Douglas A. Wallace, a Mormon High Priest and Vancouver, Washington, attorney was one such individual.  In April 1976, Wallace, acting on his own, ordained a black man, Larry Lester, to the Mormon priesthood.  While Wallace conceeded that he was “stepping outside the bounds of the church” in his action, he said that he hoped that it would “force the issue” of black priesthood denial before the Mormon General Conference meeting in Salt Lake City the following week.⁴⁰ At the conference Wallace tried to confront Mormon President Spencer W. Kimball with his complaints.  However, Wallace and his two companions were swiftly ejected from the Tabernacle.⁴¹ A few days later, Wallace was excommunicated from the church for “open and deliberate disobedience of the rules and regulations of the church in violation of the outlines of the church.”⁴² As for the ordination of Larry Lester, it was declared null and void by church officials in Salt Lake City.⁴³ That did not stop Wallace’s actions against the church.   Immediately following his excommunication, Wallace sought a rehearing on his ouster, and in October he tried once more to bring the black issue before Mormon General Conference.  Wallace’s latter action was deferred by a court order prohibiting him from attending Mormon church conferences.  Undaunted, Wallace then filed a counterclaim against the church asking for $200,000 in damages.⁴⁴ In April 1977, Wallace made a third attempt to appear at the Mormon General Conference in order to protest Mormon antiblack practices. Against, attorneys for the church obtained a temporary restraining order.⁴⁵ Wallace promised further protests and legal actions against the Mormon church.⁴⁶

Another militant Mormon dissident who directly confronted the church on the Mormon-black issue was Byron Marchant, a Latter-day Saint Boy Scout leader.  Marchant was the scoutmaster of the Mormon Boy Scout troop that was the focal point of the 1974 NAACP controversy over the eligibility of blacks for leadership positions in Mormon-sponsored troops.  Even though this issue was settled, Marchant continued to express his opposition to the general practice of Mormon priesthood denial.  Marchant did this by casting a dissenting vote against sustaining Spencer W. Kimball as church president during the Mormon General Conference in October 1977.  A few days later Marchant was excommunicated from the church for his conference behavior and open opposition to Mormon racial practices.⁴⁷ Despite his excommunication, Marchant staged another protest on Temple Square during the Mormon General Conference in April 1978.  Even though Marchant was arrested for trespassing on church property, he filed a civil suit against Spencer W. Kimball and promised to organize and stage a protest march on Temple Square during the next Mormon General Conference in October 1978.⁴⁸

I doubt these protests held a lot of sway with the leaders, but the timing of this last protest is interesting.  On June 8, 1978, the priesthood ban was officially lifted with what is now Official Declaration 2 in the Doctrine and Covenants.

There were practical problems in administering the ban.  Bringhurst notes on page 188,

In Hawaii, it was disclosed in 1932 that a man of African descent had been ordained to the priesthood and had, in fact, “presided for some time over a branch of the church until it was discovered he was a Negro instead of a dark-skinned Hawaiian.”⁶⁴ Four years later, Hawaii was again the scene of a similar problem. Two Mormon priesthood holders were found to be “one-eighth negro.”  This situation was further complicated because the two individuals had performed “some baptisms and other ordinances.”  They were apparently told to stop exercising their priesthood authority.  Apostle George Albert Smith was then sent to Hawaii to determine the number of people involved in the ordinances performed by these black priesthood holders and the action to be taken.⁶⁵ In 1947, the president of the New Zealand mission noted a similar problem where in “an instance or two…men with a trace of Negro blood were ordained to the priesthood.”  He asked church leaders what should be done about these individuals and whether a person with “colored blood in his veins may received the Priesthood.”  The New Zealand mission president was told that no one “known to have Negro blood in his veins…should be ordained to the priesthood.”  Also those Mormons of African descent mistakenly ordained were “instructed not to attempt to use the Prieshood in any other ordinations.”⁶⁶ A year later, another facet of the Mormon-black issue in the South Pacific came up in conjunction with the problem of “deciding who was to be admitted” into the Hawaiian temple from that region’s “melting pot population.”

The church had avoided actively teaching black people.  In 1946, a Nigerian man by the name of O.J. Umordak somehow discovered the church and asked for missionaries.  The church delayed action until 1959 when it sent some missionary tracts and a representative to Nigeria.  In 1963, the church decided to set up a mission there.  However, the Nigerian government learned about race restrictions and denied visas to the missionaries for the next 3 years.  Then civil war broke out in Nigeria, ending the missionary effort.  From page 190,

“Some five thousand [Nigerian people] applied for baptism” into Mormonism according to Apostle Hugh B. Brown.⁷⁴

Church missionary efforts in Brazil were very complicated.  From pages 190-191,

a 1947 Church First Presidency investigation which found “the races…badly mixed” because “no color line is drawn among the mass of people”  It concluded that “a great part of the population of Brazil is colored.”⁷⁶ Later this same year J. Reuben Clark, a member of the Church First Presidency, referred again to the Brazilian situation, noting that “it is very difficult if not impossible to tell who has negro blood and who has not.”  He admitted, “if we are baptizing Brazilians, we are almost cdertainly baptizing people of negro blood, and that if the Priesthood is conferred upon them, which no doubt it is, we are facing a very serious problem.”⁷⁷

…

The Brazilian situation took on added significance during the mid-1970s, when the church unveiled plans to build a new temple in Sao Paulo, Brazil.  The expected completion of the Brazilian Temple in the fall of 1978 brought to head the “major problem” and “often impossible” task of determining which Brazilian “Church members have black ancestry” and which do not.⁷⁹

It was certainly a combination of events that led to the momentous event.  Bringhurst notes that Joseph Freeman, Jr was the first black member to officially receive the priesthood following the 1978 revelation.  Comments?

The church has also tried to reach out to black community leaders.  Following the 1992 LA riots (after the Rodney King verdict), Mauss notes on page 89,

A few leading Mormons in the immediate vicinity and nearby launched a campaign to bring relief to the south-central inner city.  The effort went forward under the auspices and initiative especially of the presidents in the Palos Verdes and the Los Angeles stakes.  While much of the city was still smoldering, a series of Mormon car and truck caravans began delivering food and other supplies to the First AME and Mount Zion churches from Mormon congregations in neighboring stakes.  The campaign went on for several days, including a Sunday when some of the LDS congregations even canceled their usual meetings in order to collect and distribute supplies.

The AME pastor, the Reverend Cecil Murray, had heard little about Mormons except their traditional racial doctrines; but he was apparently so gratified that he gave a public pronouncement encouraging people in the vicinity to talk with the local Mormon missionaries, who had theretofore been largely ignored or even threatened.  This episode established an ongoing religious and social relationship between the First AME Church and the local LDS stakes that was still active at least a decade later, when a Latter-day Saint apostle was invited on behalf of the LDS Church president, this congregation’s Lovejoy Award, in recognition of the outreach efforts by local Mormons during recent years.

Murray and other local black leaders apparently also intervened with Tom Bradley, then the black mayor of Los Angeles, to get his help in ending a six-year delay in the issuance of a building permit for a  Mormon stake center in the area.  The construction of the new stake center, in turn, pumped twelve million dollars worth of jobs and goods into the economy of South Central.  Local Mormon leaders believe that the goodwill of black religious leaders such as Murray has also been responsible for protecting the new stake center against vandalism and for opening doors to Mormon missionaries.  During Black History Month in February 2002, that same stake center served as a site of a large conference on genealogical research for black Americans, sponsored jointly by the LDS Church, the African American Heritage Society, and the California African American Genealogical Society.

