January 3rd, 2012
Oh say, what is truth? ‘Tis the fairest gem That the riches of worlds can produce, And priceless the value of truth will be when The proud monarch’s costliest diadem Is counted but dross and refuse. Yes, say, what is truth? ‘Tis the brightest prize To which mortals or Gods can aspire; Go search in the depths where it glittering lies Or ascend in pursuit to the loftiest skies. ‘Tis an aim for the noblest desire. The sceptre may fall from the despot’s grasp When with winds of stern justice he copes, But the pillar of truth will endure to the last, And its firm-rooted bulwarks outstand the rude blast, And the wreck of the fell tyrant’s hopes. Then say, what is truth? ‘Tis the last and the first, For the limits of time it steps o’er. Though the heavens depart and the earth’s fountains burst, Truth, the sum of existence, will weather the worst, Eternal, unchanged, evermore.—John Jaques
The John Adams Center addresses the intersection of “faith, philosophy and public affairs.” Increasingly the discussion of these matters is taking place on the internet. While much valuable information and serious argumentation appear online, we also see a profusion of questionable claims and weak reasoning that often go uncontested. The John Adams Center has resolved to do what it can to raise the level of discussion on blogs and other internet sites that deal with our issues, beginning with those sites of special interest to Latter-day Saints (Mormons). Though keenly aware of our own fallibility, we intend to stand as a “firm-rooted bulwark” of rigorous thinking open to revealed truths, providing an evaluative overview of relevant internet activity, recommending serious and sound contributions (“fairest gems”) and fairly but frankly calling attention to what seems to us defective (“dross and refuse”). Along the way we may amuse ourselves and others from time to time, deliberately or not. Below you will find a review of such internet discussion.
.
.
Imaginary Theologies and the Sexual Difference
Taylor Petrey has displayed some genuine learning and dialectical finesse, and even more imagination — and stirred some interesting conversation at Times and Seasons as well as By Common Consent — with an article in Dialogue under the refreshingly straightforward title “Toward a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology.” It seems clear where Prof. Petrey wants to go. Although he gives lip service to impartiality and conformity to authority by claiming not to be advocating any position, the reader who gathers the opposite from the title will not be mistaken. As he explains a little more candidly at BCC, he hopes to overcome any resistance LDS feminists might have to “gay and lesbian” voices, thus, I suppose, facilitating a united front on the LDS far left, such as it is.
.
Petrey rightly argues that our understanding of the meaning and purpose of commandments must be grounded in an understanding of our ultimate and highest good or exaltation, and that this, in turn, must be grounded, in some way, in the practical goods we actually experience and enact in the present life. But he takes it as a fait accompli that the old-fashioned norm — you know, the man-woman thing — has lost its hold on our imagination and that smart and learned people can now perform a great service to less imaginative saints by loosening up the normative categories in order to prepare for some new way of aligning or coordinating our ideals and doctrines with our lived experiences.
.
Along the way Prof. Petrey certainly raises some fair and interesting questions about the precise meaning of sexuality in eternity. Any LDS ready to consider such questions for a moment will be willing to admit that there is much that we don’t know — that mystery finally surrounds (as it must) the projection of our practical experience of meaning in this life upon an eternal and infinite existence (or vice versa, if I may say).
That’s one reason we have prophets to spell certain things out for us and provide a ground for our imaginations that also necessarily provides some boundaries.
When I read, for example, that “gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose,” or “Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan,” I may not be able to explain all the ramifications of these statements, but I can be pretty sure they do not lead “toward” something “post-heterosexual.”
.
