By Common Consent, a Mormon Blog

Notes on practice: Folding arms during prayer

Mon, 25 Jan 2021 19:42:31 GMT

A friend emailed me a great question about Latter-day Saint “prayer posture”: “why do we fold our arms instead of folding hands like many other Christians.” The following is a preliminary response.

First, I suspect that we started out following the prayer practice of the traditions of the converts to the early Restoration. There is some evidence of diversity in practice. For example, there is textual evidence for kneeling while praying in Joseph Smith’s revelations. And during the Kirtland holy season, there were prayers with uplifted hands, or in circles. There is not a lot of material to go from, however.

Bertha Manwaring, BYU MSS P 1 #18830

In Utah, we get a little more, including photography. For example, this image of Bertha Manwaring and presumably her daughters is a well known classic. And into the twentieth century we have a few images of public prayer, such as Junius Wells’ prayer at the Three Witnesses Monument in 1911 in Missouri, and the Cornerstone laying ceremony for the Church Admin Building in 1915. No arm-folding (or anything else really) going on there.

Richmond, Missouri, The Three Witnesses Monument. AJ&- 3 shows Junius F. Wells offering prayer, with a group of people at the monument, November 22, 1911. LDS CHL, PH 725

Church Administration Building cornerstone-laying ceremony, 1915, LDS CHL, PH 1098

There is more research to be done here, both textually and in the image repositories. But what we do know is that there is a pedagogical shift with children. In response to Protestant Sunday Schools, we developed Sunday Schools and Primaries of our own. Managing a bunch of kids has never been easy, and some Protestants landed on folding your arms during prayer as a good standard of practice. For example one Protestant Sunday School in Glasgow in 1869 had “perfect silence…called for and obtained” The “all stood with folded arms and bowed head, and repeated, clause by clause, the Lord’s Prayer, following the voice of the superintendent.” [n1] I’ve seen some general school publications that have children line up with folded arms as well during this period.

It might surprise some people that our primary children also learned and recited the Lord’s Prayer, well into the twentieth century. And most people have forgotten the children generally received the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper in Sunday School. Ardis has written about the history of “Sacrament Gems”—hymns or scriptures recited before the ceremony. In 1923, Elder David O. McKay, then General Sunday School Superintendent wrote suggestions for best practices, stating that “every Sunday-school superintendent desires to intensify and deepen the spirit of reverence in the Sunday-school” as they prepared for the sacrament. After a prelude or organ solo, “all with folded arms, bowed heads and closed eyes, should repeat the sacramental gem as recommended in the Juvenile Instructor.” [n2]

By 1952, we have this amazing image of prayer in the Riverside Ward (SLC) Primary on May 12, 1952:

Riverside Ward, SLC, May 12, 1952, Utah State Historical Society, MSS C 275

I think it is worth noting that while many people maintained folded arms for prayer after primary, it was hardly universal. Take for example this image of missionaries during the dedicatory prayer for the LTM (Language Training Mission, AKA MTC) in 1974. These are people who were in primary during the 1950s and would have learned to fold their arms. But there is a lot of hand folding going on:

Missionaries of the BYU Language Training Mission bow in prayer at the groundbreaking for the new Language Training Mission, BYU, UAP 2, Folder 323

Now I also think that it is worth highlighting that prayer practice has shifted in my lifetime. I recently spoke with some friends about how we always knelt for prayer before dinner when we were kids, and none of us do that now. I wonder if we are missing something. It is also worth noting that other Christians also fold their arms to pray, so it isn’t just a Mormon thing.

_______

The Scottish Sabbath-School Teacher’s Magazine (December 1869), 41. See also p. 82.
David O. McKay, “Suggestive Helps in Conducting a Sunday School,” Millennial Star (October 18, 1923), 659.

"‘I Dug the Graves'” and "Brigham Young’s Garden Cosmology” (AKA ...

Thu, 21 Jan 2021 22:14:30 GMT

The most recent issue of the Journal of Mormon History just dropped. There are a number of articles, essays, and reviews that are very compelling. I recommend becoming a subscriber and checking it out. I have an article that I want to talk about, but first I want to point to Paul Reeve’s article in the same issue.

Paul authored “‘I Dug the Graves’: Isaac Lewis Manning, Joseph Smith, and Racial Connections in Two Latter Day Saint Traditions.” There are a number of remarkable elements in this publication, which fleshes out one of the early black Latter-day Saints’ experiences in a predominately white church. As Paul notes, this is a burgeoning area of research which complicates ideas of a monolithic “black church.” In particular, over a period of years, Paul has scoured membership records researching for the Century of Black Mormons. One conclusion he has made, and for which he supplies ample evidence, is that priesthood ordination was far more limited than has been previously thought in the early church. His discussion of this spans pages 43-45, and should reframe our discussions. This is incredibly important work, which is made possible by time working through the archives. Sometimes there are no shortcuts.

Brigham Young’s so called “Adam-God” teachings have been perennially controversial. Many church members and leaders have wondered whether we simply have not had a complete picture of Brigham Young’s teachings, that existing archival sources are in some way unreliable, and that his apparently controversial teachings were simply a misunderstanding.

By the grace of the Church History Library’s release of LaJean Carruth’s shorthand transcripts of early shorthand records, I approached what Brigham Young taught and believed about Adam, Eve, God, and the Garden. I started by working through Joseph Smith’s Nauvoo cosmology and then focus on Young’s teachings.

I avoid using the term “theory” (e.g., Adam-God Theory) as opposed to “teachings” because it obfuscates the degree to which Young clearly believed and taught the ideas. But I also suggest that we not use the term “Adam-God.” It is not contemporary to Brigham Young, and like so much of our historiography, it ignores the majority of the population (women) and key actors (namely Eve) that are essential to it.

Young was remarkably consistent from 1852—the year he started teaching the ideas associated with his cosmology—to his death in 1877. I think I help provide a critical approach to the sources of his teachings, fair summaries of his teachings, and a framework to approach them. It is clear that Young’s ideas are an analogical exaltation of biology—perhaps a way to render on the grandest of scales the procreative relationships that occupied the Saints greatest sacrifices.

Check out these articles and other great content in the issue!

On the JST of Philippians and Colossians

Wed, 20 Jan 2021 01:27:34 GMT

A COMMENTARY ON JOSEPH SMITH’S REVISION OF PHILIPPIANS

Kevin Barney

1. Philippians 1:4

Always in every prayer of mine, for the steadfastness of you all, making request with joy,

The KJV is ambiguous in the second half of the verse as to who is doing the praying. Does “for you all making request with joy” refer to a prayer Paul is making or a prayer the people themselves are making? In the English of the KJV it is not clear. The JST adds commas to clarify that this is Paul’s prayer on behalf of the people. Further, is Paul’s prayer one of petition or thanksgiving? The JST suggests it is both. Adding “the steadfastness of” makes it clear this is a prayer of thanks for the people and all the good they have done, while “making request” are words of Paul’s petition on their behalf. Note how the AMPC expresses this more clearly than the KJV: “In every prayer of mine I always make my entreaty and petition for you all with joy (delight).” (Emphasis in original.)

Paradigm Classification A-1 (Paraphrase of KJV Text)

2. Philippians 1:21

For to me to live, is to do the will of Christ, and to die is my gain.

Paul here is musing whether it would be better to die and be with Christ immediately or remain in the flesh and pursue his productive work among the people. (In verse 24 he will opt to remain and continue the work.) The expressions in this verse are quite sparse, as one can see from the very literal rendering of the Anchor Bible: “For to me to live, Christ, and to die, gain.” John Reumann, Philippians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008): 209. Also, the italicized “is” may have suggested to Smith the need for a revision. Accordingly, the JST fills the text out a little to convey more clearly Paul’s meaning. What does “to live is Christ” mean? The expression is obscure and needs to be fleshed out. The CEB takes a similar tack to the JST with “Because for me, living serves Christ.” And a number of translations flesh out the “gain” as being personal gain as the JST takes it. ERV has “even death would be for my benefit” and EXB has “dying would be profit for me.”

Paradigm Classifications A-1 and A-2 (Paraphrase of KJV Text and Suspicion of Italicized Text)

3. Philippians 1:22

But if I live in the flesh, ~~this is~~ ye are the fruit of my ~~labour~~ labor: yet what I shall choose I ~~wot~~ know not.

Here Paul continues his musing on whether it would be better for him to live or to die. In the KJV, the “this is” has no clear antecedent for what the nature of Paul’s work is. The JST makes it clear that the substance of Paul’s work is the people themselves. The changes from “labour” to “labor” and from “wot” to “know” are simply modernizations.

Paradigm Classifications A-1 and A-3 (Paraphrase of KJV Text and Modernization)

4. Philippians 1:23

~~For~~ Now I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:

Here Paul is continuing his musings on whether it would be better to live or to die. The conjunction gar is commonly translated as “for,” “since,” “then,” “indeed,” or “certainly,” suggesting a development in an argument or a train of thought. Some translations indeed use “for”; others use “but”; many omit the conjunction altogether. PHILLIPS like the JST begins the verse with “Now” suggesting a summing up of the prior argument and a transition to a final decision.

Paradigm Classification A-1 (Paraphrase of KJV Text)

5. Philippians 1:26

That your rejoicing with me may be more abundant in Jesus Christ, for ~~me by~~ my coming to you again.

As the NET Bible annotation explains, there are two possible ways to read the Greek here. The first is “your boasting may overflow in Christ Jesus because of me,” (where “me” comes near the end) and the second is “Your boasting in me may overflow in Christ Jesus” (where “me” is moved forward in connection with “boasting/rejoicing.”). The JST revision moves the “me” forward similar to the second reading, as do a number of modern translations. The NIV has “so that through my being with you again your boasting in Christ Jesus will abound on account of me.” The KJV “for me by my coming” seems to pile up the first-person singular pronouns almost on top of each other, and so it is possible that was a motivation to move the first such pronoun forward in the sentence to create some separation between them.

Paradigm Classification A-1 (Paraphrase of KJV Text)

6. Philippians 1:27

~~Only~~ Therefore let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel;

The neuter of the adjective monos is used as an adverb, “only,” and is a qualification of what has gone before. The JST suggests a different adverb, “therefore,” making this verse a consequence of what has gone before. CEB is close to this usage with “Most important”; CEV has “above all else”; GNY has “Now, the important thing is” and NLT has “Above all.”

Paradigm Classification A-1 (Paraphrase of KJV Text)

7. Philippians 1:28

And in nothing terrified by your adversaries:, who reject the gospel, which ~~is to~~ bringeth on them ~~an evident token of perdition~~ destruction, but to you who receive the gospel, of salvation,; and that of God.

The JST makes four changes here: (i) the gloss “who reject the gospel” is a definition of who their enemies are; (ii) the gloss “who receive the gospel” is a definition of who they and their own people are; (iii) the replacement of “is to” with “bringeth on” suggests a more forceful and active process; and (iv) “an evident token of perdition” is replaced by the single word “destruction,” which is a more common and less technical synonym of “perdition.” Most modern translations use the word “destruction” here.

Paradigm Classification A-1 (Paraphrase of KJV Text)

8. Philippians 1:30

Having the same conflict which ye saw in me, and now ~~hear~~ know to be in me.

It is true that the Greek text has akouete “hear.” But the JST is making a common-sense correction, because Paul just got done telling them about his struggle, so this isn’t rumor or idle gossip, they know of Paul’s struggle because they now have the details directly from the man himself. In effect the JST is emphasizing the word “now”; i.e. “you now hear [and thus know].” One translation that takes a similar tack using the word “know” is the TPT: “For you have been called by him to endure the conflict the same way I have endured it—for you know I’m not giving up.”

Paradigm Classification A-1 (Paraphrase of KJV Text)

9. Philippians 2:17

Yea, and if I be offered a ~~upon the~~ sacrifice ~~and~~ upon the service of your faith, I joy, and rejoice with you all.

To be “offered upon the sacrifice” doesn’t make sense; Paul is talking about being offered (metaphorically) as a sacrifice, as correctly reflected in the JST. The Greek verb used here, spendomai, has specific reference to being poured out as a drink offering, and most modern translations take it that way as a metaphor, such as the NIV: “But even if I am being poured out like a drink offering on the sacrifice and service coming from your faith, I am glad and rejoice with all of you.”

Paradigm Classification A-1 (Paraphrase of KJV Text)

10. Philippians 3:1

Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you, to me indeed is not grievous, ~~but~~ and for you it is safe.

