Well, in all my years I ain’t never heard, seen nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn’t be talked about. Hell yeah! I’m for debating anything.
1776, Stephen Hopkins
If this is so, then isn’t one of the most dangerous ideas the idea that ideas can’t be discussed? That’s the kind of idea that affects our ability to understand all ideas, making it a “meta” idea. There are bad ideas, and then there are ways of thinking that limit our access to all other ideas.
Bishop Bill recently talked about an idea that’s got legs at Church, particularly increasing in popularity during the current Church presidency, an idea that’s got a lot of downside in terms of how it impacts family relationships. There are ideas like this that are just one off, easily discarded if they don’t suit, and then there are ideas that affect every other idea we encounter. There are two ideas that I’ve been hearing at Church that fundamentally alter our ability to comprehend and live the gospel, changing the gospel to a completely different thing if we accept these notions:
- That human authorities are infallible guides to God’s will; loyalty to them and their ideas must trump our own thoughts, feelings, beliefs and values. (For more on this one, see my post on being “Church Broke”)
- That our beliefs and values should not change. That defending our existing understanding is more important than examining these ideas, discarding those that are in error, and replacing them with better understanding.
These are meta ideas, and they affect all other thought processes. The restoration, according to Joseph Smith, was a byproduct of the idea that human religious authorities were in error, that they contradicted each other, that they understood and represented God’s will imperfectly. He did not preach that we should substitute those “bad” preachers with other human preachers who would be “good.” He didn’t set himself up as an infallible human preacher. He demonstrated that if we cut out the middle man, we could seek and obtain our own personal revelation, develop our own relationship with God, and improve our own understanding of God’s will until we eventually attained Godhood. He was willing to try and discard ideas without creating a permanent attachment to them. Unfortunately, many of his successors did not take the same approach, instead preaching the infallibility of their own ideas and requiring total fealty to their authority rather than an open-minded truth-seeking approach to religious and spiritual knowledge.
If you see the gospel as a personal quest to understand truth, a journey of personal growth toward perfection and enlightenment, you get a complete different experience than you do if you see the gospel as a blueprint of right ideas handed to you from an authority who must be obeyed and followed with exactness.
Obviously, if you think you have to search things out for yourself and not just accept whatever you are told, you are going to make mistakes. Your ideas might not always be right. They might even be worse than what the fallible human leaders are giving you; your mistakes will almost certainly be different than the mistakes of the fallible leaders. It’s a troubling trend that as a faction of Church members (many who are right wing) have disagreed with the Church president’s counsel to wear masks and get vaccinated against Covid, but the criticism many of them are facing is that they should obey the Church authority, that we have prophets so we don’t have to make our own decisions, and we should trust and do whatever Pres. Nelson says because he’s both a doctor and a prophet. While I agree that mask-wearing and Covid vaccination is necessary to curb the ongoing pandemic, I don’t agree that we should be proponents of a bad “meta” idea in furtherance of this aim. Pres. Nelson can be wrong, both as a doctor and as Church president. Like all of us, he has to work out his own salvation with fear and trembling. He can only do the best he can do as a human being, just like the rest of us.
Interestingly, while the Pope has encouraged all Catholics to be vaccinated, Catholicism allows them to refuse the vaccine on religious grounds because all vaccines were at some point beneficiaries of stem cell research. Some Catholics, despite the Pope’s decree that the vaccine is far enough removed from the stem cell research and far too beneficial to society to be set aside, will feel differently, and their moral autonomy is respected as a tenet of Catholicism. They can object on religious grounds, even though their Church does not agree with the specifics of their objection. The Catholic Church believes that each person has the right to his or her own unique moral beliefs. The Pope’s opinions are not binding on them. Even if their own ideas are wrong, they are not punished for their unwillingness to cast aside their own ideas in favor of those of His Holiness. By contrast, recent changes to our Church’s handbook have just expanded to include disagreement over policies as grounds for a charge of apostasy. That’s just . . . yikes.
Being allowed to hold wrong ideas is important because we all hold wrong ideas. Right now, you have some beliefs that are wrong, and so do I. Eventually, hopefully, we will discard those ideas when we discover that they are wrong. We might even replace them with other wrong ideas. After all, we are only human, doing the best we can with the information we have, and our very human tendency to sort new information in biased self-reinforcing ways. Pres. Nelson also has wrong ideas. He’s a human being, not a god. Maybe gods, as evolved humans, can also still be wrong.
