By Trevor Antley.
“The Mormon moment is now.” That was the headline in the Washington Post’s religion & faith section yesterday. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, colloquially called “Mormons” and “the Mormon church,” know it’s true. We no longer do a double-take when we hear someone say “Mormon” on TV. We shrug off the fact that a major Broadway play makes millions mocking our beliefs. That the Senate Majority Leader is a member of our faith hardly seems like a big deal.
For many of us the attention doesn’t seem as shocking as it did in 2007 when the national spotlight seemed to first zero in on our minority religion. It was then that BYU-grad and former stake president Mitt Romney began his initial bid to become the leader of the free world. The media’s seeming obsession with our religion caught many of us off guard. For the most part, though, the attention died down by itself when Romney abandoned his doomed campaign in February 2008.
Since then there have been other pockets of media attention on Mormonism, but none very lasting. 2008 did also feature Proposition 8, a California bill that would ban same-sex marriage in the state, and many analysts credit the bill’s passing at least partly to major Mormon support. The Church’s hard stance against gay marriage meant it became the target of many very angry activists. LDS temples and chapels around the country were picketed. Tom Hanks famously called Mormons “un-American.” Back then, in our zeal to combat the evils of homosexuality, few could have predicted that a BYU forum for gay students would be met with success at the Mormon university only four years later.
But despite interesting bumps along the road, the overarching public interest in Mormonism has always surrounded Mitt Romney, and despite mostly-negative reactions due to Proposition 8, media interest in Mormonism made a more permanent return in 2010 when it became clear that Mitt Romney was preparing for a second and more serious White House bid. The attention has been building since then, with seemingly minor stories about Mormonism, Mormons, and Church-sponsored BYU gaining surprising national interest. The public’s eye on Mormonism has slowly been growing larger and larger, and some of those supporting President Obama in the general election have pledged to make Romney’s faith a public issue and will attempt to use it to defeat the Republicans.
With Mitt Romney now the certain GOP nominee to face Barack Obama in the general election, it seems that for Latter-day Saints the crescendo is almost over. We are now on the precipice. The remainder of 2012 will prove to be a purifying fire for Mormonism, not only for how the world sees our religion but also for how we as Latter-day Saints will see it as well.
Blacks and the Priesthood
This is the issue that many Democrats have pledged to attack Romney on, and it is an issue that makes Latter-day Saints very, very uncomfortable. We have struggled to forget our past with regards to blacks, and now discussing the priesthood ban and any pre-1978 Church statements on race seems almost taboo in Mormon culture. Recently a BYU religion professor was harshly censured by the university and by Church leaders and members for promulgating ideas reminiscent of past LDS positions on blacks and the priesthood.
The Church has struggled to explain the origins of a priesthood ban that many have called racist. While Brigham Young and other Latter-day Saint leaders believed that blacks were kept from receiving the priesthood because of a cursed lineage, in 1978 the Church officially repudiated this teaching, with Apostle Bruce R. McConkie stating in the Church’s General Conference that members should “forget everything” that Brigham Young and even Elder McConkie himself had taught regarding the issue, as they had been teaching “with a limited understanding.”
The modern church has never made clear whether it still teaches that priesthood ban was inspired or not. Recently after the BYU professor found himself in a scandal over the issue, mentioned above, the Church issued a statement that read: “For a time in the Church there was a restriction on the priesthood for male members of African descent. It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church but what is clear is that it ended decades ago.”
Many Latter-day Saints were surprised that the Church no longer had an official position on this, and many that I spoke to thought that the issue was best left quiet and not talked about. This strategy of sticking our heads in the sand may not work in 2012 as this confusing portion of our history will soon be turned into political ammunition.
Other Issues
Like blacks and the priesthood, there are numerous other historical and doctrinal issues that Latter-day Saints will be forced to recognize in 2012 that may have otherwise escaped their notice. As a minor example, just a few days ago Lawrence O’Donnell, a liberal MSNBC talk show host, attacked Mitt Romney by attacking Mormonism, saying, “Mormonism was created by a guy in upstate New York in 1830 when he got caught having sex with the maid and explained to his wife that God told him to do it.”
