I should have more posts here in the near future, but until then, please consider reading or watching my latest sermon ("Ambassadors of Another Kingdom"), preached this morning right before I was installed as the assistant pastor of my new church. 

Brief Thoughts on Ordain Women

A good LDS friend recently sent me a message inquiring for some of my thoughts on the Ordain Women movement, and in light of the recent furor surrounding the prospect of disciplinary action for the movement's leader Kate Kelly (as well as for John Dehlin of the Mormon Stories podcast and for Alan Rock Waterman of the Pure Mormonism blog), I figure this is as good a time as any to put forth some of my (fairly scatterbrained) thoughts on the subject.  (For the record, I have no real sympathy for Dehlin and am astonished that he didn't get excommunicated earlier; and I'm not familiar enough with Waterman to speak to the issue.  So far as I am aware, leadership of the Ordain Women movement is the only factor involved in the apostasy charges being pursuted against Kate Kelly, and that does not seem to meet a reasonable standard of what constitutes "apostasy".)  For what I'm sure is a more comprehensive and fair picture of the issues at play, my blogrolls contain a variety of LDS-related blogs that have produced an assortment of posts relating to the Ordain Women movement - some favorable, others unfavorable.

My friend's inquiry particularly concerned the comparisons being drawn by supporters of Ordain Women between (1) the current and longstanding ban on bestowing the LDS priesthood upon women and (2) the pre-1978 ban on bestowing the LDS priesthood upon people of certain ethnic backgrounds.  My friend notes some differences he sees between the two issues: first, on the grounds of the basis of the restriction; and second, on the grounds of the methods employed by opponents of each ban.

I think that the precise nature of the comparisons being made, and the point to their use, is pivotal to addressing this issue.  What is it about the pre-1978 priesthood ban that either offers precedent or else provides other factors of relevance to those who oppose the other priesthood ban that remains in effect to this day?  From what I have read so far by supporters of the Ordain Women movement, appeal to this comparison often enters as a defeater to an assortment of objections that their movement faces, whether these objections are expressly articulated or simply anticipated.

For instance, some dismiss Ordain Women simply because the group is critical of the current doctrine/policy regarding the sex-based priesthood ban.  However, there were faithful Latter-day Saints prior to 1978 who opposed the then-current doctrine/policy regarding the race-based priesthood ban - including members of the upper echelon of church leadership, such as First Presidency member Hugh B. Brown.  Furthermore, so far as can be discerned based on current discussion, the LDS Church has formally disavowed all previous teachings regarding the grounds for the race-based priesthood ban, leaving no conclusion but that, in spite of past defenses of that priesthood ban, it was ultimately groundless - and thus opposing it would have been the proper course at any stage.

Incidentally, I think this point is relevant for my friend's comments on a difference between the bans when it comes to the 'nature' or 'grounds' for the bans.  What the race-based priesthood ban, and the shifting theological perspectives surrounding it, show us today is this: although various theological justifications for the ban were once articulated at all levels of the LDS Church, these justifications have now been dismissed as faulty.  Thus, members of the Ordain Women movement may plausibly argue, there is precedent upon which they may rationally believe that, even in spite of theological justifications for the sex-based priesthood ban being currently articulated at all levels of the LDS Church, those justifications may one day be institutionally dismissed as having always been merely speculative.  Of course, the current state of affairs warrants that they interact with those justifications upon their merits in the present - but members of the Ordain Women movement, and their allies, do precisely that.

Really, I think that this point of comparison is what undercuts virtually every principle-based objection I've heard to the actions of the Ordain Women movement: that is, we live in an era in which there exists a precedent showing that a doctrine/policy of the Church that restricts the priesthood, no matter how universally held, no matter how great a length it has been enforced, no matter how it has been theologically justified, and no matter even if past church leaders have claimed it to be a matter of divine revelation, can nevertheless be overturned and be viewed retrospectively as unjustified.  (After all, even President Hinckley said in 1997 that it was possible that the sex-based priesthood ban would one day be overturned, though he thought that this would require a specific revelation - which had not been sought, merely because "there's no agitation for that".)  This creates theological space for dissent.

