Do you think Bruce Hafens, treating different, and less than with shunning, or high voltage electro shock Mormon aversion therapy would have best solved the following situation?

Dear Elder Packer:

Although we have met briefly before, it is through the context of my family that you would be able to place me.  I am the younger brother of Ralph W. Hardy, Jr. and Clare Hardy Johnson, and the son of Ralph W. Hardy, Sr. and Maren Eccles Hardy.  I most recently served as bishop of the Salt Lake University 29th Ward, Salt Lake University 5th Stake.  My wife, Carlie, is the granddaughter of the late Elder Franklin D. Richards, and the great-granddaughter of President Heber J. Grant.  I provide the context of our families and heritage for no purpose other than establishing the solid upbringing in the Gospel and the Church that my wife and I have both had. If you know the devotion to the Church of my brother Ralph and my late sister Clare, you know mine.

I write this letter out of the realization that to maintain my own personal integrity, I need to inform you of the personal heartache and damage you have to some degree been responsible for visiting upon my immediate family as the author of To the One.  Although originally delivered by you as an address in 1978, the pamphlet To The One remains to this day the Church’s most current and definitive written statement by a General Authority on the issue of homosexuality.  It is available to the general Church membership and the public, and my wife and I have been referred to it numerous times as we have come to grips with this issue over the past few years.  As one who has always been mindful of my Temple covenants, an unwavering believer, and a follower of my Priesthood leaders, this is not an easy letter to write. For me it represents an anguished “Crossing of the Rubicon.”  I hope you will take the time to read it, for in it I have invested my very soul.

Early on a Saturday morning six weeks ago, I watched as our car pulled away with my wife driving our eldest son to a new city, a new community, and a new school to complete his senior year of high school.  Ever since that morning, I have grown progressively angrier that to protect our son’s life and sense of self worth, we are compelled to send him away from our home and family. You see, this community of “Saints” we live in is so steeped in ignorance, fear, loathing, judgment and qualified “love” towards our son and those who like him face the challenge of homosexuality, he twice arrived at the point where he was devoid of hope and felt he had no alternative but to take his own life.  Fortunately, he did not succeed.  My son is not manic-depressive, nor was he ever before suicidal.  He simply understands too well the Gospel and believed what his Seminary teachers and Priesthood leaders taught him about homosexuality, based upon the doctrine set forth in To The One.

My wife and I are the parents of six children – two daughters and four sons – ranging in age from twenty-three to eight.  Our oldest son at age thirteen had the courage to come to us with his growing fear that he had no attraction whatsoever to girls – the thought in fact disgusted him – but that he was very attracted to those of his same sex.  That he would come to us without fear or shame, confide in us, and seek our counsel attests to the strong relationship my wife and I have both always had with our son. (This is ironic in light of the “parental causation” theories routinely hauled-out by the  Church’s LDS Social Services counselors and Evergreen as the primary cause of homosexuality.)

This son was always spiritually mature for his age.  He is the finest young man I have ever known – giving, loving, supportive, honest, reliable.  Most definitely unselfish.  A leader among his peers in his school and primary classes and in his Priesthood quorums.  Since he was old enough to talk and walk, we were very much aware of certain differences that concerned us.  He carried himself differently, walking and running.  When we could get him to pick up a ball, he threw it differently.  He spoke differently.  He was not in the least interested in sports (in spite of countless practices and Saturdays we spent supporting him in sporting events that utterly disinterested him).  He loved dolls and playing house.  He loved music, literature, drama and poetry. He made friends easily with girls, but very rarely with boys.  Carlie and I listened with hope to LDS counselors and leaders who dismissed or downplayed all of this as merely a “phase.”  We believed in and relied on them.

The years passed, but the “phase” didn’t – this in spite of our doing everything recommended to us by LDS counselors, Priesthood leaders and, of course, the teachings of the General Authorities such as you (scarce as they are is on this subject).  While we were assured by LDS counselors that this was little more than a correctable Pavlovian response and that “nothing could be easier to cure,” and took hope in your confident statement in To The One: “When we understand fundamental moral law  better than we do, we will be able to correct this condition routinely. . . ,” matters went from bad to worse.  One evening in 1997, while I was out of town and my wife was being assured by our well-meaning Stake President at his office that “if we just keep it quiet – the same as if someone in your family had committed adultery [our son had done nothing]- it will all be just fine, trust me . . . ,” our son slit his wrists in his room at home.  Earlier in the day, it had been the ” Sodom and Gomorrah” lesson in Seminary.

As bishop of a student Ward at the University of Utah working with homosexual returned missionaries, I came to the painful realization that the “reparative therapy” practiced by LDS Social Services and organizations such as Evergreen (whose board of directors I then served on) was not merely ineffective, it was terribly damaging.  In every instance I found that this “therapy” accomplished little more than driving these earnest brothers and sisters, desperate to believe that they would “change,” deeper into self-loathing and despondency.

Their failure to “change” as promised them by you and other Priesthood leaders – a failure ultimately arrived at by each and every one of these young men and women who were honest with his or her situation – left only three realistic alternatives: (1) practice deceit as long as possible to remain in good standing with Church and family, (2) give up completely, abandon Church and family, and turn to the only community that will accept you – the gay community, or (3) commit suicide.

