I learned an interesting tidbit about LDS church history from Terryl Given’s excellent book, People of Paradox. Apparently in the early days of the church, debate “clubs” were popular among members. Not unlike the informal online gatherings in today’s bloggernacle, early LDS saints, Joseph Smith included, would regularly meet for debates, where they argued about politics and theology. Winners were declared, and even devout followers of Joseph Smith were allowed to challenge him on points of doctrine. One example subject: “Was it, or was it not, the design of Christ to establish His Gospel by miracles?” Givens writes:
In Nauvoo, debates became a standard feature of social and intellectual life. Joseph recorded, in February 1842, that he spent the evening attending a debate, then added that “at this time debates were held weekly, and entered into by men of the first talents in the city, young and old, for the purpose of eliciting truth, acquiring knowledge, and improving in public speaking.” Clearly, debates afforded an excellent exercise in logical thinking and expression. Joseph valued the practice, that his followers “might improvetheir minds and cultivate their powers of intellect in a proper manner.”
Debates were very popular among other religions of the day as well. Early missionaries would display formidable skill in engaging ministers of other religions in debates with large crowds in attendance. At one such event, 40 people were baptized after Orson Hyde “won” the debate. The culture of debate and oratory also seems to have had a positive impact on the development of LDS theology. Its most gifted practitioners, Orson and Parley P. Pratt published passionate and reasoned defenses of the faith which dramatically influenced later understanding of LDS doctrine.
But there seems to have been negative consequences to this culture of debate as well. Because church doctrine and direction was up for debate, Joseph Smith was openly challenged. During the Kirtland and Missouri periods, members who respected Joseph’s official revelations as divine, still openly questioned his authority to lead and the wisdom of his council. Oliver Cowdrey, at his church trial, defended his opposition to Joseph Smith by invoking his “constitutional rights.” His belief was that the church should be run more like a democracy than an authoritarian theocracy.
Debate in Leadership Today
Even though Joseph Smith and Brigham Young asserted their authority to lead the church unopposed, a culture of debate still thrived within church leadership, most famously between Brigham Young and Orson Pratt who publicly opposed each other on points of doctrine throughout their tenures while remaining cordial in private. Gregory Prince’s David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism presents abundant evidence of lively disagreements among the apostles of the 1950s and 60s, and I wouldn’t be surprised if elements of this debate culture survives among the apostles even today, in spite of decades of correlation and a concerted effort to put on a united front.
Debate Among General Membership
I travel a lot and have attended a number of wards around the world. My favorite ward is in Nashville. The members are faithful, good-hearted, and extremely opinionated. The sparks always fly during lively debates in Gospel Doctrine class with its mixture of Vanderbuilt liberals, country-loving conservatives, and sensitive songwriters. Nevertheless a refreshing sense of humor and humility pervades in spite of the outspokenness. The church openly encourages class discussion and participation over lecturing from the teacher. They trust the general membership to follow the Spirit in their discussions, which they often do. Even in Nashville, where people are open about their disagreements, it seems to work quite well.
However, during a recent visit to a French ward, a discussion on the Proclamation on the Family quickly turned ugly after one closet liberal meekly suggested that single parents might be able to raise children as well as two-parents. At this comment, dozens of hands popped up in alarm and members spent the next 20 minutes stumbling over each other in increasingly hysterical efforts to defend the church against this outrageous intrusion. Needless to say, the Spirit was not in attendance.
It’s hard to imagine the besieged French saints being able to effectively foster a culture of respectful debate. They come to church to escape the cultural French disdain for everything they believe, not to engage in more debate about it. Many US saints feel the same way. Strict correlation is extremely important in validating an LDS culture with values increasingly at odds with those of the the outside world. In such a defensive culture, debate of any kind is often synonymous with “the spirit of contention, which is of the devil.”
Questions:
- Is the LDS culture of debate a valuable aspect of our identity as Mormons, or something dangerous which contributed to past apostasy?
- Would Joseph Smith have approved of the Bloggernacle’s culture of debate?
- Is LDS debate culture still alive in the general membership apart from the Bloggernacle?
- Is Gospel Doctrine class a place for faithful debate, or rather for correlated affirmation?
- How can we debate without inviting the spirit of contention?
