AVERSION TO THE CROSS

It's the rare person in this world who hasn't heard of Jesus Christ. Most people have some concept of Christ, even if an inaccurate one. I suppose that, if you asked the average person, even if not a Christian, what they thought of Jesus, most would at least say he's a good guy. Some might even say he was a prophet.  

But unique to Christianity is the concept of Jesus as a suffering Savior who died on a Cross at Calvary for the sin of all mankind.  Very few who call themselves Christian would deny his vicarious atonement. This belief had always been part of Christian teaching. 

I don't recall ever seeing a cross on any LDS Ward house or Stake Center or Temple. I don't recall seeing the cross on necklaces or as part of our awards in classes. It just simply wasn't present. I don't even recall hearing LDS leaders claim that Mormonism is a “sect” of Christianity per se. Oh, they said “we are Christian” but a distinction was always made between the LDS church and all the churches that also claimed to follow Christ. 

It never dawned on me how hypocritical it would have been of our leaders to claim to be part of the body of Christianity, given that the church founder claimed they were all apostate and that this revelation came from none other than Christ, Himself:

“I was answered that I must join none of them [the existing churches], for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that their creeds were an abomination in His sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: 'they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof” [Joseph Smith's First Vision].

Of course we were told that Jesus died on the Cross. But we were also taught that this was not where he atoned for our sins, rather, the atonement for mankind, we were told, took place at Gethsemane:

“Then Jesus left the upstairs room in Jerusalem and with his apostles went to the Garden of Gethsemane. There he suffered terrifically, as Benjamin had predicted, 'even more than man can suffer.'  In fact, we read in Luke: 'And bring in agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground (Luke 22:44).' There he shed much of his blood and took upon himself the sins of those who would receive him” [Milton R. Hunter, First Council of the Seventy, Through the Blood of the Lamb, Conference Report, April 1958, pp 78-81].

I believed the leaders when they spoke about such things.  In general there was very little focus on the Cross other than to say that's where Jesus ultimately died. We were not told about how horrendous his death was, either. Which, one could expect. Small children could likely not comprehend such a thing and don't need those gory details rolling in their little heads, either. It simply would have been far too graphic for a child. But to not delve into it for teens and adults seemed rather odd to me.

This wouldn't seem like an aversion to the Cross except that the visual of the Cross was conspicuously missing. It was nowhere to be found on any structure. It was nowhere to be found in the buildings, either. And, back in my time, you were advised against wearing the Cross as jewelry. 

Of course it was mentioned at Easter time, and there were even some pretty sanitized depictions of Jesus on the Cross used during our lessons.  And then, there were the songs.  Strange the way songs affect our understandings of things. Music truly is a teaching tool! And in the LDS church the hymns spoke quite loudly as to doctrine.  Sometimes it was quite subtle. For example, the hymn “Behold the Great Redeemer Die”.  While the first few verses were pretty spot on, the fifth verse, which I didn't pay much attention to, went like this:

“He died, and at the awful sight

The sun in shame withdrew its light!

Earth trembled, and all nature sighed,

Earth trembled, and all nature sighed,

In dread response, 'A God has died!'”

The entire song talked of Jesus' death and the Cross (without ever mentioning the word “cross”) and yet, smuggled in there, was the idea that there were multiple gods, of which Jesus was but one.

There was a hymn that mentioned the death of Christ on the cross. We sang it so often it was imparted to my memory to this very day. In fact, we sang it before taking the sacrament.  “The song was While of these Emblems We Partake” and part of it went like this:

“For us the blood of Christ was shed;

For us on Calvary's cross he bled,

And thus dispelled the awful gloom

That else were his creation's doom”.

The lyric writer for the song, John Nicholson, probably was a little confused. Born in 1839, he converted to Mormonism in 1861 at the age of twenty-two. So perhaps he brought some of the stuff about the Cross and how Jesus shed his blood for mankind in that location, and not Gethsemane, along with him. Nobody seemed to mind, though.

These were things I just didn't think about. But why should I have? We were told the atonement for man was at Gethsemane and that was that.  Later on, in my teen years, I would hear alternative voices expressing the view that Jesus took on the sin of man, not at Gethsemane, rather, on the Cross itself. This experience first happened to me in high school. 

Phil was one of those annoying Christians.  This was back in the early seventies when the cults were thriving and Christian churches were on high alert for the oddball groups that collected lost teens.  The “Jesus People” were also thriving and considered part of the “new wave” of Christianity.

Lumped in with the “cults” was Mormonism.  Most of us LDS kids, I believe, were completely unaware that we were considered part of a cult group. I surely didn't! Not until Phil came along. Of course, I found it easy to write him or any of his buddies off, seeing that they were so strange.

Of Lebanese extraction, Phil's family had left Lebanon for America shortly after he was born but they still lived as Lebanese people. Which meant Phil was the only boy in high school sporting a beard and smelling like Cumin. But he was friendly enough and most people liked him, that is, until he started talking about Jesus.

Like other members of the school Bible Club, Phil carried his Bible around on meeting days. But he went a little further. He carried it every other day as well. The black leather binding was nearly worn out and pages were slipping from the binding. But that didn't stop Phil from pulling out his Bible whenever the opportunity to use it presented itself.

So many of the ardent believers back then, particularly the younger ones, were keenly into cult studies. They had good reason to be, especially in D.C., which back then had as many nuts and mental cases as any place else in the U.S., and that's without counting Congress! 

For example, Scientology had taken off and was on the rise in D.C.  There was a raid on them in 1971 which resulted in some very negative exposure as well, but this was not uncommon with these groups. And then there was the Alamo Foundation and the Children of God groups. But these groups were mainly out west. 

More present in D. C. were the followers of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi  and the Hare Krishna. Both groups were known to present themselves at airports, bus stations and train stations, as well as college campuses. The Krishna's were the main offenders though. Usually bugging people in airports by selling flowers “for a donation.”  Eventually they were banned from entering.

When Phil found out that I was LDS, I suddenly became his “pet”. Though I didn't know why right away.  It all started quite innocently. We were in homeroom when the announcement came on the intercom that the Bible Club would be having its first annual mixer and that, if you wanted to attend, all you needed to do was contact a member.  At the time I was already attending LDS Seminary in the early morning before school. So I didn't really see a need to join the Bible Club.

When Kathy asked me if I would like to go I explained that I was already attending seminary. Apparently neither one of us knew that LDS Seminary wasn't like Christian seminary. “You should definitely come, then!” She said all perky. “Since you're attending seminary you could probably give us all some insights!”

Poor Kathy thought I was a devoted Bible student. Little did she know that we were studying the Book of Mormon!  I was also under the misconception that everyone who knew me also knew that I was a Mormon. It's not like I wore a matching Angel Moroni earrings and necklace set but I sincerely thought people knew!

When we walked into the classroom that afternoon I was impressed by the friendliness. But then, high school mixers tended to be that way.  We took our seats in a preset circle of chairs while the club President opened with prayer. The prayer seemed quite odd to me, to be honest. 

To begin with, the prayer was extremely informal.  There was no addressing the Heavenly Father. Instead,  they skipped Him and went straight to the second in charge, Jesus.  The others didn't sit quietly, either. Some said a simple “yes Lord” while others said a more animated “amen,” right in the middle of the prayer! Shouldn't that have been at the end?  My mind filed this under the irreverent folder.

After the prayer and being told to help ourselves to the cookies, we were told there was going to be a short devotion. This is when I noticed that everyone else was wearing a Cross except me. Phil's was so large you couldn't help but see it. But most were small ones, worn around the neck or on the wrist. 

