Comments on: RSR: The Politics and Personality of a Prophet http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2005/12/rsr-the-politics-and-personality-of-a-prophet/ Truth Will Prevail Thu, 24 May 2012 04:49:18 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Russell Arben Fox http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2005/12/rsr-the-politics-and-personality-of-a-prophet/#comment-111259 Russell Arben Fox Thu, 08 Dec 2005 16:40:46 +0000 http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=2755#comment-111259 Good thoughts, Nate. You're right that there is more than a little Rousseau in my interpretation of what I see Bushman presenting insofar as the politics of Joseph's vision is concerned. Not that I think the rule of "common consent" equals a perfect Rousseauian social contract, but that the terms his analysis of the social contract provides are helpful to understanding what I think Smith, at least originally, wanted to do, and what we still do today. Of course, Rousseau's real provocation wasn't just that he came up with a revolutionary challenge to the modern world; it's that he used Calvinist and pietist models, as well as more respectable classical republican ones, to do so. That's why I suggested that Bushman's use of republicanism, while revealing in thinking about what Smith tried to put in place, could have benefited from an examination of Puritan town meetings, pietist conventicles, and other congregational and communitarian civic forms. As for the possibility of "Rousseauian enclaves" in a liberal world, there's something to that. But pushing that reading of church government leads us back to issues of ethnicity, identity, and membership. These kind of romantic communities depend upon not just hierarchical representation (which is arguably what Smith decided to embrace towards the end of his life), but direct unanimous participation. In other words, they can never be too big, much less "universal"--only "general." Ok, the basic unit is the ward or branch--so far, so good. But if Rousseau does help us understand what it means to live under the rule of common consent while also functioning within a liberal society, what is the effect of the proud claim that the rule of the church is, in fact, universal--the same everywhere, with the same Mormon culture and curricula and meetinghouses in Boise and Bangladesh? Maybe that isn't a problem; maybe we're talking about different modes of membership here. Then again, maybe it <i>is</i> a problem, one that our increasingly international church just can't avoid addressing somewhere down the line. Good thoughts, Nate. You’re right that there is more than a little Rousseau in my interpretation of what I see Bushman presenting insofar as the politics of Joseph’s vision is concerned. Not that I think the rule of “common consent” equals a perfect Rousseauian social contract, but that the terms his analysis of the social contract provides are helpful to understanding what I think Smith, at least originally, wanted to do, and what we still do today. Of course, Rousseau’s real provocation wasn’t just that he came up with a revolutionary challenge to the modern world; it’s that he used Calvinist and pietist models, as well as more respectable classical republican ones, to do so. That’s why I suggested that Bushman’s use of republicanism, while revealing in thinking about what Smith tried to put in place, could have benefited from an examination of Puritan town meetings, pietist conventicles, and other congregational and communitarian civic forms.

As for the possibility of “Rousseauian enclaves” in a liberal world, there’s something to that. But pushing that reading of church government leads us back to issues of ethnicity, identity, and membership. These kind of romantic communities depend upon not just hierarchical representation (which is arguably what Smith decided to embrace towards the end of his life), but direct unanimous participation. In other words, they can never be too big, much less “universal”–only “general.” Ok, the basic unit is the ward or branch–so far, so good. But if Rousseau does help us understand what it means to live under the rule of common consent while also functioning within a liberal society, what is the effect of the proud claim that the rule of the church is, in fact, universal–the same everywhere, with the same Mormon culture and curricula and meetinghouses in Boise and Bangladesh? Maybe that isn’t a problem; maybe we’re talking about different modes of membership here. Then again, maybe it is a problem, one that our increasingly international church just can’t avoid addressing somewhere down the line.

]]> By: Nate Oman http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2005/12/rsr-the-politics-and-personality-of-a-prophet/#comment-111255 Nate Oman Thu, 08 Dec 2005 16:05:39 +0000 http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=2755#comment-111255 Russell: Reading your review, it seemed like the the figerprints of Rousseau were all over your reading of Joseph and his approach to Church government. I would love to see you flesh this out a bit more some time. Good Anglo-American liberal that I am, I have always found the General Will more than a little frightening. However, reading your remarks made me realize that I may actually spend more of my life in a Rousseauian world than I had supposed. It seems to me that if we take Church government as an example of a Rousseuian General Will, then it matters a great deal whether we view it as a polity -- a failed state or a failed nation -- or as some sort of intermediate community embedded within a nation. Of course, one can negotiate the liberal fear of authority within a classical liberal framework by thinking of the religious community as being contractual. You make me think, however, that it might make sense to think about it as a sort of Rousseauian enclave within a liberal polity. Russell: Reading your review, it seemed like the the figerprints of Rousseau were all over your reading of Joseph and his approach to Church government. I would love to see you flesh this out a bit more some time. Good Anglo-American liberal that I am, I have always found the General Will more than a little frightening. However, reading your remarks made me realize that I may actually spend more of my life in a Rousseauian world than I had supposed.