If a case against Ordain Women is to be made in terms of the position for which they advocate, then that case must be made by advancing positive reasons why women cannot and should not hold the priesthood - reasons that are more plausible than analogous reasons in support of the now-defunct race-based priesthood ban.  Interaction must be made with the rebuttals offered by Ordain Women and their allies.  The current prevailing strategy of institutionally marginalizing Ordain Women is not a strategy that will accomplish this, whether or not it might succeed in simply making disagreement (temporarily) go away. 

Moreover, Ordain Women's persistent request, as I understand it (at least, according to their own accounts), has been simply for the LDS leadership to devote considerable prayer to the issue, consulting the Lord for revelation, and get back to them with the specific outcome.  Contrary to some of the rhetoric by their opponents, this has been one of the significant tangible requests that they have been making - other than admittance into some of the same church meetings that I, as a non-LDS man, would be admitted.  Well, if a portion of the membership would like the Church's leadership to pray about something, why not pray about it and report the results, if the church in question is built upon the notion that we can receive fresh revelation for our day and age?

As for methods, it seems to me that Ordain Women has been relatively tame.  Given that the 'priesthood session' of General Conference is open to non-LDS men to attend, and given that the contents are now streamed online like the rest of the General Conference sessions, I fail to see any possible justification whatsoever from blocking them access.  (And, from a mere public relations perspective, one blogger presented a far more effective way that that event could have been handled by Ordain Women's institutional opponents.)  Other than simply being known to the LDS and non-LDS world - and I suspect that the media coverage of the disciplinary actions has given them a considerable publicity bump - what, precisely, have they done that is methodologically problematic?  There may well be something; I have no vested interest in saying that Ordain Women has handled the matter well.  (Indeed, any diverse and controversial movement is virtually guaranteed to make some methodological missteps, to say the least.)  But seldom have I seen critics of Ordain Women actually attempt to carefully document the alleged methodological oversteps in a convincing way.  Even more infrequently have critics of Ordain Women's methods offered alternative effective ways to seek to advocate for the changes they hope church leaders and members will make.

I can understand why some Latter-day Saints, even many Latter-day Saints, would not be sympathetic to Ordain Women's hopes.  I can understand why even some sympathetic Latter-day Saints would be less than comfortable with the methods (actual or perceived) employed by Ordain Women, or with the controversies that have ensued due to the apparent impasse.  For my own part, my sympathies do lie with the cause advocated by Ordain Women - even though, in many respects other than this particular issue, I'm likely to feel more kinship with Ordain Women's male and female LDS critics.  I'd like to see the LDS Church drop the restriction of priesthood to only the worthy male members.  Then again, I'm an Evangelical; there's plenty I'd like to see change in the LDS Church.  But even setting aside the question of the sex-based priesthood ban itself, setting aside anything that would require adjustments to LDS theology, there are still some matters where greater equity could be established between men and women within LDS culture. 

Short Announcements

I haven't posted here very much lately, as I've been rather busy with other matters.  I do have a list of posts I'd like to write up when I get the time, energy, and drive to do so, though.  (Some are further examinations of Evangelical and LDS teaching, while others are critical engagements with popular positions among the ex-LDS atheist communities.)  In the meantime, a few quick updates on what's been going on in my life:

• I've been spending most of my time lately - as always - reading.  I have a number of books to work through before I return them to the seminary library in mid-July, so I've been making them a fairly high priority.
• I have graduated, as of May 2014, from Asbury Theological Seminary with a Masters of Divinity (MDiv) degree.  It's been a long four-year journey!
• On 29 May 2014, at the National Conference of my denomination, I was given my preacher's license and my clergy membership card identifying me as a "licensed pastor".
• Starting in July, in addition to continuing in my current position teaching elementary-school children in a local Christian daycare, I will begin serving as the part-time assistant pastor of a small congregation out on the fringes of my home county, in the middle of heavy Amish territory.  (The horse-and-buggy nearly outnumbers the automobile on the road there!)  From what I've seen so far, it's a lovely community, and I've heard nothing but positive things about the church.  I strongly suspect that, as removed as the village is from any of the more urbanized areas, that I'm (sadly) rather unlikely to spot any LDS missionaries anywhere around!

"Cuttle Fish Hypocrisy": An LDS Article from 1900

The following article originally appeared as "Cuttle Fish Hypocrisy", Latter Day Saints Southern Star 2/24 (12 May 1900): 188. 

