Martins joined the LDS church in 1972 with his wife Ruda and son Marcus. Grover describes in detail race relations in Brazil. From page 36,

“This racial climate is a positive factor in the functioning and success of Brazilians of African descent. It does not eliminate issues of race, but it places them in a difference context. Elder Martins is an example of how a person of color can succeed in this type of social system.”

Martins grew up very poor. Grover says on page 37,

“He liked school and had a firm commitment to education, so he was unhappy when, after the sixth grade, knowing that his parent needed help, he left school to begin earning money to help them. At age twelve, he found only low-paying jobs: picking oranges or digging ditches. It was a step up to become a courier at a law office.”

Grover says that Martin never regretted helping his family; instead it furthered his resolve to get an education. His greatest help ended up being his future wife, Ruda. She worked as a secretary in a law office, and encouraged his to continue to pursue his education. Ironically, Ruda’s family was his first exposure to racism. From page 38,

Ruda’s family were fair-skinned mulattos and were concerned about their daughter marrying someone darker. A common belief in the Afro-Brazilian community was that marrying someone darker would “weaken” their racial lineage. “They had feelings against those who were darker and were actually more intolerant because they were not white but yet did not want to marry someone who was darker,” Helvecio explained. “They felt that it would be better if their children married either mulattos or whites but never someone darker than they.

Ruda and Helvecio continued to study and date, and eventually Helvecio became a favorite of his mother in law. After they married, both continued to work; Helvecio finished a bachelor’s degree in accounting at night, and went on to take finance and business administration graduate classes, as well as a teaching certificate. He earned a job at the government owned oil company, Petrobas, and taught night finance and business administration classes at the State University of Rio de Janeiro. He moved up the corporate ladder very quickly at Petrobas.

Helvicio grew up with the Catholic faith, but adopted his wife’s religion of Macumba, “an Afro-Brazilian religion that included, among other beliefs, spirit possession and the worship of African gods.” Page 40 continues,

Thus, even as Martins became one of few blacks in a job environment and social circle that included Brazil’s president and was almost exclusively white, he and Ruda participated in one of the most distinct black cultural groups in the country—one that appealed primarily to poor and black Brazilians.

In 1972, he and Ruda felt the need to look for another religion. Missionaries arrived at this opportune time, and they were baptized on June 2, 1972. Their baptism created conflict with Ruda’s family, but Helvecio’s sister eventually joined the church as well. From pages 41-42,

Helvecio’s and Ruda’s acceptance of the priesthood restrictions was, surprisingly not difficult. In fact, it had been the first question they had asked the missionaries; and Helvecio, although he could not later remember the exact words, recalled that “it was very clear and precise and sounded so right that it didn’t bother me at all. At that time I accepted it as being the will and desire of the Lord” (28) In fact, they were somewhat annoyed that it became an issue that other members of the Church frequently brought up. In the beginning their complete acceptance of the restrictions and continued activity in the Church created some questions and even mild antagonism toward them from members who were struggling to understand the restrictions themselves. Many expected the family to leave the Church soon and were surprised when they remained active…

However, they then went from being a novelty in the Church to notoriety, attracting attention that they did not desire. In fairness to their ecclesiastical leaders, the Martinses were unique. There were other faithful black members, but most were poor. Helvecio probably had the highest social position and prestige of any Brazilian member, white or black. Few members had any political or economic influence, while Martins was on a first-name basis with the president of Brazil. He met often with cabinet members and other government officials or groups about the priesthood ban. They also gave interviews to the press who were curious about the restrictions and about the Martinses’ acceptance of those limitations.

Helvecio spoke in stake conference shortly after his baptism and was introduced to all the General Authorities who visited Rio de Janeiro, including several apostles. His visibility was so extensive that his colleagues at work started referring to him as a “Mormon bishop.”

None of Helvecio’s reaction was artificial or compensatory. “I didn’t feel bad, I felt very good,” he states with the utmost sincerity. “I felt supported and blessed. Logically I realized there were many things I could have done and many ways I could have served that [were] not possible because I didn’t hold the priesthood. But I didn’t feel any less or inferior or rejected or relegated to a second-class citizen. Everybody supported me, everybody helped and assisted me, and I felt that things were even a bit easy for me.” (38)

Grover discusses Martins advantages growing up in Brazil. From page 43,

He did not see the priesthood restrictions as aimed at him personally but rather to a group of which he was part. That is an important psychological factor that meant he did not take the restrictions personally. Second, because he lived in Brazil, he did not have access to much of the literature in the United States giving various unofficial “reasons” that could have created confusion and conflict. This lack of information probably helped eliminate many potential concerns, and he could reconcile himself to the restrictions with what he knew.¹⁵

Third, the restrictions did not significantly affect his participation in the Church. Some Afro-Brazilians in Brazil report being baptized and then forgotten; but Helvecio’s leaders recognized and respected his status and experience outside of the Church. Within a week, both were immediately called to positions that did not require priesthood. Helvecio became teacher of the Gospel Doctrine class, while Ruda served as a counselor in the ward Primary presidency. Such callings quickly integrated them into the fabric of their ward and stake, giving them considerable interaction with the other members.

Finally, he was in a Brazilian congregation that did not exhibit the forms of racism that might have existed elsewhere, even in Brazil. Most in the congregation probably did not attach much significance to the racial restrictions except as an American practice that came with the gospel but was not essentially Brazilian. Most Brazilians dealt with the restrictions by ignoring them as much as possible.

Martins served in many positions, including Public Relations Director, stake executive secretary, and counselor in two stake presidencies, bishop, and mission president (twice). At the end of this second stint as mission president, he was called to the Second Quorum of Seventy in 1990. From page 47,

After a year in Brazil, he suffered a serious accident in June 1991. He fell in the shower and needed surgery on his neck to correct the effects of a fall in the shower and needed surgery on his neck to correct the effects of the fall and an earlier injury from a car crash in 1969. That surgery affected his ability to move, and he struggled to maintain his health. He continued to work hard through suffering chronic back pain. In October 1995 at age sixty-five, he was released after five years as a Seventy.”

Grover notes that Martins is “remembered only sparingly in connection to the black issue.” From page 48,

Although I think that knowing Elder Martins would greatly enhance anyone’s life, this comparative anonymity would actually please him. The last thing he wanted to be known as a symbol of his race. He stated firmly to me: “Soon after my call, some poorly informed people ironically tried to identify me as the Brazilian General Authority, or a representative of the black race to the Lord. This idea is a mistake. I was not called by the Lord to represent any people, nationality, ethnic group, race, or any part of society or group of His children. I was called as a representative of the Lord to his people, just as those who preceded me, those at my side now, and those in higher Quorums than the idea of one I now am a member….Consequently I formally reject the idea of representing any group; that is not what I am.” (76).

Finally, I enjoyed what Grover wrote about race issues. From page 51,

Much has been written about Mormonism and race issues in the United States with minimal reference to South America or the Caribbean. Brazil has by far the largest number of members of the Church (hundreds of thousands) who are black. A high percentage of some congregations are of African descent.³⁴

Numerous black bishops and stake presidents are serving and have served. Research that discusses race in the Church but which does not examine what is happening in Brazil, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, Columbia, or other areas of Latin America, let alone Africa, will not be accurate. Focusing only on African Americans seriously distorts the overall picture of blacks in the church.³⁵

So, do you agree that we have a distorted view of blacks in the church?

Apostle Paul Savage of the Church of Christ with Elijah Message

Sunstone has been going on since Wednesday here in Salt Lake City.  It ends tomorrow, and I thought I would give a few words about the conference.  I have been blogging at Mormon Matters for about a year and a half, and have never met any other bloggers here….until this week!  It has been nice to nice BiV and Stephen Marsh.  I hope to meet others tomorrow.  It was also nice to meet with a few apostles.

I met Paul Savage at the MHA convention in May.  Today at Sunstone he gave a presentation titled “Why Elijah (or John the Baptist) must come before Christ’s Return.  I wasn’t able to attend his presentation, but spoke with him for a few minutes.  I learned he is one of 6 apostles for his church, based in Independence, Missouri.  Their church believes apostles are the highest office in the church, and they believe that many people can be prophets.  He noted that the Ephesians 4:11 lists apostles before prophets, so apostles should be the top of the hierarchy.

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

It was fun talking to him.  I’ve been reading Scattering of the Saints by John Hamer and Newell Bringhurst, and plan to talk more about Paul’s church in the future.  I also enjoyed meeting with Apostle Susan Skoor of the Community of Christ, formerly known as the RLDS church.  (I already have a photo of her on my previous post–click here.)  She is always extremely friendly, and a treat to meet.

CoC President Robin Linkart of the 6th Quorum of Seventy

She introduced me to Robin Linkart, the President of the 6th Quorum of Seventy.  She lives in Colorado, and is in charge of missionary efforts in the western United States from the Canadian border to Mexico.  (Sorry the photos are out of focus–I guess my $40 camera is only worth what I paid for it.)

