A "New Beginning": Young Women Classes and President Oaks' Paradigm of Priesthood Expansion

"The Beginning of Better Days"

In 1992, Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles gave the talk  "The Relief Society and the Church". He quoted President Joseph Smith at the establishment of the Women's Organization saying, “I now turn the key to you in the name of God and this Society shall rejoice and knowledge and intelligence shall flow down from this time—this is the beginning of better days to this Society”. 

I think there's a significant chance as President of the Church,  Dallin H. Oaks may be open to the idea of Turning the Key he is now steward of another degree.

"One Miracle At A Time" - Jeffrey R. Holland

Years ago, when the age for Elder and Sister Missionaries were lowered by President Thomas S. Monson in 2012, declared a "miracle" by Elder Jeffrey R. Holland in a subsequent interview,  I considered that the next Organizational "Miracle" would be to move the Young Women program under the banner of the Relief Society, in order to have a similar vertical line of Sisterhood that is inherent in the single 'Priesthood' Brotherhood banner for the Young Men. I thought this would prepare the way for the eventual ordination of Women, as the same structure would now solidly be in place for the women as was for the men.

 When the ward High Priest Groups were disbanded and folded into Elder's Quorum  in 2018 under President Russel M. Nelson (a move that suddenly put the adult Men on a more comparable budget and degree of Ward Council representation as the Women), I thought, aha! Finally! My prediction will come true! 

And then in 2019, the Youth Programs of the Church were overhauled, and the tripartite Young Women classes ("Beehives", "MIA Maids" and "Laurels") were disbanded, leaving a bit of an organizational lacuna in my then 7-year-old prediction, as it now made the Young Women program less similar to the continuing tri-vision of the Aaronic Priesthood quorums of Deacons, Teachers, and Priests. But stubbornly,  I still thought that the vertical alignment and reorganization would be the eventual plan for unilaterally bringing Ordination in some way into the mix - well, until today.

 Today, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced that once again, the Young Women program of the Church would be re-organized into Age Groups that are essentially equivalent in organization to the Young Men's Aaronic Priesthood Quorums.

On the surface, this looks like like we're just bringing back the Beehives, MIA Maids and Laurels under new, translatable and more doctrinally relevant names ("Builders of Faith", "Messengers of Hope", "Gatherers of Light"). 

It seems like it would be back in line with my original prediction of direct connection with the Relief Society, particularly, as the Young Women Presidency noted that the 1 Corinthians 13:13 virtues of "Faith" and Hope" (with the addition of "Light") are preparatory to the life ideally presented in their eventual entry into Relief Society, which carries the motto "Charity Never Faileth"!

And, yes, the structure is there! 

But things have changed. And as I revisited my predicted ends, and thought about what has happened since then, I ... changed my mind as to what the path forward would be.

So what changed?

A Paradigm Shift In Priesthood Rhetoric: Women and the Priesthood

Dallin H. Oaks is now the President of the Church, and the reframing of Priesthood Authority from his 2014 talk "The Keys and Authority of the Priesthood" has gone from a radical reframing to the new status quo. 

But before we go into what this talk expands, I need to address what it restricts. Oaks says, 

"But even though ... presiding authorities [including the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles] hold and exercise all of the keys delegated to men in this dispensation, they are not free to alter the divinely decreed pattern that only men will hold offices in the priesthood."

For the purposes of this post, I'm not going to interrogate the source of Oaks' belief that this is a pattern that cannot be altered, but it is important to point out that Oaks believes this is so, and President Oaks is now the President of the Church. I believe that for Dallin H. Oaks - then and now - the prospect of ordaining women to Priesthood Office is off the table. And that's important to acknowledge.

But as the talk progresses, we do find a new main idea that has shockingly swiftly become part of standard Church culture and teaching is summed up in this paragraph:

"We are not accustomed to speaking of women having the authority of the priesthood in their Church callings, but what other authority can it be? When a woman—young or old—is set apart to preach the gospel as a full-time missionary, she is given priesthood authority to perform a priesthood function. The same is true when a woman is set apart to function as an officer or teacher in a Church organization under the direction of one who holds the keys of the priesthood. Whoever functions in an office or calling received from one who holds priesthood keys exercises priesthood authority in performing her or his assigned duties."

In addition, what generally passed by as just an acknowledgement of 'how things work' earlier in the talk, however, described a concept that under Oaks' framing has some fascinating implications. It's a discussion of the relationship between Priesthood Keys, and Priesthood Authority:

"In the controlling of the exercise of priesthood authority, the function of priesthood keys both enlarges and limits. It enlarges by making it possible for priesthood authority and blessings to be available for all of God’s children. It limits by directing who will be given the authority of the priesthood, who will hold its offices, and how its rights and powers will be conferred. For example, a person who holds the priesthood is not able to confer his office or authority on another unless authorized by one who holds the keys. Without that authorization, the ordination would be invalid. This explains why a priesthood holder—regardless of office—cannot ordain a member of his family or administer the sacrament in his own home without authorization from the one who holds the appropriate keys.