Mauss highlights other noteworthy projects.  The church helped assemble electronic records of the Freedman Bank, (from page 93), “a Reconstruction-era institution that had gone defunct in 1874 but had left behind the banking records of thousands of freed slaves.”  This project was well-received by the black community, though there was a testy moment at a news conference.  Mauss notes on page 93,

one of the reporters in attendance asked whether this project and the attendant publicity were offered as part of a church gesture of conciliation to the nation’s black people in light of traditional racist doctrines.  The church public relations official in charge bridled at the question and offered a rather abrupt response.  Fortunately for the Public Affairs Department, a skilled church authority was present from the Seventy and intervened with a much less defensive and more appreciative response to the reporter.⁴⁴

Mauss discusses how the church attempts to handle different different situations regarding race.  From page 103,

the church has tried in various ways to emphasize the positive and beneficial effects of its program in the lives of black people.  Where this objective can be achieved without reminding anyone of earlier priesthood policies (e.g., in various outreach efforts through genealogy or humanitarian efforts in Africa), the church as an institution has sought to be identified as closely as possible with such efforts.  On the other hand, wherever the embarrassing past is likely to be suggested in any celebration or commemoration, the church has generally preferred to see that these events take place under direction less closely connected to the church hierarchy.  Tacit support has nevertheless often been given by sending a church official as an observer or speaker, but not to conduct the event.

The church has often been seen as a white church, and it can be hard for blacks to fit in.  On page 84, Mauss notes,

A major drive during the early 1980s by the Mormon mission in North Carolina brought in some nine hundred black converts, but a few years later only a hundred remained active in the church.¹³ The president of the California mission in Oakland during 1983-1985 gave special proselyting attention to the large black population in that area, and his missionaries succeeded in baptizing nine-three new black members, constituting 5 percent of all the converts in the mission during that period.¹⁴ … This level of growth and enthusiasm did not not long survive the normal change of mission presidents, but several black families went on to gain some prominence in local Mormon congregations.15 … Temporary surges in missionary success with black Americans elsewhere have often been reported anecdotally.

Mauss has interviewed many black church members, and has pulled information from the Oral History Program of the Charles Redd Center for Western Studies at BYU.  While these samples can’t be considered “random samples” where large conclusions can be drawn, Mauss notes several reasons why blacks don’t stay active in the church on page 86, (formatting changed)

• These reasons included (in no particular order) discomfort over class and cultural differences with white Mormons in most congregations;
• feelings of being treated categorically as blacks instead of as individuals;
• exaggerated attention as “novelties” of some kind in their treatment by whites;
• continuing undercurrents of racism in such LDS popular beliefs as the curse of Cain;
• white resistance to intermarriage or even to interracial dating;
• and in general a level of white acceptance that was considered civil but not warm.

At the same time, the black interviewees recognized that these difficulties were the kinds that tended to occur between blacks and whites in America generally, not just in LDS Congregations.

…

One black couple in Riverside, California, reported that their children had dropped out of the church because of teasing by their white peers about their supposed descent from Cain.²³

Some irritants came out of sheer insensitivity, such as the occasion reported by Marva Collins when her ward Relief Society sisters decided to raise funds through a “slave auction,” in which members would perform household tasks for the highest bidders.  The women were totally oblivious to the impact of such an idea on their only black member.²⁴

… [page 87]

While these accounts of life in the church for new black converts contained much that was reassuring and inspirational, the recurring problems with white ignorance and insensitivity were also readily apparent, even among those still active in the church.  Indeed, the president of the Genesis Group was quoted in an interview with the Salt Lake Tribune as saying that the single most important reason for the attrition of black members was the attitude of some white members.²⁵ Whatever the number of those offended enough to drop out, their departure would be understandable and presumably a source of great concern to church leaders from the top down.  So far, however, this official concern has focused less on challenging the racist residue among white Mormons than on maintaining public relations outside the church.

Many blacks are aware of the priesthood ban.  Mauss summarizes some studies done by sociologist about this issue.  From pages 98-99,

How does a black member of the LDS Church negotiate an identity that manages the cognitive dissonance between an ethnic or racial definition that he or she can’t escape and a demeaning religious tradition that he or she was once encouraged to accept in the process of conversion?  As we might expect, this negotiation yields different resolutions for different black Mormons.⁵⁸

…

Fortunately this task was undertaken by two sociologists, O. Kendall White Jr. and Daryl White.⁵⁹ They studied the Embry-Cherry interview transcripts and abstracted five different modes of identity negotiation that emerged in those interviews, as the black Mormon respondents articulated the relationship between their racial and religious identities…  The five different modes seemed to arrange themselves along a conceptual continuum.  At one end of the continuum were respondents who gave precedence to their newly found Mormon identity over their racial one, and at the other end were those who did the opposite.  In between were different combinations of racial and religious explanations for the identities that black Mormons embraced in their relationship to God and to the church.

(formatting changed)

1. The first type of identity resolution embraced the truth-claims of Mormonism while recognizing the traditional racial ideology that seemed to go with it.  The erstwhile denial of the priesthood for blacks was explained as a lack of historic or even moral readiness on the parts of blacks themselves and their supposed ancestors back to Cain or Ham rather than as any error in the church.  This mode was especially common among black Mormons who had joined the church in earlier years, while the priesthood restriction was still in force.
2. The second type of identity resolution also gave precedence to the Mormon religious identity, while explaining the traditional racial ideas and policies as simply a great quandary, one which all would understand some time in the hereafter but that should not be allowed in the meanwhile to keep anyone from the true faith.
3. The third mode called for relegating all racial issues in the church to the past.  Whether the traditional teachings had a divine or human origin was no longer relevant, and nothing was to be gained by hashing it over.  The main thing these black Mormons wanted to do was to assert their own new identities as members of the true church and look to the future rather than to the past.  Black Mormons assuming this posture, such as the oral history interviewee Marva Collins, were, in effect, validating the public comments of church leaders, especially President Hinckley, about the need to forget the past.⁶⁰

The fourth and fifth modes, while still embracing a Mormon identity, put the responsibility for the traditional racist teachings entirely on the whites.

4.  In the fourth mode, the explanation was that the church had simply allowed human error to influence church policy, because of political compromises (in Missouri or Utah) or because of the need to mollify a few slave-owning converts. Black Mormons taking this position, even if they had joined the church before the priesthood policy change, always looked upon the racist elements in Mormonism as imported from the outside, never part of the true gospel, and certain to be changed eventually.  Interestingly enough, this was the posture taken, in the Embry-Cherry oral histories, by some of the most prominient black Mormons from the pre-1978 period.  These included Ruffin Bridgeforth, founding leader of the Salt Lake City Genesis Group; Catherine M. Stokes, of Chicago; and Cleeretta Smiley, of Washington, D.C.  Smiley candidly characterized the traditional Mormon racial teachings as “damnable heresies.”⁶¹

5.  Finally, the fifth mode reversed the moral positions of whites and blacks with the argument that blacks had been denied the priesthood all those years because God knew that whites were not morally and spiritually ready to accept black members into full fellowship.  This position carried the implication that the blacks had demonstrated superior moral strength through their patience and forgiveness.⁶² In transferring the burden of responsibility for racist teachings and policies to whites, the fourth and fifth modes maintained a positive identity for blacks while still embracing completely the Mormon religion and identity.

There was  very interesting story about a proposal for the church to make a public repudiation of the priesthood ban, and for the church to send a message about folklore associated with the ban.  From pages 90-92,

The news report about the impending repudiation first appears in a Los Angeles Times article on May 18, 1998, and was carried around the world in vaious media.³⁵ However, when confronted by the press at a news conference, President Gordon B. Hinckley denied the report, saying that “the matter…has not been discussed by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.”  True though that denial apparently was, the repudiation in question definitely was under discussion at lower organizational levels; and thereby hangs a tale.³⁶

As recounted by Richard and Joan Ostling, the need for such a public repudiation had become apparent to Elder Marlin K. Jensen, a president of the third-ranked body of general authorities, the First Quorum of Seventy, and to some of the staff working under him in the church’s Public Affairs Department.³⁷ The discussions at Jensen’s level, however, had apparently not yet produced any specific proposal for consideration by the Twelve at the time of Hinckley’s comments to the press.  The main issue in question was the racist [page 99] residue remaining in authoritative books written by prominent Mormons leaders of the past.  These books (listed above earlier), some of them considered doctrinal “classics” among grassroots Mormons, had continued in print under church auspices long after the end of the priesthood restriction that had been “solved” in 1978, simply by the change in priesthood policy.

