Gospel Principles #1 - Our Heavenly Father (NOM version)

See my previous blog entry to read how I taught this lesson in Relief Society.

For most of my adolescent and adult life, I had a strong belief in God. When I was 14, I had a transcendent experience (probably what some Christians would call the sensation of “being born again”) in which I prayed to God and felt strongly that he was real and that he loved me deeply. I remember feeling like I was on a spiritual high for nearly an entire week---just so utterly happy to feel God’s love and see his hand in my life.

For most of my life, I saw God as a loving parent who knew me more perfectly than I knew myself. I believed he was intimately aware of every detail of my life and that he regularly intervened on my behalf. And I furthermore believed he did this for everyone else on earth too---but not all of his children were fully aware of his love and his presence. This belief gave me a sense of purpose, an elevated self-esteem, and a feeling that everything would turn out okay for me in the end.

Those days are over now. It's interesting how far I've come from that too. I recently became a member of a private agnostic/atheist Facebook group for Mormons. (Funny---the person I was 2 years ago could not have even conceived that such a group existed, let alone become a member of one.) This morning a group member posted an interesting question:

Hey everybody, I was just curious about the spectrum of belief/disbelief in this group. Where do you guys fall on this 7-point scale? (Borrowed from Richard Dawkins.) All viewpoints on the issue are welcome. I just think that it might be interesting to clarify what each of us means when we say we are agnostics/atheists/nonbelievers, etc.

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

I thought about it for a long time, and eventually I responded: "To be honest, my answer would probably change depending on which day you asked me. But on most days I would put myself at a solid 5. On my darker days, I'm a 7 and on my more optimistic, socially-amenable days I'm a 3."

Simply put, although today I am highly skeptical of God’s existence, I am willing to make room for the possibility that God might still exist. I do, however, feel confident that if God exists, he/she is probably very different from how I used to imagine him/her to be when I was younger. I'll explain why I've come to feel that way in this blog entry.

NOTE: The topic of today's blog entry is of course a very sensitive issue. It was actually very difficult to write this post since I knew so many people would see it differently than I do. So, let me just make it clear that I am in no way advocating that others adopt my views on God. You are welcome to retain your particular beliefs and I will respect them and even validate them. I just want to explain what my views are in order to make sense of it for myself. Also, I will refer to God using the male pronoun "he" for the sake of convenience---but not because I actually believe God is a male.

Contradictory Premises
As I already mentioned, I used to see God as a parent figure who was actively involved in my life. If I were to summarize my previous views on God in the form of a theorem, it would look like this:

1. God is a loving being who is fair and equitable, who wants the best for all of his children.
2. God is an all-powerful being who is capable of influencing the world and human events on both a large and small scale.
3. God is aware of each of his children’s lives and is actively trying to nurture them and influence their lives for the better.

While I feel it is possible for God to have any one of these three qualities, I’ve realized that you can’t have all three---you have to pick two. As soon as you choose one of those qualities, it immediately nullifies one of the other two.

Let me illustrate my meaning. Let’s take Theorem #1 which says that God is a loving being who is fair and equitable and who wants the best for his children. If that is true, it becomes very difficult to make sense of the extremely stark inequities and brutalities that exist in the world.

Take, this image for example:

This is a picture of thousands of shoes that used to belong to the Jewish men, women, and children who were systematically murdered in concentration camps by the Nazi soldiers during the Holocaust. When you watch films such as Night and Fog and read other accounts of the atrocities of the Holocaust, it is quite natural to ask: how could a loving and equitable God allow an estimated six million individuals to be heinously tortured and murdered solely because of their ethnicity?

The Book of Mormon attempts to answer this question in Alma 14. In this chapter, Alma and Amulek witness believing women and children being burned to death by the wicked unbelievers. When Amulek pleads with Alma to let them intervene using the powers God has given them, Alma replies in verse 11:

The Spirit constraineth me that I must not stretch forth mine hand; for behold the Lord receiveth them up unto himself, in glory; and he doth suffer that they may do this thing, or that the people may do this thing unto them, according to the hardness of their hearts, that the judgments which he shall exercise upon them in his wrath may be just; and the blood of the innocent shall stand as a witness against them, yea, and cry mightily against them at the last day.

In other words, the righteous and the wicked will have their just rewards in the after-life. By that same logic, God doesn’t intervene in egregious human events such as the Holocaust so that Hitler’s wicked deeds will serve as a testament against him in the next life.

I suppose I could logically accept such an explanation (even though it is admittedly very unsatisfactory on an emotional level). However, this explanation makes Theorem #3 impossible because it suggests that God does not intervene in our lives for the most part (even though he has the power to do so). Perhaps he does so out of a respect for human agency or something to that effect.

But this is a bit of a problem for contemporary Mormons. If you visit a ward on any given Fast Sunday, you will hear many Mormons who provide anecdotal evidence asserting that Theorem #3 is most definitely true. Mormons are fond of sharing stories in which they could see that God had intervened in their life in some way. Probably the most typical example of this is when someone gets up and talks about how they lost something like their car keys, and then they miraculously found them shortly after praying to God for help. I used to enjoy both hearing and telling those kinds of stories because I saw it as evidence of God’s love for us and his personal involvement in our lives. But those stories make me cringe now; I just can’t see how Theorem #3 makes any sense at all when taking into account all of the suffering in the world.

If you have the stomach for it, take a look at this Pulitzer-Prize winning photo, taken by Kevin Carter in 1993:

[Click on this link to view the image]

Truthfully, this image is so disturbing to me that I can’t bring myself to feature it directly on my blog. The picture shows a starving, emaciated Sudanese girl being stalked by a vulture. Carter said the girl was on her way to a feeding center when he took the picture. Fortunately, he chased the vulture away after snapping the picture and the girl eventually made it to the center, but the photograph haunted him so profoundly that he committed suicide in 1994. Looking at the picture, I can understand why.

To put this image into relief, let's contrast it with a personal story told by Elder J. Devin Cornish in the most recent General Conference. He talks about how he was riding his bicycle on his way home from medical school when he felt incredibly tired and hungry. He decided that he would feel better if he could get a piece of chicken at a nearby fried chicken shop where they were having a sale on drumsticks for 29 cents. When he looked in his wallet, he saw he only had a nickel. He states:

As I rode along, I told the Lord my situation and asked if, in His mercy, He could let me find a quarter on the side of the road. I told Him that I didn’t need this as a sign but that I would be really grateful if He felt to grant me this kind blessing. I began watching the ground more intently but saw nothing. Trying to maintain a faith-filled but submissive attitude as I rode, I approached the store. Then, almost exactly across the street from the chicken place, I saw a quarter on the ground. With gratitude and relief, I picked it up, bought the chicken, savored every morsel, and rode happily home.

Why would God help an educated, white, American Mormon doctor find a quarter on the ground so that he could buy a piece of chicken while simultaneously allowing this little girl in Africa---and countless other children---to nearly starve to death?

To answer that question, you need to drop one of the three theorems. One possibility is to drop Theorem #2 and say that God is a loving and equitable being who is fully aware of this child, but he is not all-powerful and is therefore incapable of intervening on her behalf. Mormon doctrine is probably flexible enough to allow for this possibility, but it is certainly not a very popular view of God among mainstream Mormons. For example, Elder Cornish interprets his story this way:

In His mercy, the God of heaven, the Creator and Ruler of all things everywhere, had heard a prayer about a very minor thing. One might well ask why He would concern Himself with something so small. I am led to believe that our Heavenly Father loves us so much that the things that are important to us become important to Him, just because He loves us. How much more would He want to help us with the big things that we ask, which are right?

Assuming that Elder Cornish's logic is sound (doubtful---but I'll play along), then perhaps God can only help the girl if she prays to him for help. Perhaps she didn't pray? Or maybe if she did pray, perhaps she didn't use the appropriate format and structure---using "thee" and "thy" and closing in the name of Christ. Ugh... I really don't like that thought at all. I really chafe at the idea of a legalistic God who needs you to perfectly perform some ritual in order for him to have the power to help you. Because that just leads us back to inequity again since this Sudanese girl didn't have the good fortune to know about the proper way to pray---through no fault of her own. She just lost out on culture roulette.