With the exception of the sacred work that sisters do in the temple under the keys held by the temple president . . . only one who holds a priesthood office can officiate in a priesthood ordinance."

While the first paragraph is nothing new, it's that last paragraph that contains the kicker under Oaks' paradigm. To make it clear, I'll reverse it so the rule is first, followed by the exception: 

• only one who holds a priesthood office can officiate in a priesthood ordinance
• With the exception of the sacred work that sisters do in the temple under the keys held by the temple president

There is no explanation of why that is an exception, only a statement of the current status quo that it is one.

Priesthood Ordinances Under The Direction of Priesthood Keys

So let's expand that logic - if the exception allows a non-Priesthood Office-holding woman to perform Priesthood Ordinances in the Temple, because they are authorized by the Temple President (who holds the Priesthood Keys of that work) to do so, let's apply that to some other Priesthood Ordinances/Services that are done under the direction of Priesthood Keys:

• Baptism - Under the direction of the Keys of the Bishop of a Ward (as President of the Aaronic Priesthood in the Ward) for 8 year old children of existing Members, or the Keys of the Mission President for 8+ and Converts.
• Blessing the Sacrament - Under the direction of the Keys of the Bishop of a Ward (as President of the Aaronic Priesthood in the Ward)
• Preparing the Sacrament - Delegated by the Bishop to the Teacher's Quorum President to direct.
• Passing the Sacrament - Delegated by the Bishop to the Deacon's Quorum President to direct.
  

Now, first some housecleaning: Preparing and Passing the Sacrament are not duties spelled out in Scripture. And unless you take the initial conferral of the Aaronic Priesthood as making ordained Deacons and Teachers technically all "Priests" (an historically valid position, but that's another discussion!), the language about Administering the Sacrament in D&C 28:58 "But neither teachers nor deacons have authority to ... administer the sacrament" is not being seen as applicable to passing or preparing  - Particularly as there's no prohibition of women and girls and other un-ordained boys and men passing the sacrament tray down the row. But it's so ingrained as a 'Priesthood Duty', that as much as I would love the easiest solution ("just change it!") to happen, it seems, to me at least, less likely to be something that would just be done.

So what if President Oaks, as "the only person authorized to exercise all those priesthood keys", announces he would be delegating to Mission Presidents, Bishops, Teacher's Quorum Presidents, and Deacon's Quorum Presidents the same ability given to Temple Presidents to authorize women and girls to participate in those functions?

Could we see entrance into Builders of Faith be the time Young Women are permitted to formally Pass the Sacrament under the direction of the Deacon's Quorum President?

Could we see entrance into Messengers of Hope be the time Young Women are permitted to formally Prepare the Sacrament under the direction of the Teacher's Quorum President?

Could we see entrance into Gatherers of Light be the time Young Women are permitted permitted to Bless the Sacrament under the direction of the Bishop? Could we see this extended to authorization to perform Baptisms under the direction of the Bishop or Mission President?

Addressing A Potential Objection

One argument that might be brought up against this possibility is: that the reason adult women are qualified to be delegated responsibility to officiate in Temple Ordinances in the first place is due to unique authority granted in the Endowment, seeing as at the time men and women place the Priesthood Robes on during the ceremony, it is declared to be in preparation to "participate in the ordinances" of the Priesthood. (Prior to adjustments in 2019, the language used to read "officiate in the ordinances" of the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthood.)

But if so, then at the very least, that should not be a reason for keeping Temple Endowed women from being able to "participate in the ordinances" of Baptism, and Blessing the Sacrament if President Oaks simply authorized Bishops and Mission Presidents to do so just as he already does with Temple Presidents. Something that is consistent with what he appears to have directly pointed out is the kind of things presiding the Presidency of the Church is permitted to do with his Keys.

"The Doctrine Is Not Changing" - But Radical Change Is Still Possible

Particularly since the Preparing and Passing the Sacrament are not inherently scripturally tied to Priesthood Office required roles (members of the Relief Society regularly used to prepare the Bread for the Sacrament), expanding those roles to the female age-equivalents of Deacons and Teachers (Builders and Messengers!) seems a simple ask. 

And, attractive to someone like President Oaks, giving power to the Deacons/Teachers Quorum Presidents would elevate the role of those Keys, and re-enforce the existing doctrinal foundation.

Thus, President Oaks could begin a radical policy change, while acknowledging the Doctrine Is Not Changing, and point back to his 2014 talk to show how he's been saying this is possible for over a decade - and his talk points even further back to show a long-lasting doctrinal foundation.

Practically, women and girls in the Church (having an active Temple recommend would be a reasonable practical pre-requisite, as the standards for Priesthood Ordination are the same) could be permitted to perform the major Priesthood Ordinance functions outside the Temple without the need to Ordain Women under President Oaks' current doctrinal framework.  

