The Paradox of Obedience and Integrity
I apologize for the length of this post. My cork has finally popped. I have been avoiding discussing many of these issues and questions for some time for fear of offending people or being branded an anti-Mormon. Recent discussions on this blog have increased my confidence in sharing my concerns; I feel like I can air my feelings and ideas and that they can be positive food for thought for the readers here.
Recently, my friend Skye gave me an article, “OBEDIENCE, INTEGRITY, AND THE PARADOX OF SELFHOOD”, reprinted in short in Sunstone magazine: http://www.sunstoneonline.com/magazine/searchable/Issue39.asp, which discusses the paradox of obedience and personal integrity. The article was thought provoking for me since my reasons for leaving the Church have to do with issues of personal integrity.
The author, Eugene England, responds to an address by Richard Cummings, President of the Association of Mormon Letters, that speaks of
"a creeping identity crisis which is gnawing at the very heart of Mormondom," what he called "the clash between institutional authority and individual integrity and between the imperative of blind obedience and the claims of reasoned belief." He spoke of a problem which is for many the most anguishing in Mormon experience-that is, the struggle to be true to self despite pressures to obey, to conform, or to overlook what seem to be "clear fallacies or even tyrannies in the strictly authoritarian pattern" and then to maintain our integrity in the face of misunderstanding, hostility, even ostracism from our brothers and sisters and disciplinary action from those in authority over us in the Church.
England responds:
“That issue is indeed central to Mormon experience and literature but in ways that are in my view less troubling and at the same time more challenging than Cummings suggested. He saw the problem, at least in terms of our own decisions, as essentially a simple one, though the consequences might be difficult and complex: Clearly we are to choose individually reasoned belief over blind obedience, the honor of self over the demands of the group.
I sometimes wish the problem were that simple, with the enemies clearly identified and all lined up together and the main challenge being to attack or at least survive them. At other times I am grateful that, in fact, the issue is a genuine paradox, a difficult but fruitful condition of existence, a source of the struggle but also of the supreme joy of growth in this universe in which "there must needs be opposition in all things."
I believe the tension should not be resolved in favor of one or the other of those conflicting values. Rather, what Cummings called the Mormon identity crisis will, I hope, continue-successfully transcended, of course, by each of us in our own way but in ways which maintain both obedience and integrity as we work out our salvation in fear and trembling and as we try to write and appreciate Mormon literature.”
I hope you will take the time to read the entire article using the link above (you have to scroll down through the articles until you find England’s).
England’s conclusion is that rather than seeing the problem as a dichotomy where we have to choose blind obedience or become completely autonomous, possibly leaving the Church, we should see it as an acceptable paradox where there is another choice. He illustrates this through the issue of the denial of the priesthood to blacks.
“…the modern Abrahamic test for Mormons, the denial of priesthood to the blacks. In that test God, through his servants, asked us not only to sacrifice our political and social ideals and the understanding and the good will of our colleagues and friends, but he seemed to ask us to sacrifice the very essence of his own teachings to us. To many it appeared necessary to deny our Mormon understanding of the divine potential of every human being and to compromise our higher ethical vision of possible exaltation for all people through unrestricted progression-concepts that are among the most attractive and vital features of our Mormon faith.
There were two groups who failed the test, I believe: There were those who thoughtlessly accepted the practice or rationalized the mystery away by finding some way to blame the blacks because of their supposed lineage or invented pre-existent mistakes. On the other hand, there were those who emotionally opted for their own personal vision, rejected the authority of the Church and loyalty to their community, and blamed Brigham Young or the current prophet or other supposedly racist Mormons, never themselves. My personal hero from that time is President Hugh B. Brown, who wrote the First Presidency message of 1969 that urged all Mormons to pray (and thus prepare)" that all of the blessings of the Gospel become available to men of faith everywhere," which could only mean when blacks would be given the priesthood.
Neither of the groups I mentioned that failed the test-whether conservatives or liberals-followed that suggestion to pray for a change, and thus they did not find a resolution of the paradox of obedience and integrity through their personal preparation nor did they help God prepare us to live the higher law of priesthood for all.”
Ultimately, his solution of praying for resolution of the issues that breach our personal integrity does not satisfy me. The idea that the people that rejected the authority of the Church failed the test because they didn’t help God say it was OK for everyone to hold the priesthood is ridiculous to me. Does God need our help to establish his doctrine? If God knows our heart and mind, why is it necessary for him to test us in this way?
