During a recent conversation with a current LDS bishop I mentioned how much I disliked the MTC as a young missionary. I explained how difficult it was for me to be surrounded by the kinds of impatient and intolerant kids that make up the missionary force. I heard horribly sexist conversations on a regular basis, endless trash talking of other religions, racist jokes and attitudes, bragging about idiotic things, macho confrontations, materialistic life goals, egotistical ambitions to climb the missionary leadership ladder, etc. It was disheartening for me, a slightly less sexist, less racist, less materialistic, less boastful, but still wholly argumentative and egotistical missionary.
The bishop's response to my complaint came without hesitation: THAT'S WHAT YOU FIND AT EVERY LEVEL. He explained that with every higher position attained the same horrible attitudes can be found and at no point are you likely to reach a level of LDS Church leadership where disgusting and horrible men have been weeded out. The idea of walking with spiritual giants as you climb the hierarchy is a myth.
In other words, the cream doesn't seem to be rising to the top... Should we be worried?
I'm reading the Church Education System's manual for temple preparation and adding my two cents. Text found here.
Objective
“I
will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon
precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who
hearken unto my precepts” (2 Nephi 28:30). Heavenly Father is the king of mystery. He's a bit like Moriarty in Sherlock only letting us know enough to keep himself entertained.
To help class members understand and appreciate the use of symbols in the temple. Symbols like the majestically phallic spire, upon which Moroni wraps his lips around God's trumpet. Absolutely beautiful.
Preparation
Bring a flag of your country or a picture of your country’s flag.
Ask a class member to summarize the story of how one of the
Brethren answered a question about temple garments. The story is found
on pages 20–21 and 23 of Preparing to Enter the Holy Temple. This is the story of some dumbfuck hypocrite Protestant chaplin assface who thought garments were "strange" even though he himself was wearing some weirdass clerical getup. It's symbolic, shithead! Duh! I can't stand people prying into my underwear drawer.
Note
to teacher: Temple ordinances and covenants are sacred, and discussion
about them is primarily limited to within the temple. Therefore, class
discussion should be limited to the explanations given in this manual. In other words, your temple experience and insight isn't needed for this lesson. You're here just to make sure these kids hear these non-explanatory explanations because we sure as hell can't trust them to read this material on their own.
Lesson Presentation
Ask
class members if they have any questions. I have one! Um, why are we taking this class on temple symbolism when the instructions say we can't really discuss the symbolism of the temple? At what point do we actually talk about all the symbols in the temple? I've been through many times and can tell you that the symbols covered in the endowment are pretty unimpressive. The green apron with fig leaf designs that you wear represents the fig leaves Adam and Eve used to cover their uglies. The white clothing represents purity (dark = dirty and yucky). The handshake where you place the tip of your index on the other person's wrist represents the nails put in Jesus' wrists. Is that supposed to be deep? And what about all the symbols that aren't discussed here or in the endowment or any other ceremony? Does anyone ever check with us to see if we noticed them and interpreted them correctly? No, because they don't matter. All that matters is that you convince yourself that you're learning and growing closer to God. Take the time required to
answer questions to the best of your ability and as guided by the Lord’s
Spirit. On second thought, just act sweet and stick to the script below. Remember that some aspects of temple work must not be discussed
outside the temple. If you, dear teacher, tell them something secret, we will stick you in nursery for at least a decade. Keep your lips sealed.
Symbols Are Important in Our Daily Lives
Explain
that symbols are used constantly in our everyday lives. Draw the
following or other appropriate symbols on the chalkboard. Ask the class
members to describe what each symbol means.
Jew. Medical help. Something is not allowed.
Show the class your country’s flag or a picture of the flag and ask them to describe what the flag means to them. Rebellion, war, nationalism, imperialism, oppression and optimism.
What are some other objects or
some actions that show patriotism? (A song, a uniform, a piece of
clothing, a holiday, or a celebration.) This is the kind of exercise that breeds "artists" like Jon McNaughton.