Mark Scherer, is the historian for the Community of Christ.  He gave an interesting presentation on the latest revelation to be canonized in the Community of Christ, section 164 of the Doctrine and Covenants.  He said the revelation covers 4 main topics:  (1) open communion, (2) open baptism (don’t have to be rebaptized to join the RLDS church anymore), (3) moral and ethical behavior (allows countries to decide if they want to allow same sex marriage), and (4) the RLDS strives to collaborate more with evangelical Christians.

CoC Historian Mark Scherer

Bridget Jack Meyers, (aka “Jack”–she blogs at Clobberblog), gave a fascinating presentation called “Evidence for Women’s Priesthood in the Earliest Christianity.  She is a “never Mormon” that earned a BA degree from BYU and “seduced” (her words) a Mormon man there.  She is studying at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.  She outlined various scriptures showing early women Christian leaders, including a woman by the name of Junia in Romans 16:7.  Jack says Junia was a female apostle, and quoted early Christian theologian John Chrysostum discussing her.  Early Christian theologian Origen discussed a female leader by the name of Phoebe.  Jack gave many other examples, and it certainly deserves a blog post or two to discuss her research.

Yesterday, I was able to attend Stephen Marsh’s session called “How an Unpleasant Truth Can Be More Inspirational than a Pleasant Fiction.”  I learned that the session was based on his post from October, titled The Stories We Tell.  Briefly, Stephen told the true story about his daughter standing up for a disabled classmate.  Often stories such as this end with a happy ending where everyone realizes that they shouldn’t tease a disabled person, but in Stephen’s story, his daughter becomes ostracized.  Often, we don’t have happy endings, and sometimes it is hard to understand why God doesn’t bless us for doing the right thing.  I also learned that Stephen has 5 daughters, but 3 of them have died, despite his prayers to have them live.  It was an interesting presentation.  Often we learn more from our trials than our triumphs.

I’m excited to attend tomorrow.  If you’re in SLC, I encourage you to attend.  It’s at the Sheraton Hotel on 150 West 500 South.  If you attended, what sessions did you enjoy?  Do you have any questions about the sessions I attended?

This is a compilation of questions and answers from my blog, as well as a post from Mormon Matters by John Hamer, LDS Myths about Reorganized Latter Day Saints.  The following answers come from John Hamer, Margie Miller, and FireTag, who are all Community of Christ members.  I’ve corrected spelling, and changed the formatting to make this appear to be in an interview format, but it is just an ongoing conversation.  Many people on Mormon Matters and my blog asked these questions.

Do Community of Christ members like to be called Mormons, or some other nickname?

John Hamer,

Community of Christ members use the term “Latter Day Saints” to refer to themselves, but they only rarely use the term “Mormon” to refer to themselves. Generally speaking, only LDS members, fundamentalist Mormons and Strangite Mormons use the term “Mormon” to refer to themselves. The reason for it is that members of the early church used almost always put quotes around the term and said “so-called Mormons” or emphasized that it was outsiders that called the Saints “Mormons.” Then, during the late 19th century, LDS Mormons were reviled nationally because of polygamy. RLDS people who were violently anti-polygamy wanted no share of that opprobrium, so they tended to say things like “we believe in the Book of Mormon but we’re not the Mormons.”

When/Why did the RLDS church change it’s name to the Community of Christ?

John Hamer,

Charles D. Neff, who was one of the more important RLDS apostles in the later 20th century, was actually a convert. He told the story that when he first heard the name of the church, “The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints,” his reaction was, “that is a terrible name for a church.” And he was right. Frankly, the LDS church has a terrible name too.

The church was established in 1830 as the “Church of Christ.” That name was indistinct and was often confused with other churches of the same name, especially the Campbellite Church of Christ (Disciples of Christ). So, in 1834, the name of the church was changed to “Church of the Latter Day Saints.” That change upset members who had come to believe the Campbellite doctrine that God’s true church must have Christ’s name in it, so in 1838 the name was changed to “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.” (The spelling “Latter-day Saints” was used occasionally in the early church, but LDS church only formalized that spelling in Utah.) “Reorganized” was legally added to the name in the late 19th century in order to protect church property from the Federal anti-polygamy legislation.

The change in 2001 to “Community of Christ” was meant to evoke the church’s heritage (by returning close to the original name), while emphasizing one of the core values that Reorganized Latter Day Saints have always drawn from their organization: the special sense of community.

How would you characterize the historical differences between LDS and RLDS?

John Hamer,

RLDS members at their core are dissenters and free-thinkers – the Mormon value they have always put first is free agency. For the RLDS, William Law (the editor of the Nauvoo Expositor) is a hero because he fought against creeping theocracy and corruption in the church, even though it meant taking on Joseph Smith Jr. himself. The people who became LDS, by contrast, were the mass of movement’s obeyers. For the people who joined Brigham Young’s organization, William Law was a Judas. It doesn’t matter that he was exposing terrible abuses of authority because it is of paramount importance to obey the hierarchy, right or wrong: Enter into polygamy because the leader commands it; cease polygamy for the same reason.

FireTag,

The CofChrist was founded by people outside of Nauvoo, and had become pretty suspicious of doctrinal elaborations coming from there well before 1843.

I wonder if I walked into a Community of Christ meeting, how similar or different would it be from an LDS meeting?  I’ve heard you only do communion/sacrament once/month instead of weekly, but I’m wondering what other things are similar/different?

John Hamer,

There is a lot of local control, so meeting styles vary at the congregation level. Talks I’ve listened to seem just as likely to quote the Book of Mormon as any other scripture. Possibly they have the most emphasis on the New Testament, followed by the D&C, with the Book of Mormon and Old Testament taking up the rearguard.

The services I’ve attended are somewhat like an LDS service: there is congregation business, hymns, musical numbers and prayers and there’s a main talk. They do sacrament/communion once a month and they use the same prayer that other Latter Day Saints use, so that’s familiar. Their offeratory is not familiar to LDS service. They can have a little bit of litergy, which is definitely unfamiliar to LDS ears.

FireTag,

[We] do serve open communion…

Worship practices vary widely throughout the church, not only from country to country but from congregation to congregation. Most of our congregations are very small; I haven’t had an actual home church that wasn’t in a converted home or a school since I came to the East Coast 35 years ago. That certainly affects the form of worship; since there are often not enough priesthood (because priesthood calls were in no sense fairly automatic), we’ve long extended worship leadership to non-priesthood.

You will also notice a much greater emphasis on the most recent D&C sections (we’re up to 163 now) and the New Testament than on any works of Joseph Smith. We are certainly Christ-centered in all of our teaching.

There is absolutely no emphasis on the afterlife …The Book of Abraham is not regarded as Scriptural, so there is no doctrine of exaltation or sealing for eternity. There are no special Temple ordinances at all, and we, in fact, encourage the use of our Temple for interdenominational gatherings whenever possible.

Oh, and Bishops are financial specialists, not congregational leaders, and Stakes no longer exist.  You will notice Bishops are not in the administrative line. They are Financial Officers, and pretty well stay in that role.

I have been, but no longer am, the presiding officer of what you would consider a small congregation – in fact so small that I often had to preside over the service, preach the sermon, and teach the Sunday school class on the same morning.

We’ve gone back and forth over the years between the terms “pastor” and “presiding elder”. We’re currently in a “pastor” phase, and in fact often have to share the role among two or three priesthood.

We no longer had the personnel concentrations anywhere but in Independence, and consequently changed the administrative structure to “fields” administered by 1 of the Twelve assisted by a President of a Quorum of Seventy. The equivalent of a Stake President would be a Mission Center President, a High Priest who has administrative control over as large as a several state area in the US and sometimes half a continent overseas.

Is there still an RLDS church on the hill above University Parkway in Provo near the University Mall – or was there ever one there?

John Nilsson, Jan 28th, 2008 at 9:57 am

There was an RLDS Church on the boundary of Provo/Orem in the spot you mention ten years ago. I attended a service there with a couple of my roommates from BYU for a class project on other denominations. It was a fascinating experience, and I interviewed the pastor, an older gentleman who preached from Moroni 9 on the gifts of the spirit. And we were served sparkling grape juice as part of the open communion by an older woman!

John Hamer,

The congregation in Orem is very small, as is the one in Salt Lake. Ogden’s is the largest in Utah, but the church has never had a very strong presence in Utah.

Are local CoC leaders “professional” clergy (i.e., trained, paid ministers) or are they laypersons, as is the case in local LDS wards?

