In this episode, Mormon Matters host Dan Wotherspoon and panelists Scott Heffernan, Stephen Carter, and Adam Jacobsen discuss these and many other questions. What it’s like to be Mormon men in this day and times of major transitions? You’ll have to listen in. We also hope you’ll then chime in below!

Mormon Matters is very pleased this week to for the chance to mark this anniversary by hosting a dynamic discussion of this ban and the revelation that ended it between four black Latter-day Saints. Guest host, Dustin Jones (who will be familiar to many listeners who have heard his Mormon Stories podcast telling of his own experiences growing up black in the Church) recently convened a panel consisting of himself and three fellow seasoned and opinionated black Mormons—Keith N. Hamilton, Darron Smith, and Marguerite Driessen—who, like him, have spent the last three decades learning about and attempting to understand the LDS Church’s “negro doctrine.” Collectively the group is made up of three outspoken lawyers, one unabashed sociology Ph.D., three high priests, two former bishopric counselors, three former stake high councilors, two current BYU adjunct law professors, one former BYU professor, and a Relief Society president.

We at Mormon Matters are honored by this opportunity to “listen in” on their spirited (both in its “faith” connotation as well as hinting at their lively differences of opinion!) discussion of their individual interpretations of Official Declaration 2; statements made by Brigham Young and Bruce R. McConkie, Gordon B. Hinckley’s 2006 talk about “racial slurs,” the process by which the Brethren received the revelation, and what they see as the best way to move beyond the Church’s troubled history on this matter. For each panelist, dealing with this history is ultimately a matter of faith, however, as this discussion shows very well, the swing of the pendulum between faith and fact is an interesting dynamic that all black Mormon must balance for themselves.

Otterson’s depiction of equality led to a great deal of discussion on various LDS blogs, including a wonderfully executed piece of satire by Kristine Haglund in which she compared women’s equality with the type of equality her children enjoy as a member of her family. In this episode, Haglund is joined by two other panelists, Jana Riess (who wrote a great follow-up to Kristine’s post) and Joanna Brooks, along with host Dan Wotherspoon in an animated, far-ranging, and very insightful discussion of the roles of Mormon women today. How can we raise the level of discourse on women within the Church beyond the issues of priesthood ordination and claims by many LDS women to be completely fulfilled? Are there theological insights or practices that might lead the Church to utilize women’s gifts more fully? What strategies do the panelists find most helpful as they boldly speak out on difficult issues while still maintaining full activity in the church and good relationships with members and leaders? What renews their faith and encourages them to remain engaged?

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 “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.

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.

Here’s the talk in a nutshell:

1. Why we need the spirit.
   • “Throughout the ages, many have obtained guidance helpful to resolve challenges in their lives by following the example of respected individuals who resolved similar problems. Today, world conditions change so rapidly that such a course of action is often not available to us.”  I think E. Scott just admitted that old folks haven’t necessarily “been there, done that.”  It’s kind of a radical thing for an octogenarian to say.  Frankly, I’m not sure all 80-somethings would admit that.  Kudos, E. Scott!
   • “Personally, I rejoice in that reality because it creates a condition where we, of necessity, are more dependent upon the Spirit to guide us through the vicissitudes of life. Therefore, we are led to seek personal inspiration in life’s important decisions.”  So, he’s saying we shouldn’t do things just because of tradition or what others who are older tell us to do, but we should find out for ourselves the best course.  Personal accountability–one, blind obedience to authority–zero!
   • “Spirituality yields two fruits. The first is inspiration to know what to do. The second is power, or the capacity to do it. These two capacities come together.”  Features & benefits of the Spirit.
2. How to get the Spirit.
   • “I am convinced that there is no simple formula or technique that would immediately allow you to master the ability to be guided by the voice of the Spirit.”  Decrying a formulaic approach to spirituality.  Down with checklists!  Spirituality is personal and subjective.
   • “Our Father expects you to learn how to obtain that divine help by exercising faith in Him and His Holy Son, Jesus Christ. Were you to receive inspired guidance just for the asking, you would become weak and ever more dependent on Them. They know that essential personal growth will come as you struggle to learn how to be led by the Spirit.”  I love the notion that we are supposed to live up to our potential, not just let others make decisions for us.
   • “Your confidence in the direction you receive from the Holy Ghost will also become stronger. I witness that as you gain experience and success in being guided by the Spirit, your confidence in the impressions you feel can become more certain than your dependence on what you see or hear.”  There’s a little bit of implied confirmation bias here, but by the same token, it’s how we develop decision-making ability and intuition:  through experience.  We learn what works and what doesn’t.
   • E. Scott shares 2 contrasting teacher styles and how each resulted in inspiration for him.  While the contrasting examples seem designed to reinforce the correlation committee’s guidelines (the first teacher stuck to the materials and the second one used archane and unusual references), both lessons resulted in personal spiritual guidance for E. Scott.  Of the second experience, E. Scott shared:  “I received such an outpouring of impressions that were so personal that I felt it was not appropriate to record them in the midst of a Sunday School class. I sought a more private location, where I continued to write the feelings that flooded into my mind and heart as faithfully as possible.”  I’m pretty sure he just admitted to ditching Sunday School to write in his journal.
   • “Impressions of the Spirit can come in response to urgent prayer or unsolicited when needed.”  I think it’s hard to chalk it up to the Spirit when it could be confirmation bias – unsolicited one-off ideas are more easily attributable to the Spirit, IMO.
   • “However, the Lord will not force you to learn. You must exercise your agency to authorize the Spirit to teach you. As you make this a practice in your life, you will be more perceptive to the feelings that come with spiritual guidance. Then, when that guidance comes, sometimes when you least expect it, you will recognize it more easily.”  Part of this does strike me as confirmation bias; however, I have experienced an unexpected idea to do something that if I followed it worked out, and sometime I have not and it didn’t work out.  To me, that’s the spirit.
3.  What prevents us from getting the Spirit.
   • “The inspiring influence of the Holy Spirit can be overcome or masked by strong emotions, such as anger, hate, passion, fear, or pride. When such influences are present, it is like trying to savor the delicate flavor of a grape while eating a jalapeño pepper. Both flavors are present, but one completely overpowers the other. In like manner, strong emotions overcome the delicate promptings of the Holy Spirit.”  I like the analogy.  The idea sounds true enough.
   • “Sin is spiritually corrosive. Unrestrained it becomes all-consuming. It is overcome by repentance and righteousness.  Satan is extremely good at blocking spiritual communication by inducing individuals, through temptation, to violate the laws upon which spiritual communication is founded.”  So, sin is bad then . . . right?
   • “With some, he is able to convince them that they are not able to receive such guidance from the Lord.”  I think this is a real issue for people.  I think many have these high-falutin notions of what constitutes “the Spirit” and anything short of meeting JC on the road to Damascus isn’t cutting it.  I think that’s a misunderstanding.  If you re-read E. Scott’s talk and substitute the word “instinct” or “inspiration” for “the Spirit,” you can get a real sense for how commonplace these experiences are.
   • “Satan has become a master at using the addictive power of pornography to limit individual capacity to be led by the Spirit.”  Let’s not make this a porn post, shall we?  But the rest of the talk is basically about how porn makes it impossible to recognize the Spirit.  Personally, I’m no fan of porn, and I think the point is valid.  Porn’s blocking of spiritual guidance is not the worst of its influence in society.  On the subject, E. Scott waxes eloquent.  Anyway, ’nuff said on porn.  Moving on.  Nothing to see here.

Here are some points I think worth discussing from the talk:

1. Does this jive with your experience feeling the Spirit or inspiration or whatever you kids are calling it these days?
2. Do you like the idea that you can be equally inspired in a lesson regardless the instructor?  I found these examples fascinating; although ostensibly the “not as good” instructor was “out of policy,” it had no adverse impact on the spiritual guidance received.  Doesn’t that mean that maybe we can quit wringing our hands over this?  Does that make church a BYOS (Bring Your Own Spirit) institution?  I say yes.
3. Have you ever felt the Spirit when in the throes of strong emotion?  If so, let’s have the deets!
4. Overall, did you like the talk or not?  I am of the opinion that not all talks are for all people.  This one was one I happened to like, but that doesn’t mean everyone should.

Discuss.

“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.

When we lived in Saudi Arabia a few years ago, I obtained a faculty position in the fairly newly-formed department of Health and P.E. at a university which was strictly segregated by gender.  The women’s side of the university operated independently, with our own female custodians, technical staff, professors and administration,  and very little oversight from the male president.  Our department consisted of five women, and we made all decisions collectively, with no titular head.  After the first semester I was there, one of our staff meetings was dedicated to the question of whether we should have a department head.  Being the newest addition to the faculty, I had little say in this decision, but I did bring up the point that we had successfully administrated the department jointly, and I questioned the necessity of one department head.  It would completely change the group dynamics that we had experienced as a body of women removed from a patriarchal hierarchy and which I very much enjoyed.  The reply from all of the rest of the women, though there had been no problems thus far, was that “you HAVE to have a leader,” that one person MUST be in charge of any organization.

At the time I was struck by how much this assertion resembled the one I have heard from many Mormons justifying the hierarchical, patriarchal system in place in the Church, both within the institution and within our individual families.  The argument seems to be that harmonious resolution of difficulties is impossible without one leader to make final decisions.  I am not entirely sure I agree that no other model beside the “one-leader rule,” or what I will here call the “kingship” model is viable in administrating a successful community.

The kingship model of administration appears to have been particularly desirable throughout history.  It seems obvious that strong personality types would desire to set up a system of governance where they were in charge of making all the decisions.  But the scriptural record and our OT SS Lesson #21 show that groups of people also wish to configure their communities under the supervision of a king.  1 Samuel 8 recounts the story of the Israelite people, dissatisfied with judges and prophets, clamoring for Samuel to get them a king.  Their reasoning is found in verse 20: they want to be like the other nations, they want one strong leader to judge them, and they desire to be under the protection of a military commander who will lead them in battle.

