An Open Response to Allen Wyatt

Allen,

Good to hear from you.

First, a “club with which to bludgeon the faithful”? When you use the language of physical violence to caricature what I do, Allen, it doesn’t make me take you very seriously. In fact, it sounds manipulative and bullying, an implicit threat that anyone who actively opposes your church will be branded with the language of brutality. It reminds me of J. Nelson-Seawright’s comments on the abusive term “anti-Mormon”.

As for tearing down the faith of others, your comments are ironic, because your very blog post seeks to attack the belief that false beliefs should be torn down. Furthermore, your religious organization seeks to tear down others’ belief in the Trinity, in justification by grace through faith apart from works, and in the absolute ultimacy of the only God for all worlds. Mormonism calls me to, among other things, believe that my distinctive theological positions expressed in the historic creeds are an “abomination”. So we are both, at some level, attempting to tear down the faith of others (to replace it with what we think is genuine, true Christianity), except I am more forthright and assertive about it. I’m not one for passive-aggressiveness.

There is no question in my mind over whether the seeds of Mormonism’s institutional racism were planted by Protestants. Racism is only the beginning of the list of the embarrassing sins of my religious ancestors. There are worse skeletons than racism in our closet. Furthermore, you and I both come from the same rotten mom and dad, Adam and Eve. The nice thing about sola scriptura (a belief some Mormons seem to retreat to when forced to deal with things like Adam-God) is that I can discard the teachings of historic Jews and Christians when they don’t reflect (explicitly or by inference) a historical-grammatical reading of the Old or New Testament. My leaders have no more access to God than I do, and I am not bound to any one religious hierarchy. God has promised that his people are securely in his hand, but he has not promised that religious leaders who are professing Christians will never lead people astray.

Mormons, on the other hand, have been given the promise that their leaders will never lead others astray. When Mormonism touts what it calls “continuing revelation”, living prophets, living apostles, and a modern stream of prophetic counsel, it ups the ante. I can, and I do right now, unequivocally denounce and condemn what Luther said about the Jews. But Mormonism’s leaders haven’t demonstrated a willingness to stand up and unequivocally and explicitly denounce and condemn what it (”it” being the institution with various institutional channels of communication and control) has promoted, perpetuated, enforced, and acquiesced to.

When you said, “He isn’t inviting people to Christ; he is criticizing others who have already accepted such an invitation with which he disagrees”, I think about a couple of things:

1. In one sense you have an imaginary Christ, a Christ who had to become a god in pre-mortality. I do not acknowledge such a Christ as existent. The Jesus Christ I pray to and directly worship has always been fully God. He never had to begin a relationship with the Father. It has been eternal. That is the Christ I call people to accept, and I have a warranted generalization (not stereotype) that Mormons have not accepted this Christ.
2. MRM.org (and JesusNotJoseph.com, a forwarding domain) is largely geared toward helping people come to the Christ who was always God. It doesn’t take long before you run right into this.
3. Not all religious engagement or interaction has to immediately start with an explicit invitation to Christ for it to genuinely be a part of a larger endeavor to bring people to Christ. I know plenty of ex-Mormon Christians, happy as ever, who are extremely grateful for those who first tore down their Mormon worldview (which prevented them from seeing Christ for who he is), so that they could then understand the real Christ and give their allegiance to him alone.
4. You are making a loaded dichotomy between inviting and criticizing. Assuming your best intentions, Allen, I would assume that while you explicitly criticize me in your very blog post, you are also inviting me to embrace what you see as a better alternative to my actions/behavior. If your material can be both invitational and critical at the same time, then why assume anything critical from our end can’t also be invitational?
5. The message of the gospel is not merely an invitation, but a call to repentance. I am not merely inviting you to sever ties with false prophets and apostles, I am also calling you to repent of your allegiances with them. I am not only inviting your Church to apologize of its past institutional racism, I am calling them to repent of it. And that would most surely bring a public apology.
6. You were not a part of our evangelistic conversations that we had to hear of the unique and sufficient priesthood of Jesus Christ. If you are going to make such a sweeping generalization of the endeavor, then perhaps you should have spent some time as a silent observer close at hand.

