Today Eric Soderlund (Equality) and Corey Kilpack (Mayan Elephant) join John Hamer, Ann Porter and I discussing their reactions to our “Inoculating the Saints” discussions.
A big thanks, as always, to Clayton Pixton for providing the wonderfully inspirational bumper music for this podcast.
Full disclosure - this is a MUCH better podcast than I remember recording. It was edited considerably (three large chunks were taken out) and the result is…coherent! Thanks, Eric, for removing the large sections where I was a blithering idiot. John D., next time I ask if I can just share a little something, just say “No.” I’ll appreciate it afterwards.
Corey’s mid-show comments about “what ex-mormons want” made me wince. I’m not a GA fangirl at all, but referring to the latest pamphlet by the FP and Qof12 as “Hinckley’s latest crap” is not the turn of phrase I would have chosen. However, I do understand what he says he wants - to be able to criticize the church without being accused of trying to destroy it.
The latest pamphlet confronts us with a choice. We can be respectful to LDS authorities or we can defend our gay friends and family members.
Corey made the right choice. A little less respect is a small price if it saves one kid from suicide.
I agree with Anne and the Village Voice. September Dawn is just a bad movie. Many post-Mormons agree with that. Here is John Hamer’s review: http://latterdaymainstreet.com/?p=110
Here is another interview about September Dawn with nevere-Mo Brian Patrick, the director and producer of a great documentary about MMM: http://latterdaymainstreet.com/?p=136
Why are we concerned about what might happen to the institution if they start being straightforward and honest about their history and treat women and homosexuals with equality, etc? It seems that we are putting the survival of the institution above the needs and considerations of the people. People matter way more to me than the institution. A good institution will support the needs of the people, if it does not perhaps it needs to do the right thing and change regardless of what it will do to the membership numbers.
Second, I believe every person can voice an opinion about how they think the church should do its business. It is not overstepping bounds. We could all do the same (i.e., give our opinion) about how any other church should treat its people. It is very dangerous when we start discouraging people from respectfully sharing their opinions.
For Corey: dude, the homosexual act will always be the ’sin against nature’, ie will always be a sin and always has being. My ‘prophecy’: this will never change. But off course we need to accept them lovingly as family members. Even after the final judgement they will still be ’sealed’ to a family and in a kingdom of glory.
But accepting the practising homosexual as OK is just as bad as accepting the adulterer as OK. Both need repentance/forgiveness first.
But polygamy isn’t the same case. We are still practising it since via and after death/divorce a man enters a polygamist relationship. In that sense Pt Taylor et where right: we still practise polygamy even today in the church. (Elders Nelson & Oaks are two ‘polygamist’ now). There hasn’t being an evolution away from the principal just an adaptacion to the laws of the day. Remember that in the theocracy of yesteryear adulterers where also put to death. Today this can’t happen anymore. But both sins are just as bad and serious.
Mayan, (also maybe Equality and ‘he mormon underground’): you’ve all just lost faith in prophets, that’s all. You are also the fullfilment of a prophecy, that is that even the ‘Very Elect’ will be misled.
I have not read the latest pamphlet, and usually don’t read that sort of thing. I am probably mistaken in my hope that Carol Lynn Pearson’s work is more indicative of the direction the church is eventually going to take, but I hold onto it as a hope anyway.
Corey says what he thinks, and is not much given to rhetorical restraint. It’s probably a sign of the restraint he WAS exercising that he only said “crap.”
Carlos, it isn’t much of a prophecy for Joseph to prophecy that people will be believe him and then they won’t. That statement was proven true multiple times in Joseph’s own lifetime - probably even before the prophecy made it into print. Which would make it not a prophecy at all.
Just amazing! So much hostility! I still think some of these folks have missed the major point. Church is about salvation, not history. I also would welcome more accurate SS lessons and Priesthood/RS and not so much blandness. After all, the SS lessons have not be revised since early 1980’s. But we all make our own way to some degree.
But it seems like the hostility is associated with pet issues like Homosexuality, Women and Priesthood, The Black Priesthood issue, etc. Everything about the Church is colored by the fact that the Church does not address those issues the way they think. I thought the one guy was very disrepectful to the Church Leaders and especially President Hinckley and as a result will be dismissed by most people just because of that.
the scripture is ” insomuch that, even if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect,” I interprete that is it is not possible to deceive the very elect….
jayspec,
When you refer to “so much hostilty” can you please be specific. I don’t think or feel I am hostile toward anyone. Are you referring to Carlos’s comments here? Do you think that disagreeing with a particular course of action by church leaders is the equivalent of beng hostile? I tried very hard to be respectful of the church leaders and express my disagreement with them respecting certain policy decisions. I assure you I have no hostility toward President Hinckley or other leaders of the church. It is interesting to me that while I disagree with church leaders on cetain policies, it was the apologist Blake Ostler who called Presisent Smith “clueless.” I think you will find that I was more charitable than he in talking about church leaders. I do think that church leaders are acting in a manner that is not in the church’s best long-term interest. I understand and appreciate that others may disagree with me. I do not feel any hostility or animosity toward any church leader. Can you say the same with respect to your feelings about critics of the church?
Also, I think if you were homosexual, or a woman, you might not view such things as “pet issues.”
Equality: I think he was refering to Coreys comments in the podcast about Pt Hinkley? comments that also got my blood boiling.
And Ann, I was refering to Mathew 24. I always thought that the ‘elect’ where, and are, mormons who later leave because of history or homosexuality issue or some problem with a leader ie ‘pet issues’. I can’t see or interpret the Lord saying that it isn’t possible to deceive the very elect; (just how I see that scripture though).
Hellmutt, I wouldn’t want to lay the credit or blame on ME for really having any effect on the suicide rate, but if someone is grappling with the relationship between their sexuality and their religious convictions, I would recommend a more nuanced approach to the idea of disagreement with the new pamphlet.
John - I’d be interested in a discussion between you Ann and John Hamer further detailing how/why you think innoculation will destroy the church. I felt like that kind of got lost in some of the other issues discussed. Also, is there someone besides Blake who can speak for the church on this issue?
I would also add that while I agreed with much of what I heard from Eric and Corey, I also felt their tone was confrontational and even a bit hostile. I cringed when I heard Pres. Hinckley referred to as “Hinckley” - not because I agree with the church’s position on SSM, innoculation, etc., but I felt like the reference disregarded the faithful LDS folk who listen to the podcast. Besides, it’s just not polite to refer to a 97 year old leader of a significant religion by his/her last name. The tone, I felt, was out of character for what “Dehlin” is trying to do.
I felt this podcast represented a break through for balance on Mormon Matters. IMHO using the word crap showed restraint on Corey’s part given his passion on the subjects. It’s a very small nit to pick as is taking the use of a surname without title as a slight, it’s done in the press frequently. I may be wrong but I think I’ve even seen the pope referred to as Ratzinger. That may not make it politically correct but I suggest the issue and slight are relatively minor. I’m saddened by the dismissive tone of some of the comments above.
I felt the whole panel represented themselves very well. Kudos to all of them. Perhaps skillful editing contributed to the over all effect. I would very much like to hear Corey and Eric speak again on Mormon Matters as well as hearing other voices both conservative and liberal from the greater Mormon community. Thank you Dehlin.
Left Field, I share your concern about Mayan Elephant’s limited influence. The ethical response to that concern is to join him so that we can save more of our children.
Mayan Elephant is doing his part to provide a safe environment to our children. His comment about the irrational and harmful approach of Mormon leaders to sexuality will validate every gay listener of this show who has experienced nothing but judgement, hate, and domination from their LDS leaders.
This pamphlet is irrational and harmful. Science comprehensively contradicts it. We know that homosexuality is not a choice but a natural phenomenon. We know that homosexuality has no observable negative effects. We do know that many Mormon children attempt to commit and commit suicide because they cannot square reality and religious dogma.
If there had been a Mormon like Mayan Elephant in Stuart Matis’s life then Stuart might still be alive. To me, protecting the health and the life of our children is more important than paying respect to leaders who are destroying their self-image.
