And never the twain shall meet

UPDATE 01/17/2010: In retrospect, I really dislike this post. I’m not going to delete it, but if you want to just skip ahead to the last part of this series, I won’t mind. If you do read this one, please do be sure to read the final post in the series. Thank you.
——
Sometimes people ask me why, after all of my studying, I did not join the LDS church. Back when I was taking the missionary discussions, one tactic used by the missionaries was to ask the investigator to make a list of his or her objections to the church so that the missionaries could try to answer them.
I don’t believe I need a reason to not join the LDS church or any other religion outside my convictions of the truthfulness of my own religion. Nevertheless, for the consideration of others, here is my list.
Doctrine & Theology
These are things that the church teaches and practices now which, short of a major revelation, will not be changing anytime soon.
1. Nature of God ~ I can not accept that God the Father was once a man on another earth who had to progress to become God. That is the cornerstone of most of the theological differences between Mormons and evangelicals.
2. Work for the Dead ~ Performing baptisms and sealings by proxy on behalf of the deceased is (or is supposed to be) a rather big part of life as a Latter-day Saint, and there is absolutely nothing like it in evangelical Christianity. I just can’t be comfortable with the possibility that if Mormonism is wrong about this, lots and lots of well-meaning people are wasting their time trying to help dead people who can’t be helped when they could be helping the living.
3. Baptism & Gift of the Holy Ghost Monopoly ~ This is a personal one. Mormonism teaches you to ask God and to trust what the Spirit tells you. I’m confident that my Protestant baptism was accepted by God, and I know that I have the companionship of the Holy Spirit. So when Latter-day Saints tell me I need to re-do the first one and there’s no way I can have the second one, well, what can I say. I believe God.
History & Evidence
These objections are tied to problems in the history of the LDS church and some of its unique ancient scripture. Since they’re open to historical interpretation and archaeological argument, there’s a bit more wiggle room, but I still see them as problematic even when the most generous interpretations of the situations are offered.
4. Nauvoo Polygamy ~ Many, many objections are raised by critics concerning Joseph Smith’s plural marriage practices. He married teenage girls as young as 14. He married other men’s wives. He publicly denied practicing polygamy. When his own wife Emma rejected polygamy, he continued the marriages in secret without her knowledge and/or approval.
I’ve thoroughly read the defenses of LDS apologists on this. I can accept that the public denial was consistent with a pattern of civil disobedience to an unjust law. I can accept that the ages of the young women he married were not so unusual for the 19th century, and that some of the marriages may have been intended purely as “loose dynastic sealings” between prominent Mormon families. What I cannot accept is that his first wife did not approve, and so he went behind her back, and this is supposed to be okay because…? Isn’t sleeping with women your wife doesn’t know about normally considered cheating?
I’ve approached the situation with as much compassion and consideration for historical context as possible, and I just don’t see an answer to it that leaves Joseph Smith looking like a prophet.
5. Book of Abraham ~ I’ve heard critics refer to this one as a “slam dunk against Mormonism,” and I can see why. The fragment of the manuscript containing Facsimile 1 is found and the text around it reveals it to be an Egyptian funerary document with no connection at all to Abraham. Furthermore, no non-LDS Egyptologists have vouched for Joseph Smith’s explanations of the three facsimiles. The Kirtland Egyptian Papers indicate that Smith believed he was doing a literal language translation of the manuscript, rendering redactor theories problematic.
6. The Adam-God Doctrine ~ Brigham Young taught that the Adam in the Garden of Eden was God the Father. None of the history teachers I knew at BYU thought otherwise. Yes, a prophet can be fallible, but when you have a prophet who teaches blatantly false doctrine about God Himself and never recants or repents of it, that’s a serious problem. What’s the point of having someone who is the mouthpiece of God if he can’t even be trusted to teach the true nature of God?
7. African Americans & the Priesthood ~ This has become the least of my historical objections, but it’s still on there. There is no evidence dating back to Joseph Smith’s actual lifetime that indicates he had anything against African Americans having the priesthood; it’s well known that he ordained several black men to the priesthood, among them Elijah Abel. It’s thought that the racial priesthood prohibition originated with Brigham Young.
Between the implementation of the priesthood ban on blacks and its reversal in 1978, all kinds of doctrines were taught about black people which are now considered to be “just the opinion” of the former leaders who taught them. While the ban was in place, black men & women were not allowed in LDS temples, even though the priesthood ban theoretically should not have had an effect on black women directly.
I have a hard time not seeing this as the LDS church justifying the racist culture of its time with “thus saith the Lord.” The one saving grace is that we know, from the Bible, that God will sometimes officially sanction a practice He disapproves of because men’s hearts are hard. This was the case with divorce in the Old Testament, that God let men get away with it as an act of mercy because he knew they would have a hard time keeping the commandment. Jesus raised the bar and undid that allowance when He came.
So, perhaps the best explanation for the priesthood ban is that God allowed the LDS church to do it because men’s hearts at the time were hard, that it was an allowance more than a commandment. I can’t think of  a single Mormon I’ve met who thinks that though; I came up with that on my own. Most of the Mormons I’ve discussed this with honestly believe that God wanted blacks to not have the priesthood, then He changed His mind.
Culture & Policy
These are things which are not embedded in the church’s doctrine, which the church could change without a major revelation if it wanted to. These are more nuisances than deal-breakers. If objections 1-7 did not exist, obejctions 8-11 would be hard to swallow but ultimately they would not matter.
8. Subordination of Women ~ I’m putting this under culture & policy because my main objection in this department actually is not that women do not have the priesthood. Even within a male priesthood system, I think the church limits and subordinates its women more than it needs to. It’s a fact that women in 1800s Mormonism had more ecclesiastical autonomy, authority, and access to spiritual gifts than women in 2000s Mormonism, and something about that is really sad. The church could correct it without formally giving women the priesthood, but it doesn’t.
