In this two-part episode, historians Ben Park, Matthew Bowman, and Ron Barney join Mormon Matters host Dan Wotherspoon in a discussion of the way Mormonism has negotiated these dilemmas in the past, as well as how it seems to be facing them now and into the near future. What kinds of progress have been made in the relationship between the Church and the academic community? How has the Church professionalized its history division while still honoring the role of history and sacred narrative for vital community cohesion and faith? What are some of the debates and who have been the major players in shaping the place Mormonism finds itself now in relationship to its own history and the presentation of its history?

Mixed into all of these inquiries are also explorations of the relationship between history and faith crisis, including the ways that that panelists themselves negotiation the tensions between human frailty and divine workings? The discussion also goes a bit broader into the immediate horizon of Mormon studies in general. What is happening now and how might the increased interest in Mormonism from all sorts of academic disciplines affect our understanding of the Mormon story going forth? The panel also reflects briefly on the leadership tenure of Elder Marlin K. Jensen as Church Historian, who will be stepping down from this role in the next few months.

We invite you to listen and then join in the discussion below!

In this podcast discussion, host Dan Wotherspoon and panelists Martin Pulido (article co-author), Tresa Edmunds, and Joanna Brooks present an overview of the BYU Studies article’s key findings, as well as significant statements and moments in the history of this doctrine, but then ventures beyond historical reporting and into broader territories. What is the nature of the discourse about Heaven Mother in today’s LDS Church? What ideas about God the Mother hinder vigorous discussion or advancement of this important doctrine, and how can these challenges be met gracefully? What might the future hold for this teaching? How does Mother in Heaven affect the panelists’ own faith?

This podcast is a bit longer than most other Mormon Matters episodes. We think you’ll find the extra listening time to be worth it, though! The podcast also contains what might possibly be the first one-liner joke in the history of this discussion topic. (It’s in good taste, of course, courtesy of the quick mind of Joanna Brooks.) After listening, we hope you’ll join the discussion below!

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

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

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

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

Correcting The Past

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

History: It Ain’t What It Used To Be

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

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

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

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

Mighty Morphing Fact Arrangers

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

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

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

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

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

Until years later.

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

You Really Had To Be There

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why It Matters, And Why It Doesn’t

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

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

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

Whack-a-Mole Wives

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

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

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

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

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

The Smoking Gun Is A Toy Cap Pistol

1. Nancy Rigdon

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

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

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

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

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

Some smoking gun.

2. Helen Mar Kimball

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Art or Science?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The overall article is well worth reading to better understand current political debates, but that wasn’t what called my attention to it as a possible subject for Mormon Matters. Rather, the following paragraph toward the end of the Article startled me:

“Nothing has set the country class apart, defined it, made it conscious of itself, given it whatever coherence it has, so much as the ruling class’s insistence that people other than themselves are intellectually and hence otherwise humanly inferior. Persons who were brought up to believe themselves as worthy as anyone, who manage their own lives to their own satisfaction, naturally resent politicians of both parties who say that the issues of modern life are too complex for any but themselves. Most are insulted by the ruling class’s dismissal of opposition as mere “anger and frustration” — an imputation of stupidity — while others just scoff at the claim that the ruling class’s bureaucratic language demonstrates superior intelligence. A few ask the fundamental question: Since when and by what right does intelligence trump human equality? Moreover, if the politicians are so smart, why have they made life worse?” [Emphases added.]

When I read the bolded sentences above I almost sputtered to myself. “Of course, the intelligent should…” And then I remembered a series of conversations I had with my wife-to-be several decades ago when I was getting my baptism into the government policy environment in the DC area and she was free-lancing as a classical musician in New York City. When I visited her, it seemed her colleagues were always complaining about how little funding there was for the arts. When we were alone together, this conversation often continued as she noted that the government seemed to have plenty of money to pay me well for what I did. (I had enough spare cash at the time to fly back and forth between the two cities; she once, I found out later, had to walk home from seeing me off at the airport.) I had initially defended my privilege with exactly the same “Of course…” sputtering.

Well, true love triumphed, and we long ago moved on to debate other issues in our marriage, but my memory of those conversations stopped the sputtering, and I could start taking the article’s fundamental question seriously.

What trumps “the worth of all persons”, to use a Community of Christ terminology? Is it intelligence, which we now measure in our culture by having accrediting bodies grant us degrees that say we are intelligent? It is a very seductive idea, until I start to examine it closely. Why does a master’s degree in physics make me more intelligent than my wife’s masters degree in classical music makes her? She can play a piano; she gets calls to do that more often than I get called upon to solve third order differential equations (and she can still do it from memory, too). Who’s more useful? How many of me does society actually need?

Other cultures have believed (do believe?) that the basis of rule should be the ability to defeat enemy armies, to belong to a divinely-favored race or gender or ethnicity, or even a dubious claim to be sired by a previous member of the ruling class.  Shouldn’t I be willing to question the basis of my belief in the rule of “intellect”.

I am proud of my degrees and my connections to what Codevilla’s article calls the “ruling class”. My pride shows, no matter how hard I try to become conscious of it and question my cultural assumption. Oh, oh!

Ancient people of many cultures built monuments to their gods. Often, it became a little confusing about whether the monuments were built to the gods, or whether the people who built them believed they were gods. In places like Egypt or Meso-America there eventually was no mistaking that the pyramids were about the rulers.

I look at the great monuments in Washington. Some are monuments to political demi-gods of the past. But some seem clearly monuments to the present rulers themselves. Oh, oh! In fact, the places you see Senators or House Representatives being interviewed on TV are not the most ornate Congressional office buildings. The newest structures have multi-floor glass walled interiors that work poorly with reflections from TV lights, so they go unseen by most people without day-to-day business there. (And why did I bother to tell you that? Oh, oh!)

Other monuments are ideological. If you can’t get your name on a monument (or at least an office building in your local district), get your name on a law. In the sciences, get an effect, or a theory, or an equation named after you. Win a prize. Leave your mark on history.

In the Book of Mormon, the falling of people into the “pride cycle” is frequently thematically associated with the wearing of “costly apparel”. Those on the fringes of the ruling class could not build monuments, but they could signal their membership in that class to everyone by what they wore. If we take Meso-America as a model, they could make themselves into living pyramids of expensive cloth, jade, or shell.

And the more widely those signs spread (physically or metaphorically), the more ideas like “the worth of all persons” became illusionary self-deception. The more people were excluded from the ruling class, the more strongly those still on the fringe found it necessary to justify doing ever-more-questionable things to hang on to the symbols of status. The gulf between the classes widened into violence.

I am very much on the “fringe” of my culture’s ruling class. I can signal my membership in that class through my university affiliations, the reports I’ve co-authored, the conferences and advisory hearings I’ve attended, and the offices of the government officials who’ve passed me written “attaboys”. I can make my pyramid out of paper, and my mark on history can last digitally until the digital formats themselves become obsolete. Oh, oh!

Intellectualism is not a vice. Neither is being a member of any elite. But could membership in a ruling “intellectual” elite be the particular form of the pride cycle to which our modern Western culture can be tempted?

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.

In a post at BCC, John Hamer gave a thorough history of Marsh’s disaffection with the Church and concluded:

“Thus, while the moral the Thomas B. Marsh fable, i.e., that faith can be shattered over something inconsequential, is true enough, it would probably make sense to tell a different, more appropriate fable to illustrate that moral.”

The same conclusion can be reached by considering additional aspects of Ryder’s story.  A talk in the Sunday morning session of General Conference by Donald L. Hallstrom titled Turn to the Lord referenced the Symonds Ryder story as follows:

Symonds Ryder was a Campbellite leader who heard about the Church and had a meeting with Joseph Smith. Moved by this experience, he joined the Church in June 1831. Immediately thereafter, he was ordained an elder and called to serve a mission. However, in his call letter from the First Presidency and on his official commission to preach, his name was misspelled—by one letter. His last name showed as R-i-d-e-r, not the correct R-y-d-e-r. This caused him to question his call and those from whom it came. He chose not to go on the mission and fell away, which soon led to hatred and intense opposition toward Joseph and the Church.

In such retellings of the Ryder fable, the misspelling of his name is often the only reason cited as the cause of his decision to then leave the church. (see B. H. Roberts in HC 1:260–61; Fawn M. Brodie in No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith the Mormon Prophet, 118; Donna Hill in Joseph Smith: The First Mormon, 143; Cannon and Cook in Far West Record, 286; Dean C. Jessee in Papers of Joseph Smith, Volume 1: Autobiographical and Historical Writings, 511.) Probably the origin of this story is his funeral sermon preached in Hiram, Ohio, August 3, 1870, by B.A. Hinsdale.

“Ryder was informed, that by special revelation he had been appointed and commissioned an elder of the Mormon church. His commission came, and he found his name misspelled. Was the Holy Spirit so fallible as to fail even in orthography? Beginning with this challenge, his strong, incisive mind and honest heart were brought to the task of re-examining the ground on which he stood. His friend Booth had been passing through a similar experience, on his pilgrimage to Missouri, and, when they met about the 1st of September, 1831, the first question which sprang from the lips of each was–”How is your faith?” and the first look into each other’s faces, gave answer that the spell of enchantment was broken, and the delusion was ended. They turned from the dreams they had followed for a few months, and found more than ever before, that the religion of the New Testament was “the shadow of a great rock in a weary land.” (A. S. Hayden, Early History of the Disciples (1875), p. 251.)

Perhaps the misspelling was a bother to Ryder, but this one incident was hardly the sole reason for Ryder’s departure. For one thing, spelling was more fluid in the 19th century and earlier. An attempt at standardized spelling in the U.S. did not begin until the appearance of Webster’s “American Dictionary of the English Language” in 1828, and for at least a half century many words continued to be vociferously debated. American census-takers varied quite a bit in their reporting of people’s names, showing that they were not asking people “How is that spelled?” but rather writing the name as they thought it should appear. Ryder’s name appears as following in the U.S. census:

1830 census Hiram, Portage, OH: Simonds Rider
1840 census Hiram, Portage, OH: Symonds Rider
1850 census Hiram, Portage, OH: Simonds Rider, wife Mahitabel
1860 census Hiram, Portage, OH: Symonds Rider, wife Mehitable
1870 census Hiram, Portage, OH: Symands Rider, wife Mahitable

Ryder’s commission with the misspelling of his name took place in June 1831 and may account for his not going to Missouri, but as noted he did not leave the church until Ezra Booth’s return in September. In the meantime, Ryder became concerned about other developments. In a letter to A.S. Hayden he wrote:

“But when they [Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon] went to Missouri to lay the foundation of the splendid city of Zion, and also of the temple, they left their papers behind. This gave their new converts an opportunity to become acquainted with the internal arrangement of their church, which revealed to them the horrid fact that a plot was laid to take their property from them and place it under the control of Joseph Smith the prophet. This was too much for the Hiramites, and they left the Mormonites faster than they had ever joined them, and by fall the Mormon church in Hiram was a very lean concern.” (Symonds Ryder, “Letter to A. S. Hayden,” February 1, 1868, cited in Hayden, op. cit., pp. 220, 221.)

It seems that the coming threat of enforced consecration might have been more of a problem for Ryder than the misspelling of his name. The influence of his disaffected friend Ezra Booth must have also had an effect upon Symonds.

The Religion 341 Church History manual states:

“From the outset the Church had an unpopular public image that was added to by apostates and nurtured by the circulation of negative stories and articles in the press. People gave many reasons for apostatizing. For example, Norman Brown left the Church because his horse died on the trip to Zion. Joseph Wakefield withdrew after he saw Joseph Smith playing with children upon coming down from his translating room. Symonds Ryder lost faith in Joseph’s inspiration when Ryder’s name was misspelled in his commission to preach. Others left the Church because they experienced economic difficulties.”

Such a view boils the disaffection of these individuals down to a single, easily dismissed anecdote rather than acknowledging the difficult and complex issues they faced. This practice encourages members today to dismiss the very real concerns confronted by members who question aspects of the Church. “If you have questions, you must be sinning,” the party line goes. In reality, there are multiple tangled and tortuous reasons why someone may develop a crisis of faith. Not only should we look deeper into the available documents to discover the motivations of historical figures, we should listen, and listen, and listen some more to come to a greater understanding of our friends and associates who question.

As for Symonds, poor thing.  If he was really so concerned about spelling, he must have rolled over in his grave when they placed this tombstone — with the name of the “Desciples” church spelled wrong!

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

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

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

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

January 27th 2010 was the Holocaust Memorial Day for the UK, and with my family we attended a small service in Ilford, England at Valentines Park. Readings, prayers, poetry and experiences were shared. Moreover, the youth in our ward had their own Holocaust memorial were we discussed aspects of that tragedy and the meaning that it might have for us today. Participating in this type of memorialising has often made me feel uncomfortable; I feel that I am an outsider to a form of suffering that (part of me) wants to claim as my own.

