All posts by bfwebster

Zion: a not-so-distant view

LDS Society, Main, Personal, Service

The Bloggernacle is permeated with a certain level of criticism about the LDS Church and its members — a lot of it mild and affectionate, or at least tolerant, and often meant to be constructive. But a fair amount of it is quite negative, hostile or even scathing. Yet there are weeks like this where I will cheerfully match up Latter-day Saints against any other group of people you care to name. Here’s what took place in the past week or so in our ward:

1) A young married woman in our ward got news a bit over a week ago that her brother (in another state, also married) had disappeared under unusual circumstances. We had a ward fast for her extended family last weekend. Her brother’s body was found early this past week, and several women in our ward pitched in to help her, her husband, and their young chidlren pull things together on short notice to travel out of state for her brother’s funeral and burial. While this family has been gone, the sisters in the wards put together about 10 days of frozen meals for them for when they get back, while the elders spent a good part of yesterday doing extensive yardword and home repairs around their house.

2) A middle-aged member of the Church — who has been inactive since his teenage years, and whose wife and three kids are not members — started coming back to church some weeks back when he found himself unemployed, broke and on the brink of foreclosure. The church provided critical help, while our ward employment director worked with him for three weeks and helped him find a new job and a new place to live. The elders and high priests came out on two successive weekday evening to help his family move all the belongings to their new place; elders from his new ward were there to help unload as well.

3) The mayor of our town (not LDS) has always been friendly and cooperative with the LDS wards here, particularly with the youth activities; I’ve seen him personally attend an Eagle Scout court of honor at our ward. The young men and young women in our ward and another one in our building wanted to show their appreciation, so about 40 of them showed up at his house yesterday and spent most of the morning doing extensive yardwork that he hasn’t had the time to do. He and his wife just watched in amazement.

4) An older couple in our ward were sealed in the temple yesterday, and their 18-year-old son sealed to them. The husband was inactive for many years, and the wife was not a member, but they started coming to church a few years back when their son started investigating the Church and then was baptized. The mother was baptized a year ago, and the parents have been teaching one of the youth Sunday school classes for several months. The temple sealing room was filled to overflowing with both his children (and some grandkids) from his previous marriage as well as members of the ward. All three of them — the husband, the wife, and the son — bore their testimonies in church today, as did one of his granddaughters (a returned missionary).

5) About a year ago, I got a call late one weekday evening from a woman in our ward. A family across the street — not members — had been literally evicted from their house (all their belongings thrown out on the front lawn), and they were slowly trying to load it into a truck to move elsewhere, but were clearly overwhelmed. She asked what we could do. I called the high priests group leader, and within 30 minutes, we had 20 or so brethren from the ward there. We loaded up the family’s moving truck once, followed it about 20 miles away to their new residence, unloaded it, then came back and went through the process a second time; by the time we were done, it was about 1:00 am.

The same woman who called me a year ago took me aside today to say that the wife and children of that family were baptized yesterday, and the husband is working towards baptism as well. She said that they were so stunned by the willingness of 20 or so total strangers to give them such extensive help that they had to find out more about this church.

6) Oh, and the younger son of the Nigerian family that moved into our ward a year ago was baptized yesterday (after turning 8). The remarkable thing there is that there’s nothing remarkable; the husband’s a high priest, the wife is heavily involved in Relief Society, and the kids are, well, kids, and they’re all just part of the ward famly.

During the fast and testimony meeting today, one sister — a close friend of the young married woman whose brother died — got up, thanked all those who had helped, and said, through tears, “I am so proud to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and of this ward.”

I couldn’t have said it better myself. ..bruce..

What if Romney left the LDS Church?

Belief systems, Current events, Main, Politics

As I type this, the news channel is blaring with filler waiting for Barack Obama to comment publicly on his announcement early today that he’s leaving the Trinity Unity Church of Christ, presumably as a consequence of the videotape of Father Michael Pfleger’s sermon in which he mentions Hillary Clinton. Obama has been attending Trinity for 20 years, and so questions are being raised about “what does he know now that he didn’t know then?”

Here’s the thought experiment that springs to mind: suppose Mitt Romney announced that he was leaving the LDS Church. Do you think that the media, or the Political Left, or the Religious Right would simply assume that he had truly abandoned LDS beliefs and history? What would Romney have to say and do in order for these groups to accept his word that he truly rejected the LDS Church? Burn his temple recommend? Drink wine and coffee in public? Ask to have his name removed from Church records?

