Archive for the ‘News and Events’ Category
April 9th, 2012
Morals of Life and Death
Rosalynde Welch regularly writes thoughtful articles at Patheos on Mormon and general cultural issues. In the wake of presidential candidate Rick Santorum’s criticisms of government-funded prenatal testing, Welch used Emily Rapp’s defense of prenatal testing and targeted abortions to artfully show the shallowness of contemporary liberalism’s discussion of moral questions. Rapp tells a compelling story about her son’s seemingly fruitless struggle with Tay Sachs and says, “If I had known before he was born, I would have saved him from suffering.”
.
Rapp’s frustration and compassion for her son is certainly understandable, and Welch seems to understand this, even in a personal way. But she wonders what this kind of reasoning means for liberalism and its particular brand of morality.
“[Rapp’s story is] illuminating in its perfect capture of the contradictions inherent in liberalism’s engagement with the morality of human life and death. Twinned with science, liberalism — in the philosophical sense, not the political sense, though both are in play in the piece — has a vexed relationship to moral assertion. It professes neutrality on questions of private morality, but it often lacks the courage of its value-free convictions and covertly borrows values-language from other philosophical traditions to shore up its emotional purchase.”
Such is the state of modern philosophical liberalism. It professes its value-free content as a form of freedom without fully understanding the values in which it roots itself. Ideologies will always be shaped by some guiding purpose, and Rapp’s seems to be the prevention of suffering. While one can appreciate Rapp’s frustration with her son’s disease and her compassion for his suffering, we join Welch in asking whether this kind of reasoning leaves liberalism’s morality void of any understanding of what one might call human dignity, or the good of human life. Is this not a low teleology and ultimately an unfulfilling account of who we are as human beings?
.
Welch later makes this poignant comment, reminding that freedom can never be separated from virtue and that the content of our choices matters and not merely the ability to make these choices:
“Throughout history, women have made personal choices to protect their reproductive interests, mostly in the form of voluntary abandonment, neglect, or relinquishment of imperfect or unwanted children. As a society, we rightly see most of these choices as repugnant today. Personal choice can be ugly.”
.
Meanwhile, Connor Boyack, creator of the BombIran campaign, argues that conservatives cannot be pro-life and support war at the same time.
“Double standards are found everywhere in the words and actions of the political class. One of the most striking examples comes from the religious right which likes to claim that it is ‘pro-life’ while usually also being in favor of war. This hypocritical position renders meaningless their claim to supporting life.”
.
Yes, Latter-day Saints are commanded to renounce war and proclaim peace, and certainly our politics would be better off if we saw more clearly the underlying philosophical principle that should unite positions on abortion and war. But after we have renounced war and proclaimed peace, we quickly find we still live in a dangerous world, and that we risk embracing a myopic transpolitical hypermoralism should we fail to prepare to confront such a world.
.
In his book Latter-day Liberty, Boyack spells out a non-interventionist ideology that insists countries are not morally justified to attack or even place sanctions against countries who pose imminent threats. Following this policy (to indulge a not so far-fetched hypothetical), Israel would lack the moral authority to preemptively strike weapons facilities or even impose economic sanctions against a nuclear Iran who denies the right of Israel to exist, regardless of what intelligence it had on concrete nuclear threats. Likewise, the United States would not be able to support this ally.
.
War is abominable, and we agree with Boyack that some conservatives have been thoughtless in debating whether we should engage in war. Even worse, it is obvious that some glory in war as a means of revenge or assertion of American might. Even when war is necessary and justified, we must remember there is inescapable evil that comes with it. But war remains necessary all the same. In deciding whether to engage in war, both extremes pose risks to the healthy political community. We can err by dogmatically adhering to an abstract ideal and ignoring political considerations, or we can justify war to the point of glorying in it and corrupting our souls. We would argue a better path is for government to renounce war but remain willing to protect the people and principles it has covenanted to defend, militarily if necessary. Likewise, government should do all it can to minimize the cost of war through diplomacy, sanctions and targeted strikes.
.
Perhaps the abortion analogy is fitting after all. The LDS Church teaches that it is possible for it to be morally permissible to abort an unborn child if the birth of that child would threaten the life of the mother. Let’s imagine that competent doctors have determined that a particular pregnancy is one of those rare cases, even though the mother is now only experiencing mild abdominal pain. When is the abortion justified? In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, need she wait until the internal hemorrhaging has reached the point it will likely kill her before asking for the abortion? Will it not already be too late?
.
.
Reasoning in Faith
On the heels of General Conferance, James Faulconer at Patheos gives the timely instruction that while prophets sometimes foretell the future, their primary job is to “speak forth” and call people to repentance. In the LDS context, this means prophets are authorized to speak God’s will. Prof. Faulconer also gives us the important reminder that LDS prophets are not infallible and that doctrine cannot simply be established by quoting the brethren. Elder D. Todd Christopherson taught this same principle in General Conference, saying
“At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that ‘a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such.’”
