I went to conference-the 182nd Semiannual General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held this past Saturday and Sunday, Oct. 6 & 7, 2012, to be precise. My wife, Heather, decided it was safer to stay home (that’s a long story). I took our kids late to the Sunday morning session. I told them our mission was for each of us to identify something of value-a thought, a life-lesson, an anecdote, an admonition, something.
On paper, we succeeded. We took turns sharing our positive tidbits on the drive home. In reality, though, I came away disappointed for two reasons. Both are related to the change in missionary age (see here, here, or here)
First, I realized that our heroic belief in open heavens and an open canon is so empty of empirical validation that we’re willing to celebrate a shift in the arbitrary age for missionary service-a policy decision crying out for only slightly more revelatory guidance than the selection of new carpet in the church office building-as though God himself had typed the announcement into the teleprompter.
Let’s reminisce for a second. In the history of the church, missionaries have been called at all ages. Missionaries have been married. They have served with their wives. They have served in mixed sex “companionships” (that’s right, unmarried men and women have, at times, served as missionary companions). They have served for three or four years. They have served for six months. Recently, men have served at 19, women at 21. No one claimed there was anything magical about these numbers. No eternal principle was at stake. It was just policy.
People’s reactions to the recent policy change, however, reveal a hunger that I didn’t recognize before. We talk about being guided by a prophet-“Follow the prophet, follow the prophet, don’t go astray,” we sing-but the reality is that our scriptures are closed. Joseph F. Smith was the last to contribute (see the Doctrine & Covenants, Section 138, received on October 3, 1918). Since then, additions have devolved from “Official Declarations,” and “Official Proclamations,” to conference talks, entries in the church “handbook,” and press releases.
Not only has it been a hundred years since we’ve added new scripture, we’ve gotten to the point that we can’t even rely on continuing revelation to clarify past revelation. For example, do we, or do we not, believe that polygamy will be practiced in heaven? (see here). Perhaps of more immediate relevance is this question: Do we or do we not believe in caffeinated drinks? (see here).
The “follow the prophet” refrain isn’t about receiving divine guidance anymore. It’s an invitation to conform, to proclaim oneself a part of the group, to advertise one’s loyalty to the institution. When policy decisions are treated like revelations, it should be obvious to everyone what we’ve lost.
The second reason I was disappointed is because I no longer have any confidence that leaders are able to see, or effectively address, the inherent sexism of the church’s doctrine and policies.
Here I have to part company with a few individuals that I respect and with whom I generally agree. Joanna Brooks, for example, seems genuinely happy about the change and is able to see in it some signs of “progress.” I disagree.
Let’s review the narrative. Women have uteri, and their primary function, therefore, is to utilize their anatomy, in the proper context, of course, to “bear” children. Serving a mission should not take precedence over getting married, and because of that, women were required to wait longer to serve (until age 21, versus 19 for men), and they served for a shorter period of time (18 months, versus 2 years for men). These policy distinctions made it clear that missionary work was primarily the domain of young men (and women could help out, if they didn’t have anything better to do, and it was convenient). Because missionary work was primarily the domain of young men, they filled all mission leadership positions, regardless of whether or not these positions were “priesthood” callings or not.
Now, what affect does the new policy have on this narrative?
Do women still have to wait longer than men to serve? Do they still serve for a shorter period of time? Are all leadership roles filled by elders? The answer to each of these questions, unfortunately, is “yes.” The larger narrative stays the same. Nothing has changed. Well, I shouldn’t say that. The one-year gap for men–that awkward and sometimes inconvenient year between high school and mission call–has been gift wrapped and handed off to the young women.
But it gets worse. Before conference, these policy distinctions might have been at least partially attributed to historical precedent and established norms. Now that the church has gone through the trouble of establishing a new policy, these distinctions can’t be so easily explained away. As Jana Riess put it, “It feels as though the Church almost bent over backwards to reify systemic sexism by reaffirming an age difference and maintaining the silly standard of having young women serve for only a year and a half.” As a Mormon women in a Facebook thread put it, “This [new policy] is like the men in the church lifting their legs, marking their territory and saying, ‘No equality for you. We’ll just give you what WE think you should have.’ Even though there’s absolutely no logical reason for it. And to top it all off, we should be happy about it.” There is no wiggle room now (not that there was much before): The church is a fundamentally sexist organization.
