Monday, 7 September 2020

LDS sexual impropriety and the externalization of the locus of moral control

 

Revised July 5th 2021

It started simply enough…

My daughter had recently returned from a vacation, visiting her boyfriend who was studying at one of the LDS post-secondary institutions. “Dad,” she told me, “they are all smoking pot and having sex with each other. All of them.”

But then…

That same day there was a headline in our local news about how an LDS bishop had sexually abused children, when in his late teens, and had confessed to it while on a mission—from which he was not sent home after the revelation. The judge in the trial concluded that the LDS Church had covered up this abuse. I reflected that this was not the first such headline that I had seen in recent years in my largely LDS neck of the woods.

Still that same day I checked into Facebook and was struck the number similar stories coming from my LDS and XLDS friends.

There was the recent high profile case of Joseph Bishop, the former President of the Provo Utah Missionary Training Center (MTC) who admitted to police that he engaged in sexual improprieties (allegedly including a sexual assault) with Sister Missionaries under his stewardship, and who claimed to be a predator and sex addict.[i] An official statement from the LDS Church indicates that the Church never knew of the misconduct until 2010, some 26 years after the offending events, but his statement to the police indicates that Bishop confessed his actions to his ecclesiastical leaders immediately, yet served out his complete tenure as MTC President.[ii] One of Bishop’s alleged victims sued him and the Church. The case against Bishop was dropped due to the statute of limitations having long past, however, at that time, the judge ruled that the case against the Church for fraudulent non-disclosure and fraudulent concealment could move forward.[iii]

There is the recent high profile case of former BYU instructor and director of three LDS Temple Endowment ceremony films (and cofounder of the Sundance Film festival), Sterling Van Wagenen, who admitted to molesting a 13 year old boy[iv] After pleading guilty to and twice being convicted of molesting under age girls, Van Wagenen is serving 6 years to life.[v] For his horrific crimes, Van Wagenen was disfellowshipped for two years from the LDS Church.[vi]

A BYU professor charged with sexually abusing students.[vii] A Utah police officer/bishop involved in human trafficking[viii], Sunday School teachers involved in child sexual abuse[ix], Bishops and others in positions of trust involved in sexual abuse and child pornography[x].

In recent years it has a been reported that, per capita, Utah has the US’s highest rates of subscription to pornography websites[xi], and that “…Utah fosters unique cultural factors that may leave those with susceptibility at an even greater predisposition to using and abusing pornography.”[xii] As of 2015, the popularity of “incest porn”[xiii] was growing faster in Utah than in any other state[xiv]. And Utah has what could be described as a child pornography epidemic[xv] that, when discovered/confessed, the LDS Church doesn’t necessarily report to the police,[xvi] and there seems to be cases where this child pornography is being treated lightly by the courts in Utah.[xvii]

It has been reported that rape occurs at a higher rate in Utah than in the rest of the USA[xviii], and that although Utah is #8[xix] in the US for overall rates of abuse, it is #1 in sexual abuse[xx], with one in five children in Utah experiencing sexual abuse[xxi]. And there is some concern that the LDS Church is perhaps more concerned with protecting its image than it is with actually combating the problem[xxii]. The Church recently released a letter, signed by the First Presidency, instructing local leaders to not participate in any court cases without first consulting the Church’s lawyers.[xxiii]

And although the Church has a hotline for local leaders to report sexual abuse, it seems to be manned by lawyers from the Church’s legal alter-ego, the law firm of Kirton McConkie.[xxiv] 

Kirton McConkie? 

One of Kirton McConkie’s founding partners was one Bryan Lloyd Poelman, at one point the chairman of an anti-pornography group called Citizens for Positive Community Values. While a Stake President, Poelman was caught in the act with a prostitute. Although Poelman was excommunicated, Apostle Boyd K. Packer assured Poelman’s stake that “Whatever else will take place, there will be no eternal consequences.” (italics added). He went on to serve a seniors mission and to serve as a worker in the Salt Lake City Temple.

Kirton McConkie also employs one Thomas L. Monson (son of former LDS President Thomas S. Monson), who was fired from his job as vice-president of American Investment Bank, then quietly settled the related sexual harassment suit against him.[xxv]

I reflected on my daughter’s observation about her friends at her boyfriends’ LDS School[xxvi], the local story about the bishop, and the stories referenced above, and wondered if there could be something in LDS theology and culture that somehow facilitates what appears to be an inability to control one’s sexual proclivities.

Although this post is focused primarily on LDS culture and theology, the reader may notice that many of the observations made here can be applied to broader categories of religious morality.


I have argued previously that LDS moral theory stunts our moral development, and that the very notion of sin is misguided (here and here). However, in light of the stories referenced in the opening paragraphs of this essay, I’d like to further suggest that, in fact, there is something about LDS culture and moral theory that is intrinsically harmful, potentially producing adults that are, at best, amoral, and even inhibiting the ability to muzzle sexual desire (including desire regarding inappropriate, immoral, or illegal actions), thereby increasing the risks of (among many other things) abuse, sexual abuse and child sexual abuse amongst the faithful.

The LDS over-emphasis on Sexual Matters

If you grew up LDS, in your youth you had constant lessons on chastity (in Sunday School, Priesthood and Young Women’s, Seminary and Institute, firesides and youth conferences, etc.), talks, pamphlets and hushed reminders about masturbation, queries from Bishops and Stake Presidents about “moral cleanliness” (sexual purity), warnings about homosexuality, warnings about pornography, and reminders that, in the eyes of God, sexual sin is second only to murder in seriousness (Alma 39: 5). It is like they were trying to convince us that we were not capable of making judgments about the morality or immorality of such things without the assistance of the Church. After all, as natural men (and women) we are enemies to God (Mosiah 3:19, 1st Corinthians 2:14, Alma 42, D&C 20:20). If you want an impressionable young person to not think about sex, is it wise to talk about it all the time, and try to convince them that they cannot resist it without your help?

