To take a line from Shakespeare — a pox upon both your houses. The Ex-Mos and TBMs continue to argue past each other and never the twain shall meet. While the thought of a kind, loving heavenly being comforts and then closes the ears of the believer, the list of inconsistencies, logical disconnects and “anti-Mormon” cliches assuages and then closes the ears of the non-believer.

Unless you frame your debate, it will continue to be unproductive, each side creating their own echo chamber of reinforcement until the cacophony makes it impossible for anyone to hear what is going on.

Here is where I would propose to take the discussion: How do you reconcile the conflicts? To quote this guy I once read, “By proving contraries, truth is made manifest.” Bonus points if you can tell me who said that. The discussion then moves from cliche and rote response to a value and factual discussion in an attempt to find common ground.

For example: Blacks and the priesthood. The Word of God is for all of God’s children. You are punished for your own sins, not Adam’s transgressions (or Cain’s.) Racism is a rampant cultural and historical phenomenon which prompted violent conflict between those who thought racism violated God’s law and those who believed their race was chosen by God to rule over the lesser beings (both sides used religion as the basis for their beliefs — one of those contraries Joseph was talking about.).

The argument came to a head in the spring of 1820 (bonus points if you know what else happened in the spring of 1820) in the United States with a Missouri Compromise. The Compromise held the Union together for about forty more years until war broke out, but the entire time temperatures were broiling on the race issue in the United States. Northern (upper state New York) abolitionist leaning religions moving south into Missouri and southern Illinois were not well received.

Not surprising that depending on your viewpoint the ban on blacks holding the priesthood came from:
a) false doctrine;
b) the human capacity for self-deception while striving for self-preservation;
c) individual racism of some church leaders;
d) conforming to the current societal norms; or
e) some other reason arising out of the factual scenario.

The anti- and the pro- both believe that the whole racism thing was a bad idea, they just get there different ways. Conflict resolved, sort of.

So who is right? How should we define, the capital T, “Truth”? I’m going to come clean right now — I’m in the Joseph Smith camp on this one, at least for how to determine Truth. The reason I’m in the Joseph Smith camp is that he is also in the historical philosophical tradition of the American Enlightenment and the scientific method and he made one of the first attempts to apply that philosophy to religious thought. Joseph Smith also had a strong sense of American individualism — study it out and figure it out for yourself. How he succeeded can be argued, but I love the empirical, scientific approach to religion. (To avoid numerous digressions into atheism, geology, cosmology and science, I’m only talking in this post about applying an empirical, scientific approach to internal subjective experience.)

The scientific method gives us a mechanism for creating hierarchal judgments on different hypotheses — the hypothesis that is the most consistent with all the data is the most correct, the most true hypothesis.

Another way of saying this is Truth is inclusive. If you draw lines that exclude, you don’t have the Truth, you’ve left something out.

Joseph Smith believed this and it shows in his theology, for example eternal progression and baptism for the dead. He wanted everything included and this is a huge comfort point for believers. It leads to a Mormon mother’s common belief that a non-believing child can eventually end up in the temple and end up included, despite the past. What a comfort that must be to her, based on her own world view.

So I am looking at TBM’s hypothesis which says “my view is right because it is more inclusive, God’s plan provides eternal salvation for all mankind, even Ex-Mos.”

The conflicting Ex-Mo hypothesis is “my view is right because the reality and data coming out of the religion is that the religion does exactly the opposite of include all mankind, it excludes everyone except the elect.”

So there are the two contraries, how do we manifest Truth. In the spirit of Johnathan Swift, let me make a modest proposal: Eat the children to stop the famine (sorry literary joke that I couldn’t resist).

Seriously, the TBM’s hypothesis fails because despite the efforts of the Church at inclusion theologically, the reality is countless people feel excluded and some are even forced to be excluded by a process known as excommunication. Just makes the whole “one heart, one mind” thing seem a little narrow and false.

The counter hypothesis and its proponents equally fail because it fails to include the large group who devoutly believes. This makes it equally weak and equally vulnerable to attack by those believers.

My proposed hypothesis, neither of you are correct. I’ve studied it out. Thought about it. Prayed about it. I came up with the answer that neither of you were true. (Told you I was in the Joseph Smith camp).

I’m 1/16 th Chippewa and don’t even look a little Indian! I figure from my knee down is pure Chippewa and  for whatever reason  I am pretty proud of that. In the afterlife if possible I would like that section preserved if God sees fit.  Below is my Great Grandmother and Grandmother — you can see even from one generation to the next how things change.

I would also like to see my ancestors who are pure Chippewa with all their beautiful dark skin and get to know them as they were living on the earth before God changes their skin colour to white.

We have met an Elder who the sisters of all ages seem to swoon over — he is half Tongan and half Hawaiian. There is no other way to put it but he is a lady killer! We discussed this subject, and it doesn’t seem to bother him if the doctrine does literally mean white and not pure.  He doesn’t mind if he becomes white in the afterlife. It seems to disturb me more than it does him. It’s something he and his family have come to grips with.

I guess I better get down to what has caused my dissonance.   Here are some statements by the prophets about a Book of Mormon passage found in 2 Nephi 30:6 regarding a change Lamanites would experience if they embraced the Book of Mormon.  In every edition save one (1840), the words “white and delightsome” were used.  In the 1981 edition, the editors reverted to the 1840 edition’s “pure and delightsome” wording.

Prophet Statements

President Brigham Young
“You may inquire of the intelligent of the world whether they can tell why the aborigines of this country are dark, loathsome, ignorant, and sunken into the depths of degradation …When the Lord has a people, he makes covenants with them and gives unto them promises: then, if they transgress his law, change his ordinances, and break his covenants he has made with them, he will put a mark upon them, as in the case of the Lamanites and other portions of the house of Israel; but by-and-by they will become a white and delightsome people.” (Journal of Discourses 7:336)

W.W. Phelps to Brigham Young quoting Joseph Smith:

“It is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites that their posterity, may become white, delightsome and just.’” In the 8 December 1831 Ohio Star, Ezra Booth wrote of a revelation directing Mormon elders to marry with the “natives.” (Sunstone, November 1993, footnote #5, pg. 52)

Apostle Spencer W. Kimball

“I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today…. The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos, five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation. At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl–sixteen–sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents–on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather….These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness.” (Apostle Elder Spencer W. Kimball, General Conference Address, April 1, 1967)

2 Nephi 5:21

“And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, and they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.”

3 Nephi 2:12-15 teaches that dark-skinned Lamanites who converted unto the Lord had their curse taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites.

“White” versus “Pure” (Maxwell Institute)

According to the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon, Nephi, speaking of the latter-day restoration, discussed the future conversion of Lehi’s descendants: “And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people” (2 Nephi 30:6). In 1840 the Book of Mormon was “carefully revised by the translator,” Joseph Smith, and in that edition the expression “white and delightsome” was changed to “pure and delightsome.” This change seems to reflect the Prophet’s concern that modern readers might misinterpret this passage as a reference to racial changes rather than to changes in righteousness. Possibly his sojourns in Ohio and Missouri had altered his perspective of the racial connotations of the term white in the contemporary United States, particularly among slaves and slaveholders. He may not have gained much understanding of this matter during his upbringing in New England and New York State, where slavery was not as common.

Unfortunately for subsequent Latter-day Saint interpreters, following the Prophet’s death the changes in the 1840 edition of the Book of Mormon were not carried over into subsequent printings, which were instead based on an edition prepared by the Twelve Apostles in Great Britain after a copy of an earlier edition. The apostles, being in England, were not familiar with the 1840 edition. Consequently, Latter-day Saints did not reap the benefit of the Prophet’s clarification until it was restored in the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon.  Some critics have been fond of citing statements of earlier Latter-day Saint leaders, who once interpreted 2 Nephi 30:6 to mean that conversion leads to a change of skin color; however, to use such statements today is anachronistic at best and disingenuous at worst since these statements were all expressed previous to the 1981 correction and merely echo a misinterpretation of the Book of Mormon text rather than the authoritative text itself. Moreover, a change in Lamanite skin color was clearly never intended by the “white/pure and delightsome” passage that the Prophet Joseph modified because it does not refer to the Lamanites at all, but to the Nephites and Jews in the latter days who turn to Christ (see 2 Nephi 30:1—7).

But is the Prophet’s change from “white” to “pure” justified in the scriptural context? The answer is yes. The terms white and pure are used synonymously in Daniel 7:9, Revelation 15:6, and Doctrine and Covenants 110:3. They are also found together in a number of passages where they clearly refer to those who are purified and redeemed by Christ (Alma 5:24; 13:12; 32:42; Mormon 9:6; D&C 20:6). Similarly, Mormon expressed the hope that the Nephites “may once again be a delightsome people” (Words of Mormon 1:8).

Poll

[poll id ="146"]

[poll id = "148"]

[poll id = "149"]

[poll id = "150"]

Where I have dissonance or questions

1. Is from how I understand the Book of Mormon and statements of past prophets contradict our view of it being pure today.
2. There has been no church conference talk that I am aware of clarifying the teachings of the past prophets i.e. President Kimball white vs pure. Many members I would suggest aren’t clear on our past beliefs and our current progressive belief on pure.
3. If these were president Kimball’s own personal views why haven’t the church come out with a statement expounding on this?
4. As a church, are we resolute that this was a clarification of the word white — never meant to refer to a person with dark skin pigmentation who would turn white upon a conversion to the gospel; but referring to a cleaner state of heart? This hypothesis in my mind fails to make clear other passages in the Book of Mormon that still make a connection with “iniquity” and skin color. See, for example, 2 Nephi 5:21 as well as past prophet statements.
5. Why did it take God 140 years to clarify this misunderstanding?
6. If we quote what President Kimball said in 1967 conference would we be considered anachronistic today?
7. Is FARMS saying Apostle Kimball’s views are out of date , old fashioned, obsolete?

