The LDS Church issued the following statement:

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regrets today’s decision.  California voters have twice been given the opportunity to vote on the definition of marriage in their state and both times have determined that marriage should be recognized as only between a man and a woman. We agree.  Marriage between a man and a woman is the bedrock of society.

“We recognize that this decision represents only the opening of a vigorous debate in the courts over the rights of the people to define and protect this most fundamental institution—marriage.

“There is no doubt that today’s ruling will add to the marriage debate in this country, and we urge people on all sides of this issue to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility toward those with a different opinion.”  (LDS Church Website)

There are some interesting parts of the ruling which goes into the State’s interest in marriage as a societal institution and a portion that notes “Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation.” And, in a rather fascinating conclusion, the Judge writes, “Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.”

So there you have it.  While this is but a first step toward a ruling by the US Supreme Court, I wonder what will happen?  With the current make-up of the Court, there is no forgone conclusion that this ruling will be upheld on appeal.

Frankly, I thought the opponents of Proposition 8 made a much better case than the proponents. So, the Pro-8 people ought better get their act together, if they think they have a chance on appeal. If the defense in this case was the best they can do, they should just pack it in now. it was just terrible.

Whether California resumes the issuance of marriage licenses to gay couples is also still up in the air as they are proceeding with more caution this time than last.

I am beginning to think that SSM (same sex marriage) is going to happen whether the LDS Church, other Churches and opponents like it or not. It is already legal in a few states and, in my mind, it is only a matter of time.  Whether opposed or not, folks will just have to get used to it.

The question is; two-fold:

1. What is, if any, the slippery slope this will lead to?  Polygamy and polyandry? Churches forced to recognize and perform same-sex marriages in their churches and temples? Other odd combinations of coupling?
2. What will be the reaction of the LDS Church and other Churches to the ultimate end of marriage just between a man and a woman? Another revelation?

Our controversial guest post today is from Rock Waterman.  Check out the original unabridged post at his blog, Pure Mormonism, so titled from his observation that the organic religion founded by Joseph Smith was nondogmatic and libertarian.

A couple of weeks ago Jeff Riggenbach sent me his latest book, Why American History Is Not What They Say: An Introduction To Revisionism. I’ve had a passion for revisionist history for as long as I can remember, but something I read in Riggenbach’s informative volume caught me up short. It was an essential factor that I had never known or considered before, and which just so happens to have direct application to why the historical record about Joseph Smith and Polygamy is so confusing and contradictory.

While doing the research for her biography of Joseph Smith back in the 1940′s, Fawn Brodie wrote to a friend that “the more I work with the polygamy material, the more baffled I become.” She has not been alone. Every biographer since has struggled with the dichotomy of what Joseph Smith asserted and what the historical record appears to show.

I think Jeff Riggenbach may have uncovered the explanation for us.

Correcting The Past

If the study of history can be defined as “the science of discovering what happened,” then revisionism is the forensic science of methodically re-sifting through the evidence of the past to get at the truth of what really happened. According to Joseph R. Stromberg, “revisionism refers to any efforts to revise a faulty existing historical record or interpretation.”

Harry Elmer Barnes, the father of modern revisionist history, describes revisionism as “the effort to revise the historical record in the light of a more complete collection of historical facts, a more calm political atmosphere, and a more objective attitude.” As Riggenbach himself succinctly puts it, “We need to revise the historical record when we have new facts.”

What surprised me about Riggenbach’s book — and which is directly applicable to our discussion here — is his revelation that until quite recently there was no such thing as “history” as we usually think of it; that is, the kind of history that could actually be relied upon:

“It was the tail end of the 19th century before the calling of the historian had been professionalized and academicized to such an extent that a majority of practitioners in the field had come to hold the view of their discipline that we now take for granted -the historian as dispassionate seeker of truth, a scholar, much more like an anthropologist…Still, there were holdouts.” (Pg 27)

One “holdout” in the arena of Mormon historians may have been Joseph Fielding Smith, whose book Essentials in Church History was a book all missionaries were armed with in my day, and which turns out to have been of no more real use to the student of Mormon history than the 9/11 Commission Report is today for the person desiring to find out the complete truth about that particular event.  I relied upon Elder Smith’s book during my mission when I gave a presentation to a class of high school seniors in Milan, Missouri where I used it to refute “anti-Mormon lies” about Mormon complicity in the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Elder Smith (an apostle at the time he wrote it) placed the blame for the massacre squarely on the local Indians and John D. Lee, who he painted as a renegade Mormon with only a tenuous connection to the church. At any rate, he strongly implied, the members of the Fancher party were asking for it and had it coming.  Even today I feel like a dupe and a fool when I remember how vehemently I defended the official church position against what was the real truth of that sordid affair.

But to give him his due, Joseph Fielding Smith was little different than any other compiler of American history a hundred years ago, including the most famous and reputable of all, George Bancroft, whose ten volume History of the United States, published in 1874, remained the unchallenged standard work for decades. But even Bancroft’s classic History was far from objective:

“Bancroft believed that his job was to write a chronicle that would make his readers proud of their country’s history, and when it suited his didactic purpose, he fabricated.” (Why American History Is Not What They Say, Pg 27)

It was not only Bancroft who was making up history to suit his agenda; Riggenbach demonstrates how this “style” was common among virtually all historians of the time. He shows how “most of them saw themselves in particular as the providers of an important kind of inspirational literature.” Facts were elastic. This practice of bending reality to fit the lesson plan was rampant in the 19th century. It was systemic. And it was considered normal. One can easily see the parallels between writers wishing to portray actions of the American government favorably, and those within the LDS church tasked with portraying Mormon history in the most positive light. According to Riggenbach:

“The American history taught in most schools during the past hundred years faithfully reflected received opinion, and received opinion sees the United States as a consistent, devoted partisan of the same spirit of individual liberty that once moved its founders -a peace-loving nation that wishes the rest of the world only the best, and never goes to war except in self-defense.”

“Apply this set of principles to what we know of the past and, at the end of the day, you’ll wind up with quite a pile of facts that didn’t meet the criteria and now litter the cutting room floor.”

“The facts about the gross violations of individual liberty that have been championed by U.S. presidents almost since the beginning, for example -John Adams’s Sedition Acts, Andrew Jackson’s genocidal treatment of the American Indians, Abraham Lincoln’s military conscription (to say nothing of his suspension of habeas corpus and his imprisonment of newspaper editors who dared to disagree with his prosecution of the Civil War), William McKinley’s brutal suppression of the independence movement in the Philippines after the Spanish American War, Franklin Roosevelt’s order to round up American citizens of Japanese ancestry and imprison them in concentration camps- are any of these inconvenient facts likely to be selected for inclusion in a textbook based on the “commonly shared principle” of the saintliness of the U.S. government?” (Pg. 24)

Similarly we Mormons may ask ourselves if we should really expect inconvenient facts that reflect poorly on the “saintliness” of our church leaders to find their way into books and Sunday School manuals published by the church.

History: It Ain’t What It Used To Be

In 1972 the church appointed LDS Professor Leonard J. Arrington as the official Church Historian. This was the first time a real historian, a trained academic, had been given that post. This important office had always been held by a general authority. Arrington opened up the massive church archives to other Mormon academics, and the era of The New Mormon History was born. Surprise, surprise! That magic era didn’t last long; just barely a decade.

The archives were a treasure house of information for the excited historians involved. They were soon discovering things that the even the current leadership of the church hadn’t known about. Paul Toscano reports that Hyrum L. Andrus was opening wooden crates full of church records that had been nailed shut since they left Nauvoo in 1846. All kinds of fascinating stuff was in there. Books and essays were written based on these newly found letters, diaries, journals, newspapers, and records. But not all of the information in these documents was seen as favorable to church leadership. Some of the revisions seemed to contradict elements of what had become the official church history.

A massively ambitious multi-volume church history was planned, utilizing the talents of the church’s most qualified scholars and historians. Then one day the order came down from on high to scrap the project, and the historian’s office was “reorganized.” Arrington, who had been introduced at general conference with great fanfare for a vote of approval ten years earlier, was quietly released in 1982 without even a mention in conference or any vote of thanks. The position of Church Historian was again placed into the hands of a trusted general authority. The archives were closed to all but a select few, and have remained closed to this day.

For a fascinating example of the work of a revisionist Mormon historian, and and insight as to why revisionism is such a volatile subject to some within the church, let’s look at Richard Van Wagoner’s reexamination of the famous transmogrification of Brigham Young.

Mighty Morphing Fact Arrangers

We all know the basic story. It goes something like this. After the death of Joseph and Hyrum, the church was left leaderless. So the million dollar question on everyone’s mind: Who was next in line to lead it? A meeting was called, and Sidney Rigdon was first to speak. As the story goes, Rigdon got up and campaigned for himself to be the new prophet. Then it was Brigham Young’s turn, and as he spoke, the gathered throng witnessed a miracle. It looked to them as if Brigham Young had been transformed into Joseph Smith before their very eyes. Brigham’s visage became Joseph’s visage, his voice was Joseph’s voice, his mannerisms were Joseph’s. Clearly the spirit of Joseph Smith himself had returned to witness to the membership that Brigham Young was his anointed successor.

That’s the way most of us have heard it, but virtually every element of that story is false. Nothing even remotely resembling the described supernatural transformation took place. How do we know? We have new facts. Using letters, diaries, journals, newspaper accounts, and church records, Van Wagoner walks us through the event. He revises the history. You can read his essay here: The Making of a Mormon Myth. (You can find another excellent analysis by Reid L. Harper in the Fall 1996 Journal of Mormon History.)

The simple but true facts are that on August 8th, 1844, Sidney Rigdon, as remaining member of the First Presidency, spoke to a large gathering of the Saints, advocating that the church continue to be led by a triumvirate with himself as President. The next day, Brigham Young gave a speech proposing that the church instead should be governed by the twelve apostles as a body. He was not campaigning to be the next leader himself, nor would anyone have accepted him if he had made such a proposal. The membership eventually voted in favor of Brigham’s plan because he made the better speech and it was considered wiser that church government be spread among the twelve rather than to continue with a new First Presidency under the ailing Sidney Rigdon.

And that was it. No image, no visions, no voice. Just a rip-roaring good sermon by Brigham Young. There was no transfiguration of Brigham Young into the form of Joseph Smith, no morphing, no eerie ghost noises, no nothing.

Again, how do we know? From primary sources; the letters, diaries, journals, and newspapers of the time. Brigham’s speech was reported on in detail in both Nauvoo newspapers and recorded by scribes for the official church records. Hundreds of members present wrote about Brigham’s persuasive argument in great detail in their private journals. Nowhere was there a mention of the miraculous or divine. Not a hint.

Until years later.

Van Wagoner takes us through the transformation; not the transformation of Brigham to Joseph, but the transformation from historical truth to historical legend.

You Really Had To Be There

After the saints were settled in Utah, church leadership began to shake out in the form of a hierarchy with certain apostles recognized as having seniority over others. Almost immediately Brigham Young forsook the plan he had proposed that church affairs should be administered by the Twelve equally, and quietly adopted the plan that had been proposed by Sidney Rigdon — with himself in Sidney Rigdon’s place.

Although in his famous speech in the grove at Nauvoo Brigham had insisted that “you can’t put anyone at the head of the Twelve,” in no time he managed to maneuver himself at the head of the Twelve and into the role of successor to the prophet Joseph Smith. This aggrandizement was not what the Saints had originally voted for, but Brigham had more than proven his leadership abilities by getting them across the plains and settled in, and who were they to question the senior member of the Quorum?

It was soon being spoken about that “the mantle of Joseph had fallen on Brigham.” What that meant exactly was anybody’s guess. “Mantle” is both a verb and a noun, and is a very abstract term in this sense. Nothing tangible or spiritual or visible had actually “fallen” on Brigham Young. It was meant as a metaphor. But in 1857, 13 years after the speech in the grove, Albert Carrington took the account one step further. In a speech before a huge gathering of Saints, he said that he couldn’t tell Brigham from Joseph that day when Brigham was speaking.

Someone else soon claimed that he had sensed the very spirit of Joseph Smith while Brigham had been speaking. Then another person declared that he saw the very personage of Joseph take over Brigham’s body.

That was all it took. Mark Twain has famously said that a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on. Human nature being what it is, there was soon no shortage of pioneers declaring that they had seen the miraculous transformation too. It was a sign! It was a miracle! Brigham Young had been transformed by the spirit of Joseph Smith into the image of Joseph Smith himself!

Some of the most prominent church leaders got caught up in the illusion. “His words went through me like electricity,” testified apostle Orson Hyde in 1869, “It was not the voice of Joseph Smith but there were the features, the gestures, and even the stature of Joseph before us in the person of Brigham.”

Eight years later, a full thirty-three years after the original event, Hyde went even further. On second thought, it was the voice of Joseph Smith after all, and more:

“I heard the voice of Joseph through him, and it was as familiar to me as the voice of my wife, the voice of my child, or the voice of my father. And not only the voice of Joseph did I distinctly and unmistakably hear, but I saw the very gestures of his person, the very features of his countenance, and if I mistake not, the very size of his person appeared on the stand. And it went through me with the thrill of conviction that Brigham was the man to lead this people. And from that day to the present there has not been a query or a doubt upon my mind with regard to the divinity of his appointment; I know that he was the man selected of God to fill the position he now holds.”

There’s just one problem with Orson Hyde’s testimony. He wasn’t there. Orson Hyde did not arrive in Nauvoo until August 13th.

Other prominent Mormons who weren’t present added their testimonies too. John D. Lee’s personal diary, Van Wagoner tells us, “makes it clear that he did not return to Nauvoo until 20 August, nearly two weeks later.” But that didn’t stop Lee from later saying “I myself, at the time, imagined that I saw and heard a strong resemblance to the Prophet in him.” Wilford Woodruff told the story from the pulpit many times over the years, embellishing it more than any of the others with each retelling. Interestingly, Woodruff was present that day and had written the most detailed and complete contemporary account of Brigham’s speech on the day he gave it. But in that original account he failed to mention any of the supernatural sights and sounds he miraculously recalled years later.

