A Mormon Version of Cheap Grace

An amateur theologian hiding behind the ironic pseudonym "Um, Not Quite the Truth" (in the comments here) is advocating a form of cheap grace for Mormons:

Dan [Peterson] wrote: "[C. S.] Lewis’s observation rings absolutely true for anybody who has ever been the surprised victim of scheming intrigue and betrayal by false friends."

Thank goodness this type of behavior is few and far between among LDS, thanks in large part to living the Gospel.

Also, on those rare occasions when this does happen, we've been taught to quickly forgive and move on. Just as the Savior has done with us and our trespasses to others.

A little later, this armchair theologian observed:

No one knows more about "double-dealing" and "betrayal" more than the Savior. That's why it's so fundamentally important to quickly forgive and move on. Just the Savior has commanded.

These are watered-down and potentially self-serving sentiments. They fall into the category of what Elder Jeffery R. Holland here called "a kind of theological Twinkie—spiritually empty calories."

True, we are commanded to forgive. For example, God tells us:

I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men. (D&C 64:10)

But one will search the scriptures in vain to find the adverb quickly applied to the verb forgive. Neither the Savior nor anyone else in the scriptures commanded us to forgive quickly. I think God, who is wiser than we are and knows much more about repentance and forgiveness than we do, knows that some things are not easy to forgive and may not be possible for us to forgive without God specifically bestowing grace on us to forgive.

Let us take the specific example of betrayal. Jesus, whom we betray from day to day in our own petty way, suffered betrayals both large and small. Thus, it might be worth looking at what he had to say about betrayal:

And as they did eat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.

And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto him, Lord, is it I?

And he answered and said, He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me.

The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.

Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said. (Matthew 26:21–25)

The same sentiment is repeated in the other gospels:

woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born. (Mark 14:21)

And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed! (Luke 22:22)

Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve. (John 6:70–71)

In every one of the gospels, Jesus condemns his former friend who betrayed him. We are never told that he forgave him at all ("I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive"), much less that he forgave him quickly and moved on. Jesus explicitly said it would have been better for the betrayer never to have been born.

God tells us that for certain sins it is difficult to obtain forgiveness and for one or two it is not even possible. But he reserves those decisions for himself. He commands us to forgive, but knows that in some circumstances this can be a very difficult thing to do.

The Coptic expression for forgiving is kō ebol. One could translate it with the popular expression "Let it go!" but that makes it look easy. One could also translate it with the verb abandon as though we needed only leave others' sins by the wayside. But it is also the expression used in pre-Christian legal contracts for divorce, which even then were sometimes ugly, messy, difficult and protracted affairs. Forgiveness can be like trying to get a messy divorce from a forced marriage to someone we never liked or wanted to be married to in the first place.

To some individuals is granted the grace to be able to forgive even awful things like abuse, molestation, rape, betrayal, infidelity, murder, torture, or persecution quickly and easily. We stand in awe of those who can do so. Yet, for others forgiveness is a protracted and difficult process. Those of us who are untouched by their afflictions should not stand by unmoved by their afflictions and pat ourselves on the back about what better Christians we are for being unwilling or unable to shoulder their cross.

And now we come to where forgiveness can be like cheap grace. Some people want others (including God) to forgive them cheaply and easily for deep and grievous wounds without producing any fruits of repentance, without trying in the least to repair the wrong that they have done or even acknowledging that they have done it (see Alma 39:13 in the critical text). Expecting forgiveness without repentance denies repentance, one of the core elements of the gospel of Christ (3 Nephi 27:13-21). Cheap grace also denies repentance by claiming that God dispenses unmerited grace while we persist in our sin. Both cheap grace and telling others to forgive without repentance deny the gospel of Christ.

I suppose that the Levite in the parable of the Good Samaritan might have called out to the man on the side of the road that he needed to "quickly forgive and move on" but would that really have been practically different than passing by on the other side?

Just because forgiveness is essential does not mean that it is easy.

There are Still Tickets Left

There are still tickets left to BYU's superb production of Mozart's "The Marriage of Figaro."

It runs from 22-25 October 2014. Tickets are only $18.

More information here. More information and tickets available here.

Creating Distrust

The second edition of Shaye Cohen's important book, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, has a poignant postscript to the preface:

The first edition of this book was published by the Westminster Press in 1987 in the Library of Early Christianity series edited by Wayne Meeks. I was delighted then to be associated with a Presbyterian publishing house. It is one of the blessings of America that a Presbyterian publisher would commission a Jew to write a book on early Judaism for a series oriented to students of the New Testament. This never happened in the old country. Eighteen years later I am grateful to Westminster John Knox Press for publishing this second edition and remain grateful to the press for its courtesies to me over the years. I am no longer happy, however, to be associated with the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the parent body of WJK, because I am deeply pained by the recent anti-Israel turn in its policies. The fact that WJK is editorially and fiscally independent of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) afford small consolation; by publishing this book with WJK I am associating myself perforce with the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), an organization whose anti-Israel policies I condemn and distrust.

(Shaye J. D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, 2nd ed. [Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006], xiii-xiv.)

Cohen did not elaborate the specific Church policies, but they are not difficult to find.

In 2004, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) adopted a policy of "selective divestment in multinational corporations operating in Israel." They ostensibly backed down in 2006, but apparently this was only a PR stunt. According to this official document, the apology never happened and they have continued with divestment. In 2010, the denomination called for political demands against the Israeli government and in 2012 called for a "boycott of all Israeli products produced in the occupied Palestinian Territories."

This year the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) distributed a pamphlet by Kyle Christofalo pushing the boycott. Christofalo sends people to this site for a full list of companies that they think should be boycotted. Christofalo is vague about what he considers to be "illegal Israeli settlement;" his map seems to indicate that it includes almost the entire state of Israel. Christofalo not only urges people not to buy products but to write "to urge them not to sell products made in the settlements." (Sorry, you'll have to wade through the document to see the English errors associated with this sentence.)

Given the actions of the Presbyterian Church, I can see how Professor Cohen can be deeply pained and regard the Presbyterians with distrust.

Math is Hard: Grade School Edition

This is an article explaining why parents should not be upset with the new common core making the math more complicated. The common core is just trying to help the children understand how math works in a better way.

It's reasonable that parents will be confused by the new way of doing things, says Meyer, the former math teacher and Ph.D. student. But he says that parents' education wasn't particularly effective, even if they're confident in their arithmetic.

But that is why the common core is largely not going to work. If the parents' math education wasn't particularly effective, it is the same math education that the teachers had. So if the parents are confused can we expect the teachers to do any better?

Those who understand and are good at math usually end up majoring in something like physics, math or engineering, not math education. Usually the math education majors are not the same caliber as the math majors. But from the examples I have seen of common core math problems, the math education majors should be able to handle them.

The problem is that math education majors are often shooting for jobs as high school math teachers and the common core has to be taught in grade school as well. Grade school math teachers teach everything else as well and they come from elementary education majors. Unfortunately education majors tend to come from the bottom half of college students and tend to score particularly poorly on math. The mean SAT scores in math for education majors are below the mean scores for those majoring in things like English, theology, acting, trucking, and journalism (none of which are noted for math ability).

Before the common core, I ran into otherwise good elementary school teachers who did not understand math well. Trying to get these teachers to teach tricky ways of dealing with math problems seems to me to be a recipe for disaster.

I am in favor of better math education. I am in favor of children understanding math better. I am dubious that trying to get people who do not understand math well in the first place to teach unusual approaches to basic problems is the best way to do it.

Faith and the OED

Usually in English a monosyllabic word has a good chance of being a native English word, but faith is not. Although many French and Latin words were imported into English during the Hundred Year's War (AD 1337-1453), faith is actually brought in earlier. Here are the definitions of faith listed in the Oxford English Dictionary according to first usage:

1250 the duty of fulfilling one's trust, fealty, the obligation of a promise or engagement
1250 faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty
1300 confidence, reliance, trust
1300 the Christian faith
1325 a system of religious belief
1380 what is required to be believed on a subject
1382 assurance given, formal declaration, pledge, promise
1382 belief in the truths of religion
1393 attestation, confirmation, assurance
1551 belief preceding from reliance on testimony or authority
1638 power to produce belief

When the term faith entered the English language it meant loyalty (which the editors of the OED listed last). Later, it came to mean trust. After that time it came to mean a system of religious belief, about the same time when it came to mean a pledge or promise. Only much later did it come to be a belief based on something someone else said. (Ironically, the last meaning developed is listed as obsolete.)

So at first faith in God meant loyalty to God. A little later it came to mean trust in God. Only later did it weaken to belief in God. Far from being merely an intellectual assenting to the existence of God, faith in God was originally a loyalty to Him.

