SunstonePodcast #002: The Mormon Struggle with Assimilation, An Interview with Armand Mauss
Ever wonder why the LDS church started out so revolutionary/controversial, then made huge strides towards becoming more mainstream and even progressive, and then retrenched itself a bit into increased orthodoxy or convervatism? In this SunstonePodcast episode, we interview Armand Mauss, author of The Angel and the Beehive: The Mormon Struggle with Assimilation.
Dr. Mauss is a true pioneer in Mormon Studies. He is a graduate in sociology from the University of Berkeley, and a retired professor of sociology at Washington State University. Dr. Mauss is also a former president of the Mormon History Association, as well as current board member, and former chairman of the Dialogue Foundation. Dr. Mauss is also author of the book: All Abraham’s Children: Changing Mormon Conceptions of Race and Lineage.
Today, Dr. Mauss teaches a course on Mormonism at the Claremont School of Religion.
Click here to listen.
October 2nd, 2005 at 3:01 pm
Great interview as usual, John. Thanks to Dr. Mauss for your participation.
I respect the position Dr. Mauss has taken viz the church as an organization. He’s recognized the simple reality that humans are always going to make mistakes, even leaders in positions of responsiblity in the church. Prophets and apostles are not meant to be infallible; as John mentioned, scriptural precedent and Mormon doctrine allows for this. Joseph Smith said as much in his oft-quoted disclaimer: “A prophet is a prophet only when acting as such.”
Now with that said, I’ll play the role of the screaming liberal.
The real kicker in Mormonism is deciding when (if ever) our prophets are “acting as such.” I’ve read hundreds of pages of discussion in books and on the internet that, when distilled down to their essence, come down to a few basic questions: Was doctrine X or policy Y simply someone’s opinion, or does it represent the will of God? If revelation is the system Mormonism is founded upon, why isn’t it more widely understood? Why does so much ambiguity exist as to whether current prophets actually speak with, and are spoken to by, God? Why so defensive on national TV, yet so bold in general conference about the role of prophets?
Apologists in particular have done a pretty good job of lowering the expections of what a prophet is or does. They’ve built so many layers of defense around prophetic statements that it becomes difficult if not impossible to apply any objective criteria to differentiate between true and false prophets, true revelation and false teachings. Apparently, a prophet need not be speaking for God, even if he says (or at least implies) that he is doing so. Prophets may very well lead the church astray. Prophets are products of their times, and may be just as wrong-headed about social and doctrinal issues as your bigotted neighbor across the street. And yet somehow, despite all these disclaimers, we’re still expected to afford their pronouncements the respect that we give the teachings of Christ himself? Is it so hard to remember at the time all these “opinions” were delivered, they were coming from the “living prophet”? And inasmuch as some of these “policies” turned out to be completely wrong, what does that do with the mantra that we should always Follow The Prophet?
Here’s my difficulty with the concept that the church is “just another human institution.” I’m fine with the idea that the leaders of the church are just as clueless about the will of God as every other human being. As Joseph Smith said, it must be an awful responsiblity to speak in the name of God, and it’s a job I would never sign up for. But if this is the case, why do they continue to allow themselves to be placed on the pedestal of “prophets, seers, and revelators”? Why are we still singing “We thank thee Oh God for a prophet” instead of “We thank thee Oh God for some really sincere older gentlemen who are doing their best to guide the church but actually have no more insight about Thee than we do”?
To the extent that you [this is a general 'you', by the way, not Dr. Mauss in particular] water down the frequency (and indeed, the ability) of church leaders to receive revelation and make inspired decisions on behalf of the church, you’re watering down that which has been billed as the fundamental, identifying characteristic of the church of Christ. That’s what I learned in church, and that’s what taught on my mission. It’s true that many Mormons eventually leave the church because of disillusionment set up by a “super-orthodox” LDS upbringing, but what did you expect? We were supposed to disregard innumerable statements that the prophet speaks with God, follow the prophet at all times, disobey at your peril, do what your leaders tell you, never turn down a calling, a living prophet trumps a dead one, etc, etc, etc.? I’m sorry, but that is Mormonism to many of us, and it’s all we ever knew. Furthermore, why should we believe a bunch of liberal Mormons from Sunstone and other organizations (whom we had long been taught to consider “ark-steadiers” or even borderline apostates) who said the church was actually just as human as any other institution? And lastly, if the church has no prophets and no special connection with God, what difference does it make whether people remain Mormon or not?
