IS SLAVERY IN THE AIR?

I opened the hospital door this morning for an African American man. We happened to be going in at the same time, me for work, and he to visit a loved one. The hospital has a policy that its employees are to be curtious to visitors, but I don't need that policy. Most people don't. I would have opened the door regardless.

Isn't it interesting to think my polite gesture, which I did almost subconsciously, would not have been so natural as early as 1950 in many parts of our country. In some parts of our country it is still not natural to be kind to someone of differing skin color. I, a white man, opening the door for a black man. Unheard of in some parts and in some times.

But it's so natural to me to open the door for anyone: black, white, female, male, fat, skinny, tall, short. It doesn't matter. I just do it. So why? Why do I act this way? When did I first learn that appropriate interaction with others includes opening the door for them, no matter their color of skin or gender?

Answer: I can't remember when I first learned this behavior. It has always been this way. If it wasn't for a recent article, I wouldn't have thought about it.

The Article: Slave Master Becomes an Abolistionist

Mauritania is a nation on the western coast of Africa that, before I read this article, I knew nothing about. I read about Mauritania's long and recent history of slavery. Yes, there are still places struggling with slavery. According to the article the United Nations estimates that 10-20% of the population in Mauritania is enslaved.

The article revolves around the story of a former slave owner, Abdel, and his slave, Yebawa. What interested me in this article was not only the revelation of slavery still in the world, but of the descriptions made by both men concerning their experiences and how natural both men understood the reality of slavery.

First, a snippet of Abdel the former slave owner describing the act of picking his slave when only seven years old.

"It was as if I were picking out a toy," Abdel, now 47, said of choosing Yebawa as his slave. "For me, it was as if he were a thing -- a thing that pleased me. This idea came to me because there were all these stories about him which made me laugh -- that he talked in his sleep, that he was a bit chubby and a bit clumsy, that he was always losing the animals he was supposed to be watching over and was then always getting punished for this. So for me, he was an interesting and comic figure."

"It's normal that I chose him."

What do you know at seven years old but what is before you? At seven years old there is no sense of social justice outside the given definitions of such concepts delivered by parents and culture. So Abdel can only understand Yebawa according to the social construct given him by his environment. Yebawa is a piece of property, even comical property, nothing more than a thing in the inherited paradigm of young Abdel. With Western eyes I can't understand an ethic of human property, but then I remember that at seven years old I understood people through the lens given me by my parents and environment. I am the product of a middle-class family growing up in conservative Oklahoma. My past, like that of Abdel, is the conglomeration of paradigms I inherited from my environment. At seven, we are receptors of a world that barely extends beyond the walls of our homes. In Mauritania the young Abdel, likewise, has inherited a paradigm that sees those of darker skin color like toys - like property.

But what of the slave, Yebawa? What is the paradigm of a slave? Again, another snippet from the article.

Sadder still, Yebawa didn't consider himself human either -- at least not in the way Abdel was. Mauritania's slaves are very often brainwashed by their masters into thinking they are less than human and that their place is at the bottom of a rigid and still-enforced caste system that allows them only to serve their masters without pay or free will.

Because of their darker skin and lowest-caste status, slaves are treated as inferior.

Abdel's family never beat its slaves, he said, but did regard them as subhuman.

What does it mean to be brainwashed? I think this is the perception of the article's Westernized author.Yebawa has no idea of 'brainwashing'. He simply inherits a culture of slavery wherein his social category is 'slave'. His self-perception has been shaped and molded not by an individualistic capitalistic society, but by a caste system that has him at the bottom - as subhuman. He, like Abdel, like us, inherit a world-view that influences how we perceive others and how we perceive ourselves. In the Western world children are looked on by their parents as destined for greatness. What if your parents only see you as future property of a slave owner? And what if society reinforces that sad expectation by casting you on the lowest level of a system that does not allow for upward movement? Abdel summarizes the point well:

"One must really have in mind that when one is born into a certain environment, it is considered the right one -- just and fair."

So we grow up assuming our environment is just and fair. For Abdel, it was when he left Mauriania and studied in France that he learned how slavery was not socially acceptable for the rest of the world. His paradigm of humanity changed slowly, eventually leading him to become an abolitionist. He came to see the injustice; he saw the difference between what was morally right to the rest of the world and what wasn't right in his.

They [Abdel and other abolistionists] denounced the Mauritanian government's inaction on slavery, lobbying for legislation that would criminalize the practice. The law passed unanimously in 2007, making it a crime to own another person and force him or her to work.

The slave master-turned-abolitionist made that journey from ignorance to enlightenment. And his organization, born under the stars of the Sahara, continues its work into its second decade.