A Quote from William Gay

I just stumbled on this quote from William Gay that I rather like:

Godly responsibility always precedes individual opportunity. Ours is a choice to see if we will take the talents, the resources, and the blessings God has given us and blaze new paths to realize His purposes or sit on the sidelines content in our individual successes or failures. … In the world of faith, you always stand at this crossroad.

We're #7

Or at least our law school is according to this source.

On Being Held an Offender for a Word

It is hardly a secret that I have persistently and publicly argued that the Book of Abraham is historically authentic.

Some people are spreading the gossip that I do not believe in the Book of Abraham. They are taking something I said out of context for their own malicious ends.

Here is what I actually said two years ago at the FAIR conference:

It will probably come as a surprise to many that I do not have a testimony of the Book of Abraham. That is, I have never received a spiritual confirmation of the truth of the Book of Abraham. I do not need one. I have those for the Book of Mormon, the restoration of the gospel, the calling of the Prophet Joseph Smith and the continuation of those keys and authority through the present day. If you have these things confirmed to you, you do not need to get a cold from every wind of doctrine that blows.

I have never had a spiritual confirmation of the truth of the Book of Abraham. I do not know many Church members who have. I have never really heard a convincing case that one is necessary. No question on the subject shows up in the baptismal interview or the temple recommend interview. In the Church, we are urged to get a spiritual confirmation of the Book of Mormon, but not the Doctrine and Covenants or the Pearl of Great Price or the Bible.

Without a spiritual confirmation I rely on scholarship, that is on evidence and argument. Perhaps there are better means but that is what I have to work with and I have no other authority.

Based on the research I have done, I am convinced that the historical setting that most closely matches the Book of Abraham is: for the first chapter, an Ur located in the area of north-west Syria or southern Turkey during the end of the Twelfth Dynasty of Egypt (the reign of Sesostris III or more likely Amenemhet III); by the time the text has reached the end of the published account we have moved into the area of modern Israel during the Thirteenth/Fourteen Dynasty in Egypt. That setting is based on a careful reading of the text and current scholarship. Like everything based on scholarship, it is subject to refinement and revision as new evidence comes in.

We're #9

At least according to Money magazine's college list. The premise of this list is supposedly how long it takes to repay your tuition. Brigham Young University beat out both of my other alma maters, UC Berkeley (#13) and Yale (#15).

An Important Book

I recently finished an excellent and important book:

Lois M. Farag, ed. The Coptic Christian Heritage: History, Faith, and Culture. London: Routledge, 2014. (It is available here and here.)

There are many books on Coptic Christianity but what makes this one interesting and important is that it was written by Coptic Christians about their own faith. Their insider perspective is missing from most works about Coptic Christianity. I, like most outsiders, might write differently about their faith than they do; and they certainly write differently than most outsiders do, and that is the point. That is what makes this book so special and important. It is an insider's account. They emphasize the sorts of things that are important to them, not the things that are important to outsiders. Although I am familiar with the Coptic faith, I learned a great deal from this book. Their account is to be preferred to the accounts of outsiders. If one is interested in Coptic Christianity, this is a good place to start.

The Church on the Book of Abraham

The Church has released a statement on the Book of Abraham. I, of course, did not write it. I do like it. It seems to be cautious and careful general statement of the issue. People who want to say what the Church's position on the Book of Abraham should take it as a starting point.

Born of Wealthy Parents?

Yesterday someone presented me with a novel reading of 1 Nephi 1:1. They told me that they were told that in Joseph Smith's day goodly meant wealthy. Therefore,

I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father (1 Nephi 1:1)

would mean that Nephi was able to be educated because his father was rich. This is, of course, intriguing. We know that Lehi was wealthy (1 Nephi 3:22-25), but in pre-exilic Israel education was largely a family affair. Hiring tutors is better known in the later Greco-Roman world.

Unfortunately, the premise of the argument is flawed. According to the 1828 Webster's dictionary, goodly meant:

GOOD´LY, adj. ‎1. Being of a handsome form; beautiful; graceful; as, a goodly person; goodly raiment; goodly houses. – Shak.
‎2. Pleasant; agreeable; desirable; as, goodly days. – Shak.
‎3. Bulky; swelling; affectedly turgid. [Obs.] – Dryden.

The Oxford English Dictionary lists the following usage from Joseph Smith's day:

1. Of good appearance; good-looking, well-favoured or proportioned; comely, fair, handsome.
2. Notable or considerable in respect of size, quantity, or number (freq. with mixture of sense 1).
3. Of good quality, admirable, splendid, excellent. Also, well suited for some purpose, proper, convenient (often with implication of sense 1).

So, in Joseph Smith's day, goodly did not mean wealthy. Yes, Lehi was wealthy but Nephi does not seem to be addressing that issue in his first verse, at least not based on English usage.

Friday the Thirteenth

I am not a triskaidekaphobe by any means, nevertheless, a friend of mine had a very bad Friday the thirteenth. This is for my friend:

1. Oh, what songs of the heart
   We shall sing all the day,
   When again we assemble at home,
   When we meet ne'er to part
   With the blest o'er the way,
   There no more from our loved ones to roam!
   When we meet ne'er to part,
   Oh, what songs of the heart
   We shall sing in our beautiful home.
    
2. Tho our rapture and bliss
   There's no song can express,
   We will shout, we will sing o'er and o'er,
   As we greet with a kiss,
   And with joy we caress
   All our loved ones that passed on before;
   As we greet with a kiss,
   In our rapture and bliss,
   All our loved ones that passed on before.
    
3. Oh, the visions we'll see
   In that home of the blest,
   There's no word, there's no thought can impart,
   But our rapture will be
   All the soul can attest,
   In the heavenly songs of the heart;
   But our rapture will be
   In the vision we'll see
   Best expressed in the songs of the heart.
    
4. Oh, what songs we'll employ!
   Oh, what welcome we'll hear!
   While our transports of love are complete,
   As the heart swells with joy
   In embraces most dear
   When our heavenly parents we meet!
   As the heart swells with joy,
   Oh, what songs we'll employ,
   When our heavenly parents we meet!

 A beautiful arrangement of this can be found here (unfortunately the audio is not the best).

Downgraded by Moody's

A couple of weeks ago I reported that BYU, or at least its law school was ranked 24th in placement of its graduates. Apparently Moody's has its own version of that list and BYU places 27th. Not quite as good, but still not bad.

Good News for Art Lovers

Sacred Gifts has a two week extension (see here).

We're Twenty-Fourth!

At least the BYU law school is ranked 24th in the United States. Similar criteria could be applied to other programs.

For Two Days Only

Until Monday 21 April 2014 at 11:59 pm Mountain Daylight Time, you can watch the Mormon Tabernacle Choir's Messiah concert here.

Martell Gee (d. 2014)

I received news that Martell Gee passed away this morning. He was a professor at a number of universities. He also served as a mission president and as secretary to one of the presidents of the seventy. He was a good man and will be missed.

Ireta Midgley

I learned with some sadness that my friend Ireta Midgley has passed away. She was a kind and gentle person who will be sorely missed.

Today's Maxwell Quote

From this talk:

So this is a real war—with real casualties—in which there can be no real pacifists. No wonder, brothers and sisters, there’s been such a long shelf life of the wry quip we’ve all heard about “free agency and how to enforce it.” In effect, some seem almost to ask, “Is this gift returnable?”

Brushing the King's Hair

Sometimes mundane details appear in ancient texts that show how human the ancients were.

Speak to my lord: Thus says Erra-gamil, your servant.

May Shamash and Nergal keep you in good health for 3600 years for my sake!

The king rose early in the morning, dressed his hair, and made his son sit on the throne. But he with his help sets out over and over for Kashir, saying thus: "When they treat my city badly [. . .]

(M. Stol. Letters from Yale [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1981], 17.)

 Even the king needed to get up and brush his hair.

Today's Maxwell Quote

From this talk:

Evaporated by now is the earlier “no-hands” naïveté about how “I am free to choose.” Still, I am free to choose, even if I can neither be immune from the consequences of my wrong choices nor avoid accountability (see Romans 14:12; D&C 101:78).

More on the Death of Humanities

Classicist Victor Davis Hanson demonstrates why humanities used to be a useful education and why it might not always be such now:

When the humanities failed to make the case that its students were trained to be exceptionally good writers, logical debaters, and well informed about the events, people, literature and issues of the past, then the liberal arts no longer were granted immunity from the general reckoning that the university now faces.

Hanson is a good writer, a logical debater, and well informed about the events, people, literature and issues of the past. That many in the humanities no longer are is a shame.

Hanson cites, as an example, how

esoteric university press publications, not undergraduate teaching and advocacy, came to define the successful humanities professor.

