The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly or My Day at Church

I can’t remember the last time I had such a good and a bad experience in Church on the same day.

The Bad – Sacrament Meeting

It was high council Sunday. I don’t know our high councilor well but he seems a really good person. He is gentle and down to earth and I like what he does for a living – he’s a veterinarian. So I was pleased to see that he was speaking today. Only he didn’t really speak, he was assigned a general authority talk and that is basically the talk he gave. He started by saying that while the Stake President doesn’t usually assign topics, in this case he was instructed to talk about Elder Dallin Oaks recent General Conference address about Sacrament Meetings. So I think he was just doing his job.

This was the second time I've heard the talk. The first was during conference. I didn’t like it then and it didn’t get better with repetition. I realize that this statement may be proof positive that I am completely void of the spirit but that is how I feel.

The talk included a number of admonitions about how to behave during sacrament meeting. The points that jumped out at me were:

Deacons should always wear a white when passing the sacrament
Clothing is indication of who a person is
Clothing that the draws attention to the wearer should not be worn
You should bear testimony in a certain way
You shouldn’t read books or text message during sacrament meeting

Here’s my beef

White Shirts -- Why do we insist on a dress code for our young men? Some people don’t like to look like everybody else and institutionalizing a mode of dress pushes non-conformists out the door. Why do we want to have a church were you have to look a certain way? What could your church attire possibly have to do with important eternal principals? Can’t we just let kids wear what they feel comfortable in and not give them a reason to look someplace else to spend their Sundays.

Testimony – Can we please treat people like they are adults? We talk about listening to the spirit all the time. Why not let people decide for themselves what the spirit prompts. I feel like most of the interesting testimonies have been stage managed out the door. Why do we want people to say the same three or four things everybody else says? Why are we afraid to just let people say what they think? We claim the spirit will prompt people but then we institutionally formulate scripts for them to follow.

Books – This is where my selfishness will show. I long for engaging interesting meetings. Ones where people are honest about their struggles and challenges. I want to know what a speaker thinks. I don’t really want to hear a speaker tell me what someone else thinks. I don’t expect them to be polished but I do hope that they will use their own thoughts and words. Is that fabulously unrealistic to want that? One reason people read in church is because much of what is interesting has been institutionalized out of the meetings. More and more people are expected to only say certain things and in a certain way. Church should be a forum for exploring faith and belief rather than a place where honesty and individuality are checked at the door.

The Good – Sunday School

I love my Sunday school class. I attend Gospel Principles. I like the small size (around 10 people) and the informality it allows. People feel free to say what they think and there is a great deal of discussion. I also like it that it includes converts. Converts often have not been correlated to the point that they say all the right things in the right manner. Plus converts made a choice at some point to become Mormon. I like their ability to compare and contrast membership with non-membership.

Today we had a lesson about Heavenly Father. The teacher is a newish member who just got sealed in the temple. We had an engaging discussion about God, evolution, faith, science, time, dinosaurs, chemistry, intelligent design, atheism, agnosticism, and the witness of the spirit. The teacher is a scientist and is very comfortable bouncing ideas around. Some things he had an opinion on and other things he put down to faith. He was just very relaxed and conversational. I particularly found enjoyable a discussion about the space where faith can emerge from agnosticism.

He took the last 10 minutes of the class to tell his conversion story. He had flirted with atheism when young. But later spent a lot of time in the mountains and came to feel that there was a god. Once he found that god was plausible, he began to be open to religion. Over a number of years (with the help of his wife) he explored Mormonism. He thought Mormons were very weird (he still does) but eventually found his faith morphed into belief. It was very moving and you could hear a pin drop as he told his story. I wish all my meetings could be like that.

