Tag: correlation

I Am a Mormon, Part 4

I am a Mormon. The church I belong to, support, and believe in has intentionally kept a good deal of its history concealed. The archives are not completely open, and have never been available to the public. One of the reasons Assistant LDS Church Historian Davis Bitton “did not have a testimony of church history” was because our history has yet to be fully written. It is a work yet to be discovered and revealed. Right now we have only glimpses and excerpts, not the full panoply of material to draw from in order for any of us to reach fully informed conclusions.

The church could remove this impediment by opening its archives. However, it is apparent they aren’t going to do this. Therefore, we all live (and I’m talking about all of us, including the ones defending this faith among our peers and friends) with the justified concern the church has something it thinks it must hide. Although I can use the materials that were released, or information that has leaked out, to show there are believers who can tolerate the foibles and weaknesses of humanity and still retain strong faith in the religion and confidence in the church, I can never advance a good enough argument to overcome the perception that there is embarrassing material that won’t see the light of day. In Passing the Heavenly Gift I show that, to the extent the history can be reconstructed from what is now available, even the moments of profound human failure are not a good enough reason to abandon belief in the faith. That is a defense of the faith, not an attack on it. I reject the idea the book was intended as an attack. It wasn’t. So, from the scattered comments I’ve heard let me continue to address concerns about that book as I understand them:

I did not criticize President Harold B. Lee about his development of Correlation. That was President David O. McKay and his counselor President Moyle. I quoted them. They were opposed to the Correlation program that Elder Lee was advancing. They thought it would lead to the apostasy of the church from abuse by future hierarchies using their position to control and dominate other, equally deserving branches of the church. They thought it was improper for the central priesthood to claim the right to control everything instead of the separate branches having independence. I only quoted these former members of the First Presidency. (It was President Harold B. Lee who presided over the church when I joined.) Therefore, if you think that is an inappropriate idea, your quarrel is with a church president and his counselor, not me.

I did not characterize President Grant as being more interested in money than religion. That was his mother. I quoted her. Or, to be even more exact, it was President Grant quoting his mother in his own diary that I quoted. I made no independent accusation. I reported what he said about himself (and what his mother accused him of in her communication with him). Then I defended his candor and integrity because he made this self-revelation of his weakness. If you think that is an inappropriate assessment of President Grant, your quarrel is with him and his mother, not me.

It was President J. Reuben Clark who compared the modern church president to the Pope. I merely quoted him. It was LDS Church Historian Marlin Jensen who called the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve “the fifteen men.” I only quoted him. I do not think either President Clark or Elder Jensen meant any offense. Nor do I think offense should be taken. But most of all, if offense is to be taken, then place it where it belongs: with the LDS leaders I quote, and not me. I am trying to make sense of the things they have said and done from a faithful perspective. Be careful who you damn, because you are actually turning on the very leaders you think you are defending. What I have done in Passing the Heavenly Gift is to defend the faith I believe in and accept, despite human weaknesses and failings. I am realistic about the shortcomings of mere men. This is why our faith must be centered in Christ, rather than foolish and weak mankind.

Is it really impermissible for a faithful member, who wants those who are worried about history, to quote from the diaries and letters of former First Presidency members? Have only the critics the right to tell more accurate history of our faith? Do those who believe have no permission to also be candid with the public while defending the faith? How, exactly, is that supposed to work out in our favor? I’m willing to be enlightened about that approach, and if you can persuade me the truth must be avoided then I will fall in line with what I’m required to do; but with all due respect the problem is not me. The problem is that from top to bottom our faith must be more truthful in this Internet age or we risk being mere charactures and not real functioning adults with bona fide and defensible beliefs. We risk putting “fiction and fairy tales” above a sound defense of the faith. We begin to look as foolish and as immature as our critics want to paint us. Is that the goal? If not, then how should we deal with problems in history? Are we only allowed to ignore them? Or to tell versions of events that can be easily disproven? Does not the current collapse in faith among adult members who have been previously lifelong active members raise the concern that we must be more truthful? How much more damage are you willing to inflict on the religion before you reach the conclusion we must be truthful, even when the truth is unflattering?