…

The twentieth anniversary of the end of the priesthood restriction seemed an especially propitious time to expect an announcement of such a disavowal.  However, when June 1998 approached with no indication that such a statement would be forthcoming, the black member of the ad hoc committee, who had initiated the process in the first place, became impatient.  In the apparent belief that the process could be accelerated with a little encouragement from the press, he sought and received an interview with a reporter from the Los Angeles Times and explained what had transpired.  The resulting press exposure had just the opposite of the desired effect, as church leaders refused to be prodded in their deliberations.  The whole process was thereby aborted, and the “disavowal” that Hinckley finally issued turned out to be nothing more than a denial that he was considering any such disavowal.³⁹ The rest of the ad hoc committee was chagrined and irritated that one of its own members had leaked the story to the media, and Jensen presumably suffered some embarrassment at the raised eyebrows of some of his superiors.

Mauss finishes a few loose ends of that story, and then ends the chapter with a discussion on how to deal with this idea that the priesthood ban is based on “folklore”.  He discusses why it is so hard to get rid of.  From page 106,

To repudiate any of the cherished religious lore of their immediate ancestors seems to some Mormons, especially the older ones, almost like a repudiation of the grandparents themselves, to say nothing of their teachers, who might have walked with God.

He goes on to discuss the 1978 revelation on page 107,

Thus, when the priesthood restriction policy was dropped in 1978, this change was not portrayed as an actual reversal, since several earlier church leaders had predicted it would happen.  (Of course, several others, including Brigham Young predicted it would never happen.)  Even with the earlier abolition of polygamy, the practice was only “suspended” and could be restored at any time, since the theological basis was left intact.  This myth of continuity has the important function of validating the traditional claim of continuous revelation (which is canonical) and protecting the church against the charge of purely pragmatic and expedient change.

The second cherished organizational myth is related to the first: the myth of history as time-filtered–the organizational equivalent of the old adage that “time heals all wounds”–and similarly dubious ideas.  This myth is typically accompanied by an organizational posture of benign and selective forgetfulness.  Thus, if the church progresses in a continuous, linear path by divine guidance, then contemporary realities and understandings replace those from the past, which will eventually be forgotten.  Obsolete ideas and practices simply don’t count any more, even if they originated as divine revelations.  Where discrepancies appear between the present and the past, there is no point in reminding ourselves about the past.  Especially if an event in the past is embarrassing, then recalling it and dwelling on it, even if only to repudiate it, merely confuses the matter.  Such negative thinking has no place in the Lord’s kingdom.  If harm has resulted from earlier ways of thinking, then everyone involved should forgive everyone else and get on with construction a better future.  Apologies or ringing declarations of disavowal should not be necessary, since few peoples or individuals have histories free of offenses against others, and thus few are in a position to demand apologies.  With time, memories of these offenses will fade automatically, and we will all be better for it.  Meanwhile, if we have not made the requisite changes, let’s not stir up useless and uncomfortable old memories.

Mauss continues on this track, but I’ll stop here.  I thought it might be interesting to conclude with a poll about the ban itself, and I will pull the 5 responses from black members about the ban.  What do you make of the ban?  What do you make of the folklore? What do you think of Elder Jensen?

I don’t believe that LDS scripture allows for a restriction against blacks’ holding the priesthood.  Nor do I think that LDS theology can reasonably maintain that today’s blacks are descendants of Cain or that ancient intermarriage with Canaanites perpetuated any racial curse.  Too many scriptures collide with those ideas for them to be valid.

I found this perspective intriguing and  had to learn more.

LDS people have often believed that marriage to Canaanites (who were believed to be black) excluded one from the priesthood.  Yet Allred notes that intermarriage between blacks and white occurred routinely over centuries.  He notes intermarriage occurred in diverse cultures including Egypt, Portugal and the Greco-Roman world.  He notes a problem with LDS interpretations of scriptures.  From page 40,

Secondly, even though the terms Canaanite and Negro have been used interchangeably in the LDS Church, Canaanites weren’t black and they certainly weren’t African.  Biblically, Canaanites descended from Canaan, the fourth son of Ham.  African blacks are generally believed to be descendants of Cush, the first son of Ham.  This is important because the Canaanites were those who have been referred to as the “cursed” lineage while practically nothing is said about Ham’s other children.  It was Canaan who was cursed by Noah–not specifically Ham and not Ham’s other children.  According to Genesis, Noah cursed Canaan after Ham saw his father naked and drunk and ridiculed his father to his other brothers (Gen. 9:21-25).  Before this time, Ham had been righteous: “And Noah and his sons hearkened unto the Lord, and gave heed and they were called the sons of God.”  (Moses 8:13).  This scripture appears in the Pearl of Great Price, which also contains this statement:  ”And thus Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord; for Noah was a just man, and perfect in his generation; and he walked with God, as did also his three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth (Moses 8:27; italics mine).

These verses are particularly important because Mormon folklore contains the common belief that Ham wrongly married a descendant of Cain, bringing a curse upon himself and his descendants.  If such a commandment forbidding marriage into Cain’s lineage existed, how could Ham have contracted such a marriage and still have been considered righteous enough to get passage on the ark?   The answer has always been that Cain’s genes needed to be preserved; but this argument does not address the fact that Ham was righteous and “walked with God” after his marriage–a circumstance that, according to tradition, was impossible.

Although Canaan was not born until after the flood, there is a land of Canaan referred to in Moses 7:7 before the flood.  There is also a land of Cainan.  It is likely that both are variant spellings of the same word and refer to the same land.  This is because the Book of Moses was dictated by Joseph Smith and the two terms are homophones.  The decision to spell the antediluvian land “Canain” was entirely editorial.  Enoch came from the land of Cainan and called it “a land of righteousness unto this day” (Moses 6:42).  In Moses 7:4-8, Enoch sees a vision of the world “for the space of many generations.”  He describes how the people of Canaan (Cainan?) destroy the people of Shum.  After this, we are told the land is cursed with heat and that a blackness comes upon all the children of Canaan–it was not inherited from Cain.¹⁵

Allred continues further with this reasoning, and notes that on page 42,

Why curse Canaan for his father’s actions?….LDS theology affirms that children who repent are not punished for their ancestor’s faults.

He then quotes the 2nd article of faith, and notes some contradictions.  There are some spurious sources that claimed that Joseph Smith said that Cain could not hold the priesthood because he killed Abel.  However, if murder is the disqualifier, then all murderers should be disqualified.

If priesthood was withheld from Africans because their ancestor [Cain] was a murderer, why were King David’s descendants allowed the priesthood, for he too was a murderer?  Why are not white sons of murderers kept from the priesthood?

The Book of Abraham states that a descendant of Canaan discovered the land of Egypt and that all the Egyptians are descended from Canaan:

Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of Canaanites by birth.

