When my wife was, not exactly a rebellious, but a questioning teenager, she told her stake president father, “I’ve got no problem with the Church doctrine, but I have a hard time with Joseph Smith. He bugs me. That whole Joseph Smith story is just weird.” Her dad—a physicist for Boeing and someone who chafed at illogic—gruffly replied, “Either the Church is true, or it isn’t. Either it happened, or it didn’t. Either it’s right, or it’s wrong.” End of subject.
I’m not the old school hardliner my father-in-law was, but I do pretty much direct my growth in the Church with that philosophy. If one aspect of the Gospel– Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith’s First Vision, living prophet, the priesthood authority, etc.– is true, then the others must be. Despite some curves thrown my way from time to time, I feel it’s my responsibility to adhere to the principle, and then find my personal conversion afterward. By putting that credo out there, I realize it goes against the grain of some “intellectuals,” but I don’t think it’s that complicated. We either sustain our Church leaders and their direction, or we’re piecemealing our testimonies of the Church’s truthfulness– and piecemealing our blessings.
When I hear members say, Well, the bishop told me to do this, but… or I can’t get behind that ‘cause I don’t believe it came from God… I shake my head. What church do they belong to? We’re here to see if we can obey, and even if the leader is a bonehead and wrong, we go with it because our obedience is more important than their being right.
Take the example President Hinckley gave in a 1995 talk:
“The assignments given us or the lots we receive in life may be difficult. Surely many a latter-day pioneer must have felt that way—or some who pioneer today for the Lord in challenging circumstances. Naaman the leper came with his horses and with his chariot, with his gifts and his gold, to the prophet Elisha to be cured. And Elisha, without seeing him, sent a messenger saying, “Go and wash in Jordan seven times, and thy flesh shall come again to thee, and thou shalt be clean.
But Naaman, the proud captain of the Syrian host, was insulted at so distasteful a thing and went away. Only when his servants pleaded with him was he humbled enough to return. And the record says, “Then went he down, and dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God: and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean” (see 2 Kings. 5:1-14). (“If Ye Be Willing & Obedient”, Ensign, July 1995)
When I was a district leader on my mission, we were going over numbers at a zone conference projected on a large screen. An AP (assistant to the president AKA “ape”) asked me, in front of the group, why I had such great numbers one particular month (doors knocked, lessons taught, etc.) but such a dismal number of baptisms. He was looking at the baptisms of the same month as the stats, and I corrected him, telling him the baptisms the following month were the result of the prior month’s stats. Knowing myself, I probably used a combative tone. He quickly changed the subject and moved on. Later, when it was time for the AP to address the group, he had me stand up and proceeded to give a lecture on insubordination. I let him use me as an example and kept quiet. Later during a break, as the missionaries visited, I was avoided like the plague. One of the sisters in my district came up to me, though, and asked why I didn’t say anything. I shrugged and replied, “Hey, no matter how wrong he is, he’s right.” She left in a huff to go find the mission president and set it straight. Towards the end of the zone conference was the time for testimonies. I stood and incorporated an apology to the AP and the rest of the body as part of mine. Afterward, in the foyer, the AP came up to me, shook my hand and said, “Thank you, Elder. That was a brave thing to do.”
In retrospect, I wonder if I took my subservience to the extreme, and I don’t know if the present-day Dave would stand for it. But at the time, it seemed the right thing to do.
I’ve noticed a bit more talk on the airwaves lately about women and the priesthood and, as always, it continues to perplex me. Why is this even a subject? I remember something a sister said in general conference back in the 80’s: “Someone asked me how I felt about holding the priesthood. I said very stoutly, “I love holding the priesthood when he comes for dinner.” I wonder if that line would fly as well today. But seriously, I believe the women who want to hold the priesthood do so because they are looking at the title in temporal terms, not celestial terms.
Consider the words offered by Dallin H. Oaks:
President (Joseph Fielding) Smith explained: “While the sisters have not been given the Priesthood, … that does not mean that the Lord has not given unto them authority. Authority and Priesthood are two different things. A person may have authority given to him, or a sister to her, to do certain things in the Church that are binding and absolutely necessary for our salvation, such as the work that our sisters do in the House of the Lord.” (Relief Society Magazine, Jan. 1959, p. 4.)
President Smith’s teaching on authority explains what the Prophet Joseph Smith meant when he said that he organized the Relief Society “under the priesthood after the pattern of the priesthood.” The authority to be exercised by the officers and teachers of the Relief Society, as with the other auxiliary organizations, was the authority that would flow to them through their organizational connection with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and through their individual setting apart under the hands of the priesthood leaders by whom they were called.