Sister Missionaries could finally baptize their own converts without having to hand them over to other Elders. Single Mothers are not left without access to someone to bless the Sacrament at home when Church is cancelled for weather or other emergency circumstances. All could still be said to be done under the authority of the Keys held by Officers of the All-Male Priesthood.

Now, this doesn't solve or even try to address the foundations of key inequality inherent in the hierarchy of the Church. This framework allows for the participation in Priesthood Ordinances, but not Presiding over them. For that, Priesthood Office is still required to be a holder of Priesthood Keys, and thus be an ultimate presiding authority. 

And the model would create the eye-roll inducing idea of  Aaronic Priesthood President Teenage Boys being in charge of delegating Priesthood Authority to Young Women.

But a Church where women and girls can participate in the ordinances of the Priesthood further collapses the unnecessary inequality in essential Church participation and seeing one's role in the Gospel. 

And what's radical is that President Oaks has already established the doctrinal foundation for this to be able to happen today, without a radical re-ordering and reconfiguring of the Priesthood as it stands. He would affirm his position that the pattern of Priesthood ordination of women is not permitted, while expanding access to more of the rights, duties, and responsibilities of the Priesthood Offices to women. 

It would be a massive cultural shift. And it would absolutely change how the next generation thinks, and the questions they would ask, and what possibilities would be allowed, and what explanations seem less and less convincing. It shouldn't be the end, but it could be, once again, a new "Beginning of Better Days."

FROM THE ARCHIVES (2012): The Digital Facilitation of New Revelation

This is a repost from a post I made on the blog Worlds Without End on October 4, 2012 (link via the Wayback Machine). 

New Youth Curriculum, and the Digital Facilitation of New Revelation

I have often considered the massive practical difficulties in regards to promulgation that would be involved if the Church today were to present a radical, paradigm-, policy- or doctrinal-shifting revelation, the likes of 1978’s Official Declaration 2. This difficulty can be seen on a smaller scale, with relatively minor decisions to subtly update the presentation of the modern scriptural canon and normative manuals, such as “Gospel Principles”.

For example, in the recent past, there have been some well-documented updates to some of the introductory material and chapter headers in the Book of Mormon. While some of these changes appeared in some printings of the Doubleday Mass Market edition of the Book of Mormon in 2007, the official church print editions as of yet remain unaltered. [NOTE: The physical editions were updated in 2013] 

However, these changes are to be found in the current official electronic text, found on lds.org, and all of the mobile apps, such as LDS Gospel Library. Which, at least in the wards I’ve attended in the United States, is becoming more and more the standard edition referenced in Church meetings.

This can create confusion. For example, during a recent Gospel Principles class, I was asked to read from the introduction to the Book of Mormon. I read aloud from my official Gospel Library app on my smartphone that the Lamanites  are “among the ancestors of the American Indians.”

My wife nudged me, and pointed to her print edition, hinting that I left out the word “principal” as found in her newly purchased leather-bound mini quad.

Both are current and authorized editions of Church documents. While this example can validly be seen as a minor detail , it still raises the question of which is to be institutionally preferred? As far as I am aware, the changes to the explanatory introductory material, footnotes, and section headers [1] have never been officially and publicly announced. As a result, my experience is that, five years after they have been altered, most Church members do not even know that these changes exist.

Similarly, while the publication and existence of the new 2010 edition of Gospel Principles was well known, no official attention was called to the individual changes in wording and emphasis, and what their significance may have been. When the new edition was first released in July 2009, I personally went line by line and documented each and every change, no matter how minor, and documented my discoveries on an LDS Message board. The reason and significance for individual changes was at times heatedly debated. [2] Since the manual’s implementation as an official replacement in 2010, I have seen teachers still content to use the old print edition, thinking any changes were only in form of format and shifting of some chapter orders. They had no significant reason to believe otherwise.

***

The coming of a new and completely revamped curriculum for youth has been rumored and whispered  about (and clamored for) throughout the web in the past year. Well, it’s finally here, and will most likely be announced and explained in this weekend’s General Conference.

While I’m sure there will be much more to be said about the new curriculum in the coming months before its implementation in January 2013, both by Church Leaders and throughout the bloggernacle, there is one key element about its presentation – and very existence – that I find fascinating, and worth exploring.

The old curriculum for Young Men and Young Women was infamous in some circles for its occasional

highly dated cultural and even doctrinal stories and examples. [3]In recent years, the Church attempted to update these manuals by issuing print as well as online ‘Resource Guides’, which are supplements with new stories, references, and even suggestions to cut certain lessons from the regular rotation – all while the ‘base’ manuals remained in circulation, and in print.

For 2012, the supplement took a significant step, became purely an online resource, without print editions being distributed to units. While certainly a helpful step forward, somewhat like a software patch for fundamentally outdated version of software (or simply a band-aid), it did not stop many teachers from still simply ‘sticking to the manual’, and rehashing the old quotes, stories and emphases.

With the introduction of “Come Follow Me”, the curriculum for Aaronic Priesthood, Young Women,

and Youth Sunday School is now completely online, and completely dynamic.