Many immediately lambasted O’Donnell for the inaccurate and offensive statement, and O’Donnell was eventually forced to apologize. But few Mormons probably took the time to wonder where O’Donnell had gotten such a ridiculous story. Of course his telling is completely off the mark, but O’Donnell’s comments seem to be his misunderstanding of the fact that LDS founder and prophet Joseph Smith was accused of having an extra-marital affair with a woman named Fanny Alger in the mid-1830s who lived in the Smith home for a time. There is strong evidence that the two did have a relationship, and many Mormons believe that Alger was Smith’s first plural wife (Joseph Smith would eventually take on around twenty-seven additional wives).
These are the sort of issues that are going to be publicized over the coming months. There are many more like it.
Some Things are Changing
Mormonism has always been a top-down religion, not a bottom up. That said, regarding homosexuality, there have not been any recent Church policy changes. But at least among Mormonism’s younger generation, there at least seems to be a shift in sentiment.
Recently at BYU, a department-sanctioned forum for homosexual Mormon students was held, and it was met with such success by the student body that overflow crowds had to be turned away. Only a few days later a popular video was posted on YouTube as part of the “It Gets Better” campaign featuring homosexual BYU students. There have been no publicly negative reactions by the Church or university, and reactions across the campus have seemed almost exclusively positive.
I am not suggesting that the Church will ever sanction same-sex marriage–only this past week Mormons have been zealously opposing same-sex marriage legislation in Maryland. However, the way we view homosexuals certainly seems to be changing, and our beliefs and perceptions have certainly changed in the past. In the 1960s, let alone the 1860s, few Latter-day Saints thought there was a possibility that blacks would receive the priesthood or enter the temple before Christ’s Second Coming. Similarly in the 1870s there were no Latter-day Saints who thought that something like Wilford Woodruff’s 1890 revelation to end the practice of plural marriage was possible. And there have been less dramatic changes too–scientific theories such as evolution, once debated among the Brethren and then demonized by later General Authorities are now commonly accepted by educated Mormons and taught in BYU classes.
Frankly it seems certain that the overt amount of attention — and much of it negative attention — that our religion will receive over the coming months will be a trial of faith for some. But the opportunities it brings should be a welcome blessing as we are given the chance to hone our beliefs and testimonies and we receive ample opportunity to discuss our religion with interested audiences. 2012 will be an exciting year for the Saints.
Trevor, I agree. This will be a serendipitous rollercoaster of events. I watch Lawrence frequently, but I missed it 4/3. My head would have exploded! His apology was sincere, and in itself, an excellence opportunity to right untruths. As a democrat, I try to do my part to correct errors when I hear them, whether on pro/con sites.We may not agree politically, but we must stand for truth where we can on both sides of the isle.
Are you sure that Joseph Smith really took on that many wives? I have heard people challenge the numbers, saying that he didn’t actually have a marriage relationship with that many women.
There is disagreement on the exact number but twenty-seven is on the low side and is the number that assistant LDS historian Andrew Jensen came to in 1887 and I believe is the official number of sealings according to LDS records.
Whether or not one believes that the attention will be a negative or positive thing for the church, the fact is that mormons will have to abandon “[the] strategy of sticking our heads in the sand”. For too long mormons (in general) have avoided the hard topics that Trevor has addressed in this article. Now these issues will be brought to the forefront by the national media it will be a good thing because the church will have to address some of the “skeletons” that have been hiding in the church’s closet for far too long.
Not sure if this link will work or not, but this article is the best I have found on the subject of blacks and the priesthood.
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6iG3Wjn533BdGpyQTV2MXpTWjJhOWMtMlRLakN4QQ
Okay, I made the link public, so anybody can view it!
It is a long read, but well worth it for anybody who has doubts on the topic. It definitely eased my mind in many ways.
Ironically, this may be the Darwinian moment for members of the Church (as in “thinning the herd”). If they can’t take the heat, they may have to get out of the Kingdom.
Fire-All mormons will burn in the lake off fire as they do not believe that Jesus Christ had already given Victory over hell in Luke 16 verse 19 onwards.He knew he was the one who would go to hell to tell them but they would reject the saviour so there is no replacement to go to hell now and our Saviour lives. What a Easter Sunday Victory a risen saviour.
I do not think that accurately represents LDS views on Christ.
