The Signaturi Debate

...an analysis by john andrews...

In 1994, John W. Redelfs penned Who Are the Signaturi? An Essay defining the Signaturi as

a clique of dissidents within the modern Church (Mormon) who profess to be faithful members of the Church and possess some or most of the following characteristics.

He proceeds to elucidate twelve traits, the posession of some or all of which may designate an individual as a Signaturus.

Here, I will examine Redelfs' definition and look at reasons why or why not it is necessarily a bad thing, and what its implications are for the Church at large. The tone of Mr. Redelfs' essay leads me to believe that in his opinion the Signaturi are some sort of threat to the Church.

Please also read the original Who Are the Signaturi? an essay by John W. Redelfs in the archives for the Zion Mailing list.

The name "Signaturi" was "coined on the internet by William J. Hamblin, listowner of the former Morm-ant listserv list hosted at Brigham Young University." The name refers to Signature Book, an unorthodox LDS publishing company. Mr. Redelfs defines the Signaturi as preferring to read books published by Signature Books over those published by Deseret Book and Bookcraft, implying a lack of faith or personal worth on the part of the individual signaturus.

As well as preferring Signature Books over Deseret Books, the Signaturi also apparently would rather read Sunstone and Dialogue over The Ensign or BYU Studies. Actually, I would propose that the Signaturi actually enjoy reading both groups of magazines, but for different reasons than those implied by Mr. Redelfs. Scholarly essays about the history of the Relief Society between 1900 and 1902 won't appear in The Ensign, and, likewise, the faith-promoting stories such as those found in "Mormon Journal" in The Ensign probably would not make their way into the pages of Dialogue. By reading and discussing more than just Church-approved publications, the Signaturi are incorporating all aspects of the individual into a cohesive whole.

The next characteristic which distinguishes the Signaturus is the attendance of Sunstone Symposiums (I defer here to Elbert Peck, who prefers "symposiums." Redelfs uses "symposia."). If not an actual attendee, then the signaturus is at least "an admire[r of] those who do, especially the leaders. Of course, the faithful have been known to attend these symposia also, so as to keep their disgust fresh." Despite the character slur in the last sentence, the foregoing is true. I fail to see what is wrong with this -- I've learned volumes at Sunstone Symposiums, and even had quite spiritual expeiriences. I've heard the stories of Bishops and excommunicated feminists. All are important and must be told to asses what it means to be a Mormon in today's world.

"The New Mormon History," continues Redelfs, is preferred "to the traditional, Church sponsored history taught by the Church Education System which they consider dishonestly whitewashed." He makes the assertion that in calling the Church sponsored history "faith promoting history" we fail to recognize that the "New Mormon History" is "Digging for Dirt History." What has become known as "The New Mormon History" does not "dig for dirt." It simply presents accurate historical research. Liberal LDS historians do not fault the church for its faith promoting version; indeed, such a version is important to the spiritual lives of the Saints. But, we must recognize it for what it is. It is sacred history -- like scripture -- which does not need to be completely historically accurate to convey its message.

The "New Mormon History," on the other hand, is real history -- it uses the latest evidence and research to put together a picture of the past as it really was. It is no longer a secret that the LDS Church denies and ignores certain aspects of its past in order to maintain its sacred history. Exposing the true history of the church is not "dirt digging," it is honest scholarship. Read Perspective on Mormon Women by Maxine Hanks for a look at how the two histories come into conflict.

Furthermore, we consider ourselves to be "'intellectuals' and by definition disallow this term as applied to anyone who disagrees with 'The New Mormon History.' In [our] own eyes [we] are the only intellectuals and scholars in the church." When the Signaturi refer to themselves as "intellectuals," excluding orthodox LDS scholars, we are simply using the deifinition provided by Boyd K. Packer in his address at the All-Church Coordinating Council Meeting, where he speaks of the "dangers" stemming from the "ever-present challenge from the so-called scholars or intellectuals." (Packer, 2) Redelfs goes on to state that such usage "becomes apparent in press coverage of the supposed Church war on its schoalrs." For more on the "Great Purge," read Six Facing Censure Accuse Mormon Church of Purge and Critics Say Mormon Church is Purging Intellectuals.

