Saturday, June 30, 2007
The Journal of Discourses
This 26-volume compilation of sermons by many prominent Mormon leaders in the later half of the 19th Century, has become quite controversial over time. Now you can's read the Journal of Discourses for free, by clicking here.
Friday, June 29, 2007
The Sealed Portion of the Book of Mormon
For over 175 years Mormon have longed for the contents of the 'sealed' portion of the Book of Mormon. Well this guy say's he's got them, and the Book of Lehi too.
Apostle Dallin H. Oaks on Criticism and Church Leaders
I have decided to include here a link to an (edited) copy of Apostle Dallin Oaks 1986 address to "a Latter-day Saint Student Association" on the topic of criticism of Church leaders. As you may recall from a previous post I had mentioned how Elder Oaks comments against the vocal criticism of Church leaders in the PBS documentary 'The Mormons' had raised an eyebrow on my part. Well Elder Oaks was basically giving a super-condensed version of what had said to the Mormon students in the middle 80's, and what is doubtless a widely, if not universally held opinion of those in the upmost hierarchy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As I read the piece a myriad of different responses came to my brain. For a while it looked like it would result in a rather long post. Later I though about condensing things to a brief analysis of a few choice quotes. In the end however, after reading thought the whole thing, I came to understand where Elder Oaks was coming from. The system or procedures he describes for dealing with complaints and possible abuse issues regarding Church leaders is a multifaceted one, with several backup mechanisms. It is not perfect, but I find if I'm honest with myself, my main problem with it is that it would not be very satisfying to my ego. There are other legitimate complaints I may have as well, but I suppose if they where to ever come to a head I could probably deal with them through the system. Anyway read Elder Oaks talk (its about seven pages) and ponder, its an enlightening look at the way the LDS Church prefers to handle criticism.
A Firm Foundation in a Shaky World
I am including a link to the June Ensign article "A Firm Foundation in a Shaky World", as it might be classified as part of the 'New Openness' referenced in my previous post. The article is by Adam C. Olson but contains a good number of quotations from Apostle Henry B. Eyring, as well as Portages Saints, and uses the story of the 1755 Lisbon earthquake as a metaphor for crises of faith. The article references existential crises that can result in the minds of Church members when confronted with seemingly critical information with which the know not what to do (ala Book of Abraham post). That this is recognized and acknowledged is good, the way in which it is responded too is however less good.
First off the 'shaken' person is described as of 'weak' testimony. This is more then just a little bit marginalizing of sincere people troubled by information they are unprepared for. However I can understand the temptation to use the label 'weak' on the part of the 'spiritually strong', though it is not a particularly noble one, I'm sure that I've used it (or something like it) in my past.
The article does not provide any real good advice on how to respond when a troubling question is raised by others, rather it points to the 'tried and true' 'Sunday school answers'. The Sunday School answers may be fine, but there are many among us who enjoy some more immediate and pragmatic advice to go along with it. What exactly that would be, I'm not really sure, perhaps just resources, like perhaps a Church website devoted to difficult questions would be nice, or a more advanced Sunday School class even.
Of course in all such articles the old Saturdays Warrior dictum of "line upon line, precept on precept" is advanced (yes I am aware that that is originally from the D&C, as cited in the article). I suppose that's a good fall back for ones personal ease of mind when no obvious answers present themselves. I have survived spiritually for many years on the dictum that 'I get just enough answers to just enough questions to keep me going'. However as something of an intellectual, and perhaps out of pride, I've never been greatly happy with that solution, at least in the current proportion to which I have had to relie upon it.
Anyway mentioning this problem deserves some kudos, though the way it was answered might use some work.
First off the 'shaken' person is described as of 'weak' testimony. This is more then just a little bit marginalizing of sincere people troubled by information they are unprepared for. However I can understand the temptation to use the label 'weak' on the part of the 'spiritually strong', though it is not a particularly noble one, I'm sure that I've used it (or something like it) in my past.
The article does not provide any real good advice on how to respond when a troubling question is raised by others, rather it points to the 'tried and true' 'Sunday school answers'. The Sunday School answers may be fine, but there are many among us who enjoy some more immediate and pragmatic advice to go along with it. What exactly that would be, I'm not really sure, perhaps just resources, like perhaps a Church website devoted to difficult questions would be nice, or a more advanced Sunday School class even.