The Ugly – Priesthood Meeting

Ok - the last part isn’t ugly but I was worried that it might be. Today’s lesson centered on the oft repeated Joseph Smith statement “I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves.” The instructor asked what we thought about that in relation to Church leadership today. Because I was still smoldering a bit from sacrament meeting I raised my hand. I tried not to be too snippy but I wanted to give me two cents worth. I told him that I liked the concept of letting people govern themselves but that we didn’t really practice that in the Church. I cited as an example the talk from sacrament meeting in which we were told point by point how to conduct ourselves in sacrament meeting. I said that Joseph Smith was a leader and not a manager and that we would better off  if we let people decide for themselves how to implement truths. I was worried that I was too strong in my comments but the discussion moved along quickly much to my relief. I think the quorum members chalk my comments up to my quirky personality which is ok with me. I didn’t want to offend anybody, most of all the high councilman who was attending the class, but I do believe rank and file members are entitled to voice their opinions even if they are at odds with the management. 

Satan – A Man with a Plan

I found myself in downtown Salt Lake yesterday with a few minutes to kill so I dropped into the genealogical library to do a quick bit of research.  Sitting across from me was a couple doing the same.  They bantered back and forth as they worked.  The man told his partner that there were several very large families in his lineage.  One family, he noted, had 18 children.  The man opined that Satan’s Plan must be working because we do not have large families like that anymore.

In the recent Prop 8 debate, I heard the phrase Satan’s Plan used extensively by LDS members trying to explain the push for same sex marriage.  Not so much from the top of the Church, the Brethren I think are careful about that type of speech in a setting that involves non-Mormons, but I heard it a lot from the rank and file members.  Although to be fair, Mormons provide a slew of reasons why the family is under siege and how the attack is part of Satan’s Plan. 

Today in Elder’s Quorum we had a very timely and helpful presentation from a ward member who is a banker.  He made a brief presentation about the state of the economy and the causes of our current recession.  He then provided a number of measures we can take to be prudent in our financial dealings and enhance our financial well being.  He talked about staying out of deal, measuring risk when investing, the need for collaboration between spouses and children when managing a household budget, and being charitable with money.  It was one of the most on point lessons I have experienced in a very long time.  But of course this was church meeting, not a Suze Orman lecture, and the context was very much a religious one.  He equated debt free living as being in tune with God’s plan and being debt ridden as being beholden to Satan’s Plan. So, family planning, same sex marriage and debt --- part of Satan’s Plan?  Depending on the type of Mormon you are, you might see Satan’s Plan in any or all of these examples.  Or perhaps you don’t think everything you happen to view negatively is the devil’s doing. 

I personally don't think family planning is inspired by the devil and I don’t believe that Same Sex Marriage is in the devil’s play book.   But debt – that’s tricky – I am pretty down on debt having spent of good portion of my professional career representing bankruptcy filers in court.  Ok – I am willing to say that debt is part of Satan’s Plan --- whatever that means.

Credit where Credit is Due

Mormons continue to get credit for passing Prop 8.  In Mormons Tipped Scale in Ban on Gay Marriage the New York Times joins the chorus of thought leaders giving the LDS church the distinction of being the main reason Prop 8 passed.  There are some interesting quotes from Michael R. Otterson, the managing director of public affairs for the Church.  Otterson gives a tiny glimpse of  the Church's thinking on Prop 8.  Because the Brethren don’t elaborate much when discussing deliberations concerning their actions, you  find your context where you can.

Money Talks, Gay Marriage Walks

Yesterday, the LDS Church issued the following statement

It is disturbing that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is being singled out for speaking up as part of its democratic right in a free election.

Members of the Church in California and millions of others from every faith, ethnicity and political affiliation who voted for Proposition 8 exercised the most sacrosanct and individual rights in the United States — that of free expression and voting.

While those who disagree with our position on Proposition 8 have the right to make their feelings known, it is wrong to target the Church and its sacred places of worship for being part of the democratic process.

Once again, we call on those involved in the debate over same-sex marriage to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility towards each other. No one on either side of the question should be vilified, harassed or subject to erroneous information.

