Most members of the church, including myself until just
recently, would have no idea about a period of history in the church referred
to as “The Reformation.” I have always thought the church would never have
needed anything like a “Reformation.” I always believed the continuing
succession of leaders after Joseph Smith precluded the need for anything that
might be called a “Reformation.” The word Reformation implies change or
alteration. Isn’t that what the restoration was all about to begin with after
all? Exactly what was it about the
church Joseph had established under the direction of the Lord that needed
reforming after only 26 years of existence? As I learn more about the Mormon Reformation,
I realize it was actually much less a reformation of the church itself so much
as it was an evolution within the leadership of it. I have come to realize
there is much more to learn about the early church leadership from the Mormon
Reformation than about the wayward membership the leaders were attempting to
“reform.”
The Mormon Reformation was an effort by Brigham Young and
his leadership team of the church to bring in line or “reform” the membership
of the church. It was the perception of President Young in 1856 that the people
were becoming too relaxed, too dispassionate about their duties and
responsibilities. As a result Brigham Young and his first presidency began the
reformation program in earnest. It quickly turned into a revivalist atmosphere among
the members of the church and more. Almost all existing members were required
to be re-baptized or lose their membership in the church.
It was during
this same period that President Young began the rhetoric and teaching of blood
atonement. This doctrine provided that there were certain sins that in order to
be forgiven of, a sinner must shed their own blood. Apologists claim the
doctrine was never actually practiced. Critics claim it was. It is not our
purpose here to decide that question. It is important for what we are
considering to understand however, the doctrine was taught and espoused by
Brigham Young openly and in public, almost no one refutes that. It is a
historical fact. Whether or not the doctrine was ever actually practiced, it
had the effect of instilling fear and anxiety in the people. During the reformation,
messengers sent from the church visited each home of the members. These “home
missionaries” came equipped with a list of questions to be read for confession
purposes in every home. Among the questions to be asked in each home were these
that if answered in the affirmative were understood to carry a penalty of blood
atonement:
“Have you committed murder, by
shedding innocent blood, or consenting thereto?”
“Have you betrayed your brethren
or sisters in anything?”
“Have you committed adultery, by having any connection with
a woman that was not your wife, or a man that was not your husband?” (Questions
taken from Massacre at Mountain Meadows by Ronald W. Walker, Richard E. Turley
Jr., and Glen M. Leonard, page 26)
In addition to these, there were another 23 questions the
home missionaries administered in the homes of the people.
From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism: (which I find more
apologetic than most other sources.)
“The revivalistic spirit, the anxious confession, and the
mass rebaptisms, however, gradually gave way to more judicious and ordered
reform. The reform became especially systematic at Church headquarters, where a
policy was established to have two home missionaries assigned to each ward.
Equipped with a twenty-seven-question catechism to help measure the worthiness
of the Saints, the home missionaries assisted families with everything from
hygiene and church attendance to obeying the Ten Commandments. Only after some
months of missionary-member visits were Saints in the Salt Lake City wards
rebaptized in early spring of 1857. In Salt Lake City, rebaptism generally
marked the formal end of the Reformation, though reform fervor continued until
mid-1858.
Under instructions from President Young, the Reformation was
carried to settlements and missions throughout the world. While procedures
differed somewhat in areas away from Utah, rebaptism was a strong
recommendation for all the Saints. It symbolized both forgiveness of sin and a
recommitment to obey commandments. Those who refused to be rebaptized might
lose their membership in the Church. In Britain, zealous application of
Reformation principles resulted in trimming from Church rolls a large number of
the less-committed.”
As a side note, what do you suppose would be the response if
you were to request a re-baptism for yourself from a present day church leader?
The revelations given by the Lord through Joseph Smith
provided every guideline needed for Priesthood leadership to deal with every
leadership issue then and now. As
I consider the reformation, I find practically none of the revealed priesthood
principals for leadership applied. It is for this reason I find more in the
reformation that causes me to question the actions of the leadership than the
poor members who were summarily and systematically raked over the proverbial
coals. Because revealed priesthood leadership principles were absent, the Lords
people were subjected to unneeded anxiety, pressure, and fear. It is clear;
control, compulsion, and dominion were the leadership tactics of the day. We
will consider here just how destructive such practices by men are to any
priesthood power they think they may have.
In the Doctrine & Covenants the Lord instructed, “Let no
man think he is ruler; but let God rule him that judgeth, according to the
counsel of his own will, or, in other words, him that counseleth or sitteth
upon the judgment seat.” Priesthood leaders are not to set themselves up as
“rulers” of the people. (D&C 58: 20) They do not “rule” over anyone.