Earlier in the month, Faulconer addressed the growing tide of American atheism, and he offers the insight that the best weapon against atheism is witnessing of the gospel through our actions:
“If believers think that the most important thing they can do to combat atheism is take up the arguments of contemporary atheists, they make a mistake. We may need to take up those arguments, at least as inoculation for those whose trust is still young, since we are unlikely to win over many who make the atheists’ arguments.”
and
“Today we live in a world in which passive atheism holds sway, with the result that active atheism has become more prominent. But we make a mistake if we think that the active atheism we see is the problem with which we must deal. The real threat is passive atheism, and only the fullness of Christian witness, not political activism or evangelizing by itself, will be enough to counter that threat.”
This undoubtedly relates to previous exchanges at The Bulwark with Professor Faulconer, and we embrace the way he recognizes at least some need for Christian witness through deeds to work alongside well-articulated arguments. Certainly witnessing of the gospel through our actions is at the heart of what it means to be a disciple of Christ, but we wonder if downplaying the need for verbal witness does not overlook the powerful role of ideas in shaping the public and even private spheres. If the atheist argument is left unanswered, we risk giving the impression we are altogether unable to offer a response, thus deferring to the secularists the sole claim to reason. It may be true that even the most faithful and well-reasoned arguments may never convert the hardened atheist, but we should remember that even in these engagements, it is not necessarily the persuasion of our interlocutors we seek but that of a much larger audience, some of whom may only need reassurance.
.
As C.S. Lewis has said, “To be ignorant and simple now — not to be able to meet the enemies on their own ground — would be to throw down our weapons, and to betray our uneducated brethren who have, under God, no defense but us against the intellectual attacks of the heathen. Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered.” We faithful scholars, teachers, students of philosophy and society, cannot remain silent when some claim that reason and faith are incompatible; we ought not appear to cede reason to the secular rationalists.
.
.
The Libertarian Constitution
While the US Supreme Court was hearing the first day of oral argument about the constitutionality of President Barack Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), Connor Boyack made the striking assertion that conservatives and constitutionalists should want the highest court to uphold this legislation. While this may be surprising to those familiar with Boyack’s libertarian approach to constitutional law, the argument is strictly pragmatic, even if misguided. SOTUS’ affirmation of the federal mandate, he argues, would help disabuse Americans of the idea that the court is the final arbiter of constitutionality by creating further distance between the Constitution’s text and its living, organic form as represented by case law.
.
First, it should be noted that this is the kind of disregard for political realities that makes Boyack’s brand of libertarianism unpalatable and ultimately untenable in the public square. The Obamacare legislation is repugnant to the spirit and letter of the Constitution and would forever change the relationship between United States citizens and their government. Flirting with this possibility seems unwise to say the least.
.
Boyack is correct, however, to point out that judicial supremacy is dangerous and was not intended by the Founders. This can be seen in The Federalist as well as Abraham Lincoln’s First Inaugural, in which the president argues that government of the unelected few is not the government of free men:
“The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”
Boyack, however, goes further than Lincoln and argues that it is instead the states who should determine the constitutionality of federal statutes. This argument is far from new. Indeed, this was at the heart of the debates between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists over the Constitution’s ratification as well as those during the Nullification Crisis. And while Boyack expresses devotion to the Constitution, it is not always evident which side of these conflicts he would have aligned. Perhaps it is fitting that Boyack quotes a leading opponent of the Constitution’s ratification, Spencer Roane, to bolster his argument in this regard.
.
In fairness, however, we should note that the bulk of his argument rests on the Father of the Constitution’s words from a 1799 report regarding the Virginia Resolution of 1798. Boyack quotes a passage in which Madison says the states have the ultimate right “to judge whether the [Constitution] has been dangerously violated,” after which Boyack provides the following commentary:
“In other words, Madison saw the states (being parties to the constitutional compact) as having the authority and ability to determine a law’s constitutionality and take appropriate action based upon whatever decision they make.”
.
But this was not Madison’s intention. Where the Kentucky Resolutions embraced the idea of nullification, or the power of states to declare federal statutes null and void, Madison took a far more measured approach, that of interposition. In practice, this meant the organization of a group of states who would then interpose between their citizens and the federal government in cases of “deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers [not granted in the Constitution].”
.
Later in the same report, Madison clarifies his meaning, in hopes that his words will not be twisted by the enemies of the Union.
“The declarations [from this group of states], in such cases, are expressions of opinion, unaccompanied with any other effect than what they may produce on opinion, by exciting reflection. The expositions of the judiciary, on the other hand, are carried into immediate effect by force. The former may lead to a change in the legislative expression of the general will; possibly to a change in the opinion of the judiciary; the latter enforces the general will, whilst that will and that opinion continue unchanged.”
In the latter years of his life, these very words Boyack cites were also used by Southerners during the Nullification Crisis to support their cause, and Madison took the opportunity to correct them for distorting his meaning. Oh, that he were alive to do the same today.
.
.
Gay and Mormon
Our friend (Gay) Mormon Guy offers an excellent post on the false dichotomy many even well-intentioned individuals present members of the Church who experience same-sex attraction.
