Elite Religion and Common Religion
by Kaimi Wenger
Recently, I’ve been thinking about the topic of elite religion versus popular religion. In particular, it seems that the development of FARMS and other intellectual centers of Mormon studies has resulted in a division of sorts. On the one hand, Mormon studies scholars believe in a world where the Nephites lived in a tiny section of Central America, where the Hill Cumorah is somewhere in Guatemala, where the flood was a localized event, and where Joseph Smith was polygamous and polyandrous. On the other hand, most church members believe in a world where the Lehites covered the Americas, the Hill Cumorah is in New York, the flood was worldwide, and Joseph’s polygamy is never mentioned. Common church members believe the prophet is never wrong; elites believe the prophet may have opinions that are incorrect (such as men on the moon). Common members believe that women have never held any type of priesthood; elites point out early church instances of women wielding priesthood or quasi-priesthood authority. And so forth. Bridging this chasm are church leaders, who sometimes seem to favor one worldview, and sometimes another.
It seems the more that FARMS scholars research and write, the more that apologists respond to anti-Mormon attacks, the further away they move from the common beliefs that constitute and underlie lived Mormonism for most actual members. Is the church dividing in two? Is FARMS Mormonism even the same religion as the one I hear in Sacrament Meeting? And, if not, why? — and who, if anyone, needs to change?
On the one hand, this seems similar to common misperceptions about law that I notice as an attorney. Many people in the United States believe that the Constitution or the laws contain rights or provisions that aren’t there. I have had conversations where others have invoked a “constitutional right to happiness” that doesn’t exist. I’ve had discussions with people who think that a popular vote carries greater authority than a constitutional provision.
These kinds of statements show that many people simply don’t bother to educate themselves about topics. And society is governed by the laws as they really exist, not the laws as the public perceives them.
On the surface, the elite/common differences seem similar. But I’m not sure that these two phenomena are really the same. After all, there is a correct answer to “does the constitution contain a right to happiness” (it is “no”). We can go to the document and verify this.
On the other hand, is there really a correct answer to “did the Nephites live in Central America, or all over North and South America”? What are we to believe when a FARMS scholar states that evidence shows that the limited geography hypothesis is correct, but a general authority refers to all Native Americans as Lamanites? Is the elite religion correct, or the common religion?
And, until (if and when) ideas like the limited geography hypothesis are endorsed by church leaders, can we (should we?) hold these out to non-members as being indicative of church belief? When someone asks me “what do Mormons think of Native Americans?”, should I refer them to Sorenson’s articles on limited geography, or to the Book of Mormon introduction? (I’ve brought this topic up before, and have been told by elite-religion advocates that elite-religion views should be shared, because those are more correct. But if they’re really more correct, why aren’t they more widespread as church doctrine?). We certainly get angry when non-members refer to schismatic Mormons as Mormons — but should we be equally upset if they attribute to us beliefs that are in fact widely held by members?
At the end, I remain confused as to how I’m supposed to assemble this little structure called church beliefs. My daily and weekly contact is with members who have simple common-religion beliefs; blogging puts me in contact with many elite-religion advocates. I would like to use the scholarly insights of elite religion to bolster my everyday beliefs. But I must confess that I haven’t found any easy ways to blend these with the weekly church attendance and church doctrine as I try to live it as a member.
Tremendous post, Kaimi. If you don’t get a lot of comments initially, it is because we are going to have to think about this one for awhile.
Comment by Julie in Austin — 4/28/2004 @ 3:51 pm
Kaimi: are you looking for a synthesis of the two? A way to combine the best of both? Is there really a difference between “elite” and “common” views on the inhabitants of the Americas. Can’t both be correct & co-exist? Or is this just another example of knowing more & more re: less & less or Vice versa?
Comment by lyle — 4/28/2004 @ 3:57 pm
The church has a threefold mission; viz., proclaiming the gospel, perfecting the saints, and redeeming the dead. When it comes to understanding pre-scientific or non-academic history, I seems to me that the church needn’t and shouldn’t have an “official” position. And so I don’t see a fundamental tension between advocates of different understandings. Call me naive or conveniently blind, but it seems to me to be a sideshow.
Now to comment on the sideshow: I find it interesting that most Mormon self criticism focuses on analysis of the Book of Mormon and early history. To the extent that there are issues brought up with the Bible, they are generally restricted to the Pentateuch. I have seldom observed Mormon intellectuals attack (say) the New Testament with the fervor or interest with which many of them pursue Book of Mormon studies, though the New Testament is not without its scientific or academic problems and the apologetics written on its behalf are generally very shoddy.
I’ve often wondered whether this is because Mormons recognize that some people question whether Mormons are Christian, and going after the New Testament the way they go after the Book of Mormon would only lead to more questioning. Is this the case? If it is, does this make the Mormon intellectuals intellectually dishonest, disinterested for self-interested reasons, or just academically different from other Christian intellectuals?
Comment by David King Landrith — 4/28/2004 @ 4:16 pm
Kaimi,
I’ve seen similar comments using the terms Internet Mormons and Chapel Mormons (which avoids some of the connotations of the terms elite and common). Here’s a link:
http://www.fiber.net/users/drshades/imvscm.htm
Comment by Dave — 4/28/2004 @ 4:25 pm
Yep, that’s a very similar analysis. (Though I’m not sure that we come to the same conclusion). And I should note that some (many? all?) of these ideas came up on a very early T & S thread, way-back-when. See http://www.timesandseasons.org/archives/000118.html . (There were other comments made on this thread when it was on the blogspot site; those used to be available on our old site, but it looks like they’re not there now).
Comment by Kaimi — 4/28/2004 @ 4:37 pm
This also reminds me of Adam’s comment re: The Proclamation on the Family.
http://www.timesandseasons.org/archives/000673.html#010060
Comment by lyle — 4/28/2004 @ 4:39 pm
Great post, Kaimi. I myself complain about this problem all the time. My particular version of it has often taken the following form:
It irritates me when certain Mormon apologists (at FARMS or elsewhere) dismiss anti-Mormon claims as “attacking straw-men,” when all these men of straw seem to be inhabiting my ward.
I recognize, as Nate Oman once memorably said to me, that “you can’t judge the intricacies of Calvinism by the content of Baptist pop music.” That is, there are various levels of sophistication within any belief system, and it is, in some contexts, only fair to grapple with a system in its best and highest form. But this depends on what it is your’e trying to grapple with. If “elite religion” and “common religion” really aren’t the same (as Kaimi has posited), then it is only fair to treat them as separate phenomena, and not necessarily legitimate to defend the one by invoking arguments that really only can defend the other.
Incidently, I am in the habit, when asked “What do Mormons believe about X?” of saying “Some Mormons believe _____, while others believe ______.” I do this with almost every topic, to one extent or another.
Aaron B
Comment by Aaron Brown — 4/28/2004 @ 4:50 pm
I sometimes wonder if people are quite as naive as some portray them as. Certainly there are many who couldn’t even tell you much about the basic “plot” of the Book of Mormon. They also, as Kaimi points out, are ignorant of law. I think a significant portion of the public can’t name or identify important figures like Condi Rice, Dick Cheyney or so forth. Rather than making categories we might just say, “people are ignorant.”
I think Kaimi is trying to make a larger point when he speaks about what effectively are truths about the matter. However his constitutional example is a poor one. After all the meaning of the constitution is primarily what the supreme court says it is. He brings up the joke of the right to happiness that isn’t in the document. But we have a right to privacy which is used to decide case law which also isn’t explicitly in the text.
If we speak about facts which are plain versus more interpretive stances like the limited geographical model, we really face problems. Clearly many facts we take for granted are like this.
Regarding the strawmen that Aaron brings up. Perhaps these strawman are part of your ward. But would you allow attacks on science based upon the understanding of the public of science? The problem is that there is a big difference between what essential accepted things entail and what people understand by them. By focusing in on uncritical (and typically unconsidered) understanding rather than what is logically entailed, you’ve attacked a strawman.
The average lower division physics student when asked to draw the curve a falling object takes, gets it wrong. Anyone who judges falling objects based upon the erroneous ideas of these sophomores simply is attacking a strawman.
If we speak about what Mormon theology *is* then I think we must separate it from what ignorant members may believe. Just as when we speak about what science teaches we *don’t* ask what individual uninformed people within the sciences think. For instance you wouldn’t go to a physicist to ask about biology or biology to ask about science. While we are a lay church, it doesn’t follow that everyone is informed on theology.
Comment by clarkgoble — 4/28/2004 @ 5:05 pm
One more example of why appeals to lay members by critics of the church *really* bothers me. On my mission we encountered a *lot* of baptists and taught them. I can honestly say that outside of those who’d been to theological school, not one believed the trinity. They almost to a person believed something fairly similar to what Mormons believe.
Now suppose I said, “baptists don’t believe in the trinity.” Then I made the obvious corrollary that baptists are therefore heretical. That would be a strawman. But this exactly what I think Aaron’s position is leading to.
Comment by clark — 4/28/2004 @ 5:18 pm
Clark,
So, if someone asks, “Do Baptists believe in the Trinity?”, what is the correct answer?
Comment by Kaimi — 4/28/2004 @ 5:25 pm
The answer should be, “yes,” since that is entailed by the formal official beliefs of the baptist organization. If you ask instead, does this individual believe in the trinity, the answer is more complex. Afterall they haven’t really reached a postion to understand the question.
The problem is the problem of vagueness. People believe in vague ways which come into a more determinate fashion as they become educated. The problem is that those making these judgments are ignoring the issue of vagueness and are treating all judgments as if they were equally determinate.
For instance if I ask someone if they believe in gravity, they believe in gravity even if they get the description of the motion wrong.
Comment by clark — 4/28/2004 @ 5:29 pm
I’d suggest that the Brethren have already endorsed the limited geography theory. I think the “Mistakes in the News” section on the Church website was a remarkable development - linking to FARMS articles on DNA and the Book of Mormon that endorse limited geography.
Kaimi’s post was superb, and I’m wondering what’s going to happen when common religion and elite religion clash, which I see happening more and more around the Book of Mormon.
When the teacher in Gospel Doctrine tried to point out the limited geography theory as he was introducing the Book of Mormon this year, hands went up quoting Joseph Fielding Smith and other Church leaders. How will people reconcile limited geography, as it becomes more well-known, with things like Zelph, prophecies of the “promised land” (ie, what is the promised land if the BoM only took place in a small location) prophecies about Native Americans as Lamanites in the Doctrine and Covenants, etc. The “elites” as Kaimi labels them, have most likely already found ways around these dilemmas, but what will the “commoner” do when they encounter these issues?
