As an example of this, I will use Lesson No. 5 in the current YW Lesson Manual 1, titled ”Finding Joy in our Divine Potential“.  Here is the stated objective of Lesson 5:

OBJECTIVE:  Each young woman will understand her divine potential and learn how to find joy in it. (emphasis added)

Clearly, a young woman’s “divine potential” (whatever that happens to be) is not something she would be happy with naturally.  The Church recognizes that she needs to be persuaded and taught, from a young age, how she can adjust her thinking to eventually feel okay about it.  

What is this “divine potential”?  Amazingly, despite the clear lesson objective stating that each young woman will understand it by the end of the lesson, the “divine potential” is not actually explained or defined in the lesson materials.   The only way for a young woman to understand her divine potential is to draw inferences from whatever is presented to her during the course of the lesson.   Here are some clues from the manual:

PREPARATION:

1. Invite an exemplary sister (preferably one who has married in the temple and has a family), who has been approved by priesthood advisers, to speak to the young women about the joy of being a woman.

2. You may invite a grandmother, mother, and young married woman, who have been approved by priesthood advisers, to briefly express the joys of womanhood they are presently experiencing.

3. If it is possible and you wish to do so, prepare a copy of the message from the Young Women general presidency [comprised of four women appointed and supervised by the President of the Church] for each class member and guest.

(emphasis and bracketed explanation added)

Note that the messages above are supposed to be delivered by women (i) who are married in the temple and/or have children, and (ii) who have been specifically approved by the priesthood (i.e., male) leaders.  Apparently, in the Church’s view, the only people qualified to teach about the “divine potential” of young women are married mothers who say what the local male church leaders want them to say.  So perhaps it’s fair to infer that a young woman’s “divine potential” is related to being temple married, having children, and being approved by the priesthood.

The message from the Young Women general presidency referred to in Item 3 above provides clues about how to obtain this elusive “divine potential”:

Our Heavenly Father knows…you. He has confidence and faith that you will use these years of preparation in being an obedient child of God who can be molded and shaped for the special mission and destiny he would have you fill. Pray always, know your Savior Jesus Christ, study the scriptures, and think of specific ways you can apply the teachings in your life. Live to be worthy of the blessings of the priesthood, be happy, and walk tall with joy and thanksgiving in the light of the gospel of Jesus Christ. (emphasis added)

So, a young woman’s “divine potential” is achieved through learning how to be an obedient child of God who is molded and shaped for whatever purpose God would have her fill.  To do this she should obey the teachings of Jesus Christ and “be worthy of the blessings of the priesthood.”  Of course, in practice, all of these things (i.e., God’s special purposes, Christ’s teachings, and her personal worthiness) are delivered, interpreted, and judged within the Church by male priesthood authorities.  Thus, a young woman will be on the path to realizing her “divine potential” when she obeys and defers to the men of the Church and is joyful and thankful in doing so.

It is no wonder that finding joy in being a young woman in the Church is an acquired skill.  The confidence and will that she was born with must be broken (i.e., “molded and shaped”) somehow, so the men of the Church can take control.

And that’s the end of this lesson.  The concept of a young woman’s “divine potential” is not analyzed or explained, but the means of reaching it (obedience and subservience), and the results of reaching it (joy) are directly spoon-fed to the girls.  As a result, they may walk away from the lesson not really knowing their “divine potential”, but they certainly do know that the Church expects them to be submissive and happy.

Note that there is no similar lesson in the YM curriculum.

-PWM

Example 1:  Elder Poelman’s View of Divine Love:

About a month after McConkie’s speech excoriating George Pace for promoting the concept of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, Elder Ronald E. Poelman, a fairly new member of the First Quorum of the Seventy (one level below the apostles in the Church hierarchy) gave an address in General Conference which appears to have been carefully worded to imply the existence of a personal relationship with the Lord, without crossing any of the lines that McConkie had drawn.  Elder Poelman’s talk included the following statement:

By disobeying the laws of God and breaking his commandments, we do offend him, we do estrange ourselves from him, and we don’t deserve his help and inspiration and strength. But God’s love for us transcends our transgressions.

–God’s Love for Us Transcends Our Transgressions, General Conference speech, delivered April 3, 1982

It’s possible that I am reading too much into Poelman’s choice of words in this talk, but I note that he used concepts commonly reserved for personal relationships, like “estranged”, “reconciled”, “God wants us to return to Him”, and “God’s love for us, his children”, without using the actual word “relationship”. He also used the words “Lord” and “God” interchangeably, blurring the line between “God the Father” and “Jesus Christ”, a line McConkie had been very careful to draw in his BYU smackdown speech. Poelman suggested a concept of God’s love that was like a parent’s love: liberal, unconditional, and independent of any sins or disobedience we may engage in. This concept effectively takes God’s love out of the control of the Church by removing the possibility that conditions could be placed upon it by Church authorities.

