Mormonism as a stalled progressivism

[jay santos]

Mr. Invective,

Of course it's anti-progressive compared to our society, for the reasons I've stated, among others.

It is also demonstrably anti-progressive compared to other religions. Your comment that "No religion is progressive when contrasted with society" oversimplifies and evinces an ignorance of history and the very meaning of progressive. The word connotes social progress, meaning support for and sensitivitivity to need for increased social justice.

There are many products of the Renaissance that probably would not be allowed on the BYU campus. Christianity eradicated polygamy among the "barbarian" tribes. Augustine wrote at length against its barbarism. Some Christian Churches were at the vanguard of the abolitionist movement that led to the civil war. Mainstream religions are beginning to ordain female clergy and gays. Christian churches were among the leaders of the movement that led to abolition of Jim Crow and the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Other religions have, even when not allowing women the priesthood, supported them in their efforts to join men as equal partners in the work force, including in the elite careers. Mormonism, on the other hand, has outright opposed these types of efforts at social justice.

The LDS church is more progressive today than the 1830's church because society has forced it to assimilate. It has at discrete times been confronted with the choice of assimilating or becoming extremely marginalized, if not going extinct.

Regardless of your topic, I will comment on the ironic self-delusion that Mormonism is progressive. It's not, and that has been the source of its goodwill with a large percentage of its faithful.

You guys are not using progressive the same way. TKD and most others in this thread are using it to define something new or non-mainstream wrt religion.

[UtahDan]

Regardless of your topic, I will comment on the ironic self-delusion that Mormonism is progressive. It's not, and that has been the source of its goodwill with a large percentage of its faithful.

I suspect that Dave was using the term progressive inartfully. He acknowledged in the initial post that he felt like his vocabulary was inadequate to express the idea he was trying to get across.

I may be wrong, but what I read him saying there is not progressivism but universalism. In other words, Joseph incorporated a lot of different ideas into his movement (whether you believe he did that himself or was inspired to) and was very open about his "truth from any source" philosophy. The 14th Article of Faith captures than impulse very nicely. Also this quote:

"Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, etc., any truth? Yes. They all have a little truth mixed with error. We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true "Mormons"." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 316)

I used to think this was a Joseph v. Brigham thing too, but I think it is a lot more complex than that now. Joseph was a steady stream of new doctrine, often changing, as he learned new things and incorporated new views (I said on a podcast recently that I think it is a real shame that he did not live to see Thoreau publish Civil Disobedience, he missed it by five years). But he also routinely excommunicated members of the 12 who did not come to heel. Brigham on the other hand, while sometimes brutal with his adversaries (at a minimum rhetorically) was not able to stamp out doctrinal speculation and many of his most important views lost out over time. And it was not viewed as being apostate or disloyal in those days by the church at large for other of the brethren to state strong opposing views.

As Daymon Smith argues so well, the real death of doctrinal speculation, the elevation of a single orthodoxy to an article of faith by both leaders and members and the defensive hunkering down around the same, has its roots in underground polygamy and ultimately in the Priesthood Correlation Committee spearheaded by Harold B. Lee. People unfamiliar with this idea should give his podcast at Mormon Stories a listen. It is extremely persuasive.

EDIT: By the way, I am fascinated by the "blame Brigham" impulse seen so frequently in dialog surrounding practices and doctrines that seem "bad" or hard to understand. Someone should do more work on that topic. People are jealously defensive of Joseph as being a "pure source" but seem okay with the next oracle in line being wrong about a lot.

[woot]

Of course there is huge irony in the title of this thread. Mormonism's uniqueness has always always been its anti-progressivism. Hell, it went back to the Old Testament to justify polygamy. Similar authority supported the priesthood ban and anti-homosexuality. See also, the sexism.

Its magic-world-view has been in reaction to the Enlightenment and Modernism--Mormonism started announcing the advent of Jesus resurrected from the dead and angels visiting America just when it was becoming okay, even fashionable to deny belief in such stuff, even satirize it, and this was occurring widely. See Mark Twain. Even today it claims to have Jesus' ear.

Mormonism's attraction to many is its ANTI-progressivism. There is no "stalled progressivism". What has happened is a lack of vision and lack of poetry (the entrepreneurs are dead, and now there's just the bureaucrats, as Rambam noted), and assimilation.

