Child Prophet: The Curious Case of John Willard Young, a Mormon Apostle

Preface

At first glance, John Willard Young must have seemed like an obvious candidate for inclusion into the Mormon halls of power.  As the favored son of “the Lion of the Lord,” John Willard possessed many of the same qualities that made his famous father, Brigham, a legend.  John Willard was charismatic, charming, intelligent, witty and cultured.  Unlike his father, however, John Willard was also lazy, entitled, dependent, impulsive and careless.  How the favored child of the most powerful figure in Utah Mormonism (and one of the most powerful men in the history of Western expansion) could go from being an ordained apostle and heir apparent to his father, to dying broke, friendless and hopeless in an obscure New York apartment is a tale that few Mormons today know (but should).
 

John Willard Young’s life isn’t just an illustration of a “what could have been” tragedy.  To borrow for the poetry of Sir Walter Scott, John Willard’s life was that of:

The wretch, concentrated all in self,

Living, shall forfeit fair renown,

And, doubly dying, shall go down

To the vile dust from whence he sprung,

Unwept, unhonored, and unsung.[1]

And while you are unlikely to find much about the man by searching LDS.org or any other church website, John Willard’s life is deserving of our time and attention.  Though muddled in the complexity of his father’s unbridled zeal, the naiveté of his privileged upbringing and the instability that resulted from his own poor decisions, John Willard Young’s life was not without genuine contribution, both intended and accidental.  His contributions to the world of business and government, particularly as they related to railroad expansion and petitioning for Utah statehood, are most assuredly underappreciated, even if his labors employed less-than-ethical actions.   And perhaps most noteworthy of all, John Willard Young’s life helped to (inadvertently) establish the practice of apostolic succession that we see in Mormonism today.

 

Because We All Love a Juicy Crime Story

It was a particularly cold morning when the sun rose over the booming metropolis that was Jersey City on September 19, 1902.  As a thriving dock and manufacturing hub, Jersey City was a desirable first stop for many newly arrived immigrants to the United States.  Work was oftentimes difficult to find in most Atlantic coastal towns, which made the flourishing community of Jersey City all the more desirable.

But a bountiful job market and economy was hardly the only flourishing enterprise in Jersey City.  Prostitution, drug trafficking and other unsavory institutions had become a staple commodity, willing and able to accommodate the needs (and wallets) of all newcomers to the Land of the Free.  So when Jersey City Police responded to the news of a dead prostitute found half submerged in the Morris Canal it wasn’t terribly shocking news…

…at least at first. 

When the body of Anna Pulitzer, a well known prostitute with an impressive arrest record, was removed from the water, police discovered her abdomen had been hacked to pieces and her head nearly decapitated.  Further investigation led detectives to an apartment where several empty beer bottles were discovered, along with bottles containing powerful sedatives, including chloroform and chloral hydrate.  In the bedroom police found sheets, towels and clothing soaked in blood.  The words “Blood Atonement” had been scribbled several times in a notebook found on the floor. 

Police eventually determined that the apartment belonged to John Willard Young, a local businessman and failed entrepreneur.  Young, who had been out of the country for several weeks, immediately returned to the United States upon hearing the news of the deceased woman, who police determined had died of a drug overdose.  By the time he returned to the States, officials had already arrested the man they deemed responsible for the grizzly and bloody scene in John Willard Young’s apartment.  Hooper Young, a well known morphine and gambling addict, had confessed to using drugs with Anna Pulitzer.  After her death, Hooper Young admitted to authorities that he tried cutting up her body in order to dispose of it, but the sight of so much blood caused him to flee in terror.  The news fell hard on John Willard Young.  Not only had a prostitute been butchered post-mortem in his own apartment, but the guilty party responsible was none other than his own son, Hooper Young. 

News of the crime traveled fast, even making its way west into the Salt Lake Tribune.  And though the Tribune, which had recently been purchased by U.S. Senator Thomas Kearns, was determined to rid itself of what they called “anti-Mormon filth,” this particular story could not be ignored.  After all, Hooper Young was not just the son of John Willard Young: failed businessman, but he was also the son of John Willard Young: Mormon Apostle and Prophet, who at one time was the chosen heir to succeed his own father as the supreme religious figure in the Utah Territory, his father being none other than the Mighty Brigham Young. [2]  

The Golden Child

To understand the story of John Willard Young and the role he played in Mormon history we must journey back to the years of his youth.  Born October 1, 1844 in Nauvoo, Illinois to Brigham Young and Mary Ann Angell, John Willard grew up as a child of the Mormon pioneer era.  He traveled across the American frontier, arriving in the Salt Lake Valley where his famous father hoped to establish the Mormon Zion in the Rocky Mountains.
 

Though the third son born to Brigham Young, John Willard was apparently his father’s favorite.  As such, John Willard grew up in a world of plenty.  His prophet father ensured that John Willard received a formal education and was afforded with multiple opportunities to travel and experience life outside of the Utah Zion.  As a result, John Willard grew up with a keen understanding of American politics, business and other important issues of his day.  John Willard was also lauded as being the most charismatic and articulate of Brigham’s children. [3]

But it wasn’t just a lavish upbringing and good schooling that Brigham Young hoped to bestow upon his son.  On November 22, 1855, at the tender age of eleven, John Willard Young received his Endowment and was ordained an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ by the hand of his prophet father.  The ordination, which was kept secret from the other members of the church’s First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, was eventually announced for the first time to church leaders in February of 1864, roughly eight years after John Willard’s original ordination.  On that occasion, President Brigham Young ordained John Willard’s two older brothers, Joseph Angell and Brigham Jr., to be apostles as well, and set all three of his sons apart to be “Assistant Counselors to the President.” [4]

The ordination of Brigham Young’s children to the Holy Apostleship was met with surprise and timid acceptance.  Apostle Wilford Woordruff recorded the occasion with the following in his diary:

President Young said I am going to tell you something that I have never before mentioned to any other person.  I have ordained my sons Joseph A., Brigham & John W. Apostles and my Counselors.  Have you any objections?  J. Taylor & G.A. Smith said they had not, that it was his own affair & they considered it under his own direction.[5]

And though some church leaders were aware of the ordination of Brigham Young’s children as apostles, the church in general was kept in the dark.  President Young had instructed members of the Quorum of the Twelve to “make a record of it, but…not tell anyone not present about the event.”[6]   It wasn’t until April of 1873, nearly eighteen years after being ordained by his father, that John Willard, along with his brothers, were publicly sustained as “Prophets, Seers and Revelators” and as Assistant Counselors in General Conference (Brigham, Jr. had been sustained to the Quorum of the Twelve in the October General Conference of 1868).[7]

It naturally seems odd to modern members of the church when they discover Brigham Young’s enigmatic actions in ordaining his own children (in the case of John Willard at the tender age of eleven) to be apostles.  After all, the calling of apostle has been held in the highest regard by Mormons of all generations.  What does it say of such a calling if an eleven-year-old child can assume such a mantle merely because of his family ties?

The answer is actually simpler that we might think.  For Brigham Young, the calling to the apostleship (not to mention church participation in general) was very much a family affair.  For example, Joseph Smith had issued a number of prestigious callings to members of his own family.  Joseph’s brother, Hyrum, was called to be “Assistant President of the Church,” a position he held until his death.  Joseph Smith, Sr., father to both Hyrum and Joseph, was given the position of Presiding Patriarch, which he also held until his death.  And in a hotly debated (even to this day) act, Joseph Smith ordained his own son, Joseph III, to become his eventual successor.[8]

In addition, other church leaders who followed in Brigham Young’s shoes saw no issue with calling family members to various positions of importance.  John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff and Joseph F. Smith all went on to call respective kin to become apostles once they became president of the church.[9] 

When writing on the matter of familial favoritism as it relates to apostolic nomination, renowned Mormon Historian D. Michael Quinn stated the following:

Smith announced revelations that some men had a right to preside in the church by virtue of lineage (D&C 26:21, 36:8, 107:39-52, 113:8).  As implied by some revelatory statements, the right extended beyond lineal office of Presiding Patriarch…Several revelations indicated that the sons and other descendants of current leaders would have significant roles in the church.  These statements gave authority for the appointment of relatives to the hierarchy.[10]

In short, Brigham Young’s ordination of John Willard (along with his two older brothers) may seem odd by 21^st century Mormon standards, but it was hardly strange to Mormons living in the 19^th century. 

Blissful Indifference

This doesn’t mean that the ordination of John Willard Young was without criticism.  With that being said, the criticism came not as the result of the calling itself, but rather due to John Willard’s apparent ineptitude and indifference to Mormon teachings and practices.  Those who questioned President Brigham Young’s actions in this regard were not protesting a familial bias on the part of the prophet, but rather his evident disregard for John Willard’s obvious incompetence.  It was one thing for Mormons to accept the prophet’s son as potential heir to the hierarchy, but it was quite another for them to discard blatant hypocrisy.

Though he had been ordained an apostle for nearly a decade (from 1855 to 1864) and set apart as an Assistant Counselor in the First Presidency, John Willard Young seemed to live a life that was utterly unimpressed with and totally disinterested in his unique (and for a believer, divinely inspired) calling.  From 1864 on, John Willard spent most of his time living the high life in New York City, where his lavish tastes earned him (and cost him) a great deal.  John Willard’s wild business ventures, combined with his grandiose personality, wit and charm, yielded terrific financial success from time to time.  His expensive tastes, luxurious lifestyle and unbridled avarice, however, produced even more debt.  When his business ventures eventually failed, John Willard found himself immersed in so much debt that his only recourse was to turn to his powerful father for aid.

 

While known for his authoritarian persona and intimidating style of leadership, Brigham Young proved extremely docile in his relationship with John Willard.  Time and time again, the Mormon Prophet placated his troubled son’s woes by sending him copious amounts of money which John Willard used to keep fueling his extravagant lifestyle as opposed to paying off his debt.  Letters from his prophet father pleaded with John Willard to return to Utah and take up the cause of his church and apostolic calling. In one particular letter, Father Brigham begged son John Willard (whom he refers to as “Jonna”) to return home and take up the cause of Zion:

O Jonna I pray for you and yours continually.  If you nue [knew] how I want to see you, you would come.  My dear Jonna, I due [do] hope you will see as we see things.  I send your dear Br. Brigham & Br Stanes to prevail on you to come home and stay with us.  May God bless you my dear boy. [11]

Brigham Young’s dysfunctional relationship with John Willard was no mystery to church leaders.  Apostle George Q. Cannon expressed his concerns regarding the misappropriation of church funds, particularly as they related to John Willard’s regular monetary allowance that came straight out of tithing funds.  Apostle Joseph F. Smith was even more specific when he noted that John Willard’s “$16,000 per year from the tithing office for his support” was a blatant misuse of church funds.[12]    

And it wasn’t just church tithes and offerings from which John Willard was channeling money to support his flamboyant lifestyle.  Once ordained an apostle, John Willard regularly petitioned church membership for additional funds to “assist with construction of the railroad,” which he promised would eventually be of great benefit to the Saints in the west.  In fact, John Willard used the idea of constructing a railroad to the west as the primary justification for his lavish expenses and wanton disregard for financial prudence.[13]  To placate his father, John Willard would appeal to the supposed need for him to maintain a high standing in the eyes of those in power, so they would be more inclined to take him seriously.  On one occasion, John Willard wrote to Brigham Young, who was greatly troubled by his son’s expenditures, that staying in the best of hotels while traveling was justified because of his family ties: “As it was generally known that I was your son, I felt I could do no less than stop at the finest hotel.”[14]

