People like me get called prideful all the time by our fellow Mormons. It gets old, to say the least. This accusation came up again in the discussion of a blog post titled “How to stay Mormon when you’re tired of Mormons,” which has been making the rounds on the interwebs over the past few days. It is a sincere and well thought-out post by someone who has clearly thought and prayed a lot about this issue. Blogger “ldsphilosopher” over at Millennial Star, another who has clearly thought/prayed a lot about this same issue, posted a response a few days later. In it, the author argues that the “How to stay Mormon” blog post takes on the issue from the wrong angle:
I appreciate that the author of the original post didn’t spend it opining about the faults of the Church, but focusing on what we can do instead. That is a good approach. I just felt that the suggestions given focused way more attention on the self, how we can take care of the self, how we can be true to ourselves, etc., and not enough attention on God and His will.
If you ask me, this is a fair critique and an accurate summary of what the original post was trying to do. And I think ldsphilosopher is on to something—we’re missing the point of church entirely if all we think about is ourselves and what we can “get out of” the Church, particularly when it comes at the expense of focusing on our relationship with our fellow humans and our Heavenly Parents.
At the same time, though, ldsphilosopher glosses over the fact that one of the central points of any organized religion is to form a community (Zion, if you will), and that there are community-level problems that cannot always be fixed by indidvual-level solutions. In this light, I’d like to focus on one of ldsphilosopher’s argument that strikes me as divisively judgmental and has a similar effect on others like me:
For example, what happens when repeated, ongoing counsel from prophets and apostles conflicts with our own understanding of the world? I think that’s where heart of the difficulty lies — some of us simply don’t believe that certain teachings and counsel from prophets and apostles come from God. (I don’t count myself as one of these — at least on issues where apostles and prophets have spoken unanimously and repeatedly.) This can create a real discord within the hearts and minds of members of the Church (and amongst each other).
The question of individualism vs. discipleship influences how we approach these sorts of questions. The individualist will assume from the outset that such counsel is part of the “traditions of men,” and will treat invitations to follow such counsel with suspicion (unless and until it can be made sensible within their worldview). Thus, they will encourage you to stop thinking about how “Church leaders” might view you, but to focus instead on God. Counsel from prophets and apostles starts to blend into and become indistinguishable from “opinions of others*, which we should ignore and follow our heart instead. To me, this is really an elevation of one’s own wisdom — a stance of pride. [emphasis mine]
The first paragraph sets up the problem—“some” Mormons just don’t believe everything that the prophets and apostles teach. I agree that the act of “elevation of one’s own wisdom”above the counsel of prophets and of apostles can be rooted in pride. But ldsphilosopher’s argument seems to paint with a very broad brush, labeling “prideful” everyone who disagrees with the apostles/prophets on issues the author feels are clearly stated. The statement seems to be “if you ever disagree with counsel from prophets and apostles (in the wrong way), you are prideful.”
On that note, the final sentence in that paragraph is particularly powerful to me. The author stipulates that there is a scenario in which it might potentially be okay to disagree with the prophets and apostles: on issues they have not spoken out on “unanimously and repeatedly.” My question to the author is this: why those two criteria? Is there no other criteria that could possibly be used to determine when it’s potentially okay to disagree with the prophets and apostles? What if, for example, someone else were to use the metric of “I go with what I understand after I fast and pray about it” or “I make these decisions after I’ve done my very best to follow the Spirit”? How come you get to decide that your set of criteria is righteous and the latter two sets of criteria are prideful?
This is an incredibly difficult issue to sort out. Do you follow everything the prophet says 100% of the time no matter what? And if you don’t, how do you make the decision about when you don’t? I have lived most of my life somewhere near the 100% camp, and I know many good people who have pitched their tents there. But I no longer think that’s what our Heavenly Parents want. The 100% option is essentially an answer that precludes all future questions. As soon as you leave the uncompromising realm of 100% obedience in every case no matter what, you’re left with study and faith as opposed to uniformity and knowledge.
It’s clear that the alternative is very fraught and confusing, because the decisions haven’t already been made for us—we need to prayerfully and carefully follow the Spirit in every situation. But those of us who believe this haven’t abandoned our Heavenly Parents for our own personal wisdom. Even ldsphilosopher’s dreaded “individualist” focuses on God, albeit at the expense of focusing exclusively on Church leaders. Can we really accuse such people of being unfocused on God, or are they just focused on God differently than some might prefer?