Recently I drove up Little Cottonwood Canyon with my brother and nephew.  This is the canyon in which many of your ancestors pulled out  the granite for the construction of the salt lake temple. As soon as we passed the granite facings on the side of the canyon my nephew played a song on his iPod by Corb Lund Brother Brigham Brother Young and it brought mental flashes into my mind of men working on the side of the mountain blasting granite out of it.    It made me think of the struggles that men and women had even back then with the faith in many ways very similar to our day. From what I have read Mr Lund isn’t LDS but has relatives that are. Im assuming one of his relatives is a historian buff? Its probably safe to presume this song will never be played in a chapel but I can’t help liking it!  You can listen to his song Here

Brother Brigham Brother Young

music and lyrics by Corb Lund

I have sinned so gravely Brother Brigham, Brother Young
I have sinned so gravely Brother Young
That only you can save me Brother Brigham, Brother Young
That only you can save me Brother Young

I have revealed the temples secrets Brother Brigham, Brother Young
The temple garments, oaths and secrets Brother Young
I have apostatized and doubted Brother Brigham, Brother Young
And borne my testimony falsely Brother Young

And I have loved a woman Brother Brigham, Brother Young
A woman in adultery Brother Young
I have also wed a negress Brother Brigham, Brother Young
My fifth wife has some color Brigham Young

I now see that you’re a prophet Brother Brigham, Brother Young
A living, breathing prophet Brother Young
And now I believe the revelations Brother Brigham, Brother Young
I now believe your revelations, every one

Even the ones beyond all reason Brother Brigham, Brother Young
Even the ones beyond all reason Brother Young
For you’re the Lord’s own earthly prophet Brother Brigham, Brother Young
And he’s simply testing in our faith o Brigham Young

My only hope for exaltation Brother Brigham, Brother Young
My only chance for exaltation Brother Young
Is to send me o’er the rim of the basin Brother Brigham, Brother Young
The rim of the Great Salt Lake Basin Brother Young

For water cannot save me Brother Brigham, Brother Young
Baptismal water cannot save me Brigham Young
My sins are just too deep a dye o Brother Brigham, Brother Young
My sins are just too deep a stain o Brother Young

So send Avenging Angels Brother Brigham, Brother Young
Won’t you send Destroying Danites Brother Young
To spill my blood upon the earth o Brother Brigham, Brother Young

So what do you think?

Do you find the song offensive?

Is it historicaly accurate of what may have happened to some of the saints in the salt lake valley?

Does it bare some similarites to what we have gone through in our day or not?

members of the Lemba Tribe

The History Channel has a show called “Digging for the Truth.” In season 1, they did an episode called “The Lost Tribe of Israel”, which highlighted the Lemba Tribe in South Africa.  This group claims to be a Hebrew people who were displaced around 700 BC, about 100 years before Lehi left Jerusalem.  I couldn’t help but notice many similarities between their story, and the story of Lehi.  (This is a short version of my post.  The longer version can be found here.)

Let me give a brief background on Israel, and the Lost Tribes of Israel.  We all remember that the Kingdom of Israel was a united kingdom under David and Solomon.  After Solomon’s death, the kingdom split into a northern kingdom called the Kingdom of Israel, containing the 10 tribes, and a southern kingdom called the Kingdom of Judah, containing Jerusalem and the tribes of Benjamin, Judah, and part of Joseph.  The tribe of Levi (also referred to as Kohanim) was the priestly tribe, and did not receive a land of inheritance, and was sprinkled throughout the northern and southern kingdoms to take care of religious matters.  Around 700 BC, the Assyrians invaded the Northern Kingdom.  Isaiah prophesied that if the southern Kingdom turned to God, they would be protected.  100 years later, during the life of Lehi and Jeremiah, the Babylonians took over the Assyrian territory, and took control over the Southern Kingdom as well.

The video has some really interesting claims about the lost tribes, and the Lemba, a black African tribe claiming to be Jewish.  Scholars seem to be split as to whether the lost tribes will ever be found.  Here are two different schools of thought.  The first comes from a scholar who believes the lost tribes could still exist.  The DVD refers to the term “diaspora.”  When the tribes were scattered (or dispersed), they had to learn to live their religion without a temple, so this scattering is called the diaspora.  Note this traditional Jewish dress they wear.

I also want to mention that the show’s host is Josh Bernstein.  He has some Jewish ancestry, studied archaeology in New York, and has a home in the four corners region of Utah.  He is quite an outdoorsman, and loves to do crazy stunts in his own life, and in the show.  He is both the narrator, and interviewer.  I even got a kick out of it when he uncovered a scorpion, and said, “that’s much bigger than they are in Utah.”

The DVD discusses various lost tribe claims.  Quoting from the video,

People have claimed to have found lost tribes all over the world, from Siberia to Australia.  Some of the first Europeans who landed in the Americas, assumed the natives were lost tribes, and even tried to communicate with them in Hebrew.  Historian Hillel Halkin has written a book [Across the Sabbath River] about the lost tribes, and thinks that they could still exist today.

Bernstein, “Why are you so passionate about the lost tribes of Israel?”

Halkin, “The lost tribe myth really is through Jewish eyes among other things, a story of tough Jews.  Living still like the Jews biblical ancestors:  independent, warrior-like, fearless, all the things that Jews in the diaspora, over the ages generally were not.

Contrasted by this view is another scholar.

Israel Finkelstein [Archaeologist, Te l Aviv University] believes that when they Assyrians conquered this land, they wiped out all the leadership of the tribes of Israel.  The populations was either killed or assimilated into other parts of the Assyrian Empire.  He doesn’t believe they could be found today.

…

Finkelstein, “I don’t think that you can travel anywhere, and look for the lost tribes.  I mean I make a distinction between what we know from archeology, history, and so on, and all sorts of popular ideas of going this way or that way, and finding a lost tribe.  There’s no need whatsoever to go around the world, in my opinion, and look for lost tribes.”

So, let’s talk about the Lemba, who claim to be one of the lost tribes of Israel, just as Lehi and his descendants claim.  What I found so interesting was the fact that the first part of the journey follows the same route that Mormons believe Lehi followed, along the frankincense trail in Saudi Arabia.  The difference is that once they got to Yemen, Lehi and his group turned east, while the Lemba seem to have stayed in Yemen for a time, before heading south across the Red Sea through Africa.  Here is a map of the Lemba’s proposed route.

Proposed route of Lemba

The Lemba’s story goes like this:  Thousands of years ago, they were forced out of Israel, and settled in a place called Sena, which is believed to be the present day Yemen.  There they lived as traders and craftsmen, until war, or natural disaster pushed them across the Red Sea and into Africa.  Then began a slow migration south.  Along the way, according to the Lemba, they built great stone cities.  It’s a claim that has fascinated archaeologists.  Why?  Because the ruins of ancient stone cities still exist in southern Africa today.”…

To help me make sense of it, I’ve asked historian Dr. Magdel Le Roux [University of South Africa, Pretoria] to come with me to the site.  She’s been studying the Lemba for years and has just published a book on the similarities between their social customs, and those of the Old Testament Israelites.

Josh Bernstein, “There are specific parallels between the religious practices of Lemba today and the religious practices of ancient Israel?”

Le Roux, “Definitely.  They’ve got remnants of an ancient type of Israelite religious practices, so in a way they concert this very special ancient type of…

Bernstein, “an old school religion”

Le Roux, “yes”

Bernstein, “But how do they maintain their religious identity?  How’d they keep it intact for so many years in this long journey from Israel down to South Africa?”

Le Roux, “That’s a good question.  I think it’s by means of oral tradition.  By keeping themselves seperate from other groups.  They lived with other peoples, moving with them, migrating down with them.  That’s one of the characteristics that they keep their culture.  They just live it.”

The Lemba claim to have built many stone cities along the way, especially in Zimbabwe and South Africa.  The show quotes a few scholars who believe they have found some of these cities, and show archaeological links between Yemen, Zimbabwe, and South Africa.  While there is no archaeological evidence tying the Lemba directly to Israel, they exhibit some amazing social, musical, and religious practices that seem quite related to ancient Judaism.  The most interesting part of the show was the discussion of DNA tests which seem to indicate a Middle Eastern origin.

I guess what is interesting about the Lemba is that they have a similar story to the people of Lehi, but 100 years prior.  The DNA issue in the Americas has led many Mormon scholars to take the position that the Nephites were an insignificant population genetically, and that DNA cannot be traced because of their minority status.  However, the case of the Lemba shows that Semitic origins can be traced among a small minority population.  Even though they look strikingly similar to the Venda and Bantu tribes, they have a different DNA makeup than these other indigenous African tribes.

That’s why I’ve come to Johannesburg.  The scientists here at the National Health Laboratory Services have screened in the genetic profiles of the Lemba, and their neighboring tribes, the Venda, and the Bantu.  They’ve come up with some revealing conclusions.

…Bernstein, “So the genetic data doesn’t say that the Lemba are Jewish, as much as it says they have Semitic origins.”

Jenkins, “Yes, that’s how we put it.  What we were saying was that there is a non-African contribution to the gene pool of the Lemba, which is not evident in the peoples amongst whom they live in that part of the world.”

