ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/gdm/archive/gdm.199911

Internet Message Format | 1999-11-28 | 81KB

From: "Perry L. Porter" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ---> Thought provoking letter to the editor.
Date: 14 Nov 1999 13:53:15 -0700

From the Salt Lake Tribune.

Road to Exaltation?

Friday, November 12, 1999


Recent letters to The Tribune have fairly well lambasted the plural
marriage communities. Some writers appear to have an almost automatic and
gut level reaction of hatred for the practice. This is not good.

John Eggertsen (Forum, Nov. 5) and Kevin Springer (Forum, Nov. 5) make
several assumptions that tread the thinnest of ice. One writes that no
Christian church recognizes plural marriage, even though those that
practice it claim to be Christian. Wrong. A religion, whether recognized
or not by government authority, is still a religion.

In fact, one that is not recognized cannot be faulted for claiming
religious persecution and taking their practices underground. They have
become their own sect of Mormonism that do not recognize the authority of
the church in Utah, just as Martin Luther did not recognize the church in
Rome or Smith the church as it existed prior to the founding of the LDS
variety.

Reading between the lines of these writers' letters, one senses they feel
that the practice of plural marriage is evil. The Mormon church has
certainly gone out of its way to help paint that picture, usually through
avoidance of the question. The truth of the matter is, if Mormon prophecy
is true, plural marriage is not only a fact, but eventually, all Mormons
will be required to enter into a plural marriage in order to obtain their
"Glory."

If we are to understand Joseph Smith Jr. properly, it will be required
here on Earth. Deal with it and have a forgiving nature. These people who
have been forced to hide may just be on the true and right path to eternal
glorification; it may be the rest of us who are apostate. There is no
protection in our millions of numbers if we are wrong about this.

J. MATTHEW PHIPPS Boise, Idaho


http://www.sltrib.com/1999/Nov/11121999/public_f/46341.htm


Perry     <[e-mail]>    http://pobox.com/~plporter

-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Perry L. Porter" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ---> keys
Date: 21 Nov 1999 12:16:36 -0700


http://www.lds.org/conference/O1999en/O1999en_4_2_Balla.html


Elder M. Russell Ballard
Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

Beware of False Prophets and False Teachers

Beware of those who speak and publish in opposition to God's true
prophets.

"Yesterday, members of the Church sustained the First Presidency and
members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and
revelators, with Gordon B. Hinckley also being sustained as President of
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He, and only he, holds
and exercises in their fullness all of the keys of God's kingdom on earth.
How grateful we all are to know and to sustain President Hinckley."

---------------------

[Commentary:  My understanding it that the President of the church holds
the key to the resurrection, but does not exercise them, i.e. when asked
why our prophet does not raise the dead as did the ancients, and
missionaries would replay that he had the keys but did not exercise them
at this time.

Also I have been told multiple times by religions professors etc, that the
President of the church still holds the keys to plural marriage, but has
been directed by God to not exercise them now because it would be breaking
the laws of man.

While the old statement that the President of the church, holds all the
keys, has been repeated many many times, I don't remember the added phrase
"and exercises in their fullness all of the keys of God's kingdom on
earth.", ever being used before.

Apparently Brother Ballard had not read of thought much about pervious
statements by pervious Presidents concerning holding the keys to plural
marriage but not "exercising" them.   Consider the following.]

------------------------

President Lorenzo Snow offered the following:

"I move that, recognizing Wilford Woodruff as the President of the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the only man on the earth at the
present time who holds the keys of the sealing ordinances, we consider him
fully authorized by virtue of his position to issue the Manifesto which
has been read in our hearing, and which is dated September 24th, 1890, and
that as a Church in General Conference assembled, we accept his
declaration concerning plural marriages as authoritative and binding."

The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous.

Salt Lake City, Utah, October 6, 1890.

(The Manifesto, refer to the back of any modern LDS D&C)

-------------------
Excerpts from Three Addresses by President Wilford Woodruff Regarding the
Manifesto

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of
this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in
the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out
of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the
children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.

(Sixty-first Semi-annual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October
6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October
11, 1890, p. 2.)


The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter
into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to
come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as
kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they
refused to accept them.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.11, p.268 - p.269, Brigham Young, August 19,
1866


[This next quote is a little long, but to not take it out of context, I
include the entire long paragraph, look for the reference to keys and
compare it to what Elder Ballard said about President Hinkley "exercising"
all the keys.]


Now, in relation to the position that we occupy concerning plurality, or,
as it is termed, polygamy it differs from that of others. I have noticed
the usage of several nations regarding marriage; but, as I have said, we
are not indebted to any of them for our religion, nor for our ideas of
marriage, they came from God. Where did this commandment come from in
relation to polygamy? It also came from God. It was a revelation given
unto Joseph Smith from God, and was made binding upon His servants. When
this system was first introduced among this people, it was one of the
greatest crosses that ever was taken up by any set of men since the world
stood. Joseph Smith told others; he told me, and I can bear witness of it,
"that if this principle was not introduced, this Church and kingdom could
not proceed." When this commandment was given, it was so far religious,
and so far binding upon the Elders of this Church that it was told them if
they were not prepared to enter into it, and to stem the torrent of
opposition that would come in consequence of it, the keys of the kingdom
would be taken from them. When I see any of our people, men or women,
opposing a principle of this kind, I have years ago set them down as on
the high road to apostacy, and I do to-day; I consider them apostates, and
not interested in this Church and kingdom. It is so far, then, a religious
institution, that it affects my conscience and the consciences of all good
men--it is so far religious that it connects itself with time and with
eternity. What are the covenants we enter into, and why is it that Joseph
Smith said that unless this principle was entered into this kingdom could
not proceed? We ought to know the whys and the wherefores in relation to
these matters, and understand something about the principle enunciated.
These are simply words; we wish to know their signification.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.11, p.221, John Taylor, April. 7, 1866


When the work of the Prophet Joseph Smith was completed, when he had
received the keys, powers, and ordinances, and had conferred them upon the
heads of the Quorum of the Twelve when he realized and sensed that the
time had come when he would give his life for his work, he seemed to
speak, upon occasion, more emphatically than ever before with regard to
the truth of the revelations which he received, indicating that there were
those within the Church then who opposed and did not accept all the
revelations which God had given through him. These were his words upon the
memorable occasion of one of his last addresses to the Saints.

"Oh! I beseech you go forward and make your calling and election sure --
when did I ever teach anything wrong from this stand? When was I ever
confounded? I want to triumph in Israel before I depart hence and am no
more seen. I never told you I was perfect -- but there is no error in the
revelations which I have taught."

(May 12, 1844. Andrew Jenson, The Historical Record, Vol. 7, p. 548. HC,
Vol.6, Ch.17, p.366)

Alvin R. Dyer, Conference Report, October 1959, p.23


Concerning the Patriarchal Order of Marriage, President Taylor said: "If
we do not embrace that principle soon, the keys will be turned against us.
If we do not keep the same law that our Heavenly Father has kept, we
cannot go with Him. A man obeying a lower law is not qualified to preside
over those who keep a higher law." In harmony with the remarks of
President Taylor Elder Woodruff observed: "The reason why the Church and
Kingdom of God cannot advance without the Patriarchal Order of Marriage is
that it belongs to this dispensation just as baptism for the dead does, or
any law or ordinance that belongs to a dispensation. Without it the Church
cannot progress. The leading men of Israel who are presiding over stakes
will have to obey the law of Abraham, or they will have to resign."

(Matthias F. Cowley, Wilford Woodruff His Life and Labors, p.542.)



Patriarchal marriage involves conditions, responsibilities and obligations
which do not exist in monogamy, and there are blessings attached to the
faithful observance of that law, if viewed only upon natural principles,
which must so far exceed those of monogamy, as the conditions
responsibilities and power of increase are greater. This is my view and
testimony in relation to this matter. I believe it is a doctrine that
should be taught and understood.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.20, p.30, Joseph F. Smith, July 7, 1878




[If you don't think that keys and plural marriage are very closely tied,
then read this longer quote by Wilford Woodruff.]


