Bertel Thorvaldsen's Christus

I posted the following today on Facebook & Google Plus. But because Facebook won’t allow people to reshare a post, I’ve decided to post it here, so people can reshare it, and hopefully to get the message outside of my circles of friends & followers.

I’m saddened & troubled today by ignorance.

On the one hand the ignorance and un-Christian attitudes of some members of my LDS faith troubles me deeply. If people leave our Church, are gay, or otherwise live in a way we don’t believe is right, we should still treat them with complete respect and love. It’s what Christ would want us to do.

On the other hand, I’m saddened by the ignorance that seems to surround Mormon scholarship. This recent article, written by somebody who left the Church states “While many faiths’ irrational claims are obscured by centuries of myth and rubble, the LDS church lacks the moderation and scholarship of its older peers.” This is simply untrue! When it comes to historical research, apologetics, etc, Mormons are at the very top.

In fact LDS scholars have so outstripped their peers in other Christian religions, it led to a scathing rebuke of anti-Mormon “scholars” by two Evangelical experts. The title included the words “losing the battle and not knowing it?” They basically said, “all our [Evangelical scholarly anti-Mormon] work is pond-scum by comparison to what top LDS minds are doing. They’ve proven wrong or rebutted almost all the garbage we keep regurgitating. If we don’t start coming up with some real scholarship in this area, we’re doomed to be exposed as self-possessed, hyper-critical, illogical fools.” Read it here: http://goo.gl/M3kLU

Additionally, there are Mormons who rank among the top minds in all fields of science and the arts including genetics, physics, chemistry, medicine, history of various ages, and mathematics, to name a few generalized categories. These people are faithful and see little or none of the “evidences” that supposedly prove Mormonism wrong. It’s amazing that somehow anti-Mormons are winning the public perception war. People are led away by stupid arguments proved wrong decades (and sometimes over a century) ago. I don’t know how this happens, but all the evidences are there. Things that prove these stupid, worn out, and illogical attacks to be completely false. In fact, so blatantly false, they should immediately call into question the credibility of whatever source they come from. And don’t even get me started on what science has “proven.” Conclusive proof today is often a laughed-at misconception tomorrow. Any scientist will admit this, even if they don’t act accordingly. It would be sad to lose your faith based on something that turns out to be untrue.

If you’re LDS (even a “strong” member), investigating the Church, or considering leaving it, please, please please take the time to study up on the LDS scholarship that has been done. I think you’ll be surprised to find out just how weak most supposed “evidences” that “prove” the Church untrue, are. I think you’ll find your faith strengthened, but hope you’ll end up going back to the scriptures, the words of Christ, that should be the foundation of your faith.

A few great places to get started:
http://mormonscholarstestify.org/
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/index.html
http://fairlds.org/

The theory is straight-forward: Moral life should have a purpose and lead to happiness. Virtue ethics is about building character. Developing good moral character leads to contentment that comes from “doing the right thing.” This moral theory is not about rules or something called “utility.” Virtue ethics requires a lifetime of practice to develop. The way to become a moral person is to be moral. This theory is more about being or becoming, not so much about doing. It’s about who you are. The concept of the “mean” is crucial to this philosophy. The focus is on balance, moderation and avoiding extremes. Aristotle taught in order to achieve a virtuous and potentially happy character, we must first be taught by teachers and by experience. Later, we then consciously choose to do the best or virtuous things when presented with moral choices. This requires a lot of pondering of our choices and ultimately, feeling about things in a certain way. It is this feeling which causes, motivates or empowers virtuous or good actions.

Perhaps it is this component of feeling that raises such criticism. Those who practice virtue ethics are seeking eudemonia (Greek), a state meaning well-being, blessedness, or for our purposes, a state of human flourishing. That makes it hard to measure and hard to determine when such a state has been reached. How can virtue ethics be useful in a society if the objective is so subjective to the individual? This is just one of the criticisms I will address in this essay. Of course, just because a theory has legitimate criticisms does not negate the value of the theory, especially if favorable rebuttals can be presented. I am going to assume you are familiar with the theory beyond the basics presented in the preceding paragraph and will therefore focus on the rebuttals as the core of the argument advocating my position.

Let’s address the applicability problem right up front. What sorts of actions are morally permitted and which ones are not? What sorts of measureable outcomes are desired with virtue ethics? What are the duties or rules of virtue ethics that can be used in specific moral situations? The difficulty in this objection is that it focuses on a lower functioning level of human nature – having to be told what to do in all situations. Such a lower level is indicative of immaturity. Virtue ethics works best as one seeks to do the virtuous thing partly by avoiding vices. Let’s take the specific example of a raped fifteen year old girl trying to decide whether or not to have an abortion. The moral guidance of virtue ethics would have her avoid vices such as selfishness, irresponsibility or short-sightedness. Abortion is a personal choice but has consequences that reach far beyond the individual. Adoption is an alternative to abortion. Virtue ethics provides moral guidance in this situation by allowing the young mother a choice. She can make a very difficult situation better by applying the moral guidance afforded by seeking the virtues of love, patience, unselfishness, forgiveness, tolerance, kindness and charity. She may choose to raise the child herself but is probably not yet suited to provide the child the best care. She can have the abortion but perhaps she has strong feelings that she might regret her decision. Action guidance from virtue ethics allows her to choose to endure the unwanted pregnancy and give the child up for adoption as being a better choice. The criticism that virtue ethics does not provide action guidance in specific moral situations demonstrates an unwillingness to think things through, weigh the alternatives and make a choice, a process that rule-based systems don’t do well.

Now let’s address the cultural relativity problem. This is not unique to virtue ethics, but seems to be made less difficult by the unique aspects of this theory. You are probably familiar with the example of the differences in how some societies treat their dead. With virtue ethics, we can readily see that something abhorrent to Western civilization like cooking and eating a piece of flesh from your recently deceased grandmother might actually be an acceptable practice because it embodies the virtue of honoring your ancestors. Such a virtue is applicable to most cultures even though we may disagree with the way a specific culture implements it. Another example is the idea of slave-holding. In some cultures it was considered morally acceptable, even virtuous to enslave human beings. Virtue ethics does not necessarily require a static ranking of virtues over time. In the slave-holding example, there is an obvious conflict of virtues at work, which in the minds of some, justified the vice of enslaving another human being against their will (I’ll address the conflict problem and justification problem next). Virtue ethics embraces the idea of community. Our values are determined in large part by the communities to which we belong: nation, family, school, church and private and public associations. We accept that some virtues will hold a greater influence upon us according to the time and place in which we live. We are social animals, grounded in a particular place and time. The ethos of our society shapes our moral views and moral activity. The application of virtue ethics allows for the influence of our community to determine the ranking of our values according to our circumstances.

A good moral system must address dilemmas. The requirements of different virtues can bring about conflict because they seemingly point to different courses of action. However, this conflict is only apparent and can be resolved by those possessed with phronesis, translated as practical wisdom. This wisdom comes only with time and through practice, which of course means making mistakes. In reality, virtues do not make opposing demands. One course of action, which some may consider a rule, may outrank another in a particular case. Or it may be that there is an exception to a standard course of action based on the specific circumstances of a moral choice at hand. Over time, the practitioner of virtue ethics will come to know instinctively, or by a feeling, what is the right course of action in this situation. Since the complexities of every dilemma cannot be determined in advance, virtue ethics teaches the skills needed to study the problem out, ponder the choices and make the best decision. At first, this is difficult and prone to mistakes, but over time, it becomes second nature to know the best course of action.