When the cuttle fish wishes to hide his true position it opens its spleen bag of black gall and squirts the inky substance into the water around it.  There are, in the so-called Christian world of the nineteenth century, a great many professed "preachers of righteousness," who take a delight (apparently so, from the numerous instances thereof,) in using the same methods, and going through the same manoeuvres as the cuttle fish, when they wish to turn the public mind against that system of religion erroneously known as "Mormonism."  This "cuttle fish hypocrisy" on the part of our good "Christian" friends is neither sound nor convincing.  Preachers may rant and rage about "Mormonism;" they may howl and storm from their lofty pulpits; but after they have foamed and frothed, and their boiling anger is somewhat cooled, they look down upon this strange, peculiar sect called "Mormons," and behold! they grow, increase, and multiply in numbers.  Let us reason for a few moments, Christian people, for we do not look down upon you with scorn, derision, contempt or hate.  No!  Our mission is one of peace and good will; our labor one of love, forgiveness, gentleness, and sweet charity.  You know the Lord says through His servant Isaiah, "Come now and let us reason together;" and, if the Father of all mercies will condescend to reason with His erring children on the earth, have we not the right, and should we not exercise the same, by reasoning among ourselves?  Yes! for "wisdom and reason make us men."  To reason then; would it not be a great deal better for Mr. Baptist to preach Baptistism; Mr. Methodist to preach Methodistism; than for either of them to fight against and endeavor to tear down "Mormonism?"  Yes!  And why?  For this reason: They are commanded by the Lamb of God to let their light shine, and in fighting "Mormonism" they are railing at what they suppose to be darkness, and not exhibiting the light they profess to possess.  As well might you shout to a man who is struggling in the deep, "You are drowning," and not throw out a life line, or buoy, or any other means by which he might be saved, as to rave and abuse the doctrines and teachings of "Mormonism" without casting forth your precious beams of holy light which you lay claim to have.  Why do modern Christians forever continue to slander the Mormon people, and fail to give reason or Scripture for so going?  It is simply this, they, like the cuttle-fish, are desirous of concealing themselves, they are anxious to have the minds of the people turned from the shallowness of their own systems, hence they belch forth wild anathemas against the Latter-day Saints, hiding themselves at the same time behind this sectarian fog of error, heresy, vile abuse, and misrepresentation.  They define "Mormonism" as being a system of lust, false, heinous, treacherous and vile.  Their definitions of the subject - Mormonism - puts us in mind of the student's answer, when asked by a zoological teacher, "What is a crab?"  The student's answer was this, "The crab is a red fish which moves backward."  "Very good," said the teacher, "your definition is correct but for three things.  First the crab is not a fish; second, it is not red; and thirdly, it does not move backwards."  So it is with those who would define for you, that "Mormonism" is a system of lust, vice, and fraud.  They are as far from knowing the truthfulness of what they speak, as the boy in the zoology department; i.e., they know nothing of its virtues, divinity, and praiseworthiness.  You cannot draw water from a dry well.  If the Christian world has light we shall expect them to produce the same, that we might walk in the paths of righteousness.  As yet they have failed to bring the light of the Holy Scriptures to bear upon us, but have gone astray from all righteous precedents, and have resorted to vile abuse, mob law, and scandalous reports.  These are the cogent arguments, the powerful reasonings, the spotless eloquence of those who pose as "Truth Reflectors" in the van of modern Christendom.  The mason generally uses the materials at hand for the erection of the structure he has contracted to build; so do preachers, therefore we are forced to admit that better material, sounder logic, more honorable eloquence, and God-like conduct are needed in the sects of distorted and turbulent Christendom today.  Brother, you can never build up your own church by striving to pull down one with kindred objects like as you profess to have.  If your own cannot stand on its miry foundation you should keep perfectly quiet and let it have an early and peaceful death.

