I’ve been reading Greg Prince’s Leonard Arrington biography off and on. One of the interesting observations Arrington made was about the existence of “the underground church.” He was referring to unofficial study groups that met to discuss history, doctrine or scripture, to have conversations that weren’t the “approved” or limited Sunday School answers.
From the biography:
In a late-night conversation in Philadelphia after a day of sessions at a history meeting in 1969, Leonard discussed with two other scholars the existence of two Mormon churches, “the formal church of Sacrament meeting, Sunday School, MIA, etc., and the Underground church. The latter is the church of study groups, circles, discussion groups, family get-togethers, etc., where there is a Christian fellowship with ideological similarity, both within and without the Church.”
He talks about these groups having existed since the earliest days of the Church, the 1830s. Prince continues:
Leonard considered the underground church to be a sign of institutional health, for it was and generally is composed of church members who feel deeply about the gospel, but who have no outlet within the formal church structure for discussing many of the issues that are of greatest importance to them. “One can’t raise meaningful questions or discuss them honestly and fully in SS, seminary, Institute, MIA, Sacrament meeting, etc.”
Participants in the bloggernacle will make the obvious connection to the online Mormon discussions that have proliferated since the inception of the internet, and those blog sites and groups come in every flavor of belief and hobby horse topic imaginable from the orthodox to the closet atheist, from the conspiracy theorist to the humanist, from those experimenting with breaking the Word of Wisdom to those experimenting with improving their adherence to the Word of Wisdom.
Many, many groups are dedicated to discussing doubts, history, or issues with the institutional church, topics not generally permitted in open discussions at Church. This was another pet peeve of Leonard’s:
“The attempt to suppress problems and difficulties, the attempt to intimidate people who raise problems or express doubts or seek to reconcile difficult facts, is both ineffective and futile. It leads to suspicion, mistrust, the condescending slanting of data. The more we deny or appear to deny certain demonstrable ‘fact,’ the more we must ourselves harbor serious doubts and have something to hide.”
He also didn’t like the attitude of anti-intellectualism he saw coming from some of those in leadership positions above him:
…the emphasis on the spirit, the ‘put down’ of the intellect, does a disservice to religion in general and to Mormonism in particular, for it suggests that religion–Mormonism–cannot be intellectually supported; its support rests on an emotional basis; one must put one’s mind aside to accepts its truths. This is palpably false.
He did feel, though, that the more open dialogue that was found in these in-between spaces improved his and others’ ability to accept divergent viewpoints.
“I no longer hate those who disagree; I respect and tolerate those persons. Most of all, I tolerate and respect the ideas and opinions which these people possess.”
It has occurred to me that the new council meetings in Relief Society and Elders Quorum are designed to be more like the Underground church Leonard described, although that doesn’t mean they will work that way. For one thing, the group isn’t self-selected, curated of like-minded intellectual people who have common interests. But, even so, there’s something powerful in enforcing an open discussion among ward members.
- Have you experienced what you consider to be the Underground church aside from the Bloggernacle? What was your experience?
- Do you consider the new council meetings to be an effective method to improve understanding between members or will it continue to be a self-censoring policing of the ‘right’ answers rather than a free exchange of ideas?
- Is the Underground church a sign of health of the organization or a sign of weakness that these types of discussions are squelched by institutional efforts like correlation? Provide examples.
- Do these types of groups open minds to new ideas or do they create more polarization by limiting the discussion to like-minded individuals?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
Here is my experience with such a group.: https://bycommonconsent.com/2016/02/16/gospel-discussion-group/
I really enjoyed attending Miller-Eccles in SoCal. Better than any sacrament meeting or fireside I’ve ever been to.
My beef with Arrington’s study groups is they catered to well connected, well funded elites. As I recall, he noted that local leaders and some senior leaders happily attended. These were elitist events, in a sense. But when it spread to average members in the form of Sunstone symposia and related publications, the leadership reacted and tried to shut it all down. Well the Internet sure blew up that attempt to shut down the conversation, and they lost their credibility as well as control of the conversation.
If they had been more forward thinking, they might have tried to elevate mainstream discussion by introducing those interesting and challenging issues rather than trying to restrict them to the elites. That was a bad strategy that they are still trying to recover from.
I live in Utah County and have very little hope for the “councils” to provide a forum for open discussion. I’ve already seen people being shut-down for even slightly “off-center” comments. When “For The Strength of Youth” pamphlet is referred to as ‘church doctrine’ I get nervous!