The new system is structured around 12 monthly doctrinal themes, which are based on those in the Preach My Gospel missionary lessons, and are minimalistically defined on a page of ‘Basic Doctrinal Principles’ with suggested outlines for discussion and practical application of these ideas.

What struck me the most on first surveying the new material was how versatile and flexible this online system was, in the context of implementing and promulgating the teaching of a hypothetical substantial doctrinal readjustment.

An exercise helpful in recognizing the power inherent in this model:

• Think of any hot-topic doctrinal principle that, if revised through through a new prophetic pronouncement or Official Declaration, would effect in any degree one of the 12 topic covered in this curriculum.
• Dig down into the site to see where in the present curriculum the traditional explanation is set out.
• Consider what very little else may need to be practically shifted to bring what is currently there in line to that new hypothetical revelation.
• Change a few lines of text. Add a couple words here, delete a few words there, remove this link to Old Reference, add new conference talk and different scriptural proof-text.

And with that, source texts for editions of teaching curriculum used on smartphones, tablets, and other e-readers around the world are automatically adjusted, without remaining outdated print editions to worry about.

It made me realize that if the majority of Church curriculum (and definitive versions of the Scriptures!) begin to move to purely and substantially online content, this facilitates the ability for hypothetical New Revelation and/or readjusted emphases or corrections to quickly be implemented and distributed, and abrogated understandings to be institutionally removed in an incredibly efficient manner. [4]

If I was a worldwide Church leader, and I was discussing the practicalities of advancing a major potential policy or doctrinal revelation if it were to come, such a move to more reliance on dynamic digital curriculum – and deference to it over existing print editions – would be one of the very first things I would look to implement.

While I know there are many church members who do not desire, wish, or look forward to any further paradigm-and-policy shifting revelations, it is fascinating to see a Church that proclaims Living Revelation and Open Canon as a major selling point begin to move forward with a curriculum framework [5] which would practically allow and provide for the efficient institutional implementation of the creedal affirmation that through the institutional Church, God will “yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.” (Articles of Faith 9).

——————————

[1] Other examples of electronic-only changes include the removal of the explicit association of skin of blackness with the Lamanite cursing in the header to 2 Nephi 5, and the related change in Mormon 5 which used to reinforce the image of the ‘dark, filthy, and loathsome’ Lamanites. Also,  the FARMS-inspired changed from ‘Nephite coinage’ to ‘Nephite monetary system’ in the header to Alma 11. – one view of the significance and history of this last change was just highlighted again in a recent post at the FAIR Blog.

[2] The 2009 thread is now archived, and most of the links no longer work, and the formatting is significantly off, but the nature of discussion can still be seen here.

[3] Such as the manual used in 2011 for Aaronic Priesthood holders discouraging interracial marriage, using a quote from 1977 before the Priesthood Ban on those of black African descent was lifted

[4] Not only would this be helpful for revelation and policy, but for also manuals that include historical or scriptural examples that become unacceptably outdated or inaccurate as scholarship develops.

[5] Which I very much look forward to seeing rolled out into Adult curriculum

Big Development: Come Follow Me, 2 Nephi 5, and the rejection of Joseph Fielding Smith

 In July 2019, the digital edition of the Home and Family edition of the Church's unified study curriculum "Come Follow Me" went online at the Church's official website. Having a specific interest in how the Church has been interpreting and covering how the Church is teaching , interpreting, and approaching the Book of Mormon's account of "a skin of blackness" coming upon the Lamanites, I quickly flipped over to the section covering 2 Nephi 5.

What I found deeply disappointed me. 

2 Nephi 5:2-21: What is the "curse" that came upon the Lamanites?

"The dark skin was placed upon the Lamanites so that they could be distinguished from the Nephites and to keep the two peoples from mixing . . . The dark skin was the sign of the curse.  The curse was the withdrawal of the Spirit of the Lord ... Dark skin ... is no longer to be considered a sign of the curse" (Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, comp. Joseph Fielding Smith Jr. [1960], 3:122-23).

Using the Joseph Fielding Smith quote was problematic from several reasons. The first was in recognizing that when this was written, the Priesthood and Temple Restriction on Black Latter-day Saints was very much in effect, and Joseph Fielding Smith taught that "dark skin" was indeed a sign of what he believed was a currently-in-effect "curse". The association between what was going on in the Nephite narrative was absolutely being related to what was happening in the contemporary Church with the ongoing Priesthood and Temple Restriction.

In late 2013, the Church made major waves in its publication of "Race and the Priesthood", a new official statement on the history of the racial restriction in its historical context. This essay included a paragraph which was powerful, clear, and very, very new:

"Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form."

Notice that key phrase, that the Church disavows past theories "advanced in the past" that "black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse". It directly disavows the 1960 Joseph Fielding Smith assertion that "the dark skin was the sign of the curse". This, for me, created a powerful space for also applying this teaching to the Book of Mormon, and how we interpreted what was happening distinct from how those in the narrative understood or spoke about what was going on.

