A Primer on Protesting: Pants Edition

The recent Wear Pants to Church facebook event got me thinking about how to challenge Church culture.  There is a difference between (1) challenging non-doctrine-centered cultural norms within the Church’s membership and (2) criticizing the Church’s official teachings.  To do (2) is to attack the Church’s prophetic leaders and is not often indulged in by people who consider themselves devout members of the Church.  But to do (1) is the bread and butter of establishing Zion.  In fact, (1) is the primary reason members regularly gather together to review and learn the Church’s official teachings: we want to close the gap between our cultural practices and the Church's teachings.

I think that the Pants event was part of an effort to do (1) - not (2).  But the event was framed much too broadly.  And if it wasn't supposed to be about pants, it shouldn't have been titled Wear Pants to Church Day.  Because the event was framed so broadly, several people hijacked it to fuel their own agendas and reinforce their own prejudices.  Lots of journalists (and pseudo journalists) took advantage of the opportunity to report on how silly organized religion is, in general - and especially how silly the LDS Church is.  Others jumped at the chance to prove, once again, that LDS men hate and oppress LDS women.  Still others couldn't wait to point out that people who consider themselves LDS feminists just aren't fully persuaded that God loves them.  It was a free for all - and it was a bit of a blood bath.  Essentially, the event was eaten up by the discussion of whether the event was an attempt to do (1) or (2) - rather than a discussion of any actual issues.

In my opinion, we can be more successful in our attempts to do (1) - whether through a blog posting, Facebook discussion/event, Sacrament Meeting talk, Sunday School comment, etc - if we make clear from the outset that we're not trying to do (2) (assuming we truly are not trying to do (2)).  We might need to be ready to persuade people (especially, perhaps, those outside the Church) that we're not trying to do (2).  In which case, we simply need to be able to explain whether the Church has an official teaching on the topic and what it is.  As a rule, the Church's official teachings are not obscure.  The more public, unanimous, and current it is - the more official the teaching.  The Proclamation on the Family is a good example of an official teaching.  That thing somebody's seminary teacher said one time, is not.  

To be fair, the Wear Pants to Church Day event pointed out in its description that the Church does not require women to wear dresses.  But I think the point that the event was not an attempt to do (2) could have been made much more forcefully.  And I think a more specific purpose would have helped protect the event from hijacking, as well.  In the effort to bring non-Priesthood-related gender roles within Church culture in line with actual Church doctrine about gender roles, it would probably be easier to take one thing at a time.  If someone is in a ward where only men give the final talk in sacrament meeting (I honestly can't remember the last time I was in a ward like that, but I hear from all sides that they exist), maybe host an event where people invite their bishop to start having women speak last for a change.

Ultimately, I think the Pants event was good.  And I think it helped draw attention to some of the false traditions in the Church regarding gender roles.  But I think a greater degree of clarity would have both helped protect it from hijacking, and increased its likelihood of accomplishing real change.  The same goes for all of our efforts to bring Church culture into line with Church doctrine.

The prophet is not a local legislator...

In a conversation the other day, I was trying to help a friend understand the Church's health policy.  I explained that the basis of the prohibition against tea and coffee is not caffeine - it is revelation.  That is, the prophets have officially interpreted the phrase "hot drinks" in Section 89 to mean tea and coffee, and that is why we don't drink tea or coffee. If Section 89 prohibited cheese (or something), that would be a good enough reason for us not to eat cheese.

He didn't get it (granted, I probably expressed myself more eloquently here than I did to him).  But what's the rationale behind the policy, he kept asking.  And I kept responding (in one way or another) that revelation is the rationale.  It must have been difficult for him to understand my willingness to defer so completely to someone I consider to be a prophet.  And I can understand his confusion.