Comment by John H — 4/28/2004 @ 5:31 pm
Great post, Kiami, though I’d include church leaders’ positions as elite opinion. Hard to think of a more elite group than the GAs. All this means is that if church leaders espouse mass/popular religious ideas, then an elite LDS worldview lacks unity on a regular basis. No big deal, really.
You’re comparison of elite/mass beliefs with legal understanding can be stretched to any social field of study–economics, politics, sociology, whatever. We all have opinions, but very few of us, elites included, are informed. Even intellectual elites are rarely well versed in anything other than one specialty.
Another aside: “When someone asks me “what do Mormons think of…?”
I used to complain that I had to spend too much time correcting the mistaken beliefs of my non-LDS co-workers and friends based on their interaction with other LDS people. I now feel that attitude was poor.
It seems the only honest response to this kind of questions is ‘I have little idea what other Mormons believe. My guess is they think all kinds of things. But I believe this…’
My wife and I use this response even in our own family. When the little kids come home from school or primary with any number of fuzzy ideas, we explain that some families believe one thing, others another. Some act one way, others another. We tell them that is okay, but in our family we believe this…
Comment by jeremobi — 4/28/2004 @ 5:38 pm
“you wouldn’t go to a physicist to ask about biology or biology to ask about science. While we are a lay church, it doesn’t follow that everyone is informed on theology.”
True enough. We don’t live Plato’s ideal. But how many GAs are theologians? How many of us believe we can make informed comments on economic, political, legal or social themes, yet are not trained economists, political scientists, legal scholars or sociologists?
Comment by jeremobi — 4/28/2004 @ 6:00 pm
I’m wondering how the geography of the BOM, the extent of the flood, or the nature of polygamy beyond what’s revealed in D&C 132 are even that terribly important to anything that actually matters. Why are these rather minor doctrinal quibbles even significant (and are they more or less significant than the ‘average American’s’ knowledge of anything)?
Alternatively, while I’ve done a limited amount of reading relating to each of those issues, I don’t know that my mind is made up one way or the other regarding any of them. Perhaps the dichotomy isn’t so cut and dried between ‘intellectual members who all believe X, Y, and Z,’ and ‘commoners who haven’t been exposed to X, Y, and Z, and thus remain ignorant.’
Comment by BDemosthenes — 4/28/2004 @ 6:13 pm
Clark said:
“Now suppose I said, “baptists don’t believe in the trinity.” …”
The problem here, Clark, is that you’re assuming that people are inquiring about an organization’s “official” beliefs when they ask that question. That may be what they’re asking, or it may not be. On its face, the question may simply be inquiring as to what adherents of a particular faith are likely to believe when they are encountered.
For example, let’s say I want to know what “Catholics” believe about birth control, or being “pro-choice.” The “right” answer, to you, may be that Catholics are opposed to birth control and abortion because the Pope has said so. But many Catholics I have known don’t agree with this. Maybe they “should,” but that’s a different issue. Lots of American Catholics are pro-choice, and think that the Pope should “stay out of the bedroom.” It simply would not accurately answer my question to tell me that Catholics are “opposed” to these phenomena.
In addition, sometimes the disjunct between “official” beliefs and “popular” beliefs is not a self-conscious act of dissent, but a failiure to think through the implications of issues (as you rightly point out). I know lots of Mormons who believe in “pre-destination.” They don’t SAY they believe in it, when asked, but the belief is theirs all the same. I know this because of the things they say.
I guess my point boils down to this: “What do Mormons believe?” can mean more than one thing. I realize that in the context of say, anti-Mormon literature, the question of what the Church “officially” believes is more relevant to what the anti-Mormons’ purpose ostensibly is — to debunk the Church’s theology. But many people who ask questions about others’ faith are not always seeking a technical, theological elaboration.
Aaron B
Comment by Aaron Brown — 4/28/2004 @ 6:19 pm
John H. makes a key point: in the past the common and the scholarly perpectives on Mormon history and doctrine have been effectively compartmentalized. That is now breaking down–illustrated nicely by the LDS.org links to FARMS and DNA articles. What does this portend for the future?
Many attribute the progressive failure of compartmentalization to the Internet. That’s too simple. I’d go a step further and attribute it to the higher profile of scholarly Mormonism, both the supportive FARMS school and the more independent voices in publishing (Dialogue, Sunstone, Signature Books, and Univ. of Illinois Press come to mind). The general media is now better informed, and is likely to consult these “scholarly Mormonism” sources for information on even a general interest story, rather than cite only an “official” LDS publication. Once this “scholarly Mormonism” perspective becomes commonplace in general media discussions, both the average Mormon and LDS leaders will find themselves confronting issues which, in the past, have been discussed only in fairly limited “scholarly Mormonism” forums.
Comment by Dave — 4/28/2004 @ 6:23 pm
Kaimi’s dilemma isn’t just a function of FARMs, the internet, and the rise of Mormon studies. In a church that believes in personal revelation, some members will always have beliefs and knowledge that surpass what the rest of us hold.
Comment by Adam Greenwood — 4/28/2004 @ 6:28 pm
Dave: I suspect that you are on to something here. I also think that a large part of it is simply that in the past Mormons were a really, really, really small group and frankly weren’t big enough for people to get interested in. With growth, we become more interesting…
Comment by Nate Oman — 4/28/2004 @ 6:29 pm
Dave, I think the divide is breaking down simply because populations are becoming more educated. For instance most people in my ward have gone to college. Was that true 50 years ago? While one certainly can compartmentalize ones college education, and it is possible to go to BYU and take only “fluff make me read my scriptures” CES classes, I think many don’t compartmentalize like that. Indeed many professors at BYU I’ve talked to always say how their students consider these things important issues.
Regarding Aaron’s comments, I tend to agree Aaron. There is a distinction between the theology of an organization and the social beliefs within that organization. However I also think my comments about vagueness still apply. Many confuse vagueness and ignorance with belief. (Pollsters in particular - but that’s a different topic)
I think though that most of these questions that I’ve encountered clearly are conflating the theological and social. Further most times I encounter it the question is used as a kind of attack. It need not be anti-Mormon. But it often ends up being various attacks on theology.
Even if someone is more innocently asking what Mormons believe, an informed Mormon should both say what most Mormons socially believe and what the actual position of the church is. Further I strongly believe that leaving out the issue of vagueness is very misleading.
Comment by Clark Goble — 4/28/2004 @ 6:32 pm
Clark: “Even if someone is more innocently asking what Mormons believe, an informed Mormon should both say what most Mormons socially believe and what the actual position of the church is. Further I strongly believe that leaving out the issue of vagueness is very misleading.”
Hmm…I don’t know any Mormons so well informed that they could honestly say what most Mormons socially believe. We just don’t know that many people. And my sense is we don’t know those around us half as well as we think we do. A cursory review of the history in the Mauss books and comments on this site, moreover, might suggest that the ‘actual position of the church’ is quite often difficult to discern.
Comment by jeremobi — 4/28/2004 @ 7:00 pm
Clark,
I was a little loose with my use of the term “comparmentalization.” I wasn’t referring to the mental compartmentalization some people use to keep conflicting ideas separate in their own minds. Instead, I was referring to institutional separation, whereby most “Mormon studies issues” were confined to journals average Mormons don’t read, conferences average Mormons don’t attend, and books average Mormons don’t buy. Discussion of those issues is now beginning to spill over into mainstream publications and forums.
But I think you’re correct that it is also partly a reflection of rising education levels.
Comment by Dave — 4/28/2004 @ 7:32 pm
Jerem, I agree. However we must thus acknowledge our fallibilism in knowing. i.e. what individuals believe and what the church believes is in excess of what we know. I think that the concept of vagueness resolves a lot of this.
However even if we acknowledge that what we should do is beyond our capabilities, I think we should try as best we can. So long as we don’t get trapped by a narrow dogmatism (which I think both sides often do) we should be fine.
Comment by Clark Goble — 4/28/2004 @ 7:32 pm
I suppose that it’s the difference between levels of concern. As a self-titled political afficianado, it is very important to me who is appointed to the DC Court of Appeals, and I am concerned about what the government is doing in the Klamath region, despite the fact that I have no “salient” interests in the region. I wouldn’t expect the average American to care about such issues, and I don’t think it’s necessary that they do.
For Mormons, I don’t think it’s particularly important where precisely the Book of Mormon took place: that’s not really a doctrinal point, and the answer (or my belief about the answer) doesn’t affect my salvation. That being said, I care about where the events of the Book of Mormon took place. I care about a proper understanding of prophetic proclamations versus the opinions of the men who happen to be prophets.
Should our answers to these questions matter? Not really. They’re not necessary to salvation, though they may aid our understanding.
Comment by Nate Cardon — 4/28/2004 @ 8:38 pm
Kaimi: The examples you give of issues currently dividing “elite” and “common” Latter-day Saints do not seem to be very fundamental, at least not to the point of causing major schism in the Church. If the issues were more like those dividing FARMS, say, and Signature Books, e.g. is the Book of Mormon history or fiction, the word “chasm” would obviously be justified; but when the historicity of the Book of Mormon is assumed by all, debates (even strong ones) within that assumption are more a sign of health than otherwise. Angels and golden plates make for fairly strong parameters. I am not saying that arguments within those parameters are trivial, only that they differ in kind from arguments that really threaten the unity of the Church.
In my experience, most Latter-day Saints do not believe that the prophet is “never wrong,” only that he’s usually right. He spends more time talking about debt and adultery than men on the moon. Again in my experience, most Latter-day Saints are capable of dealing with ambiguity in doctrinal and historical matters, so long as it comes from a more authoritative source than “the quorum’s token intellectual” (Grondahl cartoon). For example, when President Hinckley responded to a nationally televised query about blacks and the priesthood with “Look, that’s behind us now,” or when he told various reporters that “we just don’t know much” about deification, the response from “common” members was, for the most part, perfectly liberal and sane. “But why should the source’s authority matter, so long as they’re speaking the truth?” Well, it shouldn’t. You can kind of sense, however, when you’re being spoken to as a commoner. And, right or wrong, you resist it. Especially in a democratic society, where the elite are pretty much self-proclaimed.
Comment by Kingsley — 4/28/2004 @ 8:48 pm
I’m interested by the sense of a clear boundary for what lies “within” the fold that seems to organize this discussion. The Book of Mormon example is interesting. If I compare what Joseph seemed to believe about Book of Mormon geography with the FARMS notion of limited geography, I see a pretty big gap. For me the gestures of setting aside what Joseph said in certain contexts and coming to a more “informed” limited geography view and setting aside what Joseph said in certain contexts and coming to the conclusion that there is little historical evidence for the BM story don’t feel so very different. Both seem on a continuum to me. Both rely on evidence and draw conclusions. Both approaches require setting aside certain things Joseph said.