An oft given piece of informal advice to dating aged teenagers and young single adults is that the Holy Ghost goes to bed at midnight. Why? And what are the implications? That at midnight we are suddenly at greater risk of engaging in sexual sin? Why? Because the Holy Ghost is not there to stop us? The Holy Ghost was the only thing between me and a sin second only to murder? That the reason we are not immoral prior to midnight has more to do with the effect of the Holy Ghost than our ability to self control? That, left to our own devices, we are not entirely capable of making that decision on our own? By reminding us the Holy Ghost goes to bed at midnight, the Church is reinforcing the idea of a design flaw inherent in us—implying that we have a sexual appetite that will overwhelm us without the Church and Holy Ghost to help us muzzle it. It’s almost like the Church is trying to convince young people that they are flawed so that young people will need to lean on the Church to supply the fix. But in doing so, the Church is convincing young people that they are not capable of controlling their sexual impulses without external control.

A related idea repeated ad nauseum is that if the women and girls dress at all provocatively, they become “walking porn” to the boys. By instilling this idea into young people, the Church is (i) telling the young women they are responsible when the boys have sexual thoughts, and (ii) telling the young men that they are not responsible for controlling their own sexual thoughts about young women—it’s all the girls fault. A corollary is that the Church is implying that boys are not entirely capable of controlling their own sexual desires. Implying that sexual impulses somehow lay outside of one’s control cannot contribute to a healthy attitude toward sex for the developing young man.

The Externalization of the Locus of Moral Control

My central concern involves what one might describe as the externalization of our locus moral control. Religious morality locates the source of morality outside of oneself.

I was once teaching ethics to a class consisting primarily of nursing students, and asked them a fairly innocuous rhetorical question—rhetorical in the sense that I really didn’t expect an answer; I was asking because I wanted the question to help them to draw out their existing implicit moral intuitions. I suggested that they should assume that God is a real thing, and to assume that God tells us that it is not okay to abuse one’s spouse. Then I asked them if the reason that we ought not abuse our partners is because God tells us not to, or on the other hand, does God tell us not to because it is already wrong? My intention was to illustrate that spousal abuse is actually intrinsically wrong, and therefore, if God tells us not to do it, it is the case that He tells us so because it is wrong, and not the case that it is wrong because He tells us. I wanted my students to consider the possibility that the wrongness of spousal violence is not derived from the fact that God forbids it.

Three students decided to disagree. One young (LDS) man explicitly said “Yes, the reason that I do not beat my wife is that God tells me not to.” Now remember that this group was predominantly nursing students, and therefore mostly women. In best Socratic form, I decided to press him a little, and followed up with “so…because God’s command is your reason for not beating your wife, are you saying that if God did not forbid it, you would have no reason to not beat her?” I expected a particular, obvious response, but his reply (again, room full of women) was “yes, I would have no reason not to beat my wife.”

Another time, a class touched on evolutionary psychology. There was a young man in that class who had returned from the mission field less than three weeks earlier. When I mentioned evolutionary psychology, his back went up, and he wanted to try to debunk evolution right there and then in class. I didn’t want him to embarrass himself in front of his less zealous classmates, and there was material to cover and we were pressed for time (it was a condensed summer session), but I did not want to dismiss his questions, so I invited him to talk to me after class. His reasoning was straightforward enough: If evolution is true, then there is no God. Not a good premiss, but it was the line he wanted to pursue. The rest was, presumably, inspired by the Book of Mormon (Alma 42 specifically). If there is no God, there is no reward or punishment. If there is no reward or punishment, there is no such thing as right or wrong. If there is no punishment, there is nothing to stop someone from murdering or raping or whatever (Alma 42: 17-22). Therefore, he concluded, if evolution is true, there is no such thing as morality.

These students held a few things in common. Both were LDS. Both asserted that their morality was not internal to them, but was externally sourced, and that that external source was God. Both explicitly stated that without promise of reward or threat of punishment, there would be nothing stop them from doing wrong.

Let’s be clear. I am not deriving my understanding of LDS moral theory from the above anecdotes. But they do illustrate the issue of the externalization of the locus of moral control.

This external locus of morality can be illustrated by considering the definition of sin. The LDS Bible Dictionary has no definition of sin, but official LDS websites suggest that sin is “[w]illful disobedience to God’s commandments,”[xxvii] and explain that “[t]o commit sin is to willfully disobey God's commandments or to fail to act righteously despite a knowledge of the truth (see James 4:17).”[xxviii]

These are consistent with St. Augustine of Hippo, who offers what I think is the most concise and uncontroversial definition of sin: “a word, deed, or desire in opposition to the eternal law of God.”[xxix]

Therefore, in order for sin to exists, there must be an “eternal law of God,” and we must have “knowledge of” it, because in the absence of said knowledge, “willful disobedience” would not be possible.

In LDS moral theory, one’s morality is externally sourced; the moral worth of an act is determined by whether it is consonant with the will of God.

The Overjustification Effect.

