Here’s the FAQ:  Are there restrictions based on race or color concerning who can join the Mormon Church and have the priesthood?

From the “official” response:

There are no race or color restrictions as to who can join The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There are also no race or color restrictions as to who can have the priesthood in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. . . .

. . . “We believe in the old adage that many hands make light work. We have a lay priesthood, and every worthy man is eligible to receive this priesthood.”

Best answers:

• No.  Shortest is best.
• No, and I’m black.  It’s clearly less unsavory than a bunch of white people talking about how enlightened we are now.
  • “No. I am openly accepted, welcomed and loved by every member of the Mormon church. People are forthright and honest with their questions if their exposure to blacks have been limited and not once have I felt any prejudice only love, the love of Jesus Christ. Black men are accepted into the priesthood, and black men, women, and children serve alongside not only whites but other ethnicities. The church is extremely accepting of ALL races, ethnicities, and cultures and temples exist all over the world for all its members to partake of its blessings. Don’t believe the rumors, there are black mormons and there are mormons of different races and ethnicities. Only the adversary will promote otherwise.”
  • “Anyone of any ethnic or racial background is welcome to join the church. All worthy male members of the church can hold the priesthood.”
  • “I am proud to be an African American. But something i’m even more proud of is that i hold the Priesthood. There are no restrictions based on race or color. I’ve been a member of this Church for over 10 years and have never encountered racism within it! I serve alongside of brothers and sisters of all colors and races and hold the same priesthood of God as any other brother in the church.”
  • “There are no restrictions as to who can join the Church. We are all children of our Father in heaven and all of us are in need of his love, guidance and his gospel plan for us.”
  • “No, there are not. I hold the Priesthood, which is an incredible blessing for myself and my family.  For a time, there were restrictions, and it seems that there were some bad feelings towards the Church about it, but consider this…In my own personal studies, there was not a single Church or religion in the United States, or throughout the world in the last century who did not practice some kind of segregation or discrimination. Humans are far from perfect (Which is why we ALL need the influence of a loving God in our lives).  In the mid 1800′s, leaders of our church particularly suffered major persecution for allowing slaves to live and have membership among the Mormons and were tarred, feathered, beaten, and even driven out of their homes for it. In fact, in 1844 when Joseph Smith (The first prophet of the Latter- Day Church) ran for President of the United States, one of his major platforms was to have slavery abolished by 1850. This did not go down very well in a state that owned slaves as property. Like any other faith, people are striving to be better through living fully the principles taught by the savior, which comes line upon line, precept on precept.  With all this said, the Church that has an official declaration that is printed within Latter-Day Saint scripture announcing to the world that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as a whole, do not permit any form of discrimination against color anywhere in the church. I am not aware of many faiths that have an official document like this included in pages of scripture used by all Latter-Day Saints.  There is great power in personal revelation and it can be given to all men who seek the Lord and have desires to know his will..It is amazing!!”
• No, we have all races in the church.  I think keeping this global and broad is how to avoid tokenism (see below).
  • “We have members of all races, from hundreds of nations around the world. The Book of Mormon clearly teaches that God “denieth none that come to him, black and white, bond and free, male and female…and all are alike unto God” (2 Nephi 27:33).”
  • “When I was a missionary in Detroit I had the opportunity to teach people of many different races and backgrounds, including Africans, Hmong, and Chaldeans.”  Chaldeans, like Abraham?
  • “No there are not…in fact while my husband was attending graduate school in Philadelphia, the majority of the people in the Mormon congregation we attended were African American. The congregation was also led by an African American…President Johnson. There were also entire congregations of Laotian, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Spanish, and Portuguese-speaking members. They were not divided because of race, but rather by language spoken so that the members could hear the Word of God in their own language.”
  • “I am proud to sit in class with African, Indian, Hispanic and Asian members in our ward.”
  • “Our members are from the vast majority of countries of the world.  They comprise of all races, colours, and peoples, from Mongolia to Mauritius, Russia and the Baltic States to Japan, from Ghana to Guatamala, from Korea to Brazil, and most places inbetween.  It might surprise some to learn there are more spanish-speaking members of the Church than english-speaking ones. Twice-yearly Conferences of the Church are transmitted to our Church Meetinghouses worldwide in more than 90 languages.”
  • “I am the branch president of a small congregation that includes white, Hispanic, African-American, Asian, and Haitian members. We fellowship together in unity born of the Spirit of the Lord.  I lived in Alaska for many years. Alaska is truly a “melting pot” for Mormons. Our stake included Tongans, Samoans, Hawaiians, Koreans, Cambodians, Vietnamese, Germans, and Native Americans along with white and African-American members. The same sort of harmony prevailed among us.
• No, and we don’t know why there was a ban.  I think it beats speculating anyway.
  • “No, there are not. The Priesthood (or right for men to officiate in the church) was not not available to men of African ancestry before 1978. We don’t know all the reasons why this was the case, but assuredly we rejoice in the fact that all worthy men may hold the Priesthood today.”
  • “Past restrictions appear to have been grounded in cultural, social and spiritual understanding at the time.”  If this is speculation, it’s got the benefit of being likely true.
  • “I do not know the meaning of all things, but I know that God loves His children of whatever tint and hue. I know that sometimes He sees fit to try our faith, to give us a tiny sample of the bitter cup so that we can appreciate more fully what He did in draining it to the dregs. I know that there are generational things that need to be worked out in all of us. I know that prophets are inspired and that the Lord has His reasons for everything that happens in His Church. I’ll be interested in finding out the details of this situation when I get to the other side but it’s not an issue now.”
  • “For reasons we don’t fully understand, there was a time when the priesthood was not made available to all people.”
  • “These kind of questions are very legitimate concerns. No, there is not a restriction. However, at one time this was different. I don’t have the answers but I do know that it’s too easy to get caught up in the thick of thin things and miss entirely the true gospel of Jesus Christ.”

Answers I liked slightly less:

• No, and priesthood is always restricted.  This is perhaps the least unpalatable explanation, but I’m not sure it makes a boatload of sense either since the church was being restored.  It comes dangerously close to implying it was a doctrine, not a policy, a distinction that I think we’ve been pretty careful to make.
  • “For a time the priesthood was restricted to certain bloodlines, as it was in the Old Testament when only the sons of Aaron and Levi were allowed the privilege. However, modern prophets were clear from the beginning that in the Lord’s time the priesthood would be extended to all races, just as the Gospel was finally extended from the nation of Israel to the whole world in the time of the early Apostles.”  A few issues here:  1) not sure the term “bloodlines” is accurate or relevant to the ban in practice, and 2) saying that it was clear from the beginning that the PH would be extended is optimistically naive.  There are many early leader quotes that contradict that.
  • “Priesthood had historically been limited as to who could hold it during ancient times as well as modern, for purposes known only to God. For example, during the time of the Old Testament, only one tribe of the 12 tribes of Israel, (Levi) could hold the Priesthood. In the New Testament times with Jesus only Jews could hold the Priesthood, no gentiles at all. It took a revelation from God to Peter that the Gospel could be preached openly to non-Jews.”  This is probably the best version of this type of answer I saw.
  • “Priesthood in the LDS Church is not a “right” or title. Rather, it is the authority to act in the name of God. Only those who live God’s teachings to guide their lives can receive it, and even then, it is only active when the priesthood holder is living in harmony with God. As a result, throughout history most people have not been given the priesthood. Not that they will never get it–they’ll just get it when God feels that they are ready for it.”  OK, this one sounds like he’s implying that blacks didn’t have it because they weren’t worthy (and by extension, that women are not worthy?)
• No, and women are still restricted.  I suppose girl power is great and all, but why bring that up?  Actually, the more I think about this, the more I think it’s a bit tone-deaf not to mention it when we’re patting ourselves on the back for being so color-blind.
  • “That is true, but the only restrictions now are dependent on worthiness… and gender, I suppose. Men are the only ones allowed to hold the priesthood, but it is part of a wonderful design to keep order. Women have just as much right to the priesthood as men do, but do not themselves hold those keys.”  You go, girl!
• No, and I know someone black who is a Mormon.  At best this seems like tokenism.  At worst, it reminds people how rare black members still are as a result of this practice, and points out (truthfully) that only one race was restricted.  This works better if the person we know is someone close to us, not if we knew some black person once who was OK with being Mormon despite the policy.
  • “No. Where I live, in the Washington DC area, we have a number of black members. Several years ago, we had a black member of the bishopric. One of the other wards in my stake has a black bishop. Gladys Knight, a black gospel singer, is a convert to the Church and has performed in our Stake Center.”

Mormon-speak:

• Into the Waters of Baptism.  “Since the beginning of the Church people of all races have been welcomed into the waters of baptism, given the gift of the Holy Ghost, and equally promised the highest blessings of salvation.”  I suppose it does point out the fact that we are baptizers by immersion, but it just seems like a GC-wannabe way of saying people can join the church.
• Bloodlines.  “For a time the priesthood was restricted to certain bloodlines”  Outside the history channel and the church, I don’t think I’ve ever heard the word “bloodlines” used.

Other interesting observations:

• Policy.  We seem to be pretty consistently in agreement that the race ban was a policy, not a doctrine.
• Ham doctrine & other racist protestant teachings.  Racist speculations about the reasons for the ban (e.g. less valiant in pre-existence) have likewise been put to bed.

What I might have said:

• No, and I’m black (but the picture might give me away).
• I would probably just say “no,” and that the church is global and includes members of all races.  I would probably not even mention the PH ban.

What would you say?  Did you like the member answers to these questions?  Different ones than I did?  Discuss.

First of all, here is the phrasing of the question:  Why don’t women hold the priesthood in the Mormon Church?  How do women lead in the Mormon Church?

The first “answer” was just a quote by Gordon B. Hinckley, and frankly it was the one I liked best, although I worried a smidge about how outsiders might perceive part of it:

“Women do not hold the priesthood because the Lord has put it that way.  (Here we run the risk of sounding like we are saying “because the Lord, who is a man, told the leaders, who are all men . . .”  You get the point).  It is part of His program. Women have a very prominent place in this Church. Men hold the priesthood offices of the Church. But women have a tremendous place in this Church. They have their own organization. It was started in 1842 by the Prophet Joseph Smith (need I say “a man”), called the Relief Society, because its initial purpose was to administer help to those in need. It has grown to be, I think, the largest women’s organization in the world… They have their own offices, their own presidency, their own board. That reaches down to the smallest unit of the Church everywhere in the world…

“The men hold the priesthood, yes. But my wife is my companion. In this Church the man neither walks ahead of his wife nor behind his wife but at her side. They are co-equals in this life in a great enterprise.” (This is my favorite part of his quote).

