Joanna Brooks, an unorthodox Mormon, wrote a book. Ralph C. Hancock, apparently an orthodox Mormon (and a professor of political science at BYU), reviewed it in the Deseret News.
Joanna doesn’t need me to defend her or her book (which is great, by the way-I recommend it).
What I have a problem with is the underlying narrative behind Mr. Hancock’s review. Here it is:
We-as in Mormons–have the Truth (with a capital T). It is difficult, and often inconvenient, to follow that Truth. Those that don’t follow that Truth are taking the easy path. They have been seduced by a bland and empty secularism and are promoting a version of Mormonism-Mormonism Lite-that is compatible with that philosophy. Beware.
So let’s start with the obvious problem.
For Hancock, the choice is between Mormonism Lite (designed to fit comfortably with “the increasingly ascendant secular ethic of boundless individual autonomy”) and the “true” restored Gospel (with its “path of obedience to laws and ordinances”).
So there you have it. As Hancock sets up the dichotomy, the choice is between a “secular” ethic and the restored Gospel.
Let’s back up a minute and start at the beginning. Let’s go back to the fork in the road where people like me (and Joanna, and other unorthodox Mormons) first begin to part company with Mr. Dichotomy and the rest of the “it’s-either-true-or-false-secularism-is-scary” crowd.
It starts by looking at the world outside your window. Really looking. And talking to other people. And listening-really listening-to their experiences. Most of the ebb and flow of humanity on this planet-6 billion and counting-have asked the big questions at some point in their lives (e.g. Is there a God?, If there is, what does God expect of me?, etc.). Most of us have also been handed a set of answers to those questions-and those answers depended on our parents, our parents’ religion, and the time and place of our birth.
Many individuals, as they mature, begin to ask if the answers they’ve been handed are adequate. The vast majority reach the conclusion that the answers they’ve grown up believing are the most comfortable-and give them the easiest access to religious experiences.
Religious experiences are the key to this process. Religious experiences are those moments of expansive insight, peace, reflection, and communion with a higher power. As Mormons, we’re taught that religious experiences are evidence of the truthfulness of our answer to life’s big questions-and also evidence of the inferiority of everyone else’s.
After a religious experience or two in the context of Mormonism, the focus shifts from assessing different “answers” to being exactly obedient, marching in line, and following the outlined path. If one isn’t happy about that path, then it’s the fault of the individual-because the path is “true.” If one isn’t happy with the picture emerging from one’s paint-by-the-numbers approach to life, then it’s the fault of the individual, because the picture is “true.”
But what happens when one realizes that spiritual experiences are universal? That the peace and communion that one sometimes feels within the context of Mormonism isn’t unique? That one’s friend, a Hindu, has also experienced it-in the context of Hinduism? And Muslims, and born-again Christians, and even the Episcopalian that lives down the street have experienced it? “But what about ‘absolute’ Truth, one might sputter? “There has to be a Truth with a capital T out there.” And the temptation is to start inventing explanations-like the “shards” theory of Truth (i.e. Truth is a stain-glass window, and everyone else has shards of it, so their spiritual experiences are tied to those shards-WE, however, have the entire stain-glass window). For many, the possibility that there may not be a Truth with a capital T is too much to process and they back away from the edge. People who get this far react in all sorts of different ways.
It is this reaction that represents the fork in the road. This is where the orthodox and the unorthodox begin to part company. This is where it starts, in other words. Each person has to answer the following question: “Am I confident that my religious experiences are superior to everyone else’s?” If one answers this question in the negative, they’ve taken the first step down the path to heterodoxy. It strikes me as ironic that those most likely to answer this question in the affirmative seem to be the least capable of seeing the arrogance of their position.
For people that have gone down the unorthodox path, folks like Mr. Hancock are tiresome. We’d like to send them off to play in a neighbor’s yard so they’ll stop bothering us.
His mistake is that he doesn’t understand unorthodox Mormons. He relies on his black-and-white commitment to orthodoxy as a template for understanding heterodoxy-and he gets it wrong. He seems to think that Joanna is committed to a kind of secularism (or liberalism, or feminism, or progressivism, or [insert scary word here]) in the same way that he is subsumed by his commitment to rule-following and obedience. He tries to understand heterodox Mormons as people that are committed, in essence, to a different kind of religion. He couldn’t be more wrong.