I suppose this is all so obvious to “regular” LDS — those less preoccupied than Prof. Petrey with facilitating an alliance between gays and feminists — that I am wasting my time explaining it. But then I notice that otherwise sensible and faithful people like Adam Miller at T&S praising Petrey’s “Mad Scientist” approach as just the kind of gratuitous, “useless” thought experiment he thinks should define LDS theology. Adam seems willfully naïve to me here concerning the actual significance of thoughts that we share in public. To be sure, flights of speculative imagination (even of questionable orthodoxy) can be fun, and even richly rewarding at times, opening up possibilities of meaning that may resonate in our practical lives. And I would be the last person to discourage Adam and Prof. Petrey from sitting up late at night over an herbal tea wondering aloud together just how sex works in the eternities. Plato praised philosophy as a “divine madness,” and I think I might know what he’s talking about. But clearly Petrey’s publication in Dialogue has a whole different meaning than such a speculative ramble among friends: it has a public meaning that engages a public concern that is easily recognizable and that he doesn’t hide: his argument is towards something quite practical and indeed political in a radical and revolutionary sense, even if our professorial class has come to accept it as a fait accompli in our ever-so modern world: the utter liquidation of heterosexual marriage as normative. Nothing could be less “gratuitous.”
.
The discussion that follows Adam Miller’s post is serious, civil and thoughtful, in the best tradition of T&S. I commend to our readers’ attention especially the contribution of James Olsen, including this important observation:
This is far too clinical, and I think your ideal instantiates very non-human ways of engaging with our community, making analytic distinctions that are conceptually possible but practically implausible and do not capture the holistic manner in which we practice religion. Perhaps if we merely state it as an ideal; but then all we’re really doing is reminding the theologian to be humble, reminding her that she’s not in fact authorized and ought not take herself to be authorized to play a direct institutional role. But that’s the exact same message we’ve got to constantly remind ourselves here at T&S; it’s also the same message we’ve got to tell ourselves when we teach Sunday School; it’s also the same message I’ve got to tell myself when questioned by a member of the media. There’s nothing unique to theology here. There’s no special role or message being given to or carved out by someone academically trained and publishing antiseptic “possibilities” in academic or other journals.”
.
.
Adam Miller’s follow-up post on the eternity question is richer and sounder, I think. There’s a lot of genuine food for thought in this mini-essay. Miller duly warns about the speculative nature of the essay, and this warning raises the main question:
What follows is a rough attempt at framing a possible approach to sexual difference that treats this difference as a truth the gospel aims to produce rather than as a fact that is already given. (Warning: the essay is thoroughly speculative and – this may be a deal breaker – some French philosophy ensues.)”
In treating eternal marriage as “a truth the gospel aims to produce,” Miller argues that “eternal marriage” is “revolutionary” since “Fidelity to the difference that is human sexuality does not manifest itself in trying to overcome sexuation by ‘getting to know’ the other position, but in dedicating itself to a joint re-investigation of the world in light of the fact that there is such a difference. In this way, eternal marriage is revolutionary because it breaks the world itself in two: there is the world before the intervention of sexual difference and there is the world after it.”
.
The above quote comes near the end and has to be read in light of what precedes it. Generally speaking, and in critical terms, the essay is supportive of gender difference (although not as rooted in biology or natural teleology) and eternal marriage, and thus of the Proclamation. In reading it, however, one should keep in mind that eternal marriage, like any other aspect of the restoration, cannot be completely understood as something wholly new (innovative), and thus not as revolutionary in the usual (modern) sense; as restored, it represents the re-instantiation of something long lost. And with that fact in mind one could therefore question whether the vocabulary employed (laced, as he notes, with French philosophy) is somehow better at revealing to us the meaning of eternal marriage than the plainer terms, and common sense extensions thereof, in which a non-philosopher might understand it.
At any rate, Miller’s is a faithful essay, and the ideas worthy of consideration.
.
.
Freedom, Charity and Purity in the Public Square
All hail, then, to the philosophical imagination! — and particularly to a mad philosopher’s readiness to recognize that his speculations might be “useless.” But now let us free spirits and speculators (paid or unpaid) attempt one last effort of the imagination and imagine that taking prophetic guidance seriously (including both doctrine and commandments) and bending our minds to understand and defend such guidance might be a very worthy use of our philosophical imaginations.
.
More food for political-philosophical-theological thought was provided by Dan Laverty at T&S who invites us to ponder the “Irreconcilable Triangle of Mormon Political Values,” which he represents in the following fashion.
.