I only have room to address one other criticism of virtue ethics known as the justification problem. In short, how do we justify or ground our ethical beliefs of what is moral? Which of all the character traits are the virtues? Perhaps this is where the idea of the mean comes into play. We can make lists of all kinds of character traits and then note the extremes of each end. While this may be an exercise to teach the skill for the uninitiated, I do not recommend it as a regular course of action. At one end of the spectrum is excessiveness, while the other end represents deficiency. For the virtue of courage we have recklessness and cowardice. For the virtue of work, we can consider laziness on one end and frenetic on the other. The Golden Mean is the virtue that is to be found in between two corresponding vices. As virtue ethicists, our objective is to be somewhere in the middle. Plato gave us the four Cardinal Virtues of prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance. Aristotle then added five additional virtues of wisdom, courage, liberality, magnificence and magnanimity. There is no master list of virtues because it could never be all-inclusive. This moral theory is not grounded in a list of rules, desired outcomes or even specific virtues, but rather on the idea of balance, moderation and avoiding extremes. Virtue ethics is grounded on a skill of how to choose wisely, which only comes with practice over time.

In conclusion, it is my contention that virtue ethics is a superior moral system because it is more flexible and embraces a wider range of possibilities than rule-based or outcome-based systems, mainly because of the central component of endorsing agent-based choice as the best way to guide one’s life. Just because a person is continent or falls short of a perfect virtue does not negate the value of virtue ethics. There is something particularly admirable about people who manage to act well when it is especially hard for them to do so. They may not yet have achieved eudemonia, but they are still practicing, which is a major part of the theory of virtue ethics. They may fall short of the ideal again and again but continue to seek the goal of perfection through an ever-so-slightly different approach. This may seem repetitive or even counter-productive, but perhaps that is part of the beauty of the theory. Eventually, given sufficient time and effort and with encouragement from teachers and leaders, practice will pay off. The performance will be complete and the practitioner of virtue ethics will reap the benefits of a moral life well lived.

Absolute free will is logically incompatible with determinism because we do not control the universe. However, as individuals, we are able to take more than one possible course of action in any given scenario. There are obvious choices in life we can choose to follow. We can conceive and believe things. This proves some free will even though there are limitations on the choices available to us. For example, because I am not a fish, I do not have the choice of living underwater without some sort of breathing apparatus. It is determined beforehand that human life is incompatible with living unaided under water. I am therefore limited to certain pre-determined boundaries if I want to sustain life. In like manner, in some situations I have a limited number of choices I can make because of the randomness of life. I hope I never have to decide what to do if I am in a plane that is about to crash. I would have no control of the physics causing the plane to crash, but I still have some obvious choices I can make and act upon, like remain calm or panic.

As an argument against any kind of free will, consider the views of hard determinism. Determinists believe that our thoughts, feelings, actions and behaviors are all predetermined from the moment that time began at the big bang. A determinist advocates that we do not have any control over the state of the universe or the laws that govern the universe. Free will is an illusion, they say. You may think that your choices and actions have an effect on the universe but you are really no more than an observer. For a determinist, free will is a nothing more than a necessary delusion that allows us to build a society where praise and punishment actually mean something. Compatibilists hold individuals morally responsible for their actions as if they had free will. Although it doesn’t really exist, they say, we can act as if it does, thus providing a necessary condition for moral responsibility – accountability.

Following this logic, the universe is deterministic and bound by the laws of physics. Our bodies are bound by those same laws. If you are a materialist, you believe that all behavior is caused by chemical brain states outside of our control. In order for free will to exist, there must be a supernatural agent that is not bound by those laws to inject an input from outside the system; in other words, a God. I wish I could develop this further, but for now I will propose that there are only two arguments against free will. First, if determinism is the true state of things, then the will is not free because all events are caused and our actions are predetermined. Therefore, there is no moral responsibility or free will. The second argument against free will is indeterminism of random events or chance. If all our actions are caused by chance then we have no control, and therefore, again, no free will or moral responsibility. True free will requires we have control of outcomes. However, we do not control the universe or the laws of physics. If you think about it, we control nothing of this world or the universe. To prove free will, we must prove that we can control at least some things, thus becoming independent agents with power to act.

I don’t disagree with all the views of materialists or determinists. In fact, I readily concur with determinists that the laws of the universe are outside our control. I also concur that a large part of our body processes are apparently outside the control of at least our conscious mind and will. I can’t control the motion of the planets, the effects of nature, or prevent myself from dying someday. These things are determined. My bounds are set in these matters and many others. I also concur with indeterminism as it relates to many of the choices with which I am presented in this life. So many things are just random and purely by chance. I come across an object on the freeway that gives me a flat tire. It was pure chance that I happened to come upon that object and embed it in my tire first because I just happened to be there at that place and at that time. Random chance is just part of this life. So many things – most things – are out of my control.

So what do I control? There are many things over which I have control and thus free will. I control my responses to the choices I am presented in life. I can control my thoughts. I can control the things I put into my body. I control the things I say and the things I do. Nobody forces me to act a certain way or respond in a specific manner. I control my attitudes and my beliefs. I decide what I will do with my time, who I will go visit, what work I will do, what I choose to study. I may not choose many of the things that happen to me in this life but I can and do choose how I respond to those situations. I determine the character I build by using my free will adequately. My free will is limited to those things over which I have some control and have choices. I do not have free will when it comes to the laws of physics and nature. They are out of my control. In the things over which I do have control such as thoughts, beliefs and opinions I choose what I want to think about or believe. My thoughts are not caused and are not random. They are purposeful and demonstrate free will, especially when I act upon them. Therefore, my conclusion is that we have limited or adequate determinism and limited but genuine free will.

Matthew B. Brown (1964-2011)

It is with sadness that I learned shortly ago that Matthew B. Brown has passed away.  He was dealing with complications after a heart failure incident which occurred on September 23rd while he was in the BYU library.  He was about 47 years old.  He will be sorely missed.

Matt Brown was a well-known scholar, historian, lecturer, and author of LDS temple and gospel studies, and a great influence and inspiration to me, and I’m sure many others.  One of his first books, The Gate of Heaven, was one of my first readings that inspired me to learn and study more about the temple, and helped me gain a strong love and testimony of the temple and the restored gospel.

His works include ten major books, many papers and articles in scholarly publications, lectures in a variety of venues, producer of a DVD documentary, and founded an annual gospel-centered symposium, EXPOUND.  He wrote two guests posts for this blog, for which I was very grateful - The Lord Speaks Again: Ancient Temple Patterns In D&C 124, and Sanctuary Vesture: A Brief Overview And Comparison.  He will be a great asset to the Lord’s work on the other side of the veil.

Memorial services will be held in roughly two weeks to allow his mother, who is in poor health, to attend.  His burial is this Saturday.  He is survived by his wife Jaimie.

Matt and his wife, Jaimie, didn’t have insurance, and she is now left with large medical bills and burial costs to pay.  An account has been set up for donations (100%) to Jaimie on the FAIR website at this link:  http://bookstore.fairlds.org/product.php?id_product=1261

Please share your thoughts and memories about Matt Brown in the comments.

Matthew B. Brown passed away

I have repeatedly found that the best scholarship and writing concerning the Constitution comes from the good folks at the Claremont Institute.

Thomas G. West and Douglas A. Jeffrey, both senior fellows at the Claremont Institute, have published a booklet entitled “The Rise and Fall of Constitutional Government in America”, which I highly recommend to anyone who wants to better understand the Constitution and the dangers presented by our modern abandonment of its principles.

It is available as a free PDF document here:

The Rise and Fall of Constitutional Government in America: A Guide to Understanding the Principles of the American Founding (PDF)

“No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles”

- Virginia Bill of Rights, June 12, 1776

The Constitution does not contain its own explanation. It says how the government should function, but it does not explain why it should function that way. To understand the Constitution we have to look at the principles invoked in the Declaration of Independence and the other writings of the founders.

West and Jeffrey manage to give an excellent explanation in just over 50 pages that is easily accessible to most adults and teens, and a great resource for teachers and parents looking for a guide to teaching children about our Constitutional Republic.

Read it today and share it with your friends and family!