Western society has been borne out of and fed on the John Lockeish like philosophy that our authority figures are accountable to us and can't tell us what to do unless we let them.  One of the arrangements foundational to the British/American form of governance is that the nation's authority figures must be able to articulate a good reason to make the law, or the law has no force or meaning.  So when I tell my lawyer friend that I am willing to recognize another human being as a prophet, and do what he tells me to even if he doesn't give a reason for me to do it, my friend just doesn't follow.  And he probably starts imagining something along the lines of David Koresh or Jim Jones.

But from a (Abrahamic) theological perspective, deferring to and following a prophet is as old as God's relationship with the human race.  That's how He does stuff: He chooses and authorizes a prophet and then, through the prophet, tells people what He wants them to do.  The only reason the writings in the Bible are considered authoritative is because, presumably, one of God's authorized representatives wrote them.  The source of tension in virtually all Biblical stories is the extent to which a person or group is willing to obey a prophet (that is, obey God).  In my opinion, believers who read the Bible should be wondering the same thing as Roger Williams (a prominent theologian) did in the 17th century: where is God's prophet?  The following quotes are attributed to Williams:

The apostasy has so far corrupted all...that there can be no recovery out of the apostasy until Christ shall send forth new apostles to plant churches anew.

There is no regularly constituted church of Christ on earth, nor any person qualified to administer any church ordinances; nor can there be until new apostles are sent by the Great Head of the Church for whose coming I am seeking.

I'm not even close to being a Roger Williams historian (more like an expert Wiki-browser), but it seems like a person who makes these kinds of observations is the kind of person who has read the Bible and recognizes the basic truth that prophet-authorizing is the method God uses to guide His church.

The LDS Church's claim to be led by a duly authorized prophet is what distinguishes it from every other church or organization.  If the Church's members consider the prophet to be less like Moses and more like the leaders of other churches or religious bodies, then the members stop belonging to the LDS Church and become members of an ordinary church.  And to the extent the Church's members consider the prophet to be less like Moses and more like their local legislator, the more the Church becomes just another civic organization.

It can be difficult for people who are not members of the Church to understand members' willingness to follow a prophet - especially when the prophet's teachings are unpopular or their basis is not clear.  But for me, this is the most basic kind of faith.  I believe God authorized the prophet, I recognize that prophet-authorizing is the way main way God tells me what He wants me to do, so I follow the prophet.  When it doesn't make sense to me, I remember what Isaiah (a prophet!) said in Isaiah 55:8-9, quoting God:

For your thoughts are not my thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.  For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

 

A Note on Political Correctness

Several years ago, some sociologists at UNC-Chapel Hill studied the spiritual beliefs held by American teenagers.  They conducted thousands of interviews and used the term "Moralistic Therapeutic Deism" to tie together many of the common themes they discovered.  One of the many beliefs they found to be common among the teens can be characterized as follows: "Yes, there is a God somewhere, and He wants us to be nice to each other, and we're nice to each other by not challenging each other's religious beliefs."  In other words, God is different for everybody and it would be rude to say otherwise.


I think this kind of belief is related to the civil doctrine of political correctness.  That is, it is uncivilized (bigoted? hateful?) to express religious beliefs if expressing those beliefs requires that we communicate (either directly or indirectly) that what other people believe is wrong.  


But one of the basic principles of the LDS Church is that we should invite other people to learn about our church because it has more truth than any other church.  To adhere to this basic principle - or to even say it out loud - violates both the teenage belief mentioned above and the doctrine of political correctness the belief is associated with.  That means LDS people have to choose.  What do we value more: avoiding offense at all costs, or adhering to one of the Church's basic principles?


George Albert Smith was the Church's prophet back around the turn of the 20th century, and I think he provided some helpful insight.  He taught:       

It is not the purpose of this Church to make statements that would hurt the feelings of those who do not understand things. This Church is not one that goes about criticising [sic] and finding fault with others, but in the spirit of loving kindness and the desire to be helpful, its representatives carry the Gospel message to the nations of the earth...As representatives of the Church we have the responsibility to go among them with love, as servants of the Lord, as representatives of the Master of heaven and earth.