No priesthood keys were delivered to the Relief Society. Keys are conferred on individuals, not organizations. The same is true of priesthood authority and of the related authority exercised under priesthood direction. Organizations may channel the exercise of such authority, but they do not embody it. Thus, the priesthood keys were delivered to the members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, not to any organizations.
Under the priesthood authority of the bishop, the president of a ward Relief Society presides over and directs the activities of the Relief Society in the ward. A stake Relief Society president presides and exercises authority over the function to which she has been called. The same is true for the other auxiliaries. Similarly, women called as missionaries are set apart to go forth with authority to teach the everlasting gospel, and women called to work in a temple are given authority for the sacred functions to which they have been called. All function under the direction of the priesthood leader who has been given the priesthood keys to direct those who labor in his area of responsibility.
The Prophet Joseph Smith told the early sisters that he had something better for them than a written constitution. Being organized under priesthood authority, they were to reject worldly concepts of power and seek the power that flows down from heaven for those functions and to those individuals who are using their time and talents in the Lord’s way.
In considering the Prophet’s instructions to the first Relief Society, we should remember that in those earliest days in Church history more revelation was to come. Thus, when he spoke to the sisters about the appropriateness of their laying on hands to bless one another, the Prophet cautioned “that the time had not been before that these things could be in their proper order—that the Church is not now organized in its proper order, and cannot be until the Temple is completed.” (Minutes, 28 Apr. 1842, p. 36.) During the century that followed, as temples became accessible to most members, “proper order” required that these and other sacred practices be confined within those temples.
President Harold B. Lee repeatedly told men that “the most important of the Lord’s work you will ever do will be within the walls of your own home.” (Ensign, Feb. 1972, p. 51.) That direction also applies to women, and it should engage the best teaching efforts of the Relief Society. We cannot overstate the supreme importance of the task our Father in Heaven has assigned to the mothers, who are the teachers and workers and standard-setters in the homes of the Latter-day Saints. The mothers in those homes give the impressionable sons and daughters of God their earliest and most formative orientation for their mortal journey toward eternal life.
Brethren, we know that the priesthood is the power of God delegated to men to act for the blessing and salvation of all mankind. While we sometimes refer to priesthood holders as “the priesthood,” we must never forget that the priesthood is not owned by or embodied in those who hold it. It is held in a sacred trust to be used for the benefit of men, women, and children alike. Elder John A. Widtsoe said, “Men have no greater claim than women upon the blessings that issue from the Priesthood and accompany its possession.” (Priesthood and Church Government, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1938, p. 83.) For example, our young women should have just as many opportunities for blessings from priesthood leaders as our young men.
One of the great functions of Relief Society is to provide sisterhood for women, just as priesthood quorums provide brotherhood for men. But all should remember that neither sisterhood nor brotherhood is an end in itself. Each is a means of individual spiritual growth and cooperative service. The ultimate and highest expression of womanhood and manhood is in the new and everlasting covenant of marriage between a man and a woman. Only this relationship culminates in exaltation. As the Apostle Paul taught, “Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.” (1 Cor. 11:11.) Thus, the common objective of brotherhood in our priesthood quorums and sisterhood in our Relief Societies is to bring men and women together in the sacred marriage and family relationships that lead toward eternal life, “the greatest of all the gifts of God.” (D&C 14:7.)
I don’t have problem with questioning. In fact I believe questioning is essential to gain a healthy, strong, deeply-rooted testimony. But call me obtuse, I don’t understand how I can second-guess what the Lord’s representatives tell me. Where does it say that? And if thou hath difficulty swallowing the words of the leaders of My Church, take it upon thyself to heed it not, for it is thy prerogative; and while ye are at it, cast out whatever else suiteth thee, why not?
Crud. I guess I’m like my father-in-law after all.
27 responses so far ↓
1 xoxoxoxo // Jan 31, 2008 at 5:31 am
Thank you for this post Dave…”it was a brave thing to do”. And your response to the sister missionary applies with irony to any “intellectual” stupid enough to call you obtuse…no matter how “wrong” they think you are…you’re right.
2 David // Jan 31, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Gee, thanks xoxoxoxo. There’s hardly higher praise than being quoted yourself back to you (or something like that).
3 xoxoxoxo // Jan 31, 2008 at 5:28 pm
LOL! Well…you just did it so well yourself, that it was worth repeating…or something like that. Crap. Did it again.
4 Seth R. // Jan 31, 2008 at 10:22 pm
“We’re here to see if we can obey, and even if the leader is a bonehead and wrong, we go with it because our obedience is more important than their being right.”
You apparently haven’t been in this Church long enough.
