FAIR

Faithful Study Resources for Come, Follow Me

Nick Galieti

Articles of Faith 16: Margaret Blair Young – The Heart of Africa and The Welcome Table

by

Podcast: Download (56.7MB)

Subscribe: RSS

Margaret-Blair-Young-150x150Margaret Blair Young was raised in the Church and learned the standard Mormon clichés and customary phrases of a Mormon testimony. As a child, she could imitate the strokes and expressions of Mormonism well, in time she came to understand these were expressions of an immature, inexperienced faith. Time propelled her further into the faith. In time she began to be immersed in more controversial areas of LDS history: race issues and the priesthood restriction, keeping those of African lineage from receiving the priesthood or temple blessings for over a century. She wrote three books and made two documentaries on these subjects with Darius Gray, a black man who joined the Church in 1964, fourteen years before the restriction was lifted.

Margaret Blair Young is the past president of the Association for Mormon Letters and has published eight books—novels and short stories. Three of these were co-authored with Darius Gray and give the history of Black Latter-day Saints. She and Gray also made the documentary Nobody Knows: The Untold Story of Black Mormons. She has written six encyclopedia articles and other scholarly papers on Blacks in the western USA, and particularly on Black Mormons. She used to teach creative writing at BYU but now travels the world in her off time.

Questions addressed during the interview:

You just got back from Africa. Where were you and what were you doing there?

How is the church doing in Africa? What is it like on a day to day basis?

What are some of the difficult questions or situations for which the African Saints are seeking answers or solutions?

There is an article on your blog through patheos, The Welcome Table, the article is entitled Developing Spiritual Taste. In your world travels and in your film directing efforts on church related themes, you have no doubt encountered critics or at least statements that seem to be critical of at least perceptions of church doctrines and culture. You even address the motivation for the article, at least in part, by offering this brief anecdote: When I was in my late twenties, someone said to me, “You’re too smart to be a Mormon.” Clearly, I’m not. But the picture of Mormonism this person had in mind does not represent the kind of Mormonism I live.” What is the kind of Mormonism that you live, the kind that you layout in this article?

You talk about, in your Mormon Scholars Testify Page, a story where your husband once gave you a priesthood blessing during a particularly trying moment. He said these words: “I bless you that your memories will be sanctified as the larger picture unfolds, and you will view all of the difficulties and trials you’re enduring now with gratitude and love.”This is the blessing of perspective. It illuminates not only my personal history, but the hard historical episodes of my religion. What has that blessing meant in your research into as you put it, the more controversial parts of Mormon History?

Margaret Blair Young is the author of several titles as well as director and producer of several documentaries on the history of Black members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Click here for more information on Margaret Blair Young’s upcoming Film Project, The Heart of Africa.

Click here to read from Margaret Blair Young’s entries at Patheos under the heading, The Welcome Table.

Articles of Faith 15: Loren Spendlove – Understanding Nephi with the Help of Noah Webster

by

Podcast: Download (47.7MB)

Subscribe: RSS

loren-spendloveLoren Spendlove (MBA, California State University, Fullerton and PhD, University of Wyoming) has worked in many fields over the last thirty years, including academics and corporate financial management. Currently, he and his wife design and manufacture consumer goods. A student of languages, his research interests center on linguistics and etymology.

Questions addressed in this episode:

Why use the 1828 dictionary? Why not an earlier or later edition?

What is the value of looking at a book like the Book of Mormon with any appeal to a dictionary?

There are some devotional interpretations that your article offers, and there are some more apologetic interpretations. What are some examples of both?

When it comes to answering the critics using these alternative definitions, there is a clear, you are reading this with the wrong language understanding. With the more devotional aspects, are you saying the same thing only perhaps to members of the Church?

In the episode Loren Spendlove references a 20+ page guide of his findings from 1 Nephi that include the changes in word use from 1828 till today’s language use.

Click here for that spreadsheet —>> Nephi and Noah Webster

Click here to read Loren Spendlove’s article in the Interpreter.

Articles of Faith Podcast 14: Ralph C. Hancock – An Invitation to Help Advance the Pursuit of Truth as it Concerns our Way of Life

by

Podcast: Download (53.7MB)

Subscribe: RSS

Ralph-Hancock2Ralph C. Hancock earned his Bachelors from Brigham Young University and his M.A. and Ph.D. from Harvard University, all in political science. Prior to joining the faculty at Brigham Young University, where he is now a professor of political science, he taught at Hillsdale College in Michigan (1982-1986) and the University of Idaho (1986-1987). Ralph is (at the time of this interview) the President of the John Adams Center for the Study of Faith, Philosophy an Public Affairs.

Ralph Hancock e is also one of the founders of the LDS Web journal SquareTwo (http://squaretwo.org/) and a member of its editorial board. His current focus is on meaning and the limits of philosophy in relation to politics, ethics, and religion, and has started a series of articles with Meridian Magazine. He is here today to talk about a soon-to-be-released introductory article to that series with Meridian entitled An Invitation to Help Advance the Pursuit of Truth as it Concerns our Way of Life.

Questions we address in this interview:

You are not a new voice in the dialogue and effort to defend the LDS Faith online. This effort with Meridian Magazine starts about how many years deep into your online efforts?

So when Elder Bednar spoke at BYU Education Week about flooding the earth with messages online, messages of righteousness and truth, what was your response?