You claim, “The critics are silent on such present-day racism, preferring to focus on events thirty years in the LDS past rather than present-day Christianity.” Without specifics, this is empty and unfair. If you’d like to name names and quote quotes, please do so. Otherwise, you’re just blowing smoke. I would readily admit to residual racism within the Bride of Christ, but it is quite another thing to say that we are unrepentant over addressing the issue. While you come up with some “present-day” examples of our unwillingness to address the issue, I’d invite you to listen to “Bearing the Image: Identity, the Work of Christ, and the Church“, by Thabiti Anyabwile.

You say it is doubtful that we would be happier if the Mormon institution apologized. If the apology was public, explicit, and unequivocal, I am sure—God as my witness—that I would be happy. I am reminded of the countercult community’s response to my April Fool’s joke, where I convinced quite a few people into thinking the Mormon Church had condemned the teachings of Kimball’s notorious The Miracle of Forgiveness and promoted a more gracious and realistic view of repentance which brings immediate and permanent forgiveness. Yeah, we got a few laughs, but at the end of the day I had caused some deep hurt in the hearts of Christian brothers and sisters in Christ. One told me, “when you pray every single day of your life for something ANYTHING to give … then have a euphoric God high and then be dropped flat … all within minutes, it was to say the least … disturbing and heart breaking.” When many of these Christians really thought that the post was the real thing, they rejoiced. People were calling the friends and their spouse, celebrating, opening up, as it were, the champagne. But then when they found out it was an April Fool’s post their hearts sank with a deep hurt and disappointment. I got some pretty painful e-mails.

At the end of the day, it is no joke to us. We really want the Church to make right the wrongs and move in an entirely different direction, toward repentance and transformation and liberation. Our hearts and prayers and tears are profoundly invested in that, and for you to flippantly attack us as hateful or disinterested in real change is hurtful and offensive—and I mean it, it’s personal. The only reason your “anti-Mormon” labels hurt and offend us is that we are so intimately close to our ex-Mormon Christian brothers and so heart-set on seeing more of our Mormon neighbors join us in worshiping the one true God for all worlds.

You end with, “Perhaps Shafovaloff would like to demonstrate his integrity by apologizing for his continued misrepresentation of LDS theology and history”, yet, unless I missed something, you apparently provide no examples of a misrepresentation. Again, specifics would be nice. So far it seems like you’re grandstanding. My main claims which I invite you to refute are as follows:

1. Mormon prophets and apostles publicly promoted and perpetuated the racist exclusion of blacks from the LDS priesthood.
2. This exclusion was based on the teaching that blacks were not as valiant in pre-mortality, a teaching publicly promoted and perpetuated and acquiesced to by Mormon prophets and apostles.
3. Black Mormons were led to consequently believe that they could not be, in the words of Joseph Freeman, “a complete follower and servant of Jesus” until priesthood was made available to them.
4. It is inaccurate and even misleading to generalize #1 and #2 as mere folklore or mere policy, as they were promoted and perpetuated by institutional channels of influence, power, and communication, and at other times acquiesced to when the leadership knew it was a prominent belief among Latter-day Saints.
5. A First Presidency statement explicitly stated, “It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time… The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the pre-mortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality…”
6. Church leaders have taken the position that the ban was not wrong, and that it warranted no explicit apology.
7. Church leaders have not taken a unified, public, authoritative, official, explicit, unmistakable stance acknowledging, condemning, repudiating, and apologizing for the previous institutional teaching that skin color or ethnicity are at all determined by pre-mortal valiance or lack thereof. As Margaret Young said, “Card-carrying Mormons do often believe that Blacks were fence sitters in the pre-existence and that polygamy is essential to eternal progression. Neither position has been formally repudiated by the powers that be. We have merely distanced ourselves from them.”
8. Aspects and echos of the principles behind the curse of Cain teaching continue still today. At a recent BYU devotional the dean of Religious Education, Terry Ball, said, “Have you ever wondered why you were born where and when you were born? Why were you not born 500 years ago in some primitive aboriginal culture in some isolated corner of the world? Is the timing and placing of our birth capricious? For Latter-day Saints, the answer is no. Fundamental to our faith is the understanding that before we came to this earth we lived in a premortal existence with a loving Heavenly Father. We further understand that in that premortal state we had agency and that we grew and developed as we used that agency…” (“To Confirm and Inform: A Blessing of Higher Education,” March 11, 2008, BYU Devotional).