I do think that the LDS church does a terrible job reconciling the accounts of Deborah, Huldah and Miriam with its current ecclesiastical set-up. We’re taught to believe that the prophet today has the exact same function as Old Testament prophets, but women prophets who can command militaries and advise high priests as the mouthpiece of God, where can I find these women again? Lots of lip service is paid to the notion of women prophets, but I don’t see it. The church either needs to admit that these offices are no longer in use or start ordaining some female prophets, because the Relief Society President isn’t it.
9. Bible Play-Doh ~ I think common Latter-day Saints take too much liberty with the 8th Article of Faith, and I think the church lets them. Just because you personally can not explain a passage or are uncomfortable with it does not mean you have the right to decide for yourself it’s “mistranslated.” What a sad way to treat the Bible.
10. Worship Style ~ I feel the Spirit best when my music is a little more lively than what I see at LDS churches. And why is there no hand raising? I mean, come on, it’s in the Bible. I think it’s even in some of the LDS scriptures.
11. Temple Marriage Restrictions ~ A couple of days after I told my parents about my engagement to Paul, my mother called me up sounding very concerned. “Am I going to be able to see your wedding?” she asked nervously. Someone at her job had told her that if I was marrying a Mormon, she would be excluded from the wedding. I tried to explain that I as a non-member could not get married in a temple, but she had little understanding of LDS doctrine and she was not interested in learning. I assured her that she would be welcome at my wedding.
This got me pondering though: what would I have done if I had been an LDS convert? Current LDS policy states that if you get married outside of the temple, you cannot get sealed until one year after your wedding. People from part-member families sometimes do ring ceremonies after the sealing to try and appease the excluded parties, but I’ve been told that seldom smoothes away all the bitterness. I know that would not have been good enough for my mother.
Furthermore, in countries where the LDS church does not have legal authority to marry people, members are required to get married outside the temple before they can get sealed in it, so there’s no one-year wait there. Why impose that on American members? Why not let couples from part-member families have weddings outside the temple, then get sealed a week later?
“You don’t understand the sacredness of the temple,” my LDS friends usually tell me with just the right tinge of self-righteousness. Well, you got me there, I guess I don’t. But I do understand the sacredness of family, and I say this divisive marriage policy is bosh. I also predict it gets repealed before the end of my lifetime, assuming that I live to old age.
Conclusion
I sincerely hope my LDS readers see this post as an honest statement of observed concerns and problems, and not as a bitter attack on what you believe. I hope I’ve made it clear throughout this series that I have enormous respect for the LDS church and desire to see better communication, dialogue and bridge-building between our two camps.
This is the conclusion of my series discussing how I got started studying Mormonism. It’s been quite the journey, and while there are some things I would do differently, I would not trade my path for the world.

Comments

And never the twain shall meet — 36 Comments

  1. No, I don’t think it’s a bitter attack at all, but an honest, clear and edifying testimony of your spiritual journey. I’m sure you’ve heard this before, but I can’t tell you how refreshing it is to read/hear the thoughts of an evangelical Christian whose brush with Mormonism didn’t careen into some judgmental diatribe.
    I was a Catholic kid in Mormon Utah and my early investigation of the church was much like yours, with similar prejudices. My spiritual journey took me in a different direction, however,and I am a member, going on 33 years now. I’m not ignorant to the human blemishes the Church bears in its history, doctrinal tweaks and social behavior. I’ve accepted that this is part of the faith’s organic growing pains. Like you, though, I can only say, “I know what I felt.” And so it goes.
    So, thank you for thoughts. I look forward to keeping up with your further adventures and wish you and your family all the best.
  2. Thanks David, that’s very kind of you, and I’m reassured to know that this did not come off as being too negative. I’m gonna blog about how I wound up going to BYU and my experience there as an evangelical next. Probably first post tomorrow or later tonight, depends on if I can catch up on my sleep.
  3. Speaking about temple baptism, you said:
    “if Mormonism is wrong about this, lots and lots of well-meaning people are wasting their time”
    There’s a false assumption here. You are assuming that any time spent doing temple work automatically equals less time spent helping the poor.
    Number one – what makes you think these people would actually be helping the poor if they WEREN’T in the temple, rather than… say… watching TV?
    Secondly, do you have some reason to believe that people who go to the temple neglect charitable service?
    I think the LDS Church does plenty for the poor. More than most of America, actually.
    As for Joseph’s secret polygamy…
    About a year ago or so, we were reading through Genesis in Gospel Doctrine class. We got to the part about Jacob and his two wives Rachel and Leah, and how he favored one wife over the other, and then played favorites with the son (Joseph) of the favored wife, etc. etc. ugly, ugly.
    One of the older gentlemen in the class was looking troubled and raised his hand asking “Jacob did all this bad stuff in his family, but he’s supposed to be a prophet right? How can that be?” There was a bit of uncomfortableness and muttering here and there.
    At this point I raised my hand and said bluntly – “I just think it goes to show – you don’t have to be a good father or a good husband to be a prophet.”
    There was a bit of a intake of breath in the class. But I saw the man with the question nodding his head thoughtfully.
    The Lord doesn’t ask for perfect people. He asks for allegiance. After that, He’s willing to work with the material He’s got.
    Potter’s clay Jack. Potter’s clay.
  4. Potter’s clay? You a Calvinist now, Seth?
    On the first one, you’re correct that I can’t prove that Latter-day Saints would be spending their time doing more for the living if they weren’t doing temple work. However, it’s a fact that the church spends considerable money on genealogy research and record keeping to help with work for the dead. I mean, y’all have a gigantic vault built into the side of a mountain for that purpose. I assume gigantic mountainside vaults don’t come cheap. Is it really wrong to think that if the church did not practice work for the dead, these funds would go towards helping the living?