Positioning oneself in relation to this kind of ‘tribal’ suffering is not an uncommon experience. For example, Hirsch argues that ‘Post-memory’ is a concept that can help thinkers understand the ways in which seminal experiences, specifically those that are traumatic and painful, are transmitted through subsequent generations in a way that re-creates memories in those later generations[2]. As an example Hirsch looks at Holocaust memory and how these events have been a source of mystery and pain for some survivor’s children, a prominent example of the type of literature that such experiences of post-memory produce is ‘Maus’ by Art Spieglman.

These ideas might be important for Latter-day Saints because they provide a possible way of explaining a deeply connection with many of the events of the restoration (but particularly the suffering of the Saints). These feelings can be evocked in a number of ways, they are often linked with images and/or stories. Avard Fairbank’s statue of the couple over a small grave is one such example which resonates with me. It might also explain the emphasis the Church has placed upon its pioneer heritage; for if people are able to connect with this history their conversion becomes one of community (both contemporary and historical) as well as spiritual.

The negative side to this dynamic is that once those connections are made they provide a particular emotional/spiritual relationship that is often based upon ‘truth’.  If someone finds out that the Auschwitz was really just a holiday camp then perhaps we would understand their feeling betrayed.  Is it possible therefore that this process of post-memory is a part of a wider dynamic that binds people to the Church and its heritage but which also rests upon a certain historical veracity. 

Another question this raises pertains to whether such experiences can be accessible to people outside of the blood lines of such early pioneers, is it accessible for non-Americans?

Are such experiences even common to Americans (specifically Mountain Saints)?

I sense that they are accessible, but that this is done in contradictory or conflicting ways.  A Scottish lady once described her first visit to Nauvoo to me. She vividly depicted the buildings and experiences she had seen there. This lady walked away from Nauvoo across the river toward Winter Quarters and her heart broke; she wept as she trod her way up the hill, surprised at her own emotion. Later, while discussing this with a sibling, the sister said “Of course you felt that way, These are our People!”

I am not sure why such connections happen and yet I sense that they are important in establishing our communities. However I also sense that traversing the boundaries that divide us can also create fractures in the way we relate to and negotiate these experiences.  Moreover I believe that creating these connections also means that they are able to be betrayed.  I wonder whether people struggle to connect with Latter-Day Saint history in the same way I have struggled to form a legitimate association with the Holocaust?

Notes:

1. Leonard J. Arrington & Davis Bitton, The Mormon Experience: A History of the Latter-day Saints, 2^nd ed. (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992) 334.

2. Marianne Hirsch “Surviving Images: Holocaust Photographs and the Work of Postmemory,” Yale Journal of Criticism (Spring 2001).

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.

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.

Of course, we know about the persecution of Mormons in the 19th Century and the Jehovah’s Witnesses in the 1930s and ’40s.  We also know that the Seventh-Day Adventists honor the Sabbath on Saturday, which sometimes causes employment problems for them.  Given this history, we could expect that these religions would be the natural beneficiaries of the federal workplace discrimination remedies.

Guess again.

I counted 257 written employment discrimination opinions involving the Mormons, the Seventh-Day Adventists, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Here is a chart showing how this numbers break down among them.

I counted 104 opinions involving Adventists [1], 90 involving Jehovah’s Witnesses [2], and 63 involving Mormons [3].   So far, so good.   No real surprises here.

However, what the chart above does not tell you is the direction of these cases.   By “direction,” I mean who is the plaintiff and who is the defendant. Huh?  In employment discrimination cases, is there any doubt that Mormons, Jehovah’s Witness, Seventh-Day Adventists would generally be plaintiffs rather than defendants? After all, they are minority religions in America. One would think …

As I said, guess again.

Here is another chart, which shows the number of written opinions in employment discrimination, dividing between whether the particular religion is represented by the plaintiff or the defendant.

The Mormons, it seems, have crossed over. Far from being a persecuted minority, they are now more likely to be defendants in employment discrimination controversies, at least judging by those complaints that have resulted in written opinions (and there is no reason to think these opinions are not representative of all cases.)  In these matters, Mormons are not the aggrieved. They have become … The Man.

Of the 63 cases involving Mormons, 41 of them involved Mormons who were defendants, which is far more than those in which they were plaintiffs [4]. This is not yet true of the Adventists, despite their being an increasingly large employer with all their hospitals and schools.   The Adventists were defendants in 29 opinions out of their 104 [5].   It is even less true with the Jehovah’s Witnesses – only seven cases out of 90 [6].

When did this first start to happen?  Rather than engage in some elaborate changepoint analysis, let’s settle for an estimate. Here is a breakdown of the Mormon employment discrimination cases by decade:

It appears that the disparity between Mormon plaintiffs and Mormon defendants in the employment discrimination grew in the 1990s (and shrunk somewhat in the 2000s).   In some ways this is not surprising, given that the Mormon Church was responsible for the Supreme Court decision in the late 1980s which established that churches are immune from Title VII liability.  The case involved a non-Mormon custodian at the Deseret Gym, who chafed under the new requirement that all employees maintain a Temple recommend.  He sued for discrimination and won at the trial level [7], only to have the Supreme Court reverse, concluding that even the profit-making arms of religious institutions are not prohibited from discriminating against non-members [8].

Given that churches are now generally not sued themselves for employment discrimination, the “Mormon defendant” employment cases typically involve individual Mormons who are so concentrated in particular non-religious workplaces that they are allegedly able to practice discrimination against non-Mormons.   The cases in this category involve both private employers and government offices.   These cases are not limited to Utah.   They include the FBI [9], Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico [10], a county government in California [11], and private workplaces in Washington, Colorado, Idaho, Oregon, Michigan, Texas and Pennsylvania [12].

Even anecdotally, there are signs that the Mormons can be quite harsh towards non-members in the workplace, assuming the workplace in question is sufficiently filled with fellow Mormons or the individual Mormon supervisor is adequately powerful.   Interesting, there are a few cases in which active Mormons discriminated against fellow Mormons they felt were not keeping the standards (which I treated as Mormon defendant cases).   A Mormon woman in Wyoming argued that her teaching contract was not renewed because she lived as a single mother in a trailer home and played cards [13].   A Mormon physician’s assistant in Idaho claimed she was punished because her addiction to prescription drugs was un-Mormon-like [14].   An LDS man started getting bad evaluations when he got divorced and started dating a Seventh-Day Adventist [15].   Gentile employees have complained about the overly LDS atmosphere at Franklin-Covey [16].

There is also the less-harsh conduct that, even if less shocking, is just plain annoying.  The following excerpt summarizing allegations from one such case might be familiar to non-Mormons who live in Utah:

The “religiously hostile environment” alleged by Carmody involved incidents of “bickering and division” among employees that divided along religious lines, those who were LDS and those who were not. … According to Carmody’s testimony, employees would have discussions about “lifestyles,” moral versus immoral, the desire by a Mormon employee’s brother to only rent an apartment to a member of the Church, the desire by a Mormon employee to not have to work on Sundays, the feeling by non-LDS employees that they were being “judged” by the Mormon employees, “the LDS factor” was continually brought up in conversation and comments would be made by various LDS members in the Store such as “I can’t believe you were drinking.” [17]

These findings raise the inevitable question, which I cannot answer: given the growth in Mormon defendant employment discrimination cases, why is this not happening to the same extent with the Adventists and the Jehovah’s Witnesses?
_______________

[1] The 104 Adventist employment discrimination case, in chronological order, are Gray v. Gulf, M. & O. R. Co., 429 F.2d 1064 (5th Cir. 1970); Greater New York Corp of Seventh Day Adventists v. Comn on Human, 27 N.Y.2d 898, 317 N.Y.S.2d 368 (N.Y. 1970); Corey v. Avco-Lycoming Division, Avco Corp., 163 Conn. 309, 307 A.2d 155 (Conn. 1972); Scott v. Southern California Gas Co., 1973 WL 328 (C.D. Cal. 1973); U.S. v. City of Albuquerque, 423 F.Supp. 591 (D.N.M. 1975); E.E.O.C. v. Pacific Press Pub. Ass’n,1975 WL 198 (N.D. Cal. 1975); Reid v. Memphis Pub. Co., 521 F.2d 512 (6th Cir. 1975); Whitney v. Greater New York Corp. of Seventh-Day Adventists, 401 F.Supp. 1363 (S.D.N.Y. 1975); Wondzell v. Alaska Wood Products, Inc., 1975 WL 3217 (Alaska Super. 1975); E.E.O.C. v. Pacific Press Pub. Ass’n, 535 F.2d 1182 (9th Cir. 1976); U.S. v. City of Albuquerque, 545 F.2d 110 (10th Cir. 1976); E.E.O.C. v. Howard Johnson Co., 1977 WL 60 (S.D. Ala. 1977); Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Bailey Co., Inc., 563 F.2d 439 (6th Cir. 1977); Bald v. RCA Alascom,569 P.2d 1328 (Alaska 1977); Burns v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co.
589 F.2d 403 (9th Cir. 1978); Padon v. White, 465 F.Supp. 602 (S.D. Tex. 1979); U.S. v. Hawaii County, 473 F.Supp. 261 (D. Haw. 1979; Tooley v. Martin-Marietta Corp., 476 F.Supp. 1027 (D. Or. 1979); E.E.O.C. (U.S.A.) v. Pacific Press Pub. Ass’n, 482 F.Supp. 1291 (N.D. Cal. 1979); McDaniel v. Essex Intern., Inc., 509 F.Supp. 1055 (W.D..Mich. 1981); Tooley v. Martin-Marietta Corp., 648 F.2d 1239 (9th Cir. 1981); .E.E.O.C. v. Pacific Press Pub. Ass’n,676 F.2d 1272 (9th Cir. 1982); Mann v. Milgram Food Stores, Inc.,730 F.2d 1186 (8th Cir. 1984); Anderson v. Phelps, 655 F.Supp. 560 (M.D.La. 1985); Rayburn v. General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, 772 F.2d 1164 (4th Cir. 1985); E.E.O.C. v. Chrysler Corp.,652 F.Supp. 1523 (N.D.Ohio 1987); Howard v. Pine Forge Academy, Pine Forge, Pa., 678 F.Supp. 1120 (E.D.Pa. 1987); Mathewson v. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Com’n,693 F.Supp. 1044 (M.D.Fla. 1988); Lewis v. Lake Region Conference of Seventh Day Adventists, 779 F.Supp. 72 (E.D.Mich. 1991);.Wright v. Frank,1992 WL 521773 (E.D.Wis. 1992);
Moreman v. Georgia Power Co.,1992 WL 512351 (N.D.Ga. 1992); Wright v. Runyon, 2 F.3d 214 (7th Cir. 1993); Felt v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 831 F.Supp. 780 (C.D.Cal. 1993); Beadle v. City of Tampa, Fla, 1993 WL 771045 (M.D.Fla. 1993); Burns-Toole v. Byrne,11 F.3d 1270 (5th Cir. 1994); New York City Transit Authority v. State, Executive Dept., Div.,211 A.D.2d 220, 627 N.Y.S.2d 360 (N.Y.A.D. 1995); Pierce v. Iowa-Missouri Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, 534 N.W.2d 425 (Iowa 1995); Opuku-Boateng v. State of Cal., 95 F.3d 1461 (9th Cir. 1996); Tincher v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 118 F.3d 1125 (7th Cir. 1997); Sanders v. Women’s Treatment Center, 9 F.Supp.2d 929 (N.D.Ill. 1998); Turner v. Chicago S.D.A. Academy, 1998 WL 808993 (N.D.Ill. 1998); E.E.O.C. v. Union Independiente de la Autoridad de Acueductos, 30 F.Supp.2d 217 (D.P.R. 1998); Clapper v. Chesapeake Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, 166 F.3d 1208 (4th Cir. 1998); Van Cleve v. Nordstrom, Inc., 64 F.Supp.2d 459 (E.D.Pa. 1999); Franks v. Natl. Lime & Stone Co., 138 Ohio App.3d 124, 740 N.E.2d 694 (Ohio App. 3 Dist. 2000); Durant v. Nynex, 101 F.Supp.2d 227 (S.D.N.Y. 2000); Rochester v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield, 2000 WL 1052064 (E.D.N.Y. 2000); E.E.O.C. v. Union Independiente de la Autoridad de Acueductos, 103 F.Supp.2d 480 (D.P.R. 2000); Singla v. Adventist Health Partners, Inc., 2001 WL 138905 (N.D.Ill. 2001); McCandless v. Health Care at Home Plus, 2001 WL 62862 (N.D.Ill. 2001); Allen v. U.S. Postal Service, 4 Fed.Appx. 894 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Mayers v. Washington Adventist Hosp., 131 F.Supp.2d 743 (D.Md. 2001); Stone v. West, 133 F.Supp.2d 972 (E.D.Mich. 2001); E.E.O.C. v. Union Independiente de la Autoridad de Acueductos, 279 F.3d 49 (1st Cir. 2002); E.E.O.C. v. Dalfort Aerospace, L.P.2002 WL 255486(N.D.Tex. 2002); Bryce v. Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Colorado,289 F.3d 648 (10th Cir. 2002); Griffin-Baez v. The Institute for Responsible Fatherhood, 2002 WL 1143738 (S.D.N.Y. 2002); E.E.O.C. v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 2002 WL 1447582 (E.D.N.Y. 2002); Gilpin v. Phillip Morris Intern., Inc., 2002 WL 1461433 (S.D.N.Y. 2002); Rose v. Potter, , 2002 WL 31738799 (N.D.Ill. 2002); Cardone v. Pereze, 57 Mass.App.Ct. 1103, 781 N.E.2d 70 (Mass.App.Ct. 2003).Martin v. Enterprise Rent-a-Car, 2003 WL 187432 (E.D.Pa. 2003); Vaughn v. Waffle House, Inc., 263 F.Supp.2d 1075 ((N.D.Tex. 2003); Jensen v. Walla Walla College, 117 Wash.App. 1033, 2003 WL 21404553 (Wash.App. Div. 3 2003); Reyes v. New York State Office of Children and Family Services, 2003 WL 21709407 (S.D.N.Y. 2003); O’Brien v. City of Springfield, 319 F.Supp.2d 90 (D.Mass. 2003); Rose v. Potter, 90 Fed.Appx. 951 (7th Cir. 2004); Cuellar v. House of Doolittle, Ltd., 2004 WL 1718417 (N.D.Ill 2004); Kidd v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 2005 WL 3988832 (E.D.Va. 2005); Douglas v. Eastman Kodak Co, 373 F.Supp.2d 218 (W.D.N.Y. 2005); Rice v. U.S.F. Holland, Inc., 410 F.Supp.2d 1301 (N.D.Ga. 2005); Filinovich v. Claar, 2005 WL 2709284 (N.D.Ill. 2005); Gent v. Pride Ambulance Co., 2006 WL 66420 (Mich.App. 2006); Molina Viera v. Yacoub, 425 F.Supp.2d 202 (D.P.R.  006); Stephens v. Kettering Adventist Healthcare, 182 Fed.Appx. 418 (6th Cir. 2006); Richardson v. Dougherty County, Ga, 185 Fed.Appx. 785 (11th Cir. 2006); Filinovich v. Claar, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2006 WL 1994580 (N.D.Ill. 2006); Jones v. Bellsouth, 2006 WL 1994881 (S.D.Miss. 2006); Morrissette-Brown v. Mobile Infirmary Medical Center, 2006 WL 1999133 (S.D.Ala. 2006); Pressley v. Northeastern Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, 2006 WL 2482435 (E.D.N.Y. 2006);  Sturgill v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 2006 WL 2596080 (W.D.Ark. 2006);  Smith v. Forster and Garbus, 2006 WL 2711602 (E.D.N.Y. 2006); Redhead v. Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, 2006 WL 2729035 (E.D.N.Y. 2006); Sturgill v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 2006 WL 3147665(W.D.Ark. 2006); Madson v. Western Oregon Conference Ass’n of Seventh-Day Adventists, 209 Or.App. 380, 149 P.3d 217 (Or.App. 2006); Ludwig v. IPC Print Services, Inc., Not Reported in N.W.2d, 2007 WL 466133 (Mich.App. 2007); Newton v. Potter, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2007 WL 1035002 (D.S.C. 2007); Walker v. H. Councill Trenholm State Technical College, 2007 WL 1140423 (M.D.Ala. 2007); Davis v. AltaCare Corp., 2007 WL 2026438 (S.D.Miss. 2007); 90 Ford v. City of Dallas, Tex., 2007 WL 2051016 (N.D.Tex. 2007); Wilburn v. Y.M.C.A. of Greater Indianapolis (Ransburg Branch), 2007 WL 2752391 (S.D.Ind. 2007); Howard v. Life Care Centers of America, of Tennessee, 2007 WL 5023585 (M.D.Fla. 2007);  Morrissette-Brown v. Mobile Infirmary Medical Center, 506 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2007); Robinson v. Adventist Health System, 259 Fed.Appx. 245 (11th Cir. 2007); Leonce v. Callahan, 2008 WL 58892 (N.D.Tex. 2008); Sturgill v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 512 F.3d 1024 (8th Cir. 2008); Pipkins v. Service Corp. Intern.; Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2008 WL 1869737 (E.D.Tenn. 2008); Ellington v. Murray Energy Corp., 2008 WL 2019549 (D.Utah 2008); Redhead v. Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 566 F.Supp.2d 125 (E.D.N.Y.,2008); Jones v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 2008 WL 2627675 (N.D.Tex. 2008); and Jones v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 307 Fed.Appx. 864 (5th Cir. 2009).

