Of Intellects and Apologetics. A bit on church politics and contention

Many know of the recent shift and turn-around the Maxwell Institute just took. There are many in the Mormon intellectual and apologetic community who are outraged. If you are unsure of what happened, here is a brief rundown: Daniel C. Peterson, BYU Professor and highly regarded expert in Islamic studies, was recently let go from his position in the Mormon Studies Review (formerly FARMS Review). The decision was rumored out before it was made and Brother Peterson unfortunately stumbled across some leaked emails before he was properly informed. The emails had made it to an anti-Mormon website. So the decision was no surprise to Brother Peterson who, understandably, was quite insulted and hurt by the whole thing.

I am not in the business of saying who is right and who is wrong and what decision the Maxwell Institute should go. I certainly think that Mormon Scholarship is evolving into something really important and the Maxwell Institute needs to keep up with it.

Here are a few of my concerns with it:

CONCERN NO. 1: How did an anti-Mormon website get it so quick? It is one thing that the emails leaked, but the fact that the antagonists have gotten so quickly makes me wonder who leaked it and to whom did they leak the information? I do not mind having "skeptics" or non-believers working on LDS Academia; however, it is a bit concerning if they are out-and-out antagonists to the religion.

CONCERN NO. 2: Why are some people using this to discredit the work of Brother Peterson and others who have gone before him? There are websites out there attempting to discredit Hugh Nibley's work and paint Daniel C. Peterson as a bad person. What makes it more alarming is that these websites are from people who are members of the Church! I do not agree with it.

What I fear is that many who have the capacity and capability to think critically and help bolster the image of the Church are attempting to come into "intellectual" league with our anti-Mormon counter-community. Many in the anti-Mormon community seem to be more "enlightened" and intellectual than the Daniel Petersons and Hugh Nibleys so people try to follow suit with them.

I mention that is a fear because one cannot fight fire with fire in the sphere of gospel topics. I will give one prime example: There was an A.P. on my mission who was amazing at countering anti-Mormon doctrine. We were in the heart of the anti-Mormon community. More literature opposing the Church came from our mission than any other one area in the world. He was good. No one could defeat him. Except himself. As good as he was, it was not good enough to encounter it all the time without being negatively affected. He now is one of those who works tirelessly to oppose the Church. No amount of Bible-bash defeats was worth losing him.

CONCERN NO. 3: On the flip side of concern no. 2, why are members so concerned and caught up with how the scholarship is approached? This may be why the Maxwell Institute is taking a new approach. Too often members have sought this information and shifted their testimony based on prayer, fasting,etc... and relied on this.

If a testimony is not nourished, it will fail. And in the world of testimony-nourishment, scientific proof is akin to empty calories: it tastes good, but yields no real growth. We have to stop trying to bear our testimonies with the concluding words: "There is no way Joseph Smith could have known that!" As odd as it seems, spiritual witness is much more concrete than physical. Many religions can boast about tangible witnesses, miracles, and archeological evidence; however, it is a rare thing to have a church confidently tell it's investigators, "You can pray and know for yourself..."

CONCERN NO. 4: My final and most alarming concern is the overwhelming divisiveness this is yielding. Furthermore, with as many pseudonyms as are floating around (and remember, Elder Quentin L. Cook warned us of these hidden identities) there is a chance that these bickering siblings in the gospel worship side-by-side in the Temple. There is an overwhelming feeling of contention. There should be a consensus and unity amongst those who are professing and discussing their faith. It seems that the antagonists to our faith are more unified at times than we are. Furthermore, many scholars seem to disagree about many things within the Church but can still act civilly to one another.

So why does this concern me?

Because as a Church we need to be unified ourselves. We cannot stand together on speculative ground. We cannot stand together on Church ground and have such diatribe towards one another. It is the Devil's doctrine. We can, however, continue to offer insights and promote gospel study civilly. Truth will not come about as result of endless fighting and finger-pointing.

I mention these concerns so that we can simply be unified in the faith. Do not retard the growth of Zion because you cannot be of one heart and one mind.

