Can We Talk?

When you have got an elephant by the hind legs 

and he is trying to run away, it's best to let him run.

-- Abraham Lincoln

The most recent Gospel Topics essay put out by the Church is on the origins of the Book of Abraham, specifically, but implied more generally is a clarification of what might constitute a "translation" in the context of our canonized scripture. The idea, as they advance it in this essay, is huge. My mind is still struggling under the weight. Which is fine with me; it's nice to have something new to chew on that contains neither the word Priesthood nor the word excommunication.

I love these essays. They take cans of worms, they open them, they (almost) get them sorted, and they (almost) make me feel better.

No really, I do love them because they are an attempt on the part of the Church to take some thorny issues, help us view them through the lens of historical context, and then provide a current, official viewpoint. I'm not sure why they're not being more widely publicized. It's my understanding that they're not being translated into additional languages, for instance. If that is true, I hope it changes in the future. I find them extremely beneficial. 

They feel like talking.

They feel like we're actually acknowledging a few of our Mormon Elephants.

Part of what I have struggled with most in my church life has been that I've always seen elephants, and I've wondered if I'm the only one. I've sat in so many meetings where I've wanted to raise my hand and say, "BUT --" or "Come on...really?!" But I often feel like the question that is so painfully obvious to me must be invisible to everyone else.

Which is the kind of thing that can make you wonder whether you're crazy, or at the very least in the wrong meeting.

A blog post over at Patheos stopped me in my tracks the other day. It was called Mormon Women, Traditionalists and Feminists: An Evolving Conversation, written by Andrea Radke-Moss, a history professor at BYU. She said many things so well, but this is the passage to which I keep returning:
 
"For example, most Mormon women have probably heard, at any given time, and in no particular order, the following:
Women don't have the Priesthood. Women have always had the Priesthood. Women have the Priesthood in the temple. Women have the Priesthood through their husbands. Women will never have the Priesthood. Women don't have the Priesthood because they are spiritually inferior to men. Women don't have the Priesthood because they are spiritually superior to men. Women will have the Priesthood in the next life. Women don't have the Priesthood because they have motherhood. Not all women are mothers (literally). All women are mothers (symbolically). Mormons practice polygamy. Mormons don't practice polygamy. Traditional marriage is between one man and one woman. Men can be sealed to more than one woman. Members will be required to practice plural marriage in the next life. Members won't be required to practice plural marriage in the next life. Women might exercise the spiritual gift of healing by the laying on of hands. Women cannot heal because it is an exercise of priesthood. Women can heal together with their husbands. A woman's prayer of faith is just as effective as a priesthood blessing. (But then why the need for priesthood blessings?)"

When you've heard many (if not all) of those things, and she's right -- if you've been around your whole life, you probably have -- the whole thing can feel like a bit of a confused mess. I mean, read that jumble again. Clear as mud, right? Part of the problem is that we have a tremendous array of what I call "folk doctrine" circulating in the Church, sometimes masquerading as official teachings. That's probably one of the hazards of having a lay ministry and largely unsupervised teaching staff.

But a bigger part of the problem for me is that we do continue to have what I see as some contradictions between our doctrines, our "official public platform" and our actual practices.

I'll use polygamy as an example (!ALERT -- HOT BUTTON TOPIC!) and I'll try to do it without getting too far up on my soapbox.

We don't talk about it much in meetings, but the majority of the women I have really engaged on this subject over the course of my life in the Church have confided to me that they don't really "believe" in polygamy. This takes different forms and there's a wide range of responses, but the bottom line is that most seem to regard it as a "blip" of some kind, or in some way. Some flat-out reject it (albeit mostly silently); others have decided that they'll "deal with it when the time comes", putting it on the shelf for now and hoping for greater knowledge and understanding if that's required later.

I know, mine is a very informal survey. But I've lived around the country, and associated with many Mormon women in all ages and stages. So I think there's at least a kernel of validity.

Having lived most of my adult life outside Utah, I've spent a lot of my time doing Polygamy Damage Control among my non-member friends and neighbors. Every time it hits the national news, I'm busy tidying up the resulting mess and confusion yet again. The church has worked very hard to distance itself from polygamy. The official message is clear: We don't practice it. And furthermore, we don't associate with groups that do. You cannot be a polygamist and a member of the LDS church. Period. And I think people are finally getting the message.

