Comments on: British Israelism http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/15/british-israelism/ A Mormon Blog Mon, 13 Feb 2012 20:12:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Eric http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/15/british-israelism/#comment-126763 Wed, 22 Feb 2006 15:38:49 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/british-israelism/#comment-126763 How much does this theology matter?
I agree that it appears that the assumed facts behind British Israelism were in error, But, where’s the harm? It seems that British-Israelism and Israelism have led Saints to think of themselves as a chosen people with a specific calling? If that hasn’t harmed anyone, where’s the foul?

]]> By: Talon http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/15/british-israelism/#comment-126762 Tue, 21 Feb 2006 19:10:13 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/british-israelism/#comment-126762 If the Mormon angle interests you, I’ll post somewhere the Birthright Blessings lesson on Odin and the Scandinavian legends.

Yes this does interest me very much, please post more when able. Thanks!

]]> By: São Paulo http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/15/british-israelism/#comment-126761 Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:54:17 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/british-israelism/#comment-126761 #36:”…this lineage preoccupation is misplaced to begin with. I’d argue our self-definition of Mormons as a “chosen race” was a misfortunate detour from the NT and BoM rejection of tribalism.”

Amen. A question: What if lineage-based concepts were completely removed from our theology? Would we lose any important piece of the Gospel?
If we never hear another mention of the possiblity of receiving priesthood “by right of birth,” if our Patriarchal blessings no longer mentioned lineage, etc., would we miss any doctrine essential to salvation?

]]> By: São Paulo http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/15/british-israelism/#comment-126760 Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:50:16 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/british-israelism/#comment-126760 #34 describes 4 methods of determining lineage: patrilineal, matrilineal, hypodescent, and hyperdescent (the latter two being new terms and concepts for me).

As discused above, these various methods have been differently relevant (sometimes not at all) in various cultures and periods. Let me add to that list a fifth method–lineage by belief. You are assigned a lineage depending upon the religious practice you adopt. This was introduced in the New Testament, though it wasn’t unique to the N.T.; there are Old Testament examples, such as when servants or slaves of Abraham come to be treated the same as of geneaological descendants of Abraham.

To me it seems like the lineage message of the N.T. is that blood lineage doesn’t matter. Lineage by worship/service/belief/faith does.

]]> By: Marcus http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/15/british-israelism/#comment-126759 Mon, 20 Feb 2006 05:45:01 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/british-israelism/#comment-126759 Meta genealogy: I hadn’t known that Seventy George Reynolds had a hand in spreading British Israelism (this info is in the original post). He was joseph Fielding Smith’s father-in-law, who was Bruce R. Mcconkie’s father-in-law, who is Joseph Fielding McConkie’s father. All four generations of men taught, and the youngest continues to teach, Israelism. Is a hankering for a theological importance for lineage a family trait? IOW, is lineage-ism in the blood?
Is it coincidence that JfS and the two Mcconkie’s were, each in their time, among the biggest Mormon critics of evolution and “intellectual scholarship?”

]]> By: Marcus http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/15/british-israelism/#comment-126758 Sat, 18 Feb 2006 23:30:15 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/british-israelism/#comment-126758 On the development of Israelism within Mormonism, I see that as one of several instances of Mormon lineage/race issues. Another obvious instance is how we constructed race, particularly the “black” race, (or, better, I should say how we accepted the Amerian culture’s construction of race).
So it is no surprise to me that the list (#48-49) of causes/motivations behind Israelism would also seem to apply pretty well to our development of a ban against blacks participating in the temple.

]]> By: Weir http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/15/british-israelism/#comment-126757 Sat, 18 Feb 2006 01:52:24 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/british-israelism/#comment-126757 The causal question in #48 is what I find most interesting. Yes, it is interesting that many Mormons believed this, and that some still do, but I find the how and why questions more engaging.
An addition to the list might be a limited and selective (very selective) literalist approach to ancient scripture.

]]> By: Stirling http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/15/british-israelism/#comment-126756 Sat, 18 Feb 2006 00:37:14 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/british-israelism/#comment-126756 Morgan (#24) asked, “from a functionalist perspective, what are the causes” of Mormon Israelism? Good question. Here are some possibilities for the motivations/causes for our development of a “genetics of salvation” with some peoples more, or at least differently, “chosen” than others:
1. Mauss argues the “racialist construction of Mormon ethnic identity functioned in large part as a defensive ideology to counter the pervasive nineteenth-century image of Mormons as a pariah people.” (“Mormonism’s Worldwide Aspirations and its Changing Conceptions of Race and Lineage,” Dialogue, 34:3-4 110.)
2. Mormons were very interested in authority, particularly authority to hold the priesthood. Israelism gave us another means of establishing a claim to that authority (as holders of priesthood “by right of lineage”).
3. We were swept along with an international interest lineage and racial “purity,” and race “betterment” (eugenics). The causes of that larger societal movement were also driving us. What were those causes? I don’t know, economic trends and concerns, immigration patterns, WWI, …?
4. Our “restoration” and “primitivist” instincts were so strong that, in some ways, we de-emphasized the text and theology of the N.T., skipping back to pay more attention to the tribe-focused O.T.
5. It helped provide a logical justification for the policy of denying priesthood and temple participation to people of black African descent.
Disagreements, suggestions of other motivations/causes?

]]> By: MRI http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/15/british-israelism/#comment-126755 Sat, 18 Feb 2006 00:36:11 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/british-israelism/#comment-126755 In support of the previous comment, this is from Howard W. Hunter, just barely after the revocation on the ban against allowing blacks into the temple:

“The [BYU] campus and those who come here are testaments to the truth that the gospel of Jesus Christ transcends nationality and color, crosses cultural lines, and blends distinctiveness into a common brotherhood. This is the way the Church feels about each one of you—and it is about this common brotherhood that I wish to speak.
I take as a theme a passage from the Book of Mormon referring to the Lord’s relationship to the children of men throughout the earth in which it is stated:
“And he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile” (2 Ne. 26:33).
From this statement it is clear that all men are invited to come unto him and all are alike unto him. Race makes no difference; color makes no difference; nationality makes no difference.
The brotherhood of man is literal. We are all of one blood and the literal spirit offspring of our eternal Heavenly Father. Before we came to earth we belonged to his eternal family. We associated and knew each other there. Our common paternity makes us not only literal sons and daughters of eternal parentage, but literal brothers and sisters as well. This is a fundamental teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Howard W. Hunter, “All Are Alike unto God,” Ensign, June 1979, 72 (originally delivered as talk to fourteen-stake fireside, Marriott Center, Brigham Young University, 4 February 1979). http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=default.htm

]]> By: Rebecca http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/15/british-israelism/#comment-126754 Sat, 18 Feb 2006 00:33:07 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/british-israelism/#comment-126754 Larrea asks if lineage matters.
IM(H)O, it has no spiritual/metaphysical/eternal meaning at all. My conclusion is drawn from my reading of the scriptures (focussing on the bulk of N.T., D&C, and BoM scriptures, with a deemphasis on OT texts), the principle behind AoF 2, and my experience with a fairly wide variety of humans.

]]>