…

Soodyall , “this is the very interesting thing-that the South African Lemba have a particular y-chromosome pattern or lineage that’s common in people who identify as the Kohanim, or the Jewish priests.”

In the Jewish tradition, the Kohanim are part of the priestly caste.  Amazingly, scientists have isolated a strand of DNA that is strongly associated with the Kohanim.  It’s called the Cohen Modal Haplotype, and it’s almost exclusive to Jews who claim the priestly heritage-almost exclusive.  The Cohen Modal Haplotype has been found among the priestly caste of the Lemba.

Soodyall , “The observation that the Cohen pattern was commonest in that one particular group is something that begs exploration.”

I remember that there is a theory claiming that the BoM took place in Africa.  Now I know that FARMS considered it laughable, but as I look at the map above, there do seem to be some significantly sized lakes and seas along the Lemba route.  The BoM also talks about the Lamanites were a “dark and loathsome people.”  Now, if the Lamanites had intermarried with an indigenous population like the Lemba did, then the “dark” part becomes a very interesting description for this people (though the “loathsome” part is obviously racially charged.)

Now I’m not claiming the Lemba are the Lamanites, but don’t you think that this opens up some possibilities for the Book of Mormon?  Perhaps we really need to consider some really radical settings for the BoM (in addition to the Malay Theory I reviewed previously).  What do you think?

As I read the scriptures, listen to conference talks, and other materials about the Church, I get the feeling sometimes that things can be a little vague.  Human nature seems to dictate that an absolute answer is always preferred over ambiguity and vagueness.

But in the religious realm, it is not to be.  Vagueness is defined as not clear in meaning or application or, indistinctly felt, perceived, understood, or recalled; hazy.

The fact that there are so many religions and religious denominations seems to confirm this idea. For instance, if there is one God, our Heavenly Father, why does He seem to manifest Himself so differently to different people, to different cultures, and at different times?

For example, In the LDS Church, we believe that Baptism is an essential ordnance to enter the kingdom of God and to progress toward eternal life and salvation.  And there are Christian denominations that echo that same idea.  However, there are just as many, maybe more, who, reading the same scriptures, deny the necessity of Baptism for salvation.  Vagueness occurs because the scriptures are not 100% clear on that point.  Within the LDS Church, the Prophet Joseph Smith did make it clear, in the Fourth Article of Faith, that Baptism is essential.

In another, more contemporary example, many conservative Christians and Jews, for that matter, look at scriptures in Leviticus to proclaim that Homosexual activity is wrong. (Leviticus 18:22, see also Romans 1:27, 29-31, 32) However, religious organizations and individuals more sympathetic toward the Gay Movement have interpreted those scriptures very differently and say that they do not even address the issue of homosexuality.  (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh5.htm) The scriptures do not come right out and address the issue so clearly it cannot be open to interpretation. Vagueness.

In Doctrine and Covenants Section 89, the Word of Wisdom verse 9, “hot drinks are not for the body or belly.” But what is a hot drink?  Anyone’s first read of that verse would lead them to conclude it was ANY drink that was HOT  That does not seem terribly vague.

But wait, there’s more!

In 1842 Hyrum Smith, Assistant President of the Church and also the Presiding Patriarch, provided an interpretation of the Word of Wisdom’s proscription of “hot drinks”:

“And again “hot drinks are not for the body, or belly;” there are many who wonder what this can mean; whether it refers to tea, or coffee, or not. I say it does refer to tea, and coffee.  (Times and Seasons, 1842-06-01, vol. 3, p. 800.

But it does not refer to hot chocolate, hot herbal tea, hot barley drinks, etc. But, many have also speculated as to why coffee and tea?  Could it be the caffeine? If so, that means cola drinks, or anything else that might have caffeine in it.  You mean like chocolate? Wait a minute! I thought hot chocolate was ok? What about Mountain Dew, its not a cola drink?  Here is a case where something seems pretty straightforward but has been made somewhat vague.

Here are a few other topics that have been vague at one time or another:

• Tithing: Net or Gross?
• New and Everlasting  Covenant of Marriage: Plurality of Wives or just Eternal marriage ( Sealing)
• Missouri Extermination Order: Kill them or just run them out of town?
• United Order: Voluntary or the Law of Consecration?
• Blacks and the Priesthood:  Doctrine, policy or  just plain prejudice?
• Many, many more

So why would Gospel Principles be Vague?

First, maybe they are not all that vague.  Maybe, you need to find the right source of information. If the scriptures seem vague, what have the Living Prophets said?  If that is vague, what does the Lord tell you when you pray about it or what does the Spirit testify to you about it?  Still nothing?  What are you willing t o take on faith alone?

Second, We do need to develop faith. “NOW faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”  (Hebrews 11:1). Some things have no immediate answer and must be taken on faith alone until a later time.

Thirdly, we are here on earth as a test.  Ultimately, we decide for ourselves the path we walk. Like the verse at the beginning of this post, if we did not have our agency to decide for ourselves and had to be told each and every little detail, we would not progress to reach the goal of living with Our Father in Heaven and His Son throughout eternity.

Sure, things can be a bit vague and uncertain at times.  But it is part of the great Plan of happiness for us to endure to the end.

So, the question at hand is how do you deal with the vagueness and ambiguity? Perhaps you think there is none. Feel free to list your vague Gospel Principles.

General Conference must be coming this weekend.

Twice a year, I can’t help formulating hopes and expectations, or making predictions about what we might hear in the next General Conference. There are a few things that are givens. We can expect to hear spiritual messages that transcend the issues discussed most often on LDS blogs. We can expect to hear speakers relate sincere, heart-felt experiences that bring comfort to those who are struggling with loneliness, loss, sickness, guilt, or feelings of inadequacy. Those are messages I know I can expect to hear every conference.  But the anticipation that slowly builds in my mind over the couple weeks before Conference is whether we will hear anything about the issues typically discussed in the Bloggernacle by those for whom the Church is more than a religion or a lifestyle, and who make a hobby out of studying Mormonism from an academic standpoint.

Major changes in the Church have been announced at General Conferences in the past, and when the Ninth Article of Faith tells us that God “will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God,” I can’t help wondering whether any of those “great and important things” will come out this Conference.

I invite you to express your own hopes, expectations, and predictions for this coming General Conference in the comment section below. But before doing so, I’d like to share with you a few of mine.

1. Consensus and Clarity About the Nature of Revelation

I have come to believe we are a bit schizophrenic in the Church when it comes to defining and explaining what “revelation” is, particularly as it applies to revelations received by the Prophets and Apostles.  Some Church leaders and members seem to view revelation as a process whereby God transmits his exact thoughts and words directly to the Prophet, who then passes them on to us without any human interference or input, such that revelations handed down by the Prophets are completely free from any human considerations (e.g. economic, political) in their origin, and completely free from any human error in the Prophet’s perception and interpretation of what he believes God told him.  Some LDS apologists have referred to this version of revelation as reflecting a “fundamentalist” mindset, so for the sake of ease I’ll refer to this as the “Fundamentalist Version” of revelation.  The Fundamentalist Version of revelation is usually presented when Church leaders are trying to create unity and motivate members to rally around a particular program or policy and carry it out without question or challenge. The Fundamentalist Version creates compliance and squashes dissent because if we view revelation as a pure transmission of God’s will devoid of any human imperfections, then members will feel no room to question or refuse to comply, and Church leaders will feel divinely justified in reprimanding and punishing those who do.  A few examples of scriptures or quotes used to support the Fundamentalist Version of revelation are: “whether it be from my mouth or the mouth of my servants, it is the same” or “the Prophet will never lead us astray.”  And when something the Prophet says or does seems not to make sense, the scripture “[God's] ways are higher than [man's] ways” is often invoked, the implication being that if what the Prophet says or does doesn’t make sense, it must be because it is one of those “higher” divine truths, rather than because the Prophet has made a human error.  The Fundamentalist Version of revelation seems simple, clear, and provides a feeling of comfort and safety to people looking for a reliable guide to help them navigate through the perils and uncertainties of the world.  But this Fundamentalist Version of revelation also has a significant downside: it creates an image of Prophets as being men who do not err in their revelations, so when people encounter evidence that seems to overwhelmingly demonstrate that Prophets past and present have erred, this Fundamentalist Version of revelation provides no framework to reconcile those obvious human errors with the belief that so-and-so was a genuine Prophet of God.  In other words, the Fundamentalist Version of revelation creates the expectation that Prophets and their revelations are infallible, because despite the occasional acknowledgements of prophetic fallibility in theory, telling people that whatever the Prophet says is what God says creates an illusion of prophetic infallibility in practice.  As a result, when Church members who embrace the Fundamentalist Version of revelation encounter convincing proof of human error in the statements or actions of Prophets (and if the Internet provides us an accurate glimpse, there are many such people) they become disillusioned and stop believing in the concept of revelation altogether.

