I'm not entirely sure what to say about Cain and Abel, but I like Ben's take here. Cain's way is exploiting and murdering people to get gain--no matter how much we like vegetables. Christ's way is to sacrifice his way to help others--he likewise calls us. Do we exploit others for our profit (whatever kind) or do we serve people for their benefit?
Along with the story of Cain and Able is placed Enoch. I refrain from being offended here at the limited time for Enoch only because we recently had an opportunity to look at Enoch when we talked about Zion here. Despite Enoch feeling like he was just a lad and slow of speech he still worked to serve others (and worked and worked), and did miraculous things. Purifying ourselves to be a true disciple cannot happen if we're only concerned with ourselves, we must adjust our view outward. And be willing to work well, in the manner the Lord asks us to.
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
Lesson 4 - "Because of My Transgression, My Eyes Are Opened" - Part 2 The Restoration and the Fall
My class was interesting today and surprise surprise we didn't get past talking about the Hebrew of 'adam, help meet, rib, and the curses for Adam & Eve. So next week we will continue with the Fall before we go to Cain and Abel. We'll call this part - the Restoration and the Fall.
For a little historical context, a couple books from the first half of the 19th century:
Henry Hunter’s 1832 Sacred Biography; or, The History of the Patriarchs. To Which is Added, The History of Deborah, Ruth, and Hannah, and also the History of Jesus Christ described the inferior position of women—“a beloved object”—who consistently stands in need of a male to give her life righteous direction.
For a Restoration view of the Fall, we will begin with Joseph Smith's contributions--which have all been canonized.
To review chronologically (in the order they were translated or revealed):
We will not review all of the Book of Mormon scriptures (nor Doctrine and Covenants verses for that matter) that talk about the fall, but 2 Nephi 2 is essential. Particularly verses 15-30. Be attentive to the primacy of agency, the necessity of opposition, and the end goal of joy. In verse 23, the text uses "they" as the chosen pronoun for the Adam used in verse 22. Perhaps this is another example of Adam meaning more than just the first man--perhaps Adam & Eve together. And then in one of the most transcendent verses in the Book of Mormon verse 25. I'll follow Elder Oaks lead to make it inclusive: Eve and "Adam fell that men [and women] might be and [women and] men are that they might have joy." This is the initial foundation for what we term today as the Fortunate Fall. Joy should be where we start.
Joseph's revelatory translation of the bible gave us additional text to beyond Genesis (June to October 1830). Here is a parallel comparison of the verses in Moses and Genesis regarding the Fall. The narrator is different for the two texts, the perspective is different. Compare Joseph's additions to the Hebrew Bible text. Satan not knowing the mind of God seems pretty significant to me. As are both Adam and Eve's evaluations of what happened in the Garden (5:10-12)--amongst other things.
Despite the number of verses related to the Fall in modern-revelation, the idea of a fortunate fall was not a consistent LDS doctrine during the 19th century. Joseph doesn't say much about the Fall, other than it was not a sin, because God had decreed it so (Words of JS, 63). Though Brigham Young did say "We should never blame Mother Eve, not in the least," he also said plenty of other things that just might sounds like he's blaming her (JD 13:14). Brigham Young and Eliza R. Snow both demonstrate a more Calvinistic understanding of Eve--for Eliza the Restoration has the ability to restore Eve and all women to their rightful position.
In the 1870s Emmeline Wells, future RS President and Woman's Exponent editor, called Eve a "willing instrument in effecting a grand purpose for the ultimate good of the human family." In the most recent issue of the Journal of Mormon History (here if you subscribe) Boyd Peterson argues that the Woman's Exponent was a place for the women of the church to have a conversation about Eve's role in the Fall. Opinions about Eve were found along a wide spectrum, it was by no means settled in the 19th century.
Church President Joseph F. Smith's 1918 vision recorded in section 138 of the Doctrine & Covenants seems to be a turning point. He saw "our glorious Mother Eve." Clearly not the world's first sinner.
Throughout the 20th century the idea of a Fortunate Fall evolved. Elder Oaks' talk "The Great Plan of Happiness" here is a good source for current understandings about the Fall. He calls Eve's actions "eternally a glorious necessity" and a "planned offense."