In fact, the emphasis Mormon theology and culture places on authority and leadership is at the root of this problem that plays out with such bloody consequences in the lives of so many of our children.
That’s not exactly a good fruit, especially not in 2007.
I love Anne’s report about her conversion experience. Regardless of the historical and doctrinal problems, there are tremendous opportunities for conversions. A lively ward were members like each other, pay attention to outreach, and cooperate with each other will always be successful.
Unfortunately, we are taking less and less advantage of those opportunities. The number one culprit is not New Mormon History but the lack of empowerment and training of local decision-makers.
I also love what she has to say about means and ends. Theologically, Anne’s view is one hundred percent correct. In terms of political economy, however, organizations are an end to themselves. The reason is that the organization’s officers will pursue their own interests within the framework of the organization.
Corey tried to make that point when he asked who benefited from Mormon policies.
Is that the guy’s name, Corey? He is the one who is disrespectful and comes off as a jerk, in my opinion. Now I realize that he is probably not too interested in what the mainstream crowd thinks, because as near as I can tell, he panders to the disgruntled. I think what John and the others are trying to do is begin the dialogue to try and resolve some of this issues for some people and make them more confortable in the church environment. Not demand that the Church change to suit one’s own purposes.
Equality,
You are right, if I was a women or a homosexual who was not willing to accept what has been taught from the beginning of the Church, I would not think it a pet issue, it would be my cause, for sure.
But I was referring to the others, who are not in that category, who campaign for the Church to make radical changes in doctrine.
I can’t work in the Temple here because I have a beard, I don’t like it especially because I did in California for 8 years, but It is not something I wish to make a big deal about. Not on the same scale by any means, but an example.
Let me amend my last comment. Being someone with same sex attraction issues in the Church is not a problem, per se. Being a homosexual that is actively engaged in immoral conduct is a problem just like for anyone else in the Church.
When jayspec says, “But I was referring to the others, who are not in that category, who campaign for the Church to make radical changes in doctrine.” I can’t help but think of the verse by Martin Niemöller, (who ended up in a nazi concentration camp)
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
Yes, I may be breaking (or invoking?) Godwin’s Law by posting this, and I surely don’t mean to equate my church or it’s leaders with nazis, but this verse reminded me of Corey’s sentiment that someone needs to speak out and get the attention of the leaders to get anything done. Until there is woman or gay apostle, (ie, never,) the apostles have no reason to listen to their concerns. But if enough white, heterosexual, tithing paying High Priests say those things, maybe the leadership of the church will take notice. Maybe.
As to some of the comments here that criticize Corey and Eric for their tone, first I need to question if they listened to the same podcast that I did, and then secondly ask why they are attacking the perceived subjective tone and not their actual arguments?
jayspec,
Can you be more specific about what Corey said or did that made you feel he is disrespectful and comes off as a jerk, in your opinion. Perhaps you could offer some constructive advice for future conversation beyond name calling. Being a passionate moderate I can see how some of Corey’s posted comments would seem disrespectful to more orthodox believers, but the barbs and invective he gets in return say something about those whose faith may be brittle or act in way the reinforces stereotypes about a persecution complex.
It’s clear that John is taking a high road to promote dialog, but it’s not at all clear to me that you are interested in that same worthy objective. Might one person’s interpretation of ‘panders to the disgruntled’ be another’s notion of giving voice to the disaffected or shunned? I support John’s ideal of honest, open and polite discussion, but there are clearly people involved on all sides who feel disrespected, slighted and shut out. John is inviting everyone to the table or back into the tent; instead of listening and expressing empathetic disagreement we have some saying that those who wonder, hurt and hope are ‘deceived’, jerks and panderers. I’ve disagreed publicly with the tone some harsher critics seem to use (since text doesn’t unambiguously express tone, I have to own that I may project sometimes) but I hope I indicate a willingness to listen although I may disagree initially.
I understood Corey to be asking people to focus on love and community rather than on perceived purity, and pharisaical obedience. Corey may be hoping for a change of great magnitude or he may be looking for what some might consider a sea change in showing more tolerance and genuine Christian love for all members regardless of their orthodoxy, orthopraxy or human failings. Who can honestly cast the fist stone at the sinner? Who has need of a physician and a community. I feel both Corey and Eric were getting at the notion of enfranchisement or acceptance in community. Who would Jesus shun?
I don’t like immorality either, Jayspec. That’s why gays ought to get married when they are having sex.
“That’s why gays ought to get married when they are having sex.”
Now that would be an interesting wedding ceremony.
“Now that would be an interesting wedding ceremony.”
No doubt. let’s give the standard answer here. “When Heavenly Father decides it should happen, it will happen.” All the campaigning, gnashing of teeth and tempers will not change that.
Instead of that campaigning, there should be an emphasis on trying to assist those brothers and sisters with that issue to learn to deal with it. I think the Church is trying to do that, in its way. That warrants some respect, even if you don’t agree with it totally.
To Dathlon, I will re-listen to the podcast and give you the quotes I thought were out of line.
I think John’s idea of inoculation destroying the church is mistaken. You don’t need to lose the restoration at all, but to give it a different, more authentic context. Throughout history God has worked through the material he has - weak, fallen human beings. And the weak fallen human he chose to restore the power to act in his name on earth in modern days was Joseph Smith. Not the newly blond, “buff tones beaming” Joseph we’ve all learned about - the boy hero! - but the real live dynamic flawed powerful charismatic human, prone to all the same weakneeses and frailties as any other other. It’s a much more compelling story than the demi-God we’re given to revere by the modern church, if it’s told right. And it has the added benefit of being true.
jayspec says, “No doubt. let’s give the standard answer here. “When Heavenly Father decides it should happen, it will happen.” All the campaigning, gnashing of teeth and tempers will not change that.”
Apparently you don’t know the real history behind the changes in garments in the early 20th century, or the temple endowment changes in 1990, or the history behind giving blacks the priesthood, etc, etc, etc.
It seems pretty obvious to me that when enough well-connected members complain, that’s when Heavenly Father sees fit to give The Brethren a revelation on the matter.
jayspec, your “standard answer” blames God for our biases. God is not a racist. He is not a sexist.
The “standard answer” is much more sacrilegious than anything that the Brethren’s critiques have ever said.
If God is the creator then He reveals himself first and foremost in the creation. Since the sex drive and homosexuality are part of the creation, statements advanced as revelation ought to be able to deal with those phenomena in a rational and responsible way.
The pamphlet demonstratively fails that test. It is an irrational expression of deep seated fears of sexuality. As Christians, we have an obligation to protect our children from the damage that such nonsense may inflict upon them.
Jayspec ~
You wrote, “You are right, if I was a women or a homosexual who was not willing to accept what has been taught from the beginning of the Church, I would not think it a pet issue, it would be my cause, for sure.”
What is hard for me to accept is how Joseph Smith encouraged women to use the priesthood to give blessings. The relief society used to be a successful autonomous organization, run solely by the women, not under the direction of the priesthood. At one point, women were not allowed to pray in sacrament meeting, not too long ago I might add. Joseph Smith gave the priesthood to Elijah Abel, a black man, as he felt God wanted him to, which was then later taken away from all blacks, which Brigham Young thought God wanted him to, which was brought back to blacks in 1978, which Spencer W. Kimball thought God wanted him to. So not all things have been “taught from the beginning of the Church” like you maintain.
If women are to be priestesses in the celestial kingdom beside their husbands, why is it so difficult to consider women having priesthood here on earth too?
If blacks can get the priesthood after not having it for a century, then why can’t changes be made for women and gay people? Just because many think that God wants it this way does not make such sexism and homophobia morally right.
As for gays, I have difficulty respecting any general authority or church that promotes the idea parents should not welcome their active gay children into their homes. That just tears into me, and I don’t have to be gay to know how very very wrong and un-Christlike such an idea is.
