A House Defiled: Excommunication

All one needs to do to read up on the recent court summons of two of the most well-known progressive voices in the Mormon Church is to google search the names of Kate Kelly, founder of Ordain Women, and John Dehlin, founder of Mormon Stories. The story has received national coverage and has blown up online. What first began as a collective outcry at the possible threat of excommunication of voices that advocate for greater transparency, acceptance, equality, and big-tent Mormonism which would make all feel welcome, has become a war of words and rhetoric within the church. Every day there are more blog posts and editorials pushing back on more progressive members of the Church saying, in effect, "step in line or get out." This is my attempt at a rebuttal to all those who agree with threatening these individuals and those like them with disciplinary action and possible excommunication.

First, I think it is important to mention that, although both Kate and John have been grouped together in this story, they don't necessarily share the same positions on everything. But nonetheless, they are progressive voices in a rigidly conservative Church who are asking for greater openness, inclusion, and equality.

The argument I hear over and over against women and the priesthood is that women are not any more or less valued in the church. That they are given "different, but equal roles." It shocks me to read the words of women promoting this idea of "different but equal." One would have thought we already learned from history that "separate but equal" turns out not to be so equal after all. 

One of the many problems with this idea that the roles are equal is this:

Women's roles are always connected to men. Men, or should I say boys, get the priesthood at age 12, regardless of their affiliation with women. Even I, a gay man who will never be married to a woman, received the priesthood at age 12 because, well, "that's just how it works."

Women are told in the church that their greatest role is that of a mother. The immediate problem with this is that not all women get to be mothers. When they are able to be mothers, it is required by the church that they marry a man. They must also be fertile and have no health issues related to child bearing or else have the resources and time to go through adoption agencies.

On the one hand you have boys who really just need to show up to church after the age of 12 to receive their role. In the other, women must find a man, marry him, grow a child for nine months, and then give birth to receive their's. But that won't change the fact that they will be defined by their husbands position in the church. Always the bishop's wife, never the bishop. As if they were somehow Ill-equipped to handle such a role.

In the recent KUER interview, PR representative of the church was asked, "Where in Mormon doctrine does it state that women cannot hold the priesthood?" After all, there are many accounts in the early church of women "exercising the priesthood" by laying on hands on the sick (and oxen), conducted washing and annointings in the upper room of Joseph's Nauvoo store, the Nauvoo temple, and all subsequent temples, and passed on the priesthood to their sons when their husbands had died.

After the PR representative tried to avoid answering the question for awhile and after the interviewer pressed her for an answer to the simple question, she finally obliged.

Her answer was, "it doesn't."

So, if it is not doctrine, and if there are women across the world in the church that truly feel that they have been moved upon by the spirit to talk about this issue, as many of them have stated- even going as far as citing their patriarchal blessing, why is Kate Kelly being punished for asking leaders to hear their plea? And if it is not doctrine, where has she "led people astray" in asking to be included in the priesthood?

There is a huge problem in the church right now. As Paul Toscano puts it in his book, The Sanctity of Dissent, "...the modern LDS church has become crushingly legalistic. It emphasizes strict adherence to rules. It sees righteousness and spirituality in terms of church membership. It teaches that one's standing before God depends on one's loyalty and obedience to the men in charge. In practice, it contradicts Jesus' teachings that we should have no masters."

"The ecclesiastical bureaucracy doubts the power of God to spiritually transform the rank and file members of the world-wide church. It sees itself as a spiritual elite whose primary duty is to reinforce true worship. So it makes additions to the gospel message. It makes up rules. It promises those who obey them that they will become citadels of rectitude safe from the vicissitudes of life. For this reason, in the modern church to avoid sin is a more certain course than to repent, to judge rightly more serviceable than to forgive, and to follow the Brethren more reliable than to follow the spirit."

In other words, the church today has become as guilty of the Pharisees of old, measuring the limits of their garment lines, the modesty of the outfits of their 6 year olds, pointing out at the sinners of the world from inside their bunker of belief, drawing black and white lines through the grey of real life, all the while shunning the lepers of our day and ensuring that anyone who dares to question their ridged set of policies and teachings and beliefs is labeled the enemy while they build multi-billion dollar malls and invest in for-profit endeavors across the world. You are looking at the modern day appearance of the Pharisees of old- the ones Christ called hypocrites and liars. They profess the name of Christ and teach of his power but don't actually believe God might work in ways other than through their ridged bureaucracy of public relations committees, legal entities, and multi-million dollar advertising agencies. 

