FAIR

Faithful Study Resources for Come, Follow Me

SteveDensleyJr

Keeping the Faith 14: Leaving and Returning–Lessons Learned pt. 1

by

Podcast: Download (27.7MB)

Subscribe: RSS

10680104_10101730586812129_1130540584652822496_oRich Milllar loved the Church as a teenager. He served a successful mission to Russia. After returning, he was fully committed to the Church and served as an elders quorum president. But he began to slowly lose his faith until, eventually, he decided the Church was not true and God did not exist. Find out why he left, why he decided to return, and what lessons he learned in his journey away from the Church and back into it.

Rich shared much of his story in a Facebook post that can be found here. He was later featured on a Mormon Channel video that can be found here, and a Deseret News article that can be found here.

The opinions expressed in this podcast and in the referenced books, presentations, podcasts and articles do not necessarily represent the opinions of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or of FairMormon.

“Meet the Mormons” Hits its Mark

by

Meet the Mormons

I don’t often like documentaries. And I don’t usually look forward to seeing Church films. I felt compelled to see “Meet the Mormons” probably for the same reasons I feel compelled to vote. Not because I really believe that my vote will be the one to put my candidate in office, but because I feel a civic (in this case, religious) responsibility to lend my support to a cause in which I believe. But although I was skeptical of how much I would enjoy the film, I was pleasantly surprised, and even moved, by “Meet the Mormons.” However, perhaps predictably, the movie critics have not been very supportive.

As I’m writing this, “Meet the Mormons” has tanked at a zero percent on Rotten Tomatoes. (Interestingly, out of 2,599 ratings, it has a 91% positive score from audiences.) Every reviewer from the New York Times to the Salt Lake Tribune agrees that this movie is simply an extended infomercial: A “slick” production that does not confront the more “controversial aspects” of the religion’s past.

It seems that when a movie critic is forced to acknowledge that a movie has high production value with great music and gorgeous cinematography, but the critic does not want to give a positive review, he will say that the movie is “slick.”

The only real criticism of the movie is that it does not go into more depth into the history, doctrine and practices of the Mormons. The critics seem especially put out that the Mormon Church has not produced a documentary about how racist, homophobic and paternalistic the Church is. However, to criticize “Meet the Mormons” for not being a stark expose of Mormonism seems a bit like criticizing “The Godfather” for not having enough song and dance numbers; or criticizing a “Fast & Furious” movie for not providing enough thoughtful social commentary. It is criticizing a movie for not being something it did not purport to be.

This is “Meet the Mormons.” It is not “Mormon Doctrine 101” and not “Mormonism Exposed!” It is intended merely to be an introduction to a handful of diverse individuals who are Mormons who have interesting stories, and who give the audience a good idea of what Mormons are like. And as a Mormon, this introduction felt authentic to me. I did not feel like these people were pretending to be something they were not. Although there were some aspects of their lives that were unique and unusual, they were very much like Mormons with whom I associate every day.

Of course, when you first meet someone, they typically put their best foot forward. You may or may not have a good first impression, but, unless you are naïve, you don’t believe that you are able to glimpse deep inside the soul of the person from a first meeting. And you would not be shocked or offended if they did not share all of their faults in that first meeting. Nevertheless, you would hope to feel that the person you are meeting is being genuine. And if after a first meeting, you are interested in learning more, the introduction has probably been successful.

The common theme among movie reviewers is not that the movie failed in its method of presentation. But that the movie left them wanting to learn more. The reviewers seemed uniformly impressed with the people they met. They simply wanted more to know more about them, how they lived and what they believed. Rather than a sign of failure, it seems to me that for a movie that purports only to be an introduction, this is a sign of success.

Does God Authorize His Prophets to Make Mistakes?

by

Crucible_of_Doubt

[The Crucible of Doubt can be purchased from the FairMormon Bookstore.]

Within the past year, the Church published an article addressing the fact that for a long period in the Church’s history, black men were not allowed to be ordained to the priesthood.[i] The article acknowledged that leaders of the Church gave explanations for the ban that we now recognize as being incorrect. For some people, this article has raised as many questions as it answered. While many have experienced a sense of relief in seeing the Church disavow explanations for the ban that denigrated those of African descent, others have experienced a new sense of anxiety over the question of the extent to which we can rely on the teachings of the prophets and apostles. And to what extent can we be confident that the policies adopted by the Church are ordained of God?

Terryl and Fiona Givens directly addressed the question of prophetic infallibility in their book Crucible of Doubt: Reflections on the Quest for Faith. Terryl Givens has earlier, if only briefly, addressed this question, in his “Letter to a Doubter.”[ii] In their new book, the Givenses expand on this issue. The “Letter to a Doubter” essentially limited itself to a discussion of the fact that prophets are human, and humans make mistakes. However, chapter six of The Crucible of Doubt goes into more depth regarding the principles of delegation of authority and prophets as agents for God.

