For a bit of background, Jana Riess was raised by an atheistic dad, and her mom wasn’t very religious either.  Yet, Jana felt pulled toward religious faith, joining with the Presbyterians before embracing Mormonism.  John questioned why it is hard for atheists to keep their children away from religion.  This corresponds immediately after their conversation that I transcribed previously.

John, “Yeah, right.  Ok in this last part of the segment I am just going to bring it back to your childhood for a second.  So right now, based on our data, you know, people are leaving the church at an exponentially increasing rate. Intellectual issues really are most prominent. There are spiritual reasons people leave, there are cultural or political reasons people leave, but by and large, it’s the types of things we have been talking about today.

I think it’s important to look ahead and see where that takes future generations, because (I’m sorry that this is a bit long of a statement) I say across the table from Sam Harris.  I had lunch with Sam Harris.  I sat across the table with Michael Shermer, I had lunch with Michael Shermer.  These are two of the worlds’ great atheist writers and thinkers.  I asked them point blank.  I said, ‘when my wife gets cancer, when is one of your people going to be showing up at our door, delivering a casserole In Logan?’

What I mean by that is—and I don’t mean it socially—if you believe in evolution at all, and most people who leave the church probably do, you would probably concede that if religion weren’t adaptive to the human species, it would have died out, right?  It would have gone by the wayside, but actually, my understanding over the past century is that mankind’s gotten more religious, not less overall. Even though right now there might be a little waxing and waning going on.  So, I think there’s a lot of people leaving religions, leaving Mormonism, envisioning this sort of post-religion world where religion is dead and as soon as we can shake off the chains of religious oppression, then rainbows will emerge and it will rain gumdrops and butterflies will fly around.”

Jana, “Oh unicorns!  Don’t forget the unicorns.”

John chuckling ,”Unicorns will come out and we’ll all be enlightened, and it’s just fascinating to ask what if Jana Reiss, what if Jana Reiss is one of the outcomes of this mass movement towards secularism.  In other words, what if we just ain’t escaping this religious thing as a species any time soon?  The minute that we think we are, as Greg Prince said, atheists are having a hard time keeping their kids in the fold.

[Jana chuckles, John continues.]  What if we’re going to boomerang whether we –what if society is going to boomerang back to religion whether we want it to or not?  And if it is, why not stay and make it as great of a place to stay if our grandchildren are going to end up back here anyway?  That was not even a question.  I’m embarrassed that I just said all that and didn’t even shape it into a question.  Feel free to comment on it.”

Jana, “You have nothing to be embarrassed about.  This is a conversation, it’s not an interrogation.  You have nothing to be embarrassed about.

Well, the things that occurred to me while you were talking, first of all, I can understand that people within Mormonism will be very concerned about disaffection, disaffiliation, people leaving the church.  It is a concern, and I sure hope that people at the church are taking notes on why this happens and that they are planning to make changes in the way we do things, particularly the way we set up these either/or dichotomies in which people are essentially forced out  if they have questions.  But I would also say, and I think you alluded to this, that this is not just the trend within Mormonism.  The trend towards disaffiliation is happening everywhere, and it’s a really fascinating moment in American culture.

I read a book a few Years ago by Christian Smith called Soul Searching, where he was doing research on teenagers and religions, an then he followed up on those same teenagers some years later when they became adults, so college age and in their early 20’s to find out specifically what happened to those kids, but more generally what happens to this whole generation, and I really recommend reading those books in tandem because it’s quite illuminating of how this is affecting.

In the first book, Mormonism comes of very well actually, because Mormon teens at least know what they’re supposed to believe and they report praying regularly, they report  devotional practices that would demonstrate some kind of personal commitment. But even those things are not really enough to hold people in the fold.  So Mormonism more recently, just last year, Oxford published another book by Kenda Creasy Dean who had been one of the researchers on the youth and religion project that Christian Smith started.  (I hope this isn’t boring people.)

The upshot is that she had a whole chapter on Mormons. Are they the success story in how their kids are learning the faith, being indoctrinated in the faith, and then staying in the faith?  I think the chapter was very good in terms of how it examined Mormon kids and how they are acculturated.  I don’t think it did such a great job in terms of looking at the darker side in the fact that a lot of these people then leave even returned missionaries will come home and sometimes leave for whatever reason.  People you would expect to have the highest levels of commitment to the faith.

But much of that is because we are living in a culture in which now 14% of young adults claim no affiliation, so that is a significant change even from a couple of decades ago when it was more like 6 or 7, so it has doubled, so it’s not just Latter-day Saints.

John, “Yeah, and that’s all true, and in Europe religion’s really struggling, and there’s some predictions that in nine countries across the world religion will become extinct, but that’s kind of what I’m wondering is—I wonder about the human condition there’s just no escaping God and belief overall.  I wonder if we’re destined as a species to boomerang back to faith or if science or social engineering is going to someday lead us to a better place?  Have you thought about that at all?”

Jana, “I have thought about it some, but not enough.  I think those are important questions for the future, but no I don’t have any grand sweeping wisdom to give you.”

John, “But as far as you’re concerned, well, what you represent to me is a testimonial that it’s not as simple as yank your kids out of church, you know, and teach them secular ways, because somehow at least for some that spirit just calls them right back, right?”

Jana, “Sometimes that happens.”

John, “Yeah.  I mean I remember speaking of a faith episode with Krista Tippett where there was a liberal loosey goosey Catholics who raised their kids outside of the faith and low and behold, by the time they were adults they were like fundamentalist Catholics.  Have you seen that dynamic happen in Judaism or other religions? “

Jana, “Yes, there is a whole kind of trend and it is very interesting to observe. I think the book that you are referring to from the Krista Tippets show was called the New Faithful.  Colleen someone, I can’t remember her last name, but she was looking at this phenomenon precisely of people who you would think are going to embrace largely secular values and then take a turn for conservative religions, in that case conservative Catholicism, why?  What is it that they are finding there?  I think that the reductionistic sociological answer is that people want to know what they’re supposed to believe, and never more so than a time of confusion more generally.

I don’t think that kind of explanation gives people very much credit.  It doesn’t hold true with people that I talk to.  They don’t say, ‘I wanted to know the truth so that my life would be simpler.’  Their lives are rarely simpler because of the changes that they’ve made.”

