Outer Lightness » Within the Bubble

Expand blog entries with this slider:

Within the Bubble

Inaugural Post at VSOM

Posted: September 14th, 2007, 1:31am EDT by Steve M.

Tags: [edit]

If you're interested, take a look at my first VSOM post: The Church's Recent Handling of Mountain Meadows: A Step in a New Direction?
Blogging stint at VSOM

Posted: September 11th, 2007, 2:36pm EDT by Steve M.

Tags: [edit]

While this blog will probably remain fairly quiet (for now, anyway), I'll be blogging over at Various Stages of Mormondom for the next little while, so come visit! Don't forget to bookmark VSOM on your browser, and add a link on your blog!
Bushman's going to Claremont

Posted: September 6th, 2007, 8:06am EDT by Steve M.

Tags: [edit]

It's official--Richard Bushman is going to fill the Mormon Studies chair at Claremont (see here).

My parents, who live in Claremont, heard about the decision to bring Bushman through the grapevine several months ago (it may have still been tentative at the time, though), but it appears that it's finally been made official.

How awesome would it bee if Bushman attended my home ward?
New Local Sunstone Communities

Posted: September 6th, 2007, 11:32pm EDT by Steve M.

Tags: [edit]

Take a look at this: New local Sunstone communities.

Several have been set up so far, most of which are in the West, but there are also some Eastern and Southern communities, including Washington, D.C.; NYC; Raleigh, NC; and Atlanta, GA.

Cheers to John Dehlin and Sunstone.
Duty to inoculate?

Posted: September 4th, 2007, 11:46pm EDT by Steve M.

Tags: [edit]
Yes, as indicated earlier, I will still blog here, albeit sporadically and infrequently. Here's a quick one.

--

After listening to the Sunstone Session on inoculation and the two follow-up Mormon Matters podcasts discussing it (here and here), I'd like to share a few thoughts about "inoculation," as it pertains to controversial church history.

In the year prior to my mission, I did a lot of studying. I read the scriptures like crazy, but I also discovered an interest in Mormon history. The first substantive book I read on the topic was Bushman's Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism. In addition to various books, articles, and websites, I also like to read apologetic material, which probably influenced my approach to troubling aspects of church history--they were problems to be explained and resolved from an orthodox perspective (as much as that was possible). Envisioning myself debating anti-Mormons and Baptist ministers in the coming months (I never saw myself serving a mission in Asia), I was more concerned with learning to defend the faith than critically examining it.

The multiple First Vision accounts didn't really bother me. Translating the Book of Mormon using a peep stone in a hat didn't, either. I wasn't even too concerned with Joseph's practice of polygamy (although, I may have only had a general awareness that he married multiple women, and no real knowledge of the details). I was somewhat troubled by Brigham Young's teachings on blood atonement, but a straightforward Institute teacher helped me learn to take a lot of Brother Brigham's teachings with a grain of salt (even though this somewhat skirts the problem of how to grapple with the implications of some of his more controversial views).

In short, I managed to be a quite orthodox member and missionary in spite of my awareness of some of the more controversial areas of church history. My knowledge may have been somewhat cursory (and perhaps tainted by apologetic bias), but it amounted to more than that of most of the missionaries I served with, and was almost entirely attributable to the personal study I had done outside of Sunday School, Seminary, and Institute.

The two points I wish to make are that:
- Controversial history is not necessarily faith-destroying, and
- Unfortunately, a (relatively small) handful of books, articles, and websites provided me with a more comprehensive understanding of church history than that provided by my "formal" ecclesiastical training, which included hundreds of hours of Sunday School lessons, Priesthood quorum meetings, early morning Seminary lessons, Institute classes, and an eleven-week stay at the Missionary Training Center.
My own journey into unorthodoxy wasn't sparked by the discovery of some well-hidden facet of church history. It began with a difficult encounter with a well-meaning but ultimately mistaken Priesthood leader, which challenged my fundamental assumptions about how the church functions. This difficult experience forced me to reevaluate and reconstruct my spirituality and world view. Of course, this prompted me to try to look at LDS history with a more objective eye (if that's even possible), which did present some challenges to my faith, but the end result was what I consider a more mature faith--one that accounts for the paradoxes of my church's origins and legacy and allows for the existence of doubts (and I've got plenty of those), but which nonetheless finds value in the symbols and teachings of my faith community (even if I don't believe in the literal truth of everything that's said).