    And by helping the living I don’t just mean giving to the poor. Teaching the Gospel, building the testimonies and faith of people who already believe, apologetics and counseling, that’s all important work done on behalf of the living. It’s not that the church doesn’t try to do these things, but how much is “enough”? The Bible just says to give till it hurts.
    No, I can’t prove that individual members would be doing more for the living if they didn’t count work for the dead among their church service time, but I don’t think it’s an unreasonable assumption.
    On polygamy, the story of Jacob and Rachel and Leah has certainly always made me wince, but I don’t think playing favorites with your plural wives and children is in quite the same league as functional adultery. Why is it abhorrent when other charismatic religious leaders get sexually involved with their followers, but Joseph Smith gets a free pass? When do we have enough bad fruit to know this person wasn’t a prophet?
  5. “y’all have a gigantic vault built into the side of a mountain for that purpose.”
    Yup, for which the entire world ought to be grateful. It’s a priceless treasure of historical data that will probably endure for quite some time. It’s historical legacy value alone would be more than worth the expense. Thousands of family historians worldwide seem to agree.
    Do you consider the Great Library of Alexandria to be a “waste of money.”
    As Jesus himself said – “the poor you have with you always.” But poor people aren’t the only concern in the world – or even the supreme concern (important a concern as they are).
    Either way, it would be interesting to know how much the various churches spend on humanitarian aid per capita. Though I would not consider it decisive. The value of a religious symbol cannot be measured in monetary terms.
    I think adultery is reprehensible either way (though I think Joseph’s case is more murky than that – but anyway…). I don’t give Joseph a free pass.
    But it doesn’t mean he wasn’t a prophet.
    But just pretend with me for a moment. What if God told Joseph to take additional wives and preach it to the saints?
    What if Emma was opposed, then relented, then hardened and opposed again (which is what the historical record says she did)? What do you do if you are Joseph? What do you do if you are getting mixed signals from your wife, and then pretty clear ones from God? What if God does not tell you how exactly to handle things properly? What if you were never a very practical man to begin with, and handling this difficult situation proves to be quite beyond you?
    I just don’t take as harsh a view of it I guess.
    But then, I tend to feel sympathetic toward a lot of people that others don’t have much sympathy for.
    Joseph Smith sometimes seems to me like a “prodigal son” facing a lot of angry “older brothers” on the internet. Is it such a radical idea for a Christian that a prophet could be so deeply flawed? Why are prophets exempt from the atonement that people are so freely applying to everyone else?
  6. I’m curious: is the Holy Spirit always ONLY with the people who accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior and then follow the proper path to God? This is an ACTUAL question, not a slam or anything.
  7. The first thing that came to my mind in response to your question was Saul. Mormons believe you need to have the presence of the Holy Ghost to bear a divine visitation. Saul did express faith in the God Jehovah, but persecuted those who followed Christ. Did his faith in Jehovah qualify him for the Holy Ghost, or was it his apostolic foreordination that qualified him, despite his denial of the Savior? I tend to think it was the former, but I’m willing to be challenged on that opinion.
  8. David T. ~ Are you replying to #3 on my list or to Laura? I’m not sure I understand your comment. If the latter, know that Laura (who is my old roommate and a long-time friend) is an agnostic who is honestly just asking what the belief is.
    Laura ~ The presence of the Holy Spirit can be felt by anyone from time to time, depending on the situation. Mormons and non-LDS Christians would both agree on that. Then there’s something called the gift of the Holy Spirit/Ghost, also called baptism by fire, which is the constant companionship of the Holy Spirit. Mormons believe this can only be given to members of the LDS church by the laying on of hands. It’s done after baptism. Non-LDS Christians believe it comes from God after you believe. Some think it comes automatically with belief and some think it comes as a special event. Most don’t practice laying on of hands.
    Seth ~ I’ll get back to you later tonight or tomorrow.
  9. Jack,
    I was actually responding to Laura’s question, thinking it was yours. I guess I needed to pay closer attention to the string. I plead the Red Bull defense.
  10. Seth ~ Do you consider the Great Library of Alexandria to be a “waste of money.”
    I think that’s a little harsh. I’ve never used the phrase “waste of money” on this thread, nor did I mean to imply that everything the church has done in respect to family history has been a waste. Of course it has important value to history, but I don’t think a Christian church’s primary concern ought to be preserving history, and we both know that wasn’t the primary reason the vault was created. Just a nice side effect.
    I think adultery is reprehensible either way (though I think Joseph’s case is more murky than that – but anyway…). I don’t give Joseph a free pass.
    You personally may not. The church, its leaders… well, they’d rather not talk about it. Even the church’s official Joseph Smith web site does not say a word about polygamy. Almost all of the Latter-day Saints I’ve talked to about this believe Joseph was just doing God’s will and did no wrong in the matter. What’s that if not a free pass?
    As for your scenario, I’m not sure what I would have done. I think, at a bare minimum, Smith should have told Emma about each wife before he married her, even if she would not accept it, even if it made her unhappy. He also could have asked God to reveal the principle to Emma Himself; I don’t think we know if he tried that. He didn’t just do it to Emma though, he commanded other men to take plural wives and not even give their first wives a chance to accept it. Heber C. Kimball was one.
    If I’m harsh on Joseph, I guess it’s in part because I’m so tired of the blame-Emma-Smith crowd (which I’m not accusing you of being a part of). The church seems happy to let Emma Smith take the blame for Joseph’s behavior. Poor Joseph! God commanded him to practice polygamy and Emma wouldn’t accept it, he had to sneak around behind her back and lie to her. That’s insane troll logic (I’m really liking that phrase tonight).
    What do you think of it all though, Seth? You seem reasonable, I’m honestly curious to know. Do you actually think Joseph Smith’s practice of lying to his wife and sneaking around behind her back (and commanding other men to do it) was wrong?
