Unbelievable. Read this horrible (and coldly murderous) quote from Justice Ginsburg in the NYT:
Q: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.
Writing in the Latter-Day Saints’ Millenial Star, someone (I believe it is Heber Kimball), mentions Brigham Young speaking in tongues:
We received the gift of tongues and interpretation a few days after we were baptized. The brethren who brought the Gospel to us belonged to the first Branch of the Church that received the gift of tongues, and the Branch at Mendon was the next. Brothers Brigham and Joseph Young and myself went to Kirtland, with my horses and wagon, to visit the Prophet, a distance of three hundred miles. We saw brother Joseph Smith and had a glorious time; during which brother Brigham spoke in tongues before brother Joseph, it being the first time he had heard any one speak in tongues; he testified that the gift was from God, and spoke in tongues himself. Soon the gift of tongues became general in the Church in Kirtland. We had a precious season and returned with a blessing in our souls.
Leonard Arrington in his book Brigham Young discusses this same incident:
Still with the Prophet that evening at prayers, Brigham again spoke in tongues. “As soon as we arose from our knees the brethren flocked around him [Joseph Smith] and asked him his opinion concerning the gift of tongues that was upon me.” Joseph told them, “It is of God.” During the course of the evening the Prophet, who had never before heard speaking in tongues, received the gift himself. Those present remembered this event as a modern replication of “the day of Pentecost,” when the early apostles were “filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” That Brigham, a seemingly practical, rather staid person, should have been one of the few who exercised this “gift” is extraordinary.
Young spoke in tongues prior to this. Arrington relates:
One morning, happening upon the Kimballs as they knelt in family prayer, Brigham silently joined them. Serving as voice was Alpheus Gifford, the Pennsylvania missionary who had done most to convert the Youngs and Kimballs. Gifford suddenly began to speak in an unknown tongue. “At the same instant,” said Brigham, “the spirit came on me like an electric shock to speak in an unknown tongue, and though I was kneeling in an opposite direction, the same moment I turned round on my knees towards him and spoke in tongues also.”
Young counseled a branch of the church and:
taught them that when they spoke in tongues the language might be from the Lord, but with that tongue they spoke the things which were in their hearts, whether they were good or evil; the gift of tongues was given for a blessing to the Saints, but not to govern them, nor to control the elders, or dictate the affairs of the church.
In the book Mormon Enigma by Newll and Avery, we read: “The practice became a part of the Saints’ worship-particularly among women-until well into the next century.” Indeed, this tongues-speaking by Mormon women also generated poetry. In her book White Roses on the Floor of Heaven, Susanna Morrill discusses a poem called “Lines” by L.L. Greene Richards:
The circumstances surrounding the composition of the poem are telling, however, because the messages were conveyed through the gift of tongues by Clara H. James, then interpreted by Rida Taylor, and finally put into polished verse by L.L. Greene Richards…In order to most authentically communicate the revelations delivered in the gift of tongues, often identified as the primordial language of the Garden of Eden, or the Nephite language, Greene rendered them into poetic verse, in this way capturing both the message and the mood….
Ian G. Barber has noted that within the LDS community women were seen to be “natural” seers and visionaries who could more easily than men tap into supernatural and divine messages and powers. Women rather than men most often exercised the gift of tongues. While men sometimes attended and headed these meetings where women spoke in tongues, they rarely seem to have joined in the tongue-speaking themselves. As the community settled in Utah and as the practice of tongue-speaking became routinized, this gender separation became even more pronounced, as did a separation based on age and prestige within the church. This is not to necessarily say that those who spoke in tongues were the ones who wrote the poetry. Sometimes this was the case as, for instance, with Zina D.H. Young who was well known to regularly speak in tongues during Relief Society meetings, but who was also a sometime author, poet, and contributor to the Exponent. Rather, it is more accurate to say: the same forces that led to tongue-speaking also led to nature and flower poetry.