The second meta-idea I mentioned above is the idea that we should not discard our wrong ideas because it’s more dangerous to change our beliefs than it is to believe something that’s wrong. We don’t need to defend our wrong ideas. We need to let them go when we discover they are wrong. That’s the opposite of defending them. Our ideas aren’t who we are. We evaluate ideas as we encounter them; they aren’t our identity. They are like pretty pebbles we find on the beach and put in our pockets. If we discover that instead of a pebble, we accidentally picked up a polished turd, hopefully we would be willing to set it back down, not force ourselves to carry it in our pockets for the rest of our lives, fighting anyone who points out that the pretty rock we found is really a turd.
There are ideas in the Bible that are both wrong and immoral, most notably ideas about genocide and death penalty punishments. There are cultural ideas about marriage and the role of men and women that we consider cultural artifacts from a far less enlightened time. There are prohibitions on food and rules about society and personal behavior that we no longer espouse. We don’t blame the parents of someone born with a disability for having sinned. We don’t consider witches to be worthy of death for divination. We don’t sacrifice animals or our own children to appease a jealous god. We have learned to discard ideas that aren’t useful, true or good when it comes to our religious texts. Why is it so painful to do the same when it comes to the religious ideas we are taught by living leaders or the ideas in our manuals or handbook that are wrong? As recently as 2010, the manuals used to teach our young men and women included racist counsel against miscegenation. Our teachings have also evolved on whether homosexuality is a choice or not.
It’s important to discard ideas that are wrong. Clinging to the idea that we can’t discard wrong ideas is, well, a REALLY BAD IDEA, one that makes us more prone to being wrong the longer we hold to it, until all that’s left are these fossilized wrong ideas that we are defending for no good reason.
- Do you see examples of these two meta ideas in your ward or elsewhere within the Church?
- Are there other “meta” bad ideas you can think of in our current Church culture?
- How do we evolve past these meta bad ideas?
- Can you think of some good “meta” ideas that have been taught by the Church?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
Hmmm, meta idea, “obedience is the first law of heaven”. Obedience to whom? Prophet? Twelve apostles? Stake President? Bishop? Elders Quorum Pres? Husband? And here’s another appalling meta idea: you won’t be held accountable if you follow and obey a leader’s very bad idea, because remember obedience is more important than following your God given conscience.
1. I’ve never understood how I am entitled to receive personal revelation at the same time as I’m expected to follow the prophet even if his direction contradicts said personal revelation.
2. I’ve never understood where I am supposed to go when I am expected to pray for a confirmation that x is true but when I do so i come to a different conclusion,
3. I’ve never understood the difference between promptings from the Spirit and my own intuition or common sense.
Did I even answer any of your questions?
The only thing that we enter this earth with and the only thing we take with us when we go is our ability to think for ourselves. We should never abandon that ability to blindly follow anyone. Obviously, there are some people who are much more worthwhile to listen to than others. There are even some who have demonstrated that their counsel is generally worth following. But following must never be done blindly. It must be done with independent thought and evaluation.
Hawk girl presents this issue as an “either or.” It is not.
No one should blindly turn their decision making over to another human being. All should be willing to put forth the effort it takes to study and learn about the issues in order to make informed decisions.
Unfortunately, the masses are not willing to do the work to educate themselves about important issues. That is irrefutable fact. The great hordes prefer sweatpants-based idleness and sloth to study and learning.
What this has led to is people who blindly follow their own uneducated whims. This is no better than blindly following someone else. As the great sage once asked: “Who’s the more foolish? The fool or the fool who follows him?”
According to John Taylor, he heard a member of the Illinois legislature speaking to Joseph Smith and asked how he was “enabled to govern so many people and to preserve such perfect order, remarking at the same time it was impossible for them to do it anywhere else. Mr. Smith remarked that it was very easy to do that. ‘How?’ responded the gentleman; ‘to us it is very difficult.’ Mr. Smith replied, ‘I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves.’ ”(Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, (2011), 281–91).