    Is it such a radical idea for a Christian that a prophet could be so deeply flawed? Why are prophets exempt from the atonement that people are so freely applying to everyone else?
    I’m not adverse to letting Joseph Smith have flaws, sin, repentance and forgiveness. The problem is, from where I’m sitting, I see no signs of repentance. Smith went to his grave denying polygamy publicly and there’s no evidence that he recanted his behavior and reconciled with Emma. He seemed to justify his behavior with “God told me to do it,” and most Mormons today happily follow that lead. That’s what bothers me.
    David T. ~ Congratulations, yours was my 400th comment! Woohoo!
  11. “I can not accept that God the Father was once a man on another earth who had to progress to become God”
    This happens to be one of the main things that Richard Mouw says is misrepesentative of Mormonism, and is one of the main reasons he offered his apology at the Salt Lake Tabernacle. So in generalizing the system of Mormonism as holding to this idea, you’re essentially in the same boat as countercultists accused of being dishonest in their presentation of what Mormonism is.
    “Brigham Young taught that the Adam in the Garden of Eden was God the Father. None of the history teachers I knew at BYU thought otherwise.
    Yet, many other Mormons would call you dishonest and misrepresentative for saying that Brigham actually taught that.
    In looking at the honest reasons you have listed for rejecting Mormonism, I can’t help but think you have listed items that those in the modern anti-countercult dialog movement would say are irrelevant in publicly engaging Mormonism, since they are “unofficial” (inasmuch as BYU neorthodoxy defines officiality). If items like Nauvoo Polygamy, Adam-God, blacks and the priesthood, and the first half of the Lorenzo Snow couplet are all important reasons you have rejected Mormonism, why shouldn’t all these issues be put forth in evangelical apologetics that engages Mormonism? And why shouldn’t modern Mormon defenders be called to account for these issues, given that they are legitimate “deal-breakers” for non-Mormons? I think it odd to see countercultists reamed for engaging issues like you have listed, and yet see again and again that it is these very issues that play an important role in helping people legitimately reject Mormonism.
  12. Aaron ~ This happens to be one of the main things that Richard Mouw says is misrepesentative of Mormonism, and is one of the main reasons he offered his apology at the Salt Lake Tabernacle.
    Citation, please? Mouw did not bring this up in his address to the Tabernacle and I’d like to know the context for which he made such remarks, if he ever made them.
    Yet, many other Mormons would call you dishonest and misrepresentative for saying that Brigham actually taught that.
    I’m sure they would, and I would gladly direct them to pro-LDS sources who would acknowledge that he taught it.
    In looking at the honest reasons you have listed for rejecting Mormonism, I can’t help but think you have listed items that those in the modern anti-countercult dialog movement would say are irrelevant in publicly engaging Mormonism, since they are “unofficial” (inasmuch as BYU neorthodoxy defines officiality).
    I’m not sure I would agree with the anti-counter-cult dialogue movement if they thought all of these things were irrelevant to engaging Mormonism. While I consider my line of thinking closer to theirs, they aren’t my masters and I’m allowed to hold my own opinions on the issue.
    And remember that I only posted this list after I did a post about the positive things I saw in Mormonism. That alone considerably changes my tone from what you would see from counter-cultists discussing these issues.
    If items like Nauvoo Polygamy, Adam-God, blacks and the priesthood, and the first half of the Lorenzo Snow couplet are all important reasons you have rejected Mormonism, why shouldn’t all these issues be put forth in evangelical apologetics that engages Mormonism?
    I never said that these issues should not be put forth in evangelical apologetics which engages Mormonism. However, they need to be put forth with consideration for the historical context for which they happened as well as interaction with what LDS scholars and apologists have already written on the subject, which counter-cultists do not do. For example, it’s relevant to bring up that Joseph Smith was not honest with his wife in his plural marriage practices because that wasn’t considered normal and decent even by 19th century standards. It isn’t relevant to bring up that some of his wives were teenagers because teenage brides were perfectly normal in 19th century marriages. Anti-Mormons only bring it up for the modern day shock value, similar to how critics of Christianity will bring up passages in Deuteronomy about blood and ritual purity stripped of cultural context for pure shock value.
    I think it odd to see countercultists reamed for engaging issues like you have listed, and yet see again and again that it is these very issues that play an important role in helping people legitimately reject Mormonism.
    I have never reamed the counter-cult ministry for bringing up any of the issues I listed above.
  13. You can read more about Mouw’s post-apology letter of explanation here.
    If Smith married his only wife when she was 16, I can see that potentially not being a point of serious criticism. But he married at least one fourteen-year-old and two sixteen-year-olds by abusing his charisma and position of religious power. That should shock people into re-examining his character.
    As for the first half of the Lorenzo Snow couplet and the Adam-God issue, there is simply nothing in the historical context that mitigates those problems. In fact, viewing the issues in light of the context of Mormon history only enlarges the problems (it’s even more helpful, for example, to see Adam-God in light of Pratt’s larger conflicts with Young).
    I would return criticism toward the anti-countercult quasi-ecumenism effort for ignoring a more historical, contextual approach to how institutional Mormonism has treated the subject of grace, the nature of God, and scripture. It seems no matter what side you’re on there are needed improvements in holistic engagement and representation.
  14. Wasn’t the youngest of his wives 15 Aaron? Which wife are you referring to? Not that the age makes much difference to me, just curious.
  15. 14 was the youngest, Helen Marr Kimball daughter of Heber C. Kimball. Though it should be noted that even Compton makes the case that there was no sex between her and Smith. She’s an interesting figure; very outspoken in her youth even and especially later in life.
    I’ll get back to you in greater detail later, Aaron.