Why do you think atheists and religionists seem to have a hard time keeping their children “in the fold”?

Robert Rees

Sunstone has had a recurring theme over the past 25 years or so titled Why I Stay.  Robert Rees collected essays from 20 people that have answered this question over the years.  As I thought of the question, I think my answer would mirror Claudia Bushman.  From page 31,

Claudia Bushman

I don’t want to explore why I stay in the Church.  I just don’t like that question.  Of course I have some pretty horrific experiences that would have persuaded many to leave.  I could give a very salty talk about putdowns I have experienced and insults I have borne.  I have been publicly and privately humiliated on several occasions….But I have forgiven those perpetrators.  I cannot say that I have forgiven the slights.  Instead I have adopted the style of various Church leaders I have known.  They may forgive, but they never forget.

Armaund Mauss says on page 39,

Armaund Mauss

I find the question of why I stay with the Church to be peculiar.  No one asks me why I stay with my family or with my nation, both of which are periodically stressful and no less voluntary than my relationship to the church.

There are some fantastic stories in this book.  Greg Prince says that the data is there for him to stay, and he shared some interesting perspectives: sometimes “Revelation Flows Up.”  From page 97,

Greg Prince

Trickle-up revelation is arguably the most important force of revelation shaping the day-to-day church in which we live.  If you doubt that statement, consider the Relief Society, Mutual Improvement, Sunday School, Primary, Welfare, Genealogy (Family History), and Young Adult programs all began as grass-roots initiatives on the part of Church members, and were then embraced by the central Church.  This means that phrases such as “magnifying one’s calling”, “Men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness”, and “be not weary in well-doing, for ye are laying the foundation of a good work.  And out of small things proceedeth forth that which is great”, are not platitudes, but a real call to action.  I have been a first-hand witness and participant in the birth of the Young Adult program in Southern California in the mid-1970’s and a first-hand witness of Lester Bush’s landmark on blacks and the priesthood in the mid-1970s.  A Church that not only allows, but expects its members to assist in continual transformation by placing their unique gifts at the altar has my vote.

Speaking of “trickle-up revelation”, I really enjoyed the only non-LDS essay in the book by William Russell, titled “Staying in the Community of Christ.”  From page 119,

William Russell

In 1970, five of us at Graceland [College] began publishing a quarterly journal titled Courage: A Journal of History, Thought, and Action which was consciously modeled after Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought. I wrote an editorial in Saints’ Herald when the first issue of Dialogue came out, praising it and especially applauding an article by Francis Lee Menlove called “The Challenge of Honesty.”  In Courage we took positions which seemed radical at the time but later became the positions of the Church.  In 1970 Courage endorsed the ordination of women, a position the Church adopted in 1984.  In 1971 we endorsed open communion, which the Church adopted in 1994.  We criticized our method of succession in the presidency, arguing that our lineal succession was as bad as the LDS tradition wherein the senior apostle becomes prophet.  In the 1996 World Conference, Wallace B. Smith called W. Grant McMurray to lead the Church and thus ended our lineal descent in the office of Church president.

Russell seems to have been quite a radical.  While LDS members may remember that Ezra Taft Benson believed the Civil Rights Movement was a Communist conspiracy, many in the RLDS Church held similar views.  Following editorials in the Kansas City Star and Independence Examiner, (from page 117)

I was picketed for three days at our Herald House editorial offices and our 1966 World Conference.  The signs read, “The commies just love Wm. D. Russell.”  My pastor was equally convinced that I was a Communist…..(page 117)  About that time I learned from a reliable source that President Smith had compared me to the Reverend Martin Luther King, which I thought put me in good company!  But he thought we were Communists.”

Over the years, the Community of Christ has changed, making it more comfortable for Russell.  He finishes the essay with this gem.

“Therefore, I suspect I will remain in the Community of Christ until the undertaker arrives.  At my funeral, please don’t assign me to heaven.  I have no idea whether such a nice fuzzy place exists. I just hope I can muddle through this place without screwing up too much.  I leave the rest in God’s hands.”

Finally, I wanted to share the story of Lavinia Fielding Anderson.  She is a real enigma to me.  She is one of the September Six excommunicated in 1993.  Despite this, she has continued to attend her ward faithfully every week.  She shares a unique perspective of “Why I Stay”.  From pages 84-91,

Lavinia Fielding Anderson

In spite of being excommunicated, there are six reasons why I keep going to ward meetings month after month, year after year.  The first is for my family.  The gospel was everything to my parents…they both served missions…my father served as bishop in two wards…I’m proud of that heritage and one reason I kept going was that I wanted our son Christian to be proud of it….

The second reason I stay connected to the Church is that Paul and I met, courted, married, and have lived as Mormons.  I didn’t want my relationship with the Church to come between us and our marriage.  Our temple sealing and the covenants we made at marriage are significant to us.  Paul wanted a Mormon wife, and I felt that he deserved one, just as I wanted and felt I deserved a Mormon husband…

The third reason I stay is that I love Mormonism.  I was moved by the Book of Mormon and gained a testimony of it before I knew what to think about Joseph Smith.  The Book of Mormon has continued to speak to me as scripture….

Fourth, I love Mormon theology.  I love its emphasis on grace and works.  I love its open canon.  I love the presence of a Mother in Heaven even though we aren’t supposed to talk about her at present…

Fifth, I love the Mormon community….we can count on the Primary kids to sing for special programs with enthusiasm if not tunefulness, and that the bishop will wear a funny tie at least a couple of times a month.

Parts of it aren’t always comfortable. I am not happy with the fact that sacrament speakers, including visiting high counselors, are now asked to base their talks on a general conference talk from the Ensign magazine.  Usually Paul sits on the aisle so he can take the sacrament and then indicate to the deacon to go on so that I don’t have to personally refuse it.  A few weeks ago when I was sitting on the aisle, an elderly high priest made a big deal of stretching way past me to hand the tray of bread to Paul.  Maybe he was just being tactful.  Maybe he thought I’d contaminate the tray if I touched it.  But when he came around with the water, I grabbed it from him, glared, and passed it to Paul, then back to him. Then I got the giggles….