OK, that’s my tirade for the day. As you can see, this is an especially touchy topic for me, certainly one of my “Top 5″ beefs with Mormonism. Long story short, if you’re going claim that prophets guide your organization, and claim that salavation depends on obedience to said prophets, don’t be surprised when members take you seriously enough to demand answers to some pretty pointed questions. (With all this, I mean no disrespect toward President Hinckley. As a man, he’s amazing and deserves nothing but respect–but as a prophet, well, let’s just say the apple has fallen pretty far from Hugh B. Brown’s “Profile of a Prophet.”)
October 3rd, 2005 at 9:21 pm
Thanks for your perspective, Dr. Mauss. I was particularly touched by the last 15 minutes of the interview when you discussed feeling marginalized for maintaining an unorthodox view of the church.
As an unorthodox practicing member, I have felt marginalized in the same ways you expressed. I’m working on strengthening my immunity to disillusionment but I have to admit I am not as successful as you in this regard. If retrenchment continues, I could one day find myself to be a casualty of the organization’s attempt to find optimum tension with society at large
It seems to me that optimum tension is harder to achieve for organizations that are less diverse. I wonder if the church could more easily optimize its societal tension if it increased its diversity by taking steps to accommodate of a larger range of people in its culture. In other words, does retrenchment have to imply a movement away from the comfort zone of progressive individuals? Or could it be accomplished by simply widening the tent of Mormonism so to speak?
There are many religions that have managed to accommodate both orthodox and unorthodox members without sacrificing their identity. Judaism in the United States comes to mind.
In your view, how would Mormonism be affected if the church institution took steps to accommodate both orthodox and unorthodox parties in the culture?
October 4th, 2005 at 12:46 pm
The following is a reply to Abner from Armand…
==================================================
My responses to Abner will be in a different sequence from that of his questions/comments, which I will rephrase before responding to each :
(1) If we sometimes feel uneasy about “following the prophets,” why should we follow the “ark-steadiers” (or even quasi-apostates) in forums like Sunstone? For that matter, if the church is just another human institution, why should we bother with membership at all? MY RESPONSE : In claiming that the church is essentially a human institution in operation, I did not mean to say that its value or efficacy is limited to the human realm. I did say, as I recall, that the church had a divine origin, even though since then it has operated almost always as a human institution. The main reason that the church is important to me is NOT because the prophets are always right, but because I accept its claim to exclusive authority over the soteriology (as it is formally called) of humankind. Douglas Davies, a British Anglican scholar and expert on Mormons, has pointed to the LDS program for “transcending mortality” (death) as the key claim and feature of LDS teaching. This does not mean mere resurrection, which many Christians accept. The LDS program goes far beyond that in pointing to the path of eternal progression, the fullest realization of which requires administration of ordinances and covenants that the LDS Church alone is authorized to provide. (Indeed, as far as I know, it is the only religion that even claims or offers any of these beyond basic baptism). Of course, a person either believes in all that or s/he does not. If not, there is no reason to be a member of this church. If so, then there is every reason to value and maintain one’s church membership. If one is just not sure, then one faces the classical Pascalian wager : What are we risking by accepting the LDS claims and living accordingly vs. the risks of rejecting those claims?
