This recording forms part of the many testimonies that are available from Wilford Woodruff concerning “the Last Charge,” a council meeting in Nauvoo where the Twelve were given authority to “bear off the kingdom,” and interpreted by President Woodruff to be the foundation of the succession policy of the Church.  Holzapfel’s announcement was that on one of the three wax cylinders upon which the recording was made, the rest of the First Presidency consisting of George Q. Cannon and Joseph F. Smith added their witnesses that they had heard Wilford Woodruff bear his testimony.  We thus have the early voice of another president of the Church, the only recording of Cannon, and the addition of “two or three witnesses” to respond to the succession question.

I guess you’d really have to be a Mormon history afficionado to consider this information a “bombshell.”  There were a select few in the audience who were moved by the revelation, but the majority took the news calmly.  Holzapfel, in contrast, could hardly restrain himself as he built up his presentation and delivered his revelation in the final moments.  He mentioned that he had difficulty waiting the few weeks before the symposium to tell anyone this exciting news.

Interestingly, a point was mentioned in passing which grabbed my attention far more than the recording.  Apparently Holzapfel and some other historians have recently collaborated on an article discussing for the first time the fact that Sidney Rigdon was not present in the morning meetings at the Nauvoo Temple on March 26, 1844, when the Last Charge was given.  This is stunningly important to Mormon history, because it implies that Rigdon was not given the same keys that the rest of the Twelve received at that time.  Not only did he lack the right to succession, but he may not have understood the pattern Joseph presented that day in the same way as the members of the Twelve who were present.

I’m enjoying the Symposium so far, and I’ll be back to summarize some more of the proceedings soon.

Quinn argues that during the explosive Church growth of the 1950’s-1970’s the Church attempted to draw upon a number of external influences in making the organization more efficient and effective.  At the same time there was an explosive growth in Church bureaucracy.  This led some to become concerned over the influence and direction of power and authority within the hierarchical structure.

According to Quinn, both J. Reuben Clark Jr. and David O. McKay were concerned that the increasing bureaucratic, financial and organizational burden meant that the GA’s were not able (due to lack of knowledge or expertise) to make decisions that would need to be made.  They would, of necessity, have to rely upon technocrats and other specialists from the various sub-committees at Church Headquarters.  President McKay’s concern was that this movement would involve an ecclesiastical abdication of the God-given authority to led the Church.

This model of Prophetic leadership in temporal, as well as spiritual matters, has a long and varied history in the standard works and has been exemplified by our earliest and most influential leaders.  The first reason therefore that I am unconvinced that there is an alternative to a mixture (even a heavy emphasis) on the bureaucratic, as opposed to the prophetic, in our Church leadership is that theologically they are expected to be able to guide a temporally-situated Church.  Yet, their burden is fraught with a multiplicity of complex challenges that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and others never faced.

John Dehlin rightly notes that within this they have a responsibility to protect the image of the ‘Prophetic Mantle’.  In one sense, therefore, it seems possible that although they believe that as ‘Prophets, Seers and Revelators’ they have a responsibility over the temporal, they also feel a sense of dissatisfaction or dissonance over the types of decisions they have to make.  This is evident by the fact they do not talk about such decisions and even try to mask these processes from the general membership because they feel that such decision-making processes might undermine the image of the ‘Prophetic Mantle’.  I think they are right; it might well have this effect.

Now it is possible to argue that the ‘Prophetic Mantle’ does not need to be protected.  I can sympathise with this position however I believe that the Brethren intentionally present a view of their work which most accurately exemplifies what they expect from their local leaders.  Bishops and Stake Presidents do not make the same type of decisions that might require this legalistic-bureaucractic framework and they therefore expect local leaders to seek the Spirit in dealing with spiritual matters.  I am not convinced that this is disingenuous  but rather sense that they are trying to model the gospel in action to a culturally and intellectually diverse membership.

Therefore, they are in a tough, ecclesiastical bind.  Abdicate the responsibility for the kingdom (to a small or even a large extent) or face the possibility of undermining the ‘Prophetic Mantle’, which I believe they have, and giving scope for local leaders to approach issues in this same legalistic-bureaucractic manner.

I can see why they do what they do because I am not sure I see a valid alternative, theologically or organisationally.  Do you?

This story is so very, very familiar to us that I think it’s important to look at it with a fresh perspective.  So in this post I am including some pieces from media and the arts that force us to think about Genesis 22.  I promise you in advance that some of these might be disturbing to you.  Probably you will disagree with the portrayal of Abraham’s sacrifice in at least one, if not all, of these pieces.  I hope you will share your reactions in the comments.

One of my favorite poems juxtaposes the story of Abraham with World War I.  The poet, Wilfred Owen, is a tragic figure himself, who was gunned down at age 25 just seven days before the Armistice on November 4, 1918.  This poem invites the reader to consider the effects of extreme religious devotion.

The Parable of the Young Man and the Old
Wilfred Owen

So Abram rose, and clave the wood, and went,
And took the fire with him, and a knife.
And as they sojourned, both of them together,
Isaac the first-born spake, and said, My Father,
Behold the preparations, fire and iron,
But where the lamb for this burnt-offering?
Then Abram bound the youth with belts and straps,
And builded parapets the trenches there,
And stretched forth the knife to slay his son.
When lo! an angel called him out of heaven,
Saying, Lay not thy hand upon the lad,
Neither do anything to him. Behold,
A ram, caught in a thicket by its horns;
Offer the Ram of Pride instead of him.
But the old man would not so, but slew his son,
And half the seed of Europe, one by one.

The next bit of media comes from the BBC’s That Mitchell and Webb Look. The parody pokes fun at believers whose religion keeps them from thinking for themselves:

The image below is an etching entitled The Sacrifice of Abraham by Marc Chagall.   The same study was done as a watercolor, as an oil painting, and as a drawing in pastel and China ink.  Each has symbolic features which are not present in the others.  A review of the etching describes it as follows:

“…the sacrifice of Abraham presents human drama as confrontation of two wills and two freedoms: that of the creator and his creature. Chagall’s rendering of this scene is of great subtlety. Using a mirror effect between the figures of Isaac and the angel, between Abraham’s posture and that of the heavenly messenger, he suggests complementarity and ultimate unity between heaven and earth. In the end, there will be no opposition between the faithful Abraham and his God, because there exists a perfect match between human obedience and divine mercy. The bound and naked Isaac is a symbol of extreme vulnerability and suggests acute sensitivity to the word of God. God answers in kind, rushing his angel in sudden descent to arrest the movement of Abraham’s knife. Thus, although bathed in an atmosphere of frightening proportions, the pictorial narrative speaks of two worlds reconciled by tender love. The latter, tender love, finds its artistic expression in the tiny white ram emerging from the thicket on the left. Too tiny for the giant knife, the ram is a reminder that God does not want sacrifices but love.”

Does this type of yielding and vulnerable submission make you  more comfortable than the more fanatic type? Why or why not?

Now let’s explore what would happen if Abraham did decide to think for himself — to take a critical look at what God was asking him to do. What if that were God’s purpose behind the lesson, after all? This short story comes from the Fob Bible, which I own and I highly recommend. It is called “Abraham’s Purgatory,” and was written by Ben Christensen.

Abraham’s Purgatory (click to read)

I included the lithograph below by Salvador Dali because I think it is interesting how the Abraham and Isaac figures are so small and how the focus of the work is the angel. It dominates the picture and brings to mind the sacred nature of the sacrificial story. Dali’s angel is not an insipid, white robed choir boy. We see the figure from the back and it is both awe-inspiring, unknowable, and a bit frightening.

Abraham, Abraham! by Salvador Dali

As you watch the following comedic sketch, ask yourself the question: “Is it easier to do something God asks if you want to do it anyway?” How much personal interpretation comes into play when we are deciphering God’s will?

Jewish Midrash suggests that it was difficult to dissuade Abraham from the act of sacrificial violence once he had decided to kill his son. The Midrash reads: “…and he said: Lay not thy hand upon the lad. Where was the knife? Tears had fallen from the angels upon it and dissolved it.” It was the tears of the angels, not those of Abraham that dissolved the knife. Yet, even after seeing the knife dissolve, Abraham is unconvinced and persists with the violence. “’Then I will strangle him,’ said he [Abraham] to Him. ‘Lay not thy hand upon the lad,’ was the reply. ‘Let us bring forth a drop of blood from him,’ he pleaded.” Abraham refuses to be deterred. His unaffected and immediate suggestion of an alternative method of sacrifice is shocking. Some may consider this to be steadfast piety, but the violent undertone stands in stark contrast with the Midrashim that emphasize piety over violence. After that method is refused, he then pleads if he may bring forth a drop of blood from his son. The use of the word “pleads” would lead one to assume that Abraham’s plea to G-d was an emotional one. The emotion, it seems, stems more so from an inability to sacrifice his son than from G-d’s request that the sacrifice be made.

The sculpture below by Berruguete is included for its portrayal of the human emotion on the faces of Abraham and Isaac. You will probably hear in your Sunday School lesson the idea that Isaac was a youth in his prime at the time of the sacrifice, while Abraham was an old man. This interpretation promotes the idea that Isaac was a willing participant in the act of submission to God. The sculpture visually portrays this idea, picturing Isaac as a strong and virile young man, capable of wresting himself free from his bonds. Though horrified and frightened, he is kneeling and complaisant.

The final piece of media I would like to include for your consideration is a biblical canticle written by Benjamin Britten. During this two-person opera, one singer assumes the role of Abraham while the other takes that of Isaac. Through the homophony of the two singers, God’s voice emerges as if it were a third solo singer. The use of the older tenor and the younger alto voices in the vignette below to sing the words of God is very moving.

GOD: Abraham, my servant, Abraham,
Take Isaac, thy son by name,
That thou lovest the best of all,
And in sacrifice offer him to me
Upon that hill there beside thee.

Abraham, I will that so it be,
For aught that may befall.

As they sing “Abraham,” the notes are first discordant, then resolve, aptly representing the theme of the story.

Abraham and Isaac by Benjamin Britten

The story of Abraham and Isaac is a powerful one. It is the most dramatic moment in the life of one of the most important of the Biblical prophets. I think that its inclusion in the Bible is meant to be disturbing and to evoke turmoil and discomfort. I hope that the Sunday School portrayal of this section of the scriptural record will not be too soft and fluffy.

One way this tendency has been manifested is the shifting practice concerning Common Consent, which I previously discussed here.  Quinn also argues that during the 19th century and the early part of the 20th century, sustaining votes were sometimes used to reject the proposed candidate.  This was encouraged in the context of a voluntary obedience.  However, following the presidencies of Joseph Fielding Smith and Harold B. Lee, the discourse around common consent became associated with the idea that a vote against a leadership decision was a rejection of the will of the Lord.  Thus, Church leader’s fears of losing control completely of the membership may have led them to emphasis a new type of relationship with Church authorities.  Quinn argues that this can be seen through a concern that some leaders had that the Church would be run by specialists rather than priesthood authority, thus the increased emphasis upon the ‘brethren’.

What does this mean for the Church currently and its membership?  Much has been said both officially, at GC, and unofficially, among the membership, about Church growth.  In general it has slowed (or flat-lined) over the last decade across the world.  It is possible therefore, that as Church growth slows or remains constant that we will see reversals in the way the Church approaches the issues of authoritarianism and doctrine.  I am not trying to argue that the Church is ever wholly conservative or liberal.  My point however is that as new ideas, practices and technologies are assimilated in the Church’s power structure there will inevitably be the emergence of new assemblages of power and new types of discourse.  In the same way that new conservative mechanisms where emphasised and solidifed throught the development of new media, so it is possible that these same changes could provide more liberalising assemblages/discourses.  Thus it is possible that as the Church, and its culture, become more firmly established its Leaders may become more relaxed about ‘the centrifugal tendencies’ Quinn observes.

