"What's a Rameumptom, Daddy?" (With Apologies to Gregory Bateson)

In The Lord’s University: Freedom and Authority at BYU (Signature Books, 1998), Hugh Nibley, eminent LDS scholar and BYU professor, is quoted as saying, in disdain of what he felt was that university's misguidedly strict dress code, 

"The worst sinners, according to Jesus, are not the harlots and publicans, but the religious leaders with their insistence on proper dress and grooming, their careful observance of all the rules, their precious concern for status symbols, their strict legality, their pious patriotism.... [T]he haircut becomes the test of virtue in a world where Satan deceives and rules by appearances." 

Hugh Nibley called it like he saw it in all areas of human concern: politics, religion, economics, education, and modern society as a whole, and he pulled no punches even when -- perhaps especially when -- addressing the ills he saw creeping into the church he loved so much.

Though I fear that the following will be taken as being overly cynical, especially since it is being presented here by one considering himself a New Order Mormon at best, I feel that if one can imagine this coming from a fellow believing Mormon concerned by the existence, to whatever degree, of pride, arrogance, hypocrisy, unrighteous judgment, pretentiousness, or false piety within the Church, it can be quite instructive.

I think Brother Nibley would have approved.

"What's a Rameumptom, Daddy?"

"Well, the Book of Mormon says it was a place where the Zoramites stood to worship and pray."

"But my Primary teacher said it was a tower that evil people used."

"I can see how someone could think that. The Book of Mormon says it was 'a place for standing which was high above the head' and only one person at a time could go up there."

"Was it like the speaker's stand in the church?"

"A speaker's stand? You mean a pulpit? Yes, I suppose it was. In fact, the word 'Rameumptom' means 'the holy stand.'"

"What's so evil about a holy stand, Daddy?"

"Well, it wasn't the stand that was evil. It was how it was used. The people gathered there in their synagogue. . ."

"What's a synagogue?"

"Just a different word for chapel or church, honey."

"Oh."

"They'd gather in their synagogue one day a week."

"Which day, Daddy?"

"I don't know, honey. It just says 'one day,' and they called it 'the day of the Lord.'"

"It must have been Sunday."

"Why do you say that?"

"Because Sunday is the Lord's day."

"Well, maybe it was. . . Anyway, they'd gather there and whoever wanted to worship would go and stand on the top of the Rameumptom."

"Could anyone go up there?"

"Well, no, that was part of the problem. Apparently, they had to wear the right clothes. . . "

"You mean like us when we wear Sunday clothes, Daddy?"

"Well, not exactly, but in a way, yes, I suppose. Some of us might have a hard time accepting certain kinds of clothes or people in sacrament meeting. But we wear our Sunday clothes to help us be reverent, don't we?"

"Yes, Daddy."

"So anyway, where was I?"

"They went to the top of the Rameumptom. . ."

"Yes, they would go up and worship God by thanking him for making them so special."

"Were they bearing their testimonies?"

"Well, uh, I guess maybe they were in a way, but they weren't true testimonies."

"How come?"

"Because they were too proud."

"What do you mean 'proud,' Daddy?"

"Well, they would talk about how they were 'a chosen and holy people.'"

"My Primary teacher said Mormons are the chosen people and we're a special generation."

"Yes, honey, but that's different."

"How?"

"Because we are."

"Oh."

"Besides they were very, very proud about how much better they were than everyone else, because they didn't believe the 'foolish traditions' of their neighbors."

"What does that mean, Daddy?"

"It means that they believed everyone else was wrong and they alone were right."

"Isn't that what we believe?"

"But it's different."

"How?"

"Because we are right, honey."

"Oh."

"Everyone would stand and say the same thing. . ."

"That sounds like testimony meeting to me."

"Don't be irreverent."

"Sorry."

"Then after it was all over, they would go home and never speak about God until the next day of the Lord when they'd gather at the holy stand again."

"Isn't that like us, Daddy?"

"No honey, we have Family Home Evening."

"Oh."

An oldie but goodie taken from Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Volume 22, Number 4, Winter 1989 (with corrections to spelling)

The Apologists vs The Apostles

When a Mormon encounters a claim critical of her faith, or hears of puzzling historical events that don't quite jibe with what she has been taught in Sunday School, or comes across a description of temple rituals wholly foreign to the ones in which she has participated, she might take her concerns and questions to the apologetic websites of the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, or FAIR.

