Please listen and then share your own stories and insights in the comments section below!

In this podcast, host Dan Wotherspoon and panelists Joanna Brooks, Tresa Edmunds, and Jared Anderson explore this issue of a church seemingly in danger of losing a generation of young people. Why are today’s youth failing to feel connected to the church in the way members of earlier generations were? What has shifted in society, and the experiences and mindsets of today’s “Millennial” generation? Can this exit trend be slowed or stopped—and if so, how? The panel even discusses “s-s-sex” a little bit at the end (inside joke for regular Mormon Matters listeners). This podcast contains no final “answers,” but it sure is a lively discussion! After listening, we hope you’ll join in the conversation below!

This became an issue for me early in our marriage, and we used to argue/fight over this subject. At that time, I felt very angry. Today the anger is giving way to feelings of self-pity and hopelessness. Throughout my marriage I have been plagued by the fear that I made a mistake asking my wife to marry me. I feel some regret, as though I made the wrong choice to marry this person. My wife never touches me. No hand holding, no hugs, no pat on the back – nothing. She has absolutely no interest in sex. She never initiates it, and when I do it is not uncommon for her to protest that she is tired. When she does go along with it, she just lies there and does nothing. She does not touch me, kiss me, talk to me or anything else. She literally will just lie there and do nothing, waiting for it to be over. It has all become somewhat mechanical and monotonous. She absolutely refuses to consider oral sex, saying that it is gross; and she does not want to use her hand to pleasure me, either. I do not want to get divorced because the children are young, and I feel strongly that children need a father in the home everyday. I feel stuck. I feel like my wife misled me when we were dating. I feel that people who do not want to be affectionate and sexual HAVE NO BUSINESS GETTING MARRIED. It seems like my only option is to “endure to the end,” however, the thought of spending forever with this person is somewhat depressing.

You are describing a difficult and sad situation and I can see how you would feel stuck. It is sad for me to see so many men (and women) writing to me on this similar subject. One of the responsibilities as a spouse is to be aware of and take into account the needs of the other. This goes for both men and women and includes physical, emotional, spiritual and temporal needs. To ignore, belittle or judge another’s legitimate needs is dangerous for any marriage. Showing affection is a necessary part of a healthy marriage. It is not appropriate for one to withhold affection, love and/or sex from the other. If there are psychological or traumatic issues from one’s upbringing or past that hinder spousal abilities then we should be open to getting appropriate help. Even most medical issues do not need to be the end of a physically intimate relationship – it may just need to be redefined.

I highly doubt that your wife consciously misled you through your courtship. Unfortunately when we get married we don’t have much of an idea of what lies ahead and how we will react to sex, arguments, stress, children, etc. – especially if it’s the first marriage. Things from our past and our upbringing affect us more than we usually realize. Figuring out our sexuality is very much a part of marriage, especially in cultures where it is customary to wait to have sex until after marriage (such as our Mormon culture). Even people who have been sexual before marriage, often find that their sexuality differs dramatically after entering the marital state (both in positive and negative ways). I don’t know what has led your wife to take her current position, but I’m sure the girl you dated would not have thought this is what “marital bliss” looked like either – especially since I’m sure this issue has greatly affected your relationship outside of the bedroom as well.

You are right that your children need you and I respect your desire to want to be a part of their everyday life. It shows your capacity for great love. However, your children also need a good relationship model so they can go forward and have a better statistical chance of having a healthy marriage themselves. Part of being a good mother and a good father is being a good wife and husband. It is easy to forget this important parental responsibility. I realize that you have little to no control over your wife but I would encourage you both to start marital counseling – even if it is only for the sake of the kids at first. It sounds like you are both stuck in a pattern of anger and resentment which leads to exactly what you describe: depression, hopelessness, regret, more anger, more resentment, etc… And none of these things do anything for your emotional intimacy, for your sex life, or for your level of communication.

Some questions I would want to know if I were working with you:* Was the sex ever good between the two of you, or did you face problems from the get-go? * Is there a history of sexual trauma for your wife? What about other sexual baggage? * What were the “sexual messages” you both received from your parents? Did you both have the opportunity to see affection, romance, and playfulness role modeled or not? * What did the deterioration of your relationship look like? What were the main issues that came up? Was it only sex or were there other factors involved? * Has your communication about this issue mainly come from a place of anger? Or have you been able to discuss this in a more calm atmosphere? * Do you think your wife feels the same way about your relationship? What would she add to this story? * Have you told your wife the things you have told me? * Have the two of you discussed the possibility of divorce? In other words, does your wife realize how badly this issue is affecting you? * Would you be willing to get professional help with or without her?

I have written a lot on “sexless marriage” and encourage you to go through and read some of those posts on my blog. There are no easy or magical solutions for these cases. The road to a healthy sexual and emotionally intimate relationship will take a lot of work and time. It is possible to achieve, but it will take the willing efforts of two people. I hope you and your wife can begin some difficult yet frank and respectful discussions regarding the future of your relationship.

MM Readers:

What are your thoughts about spouses who withdraw sexually from a marriage?  Is this ever appropriate?  Under what circumstances might it be appropriate?  For how long?

With sexual stigma within religious culture, I often come across many who believe sex is carnal in nature, only beneficial when used for procreation, and see husbands or wives who want sex as somehow “below” the optimal standard (not having their priorities in order).  What do you have to say about this?

Sexless marriage is defined loosely as having sex less than 10 times a year.  Do any of you have personal experiences that you would be comfortable sharing?  What was helpful in resolving issues like these if you were successful in doing so?

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

http://www.cupblog.org/?p=742  Are two parents better for kids?

I completely agree that stability is a pivotal part of providing a positive upbringing for children. There are many single parents doing a wonderful job of this. There are also many two-parent families in which stability lacks due to a variety of issues (i.e. marital conflict, violence, child abuse, tension, etc…). Obviously the ideal, is a two-parent stable family. But when this is not a possibility, it is helpful to know that single parents can also excel in their parenting roles.

Here’s the question:  What is the Church’s attitude on homosexuality?  Why is homosexuality and same-sex marriage important to the Mormon Church?

From the church’s official response.  Interestingly, this is from the Ensign in 1998, but there is a more recent interview on lds.org that is a little less harsh (in that it doesn’t use the term “so-called” which implies disdain for whatever term follows):

“People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are.

“We want to help these people, to strengthen them, to assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties. But we cannot stand idle if they indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation. To permit such would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose, the rearing of families” (Ensign, Nov. 1998, 71).