(2) Why do the prophets seem so bold in their instructions during General Conference but sometimes so defensive on national TV? MY RESPONSE : That is because they are addressing two different audiences for two different purposes. In addressing the external audience (national TV), the purpose is to enhance the LDS public image as “decent normal folks” whose beliefs are a little different but not really weird (contra the image created so often about LDS by the media and the Evangelicals). On the other hand, in addressing the internal audience (general and stake conferences), the purpose is to emphasize differences with the outside, boundary-maintenance, and exhortation to maintain the special LDS identity by maintaining the boundaries that mark it (”keep the commandments”). These are different but not antithetical purposes. The one purpose serves to open doors to our proselyting efforts among “outsiders” — that is, to “make converts” eventually. The other purpose is to “make Saints,” as Jan Shipps would put it — to urge those who have presumably already made covenants to abide by them.
(3) It’s all well and good to repeat the mantra “follow the prophet,” or “the prophet will never lead the church astray,” etc., etc., but even Joseph Smith said that a prophet does not always speak or act as a prophet; so how are we supposed to know when we must follow a prophet’s teachings or instructions in a given instance. After all, we have plenty of instances from the past in which they seem to have been wrong. MY RESPONSE : All I can tell you is how I have understood and interpreted such “mantras” in my own life — or at least in my adult life. First of all, even in the temple, I did not covenant to obey prophets or church leaders; I covenanted only to obey the Lord and his commandments. I take VERY SERIOUSLY the instructions from the prophet/president of the church and the other apostles, since I consider them, as a group, to be much more preoccupied than I am with spiritual matters, much closer to the Lord, and among the most unselfish and best-intentioned people on earth. When I am told, however, that they will never lead the church astray, I take that NOT as a prophecy, but only as a commitment on their part. Other church members might find comfort in taking it as a literal prophecy, but I don’t. Nor do I find that most of these leaders enjoy being put on pedestals by the Saints. I can name a few over the years that I suspect have enjoyed such treatment (and shame on them!), but I don’t think most of them do, and I don’t blame them when members of my ward or stake give them the pedestal treatment. That doesn’t mean I have to do so. WITH ALL OF THAT SAID, for me the issue still comes down to this question : Who is ultimately responsible for my salvation and exaltation? The answer, of course, is that I AM ULTIMATELY AND SOLELY RESPONSIBLE. It is I, not the church leaders, who must be sure that I am trying to live a life that will keep me spiritually strong and close to the Lord. If I am wise, I will take very seriously the counsel of the leaders, as I just said. However, the decisions about exactly WHAT counsel to follow, and HOW to follow it, must be mine alone. My choices might not always please my bishop or stake president, especially if I don’t accept every calling that is offered, teach every lesson strictly out of the manual, attend every meeting that is called, observe the sabbath in a certain way, avoid R-rated films, avoid public association with Sunstone and Dialogue, or support every political cause urged on me from the leadership. On the other hand, I am very conscientious about paying my tithing and many other funds, about my home teaching, about attendance at sacrament meeting, about faithfulness to my wife and family, about magnifying my calling (whatever it might be - at present I am the ward membership clerk), and sending my sons on missions.
In any case, this is the general approach I have taken in most of my adult life. It is an approach with a somewhat independent posture, guaranteed to make me seem and feel somewhat marginal to the “establishment” in my ward and stake (moreso in some wards and stakes of the church than in others). This might also be one of the reasons that I have never been called as a bishop (though a counselor once for five years when I was younger and more docile). Group leader of the high priests for ten years in one of my wards is the “highest” priesthood calling I have ever had, and I was very good at that if I do say so myself. I loved having such a pastoral calling close to the Saints and their families.
To any of my readers who might find appealing this long-winded approach to “following the prophets,” I would offer this additional counsel : You must first abandon sincerely any and all aspirations for “high” callings and “advancement” in the ranks of the priesthood leadership. That’s not to say that you won’t ever get such callings, but you must abandon any aspirations for the same (which would, in fact, better fit you for such callings if you get them!). If it is important to you to become a bishop, high councilor, or stake president, you will not benefit by the counsel I have implicitly offered here. You will not be considered unquestioningly obedient. But such a posture, I believe, will totally relieve you of all the anxiety expressed in the first few paragraphs of your comments about how to deal with the “mantra” of “follow the prophet.” My mantra is “follow the Lord and get all the help you can from the prophet along the way, but take ultimate responsibility for your own spiritual and intellectual development.” If you are doing that, you can and should forget about whether OTHER people (family, bishops, etc.) think you are following the prophet satisfactorily. Relax and enjoy your church participation and your association with the Saints, most of whom care more about you than does anyone else in the world (outside your own family). Show them your love, even if they don’t seem to think that you are “following the prophet” fully, and they will come to love you in return.