And if he did all this, what would these groups then say about his integrity, judgment, and honesty?

On the other hand, how would Romney (say he were the GOP VP candidate) react if reporters started attending his home ward meetings and taking notes about Sacrament meeting talks and Sunday School/Priesthood lessons? (I suspect his reaction would be to sic the missionaries on them, but still….) And I’m sure that he’s be more than thrilled if they started listening to General Conference. 🙂

Comments? ..bruce..

OK, this was interesting

Book of Mormon

First off, let me be perfectly clear: I’m not claiming anthropological evidence of anything. But it was still a bit funny/startling to run across this news article about a possibly uncontacted tribe found in Brazil:

Skin painted bright red, heads partially shaved, arrows drawn back in the longbows and aimed square at the aircraft buzzing overhead. The gesture is unmistakable: Stay Away.

Behind the two men stands another figure, possibly a woman, her stance also seemingly defiant. Her skin painted dark, nearly black.

And here’s one of the accompanying photos:

Of course, what this called to mind were passages such as this in the Book of Mormon:

And the Amlicites were distinguished from the Nephites, for they had marked themselves with red in their foreheads after the manner of the Lamanites; nevertheless they had not shorn their heads like unto the Lamanites.

Now the heads of the Lamanites were shorn; and they were naked, save it were skin which was girded about their loins, and also their armor, which was girded about them, and their bows, and their arrows, and their stones, and their slings, and so forth.

And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men. (Alma 3:4-6)

Explanations of the Lamanite ‘curse’ tend to fall into one of three categories: a divine change of melatonin; a natural darkening due to more time outdoors plus wearing less clothing; or a cultural exaggeration (cf. Nibley et alis). Maybe the Lamanites just painted themselves.

In any case, it was startling to see a very recent photograph that looked so much like something straight out of the Book of Mormon.  ..bruce..

Life in the Foreign Service

Humor, Main, Personal

Kenny and Linsey are two of our closest and dearest friends. Sandra & I met them back in DC when they were still single and uninvolved with each other. We watched their courtship, heartily approved of their engagement, and traveled to Utah to be there for their wedding. They were regulars at our DC BBQs and — along with Matt & Cassidy (two more C&DFs) — would hang out to help clean up and talk with us afterwards.  Kenny and I ended up serving together in the bishopric as well.

Kenny passed the Foreign Service exam and went to work for the US State Department; not long after Sandra & I moved to Colorado, Kenny & Linsey headed down to Peru. Linsey has been writing a blog about their experiences, and her latest posting chronicles a week — over the Memorial Day weekend — during which Kenny was the US Embassy Duty Office. A brief extract from the post:

We are at dinner with 2 very tired and uncooperative children: Eliza calls from Spain to say that her ex-husband, who does not have custody of their 8 year old daughter, has been arrested while traveling in Peru with the daughter and now the child is somewhere in Peru in custody of the authorities. This turns out to be the tip of the iceberg of a very complicated story, some of which was true, much of which was sketchy and patently untrue. It took most of the weekend to unravel.

Heh. Read the whole thing.  ..bruce..

Texas Supreme Court orders FLDS children back home

Belief systems, Current events, Legal, Main, Polygamy

In a ruling that likely surprises no one except for the Texas department of Child Protective Services, the Texas Supreme Court has ordered that all 440 children removed from the FLDS Yearning for Zion compound be returned to their parents:

The Texas Supreme Court has ruled that the children taken from a polygamist sect’s ranch should be returned to their parents, saying child welfare officials overstepped their authority.

The high court on Thursday affirmed a decision by the appellate court last week, saying Child Protective Services failed to show an immediate danger to the children.

The ruling directs a lower-court judge to reverse her decision putting the children into foster case. The appeals court ordered the judge to return the children to the parents soon but it is unclear exactly when that will happen.

While I don’t agree with FLDS doctrine or culture, I do think that it’s pretty clear that TCPS seriously overstepped its authority and profoundly botched this whole issue.

Here’s the actual Texas Supreme Court decision (PDF; hat tip to The Volokh Conspiracy).  ..bruce..

Alma returns to Mesoamerica

Environment, LDS Society, Main, News

I’m not sure which agency was responsible for naming this tropical storm, but I have to wonder if there’s a Mormon in the mix somewhere:

MANAGUA, Nicaragua – Tropical Storm Alma lashed the coast of Central America with heavy rains on Thursday after becoming the first such storm of the eastern Pacific season.

