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

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

From the “official” response:

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

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

Best answers:

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

Answers I liked slightly less:

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

Mormon-speak:

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

Other interesting observations:

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

What I might have said:

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

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

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.

Here’s the question:  Do you really believe there is a prophet like Moses alive today?

My initial reaction is that this is a weird way to word this question, but I suppose it was done because “Moses” is probably the only Biblical prophet most people know by name (who does not know the story of Moses leading the animals onto the ark?).

First, the “official” answer given on the site:

Throughout history, God has chosen prophets, such as Noah, Abraham, Moses, and others, to teach the gospel and direct His Church (Amos 3:7). It is no different today. We all need God’s guidance in a world that is sometimes confusing. Because God loves His children, He continues to send living prophets. Joseph Smith (1805–44) was the first prophet of our time. Thomas S. Monson is God’s chosen prophet today.

Just as God led the Israelites out of slavery and to a better place through His prophet Moses, He leads His children today into happier, more peaceful lives when they choose to follow His living prophet. We invite you to listen to the words of living prophets and consider how knowing God’s will can benefit your life.

Answers I generally liked:

• Moses as an allegory for a prophet.  It’s such a stretch to compare someone as highly mythologized as Moses with someone who is as contemporary as Pres. Monson.  To do so, you have to point to the man in the Moses myth or the myth in the mantle.  It can be tough to pull off, but many here do it pretty well.
  • “Who was Moses… a righteous man, not a perfect man.”
  • “Just as Moses’ people needed guidance in his day, we need guidance in ours as well.”
  • “You must remember that although Moses was a great prophet, he was a man. God calls men to be prophets.”
  • “Without Moses to lead them as a living prophet, would the Children of Israel have been led out of Egypt? They followed the prophet.”  This was a nice twist on the meaning of “follow the prophet” implying following a person’s example and doing what they do rather than doing what they say.
  • “He has been taught the teachings of God, like Moses. He has embraced God, like Moses. He’s committed himself, his life, his abilities, his heart, to God, like Moses.”
  • “Well, I’m not sure how much like Moses he is, but we certainly do have a living prophet today.”  Hear, hear.  Stupid question.
  • “In 1831, a Methodist preacher named Ezra Booth asked Joseph Smith Jr., “Do you believe that you are a prophet, like Moses or Abraham?” The Prophet replied, “I don’t think that what you believe and what I believe are all that different. You believe that God used to talk to man. I believe that he still does.”"  So, apparently someone else asked this same stupid question 160 years ago.
• Practical & personal.  Those that shared personal thoughts about the benefits of having a prophet were generally on point, IMO.  Generally, I was OK with testimony bearing here under that same umbrella, although I’m not sure how well that works in this medium and for a non-Mormon audience.  My favorites were those who linked the topic to their own conversion story.
  • “I know as I have followed God’s living prophet it has brought peace and hope into my life.”
  • “That is probably one of the first things I marveled at, the knowledge that a wise and loving Heavenly Father could show His love by this simple act. What parent would not want to guide their children back and what better way to show His love than to still speak to His children today. The heavens are still open and in my mind it would be odd to think otherwise.”
  • “He receives revelation directly from God. Revelation that has guided my life on a personal level.”
  • “Yes! This was something I was so excited to learn about when I was investigating the church and being taught by the missionaries. Growing up while attending a religious school, I was always taught about the prophets of the Old Testament and amazed at what incredible men they must have been.”
  • “Yep. This is one of the things that I understood and looked for in a church. I grew up reading the Bible and loved reading how regularly and consistently God spoke through his prophets so his people received clarity and direction, as a people, when they chose to listen. People say that God stopped talking to men as a group after Jesus’ death, but that’s not so.”
  • “I have had the privilege of meeting in person President Thomas S. Monson, current Prophet. He is a joyful person. He makes everyone feel like they are his friend.”
  • “Before I joined the church in college, I didn’t think prophets would still be used by God in this day. No other church I had studied had this belief.  In my process of joining the church, I prayed to know if there was actually a prophet, like Moses, on the earth today. Not surprisingly, I received direct revelation from God that there was, in fact, a prophet, and he was at the head of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”
• Personal revelation caveat.  I liked those few who remembered to mention the fact that all members of the church are entitled to their own revelation for themselves, and to be able to discern truth through the spirit, not just blindly follow others.
  • “My personal prayers guide my own personal life, but the prophet’s counsel guides the whole membership.”
  • “When God wants YOU to know something, he’ll tell you personally if you’re listening. When God wants THE WORLD, collectively, to know something, he’ll pick someone, and tell him–simple as that.”  I thought this was the most straightforward answer.
  • “This does NOT mean that God doesn’t talk to me. The Holy Ghost still gives personal revelation to everyone who remains worthy since their baptism and who does the work to pay attention.”  Another favorite.
  • “That is not to say that I am exempt from working on my own relationship with God. Just as the prophet receives direction from God regarding the doctrines of the church, the organization of the church, and instruction related to the church and priesthood, I too must seek inspiration and instruction from God.”

Answers I didn’t like so much, or that might sound strange to non-Mormons:

• Culty-sounding stuff.  Even just saying the prophet speaks for God can sound a little nutty to those not of our faith without some level of caveat attached.  Any sort of prophet-worship also falls into this camp.
  • “Follow the prophet. He knows the way!”  Cue the spooky music.
• Apocalyptic answers.  These are answers that sound like “crazy uncle” talk about the world ending.  Why is it that we think Evangelicals are nuts for raving about the Rapture, but we hear similar things at church sometimes without raising an eyebrow?
  • “I believe that as we near the end of the world that there is no greater time for us to have spiritual direction from a chosen servant of the Lord then (sic) right now.”
• “The world is bad.”  These answers sound like fear-mongering and tribalism.  Inside the tribe, they sound OK.  Outside the tribe, they don’t ring true because those outside the tribe don’t generally think the world is full of invisible dangers.
  • “It gives me great comfort in this troubled world that I can look to the leaders of the LDS Church and know that I can hear the mind and will of Jesus Christ.”  Implying you can’t get your own revelation, of course.
  • “today’s world is a vast maze of concerns that could be very confusing without a prophet to see ahead and warn us of impending danger.”  This sentence got more and more alarming as it went.
  • “There is a constant attack against the commandments God has given to us. Immorality, violence, swearing, and an obsession with wealth are hugely common. There are wars and natural disasters like no other time on this earth. God’s commandments have not changed, but an increasing amount of people are fighting against them. The prophet today helps to protect the faithful members of the church from the influence of those fighting against God’s commandments.”  This one sounds a bit on the culty side to me.  Also, I suggest this person needs to crack open a history book based on some of these claims.
  • “Prophets were around in the Old Testament to lead people, to guide them, and to protect them from the evils of the world. Great prophets like Moses, Abraham, and so on all provided the people of the time with valuable knowledge that was tailored for them to combat the temptations of a wicked world. How much more wicked is our world today?”  I don’t know.  How much?
• Unintentional doctrinal mistakes.  I didn’t see any biggies here, which is good.
  • “Our prophet is a wonderful man.  I have met one of his apostles, and the spirit around them is incredible.”  Wait, the prophet has apostles?  I thought they were Jesus’ apostles.  Also, if you’ve only met one, how do you know what the spirit around “them” is like?
• Mormon-speak alert!  Many of these FAQs have highlighted some words we hear a lot at church but almost nowhere else.
  • Mouthpiece.  Does anyone else on the planet use this word?  What is a mouthpiece anyway?  It sounds like dentures.

What I might say:

• The likeness between our current prophet and Moses is best taken allegorically as the challenges faced in our day differ from those faced in a mythologized historical tradition.
• Prophets are people too.  We don’t believe they are infallible.  Unlike Moses, TSM has not killed any Egyptians (so far as I know), but he is also not perfect.
• Everyone is entitled to the guidance of the holy spirit and direct personal revelation.
• While prophets lead the church, they sometimes speak as a man, and sometimes inspired.  It’s up to us to discern the difference through our own personal revelation.
• Prophets provide advice, guidance and inspired insight.  A prophet doesn’t absolve anyone from responsibility for their own choices and actions.

What did you think?  Do you agree it’s weirdly worded?  How would you answer this question?  Discuss.

Here’s the “FAQ:”  What is the role of the husband and the wife in the family?  I have a few initial concerns with this: 

• Is this really a frequently asked question?  It seems to me that it’s something we apparently want to tell people, but it’s not necessarily the sort of thing anyone would ask us.  Isn’t it kind of like asking your boss what the company you work for does?
• Why is this question listed in the “women” section of the FAQs?  It’s ostensibly about the role of husbands (last I checked, men) as well as wives.  Of course, there is no section for “men.”  Hmmm.

The fact that this question exists is already questionable logic, IMO. With that in mind, let’s proceed.  Again, the “official” answer is perhaps the least problematic (below, an excerpt), although it does link to the PoF (which I state below I find potentially problematic):

Both mother and father have a necessary and important role in the lives of their children. Parents’ work in the home will be more effective if their first priorities are God, each other, and their children.

A home that is safe, where children can grow mentally, emotionally, physically and spiritually, requires faith and the best efforts of the parents working together.

Answers I liked:

• Equality.  Those that focused on equality in parenting with no role-prescriptive caveats.  Most of the answers did this.
• Responsibility.  Those that talked about what parents’ duties are with regard to their children.  Many examples somehow lost the children in describing the role of parents.
  • “We are here to build self worth in our families. We teach our children to be kind, loving, charitable, helpful, honest and clean. We teach them to follow the example Jesus Christ has given us.”  I really liked this one, also because this was the entire answer; nothing even potentially offensive or sexist. 
  • “To turn out children into the world who are capable, responsible, and morally inspired people. It is a joint effort.”  I love this one.  And it’s the entire answer.
• Keeping it real.  Props to those who used personal examples to show their personal commitment to their very real marriages.
  • “My husband and I own a business together, so we share family and work responsibilities more than many Mormon couples. Because we have the same goals at home, we work together to make that happen.”  This is really the heart of the division of labor argument; the comment about goals was perfect, IMO.
  • “Individual circumstances sometimes require us to support and balance out our spouse in different ways. Husbands and wives work as a team. Sometimes my husband does the vacumning AND the laundry. A husband’s role as father goes beyond just providing, protecting, and presiding. They also play, discipline, change diapers, and do housework. A wife’s main role is to nurture. She cannot nurture other’s without personal nourishment. Her role may also extend to helping her husband provide for the family.”  I like that this contains personal examples and doesn’t exempt either spouse from anything that would have been considered traditionally the purview of the other spouse in a typical episode of Mad Men.
  • “But my wife is my greatest friend and companion. Knowing that I have been married to my wife not only “till death do you part” but for “time and all eternity” really makes a huge difference in how we treat each other and how we work through arguments. (yes we still have arguments from time to time… but knowing what this life is all about really helps us be as one more often than not).”  There’s some tenderness in this one that I like.
  • “I feel that spending quality and quantity time with our children is the most wonderful gift I can give to them. They are teenagers now. They are bright, talented, respectful, goal-oriented and fun to be around. They each have a fantastic sense of humor. Though they argue and annoy each other from time to time, at the end of the day they still love each other.”  Aside from a little Lake Woebegone effect, this is a nice heart-warming picture of a Mormon family.
  • “To me the most important role of a wife in the family is to love her husband, and my husband’s role is to love me. We work at that. We take care of each other, are kind to each other, are gentle with criticism or correction if it’s needed, and try not to take offense. I think that the best thing that parents can give their children is a strong and happy marriage. This doesn’t just happen, it takes commitment and a long-term vision, because life is hard and none of us are perfect at it. This perspective has seen me through short-term problems that otherwise could have ruined my marriage.”  I like this person’s focus on how happy marriages make for happy families.
• Humorous.  I’ll give extra credit to those who gave a tongue in cheek response to this silly, silly question.  Unfortunately, I didn’t see any answers like this.
• SAHMs by Choice.  Women have to own their choices.  Even though I’m not a SAHM, those who point out they are SAHMs who also add the caveat that it’s by choice win extra points in my book.
  • “My wife has chosen to stay at home and be with the children. This was the choice that she wanted and she is glad to do it.”  This is a nice contrast to those that say what women (in general) ”ought to” be doing, as if personal choice is irrelevant.  When we act on shoulds and oughts and don’t own our choices, we will inevitably experience regret later.