Common member answers that I thought would be generally acceptable to outsiders:

• God sets the rules.
  • “Well, the quick answer is God’s priesthood, God’s rules. In reading the Holy Bible you can see that the priesthood of God has always been exclusive. I’ve heard lots of speculation on this over the course of my years in the Church, but I still think that the quick answer is only one we know for sure right now.”
  • “I have a pretty simple understanding of this question. It’s God’s priesthood. He can give it to, or withhold it from anybody He chooses. If I thought the church was led by men, instead of by God himself, then I might think that they were selfish, or old fashioned, or just wrong. But knowing that the head of the Church is God, I let Him govern His Church any way He so chooses. But from the outside looking in, I know that you might not know that God really is in charge. You might still be suspicious. I can understand that. Still, the true answer is to ask God. If this is truly His church, then we have less objections to Him choosing to run it His way.”
• Priesthood is always restricted.
  • “The Lord has throughout the scriptures given different responsibilities to different people, based on all sorts of things.”
  • “In the days of Moses, for example, not every man had the priesthood. It is only in our day that every worthy male may be ordained into the priesthood of God.”
• It’s only a matter of time.  (This seemed a bit progressive, but the censors didn’t object.)
  • “My faith is placed in God, and should He choose to extend priesthood to the women of the church, I’m okay with that idea. It’s His church, His priesthood, and I will follow Him any way He leads.”
  • “As to why women do not hold the Priesthood, my answer is it is a matter of the Lord’s timing.”
• Priesthood blessings are for all, and it’s only used for service.
  • “The priesthood is used to serve others and perform ordinances of the gospel, the blessings of which are enjoyed by both men and women.”
  • “The priesthood power is not a gift or a right but an oath and covenant that a worthy man makes with the Lord. It is not a power for man’s own gain and a man is not better off than a woman because he holds this power. Women and men are entitled to the same blessings and promises when they live righteously.”
  • “I have no doubt that I, woman, am as significant to my Heavenly parent as any man. If you understand that the priesthood is all about service, then perhaps you’ll see how this is a vehicle for men to serve God and their fellowman.”
  • “The priesthood however, is not to be used to benefit yourself, but to benefit others, such as the sick, or anyone else (family or otherwise) who is in need of a blessing from God.”
• Women hold key leadership positions in the church. Sample comments:
  • “There are certain positions that are held by men, and certain others that are only held by women.”
  • “There are innumerable opportunities for women to serve and bless the lives of others through their church service. In the church I have always felt important and cherished. I feel that my contributions are appreciated and needed.”
  • “Women do lead in the church in many callings, and do a spot on job of it.”
  • “The five women in my life are leaders. They know what they want and what they don’t want. When they speak, I know I had better listen. While they do not currently have the Priesthood, they do certainly influence me. So do women who lead the children (the Primary organization) and the women’s organization (the Relief Society) and those who speak or pray or serve in the Lord’s house, the Temple.”

Common members answers that made me nervous:

• Priesthood?  No, thanks!  I’ve got my hands full with these dishes and dirty diapers, thank you very much!
  • “When I read or hear similar questions such as these I want to laugh. To me a question like this is akin to asking for more responsiblity, more accountablity, more work, more angish (sic) etc. . . . I guess my question would be, why would a woman want to hold the priesthood?”
  • “Honey, we women have enough to do! Why worry about holding the priesthood too? Just lovingly hold that dear husband of yours and support him as he honors the priesthood.”  I think I threw up in my mouth a little on that one.
  • “Personally, I would rather lead at home as a mother, than anywhere else.”  I have been rendered incapable of speech by that one.
• Men and women are inherently different.  Mommies have babies, and daddies do (insert awesome entitled stuff).  All right, that’s a very loose paraphrase.  But the old “boys and girls are different” routine often strays into sexist stereotypes easily sniffed out by investigators (unless they too are sexist).
  • “Just as men have not been appointed to bear children in this life, so women have not been appointed to bear the priesthood.”
  • “Men and woman have different responsibilites. The man has the responsibility of holding the priesthood and using those keys given to them (sic) in righteousness. Woman (sic) have another kind of responsibility that of bareing (sic) and rearing children.”  Seriously, what is up with the grammar and spell check on mormon.org??  There is clearly no basic editing.  (same comment)  “Each of us, man and woman have a sacred roll (like the shewbread of the temple?) like our Heavenly Parents that is not talked of much, but is essential just the same.”  I’m unclear what it is that is not talked of much.  The roles of parents seem talked about a lot.  Heavenly Father is talked about a lot.  So does this mean that Heavenly Mother is not talked about?  If so, there’s subject-verb disagreement in that sentence.
• Women have access through men.  This is really close to saying women still get the blessings, but it has the twist of sounding like men take care of women and women are dependent on men.
  • “As a woman I have total access to the blessings of the priesthood through my father, husband, bishop, and home teachers. Our home teachers visit my family in our home monthly and look after our well-being.”
• Women lead by example (aka being modest).  This one kills me with its irrelevance.  How do we go from a question about women and the priesthood to talking about how women should dress?  Yet, here we go.
  • “Many women in the Mormon Church also lead by setting an example of virtue, and do not follow the tight/low cut/body revealing fashions of this day but instead understand their true beauty is enhanced by their choice to be modest in dress.”
  • “Young girls need righteous examples of Christlike women to whom they can look as they try to make good decisions in today’s world. Women who are modest, caring, honest and virtuous lead these girls to Christ.”
• Men need the priesthood because women are better than they are (aka Male Guilt Syndrome).
  • “My wife is a remarkable woman, and does all of this without the priesthood. I, however, need the priesthood because I’m not a woman, and would fail miserably without it.”
  • “Because men are rather selfish and self-centered by nature, they need extra guidance and teaching to acquire compassion and selflessness. Serving in the priesthood is that schooling process for them. Women, on the other hand, are much more natural in their abilities to love and serve and teach. Priesthood is not required for them to emulate the Savior’s commandment to love one another.”

Here are some things I could possibly say if I were answering this question:

• I don’t know why women don’t.  Perhaps that will change at some point in the future.  Women do use priesthood power within temples (but it’s not suitable for mormon.org which is primarily focused on a non-LDS audience).
• We have no paid clergy at the ward level, so priesthood is not a career in our church.
• Women hold at least as many leadership positions as men at the ward level, and are probably more influential in these roles.  Women speak in church to the congregation every Sunday and teach lessons to adults.
• Our scriptures specifically state that anyone who uses “unrighteous dominion” loses his priesthood power.

What were your reactions to these answers?  Did you like some I didn’t like or dislike ones I liked?  What would your answer be to that question?  Are you motivated to create your own profile yet?  Discuss.

First of all, this campaign is slick and attractive.  I applaud efforts to show the diversity that exists in the church, and to showcase some of the cool non-celebrities who are actual Mormons.  These are family-centric people with a wide variety of interests.  There are many of these people whom I would really enjoy on a personal level.  So, kudos on a very effective campaign!

On the downside, some of the answers to the difficult questions are problematic for various reasons (no more problematic than what you hear on a given Sunday from lay members, but they are now public):

• some answers contain factual errors, including some doctrinal mistakes (see below)
• there is no spell check or editing; perhaps this is “keepin’ it real”
• this exposes some of the most common speculations and assumptions that are comfort food to lay members on these tough issues; there’s an upside to this, too.  Perhaps this is an opportunity for the church to clarify or deal with some incorrect assumptions.
• some of the answers are not going to be very appealing to those outside the church.

So, first things first.  Let’s start with the FAQ on polygamy that members answered:  Why did your church previously practice plural marriage (polygamy)?

Reading through the posted responses, this is the one I liked the best.  He refrains from speculating or spinning pet theories that are easily debunked, and he simply talks about trusting God.  It’s not perfect because it really doesn’t answer the question, but it is a very tough question to answer given that it’s not relevant to our daily experience as church members:

I struggle with this question, myself. I believe, as I have been taught, that it was a commandment from God. I’ve heard many theories about why God commanded it but, as far as I can tell, none of the theories can be proven. I do consider the question from time to time but, in the end, I simply have to return to the fact that I trust God and do not understand all of His ways.

Another answer I somewhat liked was this one.  What I liked was that she talked about polygamy on a personal level, about her own family.  But again, it’s no justification for it (can there be?):

My great, great, great grandmother was a polygamist. She immigrated as a late teenager and would have had little opportunity to find a righteous and good husband had she not married my great, great, great grandfather as his third wife. She raised 6 children mostly on her own, since her husband died before their last child was born. The legacy she left continues to inspire me to be stronger and better. I believe she was a polygamist wife for the benefit of her posterity.

There are some other good statements as well, but I wanted to highlight a few that seem problematic for various reasons:

The Prophets have said “to raise up a righteous generation unto the Lord.” The righteous women in the Church outnumber the righteous men. That is another one of those male-female inequalities. This was especially true in the early days of the Church. Plural Marriage permitted every righteous women to be the wife of a righteous man and then to raise up a righteous family. The problem is not so severe nowadays.

The old romantic paternalist argument that women are more righteous than men.  It is demonstrably false that there was a shortage of marriageable men in the early days of the church.  Census numbers in Utah from 1850 to 1960 show more males than females in the state:

Utah population:
                       1850 total 11,380      male 6,046          female 5,334
                       1860 total 40,273      male 20,255        female 20,018
                       1870 total 86,786      male 44,121        female 42,665
                       1880 total 143,963    male 74,509        female 68,454
                       1890 total 210,779    male 111,975      female 98,804
                       1900 total 276,749    male 141,687      female 135,062

The caveat “righteous” is a bit of a two-edged sword; does that mean that Mormons of that era who did not practice plural marriage were unrighteous?  Because another defense of polygamy is that only a select few ever practiced it (see below).  Can’t have it both ways.  Here’s another comment I found troubling:

See the Book of Jacob in the Book of Mormon where the then current Prophet banned the practice because of the unrighteousness of the people. Will the practice ever come back officially? Only the Lord knows, and he hasn’t confided in me.