I well understand that there is a high wall erected between the FARMs approach and the final one I describe. On one side you’re inside, on the other you’re outside. But from an experiential perspective for many (me included), those two places are very, very close. For me that wall no longer has the kind of substance it once had.
Comment by Susan — 4/29/2004 @ 12:16 am
Personally, I am all for studying as much as I can and getting some (fairly strong) personal opinions on things, but also sticking as closely as possible to the “mainstream” (if it can be located) when discoursing with others.
After all, I do not build the foundation for my testimony on what I (concededly perhaps naively) call “FARMS” fluff- my testimony is based on feelings and impressions that the Book of Mormon is the word of God (no matter where it geographically took place- the impressions that confirm this belief don’t rely on the venue- it could have been in outer space and I would still have the same feelings…), that Joseph Smith had a vision that Spring day (exactly which version is the “correct” one doesn’t trouble me), that the Priesthood is the power of God (whether or not it has been exercised by women (on which I have a personal opinion), based on the miracles I have seen worked in my own life through it), and that we still have a prophet on the earth today (regardless of what he may say about the man on the moon…).
But once I have this foundational testimony established so that nothing I find will shake it, I see nothing wrong and even find it quite exhilerating to get into the “elite” stuff. I like to think about things from lots of perspective.
This has nothing to do with this post necessarily, but I really like to consider how God might have used humans to accomplish the miracles we read about in the Bible (like perhaps having one of Lot’s party kill Lot’s wife for looking back and burying her under a pillar of salt- thus she turned into one, etc..)
Comment by Jordan Fowles — 4/29/2004 @ 12:36 am
Susan: It is interesting to note just how little Joseph drew upon the Book of Mormon in his sermons, letters, etc. Terryl L. Givens describes how the early Saints (including Joseph Smith) consistently used the Book of Mormon as a divine sign of the Restoration rather than as a doctrinal or moral guide. They didn’t go very deeply into the book itself. This might be rather a stretch, but I wonder if it’s possible to say that Book of Mormon studies (especially since the Ezra Taft Benson era) have advanced, in certain important ways, even beyond Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, etc.
Comment by Kingsley — 4/29/2004 @ 3:34 am
Kingsley,
I think you are exactly on target with that last thread. I pay less attention to what Brigham Young said , for example, on doctrinal matters than I do to Gordon B. Hinckley. The reason is not just because Pres. Hinckley is alive and Pres. Young is dead. Another huge reason is that today’s generation of Church leaders have advantages that the the first generation did not. Today’s leaders have been raised in a culture that is thoroughly “mormonized”, whereas men like Brigham Young had to constantly wrestle with their old, Protestant upbringing and traditions. Today’s leaders have learned from the mistakes of the past, and have also been trained since childhood to study the BoM and other restored Scripture, etc. The result is that they are better able to get a handle on correct doctrine and procedure.
Now having said that, let me point out one particular concern I have about the “divide” between “elite” and “common” camps in the Church. One thing that really sticks in my craw is the tendency, perhaps not always intentional, on the part of the “elite” to, in exposing and talking about failures or mistakes or foibles of the early Brethren (or what they perceive as such), to denigrate the character of these good men. I think that I am in good company with the vast majority of the “common” members when I say that I love and admire Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, and one of the reasons that “intellectuals” in the Church tend to be judged harshly by other members is because the “common” members perceive, rightly or wrongly, that the intellectuals are telling them (with revelations of Joseph’s seemingly strange interpretation of polygamy, or Brigham’s black restrictions to priesthood, etc.) that we SHOULDN’T love and admire Joseph and Brigham and others. As a convert, I can well understand that when someone first joins the Church, they have a ton of things to work on and change in their beliefs and practices, and they make a lot of mistakes and errors along the way. I see no reason to expect Joseph Smith to act any differently that any other Protestant convert would today after they are baptized, so how often do we say, “Bro. Smith, welcome to the Church. You’re first calling will be to serve as Church President.” The same is true of Brigham Young and all the other early Brethren.
That brings me to a final point. I think “elite” opinion and “common” opinion are headed for a collision, at least potentially, and a great danger is that “elite” opinion can fall into Phariseeism. The downfall of the Pharisees is that, in their devotion to scholasticism, they eventually came to the point of viewing prophets as only mere messengers, but viewing PROFESSORS OF THE LAW as more important, because the professors could take the message of the prophets and pull out new meanings and applications, thus providing MORE light than the revelations themselves. This is not far removed from the Protestant view that reason is a more sure guide than revelation.
I am grateful for the fact that I am as aware as I am of the foibles of the early Brethren, and the convoluted nature of how some of our doctrines and practices and folk beliefs have come about (so I guess I may be among the “elite”, as most of those who contribute here at T&S probably are). But, this knowledge enhances my testimony and my character, Like John Taylor, I am glad to see the faults of Joseph Smith (for example), because I have my own faults, and if he could have faults and still have the the Spirit and still be saved, then I can, too. I have simply experienced too many miracles, too many revelations, too many positive and confirming spiritual experiences, and enough expereinces combatting genuine spiritual evil (no need to give details) to persuade me that the Church isn’t true or that Joseph and Brigham weren’t what they said they were. The “common” members may get a lot of things wrong, and may not be as fully informed as some of us here would like, but as a general rule they experience the Gospel on a personal and very real level, every day, and if the “elite” are not careful, they run the risk of seeming to tell the “common” that what the latter experience spirtually is not “real”, or is misguided. That just won’t fly. Armand Mauss’ comments here at T&S were very informative, for example, but sometimes the tone of what he said came across in a way that I could see “common” members being turned off, which would be unfortunate since he has some very important things to say.
In short, I think the divide between “elite” and “common” in the church could become a real problem, but it does not have to. Charity and a soft, gentle touch on the part of “elites” will help. I this gentle touch here at T&S, and I certainly see it with the Brethren, but not always from other sources.
Comment by Gary Cooper — 4/29/2004 @ 1:09 pm
Oops, I meant to say, “I see this gentle touch here at T&S,…”
Comment by Gary Cooper — 4/29/2004 @ 1:29 pm
Gary: Also, it’s probably just plain irritating to know that Brother X over there thinks of you as a commoner. At least as irritating as knowing that Brother Y, a McConkie-ite, thinks of you as hellbound for believing there was life before Adam. And that brings up an interesting point: Is there really a difference between those who believe that, because of their fundamentalism, they’re part of McConkie’s “inner circle,” and those that believe that, because of their intellectualism, they’re part of an elite?
Comment by Kingsley — 4/29/2004 @ 1:42 pm
Kingsley,
Nope, there’s no difference–in both instances we are dealing with Pride, of the false variety.
Comment by Gary Cooper — 4/29/2004 @ 2:56 pm
Is it possible for LDS intellectuals to think of themselves as, well, intellectuals, as LDS athletes think of themselves as athletes? I realize that there is an elitism about the latter group as well, but mental prowess for some reason seems to bring with it a sense of moral superiority which would be absurd in relation to any other sort of inborn prowess.
Perhaps I’m not saying this very well. Athletes don’t expect their neighbors to be athletes because athleticism is so obviously an innate gift that not everyone possesses. Intellectuals, on the other hand, seem to think that the ability to retain a strong testimony in the face of ambiguity, complexity, etc., is something that everyone would have if only they’d pull their heads from the sand. But isn’t that ability an innate gift as well? Most Saints have a very practical view of the Church, just as most people have a very practical view of their bodies—both are vehicles for getting you from point A to point B. You maintain health by being active. “Active” means eating, sleeping, playing, working, etc.—not six days of weightlifting and wind sprints and a highly personalized diet engineered by scientists in preparation for the big game on Sunday. The athlete, of course, finds meaning in his suffering and joy in its fruits. For Joe Regular, however, the same routine could mean death (no matter how basically healthy he is).
Is it possible (or right) for intellectuals to view their lot in a similar way, to views themselves first and foremost as Latter-day Saints who happen to be born with particular gifts, so that their elitism isn’t tied to morality or even to the Church, but is something, in a way, outside of both—however much it privately augments both? Can they appreciate the non-intellectual’s practical preoccupation with the living Church, with practical activity, and realize that forcing their mental routine on Joe Regular could result in drastic consequences? The athlete is particularly constituted so that extreme physical duress is pleasurable and even holy. The intellectual is particularly constituted so that extreme mental duress is pleasurable and even holy. Both, perhaps, are accidents—resurrected bodies and fully-functional brains may even the playing field. In the meantime, let’s eradicate the idea of elite Saints and common Saints and put plain Saints (with differing, inborn, morally neutral abilities) in its place.
Comment by Kingsley — 4/29/2004 @ 3:26 pm
Kingsley,
You hit the nail on the head.
Comment by Gary Cooper — 4/29/2004 @ 3:41 pm
That is an interesting point, Kingsley. However, I think your example of an athlete is quite extreme. There are as many of the super-athletes you describe as there are super-intellectuals in the church. I don’t think there are any of either group in my ward. There are people, though, who are more athletic (or who exercise more or eat better) than I. I appreciate their encouragement and example of how I could improve my life. They could just be quiet about their lifestyle, but then we’d never learn anything from one another. Same goes for those who know a lot more about intellectual things, or those who are more charismatic than myself. I don’t think it helps me to say I wasn’t born smart or athletic or out-going and not try to improve. Striving to use our bodies and minds and talents to their fullest capacity is not morally-neutral, in my opinion.
I agree with you and Gary that problems arise when the more-gifted start looking down on and judging those around them as inferior. There is also the risk of resenting or envying the more-gifted because of their talents. So, your last sentence is good — we do need to describe different groups of people using some sort of vocabulary, but we should avoid labels like ‘elite’ and ‘common’.
Comment by Matt J — 4/29/2004 @ 4:19 pm
That was quite a speech, Gary, complete with shouting (the standard use of caps in online posting). I’m a little unclear about what exactly is the focus of your concern.
Granted, I think the terms “elite” and “common” are misleading, and to be honest I don’t think anyone chatting at T&S or in Mormon Studies more generally really defines themselves as “elite.” I pointed out in an early comment in this thread that others have used the kinder terms “Internet Mormons” and “Chapel Mormons” for the same purpose. We could as easily use “people who like to read history books” and “people who are too busy to read or who are completely uninterested in the subject” if they weren’t so ungainly.
Apart from this terminology issue, I disagree with your general point that those with an interest in the historical details of events surrounding the life of Brigham Young or Joseph Smith are merely stirring up trouble. The truth claims and religious legitimacy of the Church are based largely on historical narratives of events from their lives. It’s quite appropriate to come to a better understanding of those events and the people who were involved.