The problem is that now, on the eve of 2020, the Church was again using the 1960 Joseph Fielding Smith language that was disavowed in 2013.

As has been requested in many years in the opening pages of Curriculum, I sent messages of feedback to the Curriculum department, and contacted associates I knew who had connections in the Church Office Building in related departments explaining my concern at the contradiction, and the problem going forward (and also noting that it probably wasn't going to be in the Church's best interest in any way to have a Church lesson explaining that Dark Skin was legitimately a sign of a Curse just as we were heading into 2020's Black History Month).

The people I contacted expressed gratitude for letting them know, and I learned that there had been a lot of internal discussion about these passages. I didn't know if anything was going to happen.

But then .. suddenly the passage was gone from the online edition. Completely removed. I figured this would be the end of the story, but then I was shocked to discover several days later that it has been completely replaced by a lengthy passage:

2 Nephi 5:20–21

What was the curse that came upon the Lamanites?

In Nephi’s day the curse of the Lamanites was that they were “cut off from [the Lord’s] presence … because of their iniquity” (2 Nephi 5:20–21). This meant the Spirit of the Lord was withdrawn from their lives. When Lamanites later embraced the gospel of Jesus Christ, “the curse of God did no more follow them” (Alma 23:18).

The Book of Mormon also states that a mark of dark skin came upon the Lamanites after the Nephites separated from them. The nature and appearance of this mark are not fully understood. The mark initially distinguished the Lamanites from the Nephites. Later, as both the Nephites and Lamanites each went through periods of wickedness and righteousness, the mark became irrelevant as an indicator of the Lamanites’ standing before God.

Prophets affirm in our day that dark skin is not a sign of divine disfavor or cursing. The Church embraces Nephi’s teaching that the Lord “denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female” (2 Nephi 26:33). President Russell M. Nelson declared: “The Lord has stressed His essential doctrine of equal opportunity for His children. … Differences in culture, language, gender, race, and nationality fade into insignificance as the faithful enter the covenant path and come unto our beloved Redeemer” (“President Nelson Remarks at Worldwide Priesthood Celebration” [June 1, 2018], newsroom.ChurchofJesusChrist.org).

Two massive developments occurred there.

First, the language from the earlier edition was absolutely negated in preference to the language from the 2013 essay, "Prophets affirm in our day that dark skin is not a sign of divine disfavor or cursing."

Second, there is presented space for interpreting the nature of the mark itself beyond the traditional change in skin pigment. They did this with the line, "The nature and appearance of this mark are not fully understood."

This was a massive step in Book of Mormon interpretation, but there were no announcements, and nothing drew its attention to this revision. 

This became even more problematic when it became clear the the original edition was the version that went to press, and in many wards was hand-distributed to every family to study. There was no not or comment to see the online edition for an important correction.

So any family or teacher who used the physical resource in 2020 for personal study, and to prepare lessons for Church classes would have had no reason to know there was a revision.

The most prominent acknowledgement of this issue is when Elder Gary Stevenson of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, at a banquet with the NAACP, specifically acknowledged the original inclusion was an error.

Elder Stevenson preceded his remarks by expressing regret that the church’s 2020 “Come, Follow Me” gospel study manual includes an old statement that dark skin in the Book of Mormon was the sign of a curse.

Elder Stevenson disavowed that statement.

“One of our recent church manuals includes a paragraph with some outdated commentary about race,” he said. “It was mistakenly included in the printed version of the manual, which had been prepared for print nearly two years ago. When it was brought to the attention of church leaders late last year, they directed that it be immediately removed in our annual online manual, which is used by the great majority of our members. We have also directed that any future printed manuals will reflect this change.

“We’re asking our members to disregard the paragraph in the printed manual,” he added. “Now I’m deeply saddened and hurt by this error and for any pain that it may have caused our members and for others. I would just like to reiterate our position as a church is clear. We do condemn all racism, past and present, in any form, and we disavow any theory advanced that black or dark skin is a sign of a curse. 

But now, in preparation for 2024, the Church has published a consolidated edition of Come Follow Me (called Come Follow Me for Home and Church)  that will be used for Home, Primary, Youth, and Sunday School preparation. It is the only edition online (which is encouraged to be used), and will have a print edition. And this new edition contains the revised online edition of the 2 Nephi 5 passage, along with a new more recent quote from President Nelson.

President Russell M. Nelson declared: “I assure you that your standing before God is not determined by the color of your skin. Favor or disfavor with God is dependent upon your devotion to God and His commandments and not the color of your skin” (“Let God Prevail,” Ensign or Liahona, Nov. 2020, 94).

This is a massive new development in Book of Mormon interpretation, active response to a passage that has long been allowed to silently stand as support for racist ideas, and is opening up new avenues of understanding the narrative text in ways that had previously not been given official or authoritative 'clearance' to do so in printed curriculum or teachings.