I have certainly contributed my share of esoteric university press publications--they have their place--but it has been short-sighted of universities to limit themselves to those publications and say that is all that counts. Academics need to be able to demonstrate that something in their study might prove of more general interest, importance, and sometimes even usefulness than merely to the handful of people who perseverate over the field.

Davis notes that:

The campus exemplar became the grandee who won the most time off from teaching, garnered the most grants, taught the fewest undergraduates, and wrote the most university press books that in turn were largely critical of the subject matter that ensured his university position in the first place.

His remark reminds me of an article written by the biblical scholar, Jon Levenson, twenty years ago that noted the same problem in biblical studies:

After secularism has impugned the worth of the Bible, and multiculturalism has begun to critique the cultural traditions at the base of which it stands, biblical scholars, including, I must stress, even the most antireligious among them, must face this paradoxical reality: the vitality of their rather untraditional discipline has historically depended upon the vitality of traditional religious communities, Jewish and Christian. Those whom [Wilfred Cantwell] Smith termed "liberals'—that is, the scholars who assiduously place the Bible in the ancient Near Eastern or Greco-Roman worlds—have depended for their livelihood upon those who not only rejoice that the Bible survived these worlds but who also insist that it deserved to survive because its message is trans-historical.

(Jon D. Levenson, "The Bible: Unexamined Commitments of Criticism," First Things 30 (February 1993):26.)

The same trend shows up in Mormon Studies too. Hanson has some trenchant commentary on that too:

If the humanities could have adopted a worse strategy to combat these larger economic and cultural trends over the last decade, it would be hard to see how. In short, the humanities have been exhausted by a half-century of therapeutic “studies” courses: Peace and Conflict Resolution Studies, Post-Colonial Studies, Environmental Studies, Chicano Studies, Women’s Studies, Black Studies, Asian Studies, Cultural Studies, and Gay Studies. Any contemporary topic that could not otherwise justify itself as literary, historical, philosophical, or cultural simply tacked on the suffix “studies” and thereby found its way into the curriculum.

These “studies” courses shared an emphasis on race, class, and gender oppression that in turn had three negative consequences. First, they turned the study of literature and history from tragedy to melodrama, from beauty and paradox into banal predictability, and thus lost an entire generation of students. Second, they created a climate of advocacy that permeated the entire university, as the great works and events of the past were distorted and enlisted in advancing contemporary political agendas. Finally, the university lost not just the students, but the public as well, which turned to other sources—filmmakers, civic organizations, non-academic authors, and popular culture—for humanistic study.

Hanson's piece is worth reading in its entirety, as is Jon Levenson's earlier piece in First Things.

Today's Maxwell Quote

From this talk:

I am unresentful of the passage of time and am still well within the sound range of the kettle drums representing the cacophony of mortality. Yet I sometimes seem to hear, ever so faintly, the distant sounds of beckoning trumpets as these waft in upon me.

What is the Worth of a College Transcript?

Robert Pacquette reports on an experiment he conducted to find out if employers look at college transcripts. Some pay very little heed to them. One

wanted to know what, if anything, the applicant had done during his life to overcome adversity. “The true test of a person's value is not their résumé or performance in school. It is totally their personal value system and character.”

Another

looked at the applicant’s transcript but not necessarily at the GPA. He wanted to know if the graduate had attended “what used to be [called] the standard courses in college (i.e., English, history, math, economics, government, etc.) . . . When I see a resume with a lot of non-standard courses, I am not impressed, and I ask why these more standard courses weren’t available at the college (as if I assumed they would take them if they were offered!) and the explanations I get are amazing and always unacceptable.”

Yet another said that his hiring successes

reduced to a formula he called P-O-I. “ ‘P’ is for persistence, a rugged determination that reflects the [applicant’s] willingness to invest whatever is necessary to develop a strong foundation of knowledge and technical competence. ‘O’ is for originality, the ability to think critically and creatively, to see the patterns and trends and answers that aren't obvious. Original people think and operate laterally and persistent people think and operate linearly. It is rare to find someone who is strong in both categories. ‘I’ stands for impact. Talent and imagination are not everything. You have to be able to perform. Some people have a track record of achievement that is built more on charisma and personal communication skills than raw talent . . . A track record of success in small endeavors is usually a good harbinger of success in larger ones.”

Academics, on the other hand, are fixated on the transcript. Many of them make awards and hiring decisions based largely on the transcripts.

As Nibley noted in the 1980s:

Grades are acquisitive, competitive, and phony; but they are the official legal certificates that everyone must have, issued in fixed denominations on a mathematically graduated scale, to be converted it is hoped hereafter into legal tender of the land—and that is the only thing that interests these young people in the study of religion, of all things! This is no trifling thing; the seeds of such corruption are all-pervasive.

Today's Maxwell Quote

From That Ye May Believe (1992), 102:

Some people want to skip the seemingly plodding "spiritual method." As already pointed out, they are so busy surveying large, intellectual tracts that they fail to cultivate even a small behavioral tract. Theory rich and data poor! Intellectual speculation is easy, and compared to steady, spiritual submissiveness it makes few demands. The speculators end up "looking beyond the mark" (Jacob 4:14), staring beyond the obvious. Jesus confirmed that only if we will "do" will we then "know" (John 7:17).

Today's Maxwell Quote

From That Ye May Believe (1992), 102:

Jacob warned about those who sought for that which they could not understand (see Jacob 4:14). Their zest for exploring and speculating is not matched by their enthusiasm for obeying and doing. Consequently, such individuals do not really come to know for themselves (see Alma 5:45-47). Without that personal witness they are ambivalent and unable to defend gospel truths or doctrines. It is people's incapacity to defend the faith, wrote George MacDonald, which can turn them into persecutors.

Math is Hard

James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal often uses the line "Math is Hard" to point out basic mathematical errors in news stories. The video in this post and the post associated with it demonstrate how all kinds of idiocy can come from people who know a little math. The video purports to show that:

1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + . . . = -1/12

Even common sense will correctly tell one that is wrong.

Basically for any series

1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + . . . + n = n(n+1)/2

Solving this problem was what tipped Gauss's teachers that he was good at math. (Not that he was the first to solve it, but that he figured it out at a young age and so got special tutoring in mathematics.)

The limit of this series as n approaches infinity is not going to converge on -1/12 no matter what crazy proof they talk about in the video. One cannot legitimately treat the various series the way that they do in the video.

Only if one converts the series into a function (and they are not really the same thing) could one argue that the resultant quadratic equation could be solved to show that it equals a particular pair of irrational numbers plugged into the formula could come out with an answer of -1/12. Since they are not integers, however, they do not work for the actual series. There is no valid way for anything in the series to equal -1/12.

Math may be hard but it certainly not that hard.

To Be Perfectly Honest . . .

The Wall Street Journal had an article on phrases that we say to be polite.

Language experts have textbook names for these phrases—"performatives," or "qualifiers." Essentially, taken alone, they express a simple thought, such as "I am writing to say…" At first, they seem harmless, formal, maybe even polite. But coming before another statement, they often signal that bad news, or even some dishonesty on the part of the speaker, will follow.

"Politeness is another word for deception," says James W. Pennebaker, chair of the psychology department of the University of Texas at Austin, who studies these phrases. "The point is to formalize social relations so you don't have to reveal your true self."

In other words, "if you're going to lie, it's a good way to do it—because you're not really lying. So it softens the blow," Dr. Pennebaker says.

So politeness, being nice, is a form of deception, a way of being dishonest.

"To be perfectly honest…" is another phrase to strike from your speech, she [Ellen Jovin] says. It often prefaces negative comments, and can seem condescending. It signals a larger issue: If you are taking the trouble to announce your honesty now, maybe you aren't always truthful.

"You are more likely to seem like someone who is perfectly honest when you are no longer commenting on it," Ms. Jovin says.

It is a little like statements of loyalty. People who are actually loyal to something or someone have no need to comment on how they are being loyal because everyone knows from their words and deeds that they are.

Today's Maxwell Quote

From this talk:

To begin with, the true believer, notwithstanding his weaknesses, is settled in his basic spirituality. He is settled, to use another of Alma's phrases, in his "views of Christ" (Alma 27:28), so his views of everything else are put in that precious perspective.

There are, of course, other kinds of believers who are not "true believers." In the parable of the seeds, one outcome was when the seed had no root, typifying those who "for a while believe" but who "in time of temptation fall away" (Luke 8:13). Alma warned us (in his own seed analogy) about the withering effect when the "heat of the sun cometh and scorcheth" the undernourished tree of shallow root (Alma 32). Other observations of Jesus add the insight about how tribulation and persecution cause the weak to be offended and to fall away (Matt. 13:6, 21).