  17. It’s also worth noting that Smith probably never really married Fanny Alger. Mormon historians are understandably disposed to put it under the category of plural marriage, but as respected historian Lawrence Foster writes (in a review of Sacred Loneliness,
    Another reservation that I have about this study is Compton’s tendency to state as matters of fact what are, at best, only his own suppositions. This is most apparent in the first paragraph of his chapter on Fanny Alger, the first of the thirty core chapters on Joseph Smith’s plural wives. Compton asserts, without initial qualification in the chapter, that she “was one of Joseph Smith’s earliest plural wives” (25). This is only Compton’s debatable supposition, not an established fact. While contemporary evidence strongly suggests that Smith sustained sexual relations with Fanny Alger, it does not indicate that this was viewed either by Smith himself or by his associates at the time as a “marriage.” The most substantial contemporary description of the relationship comes from a letter written by Oliver Cowdery on January 21, 1838, in which he declares that “in every instance I did not fail to affirm that what I said was strictly true. A dirty, nasty, filthy affair of his and Fanny Alger’s was talked over in which I strictly declared that I never deviated from the truth” (38). (>>)
  18. Aaron ~ So you’re referring to Mouw’s remarks here:
    On a more technical point, I have received emails in the past few days where evangelicals have said that Mormonism teaches that God was once a human being like us, and we can become gods just like God now is. Mormon leaders have specifically stated that such a teaching, while stated by past leaders, is something they don’t understand and has no functioning place in present day Mormon doctrine. Bob Millet has made the same point to many of us, and Stephen Robinson insisted, in the book he co-authored with Craig Blomberg, that this is not an official Mormon teaching, even though it can be found in non-canonical Mormon writings.
    In this case I have to disagree with Mouw, and while I was never buddies with Millet or Robinson, I did have my own friends among the professors in the BYU religion department and I’ve had countless friendly conversations about this with other Mormons. I certainly think Latter-day Saints seem to be minimizing and moving away from talking about the eternal regression of God, which I don’t have a problem with, but they aren’t offering anything in its place or suddenly saying God has always been God. When all is said and done, it’s still there.
    I think it’s easy for evangelicals to belittle that teaching and take it out of context, but I chose my words in my post carefully, and it still needs to be discussed.
    Regarding Joseph Smith’s polygamy practices, I think a lot of care has to be taken if evangelicals are to use them effectively as an objection to Smith’s claims to prophetic status. Arguing that Smith was abusing his power rather than following a prophetic directive is easier said than done. It has to be shown that Smith’s actions weren’t normal for the 19th century, that his actions don’t compare to that of biblical prophets (even this thread shows that the most common reaction from Latter-day Saints is to point out that holy biblical figures did bad stuff, too), and claims from LDS historians and apologists that these marriages were mostly sexless loose dynastic sealings between prominent Mormon families have to be addressed.
    Of course I think it can be done, but I think most people in the counter-cult ministry aren’t doing it, they’re merely citing the oddest parts of the marriages and letting the chips fall where they may. That may shock some people out of the church, but a lot of people will find refuge in the defenses of apologists exploiting all those holes I just listed.
    The historian in me is also wary of reducing these women to knives to be used against Joseph Smith. In my mind they were all real people with real faith and struggles and trials who deserve to have their stories told in context.
    As for the first half of the Lorenzo Snow couplet and the Adam-God issue, there is simply nothing in the historical context that mitigates those problems. In fact, viewing the issues in light of the context of Mormon history only enlarges the problems (it’s even more helpful, for example, to see Adam-God in light of Pratt’s larger conflicts with Young).
    On this we agree. I was actually disappointed that the The New Mormon Challenge didn’t include an essay from an evangelical American history expert on some of the historical problems with the LDS church’s claims, analyzing the Adam-God doctrine or blacks and the priesthood. Hopefully that’s a gap I can help fill someday.
    I would return criticism toward the anti-countercult quasi-ecumenism effort for ignoring a more historical, contextual approach to how institutional Mormonism has treated the subject of grace, the nature of God, and scripture. It seems no matter what side you’re on there are needed improvements in holistic engagement and representation.
    I think you’re correct in this regard, and I’m actually grateful for your comments here. You’ve shown me that I need to be more specific on what my disagreement with the counter-cult ministry is.
    BTW, Lawrence Foster is one of my favorite people and I would agree with him regarding Compton and Fanny Alger. I met him at the MHA conference in Provo a few years ago and he was excited that another non-LDS person wanted to study LDS history. Hopefully I don’t let him down. :)
  19. but they aren’t offering anything in its place or suddenly saying God has always been God. When all is said and done, it’s still there.
    Some, namely folks like Blake Ostler, are, and some anti-countercultist academic folks will complain that those who engage the traditional understanding of the Lorenzo Snow couplet aren’t engaging what is “official”. But I appreciate your approach on this issue, because I don’t think institutional and mainstream Mormonism are represented well by a kind of naive minimalism (specifically the kind that try to narrow Mormonism down its canon).
    It has to be shown that Smith’s actions weren’t normal for the 19th century, that his actions don’t compare to that of biblical prophets
    I don’t know of any biblical prophet that promised salvation if a woman polygamously married him or threatened the assured destructed of himself if she failed to marry him. Haven’t you heard the flaming sword stories, etc.? It’s already obvious polygamy wasn’t normal in the 19th century. It’s one thing for Abraham to swim downstream with other ANE fishies, but Joseph Smith was rearing polygamy’s head in a culture that didn’t even find it acceptable. He went out of his way to secretly practice polygamy in both sexual and platonic ways.