However, the problem with this hypothesis is that Church growth is not equal across the world.  We have already seen these fears manifest themselves in the Church’s response to exponential growth in areas such as Chile and Philippines (where in each case they sent Apostles to specifically preside over those areas).  Contrastingly, the emphasis on finding local leadership at the general level (Area Authority Seventies – and the like) may result in increased scope for variation and interpretation[2].  Thus it is possible that in those areas like Western Europe (where I am from) where the Church is established and hardly growing, there might be increasing tendency toward liberalism, while in areas of relative instability the emphasis will remain on unquestioning obedience.  However such differences are of course mediated by whether the Church wants to retain a unified approach across the globe (a fact which some have posited will be a major restriction to Church growth[3].

It is possible that the previous liberalisation toward academia, argued for in my previous post, may be part of a wider dynamic linked to the slowing down of Church growth?

Do you think this is plausible?

Notes:

1. D. Michael Quinn, From Sacred Grove to Sacral Power Structure in Dialogue, vol. 17, no. 2 [Salt Lake city, UT.: Dialogue Foundation, 1984] p. 29.

2. Armand L. Mauss, Can there be a Second Harvest? in International Journal of Mormon Studies, vol. 1, no. 1, [online, 2008], pp. 1-59.

3. Douglas J. Davies, World Religion: Dynamics & Constraints at The Worlds of Joseph Smith Conference.

CofChrist Prophet: Baptism in Christ Transcends Culture

“5 It is imperative to understand that when you are truly baptized into Christ you become part of a new creation. By taking on the life and mind of Christ, you increasingly view yourselves and others from a changed perspective. Former ways of defining people by economic status, social class, sex, gender, or ethnicity no longer are primary. Through the gospel of Christ a new community of tolerance, reconciliation, unity in diversity, and love is being born as a visible sign of the coming reign of God.”

With these words, the Prophet/President of the Community of Christ delivered to the church for its consideration as divine counsel on January 17 a document that changes the relationship between its sacraments and its people. Copies of the documents are already posted at http://www.CofChrist.org.

Most stunning to readers on the bloggernacle, the document places resolution of pressing issues of marriage, sexual identity and roles, among others, into the hands of field or national jurisdictions to resolve within the context of their own cultures and secular laws. This appears to mean that the Community of Christ will no longer have a world-wide policy toward these cultural institutions, although what local policies will come into place is left undefined. Thus, jurisdictions in which gay marriage is permitted by the culture may be able to move forward with this practice as a sacrament of the church as well, and the church may continue to forbid discussion of the issue in nations where such discussion is taboo.

In addition, persons baptized by water within other denominations who are led by the Spirit to the Community of Christ are now to be accepted without rebaptism into membership upon confirmation following a period of study.

The headlines will probably not be the most important part of the document in the long run. Take a look at it and see what you think.

According to Allen and Leonard ‘perhaps no doctrine was preached more enthusiastically by President Grant or stressed more in Church literature during his administration than the Word of Wisdom’ [3].  Arrington’s seminal (if not a little controversial essay) on the economic factors that led to the importance of the Word of Wisdom deals with the period till 1900 and misses some crucial occurrences in the lead up to this principle becoming a ‘commandment’.

The Personal

President Grant had a friend who had died young because of alcohol related problems (according to Truman Madsen it was cirrhosis of the liver [4]).  At the funeral President Grant records, in a sermon given in 1931, that ‘as I stood at his grave I looked up to heaven and made a pledge to my God that liquor and tobacco would have in me an enemy who would fight with all the ability that God would give me to the day of my death, and I have kept that pledge so far’[5].  Perhaps what haunted President Grant most was that this young man had given up his habits to serve a mission, but had quickly resumed them when he finished his service.

The Political

According to the Encyclopaedia of Mormonism ‘The [prohibition] movement intensified the Church’s interest in the Word of Wisdom. There is evidence that Church Presidents John Taylor, Joseph F. Smith, and Heber J. Grant wanted to promote adherence to the Word of Wisdom as a precondition for entering LDS temples or holding office in any Church organization; and indeed, by 1930 abstinence from the use of alcohol, tobacco, coffee, and tea had become an official requirement for those seeking temple recommends.’[6].   

It seems this interest became even more pronounced when the calls for repeal began.  President Grant’s concern can be seen in his April 2, 1932 General Conference address.  There was a controversial speech by Elder Stephen L. Richards at that same conference which will be discussed later.  But at the very least, it seems that President Grant’s emphasis on making the Word of Wisdom a requirement emerged out of a political context in which he saw liquor becoming a problem for the Latter-day Saints.  He had lived through and been an Apostle through some of the previous period of emphasis which Arrington documents, and perhaps did not want to see the Church membership go down that road again.

Perhaps President Grant saw the Church collectively as being like his friend.  He may thought the membership would enter a period of relapse; and he was trying to prevent it.

The Prophetic

What is surprising, is that in President Grant’s sermons on this issue and on the policy change he does not cite any direct revelation.  Interestingly, President Grant said in 1928, which seems to contradict Alexander’s thesis of the 1921 date, that ‘the Lord has not made this an absolute commandment’.  The implication here from President Grant however, is that if the Lord asks his people to do something then we should respond.  In addition, in a CHI (published in 1928) the Word of Wisdom was not explicitly mentioned as a requirement for the Temple, but was in the 1933 edition [2].  Thus although the issue seems to have been informally incorporated as policy its codification was not enforced until the early 1930’s in-line with the possible repeal of Prohibition. 

In addition, the evidence suggests that there has never been a sustaining vote on this issue [1].  I am not claiming that President Grant never believed he had received revelation on this issue nor that he never shared a testimony that he believed this principle was revelation.  What interests me is how, as a Prophet, he did not justify this change by referring to a revelatory experience but rather in a personal commitment to a principle and to political or social fears.  I would have expected an effort, like President Kimball discusses, of overcoming bias and prejudice that individuals hold in order to prepare for revelation.  For President Grant it seems that he moved forward in a different way.

Some Controversy

Stephen L. Richards who was an Apostle during this time gave a sermon, which was apparently not printed in the conference report because it angered President Grant.  It has been subsequently printed by Sunstone.  The sermon suggested that there was fanaticism in the way Church leaders had approached the issue of the Word of Wisdom, and other behaviours.  The date Sunstone give for the delivery of this sermon is the 9^th April 1932.  Although there was not a General Conference session on that day, Stan Larson (source – fn 79) in a footnote in his work on B.H. Roberts makes reference to a Salt Lake Tribune article and First Presidency meeting that discussed Richards’ talk on the 9^th and the day after.  Sunstone claim they got their transcript from the Church archives.  So there is some confusion in my mind at least about where this comes from.  However, according to Michael Quinn [7], on May 5^th 1932, Stephen L. Richards told the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve that he will resign as apostle rather than apologize for his general conference talk which argued that the Church is putting too much emphasis on the Word of Wisdom. However on the 26^th May he later recanted and apologised for his remarks.  What this suggests to me is that this move may have been as much a personal drive from President Grant as from a revelation.  Moreover, it certainly was not wholly accepted at face value by all of the twelve.

Notes

1. Robert J. McCue, Did the Word of Wisdom become a Commandment in 1851? in Dialogue, no. 3 [Salt Lake City, UT.: Dialogue Foundation, 1981], p. 66-77.

2. Thomas G. Alexander, The Word of Wisdom: From Principle to Requirement in Dialogue, no. 3 [Salt Lake City, UT.: Dialogue Foundation, 1981], pp. 79

3. James B. Allen and Glen M. Leonard, The Story of the Latter-day Saints, 2nd ed., rev. and enl. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1992], 525 – 526.

4. Truman G. Madsen, The Presidents of the Church, [Salt Lake City, UT. Deseret Book, 2004).

5. President Heber J. Grant, Answering Tobacco’s Challenge in Improvement Era, 1931, (Vol. Xxxiv. June, 1931. No. 8.)

6. Joseph Lyons, Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 1-4 vols., edited by Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 1584.

7. D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power [Salt Lake City, UT.: Signature Books, 1997).

I don’t really do Christmas cards so it was not really a big deal, except it made me wonder, who else gets Christmas cards from the First Presidency?  Did I get this because of my calling, and if so what other callings get Christmas cards?

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?

Air Force Acadamy at Utah football game 10/24/2009

In the paper edition of the Deseret News, President Monson was “honored as the distinguished University of Utah fan of the game.”  Pres Monson’s attendance may have been a deciding factor–the Utes won 23-16 in Overtime over the Air Force Falcons.  Meanwhile, BYU suffered a loss without Pres Monson, getting crushed 38-7 at home in Provo to TCU (Texas Christian University.)

I recently learned that the University of Utah was designated as “the School of the Prophets” by Brigham Young, according to a Deseret News article from Dec 2, 1867. 

Back in July, the University of Utah football team signed a player out of California by the name of Joseph Smith.  I joked that with his signing, and President Hinckley and President Monson’s status as alums of the U, that it was the “School of the Prophets.”  (Joseph Smith had originally set up a School of the Prophets to teach the LDS leadership back in the Nauvoo days.)  Well, it turns out that it’s no joke, and comes straight from the mouth of none other than Brigham Young!

I just finished Forgotten Kingdom, and I want to quote from page 261.

School of the Prophets

To implement a unified move in this direction, Brigham Young on December 2, 1867, resurrected an organization from an earlier period of his church’s history.  He announced that day before an assembly of Mormon leaders that the University of Deseret, parent of the University of Utah, would be reorganized and “hence, it may properly be called the ‘School of the Prophets.’” [Deseret News, December 2, 1867.  While Young considered School of the Prophets to be the proper name and role of the University of Deseret, the institution's existing name remained the same.  In 1872 the larger School of the Prophets was dissolved due to a lack of attendance and the inability of many to keep its affairs secret.]  Since it was founded in 1850, the university had seen few students but served primarily to publish and distribute the Deseret Alphabet.

Who knew?

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

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

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

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

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

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

But wait, there’s more!

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

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

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

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

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

So why would Gospel Principles be Vague?

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

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

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

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

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

Over the past couple weeks here at Mormon Matters, we’ve had two posts discussing the need to be “improvers” in the Church rather than uncritical optimists or unloving pessimists, and suggesting some practical rules that would-be improvers should follow. Fortunately, our Church leaders have not left us to re-invent the wheel when it comes to figuring out what our options are when we disagree with their statements, policies, or practices.

Below are excerpts from Elder Dallin H. Oaks’ article entitled “Criticism,” which appeared in Ensign magazine in February of 1987. (You can read the full article here.) In this article, Elder Oaks straightforwardly informs Church members that there are two very different sets of rules when it comes to publicly disclosing the truth and criticizing leaders or their decisions: (1) the rules that apply to the political and business worlds; and (2) the rules that apply to the Church. According to Elder Oaks, it is essential for Church members to be aware of, and abide by, these two different sets of rules. As you read these excerpts, I invite to you pay particular attention to the following ideas that Elder Oaks shares:

(1) “’[T]he fact that something is true is not always a justification for communicating it. . . . The gist of Paul’s thought is that integrity is of no value in itself.’ . . . The critical consideration is how we use the truth. . . . A Christian who has concern for others exercises care in how he uses the truth. Such care does not denigrate the truth; it ennobles it. Truth surely exists as an absolute, but our use of truth should be disciplined by other values. . . .”

(2) “The use of truth should also be constrained by the principle of unity. . . However, this caution to constrain the use of truth provides no justification for lying. . . . When truth is constrained by other virtues, the outcome is not falsehood but silence for a season.”

(3) “Government or corporate officials, who are elected directly or indirectly or appointed by majority vote, must expect that their performance will be subject to critical and public evaluations by their constituents. . . . A different principle applies in our Church, where the selection of leaders is based on revelation, subject to the sustaining vote of the membership. In our system of Church government, evil speaking and criticism of leaders by members is always negative. Whether the criticism is true or not, as Elder George F. Richards explained, it tends to impair the leaders’ influence and usefulness, thus working against the Lord and his cause.”

(4) You’ll want to pay particular attention to the latter part of Elder Oaks’ article where he presents five suggestions for how to appropriately deal with situations where we find ourselves disagreeing with Church leaders.