It's easy for me to applaud Abdel's change. It's easy because he changed from a practice I believe to be wrong to advocating for a practice I sustain. But this morning I did something without thinking about it, just as innocently as Abdel in choosing his slave at seven years old. I opened the door for a man. For our culture, that's good behavior. Abdel chose a slave when only seven years old. For his culture, that was good behavior. I did the right thing because I have a culture and paradigm that tells me it is right.

There are factors outside my control (more than I can admit) that shape me and mold me to believe that my actions are morally good. But what if my culture is wrong? What if someone comes to me and tries to tell me the way I interact and perceive a group of people is actually inappropriate. If that person is sustained by the majority, I imagine I would be quick to adapt to the new paradigm under social pressure. However, if the individual is alone in the assertion concerning my ethical behavior to a certain group of people, than I am more likely to reject the alteration and continue in my comfortable yet possibly abhorrent behavior. In short, if slavery is in the air, I will breathe it.

Conclusion

I don't know the groups in my culture that I view as subhuman. I want to say that I don't view anyone or any group of people as subhuman. That's comfortable. It makes me feel like a good person. However, I have to admit to myself that because I don't have the pleasure of stepping outside my culture and personal paradigm I can't see what group I naturally perceive as subhuman. Abdel went to France and experienced his paradigm in a different environment, leading to a deep change. I really can't afford a trip to France. Instead, I offer two groups of people that I guess I may perceive incorrectly. I don't see them as subhuman (I think), but I do lack personal interaction with these groups that would inform my paradigm and produce a more accurate understanding of who they really are: 1) American Muslims; and 2) Homosexuals. I've grown up in an extremely conservative environment and I think I may have many incorrect perceptions of both American Muslims and Homosexuals. I could be wrong, but I won't know until I go talk to them, eat with them, smile with them. Again, I don't view these groups of people as subhuman, but I do think my perception needs to be balanced by genuine conversation with - not about - two minority groups in Oklahoma. Maybe I'll breathe something different when I am around them. I'll let you know how it goes.

Search Ponder Pray Repeat        

HB2988: WHAT WOULD THE AMISH DO?

HB2988

In Oklahoma, HB2988 has passed out of committee and is on its way to the House floor. HB2988 will add places of worship to Oklahoma's Castle Doctrine. This means that parishioners will be protected from legal ramifications if they use deadly force against someone that may attempt to commit an act of violence at a place of worship. 

Here is a link to a news article concerning the bill.

Here is a link to the introduction of the Bill along with some excerpts:

The Legislature hereby recognizes that the citizens of the State of Oklahoma have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes or, places of business, or places of worship.

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter the dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle of another person, or a place of business, or a place of worship is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

A person who uses force, as permitted pursuant to the provisions of subsections B and D of this section, is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force.  As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes charging or prosecuting the defendant.

Theological Reflection:

I like peace. I like peace so much that I never want to perpetrate an act of violence. I love peace so much that I follow the example of a man I describe as the Prince of Peace. A man who taught us to love our enemies and turn the other cheek, not to walk away, but as an offering. This man taught in word and deed, going to the cross willingly, never crying out for justice or defense. I don't believe that violence solves problems, but I do believe in the solutions that come about through peace. 

Of course, I am reminded of when Jesus tore through the temple with a whip, turning over tables and driving out the money changers and animals. It doesn't say if he threatened any one's life, but I don't think Jesus would last long with that type of behavior in an Oklahoma church after HB2988. 

And what would the headline read if a gun-man was killed by a parishioner in self-defense? 'Church Parishioner Kills Mentally Ill Man Under The Cross.' That's a contradiction. At least, it should be.

We are not called to defend ourselves, but to follow a man who healed even those that threatened his life. We are a light to the world, not simply people pointing to a light, but people being a light. It's sad to think that this light may become deadly.

The Amish:

In 2007, the LDS leader, James E. Faust gave a talk that I will always remember. It came before I had made a commitment to non-violence, but I think it was a message that moved me towards that commitment. The talk was titled, "The Healing Power of Forgiveness." In this talk Faust describes the tragedy that occurred in an Amish community when a man stormed into an Amish school, took 10 girls hostage, and shot them before taking his own life. Faust goes on to describe the Amish people's reaction:

This shocking violence caused great anguish among the Amish but no anger. There was hurt but no hate. Their forgiveness was immediate. Collectively they began to reach out to the milkman's suffering family. As the milkman's family gathered in his home the day after the shootings, an Amish neighbor cam over, wrapped his arms around the father of the dead gunman, and said, "We will forgive you." Amish leaders visited the milkman's wife and children to extend their sympathy, their forgiveness, their help, and their love. About half of the mourners at the milkman's funeral were Amish. In turn, the Amish invited the milkman's family to attend the funeral services of the girls who had been killed. A remarkable peace settled on the Amish as their faith sustained them during this crisis.

