In what some undoubtedly view as a hard-hitting video on YouTube—complete with sinister music—a critic of the Church asserts that Mormons belong to a cult because we teach that “DEATH is better than any form of immorality.” (Yes, the capital letters are in the video. Perhaps the video’s producer is doing his best to channel Jerald Tanner.)
The video (embedded at the end of this post) pulls together a few quotes about how some Mormons would rather their children give up their lives than give up their virtue (their chastity). It tries to imply that such teachings are Church doctrine, but no smoking gun is produced.
But how, then, is one to deal with the quotes provided in the video? Because they are stated by a few Mormon leaders, doesn’t that make them Mormon doctrine? Quite frankly, no it doesn’t. Mormons, as a group, fall into two general schools of thought when it comes to the idea of “better dead than unchaste.”
Some people—both in and out of the Church—feel that there are things more precious than life itself. It is up to the individual to determine what those things are. Some people would gladly die protecting their country. Some would gladly die protecting their families. Some would gladly die protecting their property. Some would gladly die protecting the rights of another. Some would gladly die to protect their own sense of honor. For example, a common phrase among some groups in the military is “death before dishonor.” (It is interesting that I can find no video by the critical producer asserting that the military is a cult because they promote the idea of “death before dishonor.”)
Each individual must make the decision of what—if anything—is more valuable than life. Some people may answer that there is nothing that is worth a human life. Both answers are fine; both are understandable.
Some LDS have come to the conclusion that personal purity—their own chastity—is more important than life. Other LDS do not agree, and think that such a determination is OK for the individual, but it should not be taught to others—particularly young people—because it leaves them feeling that their life is, indeed, worthless if they happen to lose their chastity. Both positions are understandable.
In the Church these days, both feelings can be found, both are accepted, and the determination of which is correct is left up to the individual. Despite what is shown in the critic’s YouTube video and what is presented in the quest for a good story in Richard Dutcher’s movie States of Grace, the “chastity is more important than life” school of thought has not been as noticeable in the past 25 or 30 years; indeed, it was at its height of viability in the first half of the twentieth century. These days it is seldom mentioned, unless it is taught within individual families.
That doesn’t stop the video’s producer from presenting dated quotes and asking “Would you rather that your sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, grandkids were dead in a pine box or casket, instead of immoral? Are these the teachings that you want to teach your children?”
Mormons in good standing can answer these questions in the positive or negative because this isn’t a Mormon doctrine. But the video doesn’t tell you that. Instead, it makes the following culminating statement:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, better known as “The Mormons”, is a cult that teaches DEATH is better than any form of immorality.
This is, of course, false. The teachings presented in the video are not the teachings of the Church, but of some in the Church. Have some taught it? Yes, they have. Is it doctrine? No, it is not.
-Allen
Ugh, that is an awful video. I’m glad that attitude isn’t so prevalent anymore, but I did have a teacher at BYU in 2004 tell the class that he would rather have his child dead than marry a non-Mormon, so unfortunately this sort of thinking isn’t all gone. Thanks for talking about this subject, I hope more open discussion of it can make sure that people, both inside and outside the church, understand that these quotes really are just opinions and not church doctrine.
My father said he would rather have me come home from my mission in a pine box than to come home dishonorably from my mission. He said this as a speaker at my farewell. I think these statements are done for dramatic affect to reinforce how important the commandments are. There is also a level of faith in the eternal nature of the individual and the family, and a knowledge that death is a temporary separation involved making such statements.
But, there are better ways to teach such principles.
What is bothersome is the same book that “Samuel” is quoting talks about the beautiful power of the atonement to sanctify and heal the wounds of the soul. I find it highly annoying that he is taking the time to troll our literature and twist our beliefs. How can one do this in good conscience?
Was it a blood atonement film? I will watch it when i can. Maybe the person thinks it is LDS belief that salvation for the unchaste can be bought via death.
Speaking as an MD and father of 8 normal children, it my opinion that telling a son or daughter they would be better off in a “pine box” is nothing short of criminal and child abuse. I see enough guilt and pain in church members that is fostered by such utter nonsense. It seems to me that such comments totally invalidate the Atonement and purpose of our Savior. I have made mistakes; I will make mistakes; and I’m still a good person. Such utter ignorance of THE fundamental principal of the Gospel is simply appalling.
As I see it, the real difficulty is how to disabuse the general membership of such notions when prominent leaders such as Presidents Kimball and Benson espoused similar views in their teachings. It is unfortunately all too easy for members to equate teachings of such prominent leaders to gospel principals.
Allen, maybe you could do a blog on how general members should disregard such notions as outside church teachings even when endorsed by church leadership.
A picture was shown of Kip Eliason. I seem to recall his picture being shown in Ed Deckers Godmakers film. I think he committed suicide over guilt over his homo-sexuality. I have Godmakers 1 on DVD. But i would have to watch it again to know. Ed Decker may have had a supporter that did this.
I just watched it. I guess it was not a blood atonement video. I am reminded of Matthew 5:27-30 though. I wonder if the person that did this film thinks practicing homosexuals will end up in hell. Or does the person think the person has to give up the lifestyle before they can be saved?
Certainly if my memory of Kip Eliasons story was right it was sad. His parents did not want him in a pine box. But if he had died before he sinned would he not be better off. That is if the Evangelical idea of unrepentant homo-sexuals burning in hell be true. I don’t think Kip would have been better of as a Fundementalist Christian. His church, other kids would not accept him just as he is if he had been Evangelical.
I may be wrong about what i remembered of the story. But the picture looked familiar. I might have to dig the DVD film out of my box Anti-Mormon films i have collected. If i confused him with someone else, or got his story wrong i will correct myself.