“But first, let's share a little about ourselves and where we are in our faith walk,” the teacher advisor said. It was an interesting mix of traditional Christian groups. Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist and Episcopalian. And then it was my turn.

“I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”, I said.  This was followed by a deafening silence from those around me. Then came the comment I truly did not expect: “It's nice to have a Mormon in our midst,” said the teacher advisor. I hadn't said Mormon. How did he know? I wasn't hiding it of course, but we had been told to use the full name of the Church whenever possible. I had no idea that others outside the LDS church knew the term Mormon applied to us LDS folk.

I sat there as the devotion began. It was on the Cross of Christ. Specifically the purpose of the Cross and why Jesus had to die on it. To be honest, everything that was said pretty much went by in a blur.  For me, it was like these people were speaking in a foreign language. They used terms I had used, but they seemed to have a completely different meaning.  Among those terms was the term “atonement”.

They kept talking about “the blood” and about sacrifice being needed. To be honest it all sounded pretty grisly and sounded more like they were relating a morbid human sacrifice as opposed to Jesus willingly giving Himself for sin.  This was especially so when it came to the discussion about the Cross.

“Now wait a second,” I interrupted. This was too important to let go by. “It was in Gethsemane where Jesus shed great drops of blood. Not on the Cross! Gethsemane is where he bled for mankind!”

Phil had a totally dopey look on his face as the others corrected me.  I never felt so out of place in my life! It was like I was the last bone in the desert and the vultures were circling! Eventually I got up, excused myself, and determined never to return to Bible Club again.

But that didn't stop Phil. No, I was his mission in life. I remember one specific occasion when Phil decided to just confront the vampire in me or something. I was leaving choir and he caught me in the hall.

“You see this?” He held up his humongous wooden Cross. “We wear this because it symbolizes that Jesus loved us so much that He shed his blood for us on it!”

I stood there with this cross inches from my face, feeling very intimidated to be honest. I began to walk away in the opposite direction, hoping Phil would simply leave me alone.  But I didn't go very far before I spun around and yelled at Phil:

“I suppose if Jesus had shed his blood when someone shot him, you'd wear the gun around your neck!”

This wasn't something I pulled out of my hat, rather, it was based on something I had heard not too long before this encounter. Usually it came from LDS Missionaries telling stories about their door knocking exploits.  In Mormon doctrine, unlike Christian teaching, the Cross has no positive connotation:

“We may be definitely sure that if our Lord had been killed with a dagger or a sword, it would be very strange indeed if religious people of this day would have graced such a weapon by wearing it and adorning it because it was by such a means that our Lord was put to death” [Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, vol. 4, 1963].

I look back on those statements now, realizing that they come from an ignorance of how beautiful the Cross of Christ is and how Christians actually view it.

Back then I wouldn't have known such things.  Oh, I saw the Cross on the steeples of  a variety of denominations. I saw people wear it. And I saw one in the front of the sanctuary when I went to a friend's church as a child.  I also saw the Cross- well actually the Crucifix- when I snuck into St. Annes Catholic Church one day just to see what it was like inside.

On those occasions I still believed that the rest of the religions were just apostate sects of the true Christianity. I also thought that they were worshiping the Cross. After all, the Catholics bowed in front of it. Protestants too, sometimes. I also thought it odd that the Catholics used a crucifix and Protestants did not. Yet another evidence that the Mormon church was the one true church: all the other churches disagreed about the Cross.

I never realized that the Crucifix was a memorial to the suffering Messiah and that the empty Cross was a memorial to the risen Savior. Today's Mormon leadership has, by in large, toned down the anti-Cross rhetoric when explaining why LDS structures do not sport the Cross. As Gordon Hinckley said:

“I do not wish to give offense to any  of my Christian colleagues who use the cross on the steeples of their cathedrals and at the altars of their chapels, who wear it on their vestments, and imprint it on their books and other literature. But for us, the cross is a symbol of the dying Christ, while our message is a declaration of the Living Christ” (Ensign, April 2005, The Symbol of our Faith).

Hinckley's rationale is flawed when he says that the Cross is a symbol of Christs' death alone and then to say they worship a “living Christ”.  If Jesus had not died on the Cross, there wouldn't be a “living Lord” in the sense of a resurrected Savior, which the Mormon church clearly teaches.  Think about what it was that Jesus used to identify himself as being resurrected in the first place: 

“When therefore it was evening, on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst, and said to them, 'Peace be with you.'  And when he had said this, he showed them both his hands and his side. The disciples therefore rejoiced when they saw the Lord” (John 20: 19-24).

Showing them his hands and side was showing them evidence that He was the one who was killed on the Cross. Obviously Jesus wasn't squeamish about what happened on the Cross. And it happened to Him!

Down through the ages, Christians have died for their faith, which included believing in the death of Christ on the Cross. When it comes to attacks on the fundamental faith of Christianity, it isn't the Virgin conception that is most attacked. Nor is it the general ministry of Christ. The target for almost every attack is Christs' death on the Cross and its redemptive action.  To dismiss it's memory through symbolism as something contrary to the remembrance of a living Savior simply eliminates the link between His sacrifice and His resurrection.

Another problem with the idea that to have a Cross in your church is like honoring the gun that killed a loved one is that this rationale flies in the face of what Christ, Himself, had to say about His own death:

“No man taketh [my life] from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have the power to lay it down, and I have the power to take it up again.  This commandment I have recieved of my Father” (John 10:18).

Jesus could have gotten down off that Cross at any time. He chose not to. This was not a murder, as Muslims often argue when trying to diminish the death of Christ on the Cross.  No, it was a willful sacrifice. 

On September 11, 2001, firefighters ran into the World Trade Towers when others were running out. They self-sacrificed their lives. Standing on Ground Zero is a memorial to those brave men who went in, when others went out. Nobody worships the memorial there. But they go there to remember. And so it is, but on a much more important scale, with Crosses on and in Churches. Its a symbol to remind us of Christ's willful sacrifice, not a murder. And the empty Cross, present in all Churches, reminds us that Jesus didn't stay dead. He arose!

It may be of interest to know that the aversion to the Cross that I experienced as a Mormon child wasn't present in the earliest days of the Mormon church. In 1916, to commemorate the sacrifices of early Mormon Pioneers, Bishop Charles Nibley proposed the erection of a large cross.  A BYU paper on Ensign Peak related the story:

“In 1916, the public debated a plan to place a cross at the summit of Ensign Peak. Surprisingly enough, it was Charles W. Nibley, Presiding Bishop of the Church, who suggested placing a large concrete cross on the peak.  Bishop Nibley announced that the Church would provide the leadership and funding for the project, which was designed to achieve two objectives. The first was to provide a visible reminder to the city below of the sacrifices made by the pionees of 1847.  Secondly, a visible cross would stand as a symbol to visitors who were not members of the Church that Mormons were indeed a Christian people. Many groups in the community objected to the plan, including members of the Church and various other religious organizations. This growing opposition within the community and the Church prompted Bishop Nibley to abandon the plan” (Ensign Peak: A Historical Review, Dennis A. Wright and Rebekah E. Westrup. BYU Religious Education Studies).

But though some today are quick to point out that the early Mormons, some of them, did wear the Cross, it is important to note that Mormonism began with converts from the established Christian sects wherein the wearing of a Cross (not the Crucifix) was commonplace.