Wheat & Tares 
I was a long time teacher and then sunday school president in a ward that tried to do this, and I would like to think largely succeeded. A culture with that balance can be tricky to pull off though. Having been in a number of high profile grad student wards I have seen it go both very well and very poorly. One key seems to be to insure that a culture of interpersonal service across the normal lines of doctrinal opinions and gospel outlook compliment the open discussion. Without this type of foundation of service and strong interpersonal relationships it shouldn’t be attempted. It is likewise important that the participants value not “winning” but simply the interchange of ideas and new perspectives and ideas it brings. When you can go up to the person afterward that has been disagreeing and honestly say, “That was a great discussion, I now think about this principle or myself differently. Thanks!” And really mean it, even if in the end you don’t agree. It helps being wards with lots of grad students, law students etc. because they tend to get this culture and value the arguments and ideas of others that challenge them and can model it. It is easy for it to turn sour, however and you have to take special care to make sure that there is a place in the ward for those just seeking “shelter for the storm” and find value in engaging in the more catechism of reaffirming shared beliefs and values. This can be in separate classes or by having thoughtful diversity in the lessons and teachers. If you fail to take into account and plan for those with those needs then you do a disservice.
It also requires a ward willing to use its most skilled teachers in those roles even if that keeps them out of more traditional leadership positions. I have been blessed in these wards to see true master teachers teach. I would attend some classes simply for that purpose. To maintain this culture the ward leadership basically made gospel doctrine teacher the highest priority calling in the ward. We burned resources by giving each teacher a full month to prepare every lesson or at very least they taught once every 3 weeks. That meant calling more teachers than normal. We constantly screened and looked for people that could pull off framing and guiding the discussions so they could be both invigorating, full of theological and moral tension but also productive. We threw the manuals completely out the window (for the most part). We encouraged innovation and the use of outside resources and preparation. (5th hour lessons on the history of polygamy before it was cool? Yes. Frank discussion of the succession crisis? Yes. Sympathetic meta critiques of Daughters of our Kingdom? You bet.) In return they came up with truly well prepared and innovative lessons. No one was pulling their lessons together from scratch the night before (ok most the time 🙂 ).
Were we perfect? No. Did from time to time the discussion get a bit more contentious then was ideal? Did feelings sometimes get hurt? Yes. Did we sometimes forget to take into account the full diversity of needs in our SS. Yes. (Turns out we had a group of defectors stage a coup of gospel principles where they turned it into the class they wanted.) It is a risk that comes with the territory, but I would argue that learning to recover from these sporadic incidences also turned out to be good gospel training. But our classes were never boring and those who when they first arrived *hated* our classes would often come back after moving on would be the ones who missed us most after we left. Oh and the teachers learned quickly to ignore all the visitors trying to comment. That tended to not turn out well 🙂 It was a bloggernacle denizens dream.
Vanity makes me like to think JS would ahve loved our GD class and the spirits of President Benson and Hugh B. Brown attended from time to time 🙂
I think rah really nailed it. I’ve been in a ward where people engaged in gospel debate, were comfortable publicly expressing differing opinions, and still loved and served each other. When I arrived I was pretty shocked, but after I left I experienced serious withdrawals.
I wish there was a healthy way for leadership to model that type of uplifting debate and disagreement. The discord between Ezra Taft Benson and Hugh B. Brown was not the way to do it, but it seems to me that the brethren have overcorrected by eliminating almost all public signs of disagreement.
That said, I suspect that people were allowed to debate Joseph in the same way you’re allowed to play golf with your boss. It’s okay to make it competitive, but you better let him win in the end.
I’ve felt particularly lately in the last few months of SS/RS that people aren’t there to learn or be challenged, but for validation. It’s especislly tiresome for those of us who find great value and morality out in “the world.”
I like the idea of the Bloggernacle replicating old debate clubs. I’m sure more of our past church leaders than not would find it a place they enjoy and support.
I don’t think that the current experience of being LDS counts as being one that is a “culture of debate”. So whether critical debate is valuable or not seems moot.
IMO, critical analysis can only “contribute to apostasy” in cases where the establishment has no good answers to those who are questioning.
I suppose we could ask his Methodist, Baptist, et al. contemporaries — and see what they thought about his concerns over new revelation, etc.
Personally, I don’t see how someone who’s very notoriety was based on the fact that he initiated debate among Christian groups could disapprove of his followers continuing the tradition (as it were).
I just attended a Stake priesthood meeting last Sunday where it was reiterated to me that debating things beyond the scope of what the First Presidency has published is a no-go for any “faithful” LDS. In the mainstream, debating what’s being taught or debating how doctrine is being presented is a definite non-starter — that should be an obvious fact.
See above.
