I’m not going to try to summarize this well-organized and well-edited book in any detail. The roots of Haidt’s approach go back to the sociologist Durkheim (“social facts”) and the biologist Darwin (“group selection”). Haidt’s descriptive model of human morality draws on the results of many recent empirical researchers (cited and discussed in the text) as well as Haidt’s own research program.

In Part 1, Haidt establishes this simple proposition: Intuitions come first, strategic reasoning second. He agrees with Hume’s view that reason is the slave of the passions. In Part 2, Haidt defends this claim: There’s more to morality than harm and fairness. Besides care/harm and fairness/cheating, concepts that in the individualistic West generally define our sense of justice or a just society, his research identifies four other moral axes that inform human moral convictions more generally: liberty/oppression, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation. [See Haidt's Moral Foundations Theory website for descriptions of each moral axis.] In Part 3, Haidt investigates why humans are so inclined to form groups, and finds that morality (and religion) play a functional role that he summarizes in this phrase: Morality binds and blinds.

Religion Is a Team Sport

That’s the title to Chapter 11, which is not necessarily a central chapter for the book as a whole but offers the best material for a T&S blog discussion. Haidt first reviews what the New Atheists (Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, and Hitchens) have said about religion over the last ten years: It is an irrational system of beliefs about supernatural agents that is bad because it impels believers to do harmful things. The New Atheists employ an evolutionary psychology model to explain why all societies and most individuals embrace religion of one form or another, but see religion’s effect as an unfortunate and maladaptive by-product of our mental apparatus that, unlike most evolutionary products, makes us worse off, not better off.

Haidt critiques that view as overly simplistic and as simply irreconcilable with emerging empirical data. Group selection is the key concept: Religion enhances bonding or belonging in communities and societies, and regulates social life. Religious communities and societies (so the theory goes) are more efficient and outcompete communities without a religion. So religion is a positive force in society, not a negative or harmful feature as argued by the New Atheists. Among other studies, Haidt discusses the Putnam and Campbell data showing that religious people are more generous and more charitable, and not only toward their fellow-believers:

By many different measures religiously observant Americans are better neighbors and better citizens than secular Americans — they are more generous with their time and money, especially in helping the needy, and they are more active in community life.

[The quotation is from Putnam and Cambell's American Grace, p. 461.] While not an endorsement of the truth claims of any or all religions or denominations, Haidt’s chapter is at least an effective critique of the New Atheists. Here is Haidt’s pithy commentary and prognosis about the social effects of widespread unbelief; it almost sounds like something you’d hear in General Conference.

Societies that forego the exoskeleton of religion should reflect carefully on what will happen to them over several generations. We don’t really know, because the first atheistic societies have only emerged in Europe in the last few decades. They are the least efficient societies ever known at turning resources (of which they have a lot) into offspring (of which they have few).

A Mormon Summary

Here are a couple of Mo apps that pop out of Haidt’s discussion of religion. First, religion is much more than simply a set of beliefs about God (or gods) and the world. There are nontheistic religions. There are nonmoralistic religions. [See this prior post for discussion of the experiential, mythic, ritual, and ethical dimensions of religion.] Mormonism seems to offer a much thicker religious experience than its Protestant cousins — there’s just more meat in the Mormon religious sandwich. Haidt’s discussion helps remind us that religion is about a lot more than just a set of beliefs about God and the world. This might be a clue why Mormonism has been, on the whole, so successful since its inception in 1830, despite having an underdeveloped and sometimes simply incoherent theology.

Second, there is a tension in the Mormon psyche between seeing religion in general as a good thing, which leads us to cooperate with other denominations and say nice things about other religions, and seeing other religions and denominations as false and apostate institutions and belief systems, which comes from the One True Church doctrine. Seems like over the last twenty years we’ve been moving from the One True Church end of the spectrum toward the All Religions Are Good side. Some people advocate religious cooperation from strictly political motives, but Haidt’s analysis gives a broader social rationale for that approach. We’re not just on Team Mormon, we’re on Team Christianity and maybe even on Team Religion. Go team.

Which Christians? About fifty Christian activists from the anti-abortion group Operation Save America who are in town for the next four days. Here’s how the local paper reported yesterday’s activities: “The Kansas-based anti-abortion group Operation Save America displays graphic images of dead fetuses Wednesday on Town Square.” In the morning, they line the streets leading up to the local high school and elementary school with signs showing bloody fetuses and biblical slogans. This weekend they will target the annual Boy Scout elk antler auction held in the center of town. It is fair to conclude they are focusing their graphic and offensive (but legal) message at the youth and children of the town. They are an obnoxious bunch of Christians. Their activities are problematic on so many levels.

1. They are actually promoting abortion. The protesters are too busy offending people to notice, but the end result of their activity is to create support for the doctor in town who performs abortions — apparently the only such doctor in the state of Wyoming and who is called out by name on their signs — and to unite the community against the Christian protesters. A local blog piece, “abortion crazies met with humor, love,” about sums it up. But there is also anxiety and wariness: the doctor’s clinic here in town was bombed a few years ago (no injuries).