Many of us that have taken the heterodox fork in the road soon realize that we don’t really know anything. Our religious experiences aren’t any more valid or profound or “real” than anyone else’s. Our answers to life’s big questions are just that-they are “our” answers and however wondrous those answers may be to us (and however useful), the fact that we have answered life’s big questions in a certain way doesn’t mean that everyone else’s answers are inferior.
We are not committed to secularism (or liberalism, or feminism, or progressivism) in the same way that orthodox Mormons are committed to “exact” obedience. We just realize that there is a lot we don’t know. If God speaks to humanity through spiritual experiences, then why does he communicate such radically different information to individuals based on their religious context? We don’t know. That’s it, really. We don’t know.
Many of us have gotten to the point of “I don’t know,” stared into the abyss, searched our souls for some reflection of deity, and then seen the same thing: We’ve seen each other. We’ve come away from the experience with the profound realization that we–as in all of humanity-are in this together. We are truly one. Until further notice, therefore, it seems obvious that the one thing we can do-the low-hanging fruit, so to speak-is to be nice to each other. We should treat each other fairly, and with dignity and respect.
Another common line of reasoning among those of us who don’t know much is this. If God created us with individual agency and the capacity for reason, then it makes sense that God expects us to use those capabilities. Let’s read Mr. Hancock’s opening dichotomy a little more carefully. The choice, in his own words, is between “individual autonomy” and a “path of obedience to laws.” If forced into this false dichotomy, I suspect that what we do with our individual autonomy will matter more to God than how well we follow directions. For me it comes down to whether or not I believe God wants us to paint by the numbers or to paint our own pictures? As parents, what do we value more from our four-year-olds? A paint-by-the-numbers portrait identical to what’s on the box, or a free-spirited “Look, Mom, this is you and Dad in a rocket ship with a cow!” masterpiece?
The path of “I don’t know” is difficult. Taking responsibility for one’s own spiritual life is difficult. Being nice to people is difficult. It’s not easy-not nearly as easy as the “exact obedience” path can be at times. But there’s a reason why most adults have abandoned paint-by-the-numbers projects.
Here’s to hoping that Mr. Hancock grows up a bit.
[See more discussion of Mr. Hancock’s review in the Bloggernacle here, here, here and here.]
[Last Post: 25 Conference Weekend and Rolexes]
Thank you. I’m just digesting this, but the difficult path of realizing we don’t know, of reaching out to others’ experiences, rings true. As does my hope that as I continue to look for the divine, I’ll see others better.
Beautifully expressed. I especially like your “low hanging fruit”. There is no condescension, no desire to convert others to our own way of thinking. There is only “being nice to each other.” Treating each other with dignity and respect.” Amen.
This rocks! Now if I only I had the courage to share this on my wall.
You described the path of heterodoxy so beautifully! I would like to add that for me, I find much to admire about those who are orthodox. My position is not necessarily better, although I do believe it is more mature, simply because it takes more maturity to think past the black and white. However, many mature people are orthodox, and many orthodox people are capable of respecting heterodox beliefs. I wish the orthodox would acknowledge the legitimacy of the heterodoxy position and stop regarding it as “dangerous,” and I often wish that the heterodox would drop their defensive stance. I think all of us react in normal and understandable ways to one another, but it is sad to see it go on in the gospel of Chirst.
As someone whose been threatened to have some kind of “liberal agenda” without understanding why, this explains my experience perfectly and I appreciate this description.
Good stuff. Thanks.
Thanks for doing this Brent. Nicely done.
Ralph and the Bulwark are in battle mode based on what I hear from inside sources.
Theological narcissism is plaguing our church.
Thanks very much for this. I love the idea of a mature spirituality in which we fully accept ambiguity, and go with the low hanging fruit.
Brent,
This is a truly brilliant insight:
He seems to think that Joanna is committed to a kind of secularism (or liberalism, or feminism, or progressivism, or [insert scary word here]) in the same way that he is subsumed by his commitment to rule-following and obedience. He tries to understand heterodox Mormons as people that are committed, in essence, to a different kind of religion. He couldn’t be more wrong.
