FairMormon

Save the date! 2019 FairMormon Conference August 7-9
(You can still read 2018 talks or watch streaming.)

Scott Gordon

The LDS Church and the Race Issue: A Study in Misplaced Apologetics

by 2 Comments

Armand Mauss
Armand Lind Mauss is an American Sociologist specializing in the Sociology of Religion

[This talk is from the 2003 FairMormon Conference]

Forget everything I have said, or what…Brigham Young…or whomsoever has said…that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.1

This statement by Elder McConkie in August of 1978 is an apt characterization of the doctrine and apologetic commentary so pervasive in the Church prior to the revelation on the priesthood earlier that year. That is, it was based on limited understanding. Yet, it is not clear how wide an application Elder McConkie intended for his references to “limited understanding;” for ironically, the doctrinal folklore that many of us thought had been discredited, or at least made moot, through the 1978 revelation continued to appear in Elder McConkie’s own books written well after 1978, and continues to be taught by well-meaning teachers and leaders in the Church to this very day.2 The tragic irony is that the dubious doctrines in question are no longer even relevant, since they were contrived to “explain” a Church policy that was abandoned a quarter century ago.

Indeed, it was apparent to many of us even four decades ago that certain scriptural passages used to explain the denial of priesthood to black members could not legitimately be so interpreted without an a priori narrative.3 Such a narrative was gradually constructed by the searching and inventive minds of early LDS apologists. With allusions to the books of Genesis, Moses, and Abraham, the scenario went something like this : In the pre-existence, certain of the spirits were set aside, in God’s wisdom, to come to Earth through a lineage that was cursed and marked, first by Cain’s fratricide and obeisance to Satan, and then again later by Ham’s lËse majestÈ against his father Noah. We aren’t exactly sure why this lineage was set apart in the pre-existence, but it was probably for reasons that do not reflect well on the premortal valiancy of the partakers of that lineage. Since the beginning, the holy priesthood has been withheld from all who have had any trace of that lineage, and so it shall be until all the rest of Adam’s descendants have received the priesthood, or, for all practical purposes, throughout the mortal existence of humankind. [Read more…] about The LDS Church and the Race Issue: A Study in Misplaced Apologetics

A Look Back in LDS History for Black History Month

by Leave a Comment

Look Magazine Cover, October 22, 1963
Look Magazine Cover, October 22, 1963

I am looking a copy of Look Magazine dated October 22, 1963. It is our modern-day equivalent of social media, claims a circulation of “More than 7,400,000, and says it is “America’s Family Magazine.

As I look through its 155 pages, it is filled with advertisements for automobiles, tobacco, alcohol, books, and life insurance. It has articles on Catholic Schools, pollution, the mafia, Georgia Tech football, and more.

The ads and articles seem to be focused on people. Indeed, one of the things that makes the magazine attractive are the photographs of people.

But, what you don’t see anywhere in the magazine is a single picture of an African American. Not one black person anywhere. Not in an Ad, and not in an article. I turned to the article on Georgia Tech football. Certainly, a football team from a state that is over 30% African-American should have someone black on the team.  I closely examined each picture of the team, and of the opposing team from Duke University, and nope. There was nothing. From the pictures, it appears to be all-white. [Read more…] about A Look Back in LDS History for Black History Month

FairMormon Conference August 1-3

by


Register now for the FairMormon Conference in Provo, UT on August 1, 2 & 3.  You can attend live, or via streaming. Many people attend live AND also purchase the streaming so they can share the best talks later with their friends and family.

Speakers include Elder Kevin W. Pearson of the First Quorum of the Seventy, Brad Wilcox, Daniel C. Peterson, Jenny Reeder, Lisa Olsen Tait, Jenny Lund, Matt McBride, Steven Harper, Randall Spackman, Spencer McBride, John Gee and more.

A partial list of presentations is as follows:

  • “We all must be crazy”: The Plight of a 19th-Century Mormon Missionary Wife
  • ’Fire In My Bones’: Women’s Stories on churchhistorianspress.org
  • Women’s Stories in Saints: The Story of the Church of Jesus Christ in the Latter Days
  • Mormon Women in India
  • Peter and Paul’s Paradoxical Passages on Women
  • “Even as Moses’ Did”: the Use of the Exodus Narrative in Mosiah 11-18
  • “Have You Been Saved By Grace?” How Do We Respond?
  • Barriers to Belief
  • Stories of the Saints in the DR Congo
  • Making Saints: A Look into the Writing of the New Church History
  • Chronological structure and symbolism in the small plates of Nephi
  • Joseph Smith in Van Buren’s White House: Lessons in Electoral Politics and Religious Freedom
  • Horses in the Book of Mormon
  • Strengthen they Brethren. Bolstering those in Faith Crisis
  • “Arise from the Dust”: Digging into a Vital Book of Mormon Theme
  • Selling Our Birthright for a Mess of Pottage: The Historical Authenticity of the Book of Abraham
  • Thinking Differently About Same-Sex Attraction
  • Apologetics: What, Why and How?

Go to https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2018 to register and to get more information.

If you are a Seminary or Institute instructor (volunteer or paid), there is a discounted rate. You can get that discount code from your S & I representative, or you can email us directly at [email protected]

Please note: The conference discounted hotel rate is only available until 4 July. So, please register now.

East Coast Ignorance, or Using an Emotional Event for Another Anti-Mormon Hit Piece?

by

 

President Thomas Spencer Monson (August 21, 1927 – January 2, 2018).

