MrShorty

I have had a long interest in textual criticism, though it hasn't been intense or deep. The most interesting to me are sections like the long ending of Mark or the woman taken in adultery in John's gospel, where large blocks of text seem to be later additions. In my experience listening/reading those who have struggled with their faith because of textual criticism, it often seems that they started with a very fundamentalist, inerrant, univocal view of scripture. As they studied the textual history and variants of the Bible, they found significant conflict with their fundamentalist view of scripture, and sometimes just couldn't hold on to their faith. I don't know if we LDS are really any more resilient than other Christian groups in this regard, as I find that some of us do expect scripture to be univocal and quasi-inerrant. IMO, those whose faith will benefit from studying textual criticism will be those who have a realistic understanding of what scripture is. Let's not forget that textual criticism is not just for the Bible. The Book of Mormon has its own textual criticism project exploring the history of our own founding scriptural text. The history is a lot shorter, but there are textual variants nonetheless -- such as the never ending discussion over whether it should read "pure and delightsome" or "white and delightsome." (FAIR page:https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Textual_changes ) Personally, I've found the study of textual variants to be interesting, but not challenging to faith. The parts of scripture that have been the most challenging to my faith have been those where scripture attributes something to God that I struggle to believe came from God. The genocides of the OT are a go to example. It is difficult to attribute these problems to some kind of textual variant problem or a translation problem. The authors of the Bible put those stories in there, and they challenge my sense of who God is and what His nature is.

Just saw this on a news feed (using KSL, since I generally trust them as a news source): https://www.ksl.com/article/51298343/pope-francis-first-latin-american-pontiff-dies-on-easter-monday

A few things stood out to me, in part because I personally find them troubling, and, in part, because I'm not sure the 21st century church agrees with some of the older comments. The statement you use from Joseph F. Smith about a father being the highest authority in the family is going to fall flat for someone who holds a more egalitarian view of family authority being equally held between father and mother. You could pull out your best Boyd K. Packer and talk about how feminism is one of the greatest threats to the church, but I would encourage you to replace quotes like this with more recent, more egalitarian quotes from church leaders that express the idea that husband and wife are equal in authority in leading the family. As it relates to fathers providing for the family, I have long found that this discussion at BCC has been one of the most thought provoking for me. In short, the question is basically asked how we would view a scenario where a couple decides that, because mom has better earning potential or something like that, dad will be a stay at home parent while mom goes out into the world to be the primary breadwinner. As one who leans more egalitarian, I have no problem with the SAHD + breadwinner mom scenario, but I'm also fairly confident that there are those who lean more strongly complementarian who would find that scenario problematic. I don't know that it changes anything in your talk, unless you think through that same thought experiment and decide that something needs to change. edit to add link: https://bycommonconsent.com/2019/07/28/a-quick-query-about-the-proclamation-on-the-family/ Overall, my impression as someone who leans egalitarian is that you're coming from a more complementarian angle. My impression from recent years is that the church is struggling a bit to decide which side of the complementarian/egalitarian divide to come down on. Some of that struggle is because there are definitely many within the church who, like me, lean more egalitarian than complementarian. One overall critique I would make of your talk is to consider how those who lean egalitarian are going to respond (internally even if they never say anything to your face) to your talk and see if any of those considerations cause you to change anything.

How about this random prediction for conference? With Sunday being Apr. 6, how many references will get for the 195th anniversary of the official organization of the church in 1830? I'm going to predict 3 such references on Sunday alone. I might even suggest that some of your conference bingo cards need a "On this date in 1830, the church was organized" square. Along the same lines, will any of the speakers follow Elder Bednar's example of 2014 and mention Christ's birthdate?

@Erick At the risk of urther TMI, after my own bout with a different cancer, I do the same thing -- regular underwear underneath garments. Like @NeuroTypical, I recall days when there was believed to be much more rigidity around how garments were intended to work with other undergarments. It's often difficult to know which directives were top down and which were bottom up. I'm just glad that we have reached a point as a people where we don't worry so much about how people choose to wear their underclothing.

A quick internet search leads to Isaiah 34:5, where the phrase is also used. From Biblehub's commentary (note that many translations translate "bathed" from the KJV as drunk or even inebriated.) Seems consistent with how Joseph Smith is using the phrase here. ETA: it appears you've already seen something like this.

I notice that your latest batch of evidences relies heavily on Zebedee Coltrin and Caleb Shreeve. I have seen these evidences critiqued in a few places. The B. H. Roberts Foundation website succinctly summarizes the critiques, thus: I will admit that I find your overall premise -- to demonstrate with some confidence that the priesthood and temple ban began with Joseph Smith -- to be an ambitious undertaking. As near as I can tell, the overall evidences and proofs are at best inconclusive. As the same mormonr website says: I'm interested to see the other evidences you present and how you interpret them compared to how others have interpreted them.

As I've been around the issue, the primary alternative explanation is that given by Dr. Paul Reeves as published by Deseret Book in Let's Talk About Race and Priesthood I reviewed the book here We don't have to accept Dr./Br. Reeves explanations and conclusions blindly, and we can't claim that the church officially endorses or accepts his narrative. It seems to me that, considering his credentials, any alternative explanations we provide will, at some point, come head to head with Dr./Br. Reeves and his research and conclusions.