Answers that gave me mixed feelings:

• Equality + Role Prescription.  Those that mentioned equality, but also prescribed what men & women should be doing (e.g. women nurture & teach, men protect & provide).  I don’t strongly object to these, but they just feel a little too specific, and as I said, the entire question is one that no one outside the church would ever ask us to answer, so these PoF-centric answers point to the “hidden agenda.”  Equal but different, as we learned with civil rights, is not really equal.  The majority of answers fit this description.
  • “They work together as equal partners, neither above the other in the marriage. We believe the role of the husband is to provide for, to preside over, and to protect the family. The wife is to nurture her children in love and righteousness.”  ‘Nuff said.
• “Preside.”  Even when coupled with “equal decision making,” the word “preside” jangles (to me) and points to a “hidden agenda.”  To anyone outside the church it will sound like a throwback to “Leave it to Beaver,” and the word “preside” is nearly impossible to understand.  It makes me a little embarrassed for us.
  • “In all cases, husbands preside over the family. What this means is that they stand in for the Jesus Christ: their weighty responsibility is to direct the family as they feel He would if He were there.”  The WWJD religious twist is interesting here.  I’m not sure I’ve ever heard that “husband = Christ” idea before, but I’m pretty sure I don’t like it.  So, the husband is the only one who needs to be Christ-like?  And he interprets that for everyone else?
  • “The husband’s primary responsibility are to earn a living for the family, call the family to prayer and scriptural study, and preside over them in righteousness.”  Funny thing is, if those are all the examples of what “preside” means, it’s not exactly a great deal of power.  Why not use a more neutral term like administrative sperm donor?  (absolutely just kidding on that one!)
  • “The father is the patriarch and head of the household, but husband and wife should be equally yoked. They should make decisions together in love and kindness. Nothing should be handled in a dictatorial manner.”  The word patriarch is loaded for bear, and without all the caveats we attach to it will be a red flag to non-members who aren’t sexist.
  • “The husband presides, but does not dominate. They should act as equal partners, but as I indicated by the word “preside”, in God’s eyes, he is the first level of accountability in what happens in the family.”  Apparently, the buck stops there!  Wait, wasn’t Adam the quintessential buck-passer?
• PoF link or quote.  It’s not terrible, but there are aspects of the PoF that would be misinterpreted or easily misunderstood (for example, the word “presides”) and/or offensive to people.  Role prescription, even when followed by an “individual circumstances may vary” caveat can still create problems.  There’s a (sometimes hard to distinguish) difference between what is timeless and what is outdated.
• Ideal vs. Pragmatic.  Those comments that indicate how “blessed” or “lucky” someone is for having a traditional SAHM/working dad construct.  Not outright appalling, but also not a personal favorite.  I know there was some unhappiness in the b’nacle from SAHMs because they felt that the campaign highlighted career women rather than SAHMs.  My view is that variation should be represented without elevating one above another; what’s ideal to one marriage is untenable to another.  Can’t we just get along without being so judgmental?
  • “I am lucky. My husband is able to provide a good living for our family and I am able to stay at home with our children. I know this is not always a possibility, but I am grateful for my situation. I feel strongly that traditional gender roles create greater contentment and success in family life.”  It feels a bit like scolding those whose circumstances or choices differ.
  • “It varies from family to family, but basically if there are kids mom should be home with them if circumstances allow it.”  The use of the word “should” is always suspect.

Answers I did not like:

• (Unintentional) Sexism.  Even in attempting humor or light-heartedness, some of these answers came off tone-deaf to me.
  • “My wife’s role is to be perfect, which she does easily. Mine is to appreciate that.”  Actually I’m not sure if this is sexist.  It just makes relatively no sense.
  • “When people find out I’m Mormon, they automatically think I’m oppressed and considered to be beneath my husband. This is not true what so ever. Right now, because we don’t have any children yet, it is both our responsibilities to work hard and create a home. As I stated earlier, I am in school, working torwards a degree and my husband is the one who talked me into it telling me how important it was. Just because I plan on being a stay at home mom, doesn’t mean I don’t need an education. When the time comes, and we are blessed with children, my husbands (polyandry, anyone?) plans on working and will be the bread winner and I will stay home and be with our children as they grow.”  A few things:  1) if everyone else equates Mormonism with female oppression (which I question) then stating it makes everything you say afterward sound defensive, 2) the husband convincing the wife to get a degree as evidence of his not being oppressive is also (unintentionally) evidence of the wife being incapable of making this decision for herself, 3) I’m not sure anyone under age 65 uses the term “bread winner” any more, and 4) grammatical errors undermine credibility (“whatsoever” is one word, not three; “husbands” should say “husband”; “breadwinner” is one word, not two).
  • “The role of the husband is to honor his priesthood, provide for his family and protect them. The role of the wife is to nurture the family. She should also encourage her husband to honor his priesthood.”  Why is it OK to describe wives as cheerleaders to their husbands, but we never say that husbands should encourage their wives to nurture?  It just seems a little weird to say it one way but never the other.  To suggest men encourage their wives to be nurturing also sounds tone-deaf unless one is married to Susan Smith, in which case maybe it’s a fool’s errand anyway.
  • “This does not mean he “rules” over his family, but that he is the one who is ultimately responsible for his family.”  Whew!  I guess I’m off the hook then.
• Unintentionally Humorous.  Sometimes the mistakes people make in writing these up are just funny.
  • “Right now my husband is going to school and I am working and we are both caring for our Son.”  They are raising Jesus?  Otherwise, why is their son capitalized?
  • “Husbands and wife work together in a harmonious manor.”  Like an English estate?  Are there servants?  Pip, pip, cheerio!
  • One answer is basically an entire General Conference talk (including a poem, scriptures, and quotes from church leaders), defending the PoF against supposed claims that the church teaches that women should be barefoot and pregnant.  Aside from sounding a bit defensive, it’s about two thousand words too long.

What I might have said in answer to the question:

• I probably would not answer this question because it’s such a stupid question.
• Parents jointly bear the responsibility for the children in their care, to raise self-reliant and well-adjusted adults.
• Couples need to be flexible in how they approach their family’s needs as every family’s needs differ.
• Maybe I would share a personal example of how we both nurture the kids, we both manage careers, and we want to raise kids who enjoy pitching in to help, even though they manage to argue their way out of chores every week and still earn an extravagant allowance.

I’m not sure saying anything else is really warranted in my opinion – and even that much is sort of obvious, isn’t it?  What would you say?  Did you like or dislike the answers on the site?  Discuss.

Here’s the question members were asked:  Does the Mormon church endorse political parties?

This is the church’s official party line that was posted on the site:

The Church has made the following public statement on multiple occasions prior to major elections: “Principles compatible with the gospel are found in the platforms of all major political parties. While the Church does not endorse political candidates, platforms, or parties, members are urged to be full participants in political, governmental, and community affairs.”

Here are some of the member profile answers I liked best:

• No.  Most of these were basically a recitation of the same statement that’s read over the pulpit regularly.  So, there’s clarity and consistency of message.
  • “No. The church does not endorse political parties. The church believes in free agency, and let’s its members decide which political party to join on their own.”  I like the shout out to free agency.
  • “No, THANKFULLY. I don’t believe any political party has the corner on morality.”  My favorite simple “no” answer.
• No + we’re not all Americans.  Thanks to those members who rememered that little fact.
  • “No it doesn’t. The Church has always encouraged Church members to be knowledgeable about political issues and to participate in the political process e.g. voting in their respective countries and at all levels of governance.”
  • “I personally know active and faithful members of the church (in the U.S. and worldwide) who are Republicans, Democrats, Socialists, Tories, Labourites, Libertarians, Greens, etc.”  Yeah, for this guy who has met a non-US Mormon.
• No + 11th Article of Faith.  Adds a twist of “doctrine” to the refutation.
  • “I’m happy to say that there are members of the Church of all different political backgrounds. The Church does not endorse any specific party. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”
• No + pray / vote conscience.  Adds a nice religious touch that feels universal.
  • “No it does not. It does however encourage you to pray before you vote to help to choose.”  I do have a weird feeling about the wording, though, which sounds a lot like, “it puts the lotion on its back.”

I had mixed feelings about these, although again, they were mostly pretty good:

• “No, we’re not all Republicans” or conversely, “No, as evidenced by the fact that I’m a Democrat.”  As they say, the exception proves the rule, but that just means that “the rule” is Republican, something I’m not quite sure we should be conceding.  It also rings a little hollow because it sounds like we’re protesting too much.  Frankly, I think that’s a good message for those who are aware that there are a lot of Republicans in the church (whether they are members or not).  It just has the potential to ring a little false if someone didn’t think that was a foregone conclusion.  And saying “I know some democrats at church” sounds just a smidge defensive like saying, ”I have lots of black friends” to prove how culturally savvy you are.  Yet I do know that political affiliation is a badge of honor for folks in a democracy like ours.  I prefer the ones that are more personal.
  • “I know many people connotate Mormons and Conservatism and the Republican party, but it is a misconception. I can say this as a devout Mormon and democrat!”
  • “I think our church teaches us to be as informed and educated as possible, and that’s why I am an independent and consider each issue and candidate carefully, regardless of party affiliation.”  Actually this one I like better, probably because I too am an independent.  In addition to being as informed and educated as possible (just kidding on that one!).
  • “I am a fairly liberal democrat, while most fellow Mormons in my congregation are very conservative republicans. It can be a little tricky at times, but Mormons are a kind and caring community.”  I particularly like the comment about a kind and caring community, which for me rings true.  Nicely done!
  • “The Mormon church absolutely does not endorse political parties. In fact, my husband and I, faithful members of the Mormon Church, both belong to different political parties. I feel that the platforms of both political parties endorse some good things and that no party has all the answers.”  I like the mixed-politics marriage angle here.
• Answers that are US-Centric.  This ran the gamut from those just talking about their own politics, and they happen to be American (not too bad) to those God-bless-Americans that sound tone-deaf to non-Americans (like most Americans sound to others).
  • “No, I used to think that all Mormons happened to be Republican, but they aren’t. I’ve met plenty of people in all parties. However, I think it’s safe to say, we do tend to be a bit more conservative no matter which party.”  I’m not sure I agree that Mormon Democrats are all middle-of-the-roaders.  Also, this forgets the 50% of Mormons who live in other countries.
  • “The Mormon Church does not endorse political parties. Members of our Church belong to both major political parties.”  Both the Tories and the Labor Party.  Right?

