Some thoughts about 2 Nephi 26

[pelagius]

Been having an email conversation about 2 Nephi 26 with a friend (the current gospel doctrine teacher in my ward). I thought I would post some of it because it allows me to post some notes about the Sunday School Lesson

Losing people to other religions

If you look at the recent Pew survey on US religious landscape you get the following: 1.7% self identify as Mormon. 0.5% say they were Mormon as a children but aren't an longer. 0.4% are now Mormon but weren't as children. This makes it looks we are not growing but the design effectively takes out the effect of growth through birth rate.

Were do the 0.5% go? Note 0.5% implies that about 30% of all Mormon children quit self-identifying as Mormons by adulthood. Not a huge retention problem but you do see attrition. The pew study finds that about half of these people that leave convert to another group or find a new affiliation. So people who quit self-identifying as Mormons just don't become secular. They are switching to a new religion quite frequently. The survey isn't granular enough to check if we are losing percent to Evangelical Protestant, but we clearly are losing a non-trivial fraction to other churches.

I should be clear. The whole 30% that leave Mormonism by adulthood are not going to another faith. 1/2 of the 30% are going to another faith. Still, losing 15% from childhood to adult to another religious faith is far from trivial. Although to some degree this overstates the tendency to for Mormons to deconvert to another religion. I assume a fair amount of inactive Mormons still self-identify as Mormons and hence would show up in the survey as Mormons. The survey is all about self-identification rather than activity.

My best guess is that this percentage has increased over time. You now have a higher fraction of members outside of the Mormon Corridor than ever before (I think thats right). The social costs (broadly defined) of leaving the church (no longer self-identifying as Mormon) are much lower outside the Mormon Corridor. Thus in the corridor I think it is more likely that you have someone lapse into inactivity but still self-identify as Mormon and not pursue other religions because of the social costs.

On to Priestcraft

This seems to support your contention that deconversion is not uncommon. However, I am quite reluctant to classify all or most megachurches as engaging in priestcraft since in my view whether something is priestcraft depends on motivation which can be hard to observe. There does seem to be some tendency to preach a "prosperity gospel" among mega-churches but I just don't know how systematic those teachings are in mega-churches. Also, I don't think a prosperity gospel is priestcraft per say, but it is bad theology.

Clearly my definition of priestcraft tends to be quite narrow because it focuses on intent. I suppose a more important definition is Nephi's definition. I think trying to figure out the original intent of Nephi is important. One theme that gets mentioned in chapter 26 as a terrible thing is treatment of the poor. Note, verse 20:

20 And the Gentiles are lifted up in the pride of their eyes, and have stumbled, because of the greatness of their stumbling block, that they have built up many churches; nevertheless, they put down the power and miracles of God, and preach up unto themselves their own wisdom and their own learning, that they may get gain and grind upon the face of the poor.

People tend to focus on denying miracles and turning to the own wisdom part of the verses. But those things are only the tools that are used to accomplish the end goal: that they may get gain and grind upon the face of the poor. So Nephi appears particularly concerned about Gentile churches that in their pride take advantage and mistreat the poor. I see verses 23-33 as contrasting the actions and motives of these "churches" with the actions and motives of the Lord. Thus I see verse 29 as a directly linked back to verse 20 and that verse 20 describes what is meant by priestcraft. Certainly priestcraft can happen in cases when the poor are not being taken advantage of or when churches are not grinding upon the face of the poor. However, I think the context suggest that is the immediate concern Nephi has in mind.

Now for a pendatic point. Nephi, of course, didn't ever use the term priestcraft. Joseph Smith translated some word or group of words as priestcraft. I think it is very relevant how Joseph Smith used or understood he word priestcraft. If you look at the 1828 edition of the Webster Dictionary it has the following:

The stratagems and frauds of priests; fraud or imposition in religious concerns; management of selfish and ambitious priests to gain wealth and power, or to impose on the credulity of others.

Given the the impoverished background of Joseph Smith's youth I think it is likely that he viewed priestcraft through the lens of priests gaining wealth and power at the expense of the poor and hence using the word priestcraft in his translation made particular sense given the context.

I do think that priestcraft is more general then ministers, teachers, or priests taking advantage of the poor. However, I do think Nephi is most concerned with priestcraft in the context of the poor. Do I think that Stephen Covey or John Bytheway are examples of priestcraft? I suppose it is possible by my definition because I can't observe their true intent. However, I personally don't believe either have such intent nor do I think there is any evidence of bad intent. I do, of course, reject the notion that simply being compensated for religious teachings or exposition is priestcraft (in or out of the church). Broadly defined, fulltime CES are clearly paid "priests." Also in the late 19th century Bishops and Stake presidents were both paid positions. Bishop were even paid based on a percentage of the tithing they collected.

[Tex]

I know you intended this to be a discussion primarily about priestcraft, but if you'll forgive the slight tangent, I wanted to insert a comment about grinding upon the face of the poor.

If I understand it correctly, 2 Nephi 26 is an extension of Nephi's commentary on the chapters of Isaiah he just quoted. I've begun a fresh study of those chapters, and was just studing 2 Ne. 13 this weekend. For the first time, these words stuck out to me:

14 The Lord will enter into judgment with the ancients of his people and the princes thereof; for ye have eaten up the vineyard and the spoil of the poor in your houses.

15 What mean ye? Ye beat my people to pieces, and grind the faces of the poor, saith the Lord God of Hosts.

Funny that you should point out this phrase in 26 right on the heels of my reading it in 13. I think it's safe to assume, given that the phrase appears nowhere else, that Nephi had this chapter (13) in mind when recording that phrase.

