SunstonePodcast #009–Tracking the Sincere Believer: “Authentic” Religion and the Enduring Legacy of Joseph Smith Jr.
By John Dehlin on Mar 29, 2006
In this edition of SunstonePodcast, Sunstone magazine editor Dan Wotherspoon interviews Professor Laurie Maffly-Kipp, author of the article, “Tracking the Sincere Believer: ‘Authentic’ Religion and the Enduring Legacy of Joseph Smith Jr.,” in the December 2005 issue of Sunstone and available here.
Maffly-Kipp discusses the obsession with Joseph Smith’s “sincerity” as the lens for looking at his life and evaluating the truths of Mormonism and how it obscures many other fruitful and interesting angles for understanding him and the Mormon experience. She asks: “Are the eternal truths of Mormonism dependent on the sincerity of Joseph Smith? Does contemporary Mormon faith rest on the intentions of the first prophet?”
She also suggests that “by focusing matters of faith so exclusively on Joseph’s testimony, Mormons are capitulating to evangelical pieties in their own self-presentation” and asks, “if one believes that salvation comes, at least in part, through sacramental observances, then why stake accounts of Mormon origins on Smith’s sincerity of purpose? Why does it matter if Smith was a pious man, as long as God provided the Book of Mormon and restored the priesthood through him? Mormon salvation may be dependent on what Joseph Smith did, but is it dependent on what he felt? Or, on what modern-day believers claim that he felt?”
The far-ranging interview covers these ideas as well as some of Maffly-Kipp’s suggestions for new angles for approaching Mormonism. In addition to hearing Maffly-Kipp’s ideas, what are some that you as listeners and readers come up with? Let’s blog about them!
Professor Laurie Maffly-Kipp is associate professor in religious studies and American studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where she teaches a popular course, “Mormonism and the American Experience.” An early version of her article was presented as the Smith-Pettit Lecture at the 2005 Salt Lake Sunstone Symposium. A downloadable mp3 of that lecture is available for $4.00 here (seach by speaker name for Laurie F. Maffly-Kipp).
To listen directly to the podcast, click here.
Laurie Maffly-Kipp asks: “Are the eternal truths of Mormonism dependent on the sincerity of Joseph Smith? Does contemporary Mormon faith rest on the intentions of the first prophet?”
What leaped into my mind when I read this question was a long-ago comment by an old mentor of mine in defending the Book of Mormon. “Remember, the poet could be a horse thief!”
Comment # 1 by Eugene Kovalenko | Mar 30, 2006 | Reply
It seems to me that what Laurie is saying is that Mormonism has emerged from its survival stage, where the sincerity of Joseph Smith mattered to the rising of the Church, to a much more stable stage where the volocity of Mormonism is so great that it will roll on of its own accord. All the leadership really has to do is make these slight course corrections from time to time to keep the story relevant to current attitudes.
This is quite an interesting premise, and in many ways I think it’s true. Mormonism is big enough and established enough that attacks from the outside aren’t going to hurt it much. Mormonism is a social fact now.
So the thing that really gets to me is that once something becomes a social fact, it becomes OK to do these alternate readings of it. Especially considering how much time I spent under the premise that Joseph Smith needed to be true or false, else the whole structure of the Church break down. This is a real paradigm shift.
It reminds me of a book called _Laboratory Life_ where an anthropologist goes in to a genetic laboratory and studies it as if it were an exotic African tribe. One of the ideas he comes back with is that scientists tend to frame facts under different validity headings.
When an idea is first hypothesized, its a class five fact, meaning it’s only a hypothesis and will be subject to a lot scrutiny before it will be accepted into the general canon of thought. Slowly it makes its way up the ladder until it becomes a class 1 fact, meaning that it has dissappeared from the discourse entirely. It becomes an unspoken premise. Like, the earth is round. People can talk about the motion of the earth and days and cycles of the moon without having to mention that the earth is round. It’s just a natural part of the discourse. Yet, at one time, that “fact” was seriously contended.
So it seems like Mormonism is making its way to a class 1 social fact, where we play with the implications of an invisible premise - no longer considering the premise worth questioning.
Comment # 2 by Stephen Carter | Mar 31, 2006 | Reply
Perhaps the most interesting point I heard in this interview was the suggestion of finding different ways to view prophetic truth claims. If a religious leader who claims revelation is later ‘overturned’ by a successor, does it necessarily mean that the first one was literally ‘wrong’? I and many people I know have struggled with this issue, wtih varying degrees of success.
I’m thinking out loud here, but it seems to me that a religion that claims ongoing revelation might have a greater degree of maneuverability on this question than other religions… but just how this might play out in everyday life is tough to say.
One solution might be to emphasize that revelation in the LDS tradition follows study and decision, a la D&C 9. This suggests there are limits on the scope of what might be revealed, limits dictated by personal, situational, and cultural factors. Ultimately, the successor who supplants a doctrine can suggest that the former understanding, even though it was considered to have come from God, was also a product of its times.
In this way practices and beliefs or doctrines that once were acceptable but are currently out of favor might be addressed. Reframing revelation or belief in this way may allow successive leaders to make changes in a way that does not necessarily undermine their authority. It also may help avoid the ’sincerity problem’ that Laurie describes.