So I don't think that the Church is "trapped" by its history, as some allege. I think that most Mormons could handle a less idealized version of history than that currently presented in official church curricula and literature. I don't think it's as threatening to faith as some tend to assume.

In my opinion, the problem of history has more to do with
- the simplistic and problematic assumptions that a "pure milk" diet fosters (e.g., that prophets are necessarily great models of morality, that prophets won't contradict one another, that the Church and the gospel are either 100% true or totally fraudulent, that the Church and the gospel are the same in every age of time); and
- the feeling of betrayal that members often feel when they discover something about church history that
Therefore, while I think our current approach to teaching history is problematic, I don't think the solution is necessarily a comprehensive "inoculation" to every controversial aspect of church history. I believe the solution has more to do with embracing the following principles and practices:
- Nurturing testimonies that allow for complexity, ambiguity, paradoxes, and even doubt.
- Encouraging members to ask questions and to seek answers to those questions.
- Producing and making available materials (both electronic and print) that deal with history from a less idealized, more objective, and more comprehensive perspective (a good example would be something like Rough Stone Rolling).
- Focusing more on principles, faith, and Christian living in our church services.
- To the extent that we do teach and incorporate history into our church training and education, presenting it in a straightforward, unambiguous manner.
- Allowing for scholarly and critical examination of history by LDS students and scholars in appropriate forums (conferences, symposiums, academic journals, and even BYU and Institute classes), without a threat of church displeasure or discipline.
In other words, while I do believe that the Church has a responsibility not to neglect or cover up certain areas of its history, and to treat history in an honest and straightforward manner inasmuch as it chooses to address the topic, I do not think that it needs to start a Controversial Episodes in Church History Sunday School class, teach Primary Children about the Adam-God doctrine, or even commission artists to paint pictures of Joseph Smith with his face in a hat. I believe it is more important to foster more mature, complex testimonies from the ground up and create a culture in which one's faith and standing in the Church is not so dependent upon an "orthodox" belief in church history, and in which members are not only encouraged to study these issues out for themselves, but also have easy access to accurate, straightforward history from a trusted source (i.e., the Church itself).

Those are my thoughts, anyway.
The Obama Movement

Posted: August 20th, 2007, 2:37am EDT by Steve M.

Tags: [edit]

Just making a quick plug for an upcoming book.

The Obama Movement
The Obama Movement is a compilation of 25 essays written by students across the country in support of 2008 presidential candidate and current U.S. senator Barack Obama. Each essay articulates the impact that Barack Obama has had on the author, as well as the reasons for which America needs a president like him.

The project was initiated and overseen by Joe Vogel, BYU graduate student and author of Free Speech 101, in conjunction with Barack the Youth Vote.

The Obama Movement will be published nationally in September. Keep an eye out for it, and become part of the movement!
"Who told thee that thou wast naked?"

Posted: July 26th, 2007, 11:34am EDT by Steve M.

Tags: [edit]

Albrecht Dürer, 1507

Peter Paul Rubens, 1597

Michelangelo, 1511

Lowell Bruce Bennett, 20th century

Does this bother anyone besides me?

Aside from my objection to the portrayal of Adam and Eve as white, Rocky Mountain Mormons in the Bennett painting (a topic that received some attention at BCC a while back), I can't help but think it is one more manifestation of the LDS cultural aversion to any and all forms of nudity. While centuries-old paintings depict Adam and Eve in the nude, modern Mormons would likely be quite uncomfortable, and perhaps even upset, to find a painting of a bare-breasted Eve at Deseret Book (let alone in a chapel or Sunday School manual). I've found that the distinction between obscenity, sexuality, and nudity in media is seldom appreciated in LDS discourse.

The ironic thing, in my opinion, is that while the Bible specifically states that Adam and Eve "were both naked,... and were not ashamed" (Genesis 2:25), we apparently are ashamed of it--or at least somewhat embarrassed.

In Genesis 3, after Adam and Eve have partaken of the forbidden fruit, God asks Adam an interesting question that is easily overlooked: "Who told thee that thou wast naked?" Before Adam has a chance to answer, God goes on to ask the arguably more important question of whether or not Adam had partaken of the forbidden fruit.

