There’s a strange theme in Mormonism in which expertise in a specific field makes a person’s ideas suspect. Experts are considered dangerous in that they might disagree with leaders who don’t have such expertise. Consider the following from the Fourteen Fundamentals, a talk written by Ezra Taft Benson:
Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or diplomas to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.
Sometimes there are those who feel their earthly knowledge on a certain subject is superior to the heavenly knowledge which God gives to his prophet on the same subject. They feel the prophet must have the same earthly credentials or training which they have had before they will accept anything the prophet has to say that might contradict their earthly schooling. How much earthly schooling did Joseph Smith have? Yet he gave revelations on all kinds of subjects. We haven’t yet had a prophet who earned a doctorate degree in any subject. We encourage earthly knowledge in many areas, but remember if there is ever a conflict between earthly knowledge and the words of the prophet, you stand with the prophet and you’ll be blessed and time will show you have done the right thing.
The 1980 talk was controversial because as noted in this article by the Salt Lake Tribune, then Church President Spencer Kimball took exception to it:
Spencer felt concern about the talk, wanting to protect the church against being misunderstood as espousing ultraconservative politics or an unthinking “follow the leader” mentality. The First Presidency called Elder Benson in to discuss what he had said and asked him to make explanation to the full Quorum of the Twelve [Apostles] and other general authorities. Elder Benson told them that he meant only to “underscore President Kimball’s prophetic call.”
Honestly, his defense should be considered a case in point and the chief reason to disavow the talk! It’s designed to promote Authority Fallacy:
Appeal to authority is a common type of fallacy, or an argument bosased on unsound logic. When writers or speakers use appeal to authority, they are claiming that something must be true because it is believed by someone who said to be an “authority” on the subject.
What’s ironic is that the Church’s anti-“experts” stance sounds as though it would be a good way to counteract appeal to authority, but instead it substitutes a religious leader and spiritual knowledge for those with actual knowledge or expertise in a subject. Ergo, if the prophet speaks, the thinking is done, even if the prophet doesn’t know what he’s talking about. This is an issue Leonard Arrington clearly identified as a problem for early Utah settlers in his book Great Basin Kingdom. He noted the repeated, systematic failures of several early Utah enterprises across different industries including sugar production and iron mining. In Great Basin Kingdom, Arrington pulled no punches:
That in each case the church eventually assumed responsibility and control was due partly to the lack of private capital, and partly to the belief that all institutions in Mormondom ought to be under the influence of the Priesthood. While this assured a concentration of efforts in building the Kingdom, it also involved the danger of tying the hands of the “experts” who were engaged in the active management of these enterprises. Brigham Young and his appointed lay leaders were outstanding colonizers, and there can be no doubt that they were dedicated to the Kingdom, but the more the specialists depended on them for leadership, the more the specialized industries were apt to suffer from inexpert direction . . .
What’s worse, when this failure to rely on actual experts resulted in economic collapse of these efforts, the response was not humility but hubris:
The church hierarchy responded to the failures–and to the consequent privations caused by them–by blaming the people rather than the flawed economic system that the leaders themselves had established: “the failure of the people to do what they had been commanded; namely, cease to patronize the [non-Mormon] merchants and establish home industries.”
Wow. I wish as a small business owner I had that kind of power to blame customers if they choose a competitor. It’s not MY fault for providing a less satisfactory product. It’s theirs for failing to buy mine anyway. Those who disagreed with these economic policies were excommunicated for it. From the Arrington biography:
Economic policy was a matter of dogma and thus was above criticism.
Thankfully, this is no longer the case. The church doesn’t excommunicate people for refusing to shop at City Creek Mall, and even vocally disagreeing with the gentrification strategy is not grounds for church discipline. However, the idea that Church leaders should be treated as trusted experts on every topic, even when the experts disagree with them, is certainly still prevalent and dangerous, just as Spencer Kimball worried it would be (but apparently dropped it when it was his own authority being bolstered).