From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land.  (Abraham 1:21-22)

The problem that is immediately apparent is the fact that Abraham and Joseph each married an Egyptian woman.  One response offered to counter that damaging evidence has been that the Egyptians at the time of these marriages were Semitic Hyksos who had conquered Egypt and so were not really Canaanites.  This explanation contradicts Abraham 1:21-22.  It also contradicts history.  The Hyksos held power in Egypt for a maximum of only one hundred fifty years.  If they were Egyptians during Abraham’s lifetime, it is not possible for them to still have been in power in Joseph’s day.¹⁸

On page 43, Allred notes that Hugh Nibley said that Asenath

“was the daughter of the high priest of Heliopolis and hence of the pure line of Ham; she was also the wife of Joseph and the mother of our own vaunted ancestor Ephraim.”²⁰ Ephraim, son of a Canaanite mother, acquired the birthright by blessing from his grandfather Jacob.  According to LDS theology, the impact of this blessing cannot be underestimated.  The birthright was the right to preside in the priesthood, as will be explained later.

Allred continues to note other discrepancies about Canaanites in the Bible, and notes that Canaanites sometimes married Israelites–the Canaanite harlot Rahab was saved in Jericho, and is an ancestor of Jesus.  (Matt 1:5)  Allred notes that Edomites (Canaanites) were allowed in the the congregation of Israel (Deut. 23:7-8)  Moses also married an Ethiopian woman.  From the Bible, Allred concludes on page 45,

Little doubt remains that intermarriage between Canaanites and Israelites destroyed any chance for a pure, non-Canaanite race among the chosen seed.  One third of the house of Judah is Canaanite with an unknown portion among the other tribes.  What then can we make of the curse pronounced by Noah and of Abraham’s comments about Pharaoh’s lineage could not have the ‘right of the priesthood’? (Abr. 1:27).  It may be that Mormons have simply misunderstood those passages of scripture.

Regarding Abraham 1:27, Allred says it was Abraham that had the right to preside over the priesthood, rather than Pharaoh.  He notes that Joseph and his son Ephraim had the right to preside even though they weren’t of the Tribe of Levi.  From page 45,

even though the priesthood did not remain exclusively with Ephraim, the right to preside did.  Moses presided over Israel even though he was of the tribe of Levi.  Joseph Smith, however, claimed to be the “lawful heir” because he was of the tribe of Ephraim (D&C 86:8-11).  Since this authority was passed from father to only one son, when Noah gave it to Shem, Ham could not be the heir.  Ham and Japheth, together with their descendants, did not have the right to administer the priesthood because it was given to Shem.  Esau lost the right to Jacob.  Reuben lost the right to Joseph.  Manasseh lost that right when Jacob conferred it to Ephraim.  Each man who lost the birthright did not lose the right to be ordained to the priesthood; [page 46] rather, he lost the right to preside as the presiding high priest in a patriarchal order.  The scripture does not saw that Pharaoh could not hold the priesthood; it says that he could not have the “right to the priesthood” (Abr. 1:27)  This right had been given to Shem, who in turn gave it to his successor in the patriarchal office.

Years after the right of the priesthood had been passed to Abraham, the Pharaohs were feigning claim to it from Noah.  They did not merely claim priesthood; they claimed the right to preside over the priesthood.  Pharaoh, the son of Egyptus, established a patriarchal government in Egpyt; but he was of the lineage by which he could not have the “right of the priesthood” or “the right of the firstborn,” whic belonged to Shem and his posterity.  In response to Pharaoh’s claims, Abraham states, “But the records of the fathers, even the patriarchs, concerning the right of the priesthood, the Lord my God preserved in mine own hands: (Abr. 1:31; italics mine).  In other words, Abraham retained the right to preside over the priesthood.

So what do you think of Allred’s arguments?  Is there any scriptural basis in support of the priesthood ban?

Equating early Mormon female healing with evidence of female priesthood is folly. Kris’ and my paper on female ritual healing is finally coming out in January (JMH). We treat most of your questions and clean up the historiography a bit.

In the interim here is our paper on the development of Mormon healing to 1847, including the role of women.

Well, I didn’t actually equate healing with female priesthood, but there is an interesting connection.  I am finally getting around to reviewing Jonathan and Kristine Wright’s (abbrev SW) paper which was published in the Journal of Mormon History in the summer of 2009.  The article dealt with healings of men and women, but I would like to focus just on the female healings, and see what the “folly” is all about.  SW discusses many instances where Mormon women blessed the sick with the laying on of hands.  From page 59,

The idea that all believers could have access to healing power is illustrated by an area of practice often misunderstood by modern observers-ritual healing by women.⁵⁴ Though female healing was not formalized until the later Kirtland period, forms of the practice were exhibited earlier. Despite Smith’s early revelation that the elders be called to lay hands on the sick, when Joseph smith Sr. First gave patriarchal blessings publicly in 1835, he sometimes bestowed the ‘gift of healing’ or the ‘power to heal’ on women.⁵⁵ One of the extraordinary accounts of healing during this period in Kirtland during this period in Kirtland was later recorded by Sarah Studevant Leavitt, decades after the fact. While her daughter lay critically ill, Sarah prayed fervently. In response, an angel appeared and instructed her ‘to call Louisa up and lay my hands upon her in the name of Jesus Christ and administer to her and she should recover.’⁵⁶ This ritual formulation is precisely that contemporarily described by William McLellin and Orson Pratt.

What’s interesting to me is that healings performed by women was not rare, and I don’t understand why is has vanished from the church.  There is an interesting discussion when Stapley and Wright discuss healing in connection with the early Kirtland Temple worship.  As you may or may not remember, the Kirtland Temple did not practice the later Nauvoo (and LDS) Endowment, though there was something called an endowment, along with ritual washings and anointings that John Hamer and Barbara Walden discussed in my post Kirtland Temple History and Worship.  Stapley/Wright refer to this as a “proto-endowment” on pages 63-65:

As with the proto-endowment of June 1831, the administrationof the temple “endowment of power” of 1836 appears to have elevated Mormon energy and focus on ritual healing.  After the temple dedication in March, women participated in “blessing meetings,” where Church members gathered for communal outpourings of the Spirit and blessed each other in the name of the Lord.⁷² Joseph Smith Sr. continued to publicly bestow on women “power” to heal their family members, with the blessings becoming more and more explicit.⁷³ In 1837 he specifically authorized one sister to “lay thy hands on thy children” when the elders were unavailable.⁷⁴ In these early years, there is no question that Church leaders viewed with primacy the ritual administration of the elders of the Church, but female participation in ritual healing also became normative during this time.⁷⁵

After the Smith family fled from Kirtland in 1838 for its brief stay in FarWest, Missouri, the Relief Society women in Utah later remembered that Lucy Mack Smith participated in the healing of one Mormon girl: “[She] was taken very ill, and her life despaired of, in fact it seemed impossible for her to get better. The mother of the Prophet, Mrs. Lucy Smith, came and blessed the child, and said she should live. This was something new in that age, for a woman to administer to the sick.”⁷⁶ That same year while on a mission in Maine, Phoebe Woodruff administered to her apostle husband, Wilford, when he fell ill.⁷⁷ The apostolic missions appear to have spread the practice of female ritual healing as British women were also anointing the sick by 1838.⁷⁸

While anointing became more and more common after the Kirtland Temple rituals, there still remained a diversity among Mormon healing rituals. Individuals continued to lay their hands on the sick without anointing.⁷⁹ Baptism and confirmation remained a frequent source of physical healing for converts and instances of simply commanding the sick to rise still occurred. There was also additional innovation in healing praxis. Perhaps, in a mixture of folk medical healing and Church ritual, the sick drank consecrated oil.⁸⁰ Following the biblical precedent of the Apostle Paul (Acts 19:12), members of the Quorum of the Twelve sometimes touched or sent handkerchiefs to people in order to heal them.⁸¹ Joseph Smith Sr. issued the first extant instruction on such healing as part of Lorenzo Snow’s December1836 patriarchal blessing, where he declared that Lorenzo would have faith “like that of Peter thy shadow shall restore the sick—the diseased shall send to thee their handkerchiefs and aprons and by thy touch their owners shall be healed.”⁸² Such activities were quite rare compared to other means of healing; however they illustrate the degree to which the early Mormons sought to embody the power of the biblical apostles and modeled their healing practices on New Testament precedents.