[2] The 90 Jehovah’s Witnesses employment discrimination cases, in chronological order, are Bacher v. City of North Ridgeville, 47 Ohio App.2d 164, 352 N.E.2d 627 (Ohio App. 1975); Redmond v. GAF Corp., 574 F.2d 897 (7th Cir. 1978); Gavin v. Peoples Natural Gas Co., 464 F.Supp. 622 (W.D. Pa. 1979); Palmer v. Board of Ed. of City of Chicago, 466 F.Supp. 600 (N.D. Ill. 1979); Palmer v. Board of Ed. of City of Chicago, 603 F.2d 1271 (7th Cir. 1979); Gavin v. Peoples Natural Gas Co., 613 F.2d 482 (3rd Cir. 1980); .Kinniburgh v. Burlington Northern R. Co., 568 F.Supp. 655 (D. Mont. 1983); Bottini v. Sadore Management Corp., 764 F.2d 116 (2nd Cir. 1985); New Hanover Human Relations Com’n v. Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc., 83 N.C.App. 662, 351 S.E.2d 560 (N.C.App.1987); E.E.O.C. v. Chrysler Corp., 652 F.Supp. 1523 (N.D.Ohio 1987); Bottini v. Sadore Management Corp., 1987 WL 16147 (S.D.N.Y. 1987); Kentucky Com’n on Human Rights v. Lesco Mfg. & Design Co., Inc., 736 S.W.2d 361 (Ky.App. 1987); Diffay v. American Tel. and Tel. Co. 1988 WL 53209 (N.D.Ill. 1988); Darden v. Dandridge, 1988 WL 126527 ((D.D.C. 1988); Bottini v. Sadore Management, Corp., 1988 WL 78377 (S.D.N.Y. 1988); Bielert v. Northern Ohio Properties, 863 F.2d 47 (6th Cir. 1988); Jones v. Jones Bros. Const. Co., Not Reported in F.Supp., 1988 WL 142242 (N.D.Ill. 1988); Jones v. Jones Bros. Const. Corp.,879 F.2d 295 (7th Cir. 1989); E.E.O.C. v. Hacienda Hotel, 881 F.2d 1504 (9th Cir. 1989); 20 White v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 1990 WL 114478 (N.D.Ill. 1990); Bowdish v. Continental Accessories, Inc., 1991 WL 519742 (W.D.Mich. 1991); Sullivan v. Continental Accessories, Inc., 1991 WL 420042 (W.D.Mich. 1991); Darden v. Dandridge, 1991 WL 111439 (D.D.C. 1991); Bowdish v. Continental Accessories, Inc., 966 F.2d 1451 (6th Cir. 1992); Jones v. Memorial Medical Center, Inc., 1992 WL 370803 (S.D.Ga. 1992); Miner v. City of Glens Falls, 999 F.2d 655 (2nd Cir. 1993); Powell v. Rice, 5 F.3d 1494 (5th Cir. 1993); Currie v. Kowalewski, 842 F.Supp. 57 (N.D.N.Y. 1994); Kelly v. Municipal Court of Marion County 852 F.Supp. 724 (S.D.Ind. 1994); Russell v. Acme-Evans Co., 881 F.Supp. 378 (S.D.Ind. 1994); Featherstone v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 1994 WL 504804 (D.Md. 1994); Johnson v. Office of Senate Fair Employment Practices, 35 F.3d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Lane v. Hughes Aircraft Co., Inc., 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 97 (Cal.Super. 1994); Brewer v. J.A. Peterson Realty Co. of Kansas, Inc., 1994 WL 731520 (D.Kan. 1994); Featherstone v. U.P. Services, Inc., 56 F.3d 61 (4th Cir. 1995);Kelly v. Municipal Courts of Marion County, Ind., 97 F.3d 902 (7th Cir. 1996); Engstrom v. Kinney System, Inc., 241 A.D.2d 420, 661 N.Y.S.2d 610 (N.Y.A.D. 1997); Soto v. Bronx Lebanon Hosp., 1997 WL 452028 (S.D.N.Y. 1997);Banks v. Babbitt, 163 F.3d 605 (9th Cir. 1998); 40 Silas-Blumenberg v. J.C. Penney, 1999 WL 1046411 (N.D.Ill. 1999); Weber v. Roadway Exp., Inc., 199 F.3d 270 (5th Cir. 2000); Bremiller v. Cleveland Psychiatric Institute, 195 F.R.D. 1 (N.D.Ohio 2000); Prunella v. Carlshire Tenants, Inc., 94 F.Supp.2d 512 (S.D.N.Y. 2000); Stephen v. Maximum Sec. & Investigations, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2000 WL 1774849 (S.D.N.Y. 2000); Parmlee v. State of Connecticut Dept. of Revenue Services, 160 F.Supp.2d 294 (D.Conn. 2001); Brantley v. Bassfield, 2001 WL 1175085 (D.Kan. 2001); Bushouse v. Local Union 2209, United Auto., Aerospace, 164 F.Supp.2d 1066 (N.D.Ind.,2001); King v. U.S. Postal Service, 2002 WL 1067825 (S.D.N.Y. 2002); Mason v. Bio-Rad Laboratories, 2002 WL 1419930 (Cal.App. 1 Dist 2002); Lawson v. Washington, 296 F.3d 799 (9th Cir. 2002); Thompson v. Jasas Corp., 212 F.Supp.2d 21 (D.D.C. 2002); Rossi v. Troy State University 330 F.Supp.2d 1240 (M.D.Ala. 2002); Murray v. Kaiser Permanente, 52 Fed.Appx. 725 (6th Cir. 2002); Pedroza v. Cintas Corp., 2003 WL 828237 (W.D.Mo. 2003); Watson v. Adecco Employment Services, Inc., 252 F.Supp.2d 1347 (M.D.Fla. 2003); Velez-Sotomayor v. Progreso Cash and Carry, Inc., 279 F.Supp.2d 65 (D.P.R. 2003); Limon v. City of Liberal, Kansas, 2003 WL 21659655 (D.Kan. 2003); Richardson v. Metropolitan Dist. Com’n, 2003 WL 21727781 (D.Conn. 2003); Scott v. Falcon Transport Co., 2003 WL 22939464 (Ohio App. 7 Dist. 2003); 60 Diaz v. Weill Medical Center of Cornell University, 2004 WL 285947 (S.D.N.Y. 2004); Nichols v. Caroline County Bd. of Educ., 2004 WL 350337 (D.Md. 2004); Meraz v. Jo-Ann Stores, Inc., 2004 WL 882458 (C.D.Cal. 2004); Johnson v. Spencer Press of Maine, Inc., 364 F.3d 368 (1st Cir. 2004); California Fair Employment and Housing Com’n v. Gemini Aluminum, 122 Cal.App.4th 1004, 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 906 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 2004); Chan v. Sprint Corp., 351 F.Supp.2d 1197 (D.Kan 2005); Pedroza v. Cintas Corp. No. 2, 397 F.3d 1063 (8th Cir. 2005); Wheeler v. Voicestream Wireless Services, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2005 WL 1240797 (M.D.Pa. 2005); Derusha v. Detroit Jewish News & Style Magazine, 132 Fed.Appx. 629 (6th Cir. 2005); Reddicks v. Pacific Maritime Ass’n, 2005 WL 1838632 (W.D.Wash. 2005); Aportela v. Barnhart 2005 WL 1958963 (W.D.Tex. 2005); Matos v. PNC Financial Services Group, 2005 WL 2656675 (D.N.J. 2005); Carter v. Diamondback Golf Club, Inc., 2006 WL 229304 (M.D.Fla. 2006); E.E.O.C. v. Dresser-Rand Co., 2006 WL 1994792 (W.D.N.Y. 2006); Crawford v. New York Life Ins. Co., 2006 WL 2792779 (E.D.N.Y. 2006); Jackson v. Light of Life Ministries, Inc., 2006 WL 2974162 (W.D.Pa. 2006); Wright v. Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc., 2006 WL 3694607 (E.D.Mich. 2006); Edwards v. Creoks Mental Health Services, Inc. 505 F.Supp.2d 1080 (N.D.Okla. 2007); Barnes v. Federal Exp. Corp., 2007 WL 405686 (E.D. Mich. 1997); Richardson v. JM Smith Corp., 473 F.Supp.2d 1317 (M.D.Ga. 2007); 80 Smoke v. National Elec. Carbon Products, Inc., 2007 WL 465574 (M.D.Pa. 2007); Griffin v. Scottsdale Unified School Dist. No. 48, 2007 WL 552216 (D.Ariz. 2007); DeRusha v. Detroit Jewish News and Style Magazine, 2007 WL 778488 (E.D.Mich. 2007); Jones v. General Motors Corp., 2007 WL 1023859 (S.D.Ohio 2007); Jackson v. Potter, 240 Fed.Appx. 136 (7th Cir. 2007); Marchant v. Tsickritzis, 506 F.Supp.2d 63 (D.Mass. 2007); Bush v. Regis Corp., 257 Fed.Appx. 219 (11th Cir. 2007); Drewery v. Mervyns Dept. Store, 2007 WL 4561099 (W.D.Wash. 2007); E.E.O.C. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P.,550 F.3d 704 (8th Cir. 2008); Faison v. Leonard St., LLC, Slip Copy, 2009 WL 636724 (S.D.N.Y. 2009); and Pledger v. Mayview Convalescent Home, Inc., Slip Copy, 2009 WL 1010428 (E.D.N.C. 2009).