This is an example of the Greek men…de construction. The word men is a particle, usually untranslated, that introduces one clause, which is then followed by a second clause introduced by the conjunction de (meaning but, to the contrary, rather, and, now, then), often to be translated “on the one hand . . . on the other hand,” in which the first point contrasts with and sets up the second point, which is to be emphasized. The transition between the two clauses may be made by “but,” but it also may be made by “and,” depending on context. Here modern translations are split pretty much 50/50 between “but” and “and” (as in the JST). For instance, the GNT has “I don’t mind repeating what I have written before, and you will be safer if I do so.” (The Anchor Bible also uses “and.”)

Paradigm Classification A-1 (Paraphrase of KJV Text)

11. Philippians 3:11

If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the ~~dead~~ just.

Inasmuch as all will be resurrected from the dead, both the just and the unjust, the JST specifies the resurrection of the just. Some translations similarly reflect this nuance with something like “raised to life” in lieu of “resurrection of the dead.”

Paradigm Classification A-1 (Paraphrase of KJV Text)

12. Philippians 3:18

(For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, ~~that they are~~ as the enemies of the cross of Christ:

This revision is based on the italics. Three italicized words in a row are almost certain to be revised in some fashion in the JST. The change is not intended to change the meaning of the passage in any way.

Paradigm Classification A-2 (Suspicion of Italicized Text)

13. Philippians 3:19

Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and ~~whose~~ who glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.)

The JST changes “whose glory is in their shame” to “who glory in their shame.” The JST assimilates the “whose” to the “who” of the following clause to make it clear that they do not receive objective glory in that case, but that they are the ones who glory in their shame.

Paradigm Classification A-4 (Assimilation)

14. Philippians 4:6

Be ~~careful~~ afflicted for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God.

This is a case where the KJV is a poor translation due to linguistic drift over time. In Jacobian idiom “careful” means “full of care or concern,” whereas in modern idiom that word means to be “cautious.” As being cautious is often a laudable and prudent quality it seems odd to have Paul warn against it, and so the JST supplies another (clearly) negative condition. A modern translation would be “Do not be anxious about anything.” (NET).

Paradigm Classification A-1 (Paraphrase of KJV Text)

A COMMENTARY ON JOSEPH SMITH’S REVISION OF COLOSSIANS

Kevin Barney

1. Colossians 1:4

Since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of ~~the~~ your love ~~which ye have~~ to all the saints,

This revision is based on the italics. Smith regularly scrutinized the italics for possible revision, but when there are at least three italicized words in a row, as here, the likelihood of revision increases markedly. This revision is not intended to change the meaning of the verse in any way. CEB, CEV, GNV, GW, GNT, MEV, NOG, NKJV, NLV, NLT, RGT and VOICE all similarly render “your love.”

Paradigm Classification A-2 (Suspicion of Italicized Text)

2. Colossians 1:6

Which is come unto you, as ~~it is~~ in all generations of the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth:

The deletion of “it is” is of course based on the italics. The text seems to speak of “all the world” geographically, but the JST adds the concept of “all the world” temporally by adding “generations of.” The Anchor Bible takes the modal estin (“is”) as belonging to the immediately following participle karpophoroumenon (“bearing fruit”) as a periphrastic construction reflecting Semitic influence, emphatically suggesting continuous action: “continuously bringing forth fruit,” which thus suggests a temporal as well as a spatial reach of the expression. See Markus Barth and Helmut Blanke, Colossians, A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York: Doubleday, 1994), 158. AMP, NASB1995, and PHILLIPS have “constantly,” and MSG has “The Message . . . doesn’t diminish or weaken over time.”

Paradigm Classifications A-1 and A-2 (Paraphrase of KJV Text and Suspicion of Italicized Text)

3. Colossians 2:2

That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God~~, and of the Father,~~ and of Christ, who is of God, even the Father;

There is a bewildering array of variant textual readings for the end of this verse. The KJV is following the Textus Receptus, which is a late and certainly incorrect form of the text. The KJV awkwardly seems to suggest that God and the Father are two separate beings, and so the JST revises the text to make the references to God and to the Father as more clearly being to the same being. The likely original text is tou musteriou tou theou, christou “of the mystery of God, (namely) Christ (the Messiah).”

Paradigm Classification A-1 (Paraphrase of KJV Text)

4-6. Colossians 2:21-23

Which are after the commandments and doctrines of men, who teach you to ~~(Touch~~ touch not; taste not; handle not; ~~Which~~ all those things which are to perish with the using;)? ~~after the commandments and doctrines of men?~~ Which things have indeed a ~~shew~~ show of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body~~; not in any honour~~ as to the satisfying of the flesh, not in any honor to God.

Although the JST appears to make substantial revisions to these verses, in reality it is simply reorganizing the material to avoid confusion. KJV verse 21 sparsely and without introduction gives three negative imperatives: “Touch not, taste not, handle not.” Without introduction, those commands could be misconstrued as commands of God rather than of men, so the explanation of the nature of these commands is moved forward from following the words of verse 21 to preceding those words. The KJV tries to make the human nature of these commands clear by using parentheses, but the parentheses are inadequate for the task and are not used in modern translations, which use quotation marks here. Of course, quotation marks were not an option for the KJV, as it does not use quotation marks at all. Similarly, some text in verse 23 is moved to the end of the verse to make it more emphatic and to make it clear that it governs all the preceding text of verse 23. The JST does not intend to alter the meaning of the passage, but simply to make it clearer and avoid confusion and misunderstanding. (Note that “will worship” is a an archaic rendering of ethelothreskia, meaning “self-imposed piety.”)

Paradigm Classification A-1 (Paraphrase of KJV Text)

Moroni Visits Joseph Smith

Thu, 14 Jan 2021 14:14:42 GMT

I have to admit, I’m going to be a little sad if this week’s Sunday School lesson doesn’t start with Earth Wind and Fire‘s “September.”

Added bonus: after last night’s scripture study (and subsequent Spotify listen and Just Dance game) my family’s never going to forget the date Moroni came to visit Joseph Smith for the first time.

Prejudice Against Me Among Professors of Religion

Tue, 12 Jan 2021 23:32:52 GMT

Ben P L, “The First Vision.” Public domain

Sunday evening, my family and I were reading Joseph Smith–History in a not-quite-too-late bid to keep up with the Sunday School reading. And, although I’ve read the first 26 verses plenty of times before, something whetted my curiosity this time.

See, in v. 19, the Personage tells Joseph that all of the creeds were an abomination and that “those professors were all corrupt.” A few verses later, Joseph talks about how his story “excited a great deal of prejudice against me among professors of religion.”

I’d always taken for granted that these professors of religion were religious elites, presumably teachers at seminaries or colleges–the caretakers of institutional religion at the time. After all, that’s kind of how we collectively teach and read these passages. (Don’t believe me? Well, the footnote to “professors” in v. 19 references “False Prophets” in the Topical Guide, which at least implies some degree of authority and religious eliteness.)

But here’s the thing: I’m pretty sure that reading is wrong. I’m pretty sure that when Joseph wrote those passages, he wasn’t thinking of a tenured professor in a college department of religion. Rather, I’m pretty sure he meant professor to be a synonym for believer or for Christian.

Why? Well, first I looked at Webster’s 1828 dictionary. It defines “professor” to mean:

PROFESS’OR, noun [Latin] One who makes open declaration of his sentiments or opinions; particularly, one who makes a public avowal of his belief in the Scriptures and his faith in Christ, and thus unites himself to the visible church.

1. One that publicly teaches any science or branch of learning; particularly, an officer in a university, college or other seminary, whose business is to read lectures or instruct students in a particular branch of learning; as a professor of theology or mathematics.

So the tenured college instructor connotation of “professor” certainly existed at the time, but the person-who-professes-belief meaning comes first. And I think that connotation fits better with the story Joseph is telling. As best I can tell, there probably weren’t a lot of colleges and universities around Palmyra at the time. (In fact, my Google search suggests that there still aren’t.) So where would these [college] professors be coming from?

On the other hand, in Joseph’s own words, there were a lot of people professing religion. And those people, again in Joseph’s words, were contending with each other about their professed faith’s truth. It would make sense that those people–believers deeply engaged with their beliefs–would react to a local boy’s claim that their preferred religion was not only untrue, but an abomination (and, for that matter, that they were corrupt).

And a lot of roughly contemporaneous writing uses “professor of religion” in the sense of “people who profess religion.”

For example, an 1830 missionary who was trying to recruit people to go west wrote:

We want, also, more pious laymen; not professors of religion merely, nor men who have simply a good report of those who are without; but men of character, and reputation, and influence. . . . We want active Christians, men devoted to the cause and interest of their Redeemer

Here, “professors of religion” seems to mean, not the elite, but people who do more than merely profess their religion.

In 1832, J. Barfett wrote The Question, “Ought the Professors of Religion to Interfere With Politics?” Considered in a Letter to a Friend. In the creatively-named pamphlet he asks the “Christian professor” essentially about his motives in choosing to vote for somebody. These various questions, he says, “claim the serious attention of the professors of religion.” Again, his pamphlet seems addressed to Christians, not to teachers.

And in 1835, the Rev. Daniel Clark wrote The Duty of Professors of Religion to Consecrate Their Property to the Spread of the Gospel. Again, it’s aimed to convince Christian believers that all things are God’s and that, thus, they should consecrate everything they have to God.

And what does reading “professors of religion” to mean believers, not only elite teachers, do to our reading of Joseph’s history? Honestly, I think it changes our reading significantly and makes it a lot more poignant. This isn’t Joseph being persecuted by elites; while the Methodist preacher told him he was wrong, he couldn’t take comfort in his community or his neighbors. Sure, the elites didn’t believe him, but neither did the Christian believers. His neighbors, perhaps his friends, ostracized him. The prejudice didn’t come just from above–it came, too, from beside.

No More Disposition to Speak Evil: A Lesson Plan to Address Racism in the Church

Sat, 09 Jan 2021 19:48:32 GMT

Photo by Ehimetalor Akhere Unuabona on Unsplash

Here is a lesson plan for BCC readers who need a Sunday School or Relief Society/Elder’s Quorum lesson to address white nationalism. I welcome constructive feedback and will update this lesson plan periodically to incorporate it, so that it can be a living resource for the future.

Opening Hymn: “I’m Trying to be Like Jesus“

Objective: Teach members how to use the peaceable doctrine of Christ to confront concrete examples of racism in their everyday lives.

INTRODUCTION

Back in seminary and institute, we often repeated the same lesson topics and drilled the same scripture mastery verses. When we students started complaining about the call-and-response messages and rote “seminary answers,” our teachers had a strong rebuttal: the repetition is the point. We are commanded to “sanctify the Lord God in our hearts, and be ready always to give an answer to every man who asketh you a reason for the hope that is in you.” (1 Peter 3:15). Fulfilling that commandment to “be ready always” requires practice.

Reading our scriptures every day helps our minds turn often to meditation on the Word. Sincere daily prayer prompts us to choose to engage in the small acts of turning our hearts toward God. These practices further our goal as Christians is to cultivate “no more disposition to do evil, but to do good continually.” (Mosiah 5:2)

Part of learning morality requires practice at applying true principles to specific everyday situations.

Opening Discussion Question: What are some examples of times you encountered a difficult everyday situation, and had to wrestle with a choice about how to put your beliefs into practice?

Sample / Anticipated Class Answers

Sabbath Day Observance: Declining to attend an activity and suggesting alternates.
Word of Wisdom: Turning down forbidden substances when offered.
Tithing: Choosing to donate 10% as soon as the paycheck arrives, rather than waiting until the end of the year when it’s much harder to catch-up.
Charity: Listening to a prompting to buy lunch for an unhoused man on the street.
Obscene Media: Walking out of a movie. Throwing away CDs/DVDs. Installing WiFi content filters.
Good Influences: Seeking out friends who build each other up, not those who lie, gossip, or tear each other down.

Great examples! One reason we come together as a religious community is to discuss how to respond with faith to the multitude of hypothetical and real dilemmas we all face every day. Talking through specific examples helps us “liken all scriptures unto us, that it might be for our profit and learning.” (1 Nephi 19:23).

Bridge to Main Discussion: Today we’re going to discuss, and practice, how to respond to a pernicious and pervasive evil in our communities: racism, particularly white nationalism.

Photo by Chayene Rafaela on Unsplash

MAIN LESSON

All Are Alike Unto God.

God loves all of his children and welcomes all into his fold. Engaging in racist or white nationalist rhetoric and actions is a serious offense against God, as explained by these Church sources.

“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” (Matthew 22:37-39).