Most of us here have had the sad experience of seeing some wither because they cannot stand the heat. They are not likely to acknowledge that as the real reason for their failures but will conveniently choose an issue over which they can become offended. Another dynamic operates, too. In racing marathons, one does not see the dropouts make fun of those who continue; failed runners actually cheer on those who continue the race, wishing they were still in it. Not so with the marathon of discipleship in which some dropouts then make fun of the spiritual enterprise of which they were so recently a part!

Another Take on Leaders and Managers

Tara Burton wonders why American universities are obsessed with leadership.

Hugh Nibley, of course, had a classic essay on leaders and managers. Nibley was both a leader, in his own way, and a lone wolf (to use Burton's terms). Leaders do not necessarily have to be cookie-cutter.

Today's Maxwell Quote

From All These Things Shall Give Thee Experience (1980), 108-109:

The Prophet Joseph spoke of how apostates often bring severe persecutions upon their former friends and associates. "When once that light which was in them is taken from them they become as much darkened as they were previously enlightened, and then, no marvel, if all their power should be enlisted against the truth, and they, Judas like, seek the destruction of those who were their greatest benefactors." (HC 2:23.)

Strange, how often defectors leave the Church, but they cannot leave it alone!

One of the often unappreciated blessings of following the Brethren is that their counsel and direction will spare us the unnecessary disappointments and the anguish of trying to reconcile revealed religion with the ways of the world. Foolish as that attempt is, some try to do it anyway. As Elder James E. Talmage observed: "The reason that there is a lack of spirit and force in the religious teaching of the world is in part because they have tried to harmonize the Christian faith with the foolishness of men; and, of course, it will not harmonize with falsehood and with the doctrines of men." (Conference Report, October 1921, p. 187.)

Perhaps one of the reasons people try desperately at times to effect a "merger" is that they still want either the praise of the world or the ways of the world. They think, somehow, to have them both when, in fact, the essence of the gospel of Jesus Christ is that we must clearly choose some things and reject others. Mortal philosophies can be mixed and merged with each other almost at will, because they are not totally dissimilar, but we can't weld the Lord's way to the world's ways.

A Pair of Interesting Letters to the Editor

This month's Yale Alumni Magazine actually has something of interest, a brief (too brief) interview with Sandra Boynton, one of the best living writers for children under the age of four. It also contains a telling letter to the editor (buried in here) by Claude Thau, which reads in part:

I think this is my first letter to your magazine, stimulated by what appears to be a disingenuous response by communications director Elizabeth Stauderman to Charles Thomasson’s criticism of redistribution of gifts from one residential college to another.

Ms. Stauderman seems to say that because of the designated gifts to some residential colleges, other normal funding was diverted. The net effect is that the designated funds’ intended impact appears to have been significantly compromised. It seems that the donors wanted to benefit their residential colleges, but Yale is playing an accounting game to replace the donors’ intent with administrators’ goals.

The goal of similar experience for students regardless of residential college is understandable, but that end does not justify inappropriate means. Before doing such redistribution, Yale should secure permission from the donor (or a deceased donor’s representative).

Thau goes on to note that Yale is not the only university to replace donors' intent with administrators' goals. He suggests that there are other ways for a donor to "assure that her wishes are reflected in the use of the money."

Another letter writer, Leight Johnson, questioned Yale's use of funds:

Browsing through my alumni magazine the other day, I learned that Yale had recently renovated the president’s residence for 17 million dollars. I recognize that the leader of a prestigious university deserves first-class living quarters, and that he probably does a lot of entertaining, but I find it hard to imagine what must have been done to the building to cost that much. The United States Supreme Court building was constructed in the 1930s for less than 10 million dollars. The Empire State building, 102 stories high, was built for just over 40 million (land included).

After thinking it over, I carefully tore up the check to the Alumni Fund that I had just written. It seemed the right thing to do.

Today's Maxwell Quote

From All These Things Shall Give Thee Experience (1980), 36-37:

In this third category of suffering and tribulation, believers sometimes suffer "for righteousness' sake" and "because of the word." (Matthew 5:10; 1 Peter 3:14; Matthew 13:21.)

We also sometimes suffer for the "name of Christ" and "as a Christian" and, ironically, for "well doing" and "for the cross of Christ." (1 Peter 4:14, 16; 1 Peter 3:17; Galatians 6:12.)

Our very blessings contain within them some of our tribulations. President Joseph F. Smith observed that there never was a people who were guided by revelation, or united of the Lord as His people, who were not persecuted and hated by the wicked and corrupt. (Gospel Doctrine, p. 46.)

It appears to be important that all who will can come to know "the fellowship of his sufferings." (Philippians 3:10.) At times, we are taken to the very edge of our faith; we teeter at the edge of our trust. Perhaps, even as Jesus did on the cross, we in our own small way may feel forgotten and forsaken. To go to the very edge is possible, of course, only when we believe in an omniscient and omnipotent God. When we understand that all things are present before His eyes and that He knows all things past, present, and future, then we can trust ourselves to Him as we clearly could not to a less than omniscient god who is off somewhere in the firmament doing further research. (D&C 38:2; Moses 1:6.) "The Lord knoweth all things from the beginning; wherefore, he prepareth a way to accomplish all his works among the children of men; for behold, he hath all power unto the fulfilling of all his words." (1 Nephi 9:6.)

Trusting the Arm of Flesh

In the Book of Mormon, Nephi states:

I know that cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh. Yea, cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm. (2 Nephi 4:34)

The university, like most human institutions, can be an arm of flesh. Those who put their trust in such things will, sooner or later, be disappointed. Such appears already to be the case in some quarters. In a recent article Harry R. Lewis of Harvard talks about how universities have operated on a system of trust but their actions have undermined that trust. He focuses on one aspect, the behavior of those ostensibly leading the university.

Many colleges and universities are losing it [trust] because their leaders seem more interested in fame and fortune than in education.

Lewis sees an example of this in the high salaries paid to university administrators:

This year the Brandeis campus was staggered by the news that its former president, having made drastic budget cuts while in office, was by prearrangement paid $600,000 a year in retirement, for doing little or no actual work.

The University of Chicago, Northeastern, Marist College, Columbia, Tufts, and Penn, all institutions with their own financial challenges, paid their presidents more than $2 million per annum. Students would be justified in doubting that these leaders can credibly preach to them about the nobility of self-sacrifice, the honor of public service, or the need to balance the pursuit of the almighty dollar against their civic and moral responsibility to improve the world.

The high level salaries and perks wear away the trust of administrators not just with their superiors but those they supervise as well.

The arrogance of power has brought down several high-profile presidents in recent years, presidents whose boldness was not backed up by the reserves of respect and trust they needed to be granted the benefit of the doubt. John Sexton of NYU, Graham Spanier of Penn State, Summers of Harvard, and serial president Gordon Gee come to mind as men whose abuses of power eventually caught up with them.

Lewis concludes with a sober warning:

The erosion of trust in higher education, arguably well-deserved given such excesses, is not a small matter, because the pursuit of the truth is not a small matter. As [former Harvard president Derek] Bok writes in his book [Higher Education in America] (pp.356-57), “A democratic society badly needs credible, unbiased information from highly knowledgeable people in order to enlighten decision-makers and inform public debate. Thus, the country has much to lose if the objectivity of academic researchers can no longer be taken for granted.”

He was referring to the need for faculty to disclose their financial conflicts of interest more routinely than is current practice in most fields, but his point has much larger relevance.

If the public comes to assume that colleges and universities are like any other businesses, to be suspected of ulterior motives in everything they and their members do, then support for their activities will collapse.

As someone deeply invested in higher education, if support collapses much good will go but those who abused the public's trust will have brought it upon themselves.

Today's Maxwell Quote

From All These Things Shall Give Thee Experience (1980), 17:

If God did not know our predilections and our choices even before we made them, and had not planned accordingly, we might well have ended up having Joseph Smith born in Manchuria and the Book of Mormon plates buried in Belgium! A less than omniscient god would be more like the earnest but fumbling Caesars who dot the landscape of history than a living, all-knowing God.

Though His plans are known to Him, there is no premature exposure of the Lord's plans. This could bring unnecessary persecution upon an unready Lord's people. Further, a premature showing of His power and strength in support of His Saints could cut short the trial of our faith.

Where God has immersed His people for His purposes in larger events, we do not, therefore, always see secular history that confirms spiritual happenings. (See D&C 121:12.) For instance, there appears to be no conclusive secular record of Moses and the Exodus in Egyptian history. There is even some disagreement among scholars about which pharaoh was the pharaoh of the Exodus.

Human history has its limitations, but obscurity its usefulness.

If You Have Not Seen the Bureaucrat

I thought this post was funny. It is just as funny in Arabic.