I read one article that said it was suicide for guilt over sexual orientation. The rest only mention it was suicide over guilt over his masturbation. So i could not confirm my memory it was over homo-sexuality.
I did find a story of a gay Evangelical girl that committed suicide when she was 13. I bet i could have found other sad stories about young gay Evangelicals that killed themselves.
http://www.nerve.com/regulars/lifeswork/conversion
I’ve heard this “teaching” many times growing up in the church (I’m 32). To say it is not church doctrine is something I don’t understand because I learned it in church many times. Yes, it does seem to contradict the principle of forgiveness and personally, the idea makes me sick to my stomach, but I have never heard any leader come out and say that it is not church doctrine. If it is not church doctrine, then the church should correct those that continue to teach it and not just hope it goes away.
Duncan,
Just because you “hear it in church” (even many times) does not make it Church doctrine.
Even in this critic’s video, none of the quotes indicate that what is being taught is official Church doctrine. At 1:08 into the video the quote makes it clear that it is the parents sending children out with “the direction” about the value of their chastity. It is not the Church. It even says “many is the parent” who has sent youth out this way, not that all should.
In a later quote, at 2:58 into the video, President Romney makes it clear that this “doctrine” was taught to him by his parents for the purpose of impressing upon him the seriousness of chastity. This “doctrine” was one chosen by his parents, not codified by the Church, and President Romney used it to likewise illustrate the point to the youth with whom he was trying to communicate.
This is a method of teaching, not a doctrine of the Church. It is no more a doctrine of the Church than the “ruined cake” object lesson many teachers used to illustrate a point about pre-marital sex.
-Allen
Allen, I don’t think it’s that easy to dismiss as not church doctrine. I too don’t believe it is church doctrine, but let’s face it, the LDS church doesn’t have a very rigorous definition of what is and what isn’t “doctrine.” I don’t even know if we have an unrigorous definition of it. A teaching being taught widely in church could very understandably be considered church doctrine, especially when it is also taught in General Conference and in a book by a prophet. I think that a good many bishops wouldn’t correct or talk to a teacher or speaker that espoused this view in a gospel doctrine class or in a sacrament meeting talk.
Again, I agree that this doesn’t make it church doctrine, but that’s using my definition of doctrine, and I can definitely see how a lot of church members would see it as doctrine if it is condoned, if not at times taught, by members of the church hierarchy. One could make a plausible argument that the words of living prophets being scripture, this is indeed a doctrine of our church. I would disagree, but I don’t think that such an argument is completely baseless or absurd.
I’m with Duncan in hoping that the church begins to correct those who teach it.
The definition of doctrine is EASY people:
Whenever we are called on any specific belief in a public setting (like GBH on LK) that makes us uncomfortable, that belief is undoctrinal. Who cares how many prophets, seers, and revelators said it?
Very cute, tiredmormon — but not true.
Wanna see a good explanation of how the LDS approach doctrine? (Or at least SHOULD approach it?) See the article Approaching Mormon Doctrine on the Church’s Web site.
-Allen
I think many of the “chaste or death” statements are trying to imply that impurity of spirit is worse than physical death. These are the type of statements that are meant to create zealous and strict obedience to commandments and that sound really bad when taken literally. I can see why phrasing like that has been used – it can be difficult to impart the seriousness of the law of chastity while telling youth that they can always repent and be forgiven if they break it.
On the other hand, I’m sure there will always be the fanatic, close-minded, vocal member of the church who will preach this kind of thing over the pulpit as truth. Most of the time we just brush off “crazy Brother So-and-so’s” comments, and we forget that the impressionable out there might not know where we actually stand on something like this.
I think about 99.99% of adults in the world have broken the LOC (if you include masturbation). According to these goofballs, I guess I’m supposed to believe that it was God’s will that they all should have died before they did it.
I hope intelligent people give LDS a little more credit than that.
I had to correct myself. The Evangelical woman that committed suicide was i think 30 not 13. I bet we could dig up stories of sixteen year old Evangelicals who commited suicide over guilt for sin.
These people employ the same tactics against Freemasonry, altering quotations, taking quotes from non-Masons and inferring that these people were “important Masons”, quoting out of context, etc. One of the worst offenders is John Ankerberg who has written a book which, upon examination of his techniques and sources, is a fraud coppied from anti-Masonic works whichare quoted as authoritative. He also quotes from “former” Masons who weren’t.
He has done a similar hit job on Mormonism.
It is very hard to counter these people in a one on one debate as they selectively alter material from tens of thousands of pages of material written over centuries. No one can be expected to answer these charges on the spur of the moment. It requires sometimes extensive research to uncover what they have twisted.
All of these people worship Mammon and sell their lies to a hardcore audience predisposed to believe this bile.
I’m sorta in the ‘death before dishonor’ camp. But I think critics have to realize that most of these kinds of statements are exaggerations for effect.
Brigham Young preached that he would “send his daughter to her death” (Journal of Discourses) to save her from becoming unchaste. (My personal opinion is that this statement was mainly the result of the stories about his daughter-in-law, wife of Joseph Young, and a certain Army Captain.) During this period of time Brigham gave many speaches condemming and threatening women who were leaving with soldiers for California.
I remember a woman in my ward telling during her “testimony” that her father had told her he would rather have her dead that do something that would shame him. (At the time she was joining one of the Services during World War II.)
I was young, but I shocked! In her father’s heart was there no room for repentance and forgiveness. And was he so pure in every way that he would never need to repent or to ask forgiveness.
Apparently, there are still members out there that think the same way. These members are so pure they could never need to repent or be forgiven.
Mariah