Dr. Mason on MoSto

[Kishkumen]

So I have listened to the first two instalments of Patrick Mason’s interview with John Dehlin. It has been very educational thus far. I learned a few things about apologetic history I did not know. Mason comes off as a very decent fellow, as I am sure he is, and one who was serendipitously in the right place at the right time to play the role of academic defender of the faith he currently fills. Indeed, he is one of those Mormons who in many ways represents the best of Mormonism.

I can’t help but feel, when I sit and reflect on his story and views, that he is something of a unique outlier. He reminds me of other good LDS people I have known since childhood, the ones who seemed to be exceptions to the rule, too good to be true, in a sense. More than that, I often felt that there was a certain odd imperturbable quality about them. Decent folk, but you kinda wondered why certain things didn’t seem to evoke more sympathy and understanding from them, and here I mean the level of compassion that would lead a person to push back.

Back in 2016, I had lunch with my stake president. Great guy, very much like Mason. I told him that I was no longer going to church because I found the November Policy abhorrent. My stake president looked at me with watery eyes saying he did not believe the Brethren would want to hurt anyone, and I said, “But what are the results?” Intentions are one thing, it is the outcome that matters. He stuck with the Brethren. I never attended church again.

Mason was obviously against the November Policy, and he is pretty courageous in expressing disagreement with the Brethren. He does not believe that the GAs are above criticism, even the apostles. But I still find myself baffled by his patience with everything we have seen over the past thirty years. A lot of the early stuff he missed for one reason or another. Too young for ERA. Too late for September Six. The list goes on and on. Something bad happens, and he legit did not happen to be around to have to deal with the reality. And yet I am thinking, so what? You weren’t there, but this becomes your rhetorical place marker substituting for any real response to the issue itself.

He disagrees with the methods of activists such as Sam Young, even though he agrees in principle with Sam. OK. But, tell me, Patrick, what works? Prayer? Is that what Sam is supposed to do when he knows church policies will inevitably lead to more child abuse? At a certain point, I start to lose patience. At what point does the pile of problems become the mountain that really ought not to be tolerated? He would spend the 120 billion on better causes. Agreed. Should be. But what about the fact that there is nothing pointing to a change in the future on this?

I guess what I am saying is that there is a real structural problem with the LDS Church that goes beyond problems with truth claims. It is the overwhelming authority of the apostles. A group of men who are, for the most part, seemingly unresponsive to some pretty dire problems. The culture and structure of the church puts them so far above the average member, that the average member is left ideally to be a voiceless, passive enactor of whatever objectives the Brethren come up with. The thinking has been done. The Brethren have spoken.

And children continue to be molested by their bishops. And money grows in the Ensign Peak accounts. And gay children are rejected by their LDS parents. And the church haemorrhages members by the thousands.

Patrick Mason is one guy. A decent guy. And I know he has his heart in the right place. I don’t mean to be harsh on him, but there is a certain disconnect in relationship between noble feelings and actions.

Don’t get me started on his views about the Book of Mormon as an ancient text . . . .

[Philo Sofee]

Ah good Reverend! Yet another splendid post with analysis. I now will also watch this. Thank you sharing your thoughts. I do find them spot on in so much of what I have concluded concerning the Brethren and their literally far too great a power over people to quell them down and pretty much dominate their every move, their every word, their every thought. I smell a future podcast/critique or 2 or 3, even 4, perhaps 5 in this one...

[Dr Exiled]

Ah good Reverend! Yet another splendid post with analysis. I now will also watch this. Thank you sharing your thoughts. I do find them spot on in so much of what I have concluded concerning the Brethren and their literally far too great a power over people to quell them down and pretty much dominate their every move, their every word, their every thought. I smell a future podcast/critique or 2 or 3, even 4, perhaps 5 in this one...

I'd love to have you do it. Mason seems to be advocating a belief based on blinders. He had an experience that transcends history and so he can discount the fraud aspects of past and current church history. November 5? So what. It was bad but whatever. LGTBQ? Just follow the brethren. Lack of women in leadership? Don't focus on that. Look to the positive and perhaps talk to your health care professional if you have problems. You can question the brethren to a certain point but don't let their actions dissuade. The church is somehow beyond human frailties, by definition.

[Gadianton]

Thanks for the thoughts, Reverend, I sympathize with both you and Mason. Where I might not follow so much is here:

I guess what I am saying is that there is a real structural problem with the LDS Church that goes beyond problems with truth claims.

I agree sorta...but...

I think there is a simplistic way and a deeper way to dispute "truth claims" as secondary to structural problems. The simplistic way describes me to a T, if it ain't true, if I'm not getting Eternal life, then I'm not sitting through boring meetings. A deeper objection is to consider what the problems with truth claims tell us about the structure.