There is a principle of Social Psychology called the “Overjustification Effect.” Curry, Wagner, and Groethaus (1990)[xxx] reviewed 128 studies and concluded that incentives, even if offered to reward good performance, significantly reduce intrinsic motivation. When one performs an action for internal reasons (“I like drawing,” “I enjoy playing hockey”), we refer to one’s intrinsic motivation; on the other hand, when one performs an action because of a reward (“I am drawing because I am being graded for art class,” “I am playing hockey to maintain my scholarship”) we refer to an extrinsic motivation. It may be because the actor perceives her actions as being a result of the incentive rather than the enjoyment of an activity, or it may be[xxxi] because the actor perceives the incentive as somehow coercive, but if there are extrinsic rewards tied to a behavior, there is no need for, no room left for intrinsic motivations. Thus we see cases of people who were previously passionate about art losing interest once they start being graded at art school, or previously dedicated athletes losing their drive upon turning pro. People can stop enjoying things that they previously loved because they start to be rewarded for doing it.

An external motivator (promise of Heaven) for not being immoral literally reduces your intrinsic motivation to avoid immorality. If I choose to not abuse my children because I want to get to Heaven, that hope of eternal reward negates any need to develop internal reasons (like empathy, duty) to not abuse them.

Moral development tends to unfold in a relatively regular and straightforward way (e.g. Piaget, 1932[xxxii]; Kohlberg, 1958[xxxiii]) In the earliest stages of moral development, notions of right or wrong are determined by the rules that are imposed upon us by an authority. A child’s locus of morality is necessarily external, and the moral worth of an action is initially determined by the resultant reward or punishment—sort of a childlike version of “it’s only illegal if you get caught.” In the very egocentric mind of a child, the wrongness of hitting your sister amounts to nothing more than the fact that the child gets a time-out.

It is likely that punishment and reward provide a young child experiences necessary for the internalization of morality[xxxiv], however, in normal healthy moral development, such constraint by external sources of control is our primary source of morality only during the earliest stages—typically while we are still in the single digits (Kohlberg, 1971[xxxv]). As we are steeped in a moral environment, moral lessons from childhood become an internalized 2nd nature, and we no longer ask ourselves “will I be punished if I get caught; what is the rule on this?” as we have internalized our ideas of right and wrong (our conscience), and act accordingly. As perspective broadens from an egocentric self to family to society, we learn to derive morality from duties and obligations, from social emotions like pride, empathy and guilt, and from calculations of what will maximize good and minimize harm and suffering.

At some point in the growing up process, one’s motivation ought to cease to be reliant on the avoidance of punishment or shaming. We take ownership of our morality, and develop an internal locus of control. Mature morality stems from an internalized right and wrong.

Good “authoritative” parenting[xxxvi] involves helping a child move past obedience based morality through a process called induction—sort of “inducting” a developing child into the club of adult moral reasoners. Rather than emphasizing punishment and reward, authoritative parents explain why an act is good or bad, encouraging a child to reason through processes (considering consequences, duties, empathy, calculations of happiness v. suffering) that lead them to arrive at their own correct moral conclusions. Those raised in an inductive family environment learn the skills necessary to reason through future unique ethical challenges.

“Authoritarian” parenting, on the other hand, does not move a child away from an obedience type morality. The authoritarian parent simply dictates the rules, and the child is expected to comply because the rules are the rules. Good and correct behavior does not flow from an internalized developing moral capacity, but from a desire to avoid the punitive consequences dictated by the authoritarian parent. Because the authoritarian parent is less likely to attempt to instill an ability to reason through moral issues, someone from such a household is less equipped to reason through future unique ethical dilemmas. They have not internalized their locus of moral control. They have not claimed ownership of their morality.

Among the conclusions drawn by Clinical Psychologist Laura Markham[xxxvii] in reviewing the research on the effects of punishment on moral development are that authoritarian parenting “deprives kids of the opportunity to internalize self-discipline and responsibility.” Such parenting, being based on fear, leads to a perception that “power is always right,” increases the risks of anger and bullying, increases the tendency to rebel, only doing right when there is a risk of punishment, and lying about it.

If my motivation for doing something is to avoid punishment, so long as the threat of punishment remains, I need no internal reason for doing that something; I do not need to develop an intrinsic motivation for doing that something.

To reiterate—reward and/or punishment (extrinsic motivation) actually decrease intrinsic motivation. Individuals are not intrinsically motivated to perform or avoid actions when there exists reward or punishment for the behavior in question.

Research bears all this out. Those who are raised in authoritarian (obedience, punishment) environments are far more likely to rebel against the rules at their first opportunity than those raised in authoritative environments[xxxviii]. I’m sure we all know people who grew up in households in which well-intentioned parents laid down strict guidelines enforced by threat of punishment, yet were more likely to “sew their wild oats” as soon as their parents were on vacation, or as soon as they moved out of the family home. Strict rules and punishment regarding drinking, for example, actually increase the likelihood of the young person drinking once away from the watchful eye of their parents.

President Nelson recently reminded the faithful[xxxix] that Jesus’ “divine love” is granted not to all, but to all “who qualify” for it. Qualify. How does one qualify to be loved by God? In the words of Nelson (who is, I would remind you, considered God’s mouthpiece on Earth by the LDS faithful) “[s]uch love includes service and requires obedience.” Nelson has previously taught[xl], quite without ambiguity, that “divine love and blessings are not truly “unconditional;”” “divine love …cannot correctly be characterized as unconditional.” In fact, he characterizes the notion of unconditional love as a fallacy and a false ideology. So how does one go about qualifying for God’s conditional love?

If ye keep my commandments, [then] ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love. [John 15:10]

If you keep not my commandments, [then] the love of the Father shall not continue with you. [D&C 95:12]

He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father… [John 14:21]

So, without ambiguity, President Nelson, God’s ostensible mouthpiece on Earth, explains that it is a fallacious and false ideology to think that God loves us unconditionally, and that to qualify to be loved by Him it is required that we are obedient to the commandments.