REVIEW: Ancient Christians - An Introduction for Latter-day Saints

For most Latter-day Saints, the history of our faith begins with the New Testament, and then suddenly picks up 1800 years later with Joseph Smith and the beginning of the Restoration movement. You go straight from the end of the Book of Acts, to the first chapter of the first volume in the 'Saints' series of narrative modern Church history without feeling you've missed anything important. 

Generally, my experience has seen a prevailing viewpoint that nothing that happened between the close of the New Testament and Joseph Smith's First Vision is really relevant or of value in the history or story of Christianity, with the exception of the idea that there was a Great Apostasy, and the Reformation, in general and vague ways, was important in paving the way for the possibility of the Restoration.

In my experience, your regular Latter-day Saint has never heard the names Clement, Ignatius, Irenaeus, or Justin Martyr. And those who may have heard the names in passing, certainly have not read from them, or if they have, likely saw a quick quote explaining how they believed something exactly the way the Church practices and teaches in the 21st Century.

There's a lot of history as to why Latter-day Saints have that perspective. But this new book, Ancient Christians: An Introduction for Latter-day Saints published by the Maxwell Institute at BYU in December 2022, is hard at work at trying to fight against this long tradition by presenting history, context, and a sympathetic nuanced reading of the first centuries of Christian tradition.

The book's editorial team (Jason Combs, Mark D. Ellison, Catherine Gines Taylor and Kristian S. Heal) isn't subtle or opaque about its purposes, and the tides of tradition it knows it's working against.

From the introduction by Jason Combs: 

Latter-day Saint Narratives of Ancient Christianity: Early Latter-day Saints inherited from Protestants a great apostasy narrative. . . In support of ... more recent statements [from General Authorities speaking out against traditional anti-Catholic interpretations of Restoration scripture], we acknowledge the need for greater care in discussing a great apostasy - a term that does not appear in our standard works.

We unitedly affirm the need for the Restoration, and at the same time, we must be clear in stating precisely what that means.  For instance, the Doctrine and Covenants never speaks explicitly of a restored church . . . When Latter-day Saints use that unscriptural phrase, restored church, it should be understood as shorthand for the restorations the Doctrine and Covenants does address - namely, the bestowal of priesthood power, authority, and keys associated with making sacred covenants, establishing Zion (Moses 7:18), gathering scattered Israel on both sides of the veil (that is, in this life and beyond), and binding up all dispensations in preparation for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. These special purposes to which God has called us and for which God has established the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do not require us to spend our time trying to prove other churches and religions wrong or apostate.

It goes on to suggest a new, positive approach to Christianity of the past:

A New Latter-day Saint Approach to Ancient Christians: What does this careful reading of our Latter-day Saint teachings regarding the Restoration mean for this volume about ancient Christians? First, it means that we cannot assume that something found in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints today necessarily existed in the ancient Church (see Doctrine and Covenants 124:38, 41). We cannot assume that today's Church is a template for what the first-century Church must have been, or vice versa.  For that reason, in this book, our authors acknowledge the differences between ancient Christians and Latter-day Saints without automatically assuming such differences to be evidence of apostasy. When our authors encounter these differences, they work to explain how and why ancient Christians developed beliefs and practices that contrast with our own - working toward understanding them from a position of respect and even "holy envy."

These opening passages are absolutely radical in our tradition, and present a huge promise of what one might expect in the coming chapters, which are in and of themselves stand-alone essays covering a specific topic and how it was understood, practiced, and developed in early Christianity.

I'll admit, as excited as I was by this introductory promise, I was skeptical (as past works on Christian History as presented by Church-owned institutions have generally rightfully caused me to be) of what I would be seeing in the ensuing chapters.

And then, each and every chapter not only lived up to their editorial promise, but exceeded it. I'm just going to list the chapters and their topics here:

• Preaching Christ: Scripture, Sermons, and Practical Exegesis (by Kristian S. Heal)
• Creating Canon: Authority, New Prophecy, and Sacred Texts (Thomas A. Wayment)
• Church Organization: Priesthood Offices and Women's Leadership Roles (Ariel Bybee Laughton)
• Sacred Spaces and Places of Worship: From House Churches to Monumental Basilicas (Matthew J. Grey)
• Connecting with Christ: Rituals and Worship (Mark D. Ellison)
• Human Nature: Creation and the Fall (Gaye Strathearn)
• Divine Nature: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Jason R. Combs)
• Receiving Christ: Atonement, Grace, and Eternal Salvation (Cecilia M. Peek)
• Becoming Like God: Incarnation, Moral Formation, and Eternal Progression (Daniel Becerra)
• Inclining Christian Hearts: Work for the Dead (Catherine Gines Taylor)
• Living in the Afterlife: Heaven, Hell, and Places Between
• Facing the End: The Second Coming of Jesus Christ and the Millennium (Nicholas J. Frederick)
• Medieval Christians (Miranda Wilcox)

At the beginning of reading through this book, even against what was stated in the introduction, I started bracing at certain points at each chapter where I was prepared to be hit with some traditional "parallelomania" showing why something the ancient Christians did is exactly what we do today. But each and every time I thought it was going to go that route, the author seemed to anticipate my concern, and would often specifically include a call-out box making sure that we did NOT make unwarranted connections, and make very clear why some parallels made by some in the past misinterpreted key reasonings or purposes or language in the ancient practices. Not only did these chapters avoid making false equivalencies, they went out of their way to try to repair some of the notions presented by past approaches to this work.