In Hugh Nibley's talk on "Patriarchy and Matriarchy" that I linked in the last post (here), he talks of Eve's initiative in taking that first step. Moreover, “There is no patriarchy or matriarchy in the Garden; the two supervise each other…and [are] just as dependent on each other.” Elder Oaks echoed Nibley's language of Eve's initiative, "It was Eve who first transgressed the limits of Eden in order to initiate the conditions of mortality. Her act, whatever its nature, was formally a transgression but eternally a glorious necessity to open the doorway toward eternal life. Adam showed his wisdom by doing the same. And thus Eve and 'Adam fell that men might be.'"
For a little historical context, a couple books from the first half of the 19th century:
Henry Hunter’s 1832 Sacred Biography; or, The History of the Patriarchs. To Which is Added, The History of Deborah, Ruth, and Hannah, and also the History of Jesus Christ described the inferior position of women—“a beloved object”—who consistently stands in need of a male to give her life righteous direction.
In 1852 George C. Baldwin published his Representative
Women: From Eve, the Wife of the First, to Mary, Mother of the Second
Adam. Eve, the “divine ideal of a
perfect woman,” relied on her own independent arm rather than Adam and thereby
the Lord and experienced “the wild intoxication of sinful joy” as the world’s first
sinner. (They liked ridiculously long book titles in the 19th century.)
Despite the proliferation of such ideas, in the second half of the century you also have Mary Baker Eddy, founder of the Christian Scientists, who focused on the male and female characteristics of God--hence why Elohim is plural. For Eddy, the garden narrative taught that woman was the first to interpret scripture in its true sense and woman reflected life and love whereas man reflected punishment. In 1895, suffragist Elizabeth Cady Stanton published The Woman's Bible in which she used the creation narrative to demonstrate the existence of a Heavenly Mother, correct previous incorrect interpretations of the need for female subjugation, and also taught the actual supremacy of women.
For a Restoration view of the Fall, we will begin with Joseph Smith's contributions--which have all been canonized.
To review chronologically (in the order they were translated or revealed):
We will not review all of the Book of Mormon scriptures (nor Doctrine and Covenants verses for that matter) that talk about the fall, but 2 Nephi 2 is essential. Particularly verses 15-30. Be attentive to the primacy of agency, the necessity of opposition, and the end goal of joy. In verse 23, the text uses "they" as the chosen pronoun for the Adam used in verse 22. Perhaps this is another example of Adam meaning more than just the first man--perhaps Adam & Eve together. And then in one of the most transcendent verses in the Book of Mormon verse 25. I'll follow Elder Oaks lead to make it inclusive: Eve and "Adam fell that men [and women] might be and [women and] men are that they might have joy." This is the initial foundation for what we term today as the Fortunate Fall. Joy should be where we start.
Joseph's revelatory translation of the bible gave us additional text to beyond Genesis (June to October 1830). Here is a parallel comparison of the verses in Moses and Genesis regarding the Fall. The narrator is different for the two texts, the perspective is different. Compare Joseph's additions to the Hebrew Bible text. Satan not knowing the mind of God seems pretty significant to me. As are both Adam and Eve's evaluations of what happened in the Garden (5:10-12)--amongst other things.
Despite the number of verses related to the Fall in modern-revelation, the idea of a fortunate fall was not a consistent LDS doctrine during the 19th century. Joseph doesn't say much about the Fall, other than it was not a sin, because God had decreed it so (Words of JS, 63). Though Brigham Young did say "We should never blame Mother Eve, not in the least," he also said plenty of other things that just might sounds like he's blaming her (JD 13:14). Brigham Young and Eliza R. Snow both demonstrate a more Calvinistic understanding of Eve--for Eliza the Restoration has the ability to restore Eve and all women to their rightful position.
In the 1870s Emmeline Wells, future RS President and Woman's Exponent editor, called Eve a "willing instrument in effecting a grand purpose for the ultimate good of the human family." In the most recent issue of the Journal of Mormon History (here if you subscribe) Boyd Peterson argues that the Woman's Exponent was a place for the women of the church to have a conversation about Eve's role in the Fall. Opinions about Eve were found along a wide spectrum, it was by no means settled in the 19th century.
Church President Joseph F. Smith's 1918 vision recorded in section 138 of the Doctrine & Covenants seems to be a turning point. He saw "our glorious Mother Eve." Clearly not the world's first sinner.