All that said, let me close with this. Consider for a moment the hypothetical where all your personal attacks are warranted, even to a degree far beyond what you have stated. Imagine that I have a swaztika tattooed on my arm and that I refer to my Mexican and African American neighbors with racial slurs. Imagine that I am entirely indifferent and callous to the racial sins of my ancestors. How does that change the truth-status of my claims about Mormonism’s state of affairs? Am I to conclude from your post that you believe the inexcusable racism of my own religious heritage somehow exempts Mormonism from issuing an institutional apology? What am I missing here? If your institution released a clear and official repudiation of and apology for the racist comments and teachings which have been promoted from Conference and even from a First Presidency statement, would you not at least break out some sparkling grape juice and celebrate and laud your leadership for their humility and integrity? Is that something you would really bemoan, or is it something you can join me (and Mormons like Darron Smith) in hoping and praying and calling for?

Sincerely,

Aaron

PS I haven’t forgotten about our earlier conversation about the hellish heavens of Mormonism, and I hope we can pick up where we left off sometime.

PPS You guys need some black Mormon rap music to spice up General Conference.

Still No Apology

Bill, Randy, and I had a good night at Temple Square talking to people about the priesthood ban and the theology the Mormon church once used to justify it. I also used the occasion to talk about the unique priesthood of Christ. If you’re visiting because of having seen an advertisement for SeedOfCain.com, allow me to direct you to our two articles and one tract relevant to the event:

• Black Skin and the Seed of Cain (a good primer)
• Shame, Shame, Shame: Thirty Years Later And Still No Apology or Explicit Renunciation
• Thirty Years After the Priesthood Ban was Lifted (PDF tract)

A disproportionate amount of blacks were taking our tracts. Great discussion ensued for all of us with various folks. It is sad that so many black Mormons have settled for less than full dignity in the Mormon Church, but I encouragingly heard from black Mormons that wanted an institutional apology from their leadership. If you’re interested in hearing more of this, I found an MP3 with John Dehlin (liberal Mormon) and Darron Smith (black Mormon) speaking about the appropriateness but unlikelihood of institutional repentance coming from the LDS Church.

Some news stations/papers interviewed Bill. That went well (this was partially a day for making a public statement).

From experience, I’m a big believer that Temple Square evangelism is ten times more effective and meaningful when one shows up on a non special-event day. In other words, if any of you Christians ever want to do some tracting, I’d highly recommend showing up on a regular Thursday choir practice night over going out of your way to try to talk to Mormons during an event like Conference. People aren’t as defensive or hardened in their temperament.

When we go out we all have iRiver MP3 recorders around our neck. This is largely for protection. The slanderous lies one hears on LDS apologetic discussion boards about outreaches never ceases to amaze me. I hope they think twice now about what they write online.

Speaking of “lies”, at one point, I talked to a group of tourists waiting to cross the street, telling them to “be careful, because Mormonism teaches you can become a god, and that God was once a man who had to become a god.” The LDS sister missionary with them vehemently denied it, saying, “That’s a pack of lies!”

Some other Christians (who we know from Manti) were there too, and looked like they were having some great conversations.

New Article: “Shame, Shame, Shame: Thirty Years Later And Still No Apology or Explicit Renunciation”

Mormon apologist Blake Ostler once said, “I personally believe that [Brigham Young’s] theology was a disaster for the most part” (>>). We have multiple reasons to concur with Blake (more than he would agree with), as Mormonism has spent much of its post-Brigham history picking up the pieces from the catastrophic mess of theology he left behind. The 1916 First Presidency statement on divine investiture and Elohim/Jehovah identities was largely driven by an effort to repair Brigham Young’s damaging Adam-God teaching. Contrary to the notion that it died with Brigham, it had carried well on into the 20th century. Some Mormons today are deeply embarrassed over Young’s teaching that Jesus was physically conceived by a natural union between Mary and the Father (who, for Brigham, of course, was Adam). Many Mormons have tragically settled for an “I don’t know” answer to the question of whether sexual intercourse was involved in the conception of Christ. Along with Adam-God, Brigham’s teaching that God still progresses in knowledge and power was condemned as a deadly, damning heresy by apostle Bruce McConkie. Then there’s individual blood atonement, men living on the Sun, participation in polygamy being absolutely necessary for Celestial exaltation, and on, and on. Many Mormons quietly write off Brigham Young as a crazy old uncle who has said very stupid, very irresponsible, very embarrassing, very damaging things. The problem is that he happened to say most of these things from the Tabernacle pulpit in a position of influential leadership and self-claimed prophetic authority. Mormons today try to laugh it off. Stephen Robinson even suggested that Adam-God might have been a joke. But at the end of the day Christians aren’t laughing. We have a higher standard for prophets than Mormonism allows. For us, becoming a Mormon would mean drastically lowering the bar for men who claim to be God’s living spokesmen on earth.