All of the “problems” are already before us on the Internet. If you only study what is Correlated and sanitized, your children won’t. If you have no answers, then you will find you are unequal to the challenges that lie ahead of you and your family. Whether you are ready for it or not, the waves of challenges are breaking upon us. Our missionaries return with more questions than answers because there is an organized opposition working to challenge all of our teachings, doctrines and history. We MUST be better prepared. Not from composing more limited fiction, but from facing what is known to be true.

I am not worried about the faith collapsing under the weight of truth. It will instead be vindicated by the truth. It is far more handicapped by the fiction we presently serve as the defense of our faith than by a rigorous application of truth in examining the failures of men. Even when men fail, the faith is unaffected.

It is my belief that the recent assertion by the church in the Professor Bott matter did more damage to the interests of the church than anything I’ve ever done. The official statement was:

“The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine.”

In my view, this is no defense of the faith or our history. It is a worse condemnation of previous leaders than anything I’ve ever written. How does this kind of statement get approved as a public statement by the church? Can a “revelator” speak (as did Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, and many others in the first presidency and twelve) about this crucial matter for over a hundred years “in the absence of revelation?” How, if this critical issue involving the personal lives of so many faithful church members for generations was wrong and did not represent church doctrine, can we now trust that anything that is said by anyone on any topic represent church doctrine? There were faithful Saints kept out of the temple because of this doctrine. There were heartwrenching discoveries of genealogy issues for people who were previously ordained who were told they could no longer use their ordination to serve in the church. They were turned down because these men at the highest levels were acting “in the absence of revelation?” Why? This is not a defense of Mormonism by the church, it is an abdication of responsiblity. It makes the church look far worse than quoting President McKay’s concern that Correlation will lead to apostasy.

Again, I am not worried about the faith collapsing under the weight of truth. It will instead be vindicated. It is far more handicapped by efforts to appear consistent when we are completely inconsistent than by admitting we made a mistake. We are human. We fail. That is one of the great features of humanity. We tend to let ourselves make sometimes terrible mistakes and wish we could do them over. Christ died to make that possible. He is the champion of forgiveness. Why can’t we acknowledge that from time to time the church itself needs to ask for forgiveness? It would be given. Members at the lowest level of this organization are rooting for you, supporting you, and upholding you with our prayers. We want you to do your best, and know that sometimes that won’t be good enough. We know you’re going to fail us. I am perfectly willing to forgive you when you do. It is alright. I do not expect perfection, but I do hope for honesty. Lying to cover up a mistake is not easily forgiven. That inspires contempt, not forgiveness or respect. We forgive readily your mistakes because we all make them, but not everyone is going to lie to spare themselves embarrassment. Those who do, break trust with the public and with membership of the church. The first step in repentance is confession, and we know you forsake sins when you first confess them. (D&C 58: 43.)

This is why in all I’ve written I’ve tried to tell it as truthfully and honestly as I am able. I know that the Lord will forgive me when I fall short. I hope the church is willing to allow itself, and me, to fall short and still be friends mutually supporting one another in a greater cause. That greater cause is where God is involved. Our mutual mistakes are our creation, not God’s. So we shouldn’t pretend we are better, or more inspired, or less flawed than we all are. I am certain I will disappoint you, because I have not been and never will be free from sin and error in this mortal estate. But my heart is in the right place. I’m not trying to cover anything of myself up. I’m not pretending I am better than I am. I have repeatedly acknowledged I am flawed, and not worth following. I point to the Lord, because He is worth following. I readily admit I think the church and its members oftentimes pretend to be better than we are. I still defend her and hope for her best interests. My weakness does not limit God’s grace and forgiveness. The weaknesses and mistakes of the church are able to be overcome, too, through God’s grace and forgiveness.