However, there is another version of revelation within the Church, one which has long existed alongside this Fundamentalist Version in our scripture and in Church leaders’ statements.  And because it has become so popular with LDS Apologists, we could call it the Apologist Version of revelation.  In the Apologist Version, revelation is understood to be a collaborative process between a perfect, omniscient God and imperfect men with limited understanding who “see through a glass, darkly.” In the Apologist Version, we understand that revelation is a transmission of divine knowledge oftentimes received as somewhat vague “impressions” that can be misperceived and misinterpreted by fallible men who have cultural biases, human passions, political and economic considerations, and pride.  As a result, we hope and expect that revelations will usually reflect God’s will on at least a general level, but we recognize that sometimes those revelations will err in their specifics, or (hopefully rarely) be wrong altogether.  This version of revelation is usually presented in the context of apologetics when responding to uncomfortable evidence that seems to conclusively demonstrate that the statements or policies of past or present Prophets and Apostles have been in error.  Thus, the Apologist Version of revelation is often used to persuade someone that he should not lose his testimony of Joseph Smith as a Prophet because it allows someone like Joseph Smith to inadvertently mix human errors into his revelations and still be a Prophet. In support of this version of revelation, apologists cite the acknowledgments in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants that God’s servants “err” in ways that are eventually “made known” but that their revelations should be heeded nonetheless.  Or we find the Apologist Version of revelation in Joseph Smith’s famous quotes that “some revelations are from God, some are from man, and some are from the devil” or that “a prophet is only a prophet when he speaks as a prophet.” The overall idea presented in this version of revelation is that it sometimes contains human errors, and therefore we ought to expect to find such errors without losing our testimony of Church leaders’ prophetic callings when we do.  Of course, the drawback of the Apologist Version of revelation from the perspective a Church leader is that it causes some Church members to feel free to doubt, question, challenge, or refuse to comply with the Prophet’s purported revelations on the grounds that they reflect the will of man rather than the will of God.  And such doubting and dissent is a hindrance to administrative effectiveness in any organization.

Because I see these two different versions of revelation existing within the Church, anytime the subject of revelation comes up in a talk, either directly or indirectly, my ears always perk up and I listen closely to which version is being presented: the Fundamentalist Version or the Apologist Version.  Overall, it’s my feeling that the Fundamentalist Version of revelation is most often presented in sermons and lessons by both Church leaders and members, with a sprinkling of the Apologist Version from time to time, such as when uncomfortable situations arise where it become necessary to acknowledge prophetic error in attempt to save someone from losing his testimony altogether.  However, I think anyone who has been paying attention to FARMS, FAIR, and the Church’s media and public affairs departments have good cause to believe that the Apologist Version of revelation is becoming more popular and is being invoked more frequently, perhaps in an effort to stem the flow of folks losing their testimonies over troublesome episodes in Church history that seem to reflect human error in Church leadership.  So with the Church’s media and public affairs folks quoting apologists with seemingly increasing frequency, I am constantly curious to see whether and when the Apologist Version of revelation will become the dominant version of revelation presented by Church leaders at General Conference.

Very briefly, four more issues I’m always wondering whether will be addressed:

2. A clearly-worded, official repudiation of the statements made by past Church leaders to support the pre-1978 priesthood ban for African Americans. The policy changed in 1978, but there was never an accompanying clear, official renunciation of the many statements that past Church leaders had made to support it.  Many of those statements are still sitting on Church members’ bookshelves at home.  And when people ask the understandable question of why the ban was ever instituted in the first place, those old statements, some of which are extremely hurtful, are sometimes trotted out by misguided members.  We know a committee was formed to draft such a statement several years ago, and there were high hopes such a statement would be presented at the 20-year and 30-year anniversaries of the rescission of that ban, but it didn’t come. Will it come this Conference?

3. Will we receive messages aimed at preparing Church members to continue to generously donate their time and money to support legislation to prevent Same-Sex Marriage? Or will the negative backlash from some quarters regarding the Church’s heavy involvement in Prop. 8 result in a more moderate approach that simply “encourages” members to do so, but this time without creating a mechanism of administrative enforcement for that “encouragement”? I have heard anecdotal stories about General Authorities saying that Prop. 8 was nothing compared to what the Church will be doing in the future, so we shall see what comes out about that topic in Conference.

4. Clarification about what the “central” components of the Restored Gospel are. Recently, a notable LDS apologist who specializes in Egyptology and the Book of Abraham, Dr. John Gee, gave a talk in which he provided a list of what was “central” to the Restored Gospel.  His list included the Book of Mormon, but excluded the book of scripture that he has researched and defended for so long: the Book of Abraham.  Dr. Gee’s speech prompted discussion about the criteria for determining what the “central” components of the Restored Gospel are, and also fueled speculation about whether Dr. Gee’s exclusion of the Book of Abraham reflected a lack of scholarly confidence in Joseph Smith’s claims about that book of scripture in attempt to establish a “fall back position” where the Church can argue that academic challenges to the Book of Abraham should not undermine anyone’s testimony of Joseph Smith’s status as a Prophet on the theory that the book is “not central to the Restored Gospel.”  Was Dr. Gee’s statement a prelude to a change in the way the Church views, teaches, and uses the Book of Abraham? My guess is probably not; the Church seldom seems to move that quickly. But the Church’s relatively recent revision of the Introduction to the Book of Mormon, which was preceded by an emerging consensus among LDS scholars that the Book of Mormon action took place within a limited geography rather than upon the entire American Continent, demonstrates that these types of issues are receiving the attention of the General Authorities, and that the General Authorities are willing to adjust the Church’s claims about its books of scripture.  So perhaps something is in the works on this issue.

5.  Warnings, admonishments, and clarifications about what the General Authorities view as being appropriate and inappropriate online discussion of LDS doctrine and history. Elder Ballard’s recent encouragement to become involved in online discussions about the Church seems to have enlarged the pool of Mormons participating in the Bloggernacle and other online discussion fora.  However, it seems only a matter of time that Church leaders will recognize that Church members’ increased involvement in online discussions about Church history and doctrine will only increase the likelihood that they will come into contact with uncomfortable information that they otherwise would not have encountered.  Around 20 years ago, Elder Oaks delivered an address in which he warned Church members about participating in symposia and becoming involved with “alternate voices.”  But Elder Ballard’s encouragement to become involved in the world of online discussions seems to have departed from that approach, or to have at least created ambiguity about the degree to which faithful Church members should be involving themselves in online discussions and debates, even with the intent to defend the Church.  Will the General Authorities issue any warnings or admonishments about the “proper” way to discuss Church topics online, or the “proper” online fora to visit?  If so, it seems Elder Ballard would be the most likely Apostle to deliver that message.

Overall, I should say my expectations are not high that issue #2 will receive any mention in Conference.  While I do believe it is possible, it seems the Church prefers to make such statements more quietly in between Conferences, rather than making any sort of dramatic public announcement that will attract attention to an uncomfortable topic.  But I do think it’s very possible we will hear messages addressing issues #3 , #4, and #5.

So, what are your hopes, expectations, or predictions for this coming General Conference?

President Barack Obama met with President Monson on Monday in the Oval Office, thanking  President Monson for a thorough history of the first family.

President  Monson presented Obama with details of his family’s genealogy during their first face-to-face meeting. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat who is Mormon, helped arrange the meeting and joined it.

“I’m grateful for the genealogical records that they brought with them and am looking forward to reading through the materials with my daughters,” Obama said in a statement after the meeting. “It’s something our family will treasure for years to come.”

Mormon leaders traditionally meet with new presidents and share with them records from the Salt Lake City-based church’s extensive genealogical records.

“President Obama’s heritage is rich with examples of leadership, sacrifice and service,” Monson said in a statement. “We were very pleased to research his family history and are honored to present it to him today.”

The five leather-bound books detail Obama’s family history for several generations. Parts of that history were already known, such as his ties to former Republican Vice President Dick Cheney. The two are eighth cousins.

Obama is a descendent of Mareen Duvall. The French Huguenot’s son married the granddaughter of a Richard Cheney, who arrived in Maryland in the late 1650s from England.

Thoughts Questions?

Notes

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_of_Barack_Obama

2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/20/AR2009072002068.html

I suppose that we’ve all thought about what our lives would have been like if we weren’t LDS. Actually, whether you’re LDS or of another faith, perhaps you’ve tried to imagine what it would be like to convert to a different religion.  Sometimes I wish I could just pick and choose different aspects of different religions and make them into my own, ideal religion.  So here are just some of the things that I would like to snatch up from the buffet of world religions and philosophies:

Catholicism: First of all, I’m under no illusions about my ability to be a “good” Catholic and accept all the Catholic dogma.  (Goodness knows I can’t do it with Mormon dogma either.)  But I LOVE a lot of things about Catholicism. The obvious attractions are the history, traditions, and churches.  I’ve visited countless Catholic churches and cathedrals throughout Europe and Mexico and have always felt something special inside of them. Aside from being awe-struck on a purely secular level by beautiful art and stunning architecture, it’s hard to not somehow feel closer to Deity in such an atmosphere — especially when you throw Gregorian chants into the mix. It commands reverence in a way that I probably haven’t experienced anywhere else. I felt it when I just happened to be in Notre Dame in Paris during an Easter Sunday mass a few years ago, as well as when I visited Palais des Papes in Avignon, France, or the stunning cathedral in Florence, Italy. I love the fact that many of the cathedrals are always open and you are free to walk in, light a candle, and just sit quietly and meditate in a place that is spiritually inspiring.

Another thing I love about Catholicism is intercessory prayers to patron saints and the Blessed Virgin. Many mistakingly believe that Catholics pray to Mary and the saints in order to worship them, which of course they don’t.  As Mormons, we do something similar by petitioning each other to pray on behalf of ourselves or others. We do it in temples with the prayer roll and we do it in sacrament meeting when we ask the congregation to pray for someone in the ward. Catholics, however, have the option of petitioning departed saints to plead their case before God. I love this idea and would love to think that I could pray to Mary, or Heavenly Mother, or “saints,” Mormon or non-Mormon, and have them petition the Lord on my behalf for something that I need.