Libertarians, I gather, will gravitate towards “freedom,” welfare-liberals to “charity,” and social conservatives to “purity.” Now, the author does well to remind us that in politics the best is often the enemy of the good, and that we cannot expect to maximize all values, even all widely shared values. But I believe he perpetuates a common error in implying the ultimate irreconcilability of these values considered in an eternal perspective. For each (freedom, charity, purity) is truly, intrinsically opposed to the other only if it is defined in an abstract and soulless fashion. For example, showing love and understanding towards a person (charity) only contradicts calling him to repentance (purity) if we assume a secular definition of charity or “altruism” — i.e., letting people have whatever it is they think they want. And freedom opposes charity only if we think agency has nothing to do with atonement, and therefore with charity, a view of which 2 Nephi 2 should quickly disabuse us.
.
Even in the political realm, the tension between freedom on the one hand and personal and social ethics on the other hand has been grossly exaggerated by radical and relativistic definitions of all terms. An enterprising spirit grounded in and channeled (however imperfectly) by religious and moral principles once provided Americans a common experience of both self-reliance and solidarity with a community. Now “individualism”and “altruism” are construed as opposites. They are in fact extremes that reinforce each other and threaten to produce a vicious cycle of irresponsibility and dependency. But, for LDS, a kind of synthesis of responsible individual agency with care for the community (a definite and concrete — and intergenerational— community), is part of our religious DNA. When we say “self-reliance,” for example, we are not talking about doing whatever we can get away with, but precisely about a foundation of a healthy and even a loving community.
A lived insight into the link between true freedom, fulfilling morality, and real community might be the one thing needful in our increasingly individualist and increasingly statist society, and world.
.
.
Kaimi Wenger expounds on the topic of freedom in the public square by asking us to reconsider the familiar story of Korihor from the Book of Mormon. Kaimi suggests that the situation painted in Alma has more to do with religious freedom and central government than Korihor’s pernicious doctrines. The author asks us to consider whether our anti-Christ was actually “a religious freedom advocate battling an oppressive government.” The question is provocative, but I can’t help but think Wenger misses the mark and tends toward an unfortunate excess of our modern understanding. Far from being a pure-hearted crusader, Korihor himself says he was deceived and that he preached his doctrines because “they were pleasing to the carnal mind.” Wenger seems to fall into the trap of thinking freedom, to be true freedom must be pushed to the extreme. It cannot be moderated by prudential concerns such as whether society can sustain the degenerative impact of a religious doctrine or practice. Or, so the argument goes.
.
It seems clear that Korihor’s speech would be accepted in the current American context, and I’m not suggesting it be otherwise. Indeed, we would do well to note that Mormon records that the laws in the land of Zarahemla established religious liberty and had no hold on Korihor (Alma 30:7). But, perhaps we should not be too quick to the dismiss the merits of the arguments that may well have been convincing to the people of Ammon in the land of Gideon where Korihor was detained for his preaching. While contemporary LDS Americans see the vital importance of supporting religious expression and practice, it is also easy to see how a mass movement that believed that “every man conquered according to his own strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime,” could tear away at the nation’s social fabric. Such ideas are contrary to the very idea of a constitutional republic that enshrines certain rights as being natural and is “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” Socrates’ interlocutor Thrasymachus had a position similar to Korihor’s, namely that justice was the advantage of the stronger. Socrates showed the superiority of true justice and the good of the polis over injustice and that there are standards of justice against which even the strongest men must be measured. From Thrasymachus to Korihor to our current day, taking the bad and packaging it up as the good is far from new and far from “progressive.”
.
.
A recent incident in Lehi, Utah, right in the heart of Mormondon, illustrates a powerful cultural drift (with obvious legal and political consequences) towards extreme individualism and statism. A 14-year-old boy at Willowcreak Middle School was observed “showing affection” with another boy in the school. This same boy later chose to advertise his homosexual “orientation” on a poster that was hung on the classroom wall (along with other students’ presumably more anodyne statements of interest). When the boy’s poster drew a “negative remark” from another student, an assistant principal was understandably worried about the possibility of “bullying,” and so counseled with the boy and then informed his parents, who were not aware of their son’s professed “orientation,” of the concern. The school official has been vigorously criticized, first on a Facebook page created for this purpose within hours of the incident, and before long by The Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network as promoted by the “Gay Voices” section of the Huffington Post. The argument is that the boy has a right to reveal his sexuality when, where and to whom he wishes, and that the school was out of line in “outing” him to his parents. In this case he wished to advertise it in school, by word and by deed, and to keep it a secret from the adults sharing his house, the ones formerly known as “parents.”