I am a Mormon. Devoutly and actively. I intend to die as a faithful Mormon. You should never think my form of faith is too insubordinate, too candid and too open to be endured. In my view that is not a problem at my end. Exactly what is it about the truth of human failure you find so threatening? I can associate without condemning, with fellow Mormons who advocate a very shallow view of the faith I hold as true. I can let them alone and never foist my views on them. However, in the exchange of ideas among those who are actively searching the Internet and bookstores to find truth, I should be allowed to explain how I have maintained faith and active support of the church in the face of troubling history. No one is required to read what I’ve written. You don’t have to come to this blog and let me interrupt your view of Mormonism. Go your way, believe as you like. Let those who struggle, for whom I provide some aid in coping with the difficult things they’ve learned about our past and our doctrine, be permitted to peacably consider how I’ve come to reconcile the Gospel with these many challenges.

I think those who condemn it, rather than offer a reasonable explanation and defense of their beliefs, do not understand Mormonism. They do not understand our scriptures. They do not understand what Joseph Smith said of the religion he gave his life to restore. I’ve studied for years, hours a day, to gain through hard effort and prayer the things I have learned. Then I have spent decades sincerely applying those things I learned. I am most certainly a Mormon. My faith is only gained by the kind of diligence and heed I’ve given to it. If you don’t understand or sympathize with my practice of Mormonism, that does not make me less a Mormon nor you more one. It just makes us different in how we accept this great latter-day gift from God.

The fellow-Mormons who condemn me without reading what I’ve written employ means that are brutal, unkind, coercive, and intimidating. They should be trying to reclaim me from the error they think I have made. I have tried through persuasion and knowledge to bring about understanding. I cannot be intimidated by what others say or do. I know He whom I serve. And therefore I must speak boldly about this faith I hold so dear.

Correlating the Chaos

Despite what I wrote yesterday about the process of correlation, there is of course another argument in favor of the process. That argument would be based on the exact same history of the transition from Primitive Christianity into Historic Christianity. That is, by the Fourth Century those claiming to be part of the original faith had become so divided that they were actually killing one another over doctrinal disputes. They had a riot in Antioch wherein competing congregations went to battle over possession of the synagogue where they met. An actual street fight, people getting killed and all.

So, rising from rancor of doctrinal dispute into a singular set of beliefs which could later become “orthodox” and all else be branded “heterodox” or, with time, “heretical” was essential just as Constantine knew it would be. Without there being a singular set of beliefs the faith which would eventually sweep the European Continent and beyond could not have brought any unity at all. So it was a good thing, right?

That is the argument for. It is quite compelling, actually. I do not underestimate its strength. However, it simply does not persuade me. Admittedly the violence was foolish and wrong. But the violent sects were never Christ’s anyway. They never got what He was teaching. Let them run their violent course and, in time, they will never attract a large audience anyway.

Additionally, the definition of “orthodoxy” was not based upon truth or revelation, it was based only upon what was practical. Constantine never concerned himself with the truth. The legacy of that error lives on. The descendants of that original council in Nicea all condemn us as “Non-Christian” because we reject their creeds, beginning with the Nicean Creed, which defined God.

Inside the Restoration there was an order which allowed tolerance (as Joseph originally envisioned it) of divergent views of doctrine. A consensus wasn’t necessary. Only knowing that we were united as a people was necessary. How we viewed different subjects or doctrines was to be left to each individual. The way such people became “one” is something I’ve already explained in this post.

We’ve had healthy and meaningful doctrinal disagreements inside the Church without any ill effects. President Brigham Young believed that God knew everything, was not progressing in knowledge, and that if he were progressing in knowledge it would make God’s plans vulnerable to overthrow by something which He did not understand. Elder Orson Pratt thought God was progressing in every respect, including gaining knowledge. He thought the principle of “eternal progression” was the greatest joy and happiness and God enjoys the benefits of that great joy. For him it was a principle of joy. These two never agreed.

