Small World

There is a profile of the fired BYU professor on the Salt Lake Tribune website as well as a story about the firing (or lack of rehiring) on the LDS owned Deseret News. I was just going to link to these, but I think the profiles have stuck with me for a few reasons.

The biggest: I went to the same high school as Mr. Nielsen. He was the studentbody president my freshman year. Nielsen seemed like all the other Mormons in my high school, forthright, considerate, nice and clean. During my time in high school, there was a sizable minority of students who were not Mormon. They were the children of rocket scientists, project managers, chemists, physicists and others who emigrated from all over to build rockets out in the desert for NASA and the U.S. military. This influx of brain power and ideas and people gave me a very different small town Utah experience compared to other towns the size of mine. I was close with a few people who were Mormon, but most of my friends in high school were not Mormon. Seeing how they and their families lived made a lot of the demonization that happened on Sunday easier to discern for what it was: paranoid crap.

I mostly laughed these things off, as my friends weren’t bad people. They helped expose me to normalcy. At least Small Town, U.S.A. normalcy. It should be said that my parents weren’t that censorious, with the exception of Led Zeppelin II, which was destroyed about 38 seconds after my immediately older brother spun “Whole Lotta Love”. We didn’t even make it to “The Lemon Song”. We were Mormon, however, and I believe the cultural divide was a big one in our small town. My mom hired a few of my closest friends to help with her business and this example always seemed to indicate that my parents were trying to make sure their children weren’t heroin users, never mind what religion our friends were.

The weirdness about being closer to Nielsen than I had previously thought is due to three facets. One, he has an adult child, but Nielsen is only a few years older than me. I don’t feel old enough to have adult children. Two, I agree with what he is saying, even though our experience growing up Mormon was markedly different and I’m out of the religion. Three, I’m still in shock that we went to the same high school. I would have never pegged him as a person who would choose to make a public stand like this. I’m compelled by how he’s changed. “Good” Mormons don’t challenge authority, especially not church authority. You can hear Nielsen talk about this here. Nielsen does a nice job of framing his views. The people who commented previously (this one, this one and this one) might do well to listen to this to get a picture of Nielsen that doesn’t come across in the news stories. It’s also of interest to those who might wonder how some Mormons think about God, gays and eternity. It’s not an easy listen and I’m not talking about the accents.

I think Nielsen is mostly comfortable in the church, and his points of contention with the LDS church are politcal/procedural and not doctrinal. What Nielsen wants is noble, but will never happen given the autocratic hierarchy of ultra-conservative leaders in the LDS church. I think this will hurt the church in the long run. Being less than honest about membership, growth rates or polygamy will only continue to hurt the church from within and without.

One example is that in the 1980s, a Baptist wrote a paper that has become so quoted by the media and by members in the church. It states that if growth rates continue as they had been, the LDS Church would be the fastest growing church in the world. This is rarely disputed and is stated as fact. I think it’s not a true statement. It propagates due to lazy journalism and because the LDS Church is very private about its real growth and activity rates. I would put the real activity rate at about 30% of total membership, maybe less. I decided to spend a few minutes searching online. Islam is likely the fastest, although I did find a site proclaiming that Wicca was the fastest growing religion (the info is down the page a bit) in the world based on a two year sample of growth rate.

I agree Nielsen is dead right in his expression that the real membership numbers are likely lower than publicly reported. Ask any former missionary about retention of those they baptize. The numbers don’t hold up even to anecdotal scrutiny in my experience, and it would be interesting to know the real number of active members in the LDS church. Sidebar: As a missionary for the church, I disagreed violently with the “chuck them in” philosophy prevalent during my time of service. It cost me in terms of leadership position and reputation, but I felt it extraordinarily short term thinking and asking people to make such a huge life change should take longer than 4–6 weeks. I felt that if we really cared about people, we’d have handled things much differently. I believe this thinking would be born out if true membership numbers were released.

All of the Mormon stuff aside, I think I need to state clearly that any organization would do well to have people like Nielsen among them. It’s sad that BYU and some members of the LDS Church feel differently. Nielsen is a strong person and deserves admiration for his stand. Even if you disagree with him. He’s made a brave stand. Not just as a Mormon, but as an American.

  • loonlaugh

    Sebastian,

    As far as I am aware, Jesus Christ was not recognized by the church to speak for the church or God…

    “As far as Iím aware, Mr. Nielsen is neither a prophet, seer nor revelator or recognized by the church to speak for the church or God.”

