Snatching the Phoenix From the Flames by Peter Bleakley

[_moksha]

The graphic includes this quote by Uchtdorf from October 2015 General Conference Talk, "It Works Wonderfully,"

Sometimes we take the beautiful lily of God’s truth and gild it with layer upon layer of man-made good ideas, programs, and expectations. Each one, by itself, might be helpful and appropriate for a certain time and circumstance, but when they are laid on top of each other, they can create a mountain of sediment that becomes so thick and heavy that we risk losing sight of that precious flower we once loved so dearly. Therefore, as leaders, we must strictly protect the Church and the gospel in its purity and plainness and avoid putting unnecessary burdens on our members.

So that is why Elder Uchtdorf was demoted. Laying waste to pretense would cause some to yell, "get a rope".

[_Symmachus]

I have often made the critique here that apologists suffer from an unforgivable lack of originality: they have nothing new to say, really. Their function is primarily destructive and negative; rather than posit something new,they negate the claims of others, and in their zeal to "defend" the Church from whatever attacks they perceive, they are reacting to the external without building on it or replacing it. Rather than build a new boat, they just plug holes on the one already built by others (e.g. Nibley, B. H. Roberts, etc.). It's a tedious and uninspiring project with occasionally flashes but no sustained light.

I feel pretty much the same about liberal Mormons, who are similarly reactive and just as lacking in any valuable insight, and what little there is on offer is only superficially different from what the last guy said, who was regurgitating the guy before that, and so on until you get Lowell Bennion or something. This talk, for example, could have been by Dan Wotherspoon or, with some personal insults thrown in, Paul Toscano (ok, he is an original). I'm sorry that I don't see anything really new here, and certainly nothing insightful about Mormonism and the problems facing it.

Joseph Smith wasn't a guru, Mormonism has nothing substantially in common with Hinduism or Buddhism, which is as ignorant a claim as I've ever seen any apologist make, and it is far more typically Christian than this talk seems to get. That is the first and most important thing to understand about Mormonism, but it is a very low form of Christianity, with almost no theology or serious philosophical tradition or even Bible study. Mormons doesn't require to read books so much as use them as talismans. It's chock full of fantastical stories that can't possibly true and practices and promises that don't add up. I know people here will say that that is also true of Christianity but that is only true with regard to certain strands that are similarly populist (e.g. Pentecostalism), which don't have anything like the institution of the LDS Church. Traditional Christianity has a real gulf between the elite interpretations that pervade the strong institutions (e.g. the Roman Catholic Church or any mainline Protestant sect) and the ordinary people who believe the silly stories. Mormonism's appeal was that it narrowed the distance between the lives of the everyday religious and the elites who govern the institution.

What we learn about all that "magic world view" and treasure-digging is that Mormonism was a bottom-up sort of a religious movement but within a completely Christian culture: a Christian populism. What gave it appeal and strength was the institutional validation it created through its church structure: where other churches banished folk practices and belief in silly stories from the realm of acceptable religiosity and sent them to margins of society, Mormonism created a hierarchical structure that made those practices a central feature (this goes a long way in explaining polygamy, incidentally). Every community has elites and masses, but in this way, the gap between its elites and its mass was made narrower than in other religions. Clergy in other denominations had to be religiously educated in order to enter the governing (i.e. elite) structures of their institutions (to this day, a lot of seminaries still require at least a year of Greek instruction!). And then of course while there is no shortage of ignorant preachers out there, none of them can command an institution anything like the LDS Church, even in its early history. Mormonism's greatest strength has been its institutional validation of popular religion, which is one reason why its leaders are objects of veneration in Mormon religious life.

Mormonism's greatest weakness is now becoming the separation between institution and the popular religion: it' global reach—and especially the leadership's mentality created by the pretension to global expansion—has opened a huge gap between ordinary Mormons and the elites who govern the institution. It's not unlike what we seen in practically ever major institution in the Euro-American world, where elites fetishize our "interconnected, global" world while paying scant attention (at least in their rhetoric) to the masses in the backyard. In an empire, that is the norm, but in societies with democratic political structures and democratic ideologies, it's toxic to the system.