This seems mixed up or is just worded strangely.  It is not doctrinal that polygamy is the higher law only given to us when we are righteous; that’s the law of consecration.  The admonishment in Jacob is they were being unrighteous by committing polygamy.  My other concern is that leaving the door open that polygamy is coming back (alarming enough to suggest in its own right) just sounds creepy coming from a man.  I don’t see this one winning any converts.  Moving on.

Let’s look at some facts: in the 19th century, about three quarters of the world’s population lived in countries or societies where polygamy was sanctioned or even encouraged. In non-polygamous societies, like Europe, having a “mistress” was common and acceptable by society. I think it’s much more honorable to be legally and lawfully wedded to two wives, than to have one wife and a “mistress”.

It’s true that there are many societies that have allowed polygamy (encouraged might be a stretch), but do we really want to draw this parallel?  Many of these are the same countries that also allow stoning of women or wife burning.  I’m also not sure I would call all of Europe a “society” as if it’s all one country (apparently a society of adulterers – are we not also looking for European investigators to visit this site?  We just called them immoral here). And he just inadvertently classed polygamy in the same boat as keeping a mistress, as if both are simply inevitable, so you might as well make it legally binding.

In the early days of the Church, there were more women than men. In the harsh frontier times, survival for single women was difficult.

Again with this old chestnut that has been disproven.  There were not significantly more women than men (see above).  Yet I grant that frontier life was tough due to lack of fast food chains and toilet paper.

It’s my understanding that scarecely 3 percent of Church members practiced polygamy.

The 3% estimate is disproven.  More accurate estimates indicate 20-30%.  And the other issue is that it contradicts the notion that only the righteous practiced it (so between 70 and 97% of all church members were unrighteous?)

However, when the representative who speaks for God a prophet says that God wants you to do something, you do it. That is what happened back in the day. God told Joseph Smith that He wanted them to practice plural marriage and so they did.

This one sounds rather cultish, like saying “Shaddup and do whatcher told.”  I am quite sure most investigators would want more clarification on how God’s will is understood clearly and how you know when you should listen to this prophet and when not (since investigators don’t blindly follow leaders of a church they haven’t joined).  This is not a very useful answer to those outside the church, the target audience.

God has commanded humans to practice polygamy in many different instances throughout history. Readers of the Bible will remember that Abraham and Jacob Israel were affiliated with this practice. Even the great King David had multiple wives.

IIRC, it was the infertile wives (Sariah, Rachel and Leah) and conniving fathers-in-law (Laban) who were behind polygamy in the OT.  There is no scriptural account in the OT of God commanding polygamy.  These were people who wanted more children and didn’t want to wait for them.  Also, David and Solomon are not examples of God-sanctioned polygamy.  Whoever wrote that answer should read the Book of Mormon:  “for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son. Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.” —Jacob 2:23-24

It was from God’s order out of necessity to take care of many women who were widowed with children and those who were alone.

Again with this old chestnut. I’m telling you, this is one of those very convincing very appealing explanations that we would love to find out is true, but unfortunately, it isn’t upheld by actual data.

OK, the point is not to pick these things apart.  I’m sure we’ve all heard more or less the same types of answers our whole lives in Sunday School, whether they are accurate or not.  And it takes a lot of guts to get on line and say these things with your picture plastered there, so I applaud the courage.  There are MTC volunteers who are reviewing for content and accuracy, so I suppose it is consistent with whatever average missionaries believe is accurate.  Since this is an external-facing campaign, that approach makes sense.  Feedback on doctrinal inaccuracies in the profiles can be submitted to bairdct@mtc.byu.edu.

I gave this some thought, wondering how would I answer such a difficult question for an audience of mainly investigators.  Here are the things that I could say in good conscience that might pass muster:

• I don’t know why.  (I really just have to bite my tongue on this and stop there because I am personally open to the idea that polygamy was not inspired, although that doesn’t bother me in the slightest since I view church leaders as fallible, which is also doctrinally sound.)
• Personally, I find it hard to imagine life under such an arrangement and am glad it is not something that is directly relevant to my own church experience today.
• I am hesitant to judge the actions of others who acted in faith in different times under circumstances that are so different from my own.  Many of those individuals made great personal sacrifices.

So, your turn.  How would you answer this question?  Do you have a mormon.org profile?  Which answers do you like the best and why?  How should the church address mistaken assumptions about things like this?  Discuss.

Mormonism today runs a balancing act between its roots of free speculation and the need to create a cohesive religious and cultural organization.  The social bond of a church is based at some vital level on common belief and understanding among people practicing their religion.  Lacking firm creeds, we conduct this balancing act on a personal level.  Problems arise when we attempt to impose our speculation on others.  Conflict occurs when we need others to validate our individual interpretations.  There is a line between personal belief and the beliefs that all Mormons must share in common.  But where is it?

There has to be official Mormon doctrine.  There has to be something common that brings people together in the religion.  Don Ashton recently published a paper on this topic at http://www.staylds.com.  It is called “What is Official Church Doctrine?”  You can find it in the “Additional Support Resources” section of the website: http://www.staylds.com/?page_id=29

Don argues that the official and binding core of ideas, the cannon of doctrine that is fixed, is actually limited and abstract.  That abstract characteristic allows following generations to interpret and develop the core to suit the needs of their contemporary environment.  The same can be done by individuals to meet personal needs in their eternal journey of progress towards divine enlightenment.

Don summarizes this nicely in his opening section:

The 14 million members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are spread across 160 countries on 6 continents. Yet there is a remarkable consistency in beliefs, attitudes, teachings and practices among Mormons everywhere. A traveler visiting congregations throughout the world will find familiar curricula materials, beliefs, and attitudes on most every religious topic.

Yet Mormonism is not dogmatic. There is no creed or statement of core beliefs which adherents are obliged to accept. Both members and leaders alike hold varying opinions ranging from whether watching TV on Sunday is sinful, to whether every statement by a General Authority must be explicitly and unconditionally obeyed.

Such questions may be insignificant or disquieting. If a person is struggling with faith issues, it may become important to distinguish between Official Doctrine and less authoritative council. A clear understanding of Official Doctrine can reduce controversy, minimize anxiety and perhaps open up new options for resolving faith issues. This essay attempts to evaluate the authoritativeness of council ranging from canonized scripture to conventional wisdom.

The practical implications of this speak to a common encounter, which is a feeling of having to believe or practice things sometimes that do not make sense to us.  The first question should then be whether the problem stems from an unbending core of fundamental doctrine; or instead, is it actually our own incorrect expectations and assumptions, someone else’s personal speculation, or something that we can freely explore.

Many ideas and practices touted as “official” are not.  They are someone’s personal speculation and interpretation of the core doctrine.  That means we are free to agree or disagree.  It does not mean that person is wrong in their religious journey.  What they do and believe may be valuable to them.  But we should feel justified and even compelled to use our free agency and God-given intelligence to build what works for us.  That is the soul inherited from our Church founding, and it is a theme to be nurtured today.  We should expect our understanding to evolve over the course of our life.  We should also expect the larger and broader concept of Restoration in the Church to continue its course of evolution from the past to today, and on into the future.

What do you think?  Discuss.

Eternal Progress.  This means that individuals in this life are progressing and growing, learning new things, and becoming more and more like our heavenly parents on our (long) way toward godhood or god-adult-hood.  In fact, if we do not continue to learn in this life, we also cease to learn and grow after death, being relegated to one of the “static” kingdoms:  telestial or terrestrial.  Two alternate twists on this, though, allow for progress after death even if one does not merit exaltation (the Celestial Kingdom):

• Multiple Mortal Probations.  In this version, as with reincarnation, someone can return to progress through another mortal life.  This theory would also explain how Jesus could be perfect (maybe it wasn’t his first life?).
• Progress between Kingdoms.  Although decried as one of the Seven Deadly Heresies by Bruce R. McConkie (who also had some enchanting things to say about evolution), this version allows for individuals who did not merit exaltation to continue to learn and grow throughout eternity, and move between kingdoms as they increase in light and knowledge.

Eternal Increase.  An alternate understanding of the doctrine of eternal progression is that it merely refers to a continuation of one’s dynasty through eternity, adding spiritual offspring (increase) to someone who is righteous.  This model is likely to be favored by those who are more inclined to view God as static and omniscient rather than also continuing to learn and grow.  It also seems to be the version of this doctrine that is more in vogue with the current correlation committee’s emphasis.  Because it does not require continuous learning, it can be supported by a strict obedience model  (because individual learning and development is a byproduct of trial and error).

Assorted Quotes on this Doctrine:

“We prepare for eternal life by daily learning, improving, and building the kingdom of God.What are we here for? Eternal life is the ability to progress and increase forever. This is the greatest gift that can be conferred on intelligent beings, to live forever and never be destroyed.”  Brigham Young

“Satan does not have a body, and his eternal progress has been halted. Just as water flowing in a riverbed is stopped by a dam, so the adversary’s eternal progress is thwarted because he does not have a physical body.”  lds.org (from a CES statement)

“We will have the blessing of being sealed in a family forever with the promise of eternal increase.”  Henry B. Eyring

“And through Joseph Smith he says: “This is eternal lives—to know the only wise and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent. This exaltation meant godhood for them and creation of worlds with eternal increase for which they would probably need, eventually, a total knowledge of the sciences.”  Spencer W. Kimball

“Developing spirituality is critical to our eternal progress. The fruits of eternal progress are manifest in joy, peace, love, hope, increased confidence in the Lord.”  Elaine L. Jack

So what’s your view?

[poll id = "179"]

Discuss.

I recently read Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman. One of the interesting realities on which Ehrman elaborates is that early Christianity was anything but homogeneous. More specifically, there were many factions, some heterodox, some orthodox, some in the middle. Some of the books of the apocrypha, gnostic texts, and other early Christian writings seemed to support various theological ideas not represented, and in fact, even repressed in what became the canonized New Testament.

A few of particular interest are adoptionist (Christians that thought Jesus was fully mortal), docetic (Christians who thought Jesus was only divine and merely “appeared” to be human), and separationist (Christians who thought Jesus was two separate beings, one Jesus (human) and one Christ (divine)). There were many other heretical ideas that various Christian groups espoused. Some parts of our canonized New Testament were intentionally modified to suppress these views.