Throughout the 20th century the idea of a Fortunate Fall evolved. Elder Oaks' talk "The Great Plan of Happiness" here is a good source for current understandings about the Fall. He calls Eve's actions "eternally a glorious necessity" and a "planned offense."
In Hugh Nibley's talk on "Patriarchy and Matriarchy" that I linked in the last post (here), he talks of Eve's initiative in taking that first step. Moreover, “There is no patriarchy or matriarchy in the Garden; the two supervise each other…and [are] just as dependent on each other.” Elder Oaks echoed Nibley's language of Eve's initiative, "It was Eve who first transgressed the limits of Eden in order to initiate the conditions of mortality. Her act, whatever its nature, was formally a transgression but eternally a glorious necessity to open the doorway toward eternal life. Adam showed his wisdom by doing the same. And thus Eve and 'Adam fell that men might be.'"
Thursday, January 23, 2014
Lesson 4 - "Because of My Transgression My Eyes Are Open" - Part 1 the Hebrew
I believe the creation, the fall, and the atonement are the three most important parts of the plan of salvation. This is why we get them again and again, from multiple sources. None of them are complete. The garden myth is one of our founding stories that I think takes the work of a lifetime to understand.
The manual's lesson is mainly citing to Moses, but PLEASE go to a source like net.bible.org and look at translation issues. We desperately need some Hebrew here to deal with some of the issues in the Creation narrative. The KJV translators clearly embedded some of their 17th century bias into the text, perhaps particularly here.
The manual's lesson is mainly citing to Moses, but PLEASE go to a source like net.bible.org and look at translation issues. We desperately need some Hebrew here to deal with some of the issues in the Creation narrative. The KJV translators clearly embedded some of their 17th century bias into the text, perhaps particularly here.
Just a few helpful articles to think about the Garden:
Jolene Edmunds Rockwood "Eve's Role in the Creation and the Fall to Mortality" from Women and the Power Within, (Salt Lake City:Deseret Book, 1991), p. 49-62.
Hugh Nibley, "Patriarchy and Matriarchy" from BYU Women's Conference, 1 February 1980.
What the KJV translates as helpmeet is what I personally consider one of the most problematic translations here that actually affects my life.
The Hebrew expression ×›ְּ× ֶ×’ְדּוֹ (kÿnegdo) literally means “according to the opposite of him.” Translations such as “suitable [for]” (NASB, NIV), “matching,” “corresponding to” all capture the idea. (Translations that render the phrase simply “partner” [cf. NEB, NRSV], while not totally inaccurate, do not reflect the nuance of correspondence and/or suitability.) The man’s form and nature are matched by the woman’s as she reflects him and complements him. Together they correspond. In short, this prepositional phrase indicates that she has everything that God had invested in him. (This comes from the translation note at Genesis 2:16 from net.bible.org)
A further argument from an actual Hebrew scholar as to why helpmeet is a ridiculous translation and that "a power equal to man" or "a power equal to him" is much better. Hershel Shanks, ed. "Woman, A Power Equal to Man," Biblical Archeology Review, 9:1 (Jan/Feb 1983).
All of these sources above are rather old school, but still yield some useful insights. For something a little more contemporary here is my friend Ben's helpful and much more in depth take on the lesson.
Monday, December 30, 2013
On we move to the Old Testament for Gospel Doctrine...
I've been trying to decide if I'm going to continue the blog into next year. I'm trying to finish up my thesis (PhD) in the next month or so and I will be released from my calling when I move back to the states, so it remains to be seen how I move forward.... Plus, I've only taken a single introductory Hebrew Bible class. This is clearly not my area of expertise. But I do have a few initial suggestions that might help in the year that follows.
My friend Ben Spackman has compiled a great list of resources for timesandseasons here.
To echo a lot of what Ben says--There is much that separates us from the Hebrew Bible--language and culture begin the list. There is a chasm between us. The King James Translation of the Bible uses antiquated language that likewise separates us even further. (English speaking Mormons will probably continue to stick with the KJV in church services due to a LDS adhesion to sacred language rather than switching to a more modern translation. I don't see that changing.) Despite this, we can benefit from the nuances and explanations offered with different translations. I would urge you to enlarge your study of the Old Testament with more than one translation--and I'm not referring to the JST, remember that wasn't a translation from the original Hebrew--that was Joseph as revelator. Ben notes net.bible.org as a great online resource to compare several different translations and the reasoning behind the translations. And it is free. Try the parallel columns. Very cool.