Answers I (in my wisdom) would not have approved if I were a reviewer:

• No, but (hint, hint) God’s probably a Republican.  First of all, just as it’s anachronistic to think of God as a Mormon, he’s clearly not an American, so associating him with contemporary political issues in our little square inch of the globe seems off-key and presumptuous.
  • “any political party that approves of God’s teachings, and lives them consistently, is more likely to attract Mormons. Likewise, any political party that prefers different standards, or opposes the teachings of Jesus Christ, will be more likely to offend Mormons.”  I am unaware of any political party that approves of all of God’s teachings or any political party that wholeheartedly rejects them, so this comment seems suspect to me.

There has been some criticism of the profiles, stating that it implies wider diversity of thought than one actually experiences at church.  While I think that may be true, I think it’s a natural by-product of the process:

1. Participants self-select.  Those who are confident in their uniqueness (and reasonably photogenic) will be more inclined to participate.
2. It’s on the internet.  The outlier Mormons are more likely to be internet-savvy than the stereotyped ones.  And younger members are more likely to proliferate the internet and have more progressive views.
3. There’s no “common” review process.  Each profile is reviewed by a team of 20-30 MTC employees who make personal decisions about what to approve or decline.  If there was a single reviewer, there would be more consistency of response.  This is better, IMO.

Here’s what I might have said:

• No, I’ve been in wards in the U.S. that were predominantly Democrat and wards that were predominantly Republican.  And I’ve known members outside the U.S. with a very wide spectrum of political belief.
• IMO, both parties are full of hypocrits and philanderers as well as genuine good guys who haven’t yet become hypocrits and philanderers.  Give them time.
• Generally speaking, members avoid discussing politics in my experience because they are polite and understand that politics can be divisive; most members recognize the power of politics to divide friends and families.  But as with any large organization, there are a few bulls in the China shop.

Have you created your profile yet?  Let’s talk politics!  How would you answer this question?  What answers did you like or not like?  Discuss.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Common members answers that made me nervous:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’ve observed 4 general categories of struggles that people have in the church (possibly in any church, and there are likely parallels in any type of organization):

1. Cultural. They dislike aspects of Mormon culture, may feel they don’t fit in, or may simply not want to fit in (“I’m a loner, Dotty.  A rebel.”).
   • Examples:  Church activities, social norms, opinions people express, how people dress, unwritten rules of behavior, church standards.
2. Historical. They find aspects of our Mormon history unsavory (even faith-shaking) and white-washed or misrepresented (and sometimes have been unpleasantly surprised due to only having known the uplifting “correlated” version).
   • Examples:  Polygamy, BOM origins, aspects of church leaders’ lives, doctrinal changes, restrictions on priesthood, temple origins, events from church history.
3. Doctrinal. They disagree with certain doctrines of the church or the interpretations of those doctrines they’ve encountered.  While there may be some overlap between historical events that relate to truth claims, it is possible to view these items separately.
   • Examples:  Mormon view of the atonement, Godhood, marriage and sealing, priesthood authority, ordinances, historical claims that are related to truth claims may also fit here, plan of salvation, the role of prophets, Temple Recommend questions related to belief, interpretation of scripture.
4. Personal. They have had a personal issue that has harmed them and caused dissonance with the church.
   • Examples:  marital issue, abuse, interpersonal conflict, depression

It seems that a person could have issues in more than one of these areas, or may find that they are less impacted by a disconnect in one or more of these areas.  For example, one may find historical facts like Mountain Meadows Massacre troubling, but feel that they are personally less important because of no direct personal connection to the historical church.  If an area is of high importance and is also an area of strong concern, that’s when people leave if they can’t resolve their concern satisfactorily.

[poll id="183"]

[poll id="184"]

[poll id="185"]

[poll id="186"]

It seems to me that for people who care very deeply about a specific area (culture, doctrine, history, or personal experiences), they are more prone to disaffection for that issue if something goes wrong in that area.  Likewise, if it’s extremely important to them and it’s going well, that can strongly solidify their commitment to the church.  What are your observations?  And which of these areas are most important to you?  Have they caused you any cognitive dissonance?  Discuss.

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

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

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

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

Correcting The Past

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

History: It Ain’t What It Used To Be

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

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

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

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

Mighty Morphing Fact Arrangers

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

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

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

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

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

Until years later.

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

You Really Had To Be There

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why It Matters, And Why It Doesn’t

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

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

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

Whack-a-Mole Wives

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

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

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

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

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

The Smoking Gun Is A Toy Cap Pistol

1. Nancy Rigdon

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

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

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

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

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

Some smoking gun.

2. Helen Mar Kimball

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Art or Science?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

In this post, I’m taking a break from my normal analysis to report on the non-LDS songs that move me spiritually or uplift or inspire me in some way. Here is a small, eclectic smattering of these songs in random order:

• 1812 Overture by Tchaikovsky. My favorite piece of classical music.
• John Rutter’s Requiem. Best Requiem EVER!
• August’s Rhapsody from the August Rush soundtrack.
• Piano Man by Billy Joel. A great story told.
• You Make Me So Very Happy by Blood, Sweat & Tears.
• Turn! Turn! Turn! by The Byrds. There’s a great lesson in this song.
• The Devil Went Down to Georgia by Charlie Daniels Band. Making deals with the Devil produces awesome music!
• Listen to the Music by The Doobie Brothers. Great song, great lyrics, great band.
• The Mission soundtrack by Ennio Morricone. Seriously, ’nuff said.
• Tears in Heaven by Eric Clapton. Great message, made better when you know the history of the song.
• Shower the People by James Taylor. If more of us took the message of this song to heart there would be much less heartache in the world.
• Perhaps Love by John Denver. Who doesn’t love John Denver? He’s a national treasure.
• To the Summit by Jon Schmidt. I know Jon Schmidt is sort of Mormon-ish music, but his music is really insipiring.
• Don’t Stop Believing by Journey.
• Dust in the Wind by Kansas. Humility is a virtue!
• Stairway to Heaven by Led Zeppelin. DUH!
• What a Wonderful World by Louis Armstrong. Indeed!
• Black or White by Michael Jackson. Great message, still sorely needed.
• Symphony #40 by Mozart. Moving, brilliant.
• Exogenesis: Symphony (3 parts) by Muse. Very moving, beautiful, and a strange twist of hard rock, classical, and new age.
• You Get What You Give by New Radicals. Stupid band, but has one song with a great message.
• This Too Shall Pass by OK Go. New song by a great group.
• The entire musical score from Les Miserables. Music from one of the best musicals ever produced from one of the most influential philosophical and sociological novels ever written.
• Don’t Think Twice, It’s All Right by Peter, Paul And Mary (obviously a remake of Bob Dylan’s classic). Still brilliant.
• If I Had a Hammer by Peter, Paul And Mary (also a remake). A bit hippy, but was THE anthem for the civil rights movement.
• Take the Power Back by Rage Against The Machine. RATM is a bit over-the-top for me sometimes, but their lyrics send clear messages of pushing back against the “system” which I think we all need to do sometimes.
• Life is a Highway by Rascall Flatts (cover of Tom Cochrane’s hit, but RF does it so much better). Great message, uplifting.
• You Can’t Always Get What You Want by The Rolling Stones. This is the theme song at my house whenever my kids start whining!
• The Sounds of Silence by Simon & Garfunkel.
• Joy To The World by Three Dog Night. Uplifting, fun, done by a great band.
• Pretty much all of U2′s albums. Seriously, how does one pick a favorite U2 song? It’s like trying to pick a favorite child!
• Right Now by Van Halen. Current events gone wild!
• Album Live At The Acropolis by Yanni. New age brilliance!
• Album Appassionato by Yo-Yo Ma. Need I say more?
• Laughing With by Regina Spektor. A song about atheists in foxholes.

So now, readers (if you actually made it through my extensive list) what are your favorite non-LDS songs which uplift and/or inspire you in some way?

• I like the idea of Jesus as a lawyer for humanity.  Having a defense attorney, someone totally in your court who will fight for your cause is enormously appealing to me.
• I like the symbolism of the atonement:  olive press (Gethsemane), the name “at one” ment, the mingling of the divine and the human.
• I like the idea of Bodhisattva, a voluntary sacrifice for others.  But I like it more as one who might sacrifice than as one who would be the recipient of the sacrifice.  Similarly, I’m somewhat uncomfortable receiving gifts.  Although I’m not that comfortable giving them either.  So there you go.

What I have generally not loved about the concept of “atonement”:

• that it creates a religion of losers, appealing to the down-and-outers. Dennis Miller once observed that the prison inmates always seem to find Jesus when no one else down here will talk to them anymore.
• that it is a contrasting idea to theosis (the seeds of divinity within man), a concept which I find inherently more appealing. I’d rather focus on strengths & potential than weakness and shortcomings.  I’m just a cock-eyed optimist!  I do find sadness somewhat off-putting.
• the idea of justice and mercy that is represented feels man-made and not like something that God would be bound to follow. I don’t like the legalistic metaphors often used to explain the atonement.

