Last night Theresa had the chance to participate in a fantastic evening sponsored by the LDS student organization here at the law school. Terryl Givens, preeminent Morman scholar spoke to us about Mormonism and Politics, and I would like to share some of the insights we gained with you all. He began with a brief history of Mormon politics, but his main point was that America's fear of Mormon politicians such as Mitt Romney are completely unfounded and based on unrelated prejudice, since Mormons are actually more likely to be patriotic and respect the constitution than any other religious group (and more than most non-religious people as well). This conclusion is premised on various Mormon teachings, such as our belief that the Constitution was an inspired document, that America is a chosen land, and that we need to "obey, honor, and sustain the law."It was a wonderful lecture, but then we had the opportunity to accompany Dr. Givens to dinner with a few other couples, which was even better. There, our conversation ranged across a number of topics, with Dr. Givens proving to hold, in my opinion, a very enlightened view on our religion. We discussed:
How to be an intellectual believer: respect the doubt and understand that if the church is true, it doesn't need an apologist
Conflicting evidence of the Book of Mormon: He approached his research hiding nothing, trusting that in the end, the good will outweigh the bad
Opposition in all things: This world is designed so that there is just enough evidence to believe in or refute religion (just as DNA evidence was threatening B of M credibility, researches find some documents in Africa that suggests its authenticity), which makes the choice to believe - for it is a choice - a true reflection of one's character
Unfounded Paradigms: He told us of a great Mormon Scholar in the early days of the church who was completely confounded by "proofs" against the B of M, such as the fact that native American languages are not based in Hebrew or Egyptian. But he was operating under the presumption that the Lamanites were the sole ancestors to modern natives, a position unfounded in revelation and later disclaimed by the church. How many of our current beliefs are similarly unfounded?
Polygamy: we're supposed to find it repugnant
The PBS documentary: "It was like falling from a building - really enjoyable until the end." He said the producer was very professional and he saw an unedited version of the program that he thought was very good; however, the version that was actually aired was unbalanced (the ratio of opponents to supporters of the church was about 6:1).
The four paradoxes of Mormonism: 1. authority and radical freedom (we place so much value in agency, yet are highly obedient to leaders), 2. searching and certainty (we believe that we are always learning an perfecting ourselves, yet our testimonies profess that we know some truths with certainty), 3. sacred and the banal (our temples demonstrate our sense of the sacred, where the presence of basketball courts in our churches show how we are banal) 4. election versus exile (we choose to be a "peculiar people" standing out in the world, yet are insulted that other churches and the public in general don't include us).
Hmm, this post is getting long. All and all, a thoroughly enjoyable evening. I would highly recommend his books (I've read "The Hand of Mormon").
8 comments:
Great summary. I would like to hear him. And even better I would like to go to dinner with him and pick his brain. Your summary is so good, in fact, that with your permission I am going to use some of your information (4 paradoxes) in my class.
I enjoyed your comments. Must be nice to win the lotto to have dinner with him. Perhaps a little bio of him would be a good follow up.
Grandpa, you don't have to ask me to use the ideas, since they are Dr. Given's. (He writes about them in his book, "People of Pardox: A History of Mormon Culture").
Maybe you could even have him come out to Buena Vista sometime. He lives in Richmond and says he does a lot of firesides and the like.
Randy, this guy sounds very interesting. You're lucky you got to chat with him. Just one question--if we're supposed to find polygamy repugant, why do we teach we will practice it in the eternities? Did he explain that?
Wow - Interesting viewpoints. Sounds like it was a very engaging evening.
I had the same question as Kathy on the polygamy thing. I already find it repugnant, so perhaps I'm ahead of the game there, but I'm sure I'm not alone. So if that's the case, I'm wondering why something taught as a requirement for salvation in the 1800's and taught in the 1900's that it will be reality in the afterlife, would be repugnant and offensive, particularly to people who will be living that principle for eternity? I'm baffled.
I must also admit that I'm perplexed by his idea that whether a person has more confidence in one set of facts over another set of "facts", would have anything to say about their character. It seems to me that a person's choice regarding religion, what they place faith in, or what they see as reality would be due more to their upbringing, their experiences, their culture and their critical thinking skills, rather than character.
