By March 6, 2008
In the April 1925 General Conference of the Church, Presiding Bishop Charles Nibley defended the notion that the Constitution of the United States of America was an inspired document, and proposed that the principles of the Constitution are inseperably connected with the Restoration of the Gospel.
By March 5, 2008
Everyone reading this blog probably has an opinion about Gerald Lund’s The Work and the Glory series. I know I do. But that is perhaps saved for another post. I actually have some very specific questions in mind. I have heard from multiple sources, always at least second-hand, the following story:
Place: Church History Site (I have heard variants from Kirtland, Nauvoo, and Palmyra)
Setting: Summer tourist rush
Dramatis Personae: Church history guide (usually a senior missionary), idiotic tourist and or a family of same.
By March 5, 2008
Following the Manifesto of 1890 and the decline of officially-sanctioned plural marriages among the Latter-day Saints, many Mormons worked to construct explanations for the practice of polygamy. The discursive means used by Mormons to situate their peculiar institution in their past reveal insights into how Mormons saw themselves during the first decades of the twentieth century and how they wanted the world to perceive them. One strategy, highlighted here, was to downplay the significance of plural marriage in both practice and in doctrine. However, at the same time that this was occurring, many Mormons were arguing that polygamy had produced a large and righteous posterity, “racially” superior to o
By March 3, 2008
In 1831, just a year after the organization of Joseph Smith’s Church of Christ, an anonymous author wrote an article in the Painesville Telegraph regarding the new religion. He argued that whether Mormonism was the true restoration of the ancient Apostolic Church or not, the Mormons had no “proof” of their “honesty.”
By March 1, 2008
This is from Paul Reeve:
Join us for a panel discussion:
Monday, March 10, 2008
By February 29, 2008
An important part of early Mormon culture making was the promotion of polygamy in the ranks. Although Kathy Daynes is correct to note that the brethren had to preach polygamy from the pulpit in order to get the members to enter into polygamous relationships, it is also important to remember that polygamy was promoted in other forms as well, such as in the following song. According to Carmon Hardy, “[t]his verse appeared as part of a ballad sung to the tune of ‘Rosa May’ in the 17th Ward School House in Salt Lake City, on 15 October 1856,” at the height of the Mormon Reformation
By February 28, 2008
(continued from Part II)
With the Mormon conception of a premortal council in mind, as Roberts continued reading Pragmatism he set about noting where James steered askew from a Mormon way of seeing things, filling in the gaps where James does not follow the Mormon line of reasoning all the way out as well as identifying other elements that resonate with Mormonism. Where James suggests–again, perhaps hypothetically–that some proto-individuals, at this pre-dawn of creation, might recoil from such a dangerous proposition and prefer rather to “relapse into the slumber of nonentity” from which they had “been momentarily aroused by the tempter’s voice,” Roberts demurs. In the bottom margin of his copy of Pragmatism–and later in the footnotes of his published works–Roberts offered this corrective of James’s implication that God brought human souls into being out of a nonentity to which they might at any time return:
By February 27, 2008
In Brian Birch’s class, “Mormonism and Christian Theology,” at CGU we recently discussed the “King Follet Discourse” and the “Sermon in the Grove” and the ways Mormon scholars have interpreted records of these sermons over the years. A point of conversation relates to what Smith meant in stating that God “is a man like one of yourselves” who “dwelt on a Earth same as Js. himself did.”[1] In a related recorded statement, Smith is said to have explained that “Paul says there are gods many & Lords many” I want to set it in a plain simple manner–but to us there is but one God pertaining to us.”[2] Smith’s words generally have been interpreted in two ways.
By February 26, 2008
Writing in 1957, Catholic sociologist Thomas F. O’Dea devoted a chapter of his important work, The Mormons, to what he saw as “sources of strain and conflict” in the Latter-day Saint church. The most significant of those sources of strain, according to O’Dea, was the unsettled issue of the relationship between the institutional church and the growing number of “liberal intellectual” Mormons who had encountered “modern secular thought.” While admitting that “the situation of the intellectual is likely to be somewhat ambiguous in any society,” [1] O’Dea felt that especially in the paradoxical Mormon church, which emphasized ecclesiastical authority and revelation but also encouraged education and intellectual pursuit among the rank-and-file, the intellectuals’ dilemma was especially enigmatic. After briefly tracing the history of the strain, conflict, and compromise in the early 20th century between the conservative church and the liberal intellectuals, O’Dea ended by suggesting that the matter was far from settled.
By February 26, 2008
I will soundly argue that the answer to the question above is an unequivocal “No!” Just playing. The formation of Mormon Studies Chairs at Utah State University and Claremont Graduate School with similar programs in the works at other institutions of higher learning suggests an affirmative answer to this query. I think it is obvious that our intellectual predecessors have worked long and hard to make this possible, and consequently we should be grateful. The formation of chairs, along with other movements in the media and politics, mark a new era in the scholarly study of Mormonism, as universities “scramble” to create classes in Mormonism. Sunday night I attended a fireside in Pasadena where Drs. Richard and Claudia Bushman spoke of this exciting time. As Claudia was speaking she mentioned the idea that we had the opportunity to become intellectual pioneers. This struck me. To be honest, I felt rather overwhelmed thinking about the legacy that budding scholars of Mormonism have to live up to. Further, it seems that we must participate in forming the idea of what it means to study Mormonism at a graduate level. Consequently, I think the important question relates to what kind of place we will create for ourselves at the academic table.
© 2025 – Juvenile Instructor
Recent Comments
Steve Fleming on BH Roberts on Plato: “Interesting, Jack. But just to reiterate, I think JS saw the SUPPRESSION of Platonic ideas as creating the loss of truth and not the addition.…”
Jack on BH Roberts on Plato: “Thanks for your insights--you've really got me thinking. I can't get away from the notion that the formation of the Great and Abominable church was an…”
Steve Fleming on BH Roberts on Plato: “In the intro to DC 76 in JS's 1838 history, JS said, "From sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that many important…”
Jack on BH Roberts on Plato: “"I’ve argued that God’s corporality isn’t that clear in the NT, so it seems to me that asserting that claims of God’s immateriality happened AFTER…”
Steve Fleming on Study and Faith, 5:: “The burden of proof is on the claim of there BEING Nephites. From a scholarly point of view, the burden of proof is on the…”
Eric on Study and Faith, 5:: “But that's not what I was saying about the nature of evidence of an unknown civilization. I am talking about linguistics, not ruins. …”