Let's see what happens when we drop Theorem #3 instead. Perhaps God is a loving and equitable being who is all-powerful, but he is no longer aware of this girl’s adversities. This view of God would be at odds with Mormon doctrine. It's more like in line with the Deist view of a God that initially created the world but then left it alone to its own devices. If this is true, God doesn't intervene in our lives because he is not in our corner of the universe any more and he isn't aware of our needs. If we adopt this view of an absent God, then Elder Cornish was using flawed Post Hoc logic to falsely see a causal link between his prayer and finding the quarter (which is a fairly plausible explanation, actually). The problem with dropping Theorem #3 is that you have to completely realign what it means to pray and what kind of a relationship you can have with God. It just opens up a new can of theological worms.

The only other possibility (and by far the most disturbing) is to drop Theorem #1. Perhaps God is not a loving and equitable being after all. Perhaps he really does favor the rich, the white, the beautiful, the heterosexual, and the male over those who are not. Perhaps God favors these lucky individuals because of the remarkably good decisions they made in the pre-mortal existence. This view of God frankly disturbs me and I cannot accept it. If it is true, then God would not a being that is worthy of my worship.

I guess my point is that it really is impossible for all three of these theorems about God be true. You have to pick two of them. For me, it's a Sophie's Choice to have to decide which two are more to my liking. I wish God could be all three at the same time. But I doubt that he can.

The Historical Development of Monotheism
Although it really does pain me to say this, I find it more logically plausible that God doesn't exist at all. One reason why I find the existence of God to be implausible is because the historical and archaeological evidence seems to suggest that God is a man-made construct. My study of Biblical scholarship has lead me to this conclusion.

For a really fabulous introduction to the current views of Biblical historians and archaeologists about the development of the Old Testament, I'd highly recommend watching an episode of NOVA entitled The Bible's Buried Secrets on the PBS website. I'd also recommend reading Richard Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible for a more in-depth examination of the scholarship mentioned in that documentary.

Rather than rehearse the whole argument here, I'm just going to cite a comment I made on someone's blog entry since it mentions a lot of the scholarly concepts that inform my current views about Biblical history. The blog entry I was responding to was partially about how the Mormon concept of Mother in Heaven has fallen by the wayside. A commenter on the blog argued that Catholics were responsible for removing the theology of Mother in Heaven from Mormonism. I know it's both lazy and pompous to quote myself, but here was my reply:

"I apologize in advance for leaving such a long comment, but I want to respond to what an earlier commenter said about the Catholic church (aka the Apostasy) being responsible for getting rid of the theology of Heavenly Mother. It's not my desire to be contentious, but I want to point out that this idea is not supported by the historical or archaeological record. The removal of female goddesses from Judeo-Christian theology could instead be traced to Old Testament times---specifically to the period in which Jews were in Babylonian captivity beginning around 600 BC. Most Biblical scholars agree that it was during this time period when the theological concept of monotheism (one God and no other Gods) was first developed.

"What is important to know about the Iron Age is that they had a very different concept of God than we have today. Most cultures during this time (including the Jews) believed that each kingdom (each nation/group of people) had their own god. That god was believed to fight with them in battles with other nations (other gods). When your god won, it meant your god was superior to their god. It was also customary for defeated nations to stop worshiping their nation's god and begin worshiping the god of the victorious nation.

"The god of the Jewish nation-state was Yahweh. But it is important to note that the Jews would not have believed Yahweh was the only god. Not only did they believe other nations had their own gods, but the Jews also believed in other minor gods whom they worshiped. (Such as female goddesses.)

"All of this changed in 586 BC when the Jews were defeated and captured by the Babylonians. The Jewish priests and scribes did not stop worshiping Yahweh like they were supposed to. They retained their own religious traditions and theology in captivity. It was during this time that they developed the idea that Yahweh was the one and only god. And the Jews reasoned Yahweh had allowed them to fall into captivity because he had been angered by their worship of false gods. And so Jews began to strongly discourage their worship of other gods (such as female goddesses). That's why the Old Testament has so such so many proscriptions against worshiping false idols throughout it.

"I know it's uncomfortable for Mormons to think of Judeo-Christian theology as being something that evolved over time (continuing revelation?). And it's equally unsettling to imagine that the Bible wasn't really written in Moses' time but rather in David's/Isaiah's time, but that's what the general consensus is among Biblical scholars and archaeologists.

"It is the memory of my recently deceased Catholic grandparents that motivates my desire to make this comment. They lived in Utah from the 1950s until this year. Unfortunately, they were often badly mistreated or maligned by their Mormon neighbors---in large part because of strong anti-Papist sentiments that existed in Mormon culture (fueled by frankly wrong-headed statements from LDS leaders from the 1930s to the 1980s).

"I should also mention that I recently attended my Catholic grandmother's funeral and I listened intently as a priest recited the prayers of the rosary on my grandmother's behalf. Most of the prayers in the rosary are offered to the Virgin Mary. Although she is regarded as a Saint (not a God), Catholics pray to her for intercession and see her as a model of holy femininity. I can’t help but feel that Mormons lack something their Catholic sisters have. Mormons have a female goddess in our theology---but we are not allowed to pray to her or to even speak about her in public. There is something to be envied in Catholicism.

"When we speak of the Apostasy, I hope we will be sensitive to our fellow Christian brothers and sisters---even if they do not always extend the same courtesy to us. I think we would be better served by building theological bridges rather than theological walls."

Concluding on a Hopeful Note
This blog entry has probably been a total downer to read. But I wanted to end with a note of optimism since I don't completely reject the idea of God. I'll close by (sigh) quoting myself again from a recent email conversation I had with a friend from another faith:

"I think that if God exists, I feel confident that he has created multiple paths through which we can find him. And maybe God is flexible enough that he can be for us what we need him to be. For example, my sister prefers the Mormon version of God who is intimately involved in every aspect of her life and who guides her every decision. That thought gives her a sense of self-esteem and direction in life. But I personally don't find that kind of a God very appealing because I don't want God to micromanage every aspect of my life; I would prefer a God who trusts me to make my own decisions based on my own sound reasoning on the matter. And perhaps God is both of those things at once. Perhaps God is the loving 'parent figure' my sister needs him to be and the observant, but distant 'supervisor figure' that I need him to be for me. Can God be big enough to be all the things that we as individuals need him to be? My hope is that he can."

Perhaps God is an important part of the human psyche---evolved through cultural and biological processes in response to very real human needs and concerns. As I've said elsewhere on this blog, God might be a blank screen onto which we project an image of our ideal selves. As we look at that ideal image, we are possibly inspired to become better than we already are. And maybe we can achieve more as humans than we ever could have without that distant ideal to guide us.

And so, on that note, I'll close this blog entry with the immortal words of Cake: "Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps."

Gospel Principles #1 - Our Heavenly Father (TBM version)

Since I no longer serve as a Relief Society teacher in my ward, I'm going to start retroactively examining lessons that I taught in the past. I'll start at the beginning with my first lesson from the Gospel Principles manual.

This blog entry will examine how I taught this lesson originally in church. I'll post the "NOM Version" of this lesson in a few days. At the time I originally taught this lesson, I was a fully believing church member. My crisis of faith began about two months after teaching this lesson.

For reference, see Our Heavenly Father in the Gospel Principles manual.

Who is God?
I started the lesson by talking about how when my husband served his mission in Japan, he struggled to teach with the old-school missionary discussions because the first discussion operates on the assumption that you are already familiar with the Christian concept of God. For most Japanese people, their concept of God is so different from our own that it was difficult to even fathom what the missionaries were talking about. I then asked the sisters how they would explain the concept of God to someone who had never heard of him before---someone who has absolutely no concept of God. I listed the sister's responses on the boards. (I don't remember what they were any more.)

We then read the following paragraph from page 5 of the manual:

The prophets have taught us that God is the Almighty Ruler of the universe. God dwells in heaven (see D&C 20:17). Through His Son, Jesus Christ, He created the heavens and the earth and all things that are in them (see 3 Nephi 9:15; Moses 2:1). He made the moon, the stars, and the sun. He organized this world and gave it form, motion, and life. He filled the air and the water with living things. He covered the hills and plains with all kinds of animal life. He gave us day and night, summer and winter, seedtime and harvest. He made man in His own image to be a ruler over His other creations (see Genesis 1:26–27).