Of course in all such articles the old Saturdays Warrior dictum of "line upon line, precept on precept" is advanced (yes I am aware that that is originally from the D&C, as cited in the article). I suppose that's a good fall back for ones personal ease of mind when no obvious answers present themselves. I have survived spiritually for many years on the dictum that 'I get just enough answers to just enough questions to keep me going'. However as something of an intellectual, and perhaps out of pride, I've never been greatly happy with that solution, at least in the current proportion to which I have had to relie upon it.
Anyway mentioning this problem deserves some kudos, though the way it was answered might use some work.
The New Openness?
It is interesting that the Church has released today a statement responding to charges (is that really the right word?) of a "New Openness" on its part. I have already addressed this issue somewhat on a previous post. Over the last few months, particularly since the airing of the PBS documentary on the Church, I have noticed what I perceive as an increase in officialy sanctioned pieces that address the legitimate concerns of outsiders as well as members. At the forefront of this in the Ensign article on the Mountain Meadow Massacre, which comes in the 150th anniversary year of the event, and around the same time as the release of a new theatrical movie about the massacre. I have not read the article as yet, but I understand it to be pretty honest about those shameful happenings in the Church's history.
Interestingly the Church statement seems to want to attribute the perceived openness to changes in the media cycle, which arguably have been around for years, rather then to any particular event, or pressure from any group. That's fine as far as it goes, but I think myself and many others wouldn't have a problem with the Church responding in the way that it is, due to specific triggering instances. There is precedent for responding to the times going back to the Old Testament, indeed that's largely the point of having a prophetic and inspired leadership. But public relations pressures, and a perhaps over-desire to avoid anything that seems like the Church is following a course dictated by circumstances beyond its control, make these more general, thus belated seeming statements, par for the (non outside dictated) course. I'm not saying that a changing media and information environment isn't a major factor in the welcome advent of the new openness, but I just find the timing interesting, as well as a(perceived) institutional preference for a certain rhetorical closedness even in openness.
Interestingly the Church statement seems to want to attribute the perceived openness to changes in the media cycle, which arguably have been around for years, rather then to any particular event, or pressure from any group. That's fine as far as it goes, but I think myself and many others wouldn't have a problem with the Church responding in the way that it is, due to specific triggering instances. There is precedent for responding to the times going back to the Old Testament, indeed that's largely the point of having a prophetic and inspired leadership. But public relations pressures, and a perhaps over-desire to avoid anything that seems like the Church is following a course dictated by circumstances beyond its control, make these more general, thus belated seeming statements, par for the (non outside dictated) course. I'm not saying that a changing media and information environment isn't a major factor in the welcome advent of the new openness, but I just find the timing interesting, as well as a(perceived) institutional preference for a certain rhetorical closedness even in openness.
What to do about the Book of Abraham?
I am providing here a link to a discussion on The Book of Abraham on the blog ‘Skeptical Mormon’. At the beginning of this post you will find a you tube type video about the Book of Abraham. I saw this video a number of years ago, which I rented from the ‘shelf of Mormon related video material’ at the public library that I mentioned in an earlier post. The video is packaged in such a way as to make it unclear at first glance as to what position it will take on the authenticity of the Book of Abraham. Be for warned that the position it takes is that the Book of Abraham is a fake. In fact I would classify this video as perhaps the most effective ‘anti-Mormon’ presentation I have every seen. This is in part do to what I remember as a reasonable sounding tone, but also do to the evidence provided. The most damning of which is a document written by Joseph Smith, that attempts to make explicate the translation of the Book of Abraham text from the papyri the Church purchased from a traveling showman in 1835.
It is from this papyri that the Book of Abraham is generally said to have derived within the LDS Church. In fact Joseph Smith made this point fairly explicate. The document I referenced earlier contains various symbols, or hieroglyphics from the papyrus on one side, followed by the supposed translation there of on the other. In this case you have one symbol, followed by roughly a paragraph worth of ‘translated text’ ‘derived there from’. “This looks pretty ridicules”, was my first though upon watching the video, in oh about 2003. It still looks ridicules, particularly in light of the fact that we now have translation of the same material from qualified Egyptologists. Let me explain:
Over course of time the ‘Joseph Smith Papyri’ became lost from the Church. It at one point was widely believed to have been destroyed in the great Chicago fire of the 1870’s. However in the 1960’s the Papyri were discovered in the possession of the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art, who turned them over to the Church in 1967 (they are now presumably in the Church archives). Anyway this discovery doubtless generated some excitement within the Church, particularly over the prospect that the text might be translated by others thus confirming the Joseph Smith translation. This however was not to be, as the ‘Book of Abraham Papyri’ is in fact a copy of the rather common Egyptian funereally text known as the ‘Book of the Dead’.
