In 1879 (corrected), Thomas Edison developed and patented the practical carbon filament incandescent light bulb. 
Leveraging the work of others, he tried 3000 different types of filaments before he found that a carbonized bamboo filament would last for 1,200 hours.
Had he focused on all the failures that he had in the past, he might never have succeed in becoming one of the most successful inventors of all time.
The General Electric Company (Founded by Edison in 1890 as the Edison General electric Company) used the slogan ‘Progress is Our Most Important Product” for many years and now it is a trivia question. But it has a very important message. Progress IS important and needs to be recognized..
One of the things that I observe here on the Bloggernacle is that progress, especially where the Church is concerned is heavily played down. Whether it is the role of Women in the Church, Blacks and the Priesthood, the Church’s position on Homosexuality, etc, some find it difficult to give the Church any credit for making progress in any of those areas. or, any progress will be noted by a heavy caveat of “remember when?’
Typically, comments will be made about progress the Church has made, let’s say in Africa, where the Church is growing very fast. Someone, invariably, will remind everyone that up until 1978, Blacks couldn’t hold the Priesthood or that some Church leaders held what is perceived by today’s standards as very racist views.
Yes, we know.
And that thinking has clearly been repudiated by the modern Church Leaders time and time again since 1978. But it that enough to stop reminding us and living in the past? No, it must be brought up over and over again. As if it serves any real purpose.
What about Women in the Church? There are women in the Church and some men who feel there is not equality in the Church. Men and women have different roles to play and every role is important. But there is equality where it really matters: in our access to God, in the eternities and in our roles as eternal companions. Now, not everyone treats others with the proper respect and equality that each person, man or woman deserves and is entitled to, but we are all equal in the sight of God.
Some like to harken back to the good old days where women may have given blessings or ran their own semi-autonomous organization as some golden age of women’s equality in the Church. But they forget to mention that women could not give prayers or talks in sacrament meeting, go to the temple without their husband’s permission or even hold a calling without the husband being asked first.
They fail to mention that progress has indeed been made to be much more inclusive and respectful of the value of women in the Church. Certainly, the new handbook and the training given made it clear how church leaders feel about the women in the Church and their contribution. But, the complaining still goes on. The progress is ignored.
Those two examples are probably enough to begin our discussion. I expect quite a bit of blown back to what I have written. So, let’s discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
Here’s your first bit of “blown back.” I think you meant 1879 is when Edison developed the carbon filament lightbulb.
Next bit. I think you have a great point. Progress is often ignored, and those who only see the bad will most certainly confirm their bias.
Nevertheless, I also think there are legitimate reasons to complain, and bring up these issues still. While we’ve made progress in racism, we haven’t really made any progress on why such a pernicious doctrine was allowed to permeate our culture at all. If leaders were wrong about race and priesthood, what are they currently wrong about? Women and priesthood? Homosexuality? The only acceptable answer to the previous question is…nothing. Sure you’re free to disagree, but you will likely be marginalized. The false doctrine of the 14 fundamentals is alive and well.
Our culture is one of obedience to the current authority which we believe represents God’s will. No one wants to go against God’s will. I’ve often said that Mormons believe their leaders are fallible, but they don’t act like it. The implications of acknowledging that prophets have been wrong in the past, and may be wrong now don’t manifest themselves in our culture. We treat the disaffected like they’re absurd for expecting past prophets to have been perfect, yet we give complete deference to our current leaders, praising and gushing over them like celebrities.
i guess my complaint would be that not all progress deserves commendation. If i hit my wife ten times a day, I shouldn’t demand recognition if I only hit her nine times one day.
To use your example, the priesthood ban was lifted very very late in the game in terms of modern attitudes, and to many people it hasn’t been properly explained.
As far as the priesthood ban goes, what is the explanation? What is your explanation of it? I believe if you ask ten members, you will get ten different explanations.
wahoo, for progressivism. 🙂
you know you’re doing well in the progressive world when you are called socialist.