Widstoe was in disagreement with Joseph Fielding Smith. Publication of Man, His Origin and Destiny was nearly a seditious act by Joseph Fielding Smith and incurred the rancor of President McKay. President McKay shut the thing down at that point and wouldn’t let either one publish further by adopting a rule that no-one who is a General Authority is permitted to publish without permission of the First Presidency.

We survived. We tolerated. There wasn’t a group of violent Widstoeites attacking the Smithites to overtake the Pioneer Ward building. We were civil. I do not think it did anything more than raise the blood pressure of the High Priests’ Groups. Something I believe preferable to the somnambulism of that assortment we see today. Doctrinal differences sort themselves out by persuasion, pure knowledge and love. Eventually, when the problem or confusion becomes acute and we need an answer, then we can all unite and go to the Lord in prayer, seeking mercy from Him for the dispute we cannot ourselves solve. Then, through revelation, we can come to a consensus as we hear from Him. We don’t use that model very often.

Right now the Correlation Department is actively polling to give updated information to the Brethren about what policies, programs and procedures are effective. I have a lengthy questionaire at my home to fill out right now. I don’t know if I’m going to do it. I’ve commented on that process and Elder Holland’s reference to it before. I think it is more dangerous to use the polling and focus group approach to manage the diversity of opinions than it is to tolerate them.

What loss is it to us if the church simply refuses to take a position on the Gay Rights Ordinance; while some Saints believe it to be appropriate and others believe it to be the sinful prelude to Sodom and judgments of God. These opinions can be discussed, debated and people can make up their own minds. Joseph’s position of tolerance worked, when we tried it. When we had keen and publicly expressed disagreements on doctrine between the First Presidency and members of the Twelve it did not harm us at all. It made us more interesting.

Now that we have chosen to establish “orthodoxy” we are risking the freedom to be individually accountable for our beliefs before God. We have also lost doctrinal adventurism. This is because of our critics.

You see one of the harms of tolerating divergent opinions about doctrine is the clamor of the critics. They take a quote here and juxtapose it with another quote there, and say that Mormonism is a bundle of confusion. We targeted that in the Correlation process and have attempted to entirely stamp out the divergent or disagreeing doctrinal statements or positions. We want “oneness” in a different way than Paul suggested it in the post I referenced above. In doing so, we have conceded the point to our critics, and now make unity of doctrine a greater virtue than freedom to progress and develop our own understanding by degrees.

Sometimes what you understand at one point is not what you understand at another. Hugh Nibley, for example, said nothing he wrote ten years earlier would be binding upon him because he continued to discover and learn. We would be benefited from a similar approach all the way from the top to the bottom. New converts will, by degrees, leave their earlier faith traditions behind them. Or they won’t. Instead they will bring with them an understanding from those traditions which have a resonance with the Book of Mormon or something in the Doctrine and Covenants which had escaped all our notice before. And we will all be “added upon” by tolerating their view, even embracing their view. Freedom always pays dividends which control cannot.

Well, I’m not trying to solve the issue. I’m only trying to raise the issue. It is important.

Constantine and Correlation

I was asked in several ways how I reconcile some modern trends in the Church. One question was phrased this way:

“Hearkening back to Elder Poleman’s talk on the differences between the Church and the Gospel. It’s often stated (overstated?) that the church is the Kingdom of God in various meetings and most members conflate the Church with the Gospel (i.e. they are synonymous terms these days). Could you discuss the original differences (as intended in the scriptures) between “church” and “gospel”? Is church, as we currently know it (big meetinghouses, 3 hour blocks, weekly attendance, etc.), the same thing as “church” in the times of the Old and New Testaments?”

Here’s how I reconcile it all: I don’t. What I do is reflect upon history. Here are a few of my ruminations:

Christianity became diverse quite early on. Almost immediately after the closing of the New Testament, the diversity began to metastasize.

There were those who viewed Christ as a normal man, who had been “adopted” by the Father at the time of His baptism. These were called “Adoptionists.”