“Be gay, or be unhappy. And, in the minds of many of the men I’ve met, those are the only two options. Stay completely and fully faithful in the Church and be miserable and full of self-loathing, or appeal to “spirituality,” claim that the Church isn’t true (or at least its teaching on homosexuality), and live an open, self-loving, and free life.”
For those who see same-sex attraction as being the defining element of one’s identity, these are indeed the only options — options that separate righteous living from the joy and happiness Christ promises His followers. Mormon Guy writes, however, that there’s a better way.
“I turned to God for help, and realized that there is a third choice — one that promises far more than any other, but entails a whole lot more work and time as well. In my darkest hours, I learned that if the gospel is not working for me, it is because I’m not using it right — not because I’m not good enough or because God or His teachings are incapable of bringing me peace. The reality is that Christ came to save all men, and that God has given all men the power to overcome their trials and find true happiness, joy, and peace through living according to His will.”
And later on,
“The beautiful promise of the gospel is that no matter who I am, there is a way to make it work for me. The gospel works. If it’s not working for me, I’m not using it right. For everyone that seeketh shall find, and unto him that knocketh, it shall be opened. The Lord God is no respecter of persons, which means that if His gospel can bring peace, hope, and joy to anyone who learns to use it in their lives, it can bring those same blessings to me.
“And that’s the option I choose.”
Here, the author exercises admirable faith, perspective and yes, courage.
.
We are also encouraged by a recent event hosted by the BYU Sociology Department which featured a panel discussion with three homosexual students and one bisexual student. The students expressed their struggles dealing with same-sex attraction, fitting into the BYU community as well as affirming their commitment to the university’s honor code, along with their testimonies of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. The event was standing room only and several were turned away. We hope more events like this continue to further understanding in the LDS community, all while disproving the myth that you cannot be gay and Mormon.
.
.
Feminism and Family
Elisothel at Feminist Mormon Housewives offers the interesting thought that “men (and women) don’t understand feminism, because so many people already *gasp* see women as full human beings, and think everyone else does too, so they are blinded to the injustices that remain” and she wonders whether she has fallen into the same trap regarding racial issues. In other words, her understanding of the equality of the races has taken racial injustice off her radar. In her commentary, she rightfully examines the divine perspective and acknowledges that God (unlike us) cannot ignore or choose not to think about injustices; likewise, she says, anyone seeking to become more like God must do the same. She recognizes that “[if] I am to be divine, forgetfulness is not my destiny.” Rather, the goal should be to “discern evil and yet be happy.”
.
Elisothel has tapped something profound. Truly the restored gospel opens our mind to a passable God who has a “heart that beats in sympathy with ours,” who suffers and rejoices with His children. And, as Enoch learned, God weeps over the sins and enmity of those He has created in His own image. (Moses 7: 29-33) We can only begin to imagine the mystery behind whatever truth allows God to feel such deep sorrow along with a fullness of joy.
.
Regarding her initial statement, it would seem Elisothel could have a point in marking the connection between viewing all people as equals and being unable to see racism. We would argue, however, that precisely the opposite is true when seen in the light the charity of the gospel requires. Coming to know the true equality and dignity of all people — and their common standing/plight before God — and loving these people should heighten our sympathy for them. Learning to love goodness causes us to become good, which necessarily increases our hatred of injustice in all its forms.
.
Again at FMH, Winterbuzz tells her experience as a single mom in the Church for 8 years and incidentally sets the stage for Elder David Baxter’s talk in General Conference. Winterbuzz sheds light on the fact that the LDS Church’s focus on ideal family life and the related lessons, programs and activities have the tendency to make single mothers feel they do not fit in.
“I just wish that more people were sensitive to others who don’t have the church’s ideal” family,” she says.
After reading her story, most would certainly agree. LDS must be sensitive to and supportive of these single parents, without, as Elder Baxter said, “passing judgment or casting aspersions.” At the same time, however, this sensitivity should not prevent us from holding up the beautiful standard of a loving father and mother who care for their children as a way of preserving the tie between marriage, procreation and the rearing of children.
March 29th, 2012
In case you missed it, Meridian Magazine has now posted the second half of JAC President Ralph Hancock’s review of Joanna Brooks’ The Book of Mormon Girl. From the review:
Joanna Brooks’ conflicted confession is important precisely because it clarifies for us a choice we all must face, and a choice that is becoming starker and more urgent for the rising generation. This is the choice between (1) a politicized, “unorthodox” Mormonism Lite, a Mormonism streamlined in order to remove any obstacle to the increasingly ascendant secular ethic of boundless individual autonomy, and (2) the Restored Gospel, with its wondrous teaching concerning our eternal destiny as males and females, and its clearly marked path of obedience to laws and ordinances.
The Book of Mormon Girl risks confusing or skirting this choice, but it also provides us the opportunity to clarify it. Apart from the intrinsic appeal of an authentic personal story, and the opportunity to learn from an author whose personal experience can supplement my own, this is the reason I have thought it important to address (in these pages and elsewhere) this book and other writings of Joanna Brooks, when I might have profited more from advancing my own professional work in political philosophy. I bear her not the slightest ill will, and willingly honor her talents as a writer and the courage she has displayed in her personal quest.