The author blames “real discord” on people who don’t agree with the prophet 100% of time. I’m not sure we always deserve the blame for discord. Honestly, it gets tiring to be accused of pride by fellow Mormons. I know how it looks when people disagree with counsel from prophets and apostles. But please believe me, at least, when I say that I’m honestly and sincerely seeking for the truth. Many people like me are as well. In fact, it’s probably safe to say that we’re all doing our best. I’m trying everything I know how to try. I look at history and see examples of Church leaders, even prophets and apostles, issuing counsel that they have since retracted—not that “it was true then but it’s not true now,” but full 180 degree change. I read historical accounts of differences of opinion, even disagreements, among prophets and apostles. I listen to and read general conference talks and see everything from subtle differences to direct disagreement. If prophets and apostles don’t even think prophets and apostles are correct 100% of the time, should I?
And more relevant to this discussion, should you be calling me prideful if I don’t?
I find that most Mormons aren't even willing to consider that prophets have been wrong. Some become very upset when I give examples. Among those who are willing to consider it, few actually do any research. It's a hard thing but it represents an evolved emotional relationship with revelation.
I’ve found that most Mormons are very willing to admit a prophet can be wrong, they just haven’t really made any mistakes worth noting yet in their view. Or, in recent years the more popular idea has been more of the line of ones in the past have made mistakes, but the current one hasn’t and that’s the one we need to be listening to.
On my mission, I became friends with the Catholic priest in one of the towns I was serving. He once commented to me that the difference between Catholics and Mormons is that Catholics say they believe in papal infallibility but they really don’t, while Mormons claim not to be believe in it, but they actually do.
Most LDS people I know are very uncomfortable having a discussion about a prophet or apostle being wrong about anything. For example, I find very few Mormons are willing to have a serious discussion about Race and the Priesthood Gospel Topic essay. They just can’t wrap their mind around Brigham Young getting it wrong and then 10 successive prophets replicating that error. They want to explain it by God having some greater purpose, even though the cannot state what the greater purpose was. While no one (under the age of 60) talks about people of african descent being less valiant in the preexistence, the curse of Cain, or the abomination of intermarriage, there is a real dissonance around leaders making mistakes in with race or on other issues.
We need to get over that. I sustain my leaders but that does not mean I believe them to be infallible or that I agree with every decision they make. When I believe they are in error, I diplomatically tell them so and I try to do it with love and diplomacy. When I have been in leadership positions, I appreciated being told as much, if I felt it came from a place of love. Leaders need the voice of those they are leading, in order to lead well.
I’ve had this on my mind a great deal over the last while. Nothing particular to add though, other than thanks for encapsulating it so well.
Humans are fallible. So called prophets are fallible as well. So what to do? I guess we need to start thinking for ourselves and be comfortable with uncertainty because that’s what life seems to be …. a series of choices in an uncertain world. It’s tough to come to grips with this idea because we as humans seem to crave to find certainty where none exists. However, this is precisely what being an adult is all about.
So, question everything and then voice your opinion. We are not children and frankly we don’t need some organization telling us how to think. Sure churches can give great advice, individuals can give great advice. But that’s all it is and ever was, just advice.
Good post.
Yes, there is a bunch of complexity due to the variable count with personal truth and revelation. Experience, personality, current knowledge and understanding, and even mood are all at play in while receiving our seeking God’s communication.
I thought this was an interesting take on a situation where a bishop and a member were at odds with their inspiration.could it be that they both received conflicting inspiration? Yes. Could it be that one did and the other did not? Yes.
http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2015/05/there-is-no-contradiction-here/3769/
Whenever I mention race and the priesthood and that being a mistake of our leaders, the response is it wasn’t a mistake because we’ve been told our prophets will never lead us astray. There must have been a reason for the ban and the most common reason I’ve heard is church members were so racist that they wouldn’t accept African-Americans holding the priesthood. So God waited until the church membership was ready for the change. However, when you look at polygamy, I don’t think the average member was ready for that, and yet according to the Church God pretty much forced that issue by sending an angel with a drawn sword to Joseph. The one thing it seems we can’t say is that a top leader has ever made a major mistake. We can always find a way to justify things. The rationalization can make you crazy. I appreciate your article, it makes a lot of sense.
Sher,
Sher,
I think the “papal infallibility” of LDS church leaders is a dogma borrowed from Catholicism that developed some number of years after the church migrated to Utah. It certainly was not there during the Josph Smith or Brigham Young period, as both are quoted with positions to the contrary. It appears to have been codified (although never canonized) by Wilford Woodruff as a reaction to criticism of his manifesto ending polygamy.
I think the dogma is popular with Mormons for the same reason it is popular with Catholics. It is really nice to believe that the person at the top won’t make mistakes. For someone with a conservative mindset, it makes it easy to support the institution, without having to wrestle with any of the grey areas — because there aren’t any. “Words of a prophet: Keep the commandments.
In this there is safety and peace.”