Fast forward to today and it is obvious (as Angela C. noted) from a glance at the Church Handbook of Instruction, listening to a session of General Conference, or working your way through worthiness interviews in the Church that such a meta-idea has been completely abandoned. The Church seems completely oblivious to the fact that they have created a general membership that is “commanded in all things.” There is no room for personal inspiration or interpretation, whether by good logic or the Holy Spirit, if it contradicts Church doctrine or policy.
This was perhaps the original meta-idea for church governance? I recognize it is the reverse asked for by the OP, which called for examples of bad meta-ideas. So maybe the bad meta-idea that exists today is the quote that gets recycled on occasion, “When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan–it is God’s plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy.”
I think we move past this by expanding our sources for “good principles” beyond Church authorities, and taking back some agency.
At its root, the term “conservative” means defender of an inherited stock of ideas, “conserving” what has been received through one’s tradition. In this sense, at the current time, the LDS Church is very conservative. Change comes slowly, if at all, to the Church.
At its root, the term “liberal” means free, as in liberty or liberation. A liberal approach to ideas and tradition is much more open to “new” ideas and various innovations or developments. In this sense, the early LDS Church, the Church of Joseph Smith’s day, was very liberal. Joseph couldn’t get to lunchtime without coming up with an new religious idea or two. They weren’t all winners, of course, but he was 99% liberal and 1% conservative in terms of ideas.
The Church needs to get back to its liberal roots and become more open to newer and better ideas and doctrines and thinking.
Sorry to post again so quickly, just thought of another bad meta-idea.
An individual’s eternal existence, purpose, and progress is based upon heterosexual, procreative sex. That meta-idea colors our entire lives and beliefs, how we treat others and engage in society, etc. I cannot help but feel that the way this is doctrinally presented/pushed in the Church it is simply a bad idea.
Just to push back on the “I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves” quote. While I love the idea theoretically, Joseph didn’t actually practice this. Much of Church History under Joesph is quite the opposite–very hands on and giving ‘revelations’ about all sorts of mundane actions and governance. I don’t think the church has really changed that much in this regard. It did have some gentler years there in the middle, but early and current church practice seems much the same to me.
Our so-called inspired, led-by-God, leaders routinely claim inspiration (sometimes *revelation*) from God for various doctrines and policies, only to change them later. It must be that God changes His mind often, or… I mean in 1978 he no longer was racist? In 1970 (or 1971) it was now permitted to use your own thinking regarding when and how many children you and your wife should have–as opposed to simply “multiply and replenish?” Changing *revelation* on the scientific fact of Evolution (1909, 1910, 1925) and one private statement from the First Presidency (1931). Obviously there are other examples.
I heartily agree with the OP. In the face of the simple logic that God cannot be the “same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?” AND yet numerous *inspired* changes made by the Church (albeit many are arguably a function of changing circumstances, if not hobby horses of the latest Prophet), I began my process of doubting, researching, leaving.
Brian
I agree with your view on the implementation of “let them govern themselves” quote. I don’t see a lot of evidence that Joseph practiced what he preached in that regard, in fact, there is a lot of evidence to the polar opposite. And you are so right that there is a lot this in current Church teachings/polices as well. But I have heard that quote so many times during my life that I think it is one of those platitudes/aphorisms the Church likes to promote.
“Unfortunately, the masses are not willing to do the work to educate themselves about important issues. That is irrefutable fact. The great hordes prefer sweatpants-based idleness and sloth to study and learning.”
Masses & hordes are no longer people and thus easy to criticize, marginalize, ignore or exterminate.
I do see idea (1) generally in Church, although I haven’t seen a ton of people who I feel like are “abusing” follow-the-prophet to push it. Either people were already in the follow-the-prophet camp before and also happen to be pro-vaccine and are using the prophet’s statements to encourage vaccination, or they weren’t real follow-the-prophet to begin with and they still aren’t pushing that angle. So I don’t think I’ve seen a big shift related to Covid independent from the fact that RMN was pushing it already because he’s very authoritarian and narcissistic. Rather, I guess I’ve seen people who’ve long been out of the follow-the-prophet camp say, “OK anti-vaxxers, please leave your pitchforks at home the next time you see me disagree with prophetic counsel now that you know what it feels like.”
