Monday, March 30, 2020

Smithsonian: How a unique tramway helped save Armenian monastery


(haydzayn.com 7-7-18)

In the years prior to 2010, the historic Tatev Monastery in Armenia’s Syunik province was struggling. Visitor numbers were dwindling and the medieval building complex itself was in desperate need of restoration. At its prime, the 9th-century monastery was a thriving medieval university focused on both scholastic and spiritual studies, but at the turn of the millennium, the historic site, which sits perched on a plateau at the edge of the dramatic Vorotan Gorge, was very much up in the air. Few at the time anticipated the path to restoring the site’s ancient frescos and hand-cut stonework would be built first with 18,871 feet of ultra-modern steal wireand a Guinness World Records certificate, Smithsonian Magazine says in an article.

The feature goes on to read:

Though visually stunning, the monastery’s secluded setting posed challenges for its upkeep. “In the early 2000s, this part of Syunik, where the monastery is located, was one of the most deprived and difficult to access regions, with high unemployment and minimal opportunities to attract investment,” Yekaterina Poghosyan, head of public relations at the IDEA Foundation, told Smithsonian.com. “In theory at least, Tatev had potential to become a key point on a tourist route that would connect Yerevan with Artsakh and South Armenia—but because of its remote location, there was little likelihood of it being included in organized tourism drives. Local authorities did not have the funds to reconstruct the road to the monastery and, given the harsh winters and sparsely populated surrounding villages, did not consider it worthy of being earmarked.”

In an effort to revitalize the monastery and the surrounding areas, Poghosyan launched the Tatev Revival project. Part of which was working with the Austrian-Swiss company Doppelmayr/Garaventa to build the cutting-edge Wings of Tatev tramway, the longest reversible cableway in the world. It stretches more than three and a half miles from Syunik to Tatev and floats about 1,000 feet above the Vorotan River Gorge. Visitors can now reach the medieval site in about 12 minutes, and with the tram’s introduction, tourism numbers have skyrocketed.

“Before the construction of the Tatev cableway, only a smattering of people would have braved the broken and rather dangerous mountain hairpin road,” Poghosyan said. “For example, during 2009, about five thousand tourists visited the monastery, [whereas] today it attracts about 20 percent of the total tourist flow going to Armenia. Wings of Tatev [has] in itself become a new attraction. More than 640,000 tourists, not only from Armenia, but also from Russia, the USA, Europe and Asia, have used the cableway since its launch.”

A roundtrip ride costs about $10 dollars in the summer months, and proceeds go, in large part, toward helping the monastery’s ongoing renovations. As the monastery’s popularity has grown, it has also attracted new public funding, and as a result, the IDEA Foundation now funds additional projects in the community as well. Since the cableway opened, locals have begun training in the hospitality industry to accommodate the 20-plus new bed and breakfasts that have opened in the surrounding town. IDEA helps those same locals prepare business plans and apply for loans. And the Wings of Tatev itself employs 50 local villagers.”

“Along with the various stakeholders,” Poghosyan said, “we are developing logistical, technical and educational infrastructure in the nearby villages: improving the water supply and street lighting system, improving road safety, building children’s playgrounds, repairing schools and pre-schools, opening engineering laboratories in local schools, etc. The thrust of our commitment is also environmental conservation: planting trees, rubbish collection and installing litterbins in settlements, and general upkeep of natural monuments.”

As a result of the Tatev Revival project, the monastery has been able to reopen its doors as a cultural center in the community, as well as a tourism destination. Church holidays are once again celebrated within its walls, and the Tatev Monastery Choir performs regularly. The facility also hosts theater performances, concerts, festivals and even sporting events.

https://haydzayn.com/en/page/Smithsonian:%20How%20a%20unique%20tramway%20helped%20save%20Armenian%20monastery_74948

Saturday, March 28, 2020

Prophets and Apostles in the Sacred Grove

(by Kurt Manwaring fromthedesk.org 1-28-20)

Joseph Smith’s “First Vision” occurred in the Sacred Grove in New York in the spring of 1820.