Point out that these are symbols that stand for or represent patriotism. Of course they are, that's exactly what you asked the students to list. They came up with whatever symbols they came up with precisely because they thought they were patriotic.
What are some symbols for love and respect? (A gift or a ring, a kiss or an embrace, a heart shape.) A dick in a box?
Do symbols convey the same message to all people? No. Why or why not? 'Cause we're all different and understand things differently, if at all.
Why do we use symbols? They're wonderfully brief and often quite memorable.
Let the class members discuss. They may suggest ideas such as the following:
Symbols can help us remember important things. Like how the cross helps some people remember that Jesus supposedly died for each of them personally.
Symbols can teach us abstract truths that might be hard to learn in other ways. Like how the Taoist yin and yang teach the cyclic nature of all things.
Symbols can represent feelings. Like emoticons!
Symbols can teach different principles according to our personal readiness to learn. What student would ever say this? Symbols don't teach on their own, instead we are taught to understand symbols. No one will understand the symbols already discussed in the lesson (Star of David, medical cross, prohibited circle, national flag) without first having had them explained to them. When teaching someone to read do we just give them a dictionary and tell them they'll sort it out with time? No. They will not learn understand the letters, words and function of the dictionary without an appropriate amount of training. SYMBOLS DON'T TEACH PEOPLE, PEOPLE TEACH SYMBOLS.
Explain that when the symbols are repeated, we learn to understand them better. Not necessarily. The more the symbols are analyzed and discussed the more we're likely to understand them. Mere repetition is nothing more than busywork.
Jesus Christ and His Prophets Used Symbols
Explain that the Savior repeatedly used symbols when He taught.
What are some instances in which the Lord taught by using symbols? Let's just look at your examples...
The class members may mention such things as lost sheep (see Matthew 18:12–14); a mustard seed (see Matthew 13:31–32); or a pearl of great price (see Matthew 13:45–46). Christopher Hitchens shared the opinion of my grandmother that no one should be flattered by being compared to a sheep. I think the mustard seed lesson is inaccurate at best. I also think it's a little demeaning of people to refer to them as swine who can't appreciate the importance of something.
Why do you think the Savior used symbols when He taught? His hyperbolic teachings make an impression on us and are easy to remember.
Let the class members discuss. Then review the following statement:
“The
Lord Himself, the Master Teacher, in His own teaching to His disciples
taught constantly in parables, a verbal way to represent symbolically
things that might otherwise be difficult to understand. Sure, little stories can be easy to remember, but the message is often lost. As I recall he sometimes taught in parables to keep people in ignorance. He talked of the
common experiences drawn from the lives of His disciples, and He told
of hens and chickens, birds, flowers, foxes, trees, burglars,
highwaymen, sunsets, the rich and the poor. … He talked of the mustard
seed, of the pearl. But he never once threw in Masonic symbols for the simple fact that Freemasonry wouldn't exist for anther millennium and a half. He wanted to teach His hearers, so He talked of
simple things in a symbolic sense. But he never used Masonic symbols. None of these things is mysterious or
obscure, and all of them are symbolic” (Preparing to Enter the Holy Temple, 8). So how is it that everyone
understands Jesus' parables differently? If they were so clear and
straight forward all of Christianity would interpret them the same way. Are you absolutely sure Jesus avoided being
obscure?
Explain
that the prophets and apostles often used symbols to teach of Jesus
Christ and His atoning sacrifice. Many of these "symbolic" teachings can be quite offensive (like telling a girl she's a licked cupcake, ABC chewing gum, or a wilted rose if she ever let's someone touch her) or fail to bear the weight of careful analysis (Alma's seed of faith experiment, for example, proves that faith in the Church is as much a bad seed as a good seed). The Atonement of Jesus Christ is the
basis of the gospel and of all the blessings we receive. It makes
salvation possible. Therefore, most of the symbols in the scriptures
teach us about the Savior and His sacrifice. I'm not sold on the atonement, but stories about forgiveness are probably a good thing.