If the leaders at the time that blacks were forbidden the priesthood were truly inspired, why would they have taken away that privilege (Joseph Smith ordained an African American man to the position of an Elder in 1836) only to give it back in 1978? The idea that God needs to test us in this way is full of deceit. It isn’t rational; it’s cruel and pointless. If God is omniscient then why would he need to perform a test that is punitive to several generations of African Americans? Let’s quit trying to whitewash the fact that Brigham Young was a slave owner and that he and many other leaders of the Church were racists under the guise that it was all a test. It’s insulting to anyone willing to look at the facts objectively. If you read Brigham’s statements about blacks you will find no reference to a test, but you will find blatant bigotry and prejudice.
I believe that irrational arguments/excuses such as these are manipulative devices used to shame people into conformity and silence. It’s too convenient to explain away wicked policies such as denying blacks the priesthood by calling it a test of our faith. Religions have been using the old justification that if the people’s faith was greater then the ________ (fill in the blank with miracle, unfulfilled prophecy, incorrect doctrine, etc.) would/wouldn’t have happened since the beginning of recorded time. Another example would be the doctrine of polygamy, which was also a “test” of many members, especially women’s, faith.
Is it up to us pray to “help” God tell our current leaders to correct unjust doctrines? I see that as a manipulative way to keep people in line and I see it as an insult to the Creator of this world that is endlessly powerful and doesn’t need us to help Him to do anything. I also see it as a way to diminish the accountability of the men that have the power to change policies. It places the burden of correcting the unjust policies of the Church on the lay members and makes them accountable for the decisions of their leaders. If that is the way it works then why shouldn’t we reject the authority of those leaders? Would we let our political leaders off the hook if they instituted policies of discrimination by calling it a test and praying for them to become enlightened? No, we would reject them by voting them out of office or even impeaching them.
The problem I have with being expected to believe in our leaders (past and present) being inspired and communing with the Lord is that they aren’t dealing with basic issues that are concerns for many people in the Church. Maybe it’s the insular environment of Church headquarters that is to blame for the lack of dealing with the issues? I don’t know, but I’m waiting to hear a General Conference address that is something more than the same regurgitated messages, over and over. I want to hear about the issues that are confusing to people, the issues that when left unanswered, cause people to leave the Church, like homosexuality, DNA evidence and the Book of Mormon, the many omissions and inconsistencies in our official Church history, etc. The Church’s growth is slowing down and two thirds of the members are inactive; this should be alarming, but I haven’t seen it acknowledged or addressed. The leaders need to respond to people’s concerns instead of telling people to pray about it. If these men have the access to the Lord that they claim to have then why aren’t they taking these things to Him and telling us what He has to say about them? Isn’t that the advantage of having a living prophet?
Until the Church can openly deal with its own imperfections (historically and currently) and be willing to acknowledge truths as they come to light (i.e. DNA and the Book of Mormon), I’m not willing to be a part of it. I do have hope in the possibility that the Church may evolve into a religion that will promote individual’s explorations rather than shaming them for questioning the status quo.
I hope that the Church’s attitude of secrecy will eventually fade and that a new attitude of openness and accessibility will prevail. A good start would be a rewriting of the official Church history to make it complete and accurate so members don’t have to go to non-LDS sources to find out what’s in the SLC archives. I think it would be beneficial for members of the Church to know what happened in the early Church, to understand the prevalent attitude that encouraged the exploration of spiritual beliefs and gifts. It was a magnificent, weird time and we should celebrate it rather than hide it. The heart of Mormonism is in the stories of the early saints, especially Joseph Smith. Shouldn’t we really know him?
I hope that the Church will be open to scientific discoveries that contradict established ideas. I hope that the Church’s future leaders have the courage to admit that the Lamanites in the Book of Mormon are neither American Indians nor Polynesians in light of overwhelming DNA evidence. I hope that they won’t shame thinking members of the Church by proclaiming that the Earth is flat when it becomes plain for all to see that it is round.
My hopes are outrageous but that’s the kind of organization that could inspire me to live in integrity and authenticity. I’ve been exhorted by some to stay in the Church and try to help catalyze these changes. Brother England would tell me to stay and pray for these changes to happen. That won’t work for me. I can’t sit through meetings biting my tongue the whole time, and I can’t state my opinions without disturbing the worship of those around me. I’m incapable of being a representative of Mormonism right now.