Today's Maxwell Quote

From Things As They Really Are (1978), chapter 5:

Just how effectively the devil can mount a two-front war against us is seen in the words of the Lord wherein he speaks of "the fear of persecution and the cares of the world." (D&C 40:2.) If our appetites can be directed in such a way that we are caught up in the cares of the world, and if we are then also afraid of persecution because of doing what is right, we have been acted upon and are doubly deterred from discipleship. Some who might not fear persecution by itself do not choose to cope with the double load of persecution plus the cares of the world. Some for whom the cares of the world would not be sufficient to draw them away finally yield because of the fear of persecution.

The Thin Veneer of Civilization

A thoughtful essay from Victor Davis Hanson on the thin veneer of civilization. Hanson appreciates, the way that many do not, how thin a veneer civilization is.  In the 1970s, the two bright spots of civilization in the Middle East and the Soviet block were Lebanon and Yugoslavia. They were comparative islands of peace and security among tumultuous neighbors. Within twenty years they were ripped apart by civil war. We assume that our civilization is stable, but we may only be looking at the veneer. Hanson's essay is worth the read.

Today's Maxwell Quote

From Things As They Really Are (1978), chapter 5:

Just how fashionable it can be in some seasons to persecute the saints of God is seen in the words of Nephi when he says some of the churches of the world and some of the gentile nations that "slayeth the saints of God" actually do it "for the praise of the world . . . and bring them down into captivity." (1 Nephi 13:9.) Even today, those who turn against the Church do so to play to their own private gallery, but when, one day, the applause has died down and the cheering has stopped, they will face a smaller audience, the judgment bar of God.

Where Your Treasure is

What we consider valuable might vary with the culture. Consider the following Old Babylonian letter coming from what is now Iraq (about 1800-1600 B.C.):

Speak to Belshunu: Thus says Shamash-hazir.

May Shamash keep you in good health! I write to you time and again and you do not pay attention to my words. They are wasting wood and dung, so that you (must) be very alert. With respect to the wood I will treat you like an enemy of Marduk! Let the door of the staircase be sealed. Do not give one single piece of wood, apart from the one . . . that you give each time as a funerary offering. Take care of the matter of the wine, and if there is barley in the hand of the gardener, receive it from him. If not, have him brought in and confine him to the house.

(M. Stol, Letters from Yale [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1981], 15-17.)

For us, it is easy to envision wood as a valuable resource, over which careful stewardship was expected. It is harder to envision dung as a valuable resource to be watched and warded, but even it was not wasted in the ancient world. It had its uses: fertilizer, fuel, filler in pottery, and so on. Sometimes what ancient people valued is by us counted but dross and refuse.

Today's Maxwell Quote

From Things As They Really Are (1978), 14:

One could scarcely expect a proud world to understand, let alone approve of, those who refuse its ways. Hence the scorn and the shame that we must all come to "despise," or care so little for, that it does not deter us from doing that which is right.

The crunches are apt to come when, because of discipleship, men persecute us, revile us, or misunderstand us. According to the Savior, some may actually go so far as to separate us from their company, holding us in disregard because of our discipleship. On occasion, sadly, competent disciples will not be chosen for certain professional chores of the world because their peers will see them as being incapacitated to perform fully because they are disciples. The only Roman "club" to which early Christians obtained admittance was the Coliseum, and, unfortunately, other guests—four-legged and hungry—had been invited too.

Feeding the Hungry

The following is not an original insight to me, but I cannot remember where I first heard it.

The human baby is completely helpless. Unlike some mammals, which can walk within hours or days of birth, for almost the first year of its life it cannot walk. It is incapable of fending for itself for several years after birth. If it is to be fed, watered, or clothed, someone else must do it.

Considered in this light, the following scripture provides an interesting light on the work of parenting and how God views it:

31 ¶ When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. (Matthew 25:31–41)

Today's Maxwell Quote

From Things As They Really Are (1978), 13:

Paul describes the enemies of the cross of Christ as being those individuals whose God is "their belly" and who mind earthly things. (Romans 16:18.) Some people revel in the unrighteous life but still hold those who lead the righteous life in contempt and shame. President Joseph F. Smith said that a people so set apart are sometimes easy to set upon; "I do not believe there ever was a people who were guided by revelation, or acknowledged of the Lord as his people, who were not hated and persecuted by the wicked and the corrupt." (Gospel Doctrine, p. 46.)

Flashback from Twenty Years Ago

This recent article seems like it came from twenty years ago. At least it was true twenty years ago. It is more true today. Graduate programs have been expensive for years and even twenty years ago those in the humanities could easily accumulate more debt than they could repay with academic wages when they got out. Some graduate programs would insist that the students would have to take out the maximum about of student loans before they would consider providing any help to the student. Back then, a year of graduate school was at least as expensive as a year's salary for a graduate employed in the field. I wonder if it is in the news now because baby boomers, who had ceased paying attention to the situation in graduate school after they left, are realizing what it is like now that their own children are in it.

Today's Maxwell Quote

From this talk:

I stress that I come neither as an alarmist nor as a pessimist, but as one who seeks in his gentle way to remind us of this reality lest we be struck "with wonder and astonishment" and become dismayed and dislocated by difficulties that emerge when "all hell is moved," because the restored kingdom is really rolling now. We may never become accustomed to untrue and unjust criticism of us but we ought not to be immobilized by it. Neither should we be surprised at the proximity of such protagonists and the falsity and the fury of their pronouncements. President Joseph F. Smith said, "there are those—and they abound largely in our midst—who will shut their eyes to every virtue and to every good thing connected with this latter-day work, and will proud out floods of falsehood and misrepresentation against the people of God." President Smith, who endured so much of that proximate persecution, did what we must also do. He said of such detractors, "I forgive them for this. I leave them in the hands of the just Judge" (Gospel Doctrine, p. 337).

What to Buy for a Wedding Gift?

The custom of giving wedding gifts stretched back into antiquity. Here is an example from the Old Babylonian Period (about 1800-1600 BC) from Mesopotamia (modern Iraq):

Speak to Sin-eribam: Thus says Shamash-magir.

May Shamash keep you in good health for 3600 years for my sake! I will give my daughter to a husband, but I do not have anything that I can give. Now I have dispatched to you Shamash-hazir, Sin-malik and Bitum-rabi together with Puzur-Ishtar. On the day that you see their faces, take the silver (that is) on hand, and buy and send me two slaves (and) three slave-girls; please!

(M. Stol, Letters from Yale [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1981], 7.)

It gives new meaning to the saying that if you don't know what to give someone, give of yourself. I guess in this case, if you don't know what to give someone, give someone else.

Today's Maxwell Quote

From Wherefore, Ye Must Press Forward (1977), 81:

Recall how a young Joseph Smith was puzzled as to why he, in his youth and obscurity and poverty, "should be thought a character of sufficient importance to attract the attention of the great ones of the most popular sects of the day, and in a manner to create in them a spirit of the most bitter persecution and reviling." (Joseph Smith 2:23.) Well, so it is (and will be) with us, collectively, especially as the Church is brought forth out of obscurity. If the Church were not true, our enemies would be bored rather than threatened, and acquiescent rather than anxious. Hell is moved only when things move heavenward.

I Have Your Back

Ancient correspondence is both fascinating and frustrating: Fascinating because it tell interesting parts of stories, and frustrating because the stories are fragments and the correspondence is often one sided. AbB 9:6 is one such case. It comes from the Old Babylonian period (about 2000-1600 BC) from Mesopotamia (modern Iraq):

Speak to Sin-iddinam: Thus says Marduk-mushallim. May Shamash and Marduk keep you in good health! As you know, Silli-Shamash, the head of the Sutians, (is a man) who acts in my interest. Whenever I write to him, he acts very much according to my wish. Let him file his complaint before you, and give him a fair trial according to the regulations of my lord.

(M. Stol, Letters from Yale [Leiden: Brill, 1981], 5.)

A couple of things are interesting in this letter. One is that Marduk-mushallim is not necessarily asking Sin-iddinam to decide the case in Silli-Shamash's favor, only that it be conducted justly or normally (išariš). Apparently juridical proceeding were not always so conducted. The other thing is the way that Marduk-mushallim expresses his trust in Silli-Shamash. He finds him trustworthy because he can ask him to do something and it will be done.

Because of the trust, Marduk-mushallim is willing to act for Silli-Shamash by asking that he be treated fairly.

Today's Maxwell Quote

From Wherefore Ye Must Press Foreward (1977), 53-54:

It is clear in the revelations that we are to cope with trial and tribulation. There are no special techniques given to us, no easy ways to cope with it. We are simply to cope. In the Book of Mormon the persecution upon members of the church "was a cause of much affliction to the church; yea, it was the cause of much trial with the church."