By your own admission, it is obvious that neither you nor the Church as a whole has yet arrived at “a better understanding of the fundamental moral law,” because your understanding of it is leading and guiding the Church in this matter, and this “condition” is anything but “routinely corrected.” In To The One you make the summary statement that “some forms of these treatments [reparative therapy] are of substantial help in about 25 percent of the cases” without offering any authority for this statistic.  Where did this amazing (though still disheartening) statistic come from?  Undoubtedly it came from the experts at LDS Social Services.  Unfortunately, however, LDS Social Services must not follow-up on their patients over any extended period of time. My experience as bishop of a student Ward, the father of a homosexual son, and a friend and confidant to the many LDS homosexuals I have since become acquainted with, would indicate to me that in some few cases, the terrible guilt associated with reparative therapy and the strong desire to remain in good standing with the Church and one’s family has brought about an ability to repress one’s homosexual desires – for a season. Usually just long enough to get married and ruin a family.  Perhaps this is the 25% you spoke of.  The current publication for ecclesiastical leaders Understanding and Helping Those Who Have Homosexual Problems seems to recognize the realistic lack of curability in its statement:

“Marriage should not viewed as a way to resolve homosexual problems.  The lives of others should not be damaged by entering a marriage where such concerns exist.  Encouraging members to cultivate heterosexual feelings as a way to resolve homosexual problems generally leads them to frustration and discouragement.”

However, the Church’s confusion and struggle to make sense of this issue, and its tendency to downplay the lack of any real answers with a summary “and they all lived happily ever after” is apparent in the publication’s utterly conflicting closing sentence:

“In some cases, heterosexual feelings emerge leading to happy, eternal marriage relationships.”

Which is a Bishop or Stake President to do?  Discourage cultivation of heterosexual feelings and marriage, or lend encouragement to and sign the Temple marriage recommend for the “cured” homosexual that is entering a happy, eternal marriage relationship?  While I know from experience that much is left to the discretion and inspiration of the ecclesiastical leader, I also know that they are to look to an official publication specifically directed to them such as this for direction and guidance and give it much weight.  But what is the counsel being given in this publication?  Isn’t it a bit confusing?

At the crux of the issue of homosexuality and the Church are the three great interrelated beliefs: (1) there is an element of choice involved in becoming and remaining homosexual, (2) it can be cured, and (3) our children and youth can be recruited or enticed into homosexuality.  Every time we have sought out help for our son and family on this issue from Priesthood leaders or General Authorities we have been summarily referred to the experts at LDS Social Services. Because the lives and well-being of so many trusting individuals and family members are at stake here, it would seem that much stock is put in the expertise of LDS Social Services in this matter.  Isn’t it fairly obvious, though, that the “experts” you rely on at LDS Social Services to professionally corroborate and support the doctrine and policy of the Church would support whatever position you have mandated to be the only correct one?  Such is the level of respect for and faith in the office you hold.  In all honesty, to disagree with a member of the Twelve on a matter of doctrine is tantamount to heresy.  I’m sure you are aware that the American Psychiatric Association has denounced “reparative therapy” for treating homosexuals as both ineffective and damaging.  I find it ironic that when a fundamentalist religious group shuns sound medical intervention as a doctrine we find it appalling and backwards – yet when that same sound medical advice denounces the practice of “reparative therapy” we call it “worldly” false doctrine.  I guess it all depends on just whose ox is being gored.

In To The One you preach that homosexuality is not innate, but is a curable condition. Your fundamental proof: God wouldn’t make a mistake like this. By preaching this, you set the impossible goal of “cure” as the standard to which my son must hold himself responsible, as must his family and all other Church members.  Until he chooses to do what he must to be “cured,” he hasn’t done enough.  He will never have done enough.  He will always come up failing in the most fundamental aspect of his entire existence as a child of his Heavenly Father.  He is a pervert, an aberration, and an abomination.  There is nothing left in this life or the next.  How would you deal with this if you were him? Homosexuality is not a “condition” that can be “cured.”   My proof: I have yet to meet even one venerable grandfather with a fine posterity (or anyone else for that matter) who says he was once homosexual but was long ago cured – and my experience as a father observing my son from birth.

Perhaps the most hurtful aspect of To The One is your revelation that the fundamental reason why my son has not been “cured” is because of his selfishness.  When I inform other people that this is actually what you preach in To The One, they are incredulous (members included).  They respond “Obviously you have misread or misconstrued what Elder Packer said.”  You are well aware that this is precisely what is said.  As one who knows my son and his heart better than you, your doctrine that my son’s selfishness is at the core of his ability or inability to be cured of his homosexuality is offensive in the extreme, and evidences the lack of any meaningful inquiry into this issue beyond the application of pure dogma.  In saying this it is not my intent to offend you.  It is, simply, incredible that you could hit upon anything quite so insensitive and ignorant of the facts.  Indeed, my son is the most unselfish and Christ-like person I know.  This holds true for most of the LDS homosexuals I know well.  They have to be to keep trying.