The concept of God delegating his authority to men on Earth and making them His agents, who act on His behalf, is not a new one. However, the Givenses discuss the concept in a way that may help illuminate the mechanism by which prophets act on God’s behalf and why doing so does not ensure that mistakes will not be made by God’s agents.

The title of chapter six is “On Delegation and Discipleship: The Ring of Pharaoh.” This title is a reference to the story of Joseph of Egypt:

When Joseph of the many-colored coat had gained Pharaoh’s complete trust and confidence, “Pharaoh took off his ring from his hand, and put it upon Joseph’s hand.” With this gesture, Pharaoh transferred his own power and authority to the former Hebrew slave. “Without your consent,” the Pharaoh told him, “no one shall lift up hand or foot in all the land of Egypt.”[iii]

Of course, when authority is delegated, it does not mean that the agent will always do precisely what is intended by the one delegating authority. This is obvious in the context of human interactions. However, we sometimes may hope and expect that when God delegates authority to a prophet, that the human in this scenario will somehow rise to the level of perfection inhabited by the one who has delegated the authority; that if one is acting for God, one will act like God. However, the scriptures do not give us this assurance.

In fact, the scriptures provide plenty of examples of prophets making mistakes and acting in ways that could be considered ungodly. For example, Moses disobeyed God’s instruction to speak to the rock and instead hit it. He then attributed the miracle to himself and Aaron, saying, “Must we fetch you water out of this rock?” He was chastised by the Lord afterward. (Numbers 20.) Nathan told David that the Lord approved of his desire to build a temple, and that he should commence the project. The Lord later told Nathan that such was not His desire, and that he was to tell David that the temple would be built by another. (2 Samuel 7.) And Jonah felt some personal prejudices against Assyrians, to the point of expecting the Lord to give them fewer blessings than to Jews. (Jonah 4.)

So prophets can guide us and direct us, but they can also test our faith, not just in calling us to live on a higher plane, but also in demonstrating that they do not always reach a higher plane themselves. In light of this, the Givenses note:

And if delegation is a real principle—if God really does endow mortals with the authority to act in His place and with His authority, even while He knows they will not act with infallible judgment—then it becomes clearer why God is asking us to receive the words of the prophet “as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.”[iv]

Of course, most of us are familiar with the observation made by Joseph Smith that “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such” (HC 5:265). We also often hear repeated the scripture, “whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.” (D&C 1:38.) When these two statements are considered at once, we may tend to think that if we can just determine whether or not a prophet is acting as a prophet, or as God’s “servant,” we will know whether or not we can consider his words to be the infallible words of God. It may seem that if the president of the Church makes a statement that we later learn to be untrue, or enacts a policy that seems to have been mistaken, we can find comfort in the notion that the man may not have been acting on behalf of God on those occasions. This becomes more difficult, however, when a statement is made, or a policy announced, in General Conference, or on Church letterhead along with the signatures or other members of the First Presidency.

But perhaps in thinking this, we have misunderstood the principle of delegation of authority. For example, while there are statements that have been understood to mean that prophets, or God’s servants, cannot err when acting as God’s servants, the scriptures themselves undercut this interpretation. For example, while D&C Section 1 says “whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same,” a few verses earlier, we read:

Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding. And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known; And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed; And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent; And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

(D&C 1:24-28; emphasis added).

Another commonly quoted statement in support of the concept of prophetic inerrancy is that of Wilford Woodruff, when, speaking of abandoning the practice of polygamy, he said:

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

However, in addition to the aforementioned reasons to doubt that this statement supports the view that prophets cannot make mistakes, Elders Packer and Uchtdorf have given us additional reasons to doubt this conclusion. Elder Uchtdorf said, “This is the Church of Jesus Christ. God will not allow His Church to drift from its appointed course or fail to fulfill its divine destiny.”[vi] Elder Packer added that “…even with the best of intentions, it [the governance of the Church by mortal priesthood holders] does not always work the way it should. Human nature may express itself on occasion, but not to the permanent injury of the work.”[vii] In other words, while leaders can make mistakes, God will not allow the leaders to utterly destroy the work of the latter-day Church or cause the members to lose their opportunity to receive exaltation.

So when God says that the prophet is His agent on Earth, perhaps He is not saying that, when acting as the prophet, the man will always do exactly what God wants any more than by giving Joseph his ring, Pharaoh was assuring the people of Egypt that Joseph would always do exactly what Pharaoh would have done in his place. Right or wrong, the people of Egypt were to consider Joseph’s actions to be the actions of Pharaoh and were to be bound by Joseph’s words and actions as if they were the words and actions of Pharaoh.

Of course, this principle is not limited to the delegation of authority to a prophet. The Givenses ask “If a bishop makes a decision without inspiration, are we bound to sustain the decision?” And what if an apostle makes a mistake in calling a stake president?

