Members of the Church of Jesus
Christ Of Latter-Day Saints – more commonly referred to as Mormon - believe
that their leader is a modern-day Prophet, imbued with the power of revelation
from God. With this teaching of modern-day revelation is the burden to
always follow the teachings of the authorities, as their dictates come from the
Almighty God himself.
I was raised in a family with a
literal interpretation of Mormonism. My father was convinced that one day
the U.S. government would fail and that Americans would turn to the Mormon
leaders for guidance; that one day the entire world would know of and gravitate
towards the Mormon faith; that modern-day revelation was real and that visions
were a fact of life. Above all, the President of the Mormon Church is
venerated as the mouthpiece of God, qualified to receive revelations for the
entire church.
The lessons on un-wavering
obedience to Mormon authorities start at an early age. In the official
lesson manual of the Mormon Church is a lesson titled “Follow
The Prophet”, aimed towards the youth of the Church. One of the
quotes drawn from this lesson is by Marion G. Romney, talking about the past
President and Prophet Heber J Grant:
“I
remember years ago when I was a bishop I had President Grant talk to our ward.
After the meeting, I drove him home. … When we got to his home I got out of the
car and went up on the porch with him. Standing by me, he put his arm over my
shoulder and said: ‘My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the
Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do
it, the Lord will bless you for it.’ Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said,
‘But you don’t need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the
people astray"
Marion G Romney, in Conference Report, October 1960, pg 78
Or as I sang as a little girl in
Primary – “Follow the Prophet, follow the Prophet. Follow the Prophet, he
knows the way.” When my Primary teachers talked of the apostles and
the prophet, I imagined the bearded sandal-clad, linen-clothed men of the New
Testament. I was shocked when I realized the apostles and prophet of whom
my teachers spoke of were in fact the old white guys that showed up on the
screen twice a year during the world-wide televised General Conferences.
Then I grew up and I began to crush under the burden of trying to follow the
leaders’ will, as their teachings on the role of womanhood and striving for
perfection stuffed me into a tiny little box that just didn’t fit.
Like Cinderella’s ugly step-sisters, to fit into the narrow box of Mormon
womanhood I needed to chop off pieces of me that just couldn’t fit inside that
box.
The Mormon Church’s
approach to dealing with the messy history of the prophets’ teachings is to
deny the fact or to claim that the teachings of current prophets outweigh the
teachings of old prophets. The Foundation for Apologetic Information
& Research (FAIR) made the following statement when
addressing the messy and very uncomfortable topic of the teachings about race
within Mormonism
Past church leaders should be viewed as products of their times,
no more racist than most of their American and Christian peers (and often
surprisingly enlightened, given the surrounding culture). A proper
understanding of the process of revelation creates a more realistic
expectations of the Latter-day Saint prophet, instead of assumptions of
infallibility foisted on the Saints by their critics.
Previous statements and scriptural interpretations that are no
longer in harmony with current revelation should be discarded. We learn
"line upon line, precept upon precept," and when modern revelation
has shed new light, old assumptions made in the dark can be done away with.”
To combat the openness of the
Internet era, where the messy history of the Mormon Church is easily accessible
and a source of chagrin to many faithful Mormons, members are now justifying
that these leaders were “speaking as a man” or that certain beliefs are “folk
doctrine”. There is no way to draw a distinction between a leader
“speaking as a man” or “speaking for God” – these distinctions all depend on
the convictions of the individual interpreting the quotes, as well as the
potential embarrassment factor of the quote. And once again, I would like
reiterate the lesson that the Prophet is considered the mouthpiece qualified to
receive revelation from God for the entire church and that as members we were
taught that the Prophet will never lead us astray.
Perhaps Heber J Grant was “speaking
as a man” when he had that conversation with Marion G Romney. Or perhaps
Marion G Romney was “speaking as a man” when he gave that speech. Or
perhaps all of the talks by the authorities that I attended as a youth will one
day be dismissed as been “spoken as a man, rather than from God”. But how
can members distinguish between the two? How do members balance the past
teachings of the Prophets with the idea that the Prophet will never lead his
people astray? Were the Prophets leading the people astray with their
teachings on race? Was the Prophet leading the people astray with
Proposition 8? And if members don't agree with the teachings of the
Prophet, what about the consequences of challenging authority? But to
admit that the Prophets can lead the people astray is to strike at the very
root of Mormonism itself – question the legitimacy of the Prophets’ teachings and
you question the very foundation of Mormonism.
Some members are able to shrug off
the confusions of doctrine, focusing instead on the good points – the plan of
Salvation, the idea of eternal families, the idea of Christian love. But
I was not one of those members; I was a member that took the teachings
literally. My literal interpretation of the leaders – enforced by the
attitudes of members around me – turned me into a person at war between my
conscience and the teachings of my leaders.
