Stirring Things Up

Earlier this month, LDS leaders made changes to the official handbook regarding the children who have guardians or parents in same-sex marriages. These children may not be baptized, prepare for missions, or hold any standing in the Church until age 18, and only after they have moved out of the household of their same-sex parents, and after having officially stated that same-sex marriage is a sin.

The Church’s official explanation for why they would do something like this is that they are protecting children from the uncomfortable situation that might arise when the child is on the records of the Church, but is not supported at home. See the official response here (by the way, notice how the interviewer hand-feeds these gentle and obviously scripted questions to Elder Christofferson).

I find at least three concerning issues here. The first is that it appears that the child is being punished for having same-sex parents, not protected from discomfort. Second, the Church seems inconsistent with this bizarre practice of barring a child’s alleged spiritual progress based on the parents’ beliefs. Lastly, why is gender more important than love?

First, the claim is that this policy protects the child from conflict. I cannot understand how the policy would accomplish that. If a child wants to be a member of an organization that believes his same-sex parents are committing a very serious sin, the conflict is inescapable – it will not go away at age 18 or ever. At best, this Church policy only makes the conflict worse by forcing an immediate choice – “Do I want the blessings of my chosen faith, or do I want to live with my same-sex parents?” Had the policy not been in place, a child whose same-sex parents did not oppose his decision could be baptized, go on temple trips, and so on. Now that it is in place, the child is forced to choose between his same-sex parents and his faith, even if the parents have no objections to his membership. Rather than reaching out to the same-sex couple by showing acceptance to their child, the Church has chosen to cut off the family for as long as the same-sex couple is an issue.

Second, I find this policy wildly inconsistent. Why implement this stance in families with same-sex marriages, but not in other families that do not fit the LDS ideal? For example, suppose a liberal LDS couple (yes, they exist) teaches its children that same-sex marriage is okay, even though the Church does not condone it. Why would their children be allowed baptism, if we are using the reasoning provided by Elder Christofferson? If the aim is to avoid children being taught things in the home that are contradictory to doctrines, shouldn’t thousands of children be denied baptism each year? Indeed, it sounds like the next question for the temple recommend interview should be, "Do you here and now condemn same-sex marriage as a sin comparable to murder?" I'd wager that a good proportion of members, particularly of the younger generation, would not pass the interview.

Children of parents whose lifestyles are not in accordance with Church doctrines are allowed to be baptized all the time. Indeed, suppose a teenager has alcoholic parents—do the missionaries say, “The Lord’s Word of Wisdom does not permit alcohol to be consumed. Because both your mother and father consume alcohol regularly, you are not eligible for membership in the Church.”? It’s ludicrous.

Lastly, I am an enormous supporter of the family. The family has become a hot topic in recent years as opposing views wrestle over what the family is and isn’t. On the one hand, some want to portray it as perfectly normal for children to be from broken homes, raised by nannies, by helicopter parents, and so on. On the other hand, others, like the LDS church, seem to suggest through policies such as this one that the family is primarily about genitalia, and the rest is secondary. The Church wants the world to think that children raised in same-sex households are in grave danger, simply due to the fact of the same-sex union. However, I believe that what is more important in a family is that the parents are unified in their love and support of the children: nurturing their interests and talents, and guiding them through life’s tough times. I argue that such characteristics are far more important than the sex of the parents. Perhaps same-sex parents are not the ideal situation, but if the child is loved and nurtured, then that's a far better situation than many children have whose parents are straight.

Naturally, as society becomes even more accepting of same-sex unions, and science continues to demonstrate that it is not an issue of choice, morality, or sin, but a mystery of nature, I am certain that the LDS church will be forced to follow the path it took regarding race and worthiness – either face mutiny or change doctrines. If history is any indicator, the Church will again choose the latter.

Mixed Messages Part II

Continuing my comments on the LDS church's latest edition of its scriptures, I would like to now address the new introduction to the second Official Declaration at the end of the Doctrine and Covenants. The introduction reads, in its entirety:

The Book of Mormon teaches that “all are alike unto God,” including “black and white, bond and free, male and female” (2 Nephi 26:33). Throughout the history of the Church, people of every race and ethnicity in many countries have been baptized and have lived as faithful members of the Church. During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, a few black male members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood. Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice. Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice and prayerfully sought guidance. The revelation came to Church President Spencer W. Kimball and was affirmed to other Church leaders in the Salt Lake Temple on June 1, 1978. The revelation removed all restrictions with regard to race that once applied to the priesthood.

While I completely agree with the leaders' decision to finally remove the racial restrictions, I will focus my comments on two of the claims made in this new introduction. First, the statement "Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice" is a complete lie. Consider the following:

In 1947 the First Presidency issued this Official Statement:

From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel. (Statement of The First Presidency on the Negro Question, July 17, 1947, quoted in Mormonism and the Negro, pp.46-7)

In 1949, The First Presidency issued the following statement:

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. (The First Presidency on the Negro Question, 17 Aug. 1949)

And an Official Statement of The First Presidency, issued on August 17, 1951, reads:

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the pre-mortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality, and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the principle itself indicates that the coming to this earth and taking on mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintained their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes... Man will be punished for his own sins and not for Adam's transgression.  If this is carried further, it would imply that the Negro is punished or allotted to a certain position on this earth, not because of Cain's transgression, but came to earth through the loins of Cain because of his failure to achieve other stature in the spirit world.