The correct answer is that you publicly support, agree with and sustain your leaders’ boneheaded ideas and then privately, without fanfare, do the small things that will make sure it will die a quiet wimpering death.
That’ll teach that silly leader not to make us do two home teaching visits per month!
Passive aggressive behavior. It’s the Mormon way.
5 xoxoxoxo // Jan 31, 2008 at 11:35 pm
There’s no such thing as passive aggression-thus such behavior only produces OxyMormons.
6 David // Jan 31, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Well, at least their complexions are clear.
7 xoxoxoxo // Feb 1, 2008 at 5:28 am
*snort!*
8 Jim // Feb 1, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Maybe someone can enlighten me, or maybe I’m just too naive. On another LDS blog that I sometimes peruse, I see comments from women that are upset about what they seem to believe is the sexist nature of the church. I can’t understand what it is that these women expect. I don’t mean to offend anyone here but honestly want to know what the gripe is all about. Is it that these women want to be given the priesthood or think that a woman should be able to be bishop or an apostle?
As a man in the Church and a husband and father, I don’t feel like I am somehow inherently better than women. I don’t get any great satisfaction from the fact that I’m the one that calls on someone in the family to pray or that I am able to give a blessing when one is needed. I try to honor and respect the priesthood and realize that it is a great responsibility and strive to be worthy to exercise the priesthood, but this doesn’t somehow make me superior.
Is it not the epitome of pride to think that we know better than God?
9 David // Feb 2, 2008 at 1:43 am
Jim (#8),
I don’t get it either, man. And I guess it’s just because we’re at the disadvantage of not being women in a patriarchal church. But, like I said, I think they’re looking at roles with temporal perspectives.
10 Jim // Feb 2, 2008 at 2:42 am
David (#9),
There are situations when I feel like I understand someone else’s perspective completely, even though I probably don’t. But there are other things, such as this, that I just don’t seem to get. So I guess in this case I need to just realize that everyone is entitled to their opinion and leave it at that.
xoxoxoxo: about BCC, I too linked to David’s blog from BCC and have enjoyed his posts and comments. By the way, I noticed that you posted there today. Do you try to avoid BCC? Do you have your own blog, or what others do you like besides David’s? One more question, if you don’t mind my asking: you seem to have a pretty broad knowledge of the gospel, church history, etc., which I’m sure you have obtained through much study and effort. What in your background has contributed to this (family, schooling, mission, etc.)?
As for me, I’m definitely not partial to BCC. I have found some interesting posts there though and enjoy some of the comments.
11 xoxoxoxo // Feb 2, 2008 at 5:54 am
Jim,
Siiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh. The serpent beguiled me and I did did post …and probably WAY too much to insure much further tolerance…lol. There is a “snark” in the wind with my name on it if tradition remains true. :0)
I have debated for years over having my own blog. I’ve come to the decision that I shouldn’t until my motives for having one are pure-meaning that I want to share my thoughts and experiences for righteous and uplifting reasons rather than because as Glenn Beck so eloquently puts it “blood is shooting from my eyesockets”. In a very real way, the fact that I do not yet have a blog indicates I have yet to conquer my spiteful, redheaded nature.
I try to avoid commenting on BCC (rather than just reading it) because I worry about becoming anemic from the loss of blood. *eg*
I’m humbled (and yet strangely anxious) that I come across as having a broad knowledge of the gospel (hey wait…was that a sexist compliment? “broad knowledge”? KIDDING!!!) because it has been insinuated once or twice that I’m thick as a brick in that area. Fortunately those who express such an opinion aren’t on my list of “people I must please before I die”.
I’m at a loss to determine specifically what has influenced my quest for truth. Born to part-member parents, raised in a small LDS farming community in Idaho where everyone knew everyone and even non-LDS kids took released time Seminary to “get out of school” for an hour-( two of them my age even “graduated” from Seminary with the rest of us!) and if you screwed up morally, spiritually, or academically-the entire community knew it.
No mission. Married an RM, had 4 kids, put him through college, supported him in his “rise” through Church positions, was left by him so he could marry his newly returned sister missionary receptionist.
Jesus Christ became very real to me when my life seemed to be falling apart, and I trusted only Him to pull myself and my children out of the debris in one piece. He did. Khalil Gibran says that the vessel that has been carved with knives is capable of holding more joy-and he was right.
Married again-temple marriage-non-RM this time. He welcomed my children as his own, and we added two more to the mix.
