Sometimes you are just reading along in a book or article that has nothing in particular to do with the Church, then you hit a passage that rings that Mormon bell. Thus it was with me last week, reading Chapter 14, “The Haven of Piety,” in Anthony Gottlieb’s excellent The Dream of Reason: A History of Western Philosophy From the Greeks to the Renaissance (rev. ed., WW Norton & Co., 2016). It’s the last chapter in the book, covering philosophy in the Middle Ages, when the influence and authority of the Christian Church hung over any philosophical writing, not least because just about anyone who wrote philosophy at that time was a priest or friar. Here’s the passage.
At the end of the thirteenth century, conservatives in the Church fired a warning shot at Greek-style rationalist philosophizing. The use of man’s natural faculty of reasoning was, they said, all very well, but only if it came to the right conclusions. In 1277 the bishop of Paris listed 219 conclusions (including some from Aquinas) it was not allowed to come to, and hoped that this would solve the problem. Yet natural reason could not easily be confined within such artificial boundaries. (p. 414)
And what were the consequences of this attempt to impose orthodoxy? A degree of short-term success, perhaps, but no long-term success. In the long run, it might even have hurt the orthodoxy it was trying to protect:
The condemnations of 1277 contributed to the eventual collapse of the neo-Aristotelian world-picture and the birth of a new and less book-bound approach to the investigation of nature. This was a long time coming, for bookish scholasticism was still in its heyday and it was three centuries before a new world-picture was comfortably in place. It was also accidental, because the condemners had merely intended to attack religious heresy and those few parts of Aristotelianism which seemed to lead to it. Nevertheless, the conflict between faith and reason at the end of the thirteenth century generated ideas that eventually helped to undermine the whole medieval approach to knowledge. (p. 415)
I don’t really have to spell out the LDS parallel for most readers. It’s history, not philosophy, that became a threat to LDS orthodoxy starting in the mid-20th century, with the emergence of the New Mormon History. Of the various measures taken by LDS leaders to protect the traditional LDS narrative, the September Six episode is the most noteworthy. Whatever short-term success this generated was cut short by the emergence of the Internet, which successively gave birth to email list groups, boards, websites, blogs, and now social media.
So the attempt to impose orthodoxy, supported on its flank by classic LDS apologetics, has more or less failed. A modified strategy of adapting the LDS narrative to the sometimes ugly facts of history is now being implemented through such materials as the Gospel Topics Essays, the new officially sponsored Saints history of the LDS Church, and other essays posted at LDS.org and at the Mormon Newsroom. Rather surprisingly, little of this new material has penetrated the new LDS curriculum in the new Come Follow Me manuals. There are some references and links at the end of some of the lessons, but the substance of the lessons are not much different from the old manuals. It’s almost like the newer materials are designed to keep the 5% of active members who read books and articles from just giving up, while the unchanged substance of the curriculum lessons are designed to keep the other 95% from noticing that anything has changed.
First question: Is the new strategy going to work? Or, like the 1277 condemnations issued by the bishop of Paris, is it going to have little effect? Will we at some point witness “the eventual collapse of the neo-[apologetic] world-picture” that is guiding the new accommodationist material that has been published by some LDS scholars and posted at LDS sites and which may, sooner or later, enter the curriculum?
Second question: What is your experience with imposed orthodoxy? The veiled threats or even direct disciplinary action that sometimes happens to scholars at an LDS university or scholars who, while not at one of the BYUs, publish unwelcome academic pieces about the Church has sort of broadened out to the general membership (mostly thanks to the Internet). This happens either through the Strengthening Church Members Committee sending memos to local leadership, or through local leaders acting on their own initiative based on social media posts they don’t like or that someone in the ward doesn’t like. And there is also self-censorship, probably the most pervasive result of imposed orthodoxy.
Of course, self-censorship cuts both ways. Personally, I do omit some relevant historical or doctrinal information I might otherwise include in a talk or lesson. But when I teach I also omit a lot of information included in manuals. I won’t teach false or misleading (bad scriptural exegesis) material, which sometimes doesn’t leave much to work with. Call it “the revenge of the informed.” You won’t include good scholarship in your manuals? Fine, but I won’t teach the bad information and faulty explanations you use instead.
“The first step of apostasy is to get up a creed, telling us what we shall believe. The second is, to make that creed a test of fellowship. The third is to try members by that creed. The fourth to denounce as heretics those who do not believe that creed. And fifth, to commence persecution against such.”
You’re going to have to define what ‘work’ means. I would argue that it is working and will continue to do so. That the church in Rome tried to confine thought in 1277 but was unable to maintain that level of control has not led to the fall of the church. Sure, the Catholics have had their share of scandals, schisms and fractures, but the church is in no danger of going away. Similarly, the LDS church is a sophisticated organization with proven methods and a very devoted base. The church also happens to be based in a country that is rather anti-intellectual and doesn’t value books. The church can move the decks chairs all they like. A paltry minority may throw themselves overboard, but the ship isn’t going down–there is no iceberg on the horizon.
My only real experience with imposed orthodoxy is the entire missionary experience, including the temple. It was the beginning of the end of my relationship with Mormonism. To the point I think you were making with this post, I feel like the church is an intellectually dishonest organization. When facts are re-jiggered to serve the only two objectives that matter–that this is the only true church and that the brethren are to be followed, regardless–something has to give, and that something is an honest interpretation of historical events and doctrinal principles.