Eventually John Willard’s financial woes became so overwhelming that a change of scenery became a necessity.  After again obtaining financial aid from his father that was sufficient to pacify his debtors, John Willard returned to Salt Lake City in March of 1876.  Brigham Young, who was more than delighted to welcome his son home, seized the moment by offering John Willard a position that would keep him in Utah for the foreseeable future.  Though John Willard had never exercised any actual church responsibility, nor shown any interest at all in church matters, the Prophet Brigham announced in the October, 1876 General Conference that his 32-year-old son was to be the new First Counselor of the First Presidency of the church.[15] 

Skepticism and criticism naturally surrounded news of John Willard’s rise to the position of First Mate of the LDS Church.  As his father’s right-hand man, John Willard was now in a position to make a substantial impact, which caused detractors no shortage of angst. Local newspapers, which had grown accustomed to commenting on the unsavory habits and lifestyles of Brigham’s children, were more than willing to lampoon “apostate Johnny” (John Willard) and “Fat Prince Briggy” (Brigham, Jr.) as the unworthy beneficiaries of nepotism.[16]   Joseph F. Smith, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, expressed his concerns privately to President Brigham Young.  Smith believed John Willard’s lack of actual experience and poor life decisions could upset members who knew next to nothing about the man and his credentials.  In a fit of rage, President Young scolded Elder Smith for his remarks and then promptly sent him on a five-year mission to Europe.[17]

Fellow church leaders were far from the only critics of John Willard’s ascent to power.  Many outsiders, curious about their Mormon neighbors to the west, took note of the perceived hubris of “King Brigham” the Mormon prophet:

So completely has Brigham brought his people under this subjection, that it is of no consequence what he proposes to them—if they even hate the subject proposed, they will vote for it, if Brigham puts it before them, and, as seen by a telegram to the Chronicle, recently, the old man has at length defined is policy for the future of the Mormon Church, in selecting for his first counselor the youngest son of his first family, JOHN W. YOUNG. This now to be prominent young man is well known in this city, especially among capitalists. He has stopped at our hotels quite frequently within the last few years, and has been entertained in a princely style…The Prophet thought Johnny should see a little more of the world before proceeding further in that line, and he was consequently sent to England on a tour of pleasure in company with his brother "Briggy Junior." These two scions of Mormon royalty traveled all over Europe, spending lavishly the funds of the poor confiding Saints…[T]he youngest son of the Prophet drank deeply of the ways of the world, and was furiously captivated by its fashions. For several years he has lived so little in Utah—preferring San Francisco and New York to the City of Saints—that he has been regarded as an apostate from the faith, and thus, unexpectedly to everybody, he re-turned to Utah a week ago, and the Prophet, in utter disregard of the sentiments of the Mormon people, places him next to his throne, and makes him by that act the next Prophet of the Mormon Church.[18]

And from the Chicago Tribune:

He [John Willard] has never done much of anything for himself, his father has set him at this, then at that; now getting together and keeping a museum; now running a steamer, more ornamental than useful, on Salt Lake; now starting a street-railroad, finally, at building railroads that do not pay expenses. This last kind of enterprise having been run into the ground, Johnny, as everybody calls him, is to be put at his real profession, running the church…[John Willard] is the SIMPLE RESULT OF FAMILY PRIDE on the part of Brigham. He feels that his end is drawing near. [19]

For a man of Brigham Young’s stature, the choice to promote the untested, unproven and seemingly uninterested fruit of his loins over other men who were far more qualified reveals the very real intent of establishing a familial dynasty.  But as mentioned above, this was not without precedent nor entirely frowned upon.  The issue wasn’t that a child of the prophet was now following in his father’s footsteps, but rather that the child chosen was a charlatan with a track record of narcissistic greed that flew in the face of everything the faith hoped to represent. 

Apostolic Succession: A Very Brief History

For Mormons of the 21^st century, the basic understanding of apostolic succession suggests that the process is carried out with seamless perfection by the very hand of God: the Lord calls his apostles, who gradually climb the latter of seniority within the Quorum of the Twelve, and, if it be God’s will, live to become the senior apostle, thereby becoming the de facto President of the Church.   

If only history were this simple!

In February of 1835, Joseph Smith claimed that the Lord had commissioned the Three Witnesses (Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer and Martin Harris) to select the first members of the new Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  Once the selections were completed, the newly appointed apostles had their seniority arranged according to their order of ordination as apostles.  In other words, the first apostle ordained as such became the most senior, while all other apostles followed in like manner based on order of ordination.  This system of ordination, however, changed dramatically in May of that same year when Joseph Smith instructed that the apostles were to arrange their seniority based on their age.[20] 

This system of seniority existed, more or less, for the next decade until Joseph Smith was killed at Carthage in 1844. The beginning of the Mormon Succession Crisis brought into focus many of the flaws that existed with the age-based apostolic seniority system.  Over time (1835-1844), numerous members of the Quorum of the Twelve had been replaced due to death, apostasy, etc.  Men called to fill these vacancies struggled to know their place in the quorum.  Did they hold more seniority if they were older but lacked the experience and tenure of already serving apostles?  For example, was Wilford Woordruff (age 32, ordained an apostle April, 1839) senior to John Taylor (age 30, ordained an apostle December, 1838)?  Technically, yes but practically, no.  The Mormon Succession Crisis, though not based entirely on apostolic seniority, was exacerbated by the obscurity of this question. 

It wasn’t until Brigham Young was able to emerge as leader of the majority going west that this question of apostolic seniority would be answered, and the answer given was far from concrete.  For all intents and purposes, Brigham Young’s understanding of apostolic seniority rested exclusively on date of ordination as an apostle, which is why John Taylor was eventually placed ahead of Wilford Woodruff in the line of succession. 

Heir Apparent

This is how the matter stood when Brigham Young took the eleven-year-old John Willard and ordained him an apostle.  The next most junior apostle in age to John Willard was Franklin D. Richards (age34).  As a result, John Willard was perfectly positioned to one day enjoy overwhelming seniority and lengthy tenure as church president.  Keeping these facts in mind, it is almost impossible to deny that Brigham Young was determined to establish his family line as a dynasty that would extend long into the future.  With now four of his sons ordained to the apostleship, Brigham was clearing stacking his own deck.  If the Smith family was to be revered as Mormonism’s founders, the Young family would be revered as its future.  

And so it was that John Willard Young, a man with no experience and a track record of slothful irreverence for all things Mormon, took his place at the right-hand of his father.  As an ordained apostle and sustained “Prophet, Seer and Revelator,” John Willard was now rubbing shoulders with (and, in essence, presiding over) the very apostles who questioned and doubted his abilities and integrity.  For men like John Taylor, the presence of John Willard as First Counselor to his father was aggravating at best.  Taylor had recorded that John Willard’s body of work amounted to little more than “perusing secular enterprises” and he had done virtually nothing as a General Authority.[21]

In terms of his actual day-to-day performance as First Counselor in the First Presidency, John Willard seemed to share his father’s knack for micromanagement.  His letters to Saints throughout the Utah Territory carry very specific instructions for seemingly menial tasks, and demonstrate a complete lack of understanding the many particularities of life in the American West.  In one letter to the Saints of St. George, President John Willard Young stated the following:

Of late there has been less attention paid to the raising of sugar cane and the manufacture of molasses than formerly.  This should be remedied.  Those settlements suitable to the production of this crop should not only produce enough for their on consumption, but should make some to send to settlements less favored in point of climate.

[…]

Female labor should be classified giving sewing to those most skilled in this branch of industry…You are advised not to buy additional sewing machines on time from agents who travel through the country…In this connection it may be stated that in many of the settlements it will be found, under the provisions of the United Order, that there are more than enough sewing machines to do all the work required.[22] 

One can only imagine what these communities were thinking when they read President John Willard’s words of counsel.  Not only had sugar cane been a complete failure in the Utah Territory, but the extreme lack of sewing equipment had virtually stymied any chance of producing clothing on a large scale.  Simply put, John Willard’s life experience as a businessman in New York did not translate well to life in the Mormon colonies of the west.

  

With his son John Willard now assuming the role of second in command, Brigham Young’s vision of establishing a family dynasty was becoming a reality.  Having three sons, two of which were the youngest of all the apostles (John Willard and Brigham Jr.), the Young name was perfectly positioned to remain in the halls of power for decades.  As grandiose as this goal was, however, it is only half of the story.  In addition to ordaining his sons as apostles, Brigham Young also made efforts to marginalize his fellow apostles in the Quorum of the Twelve.  Mormon Historian Todd Compton points to this virtual tug-o-war between President Young and the Quorum of the Twelve when he wrote the following:

Church government is not a simple monolithic structure in which all church leaders and organizations act alike; there is a system of checks and balances.  It is clear that Brigham Young minimized the Council of the Twelve at times, and they resented his use of autocratic power.[23]   

Brigham Young’s actions to minimize the Quorum of the Twelve’s influence while bolstering his own authority were met with mild but sincere resistance.  Though the other apostles in the Quorum of the Twelve disliked the actions of Young, they did little to oppose him.  In the 1851 General Conference, Young had himself and his two counselors sustained as “Prophets, Seers and Revelators,” but did not extend the same titles to the apostles in the Quorum of the Twelve.  Young furthered his consolidation of power by allowing only himself and members of his First Presidency to be sustained “Prophet, Seer and Revelator” in every General Conference from 1873 until his death in 1877.[24] 

By the 1870s, Brigham Young’s inner circle of trusted confidants did not include a single apostle from the Quorum of the Twelve.[25]  The death of Heber Kimball, Brigham’s greatest friend, forced him to seek others in whom he could trust.  This may help us to better understand why Brigham insisted on having his children, even if wayward, over fellow apostles.  Brigham Young had seen, first hand, the betrayals of other apostles when Joseph Smith was in charge of the church.  For a man who had spent a lifetime fighting the enemies of the faith (whether inside the church, outside the church, or simply in his own head), trust and loyalty were the supreme commodity.

A New Day

Perhaps due to his own superciliousness, Brigham Young never considered that his fellow apostles would one day seek to undo all he had set in motion for the benefit of his family line.  With the death of President Young in 1877, a new face rose to take control of the church.  John Taylor, who had experienced his own share of disagreements with both Brigham and John Willard, would eventually emerge as Mormonism’s 3^rd church president, though not right away.  In yet another example of how different the church operated in the 19^th century v. today, the Quorum of the Twelve essentially decided to govern the church as a quorum instead of nominating another president.[26]

This decision certainly seems strange by modern Mormon standards, but consider how those in that now distant time were perceiving events.  Brigham Young, who had dominated virtually all the affairs of the church and the Utah Territory with an iron fist, not to mention completely marginalized the authority and influence of the Quorum of the Twelve, had passed on.  The chance for a more democratic style of church government had now become a legitimate possibility.  As Apostle George Q. Cannon put it:

Some of the brethrem, as I have learned since the death of President Brigham Young, did not have feelings concerning his course.  They did not approve of it, and felt opposed, and yet they dare not exhibit their feelings to him, he ruled with so strong and so stiff a hand, and they felt that it would be of no use.  In a few words, the feeling seems to be that he transcended the bounds of the authority which he legitimately held.[27]
    

For John Willard, the death of his father also meant the death of his position as First Counselor.  With the Quorum of the Twelve now governing as a group, their first order of business was to decide what to do with First Presidency Counselors John Willard Young and Daniel Wells.  Though vacancies existed in the Quorum of the Twelve, it was decided that John Willard would not be included, but rather be given the title of “Counselor to the Twelve.”[28]  As one might expect, John Willard elected to abandon his new calling entirely as he returned to his previous life in New York City.[29] 

It wasn’t until 1880 (three years after Brigham Young’s death) that John Taylor finally emerged as the church’s 3^rd official church president.  In addition, three new apostles were called to the Quorum of the Twelve.  John Willard, however, continued to remain on the outside.  Though still technically considered a “Counselor to the Quorum of the Twelve,” John Willard’s name would go unrecognized at future church General Conference meetings.  He may have still been considered an apostle, but it was clear that the church wanted little to do with him, and by all appearances John Willard felt the same.