This form of tragedy has happened all too often. I remember the news of a California LDS Bishop who was shot in his church office. The threat is real. There are a lot of hurt, angry, sick people that somehow justify this butchery to themselves. Tragically, some have invaded defenseless churches, temples, synagogues and mosques to only commit violence and create pain. In a nation that values religious freedom, a culture of religious diversity struggles against the threat of blood shed.

So I wonder what the Amish have done? They experienced a tragedy, so do they now have a security guard at the school? No. I believe the source of the forgiveness that came from the Amish is fueled not by a mere resolve to forgive, but I think it is the product of a deep commitment, even covenant, to walk as Jesus taught us to walk. Loving our enemies, even those that would hurt us. The Amish have  a commitment to non-violence. Did they retaliate? Did they demand justice? No. They grieved with the family of the perpetrator. They sought out for healing through peace. They rebuilt.

I think the Amish have taught us about forgiveness in an incredibly powerful way. Maybe they have something else to teach us about our commitment to peace; our commitment to walk the path of Jesus; our commitment to non-violence. HB2988 may pass, but for Christianity, it has no need. At least, it shouldn't.

Search Ponder Pray Repeat    

SAY HELLO, AND WAVE GOODBYE

Dear people I like, love and care for,

I started this blog as a reaction. I was accused of being two-faced for having questions, maybe not even believing like I once did. Since I wasn't letting people in on my personal struggles, I was accused of being deceitful, posing as a certain kind of Mormon, but really not being that person. That accusation hurt, so I reacted to it, went to the other side of the spectrum, and decided to be as open about myself as possible by starting this blog. I had no desire to be deceitful. My questions were personal, but in this world where people post every aspect of their life on Facebook, being personal is equated with lying. How sad.

My wife asked me an important question before I began posting on the blog. She asked me if I was trying to write in order to hurt the faith of others, or if I was writing to really be honest and present myself. I appreciate that question because I was in a painful place when I first started writing and I could have taken this blog in a different direction. I have tried to stay true to my original resolve that I am writing to express my questions and personal struggle with the intent to listen and interact with readers. Sometimes I fail. I apologize if I have. Of course, failure is a part of me, so even that is truthful.

Thus far on this blog I have described what others call my 'faith crisis'. This was something I described as a 'place without a name'. I've written about the pivotal theological struggle that brought me to my major doubt concerning LDS theology - the life of Eli and what our vicarious works say about God. The discussion that followed was a wonderful experience, but it made me see that I was not in a place to confirm the conservative LDS position represented by the comments of faithful LDS people. Nonetheless, I decided to continue to present, be honest, and explain my strife. So I kept writing: Mormons as Christians, Book of Mormon, Violence, Marriage, Polygamy, and The Book of Abraham. In each discussion I find myself on the other side of the aisle in respects to the LDS position.

Additionally, I started to become so distracted by these discussions that I lost track of studying and reading what really makes me happy. The posts with the most traffic and discussion are those focused on LDS issues, while what I really love - Jesus' parables - get little to no foot traffic. That's okay because I know that people are probably not that interested in reading notes on Dominic Crossan's insights to the parables of Jesus. But that's what I love. In short, I'm done with presenting the issues that brought me to my faith crisis and I want to get back to what I love.

I have a few drafts lined up for future posts revolving around LDS subjects: The First Vision, The Three Degrees of Glory, the Temples and Masons, and Trinitarian vs. LDS versions of the Godhead. But these topics have become more of a labor than an enjoyment. This blog is about opening myself up so that people can see what I struggle with in LDS theology and history. I've done that sufficiently. I'm ready to move on.

Say hello, and wave goodbye.

I wave goodbye to spending so much time on LDS issues that quite frankly, just make me angry and are draining. I wave goodbye to a church that helped me grow into who I am, and for that I am thankful. I wave goodbye to a church that thinks the world for 1800 years of history was void of God's authority to come unto Christ, despite the pleads of the people and the promise of God (Matt. 7:7-11; 16:18). I wave goodbye to the social pressure and cultural expectation of declaring 'I know' about everything to do with church, God, and scripture. I am no longer enchanted by the doctored history and theology presented at church, nor am I convinced that the LDS Church is a more accurate representation of the early Church or the teachings of Jesus than the rest of Christendom. I do not say this with the spirit of degrading Mormonism, simply to say, it’s time for me to move on. So, thank you for a good thirty years, fun youth dances, spiritual upliftment, direction, and wonderful people. Goodbye.