As to President Young his labors have been with us. It has been remarked
sometimes, by certain individuals, that President Young has said in public
that he was not a prophet nor the son of a prophet. I have travelled with
him since 1833 or the spring of 1834; I have travelled a good many
thousand miles with him and have heard him preach a great many thousand
sermons; but I have never heard him make that remark in my life. He is a
prophet, I am a prophet, you are, and anybody is a prophet who has the
testimony of Jesus Christ, for that is the spirit of prophecy. The Elders
of Israel are prophets. A prophet is not so great as an Apostle. Christ
has set in his Church, first, Apostles; they hold the keys of the kingdom
of God. Any man who has travelled with President Young knows he is a
prophet of God. He has foretold a great many things that have come to
pass. All the Saints who are well acquainted with him know that he is
governed and controlled by the power of God and the revelations of Jesus
Christ. His works are before the world; they are before the heavens;
before the earth; before the wicked as well as the righteous; and it is
the influence of President Young that the world is opposed to. This
Priesthood, these keys of the kingdom of God that have been sealed upon
him, the world is at war against; let them say what they may, these things
are what they are at enmity with. Their present objection to the
Latter-day Saints, they say, is plurality of wives. It is this principle
they are trying to raise a persecution against now. But how was it in
Missouri, Kirtland, Jackson county, Far West, Caldwell county, in all our
drivings and afflictions, before this principle was revealed to the
Church? Certainly it was not polygamy then. No, it was prophets, it was
revelation, it was the organization of an institution founded by
revelation from God. They did not believe in that, and that was the
objection in those days. If we were to do away with polygamy, it would
only be one feather in the bird, one ordinance in the Church and kingdom.
Do away with that, then we must do away with prophets and Apostles, with
revelation and the gifts and graces of the Gospel, and finally give up our
religion altogether and turn sectarians and do as the world does, then all
would be right. We just can't do that, for God has commanded us to build
up His kingdom and to bear our testimony to the nations of the earth, and
we are going to do it, come life or come death. He has told us to do thus,
and we shall obey Him in days to come as we have in days past.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, p.165 - p.166, Wilford Woodruff, December
12, 1869

================================

[Again I repeat the statement of Brother Ballard, and try to do they
mental gymnastics to rationalize that somehow President Hinkley is
properly exercising the keys of plural marriage.  If the issue were simply
because it is against the law of the land, then were are the churches
efforts to get these religiously oppressive laws changed to allow
President Hinkley to TRULY "exercise" all the keys that brother Ballard
claims that he has.]

"Yesterday, members of the Church sustained the First Presidency and
members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and
revelators, with Gordon B. Hinckley also being sustained as President of
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He, and only he, holds
and exercises in their fullness all of the keys of God's kingdom on earth.
How grateful we all are to know and to sustain President Hinckley."

Elder M. Russell Ballard Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

Beware of False Prophets and False Teachers

http://www.lds.org/conference/O1999en/O1999en_4_2_Balla.html




Perry     <[e-mail]>    http://pobox.com/~plporter

-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Perry L. Porter" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ---> Child sexual abuse
Date: 22 Nov 1999 00:07:24 -0700

   BY SHEILA R. McCANN
 @ 1999, THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE

     As lawsuits filed by child sexual abuse victims against Catholic
 dioceses have grabbed headlines and reaped controversial
 multimillion-dollar awards, similar litigation against the Mormon Church
 has proceeded quietly, usually ending in confidential settlements.

     But a $750 million lawsuit set for trial next spring in West Virginia
 promises to shine a national spotlight on how The Church of Jesus Christ
 of Latter-day Saints responds to cases of child sexual abuse among its
 members.

     James Doe Jr., a divorced X-ray technician, was sexually abusing his
 5-year-old daughter and 8-year-old son in 1989. When the children told a
 baby sitter, Doe [a pseudonym used in court documents], feared exposure
 and confessed to New River Virginia stake president Blair Meldrum.

     Meldrum counseled Doe and believed he had repented -- and reformed.
 Meldrum did not report the abuse to state authorities, nor did he talk to
 or arrange counseling for the children.

     Five years later, Doe was arrested after he videotaped himself
 molesting the same children. He pleaded guilty to abusing them over
 several years and is serving a 185-year prison term. The daughter, now
15,
 and her mother have sued the LDS Church, charging years of abuse
inflicted
 on the girl could have been prevented had Meldrum acted to protect her.
 The trial had been scheduled for next week but was recently postponed
 until April.

     The Doe suit reflects the trend in litigation against the LDS Church.
 Rather than accusing its clergy of abuse, as has been the case in
 litigation against other faiths, more than 40 plaintiffs have alleged
 church officials knew of molestations or ignored warning signs and failed
 to alert either victim's families or authorities.

     Although the cases have rarely gone to trial, last year a Texas jury
 awarded $4 million to a boy molested at age 8 by LDS Church member
Charles
 Blome, who was a trusted baby sitter in the congregation. The child's
 attorney, Clay Dugas of Texas, argued church leaders had received
 complaints about Blome, who is now serving a prison sentence for his
 crime.

     Attorneys who have sued the LDS Church argue its lay clergy is
 insufficiently trained, and fails to heed accusations or evidence of
 pedophilia, especially in popular, well-liked church members. Eager to
 avoid embarrassing the church, this lay clergy also fails to realize a
 child molester will not stop without professional therapy, lawyers
allege.

     Instead, past litigation shows church leaders often focus on an
 offender's repentance, neglecting the needs of victims or leaving
children
 at risk, attorneys said.

     "Once they learn of it, they don't ever report the abuse" to
 authorities, charges South Carolina attorney Michael G. Sullivan, who
 represents the Doe daughter and mother. "Clearly, it puts blinders on
 where you focus solely on the pedophile. Victims are ignored."

     Adds Bellevue, Wash., attorney Timothy Kosnoff, who is suing the
 church on behalf of a boy molested in Oregon: "There's been this long
 historical tradition of separation from secular society and they want to
 do it their own way . . . They don't want to believe their fellow
 priesthood holder is a [child molester.]''

     Church representatives, in a lengthy interview with The Salt Lake
 Tribune, conceded the faith's community leaders occasionally have made
 mistakes in handling reports of child sexual abuse.

     But, they counter, the church has made dramatic changes since 1989,
 providing training to its clergy and a hot line for them to call, plus
 distributing educational pamphlets. These efforts, plus condemnations of
 child abuse by church leaders, virtually have eliminated lawsuits based
on
 handling of reports after the hot line's inception in 1995, said Von
 Keetch, a Salt Lake City attorney who represents the church.

     The hot line staff tells clergy to protect and arrange help for
 victims, and to ensure abuse is reported to authorities, said Harold
 Brown, director of LDS Family Services. Training emphasizes the need to
 refer abusers to treatment, he added.

     ''The church would never try to cure a true pedophile with
 repentance," Brown said.

     West Virginia Claims: The West Virginia lawsuit contends stake
 president Meldrum and others decided to respond to a pedophile with
 prayer, focusing on spiritually healing Doe while failing to help his
 molested children.

     But church attorneys explain in court filings: "President Meldrum
took
 [the father] at his word, believing that he truly intended to forsake his
 past conduct and gain repentance in the eyes of God." After 18 months,
 Meldrum decided Doe had "sufficiently repented," they said.

     But the lawsuit alleges the abuse continued until February 1994, when
 Doe videotaped himself sexually assaulting both children and forcing them
 to perform sexual acts with each other. The son told his former
 stepmother. She called the children's mother, serving in the military,
who
 called authorities. Police seized the tape and arrested Doe.

     Sullivan, the victim's lawyer, argues Meldrum should have obeyed West
 Virginia's child abuse reporting law. "The real issue is, in a civilized
 society, when you learn a child is being abused, can you do nothing?''
 asked Sullivan. "We think the answer will be a resounding no."

     With sufficient training or supervision, Meldrum would not have taken
 Doe "at his word," Sullivan added. Instead, Meldrum would have known
 pedophiles -- no matter how repentant -- minimize their sexual abuse of
 children and do not stop without therapy, he said.