Mormons do believe in the victory of Jesus’ Atonement:
Mosiah 16
7 And if Christ had not risen from the dead, or have broken the bands of death that the grave should have no victory, and that death should have no sting, there could have been no resurrection.
8 But there is a resurrection, therefore the grave hath no victory, and the sting of death is swallowed up in Christ.
“The modern church has never made clear whether it still teaches that priesthood ban was inspired or not.” What do you mean by this statement? Official Declaration 2 specifically says “…a revelation had been received by President Spencer W Kimball extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members of the Church.”
I definitely agree that the topic makes most people uncomfortable and so they try to ignore it; it’s going to come up, so having an honest-to-goodness discussion will be critical to not causing more confusion and frustration. Even if the answer is “we don’t really know why, but that was then, and this is now.”
I mean, was the ban keeping all blacks from the priesthood inspired by God or the result of 19th century ignorance? If it was inspired by God, why didn’t Joseph Smith know about it?
It was 19th century ignorance. The church in no way believes that it was inspired. Not to seem to pushy, but anybody who reads the article I linked above will gain a lot of insight into the subject of blacks and the priesthood.
My personal belief is that the ban was not lifted earlier because the general membership of the church (mostly the whites) were not ready for it. Since the teaching was more than just cultural for members of the church, the misconceptions about blacks were more deep-rooted, and needed more time for the revelation to not cause a deep rift in the church.
I think it is similar to the Restoration itself. Had the church been restored 100 years earlier in England, execution would have been the likely result of a short-lived church. To me it seems like the Lord restored the church at the earliest possible time that had a possibility for success. Even then, the early Saints were driven and persecuted until Joseph Smith himself was killed, and they fled far beyond the borders of the country, where the military continued to monitor them. When the ban on blacks receiving the priesthood was lifted, it was difficult for many members of the church. But times were extremely difficult only a decade earlier, with many protests and violent events. The quieter times of the late 1970s had less of a negative effect than it would have had in the 60s.
This entire country has a black mark on it because of our history of racial prejudices. Pointing fingers at other people who share that history is hypocritical at best.
And if the church has to defend itself for previous racial prejudice, then so do members of many other religions. A survey done in the 70s concluded that “Mormons were prejudiced, but not more than other religious Americans. ‘Mormons . . . were no more likely to give anti-Negro responses than were the Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Lutherans . . . or Baptists. . .’”. (Quoted in above linked Google doc).
Any presidential candidate today has a connection in some way to a person who was racially prejudiced in the early 1900s. But nobody comes out writing articles saying “Rick Santorum’s great-grandfather was racially prejudiced” or “Ron Paul came from a country whose founding fathers were slave owners.”
A difference may be that Mitt Romney was an adult when his Church’s official policy was to deny membership and temple privileges to an entire race of people. The media doesn’t have to necessarily go after his ancestors here.
@Trevor:
You said: “A difference may be that Mitt Romney was an adult when his Church’s official policy was to deny membership and temple privileges to an entire race of people. The media doesn’t have to necessarily go after his ancestors here.”
To be clear, the church NEVER denied membership in the church to ANY race of people.
Also – other presidential candidates were adults when their country denied basic rights to an entire race of people, such as using the normal bathrooms in public places. So, Mormons don’t really have to answer any more than others do, but people really like to single us out.
Jesus is risen from the grave but you Mormons want to replace Him with your own baptizem for the dead. Jesus visited hell and He even foretold it Luke 16. Only Jesus could talk to the dead souls and the rich man was in hell and begged for mercy. If the Lord knew when He would visit hell and that they would not listen. What make you think that a mere mormon can reach right into hell. Off couse I forgot you are off your father Satan and you know what Hell is like.
@nazarenechurch –
Please see 1 Corinthians 15:29. We are not the only Christians to practice baptisms for the dead. Paul even used the existence of that practice to prove to the Corinthians (who were beginning to disbelieve in the Resurrection) that the Resurrection was real. So by practicing baptisms for the dead, we are in fact reaffirming our belief in the power of Jesus’ Resurrection and atoning Sacrifice.
We don’t believe that baptizing somebody for the dead removes their choice. They still decide for themselves whether they accept the ordinance and covenant.