Here are a few of the ways the atonement has been viewed over the centuries, each with a unique insight:

• Ransom Theory.  In this metaphor from the 4^th century, Jesus liberates mankind from slavery to Satan and thus death by giving his own life as a ransom. Victory over Satan consists of swapping the life of the perfect (Jesus), for the lives of the imperfect (mankind).  A variation of this view is known as the “Christus Victor” theory, in which Jesus defeats Satan in a spiritual battle and frees the enslaved humans from their captor.  (like an action movie with hostages being rescued).  This one sounds kind of cool in a Die Hard sort of way, but it also doesn’t ring quite true for me.  A variation of this I heard on my mission was someone buying a cage full of dirty, diseased birds with lousy attitudes.  Not my favorite perspective on humanity.
• Penal Substitution.  Another metaphor, from the 11^th century, is that man is in debt to a sovereign God who has the power to forgive debt, but also has to uphold the laws. In this metaphor, only a perfect sacrifice could satisfy the demands of the transgressed laws, and Jesus, being both God and man, was this perfect sacrifice.  A slight variation of this is the Protestant “penal substitution theory,” which sees sin as the breaking of God’s moral law, and Jesus takes the punishment in the sinner’s stead.  This is probably the most common metaphor used for the atonement, but it is very legalistic and leaves me cold.  I think we let the metaphor become the thing it symbolizes in this one.  I suspect the atonement is not entirely encompassed by this view.
• Moral Influence.  A third metaphor from the 11^th century, and speaks to the power of the image of a suffering Christ who sacrifices himself out of love for man, and mankind, moved by the extent of God’s love is transformed and healed by the power of the Holy Spirit.  I appreciated this one because I think we LDS tend to look at the crucifixion images in Catholic churches as ghoulish and morbid, but this metaphor explains their appeal to millions of worshippers in a whole new light for me.
• Theosis Metaphor.  Eastern Orthodoxy views the atonement as not a legal release, but a transformation of the human nature itself in the Son taking on human nature. The Orthodox emphasis is that Christ died to change people so that they may become more like God.  This is one I find very appealing, although it’s not one I ever recall hearing at church.  It lines up nicely with our idea that we are sons & heirs of God, with the seeds of godhood within us.

As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we expand on these metaphors by recognizing and emphasizing some additional components to the atonement:

• Christ’s suffering in Gethsemane. Modern day revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants adds emphasis to the role of Gethsemane in the atonement process: “…how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not…. Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit…”  I like the focus in LDS theology on the sacrifice being deliberate on Jesus’ part, that he chose to do this of his own free will despite how hard it was.  I like the emphasis on free choice, not so much on the difficulty which feels like a major guilt trip (I suppose because it IS).
  • The name Gethsemane literally means oil press.  In Gethsemane, Jesus as the Son of God is pressed as the olives were.  Oil was and is used for all sorts of purposes: to perform priesthood ordinances, to anoint the body, and to heal the sick and restore them to health.  Metaphorically, Jesus is the ultimate healing and anointing oil.
  • In a talk on the Symbols of the Atonement in 1991, E. Russell Nelson said:  “Olive trees are special in the Holy Land. The olive branch is universally regarded as a symbol of peace. This tree provides food, light, heat, lumber, ointments, and medicine. It is now, as it was then, crucial to life in Israel. It is not a deciduous tree, but ever bearing—always green. Even if the tree is chopped down, life will spring from its roots, suggesting everlasting life.  Jesus came to the base of the Mount of Olives to affect the first component of the Atonement. This He did at the Garden of Gethsemane. The word Gethsemane comes from two Hebrew roots: gath, meaning “press,” and shemen, meaning “oil,” especially that of the olive.  There olives had been pressed under the weight of great stone wheels to squeeze precious oil from them. So the Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane was literally pressed under the weight of the sins of the world. He sweat great drops of blood—his life’s “oil”—which issued from every pore.  Jesus was accorded titles of unique significance. One was the Messiah, which in Hebrew means “anointed.” The other was the Christ, which in the Greek language means “anointed” as well. In our day, as it was in His day, the ordinance of administration to the sick includes anointing with the consecrated oil of the olive. So the next time you witness consecrated oil being anointed on the head of one to be blessed, and these sacred words are said, “I anoint you with this consecrated oil,” remember what that original consecration cost. Remember what it meant to all who had ever lived and who ever would yet live. Remember the redemptive power of healing, soothing, and ministering to those in need. Remember, just as the body of the olive, which was pressed for the oil that gave light, so the Savior was pressed. From every pore oozed the life blood of our Redeemer. And when sore trials come upon you, remember Gethsemane.”
• Empathetic purpose. Christ did not only suffer for the sins of all men, but also to experience their physical pains, illnesses, anguish from addictions, emotional turmoil and depression, “that His bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities” (Alma 7:12; compare Isaiah 53:4).  This empathy allows Jesus to be a more effective advocate and personal friend to us.  This sounds remarkable similar to the one about the image of the suffering Christ creating empathy in humanity (the reverse of this).  But I think when you put them both together, it adds some interest to the perspective.
• The relationship between justice, mercy, agency, and God’s unconditional love. We focus on the need for free agency.  Just as Jesus had the ability to choose to lay down his life, if we are truly penitent we will voluntarily come unto him to receive his grace.  We do this through the process of repentance.  I do find this idea useful – the focus on our personal choice.

I liked the idea that there are many different ways to interpret the atonement, and some of these are more appealing to me than others. How about you?  Were any of these helpful?  How do you feel about the atonement?  Discuss.

Cliques tend to form within the boundaries of a larger group among individuals most likely to interact based on common interests.  While cliques can occur within any group, in our modern society of inclusion and participation awards, the term is often used pejoratively:

• Exclusivity.  By default cliques exclude those who don’t share those common interests or social opportunities.
• Self-reinforcing.  Cliques develop a sub-set of standards within the larger organization.  For example, a teenage clique might develop more specific dress standards (e.g. skinny jeans or black tee shirts) that are a sub-set of what is admissible in the high school they attend, but that does not include other admissible attire (e.g. chinos and polo shirts) that pertains to a different clique in the same high school.  Over time, behaviors, values, and so forth are normative within the smaller clique and will differ from the larger group as a whole.
• “Popular” or “cool” factor.  Those who aspire to inclusion in a clique that does not include them may experience envy or feel spiteful toward those in that clique.  Likewise, those within a clique may look down on those who do not share their clique’s normative values and behaviors.

Surely this doesn’t happen among adults in the church.  Or does it?

A psychometric test called the FIRO-B attempts to gauge one’s interest in being included.  It covers the following personal characteristics:

• Inclusion.  Those with high inclusion scores want to belong.  If they feel they don’t belong, they may become offended.  Ask yourself:  Do I want to be included or would I rather be left alone?
  • High Inclusion:  Am I missing out on something that everyone else is doing?  Am I in the “in” crowd?
  • Low Inclusion:  Maybe if I unplug the phone and don’t answer the door, they will go away!
• Control.  Control relates to one’s desire to direct the activities of others.  Ask yourself:  How much say do I want to have in what the group is doing?
  • High Control:  I know the best way to do this, if they would just let me do it.
  • Low Control:  Why do I always have to do everything?
• Affection.  This relates to one’s desire for warmth in relationships.  Ask yourself:  Do I want my relationships to be close and personal or to maintain distance and independence?
  • High Affection:  I just love people.  I’m a hugger.
  • Low Affection:  Don’t touch me.  Have we even been properly introduced?

The instrument measures two other aspects as well:

• Expressed behavior.  This relates to one’s own actions in relation to the social group.  Ask yourself:  How much do I take initiative to meet my needs for affection, control, and inclusion?
  • High Expressed Behavior:  I take the initiative to set the terms of my relationships.
  • Low Expressed Behavior:  I’m not likely to be the one to call you or invite you
• Wanted behavior.  This relates to how you would like others to act in relation to your needs.  Ask yourself:  How much do you want others to initiate actions to meet your needs for affection, control and inclusion?
  • High Wanted Behavior:  If I have to ask you for what I need, then that’s not much of a relationship.  You should know what I  need.
  • Low Wanted Behavior:  I don’t rely on others to get what I need.

So, cliques happen.  That much is a natural byproduct of social groups.  What cliquish behavior occurs in church?

• Extending callings based on personal friendship.  Or conversely, those called to serve together closely may form a clique that outlasts callings.
• “Lunch Bunch” or book club groups.  Focus groups in Relief Society are in essence a form of clique – a smaller group that forms within a larger group based on a common interest.
• Families with same age kids tend to group together.
• Priesthood grouping by age can foster cliques.
• Less active members or converts may find it difficult to break into established groups of people.

The church also has some clique-busters built in:

• Rotating visiting & home teaching assignments.
• Callings that rotate and mix groups of different interests, age groups, and socio-economic status into presidencies and quorums.
• A spirit of inclusion; activities are to be open access to all ward members and at no cost to participants.
• Fellowshipping for converts and ward missionary programs.

In my experience, most claims of cliquishness relate to people whose needs aren’t being met.  What do you think?  Is your ward cliquish?  What types of cliques have you observed?  How do you get past cliques?  Does this model (FIRO-B) help explain how people relate to groups?  Discuss.

But why is a celebration of our country’s freedom considered a non-Sabbath avocation?  Would it be unthinkable to hold a short worship service followed by a Ward pancake breakfast? At our breakfast we had a reading of the Declaration of Independence, a congregational singing of patriotic hymns and prayer.  Then we ate and fellowshipped with one another.  The celebration seemed particularly well suited to worship and thankfulness.  The wholesome recreational activities gave us a break from our usual weekly work.  And watching fireworks with our families on Sunday doesn’t really strike me as detracting from the spirit of the day.  A 2001 Ensign article, Call the Sabbath a Delight instructs:

“…the Sabbath day was meant to be a blessing rather than a burden to those who observe it. Its blessings flow not only from attending Church meetings but also from engaging in activities appropriate to the spirit of this sacred day. Because circumstances differ among Church members, the kinds of Sunday activities each of us may choose in order to gain spiritual strength and draw closer to the Lord will vary.”

It seems to me that in many LDS homes, the Sabbath is as far from “a delight” as can be.  It has become a somber day of “don’ts” which our children and youth dread. My college-aged kids are home for the summer, and they have begun a tradition along with my high-schoolers.  They sit up on Sunday until the stroke of midnight, then they pile in the car and head off to Wal-Mart to buy snacks and fete the end of the Sabbath.  Our family attends our meetings, avoids purchasing things, and observes the general LDS guidelines for Sundays, but I wonder what exactly we are doing to gain spiritual strength and draw closer to the Lord.

A scripture in Galatians reads:

“For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.”

What do you think? Does the liberty offered us through Christ to supersede the Law of Moses extend to our Sabbath Day activities?  Would it be following the flesh to celebrate the Fourth of July with barbecues, picnics, fireworks watching?  Or could such family time be considered loving service? Does your family plan to eschew some of the activities you would normally do on Independence Daythis year because it falls on the Sabbath?

I was in the MTC when it happened, so it caught me by surprise when I was released back into the general population. I was sitting in Sacrament Meeting in an uncomfortable suit and things were going according to the usual pattern: song, prayer, business, sacrament, talks, music, talk, song, prayer.

When the final “amen” was hit, I was getting ready to stand up and leave the chapel when I was stopped in my tracks by a voice that said, “Thank you for coming out to Sunday School today, our opening song will be hymn number 149, and after that Brother Johnson will give the opening prayer and we’ll start song practice.”

Where to start?

First off, I was a little puzzled to be thanked for coming out to Sunday School. Truth is, I hadn’t really come out to Sunday School, I had merely failed to leave the chapel before this new guy got up and started speaking. Secondly, is 75 minutes not long enough to be sitting in once place watching something that’s not exploding? Were there complaints that Sacrament Meeting wasn’t long enough?