The Papyrus that Joseph Smith had was torn along several of the illustrations now included in the Pearl of Great Price. When these torn fragments are lined up along side more well preserved copies of the Book of the Dead, we find differences between the original illustrations and those now included among the Mormon cannon. The torn out areas in the Mormon text have had the illustrations completed by another hand in ways that more clearly line up with the Book of Abraham narrative, while the original illustrations look quite logically more Egyptian. The best example of this comes from Illustration # 1, where the figure that is identified in the PoGP as "The Idolatrous priest of Elkenah" turns out to in fact be the jackal headed Egyptian God Anubis.
The discovery of the ‘Book of Abraham Papyri’ has resulted in considerable rethinking of the text on the part of a number of Latter-day Saints, particularly those involved in apologetics. In order to explain why the text does not match up with the translation a number of theories have been proffered. The first I refer to as the ‘Bible Code Theory’, one which was advanced, or at least mentioned by, a senior missionary and former BYU religion professor I knew in Tennessee. This theory, like the so-called ‘Bible Code’, proposes hidden meaning within an existent text. In other words, it is translatable as one thing, but ‘hidden between the lines’ is another more esoteric meaning. This theory of course seems more then a little bit of a stretch, though that self same professor informed me that the Egyptians were notorious for layering meaning within a text. I have no further supporting information for this contention however.
The second and perhaps more popular meaning, at lest among many current Mormon apologist, is that the papyri served as the inspiration, rather then the source material for the Book of Abraham. According to this theory Joseph Smith's contemplation of the acquired papyri, would have inspired God to revel to him the contents of a missing account of Abrahams life, that is at lest tangentially related to ancient Egypt. The illustrations or facsimiles would have been filled in by Joseph or some one else for any number of reasons, perhaps simply to provide compelling and authentic seeming visuals to accompany the story.
Now none of these takes on the Book of Abraham is as satisfying as a direct translation would be. However if we grant the authenticity of the ‘rediscovered’ Papyri as being the same which belonged to Joseph Smith, as most do, then we are seemingly left in this predicament. So what are we to do about the Book of Abraham? I do not know, and have thus left the issue long upon a mental backburner, concentrating instead on other matters. But as this matter has been brought up again by my reading, perhaps now would be a good time to take a second look at the controversy, and the disturbing possible implications it offers. Now this is the first time on this blog, or possibly anywhere, that I have brought up an issue so seemingly damning to (at least certain) Mormon truth claims as this one. Let me try and emphasis that I do so in good faith. I am a practicing and largely committed Latter-day Saint, but I can not deny new sources of (seemingly) legitimate information just because they are inconvenient or I do not like them, or prefer that they were not true, ect. I must at some point, as must all who come in contact with this information to some degree, deal with it. So I open up in the comment section room for responses from all quarters as to the question, what are we to do with the Book of Abraham?
It is from this papyri that the Book of Abraham is generally said to have derived within the LDS Church. In fact Joseph Smith made this point fairly explicate. The document I referenced earlier contains various symbols, or hieroglyphics from the papyrus on one side, followed by the supposed translation there of on the other. In this case you have one symbol, followed by roughly a paragraph worth of ‘translated text’ ‘derived there from’. “This looks pretty ridicules”, was my first though upon watching the video, in oh about 2003. It still looks ridicules, particularly in light of the fact that we now have translation of the same material from qualified Egyptologists. Let me explain:
Over course of time the ‘Joseph Smith Papyri’ became lost from the Church. It at one point was widely believed to have been destroyed in the great Chicago fire of the 1870’s. However in the 1960’s the Papyri were discovered in the possession of the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art, who turned them over to the Church in 1967 (they are now presumably in the Church archives). Anyway this discovery doubtless generated some excitement within the Church, particularly over the prospect that the text might be translated by others thus confirming the Joseph Smith translation. This however was not to be, as the ‘Book of Abraham Papyri’ is in fact a copy of the rather common Egyptian funereally text known as the ‘Book of the Dead’.
The Papyrus that Joseph Smith had was torn along several of the illustrations now included in the Pearl of Great Price. When these torn fragments are lined up along side more well preserved copies of the Book of the Dead, we find differences between the original illustrations and those now included among the Mormon cannon. The torn out areas in the Mormon text have had the illustrations completed by another hand in ways that more clearly line up with the Book of Abraham narrative, while the original illustrations look quite logically more Egyptian. The best example of this comes from Illustration # 1, where the figure that is identified in the PoGP as "The Idolatrous priest of Elkenah" turns out to in fact be the jackal headed Egyptian God Anubis.