Translations in Mormonism

In Mormonism we have a very strange use of the word “translation.” Joseph “translated” the golden plates to produce The Book of Mormon. He “translated” some egyptian scrolls to produce the book of Abraham. In each of these instances I think that “translation” is probably a bit misleading. “Divined,” or “revealed,” perhaps, but “translated” in our modern colloquial usage is quite a stretch in my opinion!

To me, “translation” as it relates to Joseph’s work with the Bible, seems to imply that Joseph was a textual critic, much like Ehrman. That is to say, his goal, like a textual critic, would have been to correct the errors in translation and copying to return the scriptures to their original form. The 8th Article of Faith further gives weight to the idea that Joseph would have been interested correcting the translation, as it was the thing that had errors (as opposed to the original manuscripts themselves).

Yet, it is reasonable to me to question whether or not the original manuscripts of the canonized New Testament actually contained accurate teachings of Jesus. Surely if there were many different theologies, all of which claimed to be Christian, differing radically in their implications for modern Christian understanding, is it safe to assume that the books that “made it” into the canon even represent Jesus’ teachings? What of the process that came to finally accept a “canon” of scriptures? It was a process of gradual (read: hundreds of years) consensus among orthodox Christians (read: the Roman Catholic church), culminating finally in the Council of Trent in the 1500′s! Is this really what we now authoritatively accept as Jesus’ teachings and doctrines? And if Joseph’s goal, as translator, was to revert the text to the original, have we really made much progress in understanding the true Gospel as Christ taught?

Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible

Fortunately, as I’m sure many of you are silently screaming about, I think the Joseph Smith “Translation” is, again, a misnomer. It seems to me that Joseph had no business being a textual critic (despite being rather schooled in the Bible), and in fact, I don’t think this was Joseph’s goal at all. A casual glance at the Wikipedia article on the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible indicates that Joseph seemed to be using the Bible as an impetus for revelation. From that article, Philip Barlow thinks there are six different types of changes in the JST:

• Long revealed additions having no Biblical parallel (including visions of Moses, Enoch, and passages on Melchizedek).
• “Common Sense” changes.
• “Interpretive additions” often signaled by the phrase “or in other words.”
• “Harmonization” in which Joseph reconciled seemingly conflicting passages.
• Grammatical improvements.
• Unclassifiable changes.

I think this is a fair list, but I would add to it. I think the Doctrine and Covenants is a form of the JST. That is to say, Joseph was not a textual critic, and the JST is not a translation at all. It is a series of revelations that hoped to obtain what should have been in the Bible. I think Joseph was interested in discovering, through revelation, the pure Gospel of Jesus Christ, not in a restoration of the words of the original manuscript of the books that make up our canon.

In this vein, I am completely baffled as to why the LDS church does not adopt the JST and why we don’t rely more on Joseph’s revelations, and less on the Bible. I would even go so far as to argue that Mormonism shouldn’t even really care about the translational accuracy of the Bible. Between The Book of Mormon, D&C, and modern revelation, it seems we have a rich, full theology, that are Christian in their own right!

JST in the LDS Church

The JST manuscripts were preserved by Emma Smith after Joseph’s death. As a result, the then Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (RLDS, now Community of Christ church) published and copyrighted the JST in 1867. The LDS church had only a partial collection of the JST manuscripts.  Ostensibly the LDS church was unable to verify, independently, whether or not the compilation of the JST by the RLDS church was indeed accurate and, possibly, to avoid simply accepting the JST as espoused by the RLDS church (relations have not always been good), perhaps the LDS church just used what it had. That copyright has long since expired, and as recently as 2004 the LDS church, with full support from the Community of Christ church, produced a full facsimile of all the original manuscripts. So why not adopt it now? Here are some possible reasons why we have not adopted the JST:

• Tradishuuuuuun, tradishun! Yep, the LDS church is very slow to part with tradition. As we have officially used the KJV (with a few additions) for many years, and have gone to great lengths to print it and bind it, and have incorporated it into many lesson manuals, perhaps we are just sluggish to change.
• Perhaps we are afraid of the label “Joseph Smith Translation.” We already know that “translation” as used in other contexts is a stretch, so maybe we’re nervous about adopting another, possibly erroneous “translation.”
• Maybe there is some interest in differentiating ourselves from the CoC church. After all, from an LDS perspective, it would be easy to view the CoC church as having gone astray. If we adopt their book, who knows what will happen.
• There may be changes in the full JST that cast doubt on LDS church policies, procedures, rules, revelations, culture, etc. (I have not read the full JST so this may be a stretch).
• Doctrinal salmagundi was the modus operandi in Joseph’s day, but today’s church is quite sensitive to new, unprecendented doctrine and/or changes. We seem to be moving toward mainstream Christianity, and adopting the JST might send us in the other direction.

So what do you think? Was the JST really a “translation” in the sense that Joseph was trying to restore the text to the original, and is this even a useful thing to do for Mormonism? Or was Joseph really more interested in getting to what he believed Jesus actually taught? Why do you think the LDS church has not adopted the JST?

Church History Principles

1. Continuing exploration of our history is part of identity formation. As a church we seek always to clarify our identity, message, and mission. In our faith story, we see clearly God’s Spirit giving this faith community (not a word we use in the LDS church) tools, insights, and experiences for divine purposes. A people with a shared memory of their past, and an informed understanding of its meaning, are better prepared to chart their way into the future.  (It feels like this is a little too intellectual for us, although I don’t see anything that is directly contradictory to our views.  I think it also implies a consensus-based faith tradition that differs from our authority-based tradition.  In the LDS side of the house, we take our divine instructions pretty literally, and as individuals, we don’t get a vote.)
2. History informs but does not dictate our faith and beliefs. The foundation and continuing source for our faith is God’s revelation in Jesus Christ. Studying history is not about proving or disproving mystical, spiritual, or revelatory experiences that birth or transform religious movements. (Is this a swipe at the LDS church’s truth claims?) Sound history informs faith (whereas inaccurate history misleads faith in either direction), and healthy faith leads to insights about history (ergo, unhealthy faith leads to misconceptions about history). Theology (too big a word for us – half our membership just tuned out) and faith, guided by the Holy Spirit, must play an important role in discovering the enduring meaning of such events as well as the deeper truths found in them (implying:  not just superficial truths based on an inaccurate understanding of history). Our understanding of our history affects our faith and beliefs. However, our past does not limit our faith and beliefs to what they were historically.  (This last statement holds more true to the CoC than it may to the LDS church.  The LDS church is more reliant on truth claims that are rooted in history.)
3. The church encourages honest, responsible historical scholarship. Studying history involves related fields. Historians use academic research to get as many facts as they can; then, they interpret those facts to construct as clear a picture as possible of what was going on in the past. This includes analyzing human culture to see how it affected events. Historians try to understand patterns of meaning to interpret what the past means for our future. This process should avoid “presentism,” or interpreting the past based on a current worldview and culture instead of the culture of the time.  (This bias of interpreting the past based on current worldview is at heart of a lot of negative views of history and is a worthwhile caution).
4. The study of church history is a continuing journey. If we say that a book on history is the only true telling of the story, we risk “canonizing” one version, a tendency we have shown in the past. This blocks further insights from continuing research. Good historical inquiry understands that conclusions are open to correction as new understanding and information comes from ongoing study.  (This is an excellent point that the LDS church could easily adopt).
5. Seeing both the faithfulness and human flaws in our history makes it more believable and realistic, not less. Our history has stories of great faith and courage that inspire us. Our history also includes human leaders who said and did things that can be shocking to us from our current perspective and culture. Historians try not to judge—instead, they try to understand by learning as much as possible about the context and the meaning of those words and actions at the time. The result is empathy instead of judgment. Our scriptures are consistent in pointing out that God, through grace, uses imperfect people for needed ministry and leadership.  (I love this one, and find it very useful.  However, I think this points to a generation gap that has been discussed elsewhere by the handsome Carter Hall.  There is a bias among the older generations to view flawed heroes as insufficiently heroic.  Baby boomers and onward tend to prefer flawed heroes.  Promoting “perfect” heroes results in disillusionment for these later generations, IMO).
6. The responsible study of church history involves learning, repentance, and transformation. A church with a mission focused on promoting communities of reconciliation, justice, and peace should be self-critical and honest about its history (of course, these are not the focus of the LDS church.  Instead our verbs are “perfecting, redeeming, proclaiming, and caring” – very action oriented verbs.  Hmmm.  Not a religion of reflection). It is important for us to confess when we have been less than what the gospel of Jesus Christ calls us to be. This honesty prompts us to repent, and it strengthens our integrity. (Again, this is an interesting perspective.  It takes the faults of the organization and personalizes them.  In the LDS church, the tendency is to view sin or flaws as personal failings, not organizational.  We do not internalize the flaws of the organization or personify the organization as something capable of repentance.)  Admitting past mistakes helps us avoid repeating them and frees us from the influences of past injustices and violence in our history. We must be humble and willing to repent, individually and as a community, to contribute as fully as possible to restoring God’s shalom on earth.  (I don’t think this part translates well for us.  This emphasis on communal responsibility and repentance is a bit foreign to the LDS church.  I suppose that’s a byproduct of CoC being more of a consensus / communal authority rather than authoritative/oligarchical.)
7. The church has a long-standing tradition that it does not legislate or mandate positions on matters of church history. Historians should be free to draw their own conclusions after thorough consideration of evidence. Through careful study and the Holy Spirit’s guidance, the church is learning how to accept and responsibly interpret all of its history. This includes putting new information and changing understandings into proper perspective, while emphasizing the parts of our history that continue to play a role in guiding the church’s identity and mission today.  (This one is interesting.  For one, the LDS church doesn’t really take a direct stand on historical matters.  Richard Bushman and Truman Madsen can write two very different books on the same topic, and the church does not officially endorse either.  Yet we do emphasize lessons that are based on history but only presented with the intention to edify and increase commitment.  If the history is damaging, we do not discuss it in our lessons because it would be counter-productive.  Whatever does not promote the mission of the church is correlated away).
8. We need to create a respectful culture of dialogue about matters of history. We should not limit our faith story to one perspective. Diverse viewpoints bring richness to our understanding of God’s movement in our sacred story. Of course, historians will come to different conclusions as they study. Therefore, it is important for us to create and maintain a respectful culture that allows different points of view on history. Our conversation about history should be polite and focused on trying to understand others’ views. (I do think this is an area where the LDS church could improve.  We tend to be extremely defensive when confronted with any negative interpretations of our history.  I think we could do better at being polite and focused on understanding while maintaining our own more faithful interpretation of events.  But to do that, the faithful interpretation of events needs to pass muster, which it frequently fails to do.)  Most important, we should remain focused on what matters most for the message and mission of the church in this time.
9. Our faith is grounded in God’s revelation in Jesus Christ and the continuing guidance of the Holy Spirit. We must keep our hearts and minds centered on God’s revelation in Jesus Christ. As God’s Word alive in human history, Jesus Christ was and is the foundation of our faith and the focus of the church’s mission and message.  (A great wrap up statement for both churches, IMO).