I don’t mean to put you in a box, but in my reading of some of your past history of articles, you seem to want to be correcting perceptions, or narratives that are out there. You represent what many would place as a conservative voice. I use that term because of your political science training would have you experience many titles or compartments for certain perspectives. How do you classify yourself, or at least your online voice?

Speaking of terms, or tags, or social constructs, your article addresses several other token terms that are often used in the discourse, even critically of the Church? What are some of the those terms that you single out in the article, and why?

Typical LDS apologetics doesn’t always venture into matters of political discourse because the Church itself declares political neutrality. Perhaps we could blame it on your day job, but your new article series seems to approach the idea of apologetics but more from a cultural and political defense as opposed to a debate based on doctrinal interpretations or historical research. I believe you even refer to this as being called Moral Apologetics or perhaps “anti-ideological apologetics.” Perhaps you could explain further what you mean behind this categorization?

I want to share a quote from the article, to give a flavor of what people can expect, but also to ask a follow up question, but in speaking of the opposition voice that some encounter in online discourse surrounding Mormonism, its culture and teachings, you state, “I should add here that these forces will not just go away, and they will not leave us alone. It is comforting to think that we can simply agree to disagree with elements of our society that wish, for example, to redefine the “family” out of existence. But we will not be able to avoid the effects of the dominance of the new ideology. We see them already in the way this ideology tends to undermine the moral categories even of active Church members whose roots are not deep and strong enough. But even those whose beliefs are not undermined from within will find their religious practice constrained more and more by the dominant ideology. There is no way that religious freedom can be safe in a society in which traditional believers are regarded as “bigots.”

Another quote that I find to be rather accute to many of the church who wonder how they may more fully engage in what Elder Bednar admonished regarding entering the fray as some may see it by opening their mouths online. Her is the quote, “Others may wish to support Church teachings concerning morality and the family but would rather do so privately, even silently, leaving such controversial matters to Church authorities, conceding perhaps that reason has little to say in this area. This is a question that would require much further discussion. For now I will only say that I think it is a big mistake to concede the title of rationality to the proponents of radical equality and freedom, and thus implicitly abandon core moral principles and teachings concerning the family to the realm of some blind obedience.”We have time, let’s give this question further discussion. First off, do you find this mentality of avoidance amongst active members a common position?

Your article was an invitation, perhaps even an extension of Elder Bednar’s invitation, but your invitation seems a bit more focused. How is your article, as the title implies, an invitation and to whom?

Ralph Hancock is a BYU Professor in Political Science and is bravely engaging in a new project with Meridian Magazine into moral apologetics.

Mormon FairCast Book Review: Women At Church by Neylan McBaine

by

Podcast: Download (71.8MB)

Subscribe: RSS

Neylan McBain Interview - FairMomronNeylan McBaine grew up a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) in New York City and attended Yale University. She has been published in Newsweek, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Segullah, Meridian Magazine, and the Washington Post to name a few.

Neylan is the founder and editor-in-chief of The Mormon Women Project, a continuously expanding library of interviews with LDS women found at www.mormonwomen.com.

Neylan is the author of a collection of personal essays — How to Be a Twenty-First Century Pioneer Woman (2008) — as well as Sisters Abroad: Interviews from the Mormon Women Project (2013). She lives with her husband and three young daughters in Utah.

Questions:

Your bio speaks volumes about your passions to support and place a spotlight on Mormon Women. When did your first feel the sparks of this passion?

I actually wanted to start with the cover of the book. Aside from it being warm and fuzzy paper, easy to hold in your hand as you read, the artwork is also quite gripping. I don’t always have much to say about the covers, but I love the painting on the cover of your book. Could you describe it and how the cover actually speaks well to the theme of your book?

This theme of feminism has a wardrobe of interpretations that attempt to clothe a given message. Because there are so many different versions of feminism, could you please take a minute to describe your own interpretation of feminism, and how you frame your self in reference to it?

Your opening sentence is as clear a thesis as I have read however, “This book is predicated on a single belief: that there is much more we can do to see, hear, and include women in the church.” As I read it I wonder about one word in that sentence, the word “much” there is much more we can do to see, hear, and include women in the church. How bold, italicized, and underlined did you want the reader to read into the word “much?”

It is your clear assumption that women are not being heard, and in this same first chapter where you state that a good portion of your book is going to talk about the problem: that some women are feeling neglected, overlooked, and silenced in their church experiences. Is it that these women are feeling neglected and overlooked and silenced by men? By other women? Both?

You address the issue of hurt, of pain, that women are feeling. There are multiple accounts of this happening throughout the church. In a recent interview Terryl and Fiona Givens talked about their new book, The Crucible of Doubt. In that book they talk about the utility of suffering, of trials and tests. They consider these as part of the experience of worshiping deity. Then I read your book and I read about the primary effort to alleviating the hurt. For those that might see these two and feel that both offer some truth they may also seem paradoxical. How then do you define the place, utility, or role of hurt?

You call for greater empathy from general church membership with those who struggle or have hurt. The Savior called for the same thing in his day, and one could argue that seeking for greater charity is the cause of all who wish to be considered disciples of Christ. Discipleship, for men or women, tends to operate on a metaphorical scale where there is a balance of helping others being in ratio to others helping themselves. In reading your book, there is a clear indication that you feel that the church has not done enough to help women or to reach out to embrace women’s voices. What then is that balance as you see it?