A few chapters in, I stopped worrying, and started to actively look forward to how some key aspects were handled. I was always incredibly impressed.

It's not just a book of 'debunking', though. There are wonderful and beautiful meditations on the practices, giving a sense of how the practitioners devotion to Christ led to such beliefs and practices, and in some cases giving a suggestion of how the principle could be understood or applied by modern Saints without suggesting there be a direct 1:1 relationship. It's all so masterfully handled.

The book is also beautifully visually presented. Andrew Heiss designed a stunning book filled with relevant and gorgeous authentic ancient artwork. It's as much a joy to look at as it is to read. The visuals complement and enhance the essays they accompany.

I want to also call attention to a fantastic companion resource. Wayfare Magazine has produced a 'Meet the Early-day Saints' podcast hosted by the great Blair Hodges, who in each episode interviews one of the authors of a chapter of this book, and has a wonderful in-depth discussion about its particular topic. This podcast serves both as a great companion for the chapters for those who have read it, and a completely independent introduction for those who have not (yet!) had the opportunity to check it out, and presents the key points in a highly accessible manner. It's a great podcast, and I highly recommend checking it out.

This whole project is a monumental and important work. President Nelson has said, "good inspiration is based upon good information" - this book can be a powerful source of "good information" that I believe can catalyze "good inspiration" as to how to change how we understand and talk about our Christian ancestors, as well as our brothers and sisters in other Christian traditions.

  

 

When Rhetoric Overpowers Revelation: Moroni 8 and Mormon's Comments on Infant Baptism:

 Last year, BYU's Maxwell Institute published an incredible new book entitled Ancient Christians: An Introduction for Latter-day Saints. I'm still working through it (and through the complimentary and highly recommended podcast Meet the Early-day Saints, presented by Wayfare and hosted by Blair Hodges), but this book seeks to overturn a massive amount of presumptions, assumptions and mistaken ideas and negative stereotypes about the earliest Christian Church (and I'd also say practices by current practitioners of other Christian traditions) that had been promulgated and believed by Latter-day Saints for generations. It's a massive undertaking, and anyone who has seen takes published by Church-owned entities in the past that engages with the Church Fathers and past Christian beliefs and practices likely has a reason to be skeptical. That said, nothing like this has been published before.

I'll likely talk more about this book in more detail at another time, but I wanted to lay out some thoughts I had after reading one of the sidebars in Mark D. Ellison's excellent chapter, "Connecting with Christ: Rituals and Worship". The sidebar is on the topic of Infant Baptism.

After giving 4 paragraphs to an explanation of the origins of Infant Baptism along with generous and sympathetic expressions of why devoted disciples of Christ would be motivated to have their young children baptized, he ends with this paragraph, addressing and confronting how Latter-day Saints approach and think of this practice. I quote:

Though we Latter-day Saints have a different position on this issue (because of Restoration scripture that early Christians did not have, such as Moroni 8 and Doctrine and Covenants 68:27), the idea of accommodations in the performances of ordinances is not foreign to Latter-day Saint thought or practice.  Doctrine and Covenants 137:9-10 assures us that children who die before the age of accountability will inherit the celestial kingdom -- and also that the Lord "will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts." Surely this includes the heartfelt concerns of parents for the eternal well-being of their little children.  The argument against infant baptism in Moroni 8 is important, but it is not directed against ancient Christians in the Old World, nor modern Christians, but against Nephites who Mormon thought should have known better." 

That last phrase "Nephites who Mormon thought should have known better", sparked an interest in me to revisit Moroni 8, because I recalled it quoting a revelation from Christ on the topic along with incredibly harsh condemnation for the participants in such a practice.

I'm so glad I revisited it. With the hermeneutic of generosity in mind inspired by the selection in Ancient Christians, I noticed something I never had before: There are two parts to this passage, which is presented by Moroni as part of a letter he had received from his father, Mormon. Following an introduction to the question at hand (whether young children should be baptized),  Mormon declares he received a revelation from Jesus Christ, and gives a quotation of what he declared are the words of Christ as an answer to his question.

The second part is Mormon taking a verbal step back, and then giving his personal commentary on his understanding and application of it.

First, here's the words Mormon attributes to Christ (Moroni 8:8):

Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me.

Take note of what this passage does, and does not do. * The words do answer the question with a gentle top-level doctrinal framework for why a practice understood as for the remission of sins should not be understood as a requirement for children. What they do not do is condemn the practice of baptizing children, or pass a moral judgment in any way on those who have or do participate in or teach the practice. 