I also really like the Oxford Annotated Bible which includes illuminating essays--I used this in Divinity School for both the New and Old Testaments. In the opinion of some of my Hebrew Bible friends, the Deseret Book published Richard Holzaphel and friends' Jehovah and the World of the Old Testament is one of the better Old Testament references they have published. I like it. And you can get the ebook version with their Deseret Bookshelf app. I also think that Kevin Barney's essay from Dialogue here on Latter-day Saints and the documentary hypothesis is really useful to begin to think about higher biblical criticism.
Whatever you choose, do something. Something. Lately, I've been reading a lot of 19th century anti-Mormon criticism that the problem with Mormons was that they relied too much on the Old Testament--clearly that is no longer the case. It might take some effort, but generally things that require more effort are really more valuable in the long run.
My friend Ben Spackman has compiled a great list of resources for timesandseasons here.
To echo a lot of what Ben says--There is much that separates us from the Hebrew Bible--language and culture begin the list. There is a chasm between us. The King James Translation of the Bible uses antiquated language that likewise separates us even further. (English speaking Mormons will probably continue to stick with the KJV in church services due to a LDS adhesion to sacred language rather than switching to a more modern translation. I don't see that changing.) Despite this, we can benefit from the nuances and explanations offered with different translations. I would urge you to enlarge your study of the Old Testament with more than one translation--and I'm not referring to the JST, remember that wasn't a translation from the original Hebrew--that was Joseph as revelator. Ben notes net.bible.org as a great online resource to compare several different translations and the reasoning behind the translations. And it is free. Try the parallel columns. Very cool.
I also really like the Oxford Annotated Bible which includes illuminating essays--I used this in Divinity School for both the New and Old Testaments. In the opinion of some of my Hebrew Bible friends, the Deseret Book published Richard Holzaphel and friends' Jehovah and the World of the Old Testament is one of the better Old Testament references they have published. I like it. And you can get the ebook version with their Deseret Bookshelf app. I also think that Kevin Barney's essay from Dialogue here on Latter-day Saints and the documentary hypothesis is really useful to begin to think about higher biblical criticism.
Whatever you choose, do something. Something. Lately, I've been reading a lot of 19th century anti-Mormon criticism that the problem with Mormons was that they relied too much on the Old Testament--clearly that is no longer the case. It might take some effort, but generally things that require more effort are really more valuable in the long run.
Sunday, December 29, 2013
Lesson 46 - "Zion--The Pure in Heart"
I have been remiss with posting on this lesson, but I did finally teach it today and am feeling like I should round out the year, even if no one reads it. :) I think it is a nice wrap-up of the Doctrine and Covenants and nicely turns us to the Old Testament. I don't have any particular historical articles to give addition context here, but I think careful reading of the scriptural text is essential.
In my class we started with Hebrews 11, particularly the examples of Abraham and Sarah in verses 8-16. Abraham and Sarah were both made promises by the Lord. Sarah had to wait a very long time for the promise of a child to be fulfilled--she was possibly past 90, so a really long time by our standards. Abraham saw his two sons being born, but was not around for his posterity to number as the sands of the sea. The chapter focuses on those who "saw the promises" of God "afar off" and believed and waited for the heavenly city--Zion.
Zion is mentioned frequently in the biblical text, but generally Latter-day Saints rely on Joseph's revelation recorded in the book of Moses for the requirements of this heavenly city. Scripture offers three examples of physical locations of Zion.
The first example is in Genesis 5:24 "Enoch walked with God; and then he was not; for God took him." The biblical text doesn't offer much more, but Joseph took a scant 6 verses in the biblical text that mentioned Enoch and revealed an additional 116 verses about Enoch in November and December of 1830. Enoch's city--the City of Holiness in scripture--became Zion and then was translated because they were of one heart and one mind, they dwelt in righteousness, and there were no poor (Moses 7:18). These are the requirements for the physical location of Zion.