John Hamer,

The Community of Christ has the same general priesthood offices as the LDS church without the Utah-era practice of title inflation. It’s quite normal for adult men and women to be teachers or deacons. Bishops are financial officers at the Stake (“Misson Center”) level, rather than “ward” leaders. They have “Pastors” – a title that was also used in the early church – which is effectively “Branch President” or “Presiding Elder” of a congregation. Most Pastors are volunteer lay ministers. They do have some paid pastors in large congregations. Church headquarters has full-time paid employees like the LDS headquarters. The leadership includes the First Presidency, the Council of the Twelve, the Presiding Bishopric, the Presiding Evangelist (patriarch), the Presidents of the Seventies, the presiding Quorum of High Priests and the Standing (presiding) High Council.

The First Presidency and the Apostles are generally all in their 50s or 60s because they serve for a number of years and then they retire.

Do CoC members observe the Word of Wisdom?

John Hamer,

Some do some don’t; it’s not a test of fellowship. My friend Ron Romig (who is church archivist) doesn’t smoke, drink or drink coffee. However, other Community of Christ friends of mine do drink and drink coffee. (I don’t know any who smoke.) A famous story Jan Shipps tells is that when she met Bob Flanders (a leading RLDS historian) in the 60s, he sat down with her at lunch, bringing a full mug of coffee. She had never seen such a thing among Latter Day Saints, and she was apparently staring. He told her, jokingly, “You’ll observe that I let it cool before drinking it.”

What is your position on the Plan of Salvation/Three Degrees of Glory?

FireTag,

The various glories exist in our belief system, but I actually haven’t heard anyone teach anything about them since I was a teenager.

I know you technically believe in baptism for the dead, but (as I understand it) only do it for family members, and it is downplayed much more than in the LDS church.  Is this correct?

John Hamer,

The Community of Christ does not practice baptism for the dead, although it was not opposed as a practice with the same kind of vehemence as polygamy. The sections of the D&C on baptism for the dead were only removed in the 1970s.

I do think that the RLDS church adopted certain practices to be different from the LDS church and finally eliminating baptism for the dead may be one. Their history on that particular ordinance was mixed. One of Joseph Smith III’s brothers felt very strongly in favor of baptism for the dead. Joseph III was more circumspect and I think he implied that they church might do that again if there were a temple for it. I’ve heard that some congregations were performing the practice (unauthorized) as late as the early 20th century. And up until the building of the temple in Independence, there was some question whether or not it might be included. But when the temple was made without a font, the answer was no.

FireTag,

We, in principle “allow” baptism of the dead in response to direct revelation by the prophet, but no such revelation has been received or expected in 150 years…   We see no need to baptize the dead.

What happens to rejected revelations?  How does the conference decide what is authentic revelation and what is not?

John Hamer,

The D&C sections on Baptism for the Dead were voted by a World Conference resolution which moved them to a “Historical Appendix.” Then a later Conference resolution removed the appendix.

Another example is the doctrine which was called “Supreme Directional Control” – a controversial effort by Prophet/President Frederick M. Smith to centralize authority under the First Presidency. Although the membership approved the doctrine (causing a certain amount of schism), within a decade the policy had effectively been abandoned as the stresses of the Great Depression saw the return of financial power to the Presiding Bishopric.

How do you view temple ordinances?

FireTag,

The Community of Christ believes in the concept of endowment, but does not associate the concept with a particular ceremony. Indeed, the flow of the Spirit through the ordinances of the church is more “organic” than it seems to be in LDS.

What are the financial arrangements that allowed the LDS to build the Nauvoo Temple, and the Community of Christ to build the Independence Temple?

John Hamer,

The LDS church did not make a financial contribution toward the construction of the temple in Independence and the Community of Christ did not contribute financially to the construction of the new Nauvoo Temple. However, both churches swapped land in order to make both temples possible. The RLDS church owned some of the land that the Nauvoo Temple is on and the LDS church owned some of the land that the Independence Temple is on. My understanding is that it was a straight swap and that money didn’t change hands.

Does the Community of Christ view the Book of Mormon as historical?

John Hamer,

I do think people who view the Book of Mormon as a literal history book are in the minority in the Community of Christ. However, these same believers have a generally more sophisticated view of scripture in general. Much of the events of the Bible are not literal histories, from Adam and Noah to the Judean kings. There doesn’t have to have been a real person named Job to make the scripture inspired.

Does the Community of Christ believe they are the “one true church”?

John Hamer,

What the Community of Christ has scrapped is the exclusivist claim to be “the one and only true church.” The church now understands that while its own heritage has been inspired by God, other churches and individuals have also been inspired and are valid.

I’ve always heard that the CoC wants to act more protestant, and every time I’ve heard that by LDS members, it is always meant in disdain (and makes me cringe.)  What do you make of such a comment-is it true that the CoC wants to appear more protestant?

John Hamer,

I’ve said elsewhere that it’s an academic argument whether the LDS church is a Protestant Christian denomination, whether it is part of a new branch of Christianity, or whether it is part of a new world religion altogether. However, because the RLDS church never embraced the King Follet discourse theology, it seems hard to argue that it ever strayed far enough away from the fold to have been anything other than Christian (and frankly Protestant). That’s not a recent change; that dates back to the 1860s.

FireTag,

The church has moved strongly into the “peace and justice” wing of progressive Christianity under the last two prophets. You’ll notice that everywhere.

The church also now sponsors an intern to work with the largest Quaker lobbying group in the country and is trying to actively promote political alliances with progressive denominations and interest groups on legislative agendas within the federal government.

Could you explain a little on how the RLDS church approaches the issue of GLBT persons in comparison to the LDS SLC church?

John Hamer,

I have in my hands the proof copy of a new book, Homosexual Saints: The Community of Christ Experience, edited by William D. Russell with a preface by D. Michael Quinn. You may be interested in getting it: http://www.johnwhitmerbooks.com/books/details_HS.asp

This is a book of 26 personal essays about the lives of gay, lesbian and transgendered RLDS members and their friends, relatives and allies. It also has a detailed historical overview of the evolution of RLDS thinking and practice on the issue.

The back cover has an endorsement from retired Prophet/President Grant McMurray:

“I have always believed that the pathway to understanding the issue of homosexuality is in the telling of personal stories. Decisions about policy and law, whether religious or secular, must first have a human face. Bill Russell’s compilation of personal essays – some courageous, some tragic – provides an excellent resource for the dialogue that has only just begun.”

There is also an endorsement from Apostle Susan Skoor, Dr. Don Compier Dean of the Community of Christ Seminary, and one from Richard Howard, Historian Emeritus of the church. That’s a lineup that you would be unlikely to replicate in an LDS context.

What is the CoC position on polygamy?  Is it still the case that RLDS/CoC members tend to deny that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy?

John Hamer,

In terms of who started polygamy: all of the Community of Christ leaders I know are aware that Joseph Smith Jr. is the originator of polygamy and that’s true for most of the membership I’ve talked to. However, there is a whole segment of members (especially the older generation) who don’t believe the evidence is there.

FireTag,

The Community of Christ position was and remains that Joseph was NOT inspired regarding a practice that was among the key reasons the RLDS, from whom we are descended, would not unite with the LDS who embraced it (whether they did so resentfully or willingly). The change in the CoC position is now to acknowledge that Joseph did indeed wholeheartedly participate in a practice that we continue to condemn.

We hope, for Joseph’s sake, that he DID recognize that he had been deceived before the end of his life and was trying to rid the church of the doctrine.

The Community of Christ asserts, as I’ve said previously, that “monogamy is the basic principle on which Christian married life is built”. The second prophet of the CofC, Joseph Smith III, stated his belief that his father had never been involved in polygamy, but that if evidence ever showed otherwise, he would continue to regard the doctrine as abhorrent while not discounting the truths his father had taught before becoming entangled in the error. That has more-or-less been the official default position until recently…

MH:  In April, the current prophet/president of the Community of Christ made what I view as a startling admission.  Posted on the official CoC website, it says the following,

Prophet/President Stephen Veazey,

“There is no doubt the early Reorganization endeavored to distance Joseph Smith Jr. from the doctrine and practice of plural marriage. Such separation was viewed as critical to church identity and survival.

However, during the past fifty years or so, RLDS/Community of Christ historians cautioned us not to be so certain in our conclusions. Unfortunately, many ignored their findings. Even worse, some attacked their integrity and harassed them and their families.

The vast majority of church historians have persuasively concluded that Joseph Smith Jr. was involved prominently in the doctrine and practice of celestial or plural marriage. There is also some evidence that shortly before his death, Joseph approached William Marks, Nauvoo Stake president, and said that he (Joseph) had “been deceived” in the matter of plural marriage and that every effort must be made to rid the church of the doctrine. Unfortunately, he was killed before anything could be done.

So, where does this leave us? The Reorganized Church has always said that plural marriage in the early church was wrong, regardless of its origins. We need to let it go at that. Reigniting old debates over this issue will be unproductive and only serve to distract us from more important endeavors.”

Is it true that the Community of Christ allowed polygamist members to join in the 1970s?

MH:  Missionary work commenced in India, where polygamy is legal.  FireTag tells that a revelation allowing polygamist Indians to be baptized.