July Mulvay Derr notes in her review of The Personal Writings of Eliza Roxcy Snow, that:
In informal gatherings at Winter Quarters, Eliza and other women, many of them plural wives of Joseph Smith, repeatedly received the charismatic gifts of tongues, prophecy, and healing. These spiritual outpourings Eliza described as “a glorious time,” “a rejoicing time,” “a refreshing time”.
In a book called “History of Mormonism” published in 1840 and written by Eber D. Howe, we get an interesting look into the use of tongues amongst the early Mormons. It raises questions about why tongues are no longer practiced by Mormons. Howe writes:
On the opening of the year 1833, the “gift of tongues” again made its appearance at head-quarters, and from thence extended to all their branches in different parts…it would appear, from all the facts which we have been able to gather upon this subject, that if this gift were not supernaturally bestowed, it required but a few moments instruction from a priest, to render his pupil expert in various dead languages, which could never be understood by man or beast, except a supernatural power was at the instant given to some one present to interpret it. They sometimes professed to believe that these “tongues” were the same which were “confounded” at the building of Babel.
Some curious particulars are related respecting these blasphemous practices by a Mr. Higby, who was eight months an Elder in the Mormon church, and which he published in a small pamphlet. He says that shortly after he joined them, a Mormon Elder said to him, “you must go to work in the vineyard of the Lord as a preacher of the Gospel. I have viewed your heart by the spirit of discernment; I see what is in your heart and what the will of the Lord is, concerning you all.” Mr. Higby says that he was soon after ordained as an Elder in the said church, and commissioned to preach and baptize, ordain Elders, confirm the churches, heal the sick, in short, that he was ordained to all the gifts of the church, which were the same as given to the apostles of old. He continues – “about the 10th of April following, R. Cahoon and D. Patton came again to the place-a meeting was called, and previous to the meeting, they said that some one would speak with tongues before they left the place. Accordingly he set himself to work at that meeting to verify his prophecy. During the meeting he said, “Father H. if you will rise in the name of Jesus Christ, you can speak in tongues.” He arose immediately, hesitated, and said, “my faith fails me-I have not faith enough.” Said Patton, “you have-speak in the name of Jesus Christ-make some sound as you list, without further thought, and God will make it a language.” The old gentleman, after considerable urging, spoke and made some sounds, which were pronounced to be a correct tongue. Several others spoke in a similar manner, and among them was myself. I spoke as I listed, not knowing what I said, yet it was declared to be a tongue. The sound of the words used by some, in speaking in tongues, was a medium between talking and singing-and all, as I am now convinced, a mere gibberish, spoken at random and without thought. read more…
Writing in Confessions, Augustine says:
Therefore shameful acts which are contrary to nature, such as the acts of the Sodomites (Gen 19.5 ff), are everywhere and always to be detested and punished. Even if all peoples should do them, they would be liable to the same condemnation by divine law; for it has not made men to use one another in this way. Indeed, the social bond which should exist between God and us is violated when the nature of which he is the author is polluted by a perversion of sexual desire.
But when God commands something contrary to the customs or laws of a people, even if that has never been previously done, it has to be done. If it has fallen into disuse, it must be restored. If it has not been established, it must be established…how much more must God, the governor of his creation, be unhesitatingly obeyed in whatever he commands!
With the creation of the Anglican Church in North America, the time has come to end the various sub-groups which were necessary for the time of trials just passed through. Part of me doesn’t like this much because I think that parts of the AMiA are the best current representation of what a Biblical Church should look like. But it seems to me that every dollar spent on maintaining separate organizational structures is wasted. Why have a separate communications structure for CANA, AMiA, REC, etc? It’s waste of effort and money. And yet we see Bishop Minns saying:
Since Day 1, CANA has been and will continue to be a full participant in the life of the new province, and will continue to maintain our own identity. We will encourage groups of congregations when they are ready, to establish themselves as free-standing dioceses. Our goal is to support the work, mission, and ministry of the gospel on this continent and bring our own particular distinctive to that task.
