FairMormon

Save the date! 2019 FairMormon Conference August 7-9
(You can still read 2018 talks or watch streaming.)

NickGalieti

Articles of Faith 8: LDS Church Disciplinary Councils

by

Podcast: Download (53.8MB)

Subscribe: Android | RSS

This is a special episode of Articles of Faith. It is special because, our normal focus with the show is on articles written in scholarly journals such as The Interpreter, Square Two, and we have some being lined up to include BYU Studies as well. In this episode we are featuring two articles written on blogs, chosen because of their firsthand experience with church disciplinary councils; one article from the perspective of a person who went through one such council, and the other from the perspective of one who was in a variety of callings that involved being a part of disciplinary councils.

This episode will feature two interviews, one with Barbie Berg, who wrote the article The Truth about an LDS Disciplinary Council. The other is by Allen Wyatt, with his article simply entitled Excommunication. This episode is, in some ways, a response to the events and discourse surrounding the very public church discipline hearing for Kate Kelly.

At the time of these interviews, Kate Kelly has been formally excommunicated for “conduct contrary to the laws and order of the church” and that she “persisted in an aggressive effort to persuade other Church members to your point of view and that your course of action has threatened to erode the faith of others.” Kate Kelly has since declared that she intends to appeal her excommunication. John Dehlin has not yet attended a formal council regarding his possible excommunication.

While an overwhelming majority of church disciplinary councils are not made public, because of the attention that these two have received, largely due to the efforts of Kate Kelly and John Dehlin themselves, we find many asking questions and seeking answers, while others make incorrect, incomplete, or un-Christlike declarations about what disciplinary hearings are, what they mean, how they come to be and how they are to be conducted.

Both of these articles and authors were chosen because, over the course of the weeks surrounding the public announcement of Kelly’s forthcoming church disciplinary council and Dehlin’s possible council, there has been a lot of commentary regarding their circumstances. It is my opinion that much of what was said fell short of the true nature, spirit, and purpose of church disciplinary councils, and I felt it was important to re-align the discourse. It also my opinion that these two articles share a valuable perspective that should be taken into consideration when absorbing and discussing all church disciplinary councils, not just the Kate Kelly scenario.

Barbie Berg: Article – The Truth about an LDS Disciplinary Council

http://barbieannlove.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-truth-about-lds-disciplinary-council.html?m=1

Based on her personal experience with going through a disciplinary council as a younger female as well as her testimony of the spirit that accompanies these councils.

Allen Wyatt: Article – Excommunication

http://www.allenwyatt.com/blog/excommunication

Allen served as a bishop from February 2006 until October 2012. He also served as a branch president, as a counselor in at least three different bishoprics, as a stake executive secretary, and on a high council. In all those positions Allen had the opportunity to sit in on disciplinary councils.

He wrote his article because he was seeing so much vitriol directed against the bishops and stake presidents involved in these matters that he felt someone needed to stand up and say, “no, this is the way it really is.” His article describes just one of the councils that happened to involve the excommunication of a sister.

Articles of Faith 7: Rick Anderson on Mormonism and Intellectual Freedom

by

Podcast: Download (63.2MB)

Subscribe: Android | RSS

Rick Anderson - Mormon InterpreterRick Anderson is Associate Dean for Scholarly Resources & Collections in the J. Willard Marriott Library at the University of Utah.  He earned his Bachelors and Masters in .Library Information Systems degrees at Brigham Young University. He serves on numerous editorial and advisory boards and is a regular contributor to the Scholarly Kitchen blog and to Library Journal’s Academic Newswire.

In 2005, Rick was identified by Library Journal as a “Mover and Shaker”—one of the “50 people shaping the future of libraries.” In 2008 he was elected president of the North American Serials Interest Group, and was named an ARL Research Library Leadership Fellow for 2009-10. In 2013 Rick received the HARRASSOWITZ Leadership in Library Acquisitions Award and was invited to give the Gould Distinguished Lecture on Technology and the Quality of Life at the University of Utah. Welcome the man who makes being a librarian cool, Rick Anderson. Rick Anderson is the author of the article in the Interpreter entitled Mormonism and Intellectual Freedom.