Thanks.
I have to disagree a little with you. Just a little.
To me the path of “I don’t know” has freed me from a kind of pressure.
Probably partly because if you consider that you have the whole truth and that you can find all the answers in what you have been given then if you don’t have the answer it is easier because you are not good enough or because you have not studied enough. Anyway it is always about being “not enough” which is the most terrible judgment we can bring on ourselves when the time for judgement is not here yet.
This is a time of learning. Isn’t it what we are told? Yes it is. It is indeed what we are told but it has not been what we have been taught for many of us.
MUCH appreciated, and shared on my own FB wall!
For all the problems today in the Church, I’m taking the “let it all hang out” approach. We get nowhere by denial and we get nowhere by snotty rule-following. I can’t think how Jesus would be mortified when we describe what is supposed to be his church as a religion that doesn’t allow drinking, smoking or swearing as the first things that pop of out most mouths. OY.
Good stuff here. Thanks for speaking your mind, Brent.
Thanks for a lovely take on it.
Jonah, what does this mean?
“Ralph and the Bulwark are in battle mode based on what I hear from inside sources.” Meaning they are being criticized and so they are in battle mode, or they are just ready to off Joanna and her fellow travelers?
I never thought I would be thanking the Botts and Hancocks of the world, but I am really quite grateful their awkward POV are causing uncomfortable conversations to take place–I have met a hundred Hancocks in the church, in print and in person, but he is so good at verbalizing their bully tactics. I would rather deal with him out in the open.
This is wonderful – intelligent, relevant and articulate. Good job.
Bruce C. Hafen’s master class on the subject. http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6727
unorthodox/uncorrelated/heterodox/hermaphrodox/mormonism-lite = jack… as in jack-mormon. how many manufactured phrases does it take to soothe (or deaden) a tortured conscience? btw, do people forfeit their claim to maturity if they castigate other people for being immature? when people ask the universal questions, do they ask them to the source who can provide authoritative answers or do they rely upon others who are just as clueless… but more stridently confident in their cluelessness? what is universal is that all people are born with the Light of Christ and that all will be individually accountable to Him for the choices they make in their test of mortality. every knee shall bow and every tongue confess. mature spirituality comes from faithful, conscientious obedience and sacrifice, not from merely “being nice” and swiping at “low-hanging fruit” with ungrateful, unworthy hands, hearts, minds and motives. if you think it can be reduced to “paint by the numbers,” then you’re doing it wrong.
Out, out, brief candle!
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing. – Macbeth (Act 5, Scene 5)
this soliloquy perfectly characterizes the posturing of the apostate bloggernacle.
sigh. . .
You state that “all will be individually accountable to Him for the choices they make in their test of mortality” and then in the very next sentence state that “mature spirituality comes from faithful . . . obedience.” One of the things that is endearing about Mormonism (and Mormons) is the ability to hold completely contradictory ideas next to each other and not even notice the conflict. . . Another great example of this is in the Family Proclamation: “By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness” and then a few sentences later, “fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.” [Bonus to anyone who can draw an “equal partnership” where one of the partner “presides” over the other.] So, let me get this straight. We are accountable as individuals for how we use our agency, but what we need to do with that agency is not use it (because we’re supposed busily engaged in being “exactly” obedient).
I’ll give you the last word if you want it. I suspect we’re not going to agree on much here.
I actually like the discussion that is going on here…but I just wanted to respond to a couple of comments you made, the first being that being obedient means not using our agency. In fact, one who chooses to be obedient to that orthodox path is using his agency. I also think it’s unfair to assume that those who have decided to exert as much obedience as possible to the orthodox path of the Church have not matured spiritually. If you postulate that our spiritual maturity comes individually, that God gives each of us an individual experience, then you must concede that it is completely possible that for an individual that path is the right one for them and doesn’t mean they haven’t thought it out, fought for their own testimony or used their own agency. To be fair, it seems that you are mostly talking about extremists in general, Mr. Hancock in particular, and those who display some form of ill-placed superiority/inferiority. Anyway, just my 2 cents on that. I’ll finish reading the comments as I find this discussion interesting. Thanks!