“The gospel of Jesus Christ is for everyone. The Book of Mormon states, ‘black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto God’ (2 Nephi 26:33). This is the Church’s official teaching.” Race and the Church, Are All Alike Unto God (2012)

“God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.” (Acts 10:34-35)

“True community begins with … loving our neighbor; with honoring and serving each other. This is the spirit behind the cooperation shared by the NAACP and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” NAACP Convention Remarks, Russell M. Nelson (2019)

“The pure love of Christ [is] kind, meek, and lowly….it has no place for bigotry, hatred, or violence….It encourages diverse people to live together in Christian love regardless of religious belief, race, nationality, financial standing, education, or culture.” A More Excellent Way, Howard W. Hunter (1992).

Racism is a Serious Sin Against Christ.

Leaders of the Church have condemned the sin of racism, acknowledging that it all too often still exists within the hearts of the members of this Church.

“Racial strife still lifts its ugly head. I am advised that even right here among us there is some of this. … No man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ.” Racial Intolerance, Gordon B. Hinckley (2006)

“White supremacist attitudes are morally wrong and sinful, and we condemn them. Church members who promote or pursue a white culture or white supremacy agenda are not in harmony with the teachings of the Church.” Newsroom Statement on Charlottesville, VA (2017)

“The Church calls on all people to abandon attitudes and actions of prejudice toward any group or individual.” Prejudice, Handbook Section 38.6.14 (2020)

Photo by Nitish Meena on Unsplash

DISCUSSION – CONFRONTING EVERYDAY RACISM

Church teachings are clear that God loves everyone and racism is a sin, and yet I’m sure all of us have heard racist remarks from people we know. Sadly, we likely have even heard those remarks at Church or from Church members. Sometimes our co-religionists even reference scripture or historical statements to justify their racist attitudes. When we see that happen, we need to be “be ready always to give an answer” to stand for truth and righteousness by correcting them. If we ignore racism, it will fester.

The following are common, unacceptable, statements made in our communities. Let us discuss as a class how to effectively correct them.

Scripture and Church History Should Not Be Used to Justify Racism

Inappropriate Statements:

Dark skin is part of the curse of Cain for murdering his brother Abel, or the curse God placed on the Lamanites for unrighteousness.
Blacks were “less valiant in the preexistence” before coming to Earth.
The ancient Israelites were permitted by God to cast out strangers not of their race, religion, and culture, so we can too.
White or light skin is a sign of God’s favor.

Proposed Corrections:

“Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.” Race and the Priesthood (2013).

“The most important prophet, so far as we are concerned, is the one who is living in our day and age. This is the prophet who has today’s instructions from God to us.” Jesus Christ: Gifts and Expectations, Ezra Taft Benson (1974).

“We invite all to pray to God that the people of this land will heed the Divine call to abandon attitudes of prejudice against any group of God’s children….Prejudice, hate and discrimination are learned. Thus, we call on parents, family members, and teachers to be the first line of defense.” Locking Arms for Racial Harmony in America, Russell M. Nelson & NAACP (2020)

Racist Attitudes Prevalent in Society Should Not Infect The Body of Christ

Inappropriate Statement: Immigrants and refugees who do not learn our language or assimilate with our culture should go back to where they came from.

Correction: The Church’s “I Was A Stranger” refugee program urges us to extend compassion to everyone seeking refuge because their homes have become unstable due to violence, war, natural disasters, or religious persecution.

Inappropriate Statement: Black Lives Matter is a hate group, All Lives Matter!

Correction: Church leaders have recognized that Black Lives Matter and that Latter-day Saints should work to root out the legacies of slavery. All people are children of God who deserve love, safety, and respect. As part of the body of Christ, we are taught that if “one member suffers, all the memberssuffer with it” (1 Corin. 12:26) and that we should “mourn with those that mourn” (Mosiah 18:9). As the Prophet recently taught, “I grieve that our Black brothers and sisters the world over are enduring the pains of racism and prejudice. Today I call upon our members everywhere to lead out in abandoning attitudes and actions of prejudice.” Let God Prevail, Russell M. Nelson (2020).

One way we as Latter-day Saints can mourn together is to “unite to root out racism.^“ “To do that, we must have clear thinking about how current events should be analyzed and acted upon in view of this nation’s shameful history of Black slavery. … The shocking police-produced death of George Floyd in Minnesota last May was surely the trigger for these nationwide protests whose momentum was carried forward under the message of ‘Black Lives Matter.’ Of course Black lives matter! That is an eternal truth all reasonable people should support.” Racism and Other Challenges, Dallin H. Oaks (2020).

Inappropriate Statement: [Offensive stereotype] was just a joke! Everyone is just too politically correct these days. In the old days those statements were commonplace, we can’t expect old attitudes to change that quickly.

Correction: [Offensive stereotype] was wrong then, and it is still wrong now. When you know better, do better. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is about always learning, always repenting, and enduring to the end. “What is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” (Micah 6:8)

Past prejudice is no excuse for current sin. Particularly not when leaders of this Church, Christians throughout the centuries, and Jesus Christ himself have excoriated the evils of racism and cultural prejudice.

“‘We call upon all men, everywhere, both within and outside the Church, to commit themselves to the establishment of full civil equality for all of God’s children. Anything less than this defeats our high ideal of the brotherhood of man.” The Fight Between Good and Evil, Hugh B. Brown (1963).

Inappropriate Statement: American culture is under attack and pretty soon minorities will take over, we cannot let them overtake us and to preserve our traditional values. We need to be like Captain Moroni and raise a Title of Liberty and then go to war to fight to make sure our government is not overrun by globalists!

Correction: The Church does not advocate for the violent overthrow of democratic governments. “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law” (Articles of Faith 1:12).

“[This] means that we obey the current law and use peaceful means to change it. It also means that we peacefully accept the results of elections. We will not participate in the violence threatened by those disappointed with the outcome….Protesters have no right to destroy, deface, or steal property or to undermine the government’s legitimate police powers. The Constitution and laws contain no invitation to revolution or anarchy.” Love Your Enemies, Dallin H. Oaks (2020)

It is unacceptable for individuals to use the name of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Book of Mormon stories as justifications for crimes. The warning of Captain Moroni’s story is that “there were many in the church who believed in the flattering words” of a wicked man seeking to become a king, which caused them to “dissent even from the church” and the gospel of love and peace. (See Alma 46.)

CONCLUSION

As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints , we have been asked to devote the same energy to rooting out racism as we do to the other pernicious sins in the world. Let us go forth with a renewed commitment to preach the peaceable gospel of Christ’s universal love.

"None of these offices is he to do”: priests and the administration of the sacrament

Tue, 05 Jan 2021 17:46:15 GMT

A friend shot me a note this week with a question about the “Articles and Covenants.” Revised and included in our Doctrine and Covenants as Section 20, this is the document that functioned as a sort of General Handbook of Instructions and creed for the early church. This document, like most of the Doctrine and Covenants, was crystallized in 1835, however beliefs and policy change (we do have a living church and continued revelation). That presents situations were current practice doesn’t always line up with the text. My friend asked about the duties of priests in verses 46-52, which seem to indicate (in 50-51) that priests shouldn’t administer the sacrament when an Elder is present.

The revisions to Articles and Covenants before the text stabilized were quite significant, and include these verses. The JSPP features the earliest text in their Documents series, but also has other early versions. Both the 1831 featured version and the text included in the 1833 printings (including the Book of Commandments) read: “The priests’ duty is to preach, teach, expound, and exhort, and baptize, and administer the sacrament, and visit the house of each member, and exhort them to pray vocally and in secret, and also to attend to all family duties, to ordain priests, teachers, and deacons, and to take the lead in meetings; but none of these offices is he to do when there is an elder present, but in all cases is to assist the elder, &c.”

According to this, in the early church, priests could basically lead congregational worship, but were not to do so if an elder was present (and remember when the church was organized there were only four offices/callings in the church—elder, priest, teacher, and deacon). Also remember that all of these offices were occupied by men, and universal ordination wasn’t a thing yet. When church leaders prepared the Doctrine and Covenants in 1835, they revised this section, but in a way that is somewhat ambiguous. The priests’ “duty is to preach, teach, expound, exhort, and baptize, and administer the sacrament, and visit the house of each member.” However they were to “take the lead of meetings” only “when there is no elder present.” “[W]hen there is an elder present” he was to limit himself to “preach, teach, expound, exhort, and baptize, and visit the house of each member.” In parallel, the absence of “administering the sacrament” in the second list suggests its equation with “taking the lead of meetings,” but it ambiguous.

One reasonable reading is that, according to the 1835 text, priests were not to administer the sacrament when an elder was present. This of course is not how we do things today. I’m not aware of anyone who raised this issue in history, however, it could only have happened in the twentieth or twenty-first century. In the nineteenth century the sacrament was administered by church leaders, typically bishops. For example, in the Utah era, bishops regularly blessed the sacrament, and adult teachers (either ordained teachers, or acting teacher with a Melchizedek Priesthood office) passed it to the congregation.

The transition to ordaining young men to Aaronic priesthood offices started pretty early (I’ve found some evidences as early as the 1850s), but it wasn’t a regular or systematic policy until the priesthood reforms of Joseph F. Smith in the first decades of the twentieth century [n1]. At this time church leaders decided to create the system of Aaronic priesthood office advancement, and created jobs for the priests, teachers, and deacons. Some church members, including church leaders suggested that having teachers prepare and deacons pass the sacrament was against the scripture which explicitly stated that “neither teachers nor deacons have authority to baptize, administer the sacrament, or lay on hands.” (D&C 20:58). Responses, including those by President Heber Grant were essentially unanimous in declaring that preparing and passing the sacrament are not “administering,” that they are not priesthood duties, and that anyone can do them. They even showed how lay church members including women passed the sacrament every week down the rows. No one that I am aware of, however, questioned the right of priests to administer in the presence of an elder.

Fast forward to the present and church law as indicated in the General Handbooks and received tradition take precedence over the liturgical and ecclesiological texts in the Doctrine and Covenants, largely because we rely on and emphasize the living oracles (to use the older vernacular). As we don’t turn to the canonized texts in this way, we also generally don’t ask these types of questions, but like my friend, occasionally we do!

____________________

See Bill Hartley’s classic 1996 JMH article “From Men to Boy’s.”

and his sword is bathed in heaven

Fri, 01 Jan 2021 20:16:16 GMT

Yesterday I got some sort of a reminder, I think on Facebook, that this Sunday begins the new D&C curriculum year, so I thought I would read the assigned text, which is D&C 1. So I’m reading along and I come to verse 13: “And the anger of the Lord is kindled, and his sword is bathed in heaven, and it shall fall upon the inhabitants of the earth.” And I was struck by the expression “his sword is bathed in heaven”; what the heck is that supposed to mean?

I quickly found that it is a quote from Isaiah 34:5: “For my sword shall be bathed in heaven: behold, it shall come down upon Idumea, and upon the people of my curse, to judgment.”

This sort of martial imagery set in heaven was unfamiliar to me. Could it be an allusion to the war in heaven? Maybe, but God actually wielding a sword seems a little bit literal for that episode (especially since the combatants were spirits).

And what does “bathed in heaven” even mean? My first guess was that it meant “bathed [in blood] in heaven.” Most modern translations render something like “When my sword has drunk its fill in heaven,” which you’ve gotta admit is some kickass imagery! That’s something Errol Flynn as Captain Blood would say.

The NET renders:

He says, “Indeed my sword has slaughtered heavenly powers.

Look, it now descends on Edom,

on the people I shall annihilate in judgment.”

The heavenly powers are the stars, planets, gods and other heavenly luminaries that are members of the Divine Council and here are portrayed as opposing the high god El and being defeated by him in battle.

Why would Isaiah use this Canaanite imagery? We must remember that the Israelites and the Canaanites were cousins in many ways, both geographically and linguistically, and there was overlap between them religiously as well. And when a prophet like Isaiah wanted to make a point strongly, as here, they would sometimes borrow Canaanite imagery and tropes. We may not think God had a sword battle with the moon, but that was powerful imagery in the religious culture of the time, which the prophets were willing to unleash when it suited their purposes. (I have previously addressed overlaps between Israelites and Canaanites in my articles “On Elkenah as Canaanite El” and “How to Worship Our Mother in Heaven.”)

And I’ve gotta admit, I’m impressed that Joseph was able to come up with and deploy this powerful biblical imagery. That young man knew his Bible.

Of Mormon Angels and Catholic Missals

Mon, 28 Dec 2020 01:36:47 GMT

An old friend of mine sent me this story; it has no great message, but it is worth pondering, in these post-Christmas days, as we wait the beginning of, we all fervently hope, a much better year. Enjoy!