Ask the class members to read Moses 6:63. This is why we're blessed to see Jesus in toast.
What things in the earth bear record of the Savior? Footprints? Does he have a footprint or two out there somewhere?
In what ways do priesthood ordinances bear record of the Savior? I think after reading the preceding verses that something about paying tithing to high priests supposedly resembles Jesus. You might want to pick a clearer scripture.
Point
out that before the Savior carried out the Atonement, His covenant
people sacrificed animals as a symbol of His atoning sacrifice (see Moses 5:4–8). Totally! All that animal slaughter was insane! That practice ended with the Savior’s death and Resurrection. That's right. You're not going to top killing a the son of God! But why did God create a system that requires corporal and capitol punishment? I suppose he, like the rest of us, has his preferences. Now the Lord commands us to “offer for a sacrifice unto [Him] a broken heart and a contrite spirit” (3 Nephi 9:20). The blood lust days are over. And priesthood ordinances continue to help us remember the Savior’s atoning sacrifice. Only if we teach explicitly why those ordinances are designed to help us remember. The sacrament prayers spell it out very nicely, but I'm not so sure about other ordinances. Elder Russell M. Nelson taught:
“Essential ordinances of the gospel symbolize the Atonement. Baptism by immersion is symbolic of the death, burial, and Resurrection of the Redeemer. Partaking of the sacrament
renews baptismal covenants and also renews our memory of the Savior’s
broken flesh and of the blood He shed for us. Ordinances of the temple
symbolize our reconciliation with the Lord and seal families together
forever” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1996, 47; or Ensign, Nov. 1996, 35). Please explain what that symbolic reconciliation looks like and please stop misinterpreting Jesus' stance on marriage.
Symbols Teach Us Truth If We Are Spiritually Sensitive
Explain
that when the Savior lived on earth, His disciples asked Him why He
taught with parables. Parables are stories that teach important truths,
often using symbolic language. Let's just say they're very short morally didactic stories. The "important truths" bit isn't really part of the definition and "symbolic language" is meaninglessly redundant. Have the class members read Matthew 13:10–12 to learn what the Savior said.
What do you think the Savior meant when He said this? I think he was saying "suck my dick!" to everyone who didn't understand the morals of his stories.
Explain
that the Lord reveals truth to those who are spiritually ready to
understand it. So if you find that you're not learning anything in the temple, remember it's your fault. Those who receive truth with faith and obedience continue
to receive more truth. But no one ever talks about their new found understanding of deep truths. Members who try are typically viewed as fringy and weird. Top Church leaders avoid addressing such half-cocked temple revelations among the general membership and they never share their own amazing insights. In the end we simply assume that everyone who attends the temple regularly is learning amazing stuff through the spirit even though we ourselves are not. Those who are not spiritually prepared and who
fail to receive truth or receive it with a doubtful heart will gradually
lose the truth they have. Put in other words, those who see through the bullshit end up distancing themselves from the charade and sticking with reality.
Stories
with symbols present truth in such a way that those who are spiritually
prepared understand the meaning of the symbols. Once again, symbols do not teach, they are taught. Those who are not
prepared do not understand the meaning. Preparation for the use of symbols takes the form of education on what the symbol is and how it should be used. We don't see symbols and accurately interpret them without some background training in what to look for.
Either no one should be dressed like this or everyone should be tied up. I'm not sure.
Some
people in the Savior’s time understood the messages of His parables,
but many did not. Because they were at times intentionally unclear. The same is true today. Very true. People today still don't understand Jesus' parables. Take Mormons for example. They think the parable of the talents has to do with playing a musical instrument or playing a sport exceptionally well. Those are the wrong talents, brothers and sisters. There are many levels of
spiritual understanding among righteous members of the Church. I'd go so far as to say that no two members believe the same things. Everyone has their own church and their own gospel and there's nothing correlation can do about it.