BUT...I was recently reading the transcript of a 2007 interview that Dallin Oaks did for PBS, and came across something that hit me with unexpected force. The interviewer was pressing him about polygamy, and asked him point blank whether it would be practiced in the next life, and Elder Oaks said, "...a lot of people, myself included, are in multiple marriage situations. Look at the significance of that." He went on to say that he is married to more than one wife for eternity and that while he doesn't know what it will be like, he expects that if he is true to the covenant, the blessing that is anticipated here will be realized in the next life. 

Sealed to two women? Well now I knew that, of course. We have a couple of apostles who are. So his response shouldn't have taken me by surprise, yet it did. Precisely because we spend so much time saying we don't practice polygamy.

We obviously do.

Of course, I've always known that we continue to seal men to multiple women. For some reason I just hadn't really thought about that as being a statement of the fact that we do, indeed, believe in...and practice...polygamy.

As we were so fond of saying in the 70's...Duh. I have no explanation as to why I had not heretofore chosen to completely connect these dots. But now that they have been connected, I can't seem to un-see the resulting image.

And here's an example of a place where I want to shout "BUT --" and also "Come on...really?!" and wonder whether I'm in the right place.

We can't ignore the Polygamy Elephant in hopes that it will wander away and give us a little distance...while we're simultaneously continuing to feed it. We can't have it both ways.

If the Church really wants to clear up our stance on polygamy, we could best clear it up among members if we stopped practicing it, in my opinion. Of course, we might have to do a bit of revision in the D&C also. I don't know how that would work. If we do intend to keep practicing it, then we need to change the public answer to more accurately reflect our doctrine. Something along the lines of, "Yes, we do believe in polygamy and although it is not currently legal, we continue to practice it through our sealing ordinances, which we expect will remain in force for eternity."

Based on my highly informal "research", many women might have a problem with that public representation of things. I would.

Would it be better if we were to also allow women to be sealed to more than one man? I don't know. I only know that the way it stands, it meets the definition of polygamy.

It's just one example, but it is an important one to me. When I explain to my friends that we don't practice polygamy, I like to be able to stand behind that answer without having to nuance it in any way, in my head or aloud. And when I explain to myself that we don't practice polygamy, I like to be able to take President Hinckley at his word and finish off with "end of story".

“This Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church.... If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church.” (President Hinckley's statement, as currently referenced on Mormon.org.)

That makes sense to me. Everything I see in the temple and in our much-heralded Proclamation and in the face we put on when we go out in public tells me this: The entire plan comes down to one man and one woman. That's the unit upon which we're built. It's the stance we are in the business of publicly defending, but if we are going to really get behind the one man/one woman concept, then it seems we better really get behind it.

I'm sure there are many among my friends and family who wonder, "Why does Susan struggle so much with all these church things?"

Well, I've just provided one example. I look at an elephant of that size and wonder how everyone isn't wrestling with it. In Radke-Moss's list I find several more that I feel should merit further clarification as well. And she provided that list in response to only one idea, a woman's role in relation to the Priesthood.

I think most members avoid thinking about the whole thing, embracing instead the idea that "God will sort it all out." While I have the faith to believe that is undoubtedly true, I also think it would make sense for us to stop creating so many things that may need later sorting. We should do our part.

I find Christ's gospel to be fairly simple and straightforward. But I find Church history and doctrine to require me to step over elephants. I've been making my way around them for years, but it'd be awfully nice to see us usher a few of them right out the door, so I can finally close it behind them completely.

For the record, I'm not holding my breath. I have tremendous affection for and patience with the Church, and I think I prove that every time I show up and renew my baptismal covenant. Just the other day, my daughter Chelsea said, "I would be devastated if I didn't have a place to sing a nice loud alto or tenor part to the hymns every week." 

Agreed! Well said. And for me, putting up with a few pesky elephants still seems a fair price to pay for that privilege.

But I'm glad -- oh, so glad! -- we're at least beginning to talk. I was afraid we might never start.

- S.