Authorities issued a tropical storm warning from Costa Rica to El Salvador.

Costa Rican authorities evacuated low-lying areas and set up more than 160 storm shelters after Alma dumped rain over the country for 24 hours. A few highways were blocked by landslides.

The National Hurricane Center in Miami said the storm had maximum sustained winds of 45 mph (75 kph) and was expected to strengthen before hitting Nicaragua’s northwest corner later Thursday. The storm was moving north at 6 mph (9 kph).

The center predicted it would plow through the southern border region of El Salvador and Honduras early Friday.

And mostly in my old stomping grounds, no less; I served in the Central America Mission (1972-74), which included Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, and the Canal Zone. I hope everyone down there gets through this OK.  ..bruce..

Bigotry and ignorance strike again

LDS Society, Main, News

Sandra and I lived in Washington DC — in the District itself — for nearly six years (1999-2005). During most of that time, a major issue was where the Church would build a stake center if and when one was built in the District itself. (The Washington DC Stake center is actually located in Kensington, MD, next door to the Washington DC Temple.) The sad part was that the Church had owned a rather large chapel right in DC many years earlier, but had sold it to another church.

Well, the Church has finally found property and wants to build on it — but they are facing opposition from both home owners and other churches:

It’s not just the traffic and parking congestion that they predict the Mormons will bring to 16th Street Heights, their lush residential neighborhood north of Mount Pleasant. And never mind that the area already has a dozen or so congregations, not to mention a host of other institutions such as schools and day-care centers.

But a tower that’s the equivalent of 10 stories high?

“What are they trying to prove?” said Stuart Peacock, a lawyer who resides around the corner, his narrowing eyes punctuating his disgust. “It’s too much.”

Gloria Eblan, a software engineer who lives across from the property, at 16th and Emerson streets NW, envisions the kind of raucousness associated with a throbbing nightclub, not a church. She insists that a jackhammer-thumping construction project, followed by a weekly parade of chattering congregants will disturb her ever-precious peace.

“I don’t want to come off as the anti-Christ, because I’m not. I just have my apprehensions,” said Eblan, a crucifix around her neck. “The noise is going to drive me crazy. We’re just trying to live our lives.”

Dozens of homeowners have expressed opposition to the new church with lawn signs that read, “Too Big, Too Much, Too Many.” And the Mormons are finding little support from the neighborhood’s clergy, including one pastor who said his objection is rooted not in architecture, but theology.

“They don’t accept Jesus as the Messiah; they accept him as the prophet,” said Edward Wilson, pastor at Church of Christ, a block from the Mormon site. “It’s wrong, I disagree with it, and I wouldn’t want them in the neighborhood.”

Mormon leaders have been surprised by the opposition, in part because so many churches are located there. But they said they’re confident that their reception will improve once they build their two-story brick church, which will host two Sunday services and seat 240. The church will offer underground and aboveground parking, which the Mormons promise will minimize the congregation’s affect on the neighborhood.

I’ve driven up and down 16th Avenue many times. As the article notes, there are many, many churches along that road. The building of an LDS stake center there is not going to change or spoil the look of the neighborhood along that road. This appears mostly to be religious NIMBY mixed with ignorance and some genuine religious bigotry.  ..bruce..

Live free or die

Book of Mormon, Current events, Main, Military

I posted the following editorial cartoon over at one of my other blogs:

While some will I’m sure object to the quote in the cartoon above, I will argue that the quote itself is reflected in much of the Book of Mormon, as well as in LDS history, though not always in the way one would think.

FIrst, the easy part. The message that “death is not the worst of evils” pervades the Book of Mormon. A long series of prophets, starting with Lehi, risk their lives in order to deliver God’s word; some, such as Abinadi, die unpleasant deaths as a result. Likewise, believers risk — and in some cases lose — their lives for their beliefs. The women and children converted by Alma2 and Amulek in Ammonihah are thrown alive into a pit of fire; Alma2 notes that “the Lord receiveth them up unto himself, in glory.” (Alma 14:8-14). The people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi allows themselves to be killed rather than take up weapons or renounce their faith; “and we know that they are blessed, for they have gone to dwell with their God. . . . Therefore, we have no reason to doubt but they were saved.” (Alma 24:20-26). The Book of Mormon also notes the tragedy of those who die unprepared to meet God (Alma 48:23), and several of the prophetic discourses in the Book of Mormon (notably Jacob and Alma2 ) stress the importance of being prepared to meet God (via death) at all times.