It is thus entirely clear that several Church documents outline the origins of the racial restrictions to the priesthood. They claim that it was direct revelation from God. The current introduction to the Official Declaration implies that it was somehow just a simple misunderstanding, but this is in conflict with the official statements by leaders that the restriction was doctrine because of God's direct communication of such. I find it repulsive that the leaders now easily disregard those past "revelations", and yet claim that Spencer W. Kimball's "revelation" was real. Which leads to my next point.

The new introduction states "Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice and prayerfully sought guidance." This statement suggests that leaders were anxious to end the Church's racist practices, when in fact the LDS church was the last major U.S. organization to begin treating Blacks and Whites equally. Even after dozens of requests and inquiries as to the possibility of removing the restrictions based on race, church leaders held stubbornly to the practice, and continually claimed it to be God's policy, not theirs. 

Rather than minimizing this disturbing, systemic racism in the Church's past, it is time that leaders acknowledge that those past "revelations" were inspired by racism and ignorance, and were never the will of God. This is why I can find no faith in any LDS leader who claims to know what God wants me to do. Past leaders commanded incorrect, arguably evil, practices to be carried out against innocent people for over a century, and now do not even acknowledge that it was a horrible mistake. They continue to insist that they are and were God's voice to His children. If they are, then that is not a god I choose to follow.

Pedagogy

I've had a fairly long history being taught, and have had many opportunities to teach as well. There is some disagreement regarding how teaching is most effective, and I often wonder about God's method according to the LDS church. Contrast the following two examples:

• In a class on American history, we never knew what to expect on the tests. We took copious notes during lectures, read and re-read the textbooks, and prayed in preparation. I specifically remember leaving the testing center after the first test completely confused. I had no recollection of hearing some of the terms used on the test, some of the answer options given were ambiguous or equally as valid as another, etc. After receiving our grades for the written sections, several of the students were upset that they were docked points for not answering unasked questions. What confused me most about the grading system in this class was that the goal did not appear to be simply challenging us, but it seemed as if all was being done to keep us from succeeding.

I wonder what would have been so detrimental to our learning if we had been tested on what we had been taught.

• About a year before that, I took an introductory statistics class. The professor's philosophy of teaching was quite different from that of the American History class's. He warned us that the assignments would be very strict, and that he did not allow even the slightest mistake. He explained that he would mark off points for bad handwriting, misplaced commas, extra decimal points, failure to use certain words, and so on. But he also told us that, although the standards were very strict, about 80% of his students ended up with A's. He said this was because he would make sure that we understood the material. As long as we came to class, paid attention, and asked questions about anything and everything we did not fully understand, he would use his vast experience and patience to be certain that the concepts he taught us were clear. The class was very challenging, but I came out with an A, and a very clear knowledge of basic statistical principles.

Let's examine the two different approaches; both classes required much, were challenging, and I learned a great deal from them. Both were taught by experts in their respective fields. However, the first required much but gave very little to facilitate success, whereas the second required much and made everything available to us that could help us reach its high demands.

The first class considered 90% of the class receiving A's as evidence that it was not challenging enough, while the second class viewed 90% A's as evidence that the students were learning the material.

According to LDS doctrine, God wants us all to pass this "test" of earthly life (source). It is His deepest desire that we all are worthy to return to Him (Moses 1:39). I understand that lowering the standards would be a poor method to achieve this goal. To simply decide that attendance alone would suffice for an A grade would demean the entire point of the class. Likewise, in the LDS world, to simply give everyone salvation regardless of behavior or character would make the Celestial Kingdom little different from earthly life.

If demands must remain high, wouldn't it fit the character of the Master Teacher to respond to our inquiries with patience and thorough explanation, building upon what we already know? Why, then, does He apparently make so little effort to help us understand the most complicated teachings of polygamy, denial of priesthood to persons of African descent, along with the legitimacy of the Book of Mormon in the face of DNA and archaeological evidence against it, etc.? The LDS god requires that we accept polygamy, and accept that the priesthood denial was not evidence against the Church's divinity. Why, then, does the LDS god not also deliver some degree of explanation for the same? If they are, in fact, eternal principles, are we not to understand them? If these confusing and troublesome teachings do not require explanations for us to accept them, why did that same god plague us with the power to think?

Some would say, "He gave us the Holy Spirit. That's all we need." For example, most members who wonder why polygamy was justified conclude through the Holy Ghost that some reasonable explanation exists (although we do not have it), and insist that they require nothing more.

This is similar to asking the professor about how World War I developed, and being met with, "The answer to that on the test will be C." You may say, "That's good, but that seems relevant to the rest of what followed. Will you help me understand how it fits?" The professor says, "Well, you don't need to understand it, you just need to remember that the answer is C."