From 1880 to 1899, John Willard would continue to fall out of favor with the church.  On multiple occasions, church leaders met to consider removing John Willard completely as a General Authority and even debated excommunication.[30]  The problem was that John Willard, while clearly not living in harmony with church teachings, still had numerous connections to business and political leaders in the east.  His business with the railroad and his efforts to assist with Utah receiving Statehood were still of great importance to the church.  The problem, however, was the fact that John Willard continued to spend with reckless abandon and relied on unethical practices when it came to his business/political ties.  As John Willard stated in several letters to church leaders, “My conscience is clear in buying men to do good, but not to do wrong,” and “I think almost any judge or particularly obnoxious official can be removed if we go about it in the right way.”[31]

   

And though his connections proved beneficial, John Willard Young’s conduct became too much for church leaders to stomach.  With a personal history replete with examples of wanton spending, unethical dealings and scandalous sexual promiscuity, the church eventually decided to take action.[32]  The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, in a meeting prior to the commencement of the October, 1891 General Conference, once again took up the question of what to do with the wayward John Willard Young.  Fortunately for church leaders, their repeated letters of reprimand became too great an annoyance for John Willard, who finally replied with an official letter of resignation from his position as a General Authority.[33]  John Willard continued to carry the title of an ordained apostle (there was little church leaders could do about that) but for now he was done as a General Authority.

Pride Goeth Before the Fall

The story of John Willard Young doesn’t end here.  Being removed as a General Authority did not therefore mean that John Willard no longer had standing within the church hierarchy.  Bearing in mind the precedent of apostolic succession implemented by Brigham Young (i.e. the date of ordination as an apostle being the determining factor in seniority), John Willard was still very much a concern for church leadership. 

The question of how to deal with this dilemma remained on the back burner until 1898.  By then, Presidents John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff had passed away, thereby making Lorenzo Snow the church’s 5^th president.  The issue of what to do with John Willard took center stage in December of the following year when Apostle Franklin D. Richards, President of the Quorum of the Twelve, passed away.  John Willard Young, the unruly, indifferent and indulgent apostle since the age of eleven, was now the senior apostle behind President Snow.[34]       

For President Lorenzo Snow, now age 85 and in failing health, the prospect of John Willard becoming his successor was simply unacceptable, but since John Willard remained an ordained apostle having never been excommunicated, he still had the only legitimate case to be made as it pertained to apostolic seniority.  The obvious issue was John Willard was completely unliked and totally untrustworthy, which was more than enough justification for Lorenzo Snow to make what was arguably his greatest contribution as church president.  On April 5, 1900, in a private meeting with his counselors, Lorenzo Snow made a slight but dramatic change to the way apostolic succession would be determined (which continues to be the standard to this day).  Snow claimed that apostolic seniority was to be based exclusively on date of entrance into the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and that date of apostolic ordination was no longer to be considered.[35]  As a result, John Willard Young went from being the most senior apostle to having no seniority at all. He may have served as a member of the First Presidency and as a “Counselor to the Twelve,” but John Willard was never officially a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  Ironically this meant that Joseph F. Smith, John Willard’s nemesis who had been ordained an apostle by his father, Brigham, was now the heir apparent to the church presidency. 

News of the change fell heavy on John Willard, who not only had been making preparations for his triumphant return to Utah, but hoped that his new position would alleviate his financial situation.  Since returning to New York, John Willard’s personal finances had become a disaster.  No longer could he look to his rich father for aid, and the prospect of becoming church president was the only remaining card John Willard had to play.

The final years in the life of John Willard Young are anything but joyful.  Having squandered all of his money and burned all remaining bridges with church, business and political leaders, John Willard was left destitute.  He had ruined all relationships with his former wives (divorcing 4 of them and separating from 1).  All subsequent letters for aid to former colleagues in both New York and Utah went unanswered.[36]   As a result, John Willard Young spent his final years living in an obscure New York apartment and working as an elevator operator in an upscale hotel he once frequented.[37]  He was now estranged from all his former wives and children, friends and associates.  His favorite son, Hopper, was eventually sentenced to twenty years in Sing Sing Prison for his role in the death of Anna Pulitzer.  One of John Willard’s former wives wrote, “My children will never know in this life what the word father means.”[38]

John Willard Young died of cancer on February 24, 1924.  Though he regularly continued to attend his local branch, where he enjoyed flaunting his ordination as an apostle by the hand of his father, Brigham, church authorities in the area wrote that he “died without a friend in the world.”[39]  John Willard’s son, Hooper, finished his twenty-year prison sentence and returned to Utah, where he briefly met up with distant family members and tried to cash in on his family name.  He then promptly left Utah and was never heard from again.

 

And thus ends the curious case of John Willard Young.

Concluding Comments 

The life of John Willard Young is undoubtedly seen in a different light depending on who is acting as audience.  For the skeptic, John Willard Young is the textbook case to prove that the position of apostle is nothing more than a mere title bestowed by human conceit.  For the believer, John Willard Young forces us to reconsider what truly qualifies a person to the status of “Prophet, Seer and Revelator.”  Clearly the prerequisites are much more than mere ordination, which is but a formality, akin to a political oath of office, and does not guarantee the blessings of heaven. 

      

And while his story may seem too offensive to merit greater attention, I believe it is vital that we avoid the desire to sweep the story of John Willard Young under the rug.  After all, pretending that his life never took place does nobody any good.  John Willard Young was not simply a “Faux pax Prophet” or mere blemish in an otherwise perfect church.  Instead, like it or not, John Willard Young is a litmus test for every leader, every saint, every sinner, every calling and every member.   One may possess impeccable charm, spectacular charisma, unlimited intellect, infinite wealth, or noble ancestral heritage but none of that supersedes the basic building blocks of human potential: unwavering integrity, humble virtue, thoughtful charity, and selfless character.

 

It is more than likely that John Willard Young’s story will remain on the fringe of the Mormon narrative and rightfully so.  The church, like any institution, has the right to put its best foot forward to the world.  But for those who choose to swim further out into the current, John Willard Young is a story that spawns deep struggle.  After all, his story exposes some of the less-than-pleasant attributes of his famous father, Brigham Young, who himself walked a thin line between totalitarian dictator and humble prophet.  John Willard’s story brings to light the struggle that exists in the halls of power of every institution, regardless of its mission, and the many mistakes that result from human frailty.  And finally, John Willard’s story reminds us that the chasm dividing success and failure is not as wide as we sometimes believe.  After all, John Willard Young was, for a time, literally a heartbeat away from becoming President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints!  That he died friendless and penniless in a humble New York apartment is probably the outcome nobody expected, least of all his father.   Perhaps this is why his story matters so much. 

Footnotes:

---

[1] Sir Walter Scott, The Lay of the Last Minstrel. (New York: T.Y. Crowell & Co., 1884.  Originally printed in 1802).  Pp. 13.

[2] I relied heavily upon newspaper articles from the Wellsville Daily Reporter (Wellsville, New York) and the Salt Lake Tribune’s digital archive (Salt Lake City, Utah), from September 23, 1902 to September 30, 1902, in my recreation of the events leading up to the death of Anna Pulitzer and the subsequent arrest of William Hooper Young. 

[3] Charles W. Watson, John Willard Young and the 1887 Movement for Utah Statehood.  Ph.D. Dissertation, Brigham Young University, Dept. of History, 1984.  (WorldCat database, Denver Public Library).  Pp. 32-34.  A special thanks to the library staff of the Denver Public Library and the Pikes Peak Library for their help in obtaining Watson’s Ph.D. dissertation, which proved to be a fountain of valuable information.

[4]Ibid, Pp. 34.  

[5] The Journal of Wilford Woodruff (1858-78), as cited in Todd Compton’s John Willard Young, Brigham Young, and the Development of Presidential Succession in the LDS Church. Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 35 (4) Pp. 111-134.

 

[6] Compton, John Willard Young, Pp. 120.

 

[7] Ibid, Pp.120-121.

 

[8] Roger Launius, Joseph Smith III: Pragmatic Prophet (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1995).  Reference the first two chapters for more on the ordinations of various members of Joseph Smith’s family.  It is also noteworthy that both Hyrum and Joseph, Sr.’s callings carried with them the titles of “Prophet, Seer and Revelator” and both men were sustained as such. 

 

[9] Compton, John Willard Young, Pp. 133.

 

[10] D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997). Pp. 163-64.

 

[11] Brigham Young to John Willard Young, Oct. 26, 1874.  As cited in Compton, John Willard Young, Pp. 121, footnote #27.

 

[12] Quinn, Mormon Hierarchy, 2085.  If we consider the interest on this amount, John Willard Young was receiving approximately $100,000 a year by today’s standards, from church tithing funds. 

 

[13] Watson, John Willard Young, Pp. 218.

 

[14] Compton, John Willard Young, Pp. 132.

 

[15] Watson, John Willard Young, Pp. 135-36.

 

[16] John Turner, Brigham Young: Pioneer Prophet.  (Belknap Press, 2012), Pp. 384.  Amazon Kindle Edition. Turner mentions how the Salt Lake Tribune regularly ridiculed both Brigham, Jr. and John Willard for problems relating to the Word of Wisdom, marital strife, including John Willard’s multiple divorces and his endless reliance upon his father for monetary aid.

 

[17] Compton, John Willard Young, Pp. 123.

 

[18] The Mormons: Brigham Young’s Choice of Successor.  St. Louis Globe-democrat. Vol.2, no.154. December 8, 1876.

 

[19] The Chicago Daily Tribune, October 14, 1876, Pp. 9, column 7.

 

[20] Compton, John Willard Young, Pp. 114-121.  Compton provides excellent detail into many of the specific issues surrounding apostolic succession, both before and after the death of Joseph Smith.  For a more detailed account of these specific issues I refer you to his work. 

 

[21] Compton, John Willard Young, Pp. 124.  Reference footnote #40.

 

[22] Letter from John Willard Young to the Saints of the St. George Stake of Zion, April 11, 1874.  Original letter in the possession of the Brigham Young University, Harold B. Lee Library.  A special thanks to the staff of both the Harold B. Lee Library and the Pikes Peak Library for their assistance in helping me obtain a copy version of this letter via inter-library loan.

 

[23] Compton, John Willard Young, Pp. 131.

 

[24] Quinn, Mormon Hierarchy, Pp. 40.

[25] Turner, Brigham Young, Pp. 382. 

 

[26] For a more apologetic look into the final years of Brigham Young’s presidency and many of the precedents he established, reference William G. Hartley, The Priesthood Reorganizastion of 1877: Brigham Young’s Last Achievement, Brigham Young University Studies (1991) Pp. 57-80.

 

[27] Quinn, Mormon Hierarchy, Pp. 40-41.

 

[28] Compton, John Willard Young, Pp.124.

 

[29] Matthew J. Grow and Ronald W. Walker, The Prophet and the Reformer: The Letters of Brigham Young and Thomas L. Kane.  (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015).  Pp. 508-512.

 

[30] Compton, John Willard Young, Pp. 125.

 

[31] Reference Watson, John Willard Young, Pp. 77-80, and Compton, John Willard Young, Pp. 125, footnote #43.

 

[32] For more on the sexual allegations against John Willard Young see Watson, John Willard Young, Pp. 9-16.  Also reference Quinn, Mormon Hierarchy, Pp. 720. 

[33] Compton, John Willard Young, Pp. 125.

 

[34] Ibid, Pp. 126.

 

[35] Ibid, Pp. 127.

 

[36] Quinn, Mormon Hierarchy, Pp. 720.

 

[37] Watson, John Willard Young, 267.

 

[38] Compton, John Willard Young, 126.

[39] Ibid, Pp. 130.