Some of us may be familiar with Jorge Cocco Santángelo, an 84-year-old Argentinian Mormon artist who, after a lengthy career making and teaching art in Argentina, Spain, and Mexico, was recently “discovered” by our community. Since much of his recent work depicts the life of Jesus, it has found admirers far beyond his co-religionists; for example, shortly before the covid lockdowns began, the Museum of Biblical Art in Dallas held an exhibition of his work. Recently, he was commissioned to do paintings for some Christmas postage stamps (not USPS), which should come out next year.

As it happens, someone with Oregon Catholic Press, a major publisher of liturgical music, also liked Cocco’s work. One of his nativity paintings is featured on the cover of OCP’s current Advent-to-Lent missal (pictured here). That same someone with OCP saw that Cocco has often painted angels. Those paintings embrace more uniquely Mormon concepts (for example, the association of the archangels Michael and Gabriel with, respectively, Adam and Noah) and figures (particularly Moroni). Of all the available options, OCP chose “Angel VIII” for the covers of two 2021 publications (pictured at the top of this post). To any remotely active Mormon, it’s not hard to figure out what the inspiration for this particular angel was. Still, unaware of any potential theological implications to their actions, OCP began printing the books and even shipped some to a couple of parishes that had placed early orders.

Well, a priest from one of those parishes–located in Idaho–quickly recognized Moroni on the cover and raised the alarm via social media, which was met with many understandable expressions of support from Catholics (along with some predictable ugliness towards Mormons). At first, Oregon Catholic Press dug in its heels, but later reversed course, apologized, pulped the entire run of both books, and instructed the parishes who received copies with the offending covers to dispose of or destroy them. (Fortunately for collectors and historians, someone recognized the profit opportunity and has broken ranks, selling some copies on the Internet at inflated prices, hence the copies in the author’s collection displayed here.) The Mormon infiltration was (mostly) averted.

If forced to give a moral to this story, I’d say: remember to read the bios posted on artists’ websites and in the exhibition notes provided by museums. But maybe even better, how about just: good art will always be recognized for what it is, even if the theological niceties behind it force later corrections. If Cocco knows anything about this small tempest in a tea pot, I hope he’s having a good laugh about it, as should we.

Duelling Gift-Bringers: Reconciling Overlapping Traditions

Thu, 24 Dec 2020 13:04:43 GMT

The Christkind was here!

It’s the twenty-fourth of December. Three generations are gathered around the piano in the family room singing Christmas carols. Light from the windows illuminates soft flakes falling silently to the ground. Just as silently, unnoticed by the youngest in the room, grandmother and grandfather exit the room. A while later—no one can recall exactly how long; time seems suspended on this most anticipated evening of the year—young ears pick out the ringing of a bell. The music stops and there is a rush for the door. Small feet pad down the hallway, eager hands throw open the living room door and wide eyes take in the splendour of a decorated tree lit with candles where once the sofa had stood, at its base a pile of wrapped gifts—the Christkind has come!

I love this time of the year, and when I moved to Austria years ago I quickly came to appreciate the Christkind tradition. While there are many variations, in my extended family the Christkind is responsible for all gift giving. Every package under the tree is wrapped, and they all come from the Christkind. This elusive being is also responsible for decorating the tree in some circles, though in our case that’s something the kids get to do on the afternoon of December 24. Except lighting the candles—that remains the Christkind’s purview.

I like the idea of an incarnation of the infant Jesus bearing all gifts. By keeping the gift giving in the family, so to speak, rather than outsourcing it to, say, Santa Claus, the celebration of Christmas has the potential to be more closely linked to the teachings in John 3:16 and Moroni 7:24. For anyone concerned about preserving the meaning Christmas, the Christkind tradition offers a way to recenter the festivities on Christ.

However, a couple of years ago I realized that there is a downside to the notion of the Christkind being the bearer of all good things.

The realization came the year I decided my daughter was old enough to start thinking about presents for other people. “What should we get Mama,” I innocently inquired. “But I thought the Christkind brought Mama presents?” Oops. So I hemmed and hawed and left it at that. It hadn’t occurred to me that by making a miracle out of the entire gift-giving process, it sidelines the role young believers in the gift-giving process. That is an advantage to the Santa Claus tradition where gift giving is split between mere mortals and an unseen, prescient being. Surely thinking of others is a key part of the holiday too, and by sharing responsibility for gift giving, everyone gets to participate without suppressing the magic of a few surprises under the tree on Christmas morning for those who look forward to that.

In the meantime, we’ve decided that independently of what the Christkind has in store for each of us, we also exchange homemade gifts. We haven’t outsourced the Christkind’s role; we just complement it with modest gifts that come from the heart. And, reflecting a kind of commitment to non-overlapping magisteria, my daughter happily accepts that in some families the parents are the gift givers without negatively impacting her belief in the wonder of the Christkind. It’s a delicate balance, but one that I think will hold one more year.

Have you found yourselves in a similar position of having to reconcile family traditions as families merge and grow?

On the JST of Ephesians

Wed, 23 Dec 2020 22:35:54 GMT

In honor of Joseph Smith’s birthday, I thought I would post another installment in my recent attempt to write commentaries on the JST revisions to some of the New Testament epistles. I hope you enjoy this installment, and Merry Christmas!

A COMMENTARY ON JOSEPH SMITH’S REVISION OF EPHESIANS

Kevin Barney

1. Ephesians 2:8

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: but it is the gift of God:

The author of the passage (whether Paul or someone else) makes an insertion here of a negation (“and that not of yourselves”) to rhetorically underline and emphasize a positive statement, and the JST stresses that intended contrast between the negative and the positive by inserting the word “but” as a contrasting conjunction. AMP, AMPC, CJB and GNT do the same.

Paradigm Classification A-1 (English Paraphrase of KJV Text).

2. Ephesians 2:11

Wherefore remember, that ye ~~being~~ were in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

This revision was based on the italics, which led Smith to change a participle into a finite verb. AMPC, CSP, EXB, GW, HCSB, PHILLIPS, TLB, NOG, TPT, WE, WYC and YLT all similarly use “were” here.

Paradigm Classification A-2 (Suspicion of Italicized Text).

3. Ephesians 3:1

For this cause I, Paul, am the prisoner of Jesus Christ ~~for~~ among you Gentiles,

The text of verse 1 as we have it in Greek is a sentence fragment (the Anchor Bible concludes its translation of that verse with ellipses; see Markus Barth, Ephesians 1-3, A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York: Doubleday, 1972), 326). Barth writes “However, the fifth-century Syriac version (the Peshitta, reedited in the sixth and seventh centuries), Chrysostom, Beza, and others consider 3:1 an asyndeton rather than a broken sentence; they presuppose that just as elsewhere a form of the verb ‘to be’ is the proper connection between the subject and a following predicate, and they translate: ‘For this reason I, Paul, am a prisoner.’” (Barth then discusses other possibilities as well.) Note how the JST provides the same “am” fix as suggested by a number of ancient writers. The CEB, CJB, ERV, GW, ICB, ISV, TLB, MSG, MEV, NOG, NCV, NLV, NMB, NRSVA, NRSVACE, TPT, RGT, TLV and VOICE all follow the same “am” solution here as does the JST. The JST also changes the “for” (meaning “for the sake of” the Gentiles) to “among” the Gentiles. The former reading suggests that Paul is suffering because of his advocacy of Gentiles in the Christian Church; the latter that Paul is suffering, although he himself is a Jew, because due to his advocacy he is experiencing the same resistance as the Gentile Christians themselves among the Jewish Christian church leaders.

Paradigm Classification A-1 (English Paraphrase of KJV Text).

4. Ephesians 3:2

~~If ye have heard of~~ For the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:

The “if” in “if ye have heard of” seems to suggest that perhaps the Ephesians had not yet heard of the dispensation of grace, which would not be a correct assumption. The Anchor Bible renders “surely you have heard that.” The Greek conjunction eige is used to introduce a justifiable assumption with a high degree of probability, not a questionable one. The initial verb “heard” was considered too weak by many interpreters, who were unable to imagine that the readers of Ephesians had only “heard” of Paul’s commission, so they understood the Greek verb akouo (“hear”) in light of the Hebrew verb shama, which also means “to hear” generally, but in the stronger sense of “to comprehend” or “to retain firmly.” Many modern translations have “assuming you have heard,” while others are even stronger with “You have heard, of course” (CEB) or “you have surely heard” (CEV).

Paradigm Classification A-1 (English Paraphrase of KJV Text).

5. Ephesians 3:3

~~How~~ As ye have heard that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,

Smith brings the “if ye have heard,” which he deleted from verse 2, to verse 3, but without the problematic conditional “if,” making it a strong declaration and not a questionable one, similar to the way modern translations handle the clause in verse 2.

Paradigm Classification A-1 (English Paraphrase of KJV Text).

6. Ephesians 4:4

~~There is~~ In one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

This revision was influenced by the italics. The Anchor Bible begins the verse with “One body and one Spirit” with no introductory words at all. The NIMB begins the passage in a way similar to the JST with “being one body and one spirit.”

Paradigm Classification A-2 (Suspicion of Italicized Text).

7. Ephesians 4:10

He ~~that~~ who descended, is the same also ~~that~~ who ascended up ~~far above all heavens~~ into heaven, to glorify him who reighneth over all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

I see this revision as a harmonization with Ephesians 4:6, which reads “One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” The notion that Jesus is “far above all heavens” seems to conflict with verse 6, which has already stated that the Father is “above all.” The JST also modernizes two instances of relative “that” to “who.” Many modern translations use “who” rather than “that” here.

Paradigm Classifications C-1 and A-3 (Harmonization within the Biblical Text and Modernization).

8. Ephesians 4:13

Till we, ~~all come~~ in the unity of the faith, ~~and of~~ all come to the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

In the KJV, “all come” governs both “in the unity of the faith” and “of the knowledge of the Son of God.” The JST makes being “in the unity of the faith” circumstantial for us all to come to the knowledge of the Son of God, perhaps suggesting that salvation is in some measure communal rather than individual.

Paradigm Classification A-1 (English Paraphrase of KJV Text).

9. Ephesians 4:21

If so be that ye have ~~heard~~ learned him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus:

This raises the same issue we saw at Ephesians 3:2, that mere “hearing” may be too weak a translation to convey the original intent. A number of modern translations cover this nuance by rendering “assuming you have really heard him.” (Note that the JST seems to have inadvertently omitted the word “of”; the revision should read “learned of him.”)

Paradigm Classification A-1 (English Paraphrase of KJV Text).

10. Ephesians 4:22

~~That ye put off~~ And now I speak unto you concerning the former conversation, by exhortation, that ye put off the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;

The KJV begins “That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man.. . .,” which is quite obscure in English. The JST does not intend a different meaning here, but is simply an attempt to make the English more comprehensible. (The modern reader of the KJV also needs to remember that “conversation” here means “conduct.”)

Paradigm Classification A-1 (English Paraphrase of KJV Text).

11. Ephesians 4:23

And be renewed in the ~~spirit of your mind~~ mind of the Spirit;

The expression “in the spirit of your mind” is indeed a literal rendering of the Greek, but it doesn’t make much sense in English. On the surface it seems to be an epexegetic genitive, in which the “spirit” is the “mind.” Most translations translate literally as does the KJV, even though the meaning is obscure. Others drop the genitival relationship between spirit and mind and treat those two words separately, as in the NEB (which also reverses the two elements as does the JST): “Instead you become new in mind and spirit.” But the capitalization of JST “Spirit” suggests that Smith is taking that word as a reference to the Holy Spirit as opposed to the spirit of a human being. The Anchor Bible at p. 508 offers a number of reasons for reading the text that way, even though in the end it does not adopt that reading itself: “There seem to exist many reasons for capitalizing the word “spirit” and treating it as a reference to the “Holy Spirit of God” who is mentioned in 4:30. Among these reasons are: (a) the absence of the preposition “in” (or “by”) in analogy to 1:13; (b) the Pauline distinction between spirit (Spirit?) and mind (I Cor. 14:14) or between (God’s) Spirit and the (human) spirit (Rom. 8:16); (c) the attribution of “newness,” “regeneration,” “rebirth” to the Spirit in other NT passages and the corresponding conviction that man’s spirit and mind are too corrupt to be a means of eschatological renewal.” Although this seems to be a minority view, at least one translation takes it the same way as the JST, the CEB, which reads: “Instead, renew the thinking in your mind by the Spirit.”

Paradigm Classification A-1 (English Paraphrase of KJV Text).