Your doctrine of “choice” and “curability” is also at the core of why the Church and its members in reality view my son and those like him as latter-day lepers. If homosexuality (1) is not inborn, (2) has an element of choice, and (3) can be cured – then it must be able to be taught or suggested.  Others must also be susceptible to being enticed or recruited. Our children are capable of being infected by these people and not becoming mothers and fathers.  It is, therefore, a frontal assault on the family. The “hate the sin but love the sinner” platitude cannot disguise the fact that in reality the members of the Church are taught to loathe and fear our son and those like him.  This qualified and synthetic “love” is nothing more than the few alms hurriedly and begrudgingly parted with to salve the Christian conscience, while never once entertaining the idea of actually descending into the leper pit.  We would never expose our children to this for it might infect them.  If sexual orientation is a matter of choice, when exactly did you choose to be heterosexual?  When and how often did you reaffirm your choice to stay that way?  Why aren’t my other children, who idolize their brother, even the slightest bit interested in adopting a homosexual “lifestyle” or in homosexual experimentation?  Why would anyone choose to be an abomination and an outcast?  It defies reason.

Last week a dear friend (formerly a bishop) reassured us that he still loved our son “even if he has made a choice to be this way.”  My son did not choose to be this way.  This type of “love” born of duty and pity for his abominable choice acts like a slow but virulent cancer on our son’s  self-esteem.   It is for this reason we have found it necessary to send our son away from the community of the “Saints.”

As the Church “progresses” on this issue, what we are hearing more and more from Priesthood leaders today is the idea that our son is acceptable so long as he practices life-long chastity.  That is, of course, actually called celibacy, and while it’s a convenient idea to advance, in practice it is virtually impossible to live.  The distinction between chastity and celibacy seems always to be overlooked by Church leaders.  You may recall that in his somewhat recent newspaper interview in California, President Hinkley compared the plight of homosexuals to that of the single sisters in the Church.  To paraphrase, he said that the Church doesn’t ask homosexuals to do anything it doesn’t also ask of its other single adult members – to live chaste lives. But this simply isn’t true.  As a former bishop I have firsthand experience.  We openly love and support our single brothers and sisters.  We give them important callings – especially with out youth and children.  We urge them to date, to flirt, to get crushes, to fall in love, to marry.  We sponsor Ward and Stake activities and dances to get them together to accomplish this.  We ask them to be chaste – until they find someone to share their life and intimacy with.  We go out of our way to give them something of immeasurable value in the struggle to keep the law of chastity – hope – hope that no matter how difficult this emotional and physical loneliness is, it is temporary.  For those with the least control over their situation, our single sisters, we give special encouragement and hope that they will find love, emotional intimacy and fulfillment in this life – and if not, certainly in the next.

We do not knowingly give homosexuals important callings – especially not with our youth or children who would be at risk of being infected and recruited. We forbid them ever to flirt, to date, to get crushes, to fall in love, to have a legally-recognized monogamous relationship.  The image of a Tri-Stake Gay and Lesbian Gold-and-Green Ball is amusing.  We ask them to be chaste – forever. No hope at all.  The question of sexual intimacy aside – can you imagine having being denied the ability to become attracted to, flirt with, get a crush on, hold hands with, steal a kiss from, or fall in love with you wife?  With all trace of romantic love and emotional intimacy denied you, with what would you fill the void to hold at bay a life of loneliness, emptiness, and despair?

We do have at least one historic example to look to.  The Catholic Church has attempted to enforce celibacy on its clergy throughout the ages with success at some level (although we will never know what level).  With what did they replace the emotional void?  They had the love and adulation of the church membership, and authority and power.   They were, in fact, the Bishops, Stake Presidents, and General Authorities.  They were held next to deity – and their record is less than stellar.  Imagine the celibacy success rate of a group defined by a loathsome and abominable “condition.”

Imagine also, for a moment, if you were to stand up in front of the freshman class at BYU and announce that everyone present was being given a special calling to live a celibate life from then on.  How many do you think would really be able to do it?  How many empty and guilty lives and suicides would result?  The Church has never taught the principle of celibacy.  As a parent, I don’t have the slightest idea how to begin teaching it.  There are no manuals, no courses, no “For the Strength of Celibate Youth” cards to carry.  There are no Priesthood, Relief Society, Sunday School, or Primary lessons on celibacy. On the other hand, following the teachings of the Church, we have raised our children in a home filled with open love, intimacy, loyalty and commitment between a couple.  Our children know Carlie and I adore each other, and they want and need the same thing in their lives.

I never thought I would say this, but as a father given the choice between (a) my son’s suicide, (b) his complete abandonment of the Church and embracing of the extreme gay culture with its emotionally debilitating and physically dangerous practice of anonymous casual sex, or (c) living in a committed, monogamous relationship for the rest of his life practicing the Gospel virtues of love, commitment, and fidelity we have taught in our home, I would have to pick the latter.  The Church, however, is now doing all in its power to prevent that.  Presumably, it has a better alternative – one that works on something other than a dogmatic and theoretical level.

Then again, perhaps my son is simply a casualty of war – acceptable “collateral damage” in an eternal plan and struggle in which by the luck of the draw he has no relevance or place.  The Gospel has always been easy to have faith in and follow because it made real sense and worked in our lives. This would make no sense.  And the current doctrine, as set forth in To The One is not working for our family.  I can’t tell you how strange and difficult this is.  It’s like we woke up one morning on a different planet. In our greatest time of need as a family, the Church has failed us and abandoned us – and through the convenient but hurtful doctrine of parental causation, complicity and guilt it directly promotes (evidence the article in September’s Ensign), it kicks us while we are down!  I know this is only one of many issues that the Brethren deal with, and certainly not at the top of their list, but for us it has become our universe. We live in this issue twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, and must raise our children through it by our best lights.   And there are many more like us in the Church.  Parents like us are ultimately forced to make a hopeless decision: abandon our homosexual children, or turn from the Church.   “Not so,” you say. You would never know unless you walked in our shoes.