Comment by Dave — 4/29/2004 @ 4:21 pm
Matt J: I did not mean that the way in which we use our gifts is morally neutral, only that it is arguable that one gift (intellectualism) is morally superior to another (athleticism).
The example is extreme, but I think it can be broken down usefully to more practical levels.
Perhaps it comes down to intellectuals (on whatever level) being a little more cautious in how they spread the wealth. After all, an athlete would have to get you on a treadmill before he could subject your unprepared heart to extreme duress; an intellectual can do the same thing to an unprepared testimony with one flippant remark in Sunday School.
An unintellectual testimony is not necessarily the same thing as a weak testimony, just as a house without stout doors is not necessarily the same thing as a weak house. You want to be careful you don’t violently smash in the door of an otherwise beautiful house.
Comment by Kingsley — 4/29/2004 @ 4:48 pm
Matt J:
Sorry, one more thing: sharing a recipe for a healthy salad or offering a good workout tip is far less complicated than, say, bringing up Joseph Smith’s polyandry in Sunday School. I was referring more to the common (to my mind) assumption amongst intellectuals that very complex, very touchy subjects are just perfect for introducing Sister Jones to the joys of abstract thought.
Comment by Kingsley — 4/29/2004 @ 5:13 pm
Dave,
Sorry for the caps. When I use a word processor I make heavy use of italics and underlining, and that is impossible here when one posts. So, capitalization is all that is left to me. You’re right that this gives the impression of shouting, so I’ll try to avoid that, because I was not intedning the caps to be understood as shouting.
I also did not mean to imply that the mere study of the details of early church history was “stirring up trouble”. Rather, the problem I see (and I’ve not seen this much at all from any of the regulars here at T&S, but I have encountered it from other sources) is where the grim details are simply thrown out to the rest of us, complete with pejorative judgements about church leaders, past and present. The overall tone seems to be negative in those instances. In addition, those of us who are quite knowledgeable about church history may sometimes not be careful about the way in which we bring up such details, inadvertantly giving the wrong impression. (Which has been addressed by some other posts here at T&S.) I hope that clarifies my point.
Comment by Gary Cooper — 4/29/2004 @ 6:10 pm
Gary [and others}:
A quick note on Internet protocol for what it’s worth:
I believe Kaimi or Adam has mentioned this before, but a generally accepted way to show emphasis on the Web is through the use of *.
Thus, “…that we *shouldn’t* love and admire…”
And as someone who does editing and layout for both print and Web, I shudder in horror at this sentence: “I make heavy use of italics and underlining.” ;-)
Comment by William Morris — 4/29/2004 @ 6:43 pm
Thanks William. Now perhaps I can also begin to work on my nagging habit of using run-on sentences…
Comment by Gary Cooper — 4/29/2004 @ 6:57 pm
Gary,
I really liked your point:
“The downfall of the Pharisees is that, in their devotion to scholasticism, they eventually came to the point of viewing prophets as only mere messengers, but viewing PROFESSORS OF THE LAW as more important, because the professors could take the message of the prophets and pull out new meanings and applications, thus providing MORE light than the revelations themselves. This is not far removed from the Protestant view that reason is a more sure guide than revelation.”
That was very well said.
On the other hand, I’ve known a fair number of atheletes that felt they had a moral superiority to those who were not as atheletic.
Interesting dyanmic there.
I’ve got a lot to think about.
Comment by Ethesis — 4/30/2004 @ 5:22 am
Ethesis:
I wonder, though, if an intellectual’s moral smugness has more potential for harm than an athlete’s, Sunday School-wise.
Comment by Kingsley — 4/30/2004 @ 6:38 pm
Kingsley:
Well, the Book of Mormon condemns men who are learned and think they are wise … but doesn’t get too much into atheletes, other than the great and spacious building and the worship of false gods.
Interesting point.
I’ve got a small problem, in that I know a couple of pro atheletes, one from brief contacts in law school, the other from passing in the hall, and both are surprisingly respectable people. On the other hand, I’ve known a lot of atheletes who were worshiped by those around them (including those in the Church) and who did as much harm as any “intellectual” who was pretty much ignored by the Sunday School Crowd.
My favorite group of those (intellectuals) was the “Children of Ephriam” a group that tried to get Salt Lake to approve a seperate ward for themselves. They had pretentions of intelligence, but were generally pretty dense by my standards (though my wife told me to quit tormenting one of them).
Hmm, you can tell I’m rambling. I actually think both groups can fall into several traps of associating virtue with their accomplishments (have you ever heard Stephen R. Covey speak of how the athelete with the most virtue always wins {with the analog for virtue being “desire”}? I wrestled a season, earned a j.v. and a varsity letter in the same season, had six pins under a minute, lost a total of four matches, and quite honestly can say that desire had little to do with who won the matches I had).
Too late. I’m rambling.
But it was a good question, it deserves a better answer.
Comment by Ethesis — 5/2/2004 @ 1:16 am
Some people feel that “Common Religion” / “Chapel Mormonism” exists merely because many members are ill-informed.
But if you read the scriptures and listen to the prophets’ voice, then it becomes clear that God is a member of the “Common Religion” and is a Chapel Mormon.
See why the distinction bodes ill?
Comment by Dr. Shades — 5/5/2004 @ 5:50 am
Then why did President Hinckley invite FARMS (the deuterocanonical writings of so-called “Internet Mormons”) to become an official part of BYU? So they could squelch their unorthodoxy? Put the kibosh on spreading false doctrine?
Scriptures are not self-interpreting, especially when the reader does not share the worldview, culture or language of the writer. I’d question the idea that the scriptures are the purview of “chapel mormons” when it seems like “internet mormons” are the ones reading, studying and discussing them.
I’d have to disagree with you. But then, I’m on the internet:)
Comment by tom — 5/5/2004 @ 9:47 am
Yet…what value does the ‘elite’ have? Assuming they do have a better “understanding” of doctrine on Points A, B & C than the ‘common’…
what value does that provide the ‘elite’?
do they ‘live’ the gospel better? more charitable? etc?
do they teach, explicit or by example, to the ‘common’?
it would seem that if the ‘elite’ really want to be elite, they would be strategic & be as common (a la Clinton/Bush) as possible & inspire/teach from a position of equality/respect given…
Comment by lyle — 5/5/2004 @ 12:56 pm
Interesing comments. Thank you for your thoughts.
I’m going to disagree. I sense that you, and others are seeing a phenomenon, but overstating the significance of what is happening. I personally do not believe that there is a wide chasm developing between so-called “elite and common Mormons” in terms of signficant LDS beliefs.
In fact, a discussion on a subject very similar to this has been taking place on a couple of the “elite Mormon” message boards. Internet Mormons vs. Chapel Mormons.
There has been an online survey (of sorts) identifying the differences between internet Mormons (elite?) vs. chapel Mormons (common) on these academic apologetic boards.
Zion’s Lighthouse Message Board:
http://p080.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm69.showMessage?topicID=362.topic
Fair-LDS message board:
http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=3560
Interestingly enough, there seems to be a pretty wide degree of agreement on basic LDS doctrine from so-called Internet Mormons.
I think that observations that there is a chasm, or a new Mormonism, are somewhat reactionary.
Regards,
Six
Comment by Bsix — 5/5/2004 @ 3:43 pm
Kaimi has made an excellent observation. Clark counters that Book of Mormon geography isn’t essential to Mormonism. If he’s right, this cuts Dr. Shade’s point that the Brethern, and prophets of the past have all been “Chapel Mormons.” After all, we all know that Joseph Smith taught that a prophet is a prophet only when speaking as such. And we can all certainly accept, that some things the prophets have said are not essential to mormonism. For instance, not all Chapel Mormons would insist there are people living on the moon (although I’ve known a few in fact who have–one btw, who went to college on a NASA scholarship).
But Clark’s point doesn’t settle the matter, it only raises the question, who defines what is and what isn’t essential to Mormonism? Who decides what the prophets of God are allowed to get wrong?
Who demarcs the territory of the prophets, and the “well educated” Mormons? It seems to me, the territory of the prophets is shrinking.
The position of prophetic fallibilism doesn’t solve the problem for Internet Mormonism, but rather, allows all of us who are members of the church to honestly investigate our own commitments to the church and to the world. Education isn’t the issue. Hugh Nibley for instance, with all his learning and apologetics, seems to hold a number of naive positions. This isn’t a result of being ill-informed on the issues, but rather, a deep-seeded commitment to the restored church.
And it goes deeper than some of the more obvious issues like BOM geography and the important issue of lineage or the flood. Can we come to a true understanding of the BOM and Mormon doctrine by reading the word of God, prayer, and studying the writings of our church leaders, or to get to the real heart of the matter, do we first have to understand Martin Heidegger and Emmanual Levinas?
Do we believe in the Book of Mormon as TRUTH from GOD, or do we believe it is truth, errr, as a “narrative?”
The territory of the prophets shrinks every year. While we can’t set the demarcation in stone, we can easily see that the scriptures are clear on the matter of the wisdom of the world verses the wisdom of god and his prophets. Have the scriptures ever said the wisdom of the prophets will perish? But then again, maybe all that is just part of the narrative, and can’t be taken seriously by the educated elites.
Comment by Gadianton — 5/5/2004 @ 4:47 pm
Even “TRUTH from GOD” has historical context, and that’s what scholarship tries to get at.
Comment by tom — 5/5/2004 @ 4:53 pm
A few thoughts:
“The downfall of the Pharisees is that, in their devotion to scholasticism, they eventually came to the point of viewing prophets as only mere messengers, but viewing PROFESSORS OF THE LAW as more important, because the professors could take the message of the prophets and pull out new meanings and applications, thus providing MORE light than the revelations themselves. This is not far removed from the Protestant view that reason is a more sure guide than revelation.”
However I think that the only difference between a prophet and a “scribe” or “rabbi” is what is used in ones hermeneutics. Look at our prophets. How much is unique, and how much is pulling out new meanings and applications from scripture. The problem is resovled when one realizes that it is the scripture that is important. Reason *alone* is insufficient. (Which, based upon the talmudic and midrashic writings I’ve read, most Jewish scholars agreed with at least in principle - witness the similarity of Jesus’ teaching with many other religious teachers of the era)
BTW - nit picky issue - Scholasticism was the philosophical movement by monastic groups from the end of the ancient era up through the renaissance.
To “Shades” I disagree that the prophets are chapel Mormons. But then I disagree entirely with the distinction of chapel Mormons and elite Mormons. I think it a misleading taxonomy at best. I think the real taxonomy is more a political one of those devoted to the Church as a political entity and willing to recognize themselves as fallible and those who are not. And that does correlate very strongly with the brethren.
