is there a place for heavenly mother in mormon theology?

S U N S T O N E
they are the mistakes of men.
tinued, it became clearer and clearer that it was a political
statement intended to intimidate my father into compliance.
Dad finally had enough and got up and walked out of the tent
where the service was being held, even before the so-called
prophecy was concluded.
I wasn’t there, so I don’t know what happened when Dad
walked out. (My source for this story is my older sister and
brother, who were there.) But it’s fun to imagine the closing
lines of the prophecy: “Thus saith the Spirit unto my servant
Melvin Russell . . . Melvin! . . . Come back here, Melvin!!”
We should not accept something we otherwise consider
hogwash simply because it is in the scriptures or because some
authoritative person says it is from God. In many parts of the
world, we see people doing inhumane things to other people
in the name of their sacred text or god. We easily condemn
these actions when they are done in the name of other gods or
other sacred texts. For instance, Jerry Falwell and Pat
Robertson condemn Osama bin Laden and other Muslims for
inhumane action justified by their reading of the Koran. Yet
Falwell and Robertson seem unaware that they use a similar
methodology in interpreting their own sacred texts—the
Hebrew and Christian scriptures. As Jesus said, “Why do you
see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but not notice the log in
your own eye?” (Matt. 7:3 NRSV)
In our world, we see terrorist activities which kill innocent
victims. We see women treated as property of men and executed
as adulterers. We see homosexuals imprisoned or killed.
We see bad things being done in the name of other religions
and other gods. And we condemn these actions. But do our
own young people—based on their reading of scripture—engage
in activities which are also immoral or un-Christian?
WE WHO ARE part of the Restoration movement
have traditionally been people of the book, even
people of the books (plural). The LDS “Articles of
Faith” and the RLDS “Epitome of Faith” are both based on
Joseph Smith’s Wentworth Letter, and there is very little difference
between them. Both doctrinal statements include Joseph’s
statement to Mr. Wentworth that “we believe the Bible to be
the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.”
But Joseph’s statement has serious problems. It suggests that
Joseph thought significant errors had been introduced by the
omission or alteration of plain and precious truths. He seemed
to think the Bible had been tampered with by wicked monks
during the Middle Ages. But we now understand those monks
involved in the translation and transmission process to be
good, devout, men of God who have rendered readings that
are quite faithful to the original texts. We owe them a great
debt of gratitude, not words of condemnation such as those
which Joseph Smith uttered. Joseph’s statement seems to be a
product of a hostile attitude toward medieval Catholicism
common in his day, as seen in the attitudes of Thomas
Jefferson, Joseph Priestley, and Thomas Paine. 1
But the more serious problem with Joseph Smith’s statement
is that it implies that the original texts of the biblical
writings were quite all right—that any mistakes that happen to
have crept into our Bible can be attributed to the translation
and transmission process. Unfortunately, the problems are
usually in the original text.
RLDS General Conference Resolution 215, adopted in 1878,
represents very well the church in which I was raised. The resolution
declares that the scriptures—the Bible, the Book of
Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants—are the source of
religious authority. If we can support our point from the Three
Standard Books, we can be confident it is true.
In both our churches, as people of the books, we assume
our sacred books are “true”—whatever that means. We quite
naturally wax eloquent about the inestimable value of our sacred
texts when we are articulating those ideas and events in
them which we find of value. I doubt that any elder has lost
church status for applauding the message of any particular
passage of scripture or from praising the scriptures in general.
However, if an elder notices in scripture an idea which
seems either irrelevant or immoral, I doubt his status will be
enhanced by telling the saints about it. We applaud the teachings
of the scriptures which seem relevant and true in our contemporary
culture while we remain in cowardly silence about
passages that might be considered wicked and immoral.
CONSERVATIVES OFTEN ACCUSE liberals of “picking
and choosing” what they will accept and reject in the
scriptures. I hope we all plead guilty. In 1996, I was
interviewed on Martin Tanner’s KSL radio talk show in Salt
Lake City, “Religion on the Line.” One caller asked why I
thought I could pick and choose among the scriptures. I
replied, “Because God gave me a brain.”
Although they might not admit it, conservatives also pick
and choose, but their ideology often prevents them from
seeing or admitting that they do. When confronted with a difficult
passage, the liberal is more inclined to admit it is without
merit while the conservative will more likely seek to find a way
to explain it as somehow “true”—though sometimes great
mental gymnastics are required.
For example, Leviticus says that if two men commit a homosexual
act, they have “committed an abomination: they
shall surely be put to death.” (Lev. 20:13 KJV) When conservatives
challenge advocates of gay rights, they often cite
Leviticus, the earliest of several biblical passages which they
say condemn same sex relationships as sinful—even those that
are loving, monogamous, and committed for “as long as we
both shall live.” But I have never seen an anti-gay advocate of
Leviticus seriously suggest that we should execute people who
engage in homosexual acts. They employ Leviticus to affirm it
is an abomination, but they pick and choose within that very
sentence by ignoring the holy scripture’s call for capital punishment
for these actions. And of course the scriptures also call
for the death penalty for adultery, profaning the Sabbath,
swearing at parents, and many other disapproved activities.
Although Latter-day Saints tend to favor the death penalty, I
doubt that many would advocate the death penalty for most of
JULY 2004 PAGE 27