The discovery of the ‘Book of Abraham Papyri’ has resulted in considerable rethinking of the text on the part of a number of Latter-day Saints, particularly those involved in apologetics. In order to explain why the text does not match up with the translation a number of theories have been proffered. The first I refer to as the ‘Bible Code Theory’, one which was advanced, or at least mentioned by, a senior missionary and former BYU religion professor I knew in Tennessee. This theory, like the so-called ‘Bible Code’, proposes hidden meaning within an existent text. In other words, it is translatable as one thing, but ‘hidden between the lines’ is another more esoteric meaning. This theory of course seems more then a little bit of a stretch, though that self same professor informed me that the Egyptians were notorious for layering meaning within a text. I have no further supporting information for this contention however.
The second and perhaps more popular meaning, at lest among many current Mormon apologist, is that the papyri served as the inspiration, rather then the source material for the Book of Abraham. According to this theory Joseph Smith's contemplation of the acquired papyri, would have inspired God to revel to him the contents of a missing account of Abrahams life, that is at lest tangentially related to ancient Egypt. The illustrations or facsimiles would have been filled in by Joseph or some one else for any number of reasons, perhaps simply to provide compelling and authentic seeming visuals to accompany the story.
Now none of these takes on the Book of Abraham is as satisfying as a direct translation would be. However if we grant the authenticity of the ‘rediscovered’ Papyri as being the same which belonged to Joseph Smith, as most do, then we are seemingly left in this predicament. So what are we to do about the Book of Abraham? I do not know, and have thus left the issue long upon a mental backburner, concentrating instead on other matters. But as this matter has been brought up again by my reading, perhaps now would be a good time to take a second look at the controversy, and the disturbing possible implications it offers. Now this is the first time on this blog, or possibly anywhere, that I have brought up an issue so seemingly damning to (at least certain) Mormon truth claims as this one. Let me try and emphasis that I do so in good faith. I am a practicing and largely committed Latter-day Saint, but I can not deny new sources of (seemingly) legitimate information just because they are inconvenient or I do not like them, or prefer that they were not true, ect. I must at some point, as must all who come in contact with this information to some degree, deal with it. So I open up in the comment section room for responses from all quarters as to the question, what are we to do with the Book of Abraham?
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Unitarian Universalist Serive
I though I would take some time and comment on my recent visit to the Unitarian Univeralsits congregation here in Boise (or more accurately Garden City). I enjoy attending the services of other faiths from time to time because I am theologically curious. I used to attend a protestant service or two around Easter and Christmas time, so I could check out various denominations and mostly go unnoticed in the holiday crowds. I hadn’t done this in years until a couple of months ago when I attended (and quite enjoyed) a Quaker service with a friend. Anyway my current theological mode has me attracted to more liberal denominations, and one can’t get much more liberal then the Unitarians.
Last Sunday I arrived at the Unitarin worship center (it has a name but it escapes me at the moment, I know they now prefer not to call them church’s however) about ten minutes before there main service (which starts at 10 am). There were a number of vehicles with left wing bumper stickers in the parking lot, and I think I was the only attainder to wear a tie. As I approached the entrance to the building, one of the greeters was trying to get a dove to de-perch from the open door. Seriously, a dove, or something similar. He picked up the bird, it was remarkably calm, and he and a few others began to speculate that it might be a lost pet. I don’t know how the birds story resolved, because as I entered the main sanctuary (after passing through the small lobby), another man greeted me, asked if I was new, discovered I was, and gave me some informational packets, and a name tag. Apparently the Unitarians divide those attending there services into three general groups: Unitarians, Friends, and Newcomers (like in Alien Nation?), I believe I was considered a ‘newcomer’. The congregation probably numbered around fifty, but there was a healthy amount of visitors, who are asked to identify themselves in much the way we Mormons might recognize ‘newcomers’ in Priesthood and Relief Society meetings. In fact the main service area looked more like an auxiliary room then a chapel, it was horizontally rather then vertically organized, with padded chairs in a rough semi-circle around the pulpit area, grand piano located off to one side.