Isaiah 3 / 2 Nephi 13 is all about the punishment to be wreaked upon Israel/Judah given it's various forms wickedness, and has both ancient and latter-day implications and/or interpretations. Isaiah begins the chapter by threatening to revoke bread and water supplies (both of which have messianic symbolism), as well as an itemized list of professions, among which include "the prophet." Of course we know that the skilled of the Israelites were incarcerated by the Babylonians under Jehoachin, but what of the modern day application?

Could not the "poor" in this case refer to the "poor in spirit" (ala Beatitudes)? Could not priestcraft be those willing to use positions of priesthood power ("the prophet") to "eat up the vineyard" and "spoil the poor" in our houses?

This almost strikes me as having more application to members of the church, than those outside it.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Tex

I know you intended this to be a discussion primarily about priestcraft, but if you'll forgive the slight tangent, I wanted to insert a comment about grinding upon the face of the poor.

If I understand it correctly, 2 Nephi 26 is an extension of Nephi's commentary on the chapters of Isaiah he just quoted. I've begun a fresh study of those chapters, and was just studing 2 Ne. 13 this weekend. For the first time, these words stuck out to me:



Funny that you should point out this phrase in 26 right on the heels of my reading it in 13. I think it's safe to assume, given that the phrase appears nowhere else, that Nephi had this chapter (13) in mind when recording that phrase.

Isaiah 3 / 2 Nephi 13 is all about the punishment to be wreaked upon Israel/Judah given it's various forms wickedness, and has both ancient and latter-day implications and/or interpretations. Isaiah begins the chapter by threatening to revoke bread and water supplies (both of which have messianic symbolism), as well as an itemized list of professions, among which include "the prophet." Of course we know that the skilled of the Israelites were incarcerated by the Babylonians under Jehoachin, but what of the modern day application?

Could not the "poor" in this case refer to the "poor in spirit" (ala Beatitudes)? Could not priestcraft be those willing to use positions of priesthood power ("the prophet") to "eat up the vineyard" and "spoil the poor" in our houses?

This almost strikes me as having more application to members of the church, than those outside it.

Please tell me that you are not trying to justify the attitude among some that says "the poor deserve what they get".

Nibley taught that the message of the Book of Mormon, in terms of social equality, is ignored in the church.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Please tell me that you are not trying to justify the attitude among some that says "the poor deserve what they get".

If that's what you got out of what Tex said, then you need to take a vacation for a couple of weeks and rest that weary mind of yours.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Tex

I know you intended this to be a discussion primarily about priestcraft, but if you'll forgive the slight tangent, I wanted to insert a comment about grinding upon the face of the poor.

If I understand it correctly, 2 Nephi 26 is an extension of Nephi's commentary on the chapters of Isaiah he just quoted. I've begun a fresh study of those chapters, and was just studing 2 Ne. 13 this weekend. For the first time, these words stuck out to me:



Funny that you should point out this phrase in 26 right on the heels of my reading it in 13. I think it's safe to assume, given that the phrase appears nowhere else, that Nephi had this chapter (13) in mind when recording that phrase.

Isaiah 3 / 2 Nephi 13 is all about the punishment to be wreaked upon Israel/Judah given it's various forms wickedness, and has both ancient and latter-day implications and/or interpretations. Isaiah begins the chapter by threatening to revoke bread and water supplies (both of which have messianic symbolism), as well as an itemized list of professions, among which include "the prophet." Of course we know that the skilled of the Israelites were incarcerated by the Babylonians under Jehoachin, but what of the modern day application?

Could not the "poor" in this case refer to the "poor in spirit" (ala Beatitudes)? Could not priestcraft be those willing to use positions of priesthood power ("the prophet") to "eat up the vineyard" and "spoil the poor" in our houses?

This almost strikes me as having more application to members of the church, than those outside it.

Nice discussion of the phrase "grinding upon the face of the poor." I actually don't see it as tangent at all since I see 20 and 29 as clearly connected. Also, it is a nice reminder to point out that going back to Isaiah will help us understand Nephi better. I am open to an interpretation that the "poor" could be a reference to something other than exclusively economic poverty. I will have to go back to Isaiah 3 and consider that possibility (I must admit I didn't notice he was quoting Isaiah so it is very useful that you pointed it out.) Even if the "poor in spirit" idea is not originally implied by Isaiah 3 I think it is a nice application and extension of the principle taught by Nephi.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Requiem

Insightful post Pelagius - thank you. Chapter two of the Pew Survey is fascinating and subject to many interpretations. I agree with your comment that attrition among U.S. Mormons is a "non-trivial" number - a 5.6% decrease in one year is indeed significant and not a good trend.

Careful, that is not what the survey measures. It doesn't measure a one year change. It is a single survey from this year that measures the change in affliation from childhood to adult. People are asked what is your religious affliation today and what was as a child. At best it measures net attrition over a about 20-30 year period on average.

Also, be careful about apply educational trends in general to the Mormon population. There is a fair amount of evidence that suggests the relation between religious activity and education is different for Mormonism than other faiths. I am often skeptical about the conclusion of theses studies but I think the evidence does point to some clear differences which should make someone wary about applying general population patterns in terms of religion and education to Mormons.

Also, finally this will unfairly stifle discussion but I do prefer that this thread try to deal with issues in 2 Nephi 26. So if you want to pursue your logic further I would ask that you try to wrap it back into 2 Nephi 26.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by pelagius

Careful, that is not what the survey measures. It doesn't measure a one year change.

You are right. I stand corrected.