Likewise, LDS history and doctrine — particularly up through the end of the 19th century — strongly emphasizes that what matters is not death but our state at death: “And it shall come to pass that those that die in me shall not taste of death, for it shall be sweet unto them; and they that die not in me, wo unto them, for their death is bitter.” (D&C 42:46-47) We honor our pioneers, particularly those who died during persecutions and the long trek out to the Salt Lake Valley, and we seek to express our own willingness for such sacrifice when we sing

And should we die before our journey’s through,
Happy day! All is well!
We then are free from toil and sorrow, too;
With the just we shall dwell!

— “Come, Come Ye Saints” by William Clayton

Second, I would argue that the sentiment “Live free or die” is reflected through much of the Book of Mormon as well, as well as in LDS history, though with perhaps at times with a different meaning than usually suggested by that phrase.

The classic interpretation in and of itself is quite clear in the Book of Mormon. The attempt by Amalickiah to reinstate a kingship by force (with support of the lower judges — so much for ‘democracy‘) over the Nephites leads Moroni1 to raise his famous title of liberty (cf. Alma 46). Amalickiah flees over to the land of Nephi, where his coup in turn against the Lamanite king is successful, and he stirs up the Lamanite nation against the Nephites, leading to this observation by Mormon (who also brings up the ‘unprepared for death’ theme again):

But, as I have said, in the latter end of the nineteenth year, yea, notwithstanding their peace amongst themselves, they were compelled reluctantly to contend with their brethren, the Lamanites. Yea, and in fine, their wars never did cease for the space of many years with the Lamanites, notwithstanding their much reluctance. Now, they were sorry to take up arms against the Lamanites, because they did not delight in the shedding of blood; yea, and this was not all—they were sorry to be the means of sending so many of their brethren out of this world into an eternal world, unprepared to meet their God.

Nevertheless, they could not suffer to lay down their lives, that their wives and their children should be massacred by the barbarous cruelty of those who were once their brethren, yea, and had dissented from their church, and had left them and had gone to destroy them by joining the Lamanites. Yea, they could not bear that their brethren should rejoice over the blood of the Nephites, so long as there were any who should keep the commandments of God, for the promise of the Lord was, if they should keep his commandments they should prosper in the land. (Alma 48:21-25)

Still, this same book of Alma tells of the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi, who were perhaps the most righteous people in all of Book of Mormon history — who willingly died rather than take up their swords against their fellow Lamanites. This they did rather than violate their covenant with God that they would never take up weapons of war again, because of their previous “sins and many murders”, swearing that “rather than shed the blood of their brethren they would give up their own lives” and that they “would suffer unto death rather than commit sin.” (Alma 24:6-19).

Likewise, with rare (and usually unproductive) exceptions, the Latter-day Saints chose to move along — from New York to Ohio to Missouri to Illinois to the Rocky Mountains, with resultant hardship and death — so that they might live free to practice their religion. While the Doctrine & Covenants does contain the “Lord’s law of battle” — which justifies battle only after three efforts at peaceful settlement have been rejected (cf. D&C 98:34-38) — the few instances of armed resistance by Latter-day Saints usually just made things worse.

Still, it is the children of the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi — those who become Helaman’s two thousand “stripling warriors” — who turn out to be the most effective fighters in all the Book of Mormon. And their motivation? Here’s what Helaman1 writes to Moroni1 about leading them into battle for the first time:

Therefore what say ye, my sons, will ye go against them to battle?

And now I say unto you, my beloved brother Moroni, that never had I seen so great courage, nay, not amongst all the Nephites.

For as I had ever called them my sons (for they were all of them very young) even so they said unto me: Father, behold our God is with us, and he will not suffer that we should fall; then let us go forth; we would not slay our brethren if they would let us alone; therefore let us go, lest they should overpower the army of Antipus.

