My Inner Conflict

Occasionally, my wife and I have discussions as to what the roles of the husband are and what the roles of the wife should be.  I am very traditional and believe that the man should work as well as do the yard-work/honey-do’s, etc, while the wife should take care of the kids, cook, and clean.  She believes almost the same as I, except that when I get home, I should help with the housework/etc.

We often turn to religion to help us out in this area. Unfortunately, there is absolutely no consistency  as to what the defined roles should be.  Interestingly enough, every time that roles are mentioned, they are spoken of as if it were doctrine from God and that the answer is simple.  The answers are not simple when you listen to them in church. Hear is what our scriptures say in pure and simple truth:

1 Peter 3
1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands, that if any obey not the Word, they also may be won without the word by the conduct of their wives
2 while they behold your chaste manner of living coupled with fear.
3 When adorning yourselves, let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing gold, or of putting on apparel;

4 but let it be the hidden man of the heart which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which in the sight of God is of great price.
5 For in this manner in olden times the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands,
6 even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. Ye are her daughters as long as ye do well and are not afraid with any bewilderment.
7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with your wives with understanding, giving honor unto the wife as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers be not hindered.
8 Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one for another. Love each other as brethren, be sympathetic, be courteous,
9 not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing, but contrariwise blessing, knowing that ye are called thereto, that ye might inherit a blessing.

That sounds pretty simple to me.  That is what was preached in the early Mormon church.  In fact, our wives make covenants to this doctrine in the temple (which have contained the same covenants since the time of Adam).  Though the covenant for the wife is still related to this scripture, the words have been changed to be less direct since 1990.

Peter isn’t the only one who preaches this.  Anywhere that roles are mentioned, it states:

“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.” -Ephesians 5:22

“And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.” -Genesis 2:18

“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.” -Colossians 3:18

Here is how our leaders are starting to ‘interpret’ these scriptures.  Notice, out of all of the text that was written, there is only one word that is not natively understood by the layman. Look at how we disregard the rest of the scriptures and latch on trying to define that word so it doesn’t sound so harsh:

The Lord intended that the wife be a helpmeet for man (meet means equal)—that is, a companion equal and necessary in full partnership. Presiding in righteousness necessitates a shared responsibility between husband and wife; together you act with knowledge and participation in all family matters. For a man to operate independently of or without regard to the feelings and counsel of his wife in governing the family is to exercise unrighteous dominion” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1994, 68; or Ensign,Nov. 1994, 50–51).

Actually, helpmeet means: a helpful partner (Princeton)

Merriam-Webster: : one who is a companion and helper ; especially : wife

While serving as First Counselor in the First Presidency, President Gordon B. Hinckley declared to fathers: “Yours is the basic and inescapable responsibility to stand as the head of the family. That does not carry with it any implication of dictatorship.

Really?  Did we forget, “wives, obey your husbands” or “being in subjection unto their own husband?” In each of the lessons and talks of the church that I have heard and researched, I didn’t read one line about the wife being obedient and obeying her husband…interesting, since that was the most important part of the relationship.  1st Peter isn’t even mentioned in our marriage class, we only teach that husbands and wives are equal and that the decisions should be made jointly.  Does that seem consistent with doctrine?  If I were to teach that the women should work on being more obedient to their husbands, there would be an outcry from both the members and my leaders.  Something seems wrong here.

Ephesians 4

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ: 14 That we from now on be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness…

Hebrews 13

8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. 9 Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines.

Mormon 8th Article of Faith

We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

(in case you’re wondering, Joseph Smith fixed the translation problems in the Bible, so  the verses quoted in this article are considered doctrine)

So, I am curious….what do you think?  Doesn’t it seem as though this doctrine has changed in a very fundamental level?  Interesting that it coincides with the woman’s liberation movement that the church fought so vigerously against.

How often do any of us think about what we are taught?  I’m talking to all of you Mormons, Lutherans, Protestants, Baptists, etc.  When I think about the ’simple’ answers that religion gives us to life’s questions, I am reminded more of an uneducated parent who does not have the answers and makes up a nice fairy-tale of what the answer could be.  For example:

Q: How did all of the animals in the world get their names? Why are dogs called dogs and cats, cats?

A: Adam was the first person on the Earth and lived in the garden of Eden.  In this garden, man and animal lived in harmony. Adam knew them all and gave them names. That is how all of he animals got their names.

Q: But Adam only spoke one language.  There are several names for ‘Dog’ depending on what language you speak. How did all of these languages come about?

A: Once there was a wicked people who wanted to see God, so they built a really big tower. This tower reached into the heavens and called it the tower of Babel.  When God saw what they were doing, he got very angry and cursed them so that they all spoke different languages. That is why we have so many languages today.

Q: Why is Dad head of the household?

A: Because Eve was the first to partake of the fruit, she (and her descendants) would be subject to their husbands. They were told that their husbands would rule over them, and that they were commanded to obey their husband’s law.

Q: Mom, why do we have rainbows after it rains sometimes? Why don’t we ever have rainbows on normal days?

A: After the great flood, God promised Noah that he would never flood the Earth again and made the rainbow as a sign of that promise.  That is why we see rainbows after rainfall.

Q: If he flooded the Earth, didn’t all of the animals die?

A: God had Noah build an ark.  Noah gathered all of the animals in the world in pairs of two and put them on the arc until the flood was over.

Q: Why do some people have black skin?

A: Adam had two sons, Cain and Abel. Abel was a good son, while Cain was very evil.  One day, Cain killed his righteous brother.  God was very angry and decided to curse Cain with a black skin as a sign of his disobedience. The mark of Cain was given to any children Cain and his descendants would have to warn the world of the evil race.

Q: But didn’t the flood wipe out all of Cains children?

A: No. He let a black woman live as well (Ham’s wife) so that ‘the devil should have a representation on the Earth as well as God’. (John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, Volume 22, page 304.)

Q: Why do some people have brown skin, then?

A: This was also a curse given out by God to a group of disobedient people.  A long time ago, there were two groups of people in America, Nephites (good) and Lamanites (bad). The Lamanites were cursed with dark skin so that they would not be found attractive to the Nephites and their races would not intermix.  (2 Nephi 5:21)

Q: Will they always have brown skin, then? What if they turn good?

A: A curse is a curse.  However, if they turn good, their skin will turn whiter slowly.  In fact, “they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. [...] The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.” (Spencer W. Kimball, Improvement Era, Dec. 1960, pp.922-3)

Reading over some of these posts, I have noticed that a couple of them have taken on a negative tone :).  I thought that it would be nice to point out some very good things about Mormonism.  Having been raised in a Mormon family, I do have to say that I have ended up having a very happy and decent life.  The doctrine that the church teaches, when heeded, will make a person sober, happy, and good.  I don’t think that there is a religion out there that has such a happy people.

As a soon-to-be father, I know that I will raise my children in the church.  It teaches (and consistently reinforces) excellent morals and teaches children to be honest, kind, and respectful.  I do not want my kids to drink, take drugs, use filthy language, etc.  I want them to be fit, friendly, respectful of their elders, etc.  I was raised to be that way and I want my kids to be like that, too.

In a society where the family is falling apart, TV shows such as Cosby and The Brady Bunch are replaced with Sex in the City and Friends, gay marriage is slowly being accepted as OK, and people shack-up instead of committing to each other and getting (and staying) married, I am glad that Mormon families are weathering the storm.  I do not believe that LDS families are as strong as they were in the past, but it is a great strength compared to the alternative.  Faithful Mormon families are consistently happier and closer to each other.

I love the church and would never leave it.  If I want to have a grounded family in times of turmoil, then Mormonism is the way to go.

Please do not confuse my other posts with anti-Mormon propaganda.  These are just posts of things that I think about.

One thing that is so frustrating about my religion is that there are so many wild claims, but nothing remains in our day to validate those claims.  For example, why would God need to take the golden plates back to heaven instead of leaving them with the church to store?  Wouldn’t it be great to show the plates (at some future time) to the world so that they could see the great miracle that happened in its translation?  Instead, we are left with absolutely nothing to validate.

Many years later, however, man’s understanding of ancient languages and culture grew and it became possible to critique the one translated item that remained - the Book of Abraham.  The following video explains what happened when the translation was studied by the best minds in the word in the field of ancient Egyptian studies.

The Lost Book of Abraham

We often hear our members say, well, if it actually was the Book of Abraham that was found, then no one would need to have faith anymore, they’d all flock to our religion!  Hmm.  I hate that argument.  Just once I’d like to see something substancial that validated some of the Mormon claims. I’d love to see Hebrew DNA in the American Indians instead of some long explaination of why it is possible that it didn’t show up.  I would like to hear the prophets and apostles say, “I have seen God.”  We teach that they all do. Why, instead, do they say, “I am an especial witness of Christ, and through my special experiences with him, I know that he lives.”  Joseph Smith said that he saw God, why are none of our present day prophets allowed to say that? And finally, I’d love for those scrolls that were found to have even mentioned Abraham in some way.  Instead, our defense is, well, there must have been a piece missing.  Or, Joseph didn’t translate the papyra per-say, but rather used them as insperation to recieve a revelation.  If truth is truth, then I would expect some of it to spill out in some of our historical findings.  Here is the church’s official response to these claims regarding the Book of Abraham.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham_papyri

That response does little to convince me.

Being LDS, I am struggling in knowing for whom I should vote for president of the United States.  I am sick of the spending of George Bush (and fellow Republicans).  Our country is at a critical point when it comes to our national debt and we certainly cannot affort to continue to deficit spend.  Obama is a welcome sign for change, but I feel almost guilty considering voting for him.  My religion has always been very conservative and my family, local church, and friends all support McCain 100%.

I find it interesting that the church hasn’t told us who to vote for when in the past, they made it quite clear.  We should not vote for a black man.  I wonder why they don’t bring that up right now ?

Here is what the prophet Brigham Young preached.  I do not agree with it, but I did find it interesting:

“Again to the subject before us: as to the negro men bearing rule, not one of the children of old Cain have one particle of right to bear rule in government affairs from first to last. They have no business there. This privilege was taken from them by their own transgressions, and I cannot help it.

“I am as much opposed to the principle of slavery as any man in the present acceptation or usage of the term - it is abused. I am opposed to abusing that which God has decreed, to take a blessing, and make a curse of it. It is a great blessing to the seed of Adam to have the seed of Cain for servants…”

“Therefore, I will not consent for one moment to have an African dictate (to) me or my brethren with regard to church or state government…No, it is not right. But say some, is there anything of this kind in the constitution the United States has given us? If you will allow me the privilege of telling it right out, it is none of their damned business what we do or say here. What we do, it is for them to sanction, and then for us to say what we like about it. It is written right in the constitution ‘that every free white male inhabitant above the age of 21 years’, and etc…I have given you the true principle and doctrine.

“What the Gentiles are doing, we are consenting to do [he's referring to the "evil" abolitionist effort going on in the USA at the time]. What we are trying to do today is to make the Negro equal with us in all our privileges. My voice shall be against it all the day long. I shall not consent for one moment.”

(Speech in joint session, Feb. 5, 1852, Brigham Young Papers, Historical Dept. of the Church)

As a missionary, we always discredited other religions by pointing out how they change with the wind in order to please the people.  In some religions, women can hold the priesthood.  Many of the the doctrines of the Catholic church are the result of the great council (can’t remember the name of this mtg right now) where mere men argued and voted on the doctrine. If God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, don’t these issues bother you? Of course, if people wouldn’t discuss it, then we would get so frustrated and later talk about how they were closed minded and wouldn’t use plain logic to see how false their church was!

But what about my church?  As I get older, I realize that there are plenty of things that have changed in our faith as well.  If God doesn’t change, then why are basic values and doctrines changing?
Of course, the ‘canned’ answers come to my mind when think about these things.  But then I really think about these things from a logical perspecitve.  I’m not saying that I’m going to leave the church or anything, I’m just saying that these are things that I think about sometimes….

First, Polygamy comes to mind.  Initially, the church denounced it as evil.  The scriptures themselves said it was against the law of God.  The Book of Mormon said it was evil as well as the early editions of the Doctrine & Covenants.  However, when Joseph Smith and Brigham Young started practicing it, the scriptures changed to allow it.

In the 1835 edition of the canonized Doctrine and Covenants, section 104 denounced polygamy:

“Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the CRIME of fornication, and POLYGAMY: we declare that we believe, that ONE man should have ONE WIFE; and one woman, but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.”
(D&C 104, until 1876 edition, when it was removed)

The Book of Mormon says the following about David and Soloman and their wives:

“For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in  INIQUITY; they understand NOT the scriptures, for they seek to  excuse them- selves in committing WHORE- DOMS, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.“ Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was ABOMINABLE BEFORE ME, saith the Lord.”

(Book of Mormon, p. 111, verses 23-24)

However, as Joseph started practicing polygamy, the scriptures changed to accommodate it.  As mentioned above, the D&C 104 scripture against polygamy was removed in 1876.  The following scripture in the D&C is written which seems the contradict what the BofM was saying:

“Verily, thus saith the Lord…you have inquired of my hand to know
and understand wherein I, the Lord, JUSTIFIED my servants…David
and Solomon,…as touching the principle and doctrine of - having
MANY WIVES AND CONCUBINES—“David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me,…”
(Doctrine and Covenants, section 132, verses l and. 39)

…and more scriptures appeared which gives the rules for polygamy and say that it is of God:

Joseph’s revelation on polygamy specifies that a man’s first wife must consent before he can take another woman.

“And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and THE FIRST GIVE HER CONSENT, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, THEN IS HE JUSTIFIED; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.”
(Doctrine and Covenants 132:61)

but if it were truly true that men could practice polygamy only if the first wife consented, then why did Joseph and Brigham (and countless others) practice it against their first wife’s wishes?

Emily Dow Partridge testified that she and her sister were married to Joseph without Emma’s consent:

“…the Prophet Joseph and his wife Emma offered us a home in their family, and they treated us with great kindness. We had been there about a year when the principle of plural marriage was made known to us, and I was MARRIED TO JOSEPH SMITH on the 4th of March 1843, Elder Heber C. Kimball performing the ceremony. My sister Eliza was also MARRIED TO JOSEPH a few days later. THIS WAS DONE WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF EMMA SMITH. Two months afterward she consented to give her husband two wives, providing he would give her the privilege of choosing them. She accordingly chose my sister Eliza and myself, and TO SAVE FAMILY TROUBLE BROTHER JOSEPH THOUGHT IT BEST TO HAVE ANOTHER CEREMONY PERFORMED. Accordingly on the 11th of May, 1843, we were sealed to Joseph Smith a second time, in Emma’s presence,… From that very hour, however, Emma was our BITTER ENEMY. We remained in the family several months after this, but things went from bad to worse until we were obligated to leave the house and find another home.”
(Historical Record, p. 240)

Brigham Young gives Mormon women 2 week ultimatem to quit complaining about polygamy:

“Now for my proposition; it is more particularly for my sisters, as it is frequently happening that women say they are UNHAPPY. Men will say, ‘My wife, though a most excellent woman, has NOT SEEN A HAPPY DAY SINCE I TOOK MY SECOND WIFE,’ ‘No, NOT A HAPPY DAY FOR A YEAR,’  says one; and another HAS NOT SEEN AHAPPY DAY FOR FIVE YEARS.  It is said that women are tied down and abused: that they are misused  and have not the liberty they ought to have; that many of them  ARE WADING THROUGH A PERFECT FLOOD OF TEARS,…
“I wish my own women to understand that what I am going to say is for them as well as others, and I want those who are here to tell their sisters, yes, all the women of this community, and then write it back to the States, and do as you please with it. I am going to give you from this time to the 6th day of October next, for reflection, that you may determine whether you wish to stay with your husbands or not, and then I am going TO SET EVERY WOMAN AT LIBERTY and say to them, Now go your way, MY WOMEN WITH THE REST, go your way. AND MY WIVES have go to do one of two things; either round up their shoulders to endure the afflictions of this world, and live their religion, OR THEY MAY LEAVE, for I will not have them about me. I will go into heaven alone, rather than have SCRATCHING AND FIGHTING AROUND ME. I WILL SET ALL AT LIBERTY. ‘WHAT, FIRST WIFE TOO?’ YES, I WILL LIBERATE YOU ALL….
“I wish my women, and brother Kimball’s and brother Grant’s to leave, and every woman in this Territory, or else say in their hearts that they will embrace the Gospel —the whole of it….say to your wives, ‘Take all that I have and be set at liberty; but if you stay with me you shall comply with the law of God, and that too WITHOUT ANY MURMURING AND WHINING. You must fulfil the law of God in every respect, and round up your shoulders to WALK UP TO THE MARK WITHOUT ANY GRUNTING.’ “Now recollect that two weeks from to morrow I am going to set you at liberty. But the first wife will say, ‘It is hard, for I have lived with my husband twenty years, or thirty, and have raised a family of children for him, and it is a great trial to me for him to have more women;’ then I say IT IS TIME THAT YOU GAVE HIM UP TO OTHER WOMEN WHO WILL BEAR CHILDREN. If my wife had borne me all the children that she ever would bare, the celestial law would teach me TO TAKE YOUNG WOMEN that would have children….
“SISTERS, I AM NOT JOKING, I do not throw out my proposition to banter your feelings, to see whether you will leave your husbands, all or any of you. BUT I KNOW THAT THERE IS NO CESSATION TO THE EVERLASTING WHINING OF MANY OF THE WOMEN IN THIS TERRITORY; I am satisfied that this is the case. And if the women will turn from the commandments of God and continue to despise the order of heaven, I will pray that the curse of the Almighty may be close to their heals, and that it may be following them all the day long….
“Prepare yourselves for two weeks from to morrow; and I will tell you now, that if you will tarry with your husbands, after I HAVE SET YOU FREE, YOU MUST BOW DOWN TO IT, and SUBMIT yourselves to the CELESTIAL LAW. You may go where you please, after two weeks from to-morrow; but, remember, that I WILL NOT HEAR ANY MORE OF THIS WHINING.”
(Sermon by Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4., pp. 55-57; also printed in Deseret News, Vol. 6, pp. 235-236)

Well, regardless of all of that, it seemed as though polygamy was here to stay.  The church leaders proclaimed that God would never take this sacred ordinance from the Earth and that it was His will that His chosen people practice this law.  This law was restored as part of the restoration of the gospel.

George Q. Cannon - Monogamy responsible for the decline and fall of the Roman Empire:

“It is a fact worthy of note that the shortest lived nations of which we have record have been monogamic. Rome…was a MONOGAMIC NATION AND THE NUMEROUS EVILS ATTENDING THAT SYSTEM EARLY LAID THE FOUNDATION FOR THAT RUIN WHICH EVENTUALLY OVERTOOK HER.”
(Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 202)

Apostle Orson Pratt:

“This law of MONOGAMY, or the MONOGAMIC SYSTEM, laid the foundation for prostitution and the evils and diseases of the most  revolting nature and character under which modern Christendom groans,…”
(Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, page 195)

Brigham Young - To become a god, one must be a polygamist:

“The ONLY MEN WHO BECOME GODS, even the Sons of God, are those WHO ENTER INTO POLYGAMY.”(Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, page 269)

However, as persecutions raged on against the church, it became evident that the church leaders would have to choose between having the church fall apart due to the US government, or disavowing polygamy.  Of course, the later route was chosen as we have the Official Declaration 1 .

Again, I see logical reasons for why we gave up polygamy.  However, what drives me nutes are three  things:

1) There are countries where polygamy is perfectly legal.  In fact, many people practice it over there.  However, if they want to get baptized, we have to make them divorce their other wives and have only one wife.  If God really wants us to practice polygamy as a way of becoming more like him, why in the world do we not let those nations continue to practice it?  Furthermore, why would we ever break up this family when they are doing exactly what God commanded our early church leaders to do?

2) Lately there has been a lot of controversy over the FLDS church and their polygamous acts.  Now, I certainly condemn anyone having marital relations with underage girls, but I have to believe that was the exception, not the norm.  So why did our church make a public announcement telling the world that we denounce polygamy, we do not believe in it, and will excommunicate anyone who practices it.  It is as if we are ashamed that anyone would think that WE are the church that believes in polygamy.  You would think that our church would be sending the FLDS church some good lawyers to try to protect their constitutional rights to practice their religion.  After all, that could open the doors to polygamy being accepted in the US (like is being done with gay rights right now).  However, I have a feeling that the church does not want polygamy to be legal again and, if it were, we would still not bring it back.  After all, it is legal in other countries and we don’t let them….

*once again, I want to put it plainly that I am completely against the FLDS or anyone having sexual relations with underage kids!*

3) Why do we pretend that Joseph only had one wife?  All we hear/learn about is Emma Smith and how wonderful she was.  What about the other 24 wives (http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/af/individual_record.asp?recid=7762167)?  Aren’t we doing them a disservice by not even mentioning their existance?  We make Emma out to be this incredbily wonderful women when in fact she apostatized from the church, started her own religion, and never joined Brigham Young and the rest of the saints.  She hated Brigham and how he took over the church when Joseph died.  However, we continually read about how wonderful she was.  I would be pretty sad if I were one of the other wives and remained faithful to the church to the end.