I need to say that the sixth most important reason for me to stay in the Church is that I not only love the Church, but in some ways it loves me back.  I feel loved within the Church—not by the stake president and various officials, particularly, but by my Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother and truly by Jesus.  I can’t help loving them in return.  I want to love them more deeply, in part by keeping the promises I made at baptism and in the temple.  Those promises are important to me.

I have to say that I really loved this book.  I’ve given excerpts from just 5 of the 20 contributors.  I loved Lavinia’s testimony—she is a remarkable woman.  I loved Greg’s “trickle up revelation.”  I loved the personal accounts.  Finally, I want to ask, “Why do you stay?”

Concerning these surveys, Yale University Professor Harold Bloom said,

I can understand the two surveys you cite only if the Mormon Ph.D.’s employed an absurdly narrow definition of an “intellectual.” Joseph Smith, even to a Jewish non-Mormon like myself, is the only American creative enough to be called a prophet, seer, and revelator, that is, a religious genius. There was Emerson, of course, but ultimately his was more a literary mind than a religious one. I greatly admire McMurrin, and Roberts also, but if “intellectual” means what it should mean, then Smith clearly is the most eminent intellectual in Mormon history. He was an authentic visionary, and totally original in mind and spirit—really a kind of mortal god.  I cannot understand why he is not honored by more Americans.

The above letter was written in response to a query by Henry Miles.  Miles developed a correspondence with Bloom over the past 2 decades, and published the series of letters in Dialogue.  Bloom is one of the most high-profile non-Mormons that has extensively studied Smith, and has written or spoken about Smith on many occasions.  What do you think of Bloom’s characterization of Smith?  Do you think Smith was undervalued in the 2 surveys?

Brian Hales gave a very interesting presentation on Joseph Smith’s polygamy. I was late and didn’t hear the beginning of the presentation, but he discussed the issue of Joseph being sealed to other men’s wives. Most refer to this as polyandry, though Larry Foster has disputed that terminology in the past, preferring the term “proxy husband” or something similar. At any rate, Hales contends that there is no evidence that Joseph had sexual relations with any of these women. He notes that many other experts disagree with this position, and wasn’t surprised that many in the audience disagreed with that position.  He also discussed the reliability of John C. Bennett’s words about polygamy.  Bennett was Nauvoo Mayor, and Assistant President of the Church before he was excommunicated for unauthorized polygamy.  Bennett later wrote an expose of Mormonism and some believe he was one of the instigators of the mob that killed Joseph.

Hales did a great job presenting his information.  He stated that Bennett was very unreliable (as most experts agree.)  He also noted that many of the allegations that Joseph had sexual relations with these “polyandrous” wives occurred at least a decade after the marriages, so there is nothing contemporary from Joseph’s lifetime.  While Hales makes a good point, on this second issue I am not persuaded.  I asked him 2 questions.  First, I asked him about a really odd story about surrogate parenthood in the days of Brigham Young. Click here for full details. In brief, a convert couple could not conceive children due to a medical condition of the husband. Brigham Young proposed a temporary civil divorce. The wife (Mary Richardson) was civilly married to a man by the name of Frederick Cox. He fathered two children in a sort of levirate marriage (mentioned in the New Testament). Then they divorced, Mary re-married (and was sealed) to her original husband. It’s definitely an odd story.

My point is that this seems to be a sort of polyandry. Kathryn Daines mentions that it was “family legend” that the Richardsons obtained a divorce. Brian Hales indicated he felt it was solid evidence and not adultery. It sure seems like if the Richardson divorce was arranged with an understanding of re-marriage, that it was a form of sexual polyandry, with a wink and a nod to civil law. If Brigham Young sanctioned it, it seems to me that Brigham must have felt that such an unusual arrangement must have been ok with Joseph Smith.

Secondly, I asked about an unusual issue with Emma Smith. Quoting from my previous post,

Some of the footnotes are very interesting on this subject. Footnote 26 on page 305 quotes an 1844 expose of Mormonism. I don’t know if this can be corroborated, but I found it interesting.

“Emma’s threat to “be revenged and indulge herself” may have been merely a warning to the prophet to give up his spiritual wives. But Joseph H. Jackson, a non-Mormon opportunist who gained the confidence of the prophet in Nauvoo, recorded in an 1844 expose of Mormonism: “Emma wanted [William] Law for a spiritual husband,” and because Joseph “had so many spiritual wives, she thought it but fair that she would at least have one man spiritually sealed up to her and that she wanted Law, because he was such a ‘sweet little man.’”

Although there is nothing to suggest that Law and Emma were more to each other than friends, Law later confirmed that Joseph “offered to furnish his wife Emma with a substitute for him, by way of compensation for his neglect of her, on condition that she would forever stop her opposition to polygamy and permit him to enjoy his young wives in peace and keep some of them in his house and to be well treated, etc.” (Salt Lake Tribune, 3 July 1887.)

D&C 132:51 seems to refer to this incident. It says,

Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her;

If Emma had accepted in time, perhaps she would have been a polyandrous wife.  Of course that is just speculation, and the rest of verse 51 says it is an Abrahamic test. But it still seems like another odd incident.  Though I don’t agree with all of Hales’ conclusions, he was well prepared, and I was impressed with his presentation.

LDS members Newell Bringhurst and Craig Foster, along with RLDS members Bill Russell and Mark Sherer held a panel discussion on the Presidential candidacies of Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney.  (Mark was the moderator and did not present.)  Russell had high praise for Huntsman, saying the he was the best republican field.  Russell noted that Huntsman seems well-versed in other cultures and religions, and said that Huntsman would be able to describe other religions “in laymans, as well as Lemuel’s terms.”  Russell also indicated that if a Mormon wants to run for office and have religion be a non-issue, then they should be a democrat.  He noted that Morris Udall lost narrowly to Jimmy Carter for the democratic nominee in 1976, and noted that Harry Reid, the Senate Minority Leader does not have questions about his religion.  It was a great discussion.

Following lunch, I attended two controversial sessions.  Fred Collier gave a very academic presentation on the relationship between Yahweh and Satan.  He showed that Dead Sea Scroll discoveries seemed to corroborate the JST translation.  He specifically seemed to reference Deuteronomy quite a bit, with a bit of Genesis and ancient Jewish writings.  In LDS theology, Yahweh is considered the son of Elohim.