Interesting thoughts. I liked TKD's point, but it does seem that what he has termed "progressive" may have been something more akin to audacity. It's audacious to believe that Jesus came to America, that those who die without hearing the truth still have a chance in the next life, that we lived with god before we were here, that god wouldn't stop calling prophets, that god wouldn't stop commanding polygamy, that god really does hate it when you do certain things with you body or love certain people or consume certain substances. I like that the mormon church took the next logical step on some issues that have long plagued other sects, but perhaps there's a reason those sects never took that step. Many of the uniquely mormon doctrines are decidedly, and explicitly intended to be, retrogressive.

[SeattleUte]

You guys are not using progressive the same way. TKD and most others in this thread are using it to define something new or non-mainstream wrt religion.

Newspeak.

[UtahDan]

Interesting thoughts. I liked TKD's point, but it does seem that what he has termed "progressive" may have been something more akin to audacity. It's audacious to believe that Jesus came to America, that those who die without hearing the truth still have a chance in the next life, that we lived with god before we were here, that god wouldn't stop calling prophets, that god wouldn't stop commanding polygamy, that god really does hate it when you do certain things with you body or love certain people or consume certain substances. I like that the mormon church took the next logical step on some issues that have long plagued other sects, but perhaps there's a reason those sects never took that step. Many of the uniquely mormon doctrines are decidedly, and explicitly intended to be, retrogressive.

And because it is a restorationist movement, that makes perfect sense. Christianity has become corrupt, distorted and decadent and thus a return to the source is needed. I need to think about all the reasons why in more depth, but while I agree with SU that the church proper has been behind the curve on important developments such as race, gender, sexuality, I am more convinced every day that there is something within the faith that allows the members to be progressive in their thoughts. They may not be mainstream thoughts but look at how many faithful people here are way out ahead of the body of the church on issues of the day and don't feel like they doing anything wrong by holding those views at least privately.

Contrast with the Evangelicals who are a great deal further behind the curve and seem by and large impervious to evidence and argument (much more than Mormons are). Maybe I am caricaturing evangelicals but I think Rick Perry and Mitt Romney are great symbols of what I am talking about in a very general sense.

[woot]

And because it is a restorationist movement, that makes perfect sense. Christianity has become corrupt, distorted and decadent and thus a return to the source is needed. I need to think about all the reasons why in more depth, but while I agree with SU that the church proper has been behind the curve on important developments such as race, gender, sexuality, I am more convinced every day that there is something within the faith that allows the members to be progressive in their thoughts. They may not be mainstream thoughts but look at how many faithful people here are way out ahead of the body of the church on issues of the day and don't feel like they doing anything wrong by holding those views at least privately.

Contrast with the Evangelicals who are a great deal further behind the curve and seem by and large impervious to evidence and argument (much more than Mormons are). Maybe I am caricaturing evangelicals but I think Rick Perry and Mitt Romney are great symbols of what I am talking about in a very general sense.

I think what we saw from mpfunk last night regarding the BCS is basically what has happened to the mormon church. After years of railing against the BCS as an evil organization, as soon as Utah becomes part of the cartel, all hail the cartel and keep everyone else out. Mormons had to fight for their ability to believe and practice their religion, in the face of (so the story goes) those who would take away those rights. Now that they're in the club, they're all about trampling on the rights of others for the sake of their beliefs. So, what started out as some degree of progressivism turned out to be nothing more than selfish pragmatism.

[taekwondave]

Holy cow! This turned into a really fantastic discussion while I was sleeping. I don't know who to give credit to for turning this thing around and getting us back on topic but I'm in your debt. I think the points that have been brought up on this third page are brilliant.

This is a LITTLE off-topic itself but I think it bears saying, my wife was asking me last night why I engage in this type of discussion, seeing as so regularly many take it to be a shot at their preferences, motives, character, intelligence, etc, and return the favor by turning to name-calling. And I told her because I haven't yet perfected the science of how to prove to people that I really do just want to put forth an idea/argument and have it challenged, rather than just insult their intelligence. It's my fault and I'll figure out how to handle it appropriately eventually, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't try in the mean time. The whole point of discussion is to have our views challenged by those who think differently so that both they and we can get nearer the truth. I have already adjusted my initial view on this topic since it has been intelligently challenged throughout the thread. We got away from it for a while pissing and name calling, but here we are, and the grown ups have righted a ship I probably built wrong from the get-go.

Anyways, carry on. I'm eating this up.