Anyway on to the service. If I where to briefly encapsulate the experience, I would term it ‘religion by way of PBS’. Now the Unitarians have a long and varied history and have changed forms over the years. About forty years ago they would have mostly called themselves Christian, but today they are a more loosely defined fellowship composed of atheists, agnostics, Wicca, nature based spiritualists, possibly Gnostics, and Christians (the latest information I glanced indicated only about 13% of current membership identify themselves as belonging to the latter category). So there congregations are a home for many on the fringes of the American religious experience. They pride themselves on being a non-judgmental place to gather in fellowship while perusing ones own personal spiritual course. As such, many who have become disillusioned with the faiths of there childhood turn to the Unitarians.
Okay so that last paragraph didn’t turn out to be about the service, hopefully this one will. ‘Religion by way of PBS’ I said, or NPR, or a university classroom, it is eclectic and intellectual. Basically the premise is to gather from any source across the length and breadth of human experience, that you find spiritually resonate. On this particular Sunday we heard perils of wisdom from the likes of Frank Lloyd Wright (who I now have to purchase a biography on), Ralph Waldo Emerson, a Sanskrit Poet, Albert Einstein, and a deceased congregation member. Even the musical selections follow along these lines, with a ‘hymnal’ that consists of selections from various spiritual traditions, as well as great secular works (mostly folk music I would surmise) and compositions but Unitarians themselves. The primary ‘hymn’ we sang was Unitarian, and spoke of embracing change and building community. We were also favored by several selections from Beethoven, performed by a supremely talented pianist. He even did a jazzy variation on Beethoven that you can’t help but love, during the ‘passing of the plate’. I will pause and say that the one thing I really didn’t like about the service was the passing of the plate. That always makes me uncomfortable. I think Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses have it right when they have members make donations in private.
Now to recap the order of the service, I may get a few things wrong, as I probably should have written this earlier as I don’t have a copy of the program and some of the events have blurred in my memory. There was a general greetings, followed by handshaking and introductions, as well as special recognition of visitors. There was a kind of a prayer, and a ceremonial lighting for urn or what have you, that stayed lit throughout the service. Announcements were made concerning congregational business and activites that would occur throughout the weak. There was a textual reading that would correspond to the scriptural recitations found in some churches. There was singing, there were piano selections, there was plate passing. I have gotten repetitive.
The main sermon/talk/lecture was from a 1955 article that Frank Lloyd Wright (who was a Unitarian) wrote for some ’homes’ magazine. In it Mr. Wright recounted a lesson on design, individuality and nature that he gave to some architecture students of his, which employed sea shells as a metaphor/example. There were actual sea shells used in the course of the monologue, and books about Mr. Wright were available for perusing after the service. This particular lesson was given by an architecture enthusiast and construction management student at BSU. Members of the congregation routinely give ’talks’, though there is also a pastor figure, who is presumably paid. This week however she was at a national Unitarian conference in Portland.
The aspect of the service that I liked the most came at the end of the ’sermon’. There was a question and answer period, a group discussion, that was quite stimulating and enjoyable. They all seemed very comfortable with one another, polite but willing to good naturedly challenge points made by others. It was at that point ’thinking how adult this kind of service was’ that I noticed there was only one child (probably about 11 or 12) in the congregation. I’ve long though that Unitarianism is really more a faith for converts then anything. The people that come to Unitarianism generally appreciate it because they did not appreciate the dogmatism of their former faith, they like the freedom that it provides. However this same amorphiesum provides relatively little in the way grounding for children. Principles are good, but young people (to my experience) tend to prefer a strong narrative grounding or mythology, in association with a strong even restrictive behavioral code to flourish in the faith of their childhood. Or as I once heard a Unitarian say, their 'children have little to rebel against', and by extension, little to anchor to, at least until they mature unto a more adult spiritual sensibility. Unitarians feel free to critique me on this.
Anyway I had to rush out after the meeting to do some home teaching so I didn’t get to stay for the informal post discussion discussion, or ask any questions. I enjoyed the Unitarian experience though, and might stop by again some other time.
Last Sunday I arrived at the Unitarin worship center (it has a name but it escapes me at the moment, I know they now prefer not to call them church’s however) about ten minutes before there main service (which starts at 10 am). There were a number of vehicles with left wing bumper stickers in the parking lot, and I think I was the only attainder to wear a tie. As I approached the entrance to the building, one of the greeters was trying to get a dove to de-perch from the open door. Seriously, a dove, or something similar. He picked up the bird, it was remarkably calm, and he and a few others began to speculate that it might be a lost pet. I don’t know how the birds story resolved, because as I entered the main sanctuary (after passing through the small lobby), another man greeted me, asked if I was new, discovered I was, and gave me some informational packets, and a name tag. Apparently the Unitarians divide those attending there services into three general groups: Unitarians, Friends, and Newcomers (like in Alien Nation?), I believe I was considered a ‘newcomer’. The congregation probably numbered around fifty, but there was a healthy amount of visitors, who are asked to identify themselves in much the way we Mormons might recognize ‘newcomers’ in Priesthood and Relief Society meetings. In fact the main service area looked more like an auxiliary room then a chapel, it was horizontally rather then vertically organized, with padded chairs in a rough semi-circle around the pulpit area, grand piano located off to one side.