Ann - exactly. Additionally, I for one do not want an apology, an announcement during conference or rounds of Sunday morning interviews about the change in direction re innoculation. But, for my own personal tastes, change can’t come quickly enough.
Let me just say, again, that I did not disagree with most of what Corey and Eric were saying…..I just felt that their tone was a bit accusatory and perhaps confrontational. Just my perception….perhaps I’m wrong - I’ll listen to it again. However, from my perspective, it’s the tenor of these types of discussions that makes them so great.
BTW, Dathon, you’re right, many people refer to Pres. Hinckley as “Hinckley” in news reports, just as they do the pope. But within mormonism, perhaps a little more respect (even if some feel such respect isn’t warranted)? If for no other reason, such referential respect goes a long way in not alienating those who may revere him as a prophet. This type of two way respect also applies to Eric and Corey being called anti-mormon - as I thought they stated so well in the podcast. Such monikers kill discussion and polarize people.
Anyway, Johns and Ann and whomever else, I’d be interested in yet another follow up on whether innoculation will kill the church…..I don’t think it would.
Hellmut,
If I were a clinical psychologist with a suicidal gay Mormon client who bellieves in the church, and believes that G. B. Hinckley is a prophet, I would probably want to work with the client to help resolve the incongruity. It may well be helpful for the client to set aside some advice given in the pamphlet, but I am quite sure it would counterproductive to use the expression “Hinckley’s latest crap.” That would only rub the client’s nose in the very inconguity we’re seeking to resolve, and I can’t imagine it could do anything but push the person closer to suicide.
Of course, ME’s comments were made in a different context, and as I said, I don’t think he’s really going to make anyone more (or less) likely to commit suicide. I have NO objection to ME disagreeing with the contents of the pamphlet as vehemently as he likes, but I disagree that his choice of language is more likely to prevent suicides than would a more measured approach that makes the same point. If the goal is to prevent suicide, an in-your-face assault on the person’s religious convictions would seem counterproductive.
In my opinion, you are overreaching asking for more respect for Gordon Hinckley, Aaron. Hinckley’s titles are a matter of faith and conscience.
For many people, the problem with Mormonism is that its officers are getting too much respect.
However that may be, one person’s religious obligations do not establish a duty for someone else. As you are admitting that Corey and Eric are remaining within the bounds of civility, why would you consider appropriate to demand more?
Nathan C. First of all, as a Jewish convert to the Church and one who actually lost family in the Holocaust, I do not see the comparison. No one is being killed here simply for being of a different belief. Even that is not the complete reason for it.
“ask why they are attacking the perceived subjective tone and not their actual arguments?”
Secondly, I have been finding this an interesting point that continues to be made here and other forums. When people respond in anger, condescension, ridicule or disrespect, it does point to an attitude that begs the question of “why should I bother to respond to such a person?” I have seen in the past, that those folks with the anger really do not want a dialogue, they just want to venrt their anger and frustration. And, we are asked to look past that. Well, you wouldn’t do it in a face-to-face conversation with someone, why should you do it on-line?
Thirdly, you are right, I do not know the secret reasons why the Church changes things like the length of the garment, two piece or one, the changes in the temple ceremony, etc. After all, it must be the philosphies of men, mingled with scripture. Can’t possibly be inspired thinking, directed by Heavenly Father? Must only be for expediancy and a strong letter-writing campaign.
I don’t think it is THAT obivious, unless, of course, you are looking for nefarious purposes.
Regardless of whether gays, women, or black people are being killed, the fact remains that the church patriarchy as set up now hurts some women in deep ways. The withholding of priesthood and thereby eternal salvation in the celestial kingdom of blacks for a century hurt many black people in deep ways. The current teachings about homosexuality and how we should treat those who act on their homosexual urges hurst some gay church members in deep ways.
Those people who feel it’s OK for this deep hurt to be happening to others because it’s not happening to them are exactly who Nathan C’s example so beautifully describes.
And, I think, this is what the podcast touches on too. It seems imperative to many of us to make certain changes in the church - like inoculating the saints - in order to prevent certain hurts from occurring which can drive people away from the good things the Gospel brings. Ignoring those things that are not easy isn’t going to help.
jayspec, for someone who believes in the exclusive authority of the leaders of the church, it is worse than death to be punished by them. Excommunication means being cut off from their families forever. Eternal damnation. To wield that kind of emotional and spiritual power over someone is enormous. To a believer, that kind of authority is more powerful than all the guns in the world.
As to your further comments about angry tone, please don’t project yourself onto me. I have no problem confronting people, even angry people, and engaging them in dialogue. I’m sorry that your first reaction to seeing anger is to turn tail and run away. My first reaction to seeing anger is more along the lines of, “Wow, there’s someone who is hurt and/or feels very passionately about something. I wonder why he feels that way?” and then attempt to figure out the cause of his anger. Most people don’t get angry in a vacuum. There are reasonable and believable reasons people become angry. To dismiss all anger as bad or evil is wrong. The better path is to find out why the anger exists in the first place.
Lastly, I hope you take the time to listen to Dehlin’s MormonStories podcasts. There are several which help explain the very human process of change in the church. Here’s a question for you, why wasn’t the church progressive in extending the priesthood to blacks, instead of behind the rest of the world by 10 to 30 years? To say that “the people weren’t ready for it” is condescending and paternalistic, and wrong. Why wasn’t the church at least with the mainstream of society, instead of behind the curve? God is a God of being a follower? Or is God more of a God of doing what is right and being a beacon to the world?
I’m not demanding anything, Hellmut….I’m just expressing an opinion.
Sister Mary Lisa,
I know the history that you recite. While you can cite where Joseph told the women to USE the Priesthood, you can’t cite a instance where he ordained any woman TO the Priesthood. And while women and men are told they will be Priestesses and Priests, there must be additional information we do not have, since any MP holder can say, ” What do you mean become a Priest, I already am one.” Women are to be Priestesses TO their husbands. I, personally, do not know what that means yet.
I also don’t know why the some Blacks were given the Priesthood by Joseph Smith and then restricted from having it. I know all the theories but do not accept them. Maybe, it was because the early Church Leaders like Brigham Young were just prejudiced, I don’t know. He and others said some things in the JD that we find very offensive by today’s standard. The fact remains that all worthy males have the Priesthood today. Not sure what the point is to try to affect further change in that area.
I realize that many people hurt for a variety of reasons. But, with our agency, we can decide what we want to hurt about. It is a choice, not a foregone conclusion that we have to hurt about things. Many people do, many do not.
While it is unfortunate and sad that people hurt, that does not mean that funidmental principles must change.
Aaron,
Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate it. I believe that I did, in fact, refer to President Hinckley as “President Hinckley” when I was speaking. I may have slipped once or twice and used the shorter “Hinckley” in subsequent references, but I certainly meant no disrespect toward him and did not mean to offend any believing Mormons who may be listening to the podcast.
I didn’t think I was being “hostile” in my tone (more like “passionate”) but I do not deny that I am “confronting” things in the church that I view with displeasure. And I understand that in the Mormon culture today, any expression of disagreement with the Brethren no matter the subject is often viewed as “bitter” or “angry” or “contentious.” There is a culture of conformity that, I think, confuses honest, principled disagreement with disrespect.
I do disagree both with much of what the previous panelists had to say about inoculation and with the leaders of the church on a number of issues. The point I was trying to make in the podcast, though, was not simply to express my disagreements with the Brethren on certain issues (be they “pet” or otherwise) but rather to suggest that in order for inoculation to have any effect on the problem being addressed (i.e., faithful, active members of the church encountering information different from what they have learned in church, feeling betrayed, and becoming disaffected as a result), there would need to be institutional changes that can only come about through concerted action from those who lead the church at the highest levels.