FireTag,

The revelation brought to the church and confirmed by the general conference established for us the principle that “monogamy is the basic principle on which Christian married life is built” and authorized the First Presidency and the Quorum of 12 (Apostles) in their field jurisdictions to interpret that principle as directed by the Spirit.

The implementation ultimately meant that newly baptized polygamous people were allowed to remain in those marriages for the rest of their lives, but were not allowed to take additional marital partners into the marriage. The latter act would be treated as adultery or fornication under church law (I forget which).

This ruling became a schismatic issue for a number of people.

Margie Miller discussed this amazing development on my blog.  In her words,

Community of Christ had a valid reason for allowing that practice to continue in 1970. I was one of the people who took exception to it at the time and made a special trip to Independence to visit with President Shehee about it. I was appalled! He had [asked] me to read a couple of books about the culture beforehand and then gave me an appointment the week before World Conference. I went up determined that I was right.

He told me about the cultural situation. In that culture, if the church had insisted that all but the first wife be put aside, those woman and their children would be ostracized in their culture and would never be able to find another man to marry them.

The Indian men considered virginity to be very important.

That was not long after the war between India and Pakistan. Many women were roaming the countryside after being raped by soldiers. No man would marry them. Many of them had children from these terrible circumstances and the women traveled in groups begging for food for their children and themselves. The UN was trying their best to find men who would marry these women and give their children a home. It was very difficult.

We had gone into their villages with a horticulturist to help them to find a better strain of wheat to grow in hopes of alleviating their poverty. That was very successful and then they were more wealthy then their neighbors. The church wanted them to share their technology with the other villages and had to teach them the principles of sharing in love before that would happen. It was very successful!

A few went back to adding more wives but then the village elders excommunicated them for that. That was the agreement. The church has been very successful in a mission there in East India.

Due to many theological changes in the Community of Christ over the last 30 years, there have been splinter groups, and even a new group calling itself the RLDS.  Can you talk about that?

FireTag,

We have proportionally as many splinter RLDS groups as you have splinter LDS groups. (I know – from where you stand, we’re the largest surviving splinter!) Those who splinter to the cultural right do so over many issues – some of them going back to the original 1844 successor to Joseph Smith, others over Scriptural literalism, others over allowance of polygamous converts on the Indian sub-continent in the 1970’s, others over open communion, the movement to select a prophet who was not a lineal descendent of Joseph Smith, etc.

We have at least a few more equally traumatic issues coming down the road over the next year or two, so we’ll continue to replace cultural conservatives with cultural progressives among our membership within North America.

What’s your impression of the schism with Richard Price and the whole Restoration branch? How much of the membership ultimately broke away? Going forward, are both the CoC and the Restorationists going to remain viable religious bodies as separate entities? And is there much in the way of interaction between them?

John Hamer,

According to historian David Howlett (who was raised Restorationist and converted to the Community of Christ), Restorationists have about 10,000 members worldwide. That compares to perhaps 200,000 Community of Christ members. Richard Price is now in very poor health. I personally don’t think that the Restorationists are viable in the long term (more than 3 or 4 generations), because they don’t have any organization; they’re just independent branches and what causes them to continue? I think there’s more potential in the Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which comes from the same general group (RLDS conservatives) and is headed by a great great grandson of Joseph Smith Jr. They have maybe 3,000 members.

Can you talk about the CoC granting women the priesthood?

FireTag,

The debate at the time was traumatic (and even schismatic) for the church, but I don’t recall the arguments specifically debated. It was finally settled by the church’s acceptance of our Section 156 of the D&C which encompassed direction for the ordination of women in a larger document related to initiation of building our Temple and the purposes it was to have. There was a strongly organized attempt to rescind Conference approval of the revelation at the next world conference, but that was beaten down by about a 4:1 margin on a procedural vote.

Interestingly, 25 years later, those who stayed all pretty much take it for granted; we see the same power of priesthood in men and women, if the gift and talent mix has different emphases.

We …extend opportunities for Evangelist’s Blessings – we found it awkward to refer to women “Patriarchs” or “Matriarchs” – or baby blessings outside the church whenever possible. We regard the sacraments as present helps along the path to follow the Lord, not things to be checked off in this life as requirements for the next.

So, when feminism forced us to reconsider the issue of priesthood for women as an issue of theological principle rather than cultural tradition 30-40 years ago (easier to do since we have no doctrine that focuses on family roles in the hereafter), the church decided it was God’s will that women should be ordained the regular way, and that we’d simply been blind to it all along.

I don’t have general statistics on women in the priesthood, but 1/3 of the Apostles and First Presidency [are women].

Is the Community of Christ trying to distance itself from Joseph Smith?

FireTag,

There does seem to be movement away from tracing our roots to Joseph Smith, and recasting our founding with Joseph III. Expect tremendous controversy in the CoC over the next 18 months as this plays out in the context of official guidance from the current Prophet of which the April 5, 2009 Sermon on CommunityofChrist.org is only the first preparatory word.

Is there anything to the rumors of the CoC having financial difficulties? Haven’t many of the paid jobs (i.e. in the historical department) been eliminated due to lack of money? If so, do you see this as a temporary setback or a sign of things to come?

John Hamer,

I’m confident the Community of Christ will remain viable for the foreseeable future.

There is some basis for rumors of RLDS money troubles. The truth is that the RLDS church has always had more ambition and vision than they have had resources. The Auditorium is an enormous structure for them to have attempted in the 1920s and the onset of the Great Depression was very untimely for their finances.

RLDS doctrine of tithing (10% of increase) has always been significantly less lucrative than the post-Lorenzo Snow LDS church’s practice. The Community of Christ initiated an ambitious plan to have more paid ministerial support in the late 1990s called “transformation 2000.” This increased expenses, but revenues did not increase to cover the costs. The result in the last few years has been a budget deficit, which resulted in downsizing a fair number of jobs at church headquarters. However, the church historian, the director of historic sites, the church archivist and most of the other heritage team positions were not affected. The restructuring had the long-term in mind. The fact is that a single Community of Christ donor gave the church $50 million just a couple years ago.

Is the Community of Christ really losing members?  If so, what are the prospects for future growth?

FireTag,

My statements [below] are mine, and do not represent the policy of the church in any way. The church is seeking to revitalize its institutions, but I do not believe that is what God wants us to concentrate on doing.

When you folks went west to Salt Lake, we had nowhere to go without embracing doctrines like polygamy that we could NOT, in good conscience, embrace. Left behind, our movement became coupled to our “gentile” communities in a way that yours never did until you were large enough to reenter at least partially on your own terms.

And that coupling means we can’t progress very far spiritually unless we bring the ENTIRE culture along with us at the same time. Resources leaked into and out of the church – to family, to neighborhood, to profession, to social or political activity – in whatever way maintained the spiritual “water level” between the church community and larger society.

By focusing on “growing the church” we’re like the tail trying to get big enough to wag the dog. The only way the tail gets bigger is for the dog to get bigger, and the tail is never going to get to be big enough to wag the dog. In fact, as shown by trends across the entire religious “mainstream” (liberal) denominations, the society since post-WW2 has not been “eating well” spiritually, and the tail is starving.

…God shows us things, whether through scientific study (in my case) or through inspiration in order that we can act to further His will. In this case, if the disease is in the dog, we’ve got to get the medicine into the dog and stop worrying about maintaining the tail. My church needs a lot of us working out of the church and in the society because that’s where God is deciding the future of my church.

MH:  Regarding the tail wagging the dog, it seems to me that you are saying that the CoC is the tail, and North American society as a whole is the dog. The CoC is trying to become more mainstream (liberal) in order to effect a positive change in North American society. This could mean that the tail gets quite sick and quits growing, but in order to do God’s will, we all have to get the dog better, and then the tail will be more healthy. So, in a sense, the CoC is trying to get more in line with mainstream North American society, and then the tail will start growing again. (Of course, the tail may need to be amputated in the process of healing the dog too, so there is a risk here.) Is this correct?

FireTag,

We have to change the ENTIRE culture toward God before we can grow, not just the Christian church, but we keep thinking we can revitalize the church and THEN change the society from a position of greater strength.

The equations that govern our growth say that cannot happen. If society doesn’t change, we can’t grow to GET to a position of strength to change the society. But if society becomes less receptive to our message, as it did 50 years ago, we can’t sustain ourselves and rapidly decline. That’s the paradox we have to find a way around.

I believe our continued value as a corporate entity to the work of the Lord at this point in history involves the church supporting our people in dispersing out of our “corporation” and moving wholeheartedly into participation in the multiple, cross-cutting communities that make up a modern society. This is almost like the early Christians moving into the catacombs of Rome where they could refresh themselves beneath Rome’s notice, yet continue to provide enriching ministry to their neighbors in their daily lives as God opened doors. None of the turmoil of the Empire could ever dig them out of the society once they were so dispersed, and these “meek of the earth” did inherit the Empire.