Passages in the Book of Mormon also describe this desire of the general population to set up a monarchy.  In Mosiah 23 the people want Alma to be their king because of their great admiration for him.  In 3 Ne 7 a league of tribes attempt to establish a kingship in order to overthrow the tribal system of government then operating.  In Alma 51 there is also an attempt to overthrow the current leadership and inculcate a kingship, inspired in part by pride and aspirations to nobility.  In each case in the scriptures where there is a desire to crown a king, it is denounced as contrary to the ideals of freedom.  Several reasons are given in these passages as to why kingship is considered malapropos:

• It is a rejection of divine rule in favor of human rule (1 Sam 8:7)
• A king would allocate human and natural resources to his own advantage (1 Sam 8:11-17)
• One man should not think of himself as being above another; kingship gives those of high birth unfair power and authority (Mosiah 23:7; Alma 51:8)
• Not all kings can be trusted to be just (Mosiah 23:8,13,14)
• A king can oppress people and lead them into iniquity (Mosiah 23:12)
• A monarchy is not a free government (Alma 51:6)

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

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

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

———-

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

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

SECTION 164, PARAGRAPHS 1-4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SECTION 164, PARAGRAPHS 5-7

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SECTION 164, PARAGRAPH 8

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

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

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

SECTION 164, PARAGRAPH 9

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

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

I want to explore these myths using the office of Prophet/President.  The centrality of his position hierarchically, the significant role he plays in the faith of many members of the Church and also the infrequency of contact with the general membership make this an apt example.

These myths come in many varieties.  There are stories about the Holy of Holies, about paintings of the Saviour and about mantle experiences. Now all of these may well be true, in whole or in part, or they may be completely fabricated. I am not concerned with their truth claims, rather I think that what is essential in the dynamic of these stories is the way that they become transferable between Prophets.

It is possible to trace a number of these stories (or variants of them) through many leaders, especially prophets, of the Church. This does not add to their fallacious nature rather it serves to reinforce what Bushman noted, which is that the office is endowed with charismatic gifts and not the person. Therefore it is probable, even expected, that these charismatic gifts are manifest by diverse men who hold the same office.

For example, the ‘This is the Place’ myth is re-cycled in England regularly but in a context far removed from Utah. Instead this myth focuses on the construction of the Preston Temple. Simply stated, a number sites were discussed but one site had a number of people who always resisted building permission. Yet, President Hinckley had asked for a Temple to built in Preston and when he saw the different sites he said… Yes, you guessed it. Then, though there were problems, the Temple went ahead. I am sure other similar stories abound.

My point is this, the process of re-cycling and repeating these mythic stories is one mechanism for maintaining the dynamism of a charismatic office, specifically the Prophet, in a Church where the general membership is so far removed from the individual. This is not to say that miraculous things do not happen, but these stories play an important sociological role in reinforcing this key notion that is rooted so firmly to the earliest days of the Church. These Mormon myths serve as a form of transferable charisma for an otherwise distant office.

It is not intentional.  In fact, I have, and would still call myself a feminist.  What are my qualifications for such a preposterous claim?  Well, first I wholeheartedly support equal rights and opportunities for women in all forms within a society.  Second, I was raised by feminist (then-single) Mormon housewife/full-time teacher.  Third, I have studied, support and work with feminist theory and research in my University education.  Fourth, I try to support my wife in her decisions regarding being a working-mum or SAHM.

Yet, none of this did not help realise something.  Lisa described this way, ‘When I got married I really thought that we would be equal partners, and we were.  We really were.  He did as much of the housework as I did, we both worked, we both made money… But as soon as I had a baby I was just shocked at how my world changed and how there was no equality anymore.  I was shocked of how much of that burden fell on me.’

From a different perspective Reese Dixon both glories and laments being able to have only one ‘role’; that of being a mother.

I guess I have failed to see how our relationship is becoming more unequal.  It started out great, I think.  She worked while I was at School and I did the majority of the housework and the cooking.  Shortly after I was married I was called to a position that meant I was out a few evenings of the week; and then things began to change.  A short time later, my calling changed, and I was out more.  We moved, but I kept the same calling, had a baby and I graduated.  We managed that ok, I was home a lot and tried to make sure I would regularly share the different responsibilities.  I was home most of the time during the day and I could do that.  My wife returned to work and I looked after our baby and began my post-graduate study.

Just over a year ago, my calling changed again.  Now I was out nearly every evening and my studies required more time.  We got pregnant again and I began teaching.  Finally another baby arrived.

Recently, there are some weeks that I never cook and rarely clean.  Though I home, I work and so I see the kids but I don’t always get time with them and sometimes I rarely change nappies or help feed.