We believe in a church of continuing revelation, a living church, one that should not fight flat out the idea of change. But that belief is also tempered by understanding from which changes are to come, and why they come. The first half of your book is meant to lay out the case that there is a need for change. The second part offers some perspectives and examples on how changes can come. How then are we to first acknowledge the need, in a faithful way, without doing so in attacking the system or those who are doing their best to administer the gospel with limited capacities?

In going through part 1 of the book you spend a lot of time talking about the deep need for change on these issues. It can be uncomfortable to sit with that material. While Part 2 of the book is example after of example of how people have enacted changes locally, things that people have done to adopt more equality. This is more a fulfillment of D&C 58:27 where people are being anxiously engaged in a good cause. What are some of those examples

Mormon FairCast-Book Review: The Crucible of Doubt: Reflections on the Quest For Faith by Terryl and Fiona Givens

by

Podcast: Download (52.8MB)

Subscribe: RSS

 

Terryl and Fiona GivensTerryl Givens holds the James A. Bostwick chair of English and is Professor of Literature and Religion at the University of Richmond and the author of several books. His writing has been praised by the new York Times as “provocative reading” and includes the most recent title, When Souls Had Wings, a history of the idea of pre-mortal life in Western Thought.

 

Fiona Givens is a retired modern language teacher with undergraduate degree’s in French and German and a graduate degree in European History. She is now an independent scholar who has published in several journals and reviews in Mormon studies, including the Journal of Mormon History, Exponent II, and LDS Living.

 

Terryl and Fiona are the grandparents of five, and parents of six. Welcome Terrly and Fiona Givens. They co-authored the book The Crucible of Doubt: Reflections on the Quest For Faith published by Deseret Book.

 

Questions addressed in this interview:

 

With two authors to a title I am always a bit curious as to who wrote what, or how that process took place. So how did that process take place?

 

This book is entitled The Crucible of Doubt and subtitled, Reflections on the Question for Faith. You have written on having doubts or experiencing what has been termed a faith crisis, would you call yourselves doubt scholars?

 

Now another word for crucible is trial, so the title itself implies that you approach having doubts or questions about LDS beliefs is a trial, but what makes these doubts such a trial? Why can’t they simply be viewed as a natural occurrence and something to address in some sense of normalcy rather than a “trial?”

 

While the book is primarily a devotional text, there does seem to have an apologetic subtext to it in that it helps the reader to reframe themselves with respect to the LDS Theology is such a way that questions are more answerable. What that part of the intent in your writing or did it simply speak to me that way?

 

Some introductions to books are superfluous. Your’s does not fit in that category, in fact, I would venture to say that if you skip over the introduction to the book, you will miss a good bit of the remainder of the text. That introduction starts out with a profound analogy using James Mossman’s front door in Scotland. Please help me to not sound so random in my reference. Please explain that story.

 

What are some of the common “wrong questions” that we encounter in current discourse?

 

The book continues to give an appraisal on the value of reason or in another sense the place of scientific information as the foundation upon which reason is based. Your argument sounds a little like a literature professor seeking to give more weight to their subject of scholarship.\

 

Let’s talk for a minute about the role of suffering.

 

It is the position of some today that questioning certain teachings, or even publicly advocating for things that shake up the norm is the act of an apostate, while others praise their actions as bringing people to a higher plane of Christianity through their advocacy. The next chapter of your book The Crucible of Doubt, deals with this idea and is entitled On Provocation and Peace: Of Life’s Fundamental Incompleteness. So is Christianity. What then is the role of questioning, of even experiencing a gospel that shakes us to our very core?

 

The Role and Function of the Church, a chapter that walks a line that few have articulated the way you have. There are those that feel that the church is the answer to all problems, and others that feel that church is the cause of all their problems. In order to talk about this concept we need to first put out your definition of religion, and your definition of church—then if you could go into what is the role of true religion and a true church in our spiritual journey?

 

Much has been talked about with the role of grace and works. A quote from your book comes from the German theologian Dietrich Bonhoffer, “cheap grace is the mortal enemy of the church” and one version of cheap grace is “baptism without discipline of community.” As we are talking about the disciples journey through doubt to greater faith and spirituality, what then do you attribute the role of ordinances and spiritual ritual in the overcoming of doubts?

 

There is a progression in your material as you address various paradigms that some have adopted, The Use and Abuse of Scripture, The Perils of Hero Worship, another interesting chapter is the Mormon’s and Monopolies chapters, and I am going to go ahead and leave those sections as a tease to go get the book, but these chapters lead in some ways to this idea of Spiritual Self-sufficiency, subtitled, Find Your Watering Place. What does Spiritual Self-sufficiency look like?

 

Let’s conclude with the articulation of what just might be at the heart of true faith, and that is the risk it presents. There is this quote, “The question may remain, how does one lock onto the propositional assertions of a restored gospel that is also laden with claims about gold plates and the Book of Abraham and a male priesthood and a polygamous past and a thousand other details we may find difficult? One might consider that the contingencies of history and culture and the human element will always constitute the garment in which God’s word and will are clothed. And one might refuse to allow our desire for the perfect to be the enemy of the present good. Finally we might ask ourselves, with the early disciples, “to whom [else] shall we go?” The Worst risk such a life of faith entails is not that such a life might be wrong—but that it might be incomprehensible to those unprepared to take such a risk.” It then goes to assert that to be faithful or to be a Christian disciple (that is my word not yours) that to live in faith is to live in such a way that one’s life would not make sense if God did not exist.”

