Lately I've been doing occasional reviews for the Association of Mormon Letters. The first I did was a few months ago, but thought I would share here for those interested.
Walking the Line Publications, 2001
Trade paperback:
130 pages
ISBN 10: 0-9714540-3-5
ISBN 13: 978-0-9714540-3-3
Price: $12.00
I must admit I have not read a book like this in a long time. Obtaining Your Calling and Election by Kevan Kingsley Clawson and Terri Hopkins Clawson is a refreshingly bold take on a theological thicket that has usually fallen to fundamentalist authors such as Ogden Kraut and Fred Collier. Subtitled A Study of the Doctrines of Faith, Hope, and Charity, it mixes the simple with the complex in a stew of orthodox eagerness.
The Clawsons have written a book that from all appearances was born out of their own personal spiritual exploration. Produced by Walking the Line Publications, a small independent press, it has the strong sense of a labor of love. I was first attracted to the book because of the subject matter, which rarely gets serious treatment in the mainstream contemporary LDS thought. And from my own experience, I usually see the topic only come up in scholarly treatments of church history and fundamentalist literature. I was interested in how a "regular" member of the LDS church approaches the topic.
The idea of "having your calling and election made sure," is typically an idea, taken from the Doctrine and Covenants and some items from various church leaders, that there will come a time in every faithful member's life when they will have an experience when their salvation and exaltation will be guaranteed. In my own limited reading of the subject, I understood this as performing the "Second Anointing" ordinance or having a vision of Jesus Christ But like I said, I've been a little sketchy on the subject; maybe that's why I haven't had the pleasure of having anything made sure during my happy-go-lucky life.
From first glance at the book, the topic of "having your calling and election made sure," was definitely a common teaching in the writings of Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie, who the authors quote from liberally. Occasionally they use material from Neal Maxwell, Dallin Oaks, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and Lectures on Faith. But mostly it's an old-time orthodox feel, using sources such as Mormon Doctrine, Man: Origin and Destiny, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, Journal of Discourses, Doctrines of Salvation, and more of the same. In addition, the Clawsons usually quote and reference mostly from the scriptures, primarily the Doctrine and Covenants, carrying on the tradition of proof-texting that is common to the contemporary authors they quote.
But while reading the book, the thought kept returning to me that our current crop of General Authorities usually exchange this type doctrinal boldness for inspirational stories, tapering the legacy of Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie, of which Boyd K. Packer now seems like a diminishing relic from times past. Ah, the nostalgia of guilt and orthodoxy, of which I closely associate with all those BYU Firesides from the 1970s of which I occasionally surf across on KBYU Television, was slowly creeping into my bones. Sometimes I wish all those "widows stories" that President Monson loves to tell would go by the wayside on occasion for some old-time preaching of doctrinal mysteries.
And it is books like Calling and Election that fill that readers market that has been underserved since McConkie's passing. I applaud the Clawsons in picking up a tradition that has had its ups and downs for a while in the mainstream church. It is books like these that make heaven and the world simple and sure. It is a refreshing feeling to think that someone, somewhere, has such faith and certainty about the future of all our afterlives, even while I have doubts.
Despite how much I enjoyed this book (in my own post-modern sensible way) there are a few things that I thought they missed.
In the introductory chapter, the first topic they tackle is the "unpardonable sin," the sin of denying the Holy Ghost. This legendary sin is one all the faithful fear, because it is the sin which defines those who will be cast into outer darkness – and no one wants to go there! They make the direct analogy that the sin of denying the Holy Ghost is the same exact thing as the sin of murder (but only after you have been a faithful member who has received a testimony of the gospel). I have heard this comparison before, and debated such things as an eager-eyed missionary, but the topic has always been murky, primarily because I have heard differing interpretations from faithful leaders on what "exactly" is the sin of denying the Holy Ghost, and they seem to not be able to agree. (My personal opinion is that the murder and denying the Holy Ghost are both really, really bad, even if they are not the same thing. I suggest not attempting either.)
But this is not the reason why this part of the book bothered me. The indication is that murder is inextricably unpardonable. My mind kept going back to a statement that Boyd K. Packer made in General Conference recently:
"I repeat, save for the exception of the very few who defect to perdition, there is no habit, no addiction, no rebellion, no transgression, no apostasy, no crime exempted from the promise of complete forgiveness. That is the promise of the atonement of Christ." (Ensign, Nov 1995.)
Why do I remember this? Because it was on the local nightly news the day of conference, with the news anchor commenting that this was a theological turn in regards to murder - that it is a forgivable crime. In Packer's address he never defined what is was that "defect to perdition" meant, so I think the question is still out on whether murder and denying the Holy Ghost are the same thing. And I think the Clawsons’ book would have been fine explicating the subtleties of this thorny issue and would not have diminished the bold flavor they bring to their book.
And on the other side of the spectrum, another issue I'll briefly touch on is charity, which takes up the whole of chapter 8. While it was all a fine and dandy piece defining the love of God that we all should strive for, they had a sub-section within the chapter titled, "How Do We Obtain Charity?" I was surprised they missed a scripture that comes to my mind first. They offered instead this:
"Charity . . . can be obtained by following the counsel of the prophets and by living all of the laws and ordinances of the gospel faithfully until they become part of our lives." (89-90)
Not bad advice for those who believe, but it's not the answer that keep coming back to me.