Prophets and apostles of subsequent generations have had intimate experiences when visiting the sacred site. The stories of Spencer W. Kimball, Gordon B. Hinckley, George Albert Smith, Stephen L. Richards, and Orson F. Whitney are shared here courtesy of Dennis B. Horne.

Visit Truth Will Prevail to read the original post.

(follow the link for the rest of the article)

https://www.fromthedesk.org/sacred-grove-prophets/#more-4402

Why I object to the word “homophobia”

(by Dan Peterson sic et non blog)

Part 1

Responding to one of my recent posts on the general issue of BYU and homosexuals, a critic used the word homophobia to characterize those of us who don’t share his views.

I replied that homophobia is “a nonsense word.”

Now, why would I say such a thing?

I knew when I said it that I would need to explain myself.  So here goes:

First of all, anybody curious about my comment should probably understand that I am, as the title of a wonderful biography of James Murray and his Oxford English Dictionary puts it, “caught in the web of words.”  For decades, I’ve been caught up in the study and teaching and analysis of languages and texts.  I read books about lexicography for fun.  I care about words.  I pay unusual attention to them.  I have strong opinions about them.

Thus, for example, I’m bothered by sentences like A person should follow their own path.  (I constantly read them in student papers and elsewhere.)  No, A person should follow his own path.  Or, perhaps better these days, A person should follow her own pathA person is singular; their is plural.  Perhaps the safest option is People should follow their own paths.

I don’t like the common confusion of infer and imply, and the recently frequent use of a new verb to advocate for when to advocate would suffice perfectly well without the for.  I object to using beg the question for raise the question.  I heartily dislike seeing the word literally used – as it very often is — in situations where it just can’t be taken literally:
I was literally starving to death.

He was literally twelve feet tall.

I could literally eat a horse.

I was literally dying.

She’s literally a witch.

And I’ve been on a crusade for many years now against the term helpmeet, which is itself a “nonsense word”:

https://www.deseret.com/2013/8/22/20524340/how-was-eve-an-help-meet-for-adam

I like precision.  Accuracy.  Proper use.

Words matter.

So, yes, of course I have a problem with the word homophobia.

Etymologically, for one thing, it’s a bit ambiguous.  Given the elements from which it’s made, it should probably mean something like “fear of the same,” “afraid of sameness.”   And yet, very obviously, that’s not how it’s typically (if ever) used today.

But that’s scarcely my principal objection.  In fact, it’s not really on my list of objections.  It’s simply an observation for the sake of completeness.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2020/03/why-i-object-to-the-word-homophobia-introduction.html?fbclid=IwAR14nTTy6KhgggHtuj6fo60vDSu4My-0DH3GyTVu8a3HWD37mpw-Cx05_dI

Part 2

The term homophobia is modeled upon familar predecessors such as agoraphobia, acrophobia, arachnophobia, and claustrophobia.

I’ll take them in turn:

The word agoraphobia is from the Greek ἀγορά (agorā́), which refers to a “public square,” a “public space,” or a “market,” and φοβία (phobía), which means “fear.”  It denotes an extreme, irrational terror of public spaces.
 
The term acrophobia is from the Greek ἄκρον (ákron), meaning “peak,” “summit,” or “edge,” and φοβία (phobía), which, again, means “fear.”  As might be expected, it refers to an extreme or irrational fear of heights.

Arachnophobia is an intense and unreasonable fear of spiders and other arachnids such as scorpions.

The term claustrophobia comes from the Latin claustrum (“a shut-in place”) and, once again, Greek φοβία (phobía), or “fear.”
In my judgment, to use the term homophobia to characterize any and all resistance to every “gay rights” proposal (e.g., the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples) suggests that resistance to the normalization or endorsement of homosexual behavior is an illness — an excessive and irrational terror, a psychological defect needing to be treated and/or eradicated, rather than an opinion to be discussed and debated.