Mr. Redelfs' next assertion is that the Signaturi "are highly supportive of the right of free speech and something called academic freedom." This is a characteristic of all thinking, feeling, intelligent, sentient beings who are not drunk on power. I hope that Mr. Redelfs himself is supportive of these rights. He goes on to state that the Signaturi deny the LDS Church the "right [to] define doctrinal qualifications for membership considering any effort to exclude on the basis of doctrine a violation of free speech." This simply isn't true. The LDS Church has the right to set its own parameters for membership. Whether or not we agree is another story, but that is not the issue.

The next characteristic of the Signaturi is "idolization" of "such intellectual Mormons and former Mormons as Sterling McMurrin, Steve Benson, Michael Quinn, Edwin Firmage, Jr., and . . . Brent Metcalfe." The Signaturi also "detest and generally consider neanderthals" such men as "W. Cleon Skousen, Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkie, pre-1985 Ezra Taft Benson, Reed Benson, Lou Midgley, and . . . Boyd K. Packer." The list, however incomplete, tends to be fairly accurate, although the words "idolize," "detest," and "neanderthal" are a bit harsh, and are certainly not characteristic of the vast majority of the Signaturi.

"Generally, they are strong supporters of the organized feminists and gay-lesbians within the church, considering all institutional opposition to these world movements to be bigotry and sexism on the part of the apostles and prophets." Isn't it?

Next, it's on to Blacks-and-the-Priesthood. Mr. Redelfs states that the Signaturi "think the ban on blacks holding the Priesthood which las lifted during the 1970's by President Kimball, was the result not of God's law and revelation but culturally induced racial prejudice and bigotry." On this issue the Signaturi are in good company -- the Prophet and President of the LDS Church, Gordon B. Hinckley.

Hinckley appeared on 60 Minutes with Mike Wallace on 7 April, 1996. When Mr. Wallace asked President Hinckley about blacks, President Hinckley responded that blacks could not hold the priesthood before 1978 "because the leaders of the church at that time interpreted that doctrine that way." (Hinckley, 60 Minutes Interview, 4) It would appear that Gordon B. Hinckley, although not admitting to "bigotry" and "racial prejudice" in his predecessors, acknowledged that the ban on blacks holding the Priesthood was a result of administrative decision and interpretation of doctrine. A far cry from the "word and will of the Lord."

Some years ago, President Ezra Taft Benson delivered a devotional address at Brigham Young University, Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet. According to Redelfs, the Signaturi "consider to be 'blind followers' anyone who agrees with" President Benson's address. The address basically encourages "blind following," establishing the doctrine that "when the leaders of the church speak, the thinking has been done." This is believed by orthodox Mormons despite the scriptural injunction to "study, ponder, and pray." For an analysis of President Benson's address, please read Following the Prophet.

I will not go into Redelfs' next point, that some Signaturi believe that the Book of Mormon is an "inspired parable or allegory rather than a history of something that actually happened." This is a view held by so few people that it really doesn't come into play. The vast majority of believing Mormons (Signaturi included) accept the Book of Mormon as being true in every way.

Finally, Redelfs describes the "variant of Mormonism" practiced by the Signaturi, which is "heavily influenced by the New Age Movement in extolling 'tolerance' and 'diversity' above all other virtues and consider" people to be "guilty of the ultimate sin o fbeing uncharitable or 'harsh and judgemental' if [they] should cry repentance unto the people for any of the traditional sins such as fornication, adultery, sodomy, lasciviousness, etc." In actuality, it is not a gospel tainted by "New Age" ideas which is the focus of the life of the Signaturus. Instead, it is a Gospel based on the Savior's injunction that we love the Lord our God and love our neighbors as ourselves. To the Signaturi, this takes precidence over the Law of Moses, which was "fulfilled" in Jesus Christ.

One more thing that Redelfs states makes obvious his bias -- he refers to the Signaturi as "evil." I like to think that I'm not evil, and wouldn't advance the claim that those who don't feel as I do are evil, either. This is just more evidence of the provincial attitudes of many members of the LDS Church.

In conclusion, I'd like to state emphatically that the Signaturi are not in any way a threat to the establishment of the LDS Church. Indeed, their presence may be necessary for the church's very survival. The open exchange of ideas has historically been a characteristic of the movement founded by Joseph Smith, who wasn't afraid to ask hard questions and examine life in light of new truths and new experiences. It is my hope and prayer that all who consider themselves a part of the body of Christ can someday examine facts objectively, bringing about new light, wisdom, and knowledge, bringing glory to the God of Israel through intelligence.

©1996 John R. Andrews III. This paper may be freely distributed electronically and otherwise as long as it includes this notice.

Return to Intellectual Mormon Ramblings