2. They are uniting the community. Jackson Hole United is a local group that has formed to combat the visiting Christians. Its motto: We are pro-life and pro-choice citizens of Jackson Hole standing for civility, compassion and love, united to protect our community and our children. Bumper stickers and banners sporting the slogan “civility, compassion, and love” have shown up all over town this week. Ironic, isn’t it? Diverse townsfolk uniting around civility, compassion, and love while conservative Christians line the streets promoting incivility, division, and anger.

3. This kind of puts local Christians in a tricky situation. Local churches have actually tried to defuse the situation. Here’s a quotation from another report in the local paper:

Leaders called on Paul Hayden, the pastor at Presbyterian Church of Jackson Hole, to respond to questions about Operation Save America’s intentions.
 
Hayden said he and other religious leaders in Jackson met with representatives from the anti-abortion group in an attempt to compromise. He said the local leaders explained various churches’ efforts to counsel and assist women facing unplanned pregnancies to give them options to abortion.
 
“They rejected us and our work,” he said. “They basically said, ‘We don’t care about you. We care about us and our agenda.’”

It’s natural to try and distance yourself from these protesters. Hence the sign a community member is holding in the abortion crazies article: “Obscenity and hatred do not live here.” But I haven’t seen any local Christians out there with signs reading, “These people aren’t Christian.” From a Mormon perspective, that’s an interesting omission.

4. They’re still fellow Christians, aren’t they? I haven’t had the chance to strike up a conversation on this topic with any of the local ministers yet, but I am afraid it might go something like this: I am a local Latter-day Saint who opposes elective abortion in general but, in line with LDS policy, I recognize that abortion may be appropriate in some circumstances. I oppose the intentionally offensive tactics used by the protesters and applaud the firm but measured response of the community. The minister then responds: I’m glad to hear that you support our approach and share our goals. We need more people like you in our community. It’s just too bad you belong to a non-Christian cult. Those protesters are doing everything wrong and are hurting the good Christian work we are doing in this town. But at the end of the day, they are still fellow Christians, aren’t they?

Now maybe I’m wrong. Maybe some ministers would conclude that the actions of the protesters are so inconsistent with Christian ethical norms that they are deemed to be outside the fold and that I, despite being a Latter-day Saint well within those norms, might be seen as falling within the fold. But I suspect not.

It seems like there is something wrong with that likely response. My sense is that it is inconsistent to reject any connection to the views and actions of the Christian protesters, yet at the same time affirm religious fellowship with them. That is an odd inversion of the position of accepting the similar moral views and practical actions of Latter-day Saints, yet rejecting religious fellowship with Mormons. Or perhaps those seemingly inconsistent positions are tenable for political purposes (where coalitions of diverse groups are necessary to achieve desired political ends) but not for religious purposes (where fellowship or communion are defined in religious terms, not for political or social ends).

So here’s the central question: What consequences are there to how one draws the boundaries of religious fellowship or membership? Am I wrong to think that local Christians who draw the boundaries of Christian fellowship to include the obnoxious protesters (but exclude Latter-day Saints) are, by so doing, implicitly expressing support for what the protesters are doing, despite verbal statements to the contrary?

One hears from time to time the complaint that the three-hour block of LDS Sunday meetings is too long and that talks in LDS sacrament meetings are somehow deficient, although there are various views on how exactly the typical LDS talk is falling short. Until an LDS President gets a revelation ending Sunday School, we’re stuck with the three-hour block, but we don’t need a revelation to do a better job from the pulpit. It’s worth reflecting on the strange fact that the youth talks are often the most rewarding five minutes of the meeting: they generally quote three or four scriptures in a five minute talk (which is often more than adults include in a ten or fifteen minute talk) and usually stay close to their topic. Plainly, adults ought to be able to do at least as well as the teenagers, and probably better. We’re missing something. Are things any better across the street?

The standard Christian sermon typically focuses on a text, not a topic. Those with more direct experience in other denominations can add their observations, but my sense is that the traditional sermon is one part close reading of a biblical text, one part scriptural context, commentary, and exposition related to that text, and one part application and exhortation to the congregation. It’s the close reading and exposition that gives me a case of holy envy. We’ve got plenty of exhortation. We could use more close reading.

I know, easier said than done. It would be easy to argue that because we have opted out of a professional clergy we simply lack the skills and education to do scriptural analysis and exposition from the pulpit. But there are places, such as BYU, where those skills are available in abundance, yet analysis and exposition are not pursued. (I’m thinking of Religious Education, which, like sacrament meeting, devotes most of its work to exhortation rather than education, despite having PhD level faculty with all the tools to bring analysis and exposition into the undergraduate curriculum.) General Conference is another example, where speakers have months to prepare and can draw on the considerable scholarly resources of the Church (CES, BYU, or really anyone in the Church they want to consult with), yet there is little exposition but lots of exhortation and storytelling. And the Ensign — which once offered multi-part features by LDS scholars, content by LDS professionals in various fields, and interesting speeches by apostles at BYU forums or other public events — has been correlated to death. Just kill the thing and start sending out BYU Studies instead, bundled with the New Era.

So I have two questions. First, is anyone else surprised there is so little institutional interest in this issue? The few times it does come up, the message is always that the problem is with the listeners, not the speakers or the meeting or the format. It’s like the simple question “Can we do a better job preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ from the pulpit on Sundays?” is not on anyone’s agenda. Inactivity is certainly an item of interest, and it’s hard to deny that whatever is missing from LDS meetings is part of that problem, at least for some people. A lot of institutional energy goes into designing and regularly updating a curriculum for LDS missionaries to learn and to teach. Why no similar concern for preaching the gospel from the pulpit on Sunday?