     Keetch said Meldrum will testify Doe hid the scope of the abuse. "I
 believe President Meldrum honestly believed in his heart that those kids
 were not in any further danger from their father."

     A church Relief Society member later reported her suspicions the
 children were neglected and physically abused, Keetch notes. But
 investigations by child welfare officials failed to detect the sexual
 abuse, which had not been reported by the baby sitter.

     The LDS Church argues it should not be required to abide by child
 abuse reporting laws when it learns of abuse via a member's confession.
 The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion, the church
 reasons, and the church requires its leaders to keep "confessions''
 confidential. Indeed, a clergy-penitent shield formally is recognized in
 some states.

     The church also contends it was not covered by the 1989 version of
 West Virginia's reporting law, which required "religious healers" to
 report. Members of the clergy were added in 1992.

     Raleigh County Circuit Judge H.L. Kirkpatrick has dismissed some
 claims, citing the First Amendment in refusing to probe whether the
church
 followed its own policies for handling reports of child sexual abuse
 cases. However, the judge said the state's interest in protecting
children
 outweighs the LDS Church's interest in keeping Doe's confession secret,
 allowing other claims to proceed to trial.

     "This court will not make the protection of children from physical
and
 sexual abuse subservient to free exercise interests of the LDS Church
 defendants," the judge wrote. "This court can think of no greater
 compelling interest than the expectation of a child to be free from the
 horrors of physical and sexual abuse."

     The judge also said jurors should decide whether Meldrum was a
 "religious healer" required to report. Church defendants have asked him
to
 reconsider.

    Requiring Reports: Child abuse reporting laws and legal privileges
vary
 from state to state. According to Utah's law, "any person" who has reason
 to believe a child is being abused or neglected is required to report to
 authorities.

     However, Utah law says a clergy member who learns of abuse during a
 confession by a perpetrator can keep the confession confidential. If the
 clergy member learns of the abuse from any other source, such as a victim
 or concerned friend, he or she is required to report.

     About nine states, including West Virginia, have child abuse
reporting
 laws that "purport to abdicate" or overrule clergy confidentiality,
Keetch
 said. Appellate courts have not yet definitively resolved the conflict
 between those specific laws and freedom of religion arguments, said Rev.
 Raymond O'Brien, professor of law at Catholic University.

     O'Brien argues the clergy privilege should be respected by the
courts.
 "Say you're a pedophile -- where can you go, if everyone must report, to
 talk, get help, turn yourself in, or at least end the behavior?"

     Mandatory reporting laws arose in the 1970s as child welfare
advocates
 challenged a traditional view that abuse was a family matter. A sense
 developed that professionals who work with children should be required to
 watch for abuse and report it, said Paul Chill, a law professor at the
 University of Connecticut.

     Without such laws, "Everybody is thinking it's somebody else's job,"
 adds Kathryn Harding, acting director of research for Prevent Child Abuse
 America.

     To ensure a clergy exemption from such laws serves society as a
whole,
 O'Brien acknowledges, and clergy must recognize the seriousness of child
 sexual abuse and the necessity of guiding offenders into professional
 treatment.

     An untrained clergy response is often "to tend to hide it or ignore
 it, because the person [offending] is the one you would least expect," or
 due to discomfort with discussing deviant sexual behavior, he said.
 Catholic seminaries today include such training. But extending such
 education to volunteers or a volunteer lay clergy is a challenge, he
said.

     Keetch asserts most perpetrators who are willing to confess to an LDS
 leader have been willing to accept urgings to report the abuse
themselves.

     "If not, often there will be a wife, or a mother, or a family member,
 or some other victim, or someone else where a bishop can work through the
 process and get the report made without violating the confidence," he
 said.

     But Sullivan argues LDS Church officials have not adequately followed
 up on the occasional training sessions to ensure bishops are following
 written policies encouraging reporting -- which would allow authorities
to
 hold offenders accountable for their crimes. Past lawsuits routinely
 complain clergy did not obey reporting laws.

     In Utah, professionals who work with abused children -- from
 therapists to police -- say bishops in Utah still occasionally fail to
 report abuse when they learn of it outside a confession.

    Confidential Settlements: A shield of privacy surrounds the LDS
 Church's resolution of complaints about its handling of child sexual
 abuse, making it impossible to define the total number of claims,
informal
 and formal, and the amount of money paid by the church.

     Not even the amounts paid to resolve publicly filed lawsuits can be
 ascertained, because confidentiality is a routine requirement for a
 settlement. Even the end result of the lawsuit that snared a $4 million
 jury award last year is not public. The church initially said it would
 appeal, then negotiated a confidential settlement with the molested boy.

     In 1993, after a California jury found the LDS Church liable and
 decided it should pay punitive damages in the molestation of a
13-year-old
 girl, the trial was halted and the case settled before jurors considered
 how much to award.

     The secret settlements are "a very well-crafted legal strategy,"
 Sullivan said. "They [lawsuits] simply disappear off the public's radar."


     Of the more than 40 plaintiffs, Keetch contends the church has either
 won dismissals or paid limited settlements -- equivalent to the legal
 expense of defending the case -- in nearly all cases. Only about seven
 settlements have been in amounts higher than that benchmark, he said.

     Attorneys who have researched and been involved in past litigation
 dispute his accounting, contending the church has spent millions in
 settlements and legal defense costs. The payment of only defense costs to
 settle cases "is completely inaccurate in every single case we had," said
 Dugas, who won the $4 million verdict and has sued the church on behalf
of
 a half-dozen other victims in Texas.

     Keetch argues critics should consider the relatively small number of
 lawsuits filed: With more than 11,000 Mormon congregations in the United
 States, the suits represent claims against a tiny fraction of the
church's
 clergy.

     But solely examining claims made in filed lawsuits gives a
deceptively
 narrow impression of the scope of the problem, Kosnoff retorts.

     First, victims' families have made additional, informal claims
 directly to the church. Keetch did not provide a number of such claims,
 but said he is personally involved in handling "three or four" a year.

     Second, many families are understandably reluctant to pursue legal
 action against their church, even if they feel mistakes were made.
Oakland
 attorney William Johnson represented several families who sued a
 California Little League and Babe Ruth organization after their sons were
 molested by a popular coach.

     Some families also sued the LDS Church, contending it had known of
 sexual misconduct by the coach, a Mormon, and failed to report it. The
 coach had been previously excommunicated for sexual misconduct, but later
 was reinstated.

     Other families declined to sue the church. "They didn't think they
 could continue to worship in the church with that going on," Johnson
said.

     Kosnoff said he has talked with Mormon families who decided against
 suing their church, believing "it's the true church, and that would be
 like suing God, and you can't do that."

     LDS families often make the church the center of both their spiritual
 and social lives, and suing would place extraordinary stress on them,
 Kosnoff adds. The Oregon youth represented by Kosnoff has left the
church,
 sending him into a version of culture shock, the attorney said. "There
 never was a non-Mormon in their [the family's] house."

     Even the church's response to lawsuits is in dispute. Keetch argues
 the number of suits has dropped in recent years because the church is
 compassionate. When it learns of an allegation "a church leader didn't do
 all that he could . . . [it] immediately goes in and offers counseling
for
 as long as it takes," he said. It also offers money for tutoring and
other
 family needs. "When attorneys especially are willing to [accept] that, we
 simply don't have a problem with the lawsuits," Keetch said. Los Angeles
 psychologist Paul Lees-Haley, who has evaluated victims bringing claims
 against several churches, said the LDS Church "has a surprisingly
generous
 attitude toward the people suing them. [Representatives say] 'Don't be
 bashful about telling us ways we can help them.' "

     Some attorneys counter they have faced aggressive litigation tactics
 from the church. Indeed, Keetch draws a distinction between claims from
 families willing to settle for counseling and other assistance, and
 lawsuits that demand hefty punitive damages. He condemns such suits as
 "attorney retirement plans," because lawyers usually receive a third or
 more of any award as their fees.

     "The problem we run into is when we have an attorney say, 'I want
$750
 million, or I want $100 million, or I want $50 million.' " Such a suit,
he
 adds, "the church will fight until it is dead . . . because all of a
 sudden it's not anymore about helping the child. In fact, it's about
 hurting the child."