I'm saying hello to the parables, Church history and theology, Greek, unrestrained reading, acceptance of women as my equals in ministry, homosexuals as worthy children of God, and trained church leadership. I'm saying hello to an extremely challenging world that needs more bridges of acceptance than walls of doctrine, dogma, and worries over 'worthiness'. I even say hello to evolution. I am saying hello to a God I don't know, who is mysterious to my imperfect mind and I can admit that and think that's okay. I am saying hello to a faith greater than when I started, wherein the grace of God is more powerful than what I can ever do or not do. I'm saying hello to a Jewish peasant, who taught the Mosaic Law, proclaimed the kingdom, and died on the cross. I say hello to a hope, yes, a hope, that through that man we all can hope in the resurrection and the redemption of creation. Hello.

What do I do now? I continue to search, ponder and pray. I will continue to write on the blog. Sometimes the topic may be something to do with the LDS Church, but certainly not as frequently. I reiterate, I am not mad at the LDS Church. I thank it for the many positive aspects of its influence on my life. But this blog is about being honest and open. So here I am, and it's time for me to look forward in a new direction.

Say hello, and wave goodbye.

Search Ponder Pray Repeat

1978: IT'S NEVER TOO LATE TO APOLOGIZE

I remember quite well the time I chose to apologize to a man on my mission. This man had served as the Branch President for well over the typical five years, built the membership and literally built the chapel. The day the branch turned into a ward, he was released. No one told him he was going to be released. It just happened and no one said thank you.

The man was crushed. His branch-now-ward turned over; his baby; his life. I remember he cried telling me this story. It all happened some 15 years before I arrived to listen to the tale in his home. He loved the church, but felt as if he had been kicked to the curb for no reason. He had devoted so much and wasn't even given a thank you. He had been inactive since the day he was released as Branch President.

I cried with him. I felt so ashamed that my church, the true church of Jesus, of love, of brotherhood and genuine friendship, would do such a thing to its own.

So I said sorry.

On behalf of the Church I apologized to this man for how he was treated. I said I was sorry for the wretched custom within our culture to not even express heart-felt gratitude beyond raising our arm to the square. And how much more should gratitude be given for a man that did so much? I thanked him for the very chapel that he helped raise funds for and build with his own hands. The building in which I then sat in to take the body and blood of Christ. I thanked him for his dedication and love. But of most importance, I said sorry.

Two weeks later, he came back to church.

It's never too late to apologize.

I'm tired. In so many ways I am tired. So, with so much to say but no strength to say it, I leave you with some links. You can explore the issue and ask yourself if the Church should apologize for the ban.

Would Jesus really do this to people? Should the Church apologize?

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-genesis-of-a-churchs-stand-on-race/2012/02/22/gIQAQZXyfR_story.html.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/joannabrooks/5748/racist_remarks_by_popular_byu_religion_professor_spark_controversy/.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/joannabrooks/5752/lds_church_acknowledges_past_racism%2C_repudiates_racist_remarks/.

http://stevebloor.wordpress.com/2012/03/05/apology-to-blacks/#comments.

Search, Ponder, Pray, Repeat

ABRAHAM IS A HOR?

On my mission I taught people that the Book of Abraham was a translation by Joseph Smith (JS) of an ancient text. I showed people the Facsimiles in the Pearl of Great Price, teaching them that they were picture depictions of Abraham’s life and teachings. I bore testimony that it was scripture.

Of course, I did all of these things in complete trust that what I learned in LDS seminary and in the mission manuals were historically accurate truth. I believed whole-heartedly the prophetic calling of JS and that these writings – Book of Mormon, Book of Moses, Book of Abraham – were testimony of his prophetic calling. "In an 1830 revelation, Joseph was called 'a seer, a translator, a prophet, an apostle of Jesus Christ, an elder of the church.' The series of titles implied that prophethood was connected to translation" (Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, 130). I learned about the issues with the Book of Abraham (BoA) well after my mission.

On July 3, 1835, Michael H. Chandler visited Kirtland to offer JS four mummies and some rolls of papyri. JS bought the pieces, claiming that the papyri contained the writings of Abraham of Ur and Joseph of Egypt. From the papyri JS produced the BoA that we enjoy today in the Pearl of Great Price. JS seemed pretty proud of his possession, accepting visitors to view the papyri and to listen to his explanation of them up to his death (Bushman, 286).

Bushman points out that JS had his own use of the word ‘translation’. “Joseph did not translate in the sense of learning the language and consulting dictionaries. He received the words by 'revelation,' whether or not a text lay before him" (Bushman, 132). Bushman goes on: “As Joseph saw it, he was working by inspiration – that had been clear from the beginning. When he ‘translated’ the Book of Mormon, he did not read from the gold plates; he looked into the crystals of the Urim and Thummim or gazed at the seerstone. The words came by inspiration, not by reading the characters on the plates. By analogy, it seemed likely that the papyri had been an occasion for receiving a revelation rather than a word-for-word interpretation of the hieroglyphs as in ordinary translations. Joseph translated Abraham as he had the characters on the gold plates, by knowing the meaning without actually knowing the plates’ language” (Bushman, 292).