There were those who believed that Christ was just a normal man, but that He had a divine spirit inhabit Him temporarily from the time of His baptism until the time of His crucifixion, at which time the divine spirit left. It was incomprehensible to them that God would suffer and die. Therefore, they developed a theory in which He did not.

There were those who believed that Christ was a transcendent spirit, and never corporeal as other men were. They believed that He manifested Himself as if he were a mortal, but never truly was mortal. They did not believe it possible for God to become incarnate.

There were those who believed that Christ taught a secret Gospel to His insiders, and that the public teachings were misleading. It was the private “gnosis” that would save you.

There were those who believed that Christ was a separate and distinct being from God the Father, and that the result was that there were two gods and not one.

There were those who argued that if they were separate then it violated the idea of “monotheism” and therefore, God the Father, Christ and the Holy Ghost had to be one, single person. However incomprehensible that may be, there was only one being, manifesting itself in three forms.

There were those who believed priesthood authority was immutable, and once conferred it could not be lost no matter what the conduct of the person ordained. That is, authority was not dependent at all upon righteous behavior, and even a thoroughly wicked man, once ordained, held priesthood authority no matter what he did.

There were those who believed that priesthood authority was entirely dependent upon faithful living, and that a failure to live according to God’s will terminated the authority of that man. This movement was named after a North African priest named Arius who remained devoted during the persecutions and was blinded and crippled by those who were seeking to destroy the Christian faith.

Well, by 324 AD the whole thing had become riddled with controversies and sects. Therefore, when King Constantine, who had battled his way into sole ownership of the Roman Emperor’s seat, determined to adopt a state religion (he chose Christianity as that state religion) he presumed he was taking a harmonious, consistent faith. Upon learning that there were strong internal Christian disputes, some of which led to violence between professors of the various beliefs, he decided that he needed to put down the disputations.

In a fit of practicality, King Constantine convened the great council at Nicea, and summoned all the Bishops of Christianity to a single gathering. At the gathering he demanded they come to an agreement on what the Christian faith believed. He could not tolerate disputes leading to violence in the newly adopted Roman state religion.

This council at Nicea was the first attempt at correlation. The result had little to do with the truth. It had to do with peace for the Roman state. Constantine himself did not believe in the doctrine. He believed in the effectiveness of the faith as a basis for political power, domestic security and ease of ruling a diverse population scattered about on three continents. When the results were achieved, he then exiled the handful of dissenters and ‘voila, Historic Christianity began. That Historic Christianity remained correlated and of a singular view until the split between Constantinople and Rome at about 1000 AD. It became further uncorrelated in the 1500’s with Martin Luther.

Once you start letting doctrinal disputes develop you wind up with a split empire, and internal loss of government. The original effort was imposed at the tip of a sword. When there were dissenters, they were exiled, or eventually made “heretic.” When the final step was taken, and the intellectual buttress supplied by Bishop Ambrose’s arguments, it at last became possible for “heresy” or “heretics” to be snubbed out by murder. The persecuted became the persecutors. They were justified by the change, having a correlated promise that the faith ratified the reasons that allowed you to persecute, torture and kill those who strayed from the “one true, Catholic faith.” After all, if you could reclaim them merely by torture of the body, how much better than allowing them to lapse into eternal torment by being consigned to hell. An endless “Hell” also being an invention of the Historic Christian faith. So it was really good to do that burning, racking, thumb-dislocating, flaying, stuff after all. All in a day’s work to convert the wayward soul back to Christ.

Elder Lee, while still a member of the Twelve, began the correlation process in the LDS Church. It was his crowning achievement when he became President. Now everything is in harmony. That harmony has come at the price of developing the internal idea of “apostasy” based upon the doctrine we believe in. A test which was altogether alien to Joseph Smith. Joseph said, when a brother Brown was being threatened with excommunication for his error in doctrine:

“I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine.”

