Friday, March 25, 2011

Good Article, Good Timing


Fascinating, and thoughtful piece in the SLTrib today; give it a look. For me, the money quote came from Philip Barlow:
Disillusionment with LDS leaders “would evaporate,” says Philip Barlow, Arrington Chair of Mormon History and Culture at Utah State University, “if people saw the church not as essentially divine, marred only by the weaknesses of human administrators, but rather … [as made up] entirely of human beings — with all of their limitations — who are trying to respond to the divine with which they have (in faith) been touched.”
I'm not sure if he's right, but it's an intriguing thought. Could such a change in paradigm be accomplished organically, or would it require active support of Church leaders? If the latter, then I don't ever see it happening — who would intentionally undermine his/her own influence? It's like congress voting to lower their own salaries: highly unlikely.

7 comments:

Bryce said...

I have to object to the comparison to Congress, but I have to get to why in a roundabout way.

I think that the tendency for individual members to consider themselves exempt from apostolic counsel is a greater problem for the church than is this infallible-apostle complex that some members have developed.

Thus, the Brethren face a damned if they do, damned if they don't situation. If the Brethren emphasize their own fallibility, then members may be more apt to consider themselves exempt from following the Brethren's counsel. However, if the Brethren do not emphasize their fallibility, then those who deify them will continue to misplace their faith.

I'm in complete agreement with the Brethren on both Prop 8 and the immigration initiative, though, so I have to admit that I consider members who question those decisions to be wrong. I'm sure that colors my judgment to some extent, but I've also seen more people lose their faith because they think they know better than the prophet/apostles than I've seen lose their faith because they placed too much faith in the prophets/apostles. That, to me, is the deciding factor: which approach poses a greater danger of erecting a stumblingblock in the path of the Saints?

Latter-day Guy said...

I think you're right about the catch 22 situation; it's a tricky balance to strike. (And you're right, my congressional comparison was a bit crude.)

However, your comment does illustrate one of the difficulties of the subject: you use the term "apostolic counsel," (noun: advice, esp. that given formally). But what do we mean by "counsel" in the GC talk sense? Would we call Isaiah's many foretellings of doom to nations various and sundry "counsel" in the same sense? All do-it-or-God'll-kill/damn-you commandments are, by definition, good "counsel" -- but is all "counsel" commandment? Hence the question of "Scripture" (canonized by common consent) and "scripture" (talks and GC editions of the Ensign). Personally, I need to be able to dismiss some of what is said in GC settings -- otherwise the content of the Journal of Discourses presents a huge problem for me; there's just too much doctrinal wackiness there that I could never swallow.

I suppose that such tensions are (part of) the price of admission to a faith tradition that is so vibrant, not least because it is so much in flux. :)

Latter-day Guy said...

Also, the notion of losing faith and disagreeing with the Brethren is something of a "chicken and egg" problem. (Eggs, of course, came first -- but which, in this analogy, is the egg?)

Bryce said...

I would say choosing against faith definitely comes first, and exempting oneself from the requirements of discipleship is a typical mindset that perpetuates faithless choices.

Your concern about being able to dismiss some of what is said in GC is totally valid. I guess I've kind of developed the "D&C 132:26" test. If a statement by a church leader seems off-base to me, I just interpret it in whatever way will allow it to reconcile with my understanding of the Gospel. (I.e., that verse on its face basically says that once you get sealed, you're good to commit whatever sins you want except murder, but it doesn't make any sense unless you assume that the basic truths of the Gospel are unchanged.)

You know what, as I think about it, exempting oneself and deifying the Brethren are really two sides of the same coin. The problem is probably that the individual member loses sensitivity to the Spirit and puts a distorting lens over counsel from the Brethren. Whether self-justifying or self-exalting (by adhering Pharisaically to the letter of the supposed "law"), the misinterpretation is probably more of a symptom than a disease in itself. We could probably use more warning about both.

Latter-day Guy said...

If a statement by a church leader seems off-base to me, I just interpret it in whatever way will allow it to reconcile with my understanding of the Gospel. ([D&C 132:26] doesn't make any sense unless you assume that the basic truths of the Gospel are unchanged.)

Ay, there's the rub. Have you read Loyd Ericson's paper on the problems of determining what is doctrine (i.e.: "the basic truths of the gospel")?

Tangentially, re: D&C 132:26, I think this verse is probably talking about more than sealing per se (Joseph Fielding Smith suggested as much). See this article for starters. Boy howdy, don'cha just love Mormon esoterica!

Heather said...

I think there comes a point when things can be way overanalized. Either you have a testimony or you don't. The prophet and his words are true or there not.

Latter-day Guy said...

I think there comes a point when things can be way overanalized.

Agreed.

Either you have a testimony or you don't.

True.

The prophet and his words are true or there not.

Which words? All of them? Because then we have a problem, given that some of the things Brother Brigham taught have since been contradicted by other prophets (the progression of God in knowledge, for instance). The Church manifestly teaches that our leaders are not perfect, not infallible, even in the exercise of their duties. The linked article explores what that means in LDS praxis and culture.

It's fine if you're not interested in the discussion. But I do object to your implication about the testimonies of those who are interested in the discussion.