Why would the master teacher encourage confusion when the explanation is available? Why put off our learning? Why delay our growth?

Standing for Something

One of the more honorable attributes of Jesus Christ is His usually quiet defiance of social and political norms when they are ungodly. Obviously I do not refer to the "cleansing of the temple," which appears to have been rather violent (John 2:14-15), but in all other areas where something was out of place with social and religious practices, He shamelessly did what was right, often opposing what was popular. In fact, in driving out the moneychangers, He showed that He feared not what man thought; as long as it was ungodly, He would defy it.

Christ did not usually defend righteousness in such aggressive ways, but it appears that He openly opposed society's more subtle wrongs as well. For example:

• John 4:7-9. The woman at the well was shocked that Christ, a Jew, would speak to her, a Samaritan. Christ did not shy away, did not avoid her because of her nationality, but instead engaged in very personal, loving conversation. His disciples were clearly disturbed that He would speak with her (John 4:27).
• Luke 7:37-48. A woman of low esteem washes Christ's feet in her tears, and dries them with her hair. The Pharisee observer clearly is troubled by Christ's allowing the woman to touch Him, yet he patiently allows her penance to proceed, then teaches all that their practice of shaming and chastising sinners is wrong.
• Luke 6:6-11. In opposition to the widely held social and religious norms, Christ heals a man on the Sabbath.
• John 9:1-3. He shattered the belief that physical disabilities were the consequence of sin.
• As a general rule, He held women in high regard - a radical practice in the region and time (e.g., 1 Corinthians 14:34-35). After His greatest miracle of all, the resurrection, the first to learn of it were women (Luke 24:1-8), but even His disciples would not believe women (Luke 24:11). The first person on Earth honored with direct witness of the miracle was Mary Magdalene, a woman (John 20:11-18). This was a strike against the male-dominated culture of the age.

There are, of course, several other examples in the New Testament. My point is that Christ was never one to shy away from controversy. He stood His ground for what was right, even when it led to His death.

Why, then, would this same Christ, who defied even the most deeply rooted practices whenever they were out of line with God, the same Christ, who is supposedly the head of the LDS church - why would He command, without reason, that persons of African descent be denied priesthood blessings and temple attendance? Even though racism was popular at the time, and even when it was becoming taboo to continue the policy, the LDS church clung to the racist practice, that they stated was revealed to them by Christ (source). Later, of course, it was re-revealed to have been wrong (source). To command leaders to do the wrong thing for more than a century is uncharacteristic of the Christ of the New Testament. It seems reasonable to conclude that either Christ is inconsistent, or the leaders who claimed that He made the former revelation were lying.

Similarly, what Christ apparently revealed to be divine commandment - polygamy - was phased out for the purpose of becoming a more mainstream church, and to fit society's expectations (source beginning with "The question is this:"). Rather than standing His ground and defending His commandment through tribulation and opposition, rather than insisting that His divine revelation be adhered to, He apparently buckled under the pressure from popular politics and social practices.

I find it odd that Christ, while in the flesh, would personally defy generally held beliefs for the sake of doing what was right, while easily relenting from the heavens - letting society and politics push His commandments around. It is an odd deity who is unchanging (e.g., Mormon 9:10) and yet appears to have made drastic changes in character.

Either that, or the LDS church was not and is not led by Christ.

Dumbing It Down

Albert Einstein (1879-1955) was perhaps the most brilliant scientist of the 20th Century. He had a gift for understanding concepts of physics and math that no one on the planet had ever before conceived. He held a doctorate in physics, and was probably the supreme authority in the field at the zenith of his career.

He has been credited with a quote that is usually stated as, "If you can't explain something to a six year old, you really don't understand it yourself." In terms more applicable to his field, one might say, "If you can't explain your theory to a layman, you don't understand it yourself."

Einstein's theories are quite complicated. The actual general relativity equation looks like this:

Naturally, most of us who do not hold doctorate degrees in physics do not understand this equation at all. But rather than leaving most of the world lost and confused, Einstein explained his theories to us in very simple terms that anyone with a basic knowledge of physics could understand, using his thought experiments (example). By simplifying his theory and using language and examples that were clear, he allowed people not only to grasp his ideas, but to also understand how solid the ideas were. It is very difficult to find fault with his theories; even the layman can agree that his thought experiments are reasonable, logical, and appear correct.

The contrast with the LDS method of teaching is striking to me. LDS doctrine contains several principles apparently so complex, that even a lifelong dedicated servant of the Master Teacher is unable to comprehend. For example, Gordon B. Hinckley admitted that he did not understand why God commanded that members with black skin be denied the blessings of the priesthood (source); the Church has not made clear why there is a discrepancy between DNA findings and the Book of Mormon, but have instead changed the official stance on the origins of Native Americans (2nd paragraph); leaders prefer to simply not talk about Joseph Smith's specific form of polygamy rather than attempt to explain it. The Doctrine and Covenants 19:22 even goes so far as to state that there are things we cannot know or we would "perish." We are assured that there are reasonable explanations for all of these (example), but that the answers are far too complicated for us to understand. Even the most spiritually advanced men on the planet do not have a grasp on the answers to some of these questions, or at least not enough that they will attempt to explain it.