One of the things that I’ve observed here on the Bloggernacle is that anyone who dares step up with an unequivocal commitment to a personally held ideal risks getting pooh-pooh’d by the Kool Kidz, e.g. http://bycommonconsent.com/2011/05/04/wednesday-night-wow-am-i-ever-sick-of-this-topic-poll/
For the record, BCC increasingly reminds me of high school. Good on W&T for doing better.
I feel that if progress is our most important product (or if we would like to compare ourselves to those who say that progress is their most important product), then we should be on the cutting edge, the forefront of progress. Not lagging behind. Not resistant at nearly every level. Not “once in a while a big thing.” Not perturbed when people bring up past failings and ask us either never to forget, or to reconsider and reevaluate whether we have even provided closure to the past. And especially not “sick” of covering the topics.
…It’s ok if progress *isn’t* our most important product. For the church, I just don’t think it is. I don’t think we can make the case it is. Tradition is a far more important than progress. Staying “steady” or “grounded” in a world of progress (read: chaos, degradation) is more important.
I have nothing wrong with progress, and actually use many of those examples to show that what a Church leader says now: 1) isn’t necessarily right and 2) may be changed tomorrow. Our Church today is vastly different from the Church of Brigham Young’s time, including fundamental doctrinal things that were taught as essential to our salvation at one point.
The three things I take from this:
1) Kudos to the Church for the things they have changed for the better (and which were largely a jettisoning of cultural things instituted as doctrinal). I would have REALLY hard time still being a member if we still discriminated against blacks or still practiced polygamy.
2) When talking about things that WILL NEVER HAPPEN (often brought up in Prop 8 discussions, for instance), be careful – many WILL NEVER HAPPEN things actually happened.
3) This topic gives me hope when people bring out the “unfailing” idea discussed in the “14 points”. While ETB may have taught that, history shows that it’s not true.
Jeff,
I think you’re right that in the ‘nacle there is not enough explicit credit given to the church for the progress (however slow) it makes. Making more overt and explicit concessions would likely add to the depth of the discussion and make others who might be called “TBM” more comfortable to participate thoughtfully because they would see that the criticism and the praise are present.
But I think you’re mistaken to say that more focus (unless I’m misunderstanding you, of course) should be placed on recognizing progress then on the problems. Just because things have improved, does not mean the problems are over and done.
Your table sweeping gesture of saying that after the OD 2 racism is not that big a deal in the church or that because women can now pray and give talks we shouldn’t worry much about sexism sounds a lot more procrustean than progressive. We should celebrate the progress made, but progress is not the same as fixing the problems. Saying that “we are all equal in the sight of God” doesn’t really mean much in terms of progress either, because the same could be said of a slave-owner and a slave, a thief and a philanthropist, or a sinner and a saint.
You’re right that acknowledging progress the church has made would be helpful because it would temper some of the stinging vitriol leveled at the church, but such should only help in broadening conversation and not in limiting the criticism. The criticism should be more fully contextualized, sure, but I see no reason to set the criticism aside simply because some progress has been made in that area.
And yes, the 1979 should be 1879 for Edison’s light bulb, but do you know what was happening in 1979? People of color were finally getting the Priesthood. If progress really was our most important product, then that date would have been about an hundred years sooner as well.
This comment isn’t to refute progress: I think the church has, even if a bit late, made progress that makes the blessings of the atonement more available to more people, but if progress really is the church’s most important product, then we are doing something terribly terribly wrong to have such slow turnout on our most important product.
To paraphrase Chris Rock: “Mormons always want credit for stuff they’re SUPPOSED to do. You’re not supposed to be racist, what you want, a cookie??”
jeff, I think you are right that some people downplay the church’s progress on some issues, but the church is equally at fault for downplaying and ignoring the past. I think it is easy for a white male to be blind to inequities that are hurtful to blacks and females.
yes, all are equal before god, but we should all strive for that equality here on earth and make a zion society. when we refuse to acknowledge our mistakes (refuse to fully repent as a church), we delay promised blessings for those who shouldn,t have to wait.