The story is told of a Church official who returned from installing a new stake presidency. “Dad, do you Brethren feel confident when you call a man as the stake president that he is the Lord’s man?” the official’s son asked upon his father’s return home. “No, not always,” he replied. “But once we call him, he becomes the Lord’s man.” The answer disconcerts initially. Is this not hubris, to expect God’s sanction for a decision made in error? Perhaps. It is also possible that the reply reveals the only understanding of delegation that is viable.[viii]

The Givenses continue by observing:

If God honored only those decisions made in perfect accord with His perfect wisdom, then His purposes would require leaders who were utterly incapable of misconstruing His intention, who never missed hearing the still small voice, who were unerringly and unfailingly a perfect conduit for heaven’s inspiration. And it would render the principle of delegation inoperative. The Pharaoh didn’t say to Joseph, your authority extends as far as you anticipate perfectly what I would do in every instance. He gave Joseph his ring…. And after calling Joseph Smith to his mission, the Lord didn’t say, I will stand by you as long as you never err in judgment. He said, “Thou wast called and chosen. . . . Devote all thy service in Zion; and . . . lo, I am with thee, even unto the end.”[ix]

In light of all this, what are we to believe, ask the Givenses, when confronted by “faith-wrenching practices (polygamy), missteps and errors (Adam-God), and teachings that the Church has abandoned but not fully explained (the priesthood ban).”[x] In response, they quote the Anglican churchman Austin Farrer, who said “Facts are not determined by authority. Authority can make law to be law; authority cannot make facts to be facts.”[xi] To this, they add the words of Henry Eyring, who once quoted his father as saying, “in this church you don’t have to believe anything that isn’t true.”[xii]

Of course, while we may harbor misgivings in our minds regarding some policy, teaching or practice, how are we to act when confronted with doubts about whether or not an agent of God is actually doing God’s will? In response to this issue, Farrer is again quoted: “If Peter and his colleagues make law in applying the Lord’s precepts, . . . their law is the law of Christ’s Church, the best (if you will) that God’s Spirit can make with human instruments there and then, and, as such, to be obeyed as the will of God Himself. But to call Peter infallible in this connection is to misplace an epithet.”[xiii]

To carry the metaphor of agency and delegation further, we can consider the legal realm. What recourse exists against a principle when the agent causes some harm? Under the doctrine of agency law, if a person is injured by an agent who is acting under the authority of the principle, the principle will be liable for the harm and is required to set things right. Of course, while all wrongs and injustices have not yet been set right in this imperfect world, Christ has already paid the price for such wrongs. In other words, the miracle of delegation of divine authority does not ensure that the agent will always act according to God’s will. Rather, it ensures that God will guarantee the actions of the agent, and if the actions are wrong, through Christ’s atonement, all will be made right in the end. Indeed, even those things that can cause fear, doubt and pain can be made to benefit us in the end:

One comfort is to be found in a God whose power is in His magnanimity as well as His wisdom. These two traits mean that His divine energies are spent not in precluding chaos but in reordering it, not in preventing suffering but in alchemizing it, not in disallowing error but in transmuting it into goodness.[xiv]

Even the agents of God, even when acting as God’s agents, can cause fear, pain and confusion in this world. Although this may frustrate us, it does not frustrate God’s plan. In closing, we are reminded that the words of God’s servants can provide comfort and direction, even when counseling us regarding the imperfect words and actions of God’s servants themselves:

“Imperfect people are all God has ever had to work with,” reminds Elder Jeffrey Holland. “That must be terribly frustrating to Him, but He deals with it. So should we.” Generosity with our own inept attempts to serve and minister to each other in a lay church, charity toward those in leadership who, as President Dieter Uchtdorf noted, have “said or done [things] that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine,” and faith in Christ’s Atonement that makes up the human deficit—these could be the balm of Gilead for which both wounded disciples and striving leaders seek.[xv]

[i] Race and the Priesthood.

[ii] Terryl L. Givens, “Letter to a Doubter,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 4 (2013): 131-146. An audio version was published on FairMormon Blog.

[iii] Terryl Givens & Fiona Givens, The Crucible of Doubt (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2014), 73, citing Genesis 41:42 & 44, NRSV.

[iv] Givens & Givens, 75, citing D&C 21:5 (emphasis added).

[v] Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, 6 October 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News (11 October 1890): 2; cited in LDS scriptures after Official Declaration 1.

[vi] Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “Come Join With Us,” general conference, October 2013.

[vii] Boyd K. Packer, “”I Say unto You, Be One,'” in BYU Devotional and Fireside Speeches, 1990–1991 (Provo, Utah: University Publications, 1991), 84, emphasis added.

[viii] Givens & Givens, 75-76, citing a personal conversation reported to authors by Robert L. Millet.

[ix] Ibid., 76, quoting D&C 24:1, 7, 8.

[x] Ibid., 74.

[xi] Ibid., 74, quoting Austin Farrer, “Infallibility and Historical Tradition,” in The Truth-Seeking Heart, ed. Ann Loades and Robert MacSwain (Norwich: Canterbury Press, 2006), 83.

[xii] Ibid., 74, quoting Henry J. Eyring, Mormon Scientist: The Life and Faith of Henry Eyring (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2007), 4.

[xiii] Ibid., 74-75, quoting Farrer, “Infallibility,” 83–84.