So I understand Bushman to say that the papyri were a spark that lit the fire of God’s revelation. The papyri serve only as the release valve for the flood of ancient information that makes up the BoA. Joseph simply referred to the revelation as a ‘translation’ as a way to reference respectfully back to the catalyst of the whole event - the papyri. We should not think, according to my reading of Bushman, that by ‘translation’ JS meant a word-for-word rendering of a narrative in one language into another language through linguistic means, but we should think of the papyri as an item that simply induced God’s revealing of Himself and of great spiritual knowledge to JS.   

There’s one explanation, but what do you do with the clear interest in JS et al. in understanding the Egyptian language? Bushman points out that in the fall of 1835 Cowdery, William W. Phelps, Warren Parrish, and Frederick G. Williams were given the chance to translate the papyri themselves. From this exercise of futility the group pulled together a “Grammar & Alphabet of the Egyptian Language” (Bushman, 120-121). It seems clear that JS was interested in the Egyptian language beyond its function as a catalyst for ‘translation’-as-revelation. He and his crew were interested in looking at the papyri and sincerely deducing its written message. So why would JS be interested in the original language of the papyri when the divine message was so clearly provided by God through revelation? No language, no matter. God will provide.

Of course, the general LDS populous is not privy to JS’s special use of ‘translation’, and ignorant missionaries like myself go and tell people a story that suggests JS sat down and translated the hieroglyphics of the papyri like any translator would.

“In 1967, that view of translation [the view that JS translated the Book of Abraham word-for-word] suffered a blow when eleven scraps of the Abraham papyri, long since lost and believed to have been burned, were discovered in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City and given to Latter-day Saint leaders in Salt Lake City. Color pictures were soon printed and scholars went to work. The texts were thought to be the Abraham papyri because Joseph had published facsimiles from the papyri with his translation, and the same pictures appeared on the museum fragments. Moreover, some of the characters from the Egyptian grammar appeared on the fragments. The translation of these texts by expert Egyptologists would finally prove or disprove Joseph’s claims to miraculous translating powers. Would any of the language correspond to the text in his Book of Abraham? Some Mormons were crushed when the fragments turned out to be rather conventional funerary texts placed with mummified bodies, in this case Hor, to assure continuing life as an immortal god. According to the Egyptologists, nothing on the fragments resembled Joseph’s account of Abraham” (Bushman, 291).

But this was not the first time Egyptologists had critiqued JS’s translation with its original papyri. In 1856, five years after the publication of the Pearl of Great Price, M. Theodule Deveria, an Egyptologist of the time, commented on Facsimile No. 3:

“The deceased led by Ma into the presence of Osiris. His name is Horus, as may be seen in the prayer which is at the bottom of the picture, and which is addressed to the divinities of the four cardinal points” (Quote taken from this link. Larson, By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus, 25)

A similar event occurs in 1912.

Others Egyptologists confirm.

So here we have the remains of what is clearly the source of JS’s ‘translation’ of the BoA, and it has nothing to do with Abraham. It has everything to do with someone named Hor, or Horus. Additionally, Abraham would have lived sometime in the proximity of 2000 B.C. and the papyri was written during the first century B.C. Clearly, Abraham could not have written something in the first century B.C. while living in 2000 B.C., nor do I think he would been interested in Hor’s burial (No disrespect intended to Hor’s family or friends; Palmer, An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins, 15-16).  

So why would I think as a missionary that the BoA was indeed a word-for-word translation of a text written by the hand of Abraham?  I quote for you the beginning title and introduction to the BoA:

THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM

TRANSLATED FROM THE PAPYRUS, BY JOSEPH SMITH

A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.” (See History of the Church, 2:235–36, 348–51.)

It seems pretty clear from the get go that: 1) This is a translation from the papyrus by JS (remember, I, along with most LDS people, are not privy to JS’s special use of the word, ‘translation.’); 2) it is written by Abraham’s own hand. Pretty cut and dry presentation. I really shouldn’t have to go look for some special explanation of what this all means. It seems clear what JS meant for his audience to understand and for us ignorant missionaries to teach.

Here is a brief summary of some defense offered for the BoA:

1)      Not actually authored by Abraham, but penned by a Jewish redactor who was passing along a tradition going back to Abraham.

My response: Then why didn’t JS say so? He’s a prophet, I think he could have known that bit without leading us on to think it came directly from the hand of Abraham.

2)      The ‘translation’ is a revelation from God and not a word-for-word translation.

