{"id":23637,"date":"2012-12-11T00:02:30","date_gmt":"2012-12-11T05:02:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/?p=23637"},"modified":"2012-12-11T00:02:30","modified_gmt":"2012-12-11T05:02:30","slug":"another-surreply","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/2012\/12\/another-surreply\/","title":{"rendered":"Another Surreply"},"content":{"rendered":"

Over at FMH, rah has a post responding to my “How Mormonism Changes” post<\/a>. \u00a0As I read it, she has basically three objections to my post. \u00a0First, she insists that I misunderstand the motivations of liberal Mormons, which are grounded in genuine love and concern for others rather than ideological\u00a0embarrassment. \u00a0Second, she suggests that historically the priesthood ban’s elimination had more to do with evolution within the hierarchy than it did with progression of the membership of the church. \u00a0Third, she claims that the model of prophecy I propose is mistaken or the like because it does not appear in the scriptures. \u00a0Here are some thoughts in responses.<\/p>\n

First, on the historical issue I actually agree with her. \u00a0I think that creating unanimity among the highest leadership made it very difficult to abandon the priesthood ban. \u00a0There was certainly a lot of racist theology taught in\u00a0justification\u00a0of the ban that ought to be examined and rejected. \u00a0What is interesting to me is that despite the deep divisions among the leadership, the abandonment of the ban met with essentially zero opposition from the membership of the church. \u00a0This historically was not always been the case with major ecclesiastical changes in Mormonism. \u00a0I think that the lack of opposition among the membership was really quite striking and worth thinking about. \u00a0I certainly do not think that the priesthood ban was without enormous costs for individuals and the church.<\/p>\n

Second, the liberal Mormons that I know, have read, or otherwise interacted with all seem to be human beings. \u00a0(All of them except Brad Kramer, at any rate.) \u00a0As human beings I suspect that they have complicated inner lives. \u00a0I don’t think that they are motivated by social\u00a0embarrassment\u00a0at cocktail parties. \u00a0I suspect that they are motivated by their moral and political convictions, but I also suspect that these convictions — like everyone else’s convictions — arise from a mixture of biography, reflection, and social context. \u00a0When I wrote about “ideological embarrassment,” I meant two things. \u00a0The first is a sense of cognitive dissonance in which one’s religious identity and deepest political convictions clash. \u00a0The second is a sense of social unease. \u00a0Understandably, rah rejects the idea that such a sense of social unease matters to liberal Mormons, putting forth a purer narrative. \u00a0I am sure that what she says is true much of the time, but I am skeptical that it is true all of the time. \u00a0Let me put it more bluntly: I operate in a fairly politically liberal milieu professionally (legal academia) and within that mileu Mormonism is often regarded as racist, homophobic, and misogynistic. \u00a0I also write about Mormon legal history, which puts me in the position of discussing Mormonism from time to time professionally with colleagues. \u00a0I feel ideologically embarrassed when I have to explain certain aspects of Mormon history or doctrine, and my political ideology tends libertarian rather than progressive<\/em>. \u00a0That sense of social alienation that my religion causes for me professionally is actually something I have thought a lot about. \u00a0It is part of the cognitive dissonance I work my way through. \u00a0Now it may be that folks who self-identify as more liberal than myself have such a burning sense of moral purity that they never concern themselves with such social alienation. \u00a0I am, however, doubtful.<\/p>\n

Third, rah’s post suggested that my model of prophets cannot be found in the scriptures. \u00a0There is some truth to this objection. \u00a0On the other hand, in the scriptures the roles of prophet, priest, and communal leader are generally separated. \u00a0One exception is Moses. \u00a0In Joseph Smith’s translation and commentary on the Exodus narratives he does offer something like the theory I put forward. \u00a0In Joseph’s retelling of the story, the original law delivered to Moses was the the fullness of the Gospel. \u00a0After the golden calf incident, however, this law is lost and the lesser law of Moses is given to the Israelites. \u00a0Paul hints at something like this interpretation of Exodus as well, when he speaks of the Law as a schoolmaster. \u00a0Paul also wrote:<\/p>\n

Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. \u00a0To the Jews, I became like a Jew, to win Jews. \u00a0To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. \u00a0To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. \u00a0To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. \u00a0I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. (1 Cor. 9:19-22 NIV)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This is something like the sensibility that I am thinking of. \u00a0Likewise, Joseph Smith often spoke of doctrines that he would teach if only the people were ready for it. \u00a0Likewise, Brigham Young often complained that he was limited in what he could do and reveal because of the people that he led. \u00a0To be clear, I don’t actually think that the Brethren are a cabal of uber-progressives bent on unleashing change on the Church. \u00a0I think that they are on the whole a cautious bunch. \u00a0Generally, I think this is a good thing. \u00a0Sometimes it is regrettable. \u00a0My point is that regardless of their motives, plans, or inspiration they face constraints from the membership.<\/p>\n

A final point: rah suggests that I dismissed Susan B. Anthony and Martin Luther King, Jr. as cranks. \u00a0This is simply not true. \u00a0My point was not that we shouldn’t be impressed by such people but that we should be less impressed than many liberal Mormons of my acquaintance are by the <i>persona<\/i> of the visionary activist. \u00a0This isn’t because visionary activists don’t at times do great things in the world, but rather because many of those that adopt this persona are destructive cranks. \u00a0MLK was a great man. \u00a0Ghandi was a great man. \u00a0Robespierre was a destructive fanatic, although one whose motives seem to have been remarkably pure. \u00a0My only point is that downshifting the emotional and moral importance one gives to this persona is probably a good idea. \u00a0One’s substantive convictions may remain the same, but one’s emotional and spiritual life will probably have a bit less strum and drang.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Over at FMH, rah has a post responding to my “How Mormonism Changes” post. \u00a0As I read it, she has basically three objections to my post. \u00a0First, she insists that I misunderstand the motivations of liberal Mormons, which are grounded in genuine love and concern for others rather than ideological\u00a0embarrassment. \u00a0Second, she suggests that historically the priesthood ban’s elimination had more to do with evolution within the hierarchy than it did with progression of the membership of the church. \u00a0Third, she claims that the model of prophecy I propose is mistaken or the like because it does not appear in the scriptures. \u00a0Here are some thoughts in responses. First, on the historical issue I actually agree with her. \u00a0I think that creating unanimity among the highest leadership made it very difficult to abandon the priesthood ban. \u00a0There was certainly a lot of racist theology taught in\u00a0justification\u00a0of the ban that ought to be examined and rejected. \u00a0What is interesting to me is that despite the deep divisions among the leadership, the abandonment of the ban met with essentially zero opposition from the membership of the church. \u00a0This historically was not always been the case with major ecclesiastical changes in Mormonism. \u00a0I […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":10,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-23637","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-corn"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23637","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/10"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=23637"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23637\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":23647,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23637\/revisions\/23647"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23637"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23637"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23637"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}