I hope all that proves useful to you, Abner.
October 4th, 2005 at 1:23 pm
The following is Armand’s reply to Paul…
=================================
Some of my reply to Abner would apply to Paul’s comments as well. In addition, however, I would say to Paul that his suggestion for creating a bigger LDS tent with greater diversity would not, in fact, have the effect of optimizing tension. Remember that “optimizing” is neither “maximizing” nor “minimizing.” To the extent that a “big tent” with lots of diversity would resemble the surrounding “tent” of American society more generally, the result would be reduced tension, not optimum tension. The wider the Mormon tent, the broader the boundaries and the more ambiguous the Mormon identity vis-a-vis the surrounding society. “Optimum,” in the conceptualization I was using, means a set of boundaries that makes the LDS community and membership seem distinctive enough to attract investigators from the outside, but not so distinctive as to seem weird — while, at the same time, making enough demands on the membership inside to give that membership a distinctive identity, but not so many (or so severe) demands that some of the members will be driven off. As you can see, the “comfort zone of progressive individuals” is not a key consideration in the notion of optimum tension. At the same time, as I explained in my interview with John, it is a historical reality that every time the church (or any social organization) moves in the direction of increasing tension to reinforce boundaries and enhance distinctive identity, it loses members along the margins who prefer a less demanding and distinctive religion (”progressives” in the present situation?). Similarly, every time it moves in an accommodating direction to reduce tension, it loses members along the most conservative (fundamentalist) margin. Like you, I will be glad to see the church move again a little bit in the latter direction, but meanwhile I am sticking with it for the reasons I explained to Abner above. I can appreciate that not everyone will feel as I do and tolerate their discomfort indefinitely. But don’t take any of this personally. It is a question of organizational strategy, even if that strategy has not been fully or publicly articulated by LDS leaders.
At the same time, I would like to emphasize another point I made in my interview : This negotiation of optimum tension with the surrounding society (and concomitant implications for the members inside) is a process that is specific to each cultural setting. Even in the U. S., the church doesn’t “feel” the same along the east coast as it does in Utah, partly because more accommodation has to be made with the outside (for Mitt Romney, among others!) than is the case in Utah. Outside the U. S., some boundaries will be tightened and others loosened, depending on the country in question, in order to find the optimum level of tensions in that country. I might add, that so far, the church hasn’t been nearly as successful in this tension-negotiation outside the U. S. as inside! To facilitate this process worldwide, the church must increasingly reduce and simplify the teachings, principles, and practices that it regards as part of the essential core, in order to make them applicable everywhere without creating undue tension. I think that was a big point that Elder Uchtdorf was trying to make in his General Conference address last Sunday. It is not clear to me yet just which and how many of these core concepts must be identified and “enforced” around the church in order for all LDS people everywhere to share in that common core. But eventually I expect to see such a core emerge in official discourse, followed by a much greater tolerance for local cultural embroideries in various parts of the world (not just Wasatch cultural embroideries). We tend to forget how much of what we consider “core” truths of the gospel are actually cultural imports, and how these might be regarded in other cultures. They are, incidentally, not always regarded elsewhere as they are regarded by American “progressives.” For example, the traditional “Victorian” or patriarchal style of church and family governance that so irritates many of today’s LDS progressives is not at all irritating in Mexico, where it is seen by most LDS families as a great improvement over the “machismo” culture of Latin America, with the privileging of males and their abuses that has been traditional there.