John and Kate and others like them are members of the church that are trying to get people to wake up and realize that the church has become co-opted by corporate white male America and has wandered quite a distance from the true message of Christ who called ALL unto him and who spent his time, not with the religious leaders and the self-proclaimed "righteous" of the day, but with the lepers and the adulterers and the outcasts and the poor. They are trying to get people to see how they have become a church that excludes anyone that would dare be different. That Christ might not be pleased with an isolationist "peculiar people" who are overwhelmingly republican, insist on American culture and ideals the world over, refuse to let their children play at non-mormon houses, file legal briefs against the validity of loving, committed relationships, discourage anyone from reading anything about the church that is not published by it, and label any piece of literature that shed less than positive light on the church as "anti-mormon." These are the people are trying to pop the bubble that is preventing the real message of Christ to permeate the world and cross the boundaries of differences and the concept of "the other," and the leadership is threatened by potential loss of control- so they label them apostates. 

As long as this is the method of the church bureaucracy- a constant flow of carefully constructed PR statements and risk-management, the silencing and banishing of differing opinions, ideas and legitimate criticism, it will never "fill the earth." The earth is made up of very different individuals with very different experiences, talents, cultural backgrounds, and ideas. If one of us is god's child, we all are, and each of our voices are important. If anything, these progressive voices are the only hope in taking the message of the church to the world. The numbers are showing that the Church's current methods simply are not working and it is because they have insisted on creating small little boxes that everyone must fit into to be welcome.

The defenders of these excommunications often argue, "this isn't a democracy." But no one is asking this to be put to vote. You're right, it isn't a democracy, but the leaders do proclaim the power of the spirit to work in each of us. The leadership has effectively high-jacked the power of the spirit by saying, "you can be moved or taught by the spirit, but only if the spirit confirms what we say." It isn't a democracy, but it isn't a dictatorship either. It claims to be Christ's church, yet denies the power Christ has to work in the lives of every individual no matter what they look like, how differently from you they sin, who they love, where they live, or how educated they are. 

The Word of Wisdom was born out of constant complaints from Emma about the mess she had to clean up after the men. The Relief Society was a born out of a group of women who organized independently and wrote up a constitution which they later brought before Joseph Smith who adopted it into the church. The program known as "mutual" was created by members in one stake which got the attention of church leaders who adopted it into the church. One cannot say there is no precedence for independently inspired members to organize and start something new.

The leadership of the church is necessarily limited by their own life experiences which filter their understanding of the world, just like we are all limited by our own unique experience. Isn't it interesting that arguably the most beloved current leader is the only one not from white Mormon America- he's from Germany. Why does he seem so refreshing? Most of them come from a homogeneous background where the church has always been at the center of life. Do people from other walks of life not have anything to offer? A different experience or life-lesson learned that would help them see things that others might not? Might the businessmen and lawyers and doctors who make up the leadership be influenced by their elite status in society? Might not people from other walks of life be able to see things in a way that would allude the leadership?

But no. The leadership denies that the spirit could possibly move upon the membership of the church if it would say anything different from them. Well, perhaps this growing movement is exactly that- the spirit working in the church to correct the course of a house defiled.

George Albert Smith

"If a faith will not bear to be investigated; if its preachers and professors are afraid to have it examined, their foundation must be very weak." 

-Journal of Discourses, Volume 14, Page 216

Joseph Smith 

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

-History of the Church, 5:340

Brigham Young 

“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self security. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not." 

-Discourses of Brigham Young, sel. John A. Widtsoe [1954], 135

Further Reading:

I borrowed some vivid imagery painted by another blogger who wrote an awesome essay called, "The Uncomfortable God." Read it when you have the chance and be amazed.

THT: A Call to Repentance

Since I have become more and more outspoken about my thoughts and ideas, I have been called to repentance by various people, none of whom have the authority or right to call me to repentance. I have also been written off as one of the tares that need to be rooted out or one of the elect who has been deceived. All these judgments have been made about me by fellow members of the church.

"My disciples, in days of old, sought occasion against one another and forgave not one another in their hearts; and for this evil they were afflicted and sorely chastened. Wherefore, I say unto you, that ye ought to forgive one another; for he that forgiveth not his brother his trespasses standeth condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in him the greater sin. I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men." 

-D&C 64:8-10                                                 

Before moving on, I must say that I forgive anyone who has sought to judge me. I don't have any bitterness to those that have called me to repentance. Having said that, I feel I should address how I manage to continue to believe, despite the quoted scriptures and judgment I get from the members of the church.

Yesterday an anonymous reader left a comment that was simply a scripture reference. The scripture reads, "And it was the more righteous part of the people who were saved, and it was they who received the prophets and stoned them not; and it was they who had not shed the blood of the saints, who were spared." Apart from the fact that the person who posted this is obviously judging me, calling me unrighteous and damned (not saved), and accusing me of stoning the prophets according to his or her interpretation of this scripture, it was basically an instance of "BoM Bashing" (kind of like Bible bashing).

While this can be great fun, the church does not endorse "bible bashing." Why? Because you can find a scripture to support almost any idea you have and condemn another person while declaring your own righteousness- just as I have demonstrated above. I don't want the person who wrote that comment to feel attacked at all. I really do appreciate everyone who comments, including the author of this one.