 

On January 3, the New York Times published the obituary for Thomas S. Monson, You can find that obituary piece here: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/obituaries/thomas-monson-dies.html. The piece was written by the Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Robert D. McFadden. I am sure that Mr. McFadden is an excellent journalist. This is what the New York Times says about him:

Robert D. McFadden is a senior writer on the Obituaries desk of The New York Times and the winner of the 1996 Pulitzer Prize for spot news reporting. He has covered many of New York’s major news stories in his more than 30 years as a reporter and rewrite man for the paper, and has earned a reputation as one of the finest rewrite men in the business.[1]

But, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have been pretty upset about the tone of the obituary. Comments have been made that Fidel Castro and Hugh Hefner were painted in a better light than President Thomas Monson who dedicated his life to serving others. There have been numerous blog posts, Facebook posts, and articles discussing this. One example can be found in The Atlantic here: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/mormon-prophet/549773/.

The outrage over the obituary is strong enough that on January 8, the obituary editor put out an explanation defending the article here: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/08/reader-center/thomas-monson-obituary.html. One can argue if the explanation helped or hurt their cause. The editor talks about covering the public Monson and not the private one. The public Thomas Monson was a man of service, not one of great controversy. Perhaps they are just not informed? That’s not a good position to take for a newspaper.

The New York Times is in the business of selling newspapers and selling advertising. While we all hope they treat a good man fairly, they have the right to take whatever tone they wish. Being a newspaper man before he became a Church official, I’m sure President Monson appreciates that. So, I will leave matters of tone for others to debate.

What I will address is the accuracy of the writing. I know the New York Times is concerned about accurate news reporting, and there are some serious factual errors in this story that should be corrected.

Here they are in the order they appear, not necessarily in order of importance.

  1. “Many Mormons faced sanctions for joining online forums questioning church positions on women’s roles.”

I am not aware of ANY Mormons who have faced sanctions for joining an online forum or for questioning the Church positions on women’s roles. They will need to give examples. We have thousands, and probably millions of members who belong to many forums. We have members who are advocates of women rights and roles who are faithful members. I know some who work in the Church Office Building. I know members who hold differing views on women’s roles, homosexuality, and many political and social issues. Kate Kelly is cited in the article—perhaps the author thinks she is an example of this, but Kate Kelly was not excommunicated for joining a forum or even questioning the Church’s positions. There is a difference between questioning and actively campaigning against the Church and its teachings. Kate Kelly did the latter.

  1. “As the 16th president of the Latter-day Saints, succeeding Gordon B. Hinckley, Mr. Monson faced another test when church members, increasingly scouring online sources, found apparent contradictions between historical records and church teachings, which the church regards as God-given and literally true.”

Perhaps I am nit-picking on this one, but I take some umbrage with the idea that since Gordon B. Hinckley apparent contradictions have been found. The Church has an exceptional history department and there are numerous conferences on Church history – including the FairMormon conference. We have been discussing these topics for years. Additionally, we aren’t fundamentalist evangelicals in that every doctrine and practice is directly from God. This would be especially true with items related to history and science which are full of discovery. Yes, we have divinely inspired teachings, but they typically don’t have anything to do with history.

  1. “Some critics, including the website OnceDelivered.net, which identified itself as an expression of the Baptist faith, said the Latter-day Saints church had previously contended that Smith had been happily married to only one woman, and said the new teaching had used Scripture to “address the inconvenient truth of Smith’s polygamy.””

There are two issues here: First, one has to question why the New York Times reporter sought out a Website that states, “Mormonism fits a classic definition of a cult” and “So, is Mormonism a cult? According to our definition, yes.” Most LDS would rightfully classify OnceDelivered.net to be an anti-Mormon Website. There are many Websites out there that attack Mormonism with little understanding of what we actually teach and believe. It seems odd that the New York Times would be quoting from one for an obituary.

Secondly, the claim that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the term Latter-day Saints church would be incorrect and is offensive to most Mormons which underscores the lack of source reliability) previously contended that Joseph Smith was married to only one woman is incorrect. Yes, there are critics who have falsely made that claim, but the idea of plural marriage is taught by Joseph Smith and is part of our scripture in Doctrine and Covenants section 132 which can be found online at https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132. That section was written in July 1843. Another activity you can try is to go to the Official Church Website LDS.org and type “Plural Marriage” into the search box. Many of those articles listed were written prior to Thomas S. Monson becoming prophet. There are many books that talk about this. One of our FairMormon volunteers stated he has 40 – 50 books on his shelf that discuss this topic. It was one of the main topics of the Reed Smoot Hearings in congress from 1904 – 1907. There is no new teaching on this. Ask most New Yorkers if early Mormons practiced polygamy and they would say yes. Many probably believe we still do. To say that we taught otherwise would be unbelievable.

  1. “In recent years, the church allowed historians access to church documents and records to a remarkable degree. Some published their findings online and in printed volumes, although they were usually vetted by church leaders.”

Having worked extensively with Church historians and independent historians, I have NEVER heard of Church leaders vetting anything except what is posted on the official Church Website to represent their position. Just the opposite is true. The Joseph Smith Papers are being published in their entirety on the Church Website. I have had complete freedom to publish anything without any vetting or oversight. There are LDS History conferences that are attended by Church Historians and many controversial and difficult topics are addressed. FairMormon has a conference every year where we talk about Church history. No one has ever vetted our talks.

The New York Times Obituary on President Thomas S. Monson needs a retraction and a rewrite. I’m sure the Times is interested in accuracy. Not correcting the record looks mean spirited, or ignorant. Neither of those positions is something that most newspapers aspire to be.