I probably need not point out to the reader that God’s style of parenting style sounds suspiciously more similar to the authoritarian rather than the authoritative style. Obedience, rules, conditional love, reward, and punishment.[xli]

In the Book of Mormon, Alma 42 takes us even further down the path of authoritarianism by explaining the purpose of the commandments. Note that the chapter does not mention, at all, that the commandments are due to the intrinsic rightness or wrongness of actions.

Because of Adam and Eve’s actions in getting the boot from the Garden, we are all under a spiritual death, keeping us from returning to God’s presence when we die physically (Alma 42: 2,3,7,9).[xlii] Consequently, mortal life is required in order to overcome this spiritual death. Mortal life is, in the words of Alma 42: 4, “a probationary time, a time to repent and serve God.”

Verses 5 and 13 elaborate on the central importance of repentance, explaining that without it the word of God would have been void, and the great plan of salvation would have been frustrated.” That “…according to justice, the plan of redemption could not be brought about, only on conditions of repentance…for except it were for these conditions, mercy could not take effect except it should destroy the work of justice. Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God.”

So, our mortal lives are our chance to overcome our spiritual deaths, and we do so via repentance. Repentance during our mortal probation is a necessary condition for justice, the plan of salvation, and for God to be God. According to Alma 42:16, repentance itself has a further necessary condition: eternal punishment. If there is no punishment, it seems there is no repentance (and therefore no Justice, and God ceases to be God).

Repentance has a second necessary condition (17). How can one repent unless there is something to repent of? There can be no repentance unless there is sin? Sin is absolutely a necessary condition for repentance. And how can there be sin unless there is a law? And how can there be law without punishment. Verse 19 explicitly states the reason a person would have to not murder is fear of punishment.

To reiterate. God’s plan only works on conditions of repentance. In order for there to be repentance, there must be something to repent of—sin. In order for there to be sin, there has to be God’s eternal law and eternal punishment. Why are there commandments? Why do we, for example, not murder? Alma 42 makes no mention of murder being intrinsically wrong. It is wrong because it violates a commandment and we get punished for it.

So why is there “God’s eternal law?” Why are there commandments? So there is something for us to repent of, so God’s plan of salvation doesn’t fail.

Let’s focus, for instance, on stealing. God tells us to not steal (Exodus 20:15; Matthew 19:18). Why is stealing a sin; why is it wrong? Is it wrong because God forbids it? Or does God forbid it because it is wrong? If we accept the above definition of sin, that it is willful disobedience to God’s commandments, then the intrinsic rightness or wrongness of the action is irrelevant to whether it is a sin or not. The moral status of stealing is derived from the will of God, not from the consequences for the victim or for society, nor from one’s duties and obligations, nor from one’s sense of shame at wronging another. But does this sound right? My students who said there is no morality without God and punishment would agree. Alma 42:17 explicitly equates one’s conscience with fear of punishment.

Our heavenly parent’s parenting style is authoritarian as opposed to authoritative. That being so, our morality is supposed to sourced externally, from God’s eternal law. To be worthy to be loved by God, we must be obedient to His law. There is a constant promise of eternal reward or threat of eternal punishment. Such constant threat of punishment or promise of reward reduces one’s intrinsic motivation (the overjustification effect) to be virtuous, and negates a need to internalize a moral code. Individuals need not take ownership of their own morality because the good amounts to acting in accordance with an externally sourced list of approved, required, and prohibited behaviors. By stifling intrinsic motivation and inhibiting the internalization of the locus of moral control, the authoritarian parenting style exemplified by our Heavenly Father, makes individuals less equipped to face unique moral dilemmas, and more likely to rebel.

If we concede that the moral status of acts is derived solely from the consistency of said acts with the will of God, then that implies that if God were to say the opposite—that stealing is virtuous—then that law would be virtuous. Now before you go saying that that conclusion is nonsensical, consider the fact that heavyweight thinkers as notable and influential as Calvin[xliii], Luther[xliv], and Ockham[xlv] accepted this interpretation of Divine Command theory.

Perhaps you think the above interpretation is incorrect, and that the reason God says that we ought not steal is that stealing is wrong in and of itself--wrong because it causes harm to victims, leads to societal chaos, etc. If that is the case, then the wrongness of stealing is not derived from the fact that God forbids it. If God forbids it because it is wrong, then its wrongness is not due to God’s command, and God’s command would be irrelevant to the wrongness of stealing. The commands of God would be utterly irrelevant to morality. Furthermore, if the rightness or wrongness of acts were determined by considerations other than the will of God, then individuals would be able figure out for themselves which acts are right or wrong, and would not need to lean on the Church.

But the faithful typically do not accept that second interpretation, and insist that morality is dependent on the will of God. Obedience takes precedence over other moral principles because “[o]bedience is the first law of heaven, the cornerstone upon which all righteousness and progression rest. It consists in compliance with divine law, in conformity to the mind and will of Deity, in complete subjection to God and his commands.”[xlvi]

Since, according to religious morality, actions are not virtuous or immoral in and of themselves, we cannot be capable of ascertaining for ourselves what qualifies as the good, and we consequently find ourselves dependent upon God (or God’s spokesperson—i.e. the Church) to inform us what is moral and what is immoral. The problem can be encapsulated by considering the slogan “Choose The Right.” The slogan itself is vacuous—it directs us to do the right thing without offering direction as to what that right thing is. Compare it with the Golden Rule (“Do unto others as you’d have done unto you.”). The Golden rule is instructive because it implies a method, a calculation for determining what the good actually is. According to the Golden Rule, the good is the action that the actor would like to be on the receiving end of. Choose the right, on the other hand, offers no means of calculation, no method for determining the good. Instead, it leaves the individual dependent on the checklist of required and forbidden actions as provided by God (the Church). 

