Greek: Οὐδεὶς δύναται δυσὶ κυρίοις δουλεύειν· ἢ γὰρ τὸν ἕνα μισήσει καὶ τὸν ἕτερον ἀγαπήσει, ἢἑνὸς ἀνθέξεται καὶ τοῦ ἑτέρου καταφρονήσει· οὐ δύνασθε θεῷ δουλεύειν καὶ μαμωνᾷ.

My Translation: No one can serve two masters; for either one he will hate and another he will love, or he will hold to one and despise another; y'all cannot be a slave to both God and mammon. [Mammon is the Aramaic word “mmôn” copied directly into the Greek as “mamonas” and means “riches”.]

KJV: No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

My translations are purposefully stretched and should not be viewed as more accurate than the KJV translation unless I say so in the post. I'm trying to show the range lying between the] original Greek text and the English.

Update May 2013

This scripture has been removed by the Church Educational System from the Scripture Mastery list. However, it had remained within this list for over two decades and as such is still familiar to many graduates of the LDS Church's Seminary program. So I'm keeping this exploration of it online, but it is no longer applicable to CES.

Ah yes, God and Mammon. Can't serve both. It's a very Matthean approach, as the author of Matthew is very much concerned with issues of serving God and keeping the Torah and thus emphasizing the stories and teachings of Jesus that further this goal. Very much in line with the issues of 1st Century Judaism, Matthew presents the message of Jesus and service to God in opposition to the pursuit of wealth. Judaism and early Christianity were very focused on the needs of the poor and lower classes of society (indeed, for the first few centuries of the Christian movement, most Jesus followers were themselves poor and members of the lower classes of classical society). Matthew's very Jewish perspective is thus very much in line with this verse.

What is interesting about this scripture is how it usually gets applied with Latter-day Saints. Latter-day Saints are an apocalyptic Church. That's not a slur or a smear (indeed, Christianity itself grew out of apocalyptic Judaism and many strands of Christianity today are still apocalyptic in their viewpoint), but rather just a short-hand way of saying that their theological point of view is one of apocalypticism: the idea that God's justice upon an unjust world is quickly approaching and that soon all inequalities, the result of sin and evil, will be forcefully righted by the arrival of God's justice upon the world. For most apocalyptic societies, being on the very cusp of the approach of God's kingdom is associated with that kingdom beginning to “break through” into the world with visions, healings, and miracles. And since part of the message of the coming kingdom of God is that the arrival will be heralded by great violence upon the unjust world, the only way to escape that violence is to join with the kingdom before it arrives. This can produce a worldview of those who belong to the kingdom, the insiders, and everyone else, the outsiders, with an accompanying binary worldview of the world divided into those things that either are with God and his coming kingdom or with the world that stands ready to be destroyed.

This binary worldview produces the uncomfortable problem, however, of what are followers of God supposed to do before the Kingdom of God arrives? How are followers of God supposed to live in the midst of a world living on borrowed time? Scriptures like this scripture mastery scripture serve to help believers have the moral courage to stand with the apocalyptic society in those places where the needs of the society conflict with the fallen world. Whether or not we, as 21st Century people, should agree with this morality is a tough question.

From this point of view it should be plainly obvious why the original point of the scripture, that the pursuit of wealth and power is in opposition to being a follower of Jesus, has been extended for Mormons to mean more than just wealth. The following are three examples provided in the Seminary manual for youth to illustrate how Mormon youth are expected to view this scripture:

1. Michael (age 18) chose to have a job that requires him to work every Sunday so he can save money for his mission.
2. Donna (age 16) says she is doing missionary work by having a steady boyfriend who is not a member of the Church.
3. Brother Smith (age 35) pays tithing and extra fast offerings on the money he makes selling products in which he is not entirely honest with his customers.

Apart from the oddity of having to specify the ages of these fictional characters, the “mammon” in question is not always money. For the first two examples, the “mammon” in question are actions not in keeping with the expectations of the religious community: working a job on Sunday and having meaningful associations with those outside of the community. It's obvious that “mammon” as defined for Mormon youth is far more than the “riches” meant by the author of Matthew originally two thousand years ago. Of course, part of the reason for an apocalypticist like Matthew's Jesus to avoid riches is because riches belong to the rulers of the world, and the current rulers of the world are evil and will be overturned when the kingdom of God arrives. This is part of the reason why Jesus tells some people to sell all they have, give it to the poor, and their treasures will be in heaven. To find salvation, followers of Jesus need to reject this sinful and evil world that rules without justice. So this viewpoint of “Mammon” being the world, while technically incorrect, is not entirely without merit. However, for the apocalyptic Jesus this rejection of the world is far stronger than just not working on Sunday or dating a non- Mormon (seriously, this is a real issue for Seminary manual writers?!?), but in fact represents a complete rejection of the present world. The message of Jesus in Matthew is not usually “be in the world but not of the world” but is usually “reject the world entirely in preparation for the approaching kingdom of God”: indeed, you should even “take no thought what you should eat or drink.” Give up this world entirely and let your life be run fully upon God's mercy until he arrives and you are given a position of power and authority in his kingdom.

I personally think that a verse like this is a great example of how problematic the New Testament can be. It is an ancient book, written from a very different point of view than how we generally read it in the 21 Century. Unless you agree that the end of the world is fast approaching and that your behavior must include a rejection of wealth, power, influence, and the injustice of this evil world in order to receive a place in the coming Kingdom of God (you know, instead of just being a good person), then this verse can obviously provide some very damaging perspectives on life. We usually view the New Testament, and the Gospels in particular, as books full of ethical statements on how to treat our fellow humans. It is, but the reasons for such treatment are usually very different from what we might expect. If we assume that the teachings of the New Testament are meant for the 21st Century, we'll have a lot of difficulty resolving statements like God and Mammon, or how one must reject family to merit salvation in the Kingdom of God, or how Jesus is said to come to set father against son, mother against daughter. To me, this scripture is a good example of how I view the New Testament: like a pet python. Pythons are beautiful, exotic, fascinating, and a lot of fun. Yet they can also be dangerous if they are approached without any care for what they truly are. You don't play with and treat a python like a puppy. The New Testament is an artifact of history, and to ignore the context and apply it without serious thought can be dangerous. Do I agree that one cannot serve God and mammon? Personally, no, but to me the more problematic aspect is what these apocalyptic black and white scriptures can do to people who simply accept them uncritically and how they then interact with others in the world around them. The examples from the Seminary manual illustrate to me just how this sort of scripture can get in the way of just being a good, ethical person.

And I would be remiss if I didn't mention that the Church itself, as a corporate entity and not as individual members, has a huge problem in following this verse. As an incredibly large organization that charges itself with serving millions of active members worldwide and handling hundreds of millions of dollars of donated tithing for its operations, the LDS Church has adopted a corporate character similar to many large corporate companies. Producing manuals, videos, pamphlets, programs, and countless other goods and services requires paid employees, budgets, contracts, and all of the countless headaches that go along with it. The Church is in the uncomfortable position of often having to figure out how to serve God through the use of mammon, and frankly it doesn't always do a very good job at walking that line. Perhaps the statement of Matthew's Jesus is applicable today to the modern Church Office Building, but if so one wonders what the solution could be.

Why Do I Think This Is Part of Scripture Mastery?

To help enforce a binary view of life as a choice between obedience to God (represented in all examples as obedience to and activity in the Church) and the “world” (a word often used colloquially by Mormons to mean everything either non-Mormon or anti-Mormon, sometimes without distinction). By expanding the meaning of “mammon” beyond riches, youth are encouraged to keep all aspirations, employment, relationships, and choices within the bounds defined by the Church; because of this verse, they could easily be taught that doing so is the only way to honestly serve God.

#Mormon #ScriptureMasteryNT #AcademicBiblical

Greek: 15 λέγει αὐτοῖς· ὑμεῖς δὲ τίνα με λέγετε > εἶναι; 16 ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ Σίμων Πέτρος εἶπεν· σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος. 17 ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ· μακάριος εἶ, Σίμων Βαριωνᾶ, ὅτι σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα οὐκ ἀπεκάλυψέν σοι ἀλλ’ ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. 18 κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς. 19 δώσω σοι τὰς κλεῖδας τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται δεδεμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν λύσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται λελυμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.

My Translation: 15 He says to them, “But who do you > all say that I am?” 16 Yet Simon Peter answering said, “You are the christ, the son of the living god.” 17 And Jesus answering said to him, “You are happy, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not uncover this to you, but rather your father who is in the heavens. 18 And I myself also say to you, you are Petros [a stone], and upon this crag [petra] I will build my assembly, and the entrances of Hades will not overcome her. 19 And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of the heavens, and whatever if you might bind it on the earth it will be bound in the heavens, and whatever if you might loosen on the earth it will be loosened in the heavens.”

KJV: 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

My translations are purposefully stretched and should not be viewed as more accurate than the KJV translation unless I say so in the post. I'm trying to show the range lying between the original Greek text and the English.