A number of years ago a particular book was sweeping the country and eliciting special interest among Latter-day Saints. Though it was written by a Latter-day Saint, it was released by a national publishing house, and thus its popularity and its sales swelled. Within about a year after its release, it was not uncommon to hear the book discussed in priesthood and Relief Society meetings, sacrament meetings, and youth firesides.

While I am a real sucker for new books, for some reason I was a bit slow in purchasing a copy of this book and even slower about reading it. I was not very far into the work before I began to be troubled with what I found. Though the story line was fascinating and the details made for interesting consideration, the doctrinal messages, shallow and disguised as they were for those of other faiths, were off target; I began, in fact, to make notes of problematic parts of the book. I took my rather unofficial review and filed it away.

Early one Saturday morning a few weeks later, I received a phone call from one of the General Authorities of the Church. After I recovered a bit from the call itself and after we had spent a few moments in light chatter, the Church leader asked, “Bob, have you read the book by __________?” I indicated that I had recently done so. He asked me what I thought of it.

“Well, it’s a fascinating story. I can see why people around the country, including Latter-day Saints, are quite taken by the book. It’s intriguing.”

“Any other impressions?” he asked.

I was hesitant to say anything too negative, and so I added the quip “I just wish my books sold like this book!”

“Anything further?” he persisted.

I finally responded, “There are some things about the book that make me very nervous.”

“Well, I hope so,” he followed up. “What are they?” I then began to recite what I considered to be the doctrinal flaws of the book, expressing with each item where I felt the book was at odds with the principles of truth that have been set forth in the standard works or revealed through modern apostles and prophets. The words that followed are indelibly impressed upon my soul. He said, “It never ceases to amaze me how gullible the Latter-day Saints can be when it comes to printed material like this. Our lack of doctrinal depth and gospel understanding in general makes many of us an easy prey to every passing craze.”

We need to be solid, void of sensationalism, and rooted in restored truth if we are to face squarely the challenges of our day and engage with courage and conviction the demands of discipleship in a future day. That is to say, our own gospel scholarship needs to be focused on the principles and doctrines that matter most and to be true to the teachings we have received in this dispensation from and through the Lord’s covenant spokesmen. President Joseph Fielding Smith pointed out that “it makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside.” President Smith was emphatic about our alignment with the scriptures: “Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine.”

There is so much beauty and depth and certainty and applicability within the covers of the standard works and the sermons of living prophets and apostles. Why would we even concern ourselves with flimsy matters, with tangential reading, when the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven are so readily available? Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained that “we are obligated to understand the basic doctrines which lead to eternal life; beyond this, how much we know about the mysteries depends upon the degree of our spiritual enlightenment. It is unwise to swim too far in water over our heads (see Mosiah 4:27; D&C 10:4). My experience is that people who get themselves ensnared in fruitless contention over the meanings of deep and hidden passages of scripture are usually those who do not have a sound and basic understanding of the simple and basic truths of salvation.”

We are, to a large extent, a product of what we consume, whether that be in food or reading material. Thus, what we think about, how we perceive events in our own day, and to what degree we comprehend the scenes leading up to the Second Coming of the Son of Man will depend a great deal upon what we imbibe through serious study. There is a crying need for Latter-day Saints to be solid and secure in the faith, not just equipped with testimony and conviction but also fortified with a reason for the hope within them (see 1 Peter 3:15), with gospel understanding that is as satisfying to the mind as it is soothing to the heart. The Apostle Paul counseled the Saints in his day, “As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him: Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving” (Colossians 2:6–7). Our task, like that delivered to the former-day Saints, is to “continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel” (Colossians 1:23). Spiritual stability comes from focusing on the fundamental verities of salvation and striving to align our hearts and minds with the word and will of God. Such a course leads to peace, to joy, to rest—to a settled conviction of the truth.

Professor Welch’s speech was inspired by Joseph Smith’s words penned at Liberty Jail, “Thy mind, o man, must stretch,” and structured around the principles of BYU’s Mission Statement (which you can read here).  The speech gave some very poignant examples of how BYU,  and, more broadly, how Mormonism itself, encourages and facilitates this vision of ever-expanding our mind — our knowledge, experiences, and capacities.

Before I begin, I’d like to share links to his speech so that you can see it for yourself here: http://www.byutv.org/watch/158-173, or listen to it in .mp3 format here: http://speeches.byu.edu/download.php/Welch_John_2011_05_17.mp3.

John Welch began his speech, after brief introductory comments and thank-yous, encouraging faculty and students to familiarize themselves with and follow the BYU Mission Statement.  He remarked,  “Take any line in it, and it will bless your intellectual life with perspective and purpose.” Various points of this statement would continue to inform his remarks.  He continued by citing Joseph Smith at Liberty Jail:

“The things of God are of deep import, and time and experience and careful and ponderous and solemn thoughts can only find them out. Thy mind, O Man [and we may add O Woman as well], if thou wilt lead a soul unto salvation, must stretch as high as the utmost Heavens, and search into and contemplate the lowest considerations of the darkest abyss, and expand upon the broad considerations of eternal expanse; he must commune with God. How much more dignified and noble are the thoughts of God, than the vain imaginations of the human heart, none but fools, will trifle, with the souls of men.”

Welch finds great inspiration and vision in these words, emphasizing that they are a prophetic mandate “for a broad BYU education and a lifetime of learning.”  While the world may see “believers” as narrow-minded, naive, or as isolating themselves from rational thought, Welch explained that these characteristics were not part of Joseph Smith’s religion.

“There is nothing closed-minded about being a true Latter-day Saint. With the Holy Ghost, you will never get a ‘disk full’ warning. Every year, there have been new and amazing discoveries.”

Welch encouraged us to seek for more such discoveries, which often come as “flashes of inspiration, or as the Doctrine & Covenants says, ‘as moved upon by the Holy Ghost.’” How do we prepare ourselves for such discoveries?

“The first thing is to be looking, purposefully and constructively for something of value. The mind expands by recognition, or re-cognizing. Seeing in one thing something that is faintly reminiscent of something else, that is higher, deeper, or of greater substance, is the beginning of knowing and not just observing. Connecting, and seeing recurring patterns, such as those with which the gospel is replete, is the beginning of discernment and the development of potentially meaningful relationships.”

He illustrated this state of readiness to make deep connections with a great story about the different perspectives of Charlie Brown and Linus as they both lie on a hillside looking up at the clouds.

Lucy asks, “What do you see in these formations?” Linus says, “Well, those look like the map of British Honduras. That up there looks like the artist Thomas Eakins. And those clouds give the impression of the stoning of Stephen. Why, I can see the Apostle Paul standing there to one side.” Lucy says, “Very good,” and asks Charlie Brown, “What do you see?” He answers, “Well, I was going to say a ducky and a horsie, but I changed my mind.”

(For those of us who more often find ourselves in the position of Charlie Brown, Welch later returns, consolingly, to his plight, remarking that: “by the way, it’s alright, like Charlie Brown, to see a ducky and a horsie, if that’s what you honestly see”)

But this initial ray of light, the spark of illumining insight that comes to us, is “just the beginning of the discovery process.” Welch proceeds to explain that further “extensive reading, pondering, and lots of work” are required to reap further insights. “Indeed, most academic discoveries come after pouring over materials again and again. The mind expands by hard work over sustained stretches.” “There are no shortcuts to good scholarship.” As Joseph Smith stated, true knowledge comes from “time, experience, careful and ponderous thoughts.” We learn best by “strenuous effort.”

Welch commented that this is the Mormon way: “We do hard things.” Hard work, determination, diligence — these are necessary pre-requisites to the “a-ha moment.”

Exerting “endless energy spinning one’s wheels” is not the type of hard work that Welch envisions — we need to be asking the right type of questions and looking “outside the box” for the answers. We have to expect that the answer is out there and trust God that he will guide us in the right direction.  He explains:

To expand our understanding, we must formulate more precise, potentially answerable questions, and then keep searching, believing that an answer is out there somewhere, giving the scriptures credence, suspending judgment, giving God the benefit of the doubt, praying every day for his guidance, trusting that he knows the answer, that it can somehow make sense, and not presuming that the answer must necessarily come out “your way.” What we are looking for is frequently going to be found outside of the box. Sometimes the answer is “none of the above,” or “all of the above.”

