This post covers a lot of ground quickly, so hang on, and I hope I don’t trip you up on the preliminaries.

Because Latter-day Saints sustain Church presidents as prophets, we accept their wisdom as good advice for the day, even when that counsel is not found in canonized scripture, or when it changes or fades when its day has passed. This wisdom is often expressed in negative terms:

Mormons don’t engage in round dances – or, at least, no more than three round dances per evening.
Mormons don’t play games with face cards.
Mormons don’t do X, Y, or Z on the Sabbath.
Mormons don’t drink caffeinated sodas.
Mormons don’t mark their chapels with crosses, or wear crosses as jewelry.
Mormons don’t wear sleeveless clothing.
Mormons don’t date before age 16.
Mormons don’t get tattoos or excessive body piercings.

Sometimes these prohibitions fade away completely – today, a round dance like the waltz is viewed as graceful and chaste (the waltz was replaced in our prohibitions by that obscene [insert name of disfavored dance, according to generation]). Such a vanished cultural marker now seems quaint. Sometimes a cultural prohibition takes on the weight of a commandment – as, for instance, the Word of Wisdom (or at least its “thou shalt nots”). And sometimes prohibitions linger to frustrate a new generation who may not understand the historical conditions that gave rise to them in the first place.

One of the strong cultural prohibitions of the late 19th/early 20th centuries that has largely gone by the wayside except in lingering, nagging memory is the insistence on avoiding “secret societies,” defined as lodges with secret rites (the Freemasons or Elks, for example) or the once popular “burial societies” (the Woodmen of the World, for example) that were mostly insurance companies, providing financial death benefits combined with ritual. How that prohibition came to be is beyond the scope of this post, but know that it was very strong and lasted for a long time:

You find speakers such as apostle Moses Thatcher (1885) including them in a condemnation of government: “They have allowed mob rule to get power in this land, and like a dark cloud, secret societies are gathering around.” Joseph F. Smith (1903) reminded the Saints through the pages of the Improvement Era that “It is a well known truth that the counsel of the First Presidency of the Church, in all cases, has been and is against our brethren joining secret organizations for any purpose whatsoever, and that wherever any of them have already joined, they have been and are counseled to withdraw themselves from such organizations.” Members who wrote to Church leaders (and I’ve found examples in the papers of every leader I’ve read through) would be advised to avoid such societies on the grounds that (1) it wasn’t wise to enter into oath-bound association with anyone not a Latter-day Saint and (2) the Church already provided every fraternal, social, and financial benefit imaginable, so there was no need to go outside of the Church.

Condemnation of secret societies was formally taught in Church lessons: An adult Book of Mormon lesson on “secret combinations” in October 1929 called for this discussion: “What purposes do you think men may have in forming a secret society? What is the nature of fraternities? sororities? fraternal organizations? What is there about such that you do not approve? Do you know of any societies (a) in history, (b) at the present time, that are organized for what you consider evil purposes? Is there any reason why members of the Church should not belong to secret fraternal orders that aim by right means to further the interests of their members? If a ‘Mormon’ is also a Woodman, an Elk or a Mason, etc., what does that indicate to you?”

Although secret societies were an adult phenomenon, even pre-teens were cautioned against them, as shown by this 1924 lesson featuring a discussion of the Gadianton Robbers: “What does the lesson teach of value to your class? Are there secret organizations today? Do our boys and girls need them? Does not the church, with all its splendid organizations take care of all our needs? Show that this is the case by following the course of a little boy or girl from the Primary up to the Parents’ class; from the Deacons to the High Priests. Show how we care for the physical, moral, social and spiritual well-being of all our members. It can be accepted as a fact that ‘we cannot divide our allegiance between the work of the Lord and man-made secret societies.’ It will spell the ruin and loss of faith on the part of any one who attempts it. Your boys and girls are not too young to get that thought.”

There’s no question that Latter-day Saints of the early 20th century were drilled time and time again on the perceived wickedness of “secret societies.”

With that background, you probably won’t be surprised at all that in November 1929 – one month following that Sunday School lesson quoted above discussing the “evil purposes” of such societies – a bishop in a small town in Idaho was startled to read in the Deseret News that apostle James E. Talmage was scheduled to speak at a memorial service conducted by the Elks of Salt Lake City, on 1 December. The bishop wrote to the apostle:

Are you a member of this lodge, or any other secret society? What effect does your participating in the services of these organizations have on our young members of the Church whom we advise not to join these societies?

His query seems to have offended Elder Talmage somewhat:

You ask what effect my promise of participation in the Memorial Services of the Elks’ Club will have on “our young members of the Church,” to which I reply that the effect ought to be a wholesome one in so far as it shows that we are willing to preach the gospel wherever opportunity offers.

Our missionaries in the field rejoice whenever they find an opening for preaching in churches of any denomination and before any class of people who will listen to their message. It has been my privilege to preach in the Methodist, Episcopal, Congregational, Jewish, and other churches of this city, and have considered it a duty to avail myself of every such opportunity.