    claims from LDS historians and apologists that these marriages were mostly sexless loose dynastic sealings between prominent Mormon families have to be addressed
    Todd Compton writes,
    “In conclusion, though it is possible that Joseph had some marriages in which there were no sexual relations, there is no explicit or convincing evidence for this (except, perhaps, in the cases of the older wives, judging from later Mormon polygamy). And in a significant number of marriages, there is evidence for sexual relations.” (In Sacred Loneliness, p. 15)
    Benjamin F. Johnson wrote,
    “Meanwhile, the Prophet, with Louisa Beeman and my sister Delcena, had it agreeable arranged with Sister Almera, and after a little instruction she stood by the Prophet’s side and was sealed to him as a wife, by Brother Clayton; after which the Prophet asked me to take my sister to occupy number “10″ in his Mansion home during her stay in the city. But as I could not long be absent from my home and business, we soon returned to Ramus, where on the 15th of May, some three weeks later, the Prophet again came and at my house occupied the same room and bed with my sister, that the month previous he had occupied with the daughter of the late Bishop Partridge, as his wife.” (Benjamin F. Johnson, Letter to George S. Gibbs, 1903, cited in E. Dale LeBaron, “Benjamin Franklin Johnson: Colonizer, Public Servant, and Church Leader” (M.A. thesis, Brigham Young University, 1967)
    Of course I think it can be done, but I think most people in the counter-cult ministry aren’t doing it
    You should do it yourself then, and show everyone by example how it should be done. I don’t mean that snidely. But it is easy to take pot shots at countercultists, especially those online, but at the end of the day they are the main people who are actively engaging rank and file LDS and inoculating non-LDS. If you can provide by example a better way to engage this issues more contextually and holistically, I think you’d be surprised by how many countercultists would flock to the resource and recommend it.
    The historian in me is also wary of reducing these women to knives to be used against Joseph Smith. In my mind they were all real people with real faith and struggles and trials who deserve to have their stories told in context.
    At the end of the day one has to find a way to summarize things without getting verbose, for the sake of informing the masses who aren’t willing to read a whole book on the issue. I think WivesofJosephSmith.org does a great introductory job. Are you thinking that the women’s stories (such as the ones we find given by Compton) mitigate the moral repugnance of what Smith did? My own studies of these women has effected no such mitigation. Learning their stories only magnifies the repugnance of Smith’s abuse of power, and makes me angry that real women—women who were daddy’s little girls and who sometimes were in love with another man—were convinced by Smith of their sacred duty to marry him.
    Cool to hear you were at an MHA conference. I think it’s great for evangelicals who engage Mormons/Mormonism to benefit from Sunstone Symposiums, MHA conferences, SMPT conferences, and FAIR conferences. I think you have more in common with some countercultists more than you think.
    Take care,
    Aaron
  20. “I don’t know of any biblical prophet that promised salvation if a woman polygamously married him or threatened the assured destructed of himself if she failed to marry him. Haven’t you heard the flaming sword stories, etc.?”
    It should be said that Joseph is hardly the first guy to ever tell a girl that he’ll “die” if she won’t be his.
    Seriously, though Aaron you are bringing up some good points that deserve further thought and consideration.
  21. Aaron ~ Some, namely folks like Blake Ostler, are
    Ah, I’d forgotten all about Ostler. Honestly, his theories were only ever believed by my extreme philosophy nerd LDS friends, and philosophy has never been my strong point. I would argue that the Lorenzo Snow couplet is still the norm for most Mormons, even if they are getting quieter about it.
    I don’t know of any biblical prophet that promised salvation if a woman polygamously married him or threatened the assured destructed of himself if she failed to marry him. Haven’t you heard the flaming sword stories, etc.? It’s already obvious polygamy wasn’t normal in the 19th century.
    Their point is never that there’s a biblical prophet who did exactly as Smith did, only that questionable things apparently sanctioned by God can be found in the Bible. It’s funny that you bring up the angel with the flaming sword stories; I have never known a Mormon who knew about JS’s polygamy who did not know about that story. Every time I bring it up, the LDS person I’m talking to will say, “But he was commanded by an angel with a flaming sword!” So it’s interesting to me that Mormons and evangelicals use the exact same account for different purposes. Mormons sincerely believe he was forced by God to start it, and we see it as coercion by a charismatic religious leader who knew he could get away with anything. That divide has to be bridged.
    Regarding polygamy and the 19th century, I take it you’re not familiar with Lawrence Foster’sReligion and Sexuality: The Shakers, the Mormons, and the Oneida Community? From Roger Launius’s book review:
    This book explores Mormon plural marriage, Shaker celibacy, and Oneida Perfectionist group marriage as it originated and evolved in the nineteenth century. Foster treats these experiments in marriage and family not as aberrations from a well=established norm, but as legitimate permutations of the reform impulse of the era.
    So polygamy can be seen in the greater context of antebellum religions experimenting with new forms of sex and family. That doesn’t make it right, but that context has to be addressed.
    I’m aware that Compton accepts sex in most of Smith’s marriage, and I certainly think plenty of his marriages were sexual, but Compton himself has been criticized by LDS apologists and other historians for playing too loose in doing so.
    You should do it yourself then, and show everyone by example how it should be done.
    Aye, as you said to me four months ago. I haven’t forgotten. I’m doing what I can, and I think it’s important to remember that this blog has only been around since July 14, 2008, in which time I was distracted by my mother’s death (and World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King!). CARM, MRM, IRR, they’ve all been around for well over ten years, and the Tanners got their start sometime around the Big Bang (RIP Jerald). Give me a few years and see if there aren’t better resources coming from me. Rome wasn’t built in a day and all.
    Are you thinking that the women’s stories (such as the ones we find given by Compton) mitigate the moral repugnance of what Smith did?
    Yes and no. I think women deserve more credit for everything, and I don’t like seeing these women portrayed as mindless patsies who just gave in to Smith’s advances without thinking. If polygamy was wrong, Smith wasn’t the only bad guy, even if he was the principle one. Many of the women gave testimonies of having grappled with Smith’s claims and believing God revealed the truthfulness of it to them. Mormons are going to look at those stories and find vindication in them for Smith’s polygamy. I guess what I’m saying is, I don’t think brushing off intelligent, outspoken, spiritual women with great capacity for critical thinking as merely deceived by Smith is a very strong answer.