What do these scriptures teach about how we learn truth from God? The first one teaches us that God's a stingy bastard when it comes to giving us knowledge leaking it only a tiny trickle at a time to his star students, and the second reminds us that a sucker is born every day and that we shouldn't be too gullible. It reminds me of how Joseph was given revelations about Kolob and how way too many people believed him and continue to believe in that bogus astronomy.
Explain
that it is possible for all of us to develop spiritually to a level
where we can understand the meaning of symbols used in the gospel, in
the scriptures, and especially in the temple. This feels like you're just trying to bait your students into going to the temple. You sell the idea that there's a lot of learning to be done in the temple and imply that that learning cannot happen elsewhere. I don't think that's true, but more importantly I think you need to clarify what you mean when you talk of knowledge. How are you distinguishing "spiritual" knowledge from just plain old knowledge? What makes them different and is one better than the other somehow? Can you explain your take on epistemology for us?
The Most Sacred Symbolic Teachings Are Received in the Temple
Explain
that the most sacred symbolic teachings on earth are received in the
temple. Wow, that's quite a high standard your setting! In a symbolic way, the teachings and rituals of the temple take
us on an upward journey toward eternal life, ending with a symbolic
entrance into the presence of God. Yes, kids, you start out in the Creation Room and then, if you're in a live session (which you most likely won't be) you'll move to other rooms, eventually ending up walking through a white curtain into the Celestial Room. It's very symbolic in an over the top sort of way. The characters depicted, the physical
setting, the clothing worn, the signs given, and all the events covered
in the temple are symbolic. You'll be quasi-participants in a religious play. There's a lot of make believing. When they are understood, they will help
each person recognize truth and grow spiritually. The "physical setting" are rooms with murals of planets and oceans and animals and stuff, the clothing is goofy as shit (God has horrible taste), the signs are pulled from Freemasonry, and the events are banal. Unless you're slow, you'll figure everything out almost instantly, then you'll get bored out of your brain in all future sessions. But, who knows why, you'll always say that you had an amazing trip to the temple.
“All
things have their likeness, and all things are created and made to bear
record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are
spiritual” (Moses 6:63). Like electric eels? How about silicon computer chips?
Some of the symbols are straightforward, and the meaning is readily apparent. Like what? The temple itself is a symbol:
“If
you have seen one of the temples at night, fully lighted, you know what
an impressive sight that can be. It is very clearly a phallic symbol showing wealth and power. The house of the Lord, bathed in
light, standing out in the darkness, becomes symbolic of the power and
the inspiration of the gospel of Jesus Christ standing as a beacon in a
world that sinks ever further into spiritual darkness” (Preparing to Enter the Holy Temple, 10). The world is sinking "ever further into spiritual darkness"? REALLY?
We have more people than ever fighting against slavery, against racism,
sexism, and various other forms of inequality. We have developed the
science to save countless lives thanks to surgeries and effective
medications. We have very large nations working to protect their
citizens and working together to keep war at bay. The scriptures and our modern prophets offer none of these improvements. Please take your
fear mongering and shove it up your ass.
The
temple clothing is also symbolic. It's symbolic of human idiocy, a lot like the emperor's new clothes. When we enter the temple, we change
from street clothes into white temple clothing, which is a symbol of
purity. White = good, dark = bad. Yes, we do like to think in black and white terms. President James E. Faust said:
“Fundamental to temple worship is the principle that ‘God is no respecter of persons.’ [Acts 10:34.]
But we still thought it was a good idea to ban blacks from the priesthood and the temple anyway. We also think it's a good idea to keep women in the home. And let's be honest, we're pretty sure God want's us to make life difficult for homosexuals. Within the hallowed walls of the temples, there is no preference of
position, wealth, status, race, or education. Correct. Race has been on that list since 1978 and maybe someday the Church will at sex, gender and sexuality to the list as well. All dress in white. Men get powerful baker's hats and women get TO VEIL THEIR FACES! All
receive the same instruction. Mostly. Women get some modified instruction that subjects them to their husbands. All make the same covenants and promises.
