“The Book has two main arguments: First, faith crises and apostasies among Church members might have as much to do with our embrace of secular values and moralities as the strength of our faiths, loyalty to the Church, or “flaws” in the Church. Second, The Book of Mormon was strategically designed to counter our inclination to secularize the restored gospel.”
From:
Dynamics of the Word: Secular Faiths meet The Book of Mormon
by Barry Thatcher.
![Dynamics of the Word: Secular Faiths meet The Book of Mormon by [Thatcher, Barry]](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41CvfdLpK9L.jpg)
I’ve been working on a book review of Dynamics of the Word: Secular Faiths meet The Book of Mormon by Barry Thatcher.
His thesis really has two parts:
- That political identity or values are the core of many faith crises.
- That he can, through textual analysis, accurate determine the core doctrines of the gospel as set out in the Book of Mormon.
The striking thing about that thesis and the part of the book quoted is that Carter agrees on the first core point almost 100% with Stephen Carter and the Sunstone Podcast (which is at a counterpoint to Thatcher at most points — and obviously does not agree with the second point of the thesis regardless of how expressed).
To quote Thatcher:
We like to think that our faith crisis came about because we followed the truth. But what if a faith crisis is actually produced by cultural cycles that have been grinding on for millennia? Stephen Carter discusses how anthropology and the sociology of knowledge turns the concept of a faith crisis on its head.
Episode 41: Your Faith Crisis Isn’t Actually Yours
Stephen Carter/Sunstone Podcast
Both of them have reached the conclusion that, for the most part, a faith crisis is as much a cultural clash that plays out as a group matter than it is an individual journey for many people. I found that confluence between two scholars at opposite ends of the faith spectrum interesting.
I still have a long way to go before I reach Part 2 of this review, but I thought I would share the initial point both Barry Thatcher and Stephen Carter are making.
- What do you think?
- Have you seen political identity trump doctrinal statements on topics such as caring for refugees and immigrants?
- Have you seen social or status identity trump church guidelines such as men standing up for each other or women told not to learn a useful profession and then not supported by the same church leaders after widowhood or divorce?
- Is there a way to respond to cultural cycles — and how do we separate our values and mores from those of the gospel and those of the culture we are a part of?
- What other thoughts do you have on the observations that Thatcher and Carter have made?
Postscript:
As to the book I’m reviewing, the author claims that:
The Book is an empirical study that compares gospel discussions of Church members in six pro-LDS websites to secular models of human flourishing and core doctrines from The Book of Mormon and modern apostles. Using quantitative content analysis, the Book shows that many Church members in the pro-LDS websites are likely embracing secular alternatives to core doctrines, especially the Fall, faith in Christ, and agency.
Although this embrace of secular doctrines seems to feel innately spiritual for some members, it likely reduces space for the Word of Christ to flourish in them, leading to faith crises and apostasy. In fact, some of the members are following the same secular values and doctrines that sowed apostasy in the Original Church of Christ and The Book of Mormon
From the Amazon book description provided by the Author/Publisher.
https://www.amazon.com/Dynamics-Word-Secular-Faiths-Mormon-ebook/dp/B0813TRQMJ
He also claims that “Using content analysis, this Book also captures the theology of The Book of Mormon in stunningly clear and powerful ways.”
But that is all fuel for the next part of the review.
Wheat & Tares 
Stephen,
I have not read the book but the quote you put in really resonates with my experience…”Although this embrace of secular doctrines seems to feel innately spiritual for some members, it likely reduces space for the Word of Christ to flourish in them, leading to faith crises and apostasy. In fact, some of the members are following the same secular values and doctrines that sowed apostasy in the Original Church of Christ and The Book of Mormon”
The change I would make in the quote is …secular doctrines seems to feel “initially” spiritual for some members… I have yet to see it end that way. Meaning from my experience all become disillusioned eventually with the secular doctrines which have forced Christ from the center of their lives.