  • Jezzie

    To those of us who are the third party underdogs in any discussion about some abstract religious doctrine, gays are the new niggas. It’s ok to get in touch with your inner bigot over our civil rights. It means you have loyalty to your preferred hole in which insert your favorite body part, and nothing to do with my personal 20 year struggle to deny societies rigid hate mongering and accept my emotional preference for a womans affection, which has brought me the deeply commited and abiding love I now recieve from the most wonderful person in the word.
    Jon, please don’t let these bigots bash an entire slice of the human pie in the name of honest discussion.I love your blog, and have been a faithful reader for a long while. Please do what you warn you will do and edit their hurtful, narrow minded, predjudical mental jizzum. It has no bearing on free speech and Mormonism and has had the effect of making this practitioner of the Buddha’s teachings of compassion wish for a fully auto Uzi to destroy a human cancer before it breeds.
    I feel so, so bad those of you who have flaunted your fearful, tiny spirts in self righteousness while cringing in the darkness against enlightement. May your God allow you redemption for the sin of judgement against your fellow man, because doctrine does not trump God’s law. I just doesn’t, and it makes me so sad that your chosen dogma doesn’t teach you this. All teaching of religious belief should first be filtered through the 10 basic commandments y’all.
    Not the worship of the false idolatry of man’s doctrine. So sayeth the Lord, your God.

  • Sebastian

    EightHourLunch, I’m sorry, maybe my post was too long and you missed that part in my defense where I stated that the LDS church leaders are “prophets, seers and revelators.” We’re not talking about authority figures like George Bush here. We’re talking about men equal to Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, Elijah, Peter, James, John and Paul.

    If you’re not aware of the definitions of “prophet”, “seer” and “revelator” in a biblical context, then I’d suggest you acquaint yourself with their meaning. Once you do so, the reason why what they say can trump scientific observation ought to be fairly obvious.

    In this case, the church leaders are not disputing the findings of scientific observation as to the cause of gayness. The church leaders are disputing the humanist opinion that God is ok with it.

    Sebastian

  • http://www.eighthourlunch.com Eight Hour Lunch

    Sebastian, I’m pretty sure I got your point, no need for insults. Why should I believe that any of those people were prophets? Why should we even believe in the god you say they spoke to? After all, the people who flew planes into the World Trade Center thought their prophet spoke to their god, too.

  • HalfwayCrucified

    On September 15, 1978 it was contrary to mormon doctrine to give a black man the priesthood. Fast forward fifteen days and hallelujah! Itís OK for a black man to get the mormon priesthood! Either:

    1) God was OK with giving black men the priesthood all along, but had to wait nearly 150 years for those fifteen men to do his will.

    2) God did indeed have a problem with giving black men the priesthood, but then decidedóapparently on a whimóto change his mind.

    3) God never really weighed in on the matter, and those fifteen men were just doing what they thought was right both before and after.

    If number (1) is the case, then what does that tell us about those fifteen men? It tells us that they alone are in control of the mormon church and have no trouble going against Godís will. Theyíll make a change when THEY are ready to make the changeóscrew God and everyone else. It also tells us that when the heat is on, theyíll give way to their fears or bigotry and actually do the right thing.

    If number (2) is the case, then what does that tell us about God? It tells us that heís no less capricious than the men he chooses to run his church. One day something is against the commandments and if you do that thing youíll be cast from the fold, but then BAM! God does a one-eighty, and suddenly that thing is OK.

    But even a cursory study of the mormon church quickly reveals that those one-eighties arenít capricious at all: Clearly, God will cave to political pressure when the heat is on. Even if you believe those 15 men are doing exactly what God tells them to do and when he tells them to do it, you have little choice to conclude that God can be forced to change his will. Carefully read all of ìProclamation 1î and ìProclamation 2î in the Doctrine and Covenants, and youíll see what I mean.

    Number (3) is really no different than number (1) and thus shows, once again, that those fifteen men alone run the show. Likewise, it shows that when the heat is on, they will do an about face.

    So, to assert that mormon doctrine cannot be established or changed through political pressure, science or popular opinion is patently false. It has happened on at least two occasions, and will no doubt happen in the future.

  • nobody

    Sebastian, I don’t have time to give you a full answer, but several points seem urgent.