 

Terryl and Fiona Givens are the co-authors of The Crucible of Doubt: Reflections on the Quest for Faith. Available now through Deseret Book at Deseret Book.com and other LDS retailers.

 

Articles of Faith 14: Mormon Women Stand – Defending Prophetic Authority

by

Podcast: Download (42.6MB)

Subscribe: RSS

Kathryn-Skaggs

Kathryn Skaggs is the founder, and Angela Fallentine the co-founder of the Mormon Women Stand Website and Mormon Women Stand Facebook Page—an effort that focuses its efforts on defending the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it’s leaders and its teachings by using a united voice of faithful women from the Church.

Kathryn Skaggs is a wife, mother, and grandmother. She took the Ann Romney approach to womanhood by staying home and raising her children, and making no apologies for doing so. Her online efforts started in 2008 with the blog A Well Behaved Mormon Woman where she shares her voice on a variety of social issues.

Angela grew up in Alberta Canada, and later attended Rick’s College/BYU Idaho, and Utah State UAngela-Fallentineniversity with a degree in Journalism with an emphasis in public relations and corporate communications. After graduating she interned for the Church Public Affairs Office and also worked for the Church’s Office of International and Governmental affairs in Washington D.C.

Both are here today to talk about what it means to be a voice on the internet, more specifically a female voice on the internet and the opportunities that effort has in sustaining Church leaders and furthering church dialogue online.

Questions we address in this interview: We are here (being recorded) at the Provo City library because you are both in town for BYU’s Education Week. How has your experience been so far?

In what ways does attending this conference help you in your efforts as a voice online in defense of the gospel and the church.

You have a combined effort that you co-founded, Mormon Women Stand. Was this a response to something in particular, the ground up inspiration to add your voice to the discourse online?

How and why is MWS different? (how many people involved and what is your audience?)

Who is the intended audience of your work with MWS?

There is an article posted on the Mormon Women Stand website entitled Chipping Away at Priesthood Authority of Mormon Prophets to Undermine Faith. This was written by Angela, but I was told by Kathryn that she shares your words. While neither of you have been guilty of too much subtlety when it comes to your online articles, I am sure the title is a bit of a giveaway, what is the genesis of the article?

The warning that you give in the article is that we need to give care and attention to the idea that the more we seek out the faults of our leaders, and they will be found as all of them will have them, the more we give place for discord, for distancing ourselves from orthodoxy. Is that accurate? What then is the remedy as many will say that there is nothing wrong with becoming aware of even the self proclaimed faults of the leaders themselves?

You give a statement in the article that might come across as strongly worded so I want to give you the opportunity to develop it further, “Is it wrong to speak ill or critically of church leaders or of a talk they give in General Conference? Yes. How serious is speaking and writing against the leaders of the Church? Very serious.”

You give in support of the thesis and title of your article, a quote from Elder Dallin H. Oaks, “Criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward Church authorities, general or local. Jude condemns those who ‘speak evil of dignities.’ (Jude 1:8.) Evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed is in a class by itself. It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true. … When we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and His cause.”

You encounter people everyday leaving comments on your articles and your accompanying Facebook posts. You are actively engaged in online discussion, which leads me to Elder Bednar’s talk here at Education Week regarding the proper use and role of social media online. In what ways has that presentation effected you, in what ways might you change and in what ways did you find yourselves affirmed by his presentation?

 

Kathryn Skaggs is the founder and Angela Fallentine the co-founder of Mormon Women Stand, found at mormonwomenwomenstand.com.

 

 

Articles of Faith 13: Russell Stevenson FairMormon Conference Follow Up – Coming to Grips With Brigham Young and Race

by

Podcast: Download (39.0MB)

Subscribe: RSS

Russell Stevenson
Written by Russell Stevenson

That Brigham Young struggled with and eventually succumbed to racial insensitivities is an undisputed matter of the historical record. From the perspective of not a few nineteenth-century Americans, not to mention most anyone born in the last 50 years, Brigham Young peddled in racial rhetoric and promoted policies that bode poorly not only with our sensibilities but also with the spirit of the Book of Mormon: “All are alike unto God, both black and white, bond and free,” a vision established for the Saints in 1830, not 1978.

I view the races of mankind as fundamentally equal in privilege and love before God. Embracing the gospel as I do, I cannot believe otherwise. Few things bring me as much pain as reading that a man whom I want to revere could say things so far below his calling. So how can such a man be worthy of my respect, let alone my sustaining vote?

Were the Saints merely a product of their time? Perhaps. But so was Rees E. Price, a Mormon convert in Cincinnati in 1842 who had committed much of his time and resources to the absolute destruction of the slave system in America. Though he left the faith shortly after his baptism, he never left behind his principles that slavery was a blight so evil that he could not find words strong enough to condemn it. However much a radical he was, the Latter-day Saint message resonated with him and his anti-slavery principles. For Price, Mormonism need not be moderate on matters of race, however much Missouri had frightened Church leaders.