But then he noted that

They may not altogether appreciate that; they may resent that as being egotistical and unfair, but that would not change my attitude. I am not going to make them unhappy if I can help it. I would like to make them happy, especially when I think of the marvelous opportunities that have come to me because of membership in this blessed Church.

I think some people use the doctrine of political correctness to try and de-legitimize political activity that is motivated by religious belief.  There are plenty of people who honestly believe that a viewpoint informed by religious conviction should not be expressed in civil society not necessarily because of the content of the viewpoint, but because it is informed by religious conviction.  They'll often make arguments that end up sounding like: "we don't have any room in our tolerant, open-minded society for people who think the way you do."  Well, I think our tolerant, open-minded society has plenty of room for people whose opinions are informed by religious conviction.  And nothing about our constitutional order should be misconstrued to suggest, otherwise.


When it comes down to it - members of the LDS Church should follow President's G.A. Smith's teachings on how we express our beliefs: be Christlike, but know that no matter what, someone will be offended - and don't let that offense (even if it gets loud and unpleasant) change our attitude.

  

Lobbying the LDS Church

To most members of the LDS Church, it does not make sense to lobby the Church's leaders to change the Church's doctrine (I refer specifically to doctrine or established practices - lobbying the Church to do other things, like change its spending preferences, is a different matter). That's because we believe God establishes the Church's doctrine through living prophets - so only He gets to change the doctrine. But every once in a while I hear of folks (members and non-members alike) trying to use social activism or some other kind of political or even legal pressure to get the Church to change its doctrine.

When thinking about this issue, believers must beware of falling into the post hoc ergo proctor hoc logical fallacy. We also need to beware of the you probably think this song is about you fallacy. See Simon, Carly, You're So Vain (1972). Just because we do or say something before an event occurs does not mean we caused the event to occur.

I can think of relatively few major doctrinal changes the Church has made over the years - and for the two big ones that come to mind, it seems clear that the change ultimately came because God commanded the change, not because the leaders of the Church succumbed to political pressure.

Official Declaration 1

By the time the Church began the process of ending the practice of polygamy in 1890, the federal and several local governments had already spent decades aggressively pressuring the Church to end the practice. The Republican Party listed polygamy alongside slavery as twin barbarisms it pledged to abolish. Church members and leaders were arrested, prosecuted, and imprisoned. Congress passed laws authorizing federal officials to strip people who practiced polygamy from traditional legal rights. Congress abolished the Utah territorial government. And the US Supreme Court upheld a law that, among other things, authorized the government to take Church property without compensation. This topic has filled volumes, and I will not discuss it at length. But (it should be) needless to say that if the Church's decision to end polygamy was simply meant to put an end to the legal and political pressure, the decision came decades too late.

There is no doubt that most revelation arrives wrapped in a cultural context. That is because revelation generally comes in response to a question or problem. But the revelation itself comes from God, and He decides the revelation's contents.

President Wilford Woodruff spoke at length about his 1890 manifesto. At one meeting, he reviewed with the audience all of the consequences that would have come about had the Church continued to practice polygamy, and then he made this crucial statement:

But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write.

The Church would not have stopped practicing polygamy had God not commanded the end of the practice. God had commanded the practice in the first place, and no amount of political or legal pressure could have made the Church end the practice - only God could end it.

Official Declaration 2

By any calculation, 1978 would be a late date to arrive to the American civil rights movement. And the Church supported political and legal civil rights long before the majority of the country did. These are both reasons why it does not make sense to think of the decision to extend the priesthood to all worthy male members, regardless of race, as simply a concession to social activism or a calculation to join the mainstream.
For an exhaustive treatment of this subject, including an appendix containing official Church statements, go here.