You highlight a very interesting tension (at least for me). Can you use your agency to surrender your agency? In other words, can I decide that I no longer want to think about things and that I’m going to just “follow the prophet” and be “exactly obedient.” I’ve heard people argue that if they are “exactly obedient” then they are “safe” no matter what, because even if a particular leader is wrong, they’ll still be rewarded for having been obedient. I heard this argument with respect to Prop 8, for example. More than one individual that I discussed this with basically said the following: “I think that same-sex marriage is a good thing for society, and I don’t think it’s right for us to impose our religious beliefs on others, but the prophet says that we should oppose it, so I figure that if I do what the prophet says, and he’s wrong, God will reward me for being obedient, so I can’t lose. But if I obey my own conscience, then even if I’m right, I’ll still be in trouble for being disobedient, so I can’t win.”
This is where things get interesting for me. I have a hard time believing in a God that would endow individuals with agency (and the ability to think and reason), and then expect them to give up that agency (or go against their own reason and/or conscience) when a leader tells them to.
I have a hard time believing that a God would reward an individual for doing something he or she felt was wrong because a leader told them to (and they chose obedience over their own spiritual sense). In that case, I suspect God would be a little disappointed, actually (and might say something like, “I gave you a brain and a conscience, why didn’t you use them?).
I’m not pretending I have the answer. . . I just think it’s a complicated issue.
Wow. I don’t think such an ugly comment deserves much of a tactful reply, but I will give it nonetheless.
I have spent the whole of my 25 years of life trying to understand and vindicate the church. I served my mission with as much faith and diligence as I could muster. I have spent many tearful hours on my knees pleading for the Lord to correspond with me, and have been met with a void of silence. In doing everything the church prescribes, I have yet to know a spiritual experience that verifies the Book of Mormon and the reality of the atonement. Therefore, I have an inability to bear testimony. I could handle logical paradox in the church if it made spiritual sense to me, but it does not.
Are you aware of the utter lack of historical and archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon? Are you aware that the church has so edited its history as to render it unrecognizable from its actual roots? Are you aware that thousands of people’s legitimate search for truth in Mormonism has led them to genuinely believe that the church is not true? I’m doing my best to reconcile all the evidence and, at the very least, maintain a belief that the Book of Mormon is metaphorically true, so that I can still remain in the church. But how can I enjoy church attendance and association when I am met with hate speech like yours? Your arrogant hostility is destroying the church.
Mr. Hancock needs to learn that those that have the cheap seats are still able to enjoy the game.
This was really insightful. Thanks for a great explanation of heterodoxy.
Thank you for this. You put it so perfectly.
I agreed with so much of this article, and it really resonates with my religious experience.
But I can’t agree with the idea that “the one thing we can do….is be nice to each other.” I think, in fact, that it is this position that makes those of us who claim to be unorthodox Mormons so vulnerable to attacks like Hancock’s or from other orthodox Mormons. If after all our searching and asking questions and trying to find whatever vestiges of truth we can, all we can come up with is that we need to “be nice to each other”….well, that’s really uninspiring, and i disagree that it is our only answer. Instead, I whole-heartedly think that we should still subscribe to being obedient and following the laws of God, just with a slightly different mindset. Think like a Heterodox Mormon (realize that there is a lot that we do not know), act like an Orthodox Mormon (realize that obedience to the gospel is an important aspect of faith). Though that is an inaccurate statement, too, because it’s not like heterodox Mormons cede the realm of obedience to Orthodox mormons, and indicating otherwise just reinforces this idea that orthodox mormons are the “real mormons” and heterodox mormons are “mormonism lite.”
You mention that choosing between individual autonomy and a path of obedience to laws is a false dichotomy. I agree, God wants us to do both. And I think that Brooks writing supports doing both as well–being a faithful member of the church while also thinking critically about controversial issues and accepting truth wherever she finds it.