.
..
The freedom of the state and its schools to impose an anti-ethic of sexual liberation is not compatible with a family’s freedom to educate its children in a more traditional and responsible understanding of freedom.
.
There is never any excuse for true “bullying” or cruelty to vulnerable individuals. But a school’s environment, like a society’s, cannot be supportive of an individual’s (even a child’s) choice to choose whatever “lifestyle” he wishes and at the same time supportive of a family’s right to teach traditional moral restraints. A state school’s espousal of the cause of gay rights is a profoundly anti-family position.
.
.
So-called gay rights became an issue in the New Hampshire primary when gay veteran Bob Garon sat down with Mitt Romney in a diner to look the candidate in the eye and ask “why he [Garon] should be denied his constitutional right to marry.” Joanna Brooks lauds this effort to hold Romney accountable and argues that all the Republican candidates should have to “look Garon in the face and tell him that he and his husband do not deserve equality under the law.”
.
We, of course, should not be surprised that Brooks was not impressed with how Romney responded to the question:
“It’s true that Romney brought his trademark brand of existential discomfort to the interaction. But in the face of Garon’s no-nonsense plainspokenness, every candidate in the field would have looked ridiculous expounding upon the special blend of legal and religious myth making that passes for anti-equality rationale.”
Long gone are the days when having an openly gay friend or family member was something of a novelty. Those who are still holding up marriage’s standard are doing so in the face of the progressives’ ever-present finger of scorn and their heart-wrenching relationships with homosexual friends and family members they dearly love. They support marriage out of conviction to the truth and the good of marriage, something that does not and cannot collapse because of our compassion for another human being, no matter how much we love them. Brooks, like many liberals, is too willing to sacrifice the love of truth (what marriage really is) for some corroded modern concept of love and marriage. She fails to realize that it is only a healthier version of marriage than the one she is willing to offer that can support any sustainable and nourishing idea of these concepts. In short, Brooks fails to see the same thing Laverty fails to see — that true charity must be guided by truth and righteousness.
.
.
Mitt Romney and Mormonism’s Unique Conservatism
In a recent report on survey research comparing Mormons’ political views with those of other religious groups, David Campbell (LDS Political Scientist at Notre Dame) notes that LDS are, unsurprisingly, a very conservative population, and, in fact, the most conservative population studied where certain prominent issues (Marriage, “gender roles,” abortion) are concerned. But he also points out that they do not fit the conservative stereotype on other issues (immigration, civil liberties vs. security, openness to “civil unions,” exceptions to abortion prohibition, etc.). Dr. Campbell’s findings are of great interest and nicely presented, though the implications for public-spirited LDS is not quite clear. The author is neither pleased nor displeased by his findings, it seems, since he considers himself — and wishes to be considered — first of all a political scientist who just happens to be Mormon. He certainly is not a “Mormon political scientist,” but rather a Mormon who “happens to be” a political scientist. All the same, he does seem rather eager to play up the “moderate” or “liberal” sides of LDS political opinion. Fair enough. Still, it seems to me that, on the most fundamental issues of the day regarding gender, family and society, Campbell shows that LDS see themselves as firmly, necessarily aligned with what is now regarded as a “conservative” position. (It would be interesting to see survey results for temple-recommend holding Mormon Americans, wouldn’t it?) Or so it appears to me, a Mormon who happens to be a political scientist.
.
To be sure, the most urgent, if not the most fundamental, issue of the present season, a (long) election season, seems not to concern marriage and family but rather the economy and the huge debt and deficits that cast a pall on future prospects for economic growth. As I write these lines, a couple of days before the Iowa caucuses, it seems more and more likely that a Mormon, Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee, with a better than fair chance to become President of the United States. Most Mormons seem to assume it would be very good news for us to have a Mormon President. I’m not so sure, and not because I do not respect Romney or think highly of his abilities. It’s just that it’s hard, and getting harder all the time, to succeed at the job of the U.S. Presidency, and I worry about the impact of a failed (or even a mediocre) Mormon presidency. But maybe I’m too cautious and should welcome the publicity, good and bad.
