The LDS Church has long wrestled with two tough questions: (1) how to handle DNA & the Book of Mormon, (2) whether to ordain women. I sat down with Jim Vun Cannon, a counselor in the First Presidency and asked how the Remnant Church handles these issues.
DNA & Book of Mormon
Before we tackle DNA, is the Book of Mormon historical?
Jim: We believe that it is an absolute literal history. We believe that there were Lamanites and Nephites and Jacobites and Josephites and all the different –ites that were here upon the land. Obviously there’s a good debate on where they really were exactly for North and South America and so forth, and where maybe in North America and so forth. But yes we do believe that it was a literal people that were here.
What does Jim think about Simon Southerton’s work saying Native Americans are descendants of Asians, rather than from the Middle East?
Jim: Well you know, first of all, I think that whole study—I feel there was a motive to putting together that research, first of all. I don’t feel that was fair and scientific in the way that it was done. Considering if you really want to look at the groups of people, you could argue that Ishmael, is that really the name of a good practicing Jew? I don’t know, but I have a lot of questions. Oh by the way, how many peoples actually came to the Americas? I’ll just put it that way. We’ll summarize. How many different people came?
Well there were a lot of people, and they’re finding a lot of archaeological evidence of a lot of people, so to say that we know that all the Indians were Lamanites I think is really a fallacy. I don’t think you can really say that. They may or may not be. We really don’t know which ones really are or aren’t. For them to go forward and try to put together DNA evidence based on that, plus the other thing is you’re talking about many, many generations back. Trying to argue that you’ve got somebody you can match DNA with from that time period to this time period, I don’t think that science is quite there yet for that.
I really think that it’s a, “ah, we got them! We’re going to disprove the Book of Mormon in one fell swoop.” It’s just kind of like, ”no guys, I don’t think so.” I just don’t think that from my background, being in engineering, I don’t really feel like all the boxes were checked. I don’t really feel like it was an exhaustive study. I felt like there was more of a motive for putting together the research instead of actually looking at it objectively.”
Check out the full interview here.
Women and Priesthood
First, I asked Jim to recount his experiences from 1984.
Jim: Well, wow. 1984 was very much a pivotal year, and it came to its climax in a revelation that was brought by Wallace Bunnell Smith. It was allowing women to be ordained into the priesthood. That was kind of the tip of the iceberg of all the different changes and things that were going on.
The church was doctrinally changing from probably the mid to late [19]60s. It was going through a transformation. There were a number of priesthood members who had entered into the church who had different ideas about the doctrine of the church. To be fair, I believe they’re trying to seek Jesus Christ in the best way they understand. I’m speaking apologetically. I hope everyone understands that. I still love a lot of lovely people over there, just like in the LDS Church. We find many, many lovely people there too.
The thing was, they went about changing the structure and the order underneath, and then at ’84, that became the pivotal point where no one could go any further. It was like, look. This isn’t right. We don’t agree with this. We can’t find any doctrinal support for women and the priesthood basically.
Without asking, Jim referenced something LDS people are familiar with.
It’s like women ordained to have children, bear children. Thankfully we’re not as men. {chuckles} I think the Lord calls each of us to a work to that we are to do. It’s not we’re trying to hold somebody out one way or the other, because just as you all have sister missionaries, we believe that witnessing to Jesus Christ is everyone’s job to go out there and to promulgate the gospel. It’s just the ordinances that they can’t perform. I really miss what the big deal is when it really comes down to that. I think it’s much more of an ideological than theological point of view that people tend to move to when they go down the road of women and the priesthood, and I don’t know how far you’ve gone into looking at that. I think it also gets into relative truth versus absolute truth. It goes a number of different branches but anyway, I’ll stop.
I pressed him a little on the issue, and here’s what he said.
Jim: It’s like, if I use this analogy, I don’t want anybody on this podcast to think that I’m being demeaning in any way towards women. I’m not going to say anything derogatory. I’m just going to use an analogy. I feel that there’s kind of a logic error if you will. Because I believe that God’s word in it is inherently logical. I mean it makes complete sense and it has a balance to it and it is perfect. It’s just like in the past, I could use the logic that God used Balaam’s ass, did he not? He did.
GT: I believe Brigham Young said that was not literal. {both chuckle}
Jim: Well ok, that’s alright. We consider that it was, but ok. But considering that that was, He did that. I can stitch from that and I could also come over here and say I’ve got a dog and this dog is a lovely dog. He knows unconditional love. He’s never barked at anybody. He just loves anybody he meets. He doesn’t care who you are, and oh by the way he happens to be male so I should just ordain him to the priesthood. Does it really make sense? That’s the question I really want to ask. Does it really make sense?