I've been following with interest, since this is becoming a major part of my own faith crisis. I don't have any answers to contribute. The observation I want to make is how the church is seeming divided on this topic. I noted with interest the data from the B. H. Roberts foundation showing the church just about evenly split over the origins of the priesthood and temple ban. https://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2024/05/how-do-members-explain-the-priesthood-and-temple-ban/ I wonder to what extent this will become a truly divisive issue in the church, or if we will figure out how to be (uncomfortably?) at ease with members believing different things about the ban. I would suggest that, if it is important that we as a church unite ourselves behind one side or another on this issue, it seems to me that we have a long way to go to realize that kind of unity.

to all. Thanks for your ideas. I want to add here that my consternations are not because I find all of these ideas without some merit. I just find, with Mason, that none of these ideas (alone or in some kind of aggregate) provides a satisfying explanation for the problem of evil. I'm confident that something about Christ's atonement allows God through Him to redeem all of the evils that come into the world. Some evils just seem so ...evil... that I find myself struggling to come to terms with them.

To quote Mason again, "responsible parents keep the sharp knives out of reach and the guns locked in a safe." Responsible parents do everything they can to stop siblings from brutally maiming each other. They don't sit by allowing one child to brutalize another while saying, "we're allowing this because we know an excellent doctor who will have no trouble healing all of these injuries." To quote Cluck from Disney's Chicken Little, "That's bad parenting, and I should know!" In many ways, it is similar to the criticisms I've seen for the penal-substitution model of the atonement. God allows sin in the world, then, because He allowed sin in the world, He has to further require some ultimate sacrifice from His Son before he can redeem the sin that He allowed in the first place. Something about that does not sit comfortably.

@JohnsonJones Sometimes I end up with similar sentiments, maybe ultimately ending up in such a "deistic" place, where God cannot/will not intervene because He already pushed the "start" button and is allowing the universe to play out without further intervention. The difficulty that I still see is trying to reconcile why God seems to intervene in some big and small ways and not others. I recently was driving along one of our many, beautiful mountain highways, when I was suddenly face to face with another driver coming towards me in my lane trying to pass the semi that was on my left. I look back and see so many little coincidences that allowed me to avoid the head-on collision, but I've been around these mountain highways long enough to know that not everyone faced with the exact same scenario avoids the collision. Do I end up believing that God didn't really intervene in my case, and everything was just good luck? Or do I need some deeper theology to try to understand the seemingly capricious way that God intervenes? In Mason's essay, this seems starkest to me as he talks about the small ways his journal from the spring and summer of 1994 would claim that God was intervening in the life of a comfortable high school senior in Sandy Utah, while almost a million people in Rwanda were being slaughtered by their fellow countrymen. I think your idea presents a solid question we might ask ourselves. How much do we really believe that God intervenes in the universe? Do we overstate the extent to which God intervenes?

I've seen someone say that this might be one of Joseph Smith's greatest contributions to the discussion around the problem of evil. This idea that God is not "omnipotent" (at least in the classical sense that traditional Christianity imagined omnipotent)*. The biggest problem I see with this idea is how it leads me to sometimes think of God as small and weak. "Our God is good for helping people find car keys, and plodding through routine, mundane work-a-day evils, but He is powerless against the worlds real problems, so you will understand why I don't actively bow down and worship Him." one might say. I think Mason mentions even talked about this kind of difficulty with a God who seems able to intervene in the small things in our life, but seemingly cannot intervene in bigger things (ignoring, for now, the central sacrifice of His Son that ultimately promises to redeem it all at some future time). *BYU studies article that expounds on the idea https://magazine.byu.edu/article/joseph-smith-and-the-problem-of-evil/

I haven't had time to respond, but I will try to compose some responses today. @askandanswer I think you are right that it can be important to consider the proper place of death in the plan of salvation. I worry, though, that too casual of an attitude towards death makes it seem like God doesn't care whether people live or die. One of our most contentious issues (especially in election years) is whether God cares about pre-born children living or dying and the circumstances of how they die (especially the mother choosing to end the pre-born child's life and why she might make that choice). I agree that death is not the worst form of evil, but something about our beliefs around the sanctity of life suggest that we strongly believe that God prefers us alive rather than dead. I think it's also important to remember the other evils that exist. Genocide is usually accompanied by significant levels of hate and animosity. There is suffering and disaster. There is illness and disease. Estrangement from family and close friends. There are many facets to evil, and I think we ought to be careful not to minimize or become to casual about the different expressions of evil. "Being maimed or killed in a car crash is ultimately no big deal, so we don't need NTSB's, nor do we need to do research into building safer cars and/or safer highways." As I've studied different theodicies, one of the most compelling elements I find in a good theodicy is an expression of a desire to try (to the extent possible) to ameliorate or eliminate evil. It's a bit of a stretch, but I occasionally see a caution attached to soul growth theodicies, where our attitude could be, "I don't want to interfere with whatever lessons God wants to teach someone by the suffering they are going through, so I will stay my hand and not offer any support." I think what I might be trying to say is that part of finding and recognizing the "proper" place of evil in this mortal experience is, as you say, not catastrophizing evil. I also think it is not about becoming complacent about evil. Somewhere in the middle is the proper place of evil where we can endure evil well, but still do all within our power to make the world better than we find it.

Link to Wayfare's essay (it might be behind a subscription wall): https://www.wayfaremagazine.org/p/rediscovering-god-in-rwanda Link to podcast episode: https://faithmatters.org/rediscovering-god-in-rwanda-a-conversation-with-patrick-mason/