My brother, Ralph, asked me at one point “What would you have the General Authorities do about this issue?”

I wish that someone in authority would have the compassion and the courage simply to own up publicly to the fact that this is a difficult issue about which we just don’t have many answers.

I wish someone in authority would publicly urge the members to withhold their judgment and condemnation, accept those like my son into their midst, and have true compassion and love for those who through no choice of their own will deal with the issue of homosexuality all of their lives.

I wish someone in authority would publicly assure the members that by withholding their judgment and condemnation and showing acceptance and real love, they won’t get leprosy, nor will their children be at risk – that the divine concept of Family will not be compromised or weakened, but that real families with real issues will in fact be strengthened.

I wish that someone in authority would recognize that To The One was an effort twenty years ago by a very good man to address a difficult issue in the context of the time in which it was written, and pull it from circulation.

Elder Packer, I have never been one to question, demand, or  “kick against the pricks.”  I am a follower, a believer, an obeyer.  But I can no longer wait patiently while the Brethren try to figure this issue out at the cost of my son’s life, and the lives of others like him.

Respectfully,

David Eccles Hardy

Answer:

I don’t understand the wording of the question, but I think at least part of it is whether I think shock therapy would resolve the situation detailed above, and of course my answer is “no”. Although I have little knowledge of shock therapy, my understanding is that it doesn’t work. That is, it may cure a person from certain behaviors, but it also may cure them of having a functional brain.

I’ll also respond to the letter, although in doing so I should state that I am taking it at face value since I do not know the author, nor whether the text of the letter I received is completely accurate. I have not read (or ever heard of) the referenced document “To the One”. I also don’t pretend to have any sort of extensive experience with homosexuality. I’ve read some things, I have a mission companion who came out after his mission, and I have a friend whose husband of 20 or so years and the father of their children came out several years ago which resulted in their divorce, and that’s about it.

Also, I’m not going to go into a lengthy speech trying to convince anyone that I’m not a homophobe and that I’m a really compassionate guy. I’ll just say that if everything written above is accurate and true, then it’s a sad story. As for myself, I have no particular aversion to gay people, and I don’t think they’re going to hell.

Now, to respond, there are a few minor things I take issue with in the letter, none of which invalidate the points he is making:

1. The claim that the American Psychiatric Association is a provider of “sound medical advice”. From what I can tell, it’s an organization that has its ideas grounded less in science than their own particular ideology, which they try to back up through selective science. That said, I’m not saying I’m a proponent of reparative therapy. It may indeed be ineffective and damaging. Just because I’m against the APA doesn’t mean I’m in favor of whatever they are against.

2. The author states “Homosexuality is not a ‘condition’ that can be ‘cured.’  My proof: I have yet to meet even one venerable grandfather with a fine posterity (or anyone else for that matter) who says he was once homosexual but was long ago cured…” The author may be 100% correct, but this still seems like a rather bold statement to make based on purely anecdotal evidence. It also seems like a rather illogical conclusion to draw from his experience, since it would seem that anyone who is a grandfather today and having grown up in society as it was, would be extremely hesitant to admit to having had homosexual tendencies. That is, there could be many people with the experience of having had homosexual urges 60 years ago who have been “cured”, but what are the chances the author would have run into them, and that they would confide this matter to him?

Other than that, I tend to agree with the author’s viewpoint. It may be a good thing for someone in authority to issue statements such as those suggested by the author. It may be good to pull the pamphlet “To the One” from circulation. It would certainly be good for members to withhold judgment and condemnation. Most of all, I agree that it is a difficult issue, and I think we don’t have many answers. At least I certainly don’t. Perhaps I’ll comment more on this topic later, but I have to run off to something and don’t want to leave it unpublished…feel free to ask more specific questions of me if you’ve got them.

Joshua,

How is it possible for you to support your church with it going against its own scripture? “We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members as citizens, denied.” (D&C 134:9)

United Church of Christ
The resolution “In support of equal marriage rights for all”, supported by an estimated 80% of the 884 General Synod Delegates, made the United Church of Christ General Synod the first major Christian deliberative body in the U.S. to make a statement of support for “equal marriage rights” for all people, regardless of gender.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Church_of_Christ The Unitarian Church also supports gay marriage.

The Mormon Church spearheading Prop 8 in Californian has denied equal rights of a minority. The LDS Churches position toward gays is totally at odds with mainstream psychology. See the American Psychological Association statements:

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/marriage.pdf

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.pdf

Answer:

The church is going against it’s own scripture or teaching. In this case it all depends on what you mean by the words “equal rights”. The way I see it, gays have the same rights I do in that a gay man has just as much right to marry a woman as I do. I have every much right to marry a man as he does. That’s equality. We both have the exact same rights. Now, if you change it to say “But no Josh, you have the right to marry whomever you want to because you only like women, and a gay man doesn’t,” that doesn’t change anything. If I were in love with a man, I wouldn’t be able to marry a man. Yes, I was able to marry the person I love, but only because I chose to love someone whom I could legally marry. If I made the choice to love a man, I would be restricted just as a gay man would be, or in other words, we are on equal footing when it comes to the law. The difference is not how the law applies to a gay man vs. how it applies to me, it is that the gay man who wants to marry his partner has made a choice to be in love with someone whom he can’t legally marry.