You can read the full review here.
March 13th, 2012
President of the John Adams Center, Ralph C. Hancock, has a review of Joanna Brooks’ the book of mormon girl featured at Meridian Magazine. He writes:
Like St. Augustine and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the great models of the intimate personal confession as a genre for communicating an understanding of life’s meaning, Joanna Brooks seeks to indicate a path towards illumination and authenticity through a narration of her own life. This life is a decidedly, distinctly Mormon life, beginning with a thoroughly, almost archetypal Mormon childhood; but, it is finally, to be sure, a Mormon life with a difference.
This is no ordinary Mormon life – not your mother’s (nor indeed Joanna’s mother’s) Mormon life, but what is proposed as a new and exciting way of being Mormon. Since Ms. Brooks appeals to our sensibilities and seeks to open up new practical possibilities through the form of a personal narrative that is often quite intimate, we are obliged to address her ideas or her vision by addressing her personal story.
Just as Rousseau employed a creative presentation of his own intimate and checkered life to convert hearts and minds to his idea of humanity’s natural goodness, so Joanna Brooks uses what appears to be a quite unguarded autobiography to make the case for a new Mormonism, a faith unhindered by any orthodoxy and fully open to an ethic of liberalism. Thus the present reflection, in the form of a book review, necessarily touches on personal matters that normally would be considered irrelevant in intellectual exchange.
Read the full review at Meridian Magazine
March 7th, 2012
Joanna Brooks’ memoir, The Book of Mormon Girl: Stories from an American Faith, relates a lifelong relationship with the LDS Church. Brooks conveys this relationship through a variety of childhood and adult experiences that influenced her self-identification as an “unorthodox Mormon woman” (168). This unorthodoxy, unrecognized as a variation of the mainstream church, is something she perceives as more inclusive, more politically correct. She relates these experiences as an insider to Mormon culture, yearning for a clearer relationship between the traditions she grew up with and the feminist politics to which she seems to adhere. Her experiences often reflect a natural tension between an internal Mormon cultural experience and the mainstream of an external experience with modern liberalism. Brooks’ illumination of this tension, in addition to her questioning of the Mormon role within a liberal democracy, provides significant opportunities for reflection on how my own Southern California Mormon cultural experiences translate into adult conceptions relating Mormonism to its external context.
Brooks’ description of her adolescent experience is one in which parents are thrilled with the idea of an impending apocalypse (36, 38, 45, 49, 87), female gender roles are reduced to blind obedience to dominant men (99, 100, 105, 106, 106, 137), and, conversely, a lack of intellectual theological ability from the Mormon women with whom she interacted (41, 97, 106). Her pivotal assumption here, one that did not resonate with my experience in Los Angeles, is that her experiences provide a normal or average representation of the “Mormon” culture (or even the Southern California Mormon culture). Perhaps her reflections are remnants of a cultural moment that occurred before my time in Southern California. Yet it seems in her vivid recounting of the Joseph Smith narrative (19), her favorite movie in Sunday School (22), or even in the lessons that were taught (21-22) that there are striking similarities to my experience, although seemingly with one major difference — she is passive in the learning process.
The stories as she relates them are assertively told to her in a way that omits a fundamental principle of the adolescent Mormon cultural experience: the questioning and the seeking of personal religious understanding. For me, one of the most progressive Mormon ideas of the modern dispensation is the emphasis on personal revelation. Despite differences (not inequality) in gender roles, personal revelation allows each individual equal opportunity to question, consider, and synthesize doctrines until a patchwork of principles come to provide a larger testimony. Brooks presents her experience as if it would have been outlandishly foreign for anyone to have suggested that she personally or privately gather information on a particular topic, thoughtfully consider it, counsel with others about it, and/or pray about it piece by piece. Perhaps the questioning associated with the Joseph Smith story was omitted for her. Or the wrestle that he describes with considering the variety of religious denominations was downplayed. However, this theological piece of the puzzle informed my cultural experience as early as I can remember, and seems to be an integral facet of Mormon doctrine that not only informed my adolescent experience, but also continues to inform my adult synthesis of childhood teachings within a liberal democratic context. My cultural experience was one in which questioning was encouraged, learning and synthesis integral, and where gender roles (although different) were equal.
Admittedly, I grew up about 15 years later and 30 miles up the road, but it seems as if her experience might just as easily have been a million miles away. Perhaps the disparities are due to differences in age, although it doesn’t seem in any way probable that a doctrine this integral would have been outside her realm of experience. My high school career was not one of yearning for the homogeneity of BYU, where everyone would ‘understand’ me without explanation. Rather, it was one that was filled with questioning by my non-member peers, and it was within that questioning that my study was furthered. It required me to consider the truths I took for granted and rationally consider the various advantages and disadvantages of each precept as it was solidified into a patchwork of truths that became (and continues to become) my testimony. It was expected both by ecclesiastical leaders and my parents that I would carefully consider each piece of the puzzle and receive an answer on my own.