And now, without further ado, excerpts of Elder Oaks’ Ensign article on Criticism:

I am persuaded that many do not understand the Church’s teachings about personal criticism, especially the criticism of Church leaders by Church members.

I do not refer to the kind of criticism the dictionary defines as “the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything.” (Random House Dictionary, unabridged ed., s.v. “criticism.”) . . . Sports writers, reviewers of books and music, scholars, investment analysts, and those who test products and services must be free to exercise their critical faculties and to inform the public accordingly. This kind of criticism is usually directed toward issues, and it is usually constructive.

My cautions against criticism refer to another of its meanings, which the dictionary defines as “the act of passing severe judgment; censure; faultfinding.” (Ibid., s.v. “criticism.”) Faultfinding is “the act of pointing out faults, especially faults of a petty nature.” (Ibid., s.v. “faultfinding.”) It is related to “backbiting,” which means “to attack the character or reputation of [a person who is not present].” (Ibid., s.v. “backbite.”) This kind of criticism is generally directed toward persons, and it is generally destructive.

Faultfinding, evil speaking, and backbiting are obviously unchristian. . . . The primary reason we are commanded to avoid criticism is to preserve our own spiritual well-being, not to protect the person whom we would criticize. . . .

Does this counsel to avoid faultfinding and personal criticism apply only to statements that are false? Doesn’t it also apply to statements that are true? In a talk I recently gave to Church Educational System teachers, I urged that “the fact that something is true is not always a justification for communicating it.” A letter published in the New York Times Magazine described my counsel as “contempt for the truth.” (Feb. 9, 1986, p. 86.) I disagree. I rely on the teaching in Ecclesiastes: “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven.” (Eccl. 3:1.) Specifically, there is “a time to speak,” and there is also “a time to keep silence.” (Eccl. 3:7.)

The counsel to mute our criticism is like the counsel the Apostle Paul gave to the Corinthian Saints to abstain from eating meat offered as sacrifices to idols. In truth, he taught, the idol was nothing. But since some of the members were weak and might misunderstand, those who knew the truth needed to “take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.” (1 Cor. 8:9.) A Protestant theologian, Krister Stendahl, concludes: “The gist of Paul’s thought is that integrity is of no value in itself.” (See Paul Among Jews and Gentiles and Other Essays, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976, p. 61.)

The critical consideration is how we use the truth. When he treated this same subject in his letter to the Romans, Paul said, “If thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy him not with thy meat, for whom Christ died.” (Rom. 14:15.) A Christian who has concern for others exercises care in how he uses the truth. Such care does not denigrate the truth; it ennobles it.

Truth surely exists as an absolute, but our use of truth should be disciplined by other values. . . .

The use of truth should also be constrained by the principle of unity. One who focuses on faults, though they be true, fosters dissensions and divisions among fellow Church members in the body of Christ. . . . In this dispensation, the Lord commanded that “Every man [should] esteem his brother as himself,” and declared that “If ye are not one ye are not mine.” (D&C 38:25, 27.)

However, this caution to constrain the use of truth provides no justification for lying. The principles of love, unity, righteousness, and mercy do not condone falsehood. The Lord commanded, “Thou shalt not bear false witness” (Ex. 20:16), and he has not revoked that command. When truth is constrained by other virtues, the outcome is not falsehood but silence for a season. As the scriptures say, there is “a time to keep silence, and a time to speak.” (Eccl. 3:7.)

The counsel to avoid destructive personal criticism does not mean that Latter-day Saints need to be docile or indifferent to defective policies, deficient practices, or wrongful conduct in government or in private organizations in which we have an interest. Our religious philosophy poses no obstacle to constructive criticism of such conditions. The gospel message is a continuing constructive criticism of all that is wretched or sordid in society. But Christians who are commanded to be charitable and to “[speak] the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15) should avoid personal attacks and shrill denunciations. Our public communications—even those protesting against deficiencies—should be reasoned in content and positive in spirit.

Does the commandment to avoid faultfinding and evil speaking apply to Church members’ destructive personal criticism of Church leaders? Of course it does. It applies to criticism of all Church leaders—local or general, male or female. In our relations with all of our Church leaders, we should follow the Apostle Paul’s direction: “Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father.” (1 Tim. 5:1.) . . .

“Criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward Church authorities, general or local. Jude condemns those who ‘speak evil of dignities.’ (Jude 1:8.) Evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed is in a class by itself. It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. . . .

Government or corporate officials, who are elected directly or indirectly or appointed by majority vote, must expect that their performance will be subject to critical and public evaluations by their constituents. That is part of the process of informing those who have the right and power of selection or removal. . . .

A different principle applies in our Church, where the selection of leaders is based on revelation, subject to the sustaining vote of the membership. In our system of Church government, evil speaking and criticism of leaders by members is always negative. Whether the criticism is true or not, as Elder George F. Richards explained, it tends to impair the leaders’ influence and usefulness, thus working against the Lord and his cause. . . .

So what do we do when we feel that our Relief Society president or our bishop or another authority is transgressing or pursuing a policy of which we disapprove? Is there no remedy? Are our critics correct when they charge that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are “sheep” without remedy against the whims of a heedless or even an evil shepherd?

There are remedies, but they are not the same remedies or procedures that are used with leaders in other organizations.

Our Father in Heaven has not compelled us to think the same way on every subject or procedure. As we seek to accomplish our life’s purposes, we will inevitably have differences with those around us—including some of those we sustain as our leaders. The question is not whether we have such differences, but how we manage them. What the Lord has said on another subject is also true of the management of differences with his leaders: “It must needs be done in mine own way.” (D&C 104:16.) We should conduct ourselves in such a way that our thoughts and actions do not cause us to lose the companionship of the Spirit of the Lord.

The first principle in the gospel procedure for managing differences is to keep our personal differences private. In this we have worthy examples to follow. Every student of Church history knows that there have been differences of opinion among Church leaders since the Church was organized. Each of us has experienced such differences in our work in auxiliaries, quorums, wards, stakes, and missions of the Church. We know that such differences are discussed, but not in public. Counselors acquiesce in the decisions of their president. Teachers follow the direction of their presidency. Members are loyal to the counsel of their bishop. All of this is done quietly and loyally—even by members who would have done differently if they had been in the position of authority.

Why aren’t these differences discussed in public? Public debate—the means of resolving differences in a democratic government—is not appropriate in our Church government. We are all subject to the authority of the called and sustained servants of the Lord. They and we are all governed by the direction of the Spirit of the Lord, and that Spirit only functions in an atmosphere of unity. That is why personal differences about Church doctrine or procedure need to be worked out privately. There is nothing inappropriate about private communications concerning such differences, provided they are carried on in a spirit of love.

There are at least five different procedures a Church member can follow in addressing differences with Church leaders—general or local, male or female.

The first—and most benign—of the procedures is to overlook the difference. President Brigham Young described his own application of this method in a circumstance in which he felt “a want of confidence” in the Prophet Joseph Smith’s financial management. After entertaining such thoughts for a short time, President Young saw that they could cause him to lose confidence in the Prophet and ultimately to question God as well. President Young concluded:

“Though I admitted in my feelings and knew all the time that Joseph was a human being and subject to err, still it was none of my business to look after his faults. … He was called of God; God dictated him, and if He had a mind to leave him to himself and let him commit an error, that was no business of mine. … He was God’s servant, and not mine.” (Journal of Discourses, 4:297.) . . .

A second option is to reserve judgment and postpone any action on the difference. In many instances, the actions we are tempted to criticize may be based on confidences that preclude the leader from explaining his or her actions publicly. In such instances there is wisdom in a strategy of patience and trust.

The third procedure, which should be familiar to every student of the Bible, is to take up our differences privately with the leader involved. The Savior taught: “If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.” (Matt. 18:15.)

This course of action may be pursued in a private meeting, if possible, or it may be done through a letter or other indirect communication. How many differences could be resolved if we would only communicate privately about them! Some would disappear as they were identified as mere misunderstandings. Others would be postponed with an agreement to disagree for the present. But in many instances, private communications about differences would remove obstacles to individual growth and correction.

A fourth option is to communicate with the Church officer who has the power to correct or release the person thought to be in error or transgression. The Bible calls this “tell[ing] it unto the church.” (Matt. 18:17.) Modern scripture, in the revelation we call “the law of the Church,” describes this procedure:

“And if he or she confess not thou shalt deliver him or her up unto the church, not to the members, but to the elders. And it shall be done in a meeting, and that not before the world.” (D&C 42:89.)

Note the caution that this remedy is to be private—“not before the world.” This is not done in order to hide the facts, but rather to increase the chance that the correction will improve the life of a brother or sister. . . .

There is a fifth remedy. We can pray for the resolution of the problem. We should pray for the leader whom we think to be in error, asking the Lord to correct the circumstance if it needs correction. At the same time, we should pray for ourselves, asking the Lord to correct us if we are in error. . . .

All five of these are appropriate options for Church members who differ with their leaders. The preferred course depends upon the circumstances and the inspiration that guides those who prayerfully seek. . . .

Despite the commandments and counsel I have reviewed, we have some members who persistently and publicly criticize Church leaders. What about them? . . .

Just as our Church leaders’ source of authority is different from that of government and corporate leaders, so are the procedures for correcting Church leaders different from those used to correct leaders chosen by popular election. But the differences are appropriate to the way in which our Church leaders are called and released. By following approved procedures, we can keep from alienating ourselves from the Spirit of the Lord.

This counsel will be anathema to some. I invite those who are troubled by it to consider it in terms of the teachings of the scriptures rather than in terms of their personal preferences or the canons of any particular profession. Those who reject the authority of the scriptures or our latter-day prophets cannot be expected to agree with what I have said. Those who see freedom or truth as absolutely overriding principles in all human actions cannot be expected to be persuaded by the scriptures’ teaching that “knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.” (1 Cor. 8:1.)

Those who govern their thoughts and actions solely by the principles of liberalism or conservatism or intellectualism cannot be expected to agree with all of the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. As for me, I find some wisdom in liberalism, some wisdom in conservatism, and much truth in intellectualism—but I find no salvation in any of them.

. . . It is easy to preach freedom or truth. Praise for those subjects is usually safe and always popular. It is infinitely more difficult to preach how men and women should use freedom or truth. The preacher of that message may command respect, but he or she will not win popularity.

I conclude with a message of hope. When Isaiah condemned the critics of his day, he concluded with a prophecy. He said that in time the children of God would sanctify his name and “fear the God of Israel.” Continuing, he declared, “They also that erred in spirit shall come to understanding, and they that murmured shall learn doctrine.” (Isa. 29:23–24.) In that spirit I pray for the day when all of us will know God and keep his commandments. In that day, as Isaiah foretold, the “king shall reign in righteousness,” and “the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance for ever.” (Isa. 32:1, 17.)

- Sacrificing Principle for Profit: Church Wildlife Enterprises and Hunting Preserves, Sunstone Magazine

I recently learned about the two Church-owned and sanctioned hunting preserves mentioned above and was stunned by what amounts to be the killing of animals for profit by the LDS Church.

Perhaps unlike other Church business enterprises, however, is the fact that missionaries were sent to “serve God in a most unusual way,” according to this July, 2000 article on Deseret News about the LDS Church’s hunting preserves.

According to the information packet from Deseret Land and Livestock obtained by the Sunstone speaker on this podcast, a guided archery hunt to bag an elk can fetch $11,500 plus tax and license, as of the year 2001.  (A more detailed price list can be accessed at around the 28 minute mark of the podcast.) When asked in a letter by concerned members of the Church how the hunting preserves could be ethically justified, the Presiding Bishopric (who oversees the hunting preserves) offered no response or explanation.