I used to always imagine Catholic confession to be a horribly embarrassing practice that I was glad we didn’t have in the LDS Church. However, after reading Catholicism for Dummies, I sort of changed my mind about it. In fact, I could almost see the appeal in being able to go to a priest, who has taken an oath of confidentiality (very important factor!), tell him everything I’m feeling guilty about and then hopefully receive penance for my sins. In some ways, I think it must be very therapeutic. As Mormons, we only go to the Bishop for major sins, but Catholics confess even their lesser sins to a priest.  Pope John Paul II outlined three main reasons for confession:

1. we are renewed in fervor
2. strengthened in our resolutions
3. supported by divine encouragement

Seventh-day Adventist: I knew nothing about Seventh-day Adventists until I noticed that a vegan friend of mine had it listed as her religious views on Facebook. I was curious and did a bit of research. It has certain similarities to Mormonism, both in doctrine and policy, and Adventists do a lot of humanitarian and community work. In fact, my husband’s uncle, who suffers from extreme back pain, recently stayed at a rehabilitation centre run by Seventh-day Adventists in Norway and after a 3-week stay, he looked like a new man. Being a heavy-drinking, chain-smoking meat eater, we were skeptical about how he would like this  alcohol-free, smoke-free, meat-free environment, but he apparently enjoyed his time in the centre very much.  He is even back to work on a part time basis, instead of having to rely 100% on a disability pension.  Seeing what it did for him, I wish he could live there permanently.

What I like best about Seventh-day Adventism is its emphasis on a healthy vegetarian diet. Most avoid coffee and caffeinated drinks like Mormons, but I like the fact that they promote and practise a vegetarian lifestyle — something that very few Mormons do.  Adventists are credited with the development of certain health and vegetarian products, and according to Wikipedia, research by the US National Institute of Health found that the average Adventist in California lives 4-10 years longer than the average Californian.

The Black Churches: Of course, there isn’t just one “black church.”  But there is something special about the way of worship among African Americans. I’ve never personally been to a “black church,” but I’ve watched some services and sermons on TV. The minister giving the sermon is often quite animated, often backed up by an energetic choir and background music, and the congregation is lively. Mormons, by contrast, are pretty conservative in their style of worship. No standing, no clapping, no waving, no shouts of “amen.” I don’t think that either of these styles of worship are “right” or “wrong.” I see value and purpose to both and am perhaps most suited to a style of worship where I can sit quiet and do nothing, but can certainly see the appeal — and perhaps even need — for a more animated style of worship.

Jainism: I first heard of this religion because of an Indian acquaintance of mine, who is a Jain. What I like about Jainism is its respect for all life. According to Wikipedia’s page on Jainism, “(B)ecause all living beings possess a soul, great care and awareness is essential in one’s actions in the incarnate world. Jainism emphasizes the equality of all life, advocating harmlessness towards all, whether these be creatures great or small. This policy extends even to microscopic organisms.”

A devout Jain will not only refuse meat, but even root vegetables such as onions and potatoes, in order to preserve the life of the plant.  I encourage you all to read a bit about Jainism.  It really is a beautiful religion, in my opinion.

Veganism: I know, it’s not really a religion, right?  Well, no, not in the traditional sense, but I think that veganism holds, to many of its adherents, a spiritual aspect to it. I have a few friends who are vegan and although they’re not really “religious” per se, they consider veganism to be their spirituality and are probably among the most compassionate and loving people I know — towards both humans and animals. Veganism requires people to really think about how their dietary choices and actions affect animals, as well as their fellow human beings and the environment. Although I’m not vegan myself, I definitely have a bit of “vegan envy” of those who are able to avoid all animal products for ethical reasons.

Unitarian Universalist: UU’s believe in “complete but responsible freedom of speech, thought, belief, faith, and disposition.  They believe that each person is free to search for his or her own personal truth on issues, such as the existence, nature, and meaning of life, deities, creation, and afterlife.  UUs can come from any heritage, have any sexual orientation or gender identity, and hold beliefs from a variety of cultures or religions.” That statement is something that I can wholeheartedly agree with, but there is a lot more to it.  See more about what UU’s believe here.

Agnosticism: Simply put, agnosticism is “the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, ghosts, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove. It is often put forth as a middle ground between theism and atheism, though it is not a religious declaration in itself.” (Read here for more information.)

I have my days, but for the most part I don’t really doubt that God exists. I do doubt sometimes, however, whether we can ever really “know” that God exists. Wikipedia breaks down different types of agnosticism and I would say that I strongly identify with “Agnostic theism,” also called “religious” or “spiritual agnosticism:

“– the view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence. Søren Kierkegaard believed that knowledge of any deity is impossible, and because of that people who want to be theists must believe: “If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe.”

So what would I be if I weren’t a Mormon? In terms of style of worship, I feel very drawn to Catholicism for the reasons that I mentioned above. In terms of ethics and morality, I absolutely love the message of Jainism, particularly the reasons behind its dietary code. It adds a more religious element to veganism and that’s something that I find very appealing, even though I’m not vegan.  Although I abstain from meat for ethical reasons, I recognize my own personal hypocrisy since I still use eggs and dairy (organic when possible, but even that is no guarantee of ethical practices), as well as a bit of fish on occasion.  I think that believing in the Jain doctrine would give me the motivation needed to go that extra mile and abstain from all unethical dietary practices (although I admit that I can’t imagine ever giving up root vegetables).    Still, though, I feel drawn to Christianity because of Jesus.  But Christianity can be a maze of confusion, with all the different denominations, interpretations and disappointing feuding and hypocrisy. (Mormonism in itself can be a maze that can test one’s spiritual endurance.) Had I not been raised Mormon and found my own little niche in the Church, I think that I would have been drawn to something like Jainism, but would have perhaps still felt that something was missing. If I had found Mormonism later in life, I think I would have been drawn to the Plan of Salvation — which is my favourite part about Mormonism — but I think that I would have been scared off by certain elements of Mormonism and therefore would not have investigated it further.

So I think that if I weren’t a Mormon, I would have felt drawn to a combination of Christianity and Jainism, but would have most likely considered myself to be agnostic because I may not have been able to sincerely believe the doctrines of these other faiths in order to consider myself a true follower.  I do consider myself a true follower of Mormonism, since I do believe in most of its doctines, but I don’t proclaim to know that Mormon doctrine is true, as many Mormons do.

After doing this post, I think I’ve finally figured out what I am at this stage in my life:

I’m a practising Mormon Agnostic Theist with Jain envy.

(Perhaps I’ll have to change the name of my blog.) 

What about you?  What would you be if you weren’t a Mormon?  And are you “envious” of any other religions out there?

I share that background to explain why – at Sunstone West this past weekend – I took such a keen interest in a screening of the film “Nobody Knows: The Untold Story of Black Mormons.” Produced by Margaret Blair Young and Darius Gray, this movie goes through the history of black people in the Church and the evolution of the priesthood ban, which is largely “credited” to Brigham Young. Apparently, he evolved (or de-volved) in his views, as the movie had some interesting early quotes from him that were far more kind and tolerant towards blacks than some of his later whoppers. The historical context painted by the film shows an influx of Mormon converts from the southern states who brought their slaves to Utah. Henceforth, Young made the decision to make Utah into a slave-friendly territory. Another bit of historical context that I don’t remember being mentioned in the film is that the Democratic Party (then pro-slavery) was also more tolerant of plural marriage, which was likely another factor in the decision.

Fascinating as the history was, the movie was far more touching for me on a personal level. I was utterly floored by the powerful testimonies shared by the many black LDS members interviewed on camera. Many of these folks joined the Church while the ban still existed. One African-American sister shared the heartbreaking observation that the first time she was ever called a “nigger” was in the Salt Lake temple. Yet, she was far from angry. Like many others of all races, her life had been touched in a positive way by the Gospel. That many of these folks retained a love and loyalty to an organization that had rejected them for so long was amazing. The Church apparently did not sponsor this project, but it should buy every copy that it can and send it out to all four corners of the Earth. Seriously, who better to share the hopeful message of the Gospel than a group of people who consistently getting the short end of the stick.

Another interesting tidbit from the film was a story about Dr. Cecil “Chip” Murray, retired pastor of the First AME Church of Los Angeles (which was founded by a former slave of Mormon pioneers). Murray shares a story on camera that he was once invited to meet with then-President Hinckley at the Church Office Building. At that meeting, he says Hinckley apologized to him for the Church’s participation in the slavery issue and for its part in perpetuating prejudice against black people. How broad he meant that is arguable, but it certainly seems a long way from just three decades ago.

Ms. Young was there and hosted a lively discussion afterwards. She is working on getting the film distributed. Apparently, Howard University has agreed to show it on its PBS station. Hopefully, BYU does the same. Anyone interested should start bugging their local PBS station. And maybe some e-mails to Netflix to spark their interest wouldn’t hurt, either.

Basically, two thumbs up here. Despite the lousy economy, I would heartily recommend dipping into your wallet for $25 to buy the DVD (it can be found at

http://www.untoldstoryofblackmormons.com

) And no, I’m not getting a cut. Thanks for listening.

I’ve found that shorter posts get read more, so I’ll try to keep this brief.  I want to highlight some of the good things that happened originally, but if you want a more neutral view, check out my post on the Priesthood Ban, as well as the Special Features on the new DVD, Nobody Knows: The Untold Story of Black Mormons.  I highly recommend the DVD, though the video and audio are not always as professional as we’d like.  I think it’s messages about race are honest, telling both positive and negative aspects of race relations within the LDS church.  It even interviews non-LDS leaders, such as Cecil Murray of the AME Church, and Martin Luther King, Jr.  Margaret Young, faculty member at BYU is one of the producers.  First let’s talk about some black members who held the priesthood in the early days of the church.