It's easy to decry the rise of populism but one should at least understand it, and Mormons who claim an interest in preserving the Church should understand just how populist it is and has always been. Too many liberal Mormons, just like too many political liberals in the political realm, simply don't understand it and instead demonize in a very childish way. For an institution like Mormonism, this is detrimental because its lifeblood has always been popular religion: belief in personal help by divine beings, an emphasis on elevated status through secret knowledge and esoterica, folk healing, etc. etc. Mormonism took all of that and gave it institutional form, so that being a kook who believed the homeless guy around the corner was an immortal from an ancient past who had come to help you change a tire was something that could get you promoted in the institution rather than shunned.

That still existed in the Hinckley era but who does this author think began to push things in another direction? Hinckley's "open-hearted engagement with he world," as he terms it, was a side-effect, if not a cause, of the global pretensions that Hinckley had. Everything in the 90s was about the how the Church was some kind of massive worldwide Church on an exponential trajectory to 100 million members and all that. With that came a gradual suppression of traditional Mormon popular religion ("it's a couplet that's quoted...I don't know that we teach that..." etc.) as well as an acceleration of the centralization that had been going on since the 1960s, to say nothing of the gradual buildup in financial resources that a globally expanding institution needs. That centralization had all the charm and delight of a corporate park because it was initiated and carried out by corporate types (Henry Moyle, etc.), who naturally think of global growth. That is the fountain of corporate strength, not local markets. The localism in Mormonism was the primary containment structure of the populism: kooky guy who would have been shunned by local Methodists taking their cues from the worldwide organization instead gets promoted to High Priest or even higher, perhaps even to the bishopric—thus not only demanding responsibility but even conferring status and responsibility. The centralization drive, by nature de-localizing, has changed the selection criteria, so that now the kooks are shunned, even at the local level. Your beliefs aren't going to get you promoted in Mormonism anymore; your ability to manage a spreadsheet and implement corporate policy is. Mormonism has become a religion run by business people for business people. All of this leads to the gap I'm talking about, where ordinary people are gradually de-emphasized from the mission of the institution. Most people aren't business people.

The conservative response is a logical one: let the Church get smaller (for those who stay) or take your popular religion outside (for those who leave, like the Snufferists). The liberal response is totally illogical, because it is almost by definition an elite one. The emphasis of on "homophobia" is a prime example. I don't put the word in quotes because I deny that it is a phenomenon or because it is a malapropism but because it is an elite shibboleth. The culture has shifted (rightly, in my opinion) to a broader acceptance largely because elites have shifted. The rhetoric of homophobia may be sincere, but it is also a sign to others that you too have made a shift. That is how most people will see it, since most don't give a damn about sexual practices or sexual identities, and these days almost no one even cares that the state sanctions same-sex marriage. Most people just don't think about it enough to care, but people in elite positions do and see even assertions of heterosexuality as homophobic. Mass indifference to same-sex marriage or gay identity is not the same thing as a concern about homophobia. Liberal Mormons, who are typically educated and members of the professional and managerial classes, are concerned with it and other cultural issues that concern elites, but I am highly skeptical that ordinary Mormons care.

The problem here is that heterosexual family life is an identity feature of Mormon popular religion (hence the connection with ancestors that the author here wrongly associates with animism, which really has no part in Mormonism or the Christian culture it arose from). Mormon popular religion has deep agrarian roots; I'm sure most people in this forum at least know someone who spent time on a farm or a ranch in their life, whereas most in the Euro-American orbit have no such connection. The hyper heterosexualism of Mormonism is an outgrowth of the agrarian life that most Mormons knew until the late 20th century. The most you're gonna get from the average Mormon is passive acceptance or indifference (which is still a lot, frankly) but the idea that the Church could incorporate gay-married couples into its religious life and thought-world is laughable. Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply beyond what Mormonism is and, more importantly, what it can be. It is also, as I say, an elite concern, and if the Church were suddenly to shift on this, you will see an even wider gap between elites and ordinary religious.