The New Mormon Hymnal: What Must Stay and What Must Go

Rumors have been swirling for several month regarding the possible changes to the Mormon hymnal, which was last updated in 1985. Even one of my favorite Mormon bloggers, Janna Riess, has got in on the action.  As she aptly points out, these are rumors and nothing more.  We have yet to hear anything concrete regarding a new Mormon hymnal.

But what if we did get a 21st century Mormon hymnal?  What changes would we see?

With this in mind, I am going to enter the world of the hypothetical and assume that I have been charged with the task of producing a new Mormon hymnal.  The guidelines I have been given are simple:


1.) Choose 10 uniquely Mormon hymns to be labeled "classics" that will stand forever.
2.) Choose 10 hymns to be tossed out and banished forever.
3.) Choose 10 new songs to be added to the new hymnal.

So, without further delay, I offer my amendments for the new Mormon hymnal (all ranked 10 to 1 in order of importance):

10 Uniquely Mormon "Classic" Hymns

10.) Our Savior's Love: Hymn #113
So this selection has a family bias to it.  "Our Savior's Love" was written by Edward Hart, a somewhat distant relative of mine.  With that being said, I still believe it is a wonderful hymn that so many Mormons today enjoy.  It's a good one to start off our list of "Mormon Classics."

9.) Called to Serve: Hymn #249
Any Mormon who has served a mission (or who hasn't served) knows the significance of "Called to Serve."  It's a no-brainer selection.

8.) I Believe in Christ: Hymn #134
For as unpopular as McConkie was when it came to Mormon doctrine, the hymn he wrote is timeless.

7.) Love One Another: Hymn #308
Simple but beautiful.  "Love One Another" is a perfect example of the fact that hymns don't have to be complex or carry elaborate lyrics in order to be meaningful.

6.) If You Could Hie to Kolob: Hymn #284
Initially I intended to add this song to the "gone forever" list because...how do I put this...it's a REALLY WEIRD song!  "If You Could Hie to Kolob" touches on one of the most bizarre aspects of Mormon doctrine that comes from one of the most bizarre books of scripture. Abraham, chapter 3 states that God lives on a planet orbiting a star named Kolob.  With that being said, "If You Could Hie to Kolob" is still a beautiful hymn that is uniquely Mormon, perhaps more so than any other hymn out there.

5.) The Spirit of God: Hymn #2
This hymn has been a favorite going all the way back to the beginnings of the church itself.  "The Spirit of God" was originally sung at the Kirtland Temple dedication and has been sung ever since.

4.) I Am a Child of God: Hymn #301
This hymn is a favorite of kids and adults. Originally a Primary children's song, "I Am a Child of God" was so popular that it became an  official hymn in 1958 and has remained ever since!

3.) O My Father (or as it was originally titled, "The Eternal Father and Mother"): Hymn #292
Arguably Eliza R. Snow's best hymn, "O My Father" is powerful, touching and illustrates some of the best aspects of Mormon doctrine that exist.

2.) Where Can I Turn For Peace?: Hymn #129
This is my favorite hymn in the world and another biased (but I believe still solid) selection.  It is loved by almost all Mormons.

1.) Come, Come Ye Saints: Hymn #30 If there were to be a "Mormon National Anthem" chances are this would be it!

10 Hymns to be Removed Forever

10.) Adam-ondi-Ahman: Hymn #49
W.W. Phelps is arguably the greatest contributor to the Mormon hymnal.  He wrote a number of gems (a couple in our list above) but he also wrote some disasters, namely "Adam-ondi-Ahman," which touches on another less-than-pleasant tidbit of Mormon doctrine. We almost never sing it so I don't think it will be terribly missed.

9.) There is Sunshine in My Soul Today: Hymn #227
It's upbeat, happy and a popular hymn, but "There is Sunshine in My Soul Today" probably isn't the most appropriate hymn for a Sunday worship.  Why?  Because, frankly, there isn't sunshine in everyone's soul.  Some people go through really tough trials in life and a song like this can do more harm than good.  We would all do well to not assume that everyone is blissfully happy all of the time. We need to be more sensitive than that.

8.) Sons of Michael, He Approaches: Hymn #51
Another weird hymn about another weird tidbit of Mormon history. But nobody should mind because it's another dead song that is almost never sung to begin with.

7.) Onward Christian Soldiers: Hymn #246
I think we can safely say that mingling religious rhetoric with war rhetoric isn't the best course of action in the 21st century.  I love "Onward Christian Soldiers" as much as the next guy (at least in terms of the music) but the message needs to go. Singing "Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war. With the cross of Jesus, going on before" isn't necessarily a bad thing, but we can do better.

6.) Put Your Shoulder to the Wheel: Hymn #252
I have always loathed this hymn. Work, work work, It all depends on work!  No room for grace, no room for mercy.  Work, work, work, work, work.  Salvation depends on us!  For all of Mormonism's preaching about works, we sure do forget the importance of grace, and this song does that better than most!  It's gotta go.

5.) In Our Lovely Deseret: Hymn #307
Yet another weird song about weird points of doctrine. Besides, it's too bubbly, to strange and too infantile to be considered a hymn (my apologies to Eliza R. Snow).  Any song that sings, "Tea and coffee and tobacco they despise" and "eat very little meat" isn't a hymn for worship. It's a piece of propaganda and rhetoric. It's outta here!

4.) Joseph Smith's First Prayer: Hymn #26
Yes, I know I am going to catch some major crap for eliminating this very popular hymn but hear me out. One of the charges often levied against Mormons is that we worship Joseph Smith.  I refute these charges but also understand how somebody could feel that way.  This hymn tends to support the skeptic's claim.  Besides, Joseph's "First Vision" isn't exactly a clear-cut piece of doctrine.  After all, which version of the First Vision are we talking about?  Or how about the fact that most early Mormons never even heard of the "First Vision?"  It's just not the best hymn for the 21st century church.

3.) Families Can Be Together Forever: Hymn #300
Another popular hymn that most will want to keep but I still maintain needs to go.  Sure, it's inspiring, meaningful, touching and pleasing...so long as you fit the traditional Mormon mold.  But what if you don't?  What if you're a single mom? A partial member family?  A family with individuals who hate or no longer participate in the church?  In that case, "Families Can Be Together Forever" is a painful song that has little appeal.  Plus, not everyone wants to be "with my own family."

2.) Hope of Israel: Hymn #259
Talk about a hymn that REALLY needs to go!!!  "Hope of Israel" is full of lyrics that promote war and violence, yet very few see it.  Consider:

"Hope of Israel, Zion's army...Now the victory we must win...Every stroke disarms a foeman, every step we conquering go.

And the terrible chorus:

"Hope of Israel rise in might. with the song of truth and right.  Sound the war cry, watch and pray.  Vanquish every foe today."

Need I say more?  For the 21st century it isn't needed.  Time to go!!!

1.) Praise to the Man: Hymn #27
For as long as I can remember, "Praise to the Man" has been my least favorite Mormon hymn.  I realize it is popular with most, but as I mentioned above, the charge that we worship Joseph Smith is harder to refute when we regularly sing a hymn like this.  As Jana Riess states:

If I could jettison just one song from our repertoire, by God it would be this one—and it’s a shame, because the tune is fabulous and the tempo brisk, unlike the more snail-like LDS hymns. But this theology is simply awful. How is it that Mormons can insist up and down and until Tuesday that we don’t worship the prophet and yet continue to sing this hymn? Here the recently deceased Joseph Smith is communing with Jehovah, mingling with gods, and making plans on our behalf from heaven...kind of like God makes plans for us from heaven. Even worse, the song is all about how we need to glorify Joseph Smith, not God: “Kings shall extol him, and nations revere.” I realize this hymn has already been made slightly less vengeful and bloody from a 1927 revision, but that’s not enough: the whole concept of this song is about worshiping a human being. Only God deserves our worship. End of story.

I couldn't agree more!


10 Hymns to be Added to New Hymnal

10.) Beautiful Savior
This ABSOLUTELY GORGEOUS German hymn has been around for at least 3 centuries. Though the Mormon Tabernacle Choir has performed it on multiple occasions, "Beautiful Savior" is still not in the Mormon hymnal...and it should be.  Sample of the song by clicking here.

9.) I'm Trying to be Like Jesus
This is a favorite Primary song of almost all Mormons and it's high time it became a hymn!  My favorite rendition of this song is here.

8.) O Come O Come Emanuel
One of the best Christmas hymns ever, yet for whatever reason not in the Mormon hymnal.  DUMB!!!!  M y favorite version of this hymn is here.

7.) The Resurrection Day
I couldn't find an online version of this hymn but it's awesome.  It was also Brigham Young's favorite hymn.

6.) Swing Low, Sweet Chariot
We Mormons would GREATLY benefit from some cultural diversity.  We're just too damned "whited and delightsome" as the Book of Mormon states.  =)  We need some soul, and this has always been one of my favorite African spirituals.  Since jazz is my favorite form of music, it's hard to beat this rendition of "Swing Low, Sweet Chariot."

5.) Holy, Holy, Holy
Here's another MASSIVE Christian classic that we've turned our back on.  It's legendary, has an amazing message and is quite old.  Written in the early 19th century by Reginald Heber, "Holy, Holy, Holy has been a part of almost every Christian worship...except ours.  Here's MoTab singing it,

4.) O Holy Night
Yet another no-brainer.  Why isn't this song in the hymnal?  Enough said.  My favorite version of "O Holy Night" here.

3.) Homeward Bound
Probably not well known to many Mormons but an instant classic that I completely love. "Homeward Bound' was written not long ago, actually in 1998 by a middle school music teacher named Marta Keen Thompson.  The song exploded and was even sung by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.  It would make for an awesome addition to our hymnal.  Song by clicking here.

2.) Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing
It's just stupid that this hymn isn't in our hymnal.  I don't know what else needs to be said.  MoTab singing it here.

1.) Amazing Grace
The greatest idiocy of our current hymnal is the absence of "Amazing Grace." I'm sure John Newton is turning in his grave over the fact that we shunned his timeless song.  The hymn that inspired the great William Wilberforce and has become arguably the most popular Christian hymn in the world BELONGS IN OUR DAMN HYMNAL!!!  Period, end of discussion!

We should include the bagpipes as well!

Lost in the Shuffle: Sikhism and the Partition of India

On a warm June day in 1984, a large military force made up of Indian soldiers under the command of Sikh General Kuldip Singh Brar, made their way through the Punjab Region to the city of Amristar. Their goal: the removal of Sikh militants loyal to Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, a religious and political revolutionary who had been a vehement advocate for Sikh sovereignty. In what became known as Operation Blue Star, the Indian military swiftly and violently attacked Sikhs throughout the city. The military operation even saw soldiers forcibly attacking Sikh leaders located inside of the Harmandir Sahib (the Golden Temple), the holiest of Sikh edifices. In total, the carnage brought on by Operation Blue Star ended the lives of at least 500 Sikh civilians, and subsequently ignited the fires of further anti-Sikh riots. In the end, it would be considered one of the greatest massacres of Sikhs since the Sikh Holocaust of 1762 (Deol 101-103).

 India’s violent opposition made manifest through Operation Blue Star is far from the only occasion in which Sikhs have found themselves in the crosshairs of their enemies. Dating all the way back to the early critical formative years of the Partition of India (and even earlier), Sikhs have been engaged in a virtual tug-o-war with their Muslim and Hindu neighbors. It was during the formation of both modern day Pakistan and India that Sikhs found themselves desperately trying to pick up any and all scraps of what little remaining sovereignty they could, but for the most part, their efforts proved futile and even paved the way for future hostilities.