12. Ephesians 4:26

~~Be ye~~ Can ye be angry, and ~~sin not:~~ not sin? let not the sun go down upon your wrath:

The KJV rendering is a disaster: “Be ye angry and sin not,” which seems to say anger is not a problem. The JST fixes this by turning it into a rhetorical question. The intent of the passage cannot be captured well by a literal translation. Consider instead a clearer paraphrase: “’When you are angry, don’t let that anger make you sin,’ and don’t stay angry all day.” (ERV)

Paradigm Classification A-1 (English Paraphrase of KJV Text).

13. Ephesians 4:28

Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him ~~labour~~ labor, working with his hands for the ~~thing~~ things which is are good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.

The change in the spelling of “labor is just an Americanization (a form of modernization). The passage means to say that doing honest work with one’s hands is in itself a good thing, but the KJV rendering is so obscure that the JST turns it into a reference to working to make good things with one’s hands.

Paradigm Classifications A-1 and A-3 (English Paraphrase of KJV Text and Modernization).

14. Ephesians 5:17

Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what is the will of the Lord is.

The JST moves the verb based on the italics. A number of modern translations similarly move the verb forward.

Paradigm Classification A-2 (Suspicion of Italicized Text).

A Musical Celebration of Christmas

Sun, 20 Dec 2020 16:23:00 GMT

I mentioned the other day that my ward had asked me to perform a virtual musical number for our December 20th Zoom sacrament meeting. I chose a saxophone duet of “What Child Is This”:

I also wanted to see your Christmas performances. So if you recorded a special musical number for your sacrament meeting (or, for that matter, if you want to record one for us), please post it in the comments! (Note that sometimes our spam filter holds up YouTube links; I’ll check periodically and release comments.)

If you’re interested in how I recorded this, I’ll put details below the fold. If you’re not (and feel free to not be interested!) click on “Comments” at the top to jump straight to others’ performances.

Details: back when I was in high school I owned a Tascam four-track tape recorder. It’s long since gone but, at the start of the quarantine, I bought a PreSonus interface, which allows me to record to my computer. It came with multitracking software.

Like so many things, I bought it and then … didn’t use it. But when I was asked to play, I thought that maybe I’d accompany my saxophone on piano. As I looked around, though, I found a book of saxophone Christmas duets and decided to record myself dueting.

So I recorded soprano, then I recorded tenor. (I’ll note that my saxophone setups are all for jazz, so it was tricky to get a passably classical tone.)

Then I had my kids film me playing along to the recordings. I edited the videos and audio together on iMovie, turning off the live audio so you only hear what I had previously recorded.

And with that: Merry Christmas and I look forward to hearing your renditions of Christmas music!

On the JST of Galatians

Sat, 19 Dec 2020 21:39:49 GMT

I decided to take a crack at another commentary on the JST of a book of the New Testament, going with Galatians (following 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians). Since the letters of Paul are organized from longest to shortest, the books keep getting shorter and therefore less intimidating to write a commentary on (1 Cor. had 68 vereses, but 2 Cor. had only about a third as many, and Galatians had only a little over half as many as 2 Cor.) I’m not sure whether I’ll keep churning these things out, but I might do a few more. I think it’s a lot of fun to try to get into Joseph’s head and figure out where he was going with these revisions. And I continue to be impressed by what he did (as in not perfect by any means, but very thoughtful). I checked these against Clarke and saw no likely influence from that source.

A COMMENTARY ON JOSEPH SMITH’S REVISION OF GALATIANS

Kevin Barney

1. Galatians 1:10

For do I now ~~persuade~~ please men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

The change from “persuade” to “please” is an assimilation to the use of the verb “please” twice in the balance of the verse. The Greek verb peitho rendered “persuade” in the KJV can indeed mean to persuade or convince, but it can also be used in the sense of “to seek favor or approval from” or “to flatter,” which is close to JST “please.” Many modern English translations take the verb in the latter sense, such as AMP “Am I now trying to win the favor and approval of men, or of God?” The CEV uses the actual word “please” here: “I am not trying to please people.”

Paradigm Classifications A-1and A-4 (Paraphrase of KJV Text and Assimilation).

2. Galatians 1:24

And they glorified God in on account of me.

The word “in” is indeed a literal rendering of the Greek preposition en, but the meaning of the expression “in me” is obscure in English. 30 modern translations render “because of me,” which matches the JST causal emendation here.

Paradigm Classification A-1 (Paraphrase of KJV Text).

3. Galatians 2:4

~~And that because of~~ Notwithstanding, there were some brought in by false brethren unawares ~~brought in~~, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:

The JST replaces the causal “because” with the adversative “notwithstanding.” Even though there is no adversative literally present in the Greek text, for the passage to read well one must be supplied in English. To understand why we must summarize the first four verses of the chapter. Paul describes a trip he took after a 14-year absence to Jerusalem accompanied by Barnabas and Titus. Paul spoke privately with the leaders of the church there communicating the gospel he had been preaching (which, among other things, did not require circumcision of converts). He was relieved that they were accepting of this and did not compel Titus, who was a Greek, to be circumcised. But then in verse 4 he speaks of false brethren who were spying on them and were opposed to the liberty they had taken on the subject of circumcision. So to transition from the positive treatment of Titus in verse 3 to the negative reaction of the false brethren in verse 4, one feels the need for some sort of a concessive such as JST “notwithstanding.” The Anchor Bible calls Paul’s sentence without it an anacoluthon (and more pointedly a “grammatical shipwreck”) and points to the necessity of some concessive at the beginning of verse 4, such as “yet” or “but.” See J. Louis Martyn, Galatians: A New “Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 194-95. CEB, DRA, NRSV, NTE, OJB, RSV, WE, WYC and NABRE use “but,” ESV and NASB use “yet,” GNT uses “although,” and ISV uses “however.”

Paradigm Classification A-1 (Paraphrase of KJV Text)

4. Galatians 2:14

But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Technically the first use of “Gentiles” in this passage is not a noun but the adverb ethnikos “like a Gentile.” The JST adds the definite article to the first occurrence of “Gentiles” in the verse as an assimilation to “the Gentiles” later in the verse. Many other English translations add the definite article before the first occurrence of “Gentiles” here, such as ASV, DRA, EHV, GNV, NASB, NMB, RGT, and the TLV.

Paradigm Classification A-1 and A-4 (Paraphrase of KJV Text and Assimilation).

5. Galatians 3:14

That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we they might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

The first part of the verse talks about the blessing of Abraham coming upon the Gentiles through Jesus Christ, so the JST changes “we” to “they,” meaning specifically the Gentiles who just a few words previously were the ones given that promise. Some translations like the AMP make the they of the Gentiles and the we (referring to those then present) near the end of the verse inclusive by rendering “so that we would all receive . . .”

Paradigm Classification A-1 (Paraphrase of KJV Text).

6. Galatians 3:15

Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if when it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.

Note that the word “if” is in italics, meaning it is not literally present in the Greek text. The Greek has a participle, kekuromenen “confirmed,” which could be construed in various ways, such as conditionally as in the KJV or temporally as in the JST. The temporal “when” is more commonly adopted in modern English translations. Note that the fact that “if” is in italics was also likely an influence on this revision.

Paradigm Categories A-1 and A-2 (Paraphrase of KJV Text and Suspicion of Italicized Words).

7. Galatians 3:18

For if the inheritance be is of the law, then it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

Given that it is in italics, the JST changes the subjunctive “be” to the indicative “is,” which is indeed used in many modern translations, and also adds a “then” to make the “if…then” structure of the sentence more explicit.

Paradigm Categories A-1 and A-2 (Paraphrase of KJV Text and Suspicion of Italicized Words).

8. Galatians 3:19

Wherefore then, ~~serveth~~ the law~~? It~~ was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made in the law given to Moses, who~~; and~~ it was ordained by the hand of angels ~~in the hand of~~ to be a mediator of this first covenant (the law).

The JST correctly removes the italicized verb “serveth,” as the initial question was intentionally elliptical and did not contain a verb, as in “Why, then, the Law at all?” The JST then changes that original rhetorical question and makes it part of the following statement. The “mediator” at the end of the passage is certainly a reference to Moses, which the JST make more explicit by naming him. The instrumental “by the hand of” is changed from being a reference to Moses as the mediator to the angels. Smith seems to read “ordained by the hand of angels” as a reference to angels physically ordaining Moses to that role, as if by laying on of hands.

Paradigm Classifications A-2 and B (Suspicion of Italicized Words and Midrashic Commentary).

9. Galatians 3:20

Now a this mediator is was not a mediator of the new covenant ~~one~~, but there is one mediator of the new covenant, who is Christ, as it is written in the law concerning the promises made to Abraham and his seed. Now Christ is the mediator of life; for this is the promise which God ~~is one~~ made unto Abraham.

This short, cryptic verse continues the message of verse 19 (as demonstrated for instance by the repetition of the word “mediator”) and is greatly elaborated to build upon that prior verse. The prior verse spoke of the introduction of the Law by Moses. The Law was a parenthesis in Israelite life, standing between the promises made to Abraham on the front end and the fulfillment of those promises by the coming of Christ on the back end. This significant expansion of verse 20 makes that intermediate role of the Law in Israelite life clear.

Paradigm Classification B (Midrashic Commentary).

10. Galatians 3:24

Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster ~~to bring us~~ ~~unto~~ until Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

This revision was motivated by the italics. A number of translations, such as the NET, use “until” here.

Paradigm Classification A-2 (Suspicion of Italicized Words).

11. Galatians 3:26

For ye are all the children of God by faith in ~~Christ~~ Jesus Christ.

This is a simple modernization conforming the name-title to modern popular usage. The TLB and WYC do the same.

Paradigm Classification A-3 (Modernization).

12. Galatians 3:29

And if ye be are Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Again, the JST changes the verb from subjunctive to indicative; many modern English translations do the same, while others substitute “belong to Christ.”

Paradigm Classification A-2 and A-3 (Suspicion of Italicized Words and Modernization).

13. Galatians 4:12

Brethren, I beseech you, be perfect as I am perfect; for I am persuaded as ye ~~are~~~~: ye~~ have a knowledge of me, ye have not injured me at all by your sayings.

The insertion of “perfect” twice here is unexpected, since in general only one is perfect, Jesus Christ. Normally it is the students who are to conform to the teacher, but here Paul seems to be speaking of a reciprocity that connotes more of a friendship between equals. The JST emends the passage to make it more one-sided as one would have anticipated with Paul clearly in the superior position over his followers. It seems unusual to predicate “perfect” of himself (but note the word need not have the absolutist connotation we usually give it, but could mean something more like “thoroughly accomplished”), but this word is used in service of maintaining the distinction between Paul as teacher and the others as students. The statement “ye have not injured me” seems odd standing alone, and so the JST inserts a reference to a prior potential sources of offense.

Paradigm Classification B (Midrashic Commentary).

Love for Christmas

Thu, 17 Dec 2020 01:43:42 GMT

Each year during the Christmas season, I try to write a blog post on a Christmas poem that has been meaningful for me. In the last six years, this has meant poems by Whitman, Rossetti, Auden, Elliot, Hardy, and Brodsky. I have also, over this time, managed three of the four Advent themes: Hope, Peace, and Joy. So this post is going to be a twofer: the seve th installment of the Christmas poetry theme, and the final installment on the Advent series. I want to talk about love.

Specifically, I want to talk about Christina Rossetti’s wonderful poem, “Christmastide” (her second entry in this series, which began with “In the Bleak Midwinter” in 2016). Here is the poem:

Love came down at Christmas,
Love all lovely, Love Divine;
Love was born at Christmas,
Star and Angels gave the sign.

Worship we the Godhead,
Love Incarnate, Love Divine;
Worship we our Jesus:
But wherewith for sacred sign?

Love shall be our token,
Love be yours and love be mine,
Love to God and all men,
Love for plea and gift and sign.

The first important thing to notice about this poem is that it is about love. I mean, it is really about love. The word (including derivatives) occurs 11 times in twelve lines. And it is also about the birth of Christ, because Christ is love. Love is the sign of Christ, the proof of Christ, and the reason for Christ. Love is the giver and the gift, the reason and the season. Love is the whole deal. That’s what Christmas means.

The older I get, and the more I try to think deep thoughts, the more I realize that deep thoughts just aren’t necessary when it comes to love. There aren’t any secrets. There’s no fine print. I have known everything I need to know about love since I was three years old. All of my failures are failures of will or imagination, not understanding.

What I find frustrating, mainly in myself, is how hard it is to just say things like, “it’s all about love,” without feeling the need to qualify it. We want to make sure that everyone knows that, while love is all well and good, just because we love someone in that general sort of vaguely religious way, it doesn’t mean that we approve of them, or agree with them, or don’t think that people like them are ruining the world. In more than 50 years of religious discussions, I fear, I have learned more about what love doesn’t mean (approval, condoning of sin, desire to remove consequences, etc.) than about what it does mean.