Significantly, in the midst of such pressures, "the hearts of many were hardened." The prophet further observes, "Now this was a great trial to those that did stand fast in the faith; nevertheless, they were steadfast and immovable in keeping the commandments of God, and they bore with patience the persecution which was heaped upon them." (Alma 1:23-25.) Suffering separates the hardy from the frail.

A Great Agraphon

The agrapha are sayings attributed to Jesus that were not recorded in the four gospels. This agraphon is clever and witty and Jesus probably never said it, but it is funny nonetheless. It is attributed to Jesus by the Muslim intellectual al-Ghazali:

Jesus (peace upon him) said: "Even though I managed to raise the dead, I have never been able to cure an idiot!"

(in Bradley J. Cook, Classical Foundations of Islamic Educational Thought [Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 2010], 103)

Parents and teachers can sometimes relate.

Today's Maxwell Quote

From Deposition of a Disciple (1976), 90-91:

The very book of the Acts of the Apostles is like a display window. It compresses two or three decades of history. In it we read of the glorious growth of the church and of major spiritual outpourings, heroism, and persecution of the faithful. But we also see individuals growing. All the confrontations were not with the Sanhedrin; some were like the impasse in the companionship of Paul and Barnabas. Some members failed to live the law of consecration. We see young Paul "cloakholding" at Stephen's stoning. We see initial and deep resistance by some members (and some leaders) to the taking of the gospel to the gentiles. Imperfect individuals were caught in the collision of cultures, etc. So much is there, showing the soul-stretching that went on. Learning, then as now, was sometimes painfully public. But notwithstanding such weaknesses, members overcame, grew, and developed, collectively and individually. That is an important message for us now.

Systematic thoughts

A couple of months ago, I noted an observation by Scott Adams that goals are for losers and what is really needed are systems. I ran across another quote that emphasizes the same thing, only this one is thirty years old:

Corporations don't need projects, they need systems. As he [Robert Block] eloquently points out, projects are a short-lived, artificial anomaly within the organization; they are tolerated only as long as the customer -- the person or group who ultimately pays for the whole things -- has faith that all of the strange people, and all of the strange jargon, and all of the computer equipment, and all of the money will eventually lead to something he wants. If he loses faith, the project dies. Period.

Ed Yourdon, "Foreword," in Robert Block, The Politics of Projects (New York: Yourdon Press, 1983), xiv.

Do all the strange people and strange jargon actually lead to something we want?

Today's Maxwell Quote

From Deposition of a Disciple (1976), 54-55:

Herman Wouk said of God's choosing of the house of Judah that they were "elected to special duties and disciplines." Incidentally, the act of being chosen in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints often means giving up 15 percent or so of one's gross income and a significant portion of what might be called one's "free" time. Being chosen also means being subject to derision and the amusement of others, and sometimes even persecution. Further, being chosen requires one to swim against the cultural stream as often as not. Being "chosen" is an unattractive designation for anybody but those who sincerely seek to do the will of our Father in heaven, since it often includes obscurity of sorts.

Psalm 3

Psalm 3 is supposed to have been written by David during his flight from the revolt of his son Absalom. (Harem conspiracies are not just an Egyptian thing.) What is interesting about the Septuagint version (which is the ancient Greek translation) of the Psalm is that salvation is equated with the destruction of his enemies (in this case his son). In Greek, salvation is a many faceted concept and the destruction of enemies is certainly one of the facets.

Today's Maxwell Quote

From That My Family Should Partake (1974), 82:

God gave to mankind through a young man, Joseph Smith, the ultimate and immense truths of the gospel in this, the last dispensation. This young man who had no social status to protect, no private theology already worked out for God to endorse, and who had loving and listening parents, could report that theophany honestly and cling tenaciously to the truth of that first vision in the midst of great persecution. A sophisticated man who had community status to protect and his own ideas about what kind of religion the world needed—even though a good man—would have been sorely tempted to have traded off truth for the praise of the world. Paul reminded us that "the friendship of the world is enmity with God. . . ." (James 4:4.) Could any but a humble non-linguist have gone to the Hill Cumorah and, under the direction of an angel, be shown ancient records and be told, so boldly, that he, personally, would be the unlettered instrument in translating these for the benefit of all mankind, and still have believed all that—and helped such a marvel come to pass without wanting somehow to possess the plates rather than share their wisdom or to add his own mortal touches and flourishes to the manuscript?

Hints of What We are Missing

Friedhelm Hoffmann and Joachim Quack in their invaluable collection, Anthologie der demotischen Literatur, spend some time reconstructing what we know of Egyptian narratives that appear only in scattered fragments but do not have enough material for contiguous translation. Among these collections they note a particular interest in narratives circulating in the Greco-Roman period (332 B.C.-A.D. 314) about events in the Middle Kingdom (2000-1800 B.C.) One of these narratives has Sesostris (which?) invading Arabia, "India, Libya, Ethiopia, Asia, and even Europe." (p. 177). We have no contemporary records of any of these conquests, but they seem to have been considered history in the Greco-Roman period. These fragments provides hints of the literature that circulated in Egypt and their own memories of their glorious past. It provides us with a sense of the immense amount of material about the past that we are missing.

Today's Maxwell Quote

From That My Family Should Partake (1974), 27-28:

There is a reason for developing not only commitment but also capacity to spread and to defend the faith. George Macdonald warned that "it is often incapacity for defending the faith they love which turns men into persecutors." Even those, said Lehi, who have "tasted of the fruit" (the love of God) can yet fall away into forbidden paths and be lost. Why? Lehi says that some believers become "ashamed because of those" who scoff at them. Apparently the inability to defend the faith while under peer pressure may not only cost the soul of the uncertain onlooker, but the hesitant, inarticulate believer as well. No wonder Peter was desirous that believers "be ready always" to give answers to those who ask us reasons for our faith and hope. Austin Farrer counseled, "Though argument does not create conviction, . . . the lack of it destroys belief . . . what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create unbelief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish."

New Mission Presidents

The Church just announced the new mission presidents who will serve starting this year. I actually know two of these men. I would be happy for any of my children to serve under them. I would even be happy to serve under them myself (in one case I did). I assume the other mission presidents are of the same caliber. The missionaries are in good hands.

Today's Maxwell Quote

From That My Family Should Partake (1974), 2:

All parents should be grateful for those models about us of parents who, though they have other church, civic, and community roles that matter, show us by their words and actions that they know they have no more important assignment under heaven than as parents. Yet too much multiplication of other roles can divide our effectiveness at home.

We should be grateful not only for living models, but also for model families in the past, such as that of Joseph Smith, Sr., who, along with his wife, Lucy Mack Smith, gave a boy prophet love, leadership, example, and support. Suppose, after walking back from that theophany at Palmyra, young Joseph Smith had encountered task-oriented ("Get the chores done!"), nonlistening parents? Or a jealous older brother? With all else he had to meet in the way of ridicule and persecution, could that lad have done his special work without the love and courage of a family that quietly, uncomplainingly agreed to share in his work and in his fate?

Thoughts on the Outlaw Campus

Victor Davis Hanson has a thoughtful take on university life in his essay, The Outlaw Campus. He notes ten areas that need to be reformed. Some of his suggestions are intriguing. He suggests that administration should be outsourced the way that teaching is to adjunct faculty. He suggests employing adjunct administrators:

Why should those who dreamed up exploitative part-time teaching positions be exempt from their own logic? Private enterprise could supply all sorts of part-time administrative clerks to the university at a fraction of the present in-house costs.

Why indeed?

There are a number of wonderful administrators, but there are also cases where the exploits of the administrators are far worse than those of the faculty. At least poorly performing adjunct administrators would be easier to rid oneself of.

Hanson's ideas deserve careful consideration. I suggest reading the whole article.

Today's Maxwell Quote

From Wherefore, Ye Must Press Forward (1977), xi:

Whether one is newly baptized, reactivated, or already about his Father's business, he faces two challenges: remaining true to the decisions and covenants that have brought him thus far into serious discipleship, and then, both progressing and enduring in his discipleship.

Nibley on Korihor

This passage from Nibley created something of a stir for a short time when Nibley first uttered it but has since been largely forgotten:

Korihor, a contemporary of Alma, rallied the people of property to free themselves from the oppressive restraints of sacral government, "foolish performances," he said, by which "this people bind themselves . . . that they might not lift up their heads" (Alma 30:23). Thanks to the government, said he, people "durst not enjoy their rights and privileges." in particular, "they durst not make use of that which was their own lest they should offend their priests" (Alma 30:27-28); his appeal was for freedom from restraints "laid down by ancient priests" (Alma 30:23), freedom to follow the natural order in which "every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime" (Alma 30:17). The bottom line was the common-sense creed, "when a man was dead, that was the end thereof," all accounts settled, all charges dropped, all moral objections canceled. This was good news to beautiful people," causing them to lift up their heads in wickedness," enjoying unlimited criminal and sexual license, "leading away . . . women, and also men, to commit whoredoms" (Alma 30:18)--a plain but discreet way of hinting at rampant homosexuality. (CWHN 8:509-10.)