Very interesting comment. Being nice to each other isn’t easy–at least not the way I intended it. The scope of human suffering that could be alleviated by increased efforts to “be nice” is staggering. . . All the rules that go beyond the “be nice” imperative that we tend to associate with religion (particularly in Mormonism) are optional, in my opinion. . . that doesn’t mean that they aren’t valuable (or can’t be valuable).
Funny, I seem to remember Elder Brother saying that the most important – if not only – commandment was to love one another. I found those words inspiring. And hard to live up to.
Those who follow the “Mormon Lite” path should be respected in that all men are supposed to be allowed to worship “how, where, or what thrust” according to the articles of faith, which applies to those within and outside the church. However, as with the Proclamation, the church leadership creating NOM and other organizations to run anti-gay equality campaigns, which afflicts mostly non-Mormons, is not only in opposition to this newly found “Mormon Lite” mantra, but the same article of faith that members cherish.
The doctrine of the church, and words from its leadership, do not give room for its membership to pick and choose what to follow. The religion itself is designed as an all-or-nothing belief system. Its brilliant that its the members who are starting this movement, and it will be interesting to see how the leadership handles it over the next decade.
As someone who underwent the church’s ex-gay therapy program, I had quite an eye-opening experience in realizing true differences between church doctrine, church policy, and church politics.. where most Mormons I know don’t see the difference.
Those who follow the “Mormon Lite” path should be respected in that all men are supposed to be allowed to worship “how, where, or what they may” according to the articles of faith, which applies to those within and outside the church. However, as with the Proclamation, the church leadership, creating NOM and other organizations to run anti-gay equality campaigns, which afflicts mostly non-Mormons, is not only in opposition to this newly found “Mormon Lite” mantra, but the same article of faith that members cherish.
The doctrine of the church, and words from its leadership, do not give room for its membership to pick and choose what to follow. The religion itself is designed as an all-or-nothing belief system. Its brilliant that its the members who are starting this movement, and it will be interesting to see how the leadership handles it over the next decade.
As someone who underwent the church’s ex-gay therapy program, I had quite an eye-opening experience in realizing true differences between church doctrine, church policy, and church politics.. where most Mormons I know don’t see the difference.
Nice work. The guy lost me when I learned he was a professor of political science who spells ‘Truth with a capital T’. Holy yuck. Not planning on hanging out with that guy, ever.
I used to share Hancock’s frustration. I grew up. It took a lot of humility and hard hard lessons which led me to a more nuanced path. I’d surely now be seen as unorthodox by him. The tide is turning. There will always be Mr Hancocks but thank God for the Ms. Brooks of the world who show another way.
Thank you Brent for an essay which I think was brilliant. Mr. Hancock and the others who are increasingly sounding the alarm about the growing ranks of the scary unorthodox are threatened and scared. Scared of losing control. Scared of losing mindless followers who unquestioningly bow their heads and say yes.
But they cannot change the fact this movement is growing exponentially, they cannot stop it. The information is out there and more people are finding it every day. And his “our way or the highway” approach only adds fuel to the fire.
Appreciated how you worded your thoughts. Thank you for sharing these descriptive words ‘” If one isn’t happy with the picture emerging from one’s paint-by-the-numbers approach to life, then it’s the fault of the individual, because the picture is “true.” And I also loved the shards of stained glass imagery. They (others) have pieces ….that works … right up until the part about We have the whole stained glass window. It is this kind of thing (arrogance) that I hear that causes me to bristle time and time again. Since I come from and with the shards (others), and Know what I know and one of the things I do Know is that no one church or body of belief has the entirety of truth if there were indeed such a thing as a body of infallible truth. A paint by the numbers approach to life can be quite valuable and workable for many, so I’m not taking issue with the approach. There are some though who have already walked through life in a paint by numbers manner and are ready to paint free-hand. There needs to be space for that approach as well. If there can be different levels of heavenly after-life, and in some earlier beliefs there were nine (9) levels of heaven, this Church has settled on three, then certainly in our temporal walk there can be more than one approach to walking the good walk.
Well done.
One concern, though.
Advising Mr. Hancock to grow up is a put down.
Perhaps not as much a put down as he did to Joanna, but a put down nonetheless.
Your put down weakens your argument that we just need to “be nice to each other. We should treat each other fairly, and with dignity and respect.”