Finally, three scriptures in and we hit a doozy! The keys of the kingdom, given to Peter, and the cryptic phrase, “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church”. A similar scripture is found in Mark, but in his editing of Mark, Matthew has added this statement of Jesus in response to Peter's declaration, that Jesus's church would be built on this rock (note that Peter's name means “rock”) and that Peter would be given the keys of the kingdom, all of which is absent in the original material of Mark.

The reason this is a doozy is because this scripture is viewed by many Christians, predominantly Catholics but also many Protestants, as the divine call for Peter to lead the church, while for Mormons it is viewed as a statement that the Church of Christ is built upon the foundation of revelation. It's an important distinction, and we'll take a look at it.

First, though, a few translation points. Again, remember that the translation I'm providing, while still correct, is by design a little strained. It's meant to show which words in the more-familiar King James translation have a wider meaning than the given English. One example is the word ecclesia, “church”. It literally means a gathering, or a group “called out”. And in Greek it would not have meant “church” as Mormons or Christians today use it. There are other examples of ecclesia in the Greek-speaking world, and it might make more sense to translate the word as “club”. Ecclesia weren't always religious in nature, but could be organized around cultural groups, philosophical groups, or political groups. Jesus saying, however, that his ecclesia would be built upon “this rock” (we'll get to that issue in a moment) is slightly out of character from the other gospels. Of the four Gospel-writers, only Matthew is particularly focused on this idea of Jesus's ecclesia. The word is used in Matthew's Sermon on the Mount and other places within his gospel, but is entirely absent in the other gospels. Matthew is also uniquely focused on the rules of a Christian community, with a focus, as we've discussed before, on the Jewish Torah. Whereas in other gospels Jesus presents a view of Torah as a code not always to be followed (or even followed at all), Matthew presents a view of Jesus where Torah and its observation is still supremely important for Jesus and his followers. Matthew's Jesus is the one who says that not one jot nor tittle of the law had been done away with.

Why does any of this matter? Because these books and these scriptures were not written in a vacuum. The books and letters of the New Testament had human authors, inspired though you may feel they were, and these authors did not always see eye to eye. By the time the Gospel of Matthew, as we have it today, was being produced there were already a number of different Christian communities throughout the eastern Roman Empire. We know this because the oldest Christian writings are not any of the Gospels, but are rather the letters of Paul, written to many of these various communities (and in fact, Matthew isn't even the first gospel to be written; Matthew makes extensive editorial use of the gospel of Mark in writing his gospel). And Paul presents a picture of Christian doctrine and practice quite different from what the author of Matthew presents.

We'll talk more about Paul when we reach his letters, but a short overview of his life is that he was born a Jew, was originally opposed to those who believed Jesus to be the Jewish Messiah, and had some sort of experience that changed his mind to also believe that Jesus has risen from the dead as the Messiah (recorded as a vision by the author of Luke, though Paul himself says very little about the experience). Paul's theological attempts to understand the significance and meaning of Jesus's death and apparent resurrection (Paul himself joined the movement long after the death of Jesus, but he believed as most Jesus followers did that Jesus literally died when he was executed and rose alive again after three days) helped him to reach some rather radical theological conclusions about the necessity of the Jewish Torah. As he relates in his letter to the Galatians, these ideas of his led him to occasionally clash with other Jesus followers, most famously against Simon Peter while he was visiting Jerusalem. Peter was observing Jewish purity practices about not eating meals with Gentiles, and Paul rebuked him for it. Many of Paul's letters provide details showing that this issue of whether Jesus followers, both Gentile and Jewish, should follow Torah was one of the major dividing issues among early Christians. They also show that many Christians of Paul's day appealed to the authority of various Christian leaders in support of their viewpoints. Some of Paul's opponents who apparently felt that followers of Jesus needed to observe Torah called themselves apostles, though whether these included any of the traditional apostles named in the Gospels is unknown.

So among these leaders, we know that the famous names of authority included Paul, Peter, and James (in fact, the Acts of the Apostles, the sequel to Luke, seems to give James narrative supremacy over Peter when the movement has to make decisions about Paul and the Gentiles). Given Peter's occasional opposition to Paul, it might be that this verse in Matthew represents the author's attempt to place Peter as a higher authority to Paul: not only was he among the original disciples of Jesus, but Jesus gave him “the keys of the kingdom”. This is only supposition, of course, and is not in any way a provable hypothesis.

This leads to the other issue at hand: the “rock” upon which the ecclesia is built. In the Greek, there is an undeniable relationship between the name Peter (“a stone”0 and the rock (“a crag, a cliff, a rock”). Something is implied by Matthew's Jesus in this phrase, and the issue is what that something might be. The traditional Catholic reading is that Jesus is making a pun, and that both rocks are the same: in other words, Jesus will built his ecclesia upon Peter. The tradtional Protestant reading is either the same as the Catholics, or that the foundation in question is Peter's faith in Jesus as the Messiah (not faith in general, but Peter's specific declaration that Jesus is the Christ).

The Mormon reading for this verse comes from some handwritten notes taken during a sermon given by Joseph Smith in 1843. In these notes, the author, Wilford Woodruff, records that Joseph asked, “And what is that rock?” with the answer, “The rock of revelation”. So for Joseph Smith the relationship between the two rocks is that Peter, the one rock, had received revelation from the Father in Heaven when he proclaimed that Jesus was the Messiah. This is the other rock, and the ecclesia was to be built upon this foundation of revelation, at least if this one reference represents Joseph's full feelings on the matter.

One aspect of this interpretation that is useful for Mormons is how it changes the interpretation of the next aspect of the verses: the reference to the gates of Hell. From a Mormon point of view, true Christian doctrine was lost soon after the death of the Apostles leading to a period of nearly two thousand years where God's authority and true teachings were not present on earth. This is called the Great Apostasy, and was ended in 1820 when Joseph Smith received what became known as his first vision. If Jesus's statement about how his church was founded upon the rock is referring to Peter, then Mormons have a problem, because they feel that the organization led by Peter, which eventually became the Catholic Church and many other churches from it, was overcome. What then of the statement of Jesus that the Church would not be prevailed against? Well, if the rock is instead a concept of revelation, then it's much easier to deal with the verse: God never took the ability for his children to be led by revelation away. So that rock has always remained.

Is there any foundation for the interpretation of the rock being revelation in the original Greek? Sorta, but if that was what was mean by Matthew's Jesus then it really isn't very clear. The statement uses two extremely similar words, begins with the declarative statement, “You are Peter” (which was not Peter's actual name; his name was Simon), and makes a connection based on this image of a rock upon which a structure can be built. Simon is a rock, and the ecclesia is built on a rock. If the relationship is more nuanced than a direct correlation then the text itself does a poor job of showing that nuanced relationship. The easiest reading, which doesn't automatically mean the most correct, would be that Matthew has Jesus saying that his ecclesia would be built upon Peter. But to imply that the Mormon reading is the only valid interpretation without some flavor of a relationship between Peter's authority (symbolized by receiving keys to the kingdom of heaven) and the building of a church upon a rock is silly.

Finally, what are we to make of the reference to Peter's ability to tie up tightly or loose on earth and in the heavens? Remember that for those with an apocalyptic worldview, the coming kingdom will violently overthrow the world. That is because it is a literal kingdom that is approaching (contrast this to the later Gospel of John, which tones down this “approaching” rhetoric when Jesus says things like “the Kingdom of God is among you”), and it will replace the evil powers currently controlling this world. And in that coming kingdom, those who have been oppressed will be lifted up. Total reversals will occur (go back and read the Beatitudes of Matthew 5 in this light and they make a lot of sense). Peter is being told that he is like a ruler in this world, and that his decisions here will stand and be ratified in the coming kingdom. Whatever, or indeed whoever, he ties up or frees will remain tied up or freed. This is language that is likened to the most powerful aspect of a ruler: the ability to lock up or the ability to pardon. The Mormon perception of the “sealing” power is similar to this viewpoint, however, in that Mormons view Peter being given authority here to make decisions with heavenly ramifications, except that for Mormons they feel that this power means that the decisions have immediate authority and application in heaven and not merely that these decisions will remain in force when a future heavenly kingdom arrives.

Why Do I Think This Is Part of Scripture Mastery?

In preparation for use of this scripture against their conception of a universal apostasy, Mormon youth are prepped with this verse and an alternate interpretation that preserves their viewpoint. This interpretation is a valid reading, but it is extremely difficult to parse and is not the easiest nor most likely reading.

#Mormon #ScriptureMasteryNT #AcademicBiblical

Greek: 15 λέγει αὐτοῖς· ὑμεῖς δὲ τίνα με λέγετε > εἶναι; 16 ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ Σίμων Πέτρος εἶπεν· σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος. 17 ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ· μακάριος εἶ, Σίμων Βαριωνᾶ, ὅτι σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα οὐκ ἀπεκάλυψέν σοι ἀλλ’ ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. 18 κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς. 19 δώσω σοι τὰς κλεῖδας τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται δεδεμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν λύσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται λελυμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.