In light of the church’s stance, there’s not much room to maneuver.  Answers that seemed best to me at navigating these tricky waters:

• I’m Gay & Mormon.  Hmmm.  Strangely, no profiles said that.  Silence speaks louder than words?
• Celibate + Homosexual = OK.  Since this is the church’s stance, I suppose that’s really the only way to answer.  It also should make it clear that we would accept and welcome those who are celibate in full fellowship.  The celibate clause may be cold comfort, but again, that’s all we’ve got to work with here. The best of these are probably ones that are
  • “So how do those with same-sex attraction fit into the Church? They should be loved and supported just like anyone else. . . Celibacy is expected of all unmarried individuals, homosexual as well as heterosexual.”
  • “We love our brothers and sisters who have same-gender attraction, and welcome them in the church as long as they keep the law of chastity.”
  • “Some homosexuals may feel it is too much to ask to have them remain chaste, but any member of the church that is not married is commanded not to have sexual relations as well. There are people in the church who have been single their whole lives and die single, never having broken that commandment. We expect this of homosexuals as well.”
  • “The Church teaches that feeling same-sex attraction may not be a choice, but that acting on those feelings is.”
• We are against discrimination.  A good reminder (for members, too), SSM notwithstanding.  Loads of profiles went down this path.
  • “At lunch we noticed that a gay member of our organization was sitting alone, shuned by others. We walked over an joined her for lunch. She asked an interesting question: “Why is it that you Mormons, who have the strongest beliefs against the gay lifestlye, always treat me with the greatest kindness among all of my co-workers?”"
  • “Mormons also believe that people with same-sex attraction are beloved children of God and that violence and unkindness toward people with same-sex attraction is as sinful as violence or unkindness to anyone else.”
  • “Meanwhile, all of us–gay or straight, older or young, conservative or liberal–can work on being kind and loving to others and ourselves. One of our church leaders, Joseph Wirthlin, put it this way, “The Lord did not people the earth with a vibrant orchestra of personalities only to value the piccolos of the world. Every instrument is precious and adds to the complex beauty of the symphony.”"
  • “”…..The Church does not object to rights…regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference……”"
  • “Should gays have the same basic human rights that we all enjoy? Of course. I personally believe that there is plenty of middle ground to be found — particularly as it relates to civil unions.”
  • “In regard to Gay Marriage, the church has found it important to speak out against the granting of the title of Marriage to Unions between gay couples. Yet, the church is not anti-gay. The Church has spoken out in favor of a non-discrimination ordinance in Salt Lake City. Members of the church are divided on the issue of Civil Unions though many members in Good Standing including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are ardent supporters. It is my belief that Gay Couples should have all of the same rights as straight couples, but that the title of marriage is something sacred that should be guarded and protected.”
  • “This is kind of a tricky one for me to answer. As I’ve stated, I disagree with any form of bigotry, and believe that discrimination of all sorts goes against God’s will. I’ve received personal assurance that I am supposed to be fighting against discrimination and bigotry in all forms, and that includes discrimination against homosexuals and anyone else in the LGBT community. But please do not take that statement, or my previous political activism (completely on hold during my mission) and believe that I disagree with the teachings of the church.”
• We are pro-marriage.  Again, it’s kind of skirting the question by affirming what we do stand for vs. what we don’t support, but there’s not much to work with here.
  • “The Church believes that marriage is ordained of God and is defined as the legal and lawful union of a man and a woman. No other sexual relation is condoned by God.”  This sexual relation was brought to you by . . .
• Someone close to me is gay.  This is better than the elusive token friend, and much more personal.
  • “my best friend of over 20 years is bisexual, and she is also the most loving, unselfish person I have ever met.”
  • “My older brother is homosexual. I love him to death and so does my family. Many people misunderstand the church’s stance on homosexuality because of the emphasis we place on the family. It is difficult to be a member of the church and be homosexual, but it is possible. Personally I do everything I can to promote a feeling of love and compassion towards those who struggle with same sex attraction. It is a trait that my brother has to deal with. He is not a member of the church.”
  • “This was an important question that I had when I was learning about the church because my Mom is gay and married her partner. It was important for me that I need always accept her and love her. The churches views on homosexuality can be found in the Bible. It states that marriage is between a man and a woman.  A friend said it to me best, she said, “The church does not support same-sex marriage, but we do support families.” That was all I needed to hear. Even though I am a member of this church and I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, I still love my mom and her partner.”

Middle of the road, and not so comforting:

• Hate the sin, love the sinner.  Since we are all sinners, this seems a little hypocritical and condescending.  However, many commenters DID point out that we are all sinners, so kudos for that!
  • “Simply put, homosexuality is a sin. God has commanded that this ought not to be. However, that does not entitle anyone to discriminate against a person who is a homosexual. It is sin that God hates, not sinners.”
• I have lots of gay friends.  I do have lots of gay friends, but it sounds like tokenism to say so.
  • “I have had many friends who have chosen that lifestyle. I love them, but do not support their sin.”
  • “I personally know and have close friendships with a large handful of Mormons who experience varying levels of homosexuality–some have left the teachings of the church (to remain celibate or wait until they find someone of the opposite gender who they love) for a gay lifestyle, but most remain active in the church, getting support from loving people who do not judge them.”
  • “I have homosexual friends who are good members of the church. I have one friend in particular who left the church for many years to live in a homosexual relationship. But at one point he decided that the Lord’s gospel was more important to him and so he came back to the church and refrained from sex. His sexuality didn’t change, his behavior changed. He died some years back from AIDS, still firm in the faith.”  The mention of AIDS sounds a little cautionary to me.

What really set the hairs on the back of my neck up:

• I used to be gay, but now I’m not.  Fortunately, I saw NO comments like this either, and I’m glad.
• Being homosexual is a choice.  Science certainly doesn’t back this on the whole, although there are some exceptions (e.g. bisexuals, childhood abuse).
  • “The concept of marriage of a man and a woman is so fundamental to our beliefs about the nature of the hereafter that we are very sensitive about the issue. Having other forms of union between people accepted as though they were the same as the God sanctioned union of a man and a woman hits at the very core of this concept. This attitude can and has convinced individuals to choose this lifestyle and turn away from the one sanctioned by the Lord and forfeit substantial eternal blessings.”  I’m not sure SSM causes people who would otherwise not be gay to become gay; it probably discourages gays from heterosexual marriages, which is a good thing, IMO.  Does it discourage homosexual celibacy?  I doubt it impacts that one way or another.
  • “Homosexuality is a sin just like any other defiance against God’s will.”  Being gay is defiant?  Sassy, maybe.
  • “I have a few friends who have chosen to act on the temptations and urges that accompany homosexuality and while I do not agree with their choices, I still love them like brothers. Some people argue that God “created” men and women gay. I disagree. God does not, nor cannot, create sin. That being said, I do believe that there are some people out there that develop or are prone naturally to an attraction to the same sex. Does this mean God created them gay? . . . So to those who feel that they were “born gay” I say you were created just as everyone else, except you were given a trial that God knows you are capable of handling.”  The use of quotation marks around “born gay” implies that people are not, in fact, born gay.  Which science disputes.  The whole answer is a bit confusing, really.
  • “Homosexuality is simply a manmade way–an alternative to God’s design. It serves no purpose for God, for it is contrary to His design.”
  • “I have a friend that chooses to be homosexual and he asked me about this a few months ago. . . .  I realize that for some people it is a biological urge as strong as that of any heterosexual man.”  So, it sounds like the friend chose it, but others don’t.
• Gay = disability.  While it may be the implied doctrine, I’m not going to say it.
  • “My heart goes out to those who deal with same-sex attraction, including my friends and family who deal with this trial. . . We believe, however, that homosexuality is one of the challenges of life just as others are given their own struggles addiction, disability, illness, childhood trauma, etc.. For us, there is a difference between same-sex attraction and homosexual behavior.”
  • “I do not look down on homosexuals and I don’t see them as bad people. We all have things we are dealing with and things we need to overcome.”  But do you respect them and see them as good people?
  • “Someone born with a disability or disfigurement was given that body with the an express purpose. What is that purpose? Most of us will never know. Why does God let children be born blind, deaf, or crippled? He allows this to happen because this life is a time for us to be tried and proven. A sad part of life is that we all must experience sorrow, trials and temptations. We can’t escape that.”
• Gays should marry heterosexuals.  Yikes.
  • “Those with homosexual tendencies and desires, regardless of how they were derived, should seek the Lord’s help in redirecting their behavior towards the end of having a spouse of the opposite sex.”  This just seems like bad advice to me.
• SSM would be disastrous for humanity.
  • “But if same-sex marriage is made legal, it will require those of us who believe it is wrong to officially accept it.”
  • “We reach out a hand of fellowship to all men everywhere, but homosexuality and same-sex marriage is destructive to our whole society and way of life. These practices lead to the ruin of mankind, so we warn all men everywhere against these practices.”
• Other funny stuff I found:
  • Misused euphemism.  “This is why it is important to not use or act on those powers of procreation outside of the bonds of matrimony”  Technically, you can’t call homosexual acts “powers of procreation,” and certainly many sexual acts are not procreative in nature.  Sometimes we just like a turn of phrase so much we don’t stop to ask ourselves if it makes any sense.
  • What the –?  “I think the real lesson is a warning against being so lustful that you don’t care who – or what! – you are having sex with, to the point where your not so much a person anymore, but more like a horny dog that will hump anything indiscriminately. Reality TV, anyone?”  OK, I actually did like this answer overall, but she kind of wandered off a little bit there at the end.  “Horny dog” passed the filter?  Hilarious!
  • Mormon-speak alert!  “We believe that all of us have freedom to choose, yet all of us have temptations, thorns of the flesh, if you will.”  Thorns of the flesh?  I think this is a Mormon euphemism, especially since the guy who said it looked like he was in his twenties.
  • Wow, just wow.  “The church truly believes in love. (just not homosexual love) In men and women being together for all eternity. I too am a firm believer in this. Men and women come together to learn how to become an eternal partnership. One is never truly without the other.  Homosexuality, derives from this goal. (‘scuze me?  I think she means it detracts from or it deviates from or it deters from . . . ??  Is this a Freudian slip?)  It means that a family cannot be achieved through natural causes. No, it does not mean I do not love everyone equally. I have people who are quite close to me that practice homosexual behaviours. (As Hawkeye would say, “practice makes perfect”)  However, at the same time, I cannot say it is part of God’s immediate plan.”  (But it is part of his long-range plan?)  This person is just all over the map here.
  • Is this guy’s wife reading this?  “I’m a married man. Is my wife the only person I find attractive in a sexual way? Of course not. I have to exercise self control to keep the law of chastity.”  DO tell!

What I might say:

• “No comment.”
• Since the church doesn’t welcome practicing homosexuals, I would certainly think they are not the target audience of this FAQ.
• The law of chastity requires that you abstain from sexual activity outside of marriage.  Since the church considers homosexual acts to be unchaste, the church does not sanction gay marriage.  Is a legally married homosexual unchaste?  I leave that to God to decide.
• No one who isn’t gay would choose to be gay just for the fun of it.
• I would never knowingly encourage someone who is homosexual to marry heterosexually as a way to reform their natural feelings.  That seems destined to fail.
• Being gay in the LDS church would be extremely difficult.  I imagine that a loving God would understand that.  I am not to judge.

What do you think?  What would you say?  Do you agree that the so-called phrase “so-called” should be stricken?  Discuss.

This is a great question. So many people are finding themselves in similar situations building relationships and friendships on the internet. My short answer is this: I feel you are treading on dangerous ground. Even ground that could be considered unfaithful from an “emotional affair” standpoint. Here are some thoughts:

• The red flags that go up for me are the same ones that seem to be going up for you: the fact that you are being dishonest with your husband about your internet behavior and the people you are chatting with – the fact that you feel “different” or “freer” with this venue than you do in real life (uninhibiting your actions) – the fact that you are no longer anonymous and are sharing more personal information such as email address and photographs – the fact that conversations including sexual content are taking place – the fact that you are having “deep and meaningful” conversations with someone other than your husband without him knowing about it. It is OK to have deep and meaningful conversations with all kinds of people in your life, but something about how you state this leaves the impression that these conversations are encroaching on ones you could be having with your husband instead – therefore, impacting your emotional intimacy with him.
• It is natural to feel the emotions you describe in this type of situation – more empowered, more in control, sexier, more attractive, etc. It is obviously flattering for others to take notice of us, to like us and to find what we have to say valuable. Your increased surge in sexuality is a positive side effect.  At the same time, this is part of what is so seductive about new relationships -especially with the opposite sex when you are heterosexual. There is little that can match the emotions attached to the flirtation and hormonal surges that occur in the beginning of an emotionally and sexually charged relationship. This is why we see so many cases of infidelity to begin with. You are especially vulnerable to this since you did not have the chance to have many of these opportunities before getting married. The sense of “having missed out” is a normal one for those who marry their first love. Yet, there are many wonderful aspects of having married this man you are with that will be important for you to acknowledge and keep on greater standing than any regrets.
• I understand that your husband comes into contact with many people (both male and female) who offer him validation and challenge in the work place. This dynamic more than likely helps his ego, self-esteem, and intellectual capacity. However, I would hope that he is not having “deep and meaningful” conversations with these co-workers that include sexual content and that would make him question his emotional fidelity to you.
• It is important to recognize the powerful forces attached to the infamous “slippery slope.” Most people don’t wake up one morning and say, “it feels like a good day to have an affair.” Affairs are usually preceded by months if not years of issues, thoughts and behavior that slowly build up to the problem. You may have the best of intentions to not allow these relationships to go further, but it will only be naturally harder for you to keep those boundaries as you continue. They will become more meaningful to you over time and the temptation to go farther will increase.

Here is my advice as to how to proceed:

• Tell your husband at least what you’ve told me if not more. Decide together whether or not this is something you want to discuss with the bishop. Your husband’s reaction will be important. If he blows it off and doesn’t think it’s a big deal then that’s one thing, but if he’s legitimately hurt and feels betrayed then you need to respect those feelings and provide restitution in ways he deems important.
• Only continue internet relationships that both you and your husband are comfortable with.
• Wireless capacity has made the counsel of keeping the computer in your home in an open area somewhat obsolete. With laptops and cell phones, the internet is much more accessible in all types of locations. However, you can still set personal parameters and limits that both you and your husband are comfortable with.
• You have already recognized what may be some social weaknesses for you. Challenge yourself by starting individual therapy to address some of these issues and to set goals of things you’d like to change. Why is it, for example, that you can be a different person in front of the computer than you are face-to-face? This is a social problem that many of us are currently facing.
• If you need a venue where you can be social and find personal satisfaction, find ones that are more appropriate and that force you towards personal progression: a college course, a club of some sort, a volunteer service within the community, etc. You should enjoy the same sense of self-empowerment that you are currently discovering but in a safer and more appropriate setting.

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.

Clearly Facebook doesn’t cause infidelity any more than guns kill people, but is it bad for marriage or even worse, a catalyst for divorce to be avoided at all cost?

I checked the lds.org site, and there is no official warning to members to avoid Facebook at all costs, nor is there a specific suggestion that married people not “friend” those of the opposite sex (I’m fairly certain that the word “friend” is not used as a verb anywhere on lds.org, and if it were it would probably mean sending a copy of the children’s magazine to someone).  In fact, the church is active in social media (including Facebook and Twitter), using it as both a proselyting tool, and as a method to organize charitable endeavors.