The simplest answer I could give to that question is: Stop behaving as though differences of opinion equate to differences of righteousness.
“IMO, critical analysis can only “contribute to apostasy” in cases where the establishment has no good answers to those who are questioning.”
Critical analysis is our responsibility. It’s why we’re given intelligence. Not subjecting the current common knowledge to analysis is probably how Christ’s original church apostatized.
If there are “no good answers” then there is an area that needs to be explored and clarified.
“I just attended a Stake priesthood meeting last Sunday where it was reiterated to me that debating things beyond the scope of what the First Presidency has published is a no-go for any “faithful” LDS. In the mainstream, debating what’s being taught or debating how doctrine is being presented is a definite non-starter — that should be an obvious fact.”
What does this indicate about all of the essays and responses to Ordain Women coming out of mostly anonymous sources? Does it indicate that it’s more than time that the First Presidency appealed for some revelation to resolve the contention arising from the vacuums of knowledge that are presently plaguing the church?
In my opinion, the “Ordain Women” folks were part of who was being directly referenced by our Stake President — also I caught a hint of a Denver Snuffer rebuke in there.
The leadership appeared to be saying (as far as I could tell) that “following the prophet” is still an LDS virtue and that “following” necessarily implies being behind someone. So the people who think they “know better” with respect to homosexuality, female ordinations, etc. are just “steadying the arc” and are “nigh unto apostasy”.
Certainly I think that if we were to move forward, it would require the presiding high priest of the church to the Lord and seek revelation on the matter — but (call me skeptical), I don’t foresee that happening anytime soon.
I find this question to be absolutely fascinating, if only because it seems so open. Joseph Smith certainly did seem to approve of such debate and discussion… inasmuch as they did not challenge priesthood authority. Once such things started undermining or subverting church authority he did things like destroying presses and the like. At least that’s how I interpret his actions. That, I suspect, is why people would approach him at the end of other people’s sermons to get some prophetic/priesthood endorsement. That, I suspect, is why he – the church authority – did not hesitate to correct or even label as heresy the sermons and teachings of others. I simply do not see him approaching such debate sessions as if all people were on equal grounds within the church. He reserved the last word for himself or his apostles and when other did not recognize this prerogative, he would openly worry about the well-being of their souls/church memberships.
I suspect he would have the same mixed reactions to the bloggernacle. There are, to be sure, a lot of really good and interesting debates and discussions that I’m sure he would love to be a part of. On the other hand, there are an awful lot of posts and comments that do challenge or subvert the church authority. Furthermore, I do not at all think he would approve of the way that some bloggers resent the way that the current church leadership occasionally corrects or even labels their teachings and actions as heresy.
We’re dealing with many of the same issues Joseph dealt with, on a larger and much harder to control scale. His debates sometimes resulted in people becoming disaffected and leaving the Church; sometimes in near-schisms that were only healed by his prophetic authority in one form or another. Joseph seems to have depended greatly on the Spirit but not all of his followers, then or now, could count on hearing its whispers as clearly as we might like. Thus, Hiram Page’s pseudo-revelations were put to the test and failed, with Joseph there to guide – but hundreds followed the even more ridiculous claims of James J. Strang after Joseph’s death and he still has adherents today.
There is always a risk, when debate is allowed, that people will let their emotions override their inspiration, and no one will be edified. I think Joseph would have liked some of what he sees in the Church and the ‘Nacle today, and not liked some of it. I just don’t think we’re very good at drawing the line on when a healthy amount of questioning and inquiry becomes too much. The Adversary is subtle and we are easily distracted. The institutional Church stays as far from the edge as possible, and for many members – especially given the lack of any kind of education in logic or argumentation in most people’s backgrounds – that’s probably just as well.
But for some of us, that closed-mindedness chafes more than a little bit, and so we seek out ways and places to re-create those early debating societies. Sometimes we succeed, sometimes not so much, and we work out our own salvation with fear and trembling.
Would JS participate in the ‘nacle? Yes, on condition that he got final say. Not so different from our current leaders probably. I agree with Jeff G on that score.
As to lay members in wards having these types of debates, honestly, I recall that things were more this way in my parents’ day. An unfortunate consequence of correlation is that it has infused Mormon discussions with a brittleness that stops any real inquisitiveness. Not only do we have stock answers to the questions; many leaders in the church only want stock questions! There are many questions and discussions that are totally out of bounds. The more third rail topics we have, the more impossible it is to create healthy debate (open speaking and open-minded thinking), respect for others (except authority figures), and the ability to think expansively and to ponder.
