Many of my fellow Mormons have become complacent in theological certainty, and apathetic to theological responsibility. Many sit in pews awaiting revelation they have not actively sought for. I see theological immaturity, arrogance, and ignorance, when we need theological maturity.
The theologically immature will look to an authority figure for theological interpretation. This should not be confused with seeking guidance or advice from a religious leader, but rather looking for an indisputable dogma from an authoritarian. The theologically immature are comfortable in their relationship with the authoritarian because it’s intellectually easy and relinquishes their accountability and responsibility. For example, an apostle of my church might say there is no room for queer folks in the highest degree of celestial glory because their lifestyle is sinful. The theologically immature will accept this premise without dispute or consideration to this theologically irresponsible position. “When the prophet speaks the thinking is done” is the epitome of the theological immaturity. Even when given the freedom to develop their own theological views, the theologically immature will still seek unquestionable answers from an authoritarian before exercising their own mind, imagination, and creativity.
Others are theologically arrogant. The theologically arrogant rest in the undeserved comfort of theological certainty. They do not believe, but know that they have certain answers to life’s existential questions. This so-called knowledge might be developed or is simply an accepted dogma. The difference between the theologically immature and the theologically arrogant is that the theologically immature will know they don’t have certain answers. This is why they seek answers from an authoritarian, while the theologically arrogant believe to have the answers with unquestionable certainty. Theological immaturity and theological arrogance can and do overlap. For example, theological immaturity can morph into arrogance once the authoritarian has laid down the accepted dogma.
The theologically arrogant and ignorant will often defend their dogma like a guard dog on a chain held by the authoritarian. The master authoritarian keeps the guard dog “existentially safe” while relieving the dog from their theological responsibility and accountability. In return, the guard dog will defend their master, ruthlessly if necessary. I suspect the guard dog’s aggressiveness is roughly tantamount to the existential threat, isolation, and loneliness they feel without their master. Their master may not even be a person. Their master is the unquestionable dogmas they clutch to when searching for safety. This might be personified in the form of a religious leader, but not always. The master is powerful, whether the master is acknowledged or not.
Likewise, the power of theological ignorance should not be underestimated. We are all participating in theological formations, whether by action or inaction, vocalization or silence, claimed or relinquished authority. The difference is those who do not fully grasp their participation in theological development have the power of ignorance on their side. By this I mean that when persons claim and genuinely believe to have the correct theological interpretation without granting legitimacy to any other interpretations, they are able to powerfully and ignorantly profess their interpretation with such confidence and zeal as to appear indisputably correct. If any interpretation contradicts or challenges their own interpretations, that interpretation can be quickly and easily labeled “misinterpretations.” Ignorant and arrogant claims of sure knowledge can be powerful in persuading the theologically immature.
The theologically mature are humble, yet confident. As Socrates suggests in his paradoxical proposition, paraphrased, the only reason I am smarter than you is that you still think you know something while I know that I know nothing. In his words, “I seem, then, in just this little thing to be wiser than this man at any rate, that what I do not know I do not think I know either.” The theologically mature can deconstruct and reconstruct theological perceptions with nuance and epistemic humility. Theological maturity recognizes there are many theological interpretations, but does not privilege dogmatic, harmful, or discursive elements while still allowing spaces for the spirit of creativity and continuing revelation to spread. The theologically mature understand that differences, disagreements, or diversity are not to be feared, but to be understood, developed, and incorporated. Theological maturity holds reverence for both mythos and logos and the ambiguity between them.
I do not pretend to be fully theologically mature. This is not a sermon shared from an ivory tower, but it’s a request for action by a fellow comrade. We must reevaluate when, how, and why we are hindering ourselves from a state of full theological maturity.
Imagine what we could accomplish if we moved into a state of theological maturity. Imagine if we opened our minds to allow the formation of a radical theology which envelops truth over vanity (John 4:24), humility over arrogance (Ephesians 4:2), and love over fear (John 4:18). I envision a narrative which casts out pessimism with hope (John 8:12), replaces dogma with wisdom (Proverbs 4: 6-7), and carefully questions the lines between hope, confidence, arrogance, and pride (Proverbs 11:2). The theology of the future isn’t ex nihilo, but rather it is remembered, re-envisioned, and applied. Theological maturity demands the liberation of our minds and our thoughtful participation in eternal progression.