Now they never had fought, yet they did not fear death; and they did think more upon the liberty of their fathers than they did upon their lives; yea, they had been taught by their mothers, that if they did not doubt, God would deliver them. And they rehearsed unto me the words of their mothers, saying: We do not doubt our mothers knew it. (Alma 56:44-48)

Still, the Book of Mormon’s major theme hearkens more back to the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi: spiritual freedom (even if it leads to death) is better than life (if it leads to spiritual death). “Live free or die” gets a new meaning in the light of passages such as these:

Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself. (2 Nephi 2:27)

“Live free or die” is literally the choice before us, while “Death is not the worst of evils” is a reminder of what really matters in our mortal — and eternal — lives. There are causes worth dying for, and there are outcomes to our choices that are worse than death. Both things worth keeping in mind.  ..bruce..

Some observations on polygamy

LDS Doctrine, LDS History, LDS Society, Main, Polygamy

[I belong to a private e-mail list for attendees of an invitation-only technology conference that has meeting annually for nearly 25 years. Early in May, as the news was breaking about the Texas raid of the FLDS YFZ compound, some comments were made by a few posters, drawing some rather uninformed and incorrect correlations between the FLDS Church and LDS Church culture in general, citing as sources (a) a former LDS Church member and (b) a non-LDS person who had lived for some time in Utah. I ended up making two posts to that list, which I reproduce here in slightly edited form.]

[First post — made 05/02/08]

I appreciate your efforts to shed light on the mess down in Texas. However, the next time you want to opine on and analyze LDS history, thought, and doctrine, you might try actually asking someone who has a thorough understanding of it and has studied it extensively in the context of both historical and mainstream Christianity.

Latter-day Saints (by which I mean members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 13+ million members worldwide, over 50% of those outside of the United States) are almost universally appalled by the various polygamous offshoots, most of which are quite tiny, insular and parochial in comparison. Note that support for such groups is grounds for denying a temple recommend (required to enter and participate in LDS temple ceremonies) and actual involvement is immediate grounds for excommunication. There is no sympathy, winking, or collusion between the LDS Church and these various tiny denominations; the relationship is frankly far more like that of the Roman Catholic Church and the various Protestant groups that arose during the Reformation, each side considering the other hopelessly apostate.

There is also very little similarity between the cultural and organizational behavior of the LDS Church vs. that found in these offshoots. Far from running around in suits and bonnets, and living in isolated communities, Latter-day Saints tend to be heavily integrated in their communities and cultures wherever they are found. There are over 27,000 LDS congregations worldwide, on every continent except Antarctica — and there may be one down there for all I know. Also note that the LDS Church has provided $750 million [correction: over $1 billion] in humanitarian assistance worldwide [PDF] in the last 22 years, the vast majority of which has gone to people who are not members of the LDS Church. All of this assistance has come either directly out of the pockets of the LDS members themselves or from the production of the LDS Church’s extensive welfare system, which itself is run largely from volunteer labor of LDS members.

Also note that many Evangelical Christians consider us too liberal in our lifestyle and behavior (we’re great fans of music and dancing, and our view towards abortion and related issues, while still conservative, is more liberal than that found in Evangelical — or for that matter, Catholic — circles). Anyone who seriously contends that Latter-day Saints are conformist sheep controlled by the Church hierarchy would be laughed out of the room by anyone who (like me) has actually served in an LDS bishopric. (Here’s Joseph Smith’s own observation: “There has been a great difficulty in getting anything into the heads of this generation. It has been like splitting hemlock knots with a corn-dodger [corn muffin] for a wedge and a pumpkin for a beetle [mallet].”)

As for education and intellect, I’ll cheerfully put up the LDS Church’s record against any other religion . For every Sonia Johnson (and there really have been only a few dozen such excommunications over the past 20 years), there have been scores of excommunications for extreme right-wing behavior and hundreds, if not thousands, of excommunications for involvement and participation in polygamous groups.

In short, trying to make statements or draw conclusions about the LDS Church based on the behavior of the FLDS group down in Texas is about like trying to make statements about Methodist and Baptists churches by the behavior of Jim Jones and the People’s Temple.

Finally, I will cheerfully admit — as will most Latter-day Saints — that the LDS-heavy culture in Utah does get a bit, ah, strange at times. A close friend of mine — who served as an LDS bishop over a mostly-Latino congregation down in El Paso, Texas — put it best, paraphrasing from “Hello, Dolly”: “Mormons are like horse manure. Spread them around, and they make things grow; pile them up in a heap, and they tend to stink.”