The JST of Genesis 14:32-36 teaches that Melchesidek also established Zion with his people. From the Book of Mormon we have the example of the Nephites after the coming of Christ to the New World recorded in 4th Nephi.
The first mention of Zion in the Doctrine and Covenants is section 6 in April 1829 giving Oliver Cowdery the task of bringing forth the cause of Zion. (Sections 11, 12, and 14 verse 6 likewise offer similar injunctions--divine form letters.)
The idea of Zion is initially very vague, the Lord tells Joseph and the Saints initially that it will be on the borders by the Lamanites--so somewhere to the western frontier. That gets more specific over time until it is revealed in Section 57 that Independence, Missouri would be the center place of Zion. We discussed a smattering of scriptures as the Lord begins to outline what is required of the Saints in Zion: 38:27; 64:22-24, 33-34; 82:14-20; and some parts of 97:8-28 particularly 8, 19, and 21. This list outlines the second definition of Zion--a spiritual state. The idea od Zion is always closely related to the Law of Consecration and the temple. Despite the more obvious atrocities of the Jackson county citizens in 1833, the failure of the Saints there as outlined by the Lord also gives us some things to think about: 101:1-9 and 105:1-12.
Verse 10 of Section 105 notes that part of the reason to put off the redemption of Zion (remember this is when Zion's camp is about to enter Jackson County) is that the Saints be taught more perfectly. Part of the fault of the Saints in Jackson County was that they thought that the Lord would just give them Zion, they did not understand their responsibility in becoming a people of one mind and one heart--a people who might create Zion. The process takes polishing and refining.
If we feel overwhelmed by this responsibility to build Zion, to be Zion, I think the example of Enoch is a lovely example. He thought himself unequal to the task before him--he was "but a lad" he thought "al the people" hated him for he was "slow of speech." The Lord responded to Enoch, "Go forth and do as I have commanded thee, and no man shall pierce thee. Open thy mouth, and it shall be filled, and I will give thee utterance, for all flesh is in my hands, and I will do as seemeth me good." (Moses 6:31-32)
Additionally, I like Elder Bednar's use of these verses in his October 2004 talk (as he was called to be a member of the Twelve): "For all of us who feel unprepared and overwhelmed and unequal to a new calling or responsibility, the promise of the Lord to Enoch is equally applicable. The promise was true in Enoch’s day, and it is true today." (The whole talk is here.) I also really like this tidbit from Elder Maxwell republished in the New Era in February 2002: "Enoch knew that in responding to God the test is not our capability but our availability. As did Enoch, you must trust the Lord; if you are righteous, His purposes will be served." Elder Maxwell also wrote a book, initially titled Of One Heart and then later republished under the title Enoch's Letters. Mimicking the style that C.S. Lewis used in the Screwtape Letters, Elder Maxwell imagines letters between Majiah, a resident of the City of Enoch, and his friend Omner living outside the city. The letters are one-sided as presumably Omner's letters were translated with Majiah and the rest of the City. I think the exercise offers much for thought. The discussion of Zion can be academic, but I think it is only really effective when it becomes about who we are and how we might become one.
Had I seen this before I taught this lesson, I might have used this new Church History video.
Dutch po-ta-toes and becoming one.
In my class we started with Hebrews 11, particularly the examples of Abraham and Sarah in verses 8-16. Abraham and Sarah were both made promises by the Lord. Sarah had to wait a very long time for the promise of a child to be fulfilled--she was possibly past 90, so a really long time by our standards. Abraham saw his two sons being born, but was not around for his posterity to number as the sands of the sea. The chapter focuses on those who "saw the promises" of God "afar off" and believed and waited for the heavenly city--Zion.
Zion is mentioned frequently in the biblical text, but generally Latter-day Saints rely on Joseph's revelation recorded in the book of Moses for the requirements of this heavenly city. Scripture offers three examples of physical locations of Zion.
The first example is in Genesis 5:24 "Enoch walked with God; and then he was not; for God took him." The biblical text doesn't offer much more, but Joseph took a scant 6 verses in the biblical text that mentioned Enoch and revealed an additional 116 verses about Enoch in November and December of 1830. Enoch's city--the City of Holiness in scripture--became Zion and then was translated because they were of one heart and one mind, they dwelt in righteousness, and there were no poor (Moses 7:18). These are the requirements for the physical location of Zion.