I am to speak to the Elks on my understanding as to Death and the Resurrection. Do you think there is anything wrong in this? Let me add that if the way were opened and I were commissioned I should not refuse to go down and preach to the spirits in Hades, but there as elsewhere I should endeavor to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

President A.W. Ivins of the First Presidency once addressed the Elks in this city on the sanctity of Motherhood. Was there anything wrong in that?

What is the matter, Bishop?

The Idaho bishop misread that last line, seeing “What is the matter with you, bishop?” and felt he had been reprimanded – but he stuck to his guns, politely and with great respect for the apostle’s position:

I have always had perfect confidence in the general authorities of the church … but since we have at least one member in our ward who claims they have proof that Elder Smoot belongs to a lodge, I felt when reading the announcement of your intended address that this was a good time to get a direct reply to their claims even though I receive your condemnation by doing so.

Lodge members have been laboring with members of our ward trying to get them to join their organizations and have succeeded in getting some to do so and they have used the statement that ‘some of the general authorities of the church belong to lodges’ to counteract our advice, which as long as I can remember has been the advice of the church, not to join them.

I do not think there is anything wrong in explaining the Gospel, or a certain phase of it to any people who will listen and especially to those who have enough interest to ask that it be done. … I make the above explanation in the hope that you will not feel so unkindly towards me.

In a follow-up letter (the two men exchanged four letters in five days!), Elder Talmage assured the bishop that he had no unkind feelings, acknowledged the efforts of lodges to enroll young Latter-day Saint men in their ranks, and quipped that “I hope the members of the Elks Club in this city will escape injury even if they are not benefitted by the short address I am to give to them tomorrow night.”

-oooOooo-

The key points of this story should probably be ringing familiar bells:

The Church in that day disapproved of certain actions, even taught actively that such activities had “evil purposes.” A representative of the Church was invited to participate in special ceremonies of a seemingly prohibited organization, and agrees to participate. Someone is startled by that, and seeks an explanation. His questions are misunderstood as criticism worthy of reprimand – but his questions are legitimate, after all.

I was one of those horrified to read one recent morning that the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, inescapably representing the Church, had accepted an invitation to participate in the special ceremony of inaugurating as president of the United States a man who, in every way, I consider dangerously unqualified for the position. I felt that way when the Church issued a statement in apparent response and opposition to Trump’s religious bigotry. I felt that way when the Deseret News board called on Trump to end his campaign after video proof of his intolerable sexual misconduct came to light. I thought that morning – and I still feel today – that it is wrong, absolutely wrong, on moral as well as symbolic grounds for the Church to send the Choir to perform at that man’s inauguration – and I remain unpersuaded by claims that “we’re celebrating the nation, not the man” or that “the Choir always performs” or that “it would have been political to refuse.” You can repeat a wrong thing ad nauseam without its becoming a right thing.

My poor Facebook friends had to endure my pain and disbelief and anger on that first day, and occasional snarky remarks since that time – but I’ve kept it off Keepa, until now. I first telephoned (not an easy thing for this telephone-hating introvert to do) both the Choir offices and the Public Affairs office, and followed up both contacts with written messages. I wrote to my stake president, knowing that if I directed my dismay any higher it would merely be returned to my stake president anyway. I was one of the first 50 people to sign the online protest, a protest that has grown to include the names of tens of thousands of objectors. In those formal contacts, at least, I have been as calm and measured and courteous as I could be, while still stating my shock and sense of betrayal at what I see as a completely unnecessary embrace of evil for a vaguely imagined, hoped-for, but extremely unlikely, result.

-oooOooo-

I keep reading of the need for civility in public discourse, and keep reading that the first requirement of civil discourse is being able to state the opponent’s view so clearly and charitably that the opponent will accept the definition. I hope I have done that in this post: I have provided a historical example with close parallels to the current one. I acknowledge that the Choir’s supporters make the same claim that Elder Talmage did: preaching the gospel cannot be wrong, and, like the Man of La Mancha, he (and they) are “willing to march into hell for a heavenly cause.” ((I also recognize the irony of the Choir’s recording replacing “into hell” with “anywhere.”))

But I remain opposed to the Choir’s participation in this event. I am ashamed of the decision, and think the Church will one day be ashamed, as well. For my own conscience, I need to be on public record as opposing this participation.

-oooOooo-

Some, perhaps many, of you will disagree. I hope you and I, like the apostle and the bishop in 1929, can remain friends. As Elder Talmage wrote to his correspondent, “I want you to know further that I do not and could not feel unkindly toward you.”

-oooOooo-

I debated whether or not to close this post to comments; for now, I’ll leave it open and hope that isn’t a mistake. Please, however, do not use this platform merely to state your political views in general without closely relating them to the some part of this post – there are umpteen other platforms where you can and probably have expressed those views, and I want this post to remain closely tied to the question of participating in something that you believe, from your Church training, is wrong, or responding to others who believe it is wrong.

And if you disagree with me, be civil. In this case, that means stating my case so clearly and charitably that I will accept it, before you attack me for being wrong.

Thank you.