An important aspect of this search for truth is believing that the truth exists. “How can one logically pursue something that one assumes does not exist?” He cites former BYU Academic Vice President Robert K. Thomas as saying, “Skeptics, by definition, cannot affirm anything—even their own skepticism.” Welch, therefore, believes that it is preferable to begin your search by “assuming the correctness of a text, the truthfulness of a proposition, or the wisdom of an instruction given by one in authority.”

But isn’t this approach contrary to the basic principles of the scientific method? Don’t we propose a hypothesis and then attempt to falsify it? Yes, but, as Welch rightly points out,  “the hypothesis is not considered false before it has been found to have failed. There is something wrong—as much in academic halls as in courtrooms—about assuming something or someone to be guilty until proven innocent.”

This was a key insight that I drew from Welch’s speech: we don’t need to approach our research, including (and especially, I would say) religious scholarship, from the assumption of its falsehood (which seems to be the norm for many fields, including biblical studies, today).  He suggested that “the astonishing momentum that has developed in Mormon studies” in recent times can be seen to have received its impetus from Hugh Nibley’s willingness to search through historical evidence with the assumption that LDS claims were true, rather than commencing from the assumption of their falsehood. “It was Leibniz who insisted that one cannot adequately understand the meaning of a proposition without assuming its truth,” he added, quoting BYU philosophy professor Terry Warner.

When confronted with difficult questions regarding Mormonism, or “interesting anomalies” as he referred to them, Welch’s instinct is to expect that these are “often clues of something going on below the surface” and expect that a helpful answer will be found. He gave examples of how he has been guided, often to unexpected places, to find amazing answers to questions that have come up during, for instance, his reading of the Book of Mormon.  If we are attentive to the Spirit and have an open and searching mind, we will be guided to the answers.

In a similar manner, we can be directed to notice sublime connections that we had never before seen, including in texts that we have read countless times before.  Welch recounted one such experience while reading the “hardly ever mentioned parable” of the two sons in Matthew 21.  I’ll share the story in his own words:

After Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem, the Chief Priests approached him, in the Temple, and demanded: “By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?” Jesus answered by telling a story about a certain man who had two sons. When asked to go down and work in the vineyard, the first son, initially refused, but then he went, while the other initially said yes but then does not go, or so it seems. This parable may be useful in parenting, and it can be read at that level; but remember, that’s not what Jesus was asked about. With the question of authority in mind, as I read this parable in the Greek, something jumped off the page at me. Think about it: When did a certain father have two sons, one who went and the other who did not? When did the first (the firstborn) say, “ou thelo,” which in Greek means “I will it not,” or “I’d rather not” or “it is not my will.” As the Greek continues, that son reconciled himself (not repented himself) and went. In contrast, the “other” (the heteros) son simply said, “Ego,” meaning “I.” But “I what”? Readers must fill in this blank. In this verse, the word “go” in the King James Version is italicized because it has only been implied there. One might as well supply other words: “I . . . will have it my way,” or “I . . . will get the glory.” In any event, this egotistic son did not go. As Latter-day Saints, we can easily but unexpectedly see at this deeper level how this unassuming little parable answers the all-important questions about Jesus’ authority. He received it from the Father in the council in heaven when he was commissioned to go down and do, not his will, but the will of the Father.

Professor Welch noted that our belief that God has revealed and will yet reveal things to his people means that we will likely approach and find things different from the rest of the world.  This is to be expected.  I sympathize with this sentiment and would suggest that this should not be a source of embarrassment for us as Latter-day Saints, but that we should be ready and willing to defend our unique views.  A young person embarking on a course of biblical studies in a non-LDS environment will quickly become aware that the world doesn’t share our interpretation of, for example, the words of Isaiah, Daniel, or the Book of Revelation, to mention only a few.  This contrast in perspectives between what one has been taught to understand and what their new esteemed mentors are presenting can cause feelings of doubt, confusion, or shame.  In light of such situations (he doesn’t use my specific example), Welch explains:

There will always be worldly things that will make it difficult to be a Latter-day Saint, by making some Mormon beliefs objectionable, frustrating, or awkward. And we won’t always have all the answers to these difficulties, certainly not the moment they first arise. But this too invites further stretching and expansion. Our ongoing task as Latter-day Saints is to locate defensible answers that are also consistent with our scriptures, doctrines, and assumptions, and to understand how opposing views often depend principally upon other fundamentally different assumptions.

This is an important lesson for LDS students (whether in formal education or not) to remember.  The world is bound to have different answers because the world is often asking different questions and approaching them from a substantially different paradigm or world-view.  This doesn’t mean that we have to discount or ignore the views of others and the potentially valuable insights that they can teach us.  As Welch notes, the  “BYU Mission Statement speaks of the pursuit of ‘all’ truth,” an endeavor which has been fundamental to Mormonism from its foundation.  He astutely states:

Our desire is for further light and understanding, to circumscribe all truth. To me, Mormonism thrives because it welcomes the idea that the world is fundamentally pluralistic by nature. Over and over, the Mormon world view relishes multiplicity. Words found traditionally only in the singular are boldly spoken of as plurals in Mormon doctrine: we speak of priesthoods, intelligences, noble and great ones, two creations, worlds without number, continuing revelations, scriptures, covenants, degrees of glory, eternal lives, saviors on Mt. Zion, and even gods. Joseph Smith spoke of there being many kingdoms and that “unto every kingdom is given [its own] law,” and “all truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it.” To me, such statements of cosmological relativities unleash and transfigure the concepts of natural law and eternal truths.

Joseph was light years ahead of his time with these notions. For Joseph, it was all about the Big Picture.  All truth was part of one big Whole and could be fit together like scattered pieces of a grand puzzle.  Welch noted how the rest of the world took a century to catch up with such expansive ideas.

For example, I am fascinated by the implications of Gödel’s 1931 incompleteness theorem, which demonstrates that a system can be either complete or consistent but not both. Thus, systematic theologies or rational philosophies may well be internally consistent, but they do so at the expense of completeness. Sets and abstractions may be helpful, but they are simply extractions of selected elements of otherwise messy realities. Mormon thought, in contrast, privileges fullness, abundance, completeness, and all that the Father has, even if that means that Mormon life becomes joyously overloaded or torn by competing pressures that pull, stretch, and expand us in many ways. This may produce episodes of cognitive dissonance, social quandaries, mystery and uncertainty, but if forced to choose, Mormon thought will always prefer openness over closedness, boldly inviting further growth, progression, and fortunately for us in academia, further questions…

… Because we know that there must be an opposition in all things, LDS thought often harmonizes traditional paradoxes. The world has fought wars over whether we are saved by faith or works. We peacefully say, “both.” People argue over whether we come to know by study or faith. We confidently say, “both.” “Each of us must accommodate the mixture of reason and revelation in our lives. The gospel not only permits it but requires it,” President Packer has said. In the same way, Mormon thought brings together both rights and duties.

When it comes to the instruction of young minds, abundant blessings of knowledge are inseparably connected to certain academic responsibilities, as well. As Joseph Smith said, “none but fools will trifle with the souls” of others. “Yet, as Stanford President Donald Kennedy wrote in 1997, ‘The responsibility of the professoriate is a difficult subject about which surprisingly little has been said,’ and that serious defect still remains inexcusably unaddressed.”

Dr. Welch explained that BYU Studies, for example, has, in fact, a written code that “draws on scriptural mandates, hoping to encourage among LDS scholars such things as unity (‘if ye are not one, ye are not mine’); charity, (for, if we have not charity, we are nothing); edification (‘the goal is to be spiritually and intellectually upbuilding’), and honesty and integrity (for, accuracy and reliability are the essence of scholarship).”