If George Pace’s experience is any indication, Elder Poelman was skating on thin ice with this concept. But would Poelman’s status as a General Authority of the Church (rather than a religious educator) save him from the harsh correction of the top leadership? Well, McConkie didn’t crucify him for the speech, if that’s what you’re wondering about.  Years later, however, Poelman’s concept of divine love as unconditional in nature was definitively superseded by a 2003 article written by Apostle Russell M. Nelson, which places God’s love back in control of the Church by explicitly conditioning it on obedience:

While divine love can be called perfect, infinite, enduring, and universal, it cannot correctly be characterized as unconditional.

***

Why is divine love conditional? Because God loves us and wants us to be happy. “Happiness is the object and design of our existence; and will be the end thereof, if we pursue the path that leads to it; and this path is virtue, uprightness, faithfulness, holiness, and keeping all the commandments of God.”¹

–”Divine Love”, Ensign, Feb 2003, p. 20 (emphasis added)

I’m not saying that Elder Nelson’s article was specifically prompted by Elder Poelman’s view of God’s love (I don’t think Poelman’s 1982 talk was especially influential in 2003), rather, Poelman’s view is symbolic of the very common belief among members of the LDS Church that God has unconditional love for them. They aspire to model their own love for others based on this unconditionality. The persistence of that belief is what, I think, prompted Elder Nelson’s article, which puts an official stamp of disapproval on the concept, reclaiming for the Church (and its leaders) its traditional place between the Latter-day Saints and God.

Example 2:  Elder Poelman’s View of the Gospel and the Church:

On October 7, 1984 (an appropriately Orwellian year), Ronald E. Poelman’s General Conference talk became the most famous casualty to date in the ongoing battle for control over the lifeblood of the Church.

His talk was titled “The Gospel and the Church”, and it was about recognizing distinctions between the Church and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Poelman emphasized, among other things, that following the Gospel makes members of the Church less dependent on the Church for fulfillment, and that concepts of Mormon “orthodoxy” and conformity should be founded on the eternal laws of God, like free (moral) agency, rather than the institutional Church.  Prior to publication and distribution of the talk (in print and video format) to members of the Church worldwide, the talk was drastically rewritten, and the new talk was refilmed (and spliced into the conference program tape as if originally delivered there).  The edited talk now focused on the harmonious “essential relationship” between the Church and the Gospel, and it emphasized the members’ dependence on the instruction of the Church and its leaders in order to correctly follow the Gospel.  The original version of the talk, as far as the Church was concerned, disappeared down the memory hole.

Fortunately, however, people had recorded the original television broadcast of the talk (see [Part 1] and [Part 2]), and in November 1984, when the Church published the altered version of the talk, people transcribed the original talk and compared the two versions.²  For a side-by-side comparision of the entire talk, Click Here.  Below are some highlights:

1)         Original quote (deletions marked):

As individually and collectively we increase our knowledge, acceptance, and application of gospel principles, we become less dependent on Church programs. Our lives become gospel centered.

Edited quote:

As individually and collectively we increase our knowledge, acceptance, and application of gospel principles, we can more effectively utilize the Church to make our lives more gospel centered.

2)        Original quote (deletions marked):

The conformity we require should be according to God’s standards.  The orthodoxy upon which we insist must be founded in fundamental principles and eternal law, including free agency and the divine uniqueness of the individual.

Edited quote:

Therefore, as we live the gospel and participate in the Church, the conformity we require of ourselves and of others should be according to God’s standards.  The orthodoxy upon which we insist must be founded in fundamental principles, eternal law, and direction given by those authorized in the Church.

3)        Original quote (deletions marked):

When we understand the difference between the gospel and the Church and the appropriate function of each in our daily lives, we are much more likely to do the right things for the right reasons.

Edited quote:

When we see the harmony between the gospel and the Church in our daily lives, we are much more likely to do the right things for the right reasons.

4)        Original quote (deletions marked):

Institutional discipline is replaced by self discipline.  Supervision is replaced by righteous initiative and a sense of divine accountability.

Edited quote:

We will exercise self discipline and righteous initiative guided by Church leaders and a sense of divine accountability.

The details of how a completely new version of Poelman’s talk came about are not publicly known, and it is doubtful that the folks involved in the censoring will ever explain what happened, as Elder Poelman was, and continues to be, a loyal General Authority of the Church.  Clearly, however, the edits made by the Church to Poelman’s talk demonstrate Church leaders’ insistence on asserting themselves into the middle of the relationship between Church members and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  By doing this, the Church leaders retain control over Hope, the lifeblood of the Church system.