My experience has been the same as Dark Traveler. On the occasion a different perspective is given during a first Sunday council meeting, it’s quickly followed by three or four people jumping in to explain why it is wrong. I had it happen to me and walked away deciding it wasn’t worth it and I needed to just keep my mouth shut. Openness, sharing, and support all sounds good, but in practice anything crossing socially acceptable lines isn’t really wanted. I get the feeling this is a fear-based problem. Too many members worry that if we talk about different points of view, they will spread. Which is somewhat true…
Good post. My own informal experience with this kind of thing is along the lines of Dave B. Because the church is more concerned in the main with boundary maintenance than it is with the free, open and honest exchange of ideas, there is a lot of controlling or re-centering g0ing on even in Sunday school classes. I attend what I would describe as a moderate ward, not too conservative, not too liberal, but to even bring up in a church lesson on the First Vision the varying accounts of the vision, its complex history, etc., shuts down the conversation rather than opening it up. I think most people go to church for affirmation, not for complication (and that’s a perfectly legitimate reason for going to church) and so anything that complicates the vastly oversimplified church narrative earns you stares and contempt.
What’s really disheartening about all this is that if the church is true (whatever that might mean to anyone), it ought to be able to withstand scrutiny. What we get instead is lip service given to the importance of searching complex ideas for that which might be true: “find out for yourself,” “search for the answers,” “prove my words,” etc. but really, the underlying, unspoken idea is that if you search and you don’t find to be true the exact narrative the church is selling, you’re the one who’s called out for not being righteous enough, or being deceived by Satan or the world or whatever. The fact that the church’s official narrative is so black and white really makes complex, nuanced discussions impossible. And, in fact, we’re seeing the unintended consequences of this, especially with the church hemorrhaging not only its youth but also many people who bought into the narrative and then discovered it not to be as “true” as the church claimed it to be. And Dave B. is right: The internet really complicated things for the church. It feels like to me that Pandora’s box is open and there’s really no way to put everything back the way it was. I see this as progress, but I can understand why the church/TBM members might view this as a problem, as Satan influencing things, or as the “learned and the proud” getting too big for their britches instead of just humbling themselves and getting in line. I think this is why such groups that Arrington/the OP describe haven’t really taken hold, at least not where I am. There’s too much institutional/cultural resistance.
When you are sitting in Sacrament Meeting and decide to tune out whatever Conference talk is being rehashed at the podium and instead open up an interesting book — you have slipped into the Underground Church.
One example: Years ago I was called to teach an “alternative” gospel doctrine class for some inquiring minds frustrated with the usual. It was a small group. One Sunday when Official Declaration and Section 132 were the subject, a young couple, previously unseen in that class, came in. She was so upset at mention of the fact of post-manifesto polygamous marriages with approval of some of the Q12 that she complained to the bishop and the class was terminated. Those for whom the class existed no longer participate in our ward at all.
Another: Relatively recently on a 5th Sunday third hour combined PH/RS meeting, our bishop proposed a question-discussion session. After a period of silence, someone was willing to initiate a discussion with a question he had heard in a similar session in another stake — something like: “What do you do when you cannot accept the appropriateness of a Church leader’s direction or believe that a Church policy, practice, or teaching reflects God’s will?” For a short time an open discussion happened, then it was shut off by a heartfelt, yet adamant, testimony that the leaders of the Church will never lead us astray — apparently meaning they will never make a mistake — so that the question itself had to be rejected rather than addressed. It seemed no one knew what to do with that without risking damage to others, and so we settled for the damage caused by that “testimony” and discussion died.
Except possibly in unique wards, I don’t think the RS and EQ council format can significantly “improve understanding between members”. In most cases, I expect them to “continue to be a self-censoring policing of the ‘right’ answers rather than a free exchange of ideas.” But then I’m not sure a “free exchange of ideas” is even a goal of the new format. Perhaps the meetings are meant to focus on spirit and motivation and practical application and not so much on history, understanding, or “doctrine.”
Many need Underground Church connections to fortify them to be able to endure the 3-hour block (or even the part of it they may attend). Unfortunately, many of those do not find those connections.
Facebook groups have also been great for that. The LDS scholastic ones are the best. Even with prominent LDS professors in there, they still look at thinks like the Old Testament from a more historically accurate stance. A “nod” is given from time to time in regards to what a general authority has said but 99% of it is based on non-LDS sources from academia as we try to make sense of where the historical and biblical records converge and diverge and why.
Andy care to point is in the right direction?
Gospel Principles teacher once organized a discussion group on the play “Mother Wove the Morning”. The stake president was notified and she was called in.
nortonrnowlinma:
Don’t get discouraged by thumbs down votes. Your opinions do count. People still read them and the moderators are very patient. Take it from me.