If the church leadership were inclined to exaggerate, the rank and file were up to the challenge too. According to Van Wagoner:

“Retrospective retellings of a ‘transfiguration,’ in a variety of forms, can be found in dozens of sources, yet no two seem to agree on precise details. Elizabeth Haven Barlow, a cousin of Brigham Young, for example, wrote that her mother told her that ‘thousands in that assembly’ saw Young ‘take on the form of Joseph Smith and heard his voice change to that of the Prophet’s.’ Eliza Ann Perry Benson reminisced that the Saints arose ‘from their seats enmass’ exclaiming ‘Joseph has come! He is here!’”

Too bad the newspapers neglected to notice the crowd going wild. It would have made good copy.

Thankfully, not every member of the church got caught up in the collective delusion. According to Van Wagoner:

Bishop George Miller, present at the gathering, later recalled that nothing supernatural had occurred on that day. Young made a “long and loud harangue,” Miller later wrote, for which I “could not see any point in the course of his remarks than to overturn Sidney Rigdon’s pretensions.”

Why It Matters, And Why It Doesn’t

Just as 19th century historian George Bancroft believed there was nothing wrong with fabricating and reshaping the facts as long as the resulting stories “would make his readers proud of their country’s history”, so did 19th century Mormons profess to fudging the facts if it led to promoting the faith. But such Mormon urban legends have a way of backfiring. Rather than strengthening testimonies, once the deception is revealed, testimonies are often destroyed. Witness the hordes of good and faithful people leaving the church in droves every year after discovering their testimonies were dependent on deeply held beliefs that had been manipulated by those they trusted most.

Nearly a hundred years ago B.H. Roberts was already concerned about this trend:

“Suppose your youth receive their impressions of church history from ‘pictures and stories’ and build their faith upon these alleged miracles [and] shall someday come face to face with the fact that their belief rests on falsehoods; what then will be the result? Will they not say that since these things are myth and our Church has permitted them to be perpetuated …might not the other fundamentals to the actual story of the Church, the things in which it had its origin, might they not all be lies and nothing but lies?”

Whack-a-Mole Wives

Members and ex-members alike deserve to take an objective look at the women who started popping up in late nineteenth century Utah claiming to have once been secretly married to Joseph Smith. We deserve to carefully analyze their claims one by one, and that’s just the kind of research Richard and Pamela Price have been engaged in for over thirty years.

Are these tales of secret marriages not that much different from tales of miraculous transfigurations, thought to aid in affirming the glorious doctrines of The Lord’s True Church? If an apostle could claim to witness a miracle he did not see, is it not conceivable that a woman might claim a marriage she did not experience? Did any of these women come forward earlier than the late 1870′s? Do we have any contemporary accounts of their secret marriages written in their diaries at the time they supposedly took place? Why don’t we hear anything of this until these women were well past middle age and the practice of plural marriage was under attack? Anyone could have claimed to have been married to Joseph Smith, since the marriages were alleged to have been secret and no marriage certificates exist. One wife would not even have known about any of the others. “You were married to Joseph Smith? No kidding! I was married to Joseph Smith!

“Well, howdy-do and pleased ta meetcha!”

All of these dubious claims were made by women who were firm believers in The Principle, having lived their entire adult lives as plural wives, nearly all of them to men of prominence in Utah society. They were absolutely convinced that the doctrine was introduced by Joseph, so a little exaggeration to affirm the legitimacy of the practice couldn’t hurt. Doubtless some of these gals may have come to believe Joseph Smith actually would have married them for real if he had actually met them.

Let’s take a quick look at just a couple of cases of women who have been presented to me as proof positive, absolutely-airtight-smoking-gun-evidence that Joseph Smith was a sex-obsessed Lothario.

The Smoking Gun Is A Toy Cap Pistol

1. Nancy Rigdon

Nancy Rigdon was the pretty nineteen year old daughter of First Councilor Sidney Rigdon, and the way the story is often told, Joseph Smith made advances toward her in a letter and she rejected him.

In volume II of Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy, the Prices examine this story in depth and document all the juicy details. You can read the complete analysis on their website here . I’ll give you the short version.

A letter was delivered to Miss Rigdon which she was told was from Joseph Smith. The letter did not contain Joseph’s signature, and Miss Rigdon rejected it because she knew where it had come from. She suspected it was the work of John C. Bennett, who held incriminating knowledge about her seduction by Chauncey Higbee and hoped for her cooperation in entrapping Joseph. What ended up happening to the poor girl was that her affair with Higbee was made public, causing her no end of humiliation.

Wouldn’t you know it, Bennett somehow had a copy of that letter to Nancy Rigdon of his own, which he published in the Sangamo Journal, and later in his book, claiming it was written by Joseph Smith to Nancy Rigdon. Gee, I wonder how he got that copy?

Joseph Smith made affidavit denying authorship of the letter, and Nancy Rigdon herself affirmed it had not come from Smith, “nor in his hand writing, but by another person, and in another person’s hand writing.” Nancy’s father didn’t believe the letter was from Joseph either. Neither copy of the notorious letter has been found to this day. All we know of it is from what Bennett published.

Some smoking gun.

2. Helen Mar Kimball

I suppose if we came across the diary of an innocent fourteen year old girl expressing horrified apprehension about her upcoming wedding to Joseph Smith, a grown man in his mid thirties, that would be pretty damning evidence, wouldn’t it?

That’s how the journal of Helen Mar Kimball is often presented. But the journal was written by Helen when she was nearly fifty and had been one of the plural wives of Orson F. Whitney her entire adult life. Helen tells a retrospective tale of desiring to be obedient to her father who wished her to be given to the Prophet to wife. The actual purpose of her story was to bolster support for the practice of plural marriage, to which she was a devoted acolyte.

Far from being the private diary of a frightened underage girl, this was a story Helen composed in the late 1870′s which she wrote for publication. Her story has all the earmarks of the type of fabricated “history” created to build testimonies among those who may have come to question the doctrine of plural marriage. Her conclusion was that plural marriage was wonderful. She was in with both feet. Why, she even had the privilege of being married at one time to the living Prophet himself, that’s how super-duper the whole thing was.

“I learned that plural marriage is a celestial principle,” she testified, “and saw… the necessity of obedience to those who hold the priesthood, and the danger of rebelling against or speaking lightly of the Lord’s anointed.”

Helen makes it clear in an accompanying poem that her marriage to Joseph was for eternity only. That is, the marriage was never consummated. This is a typical caveat of the women who came forward with these claims. They seemed to enjoy the status of an eternal marriage to the famous founder of their faith, but most were careful to make the point that there was never any hanky-panky going on. Joseph would claim them as his celestial mates later in the hereafter. They even had themselves sealed “again” to Joseph in the Utah temple in case anybody didn’t believe them.

Those who insist that Joseph Smith was a sex-obsessed letch scoring dozens of clandestine conquests at Nauvoo will have to explain to me how the biggest celebrity in the city, during the busiest time of his life and with everyone’s eyes constantly watching his every move, would be able to woo, court, and wed two to three women every month. And then explain to me this unusual talent he had for constantly picking ladies who refused to put out.

Helen Mar Kimball’s purpose in writing her tract was to help bolster support for “The Principle” at a time when it was coming under attack from outside the church and generating questions inside. Like anyone else of her generation and in her position, when it suited her purpose, she fabricated. She didn’t write what she did because she was fishing for sympathy, she was trolling for converts.

Art or Science?

Today the study of history is a social science, no longer the malleable “art” that it was prior to the twentieth century. So perhaps it’s time Mormons as well as ex-Mormons applied the scientific process when trying to determine whether Joseph Smith was being honest in his denunciation of polygamy, or whether he was a flaming hypocrite.

“Occam’s Razor” is the scientific principle embodied in the statement that “the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.” Perhaps Fawn Brodie’s frustrated bewilderment at the conflicting evidence tying Joseph Smith to plural marriage was simply a result of her having been raised in the church (as were most subsequent Joseph Smith biographers) and accepted as a “given” that the doctrine of polygamy originated with Joseph Smith. Was she predisposed to ignore the simplest explanation?

How many of us have ever thought to check the provenance of D&C 132? Haven’t we always just assumed that it was written in Joseph’s hand? We unquestioningly accept as truth what has been handed down to us from people whose own recollections of key events changed radically depending upon the lesson they wished to convey, and who lived in a time when even the professional historians were no sticklers for accuracy.

After weighing all the evidence in any historical controversy, the best we can conclude about any given event is that it was more likely to have happened one way, and less likely to have happened another. Important factors to consider are primary and contemporary accounts (accounts written at the time), versus secondary accounts, hearsay, and later recollections.

So here’s what it comes down to. On the one hand we have countless contemporary accounts in Joseph’s own words testifying of his incessant crusade to root out polygamy in the church and his threats to prosecute its practitioners. On the other hand we have scribes as early as 1847 testifying to their complicity in tampering with the dead man’s journals, along with an entire gallery of pinch-faced dowagers appearing from out of nowhere with a claim to fame for their secret weddings to a long dead super-celebrity.

Taking Joseph Smith at his word and approaching the later claims as hyperbole typical of the zeitgeist is the only way to make sense of all the contradictions. It’s the only way the pieces of the puzzle fall into place. No one really knows the truth about what happened back then. I wouldn’t pretend to. I’ve only read half of the revisionist history on the topic, and I’m told there’s much more yet to be made available. But if I were to offer an early opinion based on the evidence I’ve seen so far, I would have to say that it seems more likely that Joseph Smith was sincere about eradicating polygamy in the church; and given what we know about the 19th century proclivity for embellishing reality without shame as long as it was for a good cause, I’d have to conclude that it’s less likely that we can rely on the claims of Joseph Smith’s several “wives”.

I don’t quite understand this reluctance some people have -both believing Mormons as well as others raised in the parochial Mormon culture- to automatically reject new information that might force a paradigm shift in their thinking. I like how B.H. Roberts looked at it: “I find my own heart strengthened in the truth by getting rid of the untruth, the spectacular, the bizarre, as soon as I learn that it is based upon worthless testimony.”

I actually like discovering I might have been wrong about something. It’s kind of exhilarating. It tells me I’m still learning.

“…do ye suppose that the Lord will still deliver us, while we sit upon our thrones and do not make use of the means which the Lord has provided for us?” –Alma 60:21

I have run into two groups (although there are more) of couples in the church. One group has tried marriage counseling and found it to be mediocre, a waste of money, and even damaging. Unfortunately, this happens. Another group of couples has not really considered it. They may feel like their relationship is pretty good, or don’t see how therapy would help. For this group I often quote the verse above – Marriage counseling is a means that God has provided for us. We cannot afford to “sit upon our thrones” (i.e. our pride) and not use therapy as an available means of improving THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF OUR ETERNAL LIVES.

So what’s the problem?

First, some marriage counseling really IS a waste of time and money. Some of it may even make your relationship worse. This is not something you can just walk into. For those who have tried counseling and had bad experiences, consider yourself validated.

Second, as mentioned above, there are many couples who do not believe their relationship warrants marriage counseling. Many of them may indeed have relatively happy marriages, and could live out their lives without any extra help. They don’t see how counseling could make their relationship even better. Some couples may actually be quite distressed, but still don’t see how counseling would help. These are all valid concerns.

In a study on why people don’t go to counseling, the top two reasons were money and lack of belief that counseling will be effective. That old standby, social stigma, is actually not much of an issue anymore (I think it came in at #18). We are more open, for the better, about psychotherapy.

We can’t afford it

I don’t know what to tell you about the financial aspect. If you really can’t afford it, or you have no insurance that will cover it, my heart goes out to you. Family Services is an option, however, and fast offerings will cover at least part of your fees. If you DO have the money, and still think it’s expensive, I urge to you check your priorities. Do you spend money on golf lessons? Are they more important than your marriage? It IS an investment. You do need to make sure you’re getting your money’s worth though.

Will it actually help?

For the second concern – whether it will actually help or not – you need to do your homework. If you have been caught in one of the cycles I mentioned in my post last week, it is a necessity that you find a therapist that can address these cycles. You will be wasting your time talking to a counseling who tries to teach you “communication skills.” Who can do communication skills when they’re standing on the edge of a cliff? You need someone better.

Not all therapists (even at Family Services) are equally effective. Talk to people you trust who have been to a marriage counselor, and ask about their experience. Talk to any friends who are therapists – they often have some good ideas and/or referrals.

While many therapists do not follow a particular model of treatment, marriage counseling requires a carefully planned set of techniques and goals, with a structure that the therapist can follow as he or she begins working with you and your spouse. Find out what kind of training and experience the therapist has had specifically in working with couples. What is their approach? If you hear things like “skills” you may want to be a little skeptical. Marriage counseling that focuses on learning skills may work in the short-term, but has a woeful relapse rate.

Some therapists will adhere more closely to a particular model of treatment. This may or may not mean they are more effective. It all depends on how good they are at the model. Currently, the only two models of marriage counseling that are heavily supported by research are Behavioral Marital Therapy (also referred to as “Integrative Behavioral Couple Therapy,” “Cognitive Behavioral Couple Therapy,” or “Traditional Behavioral Couple Therapy”) and Emotionally Focused Therapy (also referred to as “EFT” or “Emotionally Focused Couple Therapy”).

For particular models, I admit my bias. In my work with couples I mainly use EFT. According to about 20 years of research, 7 out of 10 couples experience “recovery” from distress. 9 out of 10 experience some amount of improvement. These numbers are huge. Most marriage counseling is about 50% effective, with high relapse rates. EFT has very low relapse rates, and many couples continue to experience gains in their relationships years later.

While EFT is effective for couples in general, certain couples seem to experience the most gains. If you fall into one or more the following categories, you may experience the most improvement:

• couples who are over 35 years of age
• men who would be viewed by their spouses as “emotionally inexpressive”
• women who, despite the distressed relationship, still have faith that their husbands care for them.

What is EFT like?
EFT is largely based on attachment theory, which suggests that we all have needs for safety and connection from infancy to the day we die. The ways we go about getting these needs met can sometimes cause problems in our relationships. I highly recommend the books “Hold Me Tight” by Sue Johnson and “Becoming Attached” by Robert Karen if you are interested in learning more about your relationship and attachment. Those books can be especially helpful for couples who are not distressed, but would just like to improve things.