In fact, the church’s stance is completely in line with the scripture you quoted, because it is our fear, and there is plenty of evidence to substantiate it, that if gay marriage were legalized it would lead to lead to a denial of the rights of LDS Church members. For example, once gay marriage is legalized, it’s just one more step to say that speaking out against gay marriage is a form of legal discrimination. If I were to say on this blog that I think gay marriage is wrong, and a gay man applies for a job with my company and is turned down, he could sue me for illegal discrimination and he would stand a better chance of winning with a gay marriage law on the books. A member of the LDS Church who teaches in a lesson that gay marriage is wrong could be sued for hate speech. Don’t tell me it would never happen, it already has in other countries where gay marriage is legal. This would impinge on the free speech rights of church members, not to mention religious rights. In fighting against the gay marriage movement, the LDS Church is trying to protect the rights of its members, rather than remove a right from someone else (which we don’t believe they have in the first place).

As for the APA, they are, in fact, going against their own “scripture”, inasmuch as they used to officially define homosexuality as a mental disorder.

About two years ago I came across a video on youtube called “The Lost Book of Abraham.” In a period of 1 hour, my faith and belief in the church was utterly shattered and I could no longer believe. It cost me my marriage, my relationship with my children, my relationship with my brother and my sisters. It cost me the relationships with my parents and my friends.

The video can be found here. However, it bears mentioning that the video is made by an organization whose intent is to prevent people from joining the LDS Church and cause its members to leave. In other words, this is a war, and this is an attack by an enemy. Any claim that this is a kind-hearted attempt to inform open-minded persons, or to aid those who might be confused, is as credible a claim as Obama saying he wants to reach across the aisle and work with Republicans. Therefore, it’s probably a good idea, in addition to watching the video, to read the other side’s response to the Lost Book of Abraham Video.

The more I converse with people who have left the LDS Church, the more I hear stories that go this way “I was completely active in the Church and thought it was true, but then I learned such and such, and that was too much for me. I can’t believe a prophet of God would do such and such.”

What constitutes “too much to take” most often seems to be related to the policy of polygamy in the LDS Church (100 years ago) and Joseph Smith’s multiple marriages (some to women who were already married). Other less common items include racist comments by Brigham Young and other controversial statements by Church leaders.

For my part, I’m pretty sure I know every available and credible fact about Joseph Smith’s marriage (and plenty of less credible facts as well) and while Smith’s actions give me fuel for plenty of questions, and I can see why his actions would bother people, I still don’t have a problem believing he was a prophet. I think the primary difference  of perspective between those who believe Smith was a prophet (and continued to be until his death) and those who don’t believe, is whether or not they believe Smith’s actions were in accordance with instructions he received from God or not. If they were, then of course there’s nothing wrong with any of it (logically). If he was totally off and acting on his own, then he was deranged and/or a sexual addict on such a level as to make David Letterman blush.

But is there any precedent for such behavior? Certainly there is for polygamy, as there were multiple prophets of the Old Testament who had multiple wives, apparently with God’s sanction. As for taking the wives of other men, there is no recorded precedent I know of, other than David and Bathsheba, which of course was not sanctioned by God. But what about other, perhaps more controversial behavior?

For example, let’s imagine Joseph Smith had gone to the Mormons in Nauvoo and said “God has commanded me to put together an army, go up to Chicago, and destroy the city, including killing all women, children, and animals.” and then they went and did it. Would that be too much for you to take? And yet that appears to be precisely what happened in the Old Testament on more than one occasion, except that the cities that were destroyed weren’t Chicago.

In regards to this topic I enjoy the story of Dan Jones, one of the early converts to the LDS Church, as recorded in “Regional Studies”, Illinois, Boone—My Friends, p.84ff:

Dan Jones was a small, sea-loving Welshman who first became acquainted with the Prophet when the Saints were in Nauvoo. He and the Prophet Joseph became co-owners of the Mississippi steamboat, Maid of Iowa. Dan Jones’ total commitment and complete loyalty endeared him to the Church leaders generally, and to the Prophet specifically. On one occasion the Prophet determined to test the Welshman’s loyalty in an unusual, if not harsh, manner. He went to the wharf where Dan was working on their boat and convincingly portrayed himself in the part of a drunkard. The Prophet never referred to the incident in his own writings, but Dan Jones related the encounter in great detail. Only brief glimpses of the incident are recorded here.

Upon his arrival at the docks the Prophet found Captain Dan Jones busy at work on the deck of their boat. With appropriate staggering, slurs, repetition of phrases, hiccuping and other signs of obvious inebriation, the Prophet attempted to board the Maid of Iowa.

“Boat ahoy, Hallo Come and help me aboard Captain, for I’m afraid to fall off that plank into the river. Now hold fast, steady there all safe. Now Captain [Jones] you see I’m a leedl boozy tonight, been drinking a leedl wine with a friend; but what of that I’m a Prophet if I am drunk; that I am. Well look here Captain, you hold my note, don’t you? Well I have just called to tell you that I don’t mean to pay you a cent of it, that I wont. Now ain’t I an honest man to tell you so? I tell you I never mean to pay you a cent, there now help yourself.”