If you're sitting there reading Mormon-related blogs, I'm willing to bet you have at least some familiarity with FAIR, so I'll forgo any detailed description of their background or mission. If you're not familiar with FAIR, suffice it to say they are a group of Mormon apologists dedicated to defending "from a historical or scholarly point of view" the LDS Church against criticisms of its doctrines, practices, and scriptures.

Since the Church itself rarely, if ever, weighs in authoritatively and officially on controversies, FAIR (and similar apologetic organizations) is the closest an inquiring Mormon can come to finding an LDS response to her questions or concerns, although she must be willing to accept the implications of the disclaimer appearing at the bottom of their homepage: FAIR's research "should not be interpreted as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice."

But seeing as how their research effectively calls into question the reliability, competency, or possibly even the honesty of certain Church leaders, I submit that the wording of FAIR's disclaimer might be putting it mildly.

What am I talking about? Well, take, for example,what the following Church leaders are on record claiming with respect to the revelations given to Joseph Smith, published originally as A Book of Commandments (back when the LDS Church was still known as the Church of Christ), but now collected in the Doctrine and Covenants:

"None of the early revelations of the Church have been revised." - Hugh B. Brown, Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, in a letter to Morris Reynolds, May 13, 1966, as quoted by Richard Abanes in One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church (Thunder's Mouth Press: New York, 2003), p. 408 

"There has been no tampering with God's Word.... [T]he whole body of Church laws forms a harmonizing unit, which does not anywhere contradict itself nor has it been found necessary to alter any part of it." - John A. Widtsoe, Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Joseph Smith - Seeker After Truth (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1951), p. 119, 122

"Inspiration is discovered in the fact that each part, as it was revealed, dovetailed perfectly with what had come before. There was no need for eliminating, changing, or adjusting any part to make it fit." - Joseph Fielding Smith, Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Church Historian and Recorder, future President of LDS Church, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1 (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954), p. 170

These Brethren have made it clear: there have been no changes made to the revelations the Lord gave Joseph Smith. But when we look at the FAIR webpage with the somewhat alarming title, Doctrine and Covenants / Textual Changes, what do we find? Well, FAIR's research informs us that,

• "Of course there have been changes and corrections. Anyone who has done even limited research knows that."
• "Some... changes added material which had been gleaned from advancements in Church organization or later revelations, or expanded upon ideas within the original text."
• "A few revelations removed text, or altered the expression of an idea with a new phrasing or approach."
• "The editing and modification of the revelations was never a secret; it was well known to the Church of Joseph's day, and it has been discussed repeatedly in modern Church publications, as well as extensive studies in Masters' and PhD theses at BYU."
• "Sometimes changes were required to clarify wording. Occasionally, later revelations would supersede or update previously received revelations, necessitating the editing of documents to alter previous versions. Various other changes were also made from time to time."
• "In a few cases, more substantive changes were made as revelations were updated for the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants."

In addition, Hugh Nibley, arguably the godfather of modern LDS apologetics, declared when writing to Morris Reynolds in 1966, "Revelations have been revised whenever necessary." (Although, as has been discussed earlier, caution should be employed in taking Nibley at his word.)

So what are we to make of this? Apostles Brown, Widtsoe, and Smith (who happened to be in the unique and advantageous position of being Church Historian at the time) say no changes have been made to the revelations given to Joseph Smith, while the so-called "research" of FAIR insists otherwise. Both cannot be right. And although FAIR appears, superficially at least, to have some evidence supporting their position, I believe reflecting on some past words of counsel might behoove those seriously weighing this matter in their minds:

"[Satan] wins a great victory when he can get members of the church to speak against their leaders and to do their own thinking. When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done."  - "Ward Teacher's Message," Deseret News (Church Section), May 26, 1945, p. 5. Also appeared in the Improvement Era (name of official Church magazine prior to the Ensign), June 1945, p.354 (Wow! Did they really have that many pages in their magazine back then?! Don't ask me, I got the reference from One Nation Under Gods, p. 607 note 34.)