Mormonism has many deep questions, and they are assiduously avoided in most settings because there are a handful of vociferous border-policers making sure we all stay safely in the corral their own comfort level dictates. Correlation was a boon in eliminating some of the folklore borne of speculation but like mercury in the desert, once stepped on, it re-forms elsewhere. That same speculation now bears fruit in people trying to defend the indefensible in an effort to demonstrate their orthodoxy.
Some good comments. Rah, it sounds like you’ve had some great wards. It probably helps when they are in college towns. I agree that fostering a spirit of trust, service, and friendship is important BEFORE the debate. At the end of the day, debate is not why we join the church and it would be a shame if it compromised any of our more important duties.
I like how Justin answers: How can we debate without inviting the spirit of contention? “Stop behaving as though differences of opinion equate to differences of righteousness.” Excellent point.
I’m going to cover more of Givens’ book in a later post, but the idea of debating fits within what he calls the 2nd paradox of the church: the tension between a culture of certainty and a culture of continual learning. It also relates to the 1st paradox, which is a tension between authoritarianism and individuality.
I believe all these attributes: certainty, learning, authority, and individuality are all very important aspects of the LDS experience, so even though they lead to obvious conflicts, we must engage with them anyway, and try to find the delicate balance where all the paradoxes can find expression.
So teachers must continue to ask, students must continue to be honest, but all must at the same time respond to priesthood authority as well as certainty, the testimony of other members who “know.” They are all part of who we are as a people.
Interesting discussion here. I agree with some of the opinoins here. Unfortunately, my ward does not have a “culture of debate” at all. Unless it’s a culture of “all debate is wrong”. I don’t even enjoy our GD class anymore, becuase it’s just the instructor repeating the offical church position and no one’s differing opinions are given time or attention.
Questions:
• Is the LDS culture of debate a valuable aspect of our identity as
Mormons, or something dangerous which contributed to past apostasy?
• Would Joseph Smith have approved of the Bloggernacle’s culture of
debate?
• Is LDS debate culture still alive in the general membership apart
from the Bloggernacle?
• Is Gospel Doctrine class a place for faithful debate, or rather for
correlated affirmation?
• How can we debate without inviting the spirit of contention?
-Is the LDS culture of debate a valuable aspect of our identity as
Mormons, or something dangerous which contributed to past apostasy?
Forget about what debate has done. It’s a way to learn. If you are not
up to it, then get up to it.
-Would Joseph Smith have approved of the Bloggernacle’s culture of
debate?
Now that’s a question and a half! I would like to see/hear his
reaction on this ‘skip going to church to recharge your spiritual
batteries’ thing and all the other whimpering that goes on.
-Is LDS debate culture still alive in the general membership apart from
the Bloggernacle?
I guess I agree with Doug. It’s kind of dead, although, in the past
about five years, it’s gotten better in my ward. The present teacher
has not yet learned to be wary of me. I guess it might be true that
when you live far away from Utah (like Minnesota) you can speak pretty
freely but if you are in Utah, you’d better be careful.
-Is Gospel Doctrine class a place for faithful debate, or rather for
correlated affirmation?
Gospel Doctrine class is a place to learn about gospel doctrine. It’s
a place to learn about God’s ways. It’s not, particularly, a place to
learn about Church doctrine. Church doctrine can change with the wind
direction. I would say that, sometimes, it needs to. Gospel doctrine
changes for nothing. It is God’s life. If we can correlate that, then
let’s correlate. If we can’t, then junk the correlation effort.
-How can we debate without inviting the spirit of contention?
Every person brings the Spirit with him/her keeping in mind that, if
the Spirit leaves, He’s leaving him/her, not the group.
Doctrinal debate is my thing – whether I’m good at it or not. In that arena it sure helps to be knowledgeable but I would say that’s not the main ingredient. The main ingredient, I would say, is honesty. You don’t have to be knowledgeable, but you have to be honest. For the most part, if the Spirit leaves, it’s because the debaters, one or more, have stopped being honest. If you want to learn gospel doctrine, then take an honest approach to learning the scriptures. If you want to learn gospel doctrine, listen to other people, listen to the leaders, but first and foremost, listen to God. Trust no mortal. Your only goal is to learn truth.
I’ve said this before and so I’ll, probably, say it again and again: In the quest for truth there are only four personages in the universe: There’s the Godhead. That’s three and then there’s you. That’s four. No one else counts – and that’s final.