“You may think I am not a Prophet but I am a Prophet if I am drunk. There I told you what I came for, I wont pay a cent that’s all. Now help me ashore again, I know I’m a Prophet, don’t push me off the plank, or I’ll be a fallen Prophet, if not a drowned Prophet, Ha, Ha, there ashore safe let me go sue, sue away, I tell you I don’t care, good night.”

The Prophet staggered up the bank and away from the wharf toward his home until he met Dr. Willard Richards. After a warm greeting between the Prophet and his personal secretary and friend, the Prophet, very much sober, said,

“Excuse me, Dr. Richards I have played such a joke just now, I am afraid I’ll split my sides laughing; I must tell it you. I have acted the drunken man so natural aboard that Boat that I have made the Captain believe I was really drunk, ha, ha, for he looked as sober as a Judge. Suppose you call on him by and bye, and quiz out of him what he thinks of it; he is an honest man I believe, and if I cant shake him off me, I will make a man of him, let me hear again.”

“Shall I leave him ignorant of the joke?” asked Brother Richards.

The Prophet responded, “If he stumbles at it [the test] you may, but if not you may let him have the benefit of it too.”

Following the instructions of the Prophet, Elder Richards played the part of a sympathetic friend concerned for the welfare of his inebriated associate:

“Good night Captain,” “Good night Doctor, step aboard.” [Richards] [e]nters, puts on a grave face, and draws a long sigh, “Have you seen the Prophet about this evening?”

“He was here about an hour ago.”

“I hear that he has been drinking again! What a pity that such a good man gives way to drink so—great pity. Wonder they let him go about the streets to expose himself; was he very drunk Captain?”

“He had his three sheets in the wind or thereabouts.”

“Well what do you think of it?”

“All I think of it is that if he drinks until doom’s day, he can’t drown that truth which is in him, nor the little that is in me neither. Tis true that I would rather have a sober Prophet, but then if we can’t get a sober one, a drunken Prophet is better than no Prophet at all, so I will hold on to the one we have got, drunken or sober. That’s what I think to do Doctor.”

“Ha, Ha you will not be driven to that Cap[tain]; tis all a joke; the Prophet is as sober as a judge only weighing you.”

“So much the better if any difference, although, every body mind his own business is my motto.”

—————-

Back to my commentary…

Dan Jones didn’t care if Joseph Smith was a drunk. That is, he cared, but it didn’t influence whether he thought Joseph was a prophet or not. Dan Jones had a spiritual confirmation that Joseph was a prophet, and that’s all he needed to know.

That’s kind of how it is for me–I know Joseph Smith was a prophet, so when I learn about his wives and such, the question for me is “Why would God command such a thing?” But I don’t ask it as though God couldn’t have commanded such a thing, I ask it as a matter of idle curiosity. I don’t have a problem accepting that it’s possible, at least in part because I’ve already read much stranger things in the Old Testament. The only difference is that when it’s 3,000 years old then it doesn’t seem as “real” as something that happened much closer to our own time.

So again, how much can Mormons take? If you’d like to share what it was that was too much for you to take and why, or a story about someone you know and what was too much for them, then please do.

1. The Professional anti-Mormon. These are folks like Jerald and Sandra Tanner who have dedicated their lives to anti-Mormonism as though it were its own religion.

2. The Amateur anti-Mormon. These are the people who attack the Mormon church, but on a part-time basis, when it’s convenient or when they get particularly riled up, but they have day-jobs and lives that aren’t defined by their animosity towards the LDS Church. But make no mistake, these people harbor a lot of negative feelings against the Church and would like to see it taken down.

3. The anti-Everythings. There are some people who aren’t particular about being against the Mormon church, they’re just against a lot of things and the Mormon happen to make the cut. These might be people of another faith who attack all faiths other than their own, or it might be an atheist who attacks all religions.

4. The Peaceful anti-Mormon. It’s almost incorrect to call these people “anti-Mormons”, because they’re not out to take down the Church and they’re not looking for battles. You wouldn’t know they have anything against the LDS Church except that they occasionally get dragged into a conversation that exposes how they feel.

5. The Closet anti-Mormon. This is the person who may not even know how negatively they themselves feel about the LDS Church or some of its doctrines. They might confuse their tactics with an intellectual search for truth, when in fact they have no real intention of an open-minded search for truth but are merely attempting to assert their “intellectual superiority”.

6. The Accidental anti-Mormon. This is the person who is not, in fact, any sort of anti-Mormon, but due to the way in which they have phrased a question or statement appears to be one, and therefore gets labeled as one on this blog. If that’s the case, I apologize.

All of these people may, at one time or another, be labeled as “anti-Mormons” on this website. While it may not be 100% accurate to do so, for the sake of time we must deal with labels that are sometimes incorrect, or risk spending so much time worrying about proper labeling that we ignore the actual points we are trying to debate.

Response:

Rather than respond to each individual quote of Brigham Young, I’ll jump straight to answering MQ_2’s questions at the end of his comments:

1. “Why is that the Church with a prophet appointed from God to recieve direction could be so far off on Social issues?”