Those of us raised in the LDS faith (and I’m sure many other faiths), found ourselves dependent on the Church as our external source of morality. Just reflect on the minor moral crisis that many faithful LDS experienced when green tea became popular. Individuals debated (and continue to debate) whether it is immoral, because they are unclear on whether it violates the “Word of Wisdom” (WoW), and therefore violates God’s command. Such persons could not ascertain for themselves whether green tea was acceptable or not based on weighing health benefits against risks (such a calculation would be essentially irrelevant as the salient factor would be God’s will on the matter), or by applying the principles of the WoW (because the principles are internally inconsistent, and do not even remotely resemble the scriptural version of the WoW (D&C 89)). They did not know how to be moral until the prophet told them.[xlvii] Morality in Mormonism is ceded to an external source. God? Maybe, but always through the medium of Church authorities.

Remember the student from the opening paragraphs of this essay, the freshly minted RM who tried to argue against evolution on the grounds that if evolution is true there is no God, and if there is no God there is no morality? About a year later, that same young man was in my office. In tears. To paraphrase—“The Church was my source of morality, and now I’ve concluded that the Church is a fraud. I literally feel like I have no sense of morality.”[xlviii]

This anecdote embodies the central concern that I have with the externalization of moral control.

For the faithful, the reason to not engage in sexual improprieties is that God forbids it, and the individual will be punished if they do so. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that you are a faithful Latter-day Saint. You believe the LDS point of view that the moral worth of acts is determined by their being in conformity with the will of God. Therefore, your reason for not sexually abusing your children is that it violates divine command. You accept at face value the warning in The Family: A Proclamation to the World that “[h]usband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children…[That h]usbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations…We warn that individuals who…abuse spouse or offspring… will one day stand accountable before God.” (italics added).

If you believe that the reason that you do not abuse children is that God forbids it and that He will punish you, then you are saying that you do not claim ownership of the value of non-abuse. The value of non-abuse is not your own. If you claim ownership, if the value is your own, if you are intrinsically motivated to not abuse, then the extrinsic motivation (commandment and punishment) adds nothing. It only shapes behavior to the extent that one does not have their own motivation. Like my student in the opening paragraphs who said that if there is no God, he has no reason not to be abusive, you do not need to recognize an intrinsic value of non-abuse. It is tantamount to saying if God did not forbid child abuse, you would not know it was wrong, and have no reason to not do it. The reward for non-abuse, and the punishment for abuse, negate the need to internalize the value of non-abuse, and (like the teenager who cannot wait to drink once away from the rules of her authoritarian parent) may even increase the risk of engaging in said behavior.

I cannot state this plainly enough. The moral theory espoused by the LDS faith—morality as obedience to an external law, with a promise of reward and punishment--inhibits the internalization of morality, and leaves individuals with the belief that nothing is intrinsically wrong or right. If nothing at all is intrinsically wrong or right, then sexual relations with minors is not intrinsically wrong.

The Response of the Faithful to the “Marriages” of the Prophet Joseph

The possibility that sexual relations with minors is not intrinsically wrong is further buttressed by the reaction of the faithful to the “marriages” of the prophet Joseph Smith to girls who were younger than the average age of puberty. Helen Mar Kimball and Nancy Mariah Winchester were both 14; and Fanny Alger and Flora Ann Woodworth were both 16, all younger than the average age of menarche at the time (16.5 years[xlix]).

Defenders are quick to point out that marrying 14 year old girls was not illegal, and “this was simply part of the culture.”[l] “It is a documented fact that in the past so-called “under age marriages” were often the norm.” [li]

Many a defender of the faith will try to argue that there is no reason to think these “marriages” (to girls who were in all probability prepubescent) were sexual. Notice that defenders tend to not say that there is evidence that the “marriages” were not sexual, instead they prevaricate with statements like “there is no documentation supporting that the plural sealings to the two fourteen-year-old wives were consummated.”[lii]

I disagree.

The power to perform sealings (the ostensible authority to create these “marriages” was restored in 1836 (D&C 110), yet Joseph had been entering these plural “marriages” since 1833 or 1835.[liii] Smith was apparently concerned enough about these relationships to ask the Lord if he was committing adultery (D&C 132: 41). Let me repeat that for dramatic effect. He asked if he was committing adultery. If he thought he was committing adultery, it seems rather self evident that his plural marriages were sexual. In His reply, the Lord confirms the sexual nature of plural marriage by stating that its purpose was to “raise up seed” (D&C 132: 19, 30, 31; see also Jacob 2:30 in the Book of Mormon).

The words of Joseph’s 14 year old “bride,” Helen Mar Kimball, also lead one to quite confidently infer that the “marriage” was indeed sexual.

Helen describes herself[liv] as “but one Ewe Lamb…laid…upon the alter.” She describes how her mother’s “heartstrings were…stretched until they were ready to snap asunder.” But why? Why was her mother’s heart “bleeding” over this? Because her mother “had witnessed the sufferings of others, who were older & who better understood the step they were taking, & to see her child…following in the same thorny path, in her mind she saw the misery which was as sure to come as the sun was to rise and set; but it was all hidden from me.”

“…it was all hidden from me.”