Why make a big deal about it? Because the idea of "obtaining charity" is one that comes up often in church, and I've heard this typical Sunday School answer for years, and frankly I'm tired of it. I offer instead an idea, taken from the Book of Mormon. In one of my favorite sermons of Moroni, he offers a simple way to "obtain" charity:
"pray unto the Father with all the energy of heart, that you may be filled with this love" (Moroni 7:48).
You want charity? Pray for it. Its radical simplicity of a transcendent gift seems slightly at odds with our Sunday School rhetoric. But more than this, I was simply surprised that that idea was never referenced by the Clawsons.
Let me move on to some items I enjoyed about this book.
I like how they define their terminology in Chapter 3. They cover the ideas of "calling," "election," "made sure," "Church of the Firstborn," and "Second Comforter." They are clear and concise without being esoteric. Even if you disagree with how they set out their playing field, you will not misunderstand how they are approaching their ideas.
The chapter on faith I enjoyed too. Combing all the usual sources, it was well organized and offered some wonderful quotes from Maxwell. They also clear away a typical misconception that I see often enough in church culture.
"Many people have read Alma's discourse on faith and assume that we have faith only and until we obtain sure knowledge by seeing or experiencing something that proves to us that our faith is true. Once we obtain this sure knowledge we no longer need or have faith, because we have a sure knowledge. But this is an incorrect interpretation of this doctrine and is easily proven to be false" (53).
The Clawsons do just this for the next three pages. I like that they brought up the idea, because I have seen many people look at faith as some sort of "lesser" principle in relation to having a "knowledge" via typical Mormon testimony. "I know!" we hear people say incessantly. But when someone says "I believe…" some people start to fidget in their seats during church meetings.
So, some things I like, some things I don't, let me quickly mention a few things that left me scratching my head.
On page 4, they quote Brigham Young speaking on eternal progression and as a side note they mention, "This true doctrine is where the false teaching of reincarnation comes from," but they never pick up the idea and explain further. Made me go, "huh?"
And in the last chapter they collect several sources on visions of the Savior, some culled from scripture, while others come from modern day visions such as Melvin Ballard's oft quoted dream of meeting the Savior in the Salt Lake Temple. But they offer two very lengthy quotes from sources supposedly from the time of Christ.
The first is The Archko Volume, which contains "official court documents" from the time of Christ. They quote from this work a chapter called "Gamiel's Interview," which purports to be an eyewitness account describing Jesus of Nazareth. Unfortunately, this source is highly problematic, and most likely not historical in the sense they understand it to be. Published in 1887 by a Rev. W. D. Mahan, the historical validity of the volume has never been taken seriously by those picky and snobby historians who ruin all the fun for the armchair explorer.
Another source they use is a "letter" from Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar that just happens to be in the "Congressional Library" in Washington, D.C. But they don't give any other information about this source that what I just gave you. Then they quote it at great length.
I understand the Clawson's desire to use sources like these, but they really need to understand how historical criteria are important in research and not just quote willy-nilly, simply because it supports their presumptions. Sincerity should never trump accuracy. It could easily cast a shadow on the rest of their book, and become easily dismissible by students of history who have endured all those annoying years in college learning Greek and Hebrew.
But to completely dismiss this book based on these few missteps would be an unfair approach to a book like this. It is a home-grown, testimony-bearing, anxiously engaged discussion on a heart-felt topic by a husband and wife who just want to share what they learned. It's not scholarly, nor is it meant to be. Even if their sources in this end chapter are a little mixed, their hearts are in the right place.
Unfortunately, those who pick up this book who also lack an understanding of how history and sources work, will probably be misinformed by this last chapter. But isn't this the case in too many other books? I won't get into the issue here, because I could go on and on. But we need to place intentions and accuracy into context, without throwing out the whole baby, while at the same time letting books be refined through discussion and reviews, not letting misinformed research or earnestness pass for truth.
Having enjoyed this book from several different perspectives, I would recommend it to those who are interested in the ideas that it tackles. It's not exhaustive, but provides some good sources on the subject, while reinvigorating an orthodox style that has its place in the church along side other styles of preaching and teaching. Not everyone's cup of tea, I'm sure, but don't let that stop you from enjoying such an eager and breezy read.
Interesting discussion. I'd have to agree with you with the charity thing. While living faithful may be necessary to maintain charity, the scriptures clearly teach that prayer is the key to obtain it.
I'm not sure it would be accurate to suggest that the modern prophets don't address mysteries of the gospel. I think they delve deep into them - deeper than Elder McKonkie or President Joseph F. Smith.
If you define mysteries as strange things that we don't know much about, you can certainly argue otherwise. But the scriptures seem to refer to mysteries as knowledge obtained by the Holy Ghost - specifically knowledge that can ONLY be obtained by the Holy Ghost.
The prophets today speak almost entirely on subjects that have to be received by the power of the Holy Ghost in order to be accepted. The difference is the listener.
There is a great deal more to learn from listening to the talks given by President Monson today than from the old 1970 talks to which you refer - and I've heard a great many of them, and enjoyed them. That's the way the gospel works. That's how mysteries work.
Fascinating post. Thank you!
- Chas
http://popcornandpodcasting.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Chas Hathaway | March 31, 2009 at 09:55 AM