[3] The Mormon employment discrimination cases are Stoddard v. School Dist. No. 1, Lincoln County, Wyo., 590 F.2d 829 (10th Cir. 1979); Larsen v. Kirkham, 499 F.Supp. 960 (D. Utah 1980); Manale v. City of New Orleans, Dept. of Police, 673 F.2d 122 (5th Cir. 1982); Lanyon v. University of Delaware, 544 F.Supp. 1262 (D. Del. 1982); Amos v. Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 594 F.Supp. 791 (D. Utah 1984); Potter v. Murray City, 585 F.Supp. 1126 (D. Utah 1984); Garfield v. U.S. 6 Cl.Ct. 54 (Cl Ct. 1984); Potter v. Murray City, 760 F.2d 1065 (10th Cir. 1985); Amos v. Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 618 F.Supp. 1013 (D. Utah 1985); Ninth & O Street Baptist Church v. E.E.O.C., 633 F.Supp. 229 (W.D.Ky. 1986); Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327, 107 S.Ct. 2862 (1987); Mitchell v. Frank R. Howard Memorial Hosp., 853 F.2d 762 (9th Cir 1988); Perez v. F.B.I., 707 F.Supp. 891 (W.D.Tex. 1988); Summers v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co, 864 F.2d 700 (10th Cir. 1988); Barlow v. Blackburn, 165 Ariz. 351, 798 P.2d 1360 (Ariz.App. 1990); Shapolia v. Los Alamos Nat. Laboratory, 773 F.Supp. 304 (D.N.M. 1991); Shapolia v. Los Alamos Nat. Laboratory, 992 F.2d 1033 (10th Cir. 1993); Shapolia v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 13 F.3d 406 (10th Cir. 1993); Sudtelgte v. Reno, 1994 WL 3406 (W.D.Mo. 1994); 20 Barlow v. Blackburn, 38 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 1994); DeVore v. IHC Hospitals, Inc., 884 P.2d 1246 (Utah 1994); Luce v. Dalton,166 F.R.D. 457 (S.D.Cal. 1996); Scott v. County of Lake 1996 WL 479043 (N.D.Cal. 1996); Peterson v. Minidoka County School Dist. No. 331, 118 F.3d 1351 (9th Cir. 1997); Horvath v. Savage Mfg., Inc., 18 F.Supp.2d 1296 (D. Utah 1998); Nielson v. AgriNorthwest, 95 Wash.App. 571, 977 P.2d 613 (Wash.App. Div. 3 1999); Soto v. Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 73 F.Supp.2d 116 (D.P.R.1999); King v. Healthrider, Inc., 194 F.3d 1312 (6th Cir. 1999); Garfield v. Department of Health and Human Services, 230 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Johnson v. Express Rent & Own, Inc., 98 Wash.App. 1066, 2000 WL 48534 (Wash.App. Div. 2 2000); Galloway v. Alltel Communications, Inc., 2001 WL 34149071 (N.D.Iowa 2001); Erdmann v. Tranquility Inc., 155 F.Supp.2d 1152 (N.D.Cal. 2001); Thompson v. St. Johns Unified School Dist., 26 Fed.Appx. 712 (9th Cir. 2002); Bryce v. Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Colorado, 289 F.3d 648 (10th Cir. 2002); Black v. Premier Co., 2002 WL 1471717 (E.D.Pa. 2002); Black v. Premier Co., 2002 WL 31045854 (E.D.Pa. 2002); Black v. Premier Co., 2002 WL 32122658 (E.D.Pa. 2002); Gee v. Dallas, 2002 WL 31627253 (N.D.Tex. 2002); Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Medicine, 363 F.3d 916 (9th Cir. 2004); Korslund v. Dyncorp Tri-Cities Services, Inc., 121 Wash.App. 295, 88 P.3d 966 (Wash.App. Div. 3 2004); Cook v. Corporation of President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 121 Fed.Appx. 326 (10th Cir. 2005); Griffith v. Schnitzer Steel Industries, Inc., 128 Wash.App. 438, 115 P.3d 1065 (Wash.App. Div. 2 2005); Knudsen ex rel. Estate of Knudsen v. City of Tacoma, 2005 WL 3418413 (W.D.Wash. 2005); Ashford v. City of Lake Ozark, Mo., 2006 WL 222124 (W.D.Mo. 2006); Norton v. FirstEnergy Corp., Not Reported in N.E.2d, 2006 WL 459266 (Ohio App. 7 Dist. 2006); Barcikowski v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 420 F.Supp.2d 1163 (D.Colo. 2006); Carmody v. Bed Bath & Beyond, 2006 WL 1128216 (D.Idaho 2006); Hinds v. Sprint/United Management Co., 2006 WL 3715905 (D.Kan. 2006); Gee v. Kempthorne, , 2007 WL 317051 (D.Idaho 2007); Eberhardt v. First Centrum, LLC, 2007 WL 518896 (E.D.Mich. 2007); Pangerl v. Ehrlich, 2007 WL 686703 (D.Ariz. 2007); Tipnis v. Emery Telephone, 2007 WL 1306495 (D.Colo. 2007); Moore v. Avon Products, Inc., 2007 WL 2900204 (N.D.Cal. 2007); Jordan v. County of Clark, 253 Fed.Appx. 694 (9th Cir. 2007); Tudor Delcey v. A-Dec, Inc., 2008 WL 123855 (D.Or. 2008); Cutter v. RailAmerica, Inc., 2008 WL 163016 (D.Colo. 2008); DeFrietas v. Horizon Inv. & Management Corp.,  2008 WL 204473 (D.Utah 2008); Alawi v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 544 F.Supp.2d 1171 (W.D.Wash. 2008); Ford v. Flannery, 2008 WL 821686 (N.D.Ind. 2008); Dolgaleva v. Virginia Beach City Public Schools, 541 F.Supp.2d 817 (E.D.Va. 2008); Stewart v. Arizona, 2007 WL 1876381 (D.Ariz. 2007); Webb v. ATK Thiokol Inc., Slip Copy, 2009 WL 2043853 (D.Utah 2009); and DeFreitas v. Horizon Inv. Management Corp., — F.3d —-, 2009 WL 2482030 (10th Cir. 2009).

[4] The “Mormon defendant” employment discrimination cases are Stoddard v. School Dist. No. 1, Lincoln County, Wyo., 590 F.2d 829 (10th Cir. 1979); Larsen v. Kirkham, 499 F.Supp. 960 (D. Utah 1980); Lanyon v. University of Delaware, 544 F.Supp. 1262 (D. Del. 1982); Amos v. Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 594 F.Supp. 791 (D. Utah 1984); Amos v. Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 618 F.Supp. 1013 (D. Utah 1985); Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327, 107 S.Ct. 2862 (1987); Perez v. F.B.I., 707 F.Supp. 891 (W.D.Tex. 1988); Shapolia v. Los Alamos Nat. Laboratory, 773 F.Supp. 304 (D.N.M. 1991); Shapolia v. Los Alamos Nat. Laboratory, 992 F.2d 1033 (10th Cir. 1993); Shapolia v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 13 F.3d 406 (10th Cir. 1993); Sudtelgte v. Reno, 1994 WL 3406 (W.D.Mo.,1994); DeVore v. IHC Hospitals, Inc., 884 P.2d 1246 (Utah 1994); Luce v. Dalton, 166 F.R.D. 457 (S.D.Cal. 1996); Scott v. County of Lake, 1996 WL 479043 (N.D.Cal. 1996); Horvath v. Savage Mfg., Inc., 18 F.Supp.2d 1296 (D.Utah 1998); Nielson v. AgriNorthwest, 95 Wash.App. 571, 977 P.2d 613 (Wash.App. Div. 3 1999); Soto v. Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ, 73 F.Supp.2d 116 (D.P.R. 1999); King v. Healthrider, Inc., 194 F.3d 1312 (6th Cir. 1999); Erdmann v. Tranquility Inc., 155 F.Supp.2d 1152 (N.D.Cal. 2001); Thompson v. St. Johns Unified School Dist., 26 Fed.Appx. 712 (9th Cir. 2002); Bryce v. Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Colorado, 289 F.3d 648 (10th Cir. 2002); Black v. Premier Co., 2002 WL 1471717 (E.D.Pa. 2002); Black v. Premier Co., 2002 WL 31045854 (E.D.Pa.,2002);
Black v. Premier Co., 2002 WL 32122658 (E.D.Pa. 2002); Gee v. Dallas, 2002 WL 31627253 (N.D.Tex. 2002); Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Medicine, 363 F.3d 916 (9th Cir. 2004); Korslund v. Dyncorp Tri-Cities Services, Inc., 121 Wash.App. 295, 88 P.3d 966 (Wash.App. Div. 3 2004); Cook v. Corporation of President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 121 Fed.Appx. 326 (10th Cir. 2005); Knudsen ex rel. Estate of Knudsen v. City of Tacoma, 2005 WL 3418413 (W.D.Wash. 2005); Barcikowski v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 420 F.Supp.2d 1163 (D.Colo. 2006); Carmody v. Bed Bath & Beyond, 2006 WL 1128216 (D.Idaho 2006); Eberhardt v. First Centrum, LLC, 2007 WL 518896 ((E.D.Mich. 2007); Tipnis v. Emery Telephone, 2007 WL 1306495 (D.Colo. 2007); Moore v. Avon Products, Inc., 2007 WL 2900204 (N.D.Cal. 2007);. Tudor Delcey v. A-Dec, Inc., 2008 WL 123855 (D.Or. 2008);. DeFrietas v. Horizon Inv. & Management Corp., 2008 WL 204473 (D.Utah 2008);.Alawi v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 544 F.Supp.2d 1171 (W.D.Wash. 2008); Stewart v. Arizona, 2007 WL 1876381 (D.Ariz. 2007); Webb v. ATK Thiokol Inc., Slip Copy, 2009 WL 2043853 (D.Utah 2009); and DeFreitas v. Horizon Inv. Management Corp., — F.3d —-, 2009 WL 2482030 (10th Cir. 2009).

[5] The “Adventist defendant” employment discrimination cases are Greater New York Corp of Seventh Day Adventists v. Comn on Human, 27 N.Y.2d 898, 317 N.Y.S.2d 368 (N.Y. 1970); E.E.O.C. v. Pacific Press Pub. Ass’n,1975 WL 198 (C.D. Cal. 1975); Whitney v. Greater New York Corp. of Seventh-Day Adventists, 401 F.Supp. 1363 (S.D.N.Y. 1975); E.E.O.C. v. Pacific Press Pub. Ass’n, 535 F.2d 1182 (9th Cir. 1976); E.E.O.C. (U.S.A.) v. Pacific Press Pub. Ass’n, 482 F.Supp. 1291 (C.D.Cal. 1979); E.E.O.C. v. Pacific Press Pub. Ass’n, 676 F.2d 1272 (9th Cir. 1982); Rayburn v. General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, 772 F.2d 1164 (4th Cir. 1985);;Howard v. Pine Forge Academy, Pine Forge, Pa., 678 F.Supp. 1120 (E.D.Pa. 1987); Lewis v. Lake Region Conference of Seventh Day Adventists, 779 F.Supp. 72 (E.D.Mich. 1991); Pierce v. Iowa-Missouri Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, 534 N.W.2d 425 (Iowa 1995); Turner v. Chicago S.D.A. Academy, 1998 WL 808993 (N.D.Ill. 1998); Clapper v. Chesapeake Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, 166 F.3d 1208 (4th Cir. 1998); Singla v. Adventist Health Partners, Inc., 2001 WL 138905 (N.D.Ill. 2001); McCandless v. Health Care at Home Plus, 2001 WL 62862, (N.D.Ill.,2001); Mayers v. Washington Adventist Hosp., 131 F.Supp.2d 743 (D.Md. 2001); Bryce v. Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Colorado, 289 F.3d 648 (10th Cir. 2002); Griffin-Baez v. The Institute for Responsible Fatherhood, 2002 WL 1143738 (S.D.N.Y. 2002); Cardone v. Pereze, 57 Mass.App.Ct. 1103, 781 N.E.2d 70 (Mass.App.Ct. 2003); Jensen v. Walla Walla College 117 Wash.App. 1033, 2003 WL 21404553 (Wash.App. Div. 3 2003); Reyes v. New York State Office of Children and Family Services 2003 WL 21709407 (S.D.N.Y. 2003); O’Brien v. City of Springfield, 319 F.Supp.2d 90 (D.Mass. 2003); Stephens v. Kettering Adventist Healthcare,182 Fed.Appx. 418 (6th Cir. 2006); Pressley v. Northeastern Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, 2006 WL 2482435(E.D.N.Y. 2006); Redhead v. Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, 2006 WL 2729035 (E.D.N.Y 2006); Madson v. Western Oregon Conference Ass’n of Seventh-Day Adventists, 209 Or.App. 380, 149 P.3d 217 (Or.App. 2006); Davis v. AltaCare Corp., 2007 WL 2026438 (S.D.Miss. 2007); Robinson v. Adventist Health System, 259 Fed.Appx. 245 (11th Cir. 2007); Redhead v. Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 566 F.Supp.2d 125 (E.D.N.Y. 2008); and Williamson v. Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc., Slip Copy, 2009 WL 1393471 (M.D.Fla 2009).