Those who have objected to homosexuals being branded as “perverse” and “sick” should think long and hard before they turn that same strategy against everybody who disagrees with their legal and cultural agenda.  It disrespects opponents.  It dehumanizes and demeans them.  It is, in that respect, merely yet another example of the terribly divisive discourse of our time.   Those who disagree aren’t mere opponents with whom we disagree; they are evil, depraved, sick, even subhuman.

Now, there may be some who actually “fear” homosexuals.  If so, perhaps the word homophobia might fit them.  There may be some whose opposition reflects their fear of their own repressed homosexual tendencies.  Maybe it would fit them, as well.  But the numbers of such people cannot be very large, not absolutely and surely not proportionately.
For people like me – and there are several other people, perhaps millions of people, like me – resistance to the regularization of homosexual behavior doesn’t even arise, in the first instance, from homosexual behavior itself.  It flows as an entailment from a more general worldview that is not specifically focused, even secondarily, on homosexuality.  And that worldview may or may not be religious.
 In my case, it is a compound of both religious and secular considerations:  I don’t particularly wish to re-litigate the question of same-sex marriage, for example.  But, to my mind, marriage between men and women is prior to the State, both logically and chronologically.  Thus, given my strong belief in very limited government and a minimal State footprint, I’m not convinced that the State has the right to redefine marriage — especially via a one-vote majority in a court decision.  I remain specifically unconvinced, too, that the Constitution of the United States, reasonably interpreted, demands gay marriage.  (My political philosophy includes such concepts as “strict construction” of the Constitution, with close attention to “original intent.”)  On the other hand, in fact, I strongly favored civil partnerships that would have granted homosexual couples the legal rights (e.g., hospital visitation and inheritance) typically associated with marriage.  Other than my deep sadness when homosexuals forsake the Church, I’m quite uninterested in their private sexual arrangements; I’ve been working harmoniously and respectfully with gay people for decades and will continue to do so.
I won’t approve the suggestion that people holding my views are “sick,” that we would, in principle at least, be suitable candidates for “re-education camps” or reparative therapy.  I disapprove of the term homophobia for the same reason that I object to claims that people who are insufficiently enthusiastic toward our Dear Leader suffer from a supposed illness called “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” or that liberal Democrats are indistinguishable from Communists.  Such rhetoric is, to put it mildly, unhelpful.

I reject the term homophobia in its wide application for the same reason that I reject charges that failure to support same-sex marriage is evidence of “hate.”

In fact, my objection to the word homophobia isn’t really about homosexuality as such.  It’s about civil, respectful discourse.  To the extent that there really are anti-gay bigots — and I accept that they still exist — the proper term for them isn’t homophobe.  It’s bigot.  And to the extent that a person really hates gay people, his attitude should be termed hatred, not homophobia.  But such terms should be used accurately, not sprayed about indiscriminately in order to gain unearned rhetorical advantage.  They should not be deployed in order to dehumanize opponents.

For relevant further reading, see William O’Donohue and Christine E. Caselles, “Homophobia: Conceptual, definitional, and value issues,” Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment 15 (1993): 177–195.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2020/03/why-i-object-to-the-word-homophobia-conclusion.html?fbclid=IwAR3qWCFhMP8QFgrx0uHSPczDtIU5LHJU__nLhrwVRZJj_-9iKlK8ioszLyg

On a current controversy involving BYU

(by Dan Peterson sic et non blog)

Part 1

Several have urged me to comment on the Honor Code revisions at Brigham Young University with regard to homosexuality, and I suppose it’s time that I say at least something.  Herewith, therefore, several propositions.  They are neither exhaustive nor systematic, and I offer them here in no particular order:

  1.  Although this topic has obviously inspired controversy in some circles, until today (when a student mentioned it to me and I heard news of a demonstration elsewhere on campus) nobody at BYU has so much as alluded to the topic in my hearing, except for one passing conversational reference to it from the chairman of my department (Asian and Near Eastern Languages).  Not only hasn’t it loomed large, it just hasn’t been on my radar screen.  That radar screen has been occupied by teaching, committee meetings, midterms, student papers, and the like.
  2. Some hope and expect, reasoning by analogy from the cessation of plural marriage in 1890 and the lifting of the black priesthood restriction in 1978, that same-sex marriages will ultimately receive approval from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and be solemnized for all eternity in the temples of the Church.  However, although God is free and sovereign and entirely capable of surprise — as C. S. Lewis liked to say, Aslan is not a tame lion — I have no such expectation.  This for at least two reasons, one much stronger and more serious than the other:
  3. First, from a purely secular perspective: None of the living apostles seem at all inclined to make such a change, and, actuarially speaking, they are likely to be in charge of the Church for decades to come.
  4. Second, from a doctrinal perspective:  The removal of the priesthood ban for blacks was, theologically speaking, a small matter.  It altered little if anything of substance beyond itself.  So, too, the granting of priesthood to women — which I don’t expect, but which is conceivable — would not fundamentally change our doctrine.  By contrast, regarding homosexual marriages as the functional equivalent of heterosexual marriages in the eternities would not only be contrary to fact — they are, for purposes of generating posterity, simply not functionally equivalent — but would require a virtually complete transformation of our understanding of the purpose of life, the plan of salvation, and the nature of the eternities.
  5. Brigham Young University is an integral part of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and is likely to remain such.  In that light, it exists not only to be a university — in the manner of UCLA, Colorado State, Princeton, and Cal State Fullerton — but to assist in the formation of committed young Latter-day Saints.  Its general direction is, therefore, tightly controlled by the leadership of the Church, and should be.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2020/03/on-a-current-controversy-involving-byu-1.html?fbclid=IwAR2pU_zQ0zq8DMVnmtRY3ZX9GOFQkEp-IU0r4nVnMaF5FwkcBiXlclj1CGM

Part 2

6.  The announcement of the revision of the Honor Code was not well handled.  It left many people in a state of perplexity and uncertainty.

7.  It’s understandable that some concluded that public expressions of same-sex attraction would now be welcomed on the BYU campus.

8.  Those drawing that conclusion should not have been surprised to see a “correction” from the Church and the University.

9.  The fundamental problem is that Church and University leaders want to be charitable and kind but, at the same time, do not feel authorized to rescind or overturn the teaching of the Church that full sexual expression can only properly occur within a heterosexual marriage.  It’s an expression of the perennial conflict between truth and justice, on the one hand, and mercy, on the other.  The trouble is that it’s a terribly difficult line to walk.

10.  Church and University leaders are not motivated by “hate.”  It is inflammatory and unjust to accuse them of such.

11.  Nobody should be surprised that Brigham Young University is not neutral on, or indifferent to, the sexual behavior of its students and faculty.  While other schools pay no attention to that dimension of life, BYU does and always has.  Expecting it to change in that regard is unrealistic.  Sexuality — e.g., family — is at the heart of Latter-day Saint lives and lifestyle.
12.  BYU has always demanded chastity outside of heterosexual marriage from both its faculty and its students.  That did not change with the recent alteration of the Honor Code.

13.  Dating and romantic kissing and such things tend to lead to fuller sexual expression, whether married or heterosexual or not. It would be unrealistic on BYU’s part to pretend otherwise, or to affect the belief that such acts are completely without significance or likely outcome.

14.  There was a time at BYU when even heterosexual displays of public affection (PDAs, as they were called) were frowned upon.  This was not unendurable.

15.  Church and University leaders recognize that people who are romantically attracted to others of the same sex have a hard row to hoe within the Church community and are trying to be as supportive as they can be without compromising what they believe to be revealed standards and expectations of behavior that they cannot change.

16.  Will we lose some, especially perhaps among the young, because the Church cannot change?  Likely yes.  And this is a matter of pain, not of indifference.  But our freedom to maneuver is limited.  And we cannot maintain the Church by ceasing to be the Church.