All men make the same covenants and all women make the same covenants, but men and women do not make the exact same covenants. All receive the same transcendent, eternal blessings if they live worthy
to claim them. Kind of. Men get to become kings and priests and women queens and priestesses. Historically kings ruled over their queens and we have no idea what a priestess even does according to Mormon doctrine. All are equal before their Creator” But not so equal in the temple. (in Conference
Report, Apr. 1997, 23; or Ensign, May 1997, 20).
Explain
that members who receive temple ordinances and make covenants with God
wear special garments (underclothing) throughout the rest of their
lives. They look like t-shirts and long boxer briefs. Now. A hundred years ago they were more like white long johns. You'll be asked to put them on underneath a white poncho thing called a "shield" and then you'll sit in a chair while someone you've probably never met will recite some secret prayers and pretend to touch various parts of your body. Read this. Read the following statement:
“The
garment represents sacred covenants. They're supposed to be like the lamb skins God made for Adam and Eve after finding them wearing fig leaves. I bet those were some pretty sweet threads! It fosters modesty and becomes a
shield and protection to the wearer. It also fosters the kind of sexual repression that gets you excited about bare shoulders. The "protection" mentioned here is not guaranteed. You'll still want to have dirty sex. You'll still want to punch your sister-in-law's face in. You'll still be vulnerable to gunshots and knife wounds. Basically garments just keep you a little warmer and make shopping a little more difficult. … The garment, covering the body,
is a visual and tactile reminder of [covenants made in the temple]. They're also a great reminder that God, who made you in his image, doesn't like you to be naked almost ever. For
many Church members the garment has formed a barrier of protection when
the wearer has been faced with temptation. Some members have reported seeing devils and even the Great Satan himself shrivel and turn to smoke after trying to touch the sacred garment. Among other things it
symbolizes our deep respect for the laws of God—among them the moral
standard” When you see yourself in your garments you'll understand why no one wants to have sex with you. (Preparing to Enter the Holy Temple, 20, 23).
Ask the assigned class member to summarize how one of the Brethren described the purpose of the temple garment (see Preparing to Enter the Holy Temple, 20–21, 23). I gave my summary above.
Explain
that almost every aspect of the temple ceremony is symbolic. Didn't we already say that? Whatever. I'd like to know what in human society is not symbolic. This means
that each person should prepare to be as spiritually sensitive as
possible to the symbolic nature of the temple endowment. Why? "Spiritual sensitivity" doesn't help you interpret signs and symbols. Before giving our kids keys to the car we send them to driving classes so they can learn how to read and follow traffic, but when it comes to the temple we just say "pay attention to 'signs'" and essentially never engage with them again on the topic.
What could keep a person from being spiritually sensitive in the temple? A disbelief in spirits. Rock and roll music about fast cars. Sleeping through the session. Reading shit blogs about doubting doubts.
Class members might mention such things as the following:
A person may not be worthy. The girl who listens to her little brother masturbating on the other side of the wall will bring that one up. A person who has failed to
sincerely repent and has not prepared humbly and prayerfully for the
temple will find that the symbols will be lifeless and their meanings
will be hidden. This is an amazingly effective distraction commonly known as blaming the victim. You weren't impressed with the temple? That's because you're a dirty sinner!
A person may lack faith. The temple lacks a clean fit in Christian theology and doesn't feel like the Mormonism you've practiced your whole life, so it will take A LOT OF FAITH to accept it as legitimate worship. A person who does not have faith in
Jesus Christ and the temple ceremony may not receive the inspiration
from the Holy Ghost necessary for understanding the temple endowment. And having lots of faith is no guarantee you'll be inspired either. The temple's a bit of a crap shoot.
A person may focus so much on the outward motions of the
ceremonies that he or she may miss the powerful teachings represented by
the symbols. The only way to avoid this is to go through the motions frequently. The only way to do that is to attend the temple regularly. You can only attend the temple if you truly believe everything and give the Church your money. They never said it would be cheap they only said it would be worth it a some point after you're dead.