.
Still, I’m not reassured by a recent piece in the New York Times that all too plausibly reads Romney’s mind as that of a pragmatist who sees the world in terms, not of basic principles or a deep understanding of human nature, but of measurable “results” of the kind business students and businessmen like to focus on.
.
Nearly four decades ago at Harvard, Mr. Romney embraced an analytical, nonideological way of thinking, say former classmates and professors, one that both matched his own instincts and helped him succeed. On a campus rife with political and social ferment, he willfully distanced himself not only from politics, but also from larger ideological frameworks and heated debates. …
.
In the classrooms where Mr. Romney distinguished himself, there were no “right” answers — no right questions even, just a daily search for how to improve results. The Mitt Romney classmates knew then was a gifted fix-it man, attuned to the particulars of every situation he examined and eager to deliver what customers wanted.
“Mitt never struck me as an ideologue outside matters involving church and family,” said Howard Brownstein, a classmate. “He is a relativist, a pragmatist and a problem solver.”
.
If the problems our country faces are primarily technical problems, then Romney may indeed be just the technician we need — and, by all accounts, a good fellow and a good, faithful Mormon besides. (Such was certainly my personal impression of him, in our brief acquaintance some decades ago.) But, the nature of the presidency is such that we can rarely, if ever, predict the challenges of any given term. If the problems our country faces involve more fundamental choices as to what kind of people we will be, then we would have to pray that a President Romney could learn a lot on the job.
5 Responses to “The Bulwark’s January Blog Review”
Leave a Reply
I’m sure there’s some real substance here, but, as with previous Bulwark posts, it’s so saturated with snark, condescension, and dismissiveness that the main points are very difficult to either recognize or appreciate. I’m thinking especially of the reviews of Petrey, Miller, Wenger, and Brooks, as well as the accompanying artwork. (BTW, what’s up with the apparent obsession with her work month after month? Almost seems personal.) This analysis is almost entirely devoid of charity in both the gospel and the academic senses of the term, which is particularly unfortunate given the perspective that you’re trying to represent–rigorous (scholarly?) thinking that is open to revealed (gospel-centered?) truths. There are productive and mature ways to articulate disagreement, but the rhetoric employed here–and rhetoric is the only thing that I’m commenting on–represents a fairly low water-mark of LDS thinking. Hopefully in the future you can find some way to actually take the work of those you review seriously by doing more than offering simplistic caricature, facile analysis, and snarky derision–i.e., make a sincere effort to represent the work of those with whom you disagree fairly, accurately, and charitably, and then offer constructive, respectful critique.
It seems an irresistible instinct among readers who are uncomfortable with the Bulwark’s lack of reverence for liberal (including “postmodernist”) assumptions is to dismiss arguments as “snark.” I think the heights (self-perceived) of the LDS or marginally LDS blogosphere are so accustomed to assuring one another of their virtues and intelligence that they find themselves a bit bewildered by the JAC’s disinclination to play along. It is a little convenient to appeal to “charity” as regards one’s own position and then peremptorily to categorize as “caricature” and “facile analysis” the whole of another’s view — without providing the service of pointing out any problems with the arguments that have been provided. So, if “respectful critique” means critique that the “intellectual” mainstream of the LDS blogs is comfortable with (because it challenges none of their fundamental assumptions and pretensions), we choose not to play along. (If you have noticed the sometimes vicious treatment I received on a prominent LDS blog for straightforwardly defending the Church’s contribution to the Prop 8 effort, you might wonder whether the stated norms of charity, civility, etc., really apply for those who do not share the project of leading the Church to more “liberal” positions. And I do not recall many of the leading LDS bloggers rushing to my defense.) We intend to raise more fundamental questions here than are often raised in the bloggernacle, including questions about the responsibility of intellectual adventurers concerning truths shared by less ambitious saints, and we invite — even provoke — discussion of such questions.