In the Genesis and Moses accounts, it doesn't appear that anybody actually told Adam and Eve that they were naked; they apparently figured it out on their own. In the version presented in the temple, however, someone actually does tell Adam and Eve that they are naked (and that they should cover it up)--Satan. They are not ashamed of their nudity until Satan tells them that they should be.

I'm by no means advocating naturalism, but I think that the Garden of Eden drama--which, even if only interpreted allegorically, seems pretty central to LDS theology--sends a pretty strong message about the natural beauty of the human body. While that beauty can certainly be exploited, I would like to see a Mormon culture less insecure about the nude figure, particularly in the arena of fine art.

But alas, the phobia doesn't seem to be going away any time soon. Just last year, in a move reminiscent of the 1997 Rodin exhibit controversy, BYU censored nude life drawings in an exhibit on illustrator Burton Silverman (which exhibit was ironically entitled "The Intimate Eye").

As one Mormon college student once put it,
Art: Good. Nudity: bad. I see little difference between pornography and nudity. A breast is a breast is a breast.

Ever since fig leaves were first painted over nude art, people have known the potential offensiveness of baring it all. For hundreds and hundreds years [sic] this is the case.

Someone should have told Rubens and the others about this unwritten rule.
"Temperate In All Things"

Posted: July 23rd, 2007, 7:33am EDT by Steve M.

Tags: [edit]

I gave this talk at church recently. My assigned topic was "self-discipline."

"Temperate In All Things"

In the sixtieth chapter of Alma, we see a side of Captain Moroni that is somewhat at odds with his depiction elsewhere in the Book of Mormon. Moroni, who is described as a “strong and mighty man,” possessing “a perfect understanding” (Alma 48:11), writes a scathing epistle that accuses Pahoran of incompetency, “slothfulness,” pride, and corruption. He alleges that Pahoran and the Nephite government have “neglected” their brethren, and that “the blood of thousands shall come upon [their] heads for vengeance” (Alma 60:10). Moroni even goes so far as to threaten Pahoran’s life if he does not “repent of [his alleged] sins and iniquities” (Alma 60:33).

As it turns out, however, Moroni’s accusations are unfounded. Pahoran’s failure to send much-needed reinforcements to the front line is not due to negligence or unrighteousness, as Moroni assumes, but rather to an uprising by the king-men, who overthrew the government and appointed a king in its place.

Although it is written of Captain Moroni that “if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto [him], behold, the very powers of hell would [be] shaken forever [and] the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men” (Alma 48:17), it appears that “the greatness of [his] heart,” as Pahoran puts it (Alma 61:9), sometimes got the best of him. In this case, Moroni’s indignation at Pahoran’s perceived “indifference” (Alma 59:13) caused him to lash out in anger at him.

Conducting ourselves in a controlled, Christ-like manner is probably a constant struggle for even the best of us. While on the Zion’s Camp march, Joseph Smith had a disagreement with Sylvester Smith as to the best location for their campsite. The heated disagreement quickly escalated into a shouting match, during which “Joseph was said to have thrown the camp bugle at Sylvester” (Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, 242). As I said, aspiring to Christ’s perfect example will be a struggle for all of us, even prophets.

Yet the scriptures make it abundantly clear that we must put off our inclinations toward anger, jealousy, impatience, and lust, and “become…a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and become…as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, [and] full of love” (Mosiah 3:19). In addressing his righteous son Shiblon, Alma encourages him to be “temperate in all things,” saying, “Use boldness, but not overbearance; and also see that ye bridle all your passions”—particularly, I believe, the passion of anger—“that ye may be filled with love” (Alma 38:10, 12). Paul likewise teaches that “every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things” (1 Corinth. 9:25).