Recently, several of the temples in the southeastern US have undergone a required renovation requiring closure and expense. Why did this happen? Mold problems due to using building methods that are sound for the cool, arid Wasatch-front but not wise for the hot, humid southeastern US. It is incredibly unlikely that anyone in the quorum of the twelve even weighed in on this or would have disagreed that building in a different climate should call for other plans. So how did this happen?
The act of deference to authority is so ingrained in church organization that it’s easier to stop thinking entirely, to wait to be told what to do. But that’s not building up our strength as a people or individuals. It weakens Mormons who do so to the point that they lose the talent they were given by burying their meager talent in the ground rather than investing in learning and curiosity.
In later life, Arrington was concerned about the church’s attitude toward scholars. He wrote to the church to seek a scholarly journal to be published by the Church:
“The Church has made little or no provision for the use of its intellectuals. They may teach at BYU, of course, or within the Church Educational System, or at such ‘Mormon’ schools as Utah State University, but their training and scholarship have no been utilized to any significant degree in the councils of the Church. They are seldom given high positions of authority; they are seldom consulted on policies in which they are regarded as experts and specialists.” Those who chose employment within the Church Educational System faced likely degradation of their intellectual curiosity, for “the Institute system tends to stress testimony-bearing rather than reason and scholarship, and Institute instructors are encouraged to use only ‘testimony building’ books for texts and reading assignments. Many of us think we detect an ‘anti-intellectual’ trend in the Seminary system, and it is often from the ranks of this group that Institute teachers are selected.”
In a later example in the biography, the story of the Hoffman forgeries is discussed. Craig Jensen, the BYU Library conservator was upset over these controversial documents not being more carefully authenticated. Rick Grunder was quoted as saying:
“Craig was angry . . . he was really upset that more wasn’t being done to authenticate them. Well, when you want it to be true–or if, like the Salamander Letter, you don’t want it to be true but you’re afraid it is–you probably don’t want to bring a lot of experts in. And they didn’t.”
This posits a scenario in which refusal to consult with experts is a form of denial, a way to ignore unwelcome facts in favor of opinions, a cynical view, but perhaps it’s informative in this case. Authority fallacy creates lazy thinking and lack of responsibility for outcomes because rather than learning or being curious, all one must do is follow orders and defer the responsibility for outcomes upward. And yet over-reliance on experts is not the solution either. Experts often have their own cult following which results in the same issues: lazy thinking, deferring one’s own study of a matter to others, etc.
It’s easy to imagine that Church leaders eat this up with a spoon. After all, their random crap opinions are the ones being touted as gold. Who wouldn’t love that kind of uncritical adoration? Well, one person who apparently didn’t universally love it is President Packer, at least in one instance I’m aware of. A friend of mine was overseeing a Church meeting in Britain with some members of the Twelve addressing local leaders. One of the more junior members of the Twelve wanted to give an answer to a question that had been raised by a local leader, and he was stopped by President Packer who cautioned him that every stray opinion he shared had the potential to be taken as a new “commandment” or a “thus sayeth the Lord,” and he needed to be very careful in his eagerness and willingness to answer every question or every request for direction from Salt Lake. An important caution, indeed.
- Do you think the anti-“experts” trend is improving or getting worse with time? Why?
- Does this focus on considering Church leaders experts in matters beyond their ken stem from ultra-conservative political views (Kimball’s fear) or some other reason?
- Do Church leaders encourage this kind of deferential thinking or discourage it? Why or why not?
- Are average church members more intolerant of disagreement with Church leaders than Church leaders are?
Discuss.
Shouldn’t this be titiled, “The Marginalization of so-called Experts”?