He was inactive for much of his late teen/early adult years and I found that often we differed a little (sometimes a LOT) on doctrinal points-so I started studying so I could backup my beliefs with facts somehow. Then I started visiting message boards expecting to find support and further light among other members. Was stunned, sickened, and then hopping mad to discover far more bickering, sniping, and downright stupid untruths being shared by these so called “faithful” Saints. Jumped pell-mell into an online version of the war in heaven, helped cast 1/3 of the host of the forum out. Decided to stop visiting forums/blogs. Was too weak to stick to my resolution. Latest discovery was BCC and their twin TandS-and was pretty much ready to wash my hands (or venture into unrighteous bloggerminion) when I started reading David’s blog.
I guess I’ve always had “the Church” in my life-whether I cared for it or not. It’s like smelling fresh bread and transporting in time to a familiar place and memory. It feels like home. As I look back on my life and see only one set of footprints during the darkest hours, I know exactly who carried me, kept me safe, stepped in front of oncoming disasters in my behalf, and kept a clean robe handy so I would weep on it repeatedly. That certainty drives me to know more about that being-why He cares for me, what I owe him in return, what my responsibility is to share what I know with others.
Sometimes I find another place, like Dave’s, that smells like homemade bread and I know I’ll probably be invited to kick off my shoes and enjoy a slice with butta’ an jam. Sometimes the sign on the door says “bakery” but it only smells like dust and old college libraries inside.
He said His sheep hear his voice and they know Him. What He didn’t say is that His sheep can also distinguish between the familiar bleats of others from the same fold and the braying of donkeys.
12 xoxoxoxo // Feb 2, 2008 at 5:58 am
Enough novels from me today. I’ll give you a woman’s point of view on your priesthood confusion later. Suffice it for now to say I am pretty much as sad and disturbed by certain women’s attitudes as well and I assure you that the majority of LDS women do NOT see LDS men as sexist, or prideful, or anything else. David hit it right on the head-their perspectives are skewed.
13 queuno // Feb 3, 2008 at 8:16 am
The number of people who comment/permablog on “those” blogs (FMH, BCC, T&S, M*, MM, etc.) would barely fill two wards (let alone a big one). The silent majority of non-Bloggernacle Mormons is deafening.
14 xoxoxoxo // Feb 4, 2008 at 2:21 am
queuno,
What do you think the reason is for the lack of participation in the bloggernacle as a whole?
I think there are various reasons, but I have no idea how accurate they might be. They are:
*Lack of technological savvy for the majority of LDS members.
*Misunderstanding about the “evil” internet.
*Too busy actually living the gospel and serving others to have time to participate.
*Feeling inadequate to “teach” and/or embarrassed about revealing their level of knowledge or experience.
*Disenchantment arising from the often negative vibes that are evident on the already existing sites that are supposedly filled with “faithful” members of the Church.
Feedback?
15 queuno // Feb 20, 2008 at 3:48 am
(xo)^4 -
I’m sorry I didn’t see your rejoinder. I was traveling at the time.
I would agree with your last point, only, but not the rest. Well, maybe the third.
I think most of the non-Nacle gospel scholars and Saints I know would put us to shame, but the ‘nacle has a stigma that can’t be easily erased. Most women I know who’ve tried to set foot over on FMH, for instance, have been either disgusted or driven away by the cattiness of those who don’t “get it”. My wife is one example of the latter.
16 xoxoxoxo // Mar 3, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Siiiiiigh…it seems I have been banned for simply stating the truth as I see it “elsewhere”. There is a reason for that stigma.
17 David // Mar 3, 2008 at 7:01 pm
BCC banned you? Or was it one of those other deep thinking sites?
18 xoxoxoxo // Mar 3, 2008 at 9:40 pm
BCC apparently-or maybe I’ve just been “modded” for my controversial and fringe concepts??? I asked Steve (twice) what prompted the “someone’s itchin to be banned” comment and it won’t go live.
Deep something…not sure it’s thinking.
19 David // Mar 3, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Okay, yeah, I see the exchange in the “Losing Faith” entry. *sigh*… This is why I hate all the “gnat” and “camel” pontificating and why I only dabble there a little bit (there’s one guy on there that drives me particularly nuts). Sometimes the lack of inflection can really work against you. For what it’s worth, as I understand it the ban is very temporary. A few days, maybe.
20 xoxoxoxo // Mar 4, 2008 at 5:26 am
Just “one” guy? Sigh. This is why you are a better person than I can ever be.
Being banned there is not even close to a punishment really. Its more like having your favorite crack dealer taken off the street for a few days and being given the chance to get clean before he gets out on bail. Not that I would know…really…its just the closest analogy that I can come up with…honest!
21 David // Mar 4, 2008 at 11:24 pm
xoxoxoxo (#20)
Oh, skippy, it’s more like not being included in the snooty girls’ clique. We’re just Romy & Michelle, doing our own thing. Just remember, I’m the Mary and you’re the Rhoda.