In the development of their various healing practices, the most important concept to these Mormons was the idea that people had access to the power of God and the implicit authority to wield it. They do not appear to have been concerned with the theological constructions of grace, magic, and sacrament in relation to their healing activities.

Ok, so this last point is really interesting to me.  It seems to me that SW and Michael Quinn agree on “the idea that people had access to the power of God and the implicit authority to wield it.”  There does seem to be a bit of a semantic argument.  Stapley says it is “folly” to compare female healings to priesthood, but apparently Quinn disagrees.  I posted this quote from Quinn when I discussed Women and the Melchizedek Priesthood, and I would like to quote it again (formatting changed.)

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?

I would be interested to hear SW address Quinn’s point here, because on page 75 SW says,

just one week after receiving temple rituals with his wife, Mary Fielding, in 1843, Patriarch Hyrum Smith blessed one woman that she would “be endowed with power.”113  Joseph Smith intended all the Saints, both men and women, to be endowed with power, including the power to heal.

Stapley/Wright discuss healings that didn’t work, as well as healing of animals.  From page 67,

In early Mormonism, ineffectual healing rituals produced great tension. The remarkable healings of infants and even animals formed a puzzling contrast with individuals of great faith who remained afflicted. Wilford Woodruff remembered laboring as a missionary with David Patten, who when their mule fell incapacitated, laid his hands on and blessed it. The mule arose. At first Woodruff felt that such a blessing was sacrilegious but grew to see it as a gift from God.⁸⁸ Ritual healings of animals were not regular events, sporadically occurring on the trek west and into the Utah period;⁸⁹ however, they highlighted the power of the administrant over nature and the devil. Conversely,when Joseph Smith preached to the Twelve preparatory to the 1836 Kirtland endowment and informed them that they would be endowed with power to heal all manner of disease, he also cautioned them, “Let me tell you that you will not have power after the endowmentto heal those who have not faith, nor to benifit them.”⁹⁰ Smith placed the burden of faith on all parties participating in ritual healings.⁹¹

SW further discusses healings in relation to the Relief Society.  From page 73,

The founding of the Relief Society, coupled with anticipation ofthe Nauvoo endowment, ushered in a further amplification of ritual healing.  Women sometimes administered to the sick in more formal settings in conjunction with their regular meetings. Minutes of the Female Relief Society of Nauvoo reveal how women felt empowered by greater access to healing rituals.  On April 19, 1842, “Mrs.Durfee bore testimony to the great blessing she received when administered to after the close of the last meeting by Prest. E[mma]. Smith & Councillors Cleveland and Whitney. She said she never realized more benefit thro’ any administration, that she was healed, and thought the sisters had more faith than the brethren.”¹⁰⁷
Female ritual healing apparently caused some controversy; however, Joseph Smith rebuked the detractors on April 28, 1842, “according to revelation,” which he newly preached that day. In the context of Paul’s teachings to the Corinthians on spiritual gifts, he reiterated Christ’s teaching that the signs¹⁰⁸ that follow true believers, “whether male or female,” included the healing of the sick. He stated that it was proper for women to administer to the sick by the laying on of hands and further asserted that, when the temple was complete, the “keys of the kingdom” would be given to them “as well as to the Elders.” ¹⁰⁹

Official sanction to female healings is discussed on page 78:

With Smith’s revelation on female ritual healing, Mormon women engaged in Nauvoo’s healing activities. Church leaders specifically set apart women to administer to the sick¹³⁰ and spoke favorably of women healing in general conference.¹³¹ Emmeline Wells remembered Relief Society women meeting sick immigrants and ministering to them with healing rituals.¹³² Church authorities facilitated healing rituals performed by women;¹³³ and after the martyrdom, Patriarch John Smith continued the practice of blessing women to heal the sick.¹³⁴ Highlighting this focused ritual energy, Bathsheba Smith wrote to her missionary husband in 1842 about their sick infant: “I took him to the fount and had him baptised and sinse then he has not had any feavor.  He is about well now. Looks a little pail. I anointed himwith oil a good many times.”¹³⁵

Furthermore, on pages 81-82:

Female participation in healing and blessing during this time was normative.¹⁴⁶ With the accessibility of the endowment of power, women administered to each other with greater frequency. Over 10 percent of the inhabitants at Winter Quarters were sick in December1846.¹⁴⁷ Louisa Barnes Pratt wrote of her experience during this time, “The shaking ague fastened deathless fangs upon me, fromwhich there was no escape. . . . The sisters were moved with sympathy.  They assembled at my tent, prayed, annointed [sic] me with oil, andlaid their hands upon me.”¹⁴⁸ The following spring, several sisters administered to a child in a manner that highlights continued Mormon willingness to combine healing rituals with frontier medicine. In Utah, a writer for the Woman’s Exponent, probably editor Emmeline B.Wells, remembered the healing of a sick child: “The little one had not seen or spoken for two days, its eyeballs were dried over, the sisters were called in to administer, Sister Elizabeth Ann Whitney, Sister Vilate, Sister Laura Pitkin and Presendia Kimball and one or two others.  They administered, anointing the child with oil, and bathing its eyes with milk and water, and it was restored to life and health miraculously, but the sisters gave God the glory.”¹⁴⁹

Fathers and mothers participated jointly in healings as cited on pages 83-84:

An ethos of unity,¹⁵⁰ which informed these activities, served to subvert the prevalent notion of “separate spheres”within the realm of healing administrations and contributed to a social order of non-hierarchical blessings and healings.¹⁵¹ George A. Smith reflected on the power of this union, when preaching at the temple: “We are now different from what we were before we entered into this quorum. . . . When a man and his wife are united in feeling, and act in union, I believe they can hold their children by prayer and faith and will not be obliged to give them up to death until they are fourscore years old.”¹⁵² Illustrative of this faith union, men and women administered to the sick together.¹⁵³ For example, on March 17, 1847, Patty Sessions noted, “[Mary Pierce] was buried. I went to the funeral.  Brigham preached. I then visited the sick.Mr. Sessions and Iwent and laid hands on the widow Holmons ^step^ daughter. she was healed.”¹⁵⁴

Healing ritual performance during the migration to the Great Basin guided Latter-day Saint practice for the remainder of the century.  While anointing the sick was the most common form of ritual healing, men continued to wash and anoint the sick during the Utahperiod.¹⁵⁵ Similarly, baptism for health was the most commonly performed temple ritual for the living for many years.¹⁵⁶ Men andwomen also continued to administer to the sick collaboratively. For example, Andrew and Elizabeth Ferguson in Scotland sought to unitedly heal their three-year-old son. Ferguson recorded: “Satterday little William is very ill.  had to wait upon him all night . . . I anointed himwith consecrated oil, & his mother & I laid hands upon him & Praid over him.”^157<.sup>

Women also remained potent healers. Louisa Barnes Pratt, whowas anointed by women at Winter Quarters during her illness, later served as a missionary wife in the Pacific Islands and contributed to the spread of female administration throughout the world.  Her husband, Addison, recorded many ritual healings and baptized the native sick for their health,¹⁵⁸ while Louisa carried out a similar ministry among the women and children:

The natives . . . have great faith in the ordinances of the Gospel such as baptism and the laying of hands of recovering the sick to health. I brought with me a bottle of consecreated [sic] oil which was blessed by brother Brigham Young and other of the authorities, previous to my leaving Salt Lake. The females had great faith in the oil, when I told them from whence I had brought it, and by whom it had been blessed. They would frequently bring their young children to mewhen they were sick to have me annoint [sic] them, give them oil inwardly, and lay my hands upon them in the name of the Lord.¹⁵⁹

I think Stapley and Wright have laid out the fact that women have participated in ritual healing episodes dating to the earliest days in the church.  I don’t understand why this practice has changed.  Why do you think it is no longer acceptable for women to lay hands on the sick?