An EFT therapist will help you understand the pattern that you get caught it, and help both of you experience the emotions underlying the pattern (these are discussed in the post last week). After a while, you and your spouse will be able to see the pattern as a common enemy you fight together, and it will still happen but won’t be as intense. You will be able to interrupt it. This is the first big change, but is not enough to last. The therapist will then work almost solely with the more withdrawn partner to help them feel safe and explore their unmet or hidden needs and emotions that drive the pattern. This partner will eventually “re-engage” in the relationship. Next, both the newly re-engaged withdrawer, along with the therapist, will help the pursuing/blaming partner to explore their underlying needs and emotions, which eventually results in a blamer/pursuer softening. I believe that these two events—the withdrawer re-engaging and the pursuer softening—are next to impossible without something like EFT. After this process has been completed, THEN you may work on specific issues, if they are still a problem. Parenting difficulties, in-laws, money, sex, use of time – all these issues become easier to solve when your cycle or pattern is no longer a problem. Naturally, there are bumps along the way. EFT can take anywhere from 12 to 40 sessions (or more) depending on how distressed you are, and if there is any trauma in either you or your spouse’s history.

This is a very brief and simplified explanation of the EFT process. Naturally, it has also been rather cognitive. This is stuff you cannot do in your head, which is why the therapist must guide you through it. There are EFT therapists in many different countries, and in many states in the U.S. If you are interested, go here to find one. Next to each of their names it will show their experience, from just receiving the basic training if EFT, to being a certified EFT therapist or supervisor. Most certified EFT therapists are probably skilled enough to help most couples.

Whether you choose EFT or some other type of therapy or therapist, choose wisely. It is a big decision. At the same time, don’t put it off! Couples wait way too long before they go to therapy. For all those husbands who don’t think they need marriage counseling, all I can say is repent and listen to your wives! Let go of your pride. Going to therapy doesn’t mean you have failed, it means you care.

May we all be proactive in improving our relationships, in whatever way we may choose to do so. May we let go of our pride and fear and anxiety and make use of the means the Lord has provided for us.

For couples who are caught in a severe pattern (i.e. they don’t know how to stop it, or it leaves one or both partners feeling angry or upset or alone), therapy may be helpful. These couples may need a therapist who can address these patterns in one way or another (in a future post I will address the issue of finding a therapist that suits you and your spouse). Even spouses that have relatively happy marriages may find therapy helpful for their relationship if they see these patterns in their relationships. These patterns can get in the way of solving problems and discussing difficult issues.

Two weeks ago I wrote about agency, including a type called “collective” agency. This fits with the concept of patterns in marriage. Each spouse can be immensely affected by the pattern in the relationship. To be sure, each spouse contributes some of their own agency to these patterns, but they are also the victims to it. Here are some of the most common patterns… If you can’t see your own relationship in one of these, chances are you either have a more complex pattern that is more difficult to spot, or you have a great “collective” relationship, full of positive patterns of emotional accessibility and responsiveness! In case of the latter, pat your relationship on the back!

Pursue/Withdraw:

This is a very common pattern. Some other names for it are demand/distance, criticize/stonewall, or complain/placate. Each partner usually takes one position or the other. The position one takes may also change with different relationships.

The pursuing partner is often more emotionally expressive, demanding, critical, and blaming. They often pursue their spouse out of protest of a loss of connection in the relationship. They sometimes feel that it is all up to them to work on the relationship, and when they sense something is wrong they want to fix it. They may also feel like they are never listened to. They may go after their partner with questions, criticism, and attempts at making their partner respond. Even an angry response is better than silence for them. Underneath their anger, anxiety, demands, and blame they often feel hurt, abandoned, alone, not wanted, or disconnected. Those underlying feelings often become fuel to the fire of their pursuit.

The withdrawing partner is often less emotionally expressive, and tend to need space to think things out on their own before they can talk. They distance themselves from conflict, and while they may look unemotional, during conflict they are often filled with overwhelming emotion that they do not always know how to show in a safe way. They often “stonewall” and become less responsive and try to retreat. Sometimes they shut down in order to protect the relationship. They may feel helpless and trapped, or that they won’t be able to satisfy their partner. Some of the underlying emotions beneath their apparent stonewall stance are rejection, fear, feeling frozen or numb, judged, or criticized. Shame can also be a big issue… for both sides.

You can probably guess how this pattern plays out. The pursuer goes after the withdrawer because they withdraw, and the withdrawer withdraws because they are being pursued, and around and around they go. Sound familiar? In the majority of cases, roughly 60-80% of pursuers are women. However, there are plenty of men who are pursuers as well. Notably, in female pursue/male withdraw patterns, the male may still often be the partner who pursues for sex. It is often the only arena the male partner feels emotionally safe enough about. These same patterns occur in gay and lesbian relationships as well.

Withdraw/Withdraw:

This pattern is more of an emotionally disconnected style, and may be the result of a pursue/withdraw pattern that has burned out. The pursuer may decide to finally give up and withdraw as well, thus creating this pattern. A friend of mine (in a great marriage) described this one as the “cold war.” In their former pursue/withdraw pattern, she would pepper him with questions and concerns during conflict, to which he would often retreat out of fear of getting angry, so she decided to stop pursuing and wait it out. For some couples this doesn’t take long to get out of—a few minutes or a few hours. Some couples spend a day, a week, or even longer in this cold war, which can leave both feeling very lonely. Some couples find themselves stuck in a withdraw/withdraw pattern around specific issues, such as sex. They may be fine in every other area, but chronic avoiders of certain topics in order to keep the peace.

Attack/Attack:

This is also often an offshoot of the pursue/withdraw pattern. In many cases, the usual withdrawer will become frustrated enough that they will come out swinging back, sometimes in a vicious way in order to protect themselves and stop the pursuer. Once this happens, the withdrawer will withdraw again until the next argument. The results of this can be devastating for both. At the same time, some of these couples balance out this high-intensity style with enough positive interaction and romance to overcome these encounters. John Gottman says that partners need at LEAST five positive interactions for ever one negative for a healthy relationship. Unfortunately, many cannot keep this balance, and this cycle does its damage. These cycles by nature can’t last very long without one or both partners eventually being flattened or just giving up and walking away.

Most couples, even happy couples, get caught in these or similar patterns from time to time. Some people find it helpful to recognize these patterns, and when they are stuck. If they are unable to get out, many find therapy to be helpful. Next time for this series I will talk more about why it is that we almost automatically take certain positions in relationships.

• Have you seen any part of yourself or your relationship in these patterns?

• For those who are fortunate to not be caught in these patterns, can you recognize the positive patterns of interaction in your relationship—times when you each are able to be open, accessible, and responsive to each other?

Reference: Johnson, S.M., Bradley, B., Furrow, J., Lee, A., Palmer, G., Tilley, D., & Woolley, S. (2005). Becoming an emotionally focused couple therapist: The workbook. New York: Routledge.

In January of this year I attended a conference where one of the speakers was Barry McCarthy, a professor at American University. He talked about couple sexuality, and described four common sexual “styles” that individuals and couples choose (or fall into). It sounds a little facebook quiz-ish, but it is helpful to recognize your style, partner’s, and the style you have together. Here are the four styles:

Complementary
This is the most common. McCarthy calls it a “mine and ours” style. Each person has their own sexual voice and preferences, and is responsible for their own experience. They combine this with also being responsible for the “intimate team.” Each partner can initiate sex or say no. They can switch off choosing different activities in bed. A big strength of this style is the role flexibility.

Traditional
This is “predictable and stable.”  These couples do not like too much excitement, and prefer traditional roles – the man is usually in charge of initiating sex, while the woman is in charge emotional closeness. Sex may not be seen as important, and strong displays of emotion and eroticism may be discouraged. A strength of this style is having clear roles, which can help prevent sex from becoming a problem.

Soul-Mate
These couples are “best-friends” but may not necessarily have the best sex life. They are open with their positive feelings, do everything together, and often think that the more close they are, the better the sex will be. This is not always the case though, as McCarthy says these partners often “de-eroticize each other.” When this style works well these couples feel a sense of acceptance and do not fear rejection. When it doesn’t work these couples lose erotic feelings for their partner, and worry about hurting feelings by talking about sexual concerns. These couples also have the most difficult time recovering from affairs.

Emotionally Expressive
These couples enjoy a little conflict and drama. They share positive and negative feelings. This is the most erotic, unpredictable, and exciting style. They are open to sexual expression and exploration. Interestingly, McCarthy says that these are usually the only couples that can effectively use things like pornography, fantasies, toys, and etc, but that these must be used as a “bridge” to arousal, rather than as a way of “walling off’ one’s partner, which often happens.

In his book, McCarthy offers an assessment to help you determine your order of preference. While it helps to know your style and your partner’s, as well as construct a style together, a reviewer notes that the most helpful aspect of the book may be the focus on mutual enjoyment rather than on arousal and orgasm (Beuhler, 2010).

Some other comments from McCarthy’s speech

• 80-85% of partners have sensitive or secret material they have never shared with their spouse (e.g. STIs, being sexually humiliated, shame about masturbation). In addition, about 10% of males (note-this *may* refer to 10% of males who already have a sexual problem, but I will check up on it to be sure) have a sexual secret that interferes with sex, which McCarthy called a “variant arousal pattern” (e.g. a fetish – which is NOT a preference, but is hard-wired into the brain with high degrees of secrecy, shame, and eroticism. These are usually on the Internet. These people may spend $500 to $2000 a month on fetish and other related sites.
• When sex completely stops in a relationship, 90-95% of the time it is the male’s decision to stop.
• Partners who report having a good sexual relationship have the ability to veto sex. They do not say “if you loved me you would…”
• Viagra doesn’t work because no one tells the couple how to integrate it into their sexual style.
• Many sexual experiences are asynchronus. As long as these experiences are not coerced, there is not a problem. Many couples get trapped in the “tyranny of mutuality,” which means partners feel they always have to be on the same page sexually, or that sex always has to be equal for both partners. Sometimes sex IS more for one or the other. Sometimes it’s to release tension for one or the other. With the mutuality problem, some couples often fall into “let’s just cuddle.” They think that if it’s not working for one, it shouldn’t work for either.
• The worst time to talk about sex is when you’re nude in bed after a bad sexual experience.

Questions for MM readers:

1. McCarthy says that 70% of couples experience a drop in sexual satisfaction when kids arrive. “What are we doing to be in the 30%?” John Gottman recommends a weekly date (at least 2 hours) and 4 “weekend getaways” (without the kids) a year. What daily, weekly, or yearly activities with your spouse have been good for your marriage?
2. Among happily married sexually active couples – 5-15% of their encounters are dissatisfying. These couples don’t apologize for it, and are able to laugh about it. For those who have relatively happy sexual relationships, how have you dealt with dissatisfying moments?

References:

Buehler, S. (2010). A review of “Discovering your couple sexual style.” Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 36.

McCarthy, B.W. & McCarthy, E.M. (2009). Discovering your couple sexual style: Sharing desire, pleasure, and satisfaction.

Our Sunday School lesson this week attempts to deal with the conundrum with which we are faced when considering that Israel’s King Solomon, who was a paragon of wisdom having received this gift from the Lord, could make the decidedly unwise decision of marrying foreign wives and following them into idolatry.  

The lesson asks the following questions (answers provided):

• How did Solomon’s choice of wives show that he had turned away from God? (See 1 Kings 11:1–2. He married out of the covenant.) What did Solomon’s non-Israelite wives influence him to do? (See 1 Kings 11:3–8. Note that in the Joseph Smith Translation, verse 4 says that Solomon’s heart “became as the heart of David his father” and verse 6 says that “Solomon did evil in the sight of the Lord, as David his father.”)
• What did the Lord do when Solomon broke his covenants and turned away? (See 1 Kings 11:9–14, 23–25, 33–36.)
• How do you think the blessings of wisdom, riches, and honor contributed to Solomon’s downfall? How have you seen these strengths contribute to the downfall of people today? How can we ensure that our strengths do not become a downfall for us? (See 1 Kings 8:61; D&C 88:67.)

I’m not sure that marrying “out of the covenant” as we consider it today has an exact equivalent in Old Testament times.  However, the Torah did command the Israelite people to avoid marriages with foreigners.  Deuteronomy 7:1-5 (a Seminary Scripture Mastery scripture, btw) states: “neither shalt thou make marriages with them: thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For he will turn away thy son from following Me, that they may serve other gods; so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and He will destroy thee quickly.”  This is exactly what happened in the case of Solomon.  He must have realized the danger these associations presented, because he allowed the foreign women he married to live in his new palace in Jerusalem until the Temple was completed, then he moved them out of the city, saying, “No wife of mine shall dwell in the house of David king of Israel, because the places are holy, whereunto the ark of the Lord hath come.” (2 Chron 8:11; see also 1 Kings 3:1; 1 Kings 9:24)  However, in his later years, Solomon’s foreign wives influenced him to stray from the worship of the One God of Israel, to build altars and to offer sacrifices to the gods of other nations.

I urge the Sunday School teachers to tread lightly when covering this topic from the lesson manual.  You will surely have some in your class who will have personally encountered Solomon’s difficulty.  It’s a puzzle that’s harder to solve than the one he was faced with when two mothers claimed the same child.  It is a heartbreaking and a controversial one for me to consider.  On the one hand, my romantic heart appreciates the concessions Solomon made for the love of his wives.  The scriptures specifically describe how he “did cleave unto these in love.”  My reading of 1 Kings 11 shows a husband who is sensitive to the needs of his wives, building them places where they could worship their gods and feel at home among a foreign people.  He even joined them in their invocations.  This type of tolerant behavior would be encouraged today when dealing with any kind of mixed marriage.  But how far should one go when making concessions to a spouse who is not of one’s faith?  Should one attend their worship services, for example?  Should one allow his or her children to be taught religious catechisms which might conflict with our own?

The scriptures and the lesson manual teach us that Solomon’s wisdom failed when it came to his decisions regarding his wives and the idolatry into which he allowed them to lure him.  How much should a teacher emphasize these points and how much should we weigh the risks of offending?

Is it best to simply avoid all of these problems by never contracting a mixed marriage?  Many Latter-day Saints take the view that marriage outside of the temple, and especially to a non-member, should never be tolerated.  Some of our readers will undoubtedly hold that opinion.  I had a 50-year-old mission companion who had followed this admonition, remaining single her whole life rather than consider the alternative of marrying outside of the faith.  I think in her later years she became bitter and regretful that she had chosen this path.  Others seem content and sure about such a decision.  Ask Mormon Girl Joanna Brooks wrote a recent post here about the anxiety this difficult issue can cause in our young members.  Do you think the story of Solomon’s downfall in the scriptures gives definitive answers to the question of whether a Latter-day Saint should marry out of the covenant of temple marriage?  How much should the Sunday School teacher draw parallels from Solomon to class members?