Now, some might be thinking that if this is how we balance the responsibilities then that is fine.  The issue here is that I am unhappy with this and so is my wife.  The issue is that it is easier for me to allow this pattern to continue and I don’t like that about myself.

It is apparent that the systemic sexism in both the Church and the UK has made it easy for me to live out a patriarchal (not in a good way) existence by drawing me into the public sphere while simultaneously requiring that my wife live her life in private sphere.  That requirement is disseminated through the subtle, pernicious and quiet expectation that my wife will support me in my responsibilities.

I have need to repent for choosing to be acted upon rather than to act against the tide of these social influences.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  So, what does eternal progression mean?

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

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

[poll ID = "141"]

Discuss.

A middle-aged single brother moves into your ward.  He has been divorced for nearly 10 years.  He was married in the temple.  He has been inactive for many years and is just starting to come back to church.  He would like to go back to the temple.  During your Temple Recommend interview, he confesses to having had sex with a woman about a year after he was divorced.  This relationship went on for several months, and then he broke it off.  He has not had any other Law of Chastity issues since then, for over eight years.

[poll ID ="97"]

Would your answer change if he had not been endowed?  Would your answer differ if the infraction had gone on longer or been more recent (e.g. 4 years ago or 2 years ago)?  Would your answer differ if this was a woman’s confession rather than a man’s?  Discuss.

There is a young man in your ward who seems to push the limits on the clothes he wears.  Both his parents are active, but they seem to be struggling with him.  He is worthy to pass the sacrament, and he even wears a white shirt to church on Sundays.  But sometimes he wears loud rock band tee shirts beneath his white shirt (like “Led Zeppelin”) that are plainly visible.  His belts have spikes all the way around them.  There is a chain that hangs from his pocket that connects to his wallet.  One Sunday while passing the sacrament, he wears a very large skull buckle.  It is very large and obvious to everybody what it is.  Another Sunday he wears a Confederate flag belt buckle.

[poll ID ="96"]

Would your answer change if he lived with no father in the home?  Would your answer change if there was a black family in the ward who noticed his Confederate belt buckle? Discuss.

I’ve changed some minor details in each situation to preserve the confidentiality of the person involved.  Other than the small changes, everything you read here really happened to me as Bishop.  I was Bishop for 6 years in a medium-sized ward in the southwestern U.S.

So let’s start out with this week’s installment of “You’re the Bishop.”

There is a YW in your ward that is 16.  She lives with a non-member mother who does not place any restrictions on her.  Her father is remarried and very active and lives out of town.  The girl chose to live with her mother, so she can pretty much do what she wants.  But she has several good friends in the ward, and she craves he friendship and attention she gets in church.

She is VERY well endowed and wears very low cut tops to all church meetings.  One gets quite a view when talking with her.  As bishop, you are on very good terms with her, and she has come to you several times with problems.

[poll id="95"]

1). Your blessing always implies (even if it does not say it explicitly) the agency of another. So even if there is a promise involving another person they still have their choice to go down whatever path.

2). Your blessing (and only you can interpret this) would have made these promises on certain conditions. This does not mean that you are to blame but rather these situations are never just one factor.
3). It is not over yet. You do not know when or where these blessings might be fulfilled.
4). Faith is a paradox. I believe that we see our faith, or experience our faith, when we keep doing those things that are right even when it seems impossible for us to receive the blessings. It is the strength to endure even when we see no possibility of fulfillment. It is in these moments of struggle that we are forced to draw closer to God and rely more wholly upon him because there is nothing else to rely upon.

5). Is it possible that your patriarch, seeking to promise you something that would bring you hope and happiness, made this statement eventhough it was not directly inspired from God? They are not perfect. But I should couple this with my own thoughts that you have the right to pray about your blessing and interpret what it means. Priesthood holders have a difficult repsonsibility to try and understand the spiritual impressions we receive when we give blessings and sometimes it does not always come out quite right and the listener/receiver has to interpret. This is your responsibility.

My questions are these:

Have you experienced a failed patriarchal blessing and how did you deal with it?

Are my possible explanations flawed?

Are there other explanations I may have missed?

What would have said or done in this situation?

As a lead into the rest of this discussion the other people who had this experience are:

Joseph Angell Young – One of Brigham Young’s sons was ordained in 1864 and was never subsequent invited into the quorum [3].

‘Brigham Young, Jr., was ordained as an Apostle by his father on February 4, 1864, but he did not become a member of the Council of the Twelve until October 1868, when he was chosen to fill the vacancy caused by George A. Smith’ [4].

Sylvester Q. Cannon was ordained an Apostle on April 14^th, 1938 and was set-apart in the Quorum April 6^th 1939, a year later [3].

Finally Alvin R. Dyer was called as an Apostle on October 5^th 1967 but was never included in the Quorum, and was actually incorporated into the First Quorum of Seventy when it was created in Oct 1^st 1976 [3].