Now, many Mormons own a gun and many go hunting.  Millions of Americans go hunting every year and it’s a big industry.  So what’s the problem with the Church getting in on the profits?  Well, when we consider LDS scripture and statements by General Authorities such as the following, it’s clear that we’re not “just another hunting enterprise:”

“And surely, blood shall not be shed, only for meat, to save your lives; and the blood of every beast will I require at your hands.”  (Genesis 9:11, JST)

“I never could see why a man should be imbued with a blood-thirsty desire to kill and destroy animal life. I have known men—and they still exist among us—who enjoy what is, to them, the ’sport’ of hunting birds and slaying them by the hundreds, and who will come in after a day’s sport boasting of how many harmless birds they have had the skill to slaughter … I do not believe any man should kill animals or birds unless he needs them for food, and then he should not kill innocent little birds that are not intended for food for man. I think it is wicked for men to thirst in their souls to kill almost everything which possesses animal life. It is wrong.” (President Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, Vol. 1, pp. 371-372)

“Now, I would like to add some of my feelings concerning the unnecessary shedding of blood and destruction of life … And not less with reference to the killing of innocent birds is the wildlife of our country that live upon the vermin that are indeed enemies to the farmer and to mankind. It is not only wicked to destroy them, it is a shame, in my opinion. I think that this principle should extend not only to the bird life but to the life of all animals … because God gave it to them, and they were to be used only, as I understand, for food and to supply the needs of men.” (President Spencer W. Kimball, “Fundamental Principles to Ponder and Live,” The Ensign, November 1978, p. 45)

“Killing for sport is wrong…One day, to while away the slowly passing hours, I took my gun with the intention of indulging in a little amusement in hunting turkeys… From boyhood I had been particularly, and I may say strangely, attached to a gun. Hunting in the forests of Ohio was a pastime that to me possessed the most fascinating attractions. It never occurred to my mind that it was wrong-that indulging in “what was sport to me was death to them;” that in shooting turkeys, squirrels, etc., I was taking life that I could not give; therefore I indulged in the murderous sport without the least compunction of conscience.”  (Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, p.188-189)

Something happened between the days that those statements were made and the present day where sport hunting for profit within the Church was suddenly considered to be a good idea — so much so that missionaries were initially sent to tend to the grounds.  How did we get from the days where the Church fostered such a high regard for animal life that Joseph Smith prevented the unnecessary killing of rattlesnakes; when the pioneers would lay their hands upon their oxen to bless them; when their animals were valued as they were the key to their survival, and hunting was done only because it was necessary to sustain their lives — to the days when they’re hunted down for recreation and profit?  What does that say about our culture and our religion? 

Did I miss a change in LDS teaching concerning reverence for the Lord’s animal creations?  Or is the only change that we’ve put a price on their heads?

George Q. Cannon, counselor in the First Presidency under Brigham Young and editor of the Juvenile Instructor, probably wrote more concerning the humane treatment of animals than any member of the Church.  In 1868 he began writing editorials advocating kindness to animals and in 1897 he founded a Sunday School-sponsored “Humane Day,” which became an annual event.  Most members of the Church know nothing about it, but this program continued in the Church for the next twenty years.

It is perhaps a bit ironic that leaders of the Church — in the days of when members were more dependent on animals for their food and clothing — were so frequently vocal about the humane treatment of animals, emphasizing that we should never take their lives unless it is to save our own, whereas today — when we are much less dependent on animals for our survival, and are supposedly much more enlightened on the subject of animal intelligence, emotion, and sensitivity to pain – the leaders of the Church are mostly silent on the issue of animal welfare and see fit to send missionaries to tend to sport hunting grounds. 

 In the Deseret News article, referring to Elder Huff, who tended to Westlake, it says:

“Instead of knocking on doors, he spends his time bush- whacking in the thick brush along the southwest shores of Utah Lake, looking for the perfect place to nurture his birds by planting numerous stands of corn, rye and other grains….

Large holding tanks that are no longer used for farming now provide high-profile watering holes throughout the game preserve, attracting not only birds but rabbits, coyotes, deer and even antelope.”

Interestingly enough, President Joseph F. Smith made a very specific statement referring directly to hunting elk, deer and antelope, among others:

“I do not believe any man should kill animals or birds unless he needs them for food, and then he should not kill innocent little birds that are not intended for food for man. I think it is wicked for men to thirst in their souls to kill almost everything which possesses animal life. It is wrong. I have been surprised at prominent men whom I have seen whose very souls seemed to be athirst for the shedding of animal blood. They go off hunting deer, antelope, elk, anything they can find, and what for? “Just the fun of it!” Not that they are hungry and need the flesh of their prey, but just because they love to shoot and to destroy life. I am a firm believer, with reference to these things, in the simple words of one of the poets:

“Take not way the life you cannot give,
For all things have an equal right to live.”

Answers to Gospel Questions, Vol.4, p.48

President Smith seems to predict with amazing accuracy what is going on at places like Westlake, where ”prominent men,” (perhaps the “doctors, dentists and attorneys from Payson north to Ogden, including Park City,” that Elder Huff refers to in the Deseret News article) seem to be so “athirst for the shedding of animal blood” that they will literally spend tens of thousands of dollars to “go off hunting deer, antelope, elk, anything they can find, and what for?  Just the fun of it!”

Indeed, a very elite, lucrative kind of “fun” that had (as of 2001) a six-year waiting list.

Information about these hunting preserves is very sparse, but according to Jim Catano, who contacted the Church’s public affairs department and was “told by the director that he would answer my questions, a second-tier media handler was assigned to inform me weeks later that they would not answer any of the questions I’d submitted in preparation for this article.”  (The article he was referring to can be accessed here.)  After deciding to drop into Westlake unannounced and being given a tour by manager Kevin Albrecht, he found out the following in 2001:

“Our efforts in bringing our opposition to the attention of the Church hierarchy have already had an impact. Not only do missionaries no longer staff the facility but “canned hunts” in which birds that have been raised in captivity are released just before the hunters go in are no longer sponsored. Kevin said he had had several meetings with upper management as a result of our activism, and canned hunts were one of the first things to be changed.

He told me that in a meeting he recently attended of commercial hunting facility managers, people from other parts of the country were surprised how low the daily bag limit is (2 per day as opposed to “as many as you can shoot for a price”) and that the facility no longer plants hatched birds but relies only on wild reproduction. He informed me how strict rule enforcement is and that members must report birds they think they’ve wounded but can’t find as part of their daily limit. He’s fairly confident that members do this although I have my doubts that all do.”

Since information about these preserves is limited, I decided to get in contact with Jim in order to ask him whether he had any new information since his update in 2001.  He said that he had contacted Farm Management Corporation (wholly owned by the LDS Church to run its farm properties) sometime prior to 2003, but they “refused to talk to me and give me any more information on the subject at a certain point.”

So, while there have been positive changes as the result of protest about the initial practice of canned hunting, Jim says that it “didn’t change (his) mind about the merits of the existence of this facility.”  The end result has remained unchanged: animals being hunted down for Church profit.

This isn’t about sustaining the lives of doctors and lawyers or meat going to waste.  Who eats coyote?  And $11,500 for a few elk steaks?  This is about the number of animals being purposely multiplied by creating the perfect conditions and attracting them to the preseve for the purpose of being killed “just for fun” – not because they need the flesh to live on, as President Smith stated above. 

Ironically, The Humane Society of the United States  has a webpage dedicated to praising the LDS Church for its teachings about animal life.  Do we deserve the praise?  Or have we given nothing but lip service to our supposed respect for God’s creations and their right to life?

Despite past teachings and statements by General Authorities on the subject of hunting and the taking of animal life, many of you have no personal problem with sport hunting.  Obviously, you have the legal right to hunt and I realize that I’m unlikely to change your personal views on the matter.  I ask you, however, whether you would be troubled by any of the following purely hypothetical situations:

• The Church preaches against alcohol consumption, but purchases a vineyard in California and profits from the sale of the grapes being harvested to produce wine.
• The Church teaches that pornography is wrong, but has a stake in a popular fashion magazine featuring scantily-clothed women in sexual poses.
• The Church opposes abortion but owns property in Florida that an abortion clinic rents.

Would you be prepared to defend these hypothetical scenarios in the same way that you defend the Church’s hunting preserves?

Of all the good ways to make a buck, is this the best we can do?  Are we or are we not, as a Church, sacrificing principle for profit?

Gerald E. Jones stated the following in in an Ensign article from August, 1972 called “The Gospel And Animals:”

“The prophets have been consistent in reminding men of their duty to the animal world. As the Lord told Noah, “… the blood of every beast will I require at your hands.” (JST, Gen. 9:11.) It is our sacred stewardship to care for the earth and all the creatures on it.”

The prophets have been consistent.  What about the Church?

I’ll leave you with a quote from Joseph F. Smith from an editorial published in the Juvenile Instructor in April, 1927:

“… The unnecessary destruction of life is a distinct spiritual loss to the human family. Men cannot worship the Creator and look with careless indifference upon his creations. The love of all life helps man to the enjoyment of a better life. It exalts the spiritual nature of those in need of divine favor.”

Prophet/President, Community of Christ

There are those (especially among Evangelicals) who believe that the Bible is inerrant and literal.  For example a scriptural literalist will claim that Noah’s flood covered the entire earth.  A non-literalist may say that the flood was merely a large localized flood.

Pres. Stephen Veazey is the prophet for the Community of Christ, and he gave a sermon on scriptural literalism.  The videos can be found on the CoC website, and this quote comes from Chapter 4.  Let me quote from Pres. Veazey directly:

Scripture is authoritative, not because it is perfect, or inerrant in every literal detail, but because it reliably keeps us grounded in God’s revelation.  And here is the heart of our challenge:  over the last several centuries, a doctrine of scripture emerged in Christianity that insists that all scripture, every single word, was directly dictated by God, and is inerrant in every detail.  This belief emerged as a response to the questioning of religious authority from those who held that human reason alone was the most reliable pathway to truth.  So a doctrine of scripture emerged that enshrined the literal words of scripture as inerrant and as the sole authority on all matters.

This view still dominates much of global Christianity today.  It also strongly influences more than a few members of the Community of Christ who have adopted it from the larger religious culture.  However, that doctrine, that view of scripture is not how scripture was understood in Christianity since its birth.  It’s not how Jesus Christ used and viewed scripture.  And it is not how the community of Christ officially views scripture today.

The church affirms that scripture is inspired, indispensable, essential to our knowledge of God, and the Gospel.  In addition, we believe that scripture should be interpreted responsibly, through informed study, guided by the Holy Spirit working in and through the church.  Scripture was formed by the community of faith to shape the community of faith, therefore, interpreting scripture is the constant work of the faith community.  Community of Christ also stresses, that all scripture must be interpreted through the lens of God’s most decisive revelation in Jesus Christ

So if portions of scripture don’t agree with our fullest understanding, of the meaning of the revelation of God in Christ, as illuminated by the Holy Spirit, and discerned by the faith community, the teachings and vision of Christ take precedence.  This principle applies to all of our books of Scripture, especially any passages by some to categorically assign to God’s disfavor, or negative characteristics, or secondary roles to others.

This is why our belief in continuing revelation is so important.  This belief keeps us open to yet more light and truth so we can grow and understand of God’s supreme will as revealed in Jesus Christ.  Doctrine and Covenants 163:70 states, “Scripture, prophetic guidance, knowledge and discernment must walk hand in hand to reveal the true will of God.”  Follow this pathway, which is the way of the living Christ, and you will discover more than sufficient light for the journey ahead.”

I find tremendous agreement with the CoC position.  What are your thoughts?  Do you lean for or against scriptural literalism?

The Church have just published (although I wrote this from a draft that I had access to before it was published) the new CES Book of Mormon Institute manual and my previous post asked some questions about what people hoped for in content.  This post is aimed at trying to develop a brief comparison of the most recent two.  I have tried to search topics, compared content and appendices and focussed on searching authors.  There are some interesting changes and some interesting constants.

Firstly the book is only 50 pages longer, which makes me wonder why bother to do a new one at all. 

Secondly there is still no discussion of the translation process, Joseph’s relationship with Moroni and the plates and the witnesses get a small outline in the appendix which is more an exercise in stating that they ‘never’ denied their testimonies.

Thirdly, McConkie has been used even more extensively and Mormon Doctrine has been used 19 times.  This is less than the previous manual but when contrasted with the new Gospel Principles manual, from which ‘Mormon Doctrine’ has been completely eradicated, this is quite interesting.  Why this schizophrenic move is not clear?  Perhaps we are seeing the impact of different writing committees.  In addition, Joseph Fielding Smith is also quoted more extensively.