You mentioned the quote from Gal 1:8 ” But though we or AN ANGEL FROM HEAVEN preach any other gospel….” Now you must realize that this is a favorite of my wife who left the LDS faith and became an evangelical. For them, the angel referred to is, as you suggested, clearly the Angel Moroni. Mormonism does seem like another gospel.
But then there is the little matter of the numerous conferences especially in the third century after Christ that began to define orthodox and heretical beliefs, even though many of those rejected beliefs had been part of mainstream Christianity for centuries. This was not a process of rational discussion or even revelation. It was a power struggle plain and simple. Any other gospel? Early Christianity was far more diverse than it is today and it was pruned with blood. They say that the blood of the martyrs was fertilizer to the early church, more like the blood of the heretics..
And then the creeds, especially the one at Nicaea. There a powerful Roman emperor, Constantine, who had not even been baptized yet and had no theological background in Christianity (more like a fan than a member yet alone a theologian or church leader) forced an irrational compromise on the nature of God and we have been saddled with the ridiculous idea of the trinity for 17 centuries and counting. Oh yeh, undocumented faithful wise advisors gave him the idea. In every century large numbers of rational people have rejected the trinity. You have to do some mighty elaborate mental gymnastics to read the trinity into the New Testament. (Jesus praying to himself and forsaking himself on the cross? )
The corruption of the Catholic popes and church at various times is legendary. And they must be doing something right, they are the most successful of them all. The idea of Luther, that scriptures are the ultimate source of truth (another gospel 15 centuries into the game) is the backbone of Protestantism and is increasingly showing to be wrong. The Bible although very valuable is filled with error and exaggeration. What it fails to clarify is even worse. Every generation has gone to extremes using the Bible and done obviously wrong things, and killed people over it. And how are you or I any different?.
I conclude that every religion is impure, a fountain of bitter water. Paul said we see through a glass darkly and I don’t think dark means light shade. Dark means you can’t see the hand in front of your face. (Or is it a gun?) Go camping in a deep gorge some time where only a tiny amount of starlight can find you. Getting up and not pissing on your own tent becomes a life threatening adventure, without a flashlight. Joseph Smith was pretty bad, but frankly all religions are damned in significant ways. Including whatever brand is your preferred one at this time. Sorry, if this seems like I got lost in the dark and stumbled upon your tent.
As to the greater question of this discussion, the underground church with its study groups- in my opinion they are highly likely to lead themselves astray. But they are fun and form good friendships and also enrich our minds and experience. Of course , the very existence of the perceived need for study groups is because the main church is leading us astray or worse, doing too little or nothing.
I have slipped into the Underground persona non grata when the subject of modern (popular) music comes up. I think those who claim it’s all “of the devil” and “the General Authorities tell us not to listen” are way off-base. I comment, but I don’t promote.
A few weeks ago in Sunday School, I made a comment that many TBMs in attendance found unsettling (they made their dissatisfaction known immediately), but afterward, two of my fellow ward members approached me and quietly thanked me for expressing an opinion that they agreed with, but weren’t brave enough to say themselves. I appreciated the gratitude, and we parted ways. That momentary connection I had with those people, and other encounters like it, is probably as close to experiencing the “underground church” as I will ever get. Most of the “underground church” has been pushed out or silenced, either through active means (church discipline) or passive means (social pressure, no longer feeling welcome). It’s also quite possible that the bloggernacle is partly to blame; it gives us non-conforming Mormons plenty of space to vent and share frustrations, but also does not require us to make real human connections, and thus largely remains “underground”, which limits it’s ability to influence change in LDS culture.
I teach 4th Sunday RS, and I certainly intend to gently promote individual experience.So far there has been a lot of gratitude expressed for the acceptance I’m trying to promote in order to create understanding and greater unity through understanding rather than conformity. But gently does it I think, I hope. Some have felt the necessity to put me in my place during class, I try to be non-defensive and greet their viewpoint as being important to them and therefore of value. I want to validate our own individual gospel path, which may even include a path out of church conformity. My intention is not to perturb anyone, but to validate them and whatever their experience has been, and facilitate a path to our mutual healing.
I SO LOVED this book! If I could work my will, I would have Leonard’s words canonized; and his book accepted as part of the LDS Church’s Standard Works! Ha!. If every member were encouraged to read this work…we would all be better people because of it; and “the Church” might be able to have some semblance of meaning again. Sadly, I find my own spiritual enrichment completely outside of the LDS Church these days; and only endure walking through the doors of a church on those occasions when I do so to please my family.