-PWM

_________________________

1. As an aside, this statement quoted by Elder Nelson comes from a letter written by Joseph Smith to 19 year-old Nancy Rigdon, in an attempt to persuade her to be his secret polygamous bride, using the rationale that anything God commands is automatically moral and right. She was ultimately unconvinced, and showed the letter to her father, Sidney Rigdon (Joseph’s second-in-command). Joseph allegedly told Sidney that the letter had just been a test of his daughter’s virtue. The episode remains one of Joseph Smith’s creepiest alpha-maleish abuses of power.  With that context in mind, Elder Nelson’s use of the quote raises questions. What kind of “happiness” was Elder Nelson thinking of? The kind that comes only through fully submitting to the authority of Church leaders? Very clever, Russ.
2. The incident was reported in Sunstone Magazine.

In the early 1980’s, a BYU professor named George Pace had previously given speeches and written a book promoting the idea that people should “center their lives on Christ and…develop their own personal relationship with Him.” Even though Pace was simply echoing ideas recently taught in General Conference by then-apostle (and future First Presidency Counselor) James E. Faust, his “taking out the middle man” approach to interacting with the Savior prompted a humiliating public rebuke from Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, which included the following counsel:

The proper course for all of us is to stay in the mainstream of the Church. This is the Lord’s Church, and it is led by the spirit of inspiration, and the practice of the Church constitutes the interpretation of the scripture.

And you have never heard one of the First Presidency or the Twelve, who hold the keys of the kingdom, and who are appointed to see that we are not “tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine” (Ephesians 4:14)–you have never heard one of them advocate this excessive zeal that calls for gaining a so-called special and personal relationship with Christ.

***

I wonder if it is not part of Lucifer’s system to make people feel they are special friends of Jesus when in fact they are not following the normal and usual pattern of worship found in the true Church.

–Our Relationship with the Lord, BYU Devotional speech, delivered March 1, 1982

George Pace’s idea had (inadvertantly or not) removed the Church and those leaders “who hold the keys of the kingdom” from their position as mediators between Church members and the Savior, and in doing so, had given Church members a means of independently obtaining Hope, through their personal connection with Jesus Christ. Elder McConkie put Pace, and the rest of his Lucifer-inspired (possibly unintentional) populists in their place. In McConkie’s view, only the prophets and apostles have the right to a special or personal relationship with Christ. Only the prophets and apostles have the power to prescribe the proper way for mankind to approach God and obtain salvation.  Hope is managed and apportioned through them.

After McConkie’s rebuke, Pace apologized for his impertinence:

I mean to stay in the mainstream of the Church, urging any with whom I have influence to listen to the words of our leaders, to pray earnestly for guidance, and to grow spiritually in our capacity to be obedient to the will and mind of God for us, giving full and appropriate reverence to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

-PWM

____________________________

Despite early acceptance of black men into the LDS priesthood, the Church, beginning with Brigham Young in at least 1852 (and possibly earlier, with Joseph Smith), taught for more than 100 years that black people bore the Mark of Cain, which labeled them as a cursed and disfavored people in the eyes of God, and unable, therefore, to be part of the LDS priesthood. President Young said the following:

[A]ny man having one drop of the seed of [Cain] … in him cannot hold the priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spake it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ…

Recorded in the Diary of Wilford Woodruff, January 16, 1852

Later, in 1947, the First Presidency of the Church made the following official statement of LDS doctrine:

From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel.

Statement of The First Presidency on the Negro Question, July 17 1947, quoted in Mormonism and the Negro, pp.46-7

Two years later, the First Presidency again reiterated the doctrinal, non-policy nature of the ban:

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

The First Presidency on the Negro Question, 17 Aug. 1949

This LDS doctrine did not age well. The African-American Civil Rights Movement (which roiled the leadership of the Church¹) rolled forward , and the popularity of race discrimination began to wane. In the years prior to the Brown case, the Church attempted to officially explain its reasoning with respect to the racially discriminatory doctrine. In 1951, the First Presidency published the following statement:

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the pre-mortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality… Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes…

[The Church believes that] Man will be punished for his own sins and not for Adam’s transgression. If this is carried further, it would imply that the Negro is punished or allotted to a certain position on this earth, not because of Cain’s transgression, but came to earth through the loins of Cain because of his failure to achieve other stature in the spirit world.

Yes, the Church found itself in a hole created by its doctrine that got deeper and uglier over time. Finally, in 1978, about a decade after the assassination of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., the leaders of the Church felt that it was time for the Church to retire the doctrine. They did so through a letter, read in General Conference, announcing that all “worthy” males, regardless of race could now hold the priesthood.