I emphasized that God is the creator and that Jesus Christ created the world under God's direction.

God is Our Spiritual Father
We then read the following passage from page 5 of the manual:

God is the Supreme and Absolute Being in whom we believe and whom we worship. He is “the Great Parent of the universe,” and He “looks upon the whole of the human family with a fatherly care and paternal regard” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 39).

I reiterated that God is our Father. Because he created our spirits, he is our spiritual father in heaven.

I then had a few people in the class read Moses 1:27-33, 37. You can read it on your own if you want to, but it's basically God speaking to Moses saying that he created worlds without number, but "The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine." I talked about how there are so many people that they are numberless like the sands of the sea, but God knows each one individually and cares about them. That says a lot about our relationship to him.

God Has a Body of Flesh and Bones
We then read from page 6 of the manual:

Because we are made in His image (see Moses 2:26; 6:9), we know that our bodies are like His body. His eternal spirit is housed in a tangible body of flesh and bones (see D&C 130:22). God’s body, however, is perfected and glorified, with a glory beyond all description.

To add a little bit of humor to the lesson, I talked about how the first time I learned this principle was when I watched the Cecil B. DeMille movie The Ten Commandments and my parents took me aside to tell me that God actually has a physical body that resembles a human's---not like the pillar of fire depicted in the movie.

I then said to the class: "So, this is something that puzzles me. The doctrine that God has a human body is unique to our church. Joseph Smith learned this from the First Vision and we emphasize it heavily in our church. Why does it matter that God has a tangible body? Assuming he could still love, guide, and protect you without a body, what difference would it make if he were only spirit?"

I used the sister's responses to have a discussion about it. I don't remember what was said, but I have in my notes that one point I wanted to bring out was that it tells us about God's past and about what we each have the potential to become.

God is the Source of Everything Good
We then read from page 6 of the manual:

God is perfect. He is a God of righteousness, with attributes such as love, mercy, charity, truth, power, faith, knowledge, and judgment. He has all power. He knows all things. He is full of goodness.

All good things come from God. Everything that He does is to help His children become like Him. He has said, “Behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39)

I had the sister's pick out the key words from that passage that told us about God's attributes and we listed them on the board: perfect, righteous, all-knowing, the source of everything good, etc. Once those were listed on the board, I talked about how these attributes were the reason why we worship God and also why we desperately need God's guidance in our lives.

Coming to Know and Love God
The final section of the lesson talks about the importance of coming to know God. We read from page 6 of the manual:

Knowing God is so important that the Savior said, “This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent” (John 17:3).

The first and greatest commandment is “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart” (Matthew 22:37).

The more we know God, the more we love Him and keep His commandments (see 1 John 2:3–5). By keeping His commandments we can become like Him.

I then said: "So, we need to know God better in order to become more like him and to learn how to love him. It's probably safe to assume that all of us in this room do believe in God. I want you to reflect for a minute on why you believe in God. What experiences have shaped your testimony of our Heavenly Father? What methods have you used that are helpful for drawing you closer to Heavenly Father?"

I just let the sister's share their experiences for the remainder of the lesson, building on what they said to bring out the four suggestions given by the lesson about how to come to know God:

1. Believe that he exists and that he loves us
2. Study the scriptures
3. Pray to him
4. Obey all his commandments

For #3, I had a note to myself to read this from the Bible Dictionary: “The object of prayer is not to change the will of God, but to secure for ourselves and for others blessings that God is already willing to grant, but that are made conditional on our asking for them.”

I had also written my own ideas for how to come closer to God:  writing a journal, being a parent, giving service, putting our wills on His altar, removing anything from our lives that can distract us from God.

I then bore my testimony and concluded. Pretty standard stuff. I seem to recall that it went well.

Weighing in on the Podcast Wars: Mormon Expression vs. Mormon Stories

Mormon Expression did a podcast last week in which they responded to criticisms from people who said their tone had become too negative lately. It unleashed a lot of strong comments from listeners (both those who agreed with the criticisms and those who wanted to defend Mormon Expression). A lot of the defenders said some unkind things about John Dehlin (who runs the Mormon Stories and Mormon Matters podcasts), prompting another Mormon Expression listener to call them on the carpet for that.

I'm going to go Swiss on this whole debate. I'm neutral on this matter because I like both of these podcasts. (I'll go ahead and lump Mormon Stories and Mormon Matters in together.) I'm a paying subscriber to both, giving both an equal financial contribution. I like them both for what they're trying to do. And I would defend both of them from criticisms if the opportunity arose.

But how do they each stack up in terms of their credibility? Read on to find out...


Criteria for Evaluating Resources
My main responsibility as an educator at UVU is to teach students how to think critically. One of the key tasks involved in critical thought is learning how to determine whether a particular source is credible and trustworthy or not. Since your argument is only as strong as your evidence/sources, you need to make sure your sources are reliable.

I teach my students that there are seven criteria for determining whether you should use a source to support your argument in a paper:

1. Authoritativeness - The root word of "authoritativeness" is "author" and it therefore refers to the background of the author and the reputation of the publisher. Is the author an expert (an authority) in their field? Do they have some sort of strong educational or personal background that qualifies them to make an informed statement on this topic? Does the publisher have a good reputation for publishing trustworthy materials?
2. Quality of Research and Methodology - Are the sources that they use to back their argument reliable and trustworthy (preferably scholarly and peer-reviewed as opposed to being journalistic or web-based)? Did they include formal citations accurately so that others could verify their resources were credible? If they conducted an experiment, were the conditions of the experiment sound, using basic scientific principles to control for all factors?
3. Objectivity and/or Degree of Advocacy - This refers to whether they are adopting an objective tone or not. There's nothing wrong with arguing a particular position, but are they doing so in a way that is respectful of counterarguments or of alternate viewpoints? If they are arguing a position, how strongly are they arguing for that position? Are they using black-and-white, polemical language or are they showing the complexity of the topic by examining all possible viewpoints on the matter? Are they pushing an agenda or are they willing to let the audience reach their own conclusions on the matter?
4. Timeliness and Currency - Has the source been published in the last 5 or 10 years? Does it reflect the most current research and perspectives on this topic? This is especially important when researching medical topics, as our academic knowledge about human health becomes updated very rapidly. This is less important when studying historical topics, but it is till a good rule-of-thumb.
5. Aimed at a Scholarly vs. a Popular Audience - Is it written for other scholars who are experts in the field or is it written for a mainstream audience? Scholarly texts can be more challenging to read and understand, but texts for a popular audience can sometimes water down the information or accidentally distort the information in the process of making it more palatable. Another important consideration is whether they are trying to make a profit off the information or not. Are they publishing it for the purpose of advancing scholarly knowledge on the topic or are they publishing it for a more self-interested purpose?
6. Primary vs. Secondary Source - Primary sources are documents created by people with first-hand experience with a topic. Secondary sources are created second-hand. The authors were not directly involved in the topic themselves. In academia, a primary document would be a scholarly article reporting on the results of an experiment conducted by the authors. A secondary document would be a journalist who is reporting about that experiment in a magazine. In historical research, a primary document would be a letter, journal entry, interview, or some other record from a person who experienced that historical event first-hand. A secondary document would be a person writing about the event afterwards who did not experience it first-hand. Whenever possible, primary sources are preferable because secondary sources can sometimes lose something in translation.
7. Usefulness - This is a catch-all category. How useful is the source to what you are particularly trying to accomplish in your research? That can vary from source to source depending on what you're trying to do.

Now, just because a particular resource is weak in one of those areas doesn't necessarily mean that you should throw it out. Think of these seven criteria as being seven channels of input that you can use to determine the resource's overall credibility, kind of like the buttons on an audio equalizer:

If a particular resource is high on all 7 channels, it's definitely a good resource. If it's mostly high, it's probably still reliable, but you should take it with a grain of salt. If it's low on most of these channels, you should probably avoid it.

With that in mind, let's pit John vs. John and evaluate how both Mormon Expression and Mormon Stories/Matters stands up to this criteria.