The last person that might have been in a similar situation was David Whitmer & Oliver Cowdrey (D&C 18: 9), but I will not discuss this here [5].

President McKay once said: “There are apostles who are not members of the council. I think there were in that day [i.e., in New Testament times], at least they were considered to be apostles… A man may be an apostle but not one of the Council of the Twelve” [4].  That people can be ordained as an Apostle without being a member of the Twelve suggests that it is a Priesthood office which could be bestowed on those who are prepared.

In an article by David L. Paulsen, Joseph Smith is recorded to have said in a meeting in 1833, after a vision of the Father and the Son, “Brethren, now you are prepared to be the apostles of Jesus Christ, for you have seen both the Father and the Son and know that They exist and that They are two separate personages” [6].  President McKay, in the citation above, uses the example of Paul and Barabbas who were considered Apostles without them being included in the Quorum.  Paul it seems may have been later, while for Barabbas it is less clear.  It seems they were considered to be Apostles on the basis of what they had seen and that they were felt called to the ministry.

This seems to imply something similar to what Ammon describes in the Book of Mormon.  He says ‘I am called by that Holy Spirit to teach [the gospel]… and a portion of that Spirit dwelleth in me, which giveth me knowledge and also power’ (Alma 18: 34-5).  Moreover, there is a distinction between the calling and the ordinance associated with Priesthood power (see Al 13: 8).  In addition D&C 121: 37 argues that the powers of heaven may be conferred upon us, but that there are inseparable from the Spirit.  In fact if this section of scripture teaches us anything then it is that the Holy Ghost, through a Saintly life, gives power to an individual (see D&C 121: 46) not by the virtue of the Priesthood (D&C 121:40).

This suggest two things to me: first being an Apostle is not necessarily about being in the Quorum of the Twelve and that it may well be a Priesthood office, like High Priest, rather than a calling in that Priesthood.  Second there is a conception that Mormonism has scope for the ‘Priesthood of all believers’ type view.  Meaning that spiritual power is given to those who are called by God or receive that power, rather than by merely being ordained.

Notes:

1. Richard O. Cowan, The Church in the Twentieth Century [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1985], 45.

2. Truman G. Madsen; see also Scott Kenney, Joseph F. Smith in The Presidents of the Church, ed. L.J. Arrington [Salt Lake City, UT.: Deseret Book, ?] p. 191.

3. Encyclopaedia of Mormonism, Appendix 1, p. 1631-51.

4. David O. McKay, Gospel Ideals: Selections from the Discourses of David O. McKay [Salt Lake City: Improvement Era, 1953], 250.

5. See Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 6:320 and Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses 6:29.

6. David L. Paulsen, The Doctrine of Divine Embodiment: Restoration, Judeo-Christian, and Philosophical Perspectives in BYU Studies, vol. 35, no. 4 (Provo UT.: BYU Press, 1996).

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

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

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

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

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

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

This would not last. In the late 1960s, BYU became the focus of protests at its athletic competitions, over the LDS Church policy of barring blacks from the priesthood.

The July 15, 1968 edition of Newsweek featured the cover story “The Angry Black Athlete,” which stated: 

It is a mess that extends from Niagara to the University of California, from Michigan to the University of Texas at El Paso. Sometimes the racial issue is inflamed by a coach’s get-tough policy.  “I could give in to a lot of Negro demands,” says one Southwestern track coach, “and keep my team intact. But someone has to hold the line against these people.”

At El Paso, track coach Wayne Vandenburg threatened to kick six athletes off the team if they joined the boycott of the New York Athletic Club indoor meet in February. The club was charged with discriminatory membership policies. Vandenburg won and the athletes competed. But two months later, after a talk with Harry Edwards, the same athletes refused to enter a meet at Brigham Young University in Utah because of Mormon doctrines about blacks. Vandenburg promptly dropped champion long-jumper Bob Beamon and five others from the squad.

Coach Vandenberg sued Newsweek for defamation and, though he won a jury verdict, it was ultimately reversed on appeal, based on the court’s finding that the statements were not made with reckless disregard for the truth. The court credited as accurate the account of how, in April 1968, several black athletes at UTEP decided to boycott the BYU meet because, inter alia, of their understanding of Mormon beliefs concerning blacks. Officials at UTEP, including Coach Vandenburg, responded with a statement that any athlete who did not participate in the BYU meet would be “voluntarily disassociated.” from the track team. Vandenburg v. Newsweek, Inc., 441 F.2d 378 (5th Cir. 1971); Vandenburg v. Newsweek, Inc., 507 F.2d 1024 (5th Cir. 1975)

On October 17, 1969, at approximately 9:30 a.m., 14 members of the University of Wyoming football team confronted Head Football Coach Lloyd Eaton and members of his coaching staff in Memorial Fieldhouse at the University of Wyoming. They were all wearing black armbands, and their spokesman was Joe Harold Williams, who was then serving as team tri-captain. The players had provided the coach with a letter dated October 14, 1969, addressed to Dr. William D. Carlson, President of the University of Wyoming, signed by Willie S. Black, as Chancellor of the Black Students Alliance, an organization on the campus of the University of Wyoming, demanding that:

(a) University officials at the University of Wyoming, as well as other member institutions in the Western Athletic Conference, not use student monies and university facilities to play host to and thereby in part sanction alleged inhuman racist policies of the Mormon Church.