In our time, such distributed efforts will send us into fellowships with groups made up of differing Christian, non-Christian, and/or secular backgrounds. The unity or preservation of our faith community and its institutions will no longer be primary, for the time has come for many of us to expend ourselves. Should that not be enough to fulfill our part in the mission of transforming the world, then we can best hope that God will grant us the opportunity to prepare the path for the work of our successors, and perhaps even allow the youngest of us to participate in the movement of our successors.

For our denomination to adapt the gospel faithfully in our cultural setting, and hopefully even to thrive, requires that we become a denomination that glories in sending people OUT of our denomination, to where God calls them to best serve in the culture.

MH:  Wow FireTag, it sounds to me like the church is working toward its own extinction. This must be quite unsettling to the general membership. I think your statement is quite troubling.  So you’re saying that the CoC has 2 options for growth: (1) society needs to change to be more receptive to the CoC message, or (2) the CoC needs to get big enough to enact change in society. So, as I understand it, the CoC is going with option 1 because option 2 hasn’t worked very well in the past. So, as a way to accomplish option 1, the CoC is trying to work with more Protestant and/or governmental organizations (through world peace initiatives) to facilitate option 1. Is this correct?

FireTag,

I am saying option 1 is the only option for our growth. Period.

We have to give up worrying about growing or shrinking and worry only about how we build peace and justice. If we build peace and justice, I’m not sure God cares whether we shrink or grow. Remember, the Community of Christ no longer argues it is the “one true church”, so OUR growth shouldn’t be that important to us if growth stops being a means to a greater divine purpose. Christian institutions, like individual Christians, have no guarantee they won’t be asked to give up their lives for the Lord.

The church is now torn by competing drives. Our rhetoric says we should make decisions as if we will build peace and justice, whatever the cost. Our emotions haven’t caught up with our rhetoric, so we spend much of our time as an institution still futilely (and perhaps fearfully) trying to make option 2 work.

And finally, on a lighter note, is Bruce Jenner Graceland College’s most famous graduate? Was he ever interested in the RLDS church?

John Hamer,

As far as Bruce Jenner goes, I don’t think he was ever tempted to convert. I think the most famous non-LDS Mormon is Alice Cooper – who was born and raised Bickertonite. 

The last major development in LDS priesthood is even less recognized today.  In 1843 Smith extended the Melchizedek priesthood to LDS women through an “endowment ceremony” rather than through ordination to church office.

• For example, in 1843 Presiding Patriarch Hyrum Smith blessed Leonora Cannon Taylor:
• “You shall be bless[ed] with your portion of the Priesthood which belongeth to you, that you may be set apart for your Anointing and your induement [endowment].”
• Thirty-five years later, Joseph Young (a patriarch and senior president of the Council of Seventy) blessed Brigham Young’s daughter:
• “These blessings are yours, the blessings and power according to the Holy Melchi[z]edek Priesthood you received in your Endowments, and you shall have them.”

The decline in women’s awareness that the endowment ceremony gives them Melchizedek priesthood corresponds to the decline in women’s status in the LDS church during those same years.  In the process, twentieth-century Mormons–both male and female, conservative and liberal–have identified priesthood with male privilege and hierarchical administrative power.  Therefore, some recent writers regard as insignificant the concept that endowed Mormon women had (and continue to have) the Melchizedek priesthood without ordained office and hierarchical status.

I must say that I agree that  modern Mormons always associate priesthood with administration.  On the other hand, I can remember as a deacon, teacher, and priest, being told the priesthood is “the power to act in the name of God.”  So, even though women may not hold an administrative office, it is fascinating to me that Quinn uses a different definition to discuss women’s priesthood power “to act in the name of God.”  Isn’t this a more important use of priesthood power?

Quinn continues this line of thought on page 37,

By contrast, early Mormons understood that priesthood meant divine power (separate from individual faith) that was conferred on mortals and was centered on a relationship with the powers of deity.  For example, Brigham Young (using the word “share” that was often used to explain women’s relationship to priesthood) defined the priesthood’s power without reference to ecclesiastical office or church administration:

An individual who holds a share in the Priesthood, and continues faithful to his calling, who delights himself continually in doing the things God requires at his hands, and continues through life in the performance of every duty, will secure to himself not only the privilege of receiving, but the knowledge how to receive the things of God, that he may know the mind of God continually; and he will be enabled to discern between right and wrong, between the things of God and things that are not of God.  And the Priesthood–the Spirit that is within him, will continue to increase until it becomes like a fountain of living water; until it is like the tree of life; until it is one continued source of intelligence and instruction to that individual.

Then Young continue his remarks to a gender-inclusive audience: “Upon who[m]ever are bestowed the keys of the eternal Priesthood, by a faithful life, [they] will secure to themselves power to see the things of God, and will understand them as plainly as they ever understood anything by gazing upon it with their natural eyes…”  It is in this theological context of priesthood that Young later declared: “Now, brethren, the man that honors his Priesthood, the woman that honors her Priesthood, will receive an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of God.”

To early Mormons “priesthood” signified something greater than ecclesiastical status, hierarchy, administrative power, decision-making, or prestige in an earthly church.  My analysis of the Mormon hierarchy emphasizes those external manifestations of power, but there were other significant dimensions of priesthood in early Mormon thought.

For an extensive history of LDS women and the priesthood, check out this article from Sunstone, which goes into great detail, called “A Gift Given: a Gift Taken” by Lavina Anderson.  So, do any of you endowed LDS women realize that you hold the Melchizedek Priesthood, and have authority to act in the name of God?

In the book, Quinn gives a few different dates for the MP restoration, along with pros and cons. On page 30 Quinn states, “By 1835 Smith and Cowdery had good reason to be vague about the introduction of the priesthood.” Some people have tried to pin down the date, and here are three different possibilities. I’ll address the issues surrounding these dates.

• June 2, 1829
• July 6, 1830
• June 8, 1831

At the organization of the church on April 6, 1830, the Melchizedek and Aaronic priesthood were not clearly defined as they are now. You will recall that at the church organization on April 6, 1830, that Joseph was referred to as the First Elder of the church (rather than prophet), and Oliver was the Second Elder. Obviously these terms aren’t used in this fashion to describe President Monson, for example. Another example to illustrate the evolution of priesthood is to note that there were not 12 apostles called until 1835. Obviously there was a great deal of evolution regarding priesthood knowledge going on in these early church days.

In these early days of the church, men were baptized and immediately ordained to the priesthood. There was no hierarchy as we have now, and in fact there was no distinction between the offices of teacher, priest, and elder. Quoting from Quinn on page 28,

In contemporary LDS practice, elder is an office of the higher (or Melchizedek) priesthood and teacher and priest of the lesser (or Aaronic) priesthood. However, with the exception of Smith as “first elder” and Cowdery of “second elder,” these three priesthood offices had different functions but no discernible difference in status. For example, at the June 1830 conference the Book of Mormon witnesses divided up among the three offices without any reference to age or status. The two oldest men, Joseph Sr, and Martin Harris, were priests. The two teachers, Hiram Page and Christian Whitmer, were older than all the elders with the possible exception of Ziba Peterson, whose birth date is unknown. Smith’s older devoted brother Hyrum was a priest, and his equally devoted younger brother Samuel was an elder. Thus in June 1830 the church’s seven elders included two of the Three Witnesses, three of the Eight Witnesses, and one regular church member.

…

This aversion to ranking in priesthood office continued through the conference for a full year later. Martin Harris was still a priest, and two of the Eight Witnesses of the Book of Mormon were teachers even though thirty-eight Mormons of far lesser distinction held the office of elder.”

Confusion in early church regarding Priesthood restoration

Apostle William McClellin (who was excommunicated in 1838 for apostasy) states that he had no knowledge of any priesthood restoration by angelic visitors. “But I never heard one word of John the baptist, or of Peter, James, and John’s visit till I was told some year or two afterward in Ohio.” Joseph Knight had written about many important Mormon events in 1833, and made no mention of these visits either. Book of Mormon witness, David Whitmer (also excommunicated in 1838) had no knowledge of angelic visitations of John the Baptist or Peter, James, and John, until 1834. He even went on to state, “I do not believe John the Baptist ever ordained Joseph and Oliver…” (See my post on the Kirtland Bank Crisis for more info on these apostles.)

Richard Bushman states that Joseph Smith was often reticent to tell others about his revelations and angelic visits. The earliest known account of this visit by Peter, James, and John was referenced by Oliver Cowdery in 1834. Certainly, these angelic visitations were not known by general church membership until Cowdery’s introduction in an 1834 history of the church referencing only John the Baptist. From page 20-21,

His [Oliver’s] 1834 published history made no reference to an angelic visitation after John the Baptist’s ministration. His manuscript history of 1835 dated John the Baptist’s visit precisely as “Friday the 15^th of May, 1829,” then referred to the second priesthood restoration only as “After this we received the high and holy priesthood” from “others…those who received it under the hand of Messiah.” [Joseph Smith diary, 16 Jan 1836.]