"No Latter-day Saint who is true and faithful in all things will ever pursue a course, or espouse a cause, or publish an article or book [or website?] that weakens or destroys faith." - Bruce R. McConkie, Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Conference Report, October 1984, p. 104 (italicized text added)

I must leave it to the reader to decide if FAIR's research "weakens or destroys faith," but there is no question that they have taken a position mutually exclusive to the words of the apostles quoted above. Choose ye this day, Droppings readers.

But as for me and my house, well....

All About South Park

I had a great idea for a blog post this week. The creators of South Park, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, have been in the news announcing details of their forthcoming Broadway musical, called "The Book of Mormon" (see here), and it seemed the perfect time to revisit the (in-?)famous episode of South Park in which Joseph Smith and the origins of Mormonism were given that brutal South Park treatment.

Before bringing a single Cheetos-stained finger to the keyboard, I had the whole post outlined in my head: I would have started it out explaining that the episode, titled "All About the Mormons?", aired during the program's seventh season in November  2003, and I would have given a brief synopsis of the episode's plot. Then I would have mentioned that the Church eventually publicly mentioned the program by name, labeling it "a gross portrayal of Church history" that "no doubt" caused "individual Church members" to feel "uncomfortable." I then might have recalled that my own initial impression of seeing the show, for I considered myself a fully believing Mormon at the time, was indeed one of discomfort... but the feeling of discomfort was coupled with another feeling -- an odd sense of being just a tad impressed with Parker's and Stone's familiarity with Mormonism's origins as demonstrated by their depictions (irreverent and exaggerated though they were) of events many Mormons, in my experience, are wholly ignorant of (or, at the very least, kinda fuzzy on).

At that point in my blog post, I would have remarked that many LDS might be forgiven for dismissing without a second thought those events in the episode that were alien to them. After all, the show was clearly mocking the faith and its founder, so what would have kept the writers from making things up whole-cloth just for a laugh, right?

After that, I would have pointed out that the writers did indeed deviate here and there from the best historical data and did, in fact, get some details very wrong. Then I would have said, all dramatically-like, "...But what they got right might surprise you." I might have even put it in bold or italics. Like, "...But what they got right might surprise you." Truth is, what they got wrong might surprise you, too.

Next, I would have provided a link so that the Droppings reader who wanted to could view the entire episode online for free. I probably would have even put it in a larger font size and on its own line so it would stand out from the other links peppered throughout the post. Maybe a little something like,

South Park Season 7, Episode 12 - "All About the Mormons?"

Then I would have proceeded to do a point-by-point breakdown of the episode, consulting the historical record to show where they got it right and where they got it wrong. It would have been impressive. I might have had to do the post in installments, since the South Park episode covers so much ground, and it would have been quite a time-consuming project. But, I think, it would have been fun to do.

So why ain't I doing it?

Well, I wanted to - I really did. And I started to. Really! But when it came time to do the google search to find the link to the episode, I discovered the existence of something I should have assumed was already out there: My great idea for a blog post has been done. Probably years ago, too. Oh, well. A wiser fella than myself once said, "Sometimes you eat the bar, and sometimes the bar... well, sometimes it eats you."

Now, I'm not exactly sure what that means, but reflecting on it when facing one of life's disappointments makes me feel better all the same. That and a Caucasian.

The Curious Case of the Cut in the Knee

"Garments are considered sacred by Church members and are not regarded as a topic for casual conversation." - from Newsroom.LDS.org, the official LDS Church resource for news media and the public

Since I understand well the sensitivity many LDS have toward discussing garments, I'm going to avoid an introductory explanation of their purpose and significance and direct the curious reader to the entry on garments included in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, available on BYU's website here, but I will address a rather curious historical claim made about garments that might prove uncomfortable for the Mormon unaccustomed to candid discussions of the sacred not tailored to the promotion of faith.

Now, I'm not the most well-read bloke when it comes to Mormon history, but I have been following the debates had between believers and critics long enough to have become familiar with a good many of the controversial events in LDS history, so I was a tad surprised when I recently happened across something I had managed for so long to remain ignorant of, and it comes from what is probably the most famous and widely read biography of Joseph Smith ever, Fawn Brodie's No Man Knows My History (told you I'm not the most well-read bloke). She writes, on page 281 of the 1971 edition:

The... square and compass were cut into the garment on the breast and a slash was made across the knee. In the beginning the cut across the knee was apparently deep enough to penetrate the flesh and leave a scar, but this practice was eventually abandoned as a result of protests from the Mormon women.