Finally, I don’t think your Jewish example will fit the Mormon situation. First of all, the Jews have no central governing authority to define doctrine and practice, which is why (second) Jews have succeeded in accommodations with the surrounding society mainly by schism.That is, the Orthodox (and especially Hasidic) denominations still remain in considerable tension with American society - indeed with other American Jews - while a series of schisms in American Jewish history has created denominations in ever lower tension with American society (Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, and others). The good news is that every Jew can find a comfortable religious home. That bad news, of course, is that Judaism is dying out as those who choose these newer denominations become less and less observant of the Jewish religious heritage, and they increasingly marry outside the faith (a growing condition some Jews call “the silent holocaust”).
As I indicated to Abner, I’d rather live with a religion that maintains boundaries, as long as I retain the right and power (as an American citizen) to seek my own place in that religion and to live with the choices I make.
Best wishes - Armand Mauss
October 4th, 2005 at 5:56 pm
Thanks so much for your response, Dr. Mauss. Your conclusions are very reasonable, and I appreciate your seasoned perspective. I will give your advice due consideration. I would like to ask some additonal questions; however, you need not feel obliged to respond if you don’t have the time or interest (and of course, anyone else reading the blog is free to chime in). I almost feel like I shouldn’t take exception to what you say at all because - let’s be honest - you’ve probably been wrestling with these issues longer than I’ve been alive. Nevertheless, the wrestle is still “clear and present” for me and well, fools rush in where wise men fear to tread…
Regarding your point (1):
“I did say, as I recall, that the church had a divine origin, even though since then it has operated almost always as a human institution. The main reason that the church is important to me is NOT because the prophets are always right, but because I accept its claim to exclusive authority over the soteriology (as it is formally called) of humankind.”
I agree that it doesn’t necessarily follow that if leaders aren’t right all the time, then the church doesn’t have the authority to perform saving ordinances. But lacking some kind of validation that the LDS prophets are what they say they are, how can you be sure that church really has that authority?
One of the basic doctrines of Mormonism (as I understand it) is that not only was the initial church founding accomplished by divine means, but that the restoration continues today with all the blessings, powers, privileges, and authority that Joseph Smith and his contemporaries enjoyed. Two of the supposed hallmarks of the true church of Christ are continuing revelation and the open canon. So I’m left to wonder, is this all just a lot of talk? Truth be told, I often felt acute discomfort when teaching those concepts as a missionary. People naturally wanted to know what our “continuing revelations” consisted of, and I was frankly embarassed that there is so little evidence for such a strong claim. Sure there’s the Ensign, but as far as most investigators are concerned (and I tend to agree), repeating previous revelations does not a system of continuing revelation make. Pointing to the official declarations only worsened the problem, because they seem to fix problems that either (1) might have been avoided altogether (by never adopting the ill-fated practice of polygamy or a racially-based priesthood ban in the first place), (2) were given long after the rest of society had already seen the light (blacks and the priesthood), or (3) rather suspiciously occurred at a time of intense political pressure (the polygamy manifesto). So if continuing revelation on the institutional level is missing, what do we really have? Basically, a “Joseph Smith” canon and very little to distinguish our purported prophets from Christian leaders like Billy Graham.
According to President Hinckley’s statements, our leaders today basically pray about stuff and take action when it feels like the right thing to do. Do the leaders of every Christian church in the world do anything less? So I ask myself, is this consistent with what I learned in CES and Sunday School, and what I taught as a missionary? Is it true to what the early leaders of the church experienced? In what sense are LDS apostles special witnesses of Christ, if all they can do is downplay the necessity of actually seeing Christ, don’t experience visions (or refuse to share them if they do), and seem unable to receive clear revelation from God?
Consider the following exerpts from James E. Talmage’s classic book Articles of Faith (page numbers from the “Missionary Library” edition):
Suffice to say that, in my opinion, the system Elder Talmage describes here bears scant resemblance to the way the church operates today. If it doesn’t really matter whether prophets actually act like prophets, then Christians before (and during) the time of Joseph Smith had no particular reason to choose his religion over others. How could they have recognized that an apostasy had taken place and priesthood authority was inoperative in their own churches? And is it unreasonable to speculate that even if the church were “true” in Joseph Smith’s day, it might be in apostasy today? What does it mean when spiritual gifts (e.g., prophecy, visions, etc.) cease to operate? If a church’s origin is all that matters, why not accept the Catholic claims to authority? I’m sure they’d be happy to tell you that their church was established by Christ and his apostles; what more divine foundation do you need?