What if it had been announced that men and women could begin serving missions at 18 (or 19), for the same length of time, and that mission leadership positions would be filled without regard to gender? If such a proposition seems shocking, it just shows how embedded the sexism is.
It was fitting that Holland, in the Sunday morning session of conference, talked about how performing baptisms is designed to change the missionary as well as the convert. I guess it slipped his mind that only male missionaries perform baptisms (or maybe he was just talking about “real” missionaries).
[Last Post: 40 “A public Meeting, or Feast”]
Such cogent and important points. Two thoughts come to mind:
It may seem grandiose, but when I read your post I thought of how internet commentators such as you are similar to Israelite prophets who condemned the status quo from the fringes. What we don’t appreciate is how the prophets who made it into the scriptures were often unpopular in their time. Those they condemned included other prophets, the prophets of the status quo who declared that all was well in Zion, and that God cared most about temple sacrifices and the political organization of the time.
And about your apt point regarding policy as revelation, this satire:
Next conference members will get excited over the revelation from god that COB bathrooms will be cleaned on Thursdays, because that is how things were done in the Primitive Church. Nay, that is the eternal order of things.
“I realized that our heroic belief in open heavens and an open canon is so empty of empirical validation that we’re willing to celebrate a shift in the arbitrary age limits for missionary service-a policy decision crying out for only slightly more revelatory guidance than the selection of new carpet in the church office building-as though God himself had typed the announcement into the teleprompter.”
This. Exactly. The Church has basically ossified. The scriptures certainly have.
This might be a Utah thing, but I loved when Holland teared up during the local news press conference in between sessions. Dude can’t even get through a press release without getting overwhelmed.
I sometimes speak in tongues when reading the classifieds, but gimme a break.
I have to admit, I missed the Saturday sessions. But as soon as I got home from where I’d been, I was told about the new change. My immediate first reaction (sorry for the redundancy) was to wonder why there was still an age difference and to roll my eyes internally as I watched my Facebook page flood with the excitement from all other member friends on my Facebook friends list. Why, why, why the difference still??? Yes, it definitely bugs me.
There are far bigger gender issues in the church than the missionary age requirement. I suggest starting with the fact that women have little to no say on how money is spent in the church. “Priestood” or not, whoever makes financial decisions holds the power in any organization.
Yep.
My name is Mormon Woman in a FB Thread, and I endorse this message.
It pains me to agree with you on some of this, Brent, but I do. Especially about our hunger for real revelation. We are a lost, terrified, “good press” seeking people right now. We are spiritually hungry, and there is SO MUCH THERE to provide spiritual nourishment, but we will be dammed and continue to hemorrhage until we swallow our pride and actually repent of our sins of sexism, racism, homophobia, legalism, and idolatry in the form of leader worship.
Having said that, God is good. He’ll take this age change and do some wonderful things to the entire culture as more and more women experience the rite of passage that a mission represents. It will do more for gender equality in Mormonism down the road than I think we realize now.
I wanted to add…even if that wasn’t the intent.
I can’t help wondering what you characterize as “revelation”. I have experienced receiving revelation as a result of having acting within the responsibilities of a particular calling. These “:revelation” resulted at times in important decisions and actions that affected individual in important ways. I could not have known or predicted these outcomes, nor did I know or understand all of the issues that made these courses of action important. General Authorities recieve revelation in the same way. Not everything needs to be scripture to be considered revelatory. Not everything has to fit you personally to be necessary and beneficial for the church as a whole. When you already see the decisions of leaders as sexist and narrow, I am not sure that any change would please you. That lense is so dark and restrictive, no other interpretation seems possible. As for missions being somehow “owned” by men , perhaps there are reasons for that. It certainly in not becuase men are better missionaries. I see missions as a training ground for men to learn service at a time in their life when that is often furthest from their minds. Young men out of the church as a whole are pretty interested in entertainment, fun and pretty “me” oriented activities. It seems to me that they have culturally needed that extra push. Perhaps women need that now too. There seems to be a great deal of “whats good for me” and very little about sacrifice, duty and service, character attributes generally associated with maturity and wisdom.