Maybe this is already what many Sunstone-leaning Mormons do in explaining inconsistencies? And who knows, maybe this opens up the faith to a greater number of more serious problems? And in all likelihood, someone much wiser than I has addressed these questions… this is simply the direction my thoughts went as I listened to the podcast. Thanks for a thought-provoking interview.
Comment # 3 by Mike | Mar 31, 2006 | Reply
OK, y’know how it is when you click on the ’submit’ button and then realize you should have waited a minute to make sure you’ve said what you have to say? That was what just happened to me. I shouldn’t post late on a Friday night….
I suspect that many, maybe even most, Sunstone readers already do something like what I just described. The problem is that the institution doesn’t seem to encourage such an approach. There are a few church authorities in history who’ve made remarks compatible with this reframing of revelation, but they always seem to have been in the minority, and they’ve all since died. None do it presently. And I can imagine this approach to revelation or truth working in some other denominations, that is, I could imagine it if only they had a belief in continuing revelation.
So, how does a denomination revise such a central doctrine? Perhaps a parallel question might give us some insight: Are there denominations that promote their members having multiple forms of faith, from Fowler’s perspective?
Dan or someone else who thinks about Fowler, what do you think?
Comment # 4 by Mike | Apr 1, 2006 | Reply
Mike, I think that the Catholic Church and American mainline Protestant denominations have found ways to accomodate a wide range of faith-approaches. Within one institution, you can have very traditional and literal styles of belief in dialogue with more postmodern approaches. Think of the range represented by the Society of Jesus, liberation theologians, and Opus Dei in Catholicism (I’ll let you apply Fowler’s stages to the perspectives and emphases of each of these groups).
I really like Dr. Maffly-Kipp’s suggestions of reconstructing narratives of Mormonism that shift the focus away from Joseph Smith’s sincerity. One that intrigued me was changing the timeframe of the story. We have a lot of options for different starting points. Think of how the focus or emphasis would be changed if we began with the pre-mortal council in heaven, the birth of Jesus, or even the birth of the Church itself in 1830. A missionary narrative of the Church wouldn’t have to start with Joseph Smith.
I’m no Maffly-Kipp, but I have a suggestion: I’d like to see more narratives that focus on Mormon praxis and ethics, rather than beliefs. I’d love for Mormons to be thought of as parallel to the Jews–a peculiar but respectable people, set apart from the world by their unique practices.
Comment # 5 by John | Apr 5, 2006 | Reply
John,
I like your comments about the wide range of ways of being religious within other traditions that don’t yet seem to be available to Mormons. I’ve long thought how nice it will be when one day Mormonism feels strong enough as a tradition to recognize that having a mystical orientation is a valid religious temperament and will welcome writings within that genre—or that we’d even see a healthy number of “retreat centers” or something similar where Mormons can go to learn about and practice contemplative prayer and meditation. Same thing with intellectual temperaments, where such are recognized as valid and are valued by the church, not disparaged—perhaps one day leading to the formation of a strong tradition of theological debate among LDS scholars in which there is a clear line between the work they are doing versus the pastoral roles church leaders are performing such that the theologians are not suspected of trying to “steady the ark.”
I also like your comment on a focus on praxis over belief, and I think that’s a wonderful corrective in many ways. By the way, Sunstone recently published a great set of short essays that may interest you titled “Mormonism as Praxis” (which you can read here).
I’d not fully agree with you however in your line about hoping we’d become more like Jews, “peculiar but respectable people, set apart from the world by their unique practices” because I’m not really ready for Mormonism to become all about the word of wisdom, temple worship, white shirts, etc. without there being a strong tradition of theological reflection as well. I’m for getting rid of all orthodoxy litmus tests and concentrating on community building and service (praxis that Mormons, with some caveats, do decently well), but I wouldn’t want to shut down all theology. Now if what you meant was that you’re attracted to Judiasm because it doesn’t pretend to have fully settled doctrines of the afterlife, God, scripture, etc., and encourages debate with each other and even with God as a healthy (and even honoring and worshipful) activity, I’m with you big time! Let’s add that as one of the praxis emphases, and we may be on the same page.
Comment # 6 by Dan | Apr 7, 2006 | Reply
Hey! My essay’s in that collection!
What if Sunstone set up an annual retreat? Is there some way to begin deliberately building a tradition of Mormon contemplation? A Sunstone monastic center? What would our rule consist of?
I would even do well with outward forms if they were meant primarily to identify us as a people (garment-wearing is one of the best ones). I once say a short film of the inside of a yeshiva, with men with hats and curls paired off and gesturing and arguing loudly with each other. It was beautiful! Mormonism could use a bit more of that chaotic harmony.
Comment # 7 by John | Apr 10, 2006 | Reply
Hi John,
I didn’t know you were the John I was responding to! Sorry about that! I loved your piece on the practice of prayer in that Sunstone feature on praxis!
Interesting that you ask about the monastic center, etc. We’re having two workshops at this year’s summer symposium (workshops are on 9 August) about meditation and integral spiritual praxis. Come, please! You’ll find there a group of folks that would be good people to brainstorm with about doing more with contemplative praxis down the road.
Also, we’re running a piece on meditation as a tool for spiritual growth in the issue we’re preparing for press right now, and I’m hoping to interview the author for a podcast really soon.
Cheers,
Dan
Comment # 8 by Dan | Apr 10, 2006 | Reply