(b) That athletic directors in the Western Athletic Conference refuse to schedule and play games with BYU so long as the Mormon Church continues such alleged policies.

(c) That black athletes in the Western Athletic Conference (WAC) protest in some way any contest with BYU so long as the Mormon Church continued such alleged policies, and

(d) That all white people of good will, athletes included, protest with their black fellows a policy allegedly clearly inhuman and racist and that the symbol of protest be the black armband worn throughout any contest involving BYU.

Coach Eaton told the players that a rule prohibited members of the University of Wyoming football team from participating in demonstrations and protests, and he advised  Williams that there would be no demonstrations or protests within the scheduled football game between Wyoming and BYU. When the players persisted and, at the behest of the university’s highest officials, they were kicked off the team. Williams v. Eaton, 310 F.Supp. 1342 (D. Wyo. 197); Williams v. Eaton, 443 F.2d 422 (10th Cir. 1971); Williams v. Eaton, 333 F.Supp. 107 (D. Wyo. 1971); Williams v. Eaton, 468 F.2d 1079 (10th Cir. 1972).

The University of New Mexico student government, as a WAC-member school,was in the process of reviewing the University of Wyoming letter.  On November 12, 1969, the BYU Daily Universe published a letter to editor from Brian Mazill of Las Vegas, New Mexico. The letter read:

I am one non-Mormon who thinks the notion of the University of New Mexico’s student Senate is one of the most unreasonable examples of the bigoted minds of so-called ‘liberals’ I’ve ever seen.

In the first place, BYU is a privately-endowed school. It is not supported by the taxpayers like the other universities are members of the WAC.

Mainly, the reason for Negro athletes being at the other schools stems not from any great degree of humanitarianism on the part of those institutions. To the contrary, the reason for many, or even most, of Negro athletes being at these schools is because of their acknowledged athletic ability. The alumni preferred these schools during the past 10-15 years to give athletic scholarships to Negro athletes to assure success for their teams.

The Negro athletes have won games for these schools, they have seen and heard the coed cheerleaders go into hysterical frenzy over their exploits—only to find, after the game was over, they were supposed to keep their place. They were led to believe that by attending otherwise predominantly ‘white’ (a silly word, if you examine it closely) schools, the Negroes would be pals with all the other students and it didn’t work out that way. Now, the more militant want their own dorms, eating facilities, etc.

On the other hand, Brigham Young University has competed with the other members of WAC handicapped by not having black athletes on their teams, but the students, and alums, have registered no complaints. Mind you, BYU is not tax supported, therefore, I ask what the hell business it is of your sanctimonious hypocrites who the BYU administration wants to have on its campus?

The Negroes have reached the state in their development in this country at which anyone who doesn’t agree with them is considered a ‘racist,’ or bigot.  The white students at schools such as New Mexico who voted for the expulsion of BYU from WAC don’t give a real hoot about their black brothers. They just consider it the in-thing to be ‘liberal’ about such matters.

If the LDS only want to have whites for the priesthood, what business of the Negroes? Do they have members of the Black Muslims, the Black Panthers, who are ‘white’? As a Protestant, such as I am, can I take communion at a Catholic Church? As a non-Mason can I attend the secret sessions of the organization? All the more power to Brigham Young.

After Ezra Taft Benson’s death in 1994, a photocopy of this letter was found in his papers.  The final paragraph of the letter, in the margin, were two words written in Benson’s handwriting: “Very good.”

A WAC basketball game between Colorado State University and BYU was scheduled for February 5, 1970, in Moby Gymnasium on the CSU Campus at Fort Collins, Colorado.

During the game’s halftime intermission, pom pom girls from BYU were performing on the basketball floor when a group of persons (largely students) invaded the basketball court carrying signs of protest against the claimed discriminatory practices of the Mormon Church and BYU. This group marched the length of the floor and disrupted the girls’ performance. Campus police and City of Fort Collins police were called, and they attempted to control the melee. A fight broke out between an employee who was trying to wipe down the basketball floor and several of the demonstrators, and it was stopped by the police only with substantial difficulty. A flaming missile was thrown from the stands onto the floor. Someone either threw or wielded a lethal piece of steel angle iron which struck a press photographer in the head. Tempers of many of the spectators (including the tempers of the overwhelming majority of the students in attendance) became short, and the rage of the crowd at the unauthorized interruption of the halftime activities and delay of play of the second half became dangerously apparent. The situation was tense, and panic or a riot was more than a mere possibility. However, the police were able to cajole the demonstrators into leaving the floor before serious injury occurred. Evans v. State Bd. of Agriculture, 325 F.Supp. 1353 (D.Colo. 1971).