The price we have paid to date for correlation is a fraction of what will ultimately be paid, if history informs us of anything. It is now possible to be a “Mormon heretic” for believing doctrine which someone else has determined should be discarded — a thing which was unimaginable at the time of Joseph Smith, even as a result of an actual error in doctrine. For Joseph, the way to reclaim some errant Saint was, well, confined to the means permitted by revelation: “only by persuasion, by long–suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile.” (D&C 121: 41-42.) Today that has been expanded to excommunication for doctrinal errors. When such a thing takes place, years go by before such a person is re-welcomed into the church, and then only after receiving permission from the First Presidency. So the correlation of doctrine has slipped already into a coercive use of authority within the church. Instead of persuading using better doctrine to correct an error, we punish and silence them through a method that was alien to the original pattern.

History is an interesting thing to study. Particularly at the beginnings of any religious movement. It always progresses from movement to institution. Once it becomes an institution, as King Constantine realized, the institution itself must protect itself against disorder. That protection comes, as history shows, at the price of contradicting the original premise upon which the movement began.

The ironies of this are always astonishing. But somehow those who live through it never realize the irony while it is happening. Only later, as it has taken its full bloom in torture, killing, flaying, racking and destroying the lives of people does the original, root moments in which the errors began to creep in get recognized. Those making the errors in the first place are celebrated for centuries as “Saints” and “Popes.”

The history of religion, generally, is a transition between the movement stage, where there is always a charismatic or gifted core from which it springs, to the institution stage. Unfortunately for the institution, gifted folks aren’t usually good businessmen. (Joseph Smith, for example, had a pending petition for bankruptcy when he was killed.) Once the movement gets underway, it gets co-opted by businessmen, managers and captains of industry. Folks like Emperor Constantine, who if nothing else was a consummate manager.

Managers crave order. They dislike the chaos of the Spirit, which is always unstable, unpredictable, and uncorrelateable. (John 3: 8.) As a result, they change a movement into an institution. Institutions require order. The nature of an institution requires managers, bankers, businessmen and generals. They consider their “product” to be religion, and they manage and sell their product as if they were General Motors, or the Roman Empire. The kind of freedom that gave birth to the movement must be disciplined, marshaled and controlled.

Our faith is in a complete internal opposition at the moment. To become a Mormon, if you aren’t born one, you must go through a conversion process which is grounded in the bedrock of revelation. You must pray and ask God if the Book of Mormon is true, and then you are to get an answer from God. We expect you to have a revelatory experience to join. But, once you have joined, then the scope of your revelatory experience is strictly limited. You must NOT question any leader, nor ever expect God to tell you something about any subject over which you do not preside, nor to ever realize through the inspiration of the Spirit that there are foolish, vain and wrong notions circulating about. You must NOT notice that Deseret Book has become a repository of false and foolish books parading sentimentality as if it were salvific. You should never consider God’s revelations to you as something to be honored apart from what the institution says, does, does not do, or does poorly. Indeed, the voice of God will come to you solely and exclusively through the institution. If you need to know something, then the institution will tell you. Unless you hear your orders from it, then stay as you are.

We are at a cross-roads. At the moment the movement is ending. The institution is at its pinnacle of complete triumph. When the process concludes, it will not welcome converts who will challenge the basic assumptions that they, having received revelation to come on-board in the first place, must now quash the Spirit which raises so many questions about how things are proceeding. Then to be Mormon will mean to be correlated. Correlated body and soul. An institutional man. No longer distinct, unique, or creative. Disciplined, orderly, subservient, and under control. Then the institution will become a remarkably appealing tool for not only the captains of industry, but also the heads of state. It will become an almost irresistible tool to be employed as part of governing the world. And so history repeats itself.

Well, these direful lessons are ones which can be either relived or avoided. But to avoid them people who are inside the process must step outside their own times and context and to view everything within a larger picture. I don’t think bankers, businessmen and lawyers do that often. Indeed, the well educated who lack inspiration are not qualified. Only the meek. Only the humble. As Nephi described us: “they have all gone astray save it be a few, who are the humble followers of Christ; nevertheless, they are led, that in many instances they do err because they are taught by the precepts of men.” (2 Ne. 28: 14.) That was the group to whom I dedicated my book The Second Comforter.