Hear his full comments on female ordination here. What do you think of Jim’s explanations?
Jim’s timeline on changes beginning for the RLDS in the mid 1960’s is correct; as it coincides with society’s counter-culture movement. IMO, the question of how the RLDS could be magnified in the Christian community at large was answered by a watering-down or abandonment of beliefs that might be offensive. Not ordaining women was considered offensive by some.
Again, I wonder why the RLDS and Remnant Church don’t utilize the Relief Society?
People who left the RLDS were perplexed that a minister could proclaim his dis-belief in the Book of Mormon and it was excused as personal opinion; but if he stated his dis-belief in ordination of women, he was subject to priesthood silencing. Even a Conference resolution asking the Church to re-affirm its belief in the BOM was ruled out of order.
One of the first enlightening experiences I had in my cross-over from RLDS to LDS was discovering how hymns written by early RLDS members were okay to sing in the LDS service, but no longer acceptable in the RLDS.
That didn’t make sense to me (perhaps it does in the podcast though). He seems to be equating not giving women the priesthood to not giving dogs the priesthood. Huh? What is the connection between woman and dogs?
You say that the LDS Church has long struggled with two tough questions, DNA and the Book of Mormon, and “whether to ordain women.” I don’t know how much we’ve struggled with DNA in the Book of Mormon (we did follow-up research and found the arguments of critics to be flawed), but one thing we’ve never wrestled with is whether to ordain women. Advocates of this tend to be few and far between, and even if large numbers wanted it and demanded it, it’s just something that’s never going to happen.
Kate Kelly is undoubtedly a wonderful person, but in my view I believe she never should allow herself to be excommunicated over this issue. Rather than seeking the priesthood by appealing to the Church leaders, she should have appealed to the Lord. She can do that as easily as President Monson who, by the way, does not have the authority to change the policy on his own. As I understand it, Monson has already answered her and other advocates by saying NO. To press the matter is foolhardy, as Korah learned in the days of Moses.
What I believe has happened in the RLDS/CofC over the past few decades is a major shift from viewing priesthood as a thing to be possessed (and which thereby grants status, power, & authority over others within the institution) to understanding priesthood as a calling to minister humbly in the name of Jesus Christ. The idea that “all are called” is central, and those callings are expressed in many ways and according to a person’s abilities, talents, and willingness to serve.
Also, I, too, am puzzled by the talk of ordaining dogs and Balaam’s ass in the interview.
I listened to the interview. It seems like a Randy Bott quote to me (as in MAJOR GAFFE.) I think he was saying that it doesn’t make sense to ordain dogs, and it doesn’t make sense to ordain women, as if there is some sort of an equivalence there. Listen for yourselves, but I think it is a disgusting comment.
“I don’t want anybody on this podcast to think that I’m being demeaning in any way towards women.”
Uh dude, that’s the definition of a demeaning statement.
Rich: The Priesthood in the RLDS was surely “sought” by advocates for women’s ordination, first by legislative resolutions in Conference, and finally by the document that became section 156.
In fact, Priesthood offices were the only “callings” processed as such in the RLDS. All other positions on a local level (Pastor, Tithing Solicitor, Music Director, Sunday-School Director, etc.) were filled after nominations and majority-vote election.
I asked about Relief Society, and he said they call it “Women’s Ministries”. He made several comments about Emma and relief society in my next post about polygamy. I am not sure why the name change though.
Mark: More than a few “priesthood calls” for women were discerned by women and men through the 60s & 70s. But, of course, there was no way they could be processed through normal administrative channels. People began to try to change the policy by applying pressure particularly on the 1st Presidency. But it was widely understood that a change could/should only come through revelation.
That’s what happened in 1984. I’ve long contended, though, the church did the right thing but went about it in the wrong way (basically slipping a line into an inspired document that could only be approved in its entirety).
CofC leaders fortunately learned from that experience with a discernment process regarding LGBTQ issues that listened to and valued a wide range of perspectives. I know there were some who believed the process was stacked against their strong opposition. As a participant in the USA national conference, I have to say it was one of the great spiritual experiences of my life.
RickB: The name “Relief Society” is so closely identified with the LDS church that it shouldn’t be too surprising that both RLDS and Remnant churches would avoid its use simply because of the long history of them being adamantly “non-Mormon.”
I find it fascinating to watch the CofC in its ordination of women. It offers LDS members a unique look at what it would be like to see it take place in our church. It’s also fascinating to see photos of women ordaining others, blessing infants and listed as apostles. I can’t help but wonder what the reactions of LDS members might be if someone read a “revelation” in church notifying members that women would be ordained and be eligible for apostolic positions.
What would happen? Mass apostasy? Cheering? Perhaps both? To you LDS members, how would YOU react?