Eight years later, the Church lifted the ban on blacks holding the priesthood.

“Evidence from accounts of some early meetings and conferences indicates that many of the New England leaders of the Church felt that the membership should be directly involved in decision-making meetings, including making motions on policy issues, following standard parliamentary procedure for public meetings, and voting to finalize decisions”[2][3].  Bushman argues that one unique feature of Mormonism was that revelation and governance came through councils, and this implied Common Consent [4].  Many of the revelations included in the D&C were written in and through Council meetings and then accepted by Common Consent [5].  It seems two converging cultures have emerged from this Brigham Young Mantle experience.

As Jan Shipps is famous for saying, we can distinguish between the ‘Mountain Saints’ and the ‘Prairie Saints’.  For the Mountain Saints “as the Church grew and as new converts required greater organization, it was not possible to maintain a simple democracy where each member had equal access either to power or to revelation for the group as a whole.” [6].  But this was not a necessity, for the Prairie Saints have maintained a strong democratic culture to their religion.  One example Jan Shipps cites is a situation where the RLDS (as it was then called) wanted to publish a revised version of the Book of Mormon.  When it was ready they took the decision to a General Conference and the ideas was rejected by the membership[7].

Bonner Ritchie has written that “Security religion provides refuge. It builds an ecclesiastical wall which protects from the onslaught of questions and doubts and decisions. Growth religion, on the other hand, forces its adherents to grow, to accept responsibility to assume the burden of proof, to move beyond extrinsic constraints”[8].  Bonner Ritchie argues that we need both types or religion and that the tension between them needs to be managed.  It appears to me that how we use Common Consent is one way of utilising this tension between Growth and Security Religion.  But how could this be more fully incorporated into our Church practice?

My thinking here is that this should work on a Local and Church-wide level differently and should utilise changing mechanisms.  Moreover it seems that we should distinguish between those matters that are up for debate and those which might not be.  It seems that some votes like sustaining our leaders might not be times for debate and discussion while maybe decisions of Church policy, like the consolidated meeting schedule, might be discussed.  At a Church-wide level, what decisions could be open to discussion and even for a dissenting vote?  In addition, at a Local level are there decisions that should be open for discussion rather than just made in small council meetings?  Would this shift re-create some of the elements of Growth religion that Ritchie supports.  I am not saying that every decision should be made by Common Consent, I think this would be impractical and would negate some of the good Security religion practices that the ‘Sustaining Vote’ Common Consent provides for the Church.

The second area that I am interested in, is how we, as a Church, relate to Common Consent.  Here are two statments regarding the practice: “The Church has a right to reject or approve of revelations… Before a revelation can be accepted by the Church, as a law, it must in some form or other be presented to the Church and accepted by the Church” [9]. Interestingly Apostle Taylor (who was removed from his position for practicing polygamy after the Manifesto, explained that he never sustained the Manifesto when it was presented and therefore was not required to be obedient to that principle.  Contrastingly, George Q. Cannon has said “It seems nonsensical that the Prophet of God could not deem the revelations he received authentic until they had the approval of the different quorums of the Church” [10].  So what is the role of Common Consent, is it supposed to be a test for the membership as to whether they follow their leaders or is it intended to a mechanism to work as a check/balance to ensure the Church is on course?

My Questions again:

What was intended by the principle of Common Consent?

Could the principle be used to encourage greater ownership and growth?

Is it possible to have two types of Sustaining Vote, one with discussion and one without?  Then, if we did have votes with discussion what topics should or should not be covered?

What is the role of Common Consent in the Church: is it a test of obedience, is it an a cceptance of a Covenant, it is a democratic principle of support or is it something else all together?

Notes:

1. Leonard J. Arrington, Brigham Young: American Moses [Urbana & Chicago, IL.: University of Illinois Press, 1986] p. 113-7.

2. Common Consent in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 1-4 vols., edited by Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 297.

3. Donald Q. Cannon and Lyndon W. Cook, eds., Far West Record: Minutes of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1830-1844 [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1983], 9.

4. Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling [ New York: Vintage, 2007] p. 252.

5. Robert J. Woodford, How the Revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants Were Received and Compiled in Ensign, [January 1985]

6. (John M. Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks, eds., By Study and Also by Faith: Essays in Honor of Hugh W. Nibley on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday, 27 March 1990, 2 vols. [Salt Lake City and Provo: Deseret Book Co., Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1990], 1: 164.)

7. Jan Shipps, Prophets and Prophecy at Sunstone

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

9. Wilford Woodruff, cited in Von Wagoner et al, The Lectures on Faith: A Case Study in De-canonization in Dialogue, 1987, vol. 20, no. 3,  74.

10. George Q. Cannon, Gospel Truth: Discourses and Writings of President George Q. Cannon, selected, arranged, and edited by Jerreld L. Newquist [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1987], 258.