The curse of Ham has been invoked as a reason why blacks were somehow unworthy to hold the priesthood.  Genesis 9:20-27 discusses a really odd incident between Noah and his son Ham.  In a nutshell, apparently Noah is drunk and naked in his tent.

And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his brethren without.  And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father;  and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness.

And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.  And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.  And he said, Blessed be the Lord god of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.”

I don’t know about you, but I really find this passage vague.  What exactly did Ham do to Noah?  I don’t know, but it is apparent that Noah is upset.  Noah is the drunk guy here, and that seems to me to be the real source of wrong in the story–not some vague thing that Ham happened to see his dad naked–unless there is more to the story–apparently there is more to the story.  Martins discusses an apocryphal tale on pages 12-13.

One of the traditions based on version of the above account found in apocryphal Judeo-Christian texts⁷[footnote reads, "For details on these traditions and how popular they were among Protestant clergy in the early 1800s, see Goldenberg, The Curse of Ham, and Stephen R. Haynes, Noah's Curse] states that Noah possessed a special item of clothing that had been handed down by his ancestors since Adam.  Some argue that this clothing had been given by God to Adam in the Garden of Eden, and that it still carried “the smell of paradise.”  Some traditions also state that this garment conferred upon whoever wore it supernatural powers (priesthood).

The texts claim that Canaan (or Ham in some sources) stole Noah’s garment and claimed to have Noah’s power.  When Noah came to himself and learned what had happened, he punished either Ham or Canaan for the attempted priestly coup d’etat with a “curse” by which they would have no claim on the priesthood but would be subjected to (be a “servant”) the leadership of Shem and Japheth.

The story is largely unknown to the general public, but knowledge of it seems to have been reasonably widespread among the clergy.  Because centuries-old traditions claim that Black Africans are the descendants of Ham and Canaan, for centuries this apocryphal story was used among traditional Christian denominations as an endorsement of slavery.  What the early Latter-day Saint leaders did was to make public a piece of information that until then had been disseminated only in the most restricted ecclesiastical circles.

I was hoping that he’d go into more detail, but instead he starts talking about our premortal life, the war in heaven, and debunks any claims that blacks were “fence-sitters” there.  I would have preferred that he kept with this apocryphal story.  Marcus tries to discuss why the ban wasn’t addressed sooner, and I found his classification of church presidents interesting.  From page 42, (I have changed formatting)

• “The main focus of the administration of President John Taylor (1877-87) may be said to have been defending the Church against unrelenting federal persecution as a response to polygamy.
• Later, the administration of President Wilford Woodruff (1887-98) deals primarily with the social, economic, and political adaptations needed to obtain statehood for Utah.
• The short-lived administration of President Lorenzo Snow (1898-1901) focused on avoiding financial bankruptcy.
• President Joseph F. Smith’s tenure (1901-18) dealt with restoring the Church’s financial stability, building a friendlier relationship with the federal government, and later dealing with challenges brought by World War I.
• President Heber J. Grant’s administration (1918-45) focused on the excess of the so-called ‘Roaring Twenties,” then the social turmoil caused by the Great Depression, and finally on the challenges of members of the Church on both sides of World War II.

All these issues affected the entire membership of the Church, whereas the priesthood ban affected only what appers to be, in the absence of precise statistics, a small percentage of membership of that era.

While I applaud Martins’ desire not to point blame, it seems to me that the “small percentage” could have been larger if the church had actively proselyted blacks.  For some reason, Martins skips the George Albert Smith (1945-55), David O. McKay (1955-1970), Joseph Fielding Smith (1970-72), Harold B. Lee (1972-73) administrations.  While I understand Joseph and Harold were very short in duration, it seems to me that McKay was the president that really made the church a worldwide institution.  But Martins says that it was under President Kimball that the church became worldwide.  I’m not sure that I agree with that with McKay building temples in New Zealand, and expanding missions in Europe and South American like never before.  Prince outlines that McKay even called a mission president to Nigeria, though a civil war brought that mission to a premature close.  Anyway, let me continue quoting from page 43,

Only during President Spencer W. Kimball’s administration (1973-85) did the Church began to position itself as a truly worldwide institution.  It was only at that point in the history of the Church that the priesthood ban moved up in the scale of priorities and became an issue that affected not only a large number of members but also the very identity of the Church, then beginning to be recognized as a truly worldwide religion.

Well, I don’t think he read Prince’s book, so I disagree with his characterization.  (I plan to write a series of posts on the McKay biography, but I wanted to get a few other posts in before then.  McKay’s biography by Greg Prince in 2005 pre-dates Martins book in 2007.)  Anyway, I wanted to discuss how Martins characterized the 1978 revelation.  Bishop Rick commented that the 1978 revelation “was not the product of revelation” and he characterized it as a vote.  Martins seems to disagree with that point of view.  From page 52,

we have modern witnesses of a powerful revelation confirming the universal scope of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ and the broad reach of its promised blessings.  Some of the Brethren who were present when the Lord manifested his will in 1978 have laft their solemn testimonies to the world.  Elder McConkie said the following:

“[When] President Kimball finished his prayer, the Lord gave a revelation by the power of the Holy Ghost….On this occasion…the Lord…poured out the Holy Ghost in a miraculous manner, beyond anything any then present had ever experienced…

“The revelation came to the President of the Church; it also came to each individual present.  There were ten members of the Council of Twelve and three in the First Presidency there assembled.”²⁶ [McConkie, "All are Alike unto God," 152-55]

Contrary to expectations, it was not just President Kimball receiving the revelation and asking his councilors and the Twelve Apostles to concur.  All thirteen prophets, seers, and revelators present in that meeting received the same revelation.  All of the then-living prophets, seers, and revelators, with the exception of two–Elder Mark E. Peterson, who was traveling abroad, and Elder Delbert Stapley who was gravely ill at the hospital–received the same revelation at the same time.  Elder David B. Haight in a general conference address in 1996 testified of that experience:

“I was in the temple when President Spencer W. Kimball received the revelation regarding the priesthood.  I was the junior member of the Quorum of the Twelve….I was there with the outpouring of the Spirit in that room so strong that none of us could speak afterwards.  We just left quietly to go back to the office.  No none could say anything because of the powerful outpouring of the heavenly spiritual experience.” [Haight, "This Work is True," Ensign, May 1996, 23.]

President Gordon B. Hinckley expressed in similar words his own testimony of that miraculous event:

“There was a hallowed and sanctified atmosphere in the room.  For me it felt as if a conduit opened between the heavenly throne and the kneeling, pleading prophet of God who was joined by his brethren.  the Spirit of God was there.  And by the power of the Holy Ghost there came to the prophet an assurance that the thing for which he prayed was right, that the time had come, and that now the wondrous blessings of the priesthood should be extended to worthy men everywhere, regardless of lineage.

“Every man in that circle, by the power of the Holy Ghost, knew the same thing.  No voice audible to our physical ears was heard.  But the voice of the Spirit whispered with certainty into our minds and our very souls.  No one of us who was present was ever quite the same after that.  Nor has the Church been quite the same.”28 [Hinckley, "Fireside Marks 159 Years Since Priesthood was Resored," Ensign, August 1988, 75-76.]

While we don’t know why there was a priesthood ban, we do know that the ban ended when the Lord himself gave a powerful revelation to his living prophets.  I believe the testimony of those men.  They were prophets of God.  So whatever the reason for the ban, it remains with the Lord himself.

So, what do you think of the Curse of Ham, the 1978 revelation, and Martins portrayal of events?