To better understand why Sikhs have experienced such vicious animosity from their neighbors, we must endeavor to uncover the nucleus of where and how hostilities began. First, it is important to recognize that Sikhs have a long and proud history in the Punjab Region dating back to the early 15th century. As historian Eleanor Nesbitt points out in her book, Sikhism: A Very Short Introduction: Sikhs’ sense of community is not just a matter of interacting with, and feeling distinct from, the other major religious constituencies of North India. It also has strong regional roots. The family origins of almost all Sikhs, wherever in the world they now live, are in Punjab…Any exposition of ‘Sikhism’ that omits the significance of Punjab for Sikhs is incomplete, especially as Punjab has come to be regarded as the spiritual homeland for Sikhs everywhere (8).

It is of paramount importance that we recognize the special place Punjab carries in the hearts of Sikhs the world over. As a Sikh Mecca of sorts, Punjab serves as both the historical and religious homeland for Sikhs. Without it, the religion and its adherents would have a difficult time establishing their unique heritage and culture.

When Partition became a reality, the natural concern for Sikhs centered on the fate of their native land and the place they would have in it. It is no mystery that the Punjab Region played a center stage in the drama of Indian partition. Sikhs, Muslims and Hindus all boasted the right to govern the region. In his article, “Sikh Failure on the Partition of Punjab 1947,” Akhtar Hussain Sandhu states: Muslims and Sikhs had both been ruling communities of the Punjab, therefore both were confident to claim their political inheritance when the British decided to depart from India…Islam came from Arabia and many Muslims from other countries had settled in the Punjab, while Sikhism was an indigenous religion and its followers were purely local people, which convinced them to claim the region as Sikh homeland (215). And though Sikh claims to the Punjab on the basis of it being their native soil were legit, they did not pacify Muslim or Hindu assertions for control of the Punjab Region. Both India and Pakistan laid claim to the area and fought vehemently for control over it. Historian Yasmin Khan alludes to this fact in her book, The Great Partition, when she writes: “Punjab…was the bloody battlefield of Partition where by far the greatest number of massacres of Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims occurred" (Khan, Introduction).

Though having made strong initial claims for their right to control the Punjab Region, Sikhs were finding themselves increasingly on the fringe of the Partition debate. A lack of cohesiveness throughout their ranks, coupled with poor leadership stymied any hope Sikhs might have had of advancing their hopes and desires. As Akhtar Hussain Sandhu states: The land of the five rivers could not produce a leader of national caliber in all the communities, and this resulted in havoc at the critical juncture of history. The Punjabi leadership seemed satiated with their personal benefits in the domains of the Punjab. The Sikh leadership also became victim of this traditional weakness. Moreover, they had to deal with the competent leadership of M. A. Jinnah, M. K. Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, which put them in a defensive position (227).

This general lack of leadership and direction on the part of Sikh authorities made any push for sovereignty a futile enterprise. Sikh officials, who spent more time arguing with one another as opposed to asserting any push for actual sovereignty, saw their chances at shaping Partition in their favor slip right through their fingers.

Instead of using the Partition debate as a platform to assert Sikh sovereignty, Sikh leaders began jockeying for position between the emerging Pakistani and Indian players in an effort to determine which nation would better support Sikh interests. Extreme skepticism of Muslim intentions, particularly those of the Muslim League, sparked contentions between Sikh leaders and Muslim leadership. As a result, Sikhs felt more comfortable in supporting Indian claims and advocated for a division of the Punjab Region that would include Indian control. Simply put, Indian interests were far more in harmony with Sikh desires (Sandhu 224).

It therefore comes as no surprise to discover that tensions between Sikhs and Muslims in Punjab became contentious and downright violent in the wake of Partition negotiations. And while the majority of the violence manifested itself as a Hindu/Muslim dispute, Sikhs were far from exempt from the brutality. In fact, this tragic tale of violence is very much at the “core of any history of Partition” (Khan, Chapter 7). Countless scores of refugees fell victim to the killings, rapes and mutilations that will forever stain the history of Partition. The rape accounts alone are hideous enough to make even the coldest blood boil. Stories of women’s corpses, their genitalia dismembered with teeth marks buried deep into their skin are more common than one would expect (Khan, Chapter 7).

And though they were regular recipients of this kind of aforementioned violence, Sikhs were far from having their own hands clean. Violence was a regular tool on both sides, and many Sikhs resorted to using aggressive measures against their Muslim neighbors “on an unprecedented scale” that could only be rivaled by the violence of the 18th century (Nesbitt 122). Sikh violence would continue even into the post-Partition era, and transition from Muslim to Hindu foes. A good example of Sikh violence would be the retaliation for Operation Blue Star which came in the form of the assassination of Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi by two of her Sikh bodyguards (Deol 91).

For Sikhs, what emerges from this long history of violence during Partition is a sense of lost opportunity. Not only did Sikh leadership fail to take a more active role during the Partition debates, but they failed to unify Sikhs themselves. It would take several more years before Sikhs became galvanized to a collective cause under newer, more inspired leadership. But by then India (and Pakistan) had emerged as the dominant players, while Sikhs were little more than a decent sized minority group. Nevertheless, Sikhs had evolved “from an ethnic community into a nation” by the latter years of the 20th century (Deol 4). By the time of Operation Blue Star, Indian authorities were well aware that Sikhs were beginning to assert their desire for greater sovereignty.

But the question remaining is, has the ship already sailed on the issue of Sikh sovereignty? Did Sikhs miss their opportunity when Britain pulled out of its former colonies and relinquished control to local communities? The relatively recent push for greater sovereignty seems to suggest that at the very least Sikhs recognize that they squandered a golden opportunity to have better secured their interests. The question now is, will Sikhs seize the opportunities afforded them in the here and now to bolster support for their cause? If anything is certain from the history of Indian Partition it is this: the matter seems far from resolved. Only time will tell how future generations of Sikhs seek to protect their interests in their land of the five rivers.

Works Cited:

Deol, Harnik. Religion and Nationalism in India: The Case of the Punjab. New York: Routledge Press, 2000. Print.

Khan, Yasmin. The Great Partition: The Making of India and Pakistan. London: Yale University Press, 2007. Amazon Kindle edition.

Nesbitt, Eleanor. Sikhism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Print.

Sandhu, Akhtar Hussain. “Sikh Failure on the Partition of Punjab in 1947.” Journal of Punjab Studies vol. 19, no. 2. (2013): Pp. 215-232. Web. . Accessed 15 August, 2015.

Letter to a Believer and a Doubter: Why (and How) I Choose to Stay Mormon

Every once in a while (and especially over the past month) I get asked the question, "Why do you post material that is critical of the church on your Facebook wall?"

That's a fair question. After all, oftentimes those with an axe to grind will post articles, pictures, memes, etc. that are intended to throw a jab or two at the Mormon religion (or any other religion for that matter). Why else would somebody post material that doesn't present Mormonism in the very best light possible? Or articles that lead the reader to ask himself/herself difficult questions that perhaps haven't been considered before?

I have been accused of being "apostate" or "deceived by Satan" probably a dozen times in the past couple of years. The accusations have come in the form of emails, Facebook comments and even being stopped in the halls of church itself. My response is usually offering a smile (unless I'm really pissed off and go into cop mode) and asking the question, "What sort of material do you think I should be posting?" The question appears to be interpreted as being rhetorical in nature, as I have yet to receive an actual response. Maybe the other person just doesn't want to "go there" and in the interest of keeping the peace they drop the matter entirely. If so, I salute them. "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God."

But I can't drop it and let me tell you why.

Along with those emails accusing me of apostasy, I have also received correspondence (probably three times as much) from others who share (sometimes in the strictest of confidence) their own personal struggles with church history/doctrine. They (like me) desperately look for others with whom they can express their sincere doubts, honest questions and heartfelt struggle without being accused or blamed of heresy. Usually these individuals (like me) have felt that traditional church members and church leaders were "unsafe" outlets and that full disclosure of genuine struggle over church matters could lead to more problems than solutions. As one friend has said (and I share with his/her permission), "Opening up to ward members and ward leaders is like asking Mike Tyson to take it easy on you in the ring."

By no means am I some popular guy with a following. My blog gets, at best, 50-75 hits a day and most of those are random Google searches from people who don't even know me. I'm not John Dehlin or Seth Adam Smith and I don't want to be. I write this blog because...well...I enjoy writing. Writing is an outlet and a hobby for me. I don't care who reads my material to be quite honest. But contrary to what those who accuse me of apostasy may believe, I actually do have some friends and family members and I do care deeply about them. In addition, I do care about and understand those few who have reached out to me to express their earnest desire to better comprehend the complexities of Mormon history and theology that are usually eschewed by the...shall we say..."correlated" majority. I have experienced those long, dark, empty, yet somehow sacred nights in which you can feel your soul hurt in a way you didn't think possible, and in a way few members understand. I understand the desire to sincerely dissect the issues, weight the evidence, and engage in open and safe dialogue so as to better understand the questions that naturally arise. I've been there and in some ways continue to be there.

So, in short, this is why I post "un-correlated" material (on occasion) on my Facebook wall.  I say "un-correlated" because I want to be VERY clear on a couple of things:

1.) I DO NOT have a bone to pick with the church! I am a Mormon and love being a Mormon. I sustain the local and general leaders (and I'm glad I don't have their responsibilities) and I believe (perhaps in my own unique way) in the core doctrines of the faith. I cherish my membership and the many opportunities that my participating in this faith has given me throughout my life.

2.) I believe that the greatest threats to Mormonism today are not the critics, the doubters, the skeptics, the haters, the liars, the bitter ex-Mormons or the Jack Mormons (we've had all these types for over a century now). Instead I believe that in many instances, the greatest threat to Mormonism are Mormons themselves. In short, we are sometimes our worst enemy because we simply do not or will not understand those outside of our own secure little Mormon bubble.

The "un-correlated" material to which I refer is meant to elicit a meaningful dialogue, or at least to spark some deeper thought on the part of the reader (that is my hope). It is not meant to attack belief but instead to better understand it (again, that is my hope). But most important, it is meant to extend a hand of friendship and understanding to those who struggle. I for one am unwilling to hide behind the traditional "popcorn popping on the apricot tree" rhetoric and say that "all is well in Zion." There are members out there (a growing number of them) who have real doubts and concerns that aren't the result of sin, giving into Satan or failing to read their Book of Mormon and have family prayer daily. Their doubts and concerns exist because...wait for it...there are legitimate, fundamental and substantial questions to be had! Ignoring, downplaying or pretending that the doubts of others don't exist does absolutely nothing to help them in their plight. In fact, it only makes things worse. In short, there are just as many good reasons to doubt as there are to believe the truth claims of the church. Or as Terryl Givens puts it,

The call to faith is a summons to engage the heart, to attune it to resonate in sympathy with principles and values and ideals that we devoutly hope are true and which we have reasonable but not certain grounds for believing to be true.  There must be grounds for doubt as well as belief, in order to render the choice more truly a choice, and therefore the more deliberate, and laden with personal vulnerability and investment. An overwhelming preponderance of evidence on either side would make our choice as meaningless as would a loaded gun pointed at our heads. The option to believe must appear on one’s personal horizon like the fruit of paradise, perched precariously between sets of demands held in dynamic tension. Fortunately, in this world, one is always provided with sufficient materials out of which to fashion a life of credible conviction or dismissive denial. We are acted upon, in other words, by appeals to our personal values, our yearnings, our fears, our appetites, and our egos. What we choose to embrace, to be responsive to, is the purest reflection of who we are and what we love. That is why faith, the choice to believe, is, in the final analysis, an action that is positively laden with moral significance.

The desire to believe is not somehow more virtuous than the capacity for doubt, just as the capacity for doubt is not more virtuous than the desire to believe. Instead of seeing belief and doubt as opposing rival forces we should see them as the gatekeepers to the human heart. Again from Terryl Givens:

The call to faith, in this light, is not some test of a coy god, waiting to see if we "get it right." It is the only summons, issued under the only conditions, which can allow us fully to reveal who we are, what we most love, and what we most devoutly desire. Without constraint, without any form of mental compulsion, the act of belief becomes the freest possible projection of what resides in our hearts. Like the poet’s image of a church bell that only reveals its latent music when struck, or a dragonfly that only flames forth its beauty in flight, so does the content of a human heart lie buried until action calls it forth. The greatest act of self-revelation occurs when we choose what we will believe, in that space of freedom that exists between knowing that a thing is, and knowing that a thing is not.