Fortunately, though, it is not that tricky.

Love means that we want people to be happy, we want them to be well, we are terrified at the fact that something bad might happen to them, we want to mourn with them when they are mourning and rejoice with them when they are rejoicing. It means that their happiness is as important to us as our own. And, in a religious sense, it means that we see and understnd people the way that God sees and understands them. Love is infinite, unconditional, and absolute. All of the other questions about approving behavior and condoning wrongdoing –as important as they are and as necessary as they may be to contemplate–should never be confused with things that have anything to do with love.

At a time when manifestoing is in the news, this is my manifesto: I will love more and better than I did before. That’s it. That is the whole thing–Gospel and Epistle, soup to nuts, game and candle. Everything else, as my lawyer friends say, is dicta.

A year of Book of Mormon Study in review

Wed, 16 Dec 2020 18:41:14 GMT

Over the last two years I have joined a group of people from my ward for a regular study group. Last year was the New Testament, and we used various translations along with supplemental readings, largely drawn from Raymond Brown’s magisterial Introduction to the New Testament. We got together, shared questions and comments from the readings, and ate cheese or brownies as we discussed the intersection of our lives with scripture. As we turned to the Book of Mormon this year, things were different. I used Skousen’s Earliest Text for my scripture reading, and others largely used the Maxwell Institute’s Study Edition. But the supplemental reading was less concentrated in a single text, and the food was stripped from us as was our sociality. Zoom was a passible solution, and in many ways formed the core of my devotional life during the period my stake ended all meetings, even if they were online.

As we finished our last meeting of the year this week, I thought it would be worth taking a critical look at the content we covered and ask what people liked or didn’t. The following is the content schedule we followed over the last twelve months.

A consistent feedback I received was that the podcasts were a great addition. It makes sense—you can listen in far more contexts that you can read. Unfortunately, the Maxwell Institute’s podcasts for their Brief Theological Introductions didn’t catch up to our reading until the latter portion of the year. And there were many meetings without. I think we will work harder to find relevant audio content moving forward.

Regarding the supplemental readings, like the podcasts, the publication schedule meant that we didn’t include any of the Maxwell Institute’s volumes this year. In four years, I think that would be different. Still, we had a lot of great content. People really enjoyed Grant Hardy’s Understanding the Book of Mormon chapters. I received specific call outs for the papers/chapters by Janiece Johnson, Sam Brown, David Pulsipher, Joseph Spencer, and Jared Cook. I think moving forward, we would replace Kimberley Berkey’s chapters with her Maxwell Institute volume. And the material in Ellison was a bit repetitive of some of the previous material we hit. The Mormon Theological Seminar content was by nature preliminary, and a little difficult to incorporate. Again, the Maxwell Institute volumes will make great replacements.

Looking forward to the Doctrine and Covenants things are going to be a bit more complicated, and I think require a bit more work. Hopefully with the vaccine in place we will son be able to sit down together and share food as well as thoughts.

Special Musical Numbers, Christmas 2020 Edition

Tue, 15 Dec 2020 22:11:35 GMT

Photo by Thomas Galler on Unsplash

A member of my bishopric asked if I’d do a special musical number for church Sunday.

But given that this is 2020 and we have Zoom church, I’m not performing it live. Rather, I recorded it a couple days ago and will upload it to YouTube for him to play during our sacrament meeting.

I imagine that a lot of you may be in similar circumstances. Which has a really cool side benefit–we can share our musical numbers more broadly than just our wards! In fact, we can share it with the internet at large!

So what I’m thinking is this: on Sunday after church, I’m going to put up a post with a link to my number. I would love it if, in the comments, other people who are performing Christmas music for church also posted their performances. That way, we can all share in the uplifting Christmas spirit!

If, for whatever reason, you’re going to play live over Zoom instead, please feel free to have a family member or housemate record you on their phone. Mostly, let’s just get a lot of Christmas music up here!

And, while YouTube and Vimeo links would be awesome, if you don’t want video of you online, feel free to post Soundcloud links or whatever else. What matters is (a) that it’s you and (b) that it’s the kind of thing you’d play at Christmas in church.

(Also, fwiw, I’ve been trying to record a holiday song a day since late November. If you’re interested in my takes, you can check them out—sans Sunday’s piece—here.)

Hope in the darkness

Mon, 14 Dec 2020 19:30:44 GMT

It’s Advent and I keenly feel the notion of hope against hope, that I am navigating my way with a brief candle in the darkness. I find that I have lost hope in most institutions and groups of humans, but feel hopeful about our individual capacity for goodness. I would really like to hear what you are all hopeful about. I won’t second-guess your sources of hope, but perhaps hearing where you get your hopes will brighten my own. Happy Advent and Merry Christmas.

On the JST of 2 Corinthians

Sun, 13 Dec 2020 16:16:23 GMT

This summer I published a commentary on the JST of 1 Corinthians in Dialogue. (For a link and background to the project search the blog for My New JST Article.) That was a lot of fun, so I decided to follow it up here on the blog with a commentary on the JST of 2 Corinthians. It was a lot of work for a blog post, but 2 Corinthians is a shorter book and only has a third of the JST revisions as 1 Corinthians has, so that made it more manageable. Also, I didn’t need to repeat the background and the explanation of my paradigm of JST revisions since those are available in the print article. There are 23 verses in 2 Corinthians that are modified in the JST and only six of them are included in the 1979/2013 LDS Bible footnotes, so most of these changes are ones you have never seen before. I checked these against the Adam Clarke Commentary and didn’t see any influence from that source; I didn’t bother to check Campbell, Wesley or Coverdale, as I’m highly confident there is no secondary source influence on any of these particular revisions. I had fun pulling this together, so I hope you enjoy it.

1. 2 Corinthians 3:4

And such trust have we through Christ to toward God~~-ward~~:

The change from “to God-ward” to “toward God” is a simple modernization of a KJV archaism. The Greek has pros ton theon, which does indeed literally mean “toward God” (the definite article ton does not get translated into English, for English represents the definiteness of the word god with capitalization, “God,” as opposed to the literal “the god.”) In general, the preposition pros with the accusative (as here) indicates movement or orientation towards someone or something. Although a number of early translations follow the KJV, I count 25 modern English translations that similarly render “toward God” (or “towards God,” where “towards” is simply an English spelling variant for the same word), including the NRSV. The orientation/motion connotation of the preposition here is a bit obscure, so some translations render something like “before God” or “in God’s presence.”

Paradigm Classification A-3 (Modernization).

2. 2 Corinthians 3:16

Nevertheless when it their hearts shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.

The intended antecedent to the pronoun “it” is at first blush somewhat obscure. Presumably the antecedent is ten kardian auton “their heart” from the previous verse: “But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.” So the word “it” here means “their heart.” The singular is awkward, so the JST pluralizes it to “their hearts.” Most modern translations avoid the awkwardness of the literal text by rendering something like “when a person/someone/they turn to the Lord.” But there are two modern translations that make the same, more literal fix as the JST does here: the GNV and RGT both render “Nevertheless when their heart shall be turned to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away.” If one wishes to read the text literally, something like what the JST does here is necessary for the sense of the passage; the KJV is quite inadequate here and is not followed by modern translations.

Paradigm Classification A-1 (English Paraphrase of KJV Text).

3. 2 Corinthians 4:12

So then it worketh death unto us ~~worketh in us~~, but life in unto you.

The KJV takes “worketh” as an active verb with “death” as the subject, as does the vast majority of modern translations. A minority of commentators, however, take the verb “worketh” in a passive sense with God as the implicit subject, in a way similar to the JST reading. For instance, Victor Paul Furnish in the Anchor Bible renders “Accordingly, death is made active in us, but life in you,” with the following explanation: “Most commentators and trs. [translators] have interpreted the Greek verb here (energeitai, middle voice) as an intransitive deponent, and thus active in meaning—e.g., “is at work” (Wey. RSV, and virtually every recent English version.) Baumert, however, argues persuasively for a passive meaning here. . . . This would not only conform to the use of the middle form of this verb in Greek texts generally . . . , but would be in accord with the passive verbs used in vv. 10-11. . . . The underlying subject of these three verses is God, or, more precisely, the incomparable “power” of God, which had been emphasized in v. 7. Elsewhere Paul associates God’s power especially with Christ’s resurrection. . . , and it is Christ’s resurrection life above all that the apostle has reference to in the present passage. . . .” See Victor Paul Furnish, II Corinthians, A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York: Doubleday, 1984), 252 and 257.

Paradigm Classification A-1 (English Paraphrase of KJV Text).

4. 2 Corinthians 4:15

For we bear all things ~~are~~ for your sakes, that the abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God.

The first clause reflects a certain sense of incompleteness, and so two modern translations flesh it out more in the same way the JST suggests. First, the JUB has “For we suffer all these things for your sakes that the grace abounding through many may in the thanksgiving redound to the glory of God” (emphasis in original) and second the TLB has “These sufferings of ours are for your benefit. And the more of you who are won to Christ, the more there are to thank him for his great kindness, and the more the Lord is glorified.”

Paradigm Classification A-1 (English Paraphrase of KJV Text).

5. 2 Corinthians 5:3

~~If so be that~~ That being clothed we shall not be found naked.

“If so be” is a rendering of ei ge kai, which the Anchor Bible well translates as “presuming, of course.” The problem with the literal translation of those words as in the KJV is that they give the impression that the remainder of the sentence may not be true. To avoid this possible confusion many modern translations essentially do the same as the JST and ignore that initial “if” introduction, such as the NIV’s “We will not be without a body. We will live in a new body.” I count over 30 modern translations that like the JST avoid the word “if” for this reason.

Paradigm Classification A-1 (English Paraphrase of KJV Text).

6. 2 Corinthians 5:10

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive a reward of the ~~things~~ deeds done in ~~his~~ the body, things according to ~~that~~ what he hath done, whether ~~it be~~ good or bad.

The KJV wording “that every one may receive the things done in his body” is an overliteral translation that simply doesn’t make sense. Something like the JST’s “a reward of” is implicit in the text, and many translations modify the wording in some way so as to be more explicit about this, such as the AMPC’s “so that each one may receive [his pay] according to what he has done in the body” or the ERV’s “Everyone will get what they should.” The JST also deletes some of the italicized words; the deletion of “his” has the happy effect of (appropriately) making the passage gender neutral.

Paradigm Classifications A-1 and A-2 (English Paraphrase of KJV Text and Suspicion of Italicized Words).

7. 2 Corinthians 5:13

For we bear record that we are not ~~whether we be~~ beside ourselves, for whether we glory, it is to God: or whether we be sober, it is for your ~~cause~~ sakes.

The verb existanai (rendered “beside ourselves”), used intransitively as here, conveys the connotation of having lost one’s mind, to be crazy, insane or drunk. Paul is not actually acknowledging that they have been crazy, but that that is the claim of their critics, and so some translations make that clear by adding a qualifier such as “as some critics say” (AMP) or “as some people say” (NIRV). The JST turns this into a more forceful and explicit denial that they are crazy. At the end of the verse a number of translations use the word “sake” rather than “cause”

Paradigm Classification A-1 (English Paraphrase of KJV Text).

8. 2 Corinthians 5:14

For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then ~~were~~ are all dead:

In lieu of the “were” of the KJV, most modern English translations use a perfect, “all have died.” The JST chooses to make this more vivid with a present, “then are all dead.”

Paradigm Classification A-1 (English Paraphrase of KJV Text).

9. 2 Corinthians 5:16

Wherefore, henceforth ~~know~~ live we no ~~man~~ more after the flesh: yea, though we once lived ~~have known Christ~~ after the flesh, yet since we have known Christ, now henceforth ~~know~~ live we ~~him~~ no more after the flesh.

I see the JST as reacting to both a translation issue and a potential theological issue in this verse. Paul is saying (speaking of himself with an editorial plural) that he once thought of Jesus as a mere man, from a human point of view (kata sarka, literally “after the flesh”), but now he no longer regards him from that limited mortal perspective. The KJV ends the verse with “now henceforth know we him no more,” which seems to suggest that Paul (or we as his readers) do not know Christ at all. The critical change the JST makes here is to add “after the flesh” (i.e., kata sarka) again at the end of the verse, meaning from now on we know him not “after the flesh” (i.e., according to human standards, from a limited human point of view) but in another way. The NRSV does the same, rendering “From now on, therefore, we regard no one from a human point of view; even though we once knew Christ from a human point of view, we know him no longer in that way.” One cannot simply say “now henceforth know we him no more” as the KJV does without the critical addition of the words “in that way” (or “after the flesh” in Jacobean idiom). Something like what the JST does here is essential to avoid badly misunderstanding the passage.