From what I can see, Facebook has made it easier for exes to find one another, and so the one marital danger that exists is that someone will reconnect with an old flame (or an almost flame) which can lead to a rekindling of feelings (or emotional manipulation and bad choices – whatever).  And yes, prior to Facebook, it would be difficult for people to find these known individuals; adulterers would presumably have to resort to random hookups with strangers in bars and airports back in the good ol’ days rather than someone from their past.  Clearly, a determined adulterer wasn’t likely to be deterred by a little thing like lack of internet social networking.  But let’s remember, David & Bathsheba weren’t pen pals.  From Facebook to bedroom, there are some intermediate steps and choices being made.  There are some Facebook behaviors that might be ill-advised for those who want to stay faithfully married:

• keeping secrets from your spouse
• emotional affairs, building more intimacy with a friend of the opposite sex than you do with your spouse (these seem to lead to physical affairs)
• posting revealing pictures of oneself
• expressing neediness through status updates (making one vulnerable to emotional manipulators).  This is the Facebook equivalent to the secular admonishment not to “dial drunk.”

Yet for all its flaws, I can’t help but love Facebook for reconnecting me with old friends, helping me stay in touch with relatives in the most low effort way possible, allowing me to avoid all future high school reunions, providing me with dozens of unsolicited yet universally enthusiastic birthday greetings, and providing me with endless hours of marginal enjoyment through applications like Scramble.

When it comes to Facebook and marriage, what’s your opinion?

[poll id="182"]

Have you friended or been friended by an ex?  Has a FB friend ever made you feel uncomfortable or gotten too personal?  Do you have concerns with your spouse’s Facebook use?  Discuss.

This is such an excellent question and I appreciate your courage to ask it. There are many LDS couples who grapple with similar questions. I, myself, have gone several times to both bishops and stake presidents to gain clarification on what is appropriate sexually within the bounds of marriage. All times I got a very similar answer: as long as you both consent to the behavior in question, as long as no one feels pressured to do something they are uncomfortable with, as long as it is something not harmful to your bodies, and as long as pornography is not involved – then sexual lifestyle should be decided on by husband and wife. So here are some thoughts:

1. It is a positive sign that you and your husband are comfortable exploring your sexuality together and trying new things. This allows for creativity, excitement and fun. However, just because you have tried something in the past, doesn’t mean it has to happen again, especially if someone has become uncomfortable with the process. You say for instance that you only enjoyed anal sex half of the time. It is important to discuss these feelings openly. And even if you become uncomfortable during the act it is OK to say “honey, I’d rather stop this now and try something else.”
2. I am obviously very encouraging of couples exploring their sexual palates together. My concerns with anal sex are primarily related to the physical implications that come with it. This sexual act seems to cross into the bounds of behavior that can be harmful to your body. First of all there is no natural lubrication that is provided by the rectum which increases possibility of pain and of rectal damage. Infections due to the high number of infectious microorganisms not found elsewhere on the body can be more likely to occur. Some cases of anal cancer have been linked to the practice of anal sex. Physical damage to the anus and the rectum due to their vulnerability is likely as well as issues such as hemorrhoids, anal fissures, rectal prolapse and loss of control over the bowels. The physical implications are more common the more often anal sex is practiced. It is because of these issues relating to our belief in “care of body as a temple” that I would discourage the practice of anal sex.
3. I don’t want you or your husband to feel weird or inadequate because you found this act pleasurable. The anus is tighter than the vagina and therefore can yield more tactile pleasure for the penis. The prostate gland for males and the Skene’s glands for females can both be stimulated when there is anal penetration. This stimulation often feels good and can even mimic orgasm for both males and females. Understanding our anatomy can do a lot to relieve us from unecessary guilt or shame.
4. Oral sex does not fall under the category of “harm to body.” The only problems correlated with oral sex are directly related to STDs (sexually transmitted diseases) which is true of all sexual behavior. My personal opinion is that this can be a special, personal and intimate way for both partners to enjoy each other if they are comfortable doing so.
5. Individuals and couples can differ dramatically on what they consider to be correct or comfortable sexual behavior. Much of this has to do with the ways that we were raised, whether or not there is a history of sexual trauma, our self-esteem related to our body image, our own sexual histories and the histories of our partners. If partners find themselves in a situation where one is comfortable with certain behaviors but the other is not, it can be a difficult situation for both to maneuver. Pressuring or degrading a spouse should never be an option. If these types of issues become problematic withing a marriage, I encourage couples to seek counseling from a marriage or sex therapist that is experienced in discussing sexual issues and that respects your values.
6. I think that any sexual experience that is shared between husband and wife, where both are comfortable and enjoying each other, is in of itself spiritually uplifting. This is a large part of what Heavenly Father intends for our sexual relationship to offer us within marriage. The entire sexual act physically bonds us together. What a symbolic ritual to aid our emotional and spiritual bonds as well!
7. I want to clarify that I do not in any way speak officially for the Church.

MM readers:

What is your take on this question? What is appropriate within marriage and what isn’t?  How can couples handle situations where one is comfortable with something the other isn’t?

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

The lesson asks the following questions (answers provided):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To me, the answer as attributed to Paul in Corinthians is crystal clear and easy advice:

1 Corinthians 7 : 12-16

12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

If you accept Paul’s writings as doctrinally binding, this means you can allow an unbeliever who wants to leave to go, but you should stay with your spouse otherwise.  Paul’s counsel reminds me of E. Bednar’s personal life growing up in a house with a non-LDS father and going to church with just his mother.  Eventually, after E. Bednar was an adult, his father did choose to join the church.  I think most confusion regarding mixed belief marriages is related to this scripture in 2 Cor 6:14:

14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

But this second one seems to be about whom you choose to marry or associate with, while the first one is about someone who is already married.

According to Paul’s advice, divorce of an unbeliever is only justified if that unbelieving spouse desires to leave.  Yet we hear time and again of believing spouses who consider loss of testimony a valid reason for divorce.  Why?  Here are some reasons that have been discussed around the b’nacle:

• Change.  It’s normal for spouses to fantasize about divorce when there has been a material change to the “marriage contract” as they viewed it.  For example, John McCain reevaluated his marital contract when his wife became disabled and he ditched her for the leggy blond heiress.  The fantasy may be normal and common, but actually carrying through on it is a bit unsavory.  All marriages will experience change.  Spouses will grow old, develop independent interests, get fat or skinny, change political views, have changes to sexual interest, etc.  While studies show that living in a bad marriage is detrimental to health, the negative health effects of divorce are devastating and lasting.  Being resilient and flexible enough to make marriage work through change maintains your health, both mentally and physically.
• Control.  If either spouse attempts to control the other spouse’s behavior, the marriage is on rocky ground.  Control may not degenerate to abuse, but it is in the same family of behaviors.  Marriage based on respect and mutual love does not involve controlling the choices our spouse makes.  We may wish they would choose something different, but coercing or manipulating or threatening to get what we want is another fantasy best left unindulged.  In marriages where the wife exhibits controlling behavior, husbands have a marked negative health impact that often results in an earlier death.  Maybe that’s something the controlling wife considers a benefit of her behavior.
• Opportunism.  This is one that few people will openly own, but it often sounds something like “I deserve better” or “My patriarchal blessing promised me . . . ” or “Heavenly Father wants me to have . . .” or even “My kids deserve a father who . . .”  Often what is behind those statements are two sentiments:  1) entitlement (last I checked we are still only entitled to taxes and death in this life), and 2) viewing the spouse as an obstacle to “what I want” or “what I deserve.”  Often, the believing spouse in this scenario feels entitled to a spouse who will allow him or her to maintain status in the church.  It can also be based on a fear of loss of exaltation or salvation (meaning status in the life to come).  This is the opposite of charitable love and honoring our marital vows; it is putting self ahead of the marriage.  Some will also talk of the entitlement in terms of their children (e.g. “the children deserve a mother or father who . . .”), but again, it’s not giving the children a very good example of how marriage works or of Christ-like behavior.
• Fear.  Behind a lot of failed marriages lies raw fear.  Fear of change, fear of loss of control in your life, fear of loss of status, fear of eternal consequences that are unclear in one’s changes circumstances.  Fear is something that must be faced with courage and love.  This can take time.