Your thoughts about our hunger for revelation saddened me because they are so true. I want a prophet to tell me how to solve the big issues, guide me on how to raise my children to be loving to all human beings, and help me develop a deep understanding of how the world works. Mostly I hear thoughts that any pastor could expound upon. As for the mission age changes, I do see huge changes in the culture occurring. Hopefully some will be good. I fear that the young women will get one year of higher education, serve missions and then get married without completing a degree. I guess this all remains to be seen but I agree with you in many ways and I did not rejoice when I heard the news.
A wise friend (who has left the Church) shared a valuable piece of insight which I believe applies here. She felt her anger and disappointment in the Church melt away when she realized the was angry because she expected it it to do for her what she should have been doing for herself.
You stated the source the source of your hunger and sadness: “I want a prophet to tell me how to solve the big issues…” etc. I think this is a very common sentiment. Certainly it is the natural human impulse to want someone to give us answers to hard questions. But the very fact that it is so natural right here in the telestial kingdom means that persisting in the same desire will lead us directly to the telestial kingdom in the end (DC 76:99). Joseph Smith said “God hath not revealed anything to Joseph, but what He will make known unto the Twelve, and even the least Saint may know all things as fast as he is able to bear them, for the day must come when no man need say to his neighbor, ‘Know ye the Lord; for all shall know Him who, remain from the least to the greatest.” T. 149
I may be wrong, but you sound like a member, meaning you have been invited through confirmation to receive the Holy Ghost. I suggest you go out and get your own revelation (particularly about raising your family). That, after all, has been the message of all true prophets.
It has been a real load off my mind to recognize that it is silly to hunger for answers to be fed to me by a prophet, when the thrust of all revelation through prophets is “here is how you access God yourself.”
@esther: I often distinguish between revelation and inspiration. Inspiration I characterise as a prompting or a feeling. God can inspire us in many ways. Revelation, however, I characterise as a direct, unmistakable and specific communication from God. D&C revelations are generally written as the direct words of God to the prophet in question. Hence we often associate the phrase “thus saith the Lord”. The other big difference is that with revelations, they often *reveal* something that wasn’t known before.
The questions that changed my life for the better: If there were a god speaking to man through a prophet what would that be like? How would it change the world? And…. If there were no God, what would that be like? How would this world be different. No need to answer here, just something to think, pray, meditate about.
Exactly. When my husband and I heard rumors about a revelation that would affect “every man, woman and child” we were hoping for something big. (Granted one should never put their trust in rumors.) It just seemed like such a let down that it turned out to be merely a policy change, and not a very substantial one at that. Although I hope what Katie said is true, that it will help increase gender equality.
It seems like we’re just stuck in a rut as a church. Isn’t it time we progressed and took some real steps forward?
I think many of those leaving the Church do so because of the lack of spiritual food being served at Church. Obedience is a poor substitute for learning to love and protect all of God’s children and creations.
Course Correction, I love your last sentence so much. A poor substitute indeed.
Great points, Brent. I particularly like what you’ve said about revelation being replaced by declarations and press releases. I remember when it first looked like the Newsroom was becoming the Church’s official mouthpiece more than the FP and Q of 12 a couple of years ago, another blogger called it “beta revelation” that could be easily denied if people didn’t like it. And I wonder if that isn’t precisely it. It’s audacious to claim revelation. It’s a lot easier to backtrack when you haven’t slapped the label “revelation” on what you say. So current (and recent) Church leaders are very conservative in declaring anything revelation, perhaps to reduce how much they might have to go back on later.
Of course, if that were really true, you’d think they’d be more conservative about doing stuff like getting involved in Prop 8, so maybe the hypothesis is wrong.