Thirty years ago, Mormonism attempted to reverse yet another one of Brigham’s embarrassing doctrines, the ban on blacks from holding the Mormon priesthood…

Read article »

If polygamy becomes legal…

It’s the talk of the town, but it’s nothing new. Ever since the idea of legalizing same-gender marriage gained enough momentum to capture headlines people have been warning that such a move could open the door to legalized polygamy. Several years ago San Francisco Chronicle reporter Ron Lutz wrote, “Legalizing gay marriages today means legalizing polygamy or group marriages tomorrow.” Last week the same idea was discussed all over the news media and on the internet. For example, conservative columnist Frank Pastore at Townhall.com wrote,

“Same-sex marriage will inevitably lead to polygamy and perhaps ‘consensual’ incest. The collective wisdom of Western civilization, and the Judeo-Christian value system beneath it, have always restricted marriage to two people, not closely related, one man and one woman, of legal age. For over 2,000 years, there have been laws against bigamy, polygamy, incest and minor marriage. No society in history has ever granted same-sex marriage while maintaining prolonged prohibition of polygamous and incestuous relationships.”

During an interview with Larry King in September 1998, (then) LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley said he condemned the practice of polygamy because “I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this Church takes the position that we will abide by the law.”

What happens, then, if polygamy becomes legal? Though Mormon men are not currently commanded to have more than one living wife, in light of Doctrine and Covenants 132 the practice of legal polygamy does not seem to be ruled out. Even so, the Book of Mormon seems to take a dim view of polygamy except under certain circumstances (see Jacob 2:27-30).

But since there is a prevailing belief within the Mormon culture that LDS couples are duty-bound to have children in order to provide mortal bodies for the spirits awaiting them in the pre-existence, and since there is also a prevailing belief within the Mormon culture that polygamy was initially instituted by Joseph Smith (via command from God) in order to produce as many children as possible in a short amount of time, wouldn’t the legalization of polygamy be a good fit even with today’s LDS Church?

President Hinckley indicated that the condemnation of the practice of polygamy is not just doctrinal; it is also tied closely to its legality. If polygamy becomes legal in the United States, how should–or would–the LDS Church respond to those who engage in legal plural marriages?

A people extraordinarily given to unusual religious beliefs

The Rochester (New York) Democrat and Chronicle posted an interesting article about the Rochester area during the religious fervor that earned it the title, “Burned-over District.” Though not the focus, the article puts the birth of Mormonism within its cultural context. To foster some conversation and whet your whistle, here’s a short excerpt:

”Strange cults, psychic currents and extraordinary religious fervor rippled and roiled all across central and western New York during the first half of the 19th century. It became known as the “Burned-over District,” and within it ran a ‘psychic highway’ — a roughly 25-mile-wide belt along the Erie Canal, from east of Albany to west of Buffalo.

“Within these boundaries, writes Whitney R. Cross, congregated a people ‘extraordinarily given to unusual religious beliefs, peculiarly devoted to crusades aimed at the perfection of mankind and the attainment of millennial happiness.’

“At least seven new religions, sects and communes were established in the ‘Burned-over District.’ They included the Shakers near Albany, John Humphrey Noyes’ religious commune at Oneida and the Society of Universal Friends at Dresden and Jerusalem.

“They included the Millerites, who had a strong following in the Rochester area. They were convinced that the world would end on April 23, 1843, and then on Oct. 22, 1844 and, despite the obvious miscalculation, strongly influenced later Adventist religions.

“They included Joseph Smith, who established a new religion near Palmyra. Mormonism, eventually transplanted west, became the most successful of American-born religions.”

Though late LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley said the beginning of Mormonism was unique (Church News, 11/7/98 2), Joseph Smith’s claims of visions and angelic visits were not at all unusual. He was but one of many making such claims, gathering followers, and beginning new religions.

—

For more information see A Familiar Spirit.

« Previous Page