Comment by clark — 5/5/2004 @ 5:21 pm
Regarding Levinas, Heidegger, and so forth. I think they are useful for understanding how things work. I don’t think they are pertinet at all for being a Mormon. But I think that this too is a result of trying to conceive of Mormonism simply as a collection of propositions one must assent to. I think that a poor way of conceiving it which leads to just these sorts of poor taxonomies.
Comment by clark — 5/5/2004 @ 5:24 pm
Gadianton,
I like that last thread of yours, which states your case very nicely and, I think, correctly. However, you’re note *really* a “Gadianton”, are you? I should think, with that thread of yours, that “Helaman” might be a better moniker for you!
Comment by Gary Cooper — 5/5/2004 @ 5:38 pm
Are you an Internet Mormon or a Chapel Mormon?
Take the test at the following site and find out:
http://p080.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm69.showMessageRange?topicID=362.topic&start=23&stop=23
Comment by Dr. Shades — 5/5/2004 @ 8:01 pm
I’d say that test has lots of question invoking the fallacy of the false dilemma.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html
Comment by clark — 5/5/2004 @ 8:06 pm
Thanks for telling us that, Clark, but in order for your post to be of any use to us you’ll have to tell us which *specific* questions fall into that category.
Which are they, if any?
Comment by Dr. Shades — 5/5/2004 @ 8:34 pm
Take (1) for example. When science contradicts prophets why must only one or the other *always* be correct? For instance prophets said there was no beginning of time. Then we have the big bang and science says there was a beginning. Then we have science talking about bubble universes and suddenly we’re back to the earlier views. It seems there is no right answer to this one.
Same with (2). Is it *always* one or the other?
(3) is the same - either the terms are *entirely separate* or they mean the same thing. Couldn’t they be different but with some overlap?
How about (9) where most Mormons would say truth comes by the spirit?
It’s a very problematic and poorly phrased set of questions. Further it tries to reduce Mormonism to propositions accepted. As I said, I think that fundamentally wrong.
Comment by Clark Goble — 5/5/2004 @ 9:36 pm
I think we are avioding the true demarcations that *have* had actual schisms. This is between the “believing” Mormon Intellectuals and the “Cultural” Mormon Intellectuals. On one side is FARMS who, despite some very specific scholasticism, hold to the divine and orthodox view of the LDS Church. The other side is Sunstone and Signature books, who seek to undermine the faith by presenting naturalistic and, at best, agnostic views.
One of them is defending the faith and the other to destroy it, or change it into a Liberal Protestant Community based on humanistic ideals. FARMS is subject to, and often encouraged by, the leadership of the LDS Church. The other often sees the leadership (and many common members) as in the way, ignorant, and to be scoffed at.
As long as we are thinking of FARMS as elite rather than common, the true problems are going to be ignored. I believe that they are *protectors* of the common. They may have come to the conclusion, that I agree with, that the history behind the Scriptures are more complicated that even Joseph Smith understood. However, at least they believe its a history come from an actual living prophet of an actual living God.
Comment by Jettboy — 5/7/2004 @ 7:51 pm
“As long as we are thinking of FARMS as elite rather than common, the true problems are going to be ignored. I believe that they are *protectors* of the common.”
Help me out here. One group of intellectual elites protects the faith and another detracts (counter-elites)? Aside from the questions of why you might categorize FARMS as positive and Signature Books as negative, how does your stated purpose of each elite group make FARMS truly common? In ‘protecting’ isn’t it more likely that FARMS perpetuates elite status?
Comment by jeremobi — 5/7/2004 @ 8:28 pm
No, as FARMS explains why the “common” is the correct. And the “common” is that God exists, the Book of Mormon and Bible is the literal word of God and not some literary fabrication, Miracles are as real as science, angels as actual manifestations, and most importantly that this is the True Church of God with real Authority. *That* is as “common” (or what I think you really mean is orthodox) as there is. They might do so in ways that seem to change our understanding of traditional views on scripture, by not by demanding a repudiation of the basics.
Signiture Books and Sunstone deny all of those things. They reject *all* Scripture as fabrications made by pious frauds, miracles as viewpoints and personal psychological self-illusions, angels as pretty much what the miracles are, and that the LDS Church and its authority are either man-made institutions that should change with whatever liberal philosophy carries the day or in apostacy against true spirituality (i.e. read humanism). They are as far from the “common” of LDS belief and understanding as you can get. In fact, time and time again they castigate, make-fun of, discourage, even demonize the “common” members of the Church as diluted and mind-controlled simpletons who are uneducated idiots that just need to “see the truth of the lies” to gain entrance into worldy acceptance and humanist enlightenment.
The difference is between re-evaluating our understanding of the literal truth of God, The Church, and Scriptures that are accepted by the “Common” members; and rejecting literalness altogether for a more universal, liberal, and socially controlled construct that sees God as a simple philosophical idea and not a reality outside of the mind.
Comment by Jettboy — 5/8/2004 @ 12:56 pm
Jettboy, I agree with your representation of FARMS. You present this in a way that had not occurred to me. However, Sunstone is a very mixed bag. Some do work for both Sunstone and FARMS so you really can’t draw such rigid conclusions. However, I remain disappointed in Sunstone for the sometimes poor and uninformed scholarship that they allow in their publications.
I do not think this is a matter of “elite” and “common” at all. It is a question of worldview and training. Too many belittle scholarship as being unnecessary to religion but it sets a neutral standard by which we can most effectively communicate when we leave the believing community. Almost without fail, those who criticize Mormonism are mired in a fundamentalistic paradigm. They set up a strawman church to attack and that church must believe in inerrancy (”The BOM says….”) or infallibility (”But your prophet said this…”). The argument becomes a battle for *truth* dressed up in pseudo-scientific clothing. Even “common” LDS, when pressed, will not try to prove *truth*. They generally state it as an internal more mystical way of knowing. In LDS thought, *truth* cannot be transferred it must be experienced for oneself. It is the critics (and Sunstone does have its share of these) who are eternally stuck in the Enlightenment and think that you can come to a universally valid conclusion about history or religion by using “facts” as a euphemism for *truth*. Every accusation against Mormon theology ultimately ends up as little more than a petulant cry of “false prophet!”. Not a very sophisticated beginning for those who claim to be the intellectuals in today’s post modern world.
Comment by Juliann Reynolds — 5/8/2004 @ 2:06 pm
I’ve been out of the country, and will be here only for a few more days before I leave the country yet again — despite all of the criticism they’ve taken recently, it’s still hard to keep ahead of the FBI — but, as somebody who has been somewhat involved with FARMS for a while, I would really like to comment on portions of Kaimi Wenger’s opening note on this thread. (I haven’t had time to read through the others, and may not ever have the time, so I apologize if what I say is redundant.)
KW: “Recently, I’ve been thinking about the topic of elite religion versus popular religion. In particular, it seems that the development of FARMS and other intellectual centers of Mormon studies has resulted in a division of sorts.”
I suspect that there are, always have been, and ever will be theological differences between reflective believers and unreflective believers, between the educated and the uneducated (e.g., between the dual-doctorate holding phenomenologist Karol Wotylja [aka John Paul II] or the Thomist Etienne Gilson and, say, an illiterate Quiché Mayan woman in the Guatemalan Péten), between serious readers and non-readers. Is this news?
KW: “On the one hand, Mormon studies scholars believe in a world where the Nephites lived in a tiny section of Central America, where the Hill Cumorah is somewhere in Guatemala [the typical belief is Mexico, actually — near Veracruz], where the flood was a localized event, and where Joseph Smith was polygamous and polyandrous. On the other hand, most church members believe in a world where the Lehites covered the Americas, the Hill Cumorah is in New York, the flood was worldwide, and Joseph’s polygamy is never mentioned. Common church members believe the prophet is never wrong; elites believe the prophet may have opinions that are incorrect (such as men on the moon). Common members believe that women have never held any type of priesthood; elites point out early church instances of women wielding priesthood or quasi-priesthood authority. And so forth. Bridging this chasm are church leaders, who sometimes seem to favor one worldview, and sometimes another.”
Bridging this chasm, actually, are shared beliefs in the existence of God, an embodied being who intervenes in human affairs, whose Son atoned for our sins, who offers eternal life to those who accept and live by the fullness of the Gospel, who called and continues to call prophets (including those in the Americas), whose Son rose from the dead on the third day (and, among other things, appeared to the Nephites in the New World), who appeared to Joseph Smith in the Sacred Grove, who sent the angel Moroni to direct Joseph to tangible golden plates in a hill near his home, who offers the faithful exaltation, etc., etc. These are hardly side issues; they are the basic doctrines of the restored Church, and everybody at FARMS, so far as I know, holds them in common with all of the other mainstream members of the Church.
KW: “It seems the more that FARMS scholars research and write, the more that apologists respond to anti-Mormon attacks, the further away they move from the common beliefs that constitute and underlie lived Mormonism for most actual members.”
I live and function in an ordinary Latter-day Saint ward, and I’m aware of no chasm between myself and my fellow ward members. Matters of the precise microgeography of the Book of Mormon, on which some (though, I know for a fact, by no means all) of my neighbors may hold somewhat different views than I do — to the minimal extent that they pay such subjects any real attention at all — pale into insignificance compared to the very considerable doctrines that we hold in common.
KW: “Is the church dividing in two?”
Of course not.
KW: “Is FARMS Mormonism even the same religion as the one I hear in Sacrament Meeting?”
I haven’t heard much speculation on the location of Zarahemla in my sacrament meetings lately. Nor, in fact, ever. I’ve never heard a sacrament meeting address devoted to Fanny Alger or the origins of plural marriage. But I have heard innumerable sacrament meeting talks devoted to faith, to the hope of eternal life, to the idea of living prophets, to the atonement of Jesus Christ. And, on those topics, as I’ve said before, those at FARMS hold very much to the views of those unaffiliated with FARMS.
KW: “On the other hand, is there really a correct answer to ‘did the Nephites live in Central America, or all over North and South America’?”
Presumably, there is. It is the answer that corresponds to historical reality.
KW: “What are we to believe when a FARMS scholar states that evidence shows that the limited geography hypothesis is correct, but a general authority refers to all Native Americans as Lamanites?”
You are to believe both. Those at FARMS do, anyway.
KW: “Is the elite religion correct, or the common religion?”
It is important not to multiply fictitious points of conflict between them. (And, in any case, I find the notion that they constitute two distinct “religions” wildly overstated, and, to be candid, somewhat offensive. I am neither an apostate nor an agent of some covert Fifth Column.)