My Translation: 15 He says to them, “But who do you > all say that I am?” 16 Yet Simon Peter answering said, “You are the christ, the son of the living god.” 17 And Jesus answering said to him, “You are happy, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not uncover this to you, but rather your father who is in the heavens. 18 And I myself also say to you, you are Petros [a stone], and upon this crag [petra] I will build my assembly, and the entrances of Hades will not overcome her. 19 And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of the heavens, and whatever if you might bind it on the earth it will be bound in the heavens, and whatever if you might loosen on the earth it will be loosened in the heavens.”

KJV: 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

My translations are purposefully stretched and should not be viewed as more accurate than the KJV translation unless I say so in the post. I'm trying to show the range lying between the original Greek text and the English.

Finally, three scriptures in and we hit a doozy! The keys of the kingdom, given to Peter, and the cryptic phrase, “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church”. A similar scripture is found in Mark, but in his editing of Mark, Matthew has added this statement of Jesus in response to Peter's declaration, that Jesus's church would be built on this rock (note that Peter's name means “rock”) and that Peter would be given the keys of the kingdom, all of which is absent in the original material of Mark.

The reason this is a doozy is because this scripture is viewed by many Christians, predominantly Catholics but also many Protestants, as the divine call for Peter to lead the church, while for Mormons it is viewed as a statement that the Church of Christ is built upon the foundation of revelation. It's an important distinction, and we'll take a look at it.

First, though, a few translation points. Again, remember that the translation I'm providing, while still correct, is by design a little strained. It's meant to show which words in the more-familiar King James translation have a wider meaning than the given English. One example is the word ecclesia, “church”. It literally means a gathering, or a group “called out”. And in Greek it would not have meant “church” as Mormons or Christians today use it. There are other examples of ecclesia in the Greek-speaking world, and it might make more sense to translate the word as “club”. Ecclesia weren't always religious in nature, but could be organized around cultural groups, philosophical groups, or political groups. Jesus saying, however, that his ecclesia would be built upon “this rock” (we'll get to that issue in a moment) is slightly out of character from the other gospels. Of the four Gospel-writers, only Matthew is particularly focused on this idea of Jesus's ecclesia. The word is used in Matthew's Sermon on the Mount and other places within his gospel, but is entirely absent in the other gospels. Matthew is also uniquely focused on the rules of a Christian community, with a focus, as we've discussed before, on the Jewish Torah. Whereas in other gospels Jesus presents a view of Torah as a code not always to be followed (or even followed at all), Matthew presents a view of Jesus where Torah and its observation is still supremely important for Jesus and his followers. Matthew's Jesus is the one who says that not one jot nor tittle of the law had been done away with.

Why does any of this matter? Because these books and these scriptures were not written in a vacuum. The books and letters of the New Testament had human authors, inspired though you may feel they were, and these authors did not always see eye to eye. By the time the Gospel of Matthew, as we have it today, was being produced there were already a number of different Christian communities throughout the eastern Roman Empire. We know this because the oldest Christian writings are not any of the Gospels, but are rather the letters of Paul, written to many of these various communities (and in fact, Matthew isn't even the first gospel to be written; Matthew makes extensive editorial use of the gospel of Mark in writing his gospel). And Paul presents a picture of Christian doctrine and practice quite different from what the author of Matthew presents.

We'll talk more about Paul when we reach his letters, but a short overview of his life is that he was born a Jew, was originally opposed to those who believed Jesus to be the Jewish Messiah, and had some sort of experience that changed his mind to also believe that Jesus has risen from the dead as the Messiah (recorded as a vision by the author of Luke, though Paul himself says very little about the experience). Paul's theological attempts to understand the significance and meaning of Jesus's death and apparent resurrection (Paul himself joined the movement long after the death of Jesus, but he believed as most Jesus followers did that Jesus literally died when he was executed and rose alive again after three days) helped him to reach some rather radical theological conclusions about the necessity of the Jewish Torah. As he relates in his letter to the Galatians, these ideas of his led him to occasionally clash with other Jesus followers, most famously against Simon Peter while he was visiting Jerusalem. Peter was observing Jewish purity practices about not eating meals with Gentiles, and Paul rebuked him for it. Many of Paul's letters provide details showing that this issue of whether Jesus followers, both Gentile and Jewish, should follow Torah was one of the major dividing issues among early Christians. They also show that many Christians of Paul's day appealed to the authority of various Christian leaders in support of their viewpoints. Some of Paul's opponents who apparently felt that followers of Jesus needed to observe Torah called themselves apostles, though whether these included any of the traditional apostles named in the Gospels is unknown.

So among these leaders, we know that the famous names of authority included Paul, Peter, and James (in fact, the Acts of the Apostles, the sequel to Luke, seems to give James narrative supremacy over Peter when the movement has to make decisions about Paul and the Gentiles). Given Peter's occasional opposition to Paul, it might be that this verse in Matthew represents the author's attempt to place Peter as a higher authority to Paul: not only was he among the original disciples of Jesus, but Jesus gave him “the keys of the kingdom”. This is only supposition, of course, and is not in any way a provable hypothesis.

This leads to the other issue at hand: the “rock” upon which the ecclesia is built. In the Greek, there is an undeniable relationship between the name Peter (“a stone”0 and the rock (“a crag, a cliff, a rock”). Something is implied by Matthew's Jesus in this phrase, and the issue is what that something might be. The traditional Catholic reading is that Jesus is making a pun, and that both rocks are the same: in other words, Jesus will built his ecclesia upon Peter. The tradtional Protestant reading is either the same as the Catholics, or that the foundation in question is Peter's faith in Jesus as the Messiah (not faith in general, but Peter's specific declaration that Jesus is the Christ).

The Mormon reading for this verse comes from some handwritten notes taken during a sermon given by Joseph Smith in 1843. In these notes, the author, Wilford Woodruff, records that Joseph asked, “And what is that rock?” with the answer, “The rock of revelation”. So for Joseph Smith the relationship between the two rocks is that Peter, the one rock, had received revelation from the Father in Heaven when he proclaimed that Jesus was the Messiah. This is the other rock, and the ecclesia was to be built upon this foundation of revelation, at least if this one reference represents Joseph's full feelings on the matter.

One aspect of this interpretation that is useful for Mormons is how it changes the interpretation of the next aspect of the verses: the reference to the gates of Hell. From a Mormon point of view, true Christian doctrine was lost soon after the death of the Apostles leading to a period of nearly two thousand years where God's authority and true teachings were not present on earth. This is called the Great Apostasy, and was ended in 1820 when Joseph Smith received what became known as his first vision. If Jesus's statement about how his church was founded upon the rock is referring to Peter, then Mormons have a problem, because they feel that the organization led by Peter, which eventually became the Catholic Church and many other churches from it, was overcome. What then of the statement of Jesus that the Church would not be prevailed against? Well, if the rock is instead a concept of revelation, then it's much easier to deal with the verse: God never took the ability for his children to be led by revelation away. So that rock has always remained.

Is there any foundation for the interpretation of the rock being revelation in the original Greek? Sorta, but if that was what was mean by Matthew's Jesus then it really isn't very clear. The statement uses two extremely similar words, begins with the declarative statement, “You are Peter” (which was not Peter's actual name; his name was Simon), and makes a connection based on this image of a rock upon which a structure can be built. Simon is a rock, and the ecclesia is built on a rock. If the relationship is more nuanced than a direct correlation then the text itself does a poor job of showing that nuanced relationship. The easiest reading, which doesn't automatically mean the most correct, would be that Matthew has Jesus saying that his ecclesia would be built upon Peter. But to imply that the Mormon reading is the only valid interpretation without some flavor of a relationship between Peter's authority (symbolized by receiving keys to the kingdom of heaven) and the building of a church upon a rock is silly.

Finally, what are we to make of the reference to Peter's ability to tie up tightly or loose on earth and in the heavens? Remember that for those with an apocalyptic worldview, the coming kingdom will violently overthrow the world. That is because it is a literal kingdom that is approaching (contrast this to the later Gospel of John, which tones down this “approaching” rhetoric when Jesus says things like “the Kingdom of God is among you”), and it will replace the evil powers currently controlling this world. And in that coming kingdom, those who have been oppressed will be lifted up. Total reversals will occur (go back and read the Beatitudes of Matthew 5 in this light and they make a lot of sense). Peter is being told that he is like a ruler in this world, and that his decisions here will stand and be ratified in the coming kingdom. Whatever, or indeed whoever, he ties up or frees will remain tied up or freed. This is language that is likened to the most powerful aspect of a ruler: the ability to lock up or the ability to pardon. The Mormon perception of the “sealing” power is similar to this viewpoint, however, in that Mormons view Peter being given authority here to make decisions with heavenly ramifications, except that for Mormons they feel that this power means that the decisions have immediate authority and application in heaven and not merely that these decisions will remain in force when a future heavenly kingdom arrives.

Why Do I Think This Is Part of Scripture Mastery?