    – If God has a problem with “gayness”, which I doubt, it seems unlikely that he sees it as any worse than any other sexual inclination, or anger, sloth, envy, etc. What people do is one thing, but what they think and feel is another.
    – You don’t argue, you assert. Those readers that agree your 15 elders are divinely inspired will agree with you, but the rest of us don’t find anything of use here. At least Mr. Nielsen tried to make arguments from human and divine nature that might reach outside the Mormon faith. In my view, a serious faith finds ways to integrate science and reason and moral philosophy into its thinking, and doesn’t rely on faith when reason can provide the answer. (And for this reason I doubt that your explanation is strictly orthodox from a Mormon viewpoint.)
    – Personally, I am very much hoping to avoid God’s justice, and I very much hope that I do not get what I deserve. I need Christ’s death, and I suggest to you that God’s justice is the last thing any of us should want.

  • sara

    “The doctrine of the church is that any sexual relations outside of a marriage is a sin and second only in seriousness to murder (Alma 39:5).”

    So then sex before marriage is a sin second only to murder as well right? Seems to me that this is a much bigger problem in the world today then gay marriage. Why aren’t people up in arms about this and wanting to create a constitutional amendment banning premartial sex?

  • http://sovietinthecity.blogspot.com The Soviet

    hey blurb, thanks for the link to the interview. this is a great listen. i grew up mormon in eastern idaho so hearing “active” LDS making that distinction between church and state is pretty amazing.

  • tk

    Please forgive me for being completley off topic in this comment. I HAVE TO KNOW — what did HEATHER DO TO THE CLOGS???? WHAAAAAAATTTTTTT???????

  • Sebastian

    > Seems to me that this is a much bigger problem in the world today then gay marriage.

    sara, it probably is. However, the issue of whether society would keep heterosexual relations within a marriage has long been lost. The laws that enforced that have been repealed or ignored I’m sure to the delight of many. And now the laws against sodomy are receiving the same treatment. What’s next?

    I expect even with the amendment’s passage, that the only thing that would actually be protected is the definition. I expect that gays will eventually have “marriage” in all states, it just won’t be called that. (Please notice that the church isn’t acting to re-criminalize sodomy or adultery.)

    So then what was the whole point of this exercise if the church supported an amendment that had no hope of passage and no real affect? Are they still prophets?

    I suspect that the purpose was similar to Zion’s Camp.

    At one time, Joseph Smith lead several hundred saints by foot from Ohio to Missouri to make war against those who were persecuting the saints there. It took months and was full of hardships. And when they arrived in Missouri, Joseph Smith declared that they were going to march back home without firing a shot. As you might expect this caused doubt among many about their leader, even apostasy. Nevertheless, Zion’s Camp wasn’t really about making war against Missouri, it was about finding out which men would follow the prophet.

    A similar event occurred with Abraham and Isaac. God had no intention of letting Abraham kill Isaac. It was about finding if Abraham would do all things He commanded. The Israelites were tested with the snakes. All they had to do was look at the cross and be healed. Many perished because of their pride.

    Perhaps in retrospect we may discover that this was a similar loyalty test administered by God and now He has His answers of who will follow his prophets and who won’t.

    Sebastian

  • http://www.blurbomat.com blurb

    I think Krakauer was right to label Mormonism as a fundamentalist religion. With adherents such as Sebastian, how could it not be labelled as such?

    (I can see nearly all of my Mormon friends rolling their eyes, as none of them are nearly as extreme as Sebastian is presenting himself.)

  • http://www.dailymumps.com/ Dave Thomas

    HalfwayCrucified,

    I think your analysis is pretty spot on, which is maybe why the Sebastians of the world haven’t touched it. At any rate, I know a lot of Mormons (women in particular) whose continued involvement in the church is based on the hope and belief that the doctrines and policies will indeed evolve, as they have in the past.

  • staceymay

    “At any rate, I know a lot of Mormons (women in particular) whose continued involvement in the church is based on the hope and belief that the doctrines and policies will indeed evolve, as they have in the past.”

    Is this comment to mean that the women you know only stay in the Church in hopes that one day they receive the priesthood? Seems like a pretty shallow reason to follow a religion.

  • http://www.dailymumps.com/ Dave Thomas

    Well, that’s a pretty crude characterization (it’s not all about the priesthood). But I’m curious–would you have said the same thing about a black Mormon before 1978? If the priesthood gives you the authority to lead every single level of the church, what’s superficial about that?

  • staceymay

    Well Dave, if it’s not “all about the priesthood”, then what is it about? What else are women being “denied” that feel they have to wait for? I don’t think it was a crude characterization at all. I took your comment and asked a question.

    I don’t have enough time to answer your question at work right now, but I will come back to it.

  • http://joansyrambles.blogspot.com jonell

    Sebastian,
    Your god is mean. Maybe when you get your own planet you will remember the pain and angst he has caused and you will be a more kind and gentle god.