I do see idea (2), but I think it’s specific to a testimony of the Church’s truth claims and how important it is never to lose a testimony and to believe the same things at 40 that we believed at 4. I am not sure that I see a more general aversion in Church to changing our minds apart from our testimonies. I see a *human* aversion to admitting to being wrong, and I agree that’s very destructive and harmful.
I think a meta-bad idea I see at Church that is related to (2) (and in some cases (1)) is the idea that our feelings are reliable indicators of scientific or historical truth. Like that our *feelings* can tell us if masks or vaccinations are safe and effective, or if Joseph Smith actually saw God or translated the Book of Mormon from a set of golden plates. I used to believe that feelings could, in fact, tell me that Joseph saw God in the Sacred Grove. Now I’m realizing that’s both untrue and quite a dangerous error in thinking. I’m still sorting out what use feelings are – perhaps they could tell me that some of Joseph Smith’s *teachings* can help me live a good life, but that’s quite different from giving me actual knowledge of a historical event that either did or didn’t happen. And relying on feelings to teach us factual information facilitates conspiratorial thinking and all other manner of poor thinking.
Loved the comments above about how the “we teach correct principles and let them govern themselves” quote is total hogwash. It’s hogwash if you read the D&C and hogwash if you try to apply to the Church itself. We just say it to make ourselves feel better. AKA, gaslighting. Illuminating.
Sorry, my comment on (1) was unclear. I mean to say that I don’t think the “follow the prophet” stuff is getting any worse with the vaccination / masking stuff. It’s just getting worse under Nelson generally (although I think people are ignoring it).
In psychology/social science, there’s a phenomenon that we call “cognitive fusion,” or sometimes simply “stuck-ness.” It’s all about holding onto ideas too tightly. Cognitive fusion stops us from making our actions match our values (which I define as the stuff that’s most important to us, that makes our lives worth living, informs our beliefs/ideas, and gives us meaning).
Whenever we talk about cognitive fusion, we are careful to judge ideas by their function rather than any inherent morality. “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” If treating an idea like it’s true helps you connect with your values, then you should act like the idea is true. Just make sure you’re watching the result so you can adjust if needed.
Psychology has borrowed the idea from spiritual belief systems that have their historical roots in South Asia, where people make a distinction between the self as observer, the context, and the events that happen in the moment.
People who learn to let go of ideas—and treat them like ideas instead of facts—tend to say they feel a lot more satisfied with their life, even though they also are more likely to acknowledge painful experiences.
In context of discussing the two meta ideas presented in the OP, it’s hard to separate cognitive fusion inside the Church from the recent (last decade or so) attention to disaffection/disaffiliation among Mormons and ex-Mos. The Church teaches us to hold on too close to ideas about authority, so we lose sight of our ability to choose, think, and feel. It often helps us avoid guilt or shame or anger, but it also makes us avoid something that could be better for us.
It is very important to let go of ideas, whether they work for us or they don’t. When we set all of them down, we can choose which ones to pick up again.
Didn’t understand^
Can you restate using familiar terms including “sweat pants,” “honky tonks,” and “Irish nachos?”
I really like Elisa’s point about the meta-idea of feelings as indicators of truth. It really encourages people to really lean into their own confirmation bias and dismiss any information that makes them feel uncomfortable. It reminds me of that Lawrence Corbridge talk where he basically said (I’m paraphrasing), “I read all the anti stuff so you don’t have to and boy did it make me feel all kinds of icky inside so it’s obviously all false.” Even post faith crisis, I have to be vigilant for this kind of thinking in myself.
On the flip side, here’s a meta-idea the church instilled in me that I think is kinda good—that all humans are a family and we owe one another kindness and compassion. It’s not a uniquely Mormon thing and I’m working on expanding my empathy to more fully include not just people but all the animals trapped in systems of cruelty that I help perpetuate. But I think our highly individualistic society could use more of that Mormon collectivist thinking that brings so many casseroles round when someone’s sick or so many ministering brothers and sisters over to help load the moving truck.
@Kirkstall, that Corbridge talk was such a flaming piece of trash. I am usually pretty good at keeping my controversial views close to my chest in social situations but someone brought that talk up once during a fitness class with a bunch of actual return mission president wives and I absolutely let loose. It was … awkward. Hah!