The stated aim of "Equality not hierarchy" summarizes his lack of understanding of the Mormonism he misses. The promise of Mormonism for ordinary people, like all kinds of popular responses, used to be the paradoxical promise of equality through hierarchy: "I want to be elite too!" Mormonism is a deeply American religion, and the emphasis on an open and expansive elite has always been and remains the inherent tension in American culture. In America, every child is special. In Mormonism, everyone can become a god.

So I don't think this author is really serious about sustaining Mormonism. What he wants, and what is at the heart of all liberal Mormon sentiments, is the simultaneous validation of his nostalgia for the Mormonism of his youth together with a validation of his cultural preferences of the present—he wants to take his cultural beliefs and stamp the word "Mormonism" on them. But those beliefs arose from outside of Mormonism. And they are irreconcilable with his nostalgia.

You don't get a phoenix without the fire.

[_Meadowchik]

So I don't think this author is really serious about sustaining Mormonism. What he wants, and what is at the heart of all liberal Mormon sentiments, is the simultaneous validation of his nostalgia for the Mormonism of his youth together with a validation of his cultural preferences of the present—he wants to take his cultural beliefs and stamp the word "Mormonism" on them. But those beliefs arose from outside of Mormonism. And they are irreconcilable with his nostalgia.

You don't get a phoenix without the fire.

I don't know how Bleakly would respond to that, but it might help to know he's an Englishman, which in his case might make him less American-centric than most apologists, which might impact his view of the church.

[_moksha]

The hyper heterosexualism of Mormonism is an outgrowth of the agrarian life that most Mormons knew until the late 20th century.

How are we going keep them down on the farm now that they've seen Ensign Peak Investments?

[_Philo Sofee]

Symmachus
I have often made the critique here that apologists suffer from an unforgivable lack of originality: they have nothing new to say, really. Their function is primarily destructive and negative; rather than posit something new,they negate the claims of others, and in their zeal to "defend" the Church from whatever attacks they perceive, they are reacting to the external without building on it or replacing it. Rather than build a new boat, they just plug holes on the one already built by others (e.g. Nibley, B. H. Roberts, etc.). It's a tedious and uninspiring project with occasionally flashes but no sustained light.

Excellent observation. I often lamented as an apologist why we were not at the forefront of advanced and interesting and newly enlightening biblical exegesis, instead of the same old, same old mere "Mormonizing" of the Bible. I especially got vehemently vocal after I acquired the brand new book by Emanuel Tov on Biblical Criticism, which analyzed the Bible in careful and extensive Hebrew exegesis. The response was more typical along the lines of "we haven't yet mastered all the old stuff, why should we get to anything new?" i.e., now I see it as being a traditional, conservative approach, which ends up being buttoning up and defending what already is, no matter how bizarre either the original claim or the ridiculous apologetic attempting to make it viable! There can be nothing new in Mormonism, they spilled all their beans in Joseph Smith's day, and the monicker that continuing revelation is the key to Mormonism is vapid, at best.

[_huckelberry]

I started reading this article and finding interesting, well to a point. I started skimming rather lightly along after revealed yin yang of physics. The apologetics strained a bit far.

Symmachus comments were direct and accurate to my view. I was uncertain if there was much to add. For the author I had an image of a cartoon coyote running off a cliff but not falling until he finally looks down

I guess he has not yet looked down because he is still holding the view that Momonism is making a positive repair on Christianity. For me that presents possibly interesting questions. I find part of the basic interest in this board is people reflect on religious questions without being locked into a dogmatic box. Other Christian discussion boards are fundamentalist dominated and as a result are horrid places. (as Bart Ehrman explains American fundamentalism is "no fun ,too much damn, too little mental).

I can remember when as a youthful Mormon I was proud that the church presented life as both a challenge and could be fun. I doubted that other forms of Christianity knew of any goal to get together and pursue. I am older and have seen more variety so I know that that youthful image is seriously oversimplified. I however find myself seeing something to it.

The fundamentalists appear to be clueless as what to do so they buy guns and hope Trump will lead them somewhere. People like N.T. Wright who is rethinking the problem is so entangled in academic investigation that he really does not reach out to inspire communities of people very well. (it remains easier for those on radio or tv proclaiming, holy snake oil here! buy your snake oil here!).