In the years leading up to the change, Church leaders had made what appear to be efforts to begin preparing the Church for a change, characterizing the priesthood ban as a mere policy, even more vocally and clearly than they did with polygamy. As early as 1954, President David O. McKay was teaching that the priesthood ban was not doctrinal:

There is no doctrine in this church and there never was a doctrine in this church to the effect that the Negroes are under any kind of a divine curse.

We believe that we have scriptural precedent for withholding the priesthood from the Negro. It is a practice, not a doctrine and the practice will some day be changed. And that’s all there is to it.

Letter written by Dr. Sterling M. McMurrin, reported in the Salt Lake Tribune, January 15, 1970

In 1963, Apostle Spencer W. Kimball (who would be President of the Church at the time the ban was lifted) continued to blur the line between doctrine and policy:

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.

Kimball, Edward L., The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball. Bookcraft. p. 448–9

Today, Church leaders seem to lean more toward calling the priesthood ban a policy or practice that was changed, rather than a doctrine. Recently, Jeffrey R. Holland has said that, despite what his predecessors have said in the past, the status of the ban (as doctrine/policy/practice), and the reason(s) for the ban, are now (and perhaps have always been) unknown:²

I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. … They, I’m sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. …

At the very least, there should be no effort to perpetuate those efforts to explain why that doctrine existed. I think, to the extent that I know anything about it, as one of the newer and younger [apostles] to come along, … we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place.

Interview for The Mormons, PBS documentary, 2006

Holland may have just been following Gordon B. Hinckley’s lead:

Helmut Nemetschek (interviewer): Until 1978 no person of color attained the priesthood in your church. Why did it take so long to overcome the racism?

Gordon B. Hinckley: I don’t know. I don’t know. I can only say that. (long pause) But it’s here now.

Interview, ZDF German Television, January 29, 2002

Unlike the retirement of the polygamy doctrine, there hasn’t been an effort among leaders of the Church to rehabilitate, or reconcile the modern Church with, the LDS prophets who originated and promoted the priesthood ban doctrine.  This is probably for the best, given the frankly dispicable things that came out of their mouths during the ban. One Apostle’s response was to make an extremely rare exception to stare decisis and explicitly invoke a Brown-like overruling of the past prophets:

Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whoever 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.

Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, CES speech, All Are Alike Unto God, August 18, 1979

Gordon B. Hinckley’s most memorable statement on the topic seems to vaguely imply broad condemnation of his predecessors and even himself (though I don’t think the faithful heard it that way):³

Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ. How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?

General Priesthood Meeting speech, The Need for More Kindness, April 1, 2006

The LDS Priesthood ban has gone from a rock-solid, eternal doctrine of the Church, to something that may or may not be a doctrine, or a policy, or just some kind of practice of the Church. A few things are clear, however: From the current Church leaders’ perspectives, the priesthood ban was definitely a horrible thing, and they were thrilled that the Church discarded it (whatever type of rule it was), but in a big, cowardly nod to stare decisis, no leader of the Church has (1) openly repudiated the LDS prophets who were responsible for initiating and perpetuating it, or (2) claimed that the ban was not divinely mandated. And that’s where the issue stands today.⁴

-PWM

_____________________________________

1. See, e.g., D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power. Signature Books. p. 81, describing a struggle between Apostles Ezra Taft Benson and Hugh B. Brown over whether the Civil Rights Movement was part of a communist conspiracy to destroy the United States. Benson, who eventually became President of the Church (1984-94), was insistent (and taught publicly, including in General Conference addresses) that it was a conspiracy.
2. Interestingly, while I basically like Holland’s approach to explaining the issue, it certainly makes him look like he is just as lost as everybody else when it comes to this important topic. Unfortunately for him, he is officially a “special witness of Christ“, and he and his colleagues at the highest levels of Church leadership not only perpetuate the idea that they receive regular instruction from the resurrected Jesus Christ, they also declare to the world, twice a year, that they are “prophets, seers, and revelators“. Jeffrey Holland’s direct line to God doesn’t allow him to be as ignorant as everybody else.
   This illustrates the difficulty of his situation–it’s lose-lose for him. He can ignore stare decisis and disavow the bigotry, but if those dead prophets can be so wrong, what does that say about his own prophetic claims? He can also honor stare decisis, but that means honoring what most of America already thinks is morally and ethically wrong, and what does that say about his prophetic moral compass? He appears to have chosen the former for himself. (What do you expect him to do, deny altogether that he is a prophet who hangs out with Jesus? Yeah, right.  The type of people who end up in the position he is in are not the type who would ever voluntarily relinquish that power.  I would love him to prove me wrong, but he won’t.)
3. In the last sentence of this quote, Hinckley describes the whole Church, including himself, for the entire period prior to 1978, when the ban was lifted. It seems like a subtle statement that the ban was a huge mistake, driven by arrogance. If so, I totally agree with the sentiment, though not the passive, ineffective way it was delivered.
4. Note that this is not where the Mark of Cain doctrine stands now, just the priesthood ban.  The Mark of Cain (or Curse of Ham) doctrine itself–the underlying basis for the priesthood ban–has never been repudiated by the Church, probably because of stare decisis too.  Yeah, I think that’s a problem.  It makes lifting the ban much less meaningful, since the underlying beliefs remain racist.  In fact, it seems almost like the bare minimum a post-Civil Rights American church has to do to avoid being a pariah.  Kind of pisses me off, actually.  But I suppose that’s a topic for another post.