Perhaps I’ll have more to say.  Perhaps not.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2020/03/on-a-current-controversy-involving-byu-2.html?fbclid=IwAR3ueAvVeqgv96P9unAnvit2XePI1wMvKM8M448r5GN9qJnbhcrkrXBLuGE

Teachings and Testimony of the First Vision:

(by Dennis B. Horne interpreterfoundation.org 3-4-20)

One criticism leveled at Joseph Smith relates to the fact that he wrote or dictated several accounts of his first vision with additional details in each. Antagonistic unbelievers have erroneously interpreted the extra information to mean that Joseph made up new particulars as he went along, becoming more grandiose with each telling. This approach is not well considered and is a flimsy effort to reject the Prophet’s testimony and thereby relieve themselves of the burden of belief—with all the accountability and obligation that comes with it. Said President Gordon B. Hinckley: “I have read the words of critics, who from 1820 until now have tried to destroy the validity of that account. They have made much of the fact that there were several versions and that the [canonized] account as we now have it was not written until 1838. So what? I find security for my faith in the simplicity of his narrative, in its lack of argument, in its straightforward reasonableness, and in the fact that he sealed his testimony with his life’s blood.” I vastly prefer this astute prophet’s explanation to that of the skeptics; the fact is, he knew it was true by the power of the Spirit of God.

(follow the link for the rest of the article)

https://interpreterfoundation.org/blog-teachings-and-testimony-of-the-first-vision-12/

A testimonial from William E. McLellin

(by Dan Peterson sic et non blog)

William E. McLellin was chosen as one of the Twelve Apostles in 1835, but was excommunicated from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 1838.  However, he never abandoned his faith in the Book of Mormon, and one of the pillars of his faith rested upon his early, searching interviews with the witnesses to that book.  He was a highly intelligent man (and, it seems, a rather irascible one), and he was very careful and intent upon getting at the truth.  He left a number of statements on his investigations.  This one comes from a previously unpublished manuscript that he wrote between January 1871 and January 1872.  I find it fascinating:

In 1833, when mobbing reigned triumphant in Jackson Co. Mo. I and O. Cowdery fled from our homes, for fear of personal violence on Saturday the 20th day of July.  The mob dispersed, agreeing to meet again on the next Tuesday.  They offered eighty dollars reward for any one who would deliver Cowdery or McLellan in Independence on Tuesday.  On Mond[a]y I slipped down into the Whitmer’s settlement, and there in the lonely woods I met with David Whitmer and Oliver Cowdery.  I said to them, “brethren I have never seen an open vision in my life, but you men say you have, and therefore you positively know.  Now you know that our lives are in danger every hour, if the mob can only only catch us.  Tell me in the fear of God, is that book of Mormon true?  Cowdery looked at me with solemnity depicted in his face, and said, “Brother William, God sent his holy angel to declare the truth of the translation of it to us, and therefore we know.  And though the mob kill us, yet we must die declaring its truth.”  David said, “Oliver has told you the solemn truth, for we could not be deceived.  I most truly declare declare to you its truth!!”  Said I, boys I believe you.  I can see no object for you to tell me false <hood> now, when our lives are endangered.  Eight men testify also to handling that sacred pile of plates, from which Joseph Smith <read off the> translation that heavenly Book.
One circumstance I’ll relate of one of these eight witnesses.  While the mob was raging in Jackson Co. Mo. in 1833 some young men ran down Hiram Page <in the woods> one of the eight <witnesses,> and commenced beating and pounding him with whips and clubs.  He begged, but there was no mercy.  They said he was <a> damned Mormon, and they meant to beat him to death!  But finally one then said to him, if you will deny that damned book, we will let you go.  Said he, how can I deny what I know to be true?  Then they pounded him again.  When they thought he was about to breathe his last, they said to him, Now what do you think of your God, when he dont save you?  Well said he, I believe in God–Well, said one of the most intelligent among them, I believe the damned fool will stick to it though we kill him.  Let us let him go.  But his life was nearly run out.  He was confined to his bed for a length of time.  So much for a man who knows for himself.  Knowledge is beyond faith or doubt.  It is positive certainty.