Indulge me for a moment and compare Einstein with the LDS god. Imagine that Einstein wrote in his famous papers, "Something plus something else equals another thing when you calculate it with something else. I know what the somethings are, but the reader would not comprehend it, so just trust me on this." Suppose Einstein had not even attempted to explain the theory to his colleagues with whom he worked for years. Other scientists would say, "Well, the rest of the theory makes okay sense, but the problem is that it all depends on this original equation that you're not giving us! Can you be a little more specific? We're pretty bright and we've done everything we can to understand your theory." Einstein, if he were like the LDS god, would reply, "You are just not capable of understanding," or "If you knew, it would destroy you. In the meantime, just base all of your lives on the assumption that my theory is correct."

After a few years of this game, it would become pretty clear to a reasonable person that he didn't even understand what he was talking about, his theory wouldn't pan out, and he probably just made the whole thing up.

I do not hold a Ph.D. in physics, but I have a pretty good understanding of the theory of relativity. I don't hold a degree in biology, but I have a good grasp on evolutionary theory. Both seem like very solid theories to me. However, I was raised in the LDS church my whole life, served a 2 year mission, graduated from seminary, and served in several callings (including 2 Elders' Quorum Presidencies), and as hard as I have tried to understand polygamy, denial of priesthood to people of African descent, and the severe problems with the Book of Mormon, I am at a total loss.

If God cannot explain some of the most fundamental doctrines to even the highest ranking followers, then there's a good chance that He does not understand them either. That leaves me to believe that the entire LDS church is built upon a foundation of sand. And when the best way to make sense of God's doctrines is that they were made up by men, then there is apparently an enormous problem with God's one true church.

Call me faithless, but I will stick with things that make the slightest sense before accepting things no one understands.

The Worthiness of Souls

Imagine being a fly on the wall in a bishop's office in 1977. A warm and friendly bishop sits across from a middle-aged, stereotypical member. The bishop interviews him for a temple recommend renewal (the questions have been abbreviated for space's sake, and modernized for familiarity's sake).

Bishop: "Brother Johnson, do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost?"

J: "Yes sir."

Bishop [after more questions]: "Do you sustain the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the prophet, seer, and revelator; and do you recognize him as the only person on the earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?"

J: "Absolutely!"

Bishop: "Do you sustain the other General Authorities and the local authorities of the Church?"

J: "I do."

[answers more questions satisfactorily]

Bishop: "Are you a full-tithe payer? Do you keep the Word of Wisdom? Do you consider yourself worthy in every way to enter the temple and participate in temple ordinances?"

[Brother Johnson answers each question in the affirmative.]

Bishop: "Marvelous. Well everything seems in order." [the bishop begins to sign the recommend and makes some small talk] "So what did you think of Sister Young's talk today?"

J: "On genealogy? I thought it was perfect timing. I had just completed a big chunk of my genealogical record."

Bishop: "Really? That's wonderful. I hope you're finding some interesting things [hands recommend over]."

J: "Yes. As a matter of fact, I was surprised to find that I actually have a great great great great grandfather who was a freed slave! Imagine that!"

Bishop [suddenly serious]: "Wait a moment. You mean he was African?"

J: "Well yeah. He was born on a plantation in Georgia, but was given his freedom after rescuing his master's wife from a wolf! Amazing story really. After that he moved out West where he met my great great great great grandmother, a Swedish immigrant."

Bishop: "I see. Well I'm afraid this changes everything."

J: "I'm sorry?"

Bishop: "Brother Johnson, I'm afraid I'll have to ask for your recommend" [Bishop tears it up and discards it].

J: "I don't understand."

Bishop: "Well, it turns out that you're not temple worthy. In fact, you've never been temple worthy. That African blood flowing through your veins disqualifies you from entering the temple, and I'm afraid that this nullifies your sealing to your wife and children."

J: "But I answered all of the questions honestly! I've done nothing out of accordance with Church teachings!"

Bishop: "I know, and I appreciate your efforts and honesty, but if I'd have known about the grandfather, I never would have let you enter the temple in the first place. In fact, you should probably try to forget everything you learned there. I apologize for the misunderstanding. Oh, but before you go, the Lord would like to extend another calling to you..."

Fictional? Yes. Unrealistic? Not at all;

• Presidents and other authorities of the LDS church before 1978 stated that even one drop of African blood would make a person cursed concerning the priesthood (source).

• Jane Manning James, the first documented African American pioneer, repeatedly petitioned the First Presidency to be allowed to enter the temple and have her children sealed to her, but her requests were denied each time even though she was worthy by every other standard. The only reason she was not allowed in the temple was the color of her skin (Embry, 1994).

D&C 18:10-11 states, "Remember the worth of souls is great in the sight of God; For, behold, the Lord your Redeemer suffered death in the flesh; wherefore He suffered the pain of all men, that all men might repent and come unto him." It seems, however, that every LDS prophet from Brigham Young up until Spencer W. Kimball (10 presidents of the Church) interpreted that scripture differently. They apparently were told by God that it meant "...He suffered the pain of all men, that all men might repent and come unto him, except for blacks. They cannot repent sufficiently to come as close as a white man unto him." How is it that some still claim this racism was due to "limited understanding" (e.g., McConkie, 1989, p. 165)?

