AN EMAIL EXCHANGE BETWEEN ME AND DR. PHILLIP BARLOW
NOTE:
This is a personal email exchange between Dr. Phillip Barlow, the Leonard J. Arrington Chair of Mormon History and Culture at Utah State University, and me. The conversation was spured by a fabulous Mormon Matters podcast (click here to listen), in which he was one of the guests. Dr. Barlow has given me permission to publish our email exchange.
Brother Barlow,
I finished listening to the Mormon Matters podcast that you and Jana Reiss were on. I enjoyed your reflections on Joseph’s restoration. Would you mind sharing them with me in written form so I can think about them. Some things are better for me to see so I can read them again and again.
Mike
___
Hi, Mike. I will be publishing a developed form of my analysis of the various meanings of “Restoration” before too long. But if it interests, you can get an introduction to at least the seeds of my notions of this in the new (2013) Preface to the updated edition of Mormons in the Bible or, in a different context, in an article called “To Mend a Fractured Reality: Joseph Smith’s Project” in the summer 2012 issue of the Journal of Mormon History.
I think the point I was making on the podcast interview is that many Saints build a house of cards, vulnerable to a later faith crisis, by assuming that Joseph’s Restoration consisted solely of an effort to bring back things that once existed anciently and historically on earth and had by neglect or apostasy been lost (the only legitimate priesthood, for example, or the notion that masonry represents a depleted and marred form of the pure and ancient temple endowment). Joseph Smith did often talk in this vein, of course, so the mistakes we make are understandable.
We are less apt to get less trapped, however, if we recognize that Joseph enacted “Restoration” in several senses. In addition to bringing back what had been lost (as he believed and taught), he also strove to repair that which was fragmented (sectarian religion, for example, or the extended family including all generations); and to complete that which was partial (notions of salvation and exaltation; elements of the temple that had been kept hidden “from the foundation of the world.”). If we hold only to the first sense of the term Restoration, we may end up thinking that everything we do today, such as the temple and all of our theology, has to be in perfect sync with ancient notions and religious practice. This is problematic. It leads some would-be defenders of the faith to marshal historical evidence in biased, incomplete, and sometimes distorted ways, even if unconsciously. It leads others, who may come across countervailing evidence, to be at a higher risk of loss of faith.
Does that help?
Best to you,
Phil
Miguel Barker-Valdez
Miguel is a Guatemalan-American Mormon living in the Northwest with his family. He is one of the proprietors of the Rational Faiths blog.
All posts by Miguel Barker-Valdez
Dr Barlow erroneously attributes the building of the proverbial “house of cards” to members. He is absolutely and irrefutably in error. This house is constructed by the misrepresentation of the truth by leaders such as Joseph Smith and others who “did often talk in that vein”. It is shameful that he attempts to blame the victim rather than the perpetrators. The church unequivocally teaches a literal restoration. Read about it in “Preach My Gospel” lesson 1. That is only one example of a myriad of examples. I could type for hours and not give an exhaustive list of quotes about what is meant by a literal “Restoration”. The fact that Saints believe what is taught as truth by leaders and do as they are instructed, to “be believing” does not make them responsible when the truth is brought into the light and their house of cards comes crashing down. The ones responsible for “trapping” are NOT THE SAINTS! Trying to interpret what Joseph meant by the term “restoration” is grasping at straws just like those who try to defend the Book of Abraham as a literal translation have had to resort to trying to re-define what Joseph meant by the term translation in relation to the BOA. Let’s see what the preface to the Book of Abraham says for clarification ……TRANSLATED FROM THE PAPYRUS, BY JOSEPH SMITH…A Translation of some ancient Records,……seems VERY CLEAR what Joseph meant by the word translation here. Dr. Barlow, please stop insulting our intelligence. When will apologists just start owning the problems instead of inventing ways to try to explain them away or attempting to transfer responsibility to the saints rather than the leaders. It is utterly pathetic.
It sure seems like Dr. Barlow is throwing Joseph Smith under the bus, implying that he (Joseph) was confused or otherwise did not know that what he was saying was wrong. That is a pretty bold assertion for anyone who does not claim to be a prophet to make.
Besides, even if Dr. Barlow is correct, why does this explanation come from an apologist rather than the actual leaders of the church? This is my biggest frustration with even the most well meaning and conciliatory Mormon apologists (Bushman, Givens, and others) – the explanations they craft and slack they want the church members to give the leaders has little basis in the official church teaching and nothing even remotely as liberal as they are wont to offer is ever offered over the pulpit in conference.
I think Mike makes a good point by noting that it seems Dr. Barlow is shifting responsibility to the members of the Church for believing what they are taught by Church leaders, while simultaneously acknowledging that Joseph Smith “did talk in this vein.”
Although Dr. Barlow says this is “understandable,” he nevertheless says these “mistakes” are of our own making.
On the other hand, Joseph Smith taught a lot of things that were not “in this vein,” such as the grand fundamental principle of Mormonism is to accept all truth, let it come from where it may.