The JST of Genesis 14:32-36 teaches that Melchesidek also established Zion with his people. From the Book of Mormon we have the example of the Nephites after the coming of Christ to the New World recorded in 4th Nephi.
The first mention of Zion in the Doctrine and Covenants is section 6 in April 1829 giving Oliver Cowdery the task of bringing forth the cause of Zion. (Sections 11, 12, and 14 verse 6 likewise offer similar injunctions--divine form letters.)
The idea of Zion is initially very vague, the Lord tells Joseph and the Saints initially that it will be on the borders by the Lamanites--so somewhere to the western frontier. That gets more specific over time until it is revealed in Section 57 that Independence, Missouri would be the center place of Zion. We discussed a smattering of scriptures as the Lord begins to outline what is required of the Saints in Zion: 38:27; 64:22-24, 33-34; 82:14-20; and some parts of 97:8-28 particularly 8, 19, and 21. This list outlines the second definition of Zion--a spiritual state. The idea od Zion is always closely related to the Law of Consecration and the temple. Despite the more obvious atrocities of the Jackson county citizens in 1833, the failure of the Saints there as outlined by the Lord also gives us some things to think about: 101:1-9 and 105:1-12.
Verse 10 of Section 105 notes that part of the reason to put off the redemption of Zion (remember this is when Zion's camp is about to enter Jackson County) is that the Saints be taught more perfectly. Part of the fault of the Saints in Jackson County was that they thought that the Lord would just give them Zion, they did not understand their responsibility in becoming a people of one mind and one heart--a people who might create Zion. The process takes polishing and refining.
If we feel overwhelmed by this responsibility to build Zion, to be Zion, I think the example of Enoch is a lovely example. He thought himself unequal to the task before him--he was "but a lad" he thought "al the people" hated him for he was "slow of speech." The Lord responded to Enoch, "Go forth and do as I have commanded thee, and no man shall pierce thee. Open thy mouth, and it shall be filled, and I will give thee utterance, for all flesh is in my hands, and I will do as seemeth me good." (Moses 6:31-32)
Additionally, I like Elder Bednar's use of these verses in his October 2004 talk (as he was called to be a member of the Twelve): "For all of us who feel unprepared and overwhelmed and unequal to a new calling or responsibility, the promise of the Lord to Enoch is equally applicable. The promise was true in Enoch’s day, and it is true today." (The whole talk is here.) I also really like this tidbit from Elder Maxwell republished in the New Era in February 2002: "Enoch knew that in responding to God the test is not our capability but our availability. As did Enoch, you must trust the Lord; if you are righteous, His purposes will be served." Elder Maxwell also wrote a book, initially titled Of One Heart and then later republished under the title Enoch's Letters. Mimicking the style that C.S. Lewis used in the Screwtape Letters, Elder Maxwell imagines letters between Majiah, a resident of the City of Enoch, and his friend Omner living outside the city. The letters are one-sided as presumably Omner's letters were translated with Majiah and the rest of the City. I think the exercise offers much for thought. The discussion of Zion can be academic, but I think it is only really effective when it becomes about who we are and how we might become one.
Had I seen this before I taught this lesson, I might have used this new Church History video.
Dutch po-ta-toes and becoming one.
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Lesson 45 - “The Family Is Ordained of God”
The text for this week is the Family Proclamation. My goal is to focus on the Proclamation historically. So my class will talk about the status of the proclamation and some of the scripture and history behind some of the text of the Proclamation.
I think President Hinckley and President Harold B. Lee's words here are really important.
Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.
Firstly, the Proclamation is not Scripture. (Notice the captial S and our discussion of canonical scripture with section 68:3-4.) It was presented at the Relief Society General Meeting in 1995, but was not voted on. As such has never been approved by the law of common consent and officially entered into our canon--people pasting it in their scriptures aside. That is not to say it is not inspired, important, nor to say it isn't useful, but it is not part of the canon--in LDS parlance: our standard works. A proclamation has a different status than an official declaration.
So let's begin our brief dissection--our exegesis.
WE, THE FIRST PRESIDENCY and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.
131:1-4 Places marriage as a requisite for the highest level of the celestial kingdom. If that is the goal, then marriage is essential. Verse 4 likewise introduces the concept of eternal increase with that only being possible in that highest kingdom.