Ziff, I don’t disagree with your (and Brent’s) thoughts, but it seems to imply that there was once a golden age of revelation in which pure knowledge flowed from the prophet’s mouth definitively and without the intervention of textual forms. The textual history of the D&C, however, shows that revelation has always been provisional, subject to revision, and very much a process rather than product, right up until canonization. Joseph (and Sidney, and the other authors of the revelations in D&C) didn’t use the genre of press-release (although the Articles of Faith are not far off), but they used other well-recognized generic forms to organize and shape revelation. So I don’t see a radical change in the methods and forms of revelation — only, perhaps, in the degree to which the content appears to challenge mainstream American culture.
Good point, Rosalynde. My knowledge of history is pretty skimpy. I see what you’re saying about revelation not ever having flowed in a pristine form (and Mark echoes this below). I guess maybe then the difference shows up not between the past and the present, but between the past as it’s discussed in church and the present. So there may not have ever been a golden age of revelation, but the way it’s taught in church, it sure sounds like there was.
Is that more reasonable?
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Brent. I also sense genuine yearning among church members to be led by revelation rather than mere (and quite subjective) inspiration. Roy characterized the distinction well in his comments:
“Inspiration I characterize as a prompting or a feeling… Revelation, however, I characterize as a direct, unmistakable and specific communication from God. D&C revelations are generally written as the direct words of God to the prophet in question. Hence we often associate the phrase “thus saith the Lord”.”
This passage really hit me in the gut: “The “follow the prophet” refrain isn’t about receiving divine guidance anymore. It’s an invitation to conform, to proclaim oneself a part of the group, to advertise one’s loyalty to the institution. When policy decisions are treated like revelations, it should be obvious to everyone what we’ve lost.”
I could not agree more. I am afraid that a great power has been lost. The more time that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve spend as church administrators (tending to day-to-day business affairs of the church, sitting on corporate boards, attending ribbon-cuttings, planning extravagant birthday events, overseeing the building of retail shopping malls, etc), the less time they have to devote to truly spiritual matters. So long as these men are primarily administrators, we should expect policy decisions to be celebrated as revelations. Perhaps one day they will be willing to pass off such matters to the presiding bishopric, and cease their personal for-profit endeavors long enough that that the heavens may once again open and true revelations be received and recorded. Until that day, I fear that press releases and policy decisions will continue to starve our people.
The gospel Joseph Smith taught was vibrant. It was alive and raw, and speculative and rich with hope and possibility. Diversity of thought and expression were largely valued. Today, the church teaches a very watered-down and homogenized version. We have de-canonized, devalued (sometimes thankfully so), and deconstructed so much in favor of achieving a single voice and centralizing power into the “priesthood leadership” model. As such, we have lost much of our savor.
As course correction said, “Obedience is a poor substitute for learning to love and protect all of God’s children and creations.”
not to mention that black people like myself couldnt be missionaries for 150 years until a “revelation” said they could. Thanks God!
Well, I’ll quibble with a few of the assumptions here.
1. I think the the difference between revelation and policy is too oversimplified to be useful here, in addition to be ahistorical. Without actually counting, I’d say that roughly 80% of our canonized D&C is made up of mundane procedural, bureaucratic housekeeping details. So and so should go to such and such a mission, JSjr. should “go unto the Ohio” and start a branch, this is how you organize a teacher’s quorum, this is how you raise funds for such and such a project, this is how you conduct meetings, this is how you do church discipline, this is how you say sacrament prayers, etc. Sure, we have section 76 and section 110 (what I think of as the Jesus-on-the-phone model of revelation), but most of the rest of it, as Rosalynde notes above, is a product of trial and error and revision. Thanks to the Joseph Smith Papers Project, we have a documentary history of most of the sections, and for the most part, they came about when Joseph Smith wrote something down (or rather, his clerks wrote something down), then he asked them what they thought of it. So they made some changes, then Rigdon made changes, then Hyrum made changes, then some of the friends who had JS over for dinner made some changes. We have these documents in the original handwriting, with words crossed out, others added, and so on, and we can tell by the handwriting who made the changes. The picture that emerges clearly is one of communal revelation that unfolds over time, (weeks, months, and, in a few cases, years) with all the people involved doing their level best to discern the will of God, and each of them seeing something a bit different through the glass, darkly. God works in both big ways and small ways, and it is harder for us, at the time, to see the small ways, but they are nonetheless just as real. Rosa Parks wasn’t trying to start a movement, she was tired and her feet hurt, so she sat down in the nearest available chair on the bus. Nobody could have guessed about the Civil Rights Act of 1964. When The Revolution comes, I won’t be surprised if it starts in the form of a memo drafted by some flunky in the presiding bishop’s office, signed by the autopen, and sent out to stake presidents and bishops. Nobody will figure out that it is important for years. And OD2 easily qualifies as an important revelation, one of the top 3 in the history of the church, regardless of the name.