“someone apparently reported to Joseph that the women were laying their hands on the sick and blessing them. His reply to the question of the propriety of such acts was simple. He told the women in the next meeting “there could be no evil in it, if God gave his sanction by healing.., there could be no more sin in any female laying hands on the sick than in wetting the face with water.” He also indicated that there were sisters who were ordained to heal the sick and it was their privilege to do so. “If the sisters should have faith to heal,” he said, “let all hold their tongues.”⁶

But that’s not all.  Let’s look at subsequent prophets discussing the practice.  Brigham Young said to mothers,

“It is the privilege of a mother to have faith and to administer to her child; this she can do herself, as well as sending for the Elders to have the benefit of their faith.”⁸

So, do Mormon women hold the priesthood?

On 8 August 1880, John Taylor’s address on “The Order and Duties of the Priesthood” reaffirmed that women “hold the Priesthood, only in connection with their husbands, they being one with their husbands.”¹²

In October of that year, Taylor sent a letter reaffirming a woman’s right to lay hands on the sick.

It is the privilege of all faithful women and lay members of the Church, who believe in Christ, to administer to all the sick or afflicted in their respective families, either by the laying on of hands, or by the anointing with oil in the name of the Lord: but they should administer in these sacred ordinances, not by virtue and authority of the priesthood, but by virtue of their faith in Christ, and the promises made to believers: and thus they should do in all their ministrations.¹³

President Wilford Woodruff said,

There is no impropriety in sisters washing and anointing their sisters in this way, under the circumstances you describe [washing and anointing women prior to labor and delivery]; but it should be understood that they do this, not as members of the priesthood, but as members of the Church, exercising faith for, and asking the blessings of the Lord upon, their sisters, just asking the blessings of the Lord upon their sisters, just as they and every member of the Church, might do in behalf of the members of their families.¹⁶

President Joseph signed a letter on 17 December 1909 with the rest of the First Presidency, saying that non-endowed sisters could also participate in blessing the sick:

sisters need not necessarily be only those who had received their endowments, for it was not always possible for women to have that privilege and women of faith might do so [give blessings].²⁷

In 1914, Joseph F. Smith reaffirmed that women could bless.  However, in 1921, Elder Charles Penrose indicated in General Conference that only elders could seal blessings.

Occasions when perhaps it would be wise for a woman to lay her hands upon a child, or upon one another sometimes, and there have been appointments made for our sisters, some good women, to anoint and bless others of their sex who expect to go through times of great personal trial, travail and ’labor;’ so that is all right, so far as it goes. But ’when women go around and declare that they have been set apart to administer to the sick and take the place that is given to the elders of the Church by revelation as declared through James of old, and through the Prophet Joseph in modern times, that is an assumption of authority and contrary to scripture, which is that when people are sick they shall call for the elders of the Church and they shall pray over them and officially lay hands on them.^34″

King goes on to say that Penrose was wrong on one point.

Even though he cited the authority of Joseph Smith and even though Joseph Smith certainly taught the propriety and authority of elders to heal the sick, Elder Penrose also contradicted the extension of healing privileges to women by Joseph Smith. In fact, Joseph Smith had cited that same scripture in the 12 April 1842 Relief Society meeting but, ironically, had made a far different commentary: “These signs.., should follow all that believe whether male or female.’’³⁵

Further restrictions appeared under President Heber J. Grant.  He

defended the priesthood against “complaint… about the domination of the people by those who preside over them.” He quoted the description of the ideal way in which priesthood authority is to function, found in Doctrine and Covenants 121, then asked, somewhat rhetorically, “Is it a terrible thing to exercise the priesthood of the living God in the way that the Lord prescribes: ’By kindness and gentleness’ “?³⁷ The pattern had now been established, clarified, and validated.

King cites further discomfort with female blessings.

The next year brought the official death knell of this particular spiritual gift. On 29 July 1946 Elder Joseph Fielding Smith of the Quorum of the Twelve wrote to Belle S. Spafford, the Relief Society General President, and her counselors, Marianne C. Sharp and Gertrude R. Garff.  While the authorities of the Church have ruled that it is permissible, under certain conditions and with the approval of the priesthood, for sisters to wash and anoint other sisters, yet they feel that it is far better for us to follow the plan the Lord has given us and send for the Elders of the Church to come and administer to the sick and afflicted.⁴¹

I encourage you to read the full PDF version of the article that I linked about.  I am certainly leaving out plenty of items.  Why do you think there is so much discomfort with women blessing and anointing the sick?  Do you see this practice ever returning?  Would you like to see it return?

Following her presentation, I asked her if she would share her PowerPoint presentation, which she graciously did.  I have intended to post this much sooner, but have had a backlog of posts on Mormon Schismatic groups (see my Introduction, and details about Fundamentalist Mormons, the Bickertonites,  the Strangites) and the David O McKay Biography (first and second posts), to go along with the Mormon Matters implosion.  I’m finally getting around to Jack’s presentation.  (Better late than never, right?)  If you’d like a copy of her PowerPoint slides, she has made them available on this link to her website.

In her presentation, she said that “female priesthood” is a somewhat anachronistic term, but it is clear that women participated in ordinances that we would consider priesthood ordinances.  She noted that in the New Testament period and onward, there is evidence for

• Women as apostles, bishops, elders, priests and deacons
• Women performing baptisms and administering the Eucharist

She references several types of evidence to support this position

• New Testament data
• Canonical commentary
• Early Christian texts
• Inscriptions on monuments
• Artistic depictions of women
• Polemical evidence (church fathers condemning the already existing practice of ordaining women.)

She references Romans 16:7, which references Andronicus and Junia.  Some translators changed the name Junia (female) to Junis (male.)  Clearly Junia was an apostle.  Early Christian Father John Chrysostum (who lived from 347-405 AD) is quoted as saying,

Greet Andronicus and Junia…who are among the apostles’:  To be an apostle is something great. But to be outstanding among the apostles—just think what a wonderful song of praise that is! They were outstanding on the basis of their works and virtuous actions. Indeed, how great the wisdom of this woman must have been that she was even deemed worthy of the title of apostle.” (In ep. ad Romanos 31.2)

Jack refers to female Deacons in Romans 16:1-2 and 1 Tim 3:8-11.

“I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae, so that you may welcome her in the Lord as is fitting for the saints, and help her in whatever she may require from you, for she has been a benefactor of many and of myself as well.”

“Deacons likewise must be serious, not double-tongued, not indulging in much wine, not greedy for money;  they must hold fast to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them first be tested; then, if they prove themselves blameless, let them serve as deacons. Women likewise must be serious, not slanderers, but temperate, faithful in all things.”

Ancient Church Father Origen (185-253) also discussed Phoebe.

“’I commend to you Phoebe . . .’ This passage teaches by apostolic authority that women also are appointed in the ministry of the church, in which office Phoebe was placed at the church that is in Cenchreae. Paul with great praise and commendation even enumerates her splendid deeds . . . And therefore this passage teaches two things equally and is to be interpreted, as we have said, to mean that women are to be considered ministers in the church, and that such ought to be received into the ministry who have assisted many; they have earned the right through their good deeds to receive apostolic praise.” (Commentary on Romans 10.17)

John Chrysostum discussed 1 Tim 3:11,

“’Likewise women must be modest, not slanderers, sober, faithful in everything.’ Some say that he is talking about women in general. But that cannot be. Why would he want to insert in the middle of what he is saying something about women? But rather, he is speaking of those women who hold the rank of deacon. ‘Deacons should be husbands of one wife.’ This is also appropriate for women deacons, for it is necessary, good, and right, most especially in the church.” (Homily 11)

Theodoret of Cyrrus (lived 393-460 AD) said,

“’In the same way, women’ that is, the deacons, ‘are to be serious, not irresponsible talkers, sober, faithful in everything.’ What he directed for the men, he did similarly for the women. Just as he told the male deacons to be serious, he said the same for the women. As he commanded the men not to be two-faced, so he commanded the women not to talk irresponsibly. And as he commanded the men not to drink much wine, so he ordered the women should be temperate.” (Commentary on 1 Timothy)

Jack refers other women mentioned in the New Testament.  The following are definite or probable church house leaders.