My response: Then stop calling it a translation! This is misleading language and inappropriate. If you can admit it really wasn’t an actual translation then don’t put this as the beginning introduction to the Book of Abraham. Of course, the LDS church has been defending it as a literal translation for so long that it will look bad if it backs out now.

3)      There are other messages and meanings embedded in the text along with the Egyptologist's translations that are unknown to us, and could be where Joseph Smith found his message and interpretation (Wikipedia).

Response: Why would a funeral rite for someone named Hor contain anything about Abraham, let alone the narrative we have in Abraham 1-2:18? This is an argument of silence, meaning that since we don’t know every little nook and cranny we should just continue believing the way we have been, despite all of the evidence to the contrary. I don’t think I should hold my breath on this one in hopes that Kolob is going to appear in Hor’s funeral rites.

4)      What if the papyri we have in the museum aren’t actually the papyri JS had purchased and used for his ‘translation’?

Response: From Wikipedia: “There is broad agreement that the recovered papyri are portions of the originals, partly based on the fact that they were pasted onto paper which had ‘drawings of a temple and maps of the Kirtland, Ohio area’ on the back and an accompanying affidavit by Emma Smith, stating that they had been in the possession of Joseph Smith.”

As most of these issues do, I feel like this issue will simply come down to a question of belief. Do I believe in the theology presented in the Book of Abraham? Do I believe it is the word of God revealed to JS? For most LDS people these issues of translation and history are not informative to faith. What matters is the confirmation of the Spirit. So here I write, praying for answers, with a mountain of evidence before me. I go before God now better informed and ask God’s help in understanding what to do with this new information. Am I really meant to ignore it? Can’t I integrate it into my faith with a healthy and uplifting end? What’s the point of prayer if I can’t? What’s the point of having and using a brain if I can’t?

I wonder how Hor feels about us using his funeral rites like this?

Sorry, Hor.

Search, Ponder, Pray, Repeat  

NOT MY DAUGHTERS: JOSEPH SMITH, POLYGAMY AND POLYANDRY

I went on a mission not knowing hardly anything about Joseph Smith's plural wives. I can admit that fact knowing that most LDS missionaries are in the same boat. I knew that polygamy was practiced among early LDS church members, but I didn't understand why it was practiced, if Joseph Smith (JS) practiced it, how many wives JS had, and if he had any offspring from his multiple wives. Again, I know my ignorance is not rare among LDS missionaries, which is why I don't mind sharing it. So when I was first asked if JS practiced polygamy I didn't know what to say to myself or to other people. It was an issue I hoped people would not bring up. "If they do bring it up, just tell them polygamy was practiced for economic stability on behalf of the widows." That's what I was told, so that's what I said.

I can't blame anyone for my ignorance, but polygamy is a taboo topic in LDS Church meetings. If we talk about polygamy, say in Sunday School, it is glossed over, typically ending with the conclusion stated above - economic reasons. I really don't feel like I missed some huge lesson in seminary about the ins and outs of polygamy (LDS seminary = early morning bible study during high school). I went to Sunday School. And what seminary teacher is taught and given materials to approach the topic of LDS early practice of polygamy in detail? None to my knowledge.

I was lucky to serve my mission in Chile. I say I was lucky because I think more people in the States are aware of early Mormon polygamy practices than the general populous in Chile, so I could avoid the topic. It was easy to avoid since it wasn't part of the discussions I was told to teach. I never ran into someone that wanted more of an explanation than the economic statement made above. I didn't start learning more about LDS polygamy until I returned from my mission and started fielding questions from classmates in college. Kind of embarrasing, really, to come home from a mission but know practically nothing about a practice that plays such a big role in LDS Church history and JS's theology.

So I explored.

In reading some materials I quickly learned that JS married multiple women, not for economic support, but for obedience to God's command. I had a conceptualization of JS that did not include the feature of polygamy, but suddenly, the realization that JS did practice polygamy causes one's mental image of JS to either remain vacant of this historical reality (self-deception) or allow this new knowledge to shape one's mental picture of JS.

JS had multiple wives. He practiced polygamy.

I'm okay with that.
I think most Mormons are.
JS had some 30 wives.
That's cool.
No problem.

A few years pass by and I learn that not only did JS have multiple wives:

1.  JS married teenagers. He married a girl, Nancy Winchester, for example, who was either fourteen or fifteen years old when married to JS. There were others: Helen Mar Kimball (14), Fanny Alger (16), Flora Ann Woodworth (16). There are other young women that JS married that I would consider underage.
2. JS married women that were married to other men still alive. Let that sink in: JS married the wives of men that were still alive. This is called polyandry. This is a new word I had to allow into my vocabulary. But it's not like learning a new word for the joy of learning, this is about learning a new word because your hero is practicing the act of marrying a woman who is already married. They never told me that in seminary.
3. JS married a woman (married) and her daughter (also married). In 1842 JS married Sylvia Sessions Lyon. Later that year JS married Patty Bartlett Sessions. Patty is the mother of Sylvia.