It’s pretty clear your emotions were more in control than your mind when you wrote this; not only does it not make any sense, but you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about. How could Jesus, or any physical person or thing, be replaced by the act of baptism for the dead? Who ever said anything about talking to dead people? You are trying to apply LDS doctrine and practices to your own vocabulary and frame of reference; they don’t mix.
Baptism for the dead is about giving everyone the opportunity to accept Christ, even if they didn’t have the chance to be baptized while alive. “Reaching into hell” has nothing to do with it; that sounds like something you made up in your own mind because you don’t understand the doctrine behind baptism for the dead.
It would also clear quite a few things up for you if you did some more research into the LDS definition of hell. What happens after we die isn’t quite so two dimensional as you may think.
And finally, you are, of course, welcome to your opinions, but I would hope that if you insist on harboring such hatred for anything, let alone an organization that does so much good (whether you believe the doctrine and teachings or not), that you would at least do yourself the courtesy of learning the truth about what we believe from the source, rather than from others who don’t understand or who also harbor hate (a rather un-Christlike attribute). That’s like asking an avid golf fan to teach you about rugby.
A lie from Satan your heavenly Father. Paul was teaching them not to go back to their former practises of praying for the dead. Read all Corinthians please. Did the Lord Jesus visit Hell before he arose from the grave?
Without authority or divine direction, Christianity struggled to survive with conflicting opinions on even the most basic teachings of the gospel. Without priesthood authority or the full gospel, people had to rely on human wisdom to interpret the scriptures, principles and ordinances. Many false ideas were taught as truth, and much of what we know about the true character and nature of God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost was lost. Essential doctrines like faith, repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost became distorted and important doctrines were lost entirely.
Centuries later, inspired people, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, recognized that practices and doctrines had been changed or lost and tried to reform the churches to which they belonged. But without the authority of the apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ, His gospel and Church could not be returned to their original form. Another Lie from the Mormon church to Christainty.
So is Adolf Hilter in Hell in torment like LUKE 16 or is he accepted your Baptizem (Get out of jail card)?
Your comments are off topic and further ones that continue like this will be deleted. Best.
Thank you!
This will be my last response, since it’s obvious you just want to fight and spread hatred. Being baptized, in life, or by proxy after death, doesn’t negate repentance. Everyone, including Hitler, will stand before the judgement bar of God and will have to answer for their actions. Just checking off the boxes of being baptized, or belonging to a given church, or giving money to the poor, or whatever else doesn’t give anyone freedom to sin without consequence. Many people will make correct decisions, lead generally good lives, accept Christ, keep His commandments, and repent throughout their lives; these people will be able to take advantage of the Atonement of Christ and have their sins washed away and be clean before the Lord at the last day. If a person doesn’t repent and take advantage of the Atonement, it doesn’t matter what religion they chose while in life. No one gets a “get out of jail free card.” Again, you’re jumping to very emotional and very incorrect conclusions based on either false information, or a complete lack thereof. I highly recommend you step back and take a look; is how you feel when you’re angrily typing anonymous comments that spew hatred really how you think Christ wants you to behave?
Have a wonderful day!
Without authority or divine direction, Christianity struggled to survive with conflicting opinions on even the most basic teachings of the gospel. Without priesthood authority or the full gospel, people had to rely on human wisdom to interpret the scriptures, principles and ordinances. Many false ideas were taught as truth, and much of what we know about the true character and nature of God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost was lost. Essential doctrines like faith, repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost became distorted and important doctrines were lost entirely.
Centuries later, inspired people, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, recognized that practices and doctrines had been changed or lost and tried to reform the churches to which they belonged. But without the authority of the apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ, His gospel and Church could not be returned to their original form. Another Lie from the Mormon church to Christainty.
Your church teaches against christainty and does not regret one bit of it. Also please answer Where was Christ before He arose from the grave?
Your comments are off topic and further ones that continue like this will be deleted.
“The modern church has never made clear whether it still teaches that priesthood ban was inspired or not.”
There is no confusion there on a church that professes to act by full authority from God. In fact the doubt in this statement in quotes dispute the said claim and therefore lands the entire belief on its knees.
I am not sure there are academicians who would be sympathetic to this type of uncertainty when the church claim that it differs from others in that it has full revelation from God.
I am not sure the one who made this statement realise how much more it messes the already muddled state of affairs!