My vision of what an incredible organization full of motivated, good-hearted, loving latter day saints could be and do is too different than the vision that SLC has right now. So I say “so long”, not to my friends and loved ones, but to the organization of the Church. For now.
I’d love to hear everyone’s thoughts on this paradox/dichotomy.
Recently, my friend Skye gave me an article, “OBEDIENCE, INTEGRITY, AND THE PARADOX OF SELFHOOD”, reprinted in short in Sunstone magazine: http://www.sunstoneonline.com/magazine/searchable/Issue39.asp, which discusses the paradox of obedience and personal integrity. The article was thought provoking for me since my reasons for leaving the Church have to do with issues of personal integrity.
The author, Eugene England, responds to an address by Richard Cummings, President of the Association of Mormon Letters, that speaks of
"a creeping identity crisis which is gnawing at the very heart of Mormondom," what he called "the clash between institutional authority and individual integrity and between the imperative of blind obedience and the claims of reasoned belief." He spoke of a problem which is for many the most anguishing in Mormon experience-that is, the struggle to be true to self despite pressures to obey, to conform, or to overlook what seem to be "clear fallacies or even tyrannies in the strictly authoritarian pattern" and then to maintain our integrity in the face of misunderstanding, hostility, even ostracism from our brothers and sisters and disciplinary action from those in authority over us in the Church.
England responds:
“That issue is indeed central to Mormon experience and literature but in ways that are in my view less troubling and at the same time more challenging than Cummings suggested. He saw the problem, at least in terms of our own decisions, as essentially a simple one, though the consequences might be difficult and complex: Clearly we are to choose individually reasoned belief over blind obedience, the honor of self over the demands of the group.
I sometimes wish the problem were that simple, with the enemies clearly identified and all lined up together and the main challenge being to attack or at least survive them. At other times I am grateful that, in fact, the issue is a genuine paradox, a difficult but fruitful condition of existence, a source of the struggle but also of the supreme joy of growth in this universe in which "there must needs be opposition in all things."
I believe the tension should not be resolved in favor of one or the other of those conflicting values. Rather, what Cummings called the Mormon identity crisis will, I hope, continue-successfully transcended, of course, by each of us in our own way but in ways which maintain both obedience and integrity as we work out our salvation in fear and trembling and as we try to write and appreciate Mormon literature.”
I hope you will take the time to read the entire article using the link above (you have to scroll down through the articles until you find England’s).
England’s conclusion is that rather than seeing the problem as a dichotomy where we have to choose blind obedience or become completely autonomous, possibly leaving the Church, we should see it as an acceptable paradox where there is another choice. He illustrates this through the issue of the denial of the priesthood to blacks.
“…the modern Abrahamic test for Mormons, the denial of priesthood to the blacks. In that test God, through his servants, asked us not only to sacrifice our political and social ideals and the understanding and the good will of our colleagues and friends, but he seemed to ask us to sacrifice the very essence of his own teachings to us. To many it appeared necessary to deny our Mormon understanding of the divine potential of every human being and to compromise our higher ethical vision of possible exaltation for all people through unrestricted progression-concepts that are among the most attractive and vital features of our Mormon faith.
There were two groups who failed the test, I believe: There were those who thoughtlessly accepted the practice or rationalized the mystery away by finding some way to blame the blacks because of their supposed lineage or invented pre-existent mistakes. On the other hand, there were those who emotionally opted for their own personal vision, rejected the authority of the Church and loyalty to their community, and blamed Brigham Young or the current prophet or other supposedly racist Mormons, never themselves. My personal hero from that time is President Hugh B. Brown, who wrote the First Presidency message of 1969 that urged all Mormons to pray (and thus prepare)" that all of the blessings of the Gospel become available to men of faith everywhere," which could only mean when blacks would be given the priesthood.
Neither of the groups I mentioned that failed the test-whether conservatives or liberals-followed that suggestion to pray for a change, and thus they did not find a resolution of the paradox of obedience and integrity through their personal preparation nor did they help God prepare us to live the higher law of priesthood for all.”
Ultimately, his solution of praying for resolution of the issues that breach our personal integrity does not satisfy me. The idea that the people that rejected the authority of the Church failed the test because they didn’t help God say it was OK for everyone to hold the priesthood is ridiculous to me. Does God need our help to establish his doctrine? If God knows our heart and mind, why is it necessary for him to test us in this way?