Second, can holy envy help us out at all? Would assigning texts work better than assigning topics? Sometimes close reading of a text and careful contextual analysis will conflict with traditional LDS readings, but that’s what happens when you start paying close attention to the scriptures: you learn something. As Elder Christofferson recently stated in General Conference:

We have seen of late a growing public interest in the beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is something we welcome because, after all, our fundamental commission is to teach the gospel of Jesus Christ, His doctrine, in all the world. But we must admit there has been and still persists some confusion about our doctrine and how it is established.

What better place than sacrament meeting to teach the doctrine and remove doctrinal confusion?

Any other suggestions for improvement? And I’m not foreclosing opposing viewpoints. Anyone who thinks there is no problem is welcome to weigh in as well.

At 394 pages with 12-point font (not the tiny print one sometimes finds in reference volumes) it might seem a little light for the genre, but that adds to what you might call the readability of the book. The first of four major sections presents six 10-page essays covering the entire span of the Mormon experience, essentially a short but dense course in LDS history:

• Foundation: 1820-1830, by James B. Allen
• Development: 1831-1844, by Stephen C. Taysom
• Exodus and Settlement: 1845-1869, by Ardis E. Parshall
• Conflict: 1869-1890, by W. Paul Reeve
• Transition: 1890-1941, by Thomas G. Alexander
• Expansion: 1941-Present, by Jessie L. Embry

As this list illustrates, the authors for essays and articles in the book include seasoned scholars, younger scholars, and independent scholars (those without a present academic affiliation). Bloggers are well represented: Julie Smith (Mormon Scripture), Nate Oman (Mormonism and Secular Government), Brad Kramer (Local Worship), J. Stapley (Mormon Missiology), Samuel Brown (Mormonism as Restoration), Blair Dee Hodges (Correlation), Bruce A. Crow (Mormon Battalion), just about everyone on the perm roster at Juvenile Instructor, and of course Ardis, who like her co-editor wrote about a dozen short entries as well as the longer historical essay listed above.

I am not so bold as to try to critique any particular entry or even the selection of topics — I’m sure there were dozens of potential entries that weren’t included simply because you can’t include everything in a single volume. A full table of contents for the book is available at the book’s Amazon page. The fourth section of the book, Issues, is really outstanding: 23 short articles of about five pages each on such topics as Mormonism and Blacks (by Margaret Blair Young and Darius Aidan Gray), Mormonism and Race (Armand Mauss), Mormonism as a World Religion (David Clark Knowlton), and Non-Mormon Views of Mormonism (Jan Shipps).

I hate to spend the whole review speaking in generalities without sharing a little bit of the content of this enlightening volume, so I will end with a second list giving one surprising fact or statement drawn from the biographical articles on each President of the LDS Church. I guess I’m hoping to show that these aren’t just Sunday School summaries — there really is a lot of information in the book that many readers, even well-read ones, will not have encountered before. For all presidents except Joseph Smith, I will note the years served as President of an organized First Presidency, along with the author of each article.

1. Joseph Smith, 1830-1844 (Jed Woodworth) – Joseph Smith “is not known to have preached a sermon before he organized the Church of Christ, in April 1830.”
2. Brigham Young, 1847-1877 (John G. Turner) – When Brigham moved to reorganize a First Presidency in 1847, several of the Twelve, including Orson Pratt, opposed the action.
3. John Taylor, 1880-1887 (Ardis E. Parshall) – John Taylor’s last public address was on February 1, 1884; after than, he was “on the underground” (in hiding, at various locations) until his death in 1887.
4. Wilford Woodruff, 1889-1898 (Thomas G. Alexander) – While serving as the president of the St. George temple, Woodruff introduced “vicarious temple ordinances for deceased men and women not related to Mormons — particularly national and international political, literary, and scientific leaders.”
5. Lorenzo Snow, 1898-1901 (Alan L. Morrell) – The Church was almost bankrupt when Snow took over leadership in 1898; he issued Church bonds and set the expectation that every Latter-day Saint would pay a full tithing. Church finances turned around within a few short years.
6. Joseph F. Smith, 1901-1918 (Christopher C. Jones) – The man who really ended polygamy with the Second Manifesto of 1904, part of a successful transition from the confrontational stance of the 19th-century Church to the accommodationist stance (my term) of the 20th-century Church.
7. Heber J. Grant, 1918-1945 (W. Paul Reeve) – Grant served as President almost 27 years and oversaw the emergence of two defining features of modern Mormonism: during Prohibition, “a more stringent implementation of the Word of Wisdom”; and during the Great Depression, the Church Welfare Program.
8. George Albert Smith, 1945-1951 (Gary James Bergera) – Married just after his 22nd birthday, he and his wife together served an LDS mission to the southern states from 1892 to 1894.
9. David O. McKay, 1951-1970 (Gregory A. Prince) – A clean-shaven monogamist and “the first college graduate to serve as president.” Along with Ernest Wilkinson, “transform[ed] BYU from a small, bucolic college into the largest private university in the United States.”
10. Joseph Fielding Smith, 1970-1972 (Matthew Bowman) – Church Historian from 1921 to 1970, his 1938 publication of The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith made many of Joseph’s teachings “available to the general public for the first time.”
11. Harold B. Lee, 1972-1973 (J. B. Haws) – Mr. Correlation.
12. Spencer W. Kimball, 1973-1985 (Jacob W. Olmstead) – Kimball successfully opposed “efforts to deploy the MX missle in the Great Basin in 1981.” And there was that revelation in 1978.
13. Ezra Taft Benson, 1985-1994 (J. B. Haws) – To the surprise of some, “the preeminent focus of his ministry [as President of the Church] was the Book of Mormon,” not anti-Communism. See the 1988 Conference talk Flooding the Earth With the Book of Mormon.
14. Howard W. Hunter, 1994-1995 (W. Paul Reeve) – The first LDS President born in the 20th century; also the shortest tenure (8 months, 26 days) of any LDS President.
15. Gordon B. Hinckley, 1995-2008 (Gary James Bergera) – Called as an additional counselor to President Kimball in 1981, “Hinckley guided the Church as de facto president” during Kimball’s last years in the mid-1980s, then again acted as de facto president during President Benson’s decline in the early 1990s.
16. Thomas S. Monson, 2010-present (Gary James Bergera) – President Monson spearheaded efforts to build an LDS temple in East Germany (completed 1985) and to secure permission for LDS missionaries to proselyte there (1988). At the time, these were stunning developments, coming several years before the Berlin Wall came down (1989) and Germany reunified (1990).