Anyway on to the service. If I where to briefly encapsulate the experience, I would term it ‘religion by way of PBS’. Now the Unitarians have a long and varied history and have changed forms over the years. About forty years ago they would have mostly called themselves Christian, but today they are a more loosely defined fellowship composed of atheists, agnostics, Wicca, nature based spiritualists, possibly Gnostics, and Christians (the latest information I glanced indicated only about 13% of current membership identify themselves as belonging to the latter category). So there congregations are a home for many on the fringes of the American religious experience. They pride themselves on being a non-judgmental place to gather in fellowship while perusing ones own personal spiritual course. As such, many who have become disillusioned with the faiths of there childhood turn to the Unitarians.
Okay so that last paragraph didn’t turn out to be about the service, hopefully this one will. ‘Religion by way of PBS’ I said, or NPR, or a university classroom, it is eclectic and intellectual. Basically the premise is to gather from any source across the length and breadth of human experience, that you find spiritually resonate. On this particular Sunday we heard perils of wisdom from the likes of Frank Lloyd Wright (who I now have to purchase a biography on), Ralph Waldo Emerson, a Sanskrit Poet, Albert Einstein, and a deceased congregation member. Even the musical selections follow along these lines, with a ‘hymnal’ that consists of selections from various spiritual traditions, as well as great secular works (mostly folk music I would surmise) and compositions but Unitarians themselves. The primary ‘hymn’ we sang was Unitarian, and spoke of embracing change and building community. We were also favored by several selections from Beethoven, performed by a supremely talented pianist. He even did a jazzy variation on Beethoven that you can’t help but love, during the ‘passing of the plate’. I will pause and say that the one thing I really didn’t like about the service was the passing of the plate. That always makes me uncomfortable. I think Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses have it right when they have members make donations in private.
Now to recap the order of the service, I may get a few things wrong, as I probably should have written this earlier as I don’t have a copy of the program and some of the events have blurred in my memory. There was a general greetings, followed by handshaking and introductions, as well as special recognition of visitors. There was a kind of a prayer, and a ceremonial lighting for urn or what have you, that stayed lit throughout the service. Announcements were made concerning congregational business and activites that would occur throughout the weak. There was a textual reading that would correspond to the scriptural recitations found in some churches. There was singing, there were piano selections, there was plate passing. I have gotten repetitive.
The main sermon/talk/lecture was from a 1955 article that Frank Lloyd Wright (who was a Unitarian) wrote for some ’homes’ magazine. In it Mr. Wright recounted a lesson on design, individuality and nature that he gave to some architecture students of his, which employed sea shells as a metaphor/example. There were actual sea shells used in the course of the monologue, and books about Mr. Wright were available for perusing after the service. This particular lesson was given by an architecture enthusiast and construction management student at BSU. Members of the congregation routinely give ’talks’, though there is also a pastor figure, who is presumably paid. This week however she was at a national Unitarian conference in Portland.
The aspect of the service that I liked the most came at the end of the ’sermon’. There was a question and answer period, a group discussion, that was quite stimulating and enjoyable. They all seemed very comfortable with one another, polite but willing to good naturedly challenge points made by others. It was at that point ’thinking how adult this kind of service was’ that I noticed there was only one child (probably about 11 or 12) in the congregation. I’ve long though that Unitarianism is really more a faith for converts then anything. The people that come to Unitarianism generally appreciate it because they did not appreciate the dogmatism of their former faith, they like the freedom that it provides. However this same amorphiesum provides relatively little in the way grounding for children. Principles are good, but young people (to my experience) tend to prefer a strong narrative grounding or mythology, in association with a strong even restrictive behavioral code to flourish in the faith of their childhood. Or as I once heard a Unitarian say, their 'children have little to rebel against', and by extension, little to anchor to, at least until they mature unto a more adult spiritual sensibility. Unitarians feel free to critique me on this.
Anyway I had to rush out after the meeting to do some home teaching so I didn’t get to stay for the informal post discussion discussion, or ask any questions. I enjoyed the Unitarian experience though, and might stop by again some other time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)