Furthermore, our duty in teaching others requires us to “charitably putting other people ahead of one’s own self-interests” as President Monson has so often taught us. “Our minds stretch the farthest when they are pure and actively concerned about the welfare of others.” We should be willing to listen to others and learn from them, including gaining insights from those of other belief systems and cultures.  He cites George Handley, an associate editor of BYU Studies, as stating: “My discovery has been ‘that listening carefully to other voices and other cultures doesn’t have to involve sacrificing our values,” but rather helps me to understand better my own Mormonness.  Learning from others does not necessarily entail giving up our own unique beliefs.  As Brigham Young declared to outgoing missionaries: “Whether a truth be found with professed infidels, . . . or the Church of Rome, . . . it is the [duty] of the Elders of this Church . . . to gather up all the truths in the world pertaining to life and salvation, to the Gospel we preach, to mechanism of every kind, to the sciences, and to philosophy, wherever it may be found . . . and bring it to Zion.”

Welch shared how he has had the opportunity to experience the benefits of this mandate in his own search for truth: “Indeed, it was from a Catholic Jesuit that I first learned about chiasmus; and from a Jewish barrister that I learned about the ancient legal difference between thieves and robbers. And, by the way, both of those scholars were genuinely glad to see in the Book of Mormon these things that they had found in Hebraic settings.”

He explained that our theology and our experiences working in church councils and presidencies help prepare us to reach out and collaborate with others in academic settings as well.  To this point, he shared some interesting thoughts:

Among the best memories of my academic life are many team efforts, such as Macmillans’s Encyclopedia of Mormonism with Dan Ludlow’s team of eight hundred contributors. I am now thrilled to be working on the Legal Team of the vital Joseph Smith Papers project. We now know that Joseph was distracted by over 200 lawsuits in his lifetime, and their documentary records are astonishingly more complex than any one person can sort out. Two or three lawsuits are usually enough to overwhelm most men, but Joseph succeeded by working collaboratively and expansively with numerous associates, including the Holy Ghost as his regular companion.

Welch emphasized the fact that we, as Mormons, are in a wonderful position to be able to contribute to many fields because of our expansive perspective and propensity to cooperate and support.  He made an effective analogy between BYU basketball star Jimmer Fredette and Joseph Smith regarding the ability to hit “intellectual long-shots.”

As mediators between competing views, we can offer alternative solutions. And we need not be reluctant. We have all been electrified this season by Jimmer’s incredible, dramatic long-shots. The sign I liked the best was “Jimmer’s in range when he steps off the bus.” Mormon thought is also capable of hitting a stunning array of intellectual long-shots, doing things that traditional Western thinkers have said cannot be done. Everywhere you turn, Joseph’s words hit the mark. He was in range every time he opened his mouth.

Joseph’s religion has stood the test of time and continues to gain admirers from outside its ranks.  Welch shared:

In a book now at press with Oxford, Stephen Webb, a non-LDS professor of religion, writes of Mormonism: “No other religious movement lies so close to traditional Christianity . . . . Mormon theology is Christology unbound. . . . Of all the branches of Christianity, Mormonism is the most imaginative, and if nothing else, its intellectual audacity should make it the most exciting conversational partner for traditional Christians for the twenty-first century.”

I appreciated Professor Welch’s strong and unwavering testimony.  He is, to me, a shining example of what a Gospel scholar should, and potentially can be. His demeanor, prolific writings, admiration among peers, and faithfulness to the Church demonstrate how one can be both a rigorous scholar and also a sincere believer.  His concluding remarks:

We need not be ashamed of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith was truly a prophet. The scriptures are true and in them we find our way. The expansiveness of the truth invites us to venture forward, as high, and as deep, and as broad as our minds may go. Thy mind, O man, must stretch. Indeed, it can and will stretch, if you will lead a soul (including your own) unto salvation and will commune with God, that our joy may be full and abundant, in time and all eternity…

I’ve posted about the discovery of the Jordanian lead plates two times now, and have been following the news stories closely over the last few days. As I have said, extensive investigation must still be done to verify the authenticity of the find, and determine facts such as precise dating, who made them, and their meaning. Unfortunately, the details keep getting stranger and stranger.

I’m usually one who likes to believe. Joseph Smith once taught, “I never hear of a man being damned for believing too much; but they are damned for unbelief.” But the facts seem to be stacking up against this one.

Here’s the current state of things.

Details favoring authenticity:

• Initial metallurgic research on the plates shows they “look” about 2,000 years old, based on their type of corrosion, which they say “would be impossible to achieve artificially.”¹
• Carbon dating on a piece of leather found with the plates, with the image of a crocodile on it, had results indicating its about 2,000 years old.²
• Scholars who have examined them are cautious but interested, believing they could be early Christian writings – Dr. Margaret Barker and Professor Philip R. Davies.³
• Jordan’s Department of Antiquities, and its director Ziad al-Saad, has expressed great interest in the plates, saying they could date from early Christianity. The Jordanian government is working to repatriate them.⁴
• The plates contain a number of true ancient symbols, including menorah, palm trees (lulav), eight-pointed stars, archaic Hebrew characters, etc.

Details favoring forgery:

• Initial metallurgic research is not based on the composition of the metal, but appearances. Who did this metallurgic research?
• Who did the carbon dating on the piece of leather found with the plates?
• Conflicting reports on their source – were they founded by a Jordanian Bedouin between 2005-2007, or are they an Israeli’s family possession over 100 years old? (Another alternate history has also emerged placing their origin in Alexandria and being found in northern Egypt.)
• The Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) has dismissed the discovery as forgeries. They “absolutely doubted their authenticity. The IAA has said they are a “mixture of incompatible periods and styles without any connection or logic. Such forged motifs can be found in their thousands in the antiquities markets of Jordan and elsewhere in the Middle East.”⁵
• Initial reports stated there were twenty codices in the collection⁶. Later reports state there are up to seventy⁷.
• Most ancient plates with writing that have been formerly discovered were engraved with their inscriptions into the metal. I’m unaware of any that were cast with metal in molds, such as this one, resulting in raised figures.
• Most ancient plates that have been found were made of copper, gold, or bronze, not lead.
• There were similar plates found in the 19th century that were also cast in lead with a mixed unknown language inscribed on them, known as the Sinaia Lead Plates. These are considered by archeologists today to be modern forgeries.
• Another discovery of lead plates called the Lead Books of Sacromonte were writings on circular plates, bound with lead wire, and are now considered by experts to be 16th century forgeries. They were also a mix of languages, and cryptic texts.
• David Elkington, the archeologist that is spearheading the recovery effort, is not widely known among archeologists, and has published a questionable, almost new-age type, book called In the Name of the Gods.
• David Elkington already has a lengthy 320 page book and documentary film in the works about the Jordan plates discovery. The websites say the book was published in May, 2010. Most significant discoveries are only followed years later by detailed books and documentaries.
• In an interview with David Elkington, he mentions that the eight-pointed stars found on the plates are surely Messianic signs, and representative of the star of Bethlehem, neither of which is really true.⁸ Such a star can represent a god, but is not necessarily Messianic.
• An expert in ancient inscriptions, Professor Andre Lemaire, said the writing he saw on the codices didn’t make sense, and it was “a question apparently of sophisticated fakes”.⁹
• Much of what is being said about the dating of the plates is that they are first century AD. Multiple things seem to suggest a later 3rd or 4th century date however, including the appearance of a cross (only began to be used as a symbol by Christians centuries after the crucifixion), and a menorah (was typically forbidden to be represented by Jews until Late Antiquity).
• Detailed high resolution photos of the plates have not been released publicly for expert scrutiny.
• Other recent communications have shown that David Elkington may be in possession of other certain forgeries, claimed to be part of the same collection.