Regarding your point (3):
“Nor do I find that most of these leaders enjoy being put on pedestals by the Saints. I can name a few over the years that I suspect have enjoyed such treatment (and shame on them!), but I don’t think most of them do, and I don’t blame them when members of my ward or stake give them the pedestal treatment. That doesn’t mean I have to do so.”
I didn’t mean to imply that general authorities take undue advantage or expect improper adulation by virtue of their lofty titles, but the fact remains, they do accept the titles. Prophet, seer, and revelator; these are most decidedly not mere synonyms for CEO and Board of Directors. Men uniquely called by God to authoritatively direct the affairs of the Only True Church are most certainly on a pedestal (or is it a watchtower?) in the eyes of most members. Why shouldn’t they be? Why shouldn’t men that we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators be expected in turn to do something roughly analagous to what their scriptural counterparts did?
As an analogy, let’s say a group of people are somehow under the impression that because my uncle is a medical doctor, I must be one, too. I may realize that I’m not really a doctor, but you know, I’m pretty darn good at dispensing Tylenol, and so I decide to play along. I start to think about medicine a lot, read the medical journals everyday, and hey - I’m a really friendly guy. Maybe I sincerely come to believe that I am a real doctor. No harm done, right? Perhaps not until I find myself in a situation where I might have saved someone’s life, but the truth had always remained that I was not a doctor - never had been - and now that life was lost. Would you accept the excuse that because I’m actually a really good Tylenol dispenser, I figured it would be all right to go along with being known to everyone as “Doctor Doon”?
October 10th, 2005 at 10:31 am
Another reply to Abner from Dr. Mauss
==============
Reply to Abner’s Reply :
I have indeed worked my way through the same kinds of thoughts and doubts that you have expressed here. Again, however, I don’t know whether my resolution(s) would be satisfactory to you. I agree with you that there are enormous differences between the meanings we NOW give to terms like “revelation,” “prophecy,” and “prophet” and the meanings that those terms had in the 1830s - or in the First Century of the Christian religion. In those earlier times, for historical and cultural reasons, those terms carried strongly mystical meanings. They were part of the vocabulary of what social scientists call the “charismatic” phase in the history of a new religious movement. In LDS history, that charismatic phase, and the mystique which accompanied it, was prolonged by the stresses and strains of the entire 19th century : The Saints stayed close to God and to his prophets because their survival depended on doing so. They constructed meanings for their experiences, and especially for their setbacks, that made use of terms like “revelation,” “prophet,” “millennium,” “last days,” etc., etc. in highly mystical senses. Your quotation from Talmage (whose first edition of A of F was published, as I recall, in 1902) reflects these meanings and that mystique, in which he sincerely believed, even though, for his time, he was a very sophisticated man. (Of course, other “sophisticated men” and intellectuals of the time, including Conan Doyle, were advocates and practitioners of Spiritualism, so Talmage’s faith and writings must be seen in that general AND Mormon context).
Beginning at least with the early Christian religion itself, and exemplified by all new religious movements, this “charismatic” period is typically followed by a process of “routinization of charisma,” as Max Weber and his student Ernst Troeltsch called it, which (given continuous growth) brings with it increased codification of the religion and bureaucratization of its leadership. In this process, the mystical experiences of the founders, and the meanings which they attached to their experiences and to their vocabulary, gradually give way to new meanings for those same experiences and vocabulary. Ultimately, therefore, what bothers you about “then” and “now” is the changed meanings given to terms like “prophet, seer, and revelator.” Prophets (all 15 of them) are now at the apex of a massive bureaucracy, where their experiences with the Divine are shaped and influenced by their bureaucratic roles (rather than by the loose, free-wheeling, imaginative, and innovative roles acted out by Elisha, Jesus, Joseph Smith, Mohammed, or other founding prophets). Today’s prophets might ultimately be just as close to God, and their guidance and instruction to us just as valid, as in the days of Jesus or Joseph, but they no longer use the vocabulary of “thus saith the Lord,” and they only rarely claim any individual revelation. Rather, revelation in a bureaucratic setting is received collectively, and filtered through the collective judgment and consensus of a group of colleagues. That process does not satisfy those of us who still cling to the mystique of the charismatic period of our founding, but it is the inevitable price that is paid for the transformation of an ephemeral and vulnerable religious movement into a strong organization.