To ask this question is to judge Brigham Young based on our present perspective, rather than from the perspective of his time. The views Brigham Young held with regards to blacks were the dominant views of virtually all people in the United States at the time. You would have had to search far and wide to find leaders of any church who preached true equality between blacks and whites who weren’t practically regarded as being on the fringes of society. Brigham Young’s views were quite mainstream. Even Abraham Lincoln viewed blacks as inferior to whites and spoke out against intermarriage between the races. Lincoln also said that if he could save the Union without freeing the blacks from slavery, he would do so.

Does this mean Brigham Young was right? Certainly not, but it is unfair to judge his statements in a modern context, rather than the context of his own time.

2. “Shouldn’t the church be setting the bar instead of begrudgingly changing archaic discriminating practices so that BYU can keep it’s sports program. Or to stop allowing (publicly) polygamy so that Utah can obtain statehood. Why with a Prophet to lead and guide the people would we constantly be reacting to outside pressure before we do the right thing?”

It’s understandable that one would assume the LDS Church changed its position on blacks holding the priesthood and polygamy merely because of outside pressure, but if you look deeper that theory doesn’t explain everything. For example, the Church was under intense pressure in the early 1960’s because of its policy on blacks holding the priesthood, but didn’t change the policy until 1978. Its arguable they were under less pressure when the change was made than earlier. After all, most members of the Church had learned to deal with the criticism. If the only reason for the change was outside pressure, why didn’t they change when the pressure was greatest? In addition, President David O. McKay, decades before the Church came under pressure, had already made statements with regards to his desire to change the policy. If the only reason the Church made the change in policy was due to pressure, then how do we explain the President seeking to change the policy before there was much pressure, and before many other religions were ordaining blacks in their churches?

But your other question is perfectly fair–why isn’t the LDS Church leading the way, ahead of everyone else? If the church is truly guided by God, shouldn’t he be helping us avoid these problems? I mean, c’mon!

The key to understanding this conundrum is to understand how God works with us. What we’ve seen historically is that God rarely answers questions that haven’t been asked. Why didn’t God appear to Joseph Smith when he was 10, instead of 14? Because Joseph didn’t ask his question until he was 14. Why didn’t Joseph Smith receive the priesthood sooner than he did? Because he didn’t ask earlier. Virtually every revelation in Doctrine and Covenants is in response to a question Joseph asked. It would appear that God answers the questions we ask, but is perfectly content to led us struggle through an issue that could easily be resolved with His timely answer until we ask him. Brigham Young’s views on slavery and blacks appear to have been mainstream for the day, and apparently Brigham and many of his successors never saw fit to ask God about them. Evidently David O. McKay did, but couldn’t get the rest of the Apostles on board. Again, the practice of the LDS Church at that time was in line with most other churches and society in general. From what I can tell (bearing in mind I’m no expert on all this and may be wrong) it wasn’t until President Kimball took on the issue that there was sufficient consensus in the leadership of the Church to even ask the question. Maybe God was ready to answer the question 100 years before, but he was patiently waiting for church members and the leadership to get themselves ready to ask it.

3. “Shouldn’t we be the beacon by which the rest of the world follows suit on these issues? After all we have a prophet to tell us God’s will.”

I think there are broad misconceptions, both in the Church and without, about how revelation is received, which leads to a lot of misunderstandings about Church actions. But if it’s understood that the leaders of the Church are men, with shortcoming and failings, and that they only receive revelation when they ask for it directly, then a lot of things start to make more sense.

In theory, it seems like Mormons should be leading the rest of the world in every facet of life. We should have the best artists, musicians, writers, sports teams, politicians, business men, auto mechanics, etc. But of course, we don’t. What we’ve got is a bunch of imperfect people bumbling along and occasionally getting it right. Although God has told us we’re supposed to be a light and a beacon, and many of us try to be, he doesn’t prevent us from failing at it. But that’s ok with me. I don’t look for perfection in LDS Church members, leaders, or even in the system of the Church itself. There are some people who say “The members of the Church aren’t perfect, but the Church is.” I’m not sure I even believe that. What I do believe is that it is the only church with the authority of God, and the only church with a prophet. That’s enough for me to know, and I can deal with all the other imperfections.

By the way, many of the questions above with regards to blacks and the priesthood and Brigham Young’s statements are answered much better than I could do it by Armand L. Mauss in his article The LDS Church and the Race Issue: A Study in Misplaced Apologetics. I can’t vouch for everything he says because I haven’t researched it all, but most of it sounds pretty good to me.