Conclusion

All-in-all these things lead me (no pun intended), and others, to believe that the plates are probably a very elaborate and careful forgery. Whether they are a modern forgery or an ancient forgery is yet to be seen. If they are an ancient forgery, they may still yield interesting insights into ancient times.

As Dr. Margaret Barker initially said of the findings:

If they are a forgery, what are they are forgery of? Most fakes are drawn from existing material, but there is nothing like this that I have seen.¹⁰

I wouldn’t be surprised if someone let loose the joke on us all tomorrow.  Surely archeologists have April Fools pranks too.  If that’s it, this one certainly takes the cake!

UPDATE: The Deseret News has published an article detailing the weaknesses of the discovery also.

Jordanian Lead Plates: Authentic or Forgery?

1. http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110330/ts_yblog_thelookout/could-lead-codices-prove-the-major-discovery-of-christian-history
2. http://www.thejc.com/judaism/judaism-features/46028/heavy-metal-secrets-a-mid-east-cave
3. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12888421
4. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12888421
5. http://www.thejc.com/judaism/judaism-features/46028/heavy-metal-secrets-a-mid-east-cave
6. http://www.thejc.com/judaism/judaism-features/46028/heavy-metal-secrets-a-mid-east-cave
7. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12888421
8. http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9439000/9439430.stm
9. http://www.thejc.com/judaism/judaism-features/46028/heavy-metal-secrets-a-mid-east-cave
10. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368252/Are-artefacts-discovered-remote-cave-secret-writings-years-Jesus.html

Posts on NothingWavering.org that link to this one:

• Temple Study - LDS Temples, Mormon Temples, Study Blog: Authentic Ancient Metal Plates
• Temple Study - LDS Temples, Mormon Temples, Study Blog: Jordanian Lead Plates: Authentic or Forgery?
• Temple Study - LDS Temples, Mormon Temples, Study Blog: More Details about Ancient Metal Plates from the BBC

He published a book in 2008 with the findings of his poll, How Americans View Mormonism: Seven Steps to Improve Our Image. Dr. Lawrence received a PhD in communications psychology from Stanford University in 1972. He said that of over twenty doctoral candidates in his group, he was the only LDS, Republican, conservative hawk among them. So he knows a little about being in the minority.

Lawrence Research

Now if you know anything about recent events in California, you’ll recognize that Gary’s business, Lawrence Research was the opinion polling company that was heavily involved in Proposition 8. Gary was also the state LDS grassroots director for the Protect Marriage coalition. Brother Lawrence, who has served as a bishop has spent over 35 years studying opinions and behaviors of the American public.

From the results of his survey, Dr. Lawrence maintains that the misconceptions, distortions, and untruths being told about Mormons have slowed the growth of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and that the average member is best positioned to turn things around. By the way, the name of his next book, due from Deseret Book later this year is “What Part of Our Name Don’t You Understand?”

Survey Results

For me, the most interesting result of the survey was that our perceived image is upside down. Forty-nine percent of those surveyed had an unfavorable impression of Mormons. Only thirty-seven percent had a favorable impression. They say that we have weird beliefs and are secretive. Yet they also say we are good neighbors, hard workers, believe in clean living, have high moral standards and help others.

Lawrence said that thirty-seven percent of all Americans do not know a Mormon, and fifty-five percent of all Americans do not know an active Mormon. In fact, those who know one Mormon have a worse opinion of us than those who do not know any Mormons. We are viewed unfavorably more than Jews or Baptists (3.5 to 1) and Catholics (2 to 1). Mormons, less than 1 to 1. That’s a terrible ratio.

Negative Image

Simple ignorance is often blamed for Mormonism’s negative image, but Gary also concludes that it is driven by fear — fear of a supposed political agenda, wealth, organizational ability, unwavering doctrine, and a unique vocabulary that is often misunderstood. He gave some wonderful examples but I’ll have to defer in sharing some of the better ones until I receive his book that I ordered from Deseret Book.

His book explains that individual members in their daily interactions with others are the key. In his presentation, which he has probably delivered dozens of times, he pointed out that friendly and natural conversations, the facts, simple claims, individual latitude, non-threatening invitations and gentle mentoring are the ways Mormons can combat distortions, improve our image, and spread the gospel.

Unique Vocabulary

A central claim of our church is that we have the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. Gary explained that this phrase is not well understood by those outside our faith. They equate the word restore as something you do to an old car or a piece of old furniture. He suggested that a better phrase to use would be: “We claim to be the re-established Christian Church.” I like that. It is simpler and easier to understand.

He even broke it down for us into three bite-sized pieces: 1) Christ organized a church. 2) Men changed it and 3) It has been brought back. Amazingly, 84 percent of Americans have had exposure to our church, yet only 14 percent can tell you that this is our main differentiating claim from other Christian churches. While people may not agree with our claim, we want and need them to understand it.

Meaning of Gospel

They can then decide for themselves how they will respond to that claim. But if they never get the real message, how can they make a legitimate choice? Naturally, some people will reject the gospel truth once it has been presented to them. And that’s another word that we use differently from the rest of Christianity. To us, the gospel means more than the words of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter and Paul.

Most Mormons equate gospel to mean the overarching plan of happiness that was presented in our pre-earth life. We have come to see the gospel as more than just a theology, but as a way of life, and that it encompasses all truth that we embrace. But in reality, the gospel is the good news of the doctrine of Christ, that all will be resurrected and that we can be forgiven of sins through repentance and ordinances.

Higher Education

That’s why we can say that the fullness of the gospel is contained in the Book of Mormon even though there are many additional doctrines we believe that are only found outside the Book or Mormon. In fact, some within our church have gone so far as to claim that obtaining a degree of higher education is a part of the gospel. Does that mean that early saints and prophets without a B.A. degree are not saved?

Of course not; that would be a ridiculous example. While we believe in continuing education and encourage our members to get all the education we can, an advanced degree is not a requirement for entrance into the kingdom of heaven. A high school diploma is not required. There is no requirement for any type of certified education to meet God’s conditions to enter into his kingdom; only obedience to his laws.

Mormon Scholars Testify

In our Mormon culture, besides placing great emphasis on education, we also hold those who have received advanced degrees and yet remained faithful in very high esteem. Dr. Lawrence has shared his testimony in greater detail on the website, Mormon Scholars Testify, which was created by another visitor to our stake, Dr. Daniel C. Petersen, speaking about BYU’s involvement in the Dead Sea scrolls.

My fellow blogger Steve Faux introduced me to the site a few years back when he was asked to share his thoughts and feelings about being a believing Mormon who teaches evolution at the University level. I have watched participation grow over the years until there are now more than 200 testimonies recorded there. Compare that to twenty being promoted on the opposing site Ex-Mormon scholars testify.

Opposition in All Things

One of our fundamental doctrines is that we believe there must be opposition in all things. I love the Internet for the very reason that it allows us to see the very best and the very worst of the extremes on just about any issue. I’m not a scholar and will probably never have an advanced degree, but I have come to appreciate both sides of the debate on controversial subjects I have written about over the years.

I can judge for myself when someone is presenting the truth in a distorted manner because I have been counseled over the years to study things out and come to my own conclusions about the truth of an issue. Some things can never be proven and will have to wait until the next life to determine who is right and who is wrong. That’s one of the purposes of life – to exercise faith and choose what we believe.

Choose What We Believe

I recommend you read the testimonies of Dr. Lawrence, Dr. Petersen, S. Faux and any others that you may recognize. They come from a variety of disciplines such as the Arts, Business, Management, Accounting, History, Religion, Social Science, Language, Literature, Law, Medicine, Psychology, Philosophy, Science, Mathematics and Engineering. Yes, Mormons believe in the value of education.

I hope this helps to dispel any misconceptions that Mormons are ignorant, closed-minded, brain-washed or uneducated. We do not follow our leaders blindly, nor do we worship our prophets, living or dead. But we do value loyalty and respect to those who we sustain as prophets and apostles. It is my testimony that they are leading us to Christ. I choose to follow their direction and counsel for my family.