Pros/Cons for a June 1829 Date

In the introduction to D&C 13, the Aaronic Priesthood is clearly stated to have been conferred upon Joseph and Oliver on May 15, 1829. Section 27, received in August 1830, seems to indicate that the ordination to the MP had already occurred in verse 12. Quinn notes that section 27 was originally chapter 60 of the Book of Commandments, the forerunner of our Doctrine and Covenants. D&C 27:8, 12 did not appear on the Book of Commandments. Page 16,

These phrases about John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John had not appeared when the revelation was first published in 1832 in The Evening and the Morning Star, or in the 1833 Book of Commandments (BofC, 60). A recent study has demonstrated that the center portion on priesthood (now D&C 27:6-13) is also missing from the revelation’s only manuscript. The added text cannot be found in any document before 1835, nor can any similar wording or concept be found prior to 1834.

[Sources: William Clayton diary, 12 July 1843, in Smith, An Intimate Chronicle, 110;
Joseph Smith diary, 12 July 1843, in Faulring, An American Prophet’s Record, 396;
History of the Church, 5:507]

Quinn further states on page 18, “evidence shows that the second angelic restoration of apostolic authority could not have occurred before the church’s organization on 6 April 1830.” To explain this discrepancy, Quinn continues,

one Mormon writer [Times and Seasons 4 (15 Oct. 1843):329] evidently invented a day and duration for the second angelic restoration of authority. Without offering any evidence, he asserted, “[I]t was early on Tuesday morning, the 2^nd of June 1829, that three ancient apostles, now resurrected, came to Smith and Cowdery and restored the Melchizedek Priesthood back to the earth.

Quinn goes on to suggest that the reason for Joseph and Oliver’s vagueness on the subject is that the priesthood was actually received after the organization of the church. Page 22 states,

Why would the two men refrain from simply inventing a date for an experience only they could confirm? Perhaps they were vague to avoid being dishonest. There is no evidence that a restoration of what was later called the Melchizedek priesthood happened in June 1829. But historical evidence indicates that the second priesthood restoration occurred more than a year later than assumed in traditional Mormon histories.

Support for July 1830 Date

Quinn talks about Joseph Smith’s arrest on the charge of disturbing the peace for attempting to exorcise a demon out of an individual. Court records indicate this happened in July 1830, three months after the organization of the church on April 6. (There were two trials, and Smith was acquitted both times.) Page 24,

Thus Smith’s history shows that in early July 1830, probably the night of 5-6 July, he and Oliver made an arduous nighttime escape. After travelling all night they arrived in Harmony after daybreak. The Colesville-to-Harmony trajectory for this flight corresponds with Smith’s statement about the Melchizedek priesthood restoration being on the banks of the Susquehanna River between Colesville and Harmony. The circumstances also match those Erastus Snow, an 1833 convert and apostle after 1849, described as surrounding the visit of Peter, James, and John. According to Snow, Smith and Cowdery “were being pursued by their enemies and they had to travel all night.” Peter, James, and John appeared to them “in the dawn of the coming day when they were weary and worn.” This would have been the morning of 6 July, 1830, exactly three months after the church’s organization.

In 1844, a man by the name of Addison Everett overheard Joseph and Oliver describing the visit of Peter, James, and John following a trial in Colesville, which adds some corroborating, though circumstantial evidence supporting this date. Quinn notes that Richard Bushman confirms this July 1830 date. Bushman supports this July 1830 date in his biography from 1984 about Joseph Smith.

Support for June 1831 date

Page 31,

Smith’s 1838-39 history, published in 1842, retroactively introduced the Melchizedek priesthood concept and obscured the date when he and Oliver were first ordained. However, this history at the same time confirmed that Smith ordained elders without the higher priesthood. “We now became anxious to have that promise realized to us, which the angel that conferred upon us the Aaronic Priesthood had given us, viz., that provided we continued faithful, we should also have the Melchizedek Priesthood,” his official history began for June 1829.

“To our unspeakable satisfaction,” Smith’s history continued, “did we realize the truth of our Savior’s promise.” The official history did not refer next to an appearance of Peter, James, and John, as modern Mormons would expect. Rather his history said that God simply commanded Smith to begin ordaining men to the office of elder.”

…

Years later Smith’s history for the June 1831 conference lapsed into the earlier view of the elder’s office as part of the lesser [or Aaronic] priesthood. According to Smith, “the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood was manifested and conferred for the first time upon several elders.” This required Assistant Church Historian B.H. Roberts to write a footnote denying the text: “The Prophet does not mean that the Melchizedek Priesthood was given for the first time in the Church” in June 1831. Of course this is precisely what Smith and others in attendance said happened.

Reconciling this information

Quinn does a great job of explaining that it was much easier for members in the 1830’s to understand these changes than for us modern Mormons. As we see in the Doctrine and Covenants, Joseph was continually receiving revelations to explain things to him, as well as us. I really believe that Joseph didn’t fully comprehend all the revelations he received. Since that time, the church has been able to systematize beliefs.

I can remember as a deacon, teacher, and priest, being told the duties were to “watch over the church.” As a teenager, I remember thinking that it was a strange responsibility for someone so young as I was to be given such a charge. Of course, current deacons, teacher, and priests do little more than prepare the sacrament. But in understanding that adult members such as Martin Harris, and Hyrum Smith were “merely” teachers, deacons, and priests, it makes much more sense that they were supposed to watch over the church.

So, which date do you support?

With little fanfare over the weekend, President Uchdorf announced the call of only the second black general authority, Joseph Sitate of Nairobi, Kenya.  He was called to the First Quorum of 70, as well as Yoon Hwan Choi of Seoul, Korea.

So, I decided to see what other races/nationalities we had in the Quorums of 70.  In 1976, Spencer W Kimball reinstituted the 1st Quorum of 70.  In 1989, the Quorum was split, and now there are currently 8 quorums of 70.  The First and Second Quorum are considered General Authorities, while quorums 3 through 8 are not, but are considered Area Authorities, and serve in geographical areas throughout the world.

So, since the 1976 reorganization, there have been approximately 201 men called to either the First or Second Quorum.  I decided to do a quick search to figure out who the African, Asian, and Hispanic members were, in a sort of Affirmative Action test.  I was not at all scientific.  I pretty much looked at the name, and tried to determine ethnicity, so my numbers very well could be wrong.  But, in the interest of a quick research, I came up with the following statistics.

• 1 Native American (George P Lee, excommunicated in 1989)
• 2 Africans, Joseph Sitate, and Helvicio Martins (though he was actually from Brazil.)
• 8 Asians (Augusto A. Lim, Han In Sang, Sam K. Shimabukuro, Tai Kwok Yuen, Won Yong Ko, Adney Y. Komatsu, Yoshihiko Kikuchi, Yoon Hwan Choi)
• 33 Hispanics

This would seemingly reflect the church’s strong growth in South and Central America.  I didn’t bother to check European members of the 70 (like Uchtdorf), but that would be interesting to see as well.  So, what do you think of the church’s Affirmative Action?  Were you surprised at all?  Is it better or worse than you expected?

After Joseph Smith was killed, there was a real question about who would lead the church.  Joseph Smith left no succession plans.  Between his public and private announcements, at least 8 people claimed to have been appointed as Smith’s successor.  There is a great article at BYU studies, outlining many of these and other people who made claims to lead the church.

These people include not only Sidney Rigdon, but David Whitmer, James Strang, Lyman Wight, Alpheus Cutler, Oliver Cowdery, William McClellin, Hyrum Smith, William Smith, Brigham Young, Joseph Smith III.  There is also an interesting post at By Common Consent with some other links and information.  The succession crisis could be its own topic, so I don’t want to get too sidetracked.

As Assistant President of the Church, and also known as “Spokesman for the Church”, Sidney told Jedidiah Grant ‘that he felt prepared to claim “the Prophetic mantle” and that he would “now take his place at the head of the church, in spite of men or devils, at the risk of his life.’  Rigdon seems to have underestimated Brigham Young, who had succession ideas as well.  From page 338, “Rigdon was without question Young’s oratorical superior, but Young, never a passive observer, was more clever, ambitious, and politically astute.  Not content to let the mantle of leadership pass him by, he simply wrestled it away from Rigdon in mid-descent.”

On August 8, 1844, the saints met for what was supposed to be merely a prayer meeting.  From page 339,

Hyde reported that Rigdon was just “about to ask for an expression of the people by vote; when lo! to his grief and mortification, [Brigham Young] stepped upon the stand… and with a word stayed all the proceedings of Mr. Rigdon.  Young, who later recalled the event in 1860, stated:  “[W]hen I went to meet Sidney  Rigdon on the ground I went alone, and was ready along to face and drive the dogs from the flock.”