Josh, I appreciate what you are trying to do also in trying to have an open discussion in regards to the Book of Mormon. Regarding it’s authenticity, have you had any questions regarding the integrity of the witnesses? For example, Oliver Cowdery, one of the supposed Three witnesses was excommunicated from the church. He claimed to have seen the plates in a vision before he met Joseph. He supposedly was the primary scribe for the BOM as Joseph Translated. Later in 1829, Oliver, Joseph and David Whitmer supposedly experienced a vision in which an Angel appeared to them and showed them the Golden Plates. Let’s be clear, this is a supposed “vision” not a physical sight of the Plates. Later that same day the 3rd original witness, Martin Harris, claims to have had a similar “vision”. All three signed their names that they had seen these things. Cowdery Was Ex’d due to his disagreement regarding a couple matters, one being Joseph’s “dirty, nasty, filthy affair” with Fanny Alger, the smiths young housekeeper. David Whitmer was Ex’d also due to some Leadership struggle between himself and Joseph. Martin Harris, the third witness was also a scribe and special witness who lost 116 pages of the BOM manuscript (what a reliable person, shouldn’t joseph have known better than to lend the manuscript out?). He supported Joseph financially as he worked to supposedly translate the plates. Harris was a loose canon who had changed religions 5 times before he had met Joseph. This guy could not make up his mind and after Josephs death became a follower of various groups who he thought were leading the true church and accepted one fellow as the next new prophet, James J. Strang. People who know Martin said that he was a man known for having a knack to have visitations of Angels and ghosts. To me, these just don’t seem like rock solid witnesses. A couple of the witnesses were rebaptised but to me they don’t seem like reliable witnesses. People are supposed to take their word for their supposed visions? I mean don’t get me wrong, I have some great LDS friends and many are great people. I just don’t know why more people don’t look at some of the problems with the authenticity. I mean, a person can convince themselves of anything. I think especially being raised in the church and being surrounded by it socially, it is hard to really put into question the authenticity as that is all that some people know. They are surrounded by LDS, their families are LDS, why would they even want to challenge the authenticity, they would be an outcast in their social network and family. If you would like to know where I was looking at the information from above, I simply typed each of the 3 witnesses names into wikipedia. Which gives a good honest history of their life. Please let me know your thoughts and if you really feel that these men were reliable witnesses. Thanks.

In response:

Ironically, the three witnesses and five of the eight other witnesses became more reliable as a result of their inconsistency with and/or rejection of the LDS Church and Joseph Smith as a prophet. If all three had never wavered and had supported the LDS Church and Joseph Smith to their deaths, then the anti-Mormon line would be that they were gullible and under the influence of Joseph Smith who manipulated and tricked them, and that they were all crazy together. However, since they left the church and called Joseph Smith a fallen prophet, we must ask ourselves why they didn’t retract their statement concerning the Book of Mormon. If they were inconsistent in many other things, but rock solid in this one thing, does this not add to the strength of their statements concerning the Book of Mormon?

I agree, a person can convince themselves of anything, even that the Book of Mormon isn’t true, despite the overwhelming evidence. But perhaps in some cases that is just a result of their social network and family

By the way, if you consider Wikipedia to be a perfectly reliable source, then it appears you are a person of greater faith than I originally led to believe.

Krauss claims that “Science is only truly consistent with an atheistic worldview with regards to the claimed miracles of the gods of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.” But this simply isn’t true. At best we can only claim that what we know about science at this point in time doesn’t fully explain how certain miracles happened. The Bible says that Jesus rubbed dirt and spit in a blind man’s eyes and then told him to go wash his eyes in a contaminated, filthy pool of water, and then the man’s blindness is cured. Sounds fantastic, but only because we don’t know how it happened. We cannot legitimately claim that it is impossible. To do so one would have to prove that under no circumstances could the actions taken in that story result in blindness being cured.

What’s especially interesting about science with regards to religion is that the scientific method itself is based on faith. A hypothesis is an expression of faith. It says, in effect, “I believe that if we do such and such, that such and such will follow.” We then create tests to prove or disprove our statement of faith.

You can find atheistic scientists who have faith in all sorts of things the rest of us would find ridiculous or impossible. Most of the technology we have today would have sounded ridiculous and impossible a mere 50 years ago, let alone 200 years ago. It took faith to believe man could fly through the air, and without that faith we wouldn’t have airplanes today that can carry many tons of cargo thousands of miles through the air in a few hours. It took faith to create computers, the Internet, the light bulb, pharmaceuticals, etc. Before any of it was created it was “seen” with the eye of faith. And many more inventions and discoveries will be made in the future. I would guess there are many scientists who don’t believe in God, yet have no trouble believing that someday man will travel throughout space at, near to, or faster than the speed of light. It is true that some discoveries are made accidentally, but generally when someone is “expressing faith” in something else. It is rare that someone invents something or discovers something when they are looking for nothing at all, or not trying to create something.

The difference between faith in revealed science and faith in God is the supporting evidence. Naturally, there is more evidence to support the things we already know than there is to support things we don’t know. But a lack of knowledge about something is no reason to disregard it. Just because what limited information we have about God (which may or may not be correct) sounds hokey, that doesn’t mean it’s a matter not worth investigating. If we were to extend this line of thinking to science, then where would we be today? How many inventions would not exist? How much knowledge would still be hidden? How many diseases would remain uncured if scientists looked at a sick person and said “I have no evidence to convince me it is possible to cure this person, therefore I will not try.”

On the contrary, if God really does exist, what more important discovery could there possibly be? So many people have so much “faith” that there is no God based on so little evidence.

But what if there is a God? What if he has a plan for us? What if it is integral to that plan that we are not allowed to know for sure whether he exists or not unless we already want to believe he does? Then those who do not want to believe in God will receive no convincing signs that he does, while those who do want to believe he exists will receive evidence of his existence. And naturally, those who do not receive such evidence will think those who claim to have received such evidence are crazy, and vice versa.

My advice to scientific atheists would be to not base your belief in the non-existence of God on what you think you know about God. Maybe what you think you know about God is wrong. Maybe there is a God but he’s not like anything you’ve imagined before. Maybe there is no conflict between science and belief in God, only unresolved questions. If there is a God, is it worth missing out on that knowledge because you based your theory on faulty information?