A poem written by Helen[lv] for her children many years after the “marriage” begins the by stating how she believed the “marriage” to be “for eternity alone” but “[n]o one need be the wiser, through time I shall be free,” then spends much of the remainder of the poem lamenting her dismay at how she was disappointed and felt trapped “like a fetter’d bird with a wild and longing heart” that would “daily pine for freedom.” Young Helen was quite clearly disappointed that her childhood “marriage” to the 37 year old prophet was most emphatically not “for eternity alone.”

The Prophet Joseph asked if he was engaging in adultery. God told him that the purpose of plural marriage is to raise up seed. And Smith’s 14 year old 'bride" recorded her disappointment at how the “marriage” was not for eternity alone. I don’t think that there is much room for doubt. The “marriages” were sexual.

The apologetic response to Joseph Smith’s “marriages” to 14 year old girls is that things were different then. I ask you, gentle reader, what sort of answer is that? Situational Ethics? Moral relativism? Both are things that the faithful claim to find so repulsive.

In 1842, in a letter addressing the issue of plural marriage, the Prophet Joseph, explicitly denied that there were ethical absolutes: "That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, ‘Thou shalt not kill;’ at another time He said ‘Thou shalt utterly destroy.’ This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire."[lvi] (italics added) What is this if it is not situational ethics?

The “marriages” were not immoral, the defender claims, and the reason that they were not is that it was a different time and a different situation. The apologetic response is to resort to the claim that these non-legal marriages to 14 year old girls are not intrinsically right or wrong.

They were also not marriages, per se. There was no location (be it the USA, Mexico, or Canada) in which the Church performed plural marriages in which the practice was legal. Like every plural marriage performed by the LDS Church, not one of Joseph’s plural “marriages” was legal.

When I attended the temple, I “covenanted” to obey the law of chastity--to not “have sexual intercourse[lvii] except with [my] wife to whom [I was] legally and lawfully wedded.” The most recent revisions to the LDS Temple ceremony have attendees covenanting that “the women of my kingdom and the men of my kingdom shall have no sexual relations except with those whom they have legally and lawfully wedded according to my law.” So to live the Law of Chastity, sex has to be restricted to within the confines of legal marriage.

Joseph Smith’s “marriages” were therefore, by definition, adultery, and a violation of the LDS Law of Chastity.

So in the mind of the faithful, sexual relations with 14 year olds, sexual relations with prepubescents (Kimball and Winchester were both 2 years shy the average age of puberty at the time) is virtuous if God wills it—i.e. not intrinsically wrong. It’s perceived (illusory?) rightness or wrongness depends on the norms, customs, and laws of the time and place in question.

It follows from the apologetic response that sexual relations with minors in the 21st century are not intrinsically right or wrong, but are considered wrong only because of the extant laws and social norms of our day. To the faithful Latter-day Saint, the apologetic defense of Joseph Smith’s “marriages” reinforces the notion that actions that are generally perceived as morally wrong (including sexual relations with minors) are not intrinsically wrong.

Speaking of plural marriage, the Church still practices it, just in a more spiritual and circumspect manner. President Gordon B. Hinckley may have asserted, on national TV, that "I condemn it [polygamy], yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law…”[lviii] but he personally performed the Temple ritual[lix] in which Russell M. Nelson (an Apostle at the time, currently President and Prophet of the Church) married his second bride. When the LDS marry (or are sealed) in the Temple, that marriage transcends death. Consequently, according to LDS theology, President Nelson and his late first wife are still married. That means that from a doctrinal point of view, President Nelson is married to two wives. For that matter, so is a second member of the First Presidency—Dallin H. Oaks. Both literally believe that they are married to two women.

I’m sure that it is not representative of Mormonism as a whole, but I remind the reader of the statement from Apostle Heber C. Kimball: “I think no more of taking another wife than I do of buying a cow.”[lx] This belief in plural marriage can quite easily lead the faithful to make an inference that women are not quite equal to men. When I first attended the LDS Temple, wives covenanted to obey their husbands (though I recall the wording being softened in ’90[lxi]). The Proclamation on the Family points out that “[b]y divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children.” It is not a stretch to see that the doctrine of plural marriage, the temple ceremony, and statements of Church leaders can lead individuals to perceive that it is the natural role of men to be dominant over women and children.

Faith

So the socialization that follows from LDS culture has left adults without an internalized value regarding the intrinsic wrongness of sexual improprieties. Instead, one’s moral development is diverted into an obedience based morality that externalizes one’s locus of moral control, leaving individuals without ownership of their morality.

The externalized source of that morality is God.

And God is an object of faith.

The very nature of faith is that we lack sufficient reason and evidence to justify a belief, and we fill that gap between reason and evidence for a proposition and the assent to that proposition with an act of volition. We choose to believe. That being the case, there is always the possibility that we are wrong. If my Mennonite neighbor believes in his church just as sincerely as I believe in my Mormonism, and if we can’t both be right, then our acts of volition (faith) cannot be a reliable means of ascertaining truth. Any proposition that requires faith could always turn out to be wrong.

The perceived immorality of sexual impropriety is derived from the will of God.

Belief in God is an item of faith.

Therefore the immorality of sexual impropriety is an item of faith.

Items of faith are require sustained effort to believe.[lxii] [lxiii] 

The immorality of sexual impropriety is something that requires sustained effort to believe.

I judge God to be real? I could be wrong. I posit that morality is derived from the eternal law of God? I could be wrong. I believe that child sexual abuse violates God’s divine command? I could be wrong.

So in addition to not claiming ownership over the value of non-abuse, so long as God is perceived as one’s external locus of moral control, because God is a matter of faith, the believer may harbor doubts in the belief in the wrongness of child sexual abuse.