Jacob Hamblin’s diary for 8 August indicates that Young’s stunning display of brinksmanship caused the audience to turn in their seats and face his commanding presence on the stand.  “I will manage this voting for Elder Rigdon,” he bellowed.  “He does not preside here.  This child (meaning himself) will manage this flock of a season.”  He then wisely dismissed the meeting, allowing Rigdon’s rhetoric to dissipate, and announced a special assembly for 2:00 pm.

…

The afternoon meeting was organized in the manner of a solemn assembly with various priesthood leaders appropriately ordering their quorums.  After prayer, Young stood before the people.  It was a momentous occasion.  For the first and only time in Mormon history, church leadership was about to be determined by the will of the people.  Brother Brigham, who possessed a mean-weather-eye for prevailing winds from the masses, catered to the majority who had grown accustomed to being told what to do.  While Rigdon, during the wild rhetoric of the previous week, had predicted a shift in Mormondom’s leadership, Young perceived that the Saints “like children without a father, and sheep without a shepherd,” mostly wanted comfort.

…

Fully confident, tossing off platitudes and pronouncements, Young’s afternoon address on 8 August was a remarkable assertion of the Twelve’s right to govern as well as his personal claim to be shepherd of the flock.  “For the first time since [I] became a member of the church,” Young began, “the Twelve Apostles of the Lamb, chosen by revelation, in this last dispensation of the gospel for the winding up scene, present themselves before the saints, to stand in their lot according to appointment.”  After explaining “matters so satisfactorily that every saint could see that Elijah’s mantle had truly fallen on the ‘Twelve,’”, wrote a reporter in the 2 September 1844 Times and Seasons.  Young, ever the masterful strategist, then asked, “I now want to ask each of you to tell me if you want to choose a guardian, a Prophet, evangelist, or sumthing els[e] as your head to lead you.  All that are in favor of it make it manifest by raising the right hand.”  No one did.

He continued his speech.  When he finished, Amasa Lyman endorsed Young’s position.

Rigdon declined to speak when afforded rebuttal opportunities.  Considering Rigdon’s rhetorical provlivities, his decision seems tantamount to conceding defeat.

…

Young then announced that “Rig[don] is … one with us–we want such men as Bro[ther] R[igdon.]  [H]e has been sent away to build up the k[ingdom;] let him keep the instruct[io]n [and] calling[,] let him raise up a k[ingdom] in Pittsburg [and] we will lift up his hand.”

…

[Chapter 24]  Rigdon initially pretended to accept the decree of the special conference.  But his true feelings soon surfaced through his private actions.  For fourteen years he had been the apostles’ ecclesiastical superior.  he had counseled, cajoled, praised, and occasionally chastised them individually and as a group.  Regardless of Joseph Smith’s death, Rigdon was not about to serve in an inferior capacity under Brigham Young, Orson Hyde, Willard Richards, or any other member of the “spiritual wife fraternity,” as he designated the Quorum of the Twelve.

A conflict arose between Rigdon and the Twelve because Rigdon ordained several men “Prophets, Priests and Kings.”  Young reportedly asked Rigdon if Rigdon thought he held more authority than the Twelve.  “Yes I do”, Rigdon replied.  In response Rigdon was disfellowshipped on Sept 3, and the Twelve excommunicated Rigdon on Sept 8 after a 6 hour court which Rigdon refused to attend.

Wickliffe Rigdon, Sidney’s son, wrote a biography about his father.  Wickliffe later joined the church in Utah, and wrote [see footnote 38 on page 362],

“Sidney Rigdon was not a leader of men[,] having no talent in that direction[.]  [H]e could talk[,] could interest an audience with his eloquence[,] but needed one to control and direct him & therefor[e] the Morm[o]n church at Nauvoo after the death of Joseph Smith made no mistake in placing Brigham Young at the head of the church[.]  [H]e was the right man in the right place & Sidney Rigdon had been chosen to take that position the church would have tot[t]ered and fallen to the ground years ago.  Brigham Young was a born leader of men and it was by his efforts that the church was kept together[.]

It seems Wickliffe’s assessment was correct about his father.  Rigdon did set up a congregation in Pittsburgh, but it lasted just a few years.    Some of the people loyal to Rigdon (such as Stephen Post) tried to keep him as their leader.  Rigdon managed their efforts from a distance.  One of Rigdon’s most interesting practices was the ordination of women.

In 1868, Rigdon asserted that Emma Smith had been given the priesthood by Joseph Smith.

“On 30 March 1842, two weeks after organizing the Female Relief Society of Nauvoo, Joseph Smith announced that the “Society should move according to the ancient Priesthood” and that he was “going to make a kingdom of priests as in Enoch’s day–as in Paul’s day.”

Footnote 3 on page 437 has some interesting notes.  The preceeding quote comes from the “Minutes of the Female Relief Society of Nauvoo,” 30 Mar 1842.

When the minutes were published in History of the Church, leaders omitted Smith’s first use of the word “Society” and changed the second “Society” to “Church,” so that the prophet’s meaning was entirely altered.

Rigdon ordained his wife as prophetess in 1863 or 1864.  Other women were advanced to a quorum of prophetesses. From page 428,

A significant difference between the manner in which Rigdon and Joseph Smith bestowed priesthood on women was that at least ten Rigdonite women -[Van Wagoner lists them]-were ordained elders as well as prophetesses.  Smith never ordained women to specific priesthood offices.

It seems to me that Rigdon did this in an effort to boost numbers in his rapidly dwindling flock.  One of the women Rigdon ordained, Evva Force Adams, had attempted to abort a baby.  Not knowing this, Rigdon first defended her ability to prophesy.  When the truth was discovered, many of Rigdon’s followers became disillusioned.

Brigham Young did make a few attempts to reconcile with Rigdon, but all attempts were rebuffed.  In Young’s last attempt, Rigdon wrote back that he would come to Utah only if Brigham sent $100,000 in gold and silver.  Young jokingly wondered if greenbacks would be ok.  Rigdon continued to have health problems, and suffered a series of small strokes in his 70’s.  At the end of his life, Sidney was quite reclusive.  In the appendix is a reference to the Bickertonites on page 473.

Sidney’s Rigdon’s Church of Jesus Christ of the Children of Zion disintegrated within a decade after his death.  And both the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints relegated him to footnote status when their official histories were written.  But the Church of Jesus Christ, a small sect organized in 1862 by William Bickerton, still venerates Rigdon.

Bickerton, an 1845 convert to Sidney Rigdon’s Church of Christ, found himself adrift after Rigdon’s failures in Pittsburgh and the Cumberland Valley.  For a brief period in the early 1850s Bickerton affiliated with a branch of the Utah Mormons at West Elizabeth, Pennsylvania, although he personally declared that “his testimony… is that the blessing he received came thru obedience to the restored Gospel in 1845 with Rigdon’s people.”

After the Utah church publicly announed its long-term practice of polygamy in 1852, Bickerton left that organization.  In 1854 he held a successful conference in West Elizabeth at which several persons were baptized.  By 1858 he had attained a following of nearly 100 persons and had organized them into branches in Wheeling, West Virginia; Pine Run, Allegheny; and Greenock, Pennsylvania.

In an 1859 conference Bickerton was acknowledged as a prophet by his followers.  Two years later he was sustained a “Prophet and President of the Church” with counselors Charles Brown and Beorge Barnes.  During a July 1862 conference at Greenock twelve apostles and a number of evangelists were ordained.  The church was officially organized during this conference although not legally incorporated until 10 June 1865.

The church, which maintains its world headquarters today in Monongahela, Pennsylvania, at last report numbered 10,000 members.  The current First Presidency is Dominic Thomas, Paul Palmieri, and Robert Watson.  The church is organized into seven districts in the U.S., and has missions in Canada, Mexico, Guatemala, Kenya, Nigeria, India, England, Italy, Holland, and Germany.

This book, Sidney Rigdon:  A Portrait of Religious Excess was published in 1994 by Richard Van Wagoner.  I can’t help but think that Rigdon almost seems to be a figure in a Greek tragedy.  He ascended to great heights, and seems to have been abandoned in his later life.  Like all poeple, he definitely had great strengths and weaknesses.  While I know that my 5 part series is quite long, I left our a tremendous amount of detail.

So, what are your thoughts?

Since I had already seen the movie at the LDS Film Festival, I was really looking forward to the special features on the DVD, and I was not disappointed. Connell O’Donovan, an independent genealogist and Mormon Historian outlines 7 early black church members who held the priesthood prior to 1847–one of them was even a Branch President! I’d like to give a brief outline of some of these early black Mormon pioneers.

I also want to correct some errors from a previous post about the Priesthood ban. In the post, William McCary and Black Pete were said to be the same person. This is inaccurate, and I plan to make a revision to that post to correct the erroneous information.

* Black Pete – According to historian Mark Staker, Black Pete was an ex slave living in Kirtland 1830 or 31. Journal accounts say that he was baptizing people in Kirtland during this time period.