Fantastic post. I see this as slowly getting better, but I think a lot of Church members tend to ignore logic and embrace what makes them comfortable. I think younger generations are more apt to rely on experts. Recently in a Sunday School class, we briefly discussed the idea of Old Testament stories countering laws of science. Lots of people criticizing the scientific method and saying that these stories would prevail in the end. I see the most resistance to experts in history, biblical studies, mental health and sexuality. I am a lifelong Church member, BYU graduate (took lots of honors religion classes) and have a post-graduate degree. I only recently learned about things like the documentary hypothesis and critical biblical scholarship (taking a free online biblical studies course from Yale that Grant Hardy recommended in a 2016 FAIR talk). I hear people are slowly introducing that at BYU, but I would guess Church leaders and the general Church membership would be very hesitant to even let that in the door because it brings up so many difficult questions.
The Mormon leadership mantra: “Ignorance is a virtue.” I’m sure many local leaders, often well educated and sincere, think that doesn’t apply to them. As they (with no training whatsoever in counseling or psychology or social work) freely dispense counseling and life advice to their members, often with terrible results, all the while patting themselves on the back for their reliance on the Spirit and, when things go wrong, upbraiding members for their lack of faith.
felix, thanks for the recommendation on the Open Yale Course. I had no idea those were available. I’ll be sure to check it out.
I also agree with Felix that things are getting a little better. One thing I did was offer to teach a Gospel Doctrine session on the origins of the Hebrew Bible in January. It was extremely well-received, and I could tell that the 40 minutes I spent on the subject was a first for many people in the room. If nothing else, I was able to get across the point that the Church doesn’t frown on use of alternative translations of the Bible and that the making of scripture is a complex and drawn out process. I hope that started a spark for someone in that class. If change is to come, it must come from the bottom up, and I believe the average ward level leadership are young enough (generationally-speaking) to accept these kinds of changes.
Well, first of all, Benson’s statement that “We haven’t yet had a prophet who earned a doctorate degree in any subject” is now null and void with President Nelson.
“Do you think the anti-“experts” trend is improving or getting worse with time? Why?” Getting better. In November, Elder Ballard pointed out that church leaders should not be expected to know everything. Their job is to simply, “build up the Church, teach the doctrine of Christ, and help those in need of help.” On other matters (even with church history and scripture questions), people should turn to those with more worldly expertise.
“Does this focus on considering Church leaders experts in matters beyond their ken stem from ultra-conservative political views (Kimball’s fear) or some other reason?” I think Benson’s thinking was likely related to political views, but there is an independent doctrinal element. The whole Charles Anthon incident is repeated as fulfillment of Isaiah’s sealed book prophecy, which shows God’s power in bringing forth a superior product through an ignorant farm boy. Both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young (among others) regularly speculated on matters much beyond their worldly expertise. We love to pass on stories of when following the spirit led to medical recoveries that doctors find miraculous. We love to pass on myths like the designers of the Salt Lake temple installing elevator shafts prior to the inventions of elevators. From the beginning of the Church, it’s been explicitly understood that there is no difference between temporal and spiritual matters. Thus, you can expect God to reveal to humble seekers truths related to both temporal and spiritual matters.
“Do Church leaders encourage this kind of deferential thinking or discourage it? Why or why not?” Yes and no. With the big “follow the prophet” push, there is rarely ever a distinction made between temporal and spiritual/moral matters. This often leads to the impression that the prophet is expert on temporal, spiritual, and moral matters. Ballard and Uchtdorf are the only ones off the top of my head who have tried to more clearly make that distinction.
“Are average church members more intolerant of disagreement with Church leaders than Church leaders are?” Depends on the church leader, but overall I’d say yes. For example, at my ward conference on Sunday, my bishop explicitly told us that we should NEVER try to determine if the prophet is speaking as a prophet or a man. That is not our place. I have a hard time seeing all members of the Q12 buying into that.
Talking about the Church and the Authority Fallacy reminds me of the final scene in “Raiders of the Lost Ark”, in which Dr. Jones is given shallow reassurances that the Ark of the Covenant he worked hard to recover is being examined by “top men”; immediately thereafter we see the Ark being crated up and stored away in a vast government warehouse as the credits roll, implying that it may never again see the light of day.