Mormon Expression

Authoritativeness: I give them an A or an A- on this category. Mormon Expression features a lot of interviews with scholars and others who are authorities in their field. Either that or the interviewees have studied the topic personally in a great deal of depth. When the podcast is a panel discussion, all of the panelists are expected to have heavily researched their topics beforehand or to have some extensive first-hand experience in the matter. Some panelists are occasionally weaker than others (depending on the topic), but all in all, they are generally well-informed.

Quality of Research and Methodology: I give them an A- or B+ on this category. I probably would have given them a higher score on this, but one complaint I have about Mormon Expression is that they don't always indicate where their information comes from. I prefer going to primary sources when I can so that I can study the topic further or determine whether I agree with the panelists' interpretation of the evidence. But they do sometimes cite their sources informally and, when they do, the sources seem relatively credible and scholarly.

Objectivity and/or Degree of Advocacy: This one is difficult to quantify, but I think I'd give them a B+ on this one. It's difficult to evaluate this because I think they make a genuine effort to have balance in the panelists that they invite to discuss topics on the show. I like the new believing voices they've been having on the show (like Brandt and Jessie) because they do a good job of arguing for their position while still being respectful of divergent viewpoints. However, John Larsen is usually the moderator on Mormon Expression and, as such, he exerts some control over the conversation. This sometimes makes the conversation weigh in favor of the ex-Mormon position a little bit. Plus, John has been ramping up his use of polemical language a bit more lately. I generally agree with his arguments, but the use of polemics is occasionally troubling because it reminds me too much of the black-and-white thinking that I distrust (whether it's coming from the church, from FoxNews or from the Internet). Any time I hear an extreme position being taken, it sets off my internal warning bells. It doesn't mean I throw it out, but it means that I proceed with caution. I've learned that every issue worth talking about is more complex than absolutist logic allows for. Mormonism is no exception.

Timeliness and Currency: Sure, I'll give it an A. It's not really an applicable category here, but they do talk frequently about current events. And when they're talking about historical topics, timeliness is not as important.

Aimed at a Scholarly vs. Popular Audience: I'll give it an A- or B+ here. It's definitely aimed at a popular audience and it's trying to be good entertainment. Therefore, the information or the evidence can sometimes be diluted in translation. However, I don't think they have any kind of desire to profit from Mormon Expression. Donations to the podcast go to running the podcast itself and nothing else. They're doing the podcast because they find the topic interesting and they want to think/talk about Mormon issues. In essence, they really do want to advance a scholarly discussion about Mormonism---but in an accessible form.

Primary vs. Secondary Source: I'll give it a A- or a B+ here as well. It's obviously a secondary source itself, but they try to research using primary documentation whenever possible. Again, I might give them a more solid A- if they cited their research better.

Usefulness: This is going to fluctuate from listener to listener, but for me personally, I'll give it an A-. I have found that it definitely expanded my understanding of my religion. I prefer academic, scholarly examinations of Mormonism that are grounded in good research and good arguments. Mormon Expression satisfies this need for me. What I especially like about Mormon Expression is how democratic it is. If you want to voice an opinion, you can do it on Mormon Expression. They'll let anyone who has something useful to say onto the podcast. No censorship. Just democratic exchange. That's Mormon Expression's greatest strength. It can sometimes backfire on them, but it's ultimately what makes their podcast so great. It's like one giant peer review.

Overall Grade: It's in the A- or B+ range, depending on the episode.

Mormon Stories/Mormon Matters

Authoritativeness: I'll give them an A in this category. They tend to have experts on the podcast to talk about their area or expertise or they feature people who have had first-hand experience with the topic. This is a strength of the podcast.

Quality of Research and Methodology: I'll give them an A- in this category. They usually informally cite their sources and their sources tend to be scholarly and trustworthy. Sometimes they link to their sources in the podcast notes, which is helpful. It's clear they put a lot of pre-discussion and research into their podcasts.

Objectivity and/or Degree of Advocacy: I'll give them a B+ in this category. They try very deliberately to be accepting of lots of points of view and they often succeed, but it does sometimes feel like they push the "Stay LDS" agenda a little rigorously. They've also been known to delete comments and things that are not in keeping with their mission or tone. That's good for PR, but the tradeoff is that it can shut down the democratic exchange of ideas by not allowing all viewpoints onto the table. Although there is an element of censorship to it, I will grant them a pass if they are removing comments from people who are making unfair character attacks or being unnecessarily abrasive. Plus, I recognize that podcasts do have some responsibility to ensure that people who agree to appear on your podcast will not be treated rudely by listeners. Otherwise you risk of getting a bad reputation and alienating potentially good guests from coming on the podcast in the future. Good guests are the lifeblood of a podcast and a bad reputation can kill you off. (I've seen this happen with movie podcasts I listen to.)

Timeliness and Currency: I'll give them an A on this one for the same reasons I gave Mormon Expression an A too. This category doesn't apply so much when they discuss historical topics and they do a good job of discussing topics that are current events in Mormonism.

Aimed at a Scholarly vs. Popular Audience: I'll give them the same score as Mormon Expression on this one: a B+. And pretty much for all of the same reasons (see above).

Primary vs. Secondary Source: I'll give them an B+ here. Like Mormon Expression, they are a secondary source. They do draw on primary sources for inspiration, but less so than Mormon Expression does. (Like I'm thinking of how the Mormon Expression folks will actually read primary documents such as scriptures, hymns, or discourses in their discussions.)

Usefulness: Again, this will also fluctuate from individual to individual. For me personally, I'll give it a B+ at this point in time. Since my faith in Mormonism is at 1-2% (meaning, it's not very strong), Mormon Stories and Mormon Matters are not as relevant to me in my spiritual journey as they were in the past. However, they were very, very important to me at one point. They provide a safe place where people can transition to wherever it is they need to go on their faith journey. Even though they're somewhat more boring (sorry!) compared to Mormon Expression, I still think they have valid arguments and interesting perspectives on Mormon issues. And I do appreciate their attempts at balanced discussion.

Overall Grade: A general A-, possibly a B+.


Conclusion
For me, both podcasts come out equal in the end. They both have good content. They just have different scopes, purposes, and audiences. In some ways, it really does come down to the usefulness category and what you look for in a podcast. I think I personally prefer Mormon Expression because I prefer democratic exchange, because the topics on Mormon Expression are a little more interesting and also because of where I'm at in my life right now. But how lovely that I don't have to choose. I can listen to and enjoy them both for what they're worth. Mormon Stories/Matters appeals to my heart and Mormon Expression appeals to my head. That seems like a good balance.

Feel free to chime in and let me know if you agree or disagree with my assessment. As I said, I'm a big fan of democratic dialogue, so your two cents matter to me. :)

Changing Leaves, Changing Callings, Changing Feelings

This image is from a page of my journal earlier this year. It's a graphical representation of how I "outgrew" Mormonism, if you will. I recently shared it with the Mormon Expression folks as part of an episode on which my husband and I appear:

So, one Sunday about a month and a half ago, my husband and I were playing a video game in our living room when there was a knock at the door. It was the 2nd counselor in the Bishopric, stopping by for a surprise visit. It made me nervous instantly. My pulse went up; my muscles tensed. What was he doing stopping by our house for a surprise visit?

It turns out he wanted to give us a new calling to serve as Primary Teachers to the 6-7 year olds. They've been having lots of problems staffing the Primary and so we had been substitute teaching quite a bit the last year. I guess they decided to make us official members of the Primary staff. We asked the 2nd counselor if we could step into our bedroom and discuss whether we should take the calling or not.

The discussion was a vigorous one. I had previously made a promise to myself that I would not accept another calling so that we could gradually transition out of the church. But then when push came to shove, I chickened out. I didn't want to deal with the consequences of "coming out" about being non-believers at that exact moment. The timing felt too sudden. At that immediate moment, I just wanted the 2nd counselor to go away and saying yes seemed like the easiest and most direct way to make that happen. Besides, I kind of liked the 6-7 year olds, so it couldn't be that bad.