Then I pull myself back into the present reality, and let it all wash over me like a wave. I take a deep breath and I realize how grateful I am for any bit of goodness I can find anywhere. And in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I can find a lot of good. And I count my blessings and rise determined to remain a true, faithful, active Latter-day Saint throughout my life; and to die as an active and contributing fellow member. But reconciling everything, well, I’m told that’s not my calling to do anyway. And I’m grateful to sustain other men to grapple with the management of this historic trend, fraught as it is with the damnation or exaltation of the souls of men. Particularly when they claim to speak in the Lord’s name. For them there is only an “on/off” button. They can’t have it any other way. Either they speak truthfully in the name of the Lord and with His authorization, or they use His name in vain. I certainly wouldn’t want to be put into that spot. So I gratefully sustain those who rush to fill the offices when asked to do so. As one who is simply unfit to serve in such a call, I thank God for my disqualification.

The traditions of men, part 1

I received this question in a comment: “You often refer to incorrect traditions that you see members following. Can you give me a few specifics?”

This is a potentially sensitive question and I want to answer it with care. Before doing so, however, I want to clarify some initial matters: First, I sustain the church’s leaders and I do not challenge their right to preside, make decisions, direct the affairs of the church, control tithing and call leadership. I “fall in line” behind them and do not question their right to lead. Second, I have a testimony of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and of President Monson as the only one authorized to exercise all the keys within the church. Third, I do not think that observations about the church, even if they are critical of it, are proof that someone is misled, under Satan’s influence, or on the road to apostasy. In fact, there are many active Latter-day Saints who have concerns, but who are content to remain active, faithful and supportive members of the church. Concerns are not the same thing as rebellion or rejection. Fourth, I do not either expect or advocate any changes being made. When or if changes are made they will happen as a result of someone else’s actions, more than likely someone who would be in a position of authority within the church. I am not such a person.

Also, I want to be clear that I may personally make a value judgment about what has changed and mourn the loss, but another person may look at the same events and say they are good, developmental and preferred to what was there before. So these are MY opinions, and not necessarily the view you should adopt as your own view. You will have to decide such things for yourself. That having been clarified, here are some of the things which have changed dramatically and are the product of accepted tradition now, but were entirely innovative when they happened.

The discarding of the Presiding Patriarch of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There is no scriptural authority for this change and there was nothing in the original order which suggested that a change would be made. Now the current state of things is equivocal. We actually have still a Presiding Patriarch who is still living. He is emeritus. Whether the church intends to terminate the office upon his death is unclear. If they do, that will be an innovation and (in my personal opinion) unfortunate.

The alteration of the Presiding High Priest’s status from “President” to “Prophet.” From the time of Joseph Smith until 1955 the term “Prophet” was used exclusively to refer to Joseph Smith. It was changed in 1955 to apply to the living President, David O. McKay. Before then no living man was ever referred to as “Prophet” within the church, other than Joseph Smith. When the word “Prophet” was used after Joseph’s death, it was understood the term meant Joseph Smith.

The result of this change was to create a “cult of personality” around the church president in much the same way that the Catholic Church has created a “cult of personality” around Mother Mary. You need to understand that whole subject before you get too excited by my putting it that way. If you do not understand this technical description then you need to become acquainted with it to be able to comprehend what I am saying here. To briefly touch upon the subject, the Catholic view of the “cult of personality” around Mother Mary is positive. It does not get viewed by them as a defect or some terrible aberration. Pope John Paul II considered himself a part of that “cult” involving Mary.