[Second post – made 05/05/08]

Most (though not all) modern LDS-derived polygamous churches descended from a group of seven Latter-day Saints (Mormons) who were excommunicated in the 1923-1941 time frame for practicing polygamy (the “Council of Friends”).The diagram at the bottom of this website gives you something of an idea of how most (though not all) of these churches are related. The FLDS Church is the largest of the surviving polygamous churches, most of which are either very tiny or defunct.

Still, the FLDS Chruch has only about 10,000 members total, most of whom were born into the FLDS Church and were never members of the LDS Church. The same is true of most of the other polygamous churches; they occasionally recruit outside people (Latter-day Saints or not), but tend to be largely descended from the original recruits (who were mostly Latter-day Saints) in the early to mid 20th Century. (Note that by contrast, the relatively small city of Parker, CO, where I live, has about 4000 Latter-day Saints in and around it, and there are about 130,000 Latter-day Saints in the entire state of Colorado.)

There are also stark contrasts between how the FLDS Church (and some of the other polygamous churches) practice polygamy vs. how it was practiced among Latter-day Saints up through 1904. For example:

The FLDS practice the “Law of placing,” or assignment of marriages, combined with a high level of control of the membership. This contrasts greatly with the LDS. We have no arranged marriages and the average age for LDS marriages is 23. Throughout LDS history, free agency has been a ruling principle. In 19th century LDS plural marriages women were freely allowed to marry, divorce, and leave the community. My own great-great-grandmother, Elizabeth Clark Crouch, was in a plural marriage, and she divorced her husband and left the community with no ramifications. There was no danger of having her children reassigned to anyone else. It was more difficult for men to obtain a divorce, as it was believed that the men should provide economic and social support since there was no state welfare program and women had limited employment opportunities. Kathryn M. Daynes discusses the economic underpinnings of plural marriage in her book titled “More Wives Than One: Transformation of the Mormon Marriage System, 1840-1910.” . . .

Another difference with the FLDS church is their idea that more wives equals a greater chance of exaltation. While our critics like to claim we believed that, Brigham Young stated quite clearly that not everyone would, or should, practice plural marriage. Several members of church leadership–including apostles–were not polygamists. Some of Brigham’s more controversial statements, when read in context, seem to use plural marriage as an example to focus on the idea of being willing to follow God rather than whether or not you actually practiced plural marriage. If plural marriage were required for heaven, why did some members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, our top leadership group, not practice it?

If you would like to read more about fundamentalist Mormonism, I recommend the book “Modern Polygamy and Mormon Fundamentalism: The Generations after the Manifesto” by Brian C. Hales.

— Scott Gordon, fairlds.org (The FAIR Journal — email sent 5/4/2008)

There are some other stark contrasts as well. In the Utah Territory in the second half of the 19th century, when the practice of polygamy was at its peak, Brigham Young emphasized the need for advanced education for LDS girls and women. On one occasion he stated:

“We wish, in our Sunday and day schools, that they who are inclined to any particular branch of study may have the privilege to study it. As I have often told my sisters in the Female Relief societies, we have sisters here who, if they had the privilege of studying, would make just as good mathematicians or accountants as any man; and we think they ought to have the privilege to study these branches of knowledge that they may develop the powers with which they are endowed. We believe that women are useful, not only to sweep houses, wash dishes, make beds, and raise babies, but that they should stand behind the counter, study law or physic [medicine], or become good book-keepers and be able to do the business in any counting house, and all this to enlarge their sphere of usefulness for the benefit of society at large. In following these things they but answer the design of their creation. These, and many more things of equal utility are incorporated in our religion, and we believe in and try to practice them.” (Journal of Discourses 13:61; address given July 18, 1869)

LDS women (mostly plural wives!) were heavily involved in national and international women’s rights movements and traveled to the Eastern US to participate in and speak at women’s conferences. Only the first page of the just-linked article is available, but it does set forth the basic situation; also see An Advocate for Women: The Public Life of Emmeline B. Wells, 1870-1920 by Carol Cornwall Madsen (BYU Press/Deseret Book, 2006), as well as this transcript from the PBS Special, “The Mormons”. In 1872, LDS women (again, mostly plural wives) started their own intellectual journal, The Women’s Exponent, which was published for over 40 years.