Every blessing we have is predicated upon a law. You break the law, the blessing is gone.

There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated— And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated. (D&C 130: 20-21)²

One must be intelligent not to confuse administrative actions with the Gospel of Jesus Christ (i.e. truth) in its purest mode. There is a different between administration of earthly issues, the Truth of the Gospel, and, and what I call the “Doctrine of the Culture,” that some people cling to instead of the doctrine.

As a Mormon, I struggled with the legalistic LDS belief that all blessings a person receives from God are actually dependent upon his or her obedience to a specific Law (or body of Laws) of Heaven.  The reason I struggled is that I could never pin down exactly what the Law was, despite the fact that I was desperate to follow it.  (That seems to be a common theme in the LDS Church.) I studied the teachings of Mormon prophets over the 150+ year life of the LDS Church and found that certain Laws (or doctrines) they emphasized as “eternal” and “fundamental” to God’s plan for humanity had changed over time.  This was very distressing to me, as I had been taught my whole life that God’s Laws are eternal and unchanging, because they are based on Truth, which is eternal.  I was taught that the doctrines of Mormonism embody the sum of those unchanging Laws.  Clearly, however, doctrines had been changing and evolving the whole time.³

Once I realized this was the case, the contradiction between reality and what I had been taught and always believed about the LDS Church caused me to lose much of my confidence in the Church as the one true organization of God on Earth. I tried to figure out ways to reconcile the contradictions, trying to make distinctions between them that allowed both to be true at the same time.  My mind was working in ways similar to Deep Throat above, conceptually separating “doctrine” and “Truth” from “Mormon culture” and “folklore” in an effort to define the consistent Laws in LDS teachings upon which all blessings are predicated.⁴  Despite my best efforts, I was largely unsuccessful at convincing myself that the contradictions weren’t really contradictions, and that there was a consistent Law of the Gospel buried in Mormon beliefs.

When the believers in my family learned of my confusion, they pulled all of the strings they could to get me some help.  They put me in contact with Max Anderson, an LDS apologist, who had published a book defending mainstream LDS beliefs by deconstructing Mormon Fundamentalist claims to divine authority.  Max and his wife were very kind to me, and they had me over to their house on several occasions to sit in their living room and talk through my concerns.  A few times, Max invited other apologists to join us and discuss issues they had researched.  These meetings presented me with various ways of parsing the contradictions so that they made more sense.

One meeting in particular really blew my mind.  At that meeting, Eldon Watson, who had compiled a book of Brigham Young’s writings, attempted the mindbending feat of explaining how everything Brigham Young taught is in harmony with mainstream LDS beliefs about the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  I was flabbergasted to learn that what made it all fit together for him was to draw a distinction between “LDS doctrine” and ”Truth”.  The key, he explained, is to understand that Truth is eternal and unchanging, but LDS doctrine is only an expression of the Church’s acknowledged beliefs at a specific moment in time.  Thus, LDS doctrine when Brigham Young was alive included polygamy as a requirement to get into the highest part of heaven, but current LDS doctrine does not.

This idea was shocking to me because, despite its (semi)effectiveness as a logical solution to the problem of contradiction in authoritative LDS teachings, the concept is clearly heretical.  All LDS Church leaders I know of, and regular members alike, have talked about LDS doctrine as embodying “the fullness of the Gospel”.  Any past changes have been carefully characterized as adding more previously unrevealed Truth to the doctrine, because Truth is what LDS doctrine is all about.  Watson was explaining that doctrine freely changes with the needs of the Church at the given moment–things that are Truth, like the divine nature of polygamy, can be taken out and disavowed.

I’m pretty sure that Watson, in offering up his idea, was mainly just trying to accommodate the fact that Church President Gordon B. Hinckley had recently blurted out, on international television, that polygamy is not doctrinal⁵ when it had clearly been doctrinal (though not always practiced) during the previous 100+ years of LDS Church existence.  I think, however, that drawing a distinction between doctrine and Truth is just an apologetic invention, and has never been part of Church teachings. As far as I know, President Brigham Young never made that distinction, and Apostle Boyd K. Packer (currently the next in line to be President of the Church) doesn’t seem to have gotten the memo either, because he has taught that Some things cannot be changed. Doctrine cannot be changed. And understandably so.  Malleable doctrine undermines the authority of Church leaders, because it means that at least sometimes what they teach is not the real Truth, and therefore need not be obeyed.  This is also the reason why Mormons almost never admit (with any specificity) that Church leaders make mistakes.  Changing doctrine is just a slow-motion mistake.