Finding love through the Internet is a new mating process that is increasing in popularity and has been for the past 10-20 years. As with any new process, we struggle to figure out its implications and “rules” of behavior as we embark on unchartered territory. One of the positives of the Internet is the decrease of geographical and cultural boundaries. This has a great impact on the “pool” available to those who are dating.  Our world today is much more global, as is our church, and people are meeting, falling in love or beginning friendships with those not of their culture, race or even religious faith at a much grander scale than ever before. There are many wonderful things about this – the main one being increased tolerance for others different from ourselves.
However, as with anything, there are challenges that couples in interracial, intercultural, or interfaith relationships should be aware of as they make the decision to make a life together:

• Unfortunately there still remain many stereotypes or “attitudes” towards mixed race relationships – this can depend greatly on the geographical area you live in. The best way to deal with this issue is to see it as ignorance and un-Christlike behavior. It may take patience at times, the willingness to not be overly sensitive and the willingness to be a voice, example and educator to those around you. Be clear with friends and family members that if they want to enjoy the benefits of a relationship with you and your wife (if you were to get married), that any type of racism/bigotry will be addressed and not tolerated. Because of deep seeded beliefs/cultural bias, some people may not even be aware that their behavior is racist. That is why I encourage open communication before writing people off.

• With different cultures and faiths there usually come different traditions, parenting styles, conflict/problem-resolution styles and even romance styles. As with any relationship, communication will be a key element for success.

• It will be of great importance once children are born, to engender in them a sense of pride for all aspects of their ancestry and subsequent personhood (i.e. color of skin, cultural tradition and history, etc.). Sometimes within the same family, children may have different color shades of skin tone. Communication and normalizing of the family situation will be important in engendering strong self-esteem and a strong sense of family unity. It is also important to educate them on what they can expect from the outside world so that they are prepared to deal with insults or other ignorant behavior.

Here are some thoughts in regards to your specific situation:

• It is normal to worry and “over think” when making the important decision as to your lifelong companion. In fact, it is good to be as objective as possible and be realistic about the pros and cons of the relationship. This is usually a difficult thing to do when we are “in love.” However, the more you discuss potential strengths and weaknesses as a couple, the more insight you will both receive as to your problem-solving styles, your compatibility, your attraction, your goals/dreams, etc. These are important things to be addressing during the dating process.

• I encourage you to take the relationship to the next level – that of meeting as you mention – and see how you feel about each other once you are able to spend more time with one another. There is no need to hurry or rush into any decision.

• Just because your love interest has “received an answer” and feels that you should marry, does not necessarily mean that this is your answer. It will be important for you to receive your own impressions and personal revelation regarding the decision as to whom you will marry.

• I would discourage any conversion process that is based solely on the desire to marry. Many not of our faith don’t always understand the commitment needed to legitimately become a convert.  Conversion into our religion takes doctrinal belief and personal commitment that this woman may not be completely aware of. I would hope also that from your perspective, it would be more important for her to convert sincerely if that is what she chooses at some point, than to just want her to convert due to family and/or LDS social pressure. Conversion should be a deeply personal, spiritual and largely individual journey with God.

• It is better to be aware of and recognize any cultural or racist biases you may have and be honest with yourself about them. In the desire many of us have not to be racist, we inadvertently hide uncomfortable feelings or thoughts (even from ourselves). To be able to overcome such thought processes we first need to identify them and how we want to progress. Asking ourselves the following questions may be helpful: Where do my biases come from? What lenses am I looking through (i.e. my parents?, my culture?, my education?) Are any of my biases based on evidence? Are they based on fear? Are they based on gospel teaching? How did Jesus Christ feel about and treat those of a different culture during His ministry? What can I learn from Him? How do my biases limit me? How do they protect me? Do I want this type of protection? How do I want to approach people of a different race, culture or faith? How do I want these same people to approach me?

With all this being said, I want to be clear that whether or not we marry within the same race, religion or culture – the fact remains that the two families from which two individuals come from are, in of themselves, two different cultures. We take a lot for granted when marrying within “sameness” that many times does not meet expectations. People assume certain things because of the labels we engender. Then come to find out, assumptions are not realities. It is important regardless of who we marry to be aware of the “culture” our spouse comes from, the “culture” we come from and how we are to integrate the strengths and weaknesses we bring to the table to in turn create a new found culture within the bounds of our new family and home.

MM readers:
What are your thoughts and feelings about interracial marriage?
What are your thoughts and feelings about marrying outside of our faith?

Natasha Helfer Parker is a Licensed Clinical Marriage and Family Therapist and a member of the Church with 13 years of experience working with LDS members. Here she shares with us representative cases from her practice and insights she has gained from her work as a therapist.  She blogs at mormontherapist.blogspot.com.

He is getting his temple recommend renewed. He has his humble face on. He has paid up his financial obligations to his children. He is going through the outward steps of repentance again, assembling the props he needs to act the perfect husband. But this time it is not for me, it is for her.

He is telling her that he wants the white picket fence, the family and a dog. He couldn’t have told her how the most significant times when his abuse became physical were when I was pregnant. I don’t think he has drawn that connection, himself.

Nor could she know that after he kicked the cat into the wall in front of my child, I knew I would never own a pet again. Or how he let me believe for three months we were trying to get pregnant again, when he had obtained a vasectomy a year and a half before. Or of the last time, after his reversal surgery worked and I was pregnant again. How that time I stood my ground and refused to leave the house and my other daughter alone with him when he was angry. How I then knew I could never dare to have another baby. Nor could she know that he left me, and I, in agony, decided not to let him come back. He believes now that our divorce was entirely my decision, that the years of his threats are merely my imagination.

He has gone through his “full-disclosure” phase with her, I’m sure. She can’t know that it is a smokescreen. He uses honesty as just another tool. I wonder if he told her the same things he told me. I would guess he’s only disclosed the things that he knows I am aware of. That way, he is inoculating her against future revelations. Anything he does not think she will find out on her own is still safe behind his silence.

I’m sure he has told her that he stole from me while we were married, siphoning off marital funds towards his hobbies since he has admitted that much to me. He could not have told her the extent of it; he doesn’t know I know about the thousands of dollars over the course of just a few years. Nor could she know how often I went without because our finances were so tight, how my daughter wore ill-fitting second-hand shoes because that was what we could afford. Nor that most of my “extra” money now goes into the money pit fixer-upper house that he wanted and left me with, half undone and unsafe for children.

He has told her that I am intelligent and a great mother. He has no right to tell her that, not after the years of lies told to the people who could have been my friends. He told them then I was mentally unhinged, unsafe for my daughter, suicidal. What right does he have using me to make himself look good now? What a wonderful person he is to speak so highly of his ex-wife. Never mind my loneliness because of the picture of me he painted for the world. Forget the confusion and desperation I felt when I tried to make friends only to be treated like a nuclear bomb about to go off. Never mind the public record that shows he thinks me an adulteress, a psychopath and a lawbreaker. Now, he can use my virtues to exalt himself to her.

Should I tell her how when I dressed up and tried to make myself attractive, his Internet or movies or car were more interesting? It was when I felt my most ugly or ill that he used me. Or perhaps I could tell her how he would pressure me into doing things that made me feel dirty and cheap, how he would spend hours on the Internet researching how often sex should be done in order for me to be a good wife.

Would she want to know that if he does not get enough sex, his aggression builds up? Perhaps I should mention the unutterable pain I went through every time, until childbirth made it easier for me. The pain that he used to convince me I was an utter failure as a wife. The pain I squashed down so that I could perform the way a wife is supposed to perform.

She sits across from me, confident, smiling. To her, life is still a series of decisions that she can make. She hasn’t yet faced a life that will always be tainted, somewhat, with another person’s choice.

I used to wonder why liars were listed with murderers and adulterers. Now I know. Now I see that for him, lying is not a behavior, it is who he is. His lies penetrate so deeply under his skin that even he does not know what is truth any more. That is part of why he is so believable: he is always, utterly sincere.

I look at her and my heart tears. One part wants to scream at her to run away while she still can. The other part, rational, knows that she will never believe what I have to say, and sees that she will make about as good of a stepmother for my girls as can be hoped for. That part also reasons with my emotions, pointing out that by telling her what I have lived through, I weaken the shield I have carefully built out of his ignorance. If he begins to see how much I know, he will realize he can no longer lie to me, and my children and I will be in danger again. For now, while he is pursuing her, he is satiated and happy, and has no reason to attack me and mine. For now, there is some level of peace.

The rational part wins. It wins a lot lately, despite the rampant strength of my feeling side. As she hints around aspects of my relationship with him, I tell her that before I talk about it to her, I want her to go and pray and find out by the Spirit if she really wants to know.

She wants to get to know me, to offer the olive branch because, as she says, we are sisters in Zion. After she leaves, I begin to realize that by making the first move to build the bridge between us, she can know what a wonderful person she is. She and he are the magnanimous couple, having used the Atonement to wash away their sins, benevolent in their cleanliness, bestowing blessings on the poor, foolish, damaged ex-wife. She does not know the raw pain of the Atonement for me, or the hard lessons the Lord has been teaching me as He helps me put my life and myself back together. She doesn’t know how much happier, stronger I am now, and wiser, though I have so much more to learn. She doesn’t realize that I always intended friendship with whatever girl he ends up snaring. She will need a friend when he puts the props away and begins to act himself again.

Readers, what is your reaction to Leah’s story?  How can we balance the principles of forgiveness, repentance and the Atonement when faced with a person wielding unrighteous dominion?

How can we help those around us who are victims of misplaced gospel principles (such as family, the temple covenants, unity and selflessness in marriage, priesthood, honesty, forgiveness, etc.) especially in cases of abuse?

What does it mean to truly repent and forgive? How can we allow the Atonement to heal us when we have been (and are being) seriously wounded by another’s exercise of agency?

Here’s the situation:

Matt and Sarah are a young couple living in Las Vegas. They are very physically active, and put a high priority on health and exercise. They love the warm weather and their big neighborhood pool. They originally met in Germany (Sarah is German, and speaks fluent English) while Matt was on his mission. Matt went back to Germany later on to study abroad, and after a brief courtship he proposed. They eventually ended up in Las Vegas where Matt is getting an MBA and Sarah is a personal trainer. They get along pretty well overall, but have had an ongoing debate about modesty. Sarah thinks Matt is too lax about wearing his garments. She doesn’t like Matt wearing his running shorts to the grocery store, or leaving his shirt off to wash the car. Matt doesn’t like Sarah wearing a bikini at the neighborhood pool, or on family vacations, or on facebook. Vegas summers are just sooooooo hot, right?

Let’s listen in on a recent debate…

Sarah: “I get that you don’t like to change at the gym, but why do you wait sooooo long to change after you come home? There’s always one more smoothie to grab, a car to wash, and errand to run. You end up never putting your garments back on until the end of the day. That doesn’t jive with what I learned at the temple, and I don’t see how you can have a recommend, Elder.”

Matt: [Laughing] “Oh no! I better give up my recommend! Chillax. Really though, after I workout I don’t like changing again until I’ve taken a shower, and I need to stop sweating first. It’s not exactly cool here. If God’s okay with me taking off my garments to workout, I’m sure he won’t mind if I wash the car.”

Sarah: “Heh, fine. I don’t think we’re ever going to agree on this, because I’m right and you’re stubborn. Why did I marry you again?” [playfully smirking]

Matt: “You’re hot!” [Sarah roles her eyes] “KIDDING!”

Sarah: [Scoffs] You’re digging yourself into a hole here buddy…”

Later on that day…

Matt: “I just don’t know how I feel about our photos on the beach in Maui ending up on your facebook–which you spend WAY too much time doing, by the way. Anyway, do you really want the Elder’s Quorum President or some other ward member to see you in a bikini when they check facebook? I don’t even want to know what they’re thinking.”

Sarah: “Okay, wow, so it’s my responsibility to control their thoughts? I have already had to adjust to the culture here… and what’s with the facebook dig, Mr. World of WarCraft? Anyway, that’s not the issue here. Americans are kind of ashamed of their bodies. They could use a little liberation. Gosh that sounds weird considering we live in Vegas.”

Matt: “Exactly! Are we living the Lord’s standards or the world’s? Women shouldn’t wear immodest swimsuits. What kind of message are you sending to the Young Women?”

Sarah: “So, YOU’RE the one who decides what is or is not modest? This is SUCH a cultural issue. In some places an ankle is immodest. And why is my belly button less modest than yours?”

Matt: “Standards for what we wear is NOT a cultural issue.”

Sarah: “We shouldn’t try to cram Utah Mormon Culture down the throats of all the other cultures of the world. People can still be faithful and have different cultures. Stop trying to force me to live according to your sexist standards… PLEASE tell me why my navel is more offensive than yours! You don’t have an argument, really.  YOU are also often breaking something that is very much indeed universal with not wearing your garments a lot of the time. Who cares about what other people are thinking about what we wear. What matters is what we think and what God thinks, and you’re in the wrong here.”

Make the call! Who wins this argument?

[poll id="181"]

Granted, no one really wins, so how can a couple like this come to an understanding, or acceptance?