I think it is a real travesty, for example, that jane manning james could not enjoy temple blessings simply because of her race. she petitioned 4 church presidents for these blessings and was finally sealed to joseph smith as a servant and told to be satisfied. while the situation was rectified shortly after the revelation in 1978, it is a real black eye that the racism went on for that long. yes, it is progress, but much too slow progress.
Had Edison focused exclusively on all the good he was doing, he wouldn’t have made much progress either. In other words, while it’s certainly paralyzing to focus exclusively on failure, it’s just as paralyzing to focus exclusively on what’s right/good. And in the church I see far too much self-congratulatory, arm-straining patting of one’s own back. This kind of tunnel-vision on the good the church does is, in my opinion, as destructive as focusing only on the bad. And it results in sleight of hand redirects when the church is asked to address very real issues (for a great example, take a look at Michael Otterson’s recent piece on the equality of women in the church; he completely sidesteps the difficult question he was asked and instead talks about the good things [all the while omitting what would likely be perceived as bad things by those outside the church] about the church’s treatment of women).
I basically agree with the underlying idea of your post, Jeff. It’s important to give credit where credit is due. It’s important to acknowledge that some things have changed for the better. And acknowledging positive changes may make some of the criticisms more palatable for TBMs.
In spite of that fact, I think it’s very problematic to make the kinds of assertions you make in your post about the progress we’ve made. I could speak to several issues, but since I’m a woman who thinks the church has made severely inadequate progress on women’s issues, I’ll respond to what you say there. You do realize how intensely paternalistic and insulting it is to tell women who feel like second-class citizens that they should be grateful they can pray and speak in public and that they have equal access to God (which isn’t actually true, not if you take the endowment seriously or the requirement to confess to a bishop seriously)? I am often tempted to scream in frustration when someone touts the advances made in the church in terms of gender equity. Because frankly they’re miniscule. And I think it’s incredibly destructive to present those advances as evidence of progress when I think the reality is that they serve to placate people about the way the church values men and women while doing everything possible to preserve the status quo. The best that can be attributed to the church in terms of progress on women’s issues is an embrace of chicken patriarchy. But chicken patriarchy is not at all about making real progress for women; it’s about patting all us sweet little things on the back and reassuring us that we do really matter, while preserving inherently sexist attitudes and structures.
And that is not progress. Giving little smidgens of territory in order to appear benevolent while doing everything possible to keep things just as they are is not progress. It’s insulting. If we truly valued making progress, we’d be able to speak openly about questions and problems without having other members of the church tell us we’re not worthy or that we don’t have enough faith or that we should just leave already. All of which I’ve been told.
So I agree with your idea in theory. I just don’t see that the church is the kind of institution where it would make much difference to acknowledge the progress made while pushing for more progress.
Re Joe in number9, interestingly enough this made me think of another thing Chris Rock said. Instead of saying that black peoplehave made progress it’s really that white people have gotten less crazy.
Phrasing it as progress is a tacit admission that it was okay before. And I reject that. No. It is not okay for, say, a woman be denied access to the temple without asking her husband for permission. It is not okay now, and it never was anything less than stupid.
So I’m not convinced that we should be giving people or institutions a pat on the back for being less bad than they were before. I reserve pats on the back for being actively good.
How much progress lies ahead of humankind to ultimately live in the presence HF? How much progress has been made by humankind since Adam? When you consider this continuum it becomes clear that old laws must be left behind in order for humankind to progress.
The church while focusing on the future of the Celestial Kingdom largely lives in the past expecting members to live Old Testament law isn’t it time we moved to the beatitudes? How long should women be held responsible for the fall? For eternity? Where is the scripture or revelation prohibiting LGBT couples from displays of affection? Why are we living in the past?
I don’t think the viewss of the Church becoming more politically correct equals progress.
Jeff:
Here’s my question for you: is being able to offer prayers/talks in Sacrament meeting remotely similar to being able to run an organization autonomously, without male involvement?