    You’re correct that these things do need less verbose answers; unfortunately I happen to be horribly long-winded. So coming up with a short way of presenting all this is going to take me a long time, but I’ll keep it in mind.
  22. I am familiar with Foster’s book (I had it as a textbook for a class), and I am familiar with other examples of sexual deviation in other 19th century religious movements. But all things considered, Foster’s examples are still deviations from the larger cultural norms. On a related note, I’m not sure how it is helpful to Mormonism to have its polygyny and polyandry paralleled to the even more wild sexual deviations mentioned by Foster.
    The examples Foster gives are very diverse, and none I know became culturally acceptable. Joseph Smith kept polygamy secret for this very reason, and the response of America when the Mormons went public with their polygamy was far from favorable. So I still stand by my point: Joseph Smith was swimming upstream with polygamy, not downstream. One walks away after reading Foster’s book thinking that new religious movements had a tendency to sexually deviate, but one doesn’t get the sense that polygamy and polyandry were less than shocking and scandalous to the American culture.
    I’m aware that the women Smith approached often struggled in their decision-making, but two factors here are worth considering: 1) They struggled within the parameters of Smith’s given revelation. The assumptions they had to work with were that marriage with Smith would bring Celestial blessings, and/or that God has promised dire consequences on Smith if they failed to marry him, etc. So their struggle was usually over whether such a marriage was still worth it. Working off the assumptions Smith gave them, they made rational choices. What I think is repugnant is that Smith abused his charisma and religious power to give these women such premises to work with in the first place. 2) There is evidence that Smith did not always give the woman an extraordinary amount of time and space to think about the decision. They were pressured in more ways than one.
    In any case, I’m not sure how revealing the women as even more thoughtful and reflective makes the situation any less repugnant. The more thoughtful, intelligent, outspoken, etc. that these women were, the more deception was required.
    I’m sorry to hear about your mother’s death! You seem young to have a mother who is already gone. I don’t think I’m ready to see my parents go yet… I never will be.
    Grace and peace,
    Aaron
  23. Aaron,
    You raise a lot of good points all around which I’ll keep in mind.
    My mother was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer when she was 50 and died at 51. She was healthy before that, and we were close. If someone had told me two years ago that she’d be gone right now, I would never have believed it.
    So, just do me a favor and give your mom a big hug next time you see her, and treasure the time you have. You never know what could happen.
  24. Jack, that’s perhaps the clearest summary of fundamental objections to Mormonism I’ve seen in a long time. All the reasons I can respect are there, with none of the really stupid ones.
    Bearing that in mind, I might offer a response (not a refutation; these sorts of discussions don’t move souls, in my opinion) because the question becomes: Why don’t I stop, if all the stuff you say about us is actually true and actually a problem?
  25. Rob, you can feel free to offer responses if you want, for the benefit of any LDS readers who may see my list if not for me. I’m open to hearing new ways Latter-day Saints deal with these problems; I’ve already learned some new things since I began interacting with LDS folks on the bloggernacle. Just so long as you’re not expecting my conversion at the end of it all or anything.
  26. Jack, I served a mission in Switzerland. “Muslims and Christians and Hindus, oh my!” And, also, ten bazillion conversations, all without any conversions I can directly attribute my awesomeness to.
    I assure you that it is I who am impressed with you, rather than myself. Your conversion is yours to work out. As you can see, my pingback mechanism already got part one into your comments. This blogging thing is harder than I thought…
  27. It appears we were at BYU at the same time! I appreciate you writing this, despite the fact you felt no need to give reasons. I really understand everything on this list, though as a Mormon, I’ve obviously come to different conclusions. Except 7, I agree with the last two paragraphs there, and perhaps that makes me the first Mormon you’ve encountered to think that? I’m sure others have already commented.
    Anyway, thanks again, and best wishes.
  28. Actually, I’ve come to really dislike this post. I want to re-do it (and not list things that are wrong with the LDS church). I’ll get around to it eventually.
  29. I actually found this post quite inoffensive.
    I love the beginning history of the church. I love how some women married other men in the temple than they were married to in real life and switched around. Reverse polygamy against the men, take that peeps! Yes, it was all a whole big mess and shots in the dark–and that’s God giving you a commandment but not the hows to fulfill but letting your figure it out and come back and keep asking so you can learn and grow– but when you focus on what was taken from that mess–the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints–it was worth the mess. There’s also a passage in D and C 132 where Jesus is talking to Joseph Smith and says something along the lines of “I have seen their sacrifices like the sacrifice of Abraham and Isaac and I accept it.” It goes on to say that he will provide a way for their escape, just like with Abraham. He asked the hardest thing He could of His saints and watched them do it by darn it, no matter how messy it was.
    And what about Joseph’s open-mindedness to thinking up a whole new church and all this new doctrine? Writing a 600 paged book in a few months? Do you just chalk all that up to luck?
    And I’m worried about the Mormons you’ve met. I don’t know many that believe in the Blacks and the priesthood thing as being God-given laws, especially ones that have thought about it. President Kimball himself said it was a policy, and not doctrine. Again, God not emasculating his prophets. It does stink that we all can’t be bigger than the culture that we live in. I’m not saying that you have to think these things are true, just understand why we’re okay with them.
    Also, about the subordination of women, it kills me. Feminist Mormon Housewives kills me. I believe it does way more harm than good, and trust me I’ve done more than my fair share of reading it. Women need to strengthen their testimonies of the Savior by reading their scriptures and praying, and then get out of themselves and serve and love those around them. Yes, we can have room for dialogue and thought and internet fellowship. However, there’s so much more to be done than whine about not having the priesthood and praying to female deity and “oh this man said this to me at church!” See, I’ve been on the website.