     But lawyers argue such suits are aimed at benefiting children in
 general, by driving improvements in the church's training for clergy and
 its response to child sexual abuse. "Nobody's going to take it seriously
 until one of these cases hits it big," Kosnoff said.

     Rebecca Doe, the mother of the children abused in West Virginia,
 agrees.

     "We'd like to prevent this from happening to other kids," she told
The
 Tribune. Her own children are angry their abuse continued, both for their
 own suffering and because the long-term abuse led to the virtual life
 sentence imposed on their father, she said.

     If church officials had reported the abuse in 1989, "they would have
 stopped it a lot sooner," she said, "and the children wouldn't have so
 many scars now."


Perry     <[e-mail]>    http://pobox.com/~plporter

-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Perry L. Porter" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ---> The Relatedness of Living Things
Date: 22 Nov 1999 15:41:17 -0700

Len Scott, dairyman extraordinary, approached the back of his lawn and
called across the hedge to his professor friend, "Hi, neighbor. Got all
your biological specimens under control?"

"All but my neighbors and the starlings," Brother Nielson returned. "Come
on over and sit awhile."

"Thanks, I'd like to. It's a couple of hours yet before sacrament
meeting."

"By the way, congratulations on winning the award for the best Holstein
herd in the county. Those must be pretty fancy cows of yours."

"They certainly are. Why last year one of my cows produced an average of
eight gallons of milk a day."

"That sounds like an unbelievable amount of milk for one cow."

"Well, today's cows produce much more than cows did just a few years back.
Last year in this country 16,000,000 cows produced more milk than
27,000,000 cows produced just 30 years ago."

"What did you do, start feeding them milkweeds for hay?"

"Certainly good feed helps, but this record was made possible by our
selective breeding program.  For years we dairymen have been culling out
the scrubs and selecting the top producers for breeding stock."

"You dairymen have been able to accomplish virtually a miracle through
your selective breeding program.  Do you think that God has the power to
use the same technique of selection that you dairymen use?"

"What do you mean? Of course God has this power."

"Well, last week when we were discussing the creation of the world you
said that life on earth could not have come about by evolution. We both
agree on the one really essential aspect, that God created all living
things; but when you say that He could not do so by an evolutionary
process, are you not in effect saying that God could not do with the
beasts and the lilies of the field what man can do with cows and dogs or
wheat and roses?"

"I didn't say He couldn't; I just said He didn't. Besides, what has the
development of a strain of cows got to do with evolution?"

"The term 'evolution' means 'orderly change, unrolling or development.'
The development of a good strain of Holsteins from the scrubby cows of the
past is an example of evolution--an evolution directed and controlled by
man."

"Yes, but the man who developed today's Holstein cows started with cows!

Everyone recognizes that strains within species differ widely from one
another, such as in the case of dogs; but variations occur only within
species--species never change."

"Variations occur across species lines just as they do within a species,
as I could easily show you. But first answer me this: if God did not
create the fish of the sea, the beasts of the fields, the fowls of the air
and all manner of herbs, grasses, and trees by an evolutionary process,
then how did He do it?"

"Well, I suppose He created each kind of organism by some kind of a
'special creation' at the time He created the world, just like it says in
Genesis."

"Let me remind you that it doesn't specifically say that in Genesis; that
is your interpretation of the account of the creation. I believe in the
Biblical account of creation, but I don't agree with your interpretation
of it. Suppose we look at some of the implications of your 'special
creation' idea and of the evolution idea, and then consider these
implications in the light of some observed facts. You may not agree with
the most commonly accepted interpretations of these facts, but a knowledge
of them will help you decide more wisely for yourself.

"If all forms of life were created by a especial creation,' then it must
follow that all kinds of plants and animals alive today were created at
the beginning essentially in their present form and not at some more
recent time. It also follows that all species have remained distinct with
more or less sharply defined limits from the beginning until the present.
Do you agree that these generalizations are inherent in the concept of
special creation?"

"Yes, I suppose they are.  Otherwise, there would have been changes, or as
you put it, 'evolution.' "

How Did Life Begin?

"By contrast, life may have begun as one or a number of simple, one-celled
organisms. These organisms developed the ability to duplicate themselves
by some process so the products were similar to, but not necessarily
identical with, the parent cells. Thus, there would be slight variations
among the offspring. It seems quite logical that these individuals which
were best adapted to their environment would be the ones most likely to
survive; and, if they lived long enough to reproduce, they would be the
ones which would leave offspring. On the other hand, those that were
poorly adapted to the environment, the scrubs as you call them, would be
least likely to survive; and, if they did not reproduce, their kind would
not be perpetuated. The problem of survival for all individuals, but
especially for the scrubs, would become increasingly acute as the numbers
of organisms became more and more numerous."

There Are Many Different Environments

"Inasmuch as physical conditions differ widely from place to place, there
were, and are, many different environments; for example, some hot, some
cold, some wet or dry, bright or shady. Each different environment would
favor organisms with different adaptations so the organisms in one
environment would become less and less like their fellows in a different
environment, and thus the tree of life would branch. Should the organisms
in various habitats become sufficiently different, they could no longer be
considered the same species. The development of a new species, however,
would require considerable time. Each 'new year's' model would be very
much like the last, but over a considerable period of time a strain might
differ greatly from the original model. There might even be some of the
old models still around."

"Then, Brother Nielson, you are suggesting there are still 'Model T' kinds
of plants and animals?"

"Yes, but most of the 'Model Ts' have been retired for 'T-birds' and
'V.W.s.' And, as I see it, today's species of plants and animals came into
being by a process not unlike the way our present styles of cars came
about, by a process of trial and testing, discarding the unfit, saving the
best for each purpose, and going on from there with further improvements;
in short, they evolved. And if this is so, then the lines of descent of
each species today would not reach back to the beginning, like distinct
ribbons, any more than do our present car models extend back unchanged to
the year 1900. Instead, the lines of descent resemble a tree, a great
'tree of life.' The original primitive organisms would constitute

the trunk and from this trunk would diverge many branches. But unlike real
trees, the branches would not all be alike rather, each branch would be
different. Simple forms would give rise to more complex forms; primitive
kinds would give rise to more advanced forms. Often the primitive kinds
would die out and replaced by the more 'progressive' ones, but if the
primitive kinds were well enough adapted to survive and reproduce, they
too might persist."

A Giant Genealogical Pedigree Chart

"It sounds to me like a giant genealogical pedigree chart."

"Yes, that's exactly what it is."

"Except that all the plants and animals wouldn't be related to each other
like the individuals on a pedigree chart."

"Not exactly, but if you place species names in place of the names of
individuals, the pattern would be similar. What do you say we do some
really old genealogical research and take a look at the record of the
past. We can start with the story in the rocks -the 'dust of the earth,'
if I might use a quote. It is easily observed that these layers have been
twisted, folded, bent, and cracked; but in the main the oldest ones are at
the bottom, and the youngest are on top. As you know, the rocks often
contain fossil remains of past forms of life. Sometimes the preservation
has been poor and the remains are very fragmentary, but sometimes the
organisms have been so well preserved that the very cells of the organism
and structures within the cells can be discerned in detail.  The older
layers of rock contain fossils which are the remains of primitive forms of
life. Most of these are now extinct and occur no place on earth that we
know of.  For example, our oldest coal beds contain fossils of hundreds of
species of insects, fish, reptiles, ferns, and trees that do not exist
today.

"On the other hand, fossil evidence of the more advanced animals and
plants is completely missing from these older strata, but there are
abundant fossils of these organisms in the younger layers. Today there are
8,000 known species of mammals, the group of animals to which man belongs;
but no fossils of true mammals have been found until relatively late in
the geologic timetable.

"Similarly, there are about 200,000 species of flowering plants known
today. No fossil remains of these plants are known from the older layers
of rock. They do not appear on the scene until about the same time as the
mammals, but fossils of these plants are abundant in the younger strata of
rock. It would seem from these facts that present day species do not
extend back to the beginning as distinct 'ribbons' of life.