 

Scott Gordon serves as President of FairMormon, a non-profit corporation staffed by volunteers dedicated to helping members deal with issues raised by critics of the LDS faith. He has an MBA from Brigham Young University, and a BA in Organizational Communications from Brigham Young University. He is currently an instructor of business and technology at Shasta College in Redding, California. Scott has held many positions in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints including serving as a bishop for six years. He currently serves as Ward Mission Leader. He is married and has five children.

 

 

What if People with Red Hair Were Denied the Priesthood?

by

Scott Gordon as a red-haired boy
Scott Gordon as a red-haired boy

Note – From the mid-1840s until 1978 people of African descent were generally not allowed to have the priesthood or attend the temple in the LDS Church. (Attending the temple is different from going to Church in the LDS faith.) This is in spite of prior practices and temple rules that said they could. Since the primary difference between people with African roots and people with northern European roots is skin color, what if the situation were reversed? This post tries to use humor to address this serious issue. This should not be taken as evidence that the author considers anything about the topic of racism or priesthood to be less than serious. This role reversal is designed to make us think about the issue in a different light.

I was born a redhead. Yes, I’ve “blonded” out a bit as I’ve aged, but both of my daughters were born with deep red hair. So, I know all about red heads. Sometimes we are also known as “gingers.”

While the red hair can attract attention, it isn’t the red hair that is the issue for me. It is the redheads’ skin color. Let me explain.

People with red hair have very fair skin coloring. We have almost no melanin in our skin.  Melanin is the substance that makes skin darker. I joke with my kids that our skin is so transparent that we can see the blood rushing beneath it.  I often look with jealously at my Hispanic or black friends who have such beautiful, uniform skin tones. My skin is reddish and blotchy with a few dots called freckles. In high school I was constantly asked, “Are you blushing?” “No, I just walked up a few stairs, thank you very much.”

A redhead’s skin is very sensitive to sunlight. You may notice if you go walking with a redhead, they sometimes seem to jump from shadow to shadow. We all avoid sunlight. When we read a Twilight novel, we understand how the vampires feel—the sun is not our friend! I often take out my SPF 50 sunscreen and slather it on before I will go out into the sun. It is supposed to allow me to stay in the sun 50 times longer than usual. For me – let’s see now — 50 times what I can usually stay in the sun for without getting a sunburn…that would be……ummm, doing the math here…carry the one…….Hmmm……about 7 and a half minutes before I start to burn.

“But, you are just ‘white’!” you may say. No, my wife is white. Her family comes from Norway and Sweden. She is white. Blindingly white. Her skin looks different than mine. She is white with white and yellow undertones. My ‘white’ is blotchy reddish-white, just like most other redheads. She can go out in the sun. She can lie on the beach. She can go swimming. If I go out in the sun, I will burn. If I lie on the beach, I will burn.  If I go swimming, I will burn.  I tell my students my goal in life is to walk from my office to my car without getting a sunburn.

That said, it isn’t all bad having redhead skin. My skin tone is GREAT for collecting vitamin D in a fogbank. And when I visit Scotland, I have to wear my coat anyway – so it’s not a liability.

My daughter teaches in first grade. She has very red hair. One of her students, whose family came from Africa, was having difficulties with one teacher. We will call this six-year-old student Jamal (not his real name). When asked about it, he said, “She just don’t like me. She’s white and white people don’t like black people like me.” My daughter responded, “That’s not true, Jamal. I’m white and I like you.” “No, Miss Gordon. You’re not white,” responded Jamal. “You’re PINK!” Even a six-year-old can see the difference.

The difference between people we label as “black” and people like me is how much melanin is in our skin. The more melanin, the darker the skin tone. I don’t have very much melanin, so that is why I am the color I am. Some of you may say, “But there are other differences besides skin color!” Yeah, that’s true – my hair is red and theirs is black. But again, that is simply caused by the amount of melanin. My hair is straight and theirs is curly. True. But, my wife’s hair is very curly, and she has family members whose hair would look right at home on someone of African descent (except that they are blond). As for other traits, you can find a wide variety of looks throughout both the white and black communities. In other words, there is as much diversity within each community as there is between the two communities.

So, here’s a thought exercise: What would happen if The Church announced that there was a ban on redheads having the priesthood?

What if it was melanin-deficient people who couldn’t get the priesthood, while melanin-rich people could? What if Gingers went thought a period of slavery because of our skin color? What if we were discriminated against during the 1950s and not allowed to eat in certain places, get certain jobs, use certain bathrooms, or ride in a taxi with someone who had more melanin then we do?

I can just image the conversations in the ward.

“Oh look, a red-haired girl just moved into the ward. Finally, someone you can date!”

“Can you help me with my Northern European History class? You know all that stuff, right?”

“Can I touch your hair? I’ve never seen red hair before. Does it feel different?”

“I was doing family history work last week and was horrified to find out that some red-haired genes got in there somehow. Old great-grandad or grandma must have been cavorting with the field help!”

Yeah, those would be terrible conversations. And yet, I have heard all of those comments from church members.

“But, it isn’t skin color. It’s lineage!” you cry.  So let’s talk about lineage a bit. There are those who believe there is a tie between redheads and Neanderthals.[1] Neanderthals are in the redhead’s linage. Apparently, Neanderthals had red hair, and some Neanderthal genes are found in northern Europeans. They know there was interbreeding between Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals.[2] They just are not sure if the red hair trait came from the Neanderthal, or if it developed independently. If Neanderthal man had red hair along with the red-hair skin tones, it would explain one of the great scientific mysteries of why the Neanderthals died out: obviously, the sun came out!