It seems to me that if we take Church government as an example of a Rousseuian General Will, then it matters a great deal whether we view it as a polity — a failed state or a failed nation — or as some sort of intermediate community embedded within a nation. Of course, one can negotiate the liberal fear of authority within a classical liberal framework by thinking of the religious community as being contractual. You make me think, however, that it might make sense to think about it as a sort of Rousseauian enclave within a liberal polity.

]]> By: Russell Arben Fox http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2005/12/rsr-the-politics-and-personality-of-a-prophet/#comment-111253 Russell Arben Fox Thu, 08 Dec 2005 15:45:27 +0000 http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=2755#comment-111253 Thanks Rob! Reading <i>RSR</i> was a really profound experience to me. Folks bat back and forth all the time ideas and arguments relating to the possibility of the church (or any church) being a people, a polis, a refuge and an alternative to the world--not just a handmaiden to modern life, providing advice and solace, but a real eschatological vision, a Zion. There's all sorts of directions you can take that debate--civic religion, law, liberalism, social justice, economics, cultural identity, you name it. And, of course, you can even argue about whether such a vision is even desirable. Previous to reading <i>RSR</i>, I'd always kind of assumed that the parameters of this broad debate as it exists in Mormon circles was basically a result of Young's (various and oftimes failed) attempts to live out Smith's vision. (I think Bushman slightly misunderstands me here: I didn't believe that "Joseph was the idealist, Brigham the pragmatist"; I believed that our whole peculiarly Mormon <i>encounter</i> with the tension between idealism and pragmatism came out of the Brigham era.) Now I see that, on a much smaller (but perhaps for all that more poignant) scale, Joseph went through the full gamut of romatic idealism and pragmatic compromise in his own short life as well. Of course, he handled it very different than Brigham did, because his personality was different and the context was different. I won't even say he handled it as <i>well</i> as Brigham (and those who came after him) did: I think what Bushman shows us in the later Joseph is arguably part of the costs of trying to follow through on a vision of Zion without wanting to or being able to withdraw from the world in order to do so. But heaven knows he went through it all, and thus bequethed to us everything we need to struggle for the same standing before God he achieved. Hail to the prophet, indeed! Thanks Rob! Reading RSR was a really profound experience to me. Folks bat back and forth all the time ideas and arguments relating to the possibility of the church (or any church) being a people, a polis, a refuge and an alternative to the world–not just a handmaiden to modern life, providing advice and solace, but a real eschatological vision, a Zion. There’s all sorts of directions you can take that debate–civic religion, law, liberalism, social justice, economics, cultural identity, you name it. And, of course, you can even argue about whether such a vision is even desirable. Previous to reading RSR, I’d always kind of assumed that the parameters of this broad debate as it exists in Mormon circles was basically a result of Young’s (various and oftimes failed) attempts to live out Smith’s vision. (I think Bushman slightly misunderstands me here: I didn’t believe that “Joseph was the idealist, Brigham the pragmatist”; I believed that our whole peculiarly Mormon encounter with the tension between idealism and pragmatism came out of the Brigham era.) Now I see that, on a much smaller (but perhaps for all that more poignant) scale, Joseph went through the full gamut of romatic idealism and pragmatic compromise in his own short life as well. Of course, he handled it very different than Brigham did, because his personality was different and the context was different. I won’t even say he handled it as well as Brigham (and those who came after him) did: I think what Bushman shows us in the later Joseph is arguably part of the costs of trying to follow through on a vision of Zion without wanting to or being able to withdraw from the world in order to do so. But heaven knows he went through it all, and thus bequethed to us everything we need to struggle for the same standing before God he achieved. Hail to the prophet, indeed!

]]> By: Rob http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2005/12/rsr-the-politics-and-personality-of-a-prophet/#comment-111246 Rob Thu, 08 Dec 2005 15:27:07 +0000 http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=2755#comment-111246 Thanks for the fitting tribute and call to re-examine our relationship with Joseph Smith. In my home teaching message last night, I told my families that I don't even know if I would be a Christian without the leadership and prophetic model of Joseph Smith and the sociality he helped establish in the LDS Church. Hail to the Prophet! Thanks for the fitting tribute and call to re-examine our relationship with Joseph Smith. In my home teaching message last night, I told my families that I don’t even know if I would be a Christian without the leadership and prophetic model of Joseph Smith and the sociality he helped establish in the LDS Church. Hail to the Prophet!

]]>