• Wilford Woodruff said, "I say to Israel, the Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty” (Official Declaration - 1).

• Harold B. Lee (1968) said, “God will never permit him [the president of the Church] to lead us astray. As has been said, God would remove us [the leaders] out of our place if we should attempt to do it. You have no concern.”

According to these quotes, there is no validity to the argument that 10 prophets spoke with limited understanding when declaring that Africans were an inferior race. Either they spoke the truth, or they were not called by God. The answer seems clear to me. Why do so many members still offer these men the protection of their faith after such an obvious and grievous violation of Christ's teachings?

References

Embry, J. L. (1994). Black saints in a white church: Contemporary African American Mormons. Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books.

McConkie, M. L. (Ed., 1989). Doctrines of the restoration: Sermons & writings of Bruce R. McConkie. Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft.

Lee, H. B. (1968, July 8). The place of the living prophet, seer, and revelator. Address delivered to seminary and institute faculty, Brigham Young University, p. 13.

Pleading Ignorance

A common response to my position on the Church from believers is essentially that God approves of erring on the side of ignorance as long as one believes it is in His service. That is, believers sometimes admit that there are no explanations for many of my concerns, and that my concerns certainly appear valid, but that even if we critics are right about these things, they will somehow gain a greater reward if they follow the Church anyway. I've been told by several members that they just don't worry about these things right now. They wonder about them, but put them on the cognitive back-burners to be addressed at some undetermined point in the future: probably death. Believers seem to insist that even if these disturbing criticisms are true, as long as they are doing what they are told to in the present, that will be enough. It is as if they say, "Although there is no reasonable answer for this, I believe God wants me to follow it anyway. He rewards faith, not investigation."

I often wonder what God might say to them upon their deaths if my criticisms are correct. I wonder if he would meet them at the pearly gates and say,

"You did pretty well down there, but you died a member of the LDS church?"

The believer would defend his or her actions, "Well, yeah! That's what I was taught you wanted!"

God might say, "No, that's what they told you I want. I tried to send you the real message."

The believer wonders, "What message?"

God responds, "I directed you to discover Joseph Smith's dozens of wives, on your mission I led you to speak to that Jehovah's Witness who mentioned Brigham Young's racism, and when you were researching for that talk I kept trying to get you to read all that evidence that Joseph Smith's translations were a bunch of nonsense! You kept ignoring all of my attempts to lead you to the truth!"

Believer: "Well, yeah, but all that contradicted what you have revealed."

God: "You mean what the LDS church says I revealed. Did it ever occur to you that all those things weren't a trial of faith for you, but a message from me?"

Believer: "No. But even so, I figured if I remained obedient, that was the most important thing."

God: "But you were obedient to a church. That is not the same as being obedient to me. I gave you conscience, intelligence, and curiosity. I never wanted you to drown those things out for the sake of obedience to a false message."

Believer: "But I ignored those things out of love for you!"

God: "I know that. But you also loved your church. If you really loved me more than your church, you would have done everything in your power to find out the truth, even if it meant that your church was wrong. Instead, you showed me that you loved your church more than the truth. You loved comfort more than honesty."

Believer: "Well, why didn't you give me something more obvious?"

God: "What more did you want? I gave you every opportunity to learn for yourself, and when that didn't work I sent people who had learned to tell you face to face. You called them 'deceived sinners'. You even knew about Joseph Smith's polygamy and you did nothing!"

Believer: "That's not true. I talked to my bishop about it."

God: "...And he gave you some vague answer that helped to quiet your conscience about it long enough for you to ignore it again. The fact remains that Smith had more than 30 wives with no justification, and you still thought he might be my prophet?!?"

Believer: "The bishop told me I would learn the reasons for it later."

God: "And instead, you're learning that you were wrong - misled by the cunning and craftiness of men for your whole life. Going so far as to ignore what I placed right in front of you. You spent all that time waiting to learn what I was trying to tell you right then."

Of course, I don't know what that conversation may look like, if it ever happens. But I feel that, if nothing else, I can honestly say that I have done all I can to know whether or not the LDS church is His church. In closing, I will end this post with a quote from the LDS god:

"It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance." D&C 131:6

Appearances

Most believers who are aware of common criticisms of the LDS church admit that, at first glance, some of them seem concerning. Most agree that the idea of polygamy initially rubs them the wrong way, and that the official denial of priesthood to persons of African descent seems like it may have been a mistake. But these same believers tend to discount the serious ramifications of these problematic doctrines, giving past leaders of the Church the benefit of a doubt. Believers generally tend to say something to the effect of, "Although it looks really bad, there's probably a justifiable reason for it somewhere."

The Bible counsels believers not only to avoid evil, but to "abstain from all appearance of evil" (1 Thessalonians 5:22.). It seems troublesome, however, that the same God who inspired this counsel, also appears to often flirt with the appearance of evil by commanding His chosen instruments to do things which go against moral conscience.