There is obviously justification for leaving a marriage that is abusive.  No one should be in fear of physical harm or be subject to ongoing verbal abuse, but even in cases of abuse, individuals have different definitions of what is abusive, when does disagreement become verbal abuse, etc.  Clearly, anyone can choose to leave a marriage for any reason at any time.  Marriage is voluntary.  But that doesn’t make one’s choice justifiable or healthy for personal growth.  Those who divorce are prone to make the same mistakes in future relationships (consider Emma Smith whose second husband Louis Bidamon was unfaithful).

What do you think of Paul’s counsel?  Is divorce of an unbelieving spouse who is faithful to marriage vows, loving, a good parent, and not controlling or abusive ever morally justified?  Discuss.

Is it common for one to feel resentful of the other spouse when empty-nesting?  All I see in my spouse now are all the wrongs I’ve ever felt.  I’m having a really hard time getting over it.

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

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

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

Assorted Quotes on this Doctrine:

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

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

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

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

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

So what’s your view?

[poll id = "179"]

Discuss.

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

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

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

———-

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

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

SECTION 164, PARAGRAPHS 1-4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SECTION 164, PARAGRAPHS 5-7

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SECTION 164, PARAGRAPH 8

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

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

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

SECTION 164, PARAGRAPH 9

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

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

As bishop you have had a hard month, lots of problems, meetings, etc.  that took you away from your wife and young family.  Last Friday you had a date night planned with your wife, even had a babysitter lined up, and at the last second you had to cancel due to bishop duties.  Your wife was understandably upset, but did not complain.  When you got home late Friday night you promised her that next Friday would be all hers.

You’ve arranged for your mother to watch the kids, and everything is going to be great.  Your wife is just getting in the car, and as you are walking around the car, you hear the phone ring. You both look at each other, and you stop walking.  Your wife gives you that look.

[poll ID = "143"]

This very scenario was presented by a GA during a Bishop training meeting I attended. He said it really happened to a bishop he knew. Make sure you tune back for the very surprising outcome given by the GA!

(This post has been updated)

Just saw this blurb in the Deseret News this morning:

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

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

Let me start w/ the obvious:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

During the last two years, the U.S.A. (and the world in general) has seen tremendous economic hardship. It has been dubbed the “Great Recession” by many – a nod to the 1929 “Great Depression.” I recently read an interesting piece in The Christian Science Monitor (which I generally find to be a good, mostly unbiased source of information – this article being a noteworthy exception) entitled Recession’s silver lining: falling divorce rate.

This article presents some profound, highly methodical research, and is very well written. There are absolutely no poor leaps of logic, it is based on sound science, and it certainly does not equate correlation with causation. Okay, okay, so the article leaves a lot to be desire.

Here is the key:

These tough economic times may have at least one positive side effect: they might be encouraging greater family solidarity. The evidence for this? The US divorce rate fell during the first full year of what might be called the Great Recession. That’s the first such decline since 2005.[1]

And then:

But others may be rediscovering why they got married in the first place. Recession reminds them that marriage can be more than an emotional relationship. It is also an economic partnership and social safety net, points out the National Marriage Project report, “The State of Our Unions 2009″ (WARNING: pdf file).

If this is true (and since it’s in print, it must be!) maybe the church is “barking up the wrong tree” to preserve the sanctity of marriage. My suggestion would be to increase tithing to 20% or 30% even. Furthermore, a strong campaign pushing for legislation raising taxes, and further government intervention in the way of fixing higher prices would be just what we need to truly preserve the sanctity of marriage! After all

There’s nothing like the loss of a job, an imminent foreclosure, or a shrinking 401(k) to [help spouses] gain new appreciation for a wife’s job, a husband’s commitment to pay down debt, or the in-laws’ willingness to help out with childcare or a rent-free place to live.[2]

What do you think? Discuss.

[1] http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2009/1208/p02s04-ussc.html

[2] http://www.virginia.edu/marriageproject/pdfs/Union_11_25_09.pdf

Although Mormons have a less strict stance on birth control than Catholics, this has not always been the case.  There have been some anti-birth control statements in the past (mostly before reliable safe birth control and indoor plumbing were widely available), and those statements have not necessarily been refuted.  Here are a few historical statements that might be of interest:

• Joseph F. Smith, prophet (1916).  In answer to your communication in which you ask me for my views on the issue of “birth control, or the limiting of the number of children in a family to one or two”… I have this to say: The first great commandment given both to man and beast by the Creator was to ‘multiply and replenish the earth;’ and I have not learned that this commandment was ever repealed. Those who attempt to pervert the ways of the Lord and prevent their offspring from coming into the world in obedience to this great command, are guilty of one of the most heinous crimes in the category. There is no promise for eternal salvation and exaltation for such as they, for by their acts they prove their unworthiness for exaltation and unfitness for a kingdom where the crowning glory is the continuation of the family union and eternal increase…”
• Ezra Taft Benson, apostle (1969).  The world teaches birth control. Tragically, many of our sisters subscribe to its pills and practices when they could easily provide earthly tabernacles for more of our Father’s children.  We know that every spirit assigned to this earth will come, whether through us or someone else.  There are couples in the Church who think they are getting along just fine with their limited families but who will someday suffer the pains of remorse when they meet the spirits that might have been part of their posterity.
• Ezra Taft Benson, prophet.  True to form, many of the people who desire to frustrate God’s purposes of giving mortal tabernacles to His spirit children through worldwide birth control are the very same people who support the kinds of government that perpetuate famine. They advocate an evil to cure the results of the wickedness they support.
• Spencer W. Kimball, ap0stle (1971).  Many good people, being influenced by the bold spirit of the times, are now seeking surgery for the wife or the husband so they may avoid pregnancies and comply with the strident voice demanding a reduction of children. It was never easy to bear and rear children, but easy things do not make for growth and development. But loud, blatant voices today shout ‘fewer children’ and offer the Pill, drugs, surgery, and even ugly abortion to accomplish that. Strange the proponents of depopulating the world seem never to have thought of continence!”
• Spencer W. Kimball, prophet (1979).  It is an act of extreme selfishness for a married couple to refuse to have children when they are able to do so.
• Harold B. Lee, prophet (1972).  [W]e declare it is a grievous sin before God to adopt restrictive measures in disobedience to God’s divine command from the beginning of time to ‘multiply and replenish the earth.’ 
• J. Ballard, seventy (1995).  Thus we see that in marriage, a husband and wife enter into an order of the priesthood called the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. This covenant includes a willingness to have children and to teach them the gospel. Many problems of the world today are brought about when parents do not accept the responsibilities of this covenant.  It is contradictory to this covenant to prevent the birth of children if the parents are in good health.  Thirty-five years ago when I first started practicing medicine, it was a rare thing for a married woman to seek advice about how she could keep from having babies. When I finished practicing medicine, it was a rare thing, except for some faithful Latter-day Saint women, for a married woman to want to have more than one or two children, and some did not want any children. We in the Church must not be caught up in the false doctrines of the world that would cause us to break sacred temple covenants.
• Julie Beck, general RS president (2008).  Mothers who know desire to bear children. Whereas in many cultures in the world children are “becoming less valued,” in the culture of the gospel we still believe in having children. Prophets, seers, and revelators who were sustained at this conference have declared that “God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force.” President Ezra Taft Benson taught that young couples should not postpone having children and that “in the eternal perspective, children—not possessions, not position, not prestige—are our greatest jewels.”  Faithful daughters of God desire children.
• lds.org (current statement regarding “birth control“).  Children are one of the greatest blessings in life, and their birth into loving and nurturing families is central to God’s purposes for humanity. When husband and wife are physically able, they have the privilege and responsibility to bring children into the world and to nurture them. The decision of how many children to have and when to have them is a private matter for the husband and wife. . .  Husband and wife are encouraged to pray and counsel together as they plan their families. Issues to consider include the physical and mental health of the mother and father and their capacity to provide the basic necessities of life for their children. . . Decisions about birth control and the consequences of those decisions rest solely with each married couple. Elective abortion as a method of birth control, however, is contrary to the commandments of God.