Questions Rick Anderson addresses in the episode:

I would assume, especially considering your many accolades and accomplishments professionally, that you spend a great deal of time around some of the brightest minds in your field, and to a certain extent, other fields as well. As a library management professional, you have to know a good bit of information about a lot of subjects. I have heard these individuals referred to as intellectual polygamists. With that being said, the genesis of your article, Mormonism and Intellectual Freedom, comes from a friend making what appears to be an ironic assumption. Could you flesh out that story a little?

 

Right now there is a great deal of discourse online regarding the quest for dovetailing intellectual pursuits in a spiritual or religious context. Lines are being drawn in the sand. What then is the role of scholarship in religious endeavors?

 

We hear people use two terms almost synonymously and I think that is the cause of some confusion in the discourse to which I am referring. Questioning, and doubting. How are these two terms different when considering this pursuit of knowledge?

 

Rick Anderson is the author of the Article Mormonsim and Intellectual Freedom found in the Interpreter: Journal of Mormon Scripture found at MormonInterpreter.com

Articles of Faith 6: Jane Birch on the Word of Wisdom – Errant Comma Theory

by

Podcast: Download (51.4MB)

Subscribe: Android | RSS

 

Jane Birch

Jane Birch is the author of Discovering the Word of Wisdom: Surprising Insights from a Whole Food, Plant-based Perspective (2013). She graduated from Brigham Young University with a Bachelors in History and a PhD in Instructional Science. She currently serves as Assistant Director for Faculty Development at the BYU Faculty Center. Her accomplishments include creating BYU’s premiere faculty development program for new faculty, which she directed for 15 years. Her current work includes assisting BYU faculty in combining religious faith with academic discipline. Her academic publications and presentations cover a variety of topics, primarily related to faculty development. She is the author of an article in The Interpreter entitled: Questioning the Comma in Verse 13 of the Word of Wisdom.

Questions asked in the podcast interview:

Your current work at BYU is on combining religious faith with academic discipline and research. It seems that this effort is one of the challenges that many people face in this internet world, and a world where secular institutions have been given the highest praise for their work in many fields. Teaching faithful academics is an almost lost art. What are some of the hurdles that hinder developing faith and academic knowledge at the same time?

 

You spend time writing on instructional sciences, personal and professional development, especially within institutions of higher learning, what prompted you to say, I need to write about the word of wisdom?

 

Before we begin a discussion on the topic of your article, we should probably set down the text of Verse 13 in doctrine and Covenants section 89 otherwise referred to as the Word of Wisdom. So, let me take a moment to read that verse for reference, for the people driving in their cars who can’t open to the verse. “And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.” You have ventured to discuss what might seem like the most petty thing to quibble about in grammar, a comma. In this verse, what is the great comma at the heart of the controversy?

 

There are other comma’s in this section, why is this comma different?

 

English language has its limitations in conveying a message perfectly. Have you looked to the interpretations given in other languages to see if there is any additional light that is shed on this verse?

 

Throughout the article you refer to the “errant comma theory.” Will you explain what that is for those that are unfamiliar.

 

You give several quotes from leaders in the early church, observations that might have been a simple description of what was happening, but have become a way for us to interpret, at least initial implications of this verse to the people in the first 100 years of Church operation. Perhaps you could give a few of those quotes as an example of their application to your article?

 

From the early era’s of recorded mortality, we have stories of ritual animal sacrifice. Mosaic law indicated that these sacrifices included ritual consumption of the meat. Kosher tradition includes certain meats that are considered clean. Jesus Christ has been recorded as feeding 5000 people with fish. Following his resurrection, Jesus Christ fed the apostles some fish. In fact, there are few indications that Jesus Christ ever spoke out against the consumption of animal products, perhaps the only instance is to end the life of an animal where there is no need, or if there is food that would go wasted as a result. However, I also recognize that there is equally no evidence condemning vegetarianism, only perhaps the advocacy of vegetarianism by way of commandment as found in D&C 49 18-21 which reads:

18 And whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats, that man should not eat the same, is not ordained of God;

19 For, behold, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and that which cometh of the earth, is ordained for the use of man for food and for raiment, and that he might have in abundance.