How can we prepare to be spiritually sensitive in the temple? Repent and exercise non-stop faith! Oh, and watch the endowment on YouTube.
Conclusion
Point
out that those going to the temple for the first time can expect to
learn many new things and feel the power of the Lord’s Spirit. At least half the people I talk to (family and friends) say their first time made them wonder if they'd just joined a cult. Encourage
class members to prepare themselves spiritually for their temple
experience. Remind them that all of what is presented cannot be
understood in a single visit. Keep coming back to repeat this thing you don't understand! One day you'll feel like you basically get it, but you won't be too bothered either way because you will have done it so much it feels almost second nature. They should return to the temple as often
as possible so they can continue to learn and to renew their spiritual
feelings. Come! Do! Like it! You're incomplete if you don't. Your spirit will starve. You won't get blessings. Your family will pay the price. Come! Do! Testify!
Once I hit my late teens I started wondering why the LDS Church was so insistent that Jesus (and other Biblical folks) looked so much like a white northern European. I was sure in my heart that Mormons knew full well that Jesus didn't look like a Scandinavian immigrant, but Mormon art suggests otherwise. Even this year's nativity video favors a very white Jesus.
It's like this...
...not this. Trust me. Our prophets have seen him.
We just really like to keep things white and delightsome. If you want to know more about why this might be, read Stephen Prothero.
I read Alice Walker's The Color Purple when I was in high school. I had heard praises for the book from somewhere and so when I ran across it on a teacher's shelf I asked to borrow it. I was disgusted by it from the first page to the last, but I couldn't put it down.
Why was I so utterly disgusted by it? I was scandalized by the sex and horrified by the domestic violence. But most of all I was furious about how it spoke of God and religion. I found it blasphemous and I couldn't stand it.
So why was I so enthralled and read in two days? The narrative and writing style were recognizably compelling. And so were the arguments against God and male privilege.
The Color Purple made me recognize some of my doubts (which is why the Church doesn't recommend such reading) - doubts I buried as best I could, even though I knew deep down that I agreed with so much of what the author was saying.
Apparently the Ancient Romans used to say "Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit", which more or less means silence looks like consent, so you should speak up when you have the chance.
When you're sitting in church listening to someone spout anti-science trash, racist spew, sexist bullshit, or any other nonsense that no one deserves to be subjected to, think about how your silence might be perceived as agreement. When you have a roomful of people who let shit slide it feels very much like a room full of coprophiliacs united heart and soul. Be aware that feeling like everyone but you is into it might contribute some pressure for you to conform. Don't stand for it.
Differences are okay. I think. At least I want them to be. Speak your mind. Let's see what happens.
The second part of "overestimations of the group" has to do with "unquestioned belief in [its] morality, causing members to ignore the consequences
of their actions". I don't think there's any question about Mormons believing that the LDS scriptures and the LDS Church represent the highest possible human morality which means they don't have to question it. Instead they have to live up to the examples set in scripture and by the Church. That is exactly why Mormons don't worry too much when their scriptural heroes are coercerswhoneedlessly kill, it's why they don't feel too bad about excluding family from weddings, it explains how many members justify racism and sexism, it's how we justify homophobia, and so many other hurtful beliefs, practices, and events.
But how can we see that hurt when the Church is always right? Who are we to trust if not the Church?
According to popular wisdom, a good father is tough, yet always fair.
We like to think that God is perfectly just and everyone will receive his or her just reward in the Hereafter.We're obsessed with the idea that everyone will be getting what they deserve one day. I'm not sure why anyone believes this, though. God has given no indication throughout scriptural history of ever being fair. In this life God is totally unpredictable, if that were not the case people would have learned that the benefits of living righteously outweighed the benefits of evil doing. Instead we see that being a backstabbing fuck often pays and that climbing the ladder of success means stomping on the fingers of the people on the rungs below. And God? He's no better than the rest of us, is he? He'll mess anyone up in order to keep his place at the top. If God's willing to stoop to racism, genocide, war, murder, theft, petty, controlling rules, etc. here and now, why should we believe he's going to sort everything out at the Final Judgement? Because he said so? Are we really going to trust this lying, sadistic megalomaniac?