Progression of Species

"As for species remaining distinct back to the beginning, there are
numerous examples of groups of species that merge gradually into each
other, making it very difficult to draw lines of demarcation between the
various kinds.  Some examples of this condition are found in the brome
grasses, wheat grasses, oak trees, sparrows and lampreys. The species thus
seem to converge or to branch out from a common trunk.  Possibly they are
still evolving and have not achieved a fixed state. The closely related
species may hybridize with ease, indicating how closely they are related."

"It is rather obvious that the different species of sparrows are closely
related to each other, and most oak trees seem related to other oaks; but
isn't it rather ridiculous to claim that sparrows are related to oak trees
and that rabbits are related to trout and that they are both related to
grasses?"

"Well, the examples you mention are pretty far apart; but would you expect
the more remote branches of this great tree of life to be alike? Let's
take a look at some examples closer to the main trunk.  Here one could
expect to find creatures that are intermediate between the major branches
and thus provide a kind of link between them.  Now to illustrate what I
mean, would you tell me the differences between a plant and an animal?'

Plants and Animals Defined

"Surely, that's easy enough. Plants are anchored in one place, and they
are green and make their own food. Animals move around; they are not
green, and they depend on plants or other animals for their food."

"All right, now let's see if these distinctions are always reliable. Let
me tell you about an organism I have in mind--no, I'll tell you about its
whole family; it's the Volvox family. The simplest member of the family is
a pear-shaped, single-celled organism. It has whiplike hairs that enable
it to swim around in water; hence, on that basis it should be an animal.
But it also has chlorophyll and makes its own food and by this token
should be a plant.  It has a larger cousin made up of four similar cells
joined together in a flat plate, and a still larger cousin with sixteen
similar cells packed together like pomegranate seeds in a solid sphere. A
still more advanced species has thirty-two cells comprising a hollow
sphere, and finally there is Volvox, with hundreds of cells making up a
large hollow sphere.  All of these organisms swim around in water in all
stages, and they all possess chlorophyll and manufacture their own food.
Botanists consider them plants, but zoologists regard them as animals."

"Well, what are they?"

"Who is to say? They fit at the bottom of the trunk before it branched to
form two separate kingdoms. And as primitive as these organisms are, they
are by no means the most primitive forms of life. The blue-green algae and
bacteria are much more simple and more primitive. Still simpler than these
are the viruses which seem to be on the border between the living and the
nonliving. They have some traits of living organisms such as a definite
form and a mechanism for getting themselves reproduced. But not all
biologists are ready to regard them fully as living."

Cell Structures Are Similar

"It's rather easy to see apparent relationships in these lower forms of
life. We even recognize many sequences like the one in the Volvox family
which show an increasing complexity. But let's return to our consideration
of relationships between sparrows and oaks and rabbits and fish and
grasses. They certainly are different in outward appearances. Feathers and
fins and fur and foliage are a long way apart; but what would we find if
we looked inside, at the basic unit of life, the cells. Each of these, and
all other living organisms are composed of cells, you know.

"An organism might be composed of a single cell, or it might consist of
several million or billion cells. The most primitive organisms have no
well-organized, distinct cell structures; but all higher organisms, both
plants and animals, have cells that are remarkably similar in structure
and function. They all have a similar netlike organization of the life
substances; they have similar nuclei, chromosomes, mitochondria, and so
on.

Also we see the same type of progression from simple to complex that we
saw in organisms repeated in the cells.

"The same kind of similarity we observe in the structure of the cells of
plants and animals is seen in their physiology. Let me tell you about just
two examples that illustrate the close relationship of living things. All
living cells require a continual supply of energy to carry on their
various life processes. The ultimate source of this energy is the sun, but
it is stored in cells in the form of foods such as sugars and starch. The
energy of these foods is released by the process of respiration. Within
each cell this process involves some twenty or thirty distinct steps which
release the energy in small, 'bite-size' amounts. Each step is controlled
by a complex regulator called an enzyme. The process of respiration seems
to follow the same pattern in birds and trees and people and grass and so
on, endlessly, even to the point of involving the same enzymes.

The Mechanism of Inheritance

"Still more amazing facts have been revealed recently by modem biologists
and biochemists in their studies of the mechanism of inheritance.

The heart of the chromosome which regulates and controls each living cell
and which carries the hereditary or genetic code from generation to
generation is a long spiral ladder-like substance called deoxyribonucleic
acid, or DNA for short. The 'rungs' of the ladder are comprised of four
different organic compounds. The arrangement and sequence of these
compounds determine the genetic code by which hereditary traits are
transmitted from cell to cell and from parent to progeny. Of course, the
arrangement of the compounds differs from gene to gene and from species to
species; but the transmission of hereditary traits by means of DNA is
characteristic of all advanced plants such as grasses and trees and of
animals such as rabbits and people, and a similar mechanism is found in
microorganisms like bacteria, and even in viruses!"

"But does this prove that all plants and animals are related? Couldn't the
Master have used the same recipe for all life?"

Nothing Proven Conclusively

"I think it proves nothing conclusively, but these facts and countless
others, some discovered only 'yesterday,' reveal a basic unity in all
living things no matter how diverse they are in outward appearances. To
me, this indicates a magnificent master plan of creation, of such
magnitude that it fills me with awe and inspiration."

"Well, this has been quite a discussion; and to think it all started with
an innocent remark about my herd of Holsteins. We have surely strayed a
long way from cows."

"No, we haven't, not really. You see Charles Darwin was strongly impressed
by the fact that men have been able to make great improvements in domestic
plants and animals by selective breeding; this was one of the things that
led to his theory of evolution. But he couldn't see how nature selected
among wild things as did man among his domestic livestock.

Then he learned of the observations of the Reverend Thomas Malthus, that
populations tend to increase faster than does their food supply. These
populations thereby outrun their available food. Darwin recognized a
parallel situation in nature. He knew that all plants and animals have a
tendency to produce more offspring than will survive.

For example, if a single Russian thistle were to produce only 50 seeds,
and if these should all grow and produce only 50 seeds each, and if these
in turn should grow and produce 50 seeds, and this continued year after
year, there would be 78,125,000,000 Russian thistles in just seven years.

Since all forms of life tend to produce more offspring than can possibly
survive, which ones are most likely to survive? Darwin reasoned that those
which were best adapted to their particular environment would live and
reproduce, thereby leaving progeny similar to themselves. Here then was a
mechanism for the selection of the favored races that would survive.
Darwin termed it 'natural selection,' in contrast to the 'artificial
selection' practiced by man in improving domestic plants and animals."

Whom Knowledge Ends, Faith Takes Over

"What you say, and the way you put it, seems logical. It might even be
true that plants and animals in general have come about through
evolutionary processes, but I can't accept the idea that man arose by such
a process."

"And why can't you, Brother Scott?"

"Because I can't understand how to reconcile an evolutionary origin of man
and the Biblical story of Adam."

"I don't understand it, either; neither do I really understand the
hereafter nor the preexistence. But where knowledge ends, faith must take
over.

Still I see no great problem; there are so many explanations. For example,
evolution might account only for man's physical body; the addition of that
'divine spark' that sets man apart from the other animals might have been
the final step that created the man, Adam. Whichever way it came about, I
am willing to wait until some future time for the details."

"You scientists pride yourselves in being able to wait for answers, but I
don't have that much patience I'd like to know now."

God, The Master Architect

"I would, too; but I'm willing to wait. Whatever the details are, I
believe that God did indeed create man and all other living things by an
evolutionary process. I believe, too, that a God who could devise such a
patten of creation, a patten that provides the means for plants and
animals to adapt to all the myriad environmental niches of a changing
world, a pattern that carries within it the incentive--yes, the
necessity-- of continual improvement, would have to be a far superior
Being to one who need only create a large number of unrelated fixed
species, each of which might last only until things became unfavorable for
them and then pass out of existence like a dinosaur. I believe also that
an understanding of the infinite complexity of living organisms, and of
the evolutionary processes by which they have achieved such delicate
organization and such balance with their environment, leads one to a
greater sense of wonder and reverence for the Master Planner."

"Well, Brother Nielsen, you have given me some interesting ideas to think
about, but don't think you've convinced me that evolution is true--I'm not
ready to accept that!"