Smith also twice changes references to knowing Christ to how we live our lives. Paul did not know what we now know, that this emphasis on special knowledge would eventually flower into the heresy of Gnosticism. For Paul the puzzle pieces were still in the box, but for us the puzzle is completed and we see the full historical picture. This change of emphasis on “knowing” things to “living” a certain way thus makes the text less amenable to a gnostic misreading. (This revision reminds me of the famous story of Spencer W. Kimball suggesting a word change in a lyric of “I Am a Child of God,” from “teach me all that I must know” to “teach me all that I must do.”) In the process Smith also deletes the italicized “him.”

Paradigm Classifications A-1 and A-2 (English Paraphrase of KJV Text and Suspicion of Italicized Words).

10. 2 Corinthians 5:17

Therefore if any man be live in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

There is no verb in the initial clause, so the KJV supplies “be” in italics. Most translations read “be” or “is” here, but a number suggest a more fleshed out reading. The NIRV actually mirrors the JST with “When anyone lives in Christ, the new creation has come.” Other suggestions include “ingrafted,” “belongs to,” “united with,” “is a believer,” or “is joined to.”

Paradigm Classification A-2 (Suspicion of Italicized Words).

11. 2 Corinthians 5:18

And receiveth all the things ~~are~~ of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

The JST reads verse 18 as a continuation of verse 17, which is a catalog of the benefits of being in Christ, as follows::

17. Therefore if any man be in Christ

He is a new creature
Old things are passed away
all things are become new
(18) He receiveth all the things of God.

Paradigm Classifications A-1 and A-2 (English Paraphrase of KJV Text and Suspicion of Italicized Words).

12. 2 Corinthians 5:19

To wit, that God ~~was~~ is in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

To say “God was in Christ” seems to suggest that that relation no longer exists, which leads the JST to replace “was” with “is.” There is a strong possibility that the verb “was” (en) is part of a periphrastic construction with the verb “reconciling,” which is the position taken by the Anchor Bible and is reflected for instance in the ESV: “that is, in Christ God was reconciling . . . .”

Paradigm Classification A-1 (English Paraphrase of KJV Text).

13. 2 Corinthians 6:1

We then, as workers together with ~~him~~ Christ, beseech ~~you~~ also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain.

This is simply a classic case of suspicion of italicized words, in one case replacing the italicized pronoun him with the actual noun it stands for, “Christ.”

Paradigm Classification A-2 (Suspicion of Italicized Words).

14. 2 Corinthians 8:1

Moreover, brethren, we ~~do you to wit~~ we would have you to know of the grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia;

This is a simple modernization of the archaic KJV construction “we do you to wit.” Most modern translations have something like “we want you to know.”

Paradigm Classification A-3 (Modernization).

15. 2 Corinthians 8:5

And ~~this they did~~, not as we ~~hoped~~ required, but first gave their own selves to the Lord, and unto us by the will of God.

The first change simply deletes the italicized words (and many modern translations do not feel the need to supply something like that). The second replaces “hoped,” which is seen as too weak, with the stronger “required.” Many English translations in lieu of “hoped” have “expected,” which is closer to the JST revision here.

Paradigm Classifications A-1 and A-2 (English Paraphrase of KJV Text and Suspicion of Italicized Words).

16-17. 2 Corinthians 8:22-23

And we have sent with them our brother, whom we have ~~oftentimes~~ proved diligent in many things, but now much more diligent, . Therefore we send him unto you, in consequence of ~~upon~~ the great confidence which I we have in you that you will receive the things concerning you to the glory of Christ, whether ~~any do enquire~~ we send by the hand of Titus, ~~he is~~ my partner and fellow ~~helper concerning you~~ labourer, ~~or our brethren be enquired of, they are~~ the messengers of the churches, ~~and~~ ~~the glory of Christ~~.

This is the most extensive set of changes to a given passage in the entire book, traversing two verses. The word “oftentimes” is deleted, because “often” is less than “always” and suggests a backhanded criticism that was not intended. “Therefore we send him unto you in consequence of” is simply an expansion of the deleted “upon.” “I” is changed to “we” to reflect Paul’s penchant for speaking of himself in the first person plural. Italicized text is deleted, and “to the glory of Christ” is moved forwward from the end.

Paradigm Classifications A-1, A-2 and B (English Paraphrase of KJV Text, Suspicion of Italicized Words and Midrashic Commentary).

18. 2 Corinthians 9:4

Lest ~~haply~~ if they of Macedonia come with me, and find you unprepared, we (that we say not, ye) should be ashamed in this same confident boasting.

The word “haply” is archaic for “perhaps,” but very few modern translations reflect that nuance here.

Paradigm Classification A-1 (English Paraphrase of KJV Text).

19. 2 Corinthians 11:4

For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with ~~him~~ me

The change from the italicized “him” (which is not literally in the text) to “me” is meant to be sarcastic and brings out forcefully the irony of this passage, which is well seen in the following verse from the TEV: “I do not think that I am the least bit inferior to those very special so-called “apostles” of yours!”

Paradigm Classifications A-1 and A-2 (English Paraphrase of KJV Text and Suspicion of Italicized Words).

20. 2 Corinthians 11:23

Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) so am I I am ~~more~~; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft.

This is a caseof assimilation to the preceding verse, which reads: “Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are they Israelites? so am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so am I.” The JST continues the “so am I” pattern rather than breaking it with the “I am more” of verse 23.

Paradigm Classification A-4 (Assimilation).

21. 2 Corinthians 11:29

Who is weak, and I am not weak? who is offended, and I ~~burn~~ anger not?

The verb puromai does indeed literally mean “to burn,” but here it is a metaphor for anger. The CEV has “I get angry,” the EXB has “burning (with anger),” the NLT has “burn with anger,” and many translations use some form of the word “indignation.”

Paradigm Classification A-1 (English Paraphrase of KJV Text).

22. 2 Corinthians 12:6

For though I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth: but ~~now~~ I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth of me ~~to be~~, or ~~that~~ he heareth of me.

Two italicized words are deleted, and the change from “seeth me to be” to “seeth of me” is an assimilation to “heareth of me” at the end of the verse.

Paradigm Classifications A-2 and A-4 (English Paraphrase of KJV Text and Assimilation.

23. 2 Corinthians 13:12

Greet one another with an holy ~~kiss~~ salutation.

This is the same change the JST made at 1 Corinthians 15:20 and so that prior revision is its source. There we determined this revision was a cultural updating (similar to what many modern translations do), and also an assimilation to the word “salutation” in verse 21 of that chapter.

Paradigm Classification A-1 and A-4 (English Paraphrase of KJV Text and Assimilation).

The Vitality of the Latter-day Saints

Wed, 09 Dec 2020 20:29:16 GMT

This guest post comes from Calvin Burke, a student at BYU.

On the heels of the development of a new committee addressing issues of systemic racism within the campus community, Brigham Young University’s Religious Studies Center published
a book this year by an Egyptologist detailing the “viable hypothesis” that childhood sexual trauma is a component of LGBTQ+ identity. The book further described victims of sexual violence as “more likely to become sexual abusers of children.” [1]

It would be easy to conclude the prejudice evident in the publication of such work is representative of all members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, BYU’s sponsoring institution—but an expert rebuttal to that work authored by another BYU professor [2] led the BYU Religious Studies Center to pull the offending text from shelves; and earlier this year, hundreds of BYU students protested the treatment of the LGBTQ+ community by the Church Educational System. Dismissing this incident as the product of inherent Latter-day Saint bigotry is to miss critical aspects of the Latter-day Saint religion which explain its place at unique crossroads in modernity, and which also demonstrate its continued vitality.

From its very inception, Mormonism has enshrined “continuing revelation.” Founder Joseph Smith declared the idea that God, mindful of all His children, still speaks to humankind, a fundamental article of the faith.[3] Latter-day Saint scripture further defines continuing revelation’s necessary conditions as a combination of both intellectual and spiritual effort, proceeding “by study and also by faith.”[4] The entire history of the Latter-day Saints showcases this fundamentally expansive revelatory undergirding.

In 1925, citing the Book of Mormon’s declaration that “all are alike unto God,” Brigham Young University President Franklin Harris gave a speech in Denver denouncing all racism in religion[5] and then went to work turning BYU into a world-class university. The religion’s imperative to build a better world compelled many early LDS leaders to finance adherents’ study at many American universities in the early 20th century. Their professors were moved by the sincerity of their commitment to a socially and economically just world, and the authenticity of their LDS students brokered a “theological disarmament” that created ground for mutual dialogue and genuine respect. [6]

This intellectual-theological disarmament was not one-sided; Latter-day Saints accepted progressive principles in higher education they found consistent with LDS teachings, and this led to the dawn of the modern Church. The Welfare Program and the Church Educational System formed in this era, outgrowths of an eager Latter-day Saint commitment to scientific progress and the application of their religious beliefs within daily life. In 1921, the LDS Church’s First Presidency formally endorsed higher biblical criticism [7] and Prophet Heber J. Grant led multiple non-LDS scholars to address the faith’s General Conference in 1921 and 1922.[8] Scholars from the University of Chicago’s Divinity School taught summer-length seminars to the entire Church seminary and institute faculty, and the Church Educational System encouraged its teachers to hold “a reverence for whatever is held sacred” balanced with “a liberality that welcomes all newness of truth.”[9]

Harvard Professor of Religion Amy Hollywood has argued that the healthiest and most “alive” religions are those which venerate their past while also embracing the future.[10] Latter-day Saints’ continuing critical engagement with both study and faith, their doctrine and contemporary society, is evidence of Mormonism’s “liveness” at perhaps every point in their history. Mormonism’s paradoxical theological veneration of both study and faith has also been the engine producing all revelation responsible for the modern church. LDS apostle and political scientist Neal A. Maxwell described this revelatory process, noting it called for the “institutional anchor [to be] played against the doctrinal sail,” [11] in the course of the production of progress.

The Latter-day Saints have not always responded to the tug of the wind in its sails, however. At times, they have dropped anchor, digging in. Perhaps the most heart-wrenching turmoil within the faith has been caused by prejudice and inequality; the faith’s refusal to examine its own racial prejudice has caused enormous pain for Black church members and other adherents of color. Uproar following prejudicial treatment at BYU earlier this year provoked the assembly of the BYU Committee on Race, Equity and Belonging shortly before the events which sparked protests on and off campus in support of LGBTQ+ BYU students.

The crowds of students protesting in support of their LGBTQ+ siblings, with children’s hymns and prayers on their lips, as well as those marching for racial equality, signs emblazoned with Book of Mormon scriptures—these are the billowed sail of the Latter-day Saint faith, born up by love for their LGBTQ+ & BIPOC siblings and the very breath of God. They are inspiring their faith to live up to its own ideals, and perhaps even change the world.

Church leadership has demonstrated their own humble confidence in the dialectical nature of the revelatory process. In September of 2019, current prophet Russell M. Nelson described how he had been “grieved” upon hearing the pain of LGBTQ+ adherents. “Whenever the sons and daughters of God weep,” Nelson said, “we weep.”[12] In General Conference earlier this month, Nelson denounced racism and all prejudice, and called upon church adherents
everywhere to “lead out” in dismantling it. “I plead with you,” he implored Latter-day Saints, “to promote respect for all of God’s children.”[13]

This revelatory dialectic—a conversation between leadership and adherents, faith and studied experience—is not indicative of weakness within the Latter-day Saint faith. It is indicative of strength. It demonstrates the faith is alive, an aliveness maintained by its
paradoxical and expansive undergirding.

History demonstrates Latter-day Saints are at their best when they are also fearless. If any religion aspires to change the entire world, it must be committed to dismantling prejudice. The revelatory process within the Church is not finished; the process of eradicating prejudice has only just begun. Yet the Latter-day Saints are no longer at anchor: as we’ve seen this past year, they have hoisted high their sails.