So what do I do with this information? This isn't just a man marrying consenting, unmarried and cognitively mature women. This is a man sealing himself to young girls, women - some still married to another man - and sealing himself to a daughter and her mother. This isn't economic security for poor and starving widows. What is this?

What if it was okay back in the 19th century for men to marry young women as young as 14/15 yrs. old? Social scientists estimate that the average age of marriage for women in 1840 was 21-22 years of age. Marrying a 14 year old is an outlier. Not normal. Not okay.

I really don't think I need to ask the question if polyandry was okay.

So here I am wondering what to do with a prophet that at one point in my life was possibly connected to polygamy, but is now married to single women, some women still married and some teenagers. This is kind of a punch in the face. What? My JS married a 14yr old?

JS had multiple wives. He practiced polygamy. He practiced polyandry. He married teenagers.

I'm okay with that?
I think most Mormons are?
JS had some 30 wives?
That's cool?
No problem?

You know what? I'm not okay with this. I'm not okay with anyone who wants to marry, seal or commit any marriage-like ceremony with a 14 year old. Not O.K. I've got daughters and I don't care if you're a prophet, president of the United States or whatever high and mighty title you claim, no one is touching my girls, or any other teenager for that matter and claiming them as sealed/married. In fact, I'm going to teach my girls to kick anyone's ass if they try something like this. I'd apologize for the crued language but maybe it can wake some of us up from the idea that a prophet has special permission from God to do these things. He doesn't. No one does. This is wrong.

And I'm not okay with any man marrying another man's wife. I really don't feel like I need to say much on this point. It's standard now and it was standard then. Married = off limits. I would like to think that most people, especially a prophet, can respect that.

Issue #1: What do I do with JS? Do I continue to hold him up as a prophet of God, able to communicate with the divine, when in fact this divine communication brought about, what I consider, a revolting practice (Again, not just polygamy, but polyandry and marrying teenagers)? Maybe I can turn a blind eye to this reality and look upon the edited history taught to me at Sunday School as all I need. But my brain just can't filter out what actually happened so that I can shape history the way I want it. This happened and it is wrong.

Issue #2: Why wasn't I told? Why wasn't this taught to me before going out on a mission? Shouldn't missionaries teaching people about the restoration and the prophetic calling of JS be made aware of a major piece of his teachings and practices? Shouldn't the people converting to Mormonism also be made aware of this significant feature of the prophet of the restoration? This seems like deception, in my opinion.

Yeah, I know I am a bit emotional about this, but I really feel deceived. Not telling the whole truth is the same as lying, in my opinion. And I highly doubt you would allow your 14yr old daughter to marry a grown man. At least, I hope you wouldn't. We would call such a man a perve, pedophile, etc. Why do we make an exception for JS?

I haven't done any research to find out if there is any evidence to suggest that JS had sexual relations or children with the additional women with whom he married. I don't know if I can handle that right now.

Search Ponder Pray Repeat





 














        

PARABLES OF ACTION: NOTES FROM CROSSAN'S IN PARABLES (Chapter Four)

Parables of Action

• The tendency in the tradition of parable interpretation is to look down upon the allegorizing of parables (i.e. Augustine's treatment of the Good Samaritan), but there is a general acceptance of moralizing the parables (i.e J. Jeremias).

Parables and Ethics

• There was a profound clash between Jesus and the Pharisees, but later Christian hostility has distorted the actual nature of this confrontation. The Pharisees are erroneously described as hypocrites (you must do what we won't) or uncaring legalists. In fact, the Pharisees were great moral teachers and guides, "But there precisely lay the problem which Jesus and Paul saw so clearly."

"When Christianity is no longer aware of what Jesus and Paul were fighting against in Pharisaic Judaism, it can hardly be conscious of a similar presence within itself. The debate did not concern good law as over against bad law or even internal and sincere law as over against external and hypocritical law. The challenge of Jesus and of Paul was this: obedience does not lead to God, but God leads one to obedience. The question is not God or law, covenant or commandment, faith or works, but, granting both, in which direction does the arrow fly from one to the other? It must be emphasized that this is not a debate between Judaism and Christianity but a conflict within them both, and a conflict ever ancient and ever new. So, according to Jesus and Paul, it was the gift of God's presence that made a good life possible, not a good life that made the reward of God's presence inevitable."

"The righteousness of God does not presuppose our obedience; it creates it." - Earnst Kasemann.

• The parables of Jesus seek to draw us into the Kingdom of God and to act by the gift received therein.
• Ethics seeks to form a logic mode of acting out the best possible way of Being. But parables subvert ethics. Parables leave us wondering what to do. They are not a clear program or list of instructions. We enter the Holy of Holies to find it empty.