Another noticeable, but perhaps unsurprising change, is the preference for living Apostles and Prophets, or at least very recent.  Yet, what is surprising, is the differences between those who are quoted frequently and those who are not.  For example, Fielding Smith and McConkie are quoted over 70 times in the new manual.  The other people who match that are President Benson, Joseph Smith (he is most quoted with 180 citations), Jeffrey R. Holland and Neal A. Maxwell.  Not far behind them is Elder Oaks, Packer and President Hinckley.  Why these brethren?  Hinckely and Benson have both been prophets and there is an emphasis upon thir teachings.  Elder Holland has written a popular book.  But Maxwell, Oaks and Packer?

The appendices have changed slightly.  They have dropped the map of the possible Book of Mormon geography while including a new map of Lehi’s journey.  This seems like an interesting reflection of how comfortable the Church feels with speculating about Book of Mormon lands with the current DNA ‘crisis’, while they clearly feel more comfortable about some of the work done by scholars on Lehi’s journey.  There is also a greater emphasis on the Scattering and Gathering of Israel.

Some of the things that have been reduced, or removed, or that are absent (which some might expect to be present); include the Journal of Discourses being cited only 3 times in the new manual compared to 13 in the old.  Further Brigham Young received no increase in citations.  FARMS (or the Maxwell Institute) are mentioned once and FAIR not at all.  Robert Millet is mentioned 5 times (usually in connection Joseph Fielding McConkie).  Even the Church sponsored Book of Mormon Symposiums only had 5 citations.  Monson has only 11 citations, which seems low for the current Prophet. Interestingly, Uchtdorf has only 1, whereas Bednar has 15 even though they were called at the same time.  In addition, Nibley is quoted less often in the new manual. 

It seems therefore that we are still living in a McConkie and Fielding Smith inspired Orthodoxy.  There are some other voices who are becoming important particularly Maxwell and Holland.  From a personal point of  view I would like to have seen something from Eugene England, Katheleen Flake, Catherine Thomas and Lowell Bennion (and others) who have all written insightful essays (and books) on the Book of Mormon.  Who else would you have liked to have seen cited?

Any other thoughts?

The Manual is now available online.

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?

“The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”  Joseph Smith —DHC 3:28-30

If Joseph Smith is, correct in his assertion that the fundamental principles of the Church are the testimonies and knowledge concerning Jesus Christ, His Life, His Mission, His Teachings, His Example and His Atonement and that ALL other things are only appendages, then it seems clear on what we should focus ourselves and our families — The Savior Jesus Christ.

Those testimonies are found in the scriptures, in the words of our modern day prophets and apostles, in the answers to our prayers and in the promptings of the Holy Ghost.

But, especially in the Bloggernacle, Jesus Christ and His Atonement seem to be the last thing anyone wants to discuss and consider.  We are much more interested in the appendages.

Appendages are important.

On our physical bodies, they play an important role.  Most of us wouldn’t want to live without them.  But, we can live without them and many do.

How neglectful have we become about the fundamental principles of our religion (never mind being LDS, how about just being a Christian?), that some, being so focused on the appendages, have lost the fundamental principles.  Or they have stopped hearing the testimonies of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ.

So, is/was Joseph correct about the fundamental principles of our religion?  Or have the appendages, at least as far as the Bloggernacle is concerned,  overwhelmed the message of the Restoration and of Jesus?

I always got a kick out of the signs in the student body section proclaiming, “The Prophet is a Ute!”  After all, so many Mormons proclaim that BYU is the “Lord’s University”, that it was really nice to point out that President Hinckley is an alum of the University of Utah.  The cool thing is that the signs can stay up, because President Monson is also an alum of the U, (though he did get an MBA from BYU, so I guess both schools can claim him.)  Anyway, I was quite amused to hear on the radio yesterday, that Joseph Smith has officially decided to attend the University of Utah.  You can verify the info right here!  If BYU is the Lord’s University, it seems that Utah is the School of the Prophets!

One evening when my wife and I had the opportunity to reflect on the timeless story of Adam and Eve, it struck me that their different responses to God’s commandments, and to Lucifer’s “temptation”, perfectly exemplified the different mindsets of TBMs and NOMs, and symbolically portrayed the age-old struggle between Orthodox and Liberal in any faith. And as I meditated on their dramatic dialog with Lucifer, with each other, and with God, it donned on me that Adam and Eve were the perfect TBM-NOM couple.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the TBM and NOM labels, allow me to briefly explain. Generally speaking, the mantra of TBMs is “follow the Prophet” while the mantra of NOMs is “follow your conscience.” This is not to say that TBMs don’t believe in following their conscience, nor that NOMs don’t believe in following the Prophet. Rather, the main difference between TBMs and NOMs relates to who they believe holds the “trump card” in situations where their personal views differ from Church leaders’ views. In such cases, TBMs typically believe they must yield to the authority and judgment of Church leaders, while NOMs typically believe they must follow their conscience even at the expense of disobeying Church leaders. This deference to authority by TBMs, and deference to personal conviction by NOMs, is typically an outgrowth of their divergent views about Church history. TBMs truly believe the Church’s official historical narrative (which supports Church leaders’ exclusive claim to priesthood authority and their special status as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators), while NOMs disbelieve or seriously doubt the Church’s official history (and therefore seek a new order or approach that gleans all the goodness Mormonism has to offer while pruning away the doctrines and practices that don’t bear fruit for them). These divergent views about Church history are usually accompanied by differing views about the nature of prophets and apostles. TBMs typically view prophets and apostles as authoritative guides who “will never lead us astray” in spiritual, temporal, and even political affairs, while NOMs believe that even prophets and apostles unavoidably “see through a glass darkly” when it comes to discerning God’s will, and may therefore occasionally lead us astray despite their best and most sincere intentions — hence NOMs’ inclination to rely ultimately on their own convictions.

Because TBMs typically view Church history and prophetic accuracy as clear-cut, black-and-white matters, they typically view obedience to Church leaders as a simple choice between good and evil. By contrast, NOMs’ murky view of Church history and prophetic discernment causes them to view obedience to authority as a complicated challenge where one must constantly navigate through innumerable “gray areas” of inconsistency and ambiguity, continually confronting the dilemma of choosing between the lesser of two evils, or the greater of two goods.

With that generalized description of TBMs and NOMs in mind, let’s examine how Adam and Eve exemplified these two different approaches.

Adam’s “TBM Response” to Lucifer’s Suggestion to Eat the Forbidden Fruit

Adam’s response to Lucifer when he suggests that Adam eat the forbidden fruit reflects a typical TBM mindset. When Lucifer suggests that Adam eat the forbidden fruit, Adam’s has an instant, knee-jerk rejection. With almost child-like disbelief that Lucifer would even dare suggest that Adam break the rules, Adam responds to Lucifer that because God told him not to eat the fruit, he would not eat it.

Adam’s response to Lucifer exemplifies the typical TBM mindset where all proposed actions are screened to determine whether they would conflict with any pronouncement by Authority, and if so, they are immediately rejected. Adam’s almost-automated thought process resembles that of a computer that refuses to do X simply because it was pre-programmed not to do X. Adam’s response to Lucifer demonstrates that he does not condition his obedience on his understanding or agreeing with God’s rationale for forbidding him from eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge; the mere fact that God has forbidden it is enough to persuade Adam not to do it.

Of equal significance is what Adam does not do when Lucifer suggests he eat the forbidden fruit. He does not carefully ponder Lucifer’s proposal before deciding to reject it; he does not weigh the pro’s and con’s of eating the forbidden fruit or consider how doing so might fit into God’s larger plan. Nor does Adam even consider the possibility that eating the forbidden fruit might actually be necessary to fulfill God’s other commandments. In addition, Adam does not engage in any dialog with Lucifer before deciding to quickly brush aside his suggestion to eat the forbidden fruit; Adam is clearly not interested in learning the rationale behind Lucifer’s suggestion. The mere fact that Lucifer is suggesting he do something that would violate one of God’s commandments is enough to cause Adam to completely distrust and discount Lucifer’s proposal.

In addition, it is interesting to note that when Lucifer tempted Adam to eat the forbidden fruit, he did so with the enticement that it would make Adam “wise”. Adam’s instant rejection of Lucifer’s offer to become wise through unapproved means demonstrates Adam’s absolute trust in Authority; it displays Adam’s confidence that if there is something important to know, God will reveal it to him in due time, and that he therefore need not go behind God’s back and obtain wisdom from alternative sources.

Although Adam’s TBM approach is admirable for the absolute trust and loyalty to God that it displays, it is sobering to recognize that Adam’s unquestioning and absolute obedience –if not tempered by Eve– would have ultimately prevented their spiritual development and unwittingly foiled God’s plan for all mankind. But to be fair to Adam and his like-minded TBMs, we can’t really blame them for taking God and his Prophets seriously when they speak. Just as nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition, nobody expects God to tell us, whether personally or through his authorized representatives, not to do something that is actually necessary for our eternal progression.

Eve’s “NOM Response” to Lucifer’s Suggestion to Eat the Forbidden Fruit

Eve’s response to Lucifer’s suggestion to eat the forbidden fruit is the polar opposite of Adam’s. Rather than immediately rebuffing Satan, she actually engages in dialog with the enemy of righteousness. The notable fact that Eve does not immediately dismiss Lucifer’s suggestion to break God’s commandment seems to indicate that: (1) Eve’s mind is at least open to the possibility that God’s commandments must sometimes be broken; and (2) she must rely on her own judgment to determine whether, when, and how she should obey, rather than absolutely and unquestioningly obeying all commandments at all times.

When Lucifer suggests that Eve eat the forbidden fruit for the purpose of gaining knowledge, Eve apparently sees some merit in his unorthodox proposal. Apparently recognizing that knowledge of good and evil is a necessary part of her eternal progression, Eve considers Lucifer’s proposal further by asking whether disobeying God and eating the forbidden fruit is the only way to obtain that knowledge. It seems here that, unlike Adam, Eve intuits the concept of “necessary evil” — situations where we must break one of God’s laws in order to obey a higher law or accomplish a greater purpose. In such cases, technical disobedience to lesser laws enables obedience to higher laws — although the Adams of the Church (TBMs) may interpret such measured disobedience as just plain rebellion at worst, or a lukewarm commitment to God at best.

When Lucifer assures Eve there is no other way to obtain knowledge than by disobeying God’s commandment and partaking of the forbidden fruit, Eve believes Lucifer and partakes. Of course, Eve’s decision to eat the forbidden fruit could be seen as incredibly gullible and foolish. After all, how could she trust that Lucifer was telling her the truth when he said there was no other way to obtain knowledge? And how could she use Lucifer’s assurance as a basis to disregard God’s clear and direct command not to eat the forbidden fruit? Accordingly, Mother Eve’s act of disobedience has been viewed by many as the Original Sin for which she and all mankind have been deservedly punished.

But LDS leaders have taught that Mother Eve should be lauded and revered as a heroine of mankind for her decision to disobey God, not chastised and vilified as a disobedient rebel. As Elder Dallin H. Oaks has explained:

When Adam and Eve received the first commandment, they were in a transitional state, no longer in the spirit world but with physical bodies not yet subject to death and not yet capable of procreation. . . .

For reasons that have not been revealed, this transition, or “fall,” could not happen without a transgression—an exercise of moral agency amounting to a willful breaking of a law (see Moses 6:59). This would be a planned offense, a formality to serve an eternal purpose. . . .

It was Eve who first transgressed the limits of Eden in order to initiate the conditions of mortality. Her act, whatever its nature, was formally a transgression but eternally a glorious necessity to open the doorway toward eternal life. . . .

Some Christians condemn Eve for her act, concluding that she and her daughters are somehow flawed by it. Not the Latter-day Saints! Informed by revelation, we celebrate Eve’s act and honor her wisdom and courage in the great episode called the Fall. (Dallin H. Oaks, “‘The Great Plan of Happiness’,” Ensign, Nov 1993, 72.)