Comment by Daniel Peterson — 5/8/2004 @ 6:28 pm
It may be worth mentioning that I took “Dr. Shades’s” quiz designed, purportedly at least, to distinguish “chapel Mormons” from “internet Mormons,” and that I came out a “chapel Mormon.” Yet I would imagine that, for the purposes of his polemic, I should be one of the paradigm illustrations for his mythical new “internet Mormon church.”
It’s tough when the data refuse to conform to the pet theory.
Comment by Daniel Peterson — 5/8/2004 @ 6:36 pm
Dan Peterson,
I’m not trying to suggest that you are an apostate, or part of any Fifth Column. I don’t think that Farms-ists are apostate.
I’m just struck by the impression that, if I read a FARMS review, it seems to be speaking an entirely different language than that I hear from most church members. It’s not a fifth column issue — it’s that Farms and the typical church member are ships passing in the night.
And while I realize that FARMS is very proud of its recently acquired “official” legitimacy — affiliation with BYU, links from LDS.org . Not to downplay those advances, but it still appears to me that FARMS occupies the same niche as, say, the Genesis Group — not unofficial or apostate, but largely neglected and ignored by established church leadership. And despite its modest successes, the language and ideas of FARMS — limited geography hypothesis, for example — has yet to seriously break into the common lexicon of memebrs, or into the lay-member’s discourse of General Conference talks, Sunday School manuals, and so forth.
Comment by Kaimi — 5/8/2004 @ 7:29 pm
Dan Peterson,
I’m still thinking through your response. I don’t know if I explained or made clear the disconnect that I see.
Not only is FARMS finding different answers than most members, they’re asking different questions. And they aren’t just superficially different — rather, FARMS focuses a lot of time and energy on questions that most members would never even think to ask, because it would be completely foreign to them.
Most members don’t even know or acknowledge that Joseph Smith was a polygamist. If asked about it, they might mutter an answer, and then rapidly change the subject. In contrast, FARMS recently spent pages in detailed conjecture over the question of just how many of his polygamous wives Joseph Smith actually had sex with. That’s the kind of question that is completely foreign to the rank-and-file membership. Could you ever picture a high council speaker’s talk, or a Sunday School lesson, or a General Conference talk, on just-how-many-of-his-polygamous-wives-did-Joseph-Smith-actually-have- sex-with?
And it seems like it’s the difference between worldviews. The rank-and-file member thinks that everything is fine and dandy, just as laid out in the Sunday School manual. The FARMS-ist has decided that everything is not fine and dandy as laid out in the Sunday School manual; there are detailed and scholarly critiques of the church, and those critiques must be met with detailed and scholarly responses.
But it’s not clear that church leaders accept that premise. Indeed, it seems like most church leaders actively foster a belief that everything is fine as laid out in the Sunday School manual. So FARMS-ists spend their time addressing the DNA problems of Native Americans, but most members are unaware that there _are_ any DNA issues — and church leaders seem happy to foster that state.
So it’s no surprise that FARMS comes across as speaking a different language — you exists to answer concerns that many church leaders and most members don’t acknowledge the existence of. (Begin “Men in Black” theme now . . .)
Of course, the divisions aren’t solid, but I think they’re real. And, as I stated above, it seems that church leaders are more than willing to let FARMS do its own thing, answering anti-Mormon critiques, but the official position is still that no valid critiques exist. (Which, if true, kind of renders irrelevant the whole FARMS enterprise).
Finally, I’m concerned because an attitude that I’ve seen from FARMS-ists (readers and participants) is that other church members don’t know about or agree with FARMS ideas out of ignorance. That reaction bothers me. I think that church leaders’ continued refusal to more openly endorse FARMS ideas is strong evidence that it is quite possible to be educated, intelligent, serious about the church, and still not be a limited-geography, two-hills-Cumorah-not-one, FARMS adherent.
I don’t mean to be critical of your life’s work or anyone else’s, but, as stated above, I am still trying to resolve the question of how it all fits together. And I haven’t yet arrived at a satisfactory answer.
Comment by Kaimi — 5/8/2004 @ 8:29 pm
Kaimi says: Indeed, it seems like most church leaders actively foster a belief that everything is fine as laid out in the Sunday School manual. So FARMS-ists spend their time addressing the DNA problems of Native Americans, but most members are unaware that there _are_ any DNA issues — and church leaders seem happy to foster that state.
—-
I am rather astonished by your comments. Particularly this one since the Church’s own website has links to FARMS articles on DNA. I also don’t know why you would use the word “ignorant” which has a rather unpleasant connotation when the real issue is merely one of information. There are many areas in which I am simply uniformed. Yet there are few areas in which I don’t have complete confidence that I could access information and become more informed. That information does have to exist and be accessible, however. I don’t feel that I am lacking or on a lower form of intelligence because I am not up to date on science when I speak to a professional scientist or I am a little dense when talking to a lawyer about legal matters. I’m sure glad they know what they do, however, and I certainly am humble enough to listen whey they do talk about what they know.
I am disturbed by what I am certain is an unintended dismissal of Mormons who are, at any given moment, uniformed by *choice*. I don’t enjoy Mormon history or BOM exegesis. I love New Testament, however. That is where I spend my time. As the need arose, I learned Greek and then Coptic. But the need had to arise. A year ago, I had never thought about DNA and Lamanites. The first time I heard of the Murphy ruckus and geographical theories, it took a few minutes of reflection and an automatic “makes sense..whatever” emerged. I have randomly surveyed at least a couple of dozen ward members and this has been their immediate reaction…except for one who asked for the articles I had when he learned of the controversy and says he is still thinking about it. In other words, the “FARMS” stuff is a big shrug for most *until the need arises*. They are just glad it is there and that somebody is minding the store while they go about the real business of life.
Don’t be so dismissive of those who have no interest in being weekend wannabe scholars.
Comment by Juliann Reynolds — 5/9/2004 @ 12:45 am
Juliann,
I’m puzzled by your comment, or rather at it’s direction at me. I thought I was clearly stating that I _don’t_ approve of FARMS scholars treating non-FARMS-adherents as if they were ignorant. If I wasn’t completely clear, my bad.
Other commenters (both in this thread and elsewhere) have suggested that church members don’t generally subscribe to FARMS ideas out of ignorace. I think that the issue is a lot more complex than that simple explanation.
Comment by Kaimi — 5/9/2004 @ 1:30 am
Kaimi,
I’m even more dismayed now that you’ve responded to me. I simply don’t see the pride and condescension in those affiliated with FARMS that you claim to see.
Thinking of the people on the FARMS board of directors, I see past and present bishops and stake presidents who, as such leaders typically do, give many hours of service each week to ordinary members of the Church, never demanding or asking that they toe some sort of “FARMS line.” I’ve never encountered the dismissal of other members of the Church as ignorant that you ascribe to us.
I come from an entirely non-academic family. Neither of my parents had a bachelor’s degree; my mother didn’t attend college at all. None of my aunts or uncles went to college. I worked construction through high school and into graduate school. I’m painfully aware of many flaws in myself, but arrogant academic elitism is not among them.
I’m aware of no “pride” in our affiliation with BYU. The “merger” with the University did not occur at our initiative. Quite the contrary: We resisted it for a considerable period, consenting to the union only when asked to do so by an authority that we did not feel we could refuse. Even now, though it has turned out considerably better, thus far, than we had feared, we still regard it as something of a mixed blessing.
Does FARMS speak a different language than that heard in sacrament meeting? Of course. By design, FARMS does not publish devotional material. Does that mean that we reject devotional approaches? Absolutely not. We are active in the Church. We teach Primary and Sunday school, raise children, give talks in sacrament meeting, serve as youth leaders, hold Family Home Evenings, send kids to summer camp, sing hymns, offer prayers, lose parents, conduct funerals. And we do it all in pretty much the same way that Latter-day Saints everywhere do such things.
Why on earth would you ever expect the language and substance of scholarly treatments of Mormonism — whether in connection with FARMS or in connection with the Mormon History Association or the Deseret Language and Linguistic Society or the Association for Mormon Letters or the Assocation of Mormon Counselors and Psychotherapists — to sound like the language of sacrament meeting? Who has ever suggested that the precise nature of Joseph Smith’s marital relationships be a topic for a sacrament meeting talk? Nobody at FARMS, I can guarantee you. If you think that it’s somehow our goal to have discussions of Book of Mormon geography or the origins of plural marriage thrust into the center of Mormon devotional life, I can see why you imagine us to have failed in that. But such a thought has never entered any of our minds, and we would be horrified if sacrament meetings and Sunday school classes became academic seminars.
I can’t see why you think the Church should publicly endorse (or publicly reject) the two-Cumorahs theory, or limited geographies. (I would, however, note that the publication of a two-part synopsis of John Sorenson’s geographical views in the Ensign, a couple of decades ago, written by himself, certainly suggests that the Brethren are not opposed to such views. Which is, as I know from personal conversations, absolutely the case.) These are not the kinds of issues to which the teaching authority of the Church should be dedicated. There are far more important and fundamental topics that need to be addressed, such as faith, repentance, and the atonement of Christ. I could, if I wished, cite numerous examples of appreciation, on the part of the General Authorities, for FARMS in general and for many of the things that it has done. But they have not offered, and we have not sought, any kind of official imprimatur. (Indeed, one of our concerns when the idea of an affiliation with BYU first arose was that such a link would bestow a quasi-official status on our publications that we did not want.)
I’m very fond of an image that Stanley Kimball used, years ago, in a small gathering that I attended. He spoke of three levels of Mormon history. Level A, he said, is the Sunday School version. Everything on Level A is obviously good and true and harmonious. Level B, however, is the anti-Mormon version of the same story. (He specifically mentioned Jerald and Sandra Tanner.) On this level, everything that you thought was good and true and harmonious actually turns out to be evil and false and chaotic.
He noted that the Church typically seeks to keep its members on Level A or, at least, feels no institutional obligation to bring them to a deeper level. Why? Because souls are lost on Level B. And, though Level C might be academically more desirable, it cannot be accessed without at least some exposure to Level B. Were he in a leadership position, he said, he would probably make the same decision.
Once members of the Church have been exposed to Level B, though, he said, their only hope is to press on to the richer, more complicated version of history that is to be found on Level C — which, he contended and I agree, turns out to be essentially, and profoundly, like Level A. The only cure for bad historiography is better historiography. The only remedy for bad anti-Mormon arguments is better counterarguments.
(Had I been the one formulating Stan Kimball’s three types of historiography, I would have used the Hegelian “thesis,” “antithesis,” and “synthesis.” The schema is overly simplistic, of course, but I think it contains a great deal of significant truth.)