[6] The Jehovah’s defendant employment discrimination cases are Bielert v. Northern Ohio Properties, 863 F.2d 47 (6th Cir. 1988); Jones v. Jones Bros. Const. Co., 1988 WL 142242 (N.D.Ill. 1988); Jones v. Jones Bros. Const. Corp., 879 F.2d 295 (7th Cir. 1989); Bowdish v. Continental Accessories, Inc., 1991 WL 519742 (W.D.Mich.,1991); Sullivan v. Continental Accessories, Inc., 1991 WL 420042 (W.D.Mich. 1991); Bowdish v. Continental Accessories, Inc., 966 F.2d 1451 (6th Cir. 1992); and Johnson v. Office of Senate Fair Employment Practices, 35 F.3d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

[7] Amos v. Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 594 F.Supp. 791 (D. Utah 1984); Amos v. Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 618 F.Supp. 1013 (D. Utah 1985).

[8] Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327, 107 S.Ct. 2862 (1987).

[9] Perez v. F.B.I., 707 F.Supp. 891 (W.D.Tex. 1988); Sudtelgte v. Reno, 1994 WL 3406 (W.D.Mo.,1994).

[10] Shapolia v. Los Alamos Nat. Laboratory, 773 F.Supp. 304 (D.N.M. 1991); Shapolia v. Los Alamos Nat. Laboratory, 992 F.2d 1033 (10th Cir. 1993).

[11] Scott v. County of Lake, 1996 WL 479043 (N.D.Cal. 1996).

[12] Nielson v. AgriNorthwest, 95 Wash.App. 571, 977 P.2d 613 (Wash.App. Div. 3 1999); King v. Healthrider, Inc., 194 F.3d 1312 (6th Cir. 1999); Gee v. Dallas, 2002 WL 31627253 (N.D.Tex. 2002); Korslund v. Dyncorp Tri-Cities Services, Inc., 121 Wash.App. 295, 88 P.3d 966 (Wash.App. Div. 3 2004); Barcikowski v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 420 F.Supp.2d 1163 (D.Colo. 2006); Carmody v. Bed Bath & Beyond, 2006 WL 1128216 (D.Idaho 2006); Eberhardt v. First Centrum, LLC, 2007 WL 518896 ((E.D.Mich. 2007); Tipnis v. Emery Telephone, 2007 WL 1306495 (D.Colo. 2007); and Alawi v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 544 F.Supp.2d 1171 (W.D.Wash. 2008).

[13] Stoddard v. School Dist. No. 1, Lincoln County, Wyo., 590 F.2d 829 (10th Cir. 1979).

[14] Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Medicine, 363 F.3d 916 (9th Cir. 2004).

[15] Nielson v. AgriNorthwest, 95 Wash.App. 571, 977 P.2d 613 (Wash.App. Div. 3 1999).

[16] Black v. Premier Co., 2002 WL 1471717 (E.D.Pa. 2002); Black v. Premier Co., 2002 WL 31045854 (E.D.Pa. 2002); and Black v. Premier Co., 2002 WL 32122658 (E.D.Pa. 2002).

[17] Carmody v. Bed Bath & Beyond, 2006 WL 1128216 (D.Idaho 2006).

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

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

—————

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

His early prototypes of the temple practice we know today started in Kirtland, where they were much different.  Participants would fast for a day or two, attend to ritual washings and annointings to symbolically cleanse and purify themselves, and then participate in intense prayers, blessings, and expressions of spiritual gifts.  The goal was to have a transcendent vision of the divine.  It seemed that Joseph wanted many people to tap into what he was experiencing.  People who participated described him trying to get it all just write, to set groups participating in proper order, kind of feeling his way through to getting people into that mystical state.

I recently ran across this paragraph that made such a good summary:

Endowment, Joseph’s name for the temple ceremony, connected it to promises made long before his encounter with Freemasonry. In early revelations, the word “endowment” referred to seeing God, a bequest of Pentecostal spiritual light. The use of the word “endowment” in Nauvoo implied that the goal of coming into God’s presence would be realized now through ritual rather than a transcendent vision. This transition gave Mormonism’s search for direct access to God an enduring form. David Hume, the eighteenth-century empiricist and critic of “enthusiastic” religion, had observed that outbursts of visions and revelations soon sputtered out. They lacked form to keep them alive. They could not endure because they had “no rites, no ceremonies, no holy observances, which may enter into the common train of life, and preserve the sacred principles from oblivion.” To remain in force, “enthusiasm” had to be embodied in holy practice. Ann Taves, a modern scholar of religion, has added that “direct inspiration survives only when it is supported by a sacred mythos embedded in sacred practices.” The Mormon temple’s sacred story stabilized and perpetuated the original enthusiastic endowment.

-Richard Bushman, “Rough Stone Rolling“ pg 450-451

The temple became a focal point, a place to seek a connection to the divine.  Sure, it is plain that God does not need a temple to communicate with humankind.  Some of the greatest interactions with God recorded in scripture happened in wilderness settings — no temple or building was required.  But how would one stabilize this experience for a large, growing religion; one that could endure past the life of the mystic founder?  Members of the LDS Church today often go to the temple when they have a pressing personal need to connect with the divine, when they seek answers or feel they need spiritual help and guidance.

Would we be the same church if our method was to fast and hermitage in a cave, or travel out in the wilderness?  Perhaps it is possible, but the temple provides a place of focus for a growing and diverse community within the Church.  It is still a place we see as a source for the transcendent mystical experience.  Participants can experience the ritual and ceremony on many levels, with different views about the purpose depending on their own place of faith.  It can be literal to one person.  It can be symbolic to another.  It can be both and none.  Indeed it has endured past Joseph, the original mystic of our foundation, even if our experience today is not exactly the same as back in the time of Nauvoo or Kirtland.  It serves the same purpose over time.

]]> http://mormonmatters.org/2008/12/24/temple-ceremony-the-stabilizer-for-mystical-enthusiasm/feed/ 7 http://mormonmatters.org/2008/11/24/the-problem-of-history-first-a-fake-example/ http://mormonmatters.org/2008/11/24/the-problem-of-history-first-a-fake-example/#comments Mon, 24 Nov 2008 07:00:30 +0000 Bruce Nielson http://mormonmatters.org/?p=2995 In my past posts I discussed the impossibility of knowing what really happened in history as well as the problem that, believe or disbelieve, we all have much riding on how Mormon history is interpreted. Either way, it’s your personal religion at stake. 

The problem with me saying that is that, well, we all know it’s true — for other people. But due to the narrative fallacy, we think we’re the exception not the rule.

To prove that, at times, we’re all the rule, I am forced to start with a fake example because it is the only way to not derail the conversation immediately.

When Family History and Church Collide

I was studying my family history about an ancestor named Isaac Washington Pierce, Sr. Around the same time I was reading History of the Church. Imagine my surprise when I realized that the two connected; my ancestor is mentioned in History of the Church.

Isaac Pierce was part of the Kirtland camp that left Kirtland to follow Joseph Smith to Missouri. He is listed as being part of the camp on page 93 of History of the Church, Vol 3.

But more importantly the death of his baby, which happened while making the journey to Missouri, is recorded.

Under the Saturday, September 15 entry it states:

“Here T.P. Pierce’s child died, and was buried on Sunday, near Elder Keeler’s house.” (History of the Church, Vol. 3)

But now we have a bit of a problem, the name recorded is “T.P. Pierce” but there is no T.P. Pierce in my family. So could this be another Pierce? Perhaps. But there is no other “Pierce” family listed amongst the Kirtland camp even though History of the Church Vol 3, p 91 – 93 give a full list of the members of the camp.

Our best guess is that T.P. Pierce is Isaac’s wife, whose name is actually Phebe Baldwin Pierce.

But wait, it gets even more messy; my family’s records show the death of Isaac and Phebe’s baby as September 13, 1838, not September 15, 1838. But the Kirtland camp recorder records no deaths on September 13.

Could this be two different Pierce families with two different babies that happened to die two days apart? Well, while we can’t rule out the possibility entirely, the odds are very low. The fact that there is only one I.W. Pierce family listed as being part of the camp on the camp’s constitution and the fact that the initials are close to right – at least they got the “P” right even if it’s in the wrong position – and the fact that there is only one baby’s death recorded twice but within 2 days of each other makes it very likely that this is the same family and same baby’s death we are recording.

And yet we have two dates for the baby’s death. How could this happen? Well, it’s not hard to see that a mistake was obviously made. But which is the mistake? Is it History of the Church or is it my family’s history?

But is this really a concerning discrepancy? Of course not. Discrepancies like this happen all the time in the historical record. Historians must deal with such inconsistencies.

What If It Were Miraculous?

Though this discrepancy is unconcerning, let’s pretend for a moment that we’re dealing with something miraculous rather than mundane. For the sake of argument, pretend like the death of this child connected to a miraculous truth claim of a religion. Let’s get really crazy and let’s pretend that the son of Isaac Washington Pierce Sr. (named Isaac Washington Pierce, Jr.) went on to found the Completely Reformed and Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (CRRLDS) and that his foundational miracle was the visit of an angel and a dictated revelation from the angel that in parts states:

“I come to deliver these truths to you on the 13^th of September, the very date of the death of your father’s child when part of the Kirtland camp traveling to Missouri. For God is mindful of your family.”

We now have a miraculous event tied to one of the two dates in question, which means that the inconsistency just took on a whole new level of importance. What before was clearly just the natural inconsistency of the historical record now becomes the basis for denying the truth claims of the CRRLDS.

So let’s imagine we are anti-CRRLDS’s making an argument that the revelation in question was fraudulent.

The Anti-CRRLDS for September 13 Date Being Wrong

The CRRLDS is clearly making up their founding revelation. The revelation claims to have been delivered on 13 of September, 1838, the date of the death of the Sr. Pierce’s child. But the Kirtland camp recorded keeper gives us the truth date as 15^th of September.

Let’s consider this rationally, what are the odds that the camp record keeper in the Kirtland camp, who was keeping a daily journal, got this date wrong? Pierce Jr. fabricated this revelation on the date he thought the child died, but we know he used the wrong date. My guess is that angels don’t make mistakes like this.

The Apologist Response for September 13 Date

There are two dates recorded, but we feel that the parent’s personal records in question are more likely to be correct. We all know that daily journals sometimes get written days later with retro dates and this could easily be a mistake.

What I find interesting is that the Anti-CRRLDS argument really seems like a good argument. It would cause me to pause and wonder at the possibility that the foundational revelation for the CRRLDS is a fabrication.

And I also have to admit that the apologist response seems weak; it seems like a lame reaction to an obvious factual problem. (“Is that the best you can do?” I think to myself.) Given that I’m not really a fan of the CRRLDS I think this would be a sufficient argument to make me simply dismiss their truth claims out of hand.

But wait! Let’s switch the dates around and try this again! Pretend that the revelation had the date that is listed in History of the Church instead of the date in the family records.

The Anti-CRRLDS for September 15 Date Being Wrong

The CRRLDS is clearly making up their founding revelation. The revelation claims to have been delivered on September 15, 1838, the date of the death of the Sr. Pierce’s child, as recorded and published in History of the Church. . However, we know from family records that the real date of the death of his child was September 13, 1838.