• “Black Pete” was baptizing as early as 1830 or 1831.
• Joseph T Ball – was baptized in the summer of 1832 by either Brigham Young or his brother Joseph Young who served a mission to Boston. Ball later went on mission with Wilford Woodruff, in New England, New Jersey. In 1837, Wilford Woodruff records in his journal that Ball was an Elder.  Ball was the Boston Branch president from October 1844 to March 1845 – the largest LDS congregation outside of the Nauvoo area. He was ordained a High Priest by William Smith (the first African American HP) and was sent to Nauvoo by Parley P. Pratt in the spring of 1845 to work on the temple.
• Elijah Abel – became the third known black convert to the LDS church, being baptized in 1832. He received the priesthood in 1836, and served 3 missions to Ohio, NY, and Canada. He helped build the Kirtland, Nauvoo, and Salt Lake Temples, received his washing and anointing in the Kirtland Temple
• Walker Lewis – joined the LDS church in the summer of 1843. He was probably baptized by Parley P Pratt in the fall of 1843. He was ordained and Elder by William Smith, Joseph’s younger brother. Lewis has a very interesting history. He was the son of slaves, and sued for his own freedom. His case is cited as the case which liberated slaves in 1783 in Massachusetts. Winning the court case resulted is his family being able to purchase property. He voted, was educated, and became upper class of black Massachusetts society. In 1826 he helped found Massachusetts General Colored Association which was the first civil rights abolitionist group in the world.
  
• In June 1844 Joseph Smith was killed. At this time, Joseph was running for president, and advocated abolishing slavery by 1850. Such a stance was quite unpopular in slave state Missouri. It is important to remember that Joseph prophesied in 1832 about the Civil War. Slavery and race relations were hot topics during this time period, and Joseph’s abolitionist views were probably just as responsible for his assassination, as his religious views.
• Enoch Abel, Elijah’s son received the priesthood, and was ordained an elder on Nov 27, 1900.
• Elijah Abel, Enoch Abel’s son, received the priesthood, and was ordained a priest in 1934.  In 1935, he was ordained an Elder.

So it’s not all bad news.  I have to wonder if Al Sharpton was aware that the first Civil Rights organization was founded by a black Mormon.  Would he have made that quip about Mitt Romney?

This is not the point of my post here, though. I recently had a conversation with my fiancee about Rastafarianism, mentioning that Rastas believe that Jesus Christ was black. I admitted that, though I personally don’t see much evidence for that, I did concede that Jesus probably looked very different than what most Mormons envision.

A lot of new Mormon art depicts a very clean, good-looking Christ. There is “beauty, that we may desire him.” Here’s an example from a very popular artist among Latter-day Saints, Simon Dewey:

I’ve always preferred the depictions of Christ done by Harry Anderson. They seemed marginally more authentic to me than the newer, “shinier” depictions of a Christ who had, apparently, full access to conditioner, a washing machine, a toothbrush, a nice hairbrush, etc.

However, even Anderson’s paintings have a “familiar” feel to them. Most portrayals of Christ that I see in our meetinghouses follow the same general pattern: Christ is medium-to-tall height, has a generally thinnish build, very Caucasian-looking, has a full head of long hair, a beard. He has a long face, a long, thin nose (what you’d call a “Roman” nose), robes and sandals. He is generally a handsome man.

I’ve always mused to myself on the possibilities of what Christ truly looked like. Could he have been short? Prematurely bald? Could he have been missing teeth? Could he have looked more like George Costanza from Seinfeld?

Furthermore, Christ is generally portrayed as Caucasian in our artwork, but we know he was a Jew. I’ve almost thought numerous times that the only one of Christ’s Twelve Apostles in paintings that looks “Jewish” (according to the stereotype generally pushed in the American media) is Judas Iscariot, who can be seen cruelly and evilly clutching his money bag. Interesting. So was Christ white? Did he look “Jewish”? Did he look like an Arab? How jarring would it be to the average, white, Mormon American to see a (hypothetical) photograph of Christ in mortality that looked like he could be Osama bin Laden’s brother?

We only have passing clues in the scriptures as to what he looked like in mortality, and a couple interesting details about the post-mortal Christ from Joseph Smith. There is, of course, a famous “Mormon Urban Legend” about the accuracy of this piece of artwork:

This depiction of Christ is rather racially ambiguous. He has a slightly darker (ruddy?) complexion and hair that could “go either way.” It’s an interesting depiction to say the least, especially considering the debunked mythology surrounding its supposed accuracy.

However, I’ve found that I can forgive the white bread, homogenous view of Christ in our artwork for a couple reasons.

I’ve gleaned from a few sources on the Internet some diverse pictures of Christ. Images of Christ painted by black artists and displayed in predominantly black churches may be black. Here is an example I actually found quite touching, called Black Jesus Blesses the Children, by Joe Cauchi:

I love how the Black Jesus in this picture looks so determined, and he has a definite look of determination as he blesses the children. It’s as if he’s searching the distance for danger as he embraces them. The protection portrayed in this image is just as real to me, and represents the Christ I know, as tangibly as any “white” picture I’ve seen. I want Christ to protect me like he’s protecting these children.

Images of Christ painted by Asian artists may have Asian skin-tone and characteristics. Here is a Chinese example from the 1800s:

I think many people and artists might tell you that this is more for comfort and familiarity rather than an attempt at being historically accurate. So it would make sense for a white artist living in a white culture (like Utah, or in a broader sense, Mormonism) to depict Christ as a being who would “fit in.”

It is also useful for artists to have a common language for images such as Christ, and it is not useful to have images of Christ that are difficult to identify. If an artist wishes to paint Christ, say, teaching a group of people, how can he communicate without words the identity of the Teacher in his painting? There were many teachers in the scriptures: Paul, Ammon, Elijah, Enoch, etc., so a painting of a man with his mouth open, teaching other people by itself may not clearly identify the Teacher. It’s useful to be able to look at a new painting and say, “Hey, it’s a picture of Christ.”

Therefore, to me, the image of Christ is, of course, a symbol. It is a symbol in the same way that a Cross is a symbol, or the Angel Moroni is a symbol. It is one of the many pictures that we use in our religious language to communicate ideas, and it’s a useful one. However, as the Church grows, we will continue to adapt to new symbols and new images.

So, questions.

The LDS faith is now moving to many new countries across the world, and is being embraced by many ethnicities and cultures, nationalities and skin colors. Will we one day see Latino Christs in our temples? Asian Christs? Black Christs? If we admit that our image of Christ is just a symbol, would we allow a painting of a black Christ in an African temple? What about the Logan Temple?

Do we marginalize minorities in the Church by portraying a white Christ?

Is it “wrong” to portray a Christ that is probably historically inaccurate?

I decided to bag the post I had planned because this issue or at least the reaction to the passing of Proposition 8 in California seems to have some longer range consequences. As a California native who lived the great majority of my life there (until I moved to Colorado 5 years ago), I am interested.

1. There has been a strong and sometimes violent reaction to the passing on Proposition 8 by the opponents similar to, but not on the same scale as those during the civil rights struggles. Not riots, but strong protests, mainly at religious institutions and mostly at Mormon Temple sites, Los Angeles, Oakland and San Diego. I have not heard nor seen any reports on widespread protests at LDS chapels on Sunday. ( CORRECTION: here’s one in Seattle) There was also a large protest at Saddleback Church (Pastor Rick Warren’s Church) in Lake Forest, Ca. Anti-8 folks are angry and frustrated that they did not get what they wanted and are now demonstrating it toward those they feel are responsible for their loss.

The fact is that while these folks certainly had no love for the Mormon Church prior to the vote, or were at least ambivalent toward it, they were probably like most people in their knowledge of the Church.  So their reaction to the well coordinated efforts by its members at the urging of its leaders is probably one of sheer frustration rather than any vendetta that they might personally hold against the Church itself. So, it was, up until now.

It has been pointed out that the Church was one of many involved in the campaign, but again, the most organized of the bunch, it appears.  Mormons only represent 2 percent of Californians, so, if all voted for Prop 8, could only be blamed for 2% of the 52% majority. Of course, as we know, not all agreed with the pro 8 position and many church members are too young to vote.

The irony here is that had prop 8 lost, you would not see the kind of protests from the frustrated pro 8 folks.

2.       There is also an irony involved as you watch the videos that Andrew referenced in his post as the protesters shout “Stop the Hate.”  There are hateful references to the Church, Christians in general and others who supported Prop 8 because of their belief in traditional marriage but not unkind feelings toward gay people.

Certainly, there are those in religious organizations that “hate” gay people or their lifestyle, but certainly the prop. 8 campaign did not appear to be “hate-filled” but only addressed the issue itself.  There were no untoward ads that mocked gay people or spoke of extreme dire consequences of the defeat of prop 8 against a backdrop of sinister music and visuals.  I suppose some might argue that some references to the potential acceptance and teaching of the Gay lifestyle in schools and the influence on children might be construed that way, but from my point of view, it was handled respectfully. The anti 8 campaign seemed to be quite the opposite especially at the end. Granted, I don’t live in California any longer so I can’t say that I saw all the ads, but I did see a number of them on YouTube and on the California newspaper websites, which I look at every day.

So, who needs to “Stop the Hate?”

3.       The final irony for me is the fact that the polling data seems to indicate that African Americans and Hispanics were the deciding voters who pushed Prop 8 over the top to passage. So, apparently, they did not see this as a civil rights issue. According to the Sacramento Bee, 70% of those identifying their race as Black voted for the proposition while 53% Hispanic/Latino against 49% White and Asian. In spite of the talk to the contrary, it appears to be a morality/societal question, not a question of civil rights.