President David O. McKay crystalized the LDS concept involved in the wearing of the Cross. In responding to a letter about whether or not young LDS girls should purchase a cross that was being sold in a store in Salt Lake City, Utah, McKay responded that such was a “..purely Catholic” thing and that “...Latter-day Saint girls should not purchase nor wear them...” (Deseret News, September 10, 2009, “Sunstone speaker attempts to explain LDS 'aversion' to the Cross”).

In over thirty years of being Mormon, I never saw anyone wear a Cross who was LDS. Strangely enough, we had songs in our hymn books that used the Cross as their theme and seemed more in line with the traditional Christian view than with LDS doctrine on the topic of the Cross:

“Upon the cross of Calvary

They crucufied our Lord

And sealed with the blood of sacrifice

That sanctified his word.”

[Upon the Cross of Calvary]

“Help us, O God, to undestand

Our Savior's love for us.

He paid the price for all our sins

And died upon the cross.”

[Help Us, O God, to Understand]

“Let me not forget, O, Savior

Thou didst bleed and die for me

When thy heart was still and broken

on the Cross at Calvary.”

[In Humility Our Savior]

The first time I ever heard “the preaching of the Cross” was in a small country church. The Pastor, not a man prone to dramatics, was to the point of tears as he described in detail the events leading up to the Cross, culminating in a detailed account of the crucifixion itself. All of this was peppered with medical information about what the physical body went through along the way.  From His arrest to the ultimate crucifxion itself, the Pastor detailed what this did to the man, Jesus.

I sat there mesmerized. I had never heard the crucifixion of Jesus portrayed this way. It was always a kind of sanitized presentation.  When he came towards the close of the sermon he asked the congregation: “is it any wonder that Jesus agonized over His mission while in Gethsemane? Wouldn't we have been in agony over the situation to come as well?”  

The Pastor went on: “Jesus was, after all, fully God and yet, he was also fully man. He had human fears and feelings and had no doubt felt physical pain on a lesser scale. He knew hunger. He knew emotional grief.”

Contrary to what Bruce McConkie had to say in 1985, Gethsemane had nothing to do with bringing for the “immortality and eternal life” of all humanity. It had nothing to do with freeing all mankind from “death” and “hell”.  Nor could Gethsemane have possibly been where Christs' “..suffering satisfied the demands of justice, ransomed the penitent souls from the pains and penalties of sin, and made mercy available to those who believe in his holy name” (Bruce R. McConkie, “the Purifying Power of Gethsemane” April 1985).

No, that kind of demand for justice was laid down in the Garden, when Adam and Eve, who sinned in rebellion, attempted to cover their sinful actions with their own design. But a Holy God could not and would not accept their human attempt to cover sin. Instead, God fashioned skins for Adam and Eve to wear as a covering. This was the first instance of blood shed to cover sin.

Sometimes, when discussing this with LDS Missionaries, the point to a particular passage in Luke:

“And  [Jesus] was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed, saying, 'Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me; nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.' And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground” (Luke 22: 41-44).

There has always been some discussion as to what the droplets of blood in Gethsemane were all about. What was going on here?  Luke, who recorded this event, was also a physician as well as the only one who was not an Apostle (albeit, he was a disciple).  He was also the only Gospel writer noting the droplets falling from Christ. 

This is significant. Had the event in Gethsemane been a redemptive event, the other Gospel writers would have mentioned it. And yet, they did not.  And yet, for some reason, Luke finds this event particularly significant.  His physicians' interet could e the reason. Medical resources today call the condition of Christ in Gethsemane by the name Hematridrosis.

According to a study published by the National Center for Biotechnology Information, 

“Acute fear and intense mental contemplation were found to be the most frequent causes” of Hematridrosis [Holoubek and Holoubek, Lousiana State University of Medicine, Shreveport.]

It needs to be remembered as well that this event took place before Christ was arrested.  If the redemptive work was done at Gethsemane, then there was truly no reason for Christ to continue in His mission and endure all of the humiliation and pain.

In The Promised Messiah, Bruce McConkie stated:

“Forgiveness is available because Christ the Lord sweat great drops of blood in Gethsemane as he bore the incalculale weight of the sins of all who ever had or ever would repent...In the garden called Gethsemane, outside Jerusalem's walls, in agony beyond compare, he took upon him the sins of all men on condition of repentance”.

I would think the agony of the Cross would trump the agony in Gethsemane ten times over because it was more than emotional agony, it was also physical as well as spiritual because, as Jesus ultimatetly took on the sin of all mankind, for a split second, the Father turned His Holy face away from His only Son, the physical Jesus:

“And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Mark 15: 34).

Jesus, the man who knew no sin, was God in human flesh. Yet, as he died and all the sin of the world was placed on him and he became the final sacrifice for sin, Jesus was banished from the presense of God. This is because sin cannot exist in God's presence. So the cry of Jesus tells us the profound truth, and that is, that Jesus endured the separation from God that is deserved by all. He felt it for us on the Cross.

I never totally understood the sacrifice of love that was portrayed at the Cross until after I came to an understanding that the death, while horrific, was necessary. And that it was a willing death. The aversion to the Cross I knew growing up Mormon was a manufactured theology designed to keep people like me from turing to the Cross as a symbol of Christs' full sacrifice for me, not just mankind in general, but me, personally.

And because of that loving sacrifice I can now walk boldy to the throne of Christ without fear of being turned away for any reason:

“For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 8: 38, 39).

An Open Apology to Warren Jeffs

 There's a poem called "Children Learn What They Live" and the basic theme of the poem is that a child will learn from the behavior and attitudes of those around them. For example, "if they live with praise, they learn appreciation". I guess it's applicable across the spectrum of life, including in religion.

 I grew up in the mainstream LDS Church. Warren Jeffs did not. He grew up in what is called the "Fundamental Latter-day Saint" or FLDS sect. The group, and others like them, were treated as oddities among the faithful LDS like myself, who were taught when growing up that polygamy is something reserved for the afterlife, maybe, and couldn't be practiced in this life. Jeffs, on the other hand, was taught what Joseph Smith taught and what all the early LDS prophets taught: polygamy is a basic tenet of the LDS faith and practice.

To me, the Warren Jeffs of the world were oddballs who never made it into the twentieth century. And the people like Jeffs, people like myself, were those who did the straying away from the truth. And yet we both claimed to love and revere the same founding prophet, Joseph Smith. Interestingly, Jeffs and I are the same age. I grew up denying polygamy; he grew up embracing it. I grew up in the shadow of "continual revelation", a belief that allowed polygamy to be moved to a future afterlife. Jeffs grew up in the shadow of his father-prophet, who clung voraciously to everything the current LDS faith had taught us to deny.

I now feel like I owe Warren Jeffs an apology. He was breaking the law of the land, yes. And he shouldn't be allowed to get away with it, and he isn't. He is languishing in prison. But by the same token, to act as if he somehow violated the LDS teachings is simply wrong. He wasn't. He was merely carrying them on when the main body was running scared.

To understand why I say this, we have to go back in time. For me, while growing up Mormon, polygamy was something we didn't hear about until our adult years. Of course, there was no internet back then, so it was much easier for the LDS Church to keep things under wraps.

We did, however, get a hint of polygamy in our Seminary studies in the Doctrine and Covenants:

"Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David, and Solomon, my servants, as touching on the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines-

Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.

For behold, I reveal to you a new and everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter my glory.

For all those who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world..."

It's a very lengthy revelation and goes on to say that the covenant was instituted for the glory of God and that if the people don't abide by it, they'll be damned (emphasized twice to make sure people got the message, I guess.)