Let’s consider this rationally, what are the odds that the family remembered the death of their own child wrong? Pierce Jr. fabricated this revelation on the date he thought his father’s child died, but we know he used the wrong date. My guess is that angels don’t make mistakes like this.

The Apologist for the CRRLDS for September 15 Date

There are two dates recorded, but we feel that the Kirtland camp recorders date is more likely to be correct. After all, camp recorders often record right on the very day whereas family records are probably recorded later.

Oh my goodness! The Anti-CRRLDS statement still seems strong to me. And the apologist rebuttal still seems weak. I know myself well enough to know I’m still going to dismiss the CRRLDS out of hand based on this attack.

But how could this be? How can either way seem like a legitimate attack and in both cases the apologist rebuttal seems weak?

Two Improbables

The reason both attacks seems strong and both rebuttals seem weak is because the odds of either date being wrong is highly improbable. It makes little sense to our minds that a daily note keeper could record a death on the wrong day but it makes no more sense to us that a family could mis-remember the death of a baby and record it wrong. Yet one of these two improbables happened. The apologists must defend an improbable event to a skeptical audience either way.

When there is nothing miraculous involved with the inconsistent dates, there is really no reason to worry about the improbability of either event, so our minds fill in the gaps without effort. When there is something miraculous at stake, our natural skepticism – and by this I mean our natural bias – kicks in and suddenly the inconsistency seems like a counter proof to the miraculous event.

The Illusion of Information

But does the date discrepancy tell us something meaningful about whether or not the CRRLDS revelation is made up or not?

Since we know this is a real non-miraculous historical discrepancy, and since we know there is no such thing as the CRRLDS, we know this is a made up foundational revelation. But that fact – that this foundational revelation is made up – is literally unrelated to the date issue. It’s like trying to determine the stock market using astrology. The inconsistency of the dates tells us nothing about whether or not this foundational revelation of the CRRLDS is made up.

Let me say it again: Despite what an effective counter argument this seems to be in proving the CRRLDS revelation a fraud, the fact that there is an inconsistency in the dates literally told us nothing about whether or not the CRRLDS revelation was a fraud. Nothing as in zippo, nada, nill, nothing, not a single thing at all.

Both of the “anti” attacks are really just narrative fallacies. Both are 100% information deficient because they convey, in Black Swan terminology, only the illusion of information.

By comparison, the apologists defense really does convey useful information because it concentrates on what we don’t know. It is unfortunate that our brains simply aren’t wired to recognize that the apologists are more factually right then the attackers.

Just the Facts Ma’am

This example will illustrate the problem of history in general and LDS history in particular: so much of it is only the illusion of information. Yet our brains are incapable of identifying the difference between real information and the illusion of information. Yes, there are facts here, but what are they really?

In my made up scenario the undisputed points are: [1]

1. The baby died either on September 13 or September 15.
2. There was a foundational “revelation” for the CRRLDS that mentions one of the two dates.
3. The foundational revelation may or may not be a fraud.

The narrative used by the anti-CRRLDS to “prove” that the foundational revelation is a fraud supplies no information but instead is a good story that helps the information stick in our minds. Our minds, grasping for such a story, can’t help but feel that somehow the narrative conveys additional information that is probably true.

But as we’ve shown, the narrative actually conveys no information at all. All it’s really doing is taking an inconsistency that was naturally supplied by the historical record and then playing off our natural bias against the CRRLDS to help us form a narrative fallacy that explains the data points in an unfriendly way.

Did the Inconsistency Matter In the First Place?

But did this inconsistency even matter at all? I can prove it didn’t. Let’s take our anti-CRRLDS and demand an answer to the one question that really did matter: if the two dates matched would that have convinced them that the revelation was true?

Well, it would seem that fact 1 and fact 3 are unrelated then, because apparently even without an inconsistency, the revelation is still believed to be a fraud. This whole inconsistency never meant a thing to anyone. It’s merely a misdirection to justify a predestined conclusion.

Conclusions

This made up example illustrates the ease with which we can confuse a narrative fallacy that conveys no information at all with real information. It also illustrates that our biases play a substantial role in how we judge narrative fallacies as being meaningful or not – even when they are obviously not meaningful. It also demonstrates that that history is naturally full of improbable inconsistencies and that the existence of these inconsistencies tells us nothing about whether or not the events or related events were fraudulent. It also demonstrates that even if the inconsistencies in the historical record did not exist the probability of fraudulence does not change.

Notes:

[1] I hesitate to even call the above “facts” because in reality the only “facts” we have are that someone said the baby died and died on one of those two days. It’s, of course, possible that baby didn’t die, or that we had two babies, or that both dates are wrong. But since no one is disputing any of that, I’ll stick with my simplified list, even though this list isn’t actually a list of real facts either.

“History is opaque. You see what comes out, not the script that produces events, the generator of history. There is a fundamental incompleteness in your grasp of such events, since you do not see what’s inside the box, how the mechanisms work. …the minds of the gods cannot be read just by witnessing their deeds. You are very likely to be fooled about their intentions.” (The Black Swan, P. 8 )

In a previous post I discussed the realities of The Black Swan, those improbable events that rule our lives but we pretend don’t and can’t happen. I also discussed how in actuality “randomness” is really just incomplete information. And finally I discussed how we feel the need to reverse engineer explanation for historical events — even though it’s impossible — and how, once we do, we have a really hard time realizing that there is more than one viable explanation for the same event. [1]

Which brings me to how this all directly relates to the LDS Church and specifically to the intolerance we show each other on the Bloggernacle at times. It is all directly related to two facts:

1. History is a collection of facts demanding interpretation before we can process them.
2. Thus all history is mostly narrative fallacy.

This means that two people can and will interpret it differently and both will have been fooled by their brains to believe that theirs is the one best way to explain those facts and only an idiot or liar would think otherwise.

It’s not hard to see that this simple explanation explains everything about the relationship between more believing and less believing Mormons. Indeed, it explains the relationship between Mormons and Evagelicals, and Evangelicals and Liberals and… Democrats and Republicans, and Communists and… well… it sort of explains life. Let’s leave it at that.

Why? Because some people have a narrative fallacy in the mind that proves or disproves the truth claims of the LDS Church (or fill in the blank point of view). To those that think they disproved it, it’s just obvious that the LDS Church is not “the one truth church.” Depending on their personal point of view it might also seem “obvious” to them that Joseph Smith was a charlatan, or that he was sincere but misguided, etc. To those that think they have proven it, the same could be said, but in reverse.

Furthermore, anyone that is held bound by a different narrative fallacy must seem like they are being deceptive, or at least brainwashed, by comparison. After all, both of you are being fooled by randomness (i.e. lack of information) on the subject into creating narrative fallacies to explain the outcome. And both of you, having defective brains, can’t help but feel “you’ve figured it all out.”

This is why we need to understand the real limits of history if we are ever to “get along.”

NNT is a huge history buff, so he wanted to treat history and historians well. Unlike financiers, sociologies, and statisticians, which he feels are usually charlatans, the historian’s craft has value even if that value is not actually finding out “what really happened.”

History is useful for the thrill of knowing the past, and for the narrative (indeed), provided it remains a harmless narrative. One should learn under severe caution. History is certainly not a place to theorize or derive general knowledge, nor is it meant to help in the future, without some caution. We can get negative confirmation from history [i.e. find a Black Swan and thereby prove something], which is invaluable, but we get plenty of illusions of knowledge along with it. (p. 199)

NNT’s advice to use history safely is, “Learn to read history, get all the knowledge you can, do not frown on the anecdote, but do not draw any causal links, do not try to reverse engineer too much – but if you do, do not make big scientific claims.” (p. 199)

This seems like obviously good advice, but as NNT points out, it runs counter to the current thinking by modern historians. He quotes historians that are “explicitly pursuing causation as a central aspect of [their] job.” (p. 199) Isn’t that what we’ve always been taught is the whole point of history? Are we not told that historians are to find cause and effect and that this is useful so that we aren’t “doomed to repeat” our mistakes?

His conclusion: “The more we try to turn history into anything other than an enumeration of accounts to be enjoyed with minimal theorizing, the more we get into trouble. Are we so plagued with the narrative fallacy?” (p. 199)

Apologists

Mormon history suffers from an additional issue. It’s inextricably intertwined with religion — on both sides of the divide. Everyone knows that believing Mormons comprehend their history through the filter of their religious beliefs, but disaffected and non-Mormons do as well — and as much.

I believe this is why there are “good” apologists and “bad” apologists. The good apologists will realize the non-rationality of their beliefs (not irrationality, just non-rationality – that their beliefs are not a proven fact) and admit it up front. They will identify their biases clearly to those they address because their goal isn’t to prove. And they will take only a defensive stance (i.e. “you don’t have proof that my beliefs are wrong.”) not an offensive attack. They will never try to prove their beliefs using “reason” – which is really just a series of narrative fallacies – because they will realize there is no proof one way or the others and that rational verification is beyond our reach.

By comparison, the bad apologists will advance their personal narrative fallacies as “proving” their position. They will claim that anyone that does no agree with them, despite having the same facts, is being deceptive or must be intellectually inferior. They will use mockery when confronted with counter facts and will not be able to admit “yes, there is more than one viable way to read these facts, but I read it this way.”

But what is less acknowledged is that we are all apologists, believing or unbelieving. And there are good ones and bad ones on both sides.

So ask yourself, which type of apologist are you? Are you a good apologists or a bad apologist for your belief system?

Notes:

[1] NNT has another excellent quote about this:

The human mind suffers from three ailments as it comes into contact with history, what I call the triplet of opacity. They are:

1. the illusion of understanding, or how everyone thinks he knows what is going on in the world that is more complicated (or random) than they realize;
2. the retrospective distortion, or how we can assess matters only after the fact, as if they were in a rearview mirror (history seems clearer and more organized in history books than in empirical reality); and
3. the overvaluation of factual information and the handicap of authoritative and learned people, particularly when they create categories – when they “Platonify.” (The Black Swan, p. 9)

Hadyn White maintains that every history, in spite of its claims to objectivity, is constructed in literary fashion with traditional literary tropes such as villains, comic reliefs, and heroes. Indeed, White would conclude, we see our very world as a story…and therefore, the job of a historian is to point out our way of making history more than the history itself. Hence, the title of his magnum opus, Metahistory.

So who gets under our collective skin? You know…the folks who have been able to get inside our heads and poke us where it hurts? As we will find (surprise, surprise), there is no one archetype for the Mormon villain. Each of these villains represents a strand of our thought our culture that has been particularly vulnerable. We will see the Benedict Arnolds, the political activists, the heretics, and the downright scoundrels. Some have even worn a denim jumper or two in their lifetime…

Some observations are in order:

A) Some of these individuals, I guarantee, will be seen as heroes by Mormon Matters readers. However, as I’m sure these readers recognize, these heroic efforts are generally those of a dissenter…and in order for a dissenter to become famous, s/he has to tick off the powers that be in large numbers. So alas…they make the list.

B) Most of these villains have varying degrees of admirable traits. We’re talking about perception and not reality. I, for one, would gladly eat lunch with most “villains” on this list.

So behold…

10. Emma Smith

Poor sister Emma…while she is beloved as a heroine in much of the contemporary Church (of course, we all have the resident Emma-hater), Emma was not always perceived as one. In the aftermath of the Exodus from Nauvoo, Emma not only stayed behind but also kept several of Joseph’s personal belongings that Brigham believed belonged to the Church. In addition, she offered some support to Joseph III in establishing the RLDS church. Her son, David, eventually went to a mental institution in the aftermath of learning of his father’s polygamy while he served an RLDS mission to Utah–thus blackening her name even further with the Utah leadership. Brigham Young even accused her of trying poison Joseph and called her a “child of hell.” Thankfully, we can appreciate Emma for her tremendous accomplishments now.

9. Sidney Rigdon

Sidney has, quite sadly, been classified among the “crazy uncles” category of Mormon history. Yet he served for nearly ten years as the Joseph Smith’s proverbial Aaron. Despite his impressive service and considerable contribution to the Church with his Campbellite congregation, he has something on record to annoy just about every faction of the Church–from “when the prophet has spoken the thinking is done” orthodoxy to the postmodern, “scripture is inspired fiction” free-wheelers. In the months leading up to the Missouri War, he proved his capacity to inflame when giving the famous Salt Sermon–which implied that the expulsion of prominent apostates such as W.W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery would be forthcoming. He became the bete noire of the succession crisis as he attempted to convince the Latter-day Saints that Joseph Smith had appointed him to be the leader. In historical memory, Rigdon has not been painted in the darkest hues; his villainy is often viewed as delusions and nothing more–delusions that could easily be brushed off into the ash-bin of history

8. Albert Sydney Johnson

A significant figure in 19th-century American military history in his own right, it’s ironic indeed that his greatest legacy is outside scholarly circles is as a part of an anticlimactic military operation that saw no bonafide engagement of enemies: the Utah War. He led, in all, over 5,000 troops to put down a supposed rebellion of Utah against the federal government. Congress widely opposed the expedition (most notably Sam Houston), and eventually would deem it “Buchanan’s blunder.” However, Utah remained under military occupation (albeit limited) For modern Latter-day Saints, Johnson serves more as a symbol of the animosity between the pioneers and the federal government than as an actual executor

7. John D. Lee A looming figure in not only Mormon history, but in the history of the West, John D. Lee has been kicked around as the football in the hands of Mountain Meadows historians. Aside from the elephant in the room that is the MMM, John D. Lee was otherwise a hard-working LDS who contriubted significantly to his community.