ALL HUMAN BEINGS—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny.
Mormons take this very literally, this is not merely euphemistic. Doctrine and Covenants 20: 18 is one example: "He (God) created man, male and female, after his own image and in his own likeness, created he them." Very similar to Genesis 1:27 (which we'll get to talk about soon). If both males and females are literally created in the image of God, perhaps the next sentence aids in how we discuss God in this context. Heavenly parents = a Heavenly Mother and a Heavenly Father. Perhaps God in this context is a Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother sealed up together as one. However you want to think about it, Mormons are pretty literal in terms of Heavenly Parents endowing us with the same potential that they have.
We don't talk about our Heavenly Mother much. And sometimes regrettably it is in hushed tones. We will spend time in my class with David Paulsen and Martin Pulido's important article historically outlining Mormon ideas of a Mother in Heaven here. Or here. I don't think there is a need for hushed tones, we just need to know what we're talking about. This article goes to great lengths to do that.
In 1909 in the midst of widespread questions of evolution the First Presidency gave "A Statement on the Origin of Man" republished here. This is not the last statement of LDS doctrine regarding religion and science. If you are wondering about the compatibility of LDS doctrine and evolution (or if you think they are not compatible) please listen to these two podcasts by Steve Peck, evolutionary biology professor at BYU, here and here. Steve very eloquently discusses the historical context and the possibilities.
I think President Hinckley and President Harold B. Lee's words here are really important.
President Hinckley: What the church requires is only belief 'that
Adam was the first man of what we would call the human race.' Scientists can
speculate on the rest. [Gordon B. Hinckley cited in Elaine Jarvik, "Beliefs on Darwin's evolution very from religion to religion." Deseret Morning News 19 January 2006.]
President Lee:
Perhaps if we had the full story of the creation
of the earth and man told to us in great detail, it would be more of a mystery
than the simple few statements that we have contained in the Bible, because of
our lack of ability to comprehend. Therefore, for reasons best known to the
Lord, He has kept us in darkness. Wait until the Lord speaks, or wait until
that day when He shall come, and when we shall be among the privileged either
to come up out of our graves and be caught up into the clouds of heaven or
shall be living upon the earth likewise to be so translated before Him. Then we
shall know all things pertaining to this earth, how it was made, and all things
that now as children we are groping for and trying to understand.
Let's reserve judgment as to the facts
concerning the Creation until we know these things for sure. [Harold B. Lee, Teachings of Harold B. Lee (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1996), 29.]
Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.
Academically I would argue that gender is historically constructed--you would think that different things were manly or feminine whether you were born in the 19th century, early 20th century or early 21st century. I believe that the proclamation uses gender as a synonym for for biological sex.
IN THE PREMORTAL REALM, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshipped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize their divine destiny as heirs of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.
Here we talked about premortal life (notice the move away from pre-existence). Section 76 & Moses 4 & the end of Abraham 3. We could further discuss quite a bit of Section 84 (and 88), but particularly 84:20-21. "In the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest." Ordinances open up the possibility of really our eternal potential as daughters and sons of a Heavenly Mother and Heavenly Father. The ordinances teach us about godliness, or how to be like our Heavenly Parents. This is what Moses tried to teach the Children of Israel (v23-25)--Moses tried to get them to go up the mountain with him. They chose to stay on the flat ground with a God they could see and touch and got the lesser law--the ten commandments instead of receiving the ordinances with the "key to the knowledge of God"--the way to return to the presence of God.
There is so much more that could be discussed (and hopefully go beyond perhaps the same discussion you've heard before.)
Section 130: 2 "That same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy." For Mormons family is the structure in mortality and in eternity. These relationships matter.
If you want to talk about chastity please use Elder Holland's "Souls, Symbols, and Sacraments" here.
If you want to talk about "equal partners" recognize that this is fairly new vocabulary. (Hallelujah for it.) It was first used in General Conference by Aileen Clyde in 1993 here and has been used repeatedly since then. Here's the rundown of times it has been taught over the General Conference pulpit.
For me the phrase "other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation" is central to any discussion to the Family Proclamation. This talks about general principles, it is up to us as individuals to use the Spirit to decide what it means to us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)