It is this line of teaching by Joseph Smith that has become a guiding star in my personal spiritual journey. And I get the sense that this is where Dr. Barlow would like to take the conversation, which I think is all to the good, and I applaud him for his efforts and his scholarship.
I do think, though, that the script of blaming members for believing what they are taught by men who claim a prophetic mantle is as pandemic as it is disheartening.
When all is said and done, however, I have come to realize that my quest for the truth is an internal process and not one I am willing to externalize by placing it in the hands of others to decide for me.
I dunno. Isn’t it a good thing that members take ownerships for their own beliefs? Would that they all would be prophets and not lemmings.
That is the point I was laboring toward, Haggoth. I do think members should take ownership for their own beliefs.
But I have to recognize that to do so is to swim against the current of follow the prophet.
Taking responsibility for our own beliefs is not encouraged in official LDS channels; rather we are to get in line with what is taught by Church leaders. That is the mark of a true believing Mormon.
The issue I have is with those who have done as they are told and believed as they have been indoctrinated being told by Church representatives that it is their fault for doing so.
This is more of a general critique which I see as pandemic in the LDS Church rather than a specific criticism of Dr. Barlow.
That is all.
But do we need permission from current leaders before evaluating what they tell us?
If permission seems wanting, these past thoughts might be useful (sorry for the long reply, but some of these quotes might be useful):
–“As a means of coming to truth, people in the Church are encouraged by their leaders to think and find out for themselves. They are encouraged to ponder, to search, to evaluate, and thereby to come to such knowledge of the truth as their own consciences, assisted by the Spirit of God, lead them to discover. “ James E. Faust
–“We talk of obedience, but do we require any man or woman to ignorantly obey the counsels that are given? Do the First Presidency require it? No, never.” President Joseph F. Smith (Journal of Discources (JD) 16:248)
–Apostle Charles W. Penrose, who would later serve as counselor to President Smith, declared: “President Wilford Woodruff is a man of wisdom and experience, and we respect him, but we do not believe his personal views or utterances are revelations from God; and when ‘Thus saith the Lord’, comes from him, the saints investigate it: they do not shut their eyes and take it down like a pill.” (Millennial Star 54:191)
–“And none are required to tamely and blindly submit to a man because he has a portion of the priesthood. We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark, that they would do anything they were told to do by those who presided over them, if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God… would despise the idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told to do by their presidents, they should do it without asking any questions. When Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their minds to do wrong themselves.” (Millennial Star, vol.14 #38, pp. 593-95)
–Brigham Young said:
“What a pity it would be, if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually.” (JD 9:150)
–“How easy it would be for your leaders to lead you to destruction, unless you actually know the mind and will of the spirit yourselves.” (JD 4:368)
–“I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied…Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, ‘If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are,’ this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord.” (JD 3:45)
–“…Now those men, or those women, who know no more about the power of God, and the influences of the Holy Spirit, than to be led entirely by another person, suspending their own understanding, and pinning their faith upon another’s sleeve, will never be capable of entering into the celestial glory, to be crowned as they anticipate; they will never be capable of becoming Gods. They cannot rule themselves, to say nothing of ruling others, but they must be dictated to in every trifle, like a child. They cannot control themselves in the least, but James, Peter, or somebody else must control them. They never can become Gods, nor be crowned as rulers with glory, immortality, and eternal lives. They never can hold sceptres of glory, majesty, and power in the celestial kingdom. Who will? Those who are valiant and inspired with the true independence of heaven, who will go forth boldly in the service of their God, leaving others to do as they please, determined to do right, though all mankind besides should take the opposite course. Will this apply to any of you? Your own hearts can answer.” (JD 1:312)
–“President Joseph Smith read the 14th chapter of Ezekiel [see, for example, verses 9-10: ‘If the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing…the punishment of the prophet shall be even as the punishment of him that seeketh unto him.’]…said the Lord had declared by the Prophet [Ezekiel], that the people should each one stand for himself, and depend on no man or men in that state of corruption of the Jewish church — that righteous persons could only deliver their own souls — applied it to the present state [1842] of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — said if the people departed from the Lord, they must fall — that they were depending on the Prophet, hence were darkened in their minds, in consequence of neglecting the duties devolving upon themselves…” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith pp. 237-38)
Thanks so much for the quotes, Haggoth! I copied them into a separate file they are so good!
The problem, I think, is that whereas these quotes exhort Mormons to not follow their leaders blindly, it looks like all of them except the first are from the 19th or early 20th century.
And in spite of these quotes, down at the ward level where the rubber hits the road, the belief is still rampant that we need to believe what we are taught and do what we are told, and though we should pray about it ourselves, if we do not get the same answer as that which is told us by our priesthood leaders, the fault is with us and we are not getting our answer from the right source.
This ends up leading to blind obedience in many instances. Why bother praying about something when you know that the “correct” answer will be only one of confirmation?
Thank you again for the quotes. I may work this into a talk or lesson at some point, if given the chance. I think they deserve a wider dissemination.