"Do you think I expected you to abandon the convictions of a lifetime as
the result of an hour's discussion? Each of us must interpret life in the
light of his own information and background. One must have a broad
understanding of biology to be competent to judge whether evolution is
true or not I have been studying biology for a quarter of a century--how
could I expect you to see things as I see them, anymore than you could
expect me now to be an expert in the dairy industry?"

"I guess I misunderstood. I thought you were trying to convert me to the
idea of evolution."

"I never try to convert anyone to evolution, but I do believe in helping
people to understand enough to judge for themselves. What I was trying to
do was to convince you that one can believe in evolution and still believe
in the Gospel. I believe the Gospel embraces all truth; then if evolution
is true, it is part of the Gospel."

"Thanks, Brother Nielsen. This has been a rewarding discussion. I think I
understand enough to see that there is a place in the Church for both of
us."

Dr. Harrison Is professor of botany at Brigham Young University. He won
his B.S. and M.S. degrees from BYU in 1930 and 1931; his Ph.D. was granted
by the University of Chicago in 1937. He is a member of the Utah Academy
of Science, and the Deseret Sunday School Union General Board. He has
worked as range naturalist In Yellowstone National Park, and for the
American Smelting and Refining Company. He married the former Lorna
Jensen. They are the parents of four children.

In publishing the articles in this series, "I Believe," we sincerely agree
with 2 Nephi 9:29: "But to be learned is good if they (men) hearken unto
the counsels of God."

This article by Brother Harrison has been read and approved for
publication by the editor [President David O. McKay] and associate editors
of The Instructor. Like other articles in this series, it is presented not
as Church doctrine but as a statement worthy of serious study, written by
a faithful Latter-day Saint who is competent to speak as a scholar in his
field.


Bertrand F. Harrison, "The Relatedness of Living Things," The Instructor,
July 1965.

[The Instructor was the LDS church official magazine before the Ensign.]




Perry     <[e-mail]>    http://pobox.com/~plporter

-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Perry L. Porter" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ---> MORMON AMERICA; By Richard N. Ostling and Joan K. Ostling
Date: 28 Nov 1999 23:10:18 -0700

MORMON AMERICA; By Richard N. Ostling and Joan K. Ostling

LA TIMES : Sunday, November 28, 1999

www.calendarlive.com/calendarlive/books/bookreview/19991128/t000108316.html


'A Pecular People' The Mystical and Pragmatic Appeal of Mormonism

By KENNETH ANDERSON


I-
* * *

Accounts of Mormons and the Mormon Church--officially the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints--tend toward one of two extremes. On the one
hand, accounts of Mormonism from the church's founding by Joseph Smith in
the 1820s have emphasized the sensational, the lurid, the scandalous, the
heretical and the titillating, for the reason that, well, there is much in
Mormon history, culture and doctrine that is sensational, lurid,
scandalous, heretical and titillating, as measured against mainstream
American culture then and now. Mormons had (and some dissident Mormons
still have) lots of wives; they do not smoke or drink or even drink
coffee; the genuinely devout ones wear funny underwear and do strange
rituals in temples closed to outsiders; Mormonism's presumably deeply
oppressed women bear an unfashionably large number of children, and up
until just a couple of decades ago, the Mormon Church denied blacks full
participation in the church. From the 19th century down to the present
day, Mormonism has succeeded in pushing American society's hot-buttons on
religion, race and sex.

On the other hand, other accounts of Mormons--accounts of the people
rather than the articles of their strange faith--have often emphasized the
cheerful virtue, the upright and yet often relaxed, pragmatic goodness of
its adherents, their ability to hold together families and raise decent
children and provide the consolations of community in the confusing modern
world more successfully than many others. These accounts often pass over
in discreet silence the sometimes embarrassing tenets of faith that,
especially if one were Mormon, might have been thought an inestimably
important part of making that moral success possible. If opponents of
Mormonism have often asked, "Can't we stop the Mormons from being
Mormon?", ostensible admirers of Mormons as people have often asked, at
least by implication, "Can't we have Mormons--but without Mormonism?" This
is a circumstance not unknown to minority religions with their peculiar
beliefs and customs. But Mormonism is unique in this country's historical
experience for being so thoroughly American--deeply intertwined with the
history of the United States, especially the West--yet with enough
deviation that it becomes more jarring than a religion genuinely alien to
American culture. For that reason, Mormons and the Mormon Church have
reason to be glad that Richard N. Ostling and Joan K. Ostling's new book,
"Mormon America," succumbs to neither extreme in reporting on Mormonism.
The Ostlings (the co-authors are husband and wife, both journalists and
non-Mormons; Richard Ostling was a long-time religion reporter for Time
magazine) have succeeded splendidly in their aim to produce a "candid but
non-polemical overview written for non-Mormons and Mormons alike, focusing
on what is distinctive and culturally significant about this growing
American movement." It is a scrupulous, fair-minded account, one that
neither shies away from the controversies that have shaped the perception
of Mormonism nor has any particular ax to grind about them.

I say this as a lapsed, inactive Mormon, someone who was raised in a
devoutly Mormon home and many years ago served a two-year mission for the
church, someone who today is non-practicing, although fundamentally
sympathetic to the church and its culture (this bit of autobiography is
important in a field in which so many commentators bring agendas, hidden
and otherwise). I object to accounts that caricature or pathologize
Mormonism--starting with what much of educated America today takes as its
source book for Mormonism, Tony Kushner's "Angels in America"--even if I
do not find enough in the doctrine that I could believe to count myself a
practicing adherent. But reading "Mormon America," even with my faculties
for detecting patronization and pathologization turned up high, I found
the book remarkably careful, fair and untendentious. Whether the Mormon
Church and its hierarchy will find it so I am unsure; in dealing with many
things in Mormon history and culture, it has seemed simply to hope that if
no one discusses them, they will go away. Of course they do not, and
"Mormon America" is a useful introduction to the Mormon Church even from
the church's point of view because it discusses scandal and controversy in
a plain, unadorned fashion with none of the prickly defensiveness
alternating with spin-doctor insincerity--what the Ostlings aptly call
"isolationist, and defensive reactions to outsiders"--that, alas,
regularly afflicts the Mormon Church's own department of public relations.

II-
* * *

And matters of scandal, controversy and embarrassment abound. The
religious claims could be considered embarrassing enough, starting with
Joseph Smith's founding vision in which, he said, he was visited by God
the Father and Jesus Christ in a grove in upstate New York, followed by
slews of angels from on high, naming Smith as the person to reestablish
Christ's church on Earth in "these latter days." Nonbelievers, religious
or irreligious, will find these claims preposterous. Yet they are not, it
should be noted, different from the mystical claims of visions and
revelations and visitations made by innumerable Christian and other
mystics across history, which are always preposterous to unbelievers; I
find accounts of visitations by the Virgin Mary, for example, as absurd as
any Catholic must find Joseph Smith's accounts. But the fact that so much
of the foundational mysticism of Christianity is alleged to have taken
place in the suitably distant past gives it no greater respectability than
Smith's more recent claims.

It is not mysticism, recent or distant, whether in Joseph Smith's visions
or St. Paul's hearing a voice, that creates special problems for Mormon
religious belief. A much more intractable problem is that Joseph Smith's
claims go far beyond the mystical to claims of fact which ultimately are
historical. The Book of Mormon, for example, the first work of Mormon
scripture, purports to be a historically true account of pre-Columbian
people in the New World; it teaches that they were part of the Lost Tribes
of Israel who were visited and converted in America by the resurrected
Jesus. As a matter of Christian doctrine--leaving aside the peculiarity of
the geographical location of its story--the book's content amounts to a
fairly traditional call for reform of Christ's church. It is all about
faith, repentance and baptism and has little to say about the later,
vastly more radical religious doctrines Smith preached, such as polygamy
and the plurality of Gods, the idea of a Mother in Heaven (accepted from
the church's earliest days in principle, although calls by Mormon
feminists to recognize prayers to her constitute apostasy in the view of
the church hierarchy) and the defining doctrine of Mormonism today, that
human beings may individually progress in goodness and knowledge
themselves to become gods.