I like Alma and Paul’s choice of words—they both say that we are to be “temperate in all things” (emphasis added). As Russell M. Nelson explains, “[t]emperance suggests sobriety and self-restraint in action…. [It] can protect each of us from the aftermath of excess” (“‘These…Were Our Examples,’” Ensign, Nov. 1991). Notice that, while Elder Nelson counsels us to act with sobriety and moderation, he does not encourage extreme scrupulousness or total self-subjugation. I fear that, all too often, phrases such as “self-discipline” and “self-restraint” are associated with negatives rather than positives. Obsessing over the suppression of unwanted thoughts, feelings, and desires is contrary to the principle of temperance; it may be unhealthy and even self-defeating. In one study, researchers found that “suppressing forbidden thoughts” and other “[s]elf-regulatory exertions are often followed by…decreases in self-regulation in other, unrelated spheres.” (Muraven et al, “Self-Control as Limited Resource: Regulatory Depletion Patterns,” Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. 74(3):774-789, March 1998). In other words, when we become preoccupied with not doing a particular behavior or thinking a particular thought, it may actually hamper our self-disciplinary abilities and make us less likely to succeed in the long run. Perhaps this is what Boyd K. Packer was getting at when he said, “Preoccupation with unworthy behavior can lead to unworthy behavior” (“Little Children,” Ensign, Nov. 1986).

In light of this phenomenon, it may be helpful to consider the Daoist principle of wuwei. Wuwei, which literally means “without action,” suggests (somewhat paradoxically) that sometimes the best way to solve a problem is to not take any direct or deliberate action against it. That is to say, rather than exerting ourselves in attempts to control, subdue, or avoid certain thoughts, appetites, and tendencies, it may be more productive to direct our attention and energy elsewhere. As it says in Doctrine and Covenants, Section 58, “men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause” (v. 27), such as serving others, taking an active role in the community, expanding our spiritual and temporal education, and developing our talents. Thus, while our efforts may not be directly aimed at self-subjugation, yet as we actively pursue positive, worthy, fulfilling causes, we accomplish the self-same goal of living a temperate, productive, Christ-like life.

It is important to remember the belief that we are literally children of God, and that we are therefore heirs to divine characteristics and potential, despite our human foibles and imperfections. Brigham Young taught, “The natural man is of God. We are…the natural children of the Father of light…. Man, the noblest work of God, was in his creation designed for an endless duration; for which the love of all good was incorporated in his nature” (Journal of Discourses 9:305; emphasis added). Thus we see that, as children of God, people are inherently good, even though our mortality may subject us to certain ungodly desires, tendencies, or temptations. When we lose our temper, when we treat others unkindly, when we act without moderation, when we inappropriately indulge ourselves, we are acting contrary to our divine heritage and nature.

Perhaps one of the most difficult situations in which we must exercise self-discipline is when we encounter someone who disagrees with, challenges, or even mocks our personal beliefs or values. When it comes to these personal and sensitive subjects, there is a tendency to lash back at the apparent critic. We should certainly stand up for our beliefs, religious and otherwise, but we must beware of the temptation to do so with anger or bitterness—good desires are no excuse for self-righteousness or combativeness. Do you remember the context in which Alma counsels Shiblon to be “temperate in all things”? He is commissioning Shiblon to continue his missionary work, in the course of which his faith will not only be challenged and derided, but he will also be subject to persecution. Alma refers to their previous mission among the Zoramites, during which Shiblon was “stoned for the word’s sake,” but nevertheless reacted with “patience and…long-suffering” (Alma 38: 3, 4). Had Shiblon not “bridle[d] his passions,” and reacted in a mean, angry, or overbearing manner, he most certainly would not have been “filled with love,” as Alma teaches (Alma 38:12).

President David O. McKay’s exercise of temperance demonstrates the value of Alma’s counsel. In the 1950s, Sterling McMurrin, a prominent LDS educator at the University of Utah, came under fire for his unorthodox views. Some in the Church, including two apostles, called for his excommunication. President McKay befriended this brother, and promised him, “if they put you on trial for excommunication, I will be there as the first witness in your behalf.” McMurrin later recalled that “President McKay wasn’t even interested in raising a single question about my beliefs, but simply insisted that a man in this Church had a right to believe as he pleased” (Prince, David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, 55-56). Their friendship lasted until President McKay’s passing, and McMurrin remained a member of the Church for the rest of his life. As another General Authority later said, “I’ve found in the Church, and this is what gave me great comfort with President McKay, that there is room for all [kinds of people], not just a few, not just those here or there, but the whole spectrum” (Paul H. Dunn; qtd. in Prince, David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, 45). As Shiblon and President McKay’s examples demonstrate, disagreements with others over religion, values, politics, or any other subject—even within the “household of faith” (D&C 121:45)—need not impede our love or respect for them.