[taekwondave]

I think what we saw from mpfunk last night regarding the BCS is basically what has happened to the mormon church. After years of railing against the BCS as an evil organization, as soon as Utah becomes part of the cartel, all hail the cartel and keep everyone else out. Mormons had to fight for their ability to believe and practice their religion, in the face of (so the story goes) those who would take away those rights. Now that they're in the club, they're all about trampling on the rights of others for the sake of their beliefs. So, what started out as some degree of progressivism turned out to be nothing more than selfish pragmatism.

Well put. I agree.

[taekwondave]

I suspect that Dave was using the term progressive inartfully. He acknowledged in the initial post that he felt like his vocabulary was inadequate to express the idea he was trying to get across.

Thanks for noticing that.

[UtahDan]

I think what we saw from mpfunk last night regarding the BCS is basically what has happened to the mormon church. After years of railing against the BCS as an evil organization, as soon as Utah becomes part of the cartel, all hail the cartel and keep everyone else out. Mormons had to fight for their ability to believe and practice their religion, in the face of (so the story goes) those who would take away those rights. Now that they're in the club, they're all about trampling on the rights of others for the sake of their beliefs. So, what started out as some degree of progressivism turned out to be nothing more than selfish pragmatism.

I wouldn't go for far as to say they are "all about" it because I don't ever expect to see a repeat of the mobilization in favor of Prop 8 or other similar mobilizations of the past. But I'll go back again to the Articles of Faith. There are numerous very expansive statements about what Mormons simultaneously claim for themselves and grant to others. One is much more focused on the injustice of certain thoughts and practices when they are subjected to them.

Maybe the best ongoing example of the disconnect here is the view that some (though I think increasingly fewer) hold that one who leaves their faith and family to join the church is courageous and their disapproving family cold and cruel, while at the same time not treating their own apostates with charity or compassion. I have been fortunate to not really confront that in my own family, but oh my is it out there.

[HauteCoug]

This thread title intrigued me from the start, but the first two pages turned me off of the entire discussion because it appeared to be such a silly back-and-forth on who is smarter than the other. Luckily it looks as though it's turned around.

I love the idea of LDS progressivism, because it makes me think of early 20th century leadership who seemed entirely unlike the leadership that came about in the fifties and sixties (speaking as someone who was born in the eighties...naturally I'm limited by my age). There's such an interesting push and pull that has occurred through church history, and the thought that we began as a progressive institution is an interesting one. There's definitely merit to that idea; methodism was the only sect that stressed the unique one-on-one relationship with God and Jesus, and once we picked up on that, we joined their more progressive ideology.

My knowledge of church history is still growing, and so I do not claim to be any kind of expert, but my understanding is that while the church itself was founded upon a progressive ideal of a personal relationship with the Divine, it isn't necessarily implemented in such a way. At the most basic level we are supposed to be capable of repentance and forgiveness with God because of Jesus' atonement, and yet we have a duty to report to some form of authority.

Similarly we are encouraged to question doctrine but then are discouraged to question statements given by authority.

There is a lot of hypocrisy in execution and perhaps I'm being glib or naive, but the best I (and I think many of us here) can offer is that institutions tend to f--- things up. Everything is beautiful on paper, but put it in the hands of an individual and it becomes distorted and possibly even bastardized.

Another possibility is the compensation that must be created for the unintelligent masses. Quite frankly some people shouldn't delve into deep doctrine, because stupidity breeds stupidity which is code for terrible PR. I wonder if the tight leash is intended to curtail those who would cause serious detriment to the growth of the church.

There are a lot of things stemming from this idea; are church authority worthy of the deification they are given, what do we really see as scripture (and therefore what is canon), and does an evolution change the truthfulness of doctrine.

Is Mormonism stalled progressivism? Nope, I don't think it is. That insinuates that there's hope for forward movement, and unfortunately I don't see too many devout individuals bringing some sanity and intellectual development into the religious sphere that has become entirely impenetrable. The closest connection to progressivism is in its beginnings, and honestly I think it's because Joseph Smith was so influenced by Methodism.

[SloanHater]

Mr. Invective,

Of course it's anti-progressive compared to our society, for the reasons I've stated, among others.

It is also demonstrably anti-progressive compared to other religions. Your comment that "No religion is progressive when contrasted with society" oversimplifies and evinces an ignorance of history and the very meaning of progressive. The word connotes social progress, meaning support for and sensitivitivity to need for increased social justice.

There are many products of the Renaissance that probably would not be allowed on the BYU campus. Christianity eradicated polygamy among the "barbarian" tribes. Augustine wrote at length against its barbarism. Some Christian Churches were at the vanguard of the abolitionist movement that led to the civil war. Mainstream religions are beginning to ordain female clergy and gays. Christian churches were among the leaders of the movement that led to abolition of Jim Crow and the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Other religions have, even when not allowing women the priesthood, supported them in their efforts to join men as equal partners in the work force, including in the elite careers. Mormonism, on the other hand, has outright opposed these types of efforts at social justice.