Is it possible that one of the reasons God required a “willful breaking of a law” in Eden was to teach mankind the paradoxical principle that we sometimes need to disobey ecclesiastical authority and break “the rules” to fulfill God’s greater purposes for our existence? When I consider Brigham Young’s words: “I am fearful they [Church members] settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation,” I wonder, specifically what “purposes of God in [our] salvation” are “thwart[ed]” by “a reckless confidence” in our Church leaders? In light of the LDS doctrine that God’s purpose is to help us become like him, does Brigham Young’s statement mean that it is actually un-Godlike to give unquestioning, absolute Adam-like obedience to our ecclesiastical authorities? Was he advocating a more examined, Eve-like approach to decision-making that recognizes sometimes disobedience is paradoxically necessary to accomplish God’s greater purposes?

Adam’s Redeeming Love

Regardless of what people may think of Adam’s initial failure to recognize the wisdom of eating the forbidden fruit, his loving response to Eve when she informs him of her disobedience and inevitable expulsion from Eden more than redeems him. When Eve informs Adam of her disobedience to God, his choice is a stark one: become separated from Eve and remain innocent and uncompromisingly obedient in a sheltered paradise, or stay with Eve by joining in her disobedience and expulsion. Adam’s willingness to endure disapproval, chastisement, and exile to remain with Eve demonstrated that his love for her exceeded his concern for his own comfort, safety, and approval. By recognizing that the greatest good was to stay together with Eve, and that the greatest evil was to be separated from her, Adam demonstrated he ultimately understood what the Gospel is truly all about.

Adam the Head and Eve the Neck: Both Members of the Body of Christ

When I shared these thoughts with my wife after separately reflecting on the Adam and Eve story, she responded: “Those are interesting observations, but there’s one big problem with your theory: even though it was Eve who made the right decision, Adam was given stewardship over her.” And my wife was right. God’s decision to give Adam stewardship over Eve is another puzzle in an ancient story already filled with paradox. After all, if it was Eve whose “wisdom and courage” made humankind’s existence possible as Elder Oaks has explained, and if it was Adam who was too slow to figure out something as quickly as Eve, then why not just put Eve in charge?

My response to my wife’s valid observation was along the following lines:

You’re right that it seems unfair that Adam was put in charge when it was Eve’s wisdom and courage that led to the right decision and the right result, but that’s exactly how it works in the Church today too. Although the Adams of the Church are put in charge, it’s the Eve’s of the Church that ultimately set the Church’s course. Just about every major change in Church policy and practice has been preceded by a chorus of Eves pleading with the Adams in charge to implement a change of course. For example, Lowell Bennion publicly disagreed with the Church’s priesthood ban long before 1978 and was fired from his CES job as a result of his “rebellious” views. But when the Church abandoned the priesthood ban in 1978, Elder McConkie acknowledged to a conference of CES instructors that he and other prophets and apostles had previously spoken with “limited understanding” when they had supported the priesthood ban. So in effect, there you had an Adam of the Church acknowledging that the Eves of the Church had been right all along. So it’s like the mother said in My Big Fat Greek Wedding: the man may be the head of the family, but the woman is the neck, and she turns the head in whatever direction she wants.

In light of the lessons we learn from Adam and Eve’s divergent approaches to deferring to authority versus relying on personal judgment, perhaps TBMs and NOMs can show greater appreciation for one another. As the Apostle Paul said, we are all “the body of Christ, and members in particular.” (Cor. 12:27) Hopefully, none of us will ever be guilty of saying to another member of the body of Christ: “I have no need of thee.” (Cor. 12:21.) Hopefully, the Adams of the Church (TBM’s) can recognize the valuable role that the Eve’s in the Church (NOM’s) play in moving us all closer to a correct understanding of God’s will, even if occasionally it appears their calls for change seem to be rebellion, disobedience, or disrespect for authority. As the Apostle Paul taught, we must show proper respect to all members of the body of Christ, and particularly those members that seem less honorable: “those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour.” (Cor. 12:23.)

Likewise, hopefully the Eves of the Church can be patient and take hope in the understanding that the Adams of the Church have good motives: they want to obey God, they want to do what is right, and they want to protect and preserve the truths God has given us in times past. Although their role as guardians of truth causes them to view any proposed change of course with great suspicion, they do ultimately come to recognize the wisdom of the course changes proposed by the Eves of the Church, and on a timetable that, although not swift enough for some, hopefully occurs before large numbers of members of the body of Christ decide to amputate one another.

So here’s to Father Adam and Mother Eve’s opposing but complementary approaches to learning, to life, and to love.

Today’s guest post is by Michael. In the spirit of Mormon Stories, he was invited to share his experience.

I thought the people that believed in the church and loved me most in the would have at least tried to “save my soul.” I would have done it for them, had the roles been reversed. Although, it would have led me to the place where I am now, which may be the underlying (perhaps subconscious) reason why they don’t wish to go there.

—————

If someone told me three years ago that I would be where I am now, I would have never believed them. And yet, here I am. A few years ago, I decided that I should probably learn more about church history. Not out of pure interest, but more out of duty. I heard that the book “Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling” was written by a member of the church, but didn’t give the usual sanitized version of history that is given in Sunday School. I was intrigued.

I read the book. It was slow going, but I finished it. More than any of the strange practices or weird events, the thing that bugged me the most was Joseph Smith himself. I couldn’t place it at first, but I soon realized that I didn’t really like Joseph as a person. I felt kind of guilty about that because we have been raised, and it has been ingrained in us, to love Joseph and the other men of the restoration. My feelings of guilt were lessened a bit when I found out that I was definitely not the only one that felt that way. There were many others in the church that felt the same way. In fact, my dad bought a video that features a question and answer session with the author and even he admits that, by the time he was done with his research and writing, he did not like Joseph Smith either.

When I finished with the book, it made me wonder: Maybe there was a reason why things were not sitting right with me and others. The Joseph we had been taught about growing up was not the real Joseph, so who was. Also, I wondered: If this book was written by a member, then how much of a positive slant is he putting on things? That’s when my journey really began. There are so many differing and conflicting accounts out there that I sometimes felt like a detective, trying to piece together what most made sense to me.

As I said above, I went searching into church history as a kind of church duty. I felt that I ought to take a look into it. I thought that I would search things out and find that history would vindicate the church and the prophet. I believed (and believe) that the truth does not fear investigation and the facts would be overwhelmingly in favor of the church. I found the opposite to be the case. This mostly surprised me because of my father.

He is well versed in church history, and I think I trusted heavily in his ability to interpret events. Sometimes, when I would find out something new, I would ask him, “Doesn’t this bother you?!?” He wouldn’t answer. At times I wondered why I was the only one who was bothered by some of the things I was finding. I wondered if I was the only crazy one or the only one who wasn’t. I couldn’t understand why, when I showed them a claim of the church or Joseph Smith and then showed them how that claim was in fact false, they didn’t seem to care. Well, I found out some interesting things related to that. Although most of the close people around me did not seem to want to face any of this stuff, I found out that I was not alone. Besides a number of people that I know that don’t believe, but are hanging on for various other reasons (family, friends, structure, etc.), there are many, many people leaving the church every year. It always helps a person fell less crazy when you know there are others making hard decisions like you.

The other thing that made me understand the situation better, was something told to me by a friend. I mentioned to him that I could not understand why these things bugged me and no one else seemed to care. He said, “Ok, tell me something that bugs you.” So for the 20th time or so, I mentioned that Joseph Smith claimed to translate the Book of Abraham from Egyptian papyri. A decade after Joseph died, the Egyptian language was deciphered from the Rosetta Stone. Reading the papyri, it does not say what Joseph claims it said. When I gave him that one example, he went on to say that most people don’t think as much as I do, so they don’t let it bother them. Adding to that, he said, “Plus, it’s the Book of Abraham. Who cares about the Book of Abraham?” And then he ended, mentioning that some people will stay in for the sake of loyalty–they are Mormon and will always be Mormon.

Those are ideas that had never really entered my mind. It had never really occurred to me that even if the facts were against the church, people would still remain in it. I was not sure which answer he gave me that bugged me the most. If he only knew how much the Book of Abraham feeds into his own belief system. How could he say, “Who cares about the Book of Abraham?” I mean, the teachings exclusive to Mormonism don’t come from the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon was written in such a way that it virtually does not stray from biblical teachings. There is little or nothing new in the doctrine from the Book of Mormon. It is the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price that set Mormon theology apart from “regular” Christian theology.

These words of indifference, of not caring if it is true in the literal sense are so foreign to me. I first heard them from my best friend a few years ago, before I had ever expressed any doubts. As we passed by the house of a neighbor that had left the church after studying church history, he said, “I don’t understand Bro. So-and-So. I mean, even if I didn’t think the church was true, I wouldn’t leave it.” At that point, I blurted out a very loud, “WHAT?!? Are you serious?” He was. My other best friend who was also there that night is the one I mentioned in the above paragraph, who also doesn’t care about the church being true in any literal sense. Another close friend, for whom I was the best man at his temple wedding, wrote me an email when he found out that I had left the church. It was not what I expected. He congratulated me on doing what he said he never had the courage to do.

Perhaps the most painful response was from my girlfriend. She told me she was proud of me and for what I was doing. She started calling me Winston (the main character from 1984, who rebels against Big Brother). It shocked me that she would say such a thing that seemed so telling to me, and it saddened me when she said she wouldn’t be joining me. In HER OWN ANALOGY she chose to love Big Brother.

These people that have been such a large part of my life (three of the four I have known since we were children) now feel like strangers to me. Their way of thinking on this matter has never been an option for me. I have always considered such choices to be wrong, even in the best-case scenario, and in a worst-case scenario, downright evil. Although I don’t consider this a worst-case scenario, I am still left baffled that such good people would choose such a path. It would bother me less if they hadn’t all served missions and didn’t plan on teaching the rising generation that these beliefs are true. If they stand where they do, why are they passing the information on as truth? I am still working on the answer to that one. In the mean time, for the sake of preserving respect for my loved ones, I am forced to concede that making the choice to believe in something that you don’t truly think is reality, may not be as evil as I thought…

With his blessing, here are some “best and worst” Mormon quotes. To keep it balanced, each best and worst will come from the same person in LDS history. The intent here is not to “speak evil of the Lord’s anointed,” and I value being able to look back at our missteps with a little humor. I am sure when I review my life someday, there will be plenty of ill-advised quotes to assemble. Looking at our blunders with openness and not getting defensive about them are, in my view, attributes of godliness.

David O. McKay
Worst:
“Although, I do not care much for a negro, still I have a warm spot in my heart for those beautiful singers.”

Best:
“There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this Church that the Negroes are under a divine curse.”
“Children are more influenced by sermons you act than by sermons you preach.”

Bruce R. McConkie
Worst:

It is also to the Book of Mormon to which we turn for the plainest description of the Catholic Church as the great and abominable church. Nephi saw this ‘church which was the most abominable above all other churches’ in vision. He ’saw the devil that he was the foundation of it’ and also the murders, wealth, harlotry, persecutions, and evil desires that historically have been a part of this satanic organization.”

Best:

“I feel, and the Spirit seems to accord, that the most important doctrine I can declare, and the most powerful testimony I can bear, is of the atoning sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ. His atonement is the most transcendent event that ever has or ever will occur from Creation’s dawn through all the ages of a never-ending eternity. It is the supreme act of goodness and grace that only a god could perform.”

“I believe in Christ; he stands supreme! From him I’ll gain my fondest dream;
And while I strive through grief and pain, His voice is heard: ‘Ye shall obtain.’”

Brigham Young
Worst:

“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man mixes who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.”

Best:

“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self security. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not.”

Are there other quotes, best or worst, that stand out to you? If you share one, please try to keep with the dissonant nature of the post.

Why is it often looked down on to recognize our blunders? I have had a few leaders in my church life admit past mistakes or prejudices, and if anything my respect and admiration for them increased. I realize that a lot of us value the “warts and all” version of history, but some get defensive in trying to explain it or rationalize it away, or suppress it, lest it damage someone’s testimony. Debate is one thing, but defensiveness is a form of contention… and we all know what contention is.