Many churches have abandoned their exclusivity claims surrounding ordinances, if they ever had them in the first place (a little hard to claim for some sects, based on their foundation stories).  Many Christian sects will accept baptism from other sects, for example.  Catholicism considers Protestant sects to be part of Catholicism (even though the whole point of the sect’s schism was to declare Catholicism invalid), and now some of those sects’ ordinances are even considered valid in the world of Catholicism.

So, why are ordinances ingenious?  Here are a few reasons:

• Ordinances are tangible.  An ordinance is an act or rite that solidifies personal religious commitment, and doing so through an organization means that that organization is the necessary facilitator of salvation.  You can sit at home and commit yourself to God, but an actual ritual that symbolizes your commitment can make that commitment more substantial.
• Ordinances are products.  Cynics have suggested that ordinances such as temple access are “bought” through tithing.  It could just as easily be said that ordinances are bought by our commitment to the religious practices that precede the ordinance.
• Ordinances reinforce authority claims.  If our religion is the only provider of a “legitimate” product that brings salvation, we corner the market on ordinances.  Sure, you can go down the street where they’ll baptize anyone, but that and a quarter will get you a cup of coffee, as the saying goes (well, that and $4.75 if you are going to Starbucks).
• Ordinances are progressive.  At least in Mormonism they are.  You start with baptism (I’m not counting baby blessings because you are pretty much just laying there, and all it does is put you in the church’s record system).  Then, you move on to temple covenants, which require even more preparation and commitment.  Maybe this could be improved by adding more frequent ordinances, one every 10 years like renewing vows or something (proxy work for the dead is the best we’ve got).  But we’ve added other “soft” ordinances into the system already, and for PH, there are additional ones at different ages to reinforce commitment.

So, compared to other sects, Mormonism clearly uses ordinances more fully to create commitment and to reinforce the authority of the organization.  It is a far more effective approach than undermining authority or watering down ordinances by accepting them from competing sects.  What do you think?  Discuss.

I was sooooooooooooooooo naive.  I actually thought I would find my personal Peter Priesthood on one of those sites.  What a joke!  I feel compelled to give the following disclaimer.  I am not, nor do I claim to be anything close to perfect.  I am no Molly.  I can’t carry a tune or play the piano.  Prairie skirts and fluffy bangs look horrible on me (I know–I am dating myself). 

But seriously, I am a cool chick and I made a commitment before I even started dating at 16 to keep the law of chastity.  After my divorce, I committed myself again to following the law of chastity.  It wasnt easy.  Those feelings and desires just dont go away when you sign the divorce papers.  I was married to a non-member, and when I started thinking about dating again, I figured I would date both members and non-members.  My first “relationship” was with a non-member.  I was crazy for this guy and he was crazy for me, but he just could not wrap his mind around two adults being in love and not having sex.  It was difficult to explain.  I had been sexually active, and now I was just going to stop?  Was I insane?  Frigid?  A little of both?

When I broke up with that guy, I decided that I would date only members.  Even if they didnt follow the law of chastity themselves, they would get why I did.  Right?  WRONG!  After I signed up and logged on, it was like I was the “belle of the ball.”  It was a huge ego boost, but what I soon realized is that it had very little to do with me.  I was simply fresh meat and the sharks were circling.

After the frenzy died down, there were 2 or 3 men that I continued to IM and email, but where it got interesting is about every week or so I would get a new “hit”–someone would just pop in with an IM and start flirting with me.  Hard.  When i would look at their profiles I would find that the majority of these guys were KIDS.  I mean KIDS:  age range from 21(hello horny RM) to 26.  This really surprised me.  I was so out of their age bracket.  I even asked them, “Did you notice my age?” and got responses along the lines of ”Older chicks are cool!”

What I quickly learned is the reason older chicks are “cool” is because many of us are divorced which means we were previously sexually active, and quite possibly more open to being sexually active now and teaching a few things to the youngsters.  One of the kids actually told me “everything, but . . .” was OK, and you would be worthy to keep your temple recommend.  What?!  One young man was looking for a more geographically convenient hookup.  There was one girl he had been “seeing” on the other side of town, and he was talking to me because I lived in his area.  Are you feeling all warm and fuzzy?  A few tears coming to your eyes?  I met a lot of men on those sites.  Some were nice.  Of all the men I met, I am still on friendly terms with two.

My conclusion is, for the most part, that the LDS dating sites are cyber singles bars where men (women, too, I am sure) can easily hide the big ole skeletons in their closet behind pretending to be a faithful (notice I didnt say perfect) member of the church.

So, what can single (or divorced) adults of a certain age do if they want to keep the law of chastity while dating?  Is it a lost cause?  What are your experiences with Mormon dating sites?  Is chastity after divorce unrealistic?  Have any of you experienced the “Reverse Cougar” described above (young Mormon male seeks experienced hot older female)?  Is there a better way?

Discuss.