As I place the finishing touches on my forthcoming book, For the Cause of Righteousness, I have had occasion to reflect on how I view the man most closely associated with the priesthood restriction: Brigham Young. A man who succumbed to a weakness that the Saints are only beginning to overcome. Unlike Price, Young endorsed slavery, albeit with reservations. While politics likely played a role in Young’s support for it, he would have found himself in good company had he chosen to oppose it outright. How could Mormonism not only produce men with such differing ideologies but with one as its prophet and another as its apostate? Even by standards known and accessible in mid-nineteenth-century America, it is hard to explain away racial rhetoric when anti-slavery activists such as Price, William Lloyd Garrison, and Angelina Grimke were successfully meeting a much higher standard–––and paying a heavy price for it.

The meaning of the word sustain can provide some answers. Drawing from an old French root, sostenir, the word originally meant “to hold up, bear, suffer” or “endure.” It is noteworthy that sustenance also derives from a French term referring to “support [and] aid.” Webster’s 1828 dictionary defines it as “to bear; to uphold; to support; as a foundation sustains the superstructure; pillars.”

How have I worked through my support for Brigham Young? The dismissal of Brigham Young based on racism follows this line of logic:

1) Brigham Young said racially offensive things–––things worthy of our condemnation.

2) Brigham Young is no longer trustworthy as a prophet.

3) Prophetic authority is no longer trustworthy

Let’s look at these individually. 

1) Brigham Young said racially offensive things–––things worthy of our condemnation.

Yes, and we have a moral obligation to come to grips with it. For a fuller discussion of the details of this claim, please listen to FairMormon conference talk accompanying this blog post.

2) Brigham Young is no longer trustworthy as a prophet.

I endeavor to see everybody—living and dead alike—in the complicated way that God sees them. And people are complicated. Their motives elude us. We think we know who a person is, and then we learn that they are better—or worse—people than we ever considered them to be.

That tremendously talented people have deep-seated weakness is a familiar theme in literature. We even have a body part named after one: the Achilles’ heel, named after the part of Achilles’ body left untouched by the waters of the river Styx–––waters capable of rendering anything it touched invulnerable.  Why do we have such a difficult time accepting the notion today?

At this juncture, it is tempting to rattle off all the biblical figures who cast national aspersions on peoples (and they number not a few: Jonah, Peter, and even Paul, to name a meager few). But one should hope that mankind is a little bit more tolerant in 2014 than it was in first-century C.E. And given the hope and vision of my faith at the outset, I have no choice but to look at racial discrimination in its midst with a critical eye.

But was Brigham Young the one who started it all? As discussed in the presentation, Brigham Young tried to include a black priesthood holder, William McCary at Winter Quarters, in spite of the fact that he had married a white girl, Lucy Stanton, whose family was well-regarded (a taboo that could win a lynching in some places). After Brigham Young left Winter Quarters in early April, McCary experimented with (presumably unauthorized) polygamy, a social transgression that the already on-edge Winter Quarters Mormons could not abide. Word spread, and the Saints formed a mob to chase the McCarys out. It was in this context that local presiding officer Parley P. Pratt first declared that having Hamitic ancestry could disqualify a man (particularly McCary) from holding priesthood office. When Brigham Young returned that December, he learned of McCary’s offenses. Young’s jocularity warmth toward the young black man quickly soured. When he further heard of an interracial Mormon couple bearing a child in Massachusetts, his feelings descended into a kind of racial seizure. The meeting minutes reveal a man struggling with deeply-seated contradictions: a gospel vision he knew to be true versus entrenched views about the propriety of interracial couples bearing offspring.

But did not Brigham Young cite a revelation years later? In February 1852, he pointed to his position as prophet in declaring that African-Americans were not eligible to hold the priesthood. That he believed his statement to be inspired is certain; he knew well Joseph Smith’s comment that “a prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such” (Link).

We also have the fortune of knowing how revelation happens in this Church, and it’s a process Brigham Young had participated in as well (e.g. D&C 136). So whatever his beliefs or justification, he did not follow the standard protocol for ratifying his comments as a binding revelation upon the Saints. As Apostle Neil L. Andersen has said, true doctrine is found in statements approved by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles: “It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many” (Link). For the next six generations, the Saints could never quite decide what the priesthood restriction was about. Was it the curse of Cain? The curse of Ham? Premortal failures? Or maybe the Saints just didn’t know? Calling the priesthood ban revelatory is a claim that fails the Andersen test with flying colors. And, as President Dieter F. Uchtdorf has said so clearly, “[T]here have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine” (Link).

Complicating matters further is the role that Brigham Young’s fellow travelers played in developing the priesthood restriction. In many ways, modern Mormons have accepted the easy trope that Brigham Young ruled the Mormon people with total control, molding their thoughts, feelings, visions, and actions in every particular.

But there is a problem with this paradigm: its usable simplicity is more than overwhelmed by its inaccuracy. In other words, it isn’t true.