For years, the Church's First Presidency was pressured to simply extend the priesthood to all men (and, by some, to all women) regardless of race. President David O. McKay (1951-1970) reportedly felt sad (along with most members of the Church) that the priesthood was denied to so many. Had the decision been a matter of mortal administrative preference - he very likely would made the decision. But in 1969, the First Presidency issued a statement to clarify the following:

From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding presidents of the Church have taught that Negroes, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve, were not yet to receive the priesthood, for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which He has not made fully known to man.... 

Until God reveals His will in this matter, to him whom we sustain as a prophet, we are bound by that same will. Priesthood, when it is conferred on any man comes as a blessing from God, not of men.

We feel nothing but love, compassion, and the deepest appreciation for the rich talents, endowments, and the earnest strivings of our Negro brothers and sisters. We are eager to share with men of all races the blessings of the Gospel. We have no racially-segregated congregations.

Were we the leaders of an enterprise created by ourselves and operated only according to our own earthly wisdom, it would be a simple thing to act according to popular will. But we believe that this work is directed by God and that the conferring of the priesthood must await His revelation. To do otherwise would be to deny the very premise on which the Church is established.

Just as with Official Declaration 1, no amount of political or legal pressure would have generated Official Declaration 2. Several presidents had prophesied that the Lord would eventually extend the priesthood to all men. But that decision was God's to make - not the president's.

When it comes down to it, we can lobby for doctrinal changes. But we must lobby the right Person through prayer - He's the one who can give us what we're after. When we pressure the Church's leaders to change doctrine, we're essentially barking up the wrong tree.

Dissent by Any Other Name...

To members of the Church, a temple recommend represents full fellowship.  In the temple recommend interview, a member of our local stake presidency will ask us a series of basic questions designed to determine whether we believe in and live the Church's teachings.  We must answer the questions in the affirmative in order to obtain the recommend.  The questions are simple: Do you believe in Jesus Christ and accept Him as your Redeemer?  Do you live the law of tithing? Do you comply with the Church's health policy?  And so forth.  But there is one question I would like to focus on: Do you sustain the current president of the Church as a prophet, seer, and revelator?

The foundational tenet of the LDS Church, the tenant that separates us from every other Christian church, is that we believe the leader of our church is a prophet.  And we don't mean "prophet" in the sense of "wise and inspired."  We mean prophet in the sense of Moses or Abraham or Peter.  As in, we believe the president of our church is fully authorized by God to declare His mind and will.  And we believe he is the only person on earth to whom God has given this authority.  So when we are asked in our temple recommend interviews whether we sustain the current president as a person with this kind of authority - as a modern day Moses - our answer reveals a great deal.  

I am troubled by the trend among many of my peers to consider themselves active members of the Church, but to disregard official teachings from the Church's leaders.  No one follows all prophetic teaching perfectly - we all need to improve.  So it does not trouble me one bit that many of my peers (myself included) struggle to fully accept and live all of the Church's teachings.  What troubles me is how some of my peers feel about the struggle.  

Many do not see their disbelief as a struggle at all.  They see their dissent from the prophet as simply another way to be a Mormon.  And they usually legitimize their dissent by labeling themselves Unorthodox Mormons or Progressive Mormons.  But that's not how being a Mormon works.  We either want to believe what the prophet teaches, or we don't.  Once we stop wanting to believe what the prophet teaches, we are no longer active members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Struggling to believe is completely normal.  What distinguishes members who can answer "yes" to the temple recommend interview question we're talking about, and the person who must answer "no," is how the person feels about the struggle.  It mattered to Nephi that he struggled to believe that his father Lehi really was a prophet - so he prayed for help to believe.  1 Nephi 2:16  But if we dismiss the prophet's official teaching as mere opinion or prejudice, and we see our dismissal as justified - then we cannot honestly answer "yes" to that question.  And if we cannot answer yes to that question, then we need to repent - just as the Hebrews needed to repent when they disregarded Moses's teachings.

We cannot cover our need to repent by labeling ourselves Unorthodox Mormons or anything else.  We cannot reject the foundational tenet of the Church and still be active members of the Church.  Dissent by any other name, is still dissent.