Not everybody needs Level C. But some do, whether because they are troubled by Level B or because they find Level A insufficiently nourishing in some way. Many good saints will live their entire lives on Level A, and they will be saved. One of the finest members I have ever known could probably not have located 2 Nephi in the Bible, if you know what I mean. But he was always the first at the widow’s house to help, and the last to leave. Even in my dim adolescent brain, I gradually came to realize that he was worth ten of us cleverer but less serviceable types.
Nobody at FARMS is claiming to be the hand that has no need of the foot. That is a false and rather insulting charge.
Comment by Daniel Peterson — 5/9/2004 @ 2:55 am
Kaimi: I’m puzzled by your comment, or rather at it’s direction at me. I thought I was clearly stating that I _don’t_ approve of FARMS scholars treating non-FARMS-adherents as if they were ignorant. If I wasn’t completely clear, my bad.
Other commenters (both in this thread and elsewhere) have suggested that church members don’t generally subscribe to FARMS ideas out of ignorace. I think that the issue is a lot more complex than that simple explanation.
—-
I apologize if I have synthesized other posts into yours. Since I have a bit of contact with FARMS, I can say without reservation that there simply is no such attitude. To see it so casually thrown out tells me that (1) you have had no extensive dealings with them or (2) you are projecting other people’s feelings onto FARMS. I can think of no other reason for such an inaccurate assessment.
When a few of us started a ragtag organization that set out to make information accessible to lay people like us, it was some of those FARMS guys who came to support us at the first conference. We listened to each other. No one else came. They hung in there with us and have offered every support that was at their disposal. What is most amazing to me is that they are as close as an email or a phone call. To *any* serious inquiry.
My organization receives many emails asking for help with some cut & paste accusation that has left them speechless. (What one person could *ever* keep up with it all!) After what I have experienced in dealing with people whose faith is under assault, I’m really offended by this caricature of those who *do* join forces and keep up with it all for the benefit of others, Kaimi. I don’t mean to be unduly critical but you need to spend some up close and personal time with a few FARMSers. Have you ever thought of the time, money and raw sacrifice and hanging on by your fingernails that it took to build and maintain an organization like FARMS? You don’t do something like that out of arrogance…you do it out of love of your God, your church and your people because you receive so much from *them*.
Comment by Juliann Reynolds — 5/9/2004 @ 4:25 am
I’m sure that FARMS and your organization (FAIR?)were put together and continue to operate under the best of intentions. But your INTENTIONS are not Kaimi’s concern.
If the scriptures and the prophets are any indication of the mind of God (and Mormons are in quite a pickle of they aren’t), then God is a Chapel Mormon. In other words, God is NOT one of the Mormons who has moved to level C. God is NOT one of the Mormons who has achieved “synthesis.” God is NOT a member of the “elite religion.”
Once more, if the scripturess and the prophets are any indication of the mind of God, then God believes that Noah’s flood covered the entire earth. God believes that the Lamanites were inded the principal ancestors of the American Indians. God believes that the Hill Cumorah was in New York.
Now can you see why this issue isn’t as simple as “everyone would agree with FARMS if they just did their homework?”
Comment by Dr. Shades — 5/9/2004 @ 4:49 am
One can say some nice things about FARMS: If the Church is going to sponsor apologetic scholarship, these seem like the right people to do it. And they are one of very few examples of independent “pseudo-intellectual” movements within the Church that have come to be endorsed, even embraced, by senior leadership.
One can also make come criticisms: I find the rhetoric and tone that characterizes the FRB book reviews I have read to be a real problem–it is inconsistent with the claim that there are Stake Presidents, etc., on the board, therefore their good intentions are beyond question.
Sunstone is at least very sensitive to its problematic role as a vehicle for voicing social or religious criticism from (generally) within the fold. FARMS, on the other hand, shows absolutely no awareness of any problematic features of its role as a vehicle for voicing conservative apologetic responses.
I think that’s the general point of Kaimi’s post–there ARE some problems with the role FARMS has come to play, and no one at FARMS shows ANY awareness of the problem. Their response, if queried, is to give a sophisticated response denying there could possibly be any such problem. Call beam control, there’s a perception problem here.
Comment by Dave — 5/9/2004 @ 6:13 am
“Sunstone is at least very sensitive to its problematic role as a vehicle for voicing social or religious criticism from (generally) within the fold. FARMS, on the other hand, shows absolutely no awareness of any problematic features of its role as a vehicle for voicing conservative apologetic responses.”
Sunstone is not sensitive to anything. That is their problem. If they were as sensitive as you say, half the stuff wouldn’t have even been published. Although they are interesting, I believe they are mostly spiritual trash built on a house of worldly cards. Most of those who write for them shouldn’t even be in the Church. Just to make my point absolutely clear, how many people who contribute to FARMS has been excommunicated publically? How many who have been excommunicated (if there has been) *still* write for FARMS?
Sunstone never apologizes, they never indicate they do not hold official positions of the LDS Church (in fact, they often demand that the LDS Church and its members conform to their pet theories or they are worthless idiots or egomaniacal false leadership). They are the most egotistical, melodramatic, and damaging vehicle in existance. They are basically no better than Tanner and Tanner, other than hiding behind “objectivity” labels that really don’t apply. The one major reason I read them is to see where the enemies of truth are at the moment.
FARMS, on the other hand, is build completely with an understanding that they *are* conservative, or at least orthodox. They do not, and never have, stated they are anything other than conservative — and often label themselves such within individual articles . In fact, I would go so far as to say that they don’t have to acknowledge such because it is such a given. I do find it funny that you are labeling them as conservative when the whole premise of the argument is that, in the strictest of senses, they are not.
Mostly I think we are dealing with two or three seperate issues at hand. One; social conservatism or liberalism, two; religious orthodoxy or unorthodoxy, and three; intellectual pursuits. They have become conflated into one large whole in this converstation, making it difficult to decide what issue we are really talking about. Therefore, I admit up front that what I have said is mostly dealing with part of the story; orthodoxy that does determine to a degree our political leanings.
Comment by Jettboy — 5/9/2004 @ 11:07 am
Dan, Juliann, et al,
I don’t mean that your intent is to belittle other members. But statements about informed and uninformed members can certainly give that impression. And this seems to apply to both FARMS writers, such as Dan, and the group of members that typically reads and discusses these ideas.
Let’s look at a few statements in this thread:
Dan writes:
“I suspect that there are, always have been, and ever will be theological differences between reflective believers and unreflective believers, between the educated and the uneducated (e.g., between the dual-doctorate holding phenomenologist Karol Wotylja [aka John Paul II] or the Thomist Etienne Gilson and, say, an illiterate Quiché Mayan woman in the Guatemalan Péten), between serious readers and non-readers.”
Clark writes:
“If we speak about what Mormon theology *is* then I think we must separate it from what ignorant members may believe. Just as when we speak about what science teaches we *don’t* ask what individual uninformed people within the sciences think. For instance you wouldn’t go to a physicist to ask about biology or biology to ask about science. While we are a lay church, it doesn’t follow that everyone is informed on theology.”
These statements don’t seem anomalous to me. I was told on another occasion that all “informed” members believe in limited geography. And so forth.
Again, I’m sure that this isn’t intentional. But the very way that Dan phrases it — “Once members of the Church have been exposed to Level B, though, he said, their only hope is to press on to the richer, more complicated version of history that is to be found on Level C — which, he contended and I agree, turns out to be essentially, and profoundly, like Level A.” — suggests some of the potential problems. It’s as if FARMS believes that it is doing Einsteinian physics while everybody else is putt-putting along doing Newtonian stuff (I’ve heard this Einstein/Newton analogy used before, in an intended positive way).
And is there any way to _not_ be condescending with that view? (”We’re doing the stuff others haven’t gotten to yet”). I’m not sure. Perhaps I’m just overly sensitive, but I think that there is a real problem. It’s one of the things that I dislike about FARMS.
On the other hand, I should note that I continue to like a good deal about FARMS. But I still think that there are concerns with how it fits into the universe of Mormonism.
P.S. Dan, this is twice now that you have ended your comments by refuting statements that I didn’t make. “I am neither an apostate nor an agent of some covert Fifth Column” and then “Nobody at FARMS is claiming to be the hand that has no need of the foot.” I have made neither of those statements, and I don’t think I agree with either of those sentiments.
Comment by Kaimi — 5/9/2004 @ 11:14 am
Kaimi:
I’ve been responding to what I regard as the implicit (and not so terribly difficult to see) logic of your claim. If I belong, even incipiently, to a different (metaphorical?) religion or church than do the vast majority of Mormons — and this was, in fact, the possibility that you raised to open this thread (the disaffected polemicist “Dr. Shades” takes it even further, suggesting [purely for rhetorical effect, of course, since he himself rejects the revelations given to Joseph Smith] that I belong to a different church than God) — then I am, at least metaphorically speaking, an incipient or current apostate from Mormonism. And if I do so more or less surreptitiously (which may well be the case, since, notably, I’ve never devoted even one of my own sacrament meeting speeches to such topics as Joseph Smith’s sexual practices or the precise geographical coordinates of the Jaredite city of Lib — supposedly central doctrinal points of my own distinct religious faith), then I must be, for whatever reason, at least a tad disingenuous. The term “Fifth Column” does not seem inappropriate for such people as I seem to be, if such I am. (Or perhaps I’m just a coward. How else to explain my reluctance to testify to my beliefs?)
I don’t see, Kaimi, how there can be anything even slightly controversial about Stanley Kimball’s perception of three levels in the understanding of Mormon history — which I heard from him before FARMS existed, and which scarcely applies solely or even primarily to the types of topics that FARMS usually treats. Surely you don’t mean to suggest either that complexities untreated in Sunday school (such as seeming Nauvoo polyandry, multiple accounts of the First Vision, Amerindian DNA, and the like) don’t exist. Surely you don’t mean to claim that every member of every Gospel Doctrine class in the Church already knows about these things. And surely you don’t intend to claim that the vast majority in the Church devote much if any serious attention, ever, to the reading of academic studies of early Mormon history or to dedicated study of the scriptures in the original Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew, such that their notions on these topics should be accorded equal status, on points of scholarly interpretation, in academic venues, with the views of those who have? (Should my views on molecular biology or civil engineering or contemporary accounting practices or, for that matter, potato farming, be granted any hearing at all?) Is it Professor Kimball’s suggestion that the best academic/intellectual way to deal with such complexities, once encountered, is to work through them, that you find objectionable? If so, I hope you will explain why. Is it the suggestion that, all things otherwise being equal, knowing more about a topic is better than knowing less? I’ll admit that I would find a denial of that seemingly self-evident idea puzzling, but I’m willing to be instructed. You might begin by explaining, if greater knowledge and more sophistication regarding a topic is not, on the whole, preferable to less knowledge and less sophistication, why I cannot, right now, open a law practice.