Do we need a handbook or training to define the value of women? Do we need more male leaders telling us how wonderful women are? Do we need another male to stand up at the pulpit at GC and tell women how great they are?
As a male, I can’t say I agree with your theory that the changes have made things “much more” inclusive… in my opinion, either it’s taking something from the left hand and putting it in the right – arguing there’s a substantial difference between the two – or in the process of switching that something from your left hand to your right 1/2 of the things fall to the ground unnoticed and you still proclaim the resulting change is even better than before.
Like most organizations, we like to shuffle chairs in a circle and call the shuffling divine while forgetting about the dozen or so chairs sitting on the outside, excluded from the shuffling. We go on our merry way thinking the shuffling is progress, thinking we should just ignore any issues (past, present or future) for the sake of “beneficial” truths and for the sake of expediency.
Truth is, we like to be told how great we are. We like to be told how strong, vibrant and filled-with-growth the church is… it satisfies our ego of belonging to the “true” church and makes us feel better than others in defining subconscious ways. Anyone who dares raise a voice to rock the boat is deemed unfit for the Kingdom and is ushered off their merry way…
In my opinion, the church isn’t built for extraordinary changes – from the inside at least. At least not anymore. There was a time where that not only happened, but it was expected. Now, we’re content with newly redesigned programs, semi-annual conferences and semi-monthly devotionals. The extravagant in our religion has been explained away and forgotten – either by design or by ignorance. We no longer want to be a world apart. We no longer yearn for a Zion society. We no longer expect anyone to use spiritual gifts in public (those that do are quickly castigated as apostate). We put qualifiers throughout blessings, prayers and service.
Truth be told (IMHO), we want to be as much like the world as possible while giving our 3 hours of spirituality a go on Sunday. Then, like the Zoramites, we return home never to speak of the things of the Spirit until we reconvene the following Sunday to celebrate our chosenness.
That is my opinion. That is what I see, correct or not.
DavidC
I would like to highlight one area where I see “musical chairs” the new handbook highlights the importance of women in Ward Council, however at the same time, RS councillors are no longer invited to Welfare ( welfare does not exist), activities commitie has been disbanded, which on a local level was the only calling except primary where women can lead men, again one less potential woman attending Ward Council. Now I don’t think either of the decisions were made specifically to exclude women but as a direct consequence there are less women in ward leadership meeting, now there are only 3 women compared to 10 men.
Great. The mormon church is making progress. Three cheers for them. Kudos and accolades all around.
I’m sure all the gay kids they drove to suicide will be happy to hear it. Oh, wait. I guess not.
Had [Edison] focused on all the failures that he had in the past, he might never have succeed in becoming one of the most successful inventors of all time.
Jeff, I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. Edison had to recognize past failures as failures. I think for most of us, Edison is a symbol of facing unpleasant facts without discouragement or giving up. This is essentially the opposite of expending time and energy persuading himself and others that his most recent failure was in fact a success. Similarly, it makes no sense to describe him as a relentlessly negative critic of the carbon arc light who refused to recognize the progress it represented.
Regarding the LDS church, one possible (and I think actual) point of view is that no criticism is ever legitimate. Critics are always wrong, and usually have base motivations. I think the “14 fundamentals” talk, for example, can be read to support such a view.
Does anyone here actually read it that way? For those who do not, can you give an instance of dissent or criticism (post-1820) that seems legitimate? I ask because I don’t think Jeff believes that the church is never wrong, or that it may be wrong but it is always wrong to say it is (correct me if I’m wrong), but I don’t remember an instance where he supported a critic or the reasons he may have given.
Here’s a few ideas, which may be barking up the wrong tree:
(1) A member who said in a church meeting in May 1978 that the status of black members needed to be changed.
(2) A non-member who said the same thing in a letter to the editor, also in May 1978.
(3) Orson Pratt’s public disagreement with Brigham Young related to the Adam-God doctrine.
Are any of these ok?
Let me volunteer some candidate answers to my questions. These aren’t my own point of view, but I wonder if they coincide with anyone’s view here.