"Don't run! I am your fair and loving Father-God!"
If The Book of Mormon was written for these latter days, why does its content seem so tightly focused on Joseph Smith's day? The whole thing is essentially a series of Second Great Awakening style sermons strung together in a narrative based on the answer to the question "who are the indigenous Americans?" In addition to the religious concerns of the early 19th century and the curiosities surrounding the First Nations people, we have a number of other very culturally specific topics of concern such as the preoccupation with avoiding a king as a ruler and opting instead for self-governance, declaring independence, war as a means of obtaining freedom, frontier justice, colonization, suspicion of secret societies like the Freemasons, and treasure seeking.
What does The Book of Mormon contain that addresses our current concerns about racism, LGBTQ rights, gender equality, abortion, proper taxation, etc. with the same perspective and precision? One might be prone to say that The Book of Mormon was written in Joseph's day for himself, and not thousands of years ago for us and our posterity. Unless you're one of these folks and have an awesome ability to make shit up.
Even awesomer than believing in the truth because you've got a lot of Hebrew is that if you're of the tribe of Ephraim you won't rebel!
"And the rebellious shall be cut off out of the land of Zion, and shall be sent away, and shall not inherit the land.For, verily I say that the rebellious are not of the blood of Ephraim, wherefore they shall be plucked out." (D&C 64:35-36, emphasis added)
So Ephraim just might be the least rebellious of all the believers of Israel. Very cool stuff (even if it's total nonsense).
It really gives you a sense of what the world lost when the blood of Joseph Smith, a pure Ephraimite, a pure non-rebellious believing blood type, was spilled at Carthage. What a fucking waste of the "best blood of the nineteenth century" (D&C 135:6)!
Joseph Smith III, half Ephraimite, half Moggle.
What's worse is that obviously Emma contaminated that blood because otherwise Joseph Smith III would have surely reunited with the saints in Utah. If only we could once again breed the purest of believers...
Learn to be white in a just a few years! It's easy!
As if the LDS Church's quest for spiritual and cultural domination over the earth weren't enough to make to make me doubt, finding out about the Indian Placement Program and electroshock conversion therapy use on homosexuals at BYU certainly brought to mind some fresh thoughts about what Christ-like love ought to look like. The justifications for keeping First Nations children physically distant from their families in order to culturally distance them from their traditions point nowhere near the love and acceptance one might expect from Jesus. Likewise the use of physical and psychological torture to reform homosexuals points nowhere near Christ-like behavior. These are two programs (the IPP admittedly much bigger than McBride's experiments) that have to cause members to scramble for answers. How can these sorts of things be inspired? How offensive is it that Mormons expect First Nations people to turn off
their identity? Why do Mormons think homosexuals can do it? How can they be justified in the name of a loving god? How is it that the LDS Church and BYU have not apologized for these damaging programs?
Turning off the gay was supposed to be as easy as hitting the lights!
UPDATE: A Mormon Stories episode on the Indian Placement Program has just been added (4/4/14). Listen to it here.
Hey, this isn't even a fair doubt! Mormon's haven't excluded people of African decent for more than three decades! This issue is totally behind us. Gordon said so.
So why bring this up at all? Lord knows I was never really all that bothered by the ban as a believing member. Aaronic Priesthood leaders would bring it up from time to time or a mission companion might ask me what I thought of it and sadly my thoughts were usually "What's the big deal? If that's how God wanted things we shouldn't have a problem with it." And obviously that's how God wanted things, otherwise he would have told Church leaders to switch things up.
So why bring this up? Are people trying to suggest Mormons are racist? We're not racist.