Haven’t read the book, but I distrust anyone who claims to explain the reason why people lose their faith or leave the Church, whether they form their opinion through this or that thought experiment or personal reflection or scriptural study. Because there are dozens of reasons. For any particular person, the way to find out why they left is to talk to them, not apply a “here’s why people leave the Church” theory to them and everyone else. So if Mr. Thatcher’s approach is as you’ve described it — people lose faith or exit the Church because they have unconsciously imbibed secular values rather than staying true to Book of Mormon values (whatever they might be) — then I’m not buying it.
I’m not familiar enough with the book or podcast’s claims about what is secular vs. religious and what is cultural vs. political. Honestly, they all seem intertwined to me at every level. How can you separate the secular from the religious when the religious is so clearly designed in secular ways? I’d love for the Church to be less political, but politics is personal. Is it the secularization of individuals or of the Church when there’s a clash over the limited “acceptable” roles for women or the limitations placed on gay people or the half-hearted addressing of racism? People say it’s political when it doesn’t affect them directly, but I can assure you that when it does, it is personal.
I was recently listening to David Crowther’s excellent podcast, The History of England, and he was talking about Church reforms during the late 1500s and early 1600s as the Puritans began to become powerful. Expectations for the behavior of lay members started to become codified in completely new ways. Prior to that, the mindset was that the clergy existed apart from the secular congregations and they lived ascetic lives on behalf of the community (e.g. celibacy, fasting, vows of poverty or silence), but it was widely accepted that church-goers sinned and were unholy (consider The Canterbury Tales as Exhibit A). With the rise of the Puritans, it’s almost like the clergy fought back the idea that only they had to be pure for everyone else (they also rejected celibacy and deprivation for themselves, many becoming quite wealthy) and they started to govern the lives of the lay member much more closely, applying corporal punishments to keep people in line. They branded people for vagrancy (which was considered a result of sins and weakness–the undeserving poor). They used “ducking” as a punishment for adultery (think waterboarding). A struggle between clerical power to govern the lives of the people and gubernatorial power ensued. Many clerical leaders wanted that power to rule the people to reside with them. Ultimately, that’s not where it fell.
This is a big shift, and when religion starts sticking its finger into people’s secular existence, it can’t later cry that people are becoming too secular or too political. Here’s an idea: preach the gospel preached by Jesus, and let people work out for themselves how they feel about gay marriage, women’s choices, equal opportunity, and so forth. Let secular governments create those laws. Don’t go on record with political statements at all, Ch_Churches. You’ll end up alienating people who are more affected by these things than you are (and therefore more educated on them), and you’ll end up losing people and looking like a bunch of backwards-thinking curmudgeons. History will not judge you kindly. But people are loath to give up the power they can get their hands on.
We are a particularly secular Church since all our top leaders have had careers and none of them are trained theologians. Honestly, I don’t think I’ve ever heard of any of them with a pastoral type career, even. No psychologists, very few academics, and nobody with a professional nursing background. Journalism is probably the closest we’ve gotten.
I want to thank everyone for their comments. I don’t have any answers right now, nor do I know if either is correct, I was just struck by how they agreed.
Your thoughts are probably better than mine right now.
Also have not read the book, but I think often times people believe what their culture (TBM, etc) believes, and then attempt to assign a scriptural reason for it. And then when the culture shifts – they are left doubting the scriptural basis. Race and the Priesthood is the perfect example: culture believed one thing and then attempted to find a scripture to back them up. Once they found the scripture, they hung on for dear life. Problem is: you can justify all kinds of bad behavior through scripture: nationalism, people-worship, political devotion, etc. But the scriptures also can be found to contain massive references to compassion, selflessness, love etc. So how do you choose? Either way, you’re backed by a scripture. Faith crisis I am familiar with come about because what is being taught, goes against spiritual promptings and feelings. Tough to reconcile that. Listen to Dallen Oaks talk about LGBTQ things. How do you feel then? Probably not like you felt when the spirit has directly spoken to you in the past with feelings of light, compassion, and love. Add to that a culture of Q15 worship, and you have some things that many find difficult to reconcile..
