Letter to my Kids, part 6

By Guest Blogger fh451

Continuing with the issues of "what constitutes 'doctrine' in the LDS church?," the temple, racism, and women's roles.

Scriptures and Doctrine

Where do the scriptures come from? What do LDS believe? While I will not address the issues surrounding the origins of the Bible (there are many!), I would like to talk briefly about what constitutes "doctrine" in the LDS church and "modern" canonized scripture. This is one of the issues one may encounter when discussing exactly what constitutes LDS beliefs - whether such-and-such is a "doctrine." The LDS church does not have a catechism, or an explicit list of beliefs that Mormons in good standing are expected to hold. Joseph Smith held that up as a positive aspect of Mormonism - there was no set-in-stone list of beliefs, because Mormons were to embrace all truth. So oftentimes critics of the church may bring out statements from past leaders that cast them in a poor light, because they have said racist, close-minded, sexist, and anti-intellectual things, even in formal settings. Brigham Young seemed to be particularly adept at making controversial statements. A defender will then say, "but that's not doctrine. That was just his opinion." So how does one know when a statement is doctrine, and therefore "true" and perhaps necessary for salvation, and when it is opinion? Brigham Young said "I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture." (JOD, 13:95) Is every word spoken over the pulpit in General Conference considered "doctrine?" If it's printed in an official church publication, such as a priesthood manual or official magazine, is it doctrinal? Does it depend on who wrote or said it? Even Joseph Smith said, "some revelations are from God, some are from the Devil, and some are from men." This certainly can lead to confusion about what Mormons really believe. There are things that past prophets have taught, even authoritatively, that are not accepted today by the LDS leadership or members.

Bruce R McConkie (apostle and author of "Mormon Doctrine") asserted that all doctrines must be consistent with scripture, that scripture should be the standard by which any doctrine of the church is measured. So what are "the scriptures?" They are a set of letters, writings, and "revelations" given to men (rarely women, for some reason), or recorded verbally by other men, and bound into a book. Let me use the Doctrine and Covenants as an example. Joseph Smith's revelations were published in various newspaper articles, written in personal journals, and also recorded by his personal scribes as he spoke and preached. There also was another set of writings by Joseph Smith, Sydney Rigdon, and potentially others, that were called "The Lectures on Faith." These were used in the classes of "The School of the Prophets," run by Joseph and Sydney for early church leadership. Together, they formed the Doctrine and Covenants (Doctrine = Lectures on Faith, and Covenants = Joseph's revelations). These were presented in a general conference of the church, and all priesthood men present voted to accept these as official, canonized scriptures of the LDS church in 1835. [It should be noted here that a smaller set of Joseph's revelations was originally published in 1832 as "The Book of Commandments," which I will talk about later. These were subsumed into the Doctrine and Covenants.]

The Lectures on Faith are not found in the LDS canon today. Where did they go? In 1921, Joseph F Smith had them removed from the canon of scripture, and they quietly disappeared, though the name "Doctrine and Covenants" was maintained. This was at least in part because the Lectures contained views about the nature of God that were inconsistent with the (then and now) current beliefs. The Lectures stated that the Father is "a personage of spirit, glory, and power..." while the Son is a "personage of tabernacle" (flesh), and the Holy Ghost is the "mind of God." It wasn't until 1841 that it was ever taught that God the Father had a body of flesh and bone, too. The reason given by Joseph F Smith for removing the Lectures on Faith was that they were simply "instructions," and not "doctrines" of the church, and that they were never voted on or accepted by the body of the church as "scripture." This is incorrect, because one can read in the History of the Church the very meeting where they were presented together with Joseph's revelations, and both were voted on as scripture. The fact is, Joseph F Smith had a theological conundrum on his hands, and resolved it how he saw fit. As prophet, he could make such decisions, and if the membership accepts him as prophet, they will likely accept the decision to remove the Lectures.