Like Brooks, very few Mormons surrounded me in my childhood; in fact there was only one other Mormon girl my age at my high school and usually around a half dozen of us total. We knew that we were different, that there would be curiosity about our lifestyle; but this was not grounds for shrinking away from questions, but rather a constant reminder that fueled a fire that had been questioning (and receiving answers) for a long time. Some questions (my peers and my own) have been complex, things that I have revisited and will continue to revisit until I feel I have an adequate grasp of the principle. Others were easier, comedic even. Rational consideration as a methodology for explaining principles to curious peers was integral to the process of responding to their wanting to understand a cultural experience outside of their own. Isolation because of my religion was something I never experienced; any kind of mockery was always light-hearted, and as minimal as it can be for teenagers.
The second piece of her primary argument reflects the integral nature of the questioning and seeking of truth that seemed to be lacking in her childhood experience. Brooks describes her long-anticipated BYU experience with a sentiment of enlightenment in which fearless inquiry (132), intellectual understanding (132), and gender equality was something entirely new (131, 134) and known only to a select few individuals (133, 139-140). Again, it seems that her pivotal assumption here requires a Mormon ontology consumed with asserting its beliefs upon its members to a degree that genuine questioning is subverted into anti-intellectual, blind obedience. My experience at BYU, like Brooks’, entailed a new level of inquiry into Mormon history and doctrine, but inquiry itself was not foreign. It was something I learned in Primary, Young Women, from my parents, and various ecclesiastical leaders. My questions were encouraged as a fluid process for understanding, and building upon, various precepts. It was not a method for understanding religious principles that was in any way foreign to my peers or known only to several enlightened individuals. Perhaps the disappearance of the otherness associated with California and Mormonism created a yearning to distinguish herself among the more homogenous BYU crowd? Maybe she enjoyed being the Root Beer among Cokes in California and when she found herself a Root Beer among Root Beers the only option was—caffeinated Root Beer? This moment in her academic career, her transcending the boundaries of the supposed Mormon intellectual subversion, is something I was hoping she would have delved into more thoroughly so that I might see more clearly what I missed during my academic career at BYU. Or, perhaps, the lack of inquiry from her childhood allowed Brooks to find a stronger authoritative figure with which to align (outside of religion), and not to question?
I think Brooks would say, and I would agree, that the homogeneity of BYU can be overwhelming. My own Westchester High in Los Angeles, with an African American population of around 60%, a Hispanic population of around 30%, and a Caucasian population of around (but usually less than) 10%, hardly meets the white-washed demographics of BYU, let alone its homogenous value system. However, I was surprised to find BYU students at all different levels trying to synthesize their experiences within larger frame of an external world view. This consistent yearning for new questions and more complete understandings of principles was reminiscent of my cultural foundation. Not only did it compound my yearning for Mormon doctrinal knowledge, but it gave me an overwhelming number of opportunities to test out ideas with my peers and for them to test out ideas with me. These ideas were developed and shaped into my patchwork testimony, in and out of the classroom, and it seemed to be that way for the vast majority of my colleagues. This genuine interest in inquiry, even if it pushed some limits, was not something to be locked away in some basement classroom or something to be held secret for a select enlightened few. The emphasis on a relationship between faith and reason was a dominant theme of my BYU experience, one that if I were writing about distinguishing aspects of Mormon culture could not be downplayed or omitted. What I mean to say is that despite the seeming homogeneity of BYU, the differences between students provided a refreshing glimpse into understanding how to rationally consider complex principles and their relationship to the external world. And although each student was at a different level in this progression, it did not discount the authenticity of his or her inquiry.
The combination of both her childhood and BYU experiences seem to provide Brooks a clear causal connection to her ‘exile’ (168), a No on 8 stance (181), and a Mormon tradition bent on excluding a variety of groups (196-197). This causal connection seems vague and ambiguous — almost as if the anger she clearly expresses with the excommunication of her professors caused a need to reflect and justify their beliefs through her own experience. The reality of her experience is not something I am willing to debase; I merely want to assert that it is not familiar to me as an individual, nor to the vast majority of the peer group with whom I’ve associated.
However, it’s not just her experience being different than my own that is most disconcerting; it’s that leaving out the Mormon emphasis on personal inquiry cheapens the richness of the Mormon cultural experience. It’s within these causal factors that Brooks seems to claim authenticity most poignantly for her views on Proposition 8, but also on the excommunication of her feminist professors. It is here that the tensions between internal Mormon culture and the externalities of modern liberalism are most illuminated, as it seems that Brooks wants to reconcile a liberal agenda under the guise of unorthodox Mormonism. This, for me, would require a relationship between faith and liberalism that would alleviate tensions between Mormon culture and democratic liberalism by requiring Mormonism to sacrifice its traditional values as a price for assimilation into liberal culture. Unorthodox Mormonism, whatever that may mean (perhaps Mormonism by birth or tradition?), is not familiar to me nor is it a price that I am willing to pay. In fact, not only is it unfamiliar to me, it is a version of Mormonism that I have never encountered — not even in the tall tales that often run rampant on BYU’s campus. This unorthodox Mormonism does not seem to be a claim to Mormonism as a religion so much as it is a claim to liberalism as a religion.