I was positively dumbfounded to find that, according to Brodie, the symbols in the garment, or at least the mark found near the knee, apparently used to be cut into the garment while it was actually being worn by a temple attendee. Brodie cites no reference for this but does list in her bibliography what appears to be her source: Fifteen Years Among the Mormons, by Mary Ettie V. Smith. That work gives more detail of temple related goings-on than what I am comfortable relating here, but the relevant passage, and, indeed, the entire book, can be read online here.

More shocking to me than the description of the cut made to the knee is the virtual silence (online, at any rate) on this nugget of history. For example, Hugh Nibley, in his famous critique of Brodie's book, "No, Ma'am, That's Not History," makes absolutely no correction to Brodie's account of the garment/knee cutting, and the FAIRWiki response to this chapter of Brodie's book stops a page short of where the practice is mentioned. I realize that to suggest that Ms. Smith's/Fawn Brodie's account must be true because I can't find any apologetic response refuting the claim is a fallacious argument from silence, but I can't help but feel that if Smith/Brodie was off base here, LDS apologists would have been more than willing to point out the error and would have done so long ago (Smith's book was published in 1858; Brodie's in 1945). But, as it stands, I can't find a peep. Is it perhaps because Mormons are reticent to discuss temple related topics, even to correct misunderstandings or even gross fabrications? Maybe, but, I believe, unlikely. Hugh Nibely wrote extensively about the temple, and the FAIRWiki has a multi-topic "Temple" portal.

And so I appeal to you, Droppings readers: if you have any information that calls into question the reliability of Ms. Smith's account of the cutting she describes, please let me know. My ego is having a hard time accepting that something this fascinating has eluded me during all my years of study, and, frankly, I would accept this all being an anti-Mormon lie a satisfactory excuse.

Mormons and Easter

It's news that some Mormons might bristle at hearing, especially those sensitive to public perception of their faith, but the fact that the Church-owned Deseret News has been the first to cover a recent study conducted at the Church's own university makes this difficult to dismiss as meritless nitpicking, and for many observers of LDS culture, this news is hardly news at all: There is a disconnect between Mormons and Easter.

BYU Study: Disconnect Between Mormons and Easter - Deseret News

Keith Wilson, an associate professor of ancient scripture at the Church's Brigham Young University, conducted a survey of approximately 500 Mormons to gauge the importance of Easter to them. As a Mormon who cannot, personally, recall much particularly noteworthy emphasis placed on the observance of Easter (outside of the egg hunt, of course), I am wholly unsurprised by Wilson's findings: To Mormons, Easter is only a "minor celebration" and is "almost completely usurped by general conference." (Please pardon, those of you well-versed in all things Mormon, what must seem like unnecessary linkage throughout this post  -- I have several non-LDS acquaintances I share this blog with who can't understand Mormonese without a translation.)

Let me pause right here to preempt any fellow Latter-day Saint who might insist that the Church most certainly does emphasize Easter and that I am dishonestly and unflatteringly portraying the Church by asserting otherwise. I have no doubt at all that there are indeed wards and perhaps even entire stakes out there that make it a point to observe Easter with all the celebration and reverence found among other Christians -- the pageant held every year in Mesa, AZ is proof enough of that -- but, as the DesNews article notes, "there is no formal church-wide celebration of Easter Sunday in the LDS Church, [though] pockets of Christ-centered activities are scheduled by some local stakes and regions." So all I'm saying is, I haven't happened to have been in one of those pockets when Easter Sunday rolled around -- if you have, how lovely for you. =)

Some specifics from Wilson's report: "fewer than half read the Easter story at home or knew when Easter was this calendar year. Only one in six discussed or reviewed the events of the Passion week. Only one in 19 discussed the Triumphal Entry. These participants sent a consistent message from their candid answers: The celebration of Easter among the Latter-day Saints receives little attention beyond a regular Sunday worship service."

Wilson's study also touched on something I had intended to comment on last week: Palm Sunday. According to Wilson, "My students did a little poll this year — 350 to 400 of them — and only 2 to 3 percent of their wards even mentioned Palm Sunday. It's like we're afraid that's another Christian fabrication of mainstream Christianity and we don't want to buy into it." I don't know if Wilson is correct in the reason he gives for the apparent LDS neglect of Palm Sunday, but that a neglect exists I can certainly attest. Easter I can at least recall having some importance attached to it while growing up, but Palm Sunday? Negatory.