While Collier’s presentation was interesting, he fell apart during the Q&A session.  I asked him about the Documentary Hypothesis.  In brief, the hypothesis states that Elohim and Yahweh are interchangeable terms for God.  Collier hand-waved the question away, saying the hypothesis was completely debunked as far as he was concerned.  I was a bit flabbergasted with his response, as I completely disagree with this characterization.  Collier seemed completely unprepared to answer the question.

The next question was ever worse for Collier.  During the presentation, Collier said that ancient Hebrew scriptures said that Abel was the first born of Adam and Eve, and Cain was not his brother.  Rather Cain was the son of Lilith and the Serpent.  It was an interesting position–I’ve heard that Lilith was Adam’s first wife, but cast out when she refused to submit to Adam and was cast out of the Garden for saying the name of God.  Apparently she hooked up with the serpent after the expulsion and conceived Cain–that part was new to me.

At any rate, an audience member asked who the offspring of Cain were.  At first, Collier seemed to give a humorous response by saying “international bankers.”  When pressed to clarify, Collier shocked the audience by saying that “international bankers are Jews.”  The questioner was appalled, called Collier an expletive, and a few audience members stormed out of the room.  I was appalled at the anti-Semitic remarks, and was saddened that Collier holds such views.  The views overshadowed what was an otherwise interesting presentation.  It saddens me that anyone would hold such views, and I call on Fred Collier to apologize for the offensive remarks.  A few other people asked more about the curse of Cain doctrine.  Thankfully, we were out of time; I’m afraid of what other racist remarks may have come out of his mouth.

The last presentation was controversial as well.  Janice Allred, Joanna Brooks, and Margaret Toscano gave excellent presentations discussing the recent BYU Studies article titled, A Mother There: A Survey of Historical Teachings About Mother in Heaven. Janice and Margaret were both excommunicated in the 1990s for discussing Mother in Heaven in Sunstone.  Both had praise for the BYU Studies article, though they had some criticisms as well.  Margaret noted that the article referenced over 600 references in the past 167 years in General Conference or official church publications.   The BYU authors seemed to indicate that it is acceptable to discuss Mother in Heaven, and indicated an “abundance” of information on the subject.

However, Toscano noted that in the most recent 2 day General conference, there were 900 references to Father in Heaven.  She said that the BYU authors should be discussing the dearth of information on Mother in Heaven, rather than framing it as “abundant” information.  She also noted that official church pronouncements refer to the equality of husband and wife, but do not refer to “God the Mother” and “God the Father.”  I thought these were a valid points.

Joanna Brooks gave a very interesting presentation discussing some anecdotal references in her ward.  For example, On Mothers Day, the primary chorister in San Diego ward she attends non-chalantly showed a painting of a Mother in Heaven in the clouds teaching children.  During Sacrament meeting talks, there were surprising references to Mother in Heaven as well.  She tweeted about these incidents and received a variety of responses, indicating that some other wards seemed to reference Mother in Heaven as well.

The session was marred by Holly Welker, the moderator.  Holly has no manners, and seems to enjoy mocking religion.  She gave some thoughts that indicated that she does not believe in God, yet announced at the beginning of the session that they would hold a prayer circle to pray to Mother in Heaven at the end of the session.  She allowed people to leave if they were uncomfortable with the process.  Many people left because they were uncomfortable.

It seems to me that Holly enjoys shocking people, and she has poor manners even with other panelists.  For example, an audience member asked why Mother in Heaven was not present in the First Vision.  Janice Allred started to explain her belief about this incident, but Holly cut her off, saying that Holly didn’t believe in the First Vision (ignoring that Janice did), and cut off Janice’s answer because Holly was “uncomfortable.”  Yet Holly didn’t mind mocking believers with her prayer circle.  She marred an otherwise great session, and I have no respect for her.

Due to some controversial presentations in the 1990s, Sunstone has a cold relationship with the church, and the church still refuses to allow some employees to participate.  There has been a thaw in relations, though it’s still cold.  I would really like Sunstone to gain favor in the church.  However, with people like Holly Welker and Fred Collier, I can understand why the church has a cold war with Sunstone.  It makes me sad that these people can spoil such a wonderful opportunity to discuss theology and Mormonism.  Comments?

Griffiths describes the battle on page 92.  Theological liberals are

called “modernists”, and and their conservative enemies, termed “fundamentalists”….In the battle between the two camps, one that hoisted the banner of science and another that decried the abandonment of traditional biblical views, where would the Latter-day Saints land?

In the late 1800′s and early 1900′s, the LDS church established schools.  These schools were tremendously expensive to run.  The church experimented with high school and college seminaries in Utah and Idaho.  These seminaries were much less costly than church schools.  The economic savings and stock market crash of 1929 persuaded the church to turn over nearly all church schools to the state, and focus on funding seminaries for high school, and Institutes of Religion for college campuses.  But there were some problems.  The Utah State Board of Education recommended (on page 96)

that Church seminaries and public high schools be completely dissaciated, release time eliminated, and credit for biblical studies withdrawn.  A major point of Williamson’s criticism was the teaching of LDS doctrine in biblical classes offered for credit.  Williamson charged that such teachings as “the Garden of Eden was located in Missouri;…Noah’s ark was built and launched in America;…Joseph Smith’s version of the Bible is superior to King James version; and…Enoch’s city, Zion, with all its inhabitants and buildings, was lifted up and translated bodily from the American continent to the realms of the unknown” were being taught in biblical classes for which the state offered credit.²⁴

Joseph Merrill was the church commissioner of Education.  He recommended that BYU become a training school for seminary teachers, and that these teachers not only obtain a teaching certificate, but be trained in theology.  Just prior to the scathing Williamson report, some LDS members had received training in theology on their own.  From page 93,

Sidney B. Sperry, on his own initiative, left in 1925 to attend the Divinity School of Chicago.  He received a Master’s Degree in 1926, specializing in Old Testament studies.¹⁰ At the same time, Heber C. Snell, a teacher at Church-owned Snow College, attended the Pacific School of Religion, majoring in biblical studies.