Whatever the case, I was stuck in some sort of “Groundhog Day” scenario where the past hour of my life seemed to be replaying, albeit with slight alterations.

While the changes in the meetings were all done under the guise of the Sunday School organization, it was clearly a power grab by the hymnal industrial complex and their newly minted foot soldiers, the song practice ladies. After the prayer and announcements of dubious importance, the song practice lady would get up and lead the congregation in songs that even the most faithful Mormon may not have known was in the hymnal. And no matter how famous or obscure, the song practice ladies almost always favored the longer hymns.

(Note to concerned readers: the term “song practice lady” isn’t really politically correct, I know. But come on, they were always ladies. There were never any “Song Practice Guys.”)

By the early 1990s, renegade song practice ladies were even leading congregations in what could only be described as analog versions of what would now be called mash-ups.

Example: “Did you know that you can sing ‘Dear to the Heart of the Sheppard,’ a hymn you’ve never heard of to the tune of ‘School Thy Feelings,’ another hymn you’ve never heard of. Why don’t you all get out your hymnals and give it a try…”

After a while my friends and I figured out that you could sing, “If You Could Hie to Kolob” to the tune of the theme from the Beverly Hillbillies. No song practice lady ever took us up on our offer to teach the ward this during song practice.

By the late 1990s, the tyrannical reign of the song practice ladies was over and we could all go back to standing up and walking out of the chapel after the closing prayer ends, like normal people. But some remnants of that era remain.

For instance, whenever a new ward chorister is installed, that person will almost immediately start grabbing more real estate in the church program. The most blunt instrument in the takeover is “A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief,” which is almost always deployed during the first week of a new chorister’s tenure. When combined with “I Believe of Christ,” and conducted at a dirge-like pace, the opening and closing hymns can easily eat up 20 minutes of a church service. Then come the directives that the ward will be singing all the verses of the longer hymns, even the loser verses that have been exiled to the small print at the bottom of the page.

Perhaps the most audacious power grab I’ve ever seen came in August of 2000. I was visiting a ward in Salt Lake City and it was time for the special musical number. There was nothing on the program, but the bishop got up and made the following announcement, “The ward chorister has asked for ‘impromptu ward choir.’” He pointed to the side of the chapel I was sitting on and said, “Everyone sitting on this side of the room, come on up and join us here on the stand.”

And that was that. I had just been conscripted into some random ward’s choir. Moments later, I was being forced so scowl my way through a song for the pleasure of a bunch of strangers. I don’t remember what hymn it was, but I’m certain it wasn’t on the topic of free agency, nor was it the perfect ironic choice, “We Are All Enlisted.”

 It is likely ward chorister tyranny will always be with us and there is little we can do about it except sit, smile, sing loudly, and thank heaven above that at least they took all of those Utah songs out of the hymnal in 1985.

So, what do you think? Do you have a tyrannical chorister in your ward? Do you think it’s important to song all 7 verses of “A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief”? Did anyone ward ever have a song practice man? Do tell.

“When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child:  but when I became a man, I put away childish things.”

What is a “puberty rite”?  In The Power of Myth, Bill Moyers and Joseph Campbell discuss the importance of puberty rites.  When society does not have a ritualistic way to move young men to adulthood, those young men create their own rituals (e.g. violent street gangs, Lord of the Flies scenarios).  Those rites can be dangerous because they often run counter to the interests of society, but it is the failure of society to initiate those children into adulthood in concert with the society’s values that creates the problem.

In primal societies, there are teeth knocked out, there are scarifications, there are circumcisions, there are all kinds of things done.  So you don’t have your little baby body anymore, you’re something else entirely.  When I was a kid, we wore short trousers, you know, knee pants.  And then there was this great moment when you put on long pants.  Boys now don’t get that.  I see even five-year-olds walking around with long trousers.  When are they going to know that they’re now men and must put aside childish things? ~ Joseph Campbell

Moyers & Campbell discuss a puberty rite from the Aboriginals:

“When a boy gets to be a bit ungovernable, one fine day the men come in, and they are naked except for stripes of white bird down that they’ve stuck on their bodies using their own blood for glue.  They are swinging the bull-roarers, which are the voices of spirits, and the men arrive as spirits.

“The boy will try to take refuge with his mother, and she will pretend to try to protect him.  But the men just take him away.  A mother is no good from then on, you see.  You can’t go back to Mother, you’re in another field.

“Then the boys are taken out to the men’s sacred ground, and they’re really put through an ordeal–circumsicision, subincision, the drinking of men’s blood, and so forth.  Just as they had drunk mother’s milk as children, so now they drink men’s blood.  They’re being turned into men.  While this is going on, they are being shown enactments of mythological episodes from the great myths.  They are instructed in the mythology of the tribe.  Then, at the end of this, they are brought back to the village, and the girl whom each is to marry has already been selected.  The boy has now become a man. . .

“Now he has a man’s body.  There’s no chance of relapsing back to boyhood after a show like that.”

Priesthood ordination sounds a little tame compared to this particular ritual.  Maybe scout camp is a better analogy?  The obvious question is if that’s how a boy becomes a man, how does a girl become a woman?  Here is a contrast:

“The girl becomes a woman with her first menstruation.  It happens to her.  Nature does it to her.  And so she has undergone the transformation, and what is her initiation?  Typically it is to sit in a little hut for a certain number of days and realize what she is . . . .  She is now a woman.  And what is a woman?  A woman is the vehicle of life.  Life has overtaken her.  Woman is what it is all about–the giving of birth and the giving of nourishment.  She is identical with the earth goddess in her powers, and she has got to realize that about herself.  The boy does not have a happening of this kind, so he has to be turned into a man and voluntarily become a servant of something greater than himself.”

Clearly to our modern sensibilities, the idea that periods are the female equivalent of priesthood strikes a sour note (to say the least!).  And frankly, I never sat in a hut for a few days over it.  Perhaps I watched some reruns and ate mint chocolate chip ice cream, though.

However, one point to consider is that to become men, boys leave their primarily female-dominated sphere (the home) to join a male-dominated sphere (the world of men).  To do this, boys need to associate with men, and to join their ranks in a way that contributes to the society.  Priesthood initiation at age 12 seems to do just that.  What are your thoughts?  Discuss.

So, re-reading the Book of Mormon stayed on the to-do list for a while. But then the press became more persistent and insistent: “No, you REALLY need to re-read the Book of Mormon,” and the very persistence began to get through my blocks of rationalization. So I kept moving it up the to-do-list until it was high among the emergencies and the recurring tasks, and I began to read.

I had not gone cover-to-cover since I was in elementary school. I still have my first Book of Mormon given me as a baptism gift, and almost every verse in it is underlined: I didn’t know what went with what back then, and figured just about everything must be terribly important and interrelated. So I absorbed the story for a story important in my religion, and soaked up any theology unconsciously in the process. In the decades since, I used the Book of Mormon many times in preparing sermons; you preach a lot when you live in a denomination of mostly small congregations where priesthood is not the province of all worthy males. I taught many individual topics in classes or missionary efforts. I even had a few verbal jousts on my front steps with LDS missionaries before I learned that was fratricide that wasted everyone’s time. But the focus on the immediacy of my assigned tasks didn’t convey the global oversight of that first boyhood reading. In the later readings, I had the theology, both from the Book itself as well as from a deeper understanding of the other scriptural sources of Christian theology, but had lost track of the story as story.

From this perspective, as I began to read I began to understand overarching themes I’d missed before because they hadn’t been “on task”. Among them, I began in particular to see the books of 1^st Nephi through the Words of Mormon as sort of an “old” Old Testament concerned with the overwhelming question of the first generations of Nephites: “Is there still a place for us with God?”

After all, in 600 BC, Judea was the “church”. You didn’t think of personal salvation outside of the structure of your Jewish tribal identity, and keeping the covenant kept your identity guaranteed by the only true God. I mean, look what had happened to the Northern Kingdom. Just gone! Conceptually to the Jews then, it didn’t matter whether individuals in the 10 tribes had been obedient or disobedient, just or unjust. The Kingdom of Israel had been judged unworthy of God’s continued protection as a whole kingdom. The fate of the people as individuals simply was not a question that had any place in the mental landscape. What did God care about a just Assyrian or Egyptian compared to a Jew?

What does it do to your mental landscape, then, when God starts telling you that you are to leave your tribe, and you aren’t ever coming back? You are being further told that the tribe itself is about to be conquered and won’t be there if you do change your mind. You are amputating your culture, and you have little to replace it with, physically, mentally, emotionally, or spiritually. There is beyond the wilderness and the sea a “land of promise” to fill the physical hole, if you cling to your faith, but what replaces everything else?

Lehi and Nephi had their visions. They went, but you can see their frustration and anger at the Jews in their writings over the sheer stupidity of the disobedience of the covenant that was bringing the Babylonian disaster upon them. Laman and Lemuel turned their anger toward their father instead. Everybody was supposedly committed to going into the wilderness, but they all kept forgetting things (like wives) and finding reasons to have to go back to Jerusalem to get them. They seem to have been in shock. Stay! Go! Make up your mind!

And so the scriptures about the ultimate fate of Israel/Judea, as discussed by Isaiah or Zenos, become dominant concerns in this Book of Mormon “old” Old Testament. It is not an abstract theological debate to the Nephites; much of their personal focus and records are devoted to testifying that God has promised a reconnection of their seed (and even the seed of their rebellious Lamanite brethren) to the Israelites in a future time. Acceptance of Christ is seen as the means of this reconnection as well as the means of personal salvation. In fact, personal salvation is the newer, more revelatory concept which is increasingly emphasized as the story moves toward its historical climax. Even at the time of Christ’s appearance, this societal reconnection is on the minds of the people, and Christ takes time to reemphasize it along with his teachings about personal salvation. Indeed, “convincing of the Jew” of Christ’s divinity is as important as “convincing of the Gentiles”; the land of promise is not just a promise for the Nephites, but a means of keeping a promise by God for everyone else.

Many of those who come to this site feel either their “sense of the Spirit” or the “sense of their intellect” calling them into the “wilderness”. Whether it is because the church is not found to be as-advertised, because it changes too slowly, or because it changes too much, the shock and the anger are real and pretty much the same for all. They often no longer can support parts of the culture, but have nothing clear in their sights to replace it. They leave, miss something they left behind, go back, and try again to follow one direction or the other. Some fraction of them experience rejection by the community because they are perceived to be rejecting the norms of the community first. And sometimes they don’t know whether to be angry at others or ashamed of themselves.

They are reenacting this great dilemma of the early Nephites. How are they and their families to be connected to the purposes of God, when they have previously experienced their “tribe” as the only authorized means of connection? Yet, if the call is genuine, it will keep persisting and growing more insistent. There will be a land of promise for those who follow that call, and if the Nephite example holds, it will not just be a land of promise for those “wandering Mormons”. It will be a land of promise of those who come after them, and, in the long run, a blessing for the tribe they left behind as well. Experiencing being called into the wilderness isn’t a strange thing in Mormon history; it’s sort of what makes you one of the tribe in the first place.