Are these principles that the LDS church should likewise espouse or are they problematic in their own right?  Would the LDS church have difficulty with some of these principles if put into practice?  Is there a better approach?  IMO, the CoC approach has some good elements we could adopt, but does not directly translate into LDS culture on the following points:

• Community vs. authority.  The LDS church doesn’t take doctrines to referendum.  Decisions are made in consensus at the Q15 level, based on prayerful consideration.  If the Q15 don’t agree, status quo prevails.  By contrast, the CoC is more egalitarian in its decision-making, making decisions “by common consent.”
• Responsibility for the past.  Because the LDS church is more of a top-down organizational church and less of a “faith community” (as evidenced by the fact that the term “faith community” sounds like some sort of PC term for a free-love hippie commune to my LDS ears) there is no group ownership for mistakes of past individuals, even generally among the leadership, but certainly not among the membership.  Passages that reflect this POV don’t resonate for that reason.
• Directness.  The LDS church definitely doesn’t favor this kind of direct approach that ties our hands.  While the CoC talks and writes about openness and change, creating collateral materials that can be reviewed time and again, the LDS church prefers to minimize collateral.  Even the collateral that exists (lds.org, Gen Conf talks, etc.) is often subtly contradictory and written from contrasting viewpoints that enable multiple interpretations, creating a patheon of doctrine.  If you search “Church History” on lds.org (go ahead, I’ll wait), there’s really not much there at all.
• Intellectual approach.  There are church leaders who favor an intellectual approach and who would find these principles appealing; yet, the style of these principles and the ideology seems like it might be inaccessible or off-putting to many lay members of the much larger LDS church.

Here are some principles or talking points that I would suggest for the LDS church (written as if I had to draft it for the church, which I don’t, thank goodness!  Because it was actually really hard to come up with these):

• All history is biased.  Historical elements in scripture are also biased by authors, cultural markers, and limited understanding.  Church history is similarly biased.  Understanding history requires a respect for the inherent biases in what we are reading, whether those biases are in favor of or against the church or an individual.  And our understanding of history is biased by our personal experiences, our views, and time in which we live.
• Understanding history can provide insight.  We can better understand patterns that influenced behavior and that tend to repeat over time within a culture.  We can empathize with our predecessors; our hearts are turned to our fathers and mothers in reviewing their experiences.  We are given countless examples that illuminate our own path, either as cautionary tales or as role models and most often as both.
• Church history is still being written.  Although divine instruction is timeless, our ability to understand it can shift over time and the relevance of different instructions can change as circumstances change.  We should be mindful of the temporal biases inherent in our human understanding as we strive to follow God’s will and comprehend our common history.
• Personal experience leads to faith.  We encourage church members to follow the spirit and to prayerfully seek instruction from Heavenly Father.  This type of humble truth-seeking can help us avoid errors in discernment and criticism of others that can lead to self-justification and sin.
• Our aim is to lead people to Christ.  While history can inform us and provide insight, ultimately it is through seeking a personal relationship with Christ and following His teachings that we grow spiritually and achieve our potential as sons and daughters of God.

What do you think the church should say regarding thorny historical issues?  Anything?  Discuss.

Because of her family’s hospitality toward searching and studying, Sister Kimball says, “I’ve always had an inquiring mind. I’m not satisfied just to accept things. I like to follow through and study things out. I learned early to put aside those gospel questions that I couldn’t answer. I had a shelf of things I didn’t understand, but as I’ve grown older and studied and prayed and thought about each problem, one by one I’ve been able to better understand them.”

• polygamy
• priesthood ban
• historical issues / MMM / Joseph Smith / BOM historicity / BOA / restoration detail discrepancies

• experiences they’ve had as a detective since that case have given them new perspective
• new evidence has emerged.  For example, DNA evidence and fingerprint evidence (and other forensic sciences) have changed substantially over the last decade, casting new light on old crimes.
• similarities to subsequent crimes can change the overall understanding of the case
• evidence relating to witnesses or suspects or even victims can emerge or change over time

So, this analogy works better for me, but also puts these issues in the realm of “hobby” in my mind.  These are issues that are a curiosity, something fun to explore, and while they are personally important to the individual, they may or may not be “solvable” or “conclusive” cases.  We just have to make a decision based on the evidence we have, or move on and revisit them later.  Once you’ve made a decision on a case, right or wrong, you tend to move on past it and work on another issue.

Does the “cold case” analogy work for you?  What are your cold cases?  Are there cold cases you’ve ultimately solved to your satisfaction or do you hang onto them and mull them over again every so often?  Discuss.

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?

On the one hand, we teach that God is omniscient, all knowing, the smartest of the smart, prognosticator of prognosticators, etc.  OTOH, we teach the doctrine of eternal progression:  that as man is, God once was, and as God is, man may become.  We also teach that eternal progression is part of God’s plan for us, and that we are to learn and grow “line upon line, precept upon precept.”

Since “the glory of God is intelligence” (D&C 93:36) and “intelligence or the light of truth was not created nor made nor indeed can be” (D&C 93:29) and when “there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all” (Abraham 3:19) – does that mean that there are hierarchies of Gods based on intelligence or the “light of truth”?  Is intelligence something that we can’t increase?  Does that mean that eternal progression is not increasing our intelligence?

  So, what does eternal progression mean?

• Does it mean that we continue to make mistakes and learn from them?  Are we allowed to make mistakes after we die?  Does God still make mistakes?  Does he have some discarded practice earths floating around out there?  (Maybe that’s what happened to Pluto)
• Does access to knowledge constitute eternal progression (e.g. celestial Wikipedia, when the earth becomes a Urim & Thummim)?
• Does God explore strange new worlds (presumably created by other Gods), seek out new civilizations and boldly go?
• How does God become like His Father?  Is that just getting old, but no additional skills are required, kind of like going from CEO to being on the board of directors?
• Is there a God threshold?  At which point do we say “Now THAT’s Godhood.  Yesterday, that was pre-Godhood, but today you’ve arrived”?  Is that when one has atoned?  If so, are there enough atonements to go around or are there lower level God positions for those who aren’t going to go that far?
• Can stupid people become Gods?  Wouldn’t stupid Gods have stupid spiritual kids?  Do different planets have different intelligences?  What if we ARE the stupid ones?
• Wouldn’t it be boring as all get out if you were a God and there was nothing new to learn or experience?  Is God in a constant state of ennui?  Isn’t that why the Greek gods were always chasing tail and creating havoc – boredom + power?
• Isn’t lack of progress the Mormon definition of hell?  If God doesn’t progress, doesn’t that = hell?  That can’t be right.

So, take a moment to consider what your opinion is and answer the following poll:

[poll ID = "141"]

Discuss.

Having served my mission in Ireland, I am familiar with the Catholic iconography that is present in many of their Churches. Having been raised Mormon I am familiar with the critical attitude toward these types of statues and paintings; and yet as I surveyed these works of art, some of them had a real impact upon me. Statues of the lacerated Jesus or of the dying Jesus or the crucified Jesus forced me to hold back tears for fear of embarrassment. Even a bust of the Virgin Mary moved me deeply. I sensed that it is a real loss to Mormon culture that we do not readily engage with these products of devotion.

Much of the LDS art that I have seen of Jesus seems banal and insipid. We see a calm, collected and/or kind Jesus; and yet he is rarely depicted in any of the extremes of suffering or joy that was surely part of the humanity of his life. I am aware of exceptions; but even these pail in insignificance to what these Spanish artists created. I believe that Jesus was, at times calm, collected and kind; but I also believe he experienced the full range of human emotions (good and bad). I believe his model for living was abundance.

More confusing to me is that the LDS ‘Lamb of God’ video is different. It makes an explicit attempt to evoke this type of passionate response in the audience by alluding to the vicious suffering of Jesus. Why is it that film is more acceptable as a means of presenting this kind of devotional material? Is this merely a cultural distinction, an anti-catholic hangover from Nineteenth century America, and if so is it not about time that we extend Priesthood legitimacy to all worthy forms of Art.

Perhaps Eugene England was right when he said that Mormons do not experience the ‘tragic’ as frequently as others because of the success of our religion, but I doubt it.

Yet this raises another question, why do we need to use these different media to help us connected with Jesus and his suffering. Are we more able to sense the visceral reality of his wounds if they are shown to us? Can we more easily believe in the atonement if we can see the suffering of Christ? If this is so, would not these type of ‘passion’ iconography be a useful medium to help latter-day Saints explore their relationship to our Lord?

Perhaps Mormons need to more fully explore the spiritual artistic heritages that are rooted in other faiths as well as trying to promote our own. I certainly feel that my faith has been enriched by some of what our extended Christian heritage has produced.

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.

• Growing out “forelocks” as Hasidic Jews do.
• Eschewing technology as the Amish do.
• 7th Day Adventists considering Saturday as the Sabbath.
• Celibacy among priests and nuns of the Catholic faith.
• Jews not eating shellfish or pork.
• Muslim women wearing the hajib or burka.
• Scientology – where do I start? (not technically a religion, but you get the point)

It’s easy to distinguish the “bizarre” from the “true” when considering other faiths because we tend to think that the things we have in common are “true” but the ones we don’t are “bizarre” and can be dismissed.  The same holds true when Mormonism is viewed from someone on the outside, unfamiliar with our practices.  Consider how the following things look to outsiders:  Word of Wisdom, garments, fasting monthly, paying 10% in tithing, the temple, not seeing R-rated movies, polygamy, and Sabbath day observance.  Which  of these are “true” and which are “bizarre”?