At the time Young was looking McCary in the eye as he promised him that he had a safe place in Mormonism in spite of the Saints’ flurry of racial epithets, Young was only beginning to win the full confidence of a community still mourning Joseph’s death. Even Young himself confided in other members that he might not ever live up to Joseph’s legacy. “I feel my weakness, my bitterness. I hurt in the Almighty,” he told his Brethren in May 1847. “I shall yet be a Mormon.”  Young struggled to keep the Saints on-board with his initiatives. When he tried to consolidate his control over the Saints in spring 1846, he felt it necessary to threaten those who resisted with a “slap of revelation” if they would not obey. But his efforts failed him when the Saints waffled on his initiative to head for the mountains in summer 1846 (Link).

That Brigham Young supported blacks holding the priesthood as late as March 1847 is a clearly documented point. So who made the shift first? Brigham Young was well on his way to the Great Basin while McCary was scandalizing the Saints. Apostles Parley P. Pratt and Orson Hyde both spoke of his sexual escapades as a point of high-profile spectacle. Those few who did support McCary–––and they were few indeed–––were considered low-browed. Hyde compared the sectarian James J. Strang favorably to them. At least Strang was an “honorable imposter.” Pratt (for the first time, incidentally) connected race to a priesthood restriction: “[T]his Black Man . . . has got the blood of Ham in him which linage was cursed as regards the Priesthood.” Perhaps, it was for the best, Hyde concluded, as it was “taking away the tares who were his kindred spirits.” McCary had so enraged the Saints from lay to leader that apostasy and dissent had been cast as cheap, low-browed “black religion” along the order of what McCary peddled. While Brigham Young was declaring the Great Basin to be “the place,” the Saints had worked themselves into a frenzy about eradicating the black influence from their midst. Whatever the depth of Brigham Young’s commitment to black inclusion in March 1847, it was more than overwhelmed by the collective action of the Pratt, Hyde, and others to ensure that blackness was rooted out of Zion. Though they no longer faced the racial politics of Missouri during which locals so readily associated them with the black population, they continued to deal with Missouri’s ghosts. McCary represented exactly the reason they had lost their homeland some fourteen years earlier, and they were not ready to forgive and forget.

It is a messy narrative, and a painfully human one. A prophet can only be a prophet when the people want prophecy and expansiveness. Prophethood is not the unlimited capacity to compel a people to the Lord’s will, no matter the circumstances. The Lord allows his children to wander in the wilderness when they refuse to accept the greater truths he has prepared for them. It’s the story of how generally good Saints allowed themselves to countenance the great sin of the age–––slavery–––in spite of their having started out with such a noble vision of racial equality in the kingdom of God. In the Saints’ push to survive in the racially-tumultuous waters of nineteenth-century America, they adopted the very prejudices their gospel vision was designed to protect against.

3) Prophetic authority is no longer trustworthy.

As a child, I sat in a seminary class where the teacher handed out brownies and watched us greedily devour them, only to have him tell us that he had put a cockroach in the mix. I had heard the schtick before, but those around me gagged in disgust. “But it was a small cockroach,” he assured us. “Why are you making such a big deal out of it?” It was a lesson on the media, of course, and intended to teach us that even a “little bit” of inappropriate material makes the whole film, book, or song undesirable.

But imagine if we actually made that a motto for life? Imagine if we discarded a man or woman because they had a little–––or, in some cases, more than a little–––dirt in them. It might be a colorful way of teaching about good media, but it’s also a good way to reinforce self-righteousness and intolerance of others’ weaknesses. It certainly wasn’t the approach Jesus Christ took when he rubbed shoulders with lepers and the poor. He certainly was willing to overlook the hatred that Simon the Zealot harbored (not to be confused with the Zealot party that arose in later years) for all things Roman. Jesus happily entrusted Matthew with responsibilities of the kingdom, even if Matthew, who collected taxes for the Romans, collaborated in the oppression Simon had committed his life to opposing. When Jesus commissioned these men to take the lead in establishing his kingdom on earth, both had considerable prejudices to grapple with. And when Jesus told the story of the Samaritan kind enough to care for the dying man by the road, he chose his characters strategically, knowing full well that his listeners would recoil at the thought of a Samaritan being anything other than a disgusting example of the ills of racial intermarriage. After all, when locals wanted to hurl an easy insult at Jesus, they simply asked, “Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?” (John 8:48) Though he lived by the standard of perfection, he worked with radicals and bureaucrats alike, despite their deep-seated flaws.

If we dismissed people based on such character flaws, imagine which luminaries we would need to ignore. If Reverend Ralph Abernathy and most reports are to be believed, Martin Luther King, Jr. had serious problem with marital fidelity. What’s more, he certainly plagiarized a large portion of his dissertation. Malcolm X had a penchant for violent rhetoric, but he helped the black community to articulate a more assertive voice after generations of oppression. Yet I would count them among the inspired leaders of their times in their part of the Lord’s vineyard.

Faithful members need not defend, excuse, ignore, or even deflect the racial thinking of our fathers, and it should pain us when we hear of it. But owning a deep-seated flaw in our past is a very different thing from trying to burn the Church to the ground. Our history can be not only a powerful story of faith, love, and triumph, but also, as Terryl Givens has said, a “troubling morality tale” that reveals “the need for eternal vigilance in negotiating a faith that must never be unmoored from humaneness.”

References:

Neil L. Andersen, “Trial of Your Faith,” October 2012 General Conference.

Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “Come, Join with Us,” October 2013 General Conference.

General Meeting Minutes, in Selected Collections from the Archives of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, DVD 18.