Where John Dehlin and I disagreed was on whether such changes would do more harm to the church than the problem that is being addressed. I think the church can change, and should change, and that the sorts of changes I propose would actually make for a stronger, healthier institution in the long run, though not without some short-term pain. I think the price of not changing is a church that continues to lose valuable members, becomes more insular and less relevant and, ultimately, suffers a slow but steady decline in both membership and influence. Reasonable minds can differ on this, of course. John thinks that making the changes I suggest would destroy the church. He may be right. But I still think inoculation cannot work without changes to the prevailing Mormon culture, which values literalism and a strictly defined orthopraxy that requires the type of “faith-promoting” approach to teaching church history and doctrine that President Packer champions. I actually said that President Packer’s stance is the only rational one for a church that wants to harden its conservative stance on scriptural and historical literalism. In “counseling the Brethren” I am merely offering my opinion that, if they want to address the problem, it can’t be done just by tweaking a manual here or there–systemic change is required for any inoculation to be effective. If they don’t want to address the problem effectively, then maintaining the course charted by President Packer is appropriate. But if they choose that course, there is no sense talking about inoculation. If they choose to stay on the “faith-promoting” course that is disdainful of historians, scholars, feminists, and social progressives, then the church will continue to lose members who identify with those groups. The Brethren (and many church members) may be OK with that. I just think the church would be a better place if such people were not only tolerated but accepted and embraced.
Setting The Record Straight: Blacks & The Mormon Priesthood
I have a simple review of this book on my blog LatteDaySaints.com/Jamie
On the back of the book it posses three questions.
Why were Black members of the Church banned from holding the priesthood?
Why was the ban lifted?
Are Latter-day Saints racist?
The latter question was the only one answered. It was a resounding NO. The topics in this book goes in different directions and always comes back to the excuse . . . “We don’t know why.”
With all the resources the author had to write this book and the PhD which he holds he should have taken the questions and answered them. And not sidestepped the issues he was paid to cover discuss and answer. In reality the book should have been titled: The Priesthood Ban: What We Don’t Know for Sure—or Not at All.
Nathan,
“for someone who believes in the exclusive authority of the leaders of the church, it is worse than death to be punished by them.”
I am not exactly sure what you are referring to here. Why would anyone beleive in “exclusive” authority in any man? While Presidnet Hinckley holds all Priesthood keys to run the church on this earth, the head is still Jesus Christ. Men are not perfect and make mistakes. Ido not beleive that the GAs of the church take their responsbility lightly and realize what they do and say can affect millions of people. Still not, sure what you point is there.
Also, I am not at all referring to you when I talk about an angry tone. At least not yet… :0) I was specfically referring to Corey’s tone on the podcast. All I was trying to say is that that people get turned off by anger and do not think a civil conversation where issues can be clamly and openly discussed is possible.
Also, I have listened to most of John’s podcasts and have enjoyed them thoroughly. I even ordered Greg Prince’s book to get more information about that era of the church.
One interesting point to me is that pople like to say that the reason the church did not give the priesthood to blacks sooner was that ” they were not ready for it.” You’ve dismissed that as a reason. But, if certain GAs didn’t think it was time, maybe THEY were the ones not ready for it. So it would be a basically true statement. The fact that HUgh B Brown wanted it and Harold B. Lee did not is proof to me that it was the Lord who needed to decide when the time was right. The fact that the church was not ahead of the rest of society, have you ever been to Utah?????
Equality - thanks for your response. I’ve really never thought it like that. You cleared up your position completely and I think you make a very valid point. It makes sense that if we’re going to teach a history that exposes (more or less) the difficult (for lack of a better word) issues of church history and the fallibility of past church leaders - either by cause or effect, perceptions, expectations and thus a culture of perfect current church leaders will change.
And….maybe that’s why John Dehlin thinks that innoculation will kill the church……a less perfect perception of principles, leaders and the movement will come with a price to committment overall.
Maybe…..but I don’t think the church will die. A few may leave up front. But how many more than are leaving now? And in the long term, this whole issue of feeling betrayed, lied to, etc., will go away completely because people will have assimilated the tough points into their spiritual development.
Jayspec ~
If certain fundamental gospel principles are not principled, I see no reason to defend them.
Joseph Smith still encouraged women to actually GIVE priesthood blessings - hands on the head and everything. That to me is having the priesthood. I would not be allowed to lay my hands on my child’s head and give him a blessing today in front of my bishop without serious repercussions. The fact that I can not baptize my child, and must instead find a non-family-member or distant relative to do it for me is a shame. The fact that I cannot bless my own baby and give her a name even though I’m much more eloquent and more in tune with my own child than my home teacher is, is a shame.
The fact that you are unsure of what the point is to try to affect further change in that area is a shame. I know you are not alone in your mindset. It would feel much different to you had you been born a woman, I suspect.
Equality ~
Love your comments here. I agree with you that being able to honestly and openly discuss dissatisfaction over certain policies or certain doctrine with the leadership of the church would be an important improvement. I feel that the church would not only survive such openness, but also I think it would be all the stronger for it. Imagine if our country still practiced slavery (which many people felt was vital to the country’s success) and still denied women the right to vote. Many people felt such changes were too radical and would upset the harmonious balance of power that existed at the time. But there were some who could see how the country would be stronger for it, and fought to create such change. That is what I’d like to see happen today within the church.
Sister ML:
Just because one does not like or agree with a gospel principle does not in itself make it unprincipled. I still need you to point out for me the women Joseph Smith ordained to the Priesthood as opposed to saying to the women that they should USE their husband’s Priesthood to bless their children. I will never accept the idea that a mother’s faithful prayer on behalf of her child has any less effectiveness than a Priesthood Blessing. If it makes you feel better to lay your hands on his or her head, I think that is perfectly reasonable. What you do in your home is your own business and you should do what you think it right for your family. At this point in time, the Priesthood is not given to women on this earth. So you can’t baptize your children into the church. And you can’t give her a name and blessing before the church.
Please don’t fall back on that old point that I can’t possibly understand because I am not ( fill in the blank). I am not alone in my mindset, there are many people that probably agree more with my way of thinking than yours.
To me, it all comes down to whether you accept the principles of which the church was founded, restoration of the fulness of the gospel, continuing revelation and the priesthood. If those things are not true, then we are just another church teaching some of the truth, but not all. So then any church will do. If I thought that was the case, I would have stayed in the Jewish Faith. That way I could have believed almost anything I wanted.
“I am not alone in my mindset, there are many people that probably agree more with my way of thinking than yours.”
12 million at the most. Out of 6.6 billion.
My hat is off to Cory! His comments about anger and the “anti-mormon” label really hit home and I agree with him wholeheartedly. The damaged and ruined lives of my loved ones instills a great deal of anger and rage in me. Thank you Cory - you put my feelings into words.
Hi jayspec ~
Do you feel that men are more capable and better suited to handle priesthood leadership responsibilities than women are? Do you feel that women are more suited for homemaking and cleaning and childrearing than men are? Do you feel that women who don’t wish to be mothers are sinners? Do you feel that boys are better suited for missionary work than girls are? Do you think it was wrong of faithful LDS members to question the priesthood ban for blacks in 1970 because at that time, the priesthood was not given to blacks on this earth? Do you feel it’s OK to expect gay members of the church to remain celibate their entire lives, and to treat those who engage in sex as unworthy sinners?
You are not alone in your mindset. The Nazis were not alone in their mindset that Jews should be exterminated. The KKK was not alone in its mindset that blacks should be killed because whites are better. The plantation owners of The South were not alone in their mindset that people with black skin were born to be slaves. The countless Chinese mothers who bound the feet of their daughters were not alone in believing that crippling their daughters was appealing and attractive.
Sister ML, You asked,
“Do you feel that men are more capable and better suited to handle priesthood leadership responsibilities than women are?”
No, many men in the church are slackers, but the Lord gave the Priesthood responsibility to men at this time.
“Do you feel that women are more suited for homemaking and cleaning and childrearing than men are?”
No, I do make beds better than my wife. But she is neater. As far as I know only women can bear children. Has that changed? Men make the ideal fathers, Women make the ideal mothers, most of the time.
“Do you feel that women who don’t wish to be mothers are sinners?”