The Convert

John is a member of another Christian denomination and he was raised as a believer. He has had one discussion with the LDS missionaries and plans to continue these discussions. In the first discussion the missionaries built on common beliefs with John and challenged him to read a few verses in The Book of Mormon and to pray over them. They read Moroni 10:3-5 in which the Lord, through his prophet, provides a recipe for confirmation of the truthfulness of the message taught. John takes this seriously and reads the verses and prays over them. He also has a strong spiritual manifestation. He feels peace, warmth, and what he interprets as an assurance from the Holy Spirit that the message is true.

For John, he has had a number of spiritual manifestations and hence accepts this form of gaining knowledge. He has not had one quite this powerful before so he takes this manifestation as evidence that the LDS church is true. In Bayesian terms, we might claim that John had a confidence distribution with a mean of “my Christian denomination is true” with a fairly large standard deviation (since he was open to other religious possibilities). When he received this new piece of information (a spiritual manifestation of the truthfulness of the LDS message) he incorporated it into his confidence distribution. This, along with further discussions from the missionaries is enough to shift his distribution to one with a mean of “the LDS church is the true church” with a fairly small standard deviation.

In this scenario there are some interesting things going on with regard to faith, knowledge, and belief. John had “belief” enough to take a leap of “faith.” In essence, he was testing the “tail ends” of his confidence distribution by examining a foreign concept. In a Monte Carlo sense, his random walk was probing “less probable” areas of his distribution. For John, he found some valuable information that he then used to modify that distribution. It is easy to characterize his actions as “faith” as he probed heretofore untested waters. His experience exemplifies the allegory of faith given in Alma 32.

The Stereotypical Mormon

Bill is a lifelong member of the LDS church. He was raised in Salt Lake City and has been an obedient member of the church for all of his 39 years. Bill has a strong testimony of the truthfulness of the Gospel and all of its core principles and doctrines.

Bill has had many experiences which he interprets as support for his view of the Gospel. He has a successful career, a great family, good health, and an abundance of opportunities to serve which he attributes to his adherence to tithing, prayer, fasting, righteous living, and heeding the counsel of prophets. Bill has so much confirming evidence of his life choices and beliefs that his confidence distribution has a mean of “the LDS church is the true church” with a very small standard deviation. Bill acknowledges that others have some pieces of truth, but is grateful that he has the blessing of knowing the fulness. Indeed, Bill claims he “knows” the Gospel is true. He would live and die by this, and admits that nothing could persuade him otherwise.

In this scenario, faith, belief, and knowledge take on a bit different meaning. Bill hasn’t really taken the same kind of “leap of faith” that John did. He has put his beliefs to the test and received verification that they were correct. While he has somewhat probed the less probable regions of his confidence (the tails of his distribution) he interprets the information as confirming his beliefs. His confidence in his mean is so great it would be easy to classify Bill’s “faith” or “belief” as “knowledge” (which of course he does regularly at testimony meetings). Each successive spiritual experience or life event, properly interpreted, only adds more information which confirms Bill’s knowledge.

The Disaffected Mormon

Fred is in the same boat as Bill. He is a lifelong member of the LDS church, grew up in Salt Lake City, and did all he was asked to do. However, about a year ago he encountered some individuals that posed challenging questions to his worldview. Initially, Fred’s response was much like Bill’s, that is, he interpreted information to confirm his knowledge. But eventually the information became so overwhelming that Fred had to concede he might not have it quite right.

Fred has also had many spiritual manifestations, but his probing into psychology convinces him that much of it can be explained by regular, well understood psychological phenomena. Fred has also been richly “blessed” with a good career, great family, etc. but has to acknowledge that many non-Mormons have also been similarly blessed. For Fred, his confidence distribution is beginning to change. Each new piece of information, incorporated loosely via a built-in Bayesian inference calculator, shifts the distribution away from his mean of “the LDS church is the true church.” Initially, the information only increases his standard deviation as he acknowledges truth in other places, but eventually his mean starts to shift as well when he examines what he considers to be the lack of evidence for the historicity of The Book of Mormon, the myriad conundrums in Church history, etc. Most alarming for Fred is the feeling of betrayal by not realizing these things earlier in life which he attributes to white-washing by the LDS church.

In this scenario it would be easy to claim that “faith” is being destroyed. I think this is erroneous. Rather, I would say that “faith” is shifting. Fred now has faith in other things, though admittedly less faith in the LDS church being the true church. After a year of struggling, Fred admits he no longer has any confidence that the LDS church is the true church.

Contrasting the Scenarios

The commonalities between the scenarios are interesting. Each individual is doing what he thinks is most probable. John and Fred actually took a “leap of faith” to probe the less probable regions of their confidence distribution which turned up valuable information. Additionally, since some previous experiences had modified their distribution, their built-in Bayesian inference calculator was perhaps more able to objectively incorporate the new information. While Bill did occassionally probe the less probable regions of his distribution, the new information was interpreted to add more evidence to his beliefs.

This leads me to conclude that the biggest argument over “faith,” “belief,” and “knowledge,” actually has nothing to do with one’s “faithfulness” and everything to do with the quantity, types of, and weighting given to different types of evidence. For John and Bill, spiritual manifestations are a perfectly valid form of evidence, perhaps even the most important kind, which they weight appropriately. For Fred, this used to be the case, but as he discovered new information he had to modify his weightings, and began to reject some forms of evidence (spiritual manifestations) previously acceptable to him.

I subscribe to the “confidence distribution” model for understanding people’s beliefs, motivations, actions etc. because I believe it drives to the real issues which is what types of evidence are accepted by people, and what importance they place on that evidence.

This kind of reasoning also brings a different perspective to the word “doubt.” We could say that Fred is “doubting” and couch this in negative terms, but I think a more appropriate characterization would be to admit that Fred now accepts other forms of evidence and hence his faith has shifted. For Fred, he is being intellectually honest, as is Bill and John. This doesn’t make one more faithful, or more spiritual than the others, just different!

First, let’s clarify the terms:

• Nature Religions are based on the premise that nature is benevolent (even human nature) and that mankind should strive to be in harmony with nature.  These religions usually emerge when the religious community is tied to a geographic location (e.g. islanders or others who cultivate the land).  Often these religions have a female deity because the whole world is the body of the goddess.
• Social Religions are based on the idea that nature is evil and must be controlled.  The means to control nature is through “magic” (we would say Priesthood in our religious tradition).  These religions usually emerge when a religious community is nomadic (e.g. wandering in the desert for 40 years, trekking across the plains).  In these religions, God is separate from nature, and nature is condemned by God.  Often these are religions with a male deity because the female represents life and nature – the source of all life – while the male is elsewhere.

What happens when a Social Religion meets a Nature Religion?  Usually, the social religion tries to control the “pagans.”

Joseph Campbell described:  A local jungle native said to a missionary:  “Your god keeps himself shut up in a house as if he were old and infirm.  Ours is in the forest and in the fields and on the mountains when the rain comes.”

“In the Bible we are told that we are the masters.  For hunting people the animal is in many ways the superior.”  ~Joseph Campbell

“In classic Christian doctrine the material world is to be despised, and life is to be redeemed in the hereafter, in heaven, where our rewards come.”  ~Bill Moyer

“The ancient myths were designed to harmonize the mind and the body.  The mind can ramble off in strange ways and want things that the body does not want.  The myths and rites were means of putting the mind in accord with the body and the way of life in accord with the way that nature dictates.”  ~Joseph Campbell

During OT times, there were many nature cults in which you would go to a grove to commune with diety.  These groups were condemned by the Hebrews who had a temple-bound (or mountain-bound at times) god, and both groups were constantly at war.

Clearly, as a Christian religion, Mormonism has facets of a Social Religion (anti-nature):

1. The pioneer trek & Zion’s camp were examples of attempts to recreate the nomadic culture of the ancient Hebrews.  These types of cultures require subjugation of nature to ensure one’s very survival.
2. Priesthood is sometimes described as the power to control nature, even to command the mountains to move.
3. Male deity is generally associated with anti-nature, social religions.  However, the caveat to this is below.
4. Sin, the idea that man’s nature is fallen.  Again, this is a Christian concept, so not unique to Mormonism.

So, what are some evidences that Mormonism (as a restorationist movement) has components of nature religion:

1. Female deity.  Although there is little to no discussion any more of our Heavenly Mother, the fact that we acknowledged God to have an equal female partner is an interesting restored concept and adds balance to the male-dominated deity.
2. Theosis.  The idea that we are Gods in embryo capable of becoming Gods.  Certainly this ennobles our human nature.
3. Corporeal resurrection.  Although some religions have this in common, Mormonism is somewhat unique in defining the resurrected body as part of the soul (not just the spirit).  This contradicts the idea that our bodies are inherently sinful and weak.
4. Second estate.  This is the idea that gaining a body is superior to a purely spiritual existence (like Satan & co).  Again, many religions elevate the spiritual over the physical.  We do the reverse.
5. Eve’s choice.  Unlike many other Christian religions, our interpretation of the fall is that Eve made the better choice; she chose life and progeny (nature) over obeying the rules.  And if she had not, we wouldn’t be here.  However, the caveat to this is the notion that she was punished.  The question is whether her punishment was a punishment or a natural condition.

There are some other key links between Mormonism and nature religions.  Some of these links are very Mormon, others are common to Christianity:

1. Sacred groves. Sacred groves were most prominent in the Ancient Near East and prehistoric Europe, but feature in various cultures throughout the world. They were important features of the mythological landscape and cult practice of Celtic, Germanic, ancient Greek, Near Eastern, Roman, and Slavic polytheism, and were also used in India, Japan, and West Africa. Examples of sacred groves include the Greco-Roman temenos, the Norse hörgr, and the Celtic nemeton, which was largely but not exclusively associated with Druidic practice. During the time of Christianisation of Estonia by German invaders starting in 12th century there was a common practice of building churches on the sites of sacred groves.  Mormon mythical connection: Duh, when JS didn’t find God in the local churches (man-made buildings), he found Him in a grove of trees near his home.  Chalk one up for nature!
2. The “Mountain” of the Lord.  Almost all religions have some sacred mountains – either holy themselves (like Mount Olympus in Greek mythology) or related to famous events (like Mount Sinai in Judaism and descendant religions). In some cases the sacred mountain is purely mythical, like the Peak of Hara in Zoroastrianism. Volcanos were also considered as sacred mountains, such as Mount Etna in Italy, which was believed to be the home of Vulcan the Roman god of fire.  Mormon mythical connection:  The temple is referred to as the “mountain of the Lord”; when the Hebrews couldn’t build a man-made temple, they built tabernacles.  When they couldn’t build tabernacles, they went into a high mountain to commune with God.  The trek to the Rocky Mountains makes this one stand out.  Their man-made temple was destroyed in Nauvoo, so where did they head?  Once again, to the mountains.  Nature wins again!  (Of course, then they built another man-made temple, but it sure took a long time).
3. The Spirit of God Like a Fire is Burning.  Worship or deification of fire (also pyrodulia, pyrolatry or pyrolatria) is known from various religions. As fire has also destructive capabilities, the worshipping of fire is necessarily ambiguous. This is indicated in proverbs such as “Fire is a good servant but a bad master”.  Mormon mythical connection:  While there are some fire / God connections we share with other faiths (burning bush, Israelites following God who was a pillar of fire) in Mormonism, God is described as dwelling in everlasting burnings.  D&C 110: 3 says:  “His ^aeyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his ^bcountenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his ^cvoice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of ^dJehovah.”  Sounds like a God of fire to me.  Another one for nature!
4. And the star nearest to God is called Kolob.  Astrolatry refers to the worship of stars and other heavenly bodies as deities, or the association of deities with heavenly bodies. The most common instances of this are sun gods and moon gods in polytheistic systems worldwide. Also notable is the association of the planets with deities in Babylonian, and hence in Greco-Roman religion, viz. Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn.   The term astro-theology is used in the context of 18th to 19th century scholarship aiming at the discovery of the original religion, particularly primitive monotheism. In contradistinction to astrolatry, which unambiguously implies a polytheism frowned upon as idolatrous by Christian authors since Eusebius, astrotheology is any “religious system founded upon the observation of the heavens.  Mormon mythical connection:  Well, this certainly sounds like the Book of Abraham to me!