Impressed with this theological training, Merrill issued a call to Daryl Chase, Russel Swenson, and George Tanner to attend the University of Chicago’s Divinity School.  From page 98,

Why the University of Chicago?  Besides Sperry’s already existing relationship with the school, there were several compelling reasons to send seminary men there–and several reasons for concern.  Chicago was among the most liberal divinity schools in the country.  At the time, the divinity school…emphasized research and academic freedom.  The views of scholars there fell highly on the modernist end of the spectrum, stressing historical methodology and critical linguistic, sociological, and psychological approaches to the scriptures.³¹ Many of the conclusions reached by the Chicago scholars ran contrary to orthodox views of the scriptures among Latter-day Saints.

…

Doubtless there were professors on both sides of the spectrum from Goodspeed, but on the whole the young school prided itself as being a “hotbed” of radical theology.³⁴…the school emphasized non-confrontational approaches toward those who held more conservative views on scripture.  Russel Swenson recalled, “In all the time I was there I never heard one criticism by the professors against the fundamentalist of conservative point of view.”³⁶

Page 99 notes the famous Scopes Monkey trial of 1925.  This trial on evolution seems to be the pinnacle of the arguments between fundamentalists and modernists.  From page 99,

When Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan argued in a Tennessee courtroom over evolution and the inerrancy of the Bible, Darrow, a Chicago attorney, was using ammunition supplied by Chicago scholars.³⁸

So once again, this leaves the question, Why the University of Chicago?

Indeed, one of the ironies of the situation may have been that only a very liberal school would accept Latter-day Saints as students in the religious climate of the time.³⁹

Merrill was interested in improving the scholarship of seminaries.  In showing that Sperry was still a conservative scholar, Merrill noted that (pages 99-100)

“Sperry had been back there and apparently this hadn’t hurt him at all.”  He said Daryl Chase had concluded that “Joseph Merrill had so much faith in the gospel that he thought if we went there we’d be able to find the material so that we could just positively lay out the proof for all of our claims.”  Chase believed that “Joseph F. Merrill was naive enough to believe that that would lead us into proof positive of the various positions we had taken.”42  While the men may have believed that Merrill was being naive, there is ample evidence to believe he also knew the risk he was taking.  Each of the men was informed that if they changed their views, they might not have a position when they returned.⁴³ Overall, Merrill’s attitude indicated a cautious optimism about the venture.

Griffiths notes good and bad experiences for LDS students.  Some embraced the school, while others weren’t impressed. Swenson wrote that “the past year will be a bright year in my life” and “They have no diabolical scheme to undermine the truth, but the reverse, to discover it.”  On the other hand, T. Edgar Lyon wrote the professors were “either infidels or agnostics…I fail to see how a young man can come here to school, then go out after graduation, and still preach what we call Christianity.”

Eleven LDS students obtained advanced degrees from the University of Chicago.  Swenson and Sperry became faculty at BYU, and Merrill (not a graduate) was later called to be an apostle.  Chicago graduate Howard Snell created controversy among Institute teachers when he questioned the historicity of the Book of Jonah, and said that God used evolution to create life.  This provoked a strong reaction from Joseph Fielding Smith who was very antagonistic toward evolution.  On page 107, J Reuben Clark, a member of the First Presidency

warned that if unorthodox teaching continued, “we shall face the abandonment of the seminaries and institutes and the return of Church colleges and academies.”  He added, “we are not now sure, in the light of developments, that these should ever have been given up.”⁸⁸

President Clark’s address provoked strong reactions among educators present.  Sterling McMurrin, a young teacher present, remarked, “We divided ourselves up…into liberal and conservative camps…Clark laid it out very firmly, and there was considerable discussion about it around our campfires.”⁸⁹

…

[page 109] At the end of the 1938-39 school year, when Guy C. Wilson retired as the head of the Religion Department at BYU, J. Wyley Sessions, who did not hold a PhD, was appointed as his replacement, which was perceived as a signal that faithfulness was more important than scholarship in Church education.

President Clark wrote a letter stating (on page 110),

“Teachers will do well to give up indoctrinating themselves in the sectarianism of the modern ‘Divinity School Theology’.  If they do not, they will be no longer useful in our system.”  The letter asked teachers to teach “the gospel and that only, and the Gospel as revealed in these last days.”  They were also warned not to use the term “ideology”, which the First Presidency felt placed “the Gospel in the same category with any and every pagan religion or theology.”  The letter continued, “This concept reduced to its lowest terms, may be expressed as conceiving that religion is man-made, that man makes his God, not God his man–a concept which is coming to be basic to the whole ‘Divinity School Theology,’ but which is contrary to all the teachings of the Church and to God’s revealed word.”¹⁰²

Griffiths notes that the Chicago men varied from quite orthodox (Sperry) to liberal (Snell).  It seems quite clear that the church made a swing toward fundamentalism, and away from modernism.  Even apostle Joseph Merrill seemed concerned with some of the more liberal teachers.  T Edgar Lyon was the last person to attend divinity school for the next 30 years.  Griffiths notes some of the good things that happened with the divinity school experiment.  From page 121,

Nearly all of the Chicago men noted that their time at the divinity school opened ecumenical doors for the Church and helped bring Mormonism further into the mainstream of American religious discourse.  At the same time, the scholarly methods learned in Chicago, applied toward modern scripture, led to huge leaps in the quality of Mormon apologetics.  Sidney Sperry, T. Edgar Lyon, Russel Swenson, and other Chicago scholars wrote the majority of Sunday School and priesthood manuals used in the Church for decades after they returned from Chicago.”

I am saddened that the fundamentalists won, but I am encouraged that it seems the modernists are making some headway in the church.  What do you think of this history?  Are you a fundamentalist, or a modernist?

I think MHA saved the best presentations for last, as it had some real heavyweights on the subject of polygamy.  Don Bradley gave a presentation titled “Angel with a Drawn Sword: Kirtland Roots of Nauvoo Polygamy.”  Some speakers can be very dry, but Bradley is probably the most entertaining speaker at MHA.  He always brings a lot of wit to his wonderful presentations.  I think I will probably attend any of his presentations because he always brings humor as well as cutting-edge research to his presentations.  Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner was one of Joseph Smith’s wives, and Bradley discussed her account that Joseph told her that an angel with a drawn sword had commanded him to participate in polygamy.  Lightner gave 3 accounts of this experience.  It was really fascinating.