The most obvious example may be Joseph Smith, Jr.'s form of polygamy. He lied to his wife about courting women behind her back, and then consummated marriages with them. He pressured girls as young as 14 to marry him. He took women from their first husbands to become his own wives. He used followers to pose as husbands to some of his several wives (e.g., Compton, 2001; another source). He publicly and privately lied about his practice several times (source), and he supposedly did these things under the direction of God.

It is a difficult argument to make that these things did and do not, at a minimum, appear evil, especially because it took years for Smith to own up to them - he never admitted his deeds to anyone but his elite - and the current LDS church condemns the practice of polygamy (source).

How are we to interpret these events? The Bible counsels us to avoid the appearance of evil, and yet past Church leaders have done so much that appears evil without ever offering reasonable explanations. Are we to err on the side of the wise biblical counsel and truly hold leaders accountable, or are we to allow them the appearance of evil under the protection of our faith?

Reference

Compton, T. (2001). In sacred loneliness: The plural wives of Joseph Smith. Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books.

Revolving Intolerance

I think it's interesting to look back over the history of humankind in terms of hatred and intolerance, especially over things such as race and religion. There seems to be a recurring pattern in human beings where we oppress others who are different from us. What I find most interesting is how many of the groups who are victims of the oppression eventually end up becoming the oppressors, and very often for the same reasons.

For example, the historian Tacitus reported that Romans were intensely cruel to early Christians. Many were crucified, fed to wild animals, and killed in other horrible ways for the simple fact that they were Christians. Yet Christians killed people in similarly horrible ways, believing they were witches.

The Hebrews believe they were enslaved by Egypt for centuries, yet many Jews were involved in trading slaves (source).

I bet if one were to look at any race or religion in history, one could find a time when that race or religion was hated and oppressed by some other group. What's more, I bet one could find a time when that same group became the oppressor to another group different than they.

Similarly, the early LDS suffered great hardships as a consequence of following their beliefs. They were forced to leave county after county, were robbed, tarred and feathered, and even killed for no reason other than being LDS. Those who stuck to their convictions regardless of the consequences are admired and revered in LDS culture. And yet, if a person sticks to his convictions, and they are somehow in conflict with the LDS faith, he is quickly attacked, hated, shunned, and often oppressed.

Why is it that people are so bad at remembering when they were on the receiving end? They gasp in horror at the stories of Joseph Smith, Jr. being chastized for reporting visions, and the early LDS being driven out of their homes. Yet these same people harshly attacked and some ostracized me when I announced that I was following my conscience. We all want to be allowed to follow conscience: to walk to the beat of the drummer we hear.

LDS know the horrors of being oppressed for belonging to something they felt they could not deny, yet the LDS sure were intolerant of anyone with Black skin, even when they shared the exact same religious beliefs! Once again, the oppressed became the oppressors.

Even more recently, the Church retains a disdain for homosexuality (here is one example, here is a response). I was told by a stake president a few months ago that he was "born a believer." I don't think he could stop believing in the LDS church if he tried. Yet he expects a person who is born with same-sex attraction to give up what is at his or her core. He would be furious if I told him he had a flaw that needed to be fixed. Yet he expects that individuals who feel they were born homosexual must deny it, or be fixed.

Why does this double standard persist throughout history? Our own predecessors knew exactly how wrong and horrible it was to oppress others for reasons such as skin color and religious beliefs - because they were on the receiving end! Why then do we, who have finally been accepted for who we are and what we believe, still not accept others for who they are and what they believe?

Father in Heaven

I always enjoyed the description of God as a father: that He views us and reacts to us as a parent might view and react to his children. That explains why sometimes we don't get what we want in life - because it isn't really what's best for us, why sometimes we stumble and have to pick ourselves up - because we need to learn to solve our own problems first, etc. I always thought that was a nice description of how the creator of the human race might respond to us. As a father myself, I have come to see the application of that description in several more areas. If one believes in a god, I think it makes sense that he would be a father figure.

On the other hand, that is also very much part of the reason I left the LDS church. The god worshiped by the LDS has apparently done things that I cannot imagine any loving, righteous father doing.

Huntington. If the Polygamy, for example; as a father who loves his daughter more than anything on this planet, I cannot even fathom telling my daughter to become a polygamous wife. Take the instance of ZinaLDS church is true, then translating what transpired there into a father-daughter relationship would look something like this:

Father: "Dear Zina, I know you are happy with your husband and children, but now I want you to marry another man as well. I think he's great and you will too."

Zina: "But Dad, I don't care how great he is, I love my husband and children. I couldn't do that to them and I don't want to do that to them."

Father: "You will do as I say. If you do not marry this man, I will strike him down. If you refuse him, your husband and children will suffer. I can do it. You know I can."

Zina: "But why? Why would you do something like this? How can you ask this of me?"

Father: "You were never supposed to marry your husband. You belong to this other man."

Zina: "But I don't love this other man. I love my husband and children."