In other words, the virtual tug-of-war between faith and doubt serves as a litmus test in which both faith and doubt act as virtues so long as they are both put in check. After all, having faith for the sake of faith is no virtue but instead is merely blind obedience and acceptance of what one has been told. The same is true of doubt. Electing to disbelieve, without recognizing the true virtues of honest faith, is a living example of anti-religious bias.

So what is it that I would want both the traditional believing Mormon (particularly those who accuse me of apostasy) and the sincere doubter (who occasionally emails me) to know? Above all I would hope that they would be able and willing to sit down with one another and accept one another for who they are. Sadly this rarely ever happens because both sides arrive fully loaded to the meeting. The believer is oftentimes unwilling to concede that there is ever a legitimate reason to doubt the truth claims of the church, while the doubter is oftentimes unwilling to concede that faith can and does trump reason in many instances. As a result, such a meeting ends with each camp delivering its "go to" trump card to the other and both parties departing with a greater belief that ultimate truth is on their side.  

But again, they both miss the point of both faith and doubt. As stated above, faith and doubt are NOT enemies but rather polar ends to a powerful battery that when allowed to work as designed can provide the energy to bring about great things.  

I realize that I am not going to solve this battle today and I don't want to even try. Instead, I want to leave both the traditional believing Mormon and the doubting Mormon with some of the reasons that I remain a happy and believing member of the church. After all, the reasons for choosing to stay or leave any faith are personal, so I can only speak to those things that I have experienced and that work for me. I post them here in the hopes that the true believing Mormon will be able to better understand my perspective (without resorting to the "apostasy" nonsense), and so the honest doubter will know of how I am able to "make it work." These core beliefs that I cling to are probably not your traditional "Sunday School" doctrines, but they are all VERY Mormon nonetheless. They have given me a working template on which I hope to continually build a stronger and more meaningful connection to the divine.

So, without further delay, here is my "Letter to a Believer and a Doubter."

-----------------------------------------

Dear friend,

I know that it can be tedious to talk about religion these days. We live in a world where attention spans are often short, tempers are often hot, and any measure of disagreement is met with swift and severe rebuking. We've created an "Us v. Them" dichotomy on almost every important stage of society which prohibits us from engaging in meaningful dialogue that I believe we all are craving. We lock ourselves into our safe little homes, away from our neighbors, and drown out the loneliness with partisan talk radio, apocalyptic politicians/evangelists and self help books that fail because they focus on "self" rather than on "others." In short, we have become increasingly convinced that our safe little worlds are the only remaining bastions of truth in a decaying world. We cling to them tighter than the day before because to let go of our death grip on being right is simply out of the question. We discriminate when it comes to who we let in to our safe little worlds based on how much they agree with us, because disagreement (in the enlightened modern world) has become the new scarlet letter.

And it doesn't matter what the disagreement is about. In today's world, a friend who espouses an opposing political opinion, religious creed, NFL team or diet plan is quickly dismissed. Such an enemy is "de-friended" on Facebook faster and more arbitrarily than an Internet pop-up ad. Our need to be right has made us slaves to ignorance and enemies to tolerance.   

Despite these modern cultural shifts I believe that the human heart is still very much the same as it has always been. Even though our attention is easily distracted by the newest cell phone, Facebook comment or Star Wars trailer, what we crave most is connection and reconciliation. In short, what technology and society try to give us most (greater connection and convenience) is where they deliver the least. Wal-Mart isn't a friendly experience, social media doesn't give us a social life and On-Demand media just makes us extra demanding. What we really need is what has always been in front of us:

We need each other.

But my letter today isn't intended to address the social/cultural/technological limitations of our day, so my apologies with the soap box. Instead, I hope to take the concepts mentioned above and extrapolate them to the matter at hand: how can a true believing Mormon better accept those who don't adhere to their specific world view and how can a doubter who wants to "make it work" find the faith to do so?

First, allow me to address "The Believer"

I'm going to assume that you are a reasonable person who sincerely wants to do the right things for the right reasons. You aren't perfect, of course, but you, like the majority of people in the world, are doing your level best. You want to help others where you can. You want to be open-minded. You want to make a difference in the world.

You are also a person of integrity and for that reason you hold true to that which you believe. This is evidenced more in your religious convictions than in any other part of your life. You have gained a testimony of Joseph Smith, the Restoration and of Jesus Christ's central role in that plan. These are truths that bring you greater joy than anything else in your life. Naturally, you want to share that joy and so you "let your light so shine." You are a caring parent, a loving child, a thoughtful friend and a helping hand. In short, you are an ornament of goodness that proudly hangs from God's tree of life.

You love the church and so you feel the need to protect it whenever it comes under attack. You are aware that the church's history of dealing with persecution is what caused thousands to cross the plains and settle in the West. This legacy of faith is something you cherish, so when anyone challenges the validity of these truths (whether in or out of the church) it is easy and natural for you to want to defend your faith.  

I cannot and will not question your integrity or your motives. I believe they are pure and good. But what I will ask you (for the sake of so many who have struggled) is this: are you truly concerned about your doubting brothers and sisters when they raise issues that you interpret to be attacks on the faith? Yes, you may talk about them in Ward Council Meetings or remember them in your prayers. You've probably ingested all you can from local and General leaders on how best to meet the needs of a doubting member. 

But have you ever listened to them? 

Have you considered the reasons they doubt and struggle? Have you seen the genuine anguish in their face? Have you been able to discern the honest nature of their plight? If so, it should be plain to you that their struggle is not the result of sin, laziness or the buffetings of Satan, and "cookie cutter" solutions (i.e. "just pray more," "fast about it," "read your Book of Mormon") are not what your brother/sister are needing. I'm not suggesting that you give in to their list of grievances or even entertain the specific reasons for their doubts. What I am suggesting is that instead of providing correlated solutions to un-correlated problems you first consider the following:

1.) Resist the Urge to Label Their Struggle as being "Anti-Mormon"

Believe me, they've heard this line before. Many times. And what it really means to the doubter when you say it is, "Your doubts are just silly and unfounded." In reality, the cause of a faith crisis is oftentimes church approved material. Whether it takes the form of the new church essays on difficult gospel topics, the Journal of Discourses or scripture itself doesn't really matter. When you accuse someone of studying "anti-Mormon" material you are cheapening the reason for their struggle.  

2.) Seek to Restore Trust Instead of Attacking the Cause

Regardless of what you might think, the majority of people who endure a faith crisis aren't doing it over trivial matters. Odds are they have done their homework and may even know more about church history/doctrine than you. The natural desire is to attack the cause of the faith crisis by attacking historical arguments themselves. Avoid saying things like, "You're taking things out of context" or "That isn't important for your salvation." Instead, seek to rebuild trust. This is what they are wanting most: a desire to once again trust the church.

3.) Be Open to Sincere Questions

This can be tougher than you think. When a doubting member poses an un-correlated question in Relief Society/Elder's Quorum chances are they want an answer and aren't trying to stir the pot. Assume best intent and avoid the whole, "That isn't an appropriate question for this forum." Really? Church isn't the place to ask these questions? And we wonder why so many seek other outlets to find their answers! To be sure, some questions aren't appropriate, but it really isn't that hard to distinguish between the honest seeker and someone who just wants to stir the pot.  

4.) Separate Church Culture from Church Doctrine

Like any institution, Mormonism has developed its own culture. We do things because it has become "the Mormon way." But make no mistake, many of these things are simply cultural creations. The quickest way to lose a member who is struggling with a faith crisis it to make them feel unwanted by continuing to sustain bogus cultural practices. All should be made to feel welcome in church regardless of dress, opinion, etc. As Elder Uchtdorf taught: "As disciples of Jesus Christ we are united in our testimony of the restored gospel and our commitment to keep God's commandments. But we are diverse in our cultural, social and political preferences. The church thrives when we take advantage of this diversity and encourage each other to develop and use our talents to lift and strengthen our fellow disciples," Just because they aren't Mormon in the way you want them to be (or in the way the majority is) doesn't make much of a difference.  

5.) Take as Much Off the Table as Possible

There are so many historical, scientific and doctrinal issues that we as a church can and should be able to "let go" of and not worry or waste time debating.  Issues like evolution, polygamy in the afterlife, the location of Kolob, etc. are all points that miss the point. Try to avoid defining where the church officially stands on issues that either don't matter or that are impossible to define. Trust me, the doubting member already has plenty on his/her plate. We don't need to add more.

6.) They Can't Go Back but They Can Go Forward

Chances are that any member who endures a crisis of faith is going to be permanently changed. They can't go back and shouldn't be pushed to do so. This may be the hardest thing for a traditional believing member to accept. Once you've peeked through the curtain to see the Wizard of Oz chances are you will never see Oz in the same light again. Instead of sending this person on a guilt trip of shame, help them to move forward in faith. A doubting member cannot unlearn what he/she has learned.  Instead he/she must now seek to find understanding and rebuilt trust. The old frameworks, old expectations and old assumptions aren't coming back and you are wasting time and energy if you endeavor to do so. Instead encourage new paradigms and new ways of understanding.

In conclusion, remember that the "doubter," like any person, is not somebody to be defined, labeled or neatly placed into a box.  He/she is a real person with legitimate reasons for concern. As I mentioned above, there are equally good reasons to doubt the truth claims of the church just as there are equally good reasons to have faith in such claims. Your ability to recognize this fact and to treat the doubting member with love and absolute acceptance will determine a great deal moving forward.

And if they do choose to depart, don't let them depart from you. This is especially true of family members. There is no more pathetic example of Mormon hypocrisy than when a family member is made to feel shunned, marginalized, unwanted or unloved. I'd tell you what I really think of such a person but I want to keep this G-rated. Just remember that your choice to be a "good Mormon" makes you absolutely, positively, no better than the member who chooses to depart (for whatever reason). If you take one thing from my blog today let it be this: love always wins and is always the best policy.

Let me now shift gears and address those who struggle with doubt.

First, let me say that I consider you a kindred spirit. I will never understand everything you deal with but rest assured I understand a good portion of it. I have dealt with my own crisis of faith for over a decade now (reference this blog post for more specifics) and have come to know many of the issues you struggle to understand. I consider you friends and sincerely believe that you represent the best and brightest that Mormonism has to offer.

I admire your ability to look outside of the traditionally prescribed and accepted box of correlated Mormonism and to seek answers for yourself. You recognize the value of honest inquiry and the need for greater intellectual rigor.  You are to be applauded for refusing to "go with the flow" and for daring to ask the question, "What if I/we are wrong?"  Believe me when I say that I wish there were more of you out there in the church.

I know that faith is a difficult concept, especially when you see the many blemishes that obscure the "only true and living church upon the face of the earth." You have uncovered hypocrisy, familiarized yourself with REAL history, recognized the flaws in our theology and endured the finger-pointing of the majority. To borrow from Robert Frost, you have ventured down "the road less traveled" and it has "made all the difference."

Now you are at a crossroad. Do you continue down the path of honest intellectual curiosity and continue to discover the inevitable errors caused by frail and imperfect humans (many who carry the title of "Prophet")?  Do you embrace faith or abandon it completely? Is there even a place for you in a church that sometimes demands conformity?