I would be interested to understand if the distinctions between Brooks’ cultural experience and my own are merely differences in age, or if they are something else. Although I’m not willing to say that it is necessarily something else, the searching for answers and expecting responses was so integral to my experience that I can only imagine that the omission of this central principle is being used here for the purposes of forwarding an external political agenda. In any case, it is at least misleading to suggest that her experience was in any way typical of Mormon culture. I would imagine that if she believed it was typical she would be pleased to hear of the openness that seems to be reflected in both my childhood experience, as well as my BYU experience — although that does not seem to have translated into the liberal agenda that she seems to be courting. Maybe, one day, she will offer an addendum to the book that clears up some of these seeming ambiguities, and I will be able to read it over a nice, cold Dr. Pepper.
Kristen Robinson Doe was born and raised in Los Angeles, California. She received a BA in Political Science from Brigham Young University and is pursuing a MA in Political Theory and American Politics at the University of Utah. She is currently the Chief of Staff of the Conservative Caucus for the Utah House of Representatives.
March 5th, 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.
.
OUR MS. BROOKS has had another busy and productive month. As part of a notable conference at Columbia University on “Mormonism and American Politics” (Feb. 3-4), she gave an interesting, informative, and insightful talk on LDS participation in the Proposition 8 campaign in California. She was there and was clearly an alert observer. She provides a useful account of the way LDS money and LDS wards were mobilized to make what appears to have been a decisive difference in this critical campaign. To be sure, she seems less proud of the LDS contribution than I am, but that is to be expected.
.
Most interesting is the way she frames her analysis. She is struck by how the Prop 8 campaign tapped into an LDS sense of difference and vulnerability, one that she sees as rooted in the LDS experience with polygamy. This sense expressed itself in California in 2008 by what she sees as a disparity between the public and private rhetoric of pro-Prop 8 members, an “undergrounding” and “double-coding” by which LDS concealed their deepest motives from the public. Now, in one sense, this is unsurprising and hardly objectionable. That is, LDS have their own deep theological reasons that dispose them to favor the norm of heterosexual marriage, in addition to good social and moral reasons that they share with other social conservatives. Naturally, Mormons would appeal to these deep theological reasons when communicating with each other and use more widely available reasons when addressing a more general audience. But Brooks sees this as a failure to embrace a fully transparent and public standard of “communicative reason” (I suppose she is invoking the German political theorist Jurgen Habermas here), which she sees as essential to the ethic of modern democracy. She wishes LDS did not have any deeper reasons among themselves which they did not share transparently with a wider, secular and liberal public. She wishes, in a word, that LDS were less distinctive than they are (she sees our commitment to eternal marriage as an anchor of “LDS theocracy” – presumably not a good thing), and she imagines that liberal democracy would be healthier if no groups in society were defined by any beliefs not validated by public opinion at large, or rather, by some ideal notion of properly “rational” public discourse.
.
We disagree on both religious and political grounds: LDS ought to be proudly free to hold unpopular beliefs, including beliefs that have not been pre-approved to conform to the secular reason of Habermas or John Rawls, and, in fact, the American polity is better off for the existence of strong communities that resist dissolution into a homogenized and secularized mass opinion. That said, we think Ms. Brooks is right that some opportunities for “robust civil exchange” are missed when members retreat excessively from the public square and insulate themselves from the challenge of reasonable persuasion We owe it to ourselves and to our fellow citizens to do the hard work of translating our peculiar religious views into language we share with potential friends and allies in the political and moral realms. This is what such leaders as Elder Dallin H. Oaks and Elder Quentin L. Cook have been urging us to do, and they have provided excellent reasons and evidence that deserve everyone’s attention — including Joanna Brooks’.
.
More generally, the Columbia conference seems to have been very fair, reasonable, and full of insight. We have not been able to locate transcripts, but Ms. Brooks’ and others’ presentations are available at youtube.com. A good place to start is with this nice summary of the conference by Max Perry Mueller.
.
Speaking of marriage, Brooks wonders whether the LDS Church’s statement that it has always had the view that marriage is between a man and a woman poses a problem when we consider polygamy. But, unless I am mistaken, all LDS marriages in the period of plural marriage indeed involved a man and a woman. We have no interest in reviving any argument in favor of polygamy. In fact, we are partial to the beautiful ideal of monogamy; but it has to be noticed that the other arrangement has not been uncommon throughout human history (in the Old Testament, for example), no doubt because (speaking now not religiously but anthropologically) it is one way of addressing a vital and permanent social interest in binding parents to the interests of their children. The same cannot be said for the fantasy of “same-sex marriage,” a pure experiment in the further liberation of sexual desires and their severing from our deep common interest in the nurturing and education of the next generation. To Brooks’ credit, she does faithfully report key arguments in the dissenting opinion in the Prop 8 case – but only after quoting “Laura Compton, founder of Mormons for Marriage, a pro-marriage equality group” as evidence of the positive reception of the opinion by “progressive Mormons,” as if that were a group in any way commensurate with those regular Latter-day Saints who firmly support traditional marriage.