Regarding membership participation in scriptural and doctrinal decisions, it is interesting to note Joseph F Smith's statement on the subject of the need of the membership to vote on and accept any scripture. In his testimony before the Senate committee investigating the seating of Reed Smoot, he said "I will say this, Mr. Chairman, that no revelation given through the head of the church ever becomes binding and authoritative upon the members of the church until it has been presented to the church and accepted by them." But this is contradicted by Bruce R. McConkie when he said "Revelations given of God through his prophets . . . are not subject to an approving or sustaining vote of the people in order to establish their validity. Members of the Church may vote to publish a particular revelation along with the other scriptures, or the people may bind themselves by covenant to follow the instructions found in the revealed word. But there is no provision in the Lord's plan for the members of the Church to pass upon the validity of revelations themselves by a vote of the Church; there is nothing permitting the Church to choose which of the revelations will be binding upon it, either by a vote of people or by other means (1966, 150)." (Quoted from Dialogue, Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol 20, No 3, Fall 1987, pg 74). From one point of view, if one accepts that the prophet speaks for God, then really, a vote is superfluous. But on the other hand, how does one reconcile what President Joseph F Smith said on the subject, which makes sense in regards to individual's free agency?

So, in my opinion, the question of whether scriptures, and thus, doctrine, must be voted on and accepted by the membership to be binding is unresolved. Presidents and general authorities of the church have made conflicting and contradictory statements on this subject (and many other subjects). How does one resolve the issue? I would say that faithful LDS would assert that the "spirit" should be their guide, that the same way one should receive a testimony that Joseph was a prophet, and the Book of Mormon is true, is the same way one would resolve any of these conflicts. If you accept that method as valid, then you should be content with this state of affairs. But I would just refer to the earlier section on "circular reasoning" as to why one accepts that the feelings generated by this process are necessarily an indicator of truth. In that system, "doctrine" of the church is ultimately "whatever you feel good about."

The Temple

The temple is the pinnacle of the LDS experience. It is a sacred location for the faithful, and is an essential component to achieve complete salvation/exaltation in the LDS theology. Since it is held to be so sacred, and members who attend the endowment are actually sworn to secrecy as part of the ceremony, it is little talked about outside the temple itself. For this reason it is a source of mystery for outsiders as well as to members who have not attended. I think this is unfortunate in that one goes to the temple mostly unprepared for what takes place there. You are not told ahead of time what covenants you will be asked to make, and when you are at the point where you are actually given an opportunity to withdraw, there is usually great pressure to go through with it no matter what your feelings may be. You have already gone through the "initiatory" washings and anointings, and first-time temple attendance often occurs right before one is to be married or to leave on a mission. In either case, withdrawing would have significant social consequences.

The ceremony of the "endowment" is unlike anything else done in the church, and it's not unusual for one to find it rather strange on first encounter. If one is familiar with Freemasonry, the parallels are quite apparent. The temple ceremony was first established soon after Joseph Smith became a Master Mason in a Masonic Lodge in Nauvoo. The faithful who note this connection often explain this fact by stating that the Masons actually did and do have an adulterated version of the true ceremonies performed in Solomon's temple, and Joseph's exposure to them simply served as a catalyst for the restoration of these ceremonies. There are two issues with this theory: (1) Masonry originated in Europe sometime probably around the 1500s. Claims that it originated at Solomon's temple are unsubstantiated. (2) Even if the Masons originated as a group from Solomon's time, the ceremonies practiced in Freemasonry or Mormonism bear little resemblance to what we know about what went on at Solomon's time. The books of the Old Testament go into great detail about the rites priests are to perform in that temple. So either there was a complete set of "secret" rituals that were practiced there, or the connection between Masonic rights and Solomon's temple is specious.

Regardless, I believe one should have full disclosure about what one will encounter when being asked to make promises to an organization and to one's God so as to be able to make a truly free decision. The temple ceremonies are available online, and I would encourage you to read through them and see for yourself. One promise is that you will give everything you have, your time, talents, anything you have been blessed with or may be blessed with in the future, to the LDS church. That is a strong commitment, and I frankly think its not ethical to ask one to agree to it when you have not had a chance to know ahead of time what would be asked. Also, you will be asked to keep the grips (handshakes) secret, as well as other signs made with the arms to signify different covenants made there, and names or pass phrases that go with them. You will be told that these are the signs and phrases that you will give to angels in the afterlife before you can enter the presence of God. You should also know that in the past (before 1990, in fact) we also promised that rather than reveal these signs and tokens that we would rather suffer death, in three different ways. These are the "blood oaths" that Mormon critics may talk about, and are a bit mystifying to me as well. They came from more explicit oaths used by the Masons, and have thankfully been removed. But a strict order of secrecy is still requested of all attendees. I remember the first time I attended the temple I wondered why such an oath of secrecy was required, even with death as a penalty, but the "secret combinations" of the Gadianton Robbers, or of other kinds mentioned in the Book of Mormon, were evil.