What's interesting is that Joseph's revelation also nullified existing marriages by saying that all "covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations or expectations" that were not made according to the "Holy Spirit of promise" (aka, LDS Temple Sealing) are of "no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection of the dead." In other words, a regular, legal marriage that non-Mormons have isn't any good in the hereafter because, after all, the participants aren't sealed in the special ceremony called "sealing".

While this didn't nullify legal marriages per se, it did open the door for "eternal" abuse. And indeed that happened! The text goes on to indicate that refusal to enter into polygamy (aka "the new and everlasting covenant") could result in serious eternal consequences, such as missing out on godhood:

"....and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fullness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever."

Smith was nothing if not verbose. He could easily have summarized it, or made a Cliffs Notes revelation by simply saying: "Look, if you don't marry as a polygamist in the way we tell you to, you won't become a god after you die". But then, that might not have sounded holy enough for his contemporaries.

So here we are. Two kids, the same age, growing up in the same religion, loving the same prophet, raised to believe that Joseph Smith's words were sacrosanct, and yet, because of how we were raised to perceive the application of D&C section 132, we came to two different conclusions about polygamy as adults. Warren Jeffs and I shared a belief, and yet, we did not.

I didn't know any polygamists when I was growing up. I had heard they existed, but because I lived on the east coast of the United States, and not in Utah or other states surrounding Utah, we just didn't hear about them existing in our day. And they weren't talked about with us little kids in the church at all. The first time I even heard about it, some kid in elementary school who knew I was a Mormon asked me how many Moms I had. I went home crying because he was teasing me about how many women slept in the same bed with my Dad. But the word polygamy was never used, and Mom told me to "just ignore the ignorant".

It wouldn't be until Seminary that I would hear about polygamists who claimed to be Mormons. Up until then, we didn't talk about section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants, and even then, it was a historical past, not in the present. Instead, we were told, those practicing it today were outside the mainstream of the Church and disobeying the current Prophet and Scripture.

We were also told that the revelation bringing back polygamy was introduced by Joseph Smith, but only in writing. I'm guessing that the Seminary teacher was only going by what the curriculum guide told him. Either that, or it was never clearly explained why it was introduced, and the teacher made some assumption when he said it was not practiced until they reached Utah and were under the leadership of Brigham Young.

Years later, I would find out that the Seminary teacher didn't tell us the accurate story. Whether it was the official teaching for youth, or whether the Seminary teacher was interjecting his views, I will never know for sure.     Though he was a good and honest man, and so I believed him.

I also believed him when he told us the reason for polygamy was that there was a shortage of men and an overabundance of women. And that women back then needed a man to take care of them and protect them. And that, of course, God had directed it, so it was all okay. The lesson was a one-time mention, however, and it was never mentioned again.

Later on, in both Gospel Doctrine class and Temple Preparation class, polygamy would come up again. The validation for the practice, we were told in both, actually came from the Bible. When I asked about the condemnation of polygamy in the Book of Mormon, I was told the Book of Mormon only condemned the "unauthorized practice of polygamy". The reference in the Book of Mormon can be found in the book of Jacob, where the Nephites were practicing all kinds of "whoredoms" including polygamy, and they are told by God through Jacob:

"Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord...Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this [sic] people shall do like unto them of old" (Jacob 2: 24 & 26).

Again, though, the condemnation in the Book of Mormon, we were told, was because it was unauthorized. In other words, if someone in authority says it's okay, it's okay. Even if your book, inspired by God Almighty, condemns the practice.

For the most part, we were pointed to the Old Testament for validation of the practice. Abraham did it. Never mind the fact that the practice resulted in a feud between the Jews and the Arabs that would last until this very day.

David was another one pointed out as an example. Though described as a "man after God's own heart", however, David made mistakes and sinned. When David got involved with another man's wife, for example, it resulted in the sin of murder and the punitive death of his son with Bathsheba. Later, his polygamy would result in the rape of Tamar by Amnon, both fathered by David and who were step-siblings to one another. Amnon would be killed by Solomon. Tamar would live the rest of her days alone.

Other mentions of polygamy in the Bible would involve wicked kings like Abijah and Lamech, the descendants of Cain who followed Cain's wicked path. And then we have Solomon, supposedly the wisest man ever, who wasn't so wise when it came to women and polygamy. It ended up getting him into marriage and concubinage ways with women who were not of his faith, which in turn ended up having a bad effect on his relationship with God.

The bottom line is that while God allowed these men to sin and delve into polygamy, God never said it was okay to do so. God's design for man was outlined in the Creation. One man. One woman. Had God intended for more women to come to the party, He could easily have created extra females. But he didn't.

And if that's not enough evidence, when Jesus addressed the issue of divorce, Jesus didn't point to multiple wives, but rather, a one-to-one construction:

"'...Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,' And said, 'For this, cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.'"

Note that he didn't use the term "wives" but wife. Same as in Genesis. God's perfect desire is for women and men to complete one another without "extras" on the sidelines. There are also passages in the New Testament that clearly state that a man in a leadership position should only have one wife ( Ephesians 5: 22 - 33). So, while the Bible nowhere says "thou shalt not take multiple wives" examples of the practice show that a) the practice never seems to have good results; b) it's practiced by heroes of God at their lowest point and by wicked men; and c) it's not given as an example as part of God's original design.

None of this, however, was ever taught to us. And so, when confronted with polygamy in my Junior High years by some smarty pants Methodist who found out I was Mormon and asked me if I knew who my Mother was, I remember answering: "Of course, I know!" Only to have the kid inform me that he was surprised that I knew, given that my Dad had more than one wife.

I was stunned and angry. That afternoon, I asked my Mom if Dad had another wife stashed somewhere. When she asked me what in the world made me ask such a question, I told her what happened. My Mom's classic and regular advice was to "ignore him" because the kid teasing me was ignorant.

Dad, on the other hand, gave me the skinny on the matter. He said the early Mormons were forced into polygamy because the Gentiles (the word we used to use for non-Mormons) were killing off the men, leaving the women alone, often with small children, and no income or means of support.

"The practice of polygamy was restored to help the sisters," he said. "The reason we don't do it today is that we don't have to."

It was probably a good thing that I didn't go read section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants closer, or I might not have accepted his explanation. It would probably have raised more questions, such as:

1) Why was Smith even asking about polygamy in the first place if he hadn't already had it in his mind to engage in the practice?

2) If, as the D&C says, everyone who has it revealed to them must practice it, why did the Church stop practicing it? Better yet, why excommunicate those today who openly practice it?

3) If it was a "new covenant" in Joseph Smith's day, how did King David know about it?

4) And if it's supposed to be everlasting, why hasn't it lasted?

5) Is everyone who doesn't practice it going to be damned?

6) If a man marries a woman but it isn't within the guidelines of Section 132, does that make his marriage of no effect?

By the time I got into Seminary in the 1970s, there was a little more discussion about the practice, but not a whole lot. It would be brushed over with more focus given to the Manifesto of 1890, which officially ended the practice (so they said). I don't recall anyone asking what happened to the women who were in polygamous marriages once the Manifesto went into force. And, to my recollection, the Manifesto of 1904 wasn't even touched on in classes.

The Manifesto of 1904 came about because the Manifesto of 1890 didn't work. People living in parts of the US and Mexico continued to practice polygamy. And the marriages that were to be dissolved were not. Well, at least the women weren't left destitute. Or were they?

A current television show glorifies polygamy aside, polygamy isn't the happy institution the LDS Church tried to make it seem. To begin with, there's something about the nature of most women that, when it comes to their man, they simply don't like to share him. Call it jealousy if you want to, but I believe this is God's ingrained instinct from the Creation of man and woman.