Father: "Your happiness and that of your husband and children is inconsequential. I have spoken and you will obey or else!" (source to compare).

What kind of monstrous and abusive, uncaring father would ask such a thing of his daughter?

Another example: denial of priesthood to persons of African descent. Again, if the LDS church is true, then the actual events resemble this Earthly scenario:

Father fills up a humongous tub with candy and gives two of his children full access. But he denies the third child. He tells the first two children, "Little Jimmy does not get any candy now or ever."

1st Child: "Why is that, Dad?"

Father: "He pooped in his diaper when he was first born."

2nd Child: "Didn't we too?"

Father: "He pooped more. He will never get any candy."

Jimmy: "I'm very sorry father. I love you and if you'll just tell me what I can do to make amends for all the pooping, I'll do whatever you ask of me."

Father: "No good. You will not have candy now, nor will you ever get any candy."

Then when Jimmy turns 40 years old, father says, "Hey, here's your key to the candy tub. Enjoy."

Jimmy: "But Dad, you said I could never have any."

Father: "Yeah, I know what I said. Good job obeying."

Jimmy: "But why would you do something like that?"

Father: "I might have a reason, but nobody needs to know. Just be glad that you have the key now. I'm done talking about this" (source for comparison).

And so if the LDS church is true, and its god truly is our heavenly father, I refuse to model my parenting after his abuse. And what's more, I cannot worship him. It seems very clear to me that what really happened was these things were all man-made and that God had nothing to do with them at all.

On Milk and Meat

A classic response to each of my concerns about the Church's leaders and doctrine is that the answers are so far beyond our capability of understanding at this point, that... well, I'm not sure exactly. Will my brain explode if I hear the ultimate answer? That's never been very clear to me; why am I incapable of understanding principles of plural marriage, why God commanded The Bretheren to deny priesthood blessings to people of African descent, etc.? D&C 19:22 states that I would perish if I knew the answers. So does that mean I am wrong to ask? I shouldn't wonder about these things?

A phrase often used is that milk comes before meat (see 1 Cor. 3:2; Hebrews 5:12). I like this metaphor because it applies to so much. To understand complicated things, one must first understand the building blocks and fundamentals. In an introductory statistics class, one does not start out with multiple regression; it begins with some vocabulary and a few t-tests. Even before that, algebra is required: before that, simple math.

I suppose the red flag with the Church is that nobody seems to know. You don't get to the meat in this life. Whereas in that statistics class they tell you what week you're going to learn about multiple regression (it's printed right there on the syllabus, and if you have some pressing questions, you can read books on it or sit down with the professor until it slowly begins to make sense), in the Church, not even the prophet himself has answers (source). Members and investigators are never told by teachers and leaders that there was even a problem so complex that no one on Earth knows the answer. I suppose it's possible that Thomas Monson knows the answer now, but can't tell anyone else because it would blow our minds. I say, "Try me." If I perish because I know why God denied blessings to people based on skin color, I'll perish. If the alternative is to blindly accept such a huge flaw, I'll risk my life. But it seems to me that it would go the other way. If I understood why God would do such a thing and it would be justified, I think a whole lot of other things would fall into place with my understanding.

So how much milk does a person have to suck down before realizing that the meat probably isn't coming?

Adaptation

Regarding the massive changes in practice and doctrine (e.g., women performing priesthood ordinances, speaking in tongues, polygamy, racial status, etc.) in the LDS church over the years, many apologists argue that it is only necessary that any church should adapt to the modern cultural climate.

I agree to a point. That's why General Conference is televised and broadcast all over the world. That's why leaders have started shaving their faces, why missionaries are no longer required to have a part in their hair (I looked like a nerd my whole mission), why temples have elevators, why nursery leaders are no longer allowed to change diapers, etc.

But I see a huge difference between adaptation to the modern cultural climate and changing the most fundamental principles of doctrine in order to become more mainstream. I really have a hard time imagining a perfect, unchangeable god who lets cultural norms push around his infallible doctrine.

For example, in 1842, Joseph Smith announced that he had the endowment in its fullness. It originally lasted 6-9 hours (Buerger, 1994). These days it lasts less than 2 hours, because the Church has a hard enough time getting patrons to commit to that much every now and then. There's no way people would do 6-9 hours these days. Significant material has been cut out of the full endowment over the years. So if we can cut down the temple ceremony, why can't we sprinkle water on heads to baptize? I thought it was a sin to change around the original doctrine of God. Consider this quote from Glenn L. Pace of the Seventy:

The members of many churches in the world have been putting pressure on their leaders to change doctrine to fit the changing lifestyle of the members. Many have been successful, and more and more we see churches made up of the doctrines of men. There are absolute truths of eternity. They do not change as a society drifts from them. No popular vote can change an absolute, eternal truth. Legalizing an act does not make it moral. (source)

...And yet the LDS church has fallen prey to exactly the same thing - letting the progression of society dictate its doctrine! For instance, the U.S. government made races legally equal in 1964 with the Civil Rights Act. Legally requiring nondiscrimination does not make it God's will either, but the Church sure followed suit when it ran into all sorts of PR problems in the following years! Are we seriously to believe that God trailed 14 years behind to make races equal in His eyes when He knew it all along? Shouldn't it have gone in the other order? Who's really in the driver's seat of the LDS church? Isn't it much more likely that at least in this case, God knew all races were equal, but the cultural norms of the day got in the way? Isn't that exactly an example of culture dictating doctrine?