Some questions and points for discussion:

1. This article features considerable invective toward mainstream Christianity, reflecting a long history of LDS polemics.  The author of this piece deems mainstream Christianity only a "so-called Christian world", suggesting by intimation that mainstream Christians are not really Christians after all.  Frequently, when some modern Christian critics of the LDS faith designate Latter-day Saints as non-Christian, however, this is taken as a highly intolerable offense to those Latter-day Saints.  Is it fair for modern Latter-day Saints to take this sort of offense, given (1) the long historical tradition of making the same accusation towards mainstream Christians and (2) the continuing LDS doctrines that analogously deny certain key soteriological benefits to mainstream Christians?
2. This article appears to portray mainstream Christian preachers as undertaking, as their primary task, the exclusively negative goal of scurrilously attacking the LDS faith.  Does this impression continue to have reverberations in the modern LDS mindset(s)?  In my own personal experience, I have never heard a negative reference to 'Mormonism' in a sermon by a modern mainstream Christian preacher, let alone a particularly scurrilous one.  I have, however, heard several very clear negative attacks on mainstream Christianity in talks delivered by a modern Latter-day Saint speaker over one of their "lofty pulpits". 
3. This article uses some particularly vivid images to describe the alleged general behavior of mainstream Christian preachers.  One such image is that of the cuttle-fish, which muddies the waters with other issues in order to distract from its own vulnerability; and this is contrasted with offering deep substance in terms of one's own "system of religion".  In a modern context, however, there is an increasing perception that these sorts of tactics are more to be associated with significant trends in the LDS faith: that the goal is never a real conjunction of clarity and depth, but rather the implications of many historical lines of LDS thought are dismissed as speculative, leaving only a relative theological "shallowness"; and, to distract from this, various rhetorical methods are utilized to move attention away from engaging substantively here.  Such is the perception, at least - and in my own experience, it has some quite unfortunate credibility.  Would it be fair to connect modern Mormonism with the cuttle-fish imagery?
4. One of the article's complaints is that mainstream Christian critics of Mormonism offer a factually inaccurate presentation of Mormonism.  Is this still generally or near-uniformly the case now?  In what specific ways do prominent mainstream Christian ministries misrepresent the LDS faith?  Conversely, I have repeatedly seen and heard misrepresentations of mainstream Christianity (both in terms of doctrine and practice) in LDS correlated manuals, the writings and speeches of LDS leaders, and conversations with LDS friends.  What dynamics might lead to LDS sources misrepresenting mainstream Christianity in these ways?
5. Another of the article's chief complaints is that mainstream Christian critics of Mormonism are exclusively negative but offer nothing positive of their own, no positive alternative to the LDS faith.  I cannot comment on what led the article's author to conclude this in his own era, but it is of course manifestly false in ours: Many leading mainstream Christian critics of Mormonism are not exclusively or even necessarily primarily negative, but rather are critiquing Mormonism chiefly as part-and-parcel of the task of offering a substantive alternative, usually some variety of Evangelical Protestant Christianity.  Just as preaching "Mormonism" in certain social contexts must necessarily include a negative attack on mainstream Christianity in general (for frequently, the alleged faults of mainstream Christianity was a key element in early LDS preaching and apologetics), so preaching "Methodistism" [sic] in certain social contexts must invariably include a negative apologetic against Mormonism - but this is not to reduce the message to a purely negative one.  So what is the holistic context in which a religious critique is a healthy endeavor?
6. Yet another of the article's chief complaints is that mainstream Christian critics of Mormonism were not making their case by invoking reason and Scripture.  The author explicitly lauds reasonable dialogue as a way of effecting a change in perspective.  The author faults mainstream Christian critics for "having failed to bring the light of the Holy Scriptures to bear upon us", for "fail[ing] to give reason or Scripture" as the prime element in their critique.  The clear implication seems to be that, once some other faults in the critique are remedied (on which, see the preceding two questions), a critique based on reason and Scripture would be fully above-board, and indeed would be in principle a commendable act in the sight of the God who invites us to reason with him.  Yet today, it is commonplace in modern Mormonism that appeals to reason or Scripture are viewed in a much more negative light, as contrasted with a fairly fideistic or subjectivist approach to religious truth in conjunction with private affective experiences.  Why this unhealthy change?  What would it look like if modern Mormonism were to embrace the legitimacy of giving and receiving critiques based on reason and Scripture?