In 2014, I went on a mission trip to the Manti Pageant in Utah. Every year, the LDS Church holds pageants in specific locations, usually attached to a temple or historical spot, wherein segments of the Book of Mormon and the founding of the LDS church are reenacted. It's a missionary tool they use to bolster the "faith of the Saints" and draw in potential converts.

At this pageant in 2014, I portrayed one of the wives of Joseph Smith. Each one of us dressed in period costumes and told the story of our character to those stopping to question us. I played Nancy Winchester, one of the teen brides of Joseph Smith. My character was only fourteen or fifteen years old when she married Smith just before his death. After Smith died, she remarried to Heber C. Kimball. Nothing like getting passed along like furniture, right?

My character never said whether she was happy being married to Smith. But other wives did talk about it. For example, when Emma Smith, the first wife of Joseph, found out about Fanny Alger being married to Smith, she pulled a Sarah to Hagar thing:

"Emma was furious, and drove the girl, who was unable to conceal the consequences of her celestial relation with the prophet, out of her house"

(Fawn Brodie, No Man Knows my History, citing Historical Record, Vols V-VIII, pgs 233, 942).

In other words, Fanny was pregnant and, as Sarah did with Hagar, Emma ran Fanny off. But Emma would eventually give in under the pressure of Section 132 of the D&C. This does not mean Emma was happy about it, and, in the end, when the LDS Church split after the death of Joseph, Emma would routinely deny that the practice was ever done.

Zina Jacobs was another woman Smith approached for a polygamous marriage. Her response was less than thrilling:

"O Heaven! Grant me wisdom! Help me to know the way. O Lord, my God, let thy will be done and with thine arm around about to guide, shield and direct..."

Zina turned around and married a guy named Henry instead. Smith, however, was never dissuaded. Unwilling to take no for an answer (nor to respect boundaries), Smith continued his pursuit and, within a few months, made her an offer she couldn't refuse:

"[Joseph] sent word to me by my brother saying, 'Tell Zina, I put it off and put it off till an angel with a drawn sword stood by me and told me if I did not establish the principle upon the earth I should lose my position and my life...the Lord had made it known to him she was to be his celestial wife.'"

Talk about pressure! Marry me or else I die, literally! And from no less than an Angel! She went on:

"When I heard that God had revealed the law of celestial marriage...I obtained a testimony for myself that God had required that order to be established in this church... I made a greater sacrifice than to give my life for I never anticipated again to be looked upon as an honorable woman by those I dearly loved...It was something too sacred to be talked about; it was more to me than life or death. I never breathed it for years."

I cannot fathom having to make that decision. Here she was, married to one man, and another man, Joseph Smith, puts pressure on her to marry him lest he die. In essence, Smith was pressuring her to commit adultery! Is it any wonder she felt she would be seen as dishonorable? Blind obedience to Joseph Smith saw her living with Henry, but not as a husband and wife ought to live. That she saved for her part-time husband, Joseph Smith. Poor Henry was a cover.

Remember David and Bathsheba? And how he sent Bathsheba's husband, Uriah, off to war to get killed so he could have an affair with Bathsheba? Smith sent Zina's husband, Henry, off on church "missions" so that Smith and Zina could carry on their relationship. The only difference between Henry and Uriah was that Henry survived. But the polygamous relationship eventually took its toll on Henry, who, despite it all, bore no animosity, even after Smith's death:

"...the same affection is there...But I feel alone...I do not blame any person...may the Lord our Father bless Brother Brigham...all is right according to the Law of the Celestial Kingdom of our God Joseph" (Letter from Henry Jacobs to Zina).

I remember sitting in the Temple Preparation class when the topic of plural marriage in heaven came up. My husband immediately voiced his objection, saying that it was hard enough to handle one wife and he didn't want more wives.

Besides, he added, "She's my only love!"

The Elders' Quorum President was there and responded with: "You don't have to [marry more than one], but when you're in the Celestial Kingdom, you'll probably change your mind."

In a 2006 statement about polygamist sects, the LDS Church disowned Warren Jeffs, stating that he wasn't a Mormon. In a strange twist, it seems members of the LDS Church are also not Mormons since the application of the term to its members and the church itself has been effectively banished.

The article then stated that the Mormons don't practice polygamy and that there's no such thing as Mormon Fundamentalism, or a "Mormon Sect" (online source: https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/polygamist-sects-are-not--mormons,--church-says ).

The condemnation of Warren Jeffs seems, at best, hypocritical and, at worst, dangerous for LDS women who, for now anyway, are enjoying the benefit of monogamy. 

What is it that the LDS leadership objects to with Jeffs and others, who believe that Section 132 of the D&C is still in force?

Is it the idea that they both believed themselves to be modern-day prophets?

Is it that Jeffs and others like him believe in practicing "continual revelation?"

Is it that they both married teenage girls? Smith and Jeffs, both marrying a mother and her daughter?

Or that they married women who were already married to other men?

Is it the notion that, as long as something is revealed by a leader in authority over them, it must be okay?

Or is it simply that it wasn't revealed through the "mainstream leadership" of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Citing from the LDS official newsroom article:

"...the Lord's people is monogamous [sic] unless the Lord reveals otherwise. Latter-day Saints believe the season the Church practiced polygamy was one of these exceptions".

In other words, Mormon women better not get too comfortable with monogamy. Things could change at any time. And with same-sex couples garnering marriage "rights" and the push for acceptance of Shariah marriage (Muslim polygamy is allowable under Shariah), it could very well happen sooner than people think.

In 2013, a Utah judge ruled Utah's ban on polygamous cohabitation was "unconstitutional", though the law banning polygamy was still in force in Utah.

For now, however, the principle has been relegated to the far land of Celestial Glory. A man can be sealed to more than one wife. The other way around is not allowed, though. Given that this would help out men who died single, one would think a little gender equality in the Celestial Kingdom would go a long way. But I suppose "proxy marriage" could take care of the problem.

This brings me to my final brush with LDS polygamy. By this time, we had already decided to leave the Church as a family. We either all went, or none went to the local Ward. The majority ruled. It was a unanimous vote.

George and I had sent a letter to the Stake President requesting our names be removed. We heard nothing. We ended up framing another letter that wasn't as nice as the first one. We sent copies to the Stake President as well as out to Utah. One morning, while the kids were in school and George was at work, there was a knock at the door. It was the Elders Quorum President.

John and his wife had been friends of ours. We had gone fishing on the piers together. John was just rough enough to get along with George. Claudia and I also got on quite well. We would often joke about our rough-around-the-edges husbands, with Claudia apologizing for John's "colorful language". So when I opened the door and it was John standing there, I was about to welcome him inside when I saw the look on his face and a document in his hand.

"Are you happy doing this?" John asked.

"No," I responded. "Not really. It's not what I intended, but it's for the best."

"I know George will never come back to the Church. He isn't that kind of guy," John said.

"You're right," I responded. "And I don't know yet if I will come back, either."

"Well," John said, " if you do, know that I would be willing to have you sealed to me".

I guess it would have seemed chivalrous were it not for the fact that we had all gotten along so well. Something welled up inside me, and it was not a sense of gratitude. It was more like indignation. How DARE he talk about marrying me away from my husband? How DARE he suppose that I would betray his wife this way? Did he think I was so desperate to take such an offer?

I grabbed the paper and slammed the door. Peeking through the hole, I watched as John walked away. It would be the last time I would see either John or Claudia again.