.
.
Randy Bott and ‘Persistent Racism’
Moving her focus from California to BYU, Brooks argues that Randy Bott’s recent “racist apologetics” are proof of persistent racism among LDS Church members. In an interview with the Washington Post, BYU Professor Randy Bott says that “God has always been discriminatory” when it comes to whom He grants the priesthood and argues that blacks were not ready for the priesthood before 1978. Brooks goes on to connect Bott’s comment to previous statements from Church leaders (Bruce R. McConkie et al) to show that such racist speculation is all-too-common among the Church’s leadership. To her credit, Brooks does recognize that McConkie immediately backed off his comments following the 1978 revelation and told church membership to forget all previous speculations he and others made with limited knowledge. She remains upset, however, that Mormon Doctrine (revised or otherwise) stayed on the shelves for so many years and that the Church didn’t address the issue in a more straightforward manner. In other words, she wants more hand-wringing. It’s not enough to say one was wrong. She wants a more thorough cleansing. Meanwhile, Joseph Walker at the Deseret News provides a kinder and ultimately more comprehensive perspective on the the subject and reminds us that Elder Jeffrey R. Holland (2006) has been as clear and as authoritative as can be in instructing Latter-day Saints that we do not know why the ban was instituted and that we should cease indulging our conjectures on the matter.
.
Professor Bott’s public speculations were a huge blunder, if not a disaster, and Ms Brooks is right to criticize them. If he needed to say anything, he might have stopped after the minimal statement, “God has always been discriminatory,” which could be understood as reminding us that the priesthood and other divine blessings are just that and not rights to be demanded on our own terms. The rest of his argument, besides flouting clear and direct counsel from Elder Holland and other Church authorities that we abandon all such speculations, simply makes all kinds of very dubious assumptions. If we must presume to plumb the mind of God, why not try the plausible hypothesis that it was not the blacks but the whites who were not ready for a wider participation in the priesthood? But mostly: why give Joanna Brooks and other critics of the Church grounds for repeating the argument they are so eager to keep alive, namely, that racist attitudes continue to permeate LDS culture? Such has not been our experience — certainly not at BYU, or in the Church more generally.
Moments after Brooks posted her plea for greater openness, the Church gave this statement condemning all forms of racism:
Some have attempted to explain the reason for this restriction but these attempts should be viewed as speculation and opinion, not doctrine. The Church is not bound by speculation or opinions given with limited understanding.
We condemn racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church.”
We can only wonder whether Brooks is satisfied with this straight-forward, though altogether unsurprising, repudiation.
.
.
Baptisms of the Dead and the Unique Access to Heaven
The topic of LDS baptisms for the dead has been in the news as of late. Best-selling author Elie Wiesel called upon Mitt Romney to ask the LDS Church to stop baptizing Jews by proxy. This is a complex and sensitive issue, and we appreciate the efforts of Michael Otterson to explain the doctrine to a larger audience. Likewise, Joseph Walker’s thoughtful article on the subject includes a telling remark by Washington Post On Faith panelist and blogger Brad Hirschfield:
To the extent that such rituals indicate that people who lived and died as Jews still require repair of their souls or spiritual status, there is going to be hurt. That any group clings to doctrines that trumpet their own spiritual superiority or unique access to heaven, to me, is problematic as well, but that is hardly a unique feature of the LDS.”
This remark reveals, I think, the heart of the problem: what some Jews, among others, find offensive is not only the specific ritual of baptism for the dead, but, more fundamentally, the belief it reveals in a “unique access to heaven.” We LDS should avoid being hurtful and make every effort to respect and to learn from other faiths and from other philosophies, but we can hardly compromise our belief in the efficacy of saving ordinances.
.
.
Reasoning About Faith
Following up on our discussion last month with James Faulconer, we should point out his excellent post on Faith and Reason at Patheos, which should help thoughtful Latter-day Saints think about their faith and engage in serious conversations with others who share different perspectives. We quote him at length:
“Ideological atheists are unlikely to consider the possibility that they could be wrong, no matter how many examples of rational religious thinkers we show them. So we can ignore them until they are ready to engage in genuine conversation, which requires that each side acknowledge at least some possibility that the other side is right.
That means, of course, that if we engage atheists (or those of other faiths) in genuine dialogue, then we too must be open to the possibility that those with whom we disagree are right. We don’t have to agree, either in the beginning or the end, but we cannot take another person seriously if we believe that his or her belief is simply impossible. We would have to think the person at least slightly mad—which is what ideological atheists think of religious people. We ought not to imitate that ideology.