The Book of Mormon also says that Native Americans resulted from a final
ethnic war among those people; that they were cursed by God with a dark
skin, although the book promises their eventual blessing and return to
God. Curiously, the offensiveness to today's ears of such a teaching--the
Mormon Church has been quietly and systematically excising the most
egregious of those scriptural passages in recent years--is not the only
reading these passages of the Book of Mormon have been given. In the
1980s' El Salvador war, for example, guerrilla forces were reported to
have included at least a few indigenous Mormons who--quite contrary to the
official Mormon Church--had taken those scriptural verses as evidence of
having been blessed by God in a just war against white oppression. I
recall speaking with a couple of indigenous Mormons in El Salvador in
those years--rural political supporters of the guerrillas although not
themselves fighters. What they emphasized in their reading of Mormon
scripture was a deep satisfaction that, at last, here was a religion that
thought them important enough to have been visited by the risen Christ,
not merely relying on events in faraway Palestine. It seemed to me then,
as now, no worse an ethnic creation myth than what contemporary makers of
myths of indigenismo, the Rigoberta Menchus and so on, elaborate, and who
anyway ultimately rely in their narratives on various white American and
European romanticisms about revolution and armed struggle or the supposed
eco-awareness of indigenous culture or New Age presumptions of Native
American spirituality.

The underlying problem, however, is that, notwithstanding the heroic
efforts of devout Mormon scholars, researchers and scientists, evidence is
not exactly mounting to support the Book of Mormon as a genuinely ancient
document. Nor is it safely off in realms beyond proof and disproof, the
stuff of mysticism, in the way that most religions are careful to do in
the face of rational science. It purports to be the historical fact of the
world--one of numerous claims by Smith and early Mormons that could not be
disputed at the time but that in today's world appear in trouble on the
facts.

III-
* * *

The problem of the Book of Mormon for devout believers illustrates why,
within Mormonism, the relevant subject, the most threatening subject, is
history and not theology. A religion that has made, so to speak, many
seemingly rash claims about historical matters is specially liable to
assault from the discipline of history; likewise, too, a religion that has
with scandal and controversy in its past but that also has made a
concerted attempt over decades to scrub and polish and airbrush away that
past in the interests of achieving respectability must worry about prying
historians. To a significant extent, historians with sufficient interest
in undertaking these questions of early Mormon practices, sources and
doctrines have themselves been Mormon. They have been caught, however,
between a genuinely deeply held Mormon theological principle that the
advancement of all knowledge is to grow closer to the glory of God and the
institutional church's awareness that history is dangerous. "Mormon
America" cites perhaps the most reactionary of the Mormon senior leaders,
Boyd K. Packer, who said in 1981 that "the writer or teacher who has an
exaggerated loyalty to the theory that everything must be told is laying a
foundation for his own judgment. . . . [S]ome things are to be taught
selectively and some things are to be given only to those who are worthy."
Notwithstanding this troubling tension, these Mormon historians' inquiries
have taken them into the roots of Joseph Smith's beliefs in magic, sources
of Mormon temple ceremonies in Masonic rites, male bonding among early
Mormon leaders, the role and status of women in the early Mormon Church
and, of course, polygamy. As might be expected, their findings and
conclusions have not always been congenial to the church, especially
insofar as those findings have been deployed by the (very tiny) band of
Mormon intellectuals and--sometimes the same people but not always--social
activists who would like to reform the Mormon Church, particularly in
matters of gender and sexual orientation. The church has reacted sharply
in the last decade by removing various of them from teaching posts and
excommunicating them. The Ostlings document these struggles with admirable
dispassion, understanding fully, as everyone involved does, that an
institution that has constructed so elaborately a sanitized past for
itself is likely to continue to find itself discomfited by history.

I sometimes wonder if I might have remained a moderately devout Mormon had
I done what I suspect many educated Mormons actually do in the face of
uncomfortable historical evidence, which is to conclude implicitly--very
implicitly--that none of this matters in its literal truth or falsity.
What matters is the evolving institution of the church and particularly
its modernization and globalization; let us not be disposed, in other
words, to throw the baby out with the bathwater over such quibbles as
whether there really were horse-drawn chariots in pre-Columbian America or
to what extent Joseph Smith drew his conceptions of Mormon temple
ceremonies out of Freemasonry. Perhaps the spiritually mature way to deal
with these things is to do as all religionists have done over the
centuries when confronted with inconvenient facts: Undertake a strategic
retreat into an un-disprovable mysticism that protects both the religious
institution and the possibility of spirituality as a higher, indispensable
value. I have no quarrel with mysticism, but it is problematic for Mormon
theology in a way more pronounced than for many other religions.

IV-
* * *

A Mormon withdrawal into mysticism is made difficult by the fact that the
theology of Joseph Smith and his successors, such as Brigham Young, is not
in its form of expression, mystical. On the contrary, the immense
spiritual attraction of Mormonism's doctrines--particularly on the eternal
nature of families, the essential goodness of human beings and the idea of
eternal progression--is precisely that however mystical they might
ultimately be as ideas, they are presented and understood within Mormon
life as preeminently reasonable. The tone of the early Mormon prophets
even when speaking of the most astonishing doctrines never has the
mystical quality of, say, a St. Teresa; rather it is always marked by a
reasonableness, a common sense quality that locates it--in discursive tone
if not precisely in substance--firmly within the Enlightenment. It
deliberately invites judgment on reasonable, rational grounds; it appeals
to the faculty of natural reason.

This peculiar commingling of mystical (as well as historically
unsupported) doctrines on the one hand and pragmatic rationality on the
other is a strong feature of contemporary Mormons as individuals. Educated
Mormon culture has long been characterized, for example, by outstanding
physical scientists and engineers, as strictly rational as possible in
their worldly work yet devout in their adherence to many historical
beliefs that would not pass the test of rational science, and believers,
moreover, in deeply mystical ideas, even if they would not represent them
as such. My own father spent his career as a chemistry professor and
university dean, a dedicated and rational teacher of science. Yet in the
Mormon Church his function--in a church staffed by lay clergy--for many
years has been to deliver blessings, to put his hands on the heads of
church members and tell them things as moved by God, which are recorded,
transcribed and kept by the church member as a meditative guide to God's
intentions for him or her in life. Surely, to an outsider, this is very
close to wild mysticism, yet my father is far indeed from being a wild
mystic. Nor is it that he bifurcates his rational life from this mystical
experience and has some sort of existential disconnect between them. On
the contrary, his experience of giving these Mormon blessings is that the
process of "following the spirit" is itself "reasonable," in a way that is
highly characteristic of the Mormon trait of perceiving mysticism as
rational practice.

This ability to wrap a mystical worldview in Enlightenment language of
reasonableness and rationality has, however, an important consequence for
the tasks of modernization and globalization that the contemporary Mormon
Church has set for itself. The very fact that doctrines and views that the
church itself wants to reform are already expressed in a language of utter
reasonableness and rationality makes it considerably harder--not
impossible, but harder--to jettison or reform them also in the language of
reason and rationality; one is, so to speak, deprived of the tool of
language as a tool of modernization because one has already used it as the
tool of that which one wants to modernize. Vatican II, by contrast, had an
unreformed practice and a hitherto under-deployed language of modernist
reform at its disposal, which made the task of reform greatly easier, if
only by clarifying what was old and what was new. The Ostlings make very
clear that the institutional Mormon Church has, by its own standards,
undertaken a deliberate march toward modernization even if it cannot quite
characterize it as such; yet the unreformed church has long been set in
its ways in a modernizing language.

In a hierarchical church, in which authority comes from the top down, this
may not seem an important consideration. If the hierarchy seeks to
modernize the church, to get rid of old and embarrassing and disreputable
doctrines, then it seems self-evident that it can simply do so and the
faithful will follow. What matters to Mormons is their "living prophet";
the Ostlings are correct to quote the late Mormon Church president and
prophet Ezra Taft Benson that "a living prophet trumps dead ones." But
when the institution is a church and a religion, then the rhetorical tools
by which that trump is played matter a great deal. It matters whether the
tools of modernizing language have in some sense already been used and
used up; for the attempt to reuse them inevitably raises questions of
authenticity and legitimacy, even in a religion which prizes obedience
above everything else.