I agree that the dates on the vast majority of these quotes are pretty stale. I’ll bet with some digging, however, we could find more modern and current quotes, but to your point, variations of “Follow the prophet: he knows the way” don’t take any digging to find, do they?
You got to the heart of the issue. It isn’t so much about whether church authorities encourage the personal seeking or whether you can find a recent quote supporting that. Instead what really matters is what happens when a person seeks seeks inspiration and guidance from God through prayer about anything (and preferably everything) the church teaches and believes to have received an answer that is not in line with the current church teaching?
The church can claim that answer did not come from God. Ok, then how can we trust any answer to prayer?
The church can say that any answer to prayer that indicates you should not follow the church leadership can’t be from God. Ok, then why even pray to know if the things the church teaches are good and from God if the only answer the church will endorse is that they are?
The church can say that your answer is valid and you should follow the revelation that God gives to you. Ok, then why do I need the church authorities to give me their interpretation of God’s will if God tells me it is wrong and I don’t need to follow it?
And thus all truth can be circumscribed into one great whole.
I wonder if it might be useful to break out the things study/ponder/pray for myself about into two categories. The first is obedience to current worthiness criteria. I can pray about whether the WOW is by way of commandment and conclude that it really isn’t and I choose to drink hot coffee/tea, alcohol and consume tobacco. I won’t get a TR. This feels right to me because the church has a right to decide its membership criteria and temple-worthiness criteria. I can’t study, ponder and pray may way out of worthiness criteria, although there is some flexibility here as well, isn’t there. I could be asked if I obey the WOW and equivocate with a yes because in my hypothetical view, the WOW is good advice, like any other diet I have been on I pay attention to sporadically. In this first category, I would also place, for example, the decision of a young man about whether to go on a mission. If he says the Lord told him he shouldn’t go, he will almost certainly be told he listened to the wrong spirit.
The second category though (and the only category that I think Barlow was referring to) has to do with my own belief in the truth claims. Whether I believe in the inerrancy of LDS scripture, whether I ascribe to some of Packer’s 7 great heresies, whether I believe that the temple is anything close to a carbon copy of the temple ordinances performed by the Sons of Levi and in Christ’s time, whether I believe that the BoM of BoA was transcribed from words of text that JS saw really is and should remain entirely with me. I will be asked some questions that converge on these belief issues such as whether I sustain the President of the Church as prophet, seer and revelator and as the only person on the earth who is authorized to posses and exercise all priesthood keys. Those questions are up or down/in or out but they leave a ton of room for individual interpretation. If my interpretation is a blank “no,” then I’m outside of the temple. If an equivocal “yes” then I’m in. But Barlow’s advice ran to member freedom to interpret restoration as something less than a complete carbon copy. I would be surprised if a bishop told me that I got the wrong answer if I professed a belief that JS’s restoration was inspired and wonderful and but had significant contributions from his studies of masonry, ancient languages, magic and ancient and current legends. He may not agree with me, he may look at me funny, but I doubt it would lead to being told I got the wrong answer. (I freely admit that my guess might be entirely naive and won’t square with other readers’ experiences with their leaders, but I think my guesses are right in my neck of the woods.)
With the sole exception of switching “McConkie” for “Packer,” I totally agree with you, Haggoth.
;^)
Oops. Freudian slip 🙂
Hagoth,
I’m not entirely sure the “church” has the right to place some of the limitations it has on temple entrance. The Lord cleansed the Gentile court precisely because it was excluding Gentiles. (My house is a house of prayer refers to Is. 56 and den of thieves is a reference to Jer. 7 – both references that would have been well known to all who “served” in the temple.)
Membership criteria in Christ’s church is specified time and again as faith and repentance. Aren’t there some scriptures about adding and taking away from this doctrine?
Just sayin’.
I consider Phil Barlow to be one of Mormonism’s most valuable thought leaders, an important voice in this day of increasingly fractured satisfaction for many adherents of Mormonism. When Dr. Barlow speaks, I try to listen. His proposition that Mormons under-apprehend the extent of Joseph Smith’s enterprise is a pathway out of the boxed-in position in which we find ourselves.
But in trying to learn, I often fear I am less apt to be less trapped by consulting a card reader than to rely upon the ever changing, contradictory, incomplete, doctrine-today-heresy-tomorrow writings of the latter-day prophets, seers and revelators. As an example, take the unfathomable lack of information from official sources, about the origin of the endowment. Even Boyd Packer’s book about the Holy Temple falls far short of a satisfying description, where I find no explanation of Masonic influences, indeed, nothing at all to explain Heber Kimball’s notion that “We have the true Masonry”.
The endowment is just one of many examples that could be pondered. Perhaps the new lds.org essays on troublesome topics will convert the houses of cards to houses of structural steel. If not, Mormonism may continue to provide dissatisfaction for more and more congregants.
Peej,
Don’t hold your breath on the essays, especially if the first four are an indicator. Word on the street is they are knocking down card constructed abodes, not reinforcing them…