So, I hope we can all get passed this episode and come to some place where all sides can be satisfied. Perhaps that is not possible, I hope it is. The trend seems to indicate that in a few years, voters will be willing to allow gay marriage, if the demographics are correct as older, more conservative voters are eliminated from the voting rolls and younger, more accepting voters replace them.   Of course, it is harder to overturn a constitutional amendment than it is to pass one.  And, we don’t know what the courts will do.

So, stand by, this is not over.

In many ways our church is different from other churches because we attend Sunday services based on geography.  But, does that make it harder for members who may be the only minority members in their wards?

In the article it says that many blacks said they wanted a racial timeout on Sunday.   “They would say, ’I need a place of refuge,…I need to come to a place on Sunday morning where I don’t experience racism.”
This could probably be said of other races as well.

Interracial church advocates  state “churches should be interracial whenever possible because their success could ultimately reduce racial friction in America.”

Advocates also say “the church was never meant to be segregated.  They point to the New Testament description of the first Christian church as an ethnic stew – it deliberately broke social divisions by uniting groups that were traditionally hostile to one another.”

Curtiss Paul DeYoung, co-author of “United by Faith” says “the first-century Christian church grew so rapidly precisely because it was so inclusive.  He says the church inspired wonder because its leaders were able to form a community that cut across the rigid class and ethnic divisions that characterized the ancient Roman world.”

“People said that if Jews, Greeks, Africans, slaves, men and women – the huge divides of that time period – could come together successfully, there must be something to this religion”.

Thomas Brelsford, co-author of “We are the Church Together” said “Only when ethnic groups no longer feel compelled to abandon their entire culture on Sunday morning can a church claim to be interracial……..An interracial church isn’t one in which all the black members act, dress and worship like the church’s majority white members to make them feel comfortable…….Interracial churches resist ‘taking one dominant identity and forcing everyone to fit into it.’”

As I read this article here are some of the questions that came to mind…

Are we doing enough to make minorities feel welcome in our congregations?  What can we do better?

How do racial issues affect missionary work?

Have we done enough to address the issues of things like Blacks and the Priesthood?  (for more on this, read what  Marvin Perkins has to say about it.)

<!–[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <![endif]–><!–[if gte mso 9]> <![endif]–>

<!–[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <![endif]–><!–[if gte mso 9]> <![endif]–>

Green Flake, the slave of James Madison Flake, a convert to the LDS Church, is baptized at the age of 15. Green remains a slave but is a faithful member of the church throughout his life. Samuel Chambers, a 13-year-old, is baptized in secret because he is a slave. Walker Lewis, a black man in Lowell, Mass., is ordained an to the office of an Elder in the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Walker Lewis, a black man, is ordained to the office of Elder.

1846
William McCary, a black man, is ordained to the office of Elder.

1847
Elijah Abel arrives in Utah. A carpenter by trade, he works on building the Salt Lake Temple. He and his wife Mary Ann manage the Farnham Hotel. Mary Ann Abel was Negro according to the 1850 Hamilton County, Ohio, census and the 1860 Utah census.

1851
Elijah Abel arrives in Utah, where he works on building the Salt Lake Temple. He and his wife Mary Ann manage the Farnham Hotel. The couple asks to be “sealed” in marriage in the temple, which Brigham Young refuses. Abel had already been through the Kirtland Temple for washings and anointings and he was already baptized for the dead in Nauvoo.

1853
Elijah asked to receive his endowment and was denied by Brigham Young.

1854
Brigham Young frees Green Flake.

1858
All black Melanesians (Fijians) are given the priesthood (blacks in the Philippines even earlier)

1860
Utah Census lists 59 blacks, 29 of them are listed as slaves.

1883
Elijah Able is still on Church records as a Seventy.

1884
Elijah Able in his 70s is sent on yet another mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. He returns home early from his mission and dies in early December of 1884.

1900
Elijah Abel’s son, Enoch Abel, is ordained an elder.

1902
Jane Manning James, a faithful black Mormon since the days of Joseph Smith Jr., is given a special temple sealing as a “servant” to Joseph Smith Jr. She continues to pursue her endowment.

1934
Elijah Abel’s grandson is ordained a priest; a year later, he advances to elder.

1949
First Presidency statement on blacks and priesthood states the ban “is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the church from the days of its organization.”

1962
A missionary tract, the Joseph Smith Story, found its way into the hands of a black religious leader in Ghana, Dr. A.F. Mensah. He converts several others, sets up a church congregation and corresponds with the Church missionary department.

1964
After reading the Book of Mormon, J.W.B. Johnson forms the first “Latter-day Saint” congregations in Ghana, Africa.

1969
Fourteen University of Wyoming football players wanted to wear armbands for their games with Brigham Young University as a protest against the ban on blacks. Other athletes also protested.

1970
LDS President David O. McKay tells the Salt Lake Tribune that “There is no doctrine in this church and there never was a doctrine in this church to the effect that the Negroes are under any kind of a divine curse.”

1971

Genesis Group, a support group for black Mormons, is organized in Salt Lake City under the direction of then LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith with apostles Gordon B. Hinckley (pictured, with Genesis co-founder Darius Gray), Thomas S. Monson and Boyd K. Packer as advisers.

1978 June 8th
President Spencer W. Kimball announces a divine revelation opening the priesthood to all worthy males regardless of race or lineage. is announced. The events leading up to it and the revelation itself are judged to be a true miracle.

Now the time before the ban lets look at what life has been like after the ban was lifted.

1978
LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, who wrote in Mormon Doctrine that blacks would never get the priesthood, states that “we should forget everything that has been said in the past on this topic.”

1990
Helvecio Martins set apart as first black General Authority as a member of the Quorum of the Seventy — the first black Seventy since Elijah Abel.

2002
Robert Foster elected BYU student body president.

2006
LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley condemns racism during the all-male priesthood session of the church’s Annual General Conference.

Where were you when you heard the Priesthood Ban was lifted.

I don’t know where I was on June 8th 1978 when the ban was lifted. But I can tell you where I was June 8th 2008. I was in Elders Quorum reading Official Declaration—2 to the Elders of Israel.

Jamie Trwth
Latte Day Saints

Growing up as an African American I have faced discrimination, and prejudice but nothing that hampered me from accomplishing the things I have done and wanted to do. I could not imagine the travesties these and others went through to just to live and breath and just be who God made them.

Fast forward 50 or so years after The Little Rock Nine and discrimination is still disallowing children into schools. No. It’s not about the color of skin this time. It’s about the Flavor of Religion. Namely Mormonism.

Just yesterday my wife and her sister went to an alternative school fair. We are looking into getting our son into another school that would broaden his academic horizons. My sister-in-law asked on of the persons manning the table for a local Christian school:

Is being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints a problem.

The lady at the table stated:

We highly recommend not even putting in an application to our school.

My sister-in-law said thank you and went on her way.

This is discrimination like I’ve never seen before. I’ve had police officers tell me to spread eagle, like I’ve done it a million times before, when actually it was my first time. Needless to say the officer had to instruct me in the art of Spreading Eagle. I have been pulled over just because of the color of my skin (the last time I was pulled over I was rideing a bicycle). I’ve had parents not want me to date their Caucasian daughters but this action takes the cake. My LDS son whom I baptized and confirmed cannot attend some schools in the area because he is a member.

That wasn’t the only school that discriminates against Mormons here in Anchorage. In Elders Quorum an instructor stated that he was told not to submit an application to a Christian school because of his religious affiliation. I just think of what President Henckley said one General Conference:

I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ, How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color, is ineligible?

If we broaden this statement to includes all followers of Christ and substitute the word race for religion and skin color to sect, I would come to the conclusion that of:

How can anyone call themselves Christians who practice such religious bigotry and hatred.

The answer is simple and plain . . . They Cannot. Not legitimately. My sister-in-law practiced Christ like virtues by turning the other cheek and walking away. I ask of you who was Christ like in this situation?

But remarkably, 1910 was the year that a black man was called and ordained to be an apostle. His name was John Penn and he was the first African American apostle of the Restoration Era.

Although in 1910, Latter Day Saints who traced their connection to Joseph Smith through the leadership of Brigham Young still banned blacks from the priesthood, this was not true for all Latter Day Saints. Taking the opposite stance was the Church of Jesus Christ that traced its line to Joseph Smith through the leadership of Sidney Rigdon and William Bickerton. Headquartered amid the steel foundaries of greater Pittsburgh, in Monongahela, Pennsylvania, Bickertonite membership was concentrated primarily in the industrial corridor between New Jersey and Detroit.

Although most Bickertonites were working class men and women of modest education, they had always embraced the ideal of racial integration and they preached the restored gospel to fellow workers regardless of race. This idealism was shown to be more than lip service when African American men were ordained to the church’s highest leadership positions, that of Seventy (of which there are precisely 70) and the Twelve (of which there are 12).

John Penn served as an apostle from 1910-1955, during which time he was an active missionary who brought the restored gospel to many other souls, especially working class Italian Americans.

Hats off to our Bickertonite cousins this Black History Month.

What informed (semi-informed?) outsiders want to know is what our specific teachings are on all the juicy subjects they’ve heard through the anti-Mormon grapevine:

• Was Mary really a virgin?
• Did God once live on another planet and live a sinful life?
• Do Mormons secretly worship other gods?
• Do Mormons want to take over the world?
• Do men in the LDS Church get to decide if their wives are resurrected or not?
• Why were African Americans banned from the priesthood?