Bishop Murphy has said similar things about AMiA continuing in something of a “Canterbury and York” model. Indeed, as I was writing this I received an e-mail from AMiA where Bishop Murphy says:
As a founding member of both the Common Cause Partnership and the emerging province, we will continue to fully participate in ACNA. As we have consistently explained, however, we remain a missionary outreach of the Province of the Anglican Church of Rwanda under the authority of Archbishop Emmanuel Kolini. This allows us to enjoy dual citizenship, a similar relationship to that of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA).
But I think we need to ask whether in ten or twenty years we will need all of these separate groups? It’s great for AMia and CANA to continue missionary efforts, but they should be able to do this as some kind of missionary diocese under ACNA, without needing their own leadership and headquarters. How much of this division is due to leftover animosities between bishops and churches?
I do understand some legitimate reasons for staying apart. As my friend Jim said to me, many folks won’t want to be under a Bishop who approves of women’s ordination, for example. But these issues need to be worked out from within ACNA unless it becomes obvious that it will never change and is un-reformable, which is hardly the case right now at its inception. I think good Anglican in all the bodies that make up ACNA should voice their desire for unity to their leaders and pray for change.
In the book of Mormon – by this I mean the book by that name within the overall Book of Mormon – the record keeper Ammaron chooses Mormon to be the next keper of the plates of Nephi and the other sacred records of his people. Ammaron has hidden these records in a hill called Shim. Ammaron tells Mormon:
And behold, ye shall take the plates of Nephi unto yourself, and the remainder shall ye leave in the place where they are; and ye shall engrave on the plates of Nephi all the things that ye have observed concerning this people.
Ammaron’s command to take the plates of Nephi is obeyed by Mormon, however, Mormon disobeys his command to leave the rest of the records in the place where they are in Mormon 4.23. Instead, he removes ALL of the records during his second visit to the hill. His justification is that the Lamanites were going to overthrow the land, but the same thing happens later when Moroni hides the records and God preserves them until Joseph Smith recovers them in the 19th century. All we know is that Ammaron commanded him to leave the remainder of the the records and Mormon disobeyed that command.
In a manner akin to various messianic national strains in Western thought (such as the American city on a hill), R.K. Ramazani describes Iran’s vision of itself as the Redeemer Nation. Here is an extended quote from his book:
The key to understanding Khomeini’s concept of Islamic world order is the idea of the vilayat-e faqih (rule of the leading jurisprudent). The concept of hukumat (government) in his political thought is rooted in that of vilayat (rulership), a rulership that belongs to God, to the Prophet Muhammad, to the infallible Imams (ma’sumin), and, by extension, to the learned and pious faqih. To the faqih belongs temporal as well as spiritual authority, which he should exercise in the absence of the Twelfth Imam, who will appear (zuhur) ultimately as the Mahdi (Messiah) or the Sahib-e Zaman (master of the age) to establish just and equitable rule.
The rule of the faqih during the waiting period, or before the appearance of the Mahdi, is preparatory to the ultimate establishment of “Islamic world government” by the Mahdi. In other words, the faqih paves the way for the Mahdi’s eventual creation of just and equitable government throughout the world. But where will the way be paved for the fulfillment of that divine promise? In Khomeini’s own words, “the way will be opened for the world government of imam mahdi…once the governments of the meek will be [are?] established.” But in Khomenini’s view and in that of his disciples so far, “the government of God” has been established only in one country, and that is Iran, as a result of the Iranian Revolution. It has been established, in Khomeini’s words, in ” a country which wishes to establish divine justice in the world, first of all in Iran itself.” It is more than implicit in the view of Khomeini and his close adherents that because of this unusual rule of the faqih, it is Iran that is uniquely qualified as a nation to pave the way for the ultimate founding of world government by the expected Mahdi.