1. Lydia (Acts 16:14-15; 40),
2. Nympha (Col. 4:15),
3. Chloe (1 Cor. 1:11),
4. Stephanas (1 Cor. 16:15-16),
5. Priscilla (Rom. 16:3-5),
6. and possibly the “elect lady” and her “chosen sister” in 2 John.
7. Euodia & Synteche are mentioned in Philippians 4:2-3.  Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350 – 428) read this as a struggle between the two women for leadership.

Some may wonder if a deaconess is simply the wife of a deacon.  However, Jack says that wives of male deacons were generally not given the title of “deaconess”.  She says that descriptions of their function don’t start appearing until the late second and early third centuries.  She also shows a painting possibly depicting women administering the Eucharist (LDS refer to this as the Sacrament.)  Archaeologists are split as to whether this truly represents the Sacrament.

In the 5^th century, Testamentum Domini 2:20 states that if pregnant women could not attend church on Sunday, deaconesses could take the Eucharist to their home.  She also notes that in 511 AD, 3 Gallic bishops were chastised for allowing women to assist with the Eucharist.  This obviously indicates that women were involved in the practice.  Canonical Resolutions 24 (6^th century) states that deaconesses could distribute the Eucharist to their female companions who lived in convents in Edessa.

Jack describes the practice of baptisms by women.  Acts of Paul and Thecla (2^nd century) depicts Thecla performing a self-baptism similar to the story of Alma in Mosiah 18:13-14.  She also notes that early church Father Justinian said it was acceptable for women to baptize as long as they met certain requirements.  In several texts as early as the first half of the third century, female deacons are described as assisting with baptisms and anointing the bodies of the female converts with oil before or after baptism.  In others, it is the women themselves performing the baptisms.

However, such things weren’t popular with everyone.  For example, Tertullian (c. 160 – 220) railed against women performing baptisms (On Baptism 17.4).  Jack gives several examples where baptisms performed by women were criticized.  Church councils in the 5^th and 6^th centuries condemned the practice, and as infant baptism became the norm, fewer adult female converts needed to be baptized, so the practice appears to have died out.

As far as female elders, Jack says there is less evidence; (there is more evidence in the Western Church than Eastern Church.)  She has noted 15 inscriptions referring to the feminine form of “elder”.  Jack says “Since the wives of elders were sometimes called by the term, we can’t be certain that every reference to a female presbyter is meant to denote an ecclesiastical office. However, usually when that was the case, the husband was titled and mentioned along with her.”  Jack showed several inscriptions referring to female elders.  For example, Guilia Runa is noted to have been “presbiterissa”, suggesting that she was a recognized leader of the Church of Saint Augustine in Hippo around the 5^th century AD.  Leta of Tropea, Calabria is noted as “The Presbyter”, but her husband is not honored as an elder.  There are other examples.

Jack mentions that Episcopa Theodora, was the mother of Pope Paschal I.  A painting of her is found in the Church of St. Praxedis, AD 820.  Her husband is mentioned in other texts and is not a bishop.  It appears that vandals tried to scratch off the “a” in “episcopa” in an attempt to obscure her gender.  Other inscriptions include:

1. “Here lies the venerable woman, bishop Q (uenerabilis fem[ina] episcopa Q), buried in peace for five [years] . . . +Olybrio.”  It is a damaged inscription at St. Paul’s Basilican Cemetary in Rome, 4^th-6^th century
2. Canon 20 of the Council of Tours (6^th century) mentions an “episcopa Terni”
3. A 5^th century fragmentary inscription is dedicated to a priestess in Solin. A cross on the inscription indicates that it was a Christian priestess, not a pagan one.

I have previously mentioned a heretical group called the Montanists.  Briefly, Montanus lived in the 2^nd Century AD in Turkey, and was an early Christian leader that traveled with 2 prophetesses.  Jack quoted Epiphanius of Salamis (310-403) describing the Montanists: “They consider Quintilla together with Priscilla as founder, the same as Cataphrygians. They bring with them many useless testimonies, attributing special grace to Eve because she first ate of the tree of knowledge. They acknowledge the sister of Moses as a prophetess as support for their practice of appointing women to the clergy. Also, they say, Philip had four daughters who prophesied. Often in their assembly seven virgins dressed in white enter carrying lamps, having come in to prophesy to ecstasy;”

So, there does appear to be ample evidence for female priesthood in the ancient Christian Church.  I would love to hear more from Jack on why female priesthood is considered “anachronistic”, because I don’t fully understand what she means.  But I absolutely loved her presentation, and I loved how she ended her presentation.

• Option 1 – We can Reject or Dismiss this information.  We can say things such as:

-        “We don’t care if apostate Christian groups were ordaining women”

• Option 2 – We could offer a polemic attack against Joseph Smith.

-        We can look at this data and say, “Look what Joseph Smith neglected to restore.”

• Option 3 – We can accept this information.

-        Yes, women did hold a priesthood in ancient times.

-        The 9^th Article of Faith allows that God still has things to reveal; gives Latter-day Saints room to be accepting of this data

Since Jack went to BYU, she is quite familiar with the Mormon concept of an apostasy.  She said, “I think it shows very well how the idea that women had the priesthood and it was taken away can fit into a Mormon apostasy narrative.”

In a letter from Atto, Bishop of Vercelli, wrote to a priest named Ambrose in the 10th century:

“Because your prudence has moved you to inquire how we should understand “female priest” (presbyteram) or “female deacon” (diaconam) in the canons: it seems to me that in the primitive church, according to the word of the Lord, “the harvest was great and the laborers few”; religious women (religiosae mulieres) used also to be ordained as caretakers (cultrices ordinabantur) in the holy church, as Blessed Paul shows in the Letter to the Romans, when he says, “I commend to you my sister Phoebe, who is in the ministry of the church at Cenchrea.” Here it is understood that not only men but also women presided over the churches (sed etiam feminae praeerat ecclesiis) because of their great usefulness. For women, long accustomed to the rites of the pagan and instructed also in philosophical teachings, were, for these reasons, converted more easily and taught more liberally in the worship of religion. This the eleventh canon of the Council of Laodicea prohibits when it says it is not fitting for those women who are called female presbyters (presbyterae) or presiders (praesidentes) to be ordained in the churches. We believe female deacons truly to have been ministers of such things. For we say that a minister is a deacon (diaconum) from which we perceive female deacon (diaconam) to have been derived. Finally, we read in the fifteenth canon of the Council of Chalcedon that a female deacon is not to be ordained before her fortieth year—and this was the highest gravity. We believe women were enjoined to the office of baptizing so that the bodies of other women might be handled by them without any deeply felt sense of shame…as as those who were called female presbyters (presbyterae) assumed the office of preaching, leading, and teaching, so female deacons had taken up the office of ministry and of baptizing, a custom that is no longer expedient.”

Personally, I’ve studied a bit about women and the priesthood, and I have a post planned that will show that Mormon women washed, anointed, and blessed the sick by the laying on of hands right up until 1946.  I agree with Jack that women’s loss of the priesthood fits very well with the Apostasy.  Of the options she mentioned above, I like Option 3 best.

She let me know of a couple of other links you might find interesting.

• Elder Joanna by Kevin Barney @ By Common Consent, June 16, 2007
• Ordained Women in the Early Church: Book Review by Mogget @ Faith-Promoting Rumor, March 17, 2006

So, what do you make of Jack’s presentation?

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.