So, what do you think?  Is Mormonism a nature religion or a social religion or something in between?  Has it changed over time?  Discuss.

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

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

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

Don summarizes this nicely in his opening section:

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think?  Discuss.

On its surface it was a pretty unusual activity. Every ward was to assemble a troupe of performers, write a sketch, then perform it on stage. Just before the show, each ward would be given some sort of twist that had to be incorporated into their performance. Apparently, most people didn’t understand the concept, and instead we were treated to a unique display of what Mormons consider comedy. In this case, it was a parody advertisement about Snuggies (those blankets with sleeves) that you can wear to the beach, and a PowerPoint presentation containing Facebook photos with in-jokes you’d only understand if you were a member of the ward. In case you’re wondering, we did “Good Morning Winter Quarters” which set a vapid morning show amongst the death and squalor of Winter Quarters circa 1846. (Sample—Female Anchor:  This is scurvy awareness month! Male anchor: I know I’m sure aware of my scurvy!)

Mormons are fond of comparing themselves to the Jews. We point out that we each have a dietary code, an exodus, and are even tagged with similar negative stereotypes. But we part ways when it comes to comedy. Whereas the Jews have a long and proud tradition in the comic arts, we’ve been a little more reluctant to tread there.

Now before we go any further, I should point out that there are funny Mormons out there. I used to perform with a comedy troupe that included several talented and funny Saints, Aron Kader has been blazing a trail with amazing standup detailing his background as a Palestinian-Mormon, and Elna Baker has achieved success in New York doing a mix of sketch and standup comedy, and has a memoir that you should all go out and buy a dozen copies of.

But I’m going to risk incurring the wrath of the internet by saying that Kader and Baker are the outliers here and that, as a people, we’re not terribly funny, or at the very least, we don’t place a high value on humor.

Mormons will tolerate a certain brand of humor that falls within the boundaries of The Donny and Marie Show and the Princess Bride… both shows I love. On one end, there is broad and corny humor. On the other side, the humor is cute and sentimental. In both cases, the comedy is broad, upbeat, and almost never contains a victim. Stray outside those boundaries, and there could be trouble.

For instance, one night I was trying to explain my religion to a decidedly tipsy and un-Mormon crowd at the Comedy Store and I told the following joke: “On the guilt scale, Mormons fall somewhere between the Jews and the Catholics. The problem is, God won’t let us drink to take the edge off it.” It got a big laugh that night, but the joke received a much colder response when told to a predominantly Mormon audience some weeks later.

I’m not exactly sure why we’re not good at telling jokes about ourselves that go much beyond, “how many Mormons does it take to change a light bulb?” (Answer: 5. One to change the light bulb, four to serve refreshments.) It may have to do with our practical nature built out of our pioneer heritage. Maybe comedy, which is often used to deflate the authority of those in power, just isn’t very compatible with a faith that values order and organized authority. Perhaps it simply has to do with the age of our culture. Compared to Jewish culture, we’re still in the awkward adolescent stage. Adolescents aren’t always good at having a laugh at their own expense.

But whatever the reason, about 300 in a cultural hall in Oregon who were promised comedy had to sit through a PowerPoint presentation that had captions like “don’t sue me” over a photo of someone who I assume is a lawyer. I may well spend the rest of my life wondering exactly why.

So what do you think? Are we really an un-funny people? Do you know any outstandingly funny Mormons? (Be nice, or at least funny.)

I really enjoyed studying about ritual – the ways that we use ceremony to create value and meaning – we just experienced one with our sacrament.

And I enjoyed learning about “memorates” – personal experience stories that people tell about their own encounters with the supernatural. In the church, we often call these faith-promoting stories, and that’s the way that folklorists look at them too – that these stories function to justify and validate the beliefs of the people who tell them. They create certainty in the face of uncertainty, and whether the stories themselves are true or not, this is a very valuable thing.

It was an interesting time, and I went through many shifts and changes as I looked more closely at what I believed, why I believed it, and how it fit with the beliefs of other people all over the world. It was a pretty humbling experience, to say the least. And as a result, I have developed this constant, nagging, unshakeable, internal tug-of-war between the skeptic and the believer. It is very much like the lyrics to a song:

When I was young, it seemed that life was so wonderful,
a miracle, oh it was beautiful, magical.
And all the birds in the trees, well they’d be singing so happily,
joyfully, playfully watching me.
But then they sent me away to teach me how to be sensible,
logical, responsible, practical.
And they showed me a world where I could be so dependable,
clinical, intellectual, cynical.

There are times when all the world’s asleep,
the questions run too deep
for such a simple man.
Won’t you please, please tell me what we’ve learned
I know it sounds absurd
but please tell me who I am.

That about sums up my graduate experience. It was kind of like worlds colliding. I had become skeptical, cynical, but I still had to exist in a believing world. What was I to do?

One thing I did was turn to the scriptures and to the counsel from general authorities and modern day prophets:
Mormon 9:27 - “Doubt not, but be believing.”  Thanks, but too late.
Bruce R. McConkie – “Doubt is an inclination to disbelieve the truths of salvation… it is a state of uncertainty… faith and belief are of God; doubt and skepticism are of the devil.”  Really? Yikes!
President Monson – “Remember that faith and doubt cannot exist in the same mind at the same time, for one will dispel the other. Should doubt knock at your doorway, just say to those skeptical, disturbing, rebellious thoughts: ‘I propose to stay with my faith, with the faith of my people. I know that happiness and contentment are there, and I forbid you, agnostic, doubting thoughts, to destroy the house of my faith. I acknowledge that I do not understand the processes of creation, but I accept the fact of it. I grant that I cannot explain the miracles of the Bible, and I do not attempt to do so, but I accept God’s word. I wasn’t with Joseph, but I believe him. My faith did not come to me through science, and I will not permit so-called science to destroy it’.”

With these quotes, I think it is pretty clear where I ought to be when it comes to doubt and faith. But if I’m being honest, I fall far short of these ideals. I just can’t accept the premise that faith and doubt cannot co-exist in the same mind. They have to. Because they both exist in mine. And I don’t know any other way to be.

I do want to endorse President Monson’s counsel, however, that if you can dismiss doubt when it knocks on your door, from my experience, you will be much more comfortable and far less troubled — so by all means, if you can do it, do it.

But if you’re like me – if you can’t just dismiss your doubts – there must still be a way to keep those doubts from destroying the house of faith. Right? Please? Because I can’t not doubt, but I still want to hold on to my faith. So what am I to do?

Well, the simple answer is that I have had to redefine my faith to make room for my doubts and to find a value in these doubts – so I want to share with you how I have done this.

MY TOP TEN

I want to walk you through my top ten personal beliefs about faith and doubt. Disclaimer – these are just my own imperfect opinions based on my own limited experience. I could be wrong. But this is how I have found personal peace and balance in my life amidst this constant tug-of-war between the skeptic and the believer. So I share these with you because they have helped me, but I also reserve the right to change my mind at any time – it’s happened before, it can happen again.

If I really wanted to be borderline irreverent I might say that these are the philosophies of Glenn, mingled with scripture – but I don’t, so I won’t.

So here are my top ten:

1. Faith – at its most basic level – is desire.

I think this is consistent with the scriptures. Especially Alma 32. This is where Alma is preaching to the poor among the Zoramites.

You may remember that the Zoramites were condemned for their incredible pride – they would stand up on their rameumptom and show forth false humility – praising themselves for being the elect chosen of God, and condemning everyone else around them for following foolish and corrupt traditions. They cast out the poor and were very exclusive in their membership.

So Alma went among the cast out poor and taught them an allegory about faith – that it starts with desire – and that desire can be nurtured and tested and grown into a firm conviction. He compares it to a seed that is planted in fertile soil and cultivated until it grows and bears fruit and you can taste the fruit to know that the seed was, in fact, a good seed.

So faith starts with desire, but it isn’t JUST desire – you have to act upon that desire.

One of my basic desires is to be fair to people and respectful of their beliefs. And this desire has had a great influence over the mental gymnastic that you are about to see, because I also desire to hold on to my faith in spite of all of my doubts.

2. There is really no such thing as “doubt”

I guess you could say that I doubt doubt.

“Doubt” is just a word. It’s a word that we use to describe someone else’s belief that is contrary to our belief. For example, I could say, “I believe it is going to rain today.” And you could say, “No, I doubt it.” That’s really the same thing as saying, “No, I don’t believe that it will rain today.”

My point here is that “doubt” isn’t really anything but another way of saying “I don’t believe.”

3. There is really no such thing as “don’t believe”

I’m playing a game of semantics again. When you say that you “don’t believe” that it will rain, what you really mean is that you “do believe” that it will not rain. It is still an active belief.

I believe it will rain – you believe it will not rain. Your belief vs. my belief. And we may both have valid reasons for believing what we are choosing to believe.

I believe it will rain because I trust the forecast – it’s been right more than it has been wrong, and I don’t mind carrying an umbrella.

You believe it won’t rain because, despite the forecast, you just looked outside and no Japanese person in sight is carrying an umbrella, and the Japanese are never wrong about this sort of thing. Plus, you don’t want to be the only one carrying an umbrella, cuz then you’d look stupid.

So the point here is to define belief as an active thing, despite whatever words we use – whether we call it doubt or say we “don’t believe” it is all really just belief.

4. Faith and Doubt are not opposites – they are equivalents

If both faith and doubt are active beliefs, then they are really the same thing, aren’t they? They are both beliefs, just pointed in different directions.