In preparation for use of this scripture against their conception of a universal apostasy, Mormon youth are prepped with this verse and an alternate interpretation that preserves their viewpoint. This interpretation is a valid reading, but it is extremely difficult to parse and is not the easiest nor most likely reading.

#Mormon #ScriptureMasteryNT #AcademicBiblical

Today while attending the LDS Church, my whole family was treated to a generous helping of “The Christmas Story”. You know, the one with Mary and the angel, the shepherds, the wise men, the census, and the slaughter of the innocents? At some point during the Sacrament Meeting I just couldn't take it anymore, leaned over to my oldest daughter (Echo, 6), and whispered, “You know, even if Jesus was born in Bethlehem, it didn't happen the way they're talking about it.”

“What do you mean?” she asked.

“Well, you know how we watched Return to Oz a few months ago after we'd read some of the Oz books and you noticed that they pulled bits and pieces from a couple different books together to make a whole story?”

“Oh yeah, like how they had the gnome king steal all of the emeralds? Or how the person with all of the different heads was just mean, not evil like in the movie?” (Note, Return to Oz was a fun movie that still attempts some interesting interpretations of Oz, but after reading some of the books with Echo it lost a lot of its charm.)

“Yeah. Did you know there's two Christmas stories from the scriptures and they have almost nothing in common? They usually get all mixed up together just like the movie was all mixed up together.”

“Wow.”

When we got home we sat down and read the birth narrative from Matthew 1, the Annunciation from Luke 1, and the birth narrative from Luke 2 (all from the NSRV because she's six and what bright idiot ever thought that six-year-olds could follow and understand King James English? Sheesh, LDS primaries, I tell you...).

You should try this sometime; it's very enlightening. Try to answer the following questions only from the perspective of each story: What city does the story begin in? From where and to where do the characters journey? Which parent receives visions and is told to name the baby? What happens after the birth in Bethlehem?

Basically, what we've usually been raised to understand as a full, complete story, is in fact two very distinct stories. The only real aspects that are in common between the two are:

1. Jesus is born in Bethlehem

2. Mary is pregnant “by the Holy Ghost” before she is married to Joseph.

3. There is no number 3.

Every other thing, from the star to the shepherds, the wise men, King Herod, the census, the flight into Egypt, the manger, practically every other detail is unique to one story or the other. It's really quite amazing when you first realize it. Sitting there with Echo after Church, going through each story and seeing her recognize just how conflicting the stories are was a lot of fun.

After we finished talking about it all for a bit, I asked her which story she liked better. “I liked the one where the babies didn't die, because I don't like babies dying. And because Mary is the one talking to angels and she's the one who gets to name Jesus. The other story is all about Joseph and I don't like that.”

In the end, we agreed to disagree on a few things (this is very important in our family; we do not want to ruin our child's religious upbringing by telling her to think the way we think and she knows her parents already don't agree on everything in religion): I said that I thought the real, historical Jesus was probably born in Nazareth in a very normal way and both stories weren't true. She said that she thought Jesus was born the way Luke said he was born: his family was from Nazareth, but Jesus was born during a trip to Bethlehem. I'm glad that she has such a belief, both because I know now that it's a belief she's thought about a little in her wonderfully smart 6-year-old mind (though I suspect she thinks Luke story is accurate because Luke's story is simply much more engaging and better told than Matthew's) and also because I think having, at her young age, a more “normal” belief on this will help keep her out of social trouble among her Mormon and Christian peers should it ever come up.

#Mormon #AcademicBiblical

Greek: 14 Ὑμεῖς ἐστε τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσμου. οὐ δύναται πόλις κρυβῆναι ἐπάνω ὄρους κειμένη· 15 οὐδὲ καίουσιν λύχνον καὶ τιθέασιν αὐτὸν ὑπὸ τὸν μόδιον ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ τὴν λυχνίαν, καὶ λάμπει πᾶσιν τοῖς ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ. 16 οὕτως λαμψάτω τὸ φῶς ὑμῶν ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ὅπως ἴδωσιν ὑμῶν τὰ καλὰ ἔργα καὶ δοξάσωσιν τὸν πατέρα ὑμῶν τὸν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.

My Translation: 14 You are the light of the universe. A city cannot be hidden when laid on a hill. 15 And people don't burn a candle and put it under a bushel-container, but on a candlestick, and it shines to everything within the house. 16 Even so, shine your light in front of humans, that they may see your good deeds and praise your father who is in the heavens.

KJV: 14 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. 15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. 16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

Before we begin, let me make a quick note on my translations: I am making these translations partially to be read in conjunction with the more-familiar King James translation. Don't read my translation as being somehow “more accurate” intrinsically, but rather I'm trying to give a sense for the range of meaning that can be expressed by the verse by presenting the two translations together. I'll let you know when the KJV is probably in error and will point out the better reading. If I don't say anything, please assume that while I am giving an accurate translation it's just meant to be read to give some color and breadth to the KJV reading. The King James Version is problematic not because of its errors (though there are errors) but rather because of the age of the English text that makes it ever more obscure as it ages. As a translation, the KJV is remarkably apt at preserving some of the oddities of the underlying Greek grammar (and this is partially why it can be difficult to read at times).

So, first out of the gate is Matthew 5:14-16. This is from what is arguable the most famous sermon in the entire Christian New Testament: Matthew's Sermon on the Mount. A long collection of statements on the Jewish Torah, this sermon presents Jesus as a great Rabbi who is upholding the validity of the Torah even as he presents a viewpoint on it that supersedes and extends it (one reason why some scholars speculate that the historical Jesus might have actually been a Pharisee; I don't agree, but it's an intriguing possibility). The section in question has been famous throughout much of Christianity for centuries (there's even the fun children's song “This Little Light of Mine”). A quick note on the KJV of the text: when it says “Let your light so shine” it's not a nice suggestion that we should allow our lights to shine, but it's a command. The verb is an imperative, Jesus is telling his followers that they must shine. It's not a passive acceptance, but a call to action.

There isn't really much to be said about this scripture that is particular a Mormon point of view, except that as read by most Mormons of Seminary age, the statement is taken as a call for Mormons to let their light shine before the world. But then again, that's pretty much an anecdotal viewpoint based on my own upbringing and childhood experiences. It could be (and probably is) different in some areas of the Church. However, as we'll see in later scriptures, the Seminary scripture mastery scriptures aren't always the best example of ecumenicism anyways.

Why Do I Think This Is Part of Scripture Mastery?

To encourage Mormon youth to be evangelical in their faith through both actions and words. Also, it provides a sense of superiority through membership in the Church by associating Christ's statement of “Ye are the light of the world” to members of the LDS Church.

#Mormon #ScriptureMasteryNT #AcademicBiblical

What do I mean by “looking at scripture mastery”? Let me explain the background for this project.

I've spent the past five or so years trying hard to learn as much as possible about the Hebrew Bible and Christian New Testament in an attempt to save my struggling testimony of the LDS Church. I listened to countless hours of lectures and presentations by some of the biggest names in the field, read thousands of pages in both books and journals, gained a functional understanding and ability in reading Ancient Greek (the language the Christian New Testament was written in), wrote personal papers on a number of topics relating to translation and exegesis, and am currently in the middle of an attempt to write a book about the contextual history of the Council of Nicea in 325 CE for a Mormon audience (or an audience at least informed by a common LDS narrative about the Council and its resulting Creed). And in the end, very little of what I learned helped me as I struggled to make sense of Joseph Smith's approach to and use of these ancient sources as he led his modern restorationist movement. However, I found that it ignited a passion inside of me about these ancient sources that has endured my loss of faith in my childhood religion. No longer a believer in Mormonism, or even the basic Christian gospel to be honest, I have been surprised to find that I love the New Testament even more as an agnostic theist than I ever did before as a devoted member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Part of that is because of how my approach to the Christian Bible has changed.

Growing up in the LDS Church I've always been a voracious reader and thinker and I enjoyed Seminary and Institute because I could apply learning towards the scriptures. It also helped that so much of Seminary was based around memorization. I still remember, to this day, tons of references to various parts of the Bible and other LDS scriptures, and I have good Seminary teachers to thank for it. I still remember how those scriptures were taught to me, and why they were supposed to be important. However, going back to many of them now has been an enlightening, if somewhat disappointing, experience as I've found that there were obviously many hidden reasons I was being taught these scriptures and how to read them. I was being primed against common objections to the LDS Church without being given a full understanding of what those objections would be beforehand, and, in the worst cases, being given complete straw men arguments for why the particular scriptures in question were important.

Seminary is a four-year program meant to coincide with the American High School experience. During each of these four years a list of 25 scriptures are expected to be memorized (resulting in 100 scriptures for the full fours years). This list is known as Scripture Mastery. While the purpose of Seminary is overall to improve the students' testimonies of the restored Gospel and of Jesus Christ, the presence of these 100 scriptures can be seen as a baseline expectation for students. In other words, even if the students are goofing off, even if they barely pay attention, even if they are so hopped up on hormones and dating that they don't really learn much about Mormonism, if they can leave the Seminary building with the general gist of most of these 100 scriptures inside their head then the teachers have succeeded. Not everyone will read the entirety of the LDS Standard Works, and not everyone will be touched with a spiritual experience that will strengthen their faith in the LDS Church, but everyone can memorize these scriptures.