Funny, though, because now that I have apostatized, I agree with Elden Watson.

-PWM

_______________________

1. Yeah, the irony of an apparently straight-laced Mormon naming him or herself Deep Throat hasn’t escaped me.  I assume the name is referring somehow to the Watergate informant, rather than the classic porn movie from which the informant’s pseudonym was derived.  Then again, either reference is kind of random.
2. By the way, this section of the Doctrine & Covenants (which is LDS scripture on par with the Bible or the Book of Mormon) is a treasure trove of canonized Mormon oddities, like Joseph Smith’s unfulfilled prediction about growing unrest in the American South (that eventually developed into the Civil War) being a precursor to the second coming of Jesus Christ, his cautiously hedged prediction that Jesus Christ’s second coming would happen prior to his 85th birthday (1890), his explanation for why the Holy Ghost is incorporeal, his insight into the planets that God and the angels live on, his view of what the afterlife is generally like, and other fun stuff.  Definitely worth a read, since these things are part of the “meat” of the Gospel that Mormons don’t share with outsiders very often (the “milk” always comes first).
3. For example, the importance of polygamy in attaining the highest glory in the Celestial Kingdom, the meaning and importance of Doctrine & Covenants 89 (the “Word of Wisdom”), the role of Blood Atonement in the Gospel, the meaning and importance of Joseph Smith’s First Vision, the role of seer stones and other implements of folk magic in the Gospel, the role and meaning of race in determining worthiness to hold the Priesthood, the ancestral origins of the American Indians, the location of lands and people featured in Book of Mormon, the eternal and unchanging nature of LDS temple ceremonies and other Priesthood ordinances, etc.
4. I never went as far as Deep Throat has, however, in making distinctions between “administration of earthly issues” and “the Gospel of Jesus Christ (i.e. truth) in its purest mode”, probably because that contradicts the basic Mormon belief that God doesn’t give any exclusively “earthly” rules–they are all applicable to spiritual matters (see D& C 29:34-35).
5. Larry King: You condemn it [polygamy].

   Gordon B. Hinckley: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.

   –1998 Larry King interview of Gordon B. Hinckley, prophet and President of the LDS Church

By “civilly divorced”, I don’t mean to say that the divorce process was completed in a civil manner, without petty bickering (though I believe that is true). I mean they were legally divorced. Free, in the eyes of the state, to remarry and move on with their lives.

This is an important point, because their divorce was not fully recognized by the LDS Church. Their marriage in the temple was both a civil marriage and a religious marriage–a ritual (or “ordinance“) in which my mom and dad had been “sealed” to each other, not just “till death do [them] part”, but “for time and all eternity.” From the perspective of the LDS Church, they continued to be sealed together for eternity as husband and wife, despite the civil divorce.

I think there is a similar dynamic at play in Catholic “sacramental” marriages that end in divorce–the divorce isn’t recognized by the Catholic Church, and any remarriages occur with that in mind. In the Catholic Church, if the marriage is sacramental, neither of the divorcees will be married in the Church again. In the LDS Church, it’s a bit different. My parents’ story continues:

For those of you keeping score, in the eyes (and the records) of the LDS Church, my dad was now simultaneously eternally married to two living women, and both of those women were eternally married to my dad, and nobody else.

Around the year 2000, decades after my parents’ civil divorce, my mom’s new husband realized that in the Mormon world, she had been living as my dad’s “spiritual” wife the whole time. He was thoroughly creeped out, and very dismayed that there had been no “temple divorce”. He asked my mom to make sure that the temple divorce was made official, so she looked into it.

Surprisingly (to me, at least), the polygamous union was not just a record-keeping anomaly, and dissolving it wasn’t a mere formality that the Church could take care of right away. No, here is what had to happen for the Church to acknowledge that she was no longer my dad’s wife:

1. She had to obtain, from her local LDS bishop, an application form asking the First Presidency to cancel her sealing to my dad;
2. The application form required a letter from her, addressed to the First Presidency, explaining why she wanted to have the sealing canceled;
3. The application form also required a letter from my dad, also addressed to the First Presidency, agreeing to cancellation of the sealing;
4. The completed application could only be submitted for First Presidency review by the senior local ecclesiastical authority, the stake president, who was required to interview her and attach his own written approval before sending off the application.
5. The First Presidency, in its sole discretion, would decide whether or not to cancel the sealing.
6. She would receive written confirmation of the First Presidency’s decision.