(1) The member is factually correct, in view of the June 1978 revelation. However, expressing the opinion challenges church authority. It is more important to support the authority (who will deal with the need next month) than to sound off in church. Not ok.
(2a) The non-member is also challenging the authority of the Lord’s anointed. Not ok.
(2b) The non-member is not under the authority of the church. Ok.
(3a) Pratt opposed a false doctrine, as he was called to do in his capacity as an apostle. Ok.
(3b) Pratt’s challenge to Young’s authority was wrong as in (1). The correct course of action would have been to keep silent and trust in later prophets and apostles to make course corrections after Young’s death. Not ok.
OK, we are having a big music weekend around the house and I haven’t been home to respond to your comments, which have been very good and very polite.
Let me start by making a couple of general statements:
1. By recognizing that the Church has made progress in some areas do not negate nor excuse the fact that more progress is probably necessary and hopefully likely. OD2 did not change the hearts of some members into loving people of color and not being racist. Unfortunately, it still exists. But hopefully, the hard core dies off and younger members are not like that to begin with.
2. Progress in the Church is way too slow. I get that and believe that. some of the things in the new handbook should have been specifically done years ago. More enlightened local leaders have been doing some things for years.
3. My entire point which may have been lost on some was that many times when Church progress is mentioned, someone has to hearken back to a time when something was not right by today’s standards. This is done, IMO, in an effort to negate the progress and make it seem as if no progress has been made.
Now, I will respond to specific posts in the next little while or tomorrow.
Thanks, Jeff, and I look forward to hearing your forthcoming comments.
Here’s something I’ve observed that I think accounts for some of your point 3 from #21. Some exchanges go like this, which is based on a real conversation now several years old:
Defender: The LDS church does not discriminate against gay people.
Critic: That’s not true. What about [extremely derogatory statement a la 1970s Kimball or Packer]? The leaders are old men who are products of their time and may be mistaken.
Defender: No, that’s just the law of chastity. The Brethren are transmitting God’s law, not a product of the times.
Critic: How can you be sure of that? What about the time Brigham Young said [patently offensive derogatory racist statement]?
Defender: Everybody believed that then. Why are you critics always bringing up old 19th century notions, which were just products of the time? Give us some credit. We’ve moved beyond that.
As I’ve outlined it here, the defender is rather obviously missing the critic’s point, but in the real conversation it was not expressed so concisely, and there were side issues and other distractions.
My observation is that bringing up past shortcomings is sometimes a tactic to overcome resistance to considering the possibility that some present position could be mistaken. To me, the logic seems sound in principle, but the tactic itself does not often succeed in practice, at least in the immediate conversation.
Badger,
Let me start with this one.
“As I’ve outlined it here, the defender is rather obviously missing the critic’s point, but in the real conversation it was not expressed so concisely, and there were side issues and other distractions.”
First of all, as I have said many times in the past, I do not like these kind of hypotheticals because they are always set up in favor of the one making it, so it is pointless to respond to it.
But, I will say this. Everyone has a past. In some cases, the past is not pretty. And by today’s standards downright offensive. Just in the same way that those in past viewing the future might be deeply offending by what they might see of today.
That has to be taken into account when judging the past.
As for discrimination, one person view of what is discrimination may not be in the eyes of another. The civil rights movement is the prime example of that.
But, if the Church or any other church claims doctrinal issues which may lead to someone thinking it is discrimination.
Asking the question: “how can you be sure of that?” is a bit of a strawman because it is a faith driven belief not necessary a fact-based belief.
You either believe it is from God or you do not.
Jeff, thanks for your reply. I didn’t mean the very stripped-down dialog as something that you (or anyone) would need to respond to. There is nothing in it worthy of such effort.
I intended it to illustrate a motive for bringing up past failings that I think is different from, as you said, merely negating progress that has been made. The critic is in the dialog is still a critic, and brings up past racism for the purpose of criticism. However, the nature of the criticism is not denial of the Church’s progress on race, and its target is a separate issue.
So, that’s all I was getting at.