Early leaders of the Church were a little bit racist maybe.
"In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly
announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained
to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the
Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents
restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married
in the temple.
Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain
the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is
accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church."
Now they're dead and the "many theories" denied. There's nothing left in the Church that can be accused of being racist. Except for maybe The Book of Mormon.
But maybe all the skin color changing in The Book of Mormon was just metaphorical and not literal. Or maybe the Book of Mormon prophets were just racist themselves. We can't throw the baby out with the bathwater here. The Book of Mormon is amazing! And hopefully not racist enough to disavow.
Well there's also the Book of Abraham that mentions the seed of Cain being kept apart because they were black, and we all know that Abraham lived way before either Brigham Young or the Book of Mormon prophets. How did God get so many racist prophets? What if it's not the prophets, what if it's God who is racist? He is the inventor of race, after all. What if all this racism is more of a product of Joseph Smith? I mean, he's the one who translated The Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham. Maybe Joseph taught Brigham Young to be a horrible racist. Could he be responsible for such the huge racist mess?
Who knows? We'll just have to take this one on faith, I guess.
Of all the responses I have seen to the Church's recent statement about the banning of black people from the Priesthood and the temple, Denver Snuffer's speaks most directly to Mormon understanding. It looks like Tommy might actually get a chance to (re)write some scripture before he's relieved of his post!
Throughout my mission I found myself reflecting on the kinds of people who were typically more open and receptive to the Church. I, like most missionaries, contacted and taught a fairly wide range of people personally, consulted other missionaries (both in and out of my mission) about their experiences, and heard of past conversions from a wide range of sources such as Church publications, older members, and people with relatives who were Mormon. I thought a lot about these people and their stories. I wanted to understand how the Spirit works in peoples' lives.
It was clear that the vast majority of people joining the Church were either poor, uneducated, immigrants, refugees, mentally unstable, lonely middle-aged women, unconfident young men, or people seeking a stronger political connection to the United States. Most were probably a combination of two or more (but hopefully not too many were middle-aged women/young men). Why? Why did the Gospel of Jesus Christ appeal almost exclusively to these disenfranchised types of people? Why wasn't the power of the Spirit and the beauty of the message able to reach people who were in more stable situations or who maybe even held some respectable level of influence in their community?
I kept reminding myself that the Book of Mormon says rather explicitly that the rich, who are puffed up in the pride of their hearts, pretty much just plain suck, and that the poor are more open to God because they're humble. (To be honest, the main reasons we missionaries wanted to convert rich people was usually so they could help the Church out tithing-wise and take us on awesome trips when we came back after the mission to visit.)
Lehi having a hard time converting wealthy men.
Could Heavenly Father help us find and convert some healthy, financially stable, maybe even prominent individuals (if they're humble!) who would help build the Kingdom and send the Work forward? We sure hoped so.
Wrong neighborhood, elders! Go find people with $$$!
The folks at the top really hoped so, too. My mission president insisted, under direction of the area authorities, that we missionaries spend more time seeking out native, adult males who could help build up the body of Priesthood holders in the country. We called it "Priesthood contacting" and it took precedence over speaking to anyone who was female, foreign, unemployed, or single. Our goal was now quality, not quantity. So basically the only people in our teaching pool that we could hang on to were the uneducated men. Our days out proselytizing involved us annoying the hell out of grown men on their way to work, at lunch, on their way home, and while they were out trying to enjoy some family time.
No, no more single mothers! We have too many already!
The thing is IT FELT WRONG. All of it felt wrong. It felt wrong that we were bringing such unstable people into the Church when deep down we knew how many problems they had. The last thing those people needed was the Church with all its nonsensical rules and dogma to complicate their lives further. It also felt wrong that we were required to suddenly limit our contact with many people because they weren't family men with the right ethnicity. I had always thought that all were alike unto God. Maybe they are. Maybe it's just that not all are alike unto the Mormon Church.
