Mormonism - Edge Or Center

[CCRW]

The best introduction to Hugh Nibley is via the wonderful biography by his son-in-law Boyd Petersen, Hugh Nibley: A Consecrated Life (SLC: Kofford, 2002).  Much of what I am referring to took place in the 1950s and early 60s, including formal debates between Nibley and McMurrin, with a backdrop to the infamous hearings of Senator Joseph McCarthy.  Nibley kept up his social criticism right on into the 1980s, and I was able to attend his brilliant Fall 1983 BYU Commencement Address (several of the Brethren were on the dais), "Leaders to Managers: The Fatal Shift," Dialogue, 16/4 (Winter 1983):12-21, which is available in DVD, and online at https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/12231110/leaders-to-managers-the-fatal-shift-dialogue-a-journal-of-/3 .  See the comment by Jason Nelson-Seawright, "Hugh Nibley: Mormon Dissident," By Common Consent, April 6, 2007, online at http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/04/06/hugh-nibley-mormon-dissident/ .

 

Here is just a taste of the real, fearless Hugh Nibley, on that very occasion:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSjE2Ks38uE .

 

I finally got back around to reading this material ... I have seen/heard of the "Robes of an unholy priesthood" prayer before but I did not realize there was a deeper renegade side.

 

 “…the worst sinners, according to Jesus, are not the harlots and publicans, but the religious leaders with their insistence on proper dress and grooming, their careful observance of all the rules, their precious concern for status-symbols, their strict legality, their pious patriotism. Longhairs, beards, and necklaces, LSD and rock, Big Sur and Woodstock, come and go, but Babylon is always there: rich, respectable, immovable… We want to be vindicated in our position and to know that the world is on our side as we all join in a chorus of righteous denunciation; the haircut becomes the test of virtue in a world where Satan deceives and rules by appearances.”

 

Dang I love renegades!

 

Thank you for pointing this out to me

[mfbukowski]

There has always been a surfeit of yokels within and outside of Mormonism trying to apply false labels, and much more besides.  What is true is that the Mormon Church has always been composed of dynamic, thought-provoking leaders at all levels, Joseph Smith being oddball in chief -- surrounding himself with powerful, individualistic men who could not be cowed (even by Joseph himself).  The genius of that approach has been that the leadership has always been topnotch and variegated.  So much the better that we tend to believe that they are chosen by inspiration.

 

We Mormons have always appreciated smart leaders who could not necessarily agree with each other (as with Orson Pratt and Brigham Young), yet remained faithful to the one Gospel.  We are a people and a Church which has witnessed battles among the Brethren over theology and science (Elders Widtsoe, Talmage, and Roberts versus Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkie, and others), capped by the harsh social criticism of Church members by Hugh Nibley -- who strangely acted as a prophet to the Prophets -- who was attacked by virtual apostate Sterling M. McMurrin (who defended BYU and the Mormon people).

 

The Mormons are an ethnicity which practiced polygyny and communist economics in the 19th century, yet today are ultra-capitalist and practice hard core monogamy (staunchly opposing any hint of non-standard marriage).  With an open canon and continuing revelation, perhaps it could not be otherwise.

 

Paul Malan has it right in at least one respect:  The edges are more fertile, and it is precisely the wards and branches outside Utah which produce the best that Mormonism has to offer (the "real Church").  Utah and SLC are too overwhelmed by paranoid, divisive, and false polarization (leading to the absurd belief that "liberal" and "conservative" are actual categories).

 

Malan lives too near the epicenter of conformity to understand this.  He is part of that fabled monoculture, and his essay gives it legs.

Bravissimo!!

[Gray]

Ah, but could we propound some synchronic form of doctrine based on what one could be disciplined for contravening?  Could we also track the permutations of it diachronically?  In the Wittgensteinian sense . . . 

 

Hmm, difficult, as church discipline isn't administered consistently. And, as most discipline isn't made public, it would be difficult to track. And technically there is a great deal of doctrine that you probably can reject without consequence (historicity of the Book of Mormon, for instance). 