  • http://www.dailymumps.com/ Dave Thomas

    Staceymay,

    By “crude” I didn’t mean your observation was tasteless or offensive–just not carefully made.

    People stay in the LDS church for all the same reasons anyone stays in any church. It gives them a belief system that lends purpose and direction to their lives. It gives them hope for life after death, for “salvation.” It gives them community, and a chance to serve others, and a million different things. That’s what I meant about it not being all about the priesthood.

    Then again, I think you have a point. The matter of who holds the reins of the church IS at the heart of all of this. Now, whether or not the women in the LDS church dream of getting the priesthood, the fact is they live in a culture and with a belief system that subordinates them, and that is a many-tentacled beast that touches everybody in the church, in both obvious and not-so-obvious ways. That’s why I wonder if you would criticize a pre-1978 black Mormon for wanting to participate fully in the priesthood the same way you seem to be criticizing some Mormon women today.

  • Sebastian

    > I think Krakauer was right to label Mormonism as a fundamentalist religion. With adherents such as Sebastian, how could it not be labeled as such?

    With adherents like patatomic, how can you not label it progressive? So which is it? The mean-spirited, conservative, republican church? Or is it the free-love, liberal, democrat church?

    The truth is that it is neither. 150 years ago the Republican party was trying to put it out of existence. Now it’s the Democrats. And as far as I can tell, the church hasn’t change it’s doctrine that much. All the major sins are still major sins. All the minor sins are still minor sins. The only thing that has really change is the world’s choices in morality. Perhaps in a hundred years the political parties will flop back the other way.

    So in that respect there is nothing demeaning about labeling the Mormons fundamentalist. It’s actually a complement today.

    This should not be confused with term Fundamentalist Mormon, which means a member of an off-shoot of the Mormon church which believes in practicing polygamy, ie Big Love. Fundamentalist Mormons are not members of the LDS church.

    > (I can see nearly all of my Mormon friends rolling their eyes, as none of them are nearly as extreme as Sebastian is presenting himself.)

    Hmmm. Is there doubt? Seems to be some skepticism, some suspicion of ulterior motives. Let’s play, How Extreme Is He!

    That’s an interesting question. What does it mean to be an extreme mormon? I mean do you like hold FHE every night? Do you put carrots in red jello too? Huh.

    As I see it you are either progressive, mormon, or fundamental. That is you either believe some subset of mormon doctrine, you believe all the doctrine, or you believe in more than the doctrine. (Works for Catholics too.) Which probably answers why I seem extreme to you. You don’t believe any of the mormon doctrines and I believe all of them. Your progressive mormon friends sit somewhere between us; smugly sitting with their belief suspended, waiting and watching for the day when the church in a revelatory fit comes to it’s senses. (I have to agree with Dave Thomas and staceymay. Seems like a waste of time.) The fundamentalist do the same thing except they like to stand.

    The silence of the progressive mormons is deafening.

    Sebastian

  • Sebastian

    HalfwayCrucified, you are correct, those are the three choices. And I, perhaps unsurprising, would choose #2. Though there have been times for #1. IIRC, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were both loathe to implement the doctrine of polygamy and resisted it because the practice abhorred them.

    I don’t think I would call God capricious or deciding on a whim. He does after all know the history of the world from the end to the beginning. Nothing is really a surprise for him. But you make a good point that God does change the law that He expects men to follow from time to time. As a people follow God’s law, then he will raise the bar. As a people apostatizes he will lower the bar. Joseph Smith gave the saints the law of consecration, but they weren’t able to live it, so it was removed and replaced with the lower law of fast offerings. The Israelites were given the lower, Mosaic law at Sinai because they were not ready for the higher law.

    > So, to assert that mormon doctrine cannot be established or changed through political pressure, science or popular opinion is patently false.

    I couldn’t disagree with you more. I haven’t said that doctrine couldn’t be changed through political pressure, and doctrine has never been changed because of science or popular opinion. The repeal of polygamy and the extending of the priesthood are not even similar.

    By 1890, the federal government had passed several laws that were upheld by the Supreme Court. These laws essentially criminalized being a mormon. The Federal Government had taken away the right of women to vote, implemented a voters test, and barred mormons from sitting on a jury. The church was disincorporated, all its assets in property, including the temple, and money, were seized (and most of the money was lost before it was returned), and the church leaders that could be found were being imprisoned. Given that situation, what other choice did God have?

    In 1978, the church was under no political pressure to change it’s policy on the priesthood. There was existing doctrine that the priesthood wasn’t to be given to the blacks, but there was also doctrine that at some time they would. Through the faith, prayers and desires of the members and leaders, God gave revelation to extend the priesthood at that time.