20 But it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin.

21 And wo be unto man that sheddeth blood or that wasteth flesh and hath no need.

 

Some will argue that church operation can serve as an interpretation of scripture. The church has extensive operations in beef farming, as well as other meats. In light of all these sources, and with your interest and study of the word of wisdom, I am interested in hearing you reconcile all this information with your efforts in light of your vegetarianism.

 

Herein lies the challenges of the Word of Wisdom. While some may see this section as pretty clear, you come along and say, a simple interpretation of a comma can give space for multiple interpretations that can find a place within its text.

 

Jane Birch is the author of Discovering the Word of Wisdom: Surprising Insights from a Whole Food, Plant-based Perspective (2013) and an article in The Interpreter entitled: Questioning the Comma in Verse 13 of the Word of Wisdom.

Articles of Faith 5: Kevin Christensen on Inevitable Consequences of the Different Investigative Approaches of Jeremy Runnells and Jeff Lindsay

by

Podcast: Download (56.3MB)

Subscribe: Android | RSS

kevin-christensenKevin Christensen has been a technical writer since 1984, He has a Bachelors in English from San Jose State University.  He has published articles in Dialogue, Sunstone, the FARMS Review of Books, the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Insights, the Meridian Magazine, including his article in the Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture entitled Eye of the Beholder, Law of the Harvest: Observations on the Inevitable Consequences of the Different Investigative Approaches of Jeremy Runnells and Jeff Lindsay. Kevin comes to us today by phone to discuss that article. (The article is not yet public-visit The Interpreter website to find the text when available.)

Some questions from the interview:

Some of your prior articles for the Interpreter have been dealing with Temple Mysticism and temple theology with an emphasis on the works of Margret Barker, a Methodist who seems to be making her way into the minds of some LDS scholars. This article that you have coming out in the Interpreter has very little if anything to do with such a topic; what brought about the shift in topic?

The title of the article is perhaps a bit verbose so I guess it serves as both the abstract and the title, it is Eye of the Beholder, Law of the Harvest: Observations on the Inevitable Consequences of the Different Investigative Approaches of Jeremy Runnells and Jeff Lindsay. Without knowing the two individuals Jeremy Runnels and Jeff Lindsay the article might be of a diminished value. Why don’t you give a summary of who these two men are and why they are the subjects or case studies of your article?

In a recent devotional at BYU Idaho, Elder D. Todd Christoferson invited the audience to have patience when doing investigation of the history of the church, and its teachings. In some ways it seems as if the subtext of that statement is that if you stop half way you will inevitably find yourself in a faith crisis. The only way to a faithful conclusion is to be diligent in learning by study and by faith. You insert a theory on just such a thing with your article, what is that hypothesis?

You put on a sort of spiritual doctor or maybe even a spiritual mathematician kind of hat as you write this article. I won’t call it an autopsy or audit of Jeremy Runnells spiritual journey, but rather an analysis or a diagnosis of how one comes to negative conclusions about the LDS faith. There is even an equation that you employ to describe this process, can you explain those two, let’s call them, equations?

I want to read a paragraph from your article as an introduction to my next question: “The familiar fable of Henny Penny (also known as Chicken Little) makes a related point. In the fable, a chicken interprets the fall of an acorn as evidence that “The sky is falling!” Another interpretation of exactly the same event would be that “The sky is not falling, but just an acorn. No big deal. No crisis. Acorns fall from oak trees all the time. It’s natural and to be expected.” Another character in the more cautionary versions of the fable, Foxy Loxy, sees not a crisis, or a non-event, but an opportunity to exploit fear and ignorance for his own gain. Same data. Different interpretation. The information does not speak for itself, but must be interpreted within an informational context and a conceptual framework.” This echo’s your title, the Eye of the Beholder. How we see things greatly informs our decisions. This is perhaps not that new a concept for some, but what is happening in the subtext of that statement is putting the onus on one’s spirituality and the way they take their spiritual path is their own fault. In other words Chicken Little’s interpretation of the sky falling is not the acorns fault. Nor is it the tree’s fault. These things just happen naturally. How them does this play into viewing the Jeremy Runnels of the world? For that matter, the Jeff Lindsay’s as well?