More evidence of having a different lineage is studies that show “people with red hair need larger doses of anesthesia and are often resistant to local pain blockers.”[3]  My first response to this information is “Well, duh! We are used to pain because we walk around sunburned all the time.” But, it turns out it has more to do with our genes.[4] Just ask any operating room nurse or OB nurse how comfortable they feel when a redhead comes in. I have been told by several nurses that if there is going to be a problem, it will probably be with the redhead. So, we are a bit different from other people. Whether this comes from our homegrown genes, or from Neanderthal genes, it certainly shows that our lineage might be different from others—we are demonstrably different than other people. If something is to be restricted based on lineage, it could just as easily be restricted against us redheads.

It’s important to think about what it would be like if the shoe were on the other foot. I often hear the refrain, “The Levites were the only ones who had the priesthood at the time of Jesus. So that was a priesthood restriction just like the blacks being restricted in modern times.”

That situation is totally different. With the Levites, only one group held the priesthood and nobody else did. With the modern priesthood restriction, everybody had the priesthood except for one group.

Think of it this way. Everyone understands that in sports there needs to be a team captain to communicate effectively. But, that is totally different than everyone being allowed to play the game except for one player who is forced to sit on the bench. Our brothers and sisters of African descent were forced to sit on the bench. How would that make you feel?

“But, the priesthood ban was a long time ago. What do you want me to do about it?”

I first recommend reading this short article on LDS.org on Race and the Priesthood. https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

Secondly, if someone asks if Mormon were racists, the correct answer – the only possible answer — is yes. There is no need to get defensive about it. Of course they were! By modern standards, everyone who came through that period would be considered racist today. It is, however, unfair to judge them harshly for their views. It was what they were taught. It was the norm. They did the best they could. Using modern standards, even Abraham Lincoln would be considered racist by many. Additionally, racism doesn’t only exist in the United States. It is a world-wide issue of us vs. them. Skin color has simply been used as an easy identifier of “them.”

Racism has always been with us. Our better selves understand that we need to move beyond that. If someone asks if there was racism in the church, simply say “Sure, and we are trying to repent!”

Third, if someone then asks, how could we have had a prophet if we had such a racist policy? Think about this: if you think that prophets don’t work in a world filled with prejudice and racism, you need to go back and reread the Bible and Book of Mormon. Think of the Samaritans, the Lamanites, the people of Nineveh, and the Philistines. God only gives us what we are willing to accept. It is up to us to try to become more like him.

Many members of the Church believe the ban came from God, or at least that God used the ban for a wise purpose. These positions are speculative. No written revelation has been found that explains the priesthood and temple ban. Some quote scriptures to justify the ban, but historically those scriptures were pulled in as explanations after the ban was already in effect.

Why was there the ban? We don’t know. I can make an educated guess, but my guess would be as valid as your guess—and just as speculative.

Instead of guessing and speculating, let’s simply reach out to each other and embrace one another as brothers and sisters—even redheads! Let’s acknowledge that racism exists and has existed even within the Church. Let’s not nit-pick over how much melanin we have in our skin. Does it really matter? Do you differentiate between your blond children your brown-haired children and your red-haired children? Is there a difference between them?

No, I don’t think so either.

Now please hand me my hat and sunscreen. I have to go outside again.

[1] Red hair a legacy of Neanderthal man http://www.dhamurian.org.au/anthropology/neanderthal1.html

[2] http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals/interbreeding

[3] https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/the-pain-of-being-a-redhead/

[4] http://healthland.time.com/2010/12/10/why-surgeons-dread-red-heads/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Kirtland Temple

by

“The report of my death was an exaggeration.”

(Letter to Frank Marshall White by Mark Twain dated May 31, 1897. Published in the New York Journal on June 2, 1897)

A meme has been circulating on Facebook claiming

“BELOVED KIRTLAND TEMPLE OF THE REORGANIZATION HAS BEEN SOLD TO THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS (LDS). COMMUNITY OF CHRIST LEADERS ARE IMPOSING A 2 YEAR GAGE [sic] ORDER SO AS NOT TO DISCLOSE THIS EVENT TO ITS MEMBERS.”

This claim pops up from time to time, so we thought that we at FairMormon should do a fact check for you.

The Kirtland Temple is located in Lake County Ohio. A quick review of the Lake County Reorders office records shows no change in the ownership status of the Kirtland Temple.

One of our friends contacted the Community of Christ to see if there was anything in the works. He has a good relationship with the Community of Christ (RLDS) leadership. He talked with some of their highest leaders and found there is nothing whatsoever to this claim. It is simply a rumor.

The Community of Christ is doing an exceptional job of caring for and maintaining the Kirtland Temple. They go out of their way to be welcoming to all faiths including members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I visited there just this summer and found their guides to be wonderful and quite helpful.

This claim is FALSE. So please don’t pass it on.

 

Note: The LDS Church did purchase the printer‘s manuscript of the Book of Mormon for $35 million, but not the temple.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865689273/LDS-Church-buys-printers–manuscript-of-Book-of-Mormon-for-record-35-million-from-Community-of.html

Photo from http://ldschurchtemples.org

Of Testimonies and Twelve Year Olds

by

Members sitting in Sacrament Meeting
Members in Sacrament Meeting. Picture source: https://www.lds.org/media-library/images/sacrament-meeting-578251?lang=eng

Recently, a video has been on social media about a 12 year old young woman speaking in a testimony meeting about being gay. This is being promoted as a heartfelt moment of tenderness, only to be ruined by the bad stake leader, who happened to be on the stand that day, who asked her to sit down. The mom writes, “…this stake member chose to hurt my child, I don’t know his reasons.”[1]

So, let’s put this in context.