One more thought just occurred to me: the (secular) critic in my example is using the BY quote to argue that prophetic counsel is not completely reliable.
However, there’s also a tradition of quoting something shocking out of say, the Journal of Discourses, and arguing that it represents Mormon belief. I think this is more common for religiously motivated critics. So, critic A might have something about less-valiant spirits in the pre-existence and argue that this is Mormon doctrine, and the church is still stuck in the past. Meanwhile critic B could be using the same quote from the point of view that nobody believes this any more and it’s obviously *not* Mormon doctrine, but past leaders taught it, so they were not reliable.
Of course the more religiously oriented critic A is more likely to bring up issues critic B doesn’t care about. For example, Jesus being a polygamist, from the Journal of Discourses. [Or Jesus and Satan being brothers, from where, the Godmakers? Honestly, that one seems to be more popular every day. It’s quickly becoming my least favorite criticism of Mormonism, almost beating out the idiotic business about “Adieu” in the Book of Mormon.] Anyway, my point is the denial-of-progress version seems to fit in with an existing style of criticism.
JMB275
“While we’ve made progress in racism, we haven’t really made any progress on why such a pernicious doctrine was allowed to permeate our culture at all.”
I suspect it permeated the church in the same way it was part of society at large. One can argue that the “True Church” should know better and perhaps it should.
But, it appears that not many leaders really understood why it was a practice of the church, i.e. Apostle David O. MacKay. It was something that is very unfortunate that seems to have been perpetuated without real doctrinal basis.
“If leaders were wrong about race and priesthood, what are they currently wrong about? “
I don’t know, you tell me. This becomes a faith matter in many respects. I know they are wrong about beards!
“We treat the disaffected like they’re absurd for expecting past prophets to have been perfect, yet we give complete deference to our current leaders, praising and gushing over them like celebrities.”
I don’t and I don’t suspect that they really expect us to. I know where that idea comes from. But as a firm believer in agency, I would be shirking a God-given right by not exercising it the way I see fit. I cannot and will not give it up to anyone. Disagreement is not “evil-speaking.” .”
I find this “blind obedience” message comes more from people on the fringes or outside the Church. We have to be a bunch of sheep to them.
Amelia,
“You do realize how intensely paternalistic and insulting it is to tell women who feel like second-class citizens that they should be grateful they can pray and speak in public and that they have equal access to God (which isn’t actually true, not if you take the endowment seriously or the requirement to confess to a bishop seriously)?”
I do not have the history of why women could not pray or give talks in Sacrament meeting. It seems unreasonable to me. I’ll not get into “endowment theory” but we are clearly taught that men cannot be exalted without their wives and vice versa, so there must be more to it than the simple interpretation that some women object to. And I do not know what your confession comment means.
“I am often tempted to scream in frustration when someone touts the advances made in the church in terms of gender equity. Because frankly they’re minuscule.”
You say minuscule, but I wonder by whose standards you are judging that by? Because if they are society’s then I would wonder why that is a good measure? I applaud many of the changes that have taken place in the workforce, but outside of that, I am not sure much of what we see is real “progress.”
DavidC,
“Here’s my question for you: is being able to offer prayers/talks in Sacrament meeting remotely similar to being able to run an organization autonomously, without male involvement?”
I’ll answer that by first asking a question. What organization in the Church is able to run themselves autonomously without male involvement? The answer is none. Every organization has to answer to a male leader somewhere along the line.
It has been my experience that the male organization, the Priesthood, receive tons more oversight than any of the auxiliaries headed by women. And that includes those whose Presidents have Priesthood keys.
My experience is that Bishops pretty much leave the ward auxiliaries to run their own organizations and very seldom intervene to any large degree. I’ve seen the Stake do pretty much the same.
At best progress can be said to be the church’s most important byproduct because it’s not like they are pushing for progress. It happens to the church, not the other way around.
“It happens to the church, not the other way around.”
I’d have to agree with that. But it is the same way with us. God does not push us to progress, we have to do it ourselves. Is it any different with His Church?