 

I'll fess up and say I'm not familiar with Wittgenstein

[Gray]

Not really. IE; http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Ten_Lost_Tribes/Location

 

According to the Church itself we determine doctrine by common consent.

SEE http://www.mormonwiki.com/Common_consent

 

Doctrine means beliefs taught by a church - that's why I said synonymous. But of course that doesn't mean it can't be used to mean something else. Often when we use the word we're trying to exclude some teachings that we find problematic. 

 

Not everything currently thought of as doctrine will pass your common consent test. For instance, doctrines against gay marriage, current interpretations of the word of wisdom, the law of chastity, and so forth. 

[mfbukowski]

There are no such divisions.  There are only LDS of varying degrees of personal apostasy from the systematic theology. I consider myself to be approximately 5% apostate. Others might think me to be more.

Hard to imagine how this could be more self contradictory.

There are no such divisions, yet we can define the divisions to within plus or minus 5 percent.

Uh huh.

[mfbukowski]

Hmm, difficult, as church discipline isn't administered consistently. And, as most discipline isn't made public, it would be difficult to track. And technically there is a great deal of doctrine that you probably can reject without consequence (historicity of the Book of Mormon, for instance). 

 

I'll fess up and say I'm not familiar with Wittgenstein

Short summary: All we have is language, and even that is always ambiguous.

Ya unnastan what I'm sayin?

[CCRW]

Short summary: All we have is language, and even that is always ambiguous.

Ya unnastan what I'm sayin?

 

Take a given sign language of a middle finger ... ambiguous? I think not

[Gray]

Short summary: All we have is language, and even that is always ambiguous.

Ya unnastan what I'm sayin?

 

Indeed, sir, I do!

 

Unless I don't!

Edited April 16, 2015 by Gray

[Gray]

Take a given sign language of a middle finger ... ambiguous? I think not

 

The middle finger could be a sign of hostility, sarcasm between friends, or absolutely meaningless if you don't have any context for it. 

[CCRW]

dang, well how about mooning someone?

[Calm]

A one year old dropping his pants in his backyard is not the same thing as a 25 year old doing it out the window down the highway.

[CCRW]

strike 2 ... I submit

[Calm]

There may be some universal facial expressions though...

 

http://www.nbb.cornell.edu/neurobio/land/oldstudentprojects/cs490-95to96/hjkim/emotions.html

 

Take this test:

 

http://www.paulekman.com/universal-facial-expressions/

 

(if you are a fan of the show "Lie to Me", apparently they got the idea from this guy)

Edited April 16, 2015 by calmoriah

[CCRW]

Ok, one more try, what if there was one more face and he was sticking out his tongue?

[Calm]

Like this one?

 

or this one?

or this one?

 

Edited April 17, 2015 by calmoriah

[CCRW]

just not gonna get past you.  Ya got me good there

[Gervin]

There has always been a surfeit of yokels within and outside of Mormonism trying to apply false labels, and much more besides.  What is true is that the Mormon Church has always been composed of dynamic, thought-provoking leaders at all levels, 

I've always thought it interesting that immediately following the birth of the LDS Church, God chose to raise up one of the world's greatest dynamic thought-provoking Christian (apostate) preachers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Spurgeon.  

[Kenngo1969]

... Paul Malan has it right in at least one respect:  The edges are more fertile, and it is precisely the wards and branches outside Utah which produce the best that Mormonism has to offer (the "real Church").  Utah and SLC are too overwhelmed by paranoid, divisive, and false polarization (leading to the absurd belief that "liberal" and "conservative" are actual categories). ....

Damn Utah Mormons!

 

[CCRW]

I've always thought it interesting that immediately following the birth of the LDS Church, God chose to raise up one of the world's greatest dynamic thought-provoking Christian (apostate) preachers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Spurgeon.  

interesting

[Robert F. Smith]

I've always thought it interesting that immediately following the birth of the LDS Church, God chose to raise up one of the world's greatest dynamic thought-provoking Christian (apostate) preachers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Spurgeon.  