Okay, so I hope you can see the approach I take to comments like these. This approach comes from a more foundational belief I have about the difference between the gospel and the church, one that was articulated in general conference in 1984 in a talk given by Elder Poelman and has helped me in my continued belief in the gospel.

The Church and the Gospel, are two entirely different things. The Gospel is the doctrine taught by Christ. Who's gospel is it? Christ's. Not Thomas S. Monson's, not Joseph Smith's, not your religion professor's. It is Christ's gospel. Everything else is an appendage to the doctrine of Christ.

The Church is the organization that acts as a catalyst to promote that gospel and provides the space and structure within which the gospel can be taught and lived. It includes the leadership, the for-profit businesses of the church, the members, and basically everything else you can imagine that is not the doctrine taught by Christ. In summary, the church is the culture in which we presently function within as members. Let's recap:

The Gospel = Doctrine (teachings) of Christ

The Church = Culture

We get these two mixed up all the time in the church. How many times have you heard someone bare their testimony and say, "I know the church is true." Can a culture be "true?" Is there such thing as the only true culture? People also often say something like, "I don't know where I'd be without the church in my life, it scares me to even think about it." Really? So if the church was taken away from you, the doctrine with which you guide your life with would disappear also? What about the countries of the world were "the church" hasn't been established but "the gospel" has been preached to and received by people in that same country? What we really mean, I believe, is that we don't know how we would navigate our lives without the guidance that Christ has given us through his teachings.

Okay, so you can see how we confuse the two. People all are on all different parts of the spectrum with how they incorporate the two into their lives. Often what happens is that people are so wrapped up in the culture (enrichment, scouts, mutual, home (and visit) teaching, FHE, etc, etc) that they start letting the culture inform the doctrine. We interpret the doctrine through the eye of the culture that surrounds it. But, we've already established that a culture cannot be true. I guarantee that the culture was extremely different in the early days of the church from what the church is now. Does it make the doctrine (Christ's gospel) any less true? No. So filtering the gospel through the eyes of the present culture invariably leads to problems.

I am on the other end of the spectrum. I let the gospel (the core teachings of Christ) inform the culture that I function within. Obviously, this is the correct method in my opinion. So when something is said or scriptures are cited by someone or actions are taken against me, I don't let those things inform the doctrine of Christ that I believe. I try and see everything (including the words of prophets) through the lens of the gospel while keeping in mind the culture within which the interpretations are made and the words are being said. Sometimes the culture is so offensive that I cannot feel a connection with Christ and his teachings in the physical organized church. It is hard to focus on things like love and forgiveness when you are sitting in the midst of judgmental people who tell you to your face that you will not be saved. So often, I choose not to subject myself to that culture. But I do fully embrace the gospel.

There are so many misinterpretations and misguided beliefs that result from the mixing of the Church and the Gospel. Here is one, and it helps explain how I maintain my identity as a Mormon and believer even when prophets are sometimes the reason for my reluctance to subject myself to the culture (which I wrote a little about in this post):

The doctrine of Christ clearly teaches us that prophets are imperfect. They make mistakes. Open the scriptures if you doubt this. There are many accounts of prophets making mistakes, and not just little ones. Some of them are huge. The culture, that is the church, is organized in such a way that we don't question our leaders. Imagine sitting in Sunday School and the Bishop makes a comment that really just rubs you wrong. Do you raise your hand and confront him? No. And if you did, surely you would be called out and maybe even be told that you are driving the spirit away. We don't question authority in the church. So this is our culture. Then we take a scripture (doctrine) and look at it through the eyes of our culture and condemn the person who disagrees with a leader's words. We accuse people who disagree of being like those who stoned the prophets, damned to hell. And yet Christ's doctrine is clear in its call for everyone to ponder and pray about the truth of any words spoken to us that are put forth as true.

Even when he visited the Nephites and taught them and established the gospel among them, he asked them to go and ponder and pray to God about what had been taught. Do we do that? Do we go through conference talks and really ponder and pray about the things that are said? Or do we simply accept it as truth even as we nod off during the one time we listen to it? And then what right do any of us have to condemn someone else who has pondered and prayed and studied the message and finds that he/she disagrees with a point or two?

The Church (member, leaders, activities, organizations, auxiliaries and the way all these things interact... the culture) is heavily influenced by it's time, environment, and the circumstances surrounding it. The cultural biases and prejudices of today make even the word "gay" wrong in today's church. However, ALL people necessarily have limited understanding and experience (including prophets) and therefore their concepts of what is good and true are fallible. Each person can only envision a part of our shared reality. Such partiality, when presented as the totality, can severely limit the lives who embrace it as truth.

Even apostle's words must be read and understood in context and must then be evaluated in terms of those limitations. No person's portrayal of common truth and collective good can be allowed to stand unexamined and unquestioned.

"You must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me [the Lord] if it be right." God doesn't ask us to simply accept things as truth and follow blindly. "For he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward."

I am so bad at keeping my posts at a reasonable length. Sorry readers.