Someone may say that faith has action but doubt has no action, but I would challenge that.

Yes, the faithful person takes an umbrella even if they are uncertain whether it will rain or not, and that is a faithful act.

But even the doubter takes action by choosing to NOT carry an umbrella and still walking outside anyway. Both are beliefs and both inspire action. Maybe this is the secret key to unlock the mystery of believing “all things” that we have been admonished to do. And then again, maybe not.

5. Faith and Doubt can co-exist

President Monson said that doubt and faith cannot exist in the same mind at the same time – and maybe I am using this quote out of context – but don’t we all doubt some things while simultaneously having faith in others?

For example, I doubt the traditional meaning behind the James 2:20 scripture mastery scripture “faith without works is dead.” I was originally taught that this was James’ response to the atonement of Christ. That we are not saved by grace alone, but must also show forth works for our eternal salvation, for faith without works is dead.

But when I went back and read all of James chapter 2, I saw that James’ message wasn’t about the atonement. It was about our own exercise of faith. It is saying that you have to put your money where your mouth is. If someone comes to you seeking food, and you say “bless you, and hunger no more” but you don’t actually give them any food, then you aren’t actually going to save them.

So I doubt the way that I was originally taught this scripture, but I still have faith that the message is a good message and that it comes from a good source. And that is a balancing act between doubt and faith.

6. Faith without doubt is dead

That is the GOT – the Glenn Ostlund Translation of James 2:20. Faith is a hope and a desire, but it is not a perfect knowledge. So there must be uncertainty, some degree of questioning or doubt, otherwise faith would be knowledge. Uncertainty in and of itself is not a bad thing in my world. And when uncertainty or doubt spurs us to positive action, it can actually be a very good thing.

7. Uncertainty is a scary thing

Without a doubt, doubt will make you more unsure about what you used to be very sure about, and this can be a scary thing. But one lesson that I learned as a kid is that anytime the scriptures say “have faith” you could interchange the phrase for “fear not” and the meaning would stay the same. So even with all of the different conflicting messages all around us in the world every day – even with all of the valid and reasonable reasons to have doubt, if we nurture our faith, we do not need to fear doubt. Doubt does not have to destroy our faith – it can bolster and lift it and lead us to new light and knowledge.

8. Our church has been built upon doubt – or at least upon the positive interaction between doubt and faith.

The First Vision would not have happened unless Joseph had experienced some questions and doubts about what he was hearing in the different revival meetings. But he also had faith that the Lord would answer his prayer. A pretty successful one-two punch, if you ask me.

And throughout the history of the church, doctrines and policies have been added or removed or amended because people have debated and doubted and questioned and reached out in faith, and received further light and knowledge. So there is a lesson to be learned here, that doubt and faith can interact together towards a good end.

9. Repentance without doubt is dead

We are constantly encouraged to evaluate and examine how we are living our lives. We are encouraged to repent when we need to repent, and I think that doubt plays a role here.

I have always found illumination in the Japanese word for repentance – kuiaratameru. If I understand it right, it literally means to remorse and to change. What causes this remorse? What leads us to a realization that we are in error? We must at some point doubt our very selves – we must doubt that our actions have been good actions. So perhaps this is another area where doubt can have a positive influence in our lives.

10. Humility is the key

Whether as individuals or as a church, regardless of what we currently believe or how strong our convictions, further light and knowledge can always reveal new truths, and our beliefs can always change.

Shouldn’t that awareness then lead to greater humility on our parts? Isn’t humility the way we learn to show Christ-like empathy and compassion and forgiveness for others, even when we disagree with them or when they disagree with us?

Isn’t that the humilty that caused the good Samaritan to stop and help the man on the side of the road, even though he probably doubted the other guys’ beliefs?

Isn’t that the compassion and empathy that caused Christ to say “forgive them father, for they know not what they do?” even as they were in the very act of doubting him to a painful and undeserved death?

Back to Alma 32 – Alma rejoiced when he saw that the poor among the Zoramites had been cast out. Why? Because they had been compelled to be humble, and that softened their hearts. No one wants to be compelled to be humble, but I think we should all have soft hearts — believers and skeptics alike. We should be open-minded, tolerant of different ideas, willing to admit our own imperfect understanding.

Doubt – for me – has compelled and pounded and softened my heart. It has lead me to a humilty in my beliefs, or at least an ability and a desire to step off of my own rameumpton and drop any pretense that I am any more elect than anyone else around me. Doubt has helped me repent of this pride.

In conclusion, I have atheist friends who are some of the most charitable, kind, Christ-like people that I know. When I ask them about God, they often say that it makes no sense to them that a loving God would put us in a no-win situation, and would punish us for living in a sinful world that God himself created.

There are many responses to this, but I want to give just one. If the story of the atonement is true – if Jesus Christ took upon himself the sins of the world and died for our sakes – then isn’t that the responsible thing for a God to do? Doesn’t that mean that he has personally erased the effects of sin and death that have come to us as a result of our following his plan and entering into this mortal probation full of death and sin? To me it is like he is saying, “don’t worry, I’ve got you covered. Have faith. Fear not. Now just go and love each other as I have loved you. “

I find great beauty and hope in this approach. And I have a firm desire for this to be true. I also have a strong faith in the principles of charity that we read about in Moroni:  “Wherefore, if a man have faith he must have hope; for without faith there cannot be any hope. And he cannot have faith and hope, save he shall be meek, and lowly of heart. Otherwise, his faith and hope is vain; and he must needs have charity; for if he have not charity he is nothing; for charity suffereth long, and is kind, and envieth not, and is not puffed up, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, and rejoiceth not in iniquity but rejoiceth in the truth, beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Charity is the pure love of Christ, and it endureth forever; and whoso is found possessed of it at the last day, it shall be well with him.”

This is my hope and my faith, in spite of my doubts.

How do you feel about doubt and its relationship to faith?

The obstacles I see preventing couples from truly being equal partners with equal opportunity for career fulfillment and a successful family:

1. Familiarity.  People who resist change in general, who prefer the comfort of familiarity and traditions, are going to have a hard time creating an equal distribution of parenting responsibility.  From the article:  “Society is a mirror of the family.  The only way to achieve equality in society is to achieve equality in the home.”  Mormon implications:  Generally speaking, people who are active in religions tend to be traditionalists.
2. Society’s and employer’s support.  There are many financial disincentives for parents to shoulder responsibilities equally.  “A mother’s future earnings increase on average 7 percent for every month the father takes leave.”  That’s from Sweden’s findings.  Of course, if you use the term “paternity leave” in the U.S., most people will laugh their heads off.  For real societal change to happen, those who have the most to lose (in this case, men) have to willingly give up their privileges.  Mormon implications:  The church does actively support more co-parenting, IMO, although traditional norms prevail, and among the older generation, sexism even prevails.  But on the whole, the Mormon men I know seem more experienced with things like diapering, cooking, making family-oriented decisions and pitching in around the home.
3. Logistics of co-parenting.  “Among those with university degrees, a growing number of couples split the leave evenly; some switch back and forth every few months to avoid one parent assuming a dominant role — or being away from jobs too long.”  It’s natural for one parent to dominate the way the house is run.  Mormon implications:  Perhaps due to gender encouragement (e.g. PoF), IMO Mormons usually have female-dominated homes, even moreso than society at large (which also tends to be domestically female-dominated).
4. Inherent differences betweeen the SAHP and career parents.  “The higher women rank, the more they resemble men: few male chief executives take parental leave — but neither do the few female chief executives.”   Career ambition and family responsibilities simply conflict.  Over time, one will win.  My DH has said (and I think he’s right), that in a family you can only really have 2 of these 3 things: well-raised kids, mother with good career, father with good career.  And two is best case.  You could clearly lack all three or only have one of the three.  Mormon implications:  There are more women in the church who choose to be a SAHM than outside the church.  This, to me, is the real “gender difference.”  Families with shared SAHParenting or where both parents have careers have more gender sameness.  Where both parents are SAHPs, they seem more traditionally female, and where both parents have careers, the characteristics of the parenting style may be more male.
5. The emotional pull of staying home.  “the most commonly cited reason for not taking more paternity leave, after finances, was mother’s preference.”  Many women find intense satisfaction from parenting.  Stay at home dads (in the article) in fact find the same thing.  Once they have a taste for staying home, they long for it as much as their wives.  Part of this issue is probably also (not cited in article though) that women want to set the standards within the home (see next comment).  Mormon implications:  Well, I don’t think there are many Mormon SAHDs, although there are some.  But I do think Mormon dads understand the pull of home more than those who are less family focused.
6. Women’s standards for the home vs. men’s.  “How many dads cut their children’s nails?  I know she’s going to do it and so I don’t bother. We have to overcome that if we truly want to share responsibility.”  This goes to the heart of different standards. Women feel that their children’s and home’s appearance is a reflection on them, that society holds them accountable for these, but even SAHDs don’t have that sense of being scrutinized.  Mormon implications:  There are many GC talks about this.  And personally, I think the key is for men to up their game a little bit, and for women to lower their standards a little bit.  We have to meet in the middle on this one.  And while both parents should take pride in their family and home, neither should feel so pressured by outside perceptions that they can’t simply enjoy their family.
7. Societal rewards.  ”I get complimented on how much I help at home, Cecilia gets no such gratitude.”  When men “parent” they seem to get extra points for being a human being. Women, OTOH, are often judged harshly (or judge themselves harshly) if their home or children don’t meet high standards.  Mormon implications:   Women should not judge other women for choices that differ from their own.  And the one thing that gets my goat is when a man refers to “babysitting” his own kids.  You are not babysitting.  You are parenting.
8. Gender sameness.  “Some, however, worry that as men and women both work and both stay home with kids, a gender identity crisis looms. “Manhood is being squeezed” by the sameness.”  I have to admit that emasculated men don’t sound that attractive to me. I’d (on the whole) rather have a man who is a SAHD do the job in a male way than a female way or to female standards. And I’m not keen on a man wearing a fake breast to pretend he is breast-feeding. Parenting is already desexualizing enough.  Mormon implications:  Personally I think Mormon men are divided:  those who view their roles in a mostly traditional light (feeling high responsibility for providing financially, but low for sharing domestic responsibility) and those with an equal parenting viewpoint (pragmatically pitching in to do whatever is needed and supportive of untraditional choices their wife makes).  In my experience, the younger generation fit the second category more, and anyone whose wife has a career also tends to fit into that category.  I suppose the key is that each couple needs to make it work for them.  But the pitfalls of the first scenario are worth mentioning:  female reliance on a man when factors may be unpredictable (recession, mid-life crisis / infidelity, death or disablement of the working spouse).  The key IMO is for women to retain options (education, skills, experience, etc.) to be fully self-reliant in the event it is needed.

So, what do you think about equal parenting?  Is it feasible?  Is it desirable?  What should equality in parenting look like?  Are Mormons more or less equal than non-Mormons in your opinion?  Discuss.