[xiv] Ibid., 78.

[xv] Ibid., 82, quoting Jeffrey R. Holland, “Lord, I Believe,” Ensign, May 2013, 94 and Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “Come, Join with Us,” Ensign, November 2013, 22.

Why Church Discipline?

by

In our increasingly diverse and tolerant society, it can be quite jarring to hear about individuals who are being threatened with excommunication from a church. In order to better understand the disciplinary process of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is helpful to understand the way in which Church disciplinary action is viewed by the leaders of the Church.

Past President Gordon B. Hinckley made this relevant comment to the New York Times in 1994:

“Every individual in the church is free to think as he pleases,” …. “But when an individual speaks openly and actively and takes measures to enlist others in opposition to the church and its programs and doctrines, then we feel there is cause for action.” …. “There’s a great spirit of tolerance in our church,” Mr. Hinckley said, adding that church officials maintained “an earnest desire to work with” excommunicated Mormons and bring them back into the fold.”

More recently, the Church issued a statement in this regard, which reads, in part:

Sometimes members’ actions contradict Church doctrine and lead others astray. While uncommon, some members in effect choose to take themselves out of the Church by actively teaching and publicly attempting to change doctrine to comply with their personal beliefs. This saddens leaders and fellow members. In these rare cases, local leaders have the responsibility to clarify false teachings and prevent other members from being misled. Decisions are made by local leaders and not directed or coordinated by Church headquarters.

It may also be helpful in this particular instance to refer to a statement that was issued by the Church in 1994, which reads, in part:

It is difficult to explain Church disciplinary action to representatives of the media. Considerations of confidentiality restrain public comment by Church leaders in such private matters.

We have the responsibility to preserve the doctrinal purity of the Church. We are united in this objective. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught an eternal principle when he explained: “That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 67).

The statement continued:

The longstanding policy of Church discipline is outlined in the Doctrine and Covenants: “We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members … according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; … They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.” (D&C 134:10.)

Faithful members of the Church can distinguish between mere differences of opinion and those activities formally defined as apostasy. Apostasy refers to Church members who: “1, repeatedly act in clear, open and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders; or 2, persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after being corrected by their bishops or higher authority; or 3, continue to follow the teachings of apostate cults (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishops or higher authority.” (General Handbook of Instructions, 10-3.)

Finally, this article from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism sheds further light on apostasy in general and has this to say about a member who has been excommunicated for apostasy:

LDS scriptures establish a loving and hopeful attitude toward apostates. Latter-day Saints are strongly counseled to love those who have left the faith, and to encourage, plead, and work with those who have strayed, inviting “the lost sheep” back to the fold (Luke 15:3-7). Of the wayward, the resurrected Savior taught, “Ye shall not cast him out of your…places of worship, for unto such shall ye continue to minister; for ye know not but what they will return and repent, and come unto me with full purpose of heart, and I shall heal them; and ye shall be the means of bringing salvation unto them” (3 Ne. 18:32). The desire to return is motivated by the reality of repentance enabled by the Atonement of Jesus Christ. “He who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more. By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins-behold, he will confess them and forsake them” (D&C 58:42-43).

For a more in-depth discussion of the purposes of Church discipline and the way in which it is administered, the Church has published this article.

Interested parties may also benefit from reading this article Elder M. Russell Ballard, of the Quorum of the Twelve, who addressed these issues in a 1990 article entitled “A Chance to Start Over: Church Disciplinary Councils and the Restoration of Blessings.”

Mormon Fair-Cast 233: Should the stories in Genesis be taken literally?

by

Podcast: Download (8.4MB)

Subscribe: RSS

MartinTannerIn this episode of Religion Today, Martin Tanner discusses such issues as whether Eve was created from the rib of Adam and whether the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah existed. This episode originally aired on KSL Radio on January 26, 2013 and appears here by permission of KSL Radio. The opinions expressed do not necessarily represent the views of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or of FairMormon.

Listeners will note that the first part of this episode is missing. We apologize for this inconvenience.

LAST CHANCE TO BUY CONFERENCE TICKETS AT THE DISCOUNTED PRICE.

by

Utah-Valley-Convention-Center-300x177Saturday, May 31 will be the last day to buy tickets at the discounted price for the FairMormon Conference in Provo, Utah. Tickets will still be available after that time, but at a higher price.

This year’s conference speakers include:

Daniel Peterson on the Letter to a CES Director

Hannah Smith: “Religious Liberty: What Latter-day Saints Need to Know to Preserve Our First Freedom”

Kerry Muhlestein: “The Book of Abraham and Unnoticed Assumptions: How everyone makes assumptions that determine how they view the Book of Abraham”

Russell W. Stevenson: Shouldering the Cross, or How to Condemn Racism and Still Call Brigham Young a Prophet

Ty Mansfield on sexual attraction and gender

Robert F. Smith: “The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage”

Matthew Grow and Matthew Godfrey: “The Story Behind the Revelations: Using the Joseph Smith Papers to Better Understand the Doctrine and Covenants.”

