form of evolution. Finlan Suggests that “God always seeks to deepen and expand the revelation of truth, but we humans (including the biblical authors) only perceive a part of the message. We adapt and domesticate new ideas to old and familiar ways of thinking. We always pour new wine into old wineskins, but the new wine expands and bursts open our containers (Mark 2:22), our old ways of thinking.” [2] Finlan calls this “progressive development in religious conceptualization”. (more…)

Today I received the following email forward from an 85 year old man in my ward:

Subject: Call the elders — or the sisters?

FYI

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/51785971-180/healing-mormon-women-church.html.csp

Congrats Guys, you’ve reached the Mormon “Forwarded E-mail” Network. We’re proud of you!

Here is the lesson I prepared this month on Missionary Work. We are a bit behind other wards, due to Stake Conference and an odd repeating of one lesson twice last year.

Missionary Work

I am actually teaching this next Sunday, and it feels a little long and disjointed to me. Any feedback would be appreciated.

I am teaching Elder’s Quorum this Sunday, and have been asked to teach on Elder Oak’s “Two Lines of Communication”. In getting ready, I thought I would take Natalie B.’s advice and search out the priesthood line more deeply. (This admonishment, after all, dovetails nicely into Elder Uchtdorf’s encouragement in conference to learn more, which my past few posts have been on.)

Anyway, according the “Handbook 2: Administerng in the Church” section 2.1.1:

“Priesthood keys are the authority God has given to Priesthood leaders to direct, control and Govern the use of his priesthood on earth.” It is “the right to preside over and direct the Church within a jurisdiction.”
Jesus Christ holds all the keys and confers them to his Apostles on the earth. The President “is the only person on earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys.”

The president of the Church delegates priesthood keys to other priesthood leaders. For their designated responsibilities, and in their jurisdiction, they become the “presiding authority”

Counselors do not receive priesthood keys, the function by “delegated authority”. Auxiliary presidents do not receive keys. They receive “delegated authority”.

If Priesthood keys are “authority” to perform “designated responsibilities” that are “delegated” to them, what is the difference between priesthood keys and the “delegated authority” that Auxiliary presidents and Counselors have?

Is this a distinction without a difference? If not, what is the difference?

This continues my series on the homework assignment Elder Uchtdorf gave us during the priesthood session of General Conference, to read sections 20, 84, 107, and 121. After my write up on these four sections, I may return with some thoughts and additional areas of study.

First, a test: What is the oath and covenant of the priesthood? Don’t peek anywhere, just think of it in your own words and if you have something, post it in the comments before reading any further. (I say this because I admit I had no recollection of what it was, and not as some sort of “gotcha”.)

Context:
Context here is very important. It was revealed in September 1832, 2 and ½ years after Section 20 was received. The Prophet was very active in translating the bible at this time, and there is a lot of connection here between his understanding of the work he did with the book of genesis, particularly. It was received while Joseph was meeting with six Elders, freshly returned from missions, and in a time when the Prophet’s mind was pregnant with the proposed temple in Missouri, and the Zion to come forth from its successful construction and dedication. It was in this context that Joseph framed this revelation. It is basically impossible, and very fitting, to disconnect the priesthood here described from the woven tapestry of missionary work, temple work, and the building of Zion.

A brief overview of the first 42 verses:
1. After establishing that the temple would be built and the glory of the Lord would rest there, the revelation begins to discuss explicitly priesthood as a thing which can be transferred from person to person. (vs. 1-17)
2. There are two priesthoods. The greater priesthood has two functions: To Administer the Gospel, and second to unlock the knowledge of God. The Power of Godliness is made visible in the ordinances of the priesthood, and would not be visible without these ordinances. This is because you cannot see God without the ordinances. (vs 18-22)
3. From Moses to John the greater priesthood was denied the people due to unwillingness. The lesser priesthood included baptism and repentance and faith and the Carnal Law. Also, offices of the priesthood are explained and separated between the two priesthoods (vs. 23-31)
4. Vs. 6-31 were a giant aside, like a tv show recap for anyone jumping in at the middle. “Previously in the revealed word of God….”, In a lot of ways, this covers a lot of ground Joseph Covered in his translation of Genesis. Anyway, when you get to verse 31, It is good to think back to the earliest verses where the temple is established and God’s glory is resting there.
5. In this temple, those holders of the two priesthoods will make an offering to God, and because of this are filled with glory. For whoever obtains the two priesthoods and magnifies their calling is sanctified by the spirit unto the renewing of their bodies. They become heirs to the promises made to Moses, Aaron, Abraham, the church and kingdom, and the elect of God. (vs 31-34)
6. All those who receive the priesthood, receive Christ. All those who receive Christ’s servants, receive Christ. Those who receive Christ receive the Father, and those who receive the Father receive all that he has. This is according to the oath and covenant of the priesthood. If you receive the priesthood, you receive the oath and covenant. And if you break the covenant, you’re in trouble. You are also in trouble if you don’t receive the covenant. (35-42)

Thoughts:
1. The accepted understanding of the oath and covenant of the priesthood is that we receive/obtain the priesthood and then magnify it, and in doing so, God ultimately will give us all that he has. I think this is one of those situations similar to the Word of Wisdom, where what the scripture literally says and means has become less important than the accepted understanding of it., because to me, the scripture itself is less clear than the accepted understanding.
2. The Oath in the Oath and Covenant is most plausibly explained by reading the JST vs. around Abraham in Genesis 14:25-40, where Melchizedek is ordained to the priesthood, after the order of Enoch, where God makes an Oath by himself to grant power to those ordained to the priesthood, according to their faith.

Questions:
1. Where does this leave faithful women?
2. What does it mean to magnify the priesthood?

In General Conference- President Uchtdorf asked that we study the scriptures and handbooks and become experts on the doctrine of the priesthood. He told us this would help us to live up to our privileges as priesthood holders. He told us to start with Doctrine and Covenants chapters 20, 84, 107, and 121. In an effort to do that, I will be posting basic impressions I get from each of the four D&C sections he mentions, then further my study as time goes on. I’d love your thoughts and input as well.

D&C 20-
Context- This was the original articles and covenants of the Church, prepared for the organization of the Church on April 6, 1830 (though not completed until later). The greatest current reading I am aware of for the context from which this revelation came is in BYU Studies 43:4 (2006)- having to do with how Oliver Cowdery put together a fore-runner to this document. It cannot be said Joseph used Oliver’s document (which he was commanded to prepare in another revelation) as the foundation of his revelation, as they are very different in several regards, but it can be said that Oliver provided revelatory input of his own from his previous revelation into the Articles and Covenants (As all evidence indicates that Oliver helped write D&C 20). I don’t have the Joseph Smith Papers to check what stance they take on this.

Impressions- (more…)

Recently, Dr. Terryl Givens has published a two part series via Meridian Magazine dealing with the problem of evil. Being a long time reader of Givens’ frankly excellent books on Mormonism, and being aware of his forthcoming volumes on theology, I was very excited to read these. Part 1 was excellent, with its reference to the Brothers Karamazov, and adeptly setting up an adequate description of what the problem portion of the problem of evil is. Givens doesn’t call it that, focusing instead on “the problem of God’s justice”, perhaps intent on limiting his focus, but he does promise “to reconcile the understanding of a God who weeps over pain but does not prevent the pain–how to reconcile that understanding with the reality of a world drenched in pain and suffering?” So, I’d say this puts forward the promise of a theodicy.
(more…)