Now that a month has gone by, I feel that working in the Primary has been a mixed bag. On the one hand, it's a lot more work to prepare a lesson every week. (I'm a perfectionist, so I can't just phone it in---which makes this calling sometimes very time-consuming and occasionally stressful.) But on the other hand, it's actually been easier to just go back to the basics. I feel like I can teach general humanistic principles in Mormon terms without compromising my integrity too much. And it's been really nice not to attend Sunday School or Relief Society---where the lessons range from being mind-numbingly boring (at best) to offensive (at worst).

As a result of being in Primary, there have been times when I've started to feel somewhat complacent about being at church---and sometimes even comfortable. But just when I start to feel that way, something always seems to come along to take me out of that state, to remind me that I don't really belong here because I'm not a believer.

For example, last Sunday we were assigned a new home teacher who I'll refer to as "Brother W." Brother W. is an uber-Mormon. Very much the TBM, seminary-teacher type. He's probably the only guy in the ward who actually does his home teaching. So, why was he suddenly assigned to us? It could be just a benign decision, but part of me feels paranoid that I've said too much, that I've made it onto somebody's radar, that we're being "watched over." It's irrational and silly, but I can't quite shake the feeling I'm being scrutinized by the people around me. I was really paranoid at church this last week, watching what everyone said to me, how they looked at me, etc. I was frustrated with my own heightened sense of self-consciousness, honestly. It felt like being a teenager again.

Anyhow, since I no longer teach Relief Society, I think I'm going to delve into the archives of the Gospel Principles lessons I taught in the past and continue working through those in my blog. I'll try to shoot for one lesson a month as my free time permits. So, stay tuned!

A Feminist Review of Daughters in My Kingdom: Part Two

This is a continuation of my review of the church's recent publication Daughters in My Kingdom: The History and Work of Relief Society. See Part One in which I discuss how the book constructs a historical narrative to justify the church's contemporary auxiliary structure. I discussed chapters 1, 2, and 6 in detail in that review. In this part, I will discuss chapters 3-5, 7, and 10. If you would like to read my in-depth, 20 page notes on the book, you're welcome to check out this Google Doc.

Service, Service, Service, SERVICE!
Chapters 3, 4, and 5 were definitely the strongest chapters in the book and I actually enjoyed them (for the most part). They told the history of the Mormon women from 1846-1945, with a particular emphasis on the acts of service performed by Mormon women.

Chapter 3 focuses on the pioneer exodus from Nauvoo to the West. It highlights the tremendous strength of the pioneer women and how they often had to make the trek with a very low ratio of men since most of the men had joined the Mormon Battalion. It talked about how women supported each other on the plains and how they endured tremendous suffering as the result of sickness and death. It highlighted early acts of service performed by women who had just newly settled down in Utah such as making clothing for local Indians and helping Saints who were still traveling Westward.

Chapter 4 covered the period of the reintroduction of the Relief Society from 1866 to about 1910. It again highlighted the contributions of women during this period such as:

• The establishment of the Deseret Silk Association, chaired by Zina D. H. Young
• The Relief Society practice of saving and storing wheat in silos
• How women during this period of time frequently traveled to the East to be trained in medicine and then worked as medical doctors when they returned to the West

This chapter also mentioned some great things like women's publications (such as the Women's Exponent and the Relief Society Magazine), women's suffrage, and demonstrations put on by Mormon women to in which they argued that they were not inferior to other women in the world.

Chapter 5 covered the years spanning World War I to World War II. It also emphasized acts of service performed by women such as:

• Relief Societies that volunteered with the Red Cross and National Council of Defense during World War I
• Raising money and sewing quilts for soldiers or for European families that had been devastated by war
• The Relief Society's creation of the Social Service Department, which helped with adoption and assisting low-income families
• The creation of hospitals by local Relief Societies, which often offered free courses in nurses training
• The organization of the Church Welfare Program, which was run in coordination with the Relief Society

I actually really enjoyed these chapters quite a bit. It was remarkable to see the accomplishments of Mormon women throughout the last two centuries. In some ways it made me mourn how assertive and proactive the Mormon women of the past appear to have been compared with the Mormon women of today. Had the book ended after chapter 5, I would have given Daughters in My Kingdom a generally positive review for the way in which it highlighted and celebrated the often forgotten contributions of women in the past. But, alas, it didn't end there.

Service and Charity as an Innate Female Attribute
Chapter 7 marked a transition in the purpose of the book. All the previous chapters had been devoted to telling the history of the Relief Society and the remarkable contributions of Mormon women collectively and individually. But in Chapter 7, it switched from telling a historical narrative to a more didactic argument about women's divine nature and their prescribed roles within the church.

While reading this chapter, I began to suspect that this book was appropriating the history of the Relief Society for its own rhetorical purposes. Rather than just telling the story of the remarkable accomplishments of Mormon women and letting that stand on its own merit, in Chapter 7 the book began to impose a narrow interpretation of what that history meant. The previous 6 chapters of the book had been emphasizing the service that had been given by the Relief Society in the past. In Chapter 7, it began to emphasize that giving service is a divine attribute of being female.

Here's a few quotes from the chapter that caused me to get that vibe:

• "Visiting teaching has become a vehicle for Latter-day Saint women worldwide to love, nurture, and serve---to 'act accoding to those sympathies which God has planted in your bosoms,' as Joseph Smith taught" (112).
• President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, a counselor in the First Presidency, said: 'You wonderful sisters render compassionate service to others for reasons that supersede desires for personal benefits' " (112).

Then in chapter 10, my suspicions were confirmed when the rhetoric about womanhood and service became much more overt. Notice the repeated assertions in from Chapter 10 that service and charity are innate female attributes:

• "[S]isters in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have been taught to live up to their divine potential by fulfilling God's purposes for them. As they come to understand who they really are---God's daughters, with an innate capacity to love and nurture---they reach their potential as holy women. With charity in their hearts, they fulfill the purposes of Relief Society" (171).
• "The Lord has endowed women with an innate desire to serve and bless others" (171).
• Quoting Elder Russell M. Ballard, it states that women have "an innate tendency to put the well-being of others ahead of [their] own" (172).
• "The Prophet Joseph Smith taught, 'It is natural for females to have feelings of charity' " (172).
• "For true charity to blossom in their hearts, women must combine their innate compassion with faith in Jesus Christ" (173).

I think that on the surface level, the authors of this book (who, incidentally, are unknown to us) probably imagine that these kinds of statements are a way of praising women. After all, it's a rather high compliment to say that women, by their very nature, have an innate capacity for charity, the "pure love of Christ" (Moroni 7:47). Service to others is always considered a noble act---so to suggest that service is an innate female quality is somewhat ennobling, right?

Unfortunately any kind of essentialization of gender is bound to be problematic. While I feel that giving service is very noble in and of itself---and I really do want to applaud the sacrifices Mormon women have made in service to others---I worry that the suggestion that charity is an innate female trait is very problematic. The word "service" comes from the Latin word servitium which means "servitude" and "slavery." It's closely related to the word "servant." And so, to suggest that a desire to serve is an innate female trait feels dangerously close to suggest that it's a woman's innate role to serve everyone, to put selflessly put everyone else's needs before her own.

I don't think that suggests a very healthy role for women. In those kinds of statements, I don't hear any acknowledgment that a woman should set reasonable boundaries for what she will or will not do for others (in order to avoid being taken advantage of or to be abused by others). I don't hear any acknowledgement that a woman should freely choose to serve others (as opposed to doing it out of a sense of duty or obligation). I don't hear any acknowledgement that some women may not find personal satisfaction in service to others and that she should be free to choose that lifestyle or find some other path to fulfillment if she will. In short, let's allow each woman to individually define her purpose in life for herself.

When I finished Daughters in My Kingdom, I created this image to express the way I felt about it:

I just felt that the whole book was a way of allowing male General Authorities to ventriloquize women and femininity rather than let women define their own femininity for themselves. And the leaders of the church ventriloquize womanhood because it ultimately serves them---by reinforcing the system of patriarchy.

For a more eloquent exploration of this problem, check out the Mormon Matters Podcast about motherhood.

***

I have more I could say about Daughters in My Kingdom, but I'm ready to move onto thinking and writing about other church-related things. So we'll just leave it at that. Feel free to check out my Google Doc if you want more of my thoughts on the whole thing.