My advice: beg, borrow, or buy this book. You will enjoy it.

I keep my visions to myself.
Have you any dreams you’d like to sell?

Mormons tend not to keep their visions to themselves. In his recent General Conference talk “How to Obtain Revelation and Inspiration for Your Personal Life,” Elder Richard G. Scott seems to be inviting Mormons to do the same with their dreams.

The talk starts out along predictable lines for a talk on personal revelation, describing revelation as important information communicated by the Holy Ghost that is “crisp and clear and essential,” whereas inspiration is merely a “series of promptings” that “guide[s] us step by step to a worthy objective.” Elder Scott describes his own approach to obtaining personal revelation: fast, pray to find helpful scriptures, then read and ponder and pray and read and ponder. Anger, hurt, defensiveness, loud and inappropriate laughter, and exaggeration “drive away the Holy Ghost”; exercise, a good night’s sleep, and “good eating habits” enhance spiritual communication. He then gives this interesting counsel on dreams:

Revelation can also be given in a dream when there is an almost imperceptible transition from sleep to wakefulness. If you strive to capture the content immediately, you can record great detail, but otherwise it fades rapidly. Inspired communication in the night is generally accompanied by a sacred feeling for the entire experience. The Lord uses individuals for whom we have great respect to teach us truths in a dream because we trust them and will listen to their counsel. It is the Lord doing the teaching through the Holy Ghost. However, He may in a dream make it both easier to understand and more likely to touch our hearts by teaching us through someone we love and respect.

As he uses the previously defined terms revelation and inspiration in that passage, it seems reasonable to think that a dream that is “crisp and clear and essential” would be a form of revelation.

What’s Doctrinal

What is LDS doctrine when it comes to dreams? The LDS Bible Dictionary offers half a sentence, stating that dreams are “one of the means by which God communicates with men.” (Sorry, ladies.) Brent L. Top offers a bit more in the entry “Revelation” in LDS Beliefs: A Doctrinal Reference (Deseret Book, 2011), giving scripture, the light of Christ, and the Spirit of God as revelatory conduits that induce revelatory thoughts (quoting Joseph Smith, “when you feel pure intelligence flowing into you” as “sudden strokes of ideas”) and revelatory feelings (quoting D&C 9:8, “your bosom shall burn within you” and “you shall feel that it is right”). He then adds, “Divine messages from God can also come in the form of visions, visitations, inspired dreams, and other direct and miraculous means.”

What’s Troubling

One pitfall that Elder Scott tries to avoid is the question of who is doing the communicating. In the paragraph quoted above, Elder Scott was careful to clarify the source: “It is the Lord doing the teaching through the Holy Ghost.” But earlier in the talk he acknowledged strength and support from “the other side of the veil,” suggesting that some sort of communication or influence comes to us directly from individual spirits. On the first reading, if dear departed Uncle Orville appears to you in a revelatory dream — one that is “crisp and clear and essential” and that you write down quickly upon awakening so you don’t forget the details — it’s not really a message from Uncle Orville, it’s a message from God via the Holy Ghost. But I suspect many recipients of such a dream would run with the second option and accept the dream as a communication direct from Uncle Orville.

Another wrong turn I can see would be if this talk spurs increased sharing of what are held to be personal revelatory dreams. Testimony meeting would, I suppose, be the natural venue for this sort of sharing, although I could see it happening in lessons as well. The title of Elder Scott’s talk seems to counsel against this practice by limiting the application to “your personal life,” but he didn’t really emphasize that limitation in the body of the talk. Besides, the line between personal life and public life is quickly disappearing. Once upon a time, “your personal life” implied private matters; nowadays, “your personal life” means your last ten Facebook posts and your Twitter feed. If a bishop were to be so bold as to quietly counsel a bit more discretion by someone who recounted a personal dream in some detail at the pulpit, I suspect the response might be: “I know it’s my personal life; that’s why I’m telling everyone about it.”