The ancient apostles James and John approached the Master
and asked Him if they might sit on His left, and the other on His right hand in
His Kingdom. This request agitated the remaining ten apostles. The Master used
this occasion to teach the great Priesthood leadership principle. He said, “Ye
know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship
over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. But so shall it
not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:
And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. For even
the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his
life a ransom for many.” (Mark 10: 42-45) Again, as he did in D&C 58, the
Lord makes it clear; priesthood leaders are not to assume they are “rulers” of
the people. They rule over no one, to choose to do so as we will see, results
in forfeiture of priesthood power.
The Lord revealed correct priesthood leadership principles
in a magnificent revelation to the prophet Joseph Smith. The Mormon Reformation, and the actions
of the leaders of the day, if they are weighed against these eternal truths, is
found greatly wanting. D&C 121: 36-44 is given by the Lord as follows:
(with commentary following)
36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably
connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be
controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
The only possible way the rights and powers of the
priesthood can be controlled or handled by any man regardless of position or
calling is upon principles of righteousness. There must be a connection with
heaven itself. That connection does not and cannot come from a position or
calling including president, prophet, or pope. We have already seen the Lord
does not consider acting as a ruler over people a principle of righteousness.
It is in fact unrighteousness. There could not have been the direction or blessing
of heaven in the Mormon Reformation because its foundations were unrighteousness.
37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is
true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our
vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls
of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens
withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is
withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
The conferral of priesthood is no guarantee of power in the
priesthood. A man may be ordained to a priesthood office and never have any
power in the priesthood whatsoever.
If any or all of the parameters outlined by the Lord in this verse are
violated the spirit of the Lord is grieved. When the spirit of the Lord becomes
grieved it is withdrawn from the man. The Lord then declares “Amen” to the
priesthood and authority of the man. A very convincing case can be put forth
that every one of the qualifying attributes of unrighteousness in this verse
were violated by the church leaders in the Mormon Reformation.
38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto
himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight
against God.
In this verse we find a direct and stern warning from the
Lord to wayward leaders. It is one thing to forfeit your priesthood by your
actions. (This usually happens unbeknown to the man because in his arrogance
and blindness he believes wrongly that he has rights and privileges because he
has been ordained or has such and such a calling or position.) However, when
you do forfeit priesthood power, and the connection with heaven by which it may
be exercised, since you no longer have any connection, help, or rights from
heaven, the only options left for you if you choose to continue in
unrighteousness is to “kick against the pricks,” to “persecute the saints,” and
to “fight against God.” Persecuting the saints in the reformation seems to have
been the chosen fare of resort for leaders whose priesthood surely must have
been forfeited according to the criteria the Lord set.
39 We have learned by sad experience that it is
the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little
authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous
dominion.
The effects of our fall and the telestial existence we all
struggle against make flaws and mistakes in every man inevitable without
exception. All of us, including anyone and every one regardless of position or
rank who has been ordained to a priesthood office are disposed to immediately
think it is their right to “rule” and to use their position or calling to
exercise what the Lord calls “unrighteous dominion.” To borrow words from an
earlier verse, unrighteous dominion includes any effort at any level by a
leader to “control” or to apply any amount or level of “compulsion” whatsoever
upon the souls of the children of men. The Mormon Reformation was at its heart
an effort on the part of leaders to implement and extend control and compulsion
upon people. The dominion exercised against church members by the leadership of
the church during the Mormon Reformation is in my opinion, the poster child
case for “unrighteous dominion.”
40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.
Zion has failed in the church for a number of complex
reasons. The unrighteous efforts of church leaders to control, to apply
compulsion, and their exercise of unrighteous dominion upon the souls of
members of the church is at least a major contributing factor.
41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained
by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by
gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall
greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—
43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved
upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love
toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;
44 That he may know that thy faithfulness is
stronger than the cords of death.
The leadership applied almost none of the accepted
principles of priesthood leadership from these verses in the Mormon
Reformation. No wonder it failed miserably to create greater spirituality among
the people. It did however instill plenty of fear and subservience to the
leaders. Such leaders, such principles, deserve no loyalty or followership from
any of Gods children.
Vestiges of these flawed leadership tools and
philosophies were passed along and remain in the church today. Though cloaked
in a slightly different garment than what appeared in the mid 1800’s, control,
compulsion, and dominion are yet tools used to achieve desired results of
church leaders from the people. The people want and need priestly, Christlike, humble,
loving, servants to minister righteousness among them. The Lord requires it. He
has offered no other options for priesthood leaders. Other options adopted by
men result in "Amen” to their priesthood.
No comments:
Post a Comment