When Edward Kimball was writing his father’s (Spencer W. Kimball) biography, he was told that “the story of a life should be told candidly, ‘warts and all.’  His concern was that there should not be unfair emphasis on the warts.” That is a challenge I think, to give weight to but not overemphasize the bad, and also not to “canonize” (i.e. hold them up as more than human) our leaders (something I once heard Elder Maxwell warn against in a fireside). In that spirit, I will put out some posts in the future regarding best and worst in history, politics, speculation, teachings, etc.

We all make mistakes, we all have a lot growing to do in some areas, and most of us occasionally say things we later regret. In that light, I think it is a healthy and non-defensive stance to recognize the flaws along with the greatness of ourselves, and our leaders. May we all work on focusing on the good, but recognizing and being non-defensive about the bad.

This problem is similar to the problem of freedom of speech.  Do you only allow freedom of speech until someone says something you don’t like?  Those with less dogmatic viewpoints are also less likely to condemn the sweeping pronouncements of others for the same reason they don’t make them.  They may be more self-critical and more reluctant to express their opinions when those opinions will affect others.

Here are a few examples of this problem (many of these are included in the book David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism):

• Bruce R. McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine.  This was published without prior authorization from the FP under the most presumptuous title imaginable.  While Pres. McKay was highly incensed over it, requiring two apostles to research and find over 1000 errors in the book, no public correction was made other than to tell BRM that the book should not be republished.  BRM accepted the private correction, but repeatedly requested that the book be allowed to be republished.  Eventually, in his dotage, Pres. McKay gave a sufficiently cryptic response that BRM took it as license to republish.  Among the worst criticisms of the book:
  • It referred to the Roman Catholic church as the Church of the Devil, stating that this was what was meant by the Book of Mormon’s “harlot of the earth” reference.  It was so harsh that it caused RC Bishop Hunt, a friend to Pres. McKay, to come to Pres. McKay with tears in his eyes asking if this was what McKay thought of him.
  • It propounded the inaccurate “Cain” doctrine (borrowed from Protestantism) as justification of the Priesthood Ban.
  • It prohibited all caffeinated beverages from the Word of Wisdom (despite Pres. McKay’s own personal affinity for Coke).
  • And many many more . . .
• Ezra Taft Benson’s association with the John Birch Society.  As an apostle, Benson was staunchly anti-communist.  He quickly became enamored with the newly formed John Birch society and was repeatedly courted by founder Robert Welch to join the society and to use his apostolic influence to encourage other Mormons to join.  Pres. McKay refused to consent to both Benson’s membership and endorsement of the John Birch Society, but Benson persisted and even resorted to trickery to try to convince Pres. McKay to be featured on the cover of the monthly magazine of the society.  Again, no public disavowal of the organization or Benson’s tactics was ever made, and many members were led to believe that the church endorsed the John Birch Society.
• Joseph Fielding Smith’s Man, His Origin and Destiny.  The book states authoritatively (yet without authority) that evolution is false, a matter of Joseph Fielding Smith’s personal speculation.  David O. McKay specifically said he believed evolution was a true scientific principle; yet no corrective action was taken to diminish the book’s significance.
• Paul H. Dunn’s stories.  While not dogmatic, they are riddled with hyperbolic glurge that purports to “prove” the church is true, which can be faith demoting when individuals discover the stories are fictional.
• The Priesthood Ban.  This is a pretty basic one.  While David O. McKay was the first to acknowledge this was a policy (therefore “of man”) and not a doctrine (no originating revelation), there was no public repudiation of the rampant racist rhetoric of the time until much later when the ban had been removed, and the rhetoric had continued in justification.  In fact, this is a great example of a time when Bruce R. McConkie (much later) fell on the sword publicly, apologetically stating that the things they had said were all wrong.
• Spencer W. Kimball’s Miracle of Forgiveness.  This was written in 1969 and contains errors that are potentially harmful to those who read it if they are in a vulnerable emotional state or prone to take things far too seriously, such as:
  • It’s better to be killed than to be a rape victim.  This also implies that those who don’t die as a victim of a rape attempt were somehow willing participants, a particularly disturbing notion for both victims of rape and children of incest.
  • It states that wet dreams are sinful, implying that they are voluntary and not biological.
  • It has been criticized alternately as too harsh (by internal critics) and as un-Christian (by external critics) in diminishing the power of the atonement to redeem by focusing on human efforts.

In the above cases, the standing prophet was unwilling to make public correction, instead preferring to hope that the inaccurate information would die out on its own over time.  There was a desire not to reduce the influence of the General Authority who had erred in speculation through public correction.  The actual effect seems to have been that the tolerance and generosity of the standing prophets has caused these individuals’ voices to be the loudest of all, to the point that their doctrines and interpretations are mainstream or orthodox over the more tolerant religious views.

Is this the way of the world?  Do the loudest voices always win?  Are the loudest voices always the most harsh and dogmatic?  Was it always this way, or is this simply the current trend?  Or is this how we learn humility?  Is this a human condition that is just a natural byproduct of all organizations or a particularly Mormon trait?  Is this an example of those who act (those who prefer to take charge and define requirements for others) vs. those who are acted upon (those who prefer to “go with the flow,” or be passive & tolerant)?

Discuss.

Faith needs reason because faith unchecked by reason can be just as deadly as reason unchecked by faith proved to be in the gulags of Soviet Russia, the Cultural Revolutions of Maoist China, and the killing fields of the Khmer Rouge’s Cambodia.  (Would Stalin, Mao, and Pot have ordered the killings of millions if they had had faith in an afterlife and final judgment?)

We Mormons are certainly not immune to the potential dangers of unquestioning faith.

Brigham Young once said he feared that members of the Church would “settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation . . . .” (Journal of Discourses, 9:150 [quoted by James E. Faust, “Continuous Revelation,” Ensign, Nov 1989, 8].) When unconditional confidence in our church leaders is so often hailed as a virtue, one wonders what Brigham had in mind exactly when he warned church members against “trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in [our] salvation”. I wonder, what are “the purposes of God in [our] salvation” that are potentially thwarted by “reckless confidence” in church leaders?

In a similar vein, Brigham taught that we Mormons still have work to do in identifying and rooting out erroneous beliefs held among us. He explained that we receive revelation “line upon line” only to the degree that we have first thrown off “our false traditions and foolish notions”. [1] For me, hearing an LDS Prophet acknowledge that even we Mormons have “false traditions and foolish notions” suggests we have an ongoing obligation to critically evaluate our longstanding doctrines, policies, and practices to determine whether any of them are, in fact, false and foolish.

Of course, the greatest obstacle to identifying our “false traditions and foolish notions” is our own unwillingness to critically examine ourselves. There is no doubt that critical evaluation of our doctrines, policies, and practices is a delicate art in LDS circles, and there are plenty of examples of how not to criticize the Church. However, if done properly, critical evaluation can help us identify the false traditions and foolish notions among us so that we may lay them off, and thereby open our hearts and minds to new revelation from God (the Church’s re-evaluation and abandonment of the pre-1978 priesthood ban being an excellent example). In other words, when done properly, critical evaluation does not tear down the Church, it builds up the Church.

But despite our having successfully cast aside certain false traditions and foolish notions in the past, and despite the scriptural warnings against being lulled into an “all is well in Zion” mentality, there persists a strong resistance to the idea that other false traditions and foolish notions may still exist among us. As a result, when reasoned inquiry suggests that a longstanding doctrine, policy, or practice may be a false tradition or foolish notion that we ought to cast aside, such suggestions are often met with a host of misquotations, misinterpretations, and misapplications of scripture and doctrine that collectively promote the idea that true faith requires us to continue to adhere to the officially established status quo, even if it seems to be erroneous in our reasoned judgment. (Might that be the “reckless confidence” Brigham Young warned us against?) And the problem with that approach is that it can potentially lead people to embrace all manner of falsehood and evil, and in the cleverest manner of all: by convincing people that true faith requires them to ignore their reasoned judgment.

To illustrate my point, I’ve presented a fictional conversation below between an FLDS leader and an FLDS teenage girl. In the discussion below, an FLDS teenage girl is having reasonable doubts about FLDS doctrines, policies, and practices. At every step of the way, her FLDS leader gives her familiar responses designed to reinforce the idea that God is testing her faith by seeing whether she will unconditionally obey her church leaders regardless of her reasonable objections. As you read the conversation below, ask yourself this one question: Should this FLDS teenage girl abandon her reasonable doubts about FLDS doctrines, policies, and practices and exercise unconditional faith in her church leaders? Or should she listen to her inner voice of reason and common sense, and reject the faith propositions that her parents and leaders are attempting to foist upon her?

FLDS LEADER: Susan, I hear rumors your faith in President Jeffs and the Brethren is weakening. What’s going on?

FLDS GIRL: Well, brother Jeppson, I have to be honest, I have been having serious doubts about whether everything President Jeffs and the Brethren are doing is right, and whether everything they’re telling us is true. I feel so confused, and the more I think about what they’re doing and what they’re teaching us, the less sense it all makes to me.

FLDS LEADER: Young lady, God will never give you doubt or confusion. Satan is the author of doubt and confusion. God gives you faith. You need to have faith, nothing wavering. Doubt not.

FLDS GIRL: I’ve heard that before, but I just can’t help having all these questions about whether the things our church leaders are doing are really God’s will.

FLDS LEADER: Be careful, young lady, you shouldn’t be questioning if what our church leaders do and say is right. Follow the Prophet, President Jeffs. Don’t go astray. And be very careful, because questioning the Brethren is the road to personal Apostasy.

FLDS GIRL: What does personal Apostasy mean?

FLDS LEADER: It means rejecting your church leaders, which cuts you off from the one true church and God.

FLDS GIRL: So when you say that questioning our leaders can lead to personal Apostasy, you’re saying that questioning our leaders can lead to disagreeing with our leaders and rejecting them?

FLDS LEADER: That’s right.

FLDS GIRL: But why should we fear disagreeing with our leaders and rejecting them if they are wrong?

FLDS LEADER: Susan, how could you possibly think the Brethren are wrong?

FLDS GIRL: Well, for one, it just seems that so much of what our FLDS leaders do and teach couldn’t possibly be inspired by God.

FLDS LEADER: Well, God’s ways are higher than man’s ways. It doesn’t make sense to you because even God’s foolishness is wiser than the wisdom of men.

FLDS GIRL: I know its not wise to reject God’s ways, but how do I know that what FLDS leaders are saying and doing is God’s way?

FLDS LEADER: Susan, surely you’ve heard that scripture enough times. “Whether by mine own voice or the voice of my servants, it is the same.” There you have it. If our leaders say it, it’s the same as God saying it. If President Jeffs says it, then you can rest assured it is God’s way.

FLDS GIRL: I’m not so sure that’s the correct interpretation of that scripture. I read that scripture as saying if God says something to his servant, and his servant says it to us, then that indirect communication through a servant is the same as God saying it directly to us. In other words, if A says something to B, and B says it to C, then it’s the same as A saying it to C. But that’s quite a different proposition than the idea that everything B says to C must have come from A. That’s just bad logic.

FLDS LEADER: Bad logic? It seems to me you’re using the philosophies of men. And frankly, I don’t know where you get off thinking you have authority to interpret scripture for yourself. FLDS leaders alone have the authority to interpret scripture. And because we are God’s modern-day Prophets, what we say is new scripture, even if it seems to contradict existing scripture.

FLDS GIRL: I’m sorry, but I just can’t buy into that.

FLDS LEADER: You can’t buy into it? Young lady, you need to be humble. Be obedient. Be teachable. Be submissive. Don’t be so prideful and arrogant as to think that you are better able to discern the truth than your leaders who have decades of experience with matters of the Spirit.

FLDS GIRL: I’m sorry, but it just seems ridiculous to me that God would place in the hands of a select few men the ability to discern the truth, and then expect the rest of us to follow them no matter what.