What is the purpose of life? My thoughts as a new father. A Funeral Sermon-part III

I remember as a missionary talking about how we had the answer to the most important and sacred questions. Among them, "what is the purpose of life?" would be a common one for missionaries to prepare to answer. I was always geared up to give a discourse from 2 Nephi chapter 2 on this important topic. I thought for sure I had the complete and full answer. I have realized more and more that my understanding was pretty limited. 2 Nephi chapter 2 was not limited by any means. In fact, it is replete with details to this soul-searching question. I would always tell people that the purpose of life is to learn good from evil as Adam and Eve had through their own personal fall. I would then explain that we likewise, though not through the same avenue, chose to have a personal fall from the presence of God in order that we could return with glory and honor. We chose to come to earth and be tested. I would extract this from 2 Nephi 2:25-27. I basically had it memorized; however, what I failed to do was look at the entirety of the context:


First of all, Lehi is speaking to his child. This is an important detail. I think I should have allowed the sermon to speak for itself in its entirety. I think of particular importance is verse 23. Lehi states, "And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence having no joy, for they knew no misery..." The first part of that is key because the fact that children bring joy almost seems like a common-doctrine to them: one that did not need a lot of emphasis. He simply states "And they would have had no children" as if that phrase alone signaled to his children the importance of the fall.


Furthermore, they would have had the Adam and Eve story in its fullest. They would have known that God commanded Adam and Eve to have children. I knew that having children was important but I never realized that this was a central purpose to life. I would always say "the purpose of life is to choose good over evil in the midst of temptation so that we may be more righteous and qualify to become like God the Father."


I realize now that children are an integral part of the plan. I remember hearing our sealer make the same bold command to my wife and I that was given to Adam and Eve. Then later, while studying on my roles as a patriarch in my home I stumbled across President Kimball's first General Conference address as the Prophet of the Church. He read an excerpt from a First Presidency message given in 1942 (think about the time-period they were giving this in!). That message was simply titled "Parenthood" and reads, in part:


"Motherhood thus becomes a holy calling, a sacred dedication for carrying out the Lord's plans, a consecration of devotion to this uprearing and fostering, the nurturing in body, mind, and spirit, of those who kept their first estate and who come to this earth for their second estate ' to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them' (Abr 3:23.) To lead them to 'keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads forever and ever.'


"This divine service of motherhood can be rendered only mothers. It may not be passed to others. Nurses cannot do it; public nurseries cannot do it; hired help cannot do it--only mother, aided as much as may be by the loving hands of father, brothers, and sisters, can give the full needed measure of watchful care. 


"The mother who entrusts her child to the care of others, that she may do non-motherly work, whether for gold, for fame, or for civic service should remember that 'a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame (Prov. 29:15.) In our day the Lord has said that unless parents teach their children the doctrines of the Church 'the sin be upon the heads of the parents.' (D&C 68:25.)


Motherhood is near to Divinity. It is the highest, holiest service to be assumed by mankind. It places her who honors its holy calling and service next to the angels. To you mothers in Israel we say, God bless and protect you, and give you the strength and courage, the faith and knowledge, the holy love and consecration to duty, that shall enable you to fill to the fullest measure the sacred calling which is yours. To you mothers and mothers-to-be we say: Be chaste, keep pure, live righteously, that your posterity to the last generation may call you blessed." ("Message of the First Presidency" Deseret News Weekly Church Edition, October 1942, p. 5.)

Brigham Lloyd Brown--May 31st, 2012

Recently I became a father to my first. We thought we were having a little girl (hence why my blog intro said "soon-to-be father to a baby girl"). When the baby was born I had an overwhelming sense of love and devotion to him. It seemed like only minutes had passed and I already knew about him. It was odd to even ever think that we were expecting a girl. Even today when I mention it, I feel awkward saying it because it is literally impossible to imagine it any other way.


So, how come I relate this to the "funeral sermon" or the "King Follet Discourse"? Because when Joseph Smith states "Here, then, is eternal life--to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn to become gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you...they shall be joint-heirs with Jesus Christ. What is it? To inherit the same power, the same glory, and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a God, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before. What did Jesus do? Why; I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds come rolling into existence. My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to my Father, so that He may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt him in glory."


In other words, our exaltation and inheritance come as a result of the success of our children. If no children brought their own kingdom to Christ's gospel, then it would not allow the Father to advance in his own glory. We will never be co-equal with God as some faiths allege; however, we can inherit that same glory that he has.


As a Father this makes much more sense. I cannot envision a Father who would not want his children to have absolute joy and success equal or more than he has. I want for Brigham (my new little boy) to have more opportunity and greater happiness than I have ever experienced. Note that I want him to have more! The Father, realizing that he has reached the maximum potential, wants for us to enjoy all that he now enjoys: maximum blessings. As a parent I have learned to a greater degree the nature of my Heavenly Father."


And this is how we "learn to become gods". It is through parenthood that we can have eternal increase (see D&C 131) and everlasting joy.


This is the end of "The Funeral Sermon" blogging; however, I would suggest that one would read it and become familiar with the doctrines contained therein.