If the leaders at the time that blacks were forbidden the priesthood were truly inspired, why would they have taken away that privilege (Joseph Smith ordained an African American man to the position of an Elder in 1836) only to give it back in 1978? The idea that God needs to test us in this way is full of deceit. It isn’t rational; it’s cruel and pointless. If God is omniscient then why would he need to perform a test that is punitive to several generations of African Americans? Let’s quit trying to whitewash the fact that Brigham Young was a slave owner and that he and many other leaders of the Church were racists under the guise that it was all a test. It’s insulting to anyone willing to look at the facts objectively. If you read Brigham’s statements about blacks you will find no reference to a test, but you will find blatant bigotry and prejudice.
I believe that irrational arguments/excuses such as these are manipulative devices used to shame people into conformity and silence. It’s too convenient to explain away wicked policies such as denying blacks the priesthood by calling it a test of our faith. Religions have been using the old justification that if the people’s faith was greater then the ________ (fill in the blank with miracle, unfulfilled prophecy, incorrect doctrine, etc.) would/wouldn’t have happened since the beginning of recorded time. Another example would be the doctrine of polygamy, which was also a “test” of many members, especially women’s, faith.
Is it up to us pray to “help” God tell our current leaders to correct unjust doctrines? I see that as a manipulative way to keep people in line and I see it as an insult to the Creator of this world that is endlessly powerful and doesn’t need us to help Him to do anything. I also see it as a way to diminish the accountability of the men that have the power to change policies. It places the burden of correcting the unjust policies of the Church on the lay members and makes them accountable for the decisions of their leaders. If that is the way it works then why shouldn’t we reject the authority of those leaders? Would we let our political leaders off the hook if they instituted policies of discrimination by calling it a test and praying for them to become enlightened? No, we would reject them by voting them out of office or even impeaching them.
The problem I have with being expected to believe in our leaders (past and present) being inspired and communing with the Lord is that they aren’t dealing with basic issues that are concerns for many people in the Church. Maybe it’s the insular environment of Church headquarters that is to blame for the lack of dealing with the issues? I don’t know, but I’m waiting to hear a General Conference address that is something more than the same regurgitated messages, over and over. I want to hear about the issues that are confusing to people, the issues that when left unanswered, cause people to leave the Church, like homosexuality, DNA evidence and the Book of Mormon, the many omissions and inconsistencies in our official Church history, etc. The Church’s growth is slowing down and two thirds of the members are inactive; this should be alarming, but I haven’t seen it acknowledged or addressed. The leaders need to respond to people’s concerns instead of telling people to pray about it. If these men have the access to the Lord that they claim to have then why aren’t they taking these things to Him and telling us what He has to say about them? Isn’t that the advantage of having a living prophet?
Until the Church can openly deal with its own imperfections (historically and currently) and be willing to acknowledge truths as they come to light (i.e. DNA and the Book of Mormon), I’m not willing to be a part of it. I do have hope in the possibility that the Church may evolve into a religion that will promote individual’s explorations rather than shaming them for questioning the status quo.
I hope that the Church’s attitude of secrecy will eventually fade and that a new attitude of openness and accessibility will prevail. A good start would be a rewriting of the official Church history to make it complete and accurate so members don’t have to go to non-LDS sources to find out what’s in the SLC archives. I think it would be beneficial for members of the Church to know what happened in the early Church, to understand the prevalent attitude that encouraged the exploration of spiritual beliefs and gifts. It was a magnificent, weird time and we should celebrate it rather than hide it. The heart of Mormonism is in the stories of the early saints, especially Joseph Smith. Shouldn’t we really know him?
I hope that the Church will be open to scientific discoveries that contradict established ideas. I hope that the Church’s future leaders have the courage to admit that the Lamanites in the Book of Mormon are neither American Indians nor Polynesians in light of overwhelming DNA evidence. I hope that they won’t shame thinking members of the Church by proclaiming that the Earth is flat when it becomes plain for all to see that it is round.
My hopes are outrageous but that’s the kind of organization that could inspire me to live in integrity and authenticity. I’ve been exhorted by some to stay in the Church and try to help catalyze these changes. Brother England would tell me to stay and pray for these changes to happen. That won’t work for me. I can’t sit through meetings biting my tongue the whole time, and I can’t state my opinions without disturbing the worship of those around me. I’m incapable of being a representative of Mormonism right now.