The Father's Father, Worlds Aplenty, and Populating the Cosmos

I was recently alerted by Aaron Shafovaloff of Mormonism Research Ministry to an extremely fascinating article that appeared in an official LDS periodical 43 years ago.  The article was written by BYU professor Kent Nielsen, and is titled "People on Other Worlds".  It was published in the April 1971 issue of the New Era, and given its contents, I'm actually somewhat astonished that it still appears on LDS.org.  I include below a fairly brief and abridged snippet, but I urge you to go to where the article is found on LDS.org and read it for yourself in its entirety.  It is a considerably forthright exposition of the old cosmic expansiveness of the LDS message - a cosmic expansiveness that is largely downplayed for audiences today. 

---

When you look up to the heavens at night and see the countless numbers of stars, it is easy to imagine other people "out there" being tested and tried and experiencing struggles and joys somewhat similar to those we are going through.  [...]  The Prophet Joseph Smith taught:

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man. ... he was once a man like us ... God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth. ...

If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and ... God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. ... And where was there ever a father without first being a son? ... If Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also? ...

He [Jesus] laid down His life, and took it up, the same as His Father had done before.

Long before our God began his creations, he dwelt on a mortal world like ours, one of the creations that his Father had created for him and his brethren.  He, with many of his brethren, was obedient to the principles of the eternal gospel.  One among these, it is presumed, was a savior for them, and through him they obtained a resurrection and an exaltation on an eternal, celestial world.  Then they gained the power and godhood of their Father and were made heirs of all that he had, continuing his works and creating worlds of their own for their own posterity - the same as their Father had done before, and his Father, and his Father, and on and on.  [...]  Being joint-heirs of all that the Father has, we may then look forward to using those powers to organize still other worlds from the unorganized matter that exists throughout boundless space.  Creating other worlds, peopling them with our own eternal posterity, providing a savior for them, and making known to them the saving principles of the eternal gospel, that they may have the same experiences we are now having and be exalted with us in their turn - this is eternal life. 

"Nephite" Coinage in 1860 Colorado

I owe the following to Sandra Tanner, who turned my attention to the following brief but interesting piece originally published as "An Old Nephite Coin", The Deseret News 10/41 (12 December 1860): 321.  (As is not unusual, "interesting" in mid-nineteenth-century Utah has something to do with William W. Phelps.) 

---

Hon. George Peacock, of Manti, has exhibited in our office an old copper coin, recently found by some explorer or hunter on the Colorado river, on both sides of which are hieroglyphics or characters and Hebrew coin letters.  Not being one of the "learned," we submitted it to Professor Phelps, who has given us the following as a literal translation of the characters:

The King, Hagagadonihah, over the kingdom of the sea west, sends to all greeting: one senine.

On the other side - 

In the 95th year of the Kingdom of Christ, 9th year of my reign: Peace and life.

Mottoes: "Weapon to weapon:
               Life for life."

The coin is 1765 years old; and is evidently a Nephite Senine or farthing, as mentioned in the fifth chapter of second Nephi, in the Book of Mormon - English edition, page 517.  It is about the size of an English farthing.  The numerals are plain Arabic figures.

"Mormon Methods of Proselytizing": An 1899 Outsider View

The following article by Rev. W. W. Van Dusen of Union, Oregon, originally appeared as "Mormon Methods of Proselytizing", Christian Advocate 74/12 (23 March 1899): 450.  He gives some insight into how a local Methodist clergyman in the western United States viewed the LDS Church just before the turn of the twentieth century.

That the Church of the Latter-day Saints is exceedingly vigorous and enterprising, all who dwell in the region of the Rocky Mountains are aware.  It seems certain that this organization is fully determined to possess the land and its people, if we are to judge from the hard work and enthusiasm put forth by its propagandists.  When two of these begin to operate in a community with the design of obtaining a footing - and some such design is apparent sooner or later - they go about their labors in a manner which, in point of zeal, is commendable.  They are not the persons to go about as if they wished to avoid publicity, and to make converts of the weaker members of the society merely; but they go at their work as if they fully intended to at once capture the strongest and best.  The two "elders" are usually of pleasing manners, good address, and of appearance calculated to favorably impress all who converse with them; and their pockets are well padded with the cheap literature of their publishing house, which they freely bestow upon all who will accept it.