Furthermore, the Church socializes us to believe that morality without God is difficult, if not impossible. This means that for many (most?) raised in Mormonism, the only options with regard to morality are (i) that it flows from God (via His official representatives, the LDS church) or (ii) it doesn’t exist. If we grow up thinking that there are only options A and B, then conclude it is not A, then we are left with only option B --like my student who, upon losing his faith, tearfully thought he ought to conclude that there is no morality.

How many LDS reach adulthood and begin to harbor private doubts about the Church and about God, yet cannot leave the Church due to family, economic, social, employment, or other reasons? How many are attending Church, teaching children and youth, leading youth groups, being put in positions of trust (like Bishops and Stake Presidents who interview teenagers about sexual purity, and do so alone, behind closed doors) while closeted unbelievers? Because their normal moral development was highjacked by the moral environment provided in the Church, many closet doubters have not internalized basic values, and are likely to struggle with even believing in the existence of morality, because it was a matter of faith.

The Devil Made Me Do It!

Remember that in LDS theology, like many others, there is Satan. Satan the deceiver, Satan the tempter, Satan the enemy of righteousness. Just as the source of morality is externalized, so is the source of immorality. If one struggles with inappropriate sexual urges, he can diminish his own responsibility by shifting the blame to Satan and his angels, who fill their time trying to convince individuals to violate God’s commands.

So when a person engages in sexual impropriety, he can take solace knowing that the source of the immoral desires did not necessarily stem from his own nature, but from external pressure from Satan.

According to Elder Lawrence of the Seventy, “The devil targets all men, but especially those who have the most potential for eternal happiness.”[lxiv] The Prophet Joseph Smith said something similar: The nearer a person approaches the Lord, a greater power will be manifested by the adversary to prevent the accomplishment of His purposes."—Joseph Smith.[lxv]

Satan provides quite the scapegoat. Not only does the belief in Satan diminish the responsibility of the wrongdoer, Satan focuses his greatest efforts on those with the most potential, those who are approaching the Lord. That one is being tempted by the most grievous sins could be interpreted as an indication that one is particularly righteous, has greater potential, and is approaching the Lord.

Consequences and Repentance

Instead of internalizing the values of honesty, of charity, of respect, etc, we internalize the notion that the virtuous actions are those for which we are rewarded, and the immoral actions are those for which we are punished. The teenager who refrains from alcohol because of the risk of punishment does not continue to abstain when she no longer thinks there are going to be consequences. If the individual is raised to believe that morality is determined by punishment and reward, there is nothing to stop that individual from engaging in immoral behaviors when they think that they can get away with it. Now cast your mind back to the Bishop who had previously confessed to sexually abusing children, the sexually abusive MTC president, the sexually abusive director of the Temple movies, the epidemic of child sexual abuse in Utah, the rates of pornography (including child and incest pornography) subscription in Utah., the Sunday School teachers sexually abusing children, the Bishop involved in human trafficking… In every instance, these people thought that they could get away with it, that there would be no consequences. And for the person whose morality is derived from consequences, in the absence of consequences, there is nothing to constrain their behavior.

There also seems to be a problem with the idea of repentance. I have mentioned already that I argue that sin does not exist, and in fact is irrelevant to morality. Because a crime like sexual abuse is a violation of God’s will, in the eyes of the faithful, the wrongness of it seems to lie in the relation between the perpetrator and God, rather than that of the perpetrator and the victim. Because the wrongness of the act lies in offending God, the wrong can be righted by getting right with God (as opposed to getting right with the victim).

Anything can be repented of.

Morality, in the view of the believer, is determined by consequences. But repentance means that virtually no matter how heinous one’s actions are, one can still get into heaven. Recall the case of anti-pornography crusader, Stake President, and founding partner of the Church’s legal firm who was caught in the act with a prostitute—Apostle Boyd K. Packer explicitly stated, from the pulpit that there would be no eternal consequences. Recall the case of Sterling Van Wagenen who confessed to molesting children, and is serving six years to life for his crimes. Remember the Church’s sanction against him? Two years disfellowship. Not excommunicated, disfellowshipped. It seems that in the LDS Church, one can be a child molester, and stay in good standing with God, so long as one repents. Morality is determined by eternal consequences? Repentance means that even being a child molester has no eternal consequences!!! If the believer accepts the claim of Alma 42 that our conscience is shaped by fear of punishment, then there is nothing in the conscience of Poelman, Van Wagenen and his ilk to prevent them from molesting children.

 

Conclusion

To summarize, the socialization process that happens in the Church convinces the faithful

-          at an early age, that they will difficulty avoiding sexual sin, the sin second only to murder, and stand in need of the Church to help them.

-          that the source of morality is external to the individual; is sourced from God

-          that morality is determined by reward and punishment

-          that they need be dependent upon the Church in order to know what is virtuous and what is not

The existence of reward and punishment

-          inhibit the internalization of moral values

-          reduce intrinsic motivation to be virtuous or to avoid immorality

-          increase the risk of acting contrary to rules when one perceives that they are not at risk of punishment

-          lead individuals to perceive that if there are no consequences, there is little reason to avoid wrong actions

The Apologetic response to Joseph’s Smith’s marriages to (likely) prepubescent teenage girls is an appeal to moral relativism, and implies that sexual relations with minors is not intrinsically wrong, can be okay in the eyes of God, and is only perceived as wrong due to the norms and man-made laws of our current time and place.

Morality is derived from God, and God is an object of faith. Therefore, morality is subject to faith. Moral values, or even morality as a whole, could therefore turn out to be wrong.

Belief that Satan particularly targets the most righteous diminishes responsibility for immoral/illegal desires and actions.