I’m also confused about the frustration, gender-equity-wise. As far as I can tell, they weren’t even trying to make the church more egalitarian (although I do think that will be a result of this change), so it’s hard for me to fault a guy for not hitting the target he wasn’t even aiming for in the first place. As you note, sexism in the church is a huge, vexing problem, but it is not *this* problem. I have a strong hope that our church will one day rid itself of of sexism, because we will wander in the wilderness as long as we lust after this particular fleshpot. And in the meantime, we will weep for Zion.
From your place in the cheap seats, you see a play that has been bottled up at the line of scrimmage for no gain. But from where I sit, I see a runner who has broken through the line and into the defensive backfield. As he tucks the ball under his arm and looks upfield, he sees a lot of green grass and some skillful blockers. It’s still too early to tell if the play will go all the way, but I think it has already moved the chains, and that’s not nothing.
Anyhow. My $0.02.
Great points, Mark. Quick response:
1) I agree. But I think your observations make my point, in a way. Although the process was very human at times (and communal, etc.), the results ended up in the scriptural canon. The same processes today don’t–they end up in the church handbook or as a press release. I think there’s a lot to say about this. . .
2) You’re right that resolving sexism wasn’t the point of this change (and I think that was part of the problem).
Love the sports analogy. I don’t think my first take on this was particularly well though out or nuanced. I think I’m going to post a follow up. . .
You should write a guest post for us on the process of early revelation. . .
If it is a “revelation”, why doesn’t the prophet say it in his address on Saturday morning? He simply makes the announcement that the age for missions would change for young men and women. I would assume that it was a policy change. The Prophet and the Apostles may have see statistics that young men may go on missions if the younger age is offered. Who knows?
While Joseph F. Smith did receive that revelation in 1918, it did not actually become canonized as part of the D&C until 1976. I have no doubt that some of these other “official declarations” or even some conference talks will eventually be canonized too. I mean, most the New Testament are personal letters that Paul wrote that only began to be passed around and put together hundreds of years after he wrote them. Maybe you should read up more on Church history (both ancient and modern). The revelations that are being received may not be earth shattering, but the Lord knows what the church needs and WHEN and He will guide it there.
http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/22881/An-overview-of-selected-doctrinal-revelations-in-the-dispensation-of-the-fullness-of-times.html
And that’s just until 1993. Many more things have come out since then. Who said there was no revelation? Seems to be happening quite a bit.
@Ash. Is “revelation” happening? Sure, maybe it is. Is this revelation being canonized as quicky or in the same quantity as earlier in church history? No, it’s not (and your comment about the 1918 revelation makes my point). The interesting question, of course, is why this is the case. The “revelations” received in the last 30 or 40 years, according to the list you linked, made me laugh out loud (and made me a bit embarrassed for the church, given such grand claims about continuing revelation). Here’s a sample (and I’m not making this up, by the way): a) “Subtitle added to the BoM,” b) “Statement of the First Presidency on symposia,” or c) “Statement of the First Presidency regarding the KJV of the Bible as the official text in English.” Seriously? In forty years, we get a subtitle, policy statement on symposia (whatever that is), and the version of the Bible that we’ve always used has now been labeled the “official” version in English? One thing that has gotten a lot longer is the CHI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handbook_(LDS_Church). Anyway, really do think the interesting question here is “why?” I’m still thinking that.