That said, we have considered the “tone” question, and will continue to consider it. We invite others to do the same. (I note that the author we treat at the greatest length we both critique and praise, in some detail. )But let’s not use the “tone” question as an excuse to avoid important arguments. We have made some serious arguments. We are aware they must be incomplete (necessarily — since we are already stretching the length conventions of such posts). You can help us completing them by engaging the argument, and not by hiding behind blanket accusations of “snark.” Let us not then seek to pull out the mote of snark in our brother’s eye, but worry about what may be the beam in our own.
Anonymo:
You admonish us to “make a sincere effort to represent the work of those with whom you disagree fairly, accurately, and charitably, and then offer constructive, respectful critique.” I actually thought I had done something like that in a brief review of Miller. I thought what Miller wrote was good and worth thinking about and said so. In critical terms I only tried to highlight a point that, at least as I believe, is related to a fundamental assumption of his argument. At any rate, perhaps you could re-read and then explain how what I wrote is completely devoid of charity. It puzzles me. It makes me think you did not read very carefully. But I forgive you that. In any case, it’s worth remembering that, among other things, charity is not easily provoked. In labeling us unproductive and immature, I’m not sure you’ve captured very decisively the high ground you are advertising. Perhaps you’ve only said what you think we deserve to hear. Well. That would be worth thinking about, too, wouldn’t it?
I’m not so much hiding behind blanket accusations as I am suggesting that the matter of *how* arguments are presented is every bit as important, and often moreso, than arguments themselves. Again, I’m only commenting on the rhetoric you regularly employ, because I think it needlessly undermines the value of otherwise thoughtful reflections.
I’m not sure why respectful critique would mean that “it challenges none of their fundamental assumptions and pretensions,” since that is quite often what rigorous scholarly analysis entails. However, I do think your all-too-quick dismissiveness tends to show that you may not fully appreciate/understand the fundamental assumptions and pretensions you want to argue against–e.g., this post doesn’t demonstrate a very good grasp of Miller’s “gratuitous” theological sensibility, his understanding of the task of theology, or his view of the responsibility of the theologian. Regardless, having one’s fundamental assumptions and pretensions challenged is part of what it means to enter into the public arena of ideas, and what I’m suggesting is that (1) there are better and worse ways of engaging in such critique, and (2) your arguments would both be more apparent and carry more weight if you adopted a less condescending, snarky, and sarcastic tone. So, I’m not dismissing your arguments, or using tone as an excuse to avoid dealing with them, but instead am saying that the layers of negative rhetoric are unnecessary and inhibit their force.
You say, “If you have noticed the sometimes vicious treatment I received on a prominent LDS blog for straightforwardly defending the Church’s contribution to the Prop 8 effort, you might wonder whether the stated norms of charity, civility, etc., really apply…” Isn’t the point at which we are mistreated and misunderstood precisely the point at which we should be charitable–again, in both the academic and gospel senses? For example, the following represents a fairly uncharitable (mis)reading of Petrey: “But he takes it as a fait accompli that the old-fashioned norm — you know, the man-woman thing — has lost its hold on our imagination and that smart and learned people can now perform a great service to less imaginative saints by loosening up the normative categories in order to prepare for some new way of aligning or coordinating our ideals and doctrines with our lived experiences.” Nowhere does Petrey actually make such a claim, so it weakens what your assessment of and assertions about his work. So, while I think you absolutely should take anyone to task if you disagree with them, and that there are plenty of questions that ought to be raised in relation to Petrey’s article, you should take your interlocutors more seriously by fairly representing those positions with which you disagree, and you should represent them at their strongest. Once you’ve given a solid/accurate account, then, by all means, critique away.
From p. 1 of Petrey Article: “Alan Michael Williams suggests that the question that Latter-
day Saintsmust face is “how the Mormon ‘family’ can continue to make sense soteriologically when it does not represent the diversity of American families.”5 Williams’s question is ultimately a social one—about a soteriology “making sense” in the context of
an America where Mormon notions of family look increasingly anachronistic”
I took Petrey to be agreeing with Williams, and that this was a premise of the whole article. What did I miss?