Joseph Smith, Journal, www.josephsmithpapers.org.

Russell Stevenson, Black Mormon: The Story of Elijah Ables (Afton, WY: PrintVision, 2013).

Russell Stevenson is the author of Black Mormon: The Story of Elijah Ables and For The Cause of Righteousness: A Global History of Blacks and Mormonism, 1830-2014 as well as several articles on race, sexuality, and politics in publications such as the Journal of Mormon History, Dialogue, and Oxford University Press’s American National Biography series.

Articles of Faith 12: David L. Paulsen: A Mother There – A Survey of Historical Teachings about Mother In Heaven

by

Podcast: Download (38.0MB)

Subscribe: RSS

 

David-Paulsen-BYUDavid L. Paulsen received an associates degree from Snow College in English in 1957, a bachelors degree from BYU in Political Science in 1961 (in which he was BYU’s valedictorian), a JD from the University of Chicago Law School in 1964, and a Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Michigan in 1975, with emphasis in the philosophy of religion. His doctoral dissertation, entitled The Comparative Coherency of Mormon (Finitistic) and Classical Theism, was said by two philosophers critical of LDS theology to be “by far the most detailed and comprehensive defense of Mormon theism.”

 

He is the author of an article in BYU Studies entitled: “A Mother There” A Survey of Historical Teachings about Mother in Heaven. Paulsen is married to Audrey Lucille Leer and has six children and eleven grandchildren. Recently returned from a mission with his wife to Iceland, welcome David L. Paulsen.

 

Questions and topics addressed in this interview:

 

Among your other articles is one that address an subject that is enigmatic for some, perhaps a rational conclusion for others. That is the subject and being of Heavenly Mother. We should give credit where credit is due. You had a research partner on this. Who is it, and what did they contribute?

 

“Penned in 1845 by Sister Eliza R. Snow (who would later serve as the Relief Society general president from December 18, 1867–December 5, 1887), these lines from our beloved hymn “O My Father” are perhaps the best-known reference in Latter-day Saint literature to a Mother in Heaven. Written and published within months of Joseph Smith’s death, these and other lines give considerable evidence that the Prophet taught of a Mother in Heaven, even if he did so only implicitly or restrictively to certain limited audiences.”

What is the earliest text that we have that mentions a heavenly mother, even if it is apocryphal?

 

Has anyone ever claimed to have had a vision of her?

 

There is a teaching that I have heard, and that is that we are not supposed to talk about our Heavenly Mother. It is too sacred to talk about. Where did that come from, and is there any substance to that concept? You refer to this in your article about, ““sacred” censorship.”

What might the warnings be with regard to a discussion of God Mother, or Heavenly Mother? Would worship be inappropriate and if so, why? Is she part of the Godhead?

As the song, Oh My Father, alludes, there has been a longing in the undercurrents of mormon thought for a connection to the feminine divine. How much of what we read is actual doctrine, official teachings of the church, vs. the longings and educated statements regarding who Heavenly Mother is, or if she exists?

There is also a notion that because God the Father and God the Mother are so unified that there is no need for distinction in holy writ or in our discourse as you cannot speak of one without speaking of the other. From what you have studied is our Heavenly Parents this androgynous concept of deity the dominant idea, or are there still some elements of individuality that each possess uniquely, but it is there combined effort that we experience?

 

The question arises with regard to Heavenly Mother’s involvement in our daily lives. The following is quote from President Harold B. Lee :

“Sometimes we think the whole job is up to us, forgetful that there are loved ones beyond our sight who are thinking about us and our children. We forget that we have a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother who are even more concerned, probably, than our earthly father and mother, and that influences from beyond are constantly working to try to help us when we do all we can.”

 

Elder Glenn L. Pace (First Quorum of the Seventy, October 3, 1992–October 2, 2010) at a 2010 BYU devotional: “Sisters, I testify that when you stand in front of your heavenly parents in those royal courts on high and you look into Her eyes and behold Her countenance, any question you ever had about the role of women in the kingdom will evaporate into the rich celestial air, because at that moment you will see standing directly in front of you, your divine nature and destiny.”

 

David L. Paulsen and Martin Pulido are the authors of “A Mother There” A Survey of Historical Teachings about Mother in Heaven.

 

 

Links from the episode:

Joseph Smith and The Problem of Evil – BYU Devotional

Are Christian’s Mormon?

Joseph Smith Challenges the Theological World

Article of Faith 11: Neal Rappleye – “War of Words and Tumult of Opinions”: The Battle for Joseph Smith’s Words in Book of Mormon Geography

by

Podcast: Download (47.2MB)

Subscribe: RSS

Neal Rappleye is a student at Utah Valley University working toward a BA in History with a minor in Political Science. He is a volunteer with FairMormon, an Editorial Consultant with Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture, and co-recipient of the 2013 John Taylor Defender of the Faith Award. His main research interests are the foundational events in early Latter-day Saint history and the ancient origins of the Book of Mormon. He blogs about Latter-day Saint topics at http://www.studioetquoquefide.com/

Here is a link to Neal Rappleye’s article in the Interpreter, click here.

Some of the questions addressed in this podcast:

Why does the geographic location of the Book of Mormon matter?