Having Been depicted as everything from a loyal scapegoat and hack to a renegade, John D. Lee has borne much of the blame for the attacks. Juanita Brooks’ research demonstrated that Lee’s excommunication and execution was simply meant to relieve pressure from the federal authorities’ constant haranguing. Walker, et. al. has concluded that John D. Lee played a central role in the massacre in both planning and deed (the topic looms too large for extensive treatment in this, a rather superfluous article by comparison–see the book that needs no introduction, Massacre at Mountain Meadows, for more info). In either interpretation, Lee’s name is often one of the few names to be mentioned within popular discourse about the massacre, in spite of the dozens of Iron County militiamen participation. Lee has come to symbolize the violent streak–if there be one–within 19th-century Mormonism–the crazy uncle in the attic.

6. Fawn Brodie
Niece of President David O. McKay and husband of a famed of nuclear theorist, Bernard Brodie, who helped to craft Eisenhower-era nuclear deterrence strategy; Fawn Brodie made fame in both critical and liberal Mormon circles by publishing one of the first scholarly biographies of Joseph Smith to reach wide circulation, No Man Knows My History. Brodie was roundly denounced and excommunicated within a year of publication. Whether she deserved such denunciation or not (I’m intentionally avoiding that elephant in the room), Brodie’s name has come to symbolize the “pointy-headed intellectual” stock character for modern Mormons.  One of my contacts has informed me that when Richard Bushman presented Rough Stone Rolling to Knopf, they initially hesitated. Bushman responded that they owed him one: “After all, you published Brodie.” The argument was persuasive.

A few caveats…

A) No, C.S. Lewis fans…he did not make the list and for good reasons–primarily because his spot is being reserved a future, top-10 list that Arthur and I will co-arthur, I mean, author (*drum riff for comedic effect*).

B) I must give Howard Hughes a hat-tip…while he doesn’t make the official list (his contribution wasn’t wide-reaching enough to really lodge himself in the Mormon mind beyond esoterica), he fits well within the tradition of businessmen appreciating Mormons for their discipline and hard work. This also intersects some with the fourth

The list

4. The friendly gangster

This is more of a stock character than it is a particular individual. You’ve all heard the common returned missionary discourse from missionaries who have served in the ghetto (or in Russia). They all have a story or two about the gangster who promised them protection, about the guy with diamond-encrusted hubcaps who tells them to leave the area for their own good. One instance I heard even had a mobster in a tinted-window limousine ask the sister missionaries if anyone was bothering them. They supposedly then complain about a particularly lewd passerby who bothers them every morning. The limo drives off…they never see the man again.

So to the pious mafia and the clergy-fearing gangster, we tip our fedora hats to you.

3. Harold Bloom

A proverbial elephant in the room when it comes to literary studies (his bibliography of original monographs/novels/anthologies number thirty in total) –so he’s the kind of fellow that all the revisionists throw their critiques at. Harold Bloom has written extensively on American religious life, devoting a chapter to the Mormons. While he has little taste for much of the 20^th century Church, he called the King Follett the greatest sermon in American religious history. From Bloom we saw the fullest articulation of the “religious genius” thesis—that whatever Joseph’s oddities, he was brilliant at “religion-making.” Harold Bloom has given a prominent voice of sympathy within the unfriendly waters of literary studies, and in doing, so has given Mormonism a certain sense of literary credibility.

2. Jimmy “Ah Shucks” Stewart

The actor who needs no introduction made himself beloved amongst the Mormons for his role in the Church-produced film, Mr. Krueger’s Christmas, as an old man who has a dream of the nativity and of directing the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. Stewart sealed his status as honorary Mormon when he donated all of his papers and materials to the Special Collections at Brigham Young University. With these contributions added to his previous image as the “aw-shucks” actor of It’s a Wonderful Life, Jimmy Stewart provided Mormons the embodiment of debonair innocence that seems to characterize the ideal of Mormon masculinity. His Gentile status legitimized this image as one Mormons could believe would thrive in modern society.

And you know that most Mormon women probably would have swallowed Kolob if Stewart promised to lasso it for them…

And the winner is…

1. Thomas Kane

While sufficiently obscure to lay members of the Church, his noted title, “Friend of the Mormons,” demands that he receive the revered spot (and besides, most of our academics either formally or informally–obscurity is what we do). Thomas Kane, an attorney in Philadelphia, abolitionist, and military officer in the Civil War, first contacted Mormons while they were visting a Philadelphia conference in 1846. Kane provided essential legal counsel and lobbying efforts to the Latter-day Saints during the following decade when the federal government was rabidly hostile to them. He delivered lectures on the Mormons behalf and defended the Mormons to the hostile Eastern press. When Utah was made into a U.S. territory with the compromise of 1850, then-president Fillmore offered Kane the position of territorial governor. He suggested that Young would be a more fitting choice. When James Buchanan sent his troops with the Utah war, Kane offered to mediate. Young noted that he wanted Kane’s name to “live for all eternity.” He had “done a great work,” and would “do a greater work still.” Kane legitimized the Latter-day Saints at a time when most politicians and the public held the Mormons in low-regard indeed.

We got our hands on a copy of Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? the Magnum Opus of Jerald and Sandra Tanner. We spent many more hours than we should have going over their material, concerned and surprised by their revelations as well as amused by the amateurish and almost childish presentation with the underlining for emphasis.

Then a member gave me a copy of Letters of Brigham Young to his sons. To me this volume represents the apex of Mormon Scholarship during the Arrington years. True history at its best with original source documents unvarnished and unexpurgated. Brigham Young uncorrelated as it were.

The letter that caught my eye of course was that of President Young to his son stating that they should both give up tobacco. His son was leaving to preside over a mission in England and his father suggested that they both give up its use. Naïve nineteen year old that I was I wrote to the Ensign and asked why a Prophet of God would admit to using tobacco years after the Word of Wisdom had been made a commandment.

The First Presidency replied by letter with a somewhat caustic tone that told me that it had been dictated by President Kimball. First questioning the authenticity of the letter and apparently unaware that the Church had published the book itself, they stated that they had no idea why Brigham Young would use tobacco.

“If you want to know why he used tobacco, they stated, you will have to wait until the next life and ask him yourself!”

Fortunately I did not have to wait until the next life. As many know it was Arrington himself who later wrote that tobacco was used as an anesthetic related to dental pain.

The episode has always been instructive to me for 3 reasons.

Firstly in those years some church leaders were relatively open to the kind of questions the Church History Department was in presenting in that material. President Kimball et al did not attack me for asking although the book was certainly withdrawn. I am also aware that Davis Bitton has stated that some were upset by the publication and thought it an egregious error.

Secondly sometimes church history questions do have easy answers. I know that is not always the case but I will always be one who believes that the Church is better off to face difficult questions than to hide and obfuscate .

Thirdly some questions have no answers at least the kind of answers that will satisfy us.

Why did Joseph Smith and Heber Kimball pressure Kimball’s 14 year old daughter into marrying the Prophet?

Why did Samuel slay Agag and the Amalekites so viciously in I Samuel 15?

How should I know? Ask them yourself!

This is the last installment of Our Foundation Stories, I promise!

As a child, I heard the story of the restoration of the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods this way: In May of 1829 Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were praying in the woods about baptism and had John the Baptist appear to them, put his hands on their heads, and recite the following, currently found in D & C Section 13: Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins…”

Some time later, Joseph and Oliver again were in the woods and John, James, and Peter appeared to them, put their hands on Joseph’s and Oliver’s heads, and restored the Melchizedek priesthood.

Certain details were fuzzy here, but I got the gist. Joseph and Oliver were ordained like every other 12 year old boy I knew, even dressing up for the occasion, as Church art depicted. (Can you imagine an imageless Church manual? We would have to use our own imaginations!)

I later majored in history at BYU, where I learned to distinguish primary from secondary sources, and to assign relative weights of reliability to certain primary accounts over others based on many factors like whether the person writing was an eyewitness to the events described, length of time between the event and its recording, potential motives of the writers, etc.

When I turned this rudimentary training on the sources describing the stories above, I found the records to be vague and contradictory, more so than in the case of Joseph’s different accounts of the First Vision. This is partly because Joseph had a co-participant, Oliver Cowdery, who left his own account of these experiences, and that many other early Church members wrote as if they did not hear of these ordinations until 1834 or 1835. Cowdery’s account is especially interesting, as he mentions only one occasion of priesthood bestowal, only one priesthood, only one angel visiting, and declines to name the angel as either John the Baptist or Peter, James, and John. (Note that the Church has added an “s” to “holy angel(s) in the link to the Oliver Cowdery account above to soften the ambiguity, under the guise of correcting “spelling, grammar, and punctuation”. Compare to the wording here)

Parley Pratt, John Corrill, Lyman Wight, and David Whitmer each leave accounts which make it appear that the Melchizedek or Higher Priesthood was first revealed to the church in a June 1831 conference, and was unknown before that time.

So where did our contemporary story of two separate priesthood bestowals come from? It appears that the line upon line development of church doctrine made clear after the organization of the church that two priesthoods, arranged hierarchically, were necessary for Church governance. Revelations included in the Book of Commandments (later renamed The Doctrine and Covenants) were edited later to include references to both priesthood bestowals. (Editing revelations was a common practice in the early years of the Church.)

B.H. Roberts of the Seventy even attempted to fix a timespan for the second bestowal of the priesthood to the period between the May 15 first bestowal and the end of June 1829, based on some conjectures flowing from assumptions based on the edited revelations (e.g. Section 27). This is likely where our sense of certitude on the subject comes from.

My questions are these:

Since I, and probably many others, were raised in the Church with the very definite, specific chronology for two separate priesthood bestowals, and this appears (although La Mar Petersen, Bill Hartley, and Larry Porter have attempted to rescue the Roberts chronology) to be highly questionable given the testimony of the sources, what do we do with this story?

Does the restoration of priesthood/authority need to have been a literal laying on of hands by resurrected beings in the same order in which 12 year old boys and 18 year old men experience it in the contemporary Church?

Does imagining that things happened this way make it easier for LDSaints to serve confidently in the Church, fulfilling their callings, learning to love God and their neighbor?

Could God have restored priesthood by an act of will, divine fiat?

Why do we rely on these stories as told and recounted in our secondary literature?

Here’s what these non-LDS visitors had to say about our missionaries:

They were pushy, rude, and ignorant whereas the woman with the Community of Christ was helpful, friendly, and knowledgeable.

Their post also describes an interesting discourse between the visitor and a missionary in which the missionary continually resorted to testifying rather than answering questions.  Now, I know that testifying is used to bring in the spirit, and to invite people to come to Christ.  But, is this the best approach with visitors to a historical landmark who are requesting historical information?  Isn’t this like the caution from October 2007 General Conference that “there is a difference between interest and mere curiosity” (Elder Ballard).

So, why do non-LDS people visit LDS sites? 

1. Because they are interested in history.
2. Because someone in their party dragged them along to this boring historical site or promised them ice cream afterwards.
3. Because they are curious about or interested in the church.
   • Maybe they know someone who is LDS or have family who are LDS.
   • Maybe they are investigating the church.
   • Maybe they are associated with a splinter group of the church (esp. in Kirtland).
   • Maybe they are antagonistic toward the church, although I can think of better ways to spend your vacation if so.
4. Because they took a wrong turn when they were trying to get to the world’s biggest ball of twine.  Boy, are these guys going to be disappointed!

Of those groups, I suppose it is possible that any of them might become interested if they feel the spirit.  Maybe.  However, it’s probably equally likely that most of the non-LDS visitors will want historical information as they often do at Temple Square.

All proselyting faiths have a certain schtick and it varies from denomination to denomination and over time within a faith. But are historical sites best manned with proselyting missionaries?

When I was in Kirtland about 5 years ago, the historical sites run by the church were newly re-opened, and I found the LDS guides to be very knowledgeable about the history.  They were all older married couples.  The contrast I encountered was that in the Kirtland temple, the tour guides de-emphasized the visitation of the Savior to the temple and the other spiritual manifestations that both our faiths believe took place there, although when asked, they did point those things out.  The CoC presentation seemed very politically correct to me, extremely non-confrontational, and very mainstream Christian.  The guides were scholarly and polite.  I asked the CoC tour guide what denominations the visitors were, and she said about 90% were LDS.