So, with that in mind, I thought it would be interesting to look at each of these scriptures in turn. Some of them make complete sense and certainly contribute strongly to the central themes and doctrines of Mormonism. However, others are prime examples of a deliberate ignorance of context. And finally, many, if not most, of these scriptures are ammunition in an expected future debate that the students may find themselves in against conservative Christian antagonists against often caricatured LDS beliefs (and sometimes the anticipated arguments are themselves caricatures). These “Bible bashing” scriptures may assist potential missionaries in discussions with other Christians, but in an increasingly secular America these arguments are occurring with less frequency as Christian influence is slowly waning and as Christians themselves are becoming more educated on actual Mormon doctrine and the real issues for LDS theology and history instead of the horrible caricatures of the late 20th Century counter-cult ministries. Not to mention how these scriptures aren't nearly as helpful in other less-Christian areas of the world, such as the Far East or in the face of rising Islamic influence in places like Europe. These are the issues I'd like to look at for these scriptures, and the best part is that with 100 scriptures there's a lot to talk about. There's certainly not enough to spend a full post on every scripture, of course, and some of them are extremely benign and are good scriptures and ideals for everyone to follow whether Christian, humanist, or Mormon. But the secret for readership is consistency, right?

So this project gives me a lot of opportunities for me to keep posting and get some good discussion going. Over the next few weeks I'll be covering the 25 scriptures that Seminary students are expected to memorize during their time studying the Christian New Testament. This is because I can speak personally to issues of translation (which I cannot do for the Hebrew Bible as I know neither Hebrew nor Aramaic), and have spent most of my attention on the world of Classical antiquity. For those who want to get ready, here is the list of scriptures:

• Matthew 5:14-16
• Matthew 6:24
• Matthew 16:15-19
• Matthew 25:40
• Luke 24:36-39
• John 3:5
• John 7:17
• John 10:16
• John 14:15
• John 17:3
• Acts 7:55-56
• Romans 1:16
• 1 Corinthians 10:13
• 1 Corinthians 15:20-22
• 1 Corinthians 15:29
• 1 Corinthians 15:40-42
• Ephesians 4:11-14
• 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3
• 2 Timothy 3:1-5
• 2 Timothy 3:16-17
• Hebrews 5:4
• James 1:5-6
• James 2:17-18
• Revelation 14:6-7
• Revelation 20:12-13

For each scripture I'm going to assume a certain level of understanding of the Christian New Testament, but as issues of authorship and perspective are issues I find interesting, I'm sure that much time will be spent with each discussing some of the historical context and viewpoint of the authors. Too often Mormons, and Exmormons as well, approach the Bible as a modern work of history where the authors have few biases and are interested in an accurate portrayal of history. Nothing could be further from the truth, so these issues of understanding the author as well as the text are important, so I hope that everyone will have learned something by the time we're done. And I hope I learn a lot, too. I'd encourage everyone to respond and comment upon each page; point out where I'm wrong and help me out in this project. I think we'll have a lot of fun and I look forward to getting started soon.

#Mormon #ScriptureMasteryNT #AcademicBiblical

I need to be careful in writing this review; I've written a few reviews in the past of newly released Mormon books and after the novelty of these materials wore off I'm stuck with a permanent record on the Internet of my enthusiastic approval of what eventually was shown to be rather flawed materials. So I'm more than a little concerned that I'm more excited that I'm among the first to read and enjoy the new biography of Brigham Young than the text itself should allow, but with that explanation out of the way let me get to the enthusiastic review that I might someday regret!

I've called this book the “sequel” to Dr. Richard Bushman's biography of Joseph Smith, Rough Stone Rolling. Of course, biographies can't technically have sequels as they usually cover a person's entire life, but the ideals of Bushman—-to present Smith as a full human being with needs, desires, and biases—-are present in Turner's book. Turner isn't setting out merely to relate the dates and events in Young's life but in puzzling out why Young made many of the decisions he did through his life.

Turner spends the first few chapters covering Young's childhood and life before and after converting to Mormonism. Much of this information is familiar to those who have read RSR, but it is interesting to look at Joseph Smith from an outside point of view. In RSR Bushman attempted, as a good biographer should, to discern the context for Joseph's decisions and actions in a way that made sense. Once removed from this position of being inside Joseph's life, however, Smith's actions in Kirtland and Nauvoo take on a surprisingly reactive spin. Smith is difficult to predict, and his anger and public lashing out often catch his followers off guard. Young and other early Mormons believe in Smith as a prophet, but it is difficult to keep up with a man who is constantly reacting to the circumstances surrounding him in ways that are sometimes successful and sometimes dangerous failures.

The majority of the book, however, is focused on Young's activities leading a portion of Smith's follower's to the Great Basin and establishing a theocratic government in what became western America, a government that Young ruled strongly. There is much to be said for Young's strengths and weaknesses, all of which are displayed as his power grows to its height before the United States extorts its influence over the territory by sending the infamous Johnston's Army to put down a supposed rebellion which leads to the slow decline of Young's influence over the Great Basin.

Turner's account is difficult, but fair. He doesn't turn a blind eye to Young's failures and problems, but he's quick to point out when a particularly unflattering story comes from a biased source and is willing to make concessions for Young's behavior in light of the rest of Young's life. Turner isn't interested in presenting Young as a man who was always inspired (though he frequently spoke of God's divine revelations guiding his decisions) nor is he interested in displaying Young as a dangerous villain of the West.

In the end, Young comes across as a tough man to follow, who demanded total obedience to God and to himself as the leader of God's people. He was rude, profane, racist (even for his own day), and fiercely independent. He was frequently violent in his rhetoric and when this rhetoric caused actual violence to occur he frequently turned a blind eye to it. He encouraged entertainment, activities, and fun, but cautioned strongly against indulgence and pride. Neither a revolutionary nor a patriot, his only devotion was to his people and his own independence, supporting whatever cause and whatever party that would enable him to continue leading his people without interference.

Of course, for some even acknowledging that Young had faults might be too much, but even I as a post-Mormon found the biography difficult at times, far more than I found Bushman's biography. Young had a constant flair for violent threats and ruled more often through fear of hellfire, damnation, and even earthly punishment than I ever expected. Some apologists might attempt to sweep away his rhetoric by pointing out that he never really followed through, but even if you explain his constant references to decapitations, hanging, and other various forms of violent death for apostates and other sinners as mere hyperbole and grandstanding, his rhetoric had real effects on real people as some took his advice to heart. Of course there is the famous Massacre at Mountain Meadows, which Turner covers in good detail (for those who are wondering he adopts the stance that Young probably didn't order the attack, but he certainly wasn't bothered much by it and was complicit in the poorly attempted coverup), but there are other examples of violence in the book where Mormons were inspired by Young's words and attitude to action. Turner doesn't hold back from discussing some of the deaths for which Young is ultimately responsible through either his rhetoric or even his explicit orders.

Turner's thesis for Young's attitude make a lot of sense (and is aided by statements Young made to much the same effect). Young, a devout and stubbornly loyal follower of Joseph Smith, saw how Joseph's habit of attempting to resolve dissent after it occurred ultimately led to his death; in response, Young saw the solution was to prevent dissent and disloyalty from occurring in the first place. Instead of trying to win back dissidents and apostates, Young instead did everything he could to keep his people in line and to scare others away who might steal souls from his flock. For Young, the ends of maintaining the Church and its doctrine and people (as well as the safety of his own person) justified the means.

Those familiar with some of the exposés of the nineteenth century might be disappointed in Turner's discussion and occasional dismissal of their merits and biases, but in my own estimation while Turner subtly rejects some of the more entertaining conspiracy theories and stories of Brigham's Utah he maintains his scholastic integrity by alerting the reader to the multiple viewpoints about some of these issues. Young is exonerated by Turner from poisoning Samuel Smith by virtue of not being present at Nauvoo and not yet having enough influence to orchestrate it. Also Young's 1877 death, while sudden, is given its proper view as the result of Young's advanced age at the end of a number of years of badly failing health and Turner doesn't even bother to mention later suppositions of arsenic poisoning. Interestingly, Turner also does not quote Young as crying “Joseph! Joseph! Joseph!” upon his deathbed, implying to me at least that this part of Young's traditional story is mythical. The castration of Thomas Lewis is mentioned, but the sensational claim that it happened because he was pursuing the same woman as Manti Bishop Warren Snow is rejected as Lewis's violent actions in the community are more than enough to explain the vigilante actions against the young man. Turner doesn't fail to acknowledge Young's approval of the action, however.