Bob Rees: “Earl Wunderli’s Imperfect Book

Barry Bickmore: “Restoring the Ancient Church”

A panel discussion on family members who have left the Church.

and more. You can find the schedule on the FairMormon Website here:http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2014-fairmormon-conference

You can go directly to our bookstore page to purchase your Conference tickets here: 

http://bookstore.fairlds.org/product.php?id_product=1003

Or you can go to the main page at FairMormon.org and click on the FairMormon Conferences link.

Scroll to the bottom of the FairMormon 2014 Conference page for Hotel information at the Marriott, which is across the street. Book your hotel room now to secure your reservation. Your hotel room is separate from your conference registration.

Mothers as Saviors

by

Mother’s Day may be the most ironic of holidays. It is calculated to be a time to pay homage and respect to women. It is an opportunity for women to look back with satisfaction on what they have accomplished. But so often, women can be made to feel embarrassed by the attention and discouraged by comparisons to the idealized version of motherhood. In response to the marvelous webpage the Church recently posted called “Motherhood,” one mother wrote about how disappointed she was at the statement that Motherhood is “the highest, holiest service assumed by humankind.” She explained that motherhood is a mere biological function, and that her highest calling is to become like Christ, not to simply give birth. I am afraid that many modern mothers see their roles as mothers in this way. And at the risk of further embarrassing mothers with attention, or discouraging them with a seemingly impossible comparison, I want to suggest that while it is true that a mother’s highest calling is to become like Christ, it is through acting in her role as a mother that this highest calling is actualized.

A few years ago, I had the opportunity to meet Dr. Valerie Hudson and hear her talk about her ideas regarding the status of women in the Church.[1] While Dr. Hudson was a professor of political science at Brigham Young University, she was listed as one of the “100 Top Global Thinkers of 2009″ by Foreign Policy Magazine for her work in showing that the status of women in a society is linked to the fate of their nations with regard to their domestic stability, prosperity and national security. Her political ideas are interesting to me and have important significance for world affairs. However, her ideas as they relate to the gospel are even more interesting and have eternal significance.

Of course, when talking about women and the priesthood, there are many things we don’t know or understand, and it is easy to hurt people’s feelings, especially on Mother’s Day. In that regard, I would like to make it clear that Dr. Hudson’s ideas, and the things I have to add, are only one way of looking at things. They do not answer every question, but I hope it will help shed some light on some issues.

Like so many things in the gospel, the foundation for these ideas goes back to the beginning. As spirit children of our Father and Mother in heaven, we desired to become like them. But we could only do so if we received bodies and the opportunity a mortal life would give us to grow, and to be tested to see if we were worthy to exercise the same power that is exercised by God.

I can imagine that we must have watched as Adam and Eve went to Earth and were placed in a garden, located eastward in Eden.[2] They were first told to “Be fruitful, and multiply, and [to fill][3] the Earth.”[4] This would allow the rest of us to enter mortality, and give us the chance to gain bodies, gain experience, and be tested.

However, in their initial state of innocence and immortality, they were unable to have children.[5] So among all the other trees in the garden, there were two that were more important than the others. There was the Tree of Life, which had fruit that would allow Adam and Eve to live forever, and there was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, which would make them mortal, but able to have children.[6] The fruit of this tree was the only one that would allow Adam and Eve to have the experiences they needed to be able to grow and progress toward becoming as Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother.[7]

As Eve, the mother of all living, decided to partake of the fruit and then offer it to Adam, we must have rejoiced as we understood that as Eve offered this fruit to Adam, she was also giving all of us the opportunity to pass through the veil that divided us from mortality in order to come to this Earth. Throughout history, Eve has stood as a symbol to the world of the folly of women, and the way in which women have only brought evil into the world. However, through the restoration of the gospel through Joseph Smith, we have learned that Eve is to be respected, admired and revered for her wisdom and willingness to leave paradise so she may help all of us to receive bodies, to be tested, and gain the experience we need in order to become as our Heavenly Father and Mother.

Of course, once we passed through the veil and came to this Earth, it is our hope that we may pass back through the veil and live forever in the presence of God. Before doing so, we must be able to partake of the fruit of the other tree, the Tree of Life. The problem for us now, is that as we experience mortality, and gain the experience we need to become like God, we invariably sin and become unworthy to live with God. After Adam and Eve became mortal, God barred the way to the Tree of Life in order to help protect us from living forever in our sins and being forever shut out from the presence of God.[8] So before partaking of the fruit of the Tree of Life, and passing through the veil back into the presence of God, we must become cleansed of our sins through the atonement of Christ. In order to do this, we must have faith, repent, and be baptized by water and by the Holy Ghost.

The ordinances of baptism and confirmation, which enable us to become clean, are administered by those who hold the priesthood. So, Eve stood at the veil by the Tree of Knowledge to help us to pass through the veil to enter into mortality, and Adam, who holds the priesthood, stands at the veil by the Tree of Life, to help us pass back through the veil to enter into eternal life. We could not experience eternal life, and live as God lives, without the roles played by both Adam and Eve. Both roles are essential. One is not more important than the other. Just as Adam hearkened unto Eve in partaking of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, Eve should hearken unto Adam as they make their way toward the Tree of Life.