Doctrine and Covenants, Section 121, further outlines how the principle of temperance applies to our interpersonal relations. Although “almost all” of us may have an inclination toward impatience, anger, and unrighteous dominion, we are to act with “long-suffering,… gentleness[,]…meekness, and…love unfeigned…without hypocrisy, and without guile” (D&C 121:39, 41, 42). This perfectly describes Christ’s interactions with those around him, even his harshest persecutors. While hanging on the cross, Jesus pleaded with the Father, “forgive them; for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34). Perhaps the most noble exercise of self-discipline lies in the willingness to set aside our anger, hurt feelings, and pain, and forgive those who have wronged us.

Which brings us back to Captain Moroni and Pahoran. After calmly explaining why he has yet to send reinforcements to Moroni, Pahoran writes, “And now, in your epistle you have censured me, but it mattereth not; I am not angry, but do rejoice in the greatness of your heart” (Alma 61:9; emphasis added). While many of us would react with anger or indignation, Pahoran shows a tremendous amount of temperance and self-control in his readiness to forgive and forget Moroni’s accusations. In my opinion, this epitomizes what it means to be like God. As is stated in Mosiah 26:22, God promises to “freely forgive” those who believe in Him. Forgiveness is vital in our quest for godliness; as Joseph Smith taught, “Ever keep in exercise the principle of mercy, and be ready to forgive [your] brother on the first intimations of repentance, and asking forgiveness; and should we even forgive our brother, or even our enemy, before he repent or ask forgiveness, our heavenly Father would be equally as merciful unto us” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 155).

That we may learn charity and godliness through the exercise of temperance is my prayer, in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.
Obedience for the sake of obedience

Posted: July 8th, 2007, 9:37am EDT by Steve M.

Tags: [edit]

Obedience is a preeminent virtue in Mormonism. It's often hailed as the "first law of heaven." From childhood on, Latter-day Saints are taught the value of obeying God and His prophets. We learn about how the paying of tithing opened the windows of heaven on a drought-stricken St. George, Utah. We sing, "Follow the prophet, don't go astray," and "I will go, I will do, the things the Lord commands." Christ is presented as the ultimate Example of perfect obedience. He was so obedient that He was baptized, even though He technically had no sins that were in need of forgiveness, just because God requires baptism of all of those desiring entrance to His kingdom. I even recall being taught that if I am instructed by a Priesthood leader to do something that I may believe is wrong, that I will be blessed for my obedience if I comply with the instruction, and any condemnation will be upon the shoulders of the leader. (I don't know the source of this last teaching, but I have heard it numerous times in my lifetime.)

Am I the only one who feels that obedience, in and of itself, isn't all that laudable?

I don't believe that absolute obedience to authority or conformity are heavenly virtues. If God is a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, and presumably independent Being, and if He wants us to be anything like Him, then it seems odd that He would expect us to become robots who instantly and perfectly obey commands without first contemplating the merits of the commands. I don't see any integrity, potential for growth, or other value in obeying an instruction simply because of the authority of its giver, be he God or your bishop. This equation leaves out the important variables of personal conscience and discretion, which I believe are necessary to morality. It also creates a situation particularly amenable to the exercise of unrighteous dominion. The scriptures say that it is the nature of "almost all men" to immediately abuse their power, so it seems unwise to facilitate such behavior by placing so much value on unquestioning deference for authority.

What I love about Jesus Christ, Martin Luther, Joseph Smith, Martin Luther King, Jr., and other prominent spiritual leaders throughout history is that they were reformers! In other words, they weren't afraid to question, to scrutinize, to stand up to authority, to do what they believed or knew to be right. For instance, Christ and His disciples were criticized for not heeding hand-washing rituals, not fasting, not keeping the Sabbath, and otherwise not conforming to the rules and traditions of the contemporary religious hierarchy. Jesus responding by chiding his critics for neglecting the fundamental principles of the gospel: mercy, love, selflessness, and the like. Despite their strict obedience to countless rules, the Pharisees had somehow missed the point of everything. Their obedience didn't seem to count for much in Christ's eyes. He spent his time with sinners, publicans, and others despised by the "righteous" and "obedient" Pharisees.

From Liberty Jail, where he was being held on questionable charges, Joseph Smith wrote his prophetic warning to both those with authority and those under authority:

Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?

Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—

That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.
We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.
Hence many are called, but few are chosen.
No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—
Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;
That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death. (D&C 121:34-44)

Similarly, from Birmingham Jail, Martin Luther King, Jr., wrote:

One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.
We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.
Whatever qualms one might have with Mayor Rocky Anderson of Salt Lake City, I can't help but agree with his summation: "There's a dangerous culture of obedience throughout much of this country that's worse in Utah than anywhere." He described this culture in these words: "[it is] a culture where falling in line with authority is more important than choosing what is right, even if it is not easy, safe, or popular."

We can't be so afraid of ark-steadying. We can't be so afraid of questioning. We can't even be afraid of civilly disobeying, if circumstances and conscience so demand. We must remind ourselves that there is no virtue in undiscriminating deference for authority; there is no morality in obedience for the sake of obedience.

I am by no means advocating rebellion against any particular law, rule, commandment, or any other guideline, religious or otherwise. I do not mean to criticize those who hold religious or secular authority. I only wish to point out that obedience is not the first law of heaven, in my view. I doubt very much that it would even qualify as the second, third, or fourth law of heaven. Love, mercy, morality, and other such virtues seem like better candidates. Obedience is only of value inasmuch as the performance it demands encompasses such ideals.
Doctrine

Posted: June 25th, 2007, 3:02pm EDT by Steve M.

Tags: [edit]

In Mormon Doctrine, Bruce R. McConkie writes under the entry for "Doctrine":

"Doctrines are teachings. They are classified as true or false. True doctrines come from God, the source and fountain of all truth, and are the teachings and concepts found in the gospel. False doctrines are from beneath. Their effect is to pervert, change, and alter revealed truth, so that by obeying false directions men will fall short of salvation in the celestial world....

"Gospel doctrine is synonymous with the truths of salvation." (p. 204)

In McConkie's view, doctrine is divisible into two categories: that which is true, and that which is false. The former, which is "always found in the Lord's true Church because the channel of communication between God and his people is open" (Mormon Doctrine, p. 204), is indistinct from truth itself, or more specifically, "the truths of salvation."

Until the past couple years, my view of doctrine was similar to that of McConkie. A doctrine was an eternal gospel truth, universal and unchanging--it was true, in every sense of the word. That which did not live up to this standard was not doctrine. One of the prophets' roles was to convey doctrine to the people of the earth, particularly those belonging to the Church.

From this perspective, doctrine is essentially a description of impregnable truth, or of actual temporal or spiritual reality. In common usage, however, doctrine is often equated with the truth or reality which it represents. In this view, the doctrine that God has a glorified, physical body is a direct description or representation of a spiritual reality. When Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon received the doctrine of the three degrees of glory, they were merely describing those truths which God directly revealed to them. In this case, they were actually giving a description of that they "saw." This model typically doesn't account for the fact that prophets actually perceive truth with the "eyes of [their] understandings"; that truth is transmitted to us through the imperfect filter of human understanding.

If you accept the view of doctrine promulgated by McConkie and myself (as of a couple years ago), then you run into trouble. Those prophets whom the Church trusts to communicate the mind and will of God occasionally make doctrinal pronouncements that are later contradicted, phased out, or otherwise negated. These changes sometimes affect very significant doctrines (and doctrinally-founded practices). The standard explanation for such discrepancies is that the teachings in question were never doctrine to begin with; they were more likely "personal, though well-considered, opinion[s]" (which, perplexingly, were sometimes delivered to the Saints in conjunction with the warning that their reception of such teachings would "prove their salvation or damnation").

This creates a dilemma: how do you know whether or not which teachings constitute "true doctrine"? A common remedy to this conundrum is prayer. We are taught that we may receive a personal witness of the truth or falsity of a particular teaching through prayer and personal revelation. But are we willing to grapple with the implications of personal revelation? What if I receive an answer that President Hinckley's most recent teachings at General Conference are not true? What if I receive an answer that certain long-standing teachings are not true? At present, contradicting the doctrinal stances of the Church and its presiding authorities (especially the President) is discouraged and considered heretical. Additionally, if one finds his personal beliefs in conflict with those expressed by the General Authorities, a common rule of thumb is to sustain the leaders and just accept their counsel. Practically speaking, their prophetic authority trumps personal revelation in dissecting matters of doctrine. So this solution may not be as viable as one would hope.