These are questions only you can answer. Just know that even though you may feel like an outsider or an outcast, there is a place for you in this faith! I don't care what the critics tell you nor am I ignorant of the many who have been excommunicated for "apostasy" because they asked too many questions in a far too public manner. I still maintain (perhaps blindly so) that YOU ARE NEEDED in this church!!! Even if the reason is simply because I need you. I wasn't kidding when I called you a kindred spirit. I feel I can relate more to you than I can to most members.  This is why you matter so much to me. This is why I post the things I post of Facebook. I want you to know that YOU MATTER and your questions/doubts matter too.

I'm going to try and avoid giving you the textbook reasons as to why I stay in the faith. I realize that you are a thoughtful group and I appreciate that fact.  For those reasons, let me provide for you a few of the reasons I choose to stay in the faith, along with a few of the doctrines of Mormonism that I find most sublime.  

I choose to stay for community. Mormonism is my tribe. It is my native language to God. I can no more discard my Mormonism than I can discard my "American-ism." This doesn't mean that I live without struggle. I find the Mormon community to be inspiring and aggravating. Perhaps there is a reason we are organized into wards. It recreates the setting of a family. Families are complex and so are Mormon wards. In the interest of full disclosure my wife and I struggle like crazy with our current ward. We feel marginalized all the time. This struggle, however, doesn't negate the fact that this is my community. Even if I don't feel like it all the time (we hardly feel like it), this is where we ultimately belong.

I realize that this isn't necessarily profound. After all, my Mormon heritage does not oblige me to stay with the faith. I'm free to leave whenever I feel like it. But leaving, at least for me, is akin to admitting defeat. It is giving up on something because I finally discovered that it wasn't what I thought it was. For some, this is more than justifiable reason to leave. If the church isn't what they had been led to believe then the game is up. I get that. But I also believe in learning to appreciate nuance and accepting people and things for who and what they are. Nobody is perfect and all institutions are man-made, meaning they are imperfect as well. If we abandoned everything that wasn't what we hoped it would be, all of us would have to give up on our jobs, our spouses, our children, out parents, etc., etc., etc.

I choose to stay because I believe in change and want to be a part of it. We are a church that is built of the concept of continuing revelation, which really means continual change. Yes, Mormonism sometimes moves slowly and carefully towards that change, but it DOES CHANGE, and I believe for the better. We have become more inclusive, more patient, more tolerant, more loving and I have the hope that we will continue to do just that in the generations to come. The goal is progress, not perfection. I don't expect prophets to bat a perfect 1.000, nor do I expect the church to always get everything right all of the time. I would hate it if somebody gave me that standard so why would I demand it of others? As Elder Jeffrey R. Holland taught:

Except in the case of His only perfect Begotten Son, imperfect people are all God has ever had to work with. That must be terribly frustrating to Him but He deals with it. So should we. And when you see imperfection, remember that the limitation is not the divinity of the work. As one gifted writer has suggested, when the infinite fullness is poured forth, it is not the oil's fault if there is some loss because finite vessels can't quite contain it all. Those finite vessels include you and me, so be patient and kind and forgiving. 

I choose to stay Mormon because I find beneath the sometimes popular nonsense a uniquely rich and vibrant faith that is deserving of sincere study and reflection. The following are just a few of the doctrines I love most about the Mormon faith:

1.) Eternal Progression: We are taught from an early age that God has prepared for us a plan that will allow us to become more like Him. In addition, we are also taught that this life is but a drop in the bucket to our existence and that further growth and improvement will be had in the life to come. Sometimes I think we downplay just how significant the doctrine of eternal progression is in the Mormon faith. The concept of eternal progression means that even God continues to grow and improve (if that weren't the case then there would be no ETERNAL progression). Growth and change are a never-ending process.

2.) Absolute Agency: The concept of agency is, at times, a bit of a paradox to us Mormons. We cling to it when it is convenient to us but not so much when it goes against our collective desires. Regardless of this fact, Mormonism teaches that man is truly sovereign in every meaningful way. We are the captains of our own ship and as such we are free to choose for ourselves whatever path we want. But the Mormon concept of agency is much more than simple choice.  As Joseph Smith taught in his King Follett discourse:

We say that God himself is a self-existent God. Who told you that man did not exist in like manner upon the same principle? The mind of man -- the intelligent part -- is as immortal as and is coequal with God himself. I might with boldness proclaim from the housetop that God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all...intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle.

We have always been agents unto ourselves and always will be. This is perhaps my favorite doctrine in all the church. More on this in an upcoming blog post.

3.) Exalting the Human Body:
It was Friedrich Nietzshie, the famous philosopher, atheist and critic of organized religion who said, "I would believe only in a God that knows how to dance." Amen, my dear atheist. Amen. One of the most sublime teaching of Mormonism is that the body is a gift from God. In fact, to become like God one must have  a glorified and perfected body. Though most Christian faiths preach resurrection, they still, at times, treat the body like a temporary shell that we simply must deal with, but thankfully will discard in the world to come. Not so in Mormonism. One of the main reasons for this life was to obtain a body. We see the body as divine and as being necessary for growth. We teach of a God who has a body of flesh and bone and also of passions. The human body gives us those passions and as a result gives us progression. Instead of merely dealing with the human body, Mormonism celebrates it as divinely appointed and necessary to our growth and progression.

4.) The Ultimate Gatekeepers of Grace:
The Mormon faith places a great deal of emphasis on the importance of works and rightfully so. But we are also a religion that deeply adheres to the doctrine of grace. Instead of going into greater detail I will refer you to the following talk by Brad Wilcox, who explains this better than I ever could:



5.) Universalist Approach to Salvation:
As elitist and as exclusive as Mormonism may seem, the fact is we are (or at least should be) the ultimate Universalists on the planet. As Joseph Smith taught, "God will fetter out every individual soul."  In other words, everyone is going to have every possible chance to "make it back" to our Heavenly home. If this wasn't the case, God isn't much of a God at all.  Mormonism, no matter how you slice it, is a Universalist faith.

And finally, I choose to stay Mormon because in it I have found Jesus. If there is a single gift that I appreciate most about having endured a faith crisis it is this: my loyalty will never rest with Mormonism or any other creed; my loyalties rest with Jesus. I don't shy from admitting that I have put all my eggs into the Jesus basket because I believe He is a surefire win no matter what. To the believer, Christ represents the atoning Savior of Mankind. To the skeptic, he represents, oftentimes, the very best of human philosophy. To quote James E. Talmage from his book, Jesus the Christ: "even the blasphemer recognizes the supreme nature and message of the very name of the man he desecrates." I believe very strongly that both devout believer, honest skeptic and everyone in between should strive to never let their Mormonism get in the way of their Christianity. After all, Mormonism, like any creed, saves nobody. It is in Jesus alone that salvation is to be found. As the Book of Mormon teaches, "hearken unto these words and believe in Christ; and if ye believe not in the words believe in Christ."  If Jesus is all that is left that is more than enough! In the end, everything else is colored bubbles anyway.

In conclusion (and I've certainly gone on for long enough) I want to share the following picture:

This medallion and cross is something I wear with me almost every day.  I do so because it reminds me of a couple of things: first, the cross is obviously a reminder that it is Jesus in whom I place my trust. The medallion is actually called a Jupiter talisman. Most are probably not aware of what a Jupiter talisman is so let me briefly explain. A Jupiter talisman is essentially a "good luck charm" that has its roots in pagan and folk magic practices.  Joseph Smith owned and wore one throughout his life, He was actually wearing his Jupiter talisman when he was murdered at Carthage. Joseph Smith wore his because his life and his religious experience were deeply rooted and affected by the practice of folk magic that was common in 19th century America (this is why Smith used a seer stone throughout his life as well).  Don't worry, this is the only less-than-pleasant tidbit of Mormon history that I plan on mentioning today.

So why do I have and wear a Jupiter talisman? I do not prescribe to folk magic or pagan ideology so clearly my Jupiter talisman carries no special powers in my mind. It's just a simple medallion.  I wear it because it serves to remind me that religion...all religion...is full of the crazy, the inexplicable and the downright bizarre. Once you go down the rabbit-hole of religion, you go DOWN the rabbit-hole. This is something I believe both devout believers and honest skeptics should keep ever-present in their minds. None of us will ever have all the answers we want, nor will we ever be able to conclusively prove what we believe.

Whether we embrace the "rational" disciplines of history, science, etc., or we place our faith in the symbols of the Christian cross, the Jupiter talisman or crazy seer stones, the lesson is not WHAT truth we believe but HOW we let that truth change us. If we stand for our beliefs while driving others who believe differently away from us then we missed the point of Jesus' message entirely. If we choose to be more critical and carry a skeptic's perspective, yet mock those of faith then you're just as much of a hypocrite. The goal is to live in harmony with each other, in the same way faith and doubt learn to co-exist. That's the great message of both religion and rational inquiry...

...at least that's what my seer stone told me.  =)

How Early Christians Understood (or Misunderstood) Slavery

One of the many reasons that I enjoy the study of Medieval history so much is because it is such a misunderstood and misrepresented era. There are so many misconceptions surrounding the Medieval period, caused primarily by Hollywood, Renaissance Festivals, etc. Uncovering the sometimes obscure facts about the Medieval era helps to shed those misconceptions and brings greater understanding.

One of those misconceptions has to do with the practice of slavery and how early Christians understood (or perhaps misunderstood) the practice. Contrary to popular belief, early Christianity did not repeal the practice or reduce the numbers of slaves involved. Rather, early Christians, in many ways, found convenient justifications that allowed the practice to continue and even flourish for many years.

To be certain, slavery did, over time, dwindle away in Medieval Europe thanks in large part to the Christian faith (though one could easily argue that peasantry, along with different forms of forced labor wasn't much better).  But as the final remnants of the Roman Empire decayed away, being replaced with Christian institutions to fill the void and establish new social and political constructs, the slavery question required an overhaul in how it would be reconciled to this new world faith. Naturally, an appeal to Christian authority (meaning Jesus' apostles) would satisfy such a void. The Didache (a first century collection of teaching attributed to the Twelve Apostles) states the following on slavery:

Do not, when embittered, give orders to your slave, male or female, for the hope in the same God; otherwise, they might lose fear of God, who is the Master of both of you. Surely is not coming to call with an eye to rank and station in life, no. But you, slaves, be submissive to your masters as to God's image in reverence and fear.

The message here is clear. Slaves, though technically eligible for salvation, are still an accepted component of society. Slave masters are to do their Christian duty by treating their slaves with relative respect, just as God treats them (his children who are still subjugated to him) with that same respect.

The Bible is full of examples of how early Christians were to interact and deal with their slaves. Paul alone provides us with ample source material on the subject. In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul directs slaves to submit to their masters willfully. It is important to note that the word "servant" or "maid" in the King James Translation actually means "slave.":

Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.

From 1 Timothy 6: 1-3 we read:

Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren, but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort, If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness.

For Paul, and many other Christians, slavery is simply a normal part of life. The job of the Christian is to play their part as best they can as Christians.  From 1 Corinthians 12:13:

For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

And Galatians 3:28:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, that is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

And Colossians 3:11:

Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision or uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free, but Christ is all and in all.

Slavery was part and parcel to daily life in the world of early Christians, and their leadership seemed content to embrace it as they would embrace any other aspect of their lives. In fact, Paul appears to support slave holding to a fault.  In his letter to Philemon, Paul mentions the fact that he has returned a runaway slave (Onesimus), whom he met while together in prison, to his master, presumably Philemon. Though he could have given the runaway Onesimus sanctuary, Paul returned him to his owner (though he hints to Philemon that he would like to see Onesimus freed).  Had Paul seen slavery as a Christian abomination, this would have been the best time of all to take a stand.  He didn't because Paul, like his fellow Christians of the day, saw no sin in the keeping of slaves.

As the Apostles died away, the idea of slavery continued to be sanctioned by the subsequent generations of Christian leaders. Polycarp (a disciple of the Apostle John), for example, urged slaveholders to avoid emancipating their slaves, since (in his mind) slaves would naturally fall away from God:

Let them submit themselves the more, for the glory of God, that they may obtain from God a better liberty. Let them not wish to be set free as the public expense, that they be not found slaves to their own desires.