Generally, a practice is justified using one of the following means:

• There is an underlying principle that drives the practice. This can be tricky, though, and different people may accept different underlying principles.  Consider the following possible justifications for the Word of Wisdom:
  • A health code.  Tobacco has been shown to be unhealthy, so one could say that the Word of Wisdom is a health code.  However, alcohol, tea and coffee have not been shown to be unhealthy (users of these substances don’t have significantly shorter life spans, for example), so it could be difficult to convince outsiders that this is a “true” principle on the grounds of being a heavenly health code.  Also, the WoW does not outlaw some more clearcut unhealthy practices like eating too much fatty fried foods.
  • Addiction Avoidance.  The principle could be that there should be moderation in all things and because some people become addicted to these substances, this is how to preserve one’s ability to choose.  But because this is not true of all people, it’s kind of a shotgun principle that results in abstinence for all that only benefits a few.
  • Spiritual enlightenment.  As RSR pointed out, JS’s view of the WoW was that it would foster spiritual enlightenment.  Of course, since it was not widely adopted until much later, this calls the practice into question.
• Secret or revealed knowledge.  One justification for unique practices is that it’s touted as “secret” or “restored” or “revealed” knowledge.  The “we don’t know” defense might fall into this category if the assumption is that the practice was revealed, but God’s ways are too mysterious for our limited human understanding.  In the latter case, the “defense” of the practice is really just an assertion and may sound illogical to outsiders not prone to believe in revelation.
• Symbolic meaning.  Some justifications for unique practices are that they have a symbolic meaning intended to teach adherents through allegory.  Sometimes this is used in conjunction with a “revelation” defense to bolster a difficult to explain justification.  While no one would dispute that circumcision has a “symbolic” purpose, early adult convert Christians were naturally reluctant to adopt this Jewish symbolic practice, which created a big division in the early Christian church.
• Proof.  There is generally an underlying assumption that the unique element is ultimately “provable,” or at least so adherents believe.  IOW, adherents would believe that ultimately the “truth” of the practice will be revealed, either in this life (born out by science, for example) or the one to come (when God says, “Yep, that was my idea!”).

OTOH, a practice might also serve a purpose to create sociological benefit by defining the community or making “a peculiar people.”  If these elements are more “bizarre” or unique to create boundaries between groups and not necessarily based in truth, they may exist primarily for sociological reasons:

• To identify who is in and who is out of the group.
• To control the weak members of the organization and keep them in line.  This makes the group more easily identifiable for admirable traits and aids missionary efforts.
• To discourage intermarriage outside the group.
• To provide an Abrahamic test of faith to new adherents and to foster loyalty through arbitrary requirements.

The tricky thing is that it’s not always cut & dried whether a unique practice is based in truth or is just there to reinforce group boundaries.  Here are some possible classifications for unique practices.

1. Justifiable / truth-based.  There is a clear, easily explained justification for the practice that is based in true, verifiable events.
   • Rule of thumb:  If you explain the practice, you find your logic convincing.
2. Partially justifiable / principle-linked.  There is a justification or a link to a principle that can be used to explain the practice, but it is not self-evident and probably sounds a little weird to outsiders.  Others might consider the justification unconvincing or weak.
   • Ergo:  You find the logic of the practice partly convincing, but partly weak.  You have to make up what is lacking in logic in faith or suspension of disbelief or only accept the practice partially.
3. Bizarre / unjustifiable / faith-based.  There’s really no justification or explanation that makes any kind of logical sense to non-adherents or non-believers.  Trying to explain the practice leaves one tongue-tied and feeling a bit silly.

• IOW:  You neither have a convincing explanation for the practice, nor do you buy the ones you’ve heard.  You may suspect the practice primarily exists for sociological reasons, to make us a “peculiar” people.

Of course the other difficulty is that someone may have what they feel is a good explanation for a practice, but another adherent may not buy it or believe it or may find it weak, so there’s a good deal of subjectivity.  And subjectivity means it’s a perfect time for a poll!  For each of the below unique Mormon practices, please choose whether you think it is True, Partially Justifiable or merely Bizarre.  Be honest!  (I apologize in advance if my descriptions of what might constitute a true, partially justifiable or bizarre reason don’t work for you individually – as I said, lots of subjectivity involved here!)

[poll id="128"]

[poll id="129"]

[poll id="130"]

[poll id="131"]

[poll id="132"]

[poll id="133"]

[poll id="134"]

[poll id="135"]

[poll id="137"]

[poll id="138"]

So, what do you think are some of the difficult to justify practices, from your perspective?  Are there some I didn’t include here?  Do you see value in this kind of boundary definition or do you think all religious practices should have logical justification or be discarded?  Does your lack of justification for an individual practice make you less committed to the practice?  Does it impact your religious devotion overall?  Were you surprised by some of your answers?  Discuss.

Let’s first tackle the implications of the different things we might follow:

• The Prophet. Even toddlers are taught the song “Follow the Prophet,” not a personal favorite either musically (it’s the ”100 Bottles of Beer on the Wall” of the Primary songbook) or lyrically (the line “if you don’t believe me / go and watch the news” sounds like something Archie Bunker or Sean Hannity should be saying acerbically, not tiny tots singing sweetly).  Frankly, listening to an angelic chorus of youngsters sing this song makes Mormons sound creepy and cult-like.  I’d totally sign a petition to kill this song.  However, there’s no doubt that Mormons are taught to follow the Prophet, the living head of the church who is responsible to define the gospel for Mormons globally during his tenure (which only ends when God “releases” him / he dies).
• The Brethren.  This is similar to the Prophet, but generally includes all modern-day apostles, both living & dead, but all white (with an emphasis on the living ones).  Some would expand that beyond the apostles to include other high level leaders such as the 70, and possibly even the unseen correlation committee.
• Christ. Obviously, the purpose of the church is to come unto Christ.  Of course, this implies that WWJD covers all the scenarios you encounter, and that you feel confident in your interpretation of WWJD.  Of course many who wear a WWJD tee shirt are doing all kinds of things I don’t personally think J would D.  So, there is some interpretation here.  Are you really following Christ, your interpretation of him, your best version of yourself, or what others have told you?
• The Gospel.  Because there are many ways to interpret some aspects of the gospel for specific situations, this would usually mean the gospel “as you understand / interpret it.”  You might base your interpretation on some favorite scriptures, teachings of leaders, personal experiences, etc.  But your basis and understanding may differ from others’ in some particulars.  For cafeteria Mormons (and there really are no other kinds), it’s whatever is on your tray.
• The Spirit.  In Mormonism, this can mean different things to different people, but it generally means that when you need to know what to do, you seek personal spiritual guidance through whatever means have worked for you in the past:  prayer, thinking about it, dreams, reading scriptures or other inspirational materials, etc.  The more superstitious folks might use means like “Bible dips” (opening the scriptures to a passage and then using that to determine their course of action).
• The dictates of your own conscience.  This can mean using your own personal life experiences, wisdom, opinions, and preferences to determine your course of action.

A few times in leadership trainings, I have done what is called a Rokeach Value Survey.  In this exercise, you are presented with various values or life goals, most of which are probably desirable to you, and you have to rank order them.  This is done by comparing two of them and asking “If I could have A but not B, would I prefer that or to have B but not A.”  Basically, through this “false dichotomy” exercise, you determine which is your most dearly held value.  (Values considered are things like:  freedom, human love, a comfortable life, health, etc.)  Consider these types of dichotomies for yourself personally as you answer the poll.

• What if something a current Prophet says differs from something the Brethren have said?  Do you assume the prophet has more authority and is more timely than the other statement?  Does how you feel about what is being said (the dictates of your own conscience) change your feeling?
• What if a spiritual prompting differs from the dictates of your own conscience?  Would you take a leap and follow the spiritual prompting or would you assume it was indigestion?
• What if something the Brethren say differs from your interpretation of the Gospel?  Do you (generally) assume they know better and get on board?  Or do you assume they are mistaken and that your view is correct?

I’d like each of you to consider the following possibilities using this same methodology to choose the most important one to you personally.

[poll=94]

Were you surprised by your results?  Do you object to false dichotomies on principle?  If so, get over it!  Discuss.

This just in from LDS Church News.  Correlation remains king.

“A gospel teacher is not called to choose the subject of the lesson but to teach and discuss what has been specified. Gospel teachers should also be scrupulous to avoid hobby topics, personal speculations, and controversial subjects. The Lord’s revelations and the directions of His servants are clear on this point.”

and

“The Church — through its inspired correlation program — has given us official sources of information to help us prepare lessons and plan activities. Instead of turning to unofficial books and Web sites, let’s use those sources.”

I will freely acknowledge that being a woman in the church and bringing up a question about Priesthood practices would probably subject me to some derisive comment from BY types about how it’s as unseemly as a dog walking on its hind legs or some such thing.  I admit up front that I am not an expert in these matters, but I have been a member of the church for my whole life, and have attended many different wards across the US and some outside the US.

If you are a man in the church, you are either in Elder’s Quorum or High Priests, depending on the highest office in the Priesthood bestowed.  The lessons taught are the same (the manual is also shared by the Relief Society).  If you are in the Elders’ Quorum, you are more likely to be asked to help people move, to participate in ward basketball, and to administer blessings to the sick.  If you are in the High Priests’ Group, there are social activities for the men and their wives.  Uhm, which group sounds better to you?  Basketball + moving people or dinner parties with wheezing fossils (no offense to the wheezing fossils out there)?

Officially, an active LDS man remains an Elder until he is in a calling (such as a bishop or stake leadership calling) that requires him to become a High Priest.  However, there are a few exceptions (that I’ve seen in various wards) that can result in someone being moved from the Elder’s Quorum into the High Priest’s Group without having been in a “High Priest” required calling:

1. Age.  If a man in good standing is over the age of 50 (or lower for some wards), he may be either 1) invited to attend HPG based on age, despite priesthood level, or 2) ordained to the office of a High Priest to move him into the older group officially.
   • This seems a little arbitrary and could lead to hurt feelings or feeling disenfranchized for men who are older but haven’t been ordained as High Priests.
   • **In some wards, a very young HP will unofficially join the EQ based on age.
2. Organization.  If a ward has too few High Priests to fill all the roles associated with the High Priests’ Group, additional Elders may be ordained to fill these roles.
   • If a ward is too small or has too few to fill one of the two quorums, why not just collapse into one Priesthood Quorum?  This feels like ordaining people to justify unnecessary callings.  Aren’t there any programs to hand out or Primary classes to substitute for?  Is this problematic because the HPG is actually led by the Stake President but the Elder’s Quorum has a ward level leader?
3. Discretionary Ordinations.  It is not required for some callings, like Executive Secretary, to be ordained High Priests, but local leadership may (at their discretion) decide to ordain someone to the office of High Priest in this or similar roles.
   • Not a big deal I suppose, but it seems pretty arbitrary.  At least it is restricted to a handful of borderline justifiable positions and is less likely to create bad feelings as a result.