But the biggest trouble I have with recommending dream analysis as a form of personal revelation is there are no real boundaries. At least visions are relatively rare phenomena; dreams come to almost all people on almost any night. And there is nothing uniquely Mormon or even Christian about dreams or about claims that God communicates through dreams. Dreams (and visions too, for that matter) contain an array of symbols that tend to be, well, symbolic, and therefore susceptible to a wide variety of interpretations. Seven fat cows, seven lean; a large stone rolling down a hill; God on his throne surrounded by numberless concourses of angels. Dream analysis is tricky business. People who interpret their dreams tend to read meaning into them rather than out of them. It’s a form of projection, not the deciphering of an intentional message encoded in the recollected dream. I’m not sure the “crisp and clear and essential” test will permit objective discrimination between personal dreams (where people read meaning into their dreams) and revelatory dreams (where people receive messages from God).

There’s a third option of course: demonic communication, a message from the wrong source. Satanic influence and temptation is the flip side to divine inspiration, and it is held to operate by Satan or one of his fellow demons implanting tempting or misleading thoughts in your mind. Recall the experience Hiram Page who, following the example of Joseph Smith, started “receiving revelations” through “a certain stone” concerning “the upbuilding of Zion.” Seems like a worthy goal, and nothing suggests Brother Page had anything but good intentions. But Joseph was directed to tell Hiram Page that “those things which he hath written from that stone are not of me and that Satan deceiveth him.” Instead, “all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith.” (D&C 28 heading; verses 11 and 13.) That statement, like Elder Scott’s “crisp and clear and essential,” appears to be giving a method for discriminating between divine communication and not-so-divine communication, whether that be demonic communication or just introspective thoughts, such as spontaneously generated dreams. I’m not sure either formula really delivers on its promise. And if you can’t discriminate between divine, demonic, and autonomous dreams, what’s the point?

The simpler solution, in line with the traditional reading of D&C 28, is to say that only Joseph or his successors in office can get revelation through the appointed medium of communication, whether it be seer stones, dreams, tea leaves, or the entrails of sacrificed animals (recall the “other direct and miraculous means” referred to by Brent Top). That’s a simple, objective approach. “Keep your visions and your dreams to yourself” might be the better rule.

Note: Epigraph by Stevie Nicks, “Dreams,” on Fleetwood Mac’s Rumours (1977).

While gay marriage has garnered headlines, polygamy or plural marriage is waiting in the wings. Every few years a polygamy case works its way through Utah courts and then quietly goes away. The latest case might not go so quietly: Brown v. Herbert, filed July 13, 2011 in federal court in Utah. Defendants filed a 12b1 motion to dismiss for lack of standing. On February 3, 2012 the court issued a Memorandum Decision and Order granting the motion as to two of the defendants (the Governor and Attorney General of Utah, both in their official capacities) but denying the motion as to the County Attorney of Utah County. So the case will go forward and Plaintiffs (the Brown family featured in the TV series Sister Wives) will have a chance to present their case in federal court.

And what is their argument? “Plaintiffs have filed this case to challenge Utah Code Ann. § 76-7-101 … as unconstitutional and enjoining its enforcement.” (Memorandum Decision, page 1.) Here is the text of Utah Code § 76-7-101, the anti-bigamy statute, included in the Utah Criminal Code under the suggestive classification “Offenses Against the Family”:

(1) A person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person.
(2) Bigamy is a felony of the third degree.
(3) It shall be a defense to bigamy that the accused reasonably believed he and the other person were legally eligible to remarry.

Notice the wording “purports to marry another person.” Under common law (and most modern criminal law derives from common law) the first marriage was valid but a purported second marriage was void. Technically, there was no second marriage, which raised tricky issues for prosecuting bigamy (Second marriage? What second marriage?). Modernly, licensing statutes accomplish a similar result. Utah Code § 30-1-7: “No marriage may be solemnized in this state without a license issued by the county clerk of any county of this state.” And you can’t get a license for a concurrent second marriage, hence any attempted second marriage will not be recognized by the state, either because no marriage license was granted or because one was obtained fraudulently. Thus the second clause in the first paragraph of § 76-7-101, “… or cohabits with another person.” That simplifies prosecution but, this being the year 2012, cohabitation as a basis for criminal liability may be problematic. Can the government still hold consenting adults (in any number and in any configuration of sexes or genders) criminally liable simply for living together? If it isn’t a crime for a guy to live with his girlfriend, is it a crime for a guy to live with two girlfriends? Or with a wife and two girlfriends? Will a court in 2012 be willing to make that distinction, or will it throw out the Utah statute as uncontitutional?

However, ruling the statute unconstitutional raises other constitutional issues. Here is Article 3, Section 1 of the Utah Constitution:

Perfect toleration of religious sentiment is guaranteed. No inhabitant of this State shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship; but polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited.