FLDS LEADER: You’ve misunderstood me. I never said that FLDS leaders alone have the ability to discern the truth. You have the ability to know for yourself that FLDS leaders are God’s chosen prophets, seers, and revelators. First you must desire to believe, then you need to pray and ask God in faith, nothing doubting, if what the Brethren tell you is not true, and God will tell you that it is true.

FLDS GIRL: Well, I’ve done that, several times, but I don’t sense God confirming to me so many of the things the FLDS leaders and teaching and doing.

FLDS LEADER: Well, the Holy Spirit can only communicate with you if you have clean hands and a pure heart. Susan, is there any sin or other misdeed in your life that could be preventing you from feeling the whispers of the Holy Spirit?

FLDS GIRL: Sins and misdeeds? I’m sure I have plenty. The Bible teaches us that we have all sinned, and that not one doeth good. The Book of Mormon teaches us that we can’t count all the ways we can offend God. So I’m sure I have many sins.

FLDS LEADER: Well then, now we’re making progress. You need to repent of your sins, and when you’ve fully repented and abandoned all your sinful ways, you’ll be able to feel the Holy Spirit confirming the truthfulness of FLDS teachings. And if you do that and still can’t feel the Holy Spirit confirming the truthfulness of FLDS teachings, then you need to keep repenting until you can.

FLDS GIRL: Maybe I should have been more clear. Although I am sure I have sins, I can assure you that I am not guilty of any serious sins or transgressions. Like Joseph Smith, I can honestly say that “while I frequently fall into many foolish errors and display the weakness of youth, and the foibles of human nature; which, I am sorry to say, lead me into divers temptations, offensive in the sight of God. In making this confession, no one need suppose me guilty of any great or malignant sins.”

FLDS LEADER: Well then, if you are certain your heart is sufficiently pure to receive revelation, then all you need to do is give the Lord more time to give you a testimony. Be patient and exercise faith by doing whatever your leaders tell you to do. And by so doing, over time, maybe even after years or even decades, you will receive a testimony that what they are telling you is true. But don’t abandon the faith of your fathers. Endure to the end.

FLDS GIRL: I’m sorry, but I just can’t spend my whole life obeying orders and believing things that don’t make sense to me, hoping that one day, years or decades down the road, I might finally get a witness of their truthfulness. What if decades go by and that spiritual witness never comes? By the time I realize it was all wrong all along, it will be too late; most of my life will have already gone by.

FLDS LEADER: But you don’t have to worry about that, Susan, because if the Prophet tells you to do something and it’s wrong, and you obey it, then the Lord will only reward you for your faith and will never punish you for it. But don’t worry, because the Lord will never allow President Jeffs to lead us astray in the first place.

FLDS GIRL: I’m sorry, but it just doesn’t make any sense to me that God will reward me for doing something erroneous because I chose to disregard my reason and follow the commandments of men who claimed to be divinely inspired but weren’t. And I understand President Jeffs thinks the Lord will never let him lead us astray, but what if President Jeffs is leading us astray by telling us that he will never lead us astray?

FLDS LEADER: Listen, young lady, you know what the Proverb says: “Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not to thine own understanding.” Trusting in the Lord means trusting in his chosen prophets instead of relying on your own understanding.

FLDS GIRL: Well, maybe trusting in the Lord means trusting in his prophets, but how do I know the FLDS leaders are God’s chosen prophets in the first place?

FLDS LEADER: I already told you: repent and be clean, desire to believe, then pray in faith, nothing doubting, and if the answer doesn’t come, just keep obeying and doing what they tell you, and in doing everything they tell you to do, eventually you’ll know for yourself that what they say is true.

FLDS GIRL: And what if I’ve done that and I feel the Holy Spirit has told me something that contradicts what the Brethren have said?

FLDS LEADER: That won’t ever happen, because everything the Brethren say comes from the Holy Spirit. Remember: they will never lead us astray.

FLDS GIRL: I hate to say it, but it seems we’re just going around in circles here.

FLDS LEADER: You know, that’s a really contentious thing to say, and I’m getting really concerned by the contentious tone of your remarks. Stop contending with me and the Brethren. Contention is of the Devil.

FLDS GIRL: So let me get this straight: when our Church rejects all the other religions and churches and their leaders and their beliefs, that’s not contention. And when the Brethren tell members they’re wrong and that they need to get in line, that’s not contention either. But when members disagree with the Brethren, that’s contention?

FLDS LEADER: Young lady, I’m sad to say it, but it’s quite apparent to me that you just don’t have a broken heart and a contrite spirit.

FLDS GIRL: With all due respect, I don’t think it has anything to do with that. It’s just that so much of what our FLDS leaders are doing and saying these days seems to just defy plain common sense; it seems so illogical.

FLDS LEADER: But don’t you see, Susan, that’s the whole nature of faith — believing or doing something even if it contradicts your sense of reason! Do you think it made sense to Noah to build an ark when it wasn’t raining? Do you think it made sense to Abraham to have to kill his own son? But Noah and Abraham defied their “common sense”, their “reason”, their “logic”, and they did exactly what the Lord told them to do even though it seemed not to make any sense at the time.

FLDS GIRL: Look, I completely understand why we would need to follow a direct commandment from God like Noah and Abraham received, even if it doesn’t seem to make sense. But isn’t that a very different proposition than the idea that we need to unconditionally follow a man, President Jeffs, even if what he says doesn’t make sense to us? Isn’t that really just asking us to put blind faith in a man?

FLDS LEADER: No, Susan, that’s not asking you to put faith in a man because God is at the head of this FLDS Church. I so testify to you. Unconditionally obeying President Jeffs is not putting your faith in man; it’s putting your faith in God!

FLDS GIRL: Well, I’m sorry, but that just doesn’t make sense to me either. It seems like asking me to unconditionally obey President Jeffs and the Brethren is asking me to put my faith in man.

FLDS LEADER: Susan, I feel impressed to warn you that the eternal fate of your soul is at stake here, so let me get down to the bottom line. Susan, this whole life is really just a test to see if we will do everything the Lord requires of us, yes, even if it contradicts our “logic” and “reason”. And you need to understand that President Jeffs and the Brethren are the only ones on Earth who have the authority to tell us what the Lord requires. So by obeying them, you are demonstrating the faith that God requires of us. And in fact, the more illogical the Brethren’s actions or teachings seem to you, the more faith you are demonstrating to God when you obey them!

FLDS GIRL: So it seems you’re telling me to ignore my sense of reason.

FLDS LEADER: Well, Susan, that’s precisely what true faith requires!

FLDS GIRL: But why would God give us reason and then require us to forsake it?

FLDS LEADER: Well, I guess that’s a question we’re just going to have to wait until the next life to understand.

CONCLUSION

To be clear, the point of the fictional dialogue above is to illustrate how scripture and doctrine can be misinterpreted and misapplied to preach a false version of faith that can be probably found amongst most religions, churches, and denominations — an unquestioning faith; a faith that requires us to ignore reason; a faith that demands unconditional obedience to leaders because of their claimed divine authority. And the problem with that unreasoned faith is that it can lead people to embrace all manner of falsehood and evil by convincing devout believers in any church that the status quo established by their leaders must not be questioned, must not be challenged, must always be right, and must always be followed, no matter how unreasonable it may be.

NOTES:

[1] The full quote is as follows: “[God] would be glad to send angels to communicate further to this people, but there is no room to receive it, consequently, He cannot come and dwell with you. There is a further reason: we are not capacitated to throw off in one day all our traditions, and our prepossessed feelings and notions, but have to do it little by little. It is a gradual process, advancing from one step to another; and as we layoff our false traditions and foolish notions, we receive more and more light, and thus we grow in grace; and if we continue so to grow we shall be prepared eventually to receive the Son of Man, and that is what we are after.” (Journal of Discourses 2:309-318).

My home teacher (who is very cool) came by yesterday to drop off some starter cables for my car and as one does in that short interlude we discussed the celestial kingdom and being Gods after this life. He believed that those who don’t make it to the highest kingdom in the Celestial Kingdom won’t have any sexual relationships and if you don’t have sexual relationships their will be no need for sexual organs.

Its interesting talking about controversial stuff but I was finding this unnerving!!

Eunuch
1: a castrated man placed in charge of a harem or employed as a chamberlain in a palace
2: a man or boy deprived of the testes or external genitals
3: one that lacks virility or power <political eunuchs>

In both of these kingdoms [i.e., the terrestrial and telestial] there will be changes in the bodies and limitations. They will not have the power of increase, neither the power or nature to live as husbands and wives, for this will be denied them and they cannot increase. Those who receive the exaltation in the celestial kingdom will have the “continuation of the seeds forever.” They will live in the family relationship. In the terrestrial and in the telestial kingdoms there will be no marriage. Those who enter there will remain “separately and singly” forever. Some of the functions in the celestial body will not appear in the terrestrial body, neither in the telestial body, and the power of procreation will be removed. I take it that men and women will, in these kingdoms, be just what the so-called Christian world expects us all to be – neither man nor woman, merely immortal beings having received the resurrection. (Doctrines of Salvation. vol. 2, pg. 287-288.)

Joseph Smith said that even the telestial Kingdom was thousands of times better than this world and if we had a glimpse of it we would kill ourselves now to get there. I think many of us now would disagree with Joseph Smith Jr in light of reading the more current views of Joseph Fielding Smith.

In the family proclamation we learn that Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose. But the family proclamation is not kingdom specific to whether will still have our male or female gender if we don’t make it to the highest kingdom of the Celestial Kingdom.

I thought I was being unique (pun) in this post but as I have researched,being a so called  EUNUCH is a phrase used in the Bloggernacle since 2006 its called  TK SMOOTHIE

It has two definitions

1. The logical conclusion for JFS, then, was to say that the people in the TK would not have male or female genitalia.
2. If a doctrine of the church seems like it has been created in order to “fix” or explain another, it might be a TK Smoothie. The TK Smoothie is eponymous for all doctrines that are probably bogus but exist in order to clarify some other doctrine or speculation.

Bishop Young Spanish Fork 401st Ward

In Mormonism, we have an expanded picture of life that extends before this mortal life and then on into the eternities. However, when you really dig into this, it turns out that we have very few details on what to expect after this life, and the details we do have come mostly from talks given almost 175 years ago. And to say that our expectations of ‘Heaven,’ have changed quite a bit since then is a gross understatement.

Despite all the speculation, one detail that we know for sure: unless you make it to the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom, there will be no eternal sex. Basically, you’d be turned into a Telestial/Terrestrial Kingdom Smoothie (TK Smoothie). I like to imagine these lesser-Kingdoms as the Barbie & Ken Kingdoms. Everyone walking around looking beautiful and perfect for eternity, but having a smooth under-carriage like Barbie or Ken.

Parley P. Pratt

The object of the union of the sexes is the propagation of their species, or procreation; also for mutual affection, and the cultivation of those eternal principles of never ending charity and benevolence, which are inspired by the Eternal Spirit; also for mutual comfort and assistance in this world of toil and sorrow, and for mutual duties toward their offspring. Key to the Science of Theology, Ch.17, p.169

I would like to believe as Parley P Pratt describes that this mutual affection will not only be for this life but carried through to all the kingdoms after this life to all of our Brothers and Sisters who have lived on this earth.

Questions

1. If you make it to the Celestial Kingdom how would you feel when you visit a Parent, Grandparent, Brother, Sister, Son or Daughter in the Terrestrial Kingdom with out any Gender?
2. Do you believe Joseph Fielding Smith is correct?
3. Is there any current doctrine that overrides his beliefs?
4. If JFS doctrine is correct the word Brother and Sister takes on a whole different meaning in the Terrestrial and Telestial Kingdom?
5. Is it silly doctrine we should jettison?
6. If it is still true do you think if we emphasised it more it might motivate members to push harder for the Celestial Kingdom?
7. Doctrines of Salvation is most of it safe doctrine we can use in our talks and lessons ?  Is some of it suspect and if it is how do we know what that is? Do you think of it as interesting reading not really fiction but not really solid doctrinally? How would you describe it?