It is important that we understand the type of slavery that existed in this period. Contrary to the slavery of the New World (almost exclusively Black African slavery), the slavery of late antiquity/the early Medieval world was usually the result of debts, crimes committed or neighboring societies conquering and subjugating the losers. People who found themselves swimming in debts, for example, often found forgiveness for said debts by selling themselves, or more common, their family members into slavery.  In Matthew 18:25 we read:

But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.

Slaves were even owned by High Priests and potentially even by apostles themselves.  From Mark 14:66:

And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest.

Over time (particularly after the "fall" of the Roman Empire), slavery became a less advantageous enterprise that was phased out. The institution of peasantry and other forms of impoverished living were more advantageous to Medieval society than slavery.

My Top 10 Jazz Songs of All Time

I finally got a new laptop this past month, which means that I am ready to jump back into the world of blogging (which should excite the 2-3 loyal readers I have). To start things off, I decided to pick a relatively benign topic.

For those who know me well you are probably aware that my favorite musical genre is jazz. I'm not picky on the style (after all, what exactly IS jazz), so long as it stays true to art form.  Jazz combines the best of two worlds: European classical sophistication and Black Africa's rhythm and syncopation. What you are left with is a musical stale that (in my opinion) crushes all competitors. Plus, it's worth noting that jazz is as American as you can possibly get.  The best American musicians, by and large, have come from jazz and have done more to shape American culture than most realize. Whether it's the playing of Charlie Parker or Louis Armstrong, or the vocals of Billie Holiday or Ella Fitzgerald, jazz is a musical innovation that continues to influence our world today.

So, without further delay, here are my picks for best 10 jazz songs of all time:

------------------------------------------------------------

10.) Strange Fruit (1939) -- Billie Holiday
Strange Fruit was, in it's time as today, a powerful protest of racism in America, and particularly the practice of lynching that was still common during the Jim Crow era. Holiday said it was the most difficult song she ever sang and she preferred to not sing it live. The song was inducted the Grammy Hall of Fame and was included in the list of "Songs of the Century" by the National Endowment for the Arts.


9.) Swingin' at the Haven (1985) -- Branford Marsalis
Marsalis not only has the pedigree of a great jazz musician but he also has the chops.  He's one of the best alive today.


8.) Caravan (1937) -- Duke Ellington
This song was originally written by Juan Tizol and was first performed by Duke Ellington.  It's a jazz classic that has also experienced a resurrection as of late, thanks to the movie "Whiplash."


7.) Stardust (1931) -- Louis Armstrong
The song was originally written by Hoagy Carmichael, who wrote a number of hits like "Georgia on My Mind," "Heart and Soul," and this classic that was made famous by the incomparable Louis Armstrong.


6.) Take Five (1959) -- Dave Brubeck
Many (to include the folks at jazz24.org) consider Take Five to be the greatest jazz song ever.  Not only is it the best selling jazz song in history but it is one of the most played songs in the history of radio.


5.) In the Mood (1939) -- Glenn Miller
In the Mood was #1 on the charts for almost all of 1939 and eventually made its way into the Grammy Hall of Fame.  NPR named it one of the 100 most important songs in American history.


4.) Take the "A" Train (1940) -- Duke Ellington
Originally written by Billy Strayhorn and made famous by "The Duke" himself, this song dominated the charts in 1940 and is widely considered one of the top 5 jazz songs ever by jazz enthusiasts.


3.) Embraceable You (1947) -- Charlie Parker
A classic written by the Great George Gershwin in 1928 and made into a jazz number by a myriad of artists, but none did it better than Charlie Parker!


2.) Sing, Sing, Sing (1937) -- Benny Goodman
Just a rocking awesome song!  A home run in every way that speaks for itself.  Sing, Sing, Sing, was #1 in 1937 AND 1938, and helped to catapult Goodman to the top of the Big Band stage.


1.) Mister Magic (1975) Grover Washington
As the undisputed champion of jazz funk, Grover Washington had a number of great hits, but none was better than Mister Magic.  His saxophone solo alone (which starts at minute 3:45 of the song) is worth listening to if you haven't before. In an era dominated by rock and disco, Mister Magic made the Billboard Pop Top 10 in 1975, the first jazz song to do so in over a decade,  Washington's saxophone (rivaled only by the Great Charlie Parker) made him a legend in his day and an icon in jazz.  In my opinion, this is the greatest jazz song ever written, which is why it serves as my ringtone.  =)

There you have it!  My Top 10 Jazz Songs of All Time!

Some Final Thoughts on Seer Stones

Yesterday's news regarding the release of photos showing the stone that Joseph Smith allegedly used to translate the Book of Mormon has, over the past 24 hours, spread far and wide.  News outlets from all over the world have reported on this story, which has been greeted by readers with a plethora of different opinions.

When I saw this image for the first time yesterday afternoon, memories of my dad came flashing back.  I recalled an occasion from my youth in which we were attending a family gathering at my uncle's home.  As is often the case in my family, several aunts, uncles and cousins began talking about "deep" Mormon doctrine.  In the course of the conversation, one of my uncles brought up the fact that Joseph Smith had used a seer stone to assist him in translating the Book of Mormon. Another uncle, determined to defend the "purity" of the faith, rebuked the first uncle for his "apostate" suggestion that Smith used a simple rock to produce the Book of Mormon.  The conversation continued in this way, with each uncle asserting and opposing their respective viewpoints.

It was on the drive home that I asked my dad about the supposed seer stone.  Naturally I was curious and wanted to know if there was any validity to the claim.  My dad's response was simple but profound.  To paraphrase him (I don't remember his exact words after these many years) my dad replied, "I honestly don't know but it shouldn't matter.  Whether Joseph produced 500+ pages using the Urim and Thumim (the traditionally taught method of translation) or a seer stone, the result is equally impressive."

Fast forward to today.  The story of the seer stone has been greeted by skeptics as proof of the petty silliness of the Mormon message.  After all, who looks at rocks and expects to receive revelations! For the believer, the reception of this news is somewhat complicated.  To be sure, some members of the LDS faith (like my uncle) already knew about the seer stone.  To them it's no big deal.  But to many others, the news that Joseph Smith put a rock in his hat, then buried his face into said hat to receive divine revelation from a rock is problematic for their faith.  Some of the many questions this new news brings to mind are:

1.) Why did the church wait so long in divulging the seer stone to begin with? This was never taught in a single lesson manual. 

2.) If Joseph Smith simply looked in a hat at a rock, why did Nephi need to kill Laban to get the plates?  

3.) Why does the Book of Mormon contain so many anachronisms and other errors? If Smith was receiving divine revelation from the seer stone, wouldn't God make sure the message was correct? 

These are just a few of the many questions that good, honest, critical thinking members of the church have in regards to the Book of Mormon and its translation.

It is not my desire to necessarily answer these questions here today. I understand and respect why so many have issues with this and other Mormon historical/theological/doctrinal problems. It is naturally troubling to stumble upon ideas or previously unknown facts that challenge our preconceived notions of the world, especially when that world notion reports to be "the only true and living church" in the world.

With that all being said (and this is specifically meant for those who struggle with this or other church issues), I would urge you to look at your own personal epistemology.  Epistemology (sounds like a big scary word) is essentially the study of how we arrive at truth.  It is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from crazy opinion.  In short, it is how we weigh conflicting sets of evidence against one another in order to better arrive at what we choose to believe as truth (notice how I said "what we CHOOSE to believe as truth" as opposed to what is absolute factual truth).

We live in a world of relativity and paradox.  We can find all around us ample examples of how perception determines reality.  For example:



This simple but comical example of how perception influences reality has legitimate lessons that we can extrapolate to my blog topic today.  How you choose to PERCEIVE the Book of Mormon is going to have a very real and lasting impact on the REALITY you choose to embrace.  For example, if news of the seer stones becomes too shocking to your world view (because, hey, who is crazy enough to believe that rocks have magical powers), chances are you will choose to perceive the Book of Mormon as a hoax.  That will become your reality.  If, however, you choose to perceive the seer stones and/or the Urim and Thumim as having a divine purpose, chances are you will repeat something similar to what my dad told me so many years ago: "I honestly don't know but it shouldn't matter.  Whether Joseph produced 500+ pages using the Urim and Thumim or a seer stone the result is equally impressive."  Such is the case with faith.  Whether we want to admit it or not, both skeptic and believer alike are, as Paul put it, "see[ing] through a glass, darkly."

I realize that skeptics will accuse me of discarding so many of the facts that they regularly employ to disprove the Book of Mormon. I have no desire to make light of factual historical/scientific data or other observable realities.  These are all important considerations in any quest for truth.  But I also hope that people will, as I mentioned above, reevaluate their own personal epistemology. There is a case to be had in the fruit of the Book of Mormon, regardless of its ultimate origin.  As the great historian Richard Bushman (author of Rough Stone Rolling, the best bio of Joseph Smith ever written), once said, "The Book of Mormon is either a work of divinity or a work of genius. Both of those possibilities should make us marvel." 

As for those who complain about the church's obscuring of its own history (i.e. not revealing the seer stone for 180+ years) I simply say, I understand your contempt. As somebody who places a high price on historical integrity I too have struggled with many of the historical/doctrinal claims that the church has, at times, hidden from its members (via Correlation or other means).  But that is PRECISELY why I am so happy about yesterday's news.  Times are changing and the church is, in my opinion, becoming increasingly transparent about its past.  I tip my hat to them for it.

In addition, keep in mind that the obscuring of historical facts is not just a Mormon problem but a human problem.  We all do it because we all develop our own preferred narrative for past events (remember the whole perception becomes reality bit?).  Case in point: just look at Christmas.

For anyone who knows me, you are more than aware of the fact that Christmas is my all-time favorite holiday.  I anxiously count down the days each year.  There's something about the trees, lights, smells and cheer that I find intoxicating.  And though I love this holiday more than any other, I also am aware of the fact that the historical narrative we all choose to accept when it comes to Christmas is VERY distorted.

For example, Christmas trees were a pagan practice that were originally rejected as an abomination (reference Jeremiah 10:2-4).   In addition, other practices like mistletoe, wreaths, lights, etc. all have pagan roots, as opposed to the traditionally believed Christian origins (see my post on Christmas by clicking here).  Heck, our Nativity scenes are, from a historical perspective, a complete joke!  First, Jesus was born in Nazareth, not Bethlehem, and the idea of a pregnant Mary being toted around by Joseph who was trying to find a room in the ancient world's version of a Holiday Inn so he could follow Caesar's degree regarding a "tax" is all an accepted historical myth.  In reality, the Nativity was MUCH different than what we portray today.  

Does that mean we need to discard Christmas?  Or the Nativity?  As a Christmas fan I will be the first to declare "hell no!"  Yes, we should all educate ourselves more about the true nature of Jesus' birth and the origins of Christmas.  But learning such truths doesn't mean you have to sacrifice the celebration of Christmas as a whole.

Such is the case with Mormonism and the Book of Mormon.  Yes, members of our faith are woefully lacking when it comes to a knowledge of our church's history,  I partially blame Correlation for this. But learning the truth behind the Book of Mormon's translation does not automatically mean you need to discard the book itself or Mormonism as a whole.  The choice is ultimately up to each of us to determine our own epistemology based on our own perceptions.

In conclusion, I leave you with the following short poem, which I believe relates directly to the topic at hand:

Whoever thinks a faultless piece to see.
Thinks what ne'er was, nor is, nor e'er shall be
In every work regard the writer's end,
Since none can compass more than they intend,
And if the means be just, the conduct true,
Applause, in spite of trivial faults, is due. -Alexander Pope