For that matter, women in the Utah Territory were the second (after those in the Wyoming Territory) in the United States to receive the right to vote, in 1870. That right was stripped by Congress in 1887 in the effort to end polygamy and reduce the political influence of the LDS Church, but it was restored — 25 years ahead of the 19th Amendment — when Utah gained statehood in 1895. In fact, the actual language put into the Utah State Constitution was, “The rights of citizens of the State of Utah to vote and hold office shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex. Both male and female citizens of this state shall enjoy equally all civil, political and religious rights and privileges.” (1896 Utah State Constitution, Article IV, Section 1, “Equal political rights”).

In short, it’s hard to imagine a more dramatic contrast between the TV images and news accounts of the (apparently) highly-sheltered, controlled and under-educated girls/women at the FLDS compound in Texas and the broad, active, literate, and — for its era (we are talking about the 1800s) — quite liberated roles and activities of Latter-day Saint women in the Rocky Mountains during the last half of the 19th Century. ..bruce..

Spelunking: Alma 4:16-17

Book of Mormon, Main, Spelunking

[One of the things I love about the Book of Mormon is that it contains hidden nuggets and complexities that you can overlook during a dozen or more readings but that suddenly leap out at you the next time through. Some of these are minor but are still worth looking at. I’ll do that from time to time, using the (now largely abandoned) term for cave exploration, ‘spelunking’.]

It was common up until a few decades ago to cite — as ‘environmental evidence’ of the Book of Mormon’s 19th Century origins — its alleged focus on democracy over monarchy (being thus reflective of post-Revolution America). Hugh Nibley was, I believe, the first to point out just how silly that is, since a careful reading of the Book of Mormon shows just the opposite. First, the Book of Mormon holds up a monarchy as the best form of government so long as you can guarantee having a just king (Mosiah 29:13), though it also acknowledges the improbability of that happening (Mosiah 29:16-17).

Second, as many authors from Nibley on have pointed out at great length, the system of judges set up in the Book of Mormon by King Mosiah2 is anything but a representative democracy. The first chief judge, Alma2, also happens to be head of what the Book of Mormon calls the “Church of God” (the church of anticipation founded by Alma1) and the son of the previous head of the Church of God (Alma1). And while (non-canonical, non-scriptural) chapter heading to Mosiah 29 claims that Alma2 was “chosen chief judge by the voice of the people”, the actual scriptural passage doesn’t state that clearly at all:

And it came to pass that [the people] did appoint judges to rule over them, or to judge them according to the law; and this they did throughout all the land. And it came to pass that Alma was appointed to be the first chief judge, he being also the high priest, his father having conferred the office upon him, and having given him the charge concerning all the affairs of the church. (Mosiah 29:41-42)

I would argue that this passage just as likely indicates that Alma2 was either selected by the lower judges or possibly even appointed to (or at least nominated for) the position by King Mosiah2. But let’s assume for now that Alma2 was indeed chosen by the voice of the people.

After a few years, Alma2 decides to resign the chief judge position to focus completely on being the high priest over the Church of God due to problems within the church. What happens? Caucuses? Campaigns? Elections? Elevation of one of the lower judges?

No:

And [Alma] selected a wise man who was among the elders of the church, and gave him power according to the voice of the people, that he might have power to enact laws according to the laws which had been given, and to put them in force according to the wickedness and the crimes of the people. Now this man’s name was Nephihah, and he was appointed chief judge; and he sat in the judgment-seat to judge and to govern the people. (Alma 4:16-17; emphasis mine)

Alma2 not only hand-picks his own successor, he chooses another high-ranking official within the Church of God (note that the Book of Mormon generally uses “elders” to indicate positions that appear to be superior to “priests” and “teachers”; cf. Moroni 3:1). And he does this at a time when there is significant division within the Church of God, as well as significant popularity within the Nephite population for the order of Nehor (cf. Alma 1:15-24, 32).

It’s unclear whether the clause “and gave him power according to the voice of the people” means that some form of ratifying election occurred after Alma2‘s selection of Nephihah, or if the phrase simply means that Nephihah’s power was ultimately constrained by the “voice of the people” (cf. Mosiah 29:26). What is clear is that the subject of that clause is Alma2 — in other words “[Alma] gave [Nephihah] power according to the voice of the people.”

A careful study of the reign of the judges — which only lasts about 120 years out of the 1000-year history of the Nephites — shows that it bears little resemblance to any form of government that Joseph Smith could have been familiar with. And the undemocratic aspects are there pretty much right from the start, as opposed to being (within the context of the Book of Mormon) a later corruption. ..bruce..