Good post. I think this new strategy, like most strategies, will have limited effectiveness, mainly for the reasons you point out. The only person at my ward who even mentioned that they had heard of Saints was a professional educator with ties to the Mormon publishing world. It’s never been mentioned once by a leader or anyone from the pulpit in my unit since it’s been published. Another failure and more apostasy awaits, I think, because of recent changes. For example, one unintended consequence of this whole “we cut church from three hours to two so you can study at home” thing is the risk that some people might take the “study at home” mandate seriously. And if they study anything but the desiccated, sanitized church educational materials, they’ll quickly find much of the historical (and otherwise) truth that the church has been so invested in hiding. That will lead to a lot of faith crises which, as we have seen, the church simply doesn’t know how to deal with.
On the question of my own experience with imposed orthodoxy, I have to say that as a left-leaning person who works in higher ed, it’s been a constant presence in my church life. I have one or two friends at church, but generally I’m regarded either with suspicion, hostility or pity, since apparently, my faith isn’t “strong enough” to overcome my rational, evidence-based approach to matters of church history, my belief in equality for all (LGBTQ rights, ordaining women, etc.) or my refusal to stop calling out stuff I know is wrong (like last month, when someone in Sunday school said that all Muslims want to cut off the heads of Christians or when I routinely hear anti-Semitic remarks). I do think, however, that orthodoxy simply can’t be maintained, despite the somewhat impressive attempts to do so by a few religions. The Mormon Church just doesn’t have the historical weight behind that the Catholic Church does and even as we speak, a lot of its truth claims are becoming less and less able to be maintained. The Book of Mormon, even if one has only a rudimentary understanding of archaeology, history or sociology, simply cannot be what it purports to be. And I think we see especially younger members realizing that. And of course, the reference in your post to the suspicion of “Greek-style rationalist philosophizing” rings just as true today. The church fears and despises intellectuals because they tend to think for themselves, work through most issues logically by sifting and weighing evidence, and are not shy about presenting their conclusions. Any institution that eschews rational thought that could lead to any conclusion but the “right” (institutionally mandated) one is, over the long haul, ultimately unsustainable. I do hope the noises I hear from leadership about being welcoming to people who aren’t literalists or straight down the line orthodox Mormons continues and becomes an actual practice, especially when it comes to leadership roles in the church. I guess we’ll see if anything helpful and real actually comes out of that notion.
Brother Sky: I’m sure you see the same irony that I do with 2-hour church and Come Follow Me. A real missed opportunity. Instead of encouraging members to study the Gospel at home with the goal of really expanding knowledge beyond correlated manuals, the program seems to be that members are obligated to study more correlated material at home. You’ve probably noticed that even the Seminary program now is correlated with the rest of the Come Follow Me curriculum so that we are all studying the same material at the same time.
I understand the value in coordinating the message so that we can all discuss these things more intelligently within our families. And I also realize that some people want, need, crave, constant guidance. But how nice would it be if we weren’t all reading from the same committee-approved script. Ironic that studying more at home and less at church has resulted in more script reading not less.
I lived in a progressive area and was on the bishopric for 10 years. Unaware we moved to a more conservative area. Here I have been on one bishopric, and HP group leader for 5 years, but also had a branch president try to excommunicate me, and a bishop refuse me a TR because I would not agree that obedience was the first law of heaven. Since then I have not given a talk, taught a lesson, or held a calling that did not have cleaning in the name. His son in law is now Bishop first TR with him he refused to ask me the questions, on three occasions, so on both occasions I went to the SP who overruled them. But they effectively disfellowshipped me.
I do have some more progressive friends in the ward. We had a presentation by LDS social services recently on faith stages, based on James Fowlers levels of faith, which I found very helpful but no one else seemed to notice.
I am very concerned what Pres Nelsons April conference might be. We have been told to prepare for excitement. His idea of exciting may not be mine. There was promotion of his talk to BYU which aturned out to be a doubling down on opposition to gay marriage, and the place of women.
So my hope that the priesthood might go to all worthy members, or that we might accept gay marriage might be disapointed.
I think events outside the church might cause change. Could the Trump treatment of Romney cause a disconnect from the republican culture? Could the democrats select a young woman who becomes president, which would change the attitude to women in the country? What else?
I continue to hope
Josh H, I actually really like the concept of Come Follow Me and I think lessons, Sacrament Meetings, and discussions have been the better for it. I also like being able to discuss with my kids what they’re learning in church (and to know when they might be getting topics I want to prepare them for or opt out of, like gay marriage which apparently relates to 1 Nephi 1-7, who knew ;-)).
That said, I agree that the manuals are terrible and far more about trying to force feed us dogma than actually help us meaningfully engage with the scriptures. For many of the New Testament lessons the manual’s read on the chapters was at worst *literally* the opposite of what the chapters were trying to say (at least the way I read them) and at best facile and uninteresting commentary (too bad because there is so much context for the NT that I would have loved to have to enlighten my study – but alas, no). So far this year the relationship between the topics & the Book of Mormon chapters seems tenuous at best. So, I’ve kept up with the study reading the weekly chapters but 100% ignore the manual.
The September Six episode severely impacted freedom of thought at BYU. Professors there know that there is a line they cannot cross. This hurts scholarship on Mormonism coming from BYU. If you read something on Mormonism written by a BYU professor, you know that it’s objectivity is compromised because you know that the professor is not at liberty to express ideas that might possibly be construed as critical of LDS leaders and their central teachings lest they lose their job and suffer public shaming.
Orthodoxy is a response to uncertainty. It’s apparent everywhere now, from politics to business to religion. Our church is responding the way every command and control structure does when faced with new and expansive information: circle the wagons, repeat the corporate line and limit the conversation by any means necessary. The problem is the fear that created the drive to orthodoxy dies eventually with the people that need it. We’re at a tipping point on many fronts where demographic change is driving the narrative change, and ultimately bringing the facts (or lack thereof) to light. As the Muggles say, “Truth will out.”
And by the way, God is totally ok with all of this changing. He/They have done it before, They can/will do it again.