Nor is it so different from what happens in other institutions which we cherish. Think, for example, of the “charismatic” period of the founding of our nation. Think of how the meanings have changed of concepts like “limited government,” “all men are created equal,” even “democracy” itself. Many would regard these as pragmatic changes for the better, rather than as a “loss” of ideological authenticity. Other changes, of course, might be considered corruptions, whether in the nation or in the church, but changes like these are “normal” in the history of movements and organizations, and they do not necessarily represent a loss of autheticity, validity, or authority. (To take your concluding medical example, even “medicine” or “medical doctor” has a very different meaning now from what it had in the 19th century). We have a tendency to invest words themselves with a mystique, without recognizing that their meanings change. We must understand what the meanings are today, in the historical context in which we live, and understand realistically the functions to which these terms refer.
I can see why all of this might add up to the conclusion that the LDS Church is not as different from other churches and religions as we might like to claim. My loyalty to the church is not based upon a 19th-century understanding of its truth-claims (though I know that other LDS folks do still hold to such an understanding). It is based upon a belief, ultimately, that this church continues to hold keys to my eternal future. As I indicated earlier, I am well aware that other churches might make similar claims (though, in practice, few do); but I know of none with such a full vision of my eternal potential. I am not attracted by the competing visions, but I do not expect modern prophets to talk and act like ancient ones. Of course, I go up and down, back and forth, in my levels of doubt and certainty, but even at the lowest point in my doubts, I ask myself, “What do I have to lose” by living my life as though the LDS Church has this kind of authority? Where would I go instead? Everybody lives by some sort of “guiding hypothesis” about what this life is all about. This one works for me, but I don’t invest it with all the mystique that others might need to attribute to it.
I hope all this is useful to you.
— Armand Mauss
October 21st, 2005 at 5:32 pm
Armand States: “but even at the lowest point in my doubts, I ask myself, “What do I have to lose” by living my life as though the LDS Church has this kind of authority? Where would I go instead?”
Pascal’s wager? While you insist that this works for you, I find it a less-than-satisfying answer vis-a-vis the more troubling questions that the LDS Church presents. Most people who argue Pascal’s wager, in my experience, have never truly allowed themselves to experience life on the other side of the fence. So, within the existent comfort zone, one claims that “this is the good life” all-the-while functionally ignorant of what else is “out there.”
What do you have to lose? Anything and everything that life inside the LDS Church precludes; the chance to participate in the deeper and more directly meaningful conversations about the human condition, the moral obligation to fight against oppression and authoritarianism, the opportunity to create a better world through a communal governing system that actually works.
Where would you go instead? The world is open to you. There are myriad paths to explore and experience. And, if none of them are to your liking, then you are missing out on the opportunity to help build a better path.
But, finally, what troubles me most about this response from Mr. Mauss is the abdication of the moral responsibility to actually resist the troubles he admits are there; its the choice of his comfort over his opportunity to fight for what is right. Right now, in Mr. Mauss’ home ward, there are likely boys and girls who are being raised in the very structure that Mr. Mauss herein labels as troubling. The boys are being taught that Patriarchy is not only acceptable, but laudable. Girls are being taught that their place as 2nd class citizens is instituted of God. Both are being taught that God favors white people over black people, and that homosexuals are deviant, evil and sinful. These boys and girls look to those who are around them for guidance, even if only in silence. They look to Mr. Mauss, and there they find an educated man who maintains loyalty to the church despite the troubles. And the cycle is perpetuated.