The presentation by Brian Hales was titled “Two Mormon Enigmas:  Emma Hales Smith and Polygamy, An Update.”  Since I had just blogged about 2 other Mormon Enigmas, I knew I couldn’t miss this presentation.  Hales has documented many of the wives of Joseph Smith along a timeline.  (More info is found at his website.)  Hales made the case that Joseph Smith had been commanded quite early to participate in polygamy, but delayed.  Because of this delay, many women had married other men.  He makes the case that if Joseph had not delayed, “polyandry” would not have occurred.  I found Hales presentation really interesting, and definitely will check out his website more.

Larry Foster gave a presentation titled, “The Albatross:  The Complex and Changing Challenges that Polygamy Posed to Mormon Institutional Development during the Nineteenth Century.”  He outlined how difficult polygamy was to maintain for all the churches that practiced polygamy.  One thing I found interesting was the fact that John C. Bennett has been much maligned.  Foster argues that while Bennett did exaggerate many of the reports of polygamy, he was not completely unreliable.  We need to accept the arguments of Bennett that are valid in spite of the character flaws that he had.

Finally, Todd Compton gave a comment on the papers.  Compton noted that all of the papers were very long, and the presenters did not have time to adequately address them in the 20 minutes they were allotted.  Compton said he was glad to see a conservative/moderate like Brian Hales address these issues, though Compton disputed Hales conclusions.

While the presentations were all outstanding, The Q&A session was the best part.  Larry Foster started off by insisting that “polyandry” is the wrong term to use, and he wishes that we would use another term.  He said that Fawn Brodie had popularized the term, but felt it conveyed the wrong meaning.  He said that if we used the term “adultery” to describe polygamy, Mormons would take great offense.  He said that polyandry conveys a matriarchal leadership, yet polyandry was patriarchal.  Therefore polyandry is the wrong term to use.  I will probably write up the Q&A on Larry’s comments because I thought it was a very good point.  As I recall, Larry preferred to use the term “proxy husband” rather than polyandry.

This morning, I attended the devotional at the St George Tabernacle.  Current president of Southern Utah University in Cedar City, Michael Benson spoke on the sacrifice that the early saints made in establishing colleges in the pioneer days.  I was surprised to learn that Benson is a historian; it was a good presentation.  Former Dixie State College president Douglas Alder is also a historian, and he discussed how we can study “The New Mormon History: By Study and By Faith.”  He said it is critical to continue to use faith as we use our intellect to study history.  It was also a great talk.  I really enjoyed the organ solo by Geoffrey Myers (Come, Come Ye Saints–it is one of my all-time favorite hymns).

Following the devotional, it was fun to mingle with everyone, especially Darius Gray and Margaret Young.  I was also quite surprised to run into my Elders quorum president from my college days–it was good to see him again.  I can’t wait to go next year, but since it is in Calgary, I am not sure I will be able to go.  The John Whitmer Association meetings are in Nauvoo this year in September, and I may try to go to those meetings.  Newell Bringhurst told me that he will be speaking at FAIR and Sunstone in August–I may try to attend one of both of those as well.  These meetings are a real treat!

Smout analyzes the arguments between pro and anti-evolution sides.  He noted that with rhetoric, we often create artificial dichotomies.  For example, on page 6 he gives an example from the movie Mary Poppins.  Male is shown in a positive light, and female in a negative light in the movie .  The father wants to have the children break from “sugary female thinking.”

Often we use these dichotomies to prop our position, while showing the opposing side in a negative light.  This is the case with evolution/creation.  He also notes that while 2 sides use the same words, these words have different definitions.  From page 9,

From a rhetorical perspective, a terminology battle can thus be seen, not as a stubborn refusal to accept correct definitions of terms, but as a power struggle between competing communities.  These communities try to convince other communities that their own word meanings make the best sense.  The problem is that in a culture based on Enlightenment conceptions of a universal reasoning faculty in humans, people do not ask, “Best sense according to whom?”  In effect, the terminology battle becomes a battle about worldviews.  Those who win this battle attain the power to define the terms from within their own worldview for the culture as a whole.

His book has just 5 chapters.

1. Introduction
2. Beginnings of the Creation/Evolution Controversy
3. Bryan and the Scopes “Monkey” Trial
4. The Arkansas Creation-Science Trial
5. Conclusion

He goes into great detail into the 2 trials mentioned above, discussing witness testimony and the lawyers involved in the cases.  I was especially interested as he discussed the Biblical inerrancy during the Scopes trial.  I hadn’t realized that the evolution controversy played a significant role in this debate.  From page 62,

This notion of irreconcilable conflict between creation and evolution depends on the concept of biblical inerrancy, which developed late in the nineteenth century in the United States as an important theological position and a historical key to American fundamentalism.²⁹ James Barr defines biblical inerrancy as the belief that the Bible is free of error of any kind.  He writes “The inerrancy of the Bible, the entire Bible including its details, is indeed the constant principle of rationality within fundamentalism.”³⁰ This position on the Bible grounds all fundamentalists arguments; it is the measure–albeit a very narrow one, which is fraught with many disturbing implications for nonfundamentalists–of reasonableness itself.  In evaluating a statement for its truth, fundamentalists compare the statement to the Bible, resolving any conflict between the two by rejecting the statement and keeping the Bible.

It seems to me that fundamentalists have painted themselves into a corner with this notion of biblical inerrancy.  For example, did God really create the earth in 6 24-hour days?  I think most people don’t believe that, but there are some hard core people that apparently do.

While creationists won the battle at the Scopes trial (Scopes was fined $100 for teaching evolution, and many other southern states adopted similar laws as Tennessee to prevent evolution from being taught), it appears that they are losing the war.    We all know that evolution is taught in biology, and few textbooks mention creationism.  I wasn’t aware of the Arkansas battle in 1981; fundamentalists wanted to include creation science in the textbooks as well as evolution but were defeated.