You have mentioned the importance of communicating with our spouse about our view of sex–not just the fantasies. I don’t feel like I can do that with my husband. He is not a safe place to go for me. We have a different opinion about how and how often we should be having sex. Part of my opinion on that is because of insecurities that I have about my body, that sadly, he has made even worse. So when I try to express my opinions on the subject I feel like he has just gotten defensive. And his defense mechanism is to just shut down. It has been going on for a long time. In other areas of our marriage, I feel like we are doing pretty well, but this issue has lately begun to seep through our whole relationship and I feel like if we don’t take care of it soon, we won’t be able to at all.
We all come to marriage with our own sexual histories, sexual expectations and sexual taboos. And there is no magical guidebook given to us after the marriage ceremony to help us navigate through these complicated thoughts, feelings and frustrations. Here are some thoughts I had as I read through your experience:

• Sexuality is closely tied with our egos, self-esteem and for many a sense of shame or embarrassment. This is why it can be difficult to talk about and most of us could use some help in this department.
• Our religious framework often has much to do with the “hows” and the “how oftens.”  Having frank and open discussions in a respectful setting regarding sex is pivotal to any couple of any faith.
• The “how oftens” also have much to do with differences in biological drive.  Knowledge of how biological drive will affect your sexuality as a couple is also important.
• One recommendation is to go get couples counseling. Make sure you go to someone who is qualified to do couples work, which is different from individual therapy. You may also consider going to a specialized sex therapist who is even more qualified to deal with sexual issues.  The biggest mistake that couples make when it comes to seeking professional help is to not get it early enough. You say your marriage is primarily in a good place. It will be much easier to do this work now before you add years of resentment, mistrust, and anger.  A good therapist, whether LDS or not, should respect your religious values regarding sexuality.  Since the sense of safety is so important to whether or not a couple can successfully resolve issues, this should be one of the main themes around the work you do in therapy.
• The only person you have control over is yourself. And the only person who can work on your self-esteem is yourself. If your partner is making comments that put you down, it can be extremely difficult to NOT have it affect your self-esteem. However, your self-esteem is your own responsibility and I would recommend doing some self-esteem work. If your partner refuses to seek help with you, it is your right to seek help anyway.
• There is a big difference between constructive feedback and putting somebody down. Unfortunately in marriage we can often belittle our partner or find ourselves being criticized in an unproductive way. A common self-defense mechanism is finding faults in others when we don’t feel good about ourselves. Your husband may be struggling with his own self-esteem and be putting you down as a result. Obviously in a marriage, this negative pattern can spiral to the point that affection and intimacy are greatly affected. It is perfectly reasonable to set appropriate boundaries around hurtful or negative comments (i.e. “I am not ok with you putting down the way I look. It affects my self-esteem and it is not healthy for our marriage.”).
• It would be helpful if we could remember that pointing out to our spouse things that we don’t like about them (especially in a critical or demeaning fashion) usually has the opposite effect of getting what we want.
• When it is difficult to talk about something, especially with a spouse who withdraws from conflict, it can be useful to write a letter instead. I would include the following elements (and notice the use of “I” statements which help keep you away from blame):

1. These are the things I love about our marriage…. These are the things that I think we are good at….
2. At the same time (not however or but), I feel like we would both agree that we’ve been struggling in this area…
3. I would like to get some outside help so that we can look forward to increasing the level of intimacy and trust in our relationship…. These are some options that I am considering…
4. Please let me know your thoughts on the matter…..
5. I believe in us…..
6. I love you and my desire is to be closer to you…

• If I was going to work with you as a couple some information that would be helpful to know about you would be:

1. is there any past sexual trauma for either partner?
2. what are your sexual histories? have you been honest with each other about your sexual histories?
3. what are the patterns of previous generations? what kinds of relationships were modeled? how was sex education and messages communicated about in the families of origin?
4. how has your religion framed your sexual mindset? how do each of you see the purpose of sex?
5. is there any past or current sexual behavior that would cause shame or secrecy (i.e. pornography use, affairs, ruminating thoughts, etc.)?
6. what’s the level of self-esteem work that needs to be done for both?
7. are there any eating disorders involved?
8. what correlation do you see between emotional, intellectual, spiritual and physical intimacy?

For the readers of MM – what have you found useful in your relationships when talking about topics that don’t feel comfortable or safe?  How have you struck a balance between offering constructive criticism instead of belittlement?  How have you taken constructive criticism yourself?  How do gospel principles help or hinder us in this department (i.e. stand up for yourself vs turn the other cheek)?  Do you feel safe talking to your spouse about sex?  Do the church education programs prepare us to talk to our spouses about sex?  How do we best handle differences in the “how” or “how often” departments?  When should compromise be part of the equation and when shouldn’t it?  What about issues of physical attraction when one of us gains weight for example?

Here’s the situation:

David and Sue Johansen have been married for 20 years. They have four children: 19 (girl), 15 (girl), 12 (girl), and 8 (boy). The oldest just finished up her sophomore year in college, about a two-hour drive away. She is doing very well in school, majoring in biology and pre-med with a 3.8 GPA, and her boyfriend of nearly two years is an education major, planning to teach high school English in an inner-city school. Needless to say more, they are both very competent and successful in their educational pursuits. While away at school, she eventually became disinterested in attending the local branch, and eventually moved in with her boyfriend. While this concerns both David and Sue, they disagree about what should be allowed when their daughter and her boyfriend come to visit. Sue feels that their daughter is an adult and should be allowed to share a room with her boyfriend. David vehemently disagrees.

David: “If we allow them to sleep in the same room in OUR home, we will be condoning her choices. How can we allow this in our home, which is SUPPOSED to be sacred?!? You should be supporting me on this. Well, not just me, but the Lord.”

Sue: [Rolls eyes] “Of course we don’t agree with her choices, but she is an adult! Besides, your preaching about our “home” and what you think the Lord wants is divisive. Of course I care about our home, but your attitude is belligerent and controlling.”

David: [Raises voice] “Well, that’s the consequence of sin! Jesus himself said so. Just because she’s our daughter doesn’t mean we have to accept her sinful behaviors.”

Sue: “I really think you should back off on this. Actually, the other kids feel the same way as well. She is doing so well in school, you need to give her some space as an adult.”

David: [Looking hurt, softens voice] “So you’re all ganging up against me on this?” [Raises voice, becomes adamant] “Then you’re going against the Lord. Regardless, what kind of example will that set for the rest of our kids? That this is okay? It seems to already be happening… And I agree, she is doing well in school, but she is only successful by the world’s standards. How many children will we lose to the world? I don’t want to lose anymore” [Begins to tear up a little]

Sue: “I get it, she is not living the church’s standards right now. We don’t agree with her choices, but she is on birth control, and she is 19 years old! You are going to drive her away with your insistence on parenting our adult child. What does it matter if she shares a room with her boyfriend if it means she isn’t pushed out of the family? You NEED to let this one go.”

David: “What about when Elder Oaks said that we can’t ignore adult children who are cohabitating? He is an apostle and he said it is wrong for us to ignore it. How can we ignore the Lord? Also, Elder Nelson said that we should confront children in these situations, not just go along with it. We can’t support sin!”

Sue: “It’s clear to me that you care more about quoting church leaders than you care about our family. We all     disagree with you. It is her choice, and if we don’t accept their relationship, we will drive them away. Is that what we want?”

David: [Getting louder] “Of course not! But we can’t condone this! I’m beginning to think you don’t really care about what I think or what the leaders of the church think, or even what the Lord thinks.”

Sue: [Getting quiet] “Here you go again…”

You make the call! Who wins this argument? David or Sue? Why? Sound off in the comments, and offer some advice about how this couple could work out this disagreement in a more productive way than just declaring a winner….

[poll id="178"]

“Delegation Takes No Action on Human Sexuality Issues: Church Will Continue Dialogue.”

Headline  by John Hamer on BCC on Thursday, April 15, 2010:

“Gay Rights Revelation Added to The Community of Christ D&C”

———-

The two headlines above generally cover the spectrum of opinion about what happened at the Community of Christ World Conference as it completed the process of canonization of a new Section 164 for its D&C. The spectrum of opinions about whether what happened was a good thing or bad thing, of course, runs even more broadly. Indeed, I’m not at all certain that we’ll even be able to see how intense the various “colors” of that spectrum will prove until information about the conference filters down to the bulk of the North American church that maintains no real connection to the World Church in the “Blogitorium”. As in many churches on the Christian left in North America, that membership tends to be somewhat more traditionalist than its leadership.

Nevertheless, I’ll give my view as someone from one part of the peanut gallery, focusing on what was in each portion of Section 164 and the effects of associated legislation passed to begin implementation. A future post will provide a similar analysis on legislation considered by the Conference not specifically addressed by Section 164 and suggest something about the overall direction of the Community of Christ in the future.

SECTION 164, PARAGRAPHS 1-4

President Veazey describes the experiences of meditation, particularly on portions of Galatians 3:27-29, that led him to offer the Section. After commending the church for similarly seeking to discern the Spirit in a structured process that has been going on for well over a year, he makes explicit an understanding of the church and its sacraments which has been implicit in CofChrist theology for a number of years.

“…Instruction given previously about baptism was proper to ensure the rise and cohesiveness of the church during its early development and in following years. However, as a growing number have come to understand, the redemptive action of God in Christ—while uniquely and authoritatively expressed through the church—is not confined solely to the church. God’s grace, revealed in Jesus Christ, freely moves throughout creation, often beyond human perception, to achieve divine purposes in people’s lives.”

The Community of Christ is to see itself as “one true church”, not as the “one and only true church”. How serious is this theological intent was earlier signaled by something I haven’t seen commentators note elsewhere. The first sessions of Conference always feature certain speeches of welcome. One is usually a non-CofChrist speaker. This speaker is often a local Congressman or a Missouri Senator. The speech is strictly non-political even then, but the identity is interesting because trends over time seem to show the direction of the church leadership’s interest.

This year that slot went to the Rev. Dr. Michael Kinnamon, General Secretary of the National Council of Churches. Kinnamon unabashedly spoke of the Community of Christ having unique gifts that should be seen as adding to bodies such as the NCC, rather than as a body going its own way. Ironically, contacts between the RLDS and the NCC were among the suspicions cited by fundamentalist opponents of the church circa 1970 as evidence of apostasy. Thus, such a speech 40 years ago might itself have been too controversial to occur.

Section 164 then lays out specific instruction (that will be followed quickly by formal administrative policy guidance to become effective by September 1, 2011). These policies will result in acceptance into membership into the Community of Christ upon confirmation by CofChrist priesthood – without requiring rebaptism if the original baptism: a) involved water;  b) was performed by an ordained Christian minister;  and c) as a personal expression of faith in Christ. In particular, we will not require someone to present proof of their baptism or the baptizing minister’s credentials, since that would be impossible in many places throughout the world. This clearly expands the notion of true priesthood authority beyond the boundaries of those called through the priesthood line passed to Joseph Smith.

The phrase “using water” also allows for baptisms done by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling, while upholding the church’s own standard practice of baptism by immersion at the age of accountability. There is also some additional specific guidance regarding the substance of the prayer of confirmation (Baptism of the Spirit) that is now the means by which one moves from being part of the Body of Christ into membership within the denomination. And preparation for confirmation will now be a formal requirement for the ordinance to occur.

Paragraph 3 contains a call for all members to serious consider and live the meaning of their baptismal covenants (water and Spirit). Paragraph 4 ties this call to consideration of the role the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper should play in renewing, witnessing, and amplifying our covenant. (Portions of the preamble specifically warn us to NOT make the meaning of the covenants atrophy even as we broaden the procedures, because of the concern that in some places this has happened with open communion).

This portion of the Section makes the Community of Christ look very Protestant – if you can call becoming more Protestant through modern revelation a Protestant concept in the first place.

SECTION 164, PARAGRAPHS 5-7

These are the paragraphs whose approval generated the widely divergent headlines above. Their actual content is to call attention to “serious questions about moral behavior and relationships” – but to prioritize those questions not simply as they are listed within the dominant culture of the denomination.

“These issues are complex and difficult to understand outside their particular settings because of strikingly different cultural histories, customs, and understandings of scripture. For example, the issues include female submission, female genital mutilation, child brides, forced marriages, and sexual permissiveness. They include cleansing and exploitation of widows, harsh conflicts over same-gender attraction and relationships, and varying legal, religious, and social definitions of marriage, to name just a few.”

More importantly, the Section calls us to see the solutions for these moral dilemmas as arising from an understanding of Christianity as a community that transcends definitions by economic status, social class, sex, gender, or ethnicity. They simply are no longer primary. Relationships are to be rooted in the principles of Christ-like love, mutual respect, responsibility, justice, covenant, and faithfulness, against which there is no law.

Section 164 then extrapolates that these principles require that the church move the resolution of moral issues to the church in the cultures most affected by them rather than let the dominant North American church decide for the rest of the world. Field Apostles, under the guidance of the Presidency, are authorized to call and set the agenda for field, national, or (non-geographical) cultural groups to deal with issues such as those listed above as they feel directed.

Uncertainty about the nature and timing of these conferences is generating the widely divergent headlines about gay rights. First, everyone in the Community of Christ seems to understand that the leadership feels that it must not expose our leaders and members in cultures where discussion of gay issues is taboo. If so, they can hardly move toward expanded gay rights in the United States unless they can find a way to maintain what the government would call “plausible deniability”.

Second, there is a large body of conservative members in the US church (and non-members in society) whose reaction must be anticipated and allowed for. The LDS experience with Prop 8 shows what happens when the church in the US takes any position on controversial issues in the political arena. Many feel the church has moved too hesitantly and will continue to do so; others are likely to feel the church is moving in the wrong direction entirely.

Finally, there are logistical questions. It seems unlikely that the US church has the resources to assemble a national conference on gay rights issues before the spring of 2012 at the earliest. It will take until September, 2011, simply to implement the new conditions for membership.

The greatest sign of movement toward gay rights comes from something in administrative minutia. It is normal for the church to realign Apostolic Fields following a World Conference (our Apostles retire, so there are usually changes in the Twelve). This time a gerrymandered field has been carved out for Apostle Susan Skoor that stretches from Southern Australia to Eastern Canada – and just happens to cover all of the non-US jurisdictions that proposed World Conference legislation expanding full priesthood and sacramental rites for gays. The extension of rights in that Field or in nations within that Field might be granted while maintaining sufficient distance from the World Church (and prying media) to protect the church in cultures hostile to gay rights.

Expansion to the US is much more difficult to do while maintaining any credibility to foreign governments and religious bodies that “this is just local jurisdictions acting on their own.”

Perhaps more significantly in the long run than the particular moral issues – at least from the perspective of this Washington spectator – is the change these paragraphs make in the legislative rights of mission centers to set the agenda for the church. The Presidency immediately ruled 21 legislative proposals that had been painstakingly brought to the conference as out of order because they reflect National or Regional concerns. These rulings were entirely appropriate under Section 164 guidance.

However, the Conference later passed implementing legislation for the field and national conferences that make them “special conferences”. Such conferences operate under different parliamentary rules than World Conference. In particular,  Mission Centers lack the right to place items on the agenda of special conferences; that agenda is set only by the Apostle who calls the conference with the approval of the Presidency. In short, this revelation makes the Community of Christ less democratic and more theocratic than it was a year ago.