The church’s strong pro-family stance seems to make it unlikely that the church would ever encourage birth control, even if it is not prohibited.  The current Church Handbook of Instruction states that birth control is not prohibited but surgical methods are discouraged.  As the product of a reversed vasectomy, I still find myself somewhat indifferent to that instruction.  So, let’s see what the rest of you think with a few polls:

 [poll id="55"]

[poll id="56"] [poll id="57"] [poll id="58"]

Is all this detailed instruction because people keep taking private decisions to their bishops (vs. to the Lord) or is it because leaders feel members are making bad choices?  Discuss.

The word gender is constantly in flux in the English language.  Here are some examples of the different meanings associated with the word “gender,” and how they might fit with the Proclamation on the Family:

• Gender is popularly used to denote biology (e.g. male or female sex).  This could be what is meant, that we were male & female blobs of intelligence who became male & female spirit children who became male & female citizens of planet Earth.  That we always were and will be male & female.
• Gender can refer to sexual identity:  ”an individual’s self-conception as being male or female, as distinguished from actual biological sex.”  This could be what is meant by the PoF, especially noteworthy since it specifically mentions the role of gender in identity.
  • Following this interpretation, there are related issues for the multi- (hermaphrodite) or trans-gendered because the church’s stance is generally against gender reassignment (transgendered individuals can be baptized, but not receive the priesthood, and individuals should not be baptized if their transgender operation is planned.  This stance does not specifically address hermaphroditic gender determination).
  • Additionally, some cultures embrace a third gender identity:  individuals who run counter to gender stereotypes (e.g. the Two-Spirit people of Native American tribes), a non-sexual gender (e.g. eunuchs or hijiras), or individuals who are “beyond gay and straight” (e.g. the Muxe of Oaxaca, MX).
• “Gender…is a grammatical term only. To talk of persons…of the masculine or feminine g[ender], meaning of the male or female sex, is either a jocularity (permissible or not according to context) or a blunder” – Henry Watson Fowler.  Hey, I had to throw it out there, but that’s one of the earliest meanings of the word, and it does still mean that.  It’s just irrelevant to the PoF.  Or is it?  Grammatical gender assignment in languages is often different from language to language and doesn’t follow social gender constructs in all cases.  It is frequently arbitrary.  Kind of like social norms.
• “Among the reasons that working scientists have given me for choosing gender rather than sex in biological contexts are desires to signal sympathy with feminist goals, to use a more academic term, or to avoid the connotation of copulation.”  – David Haig in 2004, The Inexorable Rise of Gender and the Decline of Sex.  Was the word “gender” used merely because the word “sex” might be misconstrued to refer to copulation?  Maybe so. Imagine the mischief of anti-Mormons talking about “eternal copulation.”  Oh, wait, they already do.
• Gender refers to sexual stereotypes that are socially constructed.  This is the interpretation of the PoF that seems most commonly held, although it’s problematic in light of the cultural origin of most gender roles.  Some sexual stereotypes seem conflated with biology (women’s bodies literally “nurture” babies in utero and potentially through nursing), while others vary greatly from culture to culture (e.g. men in kilts, Rosie the Riveter, female warrior societies, SAHDs).  If the characteristics are cultural constructions how can they reflect eternal purpose?  Coincidentally?
  • The term gender role was coined in 1955 by sexologist John Money, (prompting the question “What the heck is a sexologist?”). He said: “The term gender role is used to signify all those things that a person says or does to disclose himself or herself as having the status of boy or man, girl or woman, respectively. It includes, but is not restricted to, sexuality in the sense of eroticism.”
  • Elements of such a role include clothing (except as I recall I was born nekkid), speech patterns (swearing like a sailor?), movement (walking swishily?), occupations (what about SAHDs and female soldiers?), and other factors not limited to biological sex.  Clearly, nothing on this list is eternal.
  • Possible gender characteristics referred to in the PoF include:  By divine design, fathers are to preside (in some wards, this means ”fall asleep on the stand between talks“) over their families in love and righteousness (so, not like Pinochet) and are responsible to provide the necessities of life (like clean diapers and formula?) and protection for their families (clearly, this means killing spiders). Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children (nutritious take-out and microwave meals, for example). In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation (lots of caveats here, including the wide open “other circumstances”).
• From dictionary.com, we find a “Usage Note”:  Traditionally, gender has been used primarily to refer to the grammatical categories of “masculine,” “feminine,” and “neuter,” but in recent years the word has become well established in its use to refer to sex-based categories, as in phrases such as gender gap and the politics of gender. This usage is supported by the practice of many anthropologists, who reserve sex for reference to biological categories, while using gender to refer to social or cultural categories.  According to this rule, one would say The effectiveness of the medication appears to depend on the sex (not gender) of the patient, but In peasant societies, gender (not sex) roles are likely to be more clearly defined. This distinction is useful in principle, but it is by no means widely observed, and considerable variation in usage occurs at all levels.   So, I suppose the answer is:  “Your guess is as good as mine.”  Speaking of which . . .

So, what do you think is meant by the Proclamation on the Family?

[poll id="47"]

Natasha:  As it says on my site, I am a Licensed Clinical Marriage and Family Therapist, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and have 12 years of experience working with LDS members. I graduated from BYU-Provo with a degree in Psychology and from Friends University-Wichita with my masters in MFT. I am also fluent in Spanish.

Batman:  Can you tell us about the purpose of your site, The Mormon Therapist?  What made you start it?