There is an amazing amount of information within this book that will be new to nearly anyone who reads it. This review is getting long enough, so I'll attempt to summarize some of the interesting things I personally was struck by after I'm done. For the average Mormon who is unprepared for it, this biography would probably be worse than a kick to the gut. Even as a post-Mormon, I was unprepared for Young's views on blacks, his violence, his foul language, and his strong rejection of the United States. Here's one quote that has many of those views together from near the end of Young's life after his political power had greatly faded:

“I have a proposition to make to [senators Aaron] Cragan [sic], Wade and all such men,” he wrote William Hooper, Utah's congressional delegate, in 1868, “when my old niger has been dead one year, if they will wash their faces clean they may kiss his ass.” As Congress debated the Collum Bill, Hooper politely encouraged Young to restrain his rhetoric. (pg. 362)

In the end, I'd predict that the majority of apologetic response to the book will center on Turner's responsible discussion of Young's Utah in the context of an America that struggles with its treatment of other minorities such as Catholics and blacks. Turner makes fair comparison of Mountain Meadows with other atrocities and massacres committed by Americans against blacks and native Americans, and is quick to point out the prevalence of vigilante justice and “Vigilance Committees” throughout America. Yet if the response by believers to the darker points of Mormon history continues to be the cry that such points are ordinary in the rest of America it continues to drive the sense that the rest of the Mormon history, too, might be ordinary and I'd wonder if such a response doesn't set the stage for wondering why such an ordinary faith with an ordinary history deserves to be treated as an extraordinary religious movement. Mormonism, wherever it is now on the scale of normalcy, was not ordinary to begin with and its history, both positive and negative, is not ordinary. Brigham Young continually declared many things “in the name of the Lord” (for example, “it is the mind and will of God,” he declared [in 1870], “that the Elders of Israel should take the Utah Central Rail Road Bonds.” pg. 353) and he presents a picture that will not be easily swept under the rug by simplistic appeals to “everyone else did that sort of stuff, too”.

Turner pretty much writes what I'd consider an unintentional review of how most believing members will probably want to approach his book while wrapping up the end of chapter 9:

Moreover, for many church members, the sheer accomplishment of Young's early church presidency—-the thousands of Saints brought to Zion and the ongoing settlement of the Great Basin—-covered his missteps and faults and sustained his leadership during times of economic, spiritual, and political tumult. (page 264)

Yet by the end of his life, Turner relates that Young's hold on his followers had begun to fade as many either quietly rebelled against his calls for obedience or simply left in disaffection. Young's influence over Utah had faded with the coming of the railroad and as the United States government took ever-stronger steps towards federal control of the territory, and his followers had grown tired of many of his distinctive doctrines, such as Adam-God, and these doctrines soon disappeared after his death. I find it interesting that we seem to be occupying a position in Mormon history that presents an odd mirror to the last days of Brigham Young: a Church that had previously enjoyed decades of impeded authoritarian control through correlation has found itself losing members who are now chafing under the prolonged authoritarianism and the advance of the Internet and which is no longer in control of either its history or its message. Turner himself is not a Mormon (though that's not to imply that a Mormon would have somehow done a better job; Turner is fantastic), and the fact that his biography of Mormonism's second prophet will probably be the go-to book for Young for years to come speaks volumes about the Church's power and ability to speak for itself.

Brigham Young: Pioneer Prophet, by John G. Turner. Harvard University Press, 2012. 499 pages.

---

Okay, here's some of the interesting tidbits I read. They're presented without sources and just represent little things I noticed while reading. By no means are these all of the interesting things; this book is full of all sorts of amazing things.

• Many of the sermons quoted come from the original Pitman shorthand notes instead of the Journal of Discourses and haven't been cleaned up for language or grammar. They represent the closest we can get to some of Young's sermons as he actually delivered them.
• Even before Joseph's death, Young soon had more wives than Joseph. Young was also polyandrously married to women who were married to other men, even before Joseph's death. Later in life he seems to have regretted some of the marriages, choosing to not spend time with some wives and sometimes not even supporting them financially.
• Young was extremely fond of speaking in tongues and it seems to be his solution to problems for much of his early presidency. Whereas Joseph would tend to receive revelations to try and resolve problems, Young would use tongues as a tool to try and inspire spiritual harmony during discussion and debate.
• During the collapse of the Kirtland Safety Society, Young was complicit in using Safety Society notes to purchase land far from Kirtland in the hopes that the capital would help the bank survive long enough to become profitable. The land was far from Kirtland so that the sellers hopefully wouldn't quickly come to Kirtland to redeem their bank notes and discover how worthless they were. Perhaps not fraud, but darn close.
• Turner presents many aspects of the early Church not fully covered by Bushman: Emmanual Swedenborg's three heavens in relation to Joseph's degrees of glory; the possible drunkenness of some participants during the Kirtland Temple dedication experiences, and the second anointing is presented as a ritual beyond the endowment complete with a general overview. In relation to the recent unplanned release of the “Mormon Stories” interview about the Second Anointing where it was implied that one of the main reasons for the secrecy was to prevent public knowledge of the ritual, if this book is sold at Deseret Book as RSR was it will be interesting to see how the general membership will react to more public knowledge of this ritual.
• One of the “runaway judges” that I had always assumed came to Utah for adventure had actually taken time to study Mormonism before arriving and correctly quoted from the Book of Mormon upon first addressing the people (pointing out that the lawyers in the Book of Mormon tended to be self-serving and he didn't want them to view him that way). He was bothered by their lack of patriotism, however, which led to Young (and the people) quickly rejecting him and he soon left in disgrace.
• Young was upset at John Taylor's attempts to increase funding for the handcart project, but after the Martin-Willie disaster he both shrugged off the suffering of the British immigrants (“few, comparatively, have suffered severely, though some had their feet and hands more or less frosted… [the 1834 Zion's Camp march was] many times more taxing upon the health and life of a person”) and tried to place some of the blame on John Taylor, who managed funds for the enterprise.
• While his encouragement of polygamy drove the average age of marriage down, he actually had some qualms about how young some of the marriages were, and refused to solemnize some marriages to 12-13 year old girls. 14-year-old wives were not uncommon, however, but he personally didn't marry that young after Nauvoo (and I don't even remember if he married that young in Nauvoo).
• Turner is open and up-front about Adam-God and how Young supported and taught the doctrine throughout his life. (“Adam was Michael the Ark angel & he was the Father of Jesus Christ & was our God & that Joseph taught this principle… Elohim, Yahova, & Michael, were father, Son, and grandson.” pg. 352), as well as the doctrine of blood atonement, that some sins must be paid for by the blood of the sinner being literally shed and that it was an act of kinds and duty to kill some to preserve their rewards in the next life from their sins in this life (“I would prefer that any child of mine should lose his life in atonement for his sins than lose eternal salvation” pg. 259).
• Young enjoyed using the phrases, “Kiss my ass” and “not worth shit” in many interesting ways. My favorite is his response to Orson Pratt as Pratt is expressing that Young is like the Speaker of the House in Congress and thus is equal to the Apostles while still being their leader as Young is arguing that he should be sustained as President of the Church: “Shit on Congress!” (pg. 173)
• After Young is first sustained as President of the Church, the band plays “God Save the King”.
• Young attempted to prevent the publication and popularity of Lucy Mack Smith's reminiscences of her son Joseph, even going to far as to order the book to be burned and unsold copies to be mashed into pulp. He disliked discussion of Joseph's history and relationship to the Church without a discussion of the Temple and Priesthood authority.
• Turner mentions Young's secret ordination of his sons, including an eleven-year-old, as apostles, perhaps hoping to establish a dynasty within Church leadership.

#Mormon #BrighamYoung #Biography

So, it's been over half a year since I followed up on my experience teaching Sunday School. Let me quickly re-cap the rest of the year.

First off, the gift of the Bibles went over really well. Most of the parents thought the modern Bibles were just as awesome as the King James bibles (one of them even took the time to come over and thank me for it: “Oh, it even highlights everything Jesus said!”). But over the next few weeks, if the kids ever brought a pocket Bible, they brought their little King James Versions. Oh well, it's rather hard to study the Bible in an LDS Sunday School class using a different version.

Covering the smaller Pauline letters was nice. We were able to avoid the misogynistic passages of the Corinthians. About the only real trouble I had when I wasn't the teacher is when I said, upon reading 1 Thessalonians, that we were reading what was probably the oldest piece of writing in the New Testament, written before anything else in the New Testament was written. Some smart-ass in the class (I say that out of love, honestly) asked what the second oldest thing in the New Testament was, and I said that if Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians (and there were very few scholars, even among LDS scholars, who think that he did) then that would be next, but it was probably one of the Pauline epistles we'd already read (probably parts of the Corinthians). My team teacher didn't appreciate throwing doubt upon the authorship of any of the New Testament, but I think it's important that these kids realize just how complex and ancient this collection is. It's not just a book of scripture that gives them simple answers to simple problems, it's an artifact of the ancient world and carries with it the dust and damage of time.