As I came to learn more and more about Joseph Smith's dalliances into polygamy, as well as those of other LDS leaders that followed him, the more I came to realize that the excuses could no longer excuse the inexcusable.

The excursion to Manti in 2014 is a time I will never forget. As I stood there in a make-shift period costume, wearing a slate sign designating which wife number I represented, I had a chance to talk with Mormons from around the world. Some listened intently to the story. Others just waved me off as they walked by. And one flipped me off.

But there was one young couple that stood out and is still in my thoughts and prayers today. The girl couldn't have been more than twenty-one or twenty-two. She was young, fresh, and clean-cut. Very all-American and had been raised LDS all of her life.

As she stood there with her fiancé, a young returned LDS missionary, they held hands and listened to the narrative of the life of my character. The girl wanted to approach closer, but the fiancé kept pulling her back. I could hear her saying to him: "What harm could it do?"

She won out and got closer, asking me what I was doing. I explained that I was with a particular group whose goal was to educate the public about the many wives of Joseph Smith. The young returned missionary-fiance chimed in, quickly hitting all the bases: there was a shortage of husbands and an abundance of women, so they had to do polygamy; some of the women were widows without prospects; polygamy came as a revelation from God; Moses, David, and Abraham did it, etc. The entire time, the young girl looked at him with adoring eyes and a sweet little smile.

Sometimes, when someone is rattling off, it's best to stand silently. And I did. Once he spent his verbal energies, I turned to her and asked her:    

"Since polygamy is revealed, if the Chruch reinstates it, would you be willing to share this young man, the love of your life, with another woman?"

Up until I asked that question, she had been nodding in agreement with him. But suddenly things changed. It had been personalized for her.

"You can't ask her that!" The young man shouted. I guess he thought he was defending her honor or something.

"Okay," I said. "Then let me ask you. If the LDS leadership reinstated polygamy, would you take another wife?"

The look on her face was precious. There was a fright I had never seen before. But on his face? More like deer in headlights.

Suddenly, he coughed, stood up stiff as a board, and said: 

"If the Lord says I should, then I will!" 

Had this happened a couple of centuries earlier, I would have mistaken this young man for Joseph Smith himself.

Yet my heart was broken because of his neglect of the feelings of a young girl he claimed to love. She looked up at me, her eyes open, and big tears rolling down her cheeks. The shock of one of the ugly truths of Mormonism had hit her.

And I think this is what happens to so many of those of us who left the church. Up until the day John knocked on my door, the ugly truths of Mormonism's polygamous past had not hit me. I knew about it and excused it and even embraced it as being a principle limited to heaven.

But the thought of my current husband bedding another woman, while claiming to love only me? The idea of it happening never dawned on me. Until the day John came by. And it was probably the same for this young woman hearing, for the first time, that the man she loved would be willing to be with another woman.

I cannot imagine being able to separate my heart, soul, mind, and body from my husband to share him with another woman. We are part of one another. It's two shall be one, not thirteen shall become one.

As of this writing, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints still eschews polygamy. However, they have relaxed somewhat. With the 2022 Respect Marriage Act (H.R. 8404) came this official announcement:

"We are grateful for the continuing efforts of those who work to ensure the Respect for Marriage Act includes appropriate religious freedom protections while respecting the law and preserving the rights of our LGBTQ brothers and sisters. We believe this approach is the way forward. As we work together to preserve the principles and practices of religious freedom together with the rights of LGBTQ individuals, much can be accomplished to heal relationships and foster greater understanding" ( https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/respect-for-marriage-act-statement ).

But that isn't all that has changed. What was once criminalized is no longer a criminal act when limited to consenting adults:

"In 2020, the Utah Legislature passed a law to decriminalize polygamy, reducing bigamy among consenting adults from a third-degree felony, punishable by prison time, to an infraction on par with a speeding ticket" [US News, April 24, 2020]

According to one of the sponsors of the bill:

"Anyone who still commits bigamy, the traditional sense of bigamy where they're married to someone and they go fraudulently marry someone else, that's a third-degree felony. Or if they try to coerce someone into purporting to marry them? That's also a third-degree felony. We also kept a second-degree felony for anyone who engages in bigamy and also commits other crime like fraud or sexual abuse, things like that."

I doubt that Warren Jeffs will ever read this. But if he does, I want to make a formal apology to him. My arrogance in judging him, and other followers of Joseph Smith, who have, and still do, practice polygamy, was hypocritical given the history of polygamy in the Mormon church. Jeffs was only following the example of the Prophet he was taught to revere.

In making this apology, I am not saying the Jeffs did the right thing. He did not, from either a biblical or a legal viewpoint. God had a reason for creating one man and one woman. The two were to complete one another. Simple as that.

A Marvelous Work and a Wonderbread

 Some of my fondest memories of growing up Mormon revolve around Wonder Bread, that ultra-soft bread Mom would slather with yellow mustard, a slice of cheese, and some balogna, and send you off to school with. Although it was tasty and still is, Wonder Bread is no longer considered the best bread for you. But it's still a winner when it comes to bologna and cheese sandwiches, grilled Velveeta cheese sandwiches, and, of course, the Sacrament.

In the Church, what other churches called “communion” or “the Lord's Supper” was called the Sacrament. There was an entire service built around it called Sacrament Meeting, called such because it's when you took “the sacrament.”

Before I begin explaining why I have such fond memories of a simple food like Wonder Bread, I suppose I should explain how Mormonism and Christianity vary when it comes to this very important moment of faith when people partake in remembrance of the Lord's sacrifice for them.

In Christian churches, it's a fairly simple event. The “bread” is usually a small wafer or some kind of crispy, unleavened bread. While we have no indication from the Bible as to whether or not daily bread was leavened or unleavened, it's fairly safe to say that the bread used at the Last Supper was unleavened. Jesus was a good Jew. He practiced those basics required of a Jew, such as unleavened bread used during Passover, which was when the event called the Last Supper took place.

In Luke 22, Jesus said:

“I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before My suffering. For I tell you that I will not eat it again until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.”

Thus making it clear that this was to be part of their Passover meal. Remember also that they were not yet in hiding. These followers had no reason to hide. So obtaining the necessary elements for Passover would not have been an issue for them.

Jesus also told them:

“This is My body, given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”

Jesus knew what was coming. His body wouldn't be torn like a soft piece of bread. His body would be broken like a piece of crispy Matzos as the bones broke in his wrists and feet during His hanging on the Cross. It wasn’t humans who broke his bones. It was the process of crucifixion as Jesus took on the sins of the world.

Christian churches also use either actual wine or grape juice. Most use grape juice.

It was not unusual back in Jesus’ time to use a communal cup. To this day, the Catholics still use the communal cup, but the Priest is the only one who sips from it. In every Protestant church I’ve been in or visited, the grape juice is poured into sip-size cups from a communal jug (usually the one it's sold in). The Mormons also do this, but with one variation: it's not grape juice or wine, it's water in those cups.

Does it matter? I once asked this of an LDS Missionary who insisted it didn't matter. Of course, he would say it didn't matter. Their scripture says it doesn't matter:

“It mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory” [D&C 27:2-3].

He then explained that, since the Word of Wisdom had been revealed, there was no drinking of wine allowed anyway. The Word of Wisdom is the revelation against alcohol, tobacco, etc. I recollected the story of how this happened in the first place. There was, back in the days of Joseph Smith, concern that local wine makers were poisoning the wine used in the LDS Sacrament. And so along came the revelation that it really didn't matter what was used.

