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
[ix] https://www.ksl.com/article/97495/trial-begins-for-sunday-school-teacher-accused-of-sex-abuse
https://fox13now.com/2018/06/15/former-lds-church-primary-teacher-arrested-for-child-sex-abuse/
[x] https://kutv.com/news/local/utah-county-man-sentenced-2-years-for-child-sexual-abuse
https://www.sltrib.com/news/2019/07/31/former-lds-bishops-sex/
https://abcnews.go.com/US/families-speak-church-jesus-christ-day-saints-sex/story?id=63690802
[xi] https://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/ci_11821265
https://www.deseret.com/2009/3/3/20304992/utah-no-1-in-online-porn-subscriptions-report-says
[xii]http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:qZ7dDAlnweQJ:epubs.utah.edu/index.php/socialdialogue/article/viewFile/327/267+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca
[xiii] Sorry
friends, but yes, that is a thing.
[xv] https://toresays.com/2019/04/30/utah-child-pornography-epidemic/
https://attorneygeneral.utah.gov/utahs-child-pornography-problem-2/
https://www.thespectrum.com/story/news/2019/05/17/child-pornography-arrests-rise-utah/3710101002/
[xxii] https://www.insider.com/mormon-church-accused-of-silencing-sexual-assault-claims-2019-5
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/24/us/mormon-young-excommunicated/index.html
[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.
[xxix] https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/sin-theology
[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.
[xlvi] Bruce
R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd edition, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft,
1966), p. 539
https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/jeffrey-r-holland_will-father/; https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/04/obedience-brings-blessings?lang=eng; https://www.lds.org/ensign/2008/01/obedience-the-first-law-of-heaven?lang=eng; https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1994/04/live-in-obedience?lang=eng; https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1973/10/obedience?lang=eng; https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/17-obedience?lang=eng; http://www2.byui.edu/Speeches/Bednar_Jan2004.htm; https://www.thechurchnews.com/archive/1990-06-16/living-the-first-law-of-heaven-3246;
Ezra
Taft Benson, Mission Presidents’ Seminar, 21 June 1988; see Teachings of
Ezra Taft Benson (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1988), p. 26.
[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
[lvi] History,
1838–1856, volume D-1 [1 August 1842–1 July 1843], Page 3 [addenda] (josephsmithpapers.org)
[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.
[lxiii] https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/true-to-the-faith/faith?lang=eng
This is really interesting, and encapsulates everything I've been wondering about since I was 13. Thank you for putting this into words.
ReplyDeletethe old me: I have to depend on a religion to define morality because it's not appropriate for every individual to individually define morality.
ReplyDeletethe 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)
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