Is it wrong for the Church to be singled out? Perhaps, but it's hardly a surprise. Many parties acted together to defeat Prop 8 but the player getting the most credit is the LDS Church. That shouldn’t surprise anyone. The Church has been recognized as the entity that bankrolled the campaign. Although contributions were  made by individual members, they were made in response to a plea from the Church. As such I don’t think it is unreasonable to characterize those donations as coming from the Church. That money allowed for an active media campaign that helped get the measure passed. Is it a leap therefore to credit the Church with its passage? Whether you think so or not, the Church has been given the credit and will have to deal with the fallout.

Last night there was a protest march in downtown Salt Lake by those who oppose the Church’s position on Gay marriage. Although it was planned at the last minute, two or three thousand people showed up. The march was big news here and all the TV stations covered as well as the Tribune and the Deseret News. It’s hard to say if the losing side is just blowing off steam or if this is the start of concerted efforts to target the Church but I don't think its a one time occurance.

While the march was going on, I attended a Church event. I discussed the protest with a few people and saw others talking about it. Attending the event was an apostle. As I saw him from a distance, I wondered if the protest was on his mind. Apparently it was because as he walked past me, I couldn’t help but hear him mention the protest to a colleague.

This makes me wonder what impact such events have on the Brethren who make decisions at the very highest levels of the Church. Did the protest cause them to re-evaluate their position?  Of course I don’t know the answer to that but it seems unlikely. These men have the conviction that God is behind them 100% and that those who disagree are best misguided and at worst under evil influence. As far as influencing publice opinion, perhaps public protests help the gay rights, but as a way to influence LDS authorities, it probably isn't going to work.

Be Careful What You Wish For

Election Day is just 9 days away and it looks like California’s Proposition 8 limiting marriage to a man and a woman will pass.  On Intrade the odds are approaching 3 to 2.  I give a lot of weight to Intrade because participants bet on outcomes with real money rather than hyperbole.  The LA Times is also out with a new poll provided by the Public Policy Institute of California.  The poll is not tied into either side of the debate and is considered reliable.  It shows Prop 8 favored 52% to 44%. 

Of course the LDS church has been deeply involved in efforts to get the measure passed.  The church’s efforts have been organized, well funded and effective.  These actions have not gone unnoticed.  In fact, the church seems to be emerging as the most visible party in the fight and the entity that will be given the most credit for its passage.  The Wall Street Journal last week credited the LDS church with drumming up nearly 40% of all money raised to support the proposition  – more than any other group.  Andrew Sullivan at the Atlantic Monthly credits the Church contributions with “bankrolling” the pro 8 advertising campaign.

I know it ain’t over ‘til it’s over, but for the sake of argument, let’s say these numbers hold and Prop 8 passes. What does this get the Church?  Will the Church become the poster child (justified or not) for stifling gay rights?  Sure, the Church has the right and apparently the power to fight gay marriage, but it seems to me that it runs a high risk of being singled out for special recognition by gay rights groups as being intolerant and homophobic.  Mind you, I am not commenting on the propriety of such labeling, I just think it is a likely outcome. 

Now there may be some people who think that Church’s success here will play to its strengths.  That the kind of people who will look down upon the Church for this are the kind of people the Church will never win over anyway.  And that there will be many people who are pro-family (in the Mormon sense) who will respond favorably to the Church’s reputation as the entity that beat back gay rights in favor of traditional marriage.  Perhaps they are right.  But is it worth the backlash?

My personal hunch on this is that the Church is in for some stormy weather.  I think gay rights are the new civil rights and it is only a matter of time before gays are afforded the same rights as everyone else.   And much like it was during the civil rights movement, the Church is way behind the curve.  The gay rights train has left the station and the LDS Church cannot turn it back, although it clearly has to ability to hinder its progress.

Do you think this will help or hurt the Church – or both?

Sarah Palin – A Sister’s Sister

Sarah Palin, if elected, could change the landscape for Mormon women more than any politician has for a very long time. From what I can tell, she is a huge hit with the LDS ladies. Mitt Romney of course resonated big time with Mormons, but he was just another man who happened to be a Mormon and longed to be the big dog in Washington. Had he won, Mormons undoubtedly would have had more exposure, but the victory wouldn’t have changed the status quo between Mormon men and women.