But truthfully, it matters. Whether or not a symbol that's designed to remind you of something in some way, shape, or form resembles the thing you're trying to remember is important. Especially since Jesus was the one using the metaphor. Would you put a photo of a total stranger in the family photo album and say it's there to remind you of your Auntie? Of course not. You might put a photo of her, a lock of hair, or maybe some other small item in it, but not the image of a total stranger.

The blood of Jesus was shed, thus implying that others were involved in His death on the Cross. This isn’t the same thing as Hematidrosis, as is speculated to be the shedding of droplets at Gethsemane. From the moment of his capture, and on through until his final words were uttered, Jesus’ blood was shed by others, for others. When they scourged him beyond recognition, when they forced a thick crown of Judean thorns on his head, when they ripped his blood-soaked and dried rags off his body, thus ripping open the wounds all over again, when they drove nine-inch nails into his wrists and feet, and finally when they tested to make sure he was dead by thrusting a spear into his side (releasing a mixture of water and blood), the shedding of his blood-the presence of His blood- was there. All the way through the process of His laying down his life for us.

This isn’t drama, it’s reality.

In the Last Supper, Jesus referred to the “fruit of the vine” because it resembles the color of blood. It might or might not be fermented, but it came from grapes, not water buckets:

“Take this and divide it among yourselves. For I tell you that I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes” [Luke 22:17-18].

And to explain it to them a little clearer, Jesus follows with:

“This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is poured out for you.”

What was meant by New Covenant? And why was it in his blood?

Under the old Mosaic covenant, man was forced to see his sinfulness through attempting to keep the law of Moses. Not the twelve basics, no, the full law, all 613 requirements. Galatians 3:24 explains this:

“Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.”

Jesus made it quite clear that it would be His blood that was poured out for them and that this was a new covenant as opposed to a blending of old and new covenants.

So when a Christian partakes of the wine, or grape juice, they see the symbolic blood of Christ. Water isn't blood. And they're also drinking from, as Christ explained, “the fruit of the vine”.

I suppose you could use Skittles and cola if you were hard up, and God would understand. But I find it impossible to believe that the LDS Church, as it is today, quite wealthy, cannot afford to do a proper Lord's Supper as prescribed by Christ. In the very beginning of the church, they did use wine. Though, in all honesty, I never questioned this as a Mormon.

It would be several years before I would come to the realization that the symbolism mattered. The first hint that the Mormon teachings and practices posed a bit of a problem was when I first partook of the Lord's Supper as a new believer in Christ.

I remember that Sunday as if it were yesterday. We were attending a small church in Florida. I had just become a Christian a few months earlier, and they were getting ready for Easter. We had been practicing a Cantata, and the Pastor decided to do the Lord's Supper on Easter Sunday, once the Cantata performance (which was Friday and Saturday nights) and all rehearsals were over. It seemed very appropriate.

That Sunday, the Pastor gave a very detailed sermon on the events leading up the the Resurrection of Christ. He spent more time on the details of the suffering than I had ever heard before. In the LDS Church, we had a kind of sanitized teaching on it. No real deep looks at what Jesus actually, physically went through.

This sermon absolutely brought tears to my eyes. Not tears of sadness, though, but rather, tears of love. To think that He loved me that much to go through so much was incredible. Nobody ever loved me like that, ever!

When it came time for the bread, the Pastor read from Mark, and then these older men (deacons) brought around these teeny tiny wafers. More like miniature oyster crackers than anything else. I had no trouble partaking of those.

But when the “wine” came around in the teeny cups, I had some issues. For you see, we had been told that alcohol was a no-no:

“That inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father, only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before him. And, behold, this should be wine, yea, pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make” [Doctrine and Covenants 89: 5, 6].

A careful reading shows that the prohibition against alcohol is only against strong drink and wine if the person is just guzzling it without a religious purpose. The passage also specifies that pure grapes of the vine that you make yourself is okay to have. And yet, they opted not to make their own. In fact, you're asked in the Worthiness Interviews conducted by your local Bishop if you “are keeping the Word of Wisdom,” which is taken to include abstinence from all alcoholic beverages, including wine. Saying that you enjoy an occasional glass of wine with dinner, at least back then, could cost you your Temple Recommend, or position, or any number of other “blessings”.

Now that you hopefully have a handle on how the LDS and Christian versions of the Lord's Supper differ, I'll go on and explain more about the Wonder Bread thing.

For as far back as I can remember, LDS Lords' Supper (aka the Sacrament) consisted of two elements: water and bread. Back when I was growing up Mormon, the bread sold on most store shelves was Wonder Bread. It was considered quite healthy because it was fortified. Anything back then that was called “fortified” was considered top-notch. And my Mom, the consummate foodie, insisted that her children have the best foods, so she, like all Moms across the country, bought Wonder Bread. We had an abundance of it in our house because there were five of us, and we all took lunch to school.

I also had three older brothers who, like all good Mormon boys, were expected to participate in the passing out of and preparation of the Sacrament at the age of twelve. They started out as Deacons and Teachers (ages twelve to sixteen) and then Priests, from ages sixteen through eighteen. The Priests, I always felt, had the most responsibility because, not only did they have to break up the slices of bread into small pieces, they also had to say a prayer over both the bread and the water.

The one for the water went like this:

"O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this water to the souls of all those who drink of it, that they may do it in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them; that they may witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they do always remember him, that they may have his Spirit to be with them. Amen."

And the prayer over the bread went like this:

"O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it, that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him and keep his commandments which he has given them; that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen."

Those two prayers seemed like a mouthful to me back then, and I wondered how the young men did it so well. The fact is, when I was growing up Mormon, the young men had to memorize it. At least, that's what I thought. The Priests were kneeling. We couldn't see what was going on, to be honest. Years later, I would find out that they were allowed to have their Doctrine and Covenants open on the bench underneath the Sacrament table and could read from the sections of it where these prayers were cited.

Even still, if a Priest bumbled or fumbled, or left out part of the prayer, or misspoke part of the prayer, or, as I witnessed one time, coughed during the prayer, he would have to go back and do it again until he either got it right or the Bishop got tired of the repetition. Which ever came first. I would guess that no boy in his right mind would want to be the kid who had to repeat the prayer. And my brothers would have been no exception.

I don't know that it was about peer pressure with all the boys, though. In the case of the two youngest of my brothers, they were a couple of precocious guys even back then, so it may have been a little peer pressure combined with not wanting to embarrass the family. But I have no doubt whatsoever that, for the oldest brother, it was a devotion to the Jesus he knew and worshiped, along with devotion to the Church. And I would guess most of the guys I grew up with fell into that category, though I don't know for certain.

What I do know is that the Sacrament and its prayers were something a fellow might want to practice. And, given that Wonder Bread was included in the process, it made practice a tasty proposition. So we kids would gather in the bathroom upstairs, and have our “Sacrament practice” times.

I have no idea who confiscated the slice of bread. We had a glass up in the bathroom that everyone used to rinse out after brushing teeth (I know, gross, but that's how it was done back then, nobody cared about germs inside the family).

Sissie and I would sit on the edge of the tub, which acted as our “pew”. The brothers would put the bread on a little plate and hold it while my oldest brother practiced the Sacrament prayer over the bread. And he had it memorized, too! No cheating from a book for my big brother, no sir! And then he would tear it into fifths and pass it around. This practice was before they were of age to actually perform these tasks publicly.

This could explain why, as a small child taking the Sacrament, I was a little disappointed. At home, our pieces were much, much larger! Then again, we didn't have to make one slice stretch as far as they did when serving an entire Ward of some 200 more people.