Why is this forced hierarchy necessary?  Doesn’t it bring out the worst in people (envy, pride, competition, and favoritism) where charity should rule the day?  Is it necessary?  Relief Society has been egalitarian (all ages) for a very long time.  While there have been issues in the past, it does seem to be getting better due to a few changes.  The manuals are more doctrinal now, less “family focused”; they are more applicable regardless of life situation, age, marital status, etc.  So, do men NEED to feel that they have a goal (aging up into a different class) in order to feel that they are engaged and participating in the church?  Is there a legitimate reason the Elders and High Priests can’t meet together weekly?  Is this some secret male testosterone-driven thing I just don’t get?  Discuss.

1. probably Elder Oaks or Elder Holland will be, or will have been,president by then.
2. I hope, by that time, the Lord will have seen fit to call one or two non-caucasians to the 12.
3. Some sermons in conference will be given in a non-English language, with simultaneous translation available for English speakers.
4. The Church will have, in some way, formally disavowed teachings on the curse of Cain/Ham and any teaching that the practice of withholding priesthood/temple on the basis of lineage/race had its origins before the Restoration.
5. There will be a continued outreach to the GLBT community. While the Church will not recognize or perform same sex marriages, it may well permit GLBT individuals in a committed monogamous union to retain their formal membership, but not attend the temple or exercise the priesthood (sort of like the Church’s current position on those who have undergone”elective” transsexual surgery and who join the Church or who are rebaptized).
6. Some sort of initiative will address the problem of excluding nonmember parents from weddings of their children when those weddings take place in the temple. My guess is that the automatic one year wait rule will be softened to accommodate those faithful members who wish their parents to witness the “for time” portion of the ceremony.
7. Women will be invited to offer open and/or closing prayers in general conference. A woman will be appointed as president of at least one of the Church universities.
8. The teaching and practice of women being permitted to join with their husbands in blessing their sick children will again officially become permitted and/or encouraged.
9. The weekly priesthood executive committee will be expanded to include the RS president and YW president. Presidents of auxiliaries will be referred to as “President”.
10. Another attempt at simplifying Church programs will occur. The three hour block may be reduced to two and one-half hours. It is possible that priesthood/relief society and Sunday School will be held on alternate Sundays.
11. Small Church post-secondary colleges may be established in Mexico, Brazil, the Philipines, and Chile. The tithing subsidy for tuition at the BYU campuses in the U.S. might be reduced to provide a similar subsidy to students at the non-U.S. campuses. Alternatively, the BYU campuses might be spun off entirely, in the same way the Church hospitals were. They would remain LDS in focus, but without the tithing subsidy. Or, if that does not occur, then greater equality of US and nonUs members might be attained by a greater subsidy to PEF out of tithing, in the same manner the Church universities are subsidized.
12. Small temples will continue to be built throughout the world, perhaps reaching 200 or 250 temples.
13. Missionaries will be permitted to teach in China and in many parts of the Middle East. The Church will strengthen its ties to Islamic countries and representatives. For the first time since the Church was established in Indonesia, the most populous Muslim nation in the world, there will be a serious and significant increase in conversions in that country.
14. The birthrate of LDS in the US will increase slightly, but not return to baby boom levels. Divorce rates will stabilize or drop somewhat.
15. As the baby boom retires, the number of senior missionaries will increase significantly, however, the relative proportion of members serving missions will remain steady. If Church membership of record increases to 20 million (about 50%), then the number of full the full time missionaries serving at that time will also increase about 50% (to 80,000 or 90,000).
16. The Church will once again begin making occasional disclosures of its finances.
17. Retention levels will continue a slow increase. Addiction recovery programs meetings (including pornography addiction support groups) will be part of this growth in retention, helping new converts (or lapsed members) address pernicious addictions in a safe, supportive environment, to return to complete spiritual health.
18. There will continue to be a strengthened emphasis on the Book of Mormon, and its teachings of gospel fundamentals such as God’s grace, free moral agency, redemption, and forgiveness. Further discouragement of the use of guilt as a motivator, and greater use of support and positive encouragement.
19. The Proclamation on the Family may become section 132, and the current section 132 will either be removed entirely (like the Lectures on Faith) or will be added as an historical footnote (like the footnote at the end of Joseph Smith-History).

So, these are my predictions for the church in the next 20 years.  What are your predictions?  Which of my predictions do you think unlikely?  Which do you think will happen?  Discuss.

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?

Bushman highlights in this lecture a ‘Visionary Culture’ in which Joseph Smith matured, as well as many of the early converts to the Church.  This culture seems to have powerfully shaped the experience of the Spiritual Gifts in the Church.  As an illustration Bushman notes that the Methodist religion, prior to this period, ‘begins with this supernatural culture, or people who are yearning for visions and tongues and various demonstrations of God’s power in their lives.  And the reason Joseph Smith ran into so much trouble with that minister, was not because his vision was strange and out of the way but because it was so common.  The Methodist’s by 1820 were trying to calm their membership, to discourage this visionary culture’.  Acknowledging that I am not a Historian, it seems to me that this same cycle has played out for the LDS Church as well.  The result appears to be a centralised view of the spirit and the spiritual gifts; meaning they are something we experience when our (general) leaders speak or perhaps we experience them vicariously through the stories of our general leaders.

Six months ago I attended a Stake Conference where a member of the First Presidency and an Apostle spoke.  This is fairly rare in the UK, I am not sure if it is more common in other places.  I have never been in the same room as an Apostle before, let alone a member of the First Presidency.  As you might expect, the excitement was tangible.  After the meeting I heard many people reflect upon the significant spiritual experiences that they had felt.  While I felt inspired, I did not experience what it seemed like others had felt.  Now I am aware that not all people connect with certain speakers in the same way and that I may not have been ‘spiritually prepared’; but I contrasted this with a fireside, given by an LDS academic, that I attended a few weeks later where I was genuinely moved by some of the inspiring things this person said about the Life and Teachings of the Saviour.  What surprised me most was that I was almost alone in my feelings. 

Anecdotally at least, I sensed that perhaps there is a part of the LDS culture that expects profound spiritual experiences from the Brethren and no one else.  It seems that we believe miraculous events in the lives of the leaders but are skeptical about those who are in our wards and stakes.  It occurred to me that this was not always the case and that perhaps the Church, or we as members, needs to de-centralise the Spirit.  I believe that I need to expect my most profound spiritual experiences to come from those people I spend most of my spiritual life with; those in my ward and in my family.  I also believe that the General Leaders do not want spirituality to be centralised at Church headquarters.

Others have noticed this tension between charisma and bureaucracy. “Security religion provides refuge. It builds an ecclesiastical wall which protects from the onslaught of questions and doubts and decisions. Growth religion, on the other hand, forces its adherents to grow, to accept responsibility to assume the burden of proof, to move beyond extrinsic constraints”[1].  According to Ritchie we need to balance both types of culture.  In my mind, this pattern of centralising the spirit is associated with security religion.

Contrastingly, growth religion would seem to “provide those conditions of the giving and receiving of influences such that there is the enlargement of the freedom of all the members to both give and receive.”[2]  Being able to experience the divine influence in our local spiritual communities would seem to be linked with this pattern of open-ness.

My Questions are these:

Has the Church moved from a explosively Charismatic movement to a bureaucratically-contained one?  And why might this have happened?

Do you agree with my contention that there is a centralisation of the Spirit in the Church?  If so, is this a good thing?

Are the differences between Growth and Security religion manageable on an Institutional scale or are they invariably matters for the individual?

If there is the a centralisation of the Spirit and if this is not good, how could this be changed?

Notes:

1. J. Bonner Ritchie, The Institutional Church and the Individual in Sunstone [Salt Lake City, UT.: Sunstone Education Foundation, ], p. 101.

2. Bernard Loomer, “Two Conceptions of Power,” Process Studies 6, no. 1 (Spring 1976), 26- 27.

E. Scott

• The porn warning, usually reserved for Priesthood session, goes mainstream.  Sisters, this is what equality feels like!
• The analogy of trying to taste a grape (revelation) while eating a jalapeno (experiencing strong emotions like anger or passion) was interesting.  He was advocating stoicism, and it reminded me of that Greek philosophy.
• He suggested teachers should sometimes close the manual and teach through the spirit.  Were the correlation committee’s ears burning?

E. Bednar

• It was nice to hear some real life examples of a high ranking leader’s failed FHE attempts.  I particularly liked “he’s breathing my air.”  What parent hasn’t heard that sibling complaint?

Pres. Uchtdorf

• Lovely talk about how to become a disciple of Christ and the importance of love.
• Referred to “heavenly parents,” which reminded me of what my 11-year old son said the other morning when I mentioned the idea that we have a Heavenly Mother.  He said, “Well, I never heard of her!”

E. Oaks

• This talk might be best understood when compared to E. Oaks’ much-criticized interview on homosexuality.  He tempered several of the things that were uncomfortable to people about those statements, including:
  • rather than “mandating” what parents should do about wayward children, he said parents were entitled to their own revelation.
  • he said it might be extreme to shun wayward kids (and also extreme to ignore their behaviors)
  • he used cohabitation as an example, not homosexuality, indicating that chastity was the issue, not the specific way in which the law of chastity is broken (IOW, placing homosexual and heterosexual violations of the law of chastity on equal ground, where they theologically if not politically belong).

E. Hales

• This was an anti-atheism talk about Korihor.  E. Hales was confident that those who pray to know if God exists will believe that he does.
• I just saw the movie The Invention of Lying last night, which was somewhat atheist, but also totally awesome.

E. Callister

• Contrast of JS’s flaws with those of Peter in the NT was a nice idea, although none of JS’s actual flaws were discussed.