Natasha:  Being a Latter-day Saint, I understand there are many issues that relate exclusively with members of our church that would be difficult to discuss with therapists not of our faith. It can also be frustrating for those who do not have access to an LDS therapist/counselor geographically close by. Or maybe the LDS therapist one knows is a close friend or someone one’s not comfortable with.

My hope through this blog is to present a venue where anonymous questions can be posted and where relevant information and resources can be shared. I review the questions or comments submitted and answer them in as timely a manner as possible.  I want to be upfront, creative, and open to discussing issues that in the LDS community can feel taboo.

In fact, the person who was most influential in getting me to start this blog is a wife of a gay man.  Both have been faithful members their entire lives and both are now feeling confused and somewhat abandoned by the church.  When she found out about her husband’s secret, she had nowhere to turn that felt safe.  She explained to me the frustration of going on the internet and finding nothing she deemed useful or relevant to her, especially being LDS.  I know that the purpose of the LDS lifestyle is to offer happiness, strong family relationships, eternal perspective and unlimited blessings.  However, it is a reality that the high expectations our religion promotes can often leave members feeling guilty, inept, depressed and frustrated. I want my site to be a safe place to go and get useful and pertinent information in these situations

Batman:  That is certainly a tough issue.  What are the limitations of offering answers on a site vs. therapy?  At what point should someone consider therapy rather than just trying to work through issues on their own?

Natasha:  Well, obviously therapy is going to be a much more personal process than getting answers on an “advice column” like mine.  The therapist will be able to ask more pertinent questions that will get to the heart of issues more quickly and efficiently.  Plus therapy is a give-and-take process with both the therapist and the client participating in a discussion that takes into account things like body language and non-verbal cues I don’t have access to.  I just hope my blog can be a place where people can begin to get some answers and then follow that up with more specific treatment if necessary.

As far as when to consider therapy, I wish more people would consider it sooner than later.  Problems are easier to solve when they are not yet set into cyclical patterns and when people are less angry, bitter, resentful, and/or hopeless.  Just as in the medical field, preventive mental health/relationship care is easier and provides better results than crisis management.

Batman:  What are some of the most common questions you get on the site?

Natasha:  Many of the questions I receive deal with sexuality.  This is not surprising really, seeing as how I am providing an avenue to discuss a very sensitive and personal topic in an anonymous yet open and direct fashion.          The second most common questions deal with the issue of how to move forward when a spouse loses their testimony, leaves the church, or is acting in ways that do not follow church teachings.

Batman:  Do Mormons have sexual hang-ups?

Natasha:  There is a tendency for any religious culture to have “hang-ups” with sex.  This is not to say that many religious people don’t have healthy sexual relationships with their spouses, because they do.  And we have an advantage in the area of seeing sexuality as a sacred endeavor that is to be treated with the utmost respect.  Where I think we falter, is in the education of our children and adolescents.  We focus so much on the “not having sex” part during these formative years that sex can become a topic correlated with shame, guilt, embarrassment, etc.  It can also be difficult for our youth to know how to discuss anything to do with sexuality, where to go for help, and how to move forward when they have made mistakes in this area.  Even minor mistakes can feel or even be treated as major.  Then all of a sudden members find themselves married and everything is supposed to magically fall into place.  Many times it doesn’t.  But nobody is normalizing this and letting couples know that it takes time, patience and a lot of communication to foster a healthy sexual relationship.  Now the issues become marital and can spiral into very difficult problems for many couples.  This is a very unfortunate process that needs to be addressed more openly within our culture.

Batman:  In one of your posts, you talk about the fact that issues tend to recur from generation to generation.  How can this knowledge help people?

Natasha:  Yes, in fact the scriptures talk about this at length.  I sometimes get resistance regarding “talking about the past.”  Many people don’t want to revisit painful or difficult memories.  Many don’t want to feel like they are blaming all of their problems on their parents or their chidhood environment.  I understand these concerns.  However, I try to explain that the main purpose of “talking about the past” is to: figure out what patterns, rules, family structure, and emotional communication (both negative and positive) were role modeled in the family of origin.

Whether we like it or not, we are all subject to and highly affected by the families we grew up in.  Statistics continually support this.  And these influences will and do inevitable affect the families we are now forming ourselves.  So it is important to do some generational work in order to recognize negative patterns we do not want to repeat, recognize positive strengths we do want to incorporate, and if there has been trauma, it is important to give voice to those memories so that they have less influence on our future.  The “past” work is only beneficial when it moves us toward the present and future.

Batman:  Do you feel that your work ever puts you at odds with any members of the church?  Are there some who resist your counsel based on their perceptions of the church’s stance?

Natasha:  Anytime religious beliefs are involved there are going to be differences of opinions and/or different interpretations.  This is just a normal part of being part of this human family.  And this does come into play within my work.  Although my intention is never to cause offense, I am sure that there are members who find my counsel or my opinions contrary to theirs.  This is perfectly normal and I welcome discussion and challenges.  I believe this is what is so important to have happen, as long as we can have these discussions in a Christlike way that elicits respect and common courtesy.

Batman:  You talk about the effects of guilt and shame on the site.  Do Mormons suffer from unhealthy guilt?

Natasha:  Yes, unfortunately many times we do.  Guilt and shame are interesting topics because there are times when it is appropriate to have these feelings and there are times when it is not.  Or even more confusing, it can be appropriate to have these feelings, but not at the intensity we attribute them. And this can be a difficult process to sift through.

I think it is important to remember that guilt has a purpose as a tool from God – it reminds us when we are doing or contemplating doing something wrong to get back on the right path.  There are some legitimate things to feel bad about.  However, it’s purpose is not to throw us into the depths of depression or low self-worth.  Because when we get to the point of feeling unnecessarily bad about ourselves, it can be very difficult to gather the energy needed to get back on the path previously mentioned.

Feelings of guilt can legitimately come from the “pricking” of the spirit.  They can also come from environmental forces that we have been subject to and taught from (i.e. the culture we were raised in, the family we were raised in, the way in which our religion was taught to us, etc.).  It is difficult, yet imperative, that we all strive to clarify these sources of guilt for ourselves through self-awareness, study, prayer and questioning.  Therapy can be useful towards this end.  It is also imperative that when dealing with guilt, sin, shame, etc., we always have at the forefront of our minds that we have a saviour Jesus Christ who loves us, has atoned for us, and wants us to succeed. He does not want us to use guilt as a wallowing place. Only as a quick state of being to get us headed in a better, healthier, and happier direction.

Batman:  Well, that is certainly a lot to think about.  One last question.  What general advice would you give church members to strengthen families and individuals’ mental health?

Natasha:  Education and Communication!  Being willing to learn about and be open to the latest psychological research and medical advancements in addition to church teachings are pivotal to many issues such as depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety, marital and/or parental distress, etc., etc.  Being willing to communicate:  talk openly about issues that may feel taboo or uncomfortable and then be willing to listen is pivotal for any spousal or parental relationship.  If we can’t talk about our problems in a respectful, safe environment, we will be less able to solve the issues we are faced with.  Managing our own anxieties many times is important to this process.  My hope would be that we can approach our relationships with ourselves and with our loved ones in a way that follows Christ’s example of unconditional love and understanding.

Batman:  Thanks to Natasha, The Mormon Therapist, for answering our questions and for providing such a great service to members with the issues we all face from time to time.