Every mother is like Eve in that she stands at the veil and helps spirit children of our Heavenly Father enter into mortality. Fathers who hold the priesthood usher us back toward the veil and give us access to the Fruit of the Tree of Life through administration of the priesthood ordinances.

Of course, all of the ordinances of salvation are performed in our temple buildings. Paul teaches that our bodies are temples since temples are where the Spirit of God dwells, and the Spirit of God should dwell also in us.[9] Beyond this, in the ordinances of the priesthood there seem to be additional ways in which a woman’s body is analogous to a temple, where these ordinances take place.

In the Book of Moses, we read that being born again through baptism by water and by the Holy Ghost is analogous to our first birth. In Moses 6:59, we read that “inasmuch as ye were born into the world by water, and blood, and the spirit, . . . even so ye must be born again into the kingdom of heaven, of water, and of the Spirit, and be cleansed by blood, even the blood of mine Only Begotten; that ye might be sanctified from all sin, and enjoy the words of eternal life in this world, and eternal life in the world to come, even immortal glory.”

In the temple, we also receive protective clothing. Similarly, a spirit is clothed with a body when it enters the temple of a mother’s body.[10] In the temple, the way to the celestial room is covered by a veil. Similarly, women in the temple wear veils. That which is most holy in the temple, is covered by a veil.

I think it is significant, when we think about all of the ordinances that are necessary to our exaltation, that while we all need to be baptized and confirmed, washed, anointed, endowed and sealed, only men need to enter into the oath and covenant of the priesthood. We know that the covenants we make are intended to help us to grow and to become perfected. So with respect to attaining perfection, it seems that women already have something that is lacking in men. As Elder Matthew Cowley taught, “men have to have something given to them [in mortality] to make them saviors of men, but not mothers, not women. [They] are born with an inherent right, an inherent authority, to be the saviors of human souls … and the regenerative force in the lives of God’s children.”[11]

We are further told by Paul that while women need men to be exalted, men also cannot be exalted without women. Paul wrote: “Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.” Thus, we are exalted together.[12]

As we consider the roles of men and women, we may tend to think that men’s roles are more important. Once we pass through the veil and receive the gift of physical life that is given to us by our mothers, the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, as we make our way around the circle of life back toward the veil, to receive the gift of spiritual life, the fruit from the Tree of Life, we may become focused on the role that men play in this regard and mistakenly think that it is more important. Our backs are turned toward the Tree of Knowledge as we face the Tree of Life.

The terminology and customs we use in this fallen world sometimes also lend themselves to this improper ordering. The fact that men and women have different roles to play does not mean men and women are unequal. People can be different and still be equal.

Unfortunately, throughout the history of the world, Satan seems to have been at work confusing the roles of men and women and at times, leading the world to believe men are more important than women and more recently, teaching that men’s and women’s roles are the same or even that men are irrelevant. The messages we receive are confusing. We receive guidance from the scriptures, but even the scriptures can be difficult to understand. We read in the scriptures that Eve was told by God that “Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”[13] Modern-day revelation can help in this regard. Commenting on this scripture, President Spencer W. Kimball said: “I have a question about the word rule. It gives the wrong impression. I would prefer to use the word preside because that’s what he does. A righteous husband presides over his wife and family”[14]

In the Proclamation to the World on the Family, we read: “By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.” So, what does it mean to say that men and women are equal, but that men preside?

Whatever else “preside” means, it cannot mean that the man is superior to the woman since in the same paragraph we read that fathers and mothers are equal partners. Therefore, presiding is simply a role fathers play that is equal to the role played by mothers. It is perhaps helpful in this regard to note that Elder Dallin Oaks stated that when his father died, it was not the young deacon Dallin Oaks who presided in the home, but his mother presided over his family.[15]

Elder Oaks clarified the responsibility to preside by quoting President Spencer W. Kimball when he said: “When we speak of marriage as a partnership, let us speak of marriage as a full partnership. We do not want our LDS women to be silent partners or limited partners in that eternal assignment! Please be a contributing and full partner”[16] President Kimball also declared, “We have heard of men who have said to their wives, ‘I hold the priesthood and you’ve got to do what I say.’” He said that such a man “should not be honored in his priesthood”[17] So it is highly significant that the Proclamation on the Family states that men are to preside “in love and righteousness.”

Paul was perhaps elaborating on this concept when he wrote: “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church…. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it”[18] This is a different kind of leadership than the world is familiar with that would require the one who is at the head to give his life for the others.