 

Book of Mormon geography. One of the few issues where it seems that there is as much disagreement or discord inside the church as there is outside. In fact, there is a quote that is found in the preface of the book by Thomas Stewart Fergson’s book entitled Cumorah Where? I am paraphrasing Elder John Widtsoe, “If we misconstrue geography of the Book of Mormon we may make an entirely consistent record, appear inconsistent with itself. Worthwhile persons may be dissuaded by our own errors.” Is Elder Widtsoe’s warning coming to pass?

 

Your article in The Interpreter addresses Book of Mormon geography, but not necessarily in the advancement of a particular theory, but rather deals with the review of John Lund’s works, even more specifically it deals with the contrast and rebuttal to the assertions of Rod Meldrum and his F.I.R.M. Foundation with their theory of the Heartland of America as the location of Book of Mormon events. I found myself wondering as I read the article, is this more a commentary on John Lund’s work, or an attack on Meldrum? I would love it if you would correct me on this issue. How would you describe your article?

 

Let’s get to some of the core arguments that have been put out there, or at least some of the one’s being disputed.

 

Prophetic Priority and Geographic Priority. What are these two methods with regards to Book of Mormon Geography and how are they in conflict with each other?

 

What were some of Lund’s conclusions that you disagreed with? Agreed with?

 

You gave a quote, from Matthew Roper who did some research for the Maxwell Institute regarding similar claims upon Joseph Smith’s authority. The quote concludes, “The preponderance of evidence does not support the claim that Joseph Smith’s revelations included details about Book of Mormon geography, but rather suggest that this, as with many other questions, was an issue in which Joseph Smith, as time allowed him to give it attention, followed the dictates of his own judgement and expressed his own opinion.” How does one come to that conclusion? How do we know what was revelation and what was Joseph just going through research of the day?

 

Stylometrics becomes another one of those interesting points where it seems to be a litmus test of your views on Book of Mormon Geography. Could you explain what Sylometrics are and how both sides of this issue have used it with regard to this issue?

 

Neal Rapplye is the author of the article “War of Words and Tumult of Opinions”: The Battle for Joseph Smith’s Words in Book of Mormon Geography found in the Interpreter at MormonInterpreter.com

Articles of Faith 10: S. Matthew Stearmer – A Reflection on the Cultural Construction of Sexual “Needs”

by

Podcast: Download (41.8MB)

Subscribe: RSS

stearmer_picMatt Stearmer is a Ph.D. Candidate of Sociology at The Ohio State University. His academic interests include social movements, gender, networks, public health and religion. His work has appeared in the Journal of Peace Research, and in a book titled Sex and World Peace. He currently serves as the first councilor in the Young Men’s Presidency. He and his partner Janille have four children ages 5-16. He is the author of an article entitled, A Reflection on the Cultural Construction of Sexual “Needs” in the journal SquareTwo found at SquareTwo.org Welcome S. Matthew Stearmer.

Questions addressed in the interview:

Your article is quite possibly one of the most potentially volatile mixes of topics; sex, and religion. Throw in politics and you will probably have a perfect recipe for social conflict cocktail. Let’s try and ease into a bit by maybe first addressing why sex in a religious or faith based context is either difficult or even contentious at times?

In your article you open with, “Recently, the topic of male sexuality, responsibility and faithfulness came up in a discussion among several LDS friends and co-workers.” First of all, I am glad to hear that even after this conversation you are still referring to them as friends and co-workers, not enemies….if one were to be a the proverbial fly on the wall in that discussion what would we have heard? What were some of the opinions that were injected in that conversation?

Is there a doctrine on this subject of marital intimacy? Responsibility of sex in the marriage? Your article asserts the following: “The central aim of the doctrine of the Restored Gospel is unity. Anything that divides us and creates hierarchy, especially between spouses, must be renounced for the evil it is.”

Your article presents another good quote, “The goal from a gospel perspective is not more sex, but more unity. Intimate sexual relationships between a husband and wife may be one means of getting there, but it is not the locus of the unified relationship.” The article makes the assumption, and there are probably statistics to make this a well founded assumption, that men see sex as a need, and women see responsibility as filling that need, as something to give up to their husbands. This paradigm, according to your article, leads to disunity. The next assumption, and maybe I am reading this wrong, is that this condition is far more universal than many may notice, even in temple sealed LDS marriages.

You give one such example of a couple who came to you for some counseling on the matter. Could you share that example?

There are three points that you feel is critical to having a healthy relationship, but one that actually falls in line with doctrinal precepts. Let’s go through those three:

– The first, sex is not intimacy.

– Second, even in marriage, sex does not necessarily lead to unity.

– Third, a focus on who “needed” what, and who did or did not get what they felt they “needed” from their spouse sexually, would have been an unnecessary, confusing, and further damaging approach to the problem being faced.

When one ventures into calling sex a spiritual or sacred thing, that can sometimes be a bit off putting, maybe even a mischaracterization. Here again, you face the idea head on with the article by making an assertion that placing sex as a “need” in a marriage is spiritually damning. How are these things connected?

This is even tied further to the idea that people who have committed sexual sins, either in or out of marriage covenants, seek to establish an excuse for their actions because sex was a need that was not being met.

This same idea is actually tied back to the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood. How is that?

S. Matthew Stearmer is author of the article A Reflection on the Cultural Construction of Sexual “Needs” in the journal SquareTwo found at SquareTwo.org Thank you for coming on.