* Joseph T Ball – was baptized in the summer of 1832 by either Brigham Young or his brother Joseph Young who served a mission to Boston. Ball later went on mission with Wilford Woodruff, in New England, New Jersey. In 1837, Wilford Woodruff records in his journal that Ball was an Elder. Ball is the son of man of Jamaica who came in 1790 (JT Ball Sr) founded society to help colored widows in need. His mom was white. Joseph born in Cambridge. All of his sisters became feminists and abolitionists. The LDS branch Ball was part of contained mostly women converts. He was named Branch President (similar to a Bishop in a larger LDS congregation) in 1844, and is the first black man to preside over Mormon congregation. He performed baptisms for his ancestors. He received patriarchal blessing from William Smith in Nauvoo. He died of tuberculosis in 1856.

Thanks to Connell who corrected me below, I have some new information. Ball was the Boston Branch president from October 1844 to March 1845 – the largest LDS congregation outside of the Nauvoo area. He was ordained a High Priest by William Smith (the first African American HP) and was sent to Nauvoo by Parley P. Pratt in the spring of 1845 to work on the temple and then receive his endowments. Ball did go and work on the temple, but then he and William Smith apostatized around August 1845 and Ball never was endowed because the temple didn’t open until December 1845.

Elijah Abel

* Elijah Abel – became the third known black convert to the LDS church, being baptized in 1832. He received the priesthood in 1836, and served 3 missions to Ohio, NY, and Canada. He helped build the Kirtland, Nauvoo, and Salt Lake Temples, received his washing and anointing in the Kirtland Temple, but was denied the endowment by Brigham Young in 1853. He left Nauvoo before the endowment was received to serve a mission. Margaret Young speculates that Elijah would have received the endowment if he was in Nauvoo while Smith was alive. His obituary in the Deseret News shows that he held the office of Seventy in the Melchizedek Priesthood.

* Isaac Van Meter – Wilford Woodruff’s journal says Van Meter “used to be a Mormon elder.” He was probably baptized by Ball or Woodruff in Maine around 1837. Apparently, Van Meter left the LDS church.

* Walker Lewis – joined the LDS church in the summer of 1843. He was probably baptized by Parley P Pratt in the fall of 1843. He was ordained and Elder by William Smith, Joseph’s younger brother. Lewis has a very interesting history. He was the son of slaves, and sued for his own freedom. His case is cited as the case which liberated slaves in 1783 in Massachusetts. Winning the court case resulted is his family being able to purchase property. He voted, was educated, and became upper class of black Massachusetts society. In 1820 he became a barber. In 1826 he helped found Massachusetts General Colored Association which was the first civil rights abolitionist group in the world. In 1823, he because a freemason, and master mason. In 1829 he signed the form declaring independence from the mother lodge in London, making his lodge Black Lodge #1.

He was well acquainted with 6 of the 12 apostles who had served missions in Massachusetts, including Wilford Woodruff, Brigham Young, Orson Hyde, Orson Pratt , Parley Pratt, and William Smith. Woodruff wrote in his journal that “He was an example for his more whiter brethren to follow.” Lowell Branch where he lived was saved because of his service. It is known that he traveled to Salt Lake City in Oct 1851.

* Enoch Lovejoy Lewis was his son and ordained an elder as well. Enoch Lewis’ 1846 marriage to a white LDS woman, Mary Matilda Webster in Boston, and their having a mixed-race child in 1847, was a contributing factor to the Priesthood ban. See Connell’s comments below.

* William McCary was ordained an Elder by Apostle Orson Hyde in October 1846.  He was known as the “black prophet.”  William was later excommunicated in 1847 for seducing a number of Mormon, white women into unauthorized polygamy. 

Warner “William” McCary was NOT half-Native American, although he claimed to be Choctaw. His mother was an African American slave and his father was her white master, a carpenter born in Pennsylvania. McCary made up his Native American heritage and traveled around the country putting on shows as an “Indian”, claiming to be the lost son of Moshullah Tubbee, a great Choctaw chief. It was a scam to make money.

The catalyst for the priesthood and temple ban was a culmination of McCary’s marriage in 1846 to the daughter of Nauvoo stake president, Daniel Stanton, and then his sexual “sealings” to several other LDS women at Winter Quarters and other LDS camps in 1847.

Here is a list of other notable exceptions to the Priesthood ban.

* Enoch Abel, Elijah’s son received the priesthood, and is ordained an elder on Nov 27, 1900.

* Elijah Abel, Enoch Abel’s son, received the priesthood, and is ordained a priest in 1934.  In 1935, he is ordained an Elder.

* I understand that Greg Prince’s biography on David O McKay lists some other exceptions to the priesthood ban. Darius Gray says that there have always been black priesthood holders in the church since the founding of the church.

Other notable early black saints include the following people.

* Jane Manning James joined the church in Buffalo, NY in the 1830’s, and then walked the entire distance from there to Nauvoo. She received poor reception by Nauvoo saints (“with much rebuff”), but Joseph Smith was very welcoming and hospitable. He offered to adopt her as a child into the Smith household. She declined because she didn’t understand the implications. Margaret Young speculates that if she had accepted, it is likely that she would have received temple ordinances as part of the Smith family. Brigham Young and other church leaders declined to let her receive temple ordinances, but she was sealed posthumously to Joseph as a servant. Her temple work was completed shortly after the revelation in 1978.

* Green Flake was a slave, and was baptized in 1844 in the Mississippi River by John Brown. (James Madison Flake was owner Green’s owner, and was given Green as a wedding present by James’ father. Green was age 10 at the time.) Brigham Young released Green from slavery in 1854. Green was the person to whom Brigham was speaking when Brigham said his famous quote, “This is the Place”. The actual quote was, “This is the right place. Move on.”

* Slaves Oscar Crosby and Hark Lay were in this wagon party as well.

* Samuel Chambers was born a slave who joined the LDS church in Mississippi. Freed after the Civil War, his wife and family traveled to Utah County in 1870, and he was an active member.

* Lynn Hope – from Magnolia, Alabama. Born in 1890’s. He investigated the LDS church prior to his service in World War 1. During the war, he served in France. He took Book of Mormon to France, read it, and got baptized upon his return. An armed KKK gang threatened him, because they did not want him to join “a white church.” He bore testimony to this KKK gang, and was an active church member.

* Biddy Smith Mason – was a slave born in Georgia. Her master, Robert Smith, converted to the LDS church, and moved to Utah, and then California. Since California was a free state, she sued and was granted her freedom before Smith could transfer her to the slave state of Texas. She went on to become a nurse and midwife in Los Angeles and was able to purchase land. She went on to become a founding member of First African Methodist Episcopal Church, which is Los Angeles’ first and oldest black church.

I find these stories interesting, and feel it is a shame that most Mormons have never heard of these wonderful pioneers. While the church has a bad reputation for the priesthood ban, would it be a good idea to highlight some of these early black pioneers?

Well, for those of you who desire to join in an online Sunday School class, a friend of mine started a website a few years ago called LDS Sunday School.  He was good at updating it a few years ago, but has been having a hard time updating it.  It is a wiki, similar to a Wikipedia, so anybody can edit so long as they register at the site.

As some of you know, I had been grousing last year about how bored I was in Sunday School.  So, I am going to register and start trying to submit helpful information.  This year’s study is the Doctrine and Covenants.  If only I could get internet access at church….

I will also add that there is a Virtual Priesthood/RS lesson at Mormon Matters.  The website also allows for these lessons, so if you want to add to this website or contribute to Mormon Matters, there are some online options as well.

Now it was so interesting to me that I mentioned it to my brother in law.  He immediately called the Wall Street Journal biased, and said it was just tearing down Washington’s legacy, and he did not believe it was credible.  He even compared it to anti-mormon attacks, and called it revisionist history.  I found this stance interesting, because I have been accused of thinking poorly of Brigham Young.

So, I did a little more research.  Did you know that George Washington was the largest whiskey producer in America? Now to be fair, America was much smaller back then, it was before the revolution in 1776, the Word of Wisdom was unknown, and there was no Constitution, Bill of Rights, or any real democracy, so things were much different then, than they are today.  So, I’m willing to cut some slack.

I found it interesting that George Washington owned slaves.  In his will, he directed that his slaves be freed and educated.  Now while I would have preferred Washington did this before he died, I am glad that he had the foresight to free and educate his slaves. There’s an interesting link about Washington and slavery here. He correctly predicted that the slavery issue would tear the nation apart, which happened about 70 years later.

What do you make of this information?  Does it lessen your appreciation for Mr Washington, or make him a more real person?  Is this anti-Washington information that should be suppressed?  Do you think less of him?  For me, I still revere Washington, but I think he probably shouldn’t have offered alcohol for votes, and he should have released his slaves sooner.  (For the record, I revere Brigham Young, but wish he had handled the priesthood ban differently.)