I encourage everyone to visit the site (link above) and browse through some of the frank questions and answers that are of interest to you.

For our readers, what do you think of some of these topics we’ve discussed:

• the role of faith in marriage and the implications of one partner’s loss of faith to the marriage
• sexual hang-ups that are so common to religious people
• shame and guilt; that it is sometimes necessary and positive, but can be damaging if we wallow in it
• the influence of past mistakes and family on our current behavior patterns
• overcoming our own anxieties as parents and addressing things openly with our kids

How do you feel about therapy in general and advice columns?  Discuss.

• Men can’t really preach the patriarchy because they know how sexist it makes them sound, so they leave it to women. I admit it has gotten better, but how many times do women say “I don’t really want the priesthood” as a reason no woman should be able to make that choice. It is very rare for a man to even admit that women are excluded.

• There is also a huge culture war between the SAHM and working mother, and I think people who made that decision out of fear or authoritative institutional pressure are the first people who have something to lose when the church eliminates predefined gender roles. Those who made their decisions themselves are more confident in them and don’t receive their worth from a statement in the proclamation on the family.

• Women are great cultural enforcers. We keep the codes of society together. And one of the best faces patriarchy can have is a female face. A woman who says, “I would never want the responsibility of the Priesthood” appears meek and humble, making women who would like to be empowered, or see other women empowered, looking anything but holy. I see this on Mormon feminist blogs each time we post on a directly feminist topic.  From an article I read:  “Often, when women live under the weight of silence and fear speaking out, they have the least tolerance for other women who break the rules — they use them as targets to discharge their pain and rage.”

• I don’t think it matters who is perpetuating the situation, but women not only accept the situation, they compound the situation when they do not question the status-quo. If women rose up and spoke up or even just started asking questions, the men would address the issues at hand. At the very least, the more assertive women are making a difference in their individual wards by expecting respect and action.

• When Susan (name has been changed) was writing about how she thought she’d get dismissed as a feminist heretic by her bishop, I thought “Good!” At least he’ll know some of those cool sisters out there are feminist heretics.” I wonder how many men in leadership roles realize how important equality is to so many of the sisters. We need to own our equality in order see change in our individual lives. The community will follow.

I am well aware of most of the controversial issues (Book of Abraham, DNA, Book of Mormon historicity, polyandry, etc.). Some of them occasionally bother me. Others do not. Although according to statistics I am very educated, I probably could not win an argument defending the church on any of those points. I could not support the church on Prop. 8, (if you want to specifically comment on that, please go here). I will probably never understand in this life why we are discouraged from praying to our Heavenly Mother, or why women are no longer allowed bless the sick. I am sure I could go on, and so could many of you.

I occasionally get asked or read questions like, “If Joseph Smith made claims that were false, how can you believe any of his claims?” “When you line everything up, how can you still logically believe it to be true?” For anyone questioning the faith, or those who have left the church who may be reading this, feel free to mentally insert other questions here. They are all good and valid in my opinion. I do not fault anyone for asking them, nor for being disturbed enough by them to leave the faith. Although my path is different, I wish you the best.

How do I explain my belief and activity in the church? Have I put “feelings” above reason?

I was raised by a saint of a mother and an intellectual yet very spiritual father. Church books lined the shelves: Quinn, Compton, and even Bagley’s Blood of The Prophets and Southerton’s Lost Tribe made appearances. On hunting trips my father would sometimes shoot his buffalo in the name of Allah (in Turkish) so our good Muslim friends could enjoy it with us. As bishop, he helped countless families regardless of legal status, blessed a neighbor’s sick cat, and was a safe haven for gay members to turn to. My parents left their ward a few years ago to attend a Hispanic branch, where they can do a lot more than debate in Sunday School over gospel minutiae. They taught me by word and example that serving and loving others always trumps theology.

As a priest I loved blessing the sacrament. It was probably the first time I felt a significant sense of the sacred–it was intoxicating. I loved seminary and institute, even when I was taught that Darwin was Satan’s answer to Joseph Smith (that one still makes me smile). I often felt a sense of awe watching the RMs come home. I wanted what they had. My father called it “spiritual muscle.” My mission in Japan was the right place at the right time for me, for many reasons. It was the best investment of time I had ever made (up to that point, of course!).

The Book of Mormon has a special place in my life. One experience reading King Benjamin started what became a small series of nearly indescribable subjective positive spiritual experiences, (I once tried to describe what it was like to an inquiring non-member/acquaintance and was mocked for it, so I hold close what is most sacred–let’s just say that a few of them were more than just a “tingling down the spine” or “warm feelings”). I have also felt what I interpret to be the infinite love and patience of God, for me and for all of his children. These “feelings” are as important and special to me as my “feelings” for my wife and son.

I love having a community wherever I go. I generally enjoy responsibilities at church, (currently the strengthening marriage instructor) and I have found that if I’m prepared and attentive, the meetings are usually more than worthwhile. I love General Conference, and agree with the teachings almost all of the time. Some people (both in and out of the church) seem to think that a prophet is either always right or not a prophet at all. I was not brought up that way, and have a difficult time understanding it now. Like Henry Eyring (Sr.) said, I think that prophets are wonderful because sometimes they speak for God. It is for those special moments of elevation and insight that I respect and listen to them.

Certain aspects of Mormon theology also fit me better than any religion or philosophy I know. This will have to be a later post, but marriage and personal growth are two of the most important things in life to me, and Mormonism fits those quite well, (I am definitely open to other views or ideas on this, if you have some).

I love symbolism, and enjoy the temple ordinances–I expect that they will continue to evolve, and look forward to it. I see Christ and relationships in everything in the temple. It can be different, even awkward at first, but looking deeper provides inspiration and insight that is a moving and a stabilizing force in my life. I believe in Christ. He inspires goodness. He is the answer to the question of evil and tragedy and suffering. He unconditionally loves everyone. That is a God I believe in. His revelations are in the Church, in books, in the rocks, and hopefully in my dissertation in a few years. None of those conduits are free from error.

This is not an argument for Mormonism. I am not telling others how they should approach faith, or activity in the church. This is simply how I am doing it. I could not be more logical: Some stuff bothers me, some of it really inspires me, gives meaning to my life and family, and has been the source of experiences (not always just feelings) and growth that I cannot reject. I do not have my head in the sand. I am not plugging my ears and yelling “faith! faith! faith!” at valid and logical arguments against the church’s claims.

Some people may think that if I have concerns or disagreements I should drop the church. Others may think I should try harder to procure some answers for my questions and concerns. I have pondered the first option and tried out the second for a while. In one of the clearest insights in my life, I found that neither option is even remotely satisfying. I believe in the gospel, and I am not an apologist. So here I am, in the church, good and bad, best and worst, inspiring and awkward.

What is your story?

• How do you handle issues that are difficult or perhaps impossible to reconcile?
• What are the best parts of your experiences in the church?
• Why have you ultimately decided to stay or leave? (Please keep these in a spirit of sharing and mutual understanding.)

Do you know of any good related posts (by those who have stayed OR left–again, written with some humility, please). Next week there will be a guest post by a friend of mine who left the church a while back. Here are a few others, from various perspectives:

• Why I Am Not a Disaffected Mormon
• Not ashamed
• The atheist hiding within the Mormon
• I Have Always Been A Pagan