You should have left off the word "apostate," Gervin, since Mormons don't generally label great Christian preachers as apostates, whether Martin Luther, the Wesleys, Finney, et al., right on up into modern times with Billy Sunday and Billy Graham.  We all need to be respectful.

 

Some of my evangelical friends still read Spurgeon, and I imagine that my grandfather, Walter Grant Smith (a Methodist Minister trained at Ohio Weslyan and Boston University School of Theology), read him as well.  However, there have always been great preachers in every religion, before, during, and after the time of Joseph Smith.  Indeed, it is a matter of LDS faith that God always raises up great preachers.  I have listened to a number of very fine preachers in my life, and have never termed them "apostates."

Edited April 17, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

.............................................................................     

 

I'll fess up and say I'm not familiar with Wittgenstein

Ludwig insisted that words mean what they are used to mean, rather than some abstract dictionary definition(s).  So, I suggest the practical reality that doctrine means what it is used to mean at any particular point in time (sychronically), and possibly varies over time (diachronically).  A very practical measure of that it is what someone might be disciplined for.

[carbon dioxide]

You should have left off the word "apostate," Gervin, since Mormons don't generally label great Christian preachers as apostates, whether Martin Luther, the Wesleys, Finney, et al., right on up into modern times with Billy Sunday and Billy Graham.  We all need to be respectful.

 

Some of my evangelical friends still read Spurgeon, and I imagine that my grandfather, Walter Grant Smith (a Methodist Minister trained at Ohio Weslyan and Boston University School of Theology), read him as well.  However, there have always been great preachers in every religion, before, during, and after the time of Joseph Smith.  Indeed, it is a matter of LDS faith that God always raises up great preachers.  I have listened to a number of very fine preachers in my life, and have never termed them "apostates."

I think the word apostate is overused.  The way I view the word, an apostate is one who has had the truth or been part of the truth and then left it.  So I can't see preachers like these as apostate as they did not fall away from anything since they never were members of Christ church to begin with.   They are simply good men who did their best trying to understand things but fell far from the mark.  And we should always remember that when Wilford Woodruff saw those spirits in the St George Temple, Martin Luther and John Wesley was among them.  So they are teaching the restored gospel now on the other side.

[mfbukowski]

Take a given sign language of a middle finger ... ambiguous? I think not

Au contaire, mon amie. Emphatic, yes, but about as precise as a hand grenade.

You may know who threw it, but what the intent was is a whole other question.

[Gervin]

You should have left off the word "apostate," Gervin, since Mormons don't generally label great Christian preachers as apostates, whether Martin Luther, the Wesleys, Finney, et al., right on up into modern times with Billy Sunday and Billy Graham.  We all need to be respectful.

From lds.org:

"During the Great Apostasy, people were without divine direction from living prophets. Many churches were established, but they did not have priesthood power to lead people to the true knowledge of God the Father and Jesus Christ."

 

Question: did Spurgeon have the priesthood power to lead people to the true knowledge of God the Father and Jesus Christ?

[Gray]

Ludwig insisted that words mean what they are used to mean, rather than some abstract dictionary definition(s).  So, I suggest the practical reality that doctrine means what it is used to mean at any particular point in time (sychronically), and possibly varies over time (diachronically).  A very practical measure of that it is what someone might be disciplined for.

 

Thanks, that makes sense to me. For instance, sacrament can really mean any holy rite, but in the context of Mormonism it's the Lord's supper. 

 

But, I would say again that discipline isn't consistent enough to use that as a basis for determining doctrine. And there is no discipline for violating the word of wisdom or for not paying tithing (at least no disfellowshiping or excommunication). But would you argue that there is no doctrine regarding the WoW or paying tithing? 

Edited April 17, 2015 by Gray