I could give a dozen more examples. As one last huge example, several presidents and general authorities of the Church stated that polygamy would never be taken out of practice (source). Did these leaders all roll over in their graves when the Manifesto was read over the pulpit so that Utah could become a state? According to all of them, the FLDS church has it more right than the LDS church. What's a believer to do with such dissonance?

If the original LDS doctrine is the true, perfect doctrine, why not fight to keep it from changing? If the LDS church is so against homosexual marriage, why don't they spend just as much, if not more, time and resources on reinstating the eternal doctrine of plural wives (click here for "prophets" calling monogamy destructive)? If animal sacrifice is to be restored, why is the Church not doing anything to get rid of PETA?

And so who's really in charge of the doctrine of the LDS church? Is it God, or is it the culture of the day?

Reference

Buerger, D. J. (1994). The mysteries of godliness: A history of Mormon temple worship. San Fransisco: Smith Research Associates.

Occam's Razor

One of the more basic principles of finding truth that is generally accepted is called Occam's razor. It states that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity", or in very simplified terms, "the simplest explanation is probably the correct one."

Regarding the topic of this blog, the truthfulness of the LDS church, if we were to apply Occam's razor, we might boil all of the debate down to any one of several very simple questions that essentially ask whether or not the LDS church is, indeed, led by Christ. The answers should be simple and will reflect the answer to the overall question. We should not need excessive qualifiers. Here are a few examples I propose:

1. Would God threaten a teenager with death and damnation if she refused to marry a man three times her age whom she did not love?

2. Would God change the DNA structure of Native American ancestors so that they would not be linked to Israel after He cursed them with dark skin?

3. Would God command plural marriage that would contradict his commandment to follow the laws of the land?

4. Would the most perfect book on Earth find support of its claims in science and archaeology? If not, why were we given brains?

5. Would a man of God propose marriage to married women without their first husbands' knowledge or consent? If so, for what reasonable purpose?

6. Is a man of God required to live by the conditions he sets forth (i.e., Joseph Smith did not follow any of the conditions of polygamy set forth in D&C 132:61 or Jacob 2:30.)?

7. Is it mere coincidence that the Book of Mormon's content so closely matches that of another book that was published almost a decade before in the neighboring county?

8. If Joseph Smith's translations were correct, would the best minds of today find some support of that?

9. Would the most important prophet of the last days lie to his wife and followers for years about the existence/true nature of his extramonogamous marriages?

10. Did God once believe that skin color was a curse, but now He does not?

If the reasonable answer to any one of these would contradict what the Church insists to be true, then the conclusion, according to the razor, is that the Church has it wrong. Faithful believers have explanations/justifications for each of these. One can stretch his or her imagination enough to say that these aren't contradictions, or that there is an explanation that we just don't have yet, but I have always felt that the truth should not need so much explaining. The truth should feel intuitive and make sense.

Does it make sense that God contradicts Himself where he sees fit, changes His most fundamental doctrines when politically unavoidable, cannot support His claims with anything other than feelings, commands His prophets to do unspeakable acts of dishonesty, intolerance, and impropriety? Or does it make more sense that all of these things were the acts of men?

I find that LDS defenders answer each of these questions with hundreds of "if"s and "but"s. The razor proposes that the answer is either "yes" or "no" and should not need any qualifiers.

If you feel that Occam's razor has any application, it seems to me that the answer is obvious. Rather than saying, "I felt good about Joseph Smith before I knew he was sleeping with other men's wives, so I have to make myself feel good about that now too to make sure the first feeling wasn't a mistake" could one reasonably say, "Sleeping with other men's wives is not godly, so Joseph Smith must not have been what he claimed"?

Each must ask himself whether that fact is a reasonable trial of faith, or a red flag that Joseph Smith was a mere man.

And my final question is, "Would a just God condemn someone for finding these things troubling?"

Trials of Faith

If God feels that it is necessary to try the faith of His children, I wonder why He would have missed so many opportunities, while taking others. For example, regarding people of African descent, what a perfect trial of faith it would have been to reveal to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young that individuals with black skin are no worse sinners than people with white skin. Such a truth would have been terribly unpopular in the culture of the 1800s and would have made the LDS church a beacon of God's truth in the ignorance and darkness of racial politics and views of the time.

But the fact that the LDS church believed and preached that African blood was inferior to others and cursed by God (source) tells me something quite different. We are asked to believe that that very fact is our trial of faith; that we cannot understand why God waited for so long to admit that races are equal in His eyes. We just don't have answers. "His ways are not our ways."

...Which is my point exactly; would it not have made so much more sense for God to try the believers' faith with the unpopular but correct doctrine at the beginning, rather than ask them to ignore that the false doctrine was preached in His church for over a century?