Today's Maxwell Quote

From this talk:

Alas, it may be true that those who do not believe in God, who is a loving parent and who is the Father of the human family, will also never be able to accept the eternal importance of the institution of the family, except as something that is socially useful—little wonder we arrive at different conclusions or that we have different priorities. How important, therefore, it is that we remain at our posts as sentries over doctrines and teachings like that concerning the family, even if the world in its mistaken, but sincere way, seems to be headed in entirely different directions. The Latter-day Saints ought to understand, for instance, that the wars of tomorrow are this day being forged in the overheated families of today. How many dictators or assassins do we need to study in order to understand the consequences of distortion in the home? How many more examples do we need, including the energy crisis, where a few control the resources needed by many, before realizing that food and fiber are not the real challenge? Rather, it is selfishness and our human delivery systems. And where, indeed, can one learn, first-hand, selflessness and sharing? In the home, where such skills and attitudes tend to be learned, if they are learned at all. 

The Interconnected Ancient World V: The Uses of Fish Gall

In his discussion of Norse magic, Stephen Mitchell brings up an example of Nordic "magic" from "medieval Nordic leechbooks":

One recommends that the gall of a black dog, or of a particular kind of fish, be burned in a wooden vessel and used as a remedy against witchcraft and diabolical influences. A Danish formula against wantonness calls for a potion made of the leaves of a plant mixed with liquid, although what makes it stand out is the instruction that the brew should be blended while the Pater noster is being "read." Modern readers naturally assume that recipes of this sort are a form of magic.

But how would medieval users have understood such practices? If a petitioner were to intone phrases invoking a pagan god or the Christian deity while burning the fish gall, for example, would we understand it as a religious practice? Or if the fumes of gall were believed to have a specific chemical or pharmacological purpose, should we then understand this practice as a kind of primitive science? And are the answers we give to these queries merely elusive matters of perspective, or are they in fact hard and fast conclusions, as true in the modern context as they would have been in pre-Christian Scandinavia?

(Stephen A. Mitchell, Witchcraft and Magic in the Nordic Middle Ages [Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011], 25-26.)

Mitchell brings these examples of Nordic medicine up to raise the point of whether they constitute "magic." The question he does not raise is whether they are Nordic. I have my doubts about whether this is particularly pre-Christian Nordic because it appears elsewhere in a standard version that was known in Scandinavia among the Christians.

Burning the gall of a particular kind of fish to drive out demons is found in the book of Tobit. The book of Tobit is considered one of the apocryphal books because it is found in the Septuagint but not in the Hebrew Bible. It was, however, considered biblical in the Catholic church in medieval times. The modern Icelandic version of the passage in question (Tobit 6:7-9) is:

Og ungi maðurinn sagði við engilinn: “Bróðir Asaría, til hvers er hjartað, lifrin og gallið úr fiskinum?” Og hann svaraði: “Hjartað og lifrin eru til þess, að ef ári eða illur andi þjáir enhvern, þá á að brenna því sem reykelsi fyrir manninum eða konunni, þá verða þau ekki framar þjáð.”

(Those looking for a translation can see here.) Here the angel specifically says that if someone is suffering from a demon or evil spirit that burning the guts of a fish in front of the afflicted man or woman will drive away the demon. (It worked in Tobit's case.) Here we see a Hellenistic Near Eastern folk practice becoming a medieval Scandinavian one.

Today's Maxwell Quote

From this talk:

If you prefer a different analogy, we are witnesses to a rather bizarre game of human chess in which there is strange value placed on the various pieces on the chess game. The kings and queens, the parents, are thought of as being inconsequential; the castles, or homes, get traded off for pawns with great casualness; the bishops, which might represent religion, remain largely unused in responding to the challenge. Yet, in the midst of this strange pattern of play, the world wonders why it cannot checkmate human misery.

What is a Word?

Coptic (for those who do not know) is the ancient Egyptian language written in Greek characters. The earliest dated Coptic inscription dates to 200 B.C. It mostly died out by the ninth century but there was a revival and late flourishing in the thirteenth century A.D.

Those who read Coptic manuscripts (and Coptic is not the only language whose manuscripts have this characteristic) know that Coptic manuscripts do not put spaces between words. Published versions of Coptic manuscripts put spaces between the words, but those spaces are not usually found in the manuscript. So a non-trivial problem is how do we know that a space should go between letters. Different editors solve this problem differently. How would we know where an ancient Coptic speaker would divide the text into different word units? The ancient Coptic scribes actually left some clues but these clues are often either ignored or reinterpreted (and sometimes misinterpreted) by modern editors.

This is just one of the many problems that confronts an editor the minute he or she undertakes to edit a text. Modern writers tend to give it no thought whatsoever. For us, the problem has already been solved.

Today's Maxwell Quote

From this talk:

I am grateful for the faculty and students alike at this University, who understand the tandem relationship between theology and identity, between family and eternity. At this University there is coequal concern with that nutrition pertaining to the body and that nutrition pertaining to the spirit. We certainly share with the secular world concern over diets required for our physical health, but we also assert to a sick and undernourished world that a divine diet has been prescribed for the soul of man, and further, that the primary source of his succor should be the family.

Onchsheshonqy 8/9-10

Do not follow a scribe who has been taken to prison, follow him after he has been taken to the tomb. (P. Onch. 8/9-10)

While the  general gist of the saying seems fairly certain, the exact idiom translated follow is unusual and is imperfectly understood. The idea is that while an intellectual (here a scribe) might have good things to say, those sayings can often get him in trouble. It is often not politically safe to follow someone who is in trouble and thus in the house of detention. Once he is dead, then he is no longer seen as a political problem.

The irony in this is that Onchsheshonqy is a scribe who is in prison. Perhaps Onchsheshonqy is simply warning his son not to follow in his footsteps until after he was dead.

Today's Maxwell Quote

From this talk:

Meanwhile, did not Jesus tell us what to expect by way of heat in the final summer? Did He not also say that He would prove our faith and patience by trial?

Did He not provide needed proportion when He spoke of the comparative few who will find the narrow way leading to the strait gate? (See Matt. 7:13–14.) Did He not also say that His Saints, scattered upon all the face of the earth, would, in the midst of wickedness, commotion, and persecution, be “armed with righteousness and with the power of God,” for He is determined to have “a pure people”? (1 Ne. 14:12–14; D&C 100:16.)

Feeding the Hungry

Sometimes in the midst of ephemeral arguments, a little gem of an argument shows up. Here is one such example, found in this other piece (which may or may not be worth reading):

Cooking is an act of love, an act of service to others.  It is an opportunity to care for others in a very fundamental way, to literally nourish them through the work of your own hands.

 This is another way of putting a scripture (and notice what comes first):

Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. (Matthew 25:34–40)

Today's Maxwell Quote

From this talk:

We may experience hunger, for instance, but if so, we can still respond as did the widow who used the last of her meal to feed Elijah (see 1 Kgs. 17:8–16). Such sharing amid real deprivation and poverty is always touching. Earlier in his life, a wonderful bishop of my youth, M. Thirl Marsh, repeatedly tried to be hired at the mines during the Depression. Being underage but large of stature, he persisted and was hired, but several friends were not. Apparently, on more than one occasion after his hard day’s work, generous young Thirl shared his earnings equally with these friends until they, too, were hired. No wonder he was such a caring shepherd of the flock later on.

AbB 9:1

Troubles that seem very modern are actually nothing new. This is an Old Babylonian letter written in Akkadian written in what is now Iraq about 1600 B.C. It is now in the Yale Babylonian collection (YBC 4519). It provides a window into the politics of petty tyrants three and a half millennia ago:

Speak to Sin-magir: Thus say Ipqu-Ishtar and Sin-ituram your colleagues.

May An and Inanna, Shamash, Iggalla, and Amurrum, your god, keep you in good health forever for our sake!

Concerning the report that was, in your words,

"Because Hadi-amer-Shamash has taken an oral promise to somebody else upon himself, he is keeping me waiting":

do not be slow always to stand firm against him. You tell him this, as follows:

"The fact that you speak in a decietful way is an insult to me. People will say

'Hadi-amer-Shamash has removed him from that office, even though he was trustworthy'.

What did you think that I was that you have given my office to somebody else in my absence?".