Blaire Ostler
Blaire Ostler is a leading voice at the intersection of Mormonism, feminism, and transhumanism. She is a Board Member and former CEO of the Mormon Transhumanist Association, the world's largest advocacy network for the ethical use of technology and religion to expand human abilities. She is currently pursuing a second degree in philosophy with an emphasis in gender studies. Blaire and husband Drew reside in Utah with their three children.
All posts by Blaire Ostler
Beautifully said!!!!
I agree with you completely!!!
You have powerfully explained how various people view the world. The statement by Socrates is especially significant. Can you imagine what a conversation between Socrates and certain religious leaders might look like?
Blaire, Thanks for the thoughtful post. While the concepts generally resonate with me, it did first come off a little arrogant, but was tempered in your self-disclosure “I do not pretend to be fully theologically mature “ paragraph. I presume that within that epistemic humility that you hold the possibility that some of the dogmas of the orthodox you apparently feel are in error, might in fact be the more accurate picture of reality. In related vein, some of the results I see with progressivism are that some have slid into only considering rational reasoning and empiricism as ways to gain actionable information. What first started out as a loss of certainty, but with some retention of belief, and an increase in epistemic humility migrated to certainty in their rejection of religion as they jettison appeals to the spiritual realm for confirmation of any ideas they are dealing with, ultimately finding themselves agnostic. Other progressives seem to retain their humility and faith in divinity and some shared beliefs of the orthodox. Relative to the other side–the orthodox–you’ve articulated that pretty well.
What I feel is needed in the Church is to be able to openly discuss these faith positions, our own positions, in the walls of the Church building without fear of being shut down or being considered a pariah or becoming a project, or untrusted, etc. People on both sides need to respect each other’s positions, or at least their right to them, without fear and judgment. I recently met with a young couple who were very active to the day they handed in their resignation. When I asked if they had talked to anyone about their issues prior to that, they said, “No, there was no safe space where there wouldn’t be reprisals.” How sad is that?
i ultimately left for the same reason… i had multitudenous questions from the time my parents joined the church when i was 7. Neither they, nor my teachers, throughout the next decade, were comfortable with my queries and would often shut me down. I also learned that church college schools were even less accomodating of questions. Then, as a young married wife and parent in a predominantly LDS town, I did not even try to express questions and concerns about doctrine or culture. It was obvious that such things wee not welcome. Later we moved to the “mission field” and i again tried to discuss things that were becoming so heavy i could hardly bear them. Not one iota of willingness to converse and see my confusions. I did find solace in recently discovered Sunstone Magazines and the Dialogue Journal, which kept me in the church for another 15 years, when online discussions ultimstely became available. Those forums really helped me, but I had felt discounted by the rank and file members and local leadership for so many years that I was emotionally distancing myself…
I tried very hard for 49 years of my life; marrying in the temple, paying tithing, having a temple recommend, holding numerous callings, putting each of our 5 children on missions–all while squelching my questions and concerns over history and doctrune. I finally stepped away from active participation in the church at the advent of the November 2015 policy, as i have a gay son and his spouse whom we support with all our hearts.
The cognitive dissonence is too great for me to bear any longer…
I totally agree with your comment and, although I am considered active, must admit that I find our cultural inability to explore uncomfortable questions to, in effect, be an admission that we lack answers and that we embrace the concept “nothing’s gonna change my world.”
BTW, you might be interested in reading my essay “Obedience gone awry” on my blog at ldsplace.blogspot.com
If we could find essays like this in the Ensign, we would not have allowed our subscription to lapse a couple of years ago.
In reading “I see theological immaturity, arrogance, and ignorance, when we need theological maturity,” I must confess that I found myself substituting the word political for theological. If the word political does indeed belong in that context, it certainly helps me in understanding Pew Research’s data that 61% of Latter-day Saints voted for Trump. Because of the high proportion of active LDS who are Republican, I’d guess that this means 75%-80% of active LDS went for Trump. I believe this would never happen among a people who are theologically and politically mature.