In 2007, PBS aired a documentary called The Mormons. In it, the documentary’s announcer and the Utah historian Ken Verdoia made the following observation:
ANNOUNCER: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is one of the world’s fastest growing religions. Mormons walk the corridors of power, leaders in Congress and even running for president. But it was not always so.
KEN VERDOIA: In the 19th century, to call someone a Mormon was akin to calling someone a Muslim terrorist.
ANNOUNCER: The Mormon story is the epic saga of a new American faith fired by the startling revelations of Joseph Smith, of a people embroiled in decades of religious conflict, who crossed a continent to establish their own spiritual kingdom, and a church that defied society by embracing polygamy and then abruptly abandoned it.
KEN VERDOIA: From the ultimate outcast to the embodiment of the mainstream in two generations. It’s a breathtaking transformation.
The Mormons (Part Two), PBS, Frontline and American Experience, 2007
The idea is that the Mormons, despite a culture of strict adherence to modern prophetic utterances, have somehow also been able to change themselves dramatically over the last two centuries. From a backwater cult swearing secret blood oaths of vengeance in the holy temple to a quasi-mainstream American religion with a Tony-award-winning tribute on Broadway, the chameleonic Mormons are paragons of adaptability. What accounts for this? And if “obedience is the first law of heaven,” as every Mormon believes, then what is the process by which they eventually begin to ignore the words of the prophets and go their own way?
Mormon Obedience
Growing up in the church, I believed in the words of the prophets, and would follow them strictly even if it damaged me psychologically. I think this tendency was part of my personality, as it wasn’t something that I was strictly taught to do. My parents were certainly faithful Mormons, but they weren’t so strict as to do things like force us to wear our Sunday best the entire day after returning home from church, as some of our peers were required to do. Nevertheless, I was always a little bit harder on myself than necessary. Starting at the age of eight, I remember making myself read The Book of Mormon for at least one hour each evening, before I allowed my head to hit the pillow. These “hardliner” tendencies were my orientation of worship throughout my life, so naturally I was riddled with guilt.
During my church mission in South America, I was sometimes called “The Ruler,” because I kept the mission rules so religiously and required the missionaries under my leadership to do the same. In the mission, we often quoted Helaman’s description of the stripling warriors to each other to encourage rule-following behavior:
Yea, and they did obey and observe to perform every word of command with exactness; yea, and even according to their faith it was done unto them; and I did remember the words which they said unto me that their mothers had taught them.
The Book of Mormon, Alma 57:21
The emphasis was always on the word “exactness.” Following the rules with exactness was the key to success in converting souls to Christ. In one of my proselytizing areas, I lived with my companion and two other missionaries in the bishop’s home. For my birthday, the bishop’s wife had prepared a special meal for me and the other missionaries. One of the items on the table was a mayonnaise-based dipping sauce, and the other missionaries were very excited to try it out. I asked the bishop’s wife if the dipping sauce contained raw eggs, and she confirmed that it did. I immediately asked her to remove the sauce from the table, since raw eggs were “against the mission rules.” (I believe that the reason the mission rule was in effect was because we were being protected from potential bacterial infections). The bishop stared at me slack-jawed after my pronouncement. His surprise turned to frustration and then to anger. I didn’t budge. The sauce had to go. And so it did, but not without me gaining the moniker of the Mayonnaise Enforcer in addition to The Ruler.
Some active Mormons who have heard my hilarious-but-also-sad mayonnaise story have been quick to draw the conclusion that the reason I am no longer Mormon is because I took the church too seriously. I should have been more flexible, they’ve said, and maybe I could have found a way to stay in the church. Though it is impossible to know what factors could have conspired to convince me to remain Mormon, I have no doubt that there is at least some truth in their observation. But the logical inconsistency of having to not listen too closely to the prophet to be able to Follow the Prophet didn’t seem to bother them too much.
So it seems, at least to me, that part of being Mormon is to not be too literal in your commitment to being obedient. Only the semi-committed survive? Would the iron rod work better if it were made out of memory foam? If obedience really is the first law of heaven, and if we love God by keeping his commandments, what is the process that Mormons go through to achieve this squishy stance and thus protect themselves from fanaticism?
Prophetic Mistakes and Mormon Excuses
The General Authorities of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have said some pretty horrendous things over the last two centuries. In an earlier post, I mentioned how Boyd K. Packer encouraged violence as a response to homosexual advances. Indeed, there have been many examples in recent Mormon history of racist, homophobic, misogynist, anti-intellectual, and dishonest statements made by the brethren called as prophets, seers, and revelators. To get a taste of the outdated views of the General Authorities and how things have evolved, consider the following video summarizing statements of the brethren on the gender roles of women. An ex-Mormon documentary filmmaker at Emerson College put together a doozy of a collection:
There are very few, if any, Mormons among the younger generation today that would endorse such views. The common excuse is that these authorities were “speaking as men” and not as prophets. After all, the saying goes, the prophet will never lead us astray. Men are flawed by their nature as human beings, and sometimes they say things that are opinionated and reflect their own biases and imperfections. Christ is at the helm of the ship, and He eventually steers it in the right direction, even if things temporarily go wrong.
In an interview with John Dehlin on Mormon Stories Podcast, ex-Mormon filmmaker and NYU grad student Gregory Barnes talked about how he justified objectionable statements by the brethren in his mind:
I just told myself this is temporary, like with blacks and the priesthood, this will change and the fundamental principle that Jesus taught of love thy neighbor and love one another, that will win in the end. Which has certainly not been the case.
Gregory Barnes, interview with John Dehlin on Mormon Stories Podcast, episode 1391
Some Mormons stay in the church by believing in a better future.
At least the future-oriented Mormons recognize that the prophets have said some terrible things. Mormon apologists are more mendacious. In their denial of prophetic imperfection, they will resort to inventing a confusing framework of guidelines based on the confirmation of the Holy Ghost. Unfortunately, spiritual confirmations are are unreliable.
Thus, the Mormons of today have developed “squirreliness” in their convictions of prophetic utterances. They press forward by relying on personal revelation, prayer, and the guidance of the Spirit to help them navigate the great mystery. The live in a permanent state of denial, defending the brethren to the bitter end while acknowledging that they are often wrong. The next prophet comes along, reveals new truth, and the progressive Mormon is overjoyed with vindication. Nothing is more constant in the Mormon church than change.