“Guitar bands are on their way out, Mr. Epstein” (President of Decca Records after an audition by the Beatles).
The expert opinions on Rock Music have almost always been wrong, for several reasons. The musicians are usually from working class backgrounds and are primarily self-taught (uneducated) on their craft. The intellectuals of all ages tend to be snobbish towards the players and the fans; who come to distrust the experts, even when some (Aaron Copeland) are supportive.
So it works both ways. Expert opinions aren’t always the ones to rely on, and vice versa.
The exact same thing seems to happen in politics. Some random elected congressman or senator suddenly knows everything about economies, climates, social security sciences and whatever else.
“Do you think the anti-“experts” trend is improving or getting worse with time? Why?”
Elder Ballard’s saying is extremely paradigm shifting, ” it is important to remember that I am a General Authority, but that does not make me an authority in general! My calling and life experiences allow me to respond to certain types of questions. There are other types of questions that require an expert in a specific subject matter. This is exactly what I do when I need an answer to such questions: I seek help from others, including those with degrees and expertise in such fields.”
This has been brought out numerous times and has turned into almost a battle cry of the upcoming Mormon scholars who are excited that they don’t have to have a title of Seventy or Apostle in order for their opinions to be valid.
“For example, at my ward conference on Sunday, my bishop explicitly told us that we should NEVER try to determine if the prophet is speaking as a prophet or a man. That is not our place. I have a hard time seeing all members of the Q12 buying into that.”
Except that your Bishop was just quoting elder Anderson from last conference.
I don’t agree with it. But at least that apostle believed it.
Off topic, Felix mentioned the documentary hypothesis. This is an incredible book where the Torah has the words color coded so you can see which source is talking. That aspect alone adds AMAZING background and insight into the text as you can see who talking and what their perspective is. Friedman has great footnotes throughout where he is very transparent with how he came to his conclusions and even where he feels the evidence is pretty weak!
I think that reliance on “authority” has abated somewhat in the church during the past 20+ years–largely due to the vast amount of information and contrary opinions and facts available to all via the Internet (although the *Q15 are infallible* theme has gained strength as well). However, in the OP your statement, “The act of deference to authority is so ingrained in church organization that it’s easier to stop thinking entirely, to wait to be told what to do.” reminds me of the first sacrament meeting talk (also my last in that ward) I gave just after returning to BYU after my mission. It was January 1970 and social unrest was largely a big surprise to me after my relative seclusion during the preceding 2 years of extreme volatility/change in American society–1968 and 1969.
My topic in that talk was “Stop Looking to Salt Lake for What to Think.” In just the few weeks I had been back at school the discussions among students regarding all that was going on outside “Happy Valley” centered on what church leadership was saying. Hardly any discussion I was party to included any personally-sourced opinions, just quotes of various comments made by GAs. Whether it was politics, civil rights, the War, or birth control, GAs were quoted like scripture!
Prophets come in varieties. They have different talents, gifts, and expertise. Yet, they are still prophets because of the working of the Spirit in their lives. The prophet Joseph Smith stands without peers among the prophets of this dispensation.
I think Angela’s post provides some useful information. The answer to her queries are found in scripture. Consider this verse:
…I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom… 2 Nephi 28:30
Prophet learn in the same way. Heavenly Father doesn’t intervene in every decision made by prophets. Otherwise, they would be infallible. The only thing infallible about the prophets is that the Lord will not allowed the prophets fallibility to destroy His work. Prophets can get off track. When they do the Lord will use their errors to accomplish His work. This is how they learn wisdom.
As the line upon line concept teaches, prophets (us to) learn wisdom by sometimes making mistakes.
Line upon line, precept upon precept is another way of saying: fallibility is overcome by wisdom acquired by experiencing trail , error, and revelation.