UNDERSTANDING LDS CHURCH MEETINGS

Each Sunday, Mormons meet together. Our most sacred meeting is called “Sacrament Meeting.” According to the Church Handbook of Instructions, 18.2.2, it says:

Each sacrament meeting should be a spiritual experience in which members of the Church renew their covenants by partaking of the sacrament. Other purposes of sacrament meeting are to worship, provide gospel instruction, perform ordinances, conduct ward business, and strengthen faith and testimony.[2]

In instructions given to Church leaders we read:

…bishoprics and branch presidencies need to plan sacrament meetings thoughtfully in order to keep the meetings focused on the Lord and His Atonement, His example, and the doctrines of the gospel.[3]

One Sunday each month, members have a special Sacrament meeting called “Fast and Testimony” meeting. Prior to attending the meeting, members typically go without eating two meals. This fasting is to put themselves into a spiritual frame of mind of worship. Usually, members take the money saved from fasting and put it towards feeding the poor. As part of that meeting, after the sacrament (Communion), “the conducting brother bears a brief testimony. He then invites members to bear brief, heartfelt testimonies of the Savior, His teachings, and the Restoration.”[4]

These testimonies are not speeches or talks. They are not pre-written. They are not a time of advocacy. They are short, extemporaneously expressed, heartfelt feelings about the Gospel of Jesus Christ and how we have been strengthened by it. On lds.org it says:

A testimony is a spiritual witness given by the Holy Ghost. The foundation of a testimony is the knowledge that Heavenly Father lives and loves His children; that Jesus Christ lives, that He is the Son of God, and that He carried out the infinite Atonement; that Joseph Smith is the prophet of God who was called to restore the gospel; that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Savior’s true Church on the earth; and that the Church is led by a living prophet today. With this foundation, a testimony grows to include all principles of the gospel. [5]

With this in mind, let’s look at this incident.

THE EVENT

From her mother, we learn that Savannah has been struggling recently. Her Dad and 4 siblings attend church regularly, while her mom stays home with “our oldest”. From context, that appears to be Savannah. Savannah was the one who wanted to do this. She had been pushing her parents on this for several months. Her mother says:

She wanted to be herself in front of them, see if church would be a place to accept her, and to speak up in case there was another LGBT person in the congregation that needed to hear they weren’t alone.

So, Savannah invited several of her friends to come hear her, and they recorded the event.[6] Several in the Ex Mormon community, including the guy who sneaks into Temples to record people, are now pushing hard to get this incident promoted to all of the press outlets and on social media.[7]

As this girl’s parents know, Fast and Testimony meeting isn’t a place for giving speeches, which is what she did. She had her speech all written out and read it from the pulpit. I wish her parents had talked with her more about appropriate forums and venues. This isn’t about whether a girl is struggling with her sexuality, or about how a Church leader handled it. This is a clear case of hijacking a meeting, promoting false teachings, and exploiting a child’s inexperience to create a media event. Savannah was likely allowed to say much more from the pulpit than an adult would have been allowed to say.

Her testimony starts out fine.

Hi, my name is Savannah, and I want to share my testimony with you.
I believe I am the child of Heavenly parents.
I don’t know if they talk to us, but I feel in my heart that they made me and that they love me.
I believe that I was made the way I am, all parts of me, by my Heavenly Parents.
They did not mess up when they gave me brown eyes, or when I was born bald. They did not mess up when they gave me freckles, or when they made me to be gay.

That part is fine. Even mentioning her sexuality, could be seen as appropriate within a testimony given during Fast and Testimony meeting. Next, in an actual testimony, you would expect something about how some life event, has helped her to grow spiritually. But, Savannah doesn’t do that. She goes on advocating for her position by saying:

“No part of me is a mistake.”

“I do not choose to be this way and it is not a fad.”

“I know I am not a horrible sinner for being who I am.”

“I know I can have all of these things as a lesbian and be happy.”

“I believe that if God is there, he knows I am perfect just the way I am and would never ask me to live my life alone or with someone I am not attracted to.”

In the middle of her speech she says, “I believe God would tell me if I was wrong.”

Well, as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints we believe he did exactly that. We do not believe she is a “horrible sinner” for being who she is, but you will find our teachings on family and relationships clearly stated in the document titled “The Family, a Proclamation to the World.”[8] This is a fundamental belief of our faith. In essence, she is saying that she doesn’t trust the teachings of Jesus Christ given through our prophets today.

THE EXIT NARRATIVE

While talking about the love of God, which we can all agree with, her speech was calling out the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as false. It follows the pattern of a typical exit narrative which reads, I used to believe the Church is true, but now I find joy and happiness outside of Church teachings. I hope you will give up your false beliefs and follow me. Anyone advocating that from the pulpit should be asked to step down, even if they are twelve years old.

HEAVENLY FATHER’S PLAN

Savannah is correct in stating that we are all unique. We are all born with various talents and gifts. We are all born with passions and desires. We are all born with weaknesses and frailties.

Heavenly Father’s plan is to have us learn to overcome our weaknesses and frailties. It is to control our passions and desires. It is to develop our talents and gifts. He gave us a set of guidelines called commandments that will give us the greatest amount of happiness in mortality and eternal life. The question is if we believe and trust Him.

None of us are perfect just the way we are. That is a child’s point of view. All of us have difficulties. Many of us do have to live our lives alone. It is one of life’s many challenges.

THE FUTURE

I wish Savannah the best no matter what her future choices might be. I hope that her parents, step in to de-escalate this event. Every child needs to be allowed to grow. I think of those young people I know who thought they were gay when they were 12 or 13, and are now in happy heterosexual relationships. I care for one of them very much. I would hate to have had her in the headlines while she was deciding which direction her life might go.