Sarah Palin is different. She is a Christian conservative mother. And guess what? She’s a woman. You can argue with her politics but not with her gender. In Palin, Mormon women have a sister who is similar to them who could ascend to the highest office any woman can hold. Of course, I don’t mean the Presidency of the Relief Society; I mean the Presidency of the United States.

There has been so much focus on Palin’s conservative credentials that her potential impact upon the average Mormon woman has been overlooked. Sure, Palin, isn’t going to appeal to the NRA-hating, pro-choice leaning, meat-distaining segment of Mormon women (how many can there be?), but she seems to strongly resonate with the other 99 percent of active Mormon women. Hillary Clinton sure as Hades isn’t going to be a role model for the majority of Mormon women any time soon. Mormon women mostly despise her and think of her as a kind of She Devil. Mormon women will experience Hillary-driven change only as passive or antagonistic beneficiaries.

But Sarah Palin, she’s a different story. She is almost one of them. If you can get past her evangelical strain of Christianity, she could be a member in the ward who happens to be successful in politics. Mormon women see that Palin is not that different from them. They relate to her. They can even get over the pregnancy of her 17-year-old daughter because we all know someone with a kid who’s made a mistake. Mormon women can embrace Palin and join her in her ride to the top. Mormon women can fancy themselves her partner in the journey. Mormon women can cheer her on her quest to reign supreme over a male-dominated society.

Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin represent the ends of a range within which the bulk of American women fall, politically and socially. Hillary Clinton anchors the liberal end and Sarah Palin the conservative. If a person gets much in front of Clinton they become politically marginalized. If you are more conservative than Palin, you are marginalized as well. But the range itself has shifted left. Palin may be a conservative, but she is not saying that women need to stay home with their babies. She’s saying they can run the country. Palin’s conservative end of the spectrum is to the left of most Mormons and I believe that Mormon women will find themselves shifting to the center in order to keep up with Palin.

Change comes not only from those who lead the pack, but also those who follow. If Hillary Clinton shows how far ahead of the pack a women can tread, Sarah Palin shows the limit of how far behind a woman can fall. But either way, the range has been moved dramatically forward. And for Mormon women, the more important marker just may be Palin, because she is a figure that most can identify with.

Here is what Palin shows a woman can do.

1 – She can work full time

2 – She can be a mother and work full time

3 – She can be a mother of five and work full time

4 – She can be a mother of five, including a Down syndrome child, and work full time

5 – Not only can she do these things, she can be a chief executive and preside over men.

6 – She can be a conservative Christian and do all of the above

This is not small potatoes for Mormons. I think it is not yet well accepted in the Church that a mother can work full time. Yes, it happens more and more, but I think generally it is still frowned upon in action if not in word. A woman cannot hold a position in the Church where she has authority over men. Palin does that as a Governor now, and if she were to become the President, she would be the ultimate authority over both men and women. Mormon women would have a role model who, in Mormon speak, would preside rather than just give counsel. I think if Mormon women got used to having female civil leaders that they relate to, they not be able to stop themselves from wondering why their religion does not allow women the same opportunities as their country.

So, am I voting for Palin? Not by a long shot, because I disagree with her on too many issues. But that doesn’t mean I am blind to the change she represents and the benefits that could come from her rise to power. In a Mormon context, Sarah Palin has the potential to be very empowering to the sisters.

Tipping Point or Tripping Point

I feel like I have just spent a week in liberal Mormon heaven. Last Saturday I attended Sunstone. It was full of interesting people with interesting ideas. Sunday my Gospel Principals class had a very engaging discussion about how to serve others. Sunday night I heard Richard Bushman speak at a fireside, and yesterday I attended a book signing and address by the authors of the just-released Massacre at Mountain Meadows. For a Mormonism junkie dweeb it doesn’t get much better.