I’ll close with a pertinent observation by President Spencer W. Kimball:
“[There] are Church members who are steeped in lethargy. They neither drink nor commit the sexual sins. They do not gamble nor rob nor kill. They are good citizens and splendid neighbors, but spiritually speaking they seem to be in a long, deep sleep. They are doing nothing seriously wrong except in their failures to do the right things to earn their exaltation. To such people as this, the words of Lehi might well apply: ‘O that ye would awake; awake from a deep sleep, yea, even from the sleep of hell, and shake off the awful chains by which ye are bound, which are the chains which bind the children of men, that they are carried away captive down to the eternal gulf of misery and woe’ (2 Nephi 1:13).” (Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p.149)
“The exact same thing seems to happen in politics. Some random elected congressman or senator suddenly knows everything about economies, climates, social security sciences and whatever else.”
At least, in the case of the politician, it’s his or her business to get informed on matters that they’ll have to legislate. That’s why they have staff to do the research and brief them.
Do you think there’s anyone in the COB telling the Brethren anything they don’t want to hear? These are the men who’ve clearly informed everyone that they don’t want to be contacted and who have handed off communication with the faithful to President Newsroom when there’s a whiff of controversy.
Good post and one of my pet peeves. I actually think the marginalization of experts is just one strand of it, though. There is, in Mormonism as in most other faiths, a suspicion of intellectuals, of reasoning, of logic precisely because such things are seen to threaten foundations built on faith. Augustine believed that reason and faith could co-exist, but that’s not the case with Mormon leaders throughout the church’s history. It’s rather odd, actually, considering some statements made by past leaders that if the church is true, it will stand up to scrutiny and if it isn’t true, it shouldn’t be held up as such. We hear the phrase over and over, “find out for yourself” and “search for answers,” but those phrases are really just subtle (or not so subtle) ways of saying that one can search for the “truth,” but if it doesn’t lead one to the Mormon worldview, then the person doing the searching is mistaken.
There are a fair amount of faith transitions that manage this better than we do, but I actually think this isn’t a bug of Mormonism, but a feature. It’s a kind of spiritual test: If you believe DESPITE the secular knowledge, expertise, etc. of experts or of your own secular knowledge, then you’re a true believer. If you bring up quite reasonable questions about the different versions of the first vision, of church not knowing the difference between a policy and doctrine, or even the age of the earth, then that’s an easy way for people to determine you’re not someone of the “true” faith, you’re swayed by Satan, or damned by your own sins, or your just being prideful (as if carbon dating and DNA analysis is just those pesky scientists being prideful and not humble). So really, this reason vs. faith thing is a litmus test for individual members and the strength of their testimony rather than a complex set of competing data that we should try to resolve. We talk a lot about learning and the best books and intelligence, but my experience with the church tells me that we define those things so narrowly that their almost meaningless to an individual who’s trying to keep one foot in the realm of intellect and the other foot in the realm of faith. Mormons are no fans of complexity or nuance.
It is interesting that in many ways the experts in various fields have self marginalized. Some of this is due to ever increasing complexity and specialization. This leads to more experts required to get a full understanding of many subjects, a more difficult undertaking than before.
Other self marginalization examples include overt politicization of once revered institutions. NASA used to be seen as a bunch of brilliant rocket scientists. Their brand has been tarnished by their association with previously corrupt climate science and few new exciting ventures.
The overall quality of scholarly research also has declined. Some perceive that to mean that expertise is being lost.
In the church, I think that good science and scholarly research is recognized at the top. Just because the basics are most of what is taught, does not mean that the leadership only knows the basics.
Our new leader is only the second church president to have a college education in hard science. He also had a longer career outside the church than as a full time leader. This may contribute to even more recognition of outside expertise.
No Alice, I don’t think there is anyone in the COB telling the brethren anything they don’t want to hear. I’m not disagreeing with the OP, nor am I defending the marginilaztion of experts in the church. I do believe in the gifts of the spirit, but I also believe in obtaining wisdom and learning.
I am simply stating that the phenomenon pointed out in the OP can be seen every day in politics as well. Do you really think the staff of these politicians are telling him/her something they don’t want to hear? I don’t think so. And these politicians don’t read the laws they vote on. They are just as blind as anyone else, yet they position themselves as experts…the same way that some church leaders do. I’ve seen bishops do the same thing.