After Savannah spoke, the Church leader conducting stood up and repeated the uplifting and true statements that Savannah made. There was no harsh language. There was no condemnation. There was no negative judgement. There was no lack of support for Savannah as a daughter of God. What occurred was a stake leader protecting the purpose of the Sacrament meeting and refocusing it on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This was simply a case of inappropriate venue and advocacy.

 

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/6a31bl/did_anyone_hear_about_the_12yo_girl_whose_mic_was/

[2] https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/meetings-in-the-church/18.2.1?lang=eng#182

[3] https://www.lds.org/ensign/2004/08/worshiping-at-sacrament-meeting?lang=eng&_r=1

[4] https://www.lds.org/ensign/2004/08/worshiping-at-sacrament-meeting?lang=eng&_r=1

[5] https://www.lds.org/topics/testimony?lang=eng

[6] Recording our worship service in the chapel is against church policy. But, being guests, they likely didn’t know that, or didn’t care.

[7] He stated on Reddit, “I offered to edit and distribute the video as well as promote the hell out of it. I’ve spent at least 40 hours in the past ten days editing and promoting the video to every media contact I’ve made (and a lot of new ones).”

[8] https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng&old=true

Attacking the LDS Church’s Tax Exempt Status

by

LDS Salt Lake City Temple
Photo from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Salt_Lake_Temple_spires.jpg

LGBT political advocate Fred Karger has threatened to file a complaint against the “Mormon Church,” otherwise known as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, with the IRS once he uncovers the Church’s “vast business holdings and all of the secret political activities.”[1]  He hopes to get the tax exempt status of the Church revoked.[2] To assist with this, he has launched a TV ad campaign and has put up a new Website looking for tips and documents that will support his cause.

So, as I understand it, once he finds evidence of a crime—because he is sure there has been a crime, he will act on it and report the Church to the IRS, which he is sure will revoke the Church’s tax exempt status.

This sounds a lot like when he accused the Church of election fraud in 2008. The Church filed some of its reports with the State of California using the wrong forms. They gave the State the correct amount of in-kind donations, but in the last two weeks of the election failed to put it on the daily form that is required.

To be clear, they told the State the correct number, but just put in on the wrong form, which had a different due date.[3]

Even though the state law in question specifically states it doesn’t deal with election fraud[4]; even though the Church corrected the paperwork and paid their fine for late notification; even though the State of California recognized that the instructions were not clear so they changed them after this incident, it didn’t stop Fred Karger from crying fraud. In an article in the Huffington Post he claimed,

“The FPPC prosecuted the Church, and after an 18 month investigation, found the Mormon Church guilty on 13 counts of election fraud. The Church plead guilty and paid a fine.”[5]

This isn’t even possible because the FPPC does not deal with election fraud and specificially says so on its Website.[6] To put it another way, if it involves the FPPC, it isn’t election fraud. If it were election fraud, it would go to Investigative Services in the Secretary of State’s office, which it didn’t in this case.

For a more in depth discussion on this, see http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/background-information-on-the-fppcs-enforcement-process

If you want more discussion on Prop 8 and Mormons, see http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_politics/California_Proposition_8

Since that time Fred Karger seems to be looking for other avenues to punish the Church. This Mormon tips ad campaign seems to be his new project.

In reading the comment section of articles about Fred’s new project, I have seen quite a bit of confusion from others regarding politics and a church’s tax exempt status.

So let’s review the information about politics and all tax exempt organizations including churches.

All tax exempt organizations, including churches, are allowed to be politically active.

For those that missed it, let me repeat that. All tax exempt organizations, including churches, are allowed to be politically active.

Some tax exempt organizations even have political lobbying as one of their main activities. Think of organizations like the Sierra Club, the NRA, Planned Parenthood, AARP, GLAD, National Association for Transgender Rights, and even Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. Lobbying is a big part of their purpose for existing. Can you imagine the uproar if the NRA or Sierra Club were not allowed to be politically involved?

So long as they qualify under the IRS substantial part test, it is legal to be political. The substantial part test maintains an organization cannot spend a substantial part of its total budget on political activities. While it is unclear what “substantial part” means, most organizations use a 20% rule of thumb.[7] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is an international organization with millions of members. Given the Church’s low level of political involvement, even Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, the leading advocacy organization on the issue, does not see any risk of the LDS Church violating this rule.[8]

What churches and other 501(c)3 organizations are not allowed to do is engage in political campaigning for a particular candidate.[9] There has been some recent controversy on this. More on that later. First let’s talk about the tax exempt nature of churches.

The Supreme Court debated this issue in 1970. In Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, the Supreme Court ruled 7-1 the tax exemption for churches is fair because tax exemption is a benefit not solely given to religious groups, but includes groups like schools and nonprofits. They made the following findings:

  1. The First Amendment tolerates neither governmentally established religion nor governmental interference with religion. Pp. 667-672.
  2. The legislative purpose of tax exemptions is not aimed at establishing, sponsoring, or supporting religion. Pp. 672-674.
  3. The tax exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, far less than taxation of churches would entail, and it restricts the fiscal relationship between them, thus tending to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other. Pp. 674-676.
  4. Freedom from taxation for two centuries has not led to an established church or religion, and, on the contrary, has helped to guarantee the free exercise of all forms of religious belief. Pp. 676-680.[10]

Chief Justice Burger even addressed the common complaint that churches should only be tax exempt as they feed the poor and do other good works. He wrote:

We find it unnecessary to justify the tax exemption on the social welfare services or “good works” that some churches perform for parishioners and others — family counseling, aid to the elderly and the infirm, and to children. Churches vary substantially in the scope of such services; programs expand or contract according to resources and need. As public-sponsored programs enlarge, private aid from the church sector may diminish. The extent of social services may vary, depending on whether the church serves an urban or rural, a rich or poor constituency. To give emphasis to so variable an aspect of the work of religious bodies would introduce an element of governmental evaluation and standards as to the worth of particular social welfare programs, thus producing a kind of continuing day-to-day relationship which the policy of neutrality seeks to minimize. Hence, the use of a social welfare yardstick as a significant element to qualify for tax exemption could conceivably give rise to confrontations that could escalate to constitutional dimensions.[11]

Now let’s look at the restrictions. As I already said, churches and other tax exempt organizations may not campaign for a particular candidate. But, the ban on churches supporting candidates is not as old as, and is less settled than, the tax exempt status of churches. In 1954, then Senator Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas put forward a new law that made it so tax exempt organizations could not support specific political candidates. This not only affected churches, but all 501(c)3 non-profit organizations. There have been several recently who have lobbied for a repeal of this law claiming it violates the first amendment. Many believe that it was put forward in retaliation for the support a non-religious non-profit organization that gave support to Johnson’s political opponent.[12] There has been some recent discussion as to whether the law is constitutional, but it has already survived several court challenges and is unlikely to change.

To summarize:

All non-profit organizations including churches are allowed to be politically involved. Under current law, the only two restrictions they have are:

  1. They can’t publicly support a political candidate.
  2. They can’t spend a substantial part of their budget on politics. This is currently interpreted to mean spending more than 20% of their total budget. Total budget includes everything they do.

Other than those two restrictions, they are free to support or oppose any political cause they please. This can be national, state, or local politics and is not limited to items of a religious nature.

Finally, there is one more claim that Mr. Fred Karger makes on his Website that we need to address. He states:

The Mormon Church’s business holdings, estimated to be nearly $1 trillion, are run as tax free enterprises owned outright by the Church. Thus the Mormon Church does not likely pay any federal, state or local taxes on its profits from all its holdings.

This is simply false. In 1991 April General conference, Gordon B. Hinckley said the following:

I repeat, the combined income from all of these business interests is relatively small and would not keep the Church going for longer than a very brief period. I add, also, that these commercial properties are tax-paying entities who meet their tax obligations under the laws of the areas where they are located.

Again, all such commercial properties are taxed under the government entities where they are located. Not only do they pay property taxes, but also income taxes on any profits. So it is with all of the commercial operations of the Church.[13]

To summarize:

  1. Churches can legally be involved in elections and political issues involving gay marriage, marijuana use, euthanasia, housing, gun control, missile defense, global warming, taxes, zoning changes, school bonds, or any other issues they desire. Demands for revoking tax exempt status shows a lack of understanding of the law.
  2. Churches, under the Johnson Amendment law, may not campaign for a particular candidate. There is controversy over the legality of this law, but it has been upheld in more than one court decision.
  3. The Supreme Court has ruled that churches are not to be judged for tax exemption based on feeding the poor or doing other good works. That would create a situation of government monitoring churches, create excessive entanglement, and would violate the constitution.
  4. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints pays taxes on all of its commercial properties such as Deseret Book, Bonneville International Corporation, and Utah Property Management Associates. This includes property taxes and income taxes.
  5. Fred Karger, the person heading up this campaign to strip the Church of its tax exempt status by soliciting questionably obtained documents, does not have a good track record for understanding the law, or representing what it means.

There is no risk of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (aka The Mormon Church) losing tax exempt status no matter what political cause it may engage in. Political speech is all constitutionally protected. This issue has already gone to the Supreme Court and they have ruled on it. This recent campaign by Fred Karger is nothing more than Don Quixote attacking windmills.

—————————————————————————————————————–

[1] Quote from Fred’s recent Television commercial which is airing in Utah this month.

[2] http://www.sltrib.com/home/4690644-155/lgbt-activist-plans-ad-blitz-targeting

[3] http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/statement-regarding-fppc-settlement

[4] http://www.fppc.ca.gov/enforcement/file-a-complaint.html

[5] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-karger/mormon-church-bleeding-me_b_8299882.html

[6] http://www.fppc.ca.gov/enforcement/file-a-complaint.html

[7] http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-much-lobbying-can-nonprofit-do.html

[8] http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Tax-exempt-benefit-disputed-in-Prop-8-campaign-3183401.php

[9] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/limits-political-campaigning-501c3-nonprofits-29982.html

[10] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/397/664

[11] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/397/664 Page 674

[12] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/22/donald-trump/donald-trump-correct-lyndon-johnson-passed-legisla/

[13] https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1991/04/the-state-of-the-church?lang=eng

Charity Never Faileth

by

And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity[1]

Last month, I had the pleasure of meeting with members in Norway, Sweden, and Scotland. I met with members who had strong testimonies, members who were struggling, and members who no longer believe. It was a wonderful experience, and I enjoyed every minute of it. Ok, almost every minute. There were some moments of being a bit uncomfortable in a discussion or two. But, by and large, I really enjoyed it.

With that in mind, I would like to tell you about my interaction with some of the Saints in Scotland. I loved my time in the Nordic countries as well, but I can only talk about one thing at a time. In Scotland, I met with three different stakes. I was really impressed that all of the stake presidents were kind and really cared about all of their people. They loved them. That came across strongly in their words and actions.