As for Dave’s post, two quick responses: (1) There is, as the saying goes, no disputing about taste. I personally find the persistent complaints that I hear from certain quarters — not all; I recently heard the evangelical theologian Clark Pinnock compliment Lou Midgley on the “sweet and lovely tone” of his essays in the FARMS Review, “particularly in view of the provocations” (I’m not making this up) — about the supposed nastiness of FARMS extremely overwrought. Of course, this may simply be because I’m a moral leper. In any event, however, such complaints, even if their validity be granted for purposes of discussion, apply at most to only a very small proportion of the hundreds of essays that have appeared in the FARMS Review, which itself represents only a small proportion of the total publishing output of FARMS. (2) Those leveling accusations against others should probably not simultaneously lecture the targets of their criticisms on the subject of motes and beams.
Comment by Daniel Peterson — 5/9/2004 @ 12:36 pm
Permit me to make a clarification:
I do, unapologetically, believe that it is better to know more and think more about topics worth knowing and thinking about.
However, lest I open myself to further charges of intellectual elitism and disdain, let me also add that I believe it’s better to attend the temple than not to attend the temple, to work on the welfare farm than not to work on the welfare farm, to spend time with one’s children than not to do so, and to devote hours to community service than to live in selfish isolation.
I also recognize that time devoted to academic study and reflection is time necessarily taken away from temple service, welfare work, family, and community labors. There are many competing goods. The goods of the mind are among them, but intellectuality and knowledge are not the only goods, and, indeed, are not the greatest goods.
In this life, we simply can’t do everything. (Perhaps that’s one reason why the atonement is inescapably necessary.) Temple attendance subtracts from time available for community service; genealogical research distracts from scripture study; family time diverts from work in the cannery; time spent on the Web distracts from all of them. Those who spend time serving the poor will gain the reward of having served the poor, but they will probably gain a lesser blessing of scriptural knowledge. Those who gain the reward of deeper knowledge of the scriptures will probably not gain the same degree of blessings for having served the poor.
There are many goods. I see nothing to be gained by any suggestion that those who have chosen to devote substantial time to knowledge and reflection in the context of the gospel somehow constitute a different faith or smugly view themselves as a self-constituted elite, any more than do those who have chosen other paths of service to God.
The spiritual danger of pride exists everywhere, too. Perhaps that danger is greater for intellectuals, but it is also possible to take pride in one’s superior charity, one’s impressive collection of genealogical materials or endowment numbers, and one’s deeper humility. Pride is a particularly insidious threat, it seems to me, just when one is accusing another of it.
Comment by Daniel Peterson — 5/9/2004 @ 1:32 pm
Dan hits a homer. Even before ’specialization’ was co-opted as a term of capitalism, we all had talents. If certain folks have an academic talent…how can it be less than righteous for them to magnify it?
Comment by lyle — 5/9/2004 @ 2:12 pm
I agree with most of what Dan has said. I guess my question Kaimi, is how does having more information or at least more fleshed out views (even if they are in part hypothetical) entail one be condescending. I just don’t see how recognizing that others haven’t thought about something as being condescending. Perhaps you don’t intend it Kaimi, but it really seems like you’re adopting a kind of anti-intellectualism. That to seek to know is *intrinsically* prideful. I just don’t see how that must be. If you mean something else, could you perhaps clarify it?
As to Shades, clearly his view follows only if one adopts a conservative protestant like hermeneutic of prophecy. Since that isn’t a position within Mormonism, it seems he is attacking a strawman.
Comment by Clark Goble — 5/9/2004 @ 3:42 pm
I have a few rambling comments for this thread:
I have read several comments here and in other forums where this theme has been raised recently, and it makes me wonder -
The typical Israelite practicing popular religion in ancient Israel, before the Josian reform, probably worshipped either YHWH or Ba’al (or perhaps both) along with Asherah, the consort of YHWH (or Ba’al). All three of these were represented in the temple of Solomon in Jerusalem before they were removed in the Josian reform. The Asherah worship was so culturally ingrained, that after her removal from the temple, individuals in Judah blamed the destruction of Jerusalem and deportation to Babylon on the abandonment of her worship.
Were those Jews who favored a stricter monotheism an elite religion within the common religion? Does it matter that those “elitists” later became normative Judaism? (Who were in turn redefined by still later “elitists”?)
One thing that also comes to mind is that the LDS faith is a convert driven faith. How many members today are converts? Half? More than half? We have had many issues come and go where the common view has changed as the basic make-up of the church has changed. How many really question the notion of pre-Adamites as believed in the 19th century?
I have a rather fun article (fun because it represented someone’s notion of scholarship in the mid 19th century):
Debow’s review, Agricultural, commercial, industrial progress and resources.
Volume 30, Issue 2 (1868)
Hereditary Descent; or, Depravity of the Offspring of Polygamy among the Mormons
pp. 206-216
The main thesis is that because of polygamy, the children of polygamist families had (in the course of a single generation) degenerated into a new “lesser” race, complete with distinctive features and attributes. It notes for example that the original characteristics are lost:
“The older men and women present all the physical peculiarities of the nationalities to which they belong; but these peculiarities are not propagated and continued in the new race; they are lost in the prevailing Mormon type.”
This is interesting because of its views on race - defined in a way that seems somewhat foreign to the way we use it today. In the same article, the author also gives the theory of human races as he understands it (and then where he places the new Mormon “race” within that theory):
“After these inferior or first races were created (it may have been millions of years) Jehovah Elohim, translated LORD GOD in our version, formed the superior or Adamic man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. He subsequently formed the white or Adamic woman from a part of the body of the man, nearest the heart, viz.: the bony case enclosing it, instead of forming the Adamic race, male and female, from the start, as the inferior colored races were created.”
This was a part of the cultural background. And it seems evident that members of the church believed it, even prominent leaders. We do not have much discussion over the notion of pre-Adamites today. But it seems that it would have been possible to make such a distinction between elite religion and common religion over any such controversial issue back then. Did it divide the church? Did it create two new churches?
As pre-Adamites are no longer really a part of the cultural environment from which we draw converts, it seems to me to be less and less likely that this will ever be raised as a serious point of contention again.
A couple of moths ago, I had a rather animated debate with an LDS member who insisted that using any translation of the Bible (other than the KJV) was to put oneself on the road to apostacy. We have, I believe, because of our being largely a convert church, many groups of people (maybe minorities) who have specific teachings which are not universally (or perhaps even widely) believed. There is a great deal of difference between Joseph Smith claiming that his German copy of the New Testament (presumably Luther’s translation, discussed in the KFD) was the most accurate translation he knew of, and this member claiming that anything but the authorized KJV (I am not sure this individual knew the difference between the 1611 and the Oxford edition which we use today) put one squarely on the road to sin. I would think that this individual might also be considered an elitist in his own fashion.
Among LDS, the notion of a literal world-wide flood is seeing a reduced following. In my own unit, in Northern Michigan (mostly converts), I would say that reading a literal world-wide flood is represented by a minority of the members. This is in part parallel to the fact that our cultures are largely rejecting this world-wide flood. Perhaps this transition will precede a LGT for the BoM replacing a hemispheric model. These are for the most part, people who have never considered the issue of LGT versus Hemispheric model. Is the period of elitist verses common religion on this point already over, and the elitist point of view has already begun replacing the common point of view. Religion evolves. Sometimes Common Religion holds out, sometimes elitist religion wins.
Thankfully we no longer carry many of the perspectives of early 19th century America that have been phased out of our common religion. But, one wonders what would have happened if every new idea was viewed as suspect and by nature not a part of religion because it is not a part of the common religion’s heritage.
It should not be the role of the polemicist to categorically define which new notions and movements within the LDS faith constitute an “elitist” position, and which ones don’t. If the polemicist argues for this, then it is the polemicist who is attempting to divide the religion, and who is doing so across lines which are (at least as I see it) arbitrarily drawn.
One of the things that I hope for is that the Church begins to recognize its lay theologians as being able to participate in discussions with its “official” theologians (our general authorities). This was a painful process for Catholicism, but they have, in many ways, become better for it. Kudos go to those who pioneered the role of scholarship within the Catholic Church (Like Raymond Brown or Roland Murphy). For them, it literally took a Papal Encylical (Divino Afflante Spiritu) to help promote the value of those who are the “elitists”. Whether or not it happens for LDS, these “elitist” are important in defining the faith as a whole.
Ben
Comment by Ben McGuire — 5/9/2004 @ 3:57 pm
Kaimi says: “And is there any way to _not_ be condescending with that view? (”We’re doing the stuff others haven’t gotten to yet”). I’m not sure. Perhaps I’m just overly sensitive, but I think that there is a real problem. It’s one of the things that I dislike about FARMS.”
I am…speechless! This requires a conclusion that everyone must do everything equally well or face the accusation that they are “condescending” by specializing.
You also said: “These statements don’t seem anomalous to me. I was told on another occasion that all “informed” members believe in limited geography. And so forth.”
And this is the problem I see with armchair critics who do not specialize. Have you interviewed anyone? Have you done any surveys? If you are content with “I was told” …why does that make the other guy common while doing the same thing?
I approached two more people at church today. Since the political football here seems to be who gets to condescend and speak for all these common folk, I figure the only place one can get a representative sample is at church where, by definition, all the mystical common folk hang out. I asked a nurse by profession and former bishop’s wife about pre-BOM occupants. She immediately brought up Jaredites, etc., and said that just because we didn’t have records didn’t mean other people didn’t exist. I refined the question to eliminate all BOM people (I was sloppy). She repeated the same thing…just because we don’t have records…. I then asked a member of the bishopric, a CEO. He said it didn’t matter one way or another and was much more (pleasantly) interested in my involvement in all of this. I have informally interviewed at least a dozen ward members to date. Again, the *only* one I encountered that had any resistence to the idea of a LGT was one person and even that was “I’ll have to think about it”. I’ve had one other (who has background)say he believed the LGT before the controversy…another who has no professional education said he had always thought there were other inhabitants (with these folks I have to endure the condecension as they look at me like some kind of dufus for asking such an obvious question). So far, I’m running over 90% of common folk who just shrug. They don’t *care* one way or another! It would be really, really nice if just one person would pop up with some statistics before they throw out what their Aunt Molly thinks as evidence.
The other disconnect I am having is from my own experience in a beyond liberal religion dept. of a private college. There seems to be a rather frighteningly pervasive attitude by those who should know better that liberal scholars are either secularists or that they do not do service for their own believing communities (since to do so is to apparently lose your claim to being a real scholar in some minds). This is where I find truly disturbing condescension. I am currently looking at my annual schedule for continuing *ministry* studi