I can’t say that I blame them. Thanks to our Evangelical neighbors, a half-true version (and by this I mean “a lie”) of many of our “doctrines” has long since leaked out. Worse yet, every juicy statement made by our 19th century leaders has been carefully combed through for any bombs and all have been dropped.

Do Mormons Even Have Doctrine?

I think part of the problem is the way we misuse the word “doctrine.”

“Doctrine” actually means “what a religion teaches.” Any false teaching in our past are still a “doctrine” of ours in this sense. But as members of the Church, we don’t use the word “doctrine” that way. Somewhat protectively, we transmuted “doctrine” to mean “that which we teach which is true and will not change.” We muddy the waters further by branding “true things that change” as “policy.” But here is the rub, if “doctrine” can only mean “that which is true that cannot change” then in fact Mormons have no “doctrine” at all except for the uninterrupted statements in scripture.

Revelatory Truths vs. Doctrine

I would like to propose a different way of thinking. Recently a poster on Times and Seasons asked: “We can’t have ‘truths’ and ‘doctrines’ be separate things. Or can we?”

In fact, we can! It works like this to me:

It starts with the underlying profound truths taught in the scriptures or other revelations. We have a hard time comprehending these truths because we are so much less than God and He had to condescend to even get the basics into our heads. We believe the truth, but naturally have to form the idea about that truth into our minds as something concrete that we can wrap our minds around.

That concrete version of the truth is what gets taught (often with several competing variants) and that is our “doctrine.” Because the “doctrine” is really just an approximation of the truth, there is nothing wrong with refining or changing it later so long as the underlying truth is maintained.

This idea is not new. Nor is it mine.

Want Proof?

Despite the misuse of the word “doctrine” here, this official LDS Church statement is getting at this idea:

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted. (link)

Think this is a modern interpretation? Guess again. Here is the same idea from B.H. Roberts back in 1907:

And yet these gentlemen [who wrote an anti-Mormon new article]… make ten long quotations from a repudiated work, and one quotation only from a work that is accepted as standard in the Church, viz., the Doctrine and Covenants! For a long time the Church has announced over and over again that her standard works in which the word of God is to be found, and for which alone she stands, are the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price. All else is commentary, and of a secondary character as to its authority, containing much that is good, much that illustrates the doctrines of the Church, and yet liable to have error in it for which the Church does not stand. (Defense of the Faith and the Saints, Volume 2, p. 296)

100 years not good enough for you? Well how about this statement from Brigham Young back in 1855! (and please forgive the racist view of Native Americans and try to understand the point he was making instead):

I am so far from believing that any government upon this earth has constitutions and laws that are perfect, that I do not even believe that there is a single revelation, among the many God has given to the Church, that is perfect in its fulness.[sic] The revelations of God contain correct doctrine and principle, so far as they go; but it is impossible for the poor, weak, low, grovelling [sic], sinful inhabitants of the earth to receive a revelation from the Almighty in all its perfections. He has to speak to us in a manner to meet the extent of our capacities, as we have to do with these benighted Lamanites; it would be of no benefit to talk to them as I am now speaking to you. Before you can enter into conversation with them and give them your ideas, you are under the necessity of condescending to their low estate, so far as communication is concerned, in order to exalt them. (link)

Still not convinced? Well consider this explanation from Elder John Smith on behalf of the Church in 1835 concerning the difference between the Lectures on Faith and the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants: “[he] bore record that the revelations in [the Doctrine and Covenants] were true, and that the lectures judicially were written and compiled, and were profitable for doctrine.” (History of the Church, Vol 2, 176.)

Perhaps this is what Joseph Smith meant when he said, “Why be so certain that you comprehend the things of God, when all things with you are so uncertain.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 320)

Creedless in Action

Let’s give an actual application of scriptural truth vs. doctrine using some of the questions above.

If I am a 19th century Mormon who only knows about Newtonian physics, believes the universe is infinite, and believes D&C 132:20 that God will exalt us by making us gods, I would naturally envision that truth as an infinite universe proportioned amongst all previously exalted beings with a future world or two being my future charge if I am exalted. If God was once a man, I could only envision such a thing as happening a long time in the past on some world far from here. To me God being “Eternal” would simply mean that he has been God for so long that I can’t imagine it otherwise. [1]

As a 21st century Mormon familiar with post-Newtonian physics, the big bang, and the finite nature of space and time, I naturally envision this same truth as God creating the universe via a the big bang and the universe being His alone. Other exalted beings would create their own universes that I know nothing about. And if exalted myself, I imagine I’ll create universes too, not just a world or two. If God was once a man, I envision this happening in a different space and time in a different universe, thus making God — for all intents and purposes — Eternal to us for there was never a time He wasn’t God. (Yes, this is how big bang physics work; it creates time as well as space. I know we can’t comprehend it.)

Explanations of the priesthood-ban follow this pattern. In a 19th century world where the superiority of the caucasian race and darwinism between the races were considered scientifically proven, a question on everyone’s mind was “why would God create an inferior race?” [2] Pre-existence explanations were the only sensible conclusions. It would be natural to see the priesthood-ban in this light.

But in a modern world where eugenics has been eradicated and science has proven there are no inferior races, just inferior circumstances [3], there is no longer a need to answer why God would make an inferior race. So naturally we see the priesthood-ban more as a protection of well-meaning racists beliefs of a Church body not ready for the whole truth yet.

Now consider how a 19th century Mormon might differ from a 21st century Mormon on their interpretation of these truths: God having a body, the literal Sonship of Christ, and the virgin birth?

If I’m a 19th century Mormon that is actively practicing polygamy and recently learned to reject the Catholic and Protestant notion that sexuality is for weaker believers that can’t put God first, I would be very likely to envision those truths as being a literal marriage between God and Mary and possibly even an appropriate sexual act between them for the birth of Jesus. I would have to make the word “virgin” figurative here, but this is no worse than figurative interpretations of the earth as having four corners (Rev 7:1) [4]

But as a 21st century Mormon familiar with such modern wonders as in vitro fertilization, I am not likely to envision these truths as being sexual in nature but rather as a miracle similar to the wonders of modern science.

Who is right? It doesn’t matter; these are things unrevealed. This is the natural process by which we wrap our minds around an scriptural truth that may not yet be comprehendible by us. The truth is probably none of these. But these “doctrines” allows us to conceptualize the scriptural truths.

Conclusion

So in answer to the question: “What is Mormon Doctrine?” It is the profound truths of the scriptures mixed with an infinite and changing body of traditions allowing us to envision such truths.

Footnotes

[1] In defense of this point of view, which I don’t even share, it should be noted that the literal interpretation of the word “Eternal” in the Old Testament means “time out of mind.” See Strong’s 5769. See also Strong’s 6924 which approximately means “ancient.” In the New Testament the word “Eternal” comes from the Strong’s 166 and 165 which mean “an age.” I have no idea if this is significant or not. But in any case, the Bible literally leaves open the possiblity of Eternity not being forever. This might just be a language issue.

[2] For more information on this topic, I would highly recommend Jennifer Burn’s excellent American History podcast available through U.C. Berekley. Professor Burns brings to light the wide spread belief during the 19th century of the darwinian struggle between races and even, to a lesser degree, eugenics. Amongst other things, this belief was used to justify sterilizing a retarded white woman to remove her from the gene pool and protect the white race. Such beliefs were considered scientifically proven and the great scientific minds of the time supported it. So widespread were these beliefs that even people dedicating their lives to help the African American’s still considered them an inferior race. Even the best of them were racist by today’s standards.

[3] The studies used to disprove that African Americans had a genetic mental inferiority were done by studying Afrian American’s raised by caucasian parents. This group performed exactly the same as other caucasian children. This indicated overwhelming evidence that any statistical difference detected up to that point was in fact environmental in nature only.

[4] Contrary to anti-Mormon smears, I’ve never actually found a definitive quote from 19th century Mormons leaders confirming a belief in a sexual act between a sealed Mary and God. Brigham Young is usually quoted here, but he never confirms this belief. It’s possible he was hinting at it, however. I am here only postulating that some did believe this, though I do not know for certain. My point is only that such a belief, from their point of view, would certainly be natural. It does not strike me as offensive even though I personally don’t believe it.

I know that Delbert Stapley was a very good man — so I’m not interested in piling on (now that we all have the benefit of hindsight). My questions are the following:

• Do you find it interesting that so much importance was placed on exact obedience to the teachings of Joseph Smith by Apostle Stapley? It seems like today we’re much more willing to discount a past teaching from Joseph Smith if it doesn’t meet our modern social standards — but check out how serious he was about following Joseph’s teachings to the letter — even teaching that death follows those who dare deviate from Joseph’s teachings.
• I also find it interesting that he quotes Joseph Fielding Smith’s book almost as if it were scripture (as we used to do with Bruce R.’s Mormon Doctrine). Again — it seems like we have come so far since then. Nowadays — if it’s not in the scriptures, or a very fundamental Mormon/Christian doctrine — we are much more liberated to believe as we wish. The church really has come a LONG way in this regard, I feel
• George Romney is one of my new Mormon heroes, I think. That man was clearly ahead of his time, and courageous. I wonder if he ever caught heat from the brethren for his progressive stances.
• Most importantly — if the church can be so incredibly wrong about a social/political/doctrinal teaching as they were regarding blacks/race/segregation, etc…..what modern church teachings are we perpetuating that we will look back in 50 years and also feel embarrassed by? Or are those days behind us?

This PDF is offered courtesy of the Boston Globe.