So the constitutionality of the statute raises the issue of the constitutionality of this clause in the Utah State Constitution. Furthermore, it was Congress that required that clause to be included in the Utah Constitution when it approved statehood for Utah in the Utah Enabling Act of 1894. Here is the langauge from the Act directing provisions to be included in the constitution to be drafted for the future State of Utah:

The Constitution shall be republican in form, and make no distinction in civil or political rights on account of race or color, except as to Indians not taxed, and not to be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence. And said Convention shall provide, by ordinance irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people of said State

First. That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and that no inhabitant of said State shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship: Provided, That polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited.

So it is not simply a matter of Utah amending its state constitution to conform with a possible opinion by the federal district court (as possibly affirmed by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court). Utah may be prohibited from amending its constitution without the permission of Congress.

Which brings us to the final section of the Memorandum Decision, in which the court states that “notice will be given to the United States to determine if it wishes to intervene” in the case. That section also references an October 28, 2011 Order to Show Cause why “the United States should not be joined as a required party due to its interest in Utah’s prohibition of polygamous or plural marriages as a condition for granting statehood, as stated in the Utah Enabling Act of 1894.” (Memorandum Decision, page 20.)

I don’t know that the United States can really dodge this issue, but either position raises difficult questions. Would the United States defend the statute and the Utah Constitution, arguing that mere cohabitation in certain arrangements, but not others, is still criminally liable? Or would the United States decline to defend the statute, opening the door not only to officially tolerated plural cohabitation (which may be the de facto case already, except in Utah County) but also to legal plural marriage? This touches not only plural marriage as presently practiced by Mormon fundamentalists but also Islamic polygamy presently if quietly practiced in the United States (see articles here and here for a quick introduction). All this, with two presidential candidates who each have polygamy in their family histories.

It is still possible this case will, like previous cases, end quietly. The court could yet find the issue moot, and dismiss the entire case, if Utah County officials credibly state they will not, now or ever, prosecute the Browns for violating the statute, despite apparent public statements to the contrary. But fairly strong language in the Memorandum Decision suggests the court will not entertain that argument, and Plaintiffs seem intent on having the case heard on the merits. This may not be the last time you read about Brown v. Herbert.

Douthat’s point in the essay is that the religious center or “religious mainstream” doesn’t really exist anymore in America and that this year’s crop of presidential candidates reflects this development: “In 2012, we finally have a presidential field whose diversity mirrors the diversity of American Christianity as a whole. Barack Obama, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum all identify as Christians, but their theological traditions and personal experiences of faith diverge more starkly than any group of presidential contenders in recent memory.”

He goes on to describe what is often called religious diversity but sounds more like religious anarchy:

These divergences reflect America as it actually is: We’re neither traditionally Christian nor straightforwardly secular. Instead, we’re a nation of heretics in which most people still associate themselves with Christianity but revise its doctrines as they see fit, and nobody can agree on even the most basic definitions of what Christian faith should mean.

There is no shortage of pressing domestic and foreign policy issues, yet Douthat thinks we are likely to get campaign rhetoric full of religious “division, demonization and polarization.” I hope for better, but I fear the worst. It’s going to be a long election year.

Overview

The book is dense enough that only a long and thorough review can do it justice. I consider this post to be a discussion of some interesting points raised by the book rather than a full or even a short review. I won’t even attempt a summary of the book (the table of contents and the description of the book from the dust jacket are available at the linked publisher’s page). This paragraph from the Introduction (p. 8) gives something like an overview and also a taste of the author’s approach:

After the Book of Mormon emerged as a distinctive grave artifact in the late 1820s, Joseph Smith continued to explore relics and rituals central to the problem of death. In the late 1830s, after moving to Ohio, Smith acquired and interpreted Egyptian mummies and their funerary papyri. Finally arriving in Illinois, where he founded a biblical-sounding utopia called Nauvoo, Smith elaborated his religious vision, encompassing an afterlife theology that could vanquish death, ensure permanent personal election, and maintain the human family intact forever in a sacerdotal structure. To this end, Smith drew on, adapted, and reformulated rites and doctrines from sources inside and outside normative Protestantism, yielding an intensely biblical system that combined elements of the Radical Reformation, Western esotericism, and Christian perfectionism. By the time of his death, Smith had revealed a polyvalent family system, a utopian communitarianism grounded in mystical traditions about Enoch, a temple liturgy that taught his followers how to negotiate the afterlife and promised them postmortal divinity, and a scandalously anthropomorphic God whom all humans could call Father. These surprisingly varied themes and innovations of early Mormonism find coherence in Smith’s encounters with, and attempted conquest of, death.

In the book’s favor, it does a better job of relating and synthesizing this material than prior book-length attempts. Brooke’s The Refiner’s Fire went too far afield and did not make the case for causal connections between the hermetic material he reviewed and Joseph Smith. Brown stays closer to home with his material. Davies’ The Mormon Culture of Salvation has a thesis that is similar to Brown’s, but employed a variety of models from religious studies and the sociology of religion to guide the analysis. In contrast, Brown bases his discussion on a much larger set of detailed historical facts and employs no social science models (although he does cite the literature from time to time). I found Brown’s fact-based discussion more credible than Davies’ model-driven discussion. To compare favorably with both Brooke and Davies, two well-respected scholars, is certainly an admirable accomplishment.