Thus speak to him and he shall answer you immediately.

And now Nabi-ilishu's intentions are prone to unseemly things in that he wants to oust the honourable . . . Apil-Sin from the temple of Enlil. If this is proper, tell him that he must not seek out complaints. But don't you know that Apil-Sin is ours? Do not be negligent about this!

May An and Inanna, Shamash, Iggalla, and Amurrum, your god, keep you in good health forever for our sake! (M. Stol, Altbabylonische Briefe 9: Letters from Yale [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1981], 3, format altered).

The letter shows that the ambitious jockeying for position is nothing new. It is as despicable now as it ever was.

Today's Maxwell Quote

From this talk:

The philosophy of ritual prodigalism is “eat, drink, and be merry, … [and] God will beat us with a few stripes.” This is a cynical and shallow view of God, of self, and of life. God never can justify us “in committing a little sin.” (2 Ne. 28:8.) He is the God of the universe, not some night-court judge with whom we can haggle and plea bargain!

Moses 5 in the Mailbag

A query from an astute reader has been passed on to me. The query is whether in Moses 5:51 the verb knew should be understood carnally. Here is the relevant passage:

51 For, from the days of Cain, there was a secret combination, and their works were in the dark, and they knew every man his brother.
52 Wherefore the Lord cursed Lamech, and his house, and all them that had covenanted with Satan; for they kept not the commandments of God, and it displeased God, and he ministered not unto them, and their works were abominations, and began to spread among all the sons of men. And it was among the sons of men.
53 And among the daughters of men these things were not spoken, because that Lamech had spoken the secret unto his wives, and they rebelled against him, and declared these things abroad, and had not compassion;
54 Wherefore Lamech was despised, and cast out, and came not among the sons of men, lest he should die.
55 And thus the works of darkness began to prevail among all the sons of men. (Moses 5:51–56)

I had always understood the phrase "they knew every man his brother" to mean that every man in the secret combination recognized his brother and was cognizant that he was a confederate in iniquity. This alternate reading is certainly intriguing. There is a simple way to test it.

The book of Moses uses the verb to know in both carnal and intellectual senses. Bracketing the phrase in question, lets look at the other uses by category.

In the following instances, the verb to know is used in the intellectual rather than the carnal sense:

all things are present with me [God], for I know them all. (Moses 1:6)

I [Moses] know that man is nothing (Moses 1:10)

they are mine and I [God] know them. (Moses 1:35)

the name of which shall not be known among the children of men (Moses 1:42)

This I [Adam] know now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh (Moses 3:23)

he [Satan] knew not the mind of God (Moses 4:6)

God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. (Moses 4:11)

they [Adam and Eve] knew that they had been naked (Moses 4:13)

the man is become as one of us to know good and evil (Moses 4:28)

I [Adam] know not, save the Lord commanded me. (Moses 5:6)

Were it not for our transgression we [Eve and Adam] never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient. (Moses 5:11)

they [Adam and Eve] made all things known unto their sons and their daughters. (Moses 5:12)

Who is the Lord that I should know him? (Moses 5:16)

Now Satan knew this, and it pleased him. (Moses 5:21)

this that thy father may not know it (Moses 5:29)

I [Cain] know not. Am I my brother’s keeper? (Moses 5:34)

and Irad, the son of Enoch, having known their secret, began to reveal it unto the sons of Adam (Moses 5:49)

God hath made known unto our fathers that all men must repent. (Moses 6:50)

they taste the bitter, that they may know to prize the good. (Moses 6:55)

it is given unto them to know good from evil (Moses 6:56)

[the Comforter is] that which knoweth all things (Moses 6:61)

Enoch knew, and looked upon their wickedness (Moses 7:41)

thou art God, and I know thee (Moses 7:59)

he shall know that all flesh shall die (Moses 8:17)

The following are passages where the verb to know is used in the carnal sense:

And Adam knew his wife, and she bare unto him sons and daughters (Moses 5:2) 

And Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bare Cain (Moses 5:16) 

And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bare Enoch (Moses 5:42)

And Adam knew his wife again, and she bare a son (Moses 6:2)

This lengthy listing shows that in most cases when the object of the verb to know is used of a mortal person, it is used in a carnal sense; there are, however, two exceptions:

And death hath come upon our fathers; nevertheless we know them, and cannot deny, and even the first of all we know, even Adam. For a book of remembrance we have written among us (Moses 6:45–46)

In this passage, the two uses of to know are clearly of an intellectual nature not a carnal nature because they are known through a book.

This would argue that the suggested reading in Moses 5:51 of the verb to know in a carnal sense can be a valid reading of the text but it cannot rule out the other reading. There are some interesting implications of the new reading which I leave to the reader.

Today's Maxwell Quote

From this talk:

To compose a symphony, to win a battle, or to save a company—each can be a commendable and worthy entry in the book of life, but these do not fully compensate for breaking the seventh commandment. In the arithmetic of heaven, several commendables do not cancel out one inexcusable!

We're #7? Seriously?

BYU ranks seventh in happiness according to here, here and here (at least this week). The methodology used and the rationale for the ranking are never explained. I guess it has something to do with freshman retention rates and the rating of the health center. (I thought that health centers were best avoided. At one of the universities I graduated from I cannot remember if I even knew where it was.)

Today's Maxwell Quote

From Wherefore, Ye Must Press Forward (1977), 11:

Once the gospel grove sheltered by tall and stalwart redwoods has been abandoned, where will society seek shelter from the storms? In the sagebrush? In the reeds of rationalization? Hypocrisy at least is an attempt to hide shame, but today the very flaunting of certain behavior indicates that our deterioration is reaching some advanced stages. Boldness is not always courage, and when some things come out of the closet, they bring the darkness with them.

Degrees of Glory and Tolerance

The Doctrine and Covenants is explicit that certain forms of conduct are not allowed in certain degrees of glory:

38 And unto every kingdom is given a law; and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions.
39 All beings who abide not in those conditions are not justified. (Doctrine and Covenants 88:38–39)

21 And they who are not sanctified through the law which I have given unto you, even the law of Christ, must inherit another kingdom, even that of a terrestrial kingdom, or that of a telestial kingdom.
22 For he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory.
23 And he who cannot abide the law of a terrestrial kingdom cannot abide a terrestrial glory.
24 And he who cannot abide the law of a telestial kingdom cannot abide a telestial glory; therefore he is not meet for a kingdom of glory. Therefore he must abide a kingdom which is not a kingdom of glory. (Doctrine and Covenants 88:21–24)

In the degrees of glory, actions against the law of that kingdom are not tolerated. Those who commit them cannot remain in that kingdom. This means that in the three degrees of glory there is only limited tolerance. The more tolerance displayed, the lower the kingdom of glory. This argues that tolerance is not a celestial virtue but a telestial one.

For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance; (Doctrine and Covenants 1:31; cf. Alma 45:16)

The more like God we are, the less we will tolerate sin. He does not tolerate sin and so if we are like him, we will not either.

It is in the telestial kingdom that all manner of sins are permitted and tolerated. One reason we may have to tolerate sins in a telestial world is to give others what the Book of Mormon calls "space for repentance" (Alma 42:5; cf 12:24). If others give up their sins, we do not have to tolerate them anymore. We cannot, however, keep our sins and expect them to be tolerated in a celestial realm.

We might think that God is being exclusionary in not tolerating our sins in the celestial kingdom, but that is not the correct way to view the situation. As Moroni explains:

3 Do ye suppose that ye shall dwell with him under a consciousness of your guilt? Do ye suppose that ye could be happy to dwell with that holy Being, when your souls are racked with a consciousness of guilt that ye have ever abused his laws?
4 Behold, I say unto you that ye would be more miserable to dwell with a holy and just God, under a consciousness of your filthiness before him, than ye would to dwell with the damned souls in hell.
5 For behold, when ye shall be brought to see your nakedness before God, and also the glory of God, and the holiness of Jesus Christ, it will kindle a flame of unquenchable fire upon you. (Mormon 9:3–5)

God's exclusion of sinners is not intolerance, it is mercy.

Today's Maxwell Quote

From That My Family Should Partake (1974), 41:

Whether we make a resolution to improve in a family council or privately, sometimes sharing our resolve can give us the advantage of our pride in wanting to carry out that resolution successfully and the loving support of other members of the family. In one sense, their stake in our success is personal in that if we improve they will benefit. In another, larger sense, however, because the members of our family love us, they are sincerely anxious for us to succeed in a way that may not always be true of other associates. Even false starts and transitional failures are better understood by the members of the family. Neither will members of the family be as likely to be offended by, or scoff at, the seeming smallness of some resolution on one's part. This is so precisely because in the family life the little things are the big things.