For grins and giggles, I did a search of LDS.org to see how often the term "Palm Sunday" appears in all Church content (this covers official Church magazines, unique LDS scriptures, general conference talks, lesson manuals, and entries to LDS.org itself -- in other words, all "official" Church publications archived online). When adjusted to remove duplicate search results, there are only 13 unique returns for "Palm Sunday." Of these 13, at least one appears to be a false match, as it doesn't contain the phrase at all, and another search result merely returns the phrase "Palm Sunday" with no link, no reference, no nothing -- just "Palm Sunday."

So in all the material available via LDS.org, we're talking roughly a dozen unique mentions of Palm Sunday. For perspective, note the occurrence of the phrase "Pioneer Day" on LDS.org. What's remarkable to me about this is the fact that Pioneer Day, while a celebration of what is certainly a significant event in LDS history, is merely a Utah state holiday with observance confined primarily, if not almost entirely, to the Mormon corridor, while Palm Sunday is a day of commemoration for Christians the world over. For a global church with the majority of its membership residing outside the United States, the disparity is puzzling but could go some way to explaining the results of the "little poll" conducted by Wilson's students.

I must admit, the cynic in me predicted that the typical LDS response to the suggestion that the significance of Easter is understated in Mormonism would be one of dismissal or knee-jerk defensiveness; the charge is, after all, one that some sectarian opponents of Mormonism use to criticize the Church (as seen here, for example). And while the observation most certainly has been met with some LDS resistance, I have been surprised by the candor of more than a few faithful Latter-day Saints in acknowledging the underwhelming attitude toward Easter sometimes found in the Church.

For example, Daniel C. Peterson, notable LDS scholar, author, apologist, and Bishop, remarked, "On balance,... I don't think Latter-day Saints -- or, at least, American Latter-day Saints -- always celebrate Easter as they ought to. Sometimes, it's virtually an afterthought, whereas, in my view, it's theologically more significant (in a way) than Christmas is.... If I had my druthers, I would emphasize Easter much more than we do." He also acknowledged that certain critics of the Church who contend "that we [Mormons] don't always emphasize Easter as we should," make the charge "with some justice," while adding that the Mormon celebration of Easter is "fairly anemic."

Finally, at long last, Professor Peterson and I can agree on something. ; )

Happy Easter, all.

Speaking of Glenn Beck...

In addition to incurring the on-the-record rebuking of some Mormon scholars over his position on "social justice," (see, for example, Mormon scholar: "Glenn Beck doesn't speak for the Mormons I know," and Christians Urged to Boycott Glenn Beck), it looks as though Glenn Beck might evoke, if not public complaints, at the very least some eyerolls and annoyed whisperings from a different group of Mormon scholars: those found among the ranks of FARMS and FAIR.

A couple entries ago, I mentioned the debate currently ongoing between two different camps of Latter-day Saints with respect to Book of Mormon geography: those who believe the events of that book were primarily confined to a relatively small area of Mesoamerica and those who hold that the book's events occurred in a much larger area covering a significant portion of present day U.S.

If you are unfamiliar with the two competing theories, for a description of the Mesoamerican team's position, see this overview of the Limited Geography Theory, or LGT, prepared by FAIR, advocates of the model. To see the opposing theory, so christened the "Heartland model," see, for only one example of many, the FAQ at BookOfMormonEvidence.org.

So, why, then, would those at FARMS and FAIR, proponents of the LGT, have reason to be irritated with Glenn Beck? Well, it appears the popular LDS television and radio host has lent his celebrity and potentially huge influence with fellow Mormons to Promised Land Publications, champions of the Heartland model, to promote their recent 2-day conference held in Sandy, UT.

To hear Glenn Beck's promotion, visit http://www.ldspromisedland.com/index.php?showpage=Glennbeck.php. To hear the collective groan of FARMS/FAIR as their opponent gets the endorsement of arguably one of the most popular and famous Mormons in the church, make a long, pain-filled groaning sound and pretend you heard it coming from the Maxwell Institute at BYU, and that'll probably be pretty close.