SECTION 164, PARAGRAPH 8

Paragraph 8, by contrast, shows the flexibility and speed with which the Community of Christ can move on organizational issues when it wishes to do so. The Twelve and the Presidents of the Seven Quorums of Seventy have been meeting for several years in response to the immediately previous revelation (Section 163) to consider organizational changes to increase evangelistic effectiveness. Paragraph 8 is taken as authorization to make these changes.

Within 24 hours of Section 164 approval, the number of Quorums of Seventy was increased from seven to ten, the additional Quorum Presidents were named, and they were approved by the Conference and set apart to that calling. Jack Bauer couldn’t have moved faster. Clearly, the outcome of these discussions among the leading quorums was well prepared in advance, while they are still feeling their way around the notion of how and when national conferences will function.

Reorganization of the Twelve, while not fundamental, essentially separates the world into 10 Fields for the moment, each led by an Apostle, with the remaining two Apostles focusing on Headquarters-oriented tasks. For the first time, a single Quorum of Seventy will be aligned with the geographic or other missionary focus of a Field Apostle.

SECTION 164, PARAGRAPH 9

The final paragraph of the document is a benediction of sorts, and a challenge that the rise of Zion is no farther away than the willingness of all of us – all the “beloved children of the Restoration” – to overcome our insecurities and embrace a Christ-like life.

“The mission of Jesus Christ is what matters most to the journet ahead.”

He has an interesting perspective on the Biblical story of Rachel and Leah.  As we all know, Jacob (who later changed his name to Israel), greatly loved Rachel.  After working for 7 years to marry Rachel, he was duped into marrying Rachel’s sister Leah, and then had to work another 7 years to marry Rachel.  Fertel makes an interesting note that Jacob didn’t complain that he married Leah, and was satisfied to know that he could still have Rachel.

Let me quote directly from the book, because I love this point.

Jacob lived in the community as a single man for seven years.  He knew the tradition that the older sister marries first.  That’s why he didn’t complain about marrying Leah….Jacob knew he had to marry Leah–that wasn’t a problem for him.  He wanted to marry Rachel, and the fact that he did not–that was a problem for him.  So when he was told that he would marry Rachel, he was satisfied.  That’s all he wanted.  He didn’t need an explanation for why he married Leah.  He knew he had to marry Leah in order to marry Rachel.  He knew that to marry the woman of his choice, he had to marry the woman of his fate too.  And that’s why the story of Jacob serves as a paragon for a successful marriage.  Because the truth is when you marry, you marry Rachel and Leah.  You choose your spouse which you don’t yet know–your fate.  And to succeed in love, you have to commit to both–Rachel and Leah, your choice and your fate, the revealed and the unrevealed.

…

Most people don’t enter a marriage with this attitude.  Most people, when they wake up to find Leah next to them, complain that Leah was not their choice.  Most people become frustrated with their spouse and their marriage when they discover character flaws, problems, and differences.  Most people feel so duped into marrying Leah that they divorce Rachel.  But it’s not possible to marry one without the other.  Leah always appears.  The key to success in love and marriage is to know what to do when “she” does.

Soul mates are not perfect for each other.  Soul mates love each other with all their imperfections.  Soul mates love each other no matter what.

I found this story intriguing, and have enjoyed the book and other materials from the package.  One of the pieces of advice I have tried to implement (which my wife fully supports) is to have a set day for a baby-sitter every Friday night.  This is a scheduled appointment, and we have a girl in the ward who has agreed to do this.  However, she has not proved as reliable as she agreed at the beginning.

Fertel says a consistent date night is a must, and should not be canceled for any reason.  He says it puts marriage as a priority, and forces you to do something.  And he says that the date night can’t include movies, or other people (ie no kids or extended family).  You must talk face to face for at least one hour, and it can’t include anything logistical.  Learn about hopes, dreams, philosophy of life, etc.  The more I thought about this, it reminds me of what dates were like when we were single.  Unfortunately, it seems that children and work crowd into the romance.  He says too many couples become roommates, and this is why we drift apart.  I must confess that I have fallen into this trap, and I resolve to get my marriage in better shape!

So, what do you think of Fertel’s analogy of Rachel and Leah?

Much of what I know of charity envying not (and charity in totality) was learned by watching my father – particularly as he laid down his own life for the woman he loves. He never once begrudged what he might have had, but rather did what it took to serve his family and others in his own, individual, consciously chosen path. I hope someday I will be as good a man as he is.

Here are some edited excerpts of what I wrote in November of 2007:

My mom has a rare form of schizophrenia. My father was unaware of this, as was everyone else (including my mother), when they got married. He found out after the birth of my sisters (twins), when she was overwhelmed and her mind wouldn’t shut down and allow her to sleep. She had what was termed a nervous breakdown, which led to her clinical diagnosis.

From that moment forward, my dad shielded my mom from every care of the world so her condition would stay in remission, if you will. By all practical measures, he became my father and my mother. They had four children, but my mom wanted more, so he agreed – knowing that meant his responsibilities would increase accordingly. Ultimately, they had eight. He shouldered all of the financial, household, emotional, physical, disciplinary, organizational, educational, etc. responsibilities for his family and allowed his wife to be seen by the community as the incredibly spiritual woman we knew as our mother – a modern Mormon saint. People in town admired his work ethic, but they never realized what he was doing behind our doors – because he never once mentioned it in any way to anyone.

Until her first breakdown, my father served in various leadership positions in the Church – for example, serving in a Bishopric before the age of 30. After that, he literally laid down the life he had been pursuing and focused on serving my mother. He waited nearly 30 years to serve in another position that required he spend significant time away from home – until his children were gone and my mom could function without the stress associated with raising them. He left an extremely well paying job with incredible advancement opportunities to go back to the small town where my mom was raised, simply to ease her stress and allow her to function normally. He became an elementary school janitor for over 20 years, took a 50% pay cut and focused on loving and serving his kids – both at home and at his school – in relative poverty.

Not holding a high-profile church position or good-paying job, he came to be known in town as a salt-of-the-earth farm boy – a good man, but certainly not a leader. I bought into that perception until my mother’s second breakdown a few years ago, when her “sleeping pills” stopped working and her whole personality changed. It was only after this experience that I finally saw my father for what he is – as close an example of the Savior’s single-minded dedication to service and family as anyone I have ever known.

(The full post can be read at: http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2007 … rning.html)

So much of what we discuss so passionately in the Bloggernacle is important and interesting and stimulating and fun . . . and ultimately meaningless when placed next to charity and the lives of good, humble men and women. 

Today, as I contemplate charity envying not, I think of a man lying in a hospital – robbed of the physical strength and vitality that allowed him to work multiple jobs for years to provide for his familty and allow his beloved to remain at home and undistracted by the real world around her. I think of a man who lived the life he felt was required of him given his covenants and responsibilities – even though that life brought unexpected hardships and sacrifice.

I spoke with him last night, and the voice I heard was foreign to me. It hit me for the first time in real terms that my father is an old man – and that he now will need to receive the same type of care and attention that he gave so freely for decades. I only hope that others respond and serve him as he served them so unselfishly and charitably – but, in the spirit in which he raised me, I will not judge or condemn them if they do not.

I love you, Dad – and I will be grateful eternally that I learned at the feet of such a wonderful, Christlike man.

Equality is the quality of being the same in quantity or measure or value or status.  I realize that it has become politically correct to describe our LDS families as simultaneously patriarchal and equality-based.  But this is linguistically impossible. (Whew. I’m having uncontrollable urges to type in all caps.)   The Proclamation on the Family attempts to describe a family situation where fathers are responsible to preside and provide but at the same time both partners are obligated to help one another as equal partners.

In order to do this, Mormons attempt to change the definition of patriarchy to something that has little or no meaning. The patriarch in a family, they insist, does not hold the power or authority over his wife to the extent that it would negate her equality.  Instead, he merely calls the family together for spiritual activities and invites a family member to say the prayer.  As one blogger so succinctly stated it, “The patriarch is the presiderer, not the deciderer.” He further explains:

“Men and women are consider to be of equal status in the LDS church…Because childbirth and child-rearing tends to be spiritually sanctifying endevers for women, the priestood assigns men spiritual duties that they would not normally take on themselves… How does this presiding business affect decision-making? Not much. When my wife and I make a decision, we make it together. I would never just tell my wife, ‘I am the deciderer.’ In conclusion, God has given that men preside because of our lack of spiritual fitness. We need the exercize.”

Unfortunately, this blogger not only needs work on spelling words which begin with “e,” he also needs to look up the definition of the word “preside.” This word, far from softening the meaning of patriarchy, only serves to reinforce:

Preside — To occupy or hold a position of authority, as over a meeting. To possess or exercise power or control.

If the LDS Church is to move to a stance of equal partnership within the family, they really have no choice but to lose the words “patriarchal” and “preside” with respect to the position a husband holds in the home.

“But BiV,” you say.  “We’ve been over this ground many times before.  Why bring it up again?”

I bring it up because I fear that with the attempt to soften the rhetoric of patriarchy/presiding in the home and make it compatible with equality, our members are losing the sense that patriarchy is a social construct (see our definitions below).  There is no necessity to consider patriarchy an eternal condition.  I prefer to look at patriarchy as a negative effect of the Fall (thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule over thee) which will be ameliorated in the eternal realm.  President Spencer W. Kimball wrote a foreward to the Brigham Young University publication of Hugh W. Nibley’s discourse on the ideal of marriage in God’s Eden and stated:

“There is no patriarchy or matriarchy in the Garden; the two supervise each other … and [are] just as dependent on each other.”

We do not know exactly what Priesthood and Priestesshood will look like in a post-mortal condition.  But we have been taught that equality will be restored.  Elder James E. Talmage wrote:

“It is not given to woman to exercise the authority of the Priesthood independently; nevertheless, in the sacred endowments…woman shares with man the blessings of the Priesthood.” Talmage then hints at a greater sharing of priesthood in the next life: “When the frailties and imperfections of mortality are left behind, in the glorified state of the blessed hereafter, husband and wife will administer in their respective stations, seeing and understanding alike, and co-operating to the full in the government of their family kingdom.” (“The Eternity of Sex,” YW Journal 25 (October 1914): 602-603)

The shift to an equality-based home in recent times is commendable.  I feel it more accurately represents the balance of power and oneness which will prevail in the eternal realms.  A majority of two-parent LDS homes today are organized around an ideal expressed by Gordon B. Hinckley as follows:

“In this Church the man neither walks ahead of his wife nor behind his wife but at her side. They are coequals…  Since the beginning, God has instructed mankind that marriage should unite husband and wife together in unity.  Therefore, there is not a president or a vice president in a family. The couple works together eternally for the good of the family. They are united together in word, in deed, and in action as they lead, guide, and direct their family unit. They are on equal footing. They plan and organize the affairs of the family jointly and unanimously as they move forward.” ( Ensign, Nov. 1996, 49.)

If this egalitarian goal is to be accomplished, the competing words “patriarch” and “preside” must be eliminated from the description of family dynamics. They are not useful in encouraging the father to play a more active role in the spiritual life of his family. Instead, the rhetoric should change to more concisely describe the desired result.  Why not urge fathers to become more involved in spiritual instruction, or to more enthusiastically model religious behaviors, if that is what we mean by “presiding?”
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Patriarchy:

• A form of social organization in which the father is the supreme authority in the family, clan, or tribe (Random House Dictionary)
• A social system in which the father is the head of the family and men have authority over women and children. (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language)
• A family or society in which authority is vested in males, through whom descent and inheritance are traced. (American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy)
• Social system in which the father or a male elder has absolute authority over the family group; by extension, one or more men (as in a council) exert absolute authority over the community as a whole. (Encyclopedia Britannica)
• Social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family, the legal dependence of wives and children, and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line; broadly : control by men of a disproportionately large share of power (Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary)
• a society, system, or organization in which men have all or most of the power and influence (Macmillan Dictionary)

Differences in religious belief can be the death knell to a marriage. For that reason, many organized religions strongly advocate against being “yoked with unbelievers”. This is not only a Mormon phenomenon; you see this in any faith tradition that teaches that they alone have exclusive access to God. Even before marriage, it is rare for the unmarried, devout Mormon to even consider dating (let alone marrying) a non-Mormon; most LDS women raised in the Church are taught from an early age to make a temple marriage to a returned missionary their primary goal.

Likewise, in the Catholic Church, marriage to any non-Catholic (including Protestants!) is not permitted within a Catholic church building, and is not considered to be a Sacrament. In particularly conservative Catholic cultures, it really is considered a heresy to marry someone not of the (same rite of the) Catholic Church. Consider, for example, the movie My Big Fat Greek Wedding: Toula refuses to marry Protestant Ian until he joins the Greek Orthodox Church (thus leading to a humorous scene of Ian being baptized).

Similar to Mormon ‘Marriage Prep’ and ‘Temple Prep’ Sunday School courses, dating Catholic couples are required to pursue a several-month course of marriage preparations classes, known as Pre-Cana. Similar to Mormons, Catholics who have pre-marital sexual relations (usually known from the resulting offspring) cannot be married on Catholic church grounds. However, they can have their marriage “convalidated” at a later date, similar to to a family being ‘sealed’ a year after a civil marriage.

I compare these things not so much to indicate how Catholics do things so much as to show just how non-unique Mormons are in many ways with regards to their approach to interfaith marriage.

Disbelief that comes after marriage, however, is harder to deal with. Despite the admonition of Paul in the 1 Corinthians that:

[I]f any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy. (1 Cor. 7:12-14)

it is really not all that uncommon to see marriages Mormon temple marriages dissolve once one member of the union loses faith. The same can also be true in Catholic culture, where one of the vows made at the altar is to raise your children Catholic.

A few examples, then, to illustrate some of what I am talking about:

A Mormon female friend of mine (who also happens to be a reader of this blog) attended a non-LDS university for college. Her Patriarchal Blessing was explicit that she was to marry an RM in the temple. When a Baptist schoolmate asked her on a date, she turned him down several times before giving him an ultimatum: She would only go on a date with him if he would read the Book of Mormon and consent to taking the missionary discussions. Confident that the Mormon church was misguided, and that he could show her the error of her ways, he consented. He joined the LDS Church and they two were married in the temple a year later. Obviously, she and the Church would consider this example to be a huge success story; his Baptist family, in contrast, at that time considered their daughter-in-law to be the devil incarnate. (I suspect that they mellowed with time).