A Feminist Review of Daughters in My Kingdom: Part One

A few weeks ago my Relief Society president handed out free copies of the church's new publication Daughters in My Kingdom: The History and Work of Relief Society. I finally finished reading the book last week and since the book was plugged multiple times during last weekend's Relief Society General Broadcast (prompting my TBM mother to state that the broadcast was "one big infomercial"), I'd figure I'd post a review.

I should mention that when I first tried sitting down and writing my review, it ended up being nearly 20 pages long, so I decided it wouldn't work for a blog post. However, if you want to read my full, in-depth analysis with notes on each chapter, I've posted it on a Google Doc.

Instead, I'm going to condense and break up my document into smaller parts, each part discussing some of the major themes of Daughters in My Kingdom.

Introduction
Daughters in My Kingdom is a 208 page, full-color, glossy booklet discussing the history of the Relief Society and the role of women within the church. Since the booklet was handed out for free in my ward and since you can buy it for only $3 at the Church Distribution Center, I'm guessing the church is printing this book at a net loss. Whenever the church does something like that, it means that they really, really want people to read it. I can't help but wonder if the church is feeling the pressure of increasing criticism from feminist groups inside and outside of the church. (I discuss my evidence why I feel Daughters in My Kingdom is a response to feminist groups such as LDS Wave in more detail in my Google Doc, if you're interested.)

With that in mind, I was feeling fairly optimistic when I began reading Daughters in My Kingdom that it would be a step in the right direction towards gender equality within the church. And while it there are indeed aspects of this publication that are progressive, I nevertheless feel that Daughters in My Kingdom is not a very satisfactory response to the very valid concerns being raised by Mormon feminists.

The Relief Society as an "Ancient" Organization
The idea that the Relief Society is a divine organization was a central theme throughout this book. In Chapter 1, the book spends a great deal of time discussing the women in the New Testament and how Christ valued and involved women in his ministry. It also suggests that Christ organized the Relief Society as part of "the same organization that existed in the primitive church" (see the 6th Article of Faith). This chapter quotes Eliza R. Snow twice (once in the chapter heading and once in the actual chapter) as saying: "Although the name may be of modern date, the institution is of ancient origin. We were told by our martyred prophet that the same organization existed in the church anciently" (1, 7). Side note: if you want to read my discussion of why I think this idea is patently false, you can read my detailed notes for this chapter. But I won't dwell on it here because I want to focus more on how this idea is important to the book's overall argument.

Chapter 1 equivocates on Snow's statement a little bit by stating: "While little is known about a formal organization of women in the New Testament, evidence suggests that women were vital participants in the Savior's ministry" (3). Although this qualifying statement is an indication that the church is unwilling to fully commit to Eliza R. Snow's assertion that the Relief Society existed in Christ's time, the chapter ultimately allows Snow to have the last word on the matter by including her quote in the chapter's final section. In this way, the book subtly gives an official church endorsement of the idea that the Relief Society existed in the primitive church.

The book's suggestion that the Relief Society was established by Christ as part of the primitive church is very important to one of the book's main arguments: that the church's current ecclesiastical structure is divinely justified---and therefore cannot be changed. Women cannot have the priesthood or hold priesthood-only leadership positions because Christ intended for them to have a separate, complementary women's organization. The "separate, but equal" pattern of organization for the contemporary church is divinely authorized and therefore unnegotiable.

The Relief Society was Organized "Under the Priesthood"
Chapter 2 continues in this same vein by discussing the history of the organization of the first Female Relief Society of Nauvoo. It discusses how Sarah Kimball, Margaret Cook, and Eliza R. Snow first approached Joseph Smith with their idea to form the Relief Society in the spring of 1842. Although the evidence couldn't be clearer that the Relief Society was Kimball, Cook and Snow's brainchild, the chapter quotes Sarah Kimball's 1883 memoir in which she remembers that Joseph Smith responded to their proposal by saying: "This is not what you want. Tell the sisters their offering is accepted of the Lord, and he has something better for them than a written constitution. I invite them to meet with me and a few of the brethren next Thursday afternoon, and I will organize the women under the priesthood after the pattern of the priesthood" (12). The chapter then goes on to argue: "Rather than pattern a Latter-day Saint women's organization after the women's societies that were prevalent and popular at that time, the Prophet Joseph Smith organized them after a divinely inspired and authorized manner" (12).

This chapter repeatedly emphasizes that the Relief Society was set up under priesthood authority. The book states: "As the Lord's prophet, Joseph Smith held all the keys of priesthood authority on the earth. Therefore, when he organized the Relief Society to function under his overall direction, he unlocked opportunities for the women of the Church to play vital roles in the work of the Lord's kingdom. They now served under the authority of the priesthood" (15). Later in the chapter, the book states: "The Relief Society was not just another group of women trying to do good in the world. It was different. It was 'something better' because it was organized under priesthood authority" (16). Side note: you can read my detailed notes on this chapter for why I feel that this portrayal of the history of the early Relief Society is flawed. I discuss evidence supporting the theory that Joseph Smith wanted to use the Relief Society to introduce the female temple endowment, but later abandoned it when the society became too popular (and was therefore no longer elite).

What I want to point out is how chapter 2 further supports the book's larger rhetorical purpose of justifying the church's contemporary auxiliary structure. The book doesn't allow the Relief Society to be Kimball, Cook, and Snow's idea---it has to be Joseph Smith's idea (and therefore the Lord's idea). It has to be organized "under the priesthood after a pattern of the priesthood" (12) in order to be authorized and authentic.

What about the Structural Reorganization of the Relief Society in 1971?
Frankly, the assertion that the Relief Society was organized "under the priesthood" is an anachronistic view of the Relief Society's relationship to the priesthood---meaning that it is being filtered through the lens of the contemporary church institution in order to justify its current structure. The fact that the Relief Society's history is being filtered through the the lens of the contemporary church is made obvious by the notable omissions of key historical events from Chapter 6 of the book. This chapter (which covers the history of the Relief Society from 1946 to the present day) makes no mention of the sweeping organizational changes that occurred within the Relief Society under Harold B. Lee's Correlation program in 1971. Under Lee's administration, all of the church's auxiliary programs (which included the Relief Society, the Primary, the Young Women's and Young Men's programs, and the Sunday School) ceased to be fully autonomous organizations.

Prior to 1971, the Relief Society was an independent organization. Its relationship to the church was similar to the relationship an after-school program has with a school: they were definitely connected, but they ultimately existed independently of one another. The Relief Society had its own leadership structure, its own publications, its own curriculum, and---perhaps most importantly---its own finances. In the 1970s, the Relief Society lost its autonomy and came under full priesthood control on a general, stake, and ward level. Their finances were seized and surrendered to the church. Their publications were discontinued. The General Relief Society Presidencies, who had previously served in their callings for life (the way a prophet and his First Presidency serve for life), were eventually released by their new priesthood leaders. Side note: for a detailed history of the controversy over the Correlation changes, see chapter 7 of David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism and Part 2 of Daymon Smith's discussion of Correlation on the Mormon Stories podcast.

In short, the Relief Society only began to exist "under the priesthood" in 1971. It wasn't this way in Christ's time and it wasn't that way in Joseph Smith's time. The book's suggestion that it ever was that way to begin with is terribly anachronistic. And it reveals the book's true purpose: to give divine legitimacy to the current institutional structure of the church, the "separate, but equal" organization for men and women.

I counted nearly 18 other instances in Daughters in My Kingdom in which the authors took great pains to constantly assert that all of the actions of the Relief Society are and were authorized by priesthood leaders. In many cases, these assertions were very awkward and redundant, which suggests that they were deliberate and consciously inserted into the text (probably by the Correlation Committee). Here's a couple of examples:

• "The Saints were blessed by priesthood power through the laying on of hands by brethren who held the priesthood" (32).
• "[T]he Relief Society established the Relief Society Social Service Department in 1919, with the full support of President Heber J. Grant" (67).
• "In 1924, with support and encouragement from general and local priesthood leaders and Sister Williams [the General Relief Society president], the Cottonwood Stake Relief Society established a maternity hospital" (69).