I think it is funny that the two sides have created a dichotomy between evolution and creation.  Why can’t God use evolution?  Smout notes this conundrum as well, and notes that the two sides are continuing to battle as if there is no middle ground.  I liked Kary’s conclusion on page 186-7,

I finally agree more with the evolutionists than the creationists, but I do not want the creationists to give up the fight.  I am increasingly convinced that reason and knowledge are not the only bases on which to found a society, nor even that they are the best.  I am unsure that a strictly rational society it best.  How does one found a society on these values?  I doubt that either the creationists or the evolutionists will ever stop arguing so long as we have no simple way to know the truth beyond our own perceptions.  We in this pluralistic nation have had to continually deal with recurring tensions between professionalism and democracy, between the academy and other cultural institutions, between competing political philosophies, and between other differing persuasions, all arguing for, and from within, their own worldviews.  In this life, we walk by faith.  We must put our faith in those persuasions that seem most worthy of it.

So what do you think?  Must creation and evolution be at odds with each other?

I’ve been listening to a podcast from Yale University discussing the Bible.  There are definite similarities between the Babylonian story of  Gilgamesh and the stories of Adam and Noah.  Some people, such as Bishop Rick, have said

I think it is accurate to state that the flood story in the bible is both myth and a forgery. It is obviously a myth for reasons too numerous to mention here, but it is also copied from other cultures/religions, thus making it a forgery.

It could very well be a myth.  While some scholars believe the story is a myth, National Geographic put together a documentary called “In Search for Noah’s Flood”.  They discuss various flood stories, and make the case that a large, localized flood must have influenced these various cultures to write of this flood.  While there is no proof of a flood, it seems like a plausible explanation.

Recently I discussed a couple of sites in the Dead Sea region that some people believe are the sites of Sodom and Gomorrah.  While some people love to claim the Bible is actually a collection of myths, Dr. Carole Fontaine of the Andover Newton Theological School said, “Archeologists often find themselves hooted and hollered out of town, when they first suggest things like, ‘I’ve found Troy, or look, we’ve found Sodom and Gomorrah.’  But history has shown that in fact, the more you dig, the more you find.  It’s amazing how accurate the Bible sometimes turns out to be.”

Speaking of hooting and hollering, John Hamer recently recorded a famous comment regarding Book of Mormon archaeology.  He said,

The scholarly consensus on the alleged antiquity of the Book of Mormon was expressed way back in 1973 in Dialogue by Michael D. Coe, among the foremost Mayanist scholars, who wrote: “As far as I know there is not one professionally trained archaeologist, who is not a Mormon, who sees any scientific justification for believing the historicity of The Book of Mormon, and I would like to state that there are quite a few Mormon archaeologists who join this group”

The best Book of mormon archaeological site seems to be Nahom.  I’ve previously blogged about Nahom, and Daniel C. Peterson called it a “bulls eye”.  In the video called Journey of Faith (distributed by FAIR), a few BYU scholars state,

Daniel C. Peterson, Professor of Islamic Studies and Arabic, BYU, “The finding of Nahom strikes me as just a tremendously significant discovery.”

Noel B Reynolds, director of FARMS, BYU, “The gazetteers of Joseph Smith’s day listed no such place.”

Peterson, “What it really is, is a kind of prediction by the Book of Mormon, or something that we ought to find.”

William J Hamblin, Professor of Middle Eastern History, BYU, “Now the chances of finding that exact name from the exact time, in that exact place, by random chance, are just astronomical.”

Peterson, “And to find it in the right location, at the right time, is a really striking bulls eye for the book and there are those who say the book has no archeological substantiation. That’s a spectacular substantiation right there, it seems to me.  Something that would have been unexpected. It’s so unlikely that Joseph Smith could have woven into his story on his own.”

Hamblin, “The Book of Mormon has text, has made a complex prediction and modern archeology actually confirms that prediction.”

Peterson, “It’s a direct bulls-eye, as precise as you could wish it to be.”

I don’t think non-Mormon scholars are as impressed with the site as Peterson, but non-Bible believing scholars aren’t impressed with Sodom and Gomorrah either.  So, must we always believe that lack of evidence argues against historicity of the Bible or Book or Mormon, or is there reason to believe that some of these stories that scholars call myths, forgeries, or pious frauds really might have some historical use?  Is it true that “the more you dig, the more you find?”

Strang translated the Brass Plates: the official name is the Book of the Law of the Lord.  Strang initially denounced polygamy, but after translating these plates, he was commanded by an angel to practice polygamy.  This book of scripture plays a prominent role in Strangite worship services, outlining the proper practice of polygamy, marriage, adultery, and inheritance.  Strang was an abolitionist, and believed that servants should receive inheritances from masters, just as children.

Hamer detailed the history of the Strangites following Strang’s assassination in 1856 (by disgruntled followers).  Apparently, there were about 4-5 prominent families, and most members have descended from this family.  Strangites originally settled in Voree, Wisconsin, but later moved to Beaver Island, Michigan.  Following Strang’s death, the group was forcibly removed from Beaver Island and their property was confiscated.  They settled in other areas: Michigan, Kansas, Colorado, and New Mexico.  A schism in the group split the families, but the group unified in 1955.  The largest branch in Voree has added some new converts and no family currently dominates in Voree, unlike other branches.  Voree has the largest branch in the church, and their website is found here.

In another session, Max Muellar from Harvard talked about changing portraits of Emma Smith, and Darin Tuck discussed the story of the gulls eating crickets.  Apparently he irritated a few in the audience when he said the gull story had obtained “mythical” status—the question and answer was more animated than the presentation.

Livinia Fielding Anderson discussed some very general similarities of Joseph Smith Sr’s patriarchal blessings.  She outlined only blessings with known dates between Dec 9, 1834, and April 8, 1838.  LaJean Purcell Carruth described translating some old Mormon records written in Pittman Shorthand.  She noted that Brigham Young said that the law seemed tilted against the Mormons.  Gary James Bergera discussed some of the ethical and moral aspects of spiritual wives.  He noted that Joseph had 20 wives before Emma learned he had taken any polygamous wives.

So, that’s a quick summary from yesterday.  Questions or comments?

I thought it was very well done.  After the session, I was sitting on the floor next to a Wi-Fi hotspot when Ken walked by.  I told him I admired the film and asked him a few questions about film-making.  (I have wanted to create my own documentary on church history.)  When he learned that I was a blogger, he offered me an advance copy of the film and soundtrack!!!!  I told him I would love to blog about it!  He hasn’t finished the film yet (but he said it is more finished than it was in January), and hopes to distribute it on public television and further distribution in the future.  So, I’ll give a more detailed review in the next few weeks, but my brief summary is a definite thumbs up!