In our context, what has happened as a result of this alteration is that the former significance of the church’s president was administrative, and priestly. He was a final arbitrator and judge, a presiding authority and a leader whose words were to be considered carefully. He was NOT considered infallible or to be invariably inspired. In fact, during the presidencies of the Prophet Joseph Smith, President Brigham Young and President John Taylor, they all spoke against any notion of infallibility of the church’s president. President Young was particularly cautionary about trusting church leaders instead of the Holy Spirit as your guide. President Young said too much trust of a church leader would bring the saints to hell.

President Woodruff was so criticized by members for the Manifesto that he defended himself by claiming that the Lord wouldn’t let him make a mistake on that order. He said that the Lord just wouldn’t let the church’s president lead the saints astray. That comment was what would later be used to buttress the notion popularly believed today that the “prophet is infallible.”

President Heber J. Grant was an unpopular church president. One of the problems with getting the saints to respond to the church president’s counsel was solved when the president of the church became the living “Prophet.” You can reject or question counsel from an administrative authority. But to question a “Prophet of God” was to invite the damnation of hell. So the change in nomenclature worked a mighty change in the perceptions of the Latter-day Saints. The “cult of personality” was an inevitable result. Everything the president did would be done as “God’s Living Prophet.” No matter what decisions were made, no matter their wisdom, goodness or undesirability, the result was the same: “They MUST be inspired. We may not have the human capacity to see it, but God’s ways are higher than man’s after all. To question is to lack in faith.”

The change put the president into a league in which at a minimum criticism was disrespectful. Worse, if you were convinced that he made a mistake, it followed almost as an inevitability that you were absolutely forbidden from saying so because to do so revealed a “weakness in the faith.” In fact, there are General Conference talks which speak about criticizing the church president (or “Living Prophet”) claiming that the criticism was due to a weak faith, and it would lead to apostasy unless a person repented.

This cult of personality has grown as a result of internal structural changes, including correlation. The outcome is particularly dramatic with respect to the tolerance of women’s inspiration. Whereas, in the early years a woman could be regarded as a “prophetess” (Eliza R. Snow, for example), today that recognition would be offensive to correlation, where all functions are combined under priesthood, and all priesthood is subject to the president alone as final authority.

The changes have been evolutionary, and over a single person’s lifetime not all that dramatic. However the cumulative effect from the start to now is dramatic. Right now the church views any revelation or miraculous event originating with a woman as suspicious. It was so markedly contrary to this trend when a mission president’s wife foretold the Chilean earthquake, and the Meridian Magazine covered the event without any notice that the message came through the wife, that I linked to that article on this blog. The article presumed the propriety of the inspiration. But the message came to the wife, not the mission president. That would be an un-correlated event today, and there is an existing infrastructure that would frown on that. Happily the event was not questioned, but instead celebrated.

The “cult of personality” has been extended to cover everything. You name it it is now covered. Take any complaint at all: The chapel paint is hideous! Well, there are those who will argue that the chapel’s paint is chosen by the regular authorities of the church, who are chosen by the prophet, and your complaint about the paint color is really questioning the Prophet of God’s authority. Therefore you are on the road to apostasy….

It doesn’t matter the subject. The argument works by extension to everything. The Bishop cheated his business partner: You shouldn’t question that because … yada, yada, .. you’re questioning the Prophet of God. Therefore you are on the road to apostasy.

Try: My child was molested by her primary teacher. Oddly enough it even works there, too. At least there are many people willing to apply that by extension to every ridiculous proposition advanced. So the cult of personality has now assumed a front and center position to curtail discussion, debate or consideration of even healthy alternatives to the way things are. EVERYTHING is inspired. EVERYTHING, by extension, is happening because a “Prophet of God” has made it so. Therefore unless you concede that “All is Well in Zion” you are questioning the “Prophet of God” and on the road to apostasy.

The stifling effect of this is pernicious. It is not a view shared at the top. In fact, the brethren preach against this notion, but to no avail. I have coined the term “Brethrenites” to describe the result of this cult of personality in my book Eighteen Verses. There’s a chapter in there that discusses this problem.

Crap, this is going to take longer than I thought. Well, here we go again. This will be “Part One” and I’ll continue this with something more.