Issues

At the same time, I have a few issues with the book. First, I’m not convinced foregrounding a “Mormon conquest of death” theme is defensible. First, there is nothing unique about the Mormon view of a “conquest of death.” Every Christian denomination takes the conquest of death as a common point of departure, rooted in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It’s not like existential dread hangs over most people or other Christians until they convert to a Mormon doctrine of salvation that promises unique access to immortality and the afterlife. Even the Mormon claim of eternal families is hardly unique: while not incorporated in the formal theology of other Christian denominations, most Christians nevertheless assume their families will be around in the next life. No one thinks of heaven as a form of solitary confinement where you would be barred from contact with former family members. “[T]hat same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there” (D&C 130:2).

More generally, there’s an odd connotation to the term “conquest of death.” It brings up images of familiar movie plots where some 19th-century eccentric is hacking his way through the African rain forest in search of the fountain of youth or the golden elixir of life. And there is a secular view, often enough reflected in media stories on religion these days, that all religious beliefs are in some sense strange, not much different from the jungle eccentric on a misguided quest for a technology of eternal life. To confirm that bias journalists are drawn to stories that accentuate strange and bizarre religious beliefs or practices. I don’t know what Brown’s own perspective is (the author reveals very little in the book), but making “the Mormon conquest of death” the central theme of the book perhaps unwittingly plays the same game, suggesting it is also the central theme of Joseph’s life and the central concern of modern Latter-day Saints. As noted in the book, Joseph lost several family members during his life, which understandably intensified his feelings on the subject (see D&C 137, for example). But the implicit suggestion that Latter-day Saints in general have a strange preoccupation with death is an idea that will not survive actual attendance at a Mormon funeral, which is more likely to give the impression that Mormons do not take the idea of death seriously enough.

Brown does attempt to define the term “conquest of death” in broader terms:

When … I refer to death “conquest,” I mean a set of approaches to the meaning of life, a framing of aspirations for the afterlife, and controversies about the security of stability of salvation, as expressed in human struggles with mortality. When and under what circumstances life ends, how much of earthly experience will persist, and what constitutes preparation for death are problems that can be distinguished from salvation per se. Framing Mormonism as an attempted conquest of death illuminates its theology and enriches the texture of the lived experience of believers. (p. 5)

I’m not sure that broad definition was really carried forward through the balance of the book. I don’t think a balanced discussion of an LDS view of the meaning of life or an LDS view of the stability of salvation would focus on the themes discussed in the book. My sense is that such a discussion would reflect what we used to call the Plan of Salvation (now known as the Plan of Happiness), essentially “salvation per se.” So my impression was that the book’s discussion of the “Mormon conquest of death” was rather narrower than the definition given by Brown implies.

Conclusion

So what’s the right perspective or balance for a book about Joseph Smith or early Mormonism? The topics and themes treated in Brown’s book are part of the story, of course. A very good discussion can be had over how much weight to accord those themes as opposed to others that generally get more coverage in a biography of Joseph Smith or a history of early Mormonism. I think the book would be stronger if a chapter were devoted to that discussion and an effort was made to place the themes discussed in the book within the fuller context of Joseph Smith’s life and early Mormonism.

That is a discussion that could easily apply to present-day Mormonism as well. So a case can be made that the book is more than just a discussion of (what I consider to be) marginal themes and practices in early Mormonism. Consider the rise of “temple Mormonism” in just the last generation: a vastly expanded temple construction program, coupled with a redefinition of normative Mormonism in which holding a temple recommend is now essentially a requirement of being a Mormon in good standing (rather than simply being a baptized, attending, believing member of the Church), even extending to the use of the temple recommend as a requirement for teaching at BYU or for confirming one’s son or daughter a member of the Church.

Both esoteric doctrine and temple Mormonism fall on the retrenchment side of Armand Mauss’s assimilation/retrenchment spectrum, emphasizing Mormon distinctiveness rather than community with other Christians. It may be that the direction of current LDS organizational and doctrinal change implies that the themes discussed by Brown, which I view as being largely marginal to present LDS belief and practice, are in fact becoming the new Mormon mainstream, but I hope not. I won’t give up without a fight.

Let’s start with Elder Christofferson’s recent Conference talk titled “The Doctrine of Christ,” which was both an admission that we have a problem and a bold step toward a solution. Here’s the admission:

We have seen of late a growing public interest in the beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is something we welcome because, after all, our fundamental commission is to teach the gospel of Jesus Christ, His doctrine, in all the world (see Matthew 28:19–20; D&C 112:28). But we must admit there has been and still persists some confusion about our doctrine and how it is established.

As the Bott Affair made clear last month, the confusion is not restricted to journalists or outsiders but extends to insiders, Mormons, us. If a BYU religion professor can’t get the doctrine straight, we have a serious institutional problem.

Moving toward a solution, Elder Christofferson first noted that only apostles can announce doctrine: “[E]stablishing the doctrine of Christ or correcting doctrinal deviations is a matter of divine revelation to those the Lord endows with apostolic authority.” The recent LDS press release is a rare (at least up until now) example of a definitive official apostolic doctrinal statement. It said the statements made by Professor Bott “do not represent the teachings and doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” Elder Christofferson continued:

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.

Of course, as helpful as that statement is in providing a rationale for dismissing opinion (even well-considered opinion) rather than automatically elevating every statement of every leader to doctrinal status, that statement is itself just a well-considered opinion made by a single leader on a single occasion. Let’s hope it gets repeated by other apostolic speakers in coming months and years.