Two of these persons knocked at the parsonage door one afternoon, and introduced themselves as "Elders" So-and-so.  We admitted them, and determined to treat them as politely as we knew how.  Upon invitation they removed their overcoats, made themselves comfortable, and then the conversation began.  They were rather slow in coming at the real object of their visit, so we essayed our assistance with a question.  We inquired as to their success.  They in turn were very solicitous as to our success, the number of Methodists in the community, our church membership, and many other matters of like kind.  We determined to learn what we could from our callers, and soon asked as to their methods of operation in a new place.  They assured us that they were calling on every family, and stating their case to all who would listen, inviting all to come and hear their presentation of the Gospel at their place of preaching.  Then, with an air of surprise, we inquired if they visited Methodists or Presbyterians in this manner.  They replied, "Yes, we visit all, making no exceptions; we wish to treat all alike."  "But," I exclaimed, "when I visit in the interest of my Church I pass by families which I know are connected with other Churches; for I do not wish to proselyte or to appear to be proselyting, and I do not try to get members for the Methodist fold who belong elsewhere, for this does not seem right to me, and surely there are enough people outside of the Churches to work upon.  How is it that you do not proceed upon this idea?"

They then politely explained that they did not wish to slight any, but rather give all the opportunity of coming to the truth, although they did not design to work an injury to other Churches in any sense.  They even told me of certain Methodist preachers (?) with whom they had worked in harmony, and with satisfactory results to all concerned.  Their spirit of fraternity was admirable.  I was thirsting for knowledge, so I begged leave to ask a few further questions.  "How do you look upon Methodists, Presbyterians, and people of similar Churches, as related to the kingdom of God?" I inquired.  "Well, we look upon them as not yet having come to the truth," was the frank and ready response.  "Do you class them with infidels?" we asked.  "No, not exactly, but yet as those who do not believe the truth as revealed."  Then we saw that with this faith they were consistent in their methods of visitation.  Next we inquired as to their faith in polygamy, and drew from them that they held to the divine right of men to live in a state of plural marriage, but that they did not now practice this faith, as they were determined to obey the laws of the nation.  They were very emphatic in their avowals of absolute loyalty to the laws of the land.  They scouted the idea that there were any persons in Utah now living in polygamy.  They were quite sure that the reports concerning Congressman-elect Roberts, of Utah, wherein he is charged with having several wives, are all base slanders, gotten up by designing Gentiles.  They maintained that their Church is taking advanced ground on the temperance question, but did not appear to enjoy close or searching questions on the subject, and they impressed us with the idea that they thought we were asking some questions not solely for information.

They claimed to accept the teachings of the Bible and the Book of Mormon as of equal authority, and without exception any part of either book.  They were very sure the Book of Mormon is as clearly authenticated as is the Bible, and is entitled to as great consideration.  We quoted Paul as insisting that a bishop shall be the husband of one wife, and asked for a reconciliation of this Bible injunction with the Mormon idea of plural marriage.  We could hardly conceal our amusement at the attempted explanation, which was simply that Paul said "one wife," but did not say "one only," and hence a bishop might have more wives if he saw fit.  We commended them as adepts in the "twisting art," and they did not appear to be pleased.  We parted, however, as friends should, they politely inviting me to attend their services, as they had been fraternal enough to attend mine.

Their earnestness, politeness of manners, apparent faith in their doctrines and system, and their kindly appeals for a fair hearing commend them to some, and their success is thus achieved with that large class which constantly runs after some new thing and apparently enjoys being deceived.

A few brief questions for discussion:

1. Recently, I posted another late-19th-century article from the Christian Advocate in which a different local clergyman comments on LDS missionary efforts.  How do Rev. Van Dusen's perceptions compare to Rev. Anksworth's perceptions?  Where are they similar, and where are they different?
2. What similarities and differences are there (in style, in approach, in attitude, in belief, etc.) between the LDS missionaries portrayed in Rev. Van Dusen's article and modern-day LDS missionaries? 
3. How does Rev. Van Dusen appear to be defining "proselytism"?  
4. How would you assess, in modern terms, the evaluation that these LDS missionaries gave of mainstream Christianity?  In what ways is their assessment similar or dissimilar to common assessments of the LDS faith by mainstream Christians, or to common modern assessments of mainstream Christianity by Latter-day Saints?  
5. To what extent does the encounter described in this article model fair and substantive interfaith dialogue?