In the audience was Community of Christ Apostle Andrew Bolton, and some other professional historians.  It was interesting to hear their perspectives on the film, and they gave Ken some interesting advice.  The film covers the 1838 Missouri War between the Mormons and the Missourians.  I’m familiar with the conflict from Richard Bushman’s book Rough Stone Rolling, but I often get events confused.  Ballentine put together this film, and I think it will be an excellent reference.  (I was also surprised when he said he had heard of my blog—I get amazed to learn of all the people that read without commenting.)

I also bought a couple new books and had them autographed.  John Hamer autographed my copy of Scattering of the Saints: Schism within Mormonism.  Brother Rick Turley, assistant LDS Church Historian autographed his book Massacre at Mountain Meadows.  He has a new book called sdfhksjh with material unavailable to Jaunita Brooks (she wrote The Mountain Meadows Massacre, that I blogged about previously).

The morning plenary session was from Laurel Thatcher Ulrich.  She is a 5th generation Mormon that teaches at Harvard.  She gave an interesting presentation on the Wilford Woodruff diaries.  The afternoon session included a great session about polygamy.  Newell Bringhurst was great!  Following the session, I asked him if he agreed with Michael Quinn’s assertion that theocracy was a bigger problem than polygamy from the Nauvoo Expositor.  He disagreed with Quinn.  He felt that polygamy was an explosive topic.  He agreed that theocracy was a potential problem, but believed the polygamy was the bigger problem.  (I blogged about this previously–The Nauvoo Expositor, a Different Perspective.)

The evening session was a real treat.  Sally Gordon, Jan Shipps, and Richard Bushman put together a great presentation on the Mountain Meadows Massacre.  Gordon called the 1999 dedication of the marker by President Hinckley a “political disaster.”  She also said that Richard Turley’s new book, Massacre at Mountain Meadows was not considered a “definitive history” of the event because of the sponsorship of the LDS church.  She said that it has not resolved the issue, not because of scholarship–which she implied was good, and noted they had studied some previously undiscussed documents, but simply because of sponsorship.

She also reviewed many books on Mormonism.  She said that Jan Shipps 1985 book on Mormonism: The Story of a New Religious Tradition was the first cross-over book for both Mormons and non-Mormons since Great Basin Kingdom, by LDS Church Historian Leonard Arrington.

She also referred to books hostile to religion, such as Will Bagley’s Blood of the Prophets.  She even quoted Bagley as saying religion in frightening: “God save us all from men doing God’s work.”  She also referred to Da Vinci Code:  Dan Brown said that everything was “accurate.”  John Krakauer’s book Under the Banner of Heaven linked the MMM and the Lafferty murders.  In reality, she said that both books made leaps and were fast and loose with the facts.  Gordon and Shipps felt that most histories of the MMM were incomplete because they felt the event was best understood in a religious context.

Richard Bushman responded that he agreed with Shipps and Gordon that this event should be interpreted in a religious context.  He also agreed that we are currently living in an anti-fanatical movement, in light of the 9/11 terrorist attack.  He said that it is a sad commentary that Walker and Turley’s book was doomed from the start because of the LDS church’s support.  However, he believes the book will have influence over time because the battle will turn to documents and evidence–the realm that historians are comfortable discussing.

Bushman said he was attracted to Shipps and Gordon’s point of view, but he hopes that Mormon problems are not unique.  He concluded that it is better to be chastened by the past, rather than to sanitize the past.  I was able to speak with Richard Bushman following the lecture, and I told him I appreciated his book Rough Stone Rolling.

I told him that I had heard him say to another, “I think I got into trouble because I was too candid”, and I wondered what he was talking about.  He said that is something he often says, and didn’t recall exactly what that was referring to.  I told him that I often feel like I have to keep quiet in church.  He said that he does too, but when he teaches Sunday School, he does bring up some tougher questions.  I told him I tried to do that too, but that I had been pulled into the bishop’s office because a member of the stake presidency objected to my use of  a non-KJV Bible to explain some passages of Isaiah.  He said he was sorry to hear that, but he knew many Mormons that read non-KJV Bibles, and encouraged me to keep “plugging away.”

Finally, here is the big announcement I was talking about yesterday.  The awards banquet was last night.

At the awards banquet last night, the association gave Senator Bond the Thomas L. Kane Award for Outstanding Service to the Mormon Community by a non-Mormon. They specifically referenced his courage in ending what amounted to almost a century and a half of animosity and suspicion between Latter-day Saint communities and their Missouri neighbors.

The association issued several other awards for articles and books on Mormon history published the previous year. These included:

• Best Undergraduate Student Paper Award, Joseph T. Antley’s “Early America’s Treasure Quest: The Effort to Recapture the Supernatural in the American Northeast.”

• Best Graduate Student Paper, Matthew Bowman’s “Matthew Philip Gill and Joseph Smith: The Dynamics of Mormon Schism.”

• Best Thesis Award (two winners), Debra Marsh’s “Respectable Assassins: A Collective Biography and Social Economic Study of the Carthage Mob” and Caye Wycoff’s “Markets and the Mormon Conflict in Nauvoo, Illinois, 1839 – 1846.”
• Best Dissertation, Jonathan Moyer’s “Dancing with the Devil: The Making of the Mormon Republican Pact.”
• Best Article Award, Samuel Brown’s “Joseph Smith in Egypt: Babel, Hieroglyphics, and the Pure Language of Eden.”
• Best International Book, In Harm’s Way: East German Latter-day Saints in WWII by Roger P. Minert.
• Best Documentary (two winners), Eliza R. Snow: The Complete Poetry , edited by Jill Mulvay Derr and Karen Lyn Davidson, and Mountain Meadows Massacre: The Andrew Jenson and David H. Morris Collection , Richard E. Turley and Ronald W. Walker, editors.
• Best Biography, Mormon Convert, Mormon Defector: A Scottish Immigrant in the American West, 1848 – 1861 by Polly Aird.
• Best First Book, Performing American Identity in Anti-Mormon Melodrama by Megan Sanborn Jones.
• Best Book Award, “Liberty to the Downtrodden”: Thomas L. Kane, Romantic Reformer by Matthew J. Grow.

It was a fascinating conference, and I look forward to Day 3.