Angela C: I think you are right on. Can you imagine if the Church simply followed and preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Maybe this would get redundant after 52 weeks but can you imagine if every lesson and talk was centered on Christ and his Atonement and life? Can you imagine a church that did NOT get into what we eat and drink, how we dress, how to raise kids, how to spend our Sundays, food storage, emergency prep, family history, Boy Scouts, temple attendance, gay marriage, race, gender, etc. etc. etc.? Can you imagine a church that asked for donations (fast offerings) but did not require 10% of our income? Can you imagine a church that held meetings and administration to a minimum and simply tried to help all of us “come unto Christ”?
I look back on my 50 years of membership and I wonder why we (the Church) gets involved with so many things that have nothing to do with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It’s truly astonishing.
So much of the church of utah republican culture is what claims to be the church of Jesus Christ.
Very basic teachings such as “obedience is the first law of heaven” which the vast majority of my ward still live by, but which can not get you to exaltation, but which do enable people to discriminate obediently.
The belief that to be a good member you have to be a good republican. So you can vote obediently for immorality.
Of course discriminating against gays and women follows on from the above.
We would also be questioning the succession of 15, if we were not so unquestioning.
I wonder what the church might be, without the conservative culture? If my understanding is correct someone in leadership will have a lot to answer for, for diverting the church from the gospel of christ where love of God shown by love of fellows was central.
Hi, Geoff-Aus,
I heard that rain is falling in Australia, even to flooding — I regret the flooding, but I hope it is helping with your fires.
Geoff. The scriptures do say, though;
1 John
Chapter 5
Saints are born of God through belief in Christ—Water, blood, and the Spirit testify of Christ—Belief in Christ is required in order to gain eternal life.
1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.
2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
There’s a huge difference between keeping the commandments of God, as mediated by the spirit, and obeying the dictates of man.
On a practical level there is likely observable overlap, but from the point of view of the individual doing it a whole world of difference in how they feel about it.
Here’s a “what-if”.
What if secular culture has just continued to evolve in a positive way? Evolved as communities grew, technologies developed, and access to information became more widespread. Immoral, unethical, and evil behavior is just that. Mainstream society doesn’t embrace it and never has. I think religious vs. secular is a false dichotomy. Naughtiness would then have to be contained in one or the other, and it certainly can’t be religious, so it must be secular.
What if this naughtiness lives outside of the religious and the secular? That gives a more useful way to evaluate religion and secularism.
Now, from time to time, somebody or a council of somebodies, proclaims the Word of God. This proclamation may be inspired, maybe it isn’t, but it is inevitably rooted in, and a reflection of and response to, the culture at the time and place of proclamation. The proclaimed Word of God has put a pin in the culture. But the culture inevitably moves on. The newly created religious culture is now set apart from the current, “secular” culture which continues to progress as usual.
Over time the contrast deepens as the religious culture struggles to stay put. Eventually, the tension is too great and the pin is pulled out and religious culture adjusts to the secular culture (not quite all the way) and sticks a new pin in the Word of God. Lather, rinse, and repeat.
In other words, today’s secular culture will eventually be incorporated into tomorrow’s religious culture. Why do we struggle so hard to maintain this gap? We’re not teaching animal sacrifice and restricting the consumption of shellfish. We Mormons are conserving 200 years of “thus sayeth the Lord”, Protestants go back a few hundred years more, and the Catholics a couple of millennia – and all covering a very small portion of the world and God’s children.
Would it be so awful to recognize that God is revealed in thousands of ways every day in our increased understanding of things and in increased capacities to do good in the world? Why do we insist on attributing to(blaming) God for racism, sexism, xenophobia, white supremacy, and homophobia when these are relics of a less enlightened time. What if God is behind all of these social advancements while those who speak in His name are just digging in their heels, busy conserving an outdated worldview.
I think that God reveals his word in some way every day to everyone, whether they recognize it as such or not. The sum of those revelations advance secular culture, inspire charitable behaviors, and make us better humans. That is a very effective delivery system for the billions that need His help now.
I admit to struggling with God’s need for a mouthpiece to defend yesterday’s best practices when He is so abundantly blessing us with and helping us discover new ones today. Happy for the lessons of the past, but I don’t want to live there.
BeenThere–I wish I could like your comment over and over; it’s one of the better expressions of my personal belief system that I’ve read
Anyway, enough with the gushing
Ugh. I promise I know when to use periods. Believe it or not, I am a college English instructor.