This is in sharp contrast to what Mormon the Church leader does next. First, he explicitly ends the quotation, ("And after this manner did the Holy Ghost manifest the word of God unto me;") and then gives his interpretation of it. ("Wherefore  ... I know that...). Mormon then goes on to impute wicked motivation and condemnation for the practice and the practitioners - right before declaring himself to be "filled with charity" (8:17)!

This is what Mormon says about those who believe in baptizing their children:

• "he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell." (8:14)

Compare that again to what he reports as Christ's actual response on the topic.**

We have seen in the modern Church many examples of  Church leaders taking a teaching of Christ, and then going beyond it to paint with a broad brush imputed motivations and condemnation for anyone who disagrees. I don't feel the need to present examples. If you're reading this, I'm sure you can think  of them.

While it may be at times easy to sympathize with the perspective and reason for such rhetoric from the point of view of the one giving it, it must also be appreciated how that rhetoric is received, and often becomes conflated with the original teaching of Christ, and how that can lead to undeserved pain, hurt, and condemnation not condoned by the words of Christ.

This is a good example of how we can take what may be an essentially true uplifting Gospel principle, and then weaponize it in a way that goes devastatingly beyond its intentions. I do believe the words of Mormon as presented in this passage are (and have been) harmful and not representative of the beliefs or status of anyone I know (and the vast majority of those I do not know) of those who incorporate infant baptism as part of their Christian practice and devotion. 

That doesn't mean Restoration scripture affirms the practice or beliefs motivating the practice as being correct or necessary -  but not being correct or unnecessary doesn't require such motives and assumption of sin that Mormon the Church leader goes out of his way to present.

____

* While this is somewhat of a tangent topic, it's interesting to note that these words alone do not inherently disregard the notion of Original Sin at this time, but present the teaching using the framework that accountability for what is called "the curse of Adam" in children is removed by Christ without requirement of additional proactive sacramental action. It's also worth noting that the Book of Mormon presents a discussion of a sinless Jesus willingly subjecting himself to baptism, and presenting it as an act of obedience and as an example. (see 2 Nephi 31)

** Significantly, even in a Latter-day Saint scripture that would come later (a Revelation to Joseph Smith eventually canonized as Doctrine and Covenants 29:46) the voice of Christ is represented as repeating essentially the same answer Mormon reports Christ as giving - but also, once again,  free from the explicit condemnation of the practice of infant baptism or those who practice it. "But behold, I say unto you, that little children are redeemed from the foundation of the world through mine Only Begotten;" (D&C 29:46)

Getting Back To Business

 From around 2010 up to about 2016, I kept a blog filled with book reviews and musings in the realms of Mormon Studies and other Latter-day Saint themes. A couple years ago, I started reviewing and commenting again, but this time mainly on Twitter. I thought it was about time to bring back some of my old reviews, and gather some of my Twitter thoughts into a single 'clearing house' of sorts.

So ImprovementEra.com is back. Sort of. I'm in the process of re-posting old reviews from the Back Catalog. This'll take a little while, as I'm fixing any old or broken links along the way. I'm also re-posting them with their original post-dates. So while this iteration of ImprovementEra.com is new, I hope to add some continuity to its past.

Thanks for stopping by!
 

REVIEW - Method Infinite: Freemasonry and the Mormon Restoration

Method Infinite: Freemasonry and the Mormon Restoration

Cheryl L. Bruno, Joe Steve Swick III, Nicholas S. Literski

Greg Kofford Books, 2022

Amazon.com purchase link

There's a lot of books and articles that have attempted to make parallels with Mormonism and Masonry. This is the only one I've found that combines a deep and nuanced knowledge of the best current Mormon History/Mormon Studies Scholarship (including using the most recent Joseph Smith Papers documents), experience as a practicing Mason, deep understanding of relevant 19th Century historical/religious developments, and especially how specific aspects of 19th Century Masonry (practice, language, and perspective) was developing and interacting with multiple aspects of society.

This is an exploration of how deeply 19th Century Masonic ideas were interwoven and influential from the very beginning of Joseph Smith's life, and how they interacted, informed, and challenged his developing Church, Scripture, and world of religious ideas.

This isn't a book of surface Parallels, or a Latter-day Saint Temple exposé, or for that manner, a Masonic exposé. In fact, I was surprised at how well the book navigated respectfully (and usefully!) the exploration of key material considered sensitive from both Masonic and Latter-day Saint ritual.

I consider myself significantly well-read when it comes to scholarship and primary sources relating to Latter-day Saint/Mormon history. This book re-framed many of the events and episodes, statements and practices from history that I knew DID happen, and presented for the first time, a consistent and thorough explanation of WHY they happened the way they did. It really did feel like some missing puzzle pieces came into view that had been hiding in plain sight.

I don't see how any serious scholar working on the early development of Latter-day Saint writings, teachings, beliefs and practices can go forward without taking this book's arguments and evidence into consideration. The descriptor 'Game Changer' is often thrown around, but this one legitimately earns it.