The fact that men and women are intended to be seen as equals is suggested at, and in places explicit, though often misunderstood, in the creation story.  Elder Russell Nelson noted that: “From the rib of Adam, Eve was formed (see Gen. 2:22; Moses 3:22; Abr. 5:16).” He continued: “I presume another bone could have been used, but the rib, coming as it does from the side, seems to denote partnership. The rib signifies neither dominion nor subservience, but a lateral relationship as partners, to work and to live, side by side.”[19]

A more direct example is that God said that since it is not good that man should be alone, he would make “an help meet for him.”[20] This sounds to modern ears a lot like a servant. However, the word here for “help meet” is “ezer k’enegdo.” Diana Webb in her book Forgotten Women of God clarifies this word by explaining,”The noun ezer occurs 21 times in the Hebrew Bible. In eight of these instances the word means “savior”…. Elsewhere in the Bible, the root ezer means “strength…. the word is most frequently used to describe how God is an ezer to man.”[21] [22]

The other part of the term “help meet” which is commonly translated as “meet for” or “fit for” is the word “k’enegdo”. This word could possibly be most correctly translated as “exactly corresponding to,” like when you look at yourself in a mirror.[23]

With these ideas in mind, author Beverly Campbell in her book, Eve and Choice Made in Eden suggested that a better translation of this verse might be: “It is not good that man should be alone. I will make him a companion of strength and power who has a saving power and is equal with him.”[24]

So in what way are women saviors to mankind? Blogger Heather Farrell explained it in this way: “Women are ‘saviors’ to men by the fact that they give them life and nurture them towards the light of Christ. By conceiving, creating and bearing mortal bodies women make it possible for God’s children to start on their mortal journey and have the opportunity to become perfected. Without women there would be no gateway into this world and no opportunity for progress or exaltation. In addition, by being willing to sacrifice (their very lives if necessary) to bring children into this world women demonstrate the true meaning of charity. [Note that it also shows obedience and a willingness to consecrate.] From the very first breath a child takes he or she has been the recipient of charity and unconditional love. This is a powerful gift that a mother gives her child and it will be her love which will first remind the child of God and points him or her towards Christ. Each woman, regardless of her ability to give birth, is a savior to mankind when she loves men and nurtures a child closer to Christ.”[25]

As a man and a father, I stand in awe of women who are willing to give birth. Three of my own children were delivered by C-section, two of which were in emergency situations after 24 hours of hard labor. I have a sister who has experienced exceptionally difficult pregnancies and likens pregnancy, with no hint of exaggeration, to walking through the valley of the shadow of death. And yet, women continue to have children. Christ said that there is no greater love laying down your life for others.[26] Mothers show this willingness every time they give birth, and continue to exhibit this Christ-like attribute in the way that they sacrifice of themselves for their children throughout the rest of their lives.

Of course, in light of the miraculous power of motherhood, and the endless opportunities for service, where would men be in the grand scheme of things without the opportunity to exercise the priesthood? Of course, the priesthood is not the power to order others around or compel others to obey one’s will, but it is an opportunity to bless the lives of others through service. We learn in the Doctrine and Covenants that the priesthood only operates “upon the principles of righteousness.” Men may be ordained to the priesthood, “but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.”[27] We further read that “No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of thepriesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; Bykindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge thesoul withouthypocrisy, and without  guile.” [28] Isn’t it interesting that these are the same ways in which power and influence is maintained by a mother: by persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness and by love unfeigned. And isn’t it interesting that Christ Himself, in speaking of his desire to save the Jews of Jerusalem, compares himself not to a proud rooster, but to a protective mother hen.[29]

Now as we talk about motherhood, some women will unfortunately feel excluded. In this regard, I love the words of Sheri Dew, the former General Relief Society President who, of course, has never borne children. She said: “While we tend to equate motherhood solely with maternity, in the Lord’s language, the word mother has layers of meaning. Of all the words they could have chosen to define her role and her essence, both God the Father and Adam called Eve “the mother of all living”—and they did so before she ever bore a child. Like Eve, … motherhood began before [women] were born. Just as worthy men were foreordained to hold the priesthood in mortality, righteous women were endowed premortally with the privilege of motherhood. Motherhood is more than bearing children, though it is certainly that. It is the essence of who … women [are]. It defines [their] very identity, [their] divine stature and nature, and the unique traits our Father gave [women]…. Motherhood is not what was left over after our Father blessed His sons with priesthood ordination. It was the most ennobling endowment He could give His daughters, a sacred trust that gave women an unparalleled role in helping His children keep their second estate. As President J. Reuben Clark Jr. declared, motherhood is “as divinely called, as eternally important in its place as the Priesthood itself.”[30]

Note various ways in which the word “mother” is used, not just as a noun referring to a person who has given birth. It is often used as a verb meaning: to care for, nurture, protect, teach, befriend, guide, sometimes indulge, oftentimes to discipline, but always to love.