In each of those cases, it appears that the book took great pains to make it very clear that all Relief Society actions fell under priesthood governance. I've listed more of these citations in the General Observations section of my Google Doc. 

Conclusion
Earlier I used the term "separate, but equal" to describe the church's current auxiliary structure. This was intentional, my purpose being to allude to the name of the constitutional doctrine under which racial segregation was legalized. My argument is that the church's "separate, but equal" doctrine functions in a similar way to Jim Crow laws: it creates a system in which there are two classes of citizens (in this case, men and women) with the purpose of denying the second class of citizens any real kind of power or voice within the governing body.

A Mormon woman's relationship with her God is constantly mediated by males. Although she has the right to personal prayer, personal revelation, and spiritual gifts, beyond that she is wholly dependent on males for salvation and exaltation. A male priesthood holder must perform the saving ordinances for her (with the notable exception of the Initiatory rites in preparation for the endowment). A male bishop must interview her for worthiness to enter the temple. A male prophet is responsible for communicating  a male God's will to her. And male leaders on a general, stake, and ward level have the final say in all decisions that affect a woman's day-to-day experiences within the church. Males, in turn, have no such dependency on females, with the exception of their need to be sealed to a woman in order to receive the patriarchal priesthood. And, according to Daughters in My Kingdom, a female auxiliary leader must have authority (a fancy word for "permission") from her male priesthood leaders to enact changes to her organization that she feels are needed. I fail to see the purported equality in this system.

I find it offensive when church members try to suggest that this inherently inequitable system is what God wants and intends for his children. I'm an agnostic (bordering on atheism), which means that I am skeptical of God's existence but could possibly be convinced otherwise. If God exists and does indeed speak to humans through personal or prophetic revelation today, I feel confident that we receive that communication imperfectly, filtering this revelation through our own biases and prejudices. James Madison expressed my current view succinctly in The Federalist Papers: "When the Almighty himself condescends to address mankind in their own language, his meaning, luminous as it must be, is rendered dim and doubtful by the cloudy medium through which it is communicated."

With that in mind, I've come to feel that God is a blank screen onto which we project ourselves---complete with our biases, prejudices, and our assumptions about the world. We project our perceptions of goodness onto God and then turn around and use that projection as justification for a theology we constructed ourselves. The current leaders of the church were born and raised in an era of patriarchy. Therefore, when they "talk" to God, they filter it through that lens. I'm highly skeptical that God is such a blatant misogynist---and if he is, then he is not a creature who is worthy of my worship.

Gospel Principles #40 - Temple Work and Family History (NOM Version)

See my previous blog entry to read how I taught this lesson in Relief Society.

I know many active, inactive, and ex-Mormons have had negative experiences in the temple. While I feel that those experiences are definitely valid, that's just not how it was for me personally when I was a TBM. My first time going through the temple was deeply spiritual and made me feel happy and empowered. (I went through after the 1990 changes and before the 2005 initiatory changes, in case you're wondering.) I enjoyed going through the endowment session and trying to decode the meaning of all the symbols. I liked being in the celestial room. Oddly enough, I even found great comfort as a feminist in some of the temple rituals.

At its best, I think that the temple functions in the same way the Christmas season does. With its special holiday decorations, music and traditions, the Christmas season can cause a mental shift in which you begin to see the world differently. That's kind of how the temple used to function for me back in the days when I was a TBM. When your environment becomes unique and special, it makes you feel unique and special. But the same way that Christmas becomes less magical after you stop believing in Santa Claus, the temple lost its magic for me when I lost my faith in the church. Now attending the temple feels boring at best and creepy or offensive at worst.

Joseph Smith and the Influence of Masonry
The temple ceremony---especially as it was originally introduced by Joseph Smith---is undeniably plagiarized from Masonic rituals. This is very well-documented and apologists for the church make no attempt to refute it. Here's a laundry list of some of the similarities:

• In the current version of the temple, the signs and tokens are completely identical to Masonic signs and tokens.
• Although the markings and purpose of the aprons are different, both Masonic and Mormon ceremonies use aprons.
• In past versions of the temple, the penalties for revealing the signs and tokens were identical to Masonic penalties word for word and action for action. (NOTE: Contemporary Mason ceremonies no longer include the penalty rituals. They removed them from their ceremonies a few years before Mormonism removed it from theirs in 1990.)
• The five points of fellowship in past versions of the temple ceremony were also taken directly from Masonry.
• The garments contain Masonic symbols such as the compass and the square.
• The idea of being given new names that are to be kept secret is very Masonic.
• The catechism at the veil of the temple has an identical structure to Masonic rituals.
• Older Mormon temples (such as Salt Lake) are unabashedly adorned with Masonic symbols such as sunstones, moonstones, and starstones. Even the very symbol of Deseret, the Beehive, was originally a Masonic symbol.
• Although Masonic and Mormon rituals have different purposes and meanings, they both share a similar approach of using rituals to tell Biblical stories.

Joseph Smith introduced his version of the endowment ceremony about two months after becoming a full Mason himself. (This was during the Nauvoo period in church history.) It is clear that Masonry played an important role in the last years of Joseph Smith's life and had a strong influence on his theological musings. But scholar George Miller has found pretty solid evidence that Masonry exerted a strong influence in Joseph Smith's life from a very young age. (For his long, but fascinating explanation of Joseph Smith's life-long relationship with Masonry: see Mormonism and Masonry Part One, Part Two, Part Three, Part Four, Part Five, and Part Six.)

To summarize Miller's argument, at the point in time in which Joseph Smith lived, Masonry was extremely popular in America. (Nearly all of the Founding Fathers were Masons, in fact.) One of the very popular beliefs in this time period was that Masonry had ancient historical origins dating back to the time that Solomon's Temple was first built. Joseph Smith's contemporaries believed that the masons working on Solomon's Temple had been shown special secrets about the temple that had been ceremoniously passed down from generation to generation up to the present day. Another notion that was particularly popular among American Masons was the existence of "spurious" Masonry. This is the idea that Masonry gradually became corrupted over time through the traditions of men. Like most of his fellow Americans at this point in time, Joseph Smith probably accepted these beliefs as historical fact.

All of this clearly plays into the larger Mormon theological themes of Apostasy (the idea that the pure truths of Christianity had become corrupted over time) and Restoration (that the pure truths had to be restored by God through revelation). Joseph Smith probably sincerely believed that a pure form of Masonry was practiced by Adam and all the prophets down through the time of Christ until it became corrupted through apostasy. And when he developed the temple endowment, he probably sincerely believed that he was receiving revelation that was restoring Masonry to its pure, original form. (For example, Heber C. Kimball is quoted as saying that he practiced "celestial Masonry," a concept which he probably got from Joseph Smith.)

Unfortunately, the history of Masonry shows otherwise. There is absolutely no historical proof that Masonry has ancient origins. The historical record shows that Masonry first began in the Middle Ages when masons were members of guilds. Because there was no government certification process to guarantee that you had the level of craftmanship you claimed to have, masons began to develop secret handshakes and signs to distinguish between those of a lower skill level from higher ones. Handshakes and signs were revealed in secret ceremonies to those who had achieved higher skill levels. These signs and tokens had a very pragmatic purpose when they were first introduced. When a new worker showed up at a construction site claiming to have a certain level of skill as a mason, the foreman would test his knowledge by asking him for the signs and tokens that only a mason of his skill level would know. It helped to ensure certain standards of quality and the safety of those working on those complex Gothic cathedrals of the Middle Ages. If I'm not mistaken, somewhere between the 17th and 18th centuries, Masonic guilds began accepting honorary members---members of the elite ruling class who wanted to participate in the fraternities. That's when Masonry became a popular fad in Europe (which is why people like Mozart were all members). That's also when myths about the ancient origins of Masonry first began to be developed (as well as some of the aspects of Masonic rituals that Smith plagiarized). Unfortunately, Joseph Smith's fundamental assumptions about Masonry's connection to Adam and Solomon's Temple were wholly inaccurate.