Meeting and listening to Richard Bushman was probably the highlight of the lot. I have read Rough Stone Rolling (RSR) and a few other Bushman books, and think highly of his work. I am aware of his credentials and talent, but I was taken aback by how good he is from the pulpit. It was not so much his presentation – he is no fire-eating orator. It’s more his understanding of his audience, where they are now, and where he can take them.

I think he knows very well going into these types of events whom he is addressing and what he hopes to achieve. I have been reading On the Road with Joseph Smith, Bushman’s account of the rollout of RSR, in which he details his feelings and approach to addressing many such forums. As such, I was very keen to see how he would “work” the crowd.

The setting was my sister’s stake in Sandy, Utah. Not exactly a hotbed of liberal Mormon thought. One of the first things Bushman did was announce that after making his prepared remarks, he would take questions and that nothing was off limits. Anybody could ask anything they liked. To some that may not seems like a big deal, but when was the last time you heard someone say that to a Mormon congregation from the pulpit?

Bushman was super smooth in how he introduced the congregation to tricky historical problems without seeming to do so. He was very respectful and deferential. He even used an Elder Packer quote about Emma Smith. He seems a master of working change from within. He matter of factly discusses topics that are traditionally more fit for Sunstone than a meeting house. Maybe I am reading more into this than is warranted but I think he cleverly builds credibility with the congregation by saying the right things and quoting the right people before he casually mentions something like Joseph marrying a 14-year-old.

His remarks focused on the humanness of Joseph Smith, the esteem in which he holds Emma Smith, and the practice of polygamy. When he was done the audience took him at his word and peppered him with the type of question that doesn’t usually get asked in Sunday School. Someone wanted to know why Joseph married women who were already betrothed. Bushman said it was Joseph’s way of linking his eternal family to others. Another wanted to know his feelings about the FLDS church in light of the Joseph polygamous experience. Bushman said that while he in no way condoned any type of abuse or pedophilia, he felt we should be very sympathetic to the FLDS. He said that their troubles gave us a glimpse of the troubles early Mormons faced. I asked him why Emma let her boys believe that their father had not practiced polygamy? Hadn’t she done a great disservice in allowing them to proclaim wrongly in public that their father never practiced polygamy? He said that Emma was ashamed of the practice of polygamy and that if you read her words carefully, you’ll notice they are carefully worded to leave herself some wiggle room.

When he was done taking questions, the meeting ended and several people lined up to shake his hand and have books signed. When my turn came, I asked him if he thought that RSR had gotten too far out in front of where Mormons are willing to see their prophet. He said that he had written that book according to how he saw things and that although some members did not want this information, many did. He said that he thought the Church was at a tipping point in term of a candid appraisal and discussion of its history. I was struck by this. A tipping point to me suggests that we may soon experience a much more open approach to church history. Not just a gradual change but a wide and thorough change that will become the rule rather than the exception.

The presentation by the authors of Massacre at Mountain Meadows was very interesting. I sat about 4 feet from the authors (a small room at Benchmark Books with a lot of people). They seemed to have very different personalities and they emphasized very different things in their presentations (they each spoke about 10 minutes). Richard Turley talked a lot about the research process and methodology. Ron Walker focused more on the narrative and Glen Leonard zeroed in on how the event might have been avoided had a few individuals stood their ground when their priesthood and militia leaders pushed for their acquiescence. When they were done speaking, Curt Bench, the bookstore proprietor, talked about how extraordinary and unprecedented the book was and the openness with which the church facilitated the project. He strongly expressed his feeling that we are entering a new phase of openness and candor. He said he had never seen anything like this before. Curt has been dealing books and Mormon document since before Mark Hoffman and has spent his career following Church goings-on. I don’t think he is one given to hyperbole.

Perhaps I am reading too much into these experiences, or maybe I just heard what I wanted to hear. But it seems that two very keen observers of Mormonism see a shift to and perhaps a widening of candor and openness in the Church. Are they up in the night? I hope not.