You pose the question or the situation, “what are we to do with the issue of perfection, meaning perfection of translation, etc.” That was an opening critique of the CES Letter, and that ends up being a pivotal start in determining Runnells mindset. How so?

When it comes to some of the arguments against latter-day Saint teachings, there is often a complaint about a given topic, such as prophets, but rarely offers an alternative definition. It is not so much that these individuals think that they are right, but that others are wrong.

You continue to go down the row, not necessarily point by point, but you do give some feedback on the faults of the Runnels argument. We don’t need to go into details about each one, but perhaps you could give a listing of some of the other topics that you address in Runnells argument.

You have a phrase in this article that is mentioned with respect to concerns that are raised about scientific issues, here is the quote, “I learned long ago to pay as much attention to the networks of assumptions involved as to the observations which are then fitted into that network.” Expand on that for a minute if you could.

I want to give an encapsulated example of the many issues you address and how you address them. So, I wanted to take on an issue that I am becoming more and more confused by, and that is the issues surrounding the Book of Abraham as a Smoking Gun argument. Let’s consider for a moment that I know nothing of this issue, take me from the beginning of this segment of the article and walk me through how you approach it. You start off by giving Runnell’s claims, “Of all of the issues, the Book of Abraham is the issue that has both fascinated and disturbed me the most. It is the issue that I’ve spent the most time researching on because it offers a real insight into Joseph’s modus operandi as well as Joseph’s claim of being a translator. It is the smoking gun that has completely obliterated my testimony of Joseph Smith and his claims.” That is a heavy indictment indeed. But why is this statement in and of itself quite telling as to what has gone into his research?

There is so much that this over 30 page article goes into, but the end goal of the article is to raise the question, “Why is it that when Jeff Lindsay studied these issues does his faith expand, and Runnells faith shatter? How can two individuals study the same issues and come to complete opposite conclusions?

If you could give one or two pieces of advice for the individual who is approaching various gospel subjects and is facing the junction of heading towards the Runnells conclusion or the Lindsay conclusions? Why is your approach the best approach?

Articles of Faith 4: Valerie Hudson on the Current Discourse on Women and the Priesthood by Ballard, Dew, and Oaks

by

Podcast: Download (37.2MB)

Subscribe: Android | RSS

VMHudsonDr. Valerie Hudson joined the faculty of Texas A&M University at the Bush School in 2012 as the George Bush Chair. She is considered an expert on international security and foreign policy analysis, she received her PhD in political science at The Ohio State University. Prior to going to Texas A&M she taught at Brigham Young University.   In 2009, Foreign Policy named her one of the top 100 Most Influential Global Thinkers. Dr. Hudson developed a nation-by-nation database on women (http://womanstats.org) that triggered both academic and policy interest including use by both the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee and various agencies of the United Nations.   Her research and teaching experience is also complemented by three major teaching awards and numerous research awards. She is a founding editorial board member of Foreign Policy Analysis, and also serves on the editorial boards of Politics and Gender and International Studies Review. More information can be found on her website, http://vmrhudson.org.   She comes to us today under the nome de plume V.H. Cassler to discuss her article in the 7th Volume of the online journal SqaureTwo found at SquareTwo.org. Welcome VH!   Some of the questions Valerie Hudson answers are:   Valerie Hudson’s article is a sort of time capsule or cultural snapshot of the current discourse in the LDS world about the roles of women, women in the priesthood, ordain women, etc. Valerie is a self proclaimed feminist which is a designation that has become a very vague concept in some respects. There are different waves of feminism, there are different implications on what being a feminist implies. Valerie says she is a Mormon BECAUSE is a feminist. How can one define themself as a feminist and how does that dovetail with Mormonism.   A brief introduction as to what that Journal is and what people can expect to find there.   In her book- Women in Eternity, Women in Zion she explore the idea of separating doctrine from culturally accepted precepts. This theme is also addressed in your article in SquareTwo. The article is entitled Zion in Her Beauty Rises: Current Discourse on Women and the Priesthood by Ballard, Dew, and Oaks. To start out you address some of the previously held cultural approaches to the discourse on the role of women in Mormon Culture and doctrine. What are some of those past cultural positions that were held by some?   There is a change in the discourse since the 21st century began on the issues of women in the church. General Authorities seem to be more assertive with the doctrines of gender equality. Valerie’s article focuses on recent statements from Elder M. Russell Ballard, Sheri Dew, and Elder Dallin H. Oaks. She gives a brief synopsis of each of these statements.   There have been other statements on this issue, so why these three sources, why not just one?   There is a temptation when it comes to issues such as gender and where there seems to be some changes in the way things are either viewed and/or operate, to make a chicken and egg kind of argument. That is to give the distinction that the change came because of the protest or pressure of men and women, vs. divine authority. What merit is there in even considering the source of the change? Does it matter? Can’t divine authority be given based on the petition of God’s children?   Valerie Hudson concludes with a beautiful and intriguing statement, “I agree with [Sheri] Dew when she predicts that, “the kingdom of God will change overnight” for the better when we move to higher ground on these questions.” The questions here being those surrounding gender roles and doctrines in the LDS Church. Valerie elaborates further on how this is the case?   Valerie Hudson, or V.H. Cassler, is the author of a the article Zion in Her Beauty Rises:
Current Discourse on Women and the Priesthood by Ballard, Dew, and Oaks that can be found in Vol. 7 of the online Journal SqaureTwo found at SquareTwo.org