The changes I mentioned before came about in a significant modification of the temple ceremony in 1990. The oaths to allow your life to be taken were removed, as was a protestant minister that served as one of the players in a conversation between Peter, James, and John, Adam, and Satan. Seemingly it was offensive to some converts to see a protestant minister be depicted as a servant of Satan. The oath that women were to obey their husbands was also reworded to only hearken to them as they hearkened to God. There have been a number of other changes over the years, some of which shortened the ceremony, some which changed wording to be less gruesome (the oath to allow yourself to be killed before revealing the secrets used to be quite graphic in my grandparents day). The reason I bring this up is to show that while it is an LDS supposition that Joseph Smith restored the Lord's ceremonies back to their perfect form, many parts have been changed over the years. It is difficult to tell which pieces are therefore essential for salvation and what was merely informative, window dressing, or included for dramatic effect.

Regarding temple changes, one should consider the following statement made by Joseph Smith, as quoted by Joseph Fielding Smith's "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg 308): "Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed. All must be saved on the same principles." While nearly anything can be justified via the mechanism of "continuing revelation," it does make it rather difficult to know when a statement or even an ordinance is "the truth," good for all times and places, the same yesterday, today, and forever, or subject to change at some future date. Joseph Smith also said, "Now the purpose in Himself in the winding up scene of the last dispensation is that all things pertaining to that dispensation should be conducted precisely in accordance with the preceding dispensations.... He set the temple ordinances to be the same forever and ever and set Adam to watch over them, to reveal them from heaven to man, or to send angels to reveal them." (History of the Church, Vol. 4, p 208)

Regarding my own participation in the temple, you might question why I would "break" my temple covenants by renouncing my belief in Mormonism. Doesn't that say I don't keep my promises? That's a fair question, and I would respond with this analogy. Suppose you entered into a contract with an investment firm to invest a certain amount of money every month, say $500, and they would guarantee you a certain rate of return for 30 years. At the end of 30 years, they promise to give you back that investment with interest (at 8% this would be about $750,000). Let's suppose that after 10 years of making payments, you discover some bad news about the company. The management has been embezzling all the investments and the company really is just a shell used for their own purposes. Some of them have been indicted and taken to court, but the company still exists. They keep sending me statements asking for my monthly contributions, with the threat that I will lose my future investment if I don't keep paying. At this point, I would say the contract is null and void, and I have no obligation to continue paying, even though I "promised" in the contract to do so. Now by this analogy I do not mean to imply that any LDS leaders are embezzling money and living riotously on the tithing I paid - on the contrary, I believe most of them sincerely believe what they are doing is right, and live honestly for the most part. But in my investigations of the origins of the church, the Book of Mormon, and so forth, I have zero confidence that they can and will deliver on their part of the contract in the temple. Which is that, after I die, I will be accepted into the presence of God and get to live forever in the Celestial Kingdom. Also, as I mentioned earlier, the manner in which I was introduced to the endowment frankly amounts to entering the covenant under duress. I had no idea what I was getting into, other than it would be "very serious." That's not enough information for a 19-year-old to make a reasonable decision on. To me the "covenant" is null and void on both sides.

The temple can still be viewed as a sacred location for people to go and contemplate and commune with God, and I know many many people really enjoy going there and the experience. I do not wish to denigrate that. But you should be aware of context in which it exists before deciding to participate.

Racism

While I believe that the LDS church currently attempts to be inclusive and non-racist, it is difficult to escape from the teachings and even scriptures of the church that are definitely racist. President Hinckley has made statements indicating his personal distaste from racism, and that church members should not be racist either in official church capacities or personally. That is wonderful! However, this is a significant change from the teachings and practices of the relatively recent past, and you should be aware of this history and the issues that still follow the LDS church today. Active racism was practiced institutionally by the church in my life time, and did not change until I was 14 years old. Many statements and speeches were made by LDS church leaders, including the prophets, to justify the practice. Until 1978, the LDS church did not allow anyone with any black ancestry to receive the priesthood or participate in the temple. This was significantly after the civil rights movement had peaked in the United States in the 50s and 60s, and there was significant societal pressure to dismiss this racist practice. A temple had been built in Brazil, and even though the church had experienced significant growth in that region, a very large percentage of the population in that area had black ancestry, and thus could not go to the new temple. College sports teams in the United States were refusing to play BYU in sporting events because of this practice, and the resulting publicity was embarrassing. The policy of denying priesthood ordination to black members had become a serious problem and an impediment to missionary work. In 1978, then President Kimball announced a revelation that all worthy males will be able to receive the priesthood. There was no other explanation nor any apology offered. One would hope that a church truly led by a prophet of God would be ahead of such a significant social issue, rather than following behind.