In two of the stakes, the Stake presidents had me meet with members who had concerns about the Church. [2]

Now, first of all, it is difficult to put a label on these members. We love to put labels on people. We routinely talk about active and less-active members in our wards. We sometimes even talk about faithful, or less faithful. I have heard labels such as disaffected, discouraged, or in extreme cases disloyal. I don’t think any of those labels apply perfectly to the individuals that I met with, and certainly the word disloyal would not apply at all. The best label I could have would be brothers and sisters in the Gospel who have concerns. Yes, some of them no longer attend church, but all of them wanted things to be better.

In my first meeting, I was one-on-one with a member who attends church but has questions.[3] He had spent significant time reading most of the Websites that FairMormon spends time responding to. In other words, they were Websites that I wouldn’t recommend for people who are interested in becoming and remaining faithful. But, the man was a lovely man. A wonderful man. A man whom I hope I can now count as my friend. His questions were not a burden or a problem. He wanted answers. He had been unable to find them. He had read some responses, but didn’t find them all persuasive. This made him concerned. He saw value in the Church, and value in FairMormon. He saw value in his family attending church. He made helpful suggestions.  We left with him giving me a list of concerns and me promising to read them all carefully. At this point, I have been really busy catching up at work, but I have read some of them and intend to read and examine all of them.

In the second meeting I walked in and found 15 to 20 (I didn’t count) people sitting there, most of them having significant questions about the Church. While things were a bit tense at first, after we got to know each other better, it became more of an exchange of experiences. Things became much more relaxed. As we were talking, I saw that these were good people. Salt-of-the-earth people. People who I would truly value and cherish. Let me put it this way, if I were sitting at a ward dinner, and one of these people came to sit down next to me, I would be really happy. If I saw them before they saw me, I would invite them over. I would love to have them at my house for dinner. If they ever come to Northern California, the invitation stands open. They were honest and sincere. They had legitimate concerns that they had not been able to reconcile, partly because, in my opinion, they fully embraced the outside narrative and discounted the faithful narrative. But, they had reasons for doing so. Did I convince anyone? I doubt it. That wasn’t really the point. I hope that by the time I left they became a little more trusting of the sources that promote the positive narrative, and a little more skeptical of the sources that promote the negative narrative. For my part, I know that I became more sympathetic to their concerns.

Think about this. They had concerns about the Church. Some of them don’t attend any more. The stake president had called and invited them to this meeting at the Church building and they came. They showed up! If I were in their position, I’m not sure I would have done the same.

Sometimes in our discourse about the truth claims of the Church, we forget that there are real people on the other side of the issue. In a recent blog post about online discussions Sean Blanda writes:[4]

It’s a preference to see the Other Side as a cardboard cutout, and not the complicated individual human beings that they actually are.

I see this happening on both sides.

The active (faithful, believing, true blue, whatever) members see the questioning (disaffected, discouraged, less active, whatever) members as attacking them personally when they raise questions about the fundamental truth claims of their belief. I believe some of this comes from a fear that we might not be able to answer the questions, or that there is no answer to the questions. This means we sometimes lash out in an attempt to silence them.

The questioning members, on the other hand, see this wall of silence from people who don’t want to hear their questions. Conversations, attempts to connect, and attempts to correct from the non-questioning (fully believing) side are sometimes seen in a less than charitable light. Let’s face it, many members have not studied the issues, and often their attempts to answer the questions are simply incorrect. Those sincere, but unsatisfying answers are seen as manipulative and misleading. Other times, for those who have completely left, their leaving experience was so painful that they feel justified in giving a little payback. I have been on the receiving end of that on more than one occasion.

I have seen some very hurtful things. The blogger Sean Blanda further writes:

Over time, this morphs into a subconscious belief that we and our friends are the sane ones and that there’s a crazy “Other Side” that must be laughed at — an Other Side that just doesn’t “get it,” and is clearly not as intelligent as “us.” But this holier-than-thou social media behavior is counterproductive, it’s self-aggrandizement at the cost of actual nuanced discourse and if we want to consider online discourse productive, we need to move past this.[5]

This is the message I would like to get across. We need to have charity for each other. We need to see others as our brothers and sisters – whether you or they remain in the Church or not. No matter which side you are on. Based on their experiences and information, the “Other side” is being rational. Those that leave are not evil, and those that stay are not “Living in a bubble.”[6] Charity never faileth. Let’s try to put that into practice.

[1] . 1 Corinthians 13:13

[2] I would like to talk about all three stakes, but I have to limit this to get through the post. You don’t want to have to read a post the length of War and Peace.

[3] In the interest of full disclose my wife and the Stake President were there as well. But, the two of us did most of the talking.

[4] https://medium.com/@SeanBlanda/the-other-side-is-not-dumb-2670c1294063#.d50kq3cjm

[5] ibid

[6] It would be difficult to portray me, or other FairMormon volunteers, as living in a bubble as we have read all of the criticisms that are out there. I have been reading anti Mormon literature since I was 14 years old. A few of my non-Mormon friends have tried to convert me. FairMormon gets multiple questions every day. Through long experience, I have learned to be skeptical of the less faithful narrative.

 

Picture of Scott Gordon
Scott Gordon

Scott Gordon is president of FairMormon.

Picture at the top of the blog is from Glamis Castle in Scotland. Source:Rev Stan (Flickr: Glamis Castle) [CC BY 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Three Mormon Myths About Blacks and the Priesthood

by

February is black history month. Many white members of The Church will say “who cares?” or “good for them!” or even “aren’t they over that yet?” and move on about their daily tasks. That’s unwise. With the presidential election in full swing, our faith and our history of race relations has come under the spotlight of public scrutiny and the intensity will continue to grow. As that happens, I am hopeful that we as members are educated to move the discussion forward instead of saying things that are harmful to the Church and hurtful to many of our members. [Read more…] about Three Mormon Myths About Blacks and the Priesthood