I in company with <a> friend, <I> visited one of the eight witnesses <in 1869>–he only one who is now alive, and he bore a very lucid and rational testimony, and gave us many interesting particulars.  He was a young man when he had those testimonies.  He is now<was then> sixty eight years old, and still he is firm in his faith.  Now I would ask what will I do with such a cloud of faithful witnesses, bearing such a rational and yet solemn testimony?  These men while in the prime of life, saw the vision of the angel, and bore their testimony to all people.  And eight men saw the plates, and handled them.  Hence these men all knew the things they declared to be positively true.  And that too while they were young, and now when old they declare the same things.

These paragraphs come from Mitchell K. Schaefer, ed., William E. McLellin’s Lost Manuscript (Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2012), 166-167.  The editorial marks (and McLellin’s curious misspelling of his own name) and the occasional omitted word are all faithfully reproduced and double-checked.

The witness whom McLellin visited in 1869 must have been John Whitmer, who died in 1878.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2020/03/a-testimonial-from-william-e-mclellin.html?fbclid=IwAR3jypafDLSEgFXuaspqEV7Fq9d7Hok7LuMxtBDzyIqDsKrqveHqKRhUyuU

Revisiting Golgotha and the Garden Tomb

(by Jeffrey R. Chadwick rsc.byu.edu)

The Garden Tomb in Jerusalem is a site of significant interest to many Latter-day Saints and religious educators. In the last thirty years, tens of thousands of Latter-day Saint visitors to Israel have spent time at the pleasantly landscaped site. Many of these, if not most, have come away impressed, both by the sincere explanations of the volunteer guides and by the peaceful spirit of the place. Visitors have often left with the feeling that this was where Jesus Christ rose from the dead on a Sunday morning nearly two thousand years ago. Photos, slides, and videos featuring the tomb in that garden are often used in Church classrooms when educators discuss the events of Jesus’ death and Resurrection. In a recently produced video presentation entitled “Special Witnesses of Christ,” President Gordon B. Hinckley, standing at the Garden Tomb, made the following statement: “Just outside the walls of Jerusalem, in this place or somewhere nearby was the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, where the body of the Lord was interred.”[1] There is, however, something very notable about this statement. Always a cautious observer, President Hinckley, with the words “or somewhere nearby” left wide open the possibility that the Garden Tomb might not have been the sepulchre of Jesus at all.

In 1992, I began a decade-long archaeological investigation of both the Garden Tomb and the so-called Skull Hill not far away (hereafter referred to as the “skull feature”) with the goal of determining whether either or both may be identified with the New Testament “Golgotha” and the tomb of Jesus’ Resurrection.[2] That investigation has yielded mixed results. The good news is that evidence is quite positive for the skull feature having been Golgotha, or the “place of the skull” where Jesus was crucified. However, the bad news, for some at least, is that the Garden Tomb does not seem to meet the archaeological criteria to be the site of Jesus’ Resurrection described in the New Testament.[3] The tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, if it still exists, will have to be sought “somewhere nearby.”

(follow link for the rest of the article)

https://rsc.byu.edu/vol-4-no-1-2003/revisiting-golgotha-garden-tomb

Sunday, March 22, 2020

A few hasty, coronavirus-inspired reflections

(by Dan Peterson sic et non blog)

In the midst of a global pandemic during which public religious services are being heavily reduced and even canceled, wouldn’t it be great to be affiliated with a religious movement in which, although supported by the church, devotional and instructional life was actually centered on the home?  A movement that has invested enormously in electronic media, including films and the like?  Media that can be safely used without any need to emerge from the safe confines of one’s own house?

During a time of worldwide contagion, a time in which people are being discouraged even from going out to shop for groceries more than they absolutely must, a time in which they’re being counseled to have enough food and medicine at home for as many as fourteen days — available for the possibility that they will come down with the ambient disease and effectively be quarantined — wouldn’t it be nice to have been a member of an organization that has taught emergency preparedness for decades?  That has advised its adherents to have food and other supplies stored at home, lest they be caught unready for a crisis?