My vision of what an incredible organization full of motivated, good-hearted, loving latter day saints could be and do is too different than the vision that SLC has right now. So I say “so long”, not to my friends and loved ones, but to the organization of the Church. For now.
I’d love to hear everyone’s thoughts on this paradox/dichotomy.
posted by paul at 10:57 PM
4 Comments:
I’m glad you wrote about this. I’ve been thinking about it ever since our discussion. Unfortunately, the link you provided to the article is bad or my work computer sucks (definitely the latter) because I can’t view the original article. Therefore, my response is based off my understanding of what I read a week ago.
England’s article is about maintaining personal integrity, but he sets up restrictions on the type of personal integrity he is talking about. He is examining maintaining personal integrity within the paradox of personal reason vs conformity to authority. He recognizes the conflict between personal reason and conformity to authority that one believes is of God is practically inherent in people’s relationship to the church. How can those two things be resolved and yet not abandoned?
Many people decide to maintain personal integrity by stepping outside the paradox. Naturally, people maintain their personal integrity if they follow their own reason and do not conform. Conversely, people abandon their personal integrity by conforming to things their reason objects to or by electing to not use their reason at all (refusing to examine things that seemingly contradict their religious views). When England refers to these actions as “failing the test,” he does so not to indicate that these people are lacking personal integrity, but to say that they do not find resolution within the paradox.
Paul, you didn’t mention in this post that you thought the majority of the examples he used were bad. I agree. I didn’t find them persuasive. I did, however, think that the example you chose to talk about, the prohibition of the priesthood to black members, was a good one. For a socially conscious person who finds the prohibition of the priesthood wrong but also truly believes that the church is of God, what is he to do? I think that England’s proposal is a good way to find a resolution within the paradox. Prayer is considered powerful by the believers. But in no way do I think that his intent is to say that the people who left the church are lacking in personal integrity; they maintained their reason by stepping outside the paradox. Once again, I believe his term “fail the test” is to say that they failed to find a resolution within the paradox. His reference to this as an Abrahamic test solidifies those guidelines.
The issues you raise are valid concerns about the church. For many, and I think for you, these are problems that dispel belief. You have pointed out several reasons why the church does not seem to be run by God and why staying within this paradox is not godly. However, I think that there are others, people who both understand the issues and value their significance, who still believe. This does not mean that they aren’t using their reason. It means that they just happen to still believe. Additionally, this does not mean that people whose belief went away did not have a true faith. It just means that they do not believe anymore. For people who still believe, to step outside the paradox by leaving the church is not a viable option, because they aren’t being true to their belief. It is for these people that finding a resolution within the paradox is necessary. I think that the people who stay in the church because of their belief and try to catalyze changes because they think the status quo is not right are people who are acting with the utmost integrity.
Ryan, I also believe that Christ was and is the true source of light on earth. But I don't think Paul and Kristin are disagreeing with you. They are not discussing the invalidity of Christ's teachings, but questioning (and rightly so, as we are instructed to question things and discover truths for ourselves) the organization of the church and how, as a culture, we are instructed to act and believe. Not everyone in the church is perfect. In fact, no one is perfect, except for Christ... and people make mistakes. The paradox is this: can we blindly trust our leaders, even when our hearts tell us there has been a mistake? It could be an innocent mistake... kind of like a game of telephone. We all know and acknowledge that this happens (e.g., Joseph Smith re-translating John... and there are more parts of the Bible not correctly translated). Even among leaders there are discrepancies. So the question becomes: who do we listen to when our own hearts (personal revelation) tells us something different than the church does? That is the paradox... finding a way to harmonize.
Ryan, you are the source of many things.
Paul, do you ever consider the possibility that you are blocked spiritually by sin? This is one of the hardest parts of the whole thing for me, when I am not living acording to the teachings of the gospel, I think my perspective and spiritual light might be dimmed.
I feel less enlightened...I think.
I had the opportunity to eat Thanksgiving dinner with the late Eugene England's wife Charlotte in Provo. She is so radiantly peacefully beautiful. She urged me very powerfully as we washed the dishes afterwards, to believe in myself.
I love her. I love you Paul, and your strength and integrity.
Post a Comment
<< Home