@Brett, you’re right of course (but I still wish he’d grow up a bit). . .
I was going to try to be snarky by saying something like “but Brent we were told to be like little children and Hancock is just being obedient to that directive.” But then I remembered I used that exact line of defense somewhere once before and got blasted for not being mature enough to know the difference between childlike and childish. Yeah, I’m not going to make the mistake again.
I liked the post however I felt that it read as if you thought your way was more superior than the orthodox way, which I also found ironic because you mentioned that people who choose the non orthodox way usually are willing to admit that their spiritual experiences are NOT superior to anyone else’s. It came off that you were guilty of the same thing Hancock was; telling someone else that their path is not best suited for themselves.
Brent, Your post describes near perfectly why I no longer accept “big T” Mormonism. Joanna Brooks, ironically, is paving the most viable path for Mormonism to survive in the near and far future – as a major world religion.
@Apron Appeal, you make a good point, but I think there’s a difference between defending heterodoxy and promoting it. . . Although I see it as a better fit for me, I also recognize that literal belief (and the rule-following that seems to go along with it) seems to be a better fit for others. I’d like to see more of a live-and-let-live, big tent approach to Mormonism, which is why I think some push-back against this kind of spiritual bullying (and I think that’s a pretty good word for it) is appropriate. . .
Brent, brilliant post as always. This articulates so much of what I try to communicate often but fail to do so. Right on.
@Apron Appeal, I don’t think that there’s anything wrong with believing in religious absolute truth (i.e.Mormonism is true with a capital T). Even though belief in the absolute truthfulness of the restored gospel requires both an orthodox following and a belief that any other conflicting belief systems (including heterodox or unorthodox Mormonism) are false, one does not have to believe that people will be condemned in their inability to discover or recognize absolute truth if they are truly genuine in seeking it (including those who embraced unorthodox forms of Mormonism).
I like this post, Brent, particularly the insight that the Hancock is missing the boat by failing to understand that the heterodox don’t (generally) hold onto a single set of beliefs that can be easily pinned down like the orthodox do. The belief systems don’t just differ in content, but in structure, if that makes sense (not the best word choice probably).
Brent, I’m coming a little late to the party, but this is a wonderful, insightful post. Your description of coming to “the edge” and then deciding what to do about it resonated a lot with my own experience.
A couple of thoughts…
As much as this has to do with orthodoxy/heterodoxy within Mormonism itself, I think this is symptomatic of a major shift in society at large from modernism to postmodernism. More than at any other point in human history, we’re being thrust into a global conversation of narratives, beliefs, perspectives, and cultures. We’re seeing that there isn’t one “correct” way to be human. This is huge, because for centuries (at least since the Enlightenment), it’s been assumed that there is. One way of looking at this, then, is to say that those who take the path of heterodoxy are adopting a postmodern worldview; while those who back away from the edge are deciding to hold on to their modern ideals. In a couple of generations, this moment of upheaval will settle, and postmodernism will win the day. It’s pretty much inevitable. But what do we do until then?
My opinion is that, as those who make the shift, we have a responsibility to extend radical grace and acceptance to those who opt not to join us. There are lots of reasons why people stare into that abyss and walk away. Our worldview holds reconciliation, respect, and equality as critically important virtues. Theirs is more concerned with abstract Truth (which they believe is knowable, while we do not). Can we be generous toward them anyway? Can we uphold our strongest ideals, even when we’re reacting against a worldview we were raised in and may have even held ourselves at one point (that makes it personal, which makes it so much harder)? I thought your post did this very well, but there were moments — like when you yearned for Mr. Hancock to “grow up” — that I wondered. :)
This is a beautiful comment, indeed. Food for thought for me. ;)
@Katie L., thanks for the thoughtful comment. You make a good point about the “grow up” comment (that was just me getting a little defensive).
Heather, I’m glad it resonated with you. :)
Brent, I *totally* understand feeling a little defensive. The hardest people to be generous toward are those who have hurt us — and we who have made the transition to a postmodern perspective have almost certainly been wounded along the way at the hands of the most stridently modern, such as Mr. Hancock seems to be. No worries, I really loved your post.