    We can be prophetesses of the Lord, just because we don’t do it through the organized system of the church doesn’t mean we cant do it in our homes, families, and for those we love. Women in the church are more powerful than any other women I know in this world. They can accomplish more, are stronger, more able to help others, and have all the answers to meet their own needs and spiritual questions than other women I meet and all because of their strong relationship with the Savior. And I’m not meaning to downplay other women, but I’m saying when the gospel is lived there is a great power that comes to women. It’s more powerful and effective to have that power in my home than anything my husband can do at church because he’s EQP or something. Anyone who has had a terrible parent can recognize why parenthood is so stinking important.
    There, that’s all I had to say. And I forgot about that project we did together.
  30. Susie ~ And what about Joseph’s open-mindedness to thinking up a whole new church and all this new doctrine?
    What about it? Lots of other historical figures have done as much. Creating a new church surely isn’t proof of divinity in itself.
    Writing a 600 paged book in a few months? Do you just chalk all that up to luck?
    I’m something of an agnostic on the composition of the Book of Mormon. I definitely believe it was a product of the 19th century, but I don’t claim to know the specifics of how it was produced. I am dissatisfied with most of the theories out there.
    However, again, that is likely not proof of divinity in itself. Other people in history have been able to produce amazing works that bucked their educational background and knowledge of the past. For example: Pearl Curran
    Concerning blacks and the priesthood: I must adamantly disagree with the idea that the ban on blacks was “policy, not doctrine.” On August 17, 1949, the First Presidency of the church (George Albert Smith, J. Reuben Clark, Jr. and David O. McKay) released a statement in which they declared that the church’s treatment of blacks was “not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord.” You can read the statement in its entirety here. They affirmed that the reasons for the ban were the curse of Cain and the conduct of blacks in the pre-existence, and they cited Brigham Young teaching that blacks would not receive the priesthood until the rest of the human race had received it.
    If you want to say that prior leaders got it wrong, fair enough; but it was not just an unfortunate policy. It was doctrine.
    Concerning women: if discussing the problems at fMh and other sites isn’t your thing, and you would rather focus on what LDS women can do in the here and now, okay. I respect that. However, where you lose me is when you go on to insist that LDS women are stronger and more empowered than other women in spite of that. I agree that service is a great power, but I don’t see how LDS women have more access to serving others than women who can be ordained by their denominations–especially when one considers that true leadership is a form of service.
    Consider my pastor. She’s kind and compassionate, and serves others on a regular basis. She organizes charitable projects that our congregation participates in and attends to the needs of troubled members. She’s also a great mom (she had her baby while serving as senior pastor) and a loving, supportive wife. She has a very spiritual testimony that includes being visited by an angel when she was a child, and she’s had other supernatural experiences.
    But then she has pastoral duties that LDS women will never have through their church. She preaches to the congregation twice a month and conducts meetings almost every week; LDS women may be asked to speak maybe once a year, and they’ll never be asked to conduct or preside. She’s involved in the oversight of the church for both adult men and women. She can join two people together before God in marriage, she can baptize new disciples, and she can bless and distribute the Eucharist.
    I’m not really here to argue that my pastor is stronger or in some way better than LDS women; God’s call on each person’s life is different, and I don’t automatically believe every LDS woman is worse off than she is. But I definitely believe, given my pastor’s gifts for leading others, she would be worse off if she were LDS. There’s just no place for women like her in the LDS church. Being the leader of women’s and children’s organizations is not the same as pastoral oversight of a congregation.
  31. Hey Jack,
    So I just gathered some quotes I found interesting–
    You can find them on the blacks and priesthood on wikipedia. I’ve also seen them in print.
    Although not refuting his belief that the policy came from the Lord, apostle Spencer W. Kimball acknowledged in 1963 that it could have been brought about through an error on man’s part. In 1963, he said, “The doctrine or policy has not varied in my memory. I know it could. I know the Lord could change his policy and release the ban and forgive the possible error which brought about the deprivation.”[56]
    In 1954, Church President David O. McKay taught: “There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this church that the negroes are under a divine curse. There is no doctrine in the church of any kind pertaining to the negro. We believe that we have a scriptural precedent for withholding the priesthood from the negro. It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice someday will be changed. And that’s all there is to it.’[68]
    Harold B. Lee, president of the church, stated in 1972: “For those who don’t believe in modern revelation there is no adequate explanation. Those who do understand revelation stand by and wait until the Lord speaks…It’s only a matter of time before the black achieves full status in the Church. We must believe in the justice of God. The black will achieve full status, we’re just waiting for that time.”[72]
    By Elder McConkie several months after the declaration, “There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world…. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more…. It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year.”
    About the women’s thing–I think you underestimate exactly how much women do in the church even in “just” the women’s and children’s programs–we still do 70% of the work that’s done in the church, at least. Especially if you compare a Stake YMs presidency with a Stake YWs presidency. It’s interesting because my Christian friend came and visited and admired how we got our men involved because they’re always looking for ways to remind men they need to be spiritual leaders. Also, remember only 3 percent of men actually lead at a church meeting, all the rest of the men, including great men like my dad, are just like the rest of us except he did a fantastic job of leading our home spiritually, which would probably have otherwise been done by the mom. Even in my own house I have to remind myself to let me husband do it, and he does it, and it’s much to the benefit of our children to see him do it. I think there’s a lot of wisdom in God to see this is done in the way that it is.
    And I understand our positions will always remain different, but I’m explaining why we the majority of us as Mormon women see no harm and no foul in these things, just blessings.
  32. Susie ~ Just to be clear on one thing.
    It’s not the quantity of work that Mormon women do that bothers me, it’s the quality. Women may do 70% of the work in the church (I wouldn’t know), but for some reason they don’t have 70% of the buildings on the BYU campus named after them. The roles women perform in the church do not receive the same respect, admiration and honor as the roles men perform.
Categories:

Related Post:



0 коментарі:

Post a Comment

ClobberBlog | Mormonism, Evangelical Christianity