Chapter 8: Ultimatum Part 2

| Part 1: My Analogy | Part 2: My Reality |

Say Anything!

“I was Mormon when I wrote this, forgive me if it goes astray” – Prince (well, sort of…)

~~~~~~~~~~

In various biblical analogies involving marriage, Jesus, the gospel, the church, or its members are alternately referred to as either the bride or the bridegroom. In the Catholic Church, both nuns and priests are regarded as being ‘brides of Christ’, and some wear a type of wedding ring to symbolize their devotion. Whatever part each partner plays in Christian parables, the marriage itself is a ubiquitous symbol for a committed, exclusive relationship between two consenting parties.

The scary thing about using an LDS Church member’s relationship with the Church as an analogy to marriage is that in LDS culture, devotion to the Church can often supersede devotion to one’s spouse. Turning Katie’s ultimatum around, what if a temple-going Mormon is given an ultimatum to choose between a non-believing spouse and the Church? Should they choose to break the marriage covenant or the baptismal covenant? Some may disagree, but the overall impression I’ve taken from the cases I’ve seen is that a partner can be replaced, but the gospel cannot; so in the eyes of the Church, perhaps this roll of the dice falls against the spouse who has issued the ultimatum.

In the event of an ultimatum, however, the ultimate blame is likely to be placed on the partner who is demanding such an impossible choice. I mean, who would ever force someone to make such an awful decision in the first place? Can’t both partners just keep freely doing what they love and pursuing their personal beliefs while staying devoted to each other? Why should dropping the church ever be put forward as a condition for remaining married? Surely only a malicious, selfish person would force an ultimatum, in which case good riddance to the conniving spouse!

Well, in truth, those sorts of ultimatums can be issued in love and without any manipulation whatsoever. I could cite one episode of the Mormon Stories podcast after another to back up that statement. When one spouse loses their faith in the Church, but the other retains theirs, a strict interpretation of LDS doctrine and scripture may have the believer believing they have lost their shot at celestial glory now that the temple sealing has essentially been nullified by a covenant-breaking spouse. Now you don’t have to go cheating on a spouse to break those covenants; one of those covenants involves ceding all you are and all you have to the Church; a non-believing spouse can’t possibly comply with that promise even if they go on paying tithing to keep the believing portion of their household temple-worthy. So the non-believing and now covenant-breaking spouse may realize in that instance that they cannot possibly provide the believing spouse with what they need to achieve exaltation, which is the end goal of all end goals in Mormonism. So should they just call it quits? I have friends who have gone that route and have been advised that the sacrifice they are making is really a sign of true love, which becomes merely an afterthought as they split up…and the believing spouse seeks a more perfect union with a partner with more promising celestial potential.

Having been armed with the imagery of Mormon folklore like Saturday’s Warrior or My Turn on Earth since childhood, I felt bonded to the LDS Church in a way that I saw as being stronger than any marriage certificate – civil or otherwise. A testimony is presented as the greatest treasure a mortal can possess, and the greatest work on earth comprises bringing your former friends to the fold. If anything stands in the way of that vision, “some dreams must wait to come true,” as one of the final numbers in these musicals concludes. Well, I’ve had to re-educate myself on my own priorities in the meantime, but I do understand those who choose the Church over their spouse when they’ve considered all of the heart-felt wants, needs, and beliefs of their partner – in light of their own expectations of eternal entry requirements. That choice does not necessarily have to involve anger and resentment; it can be based on love and mutual understanding. But it is an unnecessarily painful process that exists solely because of farcical claims of exclusivity.

Likewise, when I put an ultimatum in front of the Church, I do it knowing that I have needs that aren’t being met. Church leaders can choose to meet those needs, or they can choose to proceed without me. In this case, I am confident they will choose the latter. But I do feel that a member of the Church has just as much right to put forward an ultimatum as a cheated-on spouse. Just like Katie has the right to tell her husband to take his photo with the hooker [sorry, I haven’t found a synonymous term that isn’t equally offensive…] off his Facebook page, every Mormon has the right to tell Church leaders to take Hor off its books. Or else! …or else what?

Like a dissatisfied spouse who keeps quiet when the kids are held as collateral, refusing to see the terms of an ultimatum through in the end, I’ve known Mormons who keep their concerns to themselves because they fear that speaking up might get them blacklisted from the celestial guest list.

For someone who believes that Church leaders hold a sealing power than can revoke every key to the kingdom – and that their salvation is tied into their standing in the Church – what can they do with their concerns? Of course, there are officially prescribed protocols for airing grievances, but what should a faithful, practicing Mormon do when those channels have been exhausted, and the requests for honesty have been met with silence or never even made it past the Bishop’s office? Based on my own experience, I get the impression that you’re supposed to turn it off and go about your business quietly, taking those concerns to the grave with you – where you’ll get your answers soon enough!

If excommunication is equivalent to eternal, spiritual death, those dissidents who have been excommunicated can serve as severed heads on the stakes – ominous warnings to those who might think about following suit. But the substitution of a single, figurative domino for its rock-solid counterpart – be it an exonerating angel with a sword, an uninspired racial ban, a mistaken piece of papyrus, or the non-existence of Zelph himself – renders the whole stack of dominoes entirely harmless, right along with the benign consequence of running the chain to its conclusion.

Well, let’s consider the conditions that I have at my disposal in the overwhelmingly likely event of the Church’s non-compliance with my requests. I’m not a big fan of blackmail, infiltration, coercion, or other forms of manipulation, so the only thing I’m comfortable using as a threat for the flip side of an ultimatum is my own membership status in the Church. Like Katie’s threat of walking away from her former partnership, that’s the only weapon in my arsenal that I’m comfortable using. And in this case, I’m under no delusion that my personal concerns would ever see the inside of the HQ mail room, passing through the sentinels who triage the appeals of wounded veterans. My supposed battle wounds are seen as mere scratches that a few band-aids ought to fix; so I understand my little diatribe is like threatening a tank with a peashooter. But if there were ever enough peashooters out there – or if some trending Mormon celebrity in possession of a super-duper pea shooter were to take aim as well – the tank might just get bogged down in the pea soup.

As a missionary, I was taught an important tactical skill that I never quite mastered myself: Do not beat around the bush with your challenges. The idea is to ask people direct questions that can only be answered with a yes or a no. The prescribed Missionary Guide called them “will you” questions.

I might have a big wish list associated with my decades as a practicing Mormon, but for now I’ll start with just three demands that I’ll list as challenges to the LDS Church. I’ll phrase them here in the form of missionary-compliant will-you questions:

Will you remove the facsimiles from the lds.org website and future editions of the printed scriptures?
Will you release an official statement acknowledging that the racial ban was not inspired?
Will you rescind the November 2015 policy?

I’m assuming I’ll never receive a personal response to these requests, and that if any of these ever did make their way to the top, the answer would be a succinct no to the third power. So what’s my alternative? There might be a whole range of options for others with more prominent roles in Church leadership, but I’ll keep it simple and include three post-dated resignation letters, each of which constitutes the only threat I can make from my position of relative obscurity.

Missionaries know full well that no commitment is complete without a date, so if we’re going to set a timeframe, let’s call it quits one year from today, January 1, 2018, which should allow plenty of time to debate and either approve or deny these proposed policy changes. These renunciations wouldn’t need to involve excessive planning or deliberation; in fact, these three changes could all be made in one fleeting, 60-second public service announcement during a general conference address. Total monetary cost: zero dollars! Bang for your buck: Priceless!

I am including the letters below as form letters for others to copy and paste if they so desire. Assuming there will be no budging on these hard lines within a year, I would be entirely comfortable resigning my own membership in accordance with the terms stated in the letters, but I realize it may not be so easy for others. If, for example, you believe that your church ordinances are sacred rites that are required for admission through the pearly gates, please don’t go committing the cardinal sin of dropping your Church membership in protest of anything at all. A resignation cancels those rites, after all, and nobody deserves to live under the threat of feeling like they are doomed to FOMO telestial hell, even if it is for a stand worth taking. Those subscribing to that viewpoint could perhaps threaten something less than revoking covenants, like paying tithing on net instead of gross income. I want no part in trying to convince anyone with a believing mindset to act on these ultimatums. Figure out how to drop the mindset first, then figure out which ultimatum you’d wish to tackle. If you’re still deciding where you stand, follow the path to its conclusion before doing something drastic that could end up landing you in a depressive guilt trip.

If you adhere to the program, mailing one of these letters off would be a capital crime as far as your newly condemned soul is concerned. You would become the hand trying to steady the ark, and we all know how that story ends! Better not touch it! If you then followed through with your ultimatum and returned your all-access pass to the kingdom while still believing in the covenants you have made, you may end up living the rest of your life guilt-ridden for an unpardonable offense. There has been a lot of overdue talk about how shaming youth who have had sex can mess kids up big time while they try to navigate life with that guilt in tow. If being told they have committed #3 on the all-time list of the world’s most horrific crimes fills their soul with perceived darkness, how about moving up to #1 on that list? You felt the spirit, then denied it with your murmuring! By some interpretations of the big three, that is the most unpardonable one altogether. With your resignation letter, you’ve let the swine gobble up that preciously priced pearl, leaving it in a stinking pile of manure that you’re now throwing back in your heavenly father’s face. I don’t invoke that imagery in jest, but rather from the perspective of having heard similar Sunday school analogies that were intended as incentives to stay the course.

If you’re worried about the covenants you have made or the contracts that bind you, rest assured, they were breached long before you ever walked this earth. Just like Katie could have let herself off the hook back on the day that her so-called husband Matt first hooked up with Abi’s look-a-like, the alleged deal with the Church membership department has been invalid from the get-go. Joseph Smith’s crimes against his housekeeper landed him on his own top three list long before it was printed in your scriptures. By the time Joseph Smith made up tall tales about the Prophet Onendagus or tried his hand at translating the forged Kinderhook plates, the illegitimate membership contracts of his adherents had already become null and void, even if those running the Church’s printing presses managed to suppress the details over the years – that is, of course, until the world wide web raised them from the deep for the world to see!

So if my own testimony has any validity anymore, I’ll assert to anyone challenging the system that you’ll be just fine, even if your ordinances are revoked. You have violated nothing by demanding some change. So if you end up coming to the conclusion that Mormonism is made up, or if you are a part of the subculture of meta-Mormons who walk through the motions while perhaps debating when to finally resign, why not make a stink and try to effect a change in the process? Unless there is some other rush for pushing it through, there’s no harm in stalling it out by a year with an ultimatum just to see where it goes. If your membership happens to stay intact because Church officials end up complying with the requests, well, you may want to consider whether you’d be willing to keep staying on the books at that point…or move on to your next ultimatum. At least you’d know you were part of something that effected a positive change!

I confidently call these changes positive, because I believe each one of these concessions would open up further doors for equality and for intellectual freedom, including the freedom to choose which leaders to follow and which ones to ignore. That sort of selection process is seen as a negative thing in the church: “You can’t just cherry pick what’s palatable from the menu,” I’ve heard in one Sunday school analogy after another, “ignoring the items you don’t like just because they’re uncomfortable.”

“The truth isn’t supposed to be comfortable,” the argument continues, “Jesus said he comes with a sword, right?”

Well, some truths may be uncomfortable, but to me trying to officially uphold these three lies – among others – is much more uncomfortable than any scenario without them. When menu items are indigestible and just plain wrong, like the racial ban, the November Policy, and Hor’s fake ID, well then yes, they ought to be severed with a sword and discarded forever! Every day Mormons reject ideas like blood atonement and the deity of Adam, so why not add these extra falsehoods to the mix? There is perhaps a fear that these requested concessions would implicate those in the chain of succession who preached about their divinity along the way (which, by the way, is every single one in the line-up). And you know what? The church would survive just fine! We selectively reject selected racist statements made from the Tabernacle pulpit with the current First Presidency’s blessing. So why not selectively set a few more truths straight?

Let’s take evolution as an example of one issue where Mormons have been able to overcome backtracking as well as a standing difference of opinion. The evils of evolution were derided from the pulpit and in official publications by a chain of prophets, seers, and revelators. Nowadays we know that former prophets were wrong about the wholesale denial of the evolutionary process. Even those staunch literalists who continue to believe that mankind was dropped onto the planet in pure, perfect form tend to take medicines that are crafted to combat evolving viral or bacterial strains. But nobody these days seems to be walking out of the church over the former errors of ignorance about cell mutations. One person can sit in a Sunday school class believing evolution is false; another can sit in the same Sunday school class believing it is true; each can cite a prophet to back up their case, and they can sit next to each other and get along just fine with no need for a disciplinary council. Your estimate of the number of zeroes in the age of the earth, be it thousands, millions, or billions of years, doesn’t figure into your worthiness interview; yet your rejection of misidentified hieroglyphs or Israelite heritage for Native Americans makes you an outcast?

Why can’t participation in the Mormon community include an acceptance of metaphorical interpretations of documents with questionable authenticity and – if not genuine acceptance – at least tacit tolerance of a belief in the fallibility of leaders who have instituted flawed guidance in the past? I believe the three issues I’ve chosen to highlight here – from among hundreds of other potential requests for transparency – would open the door to a less judgmental and exclusive community.

Perhaps there is a fear that those with more liberal beliefs might begin to ostracize the steadfast literalists if all mindsets were given equal time in the open forum of a Sunday school class or testimony meeting. Over the years, a wide range of news stories have covered incidents in which those who support discriminatory policies claim to have been discriminated against for expressing their God-given right to hold discriminatory beliefs. Does the intolerance go both ways? In the event that some of these requested changes allow the proverbial worms to irretrievably escape their can of comfort, perhaps there would be mumbled comments from those who can’t understand or respect each other’s mutual beliefs; but could a wider acceptance of unorthodox beliefs result in a more tolerant community in terms of actual, systemic practice?

What if someone believes that an actual human named Adam had his actual rib extracted from his actual ribcage to form an actual woman named Eve? Spencer W. Kimball said that the fable of Adam’s rib is “obviously figurative,” yet some still cling to literal interpretations of the event. Can you imagine a disciplinary council convening to cast out those proclaiming a belief that the extraction actually happened? It sounds ridiculous, which highlights the systemic tolerance of literal interpretations, even those that are acknowledged by authority to be false. If Adam’s rib is so obviously figurative, why not Adam himself? Some are able to draw a line between fact and fantasy, but I’m not one who possesses that degree of discernment. In that light, why not offer tolerance of figurative interpretations that the hard-liners believe to be false?

I understand that’s a scary prospect for those with exclusive, literal beliefs in historical authenticity and in the impossibility of any misguidance whatsoever from the top. But what would actually happen if these three suggested changes were implemented? Take an opinion poll, and you’ll find that at least the younger generation of Mormons has long since arrived at the conclusion that the ban was wrong, the November policy was misguided, and Hor…well, I’m keeping that one in as a personal pet peeve of mine, but nobody actually cares about hieroglyphs these days, so that one’s a wash with today’s youth!

So I’ll start by giving it a try with three generic, copy-and-pasteable letters that I am mailing off to the LDS Church headquarters, with my own details included in the form fields. I invite others to do the same. Here we go:

[DATE]

[NAME]
[ADRESS]

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
Office of the First Presidency
47 East South Temple Street
Salt Lake City, UT 84150-5310

Attn. Russell M. Nelson

Re. Canonic correction

Dear President Nelson,

My printed scriptures and the www.churchofjesuschrist.org website include an admitted error in which an ancient Egyptian named Hor is misidentified as Abraham.

In the Gospel Topics Essay on the subject, several theories have been offered as to why Hor has been misidentified; regardless of the reasoning behind the error, the explanation contained in the Book of Abraham is absolutely incorrect.

In that light, I formally request that the facsimiles be removed from the official website and from future printed editions of the Pearl of Great Price. Alternatively, please correct the captions to reflect the actual meaning of the characters as unanimously accepted by both LDS and non-LDS scholars with expertise in the subject.

I cannot ask my missionary-age children to distribute an erroneous text while proclaiming its truth. The purported translations are untrue, and things that are untrue should have no place in canonized scripture.

A refusal to correct the known error constitutes a breach of my membership terms. As such, I have attached a post-dated resignation letter. One year from today, on [DATE], I will log onto the church website and navigate to the Pearl of Great Price on the scriptures page. If the facsimiles with the false explanations remain, please process the attached request and remove my name from the records of the LDS Church.

If the erroneous captions have been removed in the meantime, I will withdraw my resignation request and take it as a sign that the current organization embraces truth over reputation. Please discard the attached letter if the errors are corrected in the meantime.

Sincerely,

[Signed]

[Name]

Encl. Resignation letter

[DATE]

[NAME]
[ADRESS]

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
Office of the First Presidency
47 East South Temple Street
Salt Lake City, UT 84150-5310

Attn. Russell M. Nelson

Re. Systemic racism

Dear President Nelson,

The Gospel Topics Essay on Race and the Priesthood includes the following statements:

“Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse.”

“Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.”

As far as I am aware, the introduction and implementation of the racial ban has not been condemned in the same manner as the reasons for the ban, leading some Church members to still consider the ban to have been inspired.

Some of the now-decried reasons for the ban were cited by the same man who introduced the ban itself; to claim that one was inspired while the other is condemned defies all logic and principles of equality.

In that light, I formally request that an official statement be issued to the body of the Church stating that the ban was not inspired.

Because of Brigham Young’s complicit role in this and other erroneous, racist teachings, I cannot keep his name on my professional profiles unless the entirety of his racist teachings are rescinded and disavowed, including his implementation of the ban itself.

Although I graduated from the university bearing his name, I have deleted the name from my resume, and call on other graduates to do the same until this change is made. A refusal to issue the statement indicates an official stance that the ban was of God, which is a tenet I cannot accept.

If a statement disavowing Brigham Young’s ban has not been issued within one year of today, [DATE], please process the attached, post-dated resignation letter and remove my name from the records of the LDS Church.

If a statement condemning the priesthood ban is issued in the meantime, I will withdraw my resignation request and take it as a sign of progress. Please discard the attached letter in that event.

Sincerely,

[Signed]

[Name]

Encl. Resignation letter

[DATE]

[NAME]
[ADRESS]

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
Office of the First Presidency
47 East South Temple Street
Salt Lake City, UT 84150-5310

Attn. Russell M. Nelson

Re. November 2015 policy

Dear President Nelson,

The November 2015 policy barring children in same-sex households from ordinances is simply wrong.

I formally request that the policy be rescinded, and that the reasoning behind it be disavowed.

The Doctrine and Covenants states that “all things shall be done by common consent in the church.” The current website reaffirms that approach, stating that “Latter-day Saints continue to conduct Church business by common consent.”

If I were seated in a congregation, and the policy were to be read aloud, followed by the question, “any opposed by the same sign?” I would voice my objection. In this case, nobody asked the membership, but as far as I can tell, the vote is far from unanimous.

I cannot allow my baptismal-age children to join an organization that would withhold saving ordinances from children due to the actions of others within their household. Just like those in same-sex households are being asked to do, I will ask my own children to wait until the age of 18 to decide for themselves whether they wish to be baptized while this policy is in place.

A refusal to rescind the policy constitutes a breach of my membership terms and the law of common consent. As such, I have attached a post-dated resignation letter that will allow the church to operate by common consent without the objection of this member. If the policy is still in place one year from today, on [DATE], please process the attached, post-dated resignation letter and remove my name from the records of the LDS Church.

If the policy has been rescinded in the meantime, I will withdraw my resignation request and take it as a sign that the current organization embraces acceptance over exclusivity. Please discard the attached letter if the policy has been rescinded in the meantime.

Sincerely,

[Signed]

[Name]

Encl. Resignation letter

[DATE]

[NAME]
[ADRESS]

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
Member Records Division
50 East North Temple, Room 1372
Salt Lake City, UT 84150-5310

To whom it may concern:

My membership number is [000-0000-0000] and my confirmation date is [DATE].

My full name is [NAME] and my date of birth is [DOB]. My residence address on record is [ADDRESS].

I, [NAME], hereby resign my membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, effective [FUTURE DATE].

Please confirm receipt of this request by return mail.

Sincerely,

[Signed]

[Name]

Encl. Conditions of resignation

Even though these letters are addressed to Salt Lake, according to prescribed protocol, the letters would need to be handed to local leaders who can then decide whether to pass them along through authorized channels…at their discretion. I’m not confident either route would land these particular letters on any one of the fifteen decision-making desks in the Church Office Building, but I’ll cover my bases with these and try both routes.

The final form letter above ends with a resignation – or perhaps an interim excommunication if it is classified as apostacy in the meantime – so believers who support these causes but wish to retain their church membership may want to replace that last letter with a more benign imposition. Dropping BYU from your social media profiles, for instance, can certainly be done without endangering your soul, so maybe start with that. Withholding tithing contributions might be another alternative approach, but if you still want to see your daughter get married, you may need to square things up every two years!

Is it treasonous for the rank and file to send off letters like this demanding action? There doesn’t seem to be an alternative, authorized approach for cumulatively collecting concerns from the masses and sending them up the chain for consideration; the organization simply isn’t set up that way. Former general authority Hans Mattson, for example, said his assigned mandate was not to represent the people to the brethren, but rather to represent the brethren to the people. Although all things must be done “by common consent in the church,” the organization has never claimed to be a democracy or an institution that is fueled by grass-roots initiatives. If a member of the Church disagrees with a policy or doctrine coming down from the top, the recommended remedy is to pray about it until it feels right. If it still doesn’t feel right, you probably need more humility. Whatever the missing ingredient, the problem lies in your own heart and not with the order itself.

If you find some fault within the Church, pointing it out makes you a fault-finder – by the very definition of the term. But even if you weren’t looking for it in the first place, you don’t get to ask Church leaders to fix a problem that comes to light; you humbly accept things as they are, or you leave. You are expected to support and comply with officially sanctioned policies while they are in place; you do not get to call for change from the pews if you intend to remain in good standing. Yes, you can voice some benign concerns, and you may be told they’ve been passed up the chain in an attempt to make you feel better. But when those concerns relate to church-wide doctrines, policies, and procedures, such as my three challenges here, they’ll be politely dismissed before the complaint ever clears the local level. The only way these concerns would result in a systemic change is if a huge pile of targeted letters clogged up the Church Office Building’s mailroom, and the statistics showed a noticeable, corresponding drop in baptisms or tithing funds. Even then, of course, there’s no guarantee of a response; and even in the event of an apparently correlated directive, there would be no official acknowledgment of an association with the pressures of popular demand.

A top-down structure can be very effective in some circumstances – such as wartime – but that approach is also fraught with collateral damage. If you’re a general waging a war, for instance, you don’t want every foot soldier’s opinion on how the war should be fought; you want them to do what they’re told when they’re told so you can win the war in your own way. Like it or not, that’s how militaries are structured. If the commanders want intel from the front lines, they’ll commission their operatives to go out and get it; they’re certainly not going to take their advice from some short-sighted private in a trench with no clue about the aerial reconnaissance footage. So shut up and do your job, maggot!

That blind adherence is what boot camp is supposed to drill into new recruits; though it sounds cold-hearted, history has shown that it is very difficult to win a battle without instilling that very effective mindset among the ranks. But on the flip side, the collateral damage of authoritarianism is that you may sacrifice your own troops by ignoring their point-blank observations – intelligence that could well have helped correct an erroneous, deadly command issued from behind an oak desk.

As a foot soldier in this particular theater, I don’t expect to get any answer to these challenges other than possibly a request by the local chain of command to cease and desist with any related public statements. No matter; I can walk away just the same, whether or not my voice is ever heard. But I’ll claim the right to put this ultimatum out there just as Katie had the right to demand that Matt remove the photo with the false caption.

Why can I confidently say that my individual concerns will be dismissed in this case? Because I am claiming that the misidentification of Hor leads Church members astray; the belief that God willed the racial ban leads Church members astray; and the dragnet of the November Policy leads Church members astray. I believe the changes I am requesting will be denied, because canonized scripture says that the Church is incapable of leading its members astray…which is exactly what I am saying has happened in these letters!

For the head-nodding masses of lay Church members, any apparent straying by the Lord’s anointed must alternatively be reclassified as a deliberate, Abrahamic test or attributed to God’s mysterious ways. As the argument goes, if a prophet has led his people astray, then the scripture stating that impossibility is false; but the scriptures are true, so any statement claiming that the prophet has led people astray is necessarily false. If officially proclaimed policies end up being exposed as misguided in the end, the responsibility for the error lies with those holding the keys; you’ll be blessed for having obediently followed the directives in the meantime, even though that’s impossible, because it has never happened…even though it has. So we find ourselves at an impasse that defies all logic, with a true and living prophet as the trump card: He’s right even when he’s wrong!

There are societies out there where a man is legally incapable of being charged with adultery, so if an adulterous act takes place, it must have been the woman’s fault. In a similar imbalancing act, the Mormonistic idea that a leader cannot lead followers astray automatically makes apostates out of those followers who see the Ship listing or veering off course. Actually, it’s fine to observe the phenomenon itself, just don’t mention it – at least not publicly! Those who have pointed out dangerous deviations have been thrown off “the Old Ship Zion” in the past, and then when the Captain ended up replicating the recommended adjustments to the course, it was called divine revelation. I call it absolutely bizarre!

Maybe I’ll find out I was wrong with some of my assertions, but I’ve still heard no confession around the proven felony counts, just the convoluted acknowledgment of an occasional misdemeanor that is always accompanied by a lengthy excuse that exonerates the Church. I realize that in the absence of any introspective recognition – just like in Katie’s story – the burden of initiating the divorce proceedings rests entirely with me. Perhaps if these letters hit the proverbial fan, I’ll be served with papers myself before the trial separation is over, but if there is no observable change or reaction in the meantime, I’ve consigned to the idea that I will need to file the papers on my own.

This is not an easy breakup; there have been beautiful, transcendent moments that I can’t easily discard. I made lifelong commitments with what I saw to be huge consequences in the event of a breach, and I don’t take that lightly. The complexities go beyond Katie and Matt’s relatively simple, one-on-one relationship. In my case there are children involved, and I need to think long and hard about whether to give up custody to the Church’s youth programs, or whether to fight for it myself. The potential impacts reverberate through all of the mystical generations of time that I can muster in my mind, accompanied by a soundtrack of every spiritual connection I have ever felt.

Breakup songs can go in many directions that tap into a wide range of emotions: anger, jealousy, regret, resentment, relief, disorientation, resolve, and more. Believe me, my mind has scanned them all in figuring out where I stand on the potential dissolution of a longer-than-life-long relationship. We’re talking eternal, multi-generational, worlds-without-end, soulmate dreams that have been shattered here. You don’t just call that off over spilled milk and strippings, as the pioneer folklore warns. In this case, however, we aren’t dealing with trivial indiscretions: People have died defending things that are now no longer defended; doctrines that were publicly attributed to God’s will have been simply redefined and dismissed as erroneous cultural influences. The wreckage floating in the wake of these flip flops is far from benign; it includes heartbreak, suicides, shattered families, and broken lives. Like the brothel fire that points to Matt as the culprit, there are allegations of serious transgressions that can’t simply be swept away with dismissive excuses, and the fact that any culpability is flatly denied makes it all the more aggravating in light of the overwhelming evidence that implicates the LDS Church in a wide range of cover-ups.

When I was teaching church history lessons from the official church history volumes, I had the right to know that the man who wrote it, B.H. Roberts, believed that the Book of Mormon was made up. Instead, his actual beliefs were buried and erased from the record to keep adherents like me from arriving at the same conclusion. When someone leaves the church, their story can be rewritten to suit the desired narrative. Take Chief Apostle Thomas Marsh, for instance: To this day his story continues to be repeated as a sad example of how trivial matters like milk and cream can lead to apostasy. In reality, Marsh left over objections to the violent eradication campaigns that Mormons instigated against the gentiles who got in their way. Whether or not that stance was justified, it was certainly no trivial matter at the time, but in fables that continue to emanate from the pulpit and get printed in lesson manuals year after year, the loss of his keys to the kingdom is held up as a heavy price to pay for bickering over cream strippings.

In Brigham Young’s public derision of Marsh – with Marsh himself in attendance – the Lord’s Feline trumpishly gloated about how many young women would prefer him over Marsh, citing Marsh’s appearance as evidence that apostacy will leave you old and feeble. Mormonism, on the other hand, had kept the prophet himself contrastingly young and handsome. “I could find more girls who would choose me,” he bragged, citing his many wives as evidence of his own prowess. He then continued to humiliate the man who had just begged him for his forgiveness. “Look at him,” said the so-called King of Beasts on behalf of the Lord, “I doubt whether he could get one wife.” Yes, guys like Brother Brigham can grab women by their bonnets while guys like Marsh are out of luck; that was the prophetic message to the congregation. Well, I’ve censored some potentially objectionable language elsewhere in this volume, but I would encourage any reader to look up what Brigham Young said on the day…and then please tell me if you can find a better definition of the word asshole anywhere in print.

Nobody in the wannabe State of Deseret that day wanted to be Thomas Marsh, felled of his manhood by mere quibbles and niggles. Assuming that’s how my own issues with the Church will be portrayed among believers, active Mormons might wonder how I could possibly threaten to leave the Church over such little details.

“What, do you think you’re perfect?” they’ll ask, “We all have faults, including prophets. How can you leave over such minor mistakes, when we’re all prone to make them?”

How could I let something so miniscule as a piece of papyrus, for example, get in the way of my eternal progression? How could I let something that trivial revoke every birthright and priesthood key I might have had, canceling my temple sealing, and making spiritual bastards out of my kids? Well, if I still felt like those were real things, believe me, I simply wouldn’t have the guts to take a stand.

If there were Nephites, I’d stick it out and let these issues slide. Only there weren’t any Nephites, so here we are. As far as mistakes, I’m actually fine with historical missteps; I’ve lived with an awareness of many of the mistakes for a long time, having resolved them in my head, if not my heart, with a wide range of apologetic dismissals. But I’m not leaving over the mistakes; I’m leaving – or at least contemplating my exit – over the continued coverup of those mistakes and the blatant refusal to admit and correct them, which exposes the current mindset within the institution’s leadership…which doesn’t fit my definition of inspiration.

How can I leave over an issue as harmless as a few mistranslations? Well, I’ll turn the question around and ask how I can possibly keep quiet about this? I’m an engineer, so if I look at it from that perspective, how could a structural engineer who finds a fractured keystone keep quiet about the potential collapse of the arch? The keystone of the LDS Church is a translation, after all, no matter which century’s lexicon is twisted to redefine the term translation. I could pull any example out of my engineering ethics courses as further illustration: The dam is leaking; the O-Ring is faulty; the nuts holding up the walkway are under-designed! What should you do when you become aware of the defect? Walk away quietly? Or call it out? In this case, I’ve finished my investigation, I’ve reached my conclusions, and I’ve written up my report about the structural deficiencies. But when I turned in my assessment, I was surprised to find that nobody wanted to hear any results that didn’t conclude that the structure was sound. “It’s not a real crack,” I’ve been told, “it’s just been painted to look like a crack, intended to fool all but the most scrupulous inspectors.” Well, I checked it out for myself – thoroughly – and it is in fact a big-ass crack! If you think it’s safe, I guess that’s your prerogative; but as for me, if my voice is going to get ignored anyway, I’m at least getting the hell out from under the arch!

So I’m at a crucial decision point, but to play it safe given the high stakes, I’m opting for a one-year trial separation. Should we go our separate ways when time runs out, I would hope that my ex and I would retain enough mutual respect for each other to avoid constant bashing in the future; but accountability is something I will demand in the meantime. Some may call me out for making demands of God or Christ, throwing me into the same downtrodden cast of duplicate characters who were executed for equivalent crimes in Book of Mormon lore. In this case, I’m not making demands of any being at all; these three requested changes are systemic, institutional matters, and I simply believe that an institution – guided by those at its head – can be pressed into doing the right thing if enough of its members are on board with the proposed progress. Positive change in terms of basic human equity has typically come from the bottom up throughout the Church’s history, but wouldn’t it be refreshing if these three changes – and others like them – occurred independently, before the public pressure, and without the “gift” being given grudgingly? I imagine that is what divine direction would actually look like!

I’m not requesting these changes in order to get people to leave, even though each of the preceding letters comes with that threat; I’m requesting these changes to allow people like me to stay – to stay in a more tolerant and accepting environment that allows scepticism and genuine questioning and provides a place for people who do not enjoy getting their intelligence insulted by being tasked with promoting proven lies as absolute truth. I haven’t found that place within Mormonism so far, but perhaps something along those lines will be carved out in the future, slowing down the rate of those who are abandoning ship.

As it stands, Church leaders continue to refuse to answer difficult questions truthfully, leaving adherents with the ambivalence of being able to blame God’s mysterious ways for any discrepancies between historical practices and simple morality. Like Katie when she was left to her own assumptions in the face of Matt’s belligerent, unrepentant attitude, sometimes I feel hurt, sometimes I feel angry, and sometimes I just don’t care. But for now, I’m still standing outside the entrance with my boombox overhead. The stereo is belting out three requests, but I don’t expect anyone to come out and greet me in the driveway. When the song ends a year from today, January 1, 2018, I expect to find myself driving away without the reconciliation of a Hollywood movie ending, because I expect a stubborn refusal to emerge from the vaulted room and face the truth.

I see the doorway to a thousand churches
The resolution of all the fruitless searches
All my instincts, they return
And the grand façade so soon will burn
Without a noise, without my pride
I reach out from the inside

Well my gradually evolving perspective might be reflected with a slight variation in that last line:

I reach in from the outside

In the meantime, my demands are simple enough:

Say something!
Say anything!

[Next: Chapter 9 – Audition]