I believe true "character" has more to do with how someone lives & conducts their life based on their personal beliefs, than what it is they actually believe.
With regard to the politics part of this person's lecture, and whether Mitt Romney would be more, or less, likely to uphhold the constitution -- My hope with Mitt Romney was, and with all the current candidates is, that they would honor and sustain the laws and the inspired constitution we now have without trying to change them in favor of their own personal beliefs. This is a diverse country, and to be true to the constitution, the views, beliefs and practices of one group cannot be held as superior to others. I'm in favor of us all banding together, finding common ground and seeing the value in each other, rather than in dividing, oppressing, excluding or condemning those who are different than us.
It will be interesting to see which way the election goes. I'm certainly ready for a change.
I did purposely leave my polygamy comment vague partially because doing so would make the post more compelling, but also because it takes a little more explaining than my other comments. But since there have been questions, I will attempt to clarify what I meant. (In doing so, I stress that I am merely reporting my understanding of what I understood that Dr. Givens was saying, and I am not prepared to - nor do I wish to - enter a debate about the topic. Also, this commentary should not be taken as an authoritative representation of Dr. Givens' beliefs).
To begin, it is useful to think about Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac. Not only was he asked to sacrifice his son, but he was also asked to sacrifice his entire belief system by being commanded to doing something that he considered and abhorrent sin: killing. Because he was willing to obey the Lord and do what he felt was repugnant, his obedience was that much greater. (You could also think about when Nephi was commanded to kill Laban).
When polygamy was first revealed, it appears that the church leaders were just as opposed to it as Abraham must have been to his heavenly instruction. Brigham Young famously said: "Some of these my brethern know what my feelings were at the time Joseph revealed the doctrine; I was not desirous of shrinking from any duty, nor of failing in the least to do as I was commanded, but it was the first time in my life that I had desired the grave, and I could hardly get over it for a long time. And when I saw a funeral, I felt to envy the corpse its situation, and to regret that I was not in the coffin, knowing the toil and labor that my body would have to undergo; and I have had to examine myself, from that day to this, and watch my faith, and carefully meditate, lest I should be found desiring the grave more than I ought to do."
But because the brethren (not to mention the sisters, who I'm sure also had a hard time with the principle, to say the least) were willing to obey a commandment that they found repugnant, their obedience was a true manifestation of their faith. So, they were supposed to find polygamy repugnant because if it were not, then it would have been as powerful of a test of their faith.
This argument is premised on to idea that polygamy is NOT an eternal principle that is necessary for exaltation. Dr. Givens said that his research has not revealed anything that suggests that this view of the doctrine is directly inspired. I imagine that this idea, which is so prevalent in the church today, could be another paradigm that is intrenched in our minds without sufficient basis.
Instead of being an eternal and necessary doctrine, then, polygamy could be viewed as the Lord commanding a temporary exception to the eternal principle of monogamy. The very doctrine of the church seems to support this view: Jacob 2 explicitly says that men should only have one wife. Also, the very revelation in D&C 132 that outlined polygamy reads like the command was an exception rather than the rule - it doesn't say that plural marriage must be practiced, but only that when the Lord gives 2 wives, it would not be considered adultery. Furthermore, the very doctrine that man and woman are equal partners would be undermined if polygamy were a requirement for exaltation. Just because Abraham and Nephi were commanded to kill, it doesn't mean that we have to discard the commandment prohibiting murder as well. The Lord commanded that the church practice polygamy and then retracted the command - that is about all we know about it. Any teaching more than this (even from high church officials - not everything an apostle says is pure revelation) is probably speculation.
I had to laugh out loud at your qualification/disclaimer on your comments. You are going to be a fabulous attorney, I'm sure. :-) But thanks for posting the view point you understood he was trying to convey. It is interesting to me to see how different people view these things.
When Craig read the post, his comment to me was "I've learned there are two things never to discuss with people who don't see the world the same way you do - religion and politics", so he's staying quiet.
Well, Craig has a great point about not discussing religion and politics. I don't know what I was thinking writing about both in the same post!
Post a Comment