Elisa and Kirkstall, +1 on the reaction to the Corbridge talk. I remember when that talk was first published, my mom seized the occasion to email it to all her children and rave about how amazing it was. As I read it I heaved many sighs and made many throws of my palms to my forehead. I ever so delicately crafted a response to my mom noting some strong points (there were no strong points in the talk at all, I just pretended that there were to be nice) and weak points. I don’t think my mom and dad took it so well. For the next time when I went to visit them my dad ever so passive-aggressively gifted me a book from his colleague John Lamb (BYU Chemistry) about how Joseph Smith saw through revelation all of these amazing things that scientists would only later discover. The book was insane (and not the good connotation of the word “insane”) to say the least. Now, I figure it is best to just nod and say, “thanks for sharing” to my parents any time they broadcast their religious views.
Elisa, “flaming piece of trash” is a great description. I wish I had been there to witness said unfiltered fitness class monologue.
John W, the accuracy with which you just described an actual day of my life is so sharp that I have to wonder how many of us got this same talk emailed to us by our moms followed by a very similar ritual of sigh heaving, forehead palming, and diplomatic email reply crafting.
Facebook’s announcement it is rebranding as “Meta” today gives this OP title a while new meaning.
Counselor’s post above compared the viewpoint of “when the leaders speak the thinking has been done” with autonomy. That’s a good paradox/comparison, but there’s another layer to it. Trust. If a leader yells “duck!”, my reflexive response (to duck, interrogate till it’s too late, or refuse) is based on our relationship. I want to live in a world where I have friends, clergy, family who have my back and yell “duck!” at times, but I think that it goes both ways- if that trust is there- they would duck if I yelled it. (In combat, what CO wouldn’t duck if a private yelled it?). Furthermore, there is a time and place for “duck!”, it isn’t a permanent state of resignation or deference. The state of always being able to reflexively “duck!” at a drop of a hat when your friend calls it, and also being able to constantly assess the situation and maintain your autonomy in times of reflection and preparation. It seems to me that when that relationship begins to be flavored with unrighteousness dominion (described in D&C 121:39+), when “authority” gets out of balance, the trust is broken.
Sad story. I remember all those years ago when the church put out and all points bulletin for Elizabeth Smart. We were given no data, no information- just told essentially “do it!”. Fellow ward members were emailing things, putting info on the bulletin boards, volunteering, etc., but I had no clue why. The FBI said that statistically, there was less than a 1% chance she was still alive. I didn’t follow what I thought was a wild goose chase. To this day I am racked with guilt. In my defense, I never knew who yelled “do it!”. Was it president Hinckley? I never heard him speak. Who was behind the church PR department? They have consistently burned bridges of trust with members and nonmembers alike. I was tired of being expected to swallow the crap they have historically put out. Is there some sort of scripture wherein God says “either by my mouth or the mouth of my prophet or the press release of the PR department, it is the same”? Where did they get the info? Was this just a viral cultural thing brought about by an extremely connected, wealthy, influential SL family? I had absolutely no idea who had yelled it, or why. To my point- no trust. Frankly, church herd (cultural) behavior is something I find deeply problematic. Most of the time, I’m criticizing it or licking wounds from it. Years later I learned that the family and church leaders (a stake President and even the Prophet), had miraculous revelation she was alive and needed to be rescued. We all know the rest of the story and the happy ending, achieved after 9 months of torture, where every minute was an absolute nightmare for that indomitable young lady. This was a time to have listened and responded to an immediate and reflexive “do it now!” If only I had known.
So…meta ideas to add to the list:
1. You need a deep relationship of trust to reflexively follow one another.
2. Title/mantle alone cannot command this degree of trust, trust requires interpersonal relationships and testimony. (Not easy with 17m members. The growth of the church is a big problem and church leaders assume their authority is given and absolute in all situations. It is not. )
3. Who is speaking and the clarity/urgency of their message is essential. (Don’t talk to me through the PR department.)
2. By common consent is a necessary meta-principle. There are meaningful/relevant contributions from the ranks. (As cited in the OP, the church is continuing to take steps to erase it, establishing GA as infallible Demi-Gods.)
Question: what is the difference between the Catholic Church and our church when it comes to leadership and authority?
Answer: the Catholics believe the pope is infallible, but treat him as a human, liable to make mistakes. The Mormons believe their Prophet is fallible (only Jesus was perfect), but treat him as infallible.