In the absence of genuine dialogue, we can only ignore the ideological atheist. But what about the religious person who shares the atheist’s understanding of faith as belief without evidence? One hears that more and more often among believers, though the earlier list of religious thinkers, including Al-Ghazali and Pascal, who might come closest to being fideists, would not agree to that understanding of faith. Fideism is a dangerous idea.”
.
Our own Daniel Peterson, recalling an argument from the late Stanley Kimball, makes a valuable point: Naïve views of LDS history tend to assume that Church leaders were virtually perfect and infallible, and are thus vulnerable to subversive critiques by enemies of the Church. A little learning can indeed be a dangerous thing. But learn a little more, and the firm foundations of our faith come back into focus, more clearly than ever. I would cite as an example Richard Bushman’s marvelous biography of the prophet Joseph, Rough Stone Rolling. This magisterial work discusses many issues that faithful members may find troubling, including some that the author does not himself know exactly how to resolve. But, still, the overall impression left by the remarkable tale he tells of the prophet’s life is unmistakably one of Joseph’s sincerity, authenticity and greatness. Another, more compact and still more powerful example: consider this video in which Elder Holland uses powerful historical evidence to testify of the Book of Mormon and of the Joseph’s true calling as a prophet.
.
And here is Brother Peterson again, this time dismissing the all-too-common assumption among LDS dissidents and detractors that plain, faithful Mormons are sheltered and inexperienced, unlike the presumably more worldly-wise “liberal” and “progressive” ones who would like to show them the way.
.
Along the same lines, the great scholar of LDS thought and culture, Terryl Givens of the University of Richmond, offers an insightful perspective on the meaning of the Romney candidacy against the background of an earlier implicit settlement between Mormons and their American neighbors, a tacit agreement in which Mormons were accepted as good and normal people, but their beliefs were politely bracketed:
“But as presidential nominations near, Romney’s candidacy threatens this compromise, because what a Mormon presidential candidate actually believes seems far too important to table. And when Mormon theology enters the public discussion, the words Charles Dickens wrote in 1851 strike many as still apt: ‘What the Mormons do, seems to be excellent; what they say, is mostly nonsense.’
“But this is only true because in acquiescing to the compromise, Mormons have largely left others to frame the theological discussion. In opting to emphasize Mormon culture over Mormon theology, Mormons have too often left the media and ministers free to select the most esoteric and idiosyncratic for ridicule. So jibes about Kolob and magic underwear usurp serious engagement, much as public knowledge about the Amish is confined to a two-dimensional caricature involving a horse and buggy. But members of a faith community should recognize themselves in any fair depiction…”
Brother Givens then goes on to distill the essentials of LDS teaching into five main points, beginning with this: 1. God is a personal entity, having a heart that beats in sympathy with human hearts, feeling our joy and sorrowing over our pain.
.
.
Mitt Romney and the Impending Theocracy
New York Times columnist Timothy Egan doesn’t mind letting facts get in the way of his statements about Mormonism. And the most recent Republican debate offered him another opportunity to fire off a few lazy rounds at the horrible specter of “Theocracy.” Writing about Romney and Santorum (See: Theocracy and its Discontents), Egan seems to argue that both candidates are suspect because they connect with people who are real believers in something beyond the Lockean religion of toleration. Although he discloses his view that Romney seems “blandly secular” compared to Santorum, we are, as it were, urged not to forget about Egan’s take on the Mormon past. Surely, he seems to say, Romney can’t be an altogether proper American given his Mormon faith. For Egan, Mormonism, like the religion of the Puritans (his other target), stands against “reason”, and stands for one and one thing only:
“Then let’s look west, beyond the Wasatch Mountains in the 19th century, where Brigham Young built a Mormon empire in which church rule and civil law were one and the same — the press, a military brigade and the courts all controlled by the Seer and Revelator of a homegrown religion.”
And Further:
“The Mormons, for all the cheery optimism of their present state, were birthed in brutal theocracy, first in Nauvoo, Ill., and later in the State of Deseret, as their settlement in present-day Utah was called. The Constitution, separating church from state, press from government, had no place in either stronghold. And it took a threat to march the United States Army out to the rogue settlement around the Great Salt Lake to persuade Mormon leaders that their control did not extend beyond matters of the soul.”
.
Perhaps brutal theocracy is the natural parent of cheery optimism. Or maybe there’s more to the story, which is our only point.
.
Gary Lawrence’s praise of the Constitution over at Meridian Magazine is welcome and refreshing, but we wonder whether the language of the “sacred” is the most useful for this important task. “Anything the Lord establishes is, by definition, sacred,” Lawrence argues, “and He Himself established the Constitution as detailed in D&C 101: “And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose…”
.
To be sure, it is essential, as James Madison already recognized in Federalist 49, that a people come to venerate or revere their Constitution, and thus to see it as something more than a useful charter that can be changed whenever it seems convenient. Still, to hold it as sacred risks distracting us from the important, and perhaps even urgent task of understanding as best we can the wisdom of those wise men whom the Lord raised up. Such an understanding will better equip us to counter the arguments of those who hold “Progress” to be sacred.