To dissolve the polygamous sealing, my mom had to get the permission of not only five different leaders of the Church, but also her already remarried ex-husband. And it wasn’t a quick process. Step 6 was completed a full nine months from the time that my mom initiated Step 1 (and it was on the desk of the First Presidency for six of those months).

If, as President Gordon B. Hinckley (whose signature, incidentally, is on my mom’s sealing cancellation letter) once asserted, in the LDS Church the practice of polygamy is “not doctrinal”,¹ then what do we call the doctrine supporting the LDS Church practice of sealing my dad to both my mom and my stepmom?

-PWM

______________________

1. Larry King: You condemn it [polygamy].

   Gordon B. Hinckley: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.

   –1998 Larry King interview of Gordon B. Hinckley, prophet and President of the LDS Church

A very popular LDS scriptural example of this process is found in the Book of Mormon, in the story of a man called “the brother of Jared”, who lived at the time the Tower of Babel was built, and who was commanded by God to build a fleet of submersible ships to cross the ocean. The problem was that no light could reach the inside of the ships, and windows couldn’t be installed. The brother of Jared climbed a mountain and talked to the Lord about it :

23 And the Lord said unto the brother of Jared: What will ye that I should do that ye may have light in your vessels? For behold, ye cannot have windows, for they will be dashed in pieces; neither shall ye take fire with you, for ye shall not go by the light of fire.

25 …Therefore what will ye that I should prepare for you that ye may have light when ye are swallowed up in the depths of the sea?

See Book of Ether 2:23, 25

The brother of Jared then set out to answer the Lord’s question. His solution was to melt a rock (don’t ask me how) into 16 small stones that were as transparent as glass and ask the Lord to touch them and make them glow. The Lord obliged, and Jared had his solution to the problem :

2 For it came to pass after the Lord had prepared the stones which the brother of Jared had carried up into the mount, the brother of Jared came down out of the mount, and he did put forth the stones into the vessels which were prepared, one in each end thereof; and behold, they did give light unto the vessels.

3 And thus the Lord caused stones to shine in darkness, to give light unto men, women, and children, that they might not cross the great waters in darkness.

See Ether 6:2-3

Among Mormons, the brother of Jared story is considered a classic example of working with the Lord–and invoking his divine power–to solve real-world problems that might normally impede a person from doing the Lord’s will. The Covenanting with the Lord concept applies that process to missionary work in a fairly straightforward way. It should have worked–and I had a testimony that it would work, and was right for me–but it didn’t.

My Covenanting with the Lord missionary experience is not unique; it has been implemented in many missions, with similar results. Despite its universally spotty success record, the principles behind it are solid, mainstream Mormon beliefs about God’s way of working with people, so it is very hard for Mormons to reject. See, for example, this By Common Consent blog post, in which the author acknowledges the general failure of the concept in LDS missionary work, yet blames only abusive and “destructive” implementation (rather than a problem with the underlying concepts) for the failure, and expresses the belief that “when done out of personal volition [the program] does work”.

I don’t know precisely what he means by “personal volition”, but when I covenanted with the Lord, I felt like I was trying the program of my own volition (despite there being obvious external pressure to get results). I think I employed as much of my own volition as the brother of Jared did when all of his friends’ and family’s futures depended on him solving their lighting problem. I was a willing participant in the process.

Several commenters to the BCC blog post go further than the original poster does in trying to marginalize the Covenanting with the Lord concept. Some dismiss the entire premise and attack (criticize!) the judgment of the mission presidents and General Authorities of the Church who allow the program to resurface from time to time. The general critique is that “you can’t tell the Lord what to do”. Another recent BCC blog post adopts the pejorative descriptor “manipulationist” for people who subscribe to this mainstream LDS concept. The critique, however, misapprehends how the concept works–at least as I experienced it. The idea is to confirm, through the Holy Ghost, what criteria the Lord would have you follow in order to bind him in a personal covenant. Thus, the Lord isn’t being told what to do, rather, he is dictating the terms in essentially the same way that he does through any other divine covenanting process found in Mormonism.

Covenanting with the Lord is not “manipulation” of God, it is a test of the Mormon concept of the Holy Ghost as the messenger of God, and a person’s ability to communicate with the Holy Ghost. It tests the LDS concept of personal communication with God. That is the most interesting part to me.

-PWM

Jack Mormons, despite having left the Church, continue to view the world essentially through the lens of Mormonism, and maintain the essential beliefs of the mainstream LDS Church. They are basically orthodox (i.e., correct in their religious beliefs), but they are not orthoprax (i.e., correct in their religious practices). Jack Mormons and mainstream members of the LDS Church get along pretty well, because Jack Mormons confirm and support LDS religious beliefs; their only problem is failing to obey the rules. They agree that they aren’t doing what they are “supposed” to do, and they can often be coaxed back into participation.