The LDS Church has become such a chore…and so damn boring. And, now with it’s hidden history all coming to light – it no longer has much credibiity or moral authority.
Thank God for Leonard Arrington!
Dave B. Huzzah to your comments!!! Ironically, I read the vast majority of Leonard Arrington’s book DURING SACRAMENT MEETINGS; in an effort to keep my sanity and self control. On so many occasions – I simply wanted to run out of the building screaming in frustration!! As for the new “Counsels”- it’s like watching a live performance of a comedy sketch!
The Underground Church is growing faster than the Church generally. Eventually, the political and social power of those who need answers will overwhelm that of those who’d rather not discuss anything difficult. Shame and shut-down will begin to flow in the opposite direction, and those who would silence will be silenced. My only (big) concern is that many of the Undergrounders will leave before this occurs.
If you’re one, don’t leave yet! We will need your voice in the months and years to come. The Church is slow to change, but it’s changing faster now than it has in my lifetime. Things are looking up. One can see several of the Q12 fighting for the Underground cause. Read (and teach!) their talks. Take refuge in the Newsroom if you must. But stay – we need you!
One of the great divisions in Protestant churches is between literalists/traditionalist and progressives/liberals. The same tensions described above have shredded the various denominations into pieces. When a church splits, it is never a 50/50 division or a 70/30 division (whatever proportion). It is at best a 33/33/33 division with about a third going away. Polls also show that the progressive churches are losing membership, the traditional churches are holding their own or losing slowly and the unaffiliated are growing rapidly. Europe is decades ahead of us with mostly unaffiliated or nominally affiliated people. More devote Muslims than Christians are actually believing and attending religious meetings in many historic “Christian” countries.
Somehow Mormonism has avoided this quagmire so far. I think part of it is we are living off the zeal of the past. Part is real strong central leadership; for example, even when Pres. Monson was confined to his home the others could step up and lead well enough and spring quickly into action when leadership is transferred. Part is we are forced into geographic wards and are not very free to leave in small increments. We have a faith crisis, not a series of faith adjustments into other congregations on a convoluted journey out the door. And huge numbers of us have left.
For me , the question is why religion? Not which brand, the boring drivel oozing over the podium or whatever enlightening material one can smuggle in on your devices or weasel in a few comments and stir the pot from the back row of a class. I save that for the bloggernacle.
Is Mormonism worth saving? If so is it better to stand united in fellowship (if not in mind) with our ram-rodding brothers and sisters or to part ways?
***
A perfect example is my relative Rod Meldrum. I like the guy and have known him for decades.I admire his courage and his luck. I don’t agree with some of his ideas, but not all of them. How do I respond to him? He is smart and articulate and he will win every argument 1-on-1 with me. But I think there is room for discussion. Where? At church? Or maybe at the family picnic? Maybe figuring out ways to have more ward picnics is a better way. The institution of the church is going to thwart these efforts. (Or already has.)
My brother and I are about as far apart on these topics as you can get. We have these violent arguments and he has kicked me out of the church. But at the end of the day we are still brothers. It is like the violent playground basketball games we used to play. I was taller and older, he was stronger, more skillful and rugged and on the school team. At the end of the game we would pick each other up out of the snow bank and wipe away the blood and laugh..Because at the end we are brothers first and rivals second. (And now in our 60’s the two of us can still beat all four of our sons in a game of round ball as long as we take a few “old men’s time-outs”. It is a disgrace for them. Or do the pandering not-so-little-anymore punks let us win?)
If central leadership is hell-bent on retrenchment then there is little hope. We will dwindle to a small core of deluded fanatics. If they want to stop the hemorrhaging, maybe more relatively unstructured activities would help. Maybe not. The risk is that the free-thinkers will succeed in leading people out instead of forming bonds of brotherhood and sisterhood that transcend our differing and developing beliefs. Maybe a certain amount of pandering like our sons probably do in sports is the better way for now.
Yikes, I’m sorry to hear that other folks’ experiences with the council meetings have been so bad. It’s been fantastic in our ward. The only downer so far in EQ meetings has been an elderly former bishop who will inevitably chime in with an unhelpful comment, but we listen respectfully and move on. (They are unhelpful in the sense of being redundant or long-winded, not offensive or exclusionary.) I get the feeling he used to talk a lot in High Priest meetings, and now that we’re all in one quorum we all get to be blessed with his insight.
With very limited exceptions, I’ve gotten away with teaching pretty “underground” messages just by basing my lessons on the scriptures. If you speak off the cuff it’s one thing, but if you make a case from scripture it’s pretty hard to argue with. It probably says something that teaching scripture in context can be sufficiently “underground” that it subverts the manual.