The LDS sites emphasized the spiritual aspects (what revelations were received, where the Savior was seen, etc.), but when I asked questions about the archeology and the layout of the village, they were still very knowledgeable.  They also spontaneously offered to lead hymns or prayers or have moments of silence, which frankly made me feel a little uncomfortable (did I look like I wanted to burst into song?), but there were no non-LDS in our group so I am not sure how that would have been perceived by others.

So, what do you think?  Are we hectoring unsuspecting tourists with our constant testifying and creating dissonance for future dialog?  Or are we on the right track and the CoC tour guides are just being too politically correct?  Discuss.

That unfinished aspect of the Restoration is the gathering of God’s words to all nations in one. It began with the publication of the Book of Mormon, and continued with the Book of Moses and Book of Abraham, but its current status is uncertain. This unfinished aspect of the Restoration has not been forgotten, however. In fact, Elder Oaks reminded us about it at a recent General Conference when he stated: “the Lord will eventually cause the inspired teachings He has given to His children in various nations to be brought forth for the benefit of all people.”[i]

Elder Oaks’ reminder about this unfinished aspect of the Restoration raises some inevitable questions: when will God’s words to all nations be gathered together, who will do the gathering, and where and how will that gathering take place? These are the questions I will be addressing in a multi-part series of posts. But first, we should cover some necessary background about why these questions are being raised in the first place.

A World Full of Scripture

The Book of Mormon declares: (1) that God speaks the “same words” to “all nations”; (2) that He commands all nations to “write the words” he speaks to them; and (3) that one day God’s words to all nations will be “gathered in one.”[ii] It is difficult to overstate how radical a concept this was in Joseph Smith’s time and place. It shattered the conventional Christian view that God had spoken only to the ancient Israelites as recorded in the Bible. By declaring that God speaks to “all nations,” the Book of Mormon opened the cannon of scripture not only to make room for itself, but also to conceivably include books of scripture from India, China, and all over the globe. Which raises an inevitable question: where are these books of scripture that record God’s words to other nations, and what can or should we be doing to find them?

A World Full of Prophets, Inspired Men, and Servants of God

The Book of Mormon’s declaration that God speaks to “all nations” also raises the questions of who, specifically, God has spoken to in each nation, and how those divinely-inspired messengers fit into Mormonism. The following quotes from LDS Apostles provide some answers to these questions:

All down the ages . . . good and great men, not bearing the Priesthood, but possessing profundity of thought, great wisdom, and a desire to uplift their fellows, have been sent by the Almighty into many nations, to give them, not the fulness of the Gospel, but that portion of truth that they were able to receive and wisely use.[iii]

The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals.[iv]

We are indebted to the men and women who kept the light of faith and learning alive through the centuries to the present day. . . . We honor them as servants of God.[v]

It is likewise difficult to overstate how radical a belief this is for a Christian church: that Mohammed, Confucius, and others falling outside the Christian tradition were “servants of God” who were “sent by the Almighty” to “enlighten whole nations.”

Thus, the Book of Mormon provides not only a vision of a world full of scripture, but also of a world full of prophets, inspired men, and servants of God. So, for example, while the Pope and other Christian leaders continue to condemn Mohammed and his teachings to this day, a prominent Mormon scholar can publish a laudatory book entitled Muhammad, Prophet of God without any negative reaction whatsoever from Mormon leaders.

The Church as a Central Repository for All Truth in the World

The Book of Mormon’s description of a world full of scripture and divinely-inspired truth just waiting to be “gathered in one” naturally caused our early leaders to envision the Church as a central repository for all truth in the world. This was not an exclusive claim; to the contrary, it was a highly inclusive claim. It was inclusive because it was to be accomplished in part by incorporating into Mormonism truths that other divinely-inspired messengers in other nations of the world already had, as opposed to relying exclusively on Mormon prophets to provide new truths that were unavailable to the rest of the world. To accomplish this truth-gathering, Mormons would search everywhere for truth, and Mormon prophets, as the authoritative gatekeepers, would sift truth from error and decide what qualified to be “gathered in.” Consider these quotes, for example:

For me, the plan of salvation must … circumscribe [all] the knowledge that is upon the face of the earth, or it is not from God. Such a plan incorporates every system of true doctrine on the earth, whether it be ecclesiastical, moral, philosophical, or civil: it . . . takes from the right and the left, and brings all truth together in one system, and leaves the chaff to be scattered hither and thither.”[vi]
-Brigham Young

We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out as true “Mormons.”[vii] -Joseph Smith

One of the grand fundamental principles of “Mormonism” is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.
. . . If by the principles of truth I succeed in uniting men of all denominations in the bonds of love, shall I not have attained a good object?[viii]
-Joseph Smith

Thus, the Mormon prophets’ exclusive claim to authority was certainly not an exclusive claim to inspiration. Rather, they viewed their priesthood authority as empowering them to discern and identify truth so that they could gather all the truths given to other divinely-inspired messengers in “all nations.” Moreover, the entire Church membership was enlisted to participate in this global truth-gathering, being instructed to “seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom,”[ix] and to “become acquainted with all good books, and with languages, tongues, and people.”[x]

Thus, the vision was of a Church that embraced all truths and their divinely-inspired messengers in all nations, and whose leaders and members were outward-looking, open to accepting truth from unfamiliar sources, appreciative of all peoples, and self-educated about the world.

In the next part of this series, I will discuss possible ways Church members can realize this global vision more fully, and to identify the lost and scattered truths and books of scripture that the Book of Mormon foretells will be “gathered in one.”

That said — in part 3 of this series, I’m going to make my argument that within this interview, we can see yet further signs that both Robert Millet, and the LDS Church, are becoming more and more open/liberal/progressive/tolerant in their willingness to allow for a “Sunstone” or even a “New Order Mormon“-like perspective when it comes to an LDS belief/testimony.

Here are the signs and tea leaves I’ve identified in my own personal Mormonism Rorscharch test….

On Modern-Day Confusion Amongst LDS Church Leadership Regarding Mormon Doctrine, and the Freedom LDS Members Should Feel to Accept or Reject the Teachings of Past LDS Prophets (as Appropriate)

Mr. Millet: In recent years, there’s been an effort to, to try to solidify and codify, if you will, what actually constitutes Latter-day Saint doctrine. And that’s caused us to ask hard questions like this: Is everything that was ever uttered by a church leader on a general level from the days of Joseph Smith, is that considered the doctrine of the church? And the answer has come back no. I’ll give you an illustration. At the time, The Da Vinci Code was very hot and a little controversy raged over it.

Ms. Tippett: Yes.

Mr. Millet: At the time it was raging, the church issued a very brief but insightful statement that I was appreciative for. It’s just something that just…

Ms. Tippett: The Church of the Latter-day Saints?

Mr. Millet: That’s right. The Latter-day Saint leaders issued this statement. It just said essentially, ‘The scriptures are silent as to whether Jesus was married. It is true that early church leaders may have offered their opinion on this matter, but those opinions did not then, nor do they now, constitute the doctrine of the church.’ Now, that’s a statement that’s very important, because what it establishes is while Latter Day Saints revere and honor and respect and uphold their church leaders, we do not believe in a form of prophetic infallibility.

And so we — as we, as we move into the 21st century now, and as we begin having a greater focus upon Christ and Christianity and Christian principles, I think there is a tendency to look back and say, ‘All right, what are the central saving doctrines? And what are some other things we, A, don’t know much about, B, just don’t seem to be in harmony with what, with what — and where we are now? And I think that’s taking place more and more.

On the Belief that the Book of Abraham is Translated Scripture:

Ms. Tippett: And, you know, I know that [Joseph Smith], he reported revelations, and the stories sometimes changed when he told them at different times. And then the thing may be more, on a practical level, there’s the book of Abraham, which he…

Mr. Millet: Right.

Ms. Tippett: …had said that he translated…

Mr. Millet: Translated.

Ms. Tippett: …from some Egyptian papyri that were found inside a mummy. And then later, you know, several generations later, when scholars could, could really translate hieroglyphs, they said that these were funeral documents and not a lost book of Abraham. So I want to ask, you know, as a very faithful member of the church and a scholar of the church, you know, how do you, how do you make sense of this kind of contradiction?

Mr. Millet: I guess this is the side of me that — this is the stubborn side of me that is prone to say, ‘Yeah, I have questions about the historicity in terms of how it came.’ He didn’t tell us how exactly this happened, how he got the information. I mean, you know, scholars even within the church have taken different views. One, one view is that he literally translated it from Egyptian. Another view, perhaps, is that the Egyptian papyri that he had proved as a kind of spiritual catalyst to receiving an independent revelation about the ancient figure of Abraham. I don’t know what the answer is on that. And I, and I’m as eager to learn about that as, as the critics of the church are just curious investigators of the church are.

On Faith or Testimonies Being a Decision — Sometimes Regardless of the Evidence/Facts

Mr. Millet: I heard a church leader not long ago say this, which is very simple, but it has a profound implication for me. He said, “Faith is just so much more than a feeling. Faith is a decision.” And I think that’s right for me. I made a decision a long time ago about Joseph Smith, fully aware now, maybe more so now as a professor for the last 25 years than I ever was as a young person, full aware that he was a human being, that he made mistakes.

But I made a decision back then that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and that the work he set in motion was divinely inspired and that what I was about was good and that it would bless my life and bless other lives. And, and I’m just, I’m just sort of taking the stance of I, I just will not allow my faith to be held hostage by what the things I do know to be held hostage by what science has or has not discovered at a given moment in time. Does that make sense?

On the Book of Mormon as an Historical Document

Mr. Millet: “That’s the faith part of me saying, ‘Well, of course I look forward to archeological evidences of the Book of Mormon.”

On the “The Mormon Lifestyle” or “Mormon Culture” Being Major Components to One’s LDS Faith/Testimony (e.g. being a cultural Mormon)

Mr. Millet: “But I will, for the time being, put on the shelf the things I don’t know because there are just too many things that I’m, I’m convinced of, and that the way of life that the church promotes highlights to me.’ In other words, would I, would I want to go another way? I wouldn’t.”

On the LDS Church Needing Time to Get Its Doctrine Together — and to Become More Mainstream (also on Religion as a Business, and on the LDS Church Being the “One True Church”)

Mr. Millet: “We’re in the religion-making business, as you intimated earlier, only for a short time, I mean, compared to the Christian church, which has been at this for a couple of millennia. We’re about halfway to Nicaea. And so, and so in that sense — I remember a very tender moment. I was speaking with — I’ve been invited to the Salt Lake Theological Seminary, basically an Evangelical seminary, to discuss a book I had done on Jesus. And they had read it, and they wanted me to come and just respond to questions. And it was, it was a very enjoyable couple of hours.

The very last question that was asked by one of my friends there was this one. He said, ‘Bob, what can we do for you?’ And I, I wasn’t ready for that question. I said, ‘What do you mean?’ He said, ‘What can we, as Evangelicals, do for our Mormon friends?’ And I, I guess my mind could have gone a hundred different ways, but what I came back with was this. I said, ‘Boy, I appreciate you asking that. I don’t think I’ve ever been asked that.’ But, but I said, ‘Try this. Cut us a little slack, will you? Give us a little time. We’re in the religion-making business, and this takes time. It takes centuries. And, and trying to explain the faith and articulate the faith, that doesn’t come over night. We’ve really only been about that for 20 or 30 years.’ “

My Conclusion

I can very easily anticipate apologists commenting here that I am misinterpreting Dr. Millet — and taking his words out of context. In all honesty — I don’t believe that I am. If I were to think back 30 or 40 years — I could not imagine someone like Bruce R. McConkie, Joseph Fielding Smith, or Ezra Taft Benson even granting such an interview…let alone answering questions in this way. To me, these types of “New Order Mormon” or “Sunstone” responses from our chief theologian provides me, as a “New Order” / “Sunstone” – Mormon with a tremendous amount of encouragement that with each passing year — folks like us will be more and more tolerated within church culture.

Of course it may be a long, long time before we will ever hear our church leaders validate any of these points directly to us, as members, in General Conference (that’s usually not the way they work). Can you imagine the day (in modern times) when you will hear something like this over the pulpit at General Conference….

• “There have been many, many doctrinally incorrect statements by past General Authorities and even by Prophets, Seers and Revelators — but you are free to choose the ones you wish to believe as true.”
• “The Books of Abraham and Mormon may or may not be historical documents — we just don’t know. But their teachings are true regardless.”
• “Whether or not our church is the “One True Church” — the lifestyle is good, and worth pursuing.”
• Etc., etc., etc.

…but this is probably an unrealistic expectation. Churches that do this, I believe, ultimately become weak.

Still — in the mean time — I want to publicly express my gratitude for folks like Dr. Millet — who give the rest of us cover, and perhaps a little less guilt, for the perspectives and attitudes we have recently gained on Mormonism (through an in-depth study of its history).

Thanks again, Dr. Millet, and to you, too, Krista Tippet. You are our hero.