What were the justifications for racism in the LDS church? How did it start? The practice appears to have its beginnings in Brigham Young's time, since Joseph Smith had actually ordained a black man, Elijah Abel, to the priesthood in Nauvoo. But the roots of LDS racism stem from LDS scriptures (as well as society in general of the early 19th century), as found here:

2 Nephi 2:51 - And the Lord had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

And here:

Alma 6:3 - And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men

Also here:

3 Nephi 2:15 - And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites

From the History of the Church, Vol 2, pg 128, there is this explanation concerning the Book of Abraham about those with black skin and their worthiness to hold the priesthood:

"The Book of Abraham is rich both in doctrine and in historical incidents. Of the latter the fact of the large influence (if not identity) of Egyptian religious ideas in Chaldea in the days of Abraham is established; the descent of the black race, Negro, from Cain, the first murderer; the preservation of that race through the flood by the wife of Ham--"Egyptus," which in the Chaldean signifies "Egypt," "which signifies that which is forbidden"--the descendants of "Egyptus" were cursed as pertaining to the priesthood--that is, they were barred from holding that divine power; the origin also of the Egyptians--these things, together with the account of Abraham migrating from Chaldea to Egypt, constitute the chief historical items that are contained in the book."

Other statements from the prophet of the church reinforced this belief in black skin equaling a curse from God, and the punishment for those who "mix their seed" with those from the black race. These statements are based on doctrines concerning the pre-existence, and the choices made by one person being transferred to children of that person:

"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African races? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." (Brigham Young from the Journal of Discourses, Vol. 10, page 110)

More recently, Bruce R. McConkie, the apostle and author of "Mormon Doctrine," had this to say about the seed of Cain:

"Though he was a rebel and an associate of Lucifer in the pre-existence, and though he was a liar from the beginning whose name was Perdition, Cain managed to attain the privilege of mortal birth.Under Adam's tutelage, he began in this life to serve God....he came out in open rebellion, fought God, worshiped Lucifer, and slew Abel.... "As a result of his rebellion, Cain was cursed with a dark skin; he became the father of the Negroes, and those spirits who are not worthy to receive the priesthood are born through his lineage. He became the first mortal to be cursed as a son of perdition. As a result of his mortal birth he is assured of a tangible body of flesh and bones in eternity, a fact which will enable him to rule over Satan."(Mormon Doctrine, p. 102)

Just one more example - Apostle Mark E. Peterson delivered the following as part of a talk on the races at BYU in 1954.

"Now we are generous with the Negro. We are willing that the Negro have the highest kind of education. I would be willing to let every Negro drive a Cadillac if they could afford it. I would be willing that they have all the advantages they can get out of life in the world. But let them enjoy these things among themselves. I think the Lord segregated the Negro and who is man to change that segregation? It reminds me of the scripture on marriage, 'what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.' Only here we have the reverse of the thing— What God hath separated, let not man bring together again." (Race Problems as They Affect the Church, an address by Apostle Mark E. Petersen, delivered at the Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, Brigham Young University, August 27,1954)

After reading the previous statements, you should not be surprised that many Black and Native American people are offended by the teachings of the LDS church and by the leadership that claims to have a special conduit to God and responsibility to speak for God on Earth. While the priesthood ban was finally lifted in 1978, there was never any official refutation of the previous teachings, nor any apology offered. Recently a Black BYU associate professor Darron Smith was removed from his position because he wrote about these issues (he published a book called "Black and Mormon") and asked for an official apology and refutation of these former teachings. In my opinion, the LDS leadership is loathe to do so because it would call attention to past statements that are now considered racist and wrong, and undermine the authority of the current leadership by pointing out a concrete example of their fallibility.

The racist practice of denying Blacks the priesthood is an unfortunate blemish on the LDS church's history. It is rooted in common societal beliefs about the inferiority of Blacks and Native American (as well as other non-white people) and was supported and canonized by scriptures and statements by high ranking church officials. President Hinckley, when asked about this on "60 Minutes" and in other interviews, has simply said that he "does not know" why the policy/practice was instituted, and that it is "behind us." While I certainly believe he hopes it is behind the LDS church, until official statements are made and scriptures remanded, the issue will not go away.