Because anything can be repented of, anybody can get into heaven, no matter how depraved their crimes. Morality in Mormonism is supposed to be contingent upon consequences, but repentance means that no matter the evil of the action, the consequences can always be eternal reward. There are no consequences for evil actions.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that the kids at LDS schools cannot wait to experiment with pornography, sex, drugs, and alcohol.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that the moral environment provided inside of Mormonism breeds individuals with an external locus of moral control, who think that the morality of their actions is determined by reward or punishment, so are not motivated to avoid the wrong in the absence of fear of punishment, and worse, believe that they can entirely avoid eternal punishment via repentance.

For such amoral individuals, no behavior is intrinsically wrong, and no behavior can bar them from their eternal reward. Consequently, human trafficking, child pornography, spousal abuse, rape, and child sexual abuse need not be off the table.

 



[iv] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/24/podcasts/the-daily/sex-abuse-sundance.html

[xiii] Sorry friends, but yes, that is a thing.

[xxvi] Point of clarification—I am not putting college age kids having sex on the same moral footing as child abuse and Child pornography. The relevant similarity is the lack of self control necessary to keep one’s actions in line with one’s alleged values and beliefs.

[xxx] Curry S, Wagner EH, Grothaus LC. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for smoking cessation. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1990;58(3):310‐316. doi:10.1037//0022-006x.58.3.310

[xxxi] https://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2018/06/motivation

[xxxii] Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of the child. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.

[xxxiii] Kohlberg, L. (1958). The Development of Modes of Thinking and Choices in Years 10 to 16. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Chicago.

[xxxiv] Hoffman, M. L. (1975). Moral internalization, parental power, and the nature of parent-child interaction. Developmental Psychology, 11(2), 228–239. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076463

[xxxv] Kohlberg, Lawrence (1971). From Is to Ought: How to Commit the Naturalistic Fallacy and Get Away with It in the Study of Moral Development. New York: Academic Press.

[xxxvi] Spera C. A Review of the Relationship Among Parenting Practices, Parenting Styles, and Adolescent School Achievement. Educ Psychol Rev. June 2005:125-146. doi:10.1007/s10648-005-3950-1

Krevans, J., & Gibbs, J. (1996). Parents' Use of Inductive Discipline: Relations to Children's Empathy and Prosocial Behavior. Child Development, 67(6), 3263-3277. doi:10.2307/1131778

[xxxvii] https://www.ahaparenting.com/parenting-tools/positive-discipline/strict-parenting

[xxxviii] Dekovic M and Janssens JM. 1992. Parents' child: Rearing style and child's sociometric status." Developmental Psychology 28(5): 925-932.

Janssens JMAM and Dekovic M. 1997. Child Rearing, Prosocial Moral Reasoning, and Prosocial Behaviour. International Journal of Behavioral Development 20(3): 509-527.

Pinquart M. 2017. Associations of parenting dimensions and styles with externalizing problems of children and adolescents: An updated meta-analysis. Dev Psychol. 53(5):873-932

Lamborn, S. D., Mounts, N. S., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Patterns of competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 62, 1049-1065.

Shucksmith, J., Hendrey, L. B., & Glemdinning, A. (1995). Models of parenting: Implications for adolescent well-being within different types of family contexts. Journal of Adolescence, 18, 253-270.

[xli] On the upside, at least Mormonism does not accept the notion that if you are not good enough, God will set you on fire. Well...if you don't pat tithing you get burned at the 2nd coming (D&C 64:23; The Blessings of an Honest Tithe (churchofjesuschrist.org), but that doesn't last forever.

[xlii] …but that’s not original sin…?

[xliii] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (1536). “. . . everything which [God] wills must be held to be righteous by the mere fact of his willing it.”

[xliv] Martin Luther, On the Bondage of the Will (1525). “. . . for [God’s] will there is no cause or reason that can be laid down as a rule or measure for it.”

[xlv] William of Ockham, Reportata 4.16. Ockham suggests that assert that were God to command it, it would be virtuous to hate God.

[xlviii] He is now a lawyer…

[liii] Compton, Todd (1997), In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, Salt Lake City: Signature Books,ISBN 1-56085-085-X. pp. 25, 43-44.

[liv] Jeni Broberg Holzapfel and Richard Neitzel Holzapfel, eds., A Woman's View: Helen Mar Whitney's Reminiscences of Early Church History (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1997), 481–487

[lv] Helen Mar Whitney, Autobiography, March 30, 1881, p. 2

[lvii] This was changed in 1990 to “sexual relations

[lx] Ann-Eliza Snow, Wife No. 19, Chapter 17

The Twenty Seventh Wife, Irving Wallace, p. 101.

[lxi] https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2026&dat=19900501&id=KicuAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EdEFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2799,6735&hl=en

[lxii] https://in.churchofjesuschrist.org/choosing-faith

[lxiii] https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/true-to-the-faith/faith?lang=eng

4 comments:

  1. This is really interesting, and encapsulates everything I've been wondering about since I was 13. Thank you for putting this into words.

    ReplyDelete
  2. the old me: I have to depend on a religion to define morality because it's not appropriate for every individual to individually define morality.

    the new me: I'm responsible for my own morality. I can not afford to outsource it to an organization (especially one that moves the goal posts)

    ReplyDelete
  3. I no longer believe in a higher power. I don't believe in sin, heaven, or hell. Shockingly, I have yet to kill, rape, or maim anyone! SO WEIRD.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Great article, which elegantly articulates many points that have concerned me in recent years. My only (very minor) disagreement is that I don’t think Jacob 2:30 means what you think it means.

    ReplyDelete