In the simplistic consideration, I totally get why others still go to church even though they don't buy the theology. Family, community, still some pretty good practical teachings. Gemli types might even come across as irritating and too fundamentalist; yeah, we get there is no Santa, no need to keep shouting about it.

But isn't the childish narratives of Joseph and literalism about Book of Mormon history, and fundamentalist theology a product of keeping the Saints faith maintained via information silo? And isn't the same structure that creates information silos the kind of structure that leads to abuse of power, cover ups, and in-crowd mentality?

The counter to what I'm saying would be an example of a theologically rigid faith with fantastic claims but also very accepting, liberal, transparent, and without power abuses.

[Moksha]

He disagrees with the methods of activists such as Sam Young, even though he agrees in principle with Sam. OK. But, tell me, Patrick, what works?

Sam Young moved the mountain with his activism. Silent acquiescence to the problem would not budge the mountain even with an LDS granary full of mustard seeds.

I liked those three episodes with Patrick Mason. I think of him as a conciliator between the LDS faith and the world of reason.

[Fence Sitter]

I guess what I am saying is that there is a real structural problem with the LDS Church that goes beyond problems with truth claims. It is the overwhelming authority of the apostles. A group of men who are, for the most part, seemingly unresponsive to some pretty dire problems. The culture and structure of the church puts them so far above the average member, that the average member is left ideally to be a voiceless, passive enactor of whatever objectives the Brethren come up with. The thinking has been done. The Brethren have spoken.

The SLC version of the church Joseph Smith founded has evolved into exactly the type of church Smith was describing as the great and spacious building.

[Kishkumen]

Thanks for the thoughts, Reverend, I sympathize with both you and Mason. Where I might not follow so much is here:

I guess what I am saying is that there is a real structural problem with the LDS Church that goes beyond problems with truth claims.

I agree sorta...but...

I think there is a simplistic way and a deeper way to dispute "truth claims" as secondary to structural problems. The simplistic way describes me to a T, if it ain't true, if I'm not getting Eternal life, then I'm not sitting through boring meetings. A deeper objection is to consider what the problems with truth claims tell us about the structure.

In the simplistic consideration, I totally get why others still go to church even though they don't buy the theology. Family, community, still some pretty good practical teachings. Gemli types might even come across as irritating and too fundamentalist; yeah, we get there is no Santa, no need to keep shouting about it.

But isn't the childish narratives of Joseph and literalism about Book of Mormon history, and fundamentalist theology a product of keeping the Saints faith maintained via information silo? And isn't the same structure that creates information silos the kind of structure that leads to abuse of power, cover ups, and in-crowd mentality?

The counter to what I'm saying would be an example of a theologically rigid faith with fantastic claims but also very accepting, liberal, transparent, and without power abuses.

I don't seek to counter what you are saying at all. I totally agree. But I think the LDS Church went down a certain road thanks to a series of developments within and without. The fundamentalist thinking and the authoritarianism go hand in hand. That's why I have a hard time seeing where Mason fits in. He can talk about nuance and change, but generations of Mormons were taught to pray, obey (the apostles), and pay (tithing). #2 is crucial in that formula. You don't get Ensign Peak without it. So perhaps the problem is too big for Patrick Mason, or any other well intentioned scholar.

I don't think the problems with the LDS Church could be laid at the foot of any single person. Nor can the problems be fixed by any single person. Anyone who wants change in the near term will be stuck making it for themselves outside of the LDS Church if they do not have a patience greater than Job's. Otherwise, they may just leave, and who can blame them? I think there will continue to be Patrick Masons out there, and they are important to the LDS community, those who for one reason or another choose to stick it out. But let's not kid ourselves, individual scholars are not likely to be agents of real change.

They are allowed to exist because the apostles are counting on them not to be.

[Dr Moore]

I was stunned to hear him talk about Joseph’s polygamy as sin, horrible inexcusable sin. And then to compare his simultaneous ability to reveal scripture as a sort of shadowing the Old Testament prophets, some of whom (David?) also sinned.

OK, that sounds nice and all, but pretty much destroys the entirety of clean vessel doctrine. I don’t get it. The argument requires Joseph to be even more a unique outlier, to the degree that no rules whatsoever apply to him.

Seems a convenient special pleading for Joseph to be a rule-free prophet.

[Rivendale]

I would like to know the mechanism people like Mason use to determine things that are from God and those that are sinful. If that can be nailed down then there shouldn't be over 40,000 different denominations of christianity.

[Dr. Shades]

For those who wish to know just what the Hell Kishkumen is talking about, click on the three videos (but I recommend just one at a time) posted at:

https://mormonstories.org/podcast/patrick-mason/