—————

1 John Gee, Saving Faith. (Provo: Brigham Young University Religious Studies Center, 2020), 195.
2 Kevin Shafer, “On Saving Faith and Expertise,” By Common Consent (blog), August 23rd 2020, https://bycommonconsent.com/2020/08/23/saving-faith-and-expertise/
3 Articles of Faith 1:11
4 Doctrine and Covenants 88:118
5 Franklin S. Harris, “A Sane Approach to an Understanding of Racial and Religious Prejudices,” Proceedings of the 52nd Annual National Conference of Social Work, (Salt Lake City: Eugene England Papers Collection 160-4, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections), June 10-17th 1925.
6 Thomas Simpson, American Universities and the Birth of Modern Mormonism, (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2016), 101
7 Gary Bergara and Richard Priddis, Brigham Young University: A House of Faith, (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1985), 49.
8 Bergara and Priddis, Brigham Young University, 50
9 Kenneth G. Bell, “Adam Samuel Bennion, Superintendent of LDS Education – 1919-1928” (Provo: Brigham Young University Scholars Archive, 1969), 73. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/4517/
10 Amy Hollywood, “On the True, the Real, and Critique; By Way of an Introduction” in Acute Melancholia and Other Essays: Mysticism, History and the Study of Religion, (New York: Columbia University Press, 2016), 15.
11 Neal A. Maxwell, All These Things Shall Give Thee Experience, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1980), Chapter 7.
12 Russell M. Nelson, “The Love and Laws of God,” BYU Devotional, BYU Speeches, September 17th 2019. https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/russell-m-nelson/love-laws-god/
13 Russell M. Nelson, “Let God Prevail,” General Conference address, October 4th 2020. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2020/10/46nelson?lang=eng

Why I Signed the Radical Orthodoxy Manifesto

Wed, 09 Dec 2020 19:11:53 GMT

Dan Ellsworth is a Latter-Day Saint consultant and writer living in Charlottesville, Virginia.

The Radical Orthodoxy Manifesto became public almost a week ago, and if we are not reacting to every criticism and every blog comment about this project, it is not out of lack of conviction; it’s more about mental and spiritual health. Online discussions so often generate vastly more heat than light, and it’s not a healthy impulse to try to account for every criticism by every single person. There is a lot of wisdom in the phrase “Don’t read the comments.”

When I first heard about the Radical Orthodoxy project — the manifesto and its accompanying essays — I was ecstatic.

Why?

I don’t think it’s news to anyone that there are cultural forces, particularly in the U.S., pulling people into homogeneous ideological camps of intersectionality on the left and authoritarian ethnonationalism on the right, and for many Latter Day Saints and Mormons, these cultural trends are becoming the lens through which they view the restored gospel, instead of the other way around.

On the ideological right, this results in a fortress/bunker mentality that prizes uniformity and intensity: The World is out to get us, so we need to close ranks, build higher walls and answer each “attack” with a devastating, demoralizing counterattack. On the left, this tendency results in the creation of an imaginary, de-Judaized woke Jesus who eschewed any conceptualizations of holiness, practiced this thing called “radical inclusion,” and presently serves to affirm every aspect of the progressive worldview. We need to pit Jesus against reactionary ideas among us, especially outdated notions of gender and sexuality, the historicity of scripture, and the non-egalitarian idea that the church has been given any kind of unique authority in God’s plan.

And in practice, to answer our cravings for neat lines of tribal identity, we divide into well-defined camps with common lingo and shibboleths:

Affirming, empathetic, inclusive, validating, equality, credentialed, rational, informed, flying a rainbow flag

Versus

Loyal, true, defender, zealous, faithful, sin-loathing, and flying the DezNat flag.

So, as adherents to the ideas in the Radical Orthodoxy manifesto and its supporting essays, in which camp do we fall?

We reject the premise.

Eugene England famously wrote that

The Church is as true as—perhaps truer than—the gospel because it is where all can find fruitful opposition, where its revealed nature and inspired direction maintain an opposition between liberal and conservative values, between faith and doubt, secure authority and frightening freedom, individual integrity and public responsibility, and thus where there will be misery as well as holiness, bad as well as good. And if we cannot stand the misery and the struggle, if we would prefer that the Church be smooth and perfect and unchallenging rather than as it is—full of nagging human diversity and constant insistence that we perform ordinances and obey instructions and take seriously teachings that embody logically irresolvable paradoxes—if we refuse to lose ourselves wholeheartedly in such a school, then we will never know the redeeming truth of the Church. It is precisely in the struggle to be obedient while maintaining integrity, to have faith while being true to reason and evidence, to serve and love in the face of imperfections and even offenses, that we can gain the humility we need to allow divine power to enter our lives in transforming ways.

In this statement, Eugene England asserts correctly that the purpose of all of our engagement with the church and the gospel, is to become transformed by God. Not “affirmed.” Not “validated.” Not “comfortable.”

If we are conservative-leaning in temperament and worldview, that means that our engagement with the gospel will often pull us uncomfortably — sometimes even miserably — in the direction of “typically liberal” values like fairness and empathy for the vulnerable. Likewise, If we are liberal in our temperament and worldview, our engagement with the gospel will often pull us uncomfortably — sometimes even miserably — in the direction of “typically conservative” values such as order and trusting deference.

All of this tension and discomfort is by design, and to embrace this discomfort, rather than operate predictably in ways that reflect tidy cultural divisions of left/right, liahona/iron-rodder, is a commitment at the heart of orthodoxy.

This is why having sweet-and-kind Marvin J Ashton and law-and-order Ezra Taft Benson counseling together to discern the mind and will of the Lord for the church is not an aberration; it is precisely the arrangement most likely to reveal God’s heart and God’s intentions.

Speaking of Elder Benson, One of the quotes I share most often is from his opening press conference as president of the church. It brings me to tears virtually every time I read it.

My heart has been filled with an overwhelming love and compassion for all members of the Church and our Heavenly Father’s children everywhere. I love all our Father’s children of every color, creed, and political persuasion. My only desire is to serve as the Lord would have me do.

I’ve had several conversations with people who witnessed this transition, and a typical reaction was Who are you, and what have you done with Elder Benson? More recently, President Oaks’ declaration that Black Lives Matter left a lot of people stunned. It was inconsistent with all of our expectations of what he might say, which we believe to be a sign of the workings of the Spirit at the highest levels of the church.

A commitment to orthodoxy means a willingness to be constantly surprised and amazed, and to have our perspective upended. Chesterton wrote that

This is the thrilling romance of Orthodoxy. People have fallen into a foolish habit of speaking of orthodoxy as something heavy, humdrum, and safe. There never was anything so perilous or so exciting as orthodoxy. It was sanity: and to be sane is more dramatic than to be mad. It was the equilibrium of a man behind madly rushing horses, seeming to stoop this way and to sway that, yet in every attitude having the grace of statuary and the accuracy of arithmetic.

This speaks to another reason I am happy to be associated with the other signatories: even with our firm commitments to literal interpretation and assent to the three tentpole proclamations, there is an immense amount of diverse and fresh thinking being applied to these historical narratives and gospel concepts. If I want a predictable intellectual exercise of gospel interpreted through the lens of contemporary political and intellectual trends, I can spend time in progressive or DezNat/fundamentalist venues. If I want a less predictable, more interesting exercise of engaging with the gospel on its own beautiful, breathtaking, mind-expanding terms, I look to scholars and commentators who are very open about their personal conversion and commitment to the restored gospel.

Many people on this site and elsewhere responded to the Radical Orthodoxy manifesto with outrage, emotional flailing, and even narratives of conspiracy: the radical orthodoxy manifesto is a cover for hatred, bigotry, and misogyny. Or, as we hear at the other end of the spectrum, the manifesto is a vehicle for more subtle delivery of the kind of apostate scholarship that produced the gospel topics essays and currently guides the Maxwell Institute.

Really?

Wouldn’t it be accurate to say that these reactions are so much projecting? And why? Do we need to be villains in your minds? Is there only one ideological camp or the other? When I retweet a DezNat-supporting account because that individual posted something really insightful, does that make me DezNat? When I hit “like” for a BCC post on Facebook because it presents a thoughtful and compelling viewpoint (and yes, I do that from time to time), does that make me a Progmo? Why the need for precisely two categories of people?

Finally, I want to address four instinctive and predictable reactions to the manifesto, observed among progressive-leaning commenters.

This is exclusionary!

Here again I’ll invoke Chesterton:

Every act is an irrevocable selection and exclusion. Just as when you marry one woman you give up all the others, so when you take one course of action you give up all the other courses. If you become King of England, you give up the post of Beadle in Brompton.

It is true that there are behaviors that we engage in, as religious communities, that exclude people. I recently wrote an essay to address this challenge. It is also true, however, that we are often not passive recipients of our sense of exclusion from communities, especially when we make firm ideological or other commitments.

In past years, I approached every gospel concept as a jump ball between the online commentariat and the church. In recent years in particular, learning better how to receive revelation has become my primary spiritual goal, and I know from experience that the revelatory seasons of my life in the past have been characterized by the devotional basics, and wholehearted commitment to the church and serving people around me. And, very specific diet choices about media and commentary that I consume. For me, seeking revelation also means abandoning the intellectual scrupulosity that obsesses over every possible take on every issue before making soul-level commitments to God and the kingdom. One of my choices has been to stop following BCC and most other blogs. In doing so, I drew lines for myself based on my own observations and perceptions. I don’t feel comfortable participating regularly at BCC because the blog and its commenters simply have very different objectives than I do. Have BCC or other blogs excluded me by promoting commentary that I often find objectionable? Not in the least. If I feel excluded, it is because I have drawn the lines of my own exclusion, based on my own sense of how my online activities affect my spirit.

As often as not, we are the authors of our own exclusion, based on our decisions to embrace commitments and priorities that rival those of the people around us.

This isn’t loving!

If we define love as never articulating or naming an intellectual/spiritual stance, then correct: this is not a loving endeavor. But that is not an honest, realistic, or even healthy definition of love. “Progressive,” “LGBT-affirming,” “open-minded,” “cultural,” “faithful,” “converted,” “critical scholar,” and even “Mormon”… these are all labels that represent stances. These labels are neither good nor bad, neither exclusionary nor inclusive; neither loving nor unloving; they are just descriptive.

Among the people who have voiced support for Latter Day Saint Radical Orthodoxy, there are church members who have been observing with extreme discomfort the ideological left in the church, with its uncritical adoption of every secular progressive trend contra the doctrines of the restored gospel. They have also been observing with horror the right’s syncretism of the restored gospel with some of the worst elements of right-wing politics, as well as the right’s refusal to seriously engage with important shifts in prophetic emphasis to address issues like racism and political anger. People disillusioned with these trends at the ends of the spectrum are happy and relieved that there is a label for our stance, and relieved to find in the fog of war people alongside us with whom we can share ideas and testimony, and trust that things we share will be received with a believing Latter-Day Saint epistemology.

There is no question that we love you- those of you who agree with us, and those who don’t. I would personally love to dialogue with any of you about your concerns, and if I could, I would happily welcome you into my home and share a meal. If we the adherents to LDS Radical Orthodoxy can’t persuade you that our views are worth embracing, then we hope that we can still remain both friends and frequent partners in dialogue.

I believe X. Am I orthodox?

I would gently push back on the premise of this question. Yes, we are firmly committed to what we call the three tentpole proclamations of the church, and you’ll notice that in Jeff’s illustration, the center tentpole is The Living Christ. But even affirming the reality of each of these proclamations, there is an incredible amount of work to do in exploring robust and mature definitions for terms, and understanding what these teachings and principles look like in our lived experiences.

A better question would be, how did you arrive at your position? What decisions did you make along the way? What epistemology did you employ? Did you account for the witness testimony of the people around you? Did you seek revelation, and if so, how did you discern it? It’s a normal tendency to want to categorize this or that specific position that we hold and use those categories to arrive at a descriptor for our stance, but orthodoxy is much more about the process. And as we see regularly in surprising pronouncements and declarations at the highest levels of the church, orthodox processes of inquiry produce outcomes that don’t always map neatly onto our culturally-informed categories.

This isn’t radical!

Yes, it is.

To promote atomized and individualistic appraisal of the church’s core doctrines and teachings, but then to also insist that we come together and function as unified Zion when it comes to social issues, is wholly predictable behavior that is typical on the ideological left. To promote absolute individual autonomy when it comes to all social issues but then insist on full cohesion and uniformity in all our perceptions of every church teaching, is likewise just predictable and typical behavior on the ideological right. To constantly parse scripture and prophetic teachings for self-serving purposes, and for wielding them like a club against our political opposition, is common cultural practice at both ends of the spectrum.

By contrast, to affirm that the core doctrines of the church are factually true and confirmed by the witness testimony of people around us, but to also affirm that there is a vast amount yet to be done in defining terms and sometimes even making difficult and painful adjustments to our paradigms, is countercultural. To consistently evaluate our politics, our epistemology, and our lived experiences in light of the restoration, and not the other way around, is countercultural.

The only radical and unsettling stance, capable of simultaneously producing both innovation and unity, is orthodoxy.

Beyond the initial manifesto and its supporting essays, we are also contributing articles to Public Square, and blogging at Nauvoo Neighbor and Latter-Day Saint Philosopher.