Over the years, we ceased our Sacrament practice in the bathroom. It was fun when we were little, but none of the boys were really old enough to have to worry about it back then. As time went by, and my brothers got old enough to actually “hold the Priesthood” offices, there really wasn't a need. The oldest brother was a real Priest now. He was actually doing it. Pretending wasn't necessary. And we were all being forced by life to outgrow those times which I now hold so dear.

But Sacrament practice in the bathroom wasn't my only memory of the Sacrament. While not exactly part of a regular passing of the Sacrament, on Fast and Testimony Sunday, they would pass the Sacrament to help us break our fast.

I should explain what a Fast and Testimony meeting is, and was like back then. Some of this may still be the case today.

We were encouraged to do many things both as children and as adults, among those were tithing, fasting, and bearing our testimonies. In terms of the fasting part, it was felt that children under the “age of accountability”, or under age eight, were not to be required to fast. They were considered too young and wouldn't understand the principle. But the rest of us were expected to fast for two meals. This usually amounted to breakfast and lunch for us because of how our services fell, time-wise. Some families I knew of went without dinner the night before and breakfast that morning. But no matter how you did it, you would always be hungry when it came time to take the Sacrament.

Fast and Testimony meetings were not like the regular Sacrament meetings. During the latter, it was mostly people giving talks (short speeches given by members on various topics), hymn singing, and the sacrament. But in Fast and Testimony meetings, babies got “a name and a blessing”, older children received the Holy Ghost, and members got to tell everyone how much they loved the Church and believed in it. And of course, you got the Sacrament, which meant breaking that fast and actually eating something!

You have no idea how good that morsel of soft, billowy Wonder Bread tasted to a child who had not been allowed to eat from dinner time the night before until whenever their Fast and Testimony meeting took place. It may have been too small for me, but as a kid, it was like eating cake! Of course, as I grew older, the actual significance changed my view of things, but for a little kid, this was a bit of heaven in your right hand.

That was another thing. Sacrament was to always be taken with the right hand, both bread and water. Which kind of left die-hard southpaws out in the cold. As the mother of a southpaw (left-handed ball player), it was a little difficult at times watching him uncomfortably passing the Sacrament with the hand he didn't normally use. But he managed to navigate the right-hand-only rule of the Mormon Church without any damage to his psyche.

It's interesting that left and right differences were so important to us back then. I was reading an article recently about the history of taking the Sacrament with the right hand, and that it wasn't a commonly insisted-on practice until the 1930s. The supposition being that the “left” has a bad connotation in the Bible, and, though insisted upon by many, was not a mandatory thing, at least not by the leadership. I found this a lot throughout my reflections as a former Mormon. Much of what we thought was doctrinally based and leadership-approved was usually either based on folk practice or just plain supposition passed down through the years.

There was never a requirement to use Wonder Bread in the Sacrament, either. I would find out many years later that this was merely the use of the most convenient bread around. In Wards throughout the world, the commonly used breads would differ. Though I doubt Irish Beer Bread is used by the Mormons in Ireland.

So many things about the Sacrament were a mystery to me until my own sons came of age. I never saw what went on behind the Sacrament table until my own child was old enough to go in there and prepare the Sacrament. When it was his turn to buy the bread for the Sacrament, he went through a door that was always hidden within the wall behind each table. I knew it was there when I was growing up, but never ventured in to see. Mostly because I believed (erroneously) that God would strike me dead for going in there without being given permission. Though there was no sign, there was an invisible “Boys Only” on the door.

We had to arrive half an hour earlier on those Sundays.

“May I go with you?” I asked.

He looked at me kind of quizzically. “You have to ask?” He came back, not in a sarcastic or disrespectful way, but in a truly curious way. He couldn't fathom Mom having to ask him permission.

He shrugged, “I guess so.”

I watched as he washed his hands in the small sink. I was glad the Church instructed boys to be hygienic! What I didn't realize was that, whether intended or not, they were being taught to imitate the laws required by the Priests of Aaron (Exodus 30:19), well, part of it. My son didn't wash his feet.

He then washed and dried the plates for the bread, making sure to place two slices of bread on each. At this point, he looked at me. “Don't worry,” I told him. “Someday you'll be breaking it as a Priest.”

It was this young man's job to also set up the table for the Sacrament, placing a white cloth over each, laying out the trays (one with the water and one with the bread), and covering each with another white cloth. This was all to be done reverently and quietly and without distraction. I guess that was pretty difficult to do with Mom hanging around. But another boy was there with us. He watched for the first part and then went on to check the microphones behind the Sacrament tables to make sure they were working properly.

I didn't go with him for the cleanup afterwards. I already knew what I wanted to know. And I don't know if he or the other boys cleaned up after services. All I knew back then was that the mystery of the hidden sacrament room was solved.

I never asked why I, as a girl or a woman, was not able to participate in the sacrament in anything more than a passive role. True, it was all men sitting around the table at the Lord’s supper. But since they only passed it to one another and no women were present, should the women of the church be allowed to sit in on it, let alone take it, too?

In the early days of the church, women actually baked the bread. I have a very vague memory of my Mom saying it was her turn to bake bread, but that she was going to buy hers at the local bakery instead. Mom could bake just about anything, but bread was not something she baked. I never knew why.

There were also times in the church history, particularly wartime, when women stepped in to fill the roles left vacant while young boys took over roles left by their fathers gone to war. Much of this was farm-related.

For decades, however, there was no leniency with women regarding the passing of the sacrament. Perhaps the priesthood system itself was part of the problem in this area. When you have teenage boys, young ones at that, acting as deacons (a position in biblical Christianity held by grown men), it's difficult to find “deaconesses” to fill in for administering the sacrament to other females. Though it shouldn’t be.

In 2018, someone finally figured this out. And though girls were never given “the priesthood,” a very smart Bishop realized a girl passing the sacrament to another female was no different from when it was passed from person to person in the pew.

Liesl Shurtliff told her husband, Scott Shurtliff, a bishop, that she missed receiving the sacrament while she nursed her infant in the mothers’ lounge, usually located in the women’s restroom. Her husband instructed the deacons (ages 12-13) to take the sacrament trays to the women’s rooms, where there would be girls standing at the doors to carry the sacrament into the mothers.

Though not universally disputed by leaders, it hasn’t been embraced by them, either. It's done on an “as needed” basis, and that’s usually determined by the Bishop.

In the ward I grew up in, we had what was called the “quiet room”. It was attached right next to the chapel, and there was a large window so the women could look into the chapel and see the services as they commenced. There were also speakers piping the service in. When a mother needed to nurse, there was a thick curtain that could be pulled for her privacy. Did the deacons ever go in to deliver the sacrament? To my understanding, only when the curtain was open. If it wasn’t open at that time, whoever was still inside missed out.

I have been involved in the preparation of the Lord's Supper in Christian churches. Yes, usually this is done by grown men called Deacons. Acts chapter 6 specifically points to deacons as the ones to distribute the Lord's Supper elements. It does not, however, omit women from its preparation.

Interestingly, some Churches have done away completely with passing around the elements and instead place them at various stations throughout the sanctuary or, sometimes, at the front entryways so as to allow all members, including those attending the nurseries and children’s churches, the opportunity to partake.

Yes, there is a single person, usually the Pastor, who leads in prayer, thus signifying the communal reception. But there is no hard and fast rule as to how this should be done. The focus of the Lord’s Supper is on the emblems and what they represent. Not how it's done by process.

I look back on those days with fondness and think about how mysterious it all was to me, except when we did our bathroom sacrament practice. Then it was no mystery. It was just a fluffy work and a Wonder Bread.