The parables overthrow ethics, just as Matt. 5:39 overthrows the typical response to violence: "if any one strikes you on the right cheek turn to him the other also." "It intends us to experience how the logic of ethics is undermined by the mystery of God and that, if one can but accept it, is the most crucial moral experience of all.... Can we walk and act in utter serenity and in utter insecurity, in total concern and in total incertitude?"

The Action Parables: The Parable of the Treasure (Serves as a paradigmatic parable for Crossan; Matt. 13:44)

1. The Advent - The Finding of the Treasure
2. The Reversal - He Goes (altering his original plan)
3. The Action - The purchase of the field

• Gos of Thom 98:31-99:3: 1) No mention of the buyer selling everything he had to purchase the field. The treasure was found after he purchased the field and was found after plowing the field (It takes hard work for one to find their true Gnostic self); 2) It tells us what the buyer did with the treasure after he found it, "to lend money to whomever he wished."

"Jesus' parables challenge one to life and action within the Kingdom but they leave that life and that action as absolute in its call as it is unspecified in its detail."

Situations Depicted in Parables of Action

1. The Decision is Made - Friend at Midnight (Luke 11:5-8); The Unjust Judge (Luke 18:2-5)
2. The Decision is Not Made - Rich Fool (Luke 12:16-20; Gos. Thom. 92:3-10); The Man Who Lack a Wedding Garment (Matt. 22:11-14). The Bridesmaids depicts both #1 and #2 (Matt. 25:1-13).

The Servant Parables (Crossan discusses nine servant parables and groups them. This grouping is important for his conclusion, so I provide one example of each group).

Group A: The Parable of the Talents

      Matt. 25:14-30

• Matt. 25:16-18 does not appear in Luke, suggesting this portion came to Matthew through his source and supports originality. This passage functions as a way to draw listeners immediately into the world of the parable.
• Matt. 25:30 is not original because of its "allegorical character, explicit eschatological application, and Matthean vocabulary." The original ending is most likely in Matt. 25:28 because it functions to recall Matt. 25:20.

      Luke 19:12-27

• Note the common phrases between Matt. 18:24-29 and Luke 19:20-26.
• Luke 19:27 can be omitted since it is a part of the Throne Claimant and originally has nothing to do with the Parable of the Talents.
• Luke 19:24 matches Matt. 25:28 supporting this as the original ending of the parable.

"The main story is quiet clear as is its use of the standard folkloric threesome. Two servants are rewarded for their work and a third is punished for his prudent if useless inactivity."

Group B: The Vineyard Workers

      Matt. 20:1-13

• There is a consensus that 20:16 is the original ending. "So the last will be first, and the first last," is not original being a repeated phrase from 19:30, and 19:30 coming from Mark 10:31. Most scholars accept 1:1-15 as the basic original story. Crossan argues that the ending of this parable is the rhetorical question of vs. 13.

"The owner does not pay the first the least and the last the most. In that story the hearer would have to wonder at the clear 'injustice' of such an action. Jesus must create a story which is quite possible and which does not raise irrelevant moral considerations. It is reversal of expectation which is central: 'they thought' in 20:10."

"What comes across most forcibly within our present purpose is that this parable shatters utterly the normalcy of Group A and brings to a climax the drive of Group B and the Servant Parables."

Structure and Oral Tradition

People who live in a writing culture, the phrase 'ipsissma verba' means exactly that, 'the very words.' In contrast, in a culture that operates on a more oral tradition, 'ipsissma verba' addresses more of the structure of a story, and less the exact repetition of words. Thus, Jesus probably shared his teachings on multiple occasions, staying true to a general structure and not exact verbage. It is more accurate to speak of tradition than original parable.

Crossan agrees to a point, but states, "In so far as we can legitimately generalize from the case of the servant parables, then, it would seem that the parabolic creativity of Jesus consisted in variations of structure within the same theme and in variations of content within the same structure but not in variations of detail within the same content."

Interpretation of the Structure

While parables alone function as a way to present the Kingdom, Crossan argues that the very structure of the Servant Parables does the same. "Here it is not a short proverb or even a long parable which is in question. It is an entire parabolic theme which is developed in one set of parables (Group A) and then reversed and overthrown in another (Group B)." The block of parables of Group A set up the latter reversal performed by Group B.

"Like a wise and prudent servant calculating what he must do in the critical reckoning to which his master summons him, one must be ready and willing to respond in life and action to the eschatological advent of God. But, unfortunately, the eschatological advent of God will always be precisely that for which wise and prudent readiness is impossible because it shatters also our wisdom and our prudence."

Search Ponder Pray Repeat