And rhetoric matters especially, one might think, in a church which
purports to operate by direct, divine revelation. A belief in direct,
divine revelation has the virtue of allowing great flexibility at critical
moments, as when the early Mormon prophet Wilford Woodruff announced by
divine revelation in 1890 the abandonment of polygamy following the
passage of draconian federal laws--some of the most radically unjust in
the history of the republic--dissolving the Mormon Church. But it also
means that the Mormon Church does not have available to it, for example,
Catholicism's post-Vatican II understanding that the Catholic Church is a
"pilgrim" church, seeking with deep humility a partly hidden and uncertain
path through the world; Mormons may individually have the virtue of
humility, but the Mormon Church as an institution does not. The Ostlings
cite a commonly held Mormon view that "some may see change in the
teachings and practices [of the church] as an inconsistency or weakness,
but to Latter-day Saints change is a sign of the very foundation of
strength," viz., that a "living prophet" guides the church according to
God's will. But of course this reflects a certain amount of nervous
bravado because all it means is that neither consistency nor inconsistency
with past doctrines constitutes evidence of anything. Plainly, among
Mormons and their leaders, a certain anxiety and a certain lurking concern
for inauthenticity and illegitimacy--has the all-knowing God really
changed His mind or was it just His leaders?--remains, even with the
implicit acceptance that what really matters is not doctrine for its own
sake but the forward march of the corporate church.

V-
* * *

Questions of authenticity and legitimacy in the march toward change are
most evident at the fringes of the Mormon world. By and large Mormons
worldwide are happy--relieved even more, perhaps--with the tendency of the
church to draw itself more into the mainstream of Christian denominations
and to simplify, rather than complicate, the theology in order to make it
more universally appealing to populations around the world. In no matter
was this modernization of greater relief than the final abandonment in the
1970s by the Mormon Church of its official racism, its refusal to allow
blacks full standing in the church. (Historically the Mormon Church's
position was complicated; despite the theological racism, the church was
anti-slavery, and the antebellum presence of sizable numbers of
nonslaveholding Mormons in uneasily pro-slavery Missouri was one of many
reasons Mormons had troubles with their non-Mormon neighbors. Joseph Smith
himself favored the "return to Africa" movement that off and on attracted
some followers, black and white.) The Mormon Church was far later
desegregating than other American churches, in part because the doctrine
was not one of a separate but equal, segregated social order merely but
one of actual theology and doctrine. It is possible to speculate that an
ordinarily very Mormon language of pragmatic, natural reason was not as
readily available as it might have been as an internally legitimate ground
of appeal against racism because it had already been elaborately deployed
to the ends of racist theology. And this cost the Mormon Church decades
not merely in desegregating but in carrying its worldwide mission to
Africa and elsewhere--although as the Ostlings observe, it is rapidly
making up for lost time in places like the South African townships while
hoping against hope that over time the ugly, embarrassing racism of its
early theology will be quietly forgotten.

The Ostlings document very well, however, that resistance to the march by
the institutional church toward mainstream Christianity and reform has
produced at least a small wave of reaction, something that has come to be
called "Mormon fundamentalism." Mormon fundamentalism is characterized by
a return to the defining feature of early Mormonism, at least in the eyes
of the world: polygamy. The attitude of mainstream Mormons toward polygamy
is much more complicated than libertarians or liberal do-gooders or
conservative Christians have any idea. On the one hand, although Mormons
often find it embarrassing to talk about, they--we--are certainly not
ashamed of it. The Utah elites that run the Mormon Church, after all, are
its descendants. On the other hand, there is complete acceptance that,
whatever its theological status in the hereafter, it is gone for good in
the temporal world. If mainstream Mormons are not alien to the idea of
polygamy because some of them are descended from polygamists, they are no
more comfortable with it in today's world than are their suburban
neighbors. Among the millions of converts worldwide who will soon
constitute the majority of Mormons, it is a dead letter, a matter of the
distant Utah past. However much polygamy, through various breakaway Mormon
sects, may wind up on the daytime TV talk shows, it has little to do with
contemporary worldwide Mormonism. Still, as "Mormon America" correctly
notes, Mormon fundamentalism and its polygamy are here to stay, and no
matter how much the official Mormon Church seeks to separate itself from
today's polygamy by excommunication or other means of ostracism, it will
inevitably be associated with Mormonism.

While making Mormonism mainstream and "respectable" within the culture of
suburbia has provoked reaction and radicalism, Mormonism has also
experienced the growth of another modestly disaffected group, a small but
growing body of intellectuals within Mormonism who experience these days
what the Ostlings describe as "palpable worry and alienation." It is,
however, important, as the Ostlings observe, not to overestimate the
relevance of this intellectual class and its discontents to the Mormon
Church just because it is a group which naturally tugs at the heartstrings
of intellectuals, writers and journalists outside the church. After all,
church discipline in the 1990s aimed at purging Mormon dissident
intellectuals, as "Mormon America" says, "barely registered on the Richter
scale" of reaction among the church's rank and file.

These Mormon intellectuals tend to exhibit two characteristics in their
relationship with the church. First, dissenting Mormon intellectuals
sometimes appear simply to wish that Mormonism, with the help of a few
opportune divine revelations, would take on all the elements of
contemporary liberal culture that befit the social and cultural mores of
contemporary liberal intellectuals who also happen to be Mormon--broadly
speaking, the political and social views of the National Public Radio
constituency, on abortion, feminism, gay rights, the environment, race and
ethnicity in America and so on. In that respect, at least, Mormon
intellectual dissenters sometimes resemble those ostensible friends of the
Mormon people who wish that they could have Mormons without Mormonism.
Second, however, increasingly what characterizes Mormon intellectuals is
that, although sometimes dissenting, they desire deeply to stay Mormon, to
raise their children as Mormon and to stay within the church. Although
church authorities deny that there can be within Mormonism a "loyal
opposition," an intelligentsia that is able to express itself within a
certain range of tolerance of opinion, as a counterpoint to blind
obedience to the church hierarchy, in fact it is an indication of the
growing intellectual and moral confidence of Mormonism that its
intellectuals do not simply drift away--I suppose I am a minor case in
point of drift--rather than remaining to dissent. I do not suppose that
the Mormon Church hierarchy will recognize it as such, but the fact of
intellectuals remaining to dissent indicates some success in the
modernization march that the church has undertaken; there is something
spiritually there that even those who have all the resources of secular
intellectualism at their disposal find they are invested in and are not
willing simply to give up and walk away from, not even when pushed. It
ought to be, in fact, some small source of pride to the institutional
Mormon Church.

Yet dissent will always remain difficult in a church devoted to obedience,
and the Mormon Church is not about to go so mainstream that it adopts
Protestant doctrines of the primacy of conscience over obedience to
religious hierarchy. And it is, after all, incumbent on dissident Mormon
intellectuals to recognize that the process of modernization does not
necessarily mean becoming secular liberals and that the function of change
in the Mormon Church is not, at bottom, to make the lives of those drawn
to secular intellectual culture indistinguishable from those of their
secular friends. It is, rather, to promote a singular vision of the
kingdom of God, and in that endeavor, whether ultimately it admits of
prayers to a Mother in Heaven or a hundred other things that would put
Mormonism on the cutting edge of secular ideology, it is certain that
Mormons will remain what they always have been, as God in Mormon scripture
describes them: a "peculiar people." - - -

Kenneth Anderson Teaches at American University Law School, Washington,
D.c., and Is Legal Editor of "Crimes of War: What the Public Should Know."


Copyright 1999 Los Angeles Times

Search the archives of the Los Angeles Times for similar stories.

You will not be charged to look for stories, only to retrieve one.


-----------------

[Someone reliable,  told me that :The review is by Kenneth Anderson, a
member of the faculty of American University Law School in Washington DC.
(he is a "lapsed inactive Mormon." )]



Perry     <[e-mail]>    http://pobox.com/~plporter

-