Another friend at the same university for four years dated a non-Mormon off and on, and was fairly involved with him physically (although never so far that she needed to go to the Bishop). She loved him and he proposed to her, but since he was not interested in the Church, she said no. Several years later, she met and married a convert of 1 year, in the temple. Another Church success story.

A Jewish friend attended a Jew-friendly university, but did not find a spouse. She later moved to an area in the Midwest that was predominantly Protestant, and met and fell in love with a Protestant. They moved in together, but when her family would call or visit, she threw him out of the house for the weekend. When her parents found out that she was dating this man, they first gave her a series of lectures on being ‘married under the canopy’ and of all that her grandmother had suffered at Auschwitz. They then cut off all verbal communication with her. When the grandmother found out about the boyfriend, she literally suffered a stroke. She broke up with the boyfriend, and later married an Orthodox Jew and was welcomed back into her family.

A Muslim co-worker of my husband’s met and married a Hindi woman. The parents of the Muslim refuse to acknowledge their daughter-in-law, and the parents of the Hindu refuse to call the Muslim by his real name, instead calling him by the Hindi equivalent.

When I married my husband, we were both Mormon, however I had converted to the Church as a young adult. My mother’s side of the family (who are culturally Catholic) refused to speak with my husband at family functions and boycotted our wedding. Indeed, my own marriage might now be considered as an interfaith marriage, with each of us losing our faith in the LDS Church and taking divergent faith paths. I’ve left the LDS Church and now consider myself a post-Mormon liberal Catholic, returning to the faith of my mothers (since Catholicism in America is largely passed down matriarchally). My husband is an agnostic atheist who remains actively Mormon: regularly attending his meetings and ‘magnifying’ his calling, held in the church by the faith of his fathers. My family is urging me to do what my responsibility as a Catholic mother would be: to baptize my son Catholic and raise him in the Catholic Church.

And so it goes, and so it goes. Its remarkable how adherents of all faiths claim that God will only recognize marriage in their church.

Through it all, my husband and I have retained enormous respect for each other and our religious decisions, as well as the effect that those decisions have on our son. I think respect for each other is really the only way such marriages can survive. My husband’s loss of belief was founded in his respect for me: Trusting that my reasoning was sound, he wanted to determine for himself what validity there was in my conclusions. Obviously, we came to different end-points, but part of respect is learning to accept (and even welcome) differences of opinion and conclusion.

My questions for the readership are these:

• What are your stories?
• How can a couple who finds themselves in a Mormon interfaith marriage make the relationship work?
• Is it possible to maintain a believing Mormon/non-believer relationship?
• If so, what components are required?

(This post has been updated)

Just saw this blurb in the Deseret News this morning:

When Josh and Susan Powell were first married, both were very active in the LDS Church, Petersen said. They were sealed in the temple. But once they moved to Utah, Josh Powell stopped attending church.

Petersen said the Powells’ marriage counselor instructed Susan Powell to set specific goals. Susan Powell told her husband that her goal was for him to become active in the church again by the end of 2009 and to have his temple recommend again by their anniversary in the spring. Otherwise, she was going to divorce him and take the children, Petersen said.

Let me start w/ the obvious:

• Murder is heinous, disgusting, grotesque and horrible.  No excuses there.
• I’m learning more and more that there is never ONE factor that “causes” anything.  There are always countless factors that add up to any one act or decision…and the same is clearly true here.  I am not advocating for the idea (in the slightest) that this potential LDS Activity ultimatum was “the cause” of anything…only a potential factor (of many)…if it bears out to be true at all.
• Finally, let’s acknowledge up front that ALL of this (including the idea that Susan Powell was murdered and that Josh Powell was guilty) is completely theoretical.

But assuming this report is true — what do you think of an ultimatum like this…in isolation — “get active, or I’m leaving you and taking the kids” ….assuming an otherwise healthy relationship?

What if you were the one who had lost your faith….and what if you lost it because of reasonable issues like polyandry….or racism…..or DNA in the Book of Mormon…or the Book of Abraham….or sexism in the church….or the treatment of homosexuals in the church….or whatever.  Or what if you sincerely prayed about the church, and felt the “Holy Ghost” tell you to LEAVE the church?  Or what if the church just didn’t inspire you any more?

And then what if your spouse threatened to leave you and take the kids for following your conscience?

That would be a horrible thing to experience.  How trapped and desperate would you feel in this situation?

Murder is obviously a horrendously terrible solution to such a situation….but such an ultimatum would be a horrible thing to face, I think: your conscience, or your wife and kids.  Over the years, I’ve had hundreds of people contact me with this very dilemma — so I think this topic is worth exploring.  I know it’s directly relevant to thousands of people out there who are struggling in silence w/ their faith, wondering what will happen if they “come out” to their spouse regarding their feelings.

Here are a few ways to restate the point of this post:

1. Is it fair to leave a spouse  and take the kids if they go inactive?
2. Would God/Jesus want this?
3. Would the church leadership want/encourage this?
4. Could an ultimatum like this make things worse in a marriage, and even become dangerous?

A close friend of mine who wishes to remain anonymous recently saw in the shadow of the temple his story follows

In October, I was fortunate to attend the Portland, Oregon, screening of the movie, In the Shadow of the Temple. http://www.intheshadowofthetemple.com The screening was hosted by the producers, Karen Di Millia and Dennis Lavery. Prior to the screening Dennis and Karen spoke for 10 minutes and explained how they started this project. After the screening they took questions and answers for roughly 30 minutes.

Lavery and DeMillia, who are not–and never have been–LDS, originally planned to make a movie about people who had left the religion of their youth. They attended a meeting of the Portland Humanist Society, explained their project, and asked if anyone had such stories they would be willing to share. In the course of discussing the project with members of the society, they were told that who they really needed to talk to was Sue Emmett, who had left the LDS church. After talking with Sue and others with whom she put them in touch, they decided to re-focus their project on the experience of those who have left the LDS church.

They did hundreds of hours of interviews over two years and edited it down to a 55 minute film. The film is very moving–a tribute to those who shared their stories as well as DeMillia and Lavery’s videography and editing skills.

About two dozen people appear in interviews in the film. Each story is unique, but a common thread runs throughout them all. All faced a similar rejection by family, friends and community. Some of those interviewed have left the church. Others no longer believe, but remain active because of family or community pressure. The latter are filmed in shadows, to obscure their identity. The film refers to these people as “Shadow Mormons.” They define “Shadow Mormons” as those who privately do not accept the exacting doctrine of the Church, but publicly profess to be true believers. They are in shadow to protect their relationships with family, friends and employers.

Someone commented to me after the film, “That’s you. You’re a Shadow Mormon.”

Yes, I’m a Shadow Mormon. Maybe that’s why this film hit me so hard. I haven’t believed in over 20 years – most of my adult life. Yet, during that time I’ve paid my tithing, gone to the temple, served in bishoprics and high councils and done all the things that were expected of me. Why? Because I am tied to the church by family and community.

The story of “Grace” (not her real name) resonated with me because it was so similar to mine. Her pain, and anger, were born of all the energy she has given to a religion that she doesn’t believe in. Finding out that the Church was not true was like a death experience for her. Like me, she tried following the Church’s teachings to fast, pray, read the scriptures and yet never felt she received the “burning in her bosom” that is promised in the scriptures.

What of the families and communities of these people? What are their stories, their experiences with loved ones who go through a process of losing belief and leaving the church. Only one person who was a family or friend agreed to be interviewed for the film. The believing husband that was interviewed told how he still loved his wife, even though she has left the church. What about the others? Are they embarrassed to say that the Church was more important than their relationship with the person who left?

The saddest stories, to me, were of divorce caused by one spouse believing and the other not believing. Michelle (another woman interviewed in the film) said her heart was broken that her husband would choose the Church over her. He told their marriage therapist that if she had not been Mormon he never would have married her. “There was more to me than being a Mormon,” she said. “And I thought that there was more to him.”

The dictionary defines empathy as “the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.” We could all use a little more empathy for those around us. I have had several people tell me, “I can’t imagine how a person could leave the church.” Either they need a better imagination or they need more empathy. Maybe they just need to see this film.

One of the questions at the screening–one that Lavery could not answer–was, “How do we get the right people to see this film?” Sadly, many members of the church would not even consider it. (It screened in Salt Lake City in October and got almost no media coverage.) The film does not try to de-convert anyone or disparage the doctrine of the church. It doesn’t assert that someone is right because he or she believes, or that someone else is right because he or she leaves the church. This film is about accepting people regardless of what they believe, and about how we treat those who believe differently than we do. I wish every member of the church could see this film.

Film Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICbylWK-i2Q&NR=1

In the following video which lasts about 2 minutes, Jean talks about the stigma some members may feel if they choose a civil wedding ceremony. The other preseding videos last approximately 2 minutes each.

Temple Wedding Petition 3 Here

Temple Wedding Petition 1 Here

Temple Wedding Petition 2 Here

Temple Wedding Petition .org here

The actual petition is found here

I was raised in a part member family and remember when my brother was married my parents were disappointed that they weren’t able to go to the temple and see their son get married. It would have been nice for our family to have seen it. I wonder if it makes non- members, or those on the fringe, feel excluded from the church and may damper future missionary work with families. I live in England and it’s the law that there is a civil wedding which usually takes place in the chapel.

Recently a nephew was married and was schedueled to get married in the Salt Lake temple. Because much of the family couldn’t witness the wedding they decided last minute to have a civil wedding. He and his wife since their marriage enjoy going to the temple but have to wait a year now to be married in the temple.

I wonder if there is a church loophol if you want your non- member family to see your wedding you could get married in America and fly to a country where the church allows civil marriages followed by a temple marriage after?

What are your thoughts and experiences?

Just to make it very clear that there is no advocacy on the part of MM.

All that have been through an ugly divorce know that the pain can come in waves. Some you can stand against as the water rushes over you. Others are like a tsunami that sucks you in and spits you out in hostile and unfamiliar terrain. It was a tsunami day when I called my bishop and asked if he could come to my house and give me a blessing. I had caught him at a bad time; he was walking out the door to go somewhere with his wife. I apologized over and over and told him not to worry about it, but he came over anyway(it might have been the my unsuccessful attempts to hide the tears in my voice). I felt so embarrassed, but he gave me a lovely blessing that truly got me through a particularly dark period.

For several years after I divorced, I had no desire to date. the legal proceedings drug out(thanks to him)and I was determined not to get involved with anyone until the divorce was final. I had kind of settled into being single and I actually liked it. I worked hard, had fun with my friends, traveled, and pretty much did whatever I wanted to do. I was pretty active in a family ward that didnt treat me as some freak of nature because I wasn’t married. Life was good.Then I read an article in the Ensign about how people in the church are choosing not to marry and that it was considered a troublesome trend in our culture. It pointed out the commandments regarding marriage and encouraged single church members  not  disregard marriage as a worthy goal in  life. For the first time in 7 years I thought those words were written for me-a revelation of sorts. Most of the men I met didn’t seem to take their priesthood too seriously. Some had arrogantly lived beneath their privilege, unashamed of the covenants they broke, not sure if they even wanted to be in good standing with the church again. There were parts of me that held the priesthood in some disregard, sometimes even mild contempt. Heavenly Father had not blessed me with a faithful husband who honored his priesthood, so maybe this was just one of the many blessings that would not be mine in this life.

In more recent years, my heart has  softened on this subject. Going to the temple for the first time to receive my own endowment made me more aware of the eternal necessity of the priesthood. If you are a TBM(as I am)then you know in order to be exalted you must enter into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. Sealed in the temple for time and all eternity. More priesthood.The first time I felt truly moved was about 3 years ago when I witnessed a baby blessing. It was a young father, a recent convert to the church, blessing his baby. He had invited quite a few men to stand in the circle and bless this tiny spirit so new to this world. They gathered and  formed the circle, placing one hand under the baby and the other on the shoulder of the elder next to him. It moved me that these men were joined in such a tender act and when the blessing ended and after the baby was shown to the congregation, there were warm embraces and slaps on the shoulder. For the first time I yearned to have an eternal companion I loved to be standing in one of those circles.

Late last year all the priesthood holders in my ward sang as a choir. I dont remember the song, but to see all of those men standing behind the pulpit singing, literally moved me to tears. Then today, the youth speaker canceled and the bishop(last minute) asked the three priests in our ward to share their favorite scripture and explain what it meant to them. These young men did fantastic. You could tell they were a little nervous, but they had scriptures ready and spoke in such a way that i was impressed with their conviction. I got a little misty seeing these young men, future missionaries, husbands, and fathers grow in their faith before my eyes. It’s somewhat affirming to know there are still men in the church who take the priesthood seriously.
Can we bridge the ever growing gap that exists between strong and effective women who don’t “need” a man, but require the priesthood in order to gain the exaltation we strive for?

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?

I’d like to get into some of these details leading up to the Manifesto.  (This is a shorter version–more details are found here.)  I talked about the Manifesto previously in the context of whether the prophet would ever lead the church astray.  It should be noted that the church had been fighting federal anti-polygamy legislation for nearly 30 years, so I think it should be noted that the Manifesto banning polygamy in 1890 was not a spur-of-the-moment quick capitulation.  I’ll be taking my quotes from 2 books: Forgotten Kingdom by David Bigler, and Great Basin Kingdom, by Leonard Arrington.

It was during the administration of Abraham Lincoln that the first federal anti-polygamy legislation passed Congress, but Lincoln wanted to ignore the issue.  With the outbreak of the Civil War, Lincoln’s first priority was slavery.  In 1862, Lincoln signed the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act which (from Wikipedia)

banned plural marriage and limited church and non-profit ownership in any territory of the United States to $50,000.^[1] The act targeted the Mormon church ownership in the Utah territory. The measure had no funds allocated for enforcement, and President Lincoln chose not enforce this law; instead Lincoln gave Brigham Young tacit permission to ignore the Morrill Act in exchange for not becoming involved with the Civil War.^[2] General Patrick Edward Connor, commanding officer of the federal forces garrisoned at Fort Douglas, Utah beginning in 1862 was explicitly instructed not to confront the Mormons over this or any other issue.