The LDS church is more progressive today than the 1830's church because society has forced it to assimilate. It has at discrete times been confronted with the choice of assimilating or becoming extremely marginalized, if not going extinct.


Regardless of your topic, I will comment on the ironic self-delusion that Mormonism is progressive. It's not, and that has been the source of its goodwill with a large percentage of its faithful.

You are so full of shit.

The definition of progressive has nothing to do with society. It is a form of measurement contrasting positions. YOU want it to be defined as a measurement relative to society.

As for your ignorant stances on Mormons and social issues, Utah granted suffrage to women when only a territory, second in the Nation. Only Wyomingites were more progressive than the Mormons. Shocking that the barbarian Brigham would openly support the idea. Women weren't even clamoring for suffrage and Mormon leaders gave it to them. Your progressive friends in Washington stripped women of that right in their misguided crusade to end polygamy.

I'd be happy to give you a long list of other areas in which Mormons were ahead of the societal curve, but you're more interested in cherry picking issues that justify your ignorance so I'm not going to waste my time.

As for the topic at hand, you spout off a bunch of criticism and then readily admit the Church has progressed. How can you in one breath call it anti-progressive and then admit progression?

No one is talking about the reasons for progress, rather whether there exists progression and at what rate. The evidence suggests that over the course of almost 200 years, the Mormons have steadily progressed in their theology and beliefs. One might call it evolution. Contrast that with any other mainstream religion whose beliefs are firmly rooted in ancient texts and dogma.

Again, I thought Dave was interested in contrasting Mormons v. Mormons. All you can do is contrast Mormons with societal movements in America and harp on the areas in which they trailed. So American of you, justifying the 'american way' as the 'right' way.

Jerks for Jesus.

You're right. Only atheist should be passionate assholes.

Holy cow! This turned into a really fantastic discussion while I was sleeping. I don't know who to give credit to for turning this thing around and getting us back on topic but I'm in your debt. I think the points that have been brought up on this third page are brilliant.

You're welcome.

[HauteCoug]

For the record, I'm thinking of intellectual progressivism here. We have far too many definitions being thrown around, so I feel I need to clarify.

[SeattleUte]

You are so full of shit.

The definition of progressive has nothing to do with society. It is a form of measurement contrasting positions. YOU want it to be defined as a measurement relative to society.

As for your ignorant stances on Mormons and social issues, Utah granted suffrage to women when only a territory, second in the Nation. Only Wyomingites were more progressive than the Mormons. Shocking that the barbarian Brigham would openly support the idea. Women weren't even clamoring for suffrage and Mormon leaders gave it to them. Your progressive friends in Washington stripped women of that right in their misguided crusade to end polygamy.

I'd be happy to give you a long list of other areas in which Mormons were ahead of the societal curve, but you're more interested in cherry picking issues that justify your ignorance so I'm not going to waste my time.

As for the topic at hand, you spout off a bunch of criticism and then readily admit the Church has progressed. How can you in one breath call it anti-progressive and then admit progression?

No one is talking about the reasons for progress, rather whether there exists progression and at what rate. The evidence suggests that over the course of almost 200 years, the Mormons have steadily progressed in their theology and beliefs. One might call it evolution. Contrast that with any other mainstream religion whose beliefs are firmly rooted in ancient texts and dogma.

Again, I thought Dave was interested in contrasting Mormons v. Mormons. All you can do is contrast Mormons with societal movements in America and harp on the areas in which they trailed. So American of you, justifying the 'american way' as the 'right' way.



You're right. Only atheist should be passionate assholes.



You're welcome.

I am not the one who is cherry picking. Your diminishment of my points speaks volumes. (The LDS Church favored women's suffrage for self-interesttd political reasons; see polygamy.)

The fact that you characterize yourself as a "hater" in your board handle speaks volumes. You are a jerk for Jesus.

I don't think your LDS fanaticism makes you very happy.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I am not the one who is cherry picking. Your diminishment of my points speaks volumes. (The LDS Church favored women's suffrage for self-interesttd political reasons; see polygamy.)

The fact that you characterize yourself as a "hater" in your board handle speaks volumes. You are a jerk for Jesus.

I don't think your LDS fanaticism makes you very happy.

Hack!