Apostates are a different story. Apostates and mainstream members of the LDS Church generally have a much harder time getting along, because Apostates are often neither orthodox nor orthoprax–they have knowingly discarded the essential LDS paradigm and beliefs, and that is why they do not obey the rules. The dynamic of the relationship is different from the relationship with Jack Mormons–it’s not merely about participating (”active”) vs. non-participating (”inactive”) Mormons, it’s about believing vs. non-believing Mormons. When believing Mormons engage Apostates, they come dangerously close to questioning their own beliefs, and becoming Apostates themselves. Not surprisingly, the LDS Church openly demonizes and belittles people it considers to be Apostates, and teaches that they are covenant-breaking servants of Satan (see, for example, this 2007 adult Sunday school lesson, titled “Beware the Bitter Fruits of Apostasy”, which was recently presented in LDS congregations worldwide).

Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland recently publicly belittled people who don’t believe in the literal historicity of the Book of Mormon. He called them “foolish”, “misled”, and “deceived”, and derided their attempts to explain the origins of the Book of Mormon in naturalistic terms as “pathetic”. He likened people who leave the Church for intellectual reasons to insects or vermin of some sort who have to “crawl over, or under, or around the Book of Mormon to make that exit.” Jeffrey R. Holland apparently likes to pontificate about the awful fates and consequences that await intellectual dissenters from the Church (and their children). I wrote more about that here.

Obviously, if you want to leave, but still maintain relatively positive contact and open relationships with members of LDS communities, it is easier to be a Jack Mormon than to be an Apostate.

-PWM

I attended Brigham Young University, and within a few of years of fairly intense study there, I found that current LDS beliefs and practices didn’t match up with past LDS beliefs and practices, and that both the present and the past Church left much to be desired as God’s beacon of Truth, wisdom, and enlightenment. I graduated from “the Lord’s University” with a BA, a pregnant wife, a kid, and very little religious faith in Mormonism. I tried hard to find an explanation for the state of the LDS Church that could reassure me that God was involved somehow in running the show, but reassurance never came. I dealt with my severe disappointment by resolving to not take Mormonism so seriously, and to focus on the good that the LDS Church was about as a social institution, rather than its Truth, which I found had a tendency to crumble under scrutiny.

In spring of 2003, after I graduated from BYU, I listened to an address delivered by LDS Church Apostle Jeffery R. Holland, titled A Prayer for the Children. In it, he said:

I speak carefully and lovingly to any of the adults of the Church, parents or otherwise, who may be given to cynicism or skepticism, who in matters of whole-souled devotion always seem to hang back a little, who at the Church’s doctrinal campsite always like to pitch their tents out on the periphery of religious faith. To all such—whom we do love and wish were more comfortable camping nearer to us—I say, please be aware that the full price to be paid for such a stance does not always come due in your lifetime. No, sadly, some elements of this can be a kind of profligate national debt, with payments coming out of your children’s and grandchildren’s pockets in far more expensive ways than you ever intended it to be.

As friendly and gentle as Holland tried to make his words sound, the curse (or threat) they carried rang harshly in my ears. He was telling me that I must exchange my reticent skepticism and critical thinking for an outward show of “whole-souled devotion” to the LDS Church, or there would be hell to pay. I almost laughed when, a moment later, he declared that in the process of learning about the Gospel, “there is no place for coercion or manipulation, no place for intimidation or hypocrisy.” (Coulda fooled me, Jeffrey!) Over the course of his talk, Holland’s clear expectation of conformity at all costs marked the first (and not the last) time the rhetoric of an LDS Church leader rubbed me the wrong way. I was sincere in my skepticism; I had good reason for it. This Apostle was asking me to be insincere about my beliefs with my own children.

Hearing that manipulative pap from a man who was supposedly one of Jesus Christ’s key representatives on Earth was a monumental experience for me. It marked the moment that I realized there may no longer be a place for me at the LDS campfire, and I decided then to embrace my skepticism and critical thinking and set up camp at the periphery of Mormonism. And here I have remained, a poor wayfaring man of sorts, not really welcome in my own culture.

Who am I?

You might actually know me. I may have been an anonymous member of your ward, trying my best to blend into the background, biting my tongue in Sunday School, or maybe even serving in a bishopric. Don’t worry, even if I do happen to be living in your ward, I generally steer clear of the whole-souled devotees now. All of the inauthenticity I’m required to hide behind at church has made the LDS Sunday experience very tedious for me, so I prefer not to participate. But my wife and children still go to LDS Church meetings nearly every Sunday, and that keeps Mormonism on my mind.

You will probably hear more from me.

-PWM