I’m certainly not the only one to sense that the confusing state of Mormon doctrine is suddenly a problem. At Peculiar People, the newest LDS group blog on the block, Matt Bowman discussed “Why Is It So Hard to Figure Out What Mormons Believe?” While noting the advantages of a pragmatic rather than a formal approach to theology, he nevertheless observed its key failing:

But there is no creed, catechism, or systematic theology to hold Mormonism to any fixed point, and therefore, the cluster of ideas that make up Mormon doctrine, all of which at some time or another seemed the unvarnished truth to some group of saints or another, is in a constant state of evolution.

Joanna Brooks weighed in as well:

Mormonism has no professional clergy, no theological-scholarly corps. There is no regularly recited doctrinal creed. For well over a hundred years the tradition has been conveyed by word-of-mouth in thousands of lay-taught Sunday School classes and around kitchen tables and campfires. A correlated, cradle-to-grave curriculum was developed in the 1950s, but beyond central tenets of what Mormons might call “the gospel” — faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism; the inspired origins of the LDS Church and Mormon scripture; the eternal significance of families — Mormonism remains a theological “jungle,” as one eminent LDS scholar put it.

So welcome to the jungle. But we don’t want a doctrinal jungle, we want Paradise City. How are we going to get there?

Elder L. Tom Perry of the Twelve on the Book of Mormon teaching the doctrine of Christ:

• The theme of deliverance appears frequently in the Book of Mormon, as in the account of the people of Limhi and the similar account of the more faithful people of Alma, both in the book of Mosiah.
• The message extends to spiritual deliverance as well as temporal deliverance.
• The forces of secularism are now attacking the scriptures as well as criticizing religious freedom as taught in the scriptures.
• We can be delivered from the power of evil by reading the scriptures. Quoting Ezra Taft Benson: “When used together, the Bible and the Book of Mormon confound false doctrine.”

Elder M. Russell Ballard of the Twelve on threats to the family:

• Likens Lehi’s reaction to the Liahona to his own reaction to GPS devices. For us, in a world where so many have lost their way, the Holy Ghost can keep us on the proper path and preserve our family life.
• More than half of U.S. births to women under 30 now occur outside of marriage. Family breakdown is causing a host of social ills.
• In the Church, we believe good values and strong families give rise to prosperity and economic well being, not the other way around. Stable families are the foundation for educational achievement by children. Marriage first, then family.
• “Evil becomes ever more deceptive and subtle.” But Christian service by Latter-day Saints can reach out to others across these social and economic divides and stand as an example of good in the world.
• Counsel: Prioritize activities inside your home over outside diversions. Make time for family scripture study, prayer, and activities. Avoid extended bachelorhood.

Elder O. Vincent Haleck of the Seventy on catching the vision of God’s plan for us:

• Peter’s reply to Jesus: “To whom shall we go? Thou has the words of eternal life.”
• Abinidi and Paul caught the vision of God’s plan for us and what we can become, then went forth and preached the gospel with power and success.
• We must focus our vision on the Savior, his teachings, and his example.

Elder Larry Y. Wilson of the Seventy on allowing others to exercise their moral agency:

• Story: How not to tell you wife how to drive. No control, dominion, or compulsion should be exercised in any degree of unrighteousness. Unrighteous dominion undermines trust.
• Don’t infringe on another’s moral agency. You can’t just force others to do the right thing. Even women can exercise unrighteous dominion.
• Parents: don’t wait until kids leave the home to give them the power to make some of their own decisions. Example: his daughter’s championship soccer game, on Sunday. She decided to play, but regretted it after the game. You need to show some trust in them.

Elder David F. Evans of the Seventy, on building the Lord’s church where you live:

• What can I do to build up the Lord’s church where I live? Strengthen your families, prepare your children for baptism, teach them to believe in Christ in line with 2 Nephi 25:26.
• Share the gospel with those you know who are not members of the Church; bring back those who are members but are not active. You can bring about a miracle.
• Story: Is it worth it, all this effort to bring someone into or back into the Church? Yes, it is!

Elder Paul B. Pieper of the Seventy on giving priority to the sacred:

• Moses, Alma, Joseph Smith: all changed by “encounters with divine,” then never wavered from their appointed sacred prophetic tasks.
• Recognize, remember, and hold sacred that which you receive from above. Practice daily reflection in a journal.
• Secular versus sacred: We are directed to study and learn from the best books, so there is a place for both. Keep in mind the overall priority of the sacred, especially given the rising influence of secularism in modern society.

Elder Neil L. Anderson of the Twelve on Christian discipleship:

• We rejoice in being disciples of Jesus Christ. Discipleship is an invitation to all. It becomes a lifelong migration toward eternal life.
• Recounts touching stories of discipleship in action.
• Miracles you want in this life will not always come to pass. In this life we often face tribulation, but in the world to come God will make all things right.

President Thomas S. Monson in closing:

• We live in troubled times, but God is mindful of the challenges we face. May we call upon him in prayer, that His Spirit may be poured out upon us.
• May your homes be filled with love, courtesy, and the Spirit of the Lord. Settle your family disputes quickly.
• “I invoke the blessings of heaven upon each of you. May the things you have heard make you better than you were.”