For a great discussion of our image, or rather reputation, listen to what Michael Otterson had to say to Robert Millet on this episode of Mormon Identity on The Mormon Channel.

UPDATE: See the latest updates about this discovery at Jordanian Lead Plates: Authentic or Forgery?
–
David Larsen at HeavenlyAscents.com has pointed out an interesting recent discovery (see his posts here and here).  A collection of dozens of books made from metal plates have been found in Jordan that initial tests show date from the first century AD.

Now this certainly sounds exciting, particularly to the Latter-day Saints. As we know, Joseph Smith said that he received and translated ancient sealed gold plates, in what became The Book of Mormon.

This find is interesting for a number of reasons:

• The books are written on metal plates (lead and copper)
• They are bound by rings on one side (also known as codices)
• Many of the books are “sealed” on all sides
• They appear to be from the first century AD, and may be the earliest Christian documents ever found
• Scholars have noted that, if authentic, this could be bigger than the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls
• They appear to be written in an archaic Hebrew script
• Some appears to be written in code
• The sealed nature, and code appearance of the text, suggests that these may contain “secret teachings,” perhaps even “Temple based documentation”
• A number of recognizable symbols appear, including the menorah (which can be seen in the photos above), branches, fruits, trees, and of the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot), associated with the enthronement rituals of ancient Davidic kings, and with the coming of the Messiah

Dr. Margaret Barker commented on the discovery:

“The Book of Revelation tells of a sealed book that was opened only by the Messiah. Other texts from the period tell of sealed books of wisdom and of a secret tradition passed on by Jesus to his closest disciples. That is the context for this discovery. So if they are forgeries, what are they forgeries of?"

Extensive investigation must still be done to verify the authenticity of these plates and their meaning.  If they are genuine, this could be a huge discovery. (See an update of this discovery from the BBC News).

See below for the full press release issued today about the find:
Sealed

Ancient Sealed Metal Plates with Perhaps Secret Temple Texts discovered in Middle East?

Posts on NothingWavering.org that link to this one:

• Temple Study - LDS Temples, Mormon Temples, Study Blog: Jordanian Lead Plates: Authentic or Forgery?
• Temple Study - LDS Temples, Mormon Temples, Study Blog: More Details about Ancient Metal Plates from the BBC

Ancient Israelite temple ceremonial clothing worn in the Mosaic Tabernacle, and succeeding Israelite temples of Solomon, Herod, et al.

I’m very pleased to welcome another guest post by Matthew B. Brown.  Some of his writings, particularly his book The Gate of Heaven, are what inspired me to study the temple more in depth.  He offers a wealth of insight and learning for the Latter-day Saints. ~Bryce

Matthew B. Brown holds a degree in history from Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. He is the author of ten books and has published articles with the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship at BYU (aka FARMS). Matthew has served as a volunteer researcher, editor, and respondent for The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR) and has spoken at several of their annual conferences. He is one of the directors of the upcoming EXPOUND symposium on May 14, 2011, and will also be a presenter (expoundlds.com).

~~

It is publicly acknowledged that Latter-day Saints who participate in the central temple rites of their faith dress in several layers of ceremonial clothing, consisting of a "white undergarment" (which is worn as part of everyday life) and "other priestly robes" (which are only worn during times of temple service).¹ The undergarment is properly referred to as the "garment of the holy priesthood"² and the robes are likewise referred to as the "robes of the holy priesthood."³ A proclamation written on 6 April 1845 by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in Nauvoo, Illinois clarified that these are the "garments and royal robes of the high priesthood."⁴ The garment bears "several simple marks of orientation toward the gospel principles of obedience, truth, life and discipleship in Christ."⁵ The First Presidency of the LDS Church stated in a 1988 administrative letter that one of the functions of the garment is to serve as "a reminder of the sacred covenants [which temple patrons] have made with the Lord" and another is to serve as "a protection against temptation and evil." Yet, these Church leaders emphasize that such protection is conditional in nature.⁶ The temple garment is bestowed by an officiator prior to the commencement of the main temple ceremonies (in connection with washing and anointing rituals⁷) and is to be worn for the remainder of the recipient's mortal life.⁸ A proclamation circulated by President Joseph F. Smith on 28 June 1906 stated that "the pattern of endowment garments was revealed from heaven."⁹

The priests of ancient Israel were invested (see Lev. 8:7) with layers of "holy," white linen clothing (some of which included other colors) in order to qualify them for service in the tabernacle precincts (Ex. 28:2, 4, 39-40). It is known that the Israelite kings donned similar vestments (see 1 Chron. 15:27). This clothing was bestowed in connection with purification by water and anointing with perfumed oil (see Ex. 40:12-13). All of the priests were commanded by the Lord to wear the white undergarment while serving within temple space so that they would be protected from lethal harm (see Ex. 28:42-43) and the high priest was instructed to put on an additional piece of clothing for the very same reason (see Ex. 28:31-35). The wearing of the priestly undergarment was "a statute forever" for temple ministrants (Ex. 28:42-43). All of the Israelites--whether priestly or not--were required to have four prominent markings upon their clothing in order to remind them to be a "holy" people: to seek not after their own eyes and hearts but to stay within the limits established by the Lord's commandments (Num. 15:38-40; Deut. 22:12). In one respect, these symbols were meant to help the wearer "to bridle the passions."¹⁰ A prominent scholar of biblical texts has taught that the marks on the ancient Israelite garments were constructed in such a way so as to make each one of them "a symbol of both priesthood and royalty, thereby epitomizing the divine imperative that Israel become 'a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.'"¹¹

In the New Testament book of Revelation the Lord Jesus Christ promises that His disciples who overcome will be "clothed in white raiment" (Rev. 3:5). In this same biblical volume it is specified that "white raiment" is given to people in the heavenly realm who hold the status of "kings and priests" (Rev. 4:4; Rev. 5:8-10). The apostle John says at the beginning of his Apocalypse that the mortal disciples of the Savior achieved an identical status--"kings and priests" (Rev. 1:6)--implying that sometime previously they had been invested with the ritual clothing connected with those two offices.

From all of the information that has been presented in this short paper's main text and endnotes it is possible to summarize the points of similarity between the temple clothing of the Latter-day Saints and that of the Covenant People of the Bible.

• Pattern revealed by God
• Bestowed in God's temple
• Bestowed during initiation rituals
• Bestowed by an authority figure
• Associated with priesthood
• Associated with royalty
• Associated with Primeval Man
• Connected with holiness
• White in color
• Constructed of linen fabric
• Worn on a perpetual basis
• Associated with protection
• Consisting of multiple layers
• Markings displayed upon it
• Markings serve a reminding function
• Markings associated with specific principles

There is much more that could be said with regard to the connection between these two sets of sacred vestments but this list should suffice to demonstrate that what Joseph Smith gave to the Latter-day Saints in 1842 has clear correspondences with ancient patterns which are preserved in the Old and New Testaments. As noted in D&C 124, the Lord restored through His Prophet "that which was lost" (D&C 124:28)--things pertaining to the tabernacle constructed by Moses and the temple built by Solomon (see D&C 124:37-38).

———-

NOTES

1. Daniel H. Ludlow, ed., Encyclopedia of Mormonism (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 2:534.

2. Ensign, August 1997, 20. On 8 August 1966 Assistant to the Twelve Theodore M. Burton made the following remarks: "Adam was given a garment of the Holy Priesthood as a sign of [an] endowment of power which he received from God [see Gen. 3:21]. Eve, his wife . . . . also was clothed in a garment of power" (BYU Speeches of the Year [Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press], 4). One Jewish midrashim calls Adam's God-given clothing "the garments of the high priesthood" and a commentator on this and related documents points out that "while no single text explicitly says so, the tradition seems to have been that the holy garment [of Adam] went from Jacob to Joseph, to the Israelites who left Egypt, and eventually to the priests of the tribe of Levi" (The Harvard Theological Review, vol. 90, no. 2, April 1997, 172).