Articles of Faith 3: Craig L. Foster on Polygamy and its relationship to the LDS Church

by

Podcast: Download (54.0MB)

Subscribe: Android | RSS

Craig L. FosterPrior to graduating from BYU, Craig L. Foster served as a missionary in Belguim and France. Craig L. Foster earned a Bachelors degree in history and MLIS (or Masters of Library and Information Science) at BYU. He is also an accredited genealogist and works as a research consultant at the Family History Library in Salt Lake City. He has published books and articles on various aspects of Mormon History. Some of his writings on Mormon History discuss the history and theology of plural marriage within the context of Mormonism. Craig is also on the editorial board of the John Whitmer Historical Association Journal. Craig is the author of the article: Separated but not Divorced: The LDS Church’s Uncomfortable Relationship with its Polygamous Past found in the Interpreter: Journal of Mormon Scripture

 

Articles of Faith 2: Royal Skousen on Book of Mormon Critical Text Project and Mary Whitmer Witness to the Gold Plates

by

Podcast: Download (57.4MB)

Subscribe: Android | RSS

Royal SkousenRoyal Skousen is a professor of linguistics and English at Brigham Young University. He is considered to be a leading expert on the textual history of the Book of Mormon.

Royal Skousen talks about his 25+ year effort on the Book of Mormon Critical Text Project, his findings about the language of the Book of Mormon and his assertion that the text is from the language of the 1600’s, not the language of Joseph Smith’s day–concluding that Joseph was revealed an English text, not taking broad theories and applying them to the language of his day.

Royal is also the author of an article from the Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture entitled Another Account of Mary Whitmer’s Viewing of the Golden Plates. This article articulates the discovery of an additional account of Mary Whitmer’s being shown the Gold Plates from the Angel Moroni. This account articulates a motivation for Moroni’s showing her the plates.

For other texts from Royal Skousen, click here.

 

Brian C. Hales Interview – Articles of Faith Show

by

Podcast: Download (41.3MB)

Subscribe: Android | RSS

Brian C Hales – Dissenters: Portraying the Church As Wrong So They Can Be Right Without It

Brian C. Hales is a board-certified anesthesiologist in Layton, Utah. He graduated from Utah State University with a B.S. in biology and from the University of Utah, College of Medicine.

He authored Setting the Record Straight: Mormon Fundamentalism (2008) and The Priesthood of Modern Polygamy: An LDS Perspective (1992). Hales has published articles in Mormon Historical Studies, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, and the Journal of Mormon History. Brian Hales is also webmaster of www.MormonFundamentalism.com and www.JosephSmithsPolygamy.com.

Brian has also served as president of the Utah Medical Association and as president of the Medical Staff at Davis Hospital and Medical Center. He is the father of four adult children and author of the 3 volume set, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy.