Here’s a screen capture of the thread that’s erupted from Richard Dutcher’s comments refuting the standard doublethink that allows some LDS people to dismiss the cognitive dissonance of those who struggle with Mormonism:
Postmortem to follow. The preliminary verdict: Dutcher 47. Pro-LDS minus 23 due to logical fallacies and general silliness.
The following was forwarded to me by a friend. A Facebook comment made today by Natalie Hess, a Provo-based real estate agent, read:
This is going to be bold, so be prepared. I’m so sick of hearing about lds people who are watching & reading anti-lds propaganda & then actually believing it as 100% truth. Seriously use your brains people! Don’t believe everything u watch/read. Consider the source, usually it’s begrudged people coming up w/ this crap!
Richard Dutcher, yes the Richard Dutcher who made “God’s Army” and “Brigham City”, replied:
And this is going to be unpopular. So be prepared.
You have a point, Natalie. But, as one who has studied and researched more Mormon history and doctrine than anyone I know (other than some scholars and published writer friends of mine), there is another side to that coin.
There are so very many church members who are familiar with only material published by the church/Deseret Book. And then they come into contact with something controversial from an outside source (not all outside sources are “anti-Mormon” by the way) and turn to Deseret Book or the church for an explanation and…guess what? There’s little to nothing.
And so they research a little more and find out not only that what some of these outside sources are saying is true, but that the church deliberately hid and/or lied about the information. And then they’re really confused. They’ve trusted in the church, they’ve sacrificed for the church, they’ve LIVED for the church, and then they find out that the church has lied to them, repeatedly.
It can be quite a faith shaker. In many cases, a faith destroyer.
Yes, there are anti-Mormons who lie and cheat (using partial information) and do anything they can to fight against Mormonism. But there are very many historians and scholars with no axe to grind who simply put forth material that is contrary to the church’s official story.
Some of us can manage to live with the cognitive dissonance of holding two contrary realities as somehow both true. Some of us can’t.
Be patient with those who are struggling with information that is shaking their faith. They’ll need your support. It is a hellacious ride which will most likely end in a very painful collision with reality.
It is also a painfully confusing experience to realize that the church you love and have sacrificed for is withholding information from you, while your “enemy” is telling you the truth. So very painful and confusing.
There is such a thing as narcissistic immodesty. But I think we see enough of slut-shaming and people who are obnoxiously self-serving that there’s no point discussing the difference here.
What I would like to get at is the idea of modesty defined as cloth covering socially defined bits of skin.
Perhaps my ability to remember having an LDS mindset is slipping away from me, but I can’t help but feel there’s something pretty narcissistic about assuming that God gives a toss about what you wear on your body. Presumably if some all-knowing deity decided to say to himself “Oi, I fink I’ll make some blokes and birds wot can worship meself” it seems likely that he knows what you look like naked. It seems even more likely that he isn’t too impressed with the silly getups we put on to make ourselves feel important. Really. Take a look. Do you really think an all-knowing, all-powerful deity is impressed with any of the following?
What seems more likely? That God is desperately concerned with what we put on our bodies, or that our own vanity and squeamishness about sex has produced some pretty outlandish solutions to appease this invisible false god called Modesty? Religious-based dress codes serve one of two purposes: to make some fat-headed man look important, or to keep women under control by concealing their bodies like valuables in a safe. Both stem from the same narcissistic idea: “Everyone is looking at me. If they are not, they should be so they will know I’m important.” Robes of pomp and circumstance are no less narcissistic than Islamic burqas and LDS garments, which can easily be mistaken for clothing that encourages anonymity. All non-functional ceremonial clothing serves only to identify a person as being different. Better. Chosen. In the know. Definitely not like the rest of the rabble.
“Ah, but you forgot,” the people of the book will say. “God was the first fashion designer. Those fig leaves were so last July. What’s really in for this Fall is animal skins.”
My only answer is this: do you really think God was serious? Can’t you recognise a good joke when you see one? Frankly if I had to work with two gullible gits like Adam and Eve I’d have one last go at them before they got sacked from their jobs as groundskeepers. And I know I’d do it by making them think they had to wear something silly on the way out the door.
Just . . . give it some thought.
And I should not have to keep reminding myself of that. I should not and will not agree that verbal and psychological abuse is something I should tolerate in the name of bridge-building. I do not need to listen to assumptions made about my alleged poor character.
Just because I have left the church, it is not — I repeat NOT — to be assumed that I must naturally be doing all of the following:
And so on.
I know that the people in my life who have revealed that their love for me is very, very conditional are just following their programming and are not putting any thought into their reactions at all. Which is why they are utterly unable to see me as I am and instead see the snarling, monstrous stock character they are taught to see when they think of the word “apostate”.
But just for the edification of the web, my entertainments of the previous weekend did consist of the following:
Get over yourselves, Morons Mormons. Quit projecting your fantasies about the fun you aren’t having onto people like me. We’ve been through enough.
I was reading The Liberal Agnostic Who Could as she discussed the dilemma all inactives face — what to do with the poor wankers who show up on your stoop to home teach you in an effort to achieve 100% for the quorum and create one more heartwarming tale of reactivation. They are just trying to fulfil their obligations and it’s bloody awful dealing with the guilt of shutting them down. So usually inactives make a half-hearted effort to be civil without allowing any copies of the Ensign to actually be waved at you. It’s exhausting and annoying.
This happened to me periodically until I managed to get to the point where the church no longer had my current address and mobile number. That isn’t to say they didn’t try contacting me at work, but that’s another story. The last time this happened the bishop assigned some bloke who was the second counsellor in the singles ward and an LDS Social Services therapist. Clearly I was an extra special case to warrant his attention. His epic failery at being genuine was baffling. My reaction to this e-mail is, two years later, still a cause for laughter:
[My name, misspelled] – Hello! Just wanted to check in with you and see how things were going.
My home teaching companion just moved back to Taiwan, so I’m solo for a while. How was your holiday? For once, I didn’t travel far, but just stayed local and had a nice dinner with friends.
Is there anything I can do for you at this time? If you have any time this month, Id love to get a chance to meet you. Take care and have a wonderful day.
[Home teacher's name and mobile number]
Ugh. How . . . insincere and obligatory. Forget the horrible grammar and the fact that the wanker didn’t even spell my name correctly. There is a universally accepted limit of no more than one smiley per 100 words of text. It should never be violated. I pondered what to do. I could ignore. I could engage. I could shut him down. At this point I had no meaningful social relationships with anyone in the church other than my family and the ward I grew up in. But they were far away, and I considered a novel approach to the situation. I really didn’t feel I had anything to lose.
Hi,
Thanks for the message. Please don’t mistake my meaning because I don’t want to ever come off as hostile. I just want to be really honest here so nobody gets their time wasted. If your purpose in reaching out is part of some reactivation effort, I’m not interested in going to church. I haven’t been offended, I’m not sinning, and I’m not full of pride. I just disagree with church doctrine, teachings and policy enough to where going to church serves no purpose. If it works for other people, great. I’ll never tear them down. But it’s not for me and the causes of my objections are unlikely to ever change.
I’m sure you have the best intentions. I realise you’re in the difficult position of needing to do your home teaching and me shutting you down prevents you from fulfilling your assignment or hampers ward goals for reactivating members. But I am not up for an awkward one hour visit where you show up in a suit and read something out of the Ensign and ask me if there’s anything you can do for me and I say no, but thank you for asking. Again, not trying to be rude here, just honest because I’m sure you’re as busy as I am.
That being said, if you actually want to meet me, I am always up for making new friends. I live in [redacted], so I’m sure it would be easy for you to join me and my friends when we go out sometime. I’m glad to hear your holidays went well.
I never heard back from him. Truth be told, I was a little disappointed. It proved that this bloke really had no interest in me as a person. I was a project. A statistic. Not a friend. I stood my ground and offered the chance for him to get to know an uncompromised, authentic me. And he refused to take the opportunity because, if I wasn’t going to fit neatly into his worldview, he wasn’t going to be arsed to try to be my friend.
I was also a little disappointed because it would have been fun to find out what his reaction was. Shock? Bafflement? Anger? This level of frankness is not part of The Unspoken Order of Things in LDS Chapels. Fakey-nicey-wicey is. I disrupted the hand-wringing, obligatory way that Mormons interact with one another and took personal responsibility for my behaviour and interactions. Perhaps that’s just too scary for an LDS man to see in a woman.
Either way, it worked. I never got love bombed again.
I was once out shopping with two friends: one a devout Muslim and the other your garden variety who-gives-a-toss-about-religion Anglican. This was back when I believed firmly in Mormonism, and myself and the Muslim began teasing one another in friendly fashion about who would be able to convert the other first. I don’t remember the precise words but this is an approximation of the conversation.
Me: Our missionaries were interested in meeting your Imam.
Muslim: Do they want to try to convert him?
Me: Dunno. Maybe they will.
Muslim: Or maybe they’ll be converted to Islam.
Anglican: You two are both trying to take over the world.
Me: “Take over” is a bit harsh, isn’t it?
Anglican: I don’t think so.
Muslim: It depends on the context of the word, but yes, we will take over in the sense that we will become the dominant religion on the planet. Everyone will join Islam, but it will be a willing conversion.
Me: Wait, wait. You’ve stolen my church’s plan.
Muslim: We’ll see who’s right then.
Christians, Mormons and Muslims have a stated goal to conquer the world. Most believe this will be a voluntary, happy process. Few think it should be done with violence or intimidation. But all varieties of monotheists can agree that whilst other faiths should be restricted or at least not promoted, spreading their own is no problem. Members of a particular sect never think of their activities as imperialistic or threatening. They are simply taking over the world. Politely.
Incidentally, the Muslim friend (who guest posted here as Fatimah) is now also an atheist. The who-gives-a-toss-about-religion Anglican still doesn’t give a toss about religion, and is still nominally Anglican.
Where Muslims often teach that all people are born Muslim (and prefer the term “revert” to “convert”), Mormons believe that eventually everybody will be transformed into a Mormon. The bonus round provided by Mormonism seems kinder than the options provided by Islam or Christianity, which hold that if you chose wrong in this life you are doomed to burn. On the other hand, posthumous conversion shows terrible disrespect for the lifestyle a deceased person chose for themselves. Even if you died for being a Jew. I was baptised by proxy for my grandmother, who died when I was a teenager. She knew all about Mormonism. I do not know if she objected when my mother converted. I never heard her discuss religion with my mother, which is odd because my mum (like a good Mormon) brings up the gospel as often as possible in daily conversation. Every member a missionary, eh? When my mum married my dad, Gran and my grandfather stood outside the temple, shut out from the ceremony because they were not Mormons. I remember in Sunday School seeing object lessons where a very long bit of string was stretched out. The length of string represented eternity, and this life was a tiny little knot on the string. Since I’d been baptised for my Gran just a few earth years after my mum’s wedding, it seems silly that they didn’t let her in to view the sealing. After all, if they were just going to forcibly convert her once she was dead, what difference does it make? She ends up a member one way or the other.
Depending 100% on your viewpoint, aggressive evangelism of the type employed by Mormons, Muslims, and other faiths with imperialistic leanings (read: Monotheism) is either a friendly effort to square those who don’t know any better with the will of God or a horrifying attempt to conquer the world. I suppose it just depends on your perspective.
Fatimah (not her real name) is a friend of mine. She, like many British-born children of immigrants to the UK, is a recovering Muslim. As much as I whinge about what my family will do when I leave the LDS Church, it’s nothing to what she faces if she is outed as an atheist. One of her relatives has been murdered in an honour killing back home in Pakistan. Fatimah successfully resisted an attempt by her father to marry her to a first cousin before she went to University by leaving home for good. Her younger sisters were taken from school early and have been married off to cousins or men significantly older. Her brothers, who did not gain an education, call her a whore for living on her own, dating whomever she likes, refusing to wear the hijab, and supporting herself with a good job. She has very little contact with her family, except for calls to her mother and secret e-mails to her sisters. I’ve asked her to summarise what she observes to be the similarities between Islam and Mormonism. This is the first time she has felt comfortable saying anything about religion online. For this reason, I will be enacting stricter moderation than usual in the comment section.
When “Molly” told me her handle on this site, I asked her why she chose it. She explained that “Molly Mormon” is an ideal stereotype of a Mormon Girl. For this reason I’ll be known as “Fatimah,” the closest approximation a Mormon girl could have. Fatimah (pronounced “FUT-ee-muh”) was the daughter of Muhammad, founder of Islam. She is thought of as an ideal example for Muslimahs (Muslim women) to look to.
I have been asked to list what I observe to be similarities between Mormonism and Islam. I must admit she helped with a bit of editing in writing this, as I am no writer. Here are the five best examples I can think of. I did not include things like a strong patriarchal culture. I do not feel that patriarchy is unique enough to Islam or Mormonism.
Veneration of the prophet
This seems to be the most direct similarity to me. Mormons refer to Joseph Smith by his first name and all the rest of their prophets as “President.” When I saw Mormons referring to “The Prophet Joseph” or “The Boy Joseph” or “Brother Joseph” I saw the same sort of veneration as when a Muslim says “God’s Messenger Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him)”. Like Muhammad, Joseph Smith seems to be looked at as a saviour of humanity and is spoken of as if he were a perfect figure.
A difference in the treatment of the prophets is that Mormons seem to add the honorific for extra emphasis and formality, but many Muslims feel “PBUH” is mandatory, and they mutter it repeatedly and write it even when mentioning Muhammad online. Also, Mormons will not become violent if someone slanders the name of Joseph Smith. They will probably invite you to tea and smile at you in an infuriating manner. They will not burn an embassy, riot in the street, or kill people at the mere rumour of offence to The Prophet. Even among Muslims who would not cross the line to doing violence themselves, it is common for them to verbally express support for the killing of kuffar, which is a dirty word for non-believers. My own parents would frequently say things such as “God willing, that person will die for . . .” and then follow with whatever supposed crime against God had been committed. Molly explained briefly about Danites and the Mountain Meadows Massacre, but we both agreed that Mormons have been entirely non-violent for over a century. There are many incidents of Muslims becoming violent over even the rumour of blasphemy against the Koran or Muhammad.
Veneration of scripture
Mormons and Muslims are both obsessed with proclaiming that their book is the pure and sacred word of God. Mormons believe that the Book of Mormon is “the most correct book” in the world. (When I read that quotation I must admit I laughed.) Muslims also believe the Koran to be the pure and unerring word of Allah.
However, Muslims take their book even more seriously than Mormons. Mormons do not venerate the text of the Book of Mormon as much as Muslims do the Koran because they are happy to translate it into as many languages as possible. Most Muslims believe that once the Koran has been translated, it is no longer the word of God. This contributes to a Arab-centric racism within Islam. Arabs occupy a higher status and non-Arab Muslims frequently try to imitate Arabs in language and dress. Mormons seem more accepting of diversity, and do not believe that the Book of Mormon must be read in English in order to be the word of God. It does seem that only white men are in charge of the Mormon church, though, so perhaps my impression of Mormonism as being less racist is wrong.
Mormons also do not venerate the printed copies of the Book of Mormon as much as Muslims. The Koran sometimes has its own little room in the house. Muslims often kiss it or keep it wrapped in silk. At the mere rumour of a Koran being desecrated or burned, riots can happen in some Muslim areas. Molly showed me her Book of Mormon. It was covered in pencil markings with writing in the margins. I found this very funny. But then, it seems much more logical to me to treat a book as just that: a book. The message is what matters, not ink on paper. Mormons would probably consider the veneration of the Koran itself to be a form of blasphemy.
Taboos
Mormonism and Islam share many taboos. In art, Muslims do not depict human faces. Likewise, Mormons shun the cross. Open discussion of sex is not socially permitted. Mormons and Muslims seem very uncomfortable with their own bodies. They are not permitted to drink alcohol or masturbate. Molly and I found much in common among young Muslim and Mormon married couples unable to enjoy themselves because they have gone their entire lives being told that sex is a dirty thing. Muslims have more taboos than Mormons. Mormons seem very enthusiastic about music, theatre, and literature. All three are heavily restricted in most Muslim cultures.
A goal of taking over the world
This may sound sinister, but that depends on your perspective. Phrases like “the gospel will roll out through all the earth” or “temples will dot the globe” sound very much like what Muslims think of as the eventual Islamisation of the world. Molly told me that Mormons believe that eventually there will be a Mormon communist theocracy. I understood her to mean a secular and religious government fused during The Millennium. This sounds very much like Islam’s goal to unite all of mankind as one Ummah, or Islamic community. Most Muslims and Mormons speak about the Mormonisation or Islamisation of the world as something people will be happy about once they see the truthfulness of Elohim’s/Allah’s true path.
A large difference is that in all places where Islam is dominant, forced conversion is accepted. It is not difficult to find examples of this, for example the abduction, forced conversion, and forced marriage of Coptic Christian girls to Muslim men in Egypt. I do not believe Mormons would ever be in favour of forced conversion, as Mormonism emerged in a culture affected by the European Enlightenment and not in a nomadic culture of raiders as Islam was. Mormonism is also much more tolerant of other faith systems. The state of Utah seems to be run by mostly Mormons. Yet I could find no evidence of efforts to prevent other faiths from entering there. Not far from BYU, Molly told me, there is a large Hindu temple, and many BYU students attend its holy events. In Muslim-majority states, the rights of non-Muslims are severely restricted, and my experience as a British Muslim has been that Muslims here have begun to attempt to force the native population to conform to their standards, such as demanding halal food from non-Muslim shops and encouraging gender segregation at public schools.
Mormons seem comfortable with applying social pressure and using the law to enact their values on society, but while both religions have the goal of conquering the earth, I do not believe Mormonism would be comfortable using force to spread the faith. Islam openly encourages spreading the religion by force.
A dress code used as a measure of personal virtue
Mormons look down on people who do not wear garments. Molly showed me hers, long forgotten in a bottom drawer, and I was surprised to see that there was a Western religion that had something as ugly as hijab. I hated wearing hijab. But I knew if I took it off, my brothers would call me a whore, as they do now. My mother neglected to force hijab on me until I was beginning to look like a woman, and at first I fought against her, saying that my mates at school already knew my hair was black. I didn’t want to look different from the other kids. It’s easy enough to follow Islamic dress as a child without being bullied too badly. England is so cold most of the year that thick jumpers and long coats don’t look out of place. But once I had hijab placed on me, I knew people would think of me as a religious nutter, or some kind of beaten down girl.
Hijab was supposed to make me invisible to the world, but in reality it made people take note of me more often. When I got to school I would run to the loo and remove it. My mates would help me keep a lookout for my brothers, who would get angry if they caught me without it. I was so happy when they left school early and got jobs. It meant that I could let my hair down and look like an ordinary girl. Other Muslimahs at my school would do the same thing. This struggle is very common for British-born Muslim girls, who can see that Western culture offers them much more than the culture of their parents. They don’t want to marry a first cousin back in Pakistan in an arranged marriage. They don’t want to cover their bodies with uncomfortable and restrictive layers of cloth. I think many Mormon girls must feel the same way about the ugly and old-fashioned knickers they are forced to wear.
Conclusion
Mormonism and Islam appear to be very similar in nature, but the environment in which they were nurtured had an enormous part to play. As Wafa Sultan has written, Islam was born in a culture of desert raiders. It seems to me that Mormonism was born in a setting of Christian mystics trying to rediscover the ancient true path. In my opinion, Mormonism is a sweet baby sister, and Islam is an angry older brother. Mormons talk rubbish about women who dress immodestly. Muslims whip them. Mormons excommunicate adulterers. Muslims stone them to death. Mormons shun apostates. Muslim scripture says they must die. These are cruel truths. Unfortunately the political situation is so tense that Westerners will rarely speak them, and we have to rely on people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali to remind us of them.
I don’t wish to diminish the personal difficulties of people who struggle with their Mormon backgrounds, but instead offer this as encouragement: at least nobody will kill you for what you do not believe. However, psychological abuse can do as much damage as being beaten or whipped, so perhaps my comparison is not fair. In either case, I believe the world will be better off when fewer people adhere to both Mormonism and Islam, along with most other forms of religion.
Just for fun, here are some of the ways people find my blog using search engines:
of course you can’t you silly little man
come on, someone tell me, was joseph smith a womanizer or not
mormon news
batty “eliza snow” diary
mormonism grows
husband react to rape
world of warcraft molly
plural marriage joseph smith
who was joseph smith really
can you know your not gay at 16
lds gender identity
why is social change sinning
male and female viewing habits
mormon news
when feminists diet
lds church close to 76 cedar street
boyd k packer and “for young men only”
the united states catholic church since vatican 2
what does arse mean
did joseph smith cheat
historic population data spanish fork utah
i want to take my name off the lds church records
On a day a few weeks after I turned eight, my mother was curling my hair as I stood in her room in my white dress. I remembered thinking it was odd that my hair was being meticulously fluffed, as it was about to get soaked. The whole family was milling about in the lounge getting ready to go to the chapel. My dress had lace and ribbons, and a nice thick slip underneath so nothing would show when it all got soaked, Mum had ripped the tag off my knickers because it had black printing on it, as if this would somehow diminish the water’s ability to bleach the sins from my soul.
I stared at myself in the mirror, unused to getting this much fuss and attention. I was the oldest grandchild in the family, the example for the next generation of Mormons. My mother probably felt a sense of pride at having produced the first grandchild to be baptised in the extended family, although the race was still on to produce the first future priesthood holder. (Do not fear; she won this race eventually.)
As my head bobbed from the gentle strokes of hairbrush and hot iron, I thought of something. Here I was, about to engage in a very important ritual, and I had never actually agreed to do it. (I’ll be so vain as to acknowledge that I was a rather precocious eight-year-old.)
I turned to my mother, who nearly burnt her finger on the curler from the unexpected movement. “Mum, do I have to get baptised?” The question was not one of fear, but rather curiosity. I just wanted to know if I had any say in the matter, or if having to get baptised was simply another “must,” like eating veg, no telly on school nights, or bedtime.
She looked very alarmed for a moment, but remained calm. “No,” she told me. “It’s a choice. You should only do it if you want to.”
My immature mind considered this possibility for a moment. I was too young to understand that I really was unable to make a real decision on the issue. I had been carefully conditioned since birth to understand that this was the only path to walk on. All of the preparations for my baptism had taken my compliance in the ritual for granted. I had been trotted up to the microphone on fast Sundays and had my opinions whispered into my ear so that I could parrot them before the congregation. “I know this church is true. I know Joseph Smith was a prophet. I love my mummy and my daddy and my teachers. I know President So-and-So is a prophet.” My “testimony” was something I’d been spoon-fed, like baby food. So far I hadn’t tasted anything bad, so I had no reason to bite the hand that fed me.
“Well, I think I shall,” I told my mum. She sighed with relief finished curling my hair and sent me out to be admired by the family before we left for the chapel.
An unremarkable moment, But that day a light went off. Although I didn’t grasp the meaning of free will, I recognised the concept. I didn’t really give the decision much thought, but I at least saw that a decision could be made. Even in my first moments of Church membership, the spark of inquiry was there.
Now that I look back on it, I don’t think I ever had what it takes for this Mormonism thing to work out.
This post comes from Carla, a reader at this blog and a Catholic who participates in the online Mormon community. I asked her for her perspective on Vatican II, which drastically overhauled the Catholic Church and brought it in many ways into the modern world. I wondered what a “Mormon Vatican II” would look like and asked her for her opinion. The line that struck me with its truthfulness and insight was this: “The authoritarian power structure was a breeding ground for institutionalized abuse that went completely unreported, unpunished, and unchecked, because of the idolization of priests and for the sake of the public face of the institutional church.”
Before you can discuss what a Mormon Vatican II would look like, it’s important to understand some of the most significant factors in the changes to the Catholic Church in the United States. Vatican II is only one part of how Catholicism in the United States has changed since the early part of the 20th century. The Charismatic Renewal and the Devotional Revolution are both important movements to discuss so as to understand what a similar movement would look like in Mormonism.
Vatican II
The documents that came out of the Second Vatican Council made significant changes to the liturgy, making the most significant alterations in the Catholic Church’s mode of worship since the Council of Trent in the 16th century. The Mass would from then on be said in the vernacular language, the altar would be moved so that the priest would stand behind it facing the congregation, rather than have the altar against the wall with the priest facing the altar along with the rest of the congregation. Lay people would have significant roles in the Mass, i.e. instead of just priests doing everything, lay people could read the readings — but not the Gospel reading, and lay people could be Eucharistic Ministers, and distribute Holy Communion on the altar. The focus was on increasing lay participation in Mass.
It is difficult to describe how monumental these changes were for a Catholic in those days. One Sunday you had the priest chanting in Latin, facing away from the people, and absolutely nobody but the priest and altar boys were permitted on the altar, and the next Sunday the priest is facing you speaking your native language, and lay people are going up to the altar to read the scripture readings and to distribute Holy Communion, when at the time no lay person ever even touched the Eucharist with anything but their tongue.
Other changes were made after Vatican II, including allowing people to receive Communion in the hand rather than on the tongue (1969/1973), allowing girls to serve on the altar (1994), encouraging more regular reception of Communion (previously “frequent” Communion meant only receiving twice a year, at Easter and Christmas). What they all added up to was that lay people had more power in their parishes. Priests held less and less power and authority in the lives of individuals in their parishes, and lay people felt they had a voice in the Church.
Charismatic Renewal
The Charismatic Renewal began in the late 1960′s and continues today. Its focus is on being touched by the power of the Holy Spirit, being given the gift of speaking in tongues or prophecy, etc. Because in this setting the Holy Spirit is believed to make direct contact with individuals, this again puts the focus on the power of lay people to have a legitimately Catholic religious experience without the need of mediation through the institutional Church’s ministers (priests, bishops) or Sacraments (Holy Communion, Reconciliation). The Charismatic movement gave lay people direct access to God without mediation through official rituals.
Coming Down from the Devotional Revolution
The changes after Vatican II and the Charismatic Renewal both gave power and authority to lay people. It is possible to attribute this (the movement away from having the priest have all the power) to the fact that the Catholic Church in the US was coming down from the Devotional Revolution. Beginning about the 1850′s, Catholicism in the US saw the development of what is today called the Devotional Revolution (similar movements happened in Ireland and other European countries at about the same time). There was a huge increase in vocations to the priesthood and to religious life. Lay confraternities, as well as organizations of doctors and lawyers, blossomed and saw exponential growth. Catholics were exceptionally devoted to the rituals and authority of the institutional church.
The persecution and discrimination against Catholics can be seen as a probable cause of this “circle the wagons” mentality, which persisted well into the 20th century. Catholics would only be friends with other Catholics, because Protestants tended to see Catholics as incapable of being good Americans. The building of Catholic churches was seen as an affront to freedom and democracy. Catholics were discriminated against in employment, housing, and basically every area of life.
Over time however, persecution ebbed and Catholics eventually assimilated almost completely into American society. Vocations to the priesthood fell (apparently precipitously) back to the levels that were seen before the Devotional Revolution took hold. There was and is an apparent critical shortage of priests. Something had to be done. Part of the solution was to give lay people more responsibilities. They could fill certain roles in Mass and in the parish leadership so that they didn’t need as many priests (and so that priests could focus on the main purpose of their vocation: administering the Sacraments). The job of the priest was eventually reduced to only the Sacraments (though it varies from diocese to diocese and parish to parish). Many parishes and dioceses have lay pastoral associates, who are in charge of the administrative work of the parish. Lay people often run the Catechism programs in parishes, and they can hold high offices in Catholic schools and universities (many Catholic colleges only ever had ordained priests as their presidents in the past). With fewer priests, it has become necessary to give lay people responsibilities with power and authority in their parish communities.
Rampant clerical abuse of power has now obviously declined, as one can see in the sex abuse scandals which are finally being brought to light and prosecuted according to the law rather than swept under the rug by an authoritarian power structure. Catholics are much less afraid to speak freely of dissenting opinions and act against the dictates of official church teachings, especially in regards to such issues as feminism, abortion and birth control, LGBTQ equality, and other topics regarding morality and society.
A Mormon Vatican II
So what would this look like in a Mormon context? There are obvious analogous changes that took place in Catholicism which could be instituted in Mormonism in much the same manner. However, where in Catholicism the laity were the ones gaining power, in the Mormonism it would mean women, as nearly all Mormon men are ordained, and the only “lay people” in Mormonism are women (and boys under the age of 12). So this would mean women (teenage girls) could pass the Sacrament, women could hold administrative offices in their ward or branch, where they would be in a position to counsel members and do the sort of administrative things ward clerks, bishops or stake presidents do. However, we could also refer to adult men who are technically “ordained,” but who hold no offices in their ward or branch, as “laity,” because they have no power except over their own household. We could say that anything lower than bishopric/branch presidency is the same in Mormonism as the laity in Catholicism.
Catholicism drastically altered the liturgy in allowing the Mass to be said in the vernacular language. I think the analogous part of Mormon liturgy might be found in something like the hymns. There is one official hymnal that is translated and used across the globe. So rather than members writing music in their own language to express their faith, they are expected to sing songs written (mostly) by a bunch of white Americans in the 19th century. There should be a “vernacularization” of the hymns, giving local authorities power over the liturgy in their own areas. One could also point to the dress code, which reflects a strictly Western value system, as a place where there could be change for the better. Why shouldn’t rules of dress and decorum be determined by local culture?
It would also necessarily mean less dependence on the institutional church and more emphasis on personal, unmediated spiritual experiences. This might be analogous to the prayer circles and Bible studies of the Charismatic Renewal. In Mormonism, I think this would include not leaning so much on official church publications, and more individual creativity for meetings and activities of Young Women and Men, Relief Society, Sunday School, etc. For example, in the Catholic Church in the US, there are independent companies who might create a curriculum for Catechism for children in elementary or high school, and an individual parish can choose whichever curriculum they want to use. This could also mean individual wards/branches/stakes coming up with their own programs that weren’t created to be instituted throughout the entire church, but just for their region. For example, many Catholic churches in the US do retreats for young people, but you won’t find the same retreats all over the country. These are programs that were not created in the Vatican and instituted all over the world, but created in a local parish and spread to other areas where people were interested in doing the same in their area.
With the assimilation into the general population, Catholics stopped practicing the things that made them most peculiar. In addition to the drastic changes in the Mass (the old liturgy, if you were to compare to a Protestant service, would be a very foreign and mysterious melodrama, and made it difficult for Protestants to consider Catholics Christians at all), the rule about not eating meat on Fridays was reduced to only the Fridays during the season of Lent. Women no longer wore veils to Mass. Rosaries and scapulars were not as common. If Mormons were able to appear less peculiar and to assimilate more into American culture, I think they could give up the “us vs. them” mentality that makes it difficult for them to break free from obedience to institutional authority. I am referring here to the odd (and seemingly arbitrary) dietary code, the restriction from R-rated movies, the “modesty” requirements necessitated by temple garment designs, and the strict moral code that engenders a feeling of paranoid scrupulosity (and necessitates that members report on themselves to see if something they’ve done is sinful or not).
Finally, I think the best analogy in Mormonism for the Catholic church’s movement away from “restricted access” toward “freer access” could be found in the requirements for access to the temple. Whereas in Catholicism the Eucharist is that most sacred thing that only the most worthy can experience, in Mormonism it is the temple. In Catholicism, the most access to the Divine is in the Sacraments, especially Holy Communion, which can only be administered by a priest and received by someone who is “in communion with the Church.” In Mormonism, the most access to the Divine is in the temple, which can only be accessed by “worthy” members. In the last century, the importance of complete purity to receive Holy Communion has declined significantly. The appropriate time to receive Communion is no longer only immediately following receiving the Sacrament of Reconciliation (where your sins are forgiven after confessing). The problem in Mormonism is that, while Catholics never had to prove that they had gone to Confession to receive Communion, Mormons do have to provide proof that they have “passed the test,” and are worthy, in order to enter the temple. think the most plausible changes to accomplish a sense of more direct access to the Divine would be to lighten up the requirements for what makes a person “worthy” to enter the temple. For one, they should eliminate the required obedience to the Word of Wisdom, which quite clearly was not intended to be a “commandment,” but a “principle with a promise” anyway. Also to be eliminated are the questions regarding affiliation with anti-Mormon groups, and the one regarding tithe-paying. Those are the requirements that make the least sense, that impose arbitrary obedience and service to the institutional church through money and personal conduct. Questions of morality, honesty, and belief in the teachings of the church make a great deal more sense.(Footnote) Also, I would like to see them take a leaf out of the Catholic church’s book and make recommend interviews anonymous, as Reconciliation is in Catholicism. They could find a way to conduct the interview from behind a screen and give approval without knowing who is being interviewed (put the place for signature on the backside of the recommend so the church official doesn’t see the name on the front? They can have someone outside the door verify that you have your recommend and not anybody else’s before you go in for the interview). This eliminates the possibility of bias, as well as making the process a lot less intimidating and abusive. You should be able to go to your bishop for advice and counsel about personal problems without worrying how it’s going to affect your access to God in the temple. If this is the person you’re supposed to depend on for spiritual direction, then they should definitely not have the power to restrict your access to the temple, and subsequently, to heaven.
The Mormon theology of marriage relates to the restricted access to the Divine in the temple as well. Because Mormonism teaches that temple marriage is necessary for exaltation (i.e. salvation), access to the temple is necessary for salvation. Single people depend on the institutional church to give them permission to enter the temple if they want the “right” kind of marriage to gain exaltation. If perhaps there was less emphasis on the importance of marriage (since they already teach that anyone who isn’t married in this life can be married in the next by proxy anyway), then people would not feel the need to have access to the temple for salvation, and so would not even have to (or want to) try to meet the requirements for a temple recommend.
Final Thoughts
Mormonism today reminds me a great deal of what Catholicism was 50 years ago in the United States. There were a lot of problems in Catholicism back then. The authoritarian power structure was a breeding ground for institutionalized abuse that went completely unreported, unpunished, and unchecked, because of the idolization of priests and for the sake of the public face of the institutional church. Scrupulosity, guilt, and fear of eternal punishment were the predominant motivators in the faithful’s participation in Sacraments and obedience to the moral code. People were not encouraged to form their own conscience and think for themselves, but to memorize doctrinal teachings and obey the dictates of the clergy. Women and children were mentally and physically beaten into submitting to the patriarchal, hierarchical power structure. It is perhaps even more frightening that today, when racism and sexism are actively battled in schools and the media, that there still exists a “mainstream” religion that embraces the subjugation of women, the patriarchal 50′s happy family, and the nonsensical designation of stereotyped gender roles. And yet I find there is hope. Because if the Catholic church, which was so very determined to combat such “social evils” as feminism and the idea of a merciful God, can make such drastic changes, why can’t others?
Footnote:I think that more emphasis should also be given to obedience to one’s own conscience rather than institutional authority figures and publications. John Henry Cardinal Newman said that, if one has taken the time to form one’s conscience through personal study and reflection, then to do something in contradiction with one’s conscience, even if the Pope himself tells you to do it, would be a sin. So I personally think that the best thing to do would be to eliminate the interview altogether and give all members access to the temple, while perhaps restricting participation in temple rituals to those who have undergone a process of preparation (similar to how a person who is Catholic cannot receive the Sacrament of Confirmation without going through classes preparing them). But I chose to suggest only the most plausible changes above, because I still think eliminating those two would have a drastic effect on members’ dependence on the institutional church.