In a day when global markets are in upheaval, when stocks are plummeting, when supply chains are disrupted, when customers are staying home, when businesses are suffering and employment is endangered, when savings are at risk, wouldn’t it be reassuring to be a member of a religious organization that — even notwithstanding fierce criticism for doing so — has amassed a sizeable rainy day fund for just such eventualities?  A fund that, even though it may or may not itself have been substantially reduced by plunging share prices, is still large enough to maintain that religious organization’s functions as far as they can be maintained through a crisis and to restore them to full health when the crisis has passed?  A fund that, beyond mere maintenance, is also able to assist members of the organization, and even non-members?  A fund that is adequate for a time when the needs of the people are not only great but, in fact, greater than normal?  A fund that is able to meet a short-term crisis without putting the core long-term responsibilities of that religious movement at risk or allowing them to suffer damage that is difficult to repair in the future?
  In a day when secular human institutions have been revealed as deeply vulnerable to an essentially invisible threat, wouldn’t it be nice to belong to an organization that is thoroughly in the world but emphatically not of the world?  That teaches the central importance of family in this life but also affirms that family continues centrally important into the next?  That places its hope in Christ, who has overcome the world?

I think that it would be very gratifying to belong to such a religious organization, one that has been prudently led and that has given, and followed, wise counsel for this life, one that promises an eternity of joy and peace to all those who have sincerely sought to do good.

The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.
 
He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.

He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name’s sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.

Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever.  (Psalm 23)

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2020/03/a-few-hasty-coronavirus-inspired-reflections.html?fbclid=IwAR3xDv28pHHYLG2NnE1v5WSfL0m0fPj2uW7RIGVcu1iwFf-QVZM05okTxSo

William E. McLellin and the Qur’an’s “Challenge Verses”

(by Dan Peterson sic et non blog)

I offer, for your unlikely but possible interest, a passage from Michael Bonner, Jihad in Islamic History: Doctrines and Practice (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2006):

How were people expected to know that these words of Revelation were indeed of divine origin?  One answer to the question was that the Prophet Muhammad, through whom the words came into the world, was a trustworthy man whose life and behavior conformed to established patterns of monotheist prophecy.  The books of sira [biography] and maghazi [specifically military biography, literally “raids” or “campaigns”] provided what one needed to know about this exemplary life and behavior.  Then what if someone wished to put Muhammad’s credentials as a prophet to the test?  In that case, one proof came in the Quran itself (the famous “challenge verses”): doubters were challenged to produce Arabic words of similar quality and beauty; their failure to do this confirmed the authenticity of both the Messenger and the Message.  (36-37)

Here are some of those “challenge verses”:

And if you are in doubt about what We have sent down upon Our Servant [Muhammad], then produce a surah the like thereof and call upon your witnesses other than Allah, if you should be truthful.  But if you do not — and you will never be able to — then fear the Fire, whose fuel is men and stones, prepared for the disbelievers.  (Qur’an 2:23-24)

Or do they say [about the Prophet], “He invented it?” Say, “Then bring forth a surah like it and call upon [for assistance] whomever you can besides Allah, if you should be truthful.”  (Qur’an 10:38)

Or do they say, “He invented it”? Say, “Then bring ten surahs like it that have been invented and call upon [for assistance] whomever you can besides Allah, if you should be truthful.”  (Qur’an 11:13)


Say, “If mankind and the jinn gathered in order to produce the like of this Qur’an, they could not produce the like of it, even if they were assistants to each other.”  (Qur’an 17:88)

Then let them produce a statement like it, if they should be truthful. (Qur’an 52:34)

There is an obvious parallel in Latter-day Saint history:

Shortly before publication of the Book of Commandments (the forerunner of the Doctrine and Covenants), some members of the Church evidently criticized the wording of some of Joseph Smith’s revelations.  After all, Joseph was very poorly educated and quite unsophisticated.