No, that is their choice and they live with whatever consequences there are from that choice. I am thinking not many.
“Do you feel that boys are better suited for missionary work than girls are?”
No, some of the best Missionaries I have known have been Sisters. I was first tracted out by Sisters. The worst missionaries have all been males.
“Do you think it was wrong of faithful LDS members to question the priesthood ban for blacks in 1970 because at that time, the priesthood was not given to blacks on this earth?”
No, I would have wondered why if was a member then. I still do. But I really still don’t know why.
“Do you feel it’s OK to expect gay members of the church to remain celibate their entire lives, and to treat those who engage in sex as unworthy sinners?”
I think that all single members should follow the law of chasity, gay or straight. I expect all married members to be faithful to their spouses. But, I am not the judge.
“You are not alone in your mindset. The Nazis were not alone in their mindset that Jews should be exterminated.”
Really, who else was involved?
“The KKK was not alone in its mindset that blacks should be killed because whites are better.”
They hated Jews, Catholics, Hispanics and others just as much.
“The plantation owners of The South were not alone in their mindset that people with black skin were born to be slaves.”
All civilizations have had slaves at one time or another. And not just black. Slaves still exist in this world, unfortunately. I don’t know of any plantation owners still alive who have black slaves.
“The countless Chinese mothers who bound the feet of their daughters were not alone in believing that crippling their daughters was appealing and attractive.”
Wasn’t that Japanese? Never understood that either, just like I don’t understand female circumision. It cruel and unusual.
So I guess the lesson here is that because there are some of us who choose to follow the Prophet and the current teachings of the church that we are equal to nazis, slave owners, chinese mothers, etc?
And here I thought I was trying to learn to be a good person and do what God expects of me. silly me.
Sorry you misunderstood me, Jay. The lesson here is that sometimes even though the majority of people you associate with support and believe in the divinity of sexism, racism, or poor/harmful treatment of gays, doesn’t make it a good thing. That’s all.
I don’t think I did misunderstand you. I mearly tried to point out that there is usually much more to the story than a narrow view of it. Like slavery. As unacceptable as we think it is now, it was in fact acceptable to have slaves. and not just black slaves.
On the other hand, when a minority of people beleive something, it does not mean the majority is automatically wrong, either.
Sister Mary Lisa, you have being reading tooooo many anti-mormon blogs.
LDS never said to treat a gay person in “poor/harmful” ways. All the church does is preach a Law of Chastity, God given law, which is abstinance for singles including gays.
But no matter how you spin this the homosexual act will always be a sin of sodom and gomorra levels.
But you are correct in other points, like Joseph Smith giving priesthood to woman and ordaining a black man, but then the next First Presidency changed that…..until the Kimball First Presidency changed it again. Maybe the Monson First Presidency changes the women ordaining bit again….don’t know…..maybe its the Bednar First Presidency…..one day it must because women are, as you point out, to be Priestesses in the celestial kingdom.
These changes though shouldn’t affect your testimony of what is true and what isn’t. Nor should these changes affect the way we treat the gay person in church although if he is shagging his best friend they will probably both be excommunicated.
PD excommunicated only takes away your blessings of baptism etc you can still, theoretically, end up in the Terrestrial world without ever touching hell.
No, Carlos, perhaps I’ve been talking toooooo long to my gay brother.
But I digress and apologize for the threadjack. I’ll try to stick with the topic of whether or not inoculating the members with truth will be the church’s demise or not. I’ll think about what it would have meant to me personally to have known beforehand some of the things I found out that shocked me enough to cause me to leave the church of my birth…
The comments here were sent off on a sideshow from the get-go. We can keep going there, but, in an unusual aversion to threadjacking, I prefer to get back to the original topic.
John Dehlin thinks it’s “their job to steer the church,” meaning, the top 14 guys. He adds, “If the church decided to follow Corey’s, or Eric’s suggestion, and be up front about its history, to apologize for past mistakes, to let gay people in….. etc., if the church were to become what the critics want it to become it would implode.”
That is one point of view. And if it is one that is supported by readers here, I would love to hear the basis for that belief. I have seen few comments related to Dehlin’s hypothesis. Personally, I think Dehlin’s comment lacks faith in the members. Are there believing faithful members of the Mormon Church on this website? Are there faithful believing members of the Church listening to this podcast? How many of them would leave the church, with their families, if President Gordon B. Hinckley were to say that Joseph Smith did in fact have 34 wives? Would any believers on this site leave the church if President Gordon B. Hinckley were to apologize for the aversion therapy used on homosexuals on the campus of Brigham Young University?
Can you just see it now? Bishop Sessions arrives home from General Priesthood Meeting and calls a family council with all the children and lovely Sister Sessions. Bishop Sessions then explains to his family that they are leaving the LDS Church because President Gordon B. Hinckley had just said President Joseph Smith used a peepstone with his face in a hat, over the course of many months, to create the Book of Mormon. And further, he said the Church was apologetic for practicing aversion therapy and through a private foundation, the church will work with subjects of that practice in creating an independent charitable organization. Unable to bear these words from the Prophet, Bishop Sessions leaves the church, along with most the other members of his ward. This seems like a preposterous and unlikely scenario.
Inoculation is a unique topic. Are we inoculating from a deadly virus? Or inoculating from the truth? Nobody, including Ostler, is promoting an inoculation against further lies. We are discussing inoculation where the truth is the threat to the members. I don’t see a need to protect from the truth. I understand not teaching the complex details to small children, but that is the same with Calculus, Physics and Presidential Elections. I say share the truth, no more milky meaty debates. Lets stick to facts and truths.
Eric describes the need to change the institution, and suggests communicating to the leaders regarding needed change. I agree with Eric that the institution, if it is to change and become more honest, needs cooperation and direction from the leaders. I accept that to ask for that from the leaders, especially leaders that have been installed for 50 plus years, could be perceived as criticism. I recognize that criticism is not acceptable to some Mormons or to any of the apostles, even when the criticism is true.
It is alarming to me that there is a huge group of people that are willing to ignore the pain, betrayal, losses, fears and sorrow of individuals because to merely acknowledge the existence of those people is a perceived insult to the revered leaders of this church. In cases where the pain or loss is acknowledged, it is often blamed on the victim where the Church’s role is viewed as mostly perfect. Blake Ostler’s approach to describe those people as victims of their own laziness or selective hearing is just a derivative of the conclusion that it is not the church’s fault or the fault of the leaders of the church. I don’t believe that the hurt and angry person lied to themselves, they were lied to, and we can all show a bit of understanding.
When y’all get your little shrink-wrapped set of church magazines in the mail, and open up your Ensign and New Era and The Friend, I hope you enjoy the fun pictures and motivating stories. Happy, smiling, Forever Families are represented by women and girls sewing buttons, children having family home evening and men being the priesthood leaders. The church is bigger and wider than that. The church is made up of all sorts of people with a wide array of beliefs and convictions. There are people in the pews that believe the scriptures contain a literal history, and some that think it is mythological creative writing. There are those that think all forms of coffee and tea are not allowed, and some that think a frozen frappaccino from Starbucks, with 8 pumps of Chai Tea, is fine. After all - it’s not hot. There are homosexuals in the church. Some are suffering silently. Some will find contentment and survive in the church, perhaps even happily. Helmut mentions Stuart Matis, he was a Mormon, and so is his family.
It is my observation that few families exist where every member over multiple generations is a consistent temple recommend holding believer. The Mormon community is diverse in its family structures and in individual commitment. One need not look far to see evidence of depression, shame, guilt, despair, divorce and anxiety where commitment to the church is not in sync within a family or marriage. An allowance for diversity, especially if it were endorsed from the leaders, could alleviate some of these issues in families.
The repeated message taught to converts, children and even folks that have spent a lifetime in the church is that the Mormons have the one true church and that the prophet is just that, a prophet. He is speaking for God. Along with that comes the silent code – do not criticize the prophet, he speaks for God and he is right. The church is telling the truth about its own foundations and it is, through a prophet, speaking the truth about current issues.