Since the virtuous government is in the process of being established in Iran, it is Iran that has become, as it were, the “redeemer nation.” As such, it is Iran that aspires to spread justice throughout the world and, to borrow Prime Minister Mir-HusseinMusavi’s words, to make possible “the liberation of mankind.”
[end of quote]
I see parallels in this system of thought to the rule of the Judges in Israel. Khomeini sees a chain of authority from:
|
Muhammad (and the inscripturated will of God in the Qur’an)
|
The infallible Imams of the past
|
The modern jurists (AKA clerics)
In Israel, prior to the reign of Saul you had God ruling via the judges meditating on his law as revealed to Moses. Meditating on the law and being filled with the Spirit caused the judges to grow in wisdom. In our age the Church should disciple the nations and one part of this discipling is to reflect on ALL of the inscripturated Word of God in order to grow wise at whatever we set our hands to do. The primary difference is that no one nation on earth is going to be a redeemer nation, exporting God’s rule to the world. The Church itself is the redeemer nation that consists of every tribe and tongue. Khomeni’s vision is of course flawed because:
[a] It is based on a false god and a false scripture.
[b] It suppresses dissent via massive state-sanctioned violence. It sacrifices the teaching role for conversions with an iron fist.
[c] Islam does not adequately discern between the nation and the people of God.
The fruit of this Revolution is tragic. People who are zealous for god and thirst to expand his rule fail because they reject the true God as revealed in Jesus the Messiah. Further, the blind hatred for the State of Israel is a demonic madness which clouds all the rest of their thinking. Also, suppressing internal dissent by torture, beating people with pipes, chains and other meansdoesn’t not seem to accord well with the benevolent revolution promised by Khomeni. Still, because it is a perversion of the true vision of the true God for the world, the Shia Islamic vision of a chiliastic perfection has an attraction in our age.
I finally finished The Fifth Head of Cerberus and The Urth of the New Sun by Gene Wolfe. Good reads. You should read them too. Wolfe is a dense writer who demands your attention and writes in puzzles. He makes your head spin trying to figure out what just happened. Most of his stories involve someone recording things in a book, so they include gaps in the action, frustrating omissions, and unreliable narrators. Glorious.
We seem to be viewing the events in Iran with the idea that Mr. Moussavi is the Gorbachev of Iran and will bring sweeping changes to Iran riding on the wave of the phony Obama “change” movement in the USA. As providence would have it, I went to a sweet used book store in Orange, VA this week and picked up a book called Revolutionary Iran, Challenge and Response in the Middle East by R.K. Ramazani. The book mentions Moussavi as he was Prime Minister in the early post-revolutionary years. His views may have changed between now and then, but look at what he was saying back in the day. During the days of Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, the following happened:
To stress the seriousness of their purpose in fighting against Israel in Lebanon, other Iranian leaders made many statements that fell just short of a formal declaration of war against Tel Aviv. Under the constitution, such a declaration was solely the prerogative of Khomeini. Prime Minister Musavi unfurled the banner of “victory to Al-Quds” (Jerusalem) in asking his cabinet to approve a budget for the war against Israel. He was also the first Iranian leader to say that Palestine was “a part of [the] Islamic homeland.”
Subsequently, the Iranian government also decided to make public its “plan for an Islamic front” worldwide, which, according to Mussavi, would be “followed up” by the Iranian ministry of foreign affairs, “because the fight against imperialism should take place all over the world.”
When Israel killed some Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Lebanon, Moussavi responded:
…he also predicted that Israel’s “desperate move against the Islamic Revolution” would have the effect of “the Islamization of the struggle against Zionism and imperialism in the region.” He believed that the Arab-Israeli conflict had been transformed into an Islamic-Israeli struggle involving “all Muslims against Israel.”
I also recall the Khatami years were nothing discernable changed in regard to western relations with Iran. Let’s not get too excited about this movement, as if values based on centuries of Christendom are suddenly going to take root in Iran.