Of course, my team teacher thought it was really cool when I explained that many scholars feel that 2 Corinthians got shuffled up a bit in it's transition to biblical collections. He'd been struggling a bit preparing for a discussion of 2 Corinthians, and said that after reading it in the suggested order things made a lot more sense that way. So biblical criticism wasn't always viewed as threatening.

I tried to cover some of the New Perspectives covenantal theology again with Romans, but again we only had one week (!) to cover the entire thing, so in the end it was just a quick review and a hammering down of Paul's supremacy of grace and faith over the covenant of Sinai. And everyone seemed to be okay with that.

However, in the end I realized that the closer we got to the Revelation, the harder it was going to be. Jude is just a mean polemic against Jude's theological enemies with little theological interest beyond a quotation from 1 Enoch and the Apocalypse of Moses. The Peters are fun, except again where I indicated that while a few scholars (really just a handful), feel that 1 Peter might have been written by the historical Peter, nobody views the other Peter as anything other than pseudepigraphal. Which wouldn't really be a problem as there's not much particularly important to Mormons in the Peters. I didn't end up teaching Hebrews, which is just as well as I'd probably start throwing terms around like “heavenly temple”, “platonic forms”, or “Levi being present when Abram gives tithes to Melchizedek by virtue of Abraham's fathering of Isaac fathering Jacob fathering Levi.” Again, I got into a small authorship tussle, but was able to resolve it by pointing out that some general authorities have referred to the “author of Hebrews” to acknowledge this issue and that the authorship has been questioned for longer than the New Testament has been in existence as a unified whole.

Before we reached the train-wreck of Revelation, I had a bit of trouble with James. Besides spending a little bit of time on James 1:5 (a favorite of Mormons as it led Joseph Smith to his first vision, though it's usually discussed by them a bit out of its context of dealing with persecution and troubles), we talked about James's response to Pauline grace and antinomianism (the state of being without laws). I don't usually have strong language for this stuff, but the typical Mormon approach to James is almost 100% apologetic shit. Seriously, James is nothing more than a mallet that Mormons think they can use to beat back people who want to use Paul and Romans against them. “Faith is what saves; works bring death!” “Oh yeah? Well, faith without works is dead!” It's like Mormons think the rest of the Christian world has never read and had to deal with James over the past few hundred years. It took a lot of work, but I think in the end I was able to overcome some of the seminary braindump to tell them that James is still saying that faith saves, but is saying that such faith should be accompanied by good works. James is not speaking against Paul in Romans (where, let's be honest, 98% of the epistle has Paul talking about how faith saves and works of the Torah are death and only 2% has Paul talking about being judged by our works) but is rather speaking against the idea of antinomianism, or the idea that since grace as saved us we should live a life of sin. James is nowhere in the epistle saying that works save a person, but merely that if we are not showing forth good works, then we don't really have saving faith. Paul is speaking against a similar common argument against his theology in Romans 6, namely that if we are miraculously saved from our sins by grace then if we are saved from even more sins when we die then the miracle of grace will be even more miraculous (kind of a reductio ad absurdum). Paul doesn't actually give much of a theological argument as to the incorrectness of this idea, but merely responds to the idea that we should continue to sin after entering into the saving covenant of grace with a strenuous “Hell no!” James eventually approaches this idea of mere belief saving a person by pointing out that even the demons of hell believe that God exists, but nothing happens to them (leading to the class coming up with the interesting theological question of whether or not a demon could repent and “change sides”; kinda hard for an agnostic to answer that one well!).

But finally we got to the Revelation at the very end of the year. Thank God (or whoever) that I did not end up teaching this one, as we'd lost a week somewhere along the way. The team teacher tried to squish the two-week lesson into one week at the end of the year and it mostly worked. (As an aside, we only get to spend one week on Romans, but we spend three on the Corinthians and two on the Revelation?!) I mentioned at the beginning that I really didn't have much to add, as most Mormons (including the writers of the lesson manual) approach the Revelation far more literally than I was comfortable with. Again I also managed to bring up authorship again in mentioning that it was only tradition that the John of the Revelation was the same as the Apostle John (and again tradition that the Apostle John was the John mentioned as the author of chapter 26, and be extension of the entire gospel, of John, and that he was the author of the Epistles of John) and that we have no real clue who wrote it. At which point my team-teacher reminded me that the Book of Mormon said that the author was John the Apostle in 1 Nephi 14:18-27 (at which point I mentally face-palmed both that I'd forgotten that detail and that the author of the Book of Mormon felt the need to point out this sort of detail). So that was an awkward end to the year.

Well, the awkward end was that I had to take the time to let the Sunday School president know that I would not be able to teach Book of Mormon next year, but once that was out of the way I was released. I started attending the adult Sunday School class, complete with its face-palming comments and questions. I missed my class and the fun we'd had, but at this point I'm not sure I'll ever be back there again. It was a fun ride while it lasted.

#Mormon #SundaySchool #AcademicBiblical

So with Mitt Romney, the Book of Mormon musical, and the “I am a Mormon” ad campaign (have you seen the “I am an Ex-Mormon” videos?) members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are getting a lot of attention nowadays. Most people know a few things about them: generally larger families and younger marriages than the national averages, no alcohol or coffee (or tea), and so on. And of course, polygamy. Most people know that Mormons no longer practice polygamy, but few people know the details. Even Mormons only really know a few details themselves, generally speaking, though everything I'll be saying here can be easily researched.

The Basic Story

While most are aware that Joseph Smith, the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement, practiced polygamous marriages, the details are not usually well-known among Mormons apart from a revelation Smith received that started the practice (Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants, a collection of revelations Smith received and edited). For those who know that Joseph practiced polygamy they assume that the marriages were usually not sexual in nature. Mormons most often identify practiced polygamy with their second President, Brigham Young. Polygamy was first publicly taught as a principle of Mormonism in 1856 (when I talk about Mormons and Mormonism I'm generally talking about the Salt Lake branch of the larger Latter Day Saint movement, but the movement fractured after Smith's death and there are many organizations still around today that are descended from Smith's original movement. I don't mean to disparage them by using “Mormonism” to generally refer to the Salt Lake branch, of course, but it's a useful shorthand). It caused issues with the US government, leading to an army sent to keep Utah in line, many failed attempts as statehood, the creation of the Republican Party, and eventually a failed attempt to argue before the Supreme Court against anti-bigamy laws on the basis of religious freedom. In 1890, Wilford Woodruff announced a “Manifesto” saying that the Church would no longer enact further polygamous marriages. Utah became a state a few years later. Modern Mormons excommunicate any members found to be practicing polygamy.

What's Wrong With the Story?

Technically nothing. All of the above details are correct. The problem is that it's missing a lot of contextual information. When did Smith first practice polygamy? To whom was he married? How did the home dynamics work both among Smith and among the Salt Lake branch of the movement? When did Mormons first start excommunicating their members for practicing polygamy? These are all questions to which most Mormons will not have many answers, and instead will rely on guesses or common assumptions.

The Beginnings

Ask a Mormon when polygamy began in the LDS Church and they'll probably point to D&C 132, received by Joseph Smith in the early 1840s (the exact date is uncertain). Yet even in the Doctrine and Covenants, the explanatory note prefacing the published version of section 132 will mention that Joseph had received aspects of plural marriage doctrine from God by at least 1831. The reason for the date of 1831 (which is given without further explanation in the preface) is because of two things.

The first is a revelation received at this time, now unpublished, which called a number of early members of the LDS Church on missions to the Native Americans and promised that they would, in a day soon to come, take plural wives of the Native Americans.

And the second is a relationship that Joseph had with a young girl who lived in his household named Fanny Alger, who had joined the household in a common practice for young girls in early America to gain some real-world education by helping out in larger, higher-class households. This relationship strained Joseph's position among the other leaders of his fledgling Church, including one of his right-hand men Oliver Cowdery, who was the principle scribe of Joseph's dictated Book of Mormon. Oliver confronted Joseph over what he would later describe as the “nasty, dirty, filthy affair”. Within a few years Cowdery would leave the movement over other matters relating to the growing war-like rhetoric of Church leaders against non-Mormons and individuals who had left the movement, but the initial break started due to Fanny Alger. Many Mormon apologists today are uncertain of what to do with the story, some attempting to downplay its relevance or to try and imply that no sexual relationship with Fanny ever occurred, while others attempt to place her within the narrative of God's revelation of plural marriage to Joseph with Fanny as one of the first plural wives. His first wife, Emma, never said anything on record about Fanny, but common rumors among early Church members indicate that she knew about the relationship (in some of the more sensational stories she found out about it by discovering the two in a barn together) and was highly bothered by it, but there's nothing first-hand about it.