While the church is teaching and preaching of things past along with contemporary issues, children growing up in the church today are watching how we respond to the truth, to their fears, to sexuality, to the environment, to civil rights, to crime and to war among other things. Imagine what is ahead for them when they learn that they were sheltered from the truth about the church and they are told later that it was part of a strategy that was better for the church as a whole so just deal with the pain and betrayal of having been fed ‘milk.’ And later, when confronting a betrayal, she may be told it’s all OK now as the rest of what she was told about the world was absolutely true, after all, it was exactly what the Prophet, President Gordon B. Hinckley, said and he said it nicely. Is it any wonder that that same young woman may then question everything she has been told by church leaders or those that subscribe to his counsel? To me is the risk in lying to children about something as simple as a church history is that everything may crumble when the lie is exposed. Similarly, there is the same risk when contemporary counsel that is potentially harmful is not confronted.
Clearly, I have issues with some things at the Church, including the suggestions in the recent pamphlet, God Loveth His Children. I will not participate in an organization that hosts that rhetoric. I just cant do it. I cannot bear the fear of my kids finding out that I was loyal to a church that suggests shunning homosexuals, for example. I don’t see value in judging ALL Mormons based on the counsel of the leaders, after all, I think there is great diversity in the church and many people if they knew of the counsel in that pamphlet, would not agree with it. So again, just because I disagree with it and leave the church and point out how bad that position may be, does not make me anti-Mormon. It simply means I disagree with President Hinckley on at least one topic and I am happy to say as much.
I mentioned wanting to share something with my kids. I want to share a heritage with them. I want to share where I was born and lived. I want them to appreciate their pioneer heritage and all their ancestors did to build Salt Lake City, Cache Valley other Mormon communities. I regularly host dinners with my mission companions. My Mission President has been a guest at our home and we didn’t have an ultimate fighting match in the dining room. I like these people and speak highly of them. I look forward to seeing them and hope my children know them all very well.
When I quit going to church it was not an easy decision. It was not done in haste. At the time I made that decision, I had no clue how much I would miss the church or how impacting it was on my life. However, I have no regrets and I like where I am today and look forward to forging a different path.
I mentioned my contention regarding the label “anti-Mormon.” My biggest issue with that label is that it is just not true in most applications where it is used. It is thrown around like confetti by leaders and members alike. It is cultural jargon. I do not like the word. I do not like the line it creates within families and within the Mormon community. Disagreement with the prophet does not make one anti-Mormon. It simply makes one topically opinionated or diverse or different or better informed or less informed or whatever but it does not make one anti-Mormon.
Thanks for hosting this John Dehlin. I appreciate that you are willing to saddle up your horses, wear your Sunday best and get to your work/hobby of talking about the Church. I hope this is just the beginning of a large-scale attempt to speak to the wide spectrum of people that make up the Mormon community. All the best my friend.
Jayspec, you are confusing morality and ethics. Morality is about customs. Ethics is about goodness.
You can defend the authoritarianism in the Church because it is customary. The fact remains that authoritarianism, be it secular or religious, does not suit human nature. The sorry state of Mormonism is only one case of many that illustrates the point.
Left Field, any gay person who recognizes that Gordon Hinckley does not have a clue about sexuality will be just fine. Gay people who take Hinckley’s words at face value, will find themselves in a very difficult position.
Denial is always destructive. Gordon Hinckley is demonstrably in denial about sex generally and homosexuality particularly. It would be unhealthy for gays trying to reconcile so called incongruities that only arise if one subscribes to nonsense in the first place.
The best way to deal with nonsense, especially when it is so arrogant, hateful, and destructive, is to abandon it. No homosexual should have ever been burdened with the irrational prejudice of past generations that has long been debunked by science.
Doing so in the name of God is a sacrilege. Jesus taught us to follow the example of the Good Samaritan. Mormon prophets continue to ask us to dump on vulnerable minorities.
What is it about our religious organization that it has to rely on demonization, hate, and fear at the expense of marginal groups?
Do you really want to defend a religion relying on bullying? It seems to me that Mormonism can do a a lot better. There are so many positive aspects about Mormon community that we can safely abandon the cultivation and utilization of enemy images. The perpetual return of the Mormon leadership to scapegoating and enemy imaging reveals a troubling lack of faith.
A leadership style that has to invoke enemy images is bankrupt. How about something positive for a change? We were against abolition, against women’s rights, and against civil rights. We lost all these battles but it has not been the end of the world.
Contrary to the predictions of the prophets, it turns out that the world has become a better place every time it became more inclusive, egalitarian and neighborly. Why that would be a surprise to any Christian, is beyond me. I guess it requires privileged revelation to understand why slavery, racism and sexism were ever a good thing.
In spite of their embarrassing track record, our leaders are asking us today to deny gays their civil rights. Barring a civilizational catastrophe, we will loose that struggle as well. The family will not collapse but in the meanwhile our own children will suffer the most from our unethical activities.
After the death of Stuart Matis, Matthew Shepard’s murder at the hands of a Mormon, our historical problems with race as well as religious violence, it is inexcusable that Mormon authorities continue to talk about homosexuality in terms of sin and abomination. Every life science contradicts the brethren. They could know better but they refuse to learn. That’s willful negligence.
Corey was quite right to refer to this stuff in unambiguous terms. Gay Mormons who hear this podcast can learn from Corey’s words that there are Mormons who love and respect them and their nature. That’s worth a lot in a culture that has sacrificed its children to a cult of leadership.
In fact, prophetic is not too strong an adjective to describe Corey’s language. It might not be perfect but it’s life affirming and inclusive. It also is the truth.
Wow, hard to know where to begin. I appreciate your comments, ME, and am sorry that you carry that burden. I was surprised to hear John talk about the need to innoculate because I took it upon myself to do that within the first 2 years of joining the church. I was introduced to true Anti-Mormons, those who preach against the church and do not always know or tell the truth. That to me is different than those who have disagreement with the church for one reason or another. I would never call those folks “anti-mormons.”
Since I did confront every issue that came before me and was satisfed with the answers I received, I determined not to let anything I might hear concern me until I had as many of the facts as possible. In some cases, no real answers was available but I choose not to believe people that did not have my best interest at heart.
Bottom line is that I agree with you that the church must tell the truth about its history and be willing to put it all out there, warts and all. If the Gospel is really restored to the earth and all these things happened along the way, the members knowing all about it will not change the truthfulness.
Hellmut:
Not exactly sure what you are reading or reading into. Latter-day Saints who try to live the gospel do not hate gays anymore than you hate straight people.
What I want to know if what is all this focus on sex??? There is more to us human beings besides having sex with each other. We should show love and charity to all men and women, regardless of their situation in life. We are expected to do that. That is what the Savior would do.
I don’t know where your rant on Church leaders comes from, I don’t see it that way.
“Mormon prophets continue to ask us to dump on vulnerable minorities.”
Jut a bizarre statement.
Really, Jayspec? We never discriminated against Africans and people of African descent? That never happened?
Mormon leaders never agitated against the women’s movement?
Brigham Young never condemned the abolition movement?
Mark Petersen never preached against the civil rights movement?
Hugh B Brown never compared interracial marriage to breeding farm animals?
We are not fighting gay rights? That wasn’t Gordon Hinckley who told members not to receive their children’s spouses? He didn’t gloat about the success of all these anti-gay referenda and initiatives on national TV? And Stuart Matis is still alive. Did you have a coke with him last week in San Diego?
Your view of Mormon history appears to be rather selective.
“Gay people who take Hinckley’s words at face value, will find themselves in a very difficult position.”
My point, exactly. And for the very people in that difficult and most vulnerable position, I fail to see how a sledge hammer to the face is an effective and admirable approach.
O, now I get it, Left Field. I have to admit that you are right about many people. Others will appreciate Corey’s validation.
I agree. Not everyone is in the same position.
Really enjoyed this podcast. Found Equality and M.E. much more likable than they come off as online.