The revelation now known as Doctrine and Covenants 67 was given through Joseph Smith, at Hiram, Ohio, early in November 1831:

And now I, the Lord, give unto you a testimony of the truth of these commandments which are lying before you.  Your eyes have been upon my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and his language you have known, and his imperfections you have known; and you have sought in your hearts knowledge that you might express beyond his language; this you also know.  Now, seek ye out of the Book of Commandments, even the least that is among them, and appoint him that is the most wise among you; or, if there be any among you that shall make one like unto it, then ye are justified in saying that ye do not know that they are true; but if ye cannot make one like unto it, ye are under condemnation if ye do not bear record that they are true.  (Doctrine and Covenants 67:4-8)

The critics selected William E. McLellin, a schoolteacher with a very sharp mind (also a future apostle and, alas, a future apostate), to take up the challenge.  It appears, though, that McLellin failed to produce a convincing text, and the controversy soon died away.

The story is briefly treated, by the way, on pages 142-143 of Saints: The Standard of Truth: 1815-1846, the still relatively new official history of the Church.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2020/03/william-e-mclellin-and-the-qurans-challenge-verses.html?fbclid=IwAR1AR3jgRWzi3IXk9ELEz4LPB2-1XgVHhefehFkW8kOvR1e6olvTr6icGr4

Two thoughts on heaven

(by Dan Peterson sic et non blog)

I continue to be struck by a quotation from then-Elder Russell M. Nelson that was, I believe, cited in the September 2014 issue of the Ensign:

We were born to die and we die to live,” he wrote back in 1992.  “As seedlings of God, we barely blossom on earth; we fully flower in heaven.”

This is one of the great arguments for the desirability of life after death.  Not for its truth, of course — it’s certainly conceivable that the universe might simply be the kind of place where hopes remain ultimately unfulfilled, where purposelessness and extinction triumph — but for its desirability.

Because the simple fact is that we all die without reaching our potential.  We’re all eventually defeated by failing energy, declining strength, faltering minds, and/or death.

This is true even if we reach a hundred years of age.  But it’s most painfully obvious with regard to little babies who die in their infancy, to small children whose lives end before they’ve fully grown, to young people whose development is never completed.  Disease, war, crime, and accidents have brought so many lives to premature ends.  How many symphonies have gone unwritten, how many songs have been left uncomposed, how many medical breakthroughs unfound?  How many novels and poems were never begun?  How many acts of nobility and kindness have remained unperformed?  How many dances were never danced, how many books were never read, how many sights never seen?


Nobody leaves this life having done and experienced all that he or she could potentially have done and experienced.

Nobody.

But, mercifully, we have all eternity ahead of us.

(For related thoughts with respect to the specific case of Ludwig van Beethoven, see here.)

***

God loves all of his children, even those who have sinned grievously or who have rejected him.  In Moses 7, we see God weeping — to the utter astonishment of Enoch — over the suffering of those who have turned their backs on him and on his other children.  He doesn’t cease caring for them.  His love is at least as deep as that of minimally decent mortal parents, who often still love their children even when those children are behaving hatefully or self-destructively.

For that reason and others, I’ve always inclined toward something like universalism, and I’ve long loved Pope John Paul II’s response to a question about whether Christians are obligated to believe in Hell.  “Yes,” he replied.  “But we can hope that it will be empty.”

However, God honors human agency.  We are free to reject him.  And, thus, it’s possible, even likely, that there will be some who will never accept the gift of Christ’s atonement, who will refuse to repent or ask for mercy, who will defiantly turn away from divine grace.  Such, I presume, are the “sons of perdition.”  I believe that their numbers are, and will be, relatively few.

For everybody else, though, there will be at least some degree of salvation.  And I personally have deep faith in the patient and never-ending love of God, which leads me to hope, at least, that most people will eventually receive the fullness of all eternal blessings.

I don’t believe that we can be saved in a state of either indifference to divine law or defiant refusal to repent.  However, I also doubt that anybody who sincerely seeks truth and goodness will be punished merely for having made a mistake.  Moreover, I believe in repentance and progress beyond this life.  The great plan of happiness is very, very, very good news.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2020/03/two-thoughts-on-heaven.html?fbclid=IwAR0fJDJE9S4jCbrWmW1Ovc-NeNgBVLAh7-5CEhH_q1uu7LO7w6MGv6B3KcU