Despite Mormonism's strong connection to Masonry during the Nauvoo period, Mormons began to lose their connection to Masonry shortly after Smith's death. Brigham Young believed that Joseph Smith's assassination had been part of a Masonic murder conspiracy, causing him to openly distrust Masons. Other events eventually caused the Masonic Lodge in Nauvoo to be dishonorably disbanded. Furthermore, the Utah Masonic Grand Lodge systematically barred Mormons from becoming Masons until the 1980s. For these reasons, fewer and fewer Mormons became Masons and Mormons gradually began to lose any cultural identification they once had with Masonry. This has created today's cultural climate in which most modern Mormons have no idea of the many connections between the temple ceremony and Masonic rituals---and often feel threatened by the very mention of it.

It's also one of the reasons why most Mormons find the temple so inscrutable. Without knowledge of the accompanying Masonic rituals, it's somewhat difficult to make sense of their meaning. Most Mormons probably think that they are personally unable to understand aspects of the temple ritual because they are somehow spiritually inferior. I know I did. I enjoyed puzzling out the meaning of the temple ritual and believed that if I studied harder or if I lived more righteously, I would eventually receive revelation to help me figure out what it all means. Unfortunately, the reality is that it's a fraternal ritual that has been removed from its original medieval context and culture so that it no longer has any connection to the original meaning it was meant to convey.

Sacred or Secret?
Despite Boyd K. Packer's insistence that the temple is sacred, not secret, I no longer make that distinction in my mind. Modern dictionaries define secret as something that is "confidential" and "kept from the knowledge of any but the initiated." That's exactly what the temple ceremony is. Although church members only make a covenant not to reveal a few specific things in the temple (the tokens, signs, and names), most members try to stay as far away from crossing that line as possible by refusing to talk about the temple ceremony at all if they are not inside the temple itself.

This cultural self-censorship has consequences. One consequence is that church members go to the temple with almost no knowledge of what is going to take place or what obligations they will be asked to agree with. This is a bit of a problem in my mind. It kind of feels like the ethical equivalent of requiring someone to sign a serious legal contract without allowing them to read it beforehand. Granted, the temple ceremony indicates that people can withdraw of their own volition before the ceremony begins. But when you're in the temple for the first time, you're usually with your friends and family (social pressure), you're experiencing many new things for the first time (disorientation), and then there's the fact that this ceremony has been hyped for so long that you're quite curious about what you're going to experience---which combine to create an extremely low possibility that anyone would ever withdraw from the ceremony. Also, by the time a church member has gotten to the point where they are taking out their endowments, they are so heavily invested in the church that it would feel like it's impossible for them to withdraw. (You've already been a tithe-paying church member for at least one year, you might possibly be getting married next week, you might be going on a mission, etc.)

Another consequence of temple secrecy is that it shuts down democratic dialogue about the temple between church members. Because it's a social taboo to talk openly about the temple, members can't compare notes about their experiences and process its meaning. If such democratic dialogue were allowed to occur, it's possible that some members would be able to commiserate about their negative experiences and help to provide other alternative ways of looking at it more positively. It's also possible that they'd be able to just talk about what the whole thing means with one another, rather than feel spiritually inferior for not being able to understand it.

But I think the most problematic consequence of temple secrecy is that when changes are made to the temple ceremony, the elements of the old ceremonies "disappear down the memory hole," to use an Orwellian phrase for it. It is a matter of fact that the temple has changed dramatically from the time that Joseph Smith first introduced it. I won't rehearse the changes that have been made because other websites have done a better job of documenting them than I have. Let me just assure you that they are both very substantial and the ceremony changes pretty frequently. Simply put, my ancestors' experience attending the temple would have been quite different from my own---and each generation's experience would have been slightly different from the one before.

Members going through the temple today have no idea that any of these changes ever took place because of the code of secrecy surrounding the temple. And I think that is problematic in many ways. On the one hand, I welcome all of these changes. I think nearly all of them were very progressive and badly needed. It's largely because of these changes that I was able to have a positive experience the first time I went through the temple. The fact that the temple ceremony has changed so much actually gives me hope that the church can be reformed. If elements of the church's most sacred ceremonies can be revised because of protests and discomfort from its members, then there is hope that the church can change in other ways that are badly needed.

But on the other hand, the changes to the temple open up a new can of theological worms. Given the fact that we have to say the sacrament prayers exactly in order for them to be valid, given the fact that witnesses must watch the performance of a baptism to ensure that it is done exactly correctly---what does it mean that the temple ceremony has undergone so many extensive revisions? Doesn't that violate the very conditions of the Restoration---the idea that ceremonies became corrupted over time through change? Why couldn't the Lord have revealed it to Joseph Smith perfectly the first time?

The consequence of code of silence surrounding the temple is that it creates the illusion that the temple ceremony has never changed at all. It engenders the false idea that the temple ceremony was revealed perfectly the first time. And it therefore denies members the ability to think freely about the temple, to really wrestle with the theological significance of those changes. I personally can't see how you could view it as anything less than an attempt at maintaining an unfair, unearned hegemony over the church's members by censoring independent thought.

The Temple Recommend Interview as a Mormon Creed
Mormonism has long taken pride in the fact that they do not have an official creed. Joseph Smith once said: "I cannot believe in any of the creeds of the different denominations, because they all have some things in them I cannot subscribe to, though all of them have some truth. I want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things; but the creeds set up stakes, and say, 'Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further'; which I cannot subscribe to" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 1938, p. 327). Latter-day Saints have always maintained that creeds limit the process of discovering truth since we believe in continuing revelation.

But I would argue that the temple recommend interview has become a de-facto Mormon Creed. A temple recommend is a symbol of being a member in good standing with the church. You cannot serve in most leadership positions in the church unless you have one. You could possibly be ostracized and seen as a second-class citizen without one. But in order to get a temple recommend, you must subscribe to a fairly orthodox set of beliefs: you have to believe in God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost, the Atonement, the Restoration, that Thomas S. Monson is a prophet, and that all of your local leaders are called by God to lead you. You also have to follow a set of orthodox practices as well: you have to live the law of chastity, you have to be honest, you have to keep the Word of Wisdom, you have to attend church regularly, you have to wear your garments, and, of course, you have to pay a full tithe.

Even after my crisis of faith, I didn't really have that much difficulty with the behavior questions. I never considered it that difficult to keep the Word of Wisdom, to be chaste, to wear my garments or to pay my tithing (although I paid begrudgingly). Rather, I had a problem with the questions about belief. After serious study and contemplation, I really can't say in good conscience that I believe in any of those things listed in the temple recommend interview. I do not find them logically plausible any more. And so, because I could no longer believe in the things listed on the temple recommend, I decided I might as well no longer behave in ways required by the temple recommend. I stopped paying tithing and I stopped wearing garments. (Just FYI, I haven't done much with the Word of Wisdom yet and I haven't cheated on my husband.) And so in some ways, the temple recommend questions have facilitated my gradual estrangement from the church. If I could be a member in good standing without subscribing to a legalistic set of beliefs, I'd probably still be able to maintain my membership in the church. And I've gradually come to resent that I can't merely behave like a good member---I have to believe like one too.

I have a sister who is a lot younger than I am. She hasn't yet taken out her endowments or gotten married. One day she will. And when that day comes, I won't be able to go inside and see her get married. I won't be able to be with my family that day. In some ways it's only fair: she wasn't able to attend my ceremony, after all. But it will be different for me. In that moment, suddenly everyone will know that I don't have a temple recommend and my distant relatives and cousins will all begin to think of me as a second-class citizen. They'll think of me as an evil, despicable person just because I can't have faith in something for which there is strong evidence to the contrary. And there will be nothing I can do to convince them otherwise.

Although the temple claims to unite families together for eternity, the temple will create an undeniable barrier between me and my family on the day my sister gets married. The temple will not be a symbol of family togetherness, but of my personal alienation from my family. Now that hurts.

For Further Consideration
I have only scratched the surface of the problems with the temple in this blog entry. A few topics that could be talked about another day:

• There are a multitude of feminist problems with the temple ceremony.
• Performing ordinances for the dead as a sign of disrespect for people's religious identity in life.
• The sacralization of temple weddings.
• The temple ceremony as a means of maintaining control over the members.
• Building multi-million dollar houses of worship when we should be helping the poor. 
• Etc, etc. etc.