Some, such as BYU professor Robert Millet, have suggested certain other criteria, including the condition that it stand the test of time--that it has "sticking power." But how are we to measure new doctrines against this standard? For instance, "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" (the closest thing to scripture given to the Church in nearly three decades) states that "[g]ender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose"--a potential doctrine that may be consistent with the LDS scriptural canon and sphere of doctrine but is not explicitly stated therein. And what of Joseph Smith's teaching that God was once a man, which stood the test of time for 160 years or so, but which current Church President Gordon B. Hinckley has cast doubt on? Are we to accept such new teachings immediately, or shall we refrain from judgment until we have a better idea of whether or not the doctrine has "sticking power"? For how long must a doctrine be perpetuated in order for it to have "sticking power"? Will we even live long enough to be able to make this determination?

Our history also demonstrates the unreliability of the "sticking power" standard, which leads to another problem. Possibly due to our hesitancy to contradict the pronouncements of earlier authorities (an illustration of this tendency that's recently made headlines is this letter from Delbert Stapley to George Romney, in which Stapley insists that certain teachings of Joseph Smith not be contradicted) , some questionable doctrines have a way of sticking around. For instance, as just alluded to, teachings regarding the alleged "curse" on those of African lineage were perpetuated by several generations of leadership. Only recently have certain authorities undertaken to contradict (rather than simply neglect) these doctrines, but the Church has still done little in the way of expressly discounting specific teachings. Thus, the curse of Cain, premortal fence-sitting, and other unfortunate doctrines still maintain some influence in the modern Church. Not only does this demonstrate a shortcoming in the "sticking power" standard, but another unintended hang-up: the Church has no well-established means for preventing some untrue doctrines from sticking around. We don't seem at all comfortable with explicitly negating the teachings of our predecessors. In other words, our belief in doctrine as eternal, unchanging, universal truths sometimes constrains us, preventing the timely correction of human prejudice and error.

There are certainly other criteria that may be suggested for determining "true doctrine," and perhaps if used in conjunction with those explored above, one may be able to distinguish truth from error with a higher level of confidence. However, I can't help but wonder if the LDS approach to doctrine itself is flawed. Would we be better off to adopt a more flexible model?

One idea is to separate actual truth, fact, and reality from the idea of doctrine. That is, rather than equating doctrine with spiritual truth and reality, or even treating it as a direct description of that reality, perhaps we would do well to consider doctrine an approximation of it, or an expression of belief in what we consider and hope it to be. In other words, rather than treating the doctrine of the three degrees of glory as an eternal, unchanging truth, we might treat the doctrine as a belief, approximation, or hope of what will constitute heaven and eternity.

This may be offensive to many Latter-day Saints. It may undermine the authority and certainty that we guard so carefully. It introduces a level of humanness, and therefore unreliability, into a theology that we believe was communicated to us by a perfect God. But it accounts for the inevitable imperfection that arises when you have an organization that is staffed and administered by imperfect human beings (who may nonetheless be inspired or even prophetic). It allows a degree of flexibility and dynamism that we do not presently enjoy. We could more readily accept and account for new knowledge as it comes into the world, adapting our doctrine as necessity demands. We could be less fearful of new revelation, no longer feeling restricted by the lines drawn by past teachings, but open to the idea that doctrines may be altered, amended, even discarded, as more truth comes into the world. The idea would be to continually move closer and closer to the Truth (if capital-T truth can be said to exist), rather than to immediately pin-point it with absolute exactness (which seems to be beyond our ability).

As I've studied the history of this Church and as I view it today, I see something remarkably human. I agree with Philip Barlow, that it's more productive and makes more sense to approach the Church (and its doctrines) "not from the perspective that the Church is essentially divine, marred only by the weaknesses of human administrators, but rather that the Church on earth consists entirely of human beings (with all of their limitations) who are trying to respond to the divine with which they have been touched." And I think that our model for "Mormon doctrine" would do well to conform to this view.

---

I'm sorry if this little discourse is grammatically, logically, or otherwise flawed. I recognize that it's not particularly coherent or reader-friendly. I spat it out at 2 am after doing 5 hours of homework. But enjoy.