E. Kent Watson

• Temperance in all things.  He obviously stole my “Moderation in All Things” Post.  Seriously, dude.  Just ask next time.

E. Packer

• Did this talk while seated – is his health failing?

I also noticed a LOT of uses of the word “believe” in place of “know.”  This could be becoming a new trend, and if so, I applaud it!

What did you think?  Any thing you particularly liked or didn’t?  Discuss!

‘In recent years [Church Leaders] might be compared to a team of doctors: issuing prescriptions to cure or to immunize our members against spiritual diseases. Each time some moral or spiritual ailment was diagnosed, we have rushed to the pharmacy to concoct another remedy, encapsulate it as a program and send it out with pages of directions to use.  While we all seem to agree that overmedication, over-programming, is a critically serious problem, we have failed to reduce the treatments. It has been virtually impossible to affect any reduction in programs.  Each time we try, advocates cry to high heaven that we are putting the spiritual lives of our youth at risk. If symptoms reappear, we program even heavier doses of interviews, activities, meetings, and assessment’

‘The whole correlation effort, which took about twenty years, followed that course and much was accomplished. The habits for moral and spiritual health were defined. The scriptures were prescribed as the basic nourishment. The curriculum, loaded with spiritual nutrients, was developed but we did not allow time for it to work and we failed to close the pharmacy or even effectively control it.  We now have ourselves in a corner.’

‘The hardest ailment to treat is a virtue carried to the extreme. We cannot seem to learn that too much, even of a good thing, or too many good things, like vitamins taken in overdose, can be harmful. In recent years I have felt, and I think I am not alone, that we were losing the ability to correct the course of the Church.’

‘Both Alma and Helaman told of the Church in their day.  They warned about fast growth, the desire to be accepted by the world, to be popular, and particularly they warned about prosperity.  Each time those conditions existed in combination, the Church drifted off course. All of those conditions are present in the Church today.’

‘The patience of the Lord with all of us who are in leadership position, is not without limits.’

‘The most dangerous side effect of all we have prescribed in the way of programming and instruction and all, is the overregimentation of the Church. This overregimentation is a direct result of too many programmed instructions.’

‘It is not that any one thing we have been doing is wrong, for we have acted with the best of intentions. Some of us remember when President Kimball saw the outlay of curriculum and the vast display of printed material. He said he was frightened, “We have done it all with the best intentions.”‘

‘Latter-day Saints will come to depend upon the Lord instead of upon the headquarters of the Church.’

‘Matters with deepest doctrinal significance must be left to married couples and to parents to decide for themselves. We have referred them to gospel principles and left them to exercise their moral agency.’

I acknowledge that this is one side of the story, but it is a real dimension.  A facet that I appreciated seeing from Elder Packer.  I think there is much here which is of value, and has led me to think deeply about my own participation in the Church and my response to it and the programmes offered by it.

My questions are these:

Is there anything of value in his remarks?

Given that this was presented nearly 20 years ago, have we seen Elder Packer’s counsel followed?

The phrase “Moderation in all things” is attributed to Terence, a Roman comic dramatist who lived from 185-159 B.C. (or alternately to Plautus, same profession, who lived from 250-184 B.C.)  However, suffice it to say, the philosophy of living moderately (avoiding excesses) was common in ancient Greece and Rome.

First, a few quotes from church leaders about this concept of “moderation in all things”:

Joseph F. Smith:  “The saints should not be unwise, but rather understand what the will of the Lord is, and practice moderation in all things.”

Ezra Taft Benson:  “A priesthood holder should actively seek for things that are virtuous and lovely and not that which is debasing or sordid.  He does things in moderation and is not given to overindulgence.”

James Faust: ”Part of the spirit of the Word of Wisdom is moderation in all things, except those things specifically forbidden by the Lord.” 

Dallin Oaks:  “Moderation in all things is not a virtue, because it would seem to justify moderation in commitment.”

It would seem there are some differences of opinion about whether moderation is good or not.  This seems like a question of personal philosophy rather than a matter of doctrine.

So, where do you fall on the path between abstinence and indulgence?  Do you tend to push the envelope, believing that the restrictions are already strict without making them more stringent, or do you define things as narrowly as possible, believing that even the very appearance of evil can lead to a weak person’s downfall?  Is it situational?  Personal?  Here’s a poll to see where you fall on some of these possible Word of Wisdom indulgences:  coffee, tea, alcohol, and meat.

 [poll id="61"]

[poll id="62"] [poll id="63"] [poll id="64"]

Discuss.

In a recent talk, the speaker had attended an interesting interview with an evangelical who had converted from Mormonism because of what he felt was a misunderstanding on our part of the atonement, that Jesus’ atonment was in fact personal and not just for mankind.  This idea that there might be other youth who misunderstand the theology prompted the speaker to open a discussion with the youth.  He shared the following quiz questions with the youth in the stake.  I thought I would post the 4 true/false questions here for our readers:

1. The church does NOT teach that we are saved by grace.
2. The church teaches that we are saved by works.
3. The final judgment will be like legal scales; if your good works outweigh your bad works, you will be rewarded.
4. We will get the reward we’ve earned.

Most of the youth surveyed correctly answered #1 and #2; however, #3 and #4 were a mixed bag, with a split down the middle in understanding the atonement as revealed by those questions.  Why is this?  Here are some theories:

• The “church” is just a group of people who don’t always understand the gospel.
• The doctrine of salvation (three degrees of glory) adds in a meritocracy component missing in a pass/fail (e.g. Heaven/Hell)construct.
• Other Christian sects essentially wage war on “works” (as if works undermine grace) to illustrate that Mormons aren’t Christians.  Mormons are on the defensive on this point theologically, which results in over-emphasis of works in our teaching.
• Mormonism as a community is highly focused on outward behaviors (works) which are measurable rather than the internal behaviors such as belief and acceptance of grace (in other sects, witnessing). 
• Even though both are emphasized, works are easier to grasp because they are “controllable.”  Kids especially want to know what they have to do (the rules) to meet minimum requirements because kids need structure.

The speaker also distinguished between mercy (not getting something bad that you deserve) and grace (getting something good that you haven’t earned).

So, are we failing to clearly teach the concept of atonement to our youth or do they understand it?  Does the community speak louder than the theology?  Discuss.

There are some traits that are commonly expected among members of the church.  The traits I want to evaluate are:  loyalty, conservativism, conformity, hierarchy, structure, tradition, and formality.  There may be some who generally dislike one or more of these traits, but upon further examination it is probably just a reaction to being out of sync with the current consensus of the Mormon community.  Each of these traits could be considered on a scale from the opposite of the trait to an extreme version of the trait.  Where do you draw the line for yourself personally on each of these?

• Loyalty creates cohesion. But if it goes too far, you get radicalism.
  • The other end of the loyalty spectrum is opposition, rather than disloyalty, because both ends of the spectrum are activist by nature, not passive.  How do you feel about each of the following on the continuum:  persecution to the point of killing church members, active opposition to the church, expressing outsider criticism, harboring resentment toward the church (but not acting on it), expressing insider criticism, verbal defense of the church, active defense of the church, willing to kill church enemies.
  • Where do you fit between active opposition to the organization and active loyalty to the organization?

• Conservativism creates stability. But if it goes too far, you stop progressing.
  • The other end of the conservative spectrum is anarchy or instability–actively breaking down existing practices and stable structures.
  • Where do you fit on this scale – how radical are the changes you would like to see introduced and how quickly would you like to introduce them?  How opposed are you to changes that are even now introduced?  Do you yearn for the good old days?

• Conformity creates unity. But if it goes too far, it creates inauthenticity and stifles self-expression.
  • The other end of this scale is complete individuation, and prizing uniqueness by looking to distinguish everyone as individuals.  The conundrum is that often what passes for self-expression is just a desire to conform to a different model that the individual finds more appealing.
  • Do you accept the conformity standards at church or do you feel you have to be inauthentic to fit in?  Do you feel free to express yourself while still being accepted by the community?

• Hierarchy creates order. But if it goes too far, you get unrighteous dominion and blind obedience.
  • The opposite of hierarchy is a populist, grass roots, egalitarian leadership – leadership by the vocal masses, loosely similar to the ideal of communism (certainly not the practice of it).  On the downside, this can be chaotic and result in the rule of charismatic underdogs.  Likewise, some prefer to relinquish their own responsibility by relying too much on hierarchy, even in a lower-power structure organization, taking even the most innocuous statements as law.
  • How hierarchical do you feel the church is?  Is it too hierarchical (too many detailed mandates from the highest levels) or not hierarchical enough (too many decisions made at the local level)?  What level of hierarchy is most comfortable to you?

• Structure creates security. But if it goes too far, it is like a prison.
  • The opposite of structure is having no programs and free, open meeting agendas.  The risk is that nothing gets accomplished and nothing is measured.
  • How much structure is comfortable to you?  Is there too much structure in the church (checklists, correlated manuals) or too little (open dogma, lay clergy, not commanded in all things)?

• Tradition builds a legacy.  But if it goes on too long, it becomes obsolete.
  • The opposite of tradition is spontaneity.  In worship, this could be constant change to meeting formats, speaking and music styles, etc.  To some extent, charismatic meetings are more spontaneous in this manner, but consistently charismatic meetings have their own traditions.
  • Cultural preferences in Mormonism can embody the whole religion for some people.  How do you respond to changes in tradition (no more roadshows, no more farewell meetings run by the family, changes to the temple ceremony)?  Do you feel there are some traditions that should end or are you comfortable with the traditions – do they make it your home?

• Formality creates a sense of purpose. But if it goes too far, form overtakes function and erodes meaning.
  • The opposite of formality is casualness.  Some religions are very casual by comparison – preachers in jeans, barbecuing with worship, etc.
  • How formal is too formal to you?  How casual is too casual?  Do you like the balance in Mormonism or is it too formal or not formal enough?

If there is a continuum for each of these, where do you think the church sits?  Where do you sit?  Are you aligned?  If so, how do you avoid the perils of groupthink?  If not, how do you avoid ostracism from the church community?  How can a group like the church remain cohesive while avoiding the negative extremes of groupthink?

Discuss.

Every teacher is obligated by his responsibility to others to become a scholar in the gospel. He must obtain a sound and full understanding of the theology of the Church.  He must not give erroneous beliefs to his students or permit them to develop unsound inferences from what he says.