3. Ensign, November 1979, 43.

4. James R. Clark., comp., Messages of the First Presidency (Salty Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965), 1:260. In this official text the vestments are described as being "fine linen . . . glorious and beautiful," which is directly parallel to Exodus 28 verses 2 and 39 (Ex. 28:2, 39) where the temple clothing of ancient Israel is said to be made of "fine linen" and is designed to provide the wearer with "glory and . . . beauty." A connection between Hebrew and Mormon sanctuary raiment is thus unmistakable.

5. Ludlow, ed., Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 2:534.

6. First Presidency Letter, 10 October 1988, cited in Ensign, August 1997, 22. "The blessings that are related to this sacred privilege [of wearing the temple garment] depend on your worthiness and your faithfulness in keeping temple covenants. . . . When you wear it properly, [the garment] provides protection against temptation and evil" (First Presidency, True to the Faith: A Gospel Reference [Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2004], 173). Elder Robert D. Hales: "In the temple . . . sacred covenants are made. These covenants, together with the wearing of sacred temple garments, strengthen and protect the endowed person against the powers of the adversary" (Ensign, November 1995, 34).

7. Ensign, October 2007, 20. "A commemorative garment is given with [the] ordinances" of washing and anointing (Ludlow, ed., Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4:1444).

8. First Presidency, True to the Faith, 173.

9. Clark, comp., Messages of the First Presidency, 5:110.

10. Jacob Blumenthal and Janet L. Liss, eds., Etz-Hayim: Study Companion (New York: The Rabbinical Assembly, 2005), 268. There is at least one Jewish, Midrashic tradition--in tractate Bavli-Menachot 43a--stating that the temple priests and Levites were obligated to wear these marks on their garments as well as all the other Israelites, including women (see Judith Z. Abrams, Torah and Company [Teaneck, NJ: Ben Yehuda Press, 2006], 74).

11. Blumenthal and Liss, eds., Etz-Hayim: Study Companion, 268-70.

Sanctuary Vesture: A Brief Overview and Comparison

I share Ben Huff’s belief that Mormonism has great intellectual, cultural, and artistic potential. My series on the sweetness of Mormon life is an attempt to show that Mormonism as lived makes for a worthwhile and unique experience. I believe that Mormonism as painted or written or thought should also. Elaborate, refer to Ensign arts which both show the shock of interruption of divine into human affairs which is one of our depths. What I don’t share, yet, is your belief that we can rationally plan how to do it.

1. Do we have any idea what leads to cultural and intellectual flowerings? You’re saying here that we should learn from the gentiles and build on what they’ve already done. I agree. We should probably start by looking at what scholars have been able to figure out about what makes a time or a place explode creatively. The short answer, as best as I can tell, is that nobody really knows.

2. Can subcultures really have flowerings? Mormons are a few grains of salt in the vast porridge of the west. There’s the example of the American Jews, but I question the extent to which that flowering was specifically Jewish. You seem to want something that is more directly tied to Mormonism here, and rightly so, because otherwise a Mormon flowering is only interesting from a ‘yay, Team Mormon!’ standpoint. I suspect that to get the kind of thing you want, you really need to create some distinct Mormon space that doesn’t really exist right now. And you probably need to halt or even reverse the Mormon trend towards assimilating–but there are good, even gospel and proselyting reasons, for this trend. This gets back to my old hobbyhorses of the possibility for Mormons to allow for social experiments, attempts to create little Mormon utopias, and the possibility for temple art that goes beyond just permanent paintings (painting exhibits, music, literature, essays, etc, that are confined to the temple, perhaps even to the celestial room).

3. Newton said he was a dwarf on the shoulder of giants. Our perspective of history tends to overlook all the drudgery and fallow periods and just focus on the greats. Maybe we’re too impatient with Mormon matters. Maybe thinking about how to create a flowering is a waste of time and we’d be better off trying to do scholarship or art in some corner of the vineyard, thus creating the store of intellectual and artistic capital that has to be there for a genius to exploit, or he or she can’t be the genius.

4. The Renaissance was partly touched off by the exposure to classical texts through the offices of Byzantine scholars and others. We probably don’t have new worlds like that available to us–unless we get significant new revelation. So maybe chipping away at the art and scholarship problem is too direct. Maybe he who loses his direct approach to that problem will find a solution. In other words, maybe the answer is that we need to be focused on righteousness individually and collectively, so that God might reveal new songs to us, and new gifts of the Spirit.

5. Maybe God doesn’t care about art and scholarship. I mean, I believe they are good and I assume God likes good stuff, by definition. Prophets counsel us to enjoy good art, the feelings and thoughts I’ve had in contemplating good art, in reading good literature, and in trying to create it myself, have been edifying and spiritual, etc.. But take C.S. Lewis points that art, architecture, even civilization as such is ephemeral compared to the life of the soul. What if the real beauty that God cares about creating is the purified and redeemed, the exalted and holy, the Christlike, the Godlike soul? What if He views our art the way we’d view Michaelangelo’s card tricks–pretty in a way but a distraction from what he should really be about? Perhaps the banal activities that consume our life and don’t see all that creative and profound to us are to God like someone sharpening tools for a master sculpture instead of doing some sketching.

Vision of Zacharias, James Tissot (1894)

As I’m sure you’ve noticed, I haven’t contributed much to Temple Study in recent months.  I’ve received emails from readers wondering if I’m OK.  I’m still here, but have had other priorities to attend to.  Until life stabilizes a bit, I won’t be able to get back to blogging.  Toby Palmer has offered to help keep the blog alive, and I’m interested in his insights about Hugh Nibley and the temple.
-Bryce

Guest Blogger: Toby' s self-identifying moment came when he read a Hugh Nibley article describing the characteristics of an eschatologist--someone who loves and seeks the infinite possibilities of God beyond the veil. With this self-proclaimed title, Toby voraciously reads and writes searching the mysteries of God while building his own testimony of Jesus Christ. He proudly contributes to TempleStudy.com in hope of strengthening others. Toby lives with his wife and four children in Orem, Utah.

Many members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints seek spiritual guidance for important individual and family decisions as they attend and worship at the temple. Many times divine messages that come to the heart and mind while in these holy spaces is hardly what is expected--and sometimes even a bit surprising.

According to Hugh Nibley in Three Shrines: Mantic, Sophic, and Sophistic¹, being surprised by revelation is exactly what should be expected. Nibley explains the mantic individual seeks revelation and the sophic person goes no further than his own learning for knowledge. To the sophic the thought of finding answers from a spiritual source is "uncontrollable, incalculable, and full of imponderables" and completely unacceptable to the cool and rational mind. Conversely, the mantic believes revelation comes in the same unexpected way. The difference between the two is the mantic has learned to trust the divine message as he bends his will to the creator.

Consider scriptural accounts of those being surprised by unexpected revelation. Gabriel's visit to Zacharias in the temple took the wise man by surprise, the shepherds on the eve of Christ's birth were "sore afraid" at the site of the angel--a feeling the apostles also experienced on the Mount of Transfiguration.  Even people chosen of God for great things had to do a double take during these personal spiritual experiences.

Nibley cites C.S. Lewis in reference to revelation, “That is one of the reasons I believe Christianity. It is a religion you could not have guessed. If it offered us just the kind of universe we had always expected, I should feel we were making it up..."

Next time you attend the temple seeking spiritual council, keep in mind the answer you receive may be unexpected and challenge the will to obey. Take heart with this paradox. Our faith can be strengthened by expecting the unexpected answers from Heavenly Father.

Expect the Unexpected at the Temple

1. Hugh Nibley, Three Shrines: Mantic, Sophic, and Sophistic can be found at http://farmsoldsite.farmsresearch.com/publications/books/?bookid=76&chapid=955