    In contrast, today there is no doctrine that homosexuality has been anything other than a sin for the last 6000 years. And given the recent proclamations and actions of the church leaders, I see no evidence of flexibility in this doctrine that would give hope to any gay member.

    Is it possible that political pressure could be exerted upon the church once again? Yeah, it’s possible. I suppose the Democrats could pass a law, if they ever regain congress, that makes calling gays sinners a crime. It’d be interesting to see how God and the church would handle that. But for now there is freedom of religion and speech.

    Sebastian

  • nobody

    Sebastian, your all-purpose answer kit (God speaks to us through people, He does change his mind, and any apparent craziness of His commands is a test of our obedience in him) is an accident waiting to happen.

    I caveat again that I do not, for a single moment, think this guy is representative of orthodox Mormons.

  • http://www.eighthourlunch.com Eight Hour Lunch

    Nobody, I’m not sure I agree 100%. *I* was like that once, and had a lot of friends in the LDS church that admired me for it. There are more than you think.

    Sebastian, how many people would you say it’s ok to kill if your “prophet” asks for it?

  • moxyoron

    Sebastian– my understanding is that black men receiving the priesthood just happened to coincide with the church standing to lose its tax expemptive status if they continued the practice — does anyone else know what I’m talking about here? I’m sure some of you are much more informed on the matter than I am.

  • http://www.dailymumps.com/ Dave Thomas

    Sebastian, just to clarify: If someone is getting something out of their church attendance, then I don’t believe it’s a waste of time to stick it out on the hope that it will “come to its senses.” It’s only a waste if you consider your church both perfect and unchanging–and the LDS church is evidently neither. (No church could ever be.)

  • deeryluv

    This is why I left the Mormon church. I mean, in my experience, there are more Sebastians in the Church than these progressive Mormons I keep hearing about. When I was Mormon, I could never discuss this kind of shit with my family and friends. It was MADDENING. They have an answer for everything to the point that I already know what they’re going to say before they say it. And my responses don’t ever make any real sense to them… so what’s the point?

    Not that I don’t enjoy having the conversation, because I do and I thank Blurb for opening it up. But at the same time, I always end up so feeling so frustrate, divided, and hopeless. I didn’t like feeling that way all the time so I decided to leave. Which was hard and took a lot of courage — starting over like that. But I’ve also grown to recognize it also takes a lot of courage and obvious devotion to remain faithful to any religion you sometimes disagree and grapple with. I agree that Neilson is very brave.

  • staceymay

    DaveThomas: “People stay in the LDS church for all the same reasons anyone stays in any church. It gives them a belief system that lends purpose and direction to their lives. It gives them hope for life after death, for ìsalvation.î It gives them community, and a chance to serve others, and a million different things. Thatís what I meant about it not being all about the priesthood.

    Then again, I think you have a point. The matter of who holds the reins of the church IS at the heart of all of this. Now, whether or not the women in the LDS church dream of getting the priesthood, the fact is they live in a culture and with a belief system that subordinates them, and that is a many-tentacled beast that touches everybody in the church, in both obvious and not-so-obvious ways. Thatís why I wonder if you would criticize a pre-1978 black Mormon for wanting to participate fully in the priesthood the same way you seem to be criticizing some Mormon women today.”

    In regards to your first point, I have a hard time understanding why people stay in a religion, any religion or belief system that they have “issues” with. You can find purpose, direction and a belief in salvation in a religion or belief that is more suitable to you. This is why people convert to religion (or leave it for a different lifestyle). You can find a sense of community, opportunities to serve without it being part of a religion that you donít agree with, or are waiting to appease some inherent need that one has to gain something they feel they are being denied. When women in the LDS faith say that they are waiting/hoping/wishing for the day that the Church will be progressive enough to give them the priesthood, I just have to shake my head. Why do these women feel that they are being denied anything or feel subservient because they donít hold the priesthood? They can still benefit from the priesthood even though they do not hold it. I do not believe that LDS women are subordinate to men at all. The roles of men and women have been defined in the Proclamation (which Iím sure these same women have an issue with anyway).

    As for your question yesterday about how I would feel about blacks wanting the priesthood before 1978, of course they had the right to want to fully participate in the Church and gain the priesthood. The difference (from my understanding) is that it was understood that some day blacks would have access to the priesthood again, and that it was revealed that the day was in 1978. Women have never been given that promise. It was necessary for the blacks to eventually gain the priesthood so that the Church could to continue to grow. Women having the priesthood is not essential for the growth and continuation of the Church.