Regarding the thing about the church being more than the doctrine: Yes, that’s true. It is a culture and wards often are like a family. However, when the foundation of what unites you together is not blood but the credibility of the BoM and Joseph Smith, what happens when people find out that foundation is shaky? What unites them then?
Regarding John D’s comments about what would happen to the church if they were to come clean about things, if that is true and it would collapse what does that tell you about the church? Should it survive?
I’m a former member who has great fondness for my friends in the church and the personal development skills I learned there. However, I could not in good conscience remain a member when I no longer believed the foundational teachings. For me, doctrine trumps culture. It was partly due to the teachings there of progression that enabled my spirituality to evolve beyond those early, naive stages of faith.
I’ve retained my lds friends but I don’t devote my time, talents, or energy to the church. Instead I have found other groups in the community in which to serve and build relationships. In those groups, we are united only by a desire to serve others. That service is not borne out of debatable doctrines and commandments.
Maybe the church is nothing more than a vehicle for those in the early stages of faith. Maybe it doesn’t need to be anything more. It can stay how it is and people will continue to evolve and leave and those who remain will say the others are apostate and everyone will be happy in their own way, eventually. But wow, what a difficult lesson it is for those who evolve when they find out things aren’t quite what they led to believe.
Keep up the good work. The podcasts provide some great food for thought.
Wow, John. This episode struck nerves, raised questions and drew all sorts of folks together here in an extended dialog. Job well done. It validates your vision several years ago of taking Sunstone into the cybersphere.
The observation that a verbal dialog can be more vital than a blogging dialog was born out in this podcast. While I don’t agree with all of Eric and Core’s opinions I found their verbal expressions even more meaningful to me than their clear, thoughtful writing. I applaud the decision to edit the original conversation.
I join with Hellmut in delighting in Ann’s experience as a new convert in a ward that embraced her. I count fellowship and friendship with fellow believers as a partucularly tender blessing.
[Just a note that a "cumom" is a mythical beast from the Book of Mormon. I get asked that all the time. Mayan Elephant named me a couple years ago and insists I give him credit for the name.]
Let me apologize in advance for the “stream of consciousness” nature of this post. I’m trying to synthesize a bunch of ideas in my head, and it’s kinda ocming out all jumbled.
This conversation which has spilled over into other corners of the mormon blogosphere has intrigued me for several reasons. I want to connect up some of the threadjack with the contents of the podcast, because I think there are connections between the ethical problems that many posters here see in mormonism and the idea of “innocculation” and reform in the church. In a nutshell, I would argue that although I don’t believe inocculation will occur, that inocculation and overall reform would be the single best thing that could happen to Mormonism.
Growing up gay in the church gave me a particular experience of myself and my place in the world, most importantly, instilling in me a depth of self-hatred I cannot begin to express or convey. I spent my mission pleading with god to “take it away.” I fasted, prayed, read the scriptures, and ultimately ended up suicidal at BYU a few years later. I am not special in this experience, but rather, I am typical. In a culture where “love the sinner, hate the sin” is the best you can hope for, but where you are clearly different from everyone around you in your affectional/sexual desires, you cannot help but end by hating yourself when it is your “sin” that is hated.
The psychic, emotional, social, sexual damage done to homosexuals as one example raise the question about what exactly a religious institution’s purpose is and what it’s obligations are to its members. My problem with believing and traditional mormons is that their religion has become ideological, that is, the ideas of mormonism take precedence over their ethical effects in the real world. In other words, believing the “right thing” (a twisted kind of orthodoxy) becomes more important than real people, and immoral outcomes are justified by a mere reference to the “correct” belief. My reading of the New Testament (and of JS’s version of the New Testament in the Book of Mormon) is that truly godly people do the opposite. Their hearts are broken and opened to see other people with compassion and equanimity.
Religious institutions like all others should be judged above all on the outcomes and real-world effects of its beliefs. It should be judged by how it treats its adherents, the kind of people it creates, and how its adherents in turn treat each other, and perhaps more importantly, how its adherents treat the non-adherents or those who are different or outsiders. Looking at mormonism from the outside, I see an institution full of people who may have “good hearts,” but who ultimately base their ethical decisions on dogma rather than on the real effects they are having on their fellow humans. That to me is a clear indication of a sick religion.
When religions reach a hardcore “orthodoxy” phase in their development, they lose their ability to change to meet their members’ needs or to create vibrant communities or to answer people’s realworld questions. Instead, such organizations end up as rigid institutions that insist on conformity in practice and, more importantly, in thought and feeling. Contemporary Mormonism, through correlation of information and through a culture of unquestioning trust in leadership, has become such a moribund organization.
I know that many TBMs argue from the position of truth claims. Ultimately and to the contrary, I would argue that truth claims count for nothing if they produce people who act badly in the world, if they hurt real human beings. Such is the state of Mormonism today, where people, communities, individuals in need are only important as window dressing. The true values of the institution are conformity, obedience, uniformity, and orthodoxy.
Innocculating members against disillusionment by teaching and talking about historical problems and doctrinal questions isn’t really the issue for me. Rather, it’s about the kind of religion that Mormonism *might* be if discussions were opened up, so that there were institutional and cultural room for people of differing beliefs. What if mormonism were a religion where we were brought together by our commitment to a set of ideals and morals and a tradition of seeking for truth, rather than by a set of dogmas? What if I could go to sunday school and believe that JS gave us a literary metaphor in the Book of Abraham, the guy next to me believes it is inspired and literal, and we can discuss the impliations of our beliefs without being threatened or feeling the need to kick out the person who believes it differently?
What if the church stopped spending so much time trying to crunch and revise history and hide the truth about its past, and instead engaged the members in deep and important conversation about what it should mean to be a Mormon today, a place where we could honor the religious commitment of our ancestors by continuing their search for truth instead of becoming complacent in the correlation committee’s opinions of doctrine?
What if Mormons were known as the most deeply compassionate and charitable people in America, instead of the freaks who don’t drink or smoke or have sex? What would happen if we allowed the members to talk openly about reforms that needed to happen to bring it up to date with our experiences in teh 21st century, especially vis-a-vis the place of women in the church?
I’m one of those odd ex-mormons who left not because of the hidden past (which honestly I knew mostly about) but because of how deeply unethical the church organization is, how it makes otherwise good, sincere people do evil things because it says so in the CHI.
Now a dose of realism: Humans seem to oscilate between “conservers” and “innovators”, and most individuals are a mixture of the two. I’m afraid that the current iteration of Mormonism appeals to the most deeply conservative (in the literal, not political sense), those who seek comfort in certainty, who find peace in “knowing for sure” that they are right. Even the mildly innovative (e.g., those with a question or two) seem to lose their place in Mormonism at some point. Good people who could make and keep mormonism a vibrant living community must leave because their integrity won’t let them stay or because the community rejects them.
I say inocculation is not enough. Reform is the only thing that will ultimately save mormonism. The conserver position will work for Mormonism for the time being, but in the long run, a Mormonism that continues along this path will simply fall back to its earlier position in the world, a religion of fanatic irrelevancy.
I was born and raised in the church, with a long line of Mormon ancestry going back to Joseph Smith’s original group of followers. I tried hard to be good and always choose the right, and I did fairly well but somehow I got to BYU and the first real temptation struck. After falling into actual sin territory for a very short time (only two weeks) with a man I loved, I bid adieu to him when he moved abroad. A couple months later, I realized I was pregnant.
All I could think about was my high priest dad’s words from my childhood: “Any daughter of mine who comes home pregnant out of wedlock is no longer my daughter.” The morality code at BYU weighed heavily as well. What would they do to me if they found out I was pregnant but still attending BYU?? Worst of all I knew that I had fallen in the eyes of God and failed him miserably.