Sure it’s the same in politics (and elsewhere). So what? Now we’re comparing politicians to the Lord’s anointed? Politicians aren’t sustained (and don’t claim to be) prophets, seers and revalators. Nor do they claim to express the word and will of the God.
Yes, I think politicians want to be informed. They have voters to answer to. That isn’t to say I don’t think they can be bought, but Ihat’s a different thing. But at least they are answerable to the public. That’s quite different than the one way street in the COB.
My point is this is human nature. When people are appointed to a position of power (political, religious, etc) they tend to believe their opinions are the last word. In spite of the fact that the Lord’s anointed are in fact the Lord’s anointed, they are still human and unfortunately exhibit human qualities at times.
I am not attempting to give the leaders of the church a pass by pointing to the behavior of others. I am stating that this behavior is unfortunately prevalent everywhere, including in the church (including local church leaders). I apologize for hijacking the original point which was about church leadership. That wasn’t my intention.
I think the deference to authority can spill over into other things. When I was at the Y between 66-69 the recurrent thing I heard about the war was we weren’t in a position to know everything that was going on and that national leaders just had a better understanding of the situation. Another thought I had about this was that deferring to authority is more likely when a person doesn’t feel they can do anything to make a difference and when speaking up and making waves is something that you just don’t do.
We are getting mixed messages. We have President Nelson’s press conference statement that people should know the difference between doctrine and human. And then we have Anderson’s talk quoting Nelson saying pretty much the opposite. But mixed messages are an improvement over 14 Fundamentals.
Packer’s talk about being called on proof texting and about how we need to listen to experts is an important one.
Yet another thoughtful post
I have lived long enough to remember Elder Mc Conkie ‘ s letter to the BYU academics reminding them that as an Apostle he will define doctrine. Of course that lead many in the religious and S&I to feel like they were there to parrot the party line and not e poorest some very open areas of our history and doctrine…..of course things changed I think with Elder Holland .
I think church membership has a role here as we have become ‘complacent ‘to just allow our leaders to be experts in ‘all things’
In our recent history with the large exodus from the Church and the appalling lack of movement to either explain or bring in our academics to answer some tough historical issue other than ( as I was told just pray and read the scriptures)……why didn’t we use the Ensign as the Instructor was many decades ago where academics wrote fascinating articles on our theology instead of the recycled talks by our leaders ….where some are very ordinary talks……if we are to remain ignorant as a church the Leaders need to lift their game or at least get some academic advice where needed.OR to get rid of that mandane magazine the Ensign and use it more effectively to inform.
Sorry the end of the 5 th line should read ‘ and not explore some very open areas…..
Stephen, it would be helpful to point us to what Packer talk you mean. His “I Say unto You, Be One” Feb. 12, 1991 • Devotional seems to go the opposite direction from what I inferred from your recent comment. So did his example. I suspect I don’t understand your reference.
I’m so glad this topic is being brought up. In my ward I feel like the use of expertise is dependent on the type of expertise. For example, my ward council has twice read a missionary focused book that tries to marry business expertise with hastening the work. Men with MBAs are celebrated when they infuse their business acumen with their spiritual leadership responsibilities. However, I am a mental health therapist and I find that my leaders have a precarious relationship with my expertise. They want to confidentially reach out to me when they feel as though they have nowhere else to go during a mental health crisis with a ward member. But, they frequently ask people to speak about mental health and teach 5th Sunday lessons about mental health who have no training in mental health. One time I called it in with my leader and he told me that he didn’t ask me because he was afraid I would rely on my expertise too much and not on the spirit. What!? I suspect this happens because of Mormon culture’s frought relationship with therapy historically. Whereas we have always been an industrious people so my leaders view business expertise as being complementary to the spirit. Mental health expertise not so much. Also, I think these approaches are gendered in some ways.