Women's Roles / Sexism

What is sexism? Defined, it is any attitude or behavior that reinforces traditional stereotypes of roles based on sex. It's a simple fact that men and women in the LDS church are expected to fill certain roles, as exemplified in the "Proclamation on the Family" (POTF). While LDS members see this as the divine plan for his children, one could ask whether this is something God really wants or if it is merely an extension of thousands of years of male-dominated society? While conditions for women have improved greatly from the complete abrogation of rights that have existed in the past (and still exist in many religiously fundamentalist countries), practices and policies of the LDS church continue to reinforce stereotypical attitudes about men and women, to the detriment, in my opinion, of both.

The POTF states "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." Since gender is determined by physical attributes of the body, what does this statement mean for hermaphrodites (persons born without sexual genitalia or with both sets)? Are they male or female or neither?

Again, from the proclamation: "By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children." This statement reinforces "traditional" gender roles, or more accurately, gender roles idealized by American society of a certain era. While this may work well for some share of the population (probably a significant share), it doesn't for others. It indicates that men are to be the breadwinners and workforce participants, while ideally women should be at home to care for children. My primary concern with this is that it makes it difficult for non-traditional families - single mothers or fathers, women who work outside the home, or families where gender roles are reversed by choice - who often are made to feel guilty for working or for desiring a satisfying career outside the home. It does not make allowances for women who can make great contributions to society in medicine, science, teaching, business, law, and in a myriad of other ways (think Madame Curie or Florence Nightingale here - how much poorer we would be if these women had decided to take their traditional role in society). It doesn't allow for those who may feel that child rearing is something for which they are not suited. They have failed to live up to the ideal. Women and men should be allowed a free choice, without judgment from the church, on how they decide to live their lives - whether they have a career, who is the provider, when and how many children to have, and so on. The church does maintain that everyone has their free agency (or lately, just "agency") to choose how to live, but at the same time saying that the only way to be truly happy is to live according to this ideal. I believe there are many people who live in "non-ideal" marriages (e.g., women working or having career options) that are just as happy as those who live according to the POTF's ideal. Women can and should be encouraged make a contribution to society in the way of their choosing, either through raising a family or through career choices.

More insidiously, the structure of leadership in the church guarantees that women never have a leadership position except that they report to and are presided over by men. All functions in the church are to be presided over by "the priesthood," so women's meetings must be approved by men, but men's meetings do not have to be approved by women. Women will always have a subordinate role in the organization. One only has to look at the budget and operation of Scouting activities vs. young women's activities to know that there is a huge disparity within the church, with the boys usually receiving significantly greater budget and activity time (e.g., "High Adventure," scout camps, special awards ceremonies, badges and medals, and so on). Boys are encouraged to go on missions, while girls are only encouraged to encourage the young men to go on missions. Girls do not hold the priesthood and do not perform any ordinances (outside the temple). It is interesting to note that early in the church, women (such as Eliza R Snow) performed and wrote about performing healing blessings. At some point the male leadership put a stop to that. Why shouldn't women be able to perform, if they so desire, any ordinance done by a man? Is having a penis somehow a requirement for being able to wield priesthood authority? I'm not saying this to be crass, but to exemplify the idea that physical characteristics that make one male and female should have no bearing on leadership, thinking, or "spiritual" abilities.

I don't dispute that men in the church have been encouraged to treat their wives well, to never be abusive, and have their wives be an equal partner in marriage. But it is difficult to be an equal partner when one has been given the "priesthood," with all the rights, authority, and supposedly, power that goes with it, and the other has not. It is clear that the priesthood is supposed to be the governance of the church, and should be the governance of the family. "As the governing ones, make no mistake about it, this decree was made to the priesthood. We love and need the auxiliaries. They are staffed by great, faithful servants. But the very name by which they are called, auxiliary, which means "helper," should make it clear to us that the full weight of governing the Church rests squarely upon the priesthood." (William R. Bradford, "The Governing Ones," Ensign, Nov. 1979, 37 © 2005 Intellectual Reserve) Under these conditions, can a woman really have equal standing?

Comments

[SML]

"Under these conditions, can a woman really have equal standing?"

No, no they can not.

Very well-written letters. I'm impressed.

[aerin]

Interesting that the other post generated so many comments and this one did not. I think these are good points to bring up and discuss as well.

[fh451]

Probably because Equality's excellent post on "What I Want for my Daughters" was posted soon after I put this up. It covers some of the same ground I did (sexism), and has attracted a lot of attention. That's fine by me - the discussion should happen somewhere.