The footnote at Wikipedia is especially interesting.  Quoting from the book, Firmage, Edwin Brown; Mangrum, Richard Collin (2001), Zion in the courts, University of Illinois Press, p. 139, ISBN 0252069803, http://books.google.com/books?id=9AimifP2a-4C,

“Having signed the Morrill Act, Abraham Lincoln reportedly compared the Mormon Church to a log he had encountered as a farmer that was ‘too hard to split, too wet to burn and too heavy to move, so we plow around it. That’s what I intend to do with the Mormons. You go back and tell Brigham Young that if he will let me alone, I will let him alone.’”

If the church had capitulated at this point, I can understand critics who say that the church traded polygamy for statehood.  The church had been applying for statehood for 40 years when it finally happened, and were always ignored by Congress.  In fact, the state of Utah is less than half the size of the original territory of Deseret.  Congress split the Deseret Territory, and created the territory of Nevada.  Congress continued to take away slices of Utah and added them to Nevada in 1861, 1864, and 1866.  Check out this map.  Nevada even became a state before Utah, even though it was created after Utah.

Utah continued to practice polygamy in defiance of federal law for another 20 years following the Morrill Act.  Congress made several attempts to handle “The Mormon Question”.  Leonard Arrington (former church historian) documents some of these laws on page 357 from his book called Great Basin Kingdom.  (Much more detail is in the book.)

• The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act of 1862 – passed.
• The Wade Act of 1866- failed to pass.  It would have prohibited church officers from solemnizing marriages, would have taxed the church, taken over the Nauvoo Legion, and sent federal officials to take over all government responsibilities, among other things.
• The Cullom Bill of 1869-70 – passed House but failed Senate.  Plural wives would have been deprived of immunity as witnesses involving their husband.  It would have authorized the President to send army of 25,000 to Utah, and would confiscate all property of any Mormon.
• The Ashley Bill of 1869 – failed to pass.   Here’s an exact quote:  “The bill provided for “the dismemberment” of Utah by transferring large slices of it to Nevada, Wyoming, and Colorado.”
  
• The Poland Act of 1874 – passed.  Gave federal attorney general and federal jurisdiction  over criminal, civil and chancery (equity) cases in Utah.
• The Edmunds Act of 1882 – passed.  Quoting from page 358, the act

“put teeth” in the 1862 law and attempted to eliminate the Mormon Church as a power in Utah by vesting the political machinery of the territory in federal non-Mormon appointive officers.  Specifically, the Edmunds Act provided heavy penalties for the practice of polygamy: defined cohabitation with a polygamous wife as a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $300, by imprisonment not to exceed six months, or both; declared all persons guilty of polygamy or cohabitation incompetent for jury service; and disfranchised and declared ineligible for public office all persons guilty of polygamy or unlawful cohabitation…all elective offices were declared vacant…persons professing belief in polygamy or cohabitation as a religious principle, whether or not proved guilty of their practice, were ineligible to vote and to hold public office…in the first year of its existence it had excluded some 12,000 men and women from registration and voting.

when, on March 3, 1885, the Supreme Court denied  Clawson’s appeal and upheld the constitutionality of the law, territorial officials commenced the intensive prosecution of Mormon leaders in Utah and elsewhere known as “The Raid.”

Polygamous marriage being difficult to establish in the courts, the most common charge against the Mormons what of unlawful cohabitation, punishable by a $300 fine or six months in jail, or both.

…

There were 1,004 convictions for unlawful cohabitation under the Edmunds Act between 1884 and 1893, and another 31 for polygamy, but these hardly measure the magnitude of the effect of the Act upon Mormon society.  The period from 1885 to 1890 was marked by intensive “polyg hunts” for “cohabs.”  Officials of the church made a grave decision to fight each and every charge under the law.  Having taken sacred covenants to remain true to their wives “for time and all eternity,” they regarded it as unthinkable that they should desert these women in order to avoid punishment provided in the law of Babylon.  Accordingly, when it became clear early in 1885 that rigorous enforcement and interpretation of the law were to be held constitutional, church leaders–nearly all of whom had one or more plural wives–went “underground.”

…page 360

With almost all leaders of Latter-day Saint communities in prison or in hiding, business establishments were abandoned, or were kept in operation by inexperienced wives and children.  The ownership of the co-operatives drifted into the hands of a few individuals and eventually were converted into private enterprises.  Those United Orders which had survived until this period were discontinued.  There were no further meetings of Zion’s Central Board of Trade.  Almost every business history, in short, shows stagnation; almost every family history records widespread suffering and misery.  Above all, the church, as prime stimulator, financier, and regulator of the Mormon economy, was forced to withdraw from participation in most phases of activity.  The Raid, in other words, was a period of crippled group activity of every type, of decline in cooperative trade and industry–a period when, above all, church economic support was essential but not forthcoming–a period when planning would have saved much, but when planners dared not plan.

A more despairing situation than theirs, at that hour, has never been faced by an American community. Practically every Mormon man of any distinction was in prison, or had just served his term, or had escaped into exile.  Hundreds of Mormon women had left their homes and their children to flee from the officers of the law; many had been behind prison bars for refusing to answer the questions put to them in court; more were concealed, like outlaws, in the houses of friends…Old men were coming out of prison, broken in health.

The Edmunds-Tucker Act

Nevertheless, the Edmunds Law was unable to force a change in the attitude of Latter-day Saint authorities. It was an unwilling cross, but one which the create majority of members seemed prepared to bear rather than yield on what they regarded a religious principle.  Congress therefore moved almost immediately to increase the pressure, and after considering several proposals during a number of sessions, adopted, on February 19, 1887, an amendment to the 1862 law known as the Edmunds-Tucker Act.  Enacted into law without the signature of President Grover Cleveland, this “Anti-Polygamy Act,” as it was entitled, amended the 1862 law to provide as follows:

1.  That the Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, insofar as it had, or pretended to have, any legal existence, was dissolved.  The United States Attorney General was directed to instituted proceedings to accomplish dissolution.

2.  That the Attorney General institute proceedings to forfeit and escheat all property, both real and personal, of the dissolved church corporation held in violation of the 1862 limitation of $50,000, which was reaffirmed.  The property was to be disposed of by the Secretary of the Interior and the proceeds applied to the use and benefit of the district schools of Utah.

The books continues on, with 3 more items, including the abolition of women suffrage.  (Utah was the first or second state to allow women to vote–quite progressive, eh?)  Continuing from page 361,

The Edmunds-Tucker Act was a direct bid to destroy the temporal power of the Mormon Church.  Congressional leaders reasoned that the church would have to yield on the principle of plural marriage or suffer destruction as an organization of power and influence.  Church leaders did not see the matter in this light, however.  They believed (and were supported in this belief by several constitutional lawyers of national reputation) that several features of the Edmunds-Tucker Act were unconstitutional.  They further declared that they could not revoke the principle of polygamy:  Only God could do that; and, if He so decided, He would do so by direct revelation to the church–not by prohibitory national legislation.

The book details how many properties, including the Tithing Office, were placed or sold into private church members and/or stake hands, and hidden as much as possible.  A series of legal battles ensued as federal officials tried to track down church assets.  However, the government did uncover many of these transactions, and took control of the assets.  Arrington goes into great detail about many of these trials.  A trustee was appointed, and he charged enormous fees to maintain records of these properties.  He was removed later, but many of the church properties were squandered as payment for his services.

In January 1889, the church challenged the constitutionality of the confiscated properties, but lost again in the Supreme Court.  From page 375, the majority Supreme Court opinion read,

“Under these circumstances we have no doubt of the power of Congress to do as it did.”

However, the opinion was not unanimous.  Chief Justice Fuller and associate justices Field and Lamar

wrote a short but vigorous dissent based on the States’ Rights doctrine which had reached its farthest in the Dred Scott decision.  Wrote the Chief Justice:

In my opinion, Congress is restrained, nor merely by the limitations expressed in the Constitution, but also by the absence of any grant of power, express or implied in that instrument….  If this property was accumulated for purposes declared illegal, that does not justify its arbitrary disposition by judicial legislation.  In my judgment, its diversion under this Act of Congress is in contravention of specific limitations in the Constitution; unauthorized, expressly or by implication, by any of its provisions; and in disregard of the fundamental principle that the legislative power of the United States, as exercised by the agents of the people of this Republic, is delegated and not inherent.

From page 377,

The second effect of the Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of the Edmunds-Tucker Act was the church “Manifesto” proclaiming an end to the performance of plural marriage.

The Supreme Court decision on May 19, 1890 was nearly the final blow.  David Bigler, author of Forgotten Kingdom page 354 outlines an even more ominous problem.

What made this ruling truly ominous was the appointment two months later of Henry W. Lawrence, a leader of the Godbeite schism, as receiver of church property.  He replaced the moderate former U.S. marshal Frank H. Dyer, who had earlier agreed to keep hands off the church’s temples under the provision of the law that exempted buildings used exclusively for “the worship of God.”  The Utah Supreme Court had approved this determination.  Now Lawrence and U.S. attorney Charles Varian, reappointed in 1889 by President Harrison, made it known they intended to overturn the agreement on the ground that temples in Logan, St. George, and Manti did not qualify for exemption since they were not places of public worship.  If upheld, this move would lead to confiscation of the church’s holiest places, where its most sacred ordinances were performed, including marriages.

Arrington writes in Great Basin Kingdom on page 355 that Church president Wilford Woodruff wrote in his journal on Sept 25, 1890,

“I have arrived at a point in the history of my life as the president of the Church…where I am under the necessity of acting for the temporal salvation of the church.”  On that date, just four months after the fateful decision of the Supreme Court, President Woodruff issued the “Official Declaration” which proclaimed the end of polygamy among the Mormons:

Inasamuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.

In the October 6 session of the general conference of the church, the congregation “unanimously sustained” this declaration as “authoritative and binding.”  Polygamy no longer had official sanction.

Forgotten Kingdom adds additional detail here.  From page 356,

While many treated the manifesto with skepticism, one who took it at face value was the magistrate who had sent more men to prison for violating  the marriage laws than anyone else.  The day after it was sustained, Judge Charles Zane on October 7 said that he would record the church “opposed to polygamy hereafter, unless something happened to change my opinion,” and he began only to fine violators, but not impose prison time.

Arrington, author of Great Basin Kingdom concurs discusses the issue of statehood on page 377,

The Manifesto declaring an end to officially sanctioned plural marriages also enabled the Mormons to achieve the goal of statehood, which had been denied them for over forty years.  Statehood gave them the prospect of getting rid, once and for all, of the unwanted and unfriendly federally appointed governors, judges, marshals, attorneys, and commissioners who had fought against them since 1852.  As part of the “deal” by which this was arranged, church officials are said to have given congressional and administration leaders to understand that they would support a proposition to prohibit forever the practice of polygamy in Utah; that the church would dissolve its Peoples’ Party and divide itself into Republican and Democratic supporters; and that the church would discontinue its alleged fight against Gentile business and relax its own economic efforts….The Raid had finally culminated in the long-sought goal of statehood, but had produced capitulation in many areas of Mormon uniqueness, not the least of which was the decline in the economic power and influence of the church.  The temporal Kingdom, for all practical purposes, was dead–slain by the dragon of Edmunds-Tucker.

So, what do you make of these events?  Did the church wimp out?  Should the church have defended the temples like the Jews did in the days of Nero?  Many Jews died, the temple was taken anyway and hasn’t been rebuilt in 2000 years.

1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:
2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,

Here is my point – my two points, really.

1) This great sermon was delivered as a higher level discourse to his most dedicated followers – including those who eventually would form the new faith of Christianity.  Its standards absolutely are not easy, and its directives absolutely are not natural.

Sometimes we hold the general population of the Church (and each other and others) to these standards, while Jesus himself took great care not to do so of the general population of his followers. This often is a good example of unrealistic expectations – and of demanding others live a standard we ourselves are unable to master.

2) This great sermon was delivered mostly to the MEN who would form the leadership of his movement, even though there is no reason to believe that the listeners were all men.  (I personally believe there were women present.)

QUESTION:

Did the gender composition of the listening group have an impact on the content of the sermon?

Generally speaking, the list of attributes included in the Beatitudes are considered throughout history to be feminine.  Jesus was speaking primarily to men about how to change and grow (repent) and become godlike.  So,

1) Might the Sermon on the Mount have been different if the primary audience had been women?  If so, how?

2) How can we take the general message of repentance (change and growth and the acquisition of godly characteristics) and use it to achieve the proper balance we need to become “perfect” (complete, whole, fully developed)?

3) Must every individual acquire all the characteristics listed – or can a spouse/companion share that endeavor and, between two, create one united, balanced, “prefect” whole?

When her children were smaller she had some good friends, a married couple, who had come to her with an offer of a polygamous marriage in the next life, if she wanted it.  They assured her that this would not involve any physical relationship in this life.  However, this couple would support her financially by paying her mortgage and offering other parental help, if she ever desired it.  Because this couple were good friends of this woman she was not offended but did feel a little uncomfortable and therefore politely turned them down. 

This reminded me of another conversation I had with a friend who had a girlfriend who was a significant influence on his life and lead him to serve a mission for the LDS Church.  She died shortly after he arrived in the mission field.  He felt that he wanted to marry this girl in the life to come so that he could offer her the highest blessings of the Celestial Kingdom.  He was so convinced of this that he felt that he would expect any future wife to understand and accept this before they were married.  He is currently married although I am unsure of how he feels about this now.

I offer these examples not as illustrations of Church wide practices but as a move to understand how this ‘doctrine’ still permeates LDS thought and practice, despite President Hinckley saying this practice was not doctrinal. 

These stories have something in common; I think they are both rooted in the commonly held misconception that polygamy was practiced as a means of financially supporting single women.  This seems to me as though it could be a form of ‘benevolent polygamy’. 

My initial response was surprise.  In the first story I am surprised at the faith of this couple and their concern for the eternal welfare of this woman and her children.  Secondly I feel a sense of wonder and interest in the ways that polygamy may be still being practiced celebately and in private.  She honestly did not feel that there was any physical motive behind the offer, and that interests me.  I am certainly not advocating this, or any other form of polygamy, but am more interested in people’s impressions about this. 

My questions are these:

What are your intial reactions to these variations of polygamy?

Would such people be subject to Church Discipline, if discovered?

Is this practical (in the first example)?  How would the woman break the marriage if she met someone?  Would this lead to some physical expectation down the line?

In the second story, there is a strong sense to me that this would be barrier in his current relationship; how do other people feel about this idea?  Is this a reasonable request?