Note too that one of the central purposes of this life is to gain experience for the life to come. Not all men will be fathers or hold the priesthood in this life. Not all women will get married or have children in this life. It is interesting to find in the scriptures that every woman who is called “barren” eventually bears children of her own. This may be a lesson to us that whether in this life or the next, if we are true and faithful to the light we receive in this life, the experience we gain here will prepare us to receive every blessing God has in store for us in eternity. In Isaiah we read: “Sing O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the Lord… For a small moment have I forsaken thee; but with great mercies will I gather thee.”[31]

So the experience and calling of motherhood is available to all women. If we are not careful, it is possible to see it as a mere biological function. However, even as a biological function, motherhood is divine and has salvific powers. As women clothe the spirit children of heavenly parents with bodies, mothers share in the creative process of God. They provide opportunities for these children to make further progress toward exaltation. If women were not willing to give birth, the work of God in bringing to pass the eternal life of mankind would be utterly frustrated. And after acting as co-creators with God, once children are here, it is through acting in the role of motherhood that women develop and display the most divine of attributes. Through their sacrifice and service, they show Christ-like love. They show a willingness to make further progress toward becoming like Christ themselves. And when any of us show a wiliness to give our lives for others, whether it is through the process of childbirth or the process of dedicating our lives to nurturing, protecting, teaching, and loving others, it is the highest, holiest service assumed by humankind.

[1] http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2010-fair-conference/2010-the-two-trees

[2] Gen. 2:8.

[3] The word “replenish” is rendered from the Hebrew word “fill.” (See footnote to Gen. 1:28.)

[4] Gen. 1:28.

[5] 2 Ne. 2:23.

[6] 2 Ne. 2:23.

[7] Moses 5:11.

[8] Alma 42:2-5.

[9] 1 Cor. 6:19.

[10] Note that the tabernacle in the wilderness was covered in skins.

[11] Matthew Cowley Speaks, (1954), 109.

[12] 1 Cor. 11:11

[13] Gen. 3:16.

[14] “The Blessings and Responsibilities of Womanhood,” Ensign, Mar. 1976, 72.

[15] http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2005/10/priesthood-authority-in-the-family-and-the-church?lang=eng

[16] The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, ed. Edward L. Kimball [1982], 315.

[17] The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 316.

[18] Eph. 5:23 & 25.

[19] Russell M. Nelson, “Lessons from Eve,” Ensign, Nov 1987, 86.

[20] Gen. 2:18.

[21] See Strongs as well as discussion here: http://womeninthescriptures.blogspot.com/2010/11/real-meaning-of-term-help-meet.html and here: http://godswordtowomen.org/help.htm

[22] “For example the word “ebenezer” in 1 Samuel 7:12 is used to describe the power of God’s deliverance. “Eben” means rock and “ezer” means “help” or “salvation“. Ebenezer therefore means “rock of help” or “rock of salvation”. The root “ezer” is the same word that God used to describe to Adam who Eve was. She was not intended to be just his helper or his companion, rather she was intended to be his savior, his deliverer.” http://womeninthescriptures.blogspot.com/2010/11/real-meaning-of-term-help-meet.html

[23] The other part of the term “help meet” which is commonly translated as “meet for” or “fit for” is the word “k’enegdo”. It is hard to know exactly what the word k’enegdo means because it only appears once in the entire Bible. Yet Diana Webb explained that, “Neged, a related word which means “against”, was one of the first words I learned in Hebrew. I thought it was very strange that God would create a companion for Adam that was “against” him! Later, I learned that kenegdo could also mean “in front of” or “opposite.” This still didn’t help much. Finally I heard it explained as being “exactly corresponding to,” like when you look at yourself in a mirror.”http://womeninthescriptures.blogspot.com/2010/11/real-meaning-of-term-help-meet.html

[24] P. 25.

[25] http://womeninthescriptures.blogspot.com/2010/11/real-meaning-of-term-help-meet.html

[26] John 15:13.

[27] D&C 121:36-37.

[28] D&C 121:41-42.

[29] Matt. 23:37.

[30] Are We Not All Mothers, Ensign. Nov. 2001

[31] Isa. 54:1, 7.

* Note that the original footnote 11 of this piece has been removed. That footnote expanded on the concept of a woman’s body being analogous to a temple. Some people found the references to female anatomy to be objectionable. In order to avoid potentially offending others and distracting people from the main point of the piece, I have removed the footnote.

Mormon Fair-Cast 211: What has the Church said about DNA studies and the Book of Mormon?

by

Podcast: Download (8.6MB)

Subscribe: RSS

MartinTannerIn this episode of Religion Today, Martin Tanner reviews the article published in the Gospel Topics section of LDS.org regarding DNA studies and the Book of Mormon. This episode originally aired on KSL Radio on February 2, 2014 and appears here by permission of KSL Radio. The opinions expressed do not necessarily represent the views of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or of FairMormon.

Listeners will note that the first part of this episode is missing. We apologize for this inconvenience.

Mormon Fair-Cast 220: Research regarding religion.

by

Podcast: Download (9.1MB)

Subscribe: RSS

MartinTannerIn this episode of Religion Today, Martin Tanner discusses the cutting-edge research regarding religion. This episode originally aired on KSL Radio on December 8, 2013 and appears here by permission of KSL Radio. The opinions expressed do not necessarily represent the views of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or of FairMormon.