Rather, stand up and be counted! Let that be the purpose and guiding principle of your life.
October 22nd, 2005 at 8:51 pm
Timothy presents us with a very cynical view of modern Mormonism, one which denies any change for the better over the course of its history. I personally have not heard any teaching about the superiority of whites over blacks in decades. I suppose that Official Declaration II and the editing of the Book of Mormon to subdue or remove racial metaphors mean little to him. Again, the generalizations about homosexuality he attributes to the LDS Church do not represent the Church’s actual position, the nuances of which he drives over with a rhetorical bulldozer.
If Mr. Mauss is to be criticized for failing to take a moral stand against the problems in Mormonism, I would hope he has a more precise understanding of them. It does not surprise me that one who would urge Mr. Mauss to tilt windmills does not. While I value the courage of those who openly oppose injustices, I also see a place for those who quietly work for the better within imperfect organizations. The chances of revolutionizing human organizations is significantly reduced if one begins by vacating them.
Finally, it is important to recognize the overall context of Mr. Mauss’s remarks. Mr. Mauss addressed issues of assimilation and tension, not activism. If he finds solace in his academic understanding, one ought not to assume that he has therefore abdicated all moral responsibility where he sees wrongs. To make that assumption is to read a little too much into the interview, in my opinion.
November 18th, 2005 at 9:58 am
Thanks for the interview. It was brought up on this post of mine, and my response follows this comment.
November 20th, 2005 at 10:55 am
I noticed that some of the podcasts have recordings that are not of good sound quality. This makes the podcast very difficult to hear. The #4 “Ostracise” podcast is a good example. I think if the treble were to be turned up while recording would help. Thank you for this service. I really enjoy the podcasts. This is a whole new world that I have just discovered and it’s great to have this resource for learning.
November 21st, 2005 at 1:31 am
I thoroughly enjoyed this podcast. I would think that Mr. Mauss has done a great service to members of the church who are struggling to strike a deal with their intellectual proclivities and that of their spiritual inclinations and belief system.
For me, truth is the historical contextualization of data. Something that was regarded as ‘truth’ in B. Young’s western frontier/pioneer day certainly may not be the ‘truth’ today, and may yet be something other again in the future. He was the ‘prophet’ because he was the ‘leader’ and ‘president’ of the church who had the rights and privileges of receiving revelation for the church had the Lord wished to communicate something of great import to him for the general assembly of the church. Whether or not the Lord revealed the ‘truth’ about the blacks and the priesthood to B. Young is not for me to say, and frankly I don’t care what he said on the subject. He’s dead and gone, but the blacks as a race have outlived him just as they have outlived the past inordinate racial policies and laws of America’s deep south (in particular). What’s important to me is today’s ‘truth,’ not yesterday’s or tomorrows. If there are untruths (fallacies) today then I will speak up against them. But I don’t see too many, if any, really vital fallacies in the church today. Sure there are some policies that I don’t fully agree with, but they are not germane to my eternal salvation. I will always adhere to what the ‘prophet’ J. Smith advocated: “I teach the people correct principles and they govern themselves.” I believe that J. Smith did teach correct principles for his day as did B. Young. But remember: doctrines are not principles any more than policies are laws. Everything is in flux, and our dance with the universe and its unfolding is what makes life an interesting, learning experience vital to our joy and reason to exist.
December 3rd, 2005 at 8:59 pm
Mr. Mauss
You are very educated and I am a very simple person! I believe there is the truth and there is the lie. If we follow the truth we will ultimately come to the father of truth and if we follow the lie we will eventually meet the father of lies. The truth does matter! The church is either true or it is untrue. If it is untrue and we continue to follow it won’t it take us down the wrong road. Will it not take us away from the truth? The Church claims to be the only true church on the face of the earth and all other religions are false and are an abomination to god. That statement is either true or it is false!
Thank You!
Gordon Hill