22 xoxoxoxo // Mar 5, 2008 at 10:15 pm
David #21 ROFL!!!!
I’m thinkin that the percentage of this particular clique that was popular (”Popular-it’s all about popular”) is mighty slim while the percentage that were in the Chess Club, Debate Club, or Science Club is fairly high???
Rhoda out.
23 xoxoxoxo // Mar 7, 2008 at 5:34 am
Oy vey! Now they are actually discussing the Adam-God theory as if BY REALLY taught it. I tried to post but I’m still banned-apparently forever.
The worst part is that someone stated it as FACT that Spencer W. Kimball officially said that BY was wrong or taught false doctrine! Blood from my eyeballs…LOTS of it.
If you have an email contact on here somewhere I can’t find it. I’d love to email you my intended post to see if YOU could shine a light bright enough to cut through all the…..amazing.
24 David // Mar 7, 2008 at 3:01 pm
I remember reading a Dialogue article back in the early 80’s that “documented” BY had the A-G Theory taught as part of the temple ceremony and that it was finally put down in the 1900’s.
You can contact me at david@roughstonerolling.com. I tried to email it to you, but apparently the email address provided in your comments is defunct. What’s up with that?!
25 xoxoxoxo // Mar 8, 2008 at 6:27 am
I emailed ya.
26 s'mee // Aug 2, 2008 at 6:26 am
o.k. I’m still making my way through your posts and this is another one where I have to make a statement, even though NO ONE will ever read it. Forgive the length, please.
This is such an issue with me. I totally agree with the “either it’s true or it’s not” theory/fact.
I also believe that failure to see that point is a marker for the Spiritually immature. Only a fool thinks they have learned it all and have *wisdom* by their 30’s.
Not one of these Spiritually immature persons can fathom the idea of someone from a different era having a different view point, agenda, purpose, or political foundation. They cannot see that world dynamics change and so can policy, however the basic doctrine has and will remain the same.
They live in a world of two way mirrors reflecting only their view and seeing only their view in return. The idea of molecules existing prior to being ‘visible’ is foreign, so the idea of God, or a prophet knowing something without *them* knowing is enough to disregard it.
Certain ‘Female Mother Howtorant’ blogs drive me crazy. They have both readership from within and without the church, and feet in so many pools that they are arachnids, spinning webs that will eventually cause their own distruction. They discuss sacred ordinances, garments, and doctrine as though these things are tonight’s dinner menu.
*They* are the experts and challenge any and all comers who disagree with their ideology.
They claim to be ‘feminist’ however a true feminist allows each female on the planet to grow and progress in whatever field, career, or profession they choose, even if that goes against another female’s personal choice.
And my personal #1 gripe with them is the majority of their complaints are focused on choices they themselves have made. *Their* religion, *their* husband, *their* responsibility to *their*children, *their* perceived demeaning roles as mothers and wives or sisters in the Gospel, *their* leaders, all of which they chose to accept and can fully relinquish if they really wanted to. But they prefer to sit in their sticky web and crawl about stinging anyone who is happy being who they are. They drive me nuts.
I also feel they will be held responsible for their written words in defiance against the Brethren, a term they always smirk at while using. They mock, they point and evidently never humble themselves long enough to think they just might be wrong.
The trouble is they are very popular and they (are presumed to ) speak for *the intelligent* women of the church.
Most of these same women have blog rolls which include self proclaimed apostate writers, the popular funny girl or guy who, again, mock and point and laugh at all us dunderheads who “blindly follow”. And again, as a former LDS bigshot who has gone astray and seen the light, they have multitudes of readers.
WHY would an active LDS person support these blogs? Because, doggonit, they’re funny! And POPULAR! If I rad a popular kid’s blog then I’ll be popular too!
Women don’t have the priesthood! Someone call the WAHmbulance! Give me a break. Grow up. It reminds me of a Shel Silverstein poem, “Ladies First!” where a silly little girl insists that she be given every thing and every opportunity first, only to be put into the cannibals’ pot because she insists, “LADIES FIRST!”
As far as the majority of the ‘nacle, I’m not one of the cool kids and more than likely never will be. I think the guys are as immature as the gals, so much sometimes that it is more of a “my degree, spirit, knowledge is bigger than your degree, s, k” or such contest. Having controversy is admirable, it gets higher blog stats!
ugh. blah blah blah. ugh.
sorry for the rant.
enjoying your blog.
27 David // Aug 4, 2008 at 7:53 pm
s’mee,
Heaven help us if we ever become cool, wise or popular.
Leave a Comment