I left BYU and went home, ashamed and feeling disgraced and worthless inside. I went to church, and sought out my bishop to whom I confessed all and repented of my horrible sin I had committed in love, the sin that I had been taught by my parents, the general authorities, and my young womens leaders would leave me unclean and unworthy of a righteous returned missionary, as good and desirable to righteous men as a chewed piece of gum or a licked cupcake for all intents and purposes. I was given a year of formal probation, meaning I could not accept a calling or take the sacrament for a year. The shame and horror I felt when my younger brothers and sisters and peers at church watched me pass on the sacrament tray without partaking was excruciating and humiliating, and only enhanced my feelings of shame and unworthiness. I endured pain and horror when the Primary President, who didn’t realize I was pregnant, called me to ask me to be a primary substitute teacher. I had to tell her no, and she thought I was being lame because she had known me her whole life and she knew that I always helped out when needed, and she also knew I’d be a great primary teacher. I finally had to tell her I COULDN’T have a calling right now or teach in primary. She never talked to me again.
Nobody in the meager singles ward or in my family ward asked me to date. Why would they? Who wants a woman with a kid already on the way, fathered by someone else? That doesn’t exactly fit in with the ideal mate they are taught to seek to fulfill the righteous goal of two virgins marrying and creating an eternal family. So I worked and I lived and I survived. When I began dating my non-member husband, I felt self-worth and alive and desirable as a human being for the first time in months. He saw in me the good woman I had always been, and we were married when my son was 8 months old.
Then came the years and years of sitting through church, hearing time and again how my family didn’t quite measure up. I did not have an eternal family. I had chosen against the advice of the church, and taken a man for time only, not eternity. I would be sitting in Relief Society and be blindsided by the teacher asking for my point of view as someone who hadn’t been married in the temple. I was counselor in Young Women’s for years and the lessons there are particularly focused toward the ideal family and how women are supposed to support the young men to prepare and go on missions, to marry one and support his priesthood power, and be good wives and mothers in Zion. I faithfully taught those girls the lessons word for word, how anything less than temple marriage and being sealed to a righteous returned missionary and stay-at-home motherhood is exactly what they should strive toward to avoid the tragic consequences and unhappiness that befall those who do not do this. I taught those sweet girls how it’s even worse to partake of God’s sacred sexual gifts before they are sanctioned by God in the holy sealing ordinance. I endured the pain of being made an example of in the group lessons by the Stake President’s wife, who was the YW president, as she too would unexpectedly ask for my input as One Who Knows the consequences of chosing wrong. I knew that telling them I was happy or that life can be good with a good man, no matter what his religion is, was not something she would want me to say. I suppressed my pain during each of those moments and lessons, and did what I knew they would want me to, as I was still a good girl who wanted to please Heavenly Father.
I got assigned as a visiting teacher with no partner to a stalwart woman in the ward – the bishop’s wife. In our first visit while getting to know each other, she asked me about my husband. He’s not a member? Oooh. Then she asked me how old my children are. My son was 11. She asked how long I had been married. 10 years. “Oh, but I thought you said your son was 11….oh!…that means…..Ooooh.” Pitying looks and uncomfortable silence. Another judgement made, after repentance supposedly took my sin away. Another opportunity to feel worthless in the eyes of my peers and feel residual shame over that one time I dared to sin.
Being in the primary presidency for years, I was expected to teach all those diverse children about eternal families and what they should strive for in their own lives, because anything less is not what righteous people do. I remember teaching about how families can be together forever while looking into the hurt and wounded eyes of Brother Z., the teacher whose impending divorce had just been announced the week before, and whose daughter was crying in the back row. I hid my own pain well, I thought. Until later that night when my son asked me, “How come WE’RE not sealed together forever?” How do you explain such a nasty concept to a child? Your father doesn’t believe the church is true, honey, and if we don’t go to the temple, then we aren’t sealed together forever. “But why not? He loves me, and I love him!” I know. I know. It’s God’s plan. “But where will we GO when we die? Who will I be with??” If you are really righteous, and marry your own sweetheart in the temple someday, you’ll be with her and your children! “But what about you and Dad?” Oh, don’t worry about us. It’ll all work out in the next life. I’ll be OK. “But will I see you there?” Pain like that eviscerates and is impossible to hid from your children.
There is something not right about the fact that in order to teach “correct” principles of the gospel, you must first minimize the importance of one of your family members, or place unfair judgements on them.
I endured 13 years of this kind of internal torture and pain. I knew I didn’t measure up and never would unless I could somehow get my husband to join the church and believe as I did. I tried my best. Didn’t happen. I wondered if I was expected to divorce him as a way to give all I had for the sake of the gospel, because I knew I couldn’t attain celestial life with my Father in Heaven without going to the temple and sealing myself to a worthy priesthood holder. Countless times I wondered whose second or third or hundredth wife I’d be in the next life. Without my husband of choice. I finally decided to have faith and get myself to the temple if he wasn’t going to go with me. My bishop had been pushing me to get to the temple. I took the temple prep class. I paid all my tithing. I was active, faithful, magnified all my callings, visit taught 100% every month. When the time came for my temple recommend interview, I was asked to bring my husband, and I figured it was so he could be taught a bit more about the temple.
Imagine my surprise when the bishop said he needed my husband’s permission in writing in order to allow me to go take out my endowments. Imagine my shock and horror when he refused.
So there I was, expected to remain faithful and find peace and happiness in a religion that constantly reminded me how I was not quite there and likely never will be, how I was lacking in many ways, how I was really less important than my non-LDS husband when it comes to matters of my own eternal salvation. And I did remain faithful. I defended the church when my husband said it was horrible that they’d require a grown, righteous woman to get written permission like a kindergartner to attend the temple. I believed when the bishop said the rule was in place to promote marital harmony. I somehow excused the church and tried to not resent my husband for simply taking the patriarchal baton the church handed him because I was a lowly woman who didn’t matter.
Then one day I heard one of my beehives from the class I taught in YW had left the church, and was super happy in her new faith. I was shocked, and so I googled the words “Why do people leave the LDS Church?” One of the first things I found was John Dehlin’s podcast that sought to explain to believing members and church leaders the truths that some members discover that causes them to leave the church.
Imagine my horror in finding out that the beloved prophet Joseph Smith (whom I had admired enough to name my son after, along with Joseph in Egypt) had married over 30 women, some of whom were still married to men he had sent on missions! Imagine my horror in reading the accounts of how he convinced Heber C. Kimball to give his 14 year old daughter to him in plural marriage by promising her entire family eternal salvation if they said yes! Imagine my horror when I found out that he did his plural wife thing behind Emma’s back, and denied it publicly when someone called him on it!!
I had been made to feel low and dirty and worthless for my two weeks of sex and my lifetime of keeping an “illegitimate” baby out of wedlock, all by the very church that had been founded by a guy like Joseph Smith???
How would inoculation or full disclosure have helped me? It would have helped more than anyone could ever know……………….I spent too many years of my life and my children’s lives and my husband’s life focusing on the ways in which I didn’t measure up, because every single lesson and talk and general conference was geared toward reminding me of the ways I differed from the Proclamation to the Family model. The church has lost sight of the very real life that Joseph Smith led, and rather than portray the man as he really was, it has instead created a perfected demigod out of him where instead I now see a charismatic lover of people who was not afraid to show it, who was not afraid to be human, and who was not made to feel like a worthless piece of chewed gum under the heels of Almighty God. If the First Presidency would show open acceptance and understanding toward those who are just as “different” and imperfect and non-ideal as Joseph Smith was, the church membership would certainly follow their lead, and heave a collective sigh of relief that finally, FINALLY, they can openly accept and love and embrace their countless friends, family, and loved ones who never did fit the tiny little boxed ideal that is promoted today.
Wow dude, Mayan Elephant & cumom: I’m left exhausted from reading ya thesis here!
Dear Sister Mary Lisa:
Your words:
“all I could think about was my high priest dad’s words from my childhood: “Any daughter of mine who comes home pregnant out of wedlock is no longer my daughter.” ”
actually show all that’s wrong with the church, the US church, but especially the Utah church. Jesus teachings are different to this, surely.
Maybe you wo