Joseph's Nauvoo

The early decade of the LDS Church was long periods of peace punctuated by a pattern of insult to local non-Mormon residents, violent actions by locals against Mormons, violent reprisals by Mormons against locals, followed eventually by migration of Mormons to different settlement locations. From New York/Pennsylvania to Ohio to Missouri, the Mormons finally ended up in a city they called Nauvoo that they built on the banks of the Mississippi in Illinois. Joseph's doctrine of plural marriage saw its fullest exploration here during the first half of the 1840s. Joseph married a number of young women, some with the knowledge and grudging consent of his wife, and others in hidden ceremonies purposefully kept from his wife's knowledge. Yet this was not a harem (a fact often exploited in public denials of polygamy by Mormon leaders of the time: this was not like “Oriental” polygamy, and thus they didn't really practice “polygamy”); Joseph did not usually have repeat visits to these women and (for those who I'm sure are wondering) never explored any sexual activities beyond being with one woman at a time. Yet some of Joseph's closest associate at the time (who, it should be noted, became bitter enemies in the months before his death over this issue) said many years later that Joseph could often be quite blunt and “ungenteel” about how particular girls were more pleasurable than others. (Biographies of the known and suspected wives of Joseph can be found at the website WivesofJosephSmith.org.)

The process of Joseph's marriages usually kept to the following pattern: Joseph would approach the parents of the young woman explaining that God had privately revealed a new order of marriage and desired their family to participate by Joseph marrying their daughter. Sometimes he would approach the young woman directly. Usually Joseph would describe that the command had been given to him by an angel with a drawn sword and that Joseph did not dare to disobey the commands of God. He would give them a short time to think about it. Most families, while initially repulsed by the idea, would eventually agree to it following period of prayer and careful thought; some felt that their prayers were answered by strong emotion and others saw visions or angels. Joseph promised them that by being connected to him in this way that their salvation in heaven would be assured for their entire family. Some Mormon apologists speculate that Joseph was trying to expand his family relations by establishing a sort of “tribal” family through these marriages, but few of them deny that Joseph had sexual relations with most of his wives. With some of them there may be some question, but the majority were sexual as well as spiritual marriages. However, most modern Mormons today assume that Joseph's marriages were either to deceased women or were to widows or other women who needed taking care of. This assumption, however, is not supported by the facts.

Polyandry

Another aspect of Joseph's Nauvoo marriages were that they were not just polygynous (“many women”) but were also polyandrous (“many men”). However, instead of meaning that some women sought out additional marriages of their own, this meant that Joseph sought out marriages among women who were already married. One of these marriages was to an early Mormon missionaries, Orson Hyde, who famously served a mission that reached Jerusalem where he prayed that God would someday return the Jewish people to their homeland. While he was on his mission, his wife and Joseph were married. Upon his return the Hydes resumed their relationship together and Hyde eventually followed Joseph's command to also marry additional wives. Genetic testing of the few children born to Joseph's polyandrous wives has shown that none of them were Joseph's children. Mormon apologists have enjoyed these findings, and some of them have begun asserting that from them we can assume that Joseph did not have sexual relations with his polyandrous wives, though all that the research indicates is that no children were produced from the relationships. The sexuality of Joseph's polyandrous marriages has no evidence either for or against.

There's no evidence that any other Church leaders participated in polyandrous marriages while Joseph was alive, and this particular aspect of Mormon polygamy didn't see much further adoption among Brigham's Church in Utah. Polyandry among Utah Mormons quickly became a largely forgotten aspect of Joseph's life.

Brigham's Utah

After Joseph's assassination in 1844, his movement fractured. Two of the largest groups were led by James Strang (who went to Wisconsin and eventually was himself killed and his movement, while still around today, shrank considerably) and Brigham Young. Most of Joseph's plural wives, including some of his polyandrous wives, were remarried to other Church leaders and followed Brigham west. Joseph's first wife, Emma, remained in Nauvoo. She eventually remarried and lived a long and generally happy life with her second husband, Louis Bidamon. When pressed about Joseph's polygamy she eventually settled into a pattern of denial, asserting that Joseph never participated in the practice at all. Unfortunately, her denials helped to cloud an already complex period of Mormon history that took many decades to finally be unraveled.

In Utah, Brigham's church initially continued the practice in secret among Church leadership, but in 1856 the practice was finally revealed to the general public and Church membership. Up until this time, Mormon leaders continued to deny that they practiced polygamy; the revelation of polygamy strongly hurt missionary activities in Europe, which until this point had been providing the vast majority of coverts to the Church. Many missionaries to England denied that the LDS Church practiced polygamy while already married to two or three women back in Utah before the public announcement.

Afterwards, Utah quickly transitioned to a polygamous culture. As the practice of polygamy was now publicly known among most prominent members of the community, for those who lived in Utah it became non-remarkable. Various statistics have been attempted to define how popularly polygamy was practiced, but each attempt represents particular issues and biases among those assembling the statistics. Should the polygamous marriage rate be measured among all residents of the state, including children? Then the percentage will be very low. Should is be measured only among women? The it will be very high. About the only real agreeable statistic is that among men who were polygamist, most only had two wives. Also, the higher up you went in the Church hierarchy, the more wives a given man would probably have. Polygamy was expected for positions like Bishop, and if a monogamist man was asked to be a bishop by Church leaders he would also be asked to marry a second wife. Adherence to polygamy was often correlated to the preception of righteousness to the commandments of God.

Polygamy was difficult and expensive. The larger families demanded larger housing, and could be very taxing economically and emotionally among men and women. Church leaders commonly had problems understanding the number of unmarried young men in Mormon communities, but it wasn't just that polygamy shrunk the pool of available women: many young men recognized that while having one wife and a family was already expensive, having additional wives simply compounded the problems.

While many Mormons assume a few myths about Utah polygamy, most of them simply are not true. Men did not have to obtain the consent of their existing wives to marry addition women. Men did not abstain from plural marriage until asked by a higher Church authority to begin. Men were not required to house their wives in separate houses, and they were not required to treat their wives equally in terms of monetary and emotional support. If you are ever visiting Salt Lake City you can take tours of one of Brigham Young's largest homes, the Lion House, where the tour guides now frankly discuss that Young was a polygamist. However, what they will not usually talk about is that the home you are touring was only for Young's favorite wives, and that the long, utilitarian house next door that has been converted into a bakery and restaurant was meant for many of his other wives and contained far less spacious and extravagant living quarters. Brigham had other fancy homes for other favored wives, but most of them have been torn down during the past century.

A little should be said about the motivations for plural marriage among Utah Mormons. One of Joseph's last publicly-taught doctrines was that God was an exalted human who had arrived at Godhood at some point in a primeval past, and that such an option was also possible for humans on Earth. For Brigham Young and others in Utah, the doctrine that humans and God share a similarity of species was adopted and made central to many aspects of Mormonism. Since God was human, then the good aspects of human life were also divine aspects. For humans, productive work can be a source of joy, so God was also a great Worker (an idea also based upon some scriptures revealed by Joseph that the salvation of mankind was God's “work and glory”). Marriages were ordained of God for humans and God had given to Mormons the ritual and authority to allow marriages to persist beyond death; thus leading to the idea that God himself was also married. In polygamous Utah, the idea that Christ or God were polygamists was often assumed, though there were usually no illusions that the scriptures were silent on such matters. The human qualities of God such as marriage also extended to children and families. Many taught that the spirits that would eventually come to Earth to live human lives had their start in Heaven with God as their very literal Father in a great pre-mortal family, a doctrine that even Joseph did not fully explore (Joseph taught that human minds had always existed and that it was even beyond the power of God to create spirits, thus making all of humanity co- eternal with God, having always existed). While this idea of “celestial sex” has been mocked for decades ever since, early Mormons saw this expansion of eternal families as a way that both God and saved humans could continue to grow in greatness and glory as their families grew, experienced mortal lives, were saved, and then saw eternal increase of their own. Less about the idea of eternal pleasure with multiple partners, it was seen as a way to bring honor both to oneself and to God.

That's not to say, however, that polygamy was entirely viewed as only a godly duty to be followed. As Mormon leaders moved up the hierarchy they tended to marry younger and younger wives, often to the consternation and jealousy of the older wives. The ability of Mormon men to obtain pleasure later in life through marriage was often discussed as being superior to the monogamist avenues of simply enduring old marriages, enjoying mistresses and adultery, or divorce and remarriage.

Mormon Feminism

In all of this it may be thought that polygamy was a degrading institution to Mormon women. Some women certainly had real trouble with the institution, and abuses could and did happen.

However, the creation of multiple households where the fathers were often absent formed a new dynamic among Mormon women where they enjoyed much more freedom over their own households and persons than many other women in America at the time. First-wave feminism, devoted to the ideals of thinking women participating as full and equal members of society, blossomed among Mormon women. Mormon women enjoyed local suffrage as Utah became one of the first (but not the first) territories and states to give women the vote. Mormon women were strenuously engaged in the national suffrage movement, often to the enjoyment and bewilderment of other American suffragettes who incorrectly assumed that the increased freedom that equal rights would afford Mormon women would lead to the destruction of the LDS Church. Mormon women ran for and held local public offices, managed their own households, and enjoyed intellectual pursuits. They published their own newspapers, ran their own schools, owned their own businesses. The Mormon women's association, the Relief Society, owned stock in many Utah businesses, controlled their own budget